Private Property

This black and white film produced in 1959 is tame compared to what is out there nowadays. Corey Allen, who is best remembered as the gang leader in the movie "Rebel Without A Cause" (1955), is very good as the sexy stud drifter. He shows up at the house of a luscious blonde housewife saying he is looking for yard work. Her much older husband is away on a business trip. There are plenty of shirtless shots of the muscular and hairy chested Allen who knows the wife is sexually attracted to him. They wind up in bed and then things get wild. His dense sidekick is played by actor Warren Oates in an early role.

It wouldn't be fair for me to rate this 1959 flick. On one hand, it has historical significance since it was one of the first movies denied release by American censors who found it forbidden fruit. On the other hand, as entertainment, I found the 79-minutes unfortunately too talky and boring to endorse. Hence, it doesn't seem fair to choose between the two poles.

The flick starts off well enough, at a filling station where two seedy drifters, Duke and Boots, look to fill their empty lives by pursuing a wealthy blonde for seduction purposes. Now that's a promising start, but from there on, except for the brief ending, the narrative flattens out into a basically one-note affair. After all, how long does it take wily Duke to infiltrate blonde Ann's hilltop mansion where she usually lives alone, her businessman husband out making money. Then too, it's a stretch that wealthy hubby would leave her alone without household help.

Thus, it appears budget constraints flatten the main storyline into a series of hilltop one-on-one talk-fests. Sure, Duke wants to insinuate himself into Ann's life by pretending to be a gardener. But needed suspense in his manuevers is sorely lacking. Still and all, the hilltop setting does furnish a good scenic view of greater LA that kept me watching.

All in all, it looks like the indie effort was a well-intended effort to escape the bonds of 50's studio productions held captive by a strict censorship code. But what might have been cutting edge then, seems banal now when much looser public standards prevail.

My advice: if you're looking for more than mainly talky flatlining, skip it. But if you're interested in former forbidden fruit grab it and bite.

This movie has a high artistic quality. It was filmed by experienced veteran Ted McCord in the typical clinically clean black and white-style of the era. The main setting is an elegant house in the sun drenched hills of Los Angeles - and the location is very well used indeed. The bright setting is sharply contrasted by sexual frustration. The main character seems to be a piece of decoration for her husband, a successful, mainly absent businessman. Her constant stereotype Pepsodent smile renders her somewhat subhuman - well a part of the property. Yet she has a yearning which is unfulfilled. At one point she pulls a broad black belt around her neck, pulls it tight and lies down on the bed. Her lonelyness is relieved by two doubtful characters, one of them a young Warren Oates. Very well filmed underwater swimming pool scenes at the dramatic climax at the end.

Two drifters become obsessed with and annoy a frustrated house wife in the Hollywood hills until things become dangerous. This feels like most indie movies today that are a few people in a house and then some stuff happens, so I wasn't suprised to see that it's being remade.

This was scandalous in the 50s and even earned an X rating in the UK. It's mostly innocuous, but it does have a very dark ending with some implied things. Overall, I'm not sure it's the "lost classic" as I've read and really dosnt need a modern remake. I guess it was way ahead of its time, but I generally don't really like the films it's way ahead of. Fortunately, it's only 80 minutes and the last 10 minutes was great.

Watched on Kanopy.

Very few people seem to have heard of, let alone seen, this bizarre and strange film, but it is ripe for re-discovery as a precursor of the harsher realism that American movies were able to explore once censorship restrictions were lifted. It is open to all sorts of interpretation; is it a critique of capitalism in which the marriage partner becomes "property"? Is there a hidden homosexual motivation between the two buddies who can, apparently, only attain their "manhood" when in the company of each other? It is perhaps wrong to read too much into early movies using today's sensibilities, but subversive this film most certainly is, and reflects much of the thinking expressed in a ground-breaking book of that era entitled "The American Sexual Tragedy". Passion, when repressed, always runs morbid, and this film illustrates that notion with realism and skill.