kalendjay

Billy Connolly is an enforcer who is "tired of bein' the headbangers' William Wallace" (great quote), who can't beat a vendetta from a cop who convicted him, who is nevertheless off his nut (or some other expression, better from Scotland). This gives you some clue that this is another loopy New=Britain type crime film with mentally deficient mosh pit types and Bob Hoskins wannabe grownups. But it stays coherent enough not to be overly self satirical or cynically detached with a breath that can't fog a mirror. There are plot twists and tragic elements that hold attention, although it's not too hard to see what happens next. If you're not thrown off by the Scottish slang -- and some of these 90's films from Scotland are incomprehensible -- It's good to see a familiar cast do their thing. The point of this film is that Scotland is a politically correct society that tends to whitewash bad morality with respectable dudgeon for 'what's good for humanity'. And behind it is a pent up rage that must make the UK one of the most passive aggressive societies on earth. You saw this in "Clockwork Orange" and even Gordon Brown's release of Adel Al-Meghrahi to Libya. What became of HIM? Time to send in Connolly to find out.

Despite some of the reviews here that characterize TLG as trite and dated, I only thought this film was a directorial surprise, way ahead of its time for 1949.

First you start with a flashback by Preston's character that isn't quite a flashback, because we are more interested in who this man is and what the circumstances of his plight are, than the past per se. Virtually all Hollywood flashbacks seem to involve some grand police confession or some need to explain the confessor (such as "D.O.A.")but the flashback here seems to add to the convolutedness of the characters, and the surrealism of the situation. Does Preston really understand his wife? If so when? The flashback reminds us that there is more to explain than the "what",but also the "why" which neither Preston nor the audience yet understand (gambling is a disease, but the matter of guilt and personal responsibility for misdeeds remain open).

More convolutedness in the photography. Carefully cropped chest-up body shots, with swirling camera movements amid authentic but claustrophobic interiors. Remember, only Max Ophuls was supposed to have done this sort of thing at the time! I remember "Leaving Las Vegas" attempted the same themes in slightly different ways (misery and anomie in a spectacular setting) but that was a miserable film.

Finally you have a not so sweet resolution to depict insanity, but in a much subtler way than "The Snake Pit" and other entries in the growing body of 'social consciousness' films. Stanwyck was a tough-soft actress, and the scenes where she rolls before a throng a gamblers rarely came tougher in her films. A work to just watch.

This is an Abraham Polonsky film and a rare social documentary of the kind that was essentially out of business by the early 60's. The original novel had a male protagonist but was changed to suit 'women's picture' zeitgeist. But if you look carefully, the script is a very strong echo of "Force of Evil" by Polonsky.

In addition to some crucial taxicab courtship banter common to both films, designed to 'disarm' both John Garfield and Dan Dailey before their love interests (the car was even picked up in "On the Waterfront" to show actual desperation between the Brando and Steiger characters)you have tough males depicted as ambitious but morally uneducated instrumentalities; a background of "law of the jungle" capitalism governed by arcane insider rules (respectively bookmaking and garment manufacturing); industrial consolidation as an ominous force (neighborhood bookmaking subsumed under a legalized crime syndicate,dressmaking bought out by a big name)and industrialists with independent capitalist streaks (Thomas Gomez, Sam Jaffe).

It is amazing how Susan Hayward found films to echo some aspect of her life. She really was skilled in visual art, modeling, and had a family of Irish vaudeville types (echoed by Dailey).We were confused by the handling of the love interest. Could such an ambitious dame have found real love with anyone? And Teddy is not a lothario == just a penniless farceur who needed education and some control over his temper (a point almost entirely missed, but in real life such fisticuffs were a way to win Hayward's respect). Anyway, a rather juicy film to savor.