Viewing Notes – Woolrich

/ Colin McGuigan

Cornell Woolrich was the king of nightmare noir, his fables of fate and downright rotten luck, where everything than can go wrong does go wrong,  follow his hapless characters on a perpetual downward spiral. The accompanying sense of dread and doom makes for first rate film noir and a fair number of his novels and stories have been adapted for the screen over the years. I’ve featured a few on this site:

The Leopard Man

Phantom Lady

Black Angel

Night Has a Thousand Eyes

No Man of Her Own

Recently, I found myself viewing a handful of other screen versions of his work and thought I’d just post a few brief comments on them rather than full scale write-ups of the individual titles.

The Guilty (1947)

Jack Wrather was an oilman who decided to try his hand at producing films. While working on The Guilty he met and then married the leading lady Bonita Granville, a former child star who had drifted into B movies. She played identical twins in The Guilty, one of whom is a good girl while the other is most certainly not. The lead was taken by Don Castle, an old friend of Wrather’s whose career didn’t seem to be going anywhere after he’d returned from WWII service. Castle had what I’d term an effective noir persona, a slightly weary charm that felt as though it were only a step or two ahead of desperation. Granville is good enough in her dual role, and the ever reliable Regis Toomey makes for a credible cop. Director John Reinhardt makes the most of the budget and flashback heavy story, wrapping the whole thing up in little over an hour.

I Wouldn’t Be in Your Shoes (1948)

A year later both Castle and Toomey would appear together again in this adaptation, scripted by Steve Fisher and directed by William Nigh, for Monogram Pictures. The flashback technique features once more in this doom-laden tale that opens in the death house with Castle portraying another lucked out type, a dancer who can’t seem to catch a break. He spends his last few hours before that last lonely walk thinking back over how he got where he is. Meanwhile, on the outside his wife lurches between hope and despair as she tries to use what time is left to prove his innocence. Cats, shoes and obsessive love all figure strongly in a satisfying little movie.

Street of Chance (1942)

This movie opens with the main character getting clobbered by some debris falling from a building site. He’s not badly hurt but he does black out temporarily and subsequently discovers he’s not the man he thought he was. In brief, he’s suffering from amnesia and has been living a double life with two very different women, Claire Trevor and Louise Platt. In itself, this is hardly an ideal situation but it takes on that nightmare quality characteristic of Woolrich stories when he comes to realize he’s a wanted man, hiding out and on the run for a murder he has no recollection of committing. This is a strong premise (adapted from the novel The Black Curtain) and directed by Jack Hively, a man who called the shots with  George Sanders as The Saint on a number of occasions. Amnesia generally makes for an intriguing basis for noir and typically offers up lots of possibilities for drama and tension. Any picture with Claire Trevor is usually worthwhile too so the ingredients are undeniably promising. Overall, this is an enjoyable film although I have to say I don’t believe Burgess Meredith was leading man material – while I enjoy his work in character parts, I find he’s too quirky and frankly strange to be the lead. This same story was adapted again for television as part of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour and directed by Sydney Pollack. That version had Richard Basehart in the lead, another figure with strong noir credentials and I think he’s actually a better fit for the role.

There was a time when it was practically impossible to see these movies, and the thought of being able to do so in good quality was almost the stuff of fantasy. However, thanks to the efforts of Flicker Alley, Warner Brothers and Kino respectively all of them can now be enjoyed with excellent transfers. None of them could be classed as major films, but they are all very enjoyable and entertaining detours into the world of Woolrich.

102 thoughts on “Viewing Notes – Woolrich”

  2. Another Cornell Woolrich adaptation that is worth seeing is Umberto Lenzi’s Seven Blood-Stained Orchids. Based on Woolrich’s novel Rendezvous in Black. It’s sometimes regarded as a late krimi (it’s an Italian-German co-production) but it’s really a giallo, and a very good one.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      • I actually just watched this online and I’d say it’s a very loose adaptation, maybe it might be better to say it’s inspired or influenced by the novel. There’s no reference to Woolrich in the credits either.
        As I mentioned before, I’m not the biggest giallo fan but it’s an entertaining enough watch.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        • I had a feeling ot would be like that – the graveyard sequence in Argento’s CAT O’NINE TAILS is from BLACK ALIBI by was of LEOPARD MAN. Mind you, nothing compares to the sheer volume of bogus, in-name-only Edgar Wallace films 🤣

          Like

          Reply

        • Italian filmmakers did sometimes forget to credit source novels, sometimes because they forgot to actually buy the rights to the book in question!

          I prefer the late 1960s proto-giallos which are just stylish erotic thrillers without gore rather than the blood-drenched later post-Argento giallos.

          Like

          Reply

          • I have watched and/or rewatched a few in recent months and I’m okay with the early Argento titles, the bird/cat/flies films, but that is more or less my cut off point. I’ve never really been able to get on with what I’ve seen of giallo later than that.

            Like

            Reply

      • I’m not an Argento fan at all. Having said that, The Bird with the Crystal Plumage is one of the two Argento movies that I do like. It’s interesting that his celebrated opening sequence is very close to the one in Brown’s novel.

        IMHO Lenzi was a better and more interesting director than Argento.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        • Shame, I really like Argento’s work from the 70s and early 80s. He has acknowledged that he basically took inspiration from Brown’s novel – the bits he didn’t use in this film turned up in FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET (Mainly the God character).

          Like

          Reply

          • Some people had been encouraging me to take another look at Argento movies from that slightly later than I have done so far. I get the impression he goes more in a horror/gore direction and that’s always deterred me as I’m not much of a fan of horror beyond the earlier classics.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            • Of the later ones, OPERA, STENDHAL SYNDROME and SLEEPLESS (NON HO SONNO) are well worth seeing but I’m not much of a horror fan either so … Not seen his most recent film so can’t comment but the likes of DRACULA are certainly best avoided.

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

              • Thanks, I’ll make a note of those titles for future reference.

                Since we seem to have drifted into giallo territory, I might just mention I also watched Luciano Ercoli’s Death Walks on High Heels not too long ago. Now aside from the score and the presence of Nieves Navarro, that did nothing for me. I found the story extremely tedious and I’ve never warmed to Frank Wolff.

                Liked by 1 person

                Reply

            • I’m not really into gore. I love horror but the horror I love is mostly the classic supernatural horror stuff (the Universal and Hammer movies) and especially 1960s Italian and Japanese gothic horror. I do love some of the weird European horror stuff of the 70s (from directors like Jean Rollin) that flirts with surrealism.

              I have zero interest in American slasher films, or 80s zombie gorefests.

              Like

              Reply

                • My own idiosyncratic position is that horror is supernatural horror. It deals with cosmic wrongness. There’s also psychological horror but that’s a separate genre and it isn’t really horror. The giallo is a separate genre. And slasher movies are just ultra-violent crime thrillers. Science fiction horror is another separate genre.

                  But like I say, that’s just my own idiosyncratic view.

                  I don’t consider Tenebrae to be horror. Suspiria is a horror movie, but not Tenebrae.

                  Like

                  Reply

                  • I think that’s mostly right. So many “horror” films are just scary whodunits (e.g. PSYCHO, the SCREAM series, even the first FRIDAY THE 13TH film, that is mostly ripped off from Bava’s BAY OF BLOOD). Until the last shot, Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN is a straightforward thriller – no hint of the supernatural until then. On the other hand, when the overall intention is to scare the audience, then the horror label seems fair enough. Supernatural is not always a requirement – for me THE WHICKER MAN and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE are genuinely frightening because they feel real.

                    Like

                    Reply

  3. Big Woolrich fan and will second the recommendation of Seven Blood-Stained Orchids. I watched a lot of Don Castle movies last year including the two here, and agree with you, he has a “what now, why me” appeal that really suits these offbeat nightmare situations.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  4. Don Castle was always a welcome presence. Like John Carroll and james Craig, the charm of road company Clark Gable, with something unique int he bargain. All were welcome in my world.

    Like

    Reply

    • I can’t argue with any of that. Robert Siodmak laid down a strong marker with that movie, a firm foundation for that fabulous run of films noir he made throughout the decade. And it handed Ella Raines one of the plum roles of her career. The book is pretty good too and recommended if you’ve not yet read it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  7. Of course there are also François Truffaut’s two Woolrich adaptations, The Bride Wore Black and Mississippi Mermaid. I liked them more than I’ve liked Truffaut’s other movies which isn’t saying much. Probably the most overrated film director in history.

    But at least Mississippi Mermaid has Jean-Paul Belmondo and Catherine Deneuve and they’re both always worth watching.

    Like

    Reply

    • Definitely not going to agree with your Truffaut assessment – THE 400 BLOWS, JULES ET JIM, FAHRENHEIT 451, DAY FOR NIGHT, ADELE H, THE WOMAN NEXT DOOR are all superb. I like SHOOT THE PIANIST from Goodis but for me the two Woolrich adaptations really drag. FINALLY SUNDAY, from Charles Williams, is very entertaining but uses very little of the novel.

      Like

      Reply

      • Truffaut just doesn’t work for me. For me his movies seem a bit flat and lifeless. I’m just not really in sympathy with the Nouvelle Vague thing. I get it that Truffaut and Godard were to some extent trying to avoid the polished major studio look and going for a spontaneous guerrilla filmmaking feel. Sometimes I can enjoy that but with Truffaut and Godard it comes across to me as a bit stilted and dull.

        I can see why people at the time thought the Nouvelle Vague was exciting but I don’t think it’s worn very well. But it’s a personal thing. When I first saw their movies I was excited too but I guess my tastes have changed.

        Like

        Reply

  8. I’ve just read your review of Black Angel. I’m pleased to see you like this one as much as I do. It doesn’t get a huge amount of attention, which is surprising – you’d think a film noir with Dan Duryea and Peter Lorre would have lots of fan appeal.

    Like

    Reply

    • I guess it’s a relatively small picture and was conceived as such. Neither Lorre nor Duryea were headline stars, although they do have a certain cult appeal. The same goes for the director; he worked on B movies, with considerable verve and style of course, and passed away at a fairly young age. It is a good movie and has been treated well as far as releases go with that early DVD and then the fine Blu-ray so it has been afforded some respect.

      Like

      Reply

      • I like small pictures. Movies that aren’t trying to be major cinematic events but are content to be just well-crafted entertainment.

        Like

        Reply

        • I like small pictures too, and large scale ones too for that matter. Personally, I don’t want to impose too many limitations on what I’m going to watch. As long as it’s well made, I’m fine with it.

          Like

          Reply

          • A healthy film industry needs a mix of big pictures and small pictures. Big-budget, medium-budget and low-budget movies. I’m not a fan of blockbusters but they have their place.

            And you need a mix of mainstream and non-mainstream movies. Straightforward entertainment movies and weird quirky offbeat movies. Popcorn movies and art movies.

            We had that mix up until the 90s. I think we’ve lost it now.

            Like

            Reply

            • I agree and well put. What chance do we now have to see something at theaters as something like ‘Rear Window’ (in honor of Woorich/Hitchcock). Stars, yes but limited settings and number of characters. Smashing entertainment. One of my favorites. We need all sorts of films!

              Liked by 1 person

              Reply

              • There seem to be huge number of movies being made these days, but the choice when it comes to theatrical screenings appears paradoxically much smaller. I don’t have figures to hand to justify this, it’s no more than an impression on my part. However, it does look as though the decline of the independent cinemas and the dominance of the multiplex has resulted in much more limited releases for anything that is not a blockbuster or heavily pushed by a studio/distributor.

                Like

                Reply

                • Exactly and well put. So much now on the streaming services. I wonder if that is why more of the new stuff doesn’t stick. There are still good things but one has to sift,sift,sift. Well every film in the past wasn’t ‘Once upon a time in the West’!

                  Like

                  Reply

                  • The entire media landscape has been growing increasingly fragmented for some time now and the streaming side of things makes it even more difficult to keep tabs on what has been produced and what is available.

                    Like

                    Reply

                  • And in this new environment a movie will not find an audience without a huge promotional budget. People just will not know that a movie exists unless tens of millions of dollars are spent promoting it.

                    Like

                    Reply

                • From the 50s until the 80s there were alternative distribution networks. There was the drive-in circuit. There were independent cinemas. The exploitation movie business had its own distribution networks. There were grindhouses. There were arthouse cinemas. If you made a non-mainstream or low-budget movie, whether it was an exploitation movie or an art movie or just an oddball movie that the major distribution networks weren’t interested in you could find an audience for your movie.

                  To some extent direct-to-video and direct-to-DVD served the same purpose in the 90s and early 2000s.

                  These alternative methods of distribution did not require tens of millions of dollars to be spent promoting a movie.

                  That’s pretty much all gone now. There is only the mainstream. Mainstream theatrical distributors and streaming platforms want blockbusters. They want to offer a very small range of guaranteed money-spinners.

                  Like

                  Reply

                  • Exactly! A movie now in the mainstream is hardly allowed to have legs anymore too. Boom! Sink or swim in a week or two. ‘Bonnie and Clyde played years I think. ‘Jaws’ shattered that world I suppose (and I like ‘Jaws!). Nothing was ever the same.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    Reply

                    • The bigger the budget, the more urgent the need for a strong opening. Anything less seems to spook the makers and generate unfavorable publicity to boot, which then tends to hurt a movie’s chances even more.

                      Like

                    • The bigger the budget, the more urgent the need for a strong opening.

                      Yes, which means movies have to be very mainstream, very safe and very predictable. Made rigidly to formula. The studios will not take the slightest risks. Originality is regarded with fear and suspicion. Movies must be not just thematically predictable but aesthetically predictable. A thriller must look as much like other successful thrillers as possible.

                      Movies are now like fast food. Your burger has to look and taste like every other burger.

                      Like

                    • This is very much true of the blockbuster/franchise market. There are still quirky and unusual films being made but their window of opportunity, unless they are specifically aiming for the awards or festival circuit, is greatly reduced.

                      Liked by 1 person

  9. Yet another Cornell Woolrich TV adaptation is Papa Benjamin, from the Boris Karloff-hosted Thriller anthology series. Ted Post directed it and was bitterly disappointed by the result. It does have its problems although it’s beautifully shot and atmospheric and I’m a sucker for anything involving voodoo.

    Like

    Reply

      • Thriller did at least three Cornell Woolrich adaptations. One of which was the excellent Guillotine, directed by Ida Lupino with a script by Charles Beaumont (who wrote some fine episodes of The Twilight Zone). If you’re going to do Woolrich you have to retain that nasty sting in the tail that was his trademark and this episode provides just that.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  10. Very nice bounceback in traffic here,Colin.

    More Don Castle on the recently released LIGHTHOUSE (not Woolrich) on Film Masters budget MOD/DVD imprint. Here’s Castle in SOB mode and the mysterious June Lang is excellent as well-Poverty Row for sure but the restoration is fine.

    Speaking of Film Masters they have given us a super restoration of OPEN SECRET championed on these pages ages ago I believe by Vienna. Reinhardt’s film has never looked better and the jagged left hand edge is to deter Youtube downloads I guess. I hope Film Masters oblige with a physical media copy.

    Wrather and Granville were a real power couple at the time what with their hugely successful TV production company and deals with Disney Resorts. I always thought has they gone into politics they would have made a swell President and First Lady. Closest to their inner circle were the Ladd’s and troubled Don Castle had his last role of any note in THE BIG LAND. I find THE BIG LAND a hard watch as Ladd & Castle were equally troubled and left us far too soon.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • Late career movies for some performers can be a tough watch at times when you’re aware of the fact they were going through difficulties.

      I’m not familiar with Lighthouse so I’ll keep an eye out for that.

      Like

      Reply

  11. A new book has just been released about the making of RIDING THE HIGH COUNTRY. It’s by Robert Nott, who previously wrote an excellent book on the movies of Randolph Scott. Have read only the first few chapters of the new book, but have found them absorbing. They describe the characters and careers of Peckinpah and Scott and McCrea in a thoughtful and well researched way which augurs well for the rest of the book.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  12. One Cornell Woolrich adaptation that does sound quite interesting is Nightmare (1956). Has anyone seen it? I believe Edward G. Robinson stars.

    Like

    Reply

      • I thought the synopsis sounded vaguely familiar!

        So it’s been released in the Film Noir: The Dark Side Of Cinema XVII boxed set? I could be tempted. Are the other movies in that set – Vice Squad and Black Tuesday – worth seeing?

        Like

        Reply

        • I think so. Black Tuesday was for a long time only viewable in frankly dreadful prints. Directed by Hugo Fregonese and lit by Stanley Cortez, it’s an escape/hostage drama with a strong visual aesthetic – many close-ups, low angle shots, carefully draped shadows – that needs to be seen via a good print.

          Like

          Reply

          • I’ve just been looking on amazon – I had no idea that Kino Lprber had put out eighteen (18!) of these film noir Blu-Ray sets.

            And in quite a few cases all three movies are movies I’ve never seen.

            I’m having wicked thoughts about splurging on a couple of these sets. I just don’t know where to start!

            Like

            Reply

            • It really is a question of being spoiled for choice. Of course it’s questionable whether some films really ought to be referred to as noir, although that’s essentially an academic matter or one of labelling/ marketing. Anyway, there’s a huge selection of material that looked as though it would never see the light of day at one time.

              Like

              Reply

              • In some ways I’ve grown to like the fact that a lot of the movies included in film noir sets are not really film noir. A lot of them are movies that have fallen through the cracks, that have never been considered to be significant enough to bother releasing, and have never been thought worthy of the attention of critics and film scholars. They’re orphan movies. But they can often turn out to be pretty interesting.

                It’s always worth remembering that for every genuine noir made in the 40s and 50s there were at least half a dozen (in fact probably more like a dozen) non-noir crime movies and melodramas and spy dramas that were often made with just as much care, by reasonably talented people. Good solid well-crafted movies that do not deserve to be forgotten.

                Like

                Reply

                • I wholeheartedly agree. If hanging the noir label on movies that are only tangentially related to or have no more than a nodding acquaintance with film noir is the best means of getting them released and allowing them to be appreciated by a wider audience, or just those who have never had the opportunity to see them, then so be it. I just made the initial comment myself in order to prevent any hardcore noir fans feeling disappointed or short changed by the nature of some of the titles.

                  Like

                  Reply

  14. On the subject of Cornell Woolrich TV adaptations I’ve just watched (and reviewed on my cult TV blog) the 1961 Thriller episode Late Date, based on a Woolrich story I haven’t read and which was apparently published under several different titles (and possibly different pseudonyms).

    It’s not a bad episode. Larry Pennell is an actor I’d never taken notice of but he’s rather good in this one.

    Like

    Reply

  15. Sadly, I see that Barbara Rush – It Came from Outer Space, Magnificent Obsession, Bigger Than Life, Harry Black and the Tiger, Strangers When We Meet, Hombre and many more besides – has passed away at the grand old age of 97.

    RIP

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.