Review of Double Indemnity (1973) by Peter H — 03 Feb 2011

Billy Wilderâ(TM)s âDouble Indemnityâ? is a classic film noir of which I had often heard, but never seen or knew much about, so I had nothing to create expectations around as I went in. I saw it in Greenbriar Theater and noticed that the room was a bit fuller than usual. I guess, unlike Juno, people had not seen it before and had all waited until the last showing, as I had.

The movie did a great job of absorbing me into its atmosphere from the very beginning. I was definitely interested from the moment I saw the silhouette of the man with the crutches and heard the entrancing music, and having a bleeding man confess to a murder on tape was certainly enough to get my attention.

I thought Fred MacMurrayâ(TM)s performance as the unsavory insurance salesman was interesting. At first, I frowned at his monotone, thinking him just a bad actor, but the scene where explains his motives changed my mind. He compared himself to a casino worker, wanting to rip off the house just because he thought he was the only one who could get away with it. Even for a murder motive, that is remarkably cold-blooded. He really does not feel any moral qualms about it, and the movie is only stronger for never calling him a psychopath.

On the other hand, his dispassionate demeanor creates an awkward dissonance in his romantic scenes. A lot of people in the theater laughed out loud when Phyllis came to his apartment and they kissed. It was partly funny because he grabbed her so firmly and mashed his face onto hers so indelicately. I also thought his cold monotone and blank expression did not suit the repeated usage of âbaby,â? or any other expression of affection. It just seemed unnatural. The line, âShut up, babyâ? was especially funny to me.

The opening credits said that the film was based on a novel by James M. Cain. I have not read it, but my impression while watching the movie is that the screenplay may have quoted from the novel a bit excessively. Walterâ(TM)s voiceover describes the room where he meets with Phyllis in a very literary way. He does not need to describe at all, since, via the magic of cinema, we can see it, and it is an unnecessary digression from Walterâ(TM)s confession to Keyes. If I had to guess, I would say that the description was lifted from the book and grafted onto the script.

There were other instances of rambling voiceover. One occurred after Walter said he knew where to go to find out if Keyes suspected him. We all instantly knew that he was going to go to his office, but rather than simply cut Keyesâ(TM)s office, Walter pauses for dramatic effect and then spells it out for us. More amusing was when Walter reminisced on Keyesâ(TM)s metaphor about the trolley, and how the last stop is the cemetery. As if we would not understand what that meant, Walter notes what goes on at the cemetery. Then, as if we still were not getting it, he told us straight out that they put dead people there. Not one to leave any dead horse unbeaten, Walter then wondered out loud whether that meant that he or Phyllis would end up dead, as if we could not have followed his line of logic on our own.

Despite all this, as I left the theater, I still thought the movie had an intriguing story- an academic approach to murder. I also found the relationship between Walter and Keyes fascinating and an interesting contrast to the filmâ(TM)s dark heart.