Scarlet Street (1945)

Truly Dreadful Film

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Boring

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

I have yet to skip a movie knowing that Edward G. Robinson stars in it, this method to movie watching has not proved me wrong yet, and it didn't this time with Scarlet Street. In 1945 Edward G. Robinson starred along with Joan Bennett in a film by Fritz Lang chronicling the story of a seasoned man living a listless life searching for a way to give his life meaning and decides to create the meaning he seeks by befriending a young woman. Living a life he didn't choose, with a woman who treats him like a housemaid, what is left for a man than to explore the world on his own? Scarlet Street is a film noir classic that is not to be missed by fans of this sub-genre, nor fans of Edward G. Robinson. Christopher Cross (Edward G. Robinson) is a stellar employee, he's been a cashier at the same job for 25 years, loyalty that is appreciated by all those around him, and treasured by his boss. At a dinner party, his boss even gifts him a gold watch. Chris doesn't have it in him to be disloyal, he even stays loyal to his wife who gives him a nightly chore list and insists that he paint, his one true passion in life, in the bathroom of their home. Chris has always wanted to be an artist, life just got away from him and left him comfortable in a life he didn't choose. One evening, while walking home after a dinner party, Chris sees what he believes to be an attempted mugging, and rushes to help the woman he sees in distress. After getting to know the woman, Chris falls in love. Unfortunately, Katharine 'Kitty' March (Joan Bennett) is a con artist and in love with a career criminal Johnny Prince (Dan Duryea) and both of them realize that they can take financial advantage of Chris. Chris, who has allowed Kitty to believe he is a wealthy artist now has to devise a plan to come up with the money that Kitty keeps requesting. Stealing from his work and his wife, Chris puts Kitty up in an apartment and begins to paint and store his work there. Johnny sees Chris's art as a golden opportunity and begins selling his work as Kitty's, soon gaining the attention of a well- known critic and art dealer. For awhile, this arrangement works, Kitty is paid for Chris's work, and Chris gets to paint and knows that his work is hung at the most prestigious of galleries. When Chris finally gets the courage to leave his wife, only to discover he has been used all along by Kitty, it proves too much for him to bear.The first thing that was impossible to notice was how rough of a cut Scarlet Street was. Apparently, there existed a lapse in ownership creating a legal channel for Scarlet Street to be copied and distributed en mass. The downside of this mass distribution is a grainy, terrible copy of a wonderful film. Despite the rough cut of the film, Edward G. Robinson shines, as he always does; a true great of film noir. Despite the overt moral message of code approved films, Scarlet Street is a wonderful exploration of what one will do to live the life they want, and what one will steal to live the life they believe they deserve.

This film was okay. The plot was good, it had a lot of iconic points to it and it kept your interest. It really showed how women are just as manipulative and sly as men are and that men can get pushed around in a marriage just like women can. It was pretty iconic with the role changes with Chris is completely head over heels for Kitty and lets her play him. There were a lot of flaws to this movie, though. The lighting was awful. The screen was either too bright or too dark or there would just be a blob of light right in the center. It could get pretty annoying as you were watching the film. The camera work was pretty good, though. There was a lot of perspective. The shots were from a lot of different angles and characters. You could get more than one point of view during the movie which made it more interesting to watch. The acting was very good, too. All the actors played their characters very well. Each were very convincing and could really get you into the feel of the movie. Sometimes you could look at the scene and just ask yourself, "Why is she doing that?!" Not a bad watch, overall.

Black and white, but so good, in marked contrast to some others of that era.Poor old Chris Cross (Robinson), looks so hopeless in all the scenes. Robinson is superb as he stumbles through the personal failures. Fancy even trying to court someone young enough to be his daughter? But he does, and then tries to buy her affections! An amateur painter who doesn't know the value of his "work" (who the heck would really pay for ANY of that stuff? - that's so comical).Kitty (Joan Bennett) is devious, believable, and thoroughly entertaining - as is Margaret Lindsay (Millie) and all the other support actors.And there are a numbers of seriously funny scenes and lines - that's a bit unusual for that era? I've given it a 9.

What a very bad-tempered film. I wasn't a huge fan, personally. It felt like they kept throwing the main lead under the bus when he did nothing wrong, but then again he was terribly naive and the whole time everything was just a massive mess without a good ending. It wasn't the best of stories or scenarios.It never seemed like the ending would end up the way it did, either. It felt so random. It was all about art and getting money and love affairs, and it ends like that? It doesn't make sense to me. I did not care for the plot of the film for the way it handled the characters or their development or lack thereof. If anything they didn't change at all, and it only focused on the negativity and the deceit rather than how they characters responded to it. Sure Kitty and Johnny had a lot of interaction but there was nothing substantial to them. That and the plot holes are enormous; how did the two know Chris was going to come to the rescue when he did? How did the police know who and when the killers were located/were? Those were major key points in the plot and they are easily debunked.Overall, not as good as I would have hoped. The photography isn't as good either, and there was nothing particularly interesting with the execution of it either. This would have made an excellent noir film if it was made better. At least in my opinion.