The Dark Corner (1946)

The Worst Film Ever

That was an excellent one.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Isn't it funny (ha! ha! ha!) how the presence of one actress (alone) can just about (but not quite) ruin a perfectly good story for you? Well, this was the case in point that I found with The Dark Corner, which co-starred actress Lucille Ball.If Ball hadn't been given such a substantial role, then, very likely, the whole scenario of the story would've probably played out about 10x better than it did.But because Ball was in my face almost constantly (and I took a strong disliking to her almost immediately) she came pretty close to wrecking the whole shebang for me, hook, line, and sinker.I mean, here was a nicely-paced, vintage film from 1946. Set against the bustling background of downtown Manhattan, its intriguing story-line, its striking camera-work, and its competent direction all added up to a nice, little slice of 1940's Film Noir.And, then, along comes the annoying Lucile Ball as Kathleen, the irritating secretary of tough-guy, P.I., Brad Galt.Kathleen's aggravating, one-track minded determination to get the dashing, young Brad as quickly as possible to the altar bordered on the verge of being absolutely ludicrous in nature.All-in-all - Lucille Ball as Kathleen was the one major sour-note in The Dark Corner's otherwise engaging story.

Henry Hathaway directed this mystery that stars Mark Stevens as private detective Bradford Galt, who invites his secretary Kathy(played by Lucille Ball) on a casual date to a penny arcade, when they realize that they are being followed by a man in a white suit(played by William Bendix). Galt later confronts the man and forces him to confess that he was hired by his former partner Tony Jardine(played by Kurt Krueger) to follow him. Galt becomes determined to find out why, and investigates, which leads him to his married girlfriend(played by Cathy Downs) & her Art Gallery owning husband(played by Clifton Webb) One of them is a murderer... OK mystery goes on a bit too long, but has an appealing cast and a startling scene involving a sudden push out the window!

Why didn't Mark Stevens become a bigger star? He is charismatic, a good actor, sturdy, and interesting. He had a few good roles and then faded away. Even the billing went against him: why is he fourth billed, when he is the lead in the movie? Lucy is terrific in her best dramatic role of her career. Romantic, solid, moral, believable - she's wonderful.Love the contrast between the two New Yorks: the seamy side of lower-class lives and the beautiful wealthy New York that Webb and Kreuger inhabit.Joe MacDonald is the real star of the movie: his camera-work, combined with superb editing, makes this movie visually appealing and exciting throughout.Sorry to read that Lucy had a bad experience with Henry Hathaway, the director of the movie ): His bullying didn't hamper her excellent performance.I particularly love the 1945-1953 black and white movies at Twentieth Century-Fox - they moved out of the studio but unlike later the films were still in gorgeous black and white. It was a big mistake starting in 1967 to make almost all movies in realistic color ): This movie is definitely worth seeking out.

Oh, sweet noir. Another man obsessed with the image of a woman, the woman in a painting. Another man caught in some inexplicable story and looking for the author. Once more sex drives the world, topsy turvy.This is one of the most clear effects that you can find of what I term the 'double perspective', one of the most notable devices used in noir; our man is a private dick thrust into chaos, he's shadowed, almost run-over by a car, beaten, framed for murder. More or less how it always happens.From his end, he thinks he knows what it's all about. From our end, we know there is another remove between him and where authorship of the world is decided, a more cunning antagonist calling the shots. How pertinent is it that this man is the same actor who played the writer in Laura?The downside of this being so clear is that it lacks a more sophisticated weave, as we find in Laura for instance, with the whole narrative of the film a wrestle between dreamers for the vision of a dreamy woman.You have to entertain the option that something similar was intended here; the detective is also looking to seduce the woman of his dreams, there's a scene where he does just this, looking into a viewfinder thing at the dancing image of a woman, pure exotic fantasy. But it doesn't catch on fire.It has great shadows though, and a gritty sense of place, if that's what attracts you to this type of film. Hathaway could always be counted for that, but he's more in his jack-of-all-trades mode here. It's not Niagara.