Den Fremmede
I have come
to expect great things from Orson Welles. “Citizen Kane” and “The Magnificent
Ambersons” set a high standard and measured by them most films fall short. That
is a bit unfair towards “The Stranger”. It is an okay film, but nowhere close
to “Citizen Kane” and so I cannot help being a tiny bit disappointed.
“The
Stranger” employs a theme, which has become very frequent in American film over
the years; the enemy within theme. Whether it is aliens from outer space, vampires,
commies or psychopathic killers they are lurking, hiding in plain daylight,
disguised as they are as you and me. I do not know why particularly American
films favor this theme. As far as I know America has not been particularly
infested by these miscreants. They tend to prefer South America, as far as I
know, but there is no doubt that there is a dramatic edge to that theme.
“The Stranger”
then combines this theme with the theme du jour of the postwar years; the hunt
for Nazi criminals. I think everybody was quite shocked by the horrors that
were uncovered at the close of the war, not least in America where civilians
had lived their life at a safe distance from the fighting. People in occupied
Europe certainly had an inkling of what was going on, enough that it was a
priority not to be caught by the Germans, but even the Germans themselves
claimed surprise when the concentration and extermination camps were opened. Just
a few years earlier nobody spoke of Jews, gays and Gypsies, but suddenly people
found out why they had been fighting the war. The rage against the Germans and
the Nazis in particular mounted and “The Stranger” was such an outlet. A Nazi
became the monster du jour, the worst imaginable creature and one for which
there was no excuses. A few years later Commies would take that place, but in
46 the Nazi was bad guy number one.
So, there
is a Nazi going around among us. He looks and acts like us, but he is very very
dangerous.
Pitted
against this devil in disguise we have our hero, the Nazi hunter, our own van
Helsing, going by the civil name Wilson and played by the always good Edward G.
Robinson. Here is a guy whom I am getting more and more respect for. His
character may not be as interesting as in “Double Indemnity”, but he does the
sly but subdued investigator very well. There is a Colombo element to his
character that fit this normally gruff and boisterous character.
Unfortunately
he is dealt a difficult hand. There is not much of a mystery here. From the
moment we see Charles Rankin we know he is our bad guy and it takes Wilson only
a single, but very obvious clue to see the obvious. From then on he is just
looking for proof and in the process gambling with the life of Rankin’s young
and newly wedded wife Mary Longstreet Rankin, played by the beautiful Loretta
Young.
Rankin is
such a giveaway. Of course we see him found and identified by the confirmed
Nazi Konrad Meinike (Konstantin Shayne), but even without that information this
guy has “bad guy” written all over his piggy face. I found myself wondering why
Welles had chosen so obvious an actor for the role until I realized that Rankin
IS Orson Welles. This master of disguise had deliberately made himself into a
pigfaced brooding asshole.
With the
mystery element out of the picture the remaining question is how much damage he
will do until he is caught, especially to his lovely wife. To keep the birds of
prey at a distance Rankin invents stories for her to explain what is going on
and she is largely buying it. It is a bit of a stretch though. I feel that
killing the dog should in her eyes have been quite unacceptable, but somehow he
gets away with it.
On the
up-side this film has some excellent atmosphere. The filming is interesting
with Welles famous skill for lights and shadow and curious angles. Also the
setting in the little town where everything is all so happy-happy is an
interesting contrast to the hideous crimes this man represents. The
shopkeeper/man-of-all-trades is a laugh, especially when he put on that silly
hat to play checkers and of course we get Edward G. Robinson.
On the
downside I have recently seen two films where it was done better. Hitchcock’s “Shadow
of a doubt” takes that enemy-within theme to a pinnacle, which is difficult to
match. The parallel is obvious, but uncle Charlie is so much better at keeping
the illusion going and as a sinister character he beats the hell out of Rankin’s
nervous wreck.
The other
film is Gaslight, where Paula is being driven insane by her wicked husband to
neutralize his crimes. I am not sure if Rankin manipulates Mary in order to
keep her or to use her as a shield against the charges against him, but he
certainly manages to drive her frantic. For all her skill however Loretta Young
cannot match Ingrid Bergman and that I think is mainly a script problem. She
has to believe his crazy stories and ignore her family even when it seems a
stretch.
I really
wanted to like this one, it sounded so promising, but it was just okay. Okay is
fine for entertainment, but it does not make it memorable.
"Okay" sums it up. It's a real letdown from earlier Welles films (don't worry--you've got some excellent films of his still coming up). Had this been a debut, it would have been more impressive, but at this point in his career, it's just an interesting film but nothing terribly exciting.
ReplyDeleteThat I will look forward to then. I guess when you set a high standard it is difficult not to disappoint.
DeleteI saw this several years ago and remember almost nothing about it. "OK" seems to be about right.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a good sign when you hardly remember anything of a movie. I fear that is what will happen to me as well.
DeleteUnfortunately, watching the films in order will sometimes result in situations like this because once one film is popular it soon gets copied by others. I remember thinking this film was worth recommending, but not great. As you said, it can't compare with Kane, but then neither can most other films. And I echo Steve's hint that there are other Welles' films coming that are better.
ReplyDeleteThe advantage however is that you see them in context. It is immediately clear where the inspiration comes from. I look forward to the next Welles film and was not entirely unhappy I saw this one.
DeleteI do agree that it is not as good as Shadow of a Doubt, but it is interesting to see Welles do a bit of a more commercial film. He doesn't play nearly as complex of a charcter here as he did as Charlie Kane, but I did like Welles's Nazi fugitive, especially portrayed the year after the war ended.
DeleteDon't get me wrong, there is a lot of interesting elements in this film, particularly on the technical side. The Nazi was also a novelty and very much a 46 thing. I guess my problem was more with the template. It was quite predictable, something you cannot say about his previous films.
Delete