Under My Skin (1950)

Looking at still photographs from this movie, set in post-war Paris and loosely adapted from a short story by Ernest Hemingway, I was expecting film noir. The fact that it stars great actor John Garfield, opposite French actress Micheline Presle (billed here as Prelle), added to this expectation.

Micheline Presle and John Garfield

However, although some scenes do have that moody, brooding quality, and the shadowy black-and-white camerawork adds to this, the film as a whole is a strange mixture of noir and sentimentality. Director Jean Negulesco and screenwriter Casey Robinson both made some great films, but in this one they seem to be caught between two stools, with flashes of brilliance in between scenes which unashamedly manipulate the emotions. As many reviews point out, the main plot  is almost like a reworking of The Champ, moved from the boxing ring to the racecourse.

One of the biggest attractions of this film is the footage showing Paris in 1950. By coincidence, I’ve just seen the new film Julie and Julia, which is also set in the city around this period. But the real black-and-white footage of the post-war bars and streets has a battered quality to it which a movie made in 2009 can’t quite recapture, although that is not to say anything against Nora Ephron’s film, which I liked very much.

Garfield plays Dan Butler, a struggling jockey who is wandering round Europe winning a few races, but more often losing them to order,  so that gamblers can clean up. At the start of the film he has to make a quick getaway after double-crossing a group of gamblers by winning a race he was supposed to lose – and, all through the movie, he is pursued by one of the gamblers who lost out, the heavily scarred Louis Bork (Luther Adler). Even when Dan decides to go straight as an owner-rider and not throw any more races, there is always a feeling that his fate and his past are about to catch up with him.

John Garfield with Orley Lindgren and Micheline Presle

John Garfield with Orley Lindgren and Micheline Presle

As he moves between seedy hotels and seedier racecourses, widowed dad Dan is accompanied by his son, Joe (Orley Lindgren), aged about 11, who tries to hero-worship him but is constantly brought up against the glaring evidence of his feet of clay. The youngster is a good actor and does everything possible with the material he is given, but my feeling is that he just has too big a part, and often his lines are too sentimental  – there are too many maudlin scenes of him trying to trust his dad against all the odds. Whenever he is out of a scene, the film immediately gets more of an edge and improves, for a few minutes, until he comes back in. After seeing the film, I read an etext of Hemingway’s story, My Old Man, and, although he is not one of my favourite authors, I felt his tale didn’t have the sentimentality that is there in this movie. In the story, the boy loves his father, but is under no illusions about him, and fully recognises that he is a cheat on the racecourse.

UnderMySkin2After arriving in Paris, Dan becomes involved with nightclub singer Paule Manet (Presle), who tries to resist him, but in the end can’t. Presle is a fine singer with a smoky voice and compelling presence, and I’d say the scenes where she sings her torch songs in the club are among the best bits of the film.

There is one electrifying sequence where a drunken and heartbroken Dan – who has just put his son on a train for America – staggers into the club and watches Paule singing, as a woman in the club comes on to him, stroking his face.  He then leaves the club and Paule follows him. There is a great, unsettling bit of hardboiled dialogue, when she asks him “Are you sick, Dan?” He snaps: “Yeah, I’m sick – I went to the doctor and he told me I’d got everything, cancer and TB and you. But (grabbing her face) I haven’t got you. Let me have a look at what I haven’t got.”

John Garfield in 'Under My Skin'

John Garfield in 'Under My Skin'

I thought this particular scene was bound to be taken from the Hemingway story, but I was wrong – the character of Paule isn’t even in the original tale. However, as a writer on Casablanca and another great Bogart film, Passage to Marseille,  Casey Robinson could write this kind of dialogue to perfection. It’s just a shame that in this film these sorts of scenes are sandwiched in between so much tear-jerking schmaltz.

On first watching the movie, I was slightly shocked by a couple of scenes where Garfield’s character has to run in training, and can’t do it – sweating and looking grey. Knowing of his real-life heart condition, which killed him only a couple of years later, I wondered if this was a case of the studio pushing him too hard. However, reading Hemingway’s story, there is a description of Dan being unfit and sweating while running. So this is Garfield showing his brilliance as an actor  – but, knowing the reality, it’s still sad to watch.

Garfield and Presle

John Garfield and Micheline Presle

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Under My Skin (1950)

  1. Am I right in thinking the only way to get hold of this is as part of the R1 Hemingway set? I’d really like to see this but that R1 box just represents too many double-dips to make it worthwhile for me.

    Like

    • The good news is that there is also a region 2 version of the Hemingway box set – so I was able to rent this one from Lovefilm. I know just what you mean about forking out for region 1 sets! Hope you get to see it.

      Like

  2. Pingback: Monday Morning Diary (September 21) « Wonders in the Dark

  3. Judy – Have not seen this one. Sounds like an uneven work but I have always liked Garfield and it would be worth seeing just to watch Micheline Presle and Garfield together. Enjoyed the review!

    Like

    • Thanks, John – it is uneven, but I found the good bits made it worthwhile, and there is plenty of chemistry between Presle and Garfield. I find him a compelling actor to watch and am trying to see as many of his films as I can.

      Like

  4. Well, Judy, you have penned another exemplary piece here, even if the material is schmaltzy. It’s true that Negulesco has directed some memorable films..i.e…HUMORESQUE, THREE COINS IN A FOUNTAIN, JOHNNY BELINDA, ROAD HOUSE, THE MASK OF DIMITRIOS, but despite som ebig moments like that “electrifying” scene you skillfully describe, this is an uneasy mix of noir and sloppy emotions. Still, although I have not seen this film, there are worse ways to invest time.

    Like

    • Sam, “an uneasy mix of noir and sloppy emotions” is a perfect description of this film – I’d look forward to hearing your further comments if you do get round to seeing it! Thanks for mentioning the other films Negulesco made – I reviewed ‘Humoresque’, also with Garfield, a few months ago, and thought it was a much better film than ‘Under My Skin’, but it now strikes me that there is a similar feeling for the city landscape in both, and also that some of the more intense scenes in this one have a slight flavour of the encounters between Garfield and Joan Crawford in the earlier film. I will hope to see more of Negulesco’s work.

      Like

  5. Pingback: Monday Morning Diary (September 28) « Wonders in the Dark

  6. This is a tangential response. I read an insightful article the other day on masculine types in American and French movie. The author used Robert de Niro and Gerard Depardieu to make the differentiatiions: de Niro shows an ideal of masculinity as sheer toughness, resorting to violence, competition, the hard exterior seeking sex without admitting to it; all carapace and little outward control. Depardieu is the French ideal, one which moves into sensuality, tenderness, and shows a deep engagement in sexual experience openly, much kinder too.

    I was wondering if Cagney really fits this — I think not, though perhaps Garfield does.

    Also that the British masculine ideal or norm forms a decidedly different third (having to do with self-control, repression, and manners much more).

    A few tangential thoughts upon reading this about Garfield.

    Ellen

    Like

    • Thank you Ellen, that sounds like an interesting article – I’d thought a bit about differences between masculine ideals in British and American films from the classic era, though I want to read more on this whole area. I’d noticed that male actors often show emotions more in the American movies, compared to the self-control/repression you mention in the British ones, although the emotions are still there simmering underneath the “stiff upper lip” in the British films too – I haven’t seen enough French films but do like Depardieu and can see there is a contrast between him and de Niro in some of their key roles. I’d say Garfield is a bit like Cagney, and Bogart, in having a vulnerability underlying the toughness. Judy

      Like

  7. The trouble is the essay on the two men is an article from an issue of _Movie_ brought out as a book. I wished for an analysis of the British type hero too.

    I do have a book to recommend though. I’ve not read it but it’s often quoted and sounds good: Lee Grieveson, Policing Cinema: Movies and Censorship in Early 20th century America. This would cue you in more deeply on the code you often speak of; it’s suggested the analysis also is applicable to other censored movies (the same principles and assumptions at work), say the Indian :).

    Ellen

    Like

  8. Pingback: Monday Morning Diary (October 5) « Wonders in the Dark

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s