Smart Protagonists vs. Dumb Protagonists

[MikeBSG]

My daughter recently watched "Mildred Pierce" and "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (1946). She decided that she liked the movies of "Double Indemnity" and "Mildred Pierce" far more than "Postman."

I watched "Postman" for the first time myself and didn't especially like it. The movie only really came alive for me when Leon Ames and Hume Cronyn were playing tricks on each other.

That led me to this topic. I enjoy "Double Indemnity" in large part because McMurray, Stanwyck and Robinson are sharp, never at a loss for words, and are always trying to get ahead of the next guy. Garfield and Turner, by contrast, are not especially bright or articulate, and if it weren't for Cronyn as their "guardian angel," the movie would have ended a heck of a lot sooner. (Maybe that wouldn't be so bad...)

So can we divide noir between those films with smart protagonists and those with dumb ones? Which do you prefer?

I suppose Lancaster and DeCarlo in "Criss Cross" might be classified as dumb, but they seem to have more smarts than Garfield and Turner in "Postman." Certainly "Criss Cross" works far better for me than "Postman Always Rings Twice."

What is the 1983 "Postman" like?

[MissGoddess]

Very interesting question!

It's funny you should bring up this particular comparison, Mike, because a recent discussion at TCM about The Postman Always Rings Twice and Double Indemnity came up---and for the first time I concluded that the main difference between the situations in the two films was, to me, the fact that Fred and Barbara were sharp and intelligent while Lana and John were not. Others in the discussion pointed out that Lana and John were perhaps, despite their loathsome flaws, more human and genuinely cared about each other at some level, while its debatable whether the two in Double Indemnity ever cared much about anyone other than themselves.

In a suspense type situation, my own preference is to watch really smart people, or at least somewhat complex personalities. It feels more like an even handed situation. A dumb protagonist can risk seeming to just be a patsy or a sucker and unlikely to be able to pull themselves out of their dilemma. A smarter protagonist can at least make an effort to figure a way out.

Paradoxically, I never like intelligence to supplant humanity or sympathy (as opposed to when the character is supposed to be a villain---is such cases, I like how, say, Hitchcock, will show someone with incredible intelligence can often trip up---badly).

I would imagine smart protagonists are harder to write about and act, lol, therefore maybe the best of them are products of better screenwriting and acting??

[Mr. Arkadin]

While I like Garfield, I'll be the first to admit that The Postman Rings Twice (1946) is not a great film. A better comparison might be Visconti's earlier and more definitive version, Ossessione (1942). I don’t know that a protagonist has to be clever to make a good story or film. In movies like Detour (1946), part of the enjoyment is the fact that neither of the characters is a Rhodes scholar.

[ChiO]

My first reaction was Of course, the protagonist has to be "smart." Then, like MissG, No, the character has to be complex; but as a practical matter that means the character most likely is "smart."

Then I thought of my favorite film noir, GUN CRAZY. What is John Dall -- smart or dumb? Or, just a sap? And, is a sap by definition "dumb"?

The key for me: Whether "smart" or "dumb", does the portrayal of the protagonist remain true to his character?

P.S. Ark wrote:

A better comparison might be Visconti's earlier and more definitive version, Obsessione (1942).

How right you are.

[klondike]

While I like Garfield, I'll be the first to admit that The Postman Rings Twice (1946) is not a great film.

OK, Mr. A, I'll concede that in the grand scheme of The Celestial Movie-Meter, you are likely correct with that assessment . . from a James Cain screen treatment POV, the '46 Postman certainly pales when compared to Double Indemnity & Mildred Pierce, but absolutely shines if you put it up next to The Butterfly.
What I'd like to ask you, Sir, is: how do you feel it stacks-up beside the 80's remake with Nicholson & Lange?
Personally, I feel it's superior (as I guess most original film versions are), but that it's a closer race than might be at first assumed, and even involves some 'apples & oranges' contrasts.
For myself, the delight of PART-'46 is as a texture & background foray; I mostly groove on the kitschy restaurant accoutrements, the cool old autos, the Cali-casual duds John & Lana lounge around in . . some of the dialogue is fun, granted, but early on you realize that neither of these barracudas are particulaly likeable . .

[Mr. Arkadin]

While I like Garfield, I'll be the first to admit that The Postman Rings Twice (1946) is not a great film.

OK, Mr. A, I'll concede that in the grand scheme of The Celestial Movie-Meter, you are likely correct with that assessment . . from a James Cain screen treatment POV, the '46 Postman certainly pales when compared to Double Indemnity & Mildred Pierce, but absolutely shines if you put it up next to The Butterfly.
What I'd like to ask you, Sir, is: how do you feel it stacks-up beside the 80's remake with Nicholson & Lange?
Personally, I feel it's superior (as I guess most original film versions are), but that it's a closer race than might be at first assumed, and even involves some 'apples & oranges' contrasts.
For myself, the delight of PART-'46 is as a texture & background foray; I mostly groove on the kitschy restaurant accoutrements, the cool old autos, the Cali-casual duds John & Lana lounge around in . . some of the dialogue is fun, granted, but early on you realize that neither of these barracudas are particulaly likeable . .

It has been awhile since I've seen the 80's remake. Without being overly harsh, let's just say I found the '46 version a bit too neat as it was hampered by the production code. By contrast, the '83 version seemed to be an overcorrection and came off as contrived to me.

Visconti's film, Ossessione, was made four years before the Garfield/Turner film and was under no code restrictions. I feel that this production is much more balanced and better acted than the other two films.

All this is not to say that the '46 film is terrible. I own a copy and view it every now and then. I enjoy it for many of the same reasons you named, and on it's own merits, it's an enjoyable film. Where The Postman Rings Twice (1946) seems glossy, Ossessione is harder edged and truer to life.

[MikeBSG]

This weekend, I watched "Kansas City Confidential."

John Payne plays the protagonist, and innocent man accused of a robbery. He isn't especially smart, not the way the schemers in "Double Indemnity" are or the guy who planned the robbery in this film. However, he is "smart enough" or "learns fast" and I enjoyed watching him unravel the robbers' plans.

As for bad guys, I realize I've never been that taken with Neville Brand, and he usually seems the "slowest" of the bad guys in whatever movie he's in. Lee Van Cleef seemed more dangerous in "Kansas City Confidential" because he seemed quicker.