83 reviews
An unethical lawyer, with an older brother he wants to help, becomes a partner with a client in the numbers racket.
The plot which unfolds is a terse, melodramatic thriller notable for realist location photography, almost poetic dialogue and frequent biblical allusions (Cain and Abel, Judas's betrayal, stigmata).
What I really liked about this film is how it portrays the numbers racket. Whoever wrote this clearly knew what he was talking about. As someone who has studied the Mafia and its activities, I have a pretty good idea of how the numbers business works and how it can (or cannot) be rigged. These concerns are addressed in a very knowledgeable way.
The plot which unfolds is a terse, melodramatic thriller notable for realist location photography, almost poetic dialogue and frequent biblical allusions (Cain and Abel, Judas's betrayal, stigmata).
What I really liked about this film is how it portrays the numbers racket. Whoever wrote this clearly knew what he was talking about. As someone who has studied the Mafia and its activities, I have a pretty good idea of how the numbers business works and how it can (or cannot) be rigged. These concerns are addressed in a very knowledgeable way.
- planktonrules
- Aug 1, 2005
- Permalink
This is a gripping film noir, dark and despairing in mood, co-written and directed by Abraham Polonsky, shortly before he was blacklisted in Hollywood for his left-wing views. Those views are perhaps implied in the plot, which is about the illegal numbers game, and the attempt of a big operator to gain a monopoly of the racket in New York. The film shows how everybody from the individual punter putting a few cents on a number to the gangsters making a fortune out of the operation is soiled by the racket. For Polonsky, the numbers game may have symbolised capitalism as a whole, with both bosses and workers being corrupted by the system. However, the details of the plot are less important than the mood, characterisations and visual aspects of the movie.
John Garfield is brilliant as the charming, amoral lawyer Joe Morse, a Mr Fixit for racket-boss Ben Tucker (Roy Roberts). Thomas Gomez plays Joe's sick, world-weary brother Leo, who also runs an illegal numbers game, but independently of the mob, in an honorable and decent fashion. Some of the best scenes in the film show Joe trying, as he sees it, to help Leo by bringing him into Tucker's operation, while Leo resists and berates Joe for using his ability and education in such an ignoble cause. Much of this intense dialogue is reminiscent of that in plays by Clifford Odets or Arthur Miller.
Also compelling, but with a lighter feel, are scenes between Joe and Doris (Beatrice Pearson) a quiet but assured young woman who works for Leo. Joe adopts slick patter, and runs himself down, in an attempt to gain her sympathy. Also in the movie, but with a disappointingly small part, is Marie Windsor, as Edna, Tucker's wife; in a longer, more commercial, film, her role of femme fatale would almost certainly have been expanded.
But it is the sets, location work, cinematography and editing which lift the film above the average. Practically every scene and shot has visual interest, and it is definitely one film you want to go on longer than its allotted 80 minutes.
John Garfield is brilliant as the charming, amoral lawyer Joe Morse, a Mr Fixit for racket-boss Ben Tucker (Roy Roberts). Thomas Gomez plays Joe's sick, world-weary brother Leo, who also runs an illegal numbers game, but independently of the mob, in an honorable and decent fashion. Some of the best scenes in the film show Joe trying, as he sees it, to help Leo by bringing him into Tucker's operation, while Leo resists and berates Joe for using his ability and education in such an ignoble cause. Much of this intense dialogue is reminiscent of that in plays by Clifford Odets or Arthur Miller.
Also compelling, but with a lighter feel, are scenes between Joe and Doris (Beatrice Pearson) a quiet but assured young woman who works for Leo. Joe adopts slick patter, and runs himself down, in an attempt to gain her sympathy. Also in the movie, but with a disappointingly small part, is Marie Windsor, as Edna, Tucker's wife; in a longer, more commercial, film, her role of femme fatale would almost certainly have been expanded.
But it is the sets, location work, cinematography and editing which lift the film above the average. Practically every scene and shot has visual interest, and it is definitely one film you want to go on longer than its allotted 80 minutes.
A corrupt lawyer Joe is hired by a rich gangster. A scam is concocted to ensure that all of the small numbers banks in New York will be bankrupted, leaving the way open for the gangster's syndicate to move in and buy them over. Joe's elder brother Leo runs one of these numbers banks, so Joe feels compelled to warn him of the situation which in turn puts him in an extremely compromised position.
Under the surface, Force of Evil was an allegory of the corrupting nature of capitalism. All of the characters go thorough moral dilemmas and change their positions due to the possibilities of monetary gain. The way that big business works in a very underhand and amoral way in this film was meant as a comment on how actual business practises in post-war America could often be somewhat nefarious. The movie itself was not successful at the time. It may have been because of these themes but it might simply have been that this was a pretty complex movie that doesn't have clear heroes or villains. This very ambiguity has made it more cherished as the years have gone by but most probably contributed to it not being box office dynamite at the time. Force of Evil has, therefore, gone on to become one of the cult movies of film-noir.
The acting and script are very good. But so is the look. There is some great New York location photography, particularly in the final third. While good expressionist use is made of light and shade. So, in summary, this is a serious-minded film-noir with a well crafted aesthetic. It's certainly a less well-known example of the genre but it's definitely one with quite a bit more going on under the surface than most.
Under the surface, Force of Evil was an allegory of the corrupting nature of capitalism. All of the characters go thorough moral dilemmas and change their positions due to the possibilities of monetary gain. The way that big business works in a very underhand and amoral way in this film was meant as a comment on how actual business practises in post-war America could often be somewhat nefarious. The movie itself was not successful at the time. It may have been because of these themes but it might simply have been that this was a pretty complex movie that doesn't have clear heroes or villains. This very ambiguity has made it more cherished as the years have gone by but most probably contributed to it not being box office dynamite at the time. Force of Evil has, therefore, gone on to become one of the cult movies of film-noir.
The acting and script are very good. But so is the look. There is some great New York location photography, particularly in the final third. While good expressionist use is made of light and shade. So, in summary, this is a serious-minded film-noir with a well crafted aesthetic. It's certainly a less well-known example of the genre but it's definitely one with quite a bit more going on under the surface than most.
- Red-Barracuda
- Nov 9, 2012
- Permalink
The VHS version I own of Force of Evil is one with a forward by Martin Scorsese. In it Scorsese says that this film was the first one that depicted a world he knew, growing up in New York City. Scorses was mesmerized by it as a kid and studied it frame by frame as when he grew up. He pays tribute to Force of Evil saying that you can see the influence of it Mean Streets, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas.
Of course the fact that the film was shot totally on location in scintillating black and white noir in New York City, gave it a dimension that no other noir films have, save possibly Night and the City which was also shot on location in London.
John Garfield who was as quintessential a New Yorker as you could get plays Joe Morse, smooth lawyer for a big time racketeer Roy Roberts who is looking to either take over or muscle out the small time policy banks in the numbers racket. One of those banks is owned by Garfield's brother, Thomas Gomez.
Garfield is as ruthless as Roberts, but with a velvet glove. He tries to get Gomez to go along with the syndicate, but Gomez balks. There's also a prosecutor looking into the numbers racket and a tapped phone which figures prominently in the climax.
Given the leftwing polemics of both the star and director Abraham Polonsky, Force of Evil got the attention of the ultra rightwing House Un American Activities Committee. Polonsky was blacklisted for over 20 years and Garfield died under the strain of the investigation.
Given what has happened to the Soviet Union, I wonder if Garfield and Polonsky were alive today what they would say and how they would feel about their work here. It's interesting to speculate.
But as entertainment Force of Evil is a great success and that is the first rule of film. Also look for a good performance by Marie Windsor as Roberts's wife with a yen for Garfield. One of her first femme fatale roles and one of her best.
Of course the fact that the film was shot totally on location in scintillating black and white noir in New York City, gave it a dimension that no other noir films have, save possibly Night and the City which was also shot on location in London.
John Garfield who was as quintessential a New Yorker as you could get plays Joe Morse, smooth lawyer for a big time racketeer Roy Roberts who is looking to either take over or muscle out the small time policy banks in the numbers racket. One of those banks is owned by Garfield's brother, Thomas Gomez.
Garfield is as ruthless as Roberts, but with a velvet glove. He tries to get Gomez to go along with the syndicate, but Gomez balks. There's also a prosecutor looking into the numbers racket and a tapped phone which figures prominently in the climax.
Given the leftwing polemics of both the star and director Abraham Polonsky, Force of Evil got the attention of the ultra rightwing House Un American Activities Committee. Polonsky was blacklisted for over 20 years and Garfield died under the strain of the investigation.
Given what has happened to the Soviet Union, I wonder if Garfield and Polonsky were alive today what they would say and how they would feel about their work here. It's interesting to speculate.
But as entertainment Force of Evil is a great success and that is the first rule of film. Also look for a good performance by Marie Windsor as Roberts's wife with a yen for Garfield. One of her first femme fatale roles and one of her best.
- bkoganbing
- Feb 1, 2006
- Permalink
Force of Evil (1948)
John Garfield is the centerpiece of this high end crime film, and he's the problem. He's a great understated actor, sympathetic, gentle, and not quite the right man for this role as a sharp, ultimately cruel lawyer named Joe Morse in a sprawling criminal enterprise. So in scene after scene, what could have had a film noir or gangster edge ends up strained in a more normal dramatic way. The script might be one of the problems--some forced metaphors about death, or canned lines that are too profound for their own good.
But these are not the only problems here. The direction, I suppose, under Abraham Polonsky, is the reason it has an odd flow to it. (This is his only film of note.) Many decisions seem steadily mediocre, like having Morse do voiceovers that aren't quite styling enough to work as style and are a slow way of telling the events. Morse is connected with an overly sweet girl who isn't really his type and romance doesn't make sense. And there are some editing gaffes that don't help. Larger still, this is an impersonal plot, with no clear protagonist or antagonist, just a numbers racket that is being undermined by some unseen politicians and some gangsters who aren't quite sure what's going on (really--even Morse is lost).
Beatrice Pearson plays Morse's girl, and it's sad to say she just can't act at the same level as Garfield, and many of the other bit actors. But Morse's brother played by Thomas Gomez is a strong and sympathetic type, and he pulls off several amazing scenes. The camera-work is smart and generally intense enough, with high or low angles at key points, if sometimes a little obvious. The city (Manhattan) is a good backdrop, giving it a very nice ambiance, both night and day.
Well, the movie has an outsized reputation. The shining moments and dark moods and the better final twenty minutes don't make up for the general messiness on many levels.
John Garfield is the centerpiece of this high end crime film, and he's the problem. He's a great understated actor, sympathetic, gentle, and not quite the right man for this role as a sharp, ultimately cruel lawyer named Joe Morse in a sprawling criminal enterprise. So in scene after scene, what could have had a film noir or gangster edge ends up strained in a more normal dramatic way. The script might be one of the problems--some forced metaphors about death, or canned lines that are too profound for their own good.
But these are not the only problems here. The direction, I suppose, under Abraham Polonsky, is the reason it has an odd flow to it. (This is his only film of note.) Many decisions seem steadily mediocre, like having Morse do voiceovers that aren't quite styling enough to work as style and are a slow way of telling the events. Morse is connected with an overly sweet girl who isn't really his type and romance doesn't make sense. And there are some editing gaffes that don't help. Larger still, this is an impersonal plot, with no clear protagonist or antagonist, just a numbers racket that is being undermined by some unseen politicians and some gangsters who aren't quite sure what's going on (really--even Morse is lost).
Beatrice Pearson plays Morse's girl, and it's sad to say she just can't act at the same level as Garfield, and many of the other bit actors. But Morse's brother played by Thomas Gomez is a strong and sympathetic type, and he pulls off several amazing scenes. The camera-work is smart and generally intense enough, with high or low angles at key points, if sometimes a little obvious. The city (Manhattan) is a good backdrop, giving it a very nice ambiance, both night and day.
Well, the movie has an outsized reputation. The shining moments and dark moods and the better final twenty minutes don't make up for the general messiness on many levels.
- secondtake
- Oct 3, 2010
- Permalink
Martin Scorsese has hailed this film as one of the forgotten masterpieces of the film-noir genre. He took it a step further by resurrecting the film from the vaults and teaching it at NYU in the late 60's. He said it was the first film he ever saw that related "to a world he knew and saw." Indeed, the film's realism and location shooting is great to see, especially Wall Street circa 1948. Those scrapers have stood for a long time. This is not traditional noir, however. It is an excellent study of a personal battle between two brothers. Joe (John Garfield) is a rich, corrupt mob lawyer, not unlike Duvall in the Godfather flicks. His older brother Leo (A great actor named Thomas Gomez) is a banker trying to live on the "up and up".
The relationship is a tragic one. Thomas Gomez must be one of the most underrated actors of his day. He steals every scene he's in with the quick-talking Garfield, who was so good in THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. This may be familiar to fans of RAGING BULL, where both sets of brothers in two very different films love each other, but have a difficult time displaying affection.
Two fabulous scenes stand out and would be impossible if shot in color. The first occurs when Garfield stumbles upon a darkened office with his door slightly ajar. The light from his office cuts through the middle of the screen, allowing Garfield to snoop. Another is the shootout at the film's climax, where all of the three shooters are lying in the shadows, creating suspense based on what we cannot see. It is all done in a very impressionistic way, a superb use of lighting and shadow. This is black and white at its best. Pure and evil. A truly great film. I would stay focused on the scenes between Gomez and Garfield. This sad brotherhood plays incredibly against a brilliant backdrop of crime and double-crossing.
FORCE OF EVIL is another reminder of how good Hollywood films of the 1940's were. Without them, we probably would not have the classics of the past 25 years.
The relationship is a tragic one. Thomas Gomez must be one of the most underrated actors of his day. He steals every scene he's in with the quick-talking Garfield, who was so good in THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. This may be familiar to fans of RAGING BULL, where both sets of brothers in two very different films love each other, but have a difficult time displaying affection.
Two fabulous scenes stand out and would be impossible if shot in color. The first occurs when Garfield stumbles upon a darkened office with his door slightly ajar. The light from his office cuts through the middle of the screen, allowing Garfield to snoop. Another is the shootout at the film's climax, where all of the three shooters are lying in the shadows, creating suspense based on what we cannot see. It is all done in a very impressionistic way, a superb use of lighting and shadow. This is black and white at its best. Pure and evil. A truly great film. I would stay focused on the scenes between Gomez and Garfield. This sad brotherhood plays incredibly against a brilliant backdrop of crime and double-crossing.
FORCE OF EVIL is another reminder of how good Hollywood films of the 1940's were. Without them, we probably would not have the classics of the past 25 years.
I saw a coming attraction for this movie one day on TCM. I'd never heard of it, but the clips they used for the preview made it look like a terrific noir, and I couldn't wait to see it. It didn't live up to the expectations. It's a good movie, but it's not even one of the more memorable noirs from the 40s. In fact, it's not really much of a noir once you get past the moody black and white photography (which is one of the film's greatest assets by the way) and its cynical tone. It's much more of a standard crime picture with a gritty documentary-like sheen, the kind the studios were churning out left and right in the late 40s and early 50s, but it didn't leave as much of an impression on me as, say, "The Naked City," "Night and the City," or "Panic in the Streets."
John Garfield, however, is extremely good in the lead role. I haven't seen him in that many things, but he's a kindred spirit of Marlon Brando's: the brooding tough guy whose sneering mug hides a warm and very human streak. He never seemed to get his full due as an actor--if I'm not mistaken, he made his last film not long after this one, sometime in the early to mid 1950s.
"Force of Evil" is definitely worth a look.
Grade: B
John Garfield, however, is extremely good in the lead role. I haven't seen him in that many things, but he's a kindred spirit of Marlon Brando's: the brooding tough guy whose sneering mug hides a warm and very human streak. He never seemed to get his full due as an actor--if I'm not mistaken, he made his last film not long after this one, sometime in the early to mid 1950s.
"Force of Evil" is definitely worth a look.
Grade: B
- evanston_dad
- May 1, 2006
- Permalink
This movie is about the "numbers" racket that existed at the time the movie was made. Younger viewers, familiar with state lotteries may not appreciate the pervasive influence that was required to operate a nickel and dime play of individuals, that translated into millions that went to corrupt local politicians, judges, and police. One reviewer said the crime was petty which is true; but that makes the cost to the characters involved so tragic and cinematcally vivid. John Garfield acting is at its best as he portrays a person trying to balance ambition, romance and family loyalty. The minor characters are all nice people who found themselves caught in a dirty business that seemed harmless to everyone who played the numbers. This movie shows the real cost in personal terms. The writing, acting and direction of this movie excels any crime movie of this generation.
Joe Morse (John Garfield) is an attorney for a large gambling syndicate in New York City, and as a result skims his share from the profits. The big syndicate is planning to break all of the smaller "banks" or gambling houses by causing a favorite number that is bet on July 4 -776- to win. The little banks won't be able to pay out all of their bets, and the big syndicate will take the ones over that they want and jettison the rest.
The problem is, Joe's older brother Leo (Thomas Gomez) runs one of those smaller booking outfits. He is 50 with heart trouble and Joe figures that loosing his business like this will finish him off. Joe wants to tell Leo outright what is going on so he won't take bets for the 4th of July, but is ordered in no uncertain terms by the head of the syndicate to not tell his brother anything.
It's at this point the film loses its way. I can't tell you WHY anybody does anything from this point forward. For example, Joe tells the cops to raid his brother's bookie joint supposedly to get him to not take bets for the 4th of July, but his brother still gets out of jail before the 4th of July and ends up taking bets for the 4th and going broke anyways. What was the point? Joe takes an outsized romantic interest in a young girl working in his brother's gambling joint - Beatrice Pearson as Doris - even though it is obvious she is not remotely interested in him unless he reforms, and he is not the least bit interested in reforming.
I rated this as above average because of the great noirish photography, good dialogue, and fine acting. It is just too bad it was not in service to a more coherent plot.
The problem is, Joe's older brother Leo (Thomas Gomez) runs one of those smaller booking outfits. He is 50 with heart trouble and Joe figures that loosing his business like this will finish him off. Joe wants to tell Leo outright what is going on so he won't take bets for the 4th of July, but is ordered in no uncertain terms by the head of the syndicate to not tell his brother anything.
It's at this point the film loses its way. I can't tell you WHY anybody does anything from this point forward. For example, Joe tells the cops to raid his brother's bookie joint supposedly to get him to not take bets for the 4th of July, but his brother still gets out of jail before the 4th of July and ends up taking bets for the 4th and going broke anyways. What was the point? Joe takes an outsized romantic interest in a young girl working in his brother's gambling joint - Beatrice Pearson as Doris - even though it is obvious she is not remotely interested in him unless he reforms, and he is not the least bit interested in reforming.
I rated this as above average because of the great noirish photography, good dialogue, and fine acting. It is just too bad it was not in service to a more coherent plot.
I caught this on Turner, drawn by the presence of John Garfield, a fine actor. I expected a run of the mill film noir but was surprised to find that the flick exceeded expectations. The script is extremely well-written, without the purple prose one often finds in this genre. The acting is excellent all around. The direction keeps the story line going. Also worth mentioning is the excellent score, a bit reminiscent of Copland, by one David Raksin. The dialogue contains a few bits of populist and anti-capitalist bluster, but considering the director and writer was a Commie, I suppose it's to be expected. This one keeps your attention throughout, and is well worth watching.
All the bad guys sneer. All the good guys agonize. And, true to his status in this cookie cutter movie, John Garfield alternates sneers and agony. Good camera-work and a few well- done pieces (I must give credit to the kidnapping/murder scene) do not a film noir make. In true noir, *everybody* is guilty until proved innocent. In "Force of Evil," the schematic plot gives us a cornball melodrama in place of gritty "realism." I'm not a huge fan of GarfieldI can take him or leave himand here, wearing his angst on his sleeve, I'll leave him. The whole plot turns on brotherly love
huh? The innocent young thing was cute, but she was on display way more than her part deserved. Tearing the cover off the numbers racket, ironic in these days of state-sponsored lotteries, just does not set my pulse racing. I'll give them a few nice shots, but almost any second-line director could have done this film just as well. If this is your idea of noir, you have some (very pleasurable) learning to do.
Superficially, "Force of Evil" can be considered a film noir and gangster movie. But it is so much deeper than that. The very bleak message I got from the film is that even decent people must submit to corruption to survive.
The character of Leo, superbly played by Thomas Gomez, is inherently honest and noble but he must live and work in the naturally shady numbers racket. He knows that he will be eventually crushed. This knowledge makes Leo one of the most bitter and tragic characters in film...a decent man whose life is dominated by futility.
The protagonist of the film, portrayed by John Garfield, is Leo's brother. He has ridden his job as a sleazy mob lawyer to a life of fame and ease. He has everything Leo doesn't. Yet despite his blustery banter, he,too,is uneasy with his position. He knows Leo is headed for disaster and pulls all the strings he can to protect him, even though Leo reacts to him with contempt. Their relationship is doomed by the corrupt methods both use to survive. Garfield's character finds redemption of a sort by the film's end but not before inevitable tragedy has struck.
There are many more levels to this complex film and discussion of them all could fill many pages. Above all, it is a beautiful movie,expertly directed with tremendous black and white imagery. The dialogue combines snappy patter with almost poetic sensibility. And the performances of all concerned are top notch. This is truly a treasure of cinematic art. Be prepared to think deeply when you watch it
The character of Leo, superbly played by Thomas Gomez, is inherently honest and noble but he must live and work in the naturally shady numbers racket. He knows that he will be eventually crushed. This knowledge makes Leo one of the most bitter and tragic characters in film...a decent man whose life is dominated by futility.
The protagonist of the film, portrayed by John Garfield, is Leo's brother. He has ridden his job as a sleazy mob lawyer to a life of fame and ease. He has everything Leo doesn't. Yet despite his blustery banter, he,too,is uneasy with his position. He knows Leo is headed for disaster and pulls all the strings he can to protect him, even though Leo reacts to him with contempt. Their relationship is doomed by the corrupt methods both use to survive. Garfield's character finds redemption of a sort by the film's end but not before inevitable tragedy has struck.
There are many more levels to this complex film and discussion of them all could fill many pages. Above all, it is a beautiful movie,expertly directed with tremendous black and white imagery. The dialogue combines snappy patter with almost poetic sensibility. And the performances of all concerned are top notch. This is truly a treasure of cinematic art. Be prepared to think deeply when you watch it
The supporting players have a realistic appearance. It has a good, if slightly grand, script. Garfield is excellent, as always. The movie could have done with much more Marie Windsor and far less Baeatrice Pearson. Ms. Pearson is good, but she represents kind of a copout: She's the sweet, honest, uncrrupted character the audience is expected to root for. In a real noir, that would be one of the flawed, fallen major players.
- Handlinghandel
- Feb 5, 2003
- Permalink
Tough and cynical film with Garfield in excellent form. His face has the right combination of weariness and that drive for success that is the rotten heart of America and everything it represents (the world today). The brother and the innocent girl are less original in conception but well played. The settings and supporting cast really create a world you can lose yourself in. Splendid.
- edgeofreality
- Feb 4, 2020
- Permalink
Joe (John Garfield) plays a corrupt lawyer who is in partnership with gangster Ben Tucker (Roy Roberts) to control the "numbers" game. Joe tries to help his brother Leo (Thomas Gomez) who operates an illegal small bank for betting who is going to be made bankrupt by a fixed scam that will make banks pay out more than they have. The idea is for the gangsters to then come in and take things over. Leo refuses to listen, but is forced to draw himself into the new conglomerate that Ben Tucker is organizing. A rival gangster turns up wanting a share of the spoils from this particular scam and as a result of a killing and a kidnap, and phones being tapped by the prosecutor's department, the whole set-up is brought before a court.
This is a boy's film about gangsters and it can get pretty confusing if you don't pay attention throughout. The female roles are irrelevant to the plot which is a shame in the case of Marie Windsor who plays "Mrs Tucker". She is the best of the cast in her scenes and she completely outshines the rather feeble and bland Beatrice Pearson who plays "Doris". I also found the love interest between John Garfield and Peatrice Pearson difficult to believe. The acting is generally good with Thomas Gomez also deserving a mention. I didn't like him at the beginning but he managed to change my opinion so that I was sympathetic to him towards the end.
In fact, the end section of the film is the most memorable with several good scenes including a set-up in a cafe, a confrontation between the main bad guys, clever use of the telephone bugging operation and a discovery on some rocks under a pier. Unfortunately, I lost interest in the film whenever Beatrice Pearson was on screen, which seemed like way too much, and the story can get confusing, so the film loses points on those accounts.
It's a film that has a message similar to "On The Waterfront" in saying that the only way to topple powerful gang cartels is to stand up to them legally.
This is a boy's film about gangsters and it can get pretty confusing if you don't pay attention throughout. The female roles are irrelevant to the plot which is a shame in the case of Marie Windsor who plays "Mrs Tucker". She is the best of the cast in her scenes and she completely outshines the rather feeble and bland Beatrice Pearson who plays "Doris". I also found the love interest between John Garfield and Peatrice Pearson difficult to believe. The acting is generally good with Thomas Gomez also deserving a mention. I didn't like him at the beginning but he managed to change my opinion so that I was sympathetic to him towards the end.
In fact, the end section of the film is the most memorable with several good scenes including a set-up in a cafe, a confrontation between the main bad guys, clever use of the telephone bugging operation and a discovery on some rocks under a pier. Unfortunately, I lost interest in the film whenever Beatrice Pearson was on screen, which seemed like way too much, and the story can get confusing, so the film loses points on those accounts.
It's a film that has a message similar to "On The Waterfront" in saying that the only way to topple powerful gang cartels is to stand up to them legally.
An unethical and cynical lawyer called Joe Morse (John Garfield) , with an older brother he wants to help , becomes a partner with a client in the numbers racket . But his elder brother Leo (Thomas Gomez) is one of these small-time operators who wishes to stay that way , opting not to deal with the mobsters (Roy Roberts , Paul Fix) who control the big-time . His employees are like family to him as his secretary, Doris Lowry (Chamberlain) , is like a daughter , then Joe falls in love for her . As the ambitious attorney attempts to save his brother from the mob boss's takeover of the numbers operation . The upright , though criminal brother refuses the help of the amoral advocate at law and he is ultimately forced to confront his conscience .
This enjoyable film contains emotion , thrills , suspense , charming intrigue about corruption , and a lot of elements of Noir cinema . Main actor and screenwriter/director were pursued by American government during ominous period of Mccarthismo. Thought-provoking writing credits , written by Polonsky ; being based on a novel novel "Tucker's People¨ by Ira Wolfert . Very good and sizzling acting by John Garfield as a corrupt lawyer . Garfield had a sad as well fruitful life , as he signed a contract with Warner Brothers, who changed his name to John Garfield . Won enormous praise for his role of the cynical Mickey Borden in ¨Four Daughters¨ (1938). Appeared in similar roles throughout his career despite his efforts to play varied parts , being his best film : ¨Body and soul¨ . He played in adventure movie as ¨The sea Wolf¨ , historical as ¨Juarez¨ , drama as ¨Tortilla flat¨, a cameo in ¨Jigsaw¨ and the noir classic ¨The postman always rings twice¨. Active in liberal political and social causes, he found himself embroiled in Communist scare of the late 1940s. Though he testified before Congress that he was never a Communist, his ability to get work declined. While separated from his wife, he succumbed to long-term heart problems, dying suddenly in the home of a woman friend at 39. His funeral was mobbed by thousands of fans, in the largest funeral attendance for an actor since Rudolph Valentino. Excellent support cast gives magnificent acting such as Thomas Gomez as Leo Morse , Marie Windsor as Edna Tucker , Roy Roberts as Ben Tucker, Paul Fix as Bill Ficco and introducing the attractive Howland Chamberlain .
Atmospheric and appropriate cinematography in black and white by George Barnes who along with James Wong Howe , John Alton and Nicolas Musuraka are the main cameramen of Noir genre . In order to show cinematographer George Barnes how he wanted the film to look, Abraham Polonsky gave him a book of Edward Hopper's Third Avenue paintings . Thrilling as well as evocative musical score by the David Raskin (Laura) . Adequate photography in black and white filled with lights and shades , portentous interpretations and dark as well as twisted intrigue have made this a film nor classic . The motion picture was well directed by Abraham Polonsky and it was selected to the National Film Registry, Library of Congress, in 1994 . Director Polonski was removed from the credits for a time after release, due to the blacklisting of supposed Communist sympathizers at the time . Polonsky was named as a member of the Communist Party by Hollywood 10 member Edward Dmytryk in Dmytryk's 1951 testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee , when the blacklisted director "named names" to revive his Hollywood career and effect a return from exile in Europe . After being named by former fellow O.S.S. member Sterling Hayden, Polonsky himself was arraigned before HUAC in 1951 . He was blacklisted and went into exile . As director and screenwriter , Polonsky was an "auteur" of three of the great film Noirs made in the last century: Body and soul (1947) screenplay , directed by fellow CPUSA member Robert Rossen, who kept his career by "naming names" , Force of evil (1948) which he wrote and directed , and Odds against tomorrow (1959) which he wrote using a front . Blacklisted after his uncooperative appearance before HUAC in April 1951, Polonsky did not get a chance to direct another film until 1968, when he helmed the production of the revisionist Western Tell them Willie Boy is here (1969), which he turned into an indictment of genocide . It wasn't until 1968 that he was credited on a film, for the screenplay for Don Siegel's exegesis of police corruption, Madigan (1968). Polonsky has a short career and after the release of the well-reviewed "Willie Boy," he helmed his last failed picture , the more light-hearted Romance of a horse thief (1971).
This enjoyable film contains emotion , thrills , suspense , charming intrigue about corruption , and a lot of elements of Noir cinema . Main actor and screenwriter/director were pursued by American government during ominous period of Mccarthismo. Thought-provoking writing credits , written by Polonsky ; being based on a novel novel "Tucker's People¨ by Ira Wolfert . Very good and sizzling acting by John Garfield as a corrupt lawyer . Garfield had a sad as well fruitful life , as he signed a contract with Warner Brothers, who changed his name to John Garfield . Won enormous praise for his role of the cynical Mickey Borden in ¨Four Daughters¨ (1938). Appeared in similar roles throughout his career despite his efforts to play varied parts , being his best film : ¨Body and soul¨ . He played in adventure movie as ¨The sea Wolf¨ , historical as ¨Juarez¨ , drama as ¨Tortilla flat¨, a cameo in ¨Jigsaw¨ and the noir classic ¨The postman always rings twice¨. Active in liberal political and social causes, he found himself embroiled in Communist scare of the late 1940s. Though he testified before Congress that he was never a Communist, his ability to get work declined. While separated from his wife, he succumbed to long-term heart problems, dying suddenly in the home of a woman friend at 39. His funeral was mobbed by thousands of fans, in the largest funeral attendance for an actor since Rudolph Valentino. Excellent support cast gives magnificent acting such as Thomas Gomez as Leo Morse , Marie Windsor as Edna Tucker , Roy Roberts as Ben Tucker, Paul Fix as Bill Ficco and introducing the attractive Howland Chamberlain .
Atmospheric and appropriate cinematography in black and white by George Barnes who along with James Wong Howe , John Alton and Nicolas Musuraka are the main cameramen of Noir genre . In order to show cinematographer George Barnes how he wanted the film to look, Abraham Polonsky gave him a book of Edward Hopper's Third Avenue paintings . Thrilling as well as evocative musical score by the David Raskin (Laura) . Adequate photography in black and white filled with lights and shades , portentous interpretations and dark as well as twisted intrigue have made this a film nor classic . The motion picture was well directed by Abraham Polonsky and it was selected to the National Film Registry, Library of Congress, in 1994 . Director Polonski was removed from the credits for a time after release, due to the blacklisting of supposed Communist sympathizers at the time . Polonsky was named as a member of the Communist Party by Hollywood 10 member Edward Dmytryk in Dmytryk's 1951 testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee , when the blacklisted director "named names" to revive his Hollywood career and effect a return from exile in Europe . After being named by former fellow O.S.S. member Sterling Hayden, Polonsky himself was arraigned before HUAC in 1951 . He was blacklisted and went into exile . As director and screenwriter , Polonsky was an "auteur" of three of the great film Noirs made in the last century: Body and soul (1947) screenplay , directed by fellow CPUSA member Robert Rossen, who kept his career by "naming names" , Force of evil (1948) which he wrote and directed , and Odds against tomorrow (1959) which he wrote using a front . Blacklisted after his uncooperative appearance before HUAC in April 1951, Polonsky did not get a chance to direct another film until 1968, when he helmed the production of the revisionist Western Tell them Willie Boy is here (1969), which he turned into an indictment of genocide . It wasn't until 1968 that he was credited on a film, for the screenplay for Don Siegel's exegesis of police corruption, Madigan (1968). Polonsky has a short career and after the release of the well-reviewed "Willie Boy," he helmed his last failed picture , the more light-hearted Romance of a horse thief (1971).
For starters, I found Force Of Evil (that's FOE, for short) to be something of a novelty, in that (being a story about racketeering/gangsterism. circa 1949), it contained almost no violence to speak of. Yep. That was certainly an unexpected and unusual twist to this particular tale.
FOE starred one of my favourite actors of that era, John Garfield, who convincingly played Joe Morse, the ambitious and very greedy Wall Street lawyer.
Morse eagerly joins forces with NYC mob boss, Ben Tucker, who's got big plans to completely bankrupt the city's small-time numbers racket and grab all of the profits and business for himself, and his pals.
As fate would have it, Joe's older brother, Leo (one of the many small-time racketeers) is certain to take a big fall once Tucker's merger goes into action.
Complete with your standard double-crosses (and a cornball romance, thrown in for good measure), FOE is a fairly solid 78 minutes of prime movie-making from post-WW2 Hollywood.
Even though I have no real complaints about Garfield's no-nonsense portrayal of Joe Morse, the crooked lawyer with a heart of gold, I honestly think that this role would've been better played by Humphrey Bogart.
This film abounds with plenty of impressive, b&w camera-work, all, of course, set within the hubbub of New York City.
FOE starred one of my favourite actors of that era, John Garfield, who convincingly played Joe Morse, the ambitious and very greedy Wall Street lawyer.
Morse eagerly joins forces with NYC mob boss, Ben Tucker, who's got big plans to completely bankrupt the city's small-time numbers racket and grab all of the profits and business for himself, and his pals.
As fate would have it, Joe's older brother, Leo (one of the many small-time racketeers) is certain to take a big fall once Tucker's merger goes into action.
Complete with your standard double-crosses (and a cornball romance, thrown in for good measure), FOE is a fairly solid 78 minutes of prime movie-making from post-WW2 Hollywood.
Even though I have no real complaints about Garfield's no-nonsense portrayal of Joe Morse, the crooked lawyer with a heart of gold, I honestly think that this role would've been better played by Humphrey Bogart.
This film abounds with plenty of impressive, b&w camera-work, all, of course, set within the hubbub of New York City.
- strong-122-478885
- Jul 26, 2014
- Permalink
- JohnHowardReid
- Nov 27, 2017
- Permalink
A much loved film that rather left me cold. John Garfield as the rather bad good guy plays the lawyer and lynch pin to much of the to and fro action. Beatrice Pearson is pretty and effective enough as his supposed love interest and voice of the people but does not really seem as convincing as she should or as interested as she should. Indeed she probably wasn't as she did little after this. Marie Windsor is a marvellous looking femme fatale figure and is criminally underused here. The famed location shooting didn't convince me. There were some overhead street shots but down at ground level they were mainly almost a series of stills or studio lots (or poor location shots that looked liked studio). Then there is the dialogue of famed Abraham Polonsky. I found it so difficult to get into this film with all the rapid fire, seemingly nonsensical talk of numbers and more numbers that I tired of the streams of words uttered by all. more suited for the stage perhaps or the printed page. Nobody talks like this although I must admit that the final ten minutes is pure existential cinema as we go down and down, figuratively and emotionally to find the brother beneath the bridge.
- christopher-underwood
- Aug 27, 2018
- Permalink
- ironhorse_iv
- Nov 19, 2012
- Permalink
(FULL DISCLOSURE: My parents, Communist Party members, were blacklisted out of show biz in L.A. at this time. I'm 61: I was there and I lived through those years. The others theorize, I know. )
That this film was a box office flop is not only predictable---it was inevitable. Noir as a style & theme with b.o. legs had a 3-year run, '45-'46-'47, the way horror films did '31-'32-'33. The film school professors have tried to blame forces of reactionary social repression---the Production Code in '33, HUAC in '48. These events were but tombstones for film cycles that had run out steam at the box office.
In my time working in movie theaters (hardtop & drive-in) '60s-70s, I saw many cycles come and go, most in 3 years: *Spaghetti westerns *Kung Fu *Biker *Drugs as "cool" *Trucker/hot car/backwoods *Blaxploitation *Euro heist
That's the way the cookie crumbles in the movie biz; audiences are fickle. No more complicated than that.
It is emblematic of the delusional university apparatus that the BUSINESS aspect of film-making---THE DOMINANT element---is ignored in books on "film noir". After all, these characters not only have no private sector work history, they view business the same as FOE---*Capitalism is a racket*. That's not something Americans will pay to see, and MGM gave this film "the big build-up": I saw the '48 press-book.
It is even more telling that that these professors, lefties all, only quote reviews and coverage in the generic press but NEVER EVER feature the "trades"--- publications catering to exhibitors such as Box office, MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITOR, MOTION PICTURE HERALD, etc. Coverage was from the theater operator's viewpoint---a world away from film school fantasists.
These film school wackos only interview the creative types and NEVER the studio exec in charge of Exhibitor Relations---the man who reports to the top on b.o. performance. They NEVER interview the producers, as if these films somehow were made with money from Santa Claus. They never banked a box-office take or met a payroll or dealt with distributors---they never even ran a lemonade stand as kids.
FOE was a flop because Americans of the post-WWII era took strong exception to those who believed to their last nerve that America would be better off as a Communist police state. Americans are funny that way: we got rid of one tyranny in 1776 and weren't about to lie down for another.
FOE is a fine production defeated by its view of American business as a criminal conspiracy--- putting the JG character's law firm on Wall Street is too crude, typical lefty device. And the sickeningly sanctimonious Beatrice Pearson character is typical Group Theater/1930s---the "little people" waif, a type which disfigured drama right into the 1960s. Many actors sank themselves with this type (Salome Jens comes to mind), even many major stars tried it on: Natalie Wood, for instance.
The blacklistees, their acolytes and the film-school nuts have tried to paint a picture of the blacklistees abrupt demise as the result of "hysteria". That they'd say this shows how clueless they are, and remain, about the country of their birth.
There was NO "hysteria": it was a foregone conclusion among wide-awake grown-ups that communism=enslavement, a view verified, abundantly, by the historical record. But they weren't "hysterical" about it---they pulled the plug on the Left and moved on without a backward glance or second thought.
And what was there to think about? The equation was communism=death just as nazism=death, and Americans had had it with these police state isms. The U.S.A. had the body count to point to erasing the Nazis and weren't up for a rerun fighting another ism. Which they did anyway in Korea.
So yeah, the lefties got stepped on, hard, and kicked to the curb, right into the gutter. It's the blacklistees who were hysterical---they'd hung themselves on a meat hook, HUAC just provided the footstool.
FOE's star John Garfield, the finest actor of his generation committed seppukku at his HUAC hearing saying he wouldn't say anything about his "friends".
NOW HEAR THIS: Political extremists have NO friends, only accomplices and co- conspirators. And J.G. had been snitched off by his good "friends": HUAC knew everything already anyway.
All apolitical people, like me(70% of any population) know this---Political extremists at BOTH ends of the political spectrum, right OR left, meet in the SAME PLACE: Secret police dungeons, barbed wire camps, mass graves. Only partisans of either ism see a difference, those of us outside the political nut ward see only bloody devastation. This was the future envisioned by the blacklistees---"friendship" had nothing to do with it.
The blacklistees weren't believed because they simply weren't credible. They married a political philosophy that was nothing but lies and were caught out. They wanted it BOTH ways: to live the Hollywood high life while slandering the nation that made it possible. OF COURSE America reacted with revulsion and rejected them, harshly.
That the blacklistees are romanticized by the film school apparatus merely shows the enduring resilience of the leftist lie.
My parents were party members, knew Garfield as "Julie", and I grew up hearing them & their CP buddies spout the party line. I loved my mom & dad in life and more than ever since their death, in '83. I miss my parents terribly---every day. They gave me the internal resources to survive, endure and even triumph. And because I had the BEST mom & dad it baffled and infuriated me that they were so clueless, so lacking in self awareness when it came to the Party. They were true police state cheerleaders and I am their son.
>>>TO BE CONTINUED under "Nobody Lives Forever", "Postman Always Rings Twice", "Fallen Sparrow", and "The John Garfield Story". Also posts in "Asphalt Jungle", "Nightmare Alley" deal with the blacklist, and films known as "noir".
That this film was a box office flop is not only predictable---it was inevitable. Noir as a style & theme with b.o. legs had a 3-year run, '45-'46-'47, the way horror films did '31-'32-'33. The film school professors have tried to blame forces of reactionary social repression---the Production Code in '33, HUAC in '48. These events were but tombstones for film cycles that had run out steam at the box office.
In my time working in movie theaters (hardtop & drive-in) '60s-70s, I saw many cycles come and go, most in 3 years: *Spaghetti westerns *Kung Fu *Biker *Drugs as "cool" *Trucker/hot car/backwoods *Blaxploitation *Euro heist
That's the way the cookie crumbles in the movie biz; audiences are fickle. No more complicated than that.
It is emblematic of the delusional university apparatus that the BUSINESS aspect of film-making---THE DOMINANT element---is ignored in books on "film noir". After all, these characters not only have no private sector work history, they view business the same as FOE---*Capitalism is a racket*. That's not something Americans will pay to see, and MGM gave this film "the big build-up": I saw the '48 press-book.
It is even more telling that that these professors, lefties all, only quote reviews and coverage in the generic press but NEVER EVER feature the "trades"--- publications catering to exhibitors such as Box office, MOTION PICTURE EXHIBITOR, MOTION PICTURE HERALD, etc. Coverage was from the theater operator's viewpoint---a world away from film school fantasists.
These film school wackos only interview the creative types and NEVER the studio exec in charge of Exhibitor Relations---the man who reports to the top on b.o. performance. They NEVER interview the producers, as if these films somehow were made with money from Santa Claus. They never banked a box-office take or met a payroll or dealt with distributors---they never even ran a lemonade stand as kids.
FOE was a flop because Americans of the post-WWII era took strong exception to those who believed to their last nerve that America would be better off as a Communist police state. Americans are funny that way: we got rid of one tyranny in 1776 and weren't about to lie down for another.
FOE is a fine production defeated by its view of American business as a criminal conspiracy--- putting the JG character's law firm on Wall Street is too crude, typical lefty device. And the sickeningly sanctimonious Beatrice Pearson character is typical Group Theater/1930s---the "little people" waif, a type which disfigured drama right into the 1960s. Many actors sank themselves with this type (Salome Jens comes to mind), even many major stars tried it on: Natalie Wood, for instance.
The blacklistees, their acolytes and the film-school nuts have tried to paint a picture of the blacklistees abrupt demise as the result of "hysteria". That they'd say this shows how clueless they are, and remain, about the country of their birth.
There was NO "hysteria": it was a foregone conclusion among wide-awake grown-ups that communism=enslavement, a view verified, abundantly, by the historical record. But they weren't "hysterical" about it---they pulled the plug on the Left and moved on without a backward glance or second thought.
And what was there to think about? The equation was communism=death just as nazism=death, and Americans had had it with these police state isms. The U.S.A. had the body count to point to erasing the Nazis and weren't up for a rerun fighting another ism. Which they did anyway in Korea.
So yeah, the lefties got stepped on, hard, and kicked to the curb, right into the gutter. It's the blacklistees who were hysterical---they'd hung themselves on a meat hook, HUAC just provided the footstool.
FOE's star John Garfield, the finest actor of his generation committed seppukku at his HUAC hearing saying he wouldn't say anything about his "friends".
NOW HEAR THIS: Political extremists have NO friends, only accomplices and co- conspirators. And J.G. had been snitched off by his good "friends": HUAC knew everything already anyway.
All apolitical people, like me(70% of any population) know this---Political extremists at BOTH ends of the political spectrum, right OR left, meet in the SAME PLACE: Secret police dungeons, barbed wire camps, mass graves. Only partisans of either ism see a difference, those of us outside the political nut ward see only bloody devastation. This was the future envisioned by the blacklistees---"friendship" had nothing to do with it.
The blacklistees weren't believed because they simply weren't credible. They married a political philosophy that was nothing but lies and were caught out. They wanted it BOTH ways: to live the Hollywood high life while slandering the nation that made it possible. OF COURSE America reacted with revulsion and rejected them, harshly.
That the blacklistees are romanticized by the film school apparatus merely shows the enduring resilience of the leftist lie.
My parents were party members, knew Garfield as "Julie", and I grew up hearing them & their CP buddies spout the party line. I loved my mom & dad in life and more than ever since their death, in '83. I miss my parents terribly---every day. They gave me the internal resources to survive, endure and even triumph. And because I had the BEST mom & dad it baffled and infuriated me that they were so clueless, so lacking in self awareness when it came to the Party. They were true police state cheerleaders and I am their son.
>>>TO BE CONTINUED under "Nobody Lives Forever", "Postman Always Rings Twice", "Fallen Sparrow", and "The John Garfield Story". Also posts in "Asphalt Jungle", "Nightmare Alley" deal with the blacklist, and films known as "noir".
- BILLYBOY-10
- Oct 16, 2012
- Permalink