Even my classic-movie-hating sister, who is seldom willing to admit ANYTHING positive about my beloved black and whites, had to admit, there’s just something about John Garfield. Some sensuality, magnetism that escalates him far beyond his seemingly average looks. I mean, if the guy were standing still, I’d maybe compare him to Matt Damon: ordinary enough to slip from notice (as a man playing a superspy should be). But Garfield rarely stays still. And once he moves, his look intensifies, his fluid athleticism kicks into gear, and all that ordinariness is gone: this guy is crazy hot.
I realize his looks are far from the best thing about Garfield. This superb actor is among my favorites, can make me root even for the often disreputable characters he so thoroughly inhabits and humanizes. But it’s undeniable that if a guy plays a con man who can get any woman, he needs to either have Cary Grant’s looks, or be a guy like John Garfield, whose intensity and confidence make you ignore every other man, woman, dog, cat, and chair in the room.
Take Nobody Lives Forever (1946). When Nick approaches his mark, Gladys (Geraldine Fitzgerald), you feel a kind of pity, even though Nick is the hero: she doesn’t stand a chance. We know from the script she’s a lonely and bored widow. Her financial manager is giving her an unutterably boring description of his golf game. Here’s her expression before Nick arrives:
Nick approaches, and the effort not to swoon–how does she manage it? Notice the intensity of this expression:
And here’s how she looks after five minutes with him:
He walks away, and the formerly abstaining Gladys orders a brandy.
**some spoilers–but not how it all ends**
In most films, it’s hard not to despise the mark. Even if he/she is sweet, the level of stupidity is so pronounced you root for the con artist, as the screenwriter wants you to do. The fact that you’d never feel that way in real life is irrelevant: for the space of an hour or two, you’re all for cleverness over heart. Nobody Lives Forever is that rare film that makes you respect both con artist and mark because there’s a kind of maturity and world-weariness to Gladys, despite her blindness to Nick’s motives; clearly, her former husband’s long illness has taken away some of her illusions.
Nick’s recent war experience makes his change of heart believable, and her desire for him, even when she discovers his true character, seems not the reaction of a sap but of a woman who has had enough experience not to expect perfection in her man. Part of that is the role; part of that is Fitzgerald’s convincing performance. But most of it is Garfield. I mean, how the hell do you say goodbye to that man? Clearly, Gladys is not ready to; just check out that grip:
Since this is noir, of course, we don’t know how it’s all going to end. Nick has two frightening foes in his ex and a shaky co-conspirator. The ending is suspenseful, and involves large doses of Nick’s friend, Pop (the wonderful Walter Brennan), so I obviously won’t spoil it for you.
I will say as a huge fan of con artist movies that any cleverness is utterly absent. Nick makes up a career that would be so easy to disprove, with little effort to give it substance. There’s no satisfaction for my Ocean 11’s-, The Sting-loving gene, no big reveal or sleight of hand. But there is some of that sweetness I’ve come to love in Leverage, and like that highly satisfying TV show, the film gives us the toll such a life takes on its players (especially since these grifters aren’t the do-gooders of that small-screen team). Overall, I had a mixed reaction to the film as a story. But as a vehicle for Garfield, it’s wonderful. He’s so believable in the role, so intense and mesmerizing. And as always, so sexy.
This post is part of Phyllis Love’s Classic Movies’s John Garfield: The Original Rebel blogathon. Check out the wonderful entries!
Excellent! There are many things I don’t like about the movie (the pacing for one), but watching John Garfield and Geraldine Fitzgerald is certainly not one of them. Actors of that calibre make you overlook many things you (I) might otherwise carp about.
Thank you. I agree that the film is flawed, and you’re right about the pacing, which is very uneven. There are some great raw ingredients here, but I have an issue with several aspects of the film, especially the last third. But watching those two (and Brennan) is a lot of fun.
This is one (of many!) John Garfield films I haven’t yet seen. However, I agree with your analysis of the “mark” in movies, so Geraldine Fitzergald will be interesting to watch here. It’s good to know, going in, not to expect too much, but it still sounds well worth it. 🙂
Yes, it’s mixed in quality. But she’s great in it.
While the con isn’t as snug in this as some of the best noirs it’s a good one and the picture fits well as a bridge for Garfield between The Postman Always Rings Twice and Humoresque. It’s one I’ll try to watch whenever it’s shown unlike We Were Strangers or Juarez.
Garfield always projected that sexy vitality that made you watch him on screen and broke him out of the pack. Warner’s was the right studio for him since their specialty was performers with that scrappy edge but he had his own unique brand of energy which made him stand out and not just be a second rung Cagney or Bogart. And while he did well in films that costarred sweet dispositioned actresses like Priscilla Lane and Anne Shirley it was when he went up against tougher customers like Ida Lupino, Ann Sheridan, Lana Turner or Joan Crawford that sparks really flew.
That said he and Geraldine Fitzgerald pair well. While she’s unquestionably a lady she has an underlying toughness that enabled her to stand her ground with the major Warner’s stars like Garfield, Davis, Sanders, Greenstreet and Lorre without being bowed and segue into a successful career as a respected character actress. She isn’t some simpering dolt in this and rises to the occasion when called upon.
It may not be one of Garfield’s very best movies but it’s firmly in the better than average category and worth catching more than once.
Well put. It’s so true that he is even more magnetic when he’s paired with tough customers–I’d add Patricia Neal to that list too. They’re so good together. It’s not a great noir, but it’s solid, and there’s enough working to make it a fun watch. I like how in his big reveal he’s unapologetic and straightforward–his “this is who I am, stay away” kind of approach is refreshingly honest and surprising, so much different than the usual (and much less believable) strung-out guilt. It suits his tough ways, and is part of why he’s so much more likeable than the smooth operator con artist.
As you say it’s a fine vehicle for Garfield and the early stages of the big con are fun. I liked the central thematic material about ageing in crime, and how grifting is a young man’s game.
Yes, that was one of my favorite parts too. You feel the desperation of the other grifters, and in Pop’s case, feel sorry for them.
I’ve never seen this movie, and I must admit that I definitely need to see more John Garfield movies. I have only seen “Humoresque” and “The Postman Always Rings Twice”. After reading your fab post, I want to see this film.
I would also like to invite you to participate in my upcoming blogathon. The link is below with more details.
https://crystalkalyana.wordpress.com/2017/03/02/announcing-the-judy-garland-blogathon/
Thanks, Crystal! Though I’d recommend Breaking Point first:) Great. Your blogathon sounds like a lot of fun!
Ok, you summed up Garfield perfectly! And I LOVED how you highlighted Gladys’ reaction to him as a way of talking about him! and the screenshots were perfect.
I love this movie. It’s one of my top 5 noirs. I’m so glad you chose this for the blogathon. Thanks so much for participating!!
P.S. Loved the mention of Matt Damon. I agree 🙂
Thank you! It’s a great blogathon. Gladys’ reaction is my favorite part of the movie–hilarious; she’s beautifully taking the place of the rest of us.
I haven’t seen Nobody Lives Forever, but I agree that John Garfield has a magnetic presence – you just can’t look away from him even if there are others on the screen.
Kisses!
Le
Hi Le! Always great to hear from you. I’m behind this winter in blog reading and one of the joys of that is looking forward to catching up on yours this spring.