Jump to: navigation, search

Film Weekly (1938) - Crime Doesn't Pay

Details

Article

Crime Doesn't Pay

When I directed Peter Lorre in The Secret Agent, I tried an experiment. Although the menace, he was also the comedy relief. In fact, he was far more humorous than villainous.

It was breaking all the rules, of course, but I think the experiment was a success. It permitted film-goers to see the other side of Lorre's personality. He was known as a heavy. Since, he has become a straight actor, and you have probably seen him as "Mr. Moto" two or three times.

Lorre is undoubtedly one of the screen's most expert villains. But I think he is wise in getting away from this type of character. On the screen, crime doesn't pay — except as very valuable groundwork for an actor.

Very few heavies succeed in staying the course if they don't change their styles. This is why you'll find that most screen villains reform, unless they are content to remain in small parts. Among the straight and comedy stars of today, there are a good many who began their film careers as bad men.

The best example, of course, is William Powell, who was once a very suave villain indeed. He is typical of the development of a heavy.

The process is: villain; straight actor; comedian.

It is easiest to be a villain; less easy to be a straight actor; considerably more difficult to be a comedian.

As a rule, the development from villain to straight actor is gradual, and it is largely due to an attractive personality breaking through the label of "heavy." Thus William Powell's likeable qualities slowly but surely dominated his screen characterizations.

From straight actor to comedian is equally gradual, though not so frequent. It is done more or less by the player himself taking over the comedy relief instead of leaving this to small-part actors, and then developing into a full-blown comedian.

Homolka's Progress

William Powell did this. Adolphe Menjou is another. Lionel Barrymore, with certain reservations, has also done so — the reservations being that, humorous though he is, he is not a full-blown comedian (though John Barrymore has now stepped from straight work to comedy).

I shouldn't be surprised to see Oscar Homolka doing it. He has gone from heavies to straight character parts.

I found it interesting to compare his performance in my picture, Sabotage, with the one he gives in Ebb Tide. His sense of humour breaks through strongly at times in the latter.

Wallace Beery has, in some ways, reversed the process. In his early screen days, he was a deep-dyed villain. He changed to comedy before becoming a character actor. His comedy, however, was of the very broad variety. The more subtle humour came later, after he had developed his sense of drama.

On the feminine side, you have Myrna Loy — voluptuous vamp; straight leading lady; then comedienne.

And Garbo began as a vamp; became a dramatic actress; and is now said to be thinking of comedy.

Not all reformed villains, of course, develop into comedians. That is the ultimate only for those who have ability in this particular direction.

At the same time, there is no reason in the world why those who have developed that far should be typed as comedians. In fact, all of those I have mentioned play straight parts just as often as humorous ones.

I can't think of any prominent villain who has remained faithful to villainy. Those who have tried it have found that their futures were not looking too hopeful. Of necessity, the life of a prominent villain is a short one.

The reason is simple to find. A heavy doesn't get audience sympathy. And that means everything. Much as a film-goer may admire a screen villain's performance, he is not the one who is talked about afterwards.

Hissing Doesn't Hurt

Development from menace roles has nothing whatever to do with the personal feelings of the actor. Most players will tell you that there is a great deal of enjoyment to be had from appearing as a heavy, and the fact that they are hissed doesn't hurt their feelings at all. They regard this as a compliment to their acting. But villains don't draw people into cinemas, however much they are admired. And as film players get paid in relation to their box office value, a long life of screen villainy hasn't overmuch appeal, anyway.

On the Continent, things are different. Most Continental pictures are psychological. Peter Lorre enjoyed tremendous popularity, and the picture for which he was mostly admired was the macabre M.

Conrad Veidt was also a big star, though most of the roles he played on the Continent would have been called "menace" here or in Hollywood.

Exceptional Rathbone

Such pictures are few and far between in England and America. Night Must Fall was one, and it offered Robert Montgomery a magnificent acting opportunity, which he took.

But, though it did him a lot of good as an actor, it would be useless to deny that a series of such roles would soon kill him as a box office star.

The British picture, Love from a Stranger, is another rare example of this type of English-speaking film — and, incidentally, Basil Rathbone is one of the very few exceptions to the short-life-for-prominent-villains rule. But he, too, tempers villainy with sympathy more frequently these days.

Conrad Veidt has left heavy roles right behind him. He made the change a long time ago, and it is interesting to note that one of his most widely popular pictures was The Passing of the Third Floor Back. His saintly character in that was as far removed from his early menacing roles as one can possibly imagine.

I think Humphrey Bogart will make the change. He is such an excellent actor, and is too good to remain typed. He has already made the switch once or twice, and has shown his sympathetic capability, as, for instance, in his role of the attorney in the Bette Davis picture, Marked Woman.

It Pays to Reform

He is an outstandingly good character actor, and he has a big following; but that following is not anything like so big as it will be when he is recognized as a straight actor instead of a villain.

Brian Donlevy is another who, I am convinced, will eventually leave heavies right behind him. He has a great capacity for sympathy, which is already creeping into his roles. I believe his part in the new Gracie Fields picture, We're Going to be Rich, is one of them.

Lloyd Nolan has also been seen as a straight actor, but he is not in the same category as most screen villains. Like Akim Tamiroff, he is never conventional, and he is a first-rate character actor.

And, as you are well aware, George Raft has left his sleek villains a long way behind him.

I'm not so sure that villainy isn't one of the best ways of breaking into films. There are always openings for heavies, and such parts undoubtedly pave the way to bigger things. Screen crime may not pay if you keep to it; but it pays if you care to reform!

Retrieved from ‘http://the.hitchcock.zone/w/index.php?title=Film_Weekly_(1938)_-_Crime_Doesn%27t_Pay&oldid=183289’