1078 Nightmare Alley

[DimitriL]

For those interested in those type of things, the tarot cards included are limited to only the initial pressing and will not be available with subsequent runs of the disc. So, if you were holding off for whatever reason on buying this particular title, think again.

Wait, what? Is there a way to tell the pressing? I got it the first day it was out and I didn’t have any tarot cards.

[domino harvey]

You can tell in person by shaking it, they are just rattling around in the booklet holder half of the case

[DimitriL]

Ah crud, I ordered it online so that wasn’t an option.

[brundlefly]

The cards also have a potential spoiler in them. Be warned, beware.

[therewillbeblus]

It'd be cool if they advertised this (same goes with Indicator's Twentieth Century's "stickers") as I'm sure more people would have pre-ordered copies directly from the sites with some notice- I know I would have for both. I realize it's a nice gesture to honor those who get there early without creating a rush from publicity, but it could only benefit sales figures, and perhaps stretching the number of copies including these items would raise sales overall. Hell, I'd buy a second copy of Twentieth Century in a heartbeat to get those stickers!

[omegadirective]

Damn! Thanks so much for the heads up.
I ordered this on Amazon and it came right away and had the cards inside.

Thanks again! I appreciate this kind of information!

[Brian C]

Just an update on the tarot cards: I ordered mine from Amazon over the weekend and got it today, complete with the cards. They’re still out there for those interested.

Fun movie, but it has too much of a moralist edge to be as truly “nasty” as its reputation. Not that the two movies have anything in common, but for me the real benchmark of nastiness in classic Hollywood will always be SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, which is just sharks swimming in dirty water from start to finish. This material is really screaming out for that kind of wicked edge, being plenty lurid, and certainly it’s easy to see how Power’s role would have been shocking to his fans at the time. But whether by necessity to get past the censors or for some other reason, it pulls its punches by stripping any possibility of audience identification away from him. In a way it’s a neat trick to make the protagonist the villain in his own movie, and another villain the hero, but it also allows us to remain above it all. I feel like we’re always one step ahead of his tricks but without being made to feel the allure and thrill of what he’s doing. My response was more impatience that anyone would fall for his schtick, as opposed to, say, watching one of Mamet’s characters run their cons.

And it’s pretty creaky in its narrative. I can’t offhand think of another movie that telegraphs its plot so brazenly right at the outset: “How can a man be brought so low?” he asks in one of his first lines. Just a bit schematic, isn’t it? And I think that’s ultimately the film’s biggest flaw: there’s just too much of a sense of “THIS IS A HORRIBLE MAN, BUT DON’T WORRY HE’LL GET HIS COMEUPPANCE” hanging over the movie. Maybe that’s just how it had to be in 1947, but it takes a lot of sting out of the bite.

[Never Cursed]

Fun movie, but it has too much of a moralist edge to be as truly “nasty” as its reputation.

Agreed - the late second act "you're goin' against God!" argument is one of the more comical invocations of conventional studio-era morals I've seen. That said, there are two brutal moments (the abortive conversion sequence and the miserable ending) that I feel make up for this in their cruelty.

SpoilerShow

The effect of that former scene is the total breakage of Taylor Holmes' character, taken to a tactile extent that one rarely sees in male characters of this time (even though Grindle isn't particularly physically strong, it's still painful to watch him just give up fighting against Power and sink convulsing to the ground).

[The Curious Sofa]

I revisited this the other week, I had not watched the film in several decades. I misremembered it ending with Tyrone Power

SpoilerShow

actually biting the head off a chicken,

which sadly was not the case, the ending is a cop-out. I still found the film enjoyable, especially how the three female lead characters guide and influence the protagonist in very different ways, but it's too much of a studio movie to have much bite. It may have worked better as a a gritty and more sordit B-movie. I'm not holding out much hope for the del Toro version, which inevitably will be over-designed and over-produced, though I'll watch it for the cast

[MichaelB]

You've just described the ending of the novel. Or rather, the novel ends

SpoilerShow

with a desperate, booze-sozzled Stanton Carlisle (the Tyrone Power character) trying to get a job - any job - and being told that a geek is all that's on offer. And the kicker is the very last line, "'What do you say? Of course, it's onloy temporary - just until we get a real geek.'"

[The Curious Sofa]

I've never read the novel, but it feels logical that this is how it should end.

[Red Screamer]

Fun movie, but it has too much of a moralist edge to be as truly “nasty” as its reputation.

I agree, though the moralism feels so excessive to me that I thought it qualified as one if the creepiest elements of the movie. It’s set up as a rise and fall narrative but the poor guy, whatever his sins, only has modest success before he’s beaten back down to zero in three or four different ways and to such such a cruel extent that the movie seemed to be savoring it for violence’s sake. The kicker for me isn’t

SpoilerShow

him becoming the geek, which is fairly predictable once you realize how sadistic the movie is gonna get, but the next plothole-jumping contrivance that he winds up at the same carnival as Molly, since their reuinion becomes another punishment: they’re clearly going to fall into the roles of Zeena and Pete, her taking care of him, him barely hanging on, their romance dormant, and everyone pitying them.

I like Dave Kehr’s comment on its mixture of nastiness and gloss that the movie is sleazy but you can also tell it’s directed by the same guy who did Grand Hotel.

[FrauBlucher]

This was on Noir Alley last week. Eddie Muller had some good info on his intros and outros. He mentioned that Zanuck asked the screenwriter to add to the ending that wasn't the novel's ending...

SpoilerShow

Where the novel ends as Stanton takes the job sadly and desperately as the geek. In the film, after Stan excepts the job as a geek, Zanuck has Stan and Molly flukishly reunite at that same carnival.

I was a bit surprised that Zanuck thought the ending was too difficult for the audiences. Of all the Studios from that era, Fox was more willing to take chances with difficult topics and difficult endings. I much would've preferred that the novel's ending being left for the end of the film. That being said, I didn't love the film. Lots of contrivances were used to move the narrative along. Tyrone Power was terrific though. His fans back then may have been turned off by this dirtbag character

[DeprongMori]

I would note that the 1947 and 2021 films have essentially the exact same ending, with only a minor variation, except the 2021 film makes it implicit rather than explicit.

SpoilerShow

The 1947 film ends with Carlisle showing up at the carnival and agreeing to geek (“temporarily”), and then being “rescued” by Molly into a life where they will undoubtedly live on as a new incarnation of Zeena and her broken, alcoholic Pete.

The 2021 film ends with Carlisle showing up at the carnival and agreeing to geek (“temporarily”), and the film ends there. Except, in an earlier scene at the hobo campfire Carlisle had found out about the carnival from a flyer that featured Zeena as a major attraction. The implication is that he will be “rescued” there by Zeena, and he will undoubtedly live on as a new incarnation of the broken, alcoholic Pete, but with Zeena rather than with Molly.

So, essentially the same ending.

[Rayon Vert]

Revisited this film through the waxy Criterion upgrade. I didn't think too much of it the first time, and less so the second. To the point where I think I'm just not going to keep this in my collection. The plot is too telegraphed as others have said here, and I'm just pretty much bored through the whole thing. The extras were good, especially like the historical review of carnivals and side-shows, but I just can't resonate with the claim (Imogen Sara Smith) that this is one of the best noirs.

[FrauBlucher]

I liked it, didn't love it. Don't need to see it again. del Toro's version was better, especially giving us a closer version to the novels ending