Stan's motivation for (potentially) providing the wood alcohol to get Pete out of the way was not to clear the field for Zeena, but to get the book of codes and put it to use. His guilt over Pete's death, which comes up later in the film (both films?), certainly suggests it was intentional, if even subconsciously intentional, IMO.
And you just confirmed for me that I couldn't get a lot of what was going on with the character's motivations in this movie. I never saw Stan act guilty. I still don't know what that looked like.
Something else about the promo on Nightmare Alley troubled me in that several days ago on Colbert, Cooper discusses the movie and he makes a point about his preparation for the ending which was shown as a clip. WTF?!
Another difference in the novel, Stan was not aware of the code book until shortly after the funeral when Zeena casually mentioned it to him during some pillow talk.
Wow, that totally changes everything. It's a major plot point in the film (both films?) that Pete warns Stan about the irresistible temptation for hubris that comes along with using the code. It foreshadows the entire second part of the film.
He expresses his guilt while on the psychiatric couch. In the remake (to the best of my memory) this is intermingled with the situation with his father. In the original film, it's the primary focus. I may be getting the two films confused, but his declaration about never touching alcohol leads to the discussion about Pete's demise.
I need to check your last point. I saw it for the first time two nights ago, I thought it was a very good movie but it was let down by the end. I think it would have benefited by getting rid of the last few minutes and leaving it on a darker note. I imagine the studio bosses or the censorship board did some meddling as there seem to be a sudden change from a very sombre mood to a positive one. Like it happens on Ministry of fear but in ministry the end is atrociously attached to a completely different movie.
The black-and-white version looks to be expanding wide this weekend. I'm seeing lots of screenings available in Pennsylvania at Regal, AMC and Cinemark. Cinemark starting Thursday, AMC and Regal starting Friday. Nightmare Alley: Vision in Darkness and Light at AMC Nightmare Alley: Vision in Darkness and Light at Regal Nightmare Alley: Vision in Darkness and Light at Cinemark
I saw the B&W Tyrone Powers fresh from start to finish last week on "Movies" channel on Spectrum cable TV. It was easier to follow and Tyrone was perfect for the role delivering his lines with a sly smarmy attitude as someone who wants to make it to the big time at any cost which wasn't so pronounced by Cooper's performance. Right at the start of the movie Tyrone states his purpose and his priorities and views in life and why he likes working as a carnie and the carnival work atmosphere which Cooper never pointed out, which if he had, would've at least told me more about the morality and motivation of his character. I'ld say new version is more disturbing and realistic visually with a more violent ending. It did feel more slow paced and long winded though. Tyrone Powers' large emoting eyes and gazes just make you want to go along for the ride to see where his ambition takes his character.
Boy, I think the RT audience reviews have it right. This movie was a real slow walk. The first act has a lot of setup and side stories that probably weren't necessary. With the movie going through so many expected noir beats, I think it could've stood to speed up the pace a little so we didn't have so much free time to predict what was going to happen next. When Cate Blanchett finally enters the story, her acting infuses it with a much-welcome sense of style. The other actors, especially Bradley Cooper, just didn't seem to be having as much fun with their roles. The dialogue was pretty good throughout, but especially between Blanchett and Cooper. I didn't recognize Mary Steenburgen at all and was surprised to learn what part she played. I'm not sure how I was supposed to feel about Cooper's character. Spoiler Is it supposed to be tragic to see a miserable bastard get what's coming to him? Or am I supposed to feel happy about it? Was I supposed to know he was a miserable bastard from the start, or was that later expansion of the opening scene supposed to play as a big reveal? The ending turns the whole thing into a classic "ironic punishment" morality play tale out of a pulp story, which just seems a little quaint and underwhelming in this day and age. The black-and-white imagery looked nice, although I'm not sure if the projection was done correctly at my theater, because the whole thing had a bluish tint that made me at first almost get up and check to make sure I didn't enter the screen with the color version by mistake. I'm curious if the color version would've played any better, maybe with more details to liven up the experience a little. My ears always perk up when I hear anachronistic language in a period film like this. They definitely worked in a few "old timey" phrases, which I liked, but some others definitely stood out to me as being too modern, as did some of Toni Collette's body language. I think someone said, "I'll be there in 2 seconds" at one point, which doesn't sound like an era-appropriate phrase to me.
IMO, the film takes the form of a Greek tragedy. The would-be hero, despite being warned, tries to take (or in this case fake) what is God's alone - omniscience, and pays the price (as predicted in the first half of the film by both Pete and Zeena separately). Apart from being the clear inspiration for portions of Bob Dylan's "Ballad of a Thin Man", the original film also ends (not coincidentally, IMO) with a line Dylan used in another of his songs. "How could someone get so low?" is answered with "He reached too high". From Dylan's "Foot of Pride": "It's like the Earth just opened and swallowed him up. He reached too high and was thrown back to the ground. You know what they say about being nice to the right people on the way up? Sooner or later you're going to meet them coming down. Well, there ain't no going back, when the foot of pride come down, Ain't no going back."
My wife & I watched the 1947 version a few days ago on Criterion. She liked it, but was mildly freaked out by the carnival setting. For me, it was very good but just short of great. A very impressive turn by Tyrone Power, who I don't usually find to be all that impressive. My first comment to her when it ended was that the movie was about 3 minutes too long. She disagreed because she liked the implied hope at the ending. I can see that. Stan has become Pete, and Molly is likely on her way to becoming Zeena, his protector & caregiver. But for me the story should have ended with the line, "I was made for it", which closes the penultimate scene. Bleak but powerful. Thanks to all for your comments on the new version. It certainly does sound worth checking out. And it's encouraging that this reimagining of a classic noir can happen in the current cinema climate.
I suspect with Cooper it wasn't all Cooper's fault, from the fact he said in the Late Night with Stephen Colbert interview, Guillermo Del Toro first wanted Leonardo DiCaprio to play the role of Stan but Caprio backed out. Cooper didn't divulge the reasons why.
Not a Dicaprio fan so I wouldn't have seen that as an improvement. I don't think this part called for someone with the babe in the woods look that either Cooper or Dicaprio has. I haven't seen the original, but I can see how Tyrone Power makes more sense in the role. You want someone who seems naturally tough and dangerous but who has enough charm to counteract it. I think Christian Bale might've been the ideal choice.
I thought the same about Tyrone when I saw the original but I didn't find him tough and dangerous after noticing Tyrone has the same '40's actor style head size to body ratio as Bogart. Walking candied apple. Both Tyrone and Bogart have intense manly facial features that register effectively on 4:3 screen until I see them in a pull back shot revealing their chest size when dressed in a tight white T-shirt is of a boy's body... Man's head on a boy's body. The acting skills draws you away from noticing this.
Bullet dodged, imo. DiCaprio would NOT have made this movie better. I'm glad Bradley Cooper got the role, and I liked him in it.
Since the film is now on HBO, I was able to do a screen capture: It was deliberate as the camera does a Dutch angle in order to get this particular shot. Edit: Here is The Hanged Man from Zeena's tarot deck:
There's some unspoken rule that a director gets to use a Dutch angle only so many times in their career, so if you're going to use it, make sure it means something.
I was pretty disappointed in this one, maybe because I'm a big fan of the original. The 1947 film managed to do about twice as much with an hour less in run-time. The characters in this new version are so underdeveloped, the romance between Stan and Molly so forced. Bradley Cooper always comes off as too dumb to be a master manipulator. Instead of believably conning his way into things, this version of the character has things just happen to him. Like how Pete just tells him about the code instead of Stan having to twist arms to learn it. Even the wonderful Cate Blanchett doesn't come out on top, but that's more to the script. The sociopathic therapist from the original is always in control, even in the confrontation. It makes her way more intimidating and compelling. In this new movie, she risks blowing her whole getaway with an emotional outburst and a gun shot. Willem Dafoe was great though, as always. And not that this really matters, but everyone was way better looking in the old film too! Essentially, they took out all the best bits and replaced it with hyper-violence and f-bombs. Thumbs down.
