User Reviews

Even by the bottom-shelf standards of postwar Poverty Row crime programmers (it's a Republic release), Jealousy appears primitive. Its sets look ugly and thrown together, its meandering plot line needs plenty more back-story, and its acting is more often awkward than not. But slowly – maybe by dint of its very cheesiness – the movie starts to work on you. It's the work, both as writer and director, of Gustav Machaty, whose most notorious film was the 1933 Extase, where Hedy Lamarr swam in the nude. But that notoriety notwithstanding, Machaty didn't make much of a mark in America; before Jealousy, he hadn't directed a movie since 1939, and afterward would wait another decade before his last film, made in Europe.

To get a bead on where Jealousy is heading takes a while. We first encounter Jane Randolph wearing a visored cap and driving a hack in Los Angeles. One of her fares is debonair doctor John Loder, who takes a very English fancy to her. But she's supporting depressive Nils Asther, a displaced person from the shambles of Eastern Europe who was a noted novelist in his native tongue; in America, he's unemployable. He pawns his cigarette case to buy a gun and end it all. Randolph stops him, which proves to be a mistake.

When Asther grows more jealous and abusive, Randolph warms to Loder and becomes chummy with his devoted colleague Karen Morley. (They lunch together, go shopping together, confide in one another.) But out of false pride Asther, who nurses his unhappiness like a sore tooth, spurns a job as translator at a movie studio, an opportunity arranged by his best friend Hugo Haas (yes, that Hugo Haas, another Poverty Row auteur of vanity pictures). Asther gives the restless Randolph an ultimatum: If she leaves him, he'll use the gun, but not on himself. But that damn gun sure gets around....

Jealousy boils down to a romantic trapezoid. Even at an economical 71 minutes, it moves slowly. But move it does, with an occasional nice touch along the way (a Christmas ornament dropped back into its box after a grim marital spat, a wide-eyed Siamese cat taking in a climactic scene). And as it turns out, it's just a little bit better than it seems.

Despite such clichéd dialogue as: "...Something has come between us. What is it?" "You wouldn't dare!" "Oh wouldn't I!" and "I feel a strange foreboding," the film does manage to transcend it's pulpy romantic triangle plot.

This is achieved mostly through a European influenced, "downbeat" atmosphere at odds with the conventionally optimistic American take on life, (this is light years from "It's a Wonderful Life," though both films deal with masculine bread-winner failure).

Indeed, the film seems to have considerable sympathy for Nils Asther's ex-patriate European writer who, disaffected by his new environs, can't make the grade once in the states, and turns to drink and self pity.

But it is through mood rather than scripting that the film earns it's keep, specifically some effective, (if occasionally heavy handed)stylistic flourishes. Thus we have an abundance of tilted camera angles, great looming shadows of creeping figures on the walls at night, dead sea gulls, repeated musical motifs--Brahms etc, (the film bears some stylistic traits in common with with "Strange Illusion")etc.

Most interesting of all is the re-appearance of the same living room setting previously used in "Strange Illusion," "Fog Island" and "I Accuse My Parents." Here slightly re-dressed and reconfigured, it serves as the drawing room of John Loder's character. All of which is doubly odd, since this film is a Republic production, and makes one wonder why they were sharing sound stages and settings with rival PRC.

Romantic complications arise when a married woman and a doctor get involved despite the jealousy of their partners.

That opening montage is a grabber. Right away we know Machaty is a director with imagination and style. His European sensibilities provide a feel for the dark side; at the same time, the movie's an offbeat blend of sunny street scenes and noirish interiors, a conflicted world both connected with and apart from our own. Similarly, Aster's tortured European writer remains an exotic character, even for noir. Put him together with three other romantically entangled characters, and you may need a scorecard.

Also adding to the stylish effect, are Karen Morley's unusual looks and subtle abilities. The wild-haired Aster too, really registers in his unconventional part. In fact, note that all four main characters appear intellectually inclined, unusual for Hollywood that never trusted that sort of audience appeal. The screenplay also embeds a neat little whodunit inside the main plot.

The results here remind me of one of Edgar Ulmer's bottom-of-the-barrel gems, such as Detour (1945), or Strange Illusion (1945). The sensibilities seem very similar. Note too the many offbeat but well-calculated camera angles in this film. Also, catch that final sequence that leaves off with an empty room. To me, the sequence complies with Code requirements (wrong-doers being brought to justice), but in a slyly subversive way (we're left with an empty room and not the conventional happy embrace).

I suspect Machaty's Hollywood career was shortened because of the notoriety surrounding Hedy LaMarr and his German film Ecstasy (1933). Too bad, because this little novelty is not just another programmer from Hollywood's poverty row.

Jane Randolph has been driving a cab for two years because her husband, Nils Asther, has been unable to work. In Europe he was a famous author, but since he was driven from home, he has become an alcoholic. When Miss Randolph drives Doctor John Loder, they talk about Brahms. When they meet again at a restaurant, Asther is verbally abusing his wife, and they fall in love. This shocks Karen Morley, who is Loder's assistant and has been in love with him for years.

At first this might seem a film noir, but I thought it was much more European, like Visconti's OSSESSIONE or a movie by Molander: tragic poetic realism. The director, Gustav Machatý, had been an important director in Hungary in the late 1920s and early 1930s. His movie EKSTASE had brought him to Hollywood's attention with its nude shots of a young Hedy Lamar. Five years later, both were working in Hollywood, but while Lamar was a top MGM star, Machatý was in the background, running photographic collages. He only directed three credited movies in Hollywood in seven years, and Asther's character seems more a mocking self-portrait of the director than an invented character. Machatý returned to Europe and directed one more movie.

Visually it shows a good deal of visual flair, although the process shots are obviously faked. Most of the actors are solid, but Miss Randolph's line readings are weak. I suspect that even after most of a decade in Hollywood, Machatý's direction was not up to the task. This failure of the central player makes what might have been a great movie merely very interesting... but that is still quite good.

In presenting this rare (and, admittedly, negligible) post-World War II melodrama (at the Pacific Film Archive in Berkeley in January of 1988) historian William K. Everson described it as "a strange and fascinating psychological thriller" and an "offbeat experimentation". High praise, indeed, for such a throwaway cheapie, but the generous assessment could have been motivated more by his sympathy for the cast and crew, several of whom were later blacklisted during the Communist witch hunts of the 1950s. The credits were subsequently removed altogether, perhaps a blessing in disguise considering the poor quality of the film: plot holes, pedestrian acting and laughable dialogue abound. With no budget to speak of and with essentially only four characters in the script (an attractive LA cab driver, her suicidal Czech husband, a debonair physician, and his plain but hard working female assistant) it probably couldn't help looking like an amateur production. But with a running time of only 70 minutes it's easy to shrug off.

I watched this one because it was from the director of EXTASY. Well, this is not an unteresting feature but a bit boring though not that predictable. Acting is OK, convincing enough to keep your attention and you also have a satisfactory ending, not foreseeable compared to the Hollywood standard. Bittersweet ending actually. Surprisingly good camera work too.