What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx
The Third Man is on the following AFI lists:
The Original Top 100 (#57)
100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Harry Lime is the #37 villain)
10 Top 10's (#5 Mystery)
I watched The Third Man instantly on Netflix. Prior to watching it for this go-round of completing the original AFI list, I knew very little about the film. I probably forgot that the film was on the list when I attempted to watch these films once before, and I never did sit down to watch it that time. The only bit I knew about it was that Orson Welles was in it; apart from that, I had no prior information and no expectations entering into the film.
Apparently, many people like it. It’s well reviewed here on Spout. In fact, after watching it and after reading some of the reviews, I find myself chalking this film up to the “Am I missing something?” category. I did not seem to have the same viewing experience or sense of appreciation for this film as others.
In this film noir, Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten) is a down-on-his-luck pulp western novelist who transplants to post-war (World, Second) Vienna, where his friend Harry Lime (Welles) has promised him a job. The trouble is, he arrives to find out that Mr. Lime is dead, apparently the victim of a traffic accident. While at the graveside funeral, Holly meets an inspector of sorts named Major Calloway (Trevor Howard), who informs Holly that Harry was a thief and murderer, guilty of trafficking black-market below-grade penicillin to people desperate for it, such as local hospitals, but which has actually caused more illness and death. In a fit of outraged loyalty, Holly refuses advice to return home and instead decides to investigate Harry’s accident, determined to absolve him of such unfounded accusations and becoming obsessed with eyewitness accounts of a mysterious “third man” at the scene. He is especially encouraged by meeting an actress named Anna Schmidt (Alida Valli), a former love interest of Harry and for whom Harry was able to provide forged papers that would allow her to stay in the presumably non-Communist part of Vienna, since she appears to hail from a quarter reserved for people from Czechoslovakia and restricted by Cold War fears. As Holly investigates, however, he gradually comes to realize that Major Calloway might be telling the truth, particularly when Harry’s unearthed grave reveals a different dead body and when Holly one day encounters Harry, alive and well, full of threats and offers. Complicating this escalating series of events is the apparent attachment Holly forms for Anna, even as Anna can’t seem to forget Harry, despite knowledge of his wrongdoings.
What makes The Third Man unique is that, even as a film noir, this movie is more atmospheric than most. Shot on location in Vienna, the film and its director, Carol Reed, made good use of the old-world European feel of Vienna to give the film an air of mystery, even if there is very little mystery to the story (more on that in a minute). Coupled with a unique musical score played entirely on a zither that evokes that same old-world charm, The Third Man turns out to be a quirkier entry in the annals of noir film, suppressing its darker undercurrent with a sort of levity in the art direction, scoring, and cinematography. Reed and his cinematographers made good use of light, natural and artificial, to heighten the sense of mystery, however artificial, that permeated the film, and they won an Oscar for their achievements.
The story was also somewhat interesting and complex. Apparently, the screenwriter, Graham Greene, devised the plotline through the development of a novella that he later converted into a screenplay. The emotions being explored here are quite convoluted, as these characters seem to struggle through an ingrained sense of cynicism and disappointment in the world and in each other while simultaneously deciding what is right (and, in many ways, there is no right answer in any given situation). Does Holly turn in Harry, even though he has done good deeds for people like himself and Anna? Does Anna forego her allegiance to Harry, even though she owes him so much? There is a real sense of internal tug-of-war with all of the characters, with the possible exception of Lime himself, which make this film interesting.
Still, I can say unequivocally that I was quite bored watching this film for the very first time. The pacing started off at a fairly good clip and then seemed to slow to a crawl as the film approached its climax, only to pick back up again during the final confrontation in the Vienna sewers. The only time I was really interested in and connected to the film was when Welles appeared. His presence was electrifying – for a mere fifteen minutes of screen time, he managed to convey true madness and villainy, earning his character a place on the AFI’s Heroes and Villains list. His motivations were clear, and his performance was finely nuanced, walking a delicate tightrope between caring friend and lover to cold-hearted profiteer with seemingly no morality. None of the other characters felt quite as well developed to me. Holly’s loyalty to Harry was never fully explained; friendship aside, the history of their relationship was given little background, usually through passing comments, so it seemed somewhat unnatural that he should take such an interest in delving into the circumstances of Harry’s death with such fervor; then again, his actions could be explained away by grief or surprise at what he learned. I never connected with the actress playing Anna; as a femme fatale, she left something to be desired, but, then again, she was not really designed to be a vixen. Still, she seemed so weak and naïve, even if her final actions could be interpreted as arising from a position of strength.
As a portrayal of the effects of grief and betrayal, this film presented some interesting quandaries for the Holly and Anna characters, but I struggled to understand why this film has been characterized a “mystery” and given such a high rank in the mystery category of the ten top 10’s. There was nothing mysterious about this picture! It was a noir, so it was told in narrative flashback, which is a typical element of noir. The viewer already can guess that Harry is still alive, so that’s not the mystery. Perhaps, if the question is why he faked his own death, there is some mystery in that, but Major Calloway explains early on some of Harry’s misdeeds. I think labeling this film a mystery also fooled me into thinking this film was something that it was not, and that may have colored my overall outlook on my viewing experience.
I do take issue, as a matter of consistency, with the fact that this film appears on any of the AFI lists. By all accounts, this film is a British export, and though there was an American version released for distribution in the United States, the film originated in the United Kingdom. I think that flies in the face of being an “American” film eligible for entry on the AFI lists. It curiously also did not make the revised list (Rocky replaced it after a sizeable jump in its ranking), even as the film has appeared on some of the other lists, so if it was such a classic meriting an exception to the apparent thrust of compiling these lists to begin with, the AFI has not regarded it consistently either. Even if American actors and film crew were involved in the production, and it had an American producer, by all accounts from my understanding of how the Institute compiles these lists, other films that are primarily British should also have been eligible for consideration if this one was. For example, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is written, co-directed, and partially performed by Terry Gilliam, and I feel that film should have at least cropped up on the AFI’s Funniest film list.
I digress. In the end, I just didn’t find that I enjoyed The Third Man much. It was still a well-made movie, for the most part, even if I didn’t connect to it in any tangible or palpable way, but I guess I just don’t understand why it’s considered such a classic. There is better noir out there, story-wise, production-wise…and while I would agree that the final shot contains a certain poetry, encapsulating the consequences of choices made, I just wasn’t impressed enough by the film overall. Again, that’s why this film gets the award of “am I missing something?” As to a rating on the patented ratings scale, I am leaning heavily on a 7.5, between shaky/entertaining and minor flaws/very good. Like I said, I feel the movie was well done, but it has some flaws in my eyes, at least in the pacing and some of the storytelling. I actually tried re-watching the last half of the film before I wrote this blog in an effort to connect to it more, but, alas, I still am left wondering what all the fuss was about. As such, it definitely does not pass the test. Until I can understand what makes the Third Man so esteemed, other than its excellent production elements, I don’t think I’d want to watch it again.
In postscript, according to the Spout counter, apparently this is my 1000th movie seen (though, for the record, I haven’t gone through the database that thoroughly). Do I get a prize now? J