Jigsaw

This 1949 film is interesting on several accounts. First off the movie appears to have been shot primarily on location in New York in the late 1940s. It appears to be the Brooklyn Museum where the finale of the movie takes place.

Franchot Tone plays the lead detective, and Jean Wallace plays a nightclub performer. Tone and Wallace were married at the time of this film, and would make other films together. This is still a few years away from the 1951 love triangle between Franchot Tone, Barbara Payton and Tom Neal, in which Tone was beaten to a pulp by Neal. In the aftermath of that event, Jean Wallace stabbed herself in an unsuccessful suicide attempt. Her and Tone had two children and the public humiliation of Tone and Paytons affair pushed her over the edge. Wallace herself was arrested numerous times in the 50s for drunken behavior.

This film appears to be a social commentary on communism. Though communists are never mentioned, the secret organization bears all the marks of a communist party. Several actors in the film, as well as some who simply had walk ons appear in the film, perhaps as a way of showing how they feel about communism. John Garfield, Marsha Hunt, Marc Lawrence all who were publicly involved in the witch hunts that occured in the late 40s and early 50s appear in this film. Other stars who have minor roles include Burgess Meredith, Marlene Dietrich and Henry Fonda. In the nightclub scene, look in the background for debutante Brenda Frazier, a kind of Paris Hilton of her day.

This little, low-budget noir mystery is marred by crude direction, cutting, and editing, reminiscent of and no more polished than most live television productions of the same period, and hampered by a heavy handed political script that leaves huge gaps in plot logic.

Its chief interest is as a rare curiosity. Its paranoid politics and style mirror the anti-Communist films of the period, but it was made by a group of primarily liberal and leftist New Yorkers (exemplified by the famous actors who contributed cameo appearances), who turned the usual premise on its head. Franchot Tone plays a liberal crusading "special prosecutor" who investigates a shadowy secret organization that is menacing and killing its own members, whom they think may expose them. But this organization isn't Communist or leftist; rather it's a vaguely racist group that is really just a financial scam, run only to collect membership dues and gather other profits. As a result, even the political statement turns out to be rather weak compared with films of the period that explicitly opposed discrimination, such as "Pinky," "Gentlemen's Agreement," "Crossfire," "Lost Boundaries," "No Way Out," and so on.

I got this film from one of those public domain mega-packs on DVD. While this is not a bad film, I can see why the film makers didn't bother renewing the copyright--it just wasn't all that interesting. Most of the problem seems to be with the writing. The plot seems to bounce all over the place and where the film began seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with where it ended. Had all the dull moments and irrelevant plots been eliminated or polished, I really would have enjoyed the film a lot more than I did.

Franchot Tone plays a prosecutor with the DA's office who is initially looks into the case of a White supremacist who might have been murdered. Whether or not this is the case is uncertain, but when Tone's newspaper friend is killed when he tries investigating (again, it was made to look like a suicide), he knows that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot. However, instead of trying to bash heads and get to the bottom of it, he infiltrates an organization that might be behind all this--as well as buying and selling public officials.

As I said, the writing was pretty poor. However, for film nuts like myself, it's still worth seeing for all the strange and unexpected cameos, such as Henry Fonda and John Garfield (among others). Not a good movie but it has enough to it that it isn't a total waste of time seeing it--not exactly a glowing review, huh?!

... There has to be a limit. This movie is pretty much a mess. It doesn't feel like New York City, of which I am a native and almost-lifetime resident. It has too many plots going at once. They add up but only with force on the part of the writers.

It starts out as a sort of Northern "Storm Warning." (Now, there we have a superb, underrated movie!) I guess the racist posters that set off the plot are symbolic of the beginning of the McCarthy witch-hunts. If they aren't, they don't make any sense: OK, granted: According to my parents Manhattan at that time was not always friendly to people other than Caucasians. But were there actually plots and mobs? I can't believe it.

The casting gives it some noir cred. I'm not talking about the brief cameos by big stars. Nor,really, about Franchot Tone. He is OK but he isn't exactly a noir staple and he's maybe a bit old for the role.

But we have Jean Wallace. We have Marc Lawrence.

For me, the single best feature of the film is the presence in a fairly small but significant role of an actress I had never before tonight heard of: Winifred Lenihan.

I see that she was the first person to play the title role in Shaw's "St. Joan" on Broadway. She is in very different territory here. But whoever cast her did so with genius: She is absolutely perfect.

Also, I wonder about the character played by Hedley Rainnie. He's ambiguous in many ways. He wears a beard and maybe that's meant to signify his foreign origins. I wonder, though: Is he intended to be gay? The way the character is portrayed reminds me of the intentionally creepy go-between for the Senator and his ex lover in the better known and overrated "Advise and Consent" almost a decade later.

It isn't a good movie, in sum. And the print I saw was really bad. But watch it for Ms. Lenihan. In a very quiet way, she's brilliant!

Combining elements of a political thriller with elements of a mystery story, "Jigsaw" ends up being somewhat uneven, but certainly interesting enough to make you keep watching. The mystery angle is the part that works the best, keeping you guessing much of the time. Most of the production is strictly B-quality, but the performance of Franchot Tone, some cameo appearances worth watching for, and some interesting plot ideas bring up the overall quality.

The initial story idea is a bit routine, with Tone as an Assistant DA who is concerned about the activities of an extremist political group. While not entirely predictable, this side of it is never all that interesting either. The group remains too vague to seem like more than a small-scale threat. What perks things up is when Tone begins meeting a series of interesting characters from an assortment of backgrounds, with each of them either a potential friend or a potential enemy.

The finale of all this intrigue sets up a very interesting showdown between a number of groups in an art museum. The low production values keep it from being as memorable as it could have been, but it is still a good idea. Likewise, the movie overall never quite comes together as well as it could have, but it does have a number of positive things to offer.