It would, be of course, a great mistake to assume all was well in the USA in the ’50’s, that everyone was happy, that there were no conflicts, etc. We all know from education, experience, movies, TV reruns and, for a few of us, actual memory that the 50’s were not that simple. It is, however, undoubtedly true that the 50’s constituted a “more innocent time,” if by “innocent” you mean unwilling, and maybe psychologically unable to admit the truth about the US or ourselves, or humanity itself, an unwillingness to acknowledge things that every high school sophomore knew were true but that the greater society, the clergy, teachers, big business, show business and the media were unwilling to acknowledge.

The most obvious of these things would be extra-marital sex, drugs, and the basic crookedness of so many people. These were “concealed” from people who already knew them and who then grew up to conspire to keep “innocent” their own children a decade or two or three later, thus helping encourage the 1960’s in both their glory and their messiness, and whatever we have had since., But the overall feeling was that we were mostly innocent and hard working and that honesty and hard work paid off for everyone. Crooks usually lost.

I am perfectly aware that the US entertainment industry did not entirely shrink before this theory all the time. It produced “Waterfront,” the beginnings of what would be called later 60’s rebellion, James Dean as a hero, and a lot of other discordant messages, But by and large, there was an overall tendency not to exactly suppress these disturbingly confounding things as to simply ignore them and try to overwhelm their influence with Arthur Godfrey, the MaGuire Sisters, and “Ozzie and Harriet.”(Actually, I liked Ozzie and Harriet–they were often very funny–but, still–well, never mind). The thing is that in entertainment and the arts there was what one might call a lack of tolerance for too much nastiness, selfishness, and all round human failing, and a tendency to suppress them or to show them as fairly easily handled by good will and good gestures. But not always.

The two movies I wish to tell you about are part of that movement to show the lacking, what I guess would today be called the dark side of America. But I think it’s more than just that. It has to do with the dark side of the world, or human nature, another thing the official philosophy of the time was not too comfortable with. Both of these films are brilliantly effective in portraying this and showing a side of us that audiences didn’t want to see, at least not at first. But the side was there and would not be repressed entirely, and these two excellent movies bear witness to the faults of human nature.

To repeat a cliche I tend to refer to too often, these movies are both alike and different. But the alikeness is the thing that makes them a fit subject to study together. “A Face in the Crowd: and “The Sweet Smell of Success” both study the nature of one of the serous lackings of the human beast. Greed- Greed for money, greed for power, sex ,fame, publicity–well, just look at he headlines. But these two films took it on, particularly the power and money part, and showed it in all of its strength and influence, its ability to corrupt the innocent and to make the already corrupt even more so.

Both “Face” and “Success” concentrate mostly one or two main characters and their corruption and their effect on others. Ultimately, they say, this is self-destructive. But a lot of people will go a long way before the destruction comes clear, before they understand what’s really going on. And some don’t care. They also seem to be saying that this is particularly true among the celebrities and the opinion-makers–politicians and their followers, entertainers, and the people who stand to profit from them by backing them, or, occasionally trashing them. “Face” deals more with the society as a whole, and its being influenced by one charismatic but dangerous character, “Success” concentrates on a few mostly despicable people, two in particular, and invites you to compare them to what you know and have observed. It also gives you a glimpse at their geographic and psychological milieu.

It is worth pointing out that “Face “deals with this not only with a large amount of attention given to the public, but at least begins with a southern/rural back ground. “Success” is New York City, perhaps the ultimate movie about NYC advantage taking, plotting and scheming. The immediate cultural effect of the two is noticeably different. The impact of the characters on morality and honesty are noticeably similar.

“Face” begins in a small AR town in a jail. Among the drunks and other losers in the tank at least for the night is a rather bad tempered and secretly arrogant man who is also something of an entertainer. “Lonesome” Rhodes(Andy Griffith) can play the banjo, sing a song, tell a joke and charm whatever he wants off of or out of many. But the charm is often hidden unless he sees opportunity in using it.

Into this place comes Marcia(Patricia Neal) who holds an important position of managerial power in her family’s local radio station. She coaxses a bit of entertainment out of Rhodes and is very impressed. Later, after talking with some others,, she decides to get him on a show.

But returning to the jail, she finds he has been released and his whereabouts are unknown. But he hasn’t been gone long and she and a colleague set out to find him. They do, he is tramping and hitchhiking to who-knows where with a buddy and he is not impressed with their offer of employment, But at last he succumbs to their blandishments and agrees to go back to town.

There follows a remarkable but by no means unbelievable rise to success and power. Lonesome has an inborn instinct for charming people combined with some musical talent. He has a way of ingratiating himself with the public and of understanding them, their desires, instincts and perhaps even subconscious feelings. He is superb at playing on these thoughts, weaknesses if you will, among the public and soon, through his apparent honesty(he won’t peddle bull, even in commercials)and straight forward humor he is the most popular man in town.

Soon a bigger station, from Memphis, is on the phone trying to lure him there. They offer $500.00 a week. Marcia is all for taking it, but Lonesome whispers to her , “We can do better than that.” So he makes a deal that he will work for free for two weeks. If it doesn’t work out he’ll move along. If they like him they’ll pay $1000.00 a week. He goes and you can guess what happens. He becomes a meteoric star through the south and soon, with TV network connections through the US. He has his own show quickly, with sexy girls, a well hyped program of music and humor, and is taking the nation by storm.

Now all along the way, it has been clear that Lonesome is a “ladies’ man,” and is busy bedding hotel maids and whoever else is attractive and willing. There is a certain sexual tension between him and Marcia, but she is resistant,(how about that?) though he clearly desires someone with more class(however the word is defined)than his usual girls. It is also apparent that he is utterly without ethics or compunctions when it comes to money and success. He acquires not only a national following, but a professional manager, (Anthony Franciosa) who knows a good thing when he sees it and figures he can play this good thing, Lonesome’s career, for power and money for himself. He’s right, too.

With a few bumps along the way, but no real troubles, Lonesome has a stable of writers led by Walter Matthau in maybe his first really big role. Like the others he is ambitious but also seems analytical and nagged by his conscience. Along the way Maria succumbs to Lonesome’s charms and they become lovers although she never seems quite happy with this role and she also appears to (wisely)mistrust his honesty and steadfastness.

Lonesome becomes so powerful and admired that others, including at least one potential Presidential candidate, seek him out for advice. As part of the overall chaos, another women pops into his world announcing that she is his wife and more or less demanding a share of the take. Things are getting complicated.

Eventually Lonesome and Marcia quarrell but the show goes on and so does the inflow of money. But eventually, she betrays him. Fed up with a number of things including his hypocrisy–he has nothing but contempt for his fans–she commits an act of destruction on him.(SPOILER ALERT-NEXT TWO PARAGRAPHS)

While his show is going off the camera stays on Lonesome but there is a musical background while they run the credits. His microphone is turned off. He uses this opportunity to smile and wave at the “hicks” who watch him and whom he calls that along with other unflattering terms. Smiling at the camera, he talks and his audience think he’s saying how he loves them; but it’s actually how much he despises them. But Marcia who knows backstage well enough, gets to the correct switch and turns his mic back on. His contempt for the people who love him pours out for millions to hear. And he is finished, at least for awhile. Matthau points out that he will likely come back a little bit, but things will never be the same. The big party is over and now he will just be a one time wonder with a few thousand followers and no expensive sponsors.

This induces hysteria in Lonesome and we get one of the great scenes of movie history as a result. Going to his hotel room window and utterly broken by Marcia’s betrayal he begins to scream her name-over and over, and well-there you have it–arrogance and power decayed into desperation, loneliness, and despair.

About a year later”The Sweet Smell of Success” was released. It was directed by Andrew Mackenna, a US born Brit(Scot)who had little reputation in the US at the time. He soon would, at least among close movie watchers. It was written by Ernest Lehman and Clifford Odets. It is a devastating film, as much as “Face,” maybe a little more so.

Like “Face” it is superbly directed and edited and the writing is so sharp that it is almost unrealistic-fortunately you don’t really have time to question whether two dishonorable , slimy people, even well educated, could sound like that. But, hey, maybe they could. James Wong Howe, long the best cinematographer in Hollywood photographed it and the black and white grimness is both clear and painfully effective. I’m tempted to say it almost becomes a character itself.(OK, I said it) So is the jazz score by Elmer Bernstein, a long time leader in US movie soundtracks. Most of the music in the movie is played by the Chico Hamilton quartet who were just getting going. It was all put together by Hecht-Hill-Lancaster, a company that deserves a blog by itself so I’ll say no more about it for now.

The plot, which becomes complex in details, is always simple in it s main points. Burt Lancaster plays J J Hunsecker, a powerful and arrogant newspaper columnist whom many fear and admire and no one wants to offend. He writes about many things, but particularly NY and the entertainment industry. He is powerful, cold, ruthless and utterly without compunctions about other people. But there’s one exception. He has a 19-year old Sister, Susan(Susan Harrison), whom he idolizes and with whom his relationship is intense and possessive perhaps to the point of incestuous if (slightly)hidden feelings. (one possible though not very large imperfection to this otherwise flawless movie is that Susan appears to be at least 20 years younger than her brother–huh??)

But all is not well with Susan and JJ. Susan is dating a rising young jazz guitarist, Steve Dallas (Marty Milner who made a sort of career playing nice young guys) JJ is, for no very apparent reason other than possibly incestuous jealousy, totally opposed to her marriage. He has been unable to talk her out of her feelings or her relationship and the relationship between them, once so close has cooled.

Being rich, powerful, and used to getting his own way, JJ makes the obvious decision. He will get some help to break up the romance and return things to normal. At this point, enter the other hero/villain, Sidney Falco(Tony Curtis)Sidney is a press agent, in other words a sort of free lance publicity man, whose clients are mostly, if not wholly, show business people. He tries to get them the kind of publicity they need, which includes newspaper columns. So of course it includes JJ, whose column is the cream of NYC showbiz influence. He has a small, not too impressive office and a pleasant but not too glamorous secretary(Jeff Donnell). He is obviously ambitious and also obviously scrambling hard to keep in the game. He is also a snake, though a different kind from JJ.

We first meet Sidney before we do JJ and he is looking through the paper for JJ’s column and then peruses the column for the promised mention of a client. It isn’t there. Sidney is furious. JJ had promised him he’d mention the person’s name and Sidney had promised the client. Now he has to explain why the client’s fee got him nothing. In a mood of raging betrayal he goes to see JJ.

Not at all intimidated by Sidney’s rage JJ treats him with contempt. We also learn that Sidney has already been enlisted by JJ to break up Susan’s relationship with her guitar player, and to do it any way he can(well, presumably within most of the law and without violence, but otherwise about anything goes).Sidney is impressed and slightly intimidated by JJ, whom he has obviously known for some time, and maybe just a bit afraid of him. but only a bit. When it comes to scheming, manipulating and looking out for No 1 Sidney’s pretty hard to beat.

But there is an interesting difference between his character and JJ’s and here it is. JJ comes off as almost machinelike in his coldness and lust for power and control. The only softness he ever shows(and it isn’t very much) is related to Susan. Sidney has a certain openness about his character, or at least his persona, that makes him seem at times more human than the cold, austere, arrogant JJ. JJ likely despises Sidney overall, but he’s not going to let his contempt blind him to Sidney’s true personality. “I’d hate to take a bite out of you,” he tells him, “you’re a cookie full of arsenic.” And that is likely an accurate judgement. Nonetheless, you get the impression that if you had to spend an evening in the company of just one of these men, you’d likely go with Sidney. Vicious, selfish and unscrupulous but at least capable of laughter sometimes, charming people sometimes, etc. He is more human than JJ or at least has learned to act the part.

Sidney having been engaged by JJ to break up Susan’s relationship is determined and, good, ambitious dog he is he means to do it. There follows a careful examination about how to go about ruining someone’s life without violence and with some subtlety–also without mercy and without inconvenient things like scruples. We watch Sidney as he goes through the list of things he can think of. He tries to ruin Steve’s name by getting another columnist to hint that he(Steve)is a communist and a marijuana user.

If he doesn’t cooperate Sidney will get word to his wife that he had at least a flirtation, maybe more, with a night club cigarette girl(Barbara Nichols) who is an old friend(at least)of Sidney’s. The columnist get a sudden flash of honesty and in the presence of his wife admits what happened then tells Sidney where to get off. His wife comments that that’s the first decent thing she’s known him to do for a long time.

After that failure Sidney tries to pimp her to another small time writer with much the same idea. This works to the extent that the story is released, but it results in the whole quintet getting fired. JJ gets them back their job, but Sidney’s job of breaking up the lovers is still not accomplished.

Finally, getting desperate and after arguing with JJ. the latter hints that if he and Susan go to Europe as planned, Sidney will get to write his column while he’s away.-if he delivers. He also has a plan–he knows a crooked cop who will cooperate because JJ has some dirt on him and they can frame Steve. Sidney will slip some marijuana into his coat and he will be arrested, convicted and whatever else, ruined for Susan.

The plan works but goes awry and Susan eventually finds out about it. She is understandably horrified by what her brother and her friend Sidney tried to do to her. There follows an ending that would be melodramatic if it were not so genuinely dramatic and believable. I will not do a spoiler with or without alert on this, I’ll just tell you to see this movie(most libraries likely have it) and see what you think. If you appreciate film and the human mind and heart at all I think you’ll be fascinated and exhausted after watching it.

I have nothing else to say except that these are, as I indicated when I started this, both extremely, almost ruthlessly well-done movies. They both challenged what Americans at least believed they believed in the 1950’s(or, failing that at least pretended that they believed) They both displayed ambition and greed at their worst, but not without including a few decent characters along with the snakes. But the snakes, Lancaster and Curtis, are magnificent.

These movies got the attention of movie freaks and fanatics fairly early, I think. But at first they received little public attention, were not big money makers and were mostly cold shouldered by the films community for years. Incredibly, it seems now, they both went without ANY Oscar nominations. Elia Kazan won the Directors Guild of America’s award for directing “Face” and Tony Curtis won the BAMBI award, which I had never heard of to my recollection before today, for playing Sidney. (The BA,MBI award is worth looking up on the internet, but not worth further attention now except to say that the name and tre movie are a laughable match.)

Time has been kinder to these films. Both are now considered among the best of their type ever made. Some American(and other)directors of today would do well to watch them just to see how to do a movie. From the previews every time we go the the movies it looks more and more like a lost art. But see these two if you think they sound at all interesting. I think you’ll be fascinated by both.