MovieChat Forums > Double Indemnity (1944) Discussion > To those who complain about the dialogue...

To those who complain about the dialogue...

posted 17 years ago by Miro101
62 replies | jump to latest

Many modern (and younger--that is, under-thirty) viewers often complain about the dialogue in Double Indemnity, calling it "cheesy" or "unnatural." To make this criticism, however, is to ignore context and thus to miss the point.

Most dialogue in movies--particularly in movies made during the Hollywood Golden Age--is heightened and stylized. It's a convention. When we go to the movies, we usually expect the characters to talk in a way that distills the essence of human conversation. If movie talk exactly duplicated the way people talk, movies wouldn't be an art form. It's that simple.

Well, it's almost that simple. I know that the "hardboiled" narration and dialogue in Double Indemnity may strike modern viewers as REALLY sytlized--perphaps to a fault. But, of course, this hardboiled stylization (which includes the many, many times Neff calls Phyllis "Baby") is another convention--a convention of the pulp crime/detective fiction made popular by such writers as James M. Cain and Raymond Chandler, both of whose names are listed in the credits of Double Indemnity.

Movie conventions are defined as an agreement between filmmaker and viewer that certain rules--even patently phony ones, by certain standards of realism--will be accepted. (That's why, to invoke another genre, viewers accept Julie Andrews bursting into song on a mountaintop.)

The over-the-top tough talk and fancy, self-conscious figurative language in Double Indemnity are just part of the genre. Those who accept this fact will surely find the film even more enjoyable.

[–] Autlan 15 years ago

I like the writing fine. The delivery just isn't great. The babys aren't the problem, it's the feeling when MacMurray and Stanwyck are in the same room, that he can't wait to leave and she doesn't give a damn. It's enough to fling me out of the picture and I hate crawling back in. There's one part of dialog in particular, when Walter and Phyllis first meet, some spiel about the speed limit. They don't come up for air! It's too fast on both sides. There are several little moments like that scattered about the film, like a mine field.

[–] lubin-freddy 15 years ago

I love Chandler's style, and this film includes a line which, for me, sums up the entire noir genre. Neff, speaking into the recorder:

"I did it for the money, I did it for the woman. I didn't get the money. I didn't get the woman."

Chandler, in one of his novels (sorry if I forget which), wrote another of my favorite lines, which too, is a good summation of his literary genre:

"The streets were dark, with something more than night."

"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx

[–] Miro101 15 years ago

I love your examples, lubin-freddy. It's the self-conscious terse poetry of Chandler's language that is so fun. It isn't "realistic," but it isn't meant to be.

[–] nutsberryfarm 9 years ago

'it seemed like a nice neighborhood to have bad habits in.'

another classic like from him.



"Hipness is not a state of mind, it's a fact of life!" - Cannonball Adderley

[–] Towelie_Towel 15 years ago

I've seen several films from the beginning of the last century to 2009, and I have no problem in loving several "old B&W" movies. However, I did find this movie's dialogue unbearable.

[–] lubin-freddy 15 years ago

This is the curse of contemporary film, so far as the audience is concerned. We've been taught that films can, and must be "realistic". Of course, one must put the word in italics, because what we mean by "realism" is really another kind of illusion of reality. A film is a film is a film, sets are still sets, and actors reading dialog are still actors reading dialog.

When we see older films, people often complain that they're not "realistic", usually referring to the sets, acting styles, and dialog (not to mention use of black and white). But it's all just a matter of conventions. People in the "classic" era of Hollywood film had different expectations, and didn't expect what we now want from our films' dialog.

Wilder and Chandler both wrote wonderful prose, and if people didn't really speak like that, so what? I remember hearing someone say in class how in the gangsters in "The Sopranos" speak more "realistically" than in old gangster movies. Maybe. But the point is, who among us knows how gangsters speak (at least, those of us not from New Jersey)?

It's just another convention of film language.

The "curse" is that once used to a certain kind of convention, we're unable to connect to OTHER film conventions, and judge them within a narrow perspective.

"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx

[–] PillowRock 15 years ago

I remember hearing someone say in class how in the gangsters in "The Sopranos" speak more "realistically" than in old gangster movies. Maybe. But the point is, who among us knows how gangsters speak (at least, those of us not from New Jersey)?

The other thing about that is that slang and idiomatic expressions change over time.

A lot of times you see complaints that "nobody talks like that" aimed at older movies; and often the correct answer is "well, not now, but that *was* common usage in 1933 (or whatever year is appropriate)".

It's also true, of course (although some people don't seem to realize it), that it is OK for dialog to be smarter, more literate, more poetic than what you generally will hear on the street. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as "Shakespeare" (in the sense of his collected works).

[–] hoggy_warty_hogwarts 15 years ago

We've been taught that films can, and must be "realistic".

That is so true! It's actually a real problem when you recommend a 40s movie to somebody because most people aren't accustomed to the highly stylized world of film noir. They just CANNOT see past the (purposefully) unrealistic, and seemingly simplistic nature of most detective/gangster/noir films from the 30s and 40s.

What they fail to understand is that the fun and entertainment of those movies is largely due to their hyper-real atmosphere, especially in regards to dialogue and acting. Obviously, this was before the term "method acting" had even been invented, but great acting doesn't have to simulate reality the way method acting is meant to. The acting feels... trashy (in the best, most enticing sense of the word), yet alive and potent as all hell! Same thing goes for the dialogue.

One thing I absolutely love about movies from the 30s and 40s is that they almost always have perfectly structured screenplays (something most people don't seem to care about anymore) and never leave the audience behind. You're always right there with the characters. Audiences today seem to want to keep ahead of the movie rather than go along for the ride, so when they see a movie like this, they notice all the obvious things right away and (thinking they have it all figured out) complain that those things were too obvious. I think it's far more fun to trust the filmmaker(s) completely, and let yourself be manipulated by them, than to rush to figure everything out right away and then yawn/groan through the rest of the movie, but that's just me!

(Eric Clapton on Jimi Hendrix) "He just plays blues things and he freaks out occasionally."

[–] lubin-freddy 11 years ago

Audiences today seem to want to keep ahead of the movie rather than go along for the ride

How true.

Listen to the river sing sweet songs
to rock my soul

[–] bluestocking-7 15 years ago

Movie dialogue is edited speech.

There are a lot of movies that succeed without stylized dialogue but I prefer not to have the everyday, normal, "naturalized" dialogue in my favorite movies. And that's why I like Billy Wilder a lot.

I love everything about Double Indemnity from the dialogue to details like the names of the characters, the blonde wig and the costumes of Stanwyck to make her look tawdry, the matchstick gag between Neff and Keyes leading to a reversal in the final scene and Billy Wilder's decision not to put the gas chamber scene.

I wonder how those who don't like the dialogue here will feel about the "wise" motif in Bill Wilder's The Apartment.

Billy Wilder Page, Movies to See, Play the Smiley Game
www.screenwritingdialogue.com

[–] IloveMuggy 12 years ago

Double Indemnity is a wonderful movie in almost every way, very much including the dialogue. Yes it might sound cheesy and overly dramatic by today's standards, but for its time, the dialogue was perfect.

I could have done with fewer "Babys" by Fred MacMurray, and he certainly becomes smitten VERY fast (within one/two days, "I'm crazy about you, Baby!") but hey, that anklet was overpowering! LOL

[–] scottcom36 15 years ago

I don't talk that way and I don't know anyone who does. But when I watch this movie, I wish I did, on both counts.

[–] maryhartley 15 years ago

I completely agree. And it's not only about the dialogues, but also the way they talk, walk is completely different than reality. And this is why I prefer older classic films. When I watch a film I want something that would distract me from this awful reality, I don't want a dialogues which I can hear listening to my parents or neighbors. Nor the stupid ones reduced to a minimum.

[–] dizexpat 15 years ago

You know, in Shakespeare's time, people really didn't walk down the street talking in iambic pentameter.

The dialog in "Julius Caesar" is false because in Ancient Rome they didn't really speak English.

"By the way, don't touch the figs."

[–] Noir-It-All 14 years ago

Yes, Noirs are stylized all the way through. By the '40's, black and white photography and dialog was at their height. Contrast that with movies today portraying violence and sex in a way Noirs couldn't.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]