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.

[–] Peter1982 14 years ago

I just saw the film and loved it. I agree with the original poster. I read the entire thread and am glad others agree too.

I have no problems with the dialog. Yea, maybe some of the lines were "cheesy", but some where also pretty good/funny.

"Now I suppose you're going to give me the big speech. The one with all the two dollar words."

And don't tell me you've never said something cheesy to hit on someone. We all have. Besides times change, maybe some people did talk like that. I don't know.

I think part of the problem is if a movie doesn't have explosions, violence and sex in it, a lot of younger people will refuse to see it. I don't blame them though. I blame the industry it self for putting out these cheap "blockbusters", just to "make a buck".

Another thing is that in films "back then", maybe especially film-noir, the story line ran a lot slower. It is harder for our younger generation to pay attention to a slower story, do to today's movies, and life in general.

I'm glad Netflix is around so people have a better chance to find out about these films. I know I would have been a lot less likely to see these.

[–] franzkabuki 14 years ago

MacMurray´s delivery (as well as his acting in general) in DI was kinda mechanical and wooden at times - and some of the dialogue itself was also a bit on the overly cutesy side. Overall, it doesn´t quite reach the glorious heights of the likes of Out Of The Past, for instance.

But yeah sure, when written well, the hard-boiled dialogue could indeed be sweet stuff to the ears. DI gets it mostly right.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] eden_echo 14 years ago

I never minded when any actor then called a woman "baby" in any movie, maybe it's just me, it's still used today.

I love the double entendres!

Pleasure's a sin, and sometimes sin's a pleasure.

[–] kennethri 14 years ago

My criticism of the dialogue is that it's dated and thus appears at times to be campy. In the context of a 1940's movie set in the 1930's, I forgive the dialogue because the film has so much more to offer.

[–] beauedson 13 years ago

"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."

this statement is partially false. james m. cain's dialog - and the entirety of his prose - is not even remotely 'stylized'. it is bare bones. chandler's is 'stylized', and the screenplay for double indemnity bears his imprint. but it sounds literally nothing like james m. cain's double indemnity, the book. the word "baby" itself appears exactly once in the book.

[–] Miro101 13 years ago

James M. Cain's "hard-boiled" prose (read: obstreperously and self-consciously lean, spare, "muscular") is itself a kind of stylization. It's true that, in the film adaptation, Chandler did some of his own embroidery. But it can surely be argued that both Cain and Chandler are stylized. Language stripped to the "bare bones" calls attention to itself as "bare bones" and is no longer realistic.

[–] beauedson 13 years ago

right, which is why i put the word 'stylized' in quotes/apostrophes. it is so vague it can mean almost anything. the point of the post: chandler and cain have dissimilar prose, the movie, though based on a cain novel, sounds literally nothing like the novel it is based on or like cain's other novels, and the dialog in the movie does sound like chandler's dialog.

[–] Miro101 13 years ago

Point well taken, beauedson.

[–] out-of-towner 13 years ago

I loved the writing in Double Indemnity:

"How could I have known that murder can sometimes smell like honeysuckle."

"I couldn't hear my own footsteps. It was the walk of a dead man."

It may sound cheesy to some, but I think it's brilliant. Thats why I love classic movies. They carry you back to another place and time where you can forget about 12% unemployment and $4.00 gasoline.

Speaking of cheesy, how about the overuse of slow motion photography in many newer movies. I just watched The Patriot and almost every battle scene was shot in slow motion. It got slower and slower as the movie went along. I finally couldn't take it anymore and had to turn it off. In real life, violence often happens unexpectedly and in the blink of an eye, not in slo-mo. I'm not sure which film was the first to use this technique. Maybe it was Bonnie and Clyde, but at least they had sense enough to save it for the climax and not use it throughout the entire film.

[–] Miro101 13 years ago

I agree with your point about the overuse of slow motion, out-of-towner. And, at least in "Bonnie and Clyde," the slow-motion "dance of death," taken from many angles, is lyrical and aesthetically justified. Today, it's often used as a reflex.

[–] PillowRock 13 years ago

slo-mo. I'm not sure which film was the first to use this technique.

The first use of slow motion in an "action" sequence that I know of off hand is in Seven Samurai.

Well, that's assuming that we are only talking about individual human scale violence. If you define "action sequence" more broadly, the technique of over-cranking the camera while filming scale models so that they will appear more believably BIG when projected at normal speed (for such things as a dam bursting) has been around since the silent era.

When slow motion "action" is used sufficiently selectively, and sparingly, it can be a very effective technique. It tends to lend a very "character's subjective point of view" quality to the shot. If you've ever experienced one of those everything-seemed-to-be-happening-in-slow-motion events, you'll know what I mean. One example for me was the time (back when I was in high school) when I was skiing a mogul run and planted a ski poll between the tips of my skis. I know that it was only about a half second later that I impacted the ground from that spinning flip fall; but I swear that it felt like I spent about a minute and a half looking at that planted poll tip and thinking "Oh, this is going to be *very* bad."

[–] agera 13 years ago

If movie-goers don't like the dialogue, why don't they watch the movie with the sound off?

"The night was sultry."

[–] mjz688 12 years ago

I realize that I'm late to this party, but that's one reason the Internet is so great. Even four-year-old conversations live on!

Anyway, my two cents on the dialog. I'm 56, so I wasn't around in the 1930s and 1940s. But I've seen a lot of movies from that era, and my impression is that the dialog in DI, while certainly stylized somewhat, is realistic in many respects -- even in some scenes that make younger viewers groan.

For example, the interplay between Neff and Phyllis the first time they meet -- the "speed limit" gag -- is representative of a type of "hip" patter that was popular back then, particularly in a boy-girl, pickup-type of situation. The "partners" would trade ever-escalating wisecracks until one of them (usually the man) would cross the line and break the string -- as when Phyllis says "Why don't you try crying on my husband's shoulder?" and Neff replies "That tears it," meaning the repartee has reached it's limit.

Think of "See you later, alligator"/"after while, crocodile." That kind of rhyming slang, while incredibly dated today, was actually widely used in the US during the 30s and/or 40s. In other words, while dialog in old b&w-era films is definitely unrealistic in some ways -- most obviously, no swearing -- that doesn't mean that it doesn't capture the flavor of how people actually talked back then (70-80 years ago!)

My rating for DI: 10/10.

[–] swlabr 9 years ago

You nailed it. Loved the dialogue. Even the "baby's" didn't bother me. Best noir ever made.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zuider_Zee 12 years ago

With a movie like this, I find it best to not over analyze. I see it as a product of it's time and simply enjoy it. I could over analyze "The Sound of Music" and wonder why Julie Andrews bursts into song on the top of a mountain (along with an unseen orchestra) but I prefer to simply let it entertain me.

[–] IloveMuggy 12 years ago

Well, I think Julie Andrews does that because The Sound of Music is uh, a musical.
;)