Terrific, boozy, moody film from the brilliant Vincente Minnelli. My only complaint is that it is a FIFTIES movie in style, clothing, cars, and mood. Don't believe for a second that it's supposed to be 1948! Lol! '50s greasers abound, along with '50s hairdos and cars.
Same thing with "Double Indemnity." It is in every way, shape and form a FORTIES film - hair, clothes, mood. Yet it's supposed to be 1938.
Very rarely do filmmakers of any age get this right when there's only a five-to-ten year difference. Unless a film is made 25 years or more beyond its setting do producers seem to put in the effort to set the mood and sytles correctly.
I thought the film was set in the 50's. Besides how much difference can there be between 1948 and the early to mid-50's?
As for how accurate it is, I can't tell...since I wasn't born then and not there. But I do know that it's a film about the 50's. A critique of the conservative society America had fallen into.
People dissapear every day...Every time you leave the room - The Passenger
The novel is set in 1947, the movie (inexplicably) a year later in 1948.
Part of the mystery and curiosity of the novel (and film) is Dave Hirsh's return to his old hometown, still in uniform, two (or three) years after the end of the war (where's he been? what's he been doing? why has he come back?).
I guess it was difficult to make sure only 1948 and earlier cars showed up in the background while filming on location in a real town.
I thought that Double Indemnity WAS set in the year it was made (1944) even though the novel was from 1939, since the year had no particular bearing on the plot, unlike in Some Came Running.
I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die
If he really was out of the service for a couple of years, that really is a screwup. After the war, soldiers came home in uniform, usually, and it was common for them to wear it for a short period of time ... usually days or a week, maybe, while they went around and saw their friends & family, etc. Generally, though, a G.I. could hardly wait to take off the uniform and get into a pair of jeans or slacks, after years of wearing either battle fatigues or a set of khakis. No more shining boots or brass ... wow !
Technically, I think the regulations said it was OK to wear the uniform home, and for a "short period" while getting settled and attending welcome-home celebrations and such -- and the rules are pretty much the same now (or at least when I was in the Army from '64 to '85).
The real difficulty with cars in a 1948 period is that there was a huge gap in car manufacturing from 1941 to '45 because all production was strictly for military vehicles -- tanks, trucks, planes & (I think) a very limited number of military staff cars. I think the first year they actually made new U.S. model cars for civilian production was 1946. New cars sold like mad after that, so it would be difficult to come up with the real mix of "proper" cars on the street for 1948: lots of 46 & 47 models, brand new, and a goodly number of pre-1941 vehicles. Since these weren't considered "classics," you couldn't just call up the local car collectors like they do now.
Still a great movie, but I'm surprised they let that uniform glitch sneak through.
I don't know about the novel, but I don't think the film says whether he was a draftee or regular Army. Maybe he served in the Occupation forces and decided not to re-up.
It would have been easy to have only had 1948 or earlier cars in the background, and would have cost nothing. The movie was made only a decade later, so there were still thousands of them around. The film makers didn't do it because they just didn't care.