Filed under: Cinematic Revival

The First Time Watching ‘The Third Man’

Fantastic cinematography, a great performance from Welles, but Brad isn't completely satisfied

Photo: Criterion Collection

It’s been a while since I turned in a Cinematic Revival piece and that is primarily due to the fact that I found another way to discuss Tarsem Singh’s The Cell (see article here) and after watching Martin Scorsese’s Mean Streets I really didn’t have anything to say, it didn’t interest me one way or another even though I certainly didn’t hate it. Harvey Keitel is the best I have ever seen him in that film. I haven’t seen a lot of Harvey’s earlier pictures outside of Taxi Driver, and come to think of it, I haven’t seen any of Harvey’s work prior to Thelma and Louise except for Taxi Driver and Mean Streets. Perhaps that is something I should remedy considering young Keitel is certainly better than old Keitel, much like his Mean Streets co-star Robert De Niro, who turns in a good performance in the film as well. For some reason, the picture just didn’t interest me and this paragraph is really all I care to discuss about it, unless you want me to go into the idea for a kick ass sequel taking place 35 years later… Nah…

While those films didn’t make it into the esteemed collection that is the RopeofSilicon.com Cinematic Revival one film is certainly worthy, and that is Carol Reed’s The Third Man from 1949 starring Joseph Cotten, Trevor Howard, Alida Valli and Orson Welles. I had this film in my queue already, but it was a comment our very own David Frank made to me (I think it was in an email) saying how this film was one of his favorites. Respecting David’s opinion on movies, even though he likes the Star Wars prequels, I bumped it up and gave it a watch.

Joseph Cotten as Holly Martins
Photo: Criterion Collection

The Third Man follows American writer Holly Martins (Cotten) as he arrives in war-torn Vienna at the request of his college buddy Harry Lime (Welles), who says he has a job for him. Unfortunately, upon Martins’ arrival he learns that Lime has been struck by a car and killed; his funeral is underway just down the street. Equipped with shady details, in touch with the unsympathetic British police officer Calloway (Howard) and equipped with a rather ignorant view of the world, Martins turns the investigation of his friend’s death into one of his cheap dime store novels and goes all “Murder She Wrote” in the streets of Vienna. At one point in the film Martins even describes his relationship with Lime to which Calloway replies, “That sounds like a cheap novelette.”

“Well, I write cheap novelettes,” is his reply.

The beauty in this story is Anna played by Alida Valli. Saved by Lime by forging her papers she will always be in love with the character we soon learn has been watering down penicillin. Anna doesn’t care, but considering the state of society in postwar Vienna the effect of Lime’s actions are felt immediately, but it remains one of my sore points on the film, but more on that in a bit.

During his “investigation” Martins soon learns about a supposed “third man” at the scene of Lime’s death. This was not in the original police report and he runs with it as any amateur sleuth would. Respect is not something you would associate with Martins, as he is used at every turn and simply a means to an end for all involved. It’s actually a very interesting dynamic considering Calloway wasn’t interested in finding out any more about Lime’s death. To Calloway, Lime was a bad man and his death was for the best. Who cared how it happened? However, even though he urged Martins to go home, he was never unwilling to take any information Martins offered in conjunction with Lime. Sure, he sloughed it off the majority of the time, but when it proved to be legit he ran with it and wasn’t afraid to use Martins to his advantage even if it meant putting him in harm’s way.

Martins’ lust for the romantic side of things (getting the girl and to the bottom of the mystery) blinded him from the reality of his situation. His much loved friend Harry Lime was actually an ass, placing money above the lives of others and Anna wouldn’t ever love him no matter what he did for her. That second fact ultimately plays into this film being a tragedy rather than a mystery worthy of any real thrills.

Personally, I didn’t think this film was all that great, at least not in terms of story. The pacing is poor and there never seems to be much of a mystery to Lime’s death. The first 60 minutes are actually quite boring as Martins trounces around Vienna adding nothing of any real consequence that couldn’t have been solved in a few lines of dialogue. The worst of it, Lime isn’t really as evil as he is made out to be. At least not at first.

Remaining hidden for over an hour of the film’s 105 minute running time I would have liked this film much more if Lime’s death had not only been more believable, but if the life he led had actually been more wicked. Sure, the scene with all the kids dying due to Lime’s penicillin scam is a downer, but prior to Lime’s appearance on screen all we know is that Lime watered down what was already a depleted supply of penicillin to make some money. It isn’t until 20 minutes after we learn Lime is still alive that we find out what an evil man he really is. This makes the final 25 minutes of the film very good, but it does nothing for the first 60.

“Victims? Don’t be melodramatic. Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax - the only way you can save money nowadays.”
Photo: Criterion Collection

Welles reads his much talked about mid-film speech as he and Martins spin high above the ground on a Ferris wheel, referring to the people below (enhanced by the long shadows they cast) as “little dots.” Lime asks Martins how many “dots” he would stop if he were to get £20,000 per? (”Free of income tax, the only way you can save money nowadays”) It’s a vicious question and we learn the true nature of the beast that is Harry Lime in this scene. I only wish we had learned it earlier so when he first appears in that darkened doorway it would have felt like seeing the devil himself for the first time rather than like seeing simple a huckster that has been bilking the sick out of their precious penicillin.

This speech, however, leads us into the true nature of this film and gets us to the good stuff.

Once I finished watching the film I shot David a text:

Me: Didn’t you say The Third Man was one of your favorites?

David [a man of many words]: Yep

Me: Any specific reasons, or just overall?

David: Overall, but especially cinematography and Orson “Muthafuckin’” Welles!

I don’t agree with the “Overall”, but he hits it on the head with the cinematography and the Orson Welles part. Welles is fantastic as Lime. He’s menacing and Welles’s nonchalant and cavalier attitude gives Lime that much more of a presence. I would say, had Noel Coward been cast as Lime, which is what producer David O. Selznick wanted, I am not sure I would have liked this film in the slightest. Welles’s performance is certainly unique and while Coward may have been able to bring his own menace to the role, I don’t think it would have been the same.

Photo: Criterion Collection

After Welles, it’s the cinematography, and this is something that dominates the entire feature. Peter Bogdanovich has an introduction on the Criterion Collection version of the film and when he says one of the great things about the film is its “extraordinary black and white photography, you can feel the wetness in the stones of Vienna,” he couldn’t have said it any better. Just look at that picture above and get a sense of how fantastic the photography in this film is. The darkness that surrounds the scene and silhouettes the figure in the frame. The bright light bouncing off the wet stones of the sewers of Vienna during the film’s final chase scene. It really is beautiful and plenty more examples can be found using the gallery attached to the bottom of this article. Be sure to especially check out the eleventh image (teased just below) as Lime is caught in the light of his pursuers. An iconic image if there ever was one.

Photo: Criterion Collection

Even though I didn’t exactly care for this film on a whole, it is a lot like other classics in that there certainly are things to take away from it and remember. A film like The Third Man is better than 99% of the films that we see in theaters nowadays, and I actually think, in the right hands, this is a film that could be remade today. Of course the postwar angle plays a very large role in the motivation of the story for the filmmakers in the case of this film, but it wouldn’t have to in a remake if the right angle was approached when it came to the wrong-doings Lime was involved in. The one question I think would be interesting to see the answer to was posed by Roger Ebert in his look back at this film 12 years ago:

“Do you think Anna will cave in to Holly–or will she remain true to her bitter cynicism and unspeakable knowledge?”

The Third Man ends on such a downer note you would assume if this film were to be remade inside the studio system the few items that make this story tragic, and were the actual best parts, would be absolutely trashed. It would be as Roger Ebert describes it if Selznick had made the film the way he wanted to, “forgotten in a week.” However, if they increased the audience’s awareness of what a villain Lime is before he is revealed to be alive, and kept Anna faithful to the criminal despite what she knows about him, it would make for a great return to classic cinema as long as some idiot producer doesn’t think Brett Ratner or John Moore is the one to direct it.

Click Here to add an
Avatar to Your Account
Post #1
Gravatar

That may be the 1st time i’ve ever read something on the The Third Man with no mention of the score :) Thoughts?

- davidfrank
( June 16th, 2008 | 10:11 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #2
Gravatar

Never loved this movie either, but I watch it from time to time and yeah the score is - of course - great.

- andre
( June 16th, 2008 | 11:19 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #3
Gravatar

davidfrank said: That may be the 1st time i’ve ever read something on the The Third Man with no mention of the score :) Thoughts?

Yeah, I know how everyone thinks it is so much fun and lively and cool to say zither, but if I was going to say anything it would have only been to say that other people have mentioned it. It didn’t move me one way or the other so I just dismissed it.

I don’t really see the big deal.

- bradbrevet
( June 16th, 2008 | 12:26 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #4
Gravatar

I’m not too attached to the score either. It’s good, but I would’ve preferred something a bit darker.

I think we need to address the lukewarm reaction to Mean Streets. I pretty much felt the same way the first time I saw it, but it gets so much better upon repeat viewings and is now one of my all-time favorites.

- domenic padulo
( June 17th, 2008 | 12:28 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #5
Gravatar

domenic padulo said: I think we need to address the lukewarm reaction to Mean Streets. I pretty much felt the same way the first time I saw it, but it gets so much better upon repeat viewings and is now one of my all-time favorites.

Strangely enough, I watched that one based on your enthusiasm for it and I have Bottle Rocket on my coffee table right now because of you as well. I think you nailed my impression of it though, "lukewarm." I liked it more than most films, but just didn’t love it. Unfortunately, I am not anticipating any repeat viewings either. :(

- bradbrevet
( June 17th, 2008 | 12:39 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #6
Gravatar

During the beta testing of that whole "favorite movie" thing you have coming soon, THE THIRD MAN ended up being #21 out of 1,733 films I managed to rate out of your database (yes, I have no life and I am far too obsessive-compulsive, I know). The honest truth is that, had I not had the distinct pleasure to see this film in a movie theater about a decade back I seriously doubt it would ever have ranked quite so high.

The first time I saw the film I liked it fine (the cinematography, Welles’ titanic performance, the deliriously perfect Zither score), but it didn’t rock my world. Then I saw it in a theater in a deluxe restored anniversary release and it absolutely blew my mind. The film swept over me, all of its subtle nuances and delicate minutae hitting me like they never had before. From Graham Greene’s brilliant adapation (of his own book) to Carol Reed’s carefully assured direction I fell completely and totally in love. I went back and watched it three more times, the film becoming one of those seminal viewing experiences I’ll remember for the rest of my life.

I guess what I’m saying is this - I get what you’re saying. The movie has an odd ebb adn flow to it that can be a little bit unorthodox and, at times, trying. It takes its time to get to the big reveals. It keeps its cards pressed firmly to the vest, sometimes almsot annoyingly so. Yet it does all this for distinct reasons, that frustration the viewers part almost identical to the growing aggravations on Holly Martins’ (so superbly played by an eternally underrated Joseph Cotton) part. This is a picture that demands repeat viewings and almost cries to be seen in the confines of a movie theater. I suggest you give it another chance. You might be surprised what you end up discovering.

- SaraMichelle
( June 17th, 2008 | 2:16 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #7
Gravatar

bradbrevet said: Strangely enough, I watched that one based on your enthusiasm for it and I have Bottle Rocket on my coffee table right now because of you as well. I think you nailed my impression of it though, "lukewarm." I liked it more than most films, but just didn’t love it. Unfortunately, I am not anticipating any repeat viewings either. :(

Oh well… I still feel flattered ;)

- domenic padulo
( June 18th, 2008 | 9:40 am )
Reply to this comment
Leave Your Feedback
(required)
(will not be shown) (required)
ADVERTISEMENT
Who's the real dummy?
It's based on the comic, not the movie, as if that makes a difference
Kids will like the pretty colors, but this movie offers little to keep the attention of thinking audiences
I wonder if the main characters are even in this flick
How much will Twilight make? Under $70m.
You've seen digital snaps, here are the real things
You all are going to love this movie
Yet, he may be just the man for the job
This is a wait and see scenario
This one's strictly for the fans
ADVERTISEMENT
Damn, that stop-motion animation is impressive
From Best Picture to Original Screenplay...
Another look at the same question with a different approach
Looking for meaning in a fanboy world
HUGE update today... One guess at what Eastwood's next is rated...
This film is going to be a bust or a blast
Creator of 'The O.C.' and 'Gossip Girl' gets mutant gig
'Narnia' scribes pull duty on 'The First Avenger'
The original wasn't even all that good
Mickey is easily the front-runner and some more early Oz reviews arrive
Will Cruise ever step out of the shadow he created for himself?
Sounds like its a winner... for the most part
You ever think they are just trying to piss the guy off?
'WALL-E' and 'Tropic Thunder'... a pair of must buys!
Definitely the best new film release of 2008 on home video