Criss Cross (1949)

criss crossSteve Thompson (Burt Lancaster) returns to his home town ostensibly to reconnect with his family, but it’s really just an excuse to revisit his old haunts in an attempt to reconnect with his ex-wife, Anna (Yvonne De Carlo), and inevitably she appears in one of the old clubs they used to frequent. He finds her dancing a sultry rhumba (with an astonishingly young Tony Curtis, no less) that only confirms her credentials as the target of his desire, and when he then discovers she is dating crime-boss Slim Dundee (Dan Duryea) it’s clear his frustrated desires will only further cloud his reason. Refusing to accept advice when all his friends and family try to warn him away from her, Steve seems to have forgotten why they divorced in the first place. Having failed to start afresh someplace else he has returned unable to accept that she’s all wrong for him. He’s a typical noir ‘hero’, doomed from the start and we’re here just to witness his ruin.

Anna, meanwhile, seems to see in Steve fresh opportunity and when she subsequently marries Slim, it seems clear that she perhaps provoked Slim into proposing once he learned that her ex was back on the scene and interested in her again. Steve of course never knows when he’s beaten, and a crime caper unfolds through which he thinks he can finally win Anna back. 

Robert Siodmak’s Criss Cross was a reteaming of the director with actor Burt Lancaster, having both worked together a few years earlier in The Killers (1946), a film widely considered one of the finest film noir ever made, and which I first saw just a few weeks back. That earlier film benefited from a fascinating premise spinning from an Ernest Hemingway short story, a great cast including Lancaster, Ava Gardner and Edmond O’Brien, and was a visual feast of moody expressionistic lighting that would pretty much define film noir. Criss Cross lacks the startling premise of The Killers, and also its cast, and to be honest, is nowhere near as impressive visually- and yet for me it works so well, as a work of cold precision film-making, that it ranks up there with The Killers and in some ways surpasses it.

While Lancaster and Criss Cross co-star/romantic interest Yvonne De Carlo lack the intense chemistry that Lancaster shared with the smouldering Gardner, I actually found that to be one of this films strengths, as its clear throughout that while Lancaster’s character Steve Thompson is smitten by his ex-wife Anna, unable to move on after their divorce, Anna has clearly moved on and is only using Steve for her own gains. The lack of chemistry is part of the plot rather than a misstep of casting: it’s pretty much all one-way. Indeed its archetypical noir, Steve trapped by his doomed romantic yearnings in a web of fate he cannot escape and the ending is one of the bleakest things I have seen: the last shots (sic) as grim as anything I can remember. 

In my mind, Anna is working Slim and Steve against one another but some read the film as Anna less the cunning femme fatale and more an unwitting romantic fool like Steve, both of them haunted by the good times of their failed marriage and, stuck in unfulfilled lives, both unable to walk away from each other. I’m not so sure of that; maybe it is just that lack of intense chemistry but Anna always seems a bit more aloof- or maybe I’ve become just too suspicious of women in these noir (the prettier they are, the badder they are). I think I need to watch the film again and perhaps give Anna a little more credit. 

Criss Cross doesn’t look as moody and visually striking as The Killers but that just seems to demonstrate the almost relentless efficiency of Criss Cross. Its a more realistic, rather than as hyper-stylized a film than The Killers. Its comparatively routine, linear narrative is also to its benefit, as I found Lancaster’s character here more developed and convincing than the one he played in The Killers. We had to piece together that character from the Citizen Kane-like  recollections/flashbacks of others, but here it’s much easier to appreciate that Steve is a fool, and we can understand why- he just can’t get Anna from under his skin, his romantic need (or perhaps nostalgic yearning for something that possibly never really existed other than in his head) blinding him to his gradual doom. 

Again, that ending- my goodness, what a brutal, jaw-dropping conclusion, when the stunned realisation of what just happened dawns. They really don’t make films like they used to, but thank goodness they did, because Criss Cross is quite utterly brilliant.

Some connections-

Robert Siodmak of course previously made The Killers, and also The Dark Mirror.

Other than The Killers, Burt Lancaster also appeared in I Walk Alone and The Swimmer.

 

4 thoughts on “Criss Cross (1949)

  1. I love the movie – it makes a fine companion piece for The Killers and is at least as good and possibly better, not there’s really any need for us to set the two up in competition of course.
    I like the visuals of this. Maybe there isn’t the relentless moodiness of The Killers but Siodmak is endlessly inventive with his shot selection and does some terrific things with his setups.

    1. There’s that pretty amazing shot when the armoured truck leaves the basement garage and we see it go out the gates and then, looking through a panoramic window above the gates the truck goes up a ramp to the streets – it took me a moment to realise that was a process or projection shot matching the on-set through the gates to another shot entirely. There’s a level of ambition there that I find really endearing, like the one-take heist during The Killers. Siodmak really was something.

      What I find mystifying about so many noir is that they weren’t really a genre when they were being made. Nowadays, some young turk makes a noir, they’ll consciously add all sorts of noir lighting tropes but back then, these guys were just making b&w movies. They used the expressionism of German 1920s/1930s films to add mood and intensity but it wasn’t like ticking required boxes to be part of some ‘noir club’. Yet they all seem to fit together. I think its possibly the most interesting film genre there is, and part of the appeal is them being so politically incorrect and unlike the films that get made now. So many times while watching a noir, my wife will say to me “well, they couldn’t do THAT now” and I worry that cancel culture will remove some of the noir from circulation someday -thank goodness for my DVD and Blu-ray collection!

      1. I’m a big fan of Siodmak – he was pretty much on the money all through the 1940s.

        Yes, noir is of course a retrospective label applied only when critics became aware of a visual and thematic pattern when a a slew of movies were seen all together after the war. The fact that noir elements can be found in a whole range of genres at that time support the idea of it not being a genre in its own right, more a mood or sensibility.

  2. Pingback: The 2021 List: July – the ghost of 82

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s