Film of the Book: In a Lonely Place

Directed by Nicholas Ray (1950)

From the review of the book by Dorothy B. Hughes:

Our narrator, Dix Steele, has moved from New Jersey to Los Angeles, where he plans to write a mystery novel. Or at least that’s what he told his uncle, who has grudgingly agreed to pay him a small allowance for a year while he tries his hand at writing. He tells the same tale to Brub Nicolai, a wartime buddy with whom he renews his friendship, and Brub’s new wife, Sylvia. But Dix has a dark secret – he likes to strangle young women. And Brub has a new career, as a police detective…

You can read the full book review by clicking here…

When doing a Film of the Book comparison, I normally comment on what stays the same and what changes have been made. Here that’s simpler than usual – here’s a comprehensive list of all the things in the movie that are true to the book:

1. The L.A. setting

2. A handful of the characters’ names

3. A strangling

And here’s what’s different:

1. Everything else!

Humphrey Bogart as Dix Steele

In the book, Dix is a loner, newly arrived in L.A. and with no circle of friends, who is pretending to write a mystery novel so his uncle will give him an allowance. In the film, Dix is a hugely successful screenwriter, a celebrity, and has a wide circle of friends, enemies and acquaintances, all in the movie business. In the book, he’s outwardly respectable and law-abiding. In the film, he has long had a violent streak and has a charge sheet of previous complaints against him as long as his arm. In the book, there has been a series of murders, none of whom have any apparent connection to Dix. In the film, there is only one, of a girl who works on the periphery of the film business and is known to Dix. There is nothing to connect movie Dix to book Dix other than his name and the fact that he was in the vicinity of a murder.

Gloria Grahame as Laurel

Then there’s Laurel. In my review of the book, I described her as “a beautiful dame, a sultry, sexy feline in female form. Is she a femme fatale? Or is she destined to be another victim? Is she a temptress, a loose woman, or a forerunner of the sexually liberated women about to hit the scene?” Well! In the film, she’s sweet, lovely, sensibly clad at all times, pure, loving and faithful, and positively refuses to be sultry – exactly the kind of girl you hope your son will bring home one day. There’s no pretence at all that she’s a femme fatale (though she is described as such in the movie’s advertising).

True love…

So really to compare the two is almost redundant. They have to be seen as entirely separate and judged accordingly. That doesn’t mean the film is bad, however – it’s excellent! But I did wonder why they had bothered to connect it to the book at all, given the massive changes they made. It can’t have been to attract an audience via the book’s popularity. No offence to the author, but Bogart’s star quality meant he was perfectly capable of filling seats all by himself. Did they start out meaning to stick to the book, and then drift away from it? There’s a bit in the film that struck me as amusing, when Dix’s agent is having a go at him for not sticking to the story of the book Dix is adapting for the screen, to which Dix replies that that was because the book was trash! I felt for poor Ms Hughes when she saw that bit for the first time!

Cuddling? Or strangling?

The film is more about the love affair between Dix and Laurel, and how the police’s suspicion of Dix’s involvement in the murder affects that. Bogart turns in a great performance, one of his best, I felt, and Gloria Grahame is excellent as Laurel, falling madly in love with Dix but gradually growing to fear him. In the book, which is told in the first person from inside Dix’s head, it’s clear from the beginning that Dix is a murderer, but the film leaves that in doubt till the end, using the more usual third person perspective of movies. By halfway through, when it became obvious just how much they’d changed it, I realised it wasn’t at all certain that Dix would turn out to be the murderer in the film! So the suspense doesn’t come from Dix’s increased paranoia, as it does in the book. Here, it’s more about Laurel’s fear, which might be justified or might be paranoid, and the viewer’s own uncertainty over Dix’s guilt or innocence. The book gives Dix a motivation for his behaviour – not one that entirely convinced me, but it was there nevertheless. The film suggests he has always been violent, but gets away with it due to his celebrity.

Robert Warwick’s drunk again!

There is an excellent supporting cast of actors none of whom were well known to me, but who may have been familiar faces to contemporary audiences. From my perspective, there wasn’t a weak performance among them. Stand-outs for me were Robert Warwick as an ageing ham actor, constantly drunk and spouting quotes from Shakespeare and the like; and a young Martha Stewart playing Mildred, the murder victim, as a starry-eyed ingenue bedazzled by celebrity and the glamour of the movie industry.

Martha Stewart as Mildred – the (first?) victim!

I also enjoyed the small role of Ruth Warren as Effie the maid, vacuum cleaner in one hand, cigarette in the other, who brings a touch of humour into the general darkness.

Ruth Warren as Effie the maid

While the book is a study of the mind of a killer and of paranoia, the film is more a study of the mores of the movie industry, and of legitimate fear. It certainly deserves its reputation as a noir classic, and I’m glad that reading the book led me to watch it, even if the connections between them don’t go far beyond the title.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

A reasonably easy decision this time – although both are recommended, the book is good while the film is great, so…

The Winner in the Book v Film Battle is…

THE FILM!

* * * * *