In the long run, it is my goal to have the structure of the Debrief change so that it becomes more of a conversation, more of a debate. I want to be able to walk away from each Debrief with a new perspective on a film because of an insightful discussion with our Debonair readers. Your input is critical for both of our educations in cinema. But, for that, you as the reader have to seek out a variety of films to watch on your own time, following your own curiousity. But to seek out something aside from what’s currently hot in the theatres might seem a bit daunting. We don’t all have the time to leaf through film festival programs, or watch through an entire director’s oeuvre in a week. This is where the Criterion Collection steps in.

I’m a bit of a homer for Criterion; ask my girlfriend, or my family around the gift-giving holidays. They are a well-respected company with honourable aspirations – to re-master and re-release old classics and contemporary films that are noteworthy in the history of cinema. Now the art of the library might be fading with online streaming and (sshhhh) torrents, but there is something about owning a collection that makes an enthusiast proud. The library itself becomes a point of discussion. And Criterion’s packaging is top notch. The quality of the video and audio speak for themselves, but the booklet of essays on each film is another reason to actually spend money on a hard copy of the medium we all love. The Criterion Collection is quite extensive, and growing every month, at over 600 films, including all their subsidiary collections. But the joy in it is that each film stands perfectly on its own. You don’t have to start at spine #1, and the collection isn’t in any kind of chronological order. Just pick one that sparks your interest, dim the lights, and feast on the spectacle. Criterion releases their soon-to-be-released titles on the 15th of every month. So when I post Debrief XII a few days down the road, make sure to also check Criterion’s twitter feed for their June title releases.

One of my first exposures to Criterion, a few years ago, was through their masterful box set for both the 1946 and 1964 versions of The Killers, adapted from Ernest Hemingway’s short story (Spine #176). Among some of the bonus features, Criterion gives us Andrei Tarkovsky’s first film; a short film version of The Killers shot while he was at film school (Russia’s State Institute of Cinematography) in 1956. I had watched Robert Siodmak’s film, the 1946 version, and I was resolved to continue my journey into Criterion. Today’s Debrief is on The Killers because not only do I want you to watch this amazing film but because I challenge you to find another Criterion title of interest to you.

Siodmak’s The Killers is a film noir about an insurance investigator, Reardon (Edmond O’Brien), who attempts to track down a man’s killers. Ole ‘The Swede’ (Burt Lancaster) is gunned down by two professional killers in the iconic opening sequence. The Swede had a life insurance policy and the film tells of Reardon picking up the trails of a sticky situation when he has a hunch about why Ole was filled with lead. Through a series of flashbacks, the audience learns of Ole’s past and how he wound up a target. Ava Gardner stars in her first big role as Ole’s love interest, Kitty Collins.

For the cinematically uninitiated, film noir was spawned in the cynicism of post war America. Most of the genre is based around the private eye and criminal fiction. Most noticeably, the genre is defined by the high-contrast chiaroscuro lighting (think long shadows and clever use of venetian blinds) and the hopeless and paranoid morality. The world is hard and corrupt and the psyche of the everyman mirrors that. Directors have continued to recreate noirs throughout the decades and, as such, the tropes of the genre have been parodied and paid homage to dozens of times. In fact, if you sit down to watch a noir that you’ve never seen before, I would argue that the extent of cultural reference and parody will lead to a sense of déjà vu. Odds are, there are scenes so engrained in our visual culture, that you’ve actually seen the film (or at least portions of it) through some kind of cultural osmosis. This is, obviously and certainly, not limited to noirs, but I think it is specifically true of The Killers.

Another key aspect to the noir is the use of the femme fatale. What is appeal of the devious, double crossing, manipulative woman? I had female professors who swore that the femme fatale was the playing out of man’s worst fear – the “castrating woman.” But, today’s Debrief is not a forum for debate on feminist film theory. I think at least part of film’s interest in the femme fatale is a respect, if not awe, of the wicked constrast of a stunningly beautiful woman who is capable of a cold and calculated scheme. We fall instantly for her body, but we become obsessed because of our respect for her as a pure tactician.

The Killers is an effective narrative because it makes strong use of the flashback. While this is nothing new for film audiences today, it was a strategy in its infancy (adolescence?) in the mid-40s. My discussions with other people have taught me that flashback use can be disorienting and thus a turn-off. If you are the type of person who finds it difficult to piece together a narrative when it’s not told in linear fashion, this is the perfect excuse to watch the film a second time. When you know what to expect, it can help you organize all the subtle hints and fulfill a more thorough understanding of the film.  It is OK to be confused while watching a movie. Sometimes that’s a very intentional attempt by the director and editor. But I know enough people who are entirely thrown for a loop when shown non-linear films that I now sympathize with people who get frustrated with this narrative structure. And even if you are comfortable with non-linear structure, a second viewing is (as always) sure to reveal a new level of beauty.