(no subject)
Apr. 4th, 2016 07:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
skygiantsI've been meaning to read Vera Caspary's 1940s crime novel Laura for years, as well as watch the noir movie that was based on it. Recently I have done both!
As in most noir, the murder in Laura is basically just the event that blows the lid off a roiling class-, gender-, and sexuality-based interpersonal mess. Laura is a successful advertising executive, in the 1940s (which, probably not coincidentally, was also the author's job). She's independent and intelligent and everybody who knows her thinks she is just the classiest lady they ever met -- including her charming Southern gentleman of a fiancee, who resents her tremendously for the fact that he's living off her money; her extremely queer-coded Famous Writer bff, who resents her tremendously for breaking up their long-term friendship in order to marry a loser like her fiancee; and the police officer investigating Laura, who after a long convalescence in hospital has just discovered Books and and Learning and is super excited to discover the existence of Nice Girls Who Read, Even If They Are Tragically Dead Before You Actually Meet Them.
Because, alas, Laura is tragically dead! Murdered! In her fancy apartment! The book is an epistolary narrative which is told by, sequentially, 1.) Waldo Lydecker, the queer-coded bff, who writes with great pretension about how he is obsessed with her; 2.) Mark McPherson, the police officer, who writes a matter-of-fact police report about how he is rapidly becoming obsessed with her; 3.) in a stunning move, Laura herself, who jumps in the middle with a rather stressed-out narrative along the lines of 'ummmmmmmm so everyone else in this book seem to be projecting a whole lot of crap onto me'! (And then Mark again for the heterosexual wrap-up.)
Laura's Big Twist, of course -- which I knew going in, and is part of the reason I want to see it -- is that midway through the story it turns out that, unlike 99 (but definitely not 100) percent of murdered women in noir, Laura is not actually dead. Moreover, unlike 99.9 (not 100, but maybe only by virtue of the existence of this film) percent of murdered women in noir, Laura is neither dead NOR evil!
...the actual murderer is Waldo, who accidentally murdered another woman while trying to murder Laura out of resentment at ... being obsessed with her but not straight enough to do anything about it, I think, is the subtext of what's happening there. So, I mean, the whole 1940s sad murderous gay psychological mess is exactly as much of a mess as you'd think.
All the same, there's a whole lot of really interesting stuff happening around the edges. In the book, Mark and Waldo spend the entire period of time until Laura makes her surprise entrance engaging a weird and fascinating quasi-courtship around Laura's absence; they invite each other out on dates to fancy restaurants and talk romantically about what Laura liked to do on date night. Both Waldo and Laura talk extensively about Mark and how he seems dreamy and romantic and non-cop-like -- which translates directly to the fact that Mark's got Class Aspirations, that he talks about the women he knows and grew up with, lower-class women who need to marry to survive, as 'dolls' and 'dames,' though strong independent Laura who doesn't need a man is in an entirely different category. All that said, Laura's still attracted to Mark because he seems to be about the only person around who's confident enough as a human being that he actually likes that she's intelligent and capable of supporting herself, as opposed to feeling sulky about it. It's not easy being a successful (& non-murderous) woman a.) in the 1940s and b.) in a noir novel.
The movie tones down a lot of this, especially the class issues (we don't get any of Mark's backstory about lying around in a hospital bed for months and discovering Classic Literature) and the queer subtext (not that I really miss Laura's speech about how Waldo's always going to be jealous of Mark because Mark's a MAN! and Waldo is just not a MAN! DO YOU GET IT YET) although, you know, Waldo still spends the entire first scene of the movie inviting Mark to interview him while he lounges naked in a bathtub with his typewriter, so it's not like they got rid of everything. In exchange, however, it delivers a set of incredibly charming actors to embody all the people that the book tells us are supposed to be super charming. Also, the scene where Laura's aunt -- Mrs. Danvers from Rebecca! -- is like 'Laura, you know and I know you don't want to marry your handsome impoverished boytoy, because he's a lying parasite, but he is also incredibly hot, so just hand him over to me and let me support him in the style to which he has become accustomed while you run off with your police officer and it'll all work out fine!' is. Sheer gold.
As in most noir, the murder in Laura is basically just the event that blows the lid off a roiling class-, gender-, and sexuality-based interpersonal mess. Laura is a successful advertising executive, in the 1940s (which, probably not coincidentally, was also the author's job). She's independent and intelligent and everybody who knows her thinks she is just the classiest lady they ever met -- including her charming Southern gentleman of a fiancee, who resents her tremendously for the fact that he's living off her money; her extremely queer-coded Famous Writer bff, who resents her tremendously for breaking up their long-term friendship in order to marry a loser like her fiancee; and the police officer investigating Laura, who after a long convalescence in hospital has just discovered Books and and Learning and is super excited to discover the existence of Nice Girls Who Read, Even If They Are Tragically Dead Before You Actually Meet Them.
Because, alas, Laura is tragically dead! Murdered! In her fancy apartment! The book is an epistolary narrative which is told by, sequentially, 1.) Waldo Lydecker, the queer-coded bff, who writes with great pretension about how he is obsessed with her; 2.) Mark McPherson, the police officer, who writes a matter-of-fact police report about how he is rapidly becoming obsessed with her; 3.) in a stunning move, Laura herself, who jumps in the middle with a rather stressed-out narrative along the lines of 'ummmmmmmm so everyone else in this book seem to be projecting a whole lot of crap onto me'! (And then Mark again for the heterosexual wrap-up.)
Laura's Big Twist, of course -- which I knew going in, and is part of the reason I want to see it -- is that midway through the story it turns out that, unlike 99 (but definitely not 100) percent of murdered women in noir, Laura is not actually dead. Moreover, unlike 99.9 (not 100, but maybe only by virtue of the existence of this film) percent of murdered women in noir, Laura is neither dead NOR evil!
...the actual murderer is Waldo, who accidentally murdered another woman while trying to murder Laura out of resentment at ... being obsessed with her but not straight enough to do anything about it, I think, is the subtext of what's happening there. So, I mean, the whole 1940s sad murderous gay psychological mess is exactly as much of a mess as you'd think.
All the same, there's a whole lot of really interesting stuff happening around the edges. In the book, Mark and Waldo spend the entire period of time until Laura makes her surprise entrance engaging a weird and fascinating quasi-courtship around Laura's absence; they invite each other out on dates to fancy restaurants and talk romantically about what Laura liked to do on date night. Both Waldo and Laura talk extensively about Mark and how he seems dreamy and romantic and non-cop-like -- which translates directly to the fact that Mark's got Class Aspirations, that he talks about the women he knows and grew up with, lower-class women who need to marry to survive, as 'dolls' and 'dames,' though strong independent Laura who doesn't need a man is in an entirely different category. All that said, Laura's still attracted to Mark because he seems to be about the only person around who's confident enough as a human being that he actually likes that she's intelligent and capable of supporting herself, as opposed to feeling sulky about it. It's not easy being a successful (& non-murderous) woman a.) in the 1940s and b.) in a noir novel.
The movie tones down a lot of this, especially the class issues (we don't get any of Mark's backstory about lying around in a hospital bed for months and discovering Classic Literature) and the queer subtext (not that I really miss Laura's speech about how Waldo's always going to be jealous of Mark because Mark's a MAN! and Waldo is just not a MAN! DO YOU GET IT YET) although, you know, Waldo still spends the entire first scene of the movie inviting Mark to interview him while he lounges naked in a bathtub with his typewriter, so it's not like they got rid of everything. In exchange, however, it delivers a set of incredibly charming actors to embody all the people that the book tells us are supposed to be super charming. Also, the scene where Laura's aunt -- Mrs. Danvers from Rebecca! -- is like 'Laura, you know and I know you don't want to marry your handsome impoverished boytoy, because he's a lying parasite, but he is also incredibly hot, so just hand him over to me and let me support him in the style to which he has become accustomed while you run off with your police officer and it'll all work out fine!' is. Sheer gold.
no subject
Date: 2016-04-05 01:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-04-05 01:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-04-05 04:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-04-05 04:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-04-05 04:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-04-05 12:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-04-05 09:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-04-06 12:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-04-07 12:08 pm (UTC)(Waldo is also more of a stalker/more obviously controlling in the movie than the book, where it's just as true but comes out in subtler ways. And the murder is originally an intended murder-suicide, rather than a straight-up murder, which obviously doesn't make it better but changes the implications a little.)
no subject
Date: 2016-04-07 12:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-04-07 12:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-04-08 08:50 am (UTC)