Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: dave jenkins on April 12, 2012, 10:35:33 AM



Title: Pushover (1954)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 12, 2012, 10:35:33 AM
Pushover (1954) - A poor man's Double Indemnity. Fred MacMurray conspires with a larcenous Blonde to bump off her old man and split a large payday. Will this sap never learn? The slick b&w widescreen photography can't hide the fact that the whole film is shot on about 4 sets (and one backlot location). This movie doesn't have much, except for Kim Novak in her first credited appearance--but that's enough. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCTC-KWh2cE

(http://a.imageshack.us/img831/6562/cap386.png)
(http://a.imageshack.us/img834/9999/cap393.png)
(http://a.imageshack.us/img834/9114/cap394.png)
(http://a.imageshack.us/img834/6448/cap390.png)




Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 12, 2012, 10:37:30 AM
Pushover (cont.)
titoli, in an uncredited cameo, tries out his usual material:
(http://a.imageshack.us/img714/6645/cap398.png)

the usual tropes regarding narcissism and self-reflexivity are employed:
(http://a.imageshack.us/img261/1159/cap383.png)

That Vertigo Moment:
(http://a.imageshack.us/img217/808/cap404.png)



Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 12, 2012, 10:39:42 AM
Pushover (concluded):

(http://a.imageshack.us/img714/2936/cap389.png)
(http://a.imageshack.us/img714/9435/cap388.png)
(http://a.imageshack.us/img713/4238/cap391.png)
(http://a.imageshack.us/img713/4739/cap405.png)
(http://a.imageshack.us/img261/7700/cap407.png)

"He killed for money and a woman. He didn't get the money and he didn't get the woman."



Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: T.H. on April 14, 2012, 08:07:52 PM
I like Pushover. It's a solid mix of Rear Window and (obviously) Double Indemnity. It has a snappy pace, a nice look and Kim Novak.


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: Groggy on April 15, 2012, 07:10:31 AM
Pushover (cont.)
titoli, in an uncredited cameo, tries out his usual material:
(http://a.imageshack.us/img714/6645/cap398.png)

He's the arm on the left right?


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 16, 2012, 08:58:12 AM
He's the arm on the left right?
This is a case where a comma would really have saved this reader a lot of time.


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: Groggy on April 17, 2012, 05:55:34 PM
You sure it's worth the effort? :D


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on August 11, 2013, 09:26:38 AM
saw the movie, was decent, nothing special, I'd give it a 6.5/10

Yeah, Kim Novak is always good. I recently saw another of her early movies, 5 Against the House, with Guy Madison. That was a better movie. And she looks so young in these - it's amazing that she's only 4 years away from making Vertigo.


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on August 11, 2013, 09:28:18 AM
You sure it's worth the effort? :D

A doctor once walked into a patient's room and said, "The foot to be amputated is the left?" "Right," answers the patient.

That's one place it would have been worth the effort.


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 11, 2013, 11:18:58 AM
Yeah, Kim Novak is always good. I recently saw another of her early movies, 5 Against the House, with Guy Madison. That was a better movie. And she looks so young in these - it's amazing that she's only 4 years away from making Vertigo.
If you haven't seen Bell, Book, and Candle, you should give that a whirl.


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 20, 2013, 03:29:07 AM

Yeah, Kim Novak is always good.

I've changed my mind on Novak in the past 3 months. She has some real good performances and some not so good. Lately, I've been annoyed at the way she talks. In Vertigo, I loved her as Madeliene (where she has a different way of speaking.... and manner) but not as Judy, where she reverts to her normal diction. CJ once said Novak is very hit-or-miss, and I now agree.


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 20, 2013, 03:07:06 PM
I've changed my mind on Novak in the past 3 months. She has some real good performances and some not so good. Lately, I've been annoyed at the way she talks. In Vertigo, I loved her as Madeliene (where she has a different way of speaking.... and manner) but not as Judy, where she reverts to her normal diction. CJ once said Novak is very hit-or-miss, and I now agree.
"normal diction"? What do you mean? Are you saying that the way Judy talks is Novak's normal speaking voice? Or do you just mean the character's normal voice?

Obviously, the Madeleine voice is put on, but it's interesting that Novak uses it in other films (again, check out Bell, Book and Candle). This was probably the voice that Novak developed through her elocution classes or whatever as she was being groomed for stardom. I'm not sure if the Judy voice is also put on, but I'm pretty sure it is. The great thing about Novak's performance in Vertigo is that she not only looks like two different women, she actually sounds like two different women. That kind of care was not usually taken in films of that vintage which concerned characters with multiple identities/personalities. Bravo, Novak. Bravo, Hitchcock.


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on November 20, 2013, 04:39:37 PM
"normal diction"? What do you mean? Are you saying that the way Judy talks is Novak's normal speaking voice? Or do you just mean the character's normal voice?

Obviously, the Madeleine voice is put on, but it's interesting that Novak uses it in other films (again, check out Bell, Book and Candle). This was probably the voice that Novak developed through her elocution classes or whatever as she was being groomed for stardom. I'm not sure if the Judy voice is also put on, but I'm pretty sure it is. The great thing about Novak's performance in Vertigo is that she not only looks like two different women, she actually sounds like two different women. That kind of care was not usually taken in films of that vintage which concerned characters with multiple identities/personalities. Bravo, Novak. Bravo, Hitchcock.

I mean to say that the Judy voice is basically the normal way Novak talks. (it may be that she is making it a bit snottier, as the movie's way to distinguish even further between Madeleine and Judy. But that way of speaking is very close, if not 100% the normal way that Novak speaks, which often annoys me.) Heck, maybe that makes Vertigo even better the fact that Hitch made me actually love the "put on" version of a woman who in real life annoys me  ;)


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: titoli on August 29, 2014, 06:22:02 AM
I like Novak in this one. But the plot is overcomplicated and perfectly in accord with the Murphy's law. 5\10


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 26, 2017, 04:45:28 PM
Added youtube link to the full movie at the top of the thread.


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: Jessica Rabbit on February 26, 2017, 08:04:30 PM
I have a real soft spot for this movie. Pushover is B, maybe only C, movie greatness. But greatness, minor greatness, it is nevertheless, even in its unoriginality.

Pushover is an underrated almost unknown little Noir which seems to be constantly unfavorably compared to Double Indemnity. Yes, its a knockoff, yes, both the story and the characters are derivative, but then again there really wasn't much new in the Noir universe anymore by 1954. Its another dirty-cop Noir which were becoming so popular in the 50s. Themes and plots had been recycled a lot. But Pushover is a solid bit of film making and it should be judged on its own merits because it makes the best out of a by then well-known formula.

The movie feels incredibly claustrophobic and the photography is wonderful and pure Noir. Chiaroscuro lighting, rain-soaked streets, shadows, a suffocating setting in an apartment complex...the movie has the look of the genre down.

The film is notable for Kim Novak's film debut and it is a good one. She seems to be a natural at playing the classic femme fatale who has some sucker fall for her within minutes of their meeting.
She plays a bank robber's moll who corrupts the cop on her trail, world-weary Fred MacMurray, in Walter Neff mode again, in no time. It seems though MacMurray was just waiting to be corrupted because he has a taste for the good life and would like a share of the bank robber's loot.

The first ten minutes of the movie are a joy to watch. After the bank heist, Novak ensnares MacMurray in one of the best pick-ups that I have ever seen, even by Noir standards. The dialogue between the two sizzles and Novak is one fast-moving dame who doesn't waste any time with coyness. In the beginning, she doesn't really care who she shares the booty with, though she isn't quite as duplicitous and conniving as Phyllis Dietrichson. She is too soft for that.

MacMurray is very good as the easily corruptible cop, he underplays it as he was never a scenery-chewer. He perfectly embodies the cynicism of Noir and also its darkness. The darkness he has within him is reflected in the (nocturnal) darkness without.
The ending is pure tragic Noir futility. Both protagonists realize that they really cared for each other. We didnt really need the money, did we? is a sad epitaph if there ever was one.


Title: Re: Pushover (1954)
Post by: kjrwe on February 27, 2017, 02:03:20 AM
I like Pushover. It's a solid mix of Rear Window and (obviously) Double Indemnity. It has a snappy pace, a nice look and Kim Novak.

I like it as well. It's a lot like Double Indemnity (not just because of the same leading actor). I agree about its snappy pace and the nice look. Kim Novak was great as the femme fatale.

Generally I'll watch this movie and Double Indemnity together, one after the other. I also like to throw in the 1950 noir The Man Who Cheated Himself, which is kind of similar to these two movies. This time it's Lee J. Cobb who plays a senior cop who also happens to be a womanizer. He witnesses his girlfriend bump off her abusive husband. He sets up a scenario so that neither of them will be suspected. One thing he doesn't count on: his much younger brother (John Dall), a new cop, starts to catch on to what's happening. (I really think that John Dall should have had a better career. He was amazing!) That noir is also worth a look, in my opinion.

When I first heard that Lee J. Cobb would be playing a womanizer, I got a bit confused and I wondered why such a role wasn't given to someone like Cary Grant. To my surprise, Cobb pulled off the role very nicely. He wasn't good looking at all in my opinion, but he had me completely convinced that he could get any woman he wanted.

So anyway, back to Pushover....for those who enjoyed it, I recommend The Man Who Cheated Himself, too.