Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: cigar joe on January 30, 2013, 11:20:07 PM



Title: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on January 30, 2013, 11:20:07 PM
The Narrow Margin (1952) Director: Richard Fleischer, Writers: Earl Felton (screenplay), Martin Goldsmith (story) Jack Leonard (story).  With Charles McGraw, Marie Windsor, Jacqueline White, Don Beddoe, Gordon Gebert, David Clarke, Peter Virgo, and Paul Maxey.

(http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz337/cigarjoe/TNM01_zps0f1d5866.jpg)

Story:

Two LA Cops arrive in Chi-Town at Union Station on Central Pacific's 49er. Det. Sgt. Walter Brown (McGraw) and longtime senior partner, Det. Sgt. Gus Forbes (Beddoe) are there  to pick up a friendly witness against corruption in the LA City Government for escort back to LA. The witness is the wife of an LA mobster. There is a one hour turnaround for them to pick up  the witness, Mrs. Frankie Neal (Windsor), get back to the station, and make the Golden West (State) Limited back to LA.  

Brown and Forbes grab a cab to a shabby tenement safe-house in a run down neighborhood and pick up Mrs. Neal. On the way the two cops make a $5 bet on the type of woman who would marry a mobster

(http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz337/cigarjoe/TNM02_zps89284feb.jpg)

Det. Sgt. Gus Forbes: Bet you're wondering the same thing I am - what she looks like.
Walter Brown: I don't have to wonder - I know.
Det. Sgt. Gus Forbes: Why, that's wonderful, Walter, nobody's seen her but you know what she looks like. What a gift.
Walter Brown: Aw, come off it, yer just makin' talk.
Det. Sgt. Gus Forbes: Well, we get there just as fast, talkin'. What about this dame, Mr. Crystal Ball?
Walter Brown: A dish.
Det. Sgt. Gus Forbes: What kind of a dish?
Walter Brown: Sixty-cent special. Cheap, flashy. Strictly poison under the gravy.
Det. Sgt. Gus Forbes: How do you know all this?
Walter Brown: Well, what kind of a dame would marry a hood?
Det. Sgt. Gus Forbes: All kinds.

So begins a film with possibly some best hard boiled banter in Film Noir.  If you haven't seen the film there are spoilers below.

SPOILERS

When Brown and Forbes enter the tenement and climb the stairs they immediately hear the decadent jazz piece that becomes the sultry Mrs. Neal's leitmotif.  Brown
correctly portends that his hunch about Mrs. Neal is right and the initial meeting is a hoot. The whole sequence takes on a whole new subtext upon a second screening of the film once you know that Mrs. Neal is in actuality a decoy undercover (internal affairs) Chicago cop, Sarah Meggs, playing the gangster moll, and more than tough as nails McGraw's equal.

Mrs. Neal
(http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz337/cigarjoe/TNMMarieWindsor_zps21f71ff9.jpg)

Windsor's first view of McGraw and Beddoe
(http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz337/cigarjoe/TNM03_zpsbb0c4a76.jpg)

Windsor's turn as a hard boiled internal investigations cop playing a cheap, coarse, sightly seedy floozie is her tour de force. It's Chicago vs LA  and Windsor steals the sceenher large eyes flashing derision.

Forbes: - What’s the music for, a welcome?
CPD: - You don’t know how welcome…. Hey ( to Meggs) turn that thing off … your escorts here.
Meggs (decoy Mrs. Neal) leaves  the jazz spinning,  flips her hair and struts over and runs her eyes over Brown first then Forbes.
CDP: - Forbes and Brown from Los Angeles…
Meggs - How nice, how Los Angeles ( taking a drag and blasting a mushroom cloud of cigarette smoke into Brown’s face)… Sun burn well… on the way out?

Windsor totally eviscerates McGraw, Beddoe and LAPD, with cutting one liners.

Windsor doesn't think much of her LAPD escort
(http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz337/cigarjoe/TNM05_zps7814e565.jpg)

Windsor's doubts about her escorts abilities soon play out in a beautifully executed Noir sequence involving a string of pearls where Beddoe is gunned down in a stairwell and McGraw gives chase through a web of backyard clotheslines.

Rushing in a cab back to the station another classic sequence unfolds, McGraw smacks his fist against his thigh:

Meggs: Charleyhorse?
McGraw: The onetime I let him go first it happened.
Meggs: Forbes?
McGraw: Yea he was getting old and slow... you could put a live bomb in his hand and count ten before he'd drop it. I'll never forgive myself.
Meggs: Well this fine... some protection they send me, an old man who walks right into it, and a weeper.


Meggs reminding McGraw to quit feeling sorry for himself and of the importance of his assignment.

Meggs: ... How long do you think my luck will last?
McGraw: As long as there's cops like Forbes around to get killed for you.
Meggs: Like you I suppose?
McGraw: Yea like me

like you I suppose
(http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz337/cigarjoe/TNM04_zps2407903e.jpg)

Meggs looks him over with a wry smile and comes on to him
Meggs: well my taste doesn't usually run to cops... but you may not be such dull company at that.
Mcgraw gives her the cold shoulder
McGraw: Mrs. Neal we better get one thing straight. You're just a job to me, a COD package to be delivered to the LA Grand Jury and there's no joy in it. I don't like you any more than Forbes did but he got himself murdered for you and maybe I will too. That's what they pay me for. Now do we understand each other?
Meggs:  Relax percy, your shield's untarnished, I've changed my mind.
Meggs leans over and lights her cigarette off of his
Meggs: I wouldn't want any of that nobility to rub off on me.
McGraw: It won't if you keep your distance.
Meggs: All the way to the coast?
McGraw: Poor Forbes.
Meggs:What about poor Forbes?
McGraw: He owed me five bucks.


McGraw is great as Det. Sgt. Walter Brown as he tries hard to protect Mrs. Neal but is not as savy or as cagey as he thinks he is, eventually and unknowingly exposing the real Mrs. Neal (White) through his attraction to her and her reciprocation while at the same time endangering the decoy Windsor.

nice rack Marie ;-)
(http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz337/cigarjoe/TNM06_zpscd181b6e.jpg)

The majority of the film takes place upon the Limited set as it rattles and rolls believeably towards Los Angeles and the exterior location shots seamlessly blend.

One of my favorites 10/10


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: titoli on January 31, 2013, 12:55:38 AM
This Windsor looks like a poor man's Lupino who is a poor man's anybody herself. I don't think this can make the rating go higher than 7\10.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on January 31, 2013, 04:04:40 AM
Well for me Windsor, is second only to Grahame as far as Noir babes go.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: titoli on January 31, 2013, 06:17:47 AM
Well for me Windsor, is second only to Grahame as far as Noir babes go.

Thanx, you made clear to myself why I never went for noir.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 31, 2013, 09:13:18 AM
The movie is shit, the babe ain't nuthin special, and neither is Gloria Grahame, as far as looks go. (I do like watching Grahame very much, cuz she is a very good actress)


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on January 31, 2013, 03:27:12 PM
The movie is shit, the babe ain't nuthin special, and neither is Gloria Grahame, as far as looks go. (I do like watching Grahame very much, cuz she is a very good actress)

One of the best of the "Red Meat Crime Cycle" watch it again sometime when you acquire some taste  8)


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: Groggy on February 01, 2013, 10:54:38 AM
Thanx, you made clear to myself why I never went for noir.

 ;D


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on February 01, 2013, 05:51:43 PM
Thanx, you made clear to myself why I never went for noir.

I hope you watched it in English, I think a lot of the period one liners would get lost in transation.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: titoli on February 01, 2013, 07:03:28 PM
I hope you watched it in English, I think a lot of the period one liners would get lost in transation.

I haven't watched the movie yet. I was only referring to the noir babes you like so much.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on February 01, 2013, 08:01:36 PM
I haven't watched the movie yet. I was only referring to the noir babes you like so much.

I see, I categorize the babes to fit the genres they are in.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: titoli on February 02, 2013, 02:33:27 AM
I see, I categorize the babes to fit the genres they are in.

Now I don't get you: a looker is a looker anyway, what has got  the genre to do with that?


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on February 02, 2013, 03:53:06 AM
Now I don't get you: a looker is a looker anyway, what has got  the genre to do with that?

The stable of Noir Actresses to choose from.

Well Sophia Loren, Ornella Muti, Claudia Cardinale, Brigitte Bardot, weren't in Film Noir, but I guess I should include Marilyn Monroe.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 02, 2013, 03:56:58 AM
Now I don't get you: a looker is a looker anyway, what has got  the genre to do with that?

Personal preferences I guess.

For example, to a man (whoever) a woman does not look the same if dressed in a crinoline or in a swimsuit. Some would like her better in a swimsuit, and some, I guess, in a crinoline. Yet it is the same woman.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: titoli on February 02, 2013, 05:42:59 AM
Personal preferences I guess.

For example, to a man (whoever) a woman does not look the same if dressed in a crinoline or in a swimsuit. Some would like her better in a swimsuit, and some, I guess, in a crinoline. Yet it is the same woman.

Yeah, but this Windsor woman wouldn't look good in both attires.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 02, 2013, 03:02:06 PM
Yeah, but this Windsor woman wouldn't look good in both attires.
"either". And "attire" is non-countable.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 02, 2013, 03:12:48 PM
My problem with this film is the plot. SPOILERS Why keep Charles McGraw in the dark about the true nature of the journey? And if you are going to run a decoy, why would you put her on the same train with the real girl? Wouldn't it make more sense to send them on, you know, different trains? And why even use a train for the real girl? Send the decoy by train, the real girl by airplane. END SPOILERS Willing suspension of disbelief I can do. Willing lobotomy, no.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: titoli on February 02, 2013, 04:16:22 PM
Willing suspension of disbelief I can do.


Not "do": you "accept".


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on February 02, 2013, 05:45:46 PM
My problem with this film is the plot. SPOILERS Why keep Charles McGraw in the dark about the true nature of the journey? And if you are going to run a decoy, why would you put her on the same train with the real girl? Wouldn't it make more sense to send them on, you know, different trains? And why even use a train for the real girl? Send the decoy by train, the real girl by airplane. END SPOILERS Willing suspension of disbelief I can do. Willing lobotomy, no.

I think the answers are all in the subtext, Meggs (Decoy Mrs Neal) is not only a decoy but an internal affairs cop, and she is looking for corruption in LAPD. The initial fact that the "safe house" is already compromized, indicates that the underworld has been tipped off by a mole in LAPD as to the whereabouts of Mrs. Neal and the two main LAPD suspects are Brown and Forbes. If you go with that angle the whole "Mrs. Neal and the list" plotpoint becomes irrelvant and the real plot is corruption investigation in LAPD and who is/are the informer(s).  Like you say "Why keep Charles McGraw in the dark" or why not just mail the list.

Now remember Forbes right at the get go tries to get Meggs (Decoy Mrs Neal) to give him the list. Once Forbes buys it, Meggs goes to work on Brown tempting him in the cab with sex and later on the train with money.

Walter Brown: You're a pretty good judge of crooks, Mrs. Neall; the only place you slip up is with cops. I turned the deal down.
Mrs. Neall: Then you're a bigger idiot than I thought! When are you going to get it through your square head that this is big business? And we're right in the middle.
Walter Brown: Meaning you'd like to sell out?
Mrs. Neall: With pleasure and profit, and so would you. What are the odds if we don't? I sing my song for the grand jury, and spend the rest of my life dodging bullets - -if I'm lucky! - -while you grow old and gray on the police force. Oh, wake up, Brown. This train's headed straight for the cemetery. But there's another one coming along, a gravy train. Let's get on it.
Walter Brown: Mrs. Neall, I'd like to give you the same answer I gave that hood - but it would mean stepping on your face.

Other thoughts from IMDb

by persycat IMDb
"When I saw the movie, I took the lady cop to have been in touch with the actual wife (the blonde) and not just following the detectives. So the plot device made perfect sense to me. It is the same thing as in research when they do a DOUBLE BLIND study...neither the subject NOR THE RESEARCHER know who is getting a placebo and who is getting an actual research drug. That way there is no bias from the observer. In this case, it made perfect sense to me that they did not know whether the gangsters knew what she looked like, so they gave her an EXTRA, EXTRA level of protection by having the person the "known" agents excorted be the agent, and the actual "subject" (the blonde) be a totally "uninterested 3rd party." So I don't know, maybe you had to make an extra naive plot leap to make it understandable... but it made sense to me."

more...

by tricksofthetrade  IMDb
 
I.A.D. is like any other departmental division, they get credit/promotions/glory for collars.

Although you make a good point about the logic of investigating 'the most unbribeable cop in the world', you are not seeing the big picture. The IAD probably KNEW that the mob would be likley to throw bribe money at the sergeant. Even if he was clean, there is a possibility that he would be tempted to take it. The event such a possiblity and high profile arrest would be a career making event for the IAD officer and supervisor who headed the case.

Also they put the real witness on a different train, there would not be a movie.


My thoughts....  the real plot is LAPD corruption. One of the commentors on IMDb says that he's read that in the original script that Forbes was definitely on the take. The curious actions of Brown on the train also make you wonder about him, if he was truely that stupid or if he was deliberately exposing Meggs to the gangsters. 

Stanley Rubin (SR) What happened with "Narrow Margin" was kind of interesting. We finished the picture in '51. Howard Hughes had taken over the studio. He ran the finished cut, our cut of "Narrow Margin," one midnight, which was rather typical of Mr. Hughes. By the way, I never met him. I did get memos, but never met him in person. Hughes had bought the studio while we were making "Narrow Margin," but later he brought in Jerry Wald and Norman Krasna to head up production at the studio. In any case, Hughes ran the picture, which had gotten very good word of mouth already. I got a memo from Mr. Hughes, saying he thought it was a very good film, but that he wanted to hold it — instead of releasing it when it was due to be released, the memo stated that he wanted to hold it for a while and he wanted me to think about some way to turn "Narrow Margin," which we had shot for under $250,000 and in under 15 days, into an A-picture. Well, there wasn't any way to turn "Narrow Margin" into an A-picture unless you just scrubbed the picture and recast it with A-names and shot it all over again. I communicated that feeling to Mr. Hughes, but he persisted in thinking that there might be some way to turn it into a big picture. And he held it under his arm or in his vault for a year and that's why "Narrow Margin" was released a year, year and a half after it was finished.

Five-O: Was the Hughes cut much different from yours and Fleischer's?
SR: Hughes added at least one additonal heavy. I think Dick Fleischer shot those scenes. I was gone. I was already at Fox. Hughes added one heavy, and then he did another thing which was not smart, it was just an oversight, I guess, on his part and we didn't discover it until one night at Cinematheque at the Egyptian.

They ran "Narrow Margin" and someone asked: 'How come Charlie McGraw and Jacqueline White didn't go to pay their respects to Marie Windsor, who'd been shot and killed in the line of duty?' And I said, of course they stop to see her, before you saw them sneaking off the train to go down the tunnel to get into town. Well, we looked at the picture again and that scene had been removed. That moment we had shot was gone. That was a bad, bad, bad oversight on the part of Mr. Hughes. Nontheless, the picture was a good picture. We were all very proud of it, and people were impressed with the performances, the pace, with the plot turns... The picture was screened by Darryl Zanuck and that motivated Fox to make me an offer to come over there. Dick Fleischer went on to do "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" for Disney. Both of those things came from "Narrow Margin."

Full interview here:
http://www.hollywoodfiveo.com/archive/issue2/cinema/rubin.htm (http://www.hollywoodfiveo.com/archive/issue2/cinema/rubin.htm)


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 02, 2013, 08:44:05 PM
Quote
Also they put the real witness on a different train, there would not be a movie.
Not true. It would be a different movie, but you could get a very good picture out of a cop-protecting-a-witness-who-is-actually-a-decoy story. Especially if the cop and the decoy fall in love, and then the decoy gets killed. I'd be willing to bet you could make an even better movie with that story than the one told in The Narrow Margin.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on February 03, 2013, 02:49:01 AM
Not true. It would be a different movie, but you could get a very good picture out of a cop-protecting-a-witness-who-is-actually-a-decoy story. Especially if the cop and the decoy fall in love, and then the decoy gets killed. I'd be willing to bet you could make an even better movie with that story than the one told in The Narrow Margin.

Possibly, yes, but they didn't, regardless, I enjoy this more every time I see it.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 03, 2013, 04:14:58 AM
Possibly, yes, but they didn't, regardless, I enjoy this more every time I see it.

why, do the locations get even better every time? a train is still a train. (and a damn silly basis for giving a movie a 10/10 if you ask me, no matter how many times you see it  8))


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on February 03, 2013, 03:44:08 PM
why, do the locations get even better every time? a train is still a train. (and a damn silly basis for giving a movie a 10/10 if you ask me, no matter how many times you see it  8))

Why can't you read exactly what I wrote. I said the film gets better every time I watch it, similar in that respect to OUATITW. Its mostly all a sets in the studio, except for Union Station in LA and the Santa Fe Railroad Depot in San Bernardino, and of course stock footage.  Its a 10/10 for me.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on February 04, 2013, 06:22:55 PM
Its mostly all a sets in the studio, except for Union Station in LA and the Santa Fe Railroad Depot in San Bernardino, and of course stock footage.

And, let me elaborate, it's a work of Studio/Stage Art, the great design of the various rail car sets, the lighting effects, plus an all emersing sound design. This is all intercut with second unit material and stock footage that convey the illusion of " the jornada", a road picture on rails. There are not many road pictures as tight as this one just judging it visually and audibly alone.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on February 05, 2013, 02:05:48 PM
a couple of McGraw's quips against the railroad:

Brown: This rattler hasn't stopped, they're still on it!

Brown: As soon as they pave this track accidents like this won't happen.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 09, 2013, 04:53:05 PM
And, let me elaborate, it's a work of Studio/Stage Art, the great design of the various rail car sets, the lighting effects, plus an all emersing sound design. This is all intercut with second unit material and stock footage that convey the illusion of " the jornada", a road picture on rails. There are not many road pictures as tight as this one just judging it visually and audibly alone.
This is certainly a point worth making.  O0


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 13, 2013, 07:34:17 PM
TCM will be showing THE NARROW MARGIN in about three hours from now (12:30 AM EST on Thursday, 2/14/13)

after all the chit chat, I'll dvr the movie and check it out a second time, see if I like it any better than the first  ^-^


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 14, 2013, 03:19:30 AM
alright, I just saw the movie for the second time, and I actually liked it much better (surprising considering that this time I knew all the plot twists). I'd go as high as 8/10  O0

As for the discussions about plot:

--- how likely is it that the police would send a star witness whom they know the syndicate is after on a public train with only a single cop? Especially after Forbes was shot, no way would they go through with that at least without sending extra backup. Today I'd say they'd use a special gov't transportation (cop car) but maybe in the early 50's it was much more common to use public trains for police transport, I don't know, I guess it was before Ike made the interstate highway system, probably would take a year to drive from Chicago to LA. But still, there's no fucking way they'd only send one cop as protection for the witness.
None of that changes just cuz the witness was really a decoy; you have to send adequate protection for the decoy, cuz she is putting herself in danger. Yeah, she is a cop too, but still, is just her andMcGraw enough against the crime syndicate? Well I guess there would have been no movie if McGraw had a team of cops backing him up.

--- also, how likely is it that the DA would (paraphrased) "tell Mrs. Neal to get to the coast as soon as possible" without any protection? really?

--- as to whether the movie is really about police corruption, no, I don't think so. There was an issue with corruption so they decided to use the opportunity of this transport to test Brown, but the movie is not about police corruption, it's about protecting the transport

--- would Mrs. Neal really bring her kid along on this trip? I can't imagine she'd really be so damn clueless as to the danger she was in

--- and finally, knowing how nutty cops are with their jurisdictional stuff: there is no motherfucking way that the LAPD would allow a Chicago cop to "test" one of their own in a corruption investigation. No motherfucking way. They'd hire some special investigator for that, do you really believe they would use a Chicago cop to test one of their own boys?

you can always say, it wouldn't be a movie otherwise  ;)

btw, I'm glad CJ mentioned that quote about Howard Hughes fucking up by deleting the scene where Brown and Neal pay respects to Meggs; no way should they have just been shown like some giddy couple having a good time without a mention of th sacrifice by Meggs


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 14, 2013, 06:19:42 AM

--- how likely is it that the police would send a star witness whom they know the syndicate is after on a public train with only a single cop? Especially after Forbes was shot, no way would they go through with that at least without sending extra backup. Today I'd say they'd use a special gov't transportation (cop car) but maybe in the early 50's it was much more common to use public trains for police transport, I don't know, I guess it was before Ike made the interstate highway system, probably would take a year to drive from Chicago to LA.
You have to remember that this is also before Ike made the airtraffic controllers union and before the Wright Bros were born. Air travel was an impossibility in those days.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 14, 2013, 06:30:27 AM
It's not a question of whether or not it existed. It's a question of how frequently it was used for that purpose.

Do you know whether police used air travel to transport star witnesses in the early 50's?

I sure don't. But I do know that when I read about even Hollywood celebrities from that era, many of them travelled on trains, had to go through the same train stations that everyone else did, sure they were in first-class cars, but they were using similar transportation as everyone else, even for cross-country trips; air travel wasn't nearly as common, even for some of the richest people living during that time. Same thing with baseball teams, not all of them even had private or chartered jets, many of them travelled on regular trains going from city to city. If the rich and famous travelled on the same trains as everyone, it sure doesn't surprise me that the gov't would even bring star witnesses on those trains. But I would imagine they'd have much tighter security than the one inept cop.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 14, 2013, 08:05:02 AM
It's not a question of whether or not it existed.
Quickly: Go to the ATM, make a large cash withdrawal, then go out and BUY YOURSELF A SENSE OF HUMOR. We'd all appreciate it.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: titoli on February 14, 2013, 08:30:04 AM
Quickly: Go to the ATM, make a large cash withdrawal, then go out and BUY YOURSELF A SENSE OF HUMOR. We'd all appreciate it.

Who's "We"?


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 14, 2013, 09:19:45 AM
Me, myself, and I.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: titoli on February 14, 2013, 11:26:25 AM
Just what I thought.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 14, 2013, 02:56:05 PM
Did you imagine, Li'l Duce, that only you could use the royal "we"?


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: titoli on February 14, 2013, 03:00:17 PM
Did I?


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on February 14, 2013, 05:31:36 PM
You got to remember this was the very height and also the very brink of the end of the great "luxury name train" era and it was cheaper than flying, $100 Chicago to LA vs about $300 air see below

AIR TRAVEL IN THE 1950s
Coach Class
In the 1950s the American aviation industry grew dramatically. Airline companies had gradually adopted the technological improvements of World War II for their civilian planes, and commercial air travel became faster and more comfortable. It also became cheaper as new planes accommodating more people were introduced. Airlines began to offer "air coach class" seating, priced to compete with railroad's "coach" business. By paying coach fares, passengers could fly almost anywhere in the country for about one hundred dollars, one-third less than airfares of the late 1940s. "For the first time the ordinary man began to fly with us," observed Juan Trippe, longtime head of Pan American. By 1955 more Americans were traveling by air than by railroad.

Check out the accommodations on the "Train of the Stars" basically a rolling hotel:

http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/node/1903281/print (http://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/node/1903281/print)

On a side note next time you watch the film pay attention to the last sequence on the train just after Paul Maxey blocks the corridor so that McGraw and Jacqueline White can escape the reporters in the opposite direction, just as they leave the train, behind McGraw in a pouch against the wall sticking out is a brochure for TWA nice product placement Howard.


Title: Re: The Narrow Margin (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 27, 2013, 06:41:43 AM
TCM will be showing the movie again, on Friday March 8th at 11:15 AM EST http://www.tcm.com/schedule/index.html?tz=est&sdate=2013-03-08