This isn't entirely a defense of Phyllis, but her actions do derive in part from her sense that as a woman she doesn't have available to her the same options as Walter or her husband. Note Walter's description of his typical breakfast when they're in his apartment--squeezing a grapefruit or going down to the corner drugstore counter. She says it sounds heavenly. Not how everyone would react. Clearly, domestic life is not what she aspired to, yet it was more or less the only option offered.
It's an example of how the Production Code complicated the noir characters. The fictional Phyllis is more simply a psychotic killer. While some might still see her as such in the film, her sense of entrapment that drives her extreme actions comes through more clearly. It's the same sense that makes those grocery story scenes so eerie as she assures Walter their in it together "straight down line," more a threat than an observation.
Walter is bored by the anonymous life Phyllis finds so appealing. He is intrigued by the opportunity her predicament with Dietrichson presents--an opportunity to "crook" the system and get away with it. Phyllis aim is a more personal one--to find a life she doesn't see offered, a life like Walter's--one that she would kill for, and does!
We might say that Phyllis' aim is to make others feel her experience of the world. That look on Walter's face in the drugstore, when he realizes it really will be "straight down the line" says he does know what it feels like not to call the shots.
It's an example of how the Production Code complicated the noir characters. The fictional Phyllis is more simply a psychotic killer. While some might still see her as such in the film, her sense of entrapment that drives her extreme actions comes through more clearly. It's the same sense that makes those grocery story scenes so eerie as she assures Walter their in it together "straight down line," more a threat than an observation.
Walter is bored by the anonymous life Phyllis finds so appealing. He is intrigued by the opportunity her predicament with Dietrichson presents--an opportunity to "crook" the system and get away with it. Phyllis aim is a more personal one--to find a life she doesn't see offered, a life like Walter's--one that she would kill for, and does!
We might say that Phyllis' aim is to make others feel her experience of the world. That look on Walter's face in the drugstore, when he realizes it really will be "straight down the line" says he does know what it feels like not to call the shots.
I feel like there is a certain feeling of life as incomplete in both of their lives. Here we call into question these seemingly perfect lives of middle to upper-middle class white Californians. Walter is in it with an interest to "crook" the system, while a woman of finer things is somehow unhappy with her easy life. From my point of view, this is an outcry of imperfection in white collar life. Here is a look into the lives of a restless suburbia.
ReplyDelete-Aaron Swaidner
I think saying Phyllis is "somehow" unhappy with her life is way off. Her husband is a total jerk. He didn't have a nice thing to say the entire movie. He didn't seem to love her. He was just mean. Honestly, I didn't feel bad one bit when they killed him. I felt we were supposed to feel sympathetic towards Phyllis. It sure didn't seem like she was lying about the way her husband treated her. At least, not the brief screen team he got. I do agree with your last sentences for sure. Just because it looks like you have it made with a nice suburbian life doesn't mean that it is necessarily the case.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, the guy wasn't a pleasant one, but Phyllis does seem to be the more troublesome character. When Lola recalls that Phyllis was her mother's nurse (who also dies of suspicious circumstances), Phyllis is less victimized. Really, all of the men were a bit off-putting in the film. Keyes was in constant suspicion, and Neff certainly was very libido driven right from the start. A bit of what some could view as pig-headed. "Get a couple glasses, would ya, baby?" It's a bit of a stretch for male dominance in a few scenes, Neff having this constant need of control. Perhaps a reflection of the average American Male. While I guess comical in this sense, I couldn't help but think of Bruce Campbell in Army of Darkness every time he pulled out the "baby" line on her.
ReplyDeleteI love your reference to Bruce In Army of Darkness (love both). It gives me a better perspective of the humorous look at Neff's character.
DeleteYou're absolutely right about Phyllis and her past as the nurse. Thanks for the reminder! You know, now that you mention it, I really can picture Bruce Campbell! Libido driven from the start is a great way to put it as well. He had all the right lines from the moment he laid eyes on Phyllis. It's a wonder she didn't decide to come down with just the towel from the start, Neff being such a sweet talker and all. It must have been the housekeeper that stopped her.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm sitting here with a cold glass of iced tea and all I can about is if some rum would get it up on its feet.
Wilder and Chandler do hedge their bets with an unpleasant Dietrichson to soften the whole murder plot thing.
ReplyDeleteThe business about the ice tea is hilarious to me. Must have been a new beverage for the time.
I suppose I could be convinced that Phyllis sought a simpler life...but I'm not convinced yet. I find her less a victim and more a sociopathic serial murderer. Consider: Phyllis murdered the first Mrs. Dietrichson, assists in the murder of Mr. Dietrichson, attempts the murder of Neff, and likely has plans for Lola and Nino.
ReplyDeleteIf she's shows excitement for the "dull" lifestyle of quietly squeezing grapefruits, I think that excitement is a devious act on her behalf to make herself appear as a victim. She needs to appear as a victim to Neff to push him over the edge--given her history, there is no reason to believe anything that she says about Mr. Dietrichson and his physical abuse. Maybe he hit her, but what good reason does the audience have to believe her story?
Not only do Phyllis's actions make her "victimhood" of a dubious nature, so does her physical appearance. I don't think one needs to look any further than her awful wig. Wilder chose that wig because it was cheap and made, the otherwise stunning, Stanwyck look trashy. He wanted her to look as "phony on the outside as she [was] on the inside."
I have not read the novel or seen the film before until Tues. But I see Phyllis as noir's typical Femme fatale. She uses Walter just as Walter uses her. It's not a relationship of passion or love but one of mutual benefits. I actually didn't know Phyllis was wearing a wig. I thought she was a real blonde. I thought the blonde hair added to her character, though she was not ditzy she did play the damsel in distress angle to Walter.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Phyllis had greater aspirations than housewife and that plays into her boredom and longing for a different life. I agree with Zach and don't necessarily believe she wanted a simplier life, but something else for sure. She has limiations as a woman in the 40s. She cannnot get a divorce, find substantial work, or really thrive on her own.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at her motives for murder, I really feel sympathetic towards her. (I didn't think it was possible) They are also linked to her social status.
1. Lola's mother- Phyllis was a nurse, who probably made little money. It's a fairly domestic role. She probably was bored with it and was trying to find a way out. Something that gave her money and a normal life. Hence she kills the mother and marries D.
2. D's murder- She kills him, because she can't divorce him and would have no money or stability even if she did.
3. The other plots- She is bored. She sunbathes, shops, and plays checkers with Lola. What else is she going to do ,but plot on how to get out of ehr situation? She is smart. I don't think this type of life was suited for her.
I thought that Phyllis and Walter seemed to have different motives as the film went on. Seemed at first they were both in agreement about the insurance money but I think it took a turn when Walter wants to do it on the train. I seen that less as him wanting more money for them but more of him beating the system and putting one over on Keyes. So I don't think this was a case pf Phyllis getting greedy and wanting more, she was fine with the 50 grand. But who did she want to run away with actually? Was she with Lola's guy the whole time or did he come later, like after he saw Lola with Walter?
ReplyDeleteI don't think Phyllis is totally evil though, it's obvious that Walter has put some thought into doing this but perhaps never had the opportunity or reason to do it.
That was my first time seeing “Double Indemnity.” Phyllis seemed to change as the movie went on. At the beginning, I believed her to just be a seductress who was not completely happy with her life. It took me a little bit of time to realize she was trying to connive Walter into finding a way to kill her husband and make profit off of her husband’s death. At first I had thought she would just be having an affair with Walter. I didn’t know that she was as dark of a character until Lola spoke of Phyllis being the nurse who contributed to the death of her mother. Phyllis was then seen in a different light from then on in Walter’s eyes as well as from the eyes of the audience. I think Phyllis was by far the most evil character in this film because she caused others to do terrible deeds for her, was cruel herself, and did not seem to actually care about anyone as much as herself.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kiowa, I don’t believe she actually planned to run away with anyone. I feel that she just wanted to see no one else happy but herself. For some reason she hated Lola, possibly because she felt like she did not receive as much attention from her husband as Lola had. She had no plans of getting with Nino Zachetti in my opinion. She just didn’t want to see Lola happy, so she made up lies to break them apart. She realized that Walter had caught on to her schemes, so that made her less inclined to run away with him, but I don’t feel like she wanted to run away with him either. Once her husband was killed and she would be receiving $50,000, she seemed to be satisfied. She kept a close relationship with Walter so that he would not confess to what they had done. I don’t believe her relationship with Nino Zachetti was anything more than a little fling for fun. I don’t know if she had any plans of running away or not. She may have felt that Keyes would never be able to undercover the truth until her last meeting with Walter before she died.
I suppose what I find so interesting about this thread is that there is a need to prescribe meaning to both of their motives, because the film seems to leave it open-ended. Sure, Stanwyck’s character wanted to get rid of her husband, but was her life truly that bad? No one has mentioned that her life would be one that needed to be abandoned . . . In fact, the opposite is offered. Her life wasn’t ideal, but it was not ultimately dire. She could have run away, divorced him, and persuaded some man to protect her while she did either of these options. Something in this femme fatale character was inherently evil, and that is the true difference between her and MacMurray’s character. Where his character seemed more opportunistic than homicidal, Phyllis is downright EVIL. Like, devil horned and crazy-evil. In the end, as I mentioned in the chat after the film, there is a need for Walter Neff to be redeemed, he was so desperate to come clean to the true object of his affection (in a non-homosexual way . . . perhaps) and this questionable redemption (along with the blood he shed) makes his character one that stands in the grey area of good and evil. This seems to be another common narrative function in the Noir, the middle ground of morality, the place where most people live. There is no true hero or villain, but shades or variances of each. I digress (a lot), but what I really wanted to say is that the film forces one to find meaning to each character’s actions, this is what Noir films seem to be attempting to do. I found this to be true with Chinatown, where we have to go deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole to eventually discover the true motive of Dunaway’s character. In these films, the audience is forced to consider each character’s impetus, and decide how to categorize each character. Where most films have already decided on the hero / villain, the Noir makes a questionable stance on both notions. I know this post is late, but I would be interested to hear if anyone has any other theories on this matter.
DeleteI agree with some of what your saying. I like the fact that with all the twists and turns we are constantly rethinking who's the good or bad guy. I think each character (like people in general) have the capacity for both. Most are not all good or all bad. But, I do have a different view on Phyllis's character. I think all too often we put more blame or harsher criticism on the female characters. Why is Phyllis more "Evil" for trying to protect, defend, or improve her life, than Walter is for only looking at murder as a game or monetary benefit.
DeletePhyllis played the role of damsel in distress quite well, in fact until Walter learns that she was the nurse responsible for the original wifes death he was pretty much convinced by her story. The fact that her husband wasn't the friendliest person reinforced this. However troubled Phyllis' personal life may have been she took to extreme measures to change her situation which made her a bit of a sociopath. She was willing to kill and hurt anyone who stood in her way to promote her own happiness. She even admits to Walter in the film "she never loved him or anyone else." Even though she displays a brief moment of altruism in not shooting Walter again, it still comes off as unconvincing because of all the bad things she has already done thus far. Walter is no less guilty which is why she tells him they will go "straight down the line together" She is pretty much telling him, that he had a chance to turn back and chose not to take it therefore is just as bad as she is.
ReplyDelete