She Kills Her Husband Once but THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, 1946

The postman always rings twice doesn’t refer to a mail carrier’s methodology of delivery in this 1946 film noir directed by Tay Garnett, starring John Garfield and Lana Turner. This is film noir, friends, so we are addressing the subject of dark and dirty crime. Not just any crime but murder. Mariticide, to be exact.

Screen Shot 2017-07-19 at 5.48.43 PM

Mariticide is the act of killing one’s husband. Not exactly a new concept in film noir. As a matter of fact, many parallels can be drawn between this film and Billy Wilder’s DOUBLE INDEMNITY (1944). In THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE (1946), the title alludes (spoilers ahead!) not to the beginning fiery heat of two lovers, not to the detailed steps of planning the murder of a spouse, but moreso to the aftermath and ironic justice in how this ill-fated romance ends.

Screen Shot 2017-07-19 at 5.41.53 PM

Many crime stories and film noirs focus on the tension, motivation and players that lead up to or explain the crime. While THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE (1946) does a marvelous job in that arena, a good chunk of the story focuses on good ole karma that comes along not on the first ring, but on that second ding. I’ll save those scrumptious details for you to savor when you watch the film.

Before I get ahead of myself, let’s start at the beginning and chat about the sparks that brought this doomed couple of criminal lovers together. John Garfield as Frank Chambers is perfection as the casual drifter who floats in to the Twin Oaks roadside diner on a breeze. Actually, he wanders in via hitchhiking with the local district attorney (who lives closeby and will become a key factor in his undoing) and is soon greeted by the local motorcycle cop who is often witness in rather inconvenient ways.

Screen Shot 2017-07-19 at 5.40.13 PM

He soon meets Nick Smith (Cecil Kellaway), owner of the cafe, and they quickly conduct a job interview via on-the-spot character reads. Note: we will discover later that Nick fails miserably at both job interviews and character assessments. After Frank confidently and casually pushes his loosely tied commitment for the position, Nick dashes off to greet a gas customer outside as Frank is introduced to his platinum blonde doom aka Mrs. Smith inside. We meet Lana Turner as Cora Smith in a memorable character debut where the camera follows her from her ‘accidental’ lipstick drop and roll to the slow pan up her legs to her petite frame in iconic ivory shorts, crop top and turbin.

Screen Shot 2017-07-19 at 5.41.31 PM

Screen Shot 2017-07-19 at 5.43.19 PM

The heat and tension is palatable from the very first exchange. Frank wastes no time in making his move. But first, and what plays out as a very interesting foreshadowing, is the power struggle gauntlet is thrown down upon their very initial exchange- over lipstick, no doubt. Before their first first kiss, which Frank plants boldly and rather assumedly, Frank issues the challenge of who is in charge. Cora plays her best game of sexy meets coy to lure Frank close to the flame via handing her the fiery red lipstick. But watch Frank pause, lean back and challenge Cora to come to him. She succumbs allowing Frank to think this was his game. But is it? This initial exchange was the true precursor and warning for them both.

Screen Shot 2017-07-19 at 5.50.37 PM

Screen Shot 2017-07-19 at 6.22.44 PM

Through a botched attempt to run away, Cora symbolically morphs from pristine and crisp white to dirty, sweaty, and dusty hitchhiker as she has a change of heart. This is not how she planned. They go back. Narrowly escaping Nick’s discovery, Frank has an opening to leave. But as countless film noir anti-heroes eventually do, he ignores any instinct to do the right thing. Frank: “Right then, I shoulda walked outta that place… She had me licked and she knew it.”

After initial and seeming resistence, we later learn that she was actually the one strategically in charge all along. And he acted helpless in acting better on his own behalf. Once the hooks were firmly embedded deep, even the red flag of ‘if you truly love me, you’ll murder for me’ couldn’t stop her quest to fulfill her ambitious needs to “be somebody.” Cora challenges Frank: “Do you love me? Do you love me so much that nothing else matters?”

Screen Shot 2017-07-19 at 6.44.49 PM

Watching this trainwreck of an excuse for love unfold, as the audience we see the red flags, the road signs of dangerous curves up ahead… everywhere. From our lofty tower of wisdom, we see the mistakes, the grave errors in judgement. While this film spends a good chunk of time and detail serving justice post-mariticide in an ironic twist of fate for these two with a one-two punch, the fascinating components remain the motivations and evolutions of behavior.

Why this film remains a classic, besides enjoying the sexual tension sizzle off the screen and the nail-biting moments of thrills and suspense, what keeps us riveted as the voyeurs to this obsessive, dysfunctional romance is the undercurrent of self questioning, playing out in our own hearts and heads of how obsession can turn oneself against their own morality. Where is that line drawn? What does it take to push someone over the edge? This film ultimately begs the question: if a smart, non-commitment, non-romantic type like Frank can fall into such a deep, tragic trap, could something like this happen to anyone? Yes, perhaps even you?

I think that is what is at the heart of THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE (1946). Even the sharpest cynic can blunder and fall prey. Not that murder is a very likely result, but I wager to guess that a significant number of people have experienced a type of obsessive love that has altered their judgement in morality, which was not in their own best interests. So, let that mail courier ring your doorbell twice, even three times. But watch out for the Lana Turner cunning beauties of the roadside cafes. More importantly, watch out for the little voice in your heart and head whenever you hear it crying out “NO!!” – sometimes it’s important to listen.

Screen Shot 2017-07-19 at 5.58.32 PM

This post was my contribution to the ‘Til Death Us Do Part Blogathon on CineMaven’s Essays From The Couch. As this is sure to be a rousing assembly of blog posts of spouse-murdering twist and turns, I encourage you to read all the other contributors!




Nuances of Antisemitism in GENTLEMAN’S AGREEMENT (1947)


Despite urgings from industry colleagues to avoid predicted controversy (especially when three political figures are called out for their well-known antisemitism by name), producer Darryl F Zanuck fought hard to bring Elia Kazan’s GENTLEMAN’S AGREEMENT (1947) to the big screen. With a love story mixed in, this film tackles the subject of American antisemitism as a cultural experience, much more directly than had been endeavored before. [Spoilers will follow]

Gregory Peck is Philip Schuyler Green, a highly respected writer who has come to New York with his mother (Anne Revere) and young son (Dean Stockwell) for a gig, writing a series on antisemitism. He meets his publisher’s niece Kathy (Dorothy McGuire), who originally suggested the idea, and soon the two fall for each other.


At first he struggles with his angle to cover this series. Following an honest conversation at the breakfast table with his son explaining what antisemitism is, his mom encourages him not to give up because it would be nice not to have to explain bigotry to each generation. It’s only after he thinks to contact his chum since childhood Captain David “Dave” Goldman (John Garfield) to get his point of view as a Jewish man, combined with feeling sympathy for his mom’s angina attack, that he realizes he can only truly understand another person’s pain by experiencing it for himself. He must become a Jew.

From here, he sets the wheels in motion to let it be known to everyone that he is Jewish by casually dropping that into the conversation at a staff meeting, where he is first introduced to the Fashion Editor Anne Dettrey (Celeste Holm). Only his boss, his mother, his son and his new love interest Kathy know the real truth. But that nugget of a lie spreads like wildfire.  Moments after meeting his new secretary Mrs. Wales (June Havoc), she reveals that she too is Jewish. Later his son Tommy asks his dad if they’re Jewish because the gossip mill has even reached the school playground.

"Gentleman's Agreement," the 1947 drama starring Gregory Peck as a journalist who pretends to be Jewish in order to write a story on anti-Semitism, was the 20th film to win the Academy Award® for Best Picture.  The film received eight Academy Award nominations and won three Oscars®.  (Pictured left to right: John Garfield, Gregory Peck, Dorothy McGuire and Celeste Holm.) Restored by Nick & jane for Dr. Macro's High Quality Movie Scans Website: Enjoy!

“Gentleman’s Agreement” was the 20th film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. The film received eight Academy Award nominations and won three Oscars. (Pictured left to right: John Garfield, Gregory Peck, Dorothy McGuire and Celeste Holm.)

This film does a decent job of showing many examples of a wide range of antisemitism, from overt to subtle:


Mrs. Wales, the secretary: She displays internal prejudice with an air of superiority within her own ethnicity. She calls out “the sorts of Jews like us,” refering to other Jews as tacky and vulgar, and claims it’s okay for them to use the racist slur “kike” in a playful way.

The doctor: Racism apparently makes house calls. When the doctor (that Kathy recommended) cares for Phil’s mom, he refers another specialist to Phil. That specialist is Jewish, and the doctor slips in a few cracks about the “chosen people” before Phil points out that he too belongs to this same group.


At the restaurant: a drunk guy brushes past Dave, purposefully trying to antigonize him with a racial slur. This leads to Dave jumping up to his feet, ready to fight when the drunk guy’s friend intervenes, apologizing on his behalf.


At the honeymoon hotel: After becoming engaged, Phil and Kathy mention they have booked a hotel, the Flume Inn for their nuptials when Ann (Celeste Holm) points out that it’s restricted. This immediately sets Phil into action to discover for himself if they are willing to admit it to his face. When asked directly, the hotel clerk stammers and gets his manager. The manager won’t admit verbatim but he takes their confirmed reservation to suddenly being booked solid, refers them elsewhere and walks away.

Kathy: Here’s where we see the most dynamics of engrained, society-accepted racism. Kathy goes through a bumpy ride throughout the film in attempting to understand her own prejudices. She struggles with Phil at every turn. She asks Phil not to mention he’s Jewish at her sister’s party. When Dave announces he has to leave soon because he can’t find housing in order to accept the NY job offer, Phil argues with Kathy asking whey she can’t offer her empty cottage to him. She says it’s because that neighborhood would make him feel uncomfortable- she said there was a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ regarding Jews in that neighborhood.

Just as Phil gets angry at her insulting comments, Tommy interrupts. He’s visibly upset, saying he was bullied at school with slurs like “dirty Jew.” Kathy’s response is even more shocking, “Oh darling! It’s not true, it’s not true, it’s not true! It’s all a horrible mistake!” Phil shuts her down fast and takes Tommy to get cleaned up and chat. Tommy: “They wouldn’t fight. They just ran.” Phil shares that grownups do the same thing.

Kathy’s big debate with Phil comes when she reaches a breaking point. She’s tired of “always being wrong,” she hates what this secret has done to them, she hates him for doing this, and she’s glad she’s Christian, like a person is glad to be good looking, or rich vs. poor. (um, WOW.) Note: she takes no accountability herself.

Phil turns in his the first of his drafts to be published. He’s ready to reveal the truth. (At 8 weeks, instead of his originally planned 6 months.) It didn’t take nearly as long as predicted to have his entire world completely turned upside-down by this experiment in bigotry.

Phil’s Advocates:


Confident Anne (appealingly portrayed by Celeste Holm) is a quick-witted, easy-going liberal-thinker and already onboard with tolerance. She’s open-minded and comfortable when issues of antisemitism are addressed. She’s been a good friend and companion to Phil. She chats very candidly with him about Kathy. She calls her out as a hypocrite that’s afraid to fight these battles because it’s easier to have someone like Phil do their dirty work for them as they remain comfy in their gated communities. She goes further to say that people should raise their kids with someone who espouses their same values.

Yes, Anne is biased because she loves Phil. But I agree with every single point she makes. She IS the better match for him. More importantly, Kathy is not. So I’ll firmly argue that in the question of Kathy vs. Anne… Anne is the winner HANDS-DOWN.

John Garfield gives a terrific performance as Dave, the solid friend. He’s there for Phil no matter what, always honest and supportive. He agrees to meet Kathy after her mega blow-out with Phil. She shares that she attended a dinner party earlier that evening and “felt ill about it” when a racist joke was told. Dave asks what she actually did about it. Nothing, she admits. He urges her to understand that in a marriage Phil needs her to be there for him on the deeper issues, to fight. Speaking in his military uniform he says, “this is a different type of war.”

I honestly don’t know why this wasn’t already obvious to Kathy. Dave educates her that she can’t accept the “gentlman’s agreement” and she must not passively allow antisemitism to continue, she must speak up in order to earn Phil’s respect. Somehow Dave’s speech finally clicked for her.



Phil’s mom and son, Tommy: Mrs. Green is rightly proud of her son. She struggles with heart health but after reading her son’s initial draft on this antisemitism series, she is empowered. She gives a hopeful speech and announces she plans to be around for a long time to come. It’s clear he was raised by enlightened, tolerant parents. In turn, the simple kindness and wise-beyond-his-years morality shown by Tommy is a mirror of Phil’s parenting, as well. Scenes reflecting the bonding in these relationships between son and mother and between father and son are inspiring.

The film succeeds in addressing the social implications of antisemitism more deeply. Ultimately, I think it creates conversations and stirs up debate better than only focusing on overt examples of prejudice. This gets into the most likely bigotry going on in mainstream society.

I may not agree with Phil Green’s choice in love, but he’s a strong character as are his advocates. GENTLEMAN’S AGREEMENT (1947) speaks to me because while speaking out against injustice in any form is a passion for me, bigotry based on race, ethnicity or gender/sexual orientation is particularly puzzling to me. Shockingly in 2015 we still have a long way to go in solving this problem, so I find it interesting this subject was featured 68 years ago.

Made just a couple years after the end of WW2 and the Holocaust, the timing was ripe to bring awareness to antisemitism. Unfortunately, not everyone was interested in a more tolerant world as a life lesson to follow the horrific tragedies of that genocide. Director Elia Kazan was one of the first targets of the right-wing paranoia of the McCarthy witch hunts of the “Red Scare”.

Sucumbing to pressure to name communists within his industry to the House of Un-American Activities Committee, he folded. Like a house of cards in a Kansas twister. As a result, despite the huge success and Oscar wins of GENTLEMAN’S AGREEMENT, instead of making more films tackling issues of social injustice, Kazan went on to make very patriotic, pro-war propaganda films. It created a divide in Hollywood history that remains a hot issue.

Like Phil’s mother, I remain optimistic that we can still make changes to fight antisemitism and all areas of bigotry for the benefit of our future generations. It is our responsibility and our patriotic duty.



This piece is my contribution to the 1947 BLOGATHON hosted by Karen of Shadows & Satin and Kristen of Speakeasy. Explore their blogs for the recaps of all three days of the many, fascinating films of 1947.

%d bloggers like this: