What do You think about Woman In The Dark (1989)?
WOMAN IN THE DARK. (1933). Dashiell Hammett. **.Although written and published in three consecutive issues of a pulp magazine, this novella was later published in hard cover by Knopf. This edition also contains an appreciation by Robert Parker – an appreciation I think he had a hard time coming up with. The story indeed should have been published in a pulp format. The plot was simplistic, and the motivations of the characters were at a primal level. It is essentially the story of a woman who was turned into a white slave by a wealthy businessman in America after he met her in Europe. Sje was then rescued from her plight by the hero, Brazil. Hammett attempted to gtive the story some meat by infusing Brazil with a miscellany of traits, but those couldn’t carry the whole story. Anyway, it is a good example of Hammett’s early writing attempts, probably of interest mainly to Hammettophiles.
—Tony
John Bradbury (Ralph Bellamy) has just been released from prison for manslaughter while in a fit of rage. He moves into a cabin away from society to prevent a situation where his temper could, once again, get the best of him. One night a beautiful woman (Fay Wray) runs through the woods to his cabin seeking refuge from her lover (Melvyn Douglas). Jealousy, arguments, a shot...and then a punch is thrown, and once again Bradbury is in jeopardy, much to the town's satisfaction.In pre-code days, it is fun to see what the writer and film studio could get away with. The long gown strap casually falling off Wray's shoulder at the most opportune times, the smoldering sexual inuendo between Bellamy and Wray, and the verbage (Do you want me to turn my back while you dress?) may be mild today, but it is noteworthy for that era.Even though the film was made on "poverty-row" in New York at Biograph Studios, the three stars and story by Dashiell Hammett make it worth your time.Recommended
—none
Perhaps it's the passage of time, some of the colloquialisms were so outdated that I couldn't readily understand them. Or perhaps this one isn't the finest example of Hammett's work, but this book failed to connect on many levels for me. In these 75 pages, Hammett manages to convey the most basic character development. Motivations are clear and easy to grasp, but I can see why this was the only "Dangerous Romance" he ever tried writing. Hammett fans probably loved it. As a fan of his screenplays, I feel unfulfilled by this effort.Is there another Dashiell Hammett out there I plan to read, who knows? I wasn't exactly planning to read this one.
—Kia
