'Middle of the Night's' source material has a subject that does have the shock factor, that was true to life but quite daring to portray on film at that time. Have always admired films that deal with heavy subjects (and obsession definitely applies as one of those) and even more so films that execute these subjects uncompromisingly, have said that more than once and it is always worth repeating. Also have liked to loved a lot of Fredric March's performances, though not every performance of his worked.
His performance though does work and absolutely brilliantly, and will eleborate further later. On the most part, despite a few things that were lacking, 'Middle of the Night' was to me a good film with a lot great. It mostly does justice to its source material and Paddy Chayefsky adapts from his own play admirably if for quite not quite flawlessly. The subject is not toned down nor is it laid on too thick, even if it doesn't always excite.
Will begin with what doesn't quite work. The central chemistry doesn't ever completely fire on all cylinders, the problem is not the age difference (that is what adds to and is crucial to the shock factor) but more to do with that it doesn't always make sense or properly connects and unravels too quickly. Kim Novak also doesn't have or matches March's intensity, so that is another reason.
Chayefsky mostly does a good job with the adaptation in the writing department. 'Middle of the Night' can suffer though from being too talky and overwrought, common problems with stage to film adaptations (it has been done far worse elsewhere having said that). Plays are always talk heavy and the more melodramatic ones can be over-emoted, so it is somewhat inevitable in a way that they are common problems when it is not always easy to know what to trim or leave out.
On the other hand, March is outstanding, one of his greatest late performances, and the main reason to see 'Middle of the Night'. He has a complex, tortured character that he plays with intensity and poignancy without going overboard or being unintentionally creepy. Novak doesn't make her character's neuroses overwrought or annoying, when criticising her above it was not saying that her performance was bad as it is actually one of her better performances but it was in comparison to March. All the supporting cast are very good, especially Albert Dekker, Martin Balsam and Glenda Farrell in well suited roles. Mann also directs very smoothly.
The other outstanding asset is the photography, very rich in atmosphere and quite beautiful to watch while having the right amount of eerie grit. The locations are also atmosphere and don't look static. The music is hauntingly subtle when used. The script mostly is very thought-provoking, taut when necessary and the right wide range of emotions is here. Really appreciate films that have a pull no punches approach and 'Middle of the Night' certainly has that in a way that's powerful and unsettling.
In conclusion, not quite great but impresses in a lot of areas. 7/10
His performance though does work and absolutely brilliantly, and will eleborate further later. On the most part, despite a few things that were lacking, 'Middle of the Night' was to me a good film with a lot great. It mostly does justice to its source material and Paddy Chayefsky adapts from his own play admirably if for quite not quite flawlessly. The subject is not toned down nor is it laid on too thick, even if it doesn't always excite.
Will begin with what doesn't quite work. The central chemistry doesn't ever completely fire on all cylinders, the problem is not the age difference (that is what adds to and is crucial to the shock factor) but more to do with that it doesn't always make sense or properly connects and unravels too quickly. Kim Novak also doesn't have or matches March's intensity, so that is another reason.
Chayefsky mostly does a good job with the adaptation in the writing department. 'Middle of the Night' can suffer though from being too talky and overwrought, common problems with stage to film adaptations (it has been done far worse elsewhere having said that). Plays are always talk heavy and the more melodramatic ones can be over-emoted, so it is somewhat inevitable in a way that they are common problems when it is not always easy to know what to trim or leave out.
On the other hand, March is outstanding, one of his greatest late performances, and the main reason to see 'Middle of the Night'. He has a complex, tortured character that he plays with intensity and poignancy without going overboard or being unintentionally creepy. Novak doesn't make her character's neuroses overwrought or annoying, when criticising her above it was not saying that her performance was bad as it is actually one of her better performances but it was in comparison to March. All the supporting cast are very good, especially Albert Dekker, Martin Balsam and Glenda Farrell in well suited roles. Mann also directs very smoothly.
The other outstanding asset is the photography, very rich in atmosphere and quite beautiful to watch while having the right amount of eerie grit. The locations are also atmosphere and don't look static. The music is hauntingly subtle when used. The script mostly is very thought-provoking, taut when necessary and the right wide range of emotions is here. Really appreciate films that have a pull no punches approach and 'Middle of the Night' certainly has that in a way that's powerful and unsettling.
In conclusion, not quite great but impresses in a lot of areas. 7/10