We're No Angels (1955)

Tim O'Neil

Considering that the plot, such as it is, involves a pair of murders committed by Albert's poisonous viper, the jaunty tone doesn't seem appropriate.

We're No Angels

Director: Michael Curtiz
Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Aldo Ray, Peter Ustinov, Basil Rathbone
MPAA rating: Unrated
Studio: Paramount
First date: 1955
US DVD Release Date: 2005-09-27
Amazon affiliate

As rare as it was for Humphrey Bogart to take a comedic role, he doesn't betray a hint of unease with the light-hearted We're No Angels. That was Bogart's great virtue, after all -- he was comfortable in any milieu, whether the Old West, wartime Monaco or the Florida Keys. Here, as an escaped convict on Devil's Island at the end of the 19th century, he displays his usual equanimity. It doesn't matter if his antagonists are firing bullets or witty rejoinders; Bogie allows the world around him to keep spinning, his own private gravity intact. It's a damn shame he didn't do more comedies, because he had the imperturbable balance of a natural-born straight man.

Unfortunately, We're No Angels doesn't hang together with the grace of its leading man. Based on a play by Albert Husson, the film suffers from slightly stodgy staging and the lackluster pacing endemic to theatrical adaptations since the dawn of film. Bogart, Peter Ustinov, and Aldo Ray clearly relish the opportunity to play against type, but their interaction lacks the snap you would expect to see from a stage production. As such, the film is probably 15 or 20 minutes longer than it needs to be, and all that time is spent in unnecessary pauses between lines, as well as devoted to elaborate staging, the type of deliberate interaction that may work on screen but is death on stage.

A screenplay and a theatrical script are two different creatures, and any good adaptation is wise to be wary of these differences. We're No Angels takes place, for the most part, on one set, with two rooms and a garden. There's not a lot of kinetic cinema-friendly action or movement. The camera is removed from the action, remaining at a middle distance that gives the proceedings too much room. Any seasoned theatrical director -- or a movie director familiar with theatrical conventions -- could have trimmed the flab and produced a far less breezy picture simply by focusing on more tight shots of the performers and their interactions, as well as dropping the infernal pauses between the lines.

But Michael Curtiz is a film director (familiar to Bogart fans as the director of Angels with Dirty Faces and Casablanca). While the film is exquisitely shot, every composition taking full advantage of the sterling Technicolor. We're No Angels is a well-mannered screwball comedy, concerning three hard-bitten convicts who fall in with an essentially decent and well-heeled family on the backwater of Devil's Island. Felix Ducotel (Leo J. Carroll) is a well-meaning but inefficient merchant, exiled to the colonial outpost by his overbearing cousin Andre Tochard (precisely played by the great Basil Rathbone). On the eve of an untimely audit by the visiting Tochard, Ducotel's family becomes unwitting hosts to the three escaped convicts. The treatment needs more screwball and less good behavior.

At times the film seems at odds with the grim implications of its own plot. The three convicts are supposedly dangerous felons -- Ustinov's Jules is a safecracker and a murderer, Ray's Albert is an undefined sex fiend, and Bogart's Joseph is a relatively sedate white-collar bookmaker (the first time we seem him, however, he's complaining that he failed to kill a guard during the convict's escape). But the implications of their fiendish crimes are glossed over during their stay with the Ducotels, during which the family seems thoroughly unconcerned by the thought of their wholesome daughter Isabelle (Gloria Talbott) being shadowed by a convicted rapist.

Considering that the plot, such as it is, involves a pair of murders committed by Albert's poisonous viper, the jaunty tone doesn't seem appropriate. Mostly unmemorable, it's merely a footnote in the careers of those involved.

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.