Tucked Away

Back Street

Essay

Tucked Away

By Nick Pinkerton

On John M. Stahl’s Back Street, the lone film to acknowledge that the only three cities in the world are New York, Paris, and Cincinnati.

Back Street, part of our John M. Stahl series, screens at Metrograph through February 10

 

Back Street

Ray Schmidt, the protagonist of John M. Stahl’s Back Street (1932), ought to know better. As the film opens, Ray, played by Irene Dunne, is waltzing the floor of a Bavarian beer garden in the American Midwest, an admiring onlooker describing her as “the toniest girl in Cincinnati.” This scene establishes two things: Ray’s status as coveted arm candy for the traveling salesmen passing through the turn-of-the-century Ohio River town, and Ray’s graceful ability to keep these boys at bay with their groping, whispered dirty jokes, and invitations to the nearest hotel. (This type of glad-handing ne’er-do-well is represented in Dawn Powell’s novels Big Night and My Home is Far Away, which draw on memories of her own Ohio girlhood, and her shiftless salesman father.) Ray knows just who these blithe, blustery salesmen are and how they operate, and she takes them at face value, trading an easy, fluting laugh and demure smile for a date and a dance and a couple steins of beer. And then one day, after years of staying on her guard, she surrenders her closely guarded maidenhead to Walter (John Boles), a fellow a little younger and more polished than the average run of salesman, but just a little. She ought to know better, but knowledge only takes you so far.

It’s not that this Walter is a bad sort, really; in fact, you almost wish he had the backbone to be a proper cad and bounder. Instead he’s simply oblivious and self-regarding and swell-headed, in the way that a native-born white middle-class American male go-getter in late Victorian times was given every encouragement to be by society. Stahl had a penchant for using Boles, a waxily handsome light tenor with a brisk, ingratiating manner, to play charmers whose suavity only half-disguises a deeper shiftlessness or inconsequentiality—see for example Stahl’s Seed (1931), in which aspiring novelist Boles drops his wife and five children in order to take up with an old flame, or Stahl’s Only Yesterday (1933), drawing from the same Stefan Zweig short story which would be adapted into Max Ophüls’s Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948), in which Boles loves and leaves poor Margaret Sullavan.

Walter, to his credit, seems genuinely to care for Ray, though he expresses his affection with a stock of honeyed phrases—“the air’s like wine” and so forth—belonging to a time and place when the height of culture was a moist-eyed acquaintance with the poetry of James Whitcomb Riley, their color and perfume now faded like lilacs pressed in an ancient book of keepsakes. When he first meets her he’s on a trip down from Hamilton, about 20 miles north of Cincinnati, in town to pay court to the daughter of one of the city’s first families, a friend from childhood to whom he’s engaged. After he and Ray duck away from a rain shower to (implicit) erotic consummation, however, Walter to all appearances is prepared to call off his engagement, but for the fact that Ray misses a planned rendezvous with her lover at the band shell in Eden Park. (Incidentally, later identified as the place where Jack Lemmon’s character in Billy Wilder’s 1960 The Apartment had made a failed suicide attempt.)

Hamilton, known today principally as a meth hotspot and the birthplace of porn star Bonnie Rotten, would have been a manufacturing boomtown in the first years of the 19th century—a title card vaguely sets the opening of Back Street in “the good old days before the Eighteenth Amendment,” while references to Henry Ford as an upstart businessman place these scenes around that time. It was also the hometown of author Fannie Hurst, whose 1931 bestseller of the same name was adapted from by Gladys Lehman and Lynn Starling, with uncredited punch-ups courtesy Gene Fowler and Ben Hecht. Hurst’s mass appeal to a largely female readership had elevated her to celebrity status in the years after World War I, and that celebrity was still very much in place when Stahl’s film was made, which is why its opening credits are presented as the cover and front matter of a book, a reassurance to audiences of the movie’s respectable literary pedigree.

Walter is Jewish in Hurst’s novel, something excised from Stahl’s film, which gives the character the vaguely Teutonic surname of Saxel. Instead of the problem of religious incompatibility, Stahl’s Back Street emphasizes the role that social class plays in matchmaking in an America where everyone is forever busy trying to overtake everyone else on the social ladder. Even the humble Schmidt home isn’t entirely free of snobbery. Ray’s father, played by the Saxony-born character actor Paul Weigel, is a shopkeeper who runs a little dresses and notions concern, a character representative of the thousands of Germans who kept pouring into Cincinnati in droves for almost a century after 1848, in such numbers that the neighborhood that they populated north of downtown, bordered by the industrial Mill Creek, became known as “Over-the-Rhine.” He doesn’t mind his daughter’s trips to the old neighborhood, but Ray’s unmistakably native-born stepmother, portrayed by the sturdy Ma Joad of John Ford’s The Grapes of Wrath (1939), Missourian Jane Darwell, refers with haughty disdain to Ray’s merrymaking trips to Over-the-Rhine, and one may see in her objection a recoil from the taint of foreignness, a desire to distance the family from oom-pah brass and the clinging scent of sauerkraut.

As for that Saxels, Walter makes it quite plain to Ray that his mother is the architect of his engagement, and one possible reason for her avid commitment to her son’s making this particular match becomes evident in the film’s second act, when Ray and Walter, both living in New York City some years after their botched meeting in Eden Park, run into one another on Wall Street, seen under a feathery soundstage snowfall. (As with the spring shower that throws Ray into Walter’s arms in Cincinnati, or the Long Island hurricane in his 1939 When Tomorrow Comes, Stahl does magical things with inclement weather.) Walter, his lip now graced by a sprig of moustache, is well on his way to becoming a big man—this thanks in no small part to family connections at his firm made through his canny marriage. He has enough money to pay his own way now, and even to keep a mistress tucked off in a comfortable apartment, and very soon Ray, still smitten, has quit her job to become that mistress, waiting on Walter’s beck and call.

In the couple’s New York love nest, we see Walter lying supine with his head in Ray’s lap, methodically peeling an apple while chittering away about the fine time he’s just had without her on a European holiday, and Dunne’s expression shows his words paring her down as surely and steadily as his knife is slicing the apple’s flesh.

Most of us have seen a friend make what we consider a bad match, and most of us have had the experience often enough to have learned to bite our tongue and keep our thoughts on the matter to ourselves, because you can’t tell anyone anything they don’t want to hear, and you have to assume that they have their reasons, and anyways what can anybody ever know about what goes on between two other people when they’re alone with each other? A viewer may experience something of the same frustration in watching Ray sublimates her ambitions to Walter’s, becoming his combination of lover, nursemaid, and, once he’s become a distinguished, silver-haired expert in international finance in the film’s final section, set in then-contemporary 1932, his co-speechwriter and amanuensis.

In these late scenes of the lovers hidden away in their familiar Paris getaway, the cocksureness exhibited by the Walter of yore has mellowed into a grateful codependence, but there are moments elsewhere in the film when his pursuit of Ray has an almost cruel aspect. When at one point Ray works up the nerve to drop Walter once and for all, she heads back to Cincinnati with plans to marry one Kurt Shendler (George Meeker), a fawning friend from the old days who’s made his pile in the automobile industry, and offers Ray both a fortune and the family that Walter denies her—all of which blows away the moment Walter shows up on her doorstep. (Interestingly, he’s mistaken for a travelling salesman.) In another scene in the couple’s New York love nest, we see Walter lying supine with his head in Ray’s lap, methodically peeling an apple while chittering away about the fine time he’s just had without her on a European holiday, and Dunne’s expression shows his words paring her down as surely and steadily as his knife is slicing the apple’s flesh.

Ray rarely gets a last line in before the crossfade, while several scenes close with her pierced by another’s words, pain registered in a barely perceptible droop in her expression, or a silent petition with her eyes directed to a point somewhere in the middle distance. The choice of Dunne for the part was providential, for Dunne brought comic timing and emotional intelligence to the role, as well as regional bona fides: born in Louisville, Kentucky, and raised in Madison, Indiana, she grew up in the same Ohio River Valley country as Ray Schmidt. Dunne’s Ray isn’t a hapless, blinkered dupe being led along by the nose, but a lucid observer of her own plight. She manages to convey both Ray’s comprehension of Walter’s limitations and the impossibility of their match, and, at one and the same time, her total, melting surrender to his physical presence—in certain scenes you can almost see the circumspect Ray ruefully reflecting on her own folly behind her eyes as the other Ray, the heedless one, throws herself into Walter’s arms.

Ray can clearly enough see Walter’s shortcomings, including his inflated ego, which she can’t resist puncturing from time to time, as in their Wall Street reunion, where he informs her “I’ve given birth to two children” and she snappily retorts: “Well, aren’t you clever?” (I’d bet good money this was one of Hecht’s additions.) Just how well Ray comprehends her situation becomes clear in a scene that takes place during Walter’s extended absentia in Europe. Ray has befriended a neighbor on the floor of her New York building, Francine (Shirley Grey), after rescuing her from a kitchen fire—the sound of a scream coming from down the hall interrupts Ray’s ritual of sifting through the scanty few postcards that she’s received from Walter. This is a film that deals principally in emotional violence, but on two occasions it arrives at the brink of physical danger. The first is a suicide threat by Ray’s sister, who’s gone goofy over her boyfriend Hugo, and halfway hauls herself out of a bedroom window; the second is the kitchen accident with the image of the fashionable frills of Francine’s gown being licked by tongues of flame, which by virtue of its awful, out-of-place abruptness seems to tear a hole in the film, resonating through all that follows. It’s a blindsiding moment, making explicit something that’s implicit everywhere in Back Street: the everyday perils that women face by virtue of their sex.

Back Street

Ray has a potential confidante in Francine; it emerges that the convalescent is a fellow tucked-away sidepiece, worried that her fresh burns, which she takes to concealing with a bunched handkerchief, might turn to scars and put off her lover and benefactor, who’s all that she has to live for. But for Ray, clinging to the illusion of bourgeoise respectability, to admit to a camaraderie with Francine would be to surrender her fingerhold. She instead assumes the role of seen-it-all advisor to her addled neighbor: “There isn’t one woman in a million who’s found happiness in the back streets of any man’s life,” she tells Francine, with a finality and certitude stripped of all hope—and then Walter blows into the room, she tucks herself into his embrace, and all is forgotten again. It’s one thing to give advice, it’s another thing to take your own.

Once one of the fair-haired boys on the Universal roster during the benevolent reign of Carl Laemmle Jr., Stahl has been something of a tucked away, back street character himself for quite some time. When Stahl’s name is mentioned, which doesn’t happen too all-fired much outside of hardcore cinephile circles, it’s usually in the company of Douglas Sirk’s, by virtue of Sirk having adapted three of the same titles that Stahl did, including Imitation of Life, also from a Hurst novel—Stahl’s was released in 1934, Sirk’s 25 years later. (The last significant Stahl retro in New York City was Anthology Film Archives’ ‘Stahl Vs. Sirk’ in 2009, pairing all of the do-overs.) Being literary adaptations rather than original screenplays, these can’t properly be called remakes, and this circumstance speaks more to a desire on the part of Universal—Stahl’s home in the 1930s and Sirk’s in the ’50s—to get the most out of properties that they’d retained rights for than any especial affinity between the two directors, more different than they are alike.

While both were frequently tasked with adapting popular page-turners of little literary value, they often took antithetical approaches to the same material. Confronted with something like Lloyd C. Douglas’s turgid 1929 doorstop Magnificent Obsession, Sirk had a propensity to slam the hammer down and punch the melodrama into maximum overdrive, pushing high-strung emotion into the realm of hysteria. Stahl, in this case of his Magnificent Obsession as that of his other great melos of the ’30s, tends to take an opposite approach, smoothing the excessive edges and emphasizing austere forbearance over extravagant crack-ups and breakdowns. With each fresh compromise that Walter wrings from Ray there are no waterworks, only her refrain of “Of course, Walter,” a little fainter each time. When he leaves her behind for his first transatlantic trip, there is no swirling orchestral bathos, only a simple, silent cut from her flashing a winsome smile of surrender to a long shot of his steamer crossing the sea. Stahl has a proclivity for languorous medium two-shots and leisurely walk-and-talks, with purely gestural camerawork rarely utilized, though very effective when it is, as with Back Street’s slow track away from Dunne in Eden Park as she realizes she’s missed her meeting, and her chance at a personal Eden.

Where Sirk is lachrymose and lunatic, Stahl is dry and understated. Realizing recently that I’d never seen a photograph of him, I rectified this with a quick image search, and wasn’t disappointed by his severe, stoic mien.

If there’s a clear linkage between Sirk and the Stahl of Back Street, it’s in their shared revulsion at callow youth and the smug, stingy, moralistic judgements they pass on their elders. (See also: Sirk’s 1953 All I Desire, 1955 All That Heaven Allows, and 1956 There’s Always Tomorrow.) This manifests itself in Back Street in the character of Walter’s worldly, WASPy daughter and, especially, that of his grown-but-childish son Richard, who takes it upon himself to hound Ray during her final visit to Paris, which constitutes the film’s final section. Proposing to Ray that she must exit his father’s life, the young Saxel cites his sister’s impending marriage into a “highly respectable aristocratic family,” his delivery of this line conveying the groveling worship of titled aristocracy that’s the provenance of a sadly commonplace breed of American Tory. Social climbing is a family tradition; the Saxels are just about to complete their ascent from Hamilton to the manor house, and God forbid that a Schmidt from back in old Cincinnati should hang about and complicate matters.

Stahl, for his part, never judges, never condemns. To be sure, one might locate the “moral” of Back Street in Ray’s “There isn’t one woman in a million who’s found happiness in the back streets of any man’s life”—and I suspect it was hoped that the good people at Production Code Administration would do exactly that—but in the balance we see Ray and Walter experience as much happiness together as they do suffering, and it’s by no means clear that Ray’s potential respectable life with Kurt would have necessarily been preferable to the life of furtive meetings with Walter that she opted for. Both men, in fact, use the same line with Ray when making excuses to her for something or another, in Walter’s case stemming from family obligation, in Kurt’s, from professional ones: “I’d like to chuck the whole thing…” If a man’s not married to another woman, he’ll still be married to his work, leaving his partner to solitude and neurasthenia, and with the options being what they are, you could probably do worse than settling for sex above security. In the final reckoning, it may be that Ray Schmidt knew better after all.

Nick Pinkerton is a Cincinnati-born, Brooklyn-based writer focused on moving image-based art; his writing has appeared in Film Comment, Sight & Sound, Artforum, Frieze, Reverse Shot, The Guardian, 4 Columns, The Baffler, Rhizome, Harper’s, and the Village Voice. He is the editor of Bombast magazine, editor-at-large of Metrograph Journal, and maintains a Substack, Employee Picks. Publications include monographs on Mondo movies (True/False) and the films of Ruth Beckermann (Austrian Film Museum), a book on Tsai Ming-liang’s Goodbye, Dragon Inn (Decadent Editions), and a forthcoming critical biography of Jean Eustache (The Film Desk).

Back Street