MPAA Rating: NR/Genre: Psychological Thriller/Stars: Audrey Hepburn, Alan Arkin, Richard Crenna, Jack Weston, Julie Herrod, Efrem Zimbalist Jr., Samantha Jones, Robby Benson, Jean Del Val, Mel Ferrer, Packy McFarland, Gary Morgan, Frank O’Brien, Bill Walters/Runtime: 108 minutes
If there is one thing in terms of cinema that I have found can prove to be either good, catastrophic, or so bad it’s absolutely amazing it would have to be when an actor or actress takes on a role that seems like something you would never see them doing in a million years. I mean call it the performer wanting to show they have range, wanting to break out of a mold they have been placed in by viewers, or just take a role that will allow them to just kick back and relax rather than put themselves through the wringer to come up with a performance that will gain them attention from the various awards circuits. At any rate, it is because of this rather distinct phenomenon that we got to see (among other examples) Tom Cruise play a villain in 2004’s Collateral and soar, Tom Cruise be in 2012’s Rock of Ages and actually show he’s actually got a heck of a voice, Denzel Washington playing an absolute scumbag of a law enforcement officer in 2001’s Training Day at a time when he was known for clean cut good guy roles, Owen Wilson play a serial killer (wow!) in 1999’s The Minus Man and actually prove to be fairly effective, Tom Hanks (you thought I was going to say Tom Cruise again didn’t you?) play a fairly unscrupulous member of the medical community (among his 5 roles) in 2012’s Cloud Atlas, Will Smith play the Devil (no really) and be downright comical in 2014’s Winter’s Tale though in all fairness that film is consistently albeit unintentionally comical throughout, Henry Fonda play a stone cold killer in Once Upon a Time in the West and be downright amazing (though it IS Henry Fonda we are talking about), Keanu Reeves be a cold-hearted abusive racist jerk in 2000’s The Gift and be fairly effective, and both Pierce Brosnan as well as Russell Crowe be in musicals in the forms of 2 Mamma Mia movies and 2012’s Les Misérables respectively and proceed to take the highest hearing level known to man and take it down at least a couple of notches. All jokes and sarcastic observations aside though dear reader, the reason I bring this up to you is because there is a film that features at least a couple of the aforementioned category of “against type performances” that I sadly feel are not mentioned nowhere near as much as they should to be. Fortunately, that film also happens to be the slice of cinema I am reviewing for you today in the form of the 1967 thriller Wait Until Dark. Indeed here is a film that you might not know about, but you should definitely aim to remedy that as soon as yesterday. No it is by no means a perfect effort, but with the aid of solid work both behind and especially in front of the camera, this is one slice of cinema that manages to be quite the chilling little effort that will definitely leave you on the edge of your seat in the best way possible.
The plot is as follows: An adaptation of a 1966 play of the same name by Frederick Knott, Wait Until Dark gets its spine-tingling narrative afoot in the city of Montreal where we watch as a dollmaker puts the finishing touches on a doll for a woman named Lisa. Unlike your typical Barbie or Raggedy-Ann however, this doll has the added feature of being loaded with more than just a wee bit of a certain substance known as heroin. Therefore, in case you hadn’t put two and five together, Lisa is a distinct member of that group known as drug smugglers who is looking to use the contents of this doll to make a fair bit of money. Unfortunately for her, we see that upon her return to NYC she is accosted and escorted from the airport by a fairly unsavory gentleman. Before being escorted away however, we see that Lisa, unbeknownst to her sleazy escort, passed the doll on to an unsuspecting fellow passenger, a photographer named Sam Hendrix, to keep it safe. From there, the film moves ahead a couple of days as we witness a pair of men by the names of Mike Talman and Carlino respectively make their way to an apartment where they think their friend Lisa, the girl from the beginning, has arranged a meet of sorts. Upon arriving, not only do the pair discover that it’s not Lisa’s apartment, but also that the meeting was instead arranged by the man who escorted Lisa from the airport. It seems the man, a particularly rough sort calling himself Harry Roat, was able to….extract shall we say from Lisa that she had given the doll to Sam and that its current location is somewhere in the apartment he shares with his wife Suzy. The same apartment incidentally that this trio of con men are now standing in. Therefore, the reason for the meeting (in case you hadn’t put it together yet dear reader) is for Talman and Carlino to aid Roat in finding the doll without anyone being the wiser. Yet while normally this might be a wee bit difficult to accomplish in an apartment that two people own and live in, that isn’t quite the case here. You see I forgot to mention two things dear reader. Those being that not only is Sam away from the house quite often on photo shoots, but also that Suzy (despite being home virtually all the time) has been recently rendered blind as the result of a tragic accident. Thus, we see that it is primarily the latter fact that our terrible trio hope to exploit as they engage in a con game of sorts to try and get our heroine to either reveal where the doll is located or help them find it. As time goes on however, we see that it isn’t long before the phrase “sometimes the best laid plans of scheming thieves against a blind woman go awry” (or something to that effect) turns into a terrifying reality. As for what that means for our sightless heroine and the trio terrorizing her however I think I will let you see that for yourself…..
Now right off, it is worth noting that the work done behind the camera here is fairly solid. To be sure, the fact that this slice of cinema started out as a play for the theater is very much evident since, with only a few exceptions here and there, the majority of the thrilling action in the film occurs within a space that is the size, length, and width of Sam and Suzy’s apartment. Even with this potential limitation in mind however, there is no denying that the film manages to make the most of it all the same. Indeed not only does the work done by Terence Young (the director of the first 3 movies featuring a certain famous British superspy) is both delightfully low-profile to say nothing of brilliant in its meticulous arrangement of the camera and where it goes in a scene to really ensuring that the action is able to stay fairly fluid and the suspense as on-point as it possibly could. Speaking of that suspense I guess I should tell you now dear reader that this slice of cinema is one that is very much the definition of a slow-burn. In other words: if you are the kind of person who enjoys things happening in a very rapid-fire pace then you are sure to leave this film more than just a wee bit disappointed. On the other hand, if you are someone who is ok with a film that, much in the same vein as the original Halloween would emulate quite successfully 11 years after this one first came out in theaters, continually being left to feel uneasy as the suspense continues to tighten further and further before everything comes to a head thereby leaving you on the edge of your seat in white-knuckle terror then this is definitely a film that is going to be your particular cinematic brew and then some. Perhaps the other element that definitely aids in making that level of suspense feel as palpable to you, the movie goer as it is the wonderful work done by the cinematography department as headed by one Charles Lang (1962’s How the West was Won and 1963’s Charade also starring Audrey Hepburn). Unlike the former which gives off the feeling of being expansive and truly larger than life much like its titular setting and the latter which feels jazzy and lively however, Lang’s work here does a wonderful job of making you feel as closed off as our poor seemingly helpless heroine. A feat he achieves by, much in the same manner Dean Cundey would later do with (again) the original Halloween, starting off as wide as possible given the limited setting before starting to slowly but surely box both the protagonist, and by extension the audience, in until the end in which the shots feel about as horrifically narrow as the space our protagonist finds herself in when dealing with the bad guys in this movie. Finally, I think it should also be said that this film is the blessed recipient of a truly majestic musical accompaniment from the gifted Henry Mancini (The Great Race, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, and The Pink Panther theme among many other brilliant contributions). Indeed not only does Mancini’s score aid the film immensely in keeping you on the edge of your seat in its own right, but it also adds to the overall sinister and creepy atmosphere of the film as a whole immensely. Suffice it to say that the work done behind the camera here is nothing short of movie magic at its finest.
Of course, the other component that helps this slice of cinema work as phenomenally well as it does would have to be the contributions by the small yet impeccably talented cast of players in front of the camera. Without question, this starts with screen icon Audrey Hepburn in the lead role of Suzy Hendrix. Indeed Hepburn was nothing less than screen royalty and here she does a terrific job at playing this woman who has been dealt a bit of a low blow as of late with her sight being horrifically taken away from her thereby all but upending her life as she knows it. As a result, we see that Hepburn does great at really playing up this woman’s disappointment and close to outright bitterness about her newfound situation. Even so though, when this nightmarish situation finds itself unfurling in front of her, we see that Hepburn is brilliant not just in the moments where she slowly but surely begins to catch on to what is going on around here, but also in the moments where she showcases equal degrees of ingenuity and genuine terror in her battle for survival that really makes her character worth rooting for against these guys. Suffice it to say that it’s a terrific turn from an actress who gave audiences more than her fair share of those during her extraordinary career. As great as the work done by Hepburn is, we see that it is wonderfully matched by the very much against type work done by Alan Arkin in the role of this film’s chief antagonist Harry Roat. Indeed Arkin, mostly known for his comedic work at the time, does a terrific job at playing a pure psychopathic monster who is less a sneering slimy leech and more in the vein of a coiled yet still quite deadly king cobra constantly just waiting for the right moment to strike. However, when the moment to strike occurs, we see that Arkin is nothing short of chilling as he unleashes a homicidal and unhinged fury that is the stuff that nightmares are made of. Suffice it to say that it is a remarkable turn from an incredible actor that really does make me wonder why he didn’t try to play more roles like this afterward in his career. Rounding out the trio of key performances in this is the one given by Richard Crenna in the role of Mike Talman. Indeed Crenna was always a genuine joy whenever he showed up in a film and here is most assuredly no exception as he gives us a great turn as a member of the dastardly trio who, without question, can be menacing to our poor heroine should the situation call for it yet instead (and quite inexplicably) finds himself actually feeling sorry for her and the plight he and his associates are putting her through. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in solid efforts from such talents as the incredibly underrated Jack Weston, Julie Herrod, Samantha Jones, and Efrem Zimbalist Jr it’s clear that the cast in this might not be as big as most movies, but the skill on display more than makes up for it.
All in all and at the end of the day is Wait Until Dark a perfect slice of cinema? Sadly I would love to say yes, but I am afraid that I cannot do that. With that in mind, is this the worst film that Alan Arkin did before Meet the Coopers or Richard Crenna decided to go under the sea in 1989 and encounter a Leviathan with RoboCop, Winston Zeddemore, and the narrator for the original take on the iconic TV show The Wonder Years? Thankfully no though in the case of the latter I must admit that I do have a quasi-sorta fondness for that film thanks in large part to constantly getting the chance to rewatch it late at night on movie channels that my mom inadvertently left unlocked that perhaps she shouldn’t have (thanks Mom!). All wry observations aside, I must admit that I found this slice of cinema an absolutely solid and thoroughly engaging sit from beginning to end. Yes it might have a few miniscule issues here and there, but the work done behind the camera is solid in bringing this waking nightmare to life before proceeding to leave you completely on the edge of your seat and the work in front of the camera by this game cast of performers is absolutely spot-on no matter how big or small their role may be. Suffice it to say then that it might not be perfect, but Wait Until Dark is more than just one of the underrated thrill rides of the 1960s let alone any decade in movie magic. Rather, it is also proof that not only should one never put heroin in the Annabelle doll from the Conjuring movies, but also (and on a more serious note) that working with a small cast and crew behind the camera can still conjure up something genuinely engaging especially when every single person in both is working at the pinnacle of their respective abilities. Just make sure that if you do choose to watch this slice of cinema then you should not only definitely take the film’s title as inspiration for when to watch this, but you should also turn out all the lights in your house when you do. Just make sure before doing so that you both lock your doors and hide any dolls that you have recently been gifted. Trust me: you’ll definitely thank me later. Make of that what thou will dear reader. On a scale of 1-5 I give Wait Until Dark “67” a solid 4 out of 5.
