Noirvember – Freudian Femme Fatales – 1946 : The Dark Mirror (1946) & The Locket (1946) ‘Twisted Inside’

The Dark Mirror (1946)

In films such as The Dark Mirror and The Locket, the male psychiatrist is posited as an antidote to the bad female by being ‘’established as a detective figure whose principal function is to investigate and ultimately to eradicate ‘deviance’ (represented in these instances by excessive female desire.)’’ From Frank Krutnik IN A LONELY STREET; FILM NOIR, GENRE AND MASCULINITY 1991

It is the phantom of our own Self, whose intimate relationship with and deep effect upon our spirit casts us into hell or transports us to Heaven – E.T.A. Hoffmann

”The figure of the double has been manifest in diverse forms. At times the doppelgänger has shown itself as an ether being – a shadow, a reflection or an animated portrait. At other points, it has taken the shape of an identical being – a person of kindred appearance, a relative, a twin.” From TWO-FACED WOMEN: THE ‘DOUBLE” IN WOMEN’S MELODRAMA OF THE 1940S – Lucy Fischer Cinema Journal 1983

In the 1920s hard-edged and gritty crime fiction became popular, and by the 1940s Hollywood embraced them. At the same time Freudian psychoanalysis became a big deal in America. People knew the basics of Freud’s ideas, so Hollywood could paint stories with ideas the audience could recognize, knowing that people would get the main gist. It became the foundation for some amazing visual displays. Dream sequences started popping up a lot in American cinema, most distinctive in thrillers and in particular in film noir. The Dark Mirror is one of the standout films made during the 1940s and 1950s that introduced psychiatry – like – Spellbound 1945 and two years later, de Havilland would star in Anatole Litvak’s The Snake Pit 1948.

Much of film noir’s psychological pathology gives rise to obsessive fixations on the object of one’s desire. What differs with Siodmak’s The Dark Mirror is that the psychotic’s fixation lies with their sibling and not a lover.

The Dark Mirror is a psychological film noir released in 1946, directed by Robert Siodmak who worked with shadows in his various film noir/horror/ and thrillers like an artist works with paints.  The film was produced and screenplay written by writer/director Nunnally Johnson who penned a slew of diverse screenplays that spanned the 1940s through the 1960s – including The Grapes of Wrath 1940, and The Dirty Dozen 1967.

Nunnally Johnson, transitioning from writer and producer to director, secured the rights and brought the story to life on screen. The film materialized through a collaborative effort between International Pictures, co-founded by Johnson and William Goetz, and Universal Pictures, marking their inaugural project under the Universal Pictures-International Pictures Banner.

The recently established studios were looking for a well-known name for their picture and Olivia de Havilland who was a huge star at the time came on board. She had recently taken legal action against Warner Bros. to terminate her contract and was now free from the studio’s stranglehold.

In 1947, she delivered a noteworthy performance in To Each His Own for Paramount earning her the Academy Award for Best Actress. Following two films, The Well-Groomed Bride and Devotion in 1946, she entered into an agreement with Nunnally Johnson to star in The Dark Mirror.’

The Dark Mirror, like The Spiral Staircase both of which were classic ‘paranoid women’ /  ‘woman’s films’ stars de Havilland who plays identical twins, one of whom is a knife-wielding paranoiac killer. The casting of de Havilland is significant particularly because she not only starred in a variety of women’s pictures but her sister Joan Fontaine was also an iconic star of the paranoid woman’s films. Some of the most notable are Hitchcock’s adaptation of Du Murier’s Rebecca 1940 and Nicolas Ray’s Born to Be Bad 1950. The Dark Mirror presents itself as a psychological noir right from the start of the film with the Rorschach blots backgrounding the titles.

Olivia de Havilland engaged in a notable real-life conflict with her younger sister – silver screen star Joan Fontaine. This behind-the-scenes rivalry positioned the actress to confront her own duality in Robert Siodmak’s 1946 quintessential film noir, The Dark Mirror.

Siodmak made some of the most critical film noirs in the late 1940s and early 1950s, including, The Killers 1946, Cry of the City 1948 Criss Cross 1949 and The File on Thelma Jordon 1950. he had left the spotlight that shined on his pictures specializing in terror and became one of the most prominent directors of crime noir and suspense. By the early 1950s, he grew weary of Hollywood and returned to Germany.

In this way, the reception of Siodmak’s 1940s Hollywood films demonstrates the ways in which the category of horrors incorporates films now seen as thrillers, film noir, and examples of the ‘woman’s film.’ Siodmak brought with him the sensibility of German cinema strongly associated with the art of shadows and horror.

It’s clear, that director Robert Siodmak was drawn to exploring the human psyche in his picture, and The Dark Mirror is a perfect example of this. Siodmak was fascinated with the dynamic of the good sister/bad sister which was apparent in his earlier works like Cobra Woman (1944) and The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry (1945).

Siodmak’s penchant for the use of shadow in his other work holds back his enduring use of chiaroscuro in The Dark Mirror. Apart from the opening scene, the only instances where he delicately manipulates light and shadow occur within the confines of the twins’ bedroom.

The bedroom is the place where we are most vulnerable, where they sleep, which is symbolic of the psychological warfare Terry wages against her sister Ruth. There was a historic rivalry and jealousy over the years. The perceived rejections by male suitors, even the adoptive parents who chose Ruth over her. At the end of the film, Detective Stevenson tells Dr. Elliot that he had the idea to lay a trap for Terry because he feared for Ruth’s life. ‘’Even a nut can figure out that it’s simpler to get rid of a rival than to go on knocking off her boyfriends all the rest of her life.’’

A narrative featuring identical twins presented an ideal chance to delve deeper into the realm of the doppelgänger mythology, a theme that captivated him and inspired by Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927).

Based on a short story by Vladimir Pozner that appeared in Good Housekeeping in 1945, The Dark Mirror is notable for its exploration into the complexities of the human mind and the manifestation of conflicting identities.

Pozner’s story was nominated for Best Story at the Academy Awards, though it lost to ‘’Vacation from Marriage” by Clemence Dane, which was adapted into a British movie released as Perfect Strangers in the UK starring Robert Donat and Deborah Kerr.

Collaborating with cinematographer Milton Krasner, known for his work on Lang’s Woman in the Window 1944 and Scarlet Street 1945, and All About Eve 1950, Siodmak enlisted an old colleague – Eugen Schüfftan, for visual effects. Schüfftan created the visual effects for Metropolis 1927. In the film, over three dozen shots feature mirrors, some to set the tone, but mostly to depict the inner conflict of the twins, highlighting their interchangeable likeness. De Havilland is shot beautifully in split screen using a stand-in when both twins appear.

Though de Havilland gave a very nuanced performance balancing opposing identities, down to the tone of her voice used for each sister, their body language, facial expressions, the subtle arching of her eyelids, and the sister’s diverging character traits, Siodmak tried to ensure that the audience would have subtle cues for each of the characters. They were visibly ‘labeled’ for us. De Havilland’s Ruth is gentle yet timorous and softly spoken. She wrings her hands out of nervousness. Terry, however, is the bolder one, more assertive and hostile by a hair’s breadth when challenged. Terry also smokes and is left-handed, while Ruth chooses to favor her right hand.

In a large part of the film, as in so many films, clothes often tell a story, in particular at the beginning of The Dark Mirror the twins wear identical clothing, Irene Shraff’s costume designs, monogrammed dressing gowns, tailored houndstooth suits, initialed brooches, and largish necklaces bearing the letter ‘T’ and ‘R’ might have been used as visual clues to help us sort out which twin was which, however, this does not dismiss de Havilland’s ability to traverse the dueling roles.

It is important to note once we become aware of how unbalanced Terry is, the sisters begin to dress differently. For example: Ruth can be seen wearing a white long-sleeved sweater and conservative pencil skirt, while in contrast – Terry goes to Elliott’s apartment pretending to be Ruth wearing a chic black satin dress with a jewel-encrusted pill-box hat. The visual clues summon the fall of the girl’s connection to each other and begin to symbolically delve into the cliché good vs evil through the emblematic use of color coding- black vs. white.

The narrative is framed by the presence of two significant mirrors, serving as visual parentheses for the story.

Siodmak initiates ambiguity with his use of mirrors and reflections: right from the opening sequence there is a shattered mirror which is reiterated or ‘mirrored’ at the climax of the film when Terry throws an object at the mirror after she sees Ruth’s image in the glass. Throughout The Dark Mirror appearances are deceptions – this is the central substance of the story.

The Dark Mirror is a psychological study of identical twin sisters Terry and Ruth Collins both played by Olivia de Havilland who vex and bewilder Thomas Mitchell (Stagecoach 1939, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 1939, Gone with the Wind 1939 also with de Havilland, It’s a Wonderful Life 1946, High Noon 1952.) who plays surly Detective Stevenson who gets frustrated and ornery trying to solve a murder he is convinced one of them has committed. Lew Ayres plays the role of Dr. Scott Elliott, a psychiatrist tasked by Stevenson to help unravel the mystery as to which one of the twins is guilty of murder.

De Havilland’s performance is striking under Siodmak’s direction a tough process considering both Collins sisters had to be filmed separately for the scenes where she/they occupied the screen at the same time. Adding to the struggle to make this work was the disagreements between Siodmak and de Havilland who clashed from the beginning over how to approach the way the twins were portrayed. Siodmak was making a psychological thriller and de Havilland saw the film as a character study of paranoid schizophrenia (Greco) ‘’One sister could and one couldn’t commit murder, and that’s all there is to it,’’ the film’s resident psychiatrist explains.

‘’The film suggests but does not develop the possibility that Terry is Ruth’s other self, the ‘dark mirror’ that reflects the negative potential lurking beneath Ruth’s sunny mask. However, the insistence on the separation of the characters into icons of good and evil makes the film a superficial melodrama rather than a probing psychological study. Good and evil do not engage in an internal clash but are presented as the essence of two separate characters, as in a medieval morality drama.’’ – Foster Hirsch The Dark Side of the Screen: Film Noir

The film’s foundation rests on the ‘old wives tale’ about twins, suggesting that one must possess an inherent darkness—in this instance, a deep-rooted psychological one. Featuring the dramatic taglines: Dramatic tagline Twins! One who loves… and one who loves to kill! This is conveyed in the film’s promotional ads, “To know this twin is to love her… to know this twin is to die!”

When one of the twins is accused of murdering a doctor, both come under scrutiny. Ironically, it becomes impossible to establish which twin was identified by the eyewitnesses, so the law can’t touch them.

In The Dark Mirror, Terry, the malevolent sister, murders her fiancé the prominent Dr. Frank Peralta when she realizes that he actually feels more genuine affection for her virtuous sister Ruth, though he is unaware of Ruth’s existence. He experiences a tenderness in Ruth’s and a peculiar absence of emotion when he’s actually with Terry. Seeking understanding, he consults a psychiatrist to explore the possibility of a split personality in the woman he loves. The primary suspect is one of the Collins twins. However, the authorities are confounded by the fact that the twins are identical in appearance, making it difficult to determine which one committed the crime. Dr. Scott Elliott is brought in to evaluate the sisters and aid in solving the case.

Dr. Scott Elliott who frequents the medical plaza’s magazine stand where he purchases his lemon drops from Terry, is shocked when he discovers that she has an identical twin sister Ruth. Dr. Elliot (Lew Ayers) is called to the district attorney’s office to help with the investigation because he is an expert in the study of behavioral genetics in twins.

The Dark Mirror was Lew Ayers’s first movie after a four-year absence acting as an Army medic and awarded three battle stars during WWII. He returned to acting and became famous for his kindly Dr. Kildare series of films which was on the nose having been away for four years working as a doctor.

A darkened cityscape leads to an apartment that unfolds with a nighttime homicide and a shattered mirror like a fractured mind, an overturned lamp, and a man lying on the floor with a. knife stabbed through his heart. It establishes an atmospheric backdrop for a sinister and psychological story where the thin line between the narratives’ proposed trope of good vs evil is obscured behind the enigma of perceived ‘female’ duality.

At the opening of the film, it is nighttime in the city and Siodmak masterfully employs protracted camera movements through two rooms in an apartment. He unveils the time of a violent struggle, the time is precisely 10:48 pm. A man has been stabbed in the back. A prominent mirror over the fireplace becomes the silent witness to the murder – shattered – it is a visual testament to the intensity of the attack.

Cut to Detective Stevenson (Thomas Mitchell) assigned to the case, who is interviewing several witnesses in his office at the police station. The identity of the victim is revealed to be Dr. Frank Peralta. Two of the witnesses claim they saw a woman leaving his apartment around the time of the murder. Soon he learns the name, Theresa ‘Terry’ Collins.

Peralta’s assistant tells Stevenson that the doctor was in love with Terry and had planned to propose to her which gave Terry a motive. It was no secret that Terry was dating Peralta. Maybe it was a lover’s quarrel? As far as Detective Stevenson knows, the only suspect is Terry Collins.

The next morning, Stevenson brings his two solid witnesses to Terry’s magazine stand in the medical building, in order for them to lay eyes on her and confirm she is the woman they saw leaving Peralta’s apartment. They are both certain it was her. He begins to interrogate her but is cut off when Dr. Scott Elliot comes by to purchase his well-loved lemon drops. Stevenson continues to put pressure on Terry to give her whereabouts the night before. She is able to detail every move as well as deliver the names of several witnesses who can swear to her presence, including a police officer and her butcher.

Once Terry learns that Peralta has been murdered she faints and seems genuinely shaken up by the news. Stevenson cannot break Terry’s alibi so he can’t arrest her. But this cop is doggedly convinced the girl is good for the murder and drops by her apartment to get to the bottom of the confusion with the witnesses. Then Ruth appears. The sisters are wearing the same bathrobes, though one is adorned with the monogrammed ‘T’ and one has the letter ‘R’ on it.

Stevenson almost combusts from the revelation that there are two of them- identical in every way and he is convinced that one of them murdered Peralta. The Collins sisters are resolute to stay silent. Neither sister will confess to which one has the foolproof alibi and which one stayed home that night. This drives Stevenson to distraction. The interrogation is getting him nowhere, there are no fingerprints on the knife and no way to prove that either one of them was there at the crime scene.

Orphans since childhood, Ruth and Terry Collins are inseparable. They live together, dress alike, and even wear wire necklaces that bear their names with a peculiar— over-obsessive clunky jeweled monogram – as if they force their identities upon us or perhaps each might be threatened by losing themselves without them. Ruth is older by seven minutes, yet Terry seems to be the more dominant, controlling sister. Terry has a maniacal obsession with Ruth and is driven to prove that she is the superior twin.

The story unfolds – Stevenson learns how Terry and Ruth seamlessly orchestrate a charade, both working at the magazine stand as the same girl – taking turns to enjoy moments of respite – essentially to ‘switch out’’ when one of them wants time off.

Under the guise of a singular job (which they cleverly share under Terry’s name), to the casual observer, no one can tell the difference until the murder exposes that they are, in fact, two separate people. Even Dr. Peralta didn’t know he was actually dating twins at the time he asked Dr. Elliott about split personalities.

Terry stands as a mother figure, a notion that the ‘bad twin’ constantly drives home to Ruth by asserting she is protecting her, making it more of a challenge for Ruth to betray her sister in the maternal role.

Among other films exploring dynamics projected by the good twin/the bad twin trope – they are often suggestive of variations on schizophrenia.

Detective Stevenson brings the sisters in for a line-up but they are so uncannily alike, that the witnesses can’t tell them apart.

Because both Terry and Ruth stay quiet, the DA is forced to drop the case against them because they won’t be able to convict with no evidence. But Stevenson is a bulldog and isn’t willing to give up. That’s when he seeks out Dr. Scott Elliott to help him uncover the truth about which one murdered Peralta.

The investigating officer on the case is Lt. Stevenson (Thomas Mitchell) enlists the unofficial help of up and coming psychiatrist, though Stevenson is more of a skeptic about psychology referring to him as a ‘fortune teller’ who employs ‘gimmicks.’ “Don’t you witch doctors treat people with tinker toys?’’

Dr. Elliot doesn’t ascribe to the age-old superstitions that twins are usually “penalized in some way, physically or psychically.”

He believes that “character, personality is the key” – that the two elements which are very black & white are pivotal, though one is a moral question and the other is scientific. Ayers is an actor who often comes across as a paternalistic figure puffs on his pipe and uses softly phrased insights as the even keel Dr. Elliott.

Dr. Elliot says, “Not even nature can duplicate’ this quality, “even in twins” so this is what would tell who is the murderer. He adds that ‘one could and one couldn’t commit murder, and that’s all there is to it.”

‘’the insistent separation of the characters into icons of good and evil makes the film a superficial melodrama rather than a probing psychological study. Good and Evil do not engage in an internal clash but are presented as the essence of two separate characters, as in a medieval morality drama.’’ Foster Hirsch

Terry and Ruth agree to be added as another set of twins for Dr. Elliott’s research, though Ruth appears to be more wary of submitting to his examinations and acts cautious believing that Terry might be guilty of the murder.

Terry admits to Ruth that Peralta did propose to her and that she did see Peralta the night he was murdered. But Ruth agrees not to talk. She poses the question to Ruth, why would I kill him? Ruth is frightened that the truth will come out during Dr. Elliot’s examinations, but Terry thinks she’s smarter than him and can pass all his ridiculous tests.

He invites the sisters to come to his office separately, where he puts them through a series of psychological tests, including the cliché inkblots that were groundbreaking at that time. Dr. Hermann Rorschach created them in 1921 to diagnose schizophrenia but that was modified in 1939 when it was used as a standard personality test.

As Dr. Elliott delves into the lives of Terry and Ruth, he discovers the stark contrast in their personalities. While Terry is manipulative, cunning, and emotionally unstable, Ruth is kind-hearted and virtuous.

The mystery deepens as Dr. Elliott tries to understand the motives behind the murder and grapples with the challenge of distinguishing between the sisters. The film takes an intriguing turn as Dr. Elliott employs psychological techniques to uncover the truth.

Elliott puts the girls through a series of standard psychological tests that seem to imply more of a moral evaluation than a psychiatric one. After Terry gives her impressions of the inkblots Elliott determines that she has a dark inner conflict, clever and calculating, even a tendency toward violence, after she describes “the lamb looks so innocent, but it has two men under its paws.”

Terry’s answers seem rehearsed, suggesting an attempt to assert her power though she tries to convey a helpless innocence. But Elliott notices the contrast in Ruth’s answers right away. She appears very genuine, and is not aggressive, or threatening, with her contemplations more of a refined nature, as in dancers around a maypole and skaters in an ice show. Ruth is more retiring and amiable. This leads Elliott to conclude that Ruth is normal and Terry is the one who is mentally disturbed. Eventually, the monograms are disposable as de Havilland manifests the difference through her acting skills.

As Dr. Elliott delves deeper into the two personalities he begins to fall in love with Ruth, while Terry pursues him romantically. A pattern that is replaying itself. In the past, men have always chosen Ruth over her, while Terry desires them herself.

We learn that as orphans, a couple wanted to adopt Ruth but not Terry, and as they grew up, men were always drawn to Ruth, even Dr. Peralta preferred Ruth though he didn’t know why. It was when he was with Terry that he feared she suffered from a split personality.

Ruth isn’t aware of Terry’s psychosis but Dr. Elliott is convinced that she is insane and killed Peralta in a jealous rage.

The narrative appears somewhat superficial, adopting a simplistic approach wherein the individual potentially toying with Elliott’s psyche, teasing him with aggressive insights, is labeled as the embodiment of evil. Meanwhile, the one exhibiting a gentler perspective through her mild and innocuous visions is deemed the epitome of normalcy.

‘’20 percent of people who see things in the inkblots that expose the ‘’true secret patterns of their own minds’’ The results for Elliott point to this… ‘’one of our young ladies is insane.’’

During the free association session, Dr. Elliott is left a bit mystified because the only unusual reflex is Ruth’s reaction to the word ‘’mirror,’’ to which she responds, ‘’death.’’ Now he cannot wait to see how Terry responds to his prompts. But being visibly unnerved, having found out from Ruth how she reacted to the word mirror, it is not clear whether Terry would have given the same answer or if she is now toying with Elliott.

Terry is agitated when she hears Ruth’s answer which shows some understanding of ‘that mumbo jumbo.’ She refers to Dr. Elliott’s tests as ‘’kindergarten games’’ obviously trying to poison Ruth’s faith in the doctor’s credibility and that his psychological tests are nothing more than childish trials.

When Dr. Elliott gives them both a polygraph, it is hard for Terry to successfully manipulate her responses. Terry’s blood pressure spikes every time Elliott invokes Ruth’s name. Whenever her sister is mentioned the needle bounds frantically across the paper in a storm of black lines, especially bringing up the subject of a particular boy who liked Ruth.

From these tests, Elliotts makes his diagnosis – Ruth is sane and innocent of the murder while Terry is ‘’a paranoiac- a paranoiac is capable of anything.’’ He is assured that Terry merely found his tests ‘’another challenge to her, another opportunity to show the world what contempt she has for it. That was the tip-off.”

“A marker for insanity, or at least ‘’abnormality’’ for women, then, is the transgression of typical patriarchal authority. The ‘tip-off’ to Elliott that Terry is the ‘’wrong’’ twin is her effort to thwart the masculine power and rules that are being applied to explain her motives, psyche, and very existence.” – THE DARK MIRROR PSYCHIATRY AND FILM NOIR BY MARLISA SANTOS

Though Terry thinks she is putting one over on Elliott with his psychological ‘analysis’ she begins to feel threatened by the growing romantic relationship between him and Ruth.

Terry witnesses Elliott and Ruth in an embrace outside their apartment building, but when asked Ruth doesn’t mention it. Terry becomes more desperate to sabotage Ruth’s budding romance, something she evidently has done in the past. She decides to seduce Dr. Elliott herself, while gaslighting Ruth, trying to make her think she is losing her mind.

She begins to torture Ruth, hoping to push her to commit suicide and pin Peralta’s murder on her. She crafts illusions, spins nightmares, and conjures conversations, savoring every moment of her imaginative ploy.

Initially puzzling is why Ruth willingly covers for Terry despite being the target of Terry’s cruel gaslighting, nearly driving her to a mental breakdown. As Ruth witnesses Terry’s darker side, she hesitates to betray her, fearing that Terry’s potential for evil, even going as far as murder, might also exist within herself.

Terry starts by telling Ruth that she’s been having nightmares, talking in her sleep, and then waking hysterical and terrified. Persuading Ruth to consume an excessive amount of sleeping pills, Terry secretly uses flashbulbs to light up their pitch-black bedroom in the dead of night. Ruth awakens startled while her cunning sister Terry pretends not to have seen anything.

Terry also secretly turns on a music box so it will remain playing after she leaves their apartment, to create the illusion that Ruth is only hearing the music from inside her head.

After all this, Ruth begins to believe she is descending into madness. Her head grasped between her hands she breaks down, – “Something’s happening to me, and I don’t know what it is. I don’t understand it. I’m so scared; I don’t know what to do.” Pleased with her scheme to drive her sister crazy Terry reassures her –

‘’Just remember that I’m with you and I’m always going to be with you. no matter what… no matter happens, they can’t do a thing without {her} consent.’’ 

Terry is suggesting that Ruth is mad, but she’ll be there to protect her as always. ‘’We’ll be together as long as we live.’’

“Terry converts feelings of loss and fragmentation into fantasies of total power and god-like control; she projects lack onto her own sister in the form of psychological disorder.‘’ – Lutz Koepnick from Doubling the double: Robert Siodmak in Hollywood

Self-absorbed, Terry constantly seeks approval from Elliott, wanting to know what it is about Ruth that draws him to her. In a crucial scene, she even pretends to be Ruth, kissing Elliott and challenging him to be able to tell the difference. Yet she cannot restrain herself from self-aggrandizing “Terry is the smart one,” the one men usually go for.’’

The use of a one-way mirror becomes a visual metaphor and a symbolic tool, reflecting not only the physical likeness of the twins but also the duplicity and hidden facets of their personalities. As the story unfolds, the audience is taken on a journey through the labyrinth of the human mind, exploring the nature of identity, morality, and the thin line between good and evil.

As the walls close in around Terry, she becomes more and more possessive of Ruth: “You and I are never going to be separated, as long as we live. You and I are going to be together. Always.’’

Elliott tells Stevenson that Terry is a paranoiac and definitely killed Dr Peralta. Stevenson becomes concerned for Ruth’s safety, so Elliott promises to tell Ruth that night about her sister. He calls the sister’s apartment and asks Ruth to come to see him later. But he is actually talking to Terry pretending to be Ruth. Fortunately, Ruth stops by his office right after the phone call, so he uncovers Terry’s ruse. Later on, Terry arrives at his apartment not realizing that Elliott knows about her trickery.

In a demeaning and sexist soliloquy, Elliot begins to enlighten fake ‘Ruth’ about sisterhood rivalry. All sisters are rivals for men. How it is stronger for sisters than other women. Elliott doesn’t even take into consideration ‘social class’. This jealousy is ‘‘why sisters can hate each other with such a terrifying intensity.” Considering this misguided theory, the rivalry between twins is even more intense. It is this rivalry that has consumed Terry.

Dr. Elliot –‘’ All women are rivals fundamentally, but it never bothers them because they automatically discount the successes of others and alibi their own failures on the grounds of circumstances – luck, they say. But between sisters, it’s a little more serious. Circumstances are generally the same, so they have fewer excuses with which to comfort themselves… That’s why sisters can hate each other with such terrifying intensity. And with twins, it’s worse.’’

He describes how the murder might have taken place. When he confronts Terry about her split personality, she realizes that he was in love with the part of her that is Ruth, even though he didn’t know that Ruth existed. In a jealous rage, she stabbed him in the heart. It struck me how risky this meeting is for Elliott, as Terry is genuinely dangerous having already killed one man. Sure enough, she goes to grab a pair of scissors when the phone rings, and Stevenson gives him the news that Ruth has killed herself. Terry snaps out of her homicidal rage and they rush to the sister’s apartment.

Terry as ‘Ruth’ tells Stevenson that Ruth killed herself because she was ‘sick’ and ‘twisted inside,’ words Elliott used to describe Terry. That it was Ruth who was insane and committed the murder. She killed herself over the guilt. Terry begins to ramble that she is actually Ruth. That it is Terry who has killed herself because she was so jealous of Ruth.

Elliot tries to provoke the fake ‘’Ruth’’ into revealing herself as Terry, antagonizing her about her past rejections. The family that wanted Ruth but not her, and the boys who preferred Ruth.

He confronts Terry by telling her how mentally disturbed she is. He tells her while she is pretending to be ‘Ruth’ that “Terry is ‘sick inside’ and needs help. He imagines that it is tied to something that happened in their past when they were quite young but has grown inside like a poisoned seedling. ‘’more and more bitter and is now abnormal.’’

Finally working with the police, Ruth, who has been reluctant up til now to believe that Terry is dangerous stages her own ‘’suicide’’ in order to trap her sister. As Terry begins to unravel, Ruth suddenly emerges from the bedroom. When Terry sees her reflected in a mirror behind her she throws an object and smashes it, symbolically destroying her sister who is the constant evidence of her ‘lacking.’

At this revelation it is all over for Terry and she smashes the mirror when she sees Ruth’s reflection.

By the end of the picture, Elliott and Ruth are united. He asks Ruth, ” Why are you so much more beautiful than your sister?”

‘’Terry’s possessiveness may be interpreted as a desire to absorb Ruth, to eliminate the ‘difference’’ between them that haunts her and frustrates her desires.’’ Marlisa Santos -The Dark Mirror

Dr. Elliot’s comment in the end supports the actuality that good and evil can exist within two identical people as he tells Ruth, ‘’That’s what twins are you know, reflections of each other, everything in reverse.‘’

This mental image –  signals the shattering of the mirror by the darker souled Terry at the climax of the picture when she is ultimately caught in her game of deceit, tricked by Detective Stevenson into thinking that the real Ruth has committed suicide. Caught by her own duplicity, she cannot help through her conceit she reveals her lies while claiming that she is actually Ruth and it was Terry that has killed herself.

She tries to convince Stevenson that “Terry’ despised her (Ruth) out of jealousy because men always found her more attractive and likable. Unlike the doppelgänger who inhabits an evil that is transferred to the good person, this is subverted with the evil person Terry claiming that she possesses all the good attributes from their double.

The Dark Mirror is often praised for its innovative narrative and psychological depth. The film’s exploration of the duality within a single person, embodied by the twin sisters, adds layers of complexity to the story. Olivia de Havilland’s stellar performance in the dual role is a highlight, showcasing her ability to convey the nuances of two distinct characters.

It is lauded for its psychological depth, but some critics have noted that the resolution of the murder mystery may be somewhat predictable for modern audiences. However, it’s essential to appreciate the film in its historical context, considering its influence on subsequent psychological thrillers.

‘’Sugar wouldn’t melt in the mouth of Nancy, the heroine of The Locket. Yet if we are to believe the evidence, she is a first-class criminal. With this to go on, Nancy brings the wicked-lady psychopathic parade up to date. Laraine Day gives what must be her most fascinating performance. As with so many of these wide-eyed innocents who are supposed to be baddies inside, the spectator maybe have difficulty in crediting her with such heatless villainies. However, there is just enough of a defiant something about Miss Day. More of the spirit than the actual behavior, to raise the shadow of doubt. It is this question mark that holds one rapt.’’ —Philip K. Scheuer, “Laraine Day Psychotpath.’’ Los Angeles Times May, 27 1947

‘’The complexity of Sheridan Gibney’s plot was what really enticed me to the material. It was an enigma within an enigma within an enigma. John Brahm, had done a very good horror picture at Twentieth about Jack the Ripper called The Lodger. He was a German- but not too German — and I thought he would be good to direct this and give it some of the same atmosphere.’’ —producer Bert Granet in Lee Server’s Baby, I don’t Care

The New York Times (1946) found The Dark Mirror to be a lamentable production that operated as little more than a vanity project for Olive de Havilland, who ‘has been tempted by the lure of playing against herself.’

‘’Siodmak explained that ‘audiences love a picture like The Dark Mirror because it affords what psychoanalysis call a psychic renovating’’ The strategy of bringing all aspects of The Dark Mirror under the rubric of psychological science including even its purportedly positive influence on audiences, is indicative of the representational shift away from the cynical and at times gruesome depictions of psychiatrists and psychological practices that characterized wartime horror cinema. The horror films that went into production after the ebbing of the Shock controversy evinced Hollywood’s newfound commitment to responsible depiction of psychiatry. A case in point was the 1947 film Possessed’’– Bad Medicine from book Merchants of Menace: The Business of Horror Cinema edited by Richard Nowell.

In 1948 the Screen Guild Theater produced a radio version of The Dark Mirror starring Lew Ayres and Loretta Young. In 1950 de Havilland reprised her role for a radio broadcast at Screen Director’s Playhouse.

The Locket (1946)

Nancy Monks ‘’When you’re a housekeeper’s daughter, you see the world through a half-open door.’’

Accused of stealing a trinket as a little girl, Nancy is never truly exonerated. Twenty years later, Nancy is poised to marry John Willis and become the mistress of the same house she was banished from as a child.

A wedding celebration is interrupted after a stranger, a psychiatrist from the bride’s past crashes the party, proclaiming that the radiant bride is not only a thief but also a cold-blooded murderer.

John Brahm, who directed The Lodger 1944 and Hangover Square 1945, as well as his intriguing and suspenseful work in episodic television successfully fleshes out characterizations rather than visual tricks to inform us about the cheerful Nancy a habitual liar, thief, and destroyer of men.

In John Brahm’s ‘flashback within a flashback within a flashback’ structure for The Locket (1946), kleptomaniac Nancy leaves a trail of devastation in her wake with all the men she encounters. In many cast credits, Nancy is only referred to by her first name, possibly reflecting her tendency to collect numerous names through various marriages. This is a symbolic reflection of her compulsive need to obtain jewelry throughout the story.

The Locket features one of the most ambitious flashback interrelationships in film noir, as three evocations are layered one inside the other. Essentially, it is a Russian nesting doll of all flashbacks. Some critical reviews have brought up the fact that this presents a problem within the nature of the ‘truth or ‘truths’ particularly as they are second or third-hand iterations. Her story and her state of mind are entirely framed by the men in her life.

So is Nancy a slippery eel who is willing to destroy men’s lives, even go as far as murder, just to get what she wants? Or is the truth obscured by fallacies in the storytelling? The only first-hand accounting from Nancy’s point of view comes from a few moments at the beginning and at the climax of the film.

‘’the film itself seems to suffer from a kind of madness, as it appears unable to convey a consistent reality.’’ Marlisa Santos – The Dark Mirror

The Locket is a 1946 psychological drama film directed by John Brahm, known for its intricate narrative structure and exploration of the psychological complexities of its characters.

The film was photographed by cinematographer Nicholas Musuraca who embarked on his prolific career in 1923, remaining active for four decades. Renowned for his fearless versatility, he lensed a wide array of genres, from dramas and westerns to comedies, including shorts. For two decades preceding 1943, he delved into mysteries and crime thrillers, notably collaborating with RKO producer Val Lewton on five significant films, such as the visually striking Cat People and The Seventh Victim. He eventually transitioned to film noir, where he made his mark with the visually daring Stranger on the Third Floor and went on to capture the essence of the genre in notable works like Deadline at Dawn, The Locket, Out of the Past, Where Danger Lives, Roadblock, and The Hitch-Hiker.

Starring Laraine Day, Brian Aherne, Robert Mitchum, and Gene Raymond, the film weaves a tale of deception, obsession, and the impact of past traumas on the present.

Sheridan Gibney (1936 Oscar winner for The Story of Louis Pasteur) penned the screenplay based on Norma Barzman’s extensive telling of a true event told to her by George Peabody Gardner and his sister Belle, who as young children were thrown into the middle of a sticky situation involving their wealthy family’s housekeeper whose daughter was wrongly accused of stealing a locket which led to her being fired.

Years later, it was revealed that the daughter had struggled with depression and was implicated in a theft, a situation that the Gardners believed was, in part, caused psychological trauma as a consequence of their family’s involvement in the earlier incident.

The film opens with the impending wedding of Nancy Monks (Laraine Day) to John Willis (Gene Raymond). On the eve of this event, however, the ceremony is disrupted when a mysterious stranger, Nancy’s former husband psychiatrist Dr. Harry Blair (Brian Aherne) comes to warn Willis about Nancy. Blair tells Willis that he mustn’t marry her because she hides a tragic secret that involves male victims and her dangerous nature.

The narrative then unfolds through a series of rolling flashbacks, revealing Nancy’s alarming past.

Blair calls Nancy a ‘hopelessly twisted personality,’ before the film hurls us into a world of flashbacks.

During his psychiatric training, he stumbles onto a beautiful young woman while riding his bicycle. They begin to spend all their time together but even with his background, he doesn’t detect the slightest flaw at first.

He relates his story of having only been married to Nancy for just a short while when a moody Bohemian artist Norman Clyde (Robert Mitchum) shows up in his office and accuses Nancy of murder. He implores Blair to help him free an innocent man on death row who is set to be executed for a murder Nancy actually committed.

Norman Clyde (Robert Mitchum), plays a pivotal role in shaping the foundation of her first act of deception and desire. The film skillfully employs a nesting doll structure, with each flashback revealing a layer of the characters’ past, ultimately leading to a shocking revelation.

“What do you know of her?” Clyde asks, “Maybe I know enough,” says Blair. Clyde wants Nancy to be charged with Ricardo Cortez’s murder. He tries to tell Blair, ‘the facts’ but he insists that Clyde is suffering from hysteria.

The layer of flashbacks is peeled back once again, as Clyde relates the dark workings of their turbulent relationship. Nancy had become his fiancee after taking one of the art classes he teaches to make money.

Like Blair, he was instantly drawn to Nancy as the girl, ‘’‘never expected to meet and suddenly materialized.’’

Both men look past any shudder of doubts they might have about this vision of perfection being too good to be true.

He made a fool of himself over her when he yelled at her in class telling her she wasn’t taking her work seriously and that he’s sick of the ‘parasitic rich.’ Nancy has created a disturbing impression on him and he winds up becoming infatuated with her. He sees her in an Italian cafe and apologizes for being offensive – She tells him he’s a difficult young man.

Norman Clyde ‘’I don’t take money for nothing. I’m not conducting a class so the parasitic rich can escape boredom. I’m not that hard up.’’ Nancy Monks ‘’Well, I hope you never will be, Mr. Clyde. I admire your principles. I wish I could say the same for your disposition.’’ Norman Clyde ‘’I really didn’t mean to be offensive.’’ Nancy Monks ‘’That hardly seems possible.’’

Nancy who works for wealthy patron of the arts Drew Bonner (Ricardo Cortez) also arranges for her boss to sponsor Clyde’s work. One of Clyde’s first paintings that intrigues Bonner is the portrait of Nancy which inspires him to interpret as the Ancient Greek prophetess Cassandra which features chilling blank eyes.

Bonner buys the painting of Cassandra for $5.000 for his wheelchair-bound wife (Fay Helm) who wants it.

That night at their cocktail party she tells the guests that her diamond bracelet is missing. Was it stolen? She does joke that she can be careless and often loses even valuable things.

Bonner isn’t crazy about the painting of Cassandra, as he sees ‘a madwoman… a woman with prophetic eyes, wonderful eyes.’’

‘’The link between Cassandra and Nancy is compelling, since Cassandra’s madness, according to Greek mythology was a socially manufactured judgment, rather than an inherent quality though her prophecies were true, no one would believe them and therefore deemed her insane. For Nancy, this phenomenon is somewhat reversed, there is a resistance to believe that Nancy is mentally ill, regardless of her suspicious behavior.’’ Marlisa Santos The Dark Mirror

The ravishing Cassandra, literally “she who entangles men,” was the daughter of Priam and Hecuba, king and queen of Troy. The god Apollo, enamored of her, granted her the power of prophecy but, when she rejected him, sabotaged that power with a curse that no one would believe her predictions. Cassandra had become the ‘monstrous feminine.’ A figure in Greek mythology, the beautiful Cassandra has the gift of doom-laden prophecy, but cursed by Apollo she ultimately descends into madness.

This goes to the question, are the stories about Nancy manufactured? Is she guilty of what these men claim? Is there anyone in the narrative who believes her? And is she mad? There is a fascinating parallel between the two women of Gibney, Barzman, and Brahm’s story.

In Clyde’s retelling of where Nancy’s behavior veers off is after a party at Bonner’s house, when a guest’s necklace goes missing. Later, he finds the necklace in Nancy’s purse. When he asks her why, she tells him almost casually, sociopathically, “Because I wanted it… I don’t really like diamonds. I always wondered what it would feel like to own some.’’

Clyde erupts, ” People just don’t take things because they see them!” So Nancy relates her childhood trauma involving jewelry, which leads to the third flashback of the film. At this point, so as not to lose perspective of where we are in the story, Willis is hearing this from Dr. Blair, who is hearing this from Clyde who is being told from Nancy who is remembering an event from her childhood.

As the layers of the story are peeled back, it is revealed that Nancy has a history of deceit and manipulation. Her troubled upbringing and a traumatic incident involving her childhood friend. Nancy tells Clyde how she was the daughter of a housekeeper to a wealthy family, and befriended by their young daughter, Karen who becomes her secret playmate.

“When you are a housekeeper’s daughter, says Nancy, ‘’you see the world through half-opened doors.’’

While Nancy (Sharyn Moffett) sits outside the kitchen door watching all the other children during Karen’s birthday party, she sneaks Nancy a piece of cake. She had promised her one of the pins that each little girl was going to receive for being her party guest. There were no more pins left but in a gesture of kindness she gives Nancy her locket since she is not permitted to be a part of the celebration with the other youngsters, but Karen’s irate mother (Katherine Emery Isle of the Dead 1945) heartlessly forces Nancy to give it back.

But Nancy had become fixated on the locket, its significance not only representing her friendship with Karen but also her having something of quality that a housekeeper’s daughter lacks.

Nancy becomes hysterical when she has to hand the locket over insisting if it had been any of the other children they would be allowed to keep it. She cries to her mother but is told that envy is a terrible thing.

Her mother, Mrs. Monks (played by Helene Thimig (Madame Kyra in Isle of the Dead. She had done several noirs, The Seventh Cross 1944 Strangers in the Night 1944 Cloak and Dagger 1946, and Cry Wolf 1947 was Max Reinhardt’s widow) comforts Nancy when she is denied the eponymous trinket. The lady of the house has decreed that a housekeeper’s daughter does not deserve the gift of a jeweled artifact.

“It’s all right to want things’’ says Nancy’s mother. “But you’ll have to be patient. If you want things badly enough, someday you’ll have them.’’

The ordeal involving the locket continues. The following day, when the locket disappears once again, Karen’s mother hastily points the finger at Nancy, accusing her of stealing it. Despite Nancy’s mother discovering the locket entangled in the hem of one of Karen’s dresses, Karen’s mother Mrs. Willis continues to persecute Nancy casting doubt on her innocence, alleging that she stole and concealed it and tries to shake the confession out of her. Mrs. Monk calls the woman a ‘beast.’

The sequence concludes with Karen, literally and emotionally shaken by the confrontation, accidentally knocking over a music box. Tragically, her mother loses her job as a consequence of the incident. It becomes evident that intertwined with the childhood trauma of this event are broader class issues that continue to impact Nancy throughout her life.

Beyond her earliest trauma, Nancy manages to become a polished self-assured young woman who navigates a world far different than the one she began in. Clyde is sympathetic to her story and Nancy promises him that she will never steal anything again he agrees to mail the necklace back anonymously, though the specter of Nancy’s theft lurks around the edges of the story during the unveiling of Clyde’s painting of Cassandra, Mrs. Bonner’s diamond necklace goes missing during a soiree at the Bonner estate.

This time, theft is not the only crime that evening. Mr. Bonner winds up shot to death. Though it gnaws at him, Clyde knows that he saw Nancy in the upstairs hallway by his bedroom right after he hears a gunshot.

They slip away downstairs so as to evade suspicion and Nancy and Clyde tell the police she wasn’t up there.

Myron Dixon is convicted of Bonner’s murder. She tells Clyde that he thinks she’s a liar – but under her spell, he agrees to not testify “You think I took his wife’s diamonds and shot him” She storms out.

When he finally accuses her after the doubts loom in Clyde’s mind, though Nancy is cleared because of the alibi he gives her, Bonner’s murder proves fatal to their relationship and Nancy walks out for good after calling Clyde arrogant, neurotic, and jealous before leaving him.

Nancy Monks ‘’How could I ever have liked you, Norman – arrogant, suspicious, neurotic…’’ Norman Clyde ‘’It isn’t neurotic to be jealous.’’ Nancy Monks ‘’It’s worse than neurotic to be jealous of a dead man.’’

Clyde visits Blair partly to ease his guilty conscience – it was his alibi that allowed an innocent man to be sentenced to death for a murder he is certain Nancy committed.

And even after Clyde shares his dark story with Blair, the psychiatrist is convinced that the artist is an obsessive neurotic.

Blair tells him in his office that he’s only trying to save his own ego from the rejections by telling stories that make her look guilty. This doesn’t dissuade Clyde from accepting an invitation to come over to their house.

Blair reads the newspaper headline DEXTER DIES TOMORROW. He tells Nancy about Norman Clyde’s visit and she easily dismisses him as jealous because she dumped him. She tells Blair that Clyde was erratic and then lies about the shooting, claiming that his jealousy became an obsession. “Poor Norman doesn’t have it in him to be happy.”

When Nancy greets Clyde calm in her demeanor she explains to Blair that he is the ‘erratic’ one and gives a completely different account of Bonner’s death. She also denies the story about her childhood trauma with the locket.

‘’You were in Bonner’s room the night he was murdered.’’ She makes out like he’s a neurotic “He thinks you’re a little white angel.”

Clyde ‘’Save that for him. He’ll need it. You’ve got him just where you want him.’’ (While trying to convince Dr. Blair of Nancy’s deceptions he confronts Nancy and her lies) 

After Dexter is executed Clyde shows up at Blair’s office again and tells him she lied. ‘’You believe her. In the eyes of the world – you’re a good psychiatrist and I’m just a jilted lover. His death is on your conscience now. I have no opinions, just facts.’’

Blair diagnoses Clyde to be a ‘paranoiac with guilt fantasies’ and Clyde defends himself nobly, “You’re no psychiatrist’ you don’t know truth from lies. You’re just a lovesick quack… you’ll make the same mistakes… There’ll be no happiness for you ever.’’

Norman Clyde ‘’ In the eyes of the world you’re a smart psychiatrist. Your opinions are worth listening to, but I’m just a mixed-up patient.’’ Dr. Harry Blair ‘’And you’d like it to be the other way around, wouldn’t you?’’ Norman Clyde ‘’No. I don’t mind being mixed-up. My conscience is clear. I did all I could to save a man’s life. You did what you could to prevent me.’’ Dr. Harry Blair ‘’Oh, that’s fine, if you see it that way. I’ve done you a service.’’ Norman Clyde ‘’That’s right. It’s on your conscience now.’’

Clyde ‘’I guess that’s it, doc. I took those pills you gave me. Remarkable pills. Just woke up a few minutes ago. Slept right through the execution.’’

At the end of their encounter, Clyde bestows upon Blair the painting of ‘Cassandra’ as his fee. And then commits suicide by jumping through Blair’s waiting room window.

As with Krutnik’s assertion that the psychiatrists in both these films act like saviors of the deviant female desire one of the things that rings true in The Locket is that Blair, by association with Nancy’s brand of love is his stark realization that the very obsession and paranoia he had attributed to Clyde are gradually taking root within himself.

After Blair and Nancy move to England during the war following their enlistment in military service during WWII, Nancy organizes a brief respite for them at the estate of a lord and lady dedicated to supporting war workers experiencing ‘nerve shattered’ war workers. Yet the rugged terrain and inclement weather is a strange place for a rest. Blair seems to take more notice of her behavior. His curiosity is piqued when he overhears the lord discussing his extensive jewelry collection, notably a locket worn by Queen Anne during her christening. As they leave the estate, the chauffeur tells them that a valuable locket has gone missing, and Blair gets a sinking feeling, that Lady Windham’s necklace worth 12,000 £ has been stolen by his wife, Nancy.

Blair tries to look inside her purse on the train ride home. But all his attempts fail. This is an ironic parallel to Clyde’s revelation of the necklace in her bag after leaving the first Bonner party.

He tries different ways to trick her into opening her bag. When he makes her use her own key to open the door to their house in London and she says she doesn’t have it she dumps the contents of her bag onto the table as if she knows what he’s up to. It is not in there. He confesses to her that he thought she stole it.

When the air raid sirens go off, he must leave the house to answer the call. Upon his return, he finds the building bombed out and Nancy not there. He searches the ruins and finds a small metal box with the missing diamond necklace in the rubble.

When Nancy arrives home Musuraca’s camera closes in on her face to reveal the same cold eyes as those of Cassandra, empty, expressionless, and nearly mad. In order to get away she convinces fellow medics to take Blair away as a delusional paranoiac a casualty of war and commits him to a psychiatric hospital. She then divorces him, changes her name to Nancy Patton, and heads back to America.

Full circle, it is oddly poetic how Blair as Clyde once was, tries to calmly give warning to Willis who sees him as an obsessive jilted lover. Nancy is unshaken by Blair’s presence on her wedding day. She explains that Blair knew things about her because he once psychoanalyzed her and that he wasn’t the only one to crack up in the war.

The plans for the wedding move forward. In one of the greatest ironies of the film, Willis winds up being none other than the son of Nancy’s mother’s old employer. The woman who accused her of stealing her daughter Karen’s locket. No longer the child of a lowly housekeeper, she is the future daughter-in-law to Mrs. Willis the harsh woman who tormented Nancy as a child and set in motion the trauma that would follow after her.

But Mrs. Willis doesn’t realize who she is until the final moments of the ceremony when she offers the very same locket that she fixated on as a little girl. Mrs. Willis explains that her daughter Karen had died. She would have wanted Nancy to have it. It’s a family tradition. It’s been a family heirloom worn by generations of family brides. It would have belonged to her daughter Karen if she hadn’t died.

‘’There it’s yours now.’’ Nancy is suddenly haunted by the ghosts of her past, some that hang by the slender thread of bitter ironies.

‘’Thank you God I won’t ever ask you for anything ever again.’’ says little Nancy.

The music sends her into a aural purgatory and she begins to hear dialogues inside her head. Clyde’s voice is in there too. And the Mrs Willis from the past. It all comes full circle.

Like many ironies in the film, shocked by this revelation, Nancy knocks over the same music box.

In a story woven with fateful ironies, the rediscovered locket weaves a surreal thread, as Nancy is flooded with a cloudy dissonance. Her soon-to-be mother-in-law’s embrace is tinged with the bitter truth—acceptance, not for her but for the veil symbolically concealing her enigmatic origins.

‘’As she descends the staircase, Brahm and cinematographer Nicholas Musuraca focused with uncomfortable closeness on the terrified face beneath the veil, and then with marvelous subjective camerawork, on the walls and ceilings as Nancy sees them and on the ornately patterned rug that unreels beneath her feet as she walks.’’ – Film Noir FAQ: The Unsprung Mind by David J. Hogan

Walking toward her descent into madness, pulled down the aisle by the dizzying lure of the wedding march with each step she takes the voices in her head become more pronounced. Finally, she screams and collapses at the altar. The memory of her life is too painful.

Willis summons Blair to help. ‘’Mentally she’s a child now. Nancy never got her locket as a child and because it meant so much to her, she paid a terrible price. But lockets are only symbols- it was love she needed. It’s love she needs now.’’ Musuraca’s camera remains within the gloomy confines of the Willis family Fifth Avenue Mansion.

The locket of the title becomes a symbol of the secrets and lies that bind all the characters together, serving as a metaphor for the elusive nature of truth and the impact of past actions on the present.

The Locket is praised for its innovative narrative structure, a hallmark of film noir and psychological thrillers of the era. The use of flashbacks within flashbacks creates a puzzle-like structure, inviting the audience to piece together the characters’ histories and motivations. The nonlinear storytelling technique adds a layer of suspense and intrigue, keeping viewers engaged as they attempt to navigate the complexities of the narrative while Nicholas Musuraca’s moody lighting leaves the characters and the audience in a state of continual confusion and leaves open the authenticity of each recollection.

The film explores the theme of psychological trauma and its lasting effects on individuals. Nancy’s troubled past is a central focus, and Laraine Day delivers a compelling performance, conveying the complexities of her character’s psyche. The use of a mysterious stranger in Dr. Blair serves as a catalyst for the unraveling of the narrative, adding an element of psychological tension.

John Brahm’s direction is notable for its atmospheric and moody tone, characteristic of film noir. The shadowy cinematography, coupled with the haunting musical score, enhances the psychological intensity of the film. The locket itself becomes a powerful visual motif, representing the secrets and emotional baggage that haunt the characters. For instance:

Nancy Patton [voice over, with the locket Karen gave her] ‘’Thank you, God. I will never ask you for anything again.’’

While The Locket may not be as widely recognized as some other films of the era, its contribution to the psychological thriller genre is significant. The film’s complex narrative structure and exploration of psychological themes set it apart as a unique and thought-provoking piece of cinema.

The film is a compelling psychological drama that delves into the intricacies of human psychology and the lingering effects of past traumas. Its innovative narrative structure, coupled with strong performances and atmospheric direction, cements its place as a noteworthy entry in the psychological thriller genre of the 1940s.

‘’FOR A SEQUENCE IN WHAT NANCY WANTED, Laraine Day had to look haggard and worn. Instead of depending on makeup, she sat up all night and reported to the studios not only looking but also feeling the part’’ Hedda Hopper, Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1946

‘’I sold The Locket first as a treatment, about forty pages. Everybody in town – all the major studios and all the independent producers – turned it down, until it got to RKO, where Bill Dozier bought it for his wife, Joan Fontaine. Joan had another commitment, so we ended up with Laraine Day. John Brahm had an a theater background; he respected the story about this man who is about to marry a girl who may be a paranoid kleptomaniac. The final scene is the wedding, where the groom has decided to go ahead. I needed the story with the bride approaching the altar and the groom waiting- this is where I wanted to fade out to a ‘lady or the tiger’ ending. The front office, because of censorship, wouldn’t let me. They said, ‘’You can’t do this. She’s obviously guilty at the end. He can’ marry her.’ I said, ‘Actually, I don’t know that at all.’ But they forced me to have her collapse during the ceremony and have the wedding called off. The picture would have been better with Joan Fontiane. She had more of a quality. Laraine Day gave a kind of weird performance, which wasn’t necessary.’’Sheridan Gibney in Patrick McGilligan’s Film Crazy

Border and Chaumeton leave out Fritz Lang’s Secret Beyond the Door 1947

‘’Closer to the thriller than the psychiatric document. The locket by John Bram is a technical shot in the dark. Never has the device of the flashback been taken so far. Narratives are jumbled up, parentheses opened, exploits slot on inside the other like those Chinese toys sold in bazaars and the figure of the heroine gradually comes into focus: beneath her somewhat obscure charm there lurks a dangerous and perverse mythomaniac who’s been the death of all her husbandsFor a number of years then, the psychoanalytic series remained on the periphery of film noir: the same climate of malaise (Spellbound), the same technique of suspense (High Wall), the same seeking after the cruel detail. We have to wait until 1949 to witness a film of pure psychiatry with The Snake Pit by Anatole Litvak.’’ – A PANORAMA OF AMERICAN FILM NOIR 1941-1953 by Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumeton

This is your EverLovin’ Joey askin’ when you look in the mirror are you the only one there?

Coming down the dark alley part 2: Guest in the House (1944), & Possessed (1947) and Don’t Bother to Knock (1953)