Talk:The Damned Don't Cry
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"Explanation" Section Removed
[edit]A lengthy, slanted, rather poorly written discussion of the film titled "Explanation" has been removed. This is an online ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a place to air pseudo-academic thoughts and theories. The information would be more at home on someone's blogspot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.136.5 (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The text follows. A read-through will clearly demonstrate why this does NOT belong in a Wikipedia article:
This gem is adored by some and hated by others. The fault line lies somewhere along the popular sentiment vs intellectual split. The movie was panned by the critics, but the public loved it. At the same time, Crawford is majestic in some scenes and weary or skeletal in others, to the extent we expect a tragic end without knowing why. The film has a moral core wrapped in a fig leaf of feminism and plenty of action, or the reverse. It’s a rags-to-riches tale with a fall at the end, which isn’t fatal. And this is a woman’s picture, not in any sense a chick flick. The lighting may be questioned. The camera work is dubious. But the story is all. Here is what the movie is about under its fairy tale surface.
For a start, it’s a restatement of Ida Lupino in The Hard Way (1943), also directed by Vincent Sherman. The Hard Way shows Lupino exploiting her sister’s musical talent to escape a small town's dismal future. You do what you have to do.
The New York Times has said that the film is about a woman who brings trouble to those around her (Robert Berkvist, June 21, 2006). Sure, but the same is true of Hamlet. And it’s hard to imagine a newspaper saying something similar about a man who breaks the mold to make money. Nor is it about a woman who is forced to leave an abusive marriage. There are hints of this if you look with a magnifying glass. Nor is it about losing a child and going off the rails. Crawford is far from insane. And it’s not about a scarlet woman. This is a story about money, plain and simple, which is perhaps why making the protagonist a woman was a stroke of genius.
Joan Crawford plays a housewife (Ethel Whitehead) who sees that only one thing counts in this world: cash. She spends precious savings to buy her son a bicycle, which makes her laborer-husband irate. He shouts angrily to his son, and the son is run down by a car. Crawford leaves her husband. She relies on her looks to get a job, because she can’t afford an education and can’t type. The message writ large is that everybody does what they can. Some have brains, like a CPA she meets who earns a pittance. And others have charm, brains and guts, like mobsters that cross her path. But Crawford doesn’t sell her body. She's smarter than that. She offers ideas about how to advance careers, make progress, fulfill ambition. She explains how the world works and is convincing. Moreover, there’s nothing in this movie that separates a gangster from anyone else in business who wants to expand or protect his operation. They all need brains, courage and insight. When Crawford encounters a gangster who has money and power, the movie emphasizes the man’s sophistication. He talks with pleasure and erudition about an Etruscan vase. The movie is making the point that there’s nothing special about crime. In fact, it’s clear that Crawford needs a grounding in the arts to keep the mobster company and increase his profit. She introduces the CPA to the gangster; the CPA organizes the mob’s finances as he would any national enterprise. The key to the film’s success is that Crawford helps the men she meets. It’s not about causing trouble for them. The success of the movie, for women, is also what it shows about the skills they’re allowed to use. Everyone does what they can. Crawford is everyman and everywoman. Most importantly, she isn’t afraid to admit it. After a year of cultivation in Europe, paid by the mobster, Crawford takes her place as a wealthy socialite equipped with an illustrious pedigree. All false, but no one asks questions. Money is proof enough to make the society pages, and a keen mind will take you anywhere. The keen mind is important. There’s not a hint that Crawford’s brilliance isn’t more valuable than her looks.
The gangster feels that his western representative is being disloyal. He asks Crawford to investigate. The man won’t just open his soul to me when I introduce myself, says Crawford. I’ll have to do something more. To which the gangster replies, I’ll leave that up to you. There’s a touching naivete in such scenes, or subtlety. Does the gangster mean that any intimacy Crawford deploys will be manipulative and therefore not interfere with their own emotional ties? The film’s director, Vincent Sherman, had a long and close relationship with Crawford. A romance on screen is as unreal as a feigned romance to obtain information. But there’s no reason except sexism to suggest intimacy is the vehicle Crawford will prefer. She might inveigle her way into the man’s confidence by building new criminal ventures that multiply his profits. The audience is caught in a sexist trap of its own imagining.
The western lieutenant is indeed disloyal, and Crawford appears to lose her heart to the man, but she’s least convincing in these scenes. Crawford drags her feet in tattling to the chief mobster. He comes west to confront her. Crawford wants the western rep to live. In fact, she wants both criminals to live. But they’ve chosen their paths and it’s too late. The same is true for her. The mobster shoots his western rep, and Crawford is afraid she’ll be next. She bolts, and almost laughingly, ends up back where she started, with her parents. There’s another twist or two, but in a nutshell the mobsters die and Crawford lives. The sheriff’s men can’t figure how all this happened. Was she rich or poor? Who were her real friends? At the end, one sheriff’s deputy asks another if Crawford will do it all again. His companion looks at the nondescript house where Crawford now lives and asks, Wouldn’t you? This question lies at the heart of the movie. If you’re rich, you get an education and use those skills to navigate through life. If you’re not, you do what you can. That’s what America is about. It’s about success and striving and results. A woman can get ahead in the same way a man can, by brains and guts and using her talents to their utmost. Nobody denigrates Crawford in this movie, at least convincingly. Crawford is the star both in the real world and on stage. She was head and shoulders above the men around her. That’s why this is a woman’s movie, and - at least in part - why the public loved it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.136.5 (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The deletion of the text above was reversed- I am deleting this text again for the same grounds as mentioned above. This is someone's slanted, original commentary that belongs on a blog, not on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus1976 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Requested move 24 June 2017
[edit]- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: 
Done(non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 20:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The Damned Don't Cry! → The Damned Don't Cry – Although promotional literature for the film, including appended poster, depicts an exclamation point in the title, the on-screen credits, along with the film's trailer (both available online) confirm that the film, itself, has no exclamation point. The film's entry in the American Film Institute Catalog also shows no exclamation point. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Also its entry in the Film Noir Encyclopedia is without the ! mark. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Proper punctuation of title
[edit]Should the exclamation point at the end of the film's title be used throughout this entry? It appears on the pictured poster, but not in the first sentence. Then it reappears at the end of the first paragraph. So which is it? We should decide so we can be consistent throughout. (!) Thoughts, anyone? Kinkyturnip (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- The exclamation point has been deleted from the article's main title header per the WP:Requested moves discussion, above. If any stray exclamation points still remain within the body of the article, those should be also removed. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)