Imprint # 312
Distributor: Via Vision Entertainment (Imprint)
Release Date: April 24, 2024
Region: Region Free
Length: 01:57:26
Video: 1080P (MPEG-4, AVC)
Main Audio: 2.0 English Mono Linear PCM Audio
Subtitles: English HOH
Ratio: 1.78:1
Notes: This is the film’s “worldwide” Blu-ray debut. It is available as part of the “Film Focus: Kim Novak” collection.
“For Middle of the Night I had weeks of rehearsal until I understood what this girl was going through. This was a vast departure. … I never ever saw scripts of my first two movies in Hollywood — they were done line by line. And at Columbia they said, ‘Don’t bother with the character, don’t bother with motivation. Just get out there and do as you are told.’ … The rehearsals here in New York awakened me. … Sometimes you freeze a little on location shots [it was winter — one of the coldest on record — when Middle of the Night was filmed]. It doesn’t matter because I’m so grateful for the chance to act.” —Kim Novak (as quoted in “Kim Novak: Reluctant Goddess,” 1960 / 1986)
Many scholars believe that Middle of the Night (1959) represents the moment when Kim Novak came into her own as an actress. She did brilliant work in Vertigo prior to her appearance in this film, but much of that performance has more to do with Hitchcock’s cinematic artistry than with Novak’s acting prowess (a fact that actually served the film’s theme perfectly). This was the first time in her career that she succeeds in a role that required more of her than pliability. Here, she would have to be more than a marionette.
Paddy Chayefsky’s screenplay is an adaptation of his original play. It was tested as a one-hour episode of The Philco-Goodyear Television Playhouse on September 19, 1954, with E. G. Marshall and Eva Marie Saint as the two primary protagonists and Delbert Mann directing. The successful Broadway version eventually opened on February 08, 1956, and played through May 25, 1957. It was directed by Joshua Logan and starred Edward G. Robinson and Gena Rowlands.
Middle of the Night tells the relatively simple story of a wealthy garment manufacturer named Jerry Kingsley who is left lonely in his 60s when his wife dies. Despite the difference in their ages, he strikes up a romance with divorced 24-year-old receptionist Betty. The relationship is dismissed by his daughter, discouraged by his sister, and denounced by Betty’s mother.
Such stories depend on character rather than plot for interest, and this puts a tremendous responsibility upon the actors. Needless to say, casting was paramount (even if this was a Columbia production). Many expected Edward G. Robinson to reprise his Tony nominated portrayal of Jerry Kingsley for the screen, but Paddy Chayefsky insisted that his original choice for the role be cast when he sold Columbia the screen rights. Fredric March, he believed, would be perfect for the role. However, casting the role of Betty Preisser wouldn’t be as easy.
“The studio was interested in Elizabeth Taylor, then the biggest female box-office draw in films. Taylor was interested too, having seen the play on Broadway with her then husband Mike Todd. When Todd died, Taylor was in the middle of shooting Cat on a Hot Tin Roof and it took all her strength just to get through that production. By the time they were casting Middle of the Night, Taylor was embroiled in an affair with Eddie Fisher, Todd’s best friend — and a married man (to Debbie Reynolds) with children, to boot. Taylor eventually decided she had too much going on in her personal life to do the film, and so she withdrew.
Columbia then thought of the talented young actress Hope Lange. Lange had impressed critics and movie audiences alike with her work in Peyton Place and The Young Lions, but ultimately the studio thought that she was not a big enough box-office name, and it was decided that with March past his box-office prime that they needed a bigger box office name as the female lead. At this point, Columbia’s beautiful young contract player Kim Novak entered the picture. Novak had decorated such films as Picnic, Pal Joey, Bell Book & Candle, and had shown her acting chops under Hitchcock’s direction in Vertigo. Novak had recently renegotiated her contract with Columbia, which had given her the right to choose her future film roles. When she became aware that Middle of the Night was available, she was eager to make the film.” —Charles Tranberg (Fredric March: A Consummate Actor, 2013)
Novak’s casting certainly raised more than a few eyebrows within the Broadway community (as is almost always the case when someone other than the originator of a role is cast in any film adaptation). It also caused a stir in Hollywood. There were a great many established actresses who were hoping to be cast. Joanne Woodward and Carroll Baker were appearantly in the running, and Marilyn Monroe was desperate for the chance to prove herself in the role. This is the nature of show business. Luckily, other roles were much easier to cast. For example, Lee Philips and Martin Balsam would reprise the roles that they portrayed on the Broadway stage, and Lee Grant and Glenda Farrell would appear in supporting roles.
Meanwhile, Delbert Mann — who had directed the original 1954 Philco-Goodyear Television Playhouse episode) — returned to direct the theatrical film adaptation. Mann had already won an Academy Award for directing Marty (1955) and was still riding high from the success of Separate Tables (1958), so he was the easy choice for this film.
While Novak was initially “eager” to participate, she soon found herself with more than a few doubts.
“…She gradually became frightened about competing with March, Lee Grant, and veteran actors Edith Meiser and Lee Phillips. She told Mac Krim, ‘I want so hard to succeed in a serious picture. But after reading the script, I’m worried. I’m not sure I’m up to this.’
Mac soothed her: ‘Kim, do you realize how far you have come as an actress during the last few years? It’s going to be good. You’ll be fine.’
But her uncertainties continued. She couldn’t sleep, nor could she memorize the complicated, erudite screenplay. And she was shaky about leaving the protective cocoon of Columbia to film in a stark Bronx studio under a director, Delbert Mann, who was famous for stripping away glitzy Hollywood glamour. Mann disapproved of heavy makeup, wasn’t at all concerned about the lush, full look achieved on the Hollywood soundstages, and favored close-ups which erased all traces of artifice.” —Peter Harry Brown (Kim Novak: Reluctant Goddess, 1986)
Novak’s new earthy look would be exploited in the film’s marketing copy. The film’s press book spent an enormous amount of space on Novak. “It’s a ‘new’ Kim Novak,” the press book enthused.
“Not that anything is wrong with the old one. However, producer George Justin, director Delbert Mann, author Chayefsky and cameraman Joe Brun all believe Miss Novak is much more beautiful in person than she’s ever appeared on the screen. ‘Up to now,’ comments Brun, who won an Oscar nomination for his lensing of Martin Luther (1953), ‘Kim’s been beautiful on the screen, but to us it’s been a cold, crass type of beauty. Which is just the opposite of the warm, genuine person she really is.’ As a result, at the agreement of all parties, Miss Novak wears a minimum of make-up for the entire film.” —Columbia Pictures Press Book (1959)
The lack of glamor wasn’t what was worrying the actress. She understood that the role would require more from her than she had ever been required to give, and she wasn’t entirely sure that she had the ability to pull it off. Luckily, a rehearsal period had been scheduled.
The rehearsals were held at the Palladium Ballroom on Broadway at Fifty-Third Street. Delbert Mann and Paddy Chayefsky had rehearsed numerous ‘Philco Playhouse’ episodes there — including the first production of ‘Middle of the Night’ — and they felt comfortable continuing this tradition. Kim Novak, on the other hand, was anything but comfortable. In fact, she was a bundle of nerves.
“The first day of rehearsals on the drafty soundstage, Kim walked in a bit late to face the formidable array of talent: the imposing Fredric March, winner of two Oscars and nominee for three others; Lee Grant, who had made her stage debut at the age of four, and who had won the Best Actress award at the Cannes Film Festival in 1950; and Delbert Mann, the Academy Award-winning director of Marty and Separate Tables.
Kim was visibly shaken as she took off her coat and listened to the preliminary read-through. Both Mann and March were buried in the task of giving meaning to the words Chayefsky had written. Kim, on the other hand, voiced her lines almost inaudibly, as if she were ashamed of her own voice. ‘My heart went out to her that afternoon,’ Mann recalled. ‘She really didn’t know what to make of the rehearsals. It was over her head.’
The rehearsals limped along for twelve days with Grant, Phillips, and March picking up strength with each session. March even marked out the locations of props and sets as he perfected the style of performance he would offer the camera. But Kim was still painfully frightened.” —Peter Harry Brown (Kim Novak: Reluctant Goddess, 1986)
When it became clear that Novak was still struggling with the role after two weeks of rehearsals, they considered bringing Hope Lange in as a possible replacement. Everett Chambers (the film’s casting director) uncharitably claimed that Novak “didn’t know how to break the role down, or what a subtext was either,” but Delbert Mann admired Novak’s “courage” and was determined to keep her on the film.
“She was setting out into uncharted and frightening waters. She was to be working in New York, away from the security of her Hollywood studio base, with a cast of theatre-trained, stage-oriented actors, and playing a terribly demanding role opposite Fredric March — one of the greatest actors in the world. She knew that we planned to rehearse like a stage production or as if for a live television performance, and this was a method of working, I believe, she had never experienced. … She would be doing a script which demanded a level of emotional highs and lows she knew she had never achieved — and which she had the gravest doubts about ever being able to achieve. Everything was against her, yet she accepted the challenge.
Kim, I always felt, had a terrible insecurity and an open vulnerability. Her fear was palpable. She simply didn’t know how to handle the two weeks rehearsal, especially faced with the example set by Freddy March, working so meticulously to set every detail in advance so that he could then forget that aspect and concentrate on the emotion of the scene. Kim was pretty much at sea as we rehearsed with such consummate actors as Lee Grant, Martin Balsam, Lee Philips, Edith Meiser, and all the others. It was all intimidating to her.
I think she was especially intimidated by Freddy’s reputation, but what he did for her and for me! It was my greatest experience of working with a creative actor — his openness to directorial suggestions, his kindness, his warmth and understanding — and it was extended into his relationship to Kim. He was ever gentle and helpful, always aware of her feelings and fears.
Paddy was also understanding and helpful to her. But probably the greatest contributor was Everett Chambers who is now a producer. At that time, he was our Casting Director, then became my Dialogue Coach. He took Kim under his wing, coaching, teasing, jollying her along. I remember his story of their rehearsal of one particularly difficult scene. We had rehearsed as long as time permitted but she still had an inability to let her emotions go fully. [Everett] and I had discussed in detail what was still needed, and I asked him to work further with her in a more informal atmosphere.
They went back to her apartment and started to work on the scene. The more they worked the more depressed and frustrated she became, convinced that she could never do it. She just couldn’t find the way to turn her emotions loose. She cried, he yelled, according to his story. Suddenly, in frustration and anger, she smashed one of the balls off the Christmas tree which was standing in the corner. He yelled for her to do it again and again. Increasing the level of tension and release higher and higher, together they smashed every ornament on the tree, and she collapsed in tears on the sofa. [Everett] then talked quietly to her for a few moments about how to recapture the memory and use those emotions in playing the scene the next day, and then he departed.
Her performance the following day was extraordinary. Fuller and more real than she had ever achieved before. It was startling.” —Delbert Mann (as quoted in “Kim Novak on Camera,” 1980)
Interestingly, Novak always contradicted this particular version of events.
“Working on that film changed my life; it gave me confidence in my own abilities — something I hadn’t had before. I loved the rehearsals; every minute of them. It was exciting just to go on the set in the morning — but I never had to be coached intensely as some have claimed, and there was never an incident where I went around smashing Christmas ornaments.” —Kim Novak (as quoted in “Kim Novak: Reluctant Goddess,” 1985 / 1986)
A quotation from Paddy Chayefsky that appeared in the film’s press book would seem to support Novak’s assertion that she “loved the rehearsals.”
“She enjoyed those rehearsals more than anyone else… She was the first one there in the morning and the last one to leave at night. And the entire time, Kim asked questions. To be honest, Delbert (Mann) and I had a tough time answering some of them as she showed a tremendously keen intelligence of both the script and character delineation. She’s great in the role and I pity her next Hollywood producer, as I’m sure she’s going to demand three weeks of rehearsal from now on.” —Paddy Chayefsky (Columbia Pictures Press Book, 1959)
There’s no real way to know exactly what went on between Everett Chambers and Kim Novak during those “informal” coaching sessions since Chambers and Novak offer conflicting accounts, but we do know that whatever happened resulted in one of Novak’s better performances. It also seems to have given the actress a boost in self-esteem and a new outlook in regard to her profession.
“I have only been in pictures five years. Before [Middle of the Night], I had no dramatic training — so different from most actors who first learn their craft and then perform. So, up until my present project, I’ve always been tense and unnatural on camera, trying so hard to do just what the director told me to do but never contributing anything of my own personality.
When I did Picnic, for instance, Josh Logan told me never to use my own mannerisms before the camera — little things I do like touching my eyes when I talk, or, when I hold a glass in my hand, fussing with ice cubes. So, I never adjusted to having a free face while withholding my mannerisms. That’s why I have seemed so expressionless. At last, in Middle of the Night, Delbert Mann has given me a good deal of dramatic freedom.” —Kim Novak (as quoted in “Kim Novak on Camera,” 1980)
Of course, this didn’t mean that it was an especially easy film to shoot. Principal photography began on Monday, January 05, 1959, at Gold Medal Studios (which was located in the East Bronx). The facility had previously been a part of Biograph Studios (D.W. Griffith’s old stomping ground). Meanwhile, exteriors were shot in New York City’s garment district. “It was not an easy, comfortable picture physically,” remembered Delbert Mann. “We were shooting in the old Gold Medal Studios in the Bronx which were cold and depressing in the dead of winter. It was miserable shooting on the New York streets at night in the freezing cold.” By some reports, temperatures were as low as fifteen degrees while shooting on location, but Mann insists that there weren’t many complaints. Even Kim Novak — who was accustomed to shooting films in the relative comfort of a film studio — took the weather in stride.
“Kim never complained. She was a real trouper. The veteran New York crew began by being somewhat suspicious of her, then very quickly adopted her. She became one of the gang. George Justin, the Producer Production Manager led the way in kidding her unmercifully. She loved it and responded in kind. We ended the shooting with a tremendous feeling of family of which Kim and Freddy were the essential elements.” —Delbert Mann (as quoted in “Kim Novak on Camera,” 1980)
Actually, it seems that Novak enjoyed a freedom in New York that was beyond possibility in Hollywood.
“Instead of taking the hotel suite offered by the studio, Kim rented an apartment in Manhattan and stocked it with sparse furniture and a big-city wardrobe of bulky sweaters and coats to hide the Novak figure. After filming she would shrug into the nondescript clothes, hide her blond hair beneath a black wig, and virtually disappear into the New York crowds. ‘I feel like a human being again,’ she confided to her friend Norma Kasell. Each day the studio limousine called for her at about four a.m. and carried her through the deserted streets to the garment district locations of the film. Often Mann kept the cast working on into the night to bring the production in under cost. Still, Kim rarely stayed in at night. The lady in the black wig bought scores of books, attended off-Broadway plays, and spent entire weekends at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
She occasionally slipped into laboratory sessions of Lee Strasberg’s renowned Actors Studio, an acting academy which had produced Eva Marie Saint, Marlon Brando, and James Dean. She usually sat in the background, her hair under a scarf, and watched the young actors perform. Onscreen, this observation and study enabled her to turn in a performance of rare warmth.” —Peter Harry Brown (Kim Novak: Reluctant Goddess, 1986)
The production would wrap in six weeks, and all involved seemed thrilled once they saw a rough cut at Columbia Studios the following March. Chayefsky was especially enthusiastic and was certain that they had a hit on their hands. Of course, Columbia’s marketing department chose to focus upon Kim Novak’s transformation into a “serious actress” in most of their publicity materials. The press book enthused “Co-star Fredric March, director Delbert Mann, and author Paddy Chayefsky — all Oscar winners in their respective fields — predict that, as a result of the intensive rehearsals, Miss Novak will amaze the nation’s movie goers with her tremendous acting ability. And the blonde star’s compelling portrait of a young girl involved with a man older than herself truly has given filmdom something to talk about.”
After being warned by the William Morris Agency (who was now “representing” Kim Novak) that the actress was emotionally worn out after her work in Middle of the Night, the studio decided to send the actress to the Cannes Film Festival where the film was being previewed to represent the film. This was in keeping with their marketing campaign since most of their publicity copy for the film was devoted to the actress.
“Kim, in turn, took her parents along for a tour of Europe. Aly Khan, still waiting in the wings as a lover, lent Kim his lavish villa, Chateau L’Horizon, and dispatched an army of servants from Paris to entertain the Novaks. In the face of close scrutiny by the press, however, Aly himself was conspicuously absent. But Cary Grant was at Kim’s elbow throughout the festival.
Kim met Cary for the first time at one of the festival balls where she danced with him until three a.m. Thus, it was reported immediately in Hollywood that the two were in love. This time the rumor was actually fanned by Columbia publicists, who cannily realized that an explosion of press might greatly boost Middle of the Night. Cary, then fifty-five, was the same age as the character played by Fredric March in the film. But, alas, the love affair was just a rumor.” —Peter Harry Brown (Kim Novak: Reluctant Goddess, 1986)
Middle of the Night earned a Palme d’Or nomination at the festival but ended up losing the coveted award to Marcel Camus’s Black Orpheus (1959). It still ended up being a succès d’estime. The film only earned $1.5 million in domestic box-office dollars on a budget of 1 million after it opened at the Forum and Trans-Lux Theatres in New York on June 17, 1959. However, there were areas in the US where the film did much better than average business.
“In San Francisco, at the Paramount, the film had the biggest first week that the theater had experienced in two years. In Philadelphia, the Trans-Lux Theater had the best business in more than a year. The New York Fifty-Second Street Theater … extended [the film’s run] to six weeks. The Krim Theater in Detroit reported ‘smash business,’ while the Washington D.C. Playhouse reported Middle of the Night as its ‘biggest grosser in four years.’” —Charles Tranberg (Fredric March: A Consummate Actor, 2013)
The film didn’t receive any Academy Award nominations as Columbia had expected, but Fredric March received a Golden Globe nomination for his performance. (He ended up losing to Anthony Franciosa for his performance in Career.) The National Board of Review also included the film on their list of the best films of the year, and critical reception of the film was mostly positive.
The Film Daily offered an unqualified rave review of the film (even if it does condescendingly reduce Kim Novak to “a pretty adornment”):
“Paddy Chayefsky again examines the heart and thought of little people. Splendid performances. Marvelous storytelling. A hypnotically entertaining film for the discriminating.
Fredric March plays the lonely widower who is a half owner of a garment firm. Through his characterization comes that glimpse of the heart and mind which is the quiet feat of the finest acting. Kim Novak is a pretty adornment to the film as the frightened and confused secretary who falls in love with her boss. The story is primarily a close-up of their emotions, explored from many angles.” —Staff Writer (as quoted in “Kim Novak on Camera,” The Film Daily, 1959 / 1980)
Time magazine actually preferred the film to the original stage production. “Middle of the Night transforms an honest but clumsy play by Paddy Chayefsky into a cruelly beautiful and moving film, a story of life and love as a man grows older,” the review enthused before insisting that it possessed a “deeper maturity than Marty.” It then praised both of the film’s two primary performances:
“…A cruelly beautiful and moving film. What most strikingly meets the eye is the profound and professional performance of Fredric March. Seldom have youth and crabbed age lived together in one face with so much suffering and meaning. Amazingly, actress Novak shows up not too badly, despite the distinguished company, and the credit for that seems to belong to director Mann. … Chayefsky, of course, is ultimately responsible for the passionate sympathy… of this film.” —Staff Writer (Time, 1959)
Paul V. Beckley seemed to agree with the Time review (if slightly less exuberantly):
“As penetrating as Marty and in some ways better. My zest for the personal trivia is more short-lived than Chayefsky’s, but who can deny his never-flagging insight into his characters or his truly remarkable ear for speech patterns. … Rich in good performances … from March, one expects a good performance … This one is very solid. I doubt that any of his past performances, and there are fine ones to remember, is any more sharply realized than this one. … I never thought Miss Novak a great actress, but she gives a reasonable facsimile here of a not too bright girl.” —Paul V. Beckley (New York Herald Tribune, 1959)
As Charles Tranberg observed in “Fredric March: A Consummate Actor,” Philip K. Scheuer’s review in the Los Angeles Times called the film “intimate and rueful” before insisting that “while Edward G. Robinson was cast closer to type in the part of Jerry Kingsley, March’s achievement is perhaps even greater in that he succeeds in spite of being cast away from it.” He was also enthusiastic about Kim Novak’s performance:
“It is a new, nervous, unsure, but understandably desirable Miss Novak that Mann has created, and I found her performance fascinating. Also, I hasten to add, there is nothing ‘unsure’ about the actress; that is the part she is playing. This Betty Preisser has had affection neither from parents nor the cocksure jazz musician (Lee Philips) she married and divorced, and she is one mixed-up kid.” —Philip K. Scheuer (as quoted in “Kim Novak on Camera,” Los Angeles Times, 1959 / 1980)
John L. Scott also praised her performance:
“I thought director Mann extracted the maximum from both March and Miss Novak. Miss Novak’s characterization of an unsettled divorcee is designed to emerge as erratic but believable, and does just that, which attests to her determination to ‘understand’ the nervous, immature secretary and, to be sure, Mann’s painstaking direction.’” —John L. Scott (as quoted in “Kim Novak on Camera,” Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 1959 / 1980)
Not everyone agreed. In a mixed review for The Hollywood Reporter, Jack Moffitt was less than overcome with Novak’s work in the film (even if he did admit that her appearance in the film would probably enhance the film’s box office potential).
“Middle of the Night may be a box office hit, but it’s far from a certainty. The popularity of its star, Kim Novak, is a great asset. And the fact that the public accepted drab and downbeat screen artistry in Separate Tables also makes one hopeful … Miss Novak has the youth and beauty to keep the story going but her interpretation of the neurotic heroine relies heavily on actor’s tricks, and, through most of it, you feel her pressing for effect.” —Jack Moffitt (as quoted in “Kim Novak on Camera,” The Hollywood Reporter, 1959 / 1980)
Meanwhile, Bosley Crowther’s review for the New York Times seemed to be colored by his preference for the stage production:
“Paddy Chayefsky’s skill at probing average people who are lonely, insecure and who spend much time fumbling and groping for the comfort of sheer companionship is brought to the screen again most fitly in the picture version of Middle of the Night…
…While the romantic aura of the union is brighter than its prospects of success, the obvious assumption of the author is that it’s going to turn out okay. We wouldn’t want to bet money on it — not as much money, anyway, as we’d have bet on the future of the union that was finally resolved on the stage. In the first place, the garment manufacturer that a hard-working Fredric March plays looks a little too old and doddering to be taking a 24-year-old bride. And the young lady, played by Kim Novak, seems too much of a badly mixed-up kid to be settling down quietly with a grandpa on West End Avenue. That’s by the by, however.
The film is not concerned with the success of the marriage that is pending, but only with the courtship of the pair. And that is made thoroughly tempestuous and harrowing in this intimate screen view. By the time the playwright gets through poking them, the participants would seem too tired to care. In this respect, the picture has more to offer than did the play. The characters are more intense and driven by their lonely and neurotic moods. They fumble and paw at each other in a more avid and frenzied way, and their squabbles and indecisions are more violent and sweaty with pain.
Mr. Chayefsky and Delbert Mann, the director, have worked for the taut, dramatic thing. They haven’t wasted much time on humor. This is loneliness, boy, and it is grim. But something that was quite attractive on the stage is not in the film. That is the humor and the temperament of a particular ethnic group. Mr. March is an excellent actor when it comes to showing joy and distress, but he isn’t successful at pretending to be a Jewish papa and businessman. He goes with the flavor of his family, which is very colloquially played by Edith Meiser, Joan Copeland, and Martin Balsam, about as poorly as spoonbread goes with lox. And when he takes his girl to the Catskills for a resort-hotel New Year’s Eve, he stands out from the well-defined environment as sharply as if he were wearing a burnoose. His isn’t the garment manufacturer that Edward G. Robinson played.
As for Miss Novak’s secretary and unsettled divorcée she is plainly designed to be erratic, frightened and immature, so that Miss Novak’s fluttery performance is inevitably in the shifty mood. It is as hard to discover precisely what she is aiming to be as it is to discover what Glenda Farrell, as her mother, is trying to convey. Obviously, both these characters are lacking self-discipline. That’s why we wouldn’t bet much money on the happy union Mr. Chayefsky has strenuously arranged. But we must say it is vigorous, tense, and touching while the arrangements are being made.” —Bosley Crowther (Lonely People; Middle of Night’ Is at Two Theatres, New York Times, June 18, 1959)
Hollis Alpert also lamented a perceived change in tone from the stage production:
“The story was more successful in its stage version. I suspect this was due to the playing of Edward G. Robinson and Gena Rowlands [and] Joshua Logan’s direction. … The lines had humor and crackle, and the audience was able to put aside for a while its worry about what earth would happen afterward. The movie, though, is a darker, gloomier affair. Fredric March, fine actor though he is, doesn’t provide the appeal that Robinson brought to the role and Kim Novak, I’m afraid, isn’t capable of sustaining any prolonged interest in the girl. Nor does Delbert Mann’s direction spark the scenes between them to sustained life.” —Hollis Alpert (The Saturday Review)
Crowther and Alpert seem to be incapable of allowing the film to be its own entity. Keep in mind that Chayefsky adapted the play for the screen, and the changes were his own creation. The play is one thing, and the movie is another. Unfortunately, this wouldn’t have made a difference to Manny Farber. It is clear that he was biased is against Chayefsky’s entire body of work, and Middle of the Night was never going to be given a proper chance.
“The story of Middle of the Night — an elderly widower rejuvenating himself with a lost, neurotic tootsie — is exposed in the first shot, and the following two hours are an evasion consisting of Paddy Chayefsky’s intense interest in dialogue-character-idea clichés. Only two scenes are allowed to be played out instead of small talking the spectator into a visit to the pop-corn machine. And both scenes — a Poconos weekend tryst and a panting-around-the-apartment seduction — are crippled by a characteristic Chayefsky ploy, such as the extended one note misery of an amateur drinker having a hangover. Assisting Chayefsky in his scorn for Hollywood’s old story-through-action technique, the director, Delbert Mann, does a clichéd grim realism with backgrounds, weather, faces. The two miscast leads, Frederic March and Kim Novak are a sometimes effective but generally square approximation of garment district miserables.” —Manny Farber (Hollywood’s Plot Against the Plot, The New Leader, July 6, 1959)
Farber’s review doesn’t seem at all fair. By most accounts, the film was exactly what it was intended to be, and this is essentially what matters. Everything else is susceptible to the inevitable biases of personal taste. Either one appreciates this sort “slice of life” subject matter, or they simply don’t care for it. Another aspect of some of the negative criticism that wasn’t objectively fair are the condescending remarks about Kim Novak’s performance. I say this because many critics had already formed a bias against the actress (that wasn’t shared by the general public). This attitude has even been adopted by certain biographers. For example, in “The Films of Fredric March,” Lawrence J. Quirk’s assessment of the film offers the sort of patronizing commentary that cursed some of the less positive reviews upon the film’s release: “In the film the Gena Rowlands part was handed to Kim Novak, and her deficiencies as an actress were somewhat disguised by the fact that the character of the girl as visualized by Chayefsky was confused and not too bright to begin with.”
In light of this, one wonders if certain critics and scholars were simply too frightened to offer the actress unqualified praise. After all, it is safer to simply adopt popular critical opinion and regurgitate it as your own than it is to brave an opposing viewpoint. This is a problem in film criticism today, and it was a problem all of those decades ago. No critic wants their tastes and expertise to be called into question, so most of them will simply fall into line.
We know that Delbert Mann — the film’s director — was more than pleased with Novak’s performance in the film.
“Seen today, her performance, for me, stands the test of time. It is full of truth, heart, and deep feeling. She truly projects the vulnerable, confused creature Paddy created. I have always felt that had she not been a ‘star,’ if audiences had never seen her in any other role, her performance would have been acclaimed as sensationally interesting and real. It was a most satisfying experience for me, and Kim retains a very warm spot in my heart.” —Delbert Mann (as quoted in “Kim Novak on Camera,” 1980)
Since this is a retrospective assessment of the actress’s work, it seems safe to accept this as his true opinion on the matter — and we know that Paddy Chayefsky was in complete agreement. Who would be arrogant enough to suggest that the writer of the play knows less about whether or not Novak brought his character to life in the proper manner than they do? (Sadly, probably more critics than we would want to count, but this doesn’t mean that they are correct.)
Middle of the Night is precisely the sort of film one expects from Paddy Chayefsky. Those who admire his work are very likely to appreciate the film, and those who prefer explosions, plane crashes, train chases, and other such distractions will probably feel that it is a tedious struggle to get to the credit scroll. This is a film about average people with common internal struggles. It is about interpersonal relationships. It is a grim tale about loneliness. It is many things, and it deserves the same reputation that Marty (1955) enjoys.
The Presentation:
4.5 of 5 Stars
Via Vision Entertainment protects the disc in a clear Blu-ray case with a dual sided insert sleeve that features artwork that utilizes art from one of the original marketing concepts used for the film’s theatrical release, but it isn’t the design used for the primary US one sheet.
The interior includes a production still from one of the film’s scenes. This is essentially the same kind of case that Arrow Video uses for their releases (which is a good thing).
All of the movies included in the “Film Focus: Kim Novak” collection fit into a very sturdy box that is incredibly attractive. Of course, those who wish to own the boxed set will need to act fast because this is a Limited Edition (only 1500 copies exist).
It is worth noting that the rating label is on the plastic wrapping and not on the actual box (nor is it on any of the individual insert sleeves for the films in this collection), so it does not mar the packaging in any way.
The disc’s static menu features attractive film related artwork and is intuitive to navigate.
Picture Quality:
4 of 5 Stars
Via vision doesn’t provide much in the way of information about the scan used to produce their Blu-ray transfer of Middle of the Night, and it is possible that they weren’t provided with the information about the master when Sony provided them with it. All that is known is that it must have been a very healthy source. Age-related anomalies are few and far between, and none are ever distracting. The grain isn’t terribly thick, and one wonders if some slight DNR hasn’t been applied — but the digital anomalies that tend to accompany such practices never make themselves evident. Fine detail often impresses, and contrast is well handled for the most part. This may not represent the best that the film can look on the format, but it is a solid transfer that will satisfy most viewers. In fact, this could be said about all of the films in the “Film Focus: Kim Novak” collection.
Sound Quality:
4 of 5 Stars
Via Vision’s 2.0 Mono LPCM Audio transfer is a very healthy representation of the film’s original audio. It offers clean and clear dialogue that is well prioritized within the mix. George Bassman’s score is given plenty of room to breathe in this lossless transfer and is likewise prioritized appropriately. Age related issues are either absent or too subtle to notice, and the same thing can be said about encoding anomalies. Purists will be very pleased with the track.
Special Features:
3 of 5 Stars
Reflections in The Middle of the Night — (15:04)
This is very similar to the “Select Scene Commentary” conversations that were included on the Jeanne Eagles and Pal Joey discs. The primary difference is that this particular conversation between Stephen Rebello and Kim Novak is illustrated with more than various scenes from the film. Production photographs and screenplay excerpts are also uses. However, it is very much the same thing other than this small difference. Here we learn that Harry Cohn didn’t really want Novak to do the film, and we hear about bits of business that she suggested for the film that ended up in the picture as well. There’s quite a bit of interesting information here for fans to enjoy.
Theatrical Trailer — (03:18)
We are happy that they have included the original theatrical trailer.
Final Words:
Those who appreciate Paddy Chayefsky’s work will almost certainly want to see this film, and this new Imprint Edition is currently the only way to experience it on the Blu-ray format. It is probably the most accomplished film in the “Film Focus: Kim Novak” set (even if it isn’t a subject that is likely to appeal to all viewers).
Note: While we were provided with a screener for review purposes, this had no bearing on our review process. We do not feel under any obligation to hand out positive reviews.
Blu-ray Downlow 