“MGM presents a REVOLUTIONARY motion picture! The most AMAZING since the beginning of Talkies! YOU and ROBERT MONTGOMERY solve a murder mystery… TOGETHER!”

This is what MGM used to sell Lady in the Lake originally, and I have to admit that it does sound fun. The entire film was shot in first person perspective, with the only glimpses of the protagonist in reflections. Consider that it was released in 1947, and that few movies since have taken this risk. It's odd really. It's not as though this picture wasn't successful critically or commercially. Nowadays everything is a carbon copy of everything else; six films capitalizing on the first's success. Was Hollywood not more-or-less the same back then?

So what is it about Lady in the Lake that makes me dislike it so? I loved Raymond Chandler's novel (as I did with most of his work), I like film noir in general. Robert Montgomery was an excellent actor in his time, able to be convincingly charming and funny while exuding a certain intelligence beneath the surface. He seemed to be the perfect Philip Marlowe. And above all, I love the bravado involved in the creation of the picture. And yet, I didn't want to sit through the entire thing.

Perhaps if it were based on different material I would have been able to enjoy it more. The thing I like most about Chandler 's material is the crackling dialogue, and the sense of wit that came through no matter how strange or off-putting the characters involved were. This is completely sacrificed here, as it sounds as though Montgomery 's lines were recorded and dubbed in afterwards. It makes the clever banter awkward instead of smart and neuters the chemistry between everyone in the film. Aside from that, having every secondary character constantly looking into the camera makes the viewer uncomfortable which is counter-productive for what is somewhat serious material.

That's it right there! It's not even as though this is overly dramatic content. It's that the style in no way fits. If Lady in the Lake had been an action film, or a comedy, or a movie about boxing, then I would have been all for it. The plot was never what was good about Chandler's work, nor the action or the car chases. It was the interactions between people that made it sing. You compromise that (or in this case, kill it all together) then you compromise (or kill) what is great about your source material.

So here's the lesson, and it's something that every experimental filmmaker should live by. If you are going to go out on a limb with a unique film style, ask yourself whether it enhances the script or compromises it. And think seriously about it. You may get kudos for doing something different, but it doesn't mean anything if your film was better off had you played it straight. There isn't a single second of Mike Figgis' Timecode that would have worked if it had not been shot the way it was, and that's great. Conversely, there's not a single second of Lady in the Lake that works because of the risk it took.