PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET (1953)

This Cold War spy film, co-written and directed by Samuel Fuller for 20th Century Fox earned modest success at the box office from a tight budget. With great pacing and solid performances, the film is nicely supported by a score that is, at times, elaborately arranged by the significant film composer, Leigh Harline. In a general sense, the film can be distasteful and made it controversial in its day. Over the years since, reading between the screenplay lines, many Twenty-First Century critics have placed the film on a pedestal for those very same reasons. In contrast, moviegoers of the era were able to quickly categorize the film upon exiting the theater. And their reviews were mixed. Reviews were decidedly one-sided for Fuller's remake in 1967. A full-color disaster starring a dull James Brolin and a miscast Jacqueline Bisset made the original screenplay a talk-fest of major proportions, lacking any style or intrigue. 

The film opens on a crowded New York City subway train as Government agent, Willis Bouchey, has his eyes trained on Jean Peters, whose dark lipstick, false eyelashes and dress convey her persona. Also sandwiched between them is a professional pickpocket, Richard Widmark, who deftly steals Peters' wallet during the jostling ride. Neither knows the vital contents inside. Widmark just hopes to inherit some cash or jewels. Peters' ex-boyfriend, Richard Kiley, has told her the wallet contains stolen business secrets, unaware that she has naively gotten herself wrapped up in a Communist plot. Widmark persistently denies he stole any microfilm but the detectives, sensing he is not on the level, offer him a deal to clear his record if he hands it over.

A scoundrel living in a wooden shack along the New York harbor, Widmark is not exactly living on easy street in his one-room “clubhouse.” He does have a nifty winch system he can raise and lower to retrieve his chilled beer. Cleverly hidden in a false bottom of his “beer box” is his plastic-wrapped safe for his “take-home pay.” Always nicely attired with plenty of confidence, surely he lives elsewhere. He ends up being somewhat of a likable chap despite his cocky, aberrant behavior. He soon discovers the microfilm's national significance. 

For most of her roles, seemingly in the same wardrobe, I can only take Thelma Ritter (above) in small doses. Her scenes here are actually that. Here she again plays the savvy, wiseacre informant to the police. A knowledge she has accrued since childhood, I gather, as a school's classroom was either not available or school was just not her thing. She knows the crime underbelly better than the police. She is called in to identify the pickpocket's style based on Bouchey's observations. A mugshot quickly pinpoints Widmark. Her value to the police department has deadly consequences, however.

Kiley demands Peters get the microfilm from Widmark as only she can. Thinking he has an ace up his sleeve, Widmark plans to seek a huge cash reward for the film. But Kiley's plan goes awry as Peters takes his place. Upon her return Kiley finds a key film frame missing. He takes his anger out on her. Time being critical, Communist agents order Kiley to deliver the film as is. Recognizing Kiley from his earlier attempted visit, Widmark tails him onto the subway train where he pickpockets his handgun. The film exchange is witnessed in a subway station restroom then Widmark chases Kiley through the subway for the film's climax.

Note: Jean Peters sells this performance of a woman who has lived off the streets most of her life, earning a “living” as needed. Like Ritter, she has connections. Unlike Ritter, she is on the opposite end of the visual spectrum. She has never known real respect or unconditional love but Widmark makes an attempt. In the early scenes, with an airy dress more suited for the beach, it is not exactly what June Cleaver would ever consider. I cannot imagine another actress who could fill this part as well. If ten years younger, perhaps Ida Lupino. The other female options of the era would either have been too sophisticated or too overt.