« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »
I recently noticed an interesting, and deeply embedded, instance of co-branding in Fritz Lang's essential noir film Scarlet Street (1945). Edward G. Robinson plays Christopher Cross, a cashier and amateur painter taken for the proverbial "ride" by respective pimp and prostitute, Johnny and Kitty Marsh. As a consequence of Kitty's pseudo-seduction of Chris, and Johnny's cruelly entrepreneurial spirit, Chris's paintings are eventually credited to Kitty. They go on display in the finest New York gallery of modern art under Kitty's name, yet the betrayal doesn't seem to bother Chris. Kitty's relationship with Johnny sure does, so Chris murders them both.
Inspired by the primitive style of post-impressionist painter Henri Rousseau, the paintings in Scarlet Street are emblematic signposts, structuring and guiding the narrative. And lest I repeat the same violence of Johnny and Kitty, it should be said that Lang commissioned John Decker, most famous for painting Hollywood star portraits, to produce the paintings for the film. Chris's artistic vision is presented as incredibly naive, child-like, and yet with a disarming depth of insight. Chris "draws a line" around what he feels. Here is a shot of one painting on display in the gallery window:
This painting represents an event--really the event--that sets the narrative of Scarlet Street into motion. Chris is walking home late one evening, and sees Johnny and Kitty standing on a corner. Johnny is, in characteristic pimp fashion, beating the holy hell out of Kitty. When Chris approaches, Johnny takes off, and Chris never does get a good look at Johnny's face: an unfortunate detail, as it makes possible later deceptions. In the painting, Johnny is the snake, Kitty is the girl, the 'El' tracks are the 'El' tracks, the pawn shop is the pawn shop, etc.
It doesn't show up in the digital version of the print I was able to download from Public Domain Torrents, but in the newly re-mastered DVD recently released by the Library of Congress, certain interesting visual details emerge from the painting. Namely, the billboards lining the 'El' tracks are advertisements for real companies: Johnnie Walker, Camel's and Canada Dry Soda Water.
Even in this digitally altered version it is tough to see, so you will have to take my word for it. What intrigues me most about this co-branding is how totally unintentional it is. It is obvious that the brands didn't pay for inclusion, and also that no "commentary" is being made about the invasiveness of branding or consumerism. There is an under-riding theme of "capitalism vs. art" in the film, in so far as Chris plays a naive artist unconcerned with profit whose creations are transformed by Kitty and her entrepreneur into highly esteemed paintings that fetch top dollar at the best galleries. However, Lang doesn't seem to be explicitly critiquing the commodification of art, so much as representing its sordid realities.
The decision to represent real brands in the actual art objects within the film (the art within the art) is a pretty remarkable one. What difference does it make whether the composition uses Johnnie Walker or some other generic product name? Especially when close-ups of the painting are so brief, and the most important details are the snake and woman standing in front of the pawn shop. It's a curious instance of "co-branded product placement," and it's always interesting to discover these odd early depictions of brand names.
