User Reviews (68)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    Laraine Day plays a disturbed young woman in "The Locket," about a childhood trauma that dictates a woman's future. Brian Aherne, a young Robert Mitchum, and Gene Raymond all play men duped by her as she goes from husband to husband.

    During and after World War II, the subject of psychiatry became a popular one in films as soldiers and their families sought to deal with the psychological implications of the war experience. "Possessed," "Lady in the Dark," "A Dark Adapted Eye," "Snakepit," were some of those films, to name only a few.

    In "The Locket," Brian Aherne visits bridegroom-to-be Gene Raymond to warn him about his future wife, and in Aherne's story, Mitchum has come to visit him - so that soon we have a flashback within a flashback within a flashback, going back to Day's childhood and the trauma she suffered at the hands of her mother's employer, when she is accused of taking a locket that in reality, the employer's daughter had given her. The Day character is a magnificent actress, fooling each man she meets into believing that the problem is with the man in the prior situation.

    Laraine Day is lovely and does the wide-eyed innocent beautifully. She has long been a favorite actress of mine. The men are all good. It's great to see young, handsome Mitchum in the role of an artist who becomes involved with Day.

    All in all, a fascinating story and well worth seeing.
  • Yes! This is the movie that does just that - but it's worth watching for more than that. It is an inspired piece of film-making with excellent direction and fine photography. It also features some strong performances especially from the (is she or isn't she evil) Laraine Day, and the wonderful Brian Aherne. And Robert Mitchum's pretty good too. The best bits are almost expressionist - especially the music box shots - and it's full of the pseudo psychological nonsense that Hollywood loved so much in this era. Highly enjoyable.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Made in the stark "film noir" style that was popular for crime dramas in the forties and fifties, "The Locket" deals with a similar theme to Alfred Hitchcock's "Marnie", that of a beautiful but psychologically disturbed young woman whose disturbance manifests itself as kleptomania, an uncontrollable impulse to steal. The main character, Nancy Monks, is a working-class girl who as a child was wrongly accused by her mother's wealthy employer of stealing a valuable locket and harshly beaten. The memory of this injustice has scarred Nancy ever since, and in adult life she tries to revenge herself on the world by stealing jewellery. Her compulsion to steal wrecks first her relationship with Norman Clyde, a young artist, and then her marriage to Harry Blair, a psychiatrist. Nancy's crimes may, indeed, go beyond mere theft; there is a suggestion that she may have committed a murder in the course of one robbery, a murder for which an innocent man suffers the death penalty. His feelings of guilt about his role in this affair drive Clyde to suicide.

    Much of the comment on this film has centred on its unusually baroque structure, complex even by today's standards and even more so by those of the forties. It has been described as a "flashback within a flashback within a flashback". (The main action takes place on the morning of Nancy's second wedding. The story of her marriage to Blair is told in the first flashback, which contains a second flashback telling Clyde's story as told to Blair, which in turn contains a flashback narrating the story of her childhood). Despite this intricate construction, however, the plot line is never difficult to follow.

    The film's links to Hitchcock's works go beyond a thematic resemblance to "Marnie". The set used for the house of Nancy's mother's employer is the same one used for the house of Alex Sebastian in "Notorious"; in both cases it serves to suggest opulent wealth combined with coldness. More importantly, the film-makers clearly shared the fascination with psychology that was obvious in such Hitchcock films as "Spellbound" or "Psycho". Such a fascination, particularly with the theories of Freud, was, in fact, quite common in the cinema around this period, although these theories were often somewhat bowdlerised. The censors were clearly uncomfortable with Freud's insistence on the particular importance of sexual experiences in influencing the human psyche. (I was interested to read the comments of the reviewer who pointed out the use of the locket of the title as a symbol of repressed memory).

    Despite these thematic links it is not really accurate to describe the film as "minor league Hitchcock" as one reviewer did. I have not seen any of John Brahm's other films, but "The Locket" is the work of a major-league player. It is not a suspense film in the normal Hitchcock style but rather a melodrama. Brahm is able to get good performances out of his actors, particularly from Robert Mitchum as Clyde and Laraine Day, an actress with whom I was not previously familiar, as Nancy. The melodramatic style requires a non-naturalistic heightening of emotion; in some films this might have come across as over-acting, but here it is quite deliberate, done for increased dramatic effect and in line with the dark, neo-Gothic tone of the film. This is not a well-known film today, but I was lucky enough to catch it when it was recently shown on British television, and was not disappointed. 7/10
  • Brahm's intricately constructed film is based on the obvious conceit of a locket: in psychoanalytical terms, it symbolises repressed memory and of the 'opening up' of hidden psychosis. In a filmic sense of course, The Locket itself is a cinematic 'locket', the flashbacks within flashback structure reflecting the secret enclosure typical of such a piece of jewellery.

    In fact I can't think of another film that takes this much commented narrative technique to such extremes. Mitchum of course was well used to playing heros faced with abnormal feminine psychology. He faces similar femme fatales in Preminger's 'Angel Face' for instance and in Farrow's 'Where Danger Lives' - all made at around the same time (end 40's, start of 50's). This may reflect something of the obsession that Hollywood had with cod Freudianism just as much as noir convention, but there is no doubting that Mitchum's peculiar manner as an actor, his doe-eyed sleep-walking acting style, made his starring excursions into the dangers of the subconscious peculiarly effective.

    Brahm, one of Hollywoods most neglected directors at least for the work that he did at this time in his career, makes the somewhat over- stretched structure of the film work, pun intended, like a dream. Nancy's final walk to the altar, immediately before her mental and psychic collapse, although necessarily melodramatic, is very effective version of a personal calvary and she seems stunned and trance like. In retrospect, of course, it is easy to see how the whole of the preceding film has been leading up to this sequence, (just as how the flashback structure of the film reminds one in passing of 'Citizen Kane') but the sound and vision montage is still powerful.

    By setting the bulk of the film in flashback, Brahm places it in the past - or, more precisely, in the imaginatively reconstructed past, and it is this dream-sense that retains a powerful grip on the viewer as events unfold. This almost hallucinatory sense, together with a feeling of 'drifting with fate', marks out some of the greatest noirs and B-mysteries made at this time and is what makes this film still very watchable today.

    A 'Locket' well worth looking into.
  • This film by underrated director John Brahm is one of the more interesting works of the 1940s (not one of the best, but different).

    Laraine Day plays Nancy, about to marry and hiding some dark secrets in her past. She was excellent at this kind of thing. Gene Raymond (not the most charismatic of actors but surprisingly good here) plays her intended, with Brian Aherne as the psychiatrist who knows about her previous life.

    In flashback we see Nancy and her husband (a young Robert Mitchum) and then into another flashback (daring to attempt this at the time when many films were still pursuing conventional structure).

    'The Locket' of the title obviously holds the key to the mystery, and we have an absorbing time pulling all the loose ends together. Reginald Denny, Ricardo Cortez, and Ellen Corby decorate an accomplished cast.
  • The Locket (1946)

    Well, when you have a post-war movie with Robert Mitchum at his young prime, you can't go wrong.

    The star (or starlet, as they used to say) is actress Laraine Day playing Nancy, and she pulls off a charming, attentive, smart…perfect woman. A bride to be, in fact. The movie starts with people arrive to a high class wedding. Mitchum shows up via flashback (classic film noir stuff). In fact, there is a flashback within a flashback within a flashback (4 levels) and it's sort of fun.

    There are some great lines like, "If you'e lucky you can afford to be nice." But some of the dialog, and maybe the plot overall, is a hair stiff at times.

    Director John Brahm is not well known, but his "Hangover Square" the year before is really great. And this one shows a consistent sense of storytelling and drama with highs and lows if not always fully developed characters. The key character is Nancy, who uses her charm to win over the audience as well as the men around her in the plot. Day plays her role perfectly—swiveling sweetness against a just perceptible insincerity. She's a terrific liar.

    Which brings me back to Mitchum, who is good but seems to be reading rehearsed lines too often. I think there was supposed to be chemistry between Day and Mitchum, but it wasn't there, even though they both look terribly good.

    Though it has a noir-like flavor, this strikes me as a straight up melodrama overall, and with soaring music and lots of dramatic lighting there is no way to not get absorbed in it. There are some short but well done scenes of London during the war (bombs and blackouts).

    A well done and lesser known good one. And a fun curiosity—the crazed music box music that denotes an uneven state of mind is the same as that used in the "Bad Seed."
  • Warning: Spoilers
    **SPOILERS GALORE**

    Don't let the title fool you. Its not a movie about a little girl who was denied a locket and let it effect the rest of her life.

    Well, actually that's exactly what it is, but that's only a very small part of this melodrama.

    On the day he's getting married, a man is told (through flashbacks) about his fiance's previous marraige, and then through more flashbacks, we meet Robert Mitchum, who she was engaged to. Incredibly, through even more flashbacks (at this point, I thought we'd be treated to seeing Noah gather the animals for the trip), you get to the locket situation.

    Movie is not nearly as confusing as I am making it sound and is very well acted. I had never seen and barely heard of Laraine Day (I think she was in a Hitchcock) and she's very appealing. She's kind of a cross between Linda Darnell and Vera Miles, if you can picture that, and doesn't give the slightest hint that's out of her mind. She doesn't play 'crazy' which helps the movie because it leaves you room to doubt her OR everyone else in the movie.

    The end is a shame cause its over the top, but I still enjoyed this and would recommend it to anyone. 7/10.
  • Saw this for the first time on Turner Classic last night and was thoroughly impressed with the successful use of flashbacks that were clearly understood and served the story well.

    There was no confusion for the viewer despite the complex storyline and varying points of view involved.

    The mystery held me throughout. It was a matter of he said/she said that left you undecided, or at least unsure, of who was being truthful and who wasn't. Even the sequences in the flashbacks were reflecting one person's point of view and not necessarily what really happened.

    I would highly recommend this movie to my friends who love good scripts and especially to any would-be screenwriters looking at the correct use of flashbacks in film.

    Characters, plot line, direction, photography, acting: all excellent.
  • Though hardly a 'great' movie, this is a thoroughly absorbing and above-average B-movie that keeps one involved. The acting is excellent throughout, and the triply-nested flashbacks are an original conceit. It deserves better than the 2 stars Maltin gives it. Thanks, American Movie Classics, for bringing us this one.
  • Laraine Day supported by Robert Mitchum, Brian Aherne, and Gene Raymond. The three men associated with "Nancy" are all very adept in their parts, especially Robert Mitchum. The plots twist and turns keep you interested for the entire film. You will notice Lillian Fontaine as Lady Wyndham. She is also noted for her two brilliant daughters Joan Fontaine and Oliva de Havilland. The film is very much like a Hitchcock movie in its style. It is dark and has several different possible solutions, but the real end is not expected. It is much more complex than even a true mystery buff would guess. It does not keep you on the edge of your seat, it is not that type of film, it just plods along and keeps your interest throughout the film, and makes you think (a little).
  • Knowing that this is the movie with the famous "flashback within a flashback within a flashback" draws people in, but the device never comes across as forced or artificial, and it works.

    Like a lot of other people, I think Leonard Maltin underrates this one. "The Locket" is fun and suspenseful, as all "did she or didn't she" stories are when they're told right. This is Laraine Day's finest hour, and Robert Mitchum is very good in a sympathetic role. They are ably supported by Brian Aherne and Gene Raymond.

    It's nice to see so many of the wonderful old thrillers from the 40s enjoying a revival. So many little gems like "The Locket" come in at under 90 minutes; they benefit from tight writing, intriguing premises and neat plot twists. Like "Detour," "Phantom Lady," "Follow Me Quietly" and many others, "The Locket" does not disappoint.

    This is the kind of movie you think about all day long, and maybe the day after, if you happen upon it at 3:00 a.m. on TCM.
  • hankochai5 October 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    *Warning this contains a small spoiler at the end* Just saw this on TCM -- wow, I'd never heard of this movie and it's excellent! Laraine Day is fabulous in the way she plays "nice" and "perky" without spilling too much into saccharine, but there's always the slight undercurrent of creepiness. Mitchum is fantastic as usual, and Brian Aherne (a one-time lover of Marlene Dietrich, by the way) was excellent as well. The director handled the flashback within flashback within flashback quite well -- I can see how it could've been annoying and tiresome, but for some reason it worked without getting on my nerves. And I loved it when the mean lady who'd accused Nancy of stealing the locket years before stepped into the frame, and you realize she's the mother-in-law-to-be! Zowee. This was a real treat to watch.
  • Lejink31 July 2019
    Having recently watched John Brahms' two preceding movies, both centring on psychologically disturbed men (killers in fact) in period features, here the director presents us with an emotionally unstable woman in a contemporary setting. I enjoyed the two earlier films "The Lodger" and "Hangover Square" and I enjoyed this one too.

    The lead character is played by Laraine Day, whose beauty attracts men like honey to a bee, although little do they know that she is a closet kleptomaniac with slippery fingers around rich folk's jewellery, her condition traceable to a childhood incident when she covets an expensive locket given to her by the rich little girl whose house her mother serves, but taken back away from her by the girl's mother as too good for her. When the locket later goes missing she is menacingly if mistakenly accused by the mother and given to believe that her shame at this has coloured her future conduct as an adult. Not only do her good looks attract the interest of deep men like Robert Mitchum's artist and Brian Aherne's doctor, it all climaxes in a super-charged betrothal scene to her third beau, the very rich Gene Raymond whose mother's nuptial gift to her of a locket finally unlocks years of denial and guilt on her part.

    I'd have to say that the plot certainly overdoes the Freudian associations of Day's Cassandra-like obsession with jewellery. I also couldn't quite imagine Mitchum firstly as a tortured artist and secondly taking the extreme action he does as he gives up Day to Aherne, while the final coincidence of the other locket was just a bit too much to swallow.

    Nevertheless, it was again stylishly directed by Brahm with strong performances by Day as the beguiling magpie Nancy, as adept at stealing men's hearts as old folk's jewellery, Aherne as the duped doctor and even Mitchum, miscast as he was. The layered flashbacks I found intriguing while the use of dramatic lighting, staging and music added greatly to the suspense.

    1940's Hollywood movies were awash with psychologically disturbed individuals in films from Citizen Kane on down and while this particular feature overdoes the angst more than a bit, it was none the less entertaining for all that.
  • Hello!?... Are you ready for a vintage, Hollywood movie (circa 1946) whose story (get this!) is a flashback within a flashback within a flashback? (ho-hum!) (And, believe me, with each subsequent flashback you're sure to find your head spinning while you're saying "WTF!?" to yourself about every 5 minutes, or so)

    Well, if this flashback business is the sort of movie-scenario that appeals to you, then you need look no further than 1946's The Locket. I swear this one's web of tangled situations requires that you start out with a "connect-up-the dots" map in order to navigate yourself sanely through its multi-layered stratum.

    I also warn you - Do not take The Locket's dead-serious story at face value. Viewed 70 years later, this film is packed with all sorts of unintentional humour. And for me, this accidental irony was its only real "highlight", 'cause without it this movie was just a ludicrous mess of Hollywood gibberish from start to finish.

    Anyway - Another reason why I so generously gave The Locket its 5-star rating has to do with actor Robert Mitchum being in the cast.

    As Norman Clyde, the "soon-to-be-successful", NYC artist, Mitchum (28 at the time) was acceptably adequate in his part. But, with that said, I guarantee you will not believe how his character exits the story. (Hey! I won't spoil that moment for you. I think you really need to see it for yourself. But believe me - It's a dilly!!)
  • Just before his wedding to the beautiful and carefree Nancy, John Willis is visited by Doctor Harry Blair who informs him that he knows the real Nancy and warns the doctor not to make the same mistake as him by marrying her. He tells her the story of how he had just married Nancy when a man called Clyde turned up in his office and told him a story about how he had met Nancy and had got drawn into her world of deception.

    Shunning conventional structure is always a risk and in this film it is one that it takes as we have a story being told by Blair that is basically about him being told a story by Clyde. This makes for an interesting approach especially since the stories are both told by her dumped lovers. In this regard we're not sure what is true and what isn't and, while the stories engage on one level, I was conscious of the fact that they were telling and not necessarily facts (a trick Usual Suspects would later repeat to great praise). Existing within the minds of the characters, the story is interesting and is all the better at the end for it. For many viewers the story-telling approach will be a little slow and I times it did drag a bit but mostly it comes together and works as something different and interesting.

    The cast are roundly good although they take second fiddle to the script and the ideas of director Brahm (who produces some clever ideas in Nancy's bridal march). Aherne is a bit too stiff in the role where really I wanted him to display a bit more range. Mitchum is good in his role but it wasn't the sort of thing I was used to seeing him in and he has been much better elsewhere. Day takes the main role of Nancy and does well with it – she is part of the reason we're not sure what is true and what isn't and she convinced me that she didn't know either. She has plenty of nice touches as well as one or two very strong moments. Like I said though, this wasn't a great actors film but nobody was less than good.

    Overall this is an interesting and different film that takes a risk by stepping back to flashback within flashback but mostly pulls it off. The story format might be a little testing on the patience (hearing about something implies a lack of action in the time where we are – after all the audience spent the film in the Willis study) but the material is worth it and, once back in the present, everything comes together nicely. Worth seeing for being a different style of drama from the period.
  • Laraine Day probably got her career screen role in The Locket playing a completely amoral woman who steals on compulsion and leaves a slew of men in her wake paying for her crimes. Those crimes also include murder.

    The title of the film comes from a locket that Day as a child was given and then taken back by the mother of the rich girl she played with. Day's own mother was a housekeeper at a rich estate. The rich girl's mother is played with appropriate wicked relish by Katharine Emery.

    The film begins with an unknown ex-husband Brian Aherne crashing the pre-wedding reception that Gene Raymond is having. He's about to marry Day, but he's frightfully ignorant of her past. Aherne proceeds to enlighten him and most of the film is in flashback.

    Two other men in her life are millionaire Ricardo Cortez who is an art patron and Robert Mitchum the Bohemian artist she convinces Cortez to patronize. It all ends really bad for both these guys and others.

    Special mention should also go to young Sharyn Moffett who plays Day as a child. During her scenes we get a glimpse of why Day is the way she is.

    I'm surprised that Day got no Academy recognition for her performance. Had this been at a bigger studio than RKO she just might have with the bigger publicity machines at their command.

    The men are all good, but Laraine really makes this film all her own.
  • writers_reign8 December 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is surely the basis for a Trivia question: In what film did Robert Mitchum commit suicide? Sad to say that's about as plausible as it gets. Mitchum, one of the least likely candidates for suicide in his generation of actors, here gives no indication that his psyche is so fragile that he will take such a drastic and final step. Almost the last thing he said was 'my conscience is clear' and he left Brian Ahearne's office as strong and well-adjusted as ever only to jump out of a window. Hilarious. Much has been made on this board of the flashback-within-flashback-within-flashback but not one of the posters I read (about 12) found anything but praise for this ludicrous situation in which someone 'remembers' an incident for which he/she was not present. For a flashback to have verisimilitude it must confine itself to what the narrator actually SAW and/or EXPERIENCED. For example if the narrator says something like ...'I met X for the first time in the automat. It was March ...' and we then DISSOLVE and witness the meeting via a flashback it is imperative that we remain WITH the narrator at all times. If, after meeting X in the automat they go their separate ways and WE follow X and NOT the narrator we are immediately cheating because neither WE nor the NARRATOR can KNOW for sure what X DID after leaving the automat. And that's only one of the problems with a SINGLE flashback. Here we have Brian Ahearne warning Gene Raymond not to go ahead with his marriage to Larraine Day and supporting this by narrating how HE, Ahearne, met Day (flashback #1) in turn he relates how Mitchum came to see HIM (Ahearne) with the news that Ahearne's wife, Day, was a murderess and was prepared to let an innocent man be executed in her place. This triggers flashback #2 so now he have Mitchum flashing back WITHIN Ahearne's own flashback and thus telling Ahearne things that Ahearne could not possibly recall in his OWN Master flashback to Raymond which is still, of course, in progress. In turn Mitchum is privy to Day's story of her childhood with is flashback #3 in which Day relates incidents which Mitchum could not know about much less Ahearne. Even within their own flashbacks the subjects are prone to leave the scene and allow us to follow third parties. The result is we have to suspend an awful lot of disbelief. As an experiment it is interesting but that's about all.
  • Laraine Day as Nancy is a revelation here, reminding me of Sharon Stone somewhat, in this story of a man who relates the tale of another man who tells of HER history in nested flashbacks, reaching back to 1938, WWII, around 1935, brief childhood scenes around 1925, and back again to 1946. The plot is extremely intriguing and there a couple of sudden wild twists with a climactic, ironic ending. Along the way, occasional striking visual effects convey the (disturbed) state of minds of certain characters including the use of some haunting paintings from artist Norman Clyde (Robert Mitchum). The latter was well suited to his role as the struggling bohemian making his way to patronage among the higher classes. To liven things up even more, there are plenty of varied settings, including London during the Blitz. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and it brought other favorites to mind such as Leave Her to Heaven (1945) and even The Hand That Rocks the Cradle (1992). What gives it a noirish edge is that sense of paranoia, of not knowing who or what to trust, unreliable narrators and one could say that even a hint of femme fatale is present. I highly recommend this!
  • mls418219 June 2021
    Grade A actors at the top of their form. It is amazing how they made the flashback within a flashback work. It all feels original and fresh and expertly done.

    A rare turn for Mitchum as a good guy.
  • I don't know if this is available on DVD; fortunately we recorded it when we saw it listed on the TCM schedule. It's a movie you really need to pay close attention to. As others have suggested, fix your drinks and snacks beforehand, turn off the cell phones, and use the bathroom before starting to watch. Also, if you hate flashbacks, be warned that this has flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks - you almost need a scorecard! Laraine Day is terrific - just right for the role; I had only seen her in simple ingenue parts previously.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Thus although I have spoiler warnings, let me say upfront, I SPOIL this film completely. Because what you see is not the important part. There is very little action here. The actual present day part of the film takes place in just a few rooms of a mansion. Nancy (Laraine Day) is preparing to marry John Willis (Gene Raymond), member of a prominent family. Nancy is charming and obviously well liked by John's family and friends, but some family members mutter their suspicions about this woman of average means who has so quickly captured John's heart.

    Dr. Harry Blair (Brian Aherne) is waiting for John in his library. He claims to have been married to Nancy for five years and warns him she will ruin his life. John at first is ready to throw him out, but Blair knows Nancy's birthday when asked, and the rest of the movie is the layered flashback that you've heard about, as Nancy's story is told first from Blair's viewpoint, then from that of a prior suitor who came to visit Blair, an artist Norman Clyde (Robert Mitchum...no, seriously!) ,and then there is even Nancy's story of childhood trauma from her viewpoint as told to Norman. This is all done very well and is not the least bit confusing, but it commands your attention.

    The flashback is the tale of Nancy, a girl whose father died when she was a child, forcing her mother to take work as a housekeeper in a wealthy household. Nancy felt only one person in the family treated her as an equal - the same-aged daughter of the family who gives her a locket as a token of affection. The little girl's elitist mother demands the locket back. Then the locket goes missing and the mother accuses and shakes Nancy until she falsely confesses she stole the locket. Then she and her mother are ordered out of the house and her mom is out of a job.

    Nancy's story as an adult is a sad tale of descent into kleptomania and compulsive lying, leaving a trail of suicide and maybe even murder in her wake. Norman had painted a picture of Nancy as Cassandra, with the eyes blank before he saw her for what she was. Cassandra was a mythological figure cursed by the Gods to utter true prophecies but not to be believed. Nancy seems to be the reverse - she can tell no truths, not even to herself, yet all believe her.

    In the end, John does just as Blair did when Norman came to him with the truth - he believes Nancy over Blair. They continue with the preparation for the wedding, and then something happens that causes Nancy to have a psychotic break, to have to face the truth of what she has done and how she has gotten here. You see, the person Nancy is marrying is the son of the woman who falsely accused her of theft as a child.

    There are so many questions here. I'll just ask a few. Nancy seems to believe the lies she is telling. Does she? How did she wind up going down the aisle with the son of the family that started her on the road to insanity? Did she plan it all along or did fate or her subconscious lead her to this point, back to square one? Isn't it interesting that we never actually see her steal or hide the jewels? All we have is the undeniable truth of her actions. Oh, and one more, the music box that falls open in the film is playing the same tune as was played in "The Bad Seed" ten years later. Is that a coincidence?

    This is a great psychological noir, probably the best part Laraine Day ever had after a decade of playing the chipper girlfriend to virtuous characters, and the end of Robert Mitchum's days as a supporting player at RKO. I highly recommend it.
  • random_avenger24 September 2010
    John Willis (Gene Raymond) is just getting happily married to a beautiful woman named Nancy Patton (Laraine Day), when a strange man (Brian Aherne) shows up to the wedding reception. He introduces himself as Dr. Blair, a psychiatrist, and claims to be married to Nancy. Suspicious at first, John starts listening to Blair's story about how he first met Nancy and how she might not be what she claims to be. Nancy's earlier escapades are then seen in multiple flashbacks within each other – her story includes an artist named Norman Clyde (Robert Mitchum), stolen jewellery, even murder... or are they all just jealous rumours?

    Many of film noir's key elements are present in the film: stark lighting, black and white cinematography, retrospective narrative structure and a femme fatale character who maintains her mystery throughout and keeps everyone guessing until the end. The mood is softer than in hardboiled detective stories though; The Locket is more interested in Nancy's character development than a forlorn atmosphere. Her thieving tendencies are portrayed as stemming from her childhood as the daughter of a rich family's housekeeper, particularly an instance when she was falsely accused of stealing a diamond necklace. Regardless of what one thinks about the believability of pointing out a clear cause for Nancy's character traits, it must be noted that Laraine Day succeeds in the role very nicely; it seems believable that her fragile, pretty face might well be a facade for a dangerous seductress. Robert Mitchum is very charismatic too as the unfortunate artist Clyde, but some of the child actresses in the farthest-reaching flashback are not so convincing.

    Even though the three-fold flashback method feels quite heavy a manner to unwind the story, it makes sure the different timelines don't mix confusingly and keeps things neatly where they belong. It also adds to the mystery of Nancy; since we mostly see her the way she is remembered by possibly unreliable characters, we can never be quite sure about how she really is. The ending comes across as a bit watered down considering the film's noir roots, but most of the time it is interesting to follow Nancy manipulate the hapless lovesick men around her. In the end, The Locket is well worth watching, even if not among the most atmospheric movies of its kind.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The flashback has always been an essential part of the film noir formula. By showing events from the perspective of one who already knows the ultimate outcome of his mistakes, the audience is placed in a position of near-complete omniscience. Since we already know the outcome, but are powerless to change it, the story structure encourages an overriding element of fate. The hero is doomed – he knows it now, but didn't know it then. Is this the lingering disillusion left over from WWII? Where once a nation had marched proudly and patriotically into combat, it now recognised the pure folly of its enthusiasm. John Brahm's 'The Locket (1946)' certainly boasts one of cinema's most audacious uses of the flashback narrative device, effectively utilising a "flashback within a flashback within a flashback" to tell a complex story in which three different protagonists find their lives ruined by the derangement of a single woman. This femme fatale doesn't mess around when it comes to potential husbands, and her victims – besotted lovers who are left helpless by a pretty face – are only too happy to be exploited.

    John Willis (Gene Raymond) is about to marry Nancy (Laraine Day), the most charming, intelligent and beautiful woman he's ever met. Just hours before the wedding ceremony, he is confronted by Nancy's former husband Dr Harry Blair (Brian Aherne), who pleads with him not to marry her, having experienced first-hand the pain of Nancy's betrayal. Just years earlier, Blair himself was a smitten newly-wed, and he, too, was confronted by one of his wife's former lovers (Robert Mitchum), who expressed the belief that Nancy was guilty of murder, a crime for she allowed an innocent man to be executed. The nature of her behaviour lies in a troublesome childhood that encouraged kleptomanic tendencies. The true beauty of this flashback technique is that the audience is treated to nothing but hearsay, and that each of these characters could just as easily be lying. Though 'The Locket' appears to treat its flashbacks with sincerity, Alfred Hitchcock exploited this practice just a few years later in 'Stage Fright (1950),' as did Bryan Singer long afterwards with 'The Usual Suspects (1995).'

    Laraine Day, certainly not an actress I'd associated with any sort of villainy, brilliantly utilises her innocent screen persona to paradoxically portray one of film noir's shiftiest femme fatales. Until the overly melodramatic ending, Nancy doesn't betray even a hint of malevolence. When Dr Blair first mentions Norman Clyde's name, she doesn't flinch, not even a momentary double-take that would have revealed the malice within. Is Nancy a guiltless victim being slandered by jilted former lovers, or is she everything they describe and more? The most frightening revelation is that, for most of the film, we can't even tell the difference. Despite its excellent strengths, 'The Locket' unfortunately suffers from an obligatory ending in which the villainess receives her due, and I would have preferred a more understated approach. Perhaps, as she walks down the wedding aisle, Nancy could be perpetually tormented by the ringing melody of the broken music box, a symbol of her lifelong guilt. Or maybe – Hays forbid – she could have gotten away with everything, her next sucker already waiting at the altar.
  • A hypnotic film noir which centers on an impending nuptial which is interrupted by a psychiatrist w/ties to the bride's past. It turns out she suffers from kleptomania stemming from an abusive upbringing by her mother's former employer. Utilizing the mother of flashbacks to tell the story (I counted 5) this movie latches upon the fascination of mental health (really popular at the time) so much so that even the woman who came up w/the story underwent therapy. This was the last supporting role Robert Mitchum would play before hitting the big time as a leading man.
  • THE LOCKET is a middle-of-the-road melodrama/film noir that features a supporting role for Robert Mitchum. Mitchum isn't actually in this film all that much, which means this must have been made just before he hit the big time, and instead the viewer is saddled with a number of weaker actors, none of whom stand out particularly.

    The storyline has some shades of REBECCA and all of those 'evil husband' film noirs that were popular during the decade like GASLIGHT, albeit with a twist; it's the wife who's the kooky one in this case. Her bizarre behaviour turns out to be linked to a childhood trauma, meaning that this is a psychological thriller along the lines of some of those Hitchcock films of the 1940s. Sadly, I never engaged with the material much, as the situations seemed to me to be rather slight and the character reactions exaggerated. Laraine Day gives it her all as the confused and brooding Nancy but the film as a whole just feels a bit trite and overheated.
An error has occured. Please try again.