While the end of World War II put the kibosh on active global conflict, it also opened a fresh can o’ worms.
War-weary folks now faced a new set of issues, such as conducting military tribunals and pursuing fugitive war criminals.
Director Orson Welles tackled the subject of Nazis on the Run in the 1946 indie thriller, The Stranger. Welles stars as a popular and well-respected college professor with a dark secret: He’s a former German Nazi who helped engineer the Jewish holocaust.
Welles’s character has fooled Everyone in the small Connecticut town where he now resides. He’s newly married to a beautiful woman (Loretta Young) who’s madly in love with him, even though, we notice, he’s not in love with her.
But his carefully-woven life is about to unravel. A former associate (Konstantin Shayne) has escaped Allied custody in Germany and fled to America. Unhappily for Welles, Shayne’s escape was no accident; he’s being used as bait to flush out bigger Nazis, a plan concocted by investigator Edward G. Robinson.
Robinson follows Shayne to Welles’s new town, where he ingratiates himself with Young’s family – much to Welles’s chagrin – and it soon becomes a question of who will Slip Up first: Robinson or Welles.
This cat-and-mouse game creates an uneasy atmosphere in a laid-back community where everyone is on a first-name basis and no one locks their front door.
The Stranger tells us to read between the lines: You’re not as safe as you think.
Loretta Young’s nightmare. Image: IMDb
Although Loretta Young wasn’t always praised as a Great Actress, she’s believable and sympathetic as a woman trying not to see the truth about her husband.
For example, watch as she hosts a dinner party, to which Robinson has been invited. Naturally, discussion turns to geopolitics, and Welles snaps, “Marx wasn’t a German. Marx was a Jew.” This raises a Red Flag to us, the audience, but Young brushes the comment aside: More coffee, anyone?
Welles depends on her unquestioning love to maintain his cover. Surely the United States wouldn’t harbour war criminals, is the unspoken assumption, and this allows him to hide in Plain Sight.
But it also underscores his hypocrisy.
Welles’s character lives a Good Life. He works in academia, he lives in a picturesque town, he’s married to a smart, beautiful woman.
Which brings us to his other secret, his plan to rebuild a Nazi utopia in North America, where he intends to Rise to Power once again.
In other words, he’s happy to benefit from a prosperous and democratic society, until he’s ready to destroy it.
That’s why a country like the United States (c.a. 1940s) is crucial to his Master Plan. Germany, spent and devastated, is no longer of use.
Will Edward G. Robinson make an arrest in time? Image: IMDb
They say Orson Welles regarded The Stranger as his worst film, but that may be his chafing against constraints, e.g. the non-negotiable budget and schedule.
But look at what he did with those “constraints”. When you watch the film, you’ll notice Welles ratchets the tension and employs unconventional camera angles to knock you off-kilter. It feels almost avant-garde.
Also: The Stranger is the first Hollywood film to use real footage of the Holocaust, according to Deep Focus Review.
“What remains curious is that no one stopped Welles from using actual footage from the liberation of concentration camps,” writes Brian Eggert. “In the film, [Robinson] must convince [Young] that her husband…is the mastermind of the Holocaust. To accomplish this, he shows [her] a short reel of footage from a concentration camp to illustrate the inhumanity of Nazis.”¹
The film was a box office success, and was nominated for an Oscar (Best Original Screenplay). However, film critic Bosley Crowther of the New York Times was unimpressed. “For the premise is not only farfetched,” he wrote, “but the whole construction of the tale relieves very soon all the mystery and suspense that such a story should have.”²
Of course we disagree with dear ol’ Bosley, and we hope you will, too, if you get a chance to see The Stranger*.
Notes
¹Deep Focus Reviews. (Retrieved July 25, 2020.) The Stranger (1946) by Brian Eggert.
²Wikipedia. (Retrieved July 25, 2020.) The Stranger (1946 Film).
*Incredibly, The Stranger is in the public domain, and you can view it on YouTube.
The Stranger: starring Orson Welles, Edward G. Robinson, Loretta Young. Directed by Orson Welles. Written by Anthony Veiller. United Artists, 1946, B&W, 95 mins.
Silver Screenings 
I find The Stranger continually engrossing for its story, and for the atmosphere; both the one of dread and paranoia, and for the homey smalltown feel in which all of this intrigue is set.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed. The town where this is set is so beautiful – almost a honeymoon spot. But there’s also that feeling of dread and paranoia, as you pointed out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve seen a lot of Orson Welles but not this one, yet it intrigues me, I’ll try to find it! I wouldn’t trust Welles’ own taste about his own movies, most of them he made just to raise money for his beloved and weird projects, but apparently he couldn’t avoid to be amazing… Thanks!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Haha! So true – Welles couldn’t help but be amazing. I really love the unusual camera angles he uses here. It feels almost like a European film from that era.
LikeLike
Speaking of Welles: I’ve seen Citizen Kane once, quite a few years ago. I thought it was pretty good. Maybe I should watch it again, since so many people think it’s one of the greatest ever. What’s your opinion of it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like Citizen Kane because it’s beautifully filmed and it’s an interesting story. In my opinion, the genius isn’t in the expressionist lighting or the deep focus – those had been done before many times. But Welles makes you FEEL like you’ve never seen anything like it, and that’s its genius.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw this one recently on Netflix (which is remarkable, when you consider how few movies of this vintage remain available on the streaming giant). While obviously not in the company of Citizen Kane or The Third Man, it’s still an interesting and enjoyable film. Very much a product of its time. Good review!
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I first saw this film, I was a little disappointed because it wasn’t a Third Man or Citizen Kane, as you said. But it’s really grown on me over the years.
Wait – you saw this on Netflix? Good to hear!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did, and only a few months ago. Not there anymore, unfortunately. Their selection of old films (on streaming; most are on disc) is pathetic. Glad I caught it, though!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Farfetched? I think not, and especially closer to reality than Boys From Brazil. I love Welles, and especially Citizen Kane. Haven’t seen this one but it sounds great!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You said it! This film isn’t quite so far-fetched after all. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if that NYT film critic Bosley Crowther even LIKED movies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some critics take the criticism part a little too seriously!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice review. I enjoyed this one a lot when I saw it. I need to dig in and watch a lot more of Orson Welles’ work. The Magnificent Ambersons, Lady From Shanghai, and The Trial are all high on my list.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All terrific films, although I can’t watch The Trial. I find it too scary and disorientating – which is the point, I know. Some great viewing ahead! 🙂
LikeLike
Truly, one of Orson Welles’ most underrated films! Fortunately, it gets shown a lot because the copyright somehow expired. Edward G. Robinson is aces, but the whole cast is good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an underrated film, like you said. Wouldn’t it be something to see a restored version on the big screen? If only…
LikeLike
Whoa, I didn’t know The Stranger was the first Hollywood film to show the liberation of concentration camps! To be fair, it’s been some years since I watched the movie, and this part was probably erased from my memory. Anyway, you wrote another great review about a film that really looks avant-garde. Welles with constraints is always better than the average filmmaker with free reign.
Kisses!
Le
LikeLiked by 1 person
You said it – Welles with constraints is still an amazing filmmaker. This film has really grown on me over the years. The more I see it, the more I appreciate it. I hope you get the chance to see it again soon. 🙂
LikeLike
I like this movie a lot. Don’t know why Welles would knock it, though he’s the one who is the problem here. Welles was a brilliant man and a great director who was so often not allowed to fulfill his vision, but he had the unfortunate tendency to ham it up as an actor quite often. He does here, but it doesn’t really mar the film for me.
About good old Bosley, you’re quite right in questioning if he even liked movies. I doubt it too. At least we can say he didn’t like crime films. His loss.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree re: Welles, and I like his hamminess, although I never really realized it before now.
And Bosley Crowther! What a nut. Did you ever read his bio of Louis B. Mayer? He was a saint, according to dear ol’ Bosley.
LikeLike
Welles hammed it up in many movies, including eye rolling. But it doesn’t bother me either, many actors had a tendency towards ham and are incredibly entertaining because of it. Charles Laughton comes to mind.
I didn’t even know Crowther wrote a book! Might get it from the library, just for fun.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m a big fan of Welles (The Third Man is my favourite film) but I’ve not seen this. I’ve not seen Loretta Young in much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve not seen Loretta Young in many films, either. But I really like her performance here. This film isn’t in the same league as The Third Man, but it’s still very enjoyable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I enjoyed this film. It’s been years since I saw it but I love Olson Welles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love Orson Welles too! I’m not overly fond of his later work, but I’m a huge fan of his early films, including this one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reviewing Citizen Kane for the BBC radio bods this week, so dusting off my DVD of this one. Maybe he didn’t think it was one of his best, but worked for me last time round; maybe Welles wasn’t the best judge of his own work…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed – he may not have been the best judge of his work. Speaking of which, have you seen “Mank” yet?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Watching it right now! Review to follow…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Love the film! Never understood Welles’s disdain. The camera work is fantastic and the actors are excellent. Ironically, it was the only one of his films that was a box office hit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has a real arthouse feel, doesn’t it? It’s a clever, engaging film, thanks to Welles’s direction.
LikeLiked by 1 person