Showing posts with label postwar novel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label postwar novel. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Operation Terror (Book) (1960)

Operation Terror, by the Gordons
Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1960

List of main characters:
Kelly Sherwood, teller at the Hollywood First National Bank
Eloise “Toby” Sherwood, Kelly’s sister
John “Rip” Ripley, FBI agent
Peg, FBI receptionist
Nancy Ashton, call girl
Louella Hendricks, Toby’s high school friend
Jack, Toby’s boyfriend
Captain Frank Moreno, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), robbery division
Jim “Popcorn” Durga, the police informer
Red Dillon
Sheri Kimura, Red Dillon’s girlfriend
Joey Kimura, Sheri Kimura’s son

Operation Terror was a fun read. The narrative revolves around Kelly Sherwood, a bank teller at the Hollywood First National Bank, who is targeted by Red Dillon because of her access to the bank’s money. He blackmails her into stealing thousands of dollars, and he threatens her and her teenage sister, Toby, with sexual assault and death if she doesn’t comply. Chapter 1 begins with Red Dillon attacking Kelly Sherwood in her garage after she comes home from work, and the tension continues to escalate throughout the narrative as Dillon tests Sherwood’s resolve with threats and diversions. The story certainly has many noir characteristics: the threat of violence, blackmail, robbery—and nonstop tension.

Experiment in Terror is a film based on Operation Terror, and seeing the film inspired me to read the novel. It’s short: The total number of pages is 192, and that includes blank pages and all the front matter (title page, copyright page, and so on). The authors, the Gordons, are Gordon Gordon and Mildred Nixon Gordon. I never realized that John Ripley is a recurring character in their novels (five, to be exact) or that two Ripley novels were adapted for film.

◊ Click here for more information about the authors and their publications.
◊ Click here for my blog post about Experiment in Terror.

(This blog post about the novel Operation Terror contains all the spoilers.)

I read the novel because I thought it would fill in some of the gaps presented in the film version. In Experiment in Terror, for instance, Nancy Ashton’s connection to Garland Lynch and to Kelly Sherwood is never made clear; Agent Ripley offers a guess that Ashton probably found herself in a position similar to Kelly Sherwood’s but nothing more. Lisa Soong’s (Sheri Kimura in the novel) connection to Lynch (Red Dillon in the novel) seems to be based solely on the fact that he has a predilection for Asian women, but that doesn’t explain his willingness to pay for her son’s numerous and expensive medical bills. Neither the film nor the novel offers anything more about these points, so readers (and viewers of the film) are left wondering about these loose ends.

Differences between the Novel and the Film
◊ The setting in the novel is Los Angeles. In the film, it is San Francisco.
◊ In the novel, Nancy Ashton is a call girl, and she dies falling off the balcony of her apartment building. In the film, she designs retail store mannequins, and she is strangled in her own apartment.
◊ A friend of Nancy Ashton’s, Deborah Samuelson, is interviewed by the FBI in the novel. This character doesn’t exist in the film.
◊ In the novel, Red Dillon asks Kelly Sherwood to meet him at the Angel Flight cable car, a famous Los Angeles landmark. In the film, he arranges to meet her at the Roaring Twenties nightclub.
◊ Sheri Kimura in the novel becomes Lisa Soong in the film. Kimura goes under surveillance in her own apartment by two FBI agents and a police officer in the novel, but this doesn’t happen in the film.
◊ Red Dillon (Red Lynch in the novel) calls John Ripley at his FBI office. He never makes this call in the film.
◊ Kelly Sherwood is instructed by Red Dillon to take his phone call for additional instructions at a pay phone at the Hollywood Bowl. In the film, he instructs her to go to a pay phone at the Fisherman’s Wharf.
◊ In the novel, Dillon’s instructions at the pay phone include a cab ride to the Coliseum, and the story ends in the stands at a Los Angeles Rams–Baltimore Colts football game. In the film, the story ends at Candlestick Park on the baseball field.

Operation Terror differs from the film in other ways that I found striking. The novel includes some comparisons between the work of law enforcement and that of the military. For example, John Ripley can sympathize with Kelly Sherwood by comparing her to a soldier on the battlefield:
She [Kelly Sherwood] interrupted. “If I have to sit around waiting—”
He [John Ripley] nodded sympathetically. It was the waiting that broke most victims, the same as it broke soldiers on the battlefield. (page 160)

Operation Terror also included some details to explain Sheri Kimura’s hesitancy about helping the FBI. In fact, Agent Ripley finds her hostility inexplicable:
Rip said, “I don’t get it. You [Sheri Kimura] were hostile to us even before we told you what we wanted.”
                “You bet I was.”
                “Why, Miss Kimura?”
                “Does Christmas 1941 mean anything to you?”
                He thought the date over. “Offhand, it doesn’t What does it mean to you?”
                “I’ll tell you what it means to me. I was twelve years old and I had the world. I had the greatest dad any girl ever had. My mom died when I was four, and he’d brought me up with all the love in his heart. We were very close—very close.”
                She swallowed, fighting emotion, and Rip waited.
                After a second she continued, “That day my world crashed. We were given a few days to get ready. The government was packing us off to a concentration camp. My government, the flag I’d loved. Packing us off because of the color of our skin. We were American, mister, but we didn’t have the right kind of skin. A yellow skin might be a spy, a traitor.” All the resentment harbored for years spilled out. “My dad lost ’most everything. He sold palm trees for ten bucks that had cost him a hundred, and shrubs for a quarter that he’d paid a dollar for. Because you don’t go off and leave a nursery for three years.
                “So they put us under guard in a place in Arizona, behind barbed wire and with rifles ready to shoot us down if we tried to get out. They didn’t have any chambers where they could put us to death, but he died anyway, brokenhearted, still loving the only land, the only country he’d ever known, But I swore when they put him in the ground—I swore—”
                Reliving the scene, she broke. Rip looked away.
                Rip knew that most Japanese-Americans had returned to their homes after World War II bearing no grudges. They were perhaps the only people in all history who had been so treated and who forgave their oppressors so readily. They decided that what was past was past and they must fit themselves to a new era.
                All except a few.
Rip said. “That was eighteen years ago, Miss Kimura, and Red Dillon’s today, and there’s absolutely no connection.” He continued, “What’s more, if I remember rightly, it was military order, and an action which the Department of Justice opposed from the time it was suggested. The FBI never made any request for such relocation.” He paused a moment. “Believe me, I understand how you feel, but your thinking’s all wrong. Please give this some study—and talk with your attorney about it.” (pages 134–135)

Sheri Kimura is suspicious of all government authority, and John Ripley works for a federal agency. She is generalizing; he hopes that she can have some faith in one specific part of the federal government. He doesn’t remember anything about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, but he didn’t experience anything remotely like it. The text seems to imply that, if so many Japanese Americans could get over their unjust treatment and internment, why can’t Sheri Kimura? But I find that argument disingenuous. If you want any proof that people can forgive but they do not and may not want to forget, examine George Takei’s writings on the very same subject (click on each book title for more information):
Click here for George Takei’s October 23, 2019, interview on PBS NewsHour.

The ending of Operation Terror is a bit smug in the way that it treats its main characters as heroes, but it does acknowledge one of the core themes of noir in film and in literature: that evil is omnipresent, a fact of life.
Rip watched as Kelly got into the Bureau car that would take her home. She raised her hand to him as the car pulled away, and smiled, and in her smile was the kind of strength and gentleness he liked in a woman. She was America to him—she and Toby.
The man [Red Dillon] stretched out up there in the Coliseum, he was America, too, unfortunately.
“Well, it’s over,” Rip said to Bradley [fellow FBI agent]. Over for Kelly Sherwood, he thought, but tomorrow another criminal somewhere would reach out to use an innocent person in another Operation Terror. (page 191)

Kelly Sherwood is calm and composed throughout her ordeal. She helps the FBI; she drew them in from the beginning and continued to rely on them until the case was resolved. She is offered up as the ideal that every American man would want to have waiting for him at home, back in the 1960s. The fact that she is in her twenties and has already endured the death of both parents in an accident only adds to her mystique and strength. She is a success—and Sheri Kimura, by implication, is not.

The quotation above also acknowledges the reality of work for Agent John Ripley. The case is over for Kelly Sherwood, but Ripley and his coworkers will likely face another dangerous criminal—and soon—in their line of work.

The attitudes presented by some of the characters should seem outdated today. The novel was published in 1960, sixty years ago, in a very different time, so it’s disheartening to realize that some things haven’t changed all that much. I enjoyed reading Operation Terror, however, in spite of the attitudes presented in the novel. I guess, in addition to being entertained, it doesn’t hurt to learn that we still have some work to do.

Wednesday, October 2, 2019

The Chocolate Cobweb (Book) (1948)

The Chocolate Cobweb, by Charlotte Armstrong
New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1948

List of main characters:
Kate Garth
Amanda (Mandy) Garth, Kate’s daughter, twenty-three years old
John Garth, Kate’s husband, deceased
Tobias (Toby) Garrison
Ione Garrison, Tobias’s wife
Tobias Thone Garrison, Tobias’s son
Gene Noyes, chemist at Callahan, Amanda’s boyfriend
Fanny Austin, actress
Belle Thorne, Tobias’s first wife
Lieutenant Ellis (El) Kelly, officer with the Pasadena Police

The image on the right is the front and spine dust cover of The Chocolate Cobweb, by Charlotte Armstrong, from the 1952 hardcover edition published by Peter Davies, London. Quotations provided in this blog post are from the 1948 edition published by Coward-McCann, Inc.

The Chocolate Cobweb reads more like a Nancy Drew novel in some ways. The ending seems a bit saccharine, and it is certainly saccharine compared to the film, Merci pour le chocolat, which is based on Charlotte Armstrong’s novel. It’s a satisfying read, in spite of its ending, and it’s always great to discover another source for noir that is written by a woman.

The Chocolate Cobweb opens in Los Angeles, with Amanda Garth and her mother Kate entertaining a cousin, Edna Garfield, who is visiting from New York. On the morning of her departure, the local newspaper has a feature on Tobias Garrison, a famous painter who is showing some of his work in a local gallery. Edna lets it slip in front of Amanda that there had been a mix-up at the hospital twenty-three years ago, when Amanda Garth was born. It seems Tobias Garrison thought she was his daughter when his wife had actually given birth to his son, Thone. Amanda is immediately curious about this bit of family lore and decides to visit the Peck Galleries, where she can find a showing of Tobias’s paintings.

At the Peck Galleries, Amanda sees Tobias’s most famous painting “Belle in the Doorway” and falls in love with it, so to speak. Mr. and Mrs. Garrison make a surprise visit to the galleries while Amanda is there, and their son Thone Garrison arrives soon after his parents. Amanda resolves to meet them all, but not at the Peck Galleries. Instead, she finds their phone number and home address and pays them a visit.

The novel then switches perspective: to Ione Garrison. She makes hot chocolate, sleeping pills in her left hand, and plots Thone’s “apparent suicide.” She tries to formulate a logical motive for him to commit suicide—something about a letter from a female friend or girlfriend. No one suspected Ione when she slipped pills into Belle Garrison’s drink, and she doubts anyone will suspect her now. Tobias Garrison uses chloral (its use as a sedative was more common in the late nineteenth century) to help him sleep, and Ione does the same with barbiturates, so everyone knows that the pills would be easy to come by.

Amanda uses art as an excuse to introduce herself to the Garrisons and to meet Thone. She paints and works as a designer, and she decides a little bit of artistic license will suit her needs:
She rehearsed again her little speech. It wasn’t a speech to be said over the telephone, nor could she make an appointment to say it. No, she must just go, just barge in. . . . [ellipses in original]
Take her courage in her hand. Courage? Crust, thought Amanda. Oh, well, blame it on Art. She wanted to paint, ergo, she was a little bit crazy. (page 29)

Amanda’s ruse works. And Tobias is curious about her when she reveals that they “met” twenty-three years ago, that is, when she and Thone might have been mixed up at birth:

. . . She said, “I am an art student, Mr. Garrison. And I haven’t quite as much n-nerve as I thought I had. I came because we’ve met before.”
                “Is that so?” Tobias’ voice was smoother than she would have expected it to be. “I’m sorry. I don’t remember you. Perhaps you’ll remind me?”
                Something touched the backs of her legs. Thone had brought her an armless chair. Amanda sat down with quite successful steadiness. She kept her back straight and leaned forward. “It was a long time ago, sir.”
                His head cocked politely.
                She said. “Isn’t it true, Mr. Garrison, that when your son was born, the nurse showed you the wrong child?”
                He straightened, where he sat, with shock. “That’s so,” he said. His eyes held hers now and she was aware of nothing else.
                “I am the wrong child,” said Mandy. “So you see, we have met, although I don’t remember you, either.” (pages 31–32)

During this same visit, Ione Garrison takes Amanda to Thone’s room to see another portrait of Belle. Ione purposely knocks over a thermos of hot chocolate, the one that readers know also contains the sleeping pills. Amanda helps clean up the mess with an old handkerchief, and Ione demands to have it so that she can clean it for Amanda. Amanda makes a switch and gives her a new, monogrammed handkerchief because she is now suspicious of Ione Garrison’s motives. Another possible intrigue in the making occurs on Amanda’s way out of the Garrisons’ house: Thone accompanies Amanda and requests that she talk to Tobias only of art and painting, not of Belle. Amanda gives the soiled handkerchief to her boyfriend Gene to test at a friend’s lab, and he discovers that the handkerchief has what he calls “sleeping dope” on it. Amanda begins to wonder if someone means harm to Thone, and she wants to warn Thone.

Thone goes to the Garths to confront Amanda. She admits that she is trying to confuse Ione about the circumstances of her birth because she’s upset about what she thinks are Ione’s murderous intentions toward Thone. She and Thone argue because he doesn’t believe Amanda. Amanda tells Thone that she will accept his father’s and Ione’s invitation to return to their home and that she will prove Ione wants to murder anyone having something to do with Belle. Amanda will convince Ione that she thinks she is Belle’s daughter and thus tempt Ione to murder her. Thone finally agrees to Amanda’s plan because he sees that she cares about what happens to him.

From this point on in the novel, the plot concentrates on Amanda’s attempts to solve what she thinks is Ione Garrison’s murderous plot and to discover if it has any connection to the death of Thone’s mother, Belle Garrison.

(This blog post about the novel The Chocolate Cobweb contains spoilers.)

I first saw Merci pour le chocolat, the 2000 French film based on The Chocolate Cobweb, quite a while ago, and I decided that I had to read the book. I had already read Mischief, also by Charlotte Armstrong, which I found to be dark (and thoroughly noir) but almost demoralizing because the characters were so unpleasant. In fact, I found Mischief mercifully short and the film based on it, Don’t Bother to Knock, so much more enjoyable.

Click on each title in the list below to see my blog post about each:
◊ Don’t Bother to Knock (film based on the novel Mischief)
◊ Merci pour le chocolat (film based on The Chocolate Cobweb)

So imagine my surprise at the conclusion of The Chocolate Cobweb, which reads more like a Nancy Drew novel in some ways. Amanda solves the mystery and escapes harm, and the young lovers (I won’t give the names for this detail away) are engaged to be married at the end. Quite the surprise! The Chocolate Cobweb was published in 1948, three years before the publication of Mischief. Did life experience darken Armstrong’s views of life and romance in the interim? Her fiction was published during the McCarthy era, so maybe politics and political corruption played a part.

From everything that I have read about Charlotte Armstrong, most of it online, there seems to be little known about her personal life. I did discover that many of her stories were made into movies, both foreign and American. Here are some links for those who want to find more information (click on each website title):

I enjoyed reading The Chocolate Cobweb more than Mischief, although the ending seems a bit saccharine, and it is certainly saccharine compared to the film. Isabelle Huppert gives a commanding performance in Merci pour le chocolat. Her character, based on Ione Garrison, is the focus of the film, and Huppert never lets viewers forget that shift in focus from Amanda Garth in the novel to Marie-Claire (aka Mika) Muller in the film, no matter who is on-screen. The plot in the book is easier to follow: Armstrong’s writing is very clear. The film is a neo-noir in which all the details matter, and I found that reading the book after seeing Merci pour le chocolat the first time helped a bit, especially for the opening sequences, when I saw the film a second time. Seeing the film again made me appreciate the story, in print and on film, that much more.