The Cocktail Waitress by James M. Cain

imgbox

Between 1934 and 1943, James M. Cain wrote The Postman Always Rings Twice, Mildred Pierce, and Double Indemnity, three stone-cold classics. These made him one of the godfathers of the hard-boiled detective stories. They made three great movies off of those novels, which also makes him the godfather of film noir.

He wrote several other books during this time. I’ve only read one of them, Serenade, and didn’t particularly care for it, but those big three are amazing. He wrote many more books after this period, too, and I only just realized he kept writing up until his death in 1977. In fact, he was writing The Cocktail Waitress when he died.

I say writing it, but in fact he had mostly finished it. Or rather, he had finished it a few different times. Originally written in the third person, Cain became unsatisfied with this and rewrote it in the first person, changing the vernacular to fit his protagonist’s voice. He then sent a draft to his publisher, who demanded he change the ending. A final draft was never sent, and so the novel was shelved after Cain died.

Many years later, the good people at Hard Case Crime publishing went digging for it and found several different drafts. They had to make some decisions on which parts of which drafts to use, but ultimately published what they consider the final book in 2012. But this isn’t a case where they hired some new writer to complete an unfinished novel; they simply had to decide which parts of various finished drafts to edit into what we now have on our shelves.

The end result is pretty good. Like I said, I haven’t read any of the books Cain wrote after Double Indemnity in 1943, but my understanding is that his later books tackled other interests besides crime. The Cocktail Waitress was then an attempt to return to form, perhaps to stir up commercial interest that had waned.

Our narrator is Joan Medford, and her story begins with her husband’s end. He was a deadbeat and a drunk who used to beat her. He died in an automobile accident, leaving her with a young son, a house, and a pile of unpaid bills. The accident was a little suspicious, but the cops couldn’t find enough evidence to book her for it, so they let her be.

Because she’s telling her story (into a tape recorder to get her side of every crime – there will be several – onto an official record), we’re never quite sure if what she’s telling is the truth. She is absolutely an unreliable narrator.

Because of the unpaid bills, she takes a job as a cocktail waitress. It’s one of those joints where she has to wear a skimpy outfit and accept the fact that her customers are going to hit on her, pinch her posterior, and sometimes ask for more.

She’ll meet two men at this job that will change her life. The first is Earl White, an elderly, very wealthy gentleman with a heart condition that makes it impossible for him to have sex with Joan or anyone else. This doesn’t keep him from making passes at her, but he tips extremely well, so she encourages him. So much that he eventually asks her to marry him. He promises he’ll behave, and anyway, if he doesn’t, he’ll literally die from trying, so what has she got to lose?

That would certainly get her out of all her financial troubles, set her up for life, and allow her son to live a good life. Currently the boy is living with his dead husband’s sister, a woman Joan hates. She suspects the woman wants to keep her boy permanently, but she knows she’s got to get something more financially permanent in her life in order to take him back, and Earl would be just the thing.

The other man is Tom. He’s young, fiery, and handsome. Also broke. Also a bit of pig. The first time he meets him, he’s drunk as hell, and he slides his hands right up her skimpy waitress outfit and into places no man should go without asking first. She gives him her what-for for doing that, but it kind of turned her on. Or something. She’ll eventually let him take her out. For her trouble, he takes her to a place with curtains around the booths so that couples can do things people really shouldn’t do on a table where others might want to eat. She kind of likes it this time, but then remembers her deal with Earl and splits before things get too heavy.

And that’s the crux of the story. Earl will give her all the stability she craves, but she’s not attracted to him. Also, he just can’t help himself. Whether it will kill him or not, he’d really like to get it on with Joan. Then there is Tom, who cannot help her financial situation out, and he’s kind of lecherous, but damn it if he doesn’t turn her on.

If you know anything about James M. Cain, you’ll know this story will have some deadly twists. I won’t spoil them, but let’s just say the law gets back on her trail, and it will be difficult for her to get out of it this time.

Cain’s stories were always a little bit sleazy. He liked writing about characters on the rough side of the tracks and never strayed away from sex in his stories. Lust is all over The Postman Rings Twice and Double Indemnity. He goes pretty hard in that direction in this story. I know it was written in the 1970s when those boundaries had been pushed farther by others at this point, but it did feel wild to read him going as far as he does in this story.

It also feels like an older man trying to keep up. Or a once great writer trying to relive his glory days. And you can definitely feel some of the editing going on. I don’t ‘know that I could point you to a specific page where you can tell that the editor used an older draft or whatever, but overall it did feel a little disjointed. But also, I rather enjoyed reading it.

I remember reading Mildred Pierce for the first time and stopping after several pages, my heart racing and a smile on my face. I immediately told my wife she had to read it. I wanted to shout it to everyone that this was an amazing book. It was just that good. I did not have a moment like that while reading The Cocktail Waitress. But that doesn’t mean I’m unhappy I read the book either. I’m glad I did. I’d recommend it to anyone interested in Cain’s novels. I’m so glad they were able to put it together and give it to the world.

The Postman Always Rings Twice

the postman always rings twice posters

Unlike the other classic masters of crime fiction (Hammett, Chandler, and even Christie if you must) James M Cain wrote not from the perspective of the cop, or the detective, but from the side of the criminal. He wasn’t really interested in the methods of detection, but in the methods and reasons crimes were committed.

There is no Phillip Marlowe or Hercule Poirot out to solve the case in Cain’s fiction. The righteous bringers of justice are regulated to a secondhand role in his stories and are often as slimy and unrighteous as the criminals.

In his first novel, The Postman Always Rings Twice, Cain weaves a complicated plot in a very simple manner. This was never meant as anything more than a pulp novel, its aim was to titillate, shock, and most important of all, sell gobs of books.

Though told in the first person by a main character, the book is all action. There is some internal dialog, but it sheds very little light on who the characters are, and what motivates them.

It is in fact, perfect for a screen adaptation. This is probably why it is credited as the story at least 5 times on the Internet Movie Database. The lack of complicated internal thought processes, and the predilection for talking and doing, make it the ideal movie. That, and great lumps of sex and violence.

The two most famous screen adaptations are the 1946 Lana Turner/John Garfield version and the steamier Jack Nicholson/Jessica Lange released in 1981. Everyone refers to that one as a remake of the 1946 version which gets me riled up for some reason. To me, it is simply another version of the novel, rather than a remake of the old film. There are about 8 million versions of Hamlet out there, but no one refers to the next one as a remake of an earlier film. It’s simply another version of the play. But perhaps this is because I’m a fan of the novel, and I probably shouldn’t make too big a deal out of it.

The plot takes on several turns but is essentially about lust and violence. Drifter Frank Chambers lands a job at a roadside diner owned by Nick Papadakis (Smith in the 1946 version). Chambers falls immediately in lust with Nick’s unhappy wife, Cora. They cook up a plot to kill Nick making it look like an accident. Complications ensue.

The biggest difference between the two pictures is that the 1981 version has got more sex. The book is loaded with sex, or should I say simulated sex or rather off-screen (or off-page) sex. Due to the prevailing censorship at the time the novel was written the sex had to be hinted at, double entendre’d, and written in such a way as to let everyone know what they were doing and not get banned from bookshelves. Even with that, it was still quite controversial at its time.

The 1946 version hints at all the deep-seated passion going on without actually showing us anything more than a few kisses. (Though on a side piece of trivia, audiences were shocked that Garfield obviously used his tongue in one of the kisses) By 1981 Hollywood was no longer under the strenuous Production Code and morals had loosened up more than a bit through the 60s and 70s and the new version of Postman all the sex was brought out front.

The kissing gets more passionate, there is touching, rubbing, and a good deal of nakedness. The steamy sexuality of the characters now scorches off the screen. They even added a new sex scene that wasn’t in the book, just for kicks.

But even with all the nakedness and sexing, this newer version doesn’t have all the lust of the original. Though Cain was unable to fill in all the sexy details of their affairs, the raw sexuality burns through each page. The characters are led by their passions and you can feel it in every word and deed. In the same way, though nary a thigh is even shown in the 1946 version, the passions full of lust are ignited on screen. Turner and Garfield exude sensuality without any sex that far surpasses what Nicholson and Lange can manage with a movie filled with on-camera love scenes.

The violence remains pretty much the same in both versions. As a culture, we Americans have always seemed to have less of a problem with violent deeds than with any amount of sexuality. Neither film is particularly graphic in its violence, though murder and attempted murder appear throughout both plots.

My biggest problem with the 1981 version is that first-time screenwriter, David Mamet, tries to fill out the characters and give more story to the story. In the book, Nick is not a bad man, and we are given no real reason why Cora would be unhappy enough in the marriage to kill. Mamet offers a few small scenes to try to show the darker side of Nick, not enough for the audience to truly hate him, but enough to give some justification for his murder.

Likewise, Frank is a pretty worthless drifter in the novel but is given a more tender side through the pen of Mamet. Both of these additions serve to lessen the story, not give it greater depth. Cain wrote characters full of selfish lust. Frank and Cora’s passion for each other moves them to do horrible deeds, not out of any love for each other, but for reasons all their own. While it seems admirable that Mamet would attempt to bring human reasons for the character’s actions, it only serves to muddle the story. The local news and true crime shelves are filled with real-life atrocities committed for no real reason at all.

The 1941 version sticks very close to the novel’s plot. There are a few minor changes, I’m sure, and some things left out due to the time restraints of the film. But mostly it sticks closely to the book.

Sadly the great ending of the novel is removed from the 1981 version. This makes the end a little more sad, but the great irony of Cain’s closing is all but lost.

I wrote a more detailed review of the 1981 version when a new Blu-ray of it was released, for Cinema Sentries which you can read here.

Serenade by James M Cain

serenade book cover

James M. Cain wrote in the first person, from the criminal’s perspective. His storytellers are not usually hardened criminals, yet through circumstances commit the most atrocious of crimes. He writes about downtrodden, out-of-luck schmucks, who fall for the wrong kind of girl. Interestingly, it is usually his women who are tough, manipulative, and full of lust for the crime. The men tend to be suckered in by their seductive charms.

Serenade centers around a down-and-out opera singer, John Howard Sharp. He is so down on his luck that he’s been singing in a small club in Mexico, before, even they, kick him out. His luck seems to change when he meets a cheap whore, whom he falls with. His love for her causes his once faltering voice, to come back. What follows is a transcontinental series of adventures cataloging John’s skyrocketing rise in both movies and the New York opera, and his subsequent fall.

There is plenty to like about Serenade. Cain’s terse, cynical prose moves across the page like a song. He accurately portrays John’s love and hatred for his lover. There are plenty of nice character moments. Moments that give just the right details that give meaning to ordinary events. Much of the “action” of the story revolves around the little moments of life: sitting in a room talking to friends, stroking the hair of a girl, and listening to music. Cain understands that much of life is filled with these types of moments and that great changes and meaning can be found in them.

Before Cain became a writer, he was trained as a singer. In part, this novel seems to be an attempt for him to allow his musical knowledge and training to come to some use. Throughout the book, John converses about or describes internally the music he likes and hates, musicians, and his own singing. Some of this is vitally important to the story, for he is a professional singer, and the plot concerns his successes as such. Yet it is so infused with information that it, at times, feels more like a trade magazine than a proper story. At only 136 pages, it is superfluous to fill so many with discussions on Puccini and Mozart.

There is a revealing moment about John’s character in the last third of the book. Even while reading this in 2005 it seemed shocking. Yet it is treated with aplomb, handled with an expert hand. The feelings that arise out of the character seem true if not entirely kind. It is also interesting to see how that particular issue was handled at that time.

Overall, Serenade is an interesting read. It is well written and the characters are well drawn. However, if you have never read anything by James M. Cain, I would recommend picking up The Postman Always Rings Twice and then Double Indemnity before I began reading this.