Tony Curtis learns the hard way about the "Sweet Smell of Success" in this 1957 film that stars Burt Lancaster, Sam Levene, Susan Harrison, and Barbara Nichols. In the pre-Internet days when the newspaper was king, the columnists ruled - Winchell, Ed Sullivan, Cholly Knickerbocker, Radie Harris, and let's not forget Hedda and Louella! But the King was Winchell, and while I don't think the Burt Lancaster character of J.J. Hunsecker is modeled on him, the power and control the man wielded certainly is.

Tony Curtis plays one of his best roles as Sidney Falco, a low-ranking press agent who is dependent on people like Hunsecker to mention his clients in their daily columns. But Sidney is on the outs with Hunsecker, a very bad place to be. Hunsecker has ordered Sidney to break up his sister Susan's relationship with a jazz musician, Steve (Martin Milner),and Susan is still seeing him. Sidney comes up with a plan to tear the two apart which probably would have worked, but when Steve stands up to J.J., Hunsecker is out for blood. He demands the plan be taken one step further and dangles an attractive carrot in front of Sidney to make it happen.

Done in black and white with most of the action taking place at night and often on the streets of Times Square, "The Sweet Smell of Success" has an atmosphere of slime and grit. The handsome Lancaster and Curtis are not particularly well photographed - it's not meant to be a glamorous picture. The dialogue is fast, to the point, and witty and the performances are breathtaking. Lancaster underplays the twisted Hunsecker so that his contempt for the people he writes about - and his sick attraction to his sister - can be clearly shown. He could have played it more along the lines of Curtis' Sidney - an obvious, manipulative rat - but it wouldn't have been as right as Lancaster's tightly-controlled J.J.

Curtis was born to play Sidney - an attractive, fast-talking man with no morals who plays both ends against the middle. He's a New York character, ideal for a New York guy like Curtis who grew up on the streets. Sidney is totally outrageous - he invites a cigarette girl to his apartment and then pimps her out to a columnist so he can get an item in his column; he tries blackmailing another columnist, but that backfires. It doesn't stop him from trying again.

The two victims of these piranhas are Susan and Steve, a young couple deeply in love who want to be married. Their simple story is told against a backdrop of scandal, revenge, manipulation and blackmail. Their situation makes the actions of J.J. and Sidney even seedier and more cruel than they already are.

"Sweet Smell of Success" has become a cult classic and was actually mounted at one point as a Broadway musical. Like "Nightmare Alley," it probably was too grim for audiences back then. Is anything too grim for audiences of today? Doubtful.

For most of his career, Tony Curtis played rather light-weight roles. This is not a criticism--just an observation of the types of parts he played in movies. Here in "Sweet Smell of Success", however, he breaks with this and portrays a meaty and incredibly unlikable guy. The strength of this performance served to do something VERY difficult--to upstage Burt Lancaster--an actor who usually dominates the screen.

Curtis plays a press agent--a very slimy and weak one who will do ANYTHING to make a buck and get into the good graces of people who can help him. In particularly, he hopes to get a cold and nasty columnist (Lancaster) to work with him--at any cost. Lancaster's character seems as if it's based on Walter Winchell--a real life columnist who used to wield tons of power but who, according to most accounts, was a vicious and power-hungry jerk. Watching Lancaster's character so coldly and callously manipulate those around him was great--almost as captivating as the depths to which Curtis would go to debase himself. They made a very compelling and slimy team--hateful but something you just can't stop watching. As for the rest of the cast, they do a fine job but they are way off in the background--it is a Curtis-Lancaster film and they dominate the picture.

So why did I give the film a 10 Well, first, it's very original and gusty--very different from the nice image of stars and those who make them. You see an ugly side--like watching people bathing in a sewer. And it's unforgettable and relies solely on excellent writing, acting and direction. Sets and plot devices are irrelevant--just darn fine work by the priniciples involved.

So why didn't it win anything at Oscar time or get nominated?! Well, first, I think it was a film that slowly caught on and many people also just didn't know what to think of this anti-Hollywood and anti-Broadway film. Second, 1958 was an amazingly good year in films and all but one of the Best Picture nominees were amazing films. Whether or not they were better or worse than "Sweet Smell of Success" is debatable but they almost all were terrific films--"Bridge on the Rive Kwai", "12 Angry Men", "Sayonara" and "Witness for the Prosecution" were all up for the big award (how "Peyton Place", a very glossy soap opera, got nominated is beyond me). However, neither Curtis nor Lancaster even got nominated..and that is inexplicable.the

Sweet Smell of Success is a fantastic film that deserves every ounce of praise it's gotten and more. And as much as I did like The Big Knife from two years earlier, with Jack Palance, which also had writing by Clifford Odets, Sweet Smell of Success was a far better and more consistent film.

There are so many things that are done so wonderfully in Sweet Smell of Success that it is hard to decide where to start praising it. It is a very accomplished looking film, with atmospheric lighting and elegant-looking costuming and settings. Elmer Bernstein's jazzy music score is both electrifyingly characterful and hauntingly powerful, matching the atmosphere brilliantly and enhancing even more effectively. The story is ceaselessly compelling, with the gritty realism of it being so ahead of its time(i.e. Lancaster's relationship with his sister) and the atmosphere whether bitingly satirical, poignant or moodily oppressive is so rich. It's very intelligently directed by Alexander MacKendrick, and the characters are astonishingly vivid. Has Tony Curtis ever had a meatier character? Possibly not.

In Sweet Smell of Success there are three components that are especially great. The outstanding cinematography(by far the standout elements visually) is one, both luminous and moody, Sweet Smell of Success has to be one of the best-looking films of the late 50s. The screenplay sizzles and crackles thrillingly, not only boasting some of cinema's quotable lines but also bringing the characters to life so vividly, nothing whatsoever over-heated here like the writing in The Big Knife has been criticised to be by viewers. Then we have Tony Curtis and Burt Lancaster, who both give career-best performances, Curtis has the showier role and completely lives it in a way rarely seen before with him(for the record, I happen to like Curtis so this is in no way a criticism) while Lancaster has never been more spine-curdling. The rest of the cast are fine too, but it's Curtis and Lancaster who really live long in the memory.

Overall, a fantastic film, and deserving all the praise it's received and deserves even more. It's a touch anti-climactic at the end(a slightly longer length might have helped) but even that is nowhere near enough to drag down the film when everything else is so good. A very easy 10/10 Bethany Cox