Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Waiting for a miracle in the noir classic Laura
Waiting for a miracle in the noir classic Laura
Jun 27, 2026 9:52 AM

Man does not live by bread alone—there is something in us that does not die. Call it love. And a love of justice, even for the stranger e to love.

Read More…

I will close this series on film noir with Laura, because it’s altogether more beautiful and it has something of a happy ending. In being the most beautiful noir, it also involves the most sophisticated reflection on beauty in its relation to American society and to tragedy. It is a rare case where the murderer and the victim are in love, in a way, and therefore shows the most astonishing contradiction in characterization, the most impressive puzzle to fit together, if we are to understand what noir tries to teach about American character. It’s also the most political noir—instead of looking at the criminal underworld or outcasts, it looks at the glamour of Manhattan.

Most of the first part of the movie is narrated by the murderer, Waldo Lydecker, played by Clifton Webb in his finest performance on film, in answer to a cop’s question about the death of Laura Hunt, played by the angelic beauty Gene Tierney, who had been his protégé. It’s a long weekend at the end of summer, New York is too hot to bear, and this sensational murder of an innocent, glamorous beauty is attracting a lot of attention in the press. What’s ing to?

Waldo is an incredibly sophisticated man, as shown by the fact that he claims to wish to be suspected of the murder, rather than feeling indignant, as most would, as a sign of respect to his intelligence, since his morality isn’t worth mentioning. To respect intelligence obviously means also to fear what it might do. Waldo’s the American media elite, a columnist with a popular radio show—he teaches Americans about culture, which he wishes to embody. His Roman villa of an apartment atop a Manhattan skyscraper is an art museum—this is what American wealth has built, the new Monticello, atop Wall Street, if you allow a joke. Waldo will make America as sophisticated as himself or go mad trying; millions of people hang on his words and he’d like to think the future of America depends on him.

His Laura was a small-town girl who made her career in the city, in advertising. A beautiful woman, she sells beautiful visions to the rest of us, who are neither beautiful nor able to bear a life without beauty. Maybe we can buy things and improve our private lives in the assurance of an almost public authority—advertising, after all, tells us either that prestige or popularity attaches to some object, guaranteeing that we have either quality or quantity on our side when we make our choices. Advertising tells us what to do with our uncertain lives—to have the lives of the people who mercial endorsements, that is, our betters. Advertising re-creates aristocracy within democracy, since we have money to spare. Maybe petitive flattery, with the correspondent contempt of people beneath our ability to buy or enjoy.

Laura wishes to do more or less what Waldo does—he advertises culture, merce, but the difference may not matter. He certainly is offended by people misquoting him, he says. As a man of enlightenment, the powerlessness of his words is worse than death. This seems to be why he falls in love with Laura and eventually kills her. She is the ideal material for him to shape into an elegant lady, someone who could, if not match him, then at plement him. Words are not enough, love is also necessary, which also starts from a beautiful vision. The problem, of course, is that to love him, she would have to believe him good for America, not just good for her, and this is impossible. He is more a museum piece than a man and altogether unfit for life in a democracy.

In a strange way, therefore, Waldo is confessing to murder while trying to exculpate himself as a sincere, rejected lover, that is, a selfless benefactor. It’s ironic that a man of words cannot hear himself talking, but that’s why we have an unusually gifted audience, a man as ambitious in his own way, Mark McPherson, the Irish cop who made lieutenant detective, played by Dana Andrews. He’s a man of the people, as his little gimmick baseball game suggests, but he is a man of finesse, not force—the game is all about balance, he says, and it keeps a man’s nerves under control. He has a good memory, an unsentimental attachment to the work of doing justice in the name of the people, and a kind of intelligence es with facing many ugly things, including personal danger.

Mark falls in love with this woman whose murder he’s supposed to investigate. This seems crazy, but it’s remarkably plausible. First, he has to take her seriously as a person to want to do justice to her; secondly, the more he learns about how good and generous she was, the more he finds evidence that man does not live by bread alone, but that there is something in us, the soul, and it cannot die with us. Justice and divine providence pop up in his prosaic New York life and are almost enough to drive him crazy. He needs a miracle, another aspect of the beautiful, beyond advertising and falling in love, more tied to the way Mark is himself beautiful—that is his noble hero’s story, taking bullets trying to save his fellow policemen from a murderer.

He does get his miracle—another Laura shows up, who is not quite what people say of the dead woman. She turns out to be capable of deception and, indeed, very willful—in short, an intelligent woman but not obviously trustworthy. Even her innocence is now a problem, since it means she is unable to take seriously the evil showing itself in the attempt to murder her; justice for the woman murdered in her guise is not of great interest to Laura. The shocks ing to Mark.

This is one of two strange transformations—the professorial Waldo, who seems cool and detached, a perfect WASP in name and dress, turns out to be a raving lunatic. As an artist, he made a Laura without whom he cannot live. Love has taught him death is preferable to loneliness, which he had endured recklessly before. He wishes to prove man is not merely flesh mitting a murder, by mitment that goes beyond any legal or natural limits. He ends up believing in the words of romantic poets, in short, while claiming the cynic’s freedom from illusions.

Mark the cop starts a cynical man who claims the dead have no privacy, as though neither shame nor funerals were known to the public authorities of New York—I suppose that makes sense in Enlightenment terms, denying there is anything holy in our lives. He is contemptuous of women, too. He transforms into a passionate lover risking everything to save a woman he had thought lost to him before they met, who turns out to be most in danger when he thinks he has assured her safety. The limits of his considerable powers of thinking and getting things done need to be impressed on him before he can love, so to speak, without idolatry or impiety. After all, it was somehow miraculous that he found someone who might love him.

These contradictions are reconciled through beautiful storytelling that reveals one character out of different appearances. Conflict reveals the soul even as it denies our most beautiful wishes. Laura herself transforms, by ing serious, preferring a man of deeds to one of speeches, no longer satisfied with making images, perhaps less dangerous to America once she realizes how dangerous her beauty really is. Unlike all the other beautiful women in this series of movies, Laura doesn’t use her powers to deceive people, but realizes instead that to some extent she herself had been deceived—the world isn’t really so beautiful, we just treat beauty as a privilege, which protects these charmed creatures from some of the harsh things in life. This young ing to adulthood is an image of everything impersonated by the other beautiful women, of what the doomed men were looking for—a consoling grace.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Fact check: 5 facts about the third Democratic debate of 2019
The Democratic Party held its third presidential debate on Thursday night. The 10 hopefuls made at least five proposals that were based on erroneous premises or that would harm the country. 1. Wealth inequality is destroying the world. Senator Bernie Sanders said he felt it was “unfair” pare his version of democratic socialism with the version practiced in Venezuela. But he distinguished himself from most of the field by promising bat wealth inequality: To me, democratic socialism means we deal...
UN climate chief: Stop worrying and have babies
Climate change may well be a problem, but the chief of the United Nations’ agency on climate says it won’t destroy the world – and shouldn’t stop young people from having children. Alarmist rhetoric from “doomsters and extremists” that babies will destroy the planet “resembles religious extremism” and “will only add to [young women’s] burden” by “provoking anxiety,” he said. Petteri Taalas is no “climate-change denier.” He is secretary-general of theWorld Meteorological Organization (WMO), the UN’s special agency on weather...
The cosmic battle for economics: Toppling ideological idols with Christian wisdom
When I began my freshman year of college, I didn’t care much about economics. Having been raised in a conservative Christian home, I had adopted a generically pro-capitalism shtick, but it wasn’t much to stand on. As I arrived at my left-leaning Christian college, that lack of foundation soon became clear. I found myself swirling amid campus debates about “economic justice,” infused with lofty religious language. Progressive economic policies were championed with social-gospel gusto and the Acts-2 arguments for socialism...
Only an EU ‘empire’ can secure liberty: EU leader
Is a European-wide patible with liberty? A prominent EU leader mended transforming the European Union into an “empire” at a UK political party conference this weekend, to sustained applause. “The world order of tomorrow … is a world order based on empires,” said Guy Verhofstadt, a Member of European Parliament (MEP) and the EU’s chief negotiator on Brexit. He is also leader of the EU’s Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe faction. ments came at the party conference of...
Every politician is Andrew Yang
Richard Nixon supposedly once said, “We’re all Keynesians now,” referring to the new accepted regime of monetary policy. Today, we have far bigger problems than our Keynesian Federal Reserve. Any present-day politician could just as well say, “We’re all Andrew Yang now.” Andrew Yang, for those who don’t know, is running for the Democratic nomination for president. He’s an eccentric businessman whose signature policy proposal is that he wants to give you cold hard cash. Really. While many, including me,...
Alejandro Chafuen in Forbes: The uncertainties of the Brexit debate
Acton’s own Alejandro Chafuen recently returned from a visit to England, and today in Forbes he offers a few of his impressions and analyses of the contentious Brexit process. The political machinations of the current situation are seemingly endless, but its ramifications are more than just political. As Chafuen points out, for instance, the ongoing saga brings uncertainty for anyone who does business in the UK. “We have many issues that go to a referendum in Switzerland. But after the...
New ‘Religion & Liberty’ focuses on the student loan crisis
The newest issue ofReligion & Libertyhas been uploaded. You can view it here. This issue ofReligion & Libertyfocuses on higher education in all its fulness. Two statistics throw the college tuition crisis into stark relief: Since 1978 – the year the federal government offered subsidized loans to all students – the cost of college tuition has risen by 1,375 percent. And another 1,400 students default on those loans every day. The cover story by Anne Rathbone Bradley unravels the crisis...
The problem with intellectuals
I am in the curious position of being a blogger who distrusts opinions. The late yoga master B.K.S. Iyengar put it best when he wrote, “An opinion is yesterday’s right or wrong knowledge warmed up and re-served for today’s situation.” Too often opinion is divorced from both personal experience and rigorous thought. F.A. Hayek’s essay “The Intellectuals and Socialism” is an attempt at defining the nature and function of professional opinion-havers. His description of them as, “second hand dealers in...
Charles Dickens, poverty, and emotional arguments
Why is it that the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century is so often our go-to mental paradigm for poverty? CapX’s John Ashmore, for instance, recently wrote of those who “feel an argument about poverty is plete without claiming we’ve somehow gone back to the 19th century.” Were there no poor people before that? (There were, obviously.) There are a number of possible answers – an increase in the concentration of poverty with growing urbanization and industrialization, which made poverty...
5 facts about the U.S. Constitution
Today is Constitution Day, which is observed every year to remember the Founding Fathers signingthe Constitution on September 17, 1787. Here are five facts you need to know about the Constitution: 1. Neither Thomas Jefferson nor John Adams signed the Constitution, nor attended the Constitutional Convention. Adams served as our representative to Great Britain, and Jefferson represented U.S. interests in France. Both died on July 4, 1826. 2. promisedid e about because the Founding Fathers considered African-Americans “three-fifths of a...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved