That
on the lonely height where all are in God's eye,
There cannot be, confusion of our
sound forgot, A single soul
that lacks a sweet crystalline cry.
|
Over two days, I saw two
quaint movies of a nearly forgotten genre, the heavily narrated,
propagandistic faux documentary drama. The first one, “13
Rue Madeleine”(1947),
directed by Henry Hathaway and starring James Cagney, concerns the
infiltration into France of a known German mole in American
intelligence, in order to feed false information about the locus of
the D-Day invasion. The film, which strains to overcome the sheer
ordinariness of the narration, is unusual in a couple of respects.
One is that everyone you care about dies. Secondly, Cagney, with his
force and elan, lifts the movie out of its rut in the very last
moment. Helpless and being tortured by the German double agent, he
recognizes the droning of Allied airplanes sent to bomb the building
and kill him so he cannot talk. He looks in the face of his nemesis
and laughs as the bombs fall.
According
to online sources, the movie was intended to glorify the OSS but all
names had to be changed when its founder, “Wild Bill”
Donovan, objected to its story of the agency's infiltration by a
mole. The censors also objected to the idea of a bombing just to kill
Cagney's character and prevent him from talking. In the end what is
left is an appealingly gritty little spy movie hobbled by the
gee-whiz narration.
“The
House on 92nd Street”(1945)
was also directed by Henry Hathaway. Unlike “Madeleine”,
it lacks the driving power of a major star. Less interesting as a
result, it tells the purportedly true story of attempted Nazi
espionage of the American nuclear effort (were there really any
German spies in an outfit so effectively riddled with Soviet
agents?). The FBI inserts its own German-American double agent and
stops the Nazis in their tracks. Also destroyed by newsreel
narration, this movie is memorable only for its quirky German spies,
including commanding and violent women and eccentric old men.
“The Machinist”
(2004), directed by Brad
Anderson, is a strange little mind-game of a type I particularly
appreciate. It is like a David Lynch movie but is ultimately reduced
by a more pedestrian explanation than Lynch usually gives us. A
frighteningly emaciated Christian Bale (down to 120 pounds for the
role) is an insomniac factory worker sinking into paranoid
schizophrenia. He is confronted by a co-worker who apparently exists
only in his imagination, and begins to come apart as he suspects a
conspiracy against him joined by almost everyone he knows. There is a
sinister game of “Hangman” being played in post-it notes
left on his refrigerator (of course, we learn he is leaving them
himself), Bale effectively delivers a series of scenes in which his
character, Trevor Resnik, is in various surroundings of safety and
comfort when we see him focus on one object—a photograph or a
note—which he believes links his host to the conspiracy.
Jennifer Jason Leigh is underutilized as a prostitute who loves him—a
role she could deliver in her sleep—and the movie's most
poignant moment comes when he drives her away. It is a great, weird
performance by Bale, who has had a strange career arc, from the nerdy
refugee child in “Empire of the Sun” to muscular Batman,
with stops along the way at strange genre films like this one, “Reign
of Fire” and “American Psycho”. The set design,
lighting, cinematography and music all contribute to a magnificently
creepy ambience. Bale's emaciation—every rib is visible—made
me think about the fact that Holocaust movies always fail in the
first moment because the actors are too well-fed. If they had Bale's
will and dedication to roles, they wouldn't be.
The
movie ends with a series of reveals which make it less than the sum
of its parts: Resnik ran over a child a year or so ago, then left the
scene, and has been dying of guilt ever since. At the end of the
film, when he turns himself in, the implication is that he will be
able to sleep and put some weight on again.
“This Sporting
Life”(1963), directed by
Lindsay Anderson, is a less successful example of the black and white
British social realism movie. Reminiscent of “The Entertainer”,
“Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner” and “Look
Back in Anger”, and blessed with a great, intense performance
by Richard Harris, the film tells the story of a working class man
who becomes a professional rugby player. Along the way, he offends
the powers that be in his profession, by his arrogant and overly
honest behavior. The film gets side-tracked by an at first
interesting subplot about a very damaged widow he loves. This story
takes the foreground, but whimpers out when she dies of movie star
disease. When last seen, he is back in the scrum, aging, feeling the
hits more. But the developments that were signaled—the
gotterdammerung of an arrogant, self confident man—are not
delivered.
“Claire
of the Moon”(1992),
directed by Nicole Conn, is an earnest, amateurishly acted and
directed lesbian love story which nevertheless emits some heat and
light. A formerly straight woman novelist rooms with a lesbian
psychiatrist at a writer's colony, and for most of the movie they
circle around each other, attracted and resentful. When they get
together, at the end, there is a loud “click” of
rightness. The movie has an eloquent last shot: the women are in bed
together, but the last thing we see is their intertwined fingers.
“The
Long Voyage Home”(1940),
directed by John Ford, is based upon several of the sea plays of
Eugene O'Neill. It is a classic Ford construction, of men under
pressure, this time the sailors on a freighter carrying ammunition.
They eat, drink, joke, play music and sing, become suspicious of one
another while crossing the Atlantic into the war zone, forgive one
another and lose two of their number, to an accident and to the
bullets of a strafing Luftwaffe plane. In London, there is a long and
lovely coda, in which they attempt to ensure that one of them, played
in a surprisingly small, supporting role, by John Wayne, boards a
ferry to Sweden to go home to his farm and mother at last. During the
drunken night, they lose him to a hell-ship called the Anhindra, then
courageously rescue him. The tough Irishman who is their self
appointed leader pauses on the deck of the Anhindra to taunt their
adversaries, is knocked unconscious and carried out to sea, a
replacement for the man he has just rescued. The film ends with a
sailor on their own ship throwing a newspaper into the sea with a
headline: “Anhindra torpedoed”.
“Secret
Agent”(1936), directed
by Alfred Hitchcock, is based on the Ashenden espionage stories of
Somerset Maugham. A British novelist turned soldier is recruited to
spy for his government, and sent to kill a German agent in
Switzerland. He and his assistant, the polyglot “General”
of uncertain ethnicity played by Peter Lorre, push the wrong man off
a cliff. Ashenden feels some guilt about it, but it is wartime and
there are no consequences. In the end, they confront the right man,
an avuncular, disarming American who has been in proximity the whole
film. There are a couple of classic Hitchcock touches: a dead
organist playing a single endless note, and an epic train crash at
the end. There is a girl who is too honest and simple to be a true
Hitchcock blonde, a type the master had not yet evolved.
“The
Deep End of the Ocean”(1999),
directed by Ulu Grossbard, is a fine but not great mmovie placed
squarely at the end of Michelle Pfeiffer's career. She is the mother
of a young son who vanishes when she turns her back for a moment in a
hotel lobby. Nine years later, living in Chicago, she is certain a
neighbor boy is her son, and she turns out to be right. The unlikely
plot twist is handled fairly credibly, and is not the point of the
movie, which is about what constitutes family. Her missing son Ben,
now named Sam, is living with an innocent and loving stepfather who
has no idea his dead wife abducted the boy in that hotel (he met them
years later). Sam is torn between the loving home which is the only
one he remembers, and the equally stable and loving new family which
has a biological claim and also offers him siblings. In the end, his
decision is based on a touching and credible sense memory, of the
smell of cedar balls in a chest he accidentally fell into as a three
year old. So families are based on the same bond as nations are
according to Ernst Renan: what we remember (and forget) together.
The
film is underplayed, deliberately so: when her son vanishes, Michelle
Pfeiffer doesn't immediately scream and collapse; her marriage does
not dissolve; her character is tightly withheld at all times, but the
movie is the better. However, the inclusion of some stock situations
and middling actors (Treat Williams, Whoopi Goldberg) prevent it from
achieving greatness.
“The
Dead Girl”(2006), written and directed by Karen Moncrieff,
is a small tour de force, consisting of five connected stories
relating to the murder of a girl in Los Angeles. The first is that of
the woman who finds the body and the last is that of the victim
herself. Along the way, we meet the wife of the serial killer, a
pathologist at the morgue with a terrible loss in her own past, and
the mother of the victim. There are five great roles for good
actresses, and for a relatively small independent movie, it is
amazingly cast, including Toni Collette, Marcia Gay Harden, and the
late Brittany Murphy, an under-utilized actress for whom it was
perhaps the role of her career. The stories, which glance off each
other more than they interlock, are dark but not morbid. There is not
a lot of hope; men are abusers if not killers, and most of the
characters seem to be imprisoned in lives they can't escape. The
killer is not caught, but when we last see his wife, burning the
evidence and her own clothes and walking away naked, we feel some
hope she will be picked up and her killer husband detected. The
movie's main uplift occurs when the dead girl's mother finds her
daughter's child and takes her back to Washington with her. This is
an unusually well-written and executed entry in a genre which has
become rather tiresome after some grandiose movies like “Crash”.
It also participates in another nascent genre, the movie which is not
primarily a detection story, in which a corpse, usually female, is
the mcguffin (“True Confessions”, “River's Edge”,
“Jindabyne”).
“Christmas
in July”(1940), directed by Preston Sturges, is a lesser
work of his. With the usual madcap pacing, the movie tells the story
of a man who is tricked into thinking he has won a twenty-five
thousand dollar prize in a contest. The film was marred for me by
some ethnic stereotypes already unusual by the year it was made. The
department store executives who come to the protagonist's
neighborhood to repossess the presents he has purchased are
recognizably Jewish, and worse, there is a cringingly “yassuh
massuh” black janitor at his place of work. All of which is
doubly disappointing in the work of an auteur with a reputation as a
comic humanist.
“Black
Snake Moan”(2006), written and directed by Craig Brewer,
is a thoroughly bad movie I liked anyway, and I am not quite sure
why. It doesn't have the so bad its good quality of “Plan 9
From Outer Space” or the near-miss quality of many movies that
almost work. Probably it got me with the combination of a ridiculous
premise and the earnestness of its hard-working actors, particularly
Christina Ricci (still searching for life after plumpness) and Samuel
Jackson, for whom there is no role or hairstyle too bizarre. He is a
farmer whose wife leaves. She is a sex-addicted girl. For part of the
movie, he chains her to the radiator to save her. The movie's
dishonest intentions are confirmed by the fact that for much of the
time, the upright, staunch and never-tempted farmer leaves the girl
dressed in the halter and panties he found her in, so we, the male
audience, can ogle her. He also gives her a bath and washes her back
for no particular reason. But it all works out fine in the end, as he
marries her off to her anxiety-stricken soldier boyfriend, finds a
true-hearted pharmacist to address his own loneliness, and they all
live happily ever after.
“The
Shadow of the Wind”(2001), by Carlos Ruiz Zafon, is a
Spanish magical realist novel which I found completely captivating. A
ten year old boy is granted protectorship over a novel by an unknown
author which he finds in an archive called “The Cemetery of
Forgotten Books”. He spends years of his life investigating the
life of the missing author, and as he does, his own life converges
with that of the novelist and his last novel, also called “Shadow
of the Wind”. Zafon writes beautifully about Barcelona in the
thirties and after, making you nostalgic for places you have never
been, as much great fiction does. The book averts you that it will be
a tragedy, then gives you a relatively upbeat ending, made sad only
by the loss of one important and very poignant character. Zafon has
the gift, as few novelists working today do, of creating characters
you would like to spend time with and get to know better.
“Little
Children” (2004) by Tom Perotta is a
counter-example, a snarky, superficial work peopled with detestable
characters I wouldn't want to spend five minutes with. The one
millionth instantiation of the adultery-in-suburbia novel, it has no
real reason for existing, being published, or made into a movie
starring Kate Winslet. A rootless younger woman working at Starbucks,
having given up grad school, marries a middle-aged man, has a child
and slides into existential despair, which she attempts to resolve by
having an affair with someone else's jock husband, who is about to
fail the bar exam for the third time. Life is empty and meaningless,
lived in an atmosphere of maximum hypocrisy, and infidelity really
has no moral implications because the people being cheated on are
themselves hypocrites or cheaters. The book wants to be a comedy, but
isn't funny or original enough. It isn't really a drama, because so
little is at stake.
“Zip
Six”(1996) by Jack Gantos is a novel about the prison
experience by an author who has actually been in prison (for
smuggling hash). It is as gritty and disturbing as you would expect,
with a satisfying, sad, noirish pay-off. An interesting feature is
that the protagonist, a middle class white boy, is almost us; he is a
normal guy with a pathological, compulsive side which repeatedly
draws him into trouble. An interesting theme of the novel is the
protagonist's ambiguous relationship to trust: he constantly betrays
people who trusted him, and trusts people who betray him.
“The
Duellists” (1977), was director Ridley Scott's first
feature, drawn from a Joseph Conrad story which was itself based on
real events. Two Napoleonic officers begin a series of duels, first
inspired by an imagined slight, which continue for more than twenty
years, warping the lives of both of them. Its an almost perfect
movie, tightly scripted and beautifully filmed, with no extraneous
matter, and it delivers a very interesting riff on honor and
violence. The sword-fighting scenes are savage, not at all the
old-fashioned Errol Flynn sword-dancing you are used to.
“The
Hidden Fortress”(1958) is a lesser Akira Kurosawa effort,
peopled with tiresome screaming peasants and a princess with an
unusually abrasive voice. It does however star Toshiro Mifune, an
all-testosterone actor whom I would watch in almost anything, for his
poise and dignity. He is a samurai, smuggling a princess through
enemy territory, accompanied by two knaves. It was one of George
Lucas' inspirations for “Star Wars”, but even bad
Kurosawa is far better than Lucas' best efforts.
“The
Twilight Samurai”(2004), directed by Yoji Yamada, is a
decidedly non-Kurosawa, non-testosterone approach to the samurai
mythos. It is the very end of the era; guns have appeared but are not
ubiquitous. The protagonist is a nerdy, awkward man who hates to
fight but is really good at it. The movie is a meditation on love,
loss and fate. He is ordered to kill someone who has refused an
order to commit suicide, and does so at great cost to himself, in a
battle in which he tries to let the other man escape, but ends up
wounding his feelings and having to kill him after all. At the end,
he attains the love of his life, a childhood friend who had first
married someone else. The narration tells us that he has her for only
three years before he is shot to death in a political squabble, but
that (in the opinion of his now elderly daughter, five at the time of
these events) that was sufficient for fulfillment, for a happy and
meaningful life.
“Man
in the Vault”(1956), directed by Andrew McLaglen, is a
minor and flawed noir which is nevertheless worth seeing for its
slightly unusual plot and some decent scenes. A gangster tries to
hire, then forces an honest young locksmith, to aid him in pillaging
another gangster's safe deposit box. The scenes in the bank are tight
and fine, the performances adequate. But a character stalking the
protagonist is introduced in a scene which apparently refers to
another not in this print (“Do you remember me?” “Yes,
I made a key for you”) and a climactic confrontation with the
stalker in an empty bowling alley is laughably badly conceived and
executed. Mystifyingly, the final shoot-out among the more important
criminals is taking place offstage at the same moment our hero is
scurrying down the lanes at the bowling alley.
“I
Vitelloni”(1953), is minor early Fellini with some of the
magic missing, dragged down by a relatively pedestrian setting in a
seaside town and a humdrum story about young friends trying to
escape. Its still worth seeing for its performances and music, and
some set pieces, including one in which two of the men try to sell a
stolen statue of an angel.
“Lord
Jim”(1965), directed by Richard Brooks, is a faithful but
lackluster adaptation of the Conrad novel. For some reason, careful
adaptations of classic novels are frequently lifeless, but this one
is also muddled in other ways. The initial storm is the epitome of
Hollywood special effects, scary enough that it undercuts the premise
that Jim and his colleagues abandoned ship too easily. The
resolution, in which Jim refuses to run again and faces an inexorable
destiny, is clearer but talky and rather slow. As an entry in the
“going native” genre (“Outcast of the Islands”,
“Farewell to the King”, “Moon and Sixpence”)
it is decent but not stellar.
“Elevator
to the Gallows”(1957) directed by Louis Malle, is an
interestingly structured, curiously unsatisfying noir. It has
atmosphere but not much credibility as it is based on an absurd
premise: a man murders his boss by rappeling up the side of their
building in broad daylight, in full view of the traffic below. After
posing the corpse in an apparent suicide—this is a locked room
murder, more typical in a cozy mystery, unusual in a noir—he of
course forgets his rappeling equipment on the outside of the
building, must return for it and is trapped all night in the
elevator. Meanwhile, an unrelated crook steals his car and commits
some killings which he is blamed for, using his other gun. In a third
subplot, his mistress, the victim's wife, wanders Paris all night,
looking for him. The putative lovers never play a single scene of the
movie together. The movie does not live up to its wonderful title.
“Strange
Pilgrims”(1992) is a book of short stories by Gabriel
Garcia Marquez about Latin Americans lost or stranded in various
cities in Europe. Although it has much of his old magic, it lacks the
intensity and savagery of the earlier work. It is easy to see why:
whenever he uses the first person, the narrator is comfortable,
wealthy, rubbing shoulders with the rich and famous of the European
arts world; the old isolation and hunger are naturally no longer
there. Still, some of these stories, including the last one about a
young man who loses his injured wife in the confusion of Paris and
never sees her again, are quite beautiful.
As a
child and teenager, I adored Humphrey Bogart and formed a resolution
to see every-one of his more than seventy movies. In those days,
before VCR's, this meant waiting until they were shown on local
television stations like WPIX, or included in triple features at the
two premier New York revival houses, the Elgin and Thalia.
I
still love Bogart and have seen more than forty of his films. Last
night I saw two new ones, courtesy of a day-long marathon on Turner
Classic Movies. Sadly, I missed several other hard to find, obscure
late career films, unavailable on DVD, such as “Chain
Lightning” and “Battle Circus”.
“Deadline,
USA”(1952), directed by Richard Brooks, is that rarest of
things, a Hollywood movie aimed at grown-ups. Though it is also a
thriller about a newspaper's investigation of a mafioso, it pauses
along the way for an examination of newspapers' importance in civil
society, and to freedom of speech. When the probate judge ruling on
the paper's proposed sale acknowledges he has been a reader for
thirty-nine years, and an immigrant witness to a murder says that she
trusts the paper more than the police because it taught her English,
we have the sense of a necessary institution, one of the cornerstones
of the society portrayed. The backdrop to the action is the decision
by the founder's heirs to sell the paper to a tabloid competitor
which is planning to close it—a theme which remains timely and
poignant today, as newspapers continue to vanish from the scene.
Bogart is energetic as the editor, a role that is not much of a
stretch for him.
“The
Left Hand of God”(1955), directed by Edward Dmytryk, was
one of Bogart's last films. It is a muddled epic in which he is a
mercenary, masquerading as a priest who slowly but inexorably is
converted to faith by the role he is playing. As such, it is
reminiscent of a favorite theme of Graham Greene's, but the latter
would have given it a much more tragic turn, while this one ends with
Bogart saving a Chinese village by throwing dice with a warlord, then
riding away from the woman he has fallen in love with, still dressed
as a priest. The muddled script, after offering us a nascent love
affair with a nurse played by Gene Tierney, then has Bogart ride off
without saying goodbye, while she waves cheerfully, as if to a cousin
she will see again in a week. Add some sadly trite performances by
Chinese American actors who deserved better, and the typical casting
of Caucasians in lead Chinese roles (Lee J. Cobb as a warlord), and
this is decidedly a lesser film in Bogart's canon.
“Avatar”(2009), written and directed
by James Cameron, is likely the best science fiction film ever made,
but that isn't saying very much. On the level of script and concept
alone, it is a rather pedestrian parable, in which an indigenous
alien race stand in for the Navajo in one of the late
Indian-sympathetic Westerns. The Navi use bows and arrows, are
intimately attuned to the forest, are proud and make decisions
collectively, and are being pushed off their land by the “whites”,
here known as the “sky people”. The movie is the first in
which an alien culture is portrayed in loving detail, as something
other than rampaging, slavering-toothed monsters, yet with very
little invention. There is a rule that a story must have a reason to
be told as science fiction; disguised Westerns, a very common
phenomenon in movie science fiction especially (“Star Wars”,
“Soldier”) do not qualify. Cameron's extreme cleverness
in setting up a strange situation, then working out its permutations,
as in “The Abyss”, is not very evident here, though there
is a little of it. Amusingly, Cameron invents a funny mcguffin,
“unobtainium”, a valuable mineral under Navi land which
is barely mentioned and never explained. “Unobtainium”
continues the Tarantinoesque trend of the mystery mcguffin, the
undescribed object which causes all the bother.
As
pure spectacle, this movie is amazing, even in two dimensions. The
alien world is compulsively and beautifully art designed, and the
Navi themselves are just alien enough to be fascinating, yet human
enough that we can feel the heat when the transformed human
protagonist falls in love with a Navi woman. Cameron keeps the action
going nonstop; we can identify some of his favorite toys and themes,
such as the killer corporate geek borrowed from “Aliens”.
The prosthetic warrior body, driven by a human, which Ripley fitted
to herself to fight the Queen at the end of that same movie, plays a
large role here.
Cameron's loyalty to actors is laudable, and the most
lovely grace note of “Avatar” is the inclusion of
Sigourney Weaver, as the invaders' token xenologist whom nobody
listens to. She carries it off with great dignity, and I couldn't
help thinking that this character is what the “real”
Ripley would have aged into, instead of having to fight the same
alien over and over, because Hollywood series must always do the same
thing and can't allow their characters an arc.
|