(5/28/00)
It is strange seeing this again. This is one of the films that I grew up with, that I watched over and over on television. I haven't seen it in many years and I found it difficult to reconnect with it.
It is a film about gold and what gold does to those who pursue and obtain it. Walter Huston talks about how gold affects prospectors and how they never get enough. He seems to be a figure of wisdom. But what is interesting is that the film which unfolds does not bear out his words.
Three men go out seeking gold. They find it. Two of them remain basically sane, decent people. It is only one who goes crazy. So the film does not bear out Walter Huston's words. Yes, gold can affect people as he describes--but that shouldn't be taken as a foregone conclusion. And, in fact, Huston is specifically proved wrong because when they have about $35,000 apiece they agree to call it quits.
Humphrey Bogart's performance as Fred C. Dobbs is considered by many his greatest performance. It is a portrayal of a man going mad. The problem I had with it was that as he does his "mad scene" you are one hundred per cent aware that you are watching acting. And that, of course, takes you out of the picture. Still, I don't know how else he should have played it. And it is quite possible that I might have been overly sensitive to it because I have seen this film many times when I was younger.
I said that the other two men remain basically decent and sensible people. They do, but the love of gold does exact a price. Curtin consents to the murder of Cody. Cody met Curtin at a trading post and got a pretty good idea of what was going on. He followed him back to the camp and told the three men that he wanted to join them as a partner. They couldn't just send him away because he would report their illegal activity and claim a share of their gold. Dobbs wants to kill him and Howard (Walter Huston) is willing to take him on as a prtner. Curtin has the deciding vote and the vote is for murder.
This is very sad to see, although Curtin had done everything from the beginning to discourage his questions and the three told him he wasn't wanted. Cody really brought this on himself, but still the love of gold almost put blood on their hands. (The Mexican bandits got him first.)
Curtin finds and reads a letterfrom Cody to his young wife in which he promises that this will be his last trip in search of gold. This seems like a cliche to me, although it certainly seems appropriate.
The great moment in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre comes when Curtin and Howard discover that the Mexicans, not knowing what it was, let the gold blow away. Howard takes it as a great joke on the part of some power and bursts into hearty, almost convulsive laughter. His laughter is indescribable and can only be experienced to its full effect in a theater.
His laughter is the laughter ofacceptance and I think there is a meaning there. I was disappointed when the gold was found to have blown away and I think that is a common reaction. Huston's acceptance of the situation is like a rebuke, because most of the audience cannot share that acceptance.
There is a sense of the earth in this film. When they are ready to leave Howard insists on binding up the wounds of the mountain and thanking it. And when the gold blows away there is that howling wind which seems almost to have a personality. Nature is a powerful force in the sense that it was in the silent Swedish pictures.
Walter Huston's performance occasionally seems too much. I'm thinking of when they were looking for gold on the mountain. I've already mentioned what I thought of Bogart, but his final encounter with the Mexicans was quite fine.
The whole sequence in which Dobbs and Curtin are recruited to work for a man who tries to swindle them out oftheir pay is a very nice introduction to the theme of gold (or money) and its effects on human character.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sullivan's Travels. 1941. Directed by Preston Sturges.
(5/26/00)
Veronica Lake shines. She has tremendous presence in this picture and for me she has a lot more impact than Joel McCrea. It is a joy to watch her in the diner as she offers to buy him eggs. This is a very assertive, modern young woman and the slow, laid-back way she speaks her lines is thoroughly engaging. I would really like the opportunity to see more of her films.
Sullivan's Travels is supposed to be a classic. I find it uneven on a first viewing. By that I mean that it is inconsistent in tone. The first part of the film seems like a pretty silly comedy. When Sullivan loses his memory and gets trapped in a chain gang it takes on a seriousness and a power.
When Veronica Lake is dressed as a hobo I thought of Louise Brooks in Beggars of Life. I think those two films--both produced by Paramount--would make a great double feature.
One scene that made an impression on me was when Sullivan went out distributing $5 bills to the homeless. That had impact, especially the looks on their faces. Probably the most affecting scene was when he has been brought low and is in the black church where the prisoners have been invited as guests to see the movie. You can feel the kindness and how much it means and the blessed relief of laughter.
When Sullivan finds himself trapped in the maw of the criminal justice system with no way out he is granted his wish to really experience life and hardship. He gets it with a vengeance. But the funny thing about Sullivan is that he seems sincere in his quest for this knowledge. He really does want to learn. Why the gods seem to thwart his attempts in the first part of the picture don't make a whole lot of sense to me.
And the beauty of Sullivan's Travels is that what Sullivan discovers is his own value, or the value of his talent. He aspires to making something serious instead of the comedies he has been making, but the lesson he learns is that there is value in making people laugh, because laughter is all that some people have. His search for knowledge validates the worth of his talent.
I liked very much that there are a few digs at the income tax. Sullivan is trapped in a loveless marriage which was a business arrangement designed to save him money in taxes. When caught driving his expensive sports car and asked why he's wearing those clothes he says, "I just paid my income taxes."
And there is a very sharp comment on the criminal justice system. Sullivan gets out of the chain gang by getting his picture in the paper so people will know that he is alive and where he is. He does not clear himself of the crime he was charged with. The only thing that changes is the perception of who he is. If you're somebody you don't sweat on a chain gang even if you committed the very same offense. "And justice for all."
Veronica Lake shines. She has tremendous presence in this picture and for me she has a lot more impact than Joel McCrea. It is a joy to watch her in the diner as she offers to buy him eggs. This is a very assertive, modern young woman and the slow, laid-back way she speaks her lines is thoroughly engaging. I would really like the opportunity to see more of her films.
Sullivan's Travels is supposed to be a classic. I find it uneven on a first viewing. By that I mean that it is inconsistent in tone. The first part of the film seems like a pretty silly comedy. When Sullivan loses his memory and gets trapped in a chain gang it takes on a seriousness and a power.
When Veronica Lake is dressed as a hobo I thought of Louise Brooks in Beggars of Life. I think those two films--both produced by Paramount--would make a great double feature.
One scene that made an impression on me was when Sullivan went out distributing $5 bills to the homeless. That had impact, especially the looks on their faces. Probably the most affecting scene was when he has been brought low and is in the black church where the prisoners have been invited as guests to see the movie. You can feel the kindness and how much it means and the blessed relief of laughter.
When Sullivan finds himself trapped in the maw of the criminal justice system with no way out he is granted his wish to really experience life and hardship. He gets it with a vengeance. But the funny thing about Sullivan is that he seems sincere in his quest for this knowledge. He really does want to learn. Why the gods seem to thwart his attempts in the first part of the picture don't make a whole lot of sense to me.
And the beauty of Sullivan's Travels is that what Sullivan discovers is his own value, or the value of his talent. He aspires to making something serious instead of the comedies he has been making, but the lesson he learns is that there is value in making people laugh, because laughter is all that some people have. His search for knowledge validates the worth of his talent.
I liked very much that there are a few digs at the income tax. Sullivan is trapped in a loveless marriage which was a business arrangement designed to save him money in taxes. When caught driving his expensive sports car and asked why he's wearing those clothes he says, "I just paid my income taxes."
And there is a very sharp comment on the criminal justice system. Sullivan gets out of the chain gang by getting his picture in the paper so people will know that he is alive and where he is. He does not clear himself of the crime he was charged with. The only thing that changes is the perception of who he is. If you're somebody you don't sweat on a chain gang even if you committed the very same offense. "And justice for all."
Saturday, November 14, 2009
(Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., Home Movie). c. 1940. Directed by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.
(5/22/00)
What a different experience a home movie can be when itis made by a professional! This is just a home movie of Fairbanks' infant daughter. She gets a bath, plays in her crib, etc. Fairbanks is seen bathing and dressing her, but he is hardly visible. The film is interspersed with "cute" intertitles, supposedly representing the baby's thoughts. And there are beginning and end titles which add to the professional look.
The infant isn't especially adorable, although there are a couple of cute shots of her face as she is being bathed. The intertitles aren't especially clever, but the film was certainly able to engage my interest for nine minutes.
What a different experience a home movie can be when itis made by a professional! This is just a home movie of Fairbanks' infant daughter. She gets a bath, plays in her crib, etc. Fairbanks is seen bathing and dressing her, but he is hardly visible. The film is interspersed with "cute" intertitles, supposedly representing the baby's thoughts. And there are beginning and end titles which add to the professional look.
The infant isn't especially adorable, although there are a couple of cute shots of her face as she is being bathed. The intertitles aren't especially clever, but the film was certainly able to engage my interest for nine minutes.
(Mom and Dad's Wedding April 23, 1938). 1938. Director unknown.
(5/21/00)
This is film of actually more than a wedding. It includes scenes of landscape photographed while traveling and playing in the snow. Everyone plays up to the camera, making faces and hamming it up. The camera itself--hand-held--is constantly in motion, giving this picture something of a Brakhage-like feel. It's all very agitated.
It's also very dark. My guess is that that is how the film was made, rather than a quality of the print. I found this fiolm irritating to watch, though I'm sure the familyhad fun making it.
This is film of actually more than a wedding. It includes scenes of landscape photographed while traveling and playing in the snow. Everyone plays up to the camera, making faces and hamming it up. The camera itself--hand-held--is constantly in motion, giving this picture something of a Brakhage-like feel. It's all very agitated.
It's also very dark. My guess is that that is how the film was made, rather than a quality of the print. I found this fiolm irritating to watch, though I'm sure the familyhad fun making it.
(Mr. Kenneth Marvin's Wedding). 1914. Director unknown.
(5/21/00)
This is a film of a double wedding, interesting as a document of it's time. The camera is placed in static positions. First we see the man enter with the two brides whom he gives to the grooms. Everyone is very formal and serious. Then we see scenes of couples dancing. Then there are scenes taken from another camera location where people assemble for formal portraits and more scenes of dancing.
The footage of people dancing just goes on and on. It had an Andy Warhol-like quality to it. I actually think that this footage could have been edited down into a nice little film.
This is a film of a double wedding, interesting as a document of it's time. The camera is placed in static positions. First we see the man enter with the two brides whom he gives to the grooms. Everyone is very formal and serious. Then we see scenes of couples dancing. Then there are scenes taken from another camera location where people assemble for formal portraits and more scenes of dancing.
The footage of people dancing just goes on and on. It had an Andy Warhol-like quality to it. I actually think that this footage could have been edited down into a nice little film.
Porch Glider. 1969. Directed by James Herbert.
(5/20/00-5/21/00)
Porch Glider draws on the power of pornography. There is something riveting about the attraction of two attractive young people of different sexes. Herbert exploits that, frankly. It is what keeps Porch Glider from being just another boring art film, well-made though it is.
This film does have a vivid sense of place. I remember the lightbulb hanging over the porch glider, the insects flying about. These are striking images of place, captured by a painter, which add a lot. The atmosphere is palpable. And I think that the atmosphere is intensified by the silence. It enhances a sense that we are looking while at the same time locked out.
There are other elements which suggest a story which is fractured. We see a naked child, a group of young people bathing or showering together. There are shots of an interior, a bedroom. A lot of this just seems extraneous to me, but I can't imagine what could have replaced it. I get the feeling that the film is structured to suggest impressions from someone (the filmmaker's?) memory. But it doesn't engage me.
There was at least one very nice shot through a spinning bicycle wheel. I didn't find the scene of naked young people bathing as inhteresting as the scenes of the young couple.
I liked this film better than I have on other occasions when I have seen it.
Porch Glider draws on the power of pornography. There is something riveting about the attraction of two attractive young people of different sexes. Herbert exploits that, frankly. It is what keeps Porch Glider from being just another boring art film, well-made though it is.
This film does have a vivid sense of place. I remember the lightbulb hanging over the porch glider, the insects flying about. These are striking images of place, captured by a painter, which add a lot. The atmosphere is palpable. And I think that the atmosphere is intensified by the silence. It enhances a sense that we are looking while at the same time locked out.
There are other elements which suggest a story which is fractured. We see a naked child, a group of young people bathing or showering together. There are shots of an interior, a bedroom. A lot of this just seems extraneous to me, but I can't imagine what could have replaced it. I get the feeling that the film is structured to suggest impressions from someone (the filmmaker's?) memory. But it doesn't engage me.
There was at least one very nice shot through a spinning bicycle wheel. I didn't find the scene of naked young people bathing as inhteresting as the scenes of the young couple.
I liked this film better than I have on other occasions when I have seen it.
(Chapman Films). 1934-42. Made by Mrs. Gilbert W. Chapman.
(5/13/00)
This film is made up of vignettes of important cultural figures of the time, such as Picasso, Matisse, Stravinsky, Gertrude Stein and Diego Rivera. I think it would be of great interest to anyone with an interest in the cultural history of the period.
The scenes have an intimacy and at the smae time are quite animated. I think that the film benefits from the fact that the people filmed were celebrities and by-and-large were comfortable with cameras.
It is fascinating to see Pavel Tchelitchew in his penthouse garden. Matisse looks a little bewildered. It is fascinating to see Picasso in a scene with his dealer Daniel Henry Kahnweiler. On the other side of the coin, it is a disappointment that Diego Rivera was not accompanied before the camera by his wife, Frida Kahlo.
There are so many interesting people in this picture and it moves so quickly that there isn't a chance to get bored. This film is a treat.
This film is made up of vignettes of important cultural figures of the time, such as Picasso, Matisse, Stravinsky, Gertrude Stein and Diego Rivera. I think it would be of great interest to anyone with an interest in the cultural history of the period.
The scenes have an intimacy and at the smae time are quite animated. I think that the film benefits from the fact that the people filmed were celebrities and by-and-large were comfortable with cameras.
It is fascinating to see Pavel Tchelitchew in his penthouse garden. Matisse looks a little bewildered. It is fascinating to see Picasso in a scene with his dealer Daniel Henry Kahnweiler. On the other side of the coin, it is a disappointment that Diego Rivera was not accompanied before the camera by his wife, Frida Kahlo.
There are so many interesting people in this picture and it moves so quickly that there isn't a chance to get bored. This film is a treat.
(Family Scenes). 1933-42. Director unknown.
(5/13/00)
This film is a home movie of the life of a family over a ten-year period. I actually question the dates. The earlier sections all have titles announcing the years, but towards the end there is a long stretch (longer than any of the previous years) which is broken up by patches of leader. The leader had been edited out of the previous sections, so I suspect that the last part of the film went beyond 1942, but was simply not identified as to the years.
It was interesting to me that this film began at the beach which seems to mean so much to me. Throughout the film there are a lot of long pans from left to right which I found annoying after a while.
I didn't like the static scenes of people posing for the camera as if they were having their pictures taken by a still camera. Of course, the motion picture camera can shown nuances that the still camera cannot, but I still didn't like those shots. I liked it much better when something was going on. I was especially frustrated when the people posing for the camera were speaking for the film was of course silent and I couldn't hear the words. Of course, some people can read lips, but I can't.
I liked the scenes of workmen adding on to the house because something was actually happening. There was some very interesting footage of dogs at play. Those scenes really livened up the film. My favorite scene was of a girl in a swimsuit swinging a golf club. She was attractive and I really enjoyed watching the movement of her legs.
It was interesting to watch the changeover from black-and-white to color footage. The first color scenes were blurry and the footage wasn't very attractive. Gradually, the color seemed to improve.
In one scene a young man is watching a military uniform--a haunting reminder that this was the time of World War II and that the war forced its way into people's private lives.
The film really left a vivid sense of how things looked in the early 1940s. And it was real life.
There is a scene outside of a theater where some sort of performance has gone on. A woman holds a volume of Schirmer's Library of Musical Classics in her arm.
There was so much of these people's lives that wa snot told in the film. I don't even know, for instance, what business the father was in. As close as I got to them through watching their home movies, this family remained strangers.
This film is a home movie of the life of a family over a ten-year period. I actually question the dates. The earlier sections all have titles announcing the years, but towards the end there is a long stretch (longer than any of the previous years) which is broken up by patches of leader. The leader had been edited out of the previous sections, so I suspect that the last part of the film went beyond 1942, but was simply not identified as to the years.
It was interesting to me that this film began at the beach which seems to mean so much to me. Throughout the film there are a lot of long pans from left to right which I found annoying after a while.
I didn't like the static scenes of people posing for the camera as if they were having their pictures taken by a still camera. Of course, the motion picture camera can shown nuances that the still camera cannot, but I still didn't like those shots. I liked it much better when something was going on. I was especially frustrated when the people posing for the camera were speaking for the film was of course silent and I couldn't hear the words. Of course, some people can read lips, but I can't.
I liked the scenes of workmen adding on to the house because something was actually happening. There was some very interesting footage of dogs at play. Those scenes really livened up the film. My favorite scene was of a girl in a swimsuit swinging a golf club. She was attractive and I really enjoyed watching the movement of her legs.
It was interesting to watch the changeover from black-and-white to color footage. The first color scenes were blurry and the footage wasn't very attractive. Gradually, the color seemed to improve.
In one scene a young man is watching a military uniform--a haunting reminder that this was the time of World War II and that the war forced its way into people's private lives.
The film really left a vivid sense of how things looked in the early 1940s. And it was real life.
There is a scene outside of a theater where some sort of performance has gone on. A woman holds a volume of Schirmer's Library of Musical Classics in her arm.
There was so much of these people's lives that wa snot told in the film. I don't even know, for instance, what business the father was in. As close as I got to them through watching their home movies, this family remained strangers.
The Road to Life (Putyovka v zhizn). 1931. Directed by Nikolai Ekk.
(5/11/00)
This film was also shown in Russian without subtitles. I was unable to follow it. It seemed to be about juvenile delinquents and the first half of the film had the look of a Warner Brothers social problem film of the 1930s.
The juvenile delinquents are taken somewhere to be rehabilitated. There is a harrowing moment when one throws a rock at a dog and kills it. As in a Fritz Lang film we do not actually see the rock hitting the dog. (Lang was famous for saying that you should never actually show the violence.) The same boy later goes beserk and has to be held down by the others.
The boys are engaged in the building of a railroad. Work is celebrated as was traditional in Soviet culture. The scenes of them at work with sledgehammers are uplifting.
One of the delinquents who has been working on the railroad is killed. Someone forces one of the rails out of alignment and the boy is thrown. Then he is killed. It is interesting that as he approaches on a handcar the film cuts away from him, but his approach is suggested by the soundtrack getting louder. This is a creative use of sound in an early sound film.
At the end of the film the body is found and placed on a train and mourned. This scene of mourning for a fallen comrade reminds me of a similar scene in The Battleship Potemkin.
I was very frustrated that this film was shown without subtitles and I could not follow it. I believe I would have been very impressed with it.
This film was also shown in Russian without subtitles. I was unable to follow it. It seemed to be about juvenile delinquents and the first half of the film had the look of a Warner Brothers social problem film of the 1930s.
The juvenile delinquents are taken somewhere to be rehabilitated. There is a harrowing moment when one throws a rock at a dog and kills it. As in a Fritz Lang film we do not actually see the rock hitting the dog. (Lang was famous for saying that you should never actually show the violence.) The same boy later goes beserk and has to be held down by the others.
The boys are engaged in the building of a railroad. Work is celebrated as was traditional in Soviet culture. The scenes of them at work with sledgehammers are uplifting.
One of the delinquents who has been working on the railroad is killed. Someone forces one of the rails out of alignment and the boy is thrown. Then he is killed. It is interesting that as he approaches on a handcar the film cuts away from him, but his approach is suggested by the soundtrack getting louder. This is a creative use of sound in an early sound film.
At the end of the film the body is found and placed on a train and mourned. This scene of mourning for a fallen comrade reminds me of a similar scene in The Battleship Potemkin.
I was very frustrated that this film was shown without subtitles and I could not follow it. I believe I would have been very impressed with it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Moscow Laughs (Vesoyolye Rebyata). 1934. Directed by Grigori Alexandrov.
(5/7/00)
It was very frustrating to watch this film because it had no subtitles. I could not follow the story and I noted that other people in the audience were laughing at the dialogue which I was not able to appreciate. The audience applauded at the end.
So the best I can do here is to mention a couple of things that did impress me. The opening scene--a musical number--was elaborate in that it took a lot of camera movement. It is all done outside and the camera more or less follows the main character around as he sings and plays a flute or recorder.
Then he seems to call a roll call of animals, each of whom answers in its turn. There is a very funny scene involving animals which, upon hearing the leading character play his flute or recorder, invade a party, eat the food, drink the alcohol, fall asleep and generally cause havoc. The shots of the animals are framed for maximum impact. The scene begins with the leading character having what looks to me to be a ram outside the house attached to a rope. He first ties the rope arond a reproduction of the Venus de Milo, then around himself, then around someone else. It is funny when he is on the dance floor, the ram decides to go somewhere and he is pulled towards the window.
This scene at the party seems to go on a little too long for me, but it is hard to judge when I couldn't really get into the story because of the lack of subtitles.
Other interesting scenes are when this guy is mistaken for a conductor and all of his gestures seem to conduct the orchestra. Then there is a scene of a fight among musicians in which the sounds of the violence are integrated into a musical number. Very clever.
There is a wonderful shot during a scene at the beach. The camera tracks parallel to a woman and glides past feet and other anatomical parts of people lying on the sand.
There are a couple of very nice bits of animation, a couple featuring the man in the moon. The music was pleasant enough. This is a film of high spirits and my guess is that if I could have followed it I would have found it a silly, entertaining trifle, but not something I would want to watch over and over.
P.S. During the credits there appeared drawings of the faces of Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyud and Buster Keaton. I wonder what that was about.
It was very frustrating to watch this film because it had no subtitles. I could not follow the story and I noted that other people in the audience were laughing at the dialogue which I was not able to appreciate. The audience applauded at the end.
So the best I can do here is to mention a couple of things that did impress me. The opening scene--a musical number--was elaborate in that it took a lot of camera movement. It is all done outside and the camera more or less follows the main character around as he sings and plays a flute or recorder.
Then he seems to call a roll call of animals, each of whom answers in its turn. There is a very funny scene involving animals which, upon hearing the leading character play his flute or recorder, invade a party, eat the food, drink the alcohol, fall asleep and generally cause havoc. The shots of the animals are framed for maximum impact. The scene begins with the leading character having what looks to me to be a ram outside the house attached to a rope. He first ties the rope arond a reproduction of the Venus de Milo, then around himself, then around someone else. It is funny when he is on the dance floor, the ram decides to go somewhere and he is pulled towards the window.
This scene at the party seems to go on a little too long for me, but it is hard to judge when I couldn't really get into the story because of the lack of subtitles.
Other interesting scenes are when this guy is mistaken for a conductor and all of his gestures seem to conduct the orchestra. Then there is a scene of a fight among musicians in which the sounds of the violence are integrated into a musical number. Very clever.
There is a wonderful shot during a scene at the beach. The camera tracks parallel to a woman and glides past feet and other anatomical parts of people lying on the sand.
There are a couple of very nice bits of animation, a couple featuring the man in the moon. The music was pleasant enough. This is a film of high spirits and my guess is that if I could have followed it I would have found it a silly, entertaining trifle, but not something I would want to watch over and over.
P.S. During the credits there appeared drawings of the faces of Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyud and Buster Keaton. I wonder what that was about.
Monday, November 9, 2009
City of Contrasts. 1931. Directed by Irving Browning.
(5/2/00)
The credits to this film imply that itis narrated. I saw it shown silent. I think that narration would have made a big difference in holding my interest. It really looks as if the footage was meant to be attached to a narration.
Nevertheless, the film is touching as a portrait of New York during the depression. I remember one scene of a man playing an accordion for money with a sign saying how long he had been out of work. We see doormen outside of restaurants of different nationalities.
There are views of Manhattan from boats and scenes of the lights of Broadway and what goes on in nightclubs. But this film really needs the narration to pull it all together.
The credits to this film imply that itis narrated. I saw it shown silent. I think that narration would have made a big difference in holding my interest. It really looks as if the footage was meant to be attached to a narration.
Nevertheless, the film is touching as a portrait of New York during the depression. I remember one scene of a man playing an accordion for money with a sign saying how long he had been out of work. We see doormen outside of restaurants of different nationalities.
There are views of Manhattan from boats and scenes of the lights of Broadway and what goes on in nightclubs. But this film really needs the narration to pull it all together.
A Bronx Morning. 1931. Directed and photographed by Jay Leyda.
(5/2/00)
This film is interesting for showing us what the Bronx was like circa 1930. We see people buying groceries, children playing--a lot of things. But it didn't rivet my attention. It's more important as a document of its time than as a film.
This film is interesting for showing us what the Bronx was like circa 1930. We see people buying groceries, children playing--a lot of things. But it didn't rivet my attention. It's more important as a document of its time than as a film.
Rain (Regen). 1929. Directed by Joris Ivens.
(5/2/00)
This is another beautiful film by Ivens. It is a loving portrait of a rain shower in a city. Like The Bridge it is closely observed and full of beautiful abstract patterns--but this film is broader in scope and includes people.
It has a beginning, middle and end. We see the city before the storm, the storm begins, it rains, people scurry for cover, the storm ends. I can't help thinking that the raindrops are like staccato notes in this visual composition. This film is simple as far as its subject matter goes, but rich and very beautiful.
This is another beautiful film by Ivens. It is a loving portrait of a rain shower in a city. Like The Bridge it is closely observed and full of beautiful abstract patterns--but this film is broader in scope and includes people.
It has a beginning, middle and end. We see the city before the storm, the storm begins, it rains, people scurry for cover, the storm ends. I can't help thinking that the raindrops are like staccato notes in this visual composition. This film is simple as far as its subject matter goes, but rich and very beautiful.
The Bridge (De Brug). 1928. Directed by Joris Ivens.
(5/2/00)
This was a very engaging little film about the workings of a railroad bridge. I have the sense that Joris Ivens really looked at this bridge and really showed it to us. A lot of the shots are of abstract patterns and they are moreover abstract patterns in motion.
This is a film which truly celebrates the beauty of the machine. And although we do see a few human beings, this film is really about the products of those beings.
This was a very engaging little film about the workings of a railroad bridge. I have the sense that Joris Ivens really looked at this bridge and really showed it to us. A lot of the shots are of abstract patterns and they are moreover abstract patterns in motion.
This is a film which truly celebrates the beauty of the machine. And although we do see a few human beings, this film is really about the products of those beings.
The Enchanted City. 1922. Directed by Warren A. Newcombe.
(5/2/00)
A man and a woman stare out into the sea. The man tells her of a dream he had about searching for her in an enchanted city. I forget exactly what happens there, but it is rendered in the style of symbolist art.
I didn't find this film interesting, except insofar as it can be considered a noble attempt to make this style of symbolist art into a film. Perhaps I should see it again.
A man and a woman stare out into the sea. The man tells her of a dream he had about searching for her in an enchanted city. I forget exactly what happens there, but it is rendered in the style of symbolist art.
I didn't find this film interesting, except insofar as it can be considered a noble attempt to make this style of symbolist art into a film. Perhaps I should see it again.
Manhatta. 1921. Directed and photographed by Paul Strand and Charles Sheeler.
(4/30/00)
This is a beautifully photographed portrait of the modern industrial city. It is very positive and shows the modern metropolis as majestic in grand, broad views. On the other hand, views of the city from the surrounding waters and views of those waters and the sky bring in the presence of nature. Nature is also treated with respect and the man-made city is presented in harmony with it.
The human presence is reduced to views of masses of people. But this is a panoramic view of a city, not a portrait of the people in it and taken as that it is an inspiring film.
Interspersed with the photographed scenes are titles which appear to be taken from a poem. I can't tell if these lines were written expresly for this film or are from an already-written poem. They may seem a bit old-fashioned today, but I think that they add to the beauty of this film. I can't help thinking that Manhatta must have made quite an impression on audiences of its time who lived far away from a big city.
This is a beautifully photographed portrait of the modern industrial city. It is very positive and shows the modern metropolis as majestic in grand, broad views. On the other hand, views of the city from the surrounding waters and views of those waters and the sky bring in the presence of nature. Nature is also treated with respect and the man-made city is presented in harmony with it.
The human presence is reduced to views of masses of people. But this is a panoramic view of a city, not a portrait of the people in it and taken as that it is an inspiring film.
Interspersed with the photographed scenes are titles which appear to be taken from a poem. I can't tell if these lines were written expresly for this film or are from an already-written poem. They may seem a bit old-fashioned today, but I think that they add to the beauty of this film. I can't help thinking that Manhatta must have made quite an impression on audiences of its time who lived far away from a big city.
Feed 'Em and Weep.
(4/30/00)
This was a Hal Roach comedy (I believe) with a female imitation of Laurel and Hardy. They are hired as waitresses and wreak havoc in a diner. One imitates Oliver Hardy to the point of saying to the other one, "Let me do the talking." They do the routine of doing aggressive, hurtful things to each other in a slow, ritualistic way--and some of the other people there pick up on it and start doing similar things to each other.
All I can say about this film is that it made me even more aware of just how good Laurel and Hardy really are.
This was a Hal Roach comedy (I believe) with a female imitation of Laurel and Hardy. They are hired as waitresses and wreak havoc in a diner. One imitates Oliver Hardy to the point of saying to the other one, "Let me do the talking." They do the routine of doing aggressive, hurtful things to each other in a slow, ritualistic way--and some of the other people there pick up on it and start doing similar things to each other.
All I can say about this film is that it made me even more aware of just how good Laurel and Hardy really are.
Babes in the Woods. From the "Free and Easy" series.
(4/30/00)
This was a comedy about two not-very-funny comedians who are camping out in the woods. One cooks breakfast on the car's radio. They are chased out of their campsite by the owner and are chased by animals (at least one is) until they find themselves at an inn which is having a dinner for a group of hunters. I was so disinterested that I don't even remember what happened.
This was a comedy about two not-very-funny comedians who are camping out in the woods. One cooks breakfast on the car's radio. They are chased out of their campsite by the owner and are chased by animals (at least one is) until they find themselves at an inn which is having a dinner for a group of hunters. I was so disinterested that I don't even remember what happened.
Master of the House. 1925. Directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer.
(4/30/00)
The Master of the House is a richly-observed story of domestic life. It is about a man who has lost his business and takes his frustrations out on his family. He criticizes his wife incessantly and the children as well. His wife comes to a breaking point and is persuaded to go away for a rest. The husband is made to realize her value to him, but the family servant--who raised him as a child--will not allow her to return until he agrees to stand in the corner with his hands behind his back.
There is a sureness in the direction which I can't explain, but can certainly feel. The performances are right. Dreyer was a master in the use of faces and he certainly communicates through the face in this picture. I was especially impressed by the actress who played Auntie Mads, the family servant. The wife's mother, who appeared relatively briefly, was a fine study in dignity.
In the early part of the film we see the husband being cranky and making demands on and criticizing his wife. I immediately thought that he was an unhappy man and wondered why. It is not until later, when Auntie Mads and the mother are trying to persuade the wife to leave him, that we learn that he has lost his business and is having trouble keeping the family solvent. The withholding of this information for a time is quite effective.
I liked it when Auntie Mads takes over the household. The husband was always criticizing, but when he trips on an object that Auntie Mads left in his way (deliberately, I think) she just looks at him and says, "You should be more careful."
It is fun watching this man be tamed by this stern yet compassionate matriarch. He certainly needs to be taught a lesson, but it goes a little too far. What happens is that the family servant decides that the wife shall not return until the husband agrees to stand in the corner and be punished like a little boy. What gives this woman the right to make the rules? When the husband speaks to his mother-in-law, she says, referring to Auntie Mads, "You know her terms." I don't think he should have allowed himself to be bullied by this woman and I don't think that the wife should have gone along with it, either.
Other than that, I really enjoyed this film and would very much like to see it again. One shot that impressed me was when the daughter goes to comfor her father who is missing his wife. She tenderly puts her hand on his in a closeup and he puts his on hers.
The Master of the House is a richly-observed story of domestic life. It is about a man who has lost his business and takes his frustrations out on his family. He criticizes his wife incessantly and the children as well. His wife comes to a breaking point and is persuaded to go away for a rest. The husband is made to realize her value to him, but the family servant--who raised him as a child--will not allow her to return until he agrees to stand in the corner with his hands behind his back.
There is a sureness in the direction which I can't explain, but can certainly feel. The performances are right. Dreyer was a master in the use of faces and he certainly communicates through the face in this picture. I was especially impressed by the actress who played Auntie Mads, the family servant. The wife's mother, who appeared relatively briefly, was a fine study in dignity.
In the early part of the film we see the husband being cranky and making demands on and criticizing his wife. I immediately thought that he was an unhappy man and wondered why. It is not until later, when Auntie Mads and the mother are trying to persuade the wife to leave him, that we learn that he has lost his business and is having trouble keeping the family solvent. The withholding of this information for a time is quite effective.
I liked it when Auntie Mads takes over the household. The husband was always criticizing, but when he trips on an object that Auntie Mads left in his way (deliberately, I think) she just looks at him and says, "You should be more careful."
It is fun watching this man be tamed by this stern yet compassionate matriarch. He certainly needs to be taught a lesson, but it goes a little too far. What happens is that the family servant decides that the wife shall not return until the husband agrees to stand in the corner and be punished like a little boy. What gives this woman the right to make the rules? When the husband speaks to his mother-in-law, she says, referring to Auntie Mads, "You know her terms." I don't think he should have allowed himself to be bullied by this woman and I don't think that the wife should have gone along with it, either.
Other than that, I really enjoyed this film and would very much like to see it again. One shot that impressed me was when the daughter goes to comfor her father who is missing his wife. She tenderly puts her hand on his in a closeup and he puts his on hers.
A Man Whose Life Was Full of Woe Has Been Surprised by Joy. 1998. R. Bruce Elder.
(4/26/00)
Elder's film bombards the viewer with sight and sound. There is a lot in it and it basically numbed me. I was unable to put much of it together in my head. It just flowed past me.
The film progresses from anger to acceptance. That is something that he told us, but I could see that he was doing a lot of griping in the first part of the film and towards the end there is a lot of "spiritual talk" about limitlessness, about God. There is a lot of praising towards the end and the film seems to end on a chord.
We come out of what I would call "floating imagery" periodically to see snatches of what looks like an old-fashioned silent-movie comedy about a cop and a giant animal which is really a person wearing a costume.
There are lots of shots of a penis, in some of which it was ejaculating. I found this tiresome after a while. Often on the soundtrack we hear a quote from a popular song: "Waah! I feel good!," always (or almost always) played when we are looking at a shot of a penis. I got tired of that, too, after a while.
In addition to hearing spoken words we see words printed on the film like subtitles. They are in black and often appear over dark areas of the screen so that you can't read them. I am sure that this was deliberate. Moreover, some of the text is printed in reverse, like mirror writing, making it even harder to read. This reverse writing usually appears on screen simultaneously with that printed the regular way.
There are some beautiful drawings of nude figures that appear.
Sometimes it was hard to hear the spoken words which were enmeshed with other sounds--at other moments they came to the fore. There is a thread of spoken words which weaves in and out of our consciousness.
At one point the speaker talks about employment and how to be employed requires one to be an impostor. That caught my attention.
This film has been composed, basically, through free association. I found it to be very self-indulgent. Mr. Elder has made a very private film in which he puts a lot of what he was seeing, hearing and thinking over a period of time, but he doesn't sort it out for the audience. He doesn't direct them through it or organize the material in a way that would make it accessible to a viewer. Or so it seems to me.
Elder's film bombards the viewer with sight and sound. There is a lot in it and it basically numbed me. I was unable to put much of it together in my head. It just flowed past me.
The film progresses from anger to acceptance. That is something that he told us, but I could see that he was doing a lot of griping in the first part of the film and towards the end there is a lot of "spiritual talk" about limitlessness, about God. There is a lot of praising towards the end and the film seems to end on a chord.
We come out of what I would call "floating imagery" periodically to see snatches of what looks like an old-fashioned silent-movie comedy about a cop and a giant animal which is really a person wearing a costume.
There are lots of shots of a penis, in some of which it was ejaculating. I found this tiresome after a while. Often on the soundtrack we hear a quote from a popular song: "Waah! I feel good!," always (or almost always) played when we are looking at a shot of a penis. I got tired of that, too, after a while.
In addition to hearing spoken words we see words printed on the film like subtitles. They are in black and often appear over dark areas of the screen so that you can't read them. I am sure that this was deliberate. Moreover, some of the text is printed in reverse, like mirror writing, making it even harder to read. This reverse writing usually appears on screen simultaneously with that printed the regular way.
There are some beautiful drawings of nude figures that appear.
Sometimes it was hard to hear the spoken words which were enmeshed with other sounds--at other moments they came to the fore. There is a thread of spoken words which weaves in and out of our consciousness.
At one point the speaker talks about employment and how to be employed requires one to be an impostor. That caught my attention.
This film has been composed, basically, through free association. I found it to be very self-indulgent. Mr. Elder has made a very private film in which he puts a lot of what he was seeing, hearing and thinking over a period of time, but he doesn't sort it out for the audience. He doesn't direct them through it or organize the material in a way that would make it accessible to a viewer. Or so it seems to me.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Hunchback of Notre Dame. 1923. Directed by Wallace Worsley.
(4/24/00)
Lon Chaney's Quasimodo is considered one of his greatest performances and it deserves to be. He shows hate, he shows pain, he is like a wild animal. He feels love and is kind to those who have been kind to him. When Patsy Ruth Miller doesn't respond to him hist expression subtly changes and you hurt.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a big, impressive production. It's well done. It has a lot of action. It tells an intricate story with a lot of characters. It has vile villains, deceit, but also nobility. It's larger than life. There is torture and there is betrayal.
It is set in Paris in the late Middle Ages, but the action seems to revolve around Notre Dame Cathedral. The cathedral, beautifully reproduced, dominates the film. Maybe it's a representation of the spirit of the time. It certainly represents an ideal that the characters of the story fail, for the most part, to live up to.
Esmerelda is the great exception. She is almost a personification of the Virgin, an embodiment of the values that the cathedral represents. But she is so sexually desirable that she represents Venus as well as the Virgin. We first see her as an attractive gypsy dancing girl, but as the film progresses it is her attractive spirit which comes to dominate our image of her.
I liked Patsy Ruth Miller in the opening scenes. When we first see her in closeup--in the scenes with Norman Kerry at the inn (or wherever they stop to eat)--I didn't find her so attractive. But maybe that was a response to the shift in how she is presented because she seemed quite suitable as the film progressed.
Some of the scenes that impressed me were the ones in which Esmerelda gives water to Quasimodo after he has been whipped and when the woman who has been cursing Esmerelda because her own daughter had been stolen by gypsies rips the locket off of her and realizes that she is her own daughter. Both are powerful scenes. I unfortunately lost focus and missed what happens to the woman who we have learned is Esmerelda's mother. I think she was killed, but I missed how.
This film was unfortunately shown in a very worn 16mm print and without music. I would really love a chance to see it under better conditions.
(4/26/00)
A couple of other points about The Hunchback of Notre Dame:
It is fascinating to watch Lon Chaney flick his tongue, sort of like a snake. In fact, he seems very animal-like in a lot of his footage. And I also wanted to mention that after Phoebus arrives, he and Esmerelda just blithely go off together, leaving Quasimodo to die alone. This is sad, especially in view of the fact that Esmerelda is basically a kind person.
Lon Chaney's Quasimodo is considered one of his greatest performances and it deserves to be. He shows hate, he shows pain, he is like a wild animal. He feels love and is kind to those who have been kind to him. When Patsy Ruth Miller doesn't respond to him hist expression subtly changes and you hurt.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a big, impressive production. It's well done. It has a lot of action. It tells an intricate story with a lot of characters. It has vile villains, deceit, but also nobility. It's larger than life. There is torture and there is betrayal.
It is set in Paris in the late Middle Ages, but the action seems to revolve around Notre Dame Cathedral. The cathedral, beautifully reproduced, dominates the film. Maybe it's a representation of the spirit of the time. It certainly represents an ideal that the characters of the story fail, for the most part, to live up to.
Esmerelda is the great exception. She is almost a personification of the Virgin, an embodiment of the values that the cathedral represents. But she is so sexually desirable that she represents Venus as well as the Virgin. We first see her as an attractive gypsy dancing girl, but as the film progresses it is her attractive spirit which comes to dominate our image of her.
I liked Patsy Ruth Miller in the opening scenes. When we first see her in closeup--in the scenes with Norman Kerry at the inn (or wherever they stop to eat)--I didn't find her so attractive. But maybe that was a response to the shift in how she is presented because she seemed quite suitable as the film progressed.
Some of the scenes that impressed me were the ones in which Esmerelda gives water to Quasimodo after he has been whipped and when the woman who has been cursing Esmerelda because her own daughter had been stolen by gypsies rips the locket off of her and realizes that she is her own daughter. Both are powerful scenes. I unfortunately lost focus and missed what happens to the woman who we have learned is Esmerelda's mother. I think she was killed, but I missed how.
This film was unfortunately shown in a very worn 16mm print and without music. I would really love a chance to see it under better conditions.
(4/26/00)
A couple of other points about The Hunchback of Notre Dame:
It is fascinating to watch Lon Chaney flick his tongue, sort of like a snake. In fact, he seems very animal-like in a lot of his footage. And I also wanted to mention that after Phoebus arrives, he and Esmerelda just blithely go off together, leaving Quasimodo to die alone. This is sad, especially in view of the fact that Esmerelda is basically a kind person.
El ultima malon. 1917. Directed by Alcides Greca.
(4/23/00)
It is a shame that this film was shown with Spanish intertitles (without translation) because it was impossible (for me) to follow it. Even though the film had a lot of action the intertitles were extensive and it seemed to be an illustrated lecture.
It's about an insurrection in San Javier in 1904. The Mocovies seem like a tribe of Indians and the film resembles a western. It has plenty of action and we see such things as the roping of steer and Indians being stood up against a wall. A young woman appears to be kidnapped and held by the Indians. Someone comes and secretly brings her a knife. She gets away from one of her captors by pushing him down a well. She is re-captured and whipped.
With translation and music this would probably be a very exciting picture. As it was shown, it was a frustrating one. Not only could I not follow it, I couldn't focus on it either. My attention wavered the whole time.
It is a shame that this film was shown with Spanish intertitles (without translation) because it was impossible (for me) to follow it. Even though the film had a lot of action the intertitles were extensive and it seemed to be an illustrated lecture.
It's about an insurrection in San Javier in 1904. The Mocovies seem like a tribe of Indians and the film resembles a western. It has plenty of action and we see such things as the roping of steer and Indians being stood up against a wall. A young woman appears to be kidnapped and held by the Indians. Someone comes and secretly brings her a knife. She gets away from one of her captors by pushing him down a well. She is re-captured and whipped.
With translation and music this would probably be a very exciting picture. As it was shown, it was a frustrating one. Not only could I not follow it, I couldn't focus on it either. My attention wavered the whole time.
Underwater Blues. 1981. Poli Marichal.
(4/23/00)
This was an interesting little film about sea life. I think the background was (or was mostly) underwater footage, but I'm not sure. There was a fish drawn on the surface of the film and a lot of hand-drawn words. The words went by quickly and I couldn't read all of them.
Actually, I am surprised to find that I remember practically nothing of this film after a few days, but I enjoyed its lighthearted mood.
This was an interesting little film about sea life. I think the background was (or was mostly) underwater footage, but I'm not sure. There was a fish drawn on the surface of the film and a lot of hand-drawn words. The words went by quickly and I couldn't read all of them.
Actually, I am surprised to find that I remember practically nothing of this film after a few days, but I enjoyed its lighthearted mood.
American 30s Song. 1969. Stan Brakhage.
(4/23/00)
As I've said previously, I don't "get" what Brakhage's films are all about, but I nevertheless enjoy sitting through them. I don't see what this film has to do with America in the 1930s, but I enjoyed the pans, the superimpositions, the vast vistas seen from an airplane. I think there are shots of an airplane on the ground at the end, but I forget.
As I've said previously, I don't "get" what Brakhage's films are all about, but I nevertheless enjoy sitting through them. I don't see what this film has to do with America in the 1930s, but I enjoyed the pans, the superimpositions, the vast vistas seen from an airplane. I think there are shots of an airplane on the ground at the end, but I forget.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Clothe/Sline. 1975. Gail Vachon.
(4/23/00)
We see images of a clothesline; the film which contains them has been scratched, painted and burned.
I couldn't help thinking about Andrew Noren's The Wind Variations which made an interesting experience of such spare footage without needing to do all that stuff to it. But Clothe/Sline is a different film and the treament of the film surface is really its subject. That's how it seems, anyway.
I think there are too many burns in this film. Yes, it is interesting to call attention to what film looks like when it burns in a projector, but I don't see much point in doing as much of that as Gail Vachon does. I kept wondering how that might have been used to more effect. Possibly a burn could be used to obscure something at an important moment. But it should be used effectively.
I can see using burns just to give a film a humble, homemade effect. But in that case they should be used sparingly.
I think I'm being perhaps overly critical of this abstract film because it has the footage of a clothesline as a foundation. Whatever the reason, it didn't make a big impression on me.
We see images of a clothesline; the film which contains them has been scratched, painted and burned.
I couldn't help thinking about Andrew Noren's The Wind Variations which made an interesting experience of such spare footage without needing to do all that stuff to it. But Clothe/Sline is a different film and the treament of the film surface is really its subject. That's how it seems, anyway.
I think there are too many burns in this film. Yes, it is interesting to call attention to what film looks like when it burns in a projector, but I don't see much point in doing as much of that as Gail Vachon does. I kept wondering how that might have been used to more effect. Possibly a burn could be used to obscure something at an important moment. But it should be used effectively.
I can see using burns just to give a film a humble, homemade effect. But in that case they should be used sparingly.
I think I'm being perhaps overly critical of this abstract film because it has the footage of a clothesline as a foundation. Whatever the reason, it didn't make a big impression on me.
Cezannescapes #1 & #2. 1991. Gary Adelstein.
(4/23/00)
We see views of "Cezanne country" as it appears today, especially from a car. We see modern roads and electric wires. We hear what we would hear on the radio if we were there. This footage is contrasted with shots of Cezanne's works. In #2 we see cathedrals and towns.
It didn't make too much of an impression on me.
We see views of "Cezanne country" as it appears today, especially from a car. We see modern roads and electric wires. We hear what we would hear on the radio if we were there. This footage is contrasted with shots of Cezanne's works. In #2 we see cathedrals and towns.
It didn't make too much of an impression on me.
Farm. 1979. James Irwin.
(4/23/00)
This film is simply static shots of a farm in Pennsylvania. They fade in and out of black leader, like slides. But they aren't slides and we become aware of subtle movements, like a cow shaking its head.
There is almost no human presence. (I think we see a rider on a bicycle in the last shot.) The sound is naturalistic in places, but later on we hear an organ playing.
This is a pleasant film if you are in the mood for it. Otherwise it can be boring after a while.
This film is simply static shots of a farm in Pennsylvania. They fade in and out of black leader, like slides. But they aren't slides and we become aware of subtle movements, like a cow shaking its head.
There is almost no human presence. (I think we see a rider on a bicycle in the last shot.) The sound is naturalistic in places, but later on we hear an organ playing.
This is a pleasant film if you are in the mood for it. Otherwise it can be boring after a while.
Mother (Mat'). 1926. Directed by Vsevolod Pudovkin.
(4/23/00)
I think it is interesting that Mother was made (or released) the same year as Passaic Textile Strike. Both films deal with the events of a strike and the brutal attempts to bring it to a halt. But while the latter title is a simple, earnest document made without any pretense to "art," Mother was the work of a sophisticated film artist whose talents were directed to aiding the cause of proletarian struggle.
Another film that came to mind is the modern story in Griffith's Intolerance. It's the same situation. However, both Intolerance and the Passaic Textile Strike differ from Mother in one crucial respect: in both of those
films pains are taken to explain the motivations of the strikers. We are told why they are striking. In Pudovkin's film it is just assumed that the strikers are in the right and the owners or capitalists are in the wrong. The strike doesn't have to be explained or justified.
I suppose the comparison is only valid in the case of Passaic Textile Strike, as Intolerance is telling a story in which the strike merely happens to figure. Intolerance actually comes to mind because of Griffith's influence on Soviet directors and here one of them is dealing with similar material.
Noteworthy about Mother is its concentration on close-ups of faces and its superimpositions. The actors who play the roles of mother and son are remarkable, intense, and Pudovkin uses those wonderful faces for maximum effect. The superimpositions show a relationship with the European "art film." I thought of Leger's Ballet Mecanique and Epstein's Coeur Fidele.
The film is about a family in revolutionary times. The son is involved with a group of revolutionaries who intend to strike. The father is recruited to stop it. In the violence he is killed. The authorities come to the home, after the son. They want him to confess, but he won't. The mother, who is terrfified, gets the leaflets and guns that he has hidden under the boards.
The mother is fantastic in her obsequiousness before the authorities. She is humble, always bowing, a perfect supplicant. But is this unwarranted? It seems like an appropriate response to people in power. And the mother doesn't show much awareness of the issues involved. The son and his friends were responsible for her husband's death. That's about all she understands.
The son is put on trial. The trial is a great set-piece. It shows "justice" in this society as a dreadful--and deadly--farce. Well-dressed women attend, regarding the whole thing as entertainment. One of the tribunal of justices is more interested in his mare than the fate of the young man which it is his duty to decide. The attitude of Pudovkin or the filmmakers is as sarcastic as that of Griffith in the modern story of Intolerance.
The son is given a harsh sentence. The mother is shocked and cries out, "Where is truth?" You have to wonder--well, what did she expect? After all, the son was concealing guns that were intended for use byrevolutionaries. Of course, the people in power are going to give him a harsh sentence. She should consider it lucky that they didn't take him out and shoot him. Her reaction really shows us how limited her understanding is.
The son's friends plan to help him break out of prison. The mother is suddenly one of them and brings some of the necessary items to the prison. She gives him the goods she has been concealing and says, with a smile, "From your friends." It is the warmest scene in the film.
There is trouble getting him out and he ends up escaping on ice floes in a scene which recalls the finale of Way Down East. The people of the city gather together in solidarity, the mother among them. Alas, the son's escape is not successful, he is shot and dies in his mother's arms.
And this turns her into a real revolutionary. Her private grief turns into a true revolutionary spirit. This is conveyed through the performer--in her faqce and body language. But she, too, is shot at the end.' Amidst all this action at the end is interspersed footage of frozen rivers and flowing water. It is the frozen energy of the masses which is beginning to be unleashed. The imagery reinforces the scene.
Mother doesn't seem all that hopeful to me. That's because the central character merely reacts to situations as they affect her personally. If the revolutionaries had been responsible for her son's death (and they could have been) she would have been just as willing to take up a flag and march against them. Man simply reacts to stimuli, it would seem. I don't find that very inspiring of confidence in human potential.
I think it is interesting that Mother was made (or released) the same year as Passaic Textile Strike. Both films deal with the events of a strike and the brutal attempts to bring it to a halt. But while the latter title is a simple, earnest document made without any pretense to "art," Mother was the work of a sophisticated film artist whose talents were directed to aiding the cause of proletarian struggle.
Another film that came to mind is the modern story in Griffith's Intolerance. It's the same situation. However, both Intolerance and the Passaic Textile Strike differ from Mother in one crucial respect: in both of those
films pains are taken to explain the motivations of the strikers. We are told why they are striking. In Pudovkin's film it is just assumed that the strikers are in the right and the owners or capitalists are in the wrong. The strike doesn't have to be explained or justified.I suppose the comparison is only valid in the case of Passaic Textile Strike, as Intolerance is telling a story in which the strike merely happens to figure. Intolerance actually comes to mind because of Griffith's influence on Soviet directors and here one of them is dealing with similar material.
Noteworthy about Mother is its concentration on close-ups of faces and its superimpositions. The actors who play the roles of mother and son are remarkable, intense, and Pudovkin uses those wonderful faces for maximum effect. The superimpositions show a relationship with the European "art film." I thought of Leger's Ballet Mecanique and Epstein's Coeur Fidele.
The film is about a family in revolutionary times. The son is involved with a group of revolutionaries who intend to strike. The father is recruited to stop it. In the violence he is killed. The authorities come to the home, after the son. They want him to confess, but he won't. The mother, who is terrfified, gets the leaflets and guns that he has hidden under the boards.
The mother is fantastic in her obsequiousness before the authorities. She is humble, always bowing, a perfect supplicant. But is this unwarranted? It seems like an appropriate response to people in power. And the mother doesn't show much awareness of the issues involved. The son and his friends were responsible for her husband's death. That's about all she understands.
The son is put on trial. The trial is a great set-piece. It shows "justice" in this society as a dreadful--and deadly--farce. Well-dressed women attend, regarding the whole thing as entertainment. One of the tribunal of justices is more interested in his mare than the fate of the young man which it is his duty to decide. The attitude of Pudovkin or the filmmakers is as sarcastic as that of Griffith in the modern story of Intolerance.
The son is given a harsh sentence. The mother is shocked and cries out, "Where is truth?" You have to wonder--well, what did she expect? After all, the son was concealing guns that were intended for use byrevolutionaries. Of course, the people in power are going to give him a harsh sentence. She should consider it lucky that they didn't take him out and shoot him. Her reaction really shows us how limited her understanding is.
The son's friends plan to help him break out of prison. The mother is suddenly one of them and brings some of the necessary items to the prison. She gives him the goods she has been concealing and says, with a smile, "From your friends." It is the warmest scene in the film.
There is trouble getting him out and he ends up escaping on ice floes in a scene which recalls the finale of Way Down East. The people of the city gather together in solidarity, the mother among them. Alas, the son's escape is not successful, he is shot and dies in his mother's arms.
And this turns her into a real revolutionary. Her private grief turns into a true revolutionary spirit. This is conveyed through the performer--in her faqce and body language. But she, too, is shot at the end.' Amidst all this action at the end is interspersed footage of frozen rivers and flowing water. It is the frozen energy of the masses which is beginning to be unleashed. The imagery reinforces the scene.
Mother doesn't seem all that hopeful to me. That's because the central character merely reacts to situations as they affect her personally. If the revolutionaries had been responsible for her son's death (and they could have been) she would have been just as willing to take up a flag and march against them. Man simply reacts to stimuli, it would seem. I don't find that very inspiring of confidence in human potential.
Monday, November 2, 2009
A Florida Enchantment. 1914. Directed by Sidney Drew.
(4/20/00)
It's bizarre. And fascinating. And lots of fun. It's about a wealthy young woman who comes to Florida to be with her fiance. He is a doctor who has a woman admirer who throws herself at him. The woman (Lillian) is jealous. And into her hands comes a casket containing four seed which turn women into men and vice versa.
When her fiance seemingly stands her up she takes one and the fun begins. And the fun is watching two actresses have a field day playing men who look like women. Lillian immediately starts swaggering about, pushing guys around and hugging and kissing women who don't know she's changed and think she is just being affectionate as women often are. And they seem to like it. And the fun is increased when she induces (or virtually forces) her black maid to ingest one of the seeds.
Lillian's fiance suddenly becomes a lot more interested, even as s/he loses interest in him. And actress Edith Storey plays it for everything it is worth.
Lillian and her maid/valet go to New York, change into male attire and return. This part of the film disappoints a little--it can't sustain the mood. Eventually "Lawrence Talbot" is accused of murdering Lillian whose clothes have been found. She confesses the whole thing to Dr. Cassadene (the fiance) who is understandably skeptical. But of course there is one wway to prove it; she offers him one of the seeds which he is not afraid to swallow.
And here the film rallies for a bit as we get to watch a male cavort as a female. Eventually, the whole thing is revealed to be a dream which was a dissapointment to me. I like a fantasy to really be a fantasy. Endings which explain things as a dream suggest that someone couldn't find a way to wrap it all up.
Dream or not, A Florida Enchantment is richly imaginative and performed with real gusto by the people who count. I was going to write that it was quite daring for 1914, but I don't know. (There is, after all, a tradition of transvestite comedy that goes way back.) Whatever the case it was made with true good humor.
It's bizarre. And fascinating. And lots of fun. It's about a wealthy young woman who comes to Florida to be with her fiance. He is a doctor who has a woman admirer who throws herself at him. The woman (Lillian) is jealous. And into her hands comes a casket containing four seed which turn women into men and vice versa.
When her fiance seemingly stands her up she takes one and the fun begins. And the fun is watching two actresses have a field day playing men who look like women. Lillian immediately starts swaggering about, pushing guys around and hugging and kissing women who don't know she's changed and think she is just being affectionate as women often are. And they seem to like it. And the fun is increased when she induces (or virtually forces) her black maid to ingest one of the seeds.
Lillian's fiance suddenly becomes a lot more interested, even as s/he loses interest in him. And actress Edith Storey plays it for everything it is worth.
Lillian and her maid/valet go to New York, change into male attire and return. This part of the film disappoints a little--it can't sustain the mood. Eventually "Lawrence Talbot" is accused of murdering Lillian whose clothes have been found. She confesses the whole thing to Dr. Cassadene (the fiance) who is understandably skeptical. But of course there is one wway to prove it; she offers him one of the seeds which he is not afraid to swallow.
And here the film rallies for a bit as we get to watch a male cavort as a female. Eventually, the whole thing is revealed to be a dream which was a dissapointment to me. I like a fantasy to really be a fantasy. Endings which explain things as a dream suggest that someone couldn't find a way to wrap it all up.
Dream or not, A Florida Enchantment is richly imaginative and performed with real gusto by the people who count. I was going to write that it was quite daring for 1914, but I don't know. (There is, after all, a tradition of transvestite comedy that goes way back.) Whatever the case it was made with true good humor.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. 1920. Directed by John S. Robertson.
(4/18/00)
It was a very bad 16mm print and I was very tired. I didn't enjoy this film very much--didn't find it very interesting.
I didn't think that much of John Barrymore. He didn't do very much except show off his profile as Jekyll and wear some grusome makeup as Hyde. None of the other performers made much of an impression on me, although there were some nice shots of Brandon Hurst in the dinner sequence.
I certainly didn't think that much of Dr. Jekyll. He supposedly wants to separate man's good and evil natures so that he can be good without being distracted by temptations. But what he actually does do is let his evil self/dark side/id run around loose without any control whatsoever. This is responsible science? The guy is an absolute jerk.
He's actually a man in denial because Jekyll really wants to be Hyde and act like that, but he doesn't want to take responsibility for it. It's quite obvious that what really pushes him into taking the serum is the fact that he wants to have an affair with the sexy dancer played by Nita Naldi. But he won't own up to that and accept the consequences, so he unleashes his shadow on the world at large.
Now, wanting to have sex with someone is not evil. It is a very natural thing to want. But society (and particularly Victorian society--at least in the popular imagination) claims that it is. So the film is also about Victorian hypocrisy and in that sense Jekyll is a victim. He has been suckered into accepting that wanting to have an affair is evil and the result is a string of horrific consequences.
Sir George Carew is the embodiment of this hypocrisy. He spouts all this stuff about how important it is to experience life, etc., yet he is so protective of his daughter that he forbids Jekyll to see her again until he gives an account of his association with this man Hyde. Sir George's words have consequences and his murder seems perfectly appropriate.
Looking at the changeover scene in the year 2000, Barrymore's thrashing about seems a little bit overdone. And his Mr. Hyde makeup struck me as too grotesque to be taken seriously. I can't imagine how he managed to attract Nita Naldi. The hallucination where he sees the giant spider was OK, but the whole film really left me cold. It's too bad.
It was a very bad 16mm print and I was very tired. I didn't enjoy this film very much--didn't find it very interesting.
I didn't think that much of John Barrymore. He didn't do very much except show off his profile as Jekyll and wear some grusome makeup as Hyde. None of the other performers made much of an impression on me, although there were some nice shots of Brandon Hurst in the dinner sequence.
I certainly didn't think that much of Dr. Jekyll. He supposedly wants to separate man's good and evil natures so that he can be good without being distracted by temptations. But what he actually does do is let his evil self/dark side/id run around loose without any control whatsoever. This is responsible science? The guy is an absolute jerk.
He's actually a man in denial because Jekyll really wants to be Hyde and act like that, but he doesn't want to take responsibility for it. It's quite obvious that what really pushes him into taking the serum is the fact that he wants to have an affair with the sexy dancer played by Nita Naldi. But he won't own up to that and accept the consequences, so he unleashes his shadow on the world at large.
Now, wanting to have sex with someone is not evil. It is a very natural thing to want. But society (and particularly Victorian society--at least in the popular imagination) claims that it is. So the film is also about Victorian hypocrisy and in that sense Jekyll is a victim. He has been suckered into accepting that wanting to have an affair is evil and the result is a string of horrific consequences.
Sir George Carew is the embodiment of this hypocrisy. He spouts all this stuff about how important it is to experience life, etc., yet he is so protective of his daughter that he forbids Jekyll to see her again until he gives an account of his association with this man Hyde. Sir George's words have consequences and his murder seems perfectly appropriate.
Looking at the changeover scene in the year 2000, Barrymore's thrashing about seems a little bit overdone. And his Mr. Hyde makeup struck me as too grotesque to be taken seriously. I can't imagine how he managed to attract Nita Naldi. The hallucination where he sees the giant spider was OK, but the whole film really left me cold. It's too bad.
Oliver Twist. 1922. Directed by Frank Lloyd.
(4/18/00)
Could there have been a better Oliver Twist than Jackie Coogan? I can't think of a candidate. Oliver Twist seems like a perfect showcase for him. He is adorable, photogenic and boy, can he act. The scene where he asks for more food is a joy, as is the image of him as an undertaker's assistant, returning from a funeral dressed in solemn black.
The rest of the cast do their jobs skillfully, but do not take attention away from Coogan. They are a fine supporting cast. I was actually disappointed in Lon Chaney's Fagin--not because it wqasn't skillful, but because it was a nasty Jewish stereotype--I kept thinking of Shylock--and also because it didn't give Chaney any scope for developing a real character. That said, the scene in which he demonstrates the art of picking pockets to Oliver is memorable.
Oliver Twist is really a good story. I have never read it and found it quite absorbing. It is interesting as a depiction of Victorian England as a kind of Hell to which the characters respond with either meanness or kindness. On the one hand you have people like the staff of the workhouse. A woman supervisor beats a woman who collapses (and later steals a locket from her as she dies), but offers a drink from her flask to a guard with whom she is friendly. On the other hand there are the kind people such as Mr. Brownlow who takes Oliver home and cares for him, and Nancy who does the right thing even though it means betraying her boyfriend--and ultimately her death. The whole sequence when she goes to Brownlow's home to tell the truth and is killed by Bill is probably the most painful in the film. Especially pathetic is Brownlow's promise to her that she will not be involved when her conversation is being eavesdropped on by one of Fagin's spies.
Monks is easily the most despicable of all the characters--a man who would stop at nothing to keep his half-brother from having his inheritance.
I had a little trouble accepting the final shot in which Oliver turns from the door seemingly happy and contented now that his problems have been solved and his future secured. It didn't quite ring true for me. It is an assertion of living in the now and a borrowing from Charlie Chaplin's persona.
Could there have been a better Oliver Twist than Jackie Coogan? I can't think of a candidate. Oliver Twist seems like a perfect showcase for him. He is adorable, photogenic and boy, can he act. The scene where he asks for more food is a joy, as is the image of him as an undertaker's assistant, returning from a funeral dressed in solemn black.
The rest of the cast do their jobs skillfully, but do not take attention away from Coogan. They are a fine supporting cast. I was actually disappointed in Lon Chaney's Fagin--not because it wqasn't skillful, but because it was a nasty Jewish stereotype--I kept thinking of Shylock--and also because it didn't give Chaney any scope for developing a real character. That said, the scene in which he demonstrates the art of picking pockets to Oliver is memorable.
Oliver Twist is really a good story. I have never read it and found it quite absorbing. It is interesting as a depiction of Victorian England as a kind of Hell to which the characters respond with either meanness or kindness. On the one hand you have people like the staff of the workhouse. A woman supervisor beats a woman who collapses (and later steals a locket from her as she dies), but offers a drink from her flask to a guard with whom she is friendly. On the other hand there are the kind people such as Mr. Brownlow who takes Oliver home and cares for him, and Nancy who does the right thing even though it means betraying her boyfriend--and ultimately her death. The whole sequence when she goes to Brownlow's home to tell the truth and is killed by Bill is probably the most painful in the film. Especially pathetic is Brownlow's promise to her that she will not be involved when her conversation is being eavesdropped on by one of Fagin's spies.
Monks is easily the most despicable of all the characters--a man who would stop at nothing to keep his half-brother from having his inheritance.
I had a little trouble accepting the final shot in which Oliver turns from the door seemingly happy and contented now that his problems have been solved and his future secured. It didn't quite ring true for me. It is an assertion of living in the now and a borrowing from Charlie Chaplin's persona.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)