(6/8/00-6/13/00)
Alida Walsh used to rave about this movie. She called it one of the greatest anti-war pictures ever made. Finally seeing it after all these years I have to agree that it is undeniably a classic. In fact, my immediate feeling is that it makes the rest of Lubitsch's work look trivial, though I suspect that is merely the enthusiasm of the moment.
It is a film about the effect of war on the people who endure it. A young man has killed another man in the trenches. He can't get over his guilt and a visit to a priest doesn't help much. By chance he has learned the name and address of the man he killed and decides to go and ask his family for forgiveness. Through a fluke (that he was seen putting flowers on the dead man's grave) he is mistaken for a friend of the dead man and the mother, the father and the man's fiancee take him to their hearts and he can't bring himself to tell them the truth. The fiancee comes to love him and he decides that the only thing he can do is leave. He admits the horrible truth to the fiancee who persuades him to remain for the sake of the parents of the man he killed, but to never reveal the truth to them.
This is a truly painful movie to watch. It is brightened with touches of humor, but it is played out in a series of wonderful moments. It is definitely the work of a master.
The film begins with a powerful condemnation of war. (I first saw this included in a compilation of "great editing sequences.") It is a year after the signing of the armistice that ended World War I. They are celebrating the event in Paris with a lot of festivity. And suddenly we are watching a parade from behind a man with one leg. A cannon goes off in celebration and we cut to a hospital where a man sits up in bed and screams at the sound of the cannon.
And then we are in church. And we see old men decked out in regalia. It is the old who are celebrating.
The mass ends and we meet the young man Paul. He approaches a priest to confess murder. But as it turns out the "murder" was killing a German soldier in the trenches--an event which haunts him terribly. The priest is uncomfortable and has very little solace to offer him. He tells the young man that there is no need to feel guilty--he was only doing his duty.
The priest is well-intentioned, but there is really no answer that he can give Paul. Organized religion is part of the establishment and basically must support the idea that killing in battle is all right, is actually one's "duty." The problem that Paul is grappling with is a purely personal one and the answer is not going to be found in any institution. It is something that he can only work out for himself.
The visit to the priest is not a total waste, however, as Paul does find a possible solution. Through a fluke he has come to know the identity of the man he killed--Walter Holderlin--and his family's address. And so he decides to go to them to ask forgiveness. (This same situation is replayed in Oliver Stone's Platoon. Times change but the problems humans face remain consistent.)
In Germany, Walter's father, Dr. Holderlin, is a kindly old man except that he carries this hatred for the French. There is a wonderfully poignant scene in the cemetery where Walter's mother visits her son's grave and gets into a conversation with another bereaved mother. She mentions how the other woman's son used to come to the Holderlins's house when the mother was baking and that he loved her cinnamon cakes. The other woman asks her for the recipe and when she hears that it took two cups of sugar she remarks that she only used one. That was why he preferred Frau Holderlin's cinnamon cakes. But next time . . . She breaks off, remembering that there will not be a next time. It is a very moving scene, full of loss.
Paul eventually shows up at the house. Dr. Holderlin mistakes him for a patient and starts taking down the basic facts about him. Upon learning he is French, he orders him out of his house. He shows Paul the picture of his dead son, remarking that to him all Frenchmen are the murderers of his son.
Just at that moment Elsa appears. Elsa is the housekeeper and was engaged to Walter. She has seen Paul putting flowers on Walter's grave and, believing that he was Walter's friend, goes to get the mother. Paul doesn't have the heart to correct this impression and Dr. Holderlin begins to melt, moved by the thought that a Frenchman would be putting flowers on his son's grave.
Paul hangs around. And his presence has a healing effect. The Holderlins start to come out of their deep state of grief. And Elsa starts to fall in love with him. There is an amusing scene of neighbors eavesdropping on Elsa and Paul. It is just the right touch of comic relief.
The response to Paul's presence around the neighborhood is not altogether favorable--and understandably so. I was reminded of how low Germany sunk at the end of World War I. And so it was just natural that Paul should be resented as well as the Holderlin family which welcomes him.
And the tension climaxes in one great moment. Dr. Holderlin goes to have a beer with his friends. He offers to buy a round for everybody and one by one his friends decline--some with just their silence. And Holderlin makes a speech about what he has learned. He feels responsibility for his own son's death because he hated the French and supported the war. And he feels sorrow for the French families which have also suffered losses. He says something like, "When there was a battle and we killed their sons we celebrated and drank beer. And when they were victorious and killed our sons they celebrated and drank wine." It really is a beautiful, profound moment and Lionel Barrymore had the authority to truly give it meaning. Holderlin has learned the stupidity of the hatreds that give rise to war. And this is all due to Paul's presence. Paul has helped this man see the light.
Paul decides that he has to go. And it is a problem for him because he can't go without hurting those who have opened their hearts to him. And he can't reveal to them the real reason for his presence there. He tries to say goodbye to Elsa, but she is very insistent that he explain why he is leaving. And she takes out Walter-s last letter and reads it to him--having no idea that he had read it before, that he had even completed the signature on it. When she becomes so choked he completes the reading of the letter from memory. And finally reveals his terrible secret.
He leaves her and goes out to say goodbye to the Holderlins. Elsa follows and stops him. She tells Frau Holderlin that Paul had really come to tell them that the war is over and that he has decided to stay. Frau Holderlin is so happy and goes to get her husband. Elsa tells Paul that he has brought these people the first relief, the first happiness they have known since their son was killed. He must stay for them, but they must never know that he is the man that killed their son. Dr. Holderlin comes in and tenderly embraces the Frenchman. And then he gets him Walter's violin to play and the Holderlins settle back to happily listen to Paul playing it. It is an ending both painful and beautiful.
Elsa is very right that they must never know the truth. There is no way that the Holderlins could have dealt with that knowledge. And this is the opportunity for Paul to atone for his deed, to clear his conscience. What he really is being called upon to do is put others' needs before his own.
The Holderlins' love of Paul is not misplaced. He really is the good man that they think he is. He came to ask forgiveness, but he brought blessings into their lives. He is a man who assumes full responsibility for his actions and does not try to rationalize them.
But there is another way of looking at this acceptance of responsibility. Neither Paul nor Dr. Holderlin ever seem to wake up to the fact that they have been duped into accepting World War I. Paul isn't entirely to blame for Walter's death in a moral sense. He was a pawn--as was Dr. Holderlin--as were so many others. And that is something that needs to be recognized if wars are to end.
The Man I Killed isn't just an anti-war film. It is also a film about letting go of things and it is a film about thinking for oneself. Both Paul and Dr. Holderlin come to conclusions different from those accepted by their peers. They awaken, their consciousness is raised--and that separates them from those around them.
Elsa is a wonderful character in the final moments. Nancy Carroll's speech didn't have the ring of Lionel Barrymore's big speech, but it was an effective moment. She, too, experiences growth and has something to teach as well. It's horrible what's revealed to her, but she is still able to accept Paul's remorse, see the benefits that he has brought--and go on. I really liked the fact thatalthough Paul has to keep his secret he has someone to share it with. That makes such a difference. Elsa implicitly agrees to help shoulder his burden, to help carry his cross.
What the film doesn't tell us is whether Elsa and Paul will be able to get together romantically. The ending is ambiguous in that respect, although I have no doubt that many moviegoers took it for granted that they got together. But it is one thing to forgive the man who killed your fiance; it is quite another to love him. Yet, Elsa does exhibit a willingness to let go of the past. But I still wonder.
It is sad to look at this film from the perspective of later years and know what was going to happen to Germany over the next several decades. I feel sad when I think of what the next twenty years was going to be like for Paul and Elsa. And I hope that Paul's atonement eventually released him from the guilt that tortured him. He was a good man and he deserved a happy life.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
(The) Sex Garage. 1972. Directed by Fred Halsted.
(6/6/00)
[Note: This was hown in a very bad preservation print. It was in black-and-white and I am fairly sure that the film was originally in color.]
This is a really strange film. It begins with a scene of a woman giving a mann a blowjob in a car in a garage. And this is supposed to be a gay porn film.
Anyway, this male-female oral sex is performed to some really upbeat music. But then we are introduced to another scene, that of a man jerking offin a shower. The music for this scene is Bach's "Joy of Man's Desiring." The film cuts back and forth between the two sequences with very abrupt shifts in the sound. Sometimes there is inserted a very brief cut from one sequence, its accompanying music being a very short, jarring interruption. For me personally these jarring shifts take me out of the scenes and out of any involvement with their sexual content.
The upbeat music is replaced in places with those exaggerated sucking sounds which were so familiar in oral sex scenes during the 1970s. Then we see the heterosexual couple on the floor, man on top, and I believe we hear a lot of heavy breathing at that point. And then a man drives up in a car and the womkan runs away. And that is the only good look that we get at her. The fact that we hadn't really seen her body up till that point is another factor that kept us from getting sexually involved. Why? Why does Halsted do it that way?
Or perhaps other people respond differently.
In a regular heterosexual film the man in the car would have been the woman's husband. But there is a twist here and it is that he starts having sexual activity with the man that was involved, not the woman. Perhaps the heterosexual encounter is Fred Halsted rejecting the simple categorization of straight and gay.
We see shots of a motorcycle riding the roads and the two men are joined by a third, a biker type who brought to my mind associations with Kenneth Anger's Scorpio Rising. He seems somewhat sinister and I believe that he is wearing leather. They become a threesome. The sex is rough with one man's head being forced into a toilet bowl by another man's foot. One man dons black briefs and one inserts his penis into an orifice on the motorcycle. All of this is played out to the sound of electronic music.
As one man reaches climax the electronic music fades and we share the sense of release. We then hear his heavy breathing.
I find that I don't remember much of the details of the sexual activity. This might have been because I was turned off by the shabbiness of the print or it might be that I just couldn't get that interested in it. Or it could be that my eyes were tired and my attention span exhausted after L.A. Plays Itself.
[Note: This was hown in a very bad preservation print. It was in black-and-white and I am fairly sure that the film was originally in color.]
This is a really strange film. It begins with a scene of a woman giving a mann a blowjob in a car in a garage. And this is supposed to be a gay porn film.
Anyway, this male-female oral sex is performed to some really upbeat music. But then we are introduced to another scene, that of a man jerking offin a shower. The music for this scene is Bach's "Joy of Man's Desiring." The film cuts back and forth between the two sequences with very abrupt shifts in the sound. Sometimes there is inserted a very brief cut from one sequence, its accompanying music being a very short, jarring interruption. For me personally these jarring shifts take me out of the scenes and out of any involvement with their sexual content.
The upbeat music is replaced in places with those exaggerated sucking sounds which were so familiar in oral sex scenes during the 1970s. Then we see the heterosexual couple on the floor, man on top, and I believe we hear a lot of heavy breathing at that point. And then a man drives up in a car and the womkan runs away. And that is the only good look that we get at her. The fact that we hadn't really seen her body up till that point is another factor that kept us from getting sexually involved. Why? Why does Halsted do it that way?
Or perhaps other people respond differently.
In a regular heterosexual film the man in the car would have been the woman's husband. But there is a twist here and it is that he starts having sexual activity with the man that was involved, not the woman. Perhaps the heterosexual encounter is Fred Halsted rejecting the simple categorization of straight and gay.
We see shots of a motorcycle riding the roads and the two men are joined by a third, a biker type who brought to my mind associations with Kenneth Anger's Scorpio Rising. He seems somewhat sinister and I believe that he is wearing leather. They become a threesome. The sex is rough with one man's head being forced into a toilet bowl by another man's foot. One man dons black briefs and one inserts his penis into an orifice on the motorcycle. All of this is played out to the sound of electronic music.
As one man reaches climax the electronic music fades and we share the sense of release. We then hear his heavy breathing.
I find that I don't remember much of the details of the sexual activity. This might have been because I was turned off by the shabbiness of the print or it might be that I just couldn't get that interested in it. Or it could be that my eyes were tired and my attention span exhausted after L.A. Plays Itself.
L.A. Plays Itself. 1972. Directed by Fred Halsted.
(6/5/00-6/6/00)
If it weren't for the hard-core sex this film could have made it as a respectalble art film--or avant-garde film. It is beautifully photographed and quite sophisticated in its editing. But of course it goes beyond the limits of what was acceptable in avant-garde films, even at that permissive time. Experimental or "underground" films certainly had explicit sexual content, but there were limits, there were boundaries. I have a hunch that L.A. Plays Itself went beyond what would have been accepted by the people who patronized that form ofr cinema.
It begins in the country, with scenes of nature. And it goes on that way for a long time with shots of mountains, flowers, insects. It is a very leisurely opening. Yes, this is a film that was going to be marketed to the porn trade, but there is no rush to get down to business.
We finally see a young man and then another. I think they are around rocks or a stream--something like that. One approaches the other, they start talking and then there is an offer of giving head. And then we see them coupling while we hear soothing classical music on the soundtrack. There is an Edenic quality to this part of the film--the two men are in harmony with nature, their lovemaking is just another rhythm of nature.
Sometimes there are shots superimposed on the sex--shots of insects and flowers, etc. And then a scene of a bulldozer is superimposed which gives it a more aggressive quality. This is the beginning of a transition to a man-made world and eventually to Los Angeles.
We are then shown scenes of Los Angeles, interspersed with footage of all-male S/M encounters. There is also a scene of a man masturbating which is intercut with shots in which the camera rapidly zooms (or moves) in and out. It all seems to have been edited together in a spirit of free-association. What seems to tie a lot of it together is a sort of story which is told through off-screen voices on the soundtrack. One voice is that of a young homosexual who has come to L.A. from Texas. The other is that of a more experienced young man who offers him advice and friendship.
The experienced one warns the Texan to stay clear of some guys who are cruising the streets. He remarks that they seem all right and the other one mentions that they have dirty pants to which he replies that some guys like dirty pants. The experienced guy offers to help him get some work to which the young Texan admits that he needs the money, since he only has two dollars.
One interesting thing about this dialogue is that some of it is repeated. I don't know why. On the whole the visuals, the dialogue and music all flow together in a sort of flood of sights and sounds that the viewer can sort of flow along with. The film is not made up of scenes with characters who interact in a way that the mind can seize upon. This flowing quality is hypnotic--you can lose yourself in it.
When the young man talks about helping the other to get work, get some easy money, prostitution is obviously a possibility. Does he become a participant in the S/M scene that we see? Or are the two participants the two young men we hear on the soundtrack? Such a connjection is perhaps implied, but we are never told it explicitly.
We see a young man crawling up stairs and licking another man's boot. He is whipped with black straps in a way that probably isn't really painful. We see a man bound with ropes, with a collar, thrashing about on the floor. I actually forget how explicit the sex was in these scenes. The accompanying music is more aggressive than the soothing classical music of the country scenes.
The camera shows a newspaper with a headline about a kidnap victim. I think it mentions bondage or something that associates it with the S/M scenes we have been watching. Part of the headline is obscured by something lying on top of it. And later there is another newspaper headline about some cult killing. There is a definite association of the city with violence.
In addition to the newspaper headlines there are shots of pages of comic books and other drawings. There are shots of signs in the outdoor scenes. The film has a kind of pop-art feel. Halsted definitely wants to capture and evoke the environment.
The film ends with the insertion of a man's hand, then fist into another man's anus. This certainly made me feel uneasy as I would assume it did a lot of other people. It is an uncomfortable thing to watch. And I think that Fred Halsted was deliberately hitting people's boundaries, pressing on their limits. Perhaps the S/M scenes also did this, although it is hard to say as I don't know the feelings of the audience that this film was intended for.
The free-association quality of the editing puts those scenes at a distance. The viewer might be stimulated by those sights, but he is never allowed in. Does that make them safer to watch? I don't know.
L.A. Plays Itself is a highly personal film as well as one that evokes its time and culture. In some ways it is a puzzling film. It wasn't one of the most riveting experiences of my filmgoing life, but it's more than just an artifact.
If it weren't for the hard-core sex this film could have made it as a respectalble art film--or avant-garde film. It is beautifully photographed and quite sophisticated in its editing. But of course it goes beyond the limits of what was acceptable in avant-garde films, even at that permissive time. Experimental or "underground" films certainly had explicit sexual content, but there were limits, there were boundaries. I have a hunch that L.A. Plays Itself went beyond what would have been accepted by the people who patronized that form ofr cinema.
It begins in the country, with scenes of nature. And it goes on that way for a long time with shots of mountains, flowers, insects. It is a very leisurely opening. Yes, this is a film that was going to be marketed to the porn trade, but there is no rush to get down to business.
We finally see a young man and then another. I think they are around rocks or a stream--something like that. One approaches the other, they start talking and then there is an offer of giving head. And then we see them coupling while we hear soothing classical music on the soundtrack. There is an Edenic quality to this part of the film--the two men are in harmony with nature, their lovemaking is just another rhythm of nature.
Sometimes there are shots superimposed on the sex--shots of insects and flowers, etc. And then a scene of a bulldozer is superimposed which gives it a more aggressive quality. This is the beginning of a transition to a man-made world and eventually to Los Angeles.
We are then shown scenes of Los Angeles, interspersed with footage of all-male S/M encounters. There is also a scene of a man masturbating which is intercut with shots in which the camera rapidly zooms (or moves) in and out. It all seems to have been edited together in a spirit of free-association. What seems to tie a lot of it together is a sort of story which is told through off-screen voices on the soundtrack. One voice is that of a young homosexual who has come to L.A. from Texas. The other is that of a more experienced young man who offers him advice and friendship.
The experienced one warns the Texan to stay clear of some guys who are cruising the streets. He remarks that they seem all right and the other one mentions that they have dirty pants to which he replies that some guys like dirty pants. The experienced guy offers to help him get some work to which the young Texan admits that he needs the money, since he only has two dollars.
One interesting thing about this dialogue is that some of it is repeated. I don't know why. On the whole the visuals, the dialogue and music all flow together in a sort of flood of sights and sounds that the viewer can sort of flow along with. The film is not made up of scenes with characters who interact in a way that the mind can seize upon. This flowing quality is hypnotic--you can lose yourself in it.
When the young man talks about helping the other to get work, get some easy money, prostitution is obviously a possibility. Does he become a participant in the S/M scene that we see? Or are the two participants the two young men we hear on the soundtrack? Such a connjection is perhaps implied, but we are never told it explicitly.
We see a young man crawling up stairs and licking another man's boot. He is whipped with black straps in a way that probably isn't really painful. We see a man bound with ropes, with a collar, thrashing about on the floor. I actually forget how explicit the sex was in these scenes. The accompanying music is more aggressive than the soothing classical music of the country scenes.
The camera shows a newspaper with a headline about a kidnap victim. I think it mentions bondage or something that associates it with the S/M scenes we have been watching. Part of the headline is obscured by something lying on top of it. And later there is another newspaper headline about some cult killing. There is a definite association of the city with violence.
In addition to the newspaper headlines there are shots of pages of comic books and other drawings. There are shots of signs in the outdoor scenes. The film has a kind of pop-art feel. Halsted definitely wants to capture and evoke the environment.
The film ends with the insertion of a man's hand, then fist into another man's anus. This certainly made me feel uneasy as I would assume it did a lot of other people. It is an uncomfortable thing to watch. And I think that Fred Halsted was deliberately hitting people's boundaries, pressing on their limits. Perhaps the S/M scenes also did this, although it is hard to say as I don't know the feelings of the audience that this film was intended for.
The free-association quality of the editing puts those scenes at a distance. The viewer might be stimulated by those sights, but he is never allowed in. Does that make them safer to watch? I don't know.
L.A. Plays Itself is a highly personal film as well as one that evokes its time and culture. In some ways it is a puzzling film. It wasn't one of the most riveting experiences of my filmgoing life, but it's more than just an artifact.
1860 (I mille di Garibaldi). 1933. Directed by Alessandro Blasetti.
(6/4/00)
I found this film tedious and hard-to-follow. I think that it was designed for an audience that was familiar with the historical background. A lot of information is conveyed through an offscreen narrator and it is just too much to absorb.
One thing that puts me at a disadvantage with films such as this is that I just can't get interested in battle scenes. I can't concentrate on them. They just don't interest me. 1860 climaxes with a battle and the rest of the picture has to do with the events leading up to the battle. So it was pretty much lost on me.
The film does have a qauint, picturesque quality. Most of it was beautifully photographed outdoors. It has something of the feel of an old historical painting. But it is devoid of any interesting characters. Even the hero who goes to bring word to Garibaldi isn't very interesting.
Do we ever get to see Garibaldi? I'm not sure. When Garibaldi decides to go to Sicily there is someone who might be him, but I wasn't sure. There is a pan later on which seems to be from Garibaldi's eyes. It would certainly be a disappointment if we didn't even get to see the hero, but if he was there he had such little presence that I didn't notice him.
There are a couple of somewhat interesting scenes, such as when the hero arrives at Garibaldi's headquarters and hears that he isn't planning to go to Sicily. And then when he learns that he is. Amidst all that there is an interesting pan around a room that has been evacuated. And I enjoyed the scene where the hero meets his contact and they do a bit like recognition codes in spy movies. "I think I know your mother." Person looks down. "I think I know your father." Person looks up. "My name is ..."
A few interesting moments, but that isn't very much. This film is mainly memorable for its period costumes photographed in outdoor locations. I really couldn't get into it.
I found this film tedious and hard-to-follow. I think that it was designed for an audience that was familiar with the historical background. A lot of information is conveyed through an offscreen narrator and it is just too much to absorb.
One thing that puts me at a disadvantage with films such as this is that I just can't get interested in battle scenes. I can't concentrate on them. They just don't interest me. 1860 climaxes with a battle and the rest of the picture has to do with the events leading up to the battle. So it was pretty much lost on me.
The film does have a qauint, picturesque quality. Most of it was beautifully photographed outdoors. It has something of the feel of an old historical painting. But it is devoid of any interesting characters. Even the hero who goes to bring word to Garibaldi isn't very interesting.
Do we ever get to see Garibaldi? I'm not sure. When Garibaldi decides to go to Sicily there is someone who might be him, but I wasn't sure. There is a pan later on which seems to be from Garibaldi's eyes. It would certainly be a disappointment if we didn't even get to see the hero, but if he was there he had such little presence that I didn't notice him.
There are a couple of somewhat interesting scenes, such as when the hero arrives at Garibaldi's headquarters and hears that he isn't planning to go to Sicily. And then when he learns that he is. Amidst all that there is an interesting pan around a room that has been evacuated. And I enjoyed the scene where the hero meets his contact and they do a bit like recognition codes in spy movies. "I think I know your mother." Person looks down. "I think I know your father." Person looks up. "My name is ..."
A few interesting moments, but that isn't very much. This film is mainly memorable for its period costumes photographed in outdoor locations. I really couldn't get into it.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Bride of Frankenstein. 1935. Directed by James Whale.
(6/4/00)
Boris Karloff is so poignant. He can bring tears to your eyes without saying a word. He really makes you understand and feel for this creature that everyone shuns and runs from. And he has no idea why--why he should be rejected like this. The hurt becomes anger, understandably. And the creature becomes the monster that everybody thinks he is.
I actually cried during tyhe scene where the creature meets the blind hermit who doesn't know what he is and opens his heart to him. When the hermit says a prayer, thanking God for finally sending him a friend to ease his loneliness a tear runs down the creature's face (he is lying down). It is a wonderful and excruciating moment.
But it doesn't last. Strangers come to the hut and start a fire and start thye creature up and soon the hut is on fire and as always it seems to be the creature's fault.
Another heart-rending moment is when the creature approaches the gypsy camp. He's hungry--that's all. And as soon as they see him everyone starts screaming and running. And there isn't anything he can do about it. It's horrible.
AQnd so it is natural for him to want a mate. And one is created. But the final twist is that even his female equivalent--likewise made out of dead bodies--rejects him. And to his credit the creature sends Baron Frankenstein and his wife away before destroying everybody else and the laboratory. This scrorned being at bottom is human enough to have a thought for others in this moment of pain and disappointment. And Karloff brings it all out.
Whiloe Karloff plays his role with seriousness and depth, Una O'Connor's and Ernest Thesiger's performances are both over-the-top. And they're both a lot of fun. (Una O'Connor is always a lot of fun.) Thesiger has a lot of great dialogue which he delivers in a flamboyant style. And he even sits down to enjoy a meal in a crypt from which he has been stealing corpses.
The little creatures created by Praetorius and kept in glass jars strike me as just a little bit too silly, though they have a kind of bizarre charm. They are dressed as a king and a queen, an archbishop, etc. The king seems to have been inspired by Charles Laughton's performance as Henry VIII.
The film has a very polished visual style. It seems to create a world of its own, a more exciting world than the one we normally encounter.
There are some fascinating shots of Elsa Lanchester's face as "the bride" which reminded me of Maya Deren. Lanchester also looks quite attractive as Mary Shelly in the first part of the film.
I do wonder about the need for that prologue with Byron and the Shelly's. The only point it appears to serve is as an excuse for a recap of what happened in Frankenstein, but it does seem a lot of trouble to go through just for that. Well, it also serves the purpose of reminding the viewer that Frankenstein was a tale with a moral to it.
The issue raised by the Frankenstein films--whether man has any business poking his nose into the mysteries of life--is still very relevant. It's probably more relevant than ever. But the old-fashioned preaching against man's restless investigation of these matters doesn't seem persuasive to me. Why shouldn't mankind probe the secrets of life and try to claim the power to create it? What makes that quest wrong?
Still, the story of a man who unleashes forces he cannot control and which leave catastrophe in their wake is a powerful one. Scientific discoveries can exact a heavy price. And dealing with matters of life and death is a heavy responsibility, no questions. But the lesson isn't as cut-and-dried as Elsa Lanchester's Mary Shelly would have us believe.
One other thing: I was bored by the actual scenes of the creation of the bride in the laboratory, probably because I have seen this film before.
Boris Karloff is so poignant. He can bring tears to your eyes without saying a word. He really makes you understand and feel for this creature that everyone shuns and runs from. And he has no idea why--why he should be rejected like this. The hurt becomes anger, understandably. And the creature becomes the monster that everybody thinks he is.
I actually cried during tyhe scene where the creature meets the blind hermit who doesn't know what he is and opens his heart to him. When the hermit says a prayer, thanking God for finally sending him a friend to ease his loneliness a tear runs down the creature's face (he is lying down). It is a wonderful and excruciating moment.
But it doesn't last. Strangers come to the hut and start a fire and start thye creature up and soon the hut is on fire and as always it seems to be the creature's fault.
Another heart-rending moment is when the creature approaches the gypsy camp. He's hungry--that's all. And as soon as they see him everyone starts screaming and running. And there isn't anything he can do about it. It's horrible.
AQnd so it is natural for him to want a mate. And one is created. But the final twist is that even his female equivalent--likewise made out of dead bodies--rejects him. And to his credit the creature sends Baron Frankenstein and his wife away before destroying everybody else and the laboratory. This scrorned being at bottom is human enough to have a thought for others in this moment of pain and disappointment. And Karloff brings it all out.
Whiloe Karloff plays his role with seriousness and depth, Una O'Connor's and Ernest Thesiger's performances are both over-the-top. And they're both a lot of fun. (Una O'Connor is always a lot of fun.) Thesiger has a lot of great dialogue which he delivers in a flamboyant style. And he even sits down to enjoy a meal in a crypt from which he has been stealing corpses.
The little creatures created by Praetorius and kept in glass jars strike me as just a little bit too silly, though they have a kind of bizarre charm. They are dressed as a king and a queen, an archbishop, etc. The king seems to have been inspired by Charles Laughton's performance as Henry VIII.
The film has a very polished visual style. It seems to create a world of its own, a more exciting world than the one we normally encounter.
There are some fascinating shots of Elsa Lanchester's face as "the bride" which reminded me of Maya Deren. Lanchester also looks quite attractive as Mary Shelly in the first part of the film.
I do wonder about the need for that prologue with Byron and the Shelly's. The only point it appears to serve is as an excuse for a recap of what happened in Frankenstein, but it does seem a lot of trouble to go through just for that. Well, it also serves the purpose of reminding the viewer that Frankenstein was a tale with a moral to it.
The issue raised by the Frankenstein films--whether man has any business poking his nose into the mysteries of life--is still very relevant. It's probably more relevant than ever. But the old-fashioned preaching against man's restless investigation of these matters doesn't seem persuasive to me. Why shouldn't mankind probe the secrets of life and try to claim the power to create it? What makes that quest wrong?
Still, the story of a man who unleashes forces he cannot control and which leave catastrophe in their wake is a powerful one. Scientific discoveries can exact a heavy price. And dealing with matters of life and death is a heavy responsibility, no questions. But the lesson isn't as cut-and-dried as Elsa Lanchester's Mary Shelly would have us believe.
One other thing: I was bored by the actual scenes of the creation of the bride in the laboratory, probably because I have seen this film before.
The Old Dark House. 1932. Directed by James Whale.
(6/2/00)
I unfortunately missed the first fifteen minutes of this film. I really regret it because the film did seem interesting even if quite old-fashioned. It's all about travelers stranded in a mansion in which live some bizarre characters.
It all seemed rather scattered, but there were a number of surprisingly absorbing scenes. It was a pleasure tyo see a very young Charles Laughton among the guests. Eva Moore was quite interesting as well as the mistress of the house. I was disappointed in Boris Karloff because he didn't have very much to do as the mute butler.
When the homicidal maniac who has been kept locked up is released by the drunken butler it does seem a little too much, but not having seen the entire film I am in no position to judge.
I unfortunately missed the first fifteen minutes of this film. I really regret it because the film did seem interesting even if quite old-fashioned. It's all about travelers stranded in a mansion in which live some bizarre characters.
It all seemed rather scattered, but there were a number of surprisingly absorbing scenes. It was a pleasure tyo see a very young Charles Laughton among the guests. Eva Moore was quite interesting as well as the mistress of the house. I was disappointed in Boris Karloff because he didn't have very much to do as the mute butler.
When the homicidal maniac who has been kept locked up is released by the drunken butler it does seem a little too much, but not having seen the entire film I am in no position to judge.
Enthusiasm, Symphony of the Don Basin. 1931. Directed by Dziga Vertov.
(6/2/00)
This film was shown without subtitles. I was not able to follow it.
It is filled with Vertov's exuberance, his delight in special effects such as superimpositions and putting pieces of film together. One thing he really loved was titting the camera when filming so that scenes are shown diagonally.
We see shots of a woman with radio headphones. I don't know what that was supposed to be about. Then images of people visiting a religious icon of Christ on the cross and kissing its foot. Later we see people removing things from churches. I think they are removing them to destroy them.
There are lots of shots of parades and as the film goes on we see more and more scenes of people at work. There are many scenes of machines, though they are not as interesting as the machines in Joris Ivens' The Bridge. We see people working with the machines. The film appears to be a celebration of industrialism. More than that, it seems like a celebration of work.
This film was shown without subtitles. I was not able to follow it.
It is filled with Vertov's exuberance, his delight in special effects such as superimpositions and putting pieces of film together. One thing he really loved was titting the camera when filming so that scenes are shown diagonally.
We see shots of a woman with radio headphones. I don't know what that was supposed to be about. Then images of people visiting a religious icon of Christ on the cross and kissing its foot. Later we see people removing things from churches. I think they are removing them to destroy them.
There are lots of shots of parades and as the film goes on we see more and more scenes of people at work. There are many scenes of machines, though they are not as interesting as the machines in Joris Ivens' The Bridge. We see people working with the machines. The film appears to be a celebration of industrialism. More than that, it seems like a celebration of work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)