(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)