Archive for April, 2010

A THROW OF THE DICE (Franz Osten, 1929)

April 30, 2010

staged with such smooth, “epic” sweep, Prapancha Pash may appear to be much better than the melodramatic claptap that it is. This silent film, which was shot in Rajasthan, is based on the Sanskrit poem The Mahabharata. At a time when cinema was an adventurous art form, German filmmaker Franz Osten’s “masterpiece” is plot-driven—or is that plot-drivel?
     It is the story of two kings, cousins in fact, one virtuous, the other, evil. Both compulsively gamble; both love the same girl. A game of dice will determine which cousin-king will prevail; it is a “winner-take-all” proposition. But the outcome is predetermined; it is rigged with a “trick dice.” The evil one takes the pot, including his cousin’s kingdom. This outcome must not last. . . .
     Heavily moralistic in the Cecil B. DeMille manner, Prapancha Pash is certainly worth a look; at 75 minutes, it causes little pain. It is entertaining. One of its producers is Himansu Rai, who broadly plays nasty King Sohan. Expect little, and you will come out of it okay—if you survive Nitin Sawhney’s new, overemphatic score.
     The film comes from Britain, India and Germany.

THE STRAWBERRY BLONDE (Raoul Walsh, 1941)

April 30, 2010

James Hagan’s 1930 play One Sunday Afternoon, which had been filmed with Gary Cooper in the lead in 1933, became a rollicking entertainment in its second screen incarnation, adapted by Julius J. and Philip G. Epstein, directed by Raoul Walsh and retitled The Strawberry Blonde, with James Cagney now playing “Biff” Grimes. (Following Hagan’s death, Walsh directed a third film version using the original title, but it is the 1941 version that matters.) Dully misinterpreted by some as an endorsement of marital complacency and status quo, or simply as an exercise in nostalgic charm, it is in fact a cunning postmodern satire targeting the false, insidious nature of nostalgia. It and Orson Welles’s The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), from Booth Tarkington, would make a terrific, compatible double bill.
     New York City in the 1890s; Biff, educated in dentistry through a correspondence course, plots “accidentally” killing with too much gas Hugo Barnstead (Jack Carson, brilliantly funny in the role that made Carson Carson), who “stole” Virginia Brush (Rita Hayworth, acting here—and acting beautifully), the girl whom Biff wanted to marry, and who, as the contractor for whom Biff worked, set up Biff to take the fall for his (Hugo’s) illegal activities, including fatal corner-cutting/money-pocketing, sending Biff to prison for five years, during which time Biff’s wife, “second choice” Amy Lind (Olivia de Havilland, de Havillanding up her role only when Amy herself is de Havillanding it up), remains steadfastly loyal and loving. The film is structured as a flashback as Biff recalls the past eight years, his romances, various betrayals at Hugo’s hands, imprisonment, before returning to the present, where Hugo, at last in Biff’s dental chair, is ripe for murder. However, Hugo’s blatantly unhappy marriage to Virginia saves the day by nearly completing Biff’s education in the School of Hard Knocks. (A running gag throughout consists of Biff’s almost perpetual black eyes.) Biff’s diploma: his realization that he loves wife Amy.
     In Walsh’s film, two currents of nostalgia flow in and out of one another, sometimes combining, at other times contrasting, opposing. Correlative to one are the marvelous old songs that either are sung or are woven into the musical score; here is the harmless nostalgia for earlier popular culture, bits and pieces of the American past that we don’t wish to let go of. (I know my father didn’t!) The other isn’t so harmless; here, it threatens a marriage: “If only Hugo hadn’t beaten me to marrying Virginia Brush!” (I am not going to embarrass myself by explicating her unmarried name in full.) It is the nostalgia of the nonsense, “Things were so much better once upon a time,” that is, in Biff’s case, when Virginia was still available to him (in his imagination only, perhaps) as a potential life-partner. The current since the cancellation of this hope has punctuated Biff’s life with disappointment and regret, intensifying his nostalgia for the “superior” past and combining with other instances of Hugo’s using and duping him, deepening Biff’s disappointment and regret—despite a happy marriage, leaving Biff vaguely miserable because unable wholly to shake off the “what ifs.” If you will, this predicts the “nostalgia” that fueled the post-G.E. personality and, eventually, in the 1980s, pathological presidency of Ronald Wilson Reagan, which convinced many that Reagan could restore “morning” to dark times, that he could make America America again by resurrecting social and political currents that were in fact dangerously, for us in the United States largely fatally, reactionary. Biff must learn that his heart should not be allowed to hanker so for the past.
     It is nonsense that any of this has much, if anything, to do with Virginia’s qualities as a woman, although that may be the springboard for Biff’s sense of education. The script insists that Biff is lucky not to have married Virginia, who indeed may have chosen Hugo because she saw that he was the go-getter between the two young men, the one more likely to provide for her a materially glowing life, but whose own burden of misery has most to do with Hugo’s coldness and inhumanity, the product of his being wedded first and foremost to ambitious capitalism. Hugo moves on from business to politics, exploiting and brutalizing the common man, which Biff represents, in the process. Deep down, don’t we know that that’s what the movie is really about?
     Above all, the whole thing plays so well because of its star, Cagney, who charts persuasively and wonderfully, with great pluck, Biff’s education, which takes him finally out of Hugo’s shadow. Walsh’s tale of two women is also a tale of two men.
     At year’s end, the National Board of Review recognized both Cagney and Carson for their acting in this film.

B(U)Y THE BOOK

MY BOOK, A Short Chronology of World Cinema, IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM THE SANDS FILMS CINEMA CLUB IN LONDON. USING EITHER OF THE LINKS BELOW, ACCESS THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS BOOK, FROM WHICH YOU CAN ORDER ONE OR MORE COPIES OF IT. THANKS.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=16

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=19

THE STARFISH (Man Ray, 1928)

April 28, 2010

Everything is ambiguous in Dadaist-to-Surrealist Man Ray’s— Emmanuel Radnitzky’s—L’étoile de mer, whose very title finds the star of the sky in the “star” of the sea. Accompanied by a poem by Robert Desnos, Ray’s silent masterpiece revolves around a man and a beautiful woman as they walk outdoors or otherwise unite. As its object, she embodies his desire—and the eternal mystery of this desire. But she is a tease. When we watch them as a seeming couple mount the stairs to her room, watch her undress and lie down in bed, we assume that he will follow; we assume that he also assumes this. No; the title card reads “Adieu.” Obediently, he takes his leave. Or is it he who has said “Adieu” to cover his embarrassed disappointment? Or to tease her? In life’s dance of desire, someone has to lead, someone has to follow. When they earlier seemed to be walking together, was one in fact leading the other?
     Much of the time images are distorted, out of focus. (Ray, who cinematographed, had smeared his camera lens with vaseline.*) At other times, images are supernally clear. Dream and waking, possibly—or do both sets of images belong to dreams, the latter belonging to a fever dream whose “distortion” is its brilliant clarity?
     A starfish is encased in a glass jar; another, mysteriously, thrillingly alive in its vast sea-home, is as erotic as the rip in a paper curtain that invites us in.
     “And if you find on this Earth a woman of sincere love.” We expect a main clause to complete this title, but it never does, unless it is this, a couple of title-pages later: “You do not dream.”
     But you do. All desire is dreamt, even as it is lived.

* Oswald Morris attributed his Oscar for photographing Fiddler on the Roof (1971) to his having smeared the camera lens with vaseline.

B(U)Y THE BOOK

MY BOOK, A Short Chronology of World Cinema, IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM THE SANDS FILMS CINEMA CLUB IN LONDON. USING EITHER OF THE LINKS BELOW, ACCESS THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS BOOK, FROM WHICH YOU CAN ORDER ONE OR MORE COPIES OF IT. THANKS.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=16

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=19

A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC (Harold Prince, 1977)

April 28, 2010

This depressingly dull, largely incoherent musical derives, by way of a stage musical, from one of Ingmar Bergman’s beauties: Smiles on a Summer Night (1955), a Shakespearean comedy that submits romance to mortality’s clock as couples change partners during a weekend visit to the country. To judge from the film, Stephen Sondheim’s music and lyrics are uninspired, however, except for the one famous killer-song, “Send in the Clowns.”
     Len Cariou (en route to becoming Broadway’s Sweeney Todd), Diana Rigg, Hermione Gingold: these and other members of the cast are atrocious. But the principal cause of the film’s lifelessness is stage director Harold Prince, who hasn’t a clue what to do. His efforts have resulted in a film that is scarcely better than Mame (Gene Saks, 1974).
     Is there any reason to see the film, then? Well, yes: Elizabeth Taylor. As a stage actress who brushes against the ache of her mortal awareness, Taylor is luscious (yet again she is beautiful beyond belief), elegant, sharp, witty, subtle. I have read that her singing is dubbed; but how can this be? Perhaps someone else supplies a few high notes, but Taylor’s “singing” voice is inimically hers. Taylor doesn’t really sing; she talk-sings: another reason why I doubt that she was extensively dubbed. Indeed, she struggles through “Send in the Clowns” (no Judy Collins, she), carefully sculpting and shading the gorgeous song in short phrases, a few notes at a time. The overall effect is mesmerizing and melancholy—and haunting.
     For the record, I have named Eva Dahlbeck 1955’s best actress for her performance in this role in Bergman’s film.

B(U)Y THE BOOK

MY BOOK, A Short Chronology of World Cinema, IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM THE SANDS FILMS CINEMA CLUB IN LONDON. USING EITHER OF THE LINKS BELOW, ACCESS THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS BOOK, FROM WHICH YOU CAN ORDER ONE OR MORE COPIES OF IT. THANKS.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=16

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=19

BRIEF CROSSING (Catherine Breillat, 2001)

April 27, 2010

During the overnight journey of the ocean liner Pride of Le Havre from Le Havre to Portsmouth two strangers, Thomas and Alice, will strike up a conversation, a relationship of sorts, a “brief encounter” during which the 16-year-old French schoolboy will lose his virginity to the young though far more sophisticated English woman. This is a film about the fantasies that people act out on the sly. Until his age is outed, Thomas pretends to be 18; shy and raw—his worn, expired identity card is unlaminated—he bolsters his sense of being “cool” by smoking cigarettes, which he says he has been doing since he was 12. When he buys a brandy for her, because he is underaged he tells the bartender that Alice is his mother. Alice has spooky eyes, tells Thomas that her husband and she broke up the night before, and altogether spins a tale of which her seduction of Thomas becomes a part. Different viewers will interpret the outcome as “life goes on” or the devastation of Thomas’s fragile ego. One thing is certain: regardless, Alice will “go on.”
     Brève traversée is one of Catherine Breillat’s most intricate and fabulous films, even if Breillat herself, when interviewed, doesn’t appear fazed by the ambiguity of the boy’s fate. Breillat is fond of shooting actual sex that her actors perform in character, and she expresses pride in the male actor’s bravery. Yes, but he knows a lot more than the character does (and may be a few years older). It is Thomas that I worry about.
     On one level, the film (which includes a corny stage magic act) is about the magic of fiction, how it opens doors and opportunities; surely the suggestion of Jacques Rivette’s Celine and Julie Go Boating (1974) is not inadvertent. In a way, many have lives of the imagination; but what does it mean when we ensnare someone else, who has his or her own such life, into ours?

B(U)Y THE BOOK

MY BOOK, A Short Chronology of World Cinema, IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FROM THE SANDS FILMS CINEMA CLUB IN LONDON. USING EITHER OF THE LINKS BELOW, ACCESS THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS BOOK, FROM WHICH YOU CAN ORDER ONE OR MORE COPIES OF IT. THANKS.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=16

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Dennis+Grunes&x=14&y=19


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers