Davies is an utterly personal lyric filmmaker who moves as swiftly as music from the lacerating to the ecstatic.
--David Thomson, The New Biographical Dictionary of Film
The Deep Blue Sea, from a 1952 Terence Rattigan play, takes place in London "around 1950" and rather bridges the gap between Brief Encounter (1945) and Look Back in Anger (1959). Davies's
earliest films were in black-and-white, which means he knows how to use color as in element in recreating a period when some were still focused on the war and others were looking ahead, and class barriers were starting to loosen slightly. Davies's film does what few films do as successfully: creating a particular period while depicting emotions that can apply to us all. What is love?: is it sexual passion, the sharing of interests or ultimately, as the landlady says, "wiping your husband's arse while maintaining the dignity of you both."
At first the flashbacks are confusing, fuzzy images of a past difficult to recall, as a pattern gradually emerges of a couple ill-suited for each other, struggling in a bed-sitting room in a bombed--out neighborhood. The camaraderie of group singing in underground station bomb shelters has been replaced by singing in the local pub. Both Freddie (Tom Hillerston) and Hester (Rachel Weisz) have been scarred by the war in ways they are barely aware of, until they move in together after she leaves her wealthy husband who had money but no passion, for Freddie, who has passion but no money. When Freddie forgets her birthday Hester tries to kill herself, angering Freddie, who just wants to play golf. In the end Freddie and Hester go their separate ways, perhaps having learned something about themselves and perhaps not.
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Chaplin's One A.M. (1916)
Most people seem to have only a vague idea of who Charlie Chaplin was these days, having perhaps seen him long ago in films with sound effects and wrong-speed projection. All his feature films are now available in pristine DVD's and I recommend them for their beauty, humor and emotional content. Meanwhile his short films are available mostly in poor quality public domain versions. I recently watched Chaplin's One A.M. in a decent (but far from perfect) quality DVD.from Echo Bridge.
One A.M. is a wonderful example of how much one can do with one actor and three sets -- if one is Chaplin of course. Everything is in long shot, except for a couple of intrusive close-ups, which I suspect were imposed by the studio, Mutual. Chaplin is inebriated when he arrives home and can't find his key. So he climbs through a window, accidentally stepping in a goldfish bowl. The he finds his key and climbs back out the window, unlocks the door and goes in (various versions of this gag later ended up in Looney Tunes). Once inside Chaplin is confronted by a cozy domestic scene that engages him in a continuing battle: he slips on the rugs, is "attacked" by dead animals, and can't get to a drink because his coat gets stuck on a turning table that he can't catch up with. He climbs up the stairs and trips down backward (beautifully choreographed), gets back up the stairs and grabs the stair rug as he falls, ending up wrapped in it. He finally climbs a teetering coat rack to get to the top of the stairs, only to be knocked down by a clock pendulum, which he eventually crawls under. He gets into his bedroom (the second set) and can't find the bed, even looking under the rug. He finally sees the button for the Murphy bed and immediately gets caught in the bed until he can get it down, a bed leg impales his hat and when he gets his hat out the bed flips over and he ends up underneath it, Then the bed turns over and he tries to sleep on the underside of it as the mattress goes back and only the frame remains, which Chaplin trips over on his way to the bathroom (third and final set). Chaplin then gets soaked when he gets trapped in the shower and settles down to sleep in the bathtub.
In some ways this film reminds one of Buster Keaton and some of his battles with machinery. But Keaton usually triumphs while Chaplin makes accommodations. Of course my description can't begin to convey the beauty and hilarity of Chaplin in this role. My six-year-old daughter watched it with me and laughed so hard she missed some of the relatively fast-moving activity. So of course we watched it again. I tend not to find the actions of a dipsomaniac particularly amusing but One A.M. did not make much of the inebriation, rather it emphasized the routine difficulties of any domestic situation, from misplacing your keys to going to bed. And I realized once again the influence Chaplin's film had on Chuck Jones, Howard Hawks, Preston Sturges et al.
One A.M. is a wonderful example of how much one can do with one actor and three sets -- if one is Chaplin of course. Everything is in long shot, except for a couple of intrusive close-ups, which I suspect were imposed by the studio, Mutual. Chaplin is inebriated when he arrives home and can't find his key. So he climbs through a window, accidentally stepping in a goldfish bowl. The he finds his key and climbs back out the window, unlocks the door and goes in (various versions of this gag later ended up in Looney Tunes). Once inside Chaplin is confronted by a cozy domestic scene that engages him in a continuing battle: he slips on the rugs, is "attacked" by dead animals, and can't get to a drink because his coat gets stuck on a turning table that he can't catch up with. He climbs up the stairs and trips down backward (beautifully choreographed), gets back up the stairs and grabs the stair rug as he falls, ending up wrapped in it. He finally climbs a teetering coat rack to get to the top of the stairs, only to be knocked down by a clock pendulum, which he eventually crawls under. He gets into his bedroom (the second set) and can't find the bed, even looking under the rug. He finally sees the button for the Murphy bed and immediately gets caught in the bed until he can get it down, a bed leg impales his hat and when he gets his hat out the bed flips over and he ends up underneath it, Then the bed turns over and he tries to sleep on the underside of it as the mattress goes back and only the frame remains, which Chaplin trips over on his way to the bathroom (third and final set). Chaplin then gets soaked when he gets trapped in the shower and settles down to sleep in the bathtub.
In some ways this film reminds one of Buster Keaton and some of his battles with machinery. But Keaton usually triumphs while Chaplin makes accommodations. Of course my description can't begin to convey the beauty and hilarity of Chaplin in this role. My six-year-old daughter watched it with me and laughed so hard she missed some of the relatively fast-moving activity. So of course we watched it again. I tend not to find the actions of a dipsomaniac particularly amusing but One A.M. did not make much of the inebriation, rather it emphasized the routine difficulties of any domestic situation, from misplacing your keys to going to bed. And I realized once again the influence Chaplin's film had on Chuck Jones, Howard Hawks, Preston Sturges et al.
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Ross Macdonald's The Doomsters
On a deeper level than I'd been willing to recognize till now, I experienced fear. Fear of the treacherous darkness around us and inside of us, fear of the blind destruction that had wiped out most of a family and threatened the rest.
--Ross Macdonald, The Doomsters (Knopf, 1958)
Private detective Lew Archer exemplifies the neuroses of the 1950's, when families are breaking apart in suburbia under the pressures of greed, alcohol and drugs, all of which are in great supply in The Doomsters. In this novel we learn a little bit about Archer's past -- his youth, his job as a cop, his marriage to Sue that ended in divorce.. A friend from the past escapes from a mental institution and Archer tries to take him back. The friend, Carl Hallman, steals Archer's car and escapes. This plunges Archer into the multiple family troubles of the Hallman family and their sinister doctor, in a corrupt suburban county where the Hallman family confiscated land from a Japanese family who had been place in a camp during the war.
Archer is beaten several times and is attracted to several women along the way, all of whom already have other attachments. Carl's brother is killed and the hunt is on for Carl, Meanwhile other bodies are appearing as it becomes increasingly clear that Carl's parents did not die from suicide (his mother) and a heart attack (his father) and Archer tries to figure things out.
The Doomsters has a less confusing plot than some others of Macdonald's Lew Archer novels, perhaps because there's more of Archer's philosophical musings on the human condition and the good and bad in all of us. The novel is written effectively in the first person, so we only experience what Archer sees and hears.
--Ross Macdonald, The Doomsters (Knopf, 1958)
Private detective Lew Archer exemplifies the neuroses of the 1950's, when families are breaking apart in suburbia under the pressures of greed, alcohol and drugs, all of which are in great supply in The Doomsters. In this novel we learn a little bit about Archer's past -- his youth, his job as a cop, his marriage to Sue that ended in divorce.. A friend from the past escapes from a mental institution and Archer tries to take him back. The friend, Carl Hallman, steals Archer's car and escapes. This plunges Archer into the multiple family troubles of the Hallman family and their sinister doctor, in a corrupt suburban county where the Hallman family confiscated land from a Japanese family who had been place in a camp during the war.
Archer is beaten several times and is attracted to several women along the way, all of whom already have other attachments. Carl's brother is killed and the hunt is on for Carl, Meanwhile other bodies are appearing as it becomes increasingly clear that Carl's parents did not die from suicide (his mother) and a heart attack (his father) and Archer tries to figure things out.
The Doomsters has a less confusing plot than some others of Macdonald's Lew Archer novels, perhaps because there's more of Archer's philosophical musings on the human condition and the good and bad in all of us. The novel is written effectively in the first person, so we only experience what Archer sees and hears.
Friday, March 2, 2018
Wonder Woman, directed by Patty Jenkins
The recent film version of Wonder Woman seems like a lost opportunity to change the somewhat rigid character of superhero movies, especially with a woman director. The initial scenes on the Amazon-populated island of Theyscira show some promise but once Diana leaves the island to fight the Germans in WWI the film goes downhill, becoming a typical comic-book film, with plenty of confusing CGI and unexplained super-powers, all in a time before women were allowed to vote.
I wrote on Jan.4, 2015 about Jill Lepore's book about William Moulton Marston, the writer of the Wonder Woman comics from 1941-1948, His complex view of Diana during WWII was a mixture of fear and admiration, with subtle suggestions of the appeal of domination that she represented during the period of Rosie the Riveter. When the war ended some of the men who returned resented the image of strong women (see the film noirs of the post-war period)and Wonder Woman became more tamed and submissive. Perhaps Jenkins's film will restore the female superhero, though I would prefer her to be more human.
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Turner Classic Movies March 2018
As usual I tend not to repeat the movies I have mentioned (some many times) previously, but please feel free to contact me if you have a question about any particular film.
On March 1 are King Vidor's masterful silent film The Crowd (1928) and Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity (1944), one of the first film noirs.
On the 2nd are Chaplin's The Great Dictator and Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent; these very different films are both from 1940.
On the 4th are Leo McCarey's Ruggles of Red Gap (1935), Fritz Lang's corrosive The Big Heat (1953) and Josef von Sternberg's stylish Shanghai Express (1932).
The 6th is more or less devoted to mental hospitals, including Robert Rossen's intelligent Lilith (1964) and Samuel Fuller's sensational Shock Corridor (1963)
The 11th includes Lubitsch's sparkling Trouble in Paradise (1932) and two impressive films by French director Eric Rohmer: Love in the Afternoon (1972) and Claire's Knee (1970).
On the 14th is John Ford's tribute to scriptwriter Spig Wead The Wings of Eagles (1957)
On the 18th is Allan Dwan's Brewster's Millions (1945), Joseph H. Lewis's great Gun Crazy (1956) and Don Siegel's Madigan (1968), about cops in New York.
On the 19th is Douglas Sirk's A Scandal in Paris (1946), Robert Bresson's austerely beautiful A Man Escaped (1956), Chaplin's Pilgrim (1923) and Nicholas Ray's They Live by Night (1949).
On the 20th are Chaplin's Modern Times (1936) and John Ford's The Searchers (1956).
On the 22nd is Mark Sandrich's Shall We Dance? (1937), my favorite Rogers/Astaire film.
On the 25th are von Sternberg's The Scarlet Empress (1934) and Jean Renoir's kinetic Cancan (1955)
And on the 27th are two beautiful John Ford films: Wagon Master (1950) and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949).
On March 1 are King Vidor's masterful silent film The Crowd (1928) and Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity (1944), one of the first film noirs.
On the 2nd are Chaplin's The Great Dictator and Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent; these very different films are both from 1940.
On the 4th are Leo McCarey's Ruggles of Red Gap (1935), Fritz Lang's corrosive The Big Heat (1953) and Josef von Sternberg's stylish Shanghai Express (1932).
The 6th is more or less devoted to mental hospitals, including Robert Rossen's intelligent Lilith (1964) and Samuel Fuller's sensational Shock Corridor (1963)
The 11th includes Lubitsch's sparkling Trouble in Paradise (1932) and two impressive films by French director Eric Rohmer: Love in the Afternoon (1972) and Claire's Knee (1970).
On the 14th is John Ford's tribute to scriptwriter Spig Wead The Wings of Eagles (1957)
On the 18th is Allan Dwan's Brewster's Millions (1945), Joseph H. Lewis's great Gun Crazy (1956) and Don Siegel's Madigan (1968), about cops in New York.
On the 19th is Douglas Sirk's A Scandal in Paris (1946), Robert Bresson's austerely beautiful A Man Escaped (1956), Chaplin's Pilgrim (1923) and Nicholas Ray's They Live by Night (1949).
On the 20th are Chaplin's Modern Times (1936) and John Ford's The Searchers (1956).
On the 22nd is Mark Sandrich's Shall We Dance? (1937), my favorite Rogers/Astaire film.
On the 25th are von Sternberg's The Scarlet Empress (1934) and Jean Renoir's kinetic Cancan (1955)
And on the 27th are two beautiful John Ford films: Wagon Master (1950) and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949).
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
New York Yankees 2018
One thing I am sure of this year is that I will not be watching any Yankee games on TV with the sound on; the return of the pompous and bombastic Michael ("wins is an irrelevant statistic") Kay guarantees that. He has been touting the homerun duo of Stanton and Judge as the return of Ruth and Gehrig. I beg to differ: aside from the inherent boredom of home runs it is unfortunately true that both Gehrig and Ruth hit for average; Ruth's lifetime average was .342 and Gehrig's was .340, while the respective numbers for Judge and Stanton are .270 and .268. It seems to me that the extremes of strikeouts and homeruns are going to continue to dominate.
The key questions are new manager Aaron Boone and the starting rotation: we have no idea of what Boone will be like as a manager -- he did not impress me as an announcer for ESPN -- and the starting rotation depends on Tanaka and Sabathia (assuming they can stay healthy) and the bullpen is shaky at best. I do like the youngsters, especially Gregorius and Bird, and I do wish the Yankees the best but most of my attention, at least at the beginning, will be on the Mets, who at least don't have a designated hitter.
The key questions are new manager Aaron Boone and the starting rotation: we have no idea of what Boone will be like as a manager -- he did not impress me as an announcer for ESPN -- and the starting rotation depends on Tanaka and Sabathia (assuming they can stay healthy) and the bullpen is shaky at best. I do like the youngsters, especially Gregorius and Bird, and I do wish the Yankees the best but most of my attention, at least at the beginning, will be on the Mets, who at least don't have a designated hitter.
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Spring Training 2018
Baseball has returned, with the broadcast of Spring training games. I do admit that I don't miss baseball as much during the off-season as I once did because I don't like the current trends in the game: home runs and strikeouts for hitters, fastballs and Tommy John surgery for pitchers. Once again there are some feeble attempts to speed up the game with visits to the mound limited to six a game and intervals between half-innings being enforced by requiring batters and pitchers to be ready. (intervals for commercials are supposed to be limited to 2 minutes and 5 seconds on locally televised games but often run three minutes or more). It remains to be seen whether umpires will enforce the rule that a batter has to keep one foot in the batter's box at all times.
The pace of the game is not the problem; rather it's the mania for home runs and the resulting strikeouts and the constant changing of pitchers that can make things tedious. When I watched the first Mets Spring training game the most exciting moment was when Atlanta Braves player Danny Santana put down a beautiful bunt for a base hit. Perhaps we will see some changes with the new Mets manager Micky Callahan, new pitching coach Dave Eiland and new hitting instructor Pat Roessler. The batters may learn to bunt and the pitchers to throw more curve balls, but I'm not optimistic. Mets announcer Ron Darling even suggested that pitchers might begin to be limited to two times through a lineup, making it even less likely that a starter could go five innings to qualify for a win (now considered by some an irrelevant statistic).
But it's Spring and I am hopeful; you can find me listening to games on the radio or taking public transportation to see the Brooklyn Cyclones and the Staten Island Yankees.
The pace of the game is not the problem; rather it's the mania for home runs and the resulting strikeouts and the constant changing of pitchers that can make things tedious. When I watched the first Mets Spring training game the most exciting moment was when Atlanta Braves player Danny Santana put down a beautiful bunt for a base hit. Perhaps we will see some changes with the new Mets manager Micky Callahan, new pitching coach Dave Eiland and new hitting instructor Pat Roessler. The batters may learn to bunt and the pitchers to throw more curve balls, but I'm not optimistic. Mets announcer Ron Darling even suggested that pitchers might begin to be limited to two times through a lineup, making it even less likely that a starter could go five innings to qualify for a win (now considered by some an irrelevant statistic).
But it's Spring and I am hopeful; you can find me listening to games on the radio or taking public transportation to see the Brooklyn Cyclones and the Staten Island Yankees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)