A late-Golden Age classic of the Hollywood studio era, THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE contains many of the best elements of the old studio system with the emerging director-based models of the post-war period. Released in 1948, it benefits from the resources and star power available at Warner Bros., but also demonstrates the distinctive touch of its director, John Huston; the best, if you will, of the old and new models of filmmaking coexisting at the time.
Three down-on-their-luck Americans, stranded in Tampico, Mexico, join forces and set out to find gold off in the hills. The cast of characters includes the desperate and paranoid Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart in what I consider to be his finest performance), the honest and earnest Curtin (Tim Holt) and the seasoned old Howard (played by the director's father, Walter Huston). They eventually strike gold, but in the process of collecting it to bring back, the group is undone by their growing paranoia.
Working from the novel by B. Traven, the story - which takes just over two hours to tell - builds to several intense moments in which Humphrey Bogart's Dobbs proves to be his own worst enemy. The final confrontation between Dobbs and the bandits he has twice battled previously in the film has a sort of poetic irony about it, as the gold that Dobbs has stolen from his companions is blown off in the Mexican winds.
The casting of Walter Huston as the seasoned old prospector proved to be inspired, bringing both a sense of impish charm and world-weary cynicism to the role. Director John Huston wisely moved the production out of the studio and took some of the scenes on location in Mexico, broadening the visual scope and adding an extra dynamic in terms of how the characters interact with their surroundings.
Max Steiner's score has all the majesty and bombast that one associates with the great symphonic scores of period, but thankfully does not seem at odds with Huston's more naturalistic visual approach to much of the material. Bogart's performance moves into a sort of high stylization as the film nears its climax, with his paranoid and grizzled prospector descending into the depths of madness that the human mind is capable of. The film's ending, particularly with the pack mules carrying the gold, and the showdown between Bogart and Holt, is reminiscent of Erich von Stroheim's GREED, which explored similar ideas in the way that the lust for gold leads to the deterioration of his protagonist's mind and soul.
THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE holds up as a remarkable piece of filmmaking from Hollywood's Golden Age, and for me ranks among the greatest American films of all time. I would go so far as to call it one of the few perfect films, in that every aspect of its production comes together just right to produce an unforgettable experience.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
WINGS, Wellman and Versatility
Last Saturday night I had the pleasure of attending a screening of WINGS, most famous today for being the first film awarded the Best Picture Oscar at the first Academy Awards ceremony in 1929. Seeing it projected in a restored 35mm print, at the landmark Loew's Jersey theater (an authentic 1929 movie palace) was quite an experience.
The film was hosted by William Wellman, Jr., son of director William A. Wellman and an actor in his own right. It was fascinating to hear his stories of the production of WINGS, some of which I had heard before in interviews with his father in documentaries such as THE MEN WHO MADE THE MOVIES and HOLLYWOOD. But his account of the film's production history, and especially how some of the more difficult shots were pulled off, was a fascinating glimpse into silent era filmmaking.
Watching the film on the Loew's 50 foot screen was a breathtaking experience. The scale on which the film was made (with the cooperation of the US government, who provided men, artillery, and other resources to the production) is difficult to conceive of, only because films are made so differently now. There are still films that depict large-scale events, to be sure, but how many of them are actually executed on such a large scale? Add to this the fact that stars Buddy Rogers and Richard Arlen were actually given flying lessons, in order to shoot their own scenes from the air, and you begin to realize that this kind of filmmaking is really only tangentially related to the way films are made today. It's an almost entirely different experience.
What's remarkable to me, in thinking about the man who made this incredible film, is the versatility which Wellman brought to his films as director. While I have only been able to see a portion of Wellman's filmography (he directed something like 80 films over his 30-plus year career), I am constantly struck by the variety of subjects and genres he tackled. To think he was only 29 when he made WINGS is staggering, especially when you consider the strong opposition he was facing from the far more experienced and older Paramount studio executives. It's certainly a testament to the belief Wellman had in both the production and in himself, no doubt stemming from the fact that it reflected his own experience as a flyer and was an intensely personal project for him.
And yet, when I look at his filmography, I think, here is a man who clearly had a much larger perspective than could be reduced to single genres or star vehicles. Take THE PUBLIC ENEMY, which Wellman directed just four years after WINGS. A seminal film in the early gangster genre, it's an intense, focused character study tracing a young hood's development into career criminal. Or A STAR IS BORN, which remains one of the boldest films ever made about the motion picture industry, especially when you consider it was made at a time when Hollywood was most certainly not interested in anything self-critical.
But it was Wellman's very versatility that demonstrates how a film like A STAR IS BORN could be made in 1937 Hollywood. The key was the same one that allowed Wellman to create personal works within the factory-like studio system. Because A STAR IS BORN has all the dressings of a "Classical" studio film, it can make its point within a traditional "rising star" narrative, which makes the ideas being explored all the more subversive (compare this with the hostility with which Billy Wilder's SUNSET BLVD. was met 13 years later). Similarly, Wellman was able to inject his personal vision into films because he worked within the system. At first glance, his films may "look" no different than those of other directors. But when you realize the highly structured system under which Wellman was working, and look more closely at recurring themes that he explored, his versatility becomes even more impressive. Not to mention the fact that he made at least a half-dozen films that are now widely regarded as "classics" among the whole of world cinema.
And this was something else that his son emphasized when speaking about WINGS: that Wellman enjoyed working, enjoyed the process of making films. The studio system, whatever its faults, was the ideal place for a director like Wellman, who was able to keep working and exploring his ideas within the classical framework of Hollywood genre films, star vehicles, and so on.
WINGS, then, sums up perfectly what Wellman was able to accomplish so well. Even though the film was a grand-scale epic spectacle, a Best Picture winner, and commercial triumph, beneath all of that is the perspective of an intensely personal artist, a man drawing on his own life experiences and telling a story that was deeply important to him. The film, like the best films from Hollywood's classic period, manages to convey those ideas while also transcending them, creating a work that still moves and thrills everyone who sees it, a film that is both universal and timeless.
Although staged, there are glimpses of Wellman directing on-set in this trailer for A STAR IS BORN:
The film was hosted by William Wellman, Jr., son of director William A. Wellman and an actor in his own right. It was fascinating to hear his stories of the production of WINGS, some of which I had heard before in interviews with his father in documentaries such as THE MEN WHO MADE THE MOVIES and HOLLYWOOD. But his account of the film's production history, and especially how some of the more difficult shots were pulled off, was a fascinating glimpse into silent era filmmaking.
Watching the film on the Loew's 50 foot screen was a breathtaking experience. The scale on which the film was made (with the cooperation of the US government, who provided men, artillery, and other resources to the production) is difficult to conceive of, only because films are made so differently now. There are still films that depict large-scale events, to be sure, but how many of them are actually executed on such a large scale? Add to this the fact that stars Buddy Rogers and Richard Arlen were actually given flying lessons, in order to shoot their own scenes from the air, and you begin to realize that this kind of filmmaking is really only tangentially related to the way films are made today. It's an almost entirely different experience.
What's remarkable to me, in thinking about the man who made this incredible film, is the versatility which Wellman brought to his films as director. While I have only been able to see a portion of Wellman's filmography (he directed something like 80 films over his 30-plus year career), I am constantly struck by the variety of subjects and genres he tackled. To think he was only 29 when he made WINGS is staggering, especially when you consider the strong opposition he was facing from the far more experienced and older Paramount studio executives. It's certainly a testament to the belief Wellman had in both the production and in himself, no doubt stemming from the fact that it reflected his own experience as a flyer and was an intensely personal project for him.
And yet, when I look at his filmography, I think, here is a man who clearly had a much larger perspective than could be reduced to single genres or star vehicles. Take THE PUBLIC ENEMY, which Wellman directed just four years after WINGS. A seminal film in the early gangster genre, it's an intense, focused character study tracing a young hood's development into career criminal. Or A STAR IS BORN, which remains one of the boldest films ever made about the motion picture industry, especially when you consider it was made at a time when Hollywood was most certainly not interested in anything self-critical.
But it was Wellman's very versatility that demonstrates how a film like A STAR IS BORN could be made in 1937 Hollywood. The key was the same one that allowed Wellman to create personal works within the factory-like studio system. Because A STAR IS BORN has all the dressings of a "Classical" studio film, it can make its point within a traditional "rising star" narrative, which makes the ideas being explored all the more subversive (compare this with the hostility with which Billy Wilder's SUNSET BLVD. was met 13 years later). Similarly, Wellman was able to inject his personal vision into films because he worked within the system. At first glance, his films may "look" no different than those of other directors. But when you realize the highly structured system under which Wellman was working, and look more closely at recurring themes that he explored, his versatility becomes even more impressive. Not to mention the fact that he made at least a half-dozen films that are now widely regarded as "classics" among the whole of world cinema.
And this was something else that his son emphasized when speaking about WINGS: that Wellman enjoyed working, enjoyed the process of making films. The studio system, whatever its faults, was the ideal place for a director like Wellman, who was able to keep working and exploring his ideas within the classical framework of Hollywood genre films, star vehicles, and so on.
WINGS, then, sums up perfectly what Wellman was able to accomplish so well. Even though the film was a grand-scale epic spectacle, a Best Picture winner, and commercial triumph, beneath all of that is the perspective of an intensely personal artist, a man drawing on his own life experiences and telling a story that was deeply important to him. The film, like the best films from Hollywood's classic period, manages to convey those ideas while also transcending them, creating a work that still moves and thrills everyone who sees it, a film that is both universal and timeless.
Although staged, there are glimpses of Wellman directing on-set in this trailer for A STAR IS BORN:
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Mabel's Married Life (1914)
One of the better Keystone efforts up to its time, MABEL'S MARRIED LIFE begins with a familiar premise: In Echo Park, burly Mack Swain abandons his wife on a park bench in order to flirt with pretty Mabel Normand, who is married to the top-hatted (and inebriated) Chaplin. A rivalry ensues, and Charlie plays spoilsport by telling Swain's wife of her husband's shenanigans. Of course, Charlie and Swain bond over alcohol in the local bar afterward, until another fight breaks out that ends with Charlie kicking the customers backward through the saloon's swinging doors.
But then the film turns interesting. Mabel purchases a mannequin that resembles Swain in physique and wardrobe. Charlie, the worse for wear, returns home and is confronted by the dummy, which he takes for Swain. He proceeds to order it of his apartment, and but he is defeated by the dummy, which keeps spring back into place, knocking him down, each time he throws a punch to it or delivers a kick. The film (or at least surviving copies of it) end rather abruptly, presumably as Charlie realizes it is only a dummy and makes amends with his wife.
It is this character by-play in its second half that makes MABEL'S MARRIED LIFE a memorable film. The flirting-in-the-park opening is basically a re-tread of similar situations in so many previous Keystones, and Chaplin still seems to have some remnants of Ford Sterling's performance style in his appearance here (including the use of the top hat), but the scenes in which he is confused and confounded by the dummy in his inebriated state are pure Chaplin.
The direction, by Chaplin, demonstrates his keen eye for composition, getting the maximum amount of information across in each shot, with little cross-cutting to interrupt the physical comedy. MABEL'S MARRIED LIFE also pointed to the cute (though sometimes violent) domestic comedy that Chaplin and Normand would explore in future films such as HIS TRYSTING PLACE.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
The Eagle (1925)
Rudolph Valentino remains one of the really instantly recognizable names in film history, even to those with only a fleeting interest in the subject. His reputation as a romantic idol of the silent screen is well entrenched even after almost 90 years since his untimely passing.
However, like certain other icons of the silent screen, including Theda Bara and Mary Pickford, Valentino’s individual films are not always as well remembered as they might be. Aside from THE SHEIK (1921), perhaps his most famous role (even though its 1926 sequel, SON OF THE SHEIK, is probably an even better film), Valentino is not known specifically for one “great” film.
If any one Valentino film can be cited as the strongest in his body of work, it would have to be THE EAGLE, directed by Clarence Brown in 1925 for United Artists. A delicious blend of romantic comedy and period adventure, it provided Rudolph Valentino with a strong story and production values, as well as a role tailor-made to his screen image. The moments of comedy allowed Valentino to display the full range of his acting talents, and he delivers one of his most natural, relaxed performances in this film.
This “Russian Robin Hood” story tells the adventures of Lt. Vladimir Dubrovsky, a Cossack in the Czarina’s army. After bravely rescuing Mascha (Vilma Banky) and her aunt when the horses pulling their carriage get out of control, the Czarina (Louise Dresser) recognizes his valor and the young lieutenant is summoned to the Czarina’s chambers. When he refuses the Czarina’s romantic advances, Dubrovsky is ordered to be shot. He escapes, however, and learns from his dying father that a local tyrant, Kyrilla (James A. Marcus), is spreading terror across the land. Dubrovsky then learns that the object of his desire, Mascha, is Kyrilla’s daughter, and poses as her tutor to infiltrate their home and seek revenge for the death of his father.
Aside from THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE (1921), which had been directed by Rex Ingram, THE EAGLE represents a rare collaboration between Valentino and a particularly distinctive director, in this case Clarence Brown. Brown would later become one of MGM’s most reliable house directors, but he had a distinctive eye for visual detail, something which is present in THE EAGLE. Most famous is the celebrated tracking shot in which the camera pulls back across the entire length of a banquet table, requiring extreme precision and careful choreography of both actors and equipment.
The production itself is quite sumptuous, with staggering sets designed by William Cameron Menzies (some of which look like they could have been reused the following year in THE DUCHESS OF BUFFALO). The film’s cinematography, by George Barnes, provides some excellent innovations (such as the above-mentioned tracking shot) along with well-lit nighttime interiors inside Kyrilla’s castle. The costume design, by an uncredited Adrian, supplies the production and cast with just the right period flavor.
Sadly, THE EAGLE was to be the second-to-last film for Valentino before his untimely death. It’s particularly ashame since both this film and his next, THE SON OF THE SHEIK, rank among the very best he ever made, and it would have been interesting to see what vehicles Valentino would have starred in during those final glory days of the silent era.
THE EAGLE (United Artists, 1925). Produced by John W. Considine Jr., directed by Clarence Brown. Screenplay by Hans Kraly from the story by Alexander Pushkin. Photography by George Barnes. Sets, William Cameron Menzies.
Cast: Rudolph Valentino, Louise Dresser, Vilma Banky, James Marcus, Albert Conti, George Nichols, Carrie Clark Ward.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Sherlock Holmes Baffled
The first screen presentation of Arthur Conan Doyle's celebrated supersleuth, SHERLOCK HOLMES BAFFLED is a strange use of the Holmes character. Instead of presenting any kind of mystery, the film is instead standard trick fare from the period, with Holmes baffled by a crook who appears and disappears throughout the scene.
Interesting only as the earliest Sherlock Holmes film, it's really not even an "adaptation", since it bears absolutely no resemblance to any of Doyle's stories. There's no need for the character to be Sherlock Holmes, either, as there is no indication as to who he is, other than in the title.
Interesting only as the earliest Sherlock Holmes film, it's really not even an "adaptation", since it bears absolutely no resemblance to any of Doyle's stories. There's no need for the character to be Sherlock Holmes, either, as there is no indication as to who he is, other than in the title.
Monday, April 02, 2012
As it is in Life (1910)
AS IT IS IN LIFE is one of the hundreds of films directed by D.W. Griffith in that incredibly rich and innovative period of his tenure at Biograph, from 1908 to 1913. It is also one of the most singularly beautiful works he created during this time, demonstrating his especially sophisticated use of depth and movement within the frame.
The story itself is unremarkable: a poor father finds work at a pigeon farm, after being forced to beg and explaining that he has a daughter to feed. He is reunited with an old sweetheart, whom he intends to marry. Upon realizing that he can't support both a wife and a child, he sacrifices the relationship in order to take care of his daughter.
Years later, the daughter returns home from school and greets her aging, worn father, vowing to care for him in his old age. However, when she falls in love with a young man, it tears her relationship with her father apart. Feeling broken and betrayed, the father goes away. Later the boy and girl are married, and the girl - now a mother - is reunited with her father, who rejoices over his new grandchild.
With its conventional plot, AS IT IS IN LIFE would not be held in particularly high regard today for its narrative advances or character development. It is, however, remarkable for its use of a location, in this case the California Pigeon Farm, which Griffith uses to visually breathtaking effect. Indeed, the film seems to have been built around the fact that Griffith and company had access to film at the pigeon farm. With its seemingly hundreds of birds flying and fluttering around in the background, Griffith achieves a total sense of movement within these shots.
Similar to reports that audiences at the first Lumiere screenings in 1895 were as impressed with the moving foliage in the background as they were with the foreground action, AS IT IS IN LIFE is most interesting for its use of background motion. The pigeons add a real sense of depth to each shot as well, as we see them grouped from the foreground all the way in to the background.
There is a recurring image that is particularly effective. It is repeated twice, to show the passage of time. It occurs for the first time when the father and his young daughter are walking together on the grounds of the pigeon farm, with the father pushing a wheelbarrow full of seed. The birds flutter and fly out of their way. This is repeated later in the film, when the daughter, now grown, has returned from school, and walks alongside her father as before. Both times, the relationship between the two actors and the pigeons takes on a strong sense of proportion, allowing them to interact rather than keeping the birds merely as background figures.
Given that it was released in 1910, which was the year that Griffith first took his company to film in Los Angeles, AS IT IS IN LIFE represents the almost immediate opportunity that Griffith and others spotted in Southern California as a filming location. Although using rural New York, New Jersey and Connecticut was still certainly a viable option in 1910, this film is evidence of the potential that Los Angeles offered to the fledgling medium.
The story itself is unremarkable: a poor father finds work at a pigeon farm, after being forced to beg and explaining that he has a daughter to feed. He is reunited with an old sweetheart, whom he intends to marry. Upon realizing that he can't support both a wife and a child, he sacrifices the relationship in order to take care of his daughter.
Years later, the daughter returns home from school and greets her aging, worn father, vowing to care for him in his old age. However, when she falls in love with a young man, it tears her relationship with her father apart. Feeling broken and betrayed, the father goes away. Later the boy and girl are married, and the girl - now a mother - is reunited with her father, who rejoices over his new grandchild.
With its conventional plot, AS IT IS IN LIFE would not be held in particularly high regard today for its narrative advances or character development. It is, however, remarkable for its use of a location, in this case the California Pigeon Farm, which Griffith uses to visually breathtaking effect. Indeed, the film seems to have been built around the fact that Griffith and company had access to film at the pigeon farm. With its seemingly hundreds of birds flying and fluttering around in the background, Griffith achieves a total sense of movement within these shots.
Similar to reports that audiences at the first Lumiere screenings in 1895 were as impressed with the moving foliage in the background as they were with the foreground action, AS IT IS IN LIFE is most interesting for its use of background motion. The pigeons add a real sense of depth to each shot as well, as we see them grouped from the foreground all the way in to the background.
There is a recurring image that is particularly effective. It is repeated twice, to show the passage of time. It occurs for the first time when the father and his young daughter are walking together on the grounds of the pigeon farm, with the father pushing a wheelbarrow full of seed. The birds flutter and fly out of their way. This is repeated later in the film, when the daughter, now grown, has returned from school, and walks alongside her father as before. Both times, the relationship between the two actors and the pigeons takes on a strong sense of proportion, allowing them to interact rather than keeping the birds merely as background figures.
Given that it was released in 1910, which was the year that Griffith first took his company to film in Los Angeles, AS IT IS IN LIFE represents the almost immediate opportunity that Griffith and others spotted in Southern California as a filming location. Although using rural New York, New Jersey and Connecticut was still certainly a viable option in 1910, this film is evidence of the potential that Los Angeles offered to the fledgling medium.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Natural Enemies
"Dark" doesn't even begin to describe NATURAL ENEMIES.
This 1979 film, which can be viewed in its entirety here, is a psychological drama that never cuts corners. Hal Holbrook stars as Paul Steward, a late-middle aged magazine publisher trapped in a state of mental and emotional hell. Based on a novel by Julius Horowitz, it places its protagonist in a crushing environment (New York City in the late 1970s) and examines his total loss of humanity.
On the surface, Paul has a comfortable life, with a wife (Miriam, played by Louise Fletcher), three children, a home in Connecticut, and running a successful science magazine. However, he's become obsessed with a series of news stories detailing recent murders involving married men who - suddenly, and without any explanation - take the lives of their families before killing themselves.
NATURAL ENEMIES starts from here, and depicts Paul on his last day on earth. In its methodical depiction of its protagonist's daily routine, the film is almost reminiscent of John G. Avildsen's SAVE THE TIGER (1973), but unlike Jack Lemmon's garment factory owner in that film, Paul Steward is already dead to himself when we meet him.
A series of flashbacks provides the account of the deterioration of Paul and Miriam's marriage - a sexless, loveless affair - and reveals the total dissolution of their relationship that followed Miriam's nervous breakdown and her subsequent shock therapy treatment. But we get the impression that these are still merely symptoms, not causes, of a much larger problem, which ultimately - like the family murder/suicide cases that Paul obsesses over in the news - remain chillingly unexplained.
Paul attempts to reach out by talking about his interest in these murders to seemingly anyone who will listen. His friend, Harry Rosenthal (Jose Ferrer), a Holocaust survivor, does his best to try to convey to Paul how good he really has things, but Paul won't be convinced. A therapist friend (Viveca Lindfors) encourages him to seek help. But Paul decides to spend the afternoon with five prostitutes in a brothel, in a kind of gift to himself on his last day. That night, when his train back to Connecticut breaks down in the dark, he shares another sexual encounter - this time with a lonely, neglected and unsatisfied housewife, a kind of mirror image of himself. The emptiness of it all reveals how desperate he is to be moved by some kind of experience, any kind. And it continues right up through the film's relentlessly upsetting and dark conclusion.
NATURAL ENEMIES takes no easy way out with its story. The last five or ten minutes of the film is where most other films would offer some kind of redemption for their protagonist. Paul would realize how good he's got things, or some such, and would vow to start anew. Not in this film.
There's a moment toward the end, where Miriam is trying to get Paul to tell her "what's wrong" - as if it could simply be summed up in a few words. He finally lets loose, telling her how much he hates everything about his life - the house, his family, the "pretentious bullshit" of the magazine he publishes, etc. It's a moment that rings hauntingly true - Paul Steward quite literally hates everything about his day-to-day existence. And though the film doesn't provide a neat-and-tidy explanation for the horrific actions its protagonist eventually takes, it certainly provides a glimpse in to what makes him tick.
Director Jeff Kanew takes a stylistically straightforward approach with the material, emphasizing the ordinariness about so much of Paul's situation. Hal Holbrook turns in a genuinely disturbing performance. For all of the horror it depicts, it never moves toward sensationalism. Even the scenes involving the five prostitutes in the brothel are handled in such a way that they take on a quality of the ordinary; all part of Kanew's effective minimalist approach.
This 1979 film, which can be viewed in its entirety here, is a psychological drama that never cuts corners. Hal Holbrook stars as Paul Steward, a late-middle aged magazine publisher trapped in a state of mental and emotional hell. Based on a novel by Julius Horowitz, it places its protagonist in a crushing environment (New York City in the late 1970s) and examines his total loss of humanity.
On the surface, Paul has a comfortable life, with a wife (Miriam, played by Louise Fletcher), three children, a home in Connecticut, and running a successful science magazine. However, he's become obsessed with a series of news stories detailing recent murders involving married men who - suddenly, and without any explanation - take the lives of their families before killing themselves.
NATURAL ENEMIES starts from here, and depicts Paul on his last day on earth. In its methodical depiction of its protagonist's daily routine, the film is almost reminiscent of John G. Avildsen's SAVE THE TIGER (1973), but unlike Jack Lemmon's garment factory owner in that film, Paul Steward is already dead to himself when we meet him.
A series of flashbacks provides the account of the deterioration of Paul and Miriam's marriage - a sexless, loveless affair - and reveals the total dissolution of their relationship that followed Miriam's nervous breakdown and her subsequent shock therapy treatment. But we get the impression that these are still merely symptoms, not causes, of a much larger problem, which ultimately - like the family murder/suicide cases that Paul obsesses over in the news - remain chillingly unexplained.
Paul attempts to reach out by talking about his interest in these murders to seemingly anyone who will listen. His friend, Harry Rosenthal (Jose Ferrer), a Holocaust survivor, does his best to try to convey to Paul how good he really has things, but Paul won't be convinced. A therapist friend (Viveca Lindfors) encourages him to seek help. But Paul decides to spend the afternoon with five prostitutes in a brothel, in a kind of gift to himself on his last day. That night, when his train back to Connecticut breaks down in the dark, he shares another sexual encounter - this time with a lonely, neglected and unsatisfied housewife, a kind of mirror image of himself. The emptiness of it all reveals how desperate he is to be moved by some kind of experience, any kind. And it continues right up through the film's relentlessly upsetting and dark conclusion.
NATURAL ENEMIES takes no easy way out with its story. The last five or ten minutes of the film is where most other films would offer some kind of redemption for their protagonist. Paul would realize how good he's got things, or some such, and would vow to start anew. Not in this film.
There's a moment toward the end, where Miriam is trying to get Paul to tell her "what's wrong" - as if it could simply be summed up in a few words. He finally lets loose, telling her how much he hates everything about his life - the house, his family, the "pretentious bullshit" of the magazine he publishes, etc. It's a moment that rings hauntingly true - Paul Steward quite literally hates everything about his day-to-day existence. And though the film doesn't provide a neat-and-tidy explanation for the horrific actions its protagonist eventually takes, it certainly provides a glimpse in to what makes him tick.
Director Jeff Kanew takes a stylistically straightforward approach with the material, emphasizing the ordinariness about so much of Paul's situation. Hal Holbrook turns in a genuinely disturbing performance. For all of the horror it depicts, it never moves toward sensationalism. Even the scenes involving the five prostitutes in the brothel are handled in such a way that they take on a quality of the ordinary; all part of Kanew's effective minimalist approach.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Griffith's Social Drama as Wish Fulfillment
One of the hundreds of films that D.W. Griffith cranked out for Biograph during the period between 1908 and 1913, ONE IS BUSINESS, THE OTHER CRIME (1913) is typical of his urban melodramas, dealing with social problems of the early 20th century. It’s a fairly routine picture, but what’s remarkable is how Griffith guides the otherwise routine story, and its predictable trajectory, into a last-minute transformation that would not seem out of place in a Frank Capra film.
Griffith sets up the dichotomy of the poor couple vs. the rich couple. The poor but honest man goes out to look for work. Meanwhile, the rich man accepts a bribe in exchange for his vote on a bill that will benefit corporate interests. Unable to find work, the poor man resorts to burglary. He ends up in the house of the rich woman, who holds him at gunpoint while he begs for mercy. At the same moment, she discovers the bribery note addressed to her husband, and decides to spare the poor man. She shames her husband into returning the bribe, and into giving the poor man a job with his company!
What’s most interesting about these early social dramas, and especially those by Griffith, is how explicitly they set up the inequality faced by different classes, while also offering idealistic and overly-simplistic solutions to the problems depicted. Still, it’s remarkable how bold Griffith was in tackling this problems head-on through the infant medium of film. Regardless of how he arrives at his conclusions, such films would almost certainly have spoken very strongly to audiences at the time, seeing familiar inequality and injustices depicted with such brutal honesty. The conclusions of these early 20th century social dramas can almost be seen to function as wish fulfillment.
Griffith sets up the dichotomy of the poor couple vs. the rich couple. The poor but honest man goes out to look for work. Meanwhile, the rich man accepts a bribe in exchange for his vote on a bill that will benefit corporate interests. Unable to find work, the poor man resorts to burglary. He ends up in the house of the rich woman, who holds him at gunpoint while he begs for mercy. At the same moment, she discovers the bribery note addressed to her husband, and decides to spare the poor man. She shames her husband into returning the bribe, and into giving the poor man a job with his company!
What’s most interesting about these early social dramas, and especially those by Griffith, is how explicitly they set up the inequality faced by different classes, while also offering idealistic and overly-simplistic solutions to the problems depicted. Still, it’s remarkable how bold Griffith was in tackling this problems head-on through the infant medium of film. Regardless of how he arrives at his conclusions, such films would almost certainly have spoken very strongly to audiences at the time, seeing familiar inequality and injustices depicted with such brutal honesty. The conclusions of these early 20th century social dramas can almost be seen to function as wish fulfillment.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Mabel's Busy Day (1914)
Another Keystone using the “racetrack” as a backdrop for their antics, MABEL’S BUSY DAY is nominally centered around Mabel Normand. Even at this point, 18 films in to his Keystone output, Chaplin was still seen as a supporting clown, as evidenced by the prominence of Normand’s name in this film’s title.
Mabel Normand was one of the greatest assets to the Keystone studio during this time; perhaps its biggest star, her natural charm and brilliant comic timing made her a favorite with audiences. She was also a highly skilled comedy director; she both wrote and directed this film. Her career was unfortunately later tainted by scandal (she was close to film director William Desmond Taylor, whose murder, along with a number of other high-profile scandals, would rock the industry in the early 20s). But to see even a relatively minor film like MABEL’S BUSY DAY is to see the charm, vitality and comic skill that made her a major star.
Here, she plays a hot dog vendor, who bribes policeman Chester Conklin to let her onto the racetrack grounds in order to sell her wares. Into this setting wanders Chaplin as a racetrack tout, cutting in line, entering the grounds without paying, and kicking a policeman to the ground when he tries to stop him. Meanwhile, Mabel’s customers are stealing hot dogs left and right, so Charlie intervenes, offering to protect her business, and promptly makes off with the entire tray of sausages, giving away free samples to the entire crowd! Confronted by Mabel and cop Chester Conklin, Charlie tries to explain everything, but a fight breaks out with Charlie and Mabel duking it out, as officer Conklin is repeatedly knocked down into the crowd of bystanders every time he tries to intervene. Finally, her entire business destroyed, the exhausted Mabel breaks down in tears as Charlie, exasperated from fighting, embraces and consoles her.
The film is interesting as an example of Chaplin playing a character other than his “tramp” persona. The costume is slightly fancier than usual, and he sports a boutonniere that suggests an air of false sophistication. At no point in the film does Chaplin work toward audience sympathy, instead playing a completely selfish (but hilarious) scoundrel, never thinking twice about kicking a policeman or stealing a hot dog. It’s fun to watch him interact with the various characters around the race track, too: early on, he annoys a trio of women watching the races, thoughtlessly blocking their view, then leaning on one woman’s shoulder before casually picking her purse. Chaplin’s skill at finding the humor in such bits of business is crucial to getting laughs from this kind of material. It certainly differs from his later interaction with the baby in THE CIRCUS, to give just one example, where we can sympathize with his character for stealing bites of the baby’s hot dog because we know he is a hungry tramp. Here, though, his actions are so thoroughly self-serving that they take on a kind of absurd quality that is quite funny in the universe of Keystone.
It’s interesting to speculate how much of the appeal of these “on location” comedies derived from the fun of watching the Keystone clowns interacting in recognizable, every day settings. Although of course many of the Keystone comedies, not to mention comedies from other studios during this period, utilized extensive location shooting around the Los Angeles area, the use of actual public events as a backdrop for the proceedings does make for a bit of interesting contrast, and serves to emphasize the craziness of the goings-on within the environment. There’s a moment in MABEL’S BUSY DAY, for instance, where Charlie mercilessly kicks and pummels a policeman as the crowd of actual bystanders looks on from the distance.
While MABEL’S BUSY DAY is a minor effort, it still contains the charm and verve that makes the work of master clowns like Chaplin and Mabel Normand so appealing almost a century later.
Mabel Normand was one of the greatest assets to the Keystone studio during this time; perhaps its biggest star, her natural charm and brilliant comic timing made her a favorite with audiences. She was also a highly skilled comedy director; she both wrote and directed this film. Her career was unfortunately later tainted by scandal (she was close to film director William Desmond Taylor, whose murder, along with a number of other high-profile scandals, would rock the industry in the early 20s). But to see even a relatively minor film like MABEL’S BUSY DAY is to see the charm, vitality and comic skill that made her a major star.
Here, she plays a hot dog vendor, who bribes policeman Chester Conklin to let her onto the racetrack grounds in order to sell her wares. Into this setting wanders Chaplin as a racetrack tout, cutting in line, entering the grounds without paying, and kicking a policeman to the ground when he tries to stop him. Meanwhile, Mabel’s customers are stealing hot dogs left and right, so Charlie intervenes, offering to protect her business, and promptly makes off with the entire tray of sausages, giving away free samples to the entire crowd! Confronted by Mabel and cop Chester Conklin, Charlie tries to explain everything, but a fight breaks out with Charlie and Mabel duking it out, as officer Conklin is repeatedly knocked down into the crowd of bystanders every time he tries to intervene. Finally, her entire business destroyed, the exhausted Mabel breaks down in tears as Charlie, exasperated from fighting, embraces and consoles her.
The film is interesting as an example of Chaplin playing a character other than his “tramp” persona. The costume is slightly fancier than usual, and he sports a boutonniere that suggests an air of false sophistication. At no point in the film does Chaplin work toward audience sympathy, instead playing a completely selfish (but hilarious) scoundrel, never thinking twice about kicking a policeman or stealing a hot dog. It’s fun to watch him interact with the various characters around the race track, too: early on, he annoys a trio of women watching the races, thoughtlessly blocking their view, then leaning on one woman’s shoulder before casually picking her purse. Chaplin’s skill at finding the humor in such bits of business is crucial to getting laughs from this kind of material. It certainly differs from his later interaction with the baby in THE CIRCUS, to give just one example, where we can sympathize with his character for stealing bites of the baby’s hot dog because we know he is a hungry tramp. Here, though, his actions are so thoroughly self-serving that they take on a kind of absurd quality that is quite funny in the universe of Keystone.
It’s interesting to speculate how much of the appeal of these “on location” comedies derived from the fun of watching the Keystone clowns interacting in recognizable, every day settings. Although of course many of the Keystone comedies, not to mention comedies from other studios during this period, utilized extensive location shooting around the Los Angeles area, the use of actual public events as a backdrop for the proceedings does make for a bit of interesting contrast, and serves to emphasize the craziness of the goings-on within the environment. There’s a moment in MABEL’S BUSY DAY, for instance, where Charlie mercilessly kicks and pummels a policeman as the crowd of actual bystanders looks on from the distance.
While MABEL’S BUSY DAY is a minor effort, it still contains the charm and verve that makes the work of master clowns like Chaplin and Mabel Normand so appealing almost a century later.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
The Knockout (1914)
Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle was arguably the most popular comedian working at Keystone during the time that Chaplin was with the studio. An incredibly gifted comic performer and director, Arbuckle had a unique style that he developed within the roughhouse environment of Keystone. Unlike many of the interchangeable grotesques, Arbuckle took advantage of his size to project a boyish charm that belied his imposing physique. For example, in his introductory shot in THE KNOCKOUT, he emerges from a bakery carrying his dog, and the two share a doughnut. This imagery – pairing the comic with an animal sidekick - would later be used by Chaplin to establish audience sympathy in THE CHAMPION (in which he attempts to share a sausage with a dog), and in A DOG’S LIFE, which features a number of such scenes. It also helps, perhaps quite literally, to establish the clown as “underdog”.
THE KNOCKOUT is first and foremost an Arbuckle comedy, one in which Chaplin puts in what basically amounts to a supporting appearance. A fairly elaborate two-reel affair, the film begins with Arbuckle engaging in extended, roughhouse slapstick with a couple of tramps posing as pugilists to earn some extra cash. Arbuckle himself goes in to the ring to fight Cyclone Flynn (Edgar Kennedy) who offers to split the purse if Fatty throws the fight. He refuses, and the big fight is the highlight of the second reel. To add to the pressue, sheriff Mack Swain informs Fatty that he’s betting heavily on him, “so win or I’ll kill you.” Chaplin appears as the referee – taking a bow before the audience prior to falling backward in the ring, and accidentally taking a punch or two to the face when moving between the two pugilists. Things build to a frenzied climax when Fatty, getting knocked out and losing the match, angrily whips out two six-shooters, which he begins firing into the audience and chasing the rival boxers! The Keystone cops get word that a maniac is on the loose, and give chase with typically ineffective results. The chase leads the men through a high society party, in which they tear through in the middle of a musical performance. Finally, Fatty and the cops engage in a rather unbalanced match of tug-of-war, which ends with Fatty dragging the entire of team policemen down the street.
This description of the film exemplifies the way in which Arbuckle’s comic universe could get exceedingly cartoonish, even by Keystone standards. He uses a number of creative devices, including a rooftop chase and a number of shots taken with a moving camera, to heighten the lunacy. Arbuckle was a master at creating this sort of controlled chaos. Even as he roars through the streets firing his guns at anything that moves, there is a method to his madness, at the center of which is his clearly defined character. Like Chaplin, Arbuckle recognized the need for the audience to at least identify with him as a character beyond the broadest slapstick mugging, which no doubt contributed to Arbuckle’s immense popularity with audiences before his career was cut short by an unfortunate scandal in 1921. Combined with his creative use of filmic technique, Arbuckle takes a place beside Chaplin as perhaps the leading slapstick comic filmmaker of the WWI era. It is uncertain, however, who directed THE KNOCKOUT; a number of sources credit Charles Avery, while other, more recent sources credit Mack Sennett. It is fair to say that, regardless of who directed the film, it demonstrates much of the technique and craftsmanship that Arbuckle himself would later develop further.
There is an interesting moment where Arbuckle, witnessing a tramp harassing girlfriend Minta Durfee, mugs angrily and moves toward the camera until his face fills the frame in a giant close-up that is at once menacing and comical. There is also a closeup of Minta Durfee used in a reaction shot in the first reel, as well as a later close shot of an anxious Mack Swain cheering on the boxing match from his ringside seat. In fact, THE KNOCKOUT contains several moments where the framing suggests greater care than the average Keystone comedy of this period. Subtle but creative use of camera angles, and the use of medium shots to bring the audience a little closer to Arbuckle, serve as evidence of this. These little moments are crucial in establishing the connection between the clown and the audience; Chaplin clearly knew this, and used such moments sparingly throughout his career. While some critics have seen this as evidence of Chaplin’s lack of technique, it is rather a sophisticated use of such techniques by limiting their use, thereby increasing their effectiveness when used.
THE KNOCKOUT is first and foremost an Arbuckle comedy, one in which Chaplin puts in what basically amounts to a supporting appearance. A fairly elaborate two-reel affair, the film begins with Arbuckle engaging in extended, roughhouse slapstick with a couple of tramps posing as pugilists to earn some extra cash. Arbuckle himself goes in to the ring to fight Cyclone Flynn (Edgar Kennedy) who offers to split the purse if Fatty throws the fight. He refuses, and the big fight is the highlight of the second reel. To add to the pressue, sheriff Mack Swain informs Fatty that he’s betting heavily on him, “so win or I’ll kill you.” Chaplin appears as the referee – taking a bow before the audience prior to falling backward in the ring, and accidentally taking a punch or two to the face when moving between the two pugilists. Things build to a frenzied climax when Fatty, getting knocked out and losing the match, angrily whips out two six-shooters, which he begins firing into the audience and chasing the rival boxers! The Keystone cops get word that a maniac is on the loose, and give chase with typically ineffective results. The chase leads the men through a high society party, in which they tear through in the middle of a musical performance. Finally, Fatty and the cops engage in a rather unbalanced match of tug-of-war, which ends with Fatty dragging the entire of team policemen down the street.
This description of the film exemplifies the way in which Arbuckle’s comic universe could get exceedingly cartoonish, even by Keystone standards. He uses a number of creative devices, including a rooftop chase and a number of shots taken with a moving camera, to heighten the lunacy. Arbuckle was a master at creating this sort of controlled chaos. Even as he roars through the streets firing his guns at anything that moves, there is a method to his madness, at the center of which is his clearly defined character. Like Chaplin, Arbuckle recognized the need for the audience to at least identify with him as a character beyond the broadest slapstick mugging, which no doubt contributed to Arbuckle’s immense popularity with audiences before his career was cut short by an unfortunate scandal in 1921. Combined with his creative use of filmic technique, Arbuckle takes a place beside Chaplin as perhaps the leading slapstick comic filmmaker of the WWI era. It is uncertain, however, who directed THE KNOCKOUT; a number of sources credit Charles Avery, while other, more recent sources credit Mack Sennett. It is fair to say that, regardless of who directed the film, it demonstrates much of the technique and craftsmanship that Arbuckle himself would later develop further.
There is an interesting moment where Arbuckle, witnessing a tramp harassing girlfriend Minta Durfee, mugs angrily and moves toward the camera until his face fills the frame in a giant close-up that is at once menacing and comical. There is also a closeup of Minta Durfee used in a reaction shot in the first reel, as well as a later close shot of an anxious Mack Swain cheering on the boxing match from his ringside seat. In fact, THE KNOCKOUT contains several moments where the framing suggests greater care than the average Keystone comedy of this period. Subtle but creative use of camera angles, and the use of medium shots to bring the audience a little closer to Arbuckle, serve as evidence of this. These little moments are crucial in establishing the connection between the clown and the audience; Chaplin clearly knew this, and used such moments sparingly throughout his career. While some critics have seen this as evidence of Chaplin’s lack of technique, it is rather a sophisticated use of such techniques by limiting their use, thereby increasing their effectiveness when used.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
The Fatal Mallet (1914)
THE FATAL MALLET is perhaps the roughest and the most shapeless of the Chaplin-Keystone comedies. The plot, such as it is, revolves around rivals Charlie Chaplin and Mack Sennett, battling Mack Swain for the hand of Mabel Normand.
In a rural setting, rube Mack Sennett is busy flirting with Mabel, when Charlie spies them, and initiates the rivalry by hurling a brick at the couple. As Charlie and Sennett battle it out, burly Mack Swain swoops in and walks off with Mabel. The two men join forces against their common enemy, and after Swain gives chase, they hide in a barn where they find a mallet to use as a weapon. Knocking Swain out and dumping him in the barn, Charlie moves in on Mabel, and after Swain regains consciousness, both he and Sennett retaliate against Charlie, with the three of them fighting on the bank of a pond. Both Swain and Charlie take the plunge, leaving Sennett as the nominal “champion” of this particular rivalry.
The plot description alone gives an idea of how arbitrary much of the action is in this film. It seems to move beyond the usual farcical premises of the Keystones of this period and brings to mind the senseless violence of the Jules White-Columbia two-reelers of thirty years later. Rarely can any of the characters go more than a few seconds without hitting, smacking or otherwise assaulting whoever happens to be standing closest at that particular moment. The arbitrary nature of the “rivalries” between the three men indicates how their allegiance can turn on a dime. And even a young boy (played by Gordon Griffith) who shows infatuation with Mabel is subject to a swift kicking by a jealous Charlie!
There is little time for character development in a film like this. Like the film directly before this (A BUSY DAY), THE FATAL MALLET was directed by Mack Sennett. It has the appearance of a casual, almost improvisational effort dashed off in a single day. There is some indication, even in a roughhouse, knockabout effort like this, that Chaplin was trying to emphasize little bits of business to set him apart from the broad grotesques of the Keystone lot. There is the moment when he sizes up the young boy before delivering the swift kick that knocks him to the ground. There is also the moment in the barn when he holds rival Sennett at bay with the mallet, assuming a “tough guy” stance and posture, jerking quickly forward to intimidate his rival, that recalls his confrontation with the driver of the orphanage wagon at the conclusion of the chase sequence in THE KID. Ultimately, these little moments are fleeting, and only stand as a mere hint of the carefully crafted comedy that Chaplin would begin developing later on in his tenure at Keystone.
*Note: Chaplin’s next Keystone comedy, HER FRIEND THE BANDIT, is considered lost; therefore, I will not be reviewing it in this series.
In a rural setting, rube Mack Sennett is busy flirting with Mabel, when Charlie spies them, and initiates the rivalry by hurling a brick at the couple. As Charlie and Sennett battle it out, burly Mack Swain swoops in and walks off with Mabel. The two men join forces against their common enemy, and after Swain gives chase, they hide in a barn where they find a mallet to use as a weapon. Knocking Swain out and dumping him in the barn, Charlie moves in on Mabel, and after Swain regains consciousness, both he and Sennett retaliate against Charlie, with the three of them fighting on the bank of a pond. Both Swain and Charlie take the plunge, leaving Sennett as the nominal “champion” of this particular rivalry.
The plot description alone gives an idea of how arbitrary much of the action is in this film. It seems to move beyond the usual farcical premises of the Keystones of this period and brings to mind the senseless violence of the Jules White-Columbia two-reelers of thirty years later. Rarely can any of the characters go more than a few seconds without hitting, smacking or otherwise assaulting whoever happens to be standing closest at that particular moment. The arbitrary nature of the “rivalries” between the three men indicates how their allegiance can turn on a dime. And even a young boy (played by Gordon Griffith) who shows infatuation with Mabel is subject to a swift kicking by a jealous Charlie!
There is little time for character development in a film like this. Like the film directly before this (A BUSY DAY), THE FATAL MALLET was directed by Mack Sennett. It has the appearance of a casual, almost improvisational effort dashed off in a single day. There is some indication, even in a roughhouse, knockabout effort like this, that Chaplin was trying to emphasize little bits of business to set him apart from the broad grotesques of the Keystone lot. There is the moment when he sizes up the young boy before delivering the swift kick that knocks him to the ground. There is also the moment in the barn when he holds rival Sennett at bay with the mallet, assuming a “tough guy” stance and posture, jerking quickly forward to intimidate his rival, that recalls his confrontation with the driver of the orphanage wagon at the conclusion of the chase sequence in THE KID. Ultimately, these little moments are fleeting, and only stand as a mere hint of the carefully crafted comedy that Chaplin would begin developing later on in his tenure at Keystone.
*Note: Chaplin’s next Keystone comedy, HER FRIEND THE BANDIT, is considered lost; therefore, I will not be reviewing it in this series.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
A Busy Day (1914)
In the development of many comedians’ screen personae, the trajectory of reaching their mature screen character seems to be a case of “One step forward, two steps backwards.” While some comics (Buster Keaton in particular) seemed to emerge almost fully-formed from the get-go, others took a little longer to arrive at the characters that audiences would forever remember them for. Chaplin falls into the latter category, and A BUSY DAY is an example of this phenomenon at work.
Coming off of the characteristic and well-constructed CAUGHT IN THE RAIN, Chaplin’s next appearance was in this loosely constructed comedy shot at an actual parade, with a largely improvisational feel to it. This was a fairly standard Keystone approach - to choose an actual public event (a racetrack, parade, etc.) and turn the comedians loose to wreak their unique brand of havoc in otherwise "natural" surroundings. Here, Chaplin plays the lead character in drag, but aside from this switching of genders, the film is largely a re-tread of situations he had already explored more creatively in earlier efforts, and even partially recycles the premise of KID AUTO RACES AT VENICE, with Chaplin-in-drag interrupting the filming of a newsreel. The story revolves around Chaplin's jealous rage when he spots husband Mack Swain flirting with another woman (Phyllis Allen), and goes on a rampage, fighting with Swain, the police, and other bystanders before finally getting kicked off the pier and into the water.
A BUSY DAY was directed by Mack Sennett, who also appears in the film as the newsreel director. Sennett’s presence behind the camera may explain the hectic pace and uncharacteristic humor. That said, A BUSY DAY still delivers laughs in the best knockabout tradition of Keystone.
Coming off of the characteristic and well-constructed CAUGHT IN THE RAIN, Chaplin’s next appearance was in this loosely constructed comedy shot at an actual parade, with a largely improvisational feel to it. This was a fairly standard Keystone approach - to choose an actual public event (a racetrack, parade, etc.) and turn the comedians loose to wreak their unique brand of havoc in otherwise "natural" surroundings. Here, Chaplin plays the lead character in drag, but aside from this switching of genders, the film is largely a re-tread of situations he had already explored more creatively in earlier efforts, and even partially recycles the premise of KID AUTO RACES AT VENICE, with Chaplin-in-drag interrupting the filming of a newsreel. The story revolves around Chaplin's jealous rage when he spots husband Mack Swain flirting with another woman (Phyllis Allen), and goes on a rampage, fighting with Swain, the police, and other bystanders before finally getting kicked off the pier and into the water.
A BUSY DAY was directed by Mack Sennett, who also appears in the film as the newsreel director. Sennett’s presence behind the camera may explain the hectic pace and uncharacteristic humor. That said, A BUSY DAY still delivers laughs in the best knockabout tradition of Keystone.
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Caught in the Rain (1914)
The first film whose direction can definitely be attributed solely to Chaplin, Caught in the Rain is an example of the kind of farce comedy set-up that had been a staple of the theater and was finding its way into film.
The premise is simple: after Chaplin is caught flirting with Mack Swain's wife in the park, the inebriated tramp then follows the couple to a hotel where they are staying. Swain's wife is a sleepwalker, and in the middle of the night she sleep-walks right into Chaplin's room, causing an expected reaction of outrage from Swain. The Keystone cops are called in to apprehend the tramp.
There are two scenes in particular that show Chaplin's hand in the direction. The first occurs when he arrives at the hotel and makes a nuisance of himself in the lobby. The second is when he is undressing to get into bed, removing all of his clothes to reveal his pajamas underneath. In both cases, Chaplin allows the entire scene to play out in a full shot, held for an inordinately long duration (by Keystone standards), which captures the full detail and nuance of his performance without unnecessary cutting away.
From a plot standpoint, there is a crucial device here that points to Chaplin's mature characterization. Rather than aggressively making his way in to the hotel room where Mack Swain's wife is sleeping, Chaplin makes his character a victim of circumstance, with the wife's sleepwalking as a device to bring them both into the same room together without any bad intentions on either characters' part.
Even small touches such as this point to the techniques that Chaplin was employing that set him apart, and would help to establish the audience sympathy that would make him a superstar.
The premise is simple: after Chaplin is caught flirting with Mack Swain's wife in the park, the inebriated tramp then follows the couple to a hotel where they are staying. Swain's wife is a sleepwalker, and in the middle of the night she sleep-walks right into Chaplin's room, causing an expected reaction of outrage from Swain. The Keystone cops are called in to apprehend the tramp.
There are two scenes in particular that show Chaplin's hand in the direction. The first occurs when he arrives at the hotel and makes a nuisance of himself in the lobby. The second is when he is undressing to get into bed, removing all of his clothes to reveal his pajamas underneath. In both cases, Chaplin allows the entire scene to play out in a full shot, held for an inordinately long duration (by Keystone standards), which captures the full detail and nuance of his performance without unnecessary cutting away.
From a plot standpoint, there is a crucial device here that points to Chaplin's mature characterization. Rather than aggressively making his way in to the hotel room where Mack Swain's wife is sleeping, Chaplin makes his character a victim of circumstance, with the wife's sleepwalking as a device to bring them both into the same room together without any bad intentions on either characters' part.
Even small touches such as this point to the techniques that Chaplin was employing that set him apart, and would help to establish the audience sympathy that would make him a superstar.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Caught in a Cabaret (1914)
Caught in a Cabaret is the first Chaplin film that really feels like a Chaplin film. In it, he introduces a number of his favorite themes, as well as stylistic approaches, that give it the feeling of being the first film over which he had a strong degree of creative control. Indeed, it is the earliest film whose direction can be certainly attributed to Chaplin, though he actually co-directed the film with Mabel Normand.
The situation is set up that Chaplin is a lowly waiter in a rough cafe in a bad part of town. While on his lunchbreak, he saves society girl Mabel Normand from being menaced by a thief. Her parents and friends take Chaplin for a hero, and he is their guest at a garden party in which he is hilariously out of place, passing himself off as "Baron Doobugle, Prime Minister of Greenland". He must leave in a hurry to get back to the cafe as his lunchbreak is almost over. Mabel's jealous boyfriend tracks him back to the cafe, and sees his real identity. The boyfriend then returns to the garden party and suggests that they go "slumming", whereupon he brings them to the cafe and Mabel becomes enraged when she learns that the Prime Minister is really just a waiter.
In terms of performance, Chaplin gives his most nuanced, subtle performance yet. He immediately sets himself apart from the rest of the zanies in the cafe in which he works with his methodical bits of business. He is first seen, while waiting tables, stopping by the table of one customer to pour several unfinished drinks into one glass, which he drinks himself. He also playfully flirts with other female characters here in a genteel manner, rather than the aggressive pursuits seen in earlier films. There is none of the grotesque mugging directly in to the camera as there was in earlier films; everything here is played in full-shot to capture the whole of Chaplin's performance. One of the most remarkable aspects of Chaplin as performer is the way he always used his entire body - never just mugging or simply taking a fall. Rather, he puts his entire body to the service of every gag, his posture, stance, and facial expressions combining to produce a total comic effect.
There is a leisurely pace to the film, too, aided no doubt by the fact that it is a two-reeler, giving Chaplin more time to develop plot and pacing. Chaplin allows himself a little "sidekick" in the form of a dog, a nice touch that looks forward to Scraps the mut in A Dog's Life. There is some of his trademark hostility toward children, such as kicking a boy to the ground after he comes entangled with the dog's leash. There is also a fight between Chaplin and fellow waiter Chester Conklin that displays that almost balletic approach he would take to such rough slapstick, even at this early point in his career, combined with a kind of playful, "it's only a game" spirit that he would repeat with John Rand in The Pawnshop. Similarly, his tangle with tough Mack Swain in the cafe (which ends with Chaplin knocking him out with a mallet) looks forward to his later resourceful triumphs over big bullies like Eric Campbell in the Mutual series and Malcolm Waite in The Gold Rush.
The film is a study in comic contrasts as well. Chaplin, as the waiter, appears to be at first more refined than the characters surrounding him, wiping down tables with a rag - until he stops, and blows his nose into the rag, before continuing to use it to wipe down the tables! This is also the first Chaplin film to deal explicitly with class difference. Though a staple of comedy from this period, no comedian went further to the roots of the class differences in the United States at this time than Chaplin did. It is in this respect that Caught in a Cabaret marks one of his most important films in his development as a filmmaker.
The situation is set up that Chaplin is a lowly waiter in a rough cafe in a bad part of town. While on his lunchbreak, he saves society girl Mabel Normand from being menaced by a thief. Her parents and friends take Chaplin for a hero, and he is their guest at a garden party in which he is hilariously out of place, passing himself off as "Baron Doobugle, Prime Minister of Greenland". He must leave in a hurry to get back to the cafe as his lunchbreak is almost over. Mabel's jealous boyfriend tracks him back to the cafe, and sees his real identity. The boyfriend then returns to the garden party and suggests that they go "slumming", whereupon he brings them to the cafe and Mabel becomes enraged when she learns that the Prime Minister is really just a waiter.
In terms of performance, Chaplin gives his most nuanced, subtle performance yet. He immediately sets himself apart from the rest of the zanies in the cafe in which he works with his methodical bits of business. He is first seen, while waiting tables, stopping by the table of one customer to pour several unfinished drinks into one glass, which he drinks himself. He also playfully flirts with other female characters here in a genteel manner, rather than the aggressive pursuits seen in earlier films. There is none of the grotesque mugging directly in to the camera as there was in earlier films; everything here is played in full-shot to capture the whole of Chaplin's performance. One of the most remarkable aspects of Chaplin as performer is the way he always used his entire body - never just mugging or simply taking a fall. Rather, he puts his entire body to the service of every gag, his posture, stance, and facial expressions combining to produce a total comic effect.
There is a leisurely pace to the film, too, aided no doubt by the fact that it is a two-reeler, giving Chaplin more time to develop plot and pacing. Chaplin allows himself a little "sidekick" in the form of a dog, a nice touch that looks forward to Scraps the mut in A Dog's Life. There is some of his trademark hostility toward children, such as kicking a boy to the ground after he comes entangled with the dog's leash. There is also a fight between Chaplin and fellow waiter Chester Conklin that displays that almost balletic approach he would take to such rough slapstick, even at this early point in his career, combined with a kind of playful, "it's only a game" spirit that he would repeat with John Rand in The Pawnshop. Similarly, his tangle with tough Mack Swain in the cafe (which ends with Chaplin knocking him out with a mallet) looks forward to his later resourceful triumphs over big bullies like Eric Campbell in the Mutual series and Malcolm Waite in The Gold Rush.
The film is a study in comic contrasts as well. Chaplin, as the waiter, appears to be at first more refined than the characters surrounding him, wiping down tables with a rag - until he stops, and blows his nose into the rag, before continuing to use it to wipe down the tables! This is also the first Chaplin film to deal explicitly with class difference. Though a staple of comedy from this period, no comedian went further to the roots of the class differences in the United States at this time than Chaplin did. It is in this respect that Caught in a Cabaret marks one of his most important films in his development as a filmmaker.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Twenty Minutes of Love (1914)
This was the first film in which Chaplin reputedly had a hand in the direction and writing. It's difficult to say (the direction has variously been credited to Joseph Maddern and even to Mack Sennett), though various historians have pointed out that it's quite likely that Chaplin did at least have a hand in the story construction, since he practically remade the film at Essanay a year later as In the Park.
Either way, Twenty Minutes of Love is a slight little film, one of the many "park" comedies cranked out by Keystone. There are the usual mix-ups and confusions, but Chaplin's performance is already showing signs of his mature characterization, such as when he observes a young couple necking on a bench in the park, and, so overcome with a mix of frustration and repulsion, absentmindedly embraces and kisses a tree!
Twenty Minutes of Love also marks the first time that Chaplin's character is really at the center of the chaos. While he certainly creates mischief wherever he goes, he's almost like the calm eye of a comic hurricane, with just the perfect mix of innocence and an impish, sometimes devilish quality. There had been strong traces of this in his earlier appearances as the Tramp - his turns as comic heavies didn't allow for this kind of development - but here he seems more close than ever to being fully formed (which would finally happen with his next film).
Either way, Twenty Minutes of Love is a slight little film, one of the many "park" comedies cranked out by Keystone. There are the usual mix-ups and confusions, but Chaplin's performance is already showing signs of his mature characterization, such as when he observes a young couple necking on a bench in the park, and, so overcome with a mix of frustration and repulsion, absentmindedly embraces and kisses a tree!
Twenty Minutes of Love also marks the first time that Chaplin's character is really at the center of the chaos. While he certainly creates mischief wherever he goes, he's almost like the calm eye of a comic hurricane, with just the perfect mix of innocence and an impish, sometimes devilish quality. There had been strong traces of this in his earlier appearances as the Tramp - his turns as comic heavies didn't allow for this kind of development - but here he seems more close than ever to being fully formed (which would finally happen with his next film).
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Mabel at the Wheel (1914)
Even though it’s completely uncharacteristic (Chaplin is a top hatted, goateed villain who goes around pricking people with a pin), Mabel at the Wheel may very well be one of the sheer funniest films Chaplin appeared in during his tenure at Keystone, and is by far the most elaborately mounted production he’d appeared in up to this point. In a role clearly meant for Ford Sterling, Chaplin hams it up as a cartoonish villain that almost seems like a forerunner of Jack Lemmon’s Professor Fate in The Great Race. At two reels, this must have seemed like a veritable comic epic at the time, especially given the scale of the racetrack scenes, and the talent involved in the film (in addition to Chaplin and Mabel Normand, Chester Conklin and Mack Swain put in appearances, along with a cameo by Mack Sennett himself as a rube spectator).
Mabel Normand is the nominal star of the film, but it’s unquestionably Chaplin’s film all the way. It’s as if he just decided to go for broke, saying, “You want me to play Ford Sterling? Fine. Then I’ll out-Sterling Sterling!” He plays the entire performance at full energy, never missing an opportunity to mug into the camera, sticking out his tongue, crossing his eyes, and gesticulating wildly. There’s a fun scene in the beginning when Chaplin, attempting to steal Mabel away from her racecar driver boyfriend, takes her out for a spin on his motorcycle, and not even noticing when she bounces off the back into a mud puddle. This one also includes a great brick-throwing scene that gets really violent, sort of a brick-throwing battle to out-do all brick-throwing battles. The second reel of the film takes place at the racetrack, where villainous Chaplin orders his two henchmen to kidnap Mabel’s boyfriend. She takes over at the wheel, though, and saves the day by winning the big race. It’s here where Chaplin really amps up the performance, stealing the show from every single performer who happens into the same frame as him.
If it sounds as if I'm praising Chaplin for the exact qualities that I have criticized Ford Sterling for in previous reviews, it is worth noting that here, the strong elements of parody in the plot call for this kind of over-the-top take on the character. Sterling was a gifted comedian with a flair for exaggerating mugging, but his performance style rarely varied, at least during his time at Keystone. In some films his performance style worked fine; in others, less so. Chaplin's ability to vary between subtle character humor and this sort of exaggerated parody demonstrate the range he brought with him when he came to the movies from the stage.
Mabel at the Wheel may not be characteristic Chaplin (quite an understatement), but it remains one of his best non-“Tramp” performances, and a good example of what the Keystone crew was capable of when everyone was firing on all cylinders.
Mabel Normand is the nominal star of the film, but it’s unquestionably Chaplin’s film all the way. It’s as if he just decided to go for broke, saying, “You want me to play Ford Sterling? Fine. Then I’ll out-Sterling Sterling!” He plays the entire performance at full energy, never missing an opportunity to mug into the camera, sticking out his tongue, crossing his eyes, and gesticulating wildly. There’s a fun scene in the beginning when Chaplin, attempting to steal Mabel away from her racecar driver boyfriend, takes her out for a spin on his motorcycle, and not even noticing when she bounces off the back into a mud puddle. This one also includes a great brick-throwing scene that gets really violent, sort of a brick-throwing battle to out-do all brick-throwing battles. The second reel of the film takes place at the racetrack, where villainous Chaplin orders his two henchmen to kidnap Mabel’s boyfriend. She takes over at the wheel, though, and saves the day by winning the big race. It’s here where Chaplin really amps up the performance, stealing the show from every single performer who happens into the same frame as him.
If it sounds as if I'm praising Chaplin for the exact qualities that I have criticized Ford Sterling for in previous reviews, it is worth noting that here, the strong elements of parody in the plot call for this kind of over-the-top take on the character. Sterling was a gifted comedian with a flair for exaggerating mugging, but his performance style rarely varied, at least during his time at Keystone. In some films his performance style worked fine; in others, less so. Chaplin's ability to vary between subtle character humor and this sort of exaggerated parody demonstrate the range he brought with him when he came to the movies from the stage.
Mabel at the Wheel may not be characteristic Chaplin (quite an understatement), but it remains one of his best non-“Tramp” performances, and a good example of what the Keystone crew was capable of when everyone was firing on all cylinders.
Monday, August 29, 2011
The Star Boarder (1914)
Chaplin is back in his usual makeup and costume here. With a more structured plot than we’ve seen in the Chaplin-Keystones up to this point, Chaplin and his flirtatious landlady are unknowingly caught in a private moment by a boy with a camera. When the photo turns up in a Magic Lantern show that the boy projects that night for the amusement of the other boarders, the landlady’s jealous husband is none too pleased. Less farce than situation comedy, this is a good example of how a more structured plot allowed for better character development and for getting more mileage out of the situations as opposed to the off-the-cuff, improvisational approach. Still, it can’t help feeling like a warm-up for better things to come.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Cruel, Cruel Love (1914)
Any film that opens with Chaplin playfully flirting has to be good, and Cruel, Cruel Love contains easily one of his finest performances from these really early shorts. Though sporting a top hat and slightly wider mustache than usual, there are strong traces of Chaplin’s great performances to come in films like Monsieur Verdoux. He gets a chance to play a character that might, in the hands of other, less-skilled performers, be labeled a “villain” or “heavy” role. Instead, Chaplin injects just the right mixture of charm and vulnerability, while at the same time overplaying things just enough to heighten the parody of the situation. Rather than aping Sterling, as had been called on to do in some of his early appearances, here Chaplin makes the character his own.
There’s a fun scene in which Chaplin is fooled by his servants into believing he’s swallowed poison, and has a delirious vision of himself in Hell being poked and prodded by two devils, gesticulating and overplaying to expert comic exaggeration. There’s also some effective cross-cutting, as both the doctors, and Chaplin’s love interest, race to his home before the poison takes effect. Overall, this is a highly effective parody of stage melodrama and contemporary film making, and perhaps the first film in which Chaplin is able to demonstrate his range as an actor.
There’s a fun scene in which Chaplin is fooled by his servants into believing he’s swallowed poison, and has a delirious vision of himself in Hell being poked and prodded by two devils, gesticulating and overplaying to expert comic exaggeration. There’s also some effective cross-cutting, as both the doctors, and Chaplin’s love interest, race to his home before the poison takes effect. Overall, this is a highly effective parody of stage melodrama and contemporary film making, and perhaps the first film in which Chaplin is able to demonstrate his range as an actor.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
His Favorite Pastime (1914)
Though Chaplin’s character is pretty unlikable here, he does get some good comic by-play with the patrons of a bar toward the beginning of the film, including Fatty Arbuckle as a fellow drunk desperate for a drink. Arbuckle turns up in smaller parts in a couple of these early Chaplin-Keystone comedies, and it’s always a shame that he isn’t given more screen time to interact with Chaplin, as their scenes together hint at the skillful comic interplay that would become apparent when they were finally co-starred together in The Rounders.
The scene where the inebriated Chaplin lets himself in to the woman’s home looks forward to the solo drunk act of One A.M. two years later, with his cane getting hooked on the furniture and trying to make his way up the staircase serving as a kind of warm-up for ideas he would explore and expand on later.
The scene where the inebriated Chaplin lets himself in to the woman’s home looks forward to the solo drunk act of One A.M. two years later, with his cane getting hooked on the furniture and trying to make his way up the staircase serving as a kind of warm-up for ideas he would explore and expand on later.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Tango Tangles (1914)
Another one with a largely improvisational feel, here Chaplin appears out of makeup and usual costume, playing a drunk at a dance hall. There’s not much more to the set-up than Chaplin and Ford Sterling fighting over a girl on the dance floor, with much of Sterling’s trademark arm-flailing, frenetic gesticulations and nose-biting. The film ends when the two men collapse from exhaustion. Tango Tangles is primarily of interest for the chance to see a very young-looking Chaplin without his usual makeup engaging in the usual roughhouse stuff, apparently filmed at least partially on location at a real dance hall. Arbuckle actually almost steals the show with his understated performance style and impressive pratfalls. To paraphrase what Theodore Huff said about By the Sea, Tango Tangles is a slight effort enlivened by a certain impromptu charm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)