Wednesday, 7 July 2021

On DVD - Tom Ryan examines the Western legends of Martin Ritt's HOMBRE (USA, 1966)

Martin Ritt

From John Ford’s
 Stagecoach (1939) through films such as Rawhide and Hangman’s Knot in the 1950s to The Hateful Eight (2015), stagecoach Westerns constitute a readymade sub-group of the genre. Their customary modus operandi is to cram a small group of characters together inside a coach travelling across an inhospitable landscape. Belongings are tied down on top, with a driver keeping the horses busy up front and a hired hand riding shotgun alongside him. The drama usually stems from tensions that arise inside the coach or from hostile forces outside, such as outlaws or marauding Indians, or from both. Scenarios frequently move them from inside the coach to stopovers en route, where horses are watered or replaced. And where danger often awaits. 


Elmore Leonard, "Hombre"
Cover of first edition

One example of the species is Hombre (1966), often overlooked in discussions of the Western. (1) Directed by Martin Ritt (1914 – 1990), it’s adapted from Elmore Leonard’s 1961 novella by regular Ritt collaborators Irving Ravetch (1920 – 2010) and Harriet Frank Jr. (1923 – 2020), a husband-and-wife writing team also responsible for non-Ritt films such as Home from the Hill (1960) and The Reivers (1969). 

 

Shot in widescreen by veteran James Wong Howe, Hombre appeared at a time when a number of key directors making Westerns had become self-conscious about the genre’s dark side and the buried politics of the birth-of-a-nation stories towards which they had been inclined. The old-school Westerns might have had poetry in them, but when it came to a choice between presenting the facts and depicting legends, they very much tended towards the latter.

 

The revisionist Westerns still had romance, but they were politically much tougher. Hombre was released in the US five years after The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962); immediately following Sergio Leone’s trilogy of “man with no name” spaghetti Westerns (A Fistful of Dollars in 1964, For a Few Dollars More in ’65, and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in ’66); a couple of years before his Once Upon a Time in the West (1968); three years before Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch ( 1969), and five before Robert Altman’s McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971). 


Unabashedly wearing his left-wing politics on his sleeve, Ritt was a filmmaker accustomed to challenging the status quo. After an extensive career in the theatre and television, he’d been blacklisted in the early 1950s, a time in the US when dissent was reflexively mistaken for treason. Before Hombre, he’d made eleven films (including Edge of the City, Hud  and The Spy Who Came in from the Cold), and, afterwards, he went on to make other solid, socially aware dramas such as The Molly MaguiresThe Great White HopeSounderThe Front and Norma Rae

 

Given this, it’s no surprise to find him joining his fellow directors in their uneasy relationship with the Western. Like earlier films such as Anthony Mann’s Devil’s Doorway and Robert Aldrich’s Apache (both 1950), Hombre casts a scathing eye across the kind of corruption that went hand-in-hand with the so-called “civilising” of the American West, and the marginalisation of Native Americans in the process. 


That said, Ritt is more like a visitor to the terrain than someone who knows it intimately. He’s less interested in challenging the conventions of the genre – the landscapes that resonate with meaning, the general sense of a wilderness being settled, the topography of the small towns that define their place in the history of settlement, the confrontations between the law and those who follow their own rules – than in telling a straightforward story about a man trapped between two cultures. 

 

Hombre is set in the 1880s when the development of the railroad had made horse-drawn travel along dusty roads a thing of the past, except in out-of-the-way places like Sweetwater (in Arizona), where the film opens. (Leone sets his Once Upon a Time in the West  in the same location during an earlier era of the West's development). And it’s not by chance that accounts of it frequently liken it to Stagecoach, an old-fashioned, Western made almost three decades earlier.


Paul Newman as Ishkanay in the film's opening shot
 

Like Ford’s classic, it gathers its characters together during the film’s first 30 minutes before placing its title character (played by Paul Newman) aboard a coach in the company of a cross-section of white Americans. Newman’s “hombre” is a Caucasian who’d been carried off by Apaches when he was a child and given the name of Ishkanay, before being found among prisoners at an army fort. However, after being adopted by a wealthy white man and renamed John Russell, he fled back to the Apaches. (2)


Paul Newman as John Russell


His shifting circumstances in the film are implicit in his style of dress. We first meet him as a long-haired Apache dressed in a grubby buckskin shirt and leggings, wearing a dark red headband and shoulder pouch, with a holstered gun on his hip. He’s at work, cornering a herd of horses at a waterhole, the incident serving as a metaphor for what is about to happen to him. And before long, he’s become John Russell again and his appearance has changed. His hair is cut shorter and he’s now wearing a clean shirt and a loose-fitting vest, along with the jeans, boots and hat that give him the appearance of just another cowboy. 

 

His past is thus camouflaged. That allows him to see the white society in which he’s about to be entrapped as an insider as well as an outsider. Even though his skin has been browned by the outdoors, he looks Caucasian, so he’s the recipient of the advantages that go along with that. And the film’s dramatic strategy encourages us, initially at least, to see events and the other characters largely through his eyes, while the regular close-ups of him – from the opening shot onwards – delineate him as a man passing judgement on what he’s seeing. His mindset, however, remains mysterious.

 

Soon after the opening sequence, we see him doing business as a horse trader with the local stage-line proprietor, Henry Mendez (Martin Balsam), a Mexican with whom he’s on friendly terms. When he’s summoned to Delgado’s relay station by Mendez, his host greets him simply as “Hombre” (3), going on to explain that the stage-line is closing down because of the imminent arrival of the railroad and that he’s going to find himself out of a job. 

 

He then advises his friend, now known again as John Russell, about what his next step might be. As the sole heir to his late foster father, Russell has become the owner of the local boarding-house, which he can continue to run as he wishes or sell to the highest bidder. Either way, Mendez explains to him, it’s going to fund his return to white society.

 

Their conversation establishes the social hierarchy of the place. Although it’s evident in the interactions between the characters throughout the film, it’s spelt out in the dialogue. “You can be a white, Indian or Mexican,” Mendez tells his friend. “Now it pays you to be a white man… Put yourself on the winning side for a change.” Like Russell, he knows from first-hand experience what it’s like to be seen as an outsider in a white society. “A Mexican is closer to a white man than an Apache, I’ll tell you that,” he adds ruefully.


Diane Cilento


Russell follows his advice, but very much on his own terms. He visits the boarding-house, meets with its feisty manager, Jessie (Diane Cilento), and tells her he’s had an offer that he’s going to accept: the house “for a herd of horses down in Contention”. She asks what will happen to her. Since there’s no mention of her in the will, he tells her matter-of-factly, “It turns out I don’t have any responsibility toward you at all, do I?”

 

Although his status changes significantly during the course of the film, he has the mind-set of a survivor. He buys a “mudwagon” ticket to Contention – the stagecoach has officially closed down so the second-string mode of transportation is all that’s available – finding himself thrust into the company of half a dozen others, all heading out of Sweetwater for their own reasons. Billy Lee (Peter Lazer) and Doris (Margaret Blye) are a young married couple, her looking for something more out of her life, him overwhelmed by her dissatisfaction and the stresses of trying to find work in the rundown town. Jessie is strong-willed and well-equipped to hold her own against the disappointments that have dominated her life, the latest being her relationship with Sweetwater’s down-on-his-luck sheriff, Braden (Cameron Mitchell), who’s looking for way out rather than a wife. 


Richard Boone

 

Then there’s Dr. Favor, a retired Indian agent (Frederic March), who’s been embezzling government funding intended for the Apaches on the reservation he’d been running, and his much younger wife, Audra (Barbara Rush), a woman who’s been used to getting her own way and is willing to turn a blind eye to her husband’s transgressions. Also on board is Cicero Grimes (Richard Boone), who clearly means trouble. Mendez is in the driver’s seat. 

 

It’s worth noting that, in Leonard’s novella, there’s no Jessie, Doris is a young woman known only as “the McLaren girl”, who’d been abducted by Apaches but had escaped after a month, and Billy Lee is known as Carl Allen. A young innocent in the wild West, the unmarried Carl is also the book’s first-person narrator, so we’re introduced to all of the characters and the situations which arise through his account of them. However, while he means well, he’s not altogether reliable in his assessments of them or the events that unfold around them. Jessie (Diane Cilento), doesn’t have an equivalent in Leonard’s story. Grimes (Richard Boone) is named Braden in the book.

 

The changes and additional characters augment the malaise that hangs over Sweetwater in the film. And the poisonous racism that pervades it. Even Mendez, who’s otherwise supportive of Russell, describes him to Jessie as “a red devil”. Theirs is a rundown world which everyone is trying to escape, and, as is often the way with Westerns, it serves as a compelling microcosm of the nation of which it’s a tiny part. There’s no pioneering splendour in the lives the film’s characters are living, no commitment to community, no sense of a civilization on the rise.


The stagecoach passengers look to Russell during the holdup

None of them is happy about the hand that fate has dealt them. The only way to survive is to follow Jessie’s example. She doesn’t sit around feeling sorry for herself – like the pouting Doris – but shrugs her shoulders at her ill fortune and seeks out the next opportunity. Russell, however, has no interest in their problems. 

 

Seen in a wider context, he could be taken as a familiar American archetype, an enigmatic hero in waiting, one who initially declines to become involved in conflagrations or confrontations that he believes are somebody else’s business. Classically illustrated by Humphrey Bogart’s Rick in Casablanca (1942), this hero has to be persuaded that there are moral issues involved, social responsibilities that define what it means to be a member of a society, or simply to be human. 

 

As Russell waits at the station for the coach to arrive, a young soldier (Larry Ward) arrives, buys his ticket and takes his seat, explaining that he’s off to get married. Then Grimes makes his entrance, a saddle thrown over his shoulder. He’s told that there’s no room for him, so he saunters over to Russell and demands his ticket. The soldier intervenes, telling him that he’s out of order. Grimes immediately sizes him up as a likely target and threatens violence if the soldier doesn’t give him his ticket. Russell watches but displays no interest in coming to the soldier’s defence. Nor does anyone else. The soldier leaves. “You shoulda done something,” Jessie tells Russell (4). “It wasn’t my business,” Russell replies, unmoved. 

 

Margaret Blye, Barbara Rush, Diane Cilento

Yet earlier in the film, during the meeting with Mendez at Delgado’s station, when a pair of thugs (Skip Ward and Val Avery) had harassed two of Russell’s Apache friends (Pete Hernandez and Merrill C. Isbell), he had immediately taken that as his business. Armed with a rifle, he’d stepped in and swiftly put the thugs in their place. The contrast between the two scenes testifies to his alienation from white society and what is tantamount to a cold-blooded indifference to its problems.

 

Later in the film, nobody comes to Russell’s defence when Favor insists – claiming that it’s at his wife’s bidding – that he should ride in the shotgun seat alongside Mendez. Not even the generally outspoken Jessie. White society’s racism not only spurns those of a different colour or race but also anyone who’s come into close contact with them. 

 

The conversation between the passengers – Audra’s smug contempt for Indians makes her as obnoxious as Grimes is dangerous – has already indicated that, as soon as Russell’s time on the reservation becomes public knowledge, the news will transform him into an outsider. Russell’s anger is palpable, but he offers no protest. He’d expected nothing more from his travelling companions. 


Richard Boone, Barbara Rush, Frederic March

 

However, during the film’s latter stages, they find that they need his know-how and his fighting skills when Grimes turns out to be more than just an opportunistic bully. He’s also the ringleader of the motley group of no-goods who hold up the stage in order to get their hands on Dr. Favor’s stolen booty. 

 

The others in his gang are the disaffected Braden, the two thugs Russell had earlier confronted, and an unnamed Mexican who also addresses Russell as “hombre” and who could easily be mistaken as a trespasser from a Peckinpah Western (Frank Silvera). Audra is taken hostage while the other passengers on the coach manage to escape with the money, fleeing back towards Delgado’s station. But they’re not going to get there without a fight.

 

Hombre’s sympathies are clearly with Russell at the same time as it calls into question his refusal to be concerned on others’ behalf. Superficially, he has a lot in common with the kind of hero that Randolph Scott plays in Budd Boetticher’s Ranown cycle, strong silent types, laconic men of principle with a potent pragmatic streak, individuals who go their own way on their own terms. And, like them, he’s given a great final line. Warned by Grimes in the lead-up to the closing showdown that he’s putting himself at great risk, his response is of the devil-may-care kind: “We all die. It’s just a question of when.” 

 

But he’s also very different from these men. One can’t imagine a Scott character not taking a stand against Grimes at the coach station, or remaining aloof from the anguish of his fellow travellers. The further the film goes, the more we’re encouraged to question his responses to the situation in which circumstances have placed him. Like the classical Western hero, a torn character who conventionally rides away at the end, or dies, Russell doesn’t fit in. 

 

His torment is that, unlike Shane or The Searchers’ Ethan Edwards or Scott’s characters in the Ranown cycle who want to fit in but who depart for destinations somewhere “between the winds”, Russell has nowhere to go. Strategically eschewing any mythological account for why this might be, the socially conscious Ritt provides specific reasons for Russell’s displacement. He’s the creation of his personal history, not the human embodiment of a moral force invented to set the film’s world on the right course. 

 

Russell is a divided character and, indeed, a potentially tragic one: white by nature, but Apache in spirit. But the resolution it proposes to that seeming contradiction is, to put it bluntly, that it’s the Apache in him that needs to be exorcised. (5) That is, he needs to accept the moral imperatives of white society – largely articulated by Jessie in the film, but also implicit in its point of view – and to act on them. In other words, in order to be saved, he needs to be “tamed”. 


Ishkanay dealing with the racist thug (Skip Ward)
at Delgado's Station

 

If this reading of the film is accurate, Hombre might deserve a place alongside those other Westerns that turn their attention to the genre’s dark side, but its impulses can only generously be described as progressive. And its deeply rooted xenophobic undercurrent renders it problematic. Its drama pivots on questions of choice and social responsibility, but it firmly grounds the answers in the moral imperatives of the old-school Western. (6)

 

(1)       Although Will Wright in his classic study of the genre refers to it as “classical”, placing it in the company of ShaneDodge CityDestry Rides AgainDuel in the SunYellow SkyThe Far CountryVera Cruz and Canyon Passage. See Will Wright, Sixguns & Society: A Structural Study of the Western, University of California Press, 1975, p. 146 

 

(2)       Russell’s character in the film is partly based on the experiences of Jimmy McKinn, who was kidnapped as an 11-year-old by Geronimo and his band in 1885, given the name of Santiago, assimilated into the Apache way of life, and eventually rescued against his will. Via a shot taken by well-known Arizona photographer Camillus “Buck” Fly (1949 – 1901), he’s the boy seated in the foreground of a group of Apaches who’s linked to Russell by a slow dissolve in Hombre’s closing image. Click here

 

(3)       The Urban Dictionary points to the colloquial use of “hombre” as a slang term of endearment for a male, an indication that the speaker is happy to see him. The dictionary, an American one, offers “dude” or “homie” as alternatives (often preceded by “Yo”). The Australian equivalent might be “mate!” (or, rather, “maaaate!”)

 

(4)       In Leonard’s novella, the sentiment expressed in the line is given to Carl, Billy Lee’s equivalent.

 

(5)       It would have been interesting if the coach had encountered “untamed” Apaches during its journey, people who didn’t know about Russell’s background and who saw him, even though his skin has been browned by exposure to the elements, as just another blue-eyed paleface.

 

(6)       The late Australian filmmaker Tim Burstall (1927 – 2004) worked as an attachment on the film.

Monday, 5 July 2021

Streaming on Netflix - Janice Tong recommends DANCE OF THE 41 (EL BAILE DE LOS 41, David Pablos, Mexico, 2020)


If you’ve read my review of Malmkrog, you may recall that I quoted from French President Emmanuel Macron’s speech that he gave at the Bi-centenary commemorations of Napoleon at Institut de France in Paris. “To concede nothing to those who would erase the past because it does not suit their image of the present.”

The sanitising of history would never change prejudices, nor will it protect the next generation from the same; so brave a tale is told by David Pablos and screenwriter, Monika Revilla. The title of the film, El baile de los 41 refers to the night of November 17, 1901, where a raid was carried out in a private home in Mexico City; and the police arrested 41 unnamed men, (rumoured to be a 42nd person), where half the men were dressed in ladies’ fineries, adorned in European styled satin and silk dresses, accessorised with elegant wigs, jewellery and make-up; whilst the others were dressed in immaculately-tailored black-tie attire complete with white gloves.

This is a fictionalised account of the lead up to this historical night - a night which made history because it was the first time that the media in Mexico openly reported on gay men and their activities.
The story loosely follows Ignacio de la Torre, the newly appointed son-in-law (yes, appointed is the right word used here) to Mexico’s then president Porfirio Díaz (an impressive Fernando Becerril). Ignacio is played by Alfonso Herrera (you may have seen him in Sense8 or Ozark on Netflix), and commands a strong, almost formidable presence. A well educated businessman, Ignacio was well respected, politically minded and power-hungry; but he was also a gay man and led a secret life away from his new home. The marriage to Amada was a farce and whilst he had ‘served’ his duty to consummate their marriage, it was a pretty gruelling affair by his own account. He was not merely disinterested in her, he was incapable of loving her as his wife, because she was a woman.
There exists a club t0 which Ignacio belongs; there he and other members are able to freely and truly be themselves. They meet, have dinners, cross-dress, sing opera (there’s an exquisite reenactment of Mozart’s Queen of the Night aria towards the end of the film), play card games, and of course, have sex with other men, (there’s a beautifully-lit orgy scene) without the prejudices of the world imposing in on them. In this private world, everything seem to be suffused with a golden light, opulent and rich. The bath tub set design has a stage like ambience; there’s high colour in gilded and decorated rooms. We are literally transported into another world and, sadly, this world is almost dream-like (so we know the occupants would have to be woken up at some point) and far away from the rather harsh and stoic countenance of the ‘real’ world, coveted in a sombre green-grey palette. This latter environment, is where we find Amada (despite her fineries, and her beautiful house, her life is literally darker and paler in comparison).
For me, some of the most memorable moments in this film belong to the onscreen time between Ignacio and his lover, Evaristo or Eva as he’s called. A beautifully nuanced performance by Emiliano Zurita, whose quiet looks and sweet eyes reveal to us a tender fragility - of a man in love, standing in the presence of his lover. They were beautiful to watch, the horse-back ride after a morning of love and their short reprieve in the river brought a sense of freedom to their hidden selves. The scene in bed of their restful figures after being together shows us that love is love, and neither god nor man should judge anyone for feeling this emotion.


Herrera and Zurita worked for two or more months to get to know each other as a person to finely tune their on-screen performance.
So, why would a story like this be brave? It is after all 2021 and same-sex marriage has been legalised in Mexico since 2009 (the first in Latin-America and before the US Supreme Court passed its law).
The ‘outing’ of the 41 brought homosexuality to the public eye for the very first time in 1901- it was the press who coined the term “the dance of the forty-one”. But at the time, there was no LGBTQ rights for these men. Diaz was a corrupt 7 term president who served his own interest. There was no trial; the men who cross-dressed were ridiculed and humiliated, they were made to sweep the streets in their attire. Some were sent to Yucatán to assist in military activities; not to help the soldiers fight the Mayans, but to carry out lowly duties like digging trenches and cleaning latrines.
Even now, more than 120 years later, there is still a stigma attached to the number 41 in Mexican society. I must admit I knew nothing of this, and was shocked to learn how ingrained it was - army battalions and police do not have a 41st unit, many hospitals and hotels don’t have the room number 41 and buildings with no 41st floor; the number 41 is still associated with gay men in a negative way and used as a term of denigration and shame.
There is still murkiness associated with the ‘dance’. Some reports say that the names of those arrested were not released due to their elite status in upper-class society, in addition, the rumoured mixing between classes in the 41 was also taboo. Ignacio’s name was reportedly dropped from the newspaper because he was the President’s son in law in order to not taint the government.
A strong performance from Mabel Cadena as Amada, whose demands of her husband were not uncalled for, but her lack of tolerance for this behaviour (staying out late, not fulfilling his duty as a husband) and finally, her discovery of the love letters from Eva cast her heart in stone, finally sealed the fate of the 41. Let’s not forget she was a woman who was more at home wielding a shot gun than sitting at the piano and her rage was not to be contained until the other's heart was torn. Although as an audience we end up hating her, but we should see her as another victim of her father’s selfishness. Her marriage to Ignacio was more of a business transaction than a consideration for her happiness. 

David Pablos

It took Pablos more than six years to develop this film. He received a grant from the government to develop young talents. For Pablos, it was an opportunity to bring out of the “edges or shadows” LGBTQ identity and history in Mexico, in order to educate the new generations, as well as to recognise this “brotherhood” that had been taboo for all those years, and restore to them the dignity they deserve on screen. Pablos and his incredible cast, (he made sure that most of the cast in the ‘41’ group were openly gay) were brought to life by the sensitive cinematography of Carolina Costa. The production design and wonderful costumes make this an opulent historical drama that carries with it an important message at its heart.


Sunday, 4 July 2021

Chaplin's great feature films back in restored digital copies in Melbourne and Sydney - Screening times and booking links


Charlie Chaplin Retrospective at
Classic, Lido, Cameo and Ritz Cinemas

Coinciding with the 100th anniversary of Chaplin's first full-length feature, The Kid, in a new 4K restoration.

 

Classic, Lido and Cameo Cinemas in Melbourne and Ritz Cinemas in Sydney are showing ten feature films by one of cinema's greatest comedians, Charlie Chaplin, in brand new 4K and 2K restorations.

Over a century after he rose to fame, Chaplin remains one of cinema's most enduring icons, especially in the guise of his popular character the Little Tramp, with his trademark bowler hat, bamboo cane and toothbrush moustache. He had a unique ability to combine slapstick comedy with deeply-felt pathos, and even ventured into bold political themes, satirising Adolf Hitler and fascism in the midst of World War Two in his film The Great Dictator (1940). 

The retrospective coincides with the 100th anniversary of Chaplin's first full-length feature, The Kid (1921), restored to a stunning 4K presentation. The Circus (1928) is also presented in 4K and the remaining titles have been restored to 2K presentations. There will be one film shown each month (except December) from July 2021 until May 2022, starting with five silent films and then five 'talkies'. Each film will have three sessions only at Classic and Lido, and two sessions only at Cameo and Ritz – see the program below for all dates and session times.

The cinemas will be mixing 'Charlie Chaplin' cocktails for these screenings, which will be available to purchase from their bars. The 'Charlie Chaplin' is a classic cocktail made with equal parts sloe gin, apricot brandy and lime juice.

Chaplin was a notorious perfectionist and he wrote, directed, produced, starred in, edited, and composed the music for most of his films. He co-founded the distribution company United Artists in 1919, allowing him complete control over his films. He was the recipient of three Academy Awards in his life: two Honorary Awards (in 1929 and 1972) and one for Best Score (for Limelight in 1973). His first Honorary Academy Award was for "versatility and genius in acting, writing, directing, and producing The Circus" and the second was for "the incalculable effect he has had in making motion pictures the art form of this century."

CHARLIE CHAPLIN RETROSPECTIVE PROGRAM – CLASSIC AND LIDO
The Kid (1921), 4K presentation – Saturday 17 July, 1.30pm // Monday 19 July, 1.30pm // Wednesday 21 July, 7pm
A Woman of Paris (1923), 2K presentation – Saturday 21 August, 1.30pm // Monday 23 August, 1.30pm // Wednesday 25 August, 7pm
The Circus (1928), 4K presentation – Saturday 18 September, 1.30pm // Monday 20 September, 1.30pm // Wednesday 22 September, 7pm
City Lights (1931), 2K presentation – Saturday 16 October, 1.30pm // Monday 18 October, 1.30pm // Wednesday 20 October, 7pm
Modern Times (1936), 2K presentation – Saturday 20 November, 1.30pm // Monday 22 November, 1.30pm // Wednesday 24 November, 7pm
The Great Dictator (1940), 2K presentation – Saturday 8 January, 1.30pm // Monday 10 January, 1.30pm // Wednesday 12 January, 7pm
The Gold Rush (1942), 2K presentation – Saturday 5 February, 1.30pm // Monday 7 February, 1.30pm // Wednesday 9 February, 7pm
Monsieur Verdoux (1947), 2K presentation – Saturday 5 March, 1.30pm // Monday 7 March, 1.30pm // Wednesday 9 March, 7pm
Limelight (1952), 2K presentation – Saturday 9 April, 1.30pm // Monday 11 April, 1.30pm // Wednesday 13 April, 7pm
A King in New York (1957), 2K presentation – Saturday 7 May, 1.30pm // Monday 9 May, 1.30pm // Wednesday 11 May, 7pm

Tickets available at Classic here.
Tickets available at Lido here.


CHARLIE CHAPLIN RETROSPECTIVE PROGRAM – CAMEO AND RITZ
The Kid (1921), 4K presentation – Saturday 17 July, 1.30pm // Monday 19 July, 1.30pm
A Woman of Paris (1923), 2K presentation – Saturday 21 August, 1.30pm // Monday 23 August, 1.30pm
The Circus (1928), 4K presentation – Saturday 18 September, 1.30pm // Monday 20 September, 1.30pm
City Lights (1931), 2K presentation – Saturday 16 October, 1.30pm // Monday 18 October, 1.30pm
Modern Times (1936), 2K presentation – Saturday 20 November, 1.30pm // Monday 22 November, 1.30pm
The Great Dictator (1940), 2K presentation – Saturday 8 January, 1.30pm // Monday 10 January, 1.30pm
The Gold Rush (1942), 2K presentation – Saturday 5 February, 1.30pm // Monday 7 February, 1.30pm
Monsieur Verdoux (1947), 2K presentation – Saturday 5 March, 1.30pm // Monday 7 March, 1.30pm
Limelight (1952), 2K presentation – Saturday 9 April, 1.30pm // Monday 11 April, 1.30pm
A King in New York (1957), 2K presentation – Saturday 7 May, 1.30pm // Monday 9 May, 1.30pm


Tickets available at Cameo here.
Tickets available at Ritz here.

Please note: dates are subject to change depending on COVID-19 related lockdowns and restrictions.

Streaming and on French TV - John Baxter reacquaints with some Brit rock movies of the 70s - THAT'LL BE THE DAY (Claude Whatham, 1973) and STARDUST (Michael Apted, 1974)

 
ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING

            In 1965, the Rolling Stones declined to appear on TV’s Shindig unless it also booked blues singer Howlin’ Wolf. A murky YouTube video immortalises the result. After Mick Jagger interrupts a fatuous presenter to explain how the Stones plundered Wolf’s repertoire for such hits as Little Red Rooster, Brian Jones interjects tersely “Why don’t you just shut up and let him sing?” Cue Wolf, an imposing six-foot three who, with the stately presence of a Zulu king, strides through his fawning fans to seize the mike and launch into How Many Years. 

            French TV, as part of a half-hearted rock film season, recently screened two early British contributions to the genre, Claude Whatham’s That’ll Be the Day  andMichael Apted’s Stardust (1973 and 1974). One might wish they had dug deeper and unearthed such oddities as John Boorman’s Catch Us If You Can (1965), showcasing the Dave Clark Five, but at least we were spared the saccharine jollity of Summer Holiday.

            That’ll Be the Day is less about music than the cultural aridity of post-war Britain and the way teenagers of the time embraced American R&B as the emblem of everything lacking in their lives.  Instead of American Graffiti‘s Wolfman Jack, their generation had coffee shop juke boxes and pirate radio stations broadcasting from just beyond the three mile limit. Thom Gunn, Britain’s closest approach to a beat poet, grasped that it was about more than just the music. Of Elvis Presley, he wrote “Distorting hackneyed words in hackneyed songs/He turns revolt into a style.” 

             Producer David Puttnam and author Ray Connolly tapped memories of their own adolescence for That’ll Be the Day. The impulse of which Gunn wrote, and the challenge of something new and exciting just out of reach, stirs Jim Maclaine (David Essex) into dumping his schoolbooks and following his footloose father (James Booth) in a flight from life as a suburban grocer. 

David Essex, Ringo Starr, That'll Be The Day

            During a stint in another post-war leisure institution, the holiday camp, Jim hooks up with Mike (Ringo Starr, showing surprising skill as an actor) who recruits him as a carnival roustabout. They cheat and fornicate their way across England, enveloped always in a haze of American pop, until Jim, more by chance than good judgement, finds himself in a group. The film ends with him buying his first guitar. 

            Like American Graffiti, That’ll Be the Day isn’t about music at all, except as an expression of youthful revolt. Jim might just as easily have been a painter or athlete– except that neither could have taken the next essential step, that of transmuting rebellion into money.  Essex, recruited from the cast of the musical Godspell,  doesn’t sing a note in the film,  but Puttnam cannily interested a packager in a compilaton album of the songs heard as background music. Lavishly marketed on TV like a similar American Graffiti  anthology, it drew millions to the cinema, and encouraged EMI to fund a second film,  following Jim Maclaine to super-stardom. 

            Stardust finds him as lead singer in The Stray Cats, a struggling band, albeit one overloaded with talent.  Paul Nicholas, soon to feature in Ken Russell’s Tommy and Lisztomania,  is its priapic lead guitarist, and its drummer is The Who’s antic Keith Moon. Replacing Ringo Starr, real life pop star Adam Faith is Mike, now elevated to band manager. In the film’s first scene, Jim finds him at the carnival, watching news reports of the John Kennedy assassination. “It’s been quiet tonight,” he says laconically. “I thought there must be something good on the telly.” 

David Essex, Adam Faith, Stardust

            In Faith’s cunningly underplayed performance, his character moves to centre stage. Expert at doing shady deals and disposing of inconvenient collaborators, each time preceded by the apparently innocuous invitation “Fancy a drink?”, he first makes The Stray Cats famous, then cuts Jim loose to stand alone on the shaky pedestal of world fame.

            Jim’s French girlfriend Danielle (Ines de Longchamps) is the first to sense more than comradely affection in Mike’s dedication. “Is he not beautiful?” she murmurs, intercepting one of his rapt stares.  His scandalised denial of any homoerotic interest signals that she too will soon join his other victims on the scrap heap of Jim’s growing fame. 

 

Adam Faith, Ines de Longchamps, David Essex 

            Ringo Starr declined to repeat the role of Mike rather than seem to criticise Paul McCartney for manoeuvring The Beatles into embracing American management methods, embodied in the film by brash media mogul Larry Hagman. Not that either Lennon or McCartney ever entertained the inflated ambitions that lead Jim to retire to a castle in Spain (sic) and write a pompous oratorio in praise of women, but there’s no shortage of former lead singers who did so, and came catastrophically to grief. 


David Essex, the castle in Spain, Stardust

            Generations who grew up after the Elvis era, knowing only the obese poseur of the Las Vegas years, and who are baffled by the reverence he inspired, will find some explanations in these films. The baby-faced Essex, an indifferent singer and even less accomplished actor, might seem an odd choice for the role of a superstar but his very incompetence emphasizes the crucial importance of timing in this overcrowded field. Talent matters little if, by distorting hackneyed words in hackneyed songs, one can turn revolt into a style.

***********************            

A good copy of That’ll be the Day is streaming if you click here and Stardust   if you click here

Alfred Hitchcock's THE PLEASURE GARDEN (Germany, 1926) - Ken Mogg unravels the joys of the Master's Debut Feature


Then we had several cognacs, and finally the two German girls got into bed.
  And the young girl in our party, who was a student, put on her glasses to make sure she wouldn’t miss anything.

-      Alfred Hitchcock

In Hitchcock’s British films, the convergence of sexuality and violent crime is [already] central …

-      Tom Ryall(1)

 

THE PLEASURE GARDEN IS notable for being both Hitchcock’s first feature and for its murder scene – and more.  The scene comes near the end, though for a little while it looks as if it may be followed by another, even more violent.  The killer, Levet(2) (Miles Mander), has gone mad after being found by his trusting young wife Patsy (Virginia Valli) in flagrante delecti with his native-girl mistress(3).  This scene is no more cursory than the murder scene, 25 years later, in Strangers on a Train, by which I mean that it is both carefully built up to and is not suddenly over.  Rather, it piles emotion on contrary emotion before its final, deathly pay-off.  We watch as the native girl appears to despair and wades out to sea (‘Oh no!’, we may hear ourselves say).  However, Levet plunges after her; when she becomes aware of his presence, she turns back to him gratefully (‘Oh good!’, we think).  But, next minute, she learns her mistake: he pushes her head firmly underwater and holds it there (‘Oh no!’).  At this point Hitchcock includes an underwater shot of her legs briefly threshing about (‘Oh no, no!’).  This is scarcely novice-filmmaking.(4)


Elizabeth Pappritz as the  native girl

Villains and victims

Levet’s character, that of the classic villain, is in keeping with the one in (Mrs) Oliver Sandys’s 1923 novel where he says: ‘Women were put into this world for us. There’s nothing in it.  P’raps I’ve never had a conscience.  Shouldn’t know what to do with it if I had’ (Chapter XLVII).  I’ll come back to the novel.  Hitchcock brings his own modifications and subtleties to it.  He carefully focusses on the two chorines, Patsy and Jill (Carmelita Geraghty), from the Pleasure Garden Theatre in London, and for a while we like them both equally – an early sign of Hitchcock’s even-handedness, as if he felt duty-bound to show people and things at their most favourable.  As we know, even his villains ‘have their reasons’ (if I may plagiarise a phrase of the always even-handed Jean Renoir). Levet finally feels guilt when found out.  In Jill’s case, we feel sorry for her from the moment when - a newcomer fresh up from the country - she is robbed of her purse outside the stage door before she has even gone inside to audition.  That blow may explain, and extenuate, some of her later hard-heartedness when it comes to advancing herself.  Fortunately for her, Patsy learns of her plight, and immediately takes the smiling Jill under her wing.  However, Hitchcock’s ambiguity is already present.            

Consider another early scene.  We see Patsy pay off the two girls’ taxi-driver.  Once inside, Jill shows her a photo of Hugh (John Stuart), her fiancé – and promptly yawns.  Soon the girls retire to bed.  So, is Jill’s yawn just from tiredness, or does it also betray how she is already becoming indifferent to Hugh, whom she will soon throw over in favour of several wealthy suitors who sense her availability?  (From early in Hitchcock’s career, he showed himself a master of over-determinings.)  As for the scene of the girls tumbling into Patsy’s bed, it starts with their haste to change into their night attire, and then – after Jill has said her prayers beside the bed – her instinctive hogging of the bed’s single pillow.  She now seems indifferent to others’ kindness!  But could the girls’ haste to go to bed be a sign of something else?  Apparently it may be.  (Note. I have seen two different prints of The Pleasure Garden.  Nonetheless, extra footage has emerged in a print recently compiled by the British Film Institute but not yet made available on DVD.(5))  Hitchcock has said that the scene of the girls in bed occurred to him after he had witnessed two German lesbians unabashedly doing their stuff in front of him and others – including a bespectacled young student who promptly ‘put on her glasses to make sure she wouldn’t miss anything’.  Reader, don’t you love that reference to the girl in spectacles?  She would return in later Hitchcock films, although – to be clear - not necessarily as played by Pat Hitchcock.  Such a character is in The Pleasure Garden itself, assisting the theatre’s manager, Hamilton (Georg Shnell) – who, though, seems to welcome the attentions of the company’s male couturier, to be mentioned further below.



Sexy

The Pleasure Garden is a very sexy film, showing that Hitch was already fascinated by such matters and was prepared to lead us after him.  The chorus at the Pleasure Garden features a row of high-kicking girls who, at the start, come tripping down a narrow spiral staircase (above) – seemingly endlessly - as in a certain type of dream.  Then Hitchcock effectively shows us ourselves: in the front row of the audience sits a line of appreciative middle-aged male patrons, some with monocles or opera glasses – though a woman at the end of the row, not sharing ‘the male gaze’, is nodding off.  The theatre’s very name gives the idea (while no doubt being an ironic allusion to an earlier, biblical garden).  At one point during rehearsal, the cigar-wielding Hamilton comes onstage and roughly handles Patsy – just as if she were a chattel of his, which is probably how he does see his line of female beauties.  As noted, he may prefer the attentions of the male couturier whom we will see with an arm draped around Hamilton’s shoulder.  Levet, when we meet him, proves to have a roaming eye, and that even after he has married Patsy.  After a brief honeymoon at Lake Como, he goes off overseas for two years.  Their wedding, for him, seems to have been no more than one of convenience, a way to have some quick sex with Patsy after Hugh had introduced them.  (The naïve Hugh will himself be betrayed by the fortune-hunting Jill, their relationship a mirror reflection of Patsy’s with Levet.)  Even in small and seemingly incidental details – like Patsy’s kiss curl or the name of her dog, Cuddles – the matter of affection and intimacy is never far away.

There’s an extra scene (illustrated below) with the male couturier in the so-called Rohauer print in which Jill is handing him a wad of money to buy her trousseau before she marries a wealthy Russian prince.  (This scene comes straight after Jill has refused to help Patsy with her fare to rush to Levet, whom she believes ill.)  It’s a striking image.  The fellow is positively creepy, wringing his hands in anticipation, and one leg rubbing the other – he’s a regular Uriah Heep!  (Hitchcock had read several Dickens novels in school.)  So many of the film’s characters, excepting Patsy and Hugh, who will finally get together, are impostors or otherwise unpleasant – the alleged Russian prince is certainly a phoney.  However, two people who are good-hearted in word and deed are Patsy’s landlords, Mr and Mrs Sidey.  When Jill won’t help Patsy with her fare, Patsy must turn desperately to the Sideys, and they don’t let her down.  We see Mr Sidey climb on a chair to reach a biscuit tin stashed away on the topmost shelf of the kitchen sideboard.  Although he breaks a few plates, Mr Sidey manages to reach the tin and haul it down, and inside is the Sideys’ life savings.  Without a sign of reluctance, Sidey hands over the contents to Patsy.  


Pared-down details

It’s another mark of Hitchcock’s even-handedness: for every murderous Levet or selfish Jill there are good characters like Hugh or the Sideys. Incidentally, speaking of Dickens, George Orwell observed a trait of Dickens’s style: his fondness of ‘unnecessary detail’.  The cinema allowed Hitchcock to modify such a trait: rather than unnecessary detail, Hitchcock had an eye for the telling, pared-down detail, such as those two or three broken plates when an unsteady Sidey reaches for the biscuit tin high up on top of the sideboard.  I was reminded of the close-up in The Birds of broken cups hanging from hooks on another sideboard, signalling how a swarm of birds have invaded the house overnight.  (The house is that of Mrs Brenner’s neighbour.  She will shortly find him dead in his bedroom, his eyes pecked out.)

Mind, there are small discontinuities in The Pleasure Garden that seem to show the young director’s fallibility, and perhaps a haste to immediately start work on his next film, the now-disappeared The Mountain Eagle (also 1926)(6), lined up for him by his enthusiastic producer Michael Balcon.  (Perhaps only later would Hitch cultivate the meticulous attention to detail about which he justifiably prided himself.)  Some of these discontinuities may have been induced by careless cutting of the prints we now have by enterprising cinema managers who wanted to fit two features on a double-bill.  For example, Patsy and Jill’s taxi-driver disappears from the middle of the Sidey’s entrance hall, and is seen no more – then a clumsy cut shows Mrs Sidey ushering her husband out the door, as if he were the taxi-driver. But other seeming errors may have resulted from Hitchcock’s not yet being in full control.  Repeatedly, titles refer to Levet and Hugh going ‘out East’ (and indeed the second half of the novel is set in Burma), yet when Levet writes to his wife to tell her that he has arrived at his destination - ‘an unhealthy spot’ - the page is clearly headed ‘ N. West Africa’.  Hardly ‘out East’!  (The same letter reports that Levet is ‘down with fever’, hence a concerned Patsy’s rushing to join him.)

 

Jill toys with the phoney Russian prince (Karl Falkenberg)          

Rhythmn

Still, there are already plenty of Hitchcock touches in The Pleasure Garden.  I think of a moment when Levet has set his intentions on marrying Patsy, and approaches her from behind in the street.  Just for a moment she is unaware of him.  We see Levet’s shadow loom on a wall, and then, next minute, he is tapping her on the shoulder.  The shadow contributes to our already dubious feelings about him.  I recall that Hitch would use a similar technique in Foreign Correspondent (1940) to characterise the duplicitous Fisher (Herbert Marshall) and to undercut his smooth exterior. I also note an observation by Henry K. Miller in ‘The Guardian’ (30 June, 2012) after he had seen the restored print: ‘Above all, the film has got its rhythm back.  Patsy and Levet’s picturesque but curdled honeymoon sequence, shot around Lake Como, plays as Hitchcock inferably intended: longish, slowish, and sad, standing out from the rest.  It is also in this section that the restored image comes into its own: almost unrecognisably cleaner, more detailed, pleasingly tinted and toned, and jerk-free.’  (Miller notes that the film’s intertitles – a Hitchcock specialty from his early training – significantly contribute to its rhythm.)(7)

Not to be mentioned...

Finally, I’d like to comment on the Oliver Sandys(8) novel. It is revealing of some attitudes in England between the Wars that tend not to be mentioned these days.  (To Hitchcock’s credit, they aren’t in the screenplay.)  First, there’s a note of anti-semitism.  Gaynor (= Patsy) says that she’s heard that Hamilton is ‘all things to all men and different to every woman.  First and foremost, he’s a Jew … out to make a profit on his grandmother if the chance [arises].’  (Chapter V) Equally,  there’s an advocacy of eugenics (or worse), as when Jerrie (= Jill) says: ‘I think something ought to be done in civilised countries … about putting away freaks and eyesores and maimed people, and – and nuisances.’ (Chapter VIII)  (Gaynor immediately protests at the extremeness of this view, although agreeing that ‘It would be nicer if there weren’t any freaks or deformities or ugly people born at all’, and adding, ‘Even a State or cold-blooded government doesn’t look at it in that light!’)  Not surprisingly, racism is also on view.  Gaynor admits, ‘I – I don’t like driving in a black man’s car, or even accepting his favours indirectly.’  (‘I’d rather walk’, she says.)  (Chapter XXXII)

Indirectly, Hitchcock may comment on this sort of thing when he ends his film with a shot of the innocuous Mr Sidey trying to tune his crystal radio.  Sidey seems distanced from such odious attitudes – although for that very reason he may still be culpable.  (In the 1940s Hitchcock would let drop his phrase about ‘the moron millions’.)                                

 

Notes

1. Tom Ryall, ‘Alfred Hitchcock & the British Cinema’ (1986)

2.  The novel spells his name as ‘Levett’.

3. The native girl seems to have been played by one Elizabeth Pappritz, a 19-year-old, whom Hitchcock liked to refer to as ‘my little German girl’.  The website Brenton Film – a pun,  since it is run by the knowledgeable Brent Reid – points out that Peter Noble’s claim in 1949 that the native girl is played by Nita Naldi (who would star in The Mountain Eagle) is mistaken: Naldi did not even arrive in Europe until two months after shooting of The Pleasure Garden had ended.   

4.  Hitchcock served his apprenticeship under director Graham Cutts – who reportedly grew increasingly jealous of Hitchcock’s talent.

5. Reportedly the new BFI print runs for an extra 20 minutes, after being transferred at 20fps.  The BFI is still trying to get finance to put a music track on this print before it is released on DVD.  I have worked from the oldBFI print (shown on Australian television) and from the print that was once distributed by Raymond Rohauer, which has some scenes not in my other print.

6.  What may be the fullest synopsis available of The Mountain Eagle is in my book, ‘The Alfred Hitchcock Story’ (2008), which I compiled from as many other plot summaries as I could find.

7.  Another comment on the film that I like is Dave Kehr’s in the ‘New York Times’ (19 June 2013) where he notes that Patsy, whom we first see onstage and from a distance wearing a blonde wig, ‘turns out to be not a remote, inaccessible erotic object but … an approachable, down-to-earth woman with dark hair (establishing a dichotomy that goes right down to Barbara Harris and Karen Black in Hitchcock’s final film, the 1976 Family Plot).’

8. Not the author’s real name (even with ‘Mrs’ added at the front), which was the much more feminine ‘Marguerite Florence Laura Jarvis’.  (Source: ‘Brenton Film’ – see footnote 3, above.)       

****************************

Editor's Note: This is the eleventh essay by Hitchcock scholar Ken Mogg to have been published on Film Alert 101.

The other essays can be found if you click on these links.

Under Capricorn 

The Man Who Knew Too Much

Vertigo

Vertigo's Cinema Sources

Hitchcock's Methods

I Confess



About the author


Ken Mogg has published widely on Hitchcock; his The Alfred Hitchcock Story(1999, revised 2008) covers every film 'in loving detail'  (Bill Krohn, Cahiers du Cinéma). His recent writing includes a chapter on Topaz and (the script of) The Short Night in Hitchcock and the Cold War (Pace University Press, 2018), a chapter on Alfred Hitchcock Presents in Children, Youth, and American Television (Routledge, 2018), a chapter on "Hitchcock's Literary Influences" for A Companion to Alfred Hitchcock(Wiley Blackwell 2011, pb 2014), and an essay on "The Cutting Room" in 39 Steps to the Genius of Alfred Hitchcock (BFI, 2012). Ken has also written "Psycho Considerations" (2020), on the hitchcockmaster website if you click here    


Ken Mogg's email address is muffin@labyrinth.net.au.


Critics applaud Jean-Pierre Melville's ARMY OF SHADOWS (France, 1969) - Screening in Melbourne Sunday 11 July at 4.00 pm at the Elsternwick Classic and Monday 12 July at 7.00 pm at the Hawthorn Lido


Click here to watch a trailer

David Stratton writes to Cinema Reborn enthusiasts. 

“Much as I admire Jean-Pierre Melville’s hard-boiled thrillers, I think his best film is L’ARMÉE DES OMBRES, perhaps because it reflects his own experience in the French Resistance during World War II.  It’s one of those films where the direction seems effortless but its nail-biting depiction of a dangerous, tragic underground war is gripping from start to finish.”

 

Simone Signoret, Lino Ventura

L’ARMÉE DES OMBRES/ARMY OF SHADOWS (1969,145 mins)

“Bad memories, welcome… you are my long lost youth.” Often seen as a transposition of Melville’s beloved gangster genre to the underworld of the Resistance in wartime France, this unbearably moving reverie faithfully adapts Joseph Kessel’s seminal novel to the screen. The film’s dream-like, almost clandestine sense of geography, place and period is matched to the soulful, autumnal mood created by cinematographer Pierre Lhomme. Perhaps the greatest cinematic testament to the lived experience of the French Resistance. Featuring beautifully modulated performances by Lino Ventura, Paul Meurisse and Simone Signoret.(Adrian Danks, Co-curator Melbourne Cinémathèque).

 


Manohla Dargis,  New York Times

“…a thrilling story about a handful of French Resistance fighters that also happens to be a masterpiece.”


David Thomson, Have You Seen

It’s a world in which strangers or shadows come together under code names, in which brothers may not know that they follow the same bleak service, and in which you sometimes murder your own people to prevent the risk of their talking. The threat of torture and helpless betrayal, hangs over the whole enterprise, and part of the film’s grip, I find, comes from the certain understanding that even the Paris one loves and admires was once chilled by this terror.

Chris Peachment, Time Out Film Guide

“…the summit of both his own work and his collaboration with the actor Ventura…Melville’s style here has a quite outstanding hallucinatory quality entirely appropriate to its subject of lives and memories that are forced underground for too long.” 

Book Tickets at the Classic here


Book Tickets at the Lido here