Wednesday, December 17, 2008

King Vidor and The Crowd

THE CROWD (1928)
DIRECTED BY:
King Vidor
STARRING: James Murray, Eleanor Boardman, Bert Roach
NOMINATED FOR: Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production
Best Director, Dramatic Picture (King Vidor)

An intersting question is posed in Preston Sturges's 1941 film Sullivan's Travels: What film better serves the people, the tragedy or the comedy? Realism or escapism? Do people want to see their world reflected back at them, or see a fantasy with a happy ending?

Why not both? Why not laugh at our tragic world?

Maybe I'm a sick, twisted person, but I laughed more at King Vidor's The Crowd then I cried. The Crowd is not a comedy, it's 100% tragic drama. People lose their jobs, children die, parents die, and by the end all seems hopeless. AND I COULDN'T STOP LAUGHING.

This might just be because I see so much of my own personal history in the film. The actual events of the film aren't even close to what have happened to me and my family, but the same feelings of half-assed enthusiasm, of "waiting for my ship to come in" ring true of many different moments in life. Maybe I'm just laughing at myself.



The film opens on the 4th of July, 1900. While everyone else is celebrating, Mr. Sims impatiently waits for the birth of his son, John Sims, who comes out of the womb rather clean. Mr. Sims glows, and promises to give his son every opportunity.


Twelve years pass. John Sims is now a young boy, and he and his friends sit on a fence and discuss what they want to be when they grow up. I've seen this film three times, and on the third time I think I figured what King Vidor was doing here. The boys on the fence are acting as a scale of sorts, measuring the childrens' future plans from the most expected of them to the most absurd.

On the far left, we see the group's one black friend, who aims to become a preacher, submitting to his own racial stereotype.


On the far right, a wimpy nerd child wishes to become a cowboy, which is of course impossible, because a) a cowboy isn't an actual occupation, and b) this kid's got Wet Willie written all over him.


And smack dab in the middle is John Sims, who doesn't have a clue what he wants to be, but echoing the words of his father, he thinks he's going to be something big.


However, the scene is cut short when a horse-drawn ambulance pulls up to John's house. It turns out that John's father died for an undisclosed reason, leaving John alone to face the world.


This moment of John having his support system ripped away from him is symbolized by an amazing shot of John slowly walking up the stairs to his father's body. King Vidor takes a riff from German expressionism, shooting the stairs so it looks like the walls are expanding outward, giving the illusion of space expanding as one goes up the stairs. The crowd of friends and loved ones remain below while John walks into this big new world, all alone with no one to guide him.

Now, for many films, a parent dying might just be used as a throw-away tragedy, but once again, on my third viewing, I realized just how important this moment is to the rest of the film. John's father wasn't rich. but based on the size of their house, Mr. Sims was pretty well off and knew how to make it in the world. With this life compass taken away from him, John Sims can't grow up anymore.


So, when we see John at the age of 21 on a boat to New York City, we find he's basically a giant man-child. Wearing big man clothes and a goofy smile, carrying a suitcase with his name on it in big bold letters, and dreaming of his future with the same unspecified optimism he had at the age of 12, it's clear that without his father's guidance, John hasn't grown up much these past nine years.

John's arrival to New York City triggers the film's most famous moment: a montage of city scenes, which Vidor filmed candidly. The montage is in three parts. The first part scenes of crowds racing around, a sea of people for John to get lost in:




In one scene, a window reflects a crowd on top of another, the crowd losing itself in itself.


The second part of the montage gives us a bird eye view of different parts of the city, showing us just how big the city really is:




The final part of the montage shows us skyscrapers from the ground, giving us the same view as the crowd, showing off just how big the buildings are. In effect, the entire montage has given us three means to measure the size of this city (the population and both the horizontal and vertical scope of the city) and how small one person is in comparison.




The montage ends with a shot of a model building. In a wonderful bit of early special effects, we pan up the building and zoom into one window, slowly enter the building to find a sea of workers at their desks, and slowly zoom in to one desk to find John Sims now hard to work as one of the crowd.


The film makes the point that very few people stick out in the crowd. In a scene where John uses the washroom, he encounters three people who repeat the same bad joke, and John comments on how they all talk alike. The washroom itself reflects this conformaty literally, as two walls of mirrors multiple the same people to infinite.

In fact, when we're introduced to John's friend Bert, the film has to go so far as breaking the fourth wall by having Bert look directly into the camera, as a way of saying, "Hey audience, you should pay attention to this character."


Bert drags John into a blind-double-date, where he gets paired with plain-Jane office girl Mary.


This scene really shows how dated the film is. John and Mary's date shows a lot of pre-feminism behavior, with John teasing Mary's womanhood, touching her without asking, and being generally invasive. If a guy acted like that on a first date these days, he'd get cuffed faster then the Roadrunner. Oh well, you can't change history.


While riding on top of a double-decker bus, John and Mary spot a clown advertising a shoe store. While this is the build up for a payoff much later in the film, this scene works on it's own by showing us the extreme a person has to go to get noticed in the crowd.


So, after a long night at the local fair, John and Mary take the bus home, with Mary snoozing on John's shoulder. John sees a housing advertisment on the wall, which inspires him to ask the drowzy Mary to marry him. She nods and then goes back to sleep.


And so they get married, and take a typical honeymoon at Niagra Falls. This theme of "life dictated by advertisment" is recurring throughout the film, sort of an early anti-commercial backdrop seen in a lot of modern-day films. We learn early in the film that one of John's hobbies is coming up with ad slogans, and whilst riding the train to their honeymoon, John and Mary plan out their lives by using newspaper ads as guides.


Reminds me of when I was a little kid. My dad used to collect architecture magazines, and I spent a lot of time constructing a dream house by picking and choosing different parts from different houses from different magazines.

Anyway, after discovering their dream home in news print, they turn the page.


Considering how caught up they both are in the fantasy, Mary's reaction is understandable.


The honeymoon ends, and after a few months, John and Mary settles down in a small apartment next to some railroad tracks (which, if we've learned anything from Se7en, is one of the worst things in the world). These apartment scenes hold the "Leave it to Beaver" distinction of showing the first toilet on film.


The couple are at first happy, though it's clear that John is a bit of a slacker. While Mary cooks meals and calls fix-it-men and other pre-feminism house wife stuff, John sits around with a ukulele and sings about how his big break is coming, yes sir.


As sadly is the case with many couples (including my recently now-ex roommates), things get worse. Small problems with the apartment build up, and John blames Mary for every single one of them ("Why didn't you call the plumber? Why didn't you tell me this was broken?"). After a long, painful breakfest scene, Mary decides she can't take it anymore and starts packing. We later learn that she's really just acting out and waiting for John to stop her.

But he doesn't. He just yells at her and leaves. Mary is shocked. What comes next is a great moment in pantomime as Mary cries over her situation, and then realizes that she forget to tell John a little something...







Awesome.

Mary's pregnancy puts life back into their marriage, and nine months later, Mary gives birth to a baby boy. The scene in the hospital, with John playing the pacing, fidgety father-to-be, is pretty funny, but it also includes this shot, which I again really only noticed the third time of watching it.


Compare it to the earlier scene of young John going up the stairs.


With the angle of the walls and the direction John is facing in each picture, it's almost as if they're mirror images of each other. If this were a different film, you could succesfully cut these scenes together to show a boy, losing his father, quickly growing into a man, becoming a father.


Years pass (time flies quickly in this film), and two things happen, Mary and John have a daughter, and John gets a small raise. It's clear at this point that John has no chance of moving up in the world. All John does is play his little guitar and write slogans. One day, Mary suggests John submit one of his slogans, and he finally does.


And I guess years of practice pay off, cause John earns 500 dollars. In a moment of consumer glee, John and Mary spend the whole thing on clothes and toys as opposed to anything they actually need. Mary and John gleefully tell their children, who are playing on the other side of the street, to come home.





Happiness never lasts.

The pain of this scene is stretched for a while, cause John and Mary's daughter doesn't die right away. While the doctor attends to her inside the apartment, we get a sad scene of John trying to tell the world to be quiet so his child can get some rest.





Sadly, John's daughter passes away, and John enters a long depression. He becomes less active at work, and his bosses (which now include Bert) are starting to notice. In one great scene, we see John's thoughts play out on his forhead as he tries to crunch numbers.




Why don't we get neat visual moments like this anymore?

When his bosses bring up his work performance, John gets so upset that he violently quits his job, tossing around desks and papers as he goes out the door. Mary doesn't take the news too well, but being the level-headed on in the family, she encourages John to go job hunting.


And he finds a surprising large amount of jobs for that time period, including a door-to-door vacuum salesman. He just quits them all. Being without employment has made John realize just how hopeless of a case he is, so he slinks further and further into depression and uselessness.

Finally, after months of moving around, with no money, Mary can live with the man she married anymore, and packs up to leave. John, about as depressed as he could possibly be, decides to take one last walk with his son.


Assuming that there's nothing left going in his life, he throws a ball down a bridge for his son to catch. With his son distracted, John decides now is the time.





Sadly/luckily (depending on your point of view), John is too much of a coward to take his own life. When his son returns with the ball, he tells John how much he loves him. This somehow puts some spark back in John, so he runs to the city in search for a job.

However, this movie was made right before the Great Depression, and even though things hadn't fully collapsed, jobs were still hard to come by. The only thing available, in a moment of cosmic irony, is as an advertising clown.


John comes home with a pocket of change and a smile on his face. Mary is about to leave. John, with a tiny bit of confidence back, tells her he won't stop her. Oh, and can she find someone to go to the circus with her and their son? He bought three circus tickets and he wants his son to have a fun time.


Oh, how could you not love that lug?


And so we come to the end of our film with a moment of temporary happiness as the entire family enjoys the circus.

What an amazing film, and rare for it's time. It's very much an early art house film. It lacks a solid plot, it stars a bunch of unknowns, and has many multi-layered themes, many of which I haven't even touched. I could really write a book on this film, each time I watch it I learn something new. Fews films do that for me.

Say good-bye, Mary and John have to leave you now. They have to get lost in the crowd.






Saturday, September 20, 2008

Gloria Swanson and Sadie Thompson

SADIE THOMPSON (1928)
DIRECTED BY:
Raoul Walsh
STARRING: Gloria Swanson, Lionel Barrymore, Raoul Walsh
NOMINATED FOR: Best Actress in a Leading Role (Gloria Swanson)
Best Cinematography (George Barnes)

Gloria Swanson is mostly remembered, in a totally ironic way, of her role as fallen movie star Norma Desmond in Billy Wilder's Sunset Blvd. Ironic in that Swanson was just as huge in the silent era and just as small in the talkies. She was very much a self-made woman, moving up from Mack Sennet's Keystone slapstick comedies (which she reportedly hated)into the costume dramas of Cecil B. DeMille and Sam Wood, where she became a fashion, a self-proclaimed "clothes horse."

She eventually built such a celebrity of herself that she gained control of her own roles, something only the likes of Chaplin could do at the time. And in 1929, Gloria Swanson wanted Sadie Thompson.

In 1921, W. Somerset Maugham's short story "Miss Thompson" was serialised and published. Based on a real life trip Maugham took to Pago Pago and his passing encounter with a San Francisco prostitute and a zealous preacher, it was later adapted into a highly succesful play entitled simply "Rain."

It was a controversial move on Swanson's part for many reasons. The Hayes code was mear months away from making it's impact, but making a movie that made a prostitue the protagonist and a preacher the antagonist at any point in history is a risky move. Yet, Swanson took the reigns as both star and producer and went ahead and did it anyway.

This film also brings back two familiar names. First, cinematographer George Barnes. We explored his earlier work in which we discovered his love affair with hands, but hand shots like those hardly show up in Sadie Thompson, and I wouldn't have known this was a George Barnes film had his name not been in the credits.

The other is production designer William Cameron Menzies. We already know that Menzies likes exotic locations, so Pago Pago, the capital of American Samoa, is right up his alley.


But we also know that Menzies prefers to keep things simple and don't make fantasy versions of foreign lands, like so many films do. There aren't any crazy samoans running around in face paints, beating drums, going Umaga crazy. In fact, there are hardly any natives at all. Pago Pago was a repair station for the U.S. Navy, so instead there's a bunch of horny white sailors hanging around.


In fact, there's only one samoan character in the entire film: the cigar-smoking wife of the local inn.


Not exactly the best image of the samoan people, but then, her husband isn't exactly a catch either.


That's him on the right, played by James A. Marcus, who played the villian in previously review The Eagle. On the left is tourist Dr. Angus McPhail, played by Charles Lane. Early on in the film these two become good buddies, and act as the (almost) silent observers to the events of the film, only popping in once and be the film's Statler and Waldorf.

So, our story begins with a ship from San Francisco arriving at Pago Pago. The marines, bored out of their minds, wait excitedly to see what San Fran has to offer. It offers Sadie Thompson.


I should tell you, I am a 21st century man, and as such, my concepts of beauty are different from those common in the 1920s. The stars that were considered glamorous in the silent era had weird oval faces and distracting saucer eyes and were filmed in annoying soft glow and it does nothing for me.

But Gloria Swanson? She's cute.

All the marines flock to Sadie, and she gets them all wrapped around her finger. They trail her everywhere, including her hotel room, where they help set up her things.


All these merry times quickly end however. Another person was on that boat, and he's got a hair up his ass.


Alfred Davidson is now the island's resident reformer, focusing on bringing the natives to Christianity. He's the same kind of religous extermist that's played the bad guy in a vast number of films, the most recent example I can think of being The Mist. I'm actually kind of tired of this type of character myself. Very few people are like this in real life, and don't really represent their respective religons on a whole. There's a lot to be said against Christianity, but displaying these kind of characters and going "Eh, look at that, I told you they were crazy" is not the best way to go about doing that.

Davidson is played by Lionel Barrymore, who's best remembers as playing Henry Potter in It's a Wonderful Life. Now, I like the guy, but in Sadie Thompson, he doesn't really add any depth to his character. His gestures are wide and theatrical, and his face is always that of menace. Still, it maybe a 2D character, but Lionel really does know how to strike a pose.





So, how does Gloria Swanson's acting fair? A lot better. Where as Barrymore plays most of his role with his arms and his stance, Swanson plays her's with her face. It seems like Film Acting 101, but consider that most actors from the silent era were stage veterans, where you didn't have any closeups. To be able to communicate without words and to do it so detailed within your own facial expressions wasn't so common back then.

The film really only has two characters, Sadie Thompson and Alfred Davidson. Sadie is an ex-prostitute on the run from the law for a crime she says she didn't commit, and Davidson holds enough power over the island to ship Sadie back to San Francisco. Most of the film consists of their conversations, her trying to convince him to just leave her alone, him trying to convince her to atone for her sins.

Davidson is a dangerous man, and while Sadie is able to keep herself happy by being entertained by the marines, the moment the fun stops, her mind returns to Davidson.


Finally, Davidson convinces the govener to ship Sadie back to San Fran, back to the police. This results in a great scene where Sadie starts cursing Davidson out.


We can't hear the words, of course, but we can see how people react to them.



Davidson then goes on the offense, telling her that her fate is certian, that the only way she can stand her time in jail is to turn to God, literally beating her into a corner.


Now I feel like a sports announcer.

In one last ditch effort, Sadie pulls the "throw a fit like a five-year old" play.



The rest would be spoilers. Not that I haven't given away plenty of spoilers before, but so far, out of all the films I've seen for this project, this film is my favorite so far, and I'd prefer you just see it yourself.

Plus, um, I'm busy.

Go away.

Friday, September 12, 2008

William Cameron Menzies, The Dove, and Tempest

William Cameron Menzies was one of the most interesting visual artists and directors of Hollywood's golden age, bringing exotic settings to the big screen from the romantic silents of the 20s to the colorful epics of the 50s. He worked mostly as an art director and was the very first person to be credited as "Production Designer" in 1938. We'll get to that film eventually.

In the 1st Academy Awards, he was nominated and won the award for Best Art Direction (though then called "Interior Decoration") for two films. Like oh so many in these first couple of Academy Awards, one of the films is lost. Luckily, one isn't, and we can finally review our first official Academy Award winner.

As for what we don't get to see:

THE DOVE (1927)
DIRECTED BY:
Roland West
STARRING: Norma Talmadge, Noah Beery, Gilbert Roland
WON: Best Art Direction (William Cameron Menzies)

Almost all of Menzies' work took place in foreign locations. The Dove takes us to Hollywood's romantic Mexic... wait, what? Oh sorry, it's in some unnamed location. It was GOING to be Mexico, but for some hazy political reasons that I'm still trying to research, it wasn't allowed for any movie at the time to say anything bad about the place.


Gilbert Roland as Gilbert Roland in "The Dove"

The plot is the classic boy-meets-girl-but-other-boy-wants-girl-and-there-is-a-bit-of-kidnapping. Sadly, I can't say any more then that. Only four of it's nine reels survive at the Library of Congress, and I'm a bit too broke right now for air travel.

So, let's go ahead and move on to the movie we CAN watch.

TEMPEST (1927)
DIRECTED BY:
Sam Taylor
STARRING: John Barrymore, Camilla Horn, Louis Wolheim
WON: Best Art Direction (William Cameron Menzies)

Tempest, not to be confused with the Shakespeare play of the same name, takes place in Russia in the early 1910s, during the Russian Revolution that resulted in the Soviet Union. Now, Russia was always a favorite location of the silent era. All the curvy doorways and roofs were visually more interesting then our dumb ol' box houses. Many films in Russia tend to take it over the top. Take Josef von Sternberg's 1934 The Scarlet Empress. Sternberg's Russia is one full of melting gargoyles, bell towers and secret passages. It's almost cartoonish (though it works for that film).

So, imagine my surprise when I found that Menzies, the man who did Things to Come and Invaders from Mars, played Russia like it was a real place. Oh, sure, there's plenty classic examples of Russian architecture...




But the movie takes the time to explore the dirtier, more down to earth, more human parts of Russia, like this shower thingy:


And here's the home of our film's hero, Lieutenant Ivan Markov:


God, it's hard to imagine a day before kitty posters.

Ivan Markov is a man who believes Russia is whatever the guy in charge tells him it is. A peasant going up ranks in the army, he just wants to prove himself. Markov is played by John Barrymore, who could cut cheese with his profile.


However, things fall apart when he falls in love with the General's daughter, played by Camilla Horn and her giant anime eyes.


Unfortunately, the princess (daughter of a general=princess?) isn't all that taken by him. In fact, she hates him purely for his past as a peasant. Depressed by his rejection, Markov decides to get REALLY drunk.


Anyone who knows their silent film star history might flinch at this. John Barrymore's career was ruined in the 30s by alcoholism, and died of liver disease. Still, this film sets up the best shot of the entire picture, in which a drunken Markov watches his fellow dancers from the bottom of his glass.




Talkies almost killed moments like this.

This film has a great deal of old school special effects. The film opens with a model of the Russian city the army is stationed in.


We pan across it one way, and start panning and zooming the other, and the cut to a real set is pretty damn seamless.


In another great scene, Markov, his passion for the princess discovered, is thrown into a jail cell to rot. After several months, Markov starts to go slightly mad, first hallucinating the war, and then the princess' mocking face.



It's not perfect. You can see the edges of the screen the images are projected on pretty easily, but the scene has it's effect.

Ok, so Russia is realistic and there are great scenes. Is there anywhere where the film falls flat in the visual department? Well, kind of. The costuming just seems to fall flat... but it doesn't.

Ok, here's the deal. There's a lot of emphasise put on the clothes the characters where. The clothes in this movie are supposed to tell people what your social status and rank are. They're so important in the story, when Markov is removed from the army, they hold a demonstration of ripping off his uniform to symbolize his fall. The demonstration seems more like death by firing squad.


Later in the film, the general is captured by the new Red Terror, he's publicly humiliated by having his clothes ripped apart.


So, as much as a metaphor clothes are used in the film, the clothes seem to be rather bland. If there was one part of the film to go overboard on the production design, it should have been wardrobe, if nothing then to even it out.

I don't want to end the film on a low note, though, so I saved one last great scene for last. The Red Terror have taken over, and are executing members of the old army. It's the general's turn to face his fate.

We see the firing squad. Behind them is a propaganda poster with a caricature of the general, looking evil and menacing. The general these people have been symbolically fighting this entire time.


Then we cut to the real general, alone, small.

Waiting.