Category: Film Page 77 of 101

The Last Picture Hero

The title of The Last Picture Show has an obvious referent within the film: the single movie theatre in the tiny Texas town Anarene (not a real place, but based on real places) closes during the course of the film, and two of the main characters attend the final show. Yet the actual fact of the cinema shutting down does not, on the surface, seem to be important enough to rate its titular status. The characters aren’t cinephiles. There’s no great outcry against the closing of the cinema. The characters only go to see one other movie during the film, and they spend the majority of it trying to make out with their girlfriends. But writer/director Peter Bogdanovich is not merely choosing a title and event sure to interest his cinema-loving peers. Rather, the closing of the picture show serves as a tangible sign of the shift in American cinema and culture that the film as a whole presents. That shift is most clearly seen in the death of Sam the Lion.

Ben Johnson won a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award for his portrayal of town entrepreneur Sam the Lion, who owns the cinema, cafe, and pool hall. The “supporting” designation is accurate, since the younger generation led by Sonny and Jacy are the clear protagonists. On the other hand, it’s a tiny bit misleading, because Sam the Lion is the central, the foundational figure in the town and in the film. Sam represents the last of the classic Hawksian or Fordian heroes. (It’s no accident that Hawks’s Red River, starring John Wayne, is the last picture show.) He doesn’t talk too much, but when he does, it’s worth it. He protects Billy, the young boy who’s not quite all there, from the other kids who bully him. He lets Miss Mosey keep her job at the cinema long after she’s ceased to be useful in it. He comes down hard on Sonny when he joins in a humiliating gag on Billy [see clip below], but is quick to forgive him when the time comes.

It’s far too simplistic to suppose that Sam the Lion’s death half way through the film is the catalyst for the breakdown of the town. Jacy was off chasing college men at risque parties and Sonny was carrying on with the coach’s wife long before that. Sam doesn’t particularly comment on these goings-on, in fact. He’s the moral center of the Anarene world, but he’s far from a sermonizing moralist. Yet there is a relationship between Sam’s death and the loosening behavioral mores. Sam’s passing is inevitable because he belongs to an earlier generation. Not a perfect generation, or a generation that never sowed any wild oats – his monologue about Jacy’s mother shows that [see clip below]. But a generation with the inner strength and sense of personal honor that characterizes the heroes of Golden Age westerns and war films. (It’s not quite just a generational thing – at the very end of the film, no-one in the town, from old men to sheriff, is willing to stand up for Billy. Only Sonny keeps a glimmer of Sam’s love for the boy alive.)

When Sonny and Duane go to Mexico, Sam gives them extra cash, even though he knows they’ll probably spend it unwisely. When they return, barely able to sit up, they immediately try to find Sam, knowing that he’ll know the best way to stop their illness [see clip below]. But the sight of Sam waving them off to Mexico, half-sad that he couldn’t go with them, half-worried about them, but knowing that they had to do crazy stuff in order to grow up, was the last one they’d ever have.

From that point on in the film, Sam’s absence is a gaping hole in the life of the town. It’s not that everyone talks about him incessantly, or that everything falls to pieces without him, or that very much happens that wouldn’t have if he were around (nearly all of the events at the end of the film are set almost inexorably in motion before Sam’s death), but his absence is felt constantly by characters and audience alike. Before, there was always Sam to go back to if things got out of hand.

Bogdanovich made The Last Picture Show in 1971, right in the middle of the “New Hollywood” renaissance in American film; it wasn’t his first feature, but it was his first major success as a filmmaker, after having been a noted film critic. He set it in the early 1950s, when the first post-World War II generation was coming of age. Thus, the film represents two crucial periods in American history – the shift in American culture in the 1950s and moving into the 1960s, as social mores started to change (see contemporary films like Rebel Without a Cause), and the shift in American filmmaking in the late 1960s and 1970s, led by Bonnie & Clyde, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorsese (among others). Sam the Lion is passing in both. He belongs to the pre-war generation as well as to Old Hollywood. A trademark of New Hollywood is the combination of respect for Golden Age directors with a desire to push the envelope and find new ways to make films. This was the first generation of filmmakers who grew up studying films – the first set of American cinephiles, if you will. They knew their Hawks, their Ford, their Nicholas Ray, but they also knew that for American filmmaking to compete artistically with the Europeans, they had to find new heroes for a new time. Bogdanovich’s nostalgia for a time when Sam the Lion could be a viable hero is palpable. In fact, it’s much stronger than his assumed nostalgia for small-town America – to me there doesn’t seem to be a lot of love lost between him and Anarene. About the only good thing about Anarene might be that Sam the Lion was there. Without him, there’s little left in the town and most of the main characters move away as quickly as they’re able.

So The Last Picture Show really is the last picture show – the visible sign of the toll that Sam’s death has taken on the town, the death knell of Old Hollywood, and the passing of a uniquely American type of hero. It’s nostalgic, but it accepts the inevitable.

Film Classics: Mickey One

Mickey One

directed by Arthur Penn
starring: Warren Beatty, Alexandra Stewart, Hurt Hatfield, Franchot Tone
USA 1965; screened 19 September 2008 at the Silent Movie Theatre, Los Angeles

In the mid-1960s, Warren Beatty worked to push the envelope of possible leading man roles in Hollywood. Influenced by the anti-heroes and non-commital style of the French New Wave, he sought as actor and producer to move away from the typical pretty boy roles in bland films that other Hollywood actors were performing.

In the rarely-screened Mickey One, he plays a stand-up comic on the run from the mobsters who gave him his start and now own him. Such a plot sounds like the set-up for a farce along the lines of Some Like It Hot, but in the hands of Beatty and director Arthur Penn, it becomes instead a dark, paranoia-filled trip through the underbelly of the nightclub industry. It’s never entirely clear whether the mob is still after Mickey as he slowly returns to the stage, supported by Jenny, the girl who urges him that his fears are unfounded. The hints that they are may merely be in his head, transferred to the audience through our identification with him.

Unfortunately, Beatty and Penn don’t always get the tonal balance between American crime film and New Wave drama quite right. New Wave heroes project a devil-may-care bravado even over their inner fears – a confidence Mickey can’t even believably feign most of the time. He desperately wants to know who exactly is after him, why, and what he can do to either confront and eliminate them or escape them permanently; but he is too afraid to actually try to find out – until the end when recklessness overcomes even his paranoia. The only times the awkward tension between deterministic apathy and paranoid truth-seeking seems to work unequivocally are during Mickey’s comedy routines (including his impromptu goofing when he first meets Jenny). When he’s performing, his forced bravado and tormented anguish merge uncomfortably, yes, but believably, turning him into the chatty version of Truffaut and Godard’s quietly desperate characters – he just wears his desperation on the outside instead.

The difficulty of melding New Wave styles into American film stems, to some degree, from the philosophical differences between France and the United States in the early to mid 1960s. France had lost two World Wars (or won only with foreign aid after surrendering), undergone a painful conflict with Algeria, and was nearing the political upheavals of the late 1960s – combined with the influence of existentialism, the fatalism of New Wave heroes is not wholly unexpected. The United States was still riding the tail end of the post-war boom, and though American noir of the 1940s and 50s had its share of existential heroes, American films tend to be more optimistic. (And the 1960s mainstream Hollywood that Beatty was reacting against could be almost sickeningly optimistic.) Yet, it’s not an impossible feat – Beatty and Penn would incorporate New Wave style into a quintessentially American story perfectly only two years later in Bonnie & Clyde. So count Mickey One as a not wholly successful but still extremely interesting and worthwhile experiment on the way to the heights of Bonnie & Clyde.

*note: I’m sure there are other influences on Mickey One; Cassavetes seems probable. I use the New Wave because I’m more familiar with it, and sort of in love with it right now. Plus the programmer at the Silent Movie Theatre mentioned the New Wave in relation to Mickey One and Bonnie & Clyde, so I had it in my head while I was watching the film.

Above Average

Random Review – Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End

I’ve had this written forever, and would’ve sworn I had posted it, but a quick search showed I hadn’t. Huh. Well, I’m sure that knowing PotC3 sucked is not earth-shattering information to anyone, but I might as well post it anyway.

I should’ve expected it to be bad. I suppose that liking Pirates of the Caribbean 2 more than most critics gave me a false sense of security going into it. It’s not like I expected it to be good, but it’s actually worse than I ever dreamed. Only the fact that it’s the third of a wildly successful trilogy (and, now, apparently quadrilogy – I die a little inside every time I remember they’re planning a fourth one) explains how this mess made it through production without someone at every stage of development stopping and saying, “wait – this makes zero sense on any level – cognitive, emotional, thematic – and it’s not even exciting!” There’s far too much going on, it all takes far too long, and somehow it manages to both go too fast to be comprehensible and too slow to be interesting (or perhaps it’s uninteresting because, contrary to current studio thinking, loads of action set pieces do not automatically yield interest without a compelling and comprehensible plot – and having loads of profoundly stupid and long exposition in between the set pieces doesn’t help either).

There are two good scenes. The haunting opening depicts several pirates, including a young boy, singing as they’re awaiting execution by hanging. That sinister mood is quickly dispelled by the utter idiocy that takes over the screen soon after. The other good scene is set in Jack Sparrow’s hell, surreally blank and peopled with duplicates of himself (splinters, really, each taking a part of his personality to an extreme). But that surreal quality completely fails to mesh with the rest of the film, either, which makes it ultimately stand out in a less positive way. Literally everything else in the movie should’ve been scrapped. In the script drafting stage.

Well Below Average
USA 2007; dir: Gore Verbinski; starring: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley
Screened 13 July 2008 on DVD

FBTop100 #92: Amelie

This post is part of a project to watch the Film Bloggers’ 100 Favorite Non-English Films.

AMELIE-20

Amélie
France 2001; dir: Jean-Pierre Jeunet
starring: Audrey Tautou, Mathieu Kassovitz
screened 4/6/08; DVD

Previous Viewing Experience: I’ve seen this at least four times, but most of them were pretty soon after it came out on DVD, so it’s probably been four or five years.  Wow, that makes me feel old.

Previous Reactions: I pretty much fell in love with this movie when I first saw it (hence the seeing it again so often so soon).  The colors, the music, the quirk, the charm.  Mostly the colors, if I’m honest.

Brief Synopsis: Amelie Poulain lives and works in Montmartre, but doesn’t connect very deeply with other people.  When she finds a long-lost box of toys and successfully finds the overjoyed owner, she decides to do random acts of kindness (and meanness, in one case) – one of which may lead to romance if she doesn’t chicken out first.

Response:  Interesting reaction this time. I’m still charmed by the film, and for all the same reasons as before. But I found myself also a little disappointed at its obviousness. Which I think is a function of having seen several Krzysztof Kieslowski films over the past year. Jeunet’s use of vibrant color seems directly borrowed from Kieslowski’s later films (the French ones), and since the cinematography is one of my favorite things about both Amelie and Kieslowski’s work, I couldn’t help comparing them in my head. And Kieslowski is better. Amelie’s problem is that she’s afraid of connecting meaningfully with other people. That’s why she spends more time pulling pranks and tricking everyone else in the story (whether for their good or ill) rather than concentrate on her own life.  Ultimately, that’s why she constructs elaborate schemes and false identities that keep her in contact with yet also distanced from Bobo. And that’s great, it’s a fine storyline. But then Jeunet introduces a brittle painter who can’t quite capture one girl’s expression in the Renoir he’s copying. Why? Because she’s in a group of people and yet not connected to them. Over and over the fact that this girl and Amelie are the same is reiterated. Over and over the painter explicitly pushes Amelie to take the risk, to open herself up to others. Again, not a bad thing in and of itself, but Kieslowski takes a similar storyline of people who have cut themselves off from the world emotionally in Red and carries it out with much greater subtlety and ambiguity. Perhaps that’s why Amelie is #92 on this list and Red is down at #39.

I still love Amelie, don’t get me wrong. It’s delightful, and it remains one of the two or three best introductions to foreign films for the subtitle-phobic. But it’s a gateway drug to world cinema, and if you like it, move on to the harder stuff.

Overall Rating: Well Above Average

FBTop100 #93: The Blue Angel

This post is part of a project to watch the Film Bloggers’ 100 Favorite Non-English Films.

blueangel

Der Blaue Engel (The Blue Angel)
Germany 1931; dir: Josef von Sternberg
starring: Emil Jannings, Marlene Dietrich
screened 7/5/08; New Beverly Cinema

Previous Viewing Experience: Never seen it, nor anything else directed by von Sternberg or starring Jannings, though I’ve seen several later Dietrich films.

Knowledge Before Viewing: In a meta sense, I’m aware that von Sternberg and Dietrich are a well-known actress-director team, and that Dietrich made waves for her masculin costuming in this and/or her other films with him. More specifically, I know the basic story has something to do with a straight-laced professor who gets angry at his students for lusting after a sexy showgirl, but then he feels a bit differently once he actually sees said showgirl. I’m not looking forward to this one too terribly much. It sounds like an offputting combination of dirty old man lechery and moralizing. Add in early sound era awkwardness, and yeah. Sorta ambivalent. Hopefully seeing it in a theatre (fortuitous timing on the New Beverly’s part!) will help.

Brief Synopsis: My pre-viewing synopsis is fairly close, actually. The Professor (Jannings) finds his students sneaking off to the local cabaret, but when he goes there to catch them at it, he ends up falling for Lola Lola (Dietrich) himself. She encourages him and eventually they marry. But when the show goes back on the road, he’s reduced to performing clown parts to earn his keep and stay with her.

Response: I wound up liking this a lot more than I initially expected to. One of my favorite films it probably won’t ever be, but it was definitely worthwhile at least seeing once to experience such a young Marlene Dietrich. She’s absolutely delightful from start to finish (outside of, perhaps, a few scenes near the end where she gets to be quite the little bitch). The story is far more focused on the Professor, though, and his fall from esteemed academic and community leader to pathetic joke after he marries Lola. And this being to some degree a Gemran Expressionist film, his decline gets a little on the overwrought side at times. I did particularly like the recurring bird imagery – both the Professor and Lola keep birds, linking them before they’re, um, linked, and an early shot of a dead bird provides a foreshadowing glimpse of how this is all going to work out. In terms of moralizing, the message is apparently “don’t marry flighty showgirls much younger than you because it’ll ruin your life.” Which, actually, is probably good advice.

Overall Rating: Above Average

Page 77 of 101

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén