|
SCREENING LOG
-9/6-9/12, 2004
Back to 2004 Index
Quai des Orfevres (1947, Henri-Georges Clouzot)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039739/
YES (#3 for 1947 between THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI and KING-SIZED
CANARY)
Duel in the Sun (1946, King Vidor)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038499/
YES (#2 for 1946 between MY DARLING CLEMENTINE and NOTORIOUS)
The Fountainhead (1949, King Vidor)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041386/
yes (#7 for 1949 between STRAY DOG and MYRIADS OF LIGHTS)
I think my viewing of THE FOUNTAINHEAD benefitted from my
seeing DUEL IN THE SUN right before. Judging from this period,
King Vidor around this period is a real nutjob, and it was
hard for me to reconcile this work to what he did in the 20s
and 30s. The best I can say that the early and later films
have in common is something like a "cinema of gestures" --
a need to be grand and expressive. With THE FOUNTAINHEAD one
can discern something of a manifesto on this artistic need,
and while it borders on camp there's something to Vidor's
style even in this film that is onto something original. As
with THE CROWD, he gets some great office shots that bring
out the dehumanizing qualities of that environment. The plot
is obvious (I'm not a big fan of Ayn Rand) and the outcomes
of the characters rather obvious, but Vidor's execution is
not -- there's something off-kilter about his direction such
that even the obvious scenes seem to strike new chords. But
there's plenty to be concerned about as well -- the film's
argument in defense of radical individualism (posited as anti-Communist/collectivist
rhetoric) seems ready to veer into pro-Fascism (a world ruled
by Supermen) -- this was something that troubled me about
Vidor's OUR DAILY BREAD 15 years before FOUNTAINHEAD. I don't
know that much about Vidor to say anything for sure about
his films, but I am certainly interested now.
What's also interesting is how blatant Vidor's films are
with sex around this time, with the Hays Code working at full
force. I can't believe a sleazefest like DUEL IN THE SUN made
it past the censors. The sexual imagery in THE FOUNTAINHEAD
is pretty obvious too (Patricia Neal getting shaky knees at
the sight of Gary Cooper working the drillbit); but somehow
it comes off as weird and fresh.
I can't help thinking that there's something undeniably
Classical Greek to both DUEL IN THE SUN and FOUNTAINHEAD --
DUEL being something you'd expect from Greek mythology, FOUNTAINHEAD
being something you'd expect from Sophocles. Classical Greek...
with a heavy dose of Freud in the mix, perhaps. I find the
results both wacky and compelling.
Intolerable Cruelty (2003, Joel Coen)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138524/ mixed
The Devil and Daniel Webster (1941, William Dieterle)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033532/
YES (#8 for 1941 between THE MALTESE FALCON and DUMBO)
The Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003, Peter Webber)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335119/
yes
King Kong (1933, Merian C. Cooper, Ernest B. Schoedsack)
second viewing
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024216/
YES (forget BIRTH OF A NATION, SONG OF THE SOUTH, THE SEARCHERS
or TAXI DRIVER -- this film remains the single most potent
instance of racist mythology produced by Hollywood. The film
is an allegory, but of what? Much of it depends on the viewer
and what they bring to it. The last time I discussed this
movie here was three years ago with Lee-109, one of our first
conversations in fact. A key point of contention is whether
King Kong should be viewed symbolically as a black man, an
ubernegro, with potential to explode in a destructive rage
-- basically a white urban person's worst nightmare coded
in the image of a rampaging ape. Having read Richard Wright's
Native Son I felt the two works struck a resonant chord with
each other, as films about murderous black rage and sexual
transgression against a cruel and oppressive civilization
out to domineer and exploit them. One key difference being
the point of view -- Native Son offers more of a black man's
perspective on things, while in King Kong the title character
is more objectified as a thing to be either feared or pitied
-- how much we actually identify with him is a vaguer matter.
One counter-argument to the King Kong-as-black male argument
was something to the effect of "If you think King Kong is
supposed to be a black man, what does that say about YOU?
No one else is making that connection, so aren't you being
the racist for making it?" But this is a typical maneuver
in racist discourse, to insist that race really isn't a factor
to begin with. Denying racial issues a legitimate foothold
in the conversation only reinforces the white-centered perspective
that implicitly dominates the discussion. This is akin to
how social conservatives think that everyone has the same
opportunities to succeed as anyone else and so class prejudice
is nothing more than an illusion; this attitude itself preserves
a myth of equality that allows certain people to ignore what
matters to other people and hold their values as an absolute
standard.
By the same token, I don't mean to insist that KING KONG
must be seen primarily as a racist film -- there are plenty
of other things going on which merit a YES rating in my book;
and I'd even say that the way the film articulates the nightmare
of contemporary race relations is compelling enough to merit
a YES all by itself. But I don't think people should turn
their back on this mode of understanding; I don't mean for
it to ruin their appreciation of the film, but to enhance
it and engage with it all the more intently.
I should also mention that I watched this film with my wife
last weekend and made no mention of my own feelings about
it. She had never seen it before but before we even got to
the issue of King Kong as ubernegro, she sensed a lot of racism
prevalent in the depiction of the African natives (who, she
pointed out, were dressed more like Polynesians than Africans
-- which underlines the film's purpose as more of a colonialist
fantasy of a dark-skinned menace than a specific anthropological
study of real people). She resented the way the blond woman
was implicitly presented as more desirable than any black
woman -- this kind of assumption helps to reinforce racist
assumptions about race and gender, and yet it's what so many
of us take for granted and accept unblinkingly. If anything
these preliminary instances of racism help to build towards
perceiving Kong in racial terms -- the ultimate embodiment
of a white person's vision of Negritude, in its superior brute
strength (inspiring racist awe and envy) welded to an inferior
intellect (inspiring racist condescension and pity), insatiable
desire for white female flesh, and utter incapacity to survive
in modern civilization. ) #4 for 1933 between LAS HURDES and
DUCK SOUP
Vanity Fair (2004, Mira Nair)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241025/
yes -- It's pretty engaging for the most part and certainly
exquisite from a design standpoint, and for that it's well
worth watching. It's also not the empty costume spectacle
I feared it would be -- I read the 800 plus page novel when
I was in high school and was impressed that the script could
boiled it all down to the Becky Sharp plotline and still retain
a certain degree of the focus and insight characteristic of
Thackeray, the way he's able to cut into the social class
system that governed late 18th century England. That was the
best part of it, the way it got underneath the superficiality
of the culture and showed how desperate and unhappy everyone
was. Parts of it reminded me of a feminist retelling of BARRY
LYNDON. The big problem though is that Mira Nair isn't a third
as committed as Kubrick to exploring or conveying the paradoxes
of her protagonist, the way Becky Sharp becomes a victimizer
as well as a victim. She's too anxious about keeping the story
moving and retaining our sympathy for Sharp/ Witherspoon.
So there are some awkward scene transitions, and the last
act of the film is a sloppy rush job trying to tie up too
many loose ends and give it a happy ending. It's also interesting
how she utilizes India as the soulful, colorful, exotic antithesis
of class-stifling England -- it gives the film a refreshing
flavor that's missing from other Brit period costumers, but
it amounts to lovely window dressing -- the last scene feels
like a commercial for Indian tourism (the same problem that
plagued the entirety of her previous film, MONSOON WEDDING).
Mr. and Mrs. '55 (1955, Guru Dutt)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048392/
yes
Irreversible (2003, Gaspar Noe)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/
on (form: sey; content: TIHSGOD NAHT ESROW)
The Sleepy Time Gal (2001, Christopher Munch)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277322/
mixed
I Am Frigid... Why? (1972, Max Pecas)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068759/
no
Back to 2004 Index
|
