Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Sirk x 2; Sturges x 2; Praise; oh yeah, and Muriel's Wedding

I'm watching a lot of films for school, hence repeat viewings that I'd otherwise put off, or, in the case of Muriel's Wedding, happily do away with altogether.

Written on the Wind (Douglas Sirk, 1956) [2nd viewing]

Usually I'm not a screen-cap kinda guy, as I suspect were Andre Bazin to blog, neither would he be. But check out the above composition, expressive of everything that's great about Sirk: nostalgic pleasure (i.e. the etching), sorrowful defeat (i.e. Dorothy Malone hunched over), the evocative location (i.e. water), all quiet, all together, all simultaneous. Earlier on, we have Lauren Bacall's introduction to the suite: gaudy, lush production design fills the frame, swelling music fills the soundtrack, and Bacall looks downright nonplussed, at a standstill between the surrounding beauty and the knowledge that she's being duped. Even minor characterizations are really satisfying, like the bartender who persistently sides with Robert Stack in action, but never in emotion, suspended in dubious loyalty. The "happy" ending, a bit of a lift from Notorious in my opinion, significantly shifts emphasis away from the few who prevail back to Malone. A quibble: the camera ominously rests on Stack's dad's portrait, shortly before [SPOILER]. Sirk is too good for superfluous foreshadowing.

Muriel's Wedding (P.J. Hogan, 1994) [2nd viewing]

Just godawful, but it presented a challenge to my descriptive abilities when trying to slam it in a class discussion. (Yes, apparently this is more representative of quality Australian cinema than Praise or any film by John Duigan.) I was tempted to write: "Hogan reduces adult interaction to middle-school terms"--but s/he (sorry, too lazy) fails to even capture the social repercussions of the latter. Yes, the social persecution of Muriel is exaggerated. BUT, yes, Muriel is herself a pitifully inept outcast. That said, I'm not seeing any graceful attempt to juggle levels of heightened realism here, just a disengaged wash of cartoon and soap opera impulses.

Imitation of Life (Douglas Sirk, 1959) [2nd viewing]

It's no Written on the Wind, but it has its pleasures. Liked how Annie is intrusive but well-meaning; liked how, a la the above image, Sirk gives us at least one striking composition in which latent ugliness underlies catharsis. (I'm referring to Annie's deathbed speech to Lora, in which Sarah Jane's smiling photograph is sandwiched in between the two. This drew audible laughter from my audience, and it is funny in the sense that no other director would dare draw such sharp attention to the thorny contradictions of melodrama, for fear of falling into camp.) Didn't like boyfriend's sudden, unnatural transition from lover to oppressor, which is inexplicable apart from giving the audience a cheap jolt; didn't like Sirk's deficient understanding of the typical ego of a teenage girl, or perhaps people in general. (E.g. Sarah Jane's earnest admission of "you've been wonderful" after humiliating her white friends.) I have subdued affection for this: Sirk's mastery is evident throughout, but he can't quite find a satisfying way into the material.

The Great McGinty (Preston Sturges, 1940)

Sturges's debut, but it seems he'd had everything figured out. There's a dialectic here between McGinty's laconic pragmatism and his wife's admiring intellectualization that nearly functions as an allegory for the relationship between early Hollywood auteurs and auteurists, even if the latter had yet to come along. McGinty has vague aspirations to greatness, but he also laughs incredulously when earnestly called decent. (Hawks, anyone?) Sturges derives a lot of humor from the way motivations are naturally obscured in real life: loved the way McGinty's future wife shyly disguises an earnest marriage proposal as a business transaction; also loved the way McGinty shamelessly glances at her legs and she weakly retorts with the barely credible, “What’s that got to do with it?” And I laughed very hard at the chauffeur's vague, boring, and rather endearing one-sided conversation.

The Great Moment (Preston Sturges, 1944)

Lesser Sturges, but a singularly dry biopic all the same. Token romance is played so casually it barely exists; Morton, the ennobled discoverer of ether as an anaesthetic, is also a belligerent psychopath who orders his patients to open their mouths and abruptly begins smashing glasses at a store. The crudity of 19th century dentistry, rather than merely representative of past blunders, is played for derisive comedy, and Sturges doesn't fail to temper exaggerated tributes demanded by friends (“every hospital should be named after him!”) with low-key ones made by others ("maybe one or two hospitals...") A lesser film might have portrayed Charles T. Jackson as a "sarcastic drunkard" and an incompetent failure alongside our hero Morton, who in Sturges's film merely looks humorless next to Jackson's funny, credible resignation. And then there's this film's equivalent of the chauffeur's platitudes: a hilariously mundane series of intertitles detailing every stop Morton makes while thumbing through a medical encyclopedia. Why? Why not! It seems the running theme I'm getting from this Sturges double-header is an analysis of the ways in which essentially noble men are dangerous and immature...

Praise (John Curran, 1998)

As embarrassed as I am to link here, I guess I just did.

2 comments:

Jaime said...

Hey bud

"How've you been, dude? Haven't heard from you since my botched attempt at Out 1."

Which was my final hardcore film-watching experience before descending into "life" (i.e. job + fulltime relationship). How I am is good, my investments are in career and fulltime relationship (live-in, at that, w/her young lad). I catch films on DVD mostly now, which as you may recall used to be my nemesis. $12.50/film at AMCLOEWSCINEPLEX transgresses some kind of border of unacceptable something or other. $26/mo for Netflix + instant viewing, vastly preferable.

"-but what I can't reconcile with that is that I can enjoy Beethoven in the same way I enjoy folks like Wilson..."

Find I'm the reverse, i.e. I enjoy pop in the same way folks tend to enjoy classical, I respond *emotionally* to the psychological rather than emotional feed of layering and the interaction between layers. I guess that's pretty broad, but whereas a pop song gets a lot of mileage from a change of chord or (just as commonly) the switch from chorus to verse (I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love/can't buy me lu-huve...), etc.

For me 5, 10 or more different sounds interacting can yield gains for me similar to the way a film's grain is beautiful, or a random, "ordinary" cut can be heartbreaking. Anyway, I have my favorites of 2007 and they are not so much ATONEMENT or NO COUNTRY as HOT FUZZ and THE HEARTBREAK KID. In other words I'm still insane.

"Another way of putting it is were I to ever try to compose a symphony myself, I'd turn to Beethoven, and probably try to forget about Mozart..."

I don't know that I've read as personal a statement by you on film, Sky. Have you said similar re: any filmmaker? Who would you say it about? Identification is powerful, something we can't turn our back on, try as we might.

"That said, I think the contrapuntal something that Beethoven was interested is more interesting to me than Beethoven himself. See also any good artist, really..."

Any two things is counterpoint. Two synapses firing...

Jaime

Sky Hirschkron said...

I pretty much sacrificed hardcore film buff-ery for "life" as well, although I'm also building an extensive collection that I don't have time to watch. What the hell were we thinking going out and watching all those movies, etc. What happened to the projects you were working on, by the way?

The year had been going great for me until late July, but I've been having an amazingly shitty past few months for reasons I'd rather not go into here. I will say starting this blog was an attempt at recovering from disaster.

I know what you mean re: musical layers interacting, which is in Beethoven but in e.g. the work of Richard Thompson as well. It's hard for me to phrase this stuff too well given my musical ineptitude (I did play the drums in a band back in high school, which doesn't really count for much) but in Thompson I feel the same synthesis of "charged" and "neutral" energy that I get out of my fave novelists and filmmakers.

Who do I turn to when working on my films? Well, I had been working on a screenplay all summer before shelving it, and I guess I tried to have Hawks and Rohmer on the mind--Hawks to construct individual shots in which energy is derived from a bunch of different self-contradictory attitudes, Rohmer for a varied, coherent editing scheme. But my screenplay is also autobiographical, so I'd be lying if I said most of it wasn't me just trying to remember the "juice" of inner conflict from situations past.