Daily Archives: Wednesday, September 9, 2015

  • The Dark Knight Rises

    Christopher Nolan (2012)

    In this month’s Sight and Sound Nick James’s editorial begins as follows:

    ‘Appropriately enough in this Olympic month, when the eyes of the world are turned on London, two London-born filmmakers dominate this issue:  Alfred Hitchcock … and Christopher Nolan …, who like Hitch has succeeded in the rare feat of conquering Hollywood while remaining faithful to his distinctive creative vision. …’

    Hitchcock and Nolan seem to me to have little in common as film-makers – Nolan, if he has a sense of humour, either can’t or won’t express it on screen.  But perhaps they do share a propensity for never letting the people in their stories upstage a movie’s technical brio, even when there are first-rate actors and high-wattage stars involved.  This is sometimes thanks to dull performances, like Christian Bale’s as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and sometimes because the characters are in a situation that puts them at the film-maker’s mercy, like James Stewart in Vertigo.  The upshot of this is that a Hitchcock or Nolan film registers primarily as the work of the director and substantiates the auteurist view of cinema.  The effect of the two men’s work is very different, though.  The predicament of the people in a Hitchcock movie is often perversely enjoyable and they still have a personality, even if their director has a stronger one.  The cast in The Dark Knight Rises includes four Oscar winners – Michael Caine, Marion Cotillard and Morgan Freeman, as well as Bale – and the likes of Anne Hathaway, Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  They are flyspecks in the vast technology that Christopher Nolan constructs so meticulously and keeps trashing (along with people) with such solemn aplomb.

    In The Dark Knight there was at least one actor who was far from eclipsed in this way.  Heath Ledger was remarkable as the Joker, even if the power of his presence derived partly from his untimely death shortly after completing the movie.   That unhappy connection now pales into insignificance beside the events in Aurora, Colorado on 20 July, which will ensure an enduring notoriety for The Dark Knight Rises beyond its commercial and ciritical success and the prizes that may come its way.  The Wikipedia article on the movie includes the following statement by Christopher Nolan in response to the Aurora shootings:

    ‘I would not presume to know anything about the victims of the shooting but that they were there last night to watch a movie. I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theatre is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me. Nothing any of us can say could ever adequately express our feelings for the innocent victims of this appalling crime, but our thoughts are with them and their families.’

    What happened in Aurora must be terrible for Nolan but nothing in his somewhat pompous response acknowledges the possibility that the shootings could have had anything to do with the material (or materiel) of The Dark Knight Rises.  For me, the soulless monumentality of Nolan’s movies makes for one of the most depressing experiences currently available to a filmgoer (and the competition is strong).  I can’t understand how anyone can take pleasure in these pictures.  I keep wondering (cluelessly) if the fan base for Nolan’s Batman triology is more used to watching video games than films containing people and whether the pyrotechnics on display here are therefore a more sensational kind of excitement for them.    It’s possible for cinema to be dehumanising and fun at the same time if the director has a playful, cartoonish approach but that approach is what’s so utterly lacking here.  Of course, I’m not a Batman (or superhero) fan anyway.  I used to enjoy the half-hour television series when I was a kid and it’s because that was my first experience of Batman and Robin that the idea of taking the thing seriously still, at some level, puzzles me.  The ‘darkness’ of Batman is something I can read about with interest but don’t much want to see dramatised.

    Again according to Wikipedia:

    ‘In reaction to fan backlash to some of the negative reviews, Rotten Tomatoes had to disable user commentary for the film leading up to its release.  Some fans had threatened violence against critics while others threatened to take down the websites of movie critics who had given the film a negative review.’

    The fascist intolerance that suggests and the wanton destruction of human beings in The Dark Knight Rises aren’t an explanation of what James Holmes allegedly did on 20 July but they make me wonder if the raving loony wing of the Batman fan club and the film-makers themselves shouldn’t think twice before they describe Holmes’s act as ‘senseless’.   After not very long, I was so stultified by and cut off from The Dark Knight Rises that I knew the only way I could keep my mind active was by thinking about the relation between what was on screen and what happened in the Aurora cinema.  I didn’t want to do that and walked out with the best part of two hours of the film still to go.

    18 August 2012

  • Forbidden

    Frank Capra (1932)

    At the start of Forbidden, the heroine Lulu Smith (Barbara Stanwyck) has a job in the reference library of a local newspaper.  Violating long-established routine in a way that startles her colleagues, Lulu arrives for work late one morning.  As she goes in, some kids outside call ‘Old mother four eyes!’ at her.  Lulu sits at her desk.  An elderly colleague asks, ‘Do you know what time it is?’  She replies, ‘It’s springtime’. (Stanwyck gives the words an intriguing, witty ambiguousness.)  Then Lulu takes off her specs, goes to the bank to cash in her considerable savings and sets sail on a cruise to Cuba, during which she has a passionate affair with an urbane older man, a lawyer, called Bob Grover (Adolphe Menjou).  (The affair begins thanks to confusion about the numbers of their cabins – she’s 66 and he’s 99.)   The relationship continues when they return home but ends when Grover tells Lulu he’s married.  His wife Helen (Dorothy Peterson) is an invalid and unable to have children but there are no such problems for Lulu, who’s now carrying Grover’s baby.  Lulu is living alone, bringing up their daughter Roberta, when Grover re-enters her life and the affair resumes.  Helen’s condition is unspecified beyond her having a walking stick but it means she keeps taking trips to Europe for ‘treatments’ at convenient points in the story.  During one of these, the lovers decide that, as a surprise for his wife, Bob will adopt Roberta and Lulu will join the household as the baby’s nanny (although the word used us ‘governess’, which seems strange for such a young child).  Lulu almost immediately finds the arrangement intolerable.  She walks out on her infant daughter, who’s left to be raised by Bob and his newly-contented wife.  But Lulu’s affair with Grover continues throughout the years of his progress up the political ladder – from district attorney to mayor to congressman to senator to governor.

    After she’s left her child with Grover and his wife, Lulu returns to the local newspaper, this time as an agony aunt.  She stays there for many years, all the time being pursued by Al Holland (Ralph Bellamy), a journalist who rises from cub reporter to editor and whose two abiding aims in life are to marry Lulu and to destroy Grover’s political career by exposing him for the crook Holland is sure that he is.  When Grover himself, during his campaign for Congress, tells Lulu he can’t stand the pretence any longer, she finally consents to marry Holland, in order to protect Grover and Roberta, who is now a lovely young socialite.    Holland discovers the truth; Lulu shoots him dead before he can expose it.   She goes to prison but Congressman Grover abuses his political power to get the sentence commuted to a year.   By this time, Grover is gravely ill.  He calls Lulu to his deathbed and writes a new will, leaving half his estate to her.   When he dies, Lulu leaves the house, walks down the street, crumples the will into a ball and throws it in a rubbish bin.  She disappears into the crowd.

    The programme note used by BFI suggested that Forbidden was one of the pictures that led to the enforcement of the Hays Code in 1934 and this isn’t hard to believe.  Although the story of the ‘fallen woman’ was a staple of early thirties Hollywood melodrama, the treatment of Lulu is not at all censorious.   Things don’t work out happily for her but that’s largely because she follows her heart in making decisions – not because Frank Capra determines that she be punished.   Giving up her baby so that she can continue her liaison with the child’s father seems, even now, startlingly unconventional.  Pre-Hays films really can be remarkably physically open (and expressive) – films like Mamoulian’s Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Capra’s The Bitter Tea of General Yen, which I saw just last week.   You notice it here too, not just in what appears to be the morally sympathetic viewpoint of Capra, who himself wrote the story, and Jo Swerling, who did the screenplay, but in, for example, the reality of the interactions of Barbara Stanwyck and the baby Roberta (Myrna Fresholt).

    Some of the plotting is pretty desperate.  Holland, whose press career is driven by trying to get the dirt on Grover, is incredibly inept:  in the course of two decades, he and his boys don’t manage to get a whiff of the affair with Lulu.   Unless it’s love for Lulu that blinds him to the truth, it’s hard to believe that Holland doesn’t twig to the situation very early on – when he meets Lulu out with the infant Roberta and Bob’s car pulls up to collect them.   When Lulu and Holland marry and he discovers the truth, the melodramatic scene that Stanwyck and Ralph Bellamy have to play undermines the amusing dynamic between Lulu and Holland that’s developed up to this point in Forbidden.  The twenty-year time span of the story is reflected, and not reflected, in an odd way.  The aging make-up for Stanwyck and Bellamy is OTT:  she looks like an old woman at the end of the film.  Yet the clothes and the social activities described suggest a continuous present (rather than starting in 1910 and leading up to the present, or starting in 1930 and projecting into the future).

    On the plus side, there’s an impressively nuanced scene in Lulu’s apartment shortly after the return from Havana.  Bob arrives, wearing a grotesque mask; after she’s let him in, Lulu wears one too.  The masks enhance the comic business between Stanwyck and Menjou (and anticipate what’s to come) but the disguise, in his case, also expresses Bob’s concealment of his true self from Lulu:  this may sound obvious but comes over as quite powerfully upsetting.   The lovers lie together on a sofa.  Lulu muses about Cinderella and her own fears that midnight is always about to strike and put an end to her happiness with Bob.  The phone rings:  it’s Holland asking if she’ll marry him.  Lulu passes the receiver to Bob so he can listen in:  I liked the fact that it’s this proposal that appears to trigger his admission that he’s got a wife.   Jo Swerling’s dialogue is uninspired when it’s serious but excellent when it’s humorous.  (Holland is the main beneficiary in this respect, although Lulu and Bob get some good lines too in the apartment scene.)  Capra expertly choreographs the big political convention during Grover’s campaign for Congress.

    Her performance here is another fine example of Barbara Stanwyck’s modernity.  She shows you, with easy candour, both Lulu’s appetite and her getting on with her life straightforwardly – without melodramatic recrimination or brooding.  Stanwyck is tremendous when she abandons the nanny persona:  out in a rain-and-wind-swept street Lulu gives Grover a piece of her mind and storms off.  Then she comes back.  Stanwyck rather loses conviction when Capra asks her to be nobly self-sacrificing but Lulu shoots Holland with great passion, wanting not only to shut him up but to obliterate the years and years he’s been trying to get the man she loves.   Ralph Bellamy plays Holland with a likeable enthusiasm and Adolphe Menjou’s Bob Grover is convincingly multi-faceted.  You see a skilled operator, in his professional and his personal life.  But, although it’s Lulu who sacrifices her future to his career, Grover isn’t without a conscience and has his own kind of loyalty to his mistress – even if it is of a self-serving rather than a self-denying kind.

    11 November 2010

Posts navigation