Daily Archives: Monday, December 21, 2015

  • Boyz n the Hood

    John Singleton (1991)

    When he was Oscar-nominated for this film in 1992, John Singleton, at twenty-three, was the youngest-ever nominee in the Best Director category.  (He was also nominated for Best Original Screenplay.)  It’s a record he still holds but Singleton hasn’t progressed to the level of successful career that Boyz n the Hood, his first feature, seemed to predict.  Easy to say with hindsight but I’m not surprised.  The picture (which I’d not seen before) is a remarkable piece of work for someone so young but it doesn’t have the qualities – flair, originality, lack of discipline – you naturally associate with a richly promising novice.  In spite of the subject and setting and the edgy title, the film-making is precocious largely in terms of Singleton’s competence in telling a story that is narratively and dramatically conventional, sometimes clichéd.  Boyz n the Hood is thoroughly entertaining and often gripping but it doesn’t strike you as the work of a raw talent of limitless potential.

    A legend at the start announces that ‘One out of every 21 black males born in America will be murdered.  Most will be shot by another black male’.  Giving this information at the outset is (like the quote at the beginning of The Hurt Locker) a dramatic miscalculation:   it makes it obvious that Singleton’s main aim is to illustrate the statistic and what follows isn’t strong enough to make the ultimate direction of the story powerfully inevitable rather than predictable.  Boyz n the Hood is set in South Central Los Angeles (the ‘Hood’ of the title means ‘neighbourhood’).  The first half hour or so describes the life of three black boys in the area in 1984.  Singleton then cuts to ‘seven years later’, where he resumes his focus on the protagonists, Tre and the brothers Ricky and Darin (‘Doughboy’).  Tre is now a high-school senior, preparing to go to college. Ricky, who attends the same school, is a talented American footballer, trying for a sports scholarship to the University of Southern California; he’s also already a father.  Doughboy, older than the other two, has been in prison and is now into crack-dealing.   Doughboy – with his friends Monster, Dookie and the wheelchair-bound Chris (I wasn’t sure if he lost the use of his legs through being shot:  Chris can walk in the 1984 part of the story) – is involved in the local gangs and guns world.  Showing how criminal culture intersects with law-abiding life in the area is one of the things that Singleton does best.   We get a sense of it at family and social gatherings and the normal soundtrack of the place includes the noise of helicopters as well as police sirens.

    Although the meaning of the words would have been very different, this picture could well have been called Do the Right Thing if Spike Lee hadn’t got there first.  Tre’s parents are separated.  At the start of the film, he’s living with his mother, Reva, but then moves to the home of his father, Furious.  At school, Tre is a bright but disruptive student; he’s signed a ‘contract’ with Reva which says that, if he doesn’t improve his behaviour, he’ll go to live with Furious instead.  When Reva first mentioned this agreement, I didn’t expect it to be regarded as binding on an eleven-year-old but, as far as Reva is concerned, it is – and the same seems to go for Furious too.  He has, and imparts to Tre, very clear ideas about the way black males should live their lives.  Furious was only seventeen when he fathered Tre and advises him to take precautions against doing the same.  He keeps a gun in the house – and it comes in handy the very first night Tre spends under his father’s roof – but Furious is careful to instruct Tre against violence, and getting involved in violence.  The role and duties of fathers is a major theme of Boyz n the Hood and its development is not only unsubtle but sexist.  The father(s) of Doughboy and Ricky is/are conspicuous by their absence.  Their mother Brenda is emotionally unstable and irresponsible – she adores Ricky and does nothing but yell abuse at Doughboy (even when he’s an obese young boy).

    Ricky, in becoming a teenage father, does exactly what Tre avoids doing, thanks to his father’s advice.  (I wasn’t clear why Tre took Furious’s words so deeply to heart that he delayed losing his virginity in preference to using a condom.)  Although he criticises the cruder expressions of misogyny in the culture he’s describing, Singleton appears to suggest that it’s only a father who can properly instil moral sense and backbone in a son and he underwrites the mothers’ parts to make the point more clearly (unless the underwriting is itself an unconscious expression of sexism).  Reva, who, at the start of the film, is completing her master’s degree, never seems to be lacking in self-esteem.  If she’d been presented as wanting an excuse to get Tre off her hands – for selfish reasons – it might have been more convincing.  As it is, Reva doesn’t seem to have a mind of her own – she simply has to abide by John Singleton’s opinion that a moral education is for a father to deliver.  (We don’t see Tre in school again once he moves in with Furious.)

    A man from USC visits the Baker home to discuss a sports scholarship for Ricky.  Later that evening, Brenda holds her son in her arms and tells him how proud she is of him, that she always knew that he (unlike Doughboy) would amount to something.  We in the audience have an equally strong conviction at this point that Ricky won’t live to see USC and that he’ll be a victim of gun violence.  He still needs a SAT score of 700 to get to college.  In a later scene, when, as he and Tre walk away from the house, Brenda calls to say that an envelope has arrived containing Ricky’s results and he takes no notice (he’s thinking of joining the US Army by now), you can be pretty sure that’s the last time his mother will see him alive.  After Ricky has died of his gunshot wounds, we see Brenda looking at the SAT printout and we can guess the score (710).  It’s agonising melodramatic details like these that reveal Boyz n the Hood, in spite of its distinctive subject, as kin to hundreds of earlier films – even though Ricky’s death, especially when his bleeding body is brought back home by Doughboy and Tre, is a gruellingly compelling sequence.  There’s a good twist when Furious has persuaded Tre to hand over his gun and – we think – against going to seek revenge on the gang who murdered Ricky.  Tre lets himself out of a window and drives off with Doughboy and co to hunt the killers down.   But when Tre thinks again during the drive into town and gets out of the car, the moment feels fake:  Tre seems not to have realised the wisdom of what his father has told him but to have remembered the moral of John Singleton’s story.

    The words ‘Increase the peace’ appear on the screen at the end of Boyz n the Hood.  Singleton’s imperative registers almost as a refutation of the Public Enemy/Spike Lee instruction ‘Fight the power’.   Yet Singleton, when he’s making racially-political points, makes them just as baldly as Lee at his most tendentious.  The sequence in which Furious explains the social evil of ‘gentrification’ is clumsily contrived (as well as Tre and Ricky, a small crowd of locals assembles to hear him).  The scenes involving a good cop-bad cop duo – the white policeman decent, the African-American policeman abusively anti-black – are forceful but obvious.   Singleton grew up in South Central LA and there seems no doubt that Boyz is essentially autobiographical; how specifically it describes people in his own youth is less clear.   The last two scenes in the 1984 section – an amusing, unsettling facts-of-life conversation between Tre and Furious on a beach, quickly followed by shots of Tre watching Doughboy and Chris being taken away in a police car (for shoplifting) as he and his father return home – have the elusive but incisive texture of memory, of something hard to grasp but which is lodged in the mind for a lifetime.  When Tre first arrives at his father’s house, Furious gets him to rake the leaves from the patch of front lawn and this sequence is resonant in a similar way (and for the audience throughout the film:  it comes to mind each time you see a shot of the lawn).  As Doughboy walks away from Tre at the end, a legend appears:  ‘The next day Doughboy buried his brother’.  Doughboy vanishes from the frame and another legend explains that ‘Two weeks later he was murdered’.  Then we read that Tre went to college and his fiancée Brandi to a neighbouring one.  Of course this doesn’t prove that the characters are all based on real people but you naturally associate the what-happened-next epilogue with films dealing with real lives.

    It’s fascinating to see this cast in retrospect, given what they went on to do, although the acting is pretty variable.  As the teenage Tre, Cuba Gooding Jr is already very aware of the camera.  There are moments when he almost appears to be looking for it – as if to say ‘Have you got this?’ to the cinematographer (Charles Mills).  (Gooding also looks several years out of high school:  he was in fact twenty-three when the film was released.)  He’s strong when Tre is in extremis.  Elsewhere, he lacks the quiet, watchful wit of the younger Tre (Desi Arnez Hines II).  Gooding’s most affecting moment is when Tre breaks down after being threatened at gunpoint by the racially abusive black cop (Jesse Ferguson) and embarrasses himself at crying in front of Brandi (Nia Long).  For the most part, there’s not much continuity of soul between the younger and older versions of the kids.  It took me a little while to work out who’d grown up into whom (Ricky is played by Donovan McCrary, then by Morris Chestnut.)  It’s true that Baha Jackson and Ice Cube, as Doughboy, have a weight advantage in this respect but I think they match up and impose themselves because their performances are simply more deeply felt and penetrating than those of the other young actors:  Ice Cube never loses the gabby vulnerability of his pre-adolescent self.  They may be overcompensating for the thinness of their roles as Singleton has written them but, as the two mothers, Angela Bassett (Reva) and Tyra Ferrell (Brenda) are both too actressy and self-aware.  Their studied histrionics slow their scenes down.

    Singleton is very fortunate to have Laurence Fishburne in the role of Furious – ironically well named because Fishburne gains such authority from his quietness here, as well as from his physical presence.  His shoulders are more than broad enough to bear the thematic load placed on the character.  The crudely conceived ‘gentrification’ scene apart, Singleton develops the character of Furious gradually and effectively.  When Tre first arrives at his father’s home, it’s hard to tell from Furious’s appearance whether he’s got a job at all.  Fishburne is so convincing that, when it turns out halfway through that Furious seems to have his own financial service business, it comes as a surprise but it’s a credible one.   When Tre leaves Doughboy and the others to avenge Ricky’s death and returns to his father’s house, Furious looks at him then turns his back and closes a door behind him.  In this moment Fishburne expresses wonderfully how Furious’s relief is quickly overtaken not only by anger with his son but with a feeling of humiliation that his paternal authority wasn’t enough to keep Tre at home at the first time of asking.  Fishburne was thirty at the time the film was made but, as we know from Apocalypse Now (he was fourteen when Coppola began shooting in 1976, having lied about how old he was in order to get the role), he’s an exceptionally protean actor in this respect.  Looking just the right age as Furious in both 1984 and 1991 is no problem to him.   I kept wondering as I watched him here if Fishburne might have been an even better Malcolm X than Denzel Washington.  They share the ability to illuminate thoughtful men but a quality of dangerous, mysterious reserve doesn’t come naturally to Washington in the way that it does to Laurence Fishburne.

    29 September 2009

  • Sweet Bird of Youth

    Richard Brooks (1962)

    In terms of settings and plot, this Tennessee Williams play might seem relatively adaptable to the screen and the Florida locations are realised well enough.    The problem is that Richard Brooks, who did the adaptation as well as directing, hasn’t edited the text to take account of what cinema can express by means other than words.  Brooks seems almost to have added words to a theatre script that’s already long on talk.   If the play verges on the ridiculous, the picture is comfortably over the edge.   Sweet Bird of Youth is an extravagant thematic stew about:  (1) the vulnerability of beauty and pleasure, and the ways in which time and human agency succeed in destroying them;   (2) how people use and buy each other, with money/sex/political power/the lure of fame – and their various permutations.   The main channels for communicating these ideas are a handsome gigolo-loser (first name Chance); a neurotic, drug- and alcohol-addicted, I-used-to-be-big Hollywood actress; a corrupt and violent right-wing demagogue; his beatifically lovely daughter (Heavenly); her weakly vicious brother; her maiden aunt; and the politician’s aging mistress.   One of the fascinations of Tennessee Williams is that a profusion of bad ideas can actually enhance his plays.  Melodramatic clichés, once they’ve come through the blender of his unusual sensibility, may emerge as a concoction that seems both original and definitive.  Characters who are essentially stereotypes, undergoing the same process, may be  individualised through his powerful identification with them.   One of Williams’s limitations is in the range of character types that he can identify with in this way.  He has a genius for animating desperate, disappointed middle-aged women but many of the men and the younger woman in his plays seem relatively alien to his imaginative sympathies.  They remain ideas rather than people, unless they are the products of autobiography (like Tom and Laura Wingfield) or except where the talents of the actor in the role (Brando as Stanley Kowalski is the paradigm) can bring the character fully to life.

    Unreal (or unrealised) characters predominate in Sweet Bird of Youth – and are more sharply exposed as such by adaptation of the material from stage to screen.  This is especially the case with Chance Wayne.  This is an unusual Paul Newman performance in two ways:  first, because he’d already played the role on stage; second, because as a screen performance it doesn’t work.  To Williams, Chance is an embodiment of male physical beauty and the supreme bringer of joy when he gives his body to someone.  (In the film, the grievous bodily harm done to Chance is to disfigure his face – after which Brooks tacks on a momentary, perfunctory happy ending.  In the play, it’s castration.)   Williams also seems to see Chance, possibly because of his physical glory, as essentially decent – too decent to succeed in a cruel and venal world or even to carry through his feeble plan to blackmail the on-the-skids actress.  The part is imprecisely written.  Sometimes Chance is supposed to be an inarticulate innocent.  Sometimes he spouts aperçus on the human condition as fluently as the next character (Williams spreads these around).   All this makes life difficult for Newman.  He does more than completely satisfy the physical requirements of the role.  He combines human believability with effulgent star quality in a way that makes it baffling that Chance hasn’t made the big time.    Newman had a gift for interpreting men of limited intelligence – often not verbally.  The lapidary lines sound particularly phony with him delivering them because you know that smooth articulacy isn’t natural to either the character or to Newman, when he’s playing a man like Chance.  And the acres of verbiage get in Newman’s way more generally:  he is so complete a screen actor that you know he doesn’t need to keep talking to express character.   He sounds as if he’s speaking lines and doesn’t believe most of them.  There are moments when he takes up a striking, false position (as when he learns of his mother’s death) that looks like something he developed for the stage role and has to fall back on here.   Still, a Paul Newman performance that’s an interesting failure is more worth watching than the successful performances of most other actors (and Newman’s own uninteresting successes like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid).

    As Alexandra del Lago (alias the Princess Kosmonopolis), Geraldine Page is also reprising a stage part but it’s not one of those performances that looks to have been worked out in the theatre and seems too practised and shrivelled on screen.  Page has superb technical skills, and while you’re kept aware of her technique here, much of what she does feels freshly inventive.   The Princess is an example of how Williams’s dynamic empathy with a character can transform the garish clichés of which she or he is composed into something not exactly believable but certainly compelling.  (The Princess is allegedly based on Tallulah Bankhead, a friend of Williams.)   The abundant wordage is much less of a problem for Page – partly because you can accept that the Princess is a flamboyant talker and partly because Page’s brilliantly varied and rhythmical line readings keep the lines alive.   The upturn in the Princess’s fortunes is ludicrous (the picture which she assumed to ring the death knell on her career and sent her into hiding turns out to be a smash hit); but Page’s playing of the telephone conversation in which she receives this incredible news is justly celebrated.   Whether it’s through her daring as a performer or something in her screen presence (or both), Page connects very satisfyingly with the volatility of the character.    (I saw Lauren Bacall in the play at the Haymarket in the mid-1980s.  Leaving aside the fact that she’s a very limited actress compared with Page, it was Bacall’s core of sanity that made her essentially unconvincing in the role.)

    Shirley Knight is touching as Heavenly – but this too is a hollow character (and another who’s occasionally required to break off from the way she normally speaks to impart insights on behalf of her creator).   As Boss Finley, Ed Begley gives a very enjoyable performance.  The fact that it’s so enjoyable illustrates the limits of the performance and the role – Boss is evil in theatrical quotation marks – but Begley was probably right to play the part with brutal relish rather than take it entirely seriously.  (It was surely what won him a surprise Oscar as Best Supporting Actor – the Academy wouldn’t have given him the award if he’d been genuinely disturbing in the role.)   The more Boss grins, the more murderous the look in his eyes.  As his son, Rip Torn is maybe too evidently aware of the florid absurdities of the material but he has developed an ingenious smile that seems to slide away from his face under pressure.  Contrasting as it does with Begley’s menacing rictus, Torn’s smile perfectly conveys why the son-will-never-be-the-bastard-his-father-is.   Madeleine Sherwood – in a very different role from Maggie the Cat’s fecund nemesis in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof – is Boss’s mistress, Miss Lucy.  Mildred Dunnock is Aunt Nonnie.

    12 November 2008

Posts navigation