Daily Archives: Monday, July 11, 2016

  • Under the Clock

    Vincente Minnelli (1945)

    BFI advertised it as Under the Clock and that’s what the opening titles say but the film’s called simply The Clock in Pauline Kael’s 5001 Nights at the Movies.  If you look for ‘Under the Clock’ on Wikipedia, you see that ‘Under the Clock (Pod Zegarem in Polish) was a Nazi torture centre in Lublin, Poland during World War II’.  Although the film’s IMDB entry is Under the Clock (with a note that The Clock was the original title), the information on Wikipedia makes you wonder if ‘Pod Zegarem’ was the reason for ‘under’ being dropped from the name of a movie that tells a very different World War II story.  Vincente Minnelli describes the whirlwind romance between Joe Allen, an American soldier on a forty-eight-hour leave in New York City, and Alice Maybery, who works as a secretary there.  They almost literally bump into each other at Pennsylvania Station on the morning of Joe’s arrival – Alice breaks the heel of her shoe stumbling over his kitbag.  By four o’clock the following afternoon, they’re married.  Joe’s train departs from Penn Station the next morning.  He’s heading back to camp in Maryland then expects to be posted overseas.  Under the Clock was released just after VE Day so more than two months before VJ Day – at a time, in other words, when American wives and girlfriends still didn’t know whether the men they loved would be coming back.

    Good actors show us what the people they’re playing are feeling.  Star actors make the experience of the characters they’re incarnating feel definitive.  When the characters played by such actors are in a situation experienced by many, those in the audience to whom the situation is familiar may feel that the intensity of their own experience is properly reflected on the screen.  You can certainly believe this is what happened to people watching Judy Garland as Alice and Robert Walker as Joe in Under the Clock.  The movie is based on an unpublished story by Paul Gallico and his wife Pauline; the story was bought by Arthur Freed as a potential vehicle for Garland and adapted for the screen by Robert Nathan and Joseph Scrank.   Joe and Alice are both sincere, innocent characters – he’s a country boy from Mapleton, Indiana, although Alice’s background is less clear she too is a relative newcomer in the big city – but with Garland and Walker in these roles there’s an extra dimension.  She’s in her first non-singing role, he had made a specialty of playing young soldiers – but they both suggest an underlying complexity.  Of course this derives partly from the knowledge that their off-screen lives were not charmingly uncomplicated.  But because there’s so much more to Garland and Walker than meets the eye there’s no danger of our seeing Joe and Alice as little or ‘ordinary’ people.  This is what takes Under the Clock to a different level.

    It’s refreshing to see Judy Garland, in her early scenes with Robert Walker, as the quieter, more reticent character.  Her passionate quality emerges more gradually than it often does and just about redeems potentially the cheesiest sequence in Under the Clock.   After their high-speed civil marriage, Joe and Alice see a bride and groom, and their guests, departing after a church wedding.   They go into the empty church and quietly read the wedding service to each other.  When shooting began on Under the Clock, the director was Fred Zinnemann.   Garland didn’t get on with him and asked Zinnemann to be removed and replaced with Vincente Minnelli, with whom she’d just enjoyed a great success in Meet Me in St Louis.   Zinnemann is one of my favourite directors but Arthur Freed was right to accede to his star’s demands here.   Minnelli’s visual flair and romanticism are essential to the film’s success.  He ensures there’s a third major character in the story – New York City.  Although the film features some actual footage of the streets, it was mostly shot on the MGM lot.  Most remarkable is the reconstruction of Penn Station (by William Ferrari and Cedric Gibbsons) with its bustling crowds.  Minnelli handles the populous city sequences with as sure a touch as he does the intimate romantic scenes between Garland and Walker.

    There’s a persistent ambivalence in this characterisation of New York.   You get this from the moment that Robert Walker first comes up an escalator at Penn Station to meet the streets outside:  tall and slim himself, he’s overwhelmed by the skyscrapers.  Walker blends excitement and apprehension about New York expertly and the swarming complication of the place repeatedly threatens to thwart the lovers – when they’re separated on the subway, when they battle the repeated bureaucractic obstacles to getting married immediately.  But there are delightful urban details too.   When Alice and Joe are finally married at City Hall, the office is closing for the day and cleaners – who look like proper cleaners but are ably acted – are beginning their work.  On their first evening together, Alice and Joe miss her last bus home and hail what he thinks is a cab but turns out to be a milk float.  When the milkman Al Henry gets a black eye and a sore head from a flailing drunk (Keenan Wynn is almost too convincing in the latter role), Joe and Alice end up doing the milk round themselves; there’s a lovely shot of ranks of milk floats lined up in the dark.   In return, Al takes them back to his home, where his wife makes them breakfast.   The domestic rhythms of this scene are effortless and funny; the Henrys are beautifully played by the real-life husband and wife team of James and Lucile Gleason.   There are very few bits that don’t work.  Ruth Brady is rather dreary as Alice’s flatmate Helen, who warns her against romancing with a soldier, but the scene is saved by its closing line.  Alice’s boyfriend Bill (Marshall Thompson, best known for Daktari on television twenty years later) hasn’t said a word throughout Helen’s chattering.  As she and he prepare to leave the apartment and Alice in peace, the silent Bill cheerily booms ‘Goodbye!’

    13 April 2012

  • Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives

    Loong Boonmee raleuk chat

    Apichatpong Weerasethakul (2010)

    At the start of the film a voiceover says (something like):  ‘I stood on the hill and watched my past lives rising towards me’.   Then a buffalo slips its tether and goes down to drink water from a pond or river.  There’s no word for this sequence but magical.  As you’re watching and listening to the animal lapping water in near darkness, you really seem to feel what it’s like to exist as this buffalo.  You believe for a moment that it is one of the previous incarnations being referred to by the speaker.   Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives contains other beautiful and mysterious sequences: a princess having sex with a catfish; a confusion of stars in the sky and lights in a cave, in the scene in which the title character dies (he has terminal kidney disease which he regards as his karma, for having killed too many communists).  When the ghost of his wife first appears at the table where Boonmee and his visiting relatives are eating, she’s not an ethereal presence although she hasn’t the same materiality as the other diners.  When she appears again to Boonmee alone, she’s more corporeal, interacting physically with him and the objects in the scene.    In the final sequence of the film, after Boonmee’s death and those who visited him in rural Thailand have returned to the city, we see them in a hotel room.    The young monk and the younger woman in this trio appear to go out to a restaurant; then we go back to them in the hotel room with the older woman.  They’re watching television and we get the impression they didn’t go to the restaurant after all:

    ‘What might have been and what has been
    Point to one end, which is always present.’

    I don’t know if Uncle Boonmee counts as ‘slow cinema’ according to the academic meaning of the term.  It’s slow in the obvious sense of the word.  You have plenty of time to admire the visual and sonic compositions and combinations.   I’m pleased I saw the film but it’s pointless to pretend that I understood what Apichatpong Weerasethakul was trying to do.   I’m currently approaching the closing stages of an introduction to Zen Buddhism by D T Suzuki (very short but I’ve been reading it a few pages at time, for weeks), not much wiser than when I started.  I read a piece in Sight & Sound about the importance of Zen to Weerasethakul and the admiring reviews of the film encourage you to ‘give yourself up’ to the beguiling flow of images and sounds.  I’m not sure if bringing a Zen sensibility to bear on the film and suspending a what-does-it-mean approach are the same thing but I can’t do either.   When Boonmee and his dead wife talk about heaven and spirits and he sadly asks her where he’ll find her when he’s dead, I wanted to hear her answer and was frustrated that Weerasethakul cut away at this point.

    Boonmee’s long-disappeared son also returns in the last days of his father’s current life – a hairy, black, red-eyed creature which seems to belong in a different kind of film but, according to quotes from the writer-director on Wikipedia, this may be the point:

    ‘… the film is primarily about “objects and people that transform or hybridise”. A central theme is the transformation and possible extinction of cinema itself. The film consists of six reels each shot in a different cinematic style. The styles include, by the words of the director, “old cinema with stiff acting and classical staging”, “documentary style”, “costume drama” and “my kind of film when you see long takes of animals and people driving”. Apichatpong further explained in an interview with Bangkok Post: “When you make a film about recollection and death, you realise that cinema is also facing death. Uncle Boonmee is one of the last pictures shot on film – now everybody shoots digital. It’s my own little lamentation”.’

    25 November 2010

Posts navigation