Monthly Archives: February 2017

  • The Fountainhead

    King Vidor (1949)

    The Fountainhead’s inclusion in this month’s BFI’s ‘Big Screen Classics’ slot prompts the question of what constitutes a classic.  The dictionary definition that best confers such status on King Vidor’s film is ‘unusual example of its kind’:  The Fountainhead, adapted by Ayn Rand from her best-selling novel of 1943, looks and sounds like no other mainstream Hollywood movie I can remember.   Its protagonist Howard Roark (Gary Cooper) is a uniquely innovative architect, based on Frank Lloyd Wright (one of Rand’s heroes).  His designs, by their unfettered originality, transform the conformist mediocrity of the New York City skyline but the examples of Roark’s work realised in Edward Carrere’s production designs for the movie are a sort of grandiose, futuristic kitsch.  The physical scale of things is generally bizarre:  as a review in Monthly Film Bulletin noted at the time of the picture’s original release, ‘hardly any scene takes place in a room less than a hundred yards long’.  Much of the dialogue is dialectic:  the characters trade more or less explicit assertions of the individualism that Ayn Rand promotes and the ‘collectivism’ she abhors.  The chief mouthpiece for the forces of darkness is Ellsworth Toohey (Robert Douglas), hugely influential architecture critic for ‘The Banner’ newspaper.  Rand intends the self-interested genius Roark to trounce his opponents’ arguments but she supplies stiffly rhetorical lines and, in effect, the same voice to all concerned.  The visual and verbal novelty of The Fountainhead wears off quickly.   The only entertaining clash of opposites that persists is between the inflexible dialogue and Max Steiner’s incongruous plushy score.

    The dramatic climax to the film occurs through Roark’s allowing Peter Keating (Kent Smith), a compromising and therefore mediocre architect, to claim the creative credit for a huge housing project which Roark will himself design.  I didn’t get why the proudly egocentric Roark would agree to such an arrangement, even with the condition he imposes – that Keating build the development precisely according to Roark’s specifications.  Keating inevitably caves in to pressure to alter the original designs so Roark rigs explosives to the newly erected buildings, blows them up and goes on trial.  He conducts his own defence, calls no witnesses but makes a speech to the jury, defending his right to operate as an independent agent without obligations to (there-is-no-such-thing-as) society.  It’s not clear what crime Roark is being tried for but, since he appears to have no qualms admitting that he dynamited ‘his’ development, you’d have thought he’d plead guilty.  Except, of course, that he believes he hasn’t done anything wrong.  The jury, who compel admiration by staying awake through his summation, must admit that Roark is right and he’s acquitted.  You might think the verdict of a jury – as the expression of a collective point of view – would take the shine off this triumph but you’d be wrong.   In the light of the public vindication of Roark, the vanquished Gail Wynand (Raymond Massey), owner and publisher of ‘The Banner’, presents him with a contract to design, carte blanche, a building that will bear Wynand’s name.  As soon as Roark has left his office, Wynand takes a gun from his desk drawer and commits suicide.  This leaves his widow Dominique (Patricia Neal) free to marry Roark:  they had an affair earlier in the story – after Dominique had broken off her engagement to loser Keating, before she married Wynand.  In the film’s final scene, Dominique, who also helped Roark blow up the blighted project, ascends in an open elevator to the top of the new Wynand Building.  The Übermensch hero Howard Roark stands proudly at the summit, unwavering in the wind that gusts about the most phallic skyscraper the world has ever seen.

    Just as Roark permits no tinkering with the plans he supplies to Peter Keating, so Ayn Rand stipulated that no changes could be made to her script for The Fountainhead.  In his introduction to this BFI screening, Matthew Harle, a postdoctoral researcher at the Barbican Centre & Guildhall, claimed that Rand was so determined to guard against Keating-esque dilution of her words that she personally supervised the shooting of the film, and virtually co-directed it.  Harle suggested that, as a result, King Vidor was as ‘absent from’ the finished work as Rand was ‘present in it’.   This confirmed my increasing feeling, as I watched The Fountainhead, that what went on behind the camera was more interesting than what ended up on the screen.  Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal had an off-screen affair:  you wouldn’t guess it from the florid yet soulless quality of Roark and Dominique’s liaison.  Howard Roark is a winner and Cooper easily takes the prize for most boring and pompous performance in the movie (with Raymond Massey a distant second).  Matthew Harle got off to an amusing start by noting how well represented architects are as a professional group in latterday romantic comedies – Sleepless in Seattle, Love Actually and It’s Complicated among them.  He went on to characterise The Fountainhead as a romcom sui generis, with Howard Roark his own love interest.

    Towards the end of his introduction – one of the most cogent and enjoyable I’ve ever heard at BFI – Harle mentioned Donald Trump, as both ‘another builder of New York skyscrapers’ and a fan of Ayn Rand’s novel:  in an interview in December 2016, the then president-elect told USA Today that the work ‘relates to business, beauty, life and inner emotions.   That book relates to … everything’.  Harle closed with a question he admitted he couldn’t answer:  what it does mean for a twenty-first century audience to watch The Fountainhead when Donald Trump is the leader of the Western world?   For this viewer, I think it meant I wasn’t in the mood to find the film extravagantly but irresistibly ridiculous – or, to put it more simply, a laugh.  Soon after seeing The Fountainhead, I caught up with Emily Nussbaum’s brilliant New Yorker article ‘How Jokes Won the Election’ (23 January 2017)[1].  Nussbaum’s piece makes it all the harder just now to see the funny side of OTT individualism.

    1 February 2017

    [1]  http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/23/how-jokes-won-the-election

     

  • Hacksaw Ridge

    Mel Gibson (2016)

    Mel Gibson the director evidently likes to give his films stark, formidable titles – The Man Without a Face, Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto.  The climax of his fifth picture takes place on the Maeda Escarpment, a crucial location in the three-month Battle of Okinawa in 1945.  The escarpment is known by several names but it’s no surprise that Gibson opts for the cutting-edge Hacksaw Ridge.  (According to IMDB, his next project, currently ‘in development’, is Berserker.)    I’d never seen a film directed by Mel Gibson until now.   Each time Braveheart is on television, I think I ought to watch it but always chicken out at the prospect of hours of fighting.  There’s a large amount of fighting in Hacksaw Ridge too yet this is the biography of a pacifist.  Desmond Doss was born in 1919 in Lynchburg, Virginia, and raised there as a Seventh Day Adventist.   Following the Japanese strike on Pearl Harbor, Doss was compelled by moral and religious imperatives both to enlist and to refuse to carry arms.  He served as a combat medic with the 77th Infantry Division and, on the Maeda Escarpment, saved the lives of seventy-five wounded soldiers.  He became the first conscientious objector ever to receive the US Medal of Honor for actions above and beyond the call of duty.

    The BBFC certification for Hacksaw Ridge draws attention to ‘strong bloody violence, gory injury detail’ and Mel Gibson delivers on this threat very quickly.  The film opens with scenes of fighting at Okinawa before flashing back to Desmond’s childhood and youth prior to 1941.  When an anonymous man is injured in a traffic accident in Lynchburg and Desmond uses his belt as a tourniquet, we get an excellent view of blood spurting from the wound on the man’s upper leg.  It’s true this is a key moment in the story:  Desmond accompanies the man to hospital, falls in love at first sight with his future wife Dorothy Schutte, a nurse there, and, as a result of this infatuation, starts to develop an interest in medical work.   That close-up of the injured leg seems unwarranted, even so.  During the Hacksaw Ridge sequences, Gibson shows the experiences of the hero and his US infantry colleagues, whom we’ve met before in the scenes that describe Desmond’s basic military training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  Gibson also shows the leader of a vanquished Japanese unit instructing one of his men to behead him, and that instruction being carried out.  We don’t know these Japanese as individuals in the story; we do already know of the tradition of ritual assisted suicide by defeated Japanese military leaders.  Why does Gibson include this death, other than to ring the changes on the other forms of execution we’ve been watching?

    Until the Battle of Okinawa is underway, Mel Gibson is going through the motions.  The mechanical screenplay is by Andrew Knight and Robert Schenkkan.  The boy Desmond (Darcy Bryce) throws a brick at and hits his brother Hal (Roman Guerriero).  Although no lasting damage is done, the realisation that he might have killed Hal and the encouragement of his devout Seventh Day Adventist mother Bertha (Rachel Griffiths) are enough to convert Desmond to lifelong non-violence.   Domestic ructions also demonstrate, however, that – as he will show in response to Pearl Harbor – the young man Desmond (Andrew Garfield) knows to do the right thing in the face of vicious aggressive action by another.  His father Tom (Hugo Weaving), a Great War veteran who takes refuge in alcohol from the lasting trauma of his own military experience, abuses his wife.    When a drunken Tom threatens Bertha with a gun, Desmond grabs the weapon from his father but doesn’t pull the trigger.  At army camp, his refusal to bear arms or to take part in training on Saturday (his Sabbath) results in Desmond’s being picked on by the drill sergeant (Vince Vaughn) and senior officers (including Sam Worthington); or being branded a coward, beaten up, ostracised by his fellow trainee soldiers.  (Luke Bracey and Luke Pegler register most strongly among this group.)  Whether hitting him or attempting to get him out of the army on psychiatric grounds, Desmond’s persecutors exhibit only aggressive hostility – there’s no suggestion of, for example, a sense of bafflement or of their feeling threatened by his extraordinary ethics.  (The psychological monochrome is meant to make it more impactful when his colleagues see Desmond’s courage under fire and the error of their ways.)

    Hacksaw Ridge hits a low point of shallow melodrama in the episode that sees Desmond Doss tried by a military court for insubordination in refusing to carry a firearm.  Desmond’s father suddenly smartens up his act and calls in a favour from his commanding officer in World War I, now a brigadier general.  Outside the room in which his son’s case is being heard, Tom suggests that Dorothy (Teresa Palmer), now Desmond’s fiancée, take in the brigadier general’s letter, which confirms that the refusal to carry a firearm is protected by Act of Congress.  Dorothy says only military personnel can be admitted so the father barges his way in.  Although he was suggesting just a screen moment ago that Dorothy rather than he hand over the letter, Tom Doss now insists on delivering it with a determined I-fought-for-my-country-is-this-how-my-country-repays-me number to the tribunal.

    The action then leaps forward to Hacksaw Ridge.  We get no sense of how Desmond’s relationships with the rest of the platoon have developed in the intervening three years.  (Even before his heroics on the Maeda Escarpment, the real Desmond Doss was awarded a Bronze Star for helping wounded soldiers in 1944 on Guam and the Philippines.)   Mel Gibson, impatient to get to the battle scenes, now lets rip, with bravura editing (by John Gilbert) and an impressive, sometimes imaginative use of sound.  (As well as the continuing explosions, we get, for example, the unnerving ping of one particular bullet hitting one particular metal helmet.)  The warfare on Hacksaw Ridge is a three-act drama in itself.   First, the US forces scale the sheer cliff face of the escarpment to get to the Japanese dug in on the ridge; in the combat that follows, both sides sustain heavy losses.  This is followed by the next day’s Japanese counterattack to drive the Americans off Hacksaw Ridge, which sees Desmond’s repeated, single-handed lifesaving:  he carries soldier after wounded soldier to the cliff edge and rappels them down to safety.  A final American assault takes place on the following day.  It’s Desmond’s Sabbath but he joins his fellow soldiers – whose mascot he has now become – on the mission, to care for more wounded.  Desmond himself is injured by a grenade but is successfully lowered down the cliff, holding on tight to the Bible that Dorothy gave him.

    Act one contains some extraordinary images:  aerial shots of men climbing the network of rope ladders on the side of the cliff; one soldier using the dismembered corpse of another as a shield.  This is a powerful description of the horrific effects of war – a succession of human beings are blown or shot to pieces – yet it seems protracted and designed more to demonstrate Mel Gibson’s flair for filming warfare than to make us feel the terrible relentlessness of the bloodshed.  The relentlessness of Gibson’s coercive direction, however, is emotionally persuasive.   I was always uncomfortable that Hacksaw Ridge was showing (off) as much mayhem as possible to promote its protagonist’s pacifism.  I was aware of – and wanted to resist – the techniques being used to move me (Rupert Gregson-Williams’s effective score among them).  But I was moved, nevertheless, in the rescue scenes – and I could understand why some people in the Richmond Odeon applauded when the wounded Desmond was safely lowered to the ground.  Gibson and his cinematographer Simon Duggan keep up the visual inventiveness – for example, in a sequence in which Desmond hides a wounded soldier from view by virtually burying him:  a single eye watches from inside a mound of earth as the Japanese soldiers walk around it.  Some of the religious imagery is overblown, though; it may correspond to Mel Gibson’s own outlook but it seems contrary to Desmond Doss’s firm but unassuming faith.

    Even outside a war film, Andrew Garfield is an unusual leading man.  His long-necked slenderness, innocent eyes and expression make him deerlike.  He naturally suggests a sweet and eccentric nature.  Those qualities were repressed (and Garfield’s performance was unmemorable) in Silence but Mel Gibson exploits them thoroughly, and eventually very successfully.  Garfield is charming and occasionally funny in the Lynchburg scenes, and convincingly inside Desmond Doss’s mind when he politely but firmly justifies his position to his military superiors.  You nevertheless feel that Desmond’s difference-from-the-rest is being presented too obviously:  Garfield speaks mostly in a little, half-whispering voice.   In the last hour of the film, things change.  Garfield’s distinctive temperament not only makes Desmond’s heroism seem especially remarkable and Hacksaw Ridge affecting; it’s also a counterpoint to the strong-arming direction – and a big reason why you end up not resenting the film’s manipulative side.   At the end, Mel Gibson shows news film of the real Desmond Doss receiving his Medal of Honor and footage of an interview with him in old age (he died in 2006 at the age of eighty-seven).  It’s to Andrew Garfield’s credit that these inserts don’t eclipse the character he’s created.  They feel continuous with it.

    31 January 2017

Posts navigation