Monthly Archives: June 2017

  • Little Big Man

    Arthur Penn (1970)

    The first sight of the face of thirty-three-year-old Dustin Hoffman as 121-year-old Jack Crabb, the hero of Little Big Man, is remarkable – a pair of eyes deep in the wizened face constructed by the great make-up artist Dick Smith.  The first sound of Jack isn’t so impressive.  Hoffman would go to his dressing room and shout as loudly as possible for an hour in order to weaken his voice and create a centenarian-plus effect.  The resulting quavery singsong still sounds the way an actor pretending to be much older than he really is tends to sound.  You’re especially aware of this as soon as Arthur Penn cuts away from the opening confrontation between Jack Crabb and the oral historian who’s come to the nursing home to interview him.  Once Jack is reduced to a voice on the soundtrack, as he starts to tell the tall story of his life, the set rhythm of Hoffman’s delivery is all the more pronounced.  It’s a pity that Dick Smith’s make-up gets so little further screen time but a relief that Penn increasingly rations Jack’s voiceover narration too.

    Thomas Berger’s novel Little Big Man uses a bildungsroman framework to fashion a picaresque satire, what Berger’s biographer Brooks Landon called his ‘response to the great American myth of the frontier’.  Jack Crabb, an orphaned white boy raised by the Cheyenne nation, passes through the nineteenth-century American West, from one job to another, to and fro between white and Native American cultures.  He encounters on the way, as well as other fictional creations, the likes of Buffalo Bill, Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill Hickox and General Custer.  Jack claims to be the ‘sole white survivor’ of the Battle of the Little Bighorn (although he’s named ‘Little Big Man’ by the Cheyenne, years before 1876).  Berger’s novel was published in 1964.  Although the first US military fatality had occurred three years previously, the Vietnam War was, from the American point of view, still in its infancy.  (The first deployment of US combat units was in January 1965.)  The situation was quite different by the time Arthur Penn and the scenarist Calder Willingham began work on adapting Little Big Man for the screen.

    Even though awareness of the Native American experience in the nineteenth-century American West was increasing in 1970 (the year that saw the publication of Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee), Vietnam was culturally pervasive by the time Penn’s film was completed.  Little Big Man’s negative depictions of the pioneer spirit in action in the Wild West are inflected with a more urgent dismay at modern American imperialism in the Far East – for example, in the distinctly Oriental appearance of Jack’s Native-American wife Sunshine (played by Hong Kong-born Aimée Eccles), who is murdered by Custer’s 7th Cavalry.   In theory, it should be possible to blend the humorous and serious elements of the Thomas Berger material into a coherent whole.  In practice, the shifts in tone of Arthur Penn’s Little Big Man make it look to be arguing with itself and the conscious attempt to make it an anti-Vietnam War picture may be a main cause of the problem.  The importance of the War actually taking place at the time – the antithesis of a laughing matter to a political liberal like Penn – clouded his judgment as an artist.

    Little Big Man includes three main warfare episodes – two assaults against the Cheyenne by Custer and his men before the Little Bighorn finale.  As you’d expect from their work together on Bonnie and Clyde, Penn and his editor Dede Allen stage these episodes well yet they seem, thanks to the long intervening stretches of hip(pish) humour, to belong in a different film.  The more expertly filmed and shocking the scenes of carnage, the more discordant they are (especially the 7th Cavalry attack in which Sunshine is killed).  Dustin Hoffman epitomises the movie’s split personality.  His presence is so contemporary that he’s naturally incongruous in a historical setting.  (There are times when he’s not much less out of place in the Wild West than Woody Allen, more intentionally, was a few years later in the spoof Tolstoyan Russia of Love and Death.)  There’s an advantage to this:  Hoffman’s modernity, allied with his terrific wit, means he can manage the lampoon-cartoon mode of the film without strain.  There is strain, though, in his attempts to express ‘true’ emotion, except when he has the mask of the geriatric make-up.

    The supporting acting in Little Big Man isn’t satisfyingly orchestrated.  It’s hardly surprising, of course, that the Native Americans, rather than embodying ridiculous or reprehensible attitudes, are the mouthpieces for quietly ironic political comment.   The noble-faced Chief Dan George, as the tribal leader Old Lodge Skins, who supervises Jack’s education with the Cheyenne, and whom Jack calls grandfather, does this effectively.  (The Native Americans not played by the real thing aren’t so good.)  Richard Mulligan’s Custer also works well.  He’s so extraordinarily long and thin he has effortlessly the look of a caricature.  Mulligan plays him as an alarming, vain crackpot yet the actor shows an almost touching sympathy with Custer.  As often happens, actors in smaller roles are anxious to make the most of their limited opportunities, which tends to confuse the meaning of the story.  Through being over-emphatic, William Hickey (as the oral historian interviewer), Carol Androsky (Jack’s sister, Caroline) and Kelly Jean Peters (his first wife, the termagant Olga) make an impression out of proportion to the political significance of their characters.  Faye Dunaway is conspicuous in a somewhat different way.  She’s amusing in the role of the sexually frustrated wife of a pastor (Thayer David) – but amusing as Faye Dunaway doing a special-guest-star amusing turn.  Well-judged playing by Martin Balsam (the snake-oil salesman Allardyce T Merriwether) and Jeff Corey (Wild Bill Hiccox) helps steady the ship.

    Little Big Man was widely praised on its original release.  In 2014, it was deemed ‘culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant’ by the Library of Congress and chosen for preservation in the US National Film Registry.  There’s no denying its ambition or the importance of its themes.  It’s these themes, rather than the film itself, that explain its enduring reputation.

    5 June 2017

  • Straw Dogs

    Sam Peckinpah (1971)

    Impressions of Straw Dogs from viewings in the 1970s and 2017 …

    Take 1

    The violent climax to Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs is strong and upsetting largely because it’s a logical climax.  In the context of the whole film, it’s legitimate because Peckinpah has the courage of his convictions and the explosive finale has been effectively prepared for.  An American academic, David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman), comes to live in a Cornwall farmhouse, Trencher’s Farm, with his young English wife, Amy (Susan George).  Close to Amy’s home town, it’s a quiet location, where David can concentrate on writing a book but where, as the story unfolds, he also loses, gradually and inexorably, his masculine self-esteem.  David is derided by the locals doing work on the Sumners’ home.  They include Amy’s ex-boyfriend, Charlie (Del Henney).  He and his mates leer at David’s deliberately ‘provocative’ wife.  Her specky-four-eyes husband is exposed as a coward in her presence, then pressurised into accompanying Charlie and the other men – Chris (Jim Norton), Norman (Ken Hutchison) and Phil (Donald Webster) – on a shooting party.   With David abandoned by others out in the country,   Charlie goes back to Trencher’s Farm and rapes Amy.  Norman follows suit, sodomising her.  Peckinpah implies that Amy, after some initial resistance, is promiscuous enough to welcome the first assault but that the anal penetration is more than she bargained for.

    A few days later, returning in their car from a church social, David knocks down Henry Niles (David Warner), the village idiot.  His injuries aren’t serious but David takes Niles back to the farmhouse and tries to get a doctor for him.  Niles is being hunted by a posse that includes, as well as Amy’s attackers, a man called Tom Hedden (Peter Vaughan), whose daughter, Janice (Sally Thomsett), Niles has molested and – although the pursuers don’t know this – strangled.  (The killing appears to have been accidental.)  Niles’s pursuers try to break into David and Amy’s home.  The timid cuckold now fights back, either killing or maiming his adversaries – eventually with his wife’s help.  Although one assumes he’ll be prosecuted for the killings, the amazed satisfaction of David’s expression at the end of Straw Dogs suggests that his brutal behaviour has been his salvation as a red-blooded male.  The smile that flickers across Amy’s face indicates that she agrees.  Sam Peckinpah’s view appears to be that it’s the beast in a man that makes him a man.

    The film is strongly misogynist.  There are barely any women in evidence except for Amy, Janice and the vicar’s wife.  Amy is a glowing, selfish tart – almost the reverse of a golden-hearted whore:  her beauty is entirely exterior and she’s spiritually ugly.  She not only asks for the sex; she’s willing to let the lynching party into her home if that will ensure her own safety.  Janice is a vain, silly girl who wants to get laid and isn’t choosy about who does the job.  Together, she and Amy affirm the male chauvinist fantasy that there’s no such thing as rape.  On the shocking evidence of Straw Dogs, it seems that Peckinpah subscribes to this fantasy.  There’s no female counterweight at all.  The vicar’s pretty, naive wife (Cherina Schaer) isn’t even a token ‘decent’ woman:  she attracts little more than the scorn of her pseudo-intellectual husband (Colin Welland).   The pseudo bit hardly matters, though:  Peckinpah treats the genuine brainbox David with no more respect than he does the vicar – until David gets in touch with his inner vigilante.  The screenplay, by the director and David Zelag Goodman, is adapted from The Siege of Trencher’s Farm, a 1969 novel by Gordon Williams[1].

    [1970s]

    Take 2

    The extent and explicitness of the sex and violence in Straw Dogs have been exceeded in plenty of movies since 1971 yet this one still shocks, thanks to a combination of Sam Peckinpah’s brilliant film-making and the benighted point of view he uses his art to express.  I still agree with the substance of my ‘Take 1’ but a couple of riders to it …

    Re ‘one assumes [David will] be prosecuted for the killings’ at Trencher’s Farm … That may have been a shaky assumption.  It’s not just that the legal consequences are of only minor importance to Peckinpah.  His conception of law enforcement in Cornwall reflects the fact that all five of his cinema features before Straw Dogs were Westerns.  I didn’t hear any mention of the Cornish police.  When David Sumner tries to get the help of the law in dealing with the would-be intruders, he contacts Major Scott (T P McKenna), the local magistrate and small-town sheriff equivalent.  The territorial imperative that drives David to defend his home also seems to have come out of a Western handbook.

    Age hasn’t withered Straw Dogs’ misogyny – quite the reverse:  it’s hard to think of a big-league director of today who’d dare repeat it.  As a twenty-year-old, I didn’t, though, appreciate quite how negative a picture it draws of men too.  Amy’s ambivalence towards Charlie’s sexual assault is so hard to ignore that it’s relatively easy to disregard what goes on between Charlie and Norman, when the latter arrives at the farmhouse and demands his turn, a piece of macho one-upmanship that takes Charlie by surprise.  In retrospect, the malignant locals of Straw Dogs are a transatlantic foreshadowing of the hillbilly horrors of John Boorman’s Deliverance, released just a few months later.  Some of these rustic primitives are primitively played:  Jim Norton is a good actor but overdoes Chris’s maniacal cackling; Ken Hutchison was never much cop.   But the reliably excellent Peter Vaughan has extraordinary expressive force as the vicious drunkard Tom Hedden.

    The Sumners’ marriage makes little sense in realistic terms – Peckinpah is simply after a cerebral man/sensual woman polarity – but Dustin Hoffman and Susan George both do fine work.  The unthreatening Hoffman is crucial to the film’s effectiveness.  Even in the extended, gory finale, David doesn’t simply metamorphose from meek astrophysicist into alpha male.  As the worm starts to turn, Hoffman winks in Amy’s direction as if to say, ‘You watch:  it’ll be all right’.  The moment is almost comical because Hoffman seems so ill equipped to deal with the situation.  (It brought to my mind the famous moment in the later Jaws (1975), when Robert Shaw flattens the just-emptied beer can he’s holding and Richard Dreyfuss responds by downing the remains of his coffee in one and crushing the Styrofoam cup.)  The glints of humour that Dustin Hoffman retains to the very end keep David’s defence-into-attack continually startling.  The offensive conception of her character doesn’t detract from the strength of Susan George’s performance; as well as being, like Hoffman, physically suitable, she conveys Amy’s feelings eloquently and incisively.

    The first part of Straw Dogs[2] is menacing build-up of an unusual kind, the sense of danger deriving as much from the tensions between David and Amy as from the more obviously intimidating workmen at the farm.  The editing of the film (by Roger Spottiswode and others) is dazzling throughout – especially in the pivotal rape, the climactic slaughter and the intervening church social episode.  This comprises imaginative cross-cutting between the children’s games and noise, the amateur acts on the church hall stage, the leering attitudes of Charlie et al, and Amy’s mental flashbacks to the assault (Susan George is especially good here).  These different elements coalesce to create an enveloping foreboding.  The ending is alarmingly unresolved.  It’s not just that we don’t know what will happen next to David.  He still doesn’t know that his wife was raped or that the passenger in his car has, albeit inadvertently, killed a girl.

    2 June 2017

    [1] Afternote:   The brief article about the novel on Wikipedia suggests that it is considerably different from the screenplay – with much less mayhem than the film.

    [2] I’ve forgotten more than once the source of the strange title.  To ensure that doesn’t happen again (and according to Wikipedia):  ‘Straw dogs… were used as ceremonial objects in ancient China. … In one translation Chapter 5 of the Tao Te Ching begins with the lines “Heaven and Earth are heartless / treating creatures like straw dogs”. … Su Zhe’s commentary on this verse explains: “Heaven and Earth are not partial. They do not kill living things out of cruelty or give them birth out of kindness. We do the same when we make straw dogs to use in sacrifices. We dress them up and put them on the altar, but not because we love them. And when the ceremony is over, we throw them into the street, but not because we hate them.”‘

     

Posts navigation