Monthly Archives: March 2022

  • Fahrenheit 451

    François Truffaut (1966)

    The fire crew prepares for action as you might expect – sliding down a pole into the fire station, piling into a red vehicle with a flashing blue light, and heading on their way.  After these opening sequences, the expectedness ends.  The crew’s destination is a house where there’s no sign of a fire but which a young man (Jeremy Spenser) leaves hurriedly after taking a phone call.  On arrival there, the firemen start searching the place; when one turns on an overhead light, it reveals a book placed in the light’s ceramic bowl.  The book – Don Quixote – is the first of many uncovered in the house search, and the crew sets fire to them all.  A little later, one of the firemen, Guy Montag (Oskar Werner), is in conversation with Clarisse (Julie Christie), a neighbour and fellow commuter, who asks if it’s true that fire brigades – ‘a long time ago’ – used to put fires out.  Montag assures her it’s untrue:  he says houses have always been fireproof.  Clarisse also asks if Montag ever feels like reading rather than burning the books he finds.  ‘Why should I?’ he asks, ‘First, I’m not interested; second, I’ve got better things to do; third, it’s forbidden’.  Montag is about to be promoted in the fire service but it soon becomes clear he’s a man ripe for subversion.  His change of heart, which saves his soul, drives the plot of Fahrenheit 451.

    Adapted from Ray Bradbury’s 1953 novel, with a screenplay by the director and Jean-Louis Richard, this was François Truffaut’s fifth feature but a new departure for him in several ways.  He hadn’t previously shot in colour or overseas (filming took place mostly at Pinewood Studios and on location in southern England).  This was Truffaut’s first (and last) film in English – and the first to receive mostly negative reviews (though not the first to fare poorly at the box office).  I’d seen Fahrenheit 451 once before, in my teens, and remembered very little other than the famous closing episode (which I may well have seen subsequently in clips).  In the context of the Truffaut oeuvre, the film might be considered a bibliophile companion piece to Day for Night (1973) and The Last Metro (1980), predicated as they are on cinema and theatre, respectively, being an absolutely good thing.  I was delighted now to find this earlier film more interesting and affecting than either of those others (which were commercial and critical successes) – and something else besides.  It’s par for the course to be told that a picture of yesteryear is at least as relevant to our own time as it was to the time when it was made.  Fahrenheit 451 really is.

    Ray Bradbury’s central conceit feels rooted in the McCarthy-inspired pyromania that was raging when he wrote his novel and, even more, in the still recent Nazi book burnings – the latter association reinforced by some of Truffaut’s casting, and the outfits.  Even at the very start, the fire crew doesn’t look the way you’d expect, with, as well as the ‘451’ emblazoned on their black uniforms, headgear suggestive of German storm-trooper helmets.  The actors concerned include not just blue-eyed, blonde-haired Oskar Werner but also the emphatically Aryan Anton Diffring, who so often played Nazi officers on screen.  These connections are deceptive, though.  In the controlled society that Truffaut depicts, the fundamental objection to books, according to those whose job it is to destroy them, isn’t that they’re the products of inimical political points of view.  It’s, rather, that they bring about dissatisfaction and disorder.  In that early conversation with Clarisse, Montag explains that reading is banned because it makes people ‘unhappy’, that books ‘disturb people … make them anti-social’.  Beatty (Cyril Cusack), Montag’s boss in the fire service, later confirms this in more detail as he surveys material for his team’s latest fire:

    ‘Ah, Robinson Crusoe.  The negroes didn’t like that because of his man, Friday.  And Nietzsche – ah, Nietzsche.  The Jews didn’t like Nietzsche.  Now, here’s a book about lung cancer.  You see, all the cigarette smokers got into a panic, so for everybody’s peace of mind, we burn it.  Ah, now this one must be very profound:  The Ethics of Aristotle.  Now anybody that read that must believe he’s a cut above anybody that hadn’t.  You see, it’s no good, Montag.  We’ve all got to be alike.  The only way to be happy is for everyone to be made equal.  So, we must burn the books, Montag.’

    Although Beatty’s speech builds to sentiments quite at odds with identity politics, there’s a whiff of cancel-culture censorship in the examples cited here.

    The arresting opening credits sequence, in which the names of cast and crew don’t appear but are read out in voiceover, instantly establishes the world of the film – the written word outlawed, communications consequently monopolised by images, as well as the spoken word.  The plethora of screens-within-the-screen in what follows is therefore part of the main premise as much as prescient but it’s striking that Montag’s airhead wife, Linda (also Julie Christie, with a different hairdo) is addicted to a television programme not far removed from the reality shows de nos jours.  The film’s climax includes a startling demonstration of the fallacy that the camera doesn’t lie.  On the run from the authorities, Montag watches a TV broadcast that purports to show him run to earth and shot dead.  It can only be described as fake news.

    Truffaut’s lack of detail on the workings of this dystopia, including how long it has existed, is presumably intentional but frustrating, even so.  As the narrative goes on, Clarisse’s question about what fire crews are rumoured to have done ‘a long time ago’ is increasingly puzzling.  When Montag insists that houses have always been fireproof, Clarisse replies, ‘Ours isn’t’ – an early clue as to what its contents may include:  she turns out to live with her uncle and their books.  Clarisse is a probationary teacher (until she’s informed her services are no longer required); the film is sketchy, too, on what school education now comprises.  At the start, we hear children’s voices reciting multiplication tables but you could have heard the same in a real English primary school in the 1960s (except that, unless I misheard, some of the arithmetic chanted here is wrong …).

    While an older woman (Bee Duffell) who chooses to self-immolate along with her large library rather than live without it makes sense as the representative of an older generation raised on and devoted to books, Montag is harder to understand.  At first, it’s out of curiosity that he starts saving odd volumes from the flames and smuggling them into his own home.  We seem meant to think that books are a new discovery for him although as soon as he starts to read them aloud to himself, he does so fluently.  With his conversion underway, he interrupts Linda and the female friends she’s invited round to their house (the gathering, oddly enough, brings to mind a present-day book group) by reading to them from David Copperfield.  This moves one of the women (Ann Bell) to tears but Linda and the others are decidedly displeased.  The lack of immediate repercussions to this incident – mightn’t one of his wife’s guests report him to the authorities? – points up another bothering aspect of the plot.  It takes a surprisingly long time, given Montag’s changed behaviour at work, for  beady-eyed Captain Beatty and Montag’s other colleagues to work out that he has turned non-conformist.

    A book of Dali plates on a bonfire-in-the-making, although understandable in the sense that these might be deemed subversive, does raise the unanswered question of which images are and are not considered acceptable.  All the other books chucked from their shelves surely serve Truffaut’s purpose:  each time one hits the deck you peer at the screen to see what the book is and resent its impending destruction.  (This viewer felt this way even about a book of crossword puzzles.  We have it easier now, of course:  this kind of paperback goes in the recycling once the crosswords are done.)  There’s the occasional in-joke – flames lap at a Cahiers du Cinéma volume – but the accumulating sacrifices are emotionally effective, making you feel more and more how precious books are.  This is so different from Day for Night and The Last Metro, where you just can’t accept the intrinsic value of movies and plays on the strength of the crummy examples of them that dominate proceedings.

    Things that are usually defects – the post-recorded sound, some stilted delivery of lines – work well in Fahrenheit 451.  They reinforce the alien quality of the society Truffaut describes, as does Nicolas Roeg’s fine cinematography.   It may be a happy accident but the ill-assorted acting styles are similarly effective.  While some of the playing in minor parts seems standard-issue sci-fi woodenness, Oskar Werner, in the central role, is thoroughly naturalistic and so comes across as the embodiment of a fuller humanity.  The double casting of Julie Christie, which received particular criticism on the film’s original release, works well, too.  Christie, at least at this stage of her career, often struggled to make the words she spoke convincing:  they tended to sound like an actress’s lines rather her character’s utterances.  At the same time, you could hear in her voice that Christie was trying to feel the lines as strongly as her face was able to express her character’s thoughts and moods.  She thus contributes, especially as Clarisse, to both the unnatural and the human aspects of Fahrenheit 451.  Truffaut’s use of the innately humorous and eccentric Cyril Cusack to epitomise the mindset of a totalitarian regime is a stroke of genius.  With Cusack in the role, it’s grimly funny when Beatty, patrolling a public playground, sees a baby in a pushchair, leans in for a closer look and removes a miniature book tucked into the infant’s romper suit.  Beatty’s excoriation of books, quoted above, has added impact because Cusack conveys the man’s real irritation with authors:  even worse than novelists are ‘thinkers, philosophers, all of them saying exactly the same thing:  “Only I am right.  The others are all idiots”.’   Ann Bell is affecting in her couple of minutes on the screen.  She’s one of numerous uncredited cast members.  Another is Mark Lester (as a schoolboy) who, only a couple of years later, would be the title character in Oliver! 

    The film’s conclusion, which sees Montag flee beyond the city to join Clarisse and other escapees in rural isolation, is both amusing and moving.  The community of ‘book people’ comprises individuals all of whom have memorised the entire text of a book and thus become that book.  They’ve thus been able to dispose of the books as such; as a result, ‘The law can’t touch them’.   Those to whom Montag is introduced, by a man (Alex Scott) identifying himself as Stendhal’s The Life of Henri Brulard, include, among others, twin brothers (Frank and Fred Cox), each of them half of Pride and Prejudice, Machiavelli’s The Prince (Michael Balfour) and Plato’s Dialogues (Judith Dynan).  In a nod to the film’s inspiration, another book person (Denis Gilmore) is Ray Bradbury’s The Martian ChroniclesThe Weir of Hermiston (John Rae) is dying but has been passing on the words of Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel to his young nephew:  the boy (Earl Younger, beautifully directed by Truffaut) is diligently learning the words by heart so as to take over his uncle’s identity.  Montag chooses to become Edgar Allan Poe’s Tales of Mystery and Imagination.  In its thriller mode, Bernard Herrmann’s score recalls ones he wrote for Hitchcock pictures to rather distracting effect.  His music for Truffaut also includes a romantic element, though.  In this closing section, as the book people walk about a snowy landscape, reciting themselves to themselves, Herrmann’s score comes into its own.

    13 February 2022

  • The Eyes of Tammy Faye

    Michael Showalter (2021)

    After her breakthrough in 2011, Jessica Chastain looked to have the film world at her feet.  The year saw her deservedly lauded in pictures as different as Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life, Jeff Nichols’s Take Shelter and Tate Taylor’s The Help.   She received an Oscar nomination for the last-named and another, the following year, for her work in Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty.  Since then, Chastain has appeared in high-profile films without getting juicy parts or delivering the goods quite as her annus mirabilis had seemed to predict.  Michael Showalter’s The Eyes of Tammy Faye, produced by Chastain’s own production company (Freckle Films), is a rather different matter.   The film is no great shakes but Jessica Chastain is.  It’s good to see her make an impact again (and back in Oscar contention).

    This is a success against the odds for two reasons.  Showalter’s biography of the televangelist Tammy Faye Bakker (1942-2007) is a shallow, one-thing-after-another piece of storytelling (the screenplay is by Abe Sylvia).   And Tammy Faye is a tricky assignment.  The real thing looked and sounded like a cartoon of the American appetite/knack for serving God and Mammon.  How does an actress interpret this lacquered, mascaraed confection, who loves Jesus but also expensive clothes and flashy jewellery, without seeming largely to make fun of her?  There may be an underlying satirical streak in her portrait of Tammy Faye but Chastain commits to the role with such sympathetic verve that the performance works very well.  She carries the film with aplomb.  Despite the increasing, encasing layers of make-up, her face conveys Tammy’s developing individuality.  The eyes of the title really are the window to her soul.

    A scene-setting prologue, set in 1952, sketches in the family and religious community in which Tammy Faye La Valley was raised, in International Falls, Minnesota.  (The ten-year-old Tammy is played by Chandler Head.)  Eight years later, she has enrolled at North Central Bible College in Minneapolis, where she falls in love with Jim Bakker (Andrew Garfield), a fellow student and ardent sermon-giver.  Within a few months, they’re married and have quit college to go on the road as gospel preachers.  Jim does the serious evangelising, Tammy songs and the voices of puppets that are part of the couple’s act.  They gain the attention of Pat Robertson (Gabriel Olds) and start hosting a children’s show on his Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN).  Jim, who also hosts the Network’s The 700 Club, does the deals with Robertson and other big names in the Christian broadcasting world but Michael Showalter makes clear Tammy’s independent-mindedness and drive.  At a party hosted by Robertson, she’s unafraid to challenge the political and homophobic pronouncements of Jerry Falwell (Vincent D’Onofrio), whom Jim is cravenly nervous of upsetting.  It’s Tammy who urges her husband to set up their own television network.  By 1974, the Bakkers have parted company with CBN and established the Praise the Lord (PTL) channel.

    Their flagship show, The PTL Club, ‘mixed “glitzy entertainment with down-home family values” and preached a “‘prosperity gospel’ which put a divine seal of approval on both the growing affluence of American evangelicals and the showy lifestyles of their television ministers’ (Wikipedia).  Jim and Tammy rake in cash in the form of donations invited from viewers while the show airs, and she becomes an increasingly confident singer but Tammy and Jim’s success cuts no ice with her mother, Rachel (Cherry Jones), who’s devout, pessimistic and reliably disapproving.  Even in 1952, Rachel is scolding her daughter’s religious enthusiasm.  She deplores Tammy’s impulsive marriage.  In the mid-1970s, Rachel and her husband, Fred Grover (Fredric Lehne), Tammy’s stepfather, move in with the Bakkers, who are now based in South Carolina:  it’s a puzzle both that Tammy invites them and that Rachel accepts the invitation.  Tammy shows her mother off as she and Fred sit in the front row of the studio audience for The PTL Club, and asks her to take a bow.  While the rest of the audience applauds, Rachel stays rooted to her seat.  Her face doesn’t crack.  She’s the first to warn Tammy about newspaper reports of financial improprieties in the running of PTL that will come to swamp the Bakkers and eventually send Jim to jail, convicted on multiple fraud charges, in 1989.

    The Eyes of Tammy Faye is based on a 2000 documentary of the same name (directed by Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato) and Showalter relies considerably on clips of news film to stitch the narrative together.  At the start, this supplies the televangelism context efficiently.  As the film proceeds, it’s a means of encapsulating events – something the screenplay otherwise fails to do.  Showalter and Abe Sylvia seem to think that anything that happens is tantamount to a dramatic development.  As a result, they tend to illustrate the main themes repeatedly – there’s a surfeit of scenes instancing the Bakkers’ withering marriage – yet there are gaps in their coverage of the pair’s off-screen lives, and relationship with their fan base.

    The couple’s two children, born in 1970 and 1975, are mostly absent from proceedings – even mentions of them are thin on the ground.  There’s little of Rachel’s reaction to her daughter’s profligacy and her son-in-law’s chicanery, even though she might be expected to see these as a crowning vindication of her blanket disapproval of Tammy Faye’s life choices.  In her first encounter with Falwell, when he deplores homosexuality, Tammy brightly asserts that ‘God didn’t make any junk’; her continuing, evidently genuine compassion for all God’s children is underlined in her television interview, midway through the AIDS crisis, with HIV-positive gay pastor Steve Pieters (Randy Havens).  Showalter gives next to no sense, though, of how Tammy’s more liberal impulses play to the Bakkers’ conservative following – or of audience feedback on her collapse during a live show recording, after she’s learned about a sex scandal involving Jim and popped too many of the pills to which she’s become addicted.

    Tammy and Jim both have extra-marital affairs:  he with at least one woman and a sinister-from-the-word-go male colleague (Louis Cancelmi); she with Nashville record producer, Gary S Paxton (Mark Wystrach), who’s engaged to further her career as a recording artist.  There’s a clear spark, too, between Tammy and Roe Messner (Sam Jaeger), a building contractor brought in to develop Jim and Falwell’s plans for a Christian theme park, and whom Tammy married in 1993, after divorcing her husband while he was in prison.  While the actors playing Paxton and Messner are convincing and Vincent D’Onofrio is a persuasive, louring Jerry Falwell, the casting of key larger roles doesn’t quite satisfy.

    The hair and make-up team (Linda Dowds, Stephanie Ingram and Justin Raleigh) that has done such remarkable work on Jessica Chastain has also, judging from online images of the younger Jim Bakker, expertly replicated his hairstyle and flesh tone but Andrew Garfield still doesn’t seem right.  He’s fine in the early scenes:  properly impassioned in the pulpit at the bible college, appealing in his whirlwind courtship of Tammy.  After that, the performance goes wrong.  In a home-truths showdown (in which Jim brands his wife ‘a bottomless pit – and you keep asking for more, with what whining, grating Betty Boop voice’), Tammy tells her husband that ‘a woman needs a man’.  ‘I am a man!’ he insists, ‘No, you’re a boy,’ she retorts, and you see what she means.  Although Garfield’s now in his late thirties, his looks remain unarguably boyish.  He’s also much more handsome than the original.  Perhaps to compensate for that, he overplays Jim’s lily-livered nastiness, turning him into a creep who’s not even a very plausible TV performer.  As Rachel Grover, Cherry Jones is an impressively implacable presence, all the more powerful for being emotionally undemonstrative.  For most of the film, though, she’s too old for her part.

    The film ends in 1994[1] when, Tammy, after struggling to revive her television career, receives an out-of-the-blue phone call inviting her to perform at a Christian concert at Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma:  the woman on the other end of the line explains that, as a child, she was involved in one of the Bakkers’ shows, and has always remembered Tammy’s kindness.  After some hesitation, Tammy agrees to appear.  On the night, she delivers a tentative homily from the stage before launching into ‘The Battle Hymn of the Republic’.  It’s presumably her fantasy that, as the number builds, she sees a gospel choir performing with her, and the concert audience, hitherto unresponsive and looking almost embarrassed by her presence, transported by the song’s power and taking up the chorus.  Jessica Chastain, whenever she sings, is splendid but it’s even more unlikely that much of the film’s presumed audience will join in the rousing finale:  Michael Showalter is surely preaching to the converted in his unflattering depiction of the Christian right in American broadcasting.  Even so, this comeback climax is touching and entirely apt.  It plays out as the triumphant last scene of a musical biopic, where the star, after battling manifold adversity, finally wins through.  The Eyes of Tammy Faye gives the impression that its heroine may have been spiritually sincere as well as a material girl but it leaves you in no doubt that hers was chiefly a show business story.

    10 February 2022

    [1] According to Wikipedia, this was also the year in which Jim Bakker was released from prison.  He returned to the televangelism circuit in 2003 and seems to be still going strong today, despite hitting the headlines a couple of years ago when he (a) suffered a stroke and (b) tried selling colloidal silver supplements advertised as a surefire Covid remedy.

Posts navigation