Tuesday, April 30, 2024

Edgar G. Ulmer | Detour / 1945

the fate of coincidence, the coincidence of fate

by Douglas Messerli

 

Martin Goldsmith (screenplay, based on his fiction), Edgar G. Ulmer (director) Detour / 1945

 

Coincidence is the heart of so many stories. Who’d have guessed the man who ticks off Oedipus in a bad case of road rage happens to be his missing pop; and the cute dame he meets and hooks up with after turns out to be his mom?  Wouldn’t you know that Romeo would just have to fall for the rival gang leader’s sis?

 


     For poor Al Roberts (Tom Neal) it’s the same thing all over again. Once he gets up the courage to quit tinkling his ivories and split for California where his sweet-singing Sue (Claudia Drake), is getting awfully hungry, you just know he’d have the bad luck to try to hitch a ride with a blabbermouth weirdo like Charles Haskell, Jr. (Edmund McDonald)—scratches all over his fingers and a crooked scar running down his flabby bicep—who’d conk out on him the moment he puts his heel to the brake. Just open the door and the slob falls out head straight to asphalt. What’s he gonna do? Police would never believe this one! Al has to steal the wheel, man’s wallet, and I.D. too. Can’t leave anything ‘cept the stiff laying round. Better get out of there fast!

 

    Sure enough, stop for just a little radiator water and he’s doomed. Picked up the wrong bimbo this time for sure! Vera (Ann Savage) see says, and before he can even look over her statistics, she all’s over him, knows Al from every angle, even ones in which he’s never bent. See, she just happens to be the gal who gave those scratches to old man Haskell, so she knows for sure it ain’t this fool’s car, and is convinced before Al can spit out his gum that he’s done him in just get his hands on the wad of cash the old geezer flashed in everyone’s face. His bad luck. That’s for certain.

    Vera is the kind a girl knows more tricks than the years she’s been on the planet. Before they even get cross the city line into L.A. she’s got the guy tied to her like a ball to a chain; pretends to be married and determines to sell the soupcan with her as its major benefactress.


    Okay. Okay. Al’s ready to go along with anything. Just as long as he can pick up on his sticks to play another day, find his baby and make it all up. But Vera, she’s some smart cookie. Suddenly she’s got another plot going on behind that half-pretty face. Before they can even ditch the wheels she’s driving down to meet Haskell’s rich dead daddy where’s Al’s supposed to playact his long lost son upon whom Pop’s ready and willing to dump his will

    No, Al won’t go along with that. Enough is enough. Whatcha gonna do though with Vera on a toot ready to call up the cops every time he says “No way!”

    What’s the choice? Locked up. That bitch Vera taking the phone in the other room with her falling dead drunk under the sheets, cord wrapped round her waist.

     Seeing that cord as the only thing still connecting her to him, Al thinks it wouldn’t hurt to pull on it just a little bit, like a drowning man pulling at the strings of his fate. Like an umbilical cord a newborn’s just gotta break if he’s going to take his good breath and scream out, “I’m here”!

    Who’d have guessed?

    Nobody told him that she’d wrapped like a noose round her neck.



   No wonder he’s edgy. Sitting in a dingy diner getting ready now to get nabbed by the cops. He’s gonna die, sure as supper, for something he never did. Or at least for something he didn’t know he had done. That’s what they all say!

    “Comeon coppers, come and get me,” he can’t help himself crying out. But do they? Will they really? That’s a question to which there is no answer. Maybe he isn’t where he thought he was. Or just maybe he’s gone where he thought he isn’t. I mean, it’s all so simple. Yet it’s all so dark and confusing, kinda like a mirror in which when you look into you can’t get out. You have to laugh, it’s so bad. It’s so good it hurts.

     That’s what I mean about coincidence.

 

Los Angeles, March 2, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (March 2016).

Michael Cimino | The Deer Hunter / 1978

this is this

by Douglas Messerli

 

Deric Washburn and Michael Cimino (screenplay, based on a story by Louis Garfinkle and Quinn K. Redeker), Michael Cimino (director) The Deer Hunter / 1978

 

When my companion Howard and I first saw Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter in 1978, I was very moved by it; but after my strongly leftist friend, Bruce Andrews, discussed with me his disdain for its portrayal of the Vietnamese, I had to agree; and after that I began to think of the movie quite differently, particularly since there has never been any documentation that the Viet Cong actually played Russian roulette with their captives. Liberal critics, such as Pauline Kael and Andrew Saris, moreover, had pilloried the movie. Over the years, and particularly after the hubris Cimino revealed in his huge flop of a film, Heaven’s Gate, any enthusiasm I once felt had dwindled away. Even The Deer Hunter, given Cimino’s near-maniacal meticulousness, cost the producers twice their committed budget.



   Yet, upon the death of Cimino on July 2nd of this year, I determined to once again watch the film, but, despite its later inclusion The National Film Registry, was still put off by its three-hour length. When I could not get a copy of Heaven’s Gate, however, I dutifully ordered The Deer Hunter and determinedly sat down to watch. After all this time, I perceived it with a less jaundiced eye, and returned to my first gut feelings. It was, after all, an excellent work of art, even if its portrayal of the Vietnamese was exaggerated and its central metaphor—that the Viet Nam war for all those involved and even those who remained home a bit like playing a dangerous game of chance that utterly effected generations of Americans—was more than somewhat exaggerated, particularly given the other sketchy plot elements of the three central figures during the war and after.

      It is only in the first act, the early steel mill clips, the long wedding scene and the deer hunting trip after, that we truly get to know something about the lives and personalities of the film’s characters, which explains Act 1’s hour-long length. Without that, indeed, we could not begin to comprehend the hero’s later behavior as captives and escapees. And surely we might find it impossible to believe the self-destructive actions of Nick Chevotarevich (Christopher Walken). Presumably, that is why the director needed his cut of 3 hours rather than the studio cut of 2.

 

     What now became even more apparent watching the film this time around, was that these several friends, mostly of Russian extraction, working in the steel mill of the small town of Clairton, Pennsylvania are already living in a kind of hell. Their small homes are ramshackle creations that might remind one almost of Popeye’s comic Sweethaven. Parents are brutal and dominating; Linda Prior’s (Meryl Streep) drunken father even beats her, while Steven Pushkov’s (John Savage) mother takes a stick to him to bring him home.   

     These men find their little pleasures primarily in one another’s company, falling into relationships with the opposite sex seemingly by accident. Steve is about to marry a woman who is expecting another man’s baby. And Mike Vronsky (Robert De Niro) and Nick are both attracted to Linda. Their work in the mills, where they faced with its Vulcan flames, is very much like their battles in Viet Nam and the horrors of Saigon.

   Together these men share alcohol and horse around with one another as if they were eternal adolescents, using of the language of high school locker rooms and wrestling with one another while describing anyone who acts in any other manner as “faggots.”

     Film critic Robin Wood has described their relationships as “homosocial bonding.” And like him, I now perceive a “putative homosexual subtext” in this film, particularly in the relationship between Mike and Nick. Mike, indeed, is the most controlling and seemingly mature of his group, and Nick, younger and more charmingly open to the world around him.

     Cimino establishes their relationship early in the film as they celebrate at the local bar, John’s —which Wood correctly argues complements the later gambling den in Saigon—together sharing a game of pool as Frankie Vali croons out Bob Crewe’s lyrics (Crewe, an acquaintance, was openly gay) to “I Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You” while they sing along, almost longingly staring down each other:

 

                                   You're just too good to be true

                                   I can't take my eyes off you

                                   You'd be like heaven to touch

                                   I wanna hold you so much

                                   At long last love has arrived

                                   And I thank God I'm alive

                                   You're just too good to be true

                                   Can't take my eyes off you

 

     I’m not so certain that I might go as far as Wood does when he argues that Nick’s fixation with Russian roulette is a displacement of the time when he and Mike were most closely bonded in their captivity, and which he describes as "a monstrously perverted enactment of the union he has always desired.” But their interconnection is palpable, even at the wedding ceremony, and it is their unstated love which, perhaps, also explains their attraction to the same woman.








 

    Moreover, Nick clearly does feel betrayed by Mike when not only does the more dominant of them insists they must leave behind their weaker friend, Steve, but when later in Viet Nam when both Nick and Steve are left to possibly die when Mike makes his helicopter escape (their breathtaking drop back into the river was, evidently, an accident which Cimino left in the film cut that nearly killed cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond).

       Mike is definitely a controller. He insists that anyone killing a deer must do it with one “clean bullet.” And when somewhat finicky and fussy friend Stan (John Cazale) wants to borrow his extra footwear, having once again forgotten to bring his own, he absolutely refuses, astonishing the more compliant Nick. Yet, it is Mike who brings the legless Steve back from the Veteran hospital to his wife, and it is Mike who flies to Saigon to claim Nick from the insanity of his behavior—even if that act ends in Nick’s suicide. Mike is believer in the obvious: “This is this,” he declares.


      In some respects—although he has, in his mad game of chance, truly gone into a kind of insane trance—Nick may be the greatest truth teller of the group. He has come to recognize the war for what it truly is: a deadly nihilist game of chance. And just like the daring William James in Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker, so has Nick become addicted to war and its dangers, from which even Mike’s love cannot cure him. Surely, he realizes that in his “This is this” attitude, Mike will always insist upon normality, however repressive that may be. And Nick knows their deep love could never possibly be consummated.

     The last scene, played out after Nick’s funeral in this small town American version of hell, reveals that, in fact, all of the survivors, Steve, his wife Angela, Mike, Linda, Stan, and the bar owner John Welsh are, somewhat at least, deluded in their naïve patriotism. But by choosing “God Bless America” to sing aren’t they also asking for guidance, praying for God himself to come down to show their country the way to move forward?


      As I have written several times in this volume, I am not a believer. I cannot imagine any god who can “bless” or has “blessed” this country. But I also cannot dismiss anyone who wishes for further guidance and a desire for future hope. Despite many initial viewers’ negative reactions, it’s this ending that helps to make what, otherwise, is a deeply negative view of the world, into a great movie. In the Viet Nam war (in any war), Cimino and his co-writers suggest, many Americans lost their innocence; but most went on to reclaim their lives. It’s too bad, it seems, that we must rediscover these truths again and again.

 

Los Angeles, July 18, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (July 2016).

Philip Gröning | Die große Stille (Into Great Silence) / 2005

a symphony of silence: true believers

 

Philip Gröning (director) Die große Stille (Into Great Silence) / 2005

 

Philip Gröning’s 2005 documentary film, Into Great Silence takes us for almost 3 hours into a world we might never have known and certainly would never have heard from: the Carthusian monks of the Grande Chartruse, who live under a vow of silence, dedicating their lives to prayer and music. If there seems to be a slight contradiction in this, where singing is central and speaking is restricted, that is, in a sense, what the film is really about.

      Gröning first asked the order for permission to film their activities in 1984, and it took the group 16 years to make their decision: he would be allowed if he alone did the filming and used real lighting. The result is quite remarkable.

 

      As anyone who has read my several volumes of writing will know, I am not entirely sympathetic with formal religion. But in this film’s evidence of the brothers’ complete commitment to their beliefs and to their community—each taking on special tasks from gardening, farming, cooking, delivering meals, singing, bell-ringing, house cleaning, barbering, clock repair, and administration—that we cannot but marvel at their simple but beautiful lives high in the French Alps.

        And then, despite its rather austere title (in German Die große Stille, “the great silence”), the film is anything but silent. Like a John Cage performance, the overwhelming noise of the order is front and center: the constant creak of the cart as its driver delivers the food, the footsteps of the brothers as they move along the gothic corridors, the hourly ringing of the bell, even the voice of the brother who feeds the cats (evidently the order allows verbal communication with animals)—all reveal that the rhythm of these monks’ lives is very much involved with noise. And then there is their endless epistolary activities that Gröning reveals through the piles of letters on the head-monk’s desk and through the daily mail that the individual monks receive.

        Nature, through rains, the melting icicles of spring, and the heavy shovel of the gardener monk used in order to reclaim his summer gardens, the water streaming down the mountains, the numerous bird-calls, an occasional jet plane overhead (more silent than the nature around them), even their antiphonal crack of their knees as, one by one, these mostly elderly men bend to the floor in their communal meetings, all create a great commotion of sound. Moreover, there are their occasional outings in the countryside where they are permitted to talk, discussing their habits of cleanliness in relation to other orders. The whiz of the electric razors which trim their hair…everything here creates a kind of avant-garde symphony, if one is only willing to listen.


        And then there is their beautiful music, seemingly Gregorian-like chants sung in unison, so wonderfully sung and clearly so meaningful for their self-expression that one does, at moments, want to cry. These are their major verbal expressions, and we watch with awe as a young, apparently African novitiate attempts in his cell to learn them with a small key-board accompanied by his voice. It is clear he will ultimately bring this group more of what they so very much love.

       Finally, of course, there is the silence, the hours of deep prayer wherein they escape into an internal relationship with their God that none of us can truly imagine. Gröning, moreover, reveals them as individuals with his camera focusing on their various faces throughout the film, some of them looking a bit grim, others shyly smiling, all a bit uncomfortable with the camera before them, but perfectly willing to give themselves up to the intruding lens, just as they have to God.

      It took me three days to actually watch this deeply intense movie. There is only so much silence I, a truly urban dweller, can bear. But each time I watched, I found myself opening the window to more carefully hear the sounds of the doves, the hummingbirds, and other natural beings who inhabit our condominium garden before, once more, turning on the endless patter of the news which I watch every day.

      When I was in college singing in the Madison, Wisconsin Presbyterian church choir, someone in our midst arranged a trip to Chicago, where we met, for the afternoon, with members of a silent order in Chicago. They had broken their vow just for lunch and our afternoon visit. I recall how peaceful they all appeared, how delighted they were just to be able to explain their views of the world without at all attempting to convert us to their way of life. They simply demonstrated it without even attempting to evaluate their or our world. It was. Nothing more or less.

      Watching Gröning’s film, I felt that same humility. These monks were not trying to sell us anything. They were what they were: true believers. Evidently, after seeing the director’s final cut, they were all happy with the result. The peace and loving of their lives was apparent even through the frame of the camera.

 

Los Angeles, June 27, 2019

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (June 2019).

Sonam Larcin | On My Way / 2020

the fallacy

by Douglas Messerli

 

Sonam Larcin (screenwriter and director) On My Way / 2020 [22 minutes]

 

A lone figure appears on the winter landscape, stopping only to confirm via cellphone that the place up ahead is the right location. Clearly the small Belgium grocery in the middle of nowhere is a location for picking up migrants, and the young man wandering the landscape is just such a figure, a Nigerian named Dayo (Goua Robert Grovogui), who sneaks into the nearby barn for warmth.

     The young man in charge of the grocery, Niels (Tijmen Govaerts), has the unpleasant business of telling Day that he can’t stay in the barn since his intolerant boss owns it. Were Dayo to be discovered, it would mean in him being sent home and Niels being fired. But—after a quick conversation with a passing farmer, Antoine (Yannick Renier), with whom we soon discover Neils is in love—he offers a safe place and food into his nearby caravan (trailer) until the truck which will transport Dayo to England arrives.

 

   It’s a rather complex and somewhat clumsy set-up of events, but, as we soon discover, the strange almost accidental intersection of the three men pushes the work into the territory that clearly Belgium director Sonam Larcin is determined to explore.

     Niels is an open person, welcoming Dayo into his comfy trailer, feeding him, and making him feel quite at home.

    Antoine, meanwhile, calls, saying that when he finishes up with chores he’ll stop by. Niels closes up the store and returns to the trailer. Noticing a large gash on Dayo’s body, he suggests he take a shower to clean the wound. When asked by the stranger if he speaks French Niels explains that, yes he does, but that he is from the Dutch part of Belgium, living in the French-speaking region only because of his love of Antoine.

     When Antoine shows up, Niels asks him to care for Dayo’s wound, the farmer also being a licensed veterinarian. But it’s immediately apparent that Antoine resents having to treat the outsider in his lover’s trailer, the place where the two men obviously meet up to make love.

      While Antoine begins to dress what he describes as a “nasty” wound, Dayo, observing the pictures on Niels’ wall of Antoine and him kissing, shares one of the film’s major statements: “Where I come from two men can’t have a relationship. It’s not possible. They are being chased. They are thrown in jail and they will never get out”

       Antoine quickly finishes up and leaves, telling Niels that his wife is waiting. His leave-taking is perceptively angry, almost violent, and Niels, sensing it, chases after. Antoine is not only furious that Niels has kept the photograph, putting it up in his trailer for anyone to see, but even more confused about why the man is saying all that he said. Clearly he is talking about himself, Antoine muses, “He must have lived through all that stuff.”

       What is just as clear is that Antoine has no patience to hear how difficult it is in Nigeria. For him it is just as difficult in Belgium since he is, as we have just discovered, a closeted man with a wife who he is not willing to leave. He hurries off, leaving Niels confused and hurt.


      In the meantime, Dayo explains to Niels how difficult it was to be with his own lover, how they had to hide, to meet up secretly in hotels. “Where I’m from, it’s inconceivable, it’s witchcraft, it’s something you just can’t do.”

    Larcin’s film intercuts to Antoine, seated alone in his truck, clearly whimpering, almost tearful, attempting to deal with the facts of his life.

         Day continues telling Niels his story: “My mother started to have suspicions. She told my aunt. And one day the police came.” He explains that his lover Franklin, older than him, had some kind of influence. The guard let him out. He also arranged for Dayo to leave his country. “I haven’t heard from him since then.”

         Antoine returns to the trailer, calling Niels out. “What’s up, sugarpuff?” the young man enquires, using his personal endearment for his lover. Neils attempts to hug him, but Antoine now totally breaks down, weeping maybe sentimentally as he imagines through a false analogy that his own situation is something similar to the Nigerian’s or, more likely if he is honest, shedding tears for his own lack of courage. “I can’t do it. I just can’t. Sorry.” They kiss before Antoine turns away to leave forever.

         In the end Niels, who has told Dayo that he loves to travel and has stayed on in this small country place only on account of his love for Antoine, determines to drive Dayo to England himself, leaving his forever frightened lover, a gay man who one day will certainly realize what he has lost through his cowardice, behind to his wife and cows.

         The point of this short film, obviously, is that there seemingly is a big difference between how gays are free to live between countries such as Nigeria, Uganda, and Russia and Belgium, England, or the US; but not if you don’t have the courage to accept those freedoms. As Letterboxd commentator Troy Thrace observes: “Even with relative progressiveness comes internalized shackles some can’t break free from. Dayo, having broken free the external violence in his home country, is on his way to overcoming that battle too.”

        Antoine has chosen to continue to live a lie, which only postpones his own, his wife’s, and their possible children’s suffering. His prison is his own mind, his torture is derived from his own choice of behavior. No guard can free him, no one can mend his wounds.

 

Los Angeles, March 30, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (March 2024).

 

Valentino R. Sandoli | Paradigma / 2016

but he doesn’t know the territory

by Douglas Messerli

 

Ignacio Campón and Valentino R. Sandoli (screenplay), Valentino R. Sandoli (director) Paradigma / 2016 [18 minutes]

 

Spanish director Valentino R. Sandoli’s short film Paradigma of 2016 is about a young gay 17-year-old, Guille (Kuba Tarasiewicz) about whom the salesman early in the musical The Music Man might have chanted “But he doesn’t know the territory,” or, taking the clue from the work’s title, he can’t guess what is the paradigm of gay behavior—at least as some define it.


     Having just recently come out, Guille is secretly in love with his best friend, but cannot properly express it to him and feels that his love might meet with total rejection. Accordingly, Guille seeks out sex with people on the internet, including an older man who dispassionately fucks him, but politely invites the boy to visit him again.

      What Guille doesn’t realize is that it was simply a nicety, a way saying one time is enough and I don’t want see you again. Goaded on by his rather coarse girl-friend Julia (María Crespo)—the kind of open-minded woman friend that once might have described in the nasty good ole days as a fag-hag—he attends a party that they have tracked down on Facebook that the man is hosting.

       The would-be host is horrified by Guille’s and Julia’s sudden appearance and begs them to leave. “The only reason I went along with you was to get you to suck my dick a bit longer,” he straight-forwardly admits. Besides, he has a boyfriend.





















 

       The leather dressed figure insists Guille share the drug he is using, and the young boy, without even wanting to is suddenly involved in a bacchanalian which ends with his new friend offering up his ass to be fucked. Almost too afraid to deny the pleasure, Guille has unprotected sex with the man.

      Finally, as he and Julia hit the library to study for an upcoming test he encounters another young man, just his age, whom he soon joins outside where they share a joint and look expectantly into one another’s eyes.


      By film’s end we still don’t know precisely what the paradigm is or if this young man will fulfill his search for a suitable companion, but he has certainly come closer to the right “territory” if nothing else.

    Sandoli’s film, while certainly not profound, does succinctly express, without the angst of David Moreton’s The Edge of Seventeen and without the purposeful search for sex in all the wrong places by the young hero of Eliza Hittman’s Beach Rats, the confusion anyone having just come out might encounter in trying to comprehend how to find someone with whom you might want to share a few evenings, let alone your life.

      For young beginners like Guille—and I say this half seriously—there ought to be a paradigmatic guide to help the LGBTQ beginner know, for example, what one might or might not expect from a single encounter in a world that is so fluid; how does one determine truth or deception expressed by individuals who may have had years of experiences of which the young can never imagine. In such an uncharted territory, a freshman might not even know what sexual actions he or she prefers. If nothing else a neophyte exploring sexuality should be warned not to keep his foot in the door as someone tries to close it.

 

Los Angeles, October 11, 2020

Reprinted from World Cinema Review and My Queer Cinema blog (October 2020).

Index [listed alphabetically by director]

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.