Monday, January 15, 2024

Jack Smith | Scotch Tape / 1959, released 1962

piecing together a past

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jack Smith (director) Scotch Tape / 1959, released 1962 [3 minutes]

 

I have to report that the first time I saw Jack Smith’s Scotch Tape, probably in 2020, I simply didn’t know what it make of it. Somehow even the images of three men, Reese Haire, Ken Jacobs, and Jerry Sims crawling through the ruble of a destroyed building mostly encountering a forest of rebar wire and tubing, half-destroyed concrete and other debris, made absolutely no sense to me, particularly given Smith’s truly remarkable abstraction of the entire event, filming in mostly black-and-white, until near the end when you see the effects in color of a piece Scotch tape affixed to the camera lens. The tape, not intentional, but which fell into the camera gate, remains throughout the film, an example what J. Hoberman describes as anticipating “Andy Warhol’s go-with-the-flow acceptance of cinematic ‘mistakes,’ even as it draws the viewer’s attention to the perceptual tension between the film’s actual surface and its represented depth.”

 

 

      My reaction of 2020 justifies my philosophical position when it comes to viewing cinema. If you are simply unable to talk about a specific film when you first view it, put it away or find another time to see it in the future. Think about it for a period of time—in this case four long years—and come back to it when you think you might be ready. What I found today was an absolutely delightful Carmen Miranda-like spoof played out in on a 16 mm Bell & Howell camera in what Ken Jacob described as one of his “Start Spangled to Death locations,” as Hoberman explains, “the rubble-strewn site of the future Lincoln Center on Manhattan’s west side.”

       The fact that this film uses as its set the very world already made famous in the 1957 Broadway production of Leonard Bernstein, Jerome Robbins, Arthur Laurents, and Stephen Sondheim’s West Side Story, using as a score Peter Duchin’s rhumba “Carinhoso” for its soundtrack, is an subject about which critics have generally kept quiet, but I would argue is crucial in comprehending just how ridiculously perverse Smith’s film is, given that one of the three male leads, climbing through the debris presumably on a chase of the two others, shot from an overhead position not uncommon in the later filmed version of West Side Story, wears a scarved headwrap in the manner of Carmen Miranda, a Brazilian as we know, but clearly standing in our confused white imaginations for  the Puerto Rico populations that had formerly lived in the houses whose rubble these three gay men are exaggeratedly exploring almost as if it were a jungle.

       The date of the original shooting, 1959, accordingly, is important, since two years before the movie version of West Side Story this ridiculously absurd short film inspired Smith to continue in filmmaking, producing in 1963, Flaming Creatures, yet another underground cinematic reinterpretation of variously overlaid film histories. Given the focus of the recent 2021 revision of West Side Story by Steven Spielberg, which focuses on the buildings soon under destruction, Smith’s deconstruction of this space becomes even more fascinating, scotch-tape intact in an attempt perhaps to piece together the fallen world it represents.

        Although generally listed as a film from 1962, the year in which it was formally released, for some inexplicably reason IMBd lists it as 1963, while I have included it as 1959 movie, the year it was shot, to provide some sense of how important this film was with regard to Smith’s later filmmaking.

 

Los Angeles, January 15, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2024).

Robert Rossen | All the King's Men / 1949

inevitable results

by Douglas Messerli

 

Robert Rossen (screenplay based on the novel by Robert Penn Warren, and director) All the King's Men / 1949

 

Robert Rossen's All the King's Men, given Broderick Crawford's gruff and rough, full-steam-ahead performance, is a much less elegant and convoluted work than Robert Penn Warren's 1946 novel of the same name. But the film is more powerful for that very reason. Rossen's vast crowds of simple-minded "hicks"—as Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford) describes his constituents—has elements of German Expressionism, but the story is a pure good-to-sour American political tale, and reminds one at times, in its representation of the masses, of Frank Capra's simple-minded expressions of the populace, particularly in Meet John Doe.


    What saves Rossen's work and lifts it above Capra's caprices is the acting of its supporting characters, particularly John Ireland's thoughtful playing of the journalist-gone-politico, Jack Burden, and Mercedes McCambridge's tough, fast-talking Sadie Burke, the woman behind Willie Stark, his would-be lover. McCambridge won an Oscar for her role (so too did the less subtle Crawford), and she deserved it, for whenever she is in the picture, the energy-level of the film goes up by two or three notches, particularly when, unable to sleep, she joins Burden and Stark to swig down a couple of heavy drinks before telling him what a boob he has been.


     Stark (a just slightly fictionalized portrait of the real hick Louisiana Governor, Huey Long) begins his trip to hell as a country rube who, as the newspaper editor Madison describes him, is "special."

 

                     Jack Burden: What's so special about him?

                     Madison: They say he's an honest man.

 

Encouraged by his long-suffering wife, Lucy (Anne Seymour), Stark tries to run for local office, but fails pitifully due to the criminal actions of those already ensconced. When the corrupt pols cheat on the construction of a local school, however, the collapse of a stairwell killing several children brings Stark, after having studied law, into the forefront, winning the love of the local masses.

     His first attempt to run for State Governor also ends up in failure. But, as he puts it, it has taught him something: how to win. The solution, apparently, is to buy up the corrupt officials and employ them. As Jack Burden observes: "You throw money around like it was money." Almost from the beginning, we perceive that in order to win, Willie Stark has had to sell out. And the rest of the film behaves like a spinning dervish toward Stark's inevitable collapse.

     In opposition to the political brouhaha of the Louisiana backfields and Baton Rouge backrooms, Burden has grown up in the posh isolation of Burden's Landing. As he puts it:

 

                   ....Burden's Landing is a place on the Moon. It isn't real. It doesn't exist.

                   It's me pretending to live on what I earn. It's my mother trying to keep

                   herself young and drinking herself old. It's you and Adam living in his

                   house as though your father were still alive. It's an old man like the judge

                   dreaming of the past.


     Yet it is just this place that breeds the four major characters, some of whom help Willie get where he does and others of whom help to destroy him.

   Jack is perhaps the most contradictory of the group. Despite his early recognition of Stark's corruption, he continues to stand by him almost until the end. He is a grand failure in terms of action. While the Stanton's, Anne (Joanne Dru) and Adam (Shepperd Strudwick), and their uncle, the Judge (Raymond Greenleaf) live through ideals, Jack is a born skeptic, refusing to judge or reveal any moral position, even when he might have helped save Stark from himself. The difference between the brother and sister is merely a difference of judgment: Anne is taken in by Stark simply because he is different, and her view of him is clouded as she perceives him as a kind of white knight. Stark does accomplish a great deal, building a new state hospital, improving roads, building dams, etc. But Adam perceives the other side of the picture, and, at first, refuses to take the position of top surgeon at the new hospital, despite Stark's offer. His uncle also resists Stark's offer for him to become State Attorney General, but finally caves in, swept up in all the hoopla and, perhaps, by his own pride of his past.

     In short, the whirlwind that is Willie Stark sweeps up all the characters into his wake, altering their lives through his own self-destruction. Anne falls in love with the monster, rejecting the ineffectual love of Jack Burden. But, in a sense, she is wise to do so, for Burden is utterly passive, a storyteller, not an actor in any tale. At least Stark is alive!

     So too is Stark's wife left alone after the tornado of her husband's life, and their adopted son, Tom, who is destroyed through his own rebellion against his father, paralyzed through a drunken driving accident that kills his female passenger. When one of Stark's appointments, Pillsbury, is caught up in graft, the Judge, told he cannot prosecute, resigns, and it appears that Stark's fall is near.

     Yet Stark pulls through by pleading with the electorate who have brought him to office. Like a conjurer, he creates a circus atmosphere that washes even over the legislature. But winning is itself a kind of "burden," as Stark is forced to find corruption even in the life of the noble Judge. When Stark reveals his knowledge (uncovered by Burden) of a long-ago event of corruption in his life, the judge kills himself.

     Just as Stark is convinced he has won again, a man—Adam Stanton—moves toward him with a gun and shoots him dead. Stark's fawning assistant, Sugar Boy, kills Stanton. If there is something almost too pat about the ending of this cautionary tale, so too was it in real life. Some behaviors, Rossen and Warren suggest, simply create inevitable results.

 

Los Angeles, March 1, 2012

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (March 2012).

Richard Brooks | Sweet Bird of Youth / 1962

nobody’s young anymore

by Douglas Messerli

 

Richard Brooks (screenplay, based on the drama by Tennessee Williams, and director) Sweet Bird of Youth / 1962

 

Just as Richard Brooks had bowdlerized Williams’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, washing away any literal suggestions that Brick was gay, so did he alter the ending of his 1962 version of Williams’ Sweet Bird of Youth; but here the change makes very little sense given that the movie quite openly deals with a gigolo, the Benzedrine-popping Chance Wayne (Paul Newman), who services the aging movie actress, Alexandra Del Lago (Geraldine Page), herself an alcoholic who smokes hashish.

      Chance, in turn, has passed on venereal disease to his childhood girlfriend (Shirley Knight), whose father is an open bigot, “Boss” Finley (Ed Begley), who has bought up the state gas reserves along with the services of the Florida State governor as well as lining the pockets of the local mayor and the head of the city hospital, who “cured” his daughter through sterilization. That Brooks, after that list of transgressions, should still feel the necessity of gussying up the character of Chance and switching the boy’s final castration to a scarring the face makes absolutely no sense, particularly after Finley’s henchmen make it clear that they are going to destroy “lover boy’s meal ticket,” and Finley himself earlier warns, after referring to Chance as a “Prince”: “I had a dog called Prince. I had to butcher him to keep all the bitches in town from being violated.”


    

      Despite those needless changes, nonetheless, Brook’s version of the 1959 plays comes through remarkably well through the powerful tragi-comical huffs and puffs of Page as she comes out of a several-day stupor into which she has crawled after witnessing the camera’s unforgiving revelations of her aging face. The handsome, golden toned and firm-bodied Chance has been a salve and restoration which she has awarded herself. As she gradually comes to in a hotel bed in St. Cloud Florida on, coincidentally, an Easter celebration of and white washing of “Boss” Finley, she tries to recall just who her bed partner is. Donning glasses, partly broken in a drunken fall, Del Lago, hiding under the moniker of Princess Kosmonopolis, summarizes the tone of Williams play: “Well, I may have done better…but God knows I have done worse.”

   Chance, meanwhile, has only done worse in his spiral downwards from a young man with a promising theater career into an older, after-the-Korean war actor knocking on so many doors that he finally has entered all the wrong ones. As he admits to his age-conscious “princess,” “Nobody’s young anymore.”

    During Del Lago’s dazed stupor, he has gotten her to sign him on as an actor for a film company in which she is partner. And later, to protect her need for him, he has caught her talking about her drugs on tape, even daring to blackmail his employer if she does not go through with the deal and provide him with the money necessary to reach his goal.

     She laughs in his face, but negotiates with him, nevertheless, demanding sex—now that she has been temporarily resurrected—in exchange for the money and gig. Chance recognizes her as a kind of “monster,” a being entirely devoted to herself. Yet in her near complete honesty, he also must grant that she is a kind of “nice monster,” as opposed to the real monsters—Finley, his bourbon-swilling political friends, his book-burning idiot son (Rip Torn), and the others of the community who capitulate to Finley’s bullying tactics—with whom he has grown up. From the wrong side of the tracks, Chance is a kind of mirror image, in fact, of Del Lago, a fact she immediately perceives; but while she has, at least in the past, had real talent, Chance, as she puts it, may have only talent in bed.



      What she doesn’t know is that Chance is also an incurable romantic, a man still in love with his high school sweetheart, Heavenly, the daughter of the despicable Finley, and that he has returned home, once more, to take her away with him to his pipe dream acting career in Hollywood. Never before had I comprehended just how similar, in some respects, is Williams’ Chance Wayne—even by name suggesting a kind gambling cowboy—to Willy Loman and his sons. Finley, in fact, has recognized that immediately, providing the boy with the money to get away, prove himself and, incidentally, get rid of him and his attentions to his beloved daughter. In a sense, Finely is a more ruthless kind of Willie, selling the young man a perverted notion of the American Dream: “This is America. Today you’re nobody, tomorrow you’re somebody.”  But, of course, it is a dream deferred, as Langston Hughes put it, a dream that in its delusional grandeur can never come true. And, in that sense, Chance is a fool as well as a man who has given up all of his values to achieve the impossible. Although he may be as much a “monster” as Del Lago, unlike her, he is a self-deluded monster, a being who thinks he is acting on behalf of others through his own insatiable desires. 

    And unlike Miller, Williams does not even attempt to deem Chance and Del Lago’s absurd excesses as a subject of serious thought. If “attention must be paid,” it is not for the sanctity of their lives but for the insane comical performances of the larger-than-life exaggerations of their daily behavior. Yet there is a kind sacredness in those exaggerations. If they are fools, they are also, strangely enough, figures not unlike Christ, recognizing, as both finally do, that they must accept the inevitable crucifixion for their acts. Del Lago—whose name suggests a strange kind of water saint, an element that surrounds them throughout (the film was shot not in the South, but in Malibu)—is, at film’s end, determined to return to the bruising honesty of the camera’s glare when, through Chance’s accidental reconnection of her with columnist Walter Winchell, she discovers that her film has been a hit.

     So too, upon discovering that he has infected and destroyed the love he has had for Heavenly, Chance walks directly into the enemy’s hands, almost ecstatically accepting their torture as expiation for his acts.

    


     That that punishment should be nothing more than a broken nose and a possible scar, is absolutely absurd. It has to be the destruction of that one thing for which Chance truly had, a sexual magnetism, the magical ability that all of Williams’ anti-heroes share—and which too many Americans, embedded in the hypocritical puritanical outcries of the Finleys of the world, still can’t accept—to sweat it out in lust.

     The fact that Brooks shows Heavenly joining up with her former lover and that her long-forbearing Aunt Nonnie (Mildred Dunnock) curses her tormentor, Finley, as she leaves the house (“You can go straight to hell!”) really doesn’t matter; they are merely two Marys reiterating the miracle which they have just witnessed. For Williams’ Christ has clearly risen from the dead.

     Castration, obviously, would have moved this movie into a different dimension, the stud heterosexual having been turned into the effete castrato which, in his seeking out a sissified film career, Chance already had been perceived as being in this bigoted and homophobic small town. Chance as male gigolo servicing females was always indistinguishable in this Florida hellhole from a sexual pervert devoted sexually to any gender, bringing disease and drugs into the so-called respectable bedrooms of their own politically, religious, and heterosexually-oriented perverted society. It doesn’t matter in the Finley’s world whether or not you’re gay or straight; being openly sexually is itself a punishable crime, just as youth is insufferable to the agèd. In such a world, even any open expression of sex is queer.

 

Los Angeles, Memorial Day, 2012

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (May 2012).

Fred C. Newmeyer and Sam Taylor | Safety Last! / 1923

misreading reality

by Douglas Messerli

 

Hal Roach, Sam Taylor, and Tim Whelan (screenplay), Fred C. Newmeyer and Sam Taylor (directors) Safety Last! / 1923

 

Harold Lloyd’s great silent film, Safety Last!, begins with what appears to be a prison scene, with “The Boy” (Lloyd) seemingly behind bars, being comforted by what appears to a mother-in-law and his wife. A somber looking priest-like figure soon shows up with a man who looks like a prison official. A noose hangs in the background.   



     Suddenly the four front figures disappear temporarily from the screen, reappearing next to the apparent “prisoner” behind bars. As the camera pulls out, however, we perceive that we had misread the scene, discovering that the sad-looking man is merely standing behind a gate of a train station, and the “noose” is a trackside pickup loop. Our hero is not truly in prison, but is about to leave his girlfriend (Mildred Davis) for a career in the city, promising to get married when he has made it “good.”

      Of course, the scene has also served as a kind a metaphor based on the old jokes about marriage signifying the end of freedom and a kind of spiritual death. And that metaphor underlies many of the disastrous scenes of The Boy’s life, as the bespectacled character faces the vagaries of city living. Shacking up in a small room with another worker, The Pal (“Limpy Bill, played by Bill Strother), the two men don't even money to pay the rent. Although Lloyd has found a job working at the De Vore Department Store, he spends nearly all of his wages on a lavaliere and, later, a chain to send back to his small-town girlfriend, while writing her daily letters declaring his love and success.

        Like Chaplain and Keaton, however, the truth of his life is expressed in a series of hapless events.

 


     Arriving early to work, The Boy is accidentally carried away by a service truck, and must hurry back across the city through a number of unfortunate conveyances to arrive back at work on time; he fails, and must sneak into the store in order not to lose his job. That he enters the building by imitating a female mannequin carried in by a black worker who is absolutely horrified when he discovers he carrying a live "white woman,” once more makes clear how important drag was in early motion pictures, and how adventurous Lloyd and his directors were, crossing the racial color lines long before other films dared to.


      But under Sam Taylor’s direction, the film takes us even further into the early queer world as we realize the man The Boy is attempting to escape is the snooty and dandified Floorwalker (Wescott Clarke), who watches over his charges with critical glares—an early example of what just a few years later in the early 1930s would be a stock regular, the pansy, an effeminate gay who imperiously rules his small corner of the world with disdain for all others with whom he must make contact.   

     The women customers who visit The Boy’s department that sells rolls of cloth presumably to be made into dresses, moreover, are equally demanding and presumptive, as we note in one scene when a woman demands to see roll after roll before returning to the first and asking only for a small sample cut. During a sale, the shoppers gather round like competitors for a prize, creating near chaos for the young salesman.



     Even somewhat pleasant experiences, such as The Boy’s encounter of a policeman, once a hometown friend of his, ends badly, when Lloyd, bragging to his roommate that he has influence with the police department, suggests Bill knock the policeman backwards while using a callbox. Without knowing, his friend has been replaced by another policeman, and the action results in a wild chase, wherein, to escape, Bill miraculously climbs the outer shell of an office building.

      The Boy’s continual lies to his girlfriend back home assures both mother and daughter that he is doing so well in city life that Mildred should take the train to join him. When she shows up at the store, The Boy is forced to pretend that he is the general manager, temporarily using the manager’s empty office to impress her. But the accidental pushing of several buttons brings legions of others into the office, including the flustered Floorwalker, requiring that Lloyd, hiding his face behind a paper, issue orders, insisting the Floorwalker leave The Boy alone!

      When Mildred, meanwhile, leaves her purse in the office, further problems arise, but he does, at least, overhear a conversation between the general manager and a publicist about a plan to draw large crowds into the store. The Boy offers up his services for the $1,000 fee, wilily planning to use the building-climbing talents of his Pal. Thousands are attracted to the event, but when the policeman who had previously chased Bill gets wind of the plan, he awaits in revenge, and The Boy is himself forced to begin the climb, with Bill promising to change roles with him on the second floor.  


     Representing the longest scene of the film—Lloyd slowly begins the climb, but at each floor the policeman catches up with Bill, and The Boy is forced to move upward. The amazing realism of the scene as he makes his way to the top, the crowds and busy streets below growing smaller and smaller, is perhaps one the grand moments of early cinema history. In reality Lloyd dangled only three stories from the ground upon which a mattress was placed. But Lloyd had already lost a thumb and forefinger in a previous stunt, and death even from three storeys was still quite possible.

      The most memorable moment of the long climb, as Martin Scorsese reminded us in his tribute to filmmaking, Hugo, is when clinging to a clock near the very top, the workings of the clock pull away, with the helpless climber attached, as if he was literally fighting with time against his certain demise. Ultimately he does win out, and rises to the top, but even there is threatened to be tumbled into space by a windcock.

      Yet our hero achieves the impossible, now surely able to face whatever real imprisonments and delimitations that marriage might bring.

       In fact, Lloyd soon after married his heroine in real life; but, as it is all too common, it was her acting career that came to an end.

 

Los Angeles, May 24, 2013

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (May 2013).

Andrzej Munk | Eroica (Heroism) / 1958

home to the brave

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jerzy Stefan Stawiński (screenplay), Andrzej Munk (director) Eroica (Heroism) / 1958

 

Last Tuesday I caught the last presentation of the Martin Scorsese-curated “Masterpieces of Polish Cinema” at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s Bing Theater, Andrzej Munk’s two-part World War II-based work, Eroica (Heroism). Originally filmed as a three-part work, the last, “The Nun” (subtitled “Con bravura”), was cut from the final work, in part because it simply seemed “less important” than the other two sections.

     Both consider the issue of how we, or, more particularly, the Poles might describe heroism. As the flier to the film asks: “Why was the subject so sensitive and painful [to Poles]?”

     

                 First take into consideration the particular history of Poland, its many

                 defenses against invasions, the loss of its statehood for 150 years during

                 a period marked by numerous patriotic insurrections, the retrieval of

                 its independence. Next, factor in the defeat it suffered in 1939, only to

                 be followed by renewed resistance and struggle. Consider that national-

                 ism, patriotism, and heroic suffering played roles in all these epochs. Then

                 remember the valiant struggle of the Home Army, the largest resistance

                 group, was presented falsely, libeled, and those who took part in that

                 were even victimized during the Stalinist period, and it is no wonder that

                 many people waited for some satisfaction to their sensibilities, waited for

                 compensation, as it were. Some justice came finally. Politicians made

                 gestures of appreciation, mostly reluctantly, more to bring reconciliation

                 than to give credit. (BolesÅ‚aw MichaÅ‚ek and Frank Turaj)

 

     In short, hated as they were by both the Germans and their would-be liberators, the Polish people, even while fighting for their survival, necessarily perceived their actions with a large dose of irony. Heroism, although a romantically-longed for achievement, was understandably met with skepticism and even doubt.


     The comedy of “Scherzo Alla Pollacca” derives from the military service of DzidziuÅ› (Edward DziewoÅ„ski) during the Warsaw uprising. While his platoon practices its formations, a plane circles. Pointing it out to the commander, the recruit is told to keep marching, only to insist upon its existence once more as it circles in for the attack. By seconds, the recruits fall out, scurrying off, with DzidziuÅ› facing gunfire from all directions before he, entering a Polish-held cave, discovers a man racing a bicycle in order to generate electricity. The whole event so disorients the recruit that he throws down his gun and returns home through the dangerous landscape of battle.

      Once back home, he discovers his wife, Zosia (Barbara Polomska) in the process of embracing a Hungarian officer (Leon Niemczyk) who has been billeted within their home. While recognizing the sexual betrayal of his wife, he nonetheless toasts the interloper in an attempt to get him drunk. Instead, as they walk back to the Hungarian’s base, the would-be enemy (early in the War the Hungarians had joined the Axis powers) confides that his battalion would like to join the Polish forces (Hungary secretly signed a peace agreement with the US in 1944).

      Although he wants no part in the battle, DzidziuÅ› cannot but report this fact to the local authorities fighting nearby. The local officer demands that they take this information to the Home Army Commander in Warsaw, which, with the local officer, DzidziuÅ› undertakes, despite being stopped along the way several times by Nazi officers.


     Forced to take the message back to the locals, he first becomes drunk, weaving through the battlefields on his way home with a terrible headache. The voyage and his survival, in fact, might remind one a bit of the peregrinations of Buster Keaton, as he almost accidentally survives, reporting back to the local headquarters and the Hungarians that the Home Office has denied their offer. Throughout, DzidziuÅ› keeps demanding he that receive “credit” for his actions, awarded instead by disdain and disbelief for his acts.

      Returning home, DzidziuÅ› again is met by the local officer who is headed back to the front to fight. As a wartime deserter, the recruit seems determined to return to his unfaithful wife, but encountering her, turns back to join the officer on his new adventure.

      If the first half of the film is basically a comic presentation of “heroism,” the second—although displaying comic moments—is basically tragic. In “Ostinato Lugubre” two recently captured Polish officers are introduced in a POW barracks where most of the officers have been imprisoned for several years, having lost nearly all sense of morale, some of them such as Zak (Józef Kostecki) having become almost insane. The only thing that seeming keeps him alive is that his best friend, Lt. Zawistowski, has apparently been able to escape from the prison, standing for all of the prisoners as symbol of heroic possibility.

 

    Some of the detained officers remain devoted to military protocol, ostracizing men like Zak who reject their ridiculous rules and punishments—Zak, for example, is divvied out less food than the others—until he finally grows so tired of the posturing of his fellow prisoners that he walks through the bales of barbed wire which serves as the camp retainer. Two women, however, quickly, gather him up and bring him back to the prison gates. Unable to bear the company of those around him, Zak retreats into a small cubicle made from a container sent through the Geneva Convention to the prisoners.

     One might be tempted to compare this short film to Billy Wilder’s Nazi prison tale, Stalag 17, except that Munk and his writer, Jerzy Stefan StrawiÅ„ski have drained almost any humor from their tale and have refused to portray the imprisoners as buffoons. In fact, we hardly see the Nazis, since the prisoners suffer more from the pettiness and posturing of their peers than the brutality of the Germans. Although, as in the Wilder film, one prisoner receives a large store of rations, rather than selling them as Sargeant Sefton might, he greedily attempts to eat them all at one sitting, becoming sick in the process.

     One of the new detainees, Kurzawa (Józef Nowak), however, accidently uncovers a completely other dimension of barrack life as, seeking a glass a water in the middle of the night, he discovers another suffering officer, Lt. Turek (Kazimiez Rudzki) removing a tile from the ceiling, whereupon he realizes that the “heroic” Zawistowski has not really escaped, but is hiding in heating and cooling ducts. Keeping the secret, Kurzawa begins to minister to the dying Zawistowski, providing him with sleeping pills and medicine for his cough.


    After the nearly unbearable torture of watching the greedy officer stuffing his stomach as the others spur him on, Zak, weary of life, opens the door to the barracks and enters the courtyard alone in prohibition of camp rules. The slowly shot scene of his death by gunfire is nearly unbearable to watch.

      Zawistowski, Kurzawa reports, has also just died, and Turek, to whom the camp commander owes a favor, arranges for the duct to be shipped out, the non-existent hero embedded within. Who is the true hero Munk’s profound film seems to ask, the would-be honorable Zawistowski, the weary suicidal Zak, or keeper of the secret Turek? Kurzawa, the complicit observer—like the audience itself—is left to make his own choice.

 

Los Angeles, June 26, 2014

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (June 2014).

 

Index [listed alphabetically by director]

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