Friday, January 19, 2024

Richard Quine | Bell, Book and Candle / 1958

the infection

by Douglas Messerli

 

Daniel Taradash (writer, based on the play by John Van Druten), Richard Quine (director) Bell, Book and Candle / 1958

 

The same year that James Stewart and Kim Novak starred together so brilliantly in Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo, the two were paired again in the film version of the hit play by John Van Druten, Bell, Book and Candle. The director, Richard Quine clearly is not one of the most brilliant auteurs of film history, but he is often a good craftsman, and along with his sometimes collaborator Blake Edwards, had a good sense of music and comedic timing necessary in the sex-oriented films he directed and produced.

 

     His 1958 film, however, with several of actors with whom he worked many times, including Novak—with whom he was having an affair—Jack Lemmon, and Ernie Kovacs, is well worth viewing again; for, although the somewhat silly plot involves witches and magic—with wonderful character actors such as Elsa Lanchester and Hermione Gingold cackling up a storm of good laughs—there is something darker in this work, and some of its images, captured by the brilliant cinematographer, James Wong Howe, pulls this work in directions away from a witch-crafting spoof in the manner of the earlier I Married a Witch and the later television serial, Bewitched.

   I should perhaps interrupt in my discussion of this movie to alert the reader that “the witch” throughout film and literary history was generally also associated with lesbian behavior, and the witch’s coven, her criminal associates, had long been established as a lesbian community, made clear in later films such as Ulrike Ottinger’s Laocoön & Sons (1972) and other later works.

    Publisher Shep Henderson (James Stewart) lives in an apartment surrounded by a family of witches and warlocks—Gillian Holroyd (Kim Novak), who also runs a traditional African sculpture gallery, warlock Nicky Holroyd (Jack Lemmon), a young man of adolescent behavior who uses his powers to switch off streetlights and improve his luck with love, and a daffy aunt, Queenie Holroyd (Elsa Lanchester) who ineffectually snoops on their new neighbor, Henderson, scrambling his phone system when he complains of finding her in his locked apartment room. And there are also a whole room of others who bring to life the local bar, the Zodiac, including the gifted Bianca de Passe (Hermione Gingold), and a French singer who might well remind one of Charles Aznavour.

      But these might almost be seen as metaphors for what one might describe as a shadowy group of "fellow travelers"—if nothing else "beatnik outsiders" (Nicky plays the bongos, Gillian goes barefoot)—who do not strictly fit into the normative America Shep inhabits. His vision of the US, replete with his painterly soon-to-be wife, Merle Kittridge (Janice Rule), who in imitation of the cubists and surrealist painter images throughout, seeks a righteous, self-serving social world which she is determined to inhabit.

 

    At least the straight and far too serious Shep is willing to try out the new nightclub he has heard about from the Holroyds, whereas Merle complains of its "scrabbyness" and discovers therein, to her horror, Gillian, whom she had known in college. We soon discover that Merle was just as singular-minded then as now, reporting to authorities Gillian's shoeless jubilation to get her expelled. In revenge, Gillian arranged for a whole season of lightning storms in order to terrify the thunder-fearing tattletale. And she now arranges, in her own territory, for Nicky and his music making friends to ring out the night with a rousing version of "Stormy Weather" which speeds off Merle into the Christmas Eve ice.

      I have enjoyed watching this lovely movie for years, and only just recently realized that the strange underground club which Shep suddenly stumbles upon, the Zodiac is a lot like the “underground” gay bars of New York City in the same period.

      When I recalled that original playwright, John van Druten, was gay, it made perfect sense that the strange “underground” into which Shep had fallen was in fact an entire gay world into which he was suddenly swept up, a world of secret codes and private messages, of powers of love beyond his heterosexual imagination.

      Of course, his was still a heterosexual infatuation, but his sudden realization that it was nothing at all like his previous relationships and that it might have been caused by, god forbid, a kind of “spell” closer to witchcraft than a normal heterosexual attraction between a man and woman, suddenly infuses this film with an entirely different message than what it pretends.


      Returning home, Shep discovers Gillian and her outsider family busy summoning up the author Sidney Redlitch (Ernie Kovacs), and she, employing Pyewacket, sets out to seduce Shep. It is an easy task, given her facial beauty and her backless gown. By morning the couple have been swept away in love, an emotional response often defined as a kind a magic, as they look down upon a New York square from the Flatiron building, reminding us of photographer Alvin Langdon Coburn's "The Octopus."

     Of course, complications must arise as Mr. Corporate America, a book publisher willing to publish any book that sells—even one on witchcraft (which Gillian justifiably prevents from being published)—must come to terms with his suddenly volatile, and most unusual love interest. Having come into contact with true American outsiders—Taradash even jokes with the possibility that Gillian and her family may be "unAmerican" (reminding us of the 1950s political hysteria regarding Soviet agents hidden in every US public affair), she assuring Shep that they are very American, "early American," the “normalized” Shep (performed perfectly by the posterboy of US normalcy Stewart), is now almost hysterical for having been infected, sneezing whenever he encounters or even imagines the presence of the infecting agent of the cat.

      Redlitch, meanwhile, takes up in a close friendship with Gillian’s brother Nicky, who joyfully takes him on a tour of the secret warlock world—read closeted gay-oriented world—which he inhabits, allowing the would-be literary sensationalist all the material he might have sought to reveal the underworld of witchcraft / gay life. If there isn’t much “power” to it—the most Nicky can do is turn off street lights and turn up the radios of straight couples who happen to be necking in his territory—but the warlock makes the most of his secret knowledge and urban powers he can to capture the stranger’s interest.

       Shep, meanwhile, coming to terms with the fact that he has been seduced by a witch/lesbian who supposedly cannot truly fall in love with men, must ultimately cleanse his bodily system, with the help of Mrs. de Passe, to free him from the infection!

      Gillian, on her part, loses her "powers," presumably giving up the sexual and political eccentricities her life symbolizes. She transforms her native African art shop, a truly political statement in the New York landscape, into a calmer repository of pretty shells.

     Gillian, so Shep now discovers, can even blush—she is now able to be embarrassed by what had previously no effect upon her, as any proper virgin might be—and even cries as all “normal” females do, being vulnerable clearly to the vagaries of not only love but of everyday American culture! So can the two now come together, denying all the "magic" that they previously embraced, but ready to live out a far more ordinary romance.

      At film's end, only the loud purr of the cat suggests that there may be something more in store—if nothing else, the occasional memory of Gillian's powerfully "dark" family roots and her outsider involvements—long before the real-life Minnesota housewife, former terrorist Sara Jane Olson, revealed her previous life as a far-left activist who was a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army.

     No wonder Novak—who in many of her roles seems to be plotting on how of get out of the skin of the very characters she's been hired to depict—seems more than a little anxious in the slightly clumsy embracement of Stewart's arms. In Vertigo of the same year, one should recall, she twice jumped to her death. 

        

Los Angeles, July 17, 2012

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (July 2012).

Ethan Fuirst | 1781 / 2020

the voice no one else can hear

by Douglas Messerli

 

Ethan Fuirst (screenwriter and director) 1781 / 2020 [10 minutes]

 

A young Patriot soldier, William (Josh Fulton), after seeing his friend (Mark Ashin) die, determines to desert his unit. Terrified by the situation, he carefully begins to gather wood to start a fire, only to find a very young fellow soldier, Sam (Ryan Meyer) also on the run for his unit—although he bluffs that his unit is near and soon to return.


     Yet, after having his musket taken from him by William, it’s clear he’s as determined to desert as William is, responding to the other’s suggestion that he run back to his unit with a series of desperate possibilities that he would prefer to serve rather than return. His pleas are as moving as they are representative of his fear of returning to his unit: “I can stand guard. I can build a fire while you stand guard. You can build a fire while I fill the canteen with water. I can look for firewood while you sit here.” His desperation is so obviously painfully it hurts, presented in an almost surrealist language of alternate possibilities.

      Clearly, William has taken compassion on him as we see the young man carrying the firewood back to his new commander, while William drinks freely from his canteen. Like an impatient child, Sam asks it they might now light fire, but William judiciously insists they have to wait until the sun goes down.


      They sit eating cold corn on the cob, finally admitting their equal plans for desertion, Sam, planning to return to Massachusetts, William, from Virginia, not planning on returning there but to move on to eastern New York for the obvious reason that he is black man who will have to return to slavery if he heads home. But in order to do that, William will have to swim across a wide river, a voyage which Sam is not sure he can survive. 

       But Sam, in their brief interchange, says something quite provide, “Say what you want, I hear it in your voice too.” Dark falls, and they start the fire, William suggesting that they might both leave from the same place, his friend heading to Connecticut from there. Like the desperate cowboys in Brokeback Mountain, in the deep of night they finally express their lust for one another.

       Can you truly hear “it” in another man’s voice, as Sam has insisted? It’s not an affectation he’s talking about, but a call for another being that speaks in tongues. Yes, you can hear it in another gay man’s voice in a way most straight men could never imagine. It’s not an effeminate mannerism but a plea for reason and desire, for the sexual over the violence which so many heterosexuals seem to have learned is their in-born right, their very expression of their sexual identity. Yes, there is something in voice, a plea, a sense of resistance to what others have defined the male to be that can be heard by any other sensitive being, male or female, the very reason why these men have determined to desert, to leave a cause which they felt was once worthy of perusing only to realize, with the death of other boys and men with whom they felt love and empathy, that made them realize they were not that kind of “soldier.”

 

      The dogs of war, quite literally in Fuirst’s short film, awaken them from their sleep. They run in slightly different directions, Sam suddenly being shot and killed, straight-on by a British soldier while William hides behind a tree.

 


    William finally reaches the truly treacherous waters of the river, now forced to face the decision whether or not he can truly swim across the wide reach to temporary freedom.

        Director Fuirst’s film is a tough work that does not provide any of its figure’s simple answers.

The two gay men get only one desperate night together, and the black man surely will find no easy solutions to the identities he faces even in New York State if he is able to make to across the river.

 

Los Angeles, January 19, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema (January 2024).

 

George Stevens | The More the Merrier / 1943

full steam ahead!

by Douglas Messerli

 

Robert Russell, Frank Ross, Richard Flournoy, and Lewis R. Foster (screenplay, based on a story by Robert Russell and Frank Ross), Garson Kanin (uncredited contributor), George Stevens (director) The More the Merrier / 1943

 

The preposterous “hero” of George Stevens’ slightly offbeat wartime comedy, The More the Merrier, is Benjamin Dingle (played by the noted character comedian Charles Coborn), a figure who believes—like Captain Farragut of Civil War history that life should be lived by “damning the torpedoes” and moving “full steam ahead”—steams through this comedy at such a terrifying trajectory that he almost succeeds at putting all the other characters under water.  Fortunately, the other two leading characters, Constance Milligan (the incomparable Jean Arthur) and Joe Carter (the affable and laid-back matinee idol of this period, Joel McCrea) are good swimmers, standing up to his bullying tactics with surprisingly strong tactics of survival.

   


     Arriving in the war time capitol of the USA as an advisor on the housing shortage two days early, Dingle finds his hotel suite unavailable, the following discussion, typical of his bullying tactics, following:

 

                  Hotel Clerk: [looks over Dingle’s reservation] Senator Noonan engaged

                       a suite beginning the 24th. Why, this is only the 22nd. You’re two days

                       early.

                  Dingle: Anything wrong with being two days early?

                  Hotel Clerk: Why, no, sir.

                  Dingle: Everybody ought to be two days early. When this nation gets two

                       days early we’ll be getting somewhere.

                  Hotel Clerk: Yes sir. But unfortunately this suite won’t be vacated until day-

                       after tomorrow.

                  Dingle: Can you connect me with Senator Noonan?

                  Hotel Clerk: The Senator’s out of town.

                  Dingle: Oh. When will he be back?

                  Hotel Clerk: Well, he was due back, uh, day-before-yesterday, but he’s,

                        he’s, uh….

                  Dingle: Two days late.

                  Hotel Clerk: Yes, sir.

                  Dingle: Well when Senator Noonan gets back late, tell him I was here

                        early.

 

The early-late motif is played out for all of its possibilities throughout the film, as the metaphor is extended not only to time schedules but personal relationships.

       What can such a determined speedster do but to find a newspaper add offering an apartment room, and claim it for himself against a mob of other good intentioned prospectors? A single woman, Constance Milligan, has decided to sacrifice her two-bedroom apartment by sharing it, but before she can even become involved in the rental decision, Dingle has sent all the others home and declared himself, despite her protests that she is determined to have a woman tenant, her new roommate.

 

                 Constance Milligan: …I’ve made up my mind to rent to nobody but a

                          woman.

                  Dingle: So, let me ask you something. Would I ever want to wear your

                           stockings?

                  Constance: No.

                  Dingle: Well, all right. Would I ever want to borrow your girdle, or your

                           red and yellow dancing slippers?

                  Constance: Of course not.

                  Dingle: Well, any woman, no matter who, would insist upon borrowing

                           that dress you got on right now. You know why? Because it’s so

                           pretty.

                   Constance: I made it myself.

                   Dingle: And how would you like it if she spilled a cocktail all over it…at

                           a party you couldn’t go with her to because she had borrowed it to

                           go it…in?

 

Before the poor Miss Milligan can even answer, he’s flipped a coin and won. He’s in.


       But she, in turn, presents him with an impossible time schedule for their bathroom and kitchen use in the morning, an instant-by-instant determination of everything from their awakening to their bathroom habits and their eating patterns—an impossibly intricate interweaving of two individuals that is doomed to failure, and which punishes poor Dingle by leaving outside the apartment door in his pajamas.

       In part to retaliate, but also just out of his impetuous personality, he leases his half of the room to Sergeant Joe Carter (Joel McCrea) who has no place to stay as he waits to be shipped overseas. Obviously, the action leads to even greater friction between Dingle and Milligan, and, ultimately, when Dingle reads her diary she has accidently left out in a rain storm, ends in his ouster. But, just as any perceptive viewer might have guessed, it also leads to romance between Miss Milligan and Carter.

 


      The only difficulty between these two from their former tenant is that they are not nearly as eager and determined to act. Milligan is engaged to a high-paid bureaucrat, Charles J. Pendergast (Richard Gaines), who even by his name we know is not suitable for her breathy, down-to-earth sensuality. And when Dingle is forced to deal with Pendergast at a luncheon he dislikes him the moment he sees him, again interceding, perceiving that Joe would be a far better match.

     When Joe is arrested, due to the good boy intercession of a teenage neighbor, for being a Japanese spy, Miss Milligan is forced to testify in Carter’s behalf, but a reporter haunts the couple and they, to avoid scandal, are forced to marry (through Dingle’s nefarious suggestion)—temporarily—with plans for an annulment. Returning to the apartment, however, the two discuss their predicament through the separating walls, before coming to realize that they truly love one another. So does Dingle, the retired millionaire, speed on, having swept away of another couple of unsuspecting passersby, who are now quite capable of swimming on their own. “Full steam ahead!”


     If this comedy is not quite as hilarious as it wishes itself to be, and if its predictability sometimes interferes with the screwball antics it would like to emulate, Stevens’ film still provides a great deal of pleasure, mostly due to Jean Arthur’s comic acting performed with a voice pitched between improvident prudence and a petulant purring that is nearly impossible to resist. Despite the bland appeal of McCrea, he is just handsome enough that we desire him to fall into the abyss that any “dingle” (the word meaning a small, deep, concealed dell) might have lured the two into. Finally, the communal manner of living the movie espouses is perhaps the closest American cinema ever got to a concept of social(ist) or group love before the late 1960s, as the intrusive camera moves, like another household guest, winds in and out of walls and windows, assuring the apartment's tenants little privacy. But then Washington, D.C., in this topsy-turvy wartime world, is somewhat like living in a vast dormitory. Men and women encamp at night in hallways. And a simple visit to a night club leads Joe Carter, in this male-depleted society, to have to fend off an entire room of swooning women. Marriage is clearly the only thing two people can do alone, with just the two of them.

 

Los Angeles, August 28, 2012

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (August 2012).

Shota Kalandadze | Associations with Wagner’s Music / 2006

work-out

by Douglas Messerli

 

Shota Kalandadze (screenwriter and director) Associations with Wagner’s Music / 2006 [5 minutes]

 

It is hardly surprising that the self-described eroticist, Georgian director Shota Kalandadze’s appropriation of the music of Richard Wagner, Associations with Wagner’s Music, employs its short 5 minutes mostly displaying homoerotic images, primarily of young sports figures boxing and participating in a mass Judo session and, most significantly displaying their mostly nude bodies in the shower.


 


    Relying primarily on selections from Wagner’s Ring cycle, Kalandadze begins with boxers, gradually scrolling up his images so that they reveal, bit by bit, a man showering with other men standing by the ready next to him.

      Eventually the scroll produces a female image, her breast shining in the sunlight of a window as she is transformed from a black-and-white figure to one in color, a massive Judo gathering following which suggests not so much eroticism as it does the programmed calisthenics of sports marathons, particularly those of Hitler and other fascist regimes. But these Judo performers are anything but uniform in their movements, and even this scene turns erotic as some men decide to strip off their shirts and begin their own regimen of set-ups.

 


    The upward scroll of the film clips returns us to the shower room for an even more slightly revealing homoerotic scene, which gradually reveals a smile upon the composer’s imposed face.

 

Los Angeles, January 19, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (January 2024).  

Otar Iosseliani | Ap’rili (April) / 1961, released 1972

the furniture movers

by Douglas Messerli

 

Otar Iosseliani and Erlom Akhvlediani (writers), Otar Iosseliani (director) Ap’rili (April) / 1961, released 1972

 

In Georgian director Otar Iosseliani’s short film from 1961, April, just as the name of the month suggests, young love is in the air. The young lovers living in the decaying city, however, have little place to go, and, as they painfully leave each other in the morning, they seek out alleyways, hallways, and even small corners of the busy city in order to kiss goodbye.


     Iosseliani’s world, however, is seemingly an absurd one. Dozens of young men, all almost identically dressed in black, suspendered pants and white shirts are presumably on their way to work—apparently at the new construction site of a large housing development at the edge of the city. Musicians appear in nearly every window and on every street (reminding me a bit of Armenian director, Don Askarian's The Musicians). A muscle builder lifts weights in an open window. But the most inexplicable group of city dwellers are numerous older men rushing about with remnants of furniture: hat racks, chairs, small tables, etc. Each enters his small room to deposit his finds or new purchases, only to seemingly scurry out again to bring back more of the absurd treasures.

      The young lovers are intruded upon by the music and, most importantly, these busybody movers and their ilk. They have nowhere to go but into the country, where they meander about the beautiful tree surrounded by cows and goats.


      The director establishes, accordingly, in an almost dialogue-free fable that the old city is a world in which it is difficult to be in love.

     Soon, however, Iosseliani turns his attention to the large housing units, showing us their development in just a few frames, as they are converted from cement and lumber into rather ugly fortresses into which the city musicians, dancers, and even the muscle-builder suddenly converge. The young lovers have finally found a space, sitting on the floor of their empty apartment in a kind of mindless swoon. Their kisses light up the overhead bulb, while the faucet miraculously flows, and the stove jets come alive in flame. The musicians play in joyous rapture until suddenly they are drowned out: the furniture movers have arrived, dragging in all their wood-wrought possessions and the glasses, plates, cups, vases, and other objects to be placed into and around these homely creations.

     One of the most nefarious of these object movers, a neighbor of the lovers, goes about peeking into the key locks of his neighbors, only to discover that the lovers have not only failed to lock their doors, but have nothing to protect within—not even a bed. Intruding upon their lives once more, he draws them out into the hall to show them their elderly neighbors busily washing up their glassware in rooms stuffed with chairs, tables, cupboards and other menacing “things.” The young lovers cannot even comprehend what he is showing them, and return happily to their empty rooms.

     Outraged by their inability to comprehend, the busybody neighbor confers with other tenants, and in a short while brings the couple a present of an overstuffed chair.

 

     The appreciative couple brings in the object, and before long we see beside it a small makeshift table. Within days, they purchase couches, beds, and tables; they collect glass, purchase a vacuum cleaner, clocks, and other noisy conveniences, which they proceed—all at the same time—to test, creating a racket of noise that even the busybody furniture mover above them cannot abide. Their apartment has become so overstuffed with objects that there is hardly room to move.

     Now the time has come to clean everything, and they, like the elderly couple shown them before, are busy shining up their glassware, dusting off their objects. When the young girl goes to change the flower vase however, the faucet refuses to cooperate. A quick kiss from her husband has no effect. Another quick buss does nothing further. Before long he has dropped and broken a drinking cup. She, about to break the vase in anger, thinks again before doing in the expensive object, taking out her anger in plates instead. For the first time in Iosseliani’s comedic statement, the couple speak, garbling out their anger in Georgian: we have no need for a translation. They are now clearly an angry married couple in the midst of a fight. The busybody from above drops down to tell them to be quiet, only fanning the flames of their rage.

     The musicians no longer play, the dancer cannot dance, even the body-builder has seemed to have given up his fit routine. Instead, in room after crowded room, we see men and women sitting around their electric fans, their radios, amongst the skeletons of wooden possessions. Suddenly, the power goes out, the lights in every window go black. Slowly, one by one, the residents light lamps and candles, returning to their former or simpler lives. One by one the musicians begin to play, the ballet dancer returns to her routine, the body builder picks up his irons.

     The formerly loving couple is still at war, but gradually, little by little, they move across their room of chairs and beds nearer and nearer to each other, finally coming once more into contact. With a kiss, the light switches on, the faucet flows, the stove lights up. A photograph they have hung upon the wall of their old, ramshackle city dwelling reminds them of what they previously had. Piece by piece, we see the couple’s furniture being tossed out the window, the busybody furniture mover scurrying out to check out what might be salvageable.


     The couple returns to the country paradise to which they once escaped, only to find that the tree near to which they kissed has been cut down—presumably to create more furniture. No matter, they are now free of possessions, in love once again.

      It is hard to find any overt political commentary in Iosseliani’s gentle satire. Yet the movie was not permitted to be released for eleven years, forcing Iosseliani to temporarily give up film-making from 1963-1965, during which he worked as a sailor on a fishing boat and at a metallurgical factory. When his 1975 film, Pastaorali, was similarly shelved, the director left his native land for France.

 

Los Angeles, July 13, 2012

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (July 2012).

Index [listed alphabetically by director]

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