Saturday, April 6, 2024

Robert Altman | Gosford Park / 2001

fall of the upper class

by Douglas Messerli

 

Julian Fellowes (screenplay, based on an idea by Robert Altman and Bob Balaban), Robert Altman (director) Gosford Park / 2001

 

Robert Altman’s Gosford Park bears many structural similarities to Renoir’s great film Rules of the Game. Gosford Park also represents the haute bourgeois (along with some titled figures) who retreat for the weekend to a country estate, where—utterly bored—they proceed to plays games, gossip, and participate in a “shooting party” that belies a kind a mindless disdain for living things. Their sexual escapades, moreover, are paralleled by their servants. Octave of La Règle du jeu is replaced in Altman’s “version” by Ivor Novello, a popular movie star and singer, who provides most of their entertainment. And just as in Renoir’s film, the weekend closes with a murder.


      But here the similarities end, as Altman’s work meanders into various concerns from the relationship between the classes to comical jabs at a dying social fabric. Whereas Renoir’s film points up important social issues of his own time, Altman’s movie is a kind of nostalgically framed satire of a British institution that has long since passed, and in that fact the latter film, although beautifully directed, brilliantly acted, and enjoyable overall, loses most of its relevancy for viewers of the 21st century. One might almost ask what to make of this film, or, to turn the question around, why did Altman direct it? What did he mean to say to us?

     I bring up these questions only because I so admire the technique of the film that I find it difficult to accept that Altman is merely presenting us an historically-based comic-tragedy about the collapse of the British empire—a collapse which the host believes has already taken place.

 

    As in many of his films, Altman turns down the sound level of his upstairs and, particularly, his downstairs conversations (in this case, each actor was fitted with a portable microphone) so that we must attend with great concentration upon the overlapping dialogue of his characters, which, in turn, implies that the film is worth such acuity. For the most part what we discern through our attentiveness are a series of subtle interrelationships, sexual innuendos, and comic one-liners.     

     Maggie Smith’s unforgettable portrayal of Constance Trentham, who snobbishly vents her spleen to one and all, is almost worth all our patience. Her interchange with Ivor Novello (Jeremy Northam) is typical:

 

Constance: Tell me, how much longer are you going to go on making films?

Ivor: I suppose that rather depends on how much longer the public wants to see

them.

Constance: It must be hard to know when it’s time to throw in the towel…. What

a pity about that last one of yours…what was it called? “The Dodger?”

Ivor: “The Lodger.”

Constance: “The Lodger.” It must be so disappointing when something just

flops like that.

 

     As Ivor plays a series of songs during a game of bridge, she says, nearly under her breath, “What a lovely long repertoire,” and soon after discourages applause, “Please don’t encourage him.” At another point when Morris Weissman (Bob Ballaban) refuses to name the murderer in his next Charlie Chan movie because it will spoil it for the dinner guests, she quips: “Oh, none of us will see it.” Witty dialogue indeed!

     The other guests, meanwhile, battle with their host, William McCordle (Michael Gambon), and with each other over various issues: Freddie Nesbitt (James Wilby) is fearful of being financially ruined by McCordle’s threat to pull out of a business deal; Constance is terrified that he may cut off her promised “lifetime” allowance; and Raymond Stockbridge (Charles Dance) is disgusted with his common-stock wife, Louisa (Geraldine Somerville), who is also the subject of several of Lady Trentham’s barbs.

     The quietly charged interchanges between Mrs. Wilson (the head of the serving staff, Helen Mirren) and Mrs. Croft (the head of the cooking staff, Eileen Atkins) are worthy of our attention, we realize, when later it is revealed that the two are sisters. Croft is unable to forgive Wilson for allowing her son to be “adopted” (in actuality, turned over to an orphanage by the dreadful host, William McCordle) while she has kept hers (also fathered by McCordle) only to have the child die.

 

    The servants’ quarters are also the scene of various sexual escapades, the most obvious of which concerns American film producer Morris Weissman’s “gentleman,” Henry Denton (Ryan Phillippe), who, it soon becomes apparent, is not a servant at all. Denton, possibly in a sexual  relationship with Weissman—his sudden appearance in Weissman’s bedroom late one evening certainly gives that impression—sexually gropes Constance’s young maid, Mary Maceachran and the servant-girl Elsie (Emily Watson), while bedding his host’s wife, Sylvia (Kristin Scott Thomas). The first footman, George (Richard E. Grant) is “desperate for a fag”—clearly not only of the smoking sort—and quips to another servant, Arthur, whose offer to “dress Mr. Novello” is refused: “And now you won’t get to see him in his underdrawers. Better luck next time.” Anyone aware of British film and musical history would also know that the beautiful Novello was also gay. As head Butler Jennings (Alan Bates) notes, “We all have something to hide,” his secret, evidently, being that he has served prison time as a conscientious objector during the War.

      Obviously, in terms of dialogue there is a great deal to attend to. But again, one must ask, for what purpose? What should we make of this witty, deceitful crowd?

     Altman is perhaps more successful in conveying—what many critics have recognized as one of his major themes—that with McCordle’s murder we are witnessing the symbolic death of the upper class. In his visual presentation of the servants gathering outside the doorway of the drawing room and in other spots throughout the house to overhear the Novello’s songs, we recognize that the performer may be despised by the figures for whom he directly performs, but he is loved by the servants. And in that fact we recognize their love of life, their thorough and open their enjoyment of music, dance, film and theater they will prevail just as the “ruling class” will ultimately fade away. Altman reveals this with some sense of nostalgia, for as disgusting as these societal figures are, unlike Denton and Novello himself, they are the “real” thing. Like Denton, who pretends to be a servant, Novello is an impersonator. To Morris’s question, “How do you manage to put up with these people?” Novello responds, “Well you forget, I make my living impersonating them.”

     Similarly, ousted from her position as a servant, we recognize that Elsie, despite our admiration for her ability to create a new life, will perhaps also become a kind of impersonator, an actress who, as a native to Britain, can now “pretend” to be as British as Claudette Colbert (on the phone throughout much of the movie American Morris Weissman, in his search for an actress who sounds “British,” asks “What about Claudette Colbert. She’s British, isn’t she? Is she, like, affected or is she British?”).

     In the year 2001—the date of Gosford Park’s premiere—one can only wonder, what does it all matter? In the context of the culturally diverse world of contemporary England, why should we necessarily care about the end of what Elsie describes as “toffee-nosed snobs.”

     To focus on the issue of British class distinctions, I suggest, would miss the point. Although the tale is one of British society, the real issue of this film is not about a dying breed of high society, but the issue of servitude itself. McCordle, after all, is also an impersonator, a wealthy businessman who has married into royalty. Although he seemingly enjoys the superficial trappings of the landed gentry—money and fiddling with his guns—he is as trapped in his life as any of his servants. The “hard-hearted randy old sod,” who has impregnated dozens of women, is detested by his wife and daughter both; although he loves guns, he “can’t hit a barn door.” It is clear that his life in the country is a charade.

     Similarly, the other “society” figures have sold their souls for money and position, and in so doing, have also bought themselves a kind slavery from which they cannot escape. The Stockbridges detest one another, Freddie Nesbitt is always near financial ruin, Lady Trentham is a penurious, bitter old woman, Isobel McCordle a jilted lover.

    

     Downstairs the “servants” live their lives, as Elsie complains, “through” the upper class. The concept of servitude, in fact, exists even beyond the interrelationships between master and servant. In order to protect her son, Robert Parks, Mrs. Wilson is willing to sacrifice her own life, poisoning McCordle before her son—aware only of his father’s identity—attempts to stab him to death. When Mary asks her how she could have known that Robert would attempt to kill him, Wilson reveals the situation of nearly everyone in Altman’s film: she is the perfect servant, she explains, with the gift of anticipation. She knows what her masters will want even before they themselves know it. Asked whether she isn’t worried about her life, she reiterates: “Didn’t you hear me? I’m the perfect servant; I have no life.”

     The other figures of this social prison may not have her “gift,” but they, like her, are without lives. Crying out in pain for the inability to admit her existence to her son, Mrs. Wilson is comforted by her sister and former foe, who hushes her: “Don’t cry, they’ll hear you.” With that Altman says it all. No release save death is possible in such a confining space.

      The impersonators—loud, irritating, graceless as they are—are the only truly free beings. As Nesbitt bitterly comprehends, only “ruin” and its accompanying ostracization can free him. As opposed to the stasis of estate life, where he is told several times to keep his problems to himself, he realizes “when you’re ruined there’s so much do.” Obviously, he means he must take care of his affairs, but the statement also suggests a potentially larger engagement with the world. McCordle’s death may have saved Nesbitt from financial disaster, but it has also kept him within the bonds of internment, which he, like the others, must suffer in bored silence. In her inability to keep quiet about events, Elsie, banned from servitude, can now join the world at large. By leaving with those whom the society ostracizes, the crass, loud, ignorant director Weissman, the indiscriminate and selfish sensualist Denton, and the homosexual cinematic and musical imitator Novello, the young girl embraces life at its most morally corrupt—if you buy into the norms of the British gentry—but also at its fullest. In the world to which she is ended, she will finally be permitted, if she desires, to speak out.

     In short, Altman’s focus in this excellent film is not on the death of the British upper class, but, like Renoir’s great masterpiece, concerns the slavery that any class or social distinction imposes on all. Altman’s Gosford Park, I would argue, like most of his other films, is a testament to his love and fear for Americans and a warning against the artificially social stratifications accompanying financial, educational, sexual, linguistic, and cultural differences.

 

Los Angeles, May 30, 2006

Reprinted from Douglas Messerli My Year 2006: Serving (Los Angeles: Green Integer, 2008).

Tsai Ming-liang | 良夜不能留 (Liang ye bu neng liu) (The Night) / 2021

why must our bliss end so soon?

by Douglas Messerli

 

Tsai Ming-liang (director) 良夜不能留 (Liang ye bu neng liu) (The Night) / 2021 [19 minutes]

 

In 2019 the great Taiwanese filmmaker Tsai Ming-liang was invited, in the great time of protest, to visit Hong Kong, supposedly to perform some older Chinese songs. During the day the city, percolating with civil unrest was consumed by large protests.

     By night, however, things began to calm down, people quickly shopping, catching a bite to eat, returning home. Out of this fermentation of energy, with the gradual peacefulness of the night, the noted director created his 19-minute documentary fiction accompanied by only the noise of the street, the whiz of autos passing, occasional fragments of human voice, and the grumbles of busses and trucks.

 

    In only about a dozen or fewer shots, Tsai focuses on scenes in which nothing much seems to be happening except for people walking in both directions by a bus stop, a taxi queue, past a small stand-up fast-food shop, and under a causeway. But in each of the long focuses our eyes are attracted to incidents and movements to which we would otherwise be blind . In the first long view of the bus stop we mostly observe two women waiting for a taxi which never seems to arrive, and when one finally does, as the women explain where they desire to go, it speeds away without permitting them entry. Couples walk by hand in hand, other young men weave in and out the bus stop’s several entries. It is also strange that no bus ever arrives.

     In another view, we watch a young man who obviously works as the counter waiter or cook consuming his soup by the open door. But our eye also wonders to an upstairs room in the building nearly, where a man seems to be moving objects either from the center room to the window or vice versa.

    For a while the camera pauses in from of another taxi queue with dozens of people waiting in line, who wait patiently without a single taxi arriving to give hope to those who wait at line’s end. A few leave, but most of them remain.

    In the causeway scene we observe what in other scenes appear to be somnolent strollers now rushing on their way, perhaps because of the later hour or the fears of the increasingly emptying streets.

    In another scene we observe taxis speeding past by twos and threes. Now that there is hardly anyone left to use them, their proliferation is ironic.


      In yet another view the red sign of an Outback Steakhouse peaking over the pedestrian bridge catches our attention. As commentator Sean Gilman writes in his In Review Online piece, “Tsai cuts to a new angle, and we can see the steakhouse better, an American chain selling a fantasy of Australian fast casual dining to the people of Hong Kong.”

    The final last scene is obviously filmed so late into the night that even the wide, snaking, fluorescent lit pedestrian overpass is empty, its glass walls mottled with posters that authorities have apparently attempted to scrape away, leaving only ugly remnants of images and words. We can see the now empty street below only vaguely as through a glass darkly. It is finally in this vision of urban blight that Tsai plays the traditional song Mandarin, “The Beautiful Night is Slipping Away,” a poetic rendering of the fact that the quiet and peace of the all-embracing darkness is about to pass away in the early rays of daylight.



     Here, of course, the is no beautiful night, only the blare of the bright florescence, hardly any way to even know if dawn is soon to break. This is an ugly and empty world, unlike the passionate love-making we presume lies beneath the urgent lyrics of the lovely song.

 

                                 Why must our bliss end so soon?

                                 Why must we part when we’ve just begun.

   

     The tender lyrics render the scenes we have just witnessed rather comical.

      

     Yet it is clear that Tsai is attempting no clear social or political commentary in this, but simply recording the fact that obviously there are different notions of the night and what it means for each of us. And there is true beauty even in his shots of this urban no-man’s land inhabited nonetheless, if only for moments, by thousands of individuals coming and going to their homes and or locations of entertainment where they will pleasurably spend the night.

 

Los Angeles, November 12, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (November 2022).

     

David Lean | Hobson's Choice / 1954

softening the leather

by Douglas Messerli

 

Harold Brighouse, Wynyard Browne, David Lean, and Norman Spencer (screenplay), David Lean (director) Hobson’s Choice / 1954

 

A longtime favorite among movie-going audiences, David Lean’s Hobson’s Choice has not particularly aged well. This 1954 film seems a bit like it was made in the 1930s and even, had film been available then, in the 19th century, with its picaresque views of Lancashire.


      As usual Charles Laughton chews the furniture in his booming harangues against his three daughters and his drunken muggings—with apologies to both the moon and door revealing his sentimentality beneath his gruff exterior. And, although Brenda De Banzie plays his spinster-deemed daughter, Maggie, quite authoritatively, and John Mills handsomely mopes around in his role as her self-determined groom, none of the actors can quite escape their types assigned; De Banzie is bit shriller, equally head-strung Deborah Kerr, and Mills (as Will Mossop) only at the very end is allowed to escape his hound-dog, “aw-shucks” characterization.

       After many years of thinking of Maggie’s actions as a restorative, almost feminist-like act, which, furthermore, permits her other two sisters to marry as well, I felt this time around that her and Will’s creation of a competitive boot shop just around the corner from her father’s as issuing as much from revenge as out of an attempt to temporarily convince him of his own misogynist ways. In fact, despite his assertion of male domination, it is clear that his daughters have always ruled his shop; the only superiority that he has ever had exists only in the Moonracker bar where he brags to his friends. Just like the moon which he chases through the puddles, his dreams of patriarchal rule are permitted only when, in his drunken stupors, he climbs to the top of the imaginary mast, the moonracker of ships.


      Yet the real problem of this film, I perceived this time through, is that none of the film’s characters is really likeable. Hobson is, after all, simply a drunk with imaginary claims; we see him in a constant motion between the bar and bed. Without his daughters, it is hard to even imagine how the shop might still survive. And it is difficult to even figure out how he got into the business in the first place.

      Alice and Vicky (Daphne Anderson and Prunella Scales), his younger daughters, seem selfish and as indolent—if it were to be allowed—as their father. And the young men to whom they have attached themselves, Freddy Beenstock and Albert Prosser, are as foolish as their names suggest, men will quickly grow into boring businessmen who someday will also sneak off to the Moonracker, or in Freddy’s case, watch those who do sneak off with prurient dis-ease.

       The strong-willed and fairly likeable elder daughter, Maggie is, as her father proclaims, a bit like the leather her would-be lover crafts into beautiful boots and shoes. Even after she determines to marry, she remains so stiff-necked that we can hardly believe that upon her wedding night she has successfully given up her virginity to the evidently-pleased Will. If we’re all happy that she “gets her way,” it appears her way is as harsh as a missionary lecturing the local natives. Even when she defers to her new “master,” we know that it is simply a ruse to keep her husband on his leash.


       The most likeable figure in the film, Will, is truly a dolt. He seems perfectly willing to give away his life to a woman who lives with her mother more like an uneducated whore than the beauty he imagines her to be. Moreover, although he appears to be meek and modest, it is clear that he is also as vain as any of us, a quality that Maggie plays to in praising his boot-making skills so that she might charm him into marriage. And what, one wonders, other than their collective leather and management talents they bring to the world, might the two ever do in their off hours?  Maggie will certainly never let Will sneak off to the local pub, nor allow herself much but the hard work she already has committed to for 30 years; perhaps a Sunday walk in the park—of course, after church. Will, after she has taught him better how to read, will pick up the newspaper and learn about the life he has never had. The best we can say of their relationship is that perhaps Will may work to soften and shape her leather as well.

     I will always think of British director David Lean as a kind of smarter, but just as corny and sentimental director as the American Frank Capra. Is it any wonder that this film’s hero, Hobson, winds up deep crib of corn?

 

    If Capra knew a good story when he saw it, Lean had an equally keen eye for images and a marvelous skill to edit them. The joy of this film is not so much in its characters as it is in Lean’s ability to whip up atmosphere: the wailing storm of the first scene (as in his Dickens films) as the camera sweeps in upon a creaking boot advertising what lies within the shop and then roves across the rows of boots, slippers, and clogs for sale which lay at the center of his tale. As Laughton waddles down the street on his way to his favorite bar, you could swear you were in Salford one early morning in the 1880s.

      Yet Lean’s tales, at heart, are as quintessentially stock British as Capra’s are stereotypically American. And there is always in Lean’s films a sense that the story (new or old) is being told by a tired Oxford lecturer reciting British history. Heterosexual love in Lean’s films (particularly in his supposed love story, Brief Encounter) is always a kind of transaction, and in his later epic works, he almost abandoned the subject, except through the pop-like refrains of Doctor Zhivago’s “Somewhere My Love.”

 

Los Angeles, June 28, 2017

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (June 2017).

Chico Lacerda | Virgindade (Virginity) / 2015

a history of virginal sexuality

by Douglas Messerli

 

Chico Lacerda (screenwriter and director) Virgindade (Virginity) / 2015 [15 minutes]

 

Brazilian director Chico Lacerda’s short movie Virginity serves as almost a history of virgin sexuality, those sexual experiences we have as young boys and girls before actually participating in sex. Those experiences may, in fact, determine many of our later responses to full sexual activity, or certainly, if nothing else, reveal how even as children we are sexually involved without ourselves or often even those around us being totally aware.

 

    The narrator of this work—who importantly describes all of these virginal sexual activities while on the screen we observe only mundane acts of the adult world which nothing to do with childhood imagination, such as a garbage truck pulling up to a small stucco house or people waiting at a highly graffitied bus stop, etc.—begins his catalog of virginal sex by describing how as a young boy he would ask his best friend to dress up by putting a towel around his neck and some gloves as if he were a kind of superhero. The boy loved playing with him dressed like that, particularly touching the gloved hands which excited him and made him laugh endlessly. Although he didn’t get an erection or connect it with any bodily feelings, he’d go on and on laughing until he was exhausted, much like, the narrator concludes, ejaculating.

      When he was eight, so the narrator reports, he saw the cover of a gay magazine for the first time. Hanging in a newsstand next the bus stop on his way to school, it showed a blond boy with a moustache lying on the beach towel, across which were written the words, “Super penis.”


       “I was stunned when I saw it and had to hold on to the bus stop to get my balance back.” For weeks after he saw the magazine every day on his way to school, putting him into a kind of trance and sense of excitement. After months of hanging there, one day it was gone.

      At the video store he used to hang out in the horror section, which was located right next to the porn section whose covers he would carefully scan while pretending to look at the horror films. “My favorite was a woman on all fours with a man fucking her from behind.” He’d look endlessly at the male’s waist right at the point where the view of the rest of his body was obstructed by the female’s ass, where he could glimpse the male’s pubs.

     When he achieved the right level of arousal, he’d run home and jack off. But after the tape was rented it was put back in another location on the shelves, out of his sight. But he soon fell in love with another porn tape cover.

       The narrator was ten before he saw a male cock for the first time in person in a movie theater.

When he had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the film he went into the bathroom, there to notice a man at the urinal. He chose the urinal next to him so that he might discretely spy on the man’s cock. His cock was thick, and, the narrator notes, even though the guy was white, his penis was dark, its head purple. Although nearly hypnotized by it, he controlled himself and ran back into the theater. But even now he remembers the cock’s texture and color.

      He fell in love for the first time on the school bus. At a certain stop two twins would always get on. “They were a big older than me and I remember they had short hair, thick eyebrows and were very serious.” Sometimes one would stand near him and he would find a way to discreetly touch his leg, all the while strategizing on how to move closer to them. Some times one would sit next to him and they touch thighs for the rest of the trip which thrilled him. He’d imagine a threesome with them.

 


       For the central portion of the film, the director shows rather discreet male nudes, hinting at the kind of early magazines and films which would titillate generations of gay men and interested women before porno became such a sensation. I remember these kinds of images so very well, and how excited in my childhood I was by just such images. 

       The video guide had a listing of plot summaries all the VHS movies released in Brazil, the narrator continues. He’d jack off reading the synopsis of the porn films. He had his favorites, the trouble was that when the pages loosed from the binding, whenever the book fell open, it would invariably fall open to the pages he most visited, which embarrassed him.


         In swimming class, in continues, he had the opportunity to spy on his classmates. Jair, his favorite, was well built with brown skin, a beautiful cock, and “a big bush.” He would always burp, allowing the narrator to tell what he’d eaten and drank for lunch, which, he argues, created a kind of intimacy between him and the unknowing schoolmate.

          But, of course, he had to control himself so that he wouldn’t get an erection. Only when he

got home could he let go and focus on the images he’d witnessed.

          He was also in love with Henrique who lived near his Grandfather’s house. He was chubby, and even though he was the same age as the narrator, had body hair. They used to wrestle, and since Henrique never wore underwear, he could sometimes feel his cock through his shorts. And when it happened, Henrique would stop playing as if bothered by the fact. Only much later did he discover and some of the boys, including Henrique, used to play sex games in an abandoned house in the neighborhood. They would draw lots to see who got sucked or fucked by each other.

         He wonders why he wasn’t invited, but realizes that perhaps they’d purposely left him out, fearing that he would seriously enjoy it. But we can only suspect, given what he has told us, that it may also have been because the narrator hadn’t quite matured along with the rest of them, still maintained such virginal games.

         At 13 he finally rented tapes from the store near his home, especially when his parents when out of town to the beach without him. He longed to rent a bi-sexual tape, with two well-built guys and a girl on the cover, one of the guy’s “awkwardly touch the other’s ass.” Finally one day, he got the nerve the rent that tape, hiding among others and he nervously handed them to the clerk. He ran home and came in record time.

       But soon after, he became paranoid about the bi-sexual tape, returning it to the store and pretending to be annoyed, demanding to exchange it for a straight one. The clerk exchanged it, but “dismantled [his] farce” with a look of disdain.

 

       The next year the narrator when to the movie theater to see a horror film. There was no one else in the theater but a 20-year-old guy in a tight shirt. He was restless the entire moving, constantly changing seats, but the plot of the movie was complex and our narrator didn’t want to miss anything, so he paid no attention. After the movie the guy started talking to the boy in the

hall about the film, but at one point said he was going to the bathroom. Only when he got home did our friend realize the boy’s real intentions, not only recall his movements throughout the movie, but his “implicit invitation to go to the restroom with him.”

        The narrator tells us that he was angry that in his naivete he missed out on experiencing the real thing. “But I learned my less, and from that day on, I trained eyes and ears to the wonderful world of cruising.”

        Lacerda’s brilliant deconstruction of gay virginal sex is so accurate that it almost brought tears to my eyes for its veracity. It was as if his narrator were recounting my own life, although in my day we didn’t have porn tapes to rent, although we did, however, have a plethora of magazines showing just the type of images the director in this movie, along with physical building magazines and movies that would have been impossible for someone under age to purchase.

     And just like the narrator, I am still irritated by all the sexual opportunities I missed out on when I was still so innocent, that I resisted or was blind to real sexual opportunities that I truly might have enjoyed, and would have brought me into the joys of sexuality earlier. As the final song lyrics of this delightful film declare “If I could, I would be a child again, just to be able to do more than I did when I was a little girl.”

        But what this film also cleverly reveals just how sexual children are, how deeply their feel sexual desires are even when they can’t identify them, and how clever they are in finding ways to get closer to fulfilling them, even if they are not yet able to actualize adult sex. When someone asks a gay virgin, accordingly, how can you know you are gay if you haven’t experienced sex, he need only watch Lacerda’s hilarious false documentary, which speaks the truth of thousands.

 

Los Angeles, March 6, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema (March 2024).

 

Index [listed alphabetically by director]

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