Saturday, May 25, 2024

Billy Wilder | The Apartment / 1960

everything for the company

by Douglas Messerli

 

Billy Wilder and I. A. L. Diamond (screenplay), Billy Wilder (director) The Apartment / 1960

 

We annually watch The Apartment in our house on New Year’s day in honor of its last scenes. But it’s a silly convention, since the film is not about a particular day, but about every day. Wilder’s vision of the American workplace is about as devastating of a portrait since Elmer Rice’s The Adding Machine (I’ll have to reread that play).


     C. C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) works in accounting, and in an early scene, as he recounts staggering figures of the American workplace (“Our company has 31,249 employees, which is more than the size of...Natchez”), Wilder pulls the camera back and away to reveal row after row of hundreds of such desks as Baxter’s, immediately portraying to the viewer his insignificance to the overpowering company and, simultaneously, indicating his “exceptionalness”: he is the only remaining worker in the morass of empty desks.

     Yet we also quite quickly realize that this activity of continuing to work beyond the others is no heroic act and will certainly be recognized by no one. No J. Pierpont Finch (of How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying) is he! Baxter remains after work, his voice tells us, because of his “little problem”: he has a bachelor apartment just perfect for the quick sexual rendezvous of the executives. In short, not only is Baxter’s workplace a hell of anonymity and uniformity, even his home has been taken over by the company—with his job and promises of promotion as ransom. As his counterpoint, Miss Kubelik (Shirley McLaine), observes, there are givers and takers. Baxter is definitely one who has been “took.”

     Miss Kubelik (the “Miss” emphatically repeated throughout the film to reiterate, perhaps, the societal evaluation of an attractive “unmarried” woman) is even lower in the company echelons; she is an elevator operator, with no place to go but up. The female equivalent of the nebbish Baxter, she too is being used by the company—in this case through the use of her very body, not only through the pinches and gropings of executives, but through an unhappy affair with the married senior executive, J. D. Sheldrake, Fred McMurray, who plays his swarmy role so well that it is difficult to see what attracted her to him in the first place.

     Both have the lowest of self-esteem, a position in which the company is determined to keep them in order to control and manipulate their lives. Baxter, without identity and home, has such an empty life that he is pleased to be accused by his neighbors for the endless partying and noise issuing from his supposed love life. Miss Kubelik’s compact mirror, cracked when she threw it at her lover, makes her “look like she feels.” It is that object, moreover, which reveals her affair with Sheldrake to Baxter, who, after her later attempt at suicide, saves her life.

     Both characters are brought to higher positions in the company manipulations of them: Baxter is made assistant to Sheldrake and Kubelik promised (yet again) that Sheldrake will eventually leave his wife. And ultimately, Kubelik—like those before her—might rise to the role of receptionist and Baxter (who, after all, is capable and efficient) might obtain a higher executive position. In short, they may ultimately partake in a version of the American Dream—but at a terrible price. They need only to look at the executives around them to see the inevitable dissatisfaction of that way of life. Don't they, after all, desire the bachelor apartment that Baxter inhabits.

     Baxter’s sudden quittance of his job, which leads, in turn, to Kubelik’s even more sudden abandonment of Sheldrake, is their only possible redemption. Wilder knows only too well that in America the young can start over again, that a new Eden is as possible as a new year. Champagne for the happy couple!

     But perhaps next year we should watch this film on Labor Day in honor of all those dead souls who could not escape.                                                     

 

Los Angeles, October 18, 2002

Reprinted from Green Integer Blog (March 2008).  

 

Charles Burnett | Killer of Sheep / 1977

exaggerated realism

by Douglas Messerli

 

Charles Burnett (screenwriter and director) Killer of Sheep / 1977

 

Although George Burnett’s Killer of Sheep was first released in 1977, I first saw the production 30 years later in New York, when it was revived in some American cities prior to its release as a DVD.


      Accordingly, I wrote this commentary in 2007; but the film clearly resonates with concerns of My Year 2003 volume, “Voice without a Voice.” Indeed, Burnett’s film might be seen as an exemplar of precisely these issues. Although it clearly represents the destructiveness of racial patterns in American culture, in its influences of Italian neo-realist filmmaking Killer of Sheep outwardly observes without directly speaking of the majority culture which has condemned these South Central Los Angeles/Watts ghetto individuals to live such desolate lives. There are only two white figures in the entire film, both members of the working class: a co-worker of the major character, Stan, in the local meat-packing plant—the source of the film’s symbolic title—and a woman who owns the corner liquor store, who offers Stan a job with a bonus of backroom sex.

     Burnett prefers to explore the effects of racial inequality by focusing on Stan’s family—his wife, two sons and daughter—and a handful of their friends. Focus, however, is not quite the appropriate word, for Burnett more than focuses on these individuals as his camera moves in so close that the screen literally is filled with body parts and the shabby debris of their house. Even the most beautiful of faces—and Stan and his wife are beautiful people—seem bruised and pock-marked by this exaggerated realism. The slightest smudges upon the cupboards or scuffs upon the floor are so magnified that they seem to immediately signify the abject poverty surrounding the family. Without proper closets or chests-of-drawers, clothes, and various objects are strewn across the floors as if an earthquake has just passed.


     Filmed in gritty black and white, the famed Los Angeles light has no way of penetrating their run-down homes, the surrounding sand-lots, and decaying buildings of the neighborhood. The spindly palm trees that dot the neighborhoods appear—as they truly are—like surreally-conceived set decorations, an attempt to prettify a derelict world.

     Violence is not only pervasive; it defines nearly every waking moment of this family. Stan’s first lines of the movie, as he scolds his older son for not protecting his younger brother, are immediately followed by the mother’s sudden slap of her son’s cheek. In the very next scene, the boys gradually move forward holding, like ancient gladiators, a large shield of wood, each taking a quick peek from its corners as they proceed forward, pelted by rocks thrown by an opposing group of boys. Throughout the film young boys and girls fling themselves from the rooftops and at one another in seeming preparation for the hard-knock life to which they are doomed, a world where, we are shown, wives shoot at their husbands and neighbors plot and accomplish robberies in their backyards. A friend of Stan’s unsuccessfully attempts to engage him as an accessory in a murder.

      In a world where even the attempt to fix up an old car ends in frustration and failure, where a good man like Stan is forced to slaughter the innocent (an act which not only kills sheep, but, significantly, kills his sleep, stealing from him even his dreams), there is a constant feeling of anger and resentment among family and friends.


      As film critic Paul Virilio suggested (Wide Angle, XX, no. 3 [1998]), the world portrayed in Killer of Sheep is so claustrophobic that it resembles a prison without possible escape.

 

"The Los Angeles of Killer of Sheep is almost entirely the African American working-class neighborhood of South-Central. Architecturally, the ghetto differs from its counterparts in other cities in the predominance of single-family dwellings and small apartments. The cityscape is flat, monotonous, dilapidated, of limited imageability, and with no conspicuous internal differentiation. There are no signs of commerce except a single liquor store, or of industry except the slaughterhouse where the hero works.... And there are no signs of connections with other parts of the city except, briefly, the Southern Pacific railroad that appears to share the area’s defunct lethargy; its tracks are children’s playgrounds and its engines mostly immobile. No trace of any other Los Angeles may be seen; no business districts, no supermarkets, no luxurious high-rise apartment or office buildings, no Technicolor sunsets, no homes of the stars—not even the Watts Towers. Most remarkable of all, there are no freeways. Indeed, there are almost no cars. And so nothing can happen."

      

     In short, Burnett portrays the city itself with the same sense of exaggerated realism. In the only attempt to escape from their imprisonment, Stan and friends plan to picnic in the “country,” an outing foiled by a flat tire (the only tire the driver has). Is it any wonder that for these despondent individuals their lives, like that tire, seem inert?

     Contrarily, even if Stan is so plagued by despair that he cannot/will not have sex with his wife, he clearly remains deeply in love—beautifully expressed by the director in a slow dance between the couple, perhaps one of the most erotic (while sexless) scenes of any film I’ve witnessed, a dance performed in response to the powerful song “This Bitter Earth,” recorded in 1960 by Dinah Washington.


                                                     This bitter Earth
                                                     Can it be so cold
                                                     Today you’re young
                                                     Too soon you’re old
                                                     But while a voice
                                                     Within me cries
                                                     I'm sure someone
                                                     May answer my call
                                                     And this bitter earth
                                                     May not be so bitter after all

 

 At another moment, when Stan’s wife speaks out angrily of her own loneliness, his daughter climbs upon his knee as he tenderly holds her. Love, often grabbed on the sly whenever it is proffered, is clearly the only real hope these individuals have, their only possible salvation. And the film ends on a strangely uplifting note, as a physically handicapped friend of Stan’s wife announces that she is pregnant. The joy upon the women’s faces says everything: a new life—for all of them—has just been announced.

 

Los Angeles, May 22, 2007

Reprinted from Green Integer Blog (September 2008).

Jason Larkham | Light Bulb Sun / 2012

the last exams

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jason Larkham (screenwriter and director) Light Bulb Sun / 2012 [29 minutes]

 

It’s final exam time for Freddie (Evan Rees) and his friend Ellis (Elliot Winter), and things are tense as they always are in the final moments of the high school—in this case, since the film is British, the gymnasium. These young 17-year-olds are about to begin a new life, and old friendships and relationships necessarily begin to either weave into full fruition or unweave the warp and weft, as did Ulysses’ wife Penelope, into a desolate emptiness where school boys and girls might never again hear from one another ever again—particularly in this case since Fred, having just picked up again with his former girlfriend Fay (Marley Hamilton), is planning on attending a university.


     Fred, a self-centered heterosexual, whose major dilemma at the moment is how to get rid of Fay—so he explains the situation to his best friend El, has utterly no clue whatsoever that Ellis is head-over-heels, quite romantically as we perceive from the little prelude to this short film, in love with him after all these years with no possible way of expressing it—particularly since Fred is constantly talking about his shifting relationships between women and running off for drinks with other male friends such as Tom (Jason Larkham) on the very night when El is as close as he can ever get to telling Freddie what he feels for him.

     Not only is El ready to reveal his love, but since his mother has just gone off for a six-day trip, leaving the house for him alone to tend, he is encouraged by everyone to host a party—which for his peers these days seems to require that each individual singly swell down a bottle of their favorite alcohol beverage: not a bottle a beer mind you, but a quart of Gin, Vodka, or whatever beverage works best to blot out all their late-adolescent frustrations and fears.

      Moreover, it’s final exam week, and Freddie is already unsteady given the fact he feels he might not have answered the final exam questions correctly enough to gain him entry into the Uni world he so desires, having headed off the night after with Tom (who appears to be a real-life vampire and perhaps a queer boy to boot) to get stoned drunk and, meeting up with El—who in his frustrations is about to head off to the local gay bar to relieve his tension—and returning home with him to share a bed.



      Even then, the light bulb in Freddie’s head doesn’t switch on, despite his constant restatements of drunken love to El, that he might, in fact, be leading the gay boy head-on into romantic despair.

      The party, from El’s point of view, only reiterates his notion that Fred will have to break up with his girlfriend and turn to his male bestie with, just perhaps, a few final kisses which will certainly wake him up to his real prince.


    Since by now everyone at the party is totally drunk, however, Ellis is clearly an unreliable narrator, and what really happens is that Fay and Freddie—before his very eyes—make up and kiss.

      What’s a gay boy dressed as a vampire supposed to do but retreat to his room in tears. Even light bulb empty Fred follows him, realizing something is wrong; but when he assures the poor boy that he truly love shim, and Ellis leans forward to kiss him, heteronormative Fred flies backward across the room like any proper teen boy having finally come to the recognition that his best friend is a queer: “I’m not gay,” he shouts out.

       Who can answer for that declaration? After a few more tears and the recognition that he now needs to face him with all the mess of cigarette butts, empty bottles, and chaos across the floors of his mother’s usually spotless house, he needs to clear away not only the room but his own imaginary life. The man he loves, just as they usually do, has gotten away with all the pretense that straight boys generally are able to, leaving their ridiculous queer lovers to clean up after the mess.

 

Los Angeles, May 25, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (May 2024).

 

John Ford | The Searchers / 1956

voice without a voice

by Douglas Messerli

 

Frank S. Nugent (screenplay), John Ford (director) The Searchers / 1956

 

Director John Ford’s movie The Searchers is a work of contradictions. From the very first scenes in the film, we perceive that the “anti-hero,” Ethan Edwards (played by John Wayne) is not only a traitor to his country (he fought on the side of the Confederates in the Civil War), but also an outsider (although the war has been over for three years, he is just now returning home), a violent being (he brings with him the symbol of warfare, a saber, which he awards to his young nephew), and a man of great hate, particularly for Indians (he insults the son his brother has adopted for looking like an Indian; he’s part Cherokee).

 


     When livestock is found dead, and he joins others in searching for the cause, we further learn how deep is his hatred of Indians, particularly of the Comanche tribe. When this first set of “searchers” discovers livestock that have obviously been speared by Indians, it becomes apparent that they have been lured out only so that the homesteads may be looted. By the time they can get back to their homes, Edwards’s relatives have been attacked, their house burned and all but the small daughter killed and scalped. The daughter, Debbie, has presumably been abducted by the tribe. Despite the advice of friends to reject more killing, Edwards swears revenge, and with a few men, including his nephew Martin—who joins the party to help save Debbie and to control the inevitable violence—begins a search that will continue for several years.                        


     Accordingly, it appears that author and director have set up the perfect vehicle to point up the genocide of the Comanche, and to undercut the usual legends of Western (white) heroism. In one of the early dramatic scenes of the movie, the small band of farmers are flanked on two sides by a vertical line of Comanche, as both slowly move forward; and for a few seconds one hopes that, as the scene visually depicts, there may be hope for co-existence. But the moment the farmers bolt to the river, we know that, while they will escape, the far greater party of Indians will be destroyed. Whereas the farmers are easily able to manipulate their horses across the water, the Comanche (who in reality were noted horsemen) are swallowed up in the mud. Even though both have guns, the farmers seem nearly impervious to the bullets, while many Indians are easily slaughtered.

     One is quickly made aware that, although Ford may subtly steer his film into patterns that suggest non-violence, he cannot or will not escape the usual stereotypes. In part, Ford is limited in his possibilities simply because of the realism of his characters. Although there are certainly less violent figures than Edwards, there is not one character in the movie (except perhaps for Martin; and although it pains him to do so, he shares in the shootings) that would not rather see all Indians destroyed.

     Some of the narrative, quite obviously, is derived from the historical record, and Ford, always the realist, is determined by that reality of time and place. The Comanche, in their nomadic movements and their continual raids in search of cattle and other goods, became almost the personification of the “wild Indian” in the eyes of settlers, particularly since they did commonly take white captives, treating them as slaves and often harshly abusing them. The famous narrative of Mrs. Rachel Plummer, released in 1839, recounts her and her son’s captivity, during which time her child was taken away, and a second child born to her in the tribe was ultimately tied to a rope and dragged through cactus until the body was torn to shreds.

     Moreover, as in this film, the Comanche had several different groups, and each of those often broke into smaller bands. Accordingly, if peace was made with one group, others could continue to violate the treaty. Scar, the chief Edwards seeks in The Searchers, is obviously a rogue figure, while the Indian woman who becomes Martin’s “squaw” is of a more peaceful group.

     But as far as the settlers and the military go, there clearly is no difference. Martin’s “squaw” is killed in a military maneuver that takes dozens of Indian women captive, while Scar’s group remains untouched. Here again Ford seems to point up the absurdity of the violence. But with no Indian voice in the film, Ford’s subtle message continues to be swallowed up, particularly since he is so effective in showing in detail the hard life and survival of the settlers. 

  


   There are few scenes in cinema as frighteningly eerie as the moments in the homestead where the occupants become increasingly aware that they are about to be attacked. Despite the beautiful backdrop of Monument Valley, the sickly yellow-orange sky, the hush of terrifying expectation,

and the palpable fears of the inhabitants of the house are so effective that one loses perspective throughout much of the rest of movie and forgets that the Comanche attacks upon these “intruders” might have been partly justified.

     In Ford’s personification of nature, he portrays the original Indian attack with the sky turning yellow, the settlers, realizing what is happening suddenly boarding up, tossing their youngest daughter, Debbie, literally out of the window so that she might hide out in the cemetery—oddly enough, the very first place where the Comanche warrior looks.

 

    There is no question that the John Wayne figure is aberrant in his extreme hate. This is after all a man who, when they come upon an Indian gravesite, shoots at the dead man, who readily would kill his own niece because she has slept with “bucks,” and is absolutely obsessed with the chase that lasts for five years. In one completely revealing moment the director shows Ethan and Martin killing a buffalo for food only to suddenly transform the act into a mad attempt to slaughter dozens of other buffalos so that “the Indians will have less to eat” in winter. But for all his extreme hatred, Edwards himself kills relatively few Indians, and the attacks Ford portrays are, by today’s film standards, quite tame. As I have suggested, the most violent scene is perpetrated by the military rather than the obsessed maniac.

     Accordingly, at search’s end Ethan appears almost normal, and although both Debbie and Martin fear he will murder the girl upon her rescue, he simply carries her away to safety.

     Despite its potential for exploring and exploding Western myths, in the end the real “searchers, Edward and Martin, merely participate in them. As in almost every Western, the real story here is the transformation of rough and wild white men into civilized beings.


      At film’s end Martin is destined to be married and Ethan—although previously wanted as a criminal—to be forgiven by the law and assimilated into the new society. The sentiment of a farm woman, who claims that someday this will be a beautiful place in which to live, is visualized by the half-crazy Mose Harper, who stays put by the fire rocking in the chair he demanded for telling Edwards where to find Scar. Edwards may turn away from the closing door of the civilized world, but his search has ended and we know that the Indians will ultimately be destroyed or controlled; he has only to look forward to the fate of Mose.

 

Los Angeles, September 2003

Reprinted from The Green Integer Review, No. 6 (December 2006).

 

Satyajit Ray | অপুর সংসার (Apur Sansar) (The World of Apu) / 1959

pan and echo

by Douglas Messerli

 

Bibhuitbhusan Bandopadhaya and Satyajit Ray (screenplay), Satyajit Ray (director) অপুর সংসার (Apur Sansar) (The World of Apu) / 1959

 

The third film in Satyajit Ray’s Apu trilogy, The World of Apu, is perhaps the most memorable—not particularly because of its cinematic originality as for the strange twists of its story and the memorable acting of Soumitra Chatterjee as Apu, Sharmila Tagore as his wife, Aparna, and their small son, Kajal, performed by S. Aloke Chakravarty.


   If Aparjito showed a world which had swallowed up Apu, cutting him off from the traditions and simple joys of his childhood, the Calcutta of this third film has, so to speak, spit him out with little hope for his future. Unable to finish his university education, Apu is able to eke out the barest of wages through writing, odd-jobs, and tutoring. Much like the central character of Knut Hamsun’s Hunger, the would-be writer, Apu has little to eat and is daily threatened by his landlord of being cast into the streets.

     A chance encounter with his school friend Palu at least provides him with an opportunity to eat while boasting of his potential possibilities (we have already seen him rejected for the most menial of jobs) and his hopes of finishing his “great” novel. As Palu argues, however, despite the self-depravation of Apu’s life, he lives in a mental fog, a kind of creative stupor that disallows him to experience the daily realities of life of which he might write. Just to help his friend escape the city for a short while, Palu invites him to travel for a few days with him to East Bengal where he is attending a relative’s wedding.

     If life in the city, despite the squalor, grinds on without notable change, life in the country is filled with exceptional characters and happenings. Even as he is introduced to the family, the mother of the bride-to-be senses something special about Apu, and repeatedly wonders whether or not they haven’t previously met. As the bride, Aparna, prepares for the wedding, the bridegroom and his party arrive (while under a nearby tree Ray presents us with the dreamer, the pan-like Apu, asleep with his flute); but when the retinue stops, the bridegroom refuses to leave his conveyance, evidently “panicked” by the marriage, recognizably if temporarily gone mad. The family also panics (it is useful to understand the root of that word as a derivation of Pan’s effects), and in fear that Aparna will be cursed if she is not married to someone that day, Palu is sent to ask Apu if he will wed the girl. Apu’s reaction is understandable, wondering if the whole family has not gone mad. How can they ask him such a thing in modern times? East Bengal, quite obviously, is still steeped in curses, blessings, and magical events. And, ultimately, Apu—more on a whim one supposes than from any rational act—decides to replace the mad bridegroom and marry Palu’s relative.


     The beautiful scene after the wedding in which Aparna sits placidly and obediently upon the wedding bed, while Apu circles in despair on account of his actions, represents Ray’s slow, methodical directorial techniques at their best. How can he explain to Aparna the horrible thing he has done? She has grown up in a large and wealthy home in the country, while he, now a child of the city, has no income with which to support her and to sustain the pattern of life to which she has been accustomed. Her insistence that she will remain with him, despite the poverty they face, far better represents a modern wedding compact than any romantic presentation.

      As they travel to the city and together sneak up the stairs to his near-hovel of a room, the audience despairs as much as the bride for her future. Her tears are ours. The symbol of escape and adventure of the first two films, the train (which now runs by Apu’s very doorstep), is transformed in The World of Apu into a howling machine of torture for the young girl, belching out, like the factories it passes, a constant cloud of toxic smoke.


     Despite their and our fears, however, Apu and Aparna are nearly a perfect couple, both romantic innocents who seem destined for one another; she, like Echo (in some myths Pan and Echo were married before she was destroyed) ready to learn his language (in this case, English) and repeat it. Becoming pregnant, she is encouraged by relatives and Apu to return home, he to follow.

      The beautiful scenes in which Ray represents their deep love for one another—scenes which present Apu’s attempts to read a letter sent to him from Aparna during a day of working and traveling through the streets, ending in the middle of the train tracks—comes suddenly to a tragic end with the appearance of a relative reporting that the child has come too soon. Pan’s beautiful Echo has been torn apart. Apu’s reaction—he strikes the bearer of the news—presages his later inability to separate truth from circumstance: he will hold his own child responsible for his wife’s death.

      In despair, Apu leaves the city, traveling first into the woods (Pan’s native home) and gradually into the center of the country where he finds a job deep within the bowels of the earth, a mine. Now that he has finally had an experience, he realizes the meaninglessness of his fiction, as he drops the pages into the natural landscape, returning the paper and ink into the world from which it emanated.

     Returning to India after a trip abroad, Apu’s old friend Palu visits the East Bengal home of Aparna, where the child, Kajal, remains. The uncle reports that Apu has abandoned the boy without even seeing him. Palu searches out Apu, insisting that he return with him, that he rescue the increasingly troubled offspring. But this time, it appears, Apu will not accept the invitation. He refuses the responsibility, attempting to explain to Palu how the boy is inextricably linked in his mind with his beloved Aparna’s death. But as Palu leaves, we recognize that Apu must return; as a child who has lost his own family, Apu necessarily recognizes the fear and loneliness facing his own.



       His reunion with Kajal, however, is not at all what he might expect; filled with anger, the boy will not accept him as his own father, and refuses to have anything to do with him. With understandable rage, the boy rejects over and over Apu’s conciliatory acts. Witnessing one of these rejections, the uncle is about to strike the child with his cane in punishment, when Apu—just as Kajal had previously predicted to a neighbor—rushes forward to stop the brutal act.


        As Apu leaves, the boy follows like a shadow, stopping when Apu stops, turning to look back just as the father turns to look back at the boy. Having heard that Apu is returning to Calcutta, he asks if he will take him to his father. Apu readily agrees. Suddenly the child is torn between obedience to his uncle or escaping with the stranger. Kajal’s eventual choice to escape parallels Apu’s own childhood choice; and as Apu hoists him to his shoulders, he clearly accepts the responsibility of raising his son, accepts all the responsibilities of life. He has finally completed his flight, unafraid of facing his return, wherever that my lead him.

 

Los Angeles, November 25, 2006

All three essays reprinted from Green Integer Blog (October 2009).

My Queer Cinema Index [with former World Cinema Review titles]

Films discussed (listed alphabetically by director) [Former Index to World Cinema Review with new titles incorporated] (You may request any ...