Friday, June 14, 2024

Fred Niblo | Blood and Sand / 1922

the dark rebellious part of a normative heart

by Douglas Messerli

 

June Mathis (screenplay, based on the novel by Vicente Blasco Ibáñez and the play by Thomas Cushing), Fred Niblo (director) Blood and Sand / 1922

 

A year after his subdued appearance in Camille, director Fred Niblo and writer June Mathis were able to cook up another Vicente Blasco Ibáñez fiction that featured Valentino’s face and body, which, in sync with his own vision of himself, portrayed a man caught up in a relationship with an exotic and difficult woman—in the form of Natacha Rambova—when all he truly wanted, as he later described, was an old-fashioned Italian housewife.


     As the Spanish bullfighter Juan Gallardo, Valentino could have both and fight out his inner forces in full view of his adoring audiences. Certainly Niblo, who’d already contributed significantly to the career of to the matinee idol who stood as a mirror opposite to this new fluid and fragile dancer, Douglas Fairbanks who moved in angular leaps and bounds that seemed to test the limits his virile body. Niblo had filmed him in both The Mark of Zorro (1920) and The Three Musketeers, and accordingly knew quite well how to show off the male body of his leading men—in Ben Hur he would later do the same for Valentino’s replacement Roman Novarro—to his female fans.

      He first treats Valentino as a somewhat shy young man, dodging the bull, only to come out from behind the wooden barrier with a smile on his face that is so engaging it is nearly impossible  to resist the young boy who dreams of being a matador. When the bull soon after kills his friend, his revenge seems almost justified as he slaughters the poor beast, the bandit Plumitas (Walter Long) looking on approvingly from afar. And his kiss of goodbye to his friend intimates of the closed male world into which he soon enters, escaping only occasionally to make dutiful love to his wife, the gentle Carmen (Lila Lee) before leaving her basically alone to raise his sons, while his later mistress, the evil and calculating Doña Sol, drains him of his masculinity which ultimately leads to his death.


       Early in the story, when the young Gallardo begins to draw attention to himself for his bullfighting exploits, he and his friends visit a bar where a dancer lures him into to performing with her. As in the tango of Four Horsemen Valentino as Gallardo displays his dancing skill, enchanting both the bar’s other patrons and his own posse of males, Don José his manager (Fred Becker), the ex-matador El Nacional (George Field), the picador Potaje (Jack Winn), and Ponteliro (Harry Lamont) who travel with him. 

      But when the woman demands a kiss, his tosses her aside, insisting that he hates all women, except of course his wife, making it clear that women have meaning for him only in how they adorate and represent him; they have little role in his world as beings who make demands upon him.

 

     Perceiving this, Doña Sol arranges to meet Gallardo not as the femme fatale that she truly is, but rather as an admiring fan, a seeming sycophant who waits until he accepts her invitation for a visit to her house to entrap him in her beauty a bit like a human Dionaea, the Venus Flytrap.

       Niblo and Mathis spell out her exotic evil immediately before he arrives to her house, showing her lounging on a couch smoking so heavily that one might almost imagine her puffing on a hookah while being accompanied on the lute by her exotic-looking servant, who appears somewhat like a mix of character out of the East Indian legends and The Arabian Tales.


      Indeed, for the first half of his visit, Gallardo seems more interested in the servant, whose eyes meet his in a seeming engagement of sexual enchantment on both their parts. Obviously, Valentino’s character, somewhat taken aback by the exoticism of the figure, is fascinated by him just for his difference. But one senses that this sexually ambivalent creature is also of some interest to the bullfighter as well, a figure, who as a male belongs to his world, but who yet openly displays feminine qualities which satisfy the sexual requirements of Gallardo’s macho sensibility.

       It is only when his manager leaves him alone with the female beauty, who has already symbolically “engaged” him with the gift of her Cleopatra-like ring, that she lures him further into her private harem, knowing precisely how to play to his ego and heterosexual values. She is everything that Carmen is not, the dark rebellious part of his normative heart, despite the irony of her “sunny” name, that once again mirrors the opposite of the traditional relationship he has with his wife.


    If his vocation, despite the sunlit spectacle of the handsome pigtailed and spangled costumed matador, concerns death, so too does she make certain that he recognizes in her power over him that there is danger involved. Gallardo can no more resist her allure than he can escape the glare, snort, and pounding hooves of the bull.

     He tries desperately to escape the vortex in which she has pushed him, and there is a beautiful moment as his closest comrade, El Nacional all but makes love to him, putting his hand over the matador’s hand, with his friend doing the same, before he positions his arm around his shoulder and brings his face next to Gallardo’s in an attempt to attract back him into the masculine love which might save him from the evil enchantment. It almost works, as Gallardo agrees to escape Madrid to his country home Rinconada.


      Despite his best intentions, Doña Sol shows up with a stalled automobile just to demonstrate, more to herself than him, the power she still has over his behavior.

      In the house where she demands to be put up for the night until her car is repaired, she usurps the absent Carmen’s own bed, demanding breakfast with the bandit who has also intruded upon Gallardo’s hopeful silence.

       And finally, upon hearing of Doña Sol’s visitation Carmen and her mother visit finding the intruder still in the house. Her bedroom competitor intentionally drops her purse so that she can command her now totally subservient lover to pick it up, a demonstration to his wife of her superior powers.

        Indeed, by now Gallardo is so psychologically and physically diminished that he purposely takes chances in the ring and behaves in a manner that foretells his certain death. It his Carmen alone who can now reclaim his love if not his life.

       Throughout the work, Valentino appears both in and out of costume, with his long hair and pigtail, as a stunningly gorgeous hunk of a man as no other screen actor to date had ever before appeared. Yes, he is still at moments thin and fragile, perhaps too smooth in his graceful gestures and dancing for US male heterosexual tastes. But, at moments, his slightly effeminate body might almost remind one of Marlon Brando, particularly in the scene where, behind a dressing screen, he is having his feet wrapped by male attendants. Just as in the first scene, when he peeks out from the wooden protective barrier, leaning back into the room to take full delight in his colleagues’ comparison with him to a Roman gladiator, as if were about to lecture on the Napoleonic Code.


        Finally, in this film Valentino comes truly alive as the pretty boy he truly was.

       What Mathis, Acker, Rambova and other female supporters made of this obviously tortured bisexual boy gone who quickly became a Hollywood sensation is not clear; but what we now know is that it was women, particularly lesbian women, who made Valentino into the film legend he has ultimately became.

 

Los Angeles, May 23, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (May 2022).

Ray C. Smallwood | Camille / 1921

the set

by Douglas Messerli

 

June Mathis (scenario, based on the novel La Dame aux Camélias by Alexandre Dumas, fils), Ray C. Smallwood (director) Camille / 1921

 







I am sure that many people watching Alla Nazimova perform Camille in the silent film from 1921 today might describe her method of acting, as Geoff Andrew did in Time Out, as consisting of “hammy histrionics” and perceive the film in general as “all Style and no substance.” Her acting, after all, was honed on the melodramatic methods of late 19th century theatrics. But if you can momentarily wipe out the idea that “acting” has in fact to be realistically motivated, which Hollywood and US theater directors have taught it must be for more than century after her performance, one might rather describe her art as being arrestingly expressionistic and Natacha Rambova’s art deco-influenced sets of this film and Nazimova’s Salomé of two years later as a wonderful exploration of American film into the territory so brilliantly explored by Robert Weine, F. W. Murnau, and G. W. Pabst in post-World War I European theater and film in which story is not revealed so much through action as it is in tableaux.

    If nothing else, the frizzy-haired statuesque Lady of the Camélias who at the Paris Opera appears more as Klimt figure than a 20s flapper, draws our attention away from all others just as she does for Gaston Rieux (Rex Cherryman) and the young man who has just come to Paris from the provinces, Armand Duval (Rudolph Valentino). Despite the fact that previous to Gaston’s quick introduction of Armand to the golden-swathed beauty, this Marguerite has already sold herself to the devil in the form of the Count de Varville (Arthur Hoyt), it ends in an invitation to Armand and Gaston to her after-opera party.

   There we realize that even she has been locked up, not in Varville’s arms, but in a splendidly moderne vision of the future in which all of life has been subsumed into play and pleasure, including her own body. Her partying guests, who campily move themselves and the apartment’s furniture from room to room in a moveable feast as if somehow attached to the very contents of conspicuous wealth, could care less about Marguerite’s “illness,” yet are perfectly ready to help to keep her away from the lurid embracement of the Count, caught up, as they are they all in a world of sparkling conversation, drunken dancing, and late-night dining.  In this world there is literally no room for an unexpected guest such as Gaston, who is made to sit on a pillow on the floor, or the new boy in town Armand, who for that very reason is asked to share Madame Gautier’s seat at the table.


      Despite Andrew’s description of Valentino’s “impressive performance,” accordingly, I suggest that even his gentle beauty is washed out in the shallow focus of his good-boy antics in the midst of the constantly-in-motion “company,” who sometimes even look like are performing in a Stephen Sondheim musical comedy.

     Gaston in this early party scene and throughout the film appears almost as lovely as his “boyfriend” and as displaced, particularly when he clumsily intercedes on what appears to be a quick lesbian liaison between Marguerite and her former dressmaking friend, Nichette (Patsy Ruth Miller) who pays an unexplained quick visit to her female friend. The two are able to get in only a couple of quick kisses before Gaston intrudes, seemingly to drunkenly accost the new visitor before Marguerite demonstrates the special place Nichette has in her heart when she almost violently declares that he is not even worthy of addressing the young girl let alone touching her shoulder. Gaston, perhaps the truly nicest male figure in this movie, apologizes, properly kissing her hand in greeting and in that very moment falling as deeply in love as it is clear is Marguerite with the socially lowest figure in the entire work.


      What Armand perceives about Marguerite that the others will not is that her illness is serious and not a ruse, and demonstrating to her that unlike the others he truly cares for her well-being he finds a way to court her that all the jewels of the Count and the flattering of her friends do not achieve, permitting him entry into her igloo-shaped, glass-enclosed bedroom chamber, a room from which the Count, in particular, excluded.


     For the next third of the film, we see Armand delightfully court her in the open air of parks and orchards, offering her up gifts of serious literature such as Manon Lescaut, a story also about social standing, sacrifice, prostitution, and death. But even here, Valentino’s truly subdued performance compared with Nazimova’s enchantment and returned health often push the Latin lover out of frame, and at moments his friend Gaston, now planning to marry Nichette, looks every bit as pretty as Valentino.

      Despite the boy’s good intentions, in fact, we recognize that he is still a rube when it comes to comprehending how Paris society functions. Immersed in his law studies and offering her no financial support, Armand does not even realize that Marguerite cannot now pay for her previously lavish life, nor can he imagine that society never forgives what it imagines to be a digression, society in this case appearing in the form of Armand’s own father who in trying marry off the boy’s sister must obtain the promise from Marguerite that she never see his son again.

 

      Marguerite, who has all along seen herself as simply another acquisition, believes that she has no other choice, returning to the Count and the world she had abandoned. That the dumb Armand sees her abandonment of their love simply as a moral flaw, as a kind of recidivism the way a criminal returns to crime or an alcoholic cannot give up her liquor, demonstrates his own shallowness as a human being. Even imagining that by taking up gambling and women such as Olympe (Conseulo Flowerton) he might grab her attention and bring her back to sobriety reveals that he is far more consumed by social piety than he is by love. It is not surprising, accordingly, that even his mentor/creator June Mathis drops him from the script after Valentino’s encounter with Marguerite at the Casino. In La Traviata, if you recall, Alfredo does return to Violetta just before her death. But here, the movie is perhaps happily rid of him.

      Certainly, Nazimova was happy to be alone, just as I presume later Garbo was in her 1936 version of the tale so the camera might focus endlessly upon her face. Here director Ray Smallwood’s camera, which as critics agree, has not a single notion of how to move, settling down instead on Nazimova’s long deathbed scene as she fetishizes yet one more object, the book of Manon Lescaut, perhaps the only jewel remaining of her entire career.


      Oddly, it is Gaston and Nichette who attend to her last moments coming to her directly after their marriage. Just after the officials have counted up every franc of her remaining belongings, they alone—presumably along with a few of us sentimentalists—shed tears for the great beauty.

      If, as I describe it below, Valentino’s film Monsieur Beaucaire is all about the costumes, Camille is all about its “set” in every meaning of that word, from the backdrop to the predetermined mode of societal behavior which dominates most of the cinema’s characters who make up Marguerite’s social set.

 

Los Angeles, May 22, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (May 2022).

Douglas Messerli | The Valentino Phenomenon [essay]

the valentino phenomenon

by Douglas Messerli

 

None of Rudolph Valentino’s films that I’ve seen are truly gay or even LGBTQ oriented with the exception of Camille (1921), which has a brief lesbian scene. Yet his films appear, time and again, on lists of gay cinema, most notably the Mubi-oriented list compiled by Matthew Floyd, “Homosexuality in Pre-Stonewall Cinema.” They also appear on MundoF’s Letterboxd list of “In the Closet: A List of Minor Interest LGBTQ+ Films” and others. But interestingly, Vito Russo in The Celluloid Closet mentions Valentino only in passing, and he is referred to even less by Richard Barrios in Screened Out: Playing Gay in Hollywood from Edison to Stonewall. Russo talks more about the 1977 film Valentino directed by Ken Russell than the actor himself.

      Russell’s film was a response, in part, to the rumors, mostly false, surrounding Valentino’s own sexuality. In the first place, Valentino seldom appealed to heterosexual men, many of whom apparently walked out of his movies disgusted with the sight a carefully coiffed male costumed impeccably often in outfits in which no American man would be seen. He was most definitely not Douglas Fairbanks, the masculine man who leaped across US screens. Journalists mocked his perfectly greased-back hair describing him as “Vaselino,” and many reported on his macaronic clothing, his treatment of women on film, and what was perceived of as his effeminate manners.          


      In fact, Valentino was discovered and marketed as a different kind of lover by screenwriter June Mathis, who had toured with the famous female impersonator Julian Eltinge before becoming a writer. As head of Metro Pictures story department, she had enormous authority, and it was she who not only cast Valentino in the role of Julio Desnoyers in The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, but coached him on the sidelines. One might argue that working with Eltinge had taught her a great deal about turning a man into a woman and perhaps a somewhat effeminate dancer into a strapping lothario.

      Director Rex Ingram (a macho substitution for his real name Reginald Hitchcock) did not at all like the thin young neophyte, and it was only Mathis’ presence that kept the movie flowing. As Daniel Eagan has written, “...the plot to Four Horsemen is a ramshackle, unholy mess, with war, rape, adultery, cross-dressing, tangos, fire-breathing dragons and Death as the Grim Reaper, tinted green and seated atop a horse. Even Christ, disguised as a ‘stranger’ in a third floor garret, puts in an appearance.”


      But fortunately, he realized along with Mathias that Valentino needed to be their major focus. A tango was added, the notorious dance Valentino performed with Mexican-American actor Beatrice Dominguez, he dressed in Argentinean gaucho pants—both the dance and pants becoming a quick-lived fad. And both Mathis and the director worked to make Valentino the most masculine presence in the room during each of his film appearances, giving him, as Eagan notes, a gay friend and putting spectacles on his rival German cousins. They kept him away from actor Wallace Beery.

     In short, they constructed what was perhaps the first real male Hollywood heartthrob, a pretty boy the likes of dozens of later such actors as Ramon Navarro, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter, and Alain Delon, all of whom, with the exception of Delon perhaps, were gay. And all of whom were also irresistible to women, perhaps because they did not look like most straight men. Did women also have a “queer” eye on him? Certainly homosexual men had, immediately adding to the speculation that Valentino was gay.

      With regard to the journalistic speculations, Valentino did not take them with humor, reacting very much like the hot-headed Latin Lover into which he had been transformed. When in 1926 the Chicago Tribune reported that vending machine dispensing pink talcum powder had appeared in an upscale hotel’s men’s washroom, an editorial argued in response that it had to do with the feminization of women as represented in Valentino and his films. Valentino challenged the writer to a boxing match—dueling being illegal—and when he didn’t respond consulted the Baltimore Sun news writer H. L. Mencken about how to deal with the incident. When New York Evening Journal boxing writer offered to fight in other’s place, Valentino took him on and won the bout on the roof the New York’s Ambassador Hotel. But the struggle surely led to his death.

     From the moment, shortly after his boxing bout, of his early death in 1926 of appendicitis and gastric ulcers leading to peritonitis and eventually sepsis, stories of Valentino’s homosexuality begin to gather like storm clouds in the background of the funeral which attracted over 100,000 people, followed by the bizarre behavior by several of women followers who declared they loved him, including aging actor Pola Negri who regularly visited his grave, she claiming that they had been engaged to be married, and the legendary “woman in a black veil” along with her many copycats, the first visitation being a stunt cooked up by press agent.

      Anyone who has lived close enough to Los Angeles to know that Hollywood is a creation of the mind rather than location on the map knows there is sexual gossip about nearly every actor and filmmaker who ever became famous enough to deserve it, much of it true but a great deal of it also pure nonsense. Although I love Kenneth Anger for his films, I have to dismiss book his book and movie Hollywood Babylon for which he made up gossip that he couldn’t discover any in the columns. One of his most notorious tidbits was his claim that Valentino had a sexual relationship with Ramón Novarro, despite Novarro’s insistence that they barely knew one another. Upon Novarro’s murder, so Anger reports, the police discovered Valentino’s gift of an art deco dildo stuffed down his throat. Novarro was murdered by two brothers who had called and made an appointment offering their sexual services, as others from the same agency had done in the past. But their goal was to rob the actor, and after beating him in order to find his money, Novarro died of asphyxiation, having chocked on his own blood. There was no gift of a dildo, and none found in his mouth at the time of the murder.

      Anger and other writers like him claimed also that Valentino had had affairs with his roommates Paul Ivano and Douglas Gerrad, as well as Norman Kerry and the openly gay French theater director and poet Jacques Hébertot, despite the fact that Ivano claimed that he and Valentino were both heterosexual. And Valentino’s biographers Emily Leider and Allan Ellenberger basically agree that the actor was primarily heterosexual.

      Documents belonging to Valentino’s friend Samuel Steward also seemed to indicate that they were sexual partners. However, Steward’s claim of a sexual encounter in Ohio, it was later found, could not have taken place since on the same day Valentino was in New York.

       Of course, given the anti-homosexual laws and attitudes of the time, it’s little surprise that those suspected of having sex with the actor, any actor, might wish to deny it. And friends and biographers have long been known to keep information from their readers that might have involved queer behavior—or they simply fail to explore such information in any depth.

       And, if nothing else, it does appear that both of Valentino’s marriages, first to Jean Acker and later to Natacha Rambova were probably “lavender marriages,” marriages made to cover up the actual sexuality of the individuals—but in this case that the women, not necessarily Valentino.

      On November 6, 1919, Valentino married actress Jean Acker. Acker was a lesbian involved with silent actor Grace Darmond and Alla Nazimova in a love triangle that was beginning to arouse public interest. Valentino met Acker at a party two months prior to their wedding. They soon began to see each other socially before marrying. Valentino was unaware of Acker’s sexual orientation, discovering himself locked out of his hotel room on his wedding night by his bride before the marriage could be consummated. Valentino tried in vain to regain her love through letters before abandoning such attempts and filing for divorce.  The couple remained legally married until 1921, when Acker sued Valentino for divorce, citing desertion. The divorce was granted, with Acker receiving alimony. She and Valentino eventually renewed their friendship, and remained friends until his death.


      Valentino first met Rambova, the set designer, art director, and protégée of Nazimova on the set of Uncharted Seas in 1921. By the time the two worked together on Nazimova’s production of Camille, they were already romantically involved, despite the fact that at the same time Rambova is presumed to have been Nazimova’s lover. 

      Valentino and Rambova married in Mexicali, Mexico in May 1922, whereupon he was arrested for bigamy since at the California law demanded that a full year pass after a divorce before a new marriage. The two, accordingly, were forced to live in separate apartments each with their own roommates until they remarried in March 1923. By that time Nazimova’s famed Salomé premiered, also with sets and designed by Rambova. The gossip columnists were filled with speculation that Nazimova was furious with Valentino for having turned down the role of John the Baptist.

      He had chosen instead to act, of course, in his next great film Blood and Sand in the role to which he eventually claimed he felt the closest kinship and ow which he was most proud.

      Clearly, accordingly, Valentino did not have wonderful relationships with the women in his life. As he told gossip columnist Louella Parson: “The women I love don't love me. The others don't matter.” For being such a sex symbol, his own sex life was clearly unrewarding.

      Does it really matter, accordingly, whether or not Valentino was gay or heterosexual? His sex life was a fantasy of the screen not the bedroom. As I have already noted June Mathias had created in him a new concept of a Hollywood lead: a face that held within a mix of softness, sentimentality and yet masculine cruelty, a golden mannequin whose power over the hearts of his viewers was neither his voice nor his actions but his beauty. Did it even matter that he had a penis?

      Ultimately, Valentino was just not that interesting as a human being as I think even Ken Russell’s film proves, particularly since the director has long been known to go to extremes to create scandalous events around the figures in his movies, but finds nothing much to even create a stir in Valentino unless a fellow prisoner’s quick masturbation on the star during his overnight stay in the clink is a complete shock to anyone. Other than a pretty boy with what Russell reports was rumored to be a “wee willie winkie,” there was not much to the man. After all, Valentino’s dream was not to be a Hollywood legend but to own an orange grove and to settle down with an old-fashioned Italian wife.

 

Los Angeles, May 20, 2022

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (May 2022).

Martin Arnold | Passage à l’acte / 1993

“i am”: reading from a language that no one heard in the original to kill a mockingbird

by Douglas Messerli


Martin Arnold (director) Passage à l’acte / 1993

 

Almost 33 minutes into Robert Mulligan’s film To Kill a Mockingbird, after a great many important events in the movie, there is a small scene at the breakfast table as Scout (Mary Badham) and Jem (Phillip Alford) are about to end their summer and return to school. It is a particularly important day for six-year-old Scout since it represents her first day of school to which, for the first time in the film, the tomboy is required to wear a dress.


     Evidently, the event is so important that the friendly neighbor, with an eye on Atticus Finch, Miss Maudie Atkinson (Rosemary Murphy) decides the share their breakfast. The central characters in the original film in this very short scene at the breakfast table are actually the family maid, Calpurnia (Estelle Evans), who has been responsible for the children all summer, and Scout whose important costume change—and alteration supposedly from a tomboy to a genteel young lady—is the focus of the scene. 


    In the original, Calpurnia, who has probably created and certainly had freshly ironed Scout’s dress and Scout herself are the center of attention, with Atticus looking kindly on over the occasion while Jem expresses is his adolescence impatience to hurry off to school, at one point bolting out the door only to be ordered back to the table by his father who declares it’s still a half-hour before school begins. Jem demonstrates his impatience with Scout, who hovers over her eggs, bacon, and milk, all the while pouting for having been forced into the dress in which she is not at all comfortable.

     Jem keeps attempting to hurry her throughout this breakfast scene as she testily tries to eat some food before, suddenly, she too bolts through the door with Jem, she returning briefly to kiss Atticus goodbye while Maudie and Atticus, playing the parental figures, inwardly giggle to themselves over the behavior of the children.


      Presumably nothing of great importance—particularly given the major tensions of the film that include rape, attempted murder, racial injustice, intellectual inability, a rabid dog, and one of the best courtroom scenes ever portrayed on film—really happens in this little interlude.



      However, since the narrator of this work is presumably Scout grown into the lesbian adult similar to the author herself, this scene, in fact, is terribly important since it represents one of the first of many times when males will attempt to take away the power she has held as a tomboy child, able to run and play with the boys, her beloved brother and the visiting Dill, while standing up to their worst possible bogeymen such as Mrs. Dubose (a neighbor who daily verbally abuses the children), Boo Radley (the next door adult who in those days was described as “mentally retarded” but whom the children perceive more as a terrifying idiot), Walter Cunningham (a nearby farmer who appears with the gang of men determined to hang the black rape suspect Tom Robinson, and who has been given special favors by the Finch family), and even the evil Lee “Bob” Ewell (the racist father of the girl Robinson is falsely accused of having raped). On this particular morning the focus is upon her transformation into a female who will no longer be permitted to accomplish any of these acts, and will eventually be assigned to marriage or maidenhood like Maudie herself.


 

      In Passage à l’acte Austrian-born film maker Martin Arnold has taken this scene and heavily manipulated it by speeding up events, slowing them down, and mostly repeating the tinniest of movements along with radically distorting the sound and language of the original. The title of his work refers to the French clinical psychiatric phrase that designates impulsive acts of a violent or criminal nature that often indicate an acute psychotic episode. Particularly in the psychoanalytic writings of Jacques Lacan, the “passage to the act” represents not just an “acting out” of such behavior, but an acting out that ends in the exit from the scene, which on a far more benign level is what happens in the original.

       David Herbert, writing in the Millenium Film Journal, argues for the necessity of intertextual readings with regard to Arnold’s Passage à l’acte, suggesting that Arnold’s “repetitions and reversals in the flow of images emphasize certain actions and gestures in such a way as to implicate and disrupt otherwise invisible formal strategies, products of the Hollywood cultural apparatus. Suspending the metonymic chain established in To Kill a Mockingbird, these repetitions reveal the alterity within the frames and defer their sequentially constructed meanings.” In other words, Arnold’s cinematic distortion of the original reveals previously imperceptible patterns in the narrative action of Mulligan’s otherwise traditionally-constructed movie.

     Herbert continues: “The disruption of the soundtrack also radically alters the functions of the original film. Similar to a hip-hop DJ, Arnold samples the original audio and creates a new orchestration through minute segmentation and repetition. Beats, such as a door slamming or the dropping of a fork, take on a new aesthetic prominence. At times, the audio composition takes precedence over the images altogether, as the film plays upon syllables and incidental noises as independent elements.”

     But while Herbert argues that these audible transformations “eliminate the power of language,” I would argue that they merely increase it, forcing us to seek to comprehend not only the images, which themselves are totally altered, but to attend to the new language, “the unintelligible barks and yelps” as Herbert describes them, of Arnold’s deconstruction in order to make new meaning of the linguistic component of the film. My ears may not hear the same words that yours do, but anyone who has the patience to listen will have to concur that something else than what the film’s original overriding narrative expressed is being strongly portrayed in this small scene.


 

    Arnold’s work begins after Miss Maudie has arrived, Calpurnia has already served up the breakfast plates and poured out the coffee, and Scout has shyly and uncomfortably entered the room in her new dress. It begins, in fact, with what might be described as the male reaction to Scout’s behavior, Jem’s complete dismissal and rejection of her discomfort as he suddenly determines to leave for school without her, racing out the door when spotting, evidently, one of his male companions.

     That action is played out in a series of loud slams and noises, a seemingly nervous breakdown of Atticus, in this case an authoritarian, as he shouts out Jem’s name while pounding the table over and over in repetition. In that act he repeats his son’s name, gradually transforming it into “Jim,” “jess,” “jest” “dare,” “ass,” “fff” (sounding the f-word), “fmf” (female-male-female), “em,” “bam,” “damn,” and “jam,” and others before returning to “Jem.” He appears to be having muscular aberrations with regard to both his hands and his face, pounding the table as he hisses out the words, Maudie shaking her head nervously as if in shock.

 

   When Jem attempts to return, it appears that door is now locked and that he has to knock in order to get back in. 

    Now looking down sternly, Atticus begins repeating words that sound like “apple,” “half full,” “flub,” “affela” (a fellow?), “hello,” “sort,” “m’scoot,” “scoot,” etc. returning, so it seems, ultimately to the unconscious subject on both their minds, Scout.

     Eventually, Jem reenters, moving forward in a manner in which he now seems to be shaking, Atticus pointing and tapping the table with his hands as if to recreate order.

 

    As Maudie seems to shake her head from side to side in the negative, Atticus points back to the chair in which Jem previously sat, now mouthing a series of “s” words “myself, myself,” “sell it and sell it,” “sit one,” “sit on,” “so on,” and eventually moving back to the word “son.”

      As he finally settles his hands back down on the table, Atticus begins to stutter out words that sound like “wait,” “wait you,” “but wait,” “weight,” and “wake.” Then turning to Scout, he begins to stutter out a series of “sister,” “sister,” “sister,” “sister.” If anything, his endless repetitions of “sister” are even more unbearable than his shifts of language with regard to Jem, and soon with Arnold apparently using an echo device, the words clearly reverberate through that small kitchen as a negative assignment of her role, the female designation of a young woman who cannot but be compared with the more inclusive “brother.”


       So far Scout, hovering the foreground with her back to the camera, has does nothing but attempt to eat her breakfast. Yet clearly in the series of “sister” declarations, she is being scolded, it appears, for some unknown offense.

       Jem returns quite literally on edge to his chair, his emotions reiterated in Arnold’s version by the fluttering of his hands, as Scout reacts with a slight scrunching forward, itself hinting at a kind of impatience obviously to leave the “family” circle. Shaking his head nervously up and down, Jem now turns his criticism upon his sister, repeating over and over again with the application of the echo mechanism: “Well then hurry up, hurry, up, hurry up,” etc. After saying this four times, the repetitions are speeded up yet further so that the “hurry up” is spoken in jack-hammer manner for a long period.

      In this scene we finally catch our one and only glimpse of Calpurnia at the stove, a half body image from the back with her left hand beating in rhythm to the insistent orders of Jem, almost as in a part of a dance or nervous tic. And at the same moment, Scout, saying her first words, begins to interject a series of “am” after each demand to “hurry up.”

 

     The patter between them becomes almost comic, as if the scene proves that you can only state your point so often before it becomes mere patter and meaninglessness. The battle of “hurry up” and “am” is a standstill that might never end, one demanding movement, the other insisting upon the current stasis of existence in the firm placement of “I am,” surely the understandable reaction of the young Scout being told to grow up and become something other than the tomboy she recognizes herself as being. If nothing else, Scout is not at all interested in hurrying up into the female world into which she is expected to suddenly enter.

      This is made even more apparent as the “am” comments begun to be followed with a word that at first sounds like “Francis” before turning into “Frank,” a shifting of a female name (Scout’s real name is Jean Louise) to a male surname. It is a similar relationship between Jean and John, the French François becoming the English Frank. She’s as insistent about the name “Frank” as is her brother demanding she “hurry up” or as she previously was with “am,” and it’s even more interesting when she begins to combine the words, “am Frank,” suggesting that she not only identifies with the male surname but that she is being “frank” or honest in her declarations, as the word “frank” gradually comes to sound like “grand.” Indeed, this is the longest dialogical moment in the entire 11-minute film.

      Slowly the repetitions, sped up even faster, become an interchange of “am for” and “hurt for,” which ultimately turn Jem’s words into a repetition of the demand to “stop,” while she insists now on “Frankie” and eventually even a word sounding like “Dave.”

 

     For a moment, it appears as if the adults, particularly Maudie, might enter into the conversation as they rhythmically lift their coffee cups to the patter of “Come on, come on, come on, come on” and to her chants of “Francis, Frank, and Dave.” The two women, in fact, Scout and Maudie each try to engage in drinking milk and coffee, stopped by the repetitious responses of Jem and by association, Atticus.

     Finally, Scout’s language turns into a series of single words, “Sis” transforming increasingly into a linguistic sound that reverberates with a sense of accusation like a “tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk.”

     After another long series of “come on’s,” the camera is focused on Atticus, as he also appears to judging the actions of the coffee-drinking Maudie.

     Finally, Scout gives up, tossing down her fork over and over, repeating words that begin to truly sound like “fuck-em up, fuck-em up!” that turns into simple “fucks” before transforming into a word that sounds like “fart,” that just as quickly alternates with the word “what,” as if she were exasperatedly questioning the entire transaction between herself and her family members: “what do you want of me?” or “what’s going on here?”

     “The words “slam, slam, slam” become transmogrified as “with lamb, with lamb,” that shifts finally into the word “family,” just as the two children began standing to move towards the door, singing out “some ways.”


    As Scout seems to actually touch her brother Jem on the run, the word “touch” quickly turns into the word “potty” and “comedy,” as both children, seemingly undergoing a physical breakdown, struggle to reach the door and run, Atticus and Maudie shaking their heads in negative horror at what they are witnessing.

       The terrible banging of the door puts a pasted, clown-like smile of terror on Maudie’s face, as Scout struggles through the open doorway, Maudie’s hands shaking with the tension of the entire encounter, alternating with what appears as applause for Scout’s actions. The sped-up sound track makes it sound like the bent over Scout is singing out “Cindy, Cindy, Cindy, Tootie, Tootie, Tootie,” as he returns to quickly kiss her father with several sloppy kisses before rushing off.


      If the above sounds like a kind of coded reading of my own creation, I openly admit it is. The sounds and images of Arnold’s manipulated version of the original short scene are electronically or digitally created in a manner that they can be interpreted differently by any viewer, and the above “reading” of the text consists simply of how my now very seasoned and unreliable auditory system has interpreted them, albeit after many careful listening sessions. How one interprets this text is obviously also a matter of how each individual perceives the language around them and interpolates them within the normative language of the film itself. As the children’s game of “telephone” makes apparent, we all hear what we want to.

      It might help to note, however, that in the original movie, soon after this breakfast event, on her first day of school Scout gets into a terrible knock-‘em-down fight with her male peers, she obviously not at all happy with her new role of supposedly having to behave like a young lady, actions which surely support much of my Steinian-like approach to language as I have interrupted it.

 

      I fully agree, furthermore, with what Herbert and other critics suggest Arnold’s reexamination of the original text more generally reveals, nicely summarized in Herbert’s comments:

     “The framing strategically circumscribes a portrait of a nuclear family eating a morning meal. The woman on the right of the screen, a neighbor in the original film, is now easily viewed as the wife and mother in this familial unit. Her immobility and silence testify to the passivity of female characters within traditional Hollywood narratives. Gregory Peck becomes a demonic father, whose verbal and gestural commands speak to a greater masculine authority. In this register, the scenario describes the indoctrination of the young male and female into the traditional gender roles assumed by the parents. Peck orders the young boy to obey, the young boy in turn commands the young girl, who in turn supplicates to the masculine authority and inherits her mother's passivity. Thus the film delineates a certain chain of command within the nuclear family, as an otherwise unremarkable product of the post-classical Hollywood representational paradigm.”

      Similarly, Herbert is quite correct I believe in arguing that Arnold's film “relegates Calpurnia, the Finch family's African American nanny, to a mere half-shape on the right-hand side of the screen. Indeed, her role as moral authority in the original novel, already diminished in the film adaptation, is now fully negated. The moment from To Kill a Mockingbird which comprises Passage à l'Acte has no bearing on the previous film's major narrative conflict, the accusation and trial of Tom Robinson, which functions to singularly articulate the original film's liberal ideology and message of tolerance. Although the film analyzes and critiques the politics of representation within To Kill a Mockingbird, this critique is entirely manifested in gender and generational constructions within a White social frame. In this way, Passage à l'Acte may implicate the racial hierarchy within the liberal ideology of the former film, by construing the racial issues as a ‘backdrop’ to its real motivation, the indoctrination of the young female into a strict gender hierarchy. Passage à l'Acte reveals the extent to which the young girl, Scout, finds herself at the mercy of the male figures in her life. Just as Scout learns, from her father, invaluable lessons about the injustices of racial bigotry, so too must she conform to sexist social norms.”

      I’ve argued for precisely this viewpoint in my previous essay on the original movie.

      Except here, we perceive it at an almost subconscious and highly personal level, rather than through the larger narrative plot. Both linguistically and visually, we realize through Arnold’s version that Scout does not at all agree with the new role placed upon her, and that although she finally gives into her brother’s demands to “Come on,” she enters the new school world as a young woman who very much knows that she is not a Francis, a Cindy, or even a “Tootie” (the youngest wild child, one must recall, of Vincente Minnelli’s 1944 film Meet Me in St. Louis).

       Like Harper Lee, herself, the lesbian friend of Truman Capote, Scout begins on her long voyage—at least as I read the new uncoded film—as a “Frank, a Dave” or perhaps even a symbolic Boo, as the kind of scary figure who returns to her Alabama hometown in her original version of the story, Go Set a Watchman, a monster who returns home to discover the truth of Atticus having joined the KKK while showing herself to be a woman who hates the gatherings of small-town women whose lives are occupied in dressing up to visit one another in afternoons of meaningless gossip, drinks, and hors d'oeuvres.

    As I have long argued, To Kill a Mockingbird is not truly a film of racial revolution, of white embracement of blacks, or even radical change in racial relationships, but is a pat on the liberal white back for even caring enough to read a book about such issues. In her original fiction, Lee cut much closer to the bone, and showed us that Atticus Finch, her own symbolic father, was very much like the “demonic father” Arnold explores through his coded revelation in Passage à l'Acte.

    The real subject of that supposed racially advanced look into small town Southern life remains the young girl Scout, so terrorized that day back in 1932 when she was expected to be something other than she knew she was, reiterating it again and again in the stubbornly emphatic recognition of “I am.”  

 

Los Angeles, June 13, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (June 2024).

 

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 ...