Sunday, September 29, 2024

Howard Hawks | Fig Leaves / 1926

after the fall

by Douglas Messerli

 

Hope Loring and Louis D. Lighton (screenplay, based on a story by Howard Hawks), Howard Hawks (director) Fig Leaves / 1926

 

The great US director Howard Hawks’ silent film Fig Leaves of 1926, his second feature, theatrically seems a bit like a combination of the worst of the numerous Hollywood chauvinistic domestic comedies of the next several decades and milder version the back-biting “women who pretend to be friends” films such as George Cukor’s The Women (1939). Indeed, like The Women this earlier black-and-white film includes a fashion show during its second half in technicolor, although in this case those scenes have apparently been lost, now screened on reels without the colored effects.

   On top of these rather unpleasant Hollywood tropes, Hawkes’ narrative bookends its modern-day characters as cartoon-like Adam and Eve figures yukking it up over incidents and jokes that even the 1960-1966 TV series The Flintstones might have tossed out, such as Eve carrying on a gossipy conversation with the snake and Adam reading the daily stone tablet newspaper about the warring brothers Abel and Cain. Coconuts are hurled into heads and a pet brontosaurus naughtily eats the couple’s favorite tree in their front yard. And, of course, Eve doesn’t have even a decent fig leaf to wear for an evening outside the garden!


     As a contemporary couple, Adam Smith (the beefy George O'Brien) is a successful plumber and his wife Eve (the willowy beauty Olive Borden) is still frustrated for not having a good dress or hat to wear in her closet, a problem she discusses at great length with her serpent-toothed neighbor Alice Atkins (Phyllis Haver), who also finds Adam quite attractive and invites him over one evening to fix her lamp and share a few glasses of cognac, obviously arousing the jealousy of her “friend” Eve.

     To balance out the sexual stereotypes of the domestic couple and their intrusive neighbor, Hawks and his writers Hope Loring and Louis D. Lighton add several layers of gay-bashing, first when Adam and his oafish co-worker Eddie McSwiggen (Heinie Conklin) take turns playing husband and wife as they test out the proper response Adam should have when Eve begs for money for a new hat, coat, or dress; the sashaying female who approaches the male should evidently be properly beaten or at least seriously throttled in response to her request, suggests Eddie, as the two again rehearse the inevitable scene. But when it really happens, Adam melts with the first bat of Eve’s eyes, handing her enough money to buy herself a new hat.

     While out shopping for that hat, however, Eve is slightly nipped by a passing auto and finds herself in the gutter at the very moment a city cleaning machine passes as it waters drown the street and the fallen woman in its path.


     The car belongs to the king of king of haute couture Josef André (George Beranger), a cinema pansy of the sort we later encounter in the Fred Astaire movie Top Hat (1935) in the character of Alberto Beddini, a man who seeks out every beautiful woman’s body, not to make love to them but to dress them up in rolls of satin, taffeta, tulle, and gauze. Out riding with his equally effete friend (William Austin), the two simply have no choice but drag the wet urchin into their Fifth Avenue salon and whip up a total new wardrobe around her torso dedicated to “Spring,” reminding me of the hilarious fashion designing scene of Funny Face in which design mavin Kay Thompson demands her staff “Think Pink.”


     There is only so much a Hollywood pansy can do, however, with a hand-on-the-hip look of effeminate grandeur and disdain; and this movie demands what appear to be hours of such poses of hauteur that quickly grow stale, particularly when later in the film—after the couple has almost split up  over Adam’s attentions to Eve’s neighbor—Adam visits André’s salon to buy his wife a new dress to make up with her, which, of course, requires him and his comedic partner to further mock the same poses. Never since has a movie spent so very much time exploring how a “stock” gay man might be portrayed on film!


     By that time, moreover, Eve has become, without Adam knowing it, a regular model for André and, as the pièce de résistance of the afternoon, she so shocks her husband that he determines finally to leave her for good. Having appeared “half naked” in public and evidently caring more about clothes than his love and determination to provide for her, what is an old-fashioned chauvinist to do but to run, leaving the money in his account for her silly pleasures!

     Given the growing sexual liberation of the mid-1920s you might have thought Eve would have flapped her way to freedom, but this is still Hollywood, even if pre-code, and moral compunction demands that she slug it out with her loving pansy, and trot back home to meet up with her still loving and eventually forgiving thug Adam to attend the slewing party of Abel and Cain, presumably a coded message to the film’s heterosexual audience that they’re planning to take in a boxing match that evening where Eve can feel comfortable in any old fig leaf or leopard skin she owns.

     This work cannot be said to be in the celluloid closet, but rather is a kind of public shouting rant against feminist, gays, and anyone else who might stand in the way of the normalcy of the everlasting American Stone Age.

 

Los Angeles, July 10, 2021

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog and World Cinema Review (July 2021).

 

 


Sam Taylor | For Heaven's Sake / 1926

soul kiss

by Douglas Messerli

 

Ted Wilde, John Grey, and Clyde Bruckman (screenplay and story), Sam Taylor (director) For Heaven’s Sake / 1926

 

Harold Lloyd’s For Heaven’s Sake (1926) is a film one might describe as representing a series of felicitous accidents, the kind that Lloyd and Buster Keaton were known for. While the worlds of Chaplin’s the Tramp often collapsed upon him resulting in his constant adventures on the road and near endless hunger while being chased by bullies and police who eventually put him away in jail, the whole world might fall down upon Keaton’s sad figures without brushing a hair on his head. A bit like superman, Lloyd was able to leap tall buildings, turn the police on the run with a simple look in the other direction, and survive a beating without even knowing it was taking place.


     In Sam Taylor’s film his character Harold Manners, who has just purchased a new car to match his white pants, totals two new autos in the same day, the first simply by a fluke of chance, the second through its being usurped by the police in chase of a vicious gang on the run, and, finally, a locomotive charging into it as Manners gets out to check on the damage the bullets have caused. Of course, if one had, like Manners, an “unlimited” income, perhaps the world would  cease to be troublesome too.



     In fact, Manners proceeds throughout the rest of this film to move smoothly from his mansion and club in the best part of town into the depths of skid row without a blink, unintentionally setting fire to Brother Paul’s and daughter Hope’s coffee and doughnut stand from where they spread the word of God through deeds, buying them a new mission by the stroke of a pen upon his checkbook.

      Horrified that his name might be associated with a good deed, he hurries back to the slums to insist they remove his name from his unintentional gift, only to once again, through the evil intentions of a pool hall gang, to slip and sail into the face of the beautiful Hope, with whom he immediately falls in love.


   Before you can say “Hallelujah,” he and Hope have been put in charge of a special mission celebration, for which the love-smitten Manners gathers up the neighborhood pool-hall sinners in a way that even Damon Runyon’s Sky Masterson could not have imagined in Guys and Dolls. The calm-headed Manners simply gets every red-blooded brute in the territory so mad at him that they chase him up and down the streets, gathering up more and more of them on his way back to the mission house. Once in, Hope serves ups coffee and newly baked cakes while he promises them stories that are better than anything the daily news has to offer, and they’re hooked.

     The one pool-hall hold out, Bull, arrives to battle it out with him. But once again, while trying to rustle up some further hymnals, Manners manages with pratfall timing to tame the beast with flipping chalk-boards, loose planks of a table, and swinging light figures that forces even the meanest man in the bunch to pronounce: “Fellers, if this guy can preach like he can hit, it’s gonna be tough season for Satan.”

      In no time at all, he develops a regular congregation, finds jobs for some of his followers, and generally makes new friends of these toughs while courting the beautiful Hope, finally asking her to marry him as they lay on a tar beach under a crescent (laundry) moon.


     Uptown, however, his all-male club members worry about his sanity in giving up their company for a lowly mission girl, and determine to kidnap him in order to bring him back to his senses. Clearly, this all-male shrine doesn’t take well to Manners’ heterosexual bent along with the he-men company he keeps.

       Yet it is precisely the rude mechanicals, now all functionaries to his wedding, who remain the most loyal to him. Shocked by seeing him driving away in their car, they track him down in his old club hoping to retrieve him. But in the meantime, in their utter disappointment for his seeming abandonment, they have spent the morning drinking, and are now too drunk to do anything but save him by causing mayhem in a world of pristine order.

       To get them back to the wedding on time, Manners must shepherd his irascible flock through various hilarious adventures via taxi, trolley, bus, and auto back to the mission house showing up just in time to say “I do” and drop his bride’s ring onto the tail of the mission cat.

       Throughout all of this Manners has acted as a perfectly effete and myopic being who seems to be blind to everything but Hope’s pretty face. Except for his focus on returning his wedding party to the celebration, he seems not to have registered a single being or event among the numerous comic encounters the film catalogues. If he’s made a grand transformation in his voyage from the very best part of town to the world on the wrong side of the tracks—the dichotomy posed by the narrative itself—we’ve been privy to very little evidence of it. When and how did such a seemingly effeminate elite suddenly become an everyday man? Or, to put it another way, when did the series of “accidents” he encounters become intentions.

      For evidence of that we must recall, I argue, a very seemingly inconsequential event early on in this story, another kind of accident but of the very least importance despite the fact that the narrative spends a rather long time on it, particularly given the almost ceaseless forward rhythm of most of the rest of the film.


      When he first arrives at the mission, a thief having just emptied the contents of a women’s purse is left with a power puff and a small vial of perfume. To rid himself of these meaningless pieces of evidence he slips them into Manners’ pocket as our “hero” enters the mission. As Manners sits down next to a skid row denizen awaiting the appearance of Hope serving her newly cooked doughnuts and cakes, we notice that the vial of perfume breaks.

 


     Slowly, both men get a whiff the perfume, assuming that its fragrance is coming from the body of the other. In this early moment of this film, we see both men attempt to weigh the meaning of their olfactory sensation, checking each other out with some sense of curiosity, almost as if the perfume might naturally draw them sexually to the other, and if so, what that might mean. Both coyly smile as they ponder the implications. Finally, seeing the broken vial dripping from his pocket to the floor, Manners also discovers the power puff, which, when he pulls it out of his pocket, the other notices it also with a sort of recognition of inevitability on his face as if to say “it stands to reason that a man so well dressed and groomed might be of that kind.”

     Manners tosses the powder puff away, but it lands, so we observe, on the plate of Hope’s freshly baked cakes, which, when she offers them to Manners, he takes up the puff now mistaking it as a cake and begins to chew.

 


     It’s not only distasteful, but quite inedible, and you can see on his face the possibility that his newly beloved female might not be such a very good cook if he were to make her his wife. Yet despite the inedible thing stuffed into his mouth, Manners politely repeats his attempt to chew.
      It is almost as if he is eating up that inedible something in his past, determinedly swallowing that for which he no longer has an appetite. Love has strangely found a way to his heart with the rejection of his stomach. All the metaphors usually applied to heterosexual love have been reversed as Manners purposely rids himself of his apparently feminized past, almost playing out a battle between his sexual identifications, past and present.

    It’s a subtle scene, and seemingly out of place in this fast-moving mostly physical comic work, a piece of cinema more about machines and bodies than about the inner workings of the mind and heart. But it’s crucial if you want to make sense of how the milquetoast Manners might survive in the imaginary frames in our mind after the film goes dark.

 

Los Angeles, August 11, 2021

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (August 2021).

 

Carol Reed | A Kid for Two Farthings / 1955

the magical unicorn

by Douglas Messerli

 

Wolf Mankowitz (screenplay, based on his novel), Carol Reed (director) A Kid for Two Farthings / 1955

 

Even if Carol Reed’s 1955 film A Kid for Two Farthings is, at moments a bit too sentimental, it is nonetheless a great lost film—at least for Americans. In Britain, despite it being a highly criticized film, it was one of the 10 most popular movies of the year of its release. In the US it is hardly remembered.


      Much like Reed’s Oliver Twist, in fact, this film is about a young boy growing up within a large and robust London Jewish community, where he is basically scolded and ignored, but yet loved. The real caretaker of the young boy Joe (the wonderful child actor Jonathan Ashmore) is the pants presser Kandinsky (David Kossoff) who loves the child and provides him imaginative possibilities, despite (we find out later) his own abandonment of just those treasures. Add to the mix, Kandinsky’s assistant, Sam (Joe Robinson)—an obsessed muscleman, seemingly addicted to images of other world champions of the muscle-world, which might have easily suggested he was gay in another film—who is here in love with a beautifully, newly dyed-blond, Sonia (Diana Dors). For my taste, she’s a bit too much like Jayne Mansfield, not my ideal of a dutiful wife, but for Sam she’s just fine.


      In the midst of the bustling market scene of Petticoat Lane, the young Joe grows up with his father missing in a dream world of South Africa—he and his mother living over the Kandinsky store—with the boy’s deep love of animals, chickens and other birds, who somehow cannot survive in this environment.

     Kandinsky, speaking metaphorically of survivors (with a heavy reference to the survivors of the Holocaust) inspires the young, easily believing child, with visions of unicorns, whom he declares have died off because of abuse, with just a few surviving—of course, given his father’s travels, existing still in Africa.


       The gullible child, after his latest chick dies, goes on search in this writhing market for a unicorn, finding it in a one horned, scrawny goat, which he buys for a few farthings, bringing it home after a series of adventures, to find that, in fact, the poor animal can indeed create miracles. After four years of a potential relationship, Joe does finally buy a ring for his lover, Sonia. And to pay for it, despite his “body beautiful,” “male physique” commitment, he determines he will participate in a series of fake wrestling meets. The only problem is that this Adonis, despite his lovely muscles, is not a successful wrestler, nor a born killer, as is his would-be competitor, the ugly Python (Primo Carnera). Like a British version of Anthony Quinn, Camera is a tough, who probably could easily destroy the pretty boy Joe, who wins his round with the Python by fighting a fixed fight with before his scheduled grudge battle.

 

     Meanwhile, the lovely goat/unicorn seems to produce other wonders, actually conjuring up a real Patent Pants Presser for the elderly Kandinsky and other wonders. Perhaps this miracle unicorn is actually a wonder; but clearly it is Joe’s own belief in the world which accomplishes such amazing changes. Kandinsky makes a deal with Sonia that, if he wins the match, he will make him partner in his business if the fiancée is willing to give up her dream of a diamond ring and a new bedset she’s purchased on time; and, of course, against all odds, Joe wins the wrestling match with the Python, and she is perfectly ready to make the new commitment, which brings the electric pant presser to his door.

 

     Even if it’s not quite believable, how could you dislike a movie such as this gorgeously-framed color film? It reminds me a bit of Frank Capra’s remake of his beloved Christmas tale, Pocketful of Miracles, but here the miracles seem real: the magical goat dies, and the always passing Rabbi, with his own horn in hand (a gramophone that plays music), passes at the very moment that the totally caring Kandinsky secretly buries the boy’s pet. It’s not really magic, novelist and screenwriter Wolf Mankowitz makes clear, but it’s as close in this world as you can come to it. And if that makes anyone tear up about the possibilities of the whimsical, so much the better. Maybe we can truly also hope for his father’s return home—but that’s another movie. There are enough miracles in this film that I can’t even wish for more.

 

Los Angles, December 21, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (December 2016).

Abbas Kiarostami | طعم گيلاس...‎‎ (Taste of Cherry) / 1997

the living and the dead

by Douglas Messerli

 

Abbas Kiarostami (screenwriter and director) طعم گيلاس...‎‎ (Taste of Cherry) / 1997

 

The recent death on July 4th of Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami led me to review his Palme d’or-winning movie, Taste of Cherry.

    As with many Kiarostami films, this is a fairly minimal work that consists, primarily, of a Tehran taxicab driver, Mr Badii (Homayoun Ershadi), seeking out young working men in the suburbs of that city, to whom he offers a substantial amount of money for some undesignated act.


      Roger Ebert has disparagingly argued that it first appears that Badii is seeking sexual partners, a terrible flaw in the film, since what he really seeking is far more horrendous: someone to bury his body after his suicide. But, in fact, the director is making a subtle comment here on the relationship to Eros and Thanatos. We do not know why this seemingly friendly being wants to kill himself, and throughout the film we never discover enough about him to discover his reasons. But surely it has something to do with the loneliness and isolation of his life.

      As a traveler of the city, Badii clearly encounters all kinds of living and active human beings—in one beautiful scene we observe two young boys playing in run-down car—but he is trapped, in some respects, by the frame of his cab, and, in that sense, he already seems to be locked away in a kind of coffin. All his encounters are brief ones, momentary and rather meaningless relationships which offer no real human interaction.


      The best time of his life, he tells a young Kurdish soldier, whom he first picks up, was in the army—a time, obviously, in which he did have, at least, male comradery. The shy soldier, is dubious about being given not only a free ride but being taken out of his way, as he attempts to return to his post. And when Badii finally pulls up to the huge landfill, wherein he plans to lie down and die, the young man quickly bolts.


      The second young man he “picks up” is Afghan seminarist, who has come to Iran to visit his Afghani friend, a sentry at the construction site. He too could use the money, if nothing else to finish his education. But since suicide is against his religion, he also refuses the job and quickly leaves the cab driver behind.

       The third and final individual to whom he gives a free ride and offers up the job is an Azeri taxidermist, who has a sick child. He accepts the job of burying Badii should he be dead the next morning, but speaks of his own experiences to try to dissuade the man from committing the act.

       He too had once planned suicide, but wandering the countryside suddenly encountered a tree of mulberries, which after tasting them and his delight in offering up some of the berries to a group of passing children, altered his decision, redeeming his life.

       Yet he agrees to visit the construction the next morning and bury Badii if he does not answer his call.

      It is generally argued that Kiarostami seldom made political statements in his films, primarily so that he might find it easier to work within the strict limits of the Irani censors. But by choosing the three working-class “outsiders” living within the Persian culture, he indirectly suggests that these three share some of the isolation and lack of power from which Badii himself suffers. Might we not see the young soldier as Mr. Badii before his disillusionment, perceive the seminarist as the former believer Badii once was? Clearly the taxidermist has gone through just such dark days, and now faces financial difficulties and fears for his child’s welfare. Will Badii, himself, also “come through” his crisis?  


     In the last scene of the film, it appears that Badii has gone through with the act, lying down in his ordained grave as a rainstorm comes up and the screen goes black.

       Yet, in a coda to the movie, we suddenly see the same scene in an entirely different season and a far more amateur-like grainy movie which reveals the director and his cameraman standing near the “grave,” now a densely-green covered landscape, with a hand-held camera. Nearby a sound man sits in the long grasses and far below, on the road on which Badii has formerly traveled, is a group of soldiers march to the count very much as Badii has previously described it.

      From outside the frame, the actor Homayoun Ershadi suddenly appears, smoking a cigarette before handing it off to the cameraman. With a walkie-talkie the director tells the soldiers to rest by a near-by tree, which they do, smiling at the camera which continues to roll, and picking off what appear to be mulberry branches, as the only full musical song of the film, Louis Armstrong’s “Saint Louis Infirmary Blues,” plays through to the end of the credits.



       There have been many interpretations of Kiarostami’s ending, some suggesting that it is a distancing maneuver to counteract the dark implications of the film and to universalize the film’s subject, reminding us suicide is not just against the dictates of the Koran, but is forbidden by many the world’s religions.

     Critic Jonathan Rosenbaum suggests the final song reminds us, even those of us outside the movie, that death lies around corner for us also. His colleague, Ebert saw it yet another instance of the utter boredom and meaninglessness of the film.

       For me, what it suggests is that no matter what actually “happened” to the fiction’s major character, art does truly redeem life. The dead or near-dead, just as the taste of the mulberries did for taxidermist, can through art be brought back to life. Yes, we will all die. But through art such as a film, it can bring about significant meaning and help the despairing believe again. Far from distancing us, I would argue, the film’s ending is a joyful celebration in which the theater audience is brought together in the joy of possibility and life.

     For the living Eros is always superior to death. Perhaps Mr. Badii should have been seeking out those working men for sex after all. It certainly have been a better choice. The dead woman of Armstrong’s song at least had a loving man at her side.

 

I went down to St. James Infirmary and saw my baby there.

She was stretched out on a long white table – so sweet, so cold, so fair.

Let her go, let her go, God bless her, wherever she may be:

She can look the whole wide world over and never find a sweet man like me.

 

Los Angeles, July 14, 2016

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (July 2016).

 

Index R-Z

Angelo Raaijmakers I, Adonis / 2021 Peeter Rabane Firebird / 2021   Tyler Rabinowitz Catalina / 2022 Tyler Rabinowitz See You Soon / 20...