Wednesday, July 31, 2024

Billy Wilder | Love in the Afternoon / 1957

lectures on love

by Douglas Messerli

 

Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond (screenplay), Billy Wilder (director) Love in the Afternoon / 1957

 

Although Billy Wilder’s Love in the Afternoon has been described by some critics, such as The New York Times’ Bowley Crowther, as a “sophisticated romance” in the Lubitsch tradition, seeing it again the other day, I perceived it as a somewhat clumsy affair performed by a truly mismatched cast.


     At the center of Wilder’s fable is Ariane Chavasse, Audrey Hepburn playing true to type as a fey young and clever, but ever so innocent, slightly fragile, and always well-dressed lover of an older man (she’s played the same roles with Cary Grant, Fred Astaire, Humphrey Bogart, Louis Jourdan, and Rex Harrison), in this case a supposed business magnate playboy, Frank Flannagan (Gary Cooper). Although we know that in real life Cooper truly was a playboy of sorts, having had affairs with both women and men—from gay movie actor Anderson Lawler, to Clara Bow, Lupe Váldez, Marlene Dietrich, Grace Kelly, Tallulah Bankhead, and Patricia Neal—Cooper’s acting style, his shy and self-effacing, representing anything but romantic gestures throughout the film—lovemaking presented in laconic lectures instead of acts—make it almost impossible to imagine that this American industrialist travels throughout Europe picking up the wives of business men and, at least in one case, a duo of women. The only romance that wafts through the air of this film is the corn-ball choruses of gypsy music played throughout. 


     But even if you could imagine Cooper as a sex-swinger, it would be nearly impossible to picture Maurice Chevalier, speaking English with a Parisian French accent that no longer exists in the capitol, as Ariane’s father, let alone as a private detective working on tawdry cases wherein he tracks down for his clients their wives’ lovers.

     Cary Grant, understandably turned down Cooper’s role, but evidently talent agent Paul Kohner was convinced that the role Claude Chavasse would be the perfect match for Chevalier. Unfortunately, the three work together a bit like vinegar, oil, and pepper, without Wilder having bothered to whip them up into a proper dressing.

     Knowing that her father is on Flannagan’s trail, Ariane rushes, cello in hand, to his hotel room, saving Mr. X’s wife from being discovered by her husband and Flannagan from possibly being shot, falling in love with Flannagan herself. Because of her evening cello concerts, Ariane meets her new lover (over the next year) in the afternoons only, when, briefly chucking her cello in the hall, she takes on the air of a femme fatal recounting her dozens of previous lovers. If the elderly playboy can believe that this young spit of woman has already had that many affairs, he must be a bigger dunderhead that even Cooper’s wooden-jaw acting suggests. The “thin girl,” as Flannagan calls her, is, of course, a complete innocent, head over heels in love the industrialist, in part, because of romantic notions of love, the “Fascination,” as she keeps whistling, of it all.


   Frankly, although I’ve almost always enjoyed Hepburn’s performances, I’ve never quite comprehended why she cinematically was attracted almost always to older men or, as in the example of Breakfast at Tiffany’s, to a gigolo stand-in for the gay Capote himself. Every man she meets, almost throughout her movie career, is a liar, a fool, a cheat, or an abuser, as well as having one foot in the grave. I suppose this was to emphasize her endless vulnerability. But it might have been nice, once in a while, to imagine the gamin actually encountering a man of her own personality and age!

     But all’s well that ends well, I suppose, as Flannagan, finally realizing that this time he has caught only “a little fish,” attempts, in good conscience, to abandon her, before—witnessing her sad-sack attempt to hide her tears—he sweeps her up into a culmination of the romantic desire she has all along sought. In the American version, the studios demanded, in the name of decency, that her father reveal, in the final frame, that the couple were now married and living in New York.  How unhappy, we can only imagine, she must now be in that Manhattan apartment married to the no-longer very dashing, slow-minded Mr. Flannagan! And how very much annoyed he must now be with a woman who once entertained him so pleasingly with her outrageous lies. Moralistic endings aside—even the director complained about Chevalier’s attached announcement—we can only hope that Ariane got only as far as Le Havre before turning back.

 

Minneapolis, November 7, 2013

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (November 2013).


Larissa Shepitko | Восхождение (Voskhozhdeniye) (The Ascent) / 1977

freedom without freedom

by Douglas Messerli

 

Yuri Klepikov and Larissa Shepitko (screenplay, based on a novel by Vasil Bykov), Larissa Shepitko (director) Восхождение (Voskhozhdeniye) (The Ascent) / 1977

 

Larrissa Shepitko’s 1977 film, The Ascent begins with the punctuated crack of gun fire between a group of Russian partisans and a Nazi death squad, and ends in a mad cackle of laughter by one of the work’s major figures. In between Shepitko paints a terribly bleak but visually beautiful landscape of woods and snow of Belorussia.


    Having run out of food and the energy to move forward, the men, women, and children of the partisan unit send two of their best soldiers—the powerfully athletic Rybak (Vladimir Gostyukhin) and the crack artillery officer, Sotnikov (Boris Plotnikov)—on a voyage to a nearby farm to bring back food. Rybak leads, while the slightly sickly Sotnikov follows. They reach the farm—where, evidently, Rybak had once been hidden and made love to the farmer’s daughter—only to find it burned to the ground, obviously destroyed by a German unit. Accordingly, the two are forced to walk through the brutal landscape to a nearby town, where they encounter an elderly headman (Sergei Yakovlev) who they perceive as a Nazi collaborationist. They kill a lamb, but leave the traitor to live.

     As they attempt to make their way back to the woods where their unit awaits them, they are again spotted by a roving German unit. Rybak, despite his burden of the lamb, makes it to the woods, but the weaker Sotnikov is shot and wounded in his leg. Trapped in the open, he attempts to shoot the approaching Germans, but finally, points the gun at himself, so that if they come to get him, they cannot capture him alive.

 

    At the last moment, Rybak returns and in a stunningly dramatic tussle with body and nature, pulls Sotnikov to safety. The director follows this with a long scene in which Rybak—about to leave the near frozen Sotnikov in order to find a place of safety—reveals through tender hugs and kisses, his brotherly love for his fellow soldier, promising to return for him. This beautiful scene is both chaste and slightly homoerotic, an astounding mixture of pure human love that is seldom expressed in such a genre.

     Rybak spots a small cabin nearby and drags his friend into it. But there, surprisingly, they discover three small children waiting for the return of their mother. When the mother, Demchikha (Lyudmila Polyakova) returns she is angry and defensive for their intrusion, fearful of the results; but when she perceives that Sotnikov is wounded, she grows more sympathetic. At almost the same moment, however, a jitney of Nazi soldiers arrives, on the lookout for the two Russian partisans. Apparently their leader has previously had sex with Demchikha and stolen her pig, as he again forces his way into the cabin. Hiding out in the attic, the Russians are forced to watch what will surely be a gang rape, until Sotnikov, who has been coughing up blood for some time, can no longer control his silence. The soldiers are discovered and, along with Demchikha are carted away, the three children left behind to starve.


     Until that moment the viewer perceives this film mostly as a well-made war story about heroism and terror. But through the delicacy of Sheptiko’s images and the intense scrutiny of her character’s faces, we sense that something else is being told in this tale. At one moment as the three are being taken away to a Nazi camp, we see Rybak jumping from the cart in an attempt to escape, only to be immediately shot. A second later the cart moves forward with Rybak still aboard. The image has, clearly, been a somewhat surrealist-like intrusion into Rybak’s thinking, a quick blink of his imagination.

     And as the group, beginning with the tortured and dying Sotnikov, begin to be interrogated by a Nazi interrogator, Portnov (Anatoli Solonitsyn), we suddenly begin to see this formerly weak ex-math teacher become incredibly strong, a least with regard to his inner conscience. Refusing to answer any of the interrogator’s question, even taunting him, Sotnikov quickly grows in stature before our eyes. If Rybak seemed to be the hero of the previous scenes, we now rethink our perceptions of this man of loyalty and faith. Despite his condition, he even endures the torture of a branding iron in the form of a Russian star imposed across his chest.

     When Rybak is called by the interrogator, by contrast, he answers most of his questions straight-forwardly. Although refusing to give out information on the whereabouts of his unit, he nonetheless seems almost ready to collaborate, particularly with Portnov offers the possibility that he might make a good German policeman.

      By the time the two, along with Demchikha, the elderly headman whom the two have previously encountered, and a young girl who has been in hiding are brought together, we suddenly perceive these previously random figures, beautifully shot in frieze in the dark cellar, as an emblematic-like portrayal of figures surrounding Christ. Rybak is now determined to save his life, while Sotnikov is prepared to die. Demchikha, who we now see as a kind of Mary Magdalene, is still furious about being taken from her children, but expresses her love of the young girl, a representation of the child Mary. The headman, whom we now discover was not a collaborationist, but an agent for a large partisan group stationed nearby, becomes both a Peter and a doubting Thomas in one, praying for enlightenment. Sotnikov, looking moment by moment, more like a Russian Orthodox embodiment of Christ, asks Rybak to help him live until the morning, when he will claim that he alone committed the acts of which they accuse all the others, perhaps saving his companions. The struggle with nature has been converted from a battle with the natural elements to a battle with the inner self; if Rydak was the hero in the snowy landscape, it is Sotnikov who proves himself as the victor of the inner self.

 

    When morning arrives, his confession does not work on the cynical Nazis, but Rybak’s acceptance of Portnov’s offer, frees him, while the others are taken out to be hung, Rybak steadying Sotnikov as he stands on the box which, when kicked away, ends his life.

     The “holy” ones are all hung, Rybak congratulated for being a “good rabbit.” As the headman’s wife passes the Russian soldier, she hisses what we have now known for some time: “Judas, Judas, Judas!”

      The German soldiers turn to celebrate their dinner, Rybak entering an outhouse, where he attempts twice to hang himself by his belt. He fails.

      Called in to join the others, Rybak perceives that the camp gate has been left open, the cold snow of freedom beckoning him. Might he run? He begins to laugh, painfully and madly laughing because he now knows that for him there no longer is any freedom possible.

 

Los Angeles, New Year’s Eve, 2013

Reprinted from International Cinema Review (January 2013).

René Clair | À Nous la Liberté (Freedom for Us) / 1931

arbeit macht frei

by Douglas Messerli

 

René Clair (screenwriter and director) À Nous la Liberté (Freedom for Us) / 1931

 

  


We begin in prison, with prisoners on an assembly line creating toy horses. For the first few moments there is almost something charming about this, as certain prisoners apply paint and others put in the legs of the nearly magical beasts. But as the bored supervisors watch, with one of the two central prisoners, Louis (Raymond Cordy) and Ėmile (Henri Marchand) slipping a working tool into their prison-issued shoes, we recognize this “work” as forced labor in stark contrast to the song they sing they whistle while they work:


                         Liberty is the happy man’s due

                         He enjoys love and skies of blue

                         But then there are some

                         Who no worse crimes have done

                         It’s a sad story we tell

                         From a prison cell

 

     A sad story indeed, reiterated by the regimented meal they must consume after working throughout the day. Pretending to sleep, the two cell mates saw through their cell window, Ėmile cutting his finger in the process. Gently, with apparent kindness and love, Louis takes out a handkerchief to mend the wound, and the two successfully leap to a retaining space. They have only one more wall to climb, which Louis quickly succeeds in doing, but the sudden sound of a siren, the appearance of guards, and Ėmile’s shorter stature, leaves him behind, as Louis throws his rope over the wall to further help his comrade escape.

 

   The comic interlude that follows is as good or better as anything Chaplin, one of Clair’s favorite filmmakers, might have created, as the escaped prisoner accidentally knocks a bicyclist participating in a bicycle race off his vehicle, putting himself in the position of racing on the bike—mostly to escape the police—over the finishing line to win the race.

    Louis, in fact, quickly appears to be a winner, successfully robbing a local store, and, after finding temporary employment in a record store, becoming a wealthy industrialist who owns several factories that produce phonograph players.

   Although Louis has achieved wealth, his workers are even worse off than the prisoners on the assembly line, as Clair, combining images that might remind one of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis of five years previous with humorous factory scenes that Chaplin would openly steal in his Modern Times, which premiered five years later. So similar are the worlds of the prison and in the factory—where a Guard, noticing a slacker, shouts: “Not at work? Don’t you know that….” To which the factory worker answers “…work is mandatory. Because work means liberty”—that, in hindsight, we only link it with the German-inspired phrase, “Arbeit macht frei,” which cynically greeted prisoners and Jews to the concentration camps of Auschwitz, Sachsenhausen, Theresienstadt, Dauchau, and other notorious institutions of death only two years after Clair’s comic film.

 

    Work in this world not only does not result in “liberty,” but enslaves the willing participants and the factory owners alike. Suddenly freed from imprisonment, Ėmile, resting peacefully in the countryside, is roused by the police and forced into labor as if he had never left his cell. Like Chaplin’s tramp, he fouls up the well-oiled machine, intruding upon another worker’s space as he has missed the opportunity to screw into the phonograph a needed bolt, causing a near riot, as, bothered by Ėmile’s intrusion into his space, the second also is unable to accomplish his task, the third, the fourth and so on, until the entire factory breaks down in the process.

     Ėmile also bollixes up the factory hierarchy by falling quickly in love with the manager’s niece, Jeanne, leading, after a couple of attempted meetings with the girl, to another chase which ends with an encounter with the owner—his former prison mate! Fearing blackmail, Louis tries to offer him money, which the honest Ėmile refuses, shaming his former comrade.

      Before long, the two, winking at each other, return to what apparently were their habitual “games” back in prison: pushing, shoving, wrestling, and touching one another as if they were two child-like schoolboys—almost adolescent lovers. To placate his conscience, Louis invites Ėmile to a dinner party that evening, which, because of the servants’ incompetence, results in a ridiculous free-for-all, forcing his haughty and “shocked” visitors to leave in disgust. His wife, Maud, kisses her secret lover goodnight at the door, promising she will leave with him the next morning.



     Relieved by the mass exit of his guests, Louis joyfully dances with Ėmile, while sending a missile of a wine bottle into his own portrait, clearly demonstrating his disgust of his current life.

     Equally delighted by his wife’s morning departure, Louis does not recognize an ex-prisoner in the street, a man who, however, perceives him. More comic events follow, including Louis’ attempt to marry off Ėmile to Jeanne and a group of gangsters’ (all ex-prisoners) attempt to “out” Louis as a former prisoner. Gang members chase Louis (who has gathered all his savings in a suitcase) and cops chase behind—again demonstrating Clair’s love of Mack Sennett, Chaplin and Keaton shorts—which all ends where we know it must: with the two “comrades” taking once more to the road, enjoying each other in their simple roles as vagabonds more than the world of work and regimentation.

    In the end, Clair reveals that these two can be free only without the societal pressures. The light-hearted songs the men and others sing throughout are all lies. The true joy exists in their camaraderie and idleness. Obviously, the “liberty” which these men were originally seeking, their freedom from jail, also came to encompass freedom from the strictures of patriarchal duties which both Louis and Ėmile have attempted to emulate, Louis more successfully than his friend. But by the end of this “buddy” film the “willing” reader also recognizes that that the “liberty” these men seek is an escape from the more specific heteronormative imprisonments of marriage and heterosexual sex. And in that sense, this film bears an odd relationship—almost serving as a solution to—the relationship between the two developed in the prison as played out quite differently in William Dieterle’s movie, Sex in Chains of three years earlier as well as presaging Robert Bresson’s A Man Escaped (1956).

 

    Given the more coded issues and very obvious social issues that were occurring throughout Europe at the moment of Clair’s farce, his work may have been far more radical than Clair even intended it. For only a few years later these two would surely have arrested for vagrancy, imprisoned, overworked and, perhaps, killed. But for an idyllic moment this Flaubertian, Beckettian, and Laurel and Hardy-like couple, for once in their lives, were truly free, of which Ėmile reminds his partner with a good, swift kick in the pants. If Clair’s film, so beloved in its day, has lost its significance as the years have passed, it is only because the horrors of World War II could no longer permit theater-goers to laugh at the absurd logic behind the terror that would follow.

 

Los Angeles, November 17, 2013

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (November 2013).

Robert Altman | Popeye / 1980

food for thought

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jules Feiffer (screenplay, after the comic strip by E. C. Segar), Robert Altman (director) Popeye / 1980

 

The moment of I heard of the death of comedian-actor Robin Williams, I searched my memory for a movie that might permit me to best express his talent. I’d seen most of his films. But the Williams I love best was a manic comedian that didn’t always come off well in film. Yes, there was the riffing radio personality of Barry Levinson’s Good Morning Vietnam, in which Williams is allowed some virtuoso comic moments of what Time Out Film Guide as “achingly funny, irreverent motormouth” behavior “with a taste for hot soul and a subversive vision of the Vietnam conflict.” But the all too predictable ending—his character’s somewhat patronizing relationship with a young Vietnamese woman, his friendship with a Vietnamese enemy operative, Tuan, and his inevitable fall from grace—ruins this film for me. Even less to my taste are the series of Williams films in which he plays a kind of “serious” psychological advisor or teacher as in Gus Van Sant’s Good Will Hunting, Penny Marshall’s Awakenings, and, my least favorite, Peter Weir’s Dead Poets Society, all of which not only bleach out Williams’ comic musings, but turn him into, as acerbic critic David Thompson describes it, a “nice guys becoming dangerously sanctimonious and superficial.” At times, in these often sentimental concoctions it is almost as if you can see Williams’ mind knocking against the sweet smile of his unperturbed fatherly face, intensely calling, “Let me out of here!”

 

     I have joyfully watched Chris Columbus’s Mrs. Doubtfire several times, where, at least, Williams is allowed to combine the manic madman with his correct-thinking pontifications. But one has to admit that, in the end, the film, despite its funny and even touching moments, is a totally unbelievable mess.

     A couple of movies I hadn’t yet seen offered greater promise, Robert Altman’s Popeye and Paul Mazursky’s Moscow on the Hudson. Since I had just reviewed a couple of Mazursky’s films on the occasion of his death this same year, I ordered up Popeye from Netflix.

     Before I was able to view it, critic Eric Spitznagel, writing in Vanity Fair, beat me to it, calling the Altman film, “The Best Film Robin Williams Ever Made.” Since I haven’t seen all Williams’ films, I’ll forego the superlative claim, but I will argue, in observations somewhat different from Spitnagel’s, that Popeye is certainly a good film that nicely represents Williams’ comic and serious acting talents.

     Perhaps the fact that this work represents the actor’s first film appearance may contribute to the sense, as Spitnagel argues, that there is a kind of freshness to Williams’ performance, whose “Popeye had a shy and timid sweetness. He didn’t storm through the movie with an insistent likability and ‘look-at-me’ bombast.”

     Let me first admit that Altman’s film received numerous dismissive reviews. Vincent Canby of The New York Times loved it, describing it as “charming, immensely appealing mess of a movie,” as did Roger Ebert, characterizing it simply as “lots of fun.” But one of my favorite critics, Dave Kehr, then writing for The Chicago Reader characterized the film and its actors in ways with which I couldn’t disagree more strongly:

 

                       Robert Altman's busy, detailed mise-en-scene, flattened cartoon-style

                       through space-compacting long lenses, does capture some of the

                       frenetic atmosphere of the Fleischer cartoons, but it tends to crowd

                       out, and neutralize, the story values. The plotting of this 1980

                       feature—outsider in a hostile environment—is personal to Altman,

                       though few of the feelings survive the clutter: it looks like a remake

                       of McCabe and Mrs. Miller stripped of deep commitment.

                       Robin Williams is entertaining as Popeye, in a performance based

                       entirely on Jack Mercer's brilliant voice characterization in the

                       original cartoons; as Olive Oyl, Shelley Duvall can't bring

                       her squashed naturalness to the proper level of stylization—

                       she seems miscast in the role she was born to play.

 

     All right, we all have our off-days. And Altman’s work is crowded, frenetic, at times even purposely off-putting. Jules Feiffer’s script seems amazingly close to what the creator of the cartoon, E. C. Segar, originally penned. It is no accident, perhaps, that many of the greatest long-lasting cartoon strips—notably Al Capp’s Li’l Abner, Harold Gray’s Little Orphan Annie, along with Segar’s Popeye—were either created during or, in Annie’s case, became most popular during the 1930s Depression. Flaunting coarse exaggerations of human behavior, employing larger-than-life stereotypes, embracing absurd-like half-human figures (talking animals and babies), and freely dabbling in racial epithets, these cartoons often presented human behavior at its lowest level—the reason, admittedly why I have never been fond of comic strips. Yet in a time where the ordinary everyman of American culture was made to feel very, very ordinary and forced to suffer ridiculous indignities in order to survive every day, these works clearly spoke to millions in a way that no other literature of the day could hope to. While Capp cloaked his attacks on the American system in the costume of hillbilly backwoods homilies, Segar took his Thimble Theatre creations into a strange world where—as in Charles Dickens’ fabulous representation of underground London in Fagin’s Oliver Twist lair—characters survive in a dystopian society controlled by a mysterious “Commodore” (a title, reports by dictionary, of commander, abolished until World War II, and therefore signifying an unofficial position that carries no “rating”) who uses the brutal Bluto to accomplish his wishes and who survives by the insidious demands of a creative tax-man. 

   Altman not only attempts to recreate this wacky expressionist-like community, Sweethaven—brilliantly conceived by production designer Wolf Kroeger—but dares to express its story through the genre of an original musical comedy, with music by Harry Nillson (a nearly burned-out 1960s and 1970s composer-performer, best known previously for his rendition of “Everybody’s Talking” in Midnight Cowboy), and sung by actors with little or no experience in singing and dancing—a major exception being Ray Walston (the Commodore), who performed on stage and film in Damn Yankees and South Pacific.

      Altman apparently determined to make his Sweet Haven one of the strangest and least pleasant communities on the planet (he mysteriously created the set in Malta, perhaps just to escape the long arms of Hollywood and hands-on producer Robert Evans), suggests this ramshackle, tough and tumbling down community, a distorted mirror-image of the good old USA, is a dictatorship “safe from democracy”:


                                     We the people

                                     Love Sweethaven

                                     Hurray hurray Sweethaven

                                     Flags are wavin'

                                     Swept people from the sea

                                     Safe from democracy

 

     Enter the quite innocent sailor, who in obvious befuddlement, good naturedly suffers various derogations, from the quick-shifting machinations of the town’s taxman (Donald Moffat), the basic distrust by community members of strangers, and the near destructive stumbles of the boarding-house owner’s daughter, Olive Oyl (Shirley Duvall) to the rude table manners of the boarding-house tenants (Wimpy [Paul Dooley], Castor Oil [Donovan Scott], Ham Gravy [Bill Irwin], Cole Oyl [MacIntyre Dixon], and Nana Oly [Roberta Maxwell]) who in their speed to chow-down their dinner permit Popeye not a bite to eat. In fact, Popeye is hardly ever allowed to eat throughout his Sweet Haven stay; the very next day, at the local diner Wimpy (the character who will “gladly pay you Thursday for a hamburger today”) eyes and eventually devours Popeye’s hamburger breakfast. Indeed, in the “sweet, sweet haven” where he has suddenly found himself in search of his Pappy, food seems to be the major commodity. As expressed in “Food, Food, Food”


                                   Everything is food, food, food
                                   Everything is food to go
                                   Everything is food for thought
                                   Everything you knead is dough

                                   It is food
                                   Everything is food

     The song not only reiterates the fact that a great majority of the town’s citizens are named after food or condiments that go atop, but also suggests that its people are empty husks of reality, desperate to be filled with something that might give them the energy to move forward or to actually come up with an idea. As Altman, Feiffer, and Nillson make clear, their world is an inverted one,

 

                                    Everything is upside down now

                                    Everything is sunny side up

                                    It's ubiquitous

                                    Enigmatic and

                                    They can't trick us

                                    With no hot dogmatic

 

     Williams as Popeye suffers all these and more indignities through a non-stop under-the breath utterance of reactions to his experiences that with their odd pronunciations and numerous malapropisms are absolutely hilarious—if you can catch them fast enough within the fold of your ear (meeting Olive Oyl, for example, he mutters, “Sounds like some kind of lubricant”/ encountering prostitutes later, Popeye nearly lisps, “Women of a venerable disease.”). As Altman demands of the viewer in every single film he ever made is that he or she be as quick-witted and attentive to every moment of the movie as the language he and his collaborators projected into space. And, in that sense, Altman’s creations are always somewhat Platonic, abstract representations of a real world in another time and place. Both Popeye and his Pappy carry around photographs of one another that consist only of words: “Me Pappa,” “Me Son.” And food, as the song suggests, is always “food for thought.”

      Is it any wonder that on the night she is about to celebrate her engagement to the genetically mean Bluto, Olive Oyl secretly packs up her bags and heads to the streets. All she can say of her marital “catch” is that is “He’s large.” Duvall is so perfect as Miss Oyl that it is hard to take one’s eyes off of her; as if she were truly a figure of ink, she spins and twists her entire body all at once in two directions. If before one might have thought of assimilating Duvall in very small doses, in Popeye—despite her shrill cries and whining insinuations—you want all the oyl you can get. If Williams is absolutely charming and rambunctiously infectious, Duvall is radiant in her calamitous clumsiness. And when the two suddenly acquire their little Swee’pea (the forever chortling photogenic grandson of director Altman), singing a lovely duet over the sleeping beauty that pulls them into opposite directions of desire—he asking the babe to “Sail wit’ me,” she pleading for him to “Stay with me”—the sensitive viewer is almost swept away.

      We know, of course, that our characters and we must suffer numerous adventures—the child’s abuse by both Wimpy and Olive as a horse race tipster, the kid’s kidnapping by Bluto, Popeye’s discovery of his Pappy and his Pappy’s indignant denial of his heir, a chase to a buried sea treasure in which Olive is stuffed into smokestack and made to wrestle a gigantic octopus, and Popeye’s being forced to swallow up every last dollop of his least-favorite food, spinach—before we can reach that apogee again. But we don’t mind as long as Popeye “yam what he yam”—a delightful, bow-legged, one-eyed, dancing sailor man—who needs his Olive Oyl in order to raise up his little Swee’pea in a new and sweeter haven.     

     I might even go so far as to suggest that in this film Altman, with the help of Italian cinematographer Giuseppe Rotunno, has created a kind of American equivalent of Fellini’s Amarcord (on which Rotunno worked as director of photography in 1973), another portrait of a distorted fascist society of the 1930s in which the citizens struggle to outgrow their seemingly endless adolescence.                     

    Fellini’s Amarcord begins with a young woman hanging out freshly-washed cloths, happily pointing at the puffballs floating in the wind. A nearby old man, mutters the community aphorism, “When puffballs come, cold winter’s done.” Indeed, as children in the town square jump to catch the puffballs, the village idiot recites a poem dedicated to regeneration.

      All we need to transform a Sweet Haven into a heaven, suggests Altman and friends, is a little bit of faith and a good sense of humor, both of which Popeye projects even in his very first encounters with the seeming no-good inhabitants of the film’s cockeyed hamlet. As they spiritually and sometimes even physically attempt to “blow him down,” the sweet tempered sailor (as perfected by Williams) croons—or perhaps I should “growls out”—an anthem of possibility and hope:


                                             It's a lovely place
                                             Think I'd like to stay but
                                             Blow me down
                                             Blow me down

                                             It's nice and friendly here
                                             I think I'll spend a year
                                             Or two maybe three

                                             …

                                             In the evenin' air
                                             Lots of people there
                                             Tryin' to blow me down

                                             But unlike the clothes I wear
                                             I haven't got a care, so
                                             Blow me down
                                             Blow me down

    Even if Popeye was neither Williams’ or Altman’s best film, it’s certainly worth another long look.

 

Los Angeles, August 16, 2014

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (August 2014).

 

 

 

                         

Index R-Z

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