Film Reviews: You Nazty Spy! & A Plumbing We Will Go

 "You Nazty Spy!"

*** (out of ****)

After  Adolf Hitler rose to power in 1930s Germany, there was a genuine concern among some that Fascism could come to America, in large part as a reaction to the economic crisis brought on by the Great Depression. Famous Americans such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh made complimentary remarks about Hitler and the Nazis, and what was going on in  Europe. So-called "Liberal Hollywood"  and the entertainment  world seemed to be egging it on as  well. Several films were made in the early 1930s that had a sympathetic view of dictatorship. The best remembered example of this is "Gabriel Over The White House" (1933) with Walter Houston as a president who wakes up from a coma and suspends Congress so he can get things done. Democracy takes too long and the Depression needs solutions. A non-film example of this would be the George S. Kaufman Broadway musical comedy - with a score by George and Ira Gershwin - called Let 'Em Eat Cake from 1933 about a president who loses re-election and refuses to concede, going as far as to the Supreme Court. When that fails, he decides to go into the shirt business to stir the people up to overthrow the government. 

I mention this jumbled and admittedly simplistic outline of history to paint a picture of the times and America's reaction to Hitler and the ideals of Fascism and the possible need for a dictator in the U.S. Many Americans didn't think there would be a second World War and when that thinking proved to be wrong, many Americans didn't think the United States should get involved. With the exception of "Confessions of a Nazi Spy" (1939) Hollywood was rather silent on the issue. Enter, of all things, the Three Stooges (!) with their comedy, "You Nazty Spy!" (1940), recognized as the first Hollywood film to spoof Hitler. It gives this comedy short a historical significance that made me want to review it during this year's blog theme, Life is Short, my year long look at short films.

While there is no denying the anti-Fascist, anti-Hitler, anti-dictatorship intentions of "You Nazty Spy!", oddly enough there are moments when this comedy also seems to have a satirical look at capitalism and corporate greed. The short begins with three business men complaining about the profits at the munition factory which has amounted to five million buckaroos in the first quarter. This leads one of the businessmen to proclaim with a profit such as that, they are practically starving. This was not a reflection of the economic situation in Germany in the 1930s. Hyperinflation is believed to have lead to Hitler's rise. Due to that, I can only interpret these exaggerated remarks to be a commentary on corporate greed as well as a criticism of weapon manufacturers in their role to perpetuate war. Who knew the Three Stooges could be so astute! 

It is these three businessmen that agree on a plan to overthrow the current government. They must find a puppet who will bend to their business needs and start a war thus increasing their profits. This is most likely a reference to a definition of Fascism as being a merger between corporate interest and the government. It is a quote often credited to Mussolini. The business men select three wallpaper hangers for the job. Of course the three men are Moe Hailstone (Moe Howard) who will become the new dictator, Curly Gallstone (Curly Howard) is made a General, in a character based on Mussolini, and Larry Pebble (Larry Fine) is in charge of propaganda, a reference to Joseph Goebbels.

The film is peppered with puns and sight gags more so than I am accustom to in a Stooge comedy. For example the country in which this all takes place is called Moronika. In order to have a roundtable meeting, they cut the corners of their square table. The comedy even begins with a disclaimer stating "Any resemblance between the characters in this picture and any persons, living or dead, is a miracle." The story and script came from Clyde Bruckman and Felix Adler. These names may not mean anything to most movie fans but they were great gag writers. Between the two of them, they worked with Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Laurel and Hardy, and Abbott & Costello.

Still it is unfortunate that "You Nazty Spy!" should have the honor of being the first comedy to spoof Hitler instead of the much more ambitious "The Great Dictator" (1940) by Charlie Chaplin, his first complete sound film. At the end of the day "You Nazty Spy!" is a Stooge comedy and all that it implies. It takes some nice shots and insinuates certain things but it doesn't really make a strong social and political commentary. Chaplin was the man for that. Although Chaplin had said, had he known of the true horrors of the Nazi regime he never would have made "The Great Dictator".

Speaking of the horrors, there is a moment when Moe sends someone to what he calls a "concentrated camp". I wonder if Moe Howard, the other Stooges, and the American public knew what was going on at those camps if that line would have remained in the short. If the Stooges knew of the full extent of what was occurring, would they have also decline to make such a comedy as this? Even Mel Brooks once said he thought the film "Life Is Beautiful" (1998) crossed a line.

However the Stooges would return to similar material, making a direct sequel called "I'll Never Heil Again" (1941) as well as "Higher Than A Kite" (1943). Again, the purpose of these comedies and "You Nazty Spy!" in particular is to make fun of the presence of Hitler and take pot shots to knock him down a peg. While I suppose that within itself is a political commentary, it doesn't go much deeper than that.

"A Plumbing We Will Go"

*** (out of ****)

"A Plumbing We Will Go" (1940) finds the Stooges in a much more familiar light. While released in the 1940s, its premise resembles a 1930s Depression comedy, with the Stooges unemployed and destitute, standing trial for chicken theft.

When we first see the Stooges they are in court on the witness stand. Curly and Larry are both sitting on Moe's lap as they are being questioned by an attorney. The position of the boys is meant to imitate a ventriloquist act with Curly and Larry as a couple of dummies. 

It is an interesting way to introduce the characters and establish their relationship. They are three individuals but should be thought of as one, hence why they are all questioned at the same time. If you had never seen a Stooge comedy before, you could immediately assess that Moe is the leader of the trio. He is the one actually sitting in the chair and plays the role of the "ventriloquist" to Curly and Larry's "puppets".

The judge in their case dismisses the charges although the audience suspects whatever crime the boys have been charged with, they are most likely guilty of. Naturally once they are free to leave Curly puts his hat on which causes feathers to fly around. Figuring the jig is up they make a dash for it. Luckily escaping the long arm of the law however doesn't deter the trio as they try to steal fish from an aquarium tank. The persistent cop (Bud Jamison) catches the boys in the act but once again they escape by jumping into a plumber's truck. As fate would have it, they stop driving in front of a house that called plumbers an hour ago. The boys pretend to be the plumbers after spotting the cop in he neighborhood.

As far as comedic premises go, this one is acceptable. Running away and hiding from the police proved to be a familiar situation for the Three Stooges and even Laurel and Hardy. The business with the court room and the chickens though was unnecessary.

The comedy begins to pick up now as the boys are able to put their incompetence on full display. They have no idea how to stop the leak the real plumber was called for. It lends itself to perhaps the best known bit in the short, Curly breaking a shower faucet and trying to stop the running water by connecting pipe after piper together.

Perhaps because I was never much of a Stooge fan, my favorite sequence in the short doesn't involve the Stooges. It centers on Dudley Dickerson as a cook, trying to prepare a meal when the kitchen appliances start to act up, as a result of the Stooges' plumbing work. At one point water starts coming out of the stove top burner. Dickerson's reaction to these going-ons had me laughing out loud. More so than anything the Stooges did.

"A Plumbing We Will Go", like so many other Stooge comedies is just about the jokes and doesn't try to make a social commentary. Some have tried to suggest the Stooges often addressed the topic of class division but with the exception of "Hoi Polloi" (1935) very few of their comedies touch upon this and really had nothing to say on the issue. It is because their comedy was seen to lack any importance they weren't critical darlings and placed in the same class as with Charlie Chaplin, W.C. Fields or even the Marx Brothers, who did a much better job on the topic of class division.

So many Stooge comedies were remade or had material reused from prior shorts, "A Plumbing We Will Go" is no exception. The comedy was remade with Shemp Howard as the third stooge in "Vagabond Loafers" (1949). In some ways it is a better short with more of a plot. The Dudley Dickerson material was reused from "A Plumbing We Will Go" with some new scenes added. Then the material from "Vagabond" was reused and called "Scheming Schemers" (1956). Stooge fans might consider "Plumbing" the best of the three if for no other reason than it has everyone's favorite line-up - Moe, Larry and Curly. It is a harmless diversion that encapsulates the Stooge brand of humor as well as any other comedy short.

Film Reviews: The Barber Shop & The Pharmacist

 "The Barber Shop"

*** (out of ****)

The very first image we see is of a banner hanging informing us of the town's name - Felton City - and its population - 873. A man's voice is heard saying it's a nice town. Another man responds in the affirmative stating they have a public library and the largest insane asylum in the state.

A library and an insane asylum. It's a contradiction but that's what defines a city - good and bad. Safety and violence. Wealth and poverty. Culture and decadence. It's something the comedy of W.C. Fields had always hinted at. Just beneath the laughs there was a commentary on American values and its way of life. The comedy shorts "The Barber Shop" (1933) and "The Pharmacist" (1933), accomplish much of this at a level near that of the feature-length comedies starring Fields. It's one of the reasons I wanted to review them during the year of Life is Short, my year long theme looking at short films.

While "The Barber Shop" takes place in a small town, a year isn't specified. We see dirt roads, kids playing baseball in the streets and people traveling by horse and carriage. They aren't dressed in turn-of-the-century clothing but little resembles  American city life of the 1930s. In its opening scene however, Fields and director Arthur Ripley immediately set up the tone of the comedy, its themes and establish Fields' character. Fields is Cornelius O' Hare, a local barber who sits outside of his shop, sharpening his razor blade. He seems rather congenial, smiling at people passing by and engages in small chit chat. It's the kind of thing you'd expect in a small town. Everyone knows each other and appears friendly. But that's not exactly who Cornelius is. He almost begrudgingly puts up this charade of pleasantries. After people pass him, Cornelius bad mouths everyone under his breath. For example a woman passes Cornelius saying her husband hasn't been feeling well this morning. Cornelius offers his sympathies saying he is sorry to hear that and then mutters the man must have been out on another bender last night. Cornelius does this repeatedly with each passerby. Supposedly Fields based this on his mother who he would hear do this when he was a child, as his mother would sit outside the stoop of their apartment building. It's funny but suggest something deeper - the small town isn't as quaint as it appears, hitting on the duality I referenced previously and the phoniness of people (itself a duality). American life is as much about appearances than anything else.

The false appearances continue when Cornelius enters the barber shop and his apartment above it. Cornelius is a married man (Elise Cavanna plays is wife) with a young son (played by Harry Watson) but domestic life isn't bliss - is it ever in a Fields comedy? - as Cornelius attempts to give his wife a kiss on the cheek, she pulls away, indicating a loveless marriage. Unlike other Fields comedies, Cornelius has a good relationship with his son, who enjoys telling him riddles, much to the wife's annoyance. In the shop itself, Cornelius has a sole co-worker, a manicurist (Dagmar Oakland) who he flirts with and for whatever reason, seems infatuated with him. Perhaps this is explained by all of the wild tales he tells her of great and heroic feats he performed in his youth - he was a boxer, a detective and once killed an animal with his bare hands. This is prevalent since a bandit is on the loose. There is a $2,000 reward for his capture. Naturally Cornelius  would be out there on the hunt for him but sadly his presence is required at the shop, despite limited customers.

It might have been better in fact if Cornelius had gone out on a hunt for the bandit because every encounter he has with a customer is negative. Cornelius knows how to talk a good game but his every action reveals an ineptitude. In one scene a returning customer comes in for a shave. Why the man has chosen to come back is never explained. When Cornelius tells the man he didn't recognize him, the man replies that's because his facial wounds healed (!). Some people are a glutton for punishment. Cornelius proceeds to give the man a very close and very rough shave. He nearly cuts the man when he becomes distracted by the sight of a woman's legs. What he does to a mole is unspeakable. 

Fields gets to have a little more fun with his screen persona when his next customer enters, a little girl (Gloria Velarde) with her mother (Fay Holderness). The mother has brought the girl in for a haircut and here Fields is able to display his distain for children. Fields famously once said he never wanted to share a scene with animals, children and women since they will steal your attention in a scene. The girl does not want a haircut and Cornelius does his best to bite his tongue.

By now some readers may get the feeling where does this comedy go? It doesn't seem to be about much. That is partially true. There isn't a strong narrative plot line being followed through. Comedies like "The Barber Shop" and "The Pharmacist" would take up a few scenes in a feature-length comedy. "The Barber Shop" is kind of a blue print of what was to come in films such as "It's A Gift" (1934), which I feel is Fields best comedy. Much of what was in that film can be seen here though not examined as fully as in the feature-length format.

One aspect of "The Barber Shop" that doesn't get the full treatment and commentary I felt it deserved was the theme of masculinity. Masculinity had regularly been a theme in comedies of the 1920s and 30s usually insinuating masculinity is tied to physicality meaning brute strength. This can be seen in one of Fields' own silent comedies, "Running Wild" (1927). In "The Barber Shop" Fields possesses some of the same timid qualities as in that silent movie, as seen in his relationship with his wife, but there is no resolution to that problem this time around. Somehow Fields actually finds a way to emasculate his character further by the end of the movie. 

The purpose of "The Barber Shop" and the Mack Sennett shorts he appeared in was to showcase Fields comedic talents and add a new dimension to his persona as he came out of the silent era. Fields is in a select group of actors and actresses that benefitted from sound. Fields was a verbal comedian and that explains why his sound comedies are better remembered than his silent comedies. "The Barber Shop" was also the last comedy short he would appear in to focus on feature-length movies.

 "The Pharmacist"

 *** (out of ****)

"The Pharmacist" (1933) was the second to last comedy short W.C. Fields appeared in and like "The Barber Shop" is credited as being directed by Arthur Ripley from a story by Fields.

There is a lot in "The Pharmacist" that doesn't feel like your typical Fields comedy. It seems Fields was still working through the character and figuring out where the funny would come from. There are elements here that wouldn't be found in the feature-length comedies Fields appeared in. The average viewer may not notice them on first glance but take a closer second look. The Fields here is a rough draft of the characters he would play in "The Bank Dick" (1940) or "You Can't Cheat An Honest Man" (1939). 

The most glaring thing I first noticed is his character's relationship with his children. Fields plays Mr. Dilweg, the owner of a general store - despite the title of this comedy, Fields is not a pharmacist. The closest he gets to medicine is taking a order over the phone for cough drops - he has two daughters the youngest of which is played by "Babe" Kane, a grown woman playing a precocious child perhaps a la Baby Snooks (look it up). Fields is practically cruel to the child. He engages in a joke I've seen him do before where he implies he is going to hit a child after they ask if he loves them. Even the wife / mother character (Elise Cavanna) gets in on the act and roughs up the child. This leads to my second observation, she even defends Fields when the child talks back. What world is this?! Fields' character was usually the black sheep of the family due to his drinking and general laziness. Like Rodney Dangerfield he got no respect at home. Then there is a truly bizarre moment where the child is caught eating a canary and coughs up feathers! This is very dark humor for a W.C. Fields comedy and quite frankly feels out of place. Situations such as these would never be repeated again in a Fields comedy.

Another short coming of "The Pharmacist" is it doesn't do enough (or anything) to make Mr. Dilweg a lovable scoundrel. Despite the bad habits of any Fields character we, the audience, always rooted for him. A lot of this was due to the treatment he received from other characters like his family. Here though Mr. Dilweg seems to be a bully. I understand this is a pre-code comedy but you can't have a grown man threaten to hit children in a movie when we haven't had time to like the character first. Don't believe me? The proof is in the pudding. Fields would never do this again with one of his characters before making sure we like and in some way identify with his character.

If you can get past these moments, there is something to enjoy when watching "The Pharmacist", which is an episodic comedy like "The Barber Shop". Aside from these domestic moments the rest of the comedy short centers on Mr. Dilweg's interactions with various customers. In one interaction, which feels a little forced and more of an attempt to make a political commentary then create a laugh, a man is browsing in the store when Mr. Dilweg watches him like an hawk, desperate to make a sale. Finally the man says he'll buy a stamp but wants a purple one. Mr. Dilweg doesn't have a purple one which causes the man to make a remark no one has rights anymore but that's what you get with the Democratic Party.

It's not a particularly funny line and given the time period is a minority opinion when you consider the popularity of FDR, who had just come into office after winning in a landslide election. Today it would just serve as an opportunity for Republican trolls on the internet to make "original" and "insightful" comments about how this is true even today. Notice how Fields would stay away from lines like this in future comedies, despite a fake presidential run in 1940. 

It is through these customer interactions however that this comedy begins to shine. Fields, perhaps taking a cue from Jack Benny, uses a similar approach where Mr. Dilweg is a kind of everyman that encounters nothing but eccentrics. The humor is in Dilweg's attempts to meet the demands of these various individuals. Of course, nothing prior in "The Pharmacist" firmly situates Mr. Dilwig as an everyman but when compared to his daughter, who is eating canaries, I guess he'll do.

With no strong narrative plot there is no place for "The Pharmacist" to go that would feel satisfactory for the audience. It ends on a forced cops and robbers shoot out in the store. Maybe due to poor editing, how this shoot out begins is never explained. The sequence however proceeds to demonstrate Dilwig is a coward and continues to further embarrass him by being "saved" by a character he had earlier called a sissy played by Grady Sutton, who usually proved to be a good foil for Fields in later movies. It is rare though to see a comedian from this era fail the way Fields does in these two comedy shorts. Laurel & Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Bob Hope all had moments where they succeeded on some level - they get the girl, they beat up the brute, they deliver the piano...etc. But Fields just flat out fails. Again, in the feature-length comedies this would change. "The Bank Dick" is an excellent example of this.

These Mack Sennett shorts signaled a new direction for Fields and his persona. Films and various directors weren't taking full advantage of his talents. See him in D.W. Griffith's "Sally of the Sawdust" (1925). It is a role practically any comedic actor of the era could have played. It didn't require W.C. Fields. On that basis the comedy shorts have value. We are able to see the development of his character, working out the rough edges.

I'd like to also take a brief moment and say something about the director of these shorts, Arthur Ripley. He was a gag writer for Sennett and wrote a few of Harry Langdon's comedies along with Frank Capra. I'm personally more familiar with his work as a writer than a director. Outside of these W.C. Fields shorts, his only other directorial efforts I have seen are a pair of Robert Benchley shorts. His strength appears to have been in his writing.

"The Barber Shop" and "The Pharmacist" fall short of what feature-length W.C. Fields comedies would achieve but there are funny moments in each of these comedies. It is fun to see Fields figure out what worked for the character and what didn't.

Film Review: Pale Ride - 40th Anniversary

  "Pale Rider"

 **** (out of ****)

The Western is said to be the most  American of all the movie genres, with its themes of individualism and freedom. Back in the days of my grandparents - in the 1930s and 1940s - Westerns were a dime a dozen. My grandparents didn't call them "Westerns", they called them "Cowboys and Indians". They were generally crowd pleasers with their tales of heroism and morality. Then a funny thing happened, the Western went out of style. Some attributed it to shifting American values during the Vietnam war era. 

It was around this time, in the mid-1960s, Clint Eastwood became a movie star, largely thanks to the Italian spaghetti Westerns directed by Sergio Leone. It signified the changing of the guard so to speak. John Wayne's brand of good guy heroism for Clint Eastwood's shades of grey anti-hero. But the genre never regained its place with movie goers as representing the American spirit. Westerns continued to be made during the 1970s however these films were revisionist, meaning (among other things) they challenged the mythology of the Old West - a pair of Robert  Altman films "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" (1971) and "Buffalo Bill and the Indians" (1976), Sam Peckinpah's  "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" (1973) and "The Shootist" (1976), featuring John Wayne's last film appearance.

It is within this environment Clint Eastwood directed and starred in "Pale Rider" (1985). The film was his first Western in nine years, coming after "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (1976). In the 1980s the Western was a "dead genre". Whatever efforts were made to bring it back were comedies - "Rustlers' Rhapsody" (1985) and "Three Amigos" (1986). A lot was hanging on the release of "Pale Rider" as some thought it could have the potential to revitalize the genre. In the Siskel and Ebert movie review program, At the Movies the two critics devoted an entire episode to the topic, in anticipation of the release of "Pale Rider".

Although "Pale Rider" was the highest grossing Western released in the 1980s, it didn't bring back the genre to what it used to be. If anything though it firmly solidified Eastwood's place as the premier Western filmmaker in America. These forty years later "Pale Rider" is still a remarkable achievement and a film I consider one of the best films released in 1985.

"Pale Rider" is a tale of morality, masculinity, and heroism. Depending upon your reading of the film, it could also be a ghost story with religious undertones. However this doesn't mean we see a "softer" and gentler Clint Eastwood. Eastwood is still our stand in for rugged masculinity, which in the case of this film is equated with brute force. It is the commentary on masculinity that I found most interesting watching "Pale Rider" and it's message on what exactly constitutes for being a "good man". If Eastwood's character, simply known as Preacher, is our definition of masculinity he is contrasted against Hull (Michael Moriarty). 

Hull is part of a group of California prospectors that are being intimidated by a mining baron, Coy LaHood (Richard Dysart) and his men, including his son, Josh (Chris Penn). LaHood wants the land for himself. There is a message here regarding the changing ways of the West and technology. LaHood uses advance ways to mine compared to the scenes where we see Hull and his fellow prospectors mine of gold.

Hull is living with a widower, Sarah (Carrie Snodgress) and her daughter Megan (Sydney Penny). Compared to Preacher, Hull is a weak man. He does not seem prone to violence. When Hull first meets Preacher, Hull is getting beaten up by a group of LaHood's men. Preacher, single handedly, takes them down one by one. The implication is, if Hull can't defend himself, how will he defend Sarah and Megan? In fact none of the prospectors seems capable of defending themselves. As the film opens we see LaHood's men ride towards the prospectors to attack them in order to scare them away. The men don't do much fighting back against LaHood's men, as one of them even shoots Megan's dog.

This community would surely welcome a man like Preacher to stand up to LaHood and his men on their behalf. But Preacher isn't a for hire gunfighter. After he is invited by Hull for dinner, as a thank you, Preacher arrives at the table dressed as, well, a preacher. But who is this nameless man? What was he doing in town? How did a preacher learn to beat people up? Could he be the answer to Megan's prayer? She prayed someone would come to help them and the following day Preacher arrives. Is he a ghost or a spirit? What kind of spirit could he be? A vengeful one? A peaceful one? Is he Death? Hints are given to answer these questions but nothing is directly stated.

Given that Eastwood's character is dressed as a preacher, the film does present the character as Heaven sent in the way he is able to bring this community together and provide it with the spine it was lacking. But it is the reaction of the female characters that is most telling. Both Sarah and Megan are drawn to him. Megan at one point confesses to being in love with Preacher as Sarah admits to the feelings his presence has invoked in her. What is baffling is that Preacher doesn't do anything to warrant these feelings within the female characters. At no point does Preacher display a romantic interest in either of the female characters. The only conclusion we can arrive it is the women are attracted to his strength which implies his masculinity. Preacher is the opposite of Hull, whom Sarah, despite all the good Hull has done for her, can't commit to marrying. 

Eastwood tries to bring this together in a scene involving the four of them riding into town. While Hull is in a general store, paying a debt, LaHood and his men want a word with Preacher. The two female characters are alone, sitting in their wagon, waiting anxiously. After Hull leaves the store the women tell him where Preacher is. They want him to help Preacher possibly fight off the men. Eastwood's camera picks up on Hull's hesitation. These would be the same men that beat him up. And he knows Preacher is capable of defending himself. But what kind of man would Hull be in the eyes of the women if he didn't attempt to help Preacher? 

For some modern viewers, particularly those with a political bent, "Pale Rider" could be interpreted as a celebration of toxic masculinity. While I disagree with this  kind of pseudo intellectualism, it is not an entirely new argument, although we didn't use the term "toxic masculinity" back in the 1980s. Eastwood has always been a lightening rod for political leftist, who viewed his films as glorifying violence. Film critic Pauline Kael famously described "Dirty Harry" (1971) as Fascist. My problem with the "toxic masculinity" comment is it ignores the "unfortunate" (from a leftist point-of-view) laws of attraction and human behavior. Women are more attracted to men they perceive as strong and dominating. That's a generalization, to be sure, but not a flat out lie. It is a more common belief then some may want to believe. People aren't as emotionally advanced as the phony high-minded "intellectuals" want to pontificate that we are.

The other issue I have with this way of thinking is it purposely misinterprets the Preacher character. Eastwood's Preacher is a fair minded man/spirit/God who only resorts to violence when he has to, in order to protect others. His kneejerk reaction isn't to settle everything with fighting. Ultimately the biggest benefit Preacher provides to the community is an understanding that together they are at their strongest.

While community is important there is also the sense of individualism, and a man's ability to defend himself. I've used the term "cowardly Liberal" to describe a certain type of male character that either believes in the rule of law or is pacifist in nature but by the end of the film must display his manhood in one final outburst of physical violence - i.e. "Straw Dogs" (1971), "The Ox-Bow Incident" (1943) - Hull isn't exactly this kind of character but by the end of the film he must go through a transformation. There will be a scene by the end of the film where he must engage in an act of violence to prove his manly worth. It leaves the viewer with the impression a good man possess all traits in one - strong but sensitive, dominating but vulnerable, the strong silent type but willing to share and express his feelings. Whether this exist is another story for another review.

Just as the character Hull has a predetermined fate, so too does Preacher. There will be a moment in "Pale Rider" when we will have the final gunfight between the hero and the villain. The villain here is a man paid by LaHood to kill Preacher, a corrupt marshal named Stockburn (John Russell) who travels with six deputies. The film hints he and Preacher may have met before. It may answer the question of whether of not Preacher is a ghost. The gun fight can be interpreted as the usual good versus evil showdown but with Eastwood playing Preacher it could also be a case of evil versus evil. In which case the gun fight is a final act of retribution on the part of Preacher. An act that may finally give his soul rest, if Preacher is a ghost.

The spiritual element in "Pale Rider" and the mysticism surrounding the Preacher character is what separates it from other Westerns and is what drew Eastwood to this material. In an interview taken place during the Cannes Film Festival, where "Pale Rider" was shown, Eastwood states he likes allegorical films and screenwriters Michael Butler and Dennis Shryack wrote the film with him in mind. Eastwood also says in the interview it is his belief Preacher is a reincarnation of a Preacher that was shot and killed by Stockburn.

"Pale Rider" was released at an interesting time in Eastwood's career. He was considered the top box-office star of 1984 and one of the top two in 1985. A Rolling Stone magazine article suggested he may be the most popular movie star in the world. His prior directorial effort, "Sudden Impact" (1983) was the highest grossing movie in the "Dirty Harry" franchise. Combined this all says a lot about our culture and movie going taste, which can be negative or positive depending on your own agenda. One thing it says for sure is the public liked Eastwood's brand of heroism and tough guy masculinity.

While the general public seemed to have an interest in "Pale Rider", the "critics" (sheep) were a bit divided on the film. New York Times critic Vincent Canby however paid Eastwood a tremendous compliment in his review when discussing the dual roles Eastwood played by director and actor writing Eastwood "handles both jobs with such intelligence and facility I'm just now beginning to realize that, though Mr. Eastwood may have been improving over the years, it's also taken all these years for most of us to recognize his very consistent grace and wit as a filmmaker." It is a sentiment that matches my own as the years have gone on. I now consider Eastwood one of my favorite filmmakers. Canby wasn't the only one to praise "Pale Rider". Roger Ebert at the Chicago Sun-Times awarded the film four stars and declared it "a considerable achievement" and continued to cheer it as "a classic Western of style and excitement." Unfortunately, Ebert's colleague and television partner, Chicago Tribune critic Gene Siskel wasn't impressed with the film stating, "Pale Rider" in story terms is just formula western moviemaking." Siskel also felt the film had nothing new to say observing, "But sadly, the film never really breaks new ground, settling to walk through the same dramatic territory as "High Plains Drifter" (1973)". Many others also commented on the similarities between "Pale Rider" and "High Plains Drifter", which was also directed by Eastwood. Finally, as always, New Yorker critic Pauline Kael gave Eastwood and the film a good thrashing noting "Pale Rider has the kind of Western situations that were parodied years ago by Harvey Korman on The Carol Burnett Show."

With 40 years behind it however "Pale Rider" has stood the test of time as a classic western and an all around enjoyable piece of entertainment. I'm not completely sure if the film is remembered as fondly as it should be but a new 4K 40th anniversary blu-ray will be released in April. I haven't come across any retrospective reviews of the film, in honor of its anniversary, but those might come after the release of the blu-ray. Me being ahead of the trends is nothing new and why you read this blog.

There have been rumblings that Clint Eastwood, who turns  95 in May, may retire from filmmaking. His last film may have been last year's "Juror # 2" (2024), which sadly didn't received wide distribution (it is currently streaming on HBO Max). If that is the case it would mark the end of an incredible career. With films like "Pale Rider" Eastwood has been so instrumental in redefining heroism, masculinity and the mythology of the West. We can see the cultural influence Eastwood has had on films and our expectations of anti-hero tough guys. Some may want to do away with this kind of hero and masculinity but it will never go out of style. Hollywood has merely repackaged it and now given many of these character traits to female action heroes. Same ingredients, different brand.

"Pale Rider", along with Eastwood's "Unforgiven" (1992), may be one of the finest Westerns to come along in decades. A remarkable directorial effort by Eastwood that has the ability to provoke deeper discussions on good and evil and justice. It was one of the best films of 1985. It's a shame it didn't receive any award recognition in the U.S.

Film Review: The Verdict

  "The Verdict"

 **** (out of ****)

The Bishop (Edwards Binns) asks his lawyer if the doctor at the Catholic hospital - which the Boston Archdiocese operates - is guilty of the malpractice he is accused of. The lawyer doesn't say anything. Is the silence an implication of guilt? What will the Bishop do?

It isn't a moment the general public may pay much attention to - and one the "critics" didn't focus on either -  but it hits at the heart of director Sidney Lumet's film "The Verdict" (1982). The film is a study in morality and redemption. 

In many ways Lumet's film is similar to his previous work, "Prince of the City" (1981). That film was about police corruption on its surface but was really about a cop trying to redeem himself and live by his own moral code. In "The Verdict" we follow a one time promising lawyer who learned about the ethics of the legal system and has taken to drinking ever since. More than a courtroom drama, the film is a story about this lawyer trying to redeem himself. Both stories are about men in professions that challenge and test their courage under pressure.

The lawyer is Frank Galvin (Paul Newman). Money and success seemed to be in his future after graduating law school. He married one of the daughters at a prestigious law firm and as a result was made a partner. Through no fault of his own he was nearly disbarred however after allegations of jury tampering were made. The problem went away, as did the law firm partnership and his wife. Replacing all of it was the sweet taste of booze. Frank still looks like a polished gentleman with fine clothing but he hasn't had much work in the past few years. You've heard of ambulance chasing lawyers? Well Frank is an obituary chasing lawyer. He attends funerals pretending to be an acquaintance of the deceased. He'll offer his condolences to the grieving widow and slip her his business card, offering his services if needed.

An old lawyer friend, Mickey (Jack Warden) takes pity on Frank and throws an open and shut medical malpractice suit his way. If Frank can stay sober, he'll make a third of the settlement fee. The defendants - the Catholic hospital, the doctors, and the Boston Archdiocese - are pretending they want to go to trial, to clear the names of the doctors, but it's secretly understood no one wants the case to go to trial. At issue was a young pregnant woman who went into a hospital for a delivery but complications arose. Doctors gave the woman an anesthetic which resulted with her being left in a permanent vegetative state. 

Initially Frank is apathetic to the case and to the entire situation. He hasn't even met with his clients - the sister (Roxanne Hart) and brother-in-law (James Handy) of the victim. He agrees with Mickey that it is an open and shut case and will be settled out of court. Little by little however as Frank gathers enough evidence to demand a hefty settlement, he is placed in a moral quandary - which Lumet beautifully visualizes with a polaroid picture as it develops - now that he knows the truth, what will he do about it? It is the same situation that the Bishop finds himself in and becomes a running theme throughout the film.

Within this scenario the film, adapted by David Mamet from a Barry Reed novel of the same name, establishes many themes surrounding issues of power, law, wealth and class. It does so by setting up this story as a David & Goliath tale. The hospital, which has a great deal of money behind it, can afford to hire the services of a major law firm. When we first see the firm, the viewer may initially mistake it for a corporate boardroom of shareholders. Around 10 or 12 men are seated at a conference table headed by Ed Concannon (James Mason). This is what money and power can buy you. Lumet almost humorously contrasts this image against Frank and Mickey alone by themselves in a library sifting through books, preparing their legal defense.

Trialing the case in the courtroom isn't enough however. A law firm as big as Mr. Concannon's can exert its power and influence in multiple ways such as by paying off or intimidating potential witnesses, calling on resources in the media to manipulate and control public opinion with flattering articles, and depending upon friendships with the Judge (Milo O' Shea) presiding over the case to suspiciously always rule in your favor.

 

The tactics the lawyers use address another important theme in the film, legality versus morality. Nothing Concannon's firm is doing is necessarily illegal. It is the games lawyers can be expected to play. But is it morally right? There is a distinction between what is legal and what is moral. 

Reading comments on the internet I came across a discussion regarding a courtroom scene involving inadmissible testimony and evidence. This scene has an impact on a later scene concerning the jury's verdict. For me this is yet another example of what do we do when we are given the truth and feeds into the concept of legality vs morality. Perhaps what the jury decides wasn't based on legality but it is morally satisfying. 

Corruption, morality and justice, this is what the films of Sidney Lumet have centered on since his theatrical film debut, "12 Angry Men" (1957). Like that debut film, "The Verdict" tells us the law is ultimately to be decided by the people. We have the power to stop injustice and hold the rich and powerful accountable.

For all the things "The Verdict" and Sidney Lumet do correctly there is one flaw I find the film possesses and that is a character played by Charlotte Rampling. Rampling is a wonderful actress who has appeared in such films as Luchino Visconti's "The Damned" (1969), Woody Allen's "Stardust Memories" (1980) and "The Night Porter" (1974). But as talented as she may be, I believe the film could have done without her character. The always insightful and wonderful New York Times critic Janet Maslin wrote of Rampling in her review, "Although the extreme restraint of Miss Rampling's performance makes a bit more sense on a second viewing than it does on first, both the character and the performance slow the movie down for no vital purpose."

Practically every other performance in the film however is not only great to watch but adds to creating a sense of this Boston community. There's not a lot of street life in "The Verdict" but the characters and their speeches give you a sense of your location and the period. Two minor characters that deserve special recognition are Judge Hoye and Kevin Doneghy, the brother-in-law. Kevin gives a beautiful speech to Frank, when he is upset Frank did not notify him of a settlement offer, about how the establishment never has to deal with their failures as it affects the working people. The Judge becomes a not-so-subtle symbol of how the law is meant to serve the interest of the powerful. Pay attention to a quietly powerful scene between the Judge, Concannon and Frank, meeting in the Judge's chambers. Notice the delicate way the Judge and Concannon try to tag-team Frank to accept the settlement offer. 

And not to leave any performances unnoticed, James Mason makes an impact as a seemingly mild-mannered slick operator. He knows being a lawyer isn't about trying your best, it's about winning. He enjoys the finer things life has to offer and deludes himself into believing he is still a good person because his law firm does pro-bono work. Mason adds an elegance to the character another actor may not have been able to. Jack Warden on the other hand provides a nice contrast as a street smart guy.

But this is Paul Newman's show all the way. Many "critics" viewed this film as a comeback for Newman and several cite it as one of Newman's best performances of his career. Newman has always been blessed with Hollywood leading man looks but "The Verdict" was thought to be one of the few times Newman didn't rely on his features. In Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times review he stated, "This is the first movie in which Newman has looked a little old, a little tired." Ebert goes on to add, "Newman has always been an interesting actor, but sometimes his resiliency, his youthful vitality have obscured his performances". Newman doesn't try to hide Frank's flaws from A scene involving him shown passed out drunk to slapping a female. He's wasn't afraid to take chances with this performance and risk being seen by the public as unlikable.

One of Newman's highlight moments comes at the end of the film, as his character gives his closing arguments in the courtroom. While Newman gives a passionate speech, which I believe is meant to encapsulates the film's message, I'd like to focus on how Lumet and his cinematographer (Andrzrj Bartkowiak) shoot the scene. Normally you would either get a close-up or medium shot of the actor as they make their plea. But Lumet shoots it in an extreme long shot as we see the courtroom watchers in the background. In theory it takes the emphasis off of the actor and makes us focus on the words instead. The words and the framing combined however, I felt suggested Frank was speaking on behalf of all of us. Emotionally it would feel different if Frank spoke directly into the camera and as compared to how it was done here. These are the kind of decisions filmmakers have to make. It's why Lumet was one of the best, for the subtle ways he could convey his message visually.

There was a time I thought the 1970s was probably Lumet's best decade as a filmmaker with the release of such films as "Serpico" (1973), "Murder on the Orient Express" (1974), "Dog Day Afternoon" (1975) and "Network" (1976), but as I've been rewatching Lumet's films, in order to review them on here, I'm noticing at the beginning of the 1980s, he was standing firm as one of the best directors entering the new decade. He had three knockouts in a row with "Prince of the City", "The Verdict" and "Daniel" (1983). Three films about moral conviction meant to counter Reagan's America. I sincerely don't think Woody Allen, Francis Ford Coppola or even Robert Altman - to name some titans of the 1970s - started the 1980s as strong.

Perhaps to make up for the sin of not nominating "Prince of the City" for any major Academy Awards the prior year, "The Verdict" was showered with five Oscar nominations including for best picture, best actor, supporting actor (Mason) and best director. It was nominated in the same categories for the Golden Globes as well. Unfortunately it didn't win any awards at either ceremony. Newman lost the Oscar that year to Ben Kingsley's performance as Gandhi - which was spectacular - in Richard Attenborough's epic of the same title. It was also Lumet's fourth and final best director nomination. He would never win a competitive Oscar but was given a honorary award in 2005. Actions such as this helped to solidify the belief the Academy didn't like to nominate east coast directors for awards. In additional to the nominations, Roger Ebert declared "The Verdict" as one of the best films of 1982 while Gene Siskel gave it a "thumbs up" on their TV show.

The ideas behind "The Verdict" have aged nicely and its critiques of the legal system and the influence of the powerful remain just as relevant. This is one of Lumet's best films 

Film Reviews: A Trip to the Moon / The Impossible Voyage / The Scheming Gamblers Paradise / The Living Playing Cards

 "A Trip to the Moon"

 ***1\2 (out of ****)

What is cinema? Does it show us the world we live in or take us to places we could only imagine in our dreams? Is cinema about human emotions or fantastical adventures? Is it about the spectacle or the real? What would you like to see in a movie? I assume some of you would say all of it. But this is the late 1890s / early 1900s damn it! You have to pick one. The art of storytelling hadn't come around to incorporating all of that. If you want to see a spectacle though have I got a treat for you. Welcome to the world of French filmmaker Georges Melies, an innovator of the special effects film, and a pioneer in the science fiction and fantasy genres.

When Melies began making films in 1896, cinema was only a year old. After the Lumiere Brothers invented the Cinematographe in 1895 the public could attend viewings of their films, which were known as "actualities", the forerunners to documentaries. The Lumieres' work consisted of brief moments in daily life - "Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory" (1895, considered the first motion picture) and the famous "The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station" (1896). Melies believed there was greater potential for film than what the Lumiere Brothers were doing. To separate himself Melies choose not to film the ordinary but the extraordinary.

With it being the year of Life is Short - my year long theme of reviewing short films - I decided to honor this talented filmmaker and his unique vision by reviewing two of his most popular films, "A Trip to the Moon" (1902) and "The Impossible Voyage" (1904) as well as acknowledge the 120th anniversary of two of his other films - "The Scheming Gamblers Paradise" (1905) and "The Living Playing Cards" (1905).

Historians often will (correctly) credit D.W. Griffith as the "Father" of film for creating our cinematic language through his "invention" of techniques such as the iris shot, cross-cutting and close-ups. But Melies can also be credited for his use of tricks - he was a real life magician - that have contributed to cinema. Melies was one of the first if not the first to use slow motion, dissolves, superimposition and double exposure. Many of Melies films were essentially magic acts on film - "The Living Playing Cards"  and "The Enchanted Sedan Chair" (1905) - while others were science fiction and fantasy - "The Kingdom of the Fairies" (1903) and  "A Trip To The Moon" . They all however pushed the limits of our imagination.

Often revered as Georges Melies' masterpiece, "A Trip to the Moon" is also considered to be the first science fiction film and one of the most ambitious films of its time.

Depending upon projection speeds - every film students knows movies are shown at 24 fps - the running time of "A Trip to the Moon" can vary. A quick search on YouTube finds videos ranging from 10 minutes to 15 minutes. A restored color tinted version currently streaming on HBO Max clocks in at about 15 minutes (minus credits regarding the restoration process). My point for mentioning this is storytelling was moving beyond the typical 1 or 3 minutes stories. To tell a longer story was within itself an ambitious undertaking. Reportedly "A Trip to the Moon" took three months to complete and was made on a budget of 10,000 Francs, which according to some sources would be the equivalent of $33,000 today when adjusted for inflation.

Many believe Melies' film was inspired by the work of  Jules Verne, in particular two of his novels, From the Earth to the Moon, published in 1865, and its sequel Around the Moon, published in 1869. However, given that these books would have been published more than 30 years prior to the release of this film, I wonder if the more contemporary The First Men in the Moon written by H.G. Welles and published in 1901 may have inspired Melies as well. I find a similarity in Welles and Melies presentation of the moon having a jungle like quality with rapidly growing plants (mushrooms in this film). The rocket in Verne's book however seems to resemble what Melies has given us with its bullet like shape.

"A Trip to the Moon" begins with a chaotic gathering of astronomers as they prepare to hear plans from one of their members about an expedition to travel to the moon. 

Within the opening sequence there are already a couple of things to point out and comment on. One of the most annoying for me is the fact that Melies does not use intertitles to fill in the gaps and provide explanations of events, names of characters and helpful dialogue. Amazingly for a filmmaker who was so creative and intelligent he didn't take advantage of this. And before someone writes to me to say, Alex intertitles weren't invented! God, don't you know anything? Actually intertitles were used by 1902! Historians believe the very first film to use them was "Our New General Servant" (1898), and there was also the British adaptation "Scrooge" (1901) and "How it Feels to be Run Over" (1900). A possible explanation for this is many movie houses during this period used narrators to explain the stories. Did Melies write a narration for this film?

Then there is Melies' presentation of science. Some try to find deeper meanings and commentary in it. It can accurately be pointed out that the astronomers all look like Merlin the Magician. They even perform feats of magic by turning telescopes into chairs. But is this a commentary on anything? Could Melies have dressed them up like Merlin because he thought it was funny? Comedy from this period had a tendency to have characters act silly for the sake of being silly. Could it have been Melies didn't know how to convey to audiences these men were astronomers by not having them dress like this with robes that have stars on them. What is so unique about how an astronomer dresses? How would an audience know this?

And what about the science behind the expedition? It consists of drawing a picture of the moon and earth and  drawing a line linking the two together. Is this another "hard hitting critical analysis on science"? Whether it was a feeble attempt at comedy or a critical insight, note that these learned men often resort to violence. When the expedition plan is revealed one of the astronomers is in disagreement. What happens? The presenter throws all of his paperwork at his dissenter. 

Eventually a few brave souls agree to accompany the man on his journey to the moon. This results in one of the most famous images in the history of cinema - The Man in the Moon getting hit in the eye by a rocket. The presence of the Man in the Moon is another example of absurdity blending with science.

On the moon the narrative logic of the story gets a bit shaky but as best as I can quickly summarize, the astronomers meet creatures of the moon. In their panic or fear they immediately assume the worst and view the creatures as hostile. Upon seeing them the astronomers whack the creatures with their umbrellas, which causes them to disappear. For as long as their journey may have been they just as quickly decide to leave. As they make great haste one of the creatures latches on to their rocket as it falls off of the moon and lands with them on earth. The astronomers receive a heroes welcome while the creature is chained up, presumably kept as a prisoner. 

Further interpretations of social commentary have been assigned to the film by those that claim the ending is actually a reference to Colonialism. This might make sense if I didn't understand the definition of Colonialism to mean political control over another country, occupying it with settlers and exploiting it economically. If this was Melies' intention, it would have made more sense if the astronomers took control of the moon and the creatures.

My reluctance to join the bandwagon of the sheep (movie critics) to declare "A Trip to the Moon" as making some commentary with deeper significance is because I don't see it on screen. Melies doesn't draw our eyes to any larger meaning than what he is showing us. What for example is the meaning of the showgirls that parade around and wave towards the camera? Is this a commentary on imperialism (see I can throw around words too)? If we understood the intentions of the astronomers for wanting to go to the moon it could have been a commentary on imperialism and Britain. Since when wouldn't the French want to take a swipe at England?! But we don't know why they're going and therefore can't deduce anything. 

The narrative aspect of storytelling doesn't seem to be what interested Melies most. The idea of storytelling at this time was rather basic. It was big picture thinking with no real thought for plot details. Stories consisted of big events happening consecutively - this happens then this happens and so on and so forth. You just want to hit on the big ideas of your story. Plot then, naturally, becomes the weakest element in all of Melies' films.

So what makes "A Trip to the Moon" important? Why has it lived on? Why am I writing about it? "A Trip to the Moon" is a visual feast for the eyes. There is nothing I can immediately recall that would have compared to this that was released prior to 1902. This set a standard for visual effects. You don't have to pay attention to the plot to enjoy this film. You can simply look at the visual spectacle Melies has created. The matte paintings are unbelievable! The astronomy club in particular looks like a cartoon. The rocket in the eye is a classic gag! It's easily the most clever joke in the film. Melies puts all of his talents on display here with his use of superimposition and dissolves. He is able to create a continuous flow with his editing. It's something else you should pay attention to. He hadn't quite gotten it down to a science but there is almost a rhythm to the editing. This is advanced stuff for the period. Still, there are some things I can't explain like the showgirls. Interestingly this predates Mack Sennett's use of pretty girls and his Bathing Beauties.

"A Trip to the Moon" was a huge success when released and even inspired a remake that is seldom acknowledged, "Excursion to the Moon" (1908) directed by Segundo de Chomon. While much of it is a repeat it does change the Man in the Moon gag. This time the rocket enters inside of the Moon's mouth (a little more on this later).

"The Impossible Voyage"

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

I can imagine "movie critics" waxing poetic about "The Impossible Voyage", enthusiastically claiming here is another example of Melies' genius, as he pushes the boundaries of cinema with even more spectacular sights! However, lets get our heads out of the moon and back to reality. I'm not one for pretense. Melies had a hit with "A Trip to the Moon" and tried to catch lightning in a bottle twice. Essentially "Voyage" is a rehash of "Moon".

The sheep try and dance around this by saying "The Impossible Voyage" is a "spiritual sister" of "A Trip to the Moon" but if the these films were made today and only separated by two years, critics would say the director is already running out of ideas and making the same movie over again. People (incorrectly) have said this criticism about Woody  Allen, Martin Scorsese, Ingmar Bergman and even Spike Lee. They make the same movie over and over. If they can say it about those filmmakers, I'm not going to shut down my critical thinking skills and ignore it when Georges Melies does it.

What we can say is "The Impossible Voyage" appears to be the work of a more confident filmmaker. For one thing this would be his longest film to date. A whopping twenty minutes. Melies had the confidence to believe he could entertain an audience for that length of time. Also, just like "A Trip to the Moon" the source of inspiration for "The Impossible Voyage" may have been Jules Verne. This time it would be his 1882 play Journey Through the Impossible.

And while much of the set-up is very similar to "Moon", "The Impossible Voyage" has the wonderful benefit of having a version available that includes narration (!) that was written by Melies himself - see I told you movie houses would use narrators. Could it have actually been that Melies knew one of the flaws of "A Trip to the Moon" was an audience's inability to fully understand the plot? Was this his attempt to correct that error? The narration helps to make sense of the story and because of it "The Impossible Voyage" is much easier to follow. Without the narration I would have been puzzled by various sequences. Melies even throws in detailed information that in no way was visually implied such as with the passage of time. Further evidence that Melies didn't always know how to convey certain plot information visually.

The film begins with a meeting of a geographical society called the Institute of the Incoherent Geography as an engineer, Crazyloff (Melies) explains to them a journey he would like to embark on. The narration doesn't tell us the destination only the various means of transportation that will be required - automobile, submarine, train...etc. The society excitedly approves of Crazyloff's plan. Once again we see Melies make fun of science and exploration. This is indicated by the name of the institute and the lead's character's name. 

Interestingly, there was much progress in the early 1900s in various sciences and technology. Most significant was that in between the time Melies made "A Trip to the Moon" and "The Impossible Voyage" the airplane had been invented by the Wright Brothers. Strangely Melies didn't integrate it into this film.

Eventually the viewer discovers the impossible voyage the group is undertaking is a trip to the sun. Just as Melies created a humorous visual gag of the rocket in the moon's eye, this time around a flying locomotion (!) enters the mouth of the sun. Obviously this is what de Chomon was referencing in his knock-off film.

While I don't find many of the visuals as memorable as in "Moon", "Voyage" does have its own charms and some fun images. I can see the influence a film like this could have had on Wes  Anderson and his film "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou" (2005) as well as the Beatles animated film, "Yellow Submarine" (1969). 

Although the sun swallowing the locomotion is the best gag, there are other impressive qualities. Again I must point out the beautiful matte painted backgrounds in every scene and the good looking sets, such as with a submarine. Also notice how Melies is further playing around with editing and suggests perspective. There is a scene where a trolley car crashes through a wall. Melies films this by showing the trolley hit the exterior of the building and then cuts to the inside of the building where we see the accident occur again. He does something similar at the end of the film when the characters fall from the sky. Melies even correctly removes the presence of showgirls and finds ways for the physical comedy not to feel as forced as in "Moon". 

Unfortunately, there is still narrative flaws in the "logic" of the plot and its structure. While I'm reviewing the narration version of the film there is a version without it, which I have also seen. Besides being identical to the structure of "Moon" it can still be hard to follow without the narration. As the film's writer and director, everything makes sense to Melies but he is unable to see the film from an outside viewer's perspective. We won't know everything Melies was thinking about when he made this. This is the mind set of big picture storytelling from this era. But there are small improvements to be found in "Voyage".

"The Scheming Gamblers Paradise"

**** (out of ****)

Although considerably less ambitious than "A Trip to the Moon" or "The Impossible Voyage", "The Scheming Gamblers Paradise" is a charming comedy centered around a hat shop that is really a front for illegal gambling. The film ultimately makes a commentary on police corruption and moral hypocrisy. 

Made a year after "Voyage" and thee years after "Moon", "Scheming" has Melies going back to the three minute film and it suites his narrative ability much more. While technically not a better film than either of the two previously discussed science fiction efforts, in "Scheming" Melies is better able to execute his simple premise.

As the film begins we see a group of people gathered at a long table (the image, as seen on the poster above, recalls da Vinci's The Last Supper) gambling in what we would assume is a casino. During the chaotic atmosphere an individual, whom we would later surmise is a lookout, runs into the room to warn everyone of a police raid. Within seconds of this news the room is transformed into the proper hat shop. After the police barge in, they immediately apologize upon find no gambling. As soon as they leave, the room converts back to the casino. However as quickly as the police leave the lookout comes charging in to inform everyone once again of another raid. This time the gamblers aren't able to restore the room back to the hat shop, leading to a comical surprise. 

You may not have noticed in "Moon" and "Voyage" but the camera doesn't move. Maybe because those movies implied motion - flying rockets, moving trains - you didn't realize the camera isn't on a dolly panning in either direction. Watching "The Scheming Gamblers Paradise" we can immediately see the limitations in filmmaking and storytelling. For one there is the issue of the camera and its placement. Early filmmakers thought of film as they would the stage. The camera is immobile, centered and placed at a distance. As if it were an audience member sitting in a theater. All action happens front and center - notice everyone is sitting and standing on the same side of the table. This however creates an issue of point-of-view or more accurately, lack of POV. Whose story is this? From whose eyes are we seeing everything unfold? 

We also notice the entire movie is done in one shot. Lacking seemingly intricate sets, "The Scheming Gamblers Paradise" did require Melies to find a way to easily and quickly transform the room from hat shop to casino. Notice the detail of the drawings as well. A lot of thought went into making it look right. It's not as simplistic as a first glance may suggest. 

I think of the film as telling a joke. Everything is built around a punchline. Basically the film is a short set-up that leads to the punchline and then quickly ends (After you tell the punchline, what more is there to say?).

"The Living Playing Cards"

 *** (out of ****)

"The Living Playing Cards" (1905) is in theory a lot like "A Trip to the Moon" or "The Impossible Voyage" in the sense it is a movie built around some impressive trick photography but "Playing Cards" dispenses with narrative plot. There is no pretext to what Melies is doing. This is a magic act on screen.

In the movie Melies is a magician "on stage" showing off a deck of cards. First he indicates he can't read the card because the print is too small. So he enlarges the card. Then he decides to take that even further and enlarge the card to a human size. After completing this task he will make the Queen that appears on the card come to life. He performs the same trick with a King playing card. 

In a way we are getting "pure Melies". I get the impression "The Living Playing Cards" shows Melies in his element. He isn't bogged down by one of his clumsy excuses for a plot. He can instead focus all of his attention on what matters the most to him, and I suspect gives his heart the most joy, creating special effects. 

Running at three minutes long, it stops just in time before wearing out its welcome. The magic can get a bit repetitive and because this is a silent film, we don't have the banter of the magician to charm us along and divert our attention. In that sense Melies doesn't have to be a real magician relying on slight of hand. He can alter reality as he sees fit with his movie camera.

Thanks to Martin Scorsese and his film "Hugo" (2010), the name Melies can live on to be discovered by a new generation. In that film Ben Kingsley played the filmmaker. It was an unexpected twist but "Hugo" ended up being a film about the importance of movie preservation and Melies' legacy in particular.

Through each of these films we can see how significant Melies and his films were to the history of cinema. We can see how he opened the door to what was possible and to the perception of what cinema had to be. We can see his imprint on much of what came afterwards. Without Melies and "A Trip to the Moon" would we have had Fritz Lang's "Woman in the Moon" (1929) or the movie serials of the 1930s like "Flash Gordon" (1936) and "Buck Rogers" (1939)? And if those wouldn't have existed would we have had "Star Wars" (1977)?

Georges Melies was a wizard of cinema and true innovator. Don't let the age of his film scare you away or give you the impression his work is no longer relevant. Every special effects spectacle you have seen owes something to Melies' vision.

Film Reviews: The Burglar's Dilemma & One Is Business, The Other Crime

  "The Burglar's Dilemma"

  **** (out of ****)

Piercing tales of morality, redemption, forgiveness and society's role are the themes to be found in this pair of films directed by David Wark Griffith, better known as D.W. Griffith, early cinema's greatest pioneer.

This year's theme, Life is Short - my year long look at short films - has focused on comedy however I'd like to switch gears and turn our attention to silent dramatic works, for which there may be no better examples than the early films of D.W. Griffith during his time at the Biograph Company.

Griffith has often been regarded as the Father of  American cinema for creating a cinematic language and "inventing" various techniques such as cross-cutting, close-ups and flashbacks. Although Griffith is best known for his feature-length films such as "Broken Blossoms" (1919), "Intolerance" (1916), "Orphans of the Storm" (1921) and the infamous "The Birth of A Nation" (1915) he demonstrates in these Biograph shorts just how ahead of the game he was when compared to other films and filmmakers from this era. Make no bones about it, Griffith influenced practically every filmmaker in the United States during this time. Allan Dwan - a pioneer filmmaker in his own right - put it this way, "The only man I ever watched was Griffith, and I just did what he did." Watching Griffith's films you will become impressed by the fluidity of his pacing and camera movement. I know it may not sound like much of a compliment to today's readers but watching Griffith's films from this early time period is like watching cinema from 1920s - when the art of Hollywood storytelling had become more refined - and the work of King Vidor, Clarence Brown and Frank Borzage. This is quality filmmaking. 

Viewing  "The Burglar's Dilemma" (1912) and "One Is Business, The Other Crime" (1912) one is struck by the humanism projected in Griffith's work and the earnest sense of morality. With these titles Griffith is making films possessing a social conscience and thus turning him into a more complex figure than modern day audiences may give him credit for. "The Burglar's Dilemma" tells the story of two brothers, one referred to as the Householder (Lionel Barrymore) and the other as the Weakling Brother (Henry B. Walthall). It is the Householder's birthday and when three lovely ladies - two of which are the Gish sisters (Lillian and Dorothy) - come to celebrate, the Weakling Brother becomes jealous after the ladies ignore him. Once the guests leave, the  Weakling brother gets into a drunken stupor resulting in him pushing the Householder down to the ground. The Weakling fears the worse when his brother doesn't move.

The film briefly shifts focus to a Young Burglar (Robert Harron) who is ordered by his Boss (Harry Carey) to go through with a burglary job. As fate would have it, the house the young man is sent to is the Householder's. When the Young Burglar is unknowingly spotted by the Weakling, the Weakling senses an opportunity to pin his murder on the Burglar.

Whether drawing inspiration from Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and / or the biblical story of Cain and Abel (Griffith was raised in a Methodist household), "The Burglar's Dilemma" goes beyond being a story about the morality of murder or a fable on jealousy and revenge but could be interpreted as a commentary for criminal justice reform. Following the Weakling's summoning of the police, the Young Burglar is pressured into a confession, reinforcing the film's opening warnings in the title cards - "Representing the manipulation of the third degree" and "the fallacy of circumstantial evidence".

As "The Burglar's Dilemma" unfolded I thought about its title. The story seemed to be the Weakling Brother's, although a film called "The Weakling's Dilemma" may not sound interesting. And so I took a moment to ponder what could be the meaning of this title. Moving passed the suggestion this is the Burglar's story, what exactly is the Burglar's dilemma? While hardly innocent - the Burglar did break into the home with the intent to steal - the film hints he is really a good person that was coerced into this lifestyle. It is not unlike a message implied in Griffith's "The Musketeers of Pig Alley" (1912) about a street thug who shows an act of chivalry, indicating perhaps environment dictates behavior. The Burglar has limited options and must choose between a difficult life of poverty or "the fallacy" that a life of crime may offer a possible escape.

One has to wonder how much of this story was borrowed from Griffith's own life. When Griffith was only 10 year old his father, a Confederate colonel, died. How would this impact the family as a whole and young Griffith in particular? Having arrived at a crossroad - continue his education or provide for the family - the young Griffith gave up schooling (What job opportunities are out there for a 10 year old?) but how different could his life have turned out, coming from such a humble and impoverished family? 

We mustn't overlook one more aspect of the film - social class. Why does the Weakling believe he can get away with his deceit? Why do the police believe the Weakling over the Young Burglar? Is it because the Weakling is a finely dressed gentleman and the Young Burglar doesn't have an air of sophistication about him? When we factor in the class divide "The Burglar's Dilemma" really comes down to a story of can the rich get away with murder? 

Still it is the existential aspect of the film that I found most interesting - can the Weakling get away with murder? Will he allow the police to convict the Young Burglar for his crime? Where is his sense of moral conviction as he torturously watches the Young Burglar being ferociously interrogated. This central question may be why the character is referred to as a Weakling. Does he have the moral courage to do the right thing? 

Acting in silent films can often inspire unintended laughs from modern viewers, who find the performances to be overly dramatic. There are moments when Henry B. Walthall engages in some of the wild melodramatic gestures these viewers will find campy and dated but the performance overall is effective. Lionel Barrymore on the other hand delivers a much more grounded performance. Barrymore was this country's version of Laurence Olivier, representing the epitome of acting. Sadly the role doesn't require much from Barrymore though it is interesting to see him this early in his life career. Robert Harron as the Young Burglar makes more of an impression, getting across his character's youth and innocence (in the legal and maturity sense).

At 15 minutes "The Burglar's Dilemma" is a beautifully constructed and executed morality play. Like any great filmmaker Griffith plays his audience like a piano, taking us through a range of emotions. I can only imagine an audience in 1912 found this story quite gripping. 

 "One Is Business, The Other Crime"

  *** 1/2 (out of ****)

Ethics and morality are at the heart of Griffith's "One Is Business, The Other Crime". The film tells a story that should resonate with modern audiences as it asserts the working class and the wealthy elites live by two different set of rules. It is a socially relevant message that can be heard today from the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader. Let us marvel for a second and reflect on the fact this film was made in 1912!

Griffith takes a plotting device we have seen many times since which involves taking a poor couple and a wealthy couple and explores their difference. The couples are married on the same day as the title cards imply each believes they are good and honest people who will lead decent lives traveling down the righteous path. But as often happens in life circumstances cause us to veer off that road. This usually for one of two reasons - desperation or greed. Financial times are hard on the poor couple (Charles West and Dorothy Bernard). Food is scarce, the husband can't find a job and the landlord has threatened to evict them. The pressure is on. What will the husband do? To what ends will his desperation lead him to?

The wealthy couple (Edwin August and Blanche Sweet) on the other hand seems happy and in love. But one day a letter arrives for the husband, who is some kind of politician (it is moments like this when it would have been useful if Griffith had used title cards to provide more information) and is offered a bribe from a railroad company. He will be given $1,000 for voting in favor of a piece of legislation and given an additional $4,000 after its passage. The wealthy husband appears willing to accept the offer.

We can argue to an extent Griffith used elements of a thriller in "The Burglar's Dilemma" to get across his social message. That makes the message much more easy to digest because you may not be aware of the "hidden" meaning and / or not feel overwhelmed by the message. "One Is Business" is a straight told drama. There is no escaping the moral of the story. It can feel heavy handed.

By sheer coincidence the Poor Husband passes the Wealthy Husband's home and sees through his window. The Poor Husband sees the man pull money out of an envelope. Again there is an absence of title cards but the Poor Husband is tempted to steal the $1,000. It would certainly solve all of his problems. His sense of morality however prevents him from going through with the act.

It is not until the Poor Husband arrives home and sees the poor state of his wife that he decides he must take bold action. He will have to steal from the Wealthy Husband.

Griffith's ultimate point is, when the poor man takes from the wealthy man it is called stealing. What do you call it however when the politician takes money? Are the two men really any different? Why do we as a society legitimize the criminality of business?

All of the performances are effective but I'd like to single out Blanche Sweet, who may have been the biggest star of the cast. She was most certainly the one Griffith pushed the most. Although the Chicago native may not be as well remembered today when compared to some of her contemporaries, namely Lillian Gish or Norma Talmadge, Sweet was popular and known for playing roles well beyond her years. When "One Is Business" was made for example, Sweet was only 16 years old, having been born a year after the invention of cinema, 1896. It is her character that comes to serve as the film's moral conscience.

Like "The Burglar's Dilemma", "One Is Business" also runs 15 minutes and its story feel complete. It may be fascinating for some viewers to know films with this type of social messaging were being made at this time. That is what gives "One Is Business" most of its appeal to me.
   

As we have discussed the work of D.W. Griffith I have purposely avoided the elephant in the room. In modern times the name Griffith all boils down to his historical epic, "The Birth of A Nation" (1915) and condemning it as a vile and racist film. By doing this we also condemn Griffith as a racist and if some would have their way, perhaps even banish all of Griffith's work. That's what makes it all unfortunate. I can't mention Griffith's name without bringing all of this up. The individual work by Griffith can't be judged on its own merit but instead must be viewed in a wider context in relation to "Nation". Happily I have chosen two pre - "Nation" works, which hopefully will provide a different perspective on Griffith's films, assuming anyone is still watching his films in 2025. Something tells me I'm the only one. Both of these films show a social awareness and are, for the times, examples of liberal storytelling. Griffith was a complex character and his work deserves to be examined for its impact on our film culture.