Thursday, June 29, 2023

Caravaggio's "Judith beheading Holofernes" at the MIA

 Caravaggio's 1599 painting, "Judith beheading Holofernes" is the focal point of a small but very interesting exhibition at the Minneapolis Institute of Art.  (The show will remain on display until August 20, 2023).  The title picture is handsomely displayed with about fifteen other art works on the same subject.  It is now de rigueur to package charismatic works in installations that are carefully designed to enhance the drama (and, in this case, horror) of the works shown.  In some cases, this environmental approach to displaying works of art is somewhat hokey; I thought a recent show of Chinese bronzes at the MIA was impressive but a little bit too gimmicky, sacrificing the objective of informing the viewer to spectacle, a poor trade-off in my opinion when dealing with enigmatic bronze vessels that are too arcane and remote (they are three-thousand years old) to speak directly to viewers.  The Caravaggio painting, by comparison, was shown to its maximum advantage and the works curated for comparison were also very interesting, if markedly less dramatic and spectacular than the star of the painting.  Caravaggio's image is over-the-top and has always been considered too extreme to be comfortably experienced.  (The first owner of the piece kept it behind a curtain and, then, theatrically would sweep the veil aside to show the horrific image; this is similar to the way that Courbet's gynecological "The Origin of the World" was shown -- it was also discretely veiled until the libertine owning the thing pulled aside the drapery, as it were to show, an anatomically correct vulva much larger than life-size as I recall.)  The picture shows Judith, the heroine of the embattled Jews, sawing off the head of the naked shrieking Holofernes.  The man's eyes are wide and his mouth forms a perfect hollow "O" in the middle of his beard and bright crimson jets of blood spray out of the massive wound in his throat.  Most disconcerting, Holofernes left hand is outstretched, crouching like a tarantula on his bedclothes, fingers so widely spread apart that it makes your own hands hurt to see this thing -- it's like he's trying to play some diabolical piano concerto requiring an impossible span between keys.  Judith is grim and plain-faced; she has her mouth set in a frown as if trying to solve some particularly difficult problem in geometry.  In many paintings, Judith is portrayed as a sort of Mata Hari, a vamp or femme fatale.  Caravaggio was homosexual and doesn't emphasize her beauty or seductiveness -- a nipple presses against her rather chaste blouse but there's no effort to sexualize the assassin.  Judith's maid with a grey face and brutish leering expression holds a burlap sack open so that they can spirit away the head to prove that they have murdered the cruel ruler oppressing the Jews.  The old woman's complexion is dull and dark in contrast to the creamy white skin of Judith who is here a brunette with rather frumpy hair -- often Judith is painted as a Venetian courtesan exposing her breasts and with blonde hair.  Caravaggio poses the figures in an unnatural black void.  Mirroring the gouts of blood jetting out of Holofernes' throat, there is an extravagant red drapery, more crimson than blood, unfurling like a huge perverse rose over the scene.  It's an image of blatant terrorism -- an implacable murderess sawing off someone's head for the camera (in this case Caravaggio's implacable brush).  The picture is concealed behind a wall emblazoned with the title of the exhibition -- the wall looks a little like one of Morris Louis' drip paintings; there's a very subtle vein, or veins, of red that seem to flow down the wall:  the effect is essentially subliminal but its keyed to the spray of arterial blood in the picture.  Behind the Caravaggio painting, a small room with ornate, somewhat Moorish doors (they don't open and lead nowhere) is decorated with variations of the theme of Judith butchering Holofernes.  There are three rather mediocre if large and showy Italian paintings from the Baroque period -- they serve only to establish Caravaggio's excellence by comparison.  One of these paintings overtly sexualizes the murder -- Judith is bare breasted and blonde as one of Titian's whores.  More interesting are the smaller graphic works.  A very old and primitive woodcut by Michael Wolgemut from the Nuremberger Chronicle shows the whole story in cartoon fashion -- Judith and her maid sneaking out of the embattled city, cavalry clashing in one corner of the image, Judith carousing with Holofernes at a banquet, the assassination, and, then, Holofernes' head displayed on a pike on the wall of the city.  There's a little wood cut by the redoubtable graphic artist (and pornographer) Sebald Beham in which Judith looks like a dreadnaught -- she's stout and ugly with her waistcoat bulging open and looks pregnant; of course, she's carrying Holofernes' head like her purse.  A gruesome picture by Lovis Corinth, a very interesting German painter, shows a blood-spattered Judith with flat, bare chest hacking off Holofernes' head, painted to have Corinth's features.  In a painting by Caracci, a curtain is theatrically pulled back to reveal the sprightly murderess swinging a scimitar like a tennis racket.  A drawing copying Mantegna shows Judith with the severed head -- behind her, we get a glimpse of Holofernes' bare toes.  Some modern pictures, one with a vaguely feminist slant, complete the show.  I found the pictures invigorating, although the subject is grim.  (I wondered if the guard in the room forced to gaze at the Caravaggio for hours at a time gets some kind of combat pay.)  It's interesting to observe that Judith is always accompanied by her elderly maid.  In some pictures, the maid seems to be witch who is somehow driving Judith' to slaughter Holofernes.  There's a disquieting Jungian element to these images -- woman is portrayed as young virginal avenger and as an elderly ugly hag.  (The Caravaggio painting discovered first in 1950 is on loan from National Gallery of Ancient Art in Rome.)  

An interesting display of graphics, all engravings as far as I can determine, by Marcantonio Raimundi is also on show.  Raimundi was an important figure in the history of renaissance prints -- he was a thief and appropriated Duerer's woodcuts for wide dissemination on the basis of very precise and accurate metal plate engravings that he produced.  (Raimundi's engravings are heavier, darker, and more dense looking that Duerer's wood cuts -- by comparison, the woodcuts are aerated with white spaces that can't be accurately transcribed in the metal-plate engravings.)  Raimundi is sometimes described as a kind of "human xerox machine" --he went so far as to engrave Duerer's characteristic monogram on his plates, creating some confusion in art history.  Some of Raimundi's own engravings have very peculiar and mysterious iconography.  One engraving shows some stolid-looking and hardworking putti who are dragging around a strange-looking pedestal and an anchor -- surmise is that the image is an emblem picture epitomizing festina lente ("make haste slowly").  There is a bizarre and memorable engraving made just before Raimundi's death in 1534 around the time of the sack of Rome.  The picture is called "The Skeleton" and it shows a naked hag, apparently a witch, being dragged about atop a skeleton consisting of ribs and spine of a huge animal:  the witch is up to no good and birds scatter in panic in front of her.  A man strides forward carrying an infant under his arm, possibly to boil the kid in the witch's cauldron.  At the rear of the strange procession, a man raises his arm in a gesture that imitates a figure in one of Mantegna's Triumphs of Caesar -- but instead of uplifting a standard or trumpet the man is holding a femur jointed to a hip bone.  This is a very puzzling (and fascinating) picture. 

"Gifts beyond Measure: Harriet and Walter Pratt" shows about 14 small works, all of them German Expressionist, donated to the Museum by the Pratts.  The pictures are mostly murky and wild expressionist watercolors and pastels.  There is a splendid wintry scene by Gabriel Muenter, Kandinsky's girlfriend, and a heavy-set, rather lugubrious cathedral by Emil Nolde, as well as several somewhat plaintive--looking portraits by Haeckel.   

Sunday, June 25, 2023

Grosse Freiheit, nr. 7 (Port of Freedom) , Helmut Kaeutner and Hans Albers

 Grosse Freiheit, nr. 7, Helmut Kaeutner and Hans Albers



1.

Helmut Kaeutner’s Grosse Freiheit, Nr. 7 (Big Freedom #7), made in 1943-1944, is what the German’s call an “ueberlaufer” film.  In this context, the word means “carry-over” with, however, strong implications of treason, betrayal, or outlawry.  Films of this sort were produced during the Nazi period, but suppressed and, ultimately, not released until 1949 and thereafter.  (Germany’s devastation after World War II was such that there was, often, in many major cities, nowhere to show movies.)  Kaeutner’s 1944 movie, Under the Bridges, is also a “carryover” film.  Both Grosse Freiheit and Under the Bridges were banned by Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Culture.  These films represent a type of “poetic realism” – at least, as proclaimed by international critics when the movies were finally shown, to some acclaim, about five years after they were completed.  


Dr. Goebbels ordered Grosse Freiheit suppressed as “insulting to German womanhood” – some of the major female characters are prostitutes.  Under the Bridges was shot in Berlin when the city was under, more or less, continuous aerial bombardment and Kaeutner’s cameraman couldn’t help showing some ruins in the background of several scenes – this outraged Goebbels who also banned this picture.  


2.  

Helmut Kaeutner is one of Germany’s most interesting directors.  But his films are almost impossible to see.  In Germany, he is a revered artist.  But very few of his pictures have been subtitled into English and, therefore, the bulk of his work remains unknown outside of Germany.  In the last twenty years, Kaeutner’s obscurity has diminished a little.  In 2006, Harvard hosted a small retrospective of the director’s films, including the two “carryover” pictures and several movies made by Kaeutner in the mid-fifties.  Cinema Retrovita in Bologna showed about a dozen Kauetner movies in 2017.  A few of those movies were highly regarded but the retrospective did nothing much to remedy Kaeutner’s persistent neglect outside of the German-speaking world – in fact, the retrospective, featuring screenings in the Scorsese Sala, was entitled the “Forgotten Films of Helmut Kaeutner”.


Kaeutner was born in Dusseldorf in 1908 – at the start of Grosse Freiheit, the director appears in a cameo role in the movie, bickering in a jocular way about the relative merits of Hamburg (where the movie takes place) and Cologne – at the end of the movie, his character, Karl, has been converted to admiration for Hamburg which he calls “the most beautiful city in Europe.”  Kaeutner’s prosperous mercantile family moved to Essen where he attended Gymnasium.  The young man, then, traveled to Munich where he studied art, philosophy and theater.  (The High School in Essen was a sort of haven for creative young talent and, at that place, Kaeutner studied interior design, set decoration, acting, mime, and dancing.)  


In 1931, Kaeutner and three friends developed a cabaret act called “Die vier Nachrichter” – “The Four Newsmen.”  (They seem to have performed something like SNL’s “Weekend Update” in the Munich cabaret scene.)  The act became famous with skits called “Hier irrt Goethe” – “Here’s where Goethe went wrong”, a spoof on the hagiography celebrating Goethe during the centenary year of the German poet’s death in 1832.  The show was popular and toured Germany as well as Austria and Switzerland.  This success led Kaeutner and his colleages to embark on a course of political satire which resulted in their being banned from public performance for “lack of reliability and aptitude to the national socialist governance” of the nation.  Two of Kauetner’s fellow performers emigrated from Germany.  Kaeutner found work in the German theater, primarily in Leipzig, and, also, wrote pop-tunes.  (He was musically gifted and, throughout his life, supplemented his other income by writing music; he wrote the lyrics used in the song “La Paloma” in Freiheit.)


In 1939, Kaeutner directed his first feature film, Kitty and the World Conference, a comedy that was promptly banned by Goebbels for it’s allegedly “pro-British tendencies.”  Kaeutner made a number of films during the war years, generally avoiding scrutiny by devising the pictures as apolitical comedies or melodramas.  At one point, Goebbels demanded that some propaganda be inserted in Kaeutner’s Auf Wiedersehen, Franziska (1941); Kaeutner accommodated the demand but shot the footage with a different lens, used an odd camera angle, and set off the scene with black bars running along the edges of the screen.  (Somehow, he got away with this.)  Kaeutner’s most renowned Nazi-period film is Romance in a Minor Key, a melancholy love story.  Goebbels was suspicious of the film and almost acted to suppress it on the basis of “defeatism”, but, ultimately, the picture was released in 1943.  Kaeutner’s last two pictures made under Hitler were shot in difficult conditions and, in any event, suppressed – these are Grosse Freiheit, Nr.7 and Under the Bridges.  (Both Romance in a Minor Key and Under the Bridges are highly regarded – indeed, some critics compare Under the Bridges, a film about a rivalry between two Berlin barge-men for a girl’s love, with Jean Vigo’s exceptional L’Atalanta, a movie set in a similar milieu on the Seine River.)


After the War, Kaeutner’s Nazi-era work was deemed irrefutably apolitical and innocuous.  He was among the first German directors to be approved for a British and, then, American film license, necessary to make movies under the Occupation.  Kauetner formed his own production company and made a number of post-War movies in very difficult conditions – these are so-called Truemmerfilme (“ruins movies”).  None of these pictures were succesful, either critically or at the box-office.  The wounds were, apparently, too raw.


Kaeutner worked on screenplays with collaborators after disbanding his film company in 1950.  (He worked on the screen play for the only film Peter Lorre directed, another estimable picture that no one seems to have seen, Der Verlorene (“The Lost One”).)  The general consensus in the early fifties was that Kaeutner was washed-up in the film business.  And, indeed, he devoted himself to theatrical productions at that time in Berlin and Bochum.  


To everyone’s surprise, Kaeutner reinvigorated his career with a series of critically acclaimed prestige productions made in the mid-fifties.  This group of films began with a realistic and mournful war picture, The Last Bridge (1953), followed by a number of big-budget films including most famously The Devil’s General (1954/1955) and The Captain from Kopenick, a comedy released in 1956.  (An international co-production between France and Germany from 1956, Monpti, is available on Amazon Prime; I watched the film not expecting much from it and was pleasantly surprised at the movie’s excellence and surprising meta-fictional stance toward its subject matter.)  This group of films features internationally prominent stars displayed with high production values – the movies are mostly, like Monpti, international co-productions.  Critics claim that these pictures feature “blameless guilt” with respect to the Nazi era – the movies show individuals resisting fascism and, often, paying for their courage with their lives.  Kaeutner’s come-back movies are said to be staid, conservative, and, among the least interesting of his pictures.


On the strength of the international acclaim inspired by The Captain from Kopenick, Kaeutner was invited to Hollywood where he entered into a seven-year contract with Universal Studios, obligating him to make one movie a year – he continued to work in Europe as well.  Kaeutner’s two American pictures The Stranger in my Arms (1959) and The Restless Years (1958) were critical and box-office failures.  Universal assigned the direction of a Western to Kaeutner who regarded this as an insult.  He and Universal agreed to part company and Kaeutner, complaining of the lack of artistic freedom in the Hollywood film system, returned to Germany.  (Remarkably, Kaeutner found it easier to make movies with less interference in Nazi Germany than in Hollywood – although this maybe isn’t surprising when you think about it.)  It’s ironic that his first movie made after coming back to Germany was a “Hun-Western”, Der Schinderhannes (released in the US as Duel in the Forest).   


In late 1959 and the early sixties, Kauetner made a number of well-regarded pictures.  (He was extraordinarily prolific throughout his life.)  A modern-day adaptation of Hamlet, The Rest is Silence is critically acclaimed as are several other pictures from this era, The Red (1962) and the comedy The House in Montevideo(1963).  Der Traum von Lieschen Mueller (“the Dream of Lieschen Mueller”), a strange noir musical is also highly regarded by those lucky enough to have seen the movie.  Only one of Kaeutner’s films from this period is available in the United States – this is the astonishing Schwartze Kies (Black Gravel).  Schwartze Kies is a savagely cynical film noir about corrupt contractors selling building materials (“black gravel”) for use on an American military base.  The picture is exceedingly perverse and shows Kaeutner operating at his full power.  The movie presages Fassbinder and is as keenly attuned to political and commercial corruption as anything made by the younger director.


The German New Wave swept older directors like Helmut Kaeutner to the side.  The fact that he had made successful pictures under Hitler made him suspect with the new generation of directors who included Volker Schloendorrf, Wim Wenders, Fassbinder, and Herzog.  Kaeutner was relegated to producing TV shows which he did with his characteristic efficiency and industry until the mid-seventies.  He also directed theatrical productions and appeared as a character actor in innumerable TV and movie roles.  His performance as Karl May in Hans-Juergen Syberberg’s 1974 film of that title is incandescent, one of the greatest feats of acting in German cinema.  (The movie concerns a protracted lawsuit involving plagiarism and defamation between the German popular author of Westerns and his nemesis, a journalist who has accused the old writer of fraud; the picture is possibly Syberberg’s best and most approachable film – it is, I think, a masterpiece; Syberberg’s coup is to cast all of the elderly actors in his film with movie stars who were famous during the Hitler period.  The picture is part of Syberberg’s notable trilogy of films on the pathologies in German politics, Ludwig, Requiem for a Mad King, Karl May,  and Hitler, a Film from Germany)    


Kauetner retired in 1977, moved to a house he owned in Tuscany near Chianti, and died there in 1980.


3.

Hans Albers’ biography is, also, the history of German popular cinema.  American critics sometimes say that Hans Albers is the German version of John Wayne.  German critics, most notably Olof Moeller, reverse the equation: John Wayne is a pallid imitation of Albers.  (Certainly, Albers, who was famous for his singing, was more multi-talented and versatile than the American actor.)


Albers was born in 1891 in the St. Georg neighborhood in Hamburg.  As an iconic figure in German film, he remains closely associated with Hamburg, although he lived for most of his live on Lake Stamburg in Bavaria.  Before World War One, he studied acting but was drafted, fought on the front lines, and wounded in 1916.  After the War, Albers performed in theater in Berlin – he could dance and sing and acted the role of the sophisticated man-about-town in the cabaret scene.  In the early twenties, Albers was recruited to act in silent films.  He is a ubiquitous presence in German pictures made during the silent era – his biographers think he appeared in more than 100 silent films, generally in supporting actor roles.  He starred, however, in Germany’s first talkie, Die Nacht gehoert uns (The Night Belongs to Us) released in 1929.  During the period of 1930 to 1960, Albers was Germany’s most popular male movie star – indeed, the only movie star to retain his popularity through, and after, the Nazi period.  

In 1930, Albers played the part of Mazeppa, the strong man, in Josef von Sternberg’s Der Blaue Engel (The Blue Angel) – he plays Lola Lola’s boyfriend who humiliates the doomed Professor Unrath in that melodrama.  After the Nazis came to power in 1933, Albers was suspect on the basis of his girlfriend and, later, wife, Hansi Burg, a Jewish Austrian actress.  Because of his popularity, Dr. Goebbels and his lackeys looked the other way, ignoring the fact that the Reich’s most famous actor was living with a Jewish woman.  (At that point, Albers wasn’t yet married to her.)  In 1939, the scandal became untenable for the Nazi culture minister and Albers’ wife (they had been secretly married) fled to Switzerland and, later, Great Britain.


Albers didn’t like the Nazis and refused to publicly associate with them.  Nonetheless, he appeared in Josef von Baky’s remarkable, if perverse, mega-budget film Muenchhausen – a lavish spectacle meant to rival (and surpass) Hollywood pictures with respect to its sets, costumes, and excellent special effects.  (The Nazis were particularly impressed with The Wizard of Oz and wanted to make a fantasy film that rivaled that picture; the German picture is gorgeously shot in the honeyed amber of the Nazi version of technicolor, Agfacolor.)  Albers plays the title role in Muenchhausen, released in 1943 and, then, performed in his most famous role in Helmut Kaeutner’s Der Grosse Freiheit, nr. 7, completed in 1944 and but not released in Germany until 1949.  


After the war, Hansi Burg returned to Germany, ostentatiously dressed in an English military uniform.  She and Albers were reunited and returned to their pre-war home on Lake Stamburg.  Albers made dozens of picture in post-war Germany, most of them well-known and popular in West Germany but not distributed in the United States or the English-speaking world.  Albers was a victim, to some extent of his fame and, often, played the part of a world-weary singing seaman, the older man who longs for the girl but can’t win her.  (Although Albers was famous for appearing as a melancholy sailor with an accordion, his only experience with the sea was a one-day excursion to Helgoland made when he was a young man – he got seasick and didn’t like the water.) After Grosse Freiheit, in most of his films, he sings and a number of the tunes in Albers movies’ were released as recordings and became Schlager (that is, “hits”) on the radio and as LPs in Germany.  Albers pop tunes often include Platt-Deutsch idioms and words, a nod to his origins in northern Germany and Hamburg.  He continued to act on-stage and in films until three months before his death in July 1960.  During the last few years of his life, Albers was drinking heavily (he favored cognac) and he suffered a catastrophic hemorrhage while appearing on stage in May, 1960.  He is buried in Hamburg’s famous Ohlsdorf cemetery.   


4. 

One block off Hamburg’s Reeperbahn, the harbor town’s main drag in its red light district, there is a small square.  The place is dirty with paper, mainly flyers advertising topless places and brothels, blowing around among the pigeons strutting about on the stained concrete.  A couple of shabby bars with lurid, brightly painted hoardings flank the Platz and there is a four-story structure, a “Sex Hotel” with plywood in all windows overlooking the square.  The plywood is painted black but there are red silhouettes of women with outrageously large breasts and tiny wasp-waists displayed on the wood panels.  In the center of the Platz, there is a raw-looking bronze statute depicting Hans Albers as a sailor; the figure holds an accordion in one hand that dangles down telescoped so that the bottom-most of the metal folds touches the plinth.  Albers stands on a sort of squashed mushroom and the blocky concrete pedestal supporting the statue is densely inscribed with graffiti.  


When Angelica and I visited Hans Albers Platz in Hamburg, the Reeperbahn had seen better days.  The vulcanized dildos in the window displays looked sun-cured, brittle, and weather-checked.  The leather harnesses were decomposing and the pornographic images were bleached and almost unrecognizable. A few plump bar girls had spilled out of the bars and were smoking in alleyways.  The tourists looked dispirited and exhausted, marching like zombies down the Reeperbahn and, even, the hustlers seemed unenthusiastic and low energy.  A small group of German tourists stood in an orderly semi-circle around a young man, possibly a college student, who was trying out stand-up routines on the guests in his Red Light District walking tour.  Apparently, he was pretty funny because his group laughed heartily at his gags.  (Of course, I tried to eavesdrop but couldn’t understand a word of his schtick.)


The monument to Hans Albers was made by the neo-Expressionist Joerg Immendorf.  The pedestal is rough-hewn and seemed to have slathered in wet clay into which some images and letters have been scratched.  There are the words: “Auf der Reeperbahn nachts um halb eins...” – that is, “Night on the Reeperbahn at 12:30,” lyrics from a Hans Alber song featured in Der Grosse Freiheit and, later, the performers signature number – a bit like “Thanks for the Memories” as sung by Bob Hope or Sinatra’s “My Way.”  A couple of mermaids with big breasts are scratched into the dried clay and there’s a cuneiform figure of a naked hag riding a hapless man.  


Immendorf was a native of Dusseldorf and, at some point, the Albers’ statue was kidnapped from the Reeperbahn Platz and installed in that city.  (I think it had something to do with a fee dispute.)  There was litigation and, although Dusseldorf refused to return the monument to the movie star, another bronze was cast and the replica was returned to Hans Albers Platz.  


Immendorf was an exponent of an art movement named Der Neue Wild (New Wild Ones).  He lived the part.  In 2004, Immendorf was busted with in a Dusseldorf luxury hotel with seven prostitutes and 6.6 grams of cocaine.  (It’s reliably reported that four more girls were “on-order” but hadn’t reached the orgy yet.)  Immendorf blamed the incident on his obsession with orientalism (naked odalisques, I assume after the manner of Ingres’ “The Women’s Bath”) and a recent diagnosis of ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease).  A year later, another prostitute tried to blackmail the artist, accusing him of orchestrating other orgies.  By this point, the cat was out of the bag and, so, Immendorf just turned her over to the police.  He died while her trial for extortion was underway.


The tourists bade farewell to the melancholy Albers and walked up the avenue of broken dreams.  The guide told more jokes and his guests giggled. At the far end of the boulevard where the street curves around a green park (a colossal statue of Bismarck stands at the crest of the hill), there are two glass buildings designed to look like a couple of dancers and a brand-new opera house where a musical based on the movie Rocky plays six out of seven nights a week (with matinees on the weekends).  Tour buses were disgorging showgoers on the sidewalk in front of the theater.  


5.

Der Grosse Freiheit (Nr 7) is crisply German-engineered.  All of its parts mesh smoothly and the film delivers its meanings in an efficient and effective manner.  A system of leit motifs and complex symbols deepens the action and provides resonance to what is really just a conventional musical (a melodrama) involving a love triangle.  


The fundamental theme developed in the film is the concept of freedom.  What does it mean to be “free”?  (The implications of this theme obviously troubled Dr. Goebbels and, as we have seen, the movie wasn’t shown in Germany, although it was exported abroad, while the Nazi regime was in power.)  Hanses Kroeger feels that his life on land, as a cabaret performer, has deprived him of his freedom.  The film posits the sea as a symbol of freedom and the tawdry cabarets and whorehouses on the Reeperbahn as instances of “human bondage”, that is, the condition of being fettered to the land by desire, family connections, mercantile concerns and the like.  Freiheit is misogynistic: women imprison men in torrid domesticity.


The condition of being enslaved is represented by images of robotic diminution.  We first see Albers as a automaton programmed to beckon to passersby at the Hippodrom on the alley known as Grosse Freiheit.  (It’s the address of this cabaret that provides the film’s title.)  Inside the Cabaret, we see the sailing ship, a majestic “tall ship”, the “Padua” confined in a small bottle.  In the Hippodrom, artificial white doves, again another simulacrum, hover over the arena where horses trot in tight circles around and around but going nowhere – another symbol for Kroeger’s plight.  The white dove (“La Paloma”) is a complex image for both freedom and its opposite – as a winged being, the dove flies aloft and can come and go as it wants, but to sailors the doves also signify the land; when a dove alights on your ship, you know the harbor is nearby.  (Notice, the imagery of cages and caged birds, particularly the morose-looking parrot in Kroeger’s apartments.) The harbor is both a place of refuge and confinement.  An image encapsulates the central dilemma posed by the movie: Hans Albers was famous for his radiant blue eyes and the lighting in the film is frequently designed to overtly highlight this feature.  In one scene, Albers’ character gazes intently at the tiny “Padua” in its bottle and his eyes glint in an eerie way.  But immediately behind the transparent rum bottle in which the “Padua” is confined, we see the decolletage of Anita’s bosom – her breasts and the vessel are both within the laser-beam of Albers’ gaze.  (Note that Anita’s suite of rooms which look out onto the Hippodrom floor are full of dolls, again signifying the diminished state of men in the brothels and cabarets – Anita is a bit like Circe who turns her admirers into slavish hogs.)


Kaeutner creates images that epitomize the film’s concerns.  For instance, Gisa, is first shown to us within an enclosed garden, the hortus conclusus associated with the Virgin Mary in Christian iconography.  She is physically confined – that is, a locus of unfreedom – an impression furthered by the Zwiebel (“onion”) dome of the church framing the walled garden.  Gisa’s imprisonment in the garden signifies her embattled virginity as well as her social isolation and confinement; she is imprisoned by her bad reputation due to her liaison with Jorg Kroeger, Hannses’ brother.  When she is lured from her confinement, we see a group of women walking in mechanical lockstep, marching as it were in a way that surely implicates the militaristic Nazi regime in the culture of conformity that confines her.  After she leaves the enclosed garden, with its hothouses (Triebhaeuser – that is, “forcing houses”), a man appears and, as the shot fades out, shuts the gate to the walled garden. 


The film’s last 40 minutes is a marvel of construction, cross-cutting with astonishing fluidity between the different erotic triangles that organize the plot.  The film has commenced with an implied romantic triangle (that returns in some imagery in Hannse’s dream) – that is, a triangle whose points involve the cabaret owner, Anita, Mrs. Consul, the upscale broad who slums at #7, Grosse Freiheit, and, of course, Kroeger.  Mrs. Consul, surrounded by well-dressed admirers, believes Hannes Kroeger’s talents with his “squeeze box” (he also can play jazz trumpet) warrants that he appear at the Hansa Theater and she tempts him to aspire to perform in that venue.  (Certainly, the elegant Hansa would be an environment far more confining that the Grosse Freiheit.)  As the central romantic triangle in the movie develops – Gisa - Hannes - Willem – this narrative is flanked by other triangles: Anita insinuates herself between Gisa and Hannes and, at the cabaret, the sailor Jens finds himself betrayed by Margot who is now courting another seaman using exactly the same patter that we saw her employ to seduce Jens when he first came ashore.  As in Shakespeare, a subplot involving ribald and distinctly blue collar lovers (Jens and the prostitute, Margot) is poised against the main narrative in which the love story, although involving the same fundamental desires and anxieties, proceeds at a high social level.  Margot is shown “de-lousing” Jens while his buddy, Flete, mourns the fact that he’s bald and, therefore, can’t receive the same tender ministration that the whore accords to his comrade.  In this context, it’s noteworthy that  German films, even ones made under Nazi supervision, are considerably more frank than Hollywood pictures of the same vintage – for instance, it’s clear that Willem and Gisa have sex while poor Hannes is waiting in his flat for her to arrive at their betrothal supper.  Kaeutner keeps the action moving through the use of diagonal and vertical wipes, a quasi-literary device that punctuates the film’s last third and signifies both continuity of action as well as a shift to a related scene – the effect is quicker and more jaunty than the fade-outs that earlier characterize the movie (for instance, the fade at the end of the sequence at the Haeuptlein produce garden where we first meet Gisa.)  With wonderful alacrity, Kaeutner channels the film into two sequences that cap the action and embody the film’s themes: first, everyone converges on the Hippodrom where the combination of combustible jealousies and passions results in a general riot; after the riot, with the main characters wakeful with adrenaline, Hannes slips into an uneasy sleep in which his dream enacts symbolically the various conflicts that he faces.  The dream is superfluous – it doesn’t show us anything that we don’t already know.  But the imagery is dense and astonishing and establishes the depth of the divisions in Hannes’ soul.  The choices that he faces are all difficult.


Kaeutner doesn’t simplify and he doesn’t load the deck.  Life presents us with choices but they involve ambiguities and the best decision is by no means clear. Throughout the film, Hannes is confronted with decisions that require him to choose between alternatives defined in terms of constraint and freedom.  For instance, he can elect to return to the sea as the pilot of the majestic Padua or purchase a Hafenrundfahrt skiff and lead tourists around Hamburg’s harbor – life at sea is arduous, dangerous, and lonely; but life as a tour boat operator is hobbled by domesticity, the same thing day after day.  (Kaeutner complicates the equation by showing that Hannes has a real gift for the improvised comic patter with which these tour-boat operators leaven their tours. We’re shown that he would be a real success in the endeavor.)  In effect, Hannes ultimate choice, after Gisa rejects him, is between the sailing ship, the “Padua” and Grosse Freiheit, nr. 7.  Anita is willing to accord to Hannes as much freedom as possible, but it will never be enough.  Again, these choices are difficult because at the cabaret, Hannes excels at performing for the place’s patrons, to the extent that he is lionized there and, even, appears on a radio show broadcast from the Hippodrom.  In some respects, the situation is similar to what we see in von Sternberg’s The Blue Angel – at the beginning of the von Sternberg film (in which Hans Albers appeared as a strong man), Professor Unrat is suffocating under the conventions governing his life as a sober, bourgeois instructor at a Gymnasium (High School); this is shown figuratively by the fact that the Professor’s caged canary has died at the outset of the movie.  Unrat is enticed into what he thinks is a life of freedom, love, and gaiety represented by the seductress Lola Lola.  She frees him and, then, turns him into a clown in her cabaret act so that the Professor is ultimately destroyed.  The stakes are not so dire in Grosse Freiheit – Hannes has to chose between a reasonably satisfying and profitable job as a cabaret performer (with an option, perhaps, to appear at the “Hansa”) and the lonely life of mariner on the high seas.  The complexity of this decision is made material in the ship-in-the-bottle theme.  The ‘Padua’ has been laboriously created as a miniature in rum bottle.  This object is beautiful in its own right, a precious artifact that is the result of great craft laboriously applied.  At the end of his nightmare, Hannes flails about and knocks the ship-in-the-bottle onto the floor where it is broken.  What does this image mean?  Has the nightmare somehow liberated the miniature vessel (and also Hannes) or is the freedom resulting in the bottle being broken a sort of liberty that is indistinguishable from vandalism and destruction?  Kaeutner leaves the image ambiguous and lets the viewers sort through the various meanings of freedom and constraint proposed by the movie.  


Production notes

Grosse Freiheit is shot in Agfacolor, the German cognate to Hollywood technicolor.  (Agfa was the name of a German chemical products company.) This color process was devised in the early thirties, primarily for slides.  By 1933, the film-stock was commercially available for use in cameras – there are many Hitler-era amateur photographs made in Agfacolor.  In 1936, the manufacturer released 16 millimeter movie stock to be developed according the Agfacolor process and experimental footage was developed of the Berlin Olympics in that year; nonetheless, the classic record of the 1936 Olympics, Leni Riefenstahl’s Olympia is shot in black and white.  (Hitler’s home movies taken in Berchtesgarten and showing the Fuehrer’s mistress, Eva Brann, and his dogs are shot on Agfacolor.)  Questions remained, however, as to the utility of the process in the German film industry – the longevity of the film stock and the stability of colors recorded on it remained concerns.  Dr. Goebbels was alarmed that American technicolor films, most notably Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz as well as Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves would supplant German-made pictures and seize the internal (domestic) market.  Accordingly, Goebbels decreed that the formidable German chemistry industry work on the technology project and develop a color process that could successfully compete with American technicolor.  In 1939, the film, Women make the best Diplomats, a musical comedy, was shot entirely in Agfacolor.  Thereafter, prestige pictures made by German studios used Agfacolor.  The most notable example is the 1943 epic Muenchhausen, also starring Joseph Albers (Agfacolor was in love with his radiant blue eyes).  Muenchhausen (Josef von Blaky) is an excellent film with many spectacular special effects – Goebbels wanted UFA to produce a fantasy movie to rival Hollywood’s Wizard of Oz and The Thief of Baghdad and, in fact, Muenchhausen, a very sophisticated comedy and, in effect, an ingenious parody of Hollywood big-budget films, succeeded in all respects.  (The movie features a memorable sequence in which Albers as the titular teller of tall tales flies through the world riding a cannonball, an image later imitated in Colonel Kong’s bucking-bronco ride on the warhead in Dr. Strangelove.  Muenchhausen has proven to be very influential; it was remade by Terry Gilliam in   1988 starring Eric Idle and Uma Thurman among others.)  Grosse Freiheit is probably the most famous picture made using Agfacolor process.  Goebbels ordered that the enormous epic Kolberg, produced in late 1944 for propaganda purposes (military forces needed on Eastern front were actually diverted away from combat to appear in the film’s colossal battle scenes) be shot in Agfacolor – by the time the film was completed, Germany no longer existed and so the film wasn’t shown in the country where it was produced.  (After the war, Kolberg was suspect and suppressed by Allied occupying authorities; you can buy DVDs of the movie but you have to purchase them from web-sites with names like Heritage Pictures, apparently neo-Nazi distributors; I own Kolberg which is very interesting if badly misguided film and, therefore, am probably on some FBI list somewhere in that “weaponized” agency.)


Agfacolor produces an effect very distinct from the more highly saturated, “candy” colors characteristic of Hollywood technicolor.  Films shot in this process have a yellowish, golden or amber cast and the separation between colors is less pronounced than in Hollywood films of the same era; Agfacolor is excellent for simulating the somewhat hazy aspects of northern European light.  It seems more “poetic” than technicolor.  However, the process was tainted by its association with Nazi films and, after the war, Agfacolor was regarded as obsolete.  Nonetheless, the color process survived in Soviet Russia.  Russian forces looted enormous quantities of Agfacolor film stock from Berlin’s UFA studios at Babelsberg and seized proprietary trade secrets as to the film’s chemistry.  In the Soviet Union, Agfacolor was called Sovcolor and it was used in many important Soviet era films, most notably Sergei Bondarchuk’s War and Peace (1965-1967), a movie notable for its warm colors; color sequences in some of Tarkovsky’s pictures including Andrei Rublev are shot in Sovcolor.  


Grosse Freiheit takes place in a world in which there is neither war, nor the rumor of war.  But, of course, this was not the case during the film’s production.  Shooting on the picture began in May 1943 in Hamburg (on location) and Neubabelsberg’s UFA studios in Berlin.  Hamburg was under almost continuous air assault by Allied bombers and shooting in the city was repeated interrupted by bombing raids.  Hamburg’s famous harbor was filled with submarines and war ships and the area on the waterfront where tens of thousands of shipyard workers lived was repeatedly bombed.  In the scene in which Hannes leads a tour of the harbor, an iconic sequence for Germans, the shots had to be carefully edited and framed to avoid showing battleships docked along the Elbe waterfront.  


Similarly, production in Berlin (Neubabelsberg) was repeatedly interrupted by bombing raids on that city.  Then, in the last week of July 1943, the Allies mounted Operation Gommorah, a sequence of air raids on civilian targets in Hamburg in which tons of magnesium thermite bombs were dropped on the city, mostly in the residential areas around the harbor.  This was a war crime with the intent of murdering civilians and explicitly designed to cause a fire-storm.  The air attack was successful with the result that 37,000 civilians were burned to death (less than half of the bodies could be identified).  Hamburg, more or less, ceased to exist and, of course, there was no longer any waterfront to use as a location for the film.  Terra, the film’s production company, moved the picture’s shooting to Prague’s Barrandov Studios where the movie was completed by November 1943.  


When I was in Hamburg in 2022, I spoke with an old man who had survived Operation Gomorrah.  He told me with some bitterness that all of the Nazi brass and government officials lived in luxurious leafy neighborhoods near the Jungfernsteg and lakes (the Binnenalster and Kleinalster) in that part of the city.  (Hamburg looks a bit like Minneapolis when viewed from Lake of the Isles or Lake Calhoun.)  Very few bombs were dropped on the Nazi officials and their homes.  Rather, the vast majority of the bombs unleashed on the City were dropped on the waterfront worker housing, killing thousands of harbor workers and their families, many of whom were crypto-Communists.


The Harbor

Harbor’s are intrinsically poetic.  Light reflects off water and mists adorn the harbor’s lagoons and piers.  As shown in Grosse Freiheit, colossal hoists and derricks rise above the channels where sea-going vessels are moored.  Along the waterfront, there are dives and dancehalls and brothels.  Harbors are characterized by sexual license – prostitutes compete to drain the wallets of sailors on shore-leave.   I recall seeing Soviet sailors in Duluth around 1980 propositioning Ojibway whores.  All kinds of people mingle in the pursuit of pleasure.


Although set along the Seine waterfront in France, the paradigm harbor film is Jean Vigo’s poetic masterpiece L’Atalanta (1934) in which a young couple honeymoons with near disastrous consequences on a barge plying the river.  (A scene in which Michel Simon as the captain shows artifacts of his ocean travels to the young bride is imitated in the scene in Grosse Freiheit in which Hannses displays his seafaring souvenirs to Gisa and, in fact, gives her a coral necklace.)  Kaeutner’s Under the Bridges (1942) shot in Berlin recapitulates the imagery and themes in L’Atalanta.  After the war, a number of films were set in harbors, most notably Clouzot’s Quai des Orfevres (1947), Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront (1954), and, even, more memorably the 1949 Panic in the Streets in which Jack Palance dies when a rat-guard keeps him from climbing onto a ship moored in New Orleans harbor – Palance’s character is carrying the bubonic plague.  The vein of “poetic realism” mined by Kaeutner in Freiheit is exploited again in Aki Kaurismaki’s Le Havre (2011). 


The one-hit wonder, Looking Glass’ pop song 1972 “Brandy (You’re a Fine Girl)” is another noteworthy example of the genre.  Brandy is a bar-maid in a “port in a western town” who makes her living “layin’ whisky down” for sailors at the dive where she works – as to the lonely sailors, the song tells us “the harbor was (their) home.” A seaman falls in love with Brandy but can’t commit to the relationship – “Brandy, you’re a fine girl, what a good wife you will be / But my life, my love and my lady is the sea.”  Leonard Cohen’s “Suzanne” (poem published in 1966, released as a song in 1967) is set in the harbor in Montreal; the song’s heroine “take you down/ to her place by the river” where she feeds you “tea and oranges/ come all the way from China” and touches “your perfect body with her mind.”  


Annotations


Kasimir – ?


Black water fever – a serious complication of a malarial infection resulting in rapid and catastrophic destruction of red blood cells.  Don Adams, the star of Get Smart! almost died from this in World War II after he was wounded on Guadacanal.


Wer wagt - gewinnt – the game in the shop below Kroeger’s rooms.  “He who wagers - wins” or “If you dare, you win.”  (Qui audit adipscitur) – translated in the film “As nothing ventured, nothing gained”  This is a popular military motto but here the name of some kind of gambling (slot) machine.  Willem is said to not be able to pass a gambling machine without paying it.  In the scene at Sagebiels, Willem puts a coin in a mechanical hen who lays an egg as a souvenir for Gisa.  


Busheramp – a kind of woolen fisherman’s coat.  The word is platt-Deutsch dialect from the Finkenwerder neighborhood of Hamburg.  This was an area on the Elbe’s south shore where fishermen and their families lived.  (The point in the film is that Hamburg argot is a language that even other Germans don’t always understand – an example is the greeting “Moin” used in Hamburg but nowhere else in Germany; it means something like “g’d day.)


Hippodrom – A large cabaret-style beer garden featuring live horses, an arena, with seats for 600.  The actual Hippodrom was at 10/12 Grosse Freiheit.  The Hippodrom at this address was opened in 1929.  It followed a previous Hippodrom earlier located farther down the street and opened in 1911.  Of course, the place was bombed to ashes in 1943, but rebuilt and operated until the early seventies.  Not to be confused with the Hippodrom at 136 Reeperbahn, named one of Hamburg’s top ten night clubs in 1960 and frequented by the Beatles.  


Hansa – a well-known Variete theater in the St. Georg district in Hamburg.  “Variete” means “music-hall” or “vaudeville” – it’s a very nice venue but not pretentious.  However, it’s upscale compared with the more tawdry Hippodrom.  “Hansa” refers to Hamburg’s status as a member of Hanseatic League of trading cities on the North and Baltic Seas.  


Padua – the “Padua” was a sailing ship (four-master) built to haul freight in 1926 and operated by the Flying P Line in Hamburg.  (All the ships in the Flying P Line have names beginnng with a “p”; they were part of F. Laeisz fleet of ships that were largely involved in the transport of nitrates from Chile to Hamburg – that is, they were cargo ships for the trade in guano-derived fertilizers.  Laeisz son’s wife was nicknamed “Pudel” (poodle) and, in her honor, all the ships were named by “p” words.)  The Padua was one of the last of its kind but famed for its speed – it made a 67 day transit from Port Lincoln (Australia) to Hamburg in 1933 and 1934, an exploit mentioned in the film.  The vessel was featured in a number of movies made in Germany between 1936 and 1944.  The Russians captured the vessel in 1945 and sailed it to Riga in Estonia where it was renamed the Kruzenshtern.  The ship’s home harbor today is Tallinn, Estonia.  The ship became famous again in 1972 when it replicated Columbus’ voyage to America, recording an average speed of 17.2 knots throughout the voyage.


Sagebiels in Blankenese – A big and famous dance hall located in Hamburg in the Blankenese neighborhood.  The dance hall and restaurant was founded in 1868, occupying a post office building with a 120 foot tower affording a view over the harbor.  At least as of 2020, the place was still open.  


La Paloma (the dove) – Although usually considered a folksong, La Paloma was written by the Spanish composer Sebastian de Yradier in 1863 and premiered at the National Theater of Mexico for the Austrian prince Maximilian I.  There is a legend that Maximilian I asked someone to sing La Paloma for him when he was awaiting execution by firing squad when his Mexican regime collapsed.  (In fact, the song was played when his casket was marched to his grave in Miramare near Trieste.  To this day, the song may not be played on any ships in the Austrian fleet so as not to dishonor the martyred monarch.)  The song is well known internationally.  It afforded the basis for a 1933 German movie La Paloma, a song of cameraderie and has been performed by innumerable artists including Elvis Presley in a duet with Connie Francis.  Hans Albers’ version in Grosse Freiheit was an enormous hit in Germany and remains a very popular version.  (The director Helmut Kaeutner translated and revised the words for the movie).  The importance of the song to Hamburg can be measured by the fact that the tune was sung by massed choirs comprising 86,000 singers (the biggest sing-a-long in history according the Guinness Book of records) – this was on the occasion of the celebration of 815th anniversary of the founding of Hamburg Harbor.    


Kaiserspeicher – this is the “Kaiser’s warehouse,” located on prominent promontory where the Elbe divides and described by Hannes during his Elbe Harbor Rundfahrt tour.  The area to the west of the Kaiserspeicher is dominated by many hundreds of warehouses built in the 1880's, large and impressive structures designed to store freight shipped to the harbor.  Hamburg had been a “free city”, governing itself and not under the control of the German State until Bismarck unified the country.  Hamburg was opposed to federal intervention in its affairs and, so, a compromise was negotiated: Hamburg would accede to federal (Prussian) control but, in exchange, the government would not levy taxes on goods stored in the harbor’s warehouses.  This dispensation led to the construction of an enormous “city” of warehouses in the canals near the Kaiserspeicher.  (For some reason, the warehouses were not regarded as a target worthy of bombing – I suppose this is largely because they contained tea and ivory and other luxury goods from the Far East.  But the warehouse area survived Operation Gomorrha intact and is now UNESCO protected.)  The Kaiserspeicher, an iconic Hamburg landmark, was damaged by some stray bombs but remained functional until 1963 when the structure was demolished.  It was replaced by a imposing, if ugly, warehouse (Kaispeicher A), a huge cube of masonry that was, in turn, demolished in 2007 to be replaced by the Elbphilharmonie concert hall, a combination of condominiums, luxury hotel, and lavish performance spaces for the Hamburg Philharmonic – this structure, designed by Herzog & de Meuron, with its wave-shaped roof is now the symbol for Hamburg and contains the longest escalator in the world.  


Dr. Oetker’s Powder – Dr. Oetker was a German pharmacist who perfected baking powder and ingredients for pudding in the late 19th century.  He lived until the Nazi period and his firm was awarded medals for exemplary war production.  (He was also an honorary SS officer.)  His company, which still exists, profited from the “Arynizing” of Jewish competitor firms, but Oetker didn’t use forced labor in his factories.  A government-sponsored report arising from a 2007 - 2011 investigation of the Company’s Nazi history has been published – with true Teutonic industry, no stone seems to have been left unturned; the report is published as a 672 page book.  In the film, Hannses’ spiel suggests that, perhaps, munitions are stored in the warehouse – he talks about giving the “powder’ warehouse a wide-berth.


Blohm & Voss  – A Hamburg ship-building firm, now known as Blohm + Voss, founded in 1877.  It specialized in steel-hulled ships.  (In the film, there is an implied contrast between the wooden four-master, the “Padua” associated with Hanses and the more prosaic ocean vessels built where Willem works.)  The firm used concentration camp labor in World War II; a report prepared by Nazi authorities says that Blohm & Voss productivity was higher because of “longer hours of work and less absenteeism.”  The shipyard built the German destroyer, the “Bismarck”sunk off the coast of Argentina during the War.  The enterprise was always heavily unionized by largely Leftist workers and there is a whiff of this in the laborer’s song that Hanses mentions during the harbor tour and that people on-board sing.  


Scheitball – Hamburg pronunciation with “slushy” z sounds for “Zeitball”, that is “time ball”, the mechanism showing the time and tide atop the Kaiserspeicher. 


Lombard Bridge – this bridge, built in 1865 is 67 meters long and separates spans the channel linking the Inner and Outer Alstersee (two lakes near downtown Hamburg).  It provides a famous vantage on the city and is a popular place for taking photographs.  Before World War Two, Hamburg was a well-established tourist destination – it is Germany’s second largest city and the third largest harbor in the world, although Hamburg is 100 meters from the North Sea.  


Muss i’ denn – the jaunty tune played on accordion when Hannses, Jens, and Flete return to the Padua at the end of the film is a German folk song first written down in 1827 known by its opening phrase Muss i’ denn (“Must I then – “).  The song may be familiar to American viewers in its Elvis Presley version called “Wooden Heart” – Elvis sings the song in GI Blues (1960) when attending a marionette puppet-show along the Rhine River near the Army base where he is stationed.  He sings in English and the girl that he is courting sings in German along with the families watching the puppet show.  The lyrics are “Must I then, Must I then, from the village now depart, and you, my dear, remain behind.  When I return, when I return to the village when I come, to you I will return...”  The song’s words are in Schwabian dialect.  The song concerns a journeyman about to embark on his Wanderjahre to perfect his craft.  German audiences would understand that the song was a popular capstan shanty in the German navy (and merchant marine) and, in quick march version, played by the Prussian military.  The song is also sung by excursion groups including tourists embarking on harbor tours.  (When I was in Hamburg, the Germans drank beer and sang while waiting for the boat tour to get underway.)  A lot of artists have covered the song; Presley’s version, released in March 1961 was a big hit, topping the Billboard 100.  Marlene Dietrich sang the song in her cabaret act and there’s a famous version by the Greek singer (and politician) Nana Mouskouri.


 


Saturday, June 24, 2023

Le Quattro Volte

 In Calabria, at the toe of Italy's boot, an old shepherd is dying.  He sits coughing amidst his goats in the majestic forested mountains.  A feisty dog helps him herd his goats; the animals wear tinkling bells and, before sunset, he marches his flock through a shadowy defile to a hill-town atop a nearby crag.  (The hill-town is ancient and seems more like an encrustation of boulders and rock spires along the ridge than anything made by human hands.)  The shepherd drinks dust swept up in the village's old, cavernous church as medicine. After consuming this substance with a flask of water, he goes to the church, where the cleaning lady gives him another dose -- she tears a piece of glossy paper from a illustrated magazine, folding it around the dust.  (We see innumerable dust motes dancing in a beam of light cast down on the church floor.)  The next day, the old man goes out to the pasture again with his dog and the goats and, while defecating, I think, (an ant explores the wrinkles in his face), he loses the folded paper containing his medicine -- we see the scrap of magazine showing a woman's eyes surrealistically lying on a anthill swarming with insects.  That night, the old man finds that his medicine has gone missing.  He goes into the village, a place with alleys steep as ladders, and knocks on the door of the church but no one answers.  In the morning, a Lenten procession is scheduled.  A red truck appears with men wearing the breastplates and tunics of Roman centurions.  The goats are confined in pen next to the road and across from the old man's ancient home -- this is where the truck is parked.  A minute or two later, the religious procession including a man carrying a heavy cross appears and the faithful march down the steep road, harassed by the sheep dog and observed by the wary, but curious, goats.  The procession vanishes -- a straggler dressed as one of Mary's is menaced by the dog and has to distract the animal to get around it.  Then, the parked truck's brakes fail and, rolling backward unattended, it crashes into the pen confining the goats.  The goats escape and, since the town is empty, explore the village.  A number of goats climb into the old man's house where they clamber onto his table and surround the bed where he is gasping for breath.  He dies and a procession carries his corpse in a casket to crypt.  The casket is shoved into the dark niche and sealed and the screen is dark.  Then, there's a horrible cry (it scared me so much that I almost fell out of my chair) and we see a goat giving birth to a white kid.  The little goat staggers onto its feat and sucks at the mother's teats.  When the herd of adult goats are herded up to the mountain pastures, about a dozen kids remain in the pen where they play a game of "king of the hill" nudging one another off a concrete block.  Later, the shepherd ties the mouths of the kids shut (why?) and herds them into the mountains with the adult animals.  A strange trench bars the way uphill, an incision in the slope, and the baby goat that we saw born can't follow the other animals.  We watch the little kid bleating plaintively.  At last, the baby goat wanders along the hillside and comes to an imposing tree.  The goat looks over the vast and empty landscape, entirely forlorn and crying out loudly.  Later, we see the little kid sitting among the roots of the tree, apparently weakened and dying.  The landscape turns white with winter.  After a montage of shots showing the tree in various seasons, some men come and cut down the tree.  The massive trunk is trimmed and dragged by a couple hundred villagers to a larger town where it is used in some kind of festival. The big pole is set up in a town square with its leafy crown still intact.  A man shinnies up the tree to seize some kind of prize and everyone cheers.  Then, the pole falls over again.  The tree trunk is hewn into logs and these are loaded on the red truck that we saw earlier when the goat pen was broken down.  Some laborers swathed in smoke are making charcoal for fuel.  They build with twigs and staves of wood a curious round structure, something like an elegant yurt.  The dome contains stacks of logs and is covered with mud.  Then, fire is dropped through a  hole at the top of the dome.  The mud plastered over the yurt is pierced and smoke pours out of dozens of holes  in the structure while men clamber around on the dome-shaped kiln.  (This is the enigmatic image with which the movie commenced, an activity that we only now learn is the process for making charcoal.)  The men remove dry bone-like wood fragments from the kiln and heap them up.  The red truck makes its way past the old shepherd's house (it now has different colored windows).  Burlap sacks of charcoal are delivered to the townsfolk -- this is the smaller village which has more goats than people.  We see the austere geometry of the flat or angular roofs and, then, after a minute or two, smoke emerges from one of the chimneys -- the people are burning the charcoal in their hearths.

Michelangelo Frammartino made this film beginning around 2007 and it was released to great acclaim in 2010.  The picture is radiantly beautiful, but disquieting.  The episode involving the lost kid is very moving and, indeed, disturbing.  Frammartino positions his camera at a location remote from the action and shoots things from an Olympian vantage, sometimes, using very long takes.  At the center of the film is an eight-minute sequence in continuous take in which the centurions arrive for the procession, the march to Calvary ensues, menaced by the sheep dog, and, then, the runaway truck smashes open the goat pen so that the animals (there must be sixty or more) flood into the deserted town.  This is a bravura piece of mise en scene and involves many complex elements choreographed to occur in sequence.  The landscapes are luminous -- sometimes, we see the shadows of clouds dragged over them.  There are several close-ups of the old man and a single shot in which the camera moves with the herd of goats marching out into the mountain pastures -- the village is built on a high ridge and the goats actually are herded down off the mountain to their pastures.  There is no audible dialogue -- Italian audiences in Rome and Milan and, even, Naples wouldn't understand the dialect in any event.  Similarly, there is no music -- the soundtrack is bleating goats, wind in trees, the sounds of birds calling.  The film is austere, but compelling.  It is also somewhat mysterious -- both intentionally and, I think, by accident.  (The elegant alchemy required to turn wood into charcoal is beautifully visualized and, at first, we have no idea what is going on -- the film's opening shots of smoke pouring out of the mud-slathered clay dome of the kiln are profoundly strange and disorienting; this is intentional.  However,  there are other details that I can't understand:  why does the new shepherd tie shut the mouths of the kids?  And the old man has a big pot in which hard objects are kept.  Someone or something keeps disarranging the pot and knocking off its lid so that the things kept inside are spilled across the table.  The old man puts a rock on the lid to keep it shut, but this also fails and, so, the shepherd pitches the rock out of the window of his house.  (I think this rock is used as a "stop" under the tires of the red truck, but, somehow, fails so that the vehicle rolls backward and frees the goats -- at least, this is my surmise.)  The four "turns' signify Pythagorean doctrine that all things are comprised of human will and reason, animal energy, vegetable abundance, all founded on a substrate of the mineral.  Pythagoras argued for metempsychosis or thereincarnation of souls in which there is a continual transmutation of the human into the animal into the vegetable and, then, mineral.  There is a Darwinian and scientific basis for Frammartino's vision -- the old man becomes a goat and, then, a tree and, at last, carbon.  Of course, carbon is the basis for all living creatures and so the final scenes showing carbonized wood, hard and flinty as bones, suggests the elemental material from which all life is made.  Furthermore, the devolution of the shepherd into charcoal is a mirror of the evolution of carbon that passes through different forms to produce sentient beings and, at last, the human intelligence that comprehends and can recognize the pattern of metempsychosis in the world.  Pythagoras said that he heard a dead friend's voice in the bark of a dog.  Further, Pythagoras maintained that within the charcoal there is the potential for human sentience.  Each animal and tree is also a human soul and also a structure of interlocked carbon atoms.  In other words, the four phases are not separate but each "turning" encompasses all of the others as well.   This is abstract and doesn't do justice to the vibrant, even, raucous energy in the film.  And the scene in which the delicate baby goat dies in the embrace of the big tree is very hard to shake -- the screen gradually fades to black but the little goat's white fur shines with a supernatural radiance in the darkness.  (Frammartino's recent film, Il Buco, recapitulates some of the themes in Le Quattro Volte using the same techniques -- another old shepherd dies while cave explorers dive into the depths of a cavern, at that time, the deepest hole in the world.  Il Buco is also a splendid movie.)

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

Black Mirror (Season Six)

 Black Mirror is a British science fiction anthology series, now in its sixth season.  Shows vary in subject and, indeed, quality.  Generally, all of Black Mirror's offerings are impressively produced and well-acted.  The quality of writing is excellent although the surprise generated by some of the shows in the first couple seasons now has largely evaporated..  This is because the show's characteristic have now become generic in themselves -- we might describe other TV shows featuring technology deployed in morbid ways and with dystopian themes as "like Black Mirror."  In this regard, I think that the most pointed critique that can be raised against season six (consisting of five independent episodes) is that these Black Mirror shows fall squarely within the conventions and themes established by earlier seasons -- that is, season 6 of Black Mirror is notable for seeming a bit derivative of earlier Black Mirror episodes. There is something about the uncompromising nature of the writing (for instance, the famous first episode in Season One featured a politician blackmailed into have sex with a pig on prime time national TV) that makes me, at least, a little queasy -- the shows, even, when conventional have an uncomfortable edge.

"Joan is Awful", the first program in Season 6, is similar to other earlier episodes.  It's a demonstration of technology and mass media culture run amuck.  Joan is a self-assured, and, somewhat, self-centered manager at some sort of anonymous-looking Silicon Valley tech company.  She has a handsome boyfriend whom she finds dull (even the food he cooks lacks spice) and a helpful therapist.  The work place is full of catty/snarky co-workers.  The program follows her morning routine in which she brushes her teeth, has coffee with her boyfriend, fires someone, and plots an affair with an old flame.  At home, she turns on TV, accessing a streaming service that is, overtly, modeled on NETFLIX (the venue where Black Mirror is featured).  She picks a reality TV show for her evening viewing, a program called "Joan is Awful" and, to her horror, finds out that the program is about her -- in fact, it chronicles in complete detail the events in her life that we have just seen, although her part is played by Selma Hayek.  Of course, this show, highly popular on the streaming service, wreaks havoc with her life.  She knows that events in her life can be designed to humiliate Selma Hayek, whose likeness has been licensed to the program which is some kind of CGI production created by AI to depict Joan's life in real time -- the machine that makes the show is called a Quamputer (that is, quantum computer or as Selma Hayek calls it a "Quam puta.).  Hayek and Joan team up after the heroine of the show has  behaved in a spectacularly disgusting way and forced her debasement on TV to the chagrin of Selma Hayek playing Selma Hayek..  The show, then, proceeds to a meta-meta conclusion that isn't really satisfying, but seems to be clever so long as you don't think too much about the ending or the premise of the episode (and the premise of the titular reality show "Joan is Awful.")

"Loch Henry" is an episode about a callow Scottish lad and his girlfriend who make a visit to his hometown in a spectacular and empty part of Scotland.  Tourists avoid the town because of  a notorious serial killer who tortured his victims to death in the village.  The young man's father was a local cop who was wounded by the serial killer when he was finally discovered and who later died.  The two young people decide to make a documentary about the murders (a bit like the Moors murders -- although some critics think the show satirizes true crime pictures like Dahmer on Netflix; this show always bites the hand that feeds it.)  You can't say too much about "Loch Henry" without revealing its central plot twist -- a development that I saw coming after about ten minutes of the fifty minute episode.  The program is pretty scary and ingenious, but it's not as clever as it thinks it is.  This show is quite elegant and, even, reticient despite its horrific subject matter and, in my view, is the best of the five shows in this series.

The substance abuse problems of Lindsay Lohan, I think, are the inspiration of "Mazey Day", a show about a beautiful young starlet, pursued by vicious paparazzi; the actress gets high on 'shrooms and is involved in a hit and run accident when shooting a movie in the Czech Republic.  She retreats to her producer's house in Hollywood and, then, is, more or less, abducted by the Studio to be treated for her various addictions in a remote LA sanitarium hidden in a place like Topanga Canyon.  The show is nothing more (and nothing less) than a fairly well-engineered monster movie -- a number of the effects are extracted directly from John Landis' American Werewolf in London.  The episode is reasonably scary, but there's nothing special about it.  The program is entertaining without really being memorable. 

Black Mirror's most ambitious episodes are "Demon 79" and "Beyond the Sea".  Both are about 80 minutes long, that is, the length of a short feature film, and share a baffling characteristic -- these episodes are set in an alternative past making extensive allusions to the period that they depict.  "Demon 79," as the title asserts, takes place in a grimy London in the year 1979 -- the episodes "meta" features include stylistic details devised to make the show seem like an exploitation/horror film from that era, although the plot is "woke" to some extent, and ironic in a way that would not be feasible with this material if it were really a product made 44 years ago.  "Beyond the Sea", a space opera with overtones of Tarkovsky's Solaris, is inexplicably set in the late sixties; a Manson-style cult commits a massacre that drives the action and the characters are reading Roots, I think, by Alex Haley and Jacqueline Susan's The Valley of the Dolls.  It's not clear to me why this device of the alternative past is used in these two episodes.  The past, however, has these advantages which are exploited by "Demon 79" and "Beyond the Sea" -- the pop music is better; there are no cell-phones to provide warnings to people; racism and prejudice was more overt and, therefore, can be invoked as a plot device; and families were more traditional, again providing the script with a basis to satirize conventions in child-rearing and gender roles that don't exist today:  women aren't "stay-at-home" moms anymore (by and large) and it's no longer acceptable to "whale on" your kid as a form of discipline.  Both shows are pretty implausible -- there are huge plot holes, particularly in "Beyond the Sea," and "Demon 79" evokes arcane rules in demonology that the script seems to make up as it goes.  The sweet spot for Black Mirror episodes seems to me to be about 50 to 60 minutes -- beyond that point, the shows start to stumble over their own pretensions to cleverness.  

In "Demon 79", a much-oppressed shop girl of Indian ethnicity, leads a lonely life.  People openly discriminate against her in the department store where she works in the shoe department.  Her co-workers don't like the smell of her curried Biryani and make her eat in the basement of the store, discrimination that has momentous circumstances -- in that place, she finds an oddly inscribed domino and summons a demon.  Initially, the monster is like the creature in Night of the Demon, vaguely reptilian with lots of spines and spikes.  But the monster needs the young woman's cooperation, so the demon transforms himself into a funk dancer with the pop group "Boney M" -- a figure for whom the heroine has some (suppressed) sexual desire.  The demon  tells the girl that,  in order to save the world from a nuclear apocalypse, she must make three sacrifices -- that is, murder three people.  (The plot is vaguely similar to Tarkovsky's austere The Sacrifice).  Of course, the girl is not a murderer and committing these crimes seems impossible to her.  But nasty victims keep surfacing:  there's a man who's raping his young daughter, another smarmy fellow, a pussy-hound who murdered his wife, and, at last, a vicious right-wing politician, modeled, it seems, on Tony Blair who is courting the racist National Front vote.  A kindly copper  with a girl sidekick is in hot pursuit of the heroine as she slaughters her victims with the help of the demon dressed in an outlandish white fur garment and wearing enormous platform shoes.  (This episode is the most distinctly British of this series and, probably, has many allusions to the politics and popular music of the late seventies that I couldn't discern.)  As is typically the case with Black Mirror, the show ups the "ante" with brutal and gory killings and has a tendency to humanize its villains just before they meet their awful demises.  The episode has a sweet ending, although the world is consumed by nuclear fire.  

"Beyond the Sea" involves two astronauts on a six year mission.  One of the astronauts is an artistic soulful fellow who sketches scenes on earth from memory, has good taste in French pop music, and paints beautifully in oil colors.  The other astronaut is a tough military type who bullies his wife and son; a guy, whom we learn, who "doesn't read much."  The astronauts' actual flesh-and-blood bodies are on the space ship where they spend most of their time in a sort of induced coma in weirdly shaped bucket-beds.  While the men are in their comas, they project their mind or soul or sentient being, I suppose you might say, back to earth where they inhabit robotic replicas of themselves. It appears that the astronauts only meet once a week to exercise in the low G gravity of the space ship to keep their muscles in tone.  The rest of the time, they are on earth inhabiting their simulacra.  A wild-eyed hippie with a cult of adoring women (obviously modeled on Charley Manson) attacks the family of the artistic and soulful astronaut, tortures the replica by hacking off his arm, and, then, slaughters his wife and two children before his eyes.  (This is nasty stuff and completely without any plausible motivation -- it's obviously just a gruesome motivating factor for the plot.)  The soulful astronaut's replica is completely destroyed and, so, now the poor man can't escape the confines of the space-ship to return to earth -- he has no one to return to.  The other astronaut's wife suggests to her rigid and domineering husband that he let his partner in space come down to earth for an hour each week using his replica.  The idea is that the grieving man can smell fresh air and walk in nature for an hour and that this will help him recover from the horrible trauma that he has experienced.  So the mourning astronaut transfers his sentience into the body of his partner and, of course, interacts with his wife and son.  What could go wrong?  The outcome, of course, is predictable and this leads to a exceptionally grim denouement which, I'm sorry to say, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  

As I write, Black Mirror (6) is the most popular show on Netflix.  It's diverting and each episode contains something that is remarkable and disturbing.  But, I think, some of the luster has come off the show.  

  

     

Friday, June 16, 2023

The Power and the Glory (1933)

In 1971, when the American critic, Pauline Kael, published her book Raising Kane, a controversial argument as to the sources of Orson Welles celebrated film, she cited the 1933 picture The Power and the Glory, as an important influence on the Herman Mankiewicz script for Citizen Kane.  At the time of Kael's book, The Power and the Glory was more of a rumor than a film -- due to Hollywood's lack of "self-respect", Kael said that the much-ballyhooed 1933 picture existed only as "tattered fragments."  The studio had failed to transfer the nitrate print onto safety stock and the movie had decayed, seemingly beyond restoration.  Digital technology, however, can work wonders and The Power and the Glory has been conserved to the point that it can be watched and, even, enjoyed to some extent although there are oddities about its current state of preservation.  The picture, written by Preston Sturges, can be watched on You-tube, although it is shown with some curious artifacts of its preservation -- a couple of times, the image is embossed with an ad for Fox News and there are other strange marks that appear from time to time on the picture.  

Preston Sturges wrote the script as a free-lance project and sold it to Fox Studios for the vast sum (then) of $17.500 (the equivalent of $375,000 today) together with a share of the profits.  The movie employs a non-linear narrative style that is very poignantly constructed.  As used in the movie, Sturges' "narratage", as it was then called, fragments the story into different scenes that don't proceed chronologically but rather according to an emotional logic -- the picture's fundamental structure is to show us how things turned out and, then, cut back to the precursors of later developments.  The effect is melancholy -- we see people grieving and suffering and, then, the film flashes back to happier days when the characters had no idea as to the malign fate awaiting them.  For instance, we see a libertine son ruining his father.  Then, the film shows us the young man's birth and his father's happiness and dreams for the baby boy.  A divorce is bracketed by shots of the couple when they were in love with one another.  This narrative device creates an impression of profundity and the audience is invested with a sense of Olympian detachment, almost serenity (and superiority) over the strivings of the characters in the picture.  In Russian formalist theory, narratives have two components, the fabula (that is, the story or plot) and the syuzhet (the order of events as told -- that is, the way the tale is presented).  Sturges script for this short, but event-packed, picture enforces the maximum possible distance between the plot and the order of events presented by the "narratage."  In 1933, when the picture was a popular hit, the concept of "narratage" seems to have been regarded as the cinematic equivalent to fictional devices using stream-of-consciousness in Joyce's Ulysses and Virginia Woolf's novels.  The innovation was thought so important and radical that a bronze plaque was installed at the first movie theater in New York City where The Power and the Glory was shown commemorating the "invention of narratage" -- but, then, as Pauline Kael observes, the film stock on which the famous movie was printed was allowed to decompose to "tatters."

The Power and the Glory chronicles the life of Tom Granger, a self-made man, who rises in the railroad industry to become a ruthless and powerful tycoon.  The movie begins with his funeral in a sepulchral cathedral-like space, the gloom cut through by slanting rays of light (compare to the scenes in the screening room in Kane, where the projection beam creates chiaroscuro effects -- as well as other scenes in Welles movie featuring expressionistic beams of light).  One of the mourners rises and walks out of the church.  This mourner is the deceased Tom Garner's best friend and personal secretary, Henry.  As he walks home, Henry encounters a doorman who says that he's glad Tom "croaked."  At home, Henry's wife bitterly denounces the dead man.  Henry, who admired Garner, defends him and this triggers a series of flashbacks, organized thematically as opposed to presentation in chronological order.  We seem Tom as an abused farm kid (kept home to work on farm by his tyrannical father).  Boys are frolicking in an idyllic swimming hole.  Tom fights Henry but admires his spunk and defends him against older bullies.  Tom, who is a dare-devil dives from a perch on a tall tree, gets his hand stuck in rocks underwater and almost drowns  -- for the rest of his life, Tom has a prominent scar on his right hand.  Next, we see Tom as a powerful and self-confident tycoon -- he bullies his company's  Board of Directors into buying another railroad, the so-called Santa Clara line, an acquisition that will lead to his doom.  The movie, then, shows us Tom as a simple "track-walker", a worker for a railroad whose job, it seems, is to walk the line and observe defects.  Tom is first shown emerging from a tunnel on a mountain pass.  He meets a comely schoolmarm and she discovers that he can't read or write or do arithmetic.  The young woman teaches him these elementary skills and they fall in love.  He marches her up to a mountain top ostensibly for a hike but there proposes to her.  (This scene is baffling -- it's shot like a silent movie, perhaps, a necessity since the sequence features real-life locations where it may have been impossible to record sound; the sequence plays like a slide-show narrated by Henry.  It's not very effective and, indeed, the narration, although clever -- Sturges is always very good with words -- distracts from the images.  I account for this peculiar method of production by the deficiencies in early sound-recording technology).  Next, we see Tom's son, Tom Jr., who has been booted out of some Ivy League school for drunken debauchery.  The tycoon orders his son to go to work for him as a junior accountant.  Tom's wife remonstrates with the him about mistreating the boy whom she has obviously coddled.  In the midst of these scenes, we see Tom's wife, the schoolmarm, working as a track walker herself in a blizzard -- she has taken this job in order to support Tom's education as an engineer attending college in Chicago.  There is a flashback to the birth of Tom's son, Tom Jr. and the couple discuss their dreams and aspirations for the little boy. The acquisition of the Santa Clara railroad requires a meeting with the line's previous owner who seems to use his accomplished young daughter as an incentive for the deal -- she flirts overtly with Tom Sr.  Tom approaches his wife of thirty years and says that "a terrible thing has happened"  -- that is, he has fallen in love with RR owner's daughter, Eve.  Tom's wife is devastated but takes the blame for this disaster -- she says that Tom would have been happy as a "track-walker" on the line and that she drove him to be successful and made him work when he "just wanted to go fishing."  Therefore, she agrees to a divorce and says bitterly:  "Why wouldn't you be in love and do what you want to do once before you die."  Wandering about on the city sidewalk, as if in a dream, Tom's wife throws herself under the wheels of a street car -- she visualizes the street car as a huge, thundering locomotive.  This part of the film is very powerful and Sturges' "narratage" device here is shown to its best advantage.  After the suicide, the movie cuts to Tom and his wife 20 years earlier, living in a humble cottage, with the woman announcing that she is going to have a baby and the two of them vowing to be happy the rest of their lives.  Henry, Tom's amanuensis is telling this story to his own wife, who is skeptical -- Henry keeps asserting that Tom was not to blame and that "things just happened to him."  We see Tom reconciling with his son, apparently in Key West or Palm Springs -- the sea glitters in the moonlight under the terrace where the two men are sitting.  Tom marries Eve with Tom Jr. acting as his Best Man.  There follows a strike sequence shot in impressive montage with burning buildings and cops falling dead to sniper fire.  Tom invades a Union meeting and harangues the workers, apparently, unsuccessfully because scabs are brought in and there are pitched battles in which (we are told) 450 men are killed.  One day Tom comes home and hears his young wife talking to her lover on the telephone.  She says that "the baby looks just like you."  The baby, also looks just like Tom Sr., because the child is the son of Eve and Tom Jr.  When Tom Sr. figures this out, he goes into a trance, hearing his wife's words during a Board Meeting and blurting out all sorts of crazy stuff.  Tom goes home, obsessively repeating his dead wife's words:  "Why wouldn't you fall in love and do what you want to do once before you die."  He locks himself in a room and shoots himself in the heart.  As in Kane, there are some spectacular chiaroscuro effects in this scene -- a beam of light slashes down through a window like a razor blade. Henry finishes the story; his wife pats him on the shoulder and leaves him alone in the kitchen as she wearily trudges upstairs to bed, a disconcerting image itself of marital alienation and loneliness.  (This is a pre-Code picture and it pulls no punches.)

Similarities to Citizen Kane are obvious:  both movies involve the reconstruction of the life of a great man for whom things have ended badly.  A loyal sidekick narrates both stories and the sequencing of events is intuitive and associative as opposed to strictly chronological.  Both films feature a young leading man who has to be aged by make-up artists -- Welles was 25 when he played Charles Foster Kane, in many scenes made-up as an old man; Spencer Tracy, who plays Tom Garner, was 32 when he appeared in The Power and the Glory.  (Tracy is very effective throughout the film and, as he is shown to age, changes his gait and his posture -- he's more persuasive as an old man than Welles; Tracy is one of those actors who seems to have been born middle-aged.) In both films, the hero is undone, more or less, by a woman.  Of course, both films argue the proposition that wealth and power are not equivalent to happiness.  Citizen Kane has more vivid supporting actors; Welles had a repertoire company in the theater, the Mercury Players, and he directs them very effectively.  (Sturges later did this in his own films beginning with the 1940 movie, The Great McGinty; however, the supporting cast in The Power and the Glory is a bit blurry and vague -- for instance, Eve's motivations are very unclear:  why does she marry the much older Tom Garner?  The film makes it clear that she cuckolds him because he is conspicuously absent managing the bloody railroad strike, but I couldn't divine why she was ever interested in him in the first place.)  The movie is filled with clever and eye-catching details.  In the swimming scenes there's a dog riding on a raft that has to paddle to the edge of the idyllic-looking pond when Tom is trapped underwater.  The scenes involving track-walking have a curious fairy-tale look -- they appear to be staged on miniature sets that are not at all convincing and this gives these scenes, particularly, the winter shots, an odd legendary aspect -- the fact that many of the exteriors seem fake or shot in a studio is curious because production notes show that some of the railroad scenes were shot on high mountain passes in the Sierra Nevada.  At the climax of the film, Tom comes home to his young wife with a bracelet (he has just bought it since he forgot their anniversary) and a marionette puppet for the little boy -- the marionette casts a sinister shadow on the wall.  

The movie's restoration is problematic.  The film proceeds with a strange, dream-like stop and start rhythm.  Panning and crane shots glide along, halt momentarily, and, then, continue to move -- it's as if the film is secreting some kind of interstitial stillness, advancing as a series of still photographs.  (This effect must have something to do with the terribly damaged prints that were used to reconstruct the movie -- the soundtrack has been restored and is reasonably audible but the film's imagery itself seems somehow mostly comprised of still shots animated together into motion.)  

Sturges' script, said by studio  bosses to be the "most perfect script" anyone had ever seen, is based on the life of C.W. Post, a cereal tycoon from Battle Creek, Michigan.  Post founded the Postum Food company, later known as General Foods -- wholly owned subsidiaries came to include a number of other companies including Jello.  Post divorced his wife to marry his 27 year old secretary.  He almost died due to stomach trouble and appendicitis -- Charley and William Mayo operated on him in Rochester, Minnesota at their clinic.  Post never recovered from his gastric problems and killed himself out of despair at the pain that he was suffering.  The movie is only 82 minutes long.  




Monday, June 12, 2023

Film study essay -- Preston Sturges and The Miracle of Morgan's Creek

 Preston Sturges and The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek



Millions to be had


In the late twenties, Preston Sturges wrote plays for Broadway.  At that time, he acted sporadically, appearing in several of his own plays.  He had a day-job – he managed one of his mother’s department stores in Manhattan.  He was a bachelor; his second marriage to a New York City socialite and heiress had ended in divorce in 1927,


There is a story, probably apocryphal, that the Hollywood screen writer Herman Mankiewitz (“Mank”) sent a telegram to the Ben Hecht, a writer working in the New York theatrical business.  Mank’s telegram told Hecht to come to Hollywood: “Millions are to be grabbed out here and your only competition is idiots.” One can presume that Sturges received similar advice.  And so Sturges went west, began doctoring scripts and writing additional dialogue.  Around 1936, he completed on spec, a script called The Great McGinty.  In 1939, Sturges traded rights to the script to Paramount Pictures in exchange for being granted the opportunity to direct the movie. (According to the legend, Paramount paid him 10 dollars for the script, an increase over the buck that Sturges had proposed.) The film was a hit and, between 1940 and 1949, Sturges directed ten films now regarded as classics and, among the best movies made in this country, during the war and immediate post-war period.  


These films are: The Great McGinty (1940), Christmas in July (1940), The Lady Eve(1941), Sullivan’s Travels (1941), The Palm Beach Story (1942), The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek (1942), Hail the Conquering Hero (1944), The Great Moment (1944), The Sin of Harold Diddlebock (1947), and Unfaithfully Yours (1949).   All of these pictures are comedies of one sort or another with the exception of The Great Moment, a bio-pic about the Boston dentist, W.T.G. Morton, the inventor of surgical anesthesia.  (The Great Moment written by Sturges as The Triumph over Pain seems to have been conceived as a sardonic comedy but was edited beyond recognition by Paramount.)   All of these pictures were prestige productions starring top Hollywood talent – actors in these movies include Henry Fonda, Betty Hutton, Joel McCrea, Claudette Colbert, Rudy Vallee, Rex Harrison and Veronica Lake, among others.  (In addition, Sturges formed stock repertoire company of characters actor, many of them more indelibly present in his films than the leading players – these actors include William Demarest, Franklin Pangborn, and many others whose names you won’t know but who will be familiar to you when you see them on screen.)


Critics regard Sturges’ films made in the 1940's as the “apotheosis of the screwball comedy.” 


Embracing a Guinea Pig


Sturges was born in 1898 in Chicago.  He was the son of a beautiful and wealthy heiress, Mary Estelle Dempsey, who had an unfortunate romantic encounter with a traveling salesman.  (Sturges was born Edmund Preston Biden and named after his father.)  Sturges always claimed that no one, including his mother, had any idea she was pregnant until she delivered her son – there are echoes of this motif in The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek, another so-called “immaculate conception.”  


Sturges’ mother decamped to Europe to avoid the humiliating marriage to Edmund Biden and had the relationship annulled.  In Europe, Mary Estelle changed her name to the more aristocratic-sounding Mary Desti or Mary D’este.  For the first couple years of his life, Sturges was raised by his maternal grandparents in the Windy City.  In 1902, his mother married a wealthy New York stockbroker, Solomon Sturges, who adopted the little boy.  Sturges recalled his adoptive father as being the exact opposite of his wacky, free-spirited, and promiscuous mother.  (In his films, Sturges always shows a certain furtive affection for sober, if avaricious, bankers and financiers.)  


Mary D’este Sturges gallivanted around Europe, often with her small son in tow.  She was friends with Isadora Duncan, the famous dancer, and had a torrid romance with Aleistar Crowley, the Great Beast and Satanist.  (She helped him with writing of his book Magick).  For much of his youth, Sturges lived in France where he learned to speak fluent French.  His mother was a camp follower of Isadora Duncan and Sturges recalled being taken from country to country in the company of the dancer and her somewhat eccentric, Bohemian friends.


In 1916, Sturges was working on Wall Street as a courier.  He enlisted in the Army in 1917, didn’t see combat, but wrote some notable humor pieces for the Armed Forces’ publications.  After the Great War, he managed one of his mother’s department stores, the Manhattan Desti Emporium.  It was while working at Desti’s that Sturges invented water-proof (“kiss-proof”) lipstick for which he held a patent.  


In the late twenties, Sturges, who cut a dashing figure, was dating a well-known Broadway actress.  The actress, who seems to be like a character in Sturges’ movies, reportedly said to him that he was a ‘complete bore” (this seems unlikely) and that “the only reason I am going out with you, sir, is for the same reason a scientist embraces a guinea pig, I just like to try out my situations on you so I can see how they turn out.”  She further told him that she was dating him for “research purposes” involving a play for which she was auditioning.  Not surprisingly, this declaration led to a fight and Sturges’ claimed that he could write a better Broadway play than anything on stage at the time in one month’s time.  Sturges made good on the bet and wrote a play that was produced on the Great White Way.  He, then, labored on Broadway for a couple years before departing for Hollywood.  


As script-doctor and composer of “additional dialogue,” Sturges wrote parts of The Invisible Man (1933), Imitation of Life (1934), Love before Breakfast (1936), and, as well, was credited with about a half-dozen screenplays.  This work led him to his breakthrough into directing with The Great McGinty (for which he won a screenplay Oscar) in 1940. 


Sturges directed six films, beginning with The Great McGinty and concluding with The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek in quick succession.  He was given artistic carte blanche on these films and made them without studio interference.  However, his conflicts with the Breen Office over censorship of The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek raised red flags with certain studio executives – James Agee, the famous critic, wrote, rather ungallantly that the “Breen Office had been raped in its sleep” with the release of Morgan’s Creek.  By 1943, Sturges was the third highest paid man in the United States but storm clouds were looming.  Paramount had a surfeit of films and held back Sturges’ pictures.  Studio bosses thought that Hail, the Conquering Hero! was too hot to handle – Sturges’ implicit critique of the military proved to be controversial and Paramount re-cut the picture and tinkered with its ending.  After a disastrous screening, Sturges was called back to restore the picture to his original design, but his confidence in Paramount was shaken.  His seven picture contract was coming to an end and the studio interfered with his drama about with the invention of anesthesia, The Great Moment.  


When his contract with Paramount was not renewed, Sturges explored other ventures – always interested in technology, he founded an engineering firm and bought a night club, called The Players.  A passion for aviation brought him close to Howard Hughes and the aeronautical, and Hollywood, tycoon bankrolled Sturges next film The Sin of Harold Diddlebock, a come-back vehicle for the silent slapstick star Harold Lloyd.  The picture was released to disastrous reviews in 1947, withdrawn from circulation by the producer, Howard Hughes, and, then, re-edited in breach of the contract between Sturges and Hughes, an agreement that gave Sturges’ the final cut.  Re-released in 1950 as Mad Wednesday, the movie flopped again.  (Sturges said that Hughes cut out “all the best stuff and added a talking horse at the end.”)  In the interim, Sturges’directed Unfaithfully Yours (1948) as a free-lancer for Fox.  This picture, highly admired by Quentin Tarantino, is a pitch-black slapstick comedy with an intricate and innovative narrative.  The movie got good reviews but was disliked by the public due to its subject matter, the murder of an unfaithful wife played for laughs.  This was the last movie that Sturges made over which he exercised creative control.


By this time, Sturges was working on Vendetta, a film noir starring Hughes’ girlfriend and protegee, Faith Domergue.  Hughes originally hired the renowned Austrian director, Max Ophuls, to helm the production based on an adaptation prepared by Sturges –he said it was his best screenplay. Hughes didn’t like the way that Ophuls was working on the film and fired him, ordering that Sturges complete the movie.  Sturges supported Ophuls and, after a few weeks, quit the production, effectively terminating his four-year work with Howard Hughes.


After 1950, Sturges couldn’t get any traction in Hollywood.  Further, his life was complicated by litigation with the IRS – he had underpaid taxes and ended up losing his Sunset Boulevard restaurant and bar, The Players, to the Feds.  (In some ways, his story parallels the travails of another director who shot to fame in the forties, Orson Welles.)  Sturges shopped around some scripts, made a movie in France (also unsuccessful), but the fish weren’t biting.  He worked in a desultory way on Broadway, but didn’t achieve much of anything.  In 1960, he closeted himself at the Algonquin Hotel in New York City to write his autobiography, titled Events leading up to my Death.  While writing the book, he had a massive heart attack and died.  



Betty Hutton


Betty Hutton was born in Michigan in 1921.  She was a gifted singer and dancer.  Hollywood agents discovered her singing with a big band in Detroit.  Like Preston Sturges, she enjoyed about a decade of fame, breaking through with Miracle of Morgan’s Creek and, effectively, concluding her film career with 1952 circus melodrama The Greatest Show on Earth (Cecil B. Demille).  She was well-paid for her work in the late forties and early fifties, including Annie Get Your Gun (1950) in which she stars.  Later in her life, her troubled upbringing seems to have caught up with her.  She became addicted to booze and prescription painkillers to the point that she was unable to work in the movie business.  Somehow, she came under the influence of a Catholic priest, Father Maguire, who seems to have rehabilitated her – for some years, she worked as a housekeeper at Maguire’s rectory in Rhode Island.  In the 80's, she returned to college and earned a Master’s Degree in psychology.  She died in 2007.


Hutton is polarizing figure in American movie criticism.  Some critics such as James Agee loved her to distraction and wrote rapturously about her performances.  Others didn’t care for her at all.  She exemplifies the wholesome girl-next-door appeal that was popular in the war years, although, of course, with a sharp edge.  David Thomson observes that she is always the aggressor in love stories in which acts – she pursues the man not vice-versa.  For what it’s worth, Ludwig Wittgenstein said that she was his favorite movie star.


William Demarest


William Demarest was born in St. Paul in 1892, but raised in Bergen, New Jersey.  He was slapstick comedian and specialist in prat falls – his entrance on stage always culminated with a spectacular fall.  (His artistry in this metier is visible in the two dramatic falls that he takes, without stunt double, in The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek – he was able to kick his legs up almost six feet in the air before falling catastrophically on his backside.)  After working in vaudeville with his wife, Estelle Colette – their act was called Colette and Demarest -- he migrated to Hollywood where he appeared in eighty or ninety films over his career.  Demarest was a favorite with Sturges and appeared often as part of his stock company.  He was a successful character actor and ended his career on television as Uncle Bub in My Three Sons (215 episodes between 1965 and 1972) although he also acted in shows as disparate as Bonanza and The Twilight Zone.  He died in 1983.



Eddie Bracken

 

Eddie Bracken doesn’t make it into David Thomson’s authoritative Biographical Dictionary of Film.  This reflects the fact that Bracken was, in effect, a character actor even when he was cast as the leading man.  (As you will recall, he mournfully expostulates as to his less-than-Matinee-idol looks in The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek.)  Bracken was born in 1915 and died in 2002.  He is the only actor to appear in films with two American Presidents – he acted with Ronald Reagan in The Girl from Jones Beach (1949) and with Donald Trump in Home Alone II (1992).  


Bracken was a child star on vaudeville, beginning in show business when he was nine years old.  He appeared in innumerable TV shows and movies but is best known for the two pictures that he made with Preston Sturges during World War II; in The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek, he is essentially in a supporting role to Betty Hutton’s Gertrude Kockenlocker although he is on-screen with her through much of the movie; however, in Sturges’ follow-up, Hail, the Conquering Hero! he is clearly cast in the part of the leading man.  Bracken specialized in playing nervous, twitchy weaklings  – but he was against type: in fact, he was a tough guy and had won a Golden Gloves nationwide competition as a lightweight.  Once when Sturges was mercilessly berating Betty Hutton and Diane Lane (who plays Emmy), Bracken cocked his fist and threatened the director, who backed down. Bracken’s profile is pugilistic – it seems that his nose has been broken and healed as a beak of squashed bone.  


Perpetual Crisis


Preston Sturges’ ten films, a decade of movies, documents a world without normalcy.  His movies are about perpetual crisis and stage chaos as slapstick comedy: in his signature films, everyone is in a state of hysteria, war fever, and a mob mentality with violent overtones lurks beneath the surface gaiety.  Sturges shows us an America that is convulsed by the Great Depression and, then, without transition, slips into the febrile confusion of the Second World War.  The Great McGinty and, most especially, Sullivan’s Travels depict American society in the grip of the Great Depression – these films are about bums, hoboes, chain gangs, and poverty.  (Sullivan’s Travels, ostensibly a frothy screwball comedy, has many sequences and shots that channel Walker Evans and other Depression era photographers).  Sturges’ films overtly about the home front (The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek and the equally cynical Hail, the Conquering Hero!) are both representations of an America at War.  Although the films take place in a bucolic, small-town America, untouched by combat, the pictures depict the sensibility, that is, the “psycholology” (to quote the affable sergeant in The Miracle) of a population gripped by war fever.  The conjunction of Sturges’ special gifts for chaotic and violent slapstick, feverish high velocity dialogue, and savage gallow’s humor match the temper of the times.  Crisis was Sturges’ subject and the Depression and War that followed it provided ample opportunities for the exercise of his particular specialty.  


Wars result in casualties.  Sturges suggests that one of the casualties of war is the ordinary, gender-based relations between the sexes – the home front is invaded by sexually predatory soldiers interacting with equally libidinous young women.  Young people are in a bustle to mate and produce more soldiers for the battlefield – the parties and dances on the home-front provide a last opportunity for sex, that is, love before dying.  The shadow of death bullies soldiers and girls into intercourse.  Constable Kockenlocker (a suggestive name to be sure) knows from his days with the American Expeditionary Force about what happens between small-town girls and soldiers passing through their villages – he learned this in 1918 and doesn’t want these lessons applied to his two daughters.  War time romances are characterized by a sort of frenzy, shown in the dancing and party scenes, an urgency that will not tolerate delayed gratification – the soldier at the orgiastic parties sponsored by the good folk at Morgan’s Creek suggests that “we should all get married” (code for “we should all get laid”) and seems to speak in a sort of a trance.  


The War casts its shadow over the entire film.  Gas is rationed – Norval has a “gas card”.  He says that they can’t drive to a local swimming hole, maybe 15 miles away, to drown themselves because frivolous travel of this sort would be frowned-upon and deemed inimical to the War Effort.  Lemonade at the party is made without sugar; the sweet stuff is required on the Front lines.  Notice, how Trudy grimaces when she drinks the punch – a scene that is, also, coded evidence for intoxication, a state of inebriation that the movie otherwise is at pains to deny.  (Trudy relaxes her morals because of a head injury – she’s flung into a reflecting ball, a sort sort of proto-disco ball at the party; but it’s pretty clear that there’s a subtext of drunkenness; this is how the locals interpret her behavior).  A key plot point, Norval’s apparent bank robbery, is motivated by the fact that all of his money is tied-up in War Bonds and he has to steal funds equal to the value of those securities to make his escape in the film’s last couple reels.


A deep and pervasive undertow of grief and mourning characterizes the movie.  Norval mourns the fact that he can’t wear the uniform of the armed forces – he’s been deemed unsuitable for service due to his apparent tendencies toward hysteria (“the spots! The spots!).  He says that he would rather possess an uniform, an emblem that he is valuable to the war effort, than have sex with his girlfriend – the uniform is more important to him than Trudy.  People are afflicted with personal losses, a metaphor for fatalities incurred in the War.  Kockenlocker is a widower, still grieving (along with his daughters) the death of his wife.  Norval is an orphan – his state of persistent anxiety, expressed in somatic symptoms, may have something to do with the fact that he is state-raised.  (At one point, he fantasizes about the director of the orphanage making a kindly appearance to bid orphans now in uniform a fond farewell – after all, they have neither mother nor father.)  The dance party sponsored by the town has a elegiac aspect – the soldiers are “poor dumb kids” that are going off to combat and “may never be seen again.”  Someone consoles Trudy by noting that the war will produce many women in her exact condition – that is mothers with babies born posthumously to fathers killed in combat or, at least, missing in action either literally or figuratively.  There will be “millions like you,” Trudy is told.  People, particularly girls, are said to “be cryin’ for the boys.”  As the sex-hungry girls and soldiers drive drunkenly through the town, they celebrate the fact that life and its pleasures are transitory – “row, row, your boat” since “life is but a dream.”  When Norval as Ignatz and Trudy try to procure a wedding license, the Justice of the Peace’s wife states the obvious: “it’s another army couple.”  


Gender role reversals are central to the Home Front mentality, although no one particularly desires this breach of normalcy.  Women are working, liberated, but uneasy in their status as breadwinners.  (Trudy explicitly longs for a conventional marriage and conventional, 1940-style gender roles but, perhaps, we should question her sincerity.)  Men on the Home Front are emasculated – if you’re not in uniform, you wear an apron as does Constable Kockenlocker.  The pacific Norval has taken cooking classes, which he enjoyed, and sewing, not so happily as a way to stay close to Trudy in High School.  But it’s no accident that the gentle, put-upon and masochistic Norval has studied female home economics.  If you’re not getting ready to fight, you are figuratively a woman.  But the women in this movie are masculine: an old lady plays a convincing gut-bucket trombone and the Jazz ensemble at the dance are all women.  Trudy is first seen mouthing the basso profundo of a song on what seems to be LP record.  The image is shocking, grotesque, and uncanny – a petite woman sings in the voice of a man.  (And the song, significantly, is about brave souls “asleep in the deep” – that is, men drowned at sea, certainly a current concern with battleships lost in naval combat and merchant marine vessels sunk by submarines in the North Atlantic.  Some critics believe the song is “Asleep in the Deep, but, in fact, it was composed for the movie by Sturges and is called “The Bell of the Deep.”)  Poor Norval, who wishes that a uniform could be issued to those men serving on the Home Front, observes that there are even women in uniform – he calls WACs “wackos.”  


War seems to be the perpetual state of crisis documented in Miracle of Morgan’s Creek.  The ghost of the Great War, a generation earlier, manifests in Kockenlocker’s half-crazed belligerence.  Norval, finally, gets the uniform for which he lusts when he takes Trudy to the Justice of the Peace in a vain effort to obtain a marriage license in the name of the mysterious, absconded “Ignatz Ratzskiwatski” – he’s dressed in the decaying ghost of a uniform, it keeps ripping and falling apart, of a AEF soldier (or, perhaps, a Horse Marine, also an artifact of the Great War.)  The Great War’s funereal presence driving events in the film is materialized in the embalmed uniform. Someone notes that Norval doesn’t exactly look like General MacArthur in his uniform that the lawyer claims is really just for “Boy Scouts” or, perhaps, “Woodsmen of the World” lodge brothers.  (The AEF uniform rhymes with the ridiculous martial costume, complete with a great phallic sword, that adorns Norval after he is credited with increasing the number of potential troops as cannon fodder for the War by six.  His prowess as a father in a World at War is signified by the sword dangling from his midsection – Norval’s prayers have come true; he finally has his uniform.)  


War fever has made everyone wildly aggressive and psychotically bellicose.  The level of violence in this Home Front picture is staggering.  There are combat action films that feature less thuggery and assault than Miracle of Morgan’s Creek.  Sooner or later, everyone brandishes a gun – Kockenlocker encourages Norval to propose to Trudy by pointing, not just one, but two, big revolvers at him. The Justice of the Peace pulls a big pistol and aims it at Norval.  Norval points a gun at Kockenlocker when the latter encourages him to escape.  The vicious banker, Tuerke, menaces Norval with a gun near the end of the movie.  Kockenlocker enforces the law through threats of physical violence – he carries a sap or blackjack on his uniform.  (And his daughters revenge themselves on him for his own violence directed at them by repeatedly conking him on the head with the club while also strangling him half-to-death with a rope.)  Twice Kockenlocker rears back to kick the backside of his daughter, Emmy, although this just results in a pratfall.  But Kockenlocker seems genuinely menacing in several scenes – he attacks Norval when he brings Trudy back late from the Ball and there is savage fight with the two girls clawing at their father.  Another fight of this sort, depicted as serious and potentially injurious, ensues when Norval tries to propose to Trudy – again, the two young women have to knock their father down and pin him to the ground.  At one point, Kockenlocker chases Trudy up the stairs in the house bellowing in rage – he doesn’t catch her and she shelters behind a locked bedroom door, but what, the audience wonders, would have happened if she had not been so fleet of foot.  Kockenlocker, the WWI war veteran is a violent misogynist, and threatens to murder Emmy.  We learn that Kockenlocker has beat up the banker Tuerke, inflicting a gaping wound that required six stitches.  When the City Fathers meet, inexplicably in the town’s Fire Station, there’s a riot with the men punching each other and, in the melee, Kockenlocker manages to slug Tuerke in the eye.  Kockenlocker, in fact, is so weirdly violent that he uses a hammer to assault an inoffensive Christmas tree and, even, beats up a cow.  Kockenlocker, the old WWI veteran, seems to embody the mindless violence that is fostered by the war – the solution to every problem involves a blackjack or gun or fist.   At various points, rooms or streets fill up with menacing crowds of men; at every point, the public seems about to devolve into some kind of lynch mob.  (This motif is even more clear in Hail, the Conquering Hero! in which a phalanx of shell-shocked Marines wanders around heavily armed with clubs and hammers, always on the verge of attacking the civilians around them.)  Slapstick comedy is aggressive and, often, not a pretty thing to see – but the level of violence in The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek certainly seems excessive to the film’s rather mild, even gynecological, comedy.  


The War accordingly has destabilized Morgan’s Creek and the Home Front is tremulous with lust, gender reversals, suppressed grief, and hysterical violence.  


Style


Sturges comedies in the forties represent the culmination two styles thought to be incommensurate – his films couple complex and witty dialogue with violent slapstick comedy.  No other director successfully synthesized the fast-talking dialogue of “screwball comedies” (His Girl Friday, The Awful Truth, Ball of Fire) with the visual humor and stylized mugging featured in silent comedies.  (Sturges said his scripts were full of “spritz-dialogue” – that is, fizzy, fast patter full of malapropisms, allusions to other films and current events, and intricate word-play.)  


So that dialogue sequences achieve full-effect, Sturges engineers very long takes.  (Trudy and Norval’s walk to the theater which sets up the film’s basic situation is managed in a take that lasts four minutes, the camera gliding alongside the characters as they talk and argue; there is a reprise of this scene later when Trudy admits to Norval that she is pregnant and the characters contemplate suicide.  Later, Trudy and her kid sister, Emmy, also talk as the camera tracks them through the elaborate set simulating a small town.)  In general, Sturges’ favors long takes – for instance, the scene in which Mr. Kockenlocker brandishes a pistol and threatens Norval about marriage to Trudy.  Sturges, however, punctuates these scenes with slapstick gags; again, consider Kockenlocker discharging the gun in the direction of Norval and his stunned exit from the porch into the house, walking straight through a closed screen door.  


David Bordwell, in his book Reinventing Hollywood: How 1940s Filmmakers changed Movie Storytelling (2017) observes that Sturges was a pioneer in developing complex narrative structures that revolutionized film practice in the Forties and that have proven to be highly influential on later pictures.  Bordwell writes that Sturges’ two overt Home Front movies were his most conventional pictures in terms of narrative structure: The Great McGinty, for instance, uses an elaborate flashback structure and Sturges’ last major comedy 1947's Unfaithfully Yours (with Rex Harrison) fragments the story into flashbacks, false flashbacks, unreliable narration, and fantasy or dream sequences.  Bordwell calls the structure of The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek “point of crisis construction” – the movie begins with a point of crisis, politicians scrambling to address the “miracle” that has happened in the small-town; the film, then, flashes back from that point but ends by reverting to the point of crisis and, then, advancing to the denouement.  


Sturges insisted that his lines be spoken, without improvisation, exactly as he wrote them.  He directed by acting out the parts in the script for each of the performers, using voices mimicking the actors (and actresses) playing the roles required.  He worked with a stock or repertoire company of mostly male character actors.  On occasion, he playfully engages in self-referential imagery – the governor of the State in which Morgan’s Creek is located is played by Brian Donleavy, the crooked politician on-the-make in The Great McGinty – the governor has migrated from Sturges’ first important film released in 1940 to the later picture made in 1942, but released in 1943.  (The Boss, a gangster in The Great McGinty played by Akim Tamiroff, also has a cameo in these scenes.)  In the 1944 Hail the Conquering Hero!, Eddie Bracken, ostensibly a war hero, marches past a big poster on a siding for The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek.  


Raped in its Sleep


As noted above, James Agee said that The Miracle at Morgan's Creek was evidence that the Breen Office had been “raped in its sleep.”  The Breen office was the Hollywood agency, devised by the industry, to self-censor its movies.  This office was formed to administer the so-called Hayes Code.


In the early thirties, there was wide-spread outrage among some cultural pundits about the licentiousness allegedly promoted by early talking pictures.  These so-called “Pre-code” films featured sexual promiscuity and depictions of criminal actions without adverse consequences to participants.  In the so-named “Pre-Code” movies, there were unwed mothers, prostitutes, adultery, and lots of unpunished crime.  Hollywood had been a favorite scape-goat with conservatives for many years and it was thought that the scandalous lives of the movie stars were also a bad influence on youth.  Hollywood recognized that it would be better to police itself than to delegate this authority to the government – an enterprise which would have been constitutionally suspect in any event.  According, Will Hayes, a former postmaster general for Woodrow Wilson, was appointed by industry leaders to devise and enforce a morality code applicable to Hollywood movies.  Hayes was actually reasonably liberal and recognized that clamping down too hard on the industry would kill the goose that was laying, year after year, golden eggs.  So Hayes engaged Joe Breen to write a code governing what could and could not be shown the motion pictures.  The so-called Breen Office was supposed to administer the Code on behalf of the motion picture industry.


The Code was full of oddities – movies couldn’t show couples in bed together without one of them having a foot on the ground; swear words were banished as well as terms like “virgin” and “pregnancy” and there were a host of other prohibitions as well.  Immediately, clever screenwriters set about finding ways to circumvent the Hayes Code.  And, of course, there was no screenwriter more clever than Preston Sturges.  Indeed, part of the comedy in The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek is Sturges’ ingenuity in subverting the Breen Office – this is an in-joke and subtext to the movie that would have been obvious in 1943 to anyone in the movie business.  


Sturges movie is about a young woman who becomes intoxicated at a dance patriotically sponsored as solace for departing servicemen.  The young woman has sex with some (or several) soldiers and ends up pregnant but without a marriage license or a known father for her child.  Obviously, this subject matter would have been profoundly distasteful to the Breen Office and, in fact, there would have been no way to get a script approved on this topic.  But Sturges fed his scenario to the Breen Office piecemeal, in six or seven page sections, and, so, the actual scope of the film’s subversion of Hollywood’s self-imposed censorship was not wholly visible until the movie was complete.  Sturges’ eliminated alcohol from his screenplay, although suggesting that Trudy is, in fact, drunk – albeit “punch-drunk” from bonk on the head.  (Everyone who meets Trudy immediately after the dance simply takes it for granted that she is intoxicated; she seems to have consumed spiked lemonade and champagne.)  Her meretricious conduct with one, or more servicemen, is cloaked in the implication that she didn’t have sex until she was somehow legally married – as if a marriage to an underage (minor) girl who is very drunk would have somehow make this sexual activity more acceptable.  In effect, Sturges taunts the Breen office with this scenario, mocks the war effort, and, for a good measure, inserts a strong element of blasphemy (Trudy gives “virgin birth” at Christmas) into the film.  Critics give Sturges’ credit for hoodwinking the Breen Office, but, of course, the censors were complicit – movies are a money-making endeavor and, viewed in a skeptical light, the entire raison d’etre for the Code and the Office was to allow Hollywood to continue making money on salacious projects, albeit within certain approved limits.


“Canada demands a Recount”


This is the headline on one of the newspapers shown in the montage presented after Trudy’s septuplets are born.   This allusion refers to the celebrated Dionne quintuplets born in rural Corbell, near Callendar in the Canadian province of Ontario.  These towns are on the border with Quebec and the Dionne quints were born to French-speaking parents, apparently a poor family living on a farm in the country.  The five identical girls were born in 1934 and would have about eight years old when The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek was made.  All of these children survived their childhood, and, as of this writing, two of them remain alive.  


The story of the Dionne quintuplets is extremely sordid and disheartening.  Within a few days of their birth, local physicians had betrayed the parents into signing an agreement to exhibit their children at the Chicago World’s Fair.  (Fortunes were made on the quintuplets but their parents and the girls themselves didn’t see any of this money.)  The Canadian government was appalled that a major Canadian resource, the Dionne infants, seemed to be in danger of export to the United States.  So the children were declared Wards of the Canadian State.  (The government also made money on the children leasing them, as it were, to Hollywood where they appeared in three feature films between 1936 and 1938).  A documentary about the girls showing their fifth birthday party, Five by Five, was nominated for a documentary Oscar in 1940.  A special nursery and school was built for the children and this facility, in turn, became a major tourist attraction.  Profits from this enterprise were paid to the quints’ enterprising pediatrician, Dr. Dafoe.  Around the time that The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek was made, interest in the children was waning. Custody of the children was restored to the parents, whereupon the girls’ father promptly began sexually abusing them.  (This wasn’t revealed until the 1990's).  


The Dionne quintuplets were remarkable because they were identical and the first multiple birth of five children in which all infants survived.   


Cannon fodder


In the context of The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek, the implications of Trudy’s multiple birth are disquieting.  The first headline that Sturges flashes on the topic reads NATURE ANSWERS TOTAL WAR.  The point, of course, is that Trudy has given birth to “a platoon” – all of the children are male.  In the context of “total war”, they are cannon fodder.  The Italians, Japanese, and Germans are shown to be distraught at Trudy’s fertility – the Americans are out-producing the Axis in the one resource fundamental to “total war”, that is, young men who can be slaughtered in battle.  The viewer’s mind, even now at a remove eighty years, considers the marvelous birth as being propitious to the war effort – men killed, or maimed, in battle are replaced by babies born to be cogs in the military-industrial complex.