Saturday, December 23, 2023

To Catch a Thief

 Alfred Hitchcock's 1955 To Catch a Thief is, in effect, a film noir, something disguised by the movie's luscious technicolor and gorgeous setting on the French Riviera.  The elements of film noir are all in place:  an emotionally detached war veteran is framed for a series of crimes.  Other members of his military unit, a terrorist group of Resistance fighters, suspect the veteran and believe that he has betrayed them.  An icy femme fatale intervenes and the ex-soldier is persuaded to use the woman's gems as bait to lure the real villain into a trap.  Someone gets killed in mysterious circumstances and, after a funeral, the plan to entrap the thief is implemented at a somewhat grotesque costume party.  There's a rooftop chase and the thief (who turns out to be another femme fatale) is captured.  There's even a cynical insurance adjuster, an Englishman from Lloyd's of London who has insured the purloined jewels; he plays the part of the insurance adjuster in Double Indemnity.  The story is circuitous, designed for thrilling set pieces, and, on reflection, doesn't make much sense.  The fantastically beautiful locations near Nice, France obscure the noir elements to the movie and, of course, the sheer star power of Cary Grant as the retired cat burglar and Grace Kelly as one of the film's several scheming women elevate the film beyond its premises.  In many respects, To Catch a Thief is also a warm-up for the 1958 picture, North by Northwest also starring Cary Grant in a love affair with another of Hitchcock's icy blondes (in the later film, Eva Marie Saint); Cary Grant is framed for a crime in North by Northwest as well, gets buzzed by an airplane as in To Catch a Thief, and both movies end with aerial escapades, a woman dangling off the lofty roof of French villa in To Catch a Thief and the famous climax on Mount Rushmore in North by Northwest in which Cary Grant hauls the heroine who has almost plunged to her depth out of the abyss below the four frowning faces on the mountain.  (The rooftop scenes in To Catch a Thief, shot in eerie empty frames with analytical compositions showing tiles with sentinel chimneys and other HVAC doodads studding the steep, raking defiles of slate shingle also invoke the opening chase sequence in Vertigo.)  All of these films feature "adult" dialogue bristling with double-entendre and the sexual subtext in these films is always eccentric if not perverse.  

Hitchcock's spectacular locations in To Catch a Thief are undercut by his careless use of rear-projection.  The illusion that the film was made on the French Riviera is continuously and, rather capriciously, controverted by the unconvincing process photography.  Spectacular aerial shots of car chases on serpentine and deadly-looking mountain roads high above the Mediterranean are intercut with lazy rear projections scenes in which Cary Grant and Princess Grace engage in witty flirtatious dialogue while the landscape on the screen behind them slides by, garments and hair distressed only slightly by an off-screen fan.  Scenes set at the Riviera beach on the sea under ramparts of gorgeous mountains are similarly unpersuasive.  Hitchcock signifies that he really couldn't care less about the spectacular French locations and that, in fact, the vistas of mountain and gleaming sea are a bit tawdry and meretricious, like the gems that glisten on the superb bosoms of his leading ladies -- his real interest lies in the sexual byplay between his characters and their rather abstract, theoretical glamor.  In every respect, the film is perverse: an egg gets pitched at Cary Grant and makes a nasty mess on a window next to his head; later, a socialite stubs out a cigarette on an egg fried sunny-side-up.  There are two car chases but, in both cases, the drivers eluding their pursuers are women; in one of these chases, Cary Grant is along literally for the ride -- we see him anxiously kneading his knees as Grace Kelly blithely zooms around hairpin curves with a drop-off of about 2000 feet six inches from her tires.  (Princess Grace died in a crash as she was driving on one of these mountain roads in 1982.)  A poster proclaims that "If you love life, you'll love Nice!" followed by a jump cut to a woman in close-up screaming at the camera.  Cary Grant's romantic scenes with Grace Kelly are complicated by the fact that the young woman is traveling with her mother, a bawdy dame who is also vividly attractive, and the film suggests much more age-appropriate for a romance with the middle-aged hero than the girl.  (There's another even  younger girl, also a teenager who also pursues the rather passive war hero.)  The object of desire here is Cary Grant, the character whom all three women seem to desire and there's an implication that before the film is over the hero will enjoy the charms of each of them, but again not with intent but, more or less, sleepwalking into their embrace.  Although the scenes between Grant and Kelly have an undoubtable sexual sizzle, there's also obvious chemistry between Grant and Grace Kelly's mother, played with superb aplomb by Jessie Royce Landis; it's a Wife of Bath role and perfectly done.  Indeed, in the film's last line, we learn that the hero's honeymoon with Princess Grace will also involve her mother, suggesting some sort of bizarre menage a trois.  (Hitchcock used Jessie Royce Landis as Cary Grant's mother in North by Northwest in a very similar role; Landis was 59 when To Catch a Thief was made; Grant was 51; Grace Kelly was 26.)  

To Catch a Thief is second-tier Hitchcock; the film contains all of the director's signature obsessions and perverse touches.  But there's nothing here that that the director hasn't done better in some other film.  That said, the picture is very entertaining, a bagatelle, as light and airy as a feather.  


Friday, December 22, 2023

Benediction

 Terence Davies' last film Benediction (2021) is a bio-pic about the British poet and memoirist, a soldier of the Great War, Siegfried Sassoon (1886 to 1967).  The subject matter will be obscure to most viewers and the movie, Davies' last film before his death, is disappointing. (Davies died in October of 2023). In his previous movies, Davies addressed homosexuality in rather reticent and oblique terms.  However, in this film, he approaches this theme in more explicit terms -- it's not clear to me that this is any sort of improvement or, even, esthetically viable.  There seems to be a component of self-loathing in Davies' depiction of homosexuals, a sense that things would be better if the protagonist were straight or, at least, able to pass for straight.  (Sassoon, for instance, marries, apparently, because other gay men of his generation did this -- possibly as a form of camouflage; but, because, for most of the film all of the male characters in the picture are openly gay, it's not clear what the fashion for heterosexual marriage is supposed to mean.)  Davies' stages some sex scenes and depicts the Gay milieu in satirical, even, scathing terms.  But it's fairly clear that this aspect of the movie doesn't particularly interest him except as a platform for bitchy, fantastically articulate repartee and, in some respects, the homosexuality of the principal characters is, more or less incidental to the film's broader themes.  Davies was a great director and readers interested in his work should watch his earlier films, all of which are masterpieces:  Distant Voices, Still Lives  (1988), The Long Day Closes (1992), his documentary about Liverpool, Of Time and the City (2008), and his two adaptations, the great House of Mirth (2000) with Gillian Anderson and Deep Blue Sea (2011).  Davies last three pictures, in my view, display a considerable weakening in his talents -- Sunset Song (2015) is grim, slow-moving and lugubrious, almost a parody of Davies' unique film-style; his picture about Emily Dickinson A Quiet Passion (2016) completely misunderstands the poet's sly wit and malice and, instead, focuses on Dickinson's illnesses -- it makes her into a misunderstood saint and denies the woman's agency and, even, dominance within her family circle.  Benediction is puzzling and stands in relation to Davies' other films as does Fassbinder's last movie Querelle with respect to his many other films -- Davies, like Fassbinder, clarifies the erotic inclinations implied in his earlier films, but not necessarily in a manner that enhances the picture's meaning -- in fact, by making something overt that was obviously implied anyway, I think Benediction is significantly weaker than Davies' earlier pictures, some of which are among the greatest movies ever made.  (The Long Day Closes is fantastically audacious, brilliant, and moving.)     

Siegfried Sassoon, as a  young man, seems to despise this father's profession of faith -- the older man has converted to Catholicism.  (It seems to me on reflection that this episode is a confusing flashforward or prolepsis -- we are apparently seeing Sassoon in 1957 converting to Catholicism; this sequence is badly mismanaged.)   He enlists in the military and fights as a courageous and loyal soldier in the trenches on the Western Front.  He is adored by his men.  But Sassoon perceives the war as a pointless and horrific exercise in futility and he writes an open letter condemning the war effort.  Summoned before a tribunal of three officers, Sassoon makes witty and epigrammatic replies to their questions -- his responses to the officer's interrogation are drenched in contempt.  (It would seem that imitating Oscar Wilde in this context would not be a good strategy.)  The officer's repelled by Sassoon's arrogant savoir faire send him to a Scottish hospital for shell-shock victims.  There Sassoon encounters a similarly witty and ultra-intelligent officer, similarly homosexual and discusses with him "the love that does not dare to speak it's name."  Also confined in the hospital is Wilfred Owen, the great World War One poet.  Sassoon has an affair with him and is shown dancing a tango with the wan young man.  Owen is returned to the front and killed a week before the War ends.  After the War, Sassoon knocks about London and begins a romance with the utterly loathsome Ivor Novello, a composer of light musicals.  (Novello must be fantastic in bed because everyone in the movie is hopelessly in love with him -- although the man is a completely vicious cad and shown to be without any redeeming values at all.)  Sassoon has a love affair with one of Novello's other suitors, a man named Stephen.  Stephen is unfaithful to Sassoon and spends a few months in Germany enjoying the affections of some Prussian and Bavarian ex-soldiers.  At this point, the film becomes quite confusing.  Sassoon, who spends about half of the movie, berating his lovers, is haranguing poor Stephen about being a narcissist (this is the pot calling the kettle black).  Suddenly, Stephen ages into a handsome old man while gazing worshipfully into his image in a mirror.  The film flashes forward and shows Sassoon as an embittered, extremely angry old man.  He denounces poor Stephen who doesn't seem like all that bad of a guy and refuses to reconcile with him.  By this point, Sassoon has been married for thirty years to a long-suffering woman that he courted on the rebound from his unhappy love affair with Novello.  Sassoon's wife is disenchanted with her noxious and bitchy husband and departs for Scotland.  Sassoon, then, spends his waning years denouncing and insulting his own son, George.  George takes the vicious old man to a musical which Sassoon hates with such a passion that it basically kills him. (The musical is Stop the World I want to get off.)  Sitting on a park bench, Sassoon as an old man morphs into the handsome young ex-soldier.  While vehemently emotional music plays, he grimaces and gurns, all the time remembering a poem by Wilfred Owen called "Disabled" that Sassoon proclaimed a masterpiece in 1917.  We see a horribly mutilated veteran shoved onto a porch to enjoy the gloomy English weather -- the poor guy has no legs.  As the poem is recited, Sassoon makes faces and, then, the picture fades to black.

Sassoon is portrayed as a wretched, self-hating and embittered old man.  Davies provides, at least, three explanations for the cruelty and viciousness of his hero:  Sassoon is envious of the fame enjoyed by T. S. Eliot and thinks he should have been knighted for his poetry; Sassoon is bitter about being homosexual and having to live his life in the shadows; or, most plausibly, Sassoon is a victim of World War One -- he has been psychically mangled by his experiences in the Great War (Davies' shows newsreels of soldiers with horrible facial wounds or mutilated corpses in the trenches); these experiences have induced in him a sort of hysterical post-traumatic stress disorder that has distorted and disfigured his entire life.  The problem with the film is that we can't be convinced that Sassoon is a genius, particularly when the poem afforded the most attention in the movie is by Wilfred Owen -- in fact, two of Owen's poems are central to the movie.  There's no doubt that Sassoon is a master of scathing insults and clever one-liners but these gifts are deployed to humiliate and insult others who don't always seem deserving of his wrath -- for instance, he taunts his hapless son George mercilessly and seems to die of pique when the poor man takes him to musical that he doesn't like.  He also acts like wretched bully with regard to his long-suffering wife.  The guy is so rampantly unpleasant that we don't really sympathize with him at all.  

The movie has only three or four sequences that invoke Davies' powers as a film maker.  There are some languorous pans to the right when music is playing and a bizarre interlude featuring "Ghost Riders in the Sky" -- apparently, intended as a symbol for the horror of World War One, but such a peculiar choice of music that it simply confuses the viewers.  There are many "They Shall Not Grow Old" newsreels in the film showing the Great War.  When Sassoon gets married, everyone in the pews is Gay, and the group of handsome homosexuals includes T. E. Lawrence, helpfully identified as "Lawrence of Arabia".  This is not a good movie, although it's reasonably interesting.  Watch Davies' other earlier films instead of this movie.  

Tuesday, December 19, 2023

Der Tod und das Maedchen (You-Tube / Fischer-Dieskau -- Verady)

Tod und die Maedchen is a performance of a song (Lied) by Franz Schubert, a setting of a poem by the German poet Matthias Claudius.  The song is an intensely expressive miniature, about 2 minutes and 40 seconds long.  A You-Tube video documents a performance of the song by Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and and Julia Varady.  The video is also less than than 2 minutes and forty seconds. This tiny gem is a masterpiece, far more moving and profound than most feature films.  I can't recommend this short film enough and hope that you will seek it out.

Schubert's song was composed in 1817.  It's about 41 bars in length.  A young woman, feverish with illlness, imagines that death as skeletal figure (she calls him a Knochenmann -- that is, a "bony man") had come to her bedside.  She cries out that she is too young to die and asks death to pass over her bed and spare her.  She pleads with Death asking him not to touch her.  Death replies that she must give him her hand.  He is her friend and has come "not to punish" (strafen) but to take her in his arms so that she can "sleep" (schlafen).  He admonishes her to be of good cheer because his is not wild or fierce but gentle.  

The film shows a man and woman in a tastefully decorated music-room.  They seem to be comfortable in their home.  The man plays the piano with singular, dispassionate intensity.  His eyes staring at the score on the pianoare focused like lasers, and his features are composed, but immensely concentrated on playing the accompaniment to the woman's song. The grave and sober, but mathematically precise, attention with which the man reads the score and plays the piano, contrasts with the woman's passion.  The woman sings with ferocious intensity, first impersonating the girl's panic at the apparition that has appeared at her bedside:  Voruber! ach, Voruber!  ("Go past! Oh, go past!) she cries in a tone harsh as a crow's cry, an expression of desperate terror. In the song's first stanza, the woman's voice stutters and leaps with repulsion and anguish.  The  second stanza is Death's reply, an implacable monotone constructed of the same note repeated as a rhythmic pulse, the chant lightening at the end into a lullaby admonishes the girl to sleep.  

At the start of the song, the woman, who stands next to the pianist, puts her hand on the man's shoulder left shoulder next to her hip.  The woman is wearing an elegant earth-colored blouse.  The man is clad entirely in black and wears steel-rimmed glasses.  The black and brown tones harmonize with the autumnal colors of the room in which the song is performed.  Several close-ups show the accompanist leaning forward to play the song's simple melody before and between (and, then, after) the poem's stanzas.  At the end of the song, when the Death invites the girl to sleep, the camera portrays the woman in a huge close-up.  She has a faded, beautiful face with high cheekbones and wears long black eyelashes.  She is not weeping but her eyes seem moist.  The camera cuts to the pianist playing the last seven or eight bars, a dying fall.  This shot corresponds to the close-up of the woman who has now finished singing.  As the pianist concludes the song, the woman's hand tentatively touches the man's right bicep, her fingers appearing for an instant at the corner of the image before the screen fades to black.  The effect of the woman's reticent gestures and the two portrait shots (the woman's face first and, then, the man indifferent it seems to everything but the demands of the music) that conclude the film is immensely moving.

In a reversal of roles, the pianist is Dietrich Fischer Dieskau, the world's most famous baritone and the greatest of all proponents of the German Lieder or Art-Song.  Here Fischer-Dieskau, who was about 82 when the film was made doesn't sing.  Instead, the renowned singer is eerily silent, showing total absorption in the simple piano part that he plays.  The woman is Julia Varady, in the film in her late sixties.  Julia Varady was Fischer-Dieskau's wife from 1977 to 2012, when he died.  She was a famous opera singer in her own right, celebrated for her beauty and exquisite performances.  (Varady was born in Hungary in 1941; Fischer-Dieskau was born in 1925.)  One thinks of Fischer-Dieskau as built a little like Franz Schubert, a big man with soft features and a bit chubby.  In the video, he is very thin and his face, although smooth and unlined, seems a bit drawn; he looks like the young inmate in the American POW camp in archival pictures, the place where he was confined for two years and where he first demonstrated his genius to the guards and the other prisoners -- old age and sickness, it seems, has made him slender and youthful-looking again.  Julia Varady furrows her brow with the effort of personifying the maiden first and, then, Death.  Death says "Gib deine Hand" ("Give me your hand");it is Julia Varady who gently extends her hand to touch the arm and wrist of her pianist.  The soprano's engagement with the lyrics is intense, passionate, eloquent; by contrast, the pianist seems already detached from life, his face a theorem of intense concentration, already, perhaps, posthumous.  

Watch this video -- it will change your life and make most of the rest of things that you see on screen or TV seem trivial.

    

Sunday, December 17, 2023

Barbie

 Greta Gerwig's Barbie (2023) is pretty bad.  Heralded as a witty, feminist romp, the movie's defects mostly arise from its compromised premises --  the film endorses the notion of Barbie as a widely derided Trojan Horse for reactionary attitudes about body-image and women's roles in our society; at the same time, the film wants to present the nine-inch plastic doll as a freedom-fighter for women's liberation.  Mattel, the company that produces and markets Barbie dolls is alternately portrayed as an insidious misogynistic force and a benign maternal influence. Two things can be true at one time, but Barbie is without any nuance -- it presents wildly incompatible ideological perspectives on the hapless doll that seesaw back and forth before descending into complete bathos; the film ends like Pinocchio with the plastic mannequin longing to become a real girl, something that is achieved by the installation of a vagina in the figurine's otherwise pristine and polished bald crotch.  It's hard to imagine how a film like this gets made, let alone marketed and touted from one end of the Internet's cybenetic universe to the other as a fun, politically correct and, even, radical masterpiece.  In fact, the movie is shockingly inept.  This is epitomized by song-and-dance numbers that are instantly forgettable and unimaginatively choreographed -- the dance scenes in the film are massively inferior to what you used to see on TV variety shows (Jackie Gleason for instance) in the early seventies; it's all slipshod, a mish-mash of routine High School dance-team maneuvers shot from inexpressive angles and edited to conceal defects in the choreography and its execution.  The movie relies upon the contrast between Barbie-world, a plastic landscape with a beach constructed with impenetrable plastic waves set in a day-glo desert that looks like outtakes from Wes Anderson's similarly botched Asteroid City and the real world, portrayed as an overlit, sunshiny Venice Beach and Santa Monica.  The viewer hopes to perceive some sort of radical discontinuity between the colors and lighting and locations in the idealized Barbie-land and the real world -- but the same bright, perky, TV commercial esthetic is applied to both places, thus, cheating the audience out of a clash between imagination and reality that might be productive of some interesting effects and ideas.  Reality with its dozen black-clad suited male corporate executives is no more plausible than Barbieland and so the movie devolves into dull and tendentious whimsy regardless of where it focuses its camera.  Similarly, the film's dialogue, a bizarre combination of radical chic, post-modernist cliches and retrograde advertisement-speak also rings false -- nothing sounds right, probably an intentional effect, because the movie oscillates between specious corporate diction and New Age proselytizing for self-actualization and fashionably progressive social causes.  The picture can't take itself seriously -- after all, it's about the adventures of plastic talking doll -- with the effect that its both wholly forgettable and light as a feather, a whiff of reality would blow it away, the reason, I think, that any thing even remotely grounded in reality is so strenuously excluded from the movie.

The movie gets into trouble at the very outset, a parody of the famous opening scene with the apes in Kubrick's 2001.  Helen Mirren, the narrator, says that, from the dawn of time, little girls played with dolls representing babies or small children.  But, then, Barbie appeared, here visualized as a stark linear form of glistening plastic very much like the monolith in the 1968 film.  To the music of Strauss Also Sprach Zarathustra, the homely little girls, clad in rags for some reason, smash their baby dolls to pieces, using the Barbie figurines as clubs.  This is wildly and idiotically far from the mark.  Barbies didn't supplant baby dolls; rather, they simply infantilized adult women so that they could be played with as hapless, passive objects no different from the baby dolls that shared the same toy chests with them.  Furthermore, the sequence fails to understand the film's own logic:  in consumer capitalism, it's not one commodity or another, not either/or but both together.  (The movie exemplifies this logic by presenting Barbie as both a feminist warrior for equal rights and a monstrous specimen of misogynist rage against women's real bodies and social destinies.)  The opening scene is confusing and the confusion is simply compounded as the movie continues.

In an idealized, cloying Barbie-Land, our heroine lives an idyllic existence.  Barbie-land is a complete gynocracy with exclusively women presidents, Nobel laureates, and an all female Supreme Court.  The Ken dolls, exemplified by Ryan Gosling (who is supremely creepy and stupid in this film) are mere fashion accessories like Barbie's jet skis, high-fashion purses and shoes.  Ken wants to kiss Barbie but she always forces him away -- after all, neither of them have genitals, a proposition that the castrato Ken sulks about and, even, disputes.  Barbie discovers one day that her feet, permanently formed to elevate her to a tip-toe stance high heels stance, have gone flat.  She now walks about on the soles of her feet.  (This sequence is the sole clever and witty part of the movie.)  Barbie also starts thinking about death -- she says "I'm just dying..." then, pausing to complete the sentence "dying...to go dancing."  Barbie consults with "weird Barbie", the representative of dolls that have been mutilated, and otherwise abused by their little girl owners (my wife identified with the little girls who tortured their Barbies, cutting their hair and disfiguring them, and twisting them into "forever doing the splits.")  Weird-Barbie is a sort of sibyl, an oracle who knows how to reach the real world.  Weird Barbie, played by Kate MacKinnon, says that some Barbie dolls have owners with dark thoughts and bleak imaginations and these children can color the experiences of their surrogates in Barbie-land.  (The rules of interplay between Barbie-land and reality are not worked out in any detail and, the more you think about this aspect of the film, the more confusing the film's narrative becomes -- best to just accept the premise on face-value, but, again, an odd problem for a movie that purports to analyze, or go beneath, the social-psychological implications of the Barbie phenomenon.)   With Ken in tow (he's stowed away in Barbie's pink convertible), the doll crosses into Reality where she encounters a world in which sexism and gender inequality is rampant.  The cartoonish villains at Mattel try to capture her and "return her to her box", but she eludes them, meeting a ghost in their corporate tower who we understand to be the woman who actually invented the doll.  Barbie finally gets back to Barbie-land with  the sad intelligence that the real world has not been transformed into a girl's paradise like the fictional world that she inhabits.  But things have gone badly wrong in Barbie-land.  Ken, who has been infected with sexist ideology, has returned to Barbie-land in advance of his consort.  He has taught the other Kens to rebel against the gynocracy and has transformed the whole place into parody patriarchy -- Barbie-land is now like the world in The Handmaid's Tale, missing, of course, the rape and anti-abortion subtext, because the dolls are all neutered and without reproductive organs.  Now, the Barbies who have become strangely passive and submissive have to be inspired to revolt --  under Barbie's tutelage, they urge the Ken dolls to fight against one another, using the weapons of feigned female helplessness and male vanity.  The wicked Ken dolls are defeated and the gynocracy is restored, albeit now with some lip service to equal rights among the male and female dolls.  Barbie, meanwhile, has suddenly developed a hankering to become a real girl complete with vagina and uterus.  She encounters the benign matriarch, Ruth Handsley, who invented Barbie and is granted her wish.  The movie ends with a bizarre flourish with Barbie making her first visit to a gynecologist's office apparently in Santa Monica:  does she have a sexually transmitted disease? is she pregnant or suffering from endometriosis?  In what world is Santa Monica visualized as representative of reality?

The movie wants to be on all sides of every issue:  it wants to be vehemently anti-Barbie and vehemently pro-Barbie; it wants to endorse "girl-culture" and yet rail against "girlish things" as superficial.  There is a subplot featuring the mother whose dark imaginings have destabilized Barbie-world.  This woman has an irritatingly precocious teenage daughter who despises Barbie as a false ideal as to women's body image and aspirations.  But the girl comes around to loving Barbie and this forges a renewed and positive relationship between mother and daughter.  Mattel executives are portrayed as comically inept, nasty, sexist villains but Mattel produced the picture and, at the film's end, it is said that Barbie and love of Barbie is a tie that connects succeeding generations of women in bonds of love and affection.  Margot Robbie is okay in the thankless role of Barbie; Rhea Perlman is cloying, but touching, as the woman who invented Barbie; Ryan Gosling is utterly annoying as in every picture in which I have seen this actor, a perfomer who somehow manages to combine both the most extreme vanity and false "aw-shucks" humility -- this guy always plays idiots and it's not surprising that he can neither sing nor dance.  Greta Gerwig directs in a flat-out panic, like someone rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  

The film, as a cultural artifact, exemplifies a disquieting aspect of movie-marketing.  For months before the film's premiere. the internet buzzed with articles describing the actors, their relationships with one another, and other information about how the movie was made.  There were literally innumerable articles of this sort, accompanied by lots of pictures and interviews.  Then, in the dozen days before the film's premiere thousands of critical accolades, presumably all of them bought and paid-for, were dropped everywhere on the internet.  The effect was to create a tidal wave of interest in the movie which is, in fact, profoundly dull and uninteresting.  This sort of carpet-bombing media blitz inevitably creates a huge audience for the films that it promotes.  The same campaign was conducted for Oppenheimer, a better movie but, nonetheless, not that good and, later, for Killers of the Flower Moon (and Napoleon).  The key point to understand here is that the positive reviews are all purchased and that the movies marketed in this way may or may not be any good -- but they certainly aren't accurately described by this tsunami of media posts.


Saturday, December 16, 2023

May December

 Todd Haynes May December (Netflix 2023) is a mysterious and open-ended film about statutory rape and its emotional consequences.  The subject matter is highly fraught, TV movie-of-the-month material, but Haynes adopts a rigorously abstract and, even, nonchalant  approachwith respect to this melodramatic material.  As a result an audience expecting a certain kind of movie, espousing something like conventional morality, may feel that the picture is too neutral and indifferent to do justice to the material -- the viewer may feel a bit cheated by the movie's scrupulously non-judgmental perspective.  The picture requires us to make up our own minds about the conduct of the characters and, if you expect to be guided to insights about sexual exploitation and its long shadow, you will be put-off by this film.  In fact, it is arguable that the statutory rape aspects of the story, events occurring 24 years before the action shown in the movie, are not May December's real theme -- rather, the picture seems primarily about acting, truth in cinematic representation, and the way that time doesn't exactly heal, but eliminates and polishes away sharp edges.

A 36-year old actress, famous for a TV show in which she plays a perky lady veterinarian, comes to an island suburb of Savannah, Georgia.  (For some reason, the picture is set in 2015).  This actress, named Elizabeth (played by Natalie Portman) is researching a part that she will play in an upcoming film.  This movie is about events that happened between 1992 and 1994, a story that captivated the country and that was heavily reported in the tabloid press at the time.  (The story has already been featured in a TV movie, but the production featuring Elizabeth seems to be higher prestige, more up-scale version helmed by an Italian director. Apparently, Elizabeth is having a casual affair with this man.)  The film within the film, a docu-drama, is about a happily married Savannah housewife, Gracie (played by Julianne Moore) who embarked on a fatal love affair with a seventh-grade boy.  The couple were discovered in flagrante at the pet store where the woman worked and where the seventh-grader was also employed.  Gracie was sent to prison for statutory rape where she delivered the couple's child, a girl named Honor who is now attending college. After being released from prison, Gracie and the boy, Joe, who was, then, an adult, were married.  When December May begins the couple have been together for 24 years and are living a nondescript, more or less, anonymous life on the suburban island near Savannah.  Joe is Korean American and, although appreciably younger than Gracie, now seems a bit paunchy, disenchanted, and in fact, now is plausible as her husband.  The couple have twins, a boy and girl, who are about to graduate from High School and leave for college.  Gracie has another son, who is disaffected and possibly mentally ill, with her first husband Tom Atherton, the man who she abandoned for the seventh-grader.  The film shows Gracie as a conventional housewife, concerned with appearances, obsessed with dieting and health, and indistinguishable in all respects from her neighbors who have now chosen to forget, or, at least, ignore the scandal from which the second marriage arose.  Periodically, boxes of shit are mailed to Gracie by anonymous enemies, but she takes this all in stride and seems proud to now be an exemplar of traditional values, someone who dotes on her children, henpecks poor Joe, and makes money selling elaborate baked goods out of her house.  (Joe is a radiologist).  Elizabeth, who in some ways is more troubled than Gracie, interacts with the older woman and tries to understand her motivations -- she interviews Gracie's previous husband, her lawyer, and interacts with Gracie's angry and abrasive son from her first marriage, a handsome young man who has defined himself as the primary victim of Gracie's affair with the seventh-grader.  Elizabeth tentatively acts out a few episodes from the scandalous love affair -- for instance, she seems to masturbate in the pet shop where the lovers were discovered and, at the climax of the movie, recites an agonizing letter that Gracie wrote to her teenage boyfriend, acting the part of Gracie.  (Joe has kept this letter, evidence of Gracie's previous criminal conduct, and, in a breach of faith with his wife, gives the souvenir to the actress.)  Elizabeth, it seems, is a sort of victim of method-acting and her own identity is a little unstable.  As the film progresses, she seems to become more and more similar to Gracie as she was when the scandal arose, more impulsive, more willing to take erotic risks and more confused about her own identity.  Whereas Gracie seems never to have had any second thoughts about her erotic adventure with Joe and continues to justify it -- "you seduced me," she tells Joe in one particularly painful scene -- Elizabeth is a bundle of neuroses and is unable to let go of the part that she is playing.  We see this in a puzzling final scene, an episode from the movie in production, shot on a set simulating the pet shop and, in which Elizabeth as Gracie, tries to seduce the boy -- she is fondling a snake but says that the snake doesn't bite adding "it's not that kind of snake."  Even after the director has called "cut" and accepted her performance after four takes, Elizabeth wants to keep performing the role, wants to continue her on-screen seduction of the little boy.  

Of course, beneath the surface of conventional suburban morality, there is a seething subcurrent of wounded feelings and emotional damage.  Elizabeth capitalizes on Joe's sense that he was deprived of his adolescence by seducing him -- there's a cringe-inducing scene of sex on a bedroom floor in which Elizabeth, as it were, test-drives poor Joe.  It's obvious that Joe is sexually inexperienced and doesn't know what to make of the lightning-fast intercourse.  He seems trapped in a seventh-grade approach to sex.  After the encounter, Elizabeth rather coldly tells Joe that nothing will come of their dalliance, a meaningless interlude as far as she is concerned,  because "that's what it means to be an adult" -- that is to take your pleasure and move on without second-thoughts.  This is baffling to Joe whose entire life has been defined by his sexual encounter with Gracie.  He goes back home and tries to talk to Gracie, but she won't listen to him; Gracie is so convinced of her rectitude and the purity of her desire for Joe (someone she now merely tolerates) that she doesn't want to hear anything about his feelings, portrays him as the aggressor in their fatal love affair, and has completely walled herself off from her husband.  Gracie and Joe's children graduate from High School.  Gracie, who is from Appalachia, hunts in the woods with her two beautiful Golden Retrievers -- she sees a fox but doesn't take a shot at the animal, although the beast somewhat plaintively cries out to her -- and, then, reverts to her smug somewhat self-satisfied life as Joe's pampered wife.  At the end of the movie, just before we see Elizabeth reenacting the pet shop scene with Joe, Gracie tells the younger woman that her oldest son's bitter charge that she was victim of childhood incest with her brothers in Tennessee is a complete fiction.  Elizabeth is amazed that Gracie knows that the young man made this claim to her.  Gracie says that she talks to her oldest son "every single day" and knows exactly what he is doing -- an assertion that surprises Elizabeth since everyone has told her (apparently inaccurately) that Gracie is entirely estranged from her son with her first husband and has no contact with him at all.  The point seems to be that what we think we know about people is mostly untrue. 

The viewer, of course, aware of  the criminal backdrop to Gracie and Joe's marriage scrutinizes the film for clues of dysfunction arising from the statutory rape.  But. by and large, Grace and Joe, like the rest of the community, have more or less agreed to bury the past and avoid referring to it.  (Joe is stunted, a sort of man-child -- in one scene, he smokes marijuana with his son on the roof of the house, the place where the teenagers hang out to get away from their parents; he says that he's never used marijuana before -- this was an experience denied to him by his teenage affair with the controlling Gracie.) From time to time, Gracie seems inexplicably emotional; for instance, she cries uncontrollably when a customer rejects one of her cakes and won't pay for it -- but we don't know whether this has anything to do with the love affair 24 years earlier or, if this is just a red herring, a clue that leads nowhere like the assertion by Gracie's son that her brothers sexually abused her back in Tennessee. Most of the film is enigmatic; it's not exactly clear whether Haynes, the director, has unresolved feelings himself about the subject matter and can't really come to any sort of dramatic conclusion on that subject or whether his reticence is intentional, a strategy emphasizing how little we know about human motivations and their consequences.  In one scene, Elizabeth, who is a celebrity, is invited to the High School where Gracie's twins attend school.  She gives a talk on acting.  One of the boys taunts her and Elizabeth responds with some obviously seductive intent directed at the teenager.  The question is about how the actress feels when performing sex scenes.  She replies that it takes six hours to film a scene of that sort, that you are mostly nude, rubbing up against an actor, and that, in the end, you aren't sure whether you are acting as if you feel desire and pleasure or acting to conceal the real desire and pleasure that the performance induces in you.  In some scenes, for instance, a sequence in which Gracie applies make-up to Elizabeth, the camerawork channels Bergman's great Persona, a picture also set on an island that explores some of the same themes implicit in May December; Bergman's rather stylized and cubist framing of his two actresses is echoed by the way that Haynes films Gracie and Elizabeth -- of course, the concept is that they are exchanging personalities.  Joe is obviously detached from Gracie, who mercilessly orders him around, and he is pursuing a sort of desultory long-distance flirtation with a woman in his Facebook group.  (Joe cultivates Monarch butterflies and the movie features many close shots of caterpillars and chrysalises and the butterflies emerging from their cocoons -- the metaphor seems to be that Joe was never allowed to transition from being a child to adulthood and that the transformation of the insects is symbolic of growth that was denied to him.)  The interaction with the Facebook friend goes nowhere and, at the end of the movie, one has the sense that everyone, including Elizabeth, is trapped in a sort of paralysis, unable to either acknowledge or escape the past.  This sense of paralysis is embodied in the film's hyper-dramatic sound track, piano music composed for Joseph Losey's film The Go-Between.  The score by Michel LeGrand is used idiosyncratically, sometimes for laughs -- in one scene, Gracie notices that the family doesn't have enough hot dogs for their barbecue, a realization underlined by a burst of wildly emotional and hyperbolic music, dramatic crashing chords on the piano.  December May is elliptical and evasive, but it's an excellent movie and worth your time.  

Sunday, December 10, 2023

Downsizing

Downsizing (2017) is a silly science fiction film, notable for its direction by Alexander Payne.  Payne is a reliably interesting filmmaker, well-known for his early acerbic comedies (Citizen Ruth and Election) and a number of extremely successful adaptations from other sources -- including About Schmidt, Sideways, The Descendants, and, more recently, The Holdovers.  He is from Omaha, Nebraska and his pictures are often set in that city..  Downsizing, a highly ambitious movie with an expensive cast, is the sort of failure that wrecks a director's career, and, in fact, casts doubts on some of the fundamental premises underlying his work -- the movie's deficiencies probably contributed to a partly successful attack on Payne mounted between 2018 and 2020 in which he was accused of statutory rape; prior to that contretemps, Payne was a renowned philanthropist, film festival jury member, and one of the few moviemakers accorded final cut privileges by the studios -- the rape claims, revolving around differing memories as to when a sexual encounter occurred, and the bad reviews for Downsizing, tarnished Payne's luster but now seem to be receding into the past.  Payne is not a particularly prolific film maker, for instance, not making any films during one seven year period in his life, and, so, it's hard to know to what extent scandal and disappointment over Downsizing actually affected his productivity.  Downsizing seems to have been made in 2020 before the Covid pandemic; The Holdovers may have been shot at the outset of the pandemic but was only released, after final editing, in 2023.  

Downsizing is interesting because it is an epic failure, a misstep on a grand level.  It's undoubtedly a bad film with embarrassingly bad writing -- almost every shot seems somehow false and meretricious:  for instance, an opening "eureka!" sequence in which a Norwegian scientist discovers how to "downsize" living creatures is filmed like a bad TV commercial and manages to be both trite and dull at the same time. Payne isn't a showy filmmaker -- he has a HBO sensibility, working efficiently, with good use of locations and excellent actors; but it's evident that he relies heavily on well-written scripts and, when the screenplay, is badly  conceived and weakly executed, there's nothing he can do to retrieve the picture but insert some spectacular landscapes in its last couple reels.  And, of course, as the pictures get prettier, the writing gets markedly worse.  

From the finished picture, it's not clear why Payne thought that a movie of this sort could be effective.  It's also clear that once he had embarked on the movie, the underlying premise proved too thin to support the picture and so the film takes some strange swerves, ostensibly into virtuous messaging, an ideological turn that is undercut by the movie's use of ethnic caricatures and stereotypes, imagery that is borderline offensive.  The initial target of the film is young urban professional pretensions and greed, often a theme in Payne's films.  A married couple, played by Matt Damon (Paul Safanek) and the insufferable Kristine Wig, are dissatisfied with their suburban life in Omaha -- Paul works as an occupational therapist employed doing "mostly paper work" at Omaha Steaks.  (There are some reasonably well-staged packing plant scenes; although the workers mostly seem to be middle class White men, Paul is shown speaking Spanish to an injured laborer.)  The couple  can't afford the house that they desire and their mortgage application has been turned down to due to Paul's student debts, an obstacle to prosperity only recently paid off.  At a class reunion, Paul and his wife encounter a couple who have been downsized -- that is medically reduced to five-inches in height, a diminution that makes it far cheaper for them to live in luxury in a doll-house mansion at Leisureland, a sort of retirement community for miniaturized people near Santa Fe.  The couple tout the benefits of their new life style -- downsizing is advertised as good for the planet's ecology but, also -- and this is the real appeal -- allows it's miniature proponents to live like Kings and Queens on incomes that are now vastly disproportionate to their material needs.  We learn that $162,000 in the miniature realm is equivalent to 12.6 million dollars.  The tiny humans travel for next to nothing in little glass boxes stacked in airplanes and can afford hundreds of thousands of dollars in diamonds and other luxury items for a pittance.  Accordingly, avarice, not a desire to reduce demand on the environment, motivates people of moderate means to be irreversibly shrunk into tiny animate mannequins.  (The premise seems unsound:  it would seem that the cost of devising miniature tools, cars, and artworks for these people would be significant -- it costs money to make things very small.)  Normal-sized human beings resent their miniature counterparts and, in fact, think that they are weakening the economy by withdrawing from it and that they shouldn't  be considered full-fledged voters -- maybe, each miniature citizen should get only a fraction of a vote.  With some trepidation, Paul and his wife pay to be miniaturized.  (The best parts of the picture involve preparations for the medical process shown in unflinching details -- heads have to be shaved to keep the miniature folks from suffocating in their own hair and teeth with fillings must be surgically removed, since prosthetics don't shrink; if you have a gold filling  in your teeth, the process will cause your head to explode.)  Paul gets reduced to five inches in height and, then, learns to his horror that his wife refused the process and, in fact, with her head shaved and one eyebrow missing, has flown back to Omaha.  A divorce ensues and Paul finds himself not only miniaturized but also poor.  He goes to work in a Lands End call center, peddling sweaters, and has to live in an apartment building and not the vast palatial mansion that he and his wife purchased in Leisureland, before be "downsized."  Paul's upstairs neighbor is played by the grinning and repulsive Christophe Waltz -- he acts the role of Dusan, a wild and crazy Serb, and the first of several marginally offensive stereotypes featured in the film.  Dusan is a sort of smuggler -- he acquires a single Cohiba cigar and parcels it out as 2000 miniaturized cigars, also importing luxury goods like caviar and diamonds.  Dusan hosts wild parties and has a sidekick played by the wonderful Udo Kier who epitomizes diminutive Euro-Trash (he owns a yacht that he has mailed by Fed Ex to destinations where he intents to sail.)  This colony of tiny international jetsetters are all depraved and Paul, partying with them, takes some kind of drug (Ecstasy, maybe) resulting in a '70's style psychedelic freak-out.  None of this is convincing and all of it is poorly written; we now seem to be in a totally different film.  As one might expect, downsizing has a dark side.  Armies of little people are required as workers at the luxury resorts where the downsized middle-class Americans are living -- so we have tiny Mexican and Filipino workers living in squalid enclaves just outside the city walls.  (Of course, Leisureland has to be isolated under a hermetically sealed dome to keep the little folks from predation by bugs and birds.)  A Vietnamese activist, a woman named Nduoc Lan, has been miniaturized by the Communist regime -- political opponents are routinely miniaturized to make them disappear -- and she narrowly escapes death in a "TV box", possibly a shipping crate in which 15 of the 16 illegal asylum-seekers die.  Nduoc has lost her foot due to infection and is now laboring as a house-cleaner.  When she comes to Dusan's bachelor pad to clean up the mess after one of his orgies, she meets Paul.  Paul notices her bad prosthetic foot and, rather ineptly, applies his occupational therapy skills to help her --he just ends up wrecking her prosthetic.  In this way, he learns of the communities of disenfranchised and impoverished laborers bussed in and out of Leisureland to do the cooking, cleaning, and provide other menial services.  (Nduoc Lan is another caricature who speaks in brusque, scarcely intelligible English and is supposed to embody immigrant pluck and enterprise.)  Things take another bizarre turn when, for reasons never explained, Dusan and his buddy played by Udo Kier, embark on a trip to Norway to meet the aging inventor of downsizing who lives in a commune, the world's first village for the medically reduced, in a spectacular sub-arctic fjord.  Nduoc Lan and Paul also accompany Dusan and his buddy to the fjord. Why they are allowed to make this trip is unclear.  Here things slip in Midsommar territory -- the Norwegian pygmies are members of benign cult and they are fanatical about the environment.  The Norwegians understand that climate change is irreversible and so they plan to descend into a subterranean vault and live there for 8000 years until the catastrophes wrought by the Anthropocene "stabilize".  By this point the inevitable has occurred and Paul is having sex with Nduoc -- several distasteful scenes involving lots of stump-caressing foreplay.  He has to decide whether to stay with her on the surface with the cynical Dusan, his buddy, and Nduoc or whether he should decamp into the vault.  The Norwegians bid farewell to the sun with much dancing and drumming as twilight descends upon the rocky immensities of the fjord.  Dusan has said that the tiny people will likely just murder one another in their cave within a generation or two and so he elects to remain on the surface -- "we have a couple hundred years remaining" he blithely notes.  Choosing love over ideology, Paul runs from the tunnel to the grotto, escaping just before the door is sealed forever.  With Nduoc, he returns to her squalid, if teeming and energetic, worker city where she continues her vocation of doing good deeds among the impoverished Spanish-speaking workers. 

The movie scrupulously denies viewers any of the pleasures one might expect from such a saga.  There are no fights with spiders or cats (as in The Incredible Shrinking Man), no sex scenes between Lilliputians and normal sized humans (as in Gullliver's Travels); when rain falls, we expect the drops of water, enormous to the five-inch humans, to smash the little people and flood their homes -- nothing of this sort happens. (In fact, the movie seems set up for a spectacular flood scene; the teeming worker tenements look like the subterranean apartment blocks in Fritz Lang's Metropolis and I kept expecting the virtuous Nduoc Lan to rescue the workers from some kind of watery calamity.)  The picture is very poorly written and there are some embarrassing speeches in its last act, including a cringe-inducing scene in which Nduoc differentiates between eight kinds of "fuck" and asks whether Paul's intercourse with her was a "pity-fuck" or a "love-fuck."  (Paul tells her it was a "love-fuck".)  Christophe Waltz' grotesquely stereotyped Serbian smuggler is amusing and brings some much-needed life to the picture but his part makes no real sense and its not clear exactly where the mobs of European super-models and Greek and Spanish playboys have come from -- they seem to be, I would venture, international friends of Alexander Payne.  (Payne is of Greek ethnicity -- "Payne" is anglicized from Papadoupolos; and he studied in Spain.)  But the movie is so poorly designed and badly written that it manages to force Udo Kier into a bad, even sentimental, performance.  The vast and impressive landscapes in the film's last sequences are evidence that the movie is in serious trouble, even, desperate straits -- the picture indulges in National Geographic-style grandiosity to cover its obvious defects.  (And in Norway, the scene in which the miniature cultists bid farewell to the sun  is also misconceived -- Payne doesn't seem to have heard of the "Midnight Sun" and the fact that it neve really gets dark in midsummer Norway, paticularly in the glacial Arctic fjords that the film depicts.)   The movie is a waste of time but so bad, I think, that it probably will act as a re-set button for Payne.  He has nowhere to go from this debacle but up.  (Jason Sudeikus, the SNL alumnus, is wasted in an underwritten buddy part; Kristine Wig, who is always annoying, is hapless here and awful.  The rest of the cast, including the Norwegians, are lifeless.)   

Saturday, December 9, 2023

The Day of the Jackal

 Fred Zinneman's The Day of the Jackal (1973) is an abstract theorem of a movie, the diagram for a globe-trotting action thriller with all violence suppressed and it's suspense scrupulously eliminated in favor of a strangely minimalist and remote lucidity.  The film's protagonist, an imperturbably efficient and frigid assassin, acts at the intersection between two utterly ruthless institutions:  the OAS, a terrorist group plotting the assassination of President DeGaulle as a reprisal for concessions made in Algeria, and the French secret service. These two competing forces are portrayed as mirror-images of one another, groups of well-dressed and neatly groomed middle-aged men who view murder, bank robbery, and torture as legitimate means to their ends.  Zinneman's film, about 2 1/2 hours long, is shot like a documentary -- the movie's images have a curiously pale, desaturated quality as if shot on 16 or even 8 millimeter  film-stock, surreptitiously obtained by cameras hidden on street corners, train stations, or airports.  Everything is well-lit, clearly shown, but oddly distanced -- it's as if we're watching some kind of surveillance footage, improvised documentary-style on real locations.  There are many handheld camera sequences, suggesting that the images were somehow made covertly.  Most of the movie consists of pictures of people walking across rooms, entering and leaving buildings, driving, or meeting in solemn conclaves in ornate, official chambers that exude a kind of frosty elegance.  The movie's climax, Liberation Day festivities in Paris, is edited together from what appear to be actual documentary style news reels of the real celebration -- ranks of marching men, police barricades, crowds sweltering in Paris' summer heat.  There is no music, a few snatches of voice-over to establish the plot (it's 1963, I think) -- Zinneman stages no car chases, no explosions, and the climactic shoot-out is about five seconds long.  Sex and murder occur off-screen.  The actors, at least at this distance in time from the movie's premiere, are all, more or less, unknown -- and no one really seems to be acting at all; there are no displays of emotion, no arguments, no showy star-turns and no confrontations.  We know from the outset that Charles DeGaulle was not assassinated and so the outcome is never in doubt. The film's thematic contrast, an implicit comparison between the rather harried, rumpled, and prosaic Label, a civil servant, as it were, assigned to hunting down the assassin, and the eerily disconnected and opaque Jackal doesn't become evident until about an hour has passed. The film seems influenced heavily by Robert Bresson and Jean-Pierre Melville, that is, derives, I think, from various glacially abstract, crime pictures made in France in the sixties, melodramas, as it were, reduced to a series of icy propositions about fate and honor.  In turn, aspects of the film show up in later movies by Stanley Kubrick and, most importantly, David Fincher.  Indeed, the film contrasts in an interesting way with Fincher's The Killer, a movie that picks up where Zinneman's picture concludes -- Fincher shows an ostensibly detached and cold-blooded contract killer scrambling to evade the inevitable outcome of his botched murder attempt; Zinneman shows the contract killer overcoming obstacles and doggedly pursuing his plot to murder DeGaulle in the face of increasingly intense police opposition. Fincher, of course, glamorizes his contract-murderer and presents him as a sort of Nietzschean super-man maudit; Zinneman's movie avoids this strategy and proceeds objectively without implying any philosophical or moral implications in the plot.  Fincher's picture trumpets it's nihilism but, in fact, is rather cloyingly sentimental -- Zinneman doesn't draw any conclusions from his elegantly minimalist mise-en-scene and, therefore, is far more nihilistic than Fincher's movie.  Fincher's assassin says he is a nihilist; Zinneman's Jackal doesn't need to make that declaration -- what we see is enough to persuade us of that proposition.  

The film's strategy is announced in an opening flurry of violence -- several assassins fire tommy-guns at speeding limousine in which DeGaulle is riding.  The narrator tells us that the whole thing, involving the discharge 130 rounds of ammunition, was over in seven seconds.  Zinneman's veristic approach to the material is exactly cognate with the film's coldly precise narration -- the assassination attempt, in fact, occupies no more than seven seconds screen-time.  The leader of the cabal is sentenced to death but remains defiant, saying that no French soldier will raise a gun to shoot him; we see that he's wrong about this when facing a firing squad.  The OAS, a disgruntled corps of French military men who feel that DeGaulle betrayed them by making peace in Algeria, hire a British contract killer -- the man's name is never spoken; he's code-named Jackal.  The first hour or so of the movie documents the Jackal's preparations for the murder -- he gets an ingeniously minimalist collection of stainless steel tubes as gun and silencer custom-built for him and acquires various passports and false travel documents. The Jackal buys a watermelon to calibrate the gun's telescopic sight and kills an accomplice who tries to blackmail him.  (Somehow, he kills these people with a single karate chop to the throat.)  The French counter-terrorism forces kidnap one of the OAS officers, and while torturing him to death, secure a couple of clues as to the Jackal's assignment.  This sets up the film's last ninety minutes:  the Jackal enters France and crosses the Massif Central in a Lamborghini while the counter-terrorist ministers dispatch forces to pursue him.  (One of the ministers has been compromised by his mistress, the girlfriend it seems of the executed conspirator -- she seduces the minister, whose wife is on vacation, moves in with him, and, rather overtly, cajoles him into pillow-talk revealing the counter-terrorism force's strategy, all of which is relayed to the Jackal's handlers.)  It's pretty clear that the homeland security ministers (if you can call them that) are wise to the Jackal's plot and, indeed, almost intercept him at the border.  But the Jackal, who is nothing if not persistent, doggedly proceeds to Paris where he establishes himself in the French equivalent of the Dallas Book Depository, a sniper eyrie above the Liberation Day proceedings from which he intends to fire his kill-shot into DeGaulle's head.  Along the way, the Jackal, who is blandly handsome and, of course, utterly self-confident, seduces a woman who lives in a big manor in the hills, hiding out with her until she becomes inconvenient and has to be murdered.  In Paris, with the cops at his heels, the Jackal casually picks up a man in a Turkish bath and, it is implied, has sex with him in order to hide in his apartment -- it doesn't turn out any better for this guy than the housewife. Throughout the last ninety minutes, the Jackal's improvisations and cunning disguises are contrasted with the efforts of Label, a humble detective on the Paris police force charged with stopping the assassin.  Label, who is the opposite of the Jackal in all ways, works with a collaborator and, literally, exhausts himself.  Just before the climax, he goes home and falls asleep and almost misses the final shoot-out because he can't be awakened from his slumbers; his long-suffering wife has to tickle the soles of his feet to arouse him.  (The duel between Label and the Jackal has a thematic significance, contrasting the nihilistic adventures of the professional killer with the police procedural exploits of the rather humble Label.  If the film has a flaw, it is the movie's insistence on contriving a final direct confrontation between Label and the Jackal, something that seems improbable given the movie's otherwise scrupulously realistic perspective on events.)  The Jackal pretends to be a disabled veteran, uses his steel crutches to conceal his minimalist long gun,. and prepares to shoot DeGaulle.  Label intervenes thwarting the plot.  Throughout the film, the Jackal is reputed to be a Brit named Charles Calthrop ("Cha - Cal -- that is, "Jackal").  As the corpse of the Jackal is unceremoniously deposited into an anonymous grave, we learn that Charles Calthrop had nothing to do with the plot and that the identity of the Jackal will never be known.        

The movie is resolutely humorless.  It zips from point to point and scene to scene, scarcely taking a breath.  Zinneman's most famous film is probably High Noon with Gary Cooper, a similarly detached and rather geometrically designed Western that takes place mostly within the confinement of various box-like rooms and doorways.  In High Noon, Zinneman cuts back and forth between his hero and a ticking clock.  This device is amplified ad absurdum in Day of the Jackal.  I counted about 28 shots of various clocks -- but this is merely formal punctuation; at least until the last ten minutes, there is no "ticking clock" component to the movie's plot and the shots of clock-faces, more expressive than most of the people in the film, are meaningless -- it's like Kubrick's intertitles as to time and date in The Shining, a movie that is about the fact that time doesn't really exist at all.  The Day of the Jackal is a sort of landmark of seventies' film making but has not aged at all -- tact and reticence and clarity don't become obsolescent while, of course, histrionics and operatic action are always, more or less, matters of fashion that come and go.  Most people don't know the film and, because it is so understated, it doesn't really present any memorable scenes or sequences and there is no pithy dialogue -- but it's worth seeing and the movie remains startlingly modern; certain kinds of minimalism will always seem current.

Sunday, December 3, 2023

The Killer

 The Killer is a morose thriller, skillfully directed by David Fincher, and starring Michael Fassbender in the title role; the movie can be seen on Netflix.  It's baffling and, more or less, inconsequential; Fassbender glowers and strives mightily to banish any expression at all from his handsome, gaunt face.  He murders a succession of bad guys in scenes that are mostly plausible but don't add up to anything much.  The film is principally interesting in that it features an unreliable first-person narrator -- the assassin provides a voice-over commentary to the film and everything that he says turns out to be radically untrue.  It's not entirely certain as to whether Fincher and his writers intend the first-person narrator to be so decisively clue-less about what he is doing and why -- in fact, it's possible that the script is simply botched in some way.  But the effect of the film is eccentric -- just about everything that the brooding, cynical killer tells us is a complete mischaracterization of what we actually see happening.  The picture is very well-made and fairly well-paced, although, ultimately, the device of the unreliable narrator has really no place to go and, so, in the end the film succumbs to tedium.  It's premises are all generic and very formulaic -- the concept of the lone Uebermensch murderer, detached from all human connections -- the perspective that the movie argues -- dates back to the noir films in the late forties and, of course, was most effectively developed in some of Michael Mann's pictures, most notably Thief and, later, Heat.  The only thing surprising about the movie is that the narrator whose point-of-view informs every shot in the picture is completely unaware that he is misrepresenting everything that we see.

The unnamed killer is first shown in Paris, waiting to fire a kill-shot at some politician or plutocrat who richly deserves murder.  The killer repeats various mantras about his profession in a voice-over narration and argues, with a little too much heat, that he is different from other people and that you would not want to cross paths with him.  The assassin says that he must execute the plan that he is made, show no empathy, trust no one, do nothing for which he is not paid and not confuse his own personal interests with the mission that he is supposed to execute.  We see him waiting for the optimum moment to gun down his victim.  But the poor fool is sitting in cold rooms with a little space heater, obsessively doing exercises (he's like the clothes-horse Richard Gere in American Gigolo -- Fincher's chilly mise-en-scene looks a lot like Paul Schrader's films) and sleeping for some reason on a purgatorial pallet, a sort of spartan plank that seems horribly uncomfortable, that must induce sleeplessness and, therefore, exhaustion, and that, perhaps, accounts for the botched murder attempt.  Although he presents himself as fantastically competent and cold-blooded, the assassin is, in fact, completely inept, and, even, cowardly. He misses his shot, putting a bullet through an inoffensive dominatrix entertaining his prey, and, then, like a scared schoolgirl, panics and flees across Paris.  The movie is maddening -- from an objective point of view, the killer is a complete failure and a sissy to boot.  But he proclaims himself as a Nietzschean super-man.  Needless to say, failure is not an option in this profession and the killer's shadowy handlers decide to erase traces of the botched contract killing.

The assassin flees to the Dominican Republic where he apparently owns a pleasant beach-side estate.  There he finds that his girlfriend has been raped, mutilated and tortured in retaliation for his screw-up.  This pushes our supposedly rational and cold-blooded killer over the edge and he decides to murder everyone involved in mistreating his mistress.  He kidnaps the taxi-driver, gets information from him and, then, kills the poor guy.  Next, he goes to New Orleans where there is a shady lawyer who originally recruited the assassin from law school (of all places) to turn him into a contract killer.  This guy placed the hit and, presumably, knows who attacked the killer's girlfriend.  The assassin murders the shyster and, then, kills his secretary for a good measure.  In the course of abusing the lawyer, the assassin has learned the identities of the other two thugs who abused his mistress.  He hunts them down.  The first is living in Florida.  The stupid assassin messes up this attack and ends up in a brutal and ridiculously protracted mano y mano fight with this guy, a gouging, groin-crushing gladiatorial combat that takes up about a reel and is totally absurd -- while this fight happens, the bad guy's pit bull is sleeping, knocked out by pooch benedryl, but, later, aroused to pursue our hero from the villain's squalid compound.  A little the worse for wear (presumably with a couple compression fractures in his spine, a half dozen broken ribs and some maxillofacial damage), the assassin flies to New York City where he confronts the other enforcer who mangled his girlfriend.  This person is described as tall and looking like a "cue tip" -- and, to our surprise and, even, gratitude, turns out to be the pale and serpentine Tilda Swinton.  After a bizarre colloquy with Swinton in her favorite restaurant -- she drinks a flight of whisky and offers the hero some tapas plates -- the assassin takes her out on the cold docks and slaughters her.  She has led him to the man who placed the contract killing in Paris, a loathsome plutocrat himself, a bit like a haggard Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk.  By this point, the hero has transferred all of his ill-gotten millions to his account in the Dominican Republic and plans to hang up his spurs after dealing with the evil businessman.  (We hear the mogul berating his hapless employee on the phone.)  For some inexplicable reason, the hero decides to spare this guy, who is really the most wicked of all the villains, and, after giving him some fearsome warnings -- "I will put radioactive pellets in your coffee and cause you to die from total facial necrosis" -- the assassin departs.  We last see him enjoying a mojito on the beach with his now recuperated girlfriend.  The ending made no sense to me.  If these villains were willing to dispatch groups of contract killers to attack the hero and mangle his girlfriend, why are they now inclined to stand-down --I suppose, maybe, it's because all the bad guys are dead except the big boss.  In any event, at last, in the final lines in the movie, the self-aggrandizing hero admits he's just like everyone else.   

The movie doesn't make any sense.  It's very hard, for instance, to imagine the elegant Tilda Swinton with her exquisite coiffure and high-fashion clothes and her fine taste in whiskey, associating with the foul-mouthed Hispanic muscle man that tortured the girl and that the assassin had to slaughter in Florida.  The whole thing has the aura of a fantasy constructed by Cormac McCarthy on an off-day.  Every known cliche about contract killers is deployed in the movie.  And, of course, the killer is completely without self-awareness that all the sub-Nietzschean epigrams that he has spouted are belied by his actions.  He claims that he must act without improvisation and, according to plan, but most of what he does in the movie is rather ineptly improvised.  He claims that he will not fight in battles for which he is not paid -- but he spends the whole movie pursuing a course of completely self-interested and uncompensated revenge, obviously the outcome of wounded feelings.  He asserts that he is disinterested in his professional objectives and cool and calculating to a fault -- but this is the opposite of what the movie shows us in which his every action is motivated by his own emotions.  And every scene demonstrates his claim to superhuman efficiency and perfection in committing murders is a farce -- he gets everything more or less wrong.  Far from being a mechanical, dispassionate killing machine, he behaves hysterically, on questionable impulses, and without earning so much as a penny in his quixotic quest to avenge a girlfriend who has about six mumbled lines (her jaw is broken) throughout the movie.  The film is very effectively shot and edited, but, truth to tell, it's not very good and, more than a little monotonous. Pretentiousness is fatal to this sort of movie and the picture has some of this defect.

(A couple of other points are worth noting.  The movie is based on a comic book, something that, perhaps, explains it's weird stupidity.  The picture is not without humor.  The hero, whose real name we never learn, has dozens of passports.  Here are the names on the passports that we are shown:  Felix Unger (from The Odd Couple Tv show), Archibald Bunker (All in the Family), Oscar Madison (again The Odd Couple), Reuben Kincaid (from The Partridge Family), Lou Grant from The Mary Tyler Moore Show, Sam Malone (Ted Danson on Cheers and Frasier), Robert Hartley (Bob Newhart on his show), and George Jefferson (who "are movin' on up to the East Side" in The Jeffersons).)  


Saturday, December 2, 2023

Asteroid City

 Wes Anderson's feature film, Asteroid City (2023) seems improvised, a curious impression since the movie is stylistically disciplined to the point of obsession.  It's hard to reconcile the movie's haphazard and inconsequential plot with the picture's austerely abstract mise-en-scene.  Ultimately, the effect is one of incompleteness and confusion -- Anderson (with co-writer Roman Coppola) throws just about everything at the wall in the hope that something will stick.  Further, the film's rambling and episodic plot seems to be primarily a vehicle for delivering a series of A-list cameo appearances -- the movie has small roles for Matt Dillon, Tom Hanks, Tilda Swinton, Steve Carell, and Willem Defoe among others.  These performances aren't fully realized and the roles seem to be underwritten.  If there is a central plot in the film's narrative chaos, it is a severely stylized and determinedly undramatic romance, more suggested than shown, between Jason Schwartzman's character, a Hemingway-esque combat photographer, and an astringent, remote movie star played Scarlet Johannsen.  But this love affair involves physical detachment between the participants -- the war photographer and the movie star basically interact between the open windows of two adjacent tourist cabins in a motor court and it's rare that the lovers share the same frame.  (Anderson's camera shows the two characters in alternate shots that rotate around the red light bulb in the improvised darkroom in the photojournalist's cottage -- the changing position of the red highlight in the frame is an effect pioneered by Ozu in some of his films, that is, a focal point, often a flower or a colored ceramic, that orients the viewer between opposing flat frontal shots.)  Ultimately, Asteroid City is somewhat tedious although Anderson's formal invention never flags -- you wish that the material were better and more compelling.

Asteroid City's premise is a well-established theatrical and film conceit -- an eccentric group of travelers are thrown together in an isolated place and the movie documents, as it were, the chemical reactions that occur when these disparate elements are forced to interact; this plot drives film's as disparate as The Old Dark House (James Whale 1932), Key Largo (and, for that matter, Casablanca, and Wim Wenders' great The State of Things (1982); in these films, characters are trapped somewhere, waiting around for something to happen.  By it's nature, these plots are static, mostly about the passing of time in tense circumstances.  (Anderson's Darjeeling Limited, with characters stalled-out on a train traveling across India, has a similar structure.)  Everything in Asteroid City is weirdly overdetermined; plot points are underwritten always by at least two causes or motivations.  For instance, Schwartzman's melancholy war correspondent -- he looks like Clark Gable -- is stranded in Asteroid City, a remote town in the desert on the California-Nevada border for two reasons:   his car has broken down (we see it first towed into the frame) but, also, because his son, a scientific prodigy, has been invited to the place so he can be awarded a prize of some kind for an invention -- his device can project images from Earth onto the face of the moon.  ("What's it's application?" someone asks.  "Probably advertising," the boy genius says.)  But the child scientists are also assembled in the town to observe kind of weird, improbable stellar conjunction involving three lights in the sky aligning, something that you have to watch through a camera obscura or the celestial dots will be burned into your retina.  The broken-down car, which seems to strand the war photographer's family in the town turns out to be just a plot device to bring Tom Hanks into the picture -- Hanks plays the photographer's father-in-law.  The journalist has not yet told his children(he has three young daughters and the teenage prodigy son) that their mother has died; he is transporting her ashes in Tupperware.  (The film is set in the late fifties.)  Everyone waits around town for an award's ceremony, scheduled to take place in an impact crater made by a meteorite thousands of years before.  During this ceremony, conducted by a bellicose military man, an alien space craft appears and a cute, lanky creature from outer space appears, riding down a pole as if in fire station, to snatch the perfect round fragment of the meteorite on display in the crater.  The alien and his space craft depart and the government imposes a quarantine on the town in the vain attempt to keep people from knowing about the visitor from outer space.  (These efforts fail -- soon enough, there's a carnival on the outskirts of town a bit like the fair around the trapped pot-hunter in Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole.)  Confined in the town are a group of country-western musicians (they play Texas swing music), a Sunday School teacher and her group of fifteen or so students, and a Hollywood movie star with her somewhat sullen and pouting daughter; several other boy and girl science geniuses round out the cast.  The movie star's daughter is interested in the war correspondent's genius son; an understated romance develops between the war photographer and the movie star to the dismay, but ultimate acceptance, of the character played by Tom Hanks, a sort of mild Trump figure, some kind of mogul who plays golf and dresses like Colonel Sanders.  None of this goes anywhere.  The little girls bury their mother's ashes in the desert.  The space alien appears again to return the pilfered meteorite.  The quarantine is lifted and the character's disperse without anything really being resolved or even explained.  

The action is  staged on a set that looks like the stylized Utah mesa and canyon country in the background of road runner cartoons (in fact, there is an animated road runner who makes cameo appearances) or like the red rock formations in the old Krazy Kat cartoons.  Because the plot is complex, Anderson's penchant for wholly symmetrical compositions is a somewhat limited; he has to use a more flexible mise-en-scene.  The editing often violates the 180 degree rule, resulting in discordant, showy editing.  The dialogue is very clever and dead-pan; it parodies fifties' tough-guy diction, but, ultimately, the ingenious patter becomes dull.  All emotions are repressed.  No one gets to act in a showy or histrionic manner -- everything is reticent, more a matter of subtle suggestion than dramatization.  For some reason that relates to the movies' weirdly overdetermined structure, the film has a frame narrative involving a playwright who seems to be a bit like Rod Serling writing the theater-piece that has been adapted for film as Asteroid City -- there are episodes showing the casting of the movie that we are watching and scenes within the movie (for instance, a detached love scene between Schwartzman and Scarlet Johannsen)in which the characters simply recite from the script of the play as if rehearsing.  The frame sequences are shot in TV-style black and white and narrated by Bryan Cranston who stand front-and-center declaiming into the camera in the manner of Rod Serling in the Twilight Zone.  An odd subplot in the frame to the action involves characters sleeping and seeming to dream -- are these characters really sleeping or merely acting?  There is a mantra about having to sleep to dream that is repeated several times.  I have no idea what the frame story about the creation of the Asteroid City theater piece is supposed to  mean; nothing in the frame seems thematically related to the action in the plot dramatized by the movie -- the outer narrative doesn't comment on the plot of the movie taking place in Asteroid City and the whole premise, a bizarre estrangement effect, doesn't make sense; Asteroid City is a theater piece set on an austerely furnished stage; but we aren't watching theater but a movie replete with cinematic devices and the frame evinces to me, at least, some serious lack of confidence in whether the complicated but trivial plot of the movie is sufficient to sustain it's length.  The picture is well-acted and the people talk as if they were characters in a J. D. Salinger short story; it's all precocious, precious, and whimsical but short on meaning.  The motif of child geniuses is characteristic of Anderson's movies beginning with Rushmore and continuing through many pictures including The Royal Tenenbaums and Moonlight Bay.  In my view, this movie isn't fully coherent and seems overly contrived; it's one of Anderson's lesser efforts although he's an interesting director with a distinctive approach to cinema and, even, his minor works are worth seeing.  

Sunday, October 29, 2023

The Man Who Knew too Much

 Turner Classic Movies is an indispensable service for people interested in cinema.  The cable service programs films in ways that promote interesting avenues for study and comparison.  Alfred Hitchcock remade his 1934 thriller The Man Who Knew too Much in 1955.  In October 2023, both films seem curiously timely:  the movies involve a terrorist cell that takes a hostage and attempts an assassination in London.  In the '34 version, the movie involves an oddly disengaged and stoic British couple whose daughter is taken by some Ruritanian/Mittel-Europaische assassins working in concert with a few decidedly eccentric English under the direction of a sneering, if soft-spoken, Peter Lorre as spymaster -- at stake is nothing less than a possible World War; the bad guys are plotting to kill a minor ambassador in a crime that alludes to the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914.  In keeping with changes in the World Order, the 1955 version involves a brusque ugly American, a surgeon from Indianapolis played by Jimmy Stewart in a state of continuous and scarcely restrained hysteria -- Stewart's character is so high-strung that his marriage to a famous singer Jo Conway (played by Doris Day) is imperiled even before their precocious annoying son, Hank, who is about eight years old is kidnapped by the terrorists.  Both movies feature a famous suspense sequence involving an assassination planned to occur at the Royal Albert Hall during the performance of a ludicrously elephantine cantata -- the assassin will fire his fatal shot at the instant the cymbals strike on stage.  After the assassination is thwarted,  both films feature an extended coda, anti-climactic in the 1955 version but central to the earlier film, in which the hostage is rescued.  Although the movies involve, more or less, the same plot, they are quite strikingly different.  Hitchcock obviously regarded this thriller as central to his ouevre.  It's the only one of his films that he re-made.  The 1934 picture catapulted Hitchcock to world-wide fame as the "master of suspense", a reputation that impelled his career, but, also, limited him in many respects.  Hitchcock told Truffaut that he regarded the 1934 film as the work of a "talented amateur" but felt the 1955 version was superior in all respects.  Hitchcock is always obsessed with the tricks of the trade, that is, the mechanics of making movies and there is, no doubt, that the technicolor wide-screen '55 film is technically far better than the somewhat crude and low-budget effects in the earlier picture.  But there is more to movie-making than mechanical perfection and picture-quality and Hitchcock was so perverse in all respects that there's no reason to believe that he told Truffaut the truth when he expressed his evaluation of the two pictures to the French critic and film-maker.  

The '34 film begins in St. Moritz during a winter sports competition.  The images are all stock footage or very stylized rear projection.  The characters stand out starkly in front of a hazy and pale mountain landscape -- it's all faded whites with ghostly peaks in the background.  An English couple meet a French downhill skier, Louis Bernard, when their daughter, Betty, lets her dachshund dart across the slope and has to retrieve the dog; the rear projection shots showing Bernard's reaction to the dog and his fall on the hill are remarkably bad.  Later, the wife, Jill, competes in a trap-shooting context but is, also, distracted, and misses her shot.  That night, there's a dance in which Jill flirts with Louis Bernard and, indeed, implies that she intends to sleep with him.  Perversely, Bob, the husband, seems to encourage her -- he feigns tears but seems oddly indifferent to his wife's overtures to the handsome Louis.  (There's something kinky going on here -- Hitchcock suggests that these gestures toward infidelity are just some sort of marital game, but the scenes have a nasty edge to them.)  Bernard is killed while dancing with Jill.  However as he is dying, he gives a message to Jill.  Jill tells Bob to go to Bernard's room where he retrieves from a shaving kit an enigmatic inscription on a small piece of paper.  Meanwhile, the couple's daughter, Betty, has been kidnapped and spirited away from St. Moritz to London.  Jill and Bob are afraid to involve the police since they have been told that this will cause the terrorists to execute Betty, but they do advise the authorities that their daughter has been kidnapped.  In London, Bob and a feckless sidekick follow clues on the note to encounter a sinister dentist.  The poor sidekick sacrifices a tooth to the quest to find Betty.  Bob uses the dentist's gas to knock the villain out and, then, traces the conspiracy to a gloomy church building, a ramshackle structure in a slum occupied by the Tabernacle of the Sun.  The Sun tabernacle worshippers are led by a dour, scary-looking woman who is in league with Peter Lorre.  (Peter Lorre was lurking around the edges of the winter sports competition in St. Moritz,chainsmoking and making scarcely intelligible jests -- it's said he didn't know English and had to learn his lines phonetically.)  The congregation in the tabernacle seem to comprise a terrorist cell of eccentric fanatics who may also be some kind of spiritualists -- their creed is bizarre and seems to involve sacramental hypnotism.  Bob and his sidekick infiltrates the peculiar worship service; the sidekick gets summoned to the pulpit where he is hypnotized and passes out.  Peter Lorre recognizes Bob and there's a incredibly strange fight conducted by throwing wooden chairs at one another -- the floor of the church ends up covered in fragments of broken chairs.  Bob is overcome and imprisoned with Betty who is in cheerless upstairs attic in the tabernacle.  Meanwhile, Jill has figured out that "Albert Hall" is a place, specifically, a concert hall, and not a person as she earlier believed.  She goes to Albert Hall where an assassin with the bloated face of a corpse fished out of the water after being dead a week is planning to kill the ambassador, covering the discharge of his long gun with the crash of the cymbals.  Jill screams just before the percussionist crashes the cymbals together and the ghastly-looking assassin misses his shot.  The police converge on the Tabernacle of the Sun, positioning snipers in a brothel nearby and someone's shabby apartments -- they use a mattress and a piano respectively as barricades in their windows.  At this point, the film becomes a combat picture with street-fighting involving a half-dozen casualties -- dead cops are fallen in the middle of the street.  After the terrorists are mostly killed, Bob is gunned down in a stairwell, but Betty gets onto the roof of the tabernacle where she is pursued by the assassin with the swollen face.  The assassin wrestles with her and seems ready to toss her off the parapet.  But Jill, a champion trap shooter seizes a rifle from a cop and, with her unerring aim, kills the bad guy.  Peter Lorre is shot repeated where he is hiding behind a door and it turns out that Bob was merely winged -- he gains consciousness to embrace his wife and daughter.  

The movie is brisk and moves along at a high-pace, scarcely pausing to explain itself as it lunges from one episode to another.  In contrast to the rather slow-paced '55 version, the movie is devised as a series of thrilling or sinister encounters without much in the way of narrative integument.  Lorre is a striking villain; he has the world's worst comb over, a few strands of greasy hair scarcely covering his bone white scalp and his hair as well shows a pale streak like a skunk.  (Lorre gives the '34 version an edge over the '55 reprise; he's a far better villain than the rather uninteresting clerical bad guy in the later film.)  Gripping a cigarette in his jaw, he giggles and, in the combat scenes, morosely helps to reload the guns used by the men and women shooting out the windows -- the bad guys are heavily armed with carbines and big suitcase-sized ammo boxes.  The worshipers at the Tabernacle of the Sun are all half-crazed elderly women and men.  The battle scenes are intensely exciting, shot in chiaroscuro of flashing gun muzzles and police searchlights.  Since this is the U.K., the cops aren't well-armed (they don't have as good guns as the terrorists and don't really know how to use them).  The scenes at the Royal Albert Hall, involving a cantata called "Storm Clouds" are very effective and staged against a coherent concert hall space.  Bob is a figure of fun, a wannabe cuckold it seems, and he is mostly passive throughout the movie -- he gasses the evil dentist and hurls chairs in the bizarre chair-fight scene but he's obviously a secondary comic character compared to his resolute wife who actually shoots the assassin off the roof of the dowdy Tabernacle.  The Man Who Knew too Much is not really a Hitchcock film as we have come to know this director's work -- it's a fast (80 minute) comical thriller with a dual climax:  the scenes at the Royal Albert Hall are recognizably Hitchcock, but the street fighting, the film's second climax, is something else entirely.  (It reminds me that there's a battle scene in The Lady Vanishes as well that looks like it could have been directed by John Ford.)  The fighting at the tabernacle solves a problem that is obvious in the remake -- the rescue of Hank in that picture is notably anti-climactic.  

The '55 version of the film is a vehicle for its stars.  Doris Day sings Que sera sera twice and her stentorian vocalizing, which upsets people in the rescue scene in the embassy (we see them puzzled as to why she is singing so loudly) is central to the movie's plot.  The marital tensions between Jo and her husband, Jimmy Stewart's character, the midwestern surgeon Ben McKenna, are overt and disturbing.  Ben is overbearing and aggressive but his wife, Jo, is apparently a world-famous singer and, when the couple, lands in London, she is greeted by crowds of adoring fans and one fellow calls the surgeon "Mr. Conway" using his wife's maiden name.  Jo goads Ben to violence in a scene involving the mysterious Louis Bernard, in this case an agent in French Morocco.  When Ben acts, taunted into a rage by Jo, his wife, then, reprimands him.  Jo is obviously discontented in her role as handmaiden to Ben and, in a Marrakech restaurant, the couple quarrel so violently that, even, the bad guys, here husband and wife conspirators pretending to be UN workers, are visibly distressed and discomfited.  Ben is a prototypical aggressive American who threatens everyone and can't get along with the natives.  The film begins when Hank, an annoying miniature Ben, rips off a Muslim woman's veil on a public bus, almost triggering a riot.  (Hitchcock famously didn't like children and he makes no effort to create audience sympathy with either Betty, an obnoxious teenager in the '34 version, or Hank, a precocious brat, in the '55 film.)  The most notable difference between the two movies is their wildly divergent rhythm.  The '34 film is a single accelerated narrative with events following one another in fast succession -- it's like Raider of the Lost Ark, a sort of thrill ride with menacing villains and dangers in every scene.  The '55 pictures is far more abstract -- Hitchcock devises the remake as a series of highlighted and distinct set-pieces surrounded by minutes of relatively inert and intentionally dull narrative.  The set pieces obviously engage the director's full instincts for suspense and demonstrate his astounding technical proficiency but these are discrete climaxes that stand out from the texture of the rest of the film.  The set pieces in the '55 movie are Louis Bernard's killing in the Marrakech street, the assassination attempt at Albert Hall, and the final scenes in the embassy in which Jo sings Que sera sera to induce Hank to whistle an accompaniment that leads Ben upstairs to rescue the child -- there's a final set piece in which Ben with the principle conspirator aiming a gun at Hank descends the palatial steps in the embassy, a reprise of a similar scene in Notorious (1946).  These elaborate sequences, comprised of abstract montage, are surrounded by Hitchcock comedy, byplay between minor actors that isn't really very funny and that is obviously just a way for the director to pad the story so as to create more suspense in the set piece climaxes.  In Marrakech, there's a lengthy scene that is scatological in tone -- Jimmy Stewart, as the ugly American, has been told not to use his left hand (the hand used to wipe yourself in Arab countries) when eating a chicken cooked with raisins and olives; to the horror of the Arab waiters, he ends up tearing apart a chicken leg with both hands while bitterly quarreling with Jo.  In London, a group of sycophants have come to see Jo in the couple's hotel room.  We see them sitting around listlessly waiting for something to happen while Jo and Ben are out fighting the terrorists -- these scenes exemplify Hitchcock's esthetic of creating highlights surrounded by little or nothing of interest; the visitors get drunk, lounge around making brittle witticisms, and end up very inebriated and, then, asleep while the movie progresses around them.  There's also a fight in a taxidermist's shop that corresponds to the bizarre battle with chairs in the Tabernacle of the Sun in the first picture -- it's played for slapstick laughs.  (Of course, we are reminded of the dead animals and taxidermy mounts in the hellish scene in Psycho in which Norman Bates interviews his victim -- this was five years later.)  The scenes in Albert Hall in the second movie demonstrate Hitchcock's evolution.  In the first film, Jill is in a recognizably realistic space and acts in accord with the environment in which she finds herself.  In the remake, Doris Day is obviously nowhere near Albert Hall; in fact, the second film demonstrates Hitchcock's perverse skill at detaching his actors from their locations -- it's clear that Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day aren't in Marrakech or London and, certainly, not in Whitechapel where the church is located (it's called Ambrose Chapel and mistaken for person's name initially) or Albert Hall.  It's all done by clever montage and, in fact, is a skillful precursor to the "green screen" effects now prevalent in the movies.  Doris Day is shown in medium shot, isolated in a doorway reacting to something; Hitchcock uses complete stillness in most of the shots to contrast with the frenzied motion at the climax of the scene.  It's completely stylized, extremely suspenseful, and wholly unnatural -- in the '55 movie, London is a collage of  Hollywood back-set alleyways with matte work to depict the steeples and bridges of the city in the background.  When Doris Day crosses a street in Whitechapel, we see her from behind in her rather dowdy grey suit and it's obvious that the figure moving through the location isn't the actress whom we will later see in a close-up in a set simulating a tiny portion of Albert Hall.  Bernard Hermann, Hitchcock's composer, appears in the surreal scenes in Albert Hall, directing the cantata.  The cantata, "Storm Clouds", involves an enormous orchestra with, at least, two hundred singers and a soprano on-stage -- there is an army of musicians and, in the midst of this multitude, the cymbal player who sits motionlessly until the moment he is called upon to act; we see the cymbals sitting next to him, hear the ultra-emotional and bombastic music (it sounds like Richard Strauss but heightened with doses of melodramatic Mahler), but the individual shots show no motion at all, a man with his hands at his side, a harp, a gun poking out from behind a red velvet curtain, Jo standing alone gazing up at the balcony, the musicians in static shots, then, the camera tracking along arpeggios in the score, and, at last and all at once, a flurry of motion as the gun is fired and the assassin plunges to his death from the balcony.  By 1955, Hitchcock's esthetic creates a cinema of pure contrast -- for motion to be effective it has to be marooned amidst inaction and motionlessness; for suspense to have its full effect, suspense sequences have to be islands surrounded by vaguely comic scenes or long episodes of intentionally vapid dialogue.  Both movies are very effective but they are much different in texture and effect.