The River (Jean Renoir, 1951)
Claude Renoir's literally painted-on Technicolor cinematography is a movie miracle, bringing out all the nostalgic fondness of Rumer Godden's florid remembrances and aiding his uncle's direction immeasurably. But Uncle Jean's gift for capturing the spirit of his characters almost works against him here, propping up the uncomfortable imperial paternalism of Godden's white characters. First love is a universal tale, but then so, unfortunately, are white industrialists relying on ethnic labor. As uncomfortable as the whole thing made me, there is still a refreshing lack of melodrama to the love quadrangle, and Renoir's addition of a mixed-race girl and her attendant alien suggests a deeper appreciation for racial politics than Godden displays. But still. "It's one of the least mysterious countries there are," Renoir says in the accompanying introduction. "For a frenchman, India is very easy to understand. People there have just about the same reactions as we do." How would he know? Grade: B
Caught (Max Ophüls, 1949)
Ophüls' camerawork is as thrilling as it is ostentatious. The grandest, most unnecessary gesture? A swirling 180-degree pan takes the place of a shot/reverse setup. But there's always a strange logic to his florid direction, and he infuses this warped tale of love and money with both flushed-face melodrama and noirish terror. Barbara Bel Geddes gives a believable desperation to the woman who convinces herself she married for love to avoid the darker truth of her desires. James Mason plays the pediatrician who gives her hope for a better life by virtue of being James Mason. But it's Robert Ryan as a psychopathic millionaire, complete with a gay Igor figure as his effete servant, who steals the show. His madness, and Ophüls' long-shot, deep focus framing, turns his absurdly oversized home—Versailles built to scale, apparently—into an ornate prison. Bonus points for suggesting that pregnancy, too, can be a cage. Grade: B+
Bottle Rocket (Wes Anderson, 1996)
A bit rough 'n tumble compared to Anderson's future work, but also a smorgasbord of future themes and stylistic flourishes. Working with existing locations more than his own sets, Anderson nevertheless manages to fill the screen with his favored pastels and primary colors, from yellow-lit rooms to water an impossibly bright shade of blue for a cheap motel pool. The characters here are the picture of innocence the director would spend the rest of his career both affectionately propping up and gently but firmly critiquing. As with all the other obsessive list-makers in Anderson's universe, Owen Wilson's Dignan is catastrophically unorganized and directionless, but there's something so hopeful about him one wishes he fulfills his dream, even if his dream is to be a robber. The humor here is less deadpan and more silly than subsequent Anderson films, but it still displays that love and insight that so many underrate. Grade: B+
Best scene: Though the climactic heist is a mini-masterpiece of absurdist comedy, my favorite moment is the back-and-forth between budding lovers Anthony and Inès that requires a third party to translate. The poor sap translates in real time, dully processing English into Spanish and vice-versa as emotions of love and frustration roil around him. Faster paced than nearly anything Anderson's done since, it is one of his best comic showcases.
Murder by Contract (Irving Lerner, 1958)
A comic Le Samouraï, Lerner's shoestring-budgeted noir does hip crime movie better than some of the New Wave movies that drew upon cheap but muscular fare like this for inspiration. Lean is the name of the game here, with simple camera setups and mise-en-scène and dialogue to match. Odets this ain't. But the detached professionalism of the contract killer Claude does lend itself to no small amount of irony, further linking this to the post-Touch of Evil crime film. The killer's refusal to use a gun makes his approaches unorthodox and eventually absurd, with elaborate plans for electrocuting someone and even killing her with a flaming arrow. At 81 minutes, the film doesn't waste a second, even when Claude certainly does, spending a few idle minutes hitting golf balls at a driving range as his assistants look on furiously. Perry Botkin's guitar score underpins the mood, the sharp picking generating a tense atmosphere even as the occasionally light tone of it makes light of the whole situation. Martin Scorsese cited the film as a major influence, and its spontaneity and simultaneous fascination and utter disgust with violence certainly point toward early aesthetic inspiration and lasting thematic focus for America's greatest living director. Grade: A
Showing posts with label Robert Ryan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Ryan. Show all posts
Friday, June 8, 2012
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
King of Kings (Nicholas Ray, 1961)
[The following is a contribution to the Nicholas Ray Blog-A-Thon for Tony Dayoub's Cinema Viewfinder.]
Though it begins with the overture and audiovisual bombast expected of a 70mm Biblical epic, King of Kings soon turns into a movie that establishes emotional resonance even as it continues to deliver vast-scale shots of grandeur. Beginning more than 50 years before Christ's birth, Nicholas Ray's film thus dedicates its first images to the sights of Romans sacking Jerusalem, enslaving, pillaging and murdering Jews to establish supremacy. This curbs the sense of wonder, to say the least. Yet this focus on the historical context of the Gospel finds a secular approach to the religious story. The Jews in this film do not pine for a savior because of age-old prophecies; they simply need someone to help them escape this misery.
This situates the film somewhere between Ben-Hur and The Last Temptation of Christ. Though not as humanizing as Martin Scorsese's controversial film, Ray's epic nevertheless breaks ground of its own, breaking from the tradition of showing Jesus in synecdochical ellipses to show Christ in full. The mere process of visualizing him humanizes him, focusing on the man instead of the symbol. Ray understands this, even going so far as to frame most of Jesus' miracles in shadow or other indirect visuals to firmly separate the man from the god. Ray does not visually segment these sides of Jesus for the purposes of commentary or irony, merely to keep our focus on the man even if, like all Ray heroes, becomes an idol before our eyes.
Working for an independent production company (though the film was later distributed by MGM), Ray had to make do with a modest budget of $6,000,000, a small sum even then, especially for a 70mm extravaganza. The limitations are evident: a number of miracles are not shown but described by a soldier reporting to Pontius Pilate. Ray clearly called in some favors to make sure he could complete the project, and the cast brims with former collaborators. Most intriguing is Jeffrey Hunter as Jesus, considering his previous work for Ray was as Jesse James. There, his icy stare and impenetrability made him stilted. Here, despite the literally ancient nature of his dialogue, Hunter's blue eyes convey only kindness and compassion. Christ's Golden Rule was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but as one looks into Hunter's "teenage heartthrob" face (he was 33 at the time), one senses that maybe that was just because Jesus wanted someone to reciprocate his complete love and gentleness for mankind.
Hunter's emergence after Jesus' childhood and a diversion to show the Jewish rebels fighting back against Herod and Pilate—another bit of historical rationalization that unfortunately carries on too long despite the thrill of the insurrection scenes—elevates the film from its beautiful but static presentation to one that subsumes its grandeur into the humanity of its godly protagonist. This can be seen first when Jesus heads into the desert to confront Satan's temptations. First, Ray frames Jesus' time in the desert as clear torment, and the devil's temptations are thus made more tangibly enticing for offering relief to Jesus. When he passes these tests, though, a faint smile passes his face, one not of braggadocio but relief. This is not the smile of an infallible god but a man who has resisted the sway of sin and won, a man who had genuine stakes in his test and passed from effort, not a foregone conclusion.
Indeed, so much of this film feels unexpected for its subversion of iconography and mythology for more personal angles and even modicums of historical accuracy, finding fresh inroads for the endlessly repeated Gospel tales. The Sermon on the Mount becomes less a lecture than a Socratic dialogue between Jesus and the skeptics and faithful, a condensation of other of Jesus' teachings into an exchange of ideas no less edifying than outright instruction. We meet Judas (a young, unrecognizable Rip Torn) as a rebel under Barabbas (an overracting Harry Guardino, all gritted teeth hisses and animal-skin garb); his eventual betrayal of Jesus is the result not of base greed but conviction that the threat of Roman punishment will bring out the full power of the man he believes is the Son of God, leading to the Jews' deliverance. When the crowds later call for Barabbas' freedom instead of Christ's, we finally get a sense of why the Jews would want him freed over Jesus. He's the one who directly fights the Roman oppressors, while Christ continues only to speak of better days in the next world.
No longer framing through the compression of CinemaScope, Ray nevertheless finds a way to practice his architectural perfectionism in Super-70. Though many shots of the film carry the impersonal vastness of the Biblical epic, Ray inserts numerous moments that betray his hand. King of Kings boasts inventive angles, frames within the frame, and a use of shadow that, ironically, convey the warmth of God incarnate rather than encroaching menace. Red soaks the palace of Herod, as if the blood spilled of all the men, women and children cut down by his command caked his home. Best of all is a moving shot of a chained John the Baptist scaling a prison wall just to touch Jesus' outstretched hand, a shot that gains even more emotional resonance from the framing of Christ's shadow beside John as he looks up, effectively signaling that Jesus is already with him even as he reaches for the Lord.
Also a delight is Miklos Rozsa's rousing score, a justly famous swell of brass that now exists far outside the film itself as one of the great classic soundtracks. I'd never seen this film before, yet I recognized the main brass theme instantly, never knowing it came from this movie. Rozsa also did the score for Ben-Hur, but I may well prefer his work here. Rozsa also judges the moments of more intimate humanity, adding nuance and texture to the gargantuan roar of his Hosanna trumpets. By the end of the film, even that fist-raising theme has been on a journey of its own, wracked through the pain of Christ's sacrifice and reemerging with renewed vigor with the resurrection.
Much better than expected, the unfairly neglected King of Kings nevertheless fumbles occasionally for its overlength, ironically because Ray does such a good job of humanizing Christ that he makes many huge moments somewhat distracting and disjointed. He spends too much time on the Passion, yet he impressively avoids lingering on images of torture, eliding over graphic images to come at the torture and crucifixion from different angles. If it overstays its welcome, King of Kings nonetheless does succeed as a unique portrait of Christ in a saturated pool of depictions. I admit a bias for any film that approaches Christ as a man first and a god second, but Hunter, who failed to impress me as Jesse James, found the soft contours of his stiff, undying youth, and Ray tempered the anti-auterist format of the Biblical epic with his invigorating compositions. As I did with Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ, I found myself willing to follow this Jesus, not because I believed he was the Son of God but because he was a good person, tested and struggling like the rest of us. It's more impressive if a man can overcome such obstacles anyway. Though Ray still has to cater to the full Christian significance of the story, his humanizing touches make this one of my favorite depictions of Jesus in cinema.
*This omission, I feel, was the most disappointing result of the limited budget. By having to talk of the call for the violent Barrabas' freedom, Ray must deny himself some more mob commentary, for what is the rabble calling for Christ's crucifixion but the original and most notorious mob? Then again, it does spare this telling of the Gospel its most antisemitic aspect, which is not without worth.
Though it begins with the overture and audiovisual bombast expected of a 70mm Biblical epic, King of Kings soon turns into a movie that establishes emotional resonance even as it continues to deliver vast-scale shots of grandeur. Beginning more than 50 years before Christ's birth, Nicholas Ray's film thus dedicates its first images to the sights of Romans sacking Jerusalem, enslaving, pillaging and murdering Jews to establish supremacy. This curbs the sense of wonder, to say the least. Yet this focus on the historical context of the Gospel finds a secular approach to the religious story. The Jews in this film do not pine for a savior because of age-old prophecies; they simply need someone to help them escape this misery.
This situates the film somewhere between Ben-Hur and The Last Temptation of Christ. Though not as humanizing as Martin Scorsese's controversial film, Ray's epic nevertheless breaks ground of its own, breaking from the tradition of showing Jesus in synecdochical ellipses to show Christ in full. The mere process of visualizing him humanizes him, focusing on the man instead of the symbol. Ray understands this, even going so far as to frame most of Jesus' miracles in shadow or other indirect visuals to firmly separate the man from the god. Ray does not visually segment these sides of Jesus for the purposes of commentary or irony, merely to keep our focus on the man even if, like all Ray heroes, becomes an idol before our eyes.
Working for an independent production company (though the film was later distributed by MGM), Ray had to make do with a modest budget of $6,000,000, a small sum even then, especially for a 70mm extravaganza. The limitations are evident: a number of miracles are not shown but described by a soldier reporting to Pontius Pilate. Ray clearly called in some favors to make sure he could complete the project, and the cast brims with former collaborators. Most intriguing is Jeffrey Hunter as Jesus, considering his previous work for Ray was as Jesse James. There, his icy stare and impenetrability made him stilted. Here, despite the literally ancient nature of his dialogue, Hunter's blue eyes convey only kindness and compassion. Christ's Golden Rule was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but as one looks into Hunter's "teenage heartthrob" face (he was 33 at the time), one senses that maybe that was just because Jesus wanted someone to reciprocate his complete love and gentleness for mankind.
Hunter's emergence after Jesus' childhood and a diversion to show the Jewish rebels fighting back against Herod and Pilate—another bit of historical rationalization that unfortunately carries on too long despite the thrill of the insurrection scenes—elevates the film from its beautiful but static presentation to one that subsumes its grandeur into the humanity of its godly protagonist. This can be seen first when Jesus heads into the desert to confront Satan's temptations. First, Ray frames Jesus' time in the desert as clear torment, and the devil's temptations are thus made more tangibly enticing for offering relief to Jesus. When he passes these tests, though, a faint smile passes his face, one not of braggadocio but relief. This is not the smile of an infallible god but a man who has resisted the sway of sin and won, a man who had genuine stakes in his test and passed from effort, not a foregone conclusion.
Indeed, so much of this film feels unexpected for its subversion of iconography and mythology for more personal angles and even modicums of historical accuracy, finding fresh inroads for the endlessly repeated Gospel tales. The Sermon on the Mount becomes less a lecture than a Socratic dialogue between Jesus and the skeptics and faithful, a condensation of other of Jesus' teachings into an exchange of ideas no less edifying than outright instruction. We meet Judas (a young, unrecognizable Rip Torn) as a rebel under Barabbas (an overracting Harry Guardino, all gritted teeth hisses and animal-skin garb); his eventual betrayal of Jesus is the result not of base greed but conviction that the threat of Roman punishment will bring out the full power of the man he believes is the Son of God, leading to the Jews' deliverance. When the crowds later call for Barabbas' freedom instead of Christ's, we finally get a sense of why the Jews would want him freed over Jesus. He's the one who directly fights the Roman oppressors, while Christ continues only to speak of better days in the next world.
No longer framing through the compression of CinemaScope, Ray nevertheless finds a way to practice his architectural perfectionism in Super-70. Though many shots of the film carry the impersonal vastness of the Biblical epic, Ray inserts numerous moments that betray his hand. King of Kings boasts inventive angles, frames within the frame, and a use of shadow that, ironically, convey the warmth of God incarnate rather than encroaching menace. Red soaks the palace of Herod, as if the blood spilled of all the men, women and children cut down by his command caked his home. Best of all is a moving shot of a chained John the Baptist scaling a prison wall just to touch Jesus' outstretched hand, a shot that gains even more emotional resonance from the framing of Christ's shadow beside John as he looks up, effectively signaling that Jesus is already with him even as he reaches for the Lord.
Also a delight is Miklos Rozsa's rousing score, a justly famous swell of brass that now exists far outside the film itself as one of the great classic soundtracks. I'd never seen this film before, yet I recognized the main brass theme instantly, never knowing it came from this movie. Rozsa also did the score for Ben-Hur, but I may well prefer his work here. Rozsa also judges the moments of more intimate humanity, adding nuance and texture to the gargantuan roar of his Hosanna trumpets. By the end of the film, even that fist-raising theme has been on a journey of its own, wracked through the pain of Christ's sacrifice and reemerging with renewed vigor with the resurrection.
Much better than expected, the unfairly neglected King of Kings nevertheless fumbles occasionally for its overlength, ironically because Ray does such a good job of humanizing Christ that he makes many huge moments somewhat distracting and disjointed. He spends too much time on the Passion, yet he impressively avoids lingering on images of torture, eliding over graphic images to come at the torture and crucifixion from different angles. If it overstays its welcome, King of Kings nonetheless does succeed as a unique portrait of Christ in a saturated pool of depictions. I admit a bias for any film that approaches Christ as a man first and a god second, but Hunter, who failed to impress me as Jesse James, found the soft contours of his stiff, undying youth, and Ray tempered the anti-auterist format of the Biblical epic with his invigorating compositions. As I did with Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ, I found myself willing to follow this Jesus, not because I believed he was the Son of God but because he was a good person, tested and struggling like the rest of us. It's more impressive if a man can overcome such obstacles anyway. Though Ray still has to cater to the full Christian significance of the story, his humanizing touches make this one of my favorite depictions of Jesus in cinema.
*This omission, I feel, was the most disappointing result of the limited budget. By having to talk of the call for the violent Barrabas' freedom, Ray must deny himself some more mob commentary, for what is the rabble calling for Christ's crucifixion but the original and most notorious mob? Then again, it does spare this telling of the Gospel its most antisemitic aspect, which is not without worth.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
On Dangerous Ground (Nicholas Ray, 1952)
[The following is a contribution to the Nicholas Ray Blog-A-Thon for Tony Dayoub's Cinema Viewfinder.]
After making two certifiable classics (his debut, They Live By Night and In a Lonely Place) out of his first six films, Nicholas Ray upped his batting average with On Dangerous Ground, the film that launched one of the great gold runs of cinema, a decade-plus level of quality that experienced only one or two aberrations while churning out masterpiece after masterpiece. Though it is not his best film, On Dangerous Ground points to the reason for Ray's upcoming string of quality by succinctly demonstrating his ability to spin prose into poetic, psychological beauty.
Establishing the film's mood is a vibrant opening inside a car speeding down darkened city streets. Over these shots plays Bernard Herrmann's music, which kicks off with verve. The music is fast and vigorous, like the scherzo of a sonata, a passionate explosion of sound that nevertheless hints at the darker, more dour moods to come. The next dominant sound to come through the mix is the blaring car horn of a detective summoning his two partners, both of whom react to the urgent, impossibly loud sound with complete calm and disinterest, getting everything ready before departing as the impatient man below continue to agitate the whole block. The lackadaisical response of these cops, who are meant to be tracking the murder of one of their own, belies the energy of Herrmann's opening blast, suggesting that the true passion lies underneath these cynical exteriors.
Of the detectives assembled to track down the two perps, Ray devotes his primary attention to Jim Wilson, played Robert Ryan, a man who, for all his gentleness in real life, always looked as if the only things going on behind his eyes were how sad he was and how much he wanted to hurt something to take his mind off things. Ray exploits that look to the fullest: Jim doesn't have to worry about any femmes fatales because he tends to ignore women altogether, both disdainfully (like the lolita who asks him to buy her a drink with such suggestive tones it shouldn't even be called seduction for lack of subtlety) and reluctantly (like the nice soda shop girl who is taken). Ryan's face only stops displaying morose self-absorption when those flashes of anger come out. Unfortunately for those in his vicinity, he gets angry often.
Jim proves more passionate in the suspect search than the others, but his rage clearly comes from areas other than wounded camaraderie. When Wilson breaks into the hideout of the killers' partner, Bernie, Ray uses shot/reverse shots to show the hood's defiance transition into utter terror when he realizes the glint in the cop's eye isn't just righteous fury.
The other cops chastise him, but, for a time, no one rushes to quell him. These streets are too jaded for anyone to really care; of course, the problem with Jim, as his partner "Pop" (Charles Kemper) notes, is that he is too sensitive, that he has never learned to cope with the harshness of the urban underworld to which other cops have inured themselves. In a cruel irony, Jim's violent explosions are his way of lamenting the lack of peace on the streets. When he beats the aforementioned Bernie, he rhetorically asks why "they" always make him get information this way, screaming his question in agony and fury. Later, when Jim beats yet another thug, he responds to Pop's intervention by shouting "How do you live with yourself?" to which the other cop sagely shouts back "I don't! I live with other people!" Wilson, so broken by the evils of the job, now cannot view anyone as human, and naturally that sorrow only turns to more anger.
This perpetual-motion anomie gives On Dangerous Ground an edge that breaks it from its otherwise formulaic, even sentimental (in the end) noir structure. But it is Ray's direction, with its recurring cues, juxtapositions and minutiae, that truly gives the film its flavor. He visualizes the overarching sense of wounded, vulnerable masculinity with relics of past athletic glory from both Jim's and Pop's pasts: Pop carries around a newspaper clipping of his football days, while Jim goes home and picks up an old trophy. These items, reminders of a time of more innocent displays of masculine bravado, give the men more comfort than their current jobs as gun-toting officers. One could also contrast the social adoration they received as star athletes to the disdain they now face as cops, as seen when they accost the wrong man for fitting a description and receive some scathing insults in return. (Ray would use the metaphor of high-school glory days again in Bigger Than Life, where a perennially deflated football makes an even stronger statement about masculine insecurity.)
When Jim gets sent to the countryside to assist with a murder (but really to get him away from the scandal of his brutality), Ray wastes little time juxtaposing the concealing, labyrinthine alleys of the urban undercity with the wide-open expanse of the country. Compared to the city, where crooks can hide mere feet away, the flat plains offer nowhere to hide. But then, that also true of the pursuers, and Ray gears up for his upcoming demystified Westerns by presenting the rural manhunt as a foil for the urban one. He links the two by connecting the swarming precinct with the lawless posse rounded up by Walter Brent (Ward Bond), the local farmer whose daughter was killed. The difference, of course, is that where the cops at least had to follow some letter of the law, the posse doesn't even get off the grounds before shooting up a storm. That unrestrained display of bloodthirst and the naked exposure and smaller population only magnifies the sense of wayward masculinity and isolation.
Jim sarcastically refers to this snowy retreat as Siberia to comment upon his banishment, a description that initially conflicts with the idyll and beauty of the surrounding. Nevertheless, Ray frames Wilson's arrival at the Brent homestead with an interior shot looking out the door to show chicken wire surrounding the place, combining with the bars of the window pane to subtly refashion the house into a prison.
This opened-up setting gives Ray compositional variance, but whether he's shooting angular, claustrophobic alleys or panoramas, he always stresses Jim's separation and despair. Brent is none too pleased to see this "city cop" (words he repeatedly hisses as if quickly venting steam to prevent an explosion), but the raging Jim clearly approves of the more direct and vengeful retribution of the country. When Brent leads his posse out of his farm, he looks back angrily to Wilson expecting liberal disgust and an order to cease this nonsense. Instead, he sees only Jim smiling with grim satisfaction and approval, and Walter suddenly looks unsettled by the tacit permission he's received.
The film takes another turn when Jim and Walter, separated from the rest, approach a lonely house on a hill where a lone light soon extinguishes itself. Convinced the killer has hidden here, they storm up the door and beat on the door, only for a blind woman, Mary (Ida Lupino), to answer. Lupino's face carries concern, worry, blank innocence but also awareness and intelligence. To look at her is to know at once that she's covering for someone but to also know that she means no harm and does not wish to deceive anyone for any reason other than to protect her brother. She instantly throws off the balance of the film, and Ryan blanches when confronted with her, his bitterness and rage momentarily set aside. Ray's framing of the men's search of the house casts them as intruders, their shadows dancing along the walls as Mary sits in a chair looking blankly ahead.
Mary brings out the psychological aspects behind Jim: when he tells her his profession, she asks him, "How is it to be a cop?" an awkward phrasing that inadvertently casts a pathetic attempt at ingratiating distraction as an existential prompt. She notes that he does not treat or speak to her with condescension or sadness, unaware that Wilson is too consumed with his own self-pity to spare any for another person. Nevertheless, she sparks a clear change in him, and though he knows she's hiding someone, his anger dissipates. Jim even behaves like a police officer around Walter, calming down the man, unloading his shotgun and even showing simple human decency in draping a blanket over the man when they stay over at Mary's house. When he goes out hunting for Mary's brother, Danny, he does so with an intent to bring the boy back for a fair trial, not to beat or kill him.
It's a fast turn-around, but Lupino has enough effect to make it plausible, if still improbable. But Ray never lets the film flag, and his handling of Danny is dark and precisely executed. He introduces the deranged lad through the knife he used to kill the girl, the steel of the blade glinting in the dark cellar where he hides, blindly brandished at the beckoning sister who stands at the top of the cellar surrounded by sky and light like the Holy Mother for whom her name derives. Later, when Jim chases the man to an abandoned shack, Danny backs toward a window that casts his knife arm in light while leaving the rest of him darker. A shot of Jim appraising the situation in the middle ground keeps Danny's knife arm in the foreground. Finally, Ray cuts to an extreme close-up of the knife as he threatens Jim, Danny's entire being focused into the weapon until it becomes his visual representation.
This is but one small example of the masterful technique Ray had already consolidated by this point. Early examples of hand-held shots add frenzy to foot chases, while Ray sends a camera tumbling and unfocusing later to capture the feeling of Jim's and Walter's car accident. Those rawer moments add excitement to the movie, as does the elegant shadow work Ray manages even in the bright, wide-open countryside in daylight.
Herrmann's score is also a driving force: led, intriguingly, by the woodwinds, the melodies are forceful but necessarily wary until the brass and strings pick up the music and explode. Herrmann also knows the importance of silence, inserting a key break at the height of the climax, letting the ominous sound of falling pebbles skittering down a rock face communicate the mood and queasy feeling of the resolution of the chase before the music returns.
The film ends with predictable optimism despite its narrative conclusion (Howard Hughes overrode Ray's desire for a more downbeat conclusion), but Ray undercuts much of the sappiness by letting the dour dénouement truly sink in. Mary, already stiff-faced, now looks practically catatonic, and a shamed Jim speaks even less than she does. For all his vivid, impassioned Romanticism, Ray was also capable of somber grace, and he imbues these last moments with elegance. A fade from rural to urban captures a retreating Jim at a metaphorical crossroads, while a joining of hands shows Jim's and Mary's union. With such gentle work, suddenly the harsh, cold plains look inviting and fulfilling.
After making two certifiable classics (his debut, They Live By Night and In a Lonely Place) out of his first six films, Nicholas Ray upped his batting average with On Dangerous Ground, the film that launched one of the great gold runs of cinema, a decade-plus level of quality that experienced only one or two aberrations while churning out masterpiece after masterpiece. Though it is not his best film, On Dangerous Ground points to the reason for Ray's upcoming string of quality by succinctly demonstrating his ability to spin prose into poetic, psychological beauty.
Establishing the film's mood is a vibrant opening inside a car speeding down darkened city streets. Over these shots plays Bernard Herrmann's music, which kicks off with verve. The music is fast and vigorous, like the scherzo of a sonata, a passionate explosion of sound that nevertheless hints at the darker, more dour moods to come. The next dominant sound to come through the mix is the blaring car horn of a detective summoning his two partners, both of whom react to the urgent, impossibly loud sound with complete calm and disinterest, getting everything ready before departing as the impatient man below continue to agitate the whole block. The lackadaisical response of these cops, who are meant to be tracking the murder of one of their own, belies the energy of Herrmann's opening blast, suggesting that the true passion lies underneath these cynical exteriors.
Of the detectives assembled to track down the two perps, Ray devotes his primary attention to Jim Wilson, played Robert Ryan, a man who, for all his gentleness in real life, always looked as if the only things going on behind his eyes were how sad he was and how much he wanted to hurt something to take his mind off things. Ray exploits that look to the fullest: Jim doesn't have to worry about any femmes fatales because he tends to ignore women altogether, both disdainfully (like the lolita who asks him to buy her a drink with such suggestive tones it shouldn't even be called seduction for lack of subtlety) and reluctantly (like the nice soda shop girl who is taken). Ryan's face only stops displaying morose self-absorption when those flashes of anger come out. Unfortunately for those in his vicinity, he gets angry often.
Jim proves more passionate in the suspect search than the others, but his rage clearly comes from areas other than wounded camaraderie. When Wilson breaks into the hideout of the killers' partner, Bernie, Ray uses shot/reverse shots to show the hood's defiance transition into utter terror when he realizes the glint in the cop's eye isn't just righteous fury.
The other cops chastise him, but, for a time, no one rushes to quell him. These streets are too jaded for anyone to really care; of course, the problem with Jim, as his partner "Pop" (Charles Kemper) notes, is that he is too sensitive, that he has never learned to cope with the harshness of the urban underworld to which other cops have inured themselves. In a cruel irony, Jim's violent explosions are his way of lamenting the lack of peace on the streets. When he beats the aforementioned Bernie, he rhetorically asks why "they" always make him get information this way, screaming his question in agony and fury. Later, when Jim beats yet another thug, he responds to Pop's intervention by shouting "How do you live with yourself?" to which the other cop sagely shouts back "I don't! I live with other people!" Wilson, so broken by the evils of the job, now cannot view anyone as human, and naturally that sorrow only turns to more anger.
This perpetual-motion anomie gives On Dangerous Ground an edge that breaks it from its otherwise formulaic, even sentimental (in the end) noir structure. But it is Ray's direction, with its recurring cues, juxtapositions and minutiae, that truly gives the film its flavor. He visualizes the overarching sense of wounded, vulnerable masculinity with relics of past athletic glory from both Jim's and Pop's pasts: Pop carries around a newspaper clipping of his football days, while Jim goes home and picks up an old trophy. These items, reminders of a time of more innocent displays of masculine bravado, give the men more comfort than their current jobs as gun-toting officers. One could also contrast the social adoration they received as star athletes to the disdain they now face as cops, as seen when they accost the wrong man for fitting a description and receive some scathing insults in return. (Ray would use the metaphor of high-school glory days again in Bigger Than Life, where a perennially deflated football makes an even stronger statement about masculine insecurity.)
When Jim gets sent to the countryside to assist with a murder (but really to get him away from the scandal of his brutality), Ray wastes little time juxtaposing the concealing, labyrinthine alleys of the urban undercity with the wide-open expanse of the country. Compared to the city, where crooks can hide mere feet away, the flat plains offer nowhere to hide. But then, that also true of the pursuers, and Ray gears up for his upcoming demystified Westerns by presenting the rural manhunt as a foil for the urban one. He links the two by connecting the swarming precinct with the lawless posse rounded up by Walter Brent (Ward Bond), the local farmer whose daughter was killed. The difference, of course, is that where the cops at least had to follow some letter of the law, the posse doesn't even get off the grounds before shooting up a storm. That unrestrained display of bloodthirst and the naked exposure and smaller population only magnifies the sense of wayward masculinity and isolation.
Jim sarcastically refers to this snowy retreat as Siberia to comment upon his banishment, a description that initially conflicts with the idyll and beauty of the surrounding. Nevertheless, Ray frames Wilson's arrival at the Brent homestead with an interior shot looking out the door to show chicken wire surrounding the place, combining with the bars of the window pane to subtly refashion the house into a prison.
This opened-up setting gives Ray compositional variance, but whether he's shooting angular, claustrophobic alleys or panoramas, he always stresses Jim's separation and despair. Brent is none too pleased to see this "city cop" (words he repeatedly hisses as if quickly venting steam to prevent an explosion), but the raging Jim clearly approves of the more direct and vengeful retribution of the country. When Brent leads his posse out of his farm, he looks back angrily to Wilson expecting liberal disgust and an order to cease this nonsense. Instead, he sees only Jim smiling with grim satisfaction and approval, and Walter suddenly looks unsettled by the tacit permission he's received.
The film takes another turn when Jim and Walter, separated from the rest, approach a lonely house on a hill where a lone light soon extinguishes itself. Convinced the killer has hidden here, they storm up the door and beat on the door, only for a blind woman, Mary (Ida Lupino), to answer. Lupino's face carries concern, worry, blank innocence but also awareness and intelligence. To look at her is to know at once that she's covering for someone but to also know that she means no harm and does not wish to deceive anyone for any reason other than to protect her brother. She instantly throws off the balance of the film, and Ryan blanches when confronted with her, his bitterness and rage momentarily set aside. Ray's framing of the men's search of the house casts them as intruders, their shadows dancing along the walls as Mary sits in a chair looking blankly ahead.
Mary brings out the psychological aspects behind Jim: when he tells her his profession, she asks him, "How is it to be a cop?" an awkward phrasing that inadvertently casts a pathetic attempt at ingratiating distraction as an existential prompt. She notes that he does not treat or speak to her with condescension or sadness, unaware that Wilson is too consumed with his own self-pity to spare any for another person. Nevertheless, she sparks a clear change in him, and though he knows she's hiding someone, his anger dissipates. Jim even behaves like a police officer around Walter, calming down the man, unloading his shotgun and even showing simple human decency in draping a blanket over the man when they stay over at Mary's house. When he goes out hunting for Mary's brother, Danny, he does so with an intent to bring the boy back for a fair trial, not to beat or kill him.
It's a fast turn-around, but Lupino has enough effect to make it plausible, if still improbable. But Ray never lets the film flag, and his handling of Danny is dark and precisely executed. He introduces the deranged lad through the knife he used to kill the girl, the steel of the blade glinting in the dark cellar where he hides, blindly brandished at the beckoning sister who stands at the top of the cellar surrounded by sky and light like the Holy Mother for whom her name derives. Later, when Jim chases the man to an abandoned shack, Danny backs toward a window that casts his knife arm in light while leaving the rest of him darker. A shot of Jim appraising the situation in the middle ground keeps Danny's knife arm in the foreground. Finally, Ray cuts to an extreme close-up of the knife as he threatens Jim, Danny's entire being focused into the weapon until it becomes his visual representation.
This is but one small example of the masterful technique Ray had already consolidated by this point. Early examples of hand-held shots add frenzy to foot chases, while Ray sends a camera tumbling and unfocusing later to capture the feeling of Jim's and Walter's car accident. Those rawer moments add excitement to the movie, as does the elegant shadow work Ray manages even in the bright, wide-open countryside in daylight.
Herrmann's score is also a driving force: led, intriguingly, by the woodwinds, the melodies are forceful but necessarily wary until the brass and strings pick up the music and explode. Herrmann also knows the importance of silence, inserting a key break at the height of the climax, letting the ominous sound of falling pebbles skittering down a rock face communicate the mood and queasy feeling of the resolution of the chase before the music returns.
The film ends with predictable optimism despite its narrative conclusion (Howard Hughes overrode Ray's desire for a more downbeat conclusion), but Ray undercuts much of the sappiness by letting the dour dénouement truly sink in. Mary, already stiff-faced, now looks practically catatonic, and a shamed Jim speaks even less than she does. For all his vivid, impassioned Romanticism, Ray was also capable of somber grace, and he imbues these last moments with elegance. A fade from rural to urban captures a retreating Jim at a metaphorical crossroads, while a joining of hands shows Jim's and Mary's union. With such gentle work, suddenly the harsh, cold plains look inviting and fulfilling.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Born to Be Bad (Nicholas Ray, 1950)
[The following is a contribution to the Nicholas Ray Blog-A-Thon for Tony Dayoub's Cinema Viewfinder.]
What if Nicholas Ray had directed a Pre-Code? It might resemble Born to Be Bad, a noirish melodrama about a woman unrepentantly destroying the lives of others for her own financial and sexual gratification. Like the fresh-faced and steel-eyed vixen of the contemporaneous All About Eve, Christabel (Joan Fontaine) is charming to the point of childlike innocence. Yet just as Eve's fresh-of-the-bus sunniness belied a stop-at-nothing ambition to supplant her idol, so too does Christabel's sweetness soon give way to complete manipulation as she guns for the wealth of her cousin's fiancé. With Fontaine herself being wooed at the time by Ray's RKO boss, Howard Hughes, Ray's not-so-subtle jabs remind one of the jabs of Citizen Kane. But just imagine if Orson Welles had made that movie with Hearst's money.
More worthy of attention is Ray's style, which begins to show its true flashes of aesthetic invention that would make him the greatest director of the '50s. His use of doorways and other frames-within-frames emerges here with numerous shots that isolate characters and open up the mise-en-scène with unexpected entrances and transitions. Deep-focus photography captures the domestic boilerplate in crisp detail, allowing for all the objects to play their role in presenting domestic comfort surrounding inner turmoil. This, of course, would become the dominant form of Ray's thematic expression over the next decade, and Ray's background as an architectural apprentice under Frank Lloyd Wright is vividly on display even in this formative early work.
Despite this background, Ray never lets his specialty in one art detract from his new choice of medium, and what makes Born to Be Bad engaging is less the rigor of its set design than the construction and flow of the images. Dave Kehr summed up Ray's ingenious editing rhythm nicely: "Ray insistently cuts on movement, giving the whole film an effective instability; every sequence seems volatile, every exchange of looks a threat." The edits tend to occur on walks, arm movements, head turns and other acts of great and minor locomotion, pushing the visuals ahead with more steam as the narrative remains inside decorated walls and ballrooms, creating a conflicting pace that spins the film slowly off its axis. Nicholas Musuraca's sharp cinematography defines the objects by their edges, constantly anticipating some new turn of events that will change the narrative direction yet again. That is not to say that the film ever plumbs the surreal depths of later movies like Johnny Guitar, but one can see how Ray arrived at that point with this early experiment in structural conflict.
Ray's formal growth is also aided by solid dialogue packed with innuendo as Christabel (Fontaine) constantly seduces, deflects and manipulates. But she doesn't even have the best lines. Nick (Robert Ryan), a writer supported by Chris' cousin Donna (Joan Leslie), covers up a faint vulnerability with braggadocio and wit. "You seen the view? It's better with me in it," he teases Christabel, who is too busy setting her sights on the rich Curtis (Zachary Scott) to particularly care for him. But it is Mel Ferrer as Gabriel, the artist who hangs around this wealthy family, who steals the show. Barely closeted, "Gobby" serves as a bitchy Greek chorus, his pithy summaries and barbs as laser-precise as they are hilarious.
Ferrer's performance is the most interesting one from the historical perspective of dealing with gays in Hollywood, but several of the actors give unorthodox performances. Scott, the rich man who wants to be sure he is being married for love, nonetheless becomes a pawn of Fontaine's passive-aggressive campaign to loot him. Fontaine herself shines as the airy demon who turns "Surely you don't think I had anything to do with this?" into a musical motif. Ryan, in the first of four collaborations with Ray, shines by virtue of that wonderful face of his, trapped not in agelessness but in the nebula between youth and old age. The sadness in his face, whether stressing over his book or pining for the woman he sees through but cannot resist anyway, brings out the lines of his lonely mug. Conversely, when he hears any good news, the huge glee on his face shaves off 20 years, but this only creates a constant oscillation, making Ryan uncomfortable in his own skin. Though he gets many defiant lines, one look into Ryan's face and you can see darker, more complex emotions at play.
Though Christabel's lies eventually catch up with her, as they must, she remains defiant to the end, not only unrepentant but uninterrupted in her continued strand of lies, this time aimed at third parties who can ensure damage control if she acts fast. Where the film falters is in sympathizing with the victims of Chris' schemes when the actors make these characters out to be just as culpable. Nick knows that he's being used but likes the sex, while Scott shows how easily men of wealth will preemptively strike to protect their money. Even Leslie, playing the straight man in this melodrama, uses that calmness against Donna by having her sit by and accept what her cousin does to her so as to avoid worsening the scandal. The actors and Ray move the film into more complex areas, but the narrative, despite the padding of its rich dialogue and a few quirks, holds the movie back.
Thankfully, Ray takes the wheel himself in the film's coda, closing via Gobby's sense of barely contained joy as the fallout from all this scandal drives up the prices for his portraits, even using his Greek chorus-like status to see more developments (like Christabel wooing her divorce lawyer) to keep raising the asking price. It's a wry, clever demonstration that Ray increasing ability to capture everything through the images. Granted, the film's coldness sets it apart from Ray's other works even as it starts to pour in the foundation for his later domestic critiques. But if Born to Be Bad is more noteworthy for its glimpse into an advancing artist, the fact that it's someone as talented as Ray should make it worth more consideration than merely 1950's second-best ode to a bitchy, unrepentant social climber.
What if Nicholas Ray had directed a Pre-Code? It might resemble Born to Be Bad, a noirish melodrama about a woman unrepentantly destroying the lives of others for her own financial and sexual gratification. Like the fresh-faced and steel-eyed vixen of the contemporaneous All About Eve, Christabel (Joan Fontaine) is charming to the point of childlike innocence. Yet just as Eve's fresh-of-the-bus sunniness belied a stop-at-nothing ambition to supplant her idol, so too does Christabel's sweetness soon give way to complete manipulation as she guns for the wealth of her cousin's fiancé. With Fontaine herself being wooed at the time by Ray's RKO boss, Howard Hughes, Ray's not-so-subtle jabs remind one of the jabs of Citizen Kane. But just imagine if Orson Welles had made that movie with Hearst's money.
More worthy of attention is Ray's style, which begins to show its true flashes of aesthetic invention that would make him the greatest director of the '50s. His use of doorways and other frames-within-frames emerges here with numerous shots that isolate characters and open up the mise-en-scène with unexpected entrances and transitions. Deep-focus photography captures the domestic boilerplate in crisp detail, allowing for all the objects to play their role in presenting domestic comfort surrounding inner turmoil. This, of course, would become the dominant form of Ray's thematic expression over the next decade, and Ray's background as an architectural apprentice under Frank Lloyd Wright is vividly on display even in this formative early work.
Despite this background, Ray never lets his specialty in one art detract from his new choice of medium, and what makes Born to Be Bad engaging is less the rigor of its set design than the construction and flow of the images. Dave Kehr summed up Ray's ingenious editing rhythm nicely: "Ray insistently cuts on movement, giving the whole film an effective instability; every sequence seems volatile, every exchange of looks a threat." The edits tend to occur on walks, arm movements, head turns and other acts of great and minor locomotion, pushing the visuals ahead with more steam as the narrative remains inside decorated walls and ballrooms, creating a conflicting pace that spins the film slowly off its axis. Nicholas Musuraca's sharp cinematography defines the objects by their edges, constantly anticipating some new turn of events that will change the narrative direction yet again. That is not to say that the film ever plumbs the surreal depths of later movies like Johnny Guitar, but one can see how Ray arrived at that point with this early experiment in structural conflict.
Ray's formal growth is also aided by solid dialogue packed with innuendo as Christabel (Fontaine) constantly seduces, deflects and manipulates. But she doesn't even have the best lines. Nick (Robert Ryan), a writer supported by Chris' cousin Donna (Joan Leslie), covers up a faint vulnerability with braggadocio and wit. "You seen the view? It's better with me in it," he teases Christabel, who is too busy setting her sights on the rich Curtis (Zachary Scott) to particularly care for him. But it is Mel Ferrer as Gabriel, the artist who hangs around this wealthy family, who steals the show. Barely closeted, "Gobby" serves as a bitchy Greek chorus, his pithy summaries and barbs as laser-precise as they are hilarious.
Ferrer's performance is the most interesting one from the historical perspective of dealing with gays in Hollywood, but several of the actors give unorthodox performances. Scott, the rich man who wants to be sure he is being married for love, nonetheless becomes a pawn of Fontaine's passive-aggressive campaign to loot him. Fontaine herself shines as the airy demon who turns "Surely you don't think I had anything to do with this?" into a musical motif. Ryan, in the first of four collaborations with Ray, shines by virtue of that wonderful face of his, trapped not in agelessness but in the nebula between youth and old age. The sadness in his face, whether stressing over his book or pining for the woman he sees through but cannot resist anyway, brings out the lines of his lonely mug. Conversely, when he hears any good news, the huge glee on his face shaves off 20 years, but this only creates a constant oscillation, making Ryan uncomfortable in his own skin. Though he gets many defiant lines, one look into Ryan's face and you can see darker, more complex emotions at play.
Though Christabel's lies eventually catch up with her, as they must, she remains defiant to the end, not only unrepentant but uninterrupted in her continued strand of lies, this time aimed at third parties who can ensure damage control if she acts fast. Where the film falters is in sympathizing with the victims of Chris' schemes when the actors make these characters out to be just as culpable. Nick knows that he's being used but likes the sex, while Scott shows how easily men of wealth will preemptively strike to protect their money. Even Leslie, playing the straight man in this melodrama, uses that calmness against Donna by having her sit by and accept what her cousin does to her so as to avoid worsening the scandal. The actors and Ray move the film into more complex areas, but the narrative, despite the padding of its rich dialogue and a few quirks, holds the movie back.
Thankfully, Ray takes the wheel himself in the film's coda, closing via Gobby's sense of barely contained joy as the fallout from all this scandal drives up the prices for his portraits, even using his Greek chorus-like status to see more developments (like Christabel wooing her divorce lawyer) to keep raising the asking price. It's a wry, clever demonstration that Ray increasing ability to capture everything through the images. Granted, the film's coldness sets it apart from Ray's other works even as it starts to pour in the foundation for his later domestic critiques. But if Born to Be Bad is more noteworthy for its glimpse into an advancing artist, the fact that it's someone as talented as Ray should make it worth more consideration than merely 1950's second-best ode to a bitchy, unrepentant social climber.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Flying Leathernecks (Nicholas Ray, 1951)
[The following is a contribution to the Nicholas Ray Blog-A-Thon for Tony Dayoub's Cinema Viewfinder.]
Though Flying Leathernecks is a solid war movie in terms of its construction, the drama that must have happened behind the camera is infinitely more appealing than the one that unfolded before it. Nicholas Ray and Robert Ryan, both committed liberals (Ray a former Communist and Ryan a pacifist) clashed with John Wayne, an actor whose personal beliefs and professional style could not have put him more at odds with Ray if he'd actively been trying to mess with the emerging director. The film itself is purported to exist primarily as one of RKO head Howard Hughes' patriot cred pictures to defend himself from accusations of Commie ties. Watching the various dealings, spats and good old-fashioned passive-aggression at work on this movie would make for one hell of an experience.
Nevertheless, the film is not quite so stupid as its shallow jingoism. Granted, its use of newsreel combat footage, incessant validation of Wayne's reluctant but dedicated warrior act and push for strict discipline make it a traditional war movie through and through. But Ray, who may not have cared as much as he did for films that more adequately reflected his beliefs, nevertheless finds a few moments of intelligence and character in the conflict between experienced professional Maj. Daniel Kirby (Wayne) and Capt. Carl Griffin (Ryan), the too-chummy officer who values the casual approval of his hotshot pilots over proper military decorum.
Although Hughes clearly wanted the film to support the military, Ray also suggests that Ryan's character, who would be closer to his own, is unfit for command, unable to make the sacrifices necessary to lead successful missions. Where Ray obviously differs from the film's validation of Wayne's character is that he and Ryan would doubtlessly be more than happy not to fit into a war zone. But Wayne's Kirby is not as cold as he seems: he does not send men to their deaths casually and takes every loss personally, writing letters of condolence to the families instead of letting the chaplain handle such matters. The lack of mail Kirby himself receives on a consistent basis may also be a motivating factor in this commitment, one of the few aspects of the film to feel like it belongs in a Nick Ray movie.
Earlier I used the word "solid" to describe the film, and that is chiefly its problem: Ray is not a solid director. He is a filmmaker of passions and politics and romances and dances and existential fights to inevitable deaths. The constant use of newsreel footage denies him full aesthetic control leading to sizable portions of the film in which his mastery of form is not on display, and the irritation he must have felt carries over into the shots that actually are his, few of which even remotely suggest Ray's hand. Compare this, his first film in color, to his next one, Johnny Guitar, and the difference is too vast to be the result of a learning curve. What's more, stack up the glorified battle footage here with the taut, grisly, repellent action shots in Bitter Victory to get an idea of where Ray's true and deeply held opinions on war lied. I'm not saying the director was forcibly stifled, but he clearly felt boxed in by the project.
Wayne and Ray are not an actor-director pair that was ever meant to be, Wayne's style of playing icons wholly at odds with Ray's ability to make icons of humans. Still, the shotgun marriage of their collaboration works a lot better than I would expected, especially as Ryan makes Wayne look even better by venting his frustrations through overacting. In comparison, Wayne is reserved, always resigned and only just capable of holding back his regrets for putting these men in harm's way even as he also conveys steely conviction to doing his duty. Even when he gets sent back home briefly after his tactics prove instrumental to taking Guadalcanal, Kirby never gives into the rousing celebration the film around him perpetually sells with its boisterous music, instead cherishing the moments with his family before his inevitable reassignment.
Ray even builds his most characteristic scene around Wayne when Kirby speaks to a pilot who lost his leg in a crash. Mostly holding on a close-up of the man's sweat-drenched face as he instructs the major on what to write back to his folks about the wound, mixing brave selflessness with bitter irony, is a touching scene, and one that brings out a great deal of humanity and empathy in Wayne. Other shots, such as those of men in foxholes being unheroically blown to bits by artillery fire or a prolonged bit of stock footage that lingers on a plane crash as a fireball silently blossoms into the sky, also feel like Ray moments in a movie that otherwise feels uncomfortably workmanlike.
There is something fascinating in all of Ray's films, but Flying Leathernecks is the first time that most of the intrigue exists outside of the film and in its production, and this is well before Ray fell into deep, deep alcoholism. Buoyed by an unexpectedly affecting performance from John Wayne and an amusingly edgy Ryan, Flying Leathernecks proves that even at his most disinterested and artistically absent, Ray could never be outright terrible. Having said that, this is the first of his films that I've seen where I would freely consider stopping and doing anything else while watching it.
Though Flying Leathernecks is a solid war movie in terms of its construction, the drama that must have happened behind the camera is infinitely more appealing than the one that unfolded before it. Nicholas Ray and Robert Ryan, both committed liberals (Ray a former Communist and Ryan a pacifist) clashed with John Wayne, an actor whose personal beliefs and professional style could not have put him more at odds with Ray if he'd actively been trying to mess with the emerging director. The film itself is purported to exist primarily as one of RKO head Howard Hughes' patriot cred pictures to defend himself from accusations of Commie ties. Watching the various dealings, spats and good old-fashioned passive-aggression at work on this movie would make for one hell of an experience.
Nevertheless, the film is not quite so stupid as its shallow jingoism. Granted, its use of newsreel combat footage, incessant validation of Wayne's reluctant but dedicated warrior act and push for strict discipline make it a traditional war movie through and through. But Ray, who may not have cared as much as he did for films that more adequately reflected his beliefs, nevertheless finds a few moments of intelligence and character in the conflict between experienced professional Maj. Daniel Kirby (Wayne) and Capt. Carl Griffin (Ryan), the too-chummy officer who values the casual approval of his hotshot pilots over proper military decorum.
Although Hughes clearly wanted the film to support the military, Ray also suggests that Ryan's character, who would be closer to his own, is unfit for command, unable to make the sacrifices necessary to lead successful missions. Where Ray obviously differs from the film's validation of Wayne's character is that he and Ryan would doubtlessly be more than happy not to fit into a war zone. But Wayne's Kirby is not as cold as he seems: he does not send men to their deaths casually and takes every loss personally, writing letters of condolence to the families instead of letting the chaplain handle such matters. The lack of mail Kirby himself receives on a consistent basis may also be a motivating factor in this commitment, one of the few aspects of the film to feel like it belongs in a Nick Ray movie.
Earlier I used the word "solid" to describe the film, and that is chiefly its problem: Ray is not a solid director. He is a filmmaker of passions and politics and romances and dances and existential fights to inevitable deaths. The constant use of newsreel footage denies him full aesthetic control leading to sizable portions of the film in which his mastery of form is not on display, and the irritation he must have felt carries over into the shots that actually are his, few of which even remotely suggest Ray's hand. Compare this, his first film in color, to his next one, Johnny Guitar, and the difference is too vast to be the result of a learning curve. What's more, stack up the glorified battle footage here with the taut, grisly, repellent action shots in Bitter Victory to get an idea of where Ray's true and deeply held opinions on war lied. I'm not saying the director was forcibly stifled, but he clearly felt boxed in by the project.
Wayne and Ray are not an actor-director pair that was ever meant to be, Wayne's style of playing icons wholly at odds with Ray's ability to make icons of humans. Still, the shotgun marriage of their collaboration works a lot better than I would expected, especially as Ryan makes Wayne look even better by venting his frustrations through overacting. In comparison, Wayne is reserved, always resigned and only just capable of holding back his regrets for putting these men in harm's way even as he also conveys steely conviction to doing his duty. Even when he gets sent back home briefly after his tactics prove instrumental to taking Guadalcanal, Kirby never gives into the rousing celebration the film around him perpetually sells with its boisterous music, instead cherishing the moments with his family before his inevitable reassignment.
Ray even builds his most characteristic scene around Wayne when Kirby speaks to a pilot who lost his leg in a crash. Mostly holding on a close-up of the man's sweat-drenched face as he instructs the major on what to write back to his folks about the wound, mixing brave selflessness with bitter irony, is a touching scene, and one that brings out a great deal of humanity and empathy in Wayne. Other shots, such as those of men in foxholes being unheroically blown to bits by artillery fire or a prolonged bit of stock footage that lingers on a plane crash as a fireball silently blossoms into the sky, also feel like Ray moments in a movie that otherwise feels uncomfortably workmanlike.
There is something fascinating in all of Ray's films, but Flying Leathernecks is the first time that most of the intrigue exists outside of the film and in its production, and this is well before Ray fell into deep, deep alcoholism. Buoyed by an unexpectedly affecting performance from John Wayne and an amusingly edgy Ryan, Flying Leathernecks proves that even at his most disinterested and artistically absent, Ray could never be outright terrible. Having said that, this is the first of his films that I've seen where I would freely consider stopping and doing anything else while watching it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






































