Posts tagged “George Stevens

Pale Rider (1985) Shane (1953)

Recently I rewatched Pale Rider (1985), as the film was drawing to a close I had the realisation that the Clint Eastwood draws many comparisons with George Stevens classic Western – Shane (1953), which borders on a mythic tale. They are both working in the realm of the lone gunfighter, however the beats they touch-upon are the quite similar if not reworked. It can also be argued that Pale Rider is an extension of High Plains Drifter’s ghostly gunfighter. I’ll be using this essay to compare the two films in details, how Eastwood was informed by the earlier film, or if it’s just the conventions of the genre simply repeating themselves.

The savior of the Western during the genre’s fallow years of the 70s into the 1980’s was Clint Eastwood who along with a few fun pastiches later in the decade, he kept the genre alive. He did this because he had the star power and understanding of the genre. His previous Western before Pale Rider (1985); Bronco Billy (1980) was a love letter to the origins the genre that can be found in touring Wild West shows. Rider was a solid return in the same vein as High Plains Drifter (1973), a mystical stranger in the guise of a preacher rides into a mining town that’s in the middle of a war, big business trying to run out the independent small gold miners who feel they have every right to be working the land.

Like the cattlemen of Shane (1953) they work and live close by to one another. When Coy LaHood’s (Richard Dysart) men raid the camp for the umpteenth time some begin to question if they should be carrying on. At least one man decides to give up his claim. The leader of these men Hull Barret (Michael Moriarty) is more resilient than some of the prospectors who needs more encouragement to stay on. Willing to go into town, hoping to avoid LaHood’s Men giving him another beating. Barret is easily another of the cowardly men who isn’t ready to quit, yet lacks the desired strength to defend himself. Joe Starrett (Van Heflin) carries the same traits, but a stronger leader who doesn’t need the extra push.

This is all before we meet Eastwood’s preacher, who remains unnamed which only adds to his mystery, riding in to save the day for Barret is found to behind under his wagon, wanting to getaway without causing a fuss. The Preacher is more than a match for these thugs who can attack the weak but can’t stand up to the god-given violence as delivered through the Preacher. We don’t even know he’s a preacher until he’s invited back to Barret’s homestead. He’s already seen as a hero to the family he’s staying with, it’s the appearance of the dog collar that both surprises and confuses them. Is he heaven sent or a gunfighter who’s also a preacher.

This ambiguity is only increased by the scene of his arrival in camp, edited to timing of Megan Wheeler’s (Sydney Penny) bible reading from the book of Revelations. Seeking help from the good book to see them through the most recent raid that cost the life of her dog.

Megan Wheeler: [Reading from the Book of Revelation] And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the fourth beast said: “Come and see.” And I looked, and behold a pale horse. And his name that sat on him was Death.

[the Preacher rides up on his pale horse]

Megan Wheeler: And Hell followed with him.

The orchestrated arrival suggests that he’s a very dangerous man who can do good depending on the side he chooses. With God on his side (when he first arrives at the dinner table) is he sent to do the Lord’s work via violence, later a six-shooter that’s very easily reloaded. Whenever he talks to the band of prospectors he only speaks his words act to restore their faith, giving them moral and spiritual strength to carry on. It could be suggested that since his arrival at least two of them (on screen) discover gold. These discoveries only add the impetus to stay put.

I’ve only touched on Megan Wheeler who could easily be in place in the role of the admirer and impressionable Joey Starrett (Brandon De Wilde) who looks up to the stranger as a role model. Megan a young woman becomes attracted to the preacher who takes a polite interest in the girl. In Shane there’s the suggestion that Marian (Jean Arthur) the mother becomes attracted to him. The mother in Rider; Sarah (Carrie Snodgress), Megan’s mother, doesn’t have that kind of relationship with the preacher, her relationship with Barrett who wants to do the decent thing by her. Sarah spends the film considering if she wants to marry, not much for the only actress with any real screentime in the film to do. The Preacher’s more than happy to marry them.

Finally I need to touch on the reputation of the Preacher that precedes him when he’s mentioned to travelling Marshall Stockton (John Russell) who thinks he’s met him before, however believing he was dead. The preacher too knows off the Marshall and his 7 men who travel with him. Could Stockton be the man who killed him or know of him in High Plains Drifter (1973), just adding to the mystique of the character. Could Clints character be an avenging angel that uses violence in the name of the righteous – the prospectors who had nothing to really wrong LaHood who wants more land to expand upon and process for gold.

By the close of the film, we’re satisfied by the violence that has been meted out. Finally someone has stood up to the bullies who’ve been running the town. LaHood’s men cowardly run away allowing time to be spent with the silent long coats that follow Stockton, reminding us how well Eastwood can stage a finale that makes the most of the town whilst cleverly falling back on the clichés of the genre.

It’s startlingly clear that Rider is a remake of George Stevens classic Shane in all but name really. Eastwood has even admitted the fact when asked, he did it knowingly in recognition of one of the films he loves. It’s not hard to see why. Taking the classic gunfighter formula and placing it into a small rural setting, yet each scene feels grand against the rugged open landscape that builds up the American myth of conquest.

Steven’s plot relies heavily on his experiences of his time documenting WWII, coming back a changed man, he could no longer direct the comedies he was known for before the outbreak of war. What he saw would stay with him forever. Shane is a more realistic depiction of the West, farmers at war in their own country with cattle men who feel restricted by the once open land being slowly fenced off, water being diverted for use on farms. All part of progress for some, an slight on others. Easily translated to the expanded might of Nazi Germany as it occupied Western Europe for the majority of the war. Here in America the little man could stand up to the odd cattle baron who thought his right was far more than the farmer. Eastwood moved that to prospectors vs. land developers. The characters in Shane are far more confident, willing to stand up to Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer) and his men. I thought that Joe Starrett (Van Hefflin) was a coward, like his role in 3:10 to Yuma (1957), he’s indeed an equal to Hull Barret. They lead their respective men, raising morale when he needs to keep as many of them together for as long as he can.

I noticed a few knowing nods by Eastwood such as the shared axing of the tree stump by Shane and Starrett is repeated in Rider when the Preacher and Barret work together on a nugget. Both these large objects have left them defeated for years. Together over little under a good working day they finally get the work done. Both times it feels like male bonding, physical exertion that is good for the soul and satisfying to have completed a job that had left them defeated for so long. Whilst in another scene Starrett picks up an axe handle and goes into assist Shane during his fight with Chris Calloway (Ben Johnson). Eastwood instead takes up this blunt instrument once again and fights a group of La Hood’s men. It’s these little nods used in different ways that show how well he understands the film.

The strongest link between the two films is the children – Joey who adores the stranger Shane who rides leaving him in awe of his ideal of manhood. As much as Shane tries to dissuade him of that notion he’s a role model that will stay with him. Whereas and typically of Eastwood he has a teenage girl Megan who too sees the stranger as her first love. Of course Eastwood can’t reciprocate that attraction, she’s too young for him. It’s a rare film where he has no love interest – unless you count God?

We also have the “I’m not a coward figure” – as always played by Elisha Cook Jr. who gets in over his head when he meets Wilson on their second meeting. Even offering to accompany another when the farmers decide to only ride in groups into town. His death scene is overall brutally quick, reflecting the reality of how death can be inflicted with a gun, something Stevens had seen first hand. Not so for Eastwood who decided to make a drawn-out scene when Spider Conway (Doug McGrath) in a drunken state is slowly killed before his sons and the town. He Increases the spectacle that violence can produce for the camera. This is not his mediation of violence – that’s yet to come.

Where Eastwood wants to make Stockton the hired Marshall look more dangerous with seven additional men, Stevens needs only the presence of Jack Wilson (Jack Palance) for the hired gun. Stocktons men reflect the power of big business flexing its muscles – that and there was probably a bigger budget. Jack and Shane don’t have a shared past, Jack’s simply known by reputation to our hero who knows only he must face him in the classic showdown that’s witnessed by Joey which adds to the excitement and plays to the audience Stevens was trying to reach and at the same time educate to not go down a violent path. To see a man skilful in violence doesn’t make him a role model, but one to be feared, not admired. He rides away injured, possibly to die after a fatal injury. The same can’t be said of the Preacher who simply rides off, leaving a god fearing town just as it should be, with the help of a gun.

As a pair of films the explore and both build on the stranger that rides into town narrative. Both equally violent, having their own ways of living with. One who accepts his way of life, the other needs a dog collar to make it acceptable. In terms of Rider being a remake of the Shane it does a decent job of reworking the elements for a new audience whilst being true. Shane could be seen as just another gunfighter who rides in to settle a score, however he chooses to side with the little man, as does the Preacher. I’m just surprised that the narrative hasn’t been remade once more.


Film Talk – Violence in the West

The depiction of violence in the Western Genre. On-screen violence is a vast topic that if you could spend hours exploring it’s effects on society, censorship and how directors have each approached it in their work. Tonight I’ll be focusing on the evolution of the depiction of violence in the Western

The Great Train Robbery was the first noted Western in 1903, featuring the first use of editing to push forward a narrative and lay the foundations for the genre over the course of the next century. More notably the use of guns, ending with the a gun being aimed at the audience.

“They helped producers understanding of the important of setting and reference, the possibilities of location and action shooting…the new medium and the industry succeeded in appropriating the literary and historical tradition of the myth of the frontier and translating it’s symbols and references and its peculiar way of blending fiction and history into cinematic terms.”

Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in 20th Century America – Richard Slotkin p.254

During the silent era the genre was very popular with audiences. Innovators of the genre such as John Ford spoke of his time to fellow director Peter Bogdanovich.

“These early Westerns weren’t shoot-em-ups, they were character stories. [Harry] Carey was a great actor, and we didn’t dress him up like the cowboys you see on TV-all dolled up”

Ride, Boldly Ride : the evolution of the American Western – Mary Lea Bandy and Kevin Stoehr p.26

During the silent era a number of court cases were being held in connection to Westerns of the day. The James Boys in Missouri and Night Riders both released in 1908, both depicting the James Brothers. The Judge in the case of Block V the City of Chicago ruled against them. It was his opinion that

“…The James Boys and Night Riders were immoral not simply because they concentrated on the exploits of outlaws but because they did so exclusively, without corresponding depiction of law-abiding character that they ought to offer morally admirable characters and behaviour as a counterweight to depictions of crime…”

Classical Film Violence: Designing and Regulating Brutality in Hollywood Cinema (1930-1968) – Stephen Prince p.19

Similar rulings would have a lasting effect on the production that was later established in the 1930’s. Accompanied by the development of sound transforming how narratives we’re told. Changing the dynamic of the plot, from just visuals with the extra audio element, allowing for violence to be heard. The Production code was finally enforced in 1934, forcing filmmakers to think creatively to work around the restrictions.

“Restrictions on the image, paradoxically, open onto plenitude – the rich and fertile area of the imagination-which requires very little data to perform prodigious feats of creation. The oblique image, violence hinted but not displayed, can arouse the viewers imaginings with great ferocity.”

Classical Film Violence: Designing and Regulating Brutality in Hollywood Cinema (1930-1968) – Stephen Prince p.207

Westerns during the majority of the 1930’s were relegated to kids B-movies, some featuring a young John Wayne. If you wanted anything close to a gunplay you’d have watch a James Cagney or an Edward G Robinson film. The genre finally matured in 1939 with Stagecoach beginning a resurgence of Westerns.

During WWII images of violence filled the screen in newsreels and the first hand experiences of filmmakers of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, which I’ll touch on later. Films such as The Ox-Bow Incident (1942), which focused on mob violence.

“…Walter Van Tilburgs Clarks story, a sobering look at mob psychology and violence. While Gil, Art, and Davis [Henry Fonda, Harry Morgan and Harry Davenport], and others plead for law and more reasonable, rational behaviour to prevail, the mob has its way. It’s as if Clark is saying, and [William] Wellman and [Lamar] Trotti are confirming, that this is not at all unusual but, in fact, the natural state of human behaviour.”

The Noir Western: Darkness on the Range – David Meuel p.29

We see the result of the mob violence in this clip.

We only see the executioners setting up the horses, rigging the nooses. The only physical violence we see on-screen is handed out to the general’s son, a pacifist who’s clipped by his father. Then men executed are reduced to shadows from the trees above. The audience imagination shocks them more than the images on-screen. They have seen anyone hang, imaging the men hanging from above.

A few years later in 1946 in John Ford’s first film after leaving the Signal Corp – My Darling Clementine is released. He deals very differently with violence. It’s more traditional; we see gunfights, which are interposed with long periods of characterisation. We get to understand the motivations of the key Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday before the final shoo-out at the infamous OK Corral.

As the 1950’s began the effects of film noir were being felt strongest with Anthony Mann and his cycle of psychological Westerns, filled with tormented men and women, struggling to understand the world around them. The director felt he had more freedom in the genre.

“It’s a primitive form. It’s not governed by rule; you can do anything with it. It has the essential pictorial qualities; has the guts of any character you want; the violence of anything you need; the sweep of anything you feel; the joy of sheer exercise, of outdoors. It is legend-and legend makes the very best cinema….”

The Wild Bunch: Sam Peckinpah, a Revolution in Hollywood, and the Making of a Legendary Film – W.K. Stratton p.73

A prime example of this psychological violence in a rare domestic setting takes place in The Furies (1950) when Barbara Stanwyck attacks her new stepmother.

Jumping forward 3 years to the Classic Shane, by George Stevens he wanted to push the expectations of what the audience expects when they see a man die on-screen.

Stevens wanted to replicate his experience of warfare for audiences back home. Also seeing boys playing cowboys in the streets. His wanted to make Shane for the kids to see what killing was really like.

“Now he re-created it on the screen in Technicolor. He’s given Americans, comfortable in their theatre seats, clutching their popcorn and sodas, a nasty taste of what death was really like.”

The Wild Bunch: Sam Peckinpah, a Revolution in Hollywood, and the Making of a Legendary Film – W.K. Stratton – W.K. Stratton p.74

At the end of the film social justice is restored, forcing Shane unfit to live among civilised people to wander forever at the close of the film.

Shane was one of a growing number of cinematic creations known as the Gunfighter, the walking embodiment of violence in the genre.

“These new takes on the Western were shaped by the internal logic of genre development, which fostered a certain kind of stylization of the Western and its hero and by the pressures and anxieties of the post-war/Cold War transition…The consonance between the formal character of the gunfighter Western and its ideological content is a genuinely poetic achievement. It gave the gunfighter films ideological and cinematic resonance and made heroic style of the gunfighter an important symbol of right and heroic actions for filmmakers, the public, and the nation’s political leadership.”

Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in 20th Century America – Richard Slotkin p.379-80 

So far we have seen how violence has been developing on-screen however it’s John Ford in The Searchers (1956) as much as violence is depicted traditionally, guns being fired, yet we see no one of consequence die on camera.

“The violence in the film-ranging from the Comanche massacre of the Edwards family homes and Ethan’s discovery of Martha’s ravaged corpse to Ethan finding Lucy’s body and later his scalping of an already dead Scar-always takes place off-screen, leaving horrific acts and scenes to the power of the viewers imagination. This is a movie about violence that does not reveal its violence directly to the audience.”

Ride, Boldly Ride: the evolution of the American Western – Mary Lea Bandy and Kevin Stoehr p.193

This clip from The Searchers is a prime example of that unseen violence.

We clearly understand what’s happened to the Lucy, Ethan has buried her in the canyon he’s returned from earlier. Her body was mutilated and raped before she died. Ford relies on prior associations with Native Americans in the genre to inform us of what’s happened. The most brutal scenes are suppressed

“We feel the horror of Lucy’s death all the more because our imagination has to supply what Ethan will not tell, or in the case of Martha’s death, will not let Marty see. At the same time, keeping such things hidden not only invests them with extraordinary emotive power. It also allows the film to hint at the darkness deep in Ethan…only Scar’s death and mutilation are seen on screen. It’s as if at the end suppression is no longer possible. Things must finally be brought to light, after which there can be resolution.”

The Searchers (BFI film classics) – Edward Buscombe p.28-9

Moving to the end of the 50’s we have Anthony Mann again focusing on sexual violence too. Man of the West (1958) which rightly disturbs and angers Link (Gary Cooper’s), a now reformed bandit when an act is committed.

The First scene with Billie (Julie London) we see how this disturbs Link; Leading to his brutal fight with Coaley (Jack Lord) in the second scene. Both scenes are intense as we Link’s humanity being mentally stripped away at.

“Merely being around the Tobins brings out the worst in him – something that’s still (and maybe always be) there. Just as Billie and Coaley are stripped of their clothes, Link is bring stripped of his hard-won humanity The one bright spot is that, when Link has the chance to kill a defenceless Coaley, he can’t bring himself to do it. He hasn’t entirely reverted back to his old ways.”

The Noir Western: Darkness on the Range – David Meuel p.137

To see violence really develop you have to look to Italy with the introduction of the Spaghetti Western, cheaply made westerns using a mix of European actors and sometimes American stars. Personified by the Dollars trilogy teaming Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone.

Up until this point there was a sense of morality in the genre, the gun brought justice to civilisation. Through skilful use of a gun you can rise you to the status of hero.

“According to [Robert] Warshow, the protagonist of the Western is in control of himself. He uses violence only when provoked and, ultimately, in defence of his vision of himself as a man of honour. For [John G.] Cawelti, the hero’s code and the epic moment (where an ‘advancing civilisation met a declining savagery’) worked to provide a ‘fictional justification for enjoying violent conflicts and expression of lawless force without feeling that they threatened the values or the fabric of society’ Violence as a moral force therefore became central to the classical Western formula.”

Myth of the Western: New Perspectives on Hollywood’s Frontier Narrative – Matthew Carter p.37

How this consideration simply goes out the window with directors like Leone and [Sergio] Corbucci according to Pauline Kael who observed this.

“It was spaghetti Westerns […] that first eliminated the morality play dimension and turned the Western into pure violent reverie. […] What made these […] popular was that they stripped the Western form of its cultural burden of morality. They discarded its civility along with hypocrisy. In a sense, they liberated the form: what the Western hero stood for was left out, and what he embodied (strength and gun power) was retained.”

Radical Frontiers in the Spaghetti Western: Politics, Violence and Popular Italian Cinema – Austin Fisher p.67 

European cinema breathed new life into a purely American genre celebrating its own history. Burdened by the weight of the heroes and villains that populated it. Once removed you can use its form and write a new language.

What caused the removal of civility and morals in Italy to produce over a decade worth of film? You only need to look at the political tensions in the country to understand filmmakers and how they were responding on their work.

“There is in these films little sense of authorial surprise or shock that an outwardly democratic government might be corrupt and coercive. Certainly, the identification of state-sanctioned cruelty was hardly revelatory in a country with a living memory of totalitarianism and a rich tradition of militant insubordination. Accordingly, compared to the momentous depictions of a violent death being explored in contemporary Hollywood, the stylistics of the Italian Western as a whole reflect a considerably more blasé outlook towards brutality.” 

Radical Frontiers in the Spaghetti Western – Austin Fisher p.160

A key film is Corbucci’s; Il Grande Silenzio (1968). The law is used to bounty hunters advantage to get rich. Lead by Tigrero (Klaus Kinski), his men deliver unspeakable death to one town, ignoring an amnesty that has just been passed on all outlaws. Tonally a very bleak film that even see’s the film’s hero Silenzio (Jean Louis Trintignant), himself a victim of violence eventually killed.

Back in America the production code was crumbling. Studios such as United Artist had been bypassing the code, releasing films without a seal. Those that worked with the code proved too much for one Western – One Eyed Jacks, it was still too much working with the Production Code Administration. Here’s a description of one scene that was never filmed.

“He is battered and bloody. Several teeth have been knocked out, and now half conscious he spits them out, one eye is swollen, already half-shut, blood pours in twin streams from his nose, his chin and cheekbones are bruised purple.”…“One of those shots has shattered the bridge of his nose, spraying his face and eyes with blood”…“The crowd hauls on a rope, which is attached to Bob’s right ankle. He is pulled up into the air and his dead body dangles downward, the other leg flopped awkwardly over at an angle… The barber douses Bob’s body with the kerosene and the holds a lighted match to it.”

Classical Film Violence – Stephen Prince p.191

Violence like this couldn’t be depicted for another decade, helped in part to he production code being replaced when Jack Valenti took over the, working with the major studios to bring it what we would be more familiar with – a ratings system that hoped to appease both studios and religiously conservative America.

“…the “G,” “PG,” and “R” registered with the US Patents trademark Office as certified labels of the MPAA. (The “X” category was never copyrighted since [Jack] Valenti thought if a producer felt that his movie couldn’t make the “R” cut, he would never submit it and the film would go unrated.

Hollywood Film 1963-1976 – Drew Casper p.120

As the 1960’s wore on we saw a number of pictures that really pushed the boundaries of what the public would like from Bonnie and Clyde (1967), opening the doors for Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch. A Revisionist Western that had more in common with the Spaghetti Western. However it was the volume of violence that would be remembered. His reasoning was to depict what killing was really like, much like George Stevens reflecting the television pictures of the Vietnam war.

“Look, killing is no fun. I was trying to show what the hell it’s like to be shot.”

Hollywood Film 1963-1976 – Drew Casper p.334

The film’s bookended with two violent set pieces. The opening sequence was the first to depict women and children being shot, during a bank robbery. Whilst the finale would see the 4 anti heroes attempt to save their friend before engaging in a bloodbath opposite the Mexican Revolutionary Army. Using guns never seen in a Western before this point.

The the film was met with its share of controversy, critically it was both loved and hated. Overtime its status has raised to become a classic. The violent scenes are still shocking. Sadly it never had the effect that Peckinpah intended for. Carrying his share of regret, which we can see in this interview.

During the early 1970’s Westerns began to lose their place in the cinema, fading into pastiche and obsolescence for a time. Clint Eastwood was the only director keeping them alive. Culminating in Unforgiven (1992) when retired gunfighter William Munny after years of being a family man picks up his gun one last time. Throughout the film we see old man unable to shoot properly, mount a horse, all signs of aging, yet it’s the death of his friend Ned (Morgan Freeman) that triggers something inside him.

“[Munny has ] thrown a switch or something and now a kind of machinery was back in action, a “machinery of violence,” I guess you could say. No it wasn’t glamorous. He’s back in the mode of mayhem. And he doesn’t care. He’s his old self again, at least for the moment. He doesn’t miss a beat whole he loads his rifle and talks to the journalist…Now when he goes on this suicidal mission, he’s all machine. He not only murders Daggett at point blank range but shoots some bystanders with no more compunction than someone swatting a fly. Munny has been protesting all the time that he’s changed, but maybe he’s been protesting too much.”

Clint Eastwood Interview 1992 

Ride, Boldly Ride : the evolution of the American Western – Mary Lea Bandy and Kevin Stoehr p.264 

Eastwood reminds us of Peckinpah’s intentions in Wild Bunch to show the destructive power of technology in the hands of mind. Both directors are aware the audiences lust to see it that all on-screen. This is not the case in the traditional form.

For violence in modern cinema a prime we should look at Quentin Tarantino, whose last two films have been set in the Wild West. His 7th Django Unchained (2012) a quasi Spaghetti Western-blaxploitation. Violence is a constant that is always there in the background before we reach the final explosive act.

“The film ends with Django taking his revenge, redecorating the walls of Candie’s mansion with blood that “has it’s own ballet movements,” as David Thompson wrote in the New Republic. “It’s Jackson Pollock on speed; and it spouts from bodies the way oil arrives in Giant or jism comes in a porno movie, it can’t wait to get out of the bodies.”

Tarantino: A Retrospective p224 – David Thomson – New Republic Review

Whereas his last film The Hateful Eight (2015) essentially an Agatha Christie in the West, with some gruesome acts along the way to the fallout feels tamer in comparison. Is this in response to the constant criticism of his use of violence?

“But it’s a hassle, it’s a pain in the ass. Maybe I can take a break on it for this next one.”

Tarantino Interview – regarding the suggestion of doubling down on the violence in The Hateful Eight (2015)

Once Upon a Time in a Western p.270

So where does that leave violence in the genre today?

Firstly the output of Westerns has dropped dramatically in the last 20 years. The genre has become far more reflexive, open to critiquing itself in films. It’s also open to genre blending more violent depictions. Women are finding a more equal space in the genre. However violence is no longer a means to restore law and order as the classical form would promise deliver. Now it’s become at times excessive and run of the mill, an action film simply set in the West

As Eastwood touched on in Unforgiven, that traditional use of violence as a release of a build up of tension is still there. It just needs to be released more often due to scenes that build up throughout a film, which audiences have been trained to respond to. Another factor is that we are being numbed by the on-screen effects of the violent images found on television.

 


Film Talk – George Bailey’s Nightmare

On 16th January I presented my first film talk, the first in a series of community based talks about film, looking into films in more detail than before. The first was looking at It’s a Wonderful Life (1947) sharing my insights of the film with the general public. Below you can read the notes from the night.

Tonight I’d like to explore the darker side of It’s a Wonderful Life, (1946), Frank Capras Christmas classic that at the time of release got a mixed to luke-warm response from both critics and general public. His first film post WWII, it was also the flagship film for his new production company, Liberty films which he formed with fellow directors and comrades during the war George Stevens, and William Wyler. Both very different directors; Stevens known for his comedies, especially for the Tracy and Hepburn film; Woman of the Year (1942); where the famous affair began. Whereas Wyler had been making a range of films, a few with Bette Davis who he had affairs with. It wasn’t until he released Mrs Miniver (1942) about a middle class British family coping with war on the home front did his career begin to change for the better.

Turning back to Capra, he was a Sicilian immigrant who came to America in 1903 aged six with his family. He would later to move to Hollywood where he would direct a string of very successful comedies during the depression. Moving forward to just before It’s a Wonderful life was released in late 1946, he has spent the last the duration of the World War two, posted in Washington, holding the rank of Major, in command of the U.S. Film core, coordinating projects at home and out on the front line. Most notable colleagues under his command included John Ford, John Huston, William Wyler, who made propaganda films for both public and military consumption.

With exception to John Ford, he was the most successful of the fellow directors, having directed a number of successful comedies, earning himself 3 Best Director Oscars during the 1930’s alone. The films speak for themselves

It Happened One Night (1934) was the first film and comedy to winning the “Big 5” Best Actor, Actress, Writing, Director and Film. The film follows a journalist who will stop at nothing to get an exclusive story of a runaway socialite before her big wedding.

Mr Deeds Goes to Town (1936) won best director, second in a row, and his third nomination. A musician inherits a vast fortune, spending the rest of the film fighting off city slickers who will do anything for it.

You Can’t Take it With You (1938) won Best director and film for his studio Columbia. A rich Families son falls for a daughter from an eccentric family, who in turn lay in the way of the family business’s plans.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) most notable for the 12-minute filibuster by James Stewart picked up Best Original Screenplay. A naïve boy ranger’s leader is made governor of his state, when in Washington he finds corruption, not the high ideals who believes in.

All of these films came before Pearl Harbor in December 1942 when he would finish his on-going projects before enlisting. On returning to civilian life, his industry had changed beyond recognition, as much as they wanted him. He wrote in the New York Times about

‘Breaking Hollywood’s “Pattern of Sameness”…This war he wrote had caused American filmmakers to see movies that studios had been turning out “through their eyes” and to recoil from the “machine-like treatment” that, he contended, made most pictures look and sound the same. “Many of the men… producers, directors, scriptwriters returned from service with a firm resolve to remedy this,” he said; the production companies there were now forming would give each of them “freedom and liberty” to pursue “his own individual ideas on subject matter and material”

Five Came Back – Mark Harris – Pg. 419-20

What is this “Pattern of Sameness” that he was reacting to in his article? The article was setting out his opening of an independent studio – Liberty Studios that would produce films unhindered by the moguls. Something that more and more directors were beginning to do. Maybe this “Sameness” was a type of film he was not used to, or produced a negative response in him. Were these the films his contemporaries and even partners in his new venture were all making?

“…his fellow filmmakers, including his two new partners, were becoming more outspoken advocates for increased candour and frankness in Hollywood movies and a more adult approach to storytelling, he flinched at anything that smacked of controversy. Over the past several years he had become so enthralled by the use of film as propaganda that in peacetime he was finding it hard to think of movies in any other way. “ There are just two things that are important,” he told the Los Angeles Times in March. “One is to strengthen the individuals belief in himself, and the other, even more important right now, is to combat a modern trend towards atheism.”

Five Came Back – Mark Harris – Pg. 419-20

His fellow filmmakers were striving for more realism in their work, one response for wanting realism, a stylized realism is Film noir.

“The term “film noir” itself was coined by the French, always astute critics and avid fans of American culture from Alexis de Tocqueville through Charles Baudelaire to the young turks at Cahiers du cinema. It began to appear in French film criticism almost immediately after the conclusion of World War Two. Under Nazi Occupation the French had been deprived of American movies for almost five years; and when they finally began to watch them in late 1945, they noticed a darkening not only of mood but of the subject matter.”

Film Noir – Alain Silver & James Ursini – Pg 10

A new kind of American cinema was flooding into French cinemas.

I’d like to show the nightmare, or alternate reality sequence from the film now. However before I do, I’d like to share what I found in the sequence that fits into what makes a film noir a film noir. There a few themes and visual cues that can be attributed to the genre, each applied to different varieties within the genre, showing how flexible it is.

The Haunted Past –

“Noir protagonists are seldom creatures of the light. They are often escaping some past burdens, sometimes a traumatic incident from their past (as in Detour or Touch of Evil) o sometimes a crime committed out of passion (as in Out of the Past, Criss Cross and Double Indemnity). Occasionally they are simply fleeing their own demons created by ambiguous events buried in their past, as in In a Lonely Place.”

Film Noir – Alain Silver & James Ursini – Pg 15

For George he tries for the majority if the film to escape his hometown – Bedford Falls, which has always pulled him back at the last-minute. His father’s death, marriage to Mary, the Depression, His hearing that stopped him fighting during World War II, until finally he might be leaving to serve a jail sentence for bankruptcy.

The Fatalistic Nightmare – “The noir world revolves around causality. Events are linked like an unbreakable chain and lead inevitably to a heavily foreshadowed conclusion. It is a deterministic universe in which psychology…chance…and even structures of society…can ultimately override whatever good intentions and high hopes the main characters have.”

Film Noir – Alain Silver & James Ursini – Pg 15

You could say that George has been living a nightmare, until he enters into a world created by his desire to not exist.

These are only types of Noir narrative that apply to the film. The look of Noir has been applied to the alternate reality where George enters his Noir Nightmare, the look of the town, now named Pottersville, where we find all the business in town have sold out, part of Potters empire, populated with bars and clubs, another town to drown your sorrows, forget who you are and where you have come from, until reality will ultimately come for payment.

The lighting – Chiaroscuro Lighting. Low-key lighting, in the style of Rembrandt or Caravaggio, marks most noirs of the classic period. Shade and light play against each other not only in night exteriors but also in dimmed interiors shielded from daylight by curtains or Venetian blinds. Hard, unfiltered side light and rim outline and reveal only a portion of the face to create a dramatic tension all its own. Cinematographers such as, John F Seitz and John Alton took his style to the highest level in films like Out of the Past, Double Indemnity and T-Men. Their black and white photography with its high contrasts, stark day exteriors and realistic night work became the standard of the noir style.

Film Noir – Alain Silver & James Ursini – Pg 16

If we look at Out of the Past (1947) which follows a private investigator (Robert Mitchum) who has tried to escape his life, living in a small town as a mechanic, before his old life catches up with him in the form of Kirk Douglas. Here you can see the deep shadow that leaves the characters in almost darkness at times.

Whilst in Double Indemnity (1944) another prime example of the genre we can see how the lights are directed against the blinds, which act more like bars of a jail cell rather than an indicator of the time of day, Light and shadow are used to take us into a dark underworld that is lurking around the corner ready to consume you.

I’m going to play the nightmare sequence now (stills below), afterwards I’ll share some of my observations.

Capra essentially redressed and relight of Bedford Falls? I feel that Capra was reluctant to really delve into the genre he was resisting. He does however replicate the lighting, which is heavily stylised through the exterior scenes and those in the old Granville house, where he had previously (in his living life) threw stones at with Mary. However here it seems more stones have been thrown here, as it’s beyond a ghost house.

  Looking at George reaction to the world around him as he begins to realise that this is not his world, the consequences of his not existing has on the world.

I also noticed that it’s the third time that he has jumped/fallen into the water, the first being to save his younger brother Harry’s life, the second as he literally and emotionally falls for Mary, his wife to be.

Whilst the third and final fall, is an accidental heroic act that replicates the first time that was for Harry, this time for a stranger, the angel – second-class, Clarence.