Fritz Lang's remarkable 1936 film Fury is pessimism done right. A film that presents an ugly world filled with ugly people, yet not in a pretentious or overtly cinematic way. It simply presents the events as is. As put in an article from TCM, "The story was conceived during a shocking time in American history when lynching and mob violence escalated in the early 1930s". The events, as disturbing as they are in the film, were a real problem at the time of its release. The film perfectly encapsulates the problems of mob mentality, and how it spreads like wild fire. Watch the clip posted above. It's extremely uncomfortable seeing the reactions of those that perpetrated the burning of the police station. Some people are smiling. One woman is holding up her child for them to get a better view. And as the preview image of the video shows, some just look pure evil. The thing with mob mentality is that people get so swept up in acting out "justice", that they normally end up doing far more damage than good. Yet they're proud of all the bad things they did. That is, until it comes back to bite them in the ass. You could argue that in the previous clip, some of the mob looked like ghosts. Cold, demented ghosts. This imagery carries on to Spencer Tracy's character Joe Wilson. When we first see him after his attempted murder by the mob, he too looks like a ghost. Yet he doesn't look sad or demented. He looks angry. Very, very angry. A character that started out in the film as a pure optimist is now a pure pessimist. He wants the mob to pay for his "murder", even though he is still alive. This leads to a continuation on the belief of mob mentality. It spreads. Anger leads to more anger. Hate leads to more hate. Violence leads to more violence. Two wrongs don't make a right, but if a man is pushed hard enough, he might start to think otherwise. In conclusion, Fury is a deeply disturbing film, even by today's standards. It captures the horrid practice of mob mentality and anger in general in a terrifying, yet sadly truthful way. Perhaps all people inherently have violent tendencies. If a tendency gets too strong, it can be like an itch. You need to scratch it. Works Cited:
Feaster, Felicia. “Fury.” Turner Classic Movies, Time Warner, www.tcm.com/this-month/article/25825%7C0/Fury.html. lookprettyappealing. “Fury [1936] - Lynch Mob.” YouTube, YouTube, 24 Aug. 2010, youtu.be/vkCNBYDovx8. Images: http://prettycleverfilms.com/files/2013/12/Fury-1936-directed-by-Fritz-Lang.jpg https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOTA3MTM4NjkxNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzAxNTQwOQ@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1297,1000_AL_.jpg http://basvanstratum.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Fury.jpg https://movies.mxdwn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/furyposter1.jpg
1 Comment
Otto Preminger's 1950 film Where The Sidewalk Ends is about as dark and gritty as a 1950's American noir can get. It takes on topics and subject matter considered taboo at its release, including on-screen portrayal of murder, blood, and police brutality. The last of that is especially apparent and prevalent, coming in the form of the film's main character, Mark Dixon (played by Dana Andrews). It's made no secret that Dixon is not only an officer that frequently beats his suspects, but actually gets a kick out of it. His violent tendencies catch up to him when he accidentally kills a suspect. As put in an article from Senses of Cinema, "Dixon’s simmering anger and obsessive pursuit of Scalise reveal the loss of social coordinates, moral and professional integrity, and mental stability in the doomed and claustrophobic urban underworld". Dixon's attitude is a perfect portrayal of the inherently dark nature of the noir world. Part of what makes noir so interesting to some audiences is its questionable morality choices, especially when they come from those who are often portrayed in a much more positive light, like the police. It can be uncomfortable because of its real-life parallels, but it usually adds up to a more complex and intriguing story to tell. As put in an article from Noir of the Week, "The evidence of guilt is another ingredient in Where the Sidewalk Ends that makes it such a worthy addition into the classic noir period". It leads to this sort of interesting feeling with the viewer. A part of us wants to see Dixon solve the murder at the beginning and get the girl, yet another part of us wants and knows that Dixon would have to admit to his own murder by the end of the film in order for all to be right. The apparent struggle in Dixon's mind on whether or not he should confess is a big part of what makes Where The Sidewalk Ends a standout noir. By the end, when he does actually confess, you have at least some level of respect for his character. To conclude, Where The Sidewalk Ends showcases a strong sense of what makes noir cinema good, alongside adding a few things that can separate it out from the flood of other films similar to it. Mark Dixon is not a good person by any means, yet he's an interesting character to study based on his incredibly violent tendencies yet his strong sense of guilt and struggle when things get out of hand. Works Cited:
Trbic, Boris. “Where the Sidewalk Ends.” Senses of Cinema, Senses of Cinema, 4 June 2014, sensesofcinema.com/2000/cteq/sidewalk/. Kevin. “Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950).” Film Noir of the Week, 26 Aug. 2008, www.noiroftheweek.com/2008/08/where-sidewalk-ends-1950.html. Images: http://peterburnett.info/images/film_stills/noir4/where_the_sidewalk_ends_02.JPG https://i0.wp.com/www.classicfilmfreak.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/1950-where-the-sidewalk-ends-dana-andrews.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ojij4GYOEFo/UDORqUIb_hI/AAAAAAAAM4Y/Rh_lMz9fulg/s400/Where-the-Sidewalk-Ends-PDVD_001.jpg http://entervideo.net/thumbs/where.the.sidewalk.ends.1950.1080p.bluray.x264.yify___5738ab11ccba2.mp4.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mhNGCWgQD1g/hqdefault.jpg Jonathan Glazer's 2004 film Birth feels a little off when you watch it. It's a weird film with a weird premise, sure, but that's not exactly it. Rather, something else that separates Birth from other movies is its presentation of emotions and distress. Although the plot of the film is fantastical, its characters are surprisingly grounded. As put in an article from IndieWire, "Birth is an effective thriller precisely because it is true to the way sophisticated people might behave in this situation. Its characters are not movie creatures, gullible, emotional and quickly moved to tears. They’re realists, rich, a little jaded.” This deviated take on character adds a layer of awkward moments throughout, where long silences fill in between bits of dialogue. While this can make some scenes a chore at first, once you realize what the film is doing, you get used to it an actually appreciate the film for wanting to take the measure to find a level of realism in a fantasy tale. Yet, when emotion needs to take center stage, the film is more than willing to let it do so. Take for example the scene featured above. In this scene, Anna (Nicole Kidman) has to deal with a realization that occurred right before this scene. Yet instead of showing her a sobbing mess, the film decides to take its time. Throughout a two-minute close-up, we see Anna go through a range of subtle emotion, being able to keep herself together, but just barely. It leaves a strong impact both because of the music accompanying the shot, as well as because of its unique portrayal of emotional stress. It's incredibly uncomfortable, but in a grounded and entrancing way. Birth is a unique film that offers a unique take on emotions in dire situations. While the film revolves around the fantastical concept of resurrection, it keeps its characters focused and grounded on a proper level. It's interesting to watch a film and see these characters react in way that you would imagine couldn't be much different from if it actually happened in our real world. Works Cited:
Lattanzio, Ryan. “Why Ten Years Later, Jonathan Glazer’s ‘Birth’ Is Still a Masterpiece.”IndieWire, Penske Business Media, 31 Mar. 2014, www.indiewire.com/2014/03/why-ten-years-later-jonathan-glazers-birth-is-still-a-masterpiece-192930/. oatmeal1972. “Nicole Kidman.” YouTube, YouTube, 21 Dec. 2006, www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8lrDiZQJQg&feature=youtu.be. Images: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/570a86d07c65e49ce613b080/t/570ae8fa8a65e2e68d8a919c/1460920627580/ https://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/jonathan-glazer-birth.jpg https://letterboxd.com/film/birth-2004/ https://a.ltrbxd.com/resized/sm/upload/47/69/xz/jf/8iYcbxHwArwiqtPSU0aeuGawGrP-0-230-0-345-crop.jpg?k=27624e6d7c Kaneto Shindo's 1968 film Kuroneko delivers interesting and different takes on the topics of spirituality, black cats, and the legendary samurai warriors. Throughout its run-time, it manages to hit a lot of bases. It's a horror film, a samurai film, and a romance film all rolled into one. As put in an article from The New York Times, "Kuroneko becomes increasingly, pleasurably difficult to predict. It's alternatively abstract and down to Earth, recognizable and strange, and consistently surprising". First, its portrayal of the black cat. As put in an article from Criterion.com, "Western folklore regularly puts cats in general, and black cats in particular, in league with witches and other dark forces, but Japanese folktales are more ambiguous, starting with the fact that, while all felines are suspected of being more than handy mousers and cute house pets, they allow for two kinds of supernatural cats, the manekineko and the bakeneko". Cats are more so portrayed as incredibly mysterious and capable of displaying supernatural abilities, whether good or bad. Are their powers a gift or a curse for our main female characters? Perhaps a little bit of both. Now we have the portrayal of the samurai. While many other films at least portray some samurai in a positive manner, Kuroneko takes the opposite route and portrays them as monsters and awful people that deserve what is coming to them. The funny thing is, however, that many people in the film still look to them as the ultimate upholders of justice. Of course, every group of bad apples has at least one good one. In Kuroneko's case, it's Gintoki (Nakamura Kichiemon). However, in his case, his fate is still left to be tragic, possibly because he has chosen the life of the samurai and dedicates himself to it to the very end. Perhaps not because he wants to, but because he feels like he has to. It's something he has in common with the spirits in the film. As a whole, Kuroneko takes a few genres, like romance and horror, and things, like black cats and samurai, then completely subverts them to deliver a unique experience of a film. No matter the intentions of the character, their story ends in tragedy in some way or another. It can be a tough film to watch for a few reasons, yet offers enough new ideas and portrayals to put on the table to make it worthwhile. Works Cited:
Dargis, Manohla. “Tragic Love Tale of Spirits and Samurai.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Oct. 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/movies/22kuro.html. McDonagh, Maitland. “Kuroneko: The Mark of the Cat.” The Criterion Collection, The Criterion Collection, 17 Oct. 2011, www.criterion.com/current/posts/2023-kuroneko-the-mark-of-the-cat. Images: http://www.thefilmyap.com/wp-content/uploads/kuroneko1.jpg http://1125996089.rsc.cdn77.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/91.jpg https://www.eurekavideo.co.uk/sites/default/files/kuroneko_300dpi_still27.jpg http://filmint.nu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/thumb_kuroneko.jpg https://criterioncast.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Kuroneko.jpg As I've mentioned in my earlier two blog posts, Dracula (1979) and Wolfen (1981) are very unique horror films. Both put their "monsters" in an interesting situation. The "Vampire" and the "Werewolf" of each respective film is portrayed in a different light than usual, with it possible to view them as the protagonist of their film. To delve deeper into this, I'll be taking a closer look at each film's creature, Frank Langella as Count Dracula and Edward James Olmos as Eddie Holt. First we begin with Dracula. The story of the Count has been told time and time again throughout the history of cinema. Yet something that separates Badham's adaptation from any other is the portrayal of romance alongside the horror. As put in an article from crypticrock.com, "Badham’s film portrayed Dracula as a sinister but intensely sensual nightcrawler". By ramping up the attractiveness and allure of the character, audiences have an easier time sympathizing with him. When your monster looks like an attractive Casanova instead of a more Nosferatu-looking creature, you're probably going to like them more. Take for example the scene featured above. When Dracula visits Mina in the middle of the night, literally crawling down the edge of the building to get to her, is she scared? Does she scream and cower in fear? No. Not only does she not do this, but if you notice, she actually unbuttons part of her shirt as Dracula approaches her. She is completely and utterly seduced. In turn, the way the scene is presented leads to some viewers feeling a possible feeling. From this perspective, the actual blood-sucking is downplayed in return for the sexier side of the vampire, the "sex" of that word especially playing a larger factor. Now, onto Wolfen. While this film deals with humanizing its creature in a drastically different way, the effect is very similar. This time, sympathy becomes a larger factor. A clear similarity is drawn between the discriminated Native Americans and the near-extinct wolf population in New York City. Both have had their land unjustly stolen from them. The Wolfen, and Eddie specifically, kill only to protect what they believe is and always has been theirs. The Wolfen have maintained their animal instincts in order to survive for thousands of years. As Eddie says in the film to Dewey, "you got your technology, but you lost your senses". As a contrast between the Wolfen and everyone else, take a look at the opening of the film, which is two scenes in one. The first involves Eddie and a friend at the top of the bridge. Pay attention to Eddie's friend holding and feeding a pigeon. Visually, we are told of their appreciation of nature and their more animal instincts. Now the second scene. A countdown before the detonation of a building in the abandoned area the Wolfen inhabit. The distinction between our two groups is clear. One wants to preserve. The other wants to destroy. Who would you side with, given the option? To conclude, a little humanizing can go a long way. Both Dracula and Wolfen succeed at bringing their otherwise terrifying creatures down to a more personal and relatable level, allowing viewers to view horror-oriented characters through a different lens. It's something that more horror films should do. Not every villain has to be three-dimensional, but a few would be nice. Works Cited:
Knightowl, Jackie. “This Week in Horror Movie History - Dracula (1979).” Cryptic Rock, Cryptic Rock, 18 Aug. 2017, crypticrock.com/week-horror-movie-history-dracula-1979/. movieclips. “Dracula (1979) - A Visitor in the Night Scene (3/10) | Movieclips.” YouTube, YouTube, 28 Aug. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=15WevUMiJI8. Dupre, Mathieu. “Wolfen Opening (Michael Wadleigh, 1981).” YouTube, YouTube, 18 Apr. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXz7BLZoL60. Images: https://serendipity3864.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1979.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_drqO7qJ_y4o/S8a53QWVsJI/AAAAAAAAFUI/D_LcMmfglyc/s1600/olmos.jpg http://www.midnightonly.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/dracula-2.jpg http://1125996089.rsc.cdn77.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/wolfen0031.jpg http://images.static-bluray.com/reviews/10962_1.jpg https://flickeringscreen.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/wolfen03.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Dracula_ver2_poster.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a0/Wolfen_1981.jpg/220px-Wolfen_1981.jpg Akin to last week's Dracula (1979), Michael Wadleigh's 1981 film Wolfen takes the mythical character of the werewolf and adds some flavor to it. Instead of being a straight horror film, Wolfen is more so a crime thriller with a very important message about the lives of Native Americans and wolves, and how they may be more similar than you'd think. I should start by saying that Wolfen isn't technically a werewolf film. As put in an article from brightlightsfilm.com, "the creatures are not werewolves, but something far more imaginative and bizarre; in the novel, a scientist dubs them Canis Lupis Sapiens". In the movie, they're later referred to as "Wolfen", and in real life, the creatures are more akin to the Navajo legend of the Skin-walker. After watching the scene above (featuring a wonderful monologue from Edward James Olmos' character), it's easy to find a connection between the Natives and wolves. Both were hunters and warriors that ruled over their land at one point, until we came along. As time passed, there were few left and even less of their original land. The connection between the real-life "manifest destiny" and the destruction and construction of the Wolfen territory is clear, but very telling. So why would something like this be done? Similar to Dracula, humanizing the creature leads to an easier time sympathizing with it. While Dracula never directly went to the extent of the Count being in the right for the whole situation, I fully believe that the Wolfen are indeed our true protagonists for this story. Why wouldn't they be? They were on top for thousands of years, then being unjustly knocked down to the bottom. Something I did enjoy from this film was that it showed that it was possible for the rest of New York to co-exist with the Wolfen. They didn't want to kill anyone necessarily, but felt like they had to in order to defend their land before it was gone for good. It has to be survival of the fittest when everything is on the line. It's hard to imagine anyone would do any different if they were put in a similar situation. On that note, since the film portrays the Wolfen as the protagonists, it can also be led to believe that the humans are the antagonists. Any violence perpetrated by the humans feels unnecessary and even cruel towards the Wolfen, the destruction of their land and even a church being a good example. On the other hand, most of the what the Wolfen does makes sense on the basis of them defending their land and their people. If people directly correlated with the destruction weren't the ones being killed, then it was people that could've prevented the outcome that the Wolfen end up getting at the end of the film. Although it is sad to see characters like Whittington and Ferguson bite the dust, a part of you can't help but understand why they have to go. Even when your sympathy for the Wolfen disappear, your empathy remains. In conclusion, Wolfen manages to separate itself from the rest of the werewolf film canon by becoming far more than just a standard werewolf flick. It adds a strong level of sympathy for its "monsters", to the point of where it's near impossible to look at them as the villains in the situation. It's hopefully a film that will be exposed to more people as time passes, as I believe there is a lot of good substance and messages contained within, similar to the man within the wolf. Works Cited:
Wolfe-Herring, Dorab. “Wolfen: It's Not Wolves; It's Wolfen.” YouTube, YouTube, 29 July 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=weYGiULosmE. Nortz, Sean. “The Graveyard of Your Fucking Species: Wolfen: The End of the World by Wolves.” Bright Lights Film Journal, Studio Hyperset, 14 Aug. 2014, brightlightsfilm.com/graveyard-fucking-species-wolfen-end-world-wolves/. Images: http://moviefreak.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Wolfen-2.jpg https://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/wolfen_fur.jpg https://www.pophorror.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Wolfen7.jpg http://old.cinapse.co/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/wolfen041.jpg https://dailydead.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Wolfen-620.jpg Bram Stoker's Dracula is one of the most well-known stories in literature. Throughout the history of cinema, the story has been adapted an immeasurable amount of times with their quality widely varying from film to film. Yet one thing remains constant throughout. Count Vlad Dracula is the monster. The villain that must be defeated before the credits roll. However, this seemingly changes in John Badham's 1979 version of the tale. According to an article from cyrpticrock.com, "Badham’s film portrayed Dracula as a sinister but intensely sensual nightcrawler". Instead of focusing on the predatory side of the story, we get a more romanticized version of the count. One where he could even be viewed as the protagonist. As in the original text, Dracula attempts to seduce a woman to accompany him as "queen of the vampires". A "countess", if you will. Here's where it differs. Instead of Mina becoming his love interest, the count selects Lucy to be his undead wife. Something that stands out even before Dracula bites and "seduces" Lucy is that she takes a certain liking to the count, asking him for a dance out of the blue early on in the film. Once Dracula is introduced, it is made clear that he's this sort of ultimate bachelor of a man, someone women seemingly can't control themselves around. A bit of an odd choice, but it's one that works for the overall narrative of this version. As put in an article from silverpetticoatreviews.com, "Dracula, while villainous in every way, can’t help but be compelled by the strength of Lucy. He’s drawn to her just as she is drawn to Dracula’s darkness. He will do anything to be with her, the selfish romance between the two both sinister and captivating. A part of you wants the two to have a happy ending because the chemistry is so evident between the characters". That last part is especially prominent, and works towards the concept of Dracula being the protagonist of this adaptation. His relationship is far and away the most fleshed-out thing in the film, up to the point where you want the film to end in his favor. At the very end of the film, when Dracula's cape flies away on the wind, Lucy's looks sad instead of relived. Again, another odd choice if not for the possibility that there was meant to be more to this relationship. The film attempts to find a deeper connection between Dracula and Lucy, then attempting to convince the viewer that there might be more to the vampire king than just wanting to suck blood and create more vampires. Perhaps he truly wants to find love. And he seemingly does until he is turned to dust. In conclusion, something that separates out John Badham's adaptation of Dracula from any others is its choice to portray a more sensual and romantic Count, alongside taking the time to build and flesh out a relationship with Lucy. Whether or not this different direction worked is up to your own opinion. Regardless, it's interesting to dwell on and it can at least be admired that for a story that's been around for a long time, there's still so much that can be done with it. Works Cited:
Knightowl, Jackie. “This Week in Horror Movie History - Dracula (1979).” Cryptic Rock, Cryptic Rock, 18 Aug. 2017, crypticrock.com/week-horror-movie-history-dracula-1979/. Topping, Autumn. “Vintage Film Review: Dracula (1979) Is a Gothic Gem.” The Silver Petticoat Review, The Silver Petticoat Review, 5 Dec. 2014, www.silverpetticoatreview.com/2014/12/05/vintage-film-review-dracula-1979-gothic-gem/. Images: http://cdn2us.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeekus/files/2016/10/frank-langella-dracula-1979.jpg http://cdn1us.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeekus/files/styles/article_width/public/dracula-1979-dracula-20671869-1200-819.jpg?itok=04PlkUfh http://wickedhorror.thunderroadinc.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/dracula-79-dracula-lucy.png https://68.media.tumblr.com/71bc46cb52afc2186bc3d388289deec0/tumblr_inline_n70jnfWyT51qlr65v.png http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RklocGFR-wA/VBX4g-B4tiI/AAAAAAAABAM/Tu9BjZsaomU/s1600/Dracula%2B1979%2Bposter.jpg Something I really admired about Jean Renoir's 1938 film La Bete Humaine was the portrayal of its character. No one was likable, yet you found some ounce of sympathy for everyone. Everybody felt human. Now we take a look at its 1954 remake from Fritz Lang, Human Desire. Any shreds of sympathy are lost in what is now a cookie cutter version of what was originally a compelling tale. What were once complexly built characters with honest flaws are now only a shadow of themselves. Let's compare the two leads, Jacques (Jean Gabin) and Jeff Warren (Glenn Ford). Whether you believe his hidden rage is a result of his family's past alcoholism or possible PTSD from the War, Jacques is a tortured soul. Even after he murders Severine, you can't help but feel sympathetic. He doesn't want to hurt anyone. He just does sometimes. And he regrets everything afterwards. As for Jeff? He's our standard "hero". Always morally in the right place. Any bouts of anger are reserved for Carl, our standard "villain". He sees himself through the temptations of Vicki, our standard "femme fatale". Noticing a trend here? Everything just feels standard. You've seen this done before, but you've seen it done exponentially better. Why is this? This is the cause of then Columbia head Harry Cohn. According to an article from TCM.com, "Harry Cohn hated the pessimistic worldview of the Zola novel and the downbeat ending of Renoir's version". As a result, Fritz Lang and company had to strip away what made the original story so compelling in the first lace. The whole allure of La Bete Humaine was its pessimistic perspective. It grounded everything to an uncomfortably human level. The actions of its characters were awful at points, but it was hard to imagine that you would do any different if you were put into their shoes with that particular situation. Human Desire eliminates this. Every character is "cut-and-dry" and predictable. We have our hero to root for, our villain to hate, and our female to swoon over. Where's the complexity? By the end, nothing feels as though it has changed. Jeff will continue to live his life as a train conductor. Carl is still the psychopathic man he was at the beginning. If Vicki lived, she would've gone on to attempt to seduce another man or two. Everyone has their clear and set rules. Not once does anyone go off of it. Where's the intensity in that? Wouldn't you rather see people who make honest mistakes and have deep-rooted flaws? There should be a reason for every character to be the way they are. That is what can elevate a good character to be a great one, someone that becomes almost life-like. You do not have to like your characters. You just have to understand who they are and almost fall into the belief that they could be a real person. Human Desire simply misses the mark in this regard. If there's one thing this film is, it is not "Human". Works Cited:
Smith, Richard. “Human Desire (1954).” Turner Classic Movies, Time Warner Company, 2010, www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/3672/Human-Desire/articles.html. Images: http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Posters/H/Poster%20-%20Human%20Desire%20(1954)_09.jpg http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i442/HumanDesire1954.3672_061620170306.jpg https://iamyouasheisme.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/ab.png http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pyN1utyYylI/TrcIbwTldcI/AAAAAAAAEw4/XluHg6crnaU/s1600/HumanDesire_Grahamebruises2.png https://obscuretrainmovies.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/hd004.jpg In the films Crimes And Misdemeanors (Woody Allen, 1990) and La Bete Humaine (Jean Renoir, 1938), two of our leading characters in the forms of Judah (Martin Landau) and Jacques (Jean Gabin) go through a similar dilemma. A murder is committed. Blood is on their hands. An identical beginning, yet a different ending. One is left with a better life. The other is left with his life taken away by his own will. What does this say about the concept of guilt, and how it is portrayed in film as compared to reality? First we begin with Judah. He murders his mistress to maintain his marriage with his wife and uphold his reputation. Although he does not directly commit the crime himself, the blood of his mistress is still on his hands. He tries to find solace from his rabbi, as well as at one point imagining himself participating in a dinner with his family about God. Things do not look good for Judah. But, time passes. We see him again after several months. He is in good company. His relationship with his wife and family is back to its peak. What is this? Aren't murderers supposed to get a punishment? Where's the karma? Well, that's part of what Crimes And Misdemeanors presents. That there was no punishment for Judah because divine intervention and the belief of right and wrong are just a concept. Life has no real meaning. You could most of anything you want, and there could actually be a chance of you receiving no repercussions. As Woody Allen put in an excerpt from an article from Return Of Kings.com, "I firmly believe that life is meaningless. I’m not alone in thinking this. There have been many great minds far, far superior to mine, that have come to that conclusion. And unless somebody can come up with some proof or some example where it’s not, I think it is. I think it’s just a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing". This is at least the philosophy of Crimes And Misdemeanors, even if you disagree with this being the philosophy of real life. At the end of the film, when Judah is admitting to his crime in the form of a story, Cliff (Woody Allen) suggests that the perpetrator of the crime should turn himself in at the end of the story, since it would be more dramatic and fitting for a conclusion. Judah properly tells him that he's missing the point, and that if he wanted an ending like that, he should watch a movie. It is more realistic to consider this. After committing a crime, and after the crime was committed, your life did not become worst but in fact became better, why would you bother turning yourself in? Now let's compare this to the story of Jacques, one that seemingly takes a few cues from Cliff's philosophy on crime, one that involves everything going the way of a true cinematic arc. This one is more straightforward. Jacques kills his own mistress, Severine, not because he wants to protect any part of himself but more so that he can't control himself. It can be argued whether or not Jacques' bouts of rage really come from the drunken past of his family, but it's still clear that he lacks any sort of control once his "seizures" start. Grief-stricken, he throws himself off of his train a few short hours after he commits the crime. His story ends there. A crime is committed. A punishment follows. Simple. Clean. The end. What's different here is that grief and guilt is something that surrounds every primary character in La Bete Humaine, something that doesn't leave them until they are dead or their fates are left unknown. As put by Severine later in the film, "I have nothing left to hope for with you. Tomorrow will be just like yesterday: the same grief and sorrow. It really doesn’t matter. What happens, happens. All I can do is go on living my miserable life until Roubard kills me". This is the much more straight-forward take on grief and guilt. A crime will lead to a punishment. It's a little fitting that Allen's Crimes And Misdemeanors could be considered a play on words of the classic book Crime And Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The constant correlation of a crime to a punishment is simply fiction. It doesn't mean that a punishment shouldn't come. It more means that life works seemingly on random. There is no real fate. There is no real destiny. You don't really have to feel guilt or grief if you are never found guilty of your crimes. Why bother, especially if life carries on? So which outlook is better? I'm not exactly sure. It would be wonderful to believe that the philosophy of Crime And Punishment and La Bete Humaine is always what occurs, but Crimes And Misdemeanors does have some ground to stand on. It's uncomfortable to consider but it is something that should be considered. The one thing that could taken away from this comparison is that you should never really have to put yourself into these situations. It can be something to ponder, but never something to actually attempt. You should assume that the law will find you and charge you for your crimes, yet if you never really are found guilty of anything, maybe you shouldn't feel the need to turn yourself in. If your life goes the way you want it to, and the person that's gone isn't missed by a single other person, then what's the point? (Disclaimer: I am in no way condoning murder. Please don't kill anyone just to try it. No es bueno.) Works Cited:
Sufi, The Film. “‘La Bête Humaine’ - Jean Renoir (1938).” The Film Sufi, The Film Sufi, 23 Nov. 2009, www.filmsufi.com/2009/11/la-bete-humaine-jean-renoir-1938.html. Johnston, Ian. “Train to Nowhere: On Renoir's La Bête Humaine.” Bright Lights Film Journal, Studio Hyperset, 3 Aug. 2014, brightlightsfilm.com/train-nowhere-renoirs-la-bete-humaine/#.We_SEUuGO3C. Images: https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/great-movie-crimes-and-misdemeanors-1989/hero_EB20050911REVIEWS08509110301AR.jpg https://filmforum.org/do-not-enter-or-modify-or-erase/client-uploads/lesdurs/LA-BETE-HUMAINE1520.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-57Ii_UcGDag/UuUOq4Azc3I/AAAAAAAAJUQ/JAt5wY2PDxA/s1600/Crimes-and-Misdemeanors.jpg http://www.siskelfilmcenter.org/sites/default/files/styles/film_img/public/film-images/labetehumaine01.jpg?itok=RPbjK53u https://assets.mubi.com/images/film/2171/image-w1280.jpg?1445888921 http://mercurycinema.org.au/wp-content/uploads/la-bete-humaine-banner.jpg https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYWY3N2EyOWYtNDVhZi00MWRkLTg2OTUtODNkNDQ5ZTIwMGJkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTMxODk2OTU@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,654,1000_AL_.jpg https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTcyNzUxMTYwNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzIxNjQ0MjE@._V1_.jpg La Bete Humaine, the 1938 film from Jean Renoir, features a very realistic and admirable take on the concepts of grief and anger, especially in the form of Jacques Lantier (Jean Gabin). What's present in this film that's easy to appreciate is the more human portrayal of good and evil, or lack thereof of true sides. Taking a note from films like The Wages Of Fear, no person is inherently good or inherently bad. Everyone simply has their own reasons for their motivations and everyone is eventually guilty of something. Something in the film that is noticeable is its main characters are all responsible for their own demise. As put in an article from The Film Sufi, "All three principal characters, Lantier, Séverine, and Roubaud, are driven by some unexplained inner compulsions to do things that can only make themselves and others around them miserable". Roubaud's sudden reluctance to kill Lantier when he learns of Severine's affair from him leads in part to her death. Severine's inability to maintain a steady relationship with her husband leads to her own demise. Finally, Lantier's guilt and uncontrollable rage is what does him in. An important part of that is "uncontrollable". Something that is very tragic about Jacques' character is that he really can't help what he does. It's in his nature. Although it can be debated whether or not this is really due to the history of drinking in his family, it's clear that whatever the cause he really can't control himself. Something that I found interesting to think about was the first time Jacques went into his fit of rage, it was the passing of a train that was the only thing stopping him from killing his cousin. However, at the end of the film, it's another fit and another train that allows him to punish himself for his crimes and commit suicide by jumping off of its side. Perhaps this could b the film saying that it's trains that are Jacques' only real solace. He seemingly loves his job with his friend, and the train could deliver a sense of liberation and especially control, something he feels like he never experiences otherwise. Although you feel as though Jacques got the punishment he deserve, you can't help but feel a small sense of sympathy for him. While the death of Severine and the downfall of Roubaud were completely of their own volition, part of Jacques arc is simply because of his own nature. It's easy to believe that he would've wanted his fate to go any other way, but perhaps that's it. That's his fate. A tragic ending for a tragic character. Works Cited:
Sufi, The Film. “‘La Bête Humaine’ - Jean Renoir (1938).” The Film Sufi, The Film Sufi, 23 Nov. 2009, www.filmsufi.com/2009/11/la-bete-humaine-jean-renoir-1938.html. Images: https://filmforum.org/do-not-enter-or-modify-or-erase/client-uploads/lesdurs/LA-BETE-HUMAINE1520.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rCWf_iqRqY8/Um1ZKH2Aa-I/AAAAAAAAGBc/oSX5rbO9gnI/s1600/19946_La-Bete-Humaine-08.JPG http://www.dvdfr.com/images/anecdotic/bete_humaine_4.jpg http://sensesofcinema.com/assets/uploads/2013/11/Bete-Humaine.jpg https://www.arte.tv/sites/olivierpere/files/2013/11/film-la-bete-humaine2.jpg |
FilmMoviesCinema |