Thursday, August 17, 2017

Hannah Arendt on People with Revolvers

…I can’t judge the situation in Germany, and all I really know is that people who like to respond to arguments with revolvers have by no means died out.
 - Hannah Arendt to Karl Jaspers, Correspondence, January 25, 1948

Thursday, August 10, 2017

What is History?

      In our final history lesson of the year, Old Joe Hunt, who had guided his lethargic pupils through Tudors and Stuarts, Victorians and Edwardians, the Rise of Empire and its Subsequent Decline, invited us to look back over all those centuries and attempt to draw conclusions.
      "We could start, perhaps, with the seemingly simple question, What is History? Any thoughts, Webster?"
      "History is the lies of the victors," I replied, a little too quickly.
      "Yes, I was rather afraid you'd say that.  Well, as long as you remember that it is also the self-delusions of the defeated."
- Julian Barnes, The Sense of an Ending

Thursday, August 03, 2017

GBS and Seattle

From a George Bernard Shaw lecture to the Fabian Society on November 26, 1931:
In America there was something that was called the Seattle community.  The Seattle community suggests to you a lot of really 100% Americans.  There is something in the name Seattle that is 100% American.  I think you will acknowledge that.

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Alice Munro

I find it hard to say anything original about Alice Munro's latest outstanding short story collection, Too Much Happiness - except that it is excellent and that you should immediately go out and read it. Anything more than this is likely to sound like those tiresome critical cliches which always seem to get thrown around when Munro is the topic. Yes, as a short story writer she's up there with Chekhov and Henry James. Yes, her short stories are as powerful, dense and memorable as novels. And yes, she deals with the big themes - death, marriage, love, adultery, etc. I just don't have anything big, fresh or important to say about her writing. I liked her book. I liked it a lot. But I got nothing. Some writers don't really give one a lot of opportunities for scintillating critical activity. I have the same problem with Guy de Maupassant. I once had to write an essay on one of his short stories and, for the life of me, I couldn't come up with a single interesting thing to say about it. It was so true to life, so realistic and seemingly transparent, that there was nothing I felt that I could add to it. And I seem to be in a similar predicament now with Munro. So since I can't seem to come up with fascinating and insightful things to say about her book, here are some random thoughts concerning it.

- There are a lot of killers in this collection. Three of the ten stories involve murder or attempted murder. In "Dimensions" a woman's three young children are murdered by her insane husband. An elderly women deftly manages to evade being murdered in "Free Radicals." And in "Child's Play" two young girls drown a special ed girl who won't leave them alone.

- Many of these stories are about the power of story-telling. Often the characters are transformed by the process of telling a story. In the aforementioned "Free Radicals" the old lady evades being murdered by convincing her would-be killer that she is herself a murderess. In "Fiction" a woman recognizes that her life has served as basis for a novel by an old acquaintance's daughter.

- Munro is no sentimentalist. Like Dawn Powell, her view of family relationships is clear-eyed and free of hokum. In real life, parents and children don't necessarily like - let alone love - each other. In "Deep-Holes," for instance, a young man's accident early in life sets him on a path which leads to poverty, mental illness and homelessness. When he finally reconnects with his mother many years later their meeting leaves both of them disappointed and vaguely angry at each other.

- A word should be said about Munro's writing style. It is very flat. She is a great literary craftsman but not a great literary stylist. If you're looking for flowery prose which charms the reader you won't find it here. She is, in this regard, the opposite of a writer like Haruki Murakami who can change literary styles as easily as the rest of us change shirts. I once read a reviewer who described Munro's prose as "luminous." No, it is not luminous. It is precise and exact. If her stories are as dense as novels it's because there is a quiet starkness in her language - every word, every idea counts.

In "Child's Play," for instance, the narrator and her friend Charlene are young girls on a Summer camp outing. All the girls have been taken to a public beach, including Verna a harmless mentally retarded girl who has taken a liking to the narrator, Marlene. Marlene and Charlene, though, regard Verna with hate and dread - her very presence, though completely innocent, is perceived by the two girls as menacing. One day, as all the girls in the camp are frollicking away in the water at a local beach events come to a head. Marlene and Charlene are playing together in the water when Verna begins to make her way towards them. Suddenly a speed boat passes and sets off big waves which sets all the girls tumbling. Marlene and Charlene seize the opportunity.

At the moment we tumbled, Verna had pitched towards us. When we came up, with our faces streaming, arms flailing, she was spread out under the surface of the water. There was a tumult of screaming and shouting all around, and this increased as the lesser waves arrived and people who had somehow missed the first attack pretended to be knocked over by the second. Verna's head did not break the surface, though now she was not inert, but turning in a leisurely way, light as a jellyfish in the water. Charlene and I had our hands on her, on her rubber cap.

This could have been an accident. As if we, in trying to get our balance, grabbed on to this nearby large rubbery object, hardly realizing what it was or what we were doing. I have thought it all out. I think we would have been forgiven. Young children. Terrified.

Yes, yes. Hardly know what they were doing.

Is this in any way true? It is true in the sense that we did not decide anything, in the beginning. We did not look at each other and decide to do what we subsequently and consciously did. Consciously, because our eyes did meet as the head of Verna tried to rise up to the surface of the water. Her head was determined to rise, like a dumpling in a stew. The rest of her was making misguided feeble movements down in the water, but the head knew what it should do.
This is masterful writing, subtle and revealing. Not a word or a phrase is wasted. From the narrator's ellipses and evasions ("It is true in a sense that..." - can you tell the narrator grows up to become an academic?) to the chilling description of Verna as little more than a head struggle to rise ("like a dumpling in a stew") it's obvious we're dealing with a writer whose control of her craft is total.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Ben-Hur and Reality

Just watched Ben-Hur on TCM. My God, what a piece of crap!

I can’t believe I actually used to like this film. Admittedly, the last time I saw it I was a teenager but still – even then I should have known better…I really should have…

The main thing that caught my eye watching it this time around was just how freakin’ awesome that chariot race was. It's an amazing scene. In an odd way I think my appreciation of that scene now is enhanced by the fact that there are no cgi (computer generated images) involved in it. I'm so used to cgi in movies that when I see something like the chariot race in Ben-Hur the sheer reality of it sticks out. It turns out that computer generated special effects don’t improve current movies, they actually improve older ones. In Ben-Hur those are real horses and real drivers. Those are real people cheering in the arena (which is itself a huge set built on 18 acres outside Rome). When one of the chariots crashes, it’s a real stunt man taking a real tumble off it. Hell, somebody could’ve gotten killed.

I was recently watching Apocalypse Now and got a similar feeling of the power of the real. It was the scene of the helicopters taking off before they attack the village in the “Ride of the Valkyries” sequence. Nowdays a filmmaker would use cgi helicopters instead of real ones. But cgi helicopters would never stir up so much dust. (Think of the errily air-free atmosphere of Manhattan that Tobey Maguire swings through in the Spiderman movies.) And the way in which the choppers lumber into the air with their noses slightly down, like groggy animals rousing themselves to attack - these are details which would escape the eye of a computer programmer.

Don't get me wrong - I love what cgi can do in movies and some movies (The Lord of the Rings, Independence Day, etc.) are unthinkable without it. But the overuse of it has had the effect of cheapening the "specialness" of special effects and, even more perversely, created a situation in which the most impressive special effect may, in the end, turn out to be reality.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Britain's Post-Imperial Malaise

The Economist on the domestic legacy of British Imperialism:

When Britons remember their dead empire, they tend to concentrate, with pride or shame, on its impact on the former colonies. The consequences for their own country are mostly thought of as so much pompous bric-a-brac and nostalgic trivia: honours and baubles with imperial names, archaic ceremonies, statues of forgotten heroes, a smattering of exotic vocabulary, curry and distressingly proficient rival cricket teams. This way of thinking about empire is mistaken. In important ways Britain is still--even, perhaps, increasingly--trapped by its imperial past.

The question that hovers above the Iraq inquiry is--since the evidence on Saddam Hussein’s weaponry was so flaky and the post-war planning so atrocious--why on earth Tony Blair did it. One theory, albeit not the one likely to be offered by Mr Blair himself, is that his militarism and messianism, the mix of responsibility and entitlement that he evinced, are part of the inheritance of all post-imperial British leaders. Mr Blair was not the first to yearn for an influence bigger than Britain’s now-diminished status justifies, and he is unlikely to be the last: David Cameron says reflexively that he wants Britain to "punch above its weight". For all their disillusionment over Mr Blair’s wars, lots of Britons want and expect serious international clout too.

The historian Linda Colley sees such imperial longing behind Britain’s devotion to the "special relationship". "Playing Boy Wonder to America’s Batman", as she puts it, is British politicians’ only chance of maintaining a global role--as if the American Revolution could somehow be cancelled and the two nations confront the world as one. On the other hand, a yen for independent greatness may lie behind the fear of emasculation by America that afflicts some Britons as well…

It is hard to think of another country so keen to magnify its accomplishments (everything must be "the best in the world"), yet also to wallow in its failings; so deluded and yet so morbidly disappointed. Every recent prime minister has struggled to overcome this sense of thwartedness and decline, and to come up with a notion of Britishness to replace the defunct imperial version. Mr Blair tried "Cool Britannia". It flopped. The gloom may be almost as acute now as it was in the late 1950s or 1970s.

It is arrogant to suppose that where other powers--Germany, say, or France--were traumatised by their losses, Britain could have lost an empire on which the sun never set, give or take a few tax havens, without side effects. It didn’t: looked at in a certain light, much of its recent history--military, political and economic--can be seen as a kind of post-imperial malaise.

Friday, April 17, 2009

The Motivation of Great Men

From "Fiction in History" (1973) by the British historian A.J.P. Taylor.
We [historians] manufacture heros simply because they occupy great postions. We forget that most of these heros were mainly concerned to show off and enjoy themselves - hunting, running after mistresses, building palaces, collecting works of art, or merely eating and drinking. If they carry this too far, we rebuke our heros for neglecting what we regard as their true historical duty of ruling. In my own opinion, most great men of the past were only there for the beer - the wealth, prestige and grandeur that went with power.

Monday, March 16, 2009

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

In the past few weeks I’ve come across literary examples of each:

The Ugly

Finding myself recently laid off, I figured now was as good a time as any to leap into a book such as Zygmunt Bauman’s The Art of Life. What a promising title. How upbeat! Well, before Bauman tries to tell us anything about the art of life he should perhaps learn something about the art of writing. He is one of the worst writers you will ever come across. His book an exercise in academic turgidity. Here, for instance, he is attempting to explain the fact that a rise in a nation’s gross domestic product doesn’t always translate into an increase of human happiness:
The sole common denominator of the otherwise variegated products of human bodily and mental labor being the market price they command, the statistics of the ‘gross national product’ aimed at grasping the growth or decline of the products’ availability record the amount of money changing hand in the course of buying and selling transactions.
In plain English, “The GDP only measures economic activity.” At another point he refers to the happiness people get from “gathering around a table laid with food that has been jointly cooked with its sharing in mind,” by which he means a meal with family or friends (two groups which are themselves referred to as “person-who-count to one’s intimate thoughts.”)

Oy vey.

The Bad

No one would doubt that unlike Bauman, Norman Mailer was a very good writer. It was in the art of thinking, though, that he sometimes encountered problems. The New York Review of Books has been publishing some of his letters and the following one, a 1965 missive about Saul Bellow’s Herzog, is a good example of Mailerian imbecility:

What I meant when I said Bellow has no ideas was not that there were no ideas in Herzog to be pondered, but rather that these ideas were not Bellow’s own theses, but rather ideas he had picked up in his reading. His mind is very intelligent, very cultured, very cultivated. He’s read a million books and remembered them, but he is not an original thinker. It’s not that I’m that sure about anything, it’s that I go with the animal part of my brain when I’m encountering an idea I have not met before, and none of the ideas in Herzog were in that sense the least bit fresh.
Well, on that basis, none of us have any original or fresh ideas, least of all Norman Mailer - who, as this letter reveals, is solidly enslaved to the modernist cult of originality (picked up from some book, no doubt). If getting ideas from other people or from books is grounds for dismissing a writer then we might as well throw out Shakespeare, Dante, the ancient Greeks, Milton, Joyce, Proust, Kafka, Mann, Balzac – well, everyone actually.

And besides what does it mean to “go with the animal part of your brain” when you encounter new ideas? Does the “animal part” even have the ability to understand “new ideas,” in the sense Mailer means? And how would Mailer have put this into practice? If some scientist was explaining a new and original idea to him (and nowdays only scientists have genuinely new and original ideas) how would the author of Marilyn evaluate it. Would the animal part of his brain tell him to eat the scientist, like a bear’s would? Or would he be like a cat and start purring and rubbing himself against the scientist’s legs?

The Good

Victor Serge’s 1946 novel The Long Dusk is set in Paris in the 1930s. A participant in the Russian Revolution, Serge was an anarchist and novelist who left us excellent accounts of both the nightmare of Stalinism (The Murder of Comrade Tulayev) and the nightmare of the 20th-century in general (Unforgiving Years). His view is apocalyptic; his characters caught in political upheavals which they cannot control or even comprehend. We don’t live under the volcano, Serge seems to say, the volcano is under us – and it is erupting.

How, then, to establish the right tone for the novel? Here are the two opening sentences:
The whole world doesn’t collapse at once. A few little corners of the crumbled ant-hill remain almost intact; and in these corners the ants may think that their peaceful world is still with them.
How beautiful. It immediately sets the tone of foreboding and doom. It also established a certain distance – not a cold or callous one, mind you, but rather a jaded yet sympathetic one. Serge is like an Edward Gibbon who has seen too much. Both men write as dispassionate observers because the scope of their subject requires it but Serge seems to know that there is no safety or comfort in that stance. Both are men of irony – cynics, even - but Serge knows that irony, in the end, will not help you.

Monday, February 23, 2009

As a Man Grows Older...

I recently turned 45 and I’ve noticed that as I get older women are becoming more attractive to me in new and often unique – even idiosyncratic - ways. I don’t know why this is so. But I’m starting to find as I age that their little personality traits and quirks can be completely enchanting.

For example, a few weeks ago, I was going through an art gallery in Pioneer Square, taking notes and hoping to get a blog posting out of the show (I didn't). One of the girls working in the gallery saw me scribbling away in my notepad and came up to talk to me. She asked me what I thought of the art. She was cute. Mid-twenties. A little chunky, but not too much. Fun to talk to. Pleasant to the eyes. Especially pleasant to the eyes was her large cleavage, which her low cut top accentuated. I made it clear to her that I wasn't a collector but nonetheless we continued to chat about the paintings in the show and about art in general. She was a good talker – open, lively. She immediately noticed my New Jersey accent. Even though she was Northwest born and bred, her parents were both from the East Coast so she was familiar with the accent and the attitude. We talked about differences between coasts. All very routine. Engaging in these sorts of casual, quasi-flirtatious interactions with women is one of the nice things about being single. Yet despite both the good time I was having with her, and her enticing chest (just don't look at them, I kept telling myself, just keep your eyes locked with hers!), I wasn’t about to ask her out. She’s too young for me. It’s totally inappropriate, I told myself. Better luck next time, Grandpa.

Then it happened. I mentioned Dale Chihuly. Suddenly a disdainful smirk lit up her face. "Tch!" she said and contemptuously dismissed him with a wide wave of her hand. It was charming, spontaneous, sassy. I was a goner. Fuck the age difference! I have got to ask this girl out! She’s fun. She's exactly what I need in my life - someone who can call bullshit on things and do it with style! Something in the pure insouciance of her gesture won me over. It shows a great strength of character to be able to work in the Seattle art world and still have enough sense of yourself to dismiss the values of that world if they conflict with yours.

Now, at 24 that gesture would scarcely have registered with me. All I would be thinking is: nice boobs, cute, single – gimme. But by 45, though, one begins to realize that all women’s boobs (or butts or legs or whatever) are basically the same, it’s all variations on a theme. And with enough exposure, even the most amazing theme becomes tedious. New things begin to catch your eye, your tastes begin to grow. In my forties I find myself just as attracted to the intangible qualities of a woman’s character as I am to her body. It’s not that the physical diminishes; it’s that the psychological or personal qualities of the woman, the things that set her apart from everyone else, start to make her even more desirable. They give her a new luster.

So, what happened with the girl at the art gallery? Well, I hit on her, of course. I told her that the best and most little known art collection in Seattle is the one at the University of Washington Medical Center (which is true). Since I worked in the building at the time I told her that if she was interested she come by and I would give her a tour. Then I gave her my phone number and we parted. But – alas - she never called. Oh, well.

Friday, February 20, 2009

Noir City

SIFF is holding their annual “Noir City” film festival February 13 – 19 at the Seattle Center. This year the theme is “Newspaper Noir” with most of the movies set in the world of tough, gritty urban newsrooms of the 40s and 50s. How appropriate, how “ripped from today’s headlines”, as it were. I don’t know if you could make a believable crime film set in a contemporary newsroom. Unless boring your readers and destroying circulation are crimes, it’s hard to imagine most modern reporters being capable of something like murder. It’s just beyond them. But the newsrooms of the 40s and 50s – or their mystique, at least – are a different matter entirely. They crackle with noir potential. There’s some sort of connection between noir and the newspaper world of that time – urban, nocturnal, full of desperate and shady characters. Somehow press-themed pulp titles with cheesy taglines immediately spring to mind (Cub Reporter - “He buried more than the lead!” or Copy Girl – “There wasn’t a guy in the newsroom who hadn’t put her to bed, too!”).

I’m going to try to see as many of these films as possible and report back on them. I probably won’t see them all (the laundry doesn’t do itself, you know), but it’s hard to resist any kind of series featuring the likes of Humphrey Bogart, Kirk Douglas, Howard Duff (three times), Vincent Price, Ida Lupino, Dana Andrews, Claude Rains, Tony Curtis, Raymond Burr, Ray Milland (twice), Charles Laughton, Alan Ladd, Donna Reed (twice), Dan Duryea, Broderick Crawford, and Shelly Winters. On the directorial front the festival has films by Fritz Lang, Richard Brooks, Billy Wilder, Michael Curtiz, Anthony Mann and a host of lesser known but quintessential film noir directors such as Phil Karlson and John Farrow. Heck, even Samuel Fuller manages to make his presence felt (see below). Another attraction of this festival is the introduction of each film by host Eddie Muller (whose name itself sounds like that of a character from one of the movies). He gives some background on each film, tells us what makes it unique (and often how rare the print is), situates it within the tradition of noir, and – yes, I admit it – is the source of just about all the fascinating film trivia which you’ll pick up from this post. He is an excellent host.

Friday, February 13

Deadline USA (1952)
This film is a gem. Clearly, it’s the Citizen Kane of the newsroom/crime genre. Humphrey Bogart is Ed Hutcheson, the editor of New York Day, which has just been sold to its competitor and is being closed down. With pink slips issued and the clock ticking, Bogie tries to save the paper by solving a murder and nabbing the city’s leading mobster Thomas Rienzi (played with Gandolfini-esque smolder by Martin Gabel).

The film’s attitude towards the press is just this side of worshipful. How worshipful, you ask? Well, every time Bogart starts talking about how closing down newspapers undermines freedom and endangers democracy “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” plays in the background. (That this entire festival is being co-sponsored by the doomed Seattle Post-Intelligencer added much irony to his speeches.) Meanwhile, Bogart’s newsroom of tough, cynical, hard-drinking, wise-cracking reporters (Jim Backus is one of them) follow every lead to bust the bad guys. In the end, Bogart’s in the room with the printing presses ready to run off the last paper, the edition which will indict Rienzi. The mobster calls him there and starts threatening him. Bogart’s response? He gives the order to turn on the presses. When Rienzi asks what all that noise is, Bogie shouts into the phone “That’s the press, baby! The press! And there’s nothing you can do about it. Nothing!”

The performances in this film are all outstanding and the dialogue has the fantastic 40s-style crackle. When one of the paper’s photographers makes a cheap crack about a murder victim, Bogart fires him on the spot. “That was your mistake,” he tells him. “But I’ve been working here four years,” the man protests. “That was my mistake,” Bogart replies. Later, he playfully suggest to the septuagenarian Ethel Barrymore (who resembles an elderly Gore Vidal in drag) that they get romantically involved. She eyes him icily, smiles, raises her scotch to her lips and mutters, “You’re too old.” (Oh, Christ! It is Gore Vidal!)

Scandal Sheet (1953)
Based on the novel The Dark Page by Samuel Fuller, Broderick Crawford stars as the unscrupulous editor of a sleazy New York tabloid. When his estranged wife shows up and threatens to blackmail him, he kills her and tries to cover it up. Soon his own scandal-mongering reporters, led by John Derek (yes, that John Derek), are trying to solve the crime, drawing the net ever tighter around Crawford. Meanwhile, circulation skyrockets.

This is an outstanding film - tight and gripping. But the main appeal of it is Broderick Crawford. Large and loud, he dominates the screen and my only complaint with this film is that once he commits the murder he doesn’t do much more than sit at his desk and sweat a lot while the second bananas start to get more screen time. John Derek and Donna Reed (the love interest) are very good but they can’t compete with him. In the intro to the film Muller commented that actors like Crawford and Bogart would have trouble getting work today. I’m not so sure I agree with that. After all, if Crawford resembles anyone it’s…well, James Gandolfini (again) – both are big, fleshy, domineering men. Except Gandolfini can project a malevolence that would never have been acceptable in old Hollywood. Nonetheless, Crawford was an inspired pick for this role, which was originally supposed to go to Humphrey Bogart (with Howard Hawks directing). Crawford was a better choice. He's tougher, more threatening, rougher around the edges and utterly lacking in any elegance or charm. Perfect.

Saturday, February 14

The Unsuspected (1947)
Frankly, the story of this film makes absolutely no sense. Suffice to say that radio announcer Claude Rains is up to no good. The main appeal of this movie, though, is its visual style; this is Hollywood “high noir” at its most lush and moody. Director Michael Curtiz really knows how to deliver a visual punch (that final shot in Mildred Pierce is unforgettable) and this film has plenty of them. So don’t even try to pay attention to the story, just relax and soak up the ambiance…

Desperate (1947)
Standard “B” film fare. An innocent man (Steve Brodie) gets caught up inadvertently taking part in a robbery and has to go on the lam to protect himself and his wife. If the cops don’t get him, the bad guys - led by Raymond Burr - will. Not much in this about the press, but it was a solid enough outing, directed by Anthony Mann in his “B” phase. According to Muller, this is the first film to ever use the swinging overhead light for dramatic impact. Hitchcock later adopted it for the end of Psycho and Jean-Pierre Melville took it from Hitchcock and used in Le Doulos. Do these geniuses ever stop ripping off other people's ideas?

Sunday, February 15

Ace in the Hole (1951)
Missed this one.

Cry of the Hunted (1953)
Oh, boy, missed this one, too.

Monday, February 16

The Big Clock (1948)
Excellent adaptation of Kenneth Fearing’s classic 1946 novel. Ray Milland plays the editor of a crime magazine published by press titan (and tyrant) Earl Janoth. When Janoth’s mistress is murdered, Milland is assigned to investigate but soon begins to realize that all the evidence is pointing at his innocent self. Charles Laughton is magnificent as Earl Janoth, you hate him from the first moment he steps off the elevator til the final moment he…well, gets back on the elevator. You hate him from the soles of his shoes to ends of his little mustache, which he doesn’t quite curl, but rather gently touches and strokes with his pinkie finger, as if it was a small animal he wanted to calm before eating. As an added bonus, this film has a second heavy, the scarred and saurian George Macready, who plays Janoth’s lawyer and right hand man. They are the best bad guys in the festival so far.

Strange Triangle (1946)
No film noir festival is complete without at least one femme fatale and Swedish screen siren Signe Hasso plays her in this taut “B” thriller about bank embezzlement and a scheming housewife. Hasso was billed as “the next Garbo” when she made her first Hollywood film in 1943 (the original Garbo had retired two years earlier) – but it was not to be. And you can see why from this film. She’s good, but not that good. She’s not beautiful or compelling enough to be a believable femme fatale (think Rita Hayworth and Ava Gardner). Still, she and the rest of the cast give it their best in this 65 minute “B” feature. It’s pleasant enough.

Tuesday, February 17

Chicago Deadline (1949)
No one can mutter “Get me some coffee, will you, baby?” and make it sound so damn cool as Alan Ladd can. In Chicago Deadline he’s a reporter who stumbles across a dead body in a sleazy boarding house. That body belongs to fallen woman Donna Reed – that’s right, Donna Reed. As he begins to investigate the life of this good girl gone bad, the windy city’s seamy underbelly comes to light. This film is a true rarity, there’s only one known print in existence. And it’s a good film, too, whose only weak point, to my mind, was Donna Reed. I never quite believe that she’s a fallen woman. And I don’t think she believes it either. She’s too sunny, too serene, her idea of fallenness is simply to stop smiling and look very serious. Still, it’s always important for actors to try to play against type from time to time so it’s worth seeing for that reason alone. It’s also worth seeing for Alan Ladd, who never played against type at all. He’s a kick to watch, though – cool, smooth, and delivering his tough guy lines with a gusto untainted by the knowledge that many decades later some in the audience might regard them as borderline kitsch.

Johnny Stool Pigeon (1949)
And no one can mutter “So long, copper” quite the way Dan Duryea can (below). In this beaut, he’s a gangster released to Federal Agent Howard Duff to help him bust open a drug smuggling ring. That is, if sexy Shelly Winters doesn’t get in the way! This film was fantastic. Everything in it works. The acting is good, the plot has many twists and turns, think of it as a “B+” film. Heck, even the title is outstanding. Festival host Eddie Muller and some audience members played a quick round of “Name That ‘Johnny’ Movie”: Johnny Angel, Johnny Guitar, Johnny Trouble, Johnny Gunman, etc. Well, hands down, this is the best “Johnny” themed movie title ever. This film was originally called “Cocaine” but the production code of the time wouldn’t allow that. In fact, all through the film it’s not really clear exactly what the drug being smuggled actually is. Cocaine? Heroin? Sudafed? We’re never told. And it really doesn’t matter. It’s a dynamite film nonetheless. It even features a very young Tony Curtis (listed as Anthony Curtis in the titles) playing a mute killer – which means you’ll never have to worry about him saying “I love you, Spartacus.” It can’t get any better than that.

Wednesday, February 18

While the City Sleeps (1956)
This film is pretty bad. Despite its amazing cast, which includes Dana Andrews, Vincent Price, George Sanders, Howard Duff and a mink-bedecked Ida Lupino, it never seems to rouse itself out of its (drink induced?) stupor. It is very slow paced. In fact, it should have been called While the Audience Sleeps or maybe While the Cast Sleeps It Off. It is also just plain weird at times. For instance, at one moment Ida Lupino, for no discernable reason, begins to click her lower teeth against the rim of a champagne glass she’s just drunk from. Huh? The story concerns a psycho killer who’s picking off pretty women in New York City but most of film is about the office politics of a news conglomerate headed by Vincent Price. The two stories never quite connect and we don’t really care about either. Director Fritz Lang can't seem to bring any of the elements of this tale together in a satisfying way. And when even Fritz Lang can’t effectively tell the story of psychopathic killer, we’re all in a bad way

Shakedown (1950)
Another gem. Howard Duff plays a “Weegee”-style newspaper photographer whose ruthless ambition gets him into trouble with the wrong kind of people. Duff puts in a magnificent performance: he’s callous, ambitious, manipulative, and criminal. It was based on a short story entitled “The Magnificent Heel”, and that’s an accurate description of the main character. And it’s a testament to Duff’s talent that he can still make us care about this repulsive character. Despite all the sleazy things he does, we never really want to see him destroyed. Like the other characters in the film, we want to see him reform. He’s not really such a bad guy underneath it all. Right? This is Duff’s film. You can’t take your eyes off him. And he plays this role for all it’s worth – shouting, strutting through the newsroom, at one point even pirouetting. He’s a ball of energy, a man on the make, full of moxie and chutzpah, and unencumbered by ethics of any sort. And if his fate is unfortunate, we also know that he would be the last person on earth to expect our sympathy or pity.

Thursday, February 19

Alias Nick Beale (1949)
In this noir-influenced retelling of the Faust legend Thomas Mitchell plays a politician who sells his soul to the devil (played by Ray Milland) in exchange for a governor’s seat. Darkness, deep shadows, dramatic lighting, fog – director John Farrow uses every device of “high noir” style to create a feeling of menace and dread. And he pulls it off, even eliciting screams of surprise at one of Ray Milland’s many creepy sudden appearances. The performances are all good and it’s a testament to Farrow’s talent that the deep religiosity of the film (in the end the Bible wins – like you doubted that) never becomes preachy or obnoxious. Many of the films in this series are new prints and this is one of them. According to host Eddie Muller this particular print had only ever been show one before. Well, it was gorgeous. I’ve never seen fog so luminous.

Night Editor (1946)
A cop (William Gargan) and his beautiful married girlfriend (Janis Carter) have a rendezvous on the beach. There they witness the brutal murder of a young girl. He’s horrified. She’s turned on. Thus begins one of the cheesiest, raunchiest, tawdriest, most over-the-top (and, hence, most enjoyable) “B” films of the 40s. This film is unbelievably kitsch. And it’s all thanks to Janis Carter. She is a magnificent femme fatale: rich, beautiful, icy, immoral, sexually degenerate and totally irresistible. The screen comes alive every time she’s on it. And the breathless ur-pulp dialogue between her and Gargan has to be heard to be believed; if you merely read it on the page, you would assume it was a parody of noir – and a very good one at that. This film was delicious. And a perfect way to end the festival.
So if you've enjoyed this posting (or enjoyed any of the movies in this festival) check out the organization responsible for rescuing and restoring America's Noir heritage - the Film Noir Foundation.