Jorge Luis Borges, Film Critic, Reviews King Kong (1933)

King-Kong-1933-king-kong-2814496-2400-1891

Yes­ter­day we fea­tured Jorge Luis Borges’ review of Cit­i­zen KaneBut as a film crit­ic, the writer of such influ­en­tial short fic­tions as “The Aleph,” “The Gar­den of Fork­ing Paths,” and “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote” did­n’t start there, with per­haps the most influ­en­tial motion pic­ture ever pro­duced. Flick­er has more on the movies that caught Borges’ crit­i­cal eye:

He was a pas­sion­ate admir­er of Char­lie Chap­lin. In a won­der­ful sen­tence that typ­i­fies his writ­ing style, Borges writes, “Would any­one dare ignore that Char­lie Chap­lin is one of the estab­lished gods in the mythol­o­gy of our time, a cohort of de Chirico’s motion­less night­mares, of Scar­face Al’s ardent machine guns, of the finite yet unlim­it­ed uni­verse of Gre­ta Garbo’s lofty shoul­ders, of the gog­gled eyes of Gand­hi?”

Borges’ film reviews were often quite humor­ous. When dis­cussing Josef von Sternberg’s ver­sion of Crime and Pun­ish­ment (1935), he writes, “Indoc­tri­nat­ed by the pop­u­lous mem­o­ry of The Scar­let Empress, I was expect­ing a vast flood of false beards, miters, samovars, masks, surly faces, wrought-iron gates, vine­yards, chess pieces, bal­alaikas, promi­nent cheek­bones, and hors­es. In short, I was expect­ing the usu­al von Stern­berg night­mare, the suf­fo­ca­tion and the mad­ness.”

But the film-review­ing Borges’ mas­ter­piece of dis­missal takes on King Kong, Mer­ian C. Coop­er and Ernest B. Schoed­sack­’s most icon­ic giant-ape dis­as­ter movie of them all:

A mon­key, forty feet tall (some fans say forty-five) may have obvi­ous charms, but those charms have not con­vinced this view­er. King Kong is no full-blood­ed ape but rather a rusty, des­ic­cat­ed machine whose move­ments are down­right clum­sy. His only virtue, his height, did not impress the cin­e­matog­ra­ph­er, who per­sist­ed in pho­tograph­ing him from above rather than from below —  the wrong angle, as it neu­tral­izes and even dimin­ish­es the ape’s over­praised stature. He is actu­al­ly hunch­backed and bow­legged, attrib­ut­es that serve only to reduce him in the spectator’s eye. To keep him from look­ing the least bit extra­or­di­nary, they make him do bat­tle with far more unusu­al mon­sters and have him reside in caves of false cathe­dral splen­dor, where his infa­mous size again los­es all pro­por­tion. But what final­ly demol­ish­es both the goril­la and the film is his roman­tic love — or lust — for Fay Wray.

As Mour­daunt Hal­l’s con­tem­po­rary New York Times review of this “Fan­tas­tic Film in Which a Mon­strous Ape Uses Auto­mo­biles for Mis­siles and Climbs a Sky­scraper” put it, “Through mul­ti­ple expo­sures, processed ‘shots’ and a vari­ety of angles of cam­era wiz­ardry the pro­duc­ers set forth an ade­quate sto­ry and fur­nish enough thrills for any devo­tee of such tales,” but “it is when the enor­mous ape, called Kong, is brought to this city that the excite­ment reach­es its high­est pitch. Imag­ine a 50-foot beast with a girl in one paw climb­ing up the out­side of the Empire State Build­ing, and after putting the girl on a ledge, clutch­ing at air­planes, the pilots of which are pour­ing bul­lets from machine guns into the mon­ster’s body.” That sight must have struck the (still not over­ly thrilled) Hall as more impres­sive than it did Borges, but then, Borges, that vision­ary of dizzy­ing labyrinths, eter­ni­ties, and infini­tudes, had already seen true visions of enor­mous­ness — and enor­mi­ty.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Jorge Luis Borges, Film Crit­ic, Reviews Cit­i­zen Kane — and Gets a Response from Orson Welles

Jorge Luis Borges’ Favorite Short Sto­ries (Read 7 Free Online)

Borges: Pro­file of a Writer Presents the Life and Writ­ings of Argentina’s Favorite Son, Jorge Luis Borges

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) and Humphrey Bogart Pal Around During a 1956 Screen Test

“With deep sor­row, yet with great grat­i­tude for her amaz­ing life, we con­firm the pass­ing of Lau­ren Bacall.” So tweet­ed The Humphrey Bog­a­rt Estate today, let­ting cinephiles every­where know that Hol­ly­wood lost yet anoth­er great one this week. She was 89.

Bacall, of course, met Humphrey Bog­a­rt on the set of To Have and Have Not in 1943. And they became one of Hol­ly­wood’s leg­endary cou­ples, star­ring togeth­er in The Big Sleep (1946), Dark Pas­sage (1947), and Key Largo (1948). Above you can watch Bogie and Bacall share some light moments togeth­er dur­ing a cos­tume test for Melville Good­win, USA, a film the cou­ple nev­er ulti­mate­ly made. The footage was shot on Feb­ru­ary 20, 1956, just after Bog­a­rt learned that he had esophageal can­cer. He passed away less than a year lat­er, on Jan­u­ary 14, 1957. May Bogie & Bacall rest in peace.

Note: The cos­tume test, like many from the peri­od, does­n’t have sound. As you’ll see, you hard­ly need sound to appre­ci­ate the scene that unfolds. Don’t miss the part where the cam­era zooms in.

Jorge Luis Borges Reviews Citizen Kane — and Gets a Response from Orson Welles

kane borges

When we dis­cov­er Jorge Luis Borges, we usu­al­ly dis­cov­er him through his short sto­ries — or at least through his own high­ly dis­tinc­tive uses of the short sto­ry form. Those many of us who there­upon decide to read every­thing the man ever wrote soon­er or lat­er find that he ven­tured into oth­er realms of short text as well. Borges spent time as a poet, an essay­ist, and even as some­thing of a film crit­ic, a peri­od of his career that will delight the siz­able cinephilic seg­ment of his read­er­ship. “I’m almost a cen­tu­ry late to this par­ty,” writes one such fan, Bren­dan Kiley at The Stranger, “but I recent­ly stum­bled into the movie reviews of Jorge Luis Borges (in his Select­ed Non-Fic­tions) and they’re fan­tas­tic: gloomy, some­times bitchy, hilar­i­ous.” He first high­lights Borges’ 1941 assess­ment of Cit­i­zen Kane, which Inter­rel­e­vant pro­vides in its inci­sive, unspar­ing, ref­er­en­tial, and very brief entire­ty:

AN OVERWHELMING FILM

Cit­i­zen Kane (called The Cit­i­zen in Argenti­na) has at least two plots. The first, point­less­ly banal, attempts to milk applause from dimwits: a vain mil­lion­aire col­lects stat­ues, gar­dens, palaces, swim­ming pools, dia­monds, cars, libraries, man and women. Like an ear­li­er col­lec­tor (whose obser­va­tions are usu­al­ly ascribed to the Holy Ghost), he dis­cov­ers that this cor­nu­copia of mis­cel­lany is a van­i­ty of van­i­ties: all is van­i­ty. At the point of death, he yearns for one sin­gle thing in the uni­verse, the hum­ble sled he played with as a child!

The sec­ond plot is far supe­ri­or. It links the Koheleth to the mem­o­ry of anoth­er nihilist, Franz Kaf­ka. A kind of meta­phys­i­cal detec­tive sto­ry, its sub­ject (both psy­cho­log­i­cal and alle­gor­i­cal) is the inves­ti­ga­tion of a man’s inner self, through the works he has wrought, the words he has spo­ken, the many lives he has ruined. The same tech­nique was used by Joseph Con­rad in Chance (1914) and in that beau­ti­ful film The Pow­er and the Glo­ry: a rhap­sody of mis­cel­la­neous scenes with­out chrono­log­i­cal order. Over­whelm­ing­ly, end­less­ly, Orson Welles shows frag­ments of the life of the man, Charles Fos­ter Kane, and invites us to com­bine them and to recon­struct him.

Form of mul­ti­plic­i­ty and incon­gruity abound in the film: the first scenes record the trea­sures amassed by Kane; in one of the last, a poor woman, lux­u­ri­ant and suf­fer­ing, plays with an enor­mous jig­saw puz­zle on the floor of a palace that is also a muse­um. At the end we real­ize that the frag­ments are not gov­erned by any secret uni­ty: the detest­ed Charles Fos­ter Kane is a sim­u­lacrum, a chaos of appear­ances. (A pos­si­ble corol­lary, fore­seen by David Hume, Ernst Mach, and our own Mace­do­nio Fer­nan­dez: no man knows who he is, no man is any­one.) In a sto­ry by Chester­ton — “The Head of Cae­sar,” I think — the hero observes that noth­ing is so fright­en­ing as a labyrinth with no cen­ter. This film is pre­cise­ly that labyrinth.

We all know that a par­ty, a palace, a great under­tak­ing, a lunch for writ­ers and jour­nal­ists, an atmos­phere of cor­dial and spon­ta­neous cama­raderie, are essen­tial­ly hor­ren­dous. Cit­i­zen Kane is the first film to show such things with an aware­ness of this truth.

The pro­duc­tion is, in gen­er­al, wor­thy of its vast sub­ject. The cin­e­matog­ra­phy has a strik­ing depth, and there are shots whose far­thest planes (like Pre-Raphaelite paint­ings) are as pre­cise and detailed as the close-ups. I ven­ture to guess, nonethe­less, that Cit­i­zen Kane will endure as a cer­tain Grif­fith or Pudovkin films have “endured”—films whose his­tor­i­cal val­ue is unde­ni­able but which no one cares to see again. It is too gigan­tic, pedan­tic, tedious. It is not intel­li­gent, though it is the work of genius—in the most noc­tur­nal and Ger­man­ic sense of that bad word.

“A kind of meta­phys­i­cal detec­tive sto­ry,” “a labyrinth with no cen­ter,” “the work of a genius” — why, if I did­n’t know bet­ter, I’d think Borges here describes his own work. Welles him­self did­n’t go igno­rant of his film’s Bor­ge­sian nature, or at least of the ten­den­cy of oth­ers to point out its Bor­ge­sian nature, not always in a pos­i­tive light. “Some peo­ple called it warmed-over Borges,” Welles recalled in a con­ver­sa­tion 42 years lat­er with the film­mak­er Hen­ry Jaglom. Nor did he for­get Borges’ own cri­tique: “He said that it was pedan­tic, which is a very strange thing to say about it, and that it was a labyrinth. And that the worst thing about a labyrinth is that there’s no way out. And this is a labyrinth of a movie with no way out. Borges is half-blind. Nev­er for­get that. But you know, I could take it that he and Sartre” — who thought the film’s image “too much in love with itself” — “sim­ply hat­ed Kane. In their minds, they were see­ing— and attack­ing — some­thing else. It’s them, not my work.” Defen­sive though this may sound, it iden­ti­fies the impulse that had the author of Labyrinths see­ing all those labyrinths in the movie: to quote Anaïs Nin, a writer con­tem­po­rary though not often brought into the same con­text with Borges, “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.”

You can also read Borges’ 1933 review of King Kong here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Orson Welles Explains Why Igno­rance Was His Major “Gift” to Cit­i­zen Kane

Two Draw­ings by Jorge Luis Borges Illus­trate the Author’s Obses­sions

Jorge Luis Borges: “Soc­cer is Pop­u­lar Because Stu­pid­i­ty is Pop­u­lar”

Borges: Pro­file of a Writer Presents the Life and Writ­ings of Argentina’s Favorite Son, Jorge Luis Borges

Jorge Luis Borges’ 1967–8 Nor­ton Lec­tures On Poet­ry (And Every­thing Else Lit­er­ary)

Jorge Luis Borges’ Favorite Short Sto­ries (Read 7 Free Online)

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Andrei Tarkovsky Creates a List of His 10 Favorite Films (1972)

Tarkovskystopten_list

If you, as a film­go­er, have any­thing in com­mon with me — and if you hap­pen to live in Los Ange­les as well — you’ve spent the past few weeks excit­ed about the Andrei Tarkovsky dou­ble-bill com­ing up at the Quentin Taran­ti­no-owned New Bev­er­ly Cin­e­ma. We’ve pre­vi­ous­ly fea­tured the famous­ly (and extreme­ly) cinephilic Taran­ti­no’s lists of favorite films, but what about Tarkovsky? What movies did the man who made The Mir­ror and Nos­tal­ghia — to name only two of his most strik­ing­ly per­son­al films, not to men­tion the same ones com­ing up at the New Bev­er­ly  look to for inspi­ra­tion? Nostalghia.com has one set of answers in the form of a list Tarkovsky once gave film crit­ic Leonid Kozlov. “I remem­ber that wet, grey day in April 1972 very well,” writes Kozlov in a Sight and Sound arti­cle re-post­ed there. “We were sit­ting by an open win­dow and talk­ing about var­i­ous things when the con­ver­sa­tion turned to Otar Ioselian­i’s film Once Upon a Time There Lived a Singing Black­bird.”

Tarkovsky strug­gled toward an assess­ment of that pic­ture, even­tu­al­ly deem­ing it “a very good film.” Kozlov then asked the film­mak­er to draw up a list of his favorites. “He took my propo­si­tion very seri­ous­ly and for a few min­utes sat deep in thought with his head bent over a piece of paper,” the crit­ic recalls. “Then he began to write down a list of direc­tors’ names — Buñuel, Mizoguchi, Bergman, Bres­son, Kuro­sawa, Anto­nioni, Vigo. One more, Drey­er, fol­lowed after a pause. Next he made a list of films and put them care­ful­ly in a num­bered order. The list, it seemed, was ready, but sud­den­ly and unex­pect­ed­ly Tarkovsky added anoth­er title — City Lights.” The fruit of his inter­nal delib­er­a­tions reads as fol­lows:

  1. Diary of a Coun­try Priest (Robert Bres­son, 1951)
  2. Win­ter Light (Ing­mar Bergman, 1963)
  3. Nazarin (Luis Buñuel, 1959)
  4. Wild Straw­ber­ries (Ing­mar Bergman, 1957)
  5. City Lights (Char­lie Chap­lin, 1931)
  6. Uget­su Mono­gatari (Ken­ji Mizoguchi, 1953)
  7. Sev­en Samu­rai (Aki­ra Kuro­sawa, 1954)
  8. Per­sona (Ing­mar Bergman, 1966)
  9. Mouchette (Robert Bres­son, 1967)
  10. Woman of the Dunes (Hiroshi Teshi­ga­hara, 1964)

Among respect­ed direc­tors’ great­est-films lists, Tarkovsky’s must rank as, while cer­tain­ly one of the most con­sid­ered, also one of the least diverse. “With the excep­tion of City Lights,” Kozlov notes, “it does not con­tain a sin­gle silent film or any from the 30s or 40s. The rea­son for this is sim­ply that Tarkovsky saw the cin­e­ma’s first 50 years as a pre­lude to what he con­sid­ered to be real film-mak­ing.” And the lack of Sovi­et films “is per­haps indica­tive of the fact that he saw real film-mak­ing as some­thing that went on else­where.” Over­all, we have here “not only a list of Tarkovsky’s favorite films, but equal­ly one of his favorite direc­tors,” espe­cial­ly Ing­mar Bergman, who places no few­er than three times. The esteem went both ways; you may remem­ber how Bergman once described Tarkovsky as “the great­est of them all.” Still, as cin­e­mat­ic mutu­al appre­ci­a­tion soci­eties go, I sup­pose you could­n’t ask for two more qual­i­fied mem­bers.

If you can’t make it to the New Bev­er­ly Cin­e­ma, you can watch many of Tarkovsky’s major films (and ear­ly stu­dent films) online here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Ing­mar Bergman Eval­u­ates His Fel­low Film­mak­ers — The “Affect­ed” Godard, “Infan­tile” Hitch­cock & Sub­lime Tarkovsky

Quentin Taran­ti­no Lists the 12 Great­est Films of All Time: From Taxi Dri­ver to The Bad News Bears

Quentin Taran­ti­no Lists His Favorite Films Since 1992

Woody Allen Lists the Great­est Films of All Time: Includes Clas­sics by Bergman, Truf­faut & Felli­ni

Mar­tin Scors­ese Reveals His 12 Favorite Movies (and Writes a New Essay on Film Preser­va­tion)

Stan­ley Kubrick’s List of Top 10 Films (The First and Only List He Ever Cre­at­ed)

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Werner Herzog’s Rogue Film School: Apply & Learn the Art of Guerilla Filmmaking & Lock-Picking

Werner_Herzog_Bruxelles_02_cropped

Image by Erinç Salor

No Eli Roth gorefest or low-bud­get video nasty, no Hubert Sel­by or Thomas Hardy adap­ta­tion, no Michael Hanecke gut­punch nor the bleak­est noir can com­pare with the work of Wern­er Her­zog when it comes to exis­ten­tial dread. His doc­u­men­taries and absur­dist tragi­come­dies reach into the heart of human dark­ness and doomed obses­sive weird­ness. Even his turns as an actor and pro­duc­er take him into shad­owy, amoral places where grim, sure death awaits. Do you, dear read­er, dare fol­low him there?

If so, you must first brave the appli­ca­tion for Herzog’s Rogue Film School. Lessons include “the art of lock-pick­ing, trav­el­ing on foot, the exhil­a­ra­tion of being shot at unsuc­cess­ful­ly, the ath­let­ic side of film­mak­ing, the cre­ation of one’s own shoot­ing per­mits, the neu­tral­iza­tion of bureau­cra­cy, and gueril­la film­mak­ing.” Have tech­ni­cal ques­tions? “For this pur­pose,” Her­zog writes in his 12-point descrip­tion of Rogue, “please enroll at your local film school.” This is no beginner’s work­shop; it is “about a way of life. It is about a cli­mate, the excite­ment that makes film pos­si­ble.” This being Her­zog, “excite­ment” like­ly involves death-defy­ing dan­ger. Pre­pare for the worst.

But you who are apply­ing for the Rogue Film School know this already. You are up for the chal­lenge. You also know that Her­zog doesn’t put him­self bod­i­ly and psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly close to—and over—the edge of civ­i­liza­tion just for the sake of a thrill. This is art—raw, con­fronta­tion­al, and utter­ly uncom­pro­mis­ing. And so, Rogue Film School will also “be about poet­ry, films, music, images, lit­er­a­ture.” There is a required, eclec­tic read­ing list: J.A. Baker’s doc­u­ment of hawk life, The Pere­grine, Hemingway’s The Short Hap­py Life of Fran­cis Macomber & Oth­er Sto­ries, Virgil’s Geor­gics. Sug­gest­ed read­ings include The Poet­ic Edda, The Con­quest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castil­lo, and—somewhat unexpectedly—The War­ren Report.

And of course, there is film, “which could include your sub­mit­ted films,” but will also include a required view­ing list: John Huston’s The Trea­sure of the Sier­ra Madre, Elia Kazan’s Viva Zap­a­ta, Gillo Pontecorvo’s The Bat­tle of Algiers, Satya­jit Ray’s The Apu Tril­o­gy, and Abbas Kiarostami’s Where is the Friend’s Home? (if avail­able, he writes—watch it here)—an Iran­ian com­ing-of-age movie on BFI’s “Top fifty films for chil­dren up the age of 14” list. You will dis­cov­er ways to “cre­ate illu­mi­na­tion and an ecsta­sy of truth.” But do not for a moment think this will involve some mid­dle­brow New Age brand of self-dis­cov­ery. “Cen­sor­ship will be enforced,” Her­zog warns, “There will be no talk of shamans, of yoga class­es, nutri­tion­al val­ues, herbal teas, dis­cov­er­ing your Bound­aries, and Inner Growth.” You will prob­a­bly eat meat raw from a preda­to­ry beast you’ve killed with your bare hands.

Alter­nate­ly, you may have canapés and drinks at a seclud­ed bar in the UK while Her­zog chats you up about your lat­est project and his. So began the ori­en­ta­tion to Rogue Film School for film­mak­er and sound design­er Marce­lo de Oliveira, who chron­i­cled his expe­ri­ence as a Her­zog appren­tice in a two-part write up on the Scot­tish Doc­u­men­tary Institute’s Blog. On day one, Her­zog advised his pupils to “be pre­pared to step across the bor­ders.” De Oliveira quotes the mas­ter say­ing “Film school will not teach you that we have a nat­ur­al right as film­mak­ers to steal a cam­era or steal cer­tain doc­u­ments.” And though Her­zog does not explic­it­ly advo­cate such activ­i­ties, he strong­ly implies they may be jus­ti­fied, refer­ring to his own act of steal­ing a cam­era from the Munich Film School—the same cam­era with which he shot the crazed and vision­ary Fitz­car­ral­do. The theft, Her­zog has said, was no crime, but “a neces­si­ty.”

Her­zog is not a guru, trans­mit­ting instruc­tions for enlight­en­ment to cross-legged dis­ci­ples. He is a cat­a­lyst, encour­ag­ing his stu­dents to “go absolute­ly and com­plete­ly wild” for the sake of their indi­vid­ual vision. His film school sounds like the kind of oppor­tu­ni­ty no dar­ing film­mak­er should pass up, but should you apply and get reject­ed, you can still learn a thing or two from the great Ger­man direc­tor. Just watch the video above, “Wern­er Herzog’s Mas­ter­class.” Her­zog shared his wis­dom and expe­ri­ence with a rapt audi­ence at last year’s Locarno Film Fes­ti­val. Among the many pieces of advice were the fol­low­ing, com­piled by Indiewire. See their post for more essen­tial high­lights from this fas­ci­nat­ing ses­sion.

  • It’s a very dan­ger­ous thing to have a video vil­lage, a video out­put. Avoid it. Shut it down. Throw it into the next riv­er. You have an actor, and peo­ple that close all star­ing at the mon­i­tor gives a false feel­ing; that ‘feel good’ feel­ing of secu­ri­ty. It’s always mis­lead­ing. You have to avoid it.
  • I always do the slate board; I want to be the last one from the actors on one side and the tech­ni­cal appa­ra­tus on the oth­er side. I’m the last one and then things roll. You don’t have to be a dic­ta­tor.
  • Nev­er show any­one in a doc­u­men­tary, rush­es. They’ll become self-con­scious. Nev­er ever do that.
  • Some­times it’s good to leave your char­ac­ter alone so no one can pre­dict what is going to hap­pen next. Some­times these moments are very telling and mov­ing.
  • Dis­miss the cul­ture of com­plaint you hear every­where.
  • You should always try to find a way deep into some­one.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Wern­er Her­zog Picks His 5 Favorite Films

Por­trait Wern­er Her­zog: The Director’s Auto­bi­o­graph­i­cal Short Film from 1986

Wern­er Her­zog Gets Shot Dur­ing Inter­view, Doesn’t Miss a Beat

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

50 Free Noir Films: An Easy Way to Sample a Great Cinematic Tradition

DetourPoster1

What is Film Noir? Ask that ques­tion to the Film Noir Foun­da­tion and this is what they’ll tell you:

Film noir is one of Hollywood’s only organ­ic artis­tic move­ments. Begin­ning in the ear­ly 1940s, numer­ous screen­plays inspired by hard­boiled Amer­i­can crime fic­tion were brought to the screen, pri­mar­i­ly by Euro­pean émi­gré direc­tors who shared a cer­tain sto­ry­telling sen­si­bil­i­ty: high­ly styl­ized, overt­ly the­atri­cal, with imagery often drawn from an ear­li­er era of Ger­man “expres­sion­ist” cin­e­ma. Fritz Lang, Robert Siod­mak, Bil­ly Wilder, and Otto Pre­minger, among oth­ers, were among this Hol­ly­wood van­guard.

Dur­ing and imme­di­ate­ly fol­low­ing World War II, movie audi­ences respond­ed to this fresh, vivid, adult-ori­ent­ed type of film — as did many writ­ers, direc­tors, cam­era­men and actors eager to bring a more mature world-view to Hol­ly­wood prod­uct. Large­ly fueled by the finan­cial and artis­tic suc­cess of Bil­ly Wilder’s adap­ta­tion of James M. Cain’s novel­la Dou­ble Indemnity(1944), the stu­dios began crank­ing out crime thrillers and mur­der dra­mas with a par­tic­u­lar­ly dark and ven­omous view of exis­tence.

In 1946 a Paris ret­ro­spec­tive of Amer­i­can films embar­goed dur­ing the war clear­ly revealed this trend toward vis­i­bly dark­er, more cyn­i­cal crime melo­dra­mas. It was not­ed by sev­er­al Gal­lic crit­ics who chris­tened this new type of Hol­ly­wood prod­uct “film noir,” or black film, in lit­er­al trans­la­tion.

Few, if any of the artists in Hol­ly­wood who made these films called them “noir” at the time. But the vivid co-min­gling of lost inno­cence, doomed roman­ti­cism, hard-edged cyn­i­cism, des­per­ate desire, and shad­owy sex­u­al­i­ty that was unleashed in those imme­di­ate post-war years proved huge­ly influ­en­tial, both among indus­try peers in the orig­i­nal era, and to future gen­er­a­tion of sto­ry­tellers, both lit­er­ary and cin­e­mat­ic.

If you want to get anoth­er angle on the ques­tion, you can always take into con­sid­er­a­tion Roger Ebert’s 10 Essen­tial Char­ac­ter­is­tics of Noir Films. But our sug­ges­tion, espe­cial­ly on a long Sun­day after­noon, is to spend some time watch­ing the clas­sic movies gath­ered in our col­lec­tion of 50 Free Noir Films. The col­lec­tion fea­tures pub­lic domain films by John Hus­ton, Fritz Lang, Orson Welles and oth­er cel­e­brat­ed direc­tors. Here’s a quick sam­ple of what’s in the archive:

  • Beat the Dev­il – Free – Direct­ed by John Hus­ton and star­ring Humphrey Bog­a­rt, the film is some­thing of a com­ic and dra­mat­ic spoof of the film noir tra­di­tion. (1953)
  • D.O.A. — Free — Rudolph Maté’s clas­sic noir film. Called “one of the most accom­plished, inno­v­a­tive, and down­right twist­ed entrants to the film noir genre.” (1950)
    Five Min­utes to Live — Free — Mem­o­rable bank heist movie stars John­ny Cash, Vic Tay­back, Ron Howard, and coun­try music great, Mer­le Travis. (1961)
  • Quick­sand Free — Peter Lorre and Mick­ey Rooney star in a sto­ry about a garage mechanic’s descent into crime. (1950)
  • Scar­let Street — Free — Direct­ed by Fritz Lang with Edward G. Robin­son. A film noir great. (1945)
  • The Hitch-Hik­er Free  — The first noir film made by a woman noir direc­tor, Ida Lupino. (1953)
  • The Stranger Free — Direct­ed by Orson Welles with Edward G. Robin­son. One of Welles’s major com­mer­cial suc­cess­es. (1946)

We recent­ly added anoth­er 15 films to the col­lec­tion of free noir films. So even if you’ve perused the list in the past, there’s now some­thing new to enjoy.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

25 Noir Films That Will Stand the Test of Time: A List by “Noir­chael­o­gist” Eddie Muller

100 Great­est Posters of Film Noir

4,000+ Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns, Doc­u­men­taries & More

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

Is It Always Right to Be Right?: Orson Welles Narrates a 1970 Oscar-Winning Animation That Still Resonates Today

Is it pos­si­ble for a short film made dur­ing the Nixon admin­is­tra­tion to per­fect­ly describe America’s cur­rent, com­plete­ly screwed up polit­i­cal sit­u­a­tion? Sure, Lee Mishkin’s Oscar-win­ning ani­mat­ed short Is It Always Right to Be Right? (1970) might date itself through oblique ref­er­ences to hip­pies, the Viet­nam war and the Civ­il Rights move­ment, not to men­tion the movie’s groovy ani­ma­tion style, but the mes­sage of the movie feels sur­pris­ing­ly rel­e­vant today. You can watch the movie above.

The short, which is nar­rat­ed by none oth­er than Orson Welles, describes a land where every­one believed them­selves to be right, and where inde­ci­sive­ness and com­plex­i­ty were con­sid­ered utter­ly weak. “When dif­fer­ences arose between the peo­ple of this land,” intones Welles at one point, “they looked not for truth but for con­fir­ma­tion for what they already believed.”

Wow, that sounds just like cable news. As the divi­sions grew and deep­ened, the land even­tu­al­ly ground to a halt. “Every­one was right, of course. And they knew it. And were proud of it. And the gap grew wider until the day came when all activ­i­ty stopped. Each group stood in its soli­tary right­ness, glar­ing with proud eyes at those too blind to see their truth, deter­mined to main­tain their posi­tion at all costs. This is the respon­si­bil­i­ty of being right.” Wow, that sounds like Con­gress.

Then some­one tried to tem­per this stark black-and-white world by say­ing things like “I might be wrong,” which starts a cas­cade of intro­spec­tion and tol­er­ance. Ah, the 70s – that inno­cent time before the 24-hour news cycle. A time before net­work execs real­ized that blovi­at­ing morons preach­ing the right­ness of their own posi­tion just plain makes good TV.

A year lat­er, you might be inter­est­ed to know, Orson Welles nar­rat­ed anoth­er ani­mat­ed para­ble. Watch Free­dom Riv­er here.

Is It Always Right to Be Right? will be added to the Ani­ma­tion sec­tion of our col­lec­tion, 4,000+ Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns, Doc­u­men­taries & More as well as our col­lec­tion of Free Oscar-Win­ning Films.

Relat­ed Con­tent: 

Lis­ten to Eight Inter­views of Orson Welles by Film­mak­er Peter Bog­danovich (1969–1972)

Watch Orson Welles’ The Stranger Free Online, Where 1940s Film Noir Meets Real Hor­rors of WWII

The Hearts of Age: Orson Welles’ Sur­re­al­ist First Film (1934)

Orson Welles Explains Why Igno­rance Was His Major “Gift” to Cit­i­zen Kane

Jonathan Crow is a Los Ange­les-based writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. You can fol­low him at @jonccrow. And check out his blog Veep­to­pus, fea­tur­ing one new draw­ing of a vice pres­i­dent with an octo­pus on his head dai­ly. 

Dick Van Dyke, Paul Lynde & the Original Cast of Bye Bye Birdie Appear on The Ed Sullivan Show (1961)

?si=cd3WFcukQgkDVXT4

Think back, if you will to the dawn of the 60’s, or fail­ing that, the third sea­son of Mad Men, when Broad­way musi­cals could still be con­sid­ered legit­i­mate adult enter­tain­ment and Bye Bye Birdie was the hottest tick­et in town.

Six months after the show’s 1960 open­ing, Broadway’s—soon to be television’s—latest star  Dick Van Dyke, appeared on the Ed Sul­li­van show to intro­duce the rest of the coun­try to the musi­cal their high schools and com­mu­ni­ty the­aters would be per­form­ing in per­pe­tu­ity.

The show­case also afford­ed the Amer­i­can view­ing pub­lic their first glimpse of the man who would out­last Sul­li­van as a fix­ture in their liv­ing rooms, Hol­ly­wood’s most out­ra­geous Square, Paul Lyn­de.

Lyn­de had his camp and ate it too in the role of a solid­ly Mid­west­ern father of two who, by virtue of his asso­ci­a­tion with his teenage daugh­ter, finds him­self appear­ing on none oth­er than… The Ed Sul­li­van Show! It’s a tru­ly meta moment. The stu­dio audi­ence seems to enjoy the joke, and Sul­li­van appears pleased too, when he wan­ders on after “Hymn for a Sun­day Evening” as the song is prop­er­ly called. Accord­ing to his biog­ra­phy, Always on Sun­day, his response upon first hear­ing was less enthu­si­as­tic. When the mer­ry Broad­way crowd turned to check Sul­li­van’s response to Lyn­de’s gulp­ing final admis­sion, (“I love you, Ed!”),  Sul­li­van report­ed that he want­ed the floor to open up and swal­low both him and his wife.

Way to get with the joke, Ed!

Lat­er in the episode, there’s some grace­ful Van Dyke foot­work on “Put on a Hap­py Face,” a song that even the most sea­soned the­ater­go­ers tend to for­get orig­i­nat­ed with this show, prob­a­bly because it does noth­ing to advance the plot.

Lyn­de and Van Dyke reprised their roles in the 1962 film, but in a typ­i­cal tale of stage-to-screen heart­break, Susan Wat­son, Lyn­de’s orig­i­nal Birdie daugh­ter, was replaced by 22-year-old bomb­shell, Ann-Mar­gret. (The deli­cious­ly bitchy remark Mau­reen Sta­ple­ton made about her at the wrap par­ty turns out to be apoc­ryphal, or at least intend­ed more kind­ly than it would seem.) See what she brings to “Hymn for a Sun­day Evening” below.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

A Young Frank Zap­pa Turns the Bicy­cle into a Musi­cal Instru­ment on The Steve Allen Show (1963)

Dig­i­tal Archive of Vin­tage Tele­vi­sion Com­mer­cials

Ayun Hal­l­i­day is an author and home­school­er, and Chief Pri­ma­tol­o­gist of the East Vil­lage Inky zine. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast