Wednesday, February 27, 2013

La Grande Illusion (1937): Poetic Pacifism




The first time I saw this film I was in my early twenties and I couldn't see what all the fuss was about; I knew it was universally acclaimed as one of the two masterpieces that Jean Renoir directed in the 30's, and while I could see the attraction in the second of these two, Rules of the Game(1939), La Grande Illusion left me cold. While I still think Renoir's La Bete Humaine(1938) is a better film, and his Crime De Monsieur Lange (1936) is just as good, I can now see that La Grande Illusion is also worth watching.
The film starts when two French soldiers, the commoner Marechal (Jean Gabin) and the aristocrat Boeldieu (Pierre Fresnay), go up in a plane and get shot down and taken prisoner by the Germans. The first half plays out much like The Great Escape, except that this is World War One not Two, and all the soldiers in the German prison camp are French. But they likewise dig a tunnel out from under their barracks and there is even a sequence of the men dropping earth from inside their trousers and mixing it into the topsoil with their feet, which was presumably the inspiration for an identical sequence in The Great Escape.
The first half of La Grande Illusion is a bit slow depending on your patience for scenes of bored French soldiers sitting around talking about what they miss back home, the bars they frequented in the Champs Elyssees and the current fashions in women's hemlines in Paris. But I liked the scene where they get on stage and sing a French version of 'It's a Long Way to Tipperary', and then 'La Marseillaise'. Renoir shows the French defiant against their German captors, but as they do so half of them are wearing dresses: he seems to be having some fun at the whole concept of nationalism. And as Gary Cooper's iconic face was once used to represent the resilience of America manhood, Jean Gabin's features seemed to personify French strengths in the 1930's, and there are some beautiful shots of him. They are fine examples of what was special about the French poetic realist style of that decade, the soft impressionistic beauty that Renoir, Carne, Duvivier and a few other directors achieved.
If the first half served as the prototype for The Great Escape, the second half surely did likewise for The Colditz Story: a few of the men, including Marechal and Boeldieu, are moved further into Germany to an ancient castle that's being used as a prison. Much is made of class differences in the movie. Renoir was fascinated by how German and French aristocrats had things in common with each other which they didn't have with their fellow countrymen of lower status, bonds which even war couldn't break. Erich Von Stroheim, playing a rigid-necked Prussian officer in charge of the castle, apologises to Boeldieu when he shoots him; it grieves him greatly to have killed a fellow nobleman, despite the fact he comes from an unfriendly nation.
Gabin's character, Marechal, has earlier described Boeldieu as 'OK, but hoity toity' and says there's always a wall between them. Yet it's Boeldieu who causes the main diversion that allows Marechal and Rosenthal (the latter played by the wonderfully impish Marcel Dalio) to escape, and for this he pays with his life. The two free men then make their way through the German countryside, to a house overlooking a beautiful valley, and some of the vistas here are as beautiful as anything painted by Jean Renoir's father, Auguste. After sleeping in a barn, the two fugitives are found by the German woman who owns the farm it resides on, and she takes them in and feeds them. She tells them of her husband and brothers, all dead in the war, and soon Gabin is falling in love with her and getting Renoir's 'We are all one' message across by talking to the German cows, saying 'What do you care if you're fed by a Frenchman?', telling them 'You have the same good smell as the cows in France'.
Remembering that this film was made in 1937, it's notable how sympathetically the Germans are portrayed. The guards exhibit none of the brutality we expect from later films depicting the Germans of World War Two; they are all as gentle as the one 'Good Nazi' who befriends Steve McQueen in The Great Escape. It's almost as if Renoir was placating the Germans of the time and trying to make the Nazis understand pacifism and humanism the way he did. Of course if that was the case it now seems that it was he himself who was suffering from a ‘Grand Illusion’.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

The Master (2012): A Partial Return to Form for Paul Thomas Anderson



This review contains a kind of plot spoiler

There’s one way in which The Master outshines everything else made by Paul Thomas Anderson. It’s the best-looking film he’s ever done. The cinematography by Mihai Mălaimare, Jr. is absolutely amazing, and there’s no doubt it deserves the Oscar. It’s often difficult to describe great cinematography. We can say it’s ‘beautiful’, ‘atmospheric’, ‘visually arresting’, and so on, but it’s probably best just to see for yourself (click here for 56 screenshots).

And there are some very good scenes in the film. For example, there’s the first processing session on the boat between Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) and ‘the Master’, Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Some of Dodd’s questions are wonderfully intrusive and he’s very insistent that his subject not blink as he answers; it’s intriguing to see if Freddie can do that, as he’s finally led into admitting he slept with his aunt. Another scene has a man at a party challenging the logic of Dodd’s beliefs, which results in a tense confrontation and a memorable concluding insult. And near the end when Freddie goes back to the house of the girl he once loved and finds that she’s long since married and moved away, it was poignant.

I really didn’t like There Will Be Blood (see review) mainly because I found the two central performances off-putting and that’s not the case here. Phoenix is particularly affecting in the scene just mentioned, but he’s excellent throughout the movie. His weird facial and bodily contortions engage the audience; you can’t help wondering what’s going on inside him. And Hoffman, and Amy Adams as the master’s wife, are also very good. (All the other characters in the movie are pretty minor, including the one played by Laura Dern). But I have to say that again I’m a bit mystified that a PTA film has gotten so much praise. In the Sight & Sound year-end poll for example, it was deemed best film of 2012. As I was watching it and really enjoying the look of it, I couldn’t help also thinking of the many ways the story could have been better. Here are a few of them:

The early scenes of the film are set in the Pacific during World War Two (you get the impression Anderson had been watching Malick’s The Thin Red Line) and though they’re nice to look at, we don’t learn much about Quell. Then he’s back in the US and before long we see him senselessly attacking one of his photographic subjects in his department-store job. It might have been better to first delve into his past and learn why he’s such a conflicted, confused character before we get such an outburst. It’s mentioned in the film that his father died drunk and his mother’s in a ‘looney bin’, but just mentioned, nothing more.

I also wanted more evidence of why people follow Dodd i.e. scenes of him saying wise or interesting things that could draw people in, or making speeches to his followers that were charismatic in some way. This aspect of The Master reminded me - in a bad way - of the role played by Eli (Paul Dano) in There Will Be Blood. Again Anderson is giving us a religious leader who doesn’t seem to have many leadership qualities. There are many, many scenes of ‘processing’ - usually strange ritualistic interviews - that I found it hard to care about because they seemed unconnected to any normal human interaction. Once again Anderson seems to be fascinated by a religious world that does nothing for me, and I suspect for many other viewers. And it seems strange that he should focus on this. Is it some form of penance for the outré sexuality of Boogie Nights?

On top of that, there are odd things in the film which seem underdeveloped. At a party, all the women- and only the women - are suddenly stark naked. Why? I’d be interested to find out what the director thought about this scene, since he doesn’t let on in the actual movie. At one point I thought the story was going to develop into an interesting conflict with the mainstream authorities because Dodd and Quill get arrested. But that turn of the plot is soon forgotten. And near the end the film moves to England. Is there enough justification for this shift? It seemed to me that not much happened there.

Most of all, I just felt that the film needed more conflict. Quill falls under the spell of the master, defends him, beats up people who go against him, but never fully fits into the ‘family’. And the master’s wife disapproves of his drinking, his free spirit. That’s about it. (That’s the plot spoiler: that unfortunately there are no plot twists to spoil in this movie). Near the end there’s an interesting conversation between the two men in which Dodd talks of their ‘future lives’ and is openly hostile to Freddie. But that tension between them comes too late. Before then they have many arguments but always in a father-son way, never with any real threat of a rift. I wish a real rift had developed between them earlier in the movie. As the old cliché goes, conflict forces characters to reveal their true selves, and that’s particularly needed here because Quell is not good at verbalizing and, despite Phoenix’ fine performance, we don’t get to know Freddie well enough.

The Observer review of The Master said “once we've established that Lancaster is a phoney and Freddie a fuck-up, the film seems not to know where to go next.” I have to say I agree. Despite that Sight & Sound poll, and far more than with There Will Be Blood, there seem to be quite a few critics this time breaking rank and daring to suggest PTA has gone astray. I don’t bring this up because I’m hoping for his ‘comeuppance’ or anything like that. I do it because he proved early on in his career that he had huge talent and I want him to rediscover that. In his last three films he’s forgotten the wonderful in-your-face brio of those earlier works and has attempted to be more stately and grandiose. To me he’s ‘matured’ in all the wrong directions. It’s like he wants to be David Lean now instead of Martin Scorsese, but he’s copying the David Lean of Ryan’s Daughter rather than the David Lean of Lawrence of Arabia. His films now are more refined, more respectable, but also more dull.

For what’s it’s worth, this is how I would rate all of his movies so far, with 4 stars the maximum and anything less than 3 stars not really worth watching.

Hard Eight ***½
Boogie Nights ****
Magnolia ****
Punch Drunk Love **½
There Will Be Blood **
The Master ***

The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012): 56 Screenshots

Left-click once on any image to enlarge