Bicycle Thieves (Ladri Di Biciclette)
Italian Neorealism or Poetic Realism is that movie style developed by the Italians which mixes professional actors and non-actors together in a documentary visual style. These films are filmed on location in real buildings and neighborhoods giving them an authentic feel. One of the greatest of this movie style is Vittorio De SIca’s heartbreaking film, “Bicycle Thieves”. The plot of this movie is simple. In Post war Italy, a working family man with a young son, requires a bicycle in order to get a job. He needs the job to provide food and shelter for his family. The wife agrees to sell her precious silk sheets that were given to her as part of her dowry, so that he can buy the bicycle. He purchases the bike and while at work, accompanied with his son, the bicycle is stolen. The man goes on a frantic search looking for the bicycle. In the end he himself attempts to steal a bike, gets caught but is not punished through the mercy of others. Throughout this story outline we are shown many scenes of humanity through the relationship the man has with his son. His desperation will cause him to lash out at the boy, but his love for him shines through and there are many moments of charm and beauty. One scene shows the desperation of the man as he believes that his son is drowning. In another they share an intimate lunch at a restaurant. The most touching scene is the last closing shot as the boy consoles his crying Father who realizes that the recovery of his bike is a lost cause. The son takes his Father’s hand and they walk away together. Their great love for each other makes this one of the most touching endings in cinema history. The movie succeeds in showing the struggling effects of Post War poverty and hints on the thin line that exists between honesty and thievery. It is a true work of art that deals with the human heart.
Letter from an Unknown Woman
Obsession is a strong and driving force that moves people to act in strong and empowering ways. When the obsession concerns that of another person, then those acts usually lead to pain and eventual destruction. Max Ophul’s, “Letter from an Unknown Woman”, is about one such obsession. The obsession starts in the early twentieth century Vienna. There is a talented and womanizing pianist living in a typical middle class apartment. A teenage girl who lives with her widowed mother in an adjacent apartment, is obsessed with the pianist. It is an obsession that follows her throughout her life. As a child she sneaks into the pianist’s apartment and secretly listens to him play outside his door. Only his servant notices her. The servant plays an important role in the film as he is aware of her fascination throughout the different periods but does not tell our pianist protagonist until the end. Later our teenage girl becomes a young woman after spending her formative years in a different city and returns to the apartment of the pianist where they meet. He does not recognize her for the girl who was his former neighbor, but is strongly attracted to her. They make love and then he deserts her the next day. Their love making results in a child and her life continues forward through motherhood and further marriage. She spends an additional night with him as a married woman. He still does not correlate this rendezvous with the teenage girl of his past. She suffers tragedy with the death of their son and falls gravely ill through misery. On her death bed she writes and anonymous letter to him explaining their meetings and their dead son. The movie starts with his reading of this letter. Hence, the movie’s title. The secretive obsessive love that she has for him is based on just two nights and a child’s dream. It is almost dream like resulting in a sweet sad romantic feeling. After reading the letter, the pianist decides to meet his faith and accept the morning duel with our now dead heroin’s ex-husband. The main actors played by Joan Fontain and the French actor Lous Jordan give just the right civilized and suppressed emotion to their roles. The film deals with regrets and unfulfilled love giving the viewer pause to think of their own sweet past. Not many films have this kind of effect on their audience.
Secret beyond the Door
One of the many things that can be said about Fritz Lang is his ability to elevate an average script through his direction and manipulation of the camera. He knows how to manipulate mood and music to give the desired effects of unease and foreboding. His, “Secret beyond the Door”, has a confused script that veers on the ridiculous. The film stays interesting throughout its various elements, but has a second half the defies belief. A couple gets married and lives in a large empty cavernous house. Then during the honeymoon, the bride learns about the mysterious death of her new husband’s first wife and the existence of a son. This results in the bride becoming extremely suspicious of her new husband. The interesting aspect of the film, is unlike Hitchcock who dealt with the same subject on many of his films, Lang deals with atmosphere and Mood, created by some dark and visually arresting photography. The film also introduces us to a deformed and seemingly evil housekeeper which takes its influence from Hitchcock’s Rebecca. The first half of the film is quite good and keeps our interest as we try and decide for ourselves if the husband is an actual killer or just plain crazy. The second half of the film tries too hard in being smart. We are introduced to a very strange and unbelievable hobby fetish that the husband has. We are meant to believe that he goes through life decorating various rooms in his large villa, piece by piece, so that they look like rooms in which various real life murders have occurred. If I was the wife, played with super serious and intense Joan Bennett, I would pack my bags and run right there and then. Of course she does not and the silliness of this script becomes something that even Lang can’t overcome. There are some horror movie like scenes of our heroine wandering through a mist filled forest in the middle of the night that I appreciated for their thrilling look but all in all this is a good looking movie that can’t overcome it’s silly story.
Force of Evil
“Force of Evil”, is quite the movie. At its base, it is a taut and well-paced crime thriller dealing in the illegal gambling racket. Once you delve deeper however, you come to realize that it concerns much deeper issues such as family honor and governmental corruption. If we study some of the dialogue even more we come to realize that there are some inner criticisms of the capitalist system in play here. It is not surprising that after he made this film, the movies director, Abraham Polonsky refused to be a witness in the anti-communist, “House of Un-American Activities Committee” The film introduces us to two brothers. One is a small time racketeer dealing in a small and illegal numbers business that feeds on the gambling hunger enveloping a Post War America. This older and stubborn brother is shown to have a higher set of morals and sincerity then his younger and more established brother. The younger brother is a lawyer who is working for the Mob. The Mob runs a semi-legal lottery type business based on governmental kickbacks. He is now tasked in moving a long a false tip as a fix that will result in all the small time bookies going bankrupt so that the mob can take over. The older brother is one of the people about to suffer from this scam. Here lies the emotional cord that holds this intense story together. The younger brother is played by the physical and strong John Garfield, in what is easily his best role. He kills the part, breathing life into the cool, smart con artist, torn between his family commitments and his own selfish ambitions. The dilemma tears him apart and Garfield lets us feel these emotions as they run the gamut from happiness, hope, anger, despair and sadness. Polonsky’s direction is also first rate as he lets the camera pan on his characters just long enough in each scene to develop the maximum tension possible. Film Noire was never tenser then here. The dialogue in the script is also smart and real sounding which allows the story to stay believable throughout. Polonsky would not be allowed to make another movie for twenty years which is why his name is not recognizable today. He was one of the victims of the anticommunist frenzy from the 40s. Movie lovers everywhere can also be considered a victim as we were robbed of more movies from him. At least we have “Force of Evil”.
Spring in a Small Town (Xio Cheng Zhi Chun)
World War2 took its toll on many countries, throughout the world and filmmakers everywhere were trying to express the effects the war had on their people and countries. The Italians, French, British and Hollywood would center many their films of the late 40s in war torn communities struggling to resume their lives. This small and quaint film from China was a very personal attempt to do the same thing. The movie is based in a small country town that was bombed and devastated during the war. The people within the town are shown to live at a distance and away from each other. We are introduced to one household that consists of a Man, wife, Sister and servant. They seem to be living all alone, all the time. Loneliness permeates throughout the scenes showing their sad routine. They live in a two house residence and have a loyal house servant and we are meant to believe that they were a well off family before the war. Now the houses are pretty run down and there are signs of destruction throughout. The husband is weak and sick, as he is unable to work or do anything of substance for his wife and household. It is not clear as to whether the sickness is physical or mental. The wife is the deep suffering innocent victim. She has all the burden of running the household and no reciprocal love or appreciation given in return. The sister is a teenager and is shown as the hope of the house. Optimistic and happy as she only has her grades and school to worry about. She is however shown without friends giving her somewhat optimistic life a sad shadow. Where are all the girls her age? Maybe they were killed in the war. The movie does not give us a lot of background information as it is not considered important to the tale. Into this family the movie follows the visitation of an old friend who appears like a ghost from a happier more innocent time. This is the former best friend of the husband. It is also the former lover of the wife. His appearance forces each character to look at their present life and weep. He is also a doctor, but it is his humanity that succeeds in doing the most healing. The movie follows his visit from its start to its end and we see that he is treated like a lifeboat for everyone. The Husband thinks that his friend can heal him of his sickness and allows him the freedom to give happiness to his wife. The wife wants his positive energy and love. Even the sister sees him as a suitor who can free her from this depressing family. The movie will end with the eventual departure of the guest that somehow gave hope to everyone. Not a lot of hope, but enough as to bring some optimism to the story. I saw this parable on Post War China. The country suffered War, became crippled and weak, before receiving hope and inner strength to carry on. Just like this family. The visitor represents the young fighters who valiantly fought the Japanese and whose strength is needed to continue. This is a beautiful film giving us a peak into a difficult period of a proud people.
Red River
Every once in a while in the 1940’s some of Hollywood’s most established directors would attempt to use the Western Genre to establish more complex and deeper stories that deal in characterization rather than pure action. When they succeed these films transcend the Western genre and stay relevant, years after they were made. Howard Hawks Red River is one of these movies. He took the basic premise of the 19th century British naval book, “Mutiny on the Bounty” that dealt with a forced takeover of a militaristic group from its cruel and dictatorial leader. The book dealt with the British Navy and this film deals with a hard cattle drive. Another important difference is that in this film we have a Father and Son relationship that adds increased tension to the proceedings. Hawks establishes a long prologue were he introduces our main character who arrives in Texas to claim land next to the Mexican border, in the Post-civil war west. The character is played by John Wayne in one of those cold tough roles that made him famous. At the time of this introduction we are shown Wayne, losing his fiancé to Indian marauders and adopting a sole surviving boy whose complete family was slaughtered by the Indians. Wayne also forcefully takes control of the land he claims by murdering one of the Mexicans who claimed the land as his own. We are already shown the hard stubborn and dangerous man that he is. Fast forward 20 years and Wayne is near bankruptcy because the depressed southwest can’t afford to buy his cattle. He organizes a long, difficult cattle herd with his now grown son, played by the mild and beautiful Montgomery Cliff. There is a genuine love between Father and adopted son. The team Wayne hires for this drive consists of desperately poor cowboys who are promised their wages only after they complete the drive successfully. Wayne’s Character is determined to take the cattle to his idea of the correct destination down the Missouri, into Kansas. He is warned that this route is dangerous and too arduous of a journey. The easier and more successful route is to the city of Abilene, but Wayne refuses and in seeing his team having doubts, starts treating them like slaves, threatening them with death if they desert. Here is where the comparisons to the Mutiny book reside. He is acting like Captain Blight did in the book. The difference is that through the previous back history we come to understand why he acts the way he does. His actions are still cruel causing his adopted son to take over the team, so that he can take them to the easier path of Abilene. Wayne eventually succeeds in gathering enough supporters to chase after them, vowing to kill his beloved son. There is a bit of a Cain and Able biblical feel to the story as the inner love and respect that Wayne has for Cliff is obvious but his prideful character will not allow him to compromise. Until the required happy end forces the issue. The film shines when it concentrates on the characters and the emotions of its two protagonists. Walter Brennen playing Wayne’s best friend and side kick, serving as his conscience. The story itself and especially the ending are a bit forced. The happy end betrays the honesty shown previously in the movie. Wayne and Cliff are terrific in their roles allowing for the creation of believable characters that we care about. The characters and their history is what makes this a western worth seeing.
Rope
In 1924 a poor 14 year old boy named Bobby Franks was murdered for fun by two spoiled, rich monsters who were trying to commit the perfect murder. A despicable crime that was held in utter disbelief by the public at the time. In 1929 a play was written about this murder. Alfred Hitchcock saw this play and the story as an opportunity to experiment in film making. He wanted to make a movie that covers real-time. The 80 minutes of film would express 80 minutes of real time. Since he was a filmmaker and not a play director, he needed to create a way of editing that would seem seamless to the continuous story. The story had to be interesting as well. Hence he purchased this play. The play is a Post-Murder set up where there are two protagonists, who after killing one of their fellow students, store his body in a chest and host a dinner party at their Manhattan apartment. They use the Chest with the body in it as a buffet table. They invite a parent and the fiancé of their victim to this party in addition to three more people. One of the three is a former university professor who spoke to them a few years back about intellectual argument on murder and how it is used to give superiority over its victims. During the dinner one of the hosts gives subtle hints about the murdered boys absence to the dinner guests and these hints lead to a discussion of De Quincy’s, “Art of Murder”, which was the basis of the intellectual discussion they had with their professor. Real unease prevails due to these discussions, driving everyone except the professor to leave. He does not leave because he suspects he knows the truth, which he does. To tell this story Hitchcock made some fascinating experiments. He abandoned many standard film techniques due to the requirement of showing some very long and unbroken scenes. The movie was shot on one set (the apartment) and there was very little editing. Cameras were placed in various strategic locations and other cameras moved with the characters. The walls of the set were moveable and placed on wheels to allow the camera to roam freely. The windows had special designed and animated scenes for the window pictures of the Manhattan. The result gives the audience the feeling that they are in the apartment along with all of the characters and with the dead body. Since James Stewart plays the Professor we initially feel safe, being in his company, but later realized we were invited by two cold blooded murderers. This feeling brought a chill up my spine as well as with the Professor and the other guests. Only the professor stayed in the apartment as he discovered the horrible truth with us. The hideous nature of the personalities of our two murderers becomes more profound as the film advances. In the end we are given 80 minutes of tension and horror. Hitchcock created a technique that would be used later in many Horror movies. This technique involved a camera moving around in a set of terror with terrible people. At the time it was an experiment. An amazing experiment and an amazing, must see movie.
The Snake Pit
Hollywood would every once in a while during the 1940s attempt to make a serious film about a serious topic of affliction. Something that in our day in age is done more often on television rather than film. “The Snake Pit”, is one such film and concerns mental health, or the lack thereof. It is about a lady who is not mentally healthy. She hears voices and is paranoid during her breakdowns. Before her greatest breakdown she was well enough to get married to a nice man. After marriage, however, her breakdowns result in her being committed into a hospital for mental health. Something that was referred to in those days as an insane asylum. Here lies the power of this movie. The movie goes into great detail on treatment mentally ill people received during the time. We are told that mental patients are categorized, based on their sanity. This categorization is on many occasions determined by the opinion of the care givers in the asylum. Sometimes this is done with good will and thought and sometimes due to jealousy and ill thought. The movie sends our sick heroine, played Olivia De Havilland through many various experiences that were offered in these institutions. We have private analysis, experimental drugs and shock treatment. The snake put of the film title refers to the large room where the most hopeless patients are sent. They are left on their own to walk around ranting and raving without hope. These scenes of horrid conditions and medical abuse are powerful. Of course our heroine gets healthy in the end and we have a required Hollywood happy end. Regardless of the happy end, the Asylum scenes were revolutionary at the time. De Havilland and the film’s producers actually visited real asylums and spoke to real patients when preparing for the movie. De Havilland is brilliant in the role and proves herself at being a real first rate actress. The proof of the power of this movie is the fact that many states in the United States instigated reforms to their mental hospitals after watching this movies. When a movie succeeds in making changes in societ00y, then it must be special.
1001 Movies before you die 