Movie-Greats-A-Critical-Study-Of-Classic-Cinema.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Movie Greats This page intentionally left blank Movie Greats A Critical Study of Classic Cinema Philip Gillett Oxford • New York English edition First published in 2008 by Berg Editorial offi ces: First Floor, Angel Court, 81 St Clements Street, Oxford OX4 1AW, UK 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA © Philip Gillett 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the written permission of Berg. Berg is the imprint of Oxford International Publishers Ltd. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gillett, Philip (Philip John) Movie greats : a critical study of classic cinema / Philip Gillett. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-84520-652-9 (cloth) ISBN-10: 1-84520-652-5 (cloth) ISBN-13: 978-1-84520-653-6 (pbk.) ISBN-10: 1-84520-653-3 (pbk.) 1. Motion pictures. I. Title. PN1994.G533 2008 791.43—dc22 2008027331 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 978 1 84520 652 9 (Cloth) 978 1 84520 653 6 (Paper) Typeset by Apex CoVantage Printed in the United Kingdom by Biddles Ltd, King’s Lynn www.bergpublishers.com For Roz, with love This page intentionally left blank Contents Acknowledgements ix Introduction 1 1 So Who Says It’s Great? 3 2 The Celluloid Canon 13 3 The Battleship Potemkin (USSR, 1925): The Politics of the Cinema 27 4 The 39 Steps (GB, 1935): Romance on the Run 35 5 Modern Times (US, 1936): A Tramp for All Seasons 45 6 Citizen Kane (US, 1941): The Tragedy of Ambition 53 7 It’s a Wonderful Life (US, 1946): Seeking the American Hero 63 8 Black Narcissus (GB, 1947): Nuns in Exotic Places 71 9 The Night of the Hunter (US, 1955): Return of the Big Bad Wolf 81 10 Lawrence of Arabia (GB, 1962): An Englishman in the Sun 89 11 8½ (Italy/France, 1963): The Director as Superstar 99 12 2001: A Space Odyssey (GB/US, 1968): The Long Voyage to Destiny 107 13 The Godfather (US, 1972): Keeping It in the Family 117 14 Raging Bull (US, 1980): The Drama of the Fight 127 15 The Piano (Australia/NZ/France, 1993): Love in a Rough Place 135 – vii – viii • Contents 16 Kill Bill: Volume 1 (US, 2003): Violence as Art 143 17 The Tarnish on the Tinsel: Great Films Reconsidered 151 Notes 163 Further Reading 191 Bibliography 199 Index 223 Acknowledgements My thanks go to the library staff at Torbay, Bradford, Leeds, Manchester and the University of Exeter. They endured my pleas for help. Roz Ellis and Graham Derrick commented on early drafts. I am grateful to them and to Brian McFarlane and Keith Withall who readily answered my queries. Eric Fenwick identifi ed scriptural refer- ences and Archie Montgomery gave me an insight into morality in nineteenth-century Scotland. Needless to say, any errors are mine. Particular thanks go to Tristan Palmer of Berg Publishers for his encouragement when this book was just a bright idea. – ix – This page intentionally left blank Introduction How do fi lms achieve eminence? The question has troubled me ever since a friend admitted that he found Citizen Kane boring. My guilty secret was that I shared his feelings. This was suffi cient reason for reappraising the fi lm canon. Reputations once achieved are apt to be taken for granted even in academic circles. Who would admit that a work on every fi lm student’s curriculum is unworthy of study? A related issue is how we look at fi lms. Film-makers know instinctively that emo- tions come fi rst. As Ingmar Bergman put it: ‘Both fi lm and music bypass the intellect and assail the emotions. Both fi lm and music are rhythm, breathing—that is what I have learnt.’1 Film-makers seek to move audiences, eliciting tears, fear or laugh- ter. Academics follow in their wake, assessing and justifying, with the emotional response relegated to being a shabby adjunct which does not easily fi t within the critical apparatus. One consequence is a mismatch between what the public likes and what it should like. Horror fi lms seem condemned to remain marginal despite their popularity. This phenomenon is not peculiar to fi lm: crime novels and fantasy fi ction have a reputation for failing to win major literary prizes. The arts are judged by status as much as quality. This book seeks to reassess a selection of canonic fi lms more subjectively than usual. Some proved popular with the public; others did not. The opening chapter looks at how greatness is assessed in the arts and the usefulness of concepts such as the sublime, myth, ambiguity and the collective unconscious in understanding the phenomenon. A more subjective approach is introduced which foregrounds the emotions. The second chapter examines the fi lm canon and seeks to apply the sub- jective approach to fi lm. Each of the following fourteen chapters focuses on a fi lm which has garnered critical adulation and which disappoints me, the fi nal two being speculative entrants to the canon. Accolades can drown out dissenting voices, but the number of heretics is surprising. It is reassuring not to be in a minority of one. The fi nal chapter returns to the question of how some fi lms achieve prestige at the expense of others and the implications this has for our culture. Credits are transcribed from the fi lms, supplemented by information from the International Movie Database (IMDb) (http://imdb.com), the British Film Institute’s (BFI) Film and TV Database (http://www.bfi .org.uk/fi lmtvinfo/ftvdb), Film Refer- ence (http://www.fi lmreference.com) and AGP (http://www.agpfi lms.com/defaut.asp). Names become anglicized or shortened, so spellings may vary. Release dates are – 1 – 2 • Movie Greats as given in the IMDb. Useful sources not cited in the notes are listed as further read- ing. These fall into three categories: neglected works, seminal works applicable to my approach and relevant new material. Extensive use is made of internet sources. Quality is variable, but this applies to any medium. Changes in URLs pose a diffi - culty, but the information provided should allow works to be located using a search engine. –1– So Who Says It’s Great? Three Models of Greatness For those who consider themselves open to new ideas, ‘I know what I like,’ with its implications of narrow-mindedness and infl exibility, is not a remark which springs readily to the lips. Not that ‘I don’t know what I like’ is any better, with its tacit admis- sion of an inability to discriminate. The acceptable response lies somewhere between these extremes, assuming the whiff of compromise can be negotiated. We might keep quiet about what we like, but there is no shortage of voices eager to fi ll the silence. The media abound with recommendations for what we should see, read and hear. And we take heed. Art lovers worship at the shrine of the Mona Lisa. Musicians revere Bach’s unaccompanied violin works and the operas of Mozart, just as lovers of literature venerate Cervantes and Proust. Most of us recognize the pinnacles of our culture, if only by repute. We may have no liking for them: of those who embark on reading Proust, how many reach the fi nal page? And who would admit to preferring Stephen King? Just as recommendations are plentiful, so are study guides and critical analyses which help us to appreciate the works of Beethoven, Conrad, Ibsen, Turner, and so on. It is axiomatic that these fi gures are great. A consistent if partisan concern with how such judgements are made has troubled art critics from John Ruskin onwards. This concern has not been matched in the other arts. Such neglect is unsurprising given the arcane processes involved in elevating a work to greatness, which make choosing a pope seem a model of transparency. Three ways of attempting to cast light on how greatness emerges are the market model, the consensus model and the time model. If none provides a sure route to greatness, at least the journey should encourage caution about applying labels. The market model is precise but limited in its scope: CDs of Beethoven sympho- nies sell better than those of Havergal Brian; therefore Beethoven is the greater com- poser. This approach becomes problematic when Dan Brown is revealed as our greatest writer, with Agatha Christie taking the laurels in the longer term. Putting a monetary value on art means living with such anomalies, but at least it makes greatness quantifi - able. The market model can be seen operating in its purest form when collectors bid for works of art. If Jackson Pollock’s paintings command higher prices than those of Seurat, then Pollock is the greater painter. The snag is that when the public supports its – 3 – 4 • Movie Greats preferences with cash, popularity becomes a term of disdain rather than a signifi er of greatness. Reproductions of Constable’s paintings on tea towels have not enhanced his reputation, while Vladimir Tretchikoff and Jack Vetrianno remain beyond the critical pale despite their popularity, indicating how power is wielded in the art es- tablishment. This tension between art and commerce has a long history. At the fi rst Impressionist exhibition in 1874, Courbet rejected the usual practice of exhibits being chosen by judges in favour of asking artists to pay a modest fee. Was this a triumph for democracy or commerce? The music world is more democratic, or shows more commercial acumen, with fi gures such as Brian Eno and Frank Zappa probing the boundary zone between serious and popular music without losing their audiences.