FRITZ LANG En Projection Numérique

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

FRITZ LANG En Projection Numérique www.actioncinemas.com présente à l’ACTION CHRISTINE 4 rue Christine (6e) 01 43 25 85 78 action du 2 au 15 décembre 2009 CINÉMAS 2 films rares de FRITZ LANG en projection numérique EDWARD G. ROBINSON LaLa JOAN BENNETT RueRue RougeRouge “SCARLET STREET” avec Edward G. Robinson, Joan Bennett, Dan Duryea, Margaret Lindsay, Jess Baker, Rosalind Ivan, Arthur Loft, Charles Kemper, Russell Hicks, Vladimir Sokoloff Réalisation Fritz Lang Scénario Dudley Nichols d’après le roman et la pièce “La Chienne” de Georges de la Fouchardière & André Mouezy-Éon Image Milton Krasner Montage Arthur Hilton Musique Hans J. Salter Direction artistique Alexander Golitzen Décors Russell A. Gausman & Carl Lawrence Peintures de John Decker Producteur Fritz Lang Producteur exécutif Walter Wanger 1945 103mn Caissier d'âge mûr, marié à une femme acariâtre, Christopher Cross est un peintre amateur talen- tueux. Un jour, dans une rue de Greenwich village, il croit sauver une jeune femme d’une agression, Kitty, alors qu’en réalité elle se querellait avec son amant, Johnny. Christopher s'éprend de Kitty, dont un film de la paresse la pousse à la vénalité. Avec la compli- FRITZ LANG cité de Johnny, elle persuade Christopher de l'ins- taller dans un appartement somptueux où il pourra “SCARLET STREET” peindre son portrait. Bien qu'il doive détourner de l'argent de sa société pour entretenir luxueusement Kitty, Christopher se sent enfin heureux... Après le succès critique et publique de “La Femme au Portrait”, Fritz Lang s’associant à Walter Wanger, pro- ducteur et mari de Joan Bennett, fonda sa propre société de production Diana Productions, dont il détenait 55% des actions. Reprenant les trois acteurs principaux : E. G. Robinson, Joan Bennett et Dan Duryea, il réali- sa ce remake de “La chienne” de Renoir (projet que Lubitsch avait abandonné). Son but n’était pas d’en faire une copie, mais de se servir de l’intrigue générale. La Rue Rouge est un film noir, dans lequel les personnages mentent par omission ( et se mentent ), à commencer par cet employé âgé, peintre raté, qui s’illusionne sur sa relation avec cette jolie femme qui l’abuse, le soumettant finalement comme le fait sa mauvaise épouse. Mais, l’ironie cruelle de Lang, qui fait que les mensonges triomphent de la vérité, sert son propos, plus ample, sur la justice des hommes et plus généralement leurs comportements sociaux. En ce sens, Il nous offre un film grave, tourmenté par de préoccupations morales, et qui nous pose question par ses considérations sur l’illusion, la justice et la culpabilité. Lang réussit à persuader les censeurs que la culpabilité qui hanterait tout au long de sa vie cet homme médiocre à la vie ratée, serait un châtiment plus terrible que la justice humaine. Néanmoins le film fut interdit dans plusieurs états des USA, par les ligues morales qui y voyaient trop de scènes de “cham- bre” et trop de “déshabillés ” ! De même Lang ne put prendre la traduction dut titre original “The bitch”, trop cru, et lui donna le nom d’une rue de Greenwich village, “ Scarlet Street”, qui est celui de la putain de l’Apocalypse. HOUSEby the RIVER avec Louis Hayward, Jane Wyatt, Dorothy Patrick, Lee Bowman, Ann Shoemaker, Jody Gilbert, Sarah Padden, Peter Brocco, Howard Chamberlain, Leslie Kimmell, Effie Laird, Will Wright réalisation Fritz Lang Scénario Mel Dinelli d’après le roman “The House by the River” de A. P. Herbert Image Edward Cronjager Montage Arthur Hilton Musique George Antheil Direction artistique Boris Leven Décors John McCarthy & Charles S. Thompson Costumes Adele Palmer Producteur Howard Welsch 1950 88mn L'écrivain Stephen Byrne habite, avec sa femme Marjorie, une jolie maison près d’une rivière. C'est un écrivain raté et aigri. Un soir, en l'absence de sa femme, il tente d'a- buser de leur servante Emily, et comme elle se débat, il l'étrangle accidentellement. Il est surpris par son frère John qui lui conseille de tout révéler à la police. Stephen réussit à obtenir son silence en lui faisant croire que Marjorie est enceinte et que la révélation d'un tel acte lui serait fatal. Les deux hommes mettent alors en scène une fugue de la servante, font disparaître quelques-uns de ses effets personnels pour paraître crédibles, et jettent le corps d'Emily dans la rivière... «Je suis arrivé à la conclusion que l’esprit de chaque homme cache une impulsion latente pour le crime» disait Fritz Lang dans un entretien avec William Friedkin. Pour lui, la criminalité est la résultante d’une série de circonstances qui amènent l’individu au crime. Lang croyait en une certaine fatalité criminelle et refusait d’ailleurs qu’on dise qu’il avait fait des films sur des criminels ; pour lui, ses films parlaient de fléaux sociaux. Ainsi House by the River en est une parfaite illustration. Stephen, devenu assassin sans préméditation, par maladresse, va s’enfoncer dans la criminalité. Il va même se servir avec cynisme de son meurtre pour parvenir au succès littéraire. Toujours aussi maître de son art, Lang, par un effet de répétition d’images presque semblables, nous fait pénétrer dans l’esprit torturé de cet homme hanté par la culpabilité qui assaille sa conscience. Lang nous invite à voir la descente aux enfers d’un individu, frustré peut-être, mais normal, qui deviendra un être vicieux. Pulsion, refoulement, culpabilité, sont des thèmes récurrents de l’œuvre du maître. Sa mise en scène est sobre, sans effets superflus, mais d’une grande subtilité de narration due à un montage remarquable. L’ambiance oppressante du film est ren- due par une utilisation des décors qui semblent prendre part à l’action, des éclairages expressionnistes et travaillés, sublimés par la photographie fortement contrastée d’Edward Cronjager et au jeu halluciné de Louis Hayward. Plus qu’un film noir, c’est un drame intense dans lequel Lang traite de ses obses- sions psychanalytiques : la frustration, l’ambition, la culpabilité, les origines du mal... Longtemps absent des écrans français, ce film fut découvert en 1979 à la télévision grâce aux efforts de Pierre Rissient et Patrick Brion. Il tient sa place dans l’œuvre de Fritz Lang au même titre que ses films les plus connus. Ces films sont disponibles en DVD HOUSE BY THE RIVER en coffret (avec interview de Fritz Lang par William Friedkin) (exclusivité FNAC) LA RUE ROUGE en coffret (avec LA FEMME AU PORTRAIT + JEU DE LANG livre de Jean Ollé-Laprune) dans tous les magasins vidéo.
Recommended publications
  • Academy Committees 19~5 - 19~6
    ACADEMY COMMITTEES 19~5 - 19~6 Jean Hersholt, president and Margaret Gledhill, Executive Secretary, ex officio members of all committees. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SPECIAL DOCUMENTARY Harry Brand COMMITTEE lBTH AWARDS will i am Do z i e r Sidney Solow, Chairman Ray Heindorf William Dozier Frank Lloyd Philip Dunne Mary C. McCall, Jr. James Wong Howe Thomas T. Moulton Nunnally Johnson James Stewart William Cameron Menzies Harriet Parsons FINANCE COMMITTEE Anne Revere Joseph Si strom John LeRoy Johnston, Chairman Frank Tuttle Gordon Hollingshead wi a rd I h n en · SPECIAL COMMITTEE 18TH AWARDS PRESENTATION FILM VIEWING COMMITTEE Farciot Edouart, Chairman William Dozier, Chairman Charles Brackett Joan Harrison Will i am Do z i e r Howard Koch Hal E1 ias Dore Schary A. Arnold Gillespie Johnny Green SHORT SUBJECTS EXECUTIVE Bernard Herzbrun COMMI TTEE Gordon Hollingshead Wiard Ihnen Jules white, Chairman John LeRoy Johnston Gordon Ho11 ingshead St acy Keach Walter Lantz Hal Kern Louis Notarius Robert Lees Pete Smith Fred MacMu rray Mary C. McCall, Jr. MUSIC BRANCH EXECUTIVE Lou i s Mesenkop COMMITTEE Victor Milner Thomas T. Moulton Mario Caste1nuovo-Tedesco Clem Portman Adolph Deutsch Fred Ri chards Ray Heindorf Frederick Rinaldo Louis Lipstone Sidney Solow Abe Meyer Alfred Newman Herbert Stothart INTERNATIONAL AWARD Ned Washington COMM I TTEE Charles Boyer MUSIC BRANCH HOLLYWOOD Walt Disney BOWL CONCERT COMMITTEE wi 11 i am Gordon Luigi Luraschi Johnny Green, Chairman Robert Riskin Adolph Deutsch Carl Schaefer Ray Heindorf Robert Vogel Edward B. Powell Morris Stoloff Charles Wolcott ACADEMY FOUNDATION TRUSTEES Victor Young Charles Brackett Michael Curtiz MUSIC BRANCH ACTIVITIES Farc i ot Edouart COMMITTEE Nat Finston Jean Hersholt Franz Waxman, Chairman Y.
    [Show full text]
  • The Broken Ideals of Love and Family in Film Noir
    1 Murder, Mugs, Molls, Marriage: The Broken Ideals of Love and Family in Film Noir Noir is a conversation rather than a single genre or style, though it does have a history, a complex of overlapping styles and typical plots, and more central directors and films. It is also a conversation about its more common philosophies, socio-economic and sexual concerns, and more expansively its social imaginaries. MacIntyre's three rival versions suggest the different ways noir can be studied. Tradition's approach explains better the failure of the other two, as will as their more limited successes. Something like the Thomist understanding of people pursuing perceived (but faulty) goods better explains the neo- Marxist (or other power/conflict) model and the self-construction model. Each is dependent upon the materials of an earlier tradition to advance its claims/interpretations. [Styles-studio versus on location; expressionist versus classical three-point lighting; low-key versus high lighting; whites/blacks versus grays; depth versus flat; theatrical versus pseudo-documentary; variety of felt threat levels—investigative; detective, procedural, etc.; basic trust in ability to restore safety and order versus various pictures of unopposable corruption to a more systemic nihilism; melodramatic vs. colder, more distant; dialogue—more or less wordy, more or less contrived, more or less realistic; musical score—how much it guides and dictates emotions; presence or absence of humor, sentiment, romance, healthy family life; narrator, narratival flashback; motives for criminality and violence-- socio- economic (expressed by criminal with or without irony), moral corruption (greed, desire for power), psychological pathology; cinematography—classical vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Vs. Film: LA CHIENNE Vs. SCARLET STREET
    BOOK VS FILM Brian Light author’s commentary on the incestuous bed- counterpoint to the plotline. The book is fellows of art and commerce. frank in its depiction of the sordid relation- ew French writers in the first In his preface, de la Fouchardière calls ship between Lulu and Dédé and the pseudo half of the 20th century could attention to the theatrical staging used to romantic/financial arrangement between rival the output of Georges de set up the narrative structure of the story: Lulu and Legrand. la Fouchardière. He produced “I have chosen a technique borrowed from In 1931, Jean Renoir adapted the book 33 humorous novels and crime dramatic art…each of the characters who to the screen with the same title. An early Fthrillers, over a dozen of which were adapted participate in the story will in turn take the example of poetic realism, this was only for the screen in the 1920s and ’30s. He was a stage and tell in his own way about events Renoir’s second talking picture, and, to his prodigious journalist and devout pacifist who in which he has been implicated.” In chap- credit, he shot the entire film using actual covered WWI and WWII for two newspapers, ters titled “He,” “She,” and “The Other,” Parisian street locations. The preceding year La Vague and Paris-Soir, and he also wrote a we are provided with three distinct points of Alfred Knopf published an English transla- column for the weekly journal Paris-Sport. In view. “He” (Maurice Legrand) is the princi- tion of La Chienne, titled Poor Sap, which 1929, he published La Chienne (The Bitch), pal storyteller, and, as such, he is depicted enjoyed a second printing.
    [Show full text]
  • Fritz Lang © 2008 AGI-Information Management Consultants May Be Used for Personal Purporses Only Or by Reihe Filmlibraries 7 Associated to Dandelon.Com Network
    Fritz Lang © 2008 AGI-Information Management Consultants May be used for personal purporses only or by Reihe Filmlibraries 7 associated to dandelon.com network. Mit Beiträgen von Frieda Grafe Enno Patalas Hans Helmut Prinzler Peter Syr (Fotos) Carl Hanser Verlag Inhalt Für Fritz Lang Einen Platz, kein Denkmal Von Frieda Grafe 7 Kommentierte Filmografie Von Enno Patalas 83 Halbblut 83 Der Herr der Liebe 83 Der goldene See. (Die Spinnen, Teil 1) 83 Harakiri 84 Das Brillantenschiff. (Die Spinnen, Teil 2) 84 Das wandernde Bild 86 Kämpfende Herzen (Die Vier um die Frau) 86 Der müde Tod 87 Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler 88 Die Nibelungen 91 Metropolis 94 Spione 96 Frau im Mond 98 M 100 Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse 102 Liliom 104 Fury 105 You Only Live Once. Gehetzt 106 You and Me [Du und ich] 108 The Return of Frank James. Rache für Jesse James 110 Western Union. Überfall der Ogalalla 111 Man Hunt. Menschenjagd 112 Hangmen Also Die. Auch Henker sterben 113 Ministry of Fear. Ministerium der Angst 115 The Woman in the Window. Gefährliche Begegnung 117 Scarlet Street. Straße der Versuchung 118 Cloak and Dagger. Im Geheimdienst 120 Secret Beyond the Door. Geheimnis hinter der Tür 121 House by the River [Haus am Fluß] 123 American Guerrilla in the Philippines. Der Held von Mindanao 124 Rancho Notorious. Engel der Gejagten 125 Clash by Night. Vor dem neuen Tag 126 The Blue Gardenia. Gardenia - Eine Frau will vergessen 128 The Big Heat. Heißes Eisen 130 Human Desire. Lebensgier 133 Moonfleet. Das Schloß im Schatten 134 While the City Sleeps.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark Glancy: When Hollywood Loved Britain. the Hollywood 'British' film 2000
    Repositorium für die Medienwissenschaft Drew Bassett Mark Glancy: When Hollywood loved Britain. The Hollywood 'British' film 2000 https://doi.org/10.17192/ep2000.2.2765 Veröffentlichungsversion / published version Rezension / review Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Bassett, Drew: Mark Glancy: When Hollywood loved Britain. The Hollywood 'British' film. In: MEDIENwissenschaft: Rezensionen | Reviews, Jg. 17 (2000), Nr. 2, S. 204–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17192/ep2000.2.2765. Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Deposit-Lizenz (Keine This document is made available under a Deposit License (No Weiterverbreitung - keine Bearbeitung) zur Verfügung gestellt. Redistribution - no modifications). We grant a non-exclusive, Gewährt wird ein nicht exklusives, nicht übertragbares, non-transferable, individual, and limited right for using this persönliches und beschränktes Recht auf Nutzung dieses document. This document is solely intended for your personal, Dokuments. Dieses Dokument ist ausschließlich für non-commercial use. All copies of this documents must retain den persönlichen, nicht-kommerziellen Gebrauch bestimmt. all copyright information and other information regarding legal Auf sämtlichen Kopien dieses Dokuments müssen alle protection. You are not allowed to alter this document in any Urheberrechtshinweise und sonstigen Hinweise auf gesetzlichen way, to copy it for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the Schutz beibehalten werden. Sie dürfen dieses Dokument document in public, to perform, distribute, or otherwise use the nicht in irgendeiner Weise abändern, noch dürfen Sie document in public. dieses Dokument für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke By using this particular document, you accept the conditions of vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, aufführen, vertreiben oder use stated above. anderweitig nutzen. Mit der Verwendung dieses Dokuments erkennen Sie die Nutzungsbedingungen an.
    [Show full text]
  • Ronald Davis Oral History Collection on the Performing Arts
    Oral History Collection on the Performing Arts in America Southern Methodist University The Southern Methodist University Oral History Program was begun in 1972 and is part of the University’s DeGolyer Institute for American Studies. The goal is to gather primary source material for future writers and cultural historians on all branches of the performing arts- opera, ballet, the concert stage, theatre, films, radio, television, burlesque, vaudeville, popular music, jazz, the circus, and miscellaneous amateur and local productions. The Collection is particularly strong, however, in the areas of motion pictures and popular music and includes interviews with celebrated performers as well as a wide variety of behind-the-scenes personnel, several of whom are now deceased. Most interviews are biographical in nature although some are focused exclusively on a single topic of historical importance. The Program aims at balancing national developments with examples from local history. Interviews with members of the Dallas Little Theatre, therefore, serve to illustrate a nation-wide movement, while film exhibition across the country is exemplified by the Interstate Theater Circuit of Texas. The interviews have all been conducted by trained historians, who attempt to view artistic achievements against a broad social and cultural backdrop. Many of the persons interviewed, because of educational limitations or various extenuating circumstances, would never write down their experiences, and therefore valuable information on our nation’s cultural heritage would be lost if it were not for the S.M.U. Oral History Program. Interviewees are selected on the strength of (1) their contribution to the performing arts in America, (2) their unique position in a given art form, and (3) availability.
    [Show full text]
  • Kipling, Masculinity and Empire
    Kunapipi Volume 18 Issue 1 Article 10 1996 America's Raj: Kipling, Masculinity and Empire Nicholas J. Cull Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/kunapipi Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Cull, Nicholas J., America's Raj: Kipling, Masculinity and Empire, Kunapipi, 18(1), 1996. Available at:https://ro.uow.edu.au/kunapipi/vol18/iss1/10 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] America's Raj: Kipling, Masculinity and Empire Abstract The posters for Gunga Din promised much: 'Thrills for a thousand movies, plundered for one mighty show'. That show was a valentine to the British Raj, in which three sergeants (engagingly played by Cary Grant, Victor McLaglen, and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.) defeat marauding hoards of 'natives' with the aid of their 'Uncle Tom' water bearer, Gunga Din (Sam Jaffe)[Plate VII]. Audiences loved it. Its racism notwithstanding, even an astute viewer like Bertolt Brecht confessed: 'My heart was touched ... f felt like applauding and laughed in all the right places'. 1 Outwardly the film had little ot do with the United States. Most of the cast were British-born and its screenplay claimed to be 'from the poem by Rudyard Kipling' .2 Yet the film was neither British or faithful ot Kipling, but solidly American: directed by George Stevens for RKO, with a screenplay by Oxford-educated Joel Sayre and Stevens's regular collaborator Fred Guiol.3 This journal article is available in Kunapipi: https://ro.uow.edu.au/kunapipi/vol18/iss1/10 America's Raj: Kipling, Masculinity, and Empire 85 NICHOLAS J.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Film Noir
    COMPLETE FILM NOIR (1940 thru 1965) Page 1 of 18 CONSENSUS FILM NOIR (1940 thru 1959) (1960-1965) dThe idea for a COMPLETE FILM NOIR LIST came to me when I realized that I was “wearing out” a then recently purchased copy of the Film Noir Encyclopedia, 3rd edition. My initial plan was to make just a list of the titles listed in this reference so I could better plan my film noir viewing on AMC (American Movie Classics). Realizing that this plan was going to take some keyboard time, I thought of doing a search on the Internet Movie DataBase (here after referred to as the IMDB). By using the extended search with selected criteria, I could produce a list for importing to a text editor. Since that initial list was compiled almost twenty years ago, I have added additional reference sources, marked titles released on NTSC laserdisc and NTSC Region 1 DVD formats. When a close friend complained about the length of the list as it passed 600 titles, the idea of producing a subset list of CONSENSUS FILM NOIR was born. Several years ago, a DVD producer wrote me as follows: “I'd caution you not to put too much faith in the film noir guides, since it's not as if there's some Film Noir Licensing Board that reviews films and hands out Certificates of Authenticity. The authors of those books are just people, limited by their own knowledge of and access to films for review, so guidebooks on noir are naturally weighted towards the more readily available studio pictures, like Double Indemnity or Kiss Me Deadly or The Big Sleep, since the many low-budget B noirs from indie producers or overseas have mostly fallen into obscurity.” There is truth in what the producer says, but if writers of (film noir) guides haven’t seen the films, what chance does an ordinary enthusiast have.
    [Show full text]
  • Joe Breen's Oscar
    Dickinson College Dickinson Scholar Faculty and Staff Publications By Year Faculty and Staff Publications 2005 Joe Breen's Oscar Stephen Weinberger Dickinson College Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Film Production Commons Recommended Citation Weinberger, Stephen. "Joe Breen's Oscar." Film History 17, no. 4 (2005), 380-391. This article is brought to you for free and open access by Dickinson Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Film History, Volume 17, pp. 380–391, 2005. Copyright © John Libbey Publishing ISSN: 0892-2160. Printed in United States of America Joe Breen’s Oscar Joe Breens Oscar Stephen Weinberger t the twenty-sixth Academy Awards ceremo- A raconteur par excellance, Breen delighted in nies held on the evening of 25 March 1954, relating, often to people who had heard the stories Asomething quite remarkable occurred, al- before, and in various forms, how he had bested the though it attracted little attention at the time. Hollywood moguls. How, for example, at a meeting As often happens at this event, one film swept most with Harry Warner to discuss the Catholic boycott of ofthe awards. From HeretoEternity won eightOscars, Warner theaters in Philadelphia, the stressed-out including those for best picture, best supporting actor president of Warner Brothers began ‘shedding tears and actress, best director, and best screenplay. the size of horse turds and pleading for someone to In addition to the usual categories, there were get him off the hook’.2 Or how, at his first meeting four honorary Oscars awarded that night.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with John Howard Lawson Author(S): John Howard Lawson, Dave Davis and Neal Goldberg Source: Cinéaste, Vol
    ORGANIZING THE SCREEN WRITERS GUILD: An Interview with John Howard Lawson Author(s): John Howard Lawson, Dave Davis and Neal Goldberg Source: Cinéaste, Vol. 8, No. 2 (1977), pp. 4-11, 58 Published by: Cineaste Publishers, Inc Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41685800 . Accessed: 15/02/2014 06:06 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cineaste Publishers, Inc is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cinéaste. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.59.62.83 on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 06:06:01 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions /';-=09 )(8*=-0/'] This content downloaded from 128.59.62.83 on Sat, 15 Feb 2014 06:06:01 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions OnAugust 11, 1977, former screenwriter JohnHoward Lawson died in somemeasure ofcontrol over their own work. Mt.Zion Hospital, San Francisco, at the age of 82. Lawson'sreputation Forhis efforts, Lawson was blacklisted in 1947, as a memberof the restson hisscripts (BLOCKADE, SAHARA, ALGIERS, COUNTER- Hollywood10.He was the first "unfriendly" witness todefy the House Un-
    [Show full text]
  • Ambivalence As a Theme in "On the Waterfront" (1954): an Interdisciplinary Approach to Film Study Author(S): Kenneth Hey Source: American Quarterly, Vol
    Ambivalence as a Theme in "On the Waterfront" (1954): An Interdisciplinary Approach to Film Study Author(s): Kenneth Hey Source: American Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 5, Special Issue: Film and American Studies (Winter, 1979), pp. 666-696 Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2712431 Accessed: 02/07/2010 10:41 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Quarterly. http://www.jstor.org AMBIVALENCE AS A THEME IN ON THE WATERFRONT (1954): AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH TO FILM STUDY KENNETH HEY BrooklynCollege of theCity University of New York THE STUDY OF FILM IN AMERICAN CULTURE POSES SOME INTERESTING challengesto theperson using an interdisciplinarymethod.
    [Show full text]
  • John Ford's Stagecoach
    LELAND POAGUE 3 That Past, This Present Historicizing John Ford, 1939 Though its credit sequence features a montage of leisurely move- ments – shots of a stagecoach and its escort moving one way; of U.S. cavalry, then Apache warriors, the other; of the stagecoach again, sans escort, as if returning – Stagecoach proper begins with riders gal- loping hell-bent-for-leather almost directly toward the camera, in a long shot.1 This shot then dissolves to an army outpost on the edge of nowhere, hitching rails to frame left, tents and camp furniture and a flag staff to frame right. A bugle blows. The stars and stripes ascend the pole in the background while the riders pass back-to- front through the frame. A more visually and dramatically central flag raising occurs at the end of Drums Along the Mohawk, another 1939 John Ford film involving frontier outposts, besieged settlers, sinister aristocrats, newborn infants, and courage tested by combat or contest. And it concludes, almost as Stagecoach begins, with a dis- play of the national banner. Few of the Revolutionary-era characters who watch its ascent in Drums have ever seen the flag before; the symbolism of its stars and stripes must literally be explained. And individual “watchers” are picked out by Ford’s camera and cutting to witness its ascent, as if they were watching on our behalf. Claudette Colbert’s Lana Martin thinks the flag is “pretty”; a black woman, Daisy, Mrs. McKlennar’s “servant,” looks up tearfully; Blue Back, a Christian Indian, offers salute; and Henry Fonda’s Gil Martin gets a good eyeful and says it’s “time to get back to work” because there’s a “heap to do from now on.” 82 HISTORICIZING JOHN FORD, 1939 83 It is the work of this essay to investigate the historicity of John Ford’s films and filmmaking in 1939, commonly regarded as Hollywood’s and Ford’s most “spectacularly prolific” year.2 I invoke a portion of that history as prologue in order to acknowledge the necessary partiality of the enterprise.
    [Show full text]