Ennio Morricone 1928 to 2020

I heard the news of Ennio Morricone death on BBC radio on the afternoon of July 6th, 2020. So, after tea, I played my tape recording of his composition that accompanied The Mission (1986). The following days I revisited Nuovo Cinema Paradiso (the director’s cut, 1991). I was, though, also tempted by Once Upon a Time in the West/ / C’era una volta il West (1968), Burn! / Queimada (1969), The Star Maker / L’uomo delle stelle (1995) and The Mission itself, [all since revisited]. For over five decades, from the mid-1960s, many of the most pleasurable moments in cinemas were listening as the moving images were enhanced by Morricone’s compositions. IMDB lists 520 compositions for film, television and other media products. Apparently one was the music to accompany the logo of the 1978 World Cup. I have only seen a fraction of these. The most recent being Quentin Tarantino’s fine The Hateful Eight (2015) where the music was enhancing a 70mm print in full Ultra Panavision. This was the only title that won Morricone an Academy Award, though he did receive five other nominations and numerous other awards. Some of the titles, I know, were not particular good films. But many were fine examples even discounting the music; and Morricone worked with a whole number of really fine film-maker.

Now, happily, the BBC Radio series, Composer of the Week, has been devoted to Morricone. Donald Macleod presented five episodes of an hour each detailing Morricone’s career with numerous themes and excerpts from his film scores and some examples of his concert compositions, mainly avant-garde; for example ‘Concerto for Orchestra’ (1957|). Macleod also discusses Morricone’s work of arranging and orchestrating popular songs; one treat is a new [for me] encounter with a splendid version of Woody Guthrie’s ‘Pastures of Plenty’. And Macleod notes the importance in Morricone’s career of his life-long partner Maria Travia, his addiction to chess and his Catholicism. There is also noted his exstensive international concert tours, conducting his music. If you can access BBC Sounds then the programme are available for a month. It is a real pleasure to listen to, Inevitably, given the vast output of Morricone some favourites are missing; I would have liked to hear something from the scores of Queimada (1959) or 1900 (1976). However, it is an excellent overview and a worthy tribute.

Morricone’s output included the really fine films above. It also included films of lesser quality; the weakest I have seen is The Scarlet and the Black (TV 1983). In term of the material that Morricone worked on it is difficult to pin down. He worked across genres, national cinemas and, to a degree, between mainstream and alternative cinemas. Clearly he had close working relationships with some directors; notable Sergio Leone for whom he composed his most memorable scores. The final crane shot of Once Upon a Time in the West where Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale) brings water to the workers on the transforming railway, gets much of its grandeur from the music. Another great partnership was with Gillo Pontecorvo. They shared the credits on The Battle of Algiers / La battaglia di Algeri (1966). Much of the music came from Pontecorvo though the score includes material that fits the Pontecorvo’s profile and music that fits that of Morricone; One virtue they shared was a preference for counterpoint; exemplified in the gripping long sequence as women members of the Front de libération nationale plant bombs in the European sector; moving from an insistent and powerful drumming to the solemn music of Bach. There is a sort of combination of these two strands in the climax of The Mission as the European colonialists massacre the indigenous Indians. Some of Morricone’s best music came with his work with Giuseppe Tornatore. In Nuovo Cinema Paradiso, apart from the great themes, there is the recurring wind chime which becomes a motif in the life of Salvatore (Jacques Perrin).  And there are equally fine examples in the films of Bernardo Bertolucci and Pier Paulo Pasolini. All these film-makers, like Morricone himself, have benefitted from fine work by craft- people: including musicians, cinematographers, editors and sound engineers.

Musically [in my limited repertoire] Morricone was a modernist, involved in two important modern circles of composers. And he bought this experience and predilection to his film scores. That he is so influential as a composer is down to the innovatory approach found in the films that he worked on. The use of voice and electronic in For a Few Dollars More  / Per qualche dollaro in più (1965) had a formatives effect on films and, in particular, the western genre. Sitting in a cinema at that time and hearing the music and sounds for the first time was amazing.

Morricone was skilled in using unusual and indigenous instruments and indigenous musical forms. These can be heard in numerous examples in his film compositions. Ennio Morricone skill with the human voice meant that he also wrote for many talented singers. And he regularly provided concert music, performing at age 90 only a year before his death. Pinning down his politics is tricky as the films he worked on embrace a wide range of values. But among these are many films with a strong and subversive political content. He composed the score for the 1971 film Sacco e Vansetti [victims of the one of those oppressive decades in US history, the 1920s], including a very fine style folk song.

It is reassuring to know that so many of the films that he scored have entered canons of acclaimed titles. So we can be confident that we will continue to hear his fine film music for years to come; in concert, on recordings and in the cinema.

Check out the opening credit sequence of The Hateful Eight and Morricone conducting the recording of the score for the opening sequence in the film. Happily shown locally in Barnsley’s Parkway Cinema from a 70mm print in full UltraPanavision.

The Artist and the Model / El artista y la modelo, Spain / France, 2012.

I saw this film in the last weekend before the Xmas holiday in 2013, a confirmation of the advice I received – wait till the end of December to make your list of the year’s favourites; something a number of critics fail to do, including for Sight & Sound. I saw it at the cinema but have not come across it again since, but it is listed on the BFI Player. There are a number of reasons for seeing and enjoying this film. One is the fine script by Jean-Claude Carrière, arguably the finest writer in European films for several decades. Another is the direction by Fernando Trueba who also collaborated on the script. Thirdly would be the excellent black and white anamorphic cinematography by Daniel Vilar. And finally the sensitively attuned set of performances by the cast. What a pleasure to see both Jean Rochefort (Marc Cros) and Claudia Cardinale (Lèa) together again, as husband and wife, after long and distinguished careers.

The film charts the changing relationship between the elderly sculptor (Cros) and a young, beautiful model, Mercè (Aida Folch). The story is centrally about art and the search for beauty. But it is also about sexuality, obsession, gender relations and the relations between generations. These are abiding concerns of Jean-Claude Carrière. But his writing also neatly brings in social, cultural and political dimensions. So the action is set in Perpignan in the later stages of World War II. Mercè is a refugee from Spain, at one time imprisoned by the Franco fascist regime. In the course of the film we also meet Werner (Götz Otto) a serving Wehrmacht officer but also an academic involved in art history and an admirer of Cros’ work. Then there is Pierre (Martin Gamet) involved in the Spanish underground. We also get beautifully realised cameos of life in Perpignan and delightfully brief glimpses of local children and their catholic pastor. There is a particular critical tendency that tends to elevate ‘universal stories’ as the elixir of cinema. For me great movies are grounded in time, place and character. This is what Carrière absolutely does.

Trueba’s direction serves this presentation well. The mise en scène is both graceful and complementary. The interiors of the artist’s studio comment subtly on the creative and emotional process. There are some fine tracking shots and a series of dissolves that are the best I have seen for a long time. The soundtrack is predominately natural sound. The only two pieces of composed music are by Duke Ellington and Gustav Mahler, which will give you a sense of the trajectory of the story. Carrière and Trueba also draw fine distinctions between the sequences where Mercè is a model and an object of gaze and those where the artist and the model interact. There is a lovely sequence with Cros showing Mercè a drawing by Rembrandt.

Some of the art references (e.g. Matisse and Cézanne) seem a little obvious. And the closing shot of the penultimate sequence seems rather conventional. But the film holds one’s attention whilst suggesting a whole range of thoughts and emotions.

The film has a mixture of French and Spanish with English subtitles.

Note, shortly afterwards i saw another fine Carrière  scripted film The Patience Stone.

Richard Attenborough’s guest appearances on film.

Ricjhard Attenborough as Albert Blossom

Doctor Doolittle, USA 1967

Doctor Doolittle is a vetinarian who can talk to animals. To help Doolittle earn money for his expedition, a friend sends him a rare pushmi-pullyu, which is a creature that looks like a llama with a head on each end of its body and that likes to dance. Doolittle takes the pushmi-pullyu to a nearby circus run by Albert Blossom, and it becomes the star attraction. Richard Attenborough plays the circus owner Albert Blossom with with a stand-out musical performance rendering ‘I’ve Never Seen Anthing Like It’ as a

“rumbustious piece of circus capering…” (Monthly Film Bulletin February 1958.

In de Luxe and Todd AO, running time 152 minutes; distributed in both 35mm and 70mm prints.

The Magic Christian, Britain 1969

This is a Peter Sellers vehicle and he plays Sir Guy Grand, an exocentric billionaire, who lavished money on elaborate practical jokes. One of these is to sabotage the Oxford / Cambridge boat race by bribing the Oxford coach to deliberately ram the Cambridge boat. Richard Attenborough plays the coach and [mercifully] is only seen in long shot with his back to the camera and most of the dialogue

In Technicolor, 1.85:1 and running time 92 minutes

David Copperfield, Britain 1969

A TV movie produced by C20th Fox Television: it had has a limited release in cinemas in Britain: and was  screened in Britain on ITV. Richard Attenborough plays Mr Tungay who is assistant and caretaker to  Mr Creakle, headmaster at the Salem House school.

In Technicolor and academy ratio, running time two hours

E=mc2 / Wavelength, Britain 1996

The title is a famous equation by Einstein and the plot concerns the professional and personal life of an oxford academic physicist. Richard Attenborough plays the Visitor. The film seems to only have had cinema screenings at a U.S festival and then gone to video.

In Technicolor, running time 94 minutes

Hamlet, Britain 1996

This is a full-length version of William Shakespeare’s play directed by Kenneth Branagh. There are numerous cameos in the film with Richard Attenborough playing the English Ambassador. He appears in the concluding sequence with just a few lines of dialogue; reporting on the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

In Technicolor and Panavision Super 70, released in both 70mm at 2.20:1 and 35mm at 2.39.1, running time 242 minutes with a shorter release version in some territories

Richard Attenborough as the English Ambassador

The Lost World Jurassic Park, USA 1997

This is the first sequel to the original Jurassic Park.  The action  takes place on a second Island where the prehistoric animals now survive. Richard Attenborough reprises his role as John Hammond. At the start of the film he is seen with Dr. Ian Malcom  [Jeff Goldblum again], deplaning the threat posed to the animals by plans for a new theme park on the U.S. mainland. After Malcom, with help, has thwarted the evolving disaster we see Hammond again on the television, happily explanting the island with be an animal sanctuary. Not  a patch on the original despite Steven Spielberg again directing.

In De Luxe and released in 185:1, running time 129 minutes; English dialogue with some Spanish.

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Britain 1999

The film version reduces the running time from two hours to 76 minutes. The setting is a London school which opens cut into imagined locations. The songs are passable but the choreography and dances are not. The sets and costumes are over-the-top an often banal. The cast appear to be performing as if for a stage pantomime, excepting a the London school children in the performance. Richard Attenborough appears first as the head teacher of the school and gain at the end. In between he is Jacob, the patriarch and father of Joseph. He appears in five sequences, reciting in recitative in several: joining in a dance in one; and leading a chorus at the finale. The best that can be said of his performance is that it is less over-the-top than the rest of the performers. It only enjoyed limited cinema screenings and was mainly distributed on  video; a sign of its quality or lack of it.

In colour and realesed in 1.55:1 [an odd ratio], runing times between 70 and 80 minutes.

The Railway Children, Britain 2000

This is a TV version by Carlton television. It fails to equal or surpass the popular film version from 1970; though Jenny Aguter re-appears, this time as the mother, Richard Attenborough plays the Old Gentleman who is first seen waving back at the children from a the rear carriage of the a passing train. Later, when mother is ill, he responds to  Bobbie’s letter (Jemina Rooper) with a hamper of food. He then turns out to be a director of the Rail Company and presents the children with their reward for averting a train crash. He then assists the Russian émigré, who stays with the family, in finding his wife an d reuniting them. And finally he is instrumental in the review of the treason charge against the children’s father who is them freed from, prison and reunited with the family. However, despite this important contribution to the resolution the Old gentleman is not seen at the finale. Attenborough imbues the role with the kindly bonhomie seen in earlier roles.

In colour and academy ratio, running time 108 minutes

Richard Attenborough also had a number of television appearances; an interesting one as a reporter interviewing Michael Balcon in a seemingly deserted Ealing Studio. And there are a number of studies and tributes, including one on the South Bank Show.

Closing the Ring, Britain / Canda / USA 2007

Richard Attenborough with Mischa Barton on the set of Teddy’s house

This turned out to be Attenborough’s final film as a director. The film was scripted by Peter Woodward. He was an actor, also a stuntman and then fight arranger. He branched out into post-production, including some script writing and scripted and produced a feature film. This was his first film as the scriptwriter proper. The basic idea seems to have been prompted by the discovery of an old gold wedding ring on an Irish hill. However, quite a lot has been added in the final film version.

The film has two main settings and cuts between them during World War II and the 1990s. The flashback structure is complex but relies on cast or locations to tie the plotting together. And important aspect of the plot only become clear to the audience at the climax.

The film opens in 1991 at a funeral in rural Michigan, in the North East USA. This obsequies for Chuck Harris are attended by a number of US war veterans. The eulogy is delivered by his daughter Marie (Neve Campbell). His widow, Ethel Ann (Shirley MacLaine) sits in the church porch, apparently drunk and supported by a close friend Jack Etty (Christopher Plummer). Following the graveside ritual it becomes apparent that Marie is furious with her mother and that there is a history of marital and maternal discord in the family.

In 1941 we meet the young Ethel Ann (Mischa Barton). She is friendly with a trio of young men; Teddy Gordon (Stephen Arnell): the young Jack Etty (Gregory Smith): and the young Chuck Harris (David Alpay). All three men are enamoured with Ethel Ann but she loves Teddy. A poor boy from farming stock. Teddy is building a house for himself and for Ethel Ann. All three friends are signed up for the USAF. When Pearl Harbour happens all three are called to service. Before they leave Teddy asks that if he does not return one of the others should care for Ethel Ann and selects Chuck. It is clear that despite his apparent disinclination Jack is upset by this.

In the same year in Belfast we meet the young Michael Quinlan (John Travers), working in the fire service during heavy bombing raids on the city. And in a scene in an air raid shelter we  meet the young Eleanor Riley  (Kirsty Stuart), an attractive girl with a reputation as a flirt. We also meet the young Cathal Thomas (Matthew McElhinney), a republican activist. In Belfast 1991 Eleanor now is a single mother with a son Jimmy (Martin McCann). On the Black Mountain [more a hill, just over a 1,000 foot in height], overlooking the city, Jimmy meets the older Quinlan (Peter Postlethwaite) who searches the mountain for debris from a B-17 bomber that crashed in 1944. Helping Quinlan Jimmy finds a gold and inscribed wedding ring. A complication for the future is that the mountain is also used as an observation post by the older Cathal (Ian McElhinney). And Cathal himself is being trailed by protestant members of Special Branch.

Jimmy brings the two separate groups, Michigan and Belfast, together when he manages to identify Ethel Ann as one of the names inscribed on the ring; the other is Teddy. The couple went through a non-legal marriage ceremony before he departed for war service. Jimmy is threatened by both the IRA and the Specials so Quinlan gives him the money to leave Belfast and he travels to  Michigan. His arrival brings the ghosts of the past to the surface for Ethel Ann, Jack and Marie. We learn that Jack had do tell Ethel Ann that Teddy had died. After a number of years she married Chuck but a wall of memorabilia for Teddy was kept and covered by a partition. This is now revealed to the anguished Marie, who leaves home.

Jimmy returns to Belfast but Ethel Ann follows. We learn that Jack and Teddy were flying in the same B-17 crew. However at a dance where Jack was dating Eleanor he and Teddy fought over Ethel Ann. Jack injured his leg and so did not fly next day. It was on the return from that bombing mission that the B-17 crashed into the mountain, killing the crew including Teddy. The final revelation occurs at the climax. A street bomb explodes killing a British soldier. Ethel Ann seems to find this a parallel to the death of Teddy and goes to cradle the dead body. But there is another second bomb. Quinlan manages to pull Ethel Ann away and then tells her that he was on the mountain when the B-17 crashed. He heard Teddy’s dying words for Ethel Ann; that she should be free to choose who she loves. Qunlan’s searches on the mountain were to find the ring that Teddy asked him to return to Ethel Ann.

In parallel on the hill Jimmy stumbles on Cathal who is shot by the Specials but dying sets off the second bomb, but no-one further is injured. Freed of past traumas Ethel Ann and Jack start a relationship and they are seen walking up a hill whilst Eleanor,  Jimmy and Quinlan are last seen at a picnic overlooking both the city and the sea.

The film received mixed reviews from critics. It failed at the box office taking far less in receipts than the production costs. IMDB states that it only received a video release in the USA. The film had a number of problems, many related to the basic script. The story seems to fail with the long arm of coincidence. The ring is found by Jimmy whilst Quinlan has spent fifty years searching; and just at the moment that Ethel Ann has become a widow and is therefore free for a new relationship. Jack conveniently breaks his ankle the night before the flight that ends in a crash; and the fledging replacement navigator appears to be lost just before it happens. And the use of time and space seems especially convenient. Teddy tells his friends he is broke which is why he is building the house himself. Yet in the space of less than a year it is completed and furnished. And Jimmy travels all the way to  Michigan from Ireland, seemingly with few problems en route; his first aviation trip.

The production values on the film are fine. Several of Attenborough’s regular collaborators worked on it. Roger Pratt’s cinematography is well done and there are overhead travelling crane shots, an Attenborough favourite. One opens the film and the closing shot is a reverse away from the final family event. Lesley Walker edits the film with real skill; some of the cuts are  brief shot, often of MacLaine, and then returning to the prior setting. This is assisted by the music, by Jeff Dana, with an Irish lilt for shots presenting Belfast.

The cast performances are pretty uneven, to a degree limited by the writing. MacLaine is convincing but overall it seems a little one-note. Plummer has the best of the writing and is a strong performance. Neve Campbell seems just angry and frustrated and little else. In the past neither Mischa Barton or Steve Arnell convince; their performances are all on the surface without much inner passion. Gregory Smith as young Jack is the strongest of this quartet. The Irish characters are better. Both Postlethwaite and Brenda Fricker are interesting whilst Martin McCann does well as Jimmy but the character as written does not really seem up to the various actions in which he is involved. There are a number or minor characters; two older women, neighbours of Eleanor and Jimmy, seem just caricatures.

Martin Martin McCann and Peter Postlethwaite on Black Mountain

One problem in the narrative is that we have this group of older characters, all with blighted lives. And it all seems rather unnecessary. The promise extracted by Teddy which imprisons Ethel Ann is not really convincing. And equally Teddy’s dying plea to the young Quinlan does not carry conviction either. And there is a gender problem here as well. We have five leading male characters and three leading female characters. Yet all of the latter are objects of the male characters. Eleanor is the freest of these but even her role is as mother to Jimmy. Even at the end Ethel Ann is still tied in the friendship circle set up in 1941.

There is also a problem with the sub-plot involving the IRA and the British security services. Some reviews commented on it as unnecessary. Certainly the only point in the plot where these activities matter is at the climax when Ethel Ann cradles the dead British soldier, killed by an IRA bomb. But what is supposed to be the relationship between him and Ethel Ann’s lost Teddy? It feels like a convenient add-on in order to make a point about the war in occupied Ireland, euphemistically known as ‘The Troubles’. It is not clear from the credits if anyone involved in the production had a particular stance to follow. As usual when British film-makers essay on this war there is little understanding of what is actually involved. The portrait of Cathal is typically that of a terrorist, and whilst the Special Branch characters are also violent and unpleasant there is no attempt to give them real context or motivation. There is no obvious production member with an interest in the war in occupied Ireland. However, Richard Attenborough frequently voiced his preference for non-violent resistance; he may have wanted to critically present armed resistance in Ireland.

The film is also interesting for another facet of the Attenborough thematic concerns. The bulk of his film output is historical and biopic; and there is a some of this in this film and in the preceding three titles. But all four films also privilege romances that in some way are cut short or unfulfilled. Shadowlands seems to me the best with the love between  C. S. Lewis and Joy Gresham. It struck me as the most effective of the four, partly because the settings reinforce the emotions in the relationship. In Love and War has the young Hemingway failing and then spurning a the love of Agnes. In this film the relationship does not quite add up to the historical characters. Grey Owl has the couple of Archie and Pony leaving for the wilderness where he dies; though in fact he had already started a new relationship with another woman. And in Closing the Ring Ethel Ann and Jack only start their relationship in their declining years, blighted by the actions of fifty years earlier. What stand out about Shadowlands is that it relies on a Britain that Attenborough knew well and appreciated. The following three are all, to some degree, set in foreign territories, and this seems to weaken the romantic and dramatic thrust of the later films.

Technicolor in 1.85:1, running time 118 minutes

 

Grey Owl, Britain / Canda 1999

“I found our eighth and most testing project in, of all places, my GP’s waiting room. Leafing through a tattered copy of Country Life, I came across a photograph of an imposing Red Indian chief, clad in the full regalia including a huge eagle-feather war bonnet. From the accompanying story, I learned that, before he was exposed as an impostor in the late 1930s, this extraordinary character – real nationality English, real name Archie Belaney – had toured Britain under his assumed Native Canadian identity, lecturing among other venues, at the De Montfort Hall in Leicester.” (Attenborough’s memoir, page 151)

This is a biopic but one that takes great liberties with the actual story of the titular character.

Helpfully Wikipedia summarises his life;

“Archibald Stansfeld Belaney (September 18, 1888 – April 13, 1938), commonly known as Grey Owl, was a popular writer, public speaker and conservationist. Born an Englishman, in the latter years of his life he passed as half-Indian, claiming he was the son of a Scottish man and an Apache woman. With books, articles and public appearances promoting wilderness conservation, he achieved fame in the 1930s. Shortly after his death in 1938, his real identity as the Englishman Archie Belaney was exposed.”

This is followed by a detailed history and it is worth noting that the film is vague on many dates. The film’s story seems to cover from the mid-1920s to Archie death in 1938, then in his forties. Apart from a flashback most of his life is missing. This includes several marriages and two children. It also includes the wilder aspects of his character with some rather serious incidents at school, in early employment and in his life in Canada. At the same time the film does emphasises his work as a conservationist and his influence through books and speaking tours.

The film was directed by Richard Attleborough and produced by him with Jake Eberts. Eberts had also been involved in Gandhi and was later involved in a film about Native Americans, Dances with Wolves (1990). Attenborough recalled that he had attended a lecture by Grey Owl in Leicester in 1936 together with his brother David. Both seemed to have been strongly influenced by this on the issue of conservation. I wonder if it was David who took Richard along; he was the one who remembered attending the lecture and then queuing to by a signed copy of the book.

The script is by William Nicholson, who wrote Shadowlands. As with that film there is an unlikely romance at the centre of this story, which works pretty well. But the wider context of Canada, Native Canadian Culture and the environmental challenges rather escapes him. The production company was Largo Entertainment, the company founded in 1989 starting promisingly with Point Break (1991). It also produced some interesting titles but Grey Owl was it last film before bankruptcy. The fellow production company was the British Allied Film-makers, which survived until 2010.

The film opens in 1936 as a journalist calls at Archie’s dressing room (Pierce Brosnan); he is on a speaking tour abroad and now back in Canada. In answer to his enquiry we get a flashback to 1934. Archie is already an established Indian character, living in the wilds and surviving by trapping but also writing for magazines. A client, Harry Champlin (Vasta Vrana), on a hunting trip, is a wealthy publisher, and suggests Archie could write a book. This segues into Archie meeting a young waitress at a cafe for tourists who visit this remote settlement, [actually years earlier]. Pony (originally Gertrude Bernard) has an Indian name of Anahareo, and is originally of Algonquin and Mohawk ancestry, (Annie Galipeau). Fascinated by the wilderness and her lost Indian culture she follows Archie back to his cabin. Their relationship is at first uneven but after he rescues her from a frozen lake it become sexual. Pony has a softening effect on Archie. In the evening in the cabin he starts to write, about his life, the wilderness and the threats to it.

An important sequence is when Archie, still trapping, kills a mother beaver. Her lost off springs are adopted by Pony. And as Archie softens he become involved and decides to give up trapping. The two young beavers, McGinnis and McGinty, become important characters for the couple and Archie’s developing public persona. It is Pony’s suggestion that leads to Archie giving a very successful talk to visiting tourists on the wilderness and on the beaver.

Pierce Brosnan and Anne Galipeau with the young beavers

Harry Champlin now follows up on his interest in publishing a book by Archie. This leads to a successful speaking tour in North America and in England. Archie appears in Indian regalia and speaks eloquently of the wilderness and the need for environmental protection., Short films shot of Archie and Pony in the wilderness accompany this. In England Archie, following a lecture, visits his actual home in Hastings. After the departure of his father and his mothers inability to cope Archie was raised by two maiden aunts. He now visit them and finds that they have kept his old teenage room as it was then; with Indian illustration, maps, models and literature.

As the film nears its end we return to the scene of the journalist visit to Archie. He has discovered who Archie really is; an English émigré posing as an Indian. Archie makes a farewell appearance and the journalist promises not to reveal the truth till after his death. There is a final scene of Archie’s at an Indian ritual, [a clip of the sequence runs under the opening credits]. The assembled chiefs quickly realise that Archie is not an actual Indian; something they find funny. A lead chief states,

‘men become what they dream – you have dreamed well’

Archie and Pony return to the wilderness. Online titles accompanied by a voice-over of Pony’s brother, Ned White Bear (Nathaniel Arcand) inform the viewer that Archie died in 1938. That after his death his real story was revealed. A long tracking shot over a northern lake accompanies restatement of his environmental concerns. [Not a Beaver in sight].

The film has good production values and some fine location settings and landscapes. It relies on a number of regular Attenborough collaborators: Roger Pratt cinematography: Lesley Walker editing: and George Fenton music; it also includes footage from the films of Archie shot by William J. Oliver in the 1930s. Overall the cast are solid but seemingly limited by the script; some of the dialogue seems very conventional. The ambiguity over dates rather undermines the narrative. Pierce Brosnan’s Archie lacks the volatile character suggested by Belaney’s biography. It is a rather one-note performance. Like a number of the cast Annie Galipeau is a Native Canadian, born in Quebec province where part of the film was shot. Her role is underwritten and, like Archie’s, leaves out important facts; she was herself also a writer and activist. And, in real life McGinnis and McGinty died young and were replaced with other young beavers.

The film failed at the box office and with the critics. There were some scathing reviews and the film may have been the last nail in the coffin of Largo. The film did have production problems, delays in getting off the ground. And there were more problems working with, in some cases, young and untried actors. But the greatest problem likely was fitting the personal drama and the epic settings into one film and that running under two hours. The romance worked better than In Love and War but less so than in Shadowlands. And the final movie never quite achieved some of the action in landscapes that was there In Love and War.

In Technicolor and Panavision, 2.35:1, running time 118 minutes. In English, Ojibwa, Sioux, and French, only partly translated with sub-titles.

 

In Love and War, USA 1996

Sandra Bullock with Richard Attenborough

This is a film adapted from ‘In Love And War: The Lost Diary of Agnes von Kurowsky, Her Letters, and Correspondence of Ernest Hemingway’ by Henry S. Villard and James Nagel. The book is based on Villard’s experiences as a volunteer ambulance driver in Italy in World War I and what he learnt later about people he knew there. Whilst in hospital Villard came to know Ernest Hemingway, also a volunteer with the Red Cross and wounded whilst at the front. Villard’s co-author, James Nagel, taught literature at Georgia University and was an expert on Hemingway. Villard also knew one of the hospital nurses, another US volunteer, Agnes von Kurowsky, who had a relationship with Hemingway. All three went their separate ways but after Hemingway’s death by suicide in 1961 Villard contacted and met Agnes. After Agnes’ death in 1984 her widower sent Villard both diaries and letters from the war period. All this fed into the book. The relationship between Hemingway and Kurowsky has intrigued scholars, especially as some of Hemingway’s writing refer to the romance, notably in his famous novel A Farewell to Arms.

What is uncertain is the depth of the affair and whether the couple actually had sex. Kurowsky stated not. Hemingway is an unreliable witness and his novel includes both sex and pregnancy. One complication is that Kurowsky was seven years older than Hemingway. In some letters she calls him ‘kid’. This seems to have been a factor in the end of the affair when Hemingway returned to the USA. After that they never met again.

So the book is not a factual record but rather three separate recollections of characters and events and the film takes liberties with the record in the book. The opening credits inform audiences that the film is based on a true story. As in most cases of mainstream film this is not completely accurate. Reviews on the film commented on how the narrative does not really address Hemingway’s later career, which presumably is what makes the story interesting or commercial; nor as written is there a sense of his well publicised character.

In the film Hemingway’s appearance is delayed and we first meet Henry Serrano Villard (Mackenzie Astin), a volunteer driver. He meets Agnes von Kurowsky (Sandra Bullock) among a party of US volunteer nurses; Harry immediately takes a shine to her. Then we meet the young Hemingway (‘Ern’ Chris O’Donnell), another US volunteer and chafing to be near the action. Later he makes his way to the front line distributing chocolates to the Italian soldiers; this seems to be in defiance of orders. He is injured in an artillery barrage but distinguishes himself by saving a wounded Italian infantryman. Both end up in the hospital where Agnes is working; later joined by Harry as well. Nurses have been instructed to avoid emotional relationships with patients. However Agnes has previous nursing experience at the US John Hopkins hospital and her experience there saves Hemingway from losing his leg in an amputation. He now makes a dead set at Agnes though she is at first resistant; she points out the age difference, given as seven years.

However, one night a patient commit suicide leaving an unfinished letter to his parents. All are distraught but Agnes takes the letter to her room in an attempt to finish it. Ern follows her and then dictates a fine ending for the letter. This is followed by an embrace and an ellipsis; but the later plot suggests that there was no actual sex.

This occurs when Agnes has been posted to a field hospital near the front line. She agrees to meet Ern at a village one evening. They rent a room at what is a bordello or brothel. And there sexual coitus is consummated. Then Ern is posted back to the USA. Meanwhile Agnes has also been courted by an Italian doctor and with a nurse friend visits him and his family villa in Venice. Torn by conflicting emotions Agnes agrees to marry the doctor and writes to Ern ending the relationship.

The final part of the film is invention. Agnes again changes her mind and breaks off with the doctor. She then visits New York and meets Harry. He tells her that Ern is at his family home and his letters are ‘raging and rambling’. Harry advises Agnes to visit Ern. She does and finds him fishing at local lake; something he had talked to her about in Italy. But Ern tells her

‘it wouldn’t work, not now’.

Agnes leaves whispering

“I love you” and adding to herself, “his pride meant he wasn’t able to forgive me.”

The film has very good production values. The production design: the costumes and props: and the  cinematography are all excellent,  as are the opening credits. The film uses locations in the north of Italy and in Venice to great effect. And the narrative provides space for Italian characters and plotting including Italian medical staff: Italian residents and citizens: and the Italian military. There is both English and Italian dialogue, with most of the latter translated in subtitles. This is a distinctive feature of what is essentially a Hollywood-style production. The production crew includes a number of craft people who had worked on other Attenborough projects. These include Production Design by Stuart Craig: Costumes by Penny Rose: Cinematography by Roger Pratt: and Editing by Lesley Walker.

The scripting involved a number of writers, however, Dimitri Villard, [whose father co-wrote the source book], worked on the screen story and was a producer. And Diana Hawkins, Attenborough’s long-time collaborator, was a co-producer. The attention given to Italy and to Italians widens the sense of the world of the story. It also provides settings that contribute to the atmosphere, and in the case of the Venetian villa, sumptuous sequences.,

The cast are good overall. Sandra Bullock and MacKenzie Astin are both convincing. Chris O’Connell tends to perform on the surface. Some of his sequences work well but he does not really generate the passion the character should feel. And, partly because of the writing, he is not really convincing as this emerging literary talent. Ingrid Lacey as fellow nurse Elsie ‘Mac’ MacDonald is good; as is Emilio Bonucci as Dr. Domenico Caracciolo, who provides an Italian romantic interest. The supporting cast are generally fine and convincing.

The film did well at the box office but not with the critics. One reviewer caustically claimed,

“Ernest Hemingway’s early life with all the stuffy tropes that the author would have excised in a second draft.”

Whilst the doyen critic Robert Ebert wrote,

“In Love and War is not much interested in Ernest Hemingway’s subsequent life and career, and even in its treatment of this early period, it doesn’t deal with themes such as his macho posturing, his need to prove himself, his grandiosity.”

It is interesting to compare this film treatment with Hemingway’s novelistic treatment of the affair and the two film versions of that work. Hemingway had a spare, muscular style. The novel embroidered both the affair and Hemingway’s experiences and presented these in the first person. It was also censored and considered over-explicit for the time. It offers the experience of War, or at least the particular type of war found early in the C20th. And it creates a powerful sense of the relationship and its problems.

The first film version was made in 1932 by Paramount Pictures. It was directed by Frank Borsage, an expert in creating on-screen romance. The two stars were Helen Hayes and Gary Cooper; the latter not the upright character he played in later years. The film compresses, changes and adds to the novel’s plot. But there is real chemistry between Hayes and Cooper and the romance, with a tragic conclusion, is powerful . In 957 David O Selznick produced a new version; so, of course, it starred Jennifer Jones playing opposite Rock Hudson, a popular romantic lead. The film opened out the story with Italian locations and much more background. But Jones and Hudson failed to create the romantic emotion of the earlier version. The 1996 In Love and War is much for effective than the 1957 film in its use of a wider story: locations and costumes: and a fuller background. But it does not generate the emotional power of the 1932 version. Interestingly neither does it generate the emotional power of Attenborough’s earlier Shadowlands; likely the closeness of that story to his own early years of adulthood had an effect.

Neither the book or the three films actually address the politics of World War I or those involved in the campaigns between Italy and Austria. Ironically the 1932 film version was banned in an Italy that succumbed to fascism after the war.

In colour and Panavision 2.35:1, running time 113 minutes

 

 

Shadowlands, Britain 1993

This film is adapted from two sources: a BBC Wales film produced in 1985: and a stage play from 1989. Both were written by Williamson but the original idea was a script for Thames Television by Brian Sibley and Norman Stone. Brian Sibley also authored a book on the subject Shadowlands: The True Story of C. S Lewis and Joy Davidman. This film includes the stage play in the credits but not the earlier television production.

The film opens in 1952 in Oxford. C. S. ‘Jack’ Lewis (Anthony Hopkins) is a don at Magdalen College but also an established writers and popular lecturer outside the University. His writings include popular books, almost fairy tales, for children. He lives outside the city in a rural setting, likely the family home where he grew up,  with his brother Warren ‘Warnie’ (Edward Hardwicke); they have a servant, Mrs. Parrish, who cooks for them. And he is a member of a small College circle, all in some sense Christians.

He receives fan letters from a U.S. poet Joy Davidman (Debra Winger), She visit Oxford and thy meet at what looks like the Randolph Hotel; very upmarket. Joy is living apart from her husband, with her son Douglas Gresham (Joseph Mazzello). Lewis invites them to spend Christmas with himself and his brother. He learns that Douglas is a fan of his books.

Lewis is portrayed as a very self-contained character; there is no suggestion of any sexual interests, either heterosexual or homosexual. He also tends to dominate those around him, including Warnie and his fellow academics. Joy is much more of an extrovert and frequently breaks through British reticence. Lewis, and we, also gradually learn that she is separated from her husband who is both a philanderer and an alcoholic.

After a sojourn in the USA  Joy and Douglas return and re-establish contact with Lewis. In order to secure residency rights Joy asks Lewis to marry her. They go through a civil wedding at a registrar, notable without a ring. Audiences will start to suspect that Joy’s feelings are more than just friendship; and there are hints that Lewis’ feelings are changing. Then Joy is diagnosed with advanced cancer of the hip; likely to be terminal. Lewis feels obliged to care for her but then discovers that his feelings for her have become powerfully emotional. They now have a religious wedding with a ring.

Joy has a remission but it not long-lasting. They go for what is a delayed honeymoon on a trip to ‘The Golden Valley in Herefordshire. The trip is motivated by a picture of this scenic spot hanging in Lewis’ study, which has hung there since he was a child. A sympathetic landlady explains to them that the ‘golden’ is a mistranslation of French into Welsh; it is a valley of water. But they still find it beautiful and a moment of real romantic engagement.

Inevitably Joy dies and Lewis is distraught. Warnie, who has stayed in the background but particularly cared for Douglas, tells Lewis he must care for the boy. The film ends with a voice over of a phrase Lewis learnt from Joy as we see Warnie and Douglas out in the countryside.

The first conundrum is the title of the film. It reads like Sibley chose this term which was then picked up by Williamson. How much the original script and the subsequent t book fed into the play and film is unclear. The term ‘Shadowlands’ makes sense though. Lewis’ children books for which he is best remembered describe fantasy lands, with a Christian subtest. One really strong motif is a magical wardrobe where a child push pass a fur coat to enter the magic land. Douglas is struck by this and is keen to see the house’s attic. There is indeed a wardrobe but no magical entrance to another land. It is Warnie who first shows it to him but at the end it is Lewis who sits with him in front of the wardrobe and offers some consolation.  Predictably the attic is a room of shadows.

But the relationship with Joy also brings the shadow of illness and death into the life of Lewis; which appeared relatively untroubled before that.

The key characters in the film are Jack/Lewis and Joy. Hopkins’ Jack is a fine performance. Early in the film he presents this self-contained character, with little emotion on the surface. Later in the film both his emotions and his vulnerabilities emerge convincingly. Hopkins  performances tend to act out dominant characters. With Jack perhaps this overstates his confidence; but the performance can cope with the failure of this. There is a humorous moment when Jack cannot order room service over the hotel telephone properly; something is it is clear Joy can easily manage. Winger’s Joy is also a fine and convincing performance. Whilst she achieves the extrovert quality she also suggests that there is a more beneath the surface. The other fine performance is Hardwicke’s Warnie. This character is almost  always in the background but there is always a sense of where he fits. The screenplay leaves a question mark over Warnie, whose only role seems to be a companion to Jack. The actual Warner, the older of the two brothers, suffered from neurosis, something the film leaves alone. Young Mazzello as young Douglas is also fine: in fact, he is from the USA, but does not really convince as a young North American: presumably this is down to the production and/or the direction. The fellow academics only have small roles in the film but Michael Denison as Harry Harrington and John Wood as Christopher Riley both have important scenes, very different in tone.

The screenplay clearly is one of the major factors in the effectiveness of the film. It was identified by Attenborough’s colleague Diana Hawkins,

“I told him [Attenborough] William Nicholson’s screenplay was one of the best I’d ever come across, and unlike any other, had reduced me to tears.” (Memoir page 243).

Likely having worked on the play and then the film had enabled Nicholson to refine the narrative to its most effective. There are changes from the actual story and the play. Joy actually had two sons, both of whom were to live with Lewis after her death. Their ‘honeymoon’ was actually in Greece, but I suspect the idea of a British site seem to fit with the very traditional English flavour of the plot.

“The stage play opens with Lewis giving a talk about the mystery of suffering, whereas this film intersperses a similar talk several times throughout the narrative.” (Wikipedia)

In fact, what we observe in the film is a series of talks by Lewis to different audiences in different settings. Generally these are large affairs, one with several hundred in the audience and in a very large hall. The audiences include both genders but women are in the majority. Several themes emerge in these talks: how God can allow disasters: the nature of suffering: and what exactly is love.

What we only learn through the dialogue is that Joy was, at some point, a member of the Communist Party USA. This is not explored but Davidman came from a Jewish family and joined the Party in 1938; a common response to the decade of Fascism among intellectuals. The activities of HUAC may have been a factor for her sojourn in England. She took up Christianity in some form and, of course, Anglicanism was a central feature of Lewis’ life.

The production is extremely well done. It includes a number of regular collaborators with production designer Stuart Craig, composer George Fenton and production craft people Terry Clegg and Simon Kaye on sound. The fine cinematography was by Roger Pratt, who was to work again with Attenborough on In Love and War. The filming included the actual Magdalen College and The Golden Valley. Hawkins records six weeks of sunshine and a happy production.

The film received positive reviewed and did well at the box office, surpassing its production budget easily. There are limitations to the film. The most notable are down to the conventional treatment of narrative which one finds in films directed by Attenborough. The film does essay the emotional pain as Davidman grows sick and approaches death. But the physical pain, including the visual impact of illness, is lacking. This is common in mainstream movies; Love Story is a prime example; also a film with a cancerous illness. In real life the final illness of Joy must have been debilitating and chronic. The film seems almost bland at times but there is an understatement which is very effective and fits the characters. . A prime example is the end of the film. We see Warnie and Douglas out in the countryside as a voice over  by Lewis repeats a line he learned from Joy.

“Why love, if losing hurts so much? I have no answers any more: only the life I have lived. Twice in that life I’ve been given the choice: as a boy and as a man. The boy chose safety, the man chooses suffering. The pain now is part of the happiness then. That’s the deal. “

But running after Douglas is a dog, a spaniel; the first seen in the film. This is similar to the addition for the final scene on the beach of The Road, also a dog. One of the Hollywood tropes for signaling either things are well or a character is good.

In Technicolor and Panavision 2.39|:1, running time 131 minutes, [cut to 115 minutes in Canada].

 

 

 

Jurassic Park. USA 1993

Bob Peck, Samuel Jackson and a concerned Richard Attenborough

By this stage of his career Attenborough worked mainly as a film-maker with occasional screen appearances; some as a guest star, some more substantial. His character, John Hammond, rather falls between the two. The film itself is part of a genre series and a media franchise. On its release it became the highest grossing film to that date and in its various manifestations it is still one of the all-time box office successes. The film is adapted from a novel by a very successful U.S. writer Michael Crichton. He already had successful screenplay for films like Coma (1978) and Westworld. (1973) The bidding war for the screen rights for this novel started before it was even published. Finally Steven Spielberg, an equally successful film-maker, obtained the rights.

The basic premise of the film is a new Wildlife Park Attraction being prepared for opening. The park uses sophisticated cloning techniques to producer actual animals which have been extinct for millennia. The setting is a fictional island off the east coast of Latin America. John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) is the entrepreneur though he relies on funding from other capitalists and employing a team of geneticists. He invites a palaeontologist to join a tour of the park; Alan Grant (Sam Neill) together with a palaeobotanist Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern). There is also a lawyer in charge of safety certification, Gennaro (Martin Ferrero), accompanied by chaotician Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum). The latter scientist provides a counter-view to that embodied in the park. During the tour they are joined by Hammond’s two grandchildren, also visiting the island.

The film opens with a series of brief sequences that set up the narrative. An accident involving one of the cloned prehistoric beasts  prompts the need for safety certification. An archaeozoological dig introduces the palaeontologists. And a meeting between two disreputable characters in Mexico, one the computer expert from the park Dennis Nedry (Wayne Knight) sets up the fix that will disrupt things.

The site of the wildlife park is in a hidden valley on the remote island; a standard generic setting for such disasters. Initially the tourists are really impressed as they see actual live dinosaurs. Hammond takes them through the tourist centre guides that explain [for the audience] how the whole parks and its cloning work., |Ian Malcom continually raises critical points about the park and the way it is run..

A tropical storm causes the majority of the staff to leave by boat. This leaves Hammond, the visitors, a warden Robert Muldoon (Bob Peck), Ray Arnold (Samuel Jackson) and Nedry alone on the island. Sure enough disaster strikes: security breaks down: and the wild prehistoric animals go on the rampage. There are not that many species on show and critics later complained that what is included does not all together stack up. But there are exciting and violent scenes as the main characters strive to avoid injury and death. Arnold, Muldoon, and Nedry all die.. The rest survive. The survivors, which include Hammond, leave on a helicopter passing a flight of cormorants; a reference to an earlier comment by the Malcom.

What happens to the remaining animals on the island, now capable of reproduction, is left open as is the opportunity for endless sequels or even prequels. ‘Bond’ has achieved two dozen: Star Wars has passed a dozen: and Fast ‘n Furious is fast approaching that number.

The film was an immense success and continues with video versions and the addition of 3D as well as spin-offs on television. And there was a vast and successful marketing campaign.. The sequels have done less well. The box office ran into billions and broke numerous records. The majority of critics were equally impressed with all sorts of accolades for the film. Robert Ebert was less impressed, writing,

“The movie delivers all too well on its promise to show us dinosaurs. We see them early and often, and they are indeed a triumph of special effects artistry, but the movie is lacking other qualities that it needs even more, such as a sense of awe and wonderment, and strong human story values”.

I tend to agree. What made the film stand out were the recreations of moving animal images; computer generated imagery, still in its early days. At the time this was impressive, though equal effects have become common in other movies. However, the characters and actions that surround these are pretty conventional. The action at times is stereotypical. And it is reminiscent of tropes in earlier Crichton works, like Westworld or the earlier The Andromeda Strain (1971); both movies rely on supposedly foolproof systems turning out to be flawed.

Richard Attenborough’s John Hammond is an avuncular father figure with little sign of the presumably commercial instinct behind such an entertainment project. He spend most of the film in the tourist centre, not directly threatened by the rampaging beasts, but gradually losing his confidence and surety.  Sam Neill’s Alan Grant is a laid back hero who rises to the occasion, but whose character relies on names and terms rather than demonstrable archaeozoological skill. The same applies to Laura Dern’s Ellie Sattler, who is also a strong and capable woman. The voice of scientific reality belongs to Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcom, facing another of ‘history’s bad ideas’; in fact with little to do but contribute scathing one-liner. The leading players do not seem to have had demanding roles; certainly less so than the numerous craft people credited in the very long end credits. Attenborough’s performance occupies an amount of screen time but much less acting input. The children are best passed over in silence and are typical examples of Hollywood’s ‘cute juniors’. Martin Ferrero, Bob Peck and Samuel Jackson all suffer the fate of supporting stars; death and lower down the cast list. Wayne Knight has just the right physical and behavioural appearance for the incompetent villainy that causes the disaster.

The location filming was mainly in Hawaii but the film relies extensively on computerised inputs. The dialogue is in English with some Spanish, not translated in subtitles. The production values are impressive and the film looks great on a big screen. The music is by John Williams and sounds familiar. The soundtrack is as good as the visuals though the latter command most attention.

As a warning about the possible misapplication of science the film is really too generalised to generate serious concern. As parable of contemporary capitalism it is really insufficient. As usual with Hollywood it is villainy rather than the imperatives of profit that cause the downfall. And the idea of competition between capitalists is with on a poorly managed company that has to rely on crime rather than the forces of the market.

In Eastmancolor and 1.85:1, running time 127 minutes: also released in 70mm blow-up. The film enjoyed the new Digital Theatre Sound System.

Chaplin, USA 1992

Richard Attenborough and Robert Downey Jr.

Richard Attenborough explained

“My wish is that people will come away from Chaplin with a greater feeling for what a wonderful medium the cinema is: a deeper understanding of the human foibles and frailties exemplified in this man who was a genius: and the reasons why he finds himself at such odds with what is accepted as proper and appropriate behaviour.”

This film was produced and directed by Richard Attenborough. The production company was Carolco (Tri-Star) with collaboration from Japanese Television, the French Canal and a video company. It is based partly on Charles Chaplin’s 1964 My Autobiography and David Robinson’s 1985 Chaplin, His Life and Art. Chaplin died in 1977 but his family, especially his widow Oona, resisted attempts to make a biographical film. Attenborough visited her in Switzerland and she agreed, partly it seems because she had liked his earlier Gandhi. The basic story was written by Diana Hawkins, and then several writers worked on the screenplay: William Boyd, Bryan Forbes and William Goldman. A continuing hurdle was fitting Chaplin’s life into a reasonable length film. It seems that Goldman added a fictional character, editor of Chaplin’s autobiography, as a structuring and linking device. The idea for this originated with Attenborough. It took some time to get the production going because of hesitations among the funding producers. A key aspect was casting Robert Downey Jr. in the lead role; Chaplin was his first major role.

The film opens with a relatively young Chaplin removing the make-up and attire of his famous creation, ‘the Tramp’. The scene starts in black and white and gradually changes to colour. A voice is hear on the soundtrack; it will later become apparent that this is the editor of My Autobiography, George Hayden (Anthony Hopkins) in 1963. It also becomes apparent that he has a list of questions regarding a manuscript of the intended book by Chaplin; his questions relate to issues that are not treated in detail in the book or are missed out almost completely.

Thus, apart from brief glimpses of Chaplin and Hayden at the Swiss mansion, the rest of the film is in flashback. First we get Chaplin’s childhood, with a particular emphasis on his mother Hannah; the father is almost completely absent. Starting to suffer from mental problems Hannah is booed off stage in a Music Hall; but the young Charlie takes her place  and wows the vocal audience. Charlie and his half- bother Syd are put in a workhouse and then separated. Later Hannah is committed to a mental asylum. Syd reappears and assist Charlie in joining the Music Hall troupe of Fred Karno (John Thaw). He soon becomes a star turn.

The troupe tour the USA and Charlie receives an offer from the Max Sennett film studio, already located in the developing Hollywood suburb of Los Angeles. Sennett (Dan Aykroyd) is at first sceptical of Chaplin’s youth, but Charlie convinces him and is soon starring in the typical one reeler films made at the studio; running about fifteen minutes each. Here Chaplin develops his on-screen persona of ‘the tramp’. Chaplin’s career in the teens of the C19th is severely compressed. But we see him evolving as a major star: becoming a director of his own films: acquiring his own studio: and earning increasingly large salaries. The only characters we see in this period are Max Sennett and one of his stars, Mabel Norman (Marisa Tomei): the cameraman who worked most frequently with Chaplin,  Roland Totheroh (David Duchovny): a young actress who becomes a regular leading lady Edna Purviance (Penelope Ann Miller): and Syd who joins Chaplin in Hollywood and acts as a sort of manager.

We move into the 1920s when Chaplin, like other comics, moved onto feature length films. He becomes friendly with Douglas Fairbanks (Kevin Kline), and the his wife-cum-star Mary Pickford (Maria Pitillo). An amount of attention is given to his first marriage to Mildred Harris (Mila Jocovich). An issue here is that several of Chaplin’s relationship are with young women under legal age in the USA. In Mildred’s case there is a divorce with her lawyers attempting to seize Chaplin’s latest film, The Kid. There is sequence, shot like a Sennett comedy, as Chaplin and his aides edit the film in secret.

There is also a scene of a dinner party attended by the future director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover (Kevin Dunn). Hoover indulges in his racist and homophobic views and Chaplin makes fun of him. For the film this provides the motivation for a long-running witch hunt by Hoover of Chaplin; though he was doing the same to countless other liberals and lefties.

In 1921 Chaplin visits England and gets a massive reception, though some people are still angry that he spent World War I in the safety of the USA. From this point Chaplin makes his home in the USA. The rest of what was a world tour is missing from the film.

The 1920s are also compressed though we gets references in the studio scenes to The Gold Rush. We also see and hear debates about the advent of films with sounds, ‘the talkies’. Chaplin resists following the almost total turnover of Hollywood to sound production; the example here being City Lights, which follows an argument between Chaplin and Syd over sound.

The 1930s bring his marriage to Paulette Godard (originally Marion Levy – Diane Lane) and his film Modern Times. Here Chaplin uses a soundtrack but not dialogue. There are several scenes with Chaplin supervising the recording of the soundtrack and the music. We do not see either Alfred Newman or David Raksin, both involved in the arranging and scoring. Chaplin plays the tramp for the last time and Goddard appears as ‘The Gamin’.

Wold War II arrives though the USA is isolationist. There is a scene where Chaplin refuses the hand of the German Ambassador. This is followed by the filming of The Great Dictator; there are scenes of the production and the filming of a scene where Chaplin makes a political but also sentimental speech.

There is the affair with a young actress Joan Barry (Nancy Travis). This later leads to a court case over claimed paternity of child. Chaplin’s case rests on blood tests that show he is not the father, but these are deemed inadmissible. There is a trenchant and deliberately rude portrayal of Chaplin by the prosecuting attorney, Joseph Scott (James Wood). In a film with many short scenes this is an extended declamation; designed to show how Chaplin was maligned in the USA, by such as Hoover.

A title, ‘Seven years later’ has Chaplin at a première for Limelight. By this time he has married Oona O’Neill; much younger than Chaplin but the partner in a successful marriage. She is played by Moira Kelly, who also played an earlier romance, Hettie Kelly; the film clearly trying to explore Chaplin’s romanticism with this parallel. Chaplin then finds that his visa for the USA, [he never took out citizenship] has been withdrawn. Ten years later Oona accompanies Chaplin when he travel to Los Angeles to be presented with an honorary Academy Award. First we see him waiting in a dressing room, now tied to a wheelchair. Then he sits on a darkened stage watching a montage of excerpts from his silent films, ending with the final shot from The Circus. The end credits follow. Characters appear alongside mini-biographies. The film is dominated by Charlie Chaplin, and his portrayal by Robert Downey Jr.. This won universal acclaim, and he and the film received nominations at different award ceremonious. But the only major award was for Downey at the BAFTAS. The supporting cast are generally very good. There are popular star sin many minor roles, most more than a cameo but not that developed. Paul Rhys Sydney and Geraldine Chaplin’s Hannah do both get developed. And to varying degrees Chaplin’s amours and wives are developed. In the 1920s Kevin Kline’s Douglas Fairbanks has a number of scenes. Kevin Dunn’s Hoover gets a number of scenes and is suitably malevolent. And Anthony Hopkins editor is frequent and important in structuring the narrative, but the scripted questions lack depth.

Sven Nykvist, Stuart Craig and Richard Attenborough

The production values are very good. The cinematography is down to the internationally acclaimed Sven Nykvist. The British Anne V. Coates is editor and clearly had her hands full with the complexity of scene changes and cuts. There are some very well done ‘classical’ techniques, such as the wipes in the Keystone sequences: and a brilliant pastiche of Keystone in the sequence as Charlie and his team flee the lawyers hired by Mildred Harris. The music by John Barry is also very well done. He makes use frequently of the music from Chaplin’s films, much composed by Chaplin himself. The most frequent is ‘Smile, a theme in Modern Times later turned into a song.

The film did suffer in pre-production by changes in the production company, Universal pulled out of the project, with the original idea of the project severely reduced and preparatory work, including sets being wasted. Presumably the long gestation period affected the final outcome.

Two criticisms of the final film were that it was ‘overly glossy’ and that it took ‘dramatic licence’ with some of Chaplin’s’ biography. The film really focuses on Chaplin’s personal life and his many romantic and sexual involvements. There are presented alongside his film work. But Chaplin himself always regarded his film work as the most important aspect of his life. At one point he says to the editor that one is ‘judged by what you did.’

And much of Chaplin’s film work is missing from the film. The teens are presented through Keystone, increasing earnings and Chaplin moving until he had his owns studio. However, between Keystone and United Artists Chaplin was contracted to Essanay, Mutual and First National. Moreover we only a see a few of the Chaplin titles of that period. Yet this is when his stardom and his career were established. So the film does not really justify the world-wide stardom that he achieved.

Missing from the 1920s is A Woman of Paris, a film that Chaplin directed but in which he did not star. That role went to Edna Purviance, but the film does not develop her at all; apart from a companion of Chaplin she played the lead in numerous of his fine silent shorts.

And in the 1940s  another missing film is Monsieur Verdoux. This film was not a success. But it revealed a particular sardonic streak in Chaplin and was his most direct attack on the social system in which he worked. Missing again is the later A King in New York; not a particularly good Chaplin feature but one in which he attacked HUAC, which was a public extension of the repression that Hoover organised through the FBI.

The overall film has the episodic form that is also found in the earlier biopics. But Chaplin also has an important difference. Young Winston, Gandhi and Cry Freedom all focused on the public face of their subject with the personal story given less emphasis. In Chaplin it is the personal that takes precedence over the public face.  As is demonstrated by the series of questions of the editor this is the opposite of Chaplin’s focus in his autobiography; and one that the film gives insufficient attention. Whilst this biopic addresses Chaplin’s personal character and ‘foibles’ it does not really illuminate cinema as a medium. Interestingly whilst David Robinson offers several pages on the film in the Dossier he does not offer a comment on how effectively the film presents Chaplin as a great film director.

In Eastmancolor with black and white sequences, 1.85:1, running time 143 minutes, with English, Italian and German and some sub-titles

 

 

 

Cry Freedom, Britain / Zimbadwe / USA 1987

This film was produced and directed by Richard Attenborough through Marble Arch Productions and Universal Pictures. It is based on two books by Donald Woods; he was an editor of the South African ‘Daily Despatch’ but had to flee the Apartheid State because of his work to expose the murder of a Black activist, Steve Biko. One book is Biko (1978) about the black activist; the other is Asking for Trouble The Autobiography of a Banned Journalist, recounting how he and his family fled their country to Britain. Woods had tried to interest several producers in making a film about Biko. He recounts how the proposed movie took the form that it did;

“Attenborough told Norman [Spencer] and me that he felt “a bloody good film” could be made on the basis of my books – provided the script with the right ingredients from both could be written. He thought that while Biko was the basic theme, Asking for Trouble provided “the way into” the movie, his reasoning being the same as Norman’s – that Woods’ story was the necessary balance to the Biko story if mass audiences were to be reached in Europe and the United States”. (Filming with Attleborough, 1987).

This was the basis for the screenplay by John Briley; he had written Gandhi and on this film was also a producer. Attenborough sold the project to Universal Pictures; note, they commissioned a survey to discover the recognition of Apartheid among U.S. citizens, the poll revealed 11%.

There were also issues with the South African regime, still repressing / oppressing the black majority.  Filming there was out of the question. However, the production was able to involve the Government of Zimbabwe, now liberated from white minority rule., The country had suffered serious violence between the two main political parties, partly based on tribal divisions; the violence died down in 1987 when the two parties formed a unified government, The Patriotic Front. The production used craft people, supporting actors and extras from the civilian population.

The film opens in an African township at dawn, the Crossroads settlement. An on-screen date, [telex-typed] gives 25th November 1975. Armed police in vehicles with dogs terrorise the inhabitants, wrecking homes in what was considered an illegal settlement; Black Africans were frequently restricted to reserves and forced to carry passbooks.

The film cuts to the offices of the ‘Daily Despatch’ where a photographer, Ken Robertson (Kevin McNally), brings Woods a record of the raid, and remarks that there were posters of Steve Biko in the settlement. Woods knew of Biko as a member of The Black People’s Convention and an advocate of a political philosophy, Black Consciousness. Woods writes an editorial critical of Biko and his philosophy. This leads him to being challenged to actually meet Biko, who was already subject to a state ban. These bans restricted a person’s movements and who s/he could or could not meet.

Despite this Woods and Biko meet; Woods is impressed with Biko, the more so when he gives the editor a surreptitious trip to a black township. We see both Biko’s activities to assist and support black people but also his public persona as an advocate of black autonomy. This includes being seized and interrogated by the security police and his testimony at a trial of black activists.  Then Biko is caught in a police check. Arrested he is interrogated for three weeks. At the end he is brain damaged from the torture and dies on the way to hospital.

Donald and Wendy Woods lead a rehearsal for the funeral

Woods, and his wife Wendy, are distraught and attend the funeral, which is a mass affair of black people with a few liberal whites in attendance. Woods then manages to get photograph of the body which disprove the State claim that he died on a ‘hunger strike’. Preparing to travel to the USA to give a series of lectures on Biko, Woods is arrested and subject to a banning order. By now he has a hidden manuscript on Biko. He decides that he needs to leave South Africa. His wife Wendy objects, partly on the grounds that he has not consulted her. However, the family are subjected to abuse and toxic parcels by the police and other racists. She agrees.

The escape has Woods travelling secretly to the border and crossing in to Lesotho from where he can fly via Botswana to London. Once across the order he will contact Wendy who will also have to travel secretly to Lesotho. Succeeding, they fly over to South African territory, fearful of interception by South Africa, but they survive this. The journey and the flight include flashbacks by Woods to events with Biko. Some of these comment on their situation, but others are about the struggle against Apartheid. The final flashback is the now infamous massacre of protesting school student in Soweto on June 16th 1976. As the plane flies on an on-screen lists records the black activists who died in police custody between 1963 and 1987.

Donald and Wendy Woods were involved in the pre-production and production of the movie, including all the filming in Zimbabwe. Woods describes this in Filming With Attenborough (1987). He describes in detail the whole filming process. As a non-professional Woods describes what he sees and hears: and provides a sense of just how different aspects of the filming work: something you do not get in Attenborough’s writings. He also emphasizes the painstaking attention to detail: in the look, dress and accents of characters: in the settings and décor: and in the particulars of any action. He also notes minor deviations, usually for clarity on screen. And he provides brief portraits of many of the regulars, crew and cast, who worked on Attenborough’s films.

Simon Kaye [sound], Donald Woods, Richard Attenboorugh, Kevin Kline [seated] and Wendy Woods

He also writes on the performances in the film. Denzel Washington and Kenneth Kline play very different characters but both are really effective. It is worth noting that Attenborough did audition African players for the role of Biko, but he felt that they lacked the appearance of the character and his charisma. Woods’ praise applies to the supporting cast, both from Britain and the USA and from Africa itself. There are couple of star cameos but not on the scale on the earlier historical biopics.

The film runs for 157 minutes but it is not really epic in the way that Gandhi or Young Winston aspire to be. Much of the film is about characters interacting, often with frequent close-ups. There are some fine exteriors and landscapers, filmed by Ronnie Taylor. And the several mass action sequences are dynamic and use a favourite trope of Attenborough’s, the crane shot, often tracking back from the action. The editing is well done but the demands of a dual narrative makes it sometimes obvious. The soundtrack is predominately in English but there is also Afrikaan, Xhosa, Zulu, and Sesotho: there are English sub-titles but not for all the dialogue. The music is composed or arranged by George Fenton. There are orchestral accompaniment that tend to mark passages of emotion but there is also an amount of African music, including ‘Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika’; this is an African Christian hymn that was a sort of a national anthem for the Black struggle, ‘God Bless Africa’.

Generally the film garnered positive reviews. And it received a number of Award nominations. It failed to recoup the production costs from theatrical rentals, but likely has made money since from other formats.

The film is limited in some ways by the narrative which, as Woods explained, combined a biopic with an escape thriller. This is really noticeable at times; there is a cut directly from the Biko funeral to Kruger [Minister of Police, John Thaw] watching the event on television and then to Wendy in the Woods Home. This is just on eighty minutes into the film, almost exactly half-way. The change in pace and tone as the narrative moves from Woods friendship with Biko to the family escape is something that some critics picked up on. The flashbacks to Biko during Woods’ escape seem to be designed to keep the audience aware of the principal character. It seems to have been a problem and it does not seem to actually deliver on the motives of Attenborough and other producers. The first eighty minutes of the film are about Biko, mediated by white characters like Woods. Thus this strategy could have been maintained for the whole film: still including a reduced escape plot: but with a fuller and more detailed representation of Biko and his philosophy.

Richard Attenboorugh and Donald Woods in front of Zimbadwe extras

There is a certain irony in a film written and produced in Britain; the originator of the divided and colonised Southern Africa. And the prime funders, in Britain and the USA, were very much part of the system that exploited Africans under Apartheid. The film actually falls into a wider genre, journalist reporting on Third World conflicts. Under Fire (1983) is an example where the journalists leave a successful liberation: The Year of Living Dangerously (1982) is an example where the journalist leaves chaos and violent repression: whilst in Place of Weeping (1986) a South African journalist investigating a rural racist murder returns to the city, unsuccessful. The common trope across these films is that, at the end, the white [frequently male] reporters leaves whilst the indigenous struggle on or even die in that struggle. Cry Freedom fits the genre; with the Woods leaving South Africa, and leaving the struggling black consciousness movement there. However, Woods carries with him the spirit of Biko in his manuscript, so this film adds a rather different emphasis.

The centre of Black Consciousness in the 1970s were the Black Townships. And they have also seen the focus of a number of films addressing Black Resistance and Black Consciousness. A key title is Mapantsula (South Africa 1988), released in the same year as Cry Freedom. Like the mainstream movie this film is set in an African township: it opens with a demonstration suppressed by the police: and its penultimate’s scene is again the violent suppression of a township demonstration. The film was directed by a white anti-racist film-maker, Oliver Schmitz and scripted by him and the film’s leading player, Thomas Mogotlane; the latter worked in the township theatrical provision. The film is unconventional using some of the techniques advocated in Soviet montage. The film’s focus is the townships and the black residents. And in the course of the narrative Black Consciousness is shown to work on the characters. The film was made by circumventing the South African censorship body; but once released it suffered restricted distribution. However, it was seen in basic township venues and in video venues by ordinary Black Africans. Oddly, it got a nomination for the Academy Awards by South Africa; this may have been occasioned by a screening at the Cannes Film Festival and a warm response there. It is an African alternative to Cry Freedom, made for and by black Africans; and Mogotlane’s performance in the film suggests that he could have taken on the role of Biko in the mainstream movie.

Rather like Gandhi, Cry Freedom demonstrates the contradictions of western liberals making movies about liberation struggles directed against the film-makers home and imperialist state. There tends to be a simplification in the politics of the oppressed; so this film only offers a few lines by Biko about black autonomy and black resistance. In fact, the Black Peoples Convention not only had a complex political standpoint but one conditioned by the social situation of the time. The African National Congress, [larger than the more radical Pan-African National Congress) had little influence or presence in the townships They had  a military wing operating in the state  from bases beyond the border but much of their efforts went on influencing international opinion and action. At the time the ANC was opposed to the line of the Convention; something apparent when the film was made, the ANC not opposing the film but not supporting it either.

In colour and Panavision 2.35:1, running time 157 minutes. Also released in 70mm blow-up and 16mm anamorphic. Cut by ten minutes in Canada.