Oscar History
Film Bitch History
Welcome

The Film Experience™ was created by Nathaniel R. All material herein is written by our team. (This site is not for profit but for an expression of love for cinema & adjacent artforms.)

Follow TFE on Substackd

Powered by Squarespace
Keep TFE Strong

We're looking for 500... no 390 SubscribersIf you read us daily, please be one.  

I ♥ The Film Experience

THANKS IN ADVANCE

What'cha Looking For?
Subscribe
Thursday
Mar242011

Distant Relatives: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Shutter Island

Robert here, with my series Distant Relatives, where we look at two films, (one classic, one modern) related through a common theme and ask what their similarities and differences can tell us about the evolution of cinema.  This week since both films deal with a twist ending, be warned there are definitely SPOILERS AHEAD


Madness

Audiences don’t much like engaging with a film, its characters, its plot and anticipating its outcome for two hours only to be told that the entire thing was untrue, a dream, the story of a crazy man, an elaborate roleplay. The two films we’re looking at today, though made ninety years apart do that exact thing. Clearly this is a cinematic convention that has stood the test of time.

In the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, a young man named Francis relates the story of a visiting carnival which brings the evil Dr. Caligari and his somnambulist slave to town. After a series of strange murders and the kidnapping of the young man’s betrothed Jane, Francis leads a posse and discovers that, surprise surprise, Dr. Caligari is the mad director of an asylum, and that his catatonic servant are behind it all. Shutter Island follows two U.S. Marshalls, Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his new partner Chuck, sent to a hospital for the criminally insane to investigate a disappearance. As their investigation goes deeper and deeper Teddy begins to suspect a deeper plot involving the hospital’s head psychiatrist, the disappeared Rachel Solondo and Andrew Laeddis, the man who killed his wife.

Unreliable narrators

Now for the twist. If you didn’t see it coming, both of our protagonists are in fact patients in their respective mental facilities. Francis has made up his entire story. Jane and the somnambulist are fellow patients. Dr. Calirgari is in fact the good director of the asylum. Teddy meanwhile isn’t Teddy at all. He is Andrew Laeddis. He killed his own wife. The entire investigation is a ruse attempting to jar him back into reality. It doesn’t quite work.

You’d be forgiven for seeing both twist endings coming for miles. Both films feature stories that become increasingly fantastic and highly expressionist production design that seems to be peace with the reality of the film at first, but eventually we wonder. Yet I’m not sure that the purpose of these films is a cheap trick twist. We logically recognize that films are fake, actors and props on a set. Yet we accept it as a reality that plays beyond the limits of the film. We consider pasts and futures for characters, motivations, inner thoughts. There’s something uncomfortable about movies that tell us explicitly that they’re fake.

The mind’s eye

The significant difference between these two movies may be the process by which they do this. Shutter Island makes little effort to cover up the fact that the “surprise” is coming. This in turn turned off a lot of viewers who anticipated the reveal, and took the falsehood of what they were witnessing as a sign that their emotional involvement was for naught. It’s an understandable reaction. Who wants to put their time and emotional effort into something untrue? The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari strings the audience along with more determination. The reveal that the entire plot is the invention of Francis is more likely to be a surprise and more likely to be received with delight (though this isn’t always the case).

Yet, as the film that spends more time winking at the audience with it’s own artificiality, Shutter Island contains more reality than Dr. Caligari. The events (or at least most of the events) in Shutter Island actually happen. It’s simply the perception of Marshall Teddy that is false, leaving us less clear as to what plot points his mind has manufactured and which are objective reality than Francis’s tale which is entirely concocted and untrue. Both of the protagonists in these stories create realities where they are heroes instead of madmen, and thus both lean toward a question asked frequently in such fantasy films (and DiCaprio’s other movie of 2010): Is a pleasant fantasy better than a troubling reality? Is it really wrong if we don’t know the difference?

So too can it be said of the movies. We allow ourselves to experience reality vicariously through characters we know are false but don’t want to believe are false. Teddy and Francis would rather be great than recognize that they are in fact powerless, ordinary, and flawed. When their films admit that they are in fact all those things, are we vicariously forced to admit that we are too?

Thursday
Mar242011

Tennessee 100: "The Fugitive Kind"

Michael C. here from Serious Film to join in the Tennessee Williams festivities. When I picked a film to write about I jumped at The Fugitive Kind because

A) I'm a big Sidney Lumet fan and
B) I was curious how a second Brando/Williams collaboration could fly so far below my radar. I got my answer and then some.

The Fugitive Kind (1960) directed by Sidney Lumet based on Tennessee Williams’ play Orpheus Descending is one of the most fascinating messes I’ve ever seen. There is no getting around the fact that it just doesn’t work, yet I think I’d recommend it more readily than a lot of successful movies I’ve seen. Of all its flaws being dull is not one of them.

Williams writing was as inescapable in the fifties as Jane Austen’s was in the nineties. After burning through his major works Hollywood decided to take one of his rare unsuccessful productions and give it the full feature length treatment. Thus Opheus Descending, the story of a musician named Snakeskin with a questionable past who strikes up a relationship with a trapped middle-aged woman while lying low in a tiny southern town, hit the big screen under the title The Fugitive Kind.

This film represents Brando’s return to Tennessee Williams for the first and only time following his iconic work as Stanley Kowalski, and Anna Magnani’s second Williams project after winning the Best Actress Oscar for the movie of his play The Rose Tattoo. This was Sidney Lumet’s first encounter with Tennessee but his success with the adaptation of Broadway’s 12 Angry Men made him a natural choice. With such a collection of talent it can leave one wondering why so few still talk about The Fugitive Kind.

Brando and Magnani: Tennessee Williams Sophomore Slump

Until one actually watches the movie that is.

Click to read more ...

Thursday
Mar242011

Reader of the Day: Hayden

Sometimes when I'm reading the comments, at least for the frequent chatterboxes, I start to get a sense of which directors and actors some of you like. Other times it's hard to tell. With Hayden I knew in the subcategory of Warren Beatty Paramours we disagreed on Annette Bening and were sympatico on Julie Christie. So let's learn more in today's reader of the day.

Nathaniel: Do you remember your first moviegoing experience? first obsession?
HAYDEN: The first time I went to the movies was to see The Lion King, which fits because Elton John was my first concert. I was all of three years old in 1994, so I remember leaving early for crying or misbehaving or something. As for an obsession, I really got hooked on Woody Allen during my sophomore year of high school. There were dozens of his classics and lesser films OnDemand so I probably powered through thirty of them in one year.

You were three in 94?! [cough. *pauses to take some Geritol*]. When did you start reading the Film Experience?
2004 was the first year I actively followed the Oscars, and I first came here for the charts. I would say that I stayed when I realized that TFE blog was so fun to read, too. I think before you can enter the dialogue on the Oscar blogosphere, you need a semi-comprehensive sense of Oscar mythology. So I spent some time catching up on history before I started participating.

That's actually astute. There is a learning curve or at least a gateway year to sensible Oscar obsessiveness. Not that Oscar is a sensible state of being exactly! But moving on. Let us not speak of your bizarre hostility to The Bening. Your favorite 3 actresses?
Julianne Moore, Julie Christie, Vanessa Redgrave. And I’m not hostile towards the Bening so much as I think she gets slightly more credit than is due, in a sea of actresses who aren’t even close to getting the praise they deserve.

[short e-pause] I also want to add Blythe Danner to my "favorite actresses" thing. 'Cause she's so absurdly underrated.

Take away somebody's Oscar and give it to someone else. What year? who? why?
Well, I don’t want to pick on Driving Miss Daisy's Jessica Tandy, so I’ll just give Helen Hunt’s As Good As it Gets win to Julie Christie (Afterglow). Julie won so early in her career and has been ripe for a second win so many times. And I have a much easier time accepting (and embracing) wins like Marion Cotillard’s in La Vie En Rose and Jane Fonda’s for Klute than I do Hunt’s. (But seriously, Pfeiffer's The Fabulous Baker Boys was a Crowning Best Actress Moment if ever one existed.)

[Editor's note: I swear I did not pay Hayden to say that but all Pfans agree and thank him.]

Which newish directors are you rooting for in the coming decade?

I’ve been dying to see how Jonathan Glazer follows up Birth. If that wasn’t a fluke, he’ll be one of my favorite directors. I’m also dying for more direction from Sarah Polley.

previous readers of the day: Dominique, Murtada, Cory, WalterPaolo, Leehee and BBats

Thursday
Mar242011

"Erotic Vagrancy"

As only La Liz can do it (on the set of Suddenly Last Summer.)

It was the Vatican that coined that infamous phrase about Elizabeth Taylor 'descending into erotic vagrancy' around the extended time of her leisurely multiple year abandon with Richard Burton during the Cleopatra years. That movie was filming forever and when it began the public was still reeling from the Reynolds /Fisher /Liz triangle. The "insult" was published in the Vatican Newspaper but online searches have only found numerous references to it but no images (was it a front page headline befitting the Giant-ess?) and I'd love to read the whole text, wouldn't you?

But my-oh-my... it's almost like Taylor's estate should thank the Vatican, because it's such a wonderful compliment for an Iconic Screen Siren and it stuck. People, not just me, still reference it 50 years later!

Which brings us (sort of) to today's 'Taylor Tribute of Note' from Tim Robey in The Telegraph on her defining big screen image.

If there’s an archetypal Taylor scene we could focus on, it’s the image of her sprawling in bed. One suspects she felt most comfortable acting when not having to stand, since most of her key roles furnish ample excuse to take to a four-poster, a sofa or a chaise-longue in a pose of either seduction, wailing decrepitude, or occasionally both.

Wonderful piece, a must read.

Thursday
Mar242011

First and Last 

the first and last images from motion pictures. How've you been doing this season?

Can you guess the movie?

 answer is after the jump.

Click to read more ...