Raking over the Ashes

vlcsnap-184492

Art, which we can barely see, by Felix Topolski, creating a modern version of 18th century cartoons.

THE RAKE’S PROGRESS, directed by Sidney Gilliat, is the film Francois Truffaut says he likes when Hitch asks him if he ever saw any Launder & Gilliat movies. In FT’s opinion, GREEN FOR DANGER “didn’t quite work,” a frustratingly brief critique, but not as frustrating as the fact that, having raised the subject, Hitchcock doesn’t offer an opinion himself.

Well, time has been good to GREEN FOR DANGER, which has received the deluxe Criterion treatment and been discovered by American cinephiles who would mostly have been unaware of its existence. Here in Britain it’s an acknowledged classic, which means that the general public is even more unaware of its existence. A sort of combination of whodunnit, character comedy and giallo, GFD is a delightful, quirky and intelligent entertainment from the pinnacle of British cinema’s golden age. THE RAKE’S PROGRESS, meanwhile, is almost impossible to see — unscreened on television for years, never revived, unavailable on tape and disc.

vlcsnap-184718

I finally tracked down a curiously flickering copy of the film, which proved mildly disappointing, but not by any means bad. Detailing the misadventures of a reckless, increasingly caddish scamp, played by Rex Harrison, the movie seemed most useful as an illustration of the late Leslie Halliwell’s ability to colossally miss the point.

Halliwell, a ubiquitous film writer who penned the first film dictionary I owned (and just about the only one available here in the 80s, save Ephraim Kurtz’s less all-encompassing but far more intelligent rival volume), once wrote that the climax of THE RED SHOES suggested that Powell and Pressburger had run out of ideas and couldn’t think of how to end their film, which kind of demonstrates the scale of ass the man could be. With THE RAKE’S PROGRESS he surpasses even that: “with silly endpapers in which, quite out of character, the rake becomes a war hero.” The reason that’s dumb is that the entire point of the film illustrates a notion of Gilliat’s, which I suspect is true, that a certain kind of man — arrogant, reckless, fearless, motivated by thrill-seeking and attention-seeking — who is a total liability in time of peace, can be a very useful asset in time of war. The film’s greatest achievement may be the fact that it makes this point forcefully (it’s hard to see how anyone could miss it) without insulting Britain’s WWII heroes.

Sexy Rexy begins the film being heroic in a tank, and then we flash back to his youth, getting sent down from Oxford for climbing monuments (and putting chamberpots on top of them — the inter-war equivalent of TP-ing, I guess), a relatively harmless jape, it’s true. Meanwhile he’s carrying on with a friend’s girl, a less innocent form of fun.

vlcsnap-1852281

His M.P. father finds him a job in a South American coffee business, an opportunity he blows when he realises how inefficient and inhumane the corporation is (nothing about exploiting the natives, however: Sexy Rexy gets himself fired after a researcher is made redundant). Returning to England, Rex seduces his friend’s girl again, but she’s now the guy’s wife, so that ends badly. A short career as a racing driver offers some success, but when the major European races are cancelled due to impending war, Rex is on his uppers again.

vlcsnap-185686

Now comes the strongest part — Lili Palmer (real-life Mrs. Harrison) enters the film (1hr 10mins in) as a Jewish refugee looking for a husband who can get her British citizenship. She has a bit of money to pay Rex’s debts, and motivated by some genuine unselfish feeling (hearing a Hitler speech booming out in the night) he agrees to help. But he’s not that nice — he invents a £3,000 debt in England which she has to pay too (this cleans her out), so that he can pocket the money. This is pretty nasty behaviour for a hero in a film of this period. Of course, the joke’s on him when his equally caddish best mate embezzles the money from him and loses it in a stock market gamble.

I was delighted to realise this must have been a film my late friend Lawrie assisted on. He worked on GREEN FOR DANGER the previous year, as replacement 3rd Assistant Director, and told me he had made a film with Harrison and Palmer, but didn’t seem to remember what it was. Mainly he remembered them constantly swearing at each other, “the filthiest language I’d ever heard” — and he had been in the Royal Air Force.

vlcsnap-186752

After destroying his marriage AND his father, Rex drifts into the seedy night-life of the taxi-dancer, at which point I realised the film was following the same path as Hitchcock’s DOWNHILL, which I had just seen. What makes THE RAKE more fun than the sombre (but still enjoyable) Hitch silent, is the way Rex manages to have a fair bit of fun on his road to ruin, and is generally completely guilty of everything he’s accused of. He’s a refreshingly irredeemable swine for a film of this era, and it’s a courageous way to depict an officer and a gentleman in 1945 (we also get glimpses of police corruption, class prejudice in action, quietly tolerated adultery, and a few other surprises). My guess is that Launder & Gilliat were still in their left-leaning, angry young men phase (they turned conservative soon after, as men if not as filmmakers: some of their later works do still show sparks of wild invention).

The ending is sweet. Rex’s pal and a senior officer look at his body in a bombed-out cellar, and hear of his dying words, “…a good year.” The officer remarks that it’s men like Rex who have made it one. The witness to the death says that he thinks Rex was referring to the champagne bottle he’d been glugging from. “He died as he lived: drinking champagne he hadn’t paid for.”

The officer says he considers the remark in very poor taste, and strops off.

vlcsnap-258107

“You’d have appreciated it,” says the cad to the dead rake.

23 Responses to “Raking over the Ashes”

  1. Arthur S. Says:

    THE RAKE’S PROGRESS story sounds a lot like STOLEN KISSES, in peacetime, Antoine is a lousy soldier keeps fucking around and raises hell. Maybe that’s why Truffaut liked it, he must have identified with the RAKE and pleased with his PROGRESS.

  2. Sounds enormously interesting. Especially in relation to Rex’s actual life, as he was a far from merely :”naughty” scoundrel, leaving the suicides of Carol Landis, Rachel Roberts and probably a few others we haven’t heard of in his wake

    All we get for film is Rex’s charm, on view in everything from Blithe Spirit and My Fair Lady to his Mankiewicz films — especially Escape, Cleopatra and my favorite “Mankiewicz Maudit” — The Honey Pot

  3. Astonishingly, Lilli Palmer actually attempts suicide over him in the film — something that was only possible since the film was made before those rl tragedies. His charm does seem to have been deadly. And confined to those intimate with him — so many colleagues and casual acquaintances seem to have found him very unpleasant indeed.

    “I think we should put on a birthday bash for Rex and invite all his friends,” said one younger actor, “is there a phone booth available to stage it in?”

    An awesome light comedian, though — years of playing in rep honed his natural talent to amuse and he had an incredible command of comedy dialogue, seen somewhere near its peak in Unfaithfully Yours.

    I’m dying to see The Honey Pot.

  4. The difference between Rex’s rake and Doinel has to do with what David E is talking about — this is closer to a real portrait of Rex’s irresponsible and callous behaviour. If anything, the portrait is probably still a flattering one, but his character is far more unpleasant than Doinel, who is more unfocussed and idle than narcissistic or mean. Doinel is selfish only through carelessness.

  5. Arthur S. Says:

    What about UNFAITHFULLY YOURS! which is Rex being charmingly unpleasant.

  6. Arthur S. Says:

    Yeah. I was joking around. THE RAKE’S PROGRESS is to my knowledge the only non-Hitchcock Truffaut is on record to liking.

  7. The previous comments pretty much affirm what I already knew about Harrison (an arrogant prick maybe?), not an actor who arouses much interest in me. I think I recall seeing Night Train To Munich years ago, but there’s almost nothing else in his resume that I’ve caught up with. Lilli Palmer was a lovely woman, too good for him perhaps. And I like that you addressed, even briefly, the Halliwell/Katz comparison. I discussed this along with a few others on another blog recently, and I think you summed things up rightly. And those last two frame grabs are beautiful in light and composition.

  8. Harrison is so good onscreen (you need to see him at his best though, and Night Train to Munich isn;t quite that) you forget how appalling he could apparently be.

    It sounds like Lilli Palmer gave as good as she got, at least. My friend Lawrie interviewed her sister for a job, once. “She looked like Lilli, but everything was slightly mismatched, the proprtions were off, so what was beautiful in Lilli was unappealing in her.”

    The movie deserves at least a decent release so we can see the photography — it’s more interesting than some of the Gilliat films which ARE available in the UK.

  9. The Honey Pot was Mankiewicz’s “comeback” after “The three hardest films I ever made” aka. Cleopatra. It’s based on Frederick Knott play modelled after Ben Johnson’s “Volpone.” The fabulously wealthy Mr. Fox (Rex) declares that he is dying and invites the women who have meant the most of him to his palatial digs in Venice: Susan Hayward, Capucine and Edie Adams. It’s all a ruse for reasons that don’t become clear until the third act. Cliff Robertson is Rex’s major domo to whom he disclose most, but hardly all of what’s up. Maggie Smith plays Susan Hayward’s secretary and in the course of the action falls for Cliff.

    The DP was the great Gianni Di Venanzo, who expired halfway through the shoot.

    Edie Adams’ casting is especially interesting. She wasn’t a major movie star but was known for her impression of Marilyn Monroe in her nightclub act and TV appearances. The character she plays in the film suggests what Marilyn might have been like had she not died and “married well” in the traditional Holywood manner — to a soon-to-expire Mr. Moneybags.
    Thinking about it lately in light of Edie’s recent passing.

    Rex is quite good in it. A very beautiful, very Mankiewicz film that in 1967 was simply Too Hip For The House in the classical manner.

  10. Yeah, there was a period where Wilder and Mankiewicz must have looked out-of-touch and irrelevant to the popular audience, making elegant sex comedies when the walls of censorship were rapidly coming down, making classical indirection look redundant. But a lot of these films have aged well.

  11. I saw “Honey Pot” several times when I was in my salad days … which has been, um, quite a while.

    Despite a lot of pleasure connected to the film — stuff like, say, Susan Hayward talking about the roll of quarters that she keeps clasped inside her fist — my main impression is that it was *verbose*.

    Didn’t Richard Corliss write once that Mankiewicz’s work suffered when Darryl Zanuck wasn’t around to edit it? I don’t have a lot of sympathy for either Zanuck or Corliss, but …

  12. Well, Mank is a filmmaker who likes his talk, no question… and Zanuck was one of the smarter moguls, and a writer himself. I’ll download this one when I’m able and get back to you on it.

  13. His verbosity was what impressed Godard so much. His first review as a film critic was of House of Strangers. He cast Georgia Moll in Contempt because of her apearance in Mankiewicz’s The Quiet American and Contempt is full of declamatory speeches right out of The Barefoot Contessa. In fact I’d go so far as to say that Mankiewicz is to Godard what Hitchcock was to Truffaut.

  14. Arthur S. Says:

    In Godard’s sublime ”Nouvelle-Vague” he again uses ”The Barefoot Contessa” as a reference point, the Count’s name Torlata-Favrini is used as a surname.

  15. Heh. I just attempted to “friend” JLG on Facebook.

    I suspect that, if he replies, we’ll know it’s not really him.

  16. Arthur S. Says:

    With Godard you can never tell.

  17. For what it’s worth, this comes on late-night Australian TV every 4-5 months or so: if you’re interested, I can record it next time and send you a copy.

  18. I saw this one as a kid, about 20 years ago, and never forgot it (I recently downloaded an avi version, but haven’t re-watched it yet)–as you point out, it’s wonderfully free of the palliated rakery of something like Lubitsch’s “Heaven Can Wait” (although I love that movie!)–this guy is a REAL bastard–and yet, a likable and (even more important) useful one

    oh and Halliwell! What an astounding simpleton!!! Forget “Early Hawks Week”–let’s see a blogathon devoted to Halliwell’s critical lack-umen! (I’d dust off my crusty old site for that one!)

  19. oh and another great Launder/Gilliat collaboration is “I See a Dark Stranger” (aka “The Adventuress”), which gave Deborah Kerr one of her best roles as an Irish patriot driven into complicity with the Nazis in her anti-British zeal (of course, the film certainly does have its questionable political aspects–in its presentation of the troubles)

    but I love it for Kerr’s performance–and the amazing shifts in tone (going from slapstick fisticuffs to genuinely eerie meditations upon a sabotaged allied invasion)

  20. Kerr’s a feisty little stinker in this one, quite unlike most of the other performances in her long and stately career. I watched this again not too long back, and it remains for me a very enjoyable film, a bit like Hitchcock in tone and execution. Nice 40s cinematography too, great use of light and shadow.

  21. Oh, j’adore I See a Dark Stranger, a really sweet blending of so many different tones and elements, from nightmare to romantic comedy. It’s like EARLY Hitchcock in that carefree way, which may be partly what Hitch’s British screenwriters brought to the table. The American films are more consistent, which is both good and, in a way, a slight shame. Not that I can really complain — I love both periods.

    It would be fun to spend a week kicking Halliwell, but he DID introduce me to a lot of films, sometimes in a kack-handed way, but I sort of appreciate him for the effort. He was a dreadful film writer in many ways, but we needed somebody to do his job.

    I’ll get an upgrade of this at some point, JRSM, but now that I’ve at least seen it, it’s less urgent. Thanks though.

  22. oh I owe Halliwell a lot too!

    I devoured Harvest and Hundred when I was a youngster, just falling in love with studio age films on late night Vermont PBS, and the guide was the most informative–if not the most perspicacious–thing around, before the advent of the IMDB–did Maltin bother listing screenwriters and directors of photography? ‘course not!

    still–he had an appallingly literal mind for an aficionado of such a triumphantly “artificial” period in film history

  23. I was really put off Leslie Halliwell when he defended ITV’s cutting movies in order to fit commercials in. Part of his argument seemed to be that the films were old so everybody had seen them intact. I hadn’t! I read in his book that in Charade, Cary Grant takes a shower with his clothes on, then I saw the film on ITV and that scene was cut!

    But as a source of info, great. I still have copies of his books in case the computer goes down and I want to know something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers