Archive for Max Ophuls

Like Tears in the Rain

Posted in FILM, MUSIC with tags , , , , , , , , , , on November 22, 2012 by dcairns

Hayward is wayward, but never fear, Robert is Cummings! The self-confessed Butcher of Strasbourg joins the flame-haired siren over at The Daily Notebook in this week’s edition of The Forgotten. Which is nothing if not apt — a Forgotten about THE LOST MOMENT.

Ophuls said that the Hollywood composer is like the man who dispenses cheese in an Italian restaurant. You say “Thank you, that’s enough,” he goes away, and then a minute later you catch him spooning more on. “You have to watch him.”

He was talking specifically of Daniele Amfitheatrof, who nevertheless did a stunning job on LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN, and again here. You never hear the Greek mentioned along with his American and Hungarian colleagues. Seems to me he may be deserving of more consideration.

M is for María Félix as La mujer de todos and Camelia

Posted in FILM, literature, MUSIC, Theatre with tags , , , , , , , , on September 12, 2012 by dcairns

Hola! David Melville Wingrove’s A-Z of Mexican melodrama reaches its midpoint. 

CINE DORADO 

The Golden Age of Mexican Melodrama 

M is for María Félix as La mujer de todos (Every Man’s Woman) and Camelia

If you had to sum up the whole of melodrama in one character, it could only be The Lady of the Camellias – the tubercular high-class hooker who dies for love. Concocted by Alexandre Dumas fils from a real-life source, her story is an iconic mishmash of love and money, ecstasy and suffering, sex and death. She has been played famously on screen by Greta Garbo, Alla Nazimova and Isabelle Huppert. On stage by Sarah Bernhardt, Edwige Feuillère and Isabelle Adjani. As an opera (Giuseppe Verdi’s La Traviata) by Maria Callas, Angela Gheorghiu and any other diva worthy of the name.

Only fitting, in that case, that María Félix – the supreme melodramatic star – should play her not once but twice. Her darkly imperious eyes and her exquisitely anguished face are enough, in themselves, to tell us what this story is about (Acting is, of course, optional.) Not that either of her films is a literal, word-for-word transcription. Directed by Julio Bracho in 1946, La mujer de todos (Every Man’s Woman) is less an adaptation than a rhapsody on themes by Dumas. Camelia, directed by Roberto Gavaldón in 1953, is a proto post-modern update that anticipates the Life as Theatre parables of Carlos Saura. While they are recognisably the work of bold and independent auteurs, María Félix reigns supreme over both.

La mujer de todos is set in Madrid and provincial Mexico in 1919. With its long, sinuous tracking shots and its unerring sense of period, the film makes us wonder if Julio Bracho was Latin America’s answer to Max Ophüls. One scene at a funfair plays like Letter from an Unknown Woman with a mariachi band thrown in. Reflected from scene to scene in a series of full-length mirrors, María confronts herself and her romantic woes with all the aplomb of Danielle Darrieux as Madame de…

She makes her entrance at a lavish masked ball, thrown by her married lover (Alberto Galán) to celebrate his departure from Spain for the New World. A room full of cast-off gentlemen friends extol her as “the most beautiful woman in Europe – and the most expensive”. In her clinging black lace gown, her trailing black feather boa and her prodigiously oversized black picture hat – with a clutch of diamonds sparkling at her throat – María looks all that and then some. Here and throughout La mujer de todos, the match between the star and her wardrobe is as iconic as that of Catherine Deneuve in Belle de Jour, Silvana Mangano in Death in Venice or Marlene Dietrich in any of her films for Josef von Sternberg.

No sooner has she arrived at the party than a lovesick young man tries to shoot her in a fit of jealous rage. He misses, naturally. Later, as she calmly sips her champagne, he takes up his pistol again and shoots himself in the head. Looking mildly perturbed at this turn of events, María decides to accompany Galán home to Mexico – where her existence must, of course, be hidden from his icy blonde wife and her stuffily conservative family. He installs her in sinful splendour in some out-of-the-way mansion and all goes well…until she meets his illegitimate half-brother (Armando Calvo) and falls truly in love.

Like all the very best melodramas, La mujer de todos is at once a heavy-breathing wallow in doomed and frustrated passion and a stingingly accurate portrait of social and sexual hypocrisy. Calvo is himself the fruit of a secret liaison between Galán’s father and his long-concealed Spanish mistress. What’s more, the boy has no idea that he and Galán are actually brothers! Without ever once bothering to tell him the truth, Galán now plans to marry him off to a simpering young thing with the annoyingly symbolic name of Angélica. Mind you, he’s not above asking the younger man to accompany his mistress to the opera – lest she feel a wee bit desolate and neglected, alone in her deluxe shag pad.

The discovery of true love goes hand in hand, naturally, with a discovery of Mexico itself. Rejecting the false pseudo-European values of the city, María and her lover run away and go native. Sexual fulfilment, in this movie, means luxuriating in a straw hut by moonlight – swinging in a hammock and slurping greedily on a watermelon. We know things are serious when Calvo gives away a whole trunk of María’s chic Parisian wardrobe, acquired in her previous life of degradation and sin. (Not that it makes any real difference; she remains exquisitely gowned throughout the movie.) But once he proposes marriage, his big brother steps in to split them up.

The two rivals head inevitably towards a duel, as Bracho takes us on a bizarre detour to a scene in an all-male gymnasium – where half-naked but utterly gorgeous young men swing on hoops and flex their biceps in a long and luxuriant tracking shot. (Knowing nothing of Bracho’s personal life, I can say only that this may be the most homoerotic sequence in 40s cinema outside of Kenneth Anger’s Fireworks.) María can prevent a calamity only by renouncing the man she loves…so she boards a train and heads back to Europe, where new admirers (not to speak of new gowns, hats and jewels) doubtless await her.

If La mujer de todos is a triumph of melodrama in its classic form, Camelia is an altogether edgier and more complex affair. Its director, Roberto Gavaldón, veers closer to Douglas Sirk than to Ophüls. His film is at once a quasi-Brechtian deconstruction of melodrama’s most hallowed clichés, and a shamelessly tear-soaked celebration thereof. Updating the story to Mexico City in 50s, he casts María as one Camelia Peral – a ruthlessly ambitious actress who has slept her way, overtly and without apology, to the top. As one of her admirers comments early on, “that girl wears her beauty like an act of defiance.” She herself puts it in worldlier and less psychological terms. “Emeralds!” she snorts as she opens yet another present. “Some men have no imagination!”

As the film opens, María/Camelia is starring in a lavish stage production of The Lady of the Camellias. The play becomes an ironic mirror for her offstage life – as she falls in love with a poor but ambitious bullfighter (played by hunky Spanish star Jorge Mistral) who has no idea, naturally, that she is dying from a brain tumour. When they meet at a party at her house, María’s decadent society friends make him act out a scene for their amusement. He shocks them all by kissing her for real. As the film ends, María plays her big death scene onstage; meanwhile, she is actually dying in real life. She addresses her dying words, not to her callow leading man, but to Mistral as he stands weeping in the wings.

Flitting adroitly from Art to Life and back again, Gavaldón anticipates – by three decades – the consciously theatrical ‘art’ films of Carlos Saura (Dulces horas, Carmen, Blood Wedding and so on). But he also takes an obligatory side trip into the ‘real’ world of rural Mexico, as María briefly gives up her career to follow Jorge on the bullfight trail. Our interest may flag when she sits in the back of a bus, dutifully stitching up a rip in his torero outfit. Still, it perks up again when she cross-dresses (and very fetchingly, too) in a bullfighter’s suit of her own.

For any who remain unconvinced, La mujer de todos and Camelia should confirm María Félix as the supreme goddess of Latin American cinema – a Garbo in all but talent. Camelia even sneaks in a sly pastiche of Garbo’s famous ‘passing train’ finale from Anna Karenina. María runs down a railway station platform, searching for her lover; Gavaldón tracks his camera along the entire length of the train, revealing her exquisite face through window after window. MGM, of course, kept the camera tight on Garbo as it let the train pass by. We watch Garbo, covertly – as if she does not know we are watching. We watch María, overtly. She knows the world is there to watch her.

David Melville

Background Artistry

Posted in FILM, literature with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 7, 2012 by dcairns

“Keep going, Reggie, it’s filling up.”

“I’m going as fast as I can.”

“Not good enough.”

With Paul W.S. Anderson’s MUSKETEERS atrocity coming out already forgotten, a few newspaper critics have muttered about the good old 1973 THE THREE MUSKETEERS directed by Richard Lester. This is gratifying attention for a film (and its sequels) too rarely mentioned, but doesn’t go into what makes it special. The implication seems to be that Lester’s movies delivered the required action, romance and spectacle in a sensible manner, without all the steampunk tomfoolery of the newfangled & crapfangled version befouling our 21st century megaplexes.

This is true, but doesn’t go far enough. Lester’s films work as a satire of the assumptions of swashbuckling cinema, while still delivering the pleasures associated with it. In this, they’re perfectly in keeping with Dumas’ original novel, although they arguably exaggerate its skeptical attitude. A clue to this comes in Charlton Heston’s memoir: he asked Lester, before starting the role of Cardinal Richelieu, how much comedy to put into it, since this was an area he had little experience in. “None, damn it,” was Lester’s reply, as reported by Chuck (the phraseology sounds more Hestonian than Lesteroid). Lester then made the point that Richelieu was the only competent character in Dumas’ book — he’s only defeated because his stooges are even less cunning than bumpkin D’Artagnan and his enthusiastic, apolitical cohorts.

Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott, authors of the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN movies, are great admirers of Lester’s films — using them as a model rather than the usual Spielberg influences gives them an edge, but they’re not really competing in the same arena: their films combine slapstick and swashbuckling — to make something we could call either swashstick or slapbuckle — but they have no satirical viewpoint, partly because their films are set in a vague never-neverland rather than a precise historical moment.

Everything in Lester’s films is historically researched, even the cowhide submarine, which at least existed in blueprint form at the time. By having his characters fall in the mud or miss their targets when swinging from ropes, he’s not just being amusing (though the best gags have a Keatonesque flair), he’s taking the piss out of the characters and their aspirations. He manages to do this without eliminating the pleasure of seeing elaborately costumed people doing dangerous things, having learned in the sixties that “Brechtian alienation is a synonym for audience’s backs seen disappearing down a street”),  but it should be hard to miss the genial contempt these movies have for the royalty, the military, religion and politicians.

Part of the films’ armoury of narrative contraptions for achieving this is the artful use of extras. Rather than just being scene-fillers, these are very much self-directed characters in their own right, generally cast as victims of the royal, military, religious and political plotters moving across the foreground. Lester loves to create bits of business for them in pantomime, then dub on lines in post-production, adding another draft to the script. His use of sound seems influenced by Tati, and it’s pretty bold at times. The comedian Ronnie Barker quit the dub of ROBIN AND MARIAN because Lester wanted him to add a line where his lips weren’t moving. “Nobody’ll notice,” promised Lester. Barker walked out and was re-voiced by David Jason. So, not everybody likes this approach.*

Which brings us to THE THREE MUSKETEERS, which has several great moments illustrating the value of the extra + overdub. Having broken into the palace, D’Artagnan is faced with a roomful of querulous aristocrats — he grabs the rug they’re standing on and attempts to yank it from under them. A thin strip of it tears off in his hands. He drops it and runs. The aristocrats just stand there. “He’s torn our carpet,” remarks one, sniffily (they all have their backs to camera: the line is an overdub).

Then there’s the dedicated drinkers who go on getting sloshed during a tavern brawl, rapiers flashing within inches of their reddening noses. These guys communicate solely in grunts. A cleaning woman keeps scrubbing the steps as D’Artagnan repeatedly bumps into her while he’s apologizing to Oliver Reed for bumping into him.

Our first real look at Paris — a little girl watches in fascination as a “dentist” extracts teeth in the street, a woman pour a bucket of shit from a window — onto an unlucky greengrocer, a tree is wheeled past (testimony to the passion for landscape gardening at the time) and the rat-catcher’s latest acquisitions, swinging from a pole over his shoulder, slap into D’Artagnan.

And then there’s the liveried manservants at the King’s part, seen at the top of this post — the fountain of wine has been installed without adequate drainage, so these poor guys are on hand to keep drinking to prevent the ballroom overflowing with burgundy. Well, it’s a living.

Interestingly, the other filmmaker with a gift for using bit-players and extras to undercut historical romance is the rather different… Max Ophuls. Consider the freezing old man on the bicycle whose job is to make the scenery go past as Louis Jourdan and Joan Fontaine enjoy their imaginary train ride in the Volksprater, or the musicians who are dying to finish work but have to keep playing as long as the lovers dance… Of course, in Ophuls the romantic still wins out over the cynical, which is partly why he moves the camera so much and Lester moves it so little.

*Lester doubts Barker’s recollection here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 359 other followers