The Essential Films: "The Gunfighter" (1950)

 

A series of Writings on Films that I feel are essential for film lovers, coupled with films that are personal to me. Spoilers for those who haven’t seem the film.

Henry King's western The Gunfighter is one of the quietist films about violence I've ever seen. The Gunfighter could've been the title of a hundred different traditional action-driven westerns but King’s film concerns a man who doesn't want to be a gunfighter and is burdened by his own legend, which gives the title a melancholic and tragic quality. I would argue the film is an anti-western in how it refuses to fulfill the audiences' desire for violence and when it does there's no glamour, triumph or thrilling-ness to it. The film is largely about trying to outrun your own reputation.

Jimmy Ringo (Gregory Peck) is known as the fastest gun in the west. After he kills a young man named Eddie (Richard Jaeckel)- who wanted to become the man who killed Ringo- in self-defence, Ringo heads to the town of Cayenne. He waits to speak to his wife Peggy (Helen Westcott), with whom he has a son he's never met, while Eddie's brothers are in pursuit. Ringo's arrival also brings unwanted attention. Like High Noon (1952) the film takes place in a short amount of time and has a sense of intimacy in regards to the town. We become acquainted with several members of the town, most importantly the town's Marshal, Mark Strett (Millard Mitchell), an old friend of Ringo's and whom was in a gang with Ringo. In Strett we see a man who never became cursed by legend and was able to start over as a lawman. And Peggy has changed her surname, to conceal her marriage to Ringo. 

I said the film was an anti-western but it's also a film-noir in its themes and visual style. Many noir films deal with men and women wanting to escape their past but are caught in the web of fate. I also mentioned High Noon, which sees Gary Cooper's Marshal Will Kane walk around town in an attempt to gather people to help him fight outlaws who have targeted Will for revenge. In The Gunfighter Ringo is in a saloon for long stretches of the film. He has no interest in fighting Eddie's brothers. High Noon, despite being an unconventional western, still has the hero facing down the villains at the climax. There is no climatic showdown in this film. And Ringo isn’t portrayed as a hero. Like many film noir protagonists,  he’s morally grey. 

 John Bowers and Andre De Toth originally wrote the story for John Wayne. Wayne loved the story and offered Bowers 10,000 for it. Bowers thought it was worth more and eventually sold it to to Columbia for 70,000. Wayne refused to work for Columbia's President Harry Cohn, who had treated Wayne poorly earlier in his career. 20th Century Fox ultimately bought the story and Peck was cast. Peck wasn't associated with westerns the way Wayne obviously was. On the Criterion Collection Blu-Ray/DVD, filmmaker Gina Telaroli remarks how the film visually changes Peck's onscreen image, giving him a period accurate mustache and clothes that don't completely fit, also a period accurate detail. 

Telaroli adds that Peck was considered too intellectual an actor for the part but argues- and I agree- Peck's intellectualism suits the more psychological quality the film has. I feel the humility and pragmatism Peck radiates as an actor is perfect for Ringo's approach to his own legend and to killing. For Ringo killing is a matter or "him or me." He doesn't view it as glamorous or exciting. When Ringo kills Eddie at the beginning the film's editor Barbara McLean doesn't show Ringo fire the shot. We see Eddi gunned down and then a shot of Ringo with his gun drawn, punctuating Eddie's death. By not showing Ringo fire, cutting the scene in a more matter of fact matter, the audience is made to look at the situation more objectively, the way Ringo does.

I mentioned the film's noir inspired visual style earlier and never got around to talking about it.  Cinematographer Arthur C. Miller's use of shadows is obviously very noir-ish. Keeping the story indoors allows Miller to create a claustrophobic atmosphere in regards to the framing. The film keeps Ringo very isolated at his table, with Miller's deep-focus photography allowing us to see the other people in the saloon watching Ringo. This emphasizes the separation between Ringo and the townspeople. Despite its minimalist plot, King and Miller make the film visually interesting striking. 

At the end of the film it's not Eddie's brothers who get Ringo. It’s Hunt Bromley (Skit Homeier), another young man like Eddie who wants to be Ringo’s killer. Ringo says he drew first, saving Bromley from hanging. Ringo does this in order to have Bromley live the rest of his life with the reputation Ringo had, the curse which will bring challengers against Bromley. The curse of reputation and myth is passed down, and will continue to be passed down from killer to killer. 

The Gunfighter is a gem of a film. It's not always the first film mentioned when talking about the great westerns but it deserves more consideration. It sets itself apart from other westerns in its intimacy and seemingly anti-drama elements. But in its simplicity it harbors complex ideas concerning the challenge in separating yourself from your reputation, and the question you are vs. what you've been built up to be. And ultimately I believe Jimmy Ringo doesn't want to be more than his reputation; he just wants to be less.

Hallelujah: "Zack Snyder's Justice League"

Spoilers Below

Zack Snyder's Justice League is a vindication for an often misunderstood and unfairly demonized filmmaker. It's also a reaffirmation that superhero films can be genuine artistic expressions. After viewing the film I'm not sure about what Warner Bros. was in such a panic they felt the need to bring in Joss Whedon to reshoot so much of it. If they wanted the lighter-toned, more optimistic superhero film, Snyder gave it to them. Man of Steel had a rough around the edges Superman make some mistakes on his way to saving the world and Batman v. Superman was a deconstructionist take on the superhero mythos; but ZSJL is the most traditionally superheroic film in the trilogy. I would argue it has the perfect tone- serious but not as heavy as MoS or BvS, with just the right amount of levity without feeling like a MCU film. And even without the behind the scenes turmoil ZSJL would still stand as a very good- even great- superhero epic.

Right from the first scene it's clear this version is a more fluid continuation of BvS  than Whedon's version as we witness Superman's  Henry Cavill) death at the hands of Doomsday from that film's climax. But just that film's beginning had us see MoS's climax from Bruce Wayne's (Ben Affleck) perspective, here Snyder shows us Superman's death screams awakening the three Mother Boxes, which the being Darkseid (Ray Porter) once used in an attempt to conquer Earth thousands of years ago before he defeated by an union between Man, Olympian Gods, Atlanteans, Amazons and Green Lanterns. After the battle the Mother Boxes were separated and hidden. 

BvS and ZSJL's openings emphasize how Snyder's films are about Superman's presence- and absence in the world. BvS had an angry and distrustful Bruce who viewed Superman as a threat to humanity. Here, Bruce understands Superman's death leaves Earth vulnerable to attack- largely in part to his conversation with Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg). Bruce and Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot)  have to recruit other metahumans- Barry Allen/The Flash (Ezra Miller), Victor Stone/Cyborg (Ray Fisher), and Arthur Curry/Aquaman (Jason Momoa) to combat Darkseid's emissary Steppenwolf (Ciaran Hinds), who is looking for the Mother Boxes.

ZSJL doesn't have the same complex plotting of BvS but it's not as streamlined as the theatrical cut.four hours there's more breathing room for the characters to be fleshed out, especially Barry and Victor, the latter cited by Snyder as being the heart of the film. I loved Barry's introduction when he save Iris West (Kiersey Clemons) from a disastrous car wreck using his speed powers. Scored to Rose Betts' version of Tim Buckley's Song to the Siren, Snyder reminds us how romantic a superheroic feat can be. Without  exchanging words I'm already looking forward Iris and Barry's relationship in Andy Muschietti's Flash movie. 

Victor is the film's most identifiable character since he's the League member who views his powers as a curse, the position many people in reality would take if they were half human, half robot. Victor resents his father Dr. Silas Stone (Joe Morton) for making him this way after he was nearly killed in a car accident that claimed his mother Elinore Stone (Karen Bryson). Silas used one of the Mother Boxes to save Victor and this bit of plotting efficiently makes the Stone family the central part of the story.

Victor is reborn as Cyborg and birth/death/rebirth is a major motif through Snyder's trilogy. MoS begins with Superman's birth and Krypton's death. General Zod's (Michael Shannon) motivation is create a new Krypton on Earth. BvS ends with Superman's death and Bruce's rebirth as a more hopeful man. Clark Kent is reborn as the traditional Superman. He died sacrificing himself for humanity, proving to humanity how much he cares for them. When he returns- again, using a Mother Box- it's significant the first thing he sees is the memorial dedicated to him. And when he's fighting the League due to memory loss, it's Lois Lane (Amy Adams), who brings him to his senses, the person for whom he died. She, along with his mother Martha Kent (Diane Lane) represent humanity's best to Superman.

Snyder is known for his bombastity but Snyder is capable of incredibly intimate moments, some of the best in the genre. The scenes on the Kent farm in ZSJL are nostalgic and  warm, homaging Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie while still working on its own merits. It's about a family coming together, a man with the most important women in his life, finding peace even when the world may come to an end. 

Family is another big theme in this film; as I've already pointed out the Stones are central to the story and Superman has Martha and Lois. Bruce becomes part of a family again after the death of  his adopted son Robin. Diana has her mother and sisters on Themyscira and Arthur has unresolved issues with his Atlantean mother and human father. Barry 's father Henry Allen (Billy Crudup) is falsely imprisoned for the murder of Barry's mother (comic fans know what the backstory behind that is). And speaking of mother, the McGuffins are called Mother Boxes. Moreover, Steppenwolf is Darkseid's uncle who wants to get back in his favor after betraying him. 

I've talked quite a bit about the character stuff here so now I just want to say that Snyder creates the most visually bold and beautiful comic book movies. Snyder shot in the 4:3 aspect ratio, which gives the film wholly different feel than any other superhero film. Snyder has talked about his decision to shoot the film in this manner and how it was supposed to be seen in IMAX: Why Zack Snyder’s Justice League is in a 4:3 Aspect Ratio | Den of Geek

The film's cinematographer Fabian Wagner and Snyder create some truly right-off-the-page comic book images, which brings me to the "Knightmare" timeline, first glimpsed in BvS, where Darkseid has won and Superman is under his control. The Knightmare scene at the film's end is so comicbooky and I love it for that. The fact we have Arthur's queen Mera (Amber Heard) and the Joker (Jared Leto) is kind of incredible. And the dialogue between Batman and Joker feels ripped from an actual comic book.

There's more I'll probably write about ZSJL but for now I do really hope the "Snyderverse'' is restored. There's so much potential for this universe going forward. Snyder no doubt has a vision and embraces the craziness of the comic book universe. And if we're going to keep making comic book and superhero films we directors and writing to push the genre forward to avoid stagnation. So, what did you think of ZSJL? Comment below and let me know.

On "The Mandalorian," "The Last Jedi," and other things regarding Star Wars

Spoilers for The Mandalorian Season 2 Finale

I haven't written much about Star Wars on this blog, which is strange since like many people I have a lot thoughts about Star Wars. I do find it incredible that the most popular thing Disney has done with Star Wars is the Disney+ show, The Mandalorian. Though it also makes sense. The animated The Clone Wars became more well liked than the prequels and even redeemed them in many peoples' eyes. The Mandalorian has the same executive producer as The Clone Wars, Dave Filoni, who is seen as the heir apparent to George Lucas. And with the divisive reaction to Rian Johnson's The Last Jedi and further negative feelings towards J.J. Abrams' The Rise of Skywalker, The Mandalorian has the benefit of being outside what Disney has done with the Sequel Trilogy. It doesn't reactionary the way The Rise of Skywalker did, nor is it deconstructive like The Last Jedi. It's a show about a guy in cool armor and his cute baby. 

But in the season 2 finale, a major cameo and story turn caused many to rejoice and provoked cynicism in others. Luke Skywalker (a de-aged Mark Hamill) cut through Moff Gideon's (Giancarlo Esposito) Death Troopers before taking Baby Yoda-a.k.a Grogu- to train him in the ways of the force. Fans were happy to see the "real" Luke back after The Last Jedi showed us a broken Luke, no longer the hopeful young man of the original trilogy. Others felt Luke's appearance was a further rejection by Disney of  Johnson's objective in The Last Jedi, which was to deconstruct both the Star Wars mythology as well as the mythic hero archetype Luke came to embody.  

On a surface level Luke's appearance does feel like a retreat back in to nostalgia and providing people what they wanted in the sequel trilogy, i.e. Luke being a "badass." But as Alden Diaz, a user on Twitter, laid out in a thread, Luke in The Mandalorian does connect with Luke in The Last Jedi. I've posted a link to the 

Alden Diaz 🎙 on Twitter: "“Because I was Luke Skywalker. Jedi Master. A legend.” It honestly, truly blows my mind that some people don’t see (or don’t want to see) how #LukeSkywalker in #TheMandalorian connects so beautifully to Luke in #TheLastJedi. It adds immense emphasis to so much of what TLJ is. https://t.co/DYRvEpjTOt" / Twitter

I agree with Diaz, especially since in The Last Jedi Luke he got caught up in his own image: "I was Luke Skywalker, Jedi master." And in The Mandalorian, when he's chopping up those droids, with his cloak up, he is definitely playing in to the image of the mythic hero. Diaz says, 

"We are witnessing the man gain the mythical status & aura that make him feel invincible. It’s underlining his fall"

and that Luke's taking on Grogu after Ahsoko Tano refused underlines how Luke still believes the Jedi's old ways can work. 

I have to admit, in the moment, seeing Luke the way we remember him from Return of the Jedi really got me. While I'm not against the direction Johnson went with Luke in The Last Jedi I still want to see more of what happened in between the trilogies and what got him to that breaking point with Ben Solo. I'm also wondering where Grogu was during the events of the sequel trilogy. 

There's also the question of where the show goes from here. The relationship between Grogu and the titular Mandalorian, Din Djarin (Pedro Pascal), has been a huge factor in the show's popularity. People love that little green guy, including me, so I his absence will have to weigh on Din going forward.I assume the taking back of Mandalore will be the main arc going forward. And I guess Din and Bo- Katan (Katee Sackhoff) still have to fight for the Dark Saber.

And even before Season 3, we are getting The Book of Boba Fett in December 2021. It definitely feels like we've brought the Expanded Universe to live action. Before, anything specifically focused on Boba Fett would be a book or a comic. And Luke rebuilding the Jedi Order was also a ongoing thing in the old Expanded Universe.

So, what are your thoughts on The Mandalorian finale and the direction the series may be going in? Are you excited for a Boba Fett show? Comment below and let me know.   

"The life of men among men:" Reflections on "Reflections in a Golden Eye"

1967 was a taboo breaking year for Hollywood movies. Bonnie and Clyde, In the Heat of the Night, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and The Graduate challenged the traditional portrayals of violence, sexuality and race in movies. Sidney Poitier slapped a racist white man and dated a white girl, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were shown brutally shot down, and college graduate Benjamin Braddock had an affair with an older married woman. As the 60s were leading in to the 70s, Hollywood was changing forever. 

John Huston's Reflections in a Golden Eye, while not as well received then (and even now) still belongs that company due to its portrayal of a suppressed gay man on an army base. This is Major Weldon Penderton (Marlon Brando), who has a fraught marriage to Lenora (Elizabeth Taylor). Lenora is being unknowingly stalked by a young soldier named Williams (Robert Forster in his film debut). Penderton begins to grow attracted to Williams, without knowing Williams' fascination with Lenora. Lenora is also having an affair with Lieutenant Colonel Morris Langdon (Brian Keith), whose wife Alison (Julie Harris) suffers from depression due to a miscarriage, staying inside with only her servant Anacleto (Zorro David) as a companion.

Many of Huston's films were adaptations of novels, short stories, or in the case of Key Largo, a play. Reflections in a Golden Eye came from the pen of Carson McCullers, author of The Heart is a Lonely Hunter (1940). Originally published in two parts in  Harpers' Bazaar and then as a novel,  Reflections in a Golden Eye was her follow up novel. Like William Faulkner McCullers' work is categorized as southern gothic. Huston's film exists in a heightened and unusual reality, which is accentuated by Huston's choice for the film to have a golden hue. After a week in theatres, Warner Bros. took the film and removed the golden hue, re-releasing  the film in a normal colour version. The new Warner Bros. blu ray contains both versions. Many of the film's images feel like they could come from a dream, a memory or something in between. 

Huston's films were often very masculine but also about the vulnerability underneath the bravado. Think of Humphrey Bogart in his most iconic roles under Huston's direction, Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon (1941) and Fred C. Dobbs in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948). Spade falls for the femme fatale who he has to send to prison. Dobbs becomes sick with greed. And while Brando and Bogart have differing acting styles they're similar in being unconventional leading men. Bogart lisped and had a hard, occasionally sinister look. Brando mumbled and lacked the polish of more traditional male actors at the time. And underneath both Bogart and Brando's swagger lied a sensitive nature.

Reflections in a Golden Eye finds Brando- as Penderton- struggling with the ideas of masculinity and  leadership. Pernderton questions his sexuality. He hates himself for his feelings, which undermines his ability to be a leader. As he says in his speech to his students, "Leadership must include a measure of inherent ability to control...uh...and direct self-confidence." Penderton knows he lacks these things despite his rank. He doesn't even have Lenora's respect. Penderton beats her beloved horse due to  being thrown off by it.  Lenora confronts Penderton at that night's party and hits him with a riding crop. Earlier in the film she taunts Penderton and strips naked in front of him. 

Penderton is almost like Othello if he was more interested in Michael Cassio than Desdemona. But unlike Shakespeare's play this is more a slow-burn to tragedy. The film does have what could be called a leisurely pace, examining the day-to-day lives of the people on the base and how they all interweave. The first line of McCullers' novel reads "An army post in peacetime is a dull place," which is accurate to the story's slow pace but also ironic given what happens by the film's end. I'll admit, I struggled with the film's pace and wish it had focused more on Brando and Taylor. I've talked quite a bit about Penderton but he kind of drifts in to the background during the film. 

While watching the film I responded more to the direction and atmosphere but Penderton and Brando's performance are the most substantial character stuff in the film. Taylor is having fun as Lenora; coming off her Oscar winning performance in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, she's playing a more voluptuous and lighter take on Martha. Harris, as in one of my favourite horror movies The Haunting (1963), is adept at portraying fragility without overly invoking pity. Forster gives a practically silent performance, making his voyeuristic nature even creepier.

While the reviews for the film, outside Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael, were mixed, Huston considered this one of his favourite among his films. Satisfaction is maybe all that matters when you're an artist. It's an off-beat in Huston's career, one I don't think is completely successful due to its pacing and sometimes thin characterization outside of Penderton. But it's worth seeing for its direction and unique look and feel, along with Brando and Taylor's performances.

The Essential Films: "Rebecca" (1940)

A Series of Writings on Films that I feel are essential for film lovers, coupled with films that are personal to me. Spoilers for those you haven't seen the film- as well as spoilers for the novel.

Rebecca marked a turning point in Alfred Hitchcock's career. It was his first film made in America and was the beginning of his working relationship with David O. Selznick. Selznick was a notoriously hands on producer and wanted a very faithful adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier's 1938 novel. Hitchcock had fashioned a strong visual identity as a director. This resulted in tension between the two, which could have led to a fractured and uneven film. However, the resulting film is an elegant meshing of  the two men's styles. It is at once a handsomely mounted old-school Hollywood film as well containing some genuine Hitchcockian flourishes. Its success, both critically and commercially, would allow Hitchcock to continue working in Hollywood, where he would direct several of his most revered films. 

Hitchcock had wished to buy the rights to Du Maurier's novel but deemed the price too high. He would end up directing another adaptation of a Du Maurier novel, Jamaica Inn (1939),  with which Du Maurier was displeased. Selznick would later buy the rights himself. When Hitchcock signed a contract with Selznick he was first slated to direct a film called The Titanic. When that project fell through he was assigned to direct Rebecca. The initial screenplay was written under Hitchcock's supervision by his assistant and screenwriter Joan Harrison, along with author Philip MacDonald. Selznick hated it, due to it veering too far from the novel. In a letter to Hitchcock Selznick said, "We bought Rebecca and we intend to make Rebecca." The final screenplay by Harrison and playwright Robert E. Sherwood was a much more faithful adaptation of the novel.

While on vacation in Monte Carlo the unnamed narrator (Joan Fontaine)- the paid companion of Mrs. Edythe Van Hopper (Florence Bates)- meets the wealthy widower Maxim de Winter (Laurence Olivier). As the  narrator and Maxim spend more time together they fall in love. When she and Van Hopper are to leave he surprises her with a marriage proposal. He brings her to his home estate of  Manderley, a world of wealth and privilege in which the narrator feels uncomfortable, largely due to the feeling of being compared to Maxim's beautiful and elegant first wife Rebecca, who died in a boating accident the year prior. The housekeeper Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson) takes a special disliking to the narrator, due to her close relationship with Rebecca.

Mrs. Danvers' introduction is one of the most Hitchcockian moments in the film. She glides in to the frame as the other servants are happily gathered to greet the new Mrs. de Winter. Her entrance in to the shot tells the audience she is the barrier between the narrator and true acceptance in to Manderley. Lyle R. Wheeler's production design for the film makes Manderley one of the great gothic locations in all of cinema. Hitchcock and cinematographer George Barnes (who won an Oscar for his work here) convey through the framing how the narrator is being overwhelmed by the mansion, both physically and emotionally.

Rebecca is a metaphorical ghost story. Rebecca's ghost never appears but her memory haunts the narrator and Maxim. Mrs. Danvers even wonders whether Rebecca's ghost comes back to Manderley and watches them. What makes the memory of Rebecca even more oppressive for both Maxim and the narrator is when her body is discovered after her boat is recovered. The body identified by Maxim was an unknown woman. Maxim knew this because he placed Rebecca's body in the cabin. Maxim never loved Rebecca and their happy marriage was just an act. As Maxim tells it, she was manipulative and cruel. After a confrontation between Rebecca and Maxim regarding her having a child with another lover, her cousin Jack Favell (George Sanders), she fell and struck her head. Maxim then sunk the boat by opening the seacocks. 

In the novel Maxim intentionally kills Rebecca by shooting her. It's ultimately discovered she had cancer, which gives her a motivation for suicide. Due to the Hays Code Maxim couldn't kill Rebecca and not be punished for his crime. I think if the had been able to retain this plot point it would've made the film's story even more powerful. But the message remains the same, which is Maxim cannot escape Rebecca even after she's dead. 

Fontaine and Olivier beautifully embody Du Maurier's lovers. While Maxim is older in the novel than Olivier was at the time of the film's production he expertly conveys Maxim's enchantment with the narrator as well as his bitterness towards Rebecca. Maxim is a man of contradictions, capable of warmth and coldness, condescension and respect towards his new bride.

And who wouldn't fall in love with Joan Fontaine? Fontaine effortlessly captures the narrator's purity as a person, as well as her awkwardness and lack of confidence. It's these qualities that attracts Maxim to her. She's not part of his world, not phony or privileged. She's real, which to Maxim Rebecca never was. When Maxim tells the narrator he never loved Rebecca, this finally breaks down the barrier between them. The narrator no longer has to feel inferior to Rebecca. 

My favourite moment from Fontaine is when she answers the phone on Rebecca's desk, telling the caller Mrs.de Winter has been dead for over a year. When she puts the phone down she realizes her mistake, cries "Oh, I mean...:" as she reaches for the phone with both hands. It's a very charming moment, while also accentuating the narrator's awkwardness, especially when Mrs. Danvers walks in. 

Anderson gives a positively spectral performance as Mrs. Danvers. Others have noted that she appears to glide rather than walk. This is because Hitchcock wanted the audience to see Mrs. Danvers from the narrator's perspective, feeling afraid she could appear at any moment. In one of the novel's and film's most famous scenes Mrs. Danvers finds the narrator in Rebecca's room and shows her around. Mrs. Danvers appears a woman possessed. She, more than anyone else, still has a passionate connection with Rebecca.  I'd argue Mrs. Danvers is more of an antagonist than an villain. Her story is actually quite sympathetic. She loved Rebecca, possibly romantically, and her death no doubt affected her deeply. Now Maxim is replacing her with a woman Mrs. Danvers views as inferior to Rebecca. Obviously she'd be upset. Her burning down of Manderley of the story represents her inability to live with the narrator taking Rebecca's place. But the narrator is not a replacement for Rebecca, rather she's her own person. She is able to stop comparing herself but Mrs. Danvers can't. 

Another tragedy of the story is Rebecca never gets a voice. The film is wise to now show flashbacks of Rebecca, keeping us in the perspective of the narrator, who's never seen Rebecca, can only imagine her. We only know Rebecca from what we're told; we're given two contrasting views of her. One is the beautiful, adored wife who everyone loved and whose death tormented Maxim. The other view, the one Maxim communicates to the narrator, is certainly not flattering: "She was incapable of love or tenderness or decency." But who really was Rebecca? Is it fair to assume she was some kind of monster as Maxim tells it? I don't believe so. Rebecca is a story about perception and the limits of one's knowledge of a human being. The narrator had one view of Maxim when marrying him, which turned out to be wrong. There is something quietly tragic about learning she had cancer and not wishing anyone else to know. In the book Du Maurier makes it clear Rebecca wanted Maxim to kill her so she wouldn't have to suffer from the cancer. 

Rebecca won the Best Picture Oscar- along with the aforementioned win for cinematographer Barnes- though Hitchcock lost Best Director to John Ford for The Grapes of Wrath. This may have solidified in Hitchcock's mind that Rebecca more of a Selznick film than a Hitchcock film. But there's still plenty of Hitchcock in this film, with its themes of romantic obsession, the limits of subjectivity, and fear of police/authority. And as I mentioned earlier the film allowed Hitchcock to continue working in Hollywood, where he grew as a artist, crafting sophisticated thrillers with provocative subtext. And  Rebecca is ultimately, for me, a story about a woman isn't alive to tell her story and another who is able to finally become the heroine of her own. 

On Multiverses and the Return of Jamie Foxx's Electro

This past week it was announced Jamie Foxx was in talks to reprise his role as Max Dillon/Electro in the next Spider-Man film starring Tom Holland. The question I have is whether Foxx will be playing the same Electro seen in  The Amazing Spider-Man 2- since Marvel Studios is establishing a multiverse via the Sam Raimi-directed Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness- or if he'll be playing a completely different version of the character- similar to J.K. Simmons returning as an alternate J. Jonah Jameson in Spider-Man Far From Home (which I still haven't seen). Foxx posted on Instagram, teasing he won't be blue this time, implying this will be an Electro unique to the MCU.

TASM 2 wasn't a beloved film-though it does have its fans-and Foxx's take on Electro was compared to the Joel Schumacher Batman villains. By starting over with the character Marvel doesn't have to worry about bringing in that baggage. They can also give him a different character motivation that doesn't have to revolve around Spider-Man. The film can then focus on Spider-Man rather than the larger universe/multiverse.

I still believe a live action Spider-Verse movie could come to fruition. Tobey Maguire returning would have the nostalgic value Michael Keaton will bring to the upcoming Flash film with Ezra Miller. That film will also bring back Ben Affleck's Batman, making it somewhat of a Bat-Verse film. A Spider-Verse film could also give Andrew Garfield the send-off he never got due to the TASM series being cancelled.

The idea of a multiverse is the next stage in building upon the cinematic universes of DC and Marvel, albeit the DCEU is a more loose continuity than the MCU. Miller has already cameoed on the CW Network's Crisis on Infinite Earths crossover event. Said event established that all the previous versions of the DC universe are part of a larger multiverse. The problem, of bringing a multiverse to the big screen is the risk of these kinds of crossovers becoming too gimmicky, though in fairness gimmickry is ingrained in comic book storytelling. The further the movies go with this conceit the more convoluted and alienating it may get for general audiences who may not want to keep track of everything. By the 80s DC comics' continuity became so complicated they needed to fold in everything in to one universe. This was the basis for  the Crisis on Infinite Earths storyline.

As comic book movies become more like their source material audiences may yearn for the earlier films that didn't require as much homework. Comics can often feel very niche and if these movies still want to be the reigning blockbusters they'll have to keep their audiences engaged rather than confused. The idea of a cinematic universe was a gamble that paid off. The question of when the superhero movie bubble will burst- if ever- has long been pondered. The multiverse will be a test of how far this genre can go in replicating the weirder and convoluted aspects of its source material.

So, how do you feel about Jamie Foxx coming back as Electro? Were you a fan of the TASM series? And what are your thoughts about comic book multiverses being brought to the big screen? Comment and let me know.

In a Lonely Place: Some brief thoughts on "Beast" (2017)

1280 × 720

Plot details for In a Lonely Place and Beast below

Michael Pearce's 2017 film  Beast struck me as a modern update of Nicholas Ray's noir 1950 classic In a Lonely Place, which starred Humphrey Bogart as Hollywood screenwriter Dixon Steele, a man suspected of murdering a young woman. He is given an alibi by his neighbour Laurel Gray (Gloria Grahame). Dixon and Steele fall love but his violent tendencies lead her to believe he may be guilty. At the end of the movie Dixon is revealed to be innocent, but it's too late for his and Laurel's relationship. The film states even if Dixon is innocent of murder he is still capable of terrible violence. 

Beast also involves a woman in love with a man suspected of murder. Moll (Jessie Buckley) is in her 20s but still lives with her mother. She meets Pascal (Johnny Flynn), who represents an escape from her current life but who may be behind the murders of several women. Moll tells the police she met Pascal night of her birthday, which was when one of the murders occurred. However, Moll suspects  Pascal may be guilty. This is a similar dynamic to In a Lonely Place but Beast inverts Ray's film by having Moll be an unreliable narrator, someone the audience begins to suspect is the murderer.

We learn Moll attacked one of her classmates in supposed self-defense but it's revealed it wasn't. I would argue Moll is the Dixon Steele of Beast rather than Pascal, who is sort of a red herring. The film is about the beast inside Moll.  What makes Buckley's performance marvelous is her ability to imbue Moll with ambiguity while allowing the audience to still sympathize with her.Writer/director Pearce  doesn't want Moll simply to be a caricature of mental illness. 

Beast finally is a film about losing control  to take control of one's life. Moll has to unleash the beast to become what she feels is the hero of her own story. Moll may be completely free at the film's finale, a weird sort of triumph. And Buckley is a triumph as well.