Showing posts with label Suspense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Suspense. Show all posts

Tuesday, 3 May 2022

The Essential Films: "Sunset Boulevard" (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 seen the film.

What happens to those whom Hollywood leaves behind? What happens when their star has faded and, for women, when they get older? Director Billy Wilder, who was born in Austria in 1906 but came to L.A. in 1933, always wondered what happened to the silent film stars who still lived in the mansions from the 1920s. This gave birth to the idea which became Sunset Boulevard, one of his greatest films, which delves in to the life of a silent movie star who still desires to be famous  

Wilder always railed against easy genre categorization in his films. The Apartment (1960) is a romantic comedy that's also a drama about adultery and selling your soul for a promotion. Double Indemnity (1944) is a film-noir about helping a woman murder her husband that's also an incredibly funny and occasionally warm story about male friendship; and Some Like It Hot (1959) is a 1920s set comedy about two men in drag being pursued by gangsters because they witnessed the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Sunset Boulevard is his most daring tightrope act when it comes to genre and tone. It's a film noir, a dark comedy, a Hollywood satire, a gothic melodrama, and a tragedy. Film critic Richard Corliss called it "the definitive Hollywood horror film" and director John Landis also called it a murder mystery. .

Sunset Boulevard was Wilder's and writing partner Charles Brackett's 17th and final collaboration. Wilder ended the partnership due to a fight over a montage in the film though they ended up winning writing Oscars for the film. Wilder and Brackett began writing a script in 1948 but it didn't please either of them. To help with the script they hired D.M Marshman, Jr., a film critic for Life Magazine whose review for Wilder's The Emperor Waltz- co-written with Brackett- impressed them. Marshman came up with the idea of the main character being a gigolo to a silent film star. Wilder was afraid of the censors because it was an expose on Hollywood and dealt with the subject matter of an relationship between an younger man and an older woman. The script was actually submitted a few pages at the time. When they began shooting only one third of the script was completed.

The film aptly starts with a screenwriter having his own writing problems. Joe Gillis (William Holden) needs work and money. He's also got repo men on his tail for his car. While on the run from these men he hides his car in the garage of a mansion belonging to aging silent movie star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson). Joe goes in to the house and is mistaken for an undertaker (her monkey has died). When she discovers he's a screenwriter she asks his opinion on her script which will serve as her comeback vehicle (though she prefers to call it a return). While Joe's voice-over narration (more on that later) tells us the script isn't very good he needs the money so he gets Norma to hire him to work on the script. Norma also insists he lives in the mansion with her. Later Joe realizes she had romantic feelings for him. Out of disgust he leaves but comes back when he learns she's attempted suicide. He also eventually becomes Norma's gigolo.

Sunset Boulevard is  about desperation. Joe needs money and Norma is desperate to hold on to the fantasy she can stage a comeback and be relevant again. And you know what? I understand Norma's desperation to be famous and to be loved. It can be a poison that rots you inside and makes you bitter at what you can't have. You are so desperate for it you feel you are going insane. In Norma's case, she has. And that poison has not only rotted her inside but outside as well. Despite only being 50 she appears 20 years older. While Norma can appear as a grotesque and sexist caricature of an aging actress- and in some ways she is since she was written by two men in the 40s- she's also a deeply tragic as well as funny character. That's largely due to Swanson's performance, who gives a hellish and hilarious performance, one of the seminal screen performances of all time. 

Before Swanson was considered Wilder reached out to several other silent film actresses, including Mary Pickford, who didn't like the theme of a older woman in a relationship with a younger man. And Clara Bow declined because she wanted to stay retired. It was director George Cukor who suggested Swanson. This was a comeback role for Swanson who had, after her career waned in the 40s, quit movies and worked on stage, TV, and radio. Swanson was intrigued when she was offered the part but didn't want to do a screentest for Sunset Boulevard  since she had been such a big star. Cukor joked that he would shoot her if she didn't. 

Montgomery Clift was cast as Joe but dropped out supposedly because the role reminded him of his part in The Heiress (1949), where he played a man having a relationship with an older woman. But the the suspected real reason was him actually being in a relationship with an older women, singer Libby Holman. Clift didn't want people thinking Holman was like Norma so he gave up the role. It worked out pretty well for Holden, who became an A-List star after this performance, which also earned him an Oscar nomination. He lost to Jose Ferrer for Cyrano de Bergeac (1950) but would win several years later for another Wilder film, Stalag 17 (1953). I'm glad Holden got the part. Clift was a strong actor but I think  he was a little too serious for the wise-cracking Joe. Holden's much better with sarcasm and playing a likable jerk.

Coming back to Swanson, what's integral to her performance, beyond being grotesque, funny and tragic all at once, is how she contrasts with Holden. Holden  is giving a mostly naturalistic performance but Swanson is more theatrical in her gestures and facial expressions. This creates plenty of humour- Joe's sarcasm against Norma's non-ironic claim of "I am big. It's the pictures that got small." It also creates the feeling that Norma is always giving a performance never being completely in reality, and this just solidifying how's she losing her mind. I'm reminded of Vivien Leigh's performance in A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), where her theatrical style of acting juxtaposes with Marlon Brando's method acting. Blanche, like Norma, is mentally unbalanced and this style of acting, pitted against naturalistic acting, makes that clearer to the audience. 

There's a clear separation between Norma's world and the "real" world, which is how the film manages its different tones. The gothic horror and film-noir elements don't intrude when Joe's outside the mansion. Things always feel normal. Film historian Tom Stempel wrote about how the lighting (courtesy of cinematographer John F. Seitz) blends the two worlds of the film together.

"In both Double Indemnity and Sunset Boulevard, Seitz does something that has always impressed me. Both are films noir, and he finesses the fact that both are set in the sunniest of locales, Los Angeles... he brings together the light and the dark in the same film without any seams showing... he brings together the realistic lighting of Joe Gillis out in the real world with the gothic look of Norma Desmond's mansion. Again with no seams showing."

The contrast between the darkness of Norma's world and the brightness of L.A is important. Her world is the dark underbelly of Hollywood. I'd argue Joe is the bridge between the two worlds. If he's not completely destroyed by Hollywood he's at least on his way. He could become like Max Von Mayerling (Erich von Sroheim, playing a version of himself), a former silent film director and Norma's former first husband, now butler. He couldn't bare it when Norma left him so he turned his back on directing and became her servant. He even writes fake fan letters to her, feeding her delusions. Stroheim gives a drolly comic performance as Max but there's something haunted in his eyes. This is a man who has fallen very far and has had to watch his ex-wife descend in to madness. Through him we see that Norma wasn't always like this and he acts as a reminder of what Joe could become if he doesn't cut Norma out of his life completely.

Norma's opposite is Betty Schaefer (Nancy Olson), a script reader who once wished to be an actress. It didn't work out but unlike Norma she isn't bitter about not being famous. She sees the merit of working behind the scenes and wishes to be a screenwriter. She's also the counterpoint to Joe due to her belief that a story should have a message. She also isn't as cynical-minded as Joe. She criticized one of his stories early in the film as trite and formulaic, believing he's too good of a writer to waste his talents on overdone stories. However, she sees potential in another of Joe's story and wants to work on it together.  

Joe and Betty fall in love though she has a fiancee, Artie Green (Jack Webb). When Joe's leaving Norma he pushes Betty away emotionally so Norma won't hurt her and because Joe knows she deserves better, which is Artie. Joe is then shot by Norma and falls in to her pool. We were shown this corpse at the beginning.  I'm not sure how much of a twist it is that Joe's been narrating this whole time from the dead. but the image of Joe's corpse in the pool is a brilliant and spooky shot, created by having a mirror at the pool's bottom.



The original opening had Joe in a morgue recounting his death to other corpses. The preview audience laughed at it and it was removed for the finished film, which I think was a good choice. I think the narration from a dead man is morbid enough without going too far. I think it's a great bit of sardonic humour, though film critic Thomas M. Pryor of the New York Times didn't care for. I think it works as subversion of the bodyless voice narrating, literally making that voice detached from a dead body. The murder mystery bookends and narration are also part of how the film incorporates film-noir tropes

In the film's final and most famous scene Norma is to be arrested but she believes the cameras are there to shoot the film with DeMille. Max returns to the directors' chair as he calls action. She comes down the stairs and thanks the crew, ending with the iconic line, "Alright Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up," coming towards the camera, and essentially us, with the image blurring and fading to black. Norma gets an oddly happy ending. In an anonymous essay for the film the writer comes to the conclusion that Norma has been completely absorbed by the glory of her past:

 In the final shot of the film as Norma stares directly into the camera, we see the soft-focus glow that was a trademark of the silent film era increase in intensity before enveloping her completely as the film fades to black. Norma’s mind has finally been wholly consumed by the past that she’s long yearned for, but her hollow, wide-eyed gaze lives on in the minds of all who beheld it, pleading with us to consider our own role in her descent

Norma said earlier that she abandoned her audience but it was the audience who left her behind. Sunset Boulevard is about the ones who Hollywood and we leave behind and how fame fading away is often worse than never being famous. To know glory and then to lose it becomes a living death for Norma. Wilder was cynical but not uncompassionate. The film is a damnation of the system that created Norma Desmond and then threw her away because audiences got bored. Hollywood and audiences could never see the real person behind the star and what may happen when they were abandoned. Without stardom, some of these people feel they have nothing. What do audiences owe these stars? Maybe nothing. Maybe just some compassion. I think I relate to Norma too much. She may not be easy to love but it's easy to part of ourselves in her, the desire to be loved and comfort that hope brings us, even if's a delusional hope that'll eventually swallow us up.   


Monday, 6 April 2015

Something Wicked This Way Comes: "It Follows"


Warning: Some Spoilers Ahead 

From the beginning of writer/director David Robert Mitchell’s It Follows- which opens with a tracking shot following a frightened teenage girl as she’s running from an unseen...someone?...something?- you know you’re in very capable hands. I was genuinely hooked from the beginning; and while I wish the film explored its concept a further and threw a few more narrative curveballs, as a piece of filmmaking It Follows is well worth any discerning horror movie fan’s time.

Our main character is 19-year old Jay (The Guest’s Maika Monroe). She has been dating Hugh (Jake Weary). After they have sex one night, Hugh chloroforms Jay. Hugh then reveals he has passed on to her a curse: an entity that can take the form of anyone- whether it’s someone you know or a complete stranger- which only someone with the curse can see. The entity will keep following you until it kills you. Jay eventually enlists the help of her sister- Kelly (Lili Sepe)- and her friends- Paul (Keir Gilchrist), Yara (Olivia Luccardi), and Greg (Daniel Zovatto)- to help her defeat the entity before it kills her.

This is pretty much all you need to know about the premise of the film. It’s the type of basic set up which burrows in to your psyche. If Psycho and Jaws made you afraid of having a shower and going in to the water, respectively, then It Follows will make you paranoid of the people around you. In other horror movies revealing what the evil force looks like early on ruins a film's mystery; but since the entity takes a different form each time out (many very grotesque) there’s an inherent suspense of not knowing what it’ll look like next. Mitchell plays on this un-surety, notably in a later scene with Hugh- whose real name turns out to be Jeff Redmond-which sets up the potential of the entity being there (Jake still isn’t rid of it) - but it’s just a false alarm.
 

By giving the entity a different form each time out enhances the mystery of what it actually is. In another film we would get more of a back-story concerning the history of what this creature/demon/etc. is. But Mitchell isn't interested in exploring a dense mythology for this entity. He’s more concerned with how the entity works on a metaphorical level. The fact that the curse is passed on sexually makes the entity something like a sexually transmitted disease. And like a STD, passing it on doesn’t mean you’re free of it. The film can be read as a darkly comic cautionary tale for safe sex.

Besides the STD metaphor, I feel the film both reinforces and subverts the teen horror tropes- explained by Jamie Kennedy’s character in the original Scream- of the girl who has sex getting killed and the “final girl” or heroine typically being the pure virgin. In It Follows having sex can get you killed but Jay isn’t a secondary character who gets killed after having sex she’s the main character. Moreover Jay isn’t demonized for having sex nor portrayed stereotypically as a “dirty girl.” For Mitchell, Jay is no less “pure” for having sex.  
 
Monroe was good in The Guest but I think she was overshadowed by Dan Stevens’ performance. In It Follows, allowed to take centre stage, Monroe really shines. It’s not a flashy performance but she has a laid back and natural charisma which endears Jay to us. And Mitchell’s camera loves her. On a side note, during an early scene I thought to myself that all she needed was head band and she’d be a great Gwen Stacy for the next Spider-Man series.
 
I think old-school horror fans will take a certain amount of pleasure from It Follows, particularly admirers of legendary director John Carpenter’s aesthetic. While it’s risky for an up and coming filmmaker to homage an iconic director’s work (“You’re no John Carpenter”), I think Mitchell is able to pay tribute to Carpenter’s (and other filmmakers' work) while still crafting something that’s distinctly his own. Despite this only being Mitchell’s sophomore effort he’s an extremely confident filmmaker, with a firm grasp of pacing, camera movement and atmosphere. While he does provide some jump moments, he doesn’t rely on them too much; instead he focuses on images that are truly and deeply frightening. There are moments in this film that I think will unsettle even the most seasoned horror fan.



While It Follows is very stylish film, it’s never so stylish that it overalls the film. In fact, the mood of the film is often very subdued. Mitchell allows character moments to breathe. While I feel the characters needed to be developed a little more Mitchell's characters are still distinctly human and not merely fodder for the entity. Even Jay isn’t completely vilified- he’s as much a victim as anyone. The heart of the film- character-wise- is the relationship between Jay and Paul. He clearly likes her and we learn they shared a kiss when they were younger. They have a few nice scenes together, particularly the conversation they have before the horror really kicks in to gear.

I do wish the film travelled a different narrative path as it headed towards its climax. Instead it settles in to a more conventional type of climax. I also wish the film’s ending had a little more punch- though I understand that Mitchell likely wanted a subdued final note. Despite these few disappointments, on its own terms, It Follows is an absorbing and effectively spooky horror film, full of unsettling and beautiful images- as well as a star-making performance by Monroe. If you’re a horror fan, seek this one out.