Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 118

Holadem · 12-11-2007, 09:42 AM

Quote:

For example, the passage of time is marked how?

It's been ages since I saw it, but I that was one of my biggest issues with this film as well.

--
H

**HTF Ads**

Adam_S · 12-11-2007, 04:02 PM

the passage of time is marked by the changing seasons and the dialogue telling us how much time specifically has passed. As for whether anyone is that stupid or not, the visual subtext suggests that Debbie and possibly the older sister who was raped and murdered (but not married, a maid), was in fact John Wayne's daughter, not just his neice. It's perhaps less likely that Martin would continue to search, unless you take into account that the girls were like sisters to him, as he was a half indian infant brought to the family by Ethan to be raised by whites.

And actually I thought the way that Ford handled that rape and murder enhanced the impact rather than took away from it. The "Do I have to paint ya a picture!" scene is one of my favorites in the entire film.

Brook K · 12-11-2007, 05:18 PM

Agreed Adam, I just couldn't be as polite as you so I thought it better not to post.

I christened my HD-DVD player with The Searchers two days ago. I feel like this was the first time I really saw the film. It has everything you could want in a film.

rich_d · 12-12-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam_S

the passage of time is marked by the changing seasons and the dialogue telling us how much time specifically has passed. As for whether anyone is that stupid or not, the visual subtext suggests that Debbie and possibly the older sister who was raped and murdered (but not married, a maid), was in fact John Wayne's daughter, not just his neice. It's perhaps less likely that Martin would continue to search, unless you take into account that the girls were like sisters to him, as he was a half indian infant brought to the family by Ethan to be raised by whites.

And actually I thought the way that Ford handled that rape and murder enhanced the impact rather than took away from it. The "Do I have to paint ya a picture!" scene is one of my favorites in the entire film.

Perhaps I missed something what visual subtext are you referring to? Hopefully it's something more than his brother's wife caring about how she looks in front of the alpha male. Was it the way that Wayne looks at her and kisses her on the forehead? What did I miss? Because it needs to be something more to suggest that he fathered his brother's children. Ethan (Wayne) is no boy scout but what make you suspect that he would commit adultery with his brother's wife?

Now that I think about it, why does Wayne seem to react harder to a neighbor's wife being raped and murdered then he does to the murder of his brother and brother's wife? Or to your point the mother of his children?

Brook K · 12-13-2007, 12:49 PM

Wayne being one or more of the children's father (though note this doesn't necessarily mean adultery, we don't know how long the wife and Wayne's brother have been married) is inference/speculation to my mind, but it is certainly a long standing one I've seen in multiple sources over the years. But there is no mistaking that there is a love between them that goes far deeper than a brother-in-law/sister-in-law relationship. This can be observed in the very beginning of the film when the wife spots Wayne returning home, and throughout their early scenes through a number of looks and glances. Of course their relationship is illustrated most plainly in the scene where she stroke's Wayne's Confederate jacket before he leaves with the Rangers while Ward Bond drinks his coffee and pretends not to notice.

I don't know what neighbor's wife you are referring to. Wayne has 3 horrified reactions, 2 to the rape/murder of family members (the wife and their eldest daughter, and the woman at the military outpost who has been driven insane by her experience). He certainly doesn't react harder to the daughter's death, it's just played and shot differently.

Cees Alons · 12-13-2007, 05:41 PM

(Breaking in ...

)

Although this doesn't prove anything about the film, strictly speaking, it's reportedly very explicit in the original book (which I haven't read myself): Wayne is Natalie's father.

This, and the apparently still existing and visible affection between the two of them also colours the emotion of the final closing barn scene, of course. He's shut out after all.

Cees

(... out again

)

rich_d · 12-16-2007, 10:10 AM

Has anybody here read the book? I grabbed the following post from IMDB ...

Quote:

Having read the book that this film is based and watched it more times than most have had hot meals, your premise is absolutely groundless. Ethan & Aaron both vied for Martha, before the war. Martha chose or, her family chose Aaron as the more steady provider but, Martha actually loves Ethan (can't resist the bad boy). You can tell from the way Martha acts when Ethan returns from the War at the beginning of the film. Marty is no more than who he is presented as. Ethan had met the family prior to their massacre on the trail. Martha's death at the hands of Scar, is Ethan's primary motivation to kill Scar to death, no matter what.

This does seem translated into the film but I see nothing (above) about Martha having Ethan's children. Nor from the other posts I've read elsewhere. Can anyone state whether adultery was in the book?

Even so, Cees correctly mentions that just because it is in the book doesn't mean that it becomes part of the film script or the actual film.

Interestingly, another theory going around IMDB and (supposedly) film schools is that Marty is Ethan's son. Which brings another thought process to Ethan telling Marty, "don't call me your Uncle."

Regardless of the actual evidence to any of this, I would agree that Brook has successfully demonstrated that there are more layers to The Searchers to think about.

george kaplan · 12-26-2007, 05:20 PM

Late Spring

Perhaps this is contradictory, but I really like Ozu's lingering style visually, but find the glacier storytelling pace much less appealing. In other words, the long establishing shots really set the tone well, and work great. But taking two hours to tell a 15 minute story, not so well. At least for me.

At least I have no qualms about films like this being on the list. It may not be my cup of tea, but it's easy to appreciate it nonetheless.

Martin Teller · 12-27-2007, 09:29 PM

#275 - Broken Blossoms

There are some elements of racism in this movie. The hero is Chinese, but he's played by a white guy, Richard Barthelmess. They had plenty of Asian actors for the extras, but I guess none of them could possibly be talented enough to match the squinting, embarassing performance by Barthelmess. Also, although we see his name outside his store, in the intertitles he's referred to only as "The Yellow Man". Oh wait, correction... he is affectionately called "Chinky" by Lillian Gish (playing Lucy -- I guess only white people are worthy of names). Also, I spotted a guy in blackface.

However, I will overlook these transgressions as perhaps necessities of the day, and because the film is essentially about interracial romance (unlike the abominable Birth of a Nation, which is a love letter to the KKK and has too many gut-churning instances of racism to be forgiven). The story is tender and engaging, the subject matter is admirable, the text of the intertitles is quite lovely and poetic, and the tragedy is touching. However, it's all a bit simplistic and the characters are so one-dimensional they might as well be straight out of a Popeye cartoon. I found the cinematic style rather uninteresting except for a few close-ups. The boxing match is unnecessary and distracting, although I guess the editing was pretty good. Mostly it's the kind of thing that might have been impressive for its time, but seems a bit ho-hum nowadays. Rating: 6

Michael Elliott · 12-27-2007, 11:19 PM

Being one of my favorites directors I'll throw my worthless two cents in.

1. Off the top of my head I can't remember how many Chinese parts were played by white folks. I'm not sure I'd call this racism but it's just a part of the times. I doubt Edward G. Robinson, Loretta Young, Lon Chaney or various other actors were racist when they played Chinese parts. I doubt the directors, writers or producers were being racist when they hired the likes of a Chaney to play a Chinese guy.

I think it boils down to the fact that (shock) studios want to make money and off the top of my head I can't think of a Chinese actor in 1918 that would have made money for the (then) bank. Barthelmess at the time was a popular, up and coming actor so he was the right choice out of all the actors in the stock company, which is where Griffith got his actors.

2. "The Yellow Man" is just being faithful to the characters name in the original story. It's funny but in today's world a director/screenwriter would be killed by fans for changing the smallest thing from a book so the fact that they were being faithful to the story leads to criticism is rather amusing.

3. The blackface issue is just another product of its time. I've seen over 100 Griffith films and can't remember a one that didn't feature someone in blackface if there was a black person in the role. It's rather strange that black producers started making race films so that black movie goers could get away from stereotypes yet the "blackface" issue still haunted those films. I'm not sure what got producer's a hard on over make up but even the race films would use "whiteface", meaning putting make up on black actors to make them look lighter in color.

4. The product of its time doesn't sit well today but, as you said, the story had a heart behind it, which is why I think this is a lot better film for people to chew on. I'd think most people would be more offended by comedy that is making fun of a negative stereotype, which is something these films are ate up with. I'm one of about twenty people that are trying to make a full list of various race issues in early films and we honestly haven't come up with many that would be politically correct today. Meaning, no racial jokes, no stereotypes or anything to that nature. Something like this film, as we rate it, is getting a break because of its heart. Others are being lumped together but even this film is a lot kinder than most.

The weird thing that we've all noticed is comparing these films to those being made in the 1950s by the likes of John Wayne and those being made today. It seems ever so often a group is an open target of negative jokes. Sad but true. I'm not sure who sets these rules or who gives the green light on who you can make fun of or make savages out of. For a while it was Asians and blacks, then it was Indians, then it was whites with blaxploitation. Now it seems gay folks, fat people or Muslims are allowed to be made fun of.

From 1910-1940 it was okay for whites to play Chinese but not today.
From 1910-1990 it was okay for Indians to be drunk, raping savages but not today.

Currently it's okay to make fun of weight issues, gay people or various other groups. I really hope I'm alive fifty years from now so that I can see how these types of films are looked at. I'm curious to know if people will still laugh at something like I KNOW PRONOUNCE YOU CHUCK AND LARRY or if it will make them sick to their stomachs. I wonder if people will laugh at TRUE LIES over certain groups being shown as terrorists. I wonder if people will laugh at THE RINGER or THERE'S SOMETHING LIKE MARY, which makes fun of mentally handicapped people. Will these films still be funny or will they be banned from screenings like many of the films from the pre-1950s era?

I'm guessing only time will tell but it's probably a good bet to worry about the 2007 films in 2007 and not worry about things that were okay in 1910 but not today.

I'm not sure what films are being watched by others working on this little project but I watch quite a bit of movies each and every year and I think I've found two this year that we'd rank as "safe". Considering how many movies I watch, that number is pretty damn shocking. I know the other members are watching just as much as I am but I doubt their numbers will be much different than mine. Most will probably think this project is worthless but I'm really hoping we can find out who makes the rules of what's right and wrong when it comes to these negative images.

Adam_S · 12-28-2007, 12:01 AM

the Cheat was made earlier than Broken Blossoms and starred Sessue Hayakawa. on the other hand he played a villainous, rapist leading role, whereas in Broken Blossoms you have a tragic hero. Can you see the double standard? villain leading role can be played by a non white, heroic/sympathetic leading role can only be played by a white, in makeup if necessary.

And it was explicity racist on the writer/director/producer/studio/exhibitor to create pressure to give leading roles to white actors in makeup, it was an extension of segregation. You can bet that had Broken Blossoms starred a non-white actor in the non-white role it would never have played in Kentucky back in the day. That's as much the exhibitors fault as it is the producers, but considering this was the era that vertical integration of the studios was happening there's not much leeway in that flimsy excuse.

There's another interesting aspect to Broken Blossoms, and that is that the story was only acceptable because he dies and there's no possibility of the relationship working out. I would have a hard time believing Griffith would have made a film that ended with a successful mixed race marraige, relationship or offspring. I think the ending is tragic, though I sometimes wonder if Griffith thought the ending was a happy one being that the white girl has been protected from being 'soiled'.