I was thoroughly enjoying the film whilst watching it in class, that is however, right up until the end of the film and its final number of 'The Forgotten Man'. Now I am not denying for a minute that it is a spectacular final number with an important message conveyed through it, however, my argument here is focusing on how I feel the end to the film was inappropriate and greatly effected my overall enjoyment of the film.
Whilst the final song serves the purpose that this classical era of musicals required to end the film/show with it's biggest and most spectacular number, I felt that in this instance it was a bad way to end the film. Admittedly, within the context of the film being set in the depression and the musical itself revolving around the same theame, "The Forgotten Man" serves as an effective reminded of the harsh reality that the real people in the film and its audience find themselves, brutally depicting the tragic fall of the soldier returning from way, scared and bruised and facing the darkly tragic long depression-era lines for bread and soup after being promised bonuses for being veterans. With this attitude in mind, 'The Forgotten Man' also serves to be an effective juxtaposition to the film's opening number of 'We're in the Money' which can be interpreted and mirroring society's downfall from rich and prosperous to towntrodden and desperate.
My argument behind 'The Forgotten Man' is supported by the fact that it has nothing to do with the ending of the narrative plot. I am aware that with this classical musicals, most of the big numbers had few (if any at all) tenuous links to the actual plot itself, but "The Forgotten Man" feels so far out of place that it completely jarred with my enjoyment an d the progression of the narrative plot itself. In studying the final actions of the characters themselves, it is clear that all three girls are/will be happily married to rich and successful men. They have been recieving lavish present after lavish present including dresses, hats, furs and even a dog and have been attending dances whist still trying to take the hapless bankers for the proverbial "ride". This coupled with the men themselves being incredibly rich and well off, suggest that they themselves have nothing to worry about in this dark time, they'll get their happy ever after with their love and their money, therefore after this happy ending, "The Forgotten Man" seems to be a completely innappropriate ending to the film and lacks the emotional gravitas and effect it is meant to have on the audience.
It was interesting to learn that "Pettin' in the Park" was originally intended to the final number, whilst I would uphold other people's objections that this might have been an overly shmaltsy way to end the film, I agrue that it would have suited the notion of the "happy ending" far better. I personally would have ended the film with "The Shadow Waltz" as to my mind it was by far the most impressive musically and visually with the neon violins. In addition to this "The Shadow Waltz" could have better represented the final calm that the characters felt that now they were set for life and the worry being finally over for Lawrence no longer cutting off Brad's allowance and his newfound love for Carol (incidentally, the forgiveness end scene also felt far too rushed and implausable, Lawrence quite litterally goes from being full of anger towards his brother one minute to completely forgiving him the next).
A brilliant point was also raised in class that it seems almost insulting that a billionaire should be writing the almost funeral-durge that encapsulates the feelings of the down-todden men suffering in the depression when he himself has no such worries or cares and is certainly not writing from experience. The ladies too have now become so far removed from their past life of being poor and sharing the same clothes that their singing of "The Forgotten Man" can also be seen to be highly hypocritical. With this in mind, arguably the final number should have been 'We're In the Money', the women have achieved their aim of no longer being poor and having rich and successful men to spoil them with whatever they ask for and the men now have wives and all the money they need to protect them from falling to the same level of the fallen men who the musical is supposed to elevate to strong survivors.
In summary, 'The Forgotten Man' falls flat as a final number due to the fact that the idea that the film is set during the depression is almost unbelieveable as throughout the film we have seen nothing but fantasticly extravagant sets, fancy dances and a seemingly endless procession of displays of wealth from framed cheques and lavish clothing, numbing any feeling of being in the grasp of oneof the most desperate times in American history.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Lilly aka Babyface
It clear from watching the film in class that Barbara Stanwyck's performance as the deadly seductive Lilly is certainly deserving of thorough analysis in order to highlight its grand importance in the history of cinema. One can argue however that perhaps we will never be able to fully understand Lilly as a character and the debate could be endless as to deciding upon her true personality.
Whilst of course it is clear to the audience what her motivations are for the way she behaves ie a lust for money and status, it can be debated as to what is indeed the real root cause behind her actions. The arguement can be made that she is so desperate to escape her old life of oppression under her father and being constantly "eyeballed" and propositioned by the drunken men in her father's seedy speakeasy that she is determined to be in a position of power and standing far removed from such circumstances. This would offer a slightly sympathetic view of the character of Lilly, however, another perspective could simply be her inherent lust for power and money. As instructed by the shoe maker, she will "use men" to get what she wants. From this perspective, Lilly can be seen to be almost pre-empting the femme fatale character, a staple of 40s-50s film noir. This is an easy comparisson to make as like many of the stereotypical femme fatales, Lilly uses her beauty to seduce men and make them seemingly forget their common sense and devote themselves entirely do her and once she is done with them and moved onto a man higher up in staus or wealthier, she completelty shuns them, and as shown in the film, this ultimately leads to their downfall.
Of course, despite her golddigging ways and cruel and cold attitude to men, it can be said that Lilly is a step forward fro the importance of women not only in cinema, but in real life. She is forceful and strong-willed, she deliberatley (albeit violently) turns down the advances of the politician in a perfect example of pre-code filming and also despite her sleazy way of getting to the top of the pile at work, she is actually shown to be working and therefore we cannot simply dismiss her character as simply just out for getting what she wants in the simplest way possible. She surprises both the audience and Trentholm towards the end of the film by actually holding down the job in Paris which again is a clear example of her breaking of the stereotypical golddigger or fallen woman image.
The key scene where the audience make up their mind about Lilly's character is to be found at the end of the film. After she has gotten off the cruise boat and envisioned the faces of all her previous lovers, she appears to decide that she actually is in love with Trentholm and is shown to actually care for him and no longer for his money. Throughout the film she only ever used her seductive smile or cold glare, but here at the end, she is visably distressed and upset over his attempted suicide. Because of this reaction, many people instantly change their opinion of Lilly and believe that her emotion she is displaying is genuine. The ending is of course quite against the grain of usual fallen women film in that she doesn't reach a tragic end, the alternative ending infact stated that she and Trentholm infact live "happily ever after" by getting by as normal members of society without excessive riches. The other way to view the final act is through a cynical lens, she openly stated that she was determined to get the other half of the million dollars that she was after from Trentholm and without the alternative ending tacked on, if one still lacks sympathy for Lilly (as I did) then we only have the parting shot of her "apparent" change of heart to go on. Who is to say that once Trentholm got better, or if at all, she wouldnt go back to her old ways seeking out rich men with power and wealth.
Ultimately it is down to the indivual viewer's perspective as to weither or not they feel symapthy or agravation towards Lilly at the end of the film. Any form of arguement would be deadlocked with no conclusion over the version that we saw in class, however, if we had seen the alternative ending when we hear about what happens to them later in life, then the assumption that she truely had repented from her ways woukld have been far clearer to understand and more of an audience-friendly ending which some who prefer the ambiguiety of our version's ending, would see as a traditional Hollywood cop-out.
Whilst of course it is clear to the audience what her motivations are for the way she behaves ie a lust for money and status, it can be debated as to what is indeed the real root cause behind her actions. The arguement can be made that she is so desperate to escape her old life of oppression under her father and being constantly "eyeballed" and propositioned by the drunken men in her father's seedy speakeasy that she is determined to be in a position of power and standing far removed from such circumstances. This would offer a slightly sympathetic view of the character of Lilly, however, another perspective could simply be her inherent lust for power and money. As instructed by the shoe maker, she will "use men" to get what she wants. From this perspective, Lilly can be seen to be almost pre-empting the femme fatale character, a staple of 40s-50s film noir. This is an easy comparisson to make as like many of the stereotypical femme fatales, Lilly uses her beauty to seduce men and make them seemingly forget their common sense and devote themselves entirely do her and once she is done with them and moved onto a man higher up in staus or wealthier, she completelty shuns them, and as shown in the film, this ultimately leads to their downfall.
Of course, despite her golddigging ways and cruel and cold attitude to men, it can be said that Lilly is a step forward fro the importance of women not only in cinema, but in real life. She is forceful and strong-willed, she deliberatley (albeit violently) turns down the advances of the politician in a perfect example of pre-code filming and also despite her sleazy way of getting to the top of the pile at work, she is actually shown to be working and therefore we cannot simply dismiss her character as simply just out for getting what she wants in the simplest way possible. She surprises both the audience and Trentholm towards the end of the film by actually holding down the job in Paris which again is a clear example of her breaking of the stereotypical golddigger or fallen woman image.
The key scene where the audience make up their mind about Lilly's character is to be found at the end of the film. After she has gotten off the cruise boat and envisioned the faces of all her previous lovers, she appears to decide that she actually is in love with Trentholm and is shown to actually care for him and no longer for his money. Throughout the film she only ever used her seductive smile or cold glare, but here at the end, she is visably distressed and upset over his attempted suicide. Because of this reaction, many people instantly change their opinion of Lilly and believe that her emotion she is displaying is genuine. The ending is of course quite against the grain of usual fallen women film in that she doesn't reach a tragic end, the alternative ending infact stated that she and Trentholm infact live "happily ever after" by getting by as normal members of society without excessive riches. The other way to view the final act is through a cynical lens, she openly stated that she was determined to get the other half of the million dollars that she was after from Trentholm and without the alternative ending tacked on, if one still lacks sympathy for Lilly (as I did) then we only have the parting shot of her "apparent" change of heart to go on. Who is to say that once Trentholm got better, or if at all, she wouldnt go back to her old ways seeking out rich men with power and wealth.
Ultimately it is down to the indivual viewer's perspective as to weither or not they feel symapthy or agravation towards Lilly at the end of the film. Any form of arguement would be deadlocked with no conclusion over the version that we saw in class, however, if we had seen the alternative ending when we hear about what happens to them later in life, then the assumption that she truely had repented from her ways woukld have been far clearer to understand and more of an audience-friendly ending which some who prefer the ambiguiety of our version's ending, would see as a traditional Hollywood cop-out.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Scarface vs Scarface
As I am an enourmous fan of the ganster film genre, in particular Brian de Palmer's 80s epic staring Al Pacino, I was thoroughly looking forward to watching the original in class on Wednesday. While watching, the similarities between the two pieces as well as drastic differences both proved to be truly fascinating. This weblog will be focused on the importance of certain aspects that were used in both films whislt taking into account the reasons behind the substantial differences and what they reveal about the world of cinema at their time of release.
The most obvious idea that is found in each film is that the main character is an immigrant in America, Tony Camonte from Italy and Tony Montana from Cuba. Their immigrant status is vitally important as it stresses the idea that both characters have come in search of the American Dream, which in their minds is to be rich and incredibly powerful (as the poster for de Palmer's Scarface proclaims; 'He Loved The American Dream, With A Vengence'). The notion of their lust for power is not only indicated through the plot that shows them slowly climbing higher and higher up the crime world's ladder, but it is also epitomised by the characters' love of the phrase; 'The World Is Yours', a creed which they both live to fullfill. In Hawks' film, Scarface's appartment looks out to a large billboard with these words, which inventively are focused in on at the end of the film as the lights go out to symbolize Scarface's death and loss of his power. In de Palmer's version, in keeping with the film's gaudy 80s aesthetic, Tony Montana makes an even bigger statement of his power, having these world enscribed on a giant golden statue of Atlas holding up the world in a fountain. As with Hawks' Scarface, Tony Montana symbolically collapses dead into the pool in front of the statue to mirror the message that Hawks conveyed.
With regards to the visable difference to the films, it of course has to be remember that whilst the 1932 Scarface was released just before the Motion Picture Production Codes of 1927 and 1930 fully took effect, it was taking great risk with the censors who were keen to stamp down on violence, firearms, murder, siding with the bad guys, riddicule of the law and explicit details of the art of crime. Now that we have all seen the film and learnt of these censor restrictions, it can certainly be said of the original Scarface that it was incredibly taboo-breaking. There were multiple examples of the previously listed "forbidden" material from start to finish, and it can even be argued that were it not for the lack of blood, the Scarface of 1932 can be described as being every bit as violent as it's 1983 counterpart. A further key difference to note between the films is the time periods in which they are set, the 1932 version depicting the now 'classical' gangsters of the day with their identical cars, liquor rackettiering and almost businessman-like dress sense of hats and suits. The 1983 version is far more focused on the gaudy and materialistic 80s, best represented in Tony Montana's open-button shirts and enourmous gold-a-plenty mansion (not forgetting of course, his very own tiger).
Perhaps the most crucial difference of all can be found in the vastly opposing attitudes towards Gangsters and the criminal underworld in each film. Hawks's film was under the pressure from to not make the bad guys out as the heroes and make sure they get their come-uppants. It can of course be argued that ultimately, Hawks failed in this task, as despite his attrotious behaviour to others and his sister in particular, his confident swagger and almost playfullness keep him as a likeable character. Conversely, di Palmer was without such restrictions, taking the brutal malice and arrogance of Tony Montana to the extreme yet somehow, Al Pacino's performance makes the audience root for him, perhaps located in the great cinema tradition of being drawn towards the poweful, wise-cracking (and highly quotable) anti-hero. Whilst such an idea would have been detestable and shot down by censors in Hawk's day, thanks to the modern idea of the 'Cinema of Cool' in which gangsters and lawbreakers are seen as the most dynamic on screen that allowed Tony 'Say Hello To My Lil Friend!" Montana to become a cult icon of near aspiration. (Which could possibly explain my framed film poster for the 1983 Scarface taking pride of place on my wall)
The most obvious idea that is found in each film is that the main character is an immigrant in America, Tony Camonte from Italy and Tony Montana from Cuba. Their immigrant status is vitally important as it stresses the idea that both characters have come in search of the American Dream, which in their minds is to be rich and incredibly powerful (as the poster for de Palmer's Scarface proclaims; 'He Loved The American Dream, With A Vengence'). The notion of their lust for power is not only indicated through the plot that shows them slowly climbing higher and higher up the crime world's ladder, but it is also epitomised by the characters' love of the phrase; 'The World Is Yours', a creed which they both live to fullfill. In Hawks' film, Scarface's appartment looks out to a large billboard with these words, which inventively are focused in on at the end of the film as the lights go out to symbolize Scarface's death and loss of his power. In de Palmer's version, in keeping with the film's gaudy 80s aesthetic, Tony Montana makes an even bigger statement of his power, having these world enscribed on a giant golden statue of Atlas holding up the world in a fountain. As with Hawks' Scarface, Tony Montana symbolically collapses dead into the pool in front of the statue to mirror the message that Hawks conveyed.
With regards to the visable difference to the films, it of course has to be remember that whilst the 1932 Scarface was released just before the Motion Picture Production Codes of 1927 and 1930 fully took effect, it was taking great risk with the censors who were keen to stamp down on violence, firearms, murder, siding with the bad guys, riddicule of the law and explicit details of the art of crime. Now that we have all seen the film and learnt of these censor restrictions, it can certainly be said of the original Scarface that it was incredibly taboo-breaking. There were multiple examples of the previously listed "forbidden" material from start to finish, and it can even be argued that were it not for the lack of blood, the Scarface of 1932 can be described as being every bit as violent as it's 1983 counterpart. A further key difference to note between the films is the time periods in which they are set, the 1932 version depicting the now 'classical' gangsters of the day with their identical cars, liquor rackettiering and almost businessman-like dress sense of hats and suits. The 1983 version is far more focused on the gaudy and materialistic 80s, best represented in Tony Montana's open-button shirts and enourmous gold-a-plenty mansion (not forgetting of course, his very own tiger).
Perhaps the most crucial difference of all can be found in the vastly opposing attitudes towards Gangsters and the criminal underworld in each film. Hawks's film was under the pressure from to not make the bad guys out as the heroes and make sure they get their come-uppants. It can of course be argued that ultimately, Hawks failed in this task, as despite his attrotious behaviour to others and his sister in particular, his confident swagger and almost playfullness keep him as a likeable character. Conversely, di Palmer was without such restrictions, taking the brutal malice and arrogance of Tony Montana to the extreme yet somehow, Al Pacino's performance makes the audience root for him, perhaps located in the great cinema tradition of being drawn towards the poweful, wise-cracking (and highly quotable) anti-hero. Whilst such an idea would have been detestable and shot down by censors in Hawk's day, thanks to the modern idea of the 'Cinema of Cool' in which gangsters and lawbreakers are seen as the most dynamic on screen that allowed Tony 'Say Hello To My Lil Friend!" Montana to become a cult icon of near aspiration. (Which could possibly explain my framed film poster for the 1983 Scarface taking pride of place on my wall)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
