Archive for May, 2008

h1

England Slayed Me: ‘Midnight Lace’ (1960) and the anti-British film cycle.

May 28, 2008

by Dean Brandum

Recently I took to re-reading H. Mark Glancy’s excellent When Hollywood Loved Britain: The Hollywood ‘British Film’ – 1939-1945. The author writes of a period when the American studios (and its audiences) were enamoured of the notion of Britishness in cinema. From Errol Flynn swashbuckling for Elizabeth I in The Sea Hawk (Curtiz: 1940) to Greer Garson staunchly bearing up through the blitz in Mrs. Miniver (Wyler: 1942) Hollywood produced scores of images of Britain (although almost always England) past and present throughout the 1930s-40s and an appreciative American audience reciprocated in kind, as most of these films generated healthy profits. It must be said that such American audience enthusiasm did not extend to actual films produced by the British film industry, as these were – if they crossed the Atlantic at all – restricted to arthouse or small chain distribution.

With its community of British ex-pats (mainly performers and technical crew), Hollywood in the 1930s was almost an outpost of empire – a veritable Raj among the orange groves. And if they were not British by birth then it seemed that those of the filmmaking set were at the very least Anglophiles. This still-nascent town may have been booming but although cashed up it remained devoid of a solid cultural (let alone historical) base. So where else to look than the mother country even if, for many, their origins were found on the other side of the English Channel? Britain offered taste, refinement and tradition. And indeed, in a practical sense, it also provided a rich vein of motion picture material. From Dickens and Shakespeare to number military conquests and the deeds of great explorers and colonisers, the pages of British history and literature made their way to the Hollywood screen. Genuine ex-pats were often cast as the protagonists, but it was just as common to see American performers (Bette Davis, Clark Gable, Robert Taylor etc) frocking up and attempting to round their vowels, although in many cases, just smoothing down the mid-western drawls or Noo-Yawk edges was enough.

As Europe braced for the gathering storm late in the 1930s, the Hollywood of the still-neutral United States had little compunction in allowing their fervently pro-British (ergo: anti-Nazi) bias be displayed on screen. The ante was upped once war was declared and when, in the final month of 1941, the USA officially joined proceedings, the Office of War Information gave approval to the filmmaking cause (it is hard to believe today, but there was a proposed Senate investigation into Hollywood’s pro-British bias, due to take place in early 1942, cancelled only after the bombing of Pearl Harbour). At times relations between the Americans and British were strained as the stress and cost of the war took its toll. Such difficulties only strengthened the resolve of the studios to produce British themed films, contemporary and past in setting, but altogether positive, no matter the temporality.

In 1945 war ceased. The Allies won and the clean up and carve up of occupied Europe began. In those immediate post-war years Hollywood suffered a disastrous downturn in attendances and revenues. With Nazism defeated there were new villains for Americans to contend with. The Cold War era saw not only an external (Soviet) threat, but with a paranoid fervour Americans took to weeding out Communist plants (real or imagined) within the interior. In one of the most public displays of this period, Hollywood came under the spotlight. For an industry already reeling with financial, legal and structural issues, the accusation of harbouring treasonous rats in their ranks was just what they didn’t need to return to the public’s favour.

As a result American cinema entered a period of naval-gazing (patriotic and self-loathing), this inward obsession broken only by sporadic bursts of epics depicting empires long vanished or fantasies of intergalactic visitors from planets far away. Britain was mostly forgotten – apart from a few medieval and Victorian era tales – the Empire now picking up the pieces of a most expensive campaign, surviving with rationing and rebuilding its blitzed ruins. Contending with their own socialist threats. Financial and industrial concerns saw the sun finally set. In reality it had been grimly hanging onto the horizon for some time.

Cinematically, this post-war period also saw the emergence of the what came to be known as ‘film noir’. Most commonly associated with Hollywood, there have also been valid claims for a (near concurrent) British strain. An offshoot of this trend is one that I have read little about and one which I think, especially in relation to Hollywood’s aforementioned Anglophilia, is worth mentioning.

Trade Ad for Midnight Lace

A few nights ago I found myself watching David Miller’s Midnight Lace, a preposterous thriller about Doris Day being stalked in London. She never sees the man terrorising her, only being subjected to telephone calls or voices in the fog telling her she will be killed before the month is over. Glossily produced for Universal by Ross Hunter in 1960, Midnight Lace tries for a Hitchcock feel, but director Miller lacks the master’s deftness of touch and the material (based on a stage play “Matilda Shouted Fire” by Janet Green) hurls its red herrings about so thoughtlessly that the stalker’s identity will only be a surprise to the more feeble minds in the audience. In any case, Doris is pretty good (I always thought she was sadly under-utilised in drama) and she is given plenty of scream-time. She carries the show and maintains enough mild interest for the viewer to hang in to the closing credits.

What is of true interest in Midnight Lace is its pure fear of all things British. From its opening scenes, the fog-cloaked London is depicted as a creepy, threatening city. The fear is validated by Doris tormented as she cuts through a park – a sing-song voice seeps from the fog promising her impending death. Perhaps not the advertisement the London tourist bureau would have wanted, but when Doris tells her husband (Rex Harrison) he laughs it off as a typical prank of a foggy London night. When told that the voice spoke of her name, address and nationality, Rex chuckles at the research such japesters will conduct. Soon Doris starts receiving phone calls. The death threats come after a barrage of ‘filth’, she tells a Scotland Yard Inspector her husband has engaged to deal with the matter. What this ‘filth’ is we never know, except that it is ‘obscene’ (the thought of Doris Day being subjected to obscene filth on the phone tickles me no end, I must say). The police officer explains that not only can much be done about obscene phone callers, they are also on the increase, a fact confirmed by Doris’s neighbour and friend who laughs away her own experience of ‘heavy breathers’.

Not content to smear the British as a nation of sadistic pranksters who get their kicks from talking obscene filth on the phone, the film presents us with a number of options for who may be the stalker. There is the slimy son of their housekeeper (Roddy MacDowell) who is despised for wanting to rise above his social station, next up is an American building contractor working outside Doris’s flat who takes a liking to her and finally a sinister fellow with facial scarring who is constantly lurking and watching our distressed damsel from a distance. Pretty quickly the American (John Gavin – he made Psycho the same year) is painted with the sympathetic brush, becoming her protector when her English husband is disbelieving and ineffectual. Roddy is just a creep, but what is most worrying is the attitude displayed to the fellow with the facial disfigurement. At one point Gavin spies him in a pub and discusses his presence with a blowsy barmaid (Hermoine Baddeley). She is revolted by his appearance and when Gavin suggests he may have received such scars in the war she is nonplussed, stating that it is such veterans accounting for the crimes on the streets today, from which no woman is safe. Only fifteen short years after the war and already the heroes are denigrated as potential rapists!

It is not just the people of Britain who have it in for Doris Day – a building scaffold collapses and barely misses her as she walks by and she is nearly run over by a bus in Piccadilly Circus. At its climax, when the actual stalker is revealed it is the most British of characters that is the villain, a fact taken with good grace by the police who treat the villain with the ‘bad luck old chap’ sportsmanship appropriate for a batsman out LBW to a well-bowled googly.

Midnight Lace was one of a number of films that depicted Britain as a no-go area for Americans. Obsession (1949: Dmytryk) featured proper, cuckolded English doctor Robert Newton keeping his wife’s American lover hostage with the intention of killing him then burning his body in acid. Night and the City (1950: Dassin) had Yank Richard Widmark on the run through the scummier streets of London and becoming increasingly aware that his hours are numbered. 23 Paces to Baker Street (1950: Hathaway) featured a blind American (Van Johnson) stalked by an unseen predator and numerous B-films featured American actors on the slide (Forrest Tucker, Lloyd Bridges, Tom Conway, Steve Cochran, Lizabeth Scott etc) facing danger in Blighty.

Doris Day took the first flight home and into the loving arms of Rock Hudson and lots of pastel décor. Within a few years America would be thrilled by the gadgetry of Connery’s James Bond and they would be mopping their tops with the Fab Four. In no time there was a wave of all things British – Caine, Finney, Christie and co. on film and a British Invasion on the charts with various Hermits, Fives, Animals, Hollies, Stones and friends. Carnaby Street, mods and photographers. London was now swinging and America once again was in love with Britain (for a few years, at least). The Anti-British noir strain, like London’s fog, cleared.

I would doubt if any such cycle was intentional, but a careful examination of Midnight Lace does reveal a disdain for the Britain and its people that would never have been considered 20 years earlier. That attitudes returned to the positive is evident in Rex Harrison becoming, with My Fair Lady (1964: George Cukor), America’s favourite English gentleman.

Well, at least until he decided to try and talk to the animals and caught the giant snail to career oblivion. But that’s a story for another day.

h1

Three Animated Alices

May 3, 2008

by Alexandra Heller-Nicholas

Ubiquitous Alice

Through the sheer cultural saturation of the Disney product in general, the studio’s version of Alice In Wonderland (1951) arguably provides more immediately recognizable images than Lewis Carroll’s original work.Superficially, this is understandable – the film makes little attempt to resituate or alter the original work and thus is an attempt at a literal reading of the text. This could potentially account for the films initial lacklustre public response(1): Carroll’s Alice In Wonderland, with its nonsensical imagery and structuralist shennanigans, demands its beatified place in the literary cannon precisely because of its flagrent encouragement of the reader to decode the undecipherable Wonderland themselves.The initial critical failure of Walt Disney’s Alice is therefore laden with irony, as its inability to creatively engage and re-adapt the text is the exact reason the film reads as such an unimaginative re-enactment.

Disney himself had a long and lasting affection for the text, and earlier in his career he made a series of cartoons involving Alice with plans of making a full live action film when he arrived in Hollywood (2). When this feature animated project began in earnest, Disney had heated debates with colleagues over what could and could not be altered with the text. One suggestion of Disney’s was to enliven what he saw as a dull Alice “by giving her a companion with whom she could get into comic situations and gag routines. His ideas was to bring in the March Hare for this purpose, as a running character who would keep popping up at unexpected moments all through the film… he was crushed when it was explained that he would be attacked for tampering with a classic”(3). All attempts by Disney to incorporate other characters as stronger leads were met with similar fears(4), which ironically resulted in the supporting cast lacking the vitality of their counterparts in the original book. Disney’s himself felt far from optimistic about the final product, having a clear distaste for certain key features of the film such as seeing Alice herself as “prim and prissy”(5), and the film as a whole “’filled with weird characters’”(6). The commercial paranoia that filled Disney studios in working with such a well-loved text ultimately resulted in the critical undoing of the film. This hesitation to reinterpret the text – despite Carroll so clearly inviting such an act of his readers – resulted with a string of self-conscious and awkward English clichés like the cockney Bill the Lizard and the aristocratic Dodo. Ultimately, the film was “a kind of surrealistic vaudeville show, replete with strong episodes of wild humour but weak in terms of warmth and cohesiveness”(7). The studio’s desperation not to offend suppressed any genuine creative reading of the text. Curiouser and curiouser would be any later attempt by Disney studios to animate Alice – the other side of the double edged sword implies that the fear of Disneyfication is distinctly absent in later films, so ironically a more creative Alice may have been produced. Doubtlessly, this would result in the very accusations the 1951 version was so frightened off – a McDisney Alice could be held as literary treason, despite the version that struggled so earnestly to be a loyal and obedient reading falling so very, very flat.

Urban Alice

As the case in many Betty Boop cartoons, Betty In Blunderland (1934) chronicles an escape from the urban to the fantastic. Judge for A Day (1935) shows Betty enduring the trials of contemporary city life and then daydreaming about being “judge for a day”, passing down punishment onto those that caused her irritation. The traditional dichotomy of city/country is generally absent from Betty’s world: as Stop That Noise (1935) demonstrates, the country is just as threatening as the city. The fantasy realm into which Betty so frequently ventures into mirrors that of her New York depression-era audience – viewing cartoons at the cinema was itself a mode of escapism not only for her contemporary audience, but for her creators, Dave and Max Fleischer. Betty escaped into her fantasy world just as her audience escaped into Betty’s “reality” – she mimicked their desire to experience an alternate universe.

Carroll’s story is an intertextual point of reference in Betty In Blunderland – as the title indicates, however, this is not Alice In Wonderland, but rather Betty in a confused, muddled-up Wonderland, a Blunderland. The film opens with a shot of a jigsaw puzzle box with a John Tenniel-like illustration, and pans left to Betty lying on the floor doing the actual puzzle. As she sings happily “I found a little rabbit’s foot”, the Grandfather clock takes the form of a ‘real’ grandfatherly figure and sings as she drifts off to sleep. Following the White Rabbit (who escapes from her puzzle – how is a city girl going to know what a real rabbit looks like?) through the mirror in her room, Alice follows him through a candy cane lined path to a Subway station (what else – again, how is a city girl going to know what a real rabbit hole looks like?). Once in ‘Blunderland’, Betty exhibits city-girl savvy and only partakes of the Shrink-Ola soda fountain after seeing others use it before her to get through the small door. She readily identifies the Mad Hatter – like her audience, she has read this story before – and it is out of his hat the she pulls out Carroll’s characters from the original story. As she introduces herself through her song “How Do You Do?” the characters – including Tweedledum and Tweedledee and the Walrus and the Carpenter – dance happily around Betty, Carroll’s narrative going out the metaphorical window. A dragon (perhaps a Jabberwocky?!) escapes the Mad Hatter’s upturned hat and suddenly kidnaps Betty to the horror of her new friends a chase ensues. Turtles transform into machine gun-equipped armored vehicles, a unicorn attacks the dragon with its horn and a seal flings pinch-angry crayfish with its flippers. Stopping suddenly at a cliff edge, the Jabberwocky flings Betty and the Carroll characters through the air and as they land find themselves back in Betty’s room, the characters morphing into the now complete jigsaw. Except, of course, the White Rabbit who is grabbed by Betty as he tries to escape. “Come back you rascal!” cries Betty, winking to the audience as she places the final piece and finishes the puzzle.

Betty In Blunderland continues to position Betty as a sexualized adult-female, dissimilar to the childish Alice of the original text and the Disney film. A comparison with this Alice emphasises Betty’s status as a sexually developed entity. The White Rabbit, before running through the mirror, gives Betty a flower (plucked from the puzzle) and before he makes his dash through the looking glass, stops and blows Betty a kiss that forms a tangible love heart shape in mid air, melting away as he runs off. He is clearly attracted to Betty, and it is on these terms that she pursues him – his amorous attentions are something she is curious to pursue. Betty’s sexual adventure takes a dramatic turn towards the literal as the awning of the subway station turn into a long human tongue, literally sweeping her into the subway in a licking motion. As she falls downwards, the first things she falls through are clotheslines (in the style of those seen in high density apartment living during the period, strung between buildings). Upon these lines are female undergarments – primarily bras and corsets. Betty’s greatest concern falling is her skirt flying up and exposing her, which she remedies by attaching a peg to hold her skirt down. After she drinks from the Shrink-ola, unlike Alice , Betty has no tears or even moments of disorientation at her new size – bodily changes do not upset womanly Betty as they do junior Alice (post-pubescent Betty has been through it all before). Indeed, Betty’s motivation for initially visiting Blunderland is to pursue the romantic advances of the White Rabbit. Her abduction by the Jabberwocky implies a sexual motivation – Betty is a single, attractive female. As the Wonderland characters fight to save Betty, it is a rescue from a sexual predator. Returned ultimately to her room, she stops the White Rabbit from escaping once again and returns him to the puzzle, ending her adventure.

This notion of Betty Boop as a sexually functional entity contending with threat and advances reflects immediately the urban inner-city world of the Fleischers.

“Sex and violence… were unavoidable in neighborhoods where thousands of people lived in a tiny area. Betty Boop herself, frequently the object of both sex and violence, was an inhabitant of this world… [There are] a number of films in which Betty contends with the hazards of life as a single girl in the big city” ( 8 )

Although Betty In Blunderland features a more censored Betty than had initially appeared, elements of the original Betty can still be seen despite the Hays Production Code considering her “too racy” at the peak of her fame in 1934 (9) This tamer Betty Boop lost her public allure and the cartoon was cancelled in 1938 (10) , but this example demonstrates that the Fleischer’s were trying to work around the Hays code to present Betty as a sexual adult rather than by outwardly denying her any sexual elements. In Betty In Bluderland, Betty is encoded as the ultimate anti-Alice; she’s happy to pursue sexual advancements, she has no fear or discomfort with her own body and the only real risk takes the form of sexual predators. These all are specific to Betty as a single woman in a bleak, urban world and these factors haunt both her reality and her fantasy life.

Political Alice

During the 1960’s, Alice in Wonderland was adopted by the drug cultureculture, and by association with the hippy movement gained a new political aspect. The bizarre imagery and hallucinatory logic in the original text made it an obvious candidate for LSD user popular iconography (11), and it became associated with a a subversive spirit as Alice was reclaimed from the conservative context of traditional literature. Carroll’s Alice, of course, has long been viewed in political terms in relation to her transgressive inability to conform within a world of significant institutionalised threat: she “changes her form continually: she is continually threatened and continually in danger” (12). It is in this spirit that Czech animator and surrealist Jan Svankmajer tackles the tale in Alice (1988). A dark and symbolic work, his signature combination of stop-motion found-object animation combined with live action articulates his response to the political conditions in Czechoslovakia in the context of the repression that followed the Prague uprising of Spring 1968.

As an active member of the Prague surrealist group, Svankmajer shares with them a fascination with Alice In Wonderland, once described by Andre Breton as “the vital solution to a profound contradiction between the acceptance of faith and the exercise of reason” (13) In Alice, Svankmajer fuses a Surrealist fascination with the dream state with his own impression of childhood as an experience, not steeped in blissful nostalgia, but laced with specific non-adult concerns. In his own words, Svankmajer’s Aliceis “fermented by my own childhood, with all its particular obsessions and anxieties”(14). This relationship between the dream state and childhood proved integral to Svankmajer’s approach to filming Lewis’ text:

”Dreams are an extension of childhood. It is, for me, certainly a message, perhaps an auguty, sometimes a puzzle or even subject for analysis. It depends what kind of dream it is and, chiefly, how its ‘mysterious’ content excites me as a waking person, for not all dreams have the same emotive charge. Alice as I filmed it and how, of course, Lewis Carroll conceived it on paper, is an infantile dream.” (15)

Svankmajer’s adaptation is concerned foremost with the processes by which reality is distorted by the child to become the dream. The dream space of this Alice – like Betty – relates directly to their respective realities. Just as Betty finds subway stations not rabbit holes, Svankmajer’s Alice sees her reality mirrored in her dreamland, but it is far from a ‘wonderland’. The animal skeletons, old broken toys and other paraphernalia that litter her small playroom all appear in her dream. The relationship between dream and reality become clear in the opening sequences. As in both the Disney film and the Carroll text, Alice sits on a picturesque riverbank as an older girl (her sister in the original book) reads. Alice throws rocks into the river. We soon realize, however, that even this is a fantasy for Alice – she is in fact sitting in a small cramped room where she is imagining sitting on the river bank throwing rocks into the river: we see her sitting on dirty floor, throwing stones into a stained teacup, and to her right sits a small worn Victorian styled porcelain doll (later this doll is literally animated to take the role of the beshrunken Alice), and a larger doll sitting next to the smaller one, denoting the older girl or woman. There is no indication here that she is “playing” Alice In Wonderland and thus has (like Betty) a previous knowledge of the text, or rather that she is just imagining that she is somewhere pleasant rather than the cramped filthy room she is in. Either way, through its initial depictions of reality and fantasy in the child’s mind, even before any appearance of White Rabbits or rabbit holes, Svankmajer suggests that the reality of Carroll’s Alice is already a superior fantasy to his Alice: Fantasy is thus relative to the reality from which you escape.

Like much of Svankmajer’s work, it is impossible to evade politics in Alice Notions of childhood and the dream state do not work parallel to these concerns, but rather in conjuncture with them:

” As a child during the war I used to be repeatedly chased by foreign soldiers in my dreams. I used to escape from them across the courtyards of the blocks of houses where we lived. And the following morning I would review my nocturnal dream-like flight from the balcony on the fourth floor overlooking the courtyard, and invent new variations of evasions of the next nights. Thus equipped, I was able to expect my next harrowing dream calmly and with the realistic hope that this time I would succeed in escaping again. I mention this experience from my childhood because it could come in useful if we reversed dreams into reality and vice versa, thus creating a model for prevention against real repression” (16)

Alice ’s wonderland – like her reality – is a world of stained walls, cold floors, dirt and chicken wire. Her imagination is literally repressed in this sense by her real environment, and her real world is endlessly ruled by the politics of poverty and conflict – the caterpillar is an old sock with false teeth and glass eyes. Nails come out of bread rolls, cockroaches out of food tins and in sardine cans we find not sardines, but oil-soaked keys. The March Hare is crippled in a wheelchair, and the fast edited, highly mechanized industrialized nonsense at the Mad Hatters tea party leaves Alice astonished at the rigorous (but ultimately futile) production line. The March Hare pins buttered pocket watches onto the Mad Hatter like war medals. The climactic courtroom scene recalls the notorious and farcical political trials many Czech artists suffered after the 1968 uprising under the ruling Communist regime:

King: Start reading here.

Alice (reading): ‘I’m profoundly sorry for what I did’

King: Your apology will be taken into account.

Alice : I’m not sorry for anything at all!

King: Say what you are supposed to say; you should have said, “I ask the court for the severest punishment”.

Alice : What do you take me for?

King: Stick to the text of I’ll have the court cleared.

Alice : But you can see the tarts are all here (eats one)… almost all of them.

As Alice feasts on the tarts, the King and Queen cry “Off with her head”. The White Rabbit – whom happily beheads at the royal will with a pair of scissors – moves towards Alice but as she shakes her head “No”, her head morphs into a spectrum of other characters: The Mad Hatter, The March Hair, The Fish and Frog Footmen and, ultimately, the Queen herself. “Which one?” asks the voiceover, mimicing the inquiry of Svankmajer and other Czech artists as they wonder who to blame for the condition of their country under militant Communist rule. When Alice awakes, the Rabbit has gone but his scissors are discovered hidden in a drawer. “He’s late as usual”, she says aloud. “I think I’ll cut his head off”. Complying with Svankmajer’s advice, Alice adapts the techniques acquired within her dreams to fight the repression that dominates her reality.

————–

1. Mosely, Leonard. Disney’s World New York: Stein and Day, 1985. p. 213.

2. ibid.

3. ibid.

4. ibid.

5. Shickel, Richard The Disney Version: The Life, Times And Commerce Of Walt Disney New York: Simon And Schuster 1968 p.295

6. ibid.

7. Watts, Steven The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney And The American Way Of Life Columbia: University Of Missouri Press 1997; p.285

8. Holberg, Amelia S. “Betty Boop: Yiddish Film Star”. American Jewish History Volume 87, Number 4, December 1999, p. 296.

9. Holberg, 291

10. ibid.

11. Fensch, Thomas “Lewis Carroll – The First Acidhead” in Aspects Of Alice: Lewis Carroll’s Dreamchild Ed. Robert Phillips New York: Vanguard 1971 p.424

12. Schilder, Paul “Psychoanalytic Remarks On Alice In Wonderland” in Aspects Of Alice p.291

13. Levin, Henry “Wonderland Revisited” in Aspects Of Alice p.176

14. O’Pray, Michael “Jan Svankmajer: A Mannerist Surrealist” in Dark Alchemy: The Films Of Jan Svankmajer Ed. Hames, Peter. Westport: Praeger 1995, p.74

15. Hames, Peter “Interview with Jan Svankmajer” in Dark Alchemy p.106

16. Svankmajer, Jan Transmutation of the Senses. Prague: Edice Detail, Central Europe Gallery and Publishing House, 1994. p.84.