BEHOLD, THE MISSING LINK... " THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON"

You know I always go on about “visiting our cinematic elders”. You know, checking out those films that were the “firsts”. Learning about our cinematic history. If you’re a movie buff, this is positively fun. If you’re a bit of a geek like me, you can rattle off whole lists of films that carry the same traits down the “family line”. The Creature from the Black Lagoon is definitely one of the main precursors to the “monster movie” that “spawned” films ranging from Cloverfield (2008) to The Host (2006). And I’ll tell you something else – don’t knock it until you actually try it. Because since it was made in 1954 it may well lack the kind of special effects we are used to today. The “creature” may look a little “off” by today’s standards. But get past that. If you manage to actually get past it – you have a cracking movie experience waiting for you. There is a reason why its director John Arnold was pretty much considered the king of sci-fi back in his day... 

This is the story of a scientific expedition that uncovered a lot more than the scientists on it bargained for… A find in an unexplored place in the Amazonian jungle spurs on what could be one of the greatest scientific discoveries of our time. The missing link in the human ancestry between life in the water and life on land no less! But little do the scientists know that what they are about to encounter is not just ancient history – the creature lives! Hidden for years, undisturbed in the Amazonian Black Lagoon, the creature awaits… And he does not take all too kindly to being disturbed…

Yes, this film has all the traits of the “monster abducts beautiful female lead” films that followed it. It is almost what one might call a perfect classic example complete with love triangle. The female scientist on the trip is romantically engaged with one of the other scientists there (I say romantically engaged purely because the film makes a “thing” of how modern it is by underlining the fact that they are dating but not engaged to be married. The couple – more pointedly the man of course – fend off chides concerning “when they are getting married”. But they are not all that “modern” because David, the male lead is very much the “good guy”, the ethical scientist who wants the good of the creature and science. His boss, Mark, the other leg of the love triangle, is the ambitious one, out for fame and glory, “almost akin to a big game hunter”. I like the fact that the film tries to make a more “ethical” point about science, although it may seem a little clumsy by today’s standards. We have become a tad more used to “subtle” arguments, this is true, but the 50s were relatively new as far as the “talkies” went. In the eras after silent cinema, where the lack of sound meant everything else had to be incredible exaggerated and subtlety took a while to master. Well, that and the fact that the films were a good deal shorter than they are today – and with only just under an hour and half to play with you don’t have time for long drawn out subtle arguments.

The other point is that the film makes a legitimate effort to be scientifically accurate, describing the potential dangers of “the bends” (i.e. decompression sickness) although very little is made of this point – I suspect it was supposed to be a plot twist but then at some point got axed for reasons unknown. Also detailed explanations are given to any “every man” type character that can realistically be found – so the film is doing its level best to be scientifically accurate and believable. And this, despite the “gill man” character, shows the film is trying to be realistic on a different level – representing a step away from the “fairy tale” quality of a lot of films and trying to ground the story in reality and science with as little suspension of disbelief involved as possible. This of course sets it up as one of the precursors of modern science fiction as opposed to fantasy  - making it all the more important in cinematic history.

I am well aware that “old” films are not to everyone’s taste. But this is an important one. Much like the gill man himself, it bridges a gap between an older tradition in cinema and what we recognise as “modern cinema” today. If you are a geek you will definitely enjoy it. And shall I tell you something, even if you’re not, between its close parentage to modern films you’ll still probably enjoy it. Not just because you’ll giggle at its “oldy-worldy”ness either. Although, credit where it is due, you will probably enjoy doing that too J  

NOTHING CAN BEAT ITS LURE : "SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS"

The other night, one of my flatmates decided we should see a nostalgic film, film noir more specifically. The film, I have to admit was selected pretty much at random but turned out to be a classic funnily enough. So there you have it, you can trust the internet in your quest for knowledge – sometimes  This blog however, as you may already know, is more about opinions and less about knowledge and my opinion of the film was so high that I reckoned I should share it with the rest of you all. You know, in case any of you guys were in the mood for a good, old-fashioned classic. This is the dark and twisted tale of JJ. Hunsecker (played by veteran actor Burt Lancaster). He is a successful columnist in LA, which makes him a popular man among those of the industry. It also means he has an immense amount of power should he choose to wield it. It is this power specifically that he uses when he finds out that his sister has “got involved” with a jazz musician. Deciding that a penniless musician is no suitable match for his beloved sister, he uses the greed and hunger of unscrupulous press agent Sidney Falco(Tony Curtis) to break the couple up once and for all. The plan is dark and convoluted but Sydney doesn’t mind getting his hands a bit dirty as long as he gets his reward at the end. The only problem is, what seems to start off as something relatively simple slowly begins to backfire… Those who try dirty deeds as means to the ends they crave, should in all fairness be ready to suffer the consequences… I loved this film because it was completely and utterly everything you expect and want a film noir to be. It has beautiful innocent dames, handsome beaus trying to overcome circumstances and dastardly bad guys getting up to unthinkable tricks to achieve their dastardly ends. It is, in short, a complete and utter classic. Now, there is always the argument that this has something we have seen before. And as you know I am very, very far from averse to original and artistic work in the cinema. Heck, I’m a Terrance Malik fan. That should say it all. But then again, if cinema is art, it is also entertainment. I think quite frankly that most art forms, if not all, have this dual side to them. They are artistic, creative but must also at some level appeal to the public, entertain or force people to think. This is why being an artist is so tough really, striking a balance between the two – if indeed a balance is what you’re going for - is so difficult. Then again, it ain’t so easy if you’re going for one extreme or the other. If you’re going for entertainment value – as most film noirs tend to – you have to either “perform” exquisitely and fulfil all the conventions of your genre with quality and class or risk looking very cheesy and done a hundred times before. Like I said in my review of Alien3 , there is nothing wrong with doing stuff we’ve seen before. The Sweet Smell of Success is a very classy example of its genre, successfully combining the classic with the original. And it goes very well with pizza. Just saying.

ANOTHER MIXED BAG : REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE

Rebel without a cause"


Now, forgive me if you're actually a fan, but I'm no great fan of James Dean. I objectively see that he has charisma. He is a good actor, although I ever really saw him act in a certain type of part (which isn't saying a lot really, I've only seen him in two films and this is one of them). I appreciate him, but like I said I could make do without him, if you see what I mean... But still, after having watched it, I cannot help but appreciate the power of the film "Rebel without a cause", especially seeing as it was one of the firsts of its genre... It seems rather infantile as films go in parts, but then again, you have to remember that this was a first. One of the first films that give "youth" a voice. And they are not exactly happy, much to their parent’s surprise.

But let's get ahead with the plot. Jim (James Dean) is a troubled young man of 17. His parents aren't quite sure why, but he just seems to get into trouble a lot. Well, his parents move around a lot as well, so he can't exactly "repeat" his offences but it's pretty much the same story wherever he goes. In their latest location, things don't seem to have altered much. Jim has the bullies of the school on his tail once again - only this time it's actually more complicated as he has a crush on one of the girls in the gang - and the school nut job thinks that Jim is his best friend - not that that matters either, he seems harmless enough. But then the bullies challenge Jim to a "chicky run". It's a potentially dangerous way to prove courage, but the only way of proving you aren't a "chicken". Jim goes through with it, only his opponent doesn't come out alive... This starts a positive avalanche of reactions... The kids are most definitely "not all right". And the parents have to do some serious soul searching if they want to understand why...

Broken home, uncaring parents, parents who just "don't understand". This is all day to day life now, but back in the 50's one didn't talk about it all that much... Heck, this was one of the first films where we see "well meaning but inefficient parents". This is why we needed "youth films" as a genre I suppose back in the day. Around the middle of the century the eminent grownups figured out that young people and teenagers are actually "thinking entities" in their own rights and not just things to be "seen and not heard". They needed a voice, and this is what these films provided... Funny, if you think about it they don't make this kind of "teen flick" anymore. I mean sure, we have films where teens are the heroes but very VERY few films that talk specifically about teenagers and their problems and their lives "out of context" so to speak. Nothing like this, or "The Breakfast Club", heck even "Grease" is one of the films from this genre...Now thankfully, a lot more is said and done about and for young people so they no longer specifically need this art form to reach out... And since the films are all very good films we can watch them as works of art in their own rights, but I think it's kinda important to remember they also had a serious function once. Long, long ago...

ON THE WATERFRONT

So, I know that people are generally speaking divided when it comes to classical cinema. Some love it, some find it dated and boring. I frankly am in the former group. For me it is a case not only of enjoyment but also study. It’s fascinating to watch the themes and values of yesteryear, not to mention snapshots of life – for art does imitate life. (Or vice versa. The two are incredibly similar at any rate ;) ). I like to slip in a review of these every once in a while for those of you who like a change. Well, we have before us a whopping 8 Oscar ® winner by master director Elia Kazan starring acting legend Marlon Brando. Oh yes, it’s back to the 50’s…
So, meet Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando). He once dreamt of being a prize fighter but it’s all over now; his new career is as a longshoreman on the docks. He has an easy life, the dockers’ union is run by corrupt gangster Johnny Friendly(Oscar® winning actor Lee J. Cobb) likes him and keeps him around for errands. In any case, his older brother is high up in the gang as well, thus life is good. Malloy’s relatively easy life is disrupted when he unknowingly becomes accessory to the murder of a guy he knows. Then he is brought together with Edie (Oscar® winning actress Eva Marie Saint) the sister of the murdered man and falls for her. Edie, with the help of the parish priest Father Barry (Oscar® winning actor Karl Madden) is trying to expose Johnny Friendly’s gang and find the truth behind her brothers’ murder. Terry is now squarely caught between his conscience and his “family” loyalties. And his is the “casting vote”…
Now, this film comes with the classical disclaimers inherent to all black and white films. This is 1954 people, NO special effects, no color and slightly exaggerated acting are our buzz words of the day. However, on a story level it’s an exciting gangster good vs evil story. On the level of acting, it’s faultless. Ok, they carry the marks of their era but the entire cast was either nominated or won Oscars® for their performances in this film. And I feel, well, this was the best acting of an era condensed, shit, it’s the best acting of quite a few eras condensed it’s worth watching on that merit alone! And then of course, just incidentally, there’s the presence and mastery of director Elia Kazan. The metaphors and the ways they’re portrayed (you don’t need to be a media studies graduate to pick up on them) are beautiful, elegant. And it’s a very good analysis of the human soul, of the ordinary man. You’ll find a lot in it. All you have to do is get over your prejudices…