Friday, September 30, 2022

Alphaville (1965)

A reporter arrives in Alphaville from the “Outer Countries”, looking for Professor Von Braun and asking a lot of questions. Slowly he learns the true nature of Alphaville and Alpha 60, even if little of it makes much sense to the viewer.

Ostensibly this is Film-Noir, but it reads like a parody of the genre. Our protagonist behaves like a jerk, slapping people, acting misogynistic, and getting into random violence and gun play. I know, but I mean inappropriately so. I sense the director (Jean-Luc Godard) is making a statement about the hard-boiled detective trope and American cinema in general, and it is not a favorable one. Every adherence to the genre felt like an exaggeration to point out its absurdity.

But calling it science fiction is a taller order. It is said to be set in a dystopian future where computers control everyone’s thoughts, but there was no attempt to camouflage present era Paris. 1960’s locations, cars, and other technology are plainly used. Again, I feel the intent of the director. While real sci-fi explores modern society using a fanciful story and out-of-this-world setting, here the director presents his story with nothing more than sci-fi lip service. It’s a dystopian future, and it is today. The Alpha 60 computer is the only technology presented, and it seemed out of place in the world presented.

The unpleasant voice of Alpha 60 was recorded by a man with his voice box removed due to cancer. But this is not by far the most unpleasant aspect. The nonsensical dialog gave it a pretentious air and the herky-jerky editing made it hard to follow the action, principally the fight scenes. And occasionally scenes go reverse negative, because that’s artsy.

I understand that seamful editing was a French New Wave thing, to call attention to the existence of the film. An Intention of Disbelief, if you will. And perhaps the noir genre was more than a little dated by 1965, and deserved criticism. But Alphaville is confoundingly respected in both genres, and I don’t believe it respects them.

The story is tedious and absurd, the edits abrupt and disjointed, the dialog utterly nonsensical, and the character behavior is ridiculous. This was all a conscious decision by the director, but that doesn’t make it an easier watch. If you think French cinema is pompous and pretentious, I present to you exhibit Alpha. AMRU 2.

“Yes, I am afraid of death. But for a humble secret agent, it's an everyday thing, like whiskey. And I've been drinking all my life.”

Thursday, September 15, 2022

The Monster that Challenged the World (1957)

A minor earthquake shakes California’s Salton Sea and adjacent Navy base. Shortly thereafter some sailors go strangely missing. I wonder if some prehistoric mollusks were released by the earthquake and affected by radiation. It’s a reasonable hypothesis.

The Salton Sea is a pretty interesting place. An inland saltwater sea was created by accident, became a tourist attraction, then dried up. At the time of this film it was a tourist hot spot and apparently had a naval base.

Anyhow, the navy investigates, discovers the creatures (note, many of them), and fights them with their latest weapons: sticks. And fire extinguishers. Whatever’s handy. The story is essentially an aquatic version of Them! (1954), in that a population of somewhat larger than man-sized creatures, created by radiation, must be destroyed by the military authority, before they escape to (ahem) challenge the world. And if you swap 1950’s radiation with general scientific hubris, some of the Jurassic Park films fit this mold pretty well.

Leading the fight is Commander Twillinger, played by Tim Holt. Old friends will remember him from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948). He was in a bunch of films, mostly westerns, before walking away from Hollywood. He returned after five years for this film then two more spread out over the next fourteen, before retiring for good. Two years after that, bone cancer would take his life. He was 54. So it goes.

The Monster that Challenged the World is unoriginal, low budget, silly nonsense. But despite that, it works. The monsters looked pretty good, and many background characters were fully flushed out. Specifically, some quirky scientists and especially map guy Lewis Clark Dobbs. The script gave them something to do and the actors did it. Not saying I am eager for a rewatch, but it deserves every bit of AMRU 3. But, dude, the ax was right there!

Thursday, September 1, 2022

Easy Virtue (1927)

Larita Filton, embroiled in a scandalous divorce, flees to the south of France to avoid the press. There she meets and falls for the young John Whittaker. When back in England and polite society, her new in-laws are suspicious of her past.

Ranked by IMDb as Hitchcock’s fourth worst film, it is a tedious and sometimes visually confusing mess. It does not help that my copy is a poor transfer. The film was thin with very poor contrast, and the score was damaged along with it. While a fully restored edition would have been more pleasant to watch, It would not have saved the film.

This is not to say there weren’t a few creative elements. A long shot of a tennis court starts through a tennis racket then progresses to the first volley. Another scene wordlessly communicates important information by watching the reaction of a telephone operator who is listening in on the phone call. Hitchcock is experimenting in a way we see much more of later in his career.

Based on a Noel Coward play, there is a 2008 version that didn’t fare much better. Prior to this the only Coward adapted film I have seen is 1933’s Cavalcade, which was dull as dishwater. I don’t know much about Coward and theater in general, but it appears he struck the zeitgeist of his time but his works became very dated very quickly. But I’ll leave that to someone’s Theater Philistine blog to explore.

As mentioned, Easy Virtue is ranked pretty low on Hitchcock’s CV, with the bottom three coming up if I continue chronologically. We will see what happens there. But as for this one, I found the characters hard to engage with, some of the action confusing, and the story tedious. But if you must watch it, find a much better copy. AMRU 2.