Double Feature: ABBA: THE MOVIE (1977) and JUSTIN BIEBER: NEVER SAY NEVER (2011)

The masthead of this blog says "Don't be afraid of great cinema!". In the interest of truth-in-advertising, I'm just going to come right out and tell you that neither of these films qualifies as great cinema; however, when you have a ten-year-old daughter, sometimes you have to take what's handed to you.

We took her to see Justin Bieber: Never Say Never for her birthday. She and her friends were impressed and would like to see it again. Given that they're the target audience (and I'm not), I'll defer to their critical acumen on this one.

Later that evening, after putting the birthday girl to bed, my wife asked me what *I* thought of the movie. I said, "You know, it really reminds me of ABBA: The Movie (which my wife hasn't seen). Neither is a concert film—though each has plenty of live footage. Neither is really a documentary, either—though, again, that element is certainly present. What they are is propaganda pieces, each one intended to advocate for its particular subject. In each case, the music is infectious, the personalities appealing. In each case, we are repeatedly reminded that the artists are clean.

Clean? In ABBA: The Movie, ABBA are asked by a reporter if they drink or do drugs: drinking, yes, but no drugs. Later, during a series of "man-on-the-street" interviews, passersby are asked what it is that they like about the group. More than once, we are told that they are "clean". In the case of Justin Bieber, the presumed cleanliness goes unverbalised, but it is certainly on display. No drugs and no alcohol (after all, he's under 21!) and abundant group-prayer. The message is clear: these are artists who won't upset the community's values. They're safe.

All of which begs the question: so what? Not much, so long as we don't mind paying for what amount to long-form advertisements. Both films offer plenty of entertainment value and, when it comes to this sort of enterprise, entertainment is what it's all about after all.

Justin Bieber's film has the added pizzazz of being in 3D, but ABBA's has songs that we're still listening to thirty years later. Let's see if Justin can match that!

Hitchcock One By One Is Moving!

Better late than never: after embarking upon Hitchcock One By One, it occurred to me that it would make better sense to have a dedicated home for that project. Here it is: Hitchcock One By One! From now on, all Hitchcock One By One entries will be posted there with only notifications appearing here at Movie Literacy. Be sure to follow me at the new blog. Thanks for reading!

Hitchcock One by One: THE LODGER: A STORY OF THE LONDON FOG (1927)

Who Made It?
Written by Eliot Stannard
Based on the novel by Marie Belloc Lowndes
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Who's In It?
Ivor Novello as The Lodger
June as Daisy
Marie Ault as The Landlady
Arthur Chesney as Her Husband
Malcolm Keen as Joe, The Police Detective

What's It About?
Daisy's family takes in a mysterious boarder just as London is gripped by "The Avenger", a serial killer with a predilection for curly blondes. As the days go by, the family grows ever more suspicious: could their paying houseguest be the very fiend who terrorizes the city?

The film's opening scene. Hitchcock achieved this effect by having the actress lay flat on a glass pane, spreading her hair behind her, and lighting her from beneath.

Why Should I See It?

The Lodger is a superior silent film, stylish and atmospheric, fascinating and suspenseful. I was unprepared for just how good a film it is, especially coming on the heels of the enjoyable but unremarkable The Pleasure Garden (granted, Hitchcock's second film, the now-lost The Mountain Eagle was made in between). Clearly showing the influence of the German Expressionists in cinematography and design (Hitchcock had worked at Germany's UFA studios for a number of years and made 1925's The Pleasure Garden there), this is, hands-down, one of the finest silents I've seen. For many directors, this film would have been the high point of a career.

Ivor Novello, who was a matinee idol in the UK, plays the title role, the mysterious stranger who arouses fear and suspicion amongst the other occupants of the household, including Daisy's police-detective boyfriend, Joe. Could the lodger be the killer who roams the streets, claiming victims on Tuesday evenings? It certainly seems that he could be. He is a creepy guy (Novello does such a good job establishing this that it's tough to shake later when we're asked to be more sympathetic). He takes a liking to Daisy who happens to have blonde, curly hair—just the sort whom the killer finds attractive. And his behavior fits the pattern of the killer's activities to a T, a fact not lost on Joe the detective. (As I watched the film, I began to wonder if the lodger wasn't a misdirection and if Joe wasn't the killer. There's a point in the narrative where the pieces fit and either one of them could just as easily have been the villain.) It was Hitchcock's intent to film a faithful adaptation of Lowndes' novel, but Novello's status as silent-era heartthrob wouldn't allow it, so Hitchcock had to devise a new, somewhat ingenuous third act that deviates sharply from the novel while still telling a satisfying story. I think he did a good job. See what you think.



Ivor Novello as the lodger in the film's signature images.

Hitchcock was trained as a draftsman and his career in motion pictures began as a title designer, a talent which he put to good use here. In contrast to the traditional, textual intertitles of The Pleasure Garden, The Lodger's titles are stylish, bold, and even occasionally animated. They are works of art unto themselves and really help give the film a distinctive flavor. While such flamboyant treatment of intertitles is not unheard of elsewhere, it is fairly unusual. Seeing the impact they make here makes me wish that more producers of the era would have followed Hitchcock's example.


A few of THE LODGER's intertitles (click to enlarge). All three of these are animated in the film.

Also noteworthy are Hitchcock's attempts to compensate for the lack of sound. Chief among several examples is a scene in which the other occupants are chilled by the sound of the lodger's footsteps in the room above them. They look up, the chandelier sways slightly, and the ceiling fades away revealing the lodger, seemingly suspended in midair, walking over our heads. It's a bravura sequence and one that required innovation and ingenuity. It's worth pointing out that, had this been a talking picture, this scene would likely have been accomplished through sound effects and we would have missed out on what is, in my opinion, one of the greatest treats in all of silent cinema.


The lodger paces the floor above... (click to enlarge)

 What Else?
Many have pointed out the Christian imagery that appears here and there in The Lodger. As he peers out from an upstairs window at a newsboy shouting the news of the latest murder, the window grille casts a shadow in the form of a cross across the boarder's face. Later, during the film's climax, he hangs from a fence by his handcuffed wrists, a supplicant beaten by an angry crowd.

Where Can I See It?

As of January 2011, The Lodger is available in the US in a fine, tinted edition as part of MGM's "Alfred Hitchcock Premiere Collection" boxed set and, until recently, as a standalone DVD. There is also any number of cheapie public-domain editions available. Please avoid these and pay a few extra dollars for the MGM edition—the superior presentation is worth the investment.

The Lodger is currently undergoing a major restoration by the British Film Institute. Here’s hoping we see a sparkling new edition soon! 

What's the Bottom Line?
THE LODGER is a superior silent film, stylish and atmospheric, fascinating and suspenseful. A clear precursor to Hitchcock's later films, this is a must-see picture and an excellent starting place for those new to silent cinema.

Double Feature: BLACK SWAN and THE RED SHOES

Darren Aronofsky's BLACK SWAN has been described as everything from clichéd melodrama to a work of genius. I'm somewhere in the middle leaning toward the latter, but regardless of how you may feel about Mr. Aronofsky's ballet horror film, you could do worse that to follow it with a viewing of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger's 1948 masterpiece, THE RED SHOES.

While telling a similar story of an artist's single-minded pursuit of perfection, THE RED SHOES (starring an incandescent Moira Shearer in her screen debut) manages to accomplish the same end as Natalie Portman's Nina without the detour into self-destructive madness. Interestingly, despite its prefeminist milieu, it's the heroine of the earlier film who seems to exercise the most control over her own destiny.

Moira Shearer, in full Swan Lake getup

THE RED SHOES is a can't-miss film, filled with indelible characters (played by real dancers!) and shot in stunning, saturated Technicolor -- a perfect chaser after an evening with BLACK SWAN.

Be sure to see Criterion's 2010 restoration on DVD or, preferably, blu-ray. You won't believe that you're watching a movie that's over 65 years old.

Be back soon with Hitchcock One By One: THE LODGER (1927).

Hitchcock One By One: THE PLEASURE GARDEN (1925)

Who Made It?
Written by Eliot Stannard
Based on the novel by Oliver Sandys
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Who's In It?
Virginia Valli as Patsy Brand
Carmelita Garaghty as Jill Cheyne
Miles Mander as Levett
John Stuart as Hugh Fielding
Karl Falkenberg as Prince Ivan

What's It About?
Patsy (Virginia Valli) and Jill (Carmelita Garaghty) are dancers at a local theater, the Pleasure Garden. Patsy promises herself to Hugh Fielding (John Stuart) but, as her star rises at the theater, and much to the alarm of Jill, allows herself to be wooed and pampered by the aristocratic Prince Ivan (Karl Falkenberg). Jill, in the meantime, weds Hugh’s friend and business associate Levett (Miles Mander) whom we soon learn is something less than a gentleman.

Virginia Valli as Patsy Brand, about to meet her future husband



Carmelita Geraghty as Jill Cheyne

What starts as a fun, American-styled show business picture transforms, when Jill and Levett marry, into a tale of adultery, madness, and murder.

Miles Mander as Levett, going unhinged

Why Should I See It?
As Alfred Hitchcock's first feature film, The Pleasure Garden enjoys a stature that would otherwise elude it. It's a fun and breezy picture, well photographed and highly evocative of its period. It’s tempting to try to find clues to Hitchcock’s future career in this film, but I have a feeling that attempts to do so are probably misguided. It’s entirely reasonable that a great deal of the creative control, at such an early date, would be out of his hands. Still, there are flashes here and there of the sorts of things that would one day be Hitchcock trademarks: voyeuristic POV shots and Levett’s hallucinatory insanity late in the film. At any rate, the picture is well shot, well paced, and engaging. One always knows that there is a competent hand at the helm.

Descending the stairs at the Pleasure Garden

What Else?

Apparently, cinematographer Gaetano Ventimiglia attempted to avoid Italian customs fees by hiding the film stock under Hitchcock's bunk aboard their steamer. This seriously backfired when Italian authorities seized the film, forcing the production to spend big bucks on all new stock.

There is a longstanding rumor that Levett's native wife is played by silent-screen vamp Nita Naldi. Frederica, a frequent contributor to Nitrateville, a highly-recommended discussion site dedicated to silent and early talking pictures, seems to put this issue to rest once and for all:

(Nita Naldi's) inclusion in the cast of The Pleasure Garden throughout various Hitchcock filmographies stems from a mistake made by Peter Noble in 1949 (in An Index to the Creative Work of Alfred Hitchcock, Sight & Sound Supplement, Index Series No. Eighteen). That error has been picked up by subsequent filmographies, including Donald Spoto's, which is from where the imdb reference derives, I suspect.

She isn't listed in the credits, she isn't the native lover, and she could not have been in the film. The Pleasure Garden completed filming in August of 1925; Nita didn't depart the States for Europe until late September 1925, and she was cast in The Mountain Eagle in December of 1925.

(The Mountain Eagle was Hitchcock's second film, no prints of which are known to survive.)

Click Here to read the original Nitrateville post (excerpted here with the author's permission and encouragement—and my gratitude). More on Naldi's relationship with Hitchcock is available Here and you can examine her complete filmography (which does NOT include The Pleasure Garden!) Here.

Where Can I See It?

As of January 2011, home video availability, at least in the US, is spotty: it looks as though it’s a public domain film, no longer under copyright protection, which has yet to receive a proper, well-presented DVD release. THE PLEASURE GARDEN is currently undergoing a major restoration by the British Film Institute. Here’s hoping we see a sparkling new edition soon! 

What's the Bottom Line?
THE PLEASURE GARDEN is entertaining and fun; an enjoyable silent picture that even those who are new to silents will probably enjoy. I recommend it on its own merits as well as for its status as Alfred Hitchcock’s first feature film.

Hitchcock One By One

I've been a film fan for most of my life, but I've skipped a lot of the typical cinematic milestones. For example, I've never seen a GODFATHER film. I've seen next to no Hitchcock. I haven't seen a number of latter-day fixtures like THE MATRIX and, until recently, had neglected many of the celebrated cornerstones of "highbrow" cinema, such as THE SEVENTH SEAL, SEVEN SAMURAI, THE 400 BLOWS, and 8½ (note to self: if I ever make a "highbrow" film, be sure to include a number in the title). 

All of which isn't to say that I don't take all of this seriously. Far from it. The trouble is that my M.O. has always been to pick a narrow subject area and run it into the ground, which means that I've seen virtually everything available by D.W. Griffith, but I still haven't seen THE GODFATHER.

So—in the spirit of playing to y strengths, I've decided to run Hitchcock into the ground. I will watch Alfred Hitchcock's complete run of feature films (or at least those that I can get my hands on—some of his early pictures are pretty scarce) and I'm going to share what I think of them. And I'm going to do it as someone who is relatively unacquainted with his work, so it'll be a real voyage of discovery. I love the little of Hitchcock that I've seen. I can't wait to see the rest.

I'll get started shortly after Christmas with Hitchcock's first feature, THE PLEASURE GARDEN. Join me—it'll be fun!

Why I Love Silent Films (And Why You Should, Too!)

I love silent films. I accept that most people, assuming they’ve seen a silent film, probably don’t share my affection for them. Why should they? After all, they’re in black and white (usually); the acting’s a little more intense than we’re used to (sometimes); and, for crying out loud, you have to read them!

I don’t really expect anyone else to love silent films. It’s true that, in the 21st century, they can seem a bit arch, alien and archaic. But here are some of the reasons why I love them and why I think that everyone should take the time to spin a choice silent picture now and then…

It’s a Whole World of Movies That We Never Knew Existed
Imagine that there’s a secret cinema made up of thousands of movies from every genre that exist just below the horizon where few people think to look. That’s silent cinema. Once you’re in the know, the spectrum of film is wider, deeper and richer than you could have previously imagined. Westerns, science fiction, crime dramas, romantic comedies, horror, all represented by some of the finest – and most infrequently seen – movies ever made. When you’ve seen some of these, you will begin to find that…

Silent Films Enhance Our Appreciation of Recent Films
Silent film is, by its very nature, an intensely visual medium. Direction, cinematography and performance are all focused purely upon what is visible to the eye. Actors had only their body language and facial expressions to evoke a character and tell a story. They had no recourse to dialogue. This is why so much of the acting of the period seems overwrought to today’s viewers. Once you learn to appreciate silent performance, however, you will start to spot current actors and actresses who really know how to act with their faces and, indeed, with their whole bodies as opposed to those who just stand around and talk.

Likewise, cinematography was a potent storytelling device. A shot pans from a western outlaw to the woman he has imprisoned – and then follows her sightline to the gun on the table. This sort of device is, of course, part of the basic grammar of film, but the lack of dialogue throws cinematographic technique into bold relief. We really begin to notice and to appreciate how the camera alone can tell a story.

After you’ve internalized the purely visual style of silent film, you’ll become aware of their great economy. What requires two or three pages of dialogue in a talkie is often communicated in a silent picture by a single shot.

They Are a Window Into Another Time
If you’ve ever wished for a time machine (and who hasn’t?), silent films may be as close as you’re likely to get to owning one. A movie shot on location, like much of Harold Lloyd’s SPEEDY, allows us to be passive observers to a few moments of day-to-day life over eighty years ago.

More significantly, silent films are a window into the mindset of the era. A good way to gain an understanding of the general opinions and attitudes of a given period is to sample some of its popular entertainment. Silent film covers topics as diverse (and still current) as immigration (GRETCHEN THE GREENHORN) and abortion (WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN?). What better way to gain an understanding of the way our great-grandparents saw their world that by seeing the very same films that they saw, pondered over, and discussed with their friends?

They Stretch Your Mind
A silent film makes the viewer an active participant in the creative process by asking us to fill in vital details. What are those characters really saying to one another? The intertitles only summarize. What does our heroine’s voice sound like? It’s as sweet as our mind cares to make it. In these ways, silent pictures engage us in a way that talkies rarely can.

Additionally, silent films, because of their age, often require us to shift our mental gears a bit, to try to see the world the way that audiences of ninety or a hundred years ago saw it. I once watched D.W. Griffith’s THE MOTHERING HEART with a friend who shook his head at the performance of Lillian Gish when confronted with the death of her infant child. I pointed out that infant mortality was astronomically higher then and that this film was likely hitting hard for many contemporary viewers. It’s this sort of change in attitude and outlook that can turn something seemingly silly into something nearly profound.

They Are Great Entertainment
Lastly, silent films can be great entertainment. Obviously, the comedies of Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd continue to be popular, and tentpole titles like METROPOLIS and NOSFERATU will always grab attention, but there are countless other films waiting to be discovered by the general public. From the romantic comedy of Mary Pickford’s MY BEST GIRL, to the epic western of James Cruze’s THE COVERED WAGON, there is plenty to discover and enjoy. I guarantee that if you give them a chance, you’ll find in silent cinema a few favorite movies that you never knew existed!