I just watched Hitchcock’s 39 Steps for the first time — or I thought it was for the first time. I actually vaguely remembered some scenes, though, so I must have seen it before.
Anyway, it’s clear why I forgot it. It’s forgettable. Halfway through it I was like, jeez, this must be one of Hitchcock’s clunkers, right? The plot might be better described as a plot hole — from the early murder of Annabelle Smith (who stabbed her? how’d they get in the apartment? why didn’t they stab that idiot Hanney as long as they were there?) to the moronic denoument (Mr. Memory starts blithely spouting spy secrets just because someone asks him about them — that’s convenient) the narrative lurches from one nonsensical improbability to another. It’s like it was written by monkeys with their frontal lobes removed.
So, okay, stupid plot — hardly the worst sin in the world. Maybe the characters are engaging? But no. The aforementioned Richard Hanney (Robert Donet) has some charisma I guess, and a fair bit of comic timing, but the role is almost clinically bland. Look suave, look nervous, look suave again — why is this supposed to be especially appealing? You learn practically nothing about him except that he’s from Canada and…no, that’s all you learn about him. And that he has a mustache, I guess. And the ladies like him. Who the fuck cares? My hopes were raised when the bad guy shot him halfway through the film — thank god, maybe we’re rid of him. But, alas, it’s not that Hitchcock film. He and his mustache are up and about again in record time and its back to looking suave and then nervous and then suave.
That bad guy incidentally is one of the least interesting criminal masterminds to appear on film, unless you’re excited by porn shots of missing little fingers. Bad-guys; they’re deformed. Because they are bad.
Again, I don’t blame the actor; not his fault that all the script asks him to do is flex his finger. Ditto for the female lead, Pamela (Madeleine Carroll). When she gets a chance she’s okay. There’s some fun screwball comedy banter when she and Hanney are handcuffed together. They hate each other but they’re chained at the wrist — get it? It’s a big fat cliche at this point of course, but presumably it was less so then, and the stars pull it off with panache. The scene where Pamela’s taking off her wet stockings and Hanney’s manacled hand flops up and down beside her leg in polite disinterest is especially nice. But against such witty fluff you have to balance the invidiously unimaginative portrait of the compulsively grasping Scotsman and his much younger and inevitably abused wife. I don’t know…maybe we’re supposed to be amused by the crappiness of the Scottish accents? Though of course it was the 30s, so Scotland hadn’t really been invented yet. Hitchcock — so forward looking!
I presume the camera work is what I’m really supposed to be looking at throughout. There’s nothing here that especially stirs my soul in that regard, but I’m willing to accept that it’s formally forward-looking and important. However, when Michael Wilmington in his Criterion Collection essay praises the film for its “seamless construction,” or the pedestrian ensemble as “truly excellent”…. or when Marian Keane declares that:
The director’s deepest subjects—theater and its relation to film, the abandonment of human beings in vacant and foreboding landscapes, the complex human quest for knowledge, and the nature of accidents—abound in The 39 Steps.
…I mean, they’re putting me on, right? This is a light, wooly-headed genre pic with nothing on its mind but broad laughs, attractive actors, and shocking plot twists manufactured the old-fashioned way — i.e., by utterly abandoning logic and consistency of any sort. It’s not about “the nature of accidents” — it’s just built around melodramatic coincidences! It’s not about “the complex human quest for knowledge” — it’s a dumb spy story about the complex human quest for chase scenes and last minute reveals.
I don’t need to hate it or anything. Like I said there are entertaining bits, and its pretensions are low. But that Andre Bazin thinks this is one of Hitchcock’s best films — what the hell? Michael Wilmington may be righter than he intends when he states that “More than anything else, the film keeps its preeminent place because this is the movie in which Hitchcock became ‘Hitchcock.'” This film has a historically important role in the career of a historically monumental director. Ergo, it must be a work of genius, even if, as a matter of fact, it’s a mediocre piece of genre fluff that in most circumstances would have been long forgotten.
I think this film is a blast, but I understand your frustration with critics trying to write deeper themes onto it. It’s a light, fluffy film, and even by the standards of Hitchcock’s British period, when he was often looser with the niceties of plotting than he would be later in his career, it’s especially sloppy and silly in the contrivances of the narrative. The plot is ludicrous, full of so many holes that the whole affair nearly falls apart several times over.
That said, I think it’s also a lot of fun, and Hitchcock does a good job of balancing the goofy humor with suspense setpieces and action. It is an especially rich film in relation to Hitchcock’s later career, as you can see the germs of numerous situations and setpieces that would be developed further in his subsequent films. It’s the template for the “wrong man” films to come, and for that reason it’s maybe been given a place of importance beyond its inherent quality, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t satisfying in itself as well. Hitchcock always despised the reactions of the “plausibles” who viewed films through the lens of logic and nitpicked his plots and scenarios, but in later years he’d make more concessions to the plausibles, trying more consciously for believability. This film plays fast and loose with plausibility, and for that reason I see it as a pure expression of Hitchcock’s love of primal situations divorced from the logic of story or character.
That’s a very reasonable defense. I didn’t find the characters or situations compelling enough to get as much enjoyment out of it as you did, but to the extent I enjoyed it, it was along the lines you describe.
“The 39 Steps” is a light, breezy, charming soufflé, and you’re finding fault with it for not being a substantial dinner?
What’s next, another typically contrarian bit of malarkey like “At HU, I wonder why I’m supposed to be impressed by Fred Astaire’s dancing”?
“Why is he smiling so much? Dancing is a physically demanding effort. And this skinny, thinning-haired guy is supposed to be attractive?…I mean, they’re putting me on, right?”
But many people claim it is a substantial dinner. I linked to their essays. Thus the fault finding.
Also, I didn’t really find it all that charming. I can see why some people (like Ed) might, but mostly watching it I was irritated and bored. So I’m not just finding fault with it for not being substantial. I’m finding fault with it for being a mediocre souffle.
In that vein I much prefer Bringing Up Baby or the Thin Man films. In terms of empty-headed suspense/romance, The Transporter is actually tons more entertaining, as are the early Bonds. 39 Steps just seems mediocre to me from any perspective.
I haven’t actually seen much Fred Astaire. I enjoy Gene Kelley’s vacuous smile for its uncanny creepiness, though.
I found it kind of boring the last time I saw it. I loved Rear Window and Vertigo, but this one was just eh. My favorite black and white comedic mysteries are the Thin Man ones. (Those hats!! And all the drinking. And the plucky terrier. And the banter! And the acting!)
I have to disagree with you about the Mr Memory sequence;as Hitchcock explained in his book with Truffaut, he was obsessed with an idea of professional integrity pushed beyond the bounds of reason.
Mr Memory tells the truth about the 39 steps, even though he knows it means his death, because not to do so would tarnish the integrity of Mr Memory.
I find this witty and not a little touching.
I just don’t see at all how that’s clear from the film. At the beginning of the film, Memory seems a little nervous, but basically an entertainer; he banters with the crowd, and seems to overall show the kind of urbanity you’d expect from a nightclub entertainer. Then at the end all of a sudden he’s almost autistic. If anything, his blurting out the truth seems to be more evidence of aberrant mental functioning than of professional pride.
There’s no discussion of why he reveals the truth about the 39 steps; no suggestion that it’s professional integrity. It seems like a plot gimmick, especially since Memory’s character is inconsistent — and why would our hero know he’d blurt out the truth anyway? And why would the bad guys employ such a loose canon? I guess you could enjoy it for its random goofiness, but if Hitchcock wanted to make a point about professional integrity he seems to have failed, inasmuch as the plot and character are too shot with holes to make that interpretation viable, much less visible.
Why should there be such a discussion? I remember that moment as a typical instant of self-destruction.That ‘autistic’ behavior is an old trope about the profession
(WordPress screws up again)
(…) about the professional hypnotised by his actions. It’s a cliché, but not an invalid one in the context of ’30s pulp, and would have been understood and accepted by the audience.
Plus, it’s a typical Hitchcockian black joke.
Hitch at least excluded Buchan’s poisonous anti-Semitism.
Was Memory Jewish in the Buchan version?
My wife and I enjoyed they play. They really utilized that mediums strengths. Have not seen the film.
Watching it, Mr. Memory’s motivation came thru for me. All I can say on that point.
I always loved The 39 Steps, whereas The Thin Man struck me as unwatchable, the worst sort of leaden would-be fun.
The same with The Awful Truth, not that anyone has mentioned it here.
Then there’s His Girl Friday. I can’t imagine anyone disliking that film, but that’s also how I felt about The 39 Steps. The mysteries of human response are endless.
I haven’t seen “The Awful Truth”. But I love “His Girl Friday”.
Well, thank God for that.
vanilla strike mode classix mode div mode share mode honda mode 2 legit 4 8 bit genre mode blogging as praxis cuz
lol @ genre blogging
“More than anything else, the film keeps its preeminent place because this is the movie in which Hitchcock became ‘Hitchcock.’”
That’s exactly it – I’m sorry you didn’t like it, but that alone makes it pretty significant as far as film history is concerned.
For years Hitchcock wasn’t held in high esteem because he made populist genre films, it was critics like André Bazin who recognized the craftsmanship and quality involved, and more than that realized Hitchcock had developed a unique and personal style of filmmaking. It’s why Hitchcock is a key figure in auteur theory.
You may be coming at the film a little backwards too – because most of the complaints you have are about the genre he’s working in. Things like the lack of depth in the characters are just part of that genre in that era. It’s because of films like “The 39 Steps” that inspired experimentation with genre films to tell more character driven stories in the first place. That’s kinda what the whole French New Wave movement was based on.
I think it’s an incredible film with lots of iconic images – certainly classic Hitchcock. The pacing and script are totally modern compared to other films of the genre at that time, and I always have fun watching it.
It’s totally fair that you didn’t love it like I did – at the end of the day a movie is just a movie – but as far as serious criticism of the film goes you’re not seeing the forrest through the trees, in my opinion.
Hey Aaron. You’re mostly defending it on historical grounds — important in Hitchcock’s development, pacing good by the standards of the era, etc. Which is fine, but doesn’t exactly contradict anything I say.
I’m no expert on 30s film, but, as I said, there are screwball comedies of the era I like infinitely better (and screwball comedy is definitely one of the genres he’s trying to work in.) I don’t know that I’ve seen other spy films from the era, so I don’t have much point of comparison there. Much slower pacing or greater clunkiness would not necessarily be a bad thing though as far as I’m concerned. Might be an improvement, in some ways. The combination of the hollowness and slickness is grating; less competence might really make things significantly better, at least from my vantage point.
Oh… and what other works of the genre are you thinking of? I looked at this, and there don’t seem to be a ton of spy thrillers made at the time. I like the Thin Man films better — the greater emphasis on the screwball comedy works better I think (though I haven’t seen those in a while, so could be misremembering.) Is there something I should look at that’s a more direct comparison to 39 steps?
Noah,
That’s a big problem you run into writing/reading about classic films- there’s so few works and directors of any quality, and the canonization is so thorough, that very mediocre films get analyzed way beyond their ability to support such lofty observation. I’ve never seen 39 Steps, but I’ve been disappointed by most of the Hitchcock I’ve watched, with the exception of Rope, which really horrified me. Something about the slickness of the presentation combined with the grisly onscreen murder and novel set piece.
You might want to give a listen to the Mercury Theatre production of 39 Steps if you get the chance. It might make an interesting comparison.
How about I go back in time and change “classic films” in the above comment to “films” in general.!
Hitchcock has never kicked my ass the way Hitchcock is supposed to kick my ass…but Rope, Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, the Birds are all pretty great, I think.
But I see your point. This is a problem for comics too at times, yes?
“Rope” was slick? I thought it was pretty clunky and forced when I watched it. The movie doesn’t stay with you the way “Vertigo” does.
Rope was slick because they got away with it / evaded the noose as if to say
>>>“Rope” was slick?>>>
Okay, the transitions between shots are clunky and obvious. The gradually changing set piece behind them is clearly a model. I guess what I was referring to as slickness is the cold efficiency by which everything moves forward, and the clinical observation of the camera.
I like Vertigo a lot despite the plot silliness, and Rear Window is compelling. Haven’t seen the Birds (I know…) but I like portions of Psycho. Psycho is a movie that I’d really like to like… but it’s undercut so thoroughly by the ending, it’s really hard for me to enjoy overall. Plus, I’ve seen Peeping Tom, which came out the same year, addresses many of the same concerns, and is IMHO a much better movie, so things get a little muddier for the comparison.
I loved To Catch A Thief and Vertigo and Psycho. North By Northwest was a good one too. And Rear Window… And Strangers On A Train was great, if only because it helped me appreciate that truly great film, Throw Momma From The Train.
Film, like standup comedy, doesn’t seem to age as well as some other genres… Old thrillers seem slow—“dangerous comedy” seems tame, etc…but still, I guess I’m not going out on any sort of limb, but Hitchcock was pretty decent.
Gene Kelly is awesome though. The dancing in Singing in the Rain kicks ass…and he was a great host of the Muppet Show too…a classic episode. I’m sure Fred Astaire was great too, but he COULD show a bit more effort.
More dancing criticism is what we’re looking for here.
Hmm; I’ve got a good friend who loves ballet. I should see if he’ll contribute something.
Bringing Up Baby, as I said, is still great. There’s plenty of other quite good old movies… I don’t know if film is really more timebound than other forms….
Hey Noah,
In my opinion Marian Keane is talking out of her ass. She’s very pretentious, and a lot of her observations don’t make sense to me. I’m not arguing with you there, and I don’t think many people agree with her either (see this for example: http://mubi.com/topics/7707 ). So I think focusing on her opinions maybe threw you off the trail of enjoying a very well constructed genre piece with a great deal of Hitchcock’s personal flair, developing style and reoccurring themes – which is still not a small achievement in my opinion.
“The 39 Steps” was the first movie I bought after I got my first DVD player. It was more expensive than other DVDs, and I could barely afford it at the time, but I NEEDED it. I’m not critic or a writer, so I probably can’t properly express why I love that movie so much – and even if I could I still can’t possibly convince you to love a movie you didn’t love – so I don’t know what I can really do other than try to explain why it’s well thought of and considered important – from what I understand.
I’m not really attempting to specifically defend it on historical grounds, as you say, but I don’t think it makes sense to criticize any art outside of it’s historical context – so I don’t really know what you mean. Maybe it’s like the way I can acknowledge that Jackson Pollock was important for art history, but don’t personally care for his work. Again, that’s fine. Personal taste is often removed from this kind of evaluation for me – and I don’t blame you for not enjoying something I enjoy taste-wise.
You’re wondering how André Bazin thought “The 39 Steps” was one of Hitchcock’s greatest movies, and I find that kind of funny because one of the reasons Bazin is remembered is because he’s the first critic who really recognized Hitchcock’s work and consider it seriously. So it just seems a little backwards to me. Bazin died in the 50s, so I don’t really get how you can judge his opinion without considering his place in history as well.
You’re criticizing parts of the film for being old-fashioned – well it is REALLY old. It’s impossible to pretend that it’s not. The movie was made 5 years before “Citizen Kane”. All movies were pure genre movies at that time, so the way it mixed comedy and suspense was new for it’s time and very influential later.
The camera work is significant – if you watch other early and mid 30s movies you’ll see it stands out pretty clearly. Inventiveness with camerawork was hampered quite a bit when sound came into film in the late 20s – and this movie represents a return to some of the techniques that were pushed aside because of sound equipment. I think that’s a reason most of the memorable films of the 30s are from the mid-30s on.
I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Hitchcock for the archetypes he was working with. Bad guys are often physically deformed in some way – yeah, it’s simple, but it’s a totally normal visual cue for audiences to recognize ‘evil’ in thriller and suspense movies. It’s a well used cliché – but I don’t see how it stands out more in this movie that thousands of other movies, comics or books – even to this day.
Mr. Memory is the “MacGuffin” of this movie, which is a term Hitchcock used for the device used to create the action in the story, and Hitchcock believed that a good MacGuffin shouldn’t waste too much of the film’s time or energy. Maybe that’s a cop-out explanation, but it’s a staple feature of Hitchcock’s narratives.
The simplicity of the characters is part of the structure of these kinds of movies as well. We don’t know much about the hero, maybe that helps us identify with him more. I’m not going to suggest this was Hitchcock’s specific intent, but it’s a pervasive archetype for the thriller genre for a reason. The French New Wave basically started by playing with that archetype with “Breathless” and “Shoot The Piano Player”.
I’m not suggesting you become an expert on 30s movies, but maybe you should pick up a couple of intro to film history books? The ones I have are really old, so I don’t know if I can recommend anything that’s around now. Maybe you should also watch a few of the 1935 Oscar nominated movies of that year to compare.
Again, the fact that the movie even feels and looks like the work of Hitchcock’s, as oppose to just being made by anyone at that time is a significant achievement by itself. Maybe you should check out Hitchcock/Truffaut to learn what excited Truffaut about Hitchcock’s work? They discuss each of his films in order, so you’ll also get an idea of how Hitchcock’s built on his ideas and techniques.
Anyway – hope that helps in some way. If not, well, I tried!
Bringing up Baby is fun still, but within the context that when you’re watching it, you know that it’s an old old movie…You can’t help but know this, and I think it helps get you through some of the dated bits (not that I can remember what those are, cuz I haven’t seen it in awhile). Cary Grant is great in anything anyway.
One film that really stands up to my mind is “Arsenic and Old Lace”— that’s a laugher for all time.
Aaron, again, I didn’t hate it. But thinking about art historically really is not the only way to think about it. Watching other 30s movies, even if they were worse than this one, isn’t going to make me like this one any better.
I want a work of art to make me think, or make me laugh, or surprise me or delight me. This didn’t utterly fail in that, but mostly the genre schtick just sat there and the narrative and characterizations were too half-assed to sustain my interest. It’s just a mediocre movie. I like other movies from the thirties; I like other spy movies; I like other Hitchcock movies. This one just seemed empty-headed and lackluster.
If you like it more that’s cool. But I don’t have a great desire to go do a lot of research to better appreciate a film that I don’t really think is worth the effort. I’d rather try something else.
Eric, when you read Jane Austen, you know that’s a period piece too,yes? Everything is of its time. But some things seem to rely on their time for whatever value they have (because they’re important in a director’s work or whatever) and some things I’m happy to watch over and over. Bringing Up Baby is the second of those.
Noah – I tried to acknowledge that – as I said, I can’t make you love a movie you didn’t love – if you want insight into why others think it’s significant then context is part of that. Not the whole thing – part of it.
Other 30s movies aren’t worse necessarily – and I didn’t mean to imply that – I like “The Thin Man” too, but it totally lacks the visual style of this film. Which is fine – but makes it less significant to film history.
I’m acknowledging that your personal taste is part of the experience – I really think it’s a fun movie – and if you don’t that’s totally valid. But you asked why other critics thought the film was significant – I know I sound like a dick – but to do that you might need more understanding of the history of film. I don’t really get why you’re interested in André Bazin if you’re not interested in learning an intro level knowledge of the history of film. How can anything he wrote make sense without context?
Narrative in comics got more complex and more detailed, and in film it’s the same thing. The language grew, techniques changed and technological limitations were removed – so historical context is a huge factor – maybe more so than other artforms.
Since we’re on the topic of screwball comedies, it’s a 40s film but “The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek” is another favorite of mine.
Thanks for the recommndation; I may check that out.
“I don’t have a great desire to go do a lot of research to better appreciate a film that I don’t really think is worth the effort. I’d rather try something else.”
Just so we’re clear, I’m suggesting a bit of an understanding of the technical and narrative history of film will give you a better appreciation of film in general – not just for this particular movie.
As an example off the top of my head – use of sound in film is something that can be missed, but if you follow the progress of how sound is used in movies you might gain more appreciation for that aspect of films. I know I did.
There’s a few scenes in this film where Hitchcock designed sound to be part of the narrative and a dimension of the movie experience as oppose to just creating ‘talking pictures’ – it’s another reason why the film is notable.
Not to beat a dead horse.
>>>>As an example off the top of my head – use of sound in film is something that can be missed, but if you follow the progress of how sound is used in movies you might gain more appreciation for that aspect of films. I know I did.>>
I find this is the case for me as well. That’s one of the reasons it drives me CRAZY to go see an older movie and find that it’s been tweaked in some way that alters its placement in the technical flow of time. I went and saw Vertigo projected on a huge screen from a really beautiful 70mm print. And about three minutes into it I was jarred out of my seat by the sound of a gunshot. It took me about five more minutes to realize what was going on- at some point someone had gone in and “improved” the sound track- found the separate elements of voice, music and foley and recorded all-new foley elements that had frequencies (low sub frequencies) and a clarity and ridiculous punch that didn’t exist in sound effects at the time. Each handgun shot fired sounded like a rifle with a bag of cement being dropped simultaneously. These might seem like minor details to some people, but they made it difficult for me to enter the world of the movie- my brain was telling me that the sound belonged to a different era than the visual.
Aaron, no doubt more knowledge of context could be helpful. I’m not sure I’m as much of a film newbie as you’re assuming, though? I’ve watched a bunch of movies; read a fair bit of film theory; written quite a bit on film, etc. One can always learn more, of course, and I don’t claim expertise…but I don’t think it’s my lack of background in film that left me disinterested in this particular movie.
I had the exact same reaction when I saw the remastered “Vertigo” in the theatre! Right from the get go the footsteps on the roof and gunshots sounded crazy to me. It does look great though. I wish there were alternate soundtracks on the DVD.
With “The 39 Steps” I was referring to things like the use of the Mr. Memory theme, Hannay kept whistling it through the movie trying to remember where he heard it. The audience (if they’re along for the ride) is trying to remember too – and at the end when he hears it again the audience should share the same “ah-ha” moment as the character.
There’s also some nice uses of off-screen dialog. People chattering about the murder Hannay is wanted for – and the camera stays on Hannay for his reactions instead of showing each person talking – which was another clever and innovative touch for the time.
I hate to harp on “The Thin Man” because I like that movie a lot, but it’s good film for contrast because it’s use of sound is basic and more primitive.
Noah – Just to be clear I’m not trying to insult your knowledge – I’m sorry if I came off that way. I certainly wasn’t trying to insinuate that you were dumb for not getting it – or something like that. I was legitimately trying to answer your questions about why the movie is considered important from my knowledge. I did think certain aspects of your review were a little backward in a funny way – but you seem like a frank guy and I didn’t think expressing that or trying to challenge you a bit would insult you – and hopefully I was correct there!
You’ve every right to think of “The 39 Steps” as “pedestrian” as your opinion, but if someone said to me that they think Siegel and Shuster’s use of the superhero genre was pedestrian I’d assume they were missing important facts about comic history – do you see what I mean?
It is too bad you didn’t enjoy it like I did, and I’ve had similar experience with movies that are considered classics. Off hand, I didn’t enjoy watching “Gone With The Wind”. I understand it’s place, and know what people like about it – but I don’t personally enjoy it. It’s not a big deal, a movie’s a movie. I think there’s some difference between personal appreciation and recognizing the importance of a work in it’s context – it seems maybe we don’t agree on that.
Maybe I’m not expressing myself correctly because this happens to be one of my favorite movies. It may be we just have very different outlooks on appreciating art altogether. It’s hard to say.
In any case I do enjoy the discussion, and there are probably lots of great things we both agree on to discuss in the future!
Oh, no — I’m not insulted! I came off more defensively than I should have. This kind of dovetailed with some other arguments I’ve had recently, and you got in the way of my grinding ax. But that’s my deal, not yours. So my apologies.
“f someone said to me that they think Siegel and Shuster’s use of the superhero genre was pedestrian ”
I’d agree with them! Siegel and Shuster are pretty pedestrian in almost every way, except for the historical accident of being first. They’re interesting to think about historically and socially/culturally, but as art? Eh.
No need to apologize! I don’t think you were too defensive, I was just trying to make sure I wasn’t being too much of a prick. I’m not always great at knowing how what I’m writing is going to be taken.
Ha – well I was hesitant to use the Siegel and Shuster example, because I had a slight feeling that would be your opinion – but my point is that I have a hard time understanding how you can be pedestrian in a genre you’ve basically innovated. Seems like a contradiction to me – but again, we may just be at odds there.
The “what is art” debate wasn’t something I really meant to creep into that.
I’m bringing outside discussions to this as well, so that’s funny. Every once in a while before I see it coming I get someone asking me something like “C’mon, you REALLY think “The Third Man” is a better movie than “The Dark Knight”? REALLY?!!!” and then I try to discuss it, but after that point we’re both looking at each other like we have two heads – so it’s futile.
Yeah, that would not be me necessarily — haven’t seen the Third Man (on the netflix list!) but I really disliked Dark Knight. I liked 39 Steps better than Dark Knight, I think? First I was just indifferent to; second I actively dislike….
So you didn’t like Dark Knight because it was a lousy action flick, it was gutless & tediously manipulative, it had lousy politics…what?
And “The Third Man” is considerably better than “The Dark Knight”. The first time I watched it was as a kid and I only saw the last 2-3 minutes. I spent the next 5-10 years trying to find out what the movie I saw was.
Yeah, I’d rather rewatch The Third Man for the 20th time than just about anything else, but The Dark Knight is one of the better films of the past few years.
———————
eric b says:
…One film that really stands up to my mind is “Arsenic and Old Lace”— that’s a laugher for all time.
———————
It would’ve been even better if it could’ve kept the final punchline (too “raw” for movies back then!) of the play…*
———————
Noah Berlatsky says:
“if someone said to me that they think Siegel and Shuster’s use of the superhero genre was pedestrian ”
I’d agree with them! Siegel and Shuster are pretty pedestrian in almost every way, except for the historical accident of being first. They’re interesting to think about historically and socially/culturally, but as art? Eh.
——————–
Yeah, I quite agree!
——————–
Aaron says:
….I was hesitant to use the Siegel and Shuster example, because I had a slight feeling that would be your opinion – but my point is that I have a hard time understanding how you can be pedestrian in a genre you’ve basically innovated. Seems like a contradiction to me – but again, we may just be at odds there.
——————–
Well, someone can be the first to come up with a concept, genre, invention, etc., yet not be the best in execution, or bringing it to greater creative fruition.**
For instance, other SF writers had previously come up with ideas – time travel, invisibility, alien invasions – that H.G. Wells employed in his works. Yet, the literary quality and narrative power that Wells employed, carried it all to a higher level.
Although it’s often the case – Poe’s invention of the detective/murder mystery genre, Mary Shelley’s creation of modern science fiction with “Frankenstein” – that the originator is an exceptional talent as well, and those “primary texts” are nothing to sneeze at…
* (SPOILER ALERT) Cary Grant’s character ends up delighted to find out he’s not related to the murderously madcap family after all. In the movie’s end, he goes about capering, “I’m the son of a sea cook!” In the finale of the play, asked why he’s so suddenly happy, he blurts out, “I’m a bastard!
** Although…
——————
Gladiator is an American science fiction novel first published in 1930 and written by Philip Wylie. The story concerns a scientist who invents an “alkaline free-radical” serum to “improve” humankind by granting the proportionate strength of an ant and the leaping ability of the grasshopper, both metaphors used to explain Superman’s powers in the first comic of his series. He injects his pregnant wife with the serum and his son Hugo Danner is born with superhuman strength, speed, and bulletproof skin. Hugo spends much of the novel hiding his powers, rarely getting a chance to openly use them. The novel is widely assumed an inspiration for the character Superman, though no confirmation exists that Superman creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were influenced by it…
Their child Hugo almost immediately displays incredible strength, and Danner’s wife realizes what her husband has done. Though she hates him, she does not leave him, and they instead raise their son to be respectful of his incredible gift and sternly instruct him never to fight, or otherwise reveal his gifts, lest he be the target of a witch-hunt. Hugo grows up being bullied at school, unwilling to fight back…
Although the book was written during the heyday of pulp action heroes and as the superhero genre was emerging, at no point does Hugo Danner put on a costume or seek to be a vigilante, or much of a hero of any kind, realizing the futility of such a move…
———————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator_%28novel%29
Re: Dark Knight; politically invididious, stupid, gutless and manipulative…all of those. Also, that bat costume is idiotic and Morgan Freeman is a plague. I did enjoy Heath Ledger’s performance, but that didn’t really make up for the rest of it.
“politically invididious, stupid, gutless and manipulative”? Hmm, I thought it agreed with Zizek on quite a few points.
I agree about Freeman and the costume, though.
I liked that essay way more than the movie!
I think the film addresses interesting issues but cops out on most of them. The reading that the Joker wins is a more interesting interpretation than the one the film actually ends up with, I think. It’s possible to read the movie against itself and decide that Batman’s an idiot and the romanticization of his outlaw status at the end a kind of black joke. You can read it as an anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeois screed. But I end up thinking that that’s more you than the movie, which is happy enough to endorse totalitarianism and law and order idiocy because that’s what the genre calls for.
I still think the Batman TV series is smarter. Plus it looks a lot better. And it doesn’t have Morgan Freeman.
Oh; and Zizek’s political writings are often the things I agree with least. I much prefer his theology.
Zizek’s new essay over at LRB is related to our tangent here (not his theology, but you’ll probably find it interesting):
In one of the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks Putin and Medvedev are compared to Batman and Robin. It’s a useful analogy: isn’t Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’s organiser, a real-life counterpart to the Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight? In the film, the district attorney, Harvey Dent, an obsessive vigilante who is corrupted and himself commits murders, is killed by Batman. Batman and his friend police commissioner Gordon realise that the city’s morale would suffer if Dent’s murders were made public, so plot to preserve his image by holding Batman responsible for the killings. The film’s take-home message is that lying is necessary to sustain public morale: only a lie can redeem us. No wonder the only figure of truth in the film is the Joker, its supreme villain. He makes it clear that his attacks on Gotham City will stop when Batman takes off his mask and reveals his true identity; to prevent this disclosure and protect Batman, Dent tells the press that he is Batman – another lie. In order to entrap the Joker, Gordon fakes his own death – yet another lie.