Johnny Guitar (1954)

Johnny Guitar

It is a new year, 1954, and another stack of interesting movies. The first of the year is “Johnny Guitar”, a Nicholas Ray film starring Joan Crawford and Sterling Hayden.

“Johnny Guitar” has been labelled the strangest western around (by the Book) and Martin Scorsese (of course) says in the introduction to the movie that it made people confused and was not well liked in America although in Europe critics were excited about it. All this made me very curious and I was wondering what was so special about this movie. A movie that according to Scorsese would look and feel like a western, but was not.

I am still confused by those statements because I really liked the movie and found the story fairly straight forward. Even the allegory is pretty obvious. Why would this movie not click with the audience?

There are similarities to “Shane” in the conflict between the old frontier west and the new civilized west. Joan Crawford’s Vienna has built a saloon in the middle of nowhere in anticipation of the railroad and the influx of newcomers. She is the new west, but ahead of its time, which is about to become crucial. The land is run by the old west and they despise the new west and see Vienna as its proxy. The old west is led by Emma Small (Mercedes McCambridge), a crusader as there ever was one who sees Vienna as poison and with a life goal to eradicate her.

Instead of Shane Vienna has called in her old flame Johnny Guitar (Sterling Hayden), a reformed gunslinger who was infamous under the name Johnny Logan. Where Shane resigned to fight fire with fire, Johnny has to curb himself as Vienna insists she wants no killing and this is also more or less where the similarities to “Shane” ends. Instead this movie has a lot more in common with “The Ox-bow Incident”. The old west get stirred up into a frenzy when the bank is robbed and the resulting pose is directed by Emma towards Vienna. We know she is innocent but the pose needs somebody to hang and is beyond reason. When the Marshall tries to calm things down Emma quickly takes him out and then there is no restraint. 

Vienna has been associating with the bank robbers, a gang led by “The Dancin Kid” who is also a thorn in the eye of Emma and her cronies, but she has nothing to do with the robberies. Still she prefer robbers to killers and robbers or not, they do not deserve to die. 

The films ends with a famous showdown between Vienna and Emma, and although Vienna and Johnny can walk away alive they are by no means winners. Emma burned down Vienna’s life work, the saloon and their future is uncertain, but they are alive.

The allegory is as I mentioned above pretty obvious. This is a critique of the McCarthy witch hunt, which at this time had been running rampant for a few years. Emma, who looks and sounds nothing so much as a small yapping dog running with the big dogs, is the senator himself on some vindictive crusade against representatives of a new world he cannot accept. That the “Un-American Activities” here is to be a “fallen” woman building up her own business and refusing to kill is an irony all on its own. The infamous hearings are here compared to a pose gone out of control. Without Emma the steam goes out of the pose and some sense creeps back in, again pointing a finger at McCarthy. 

There is also a grading of crime here. Yes, robbing a bank is no good, but killing is worse and that is easily compared to the “crimes” of McCarty’s victims and his bloodlust. The ending as well has an allegory in the blacklisting. Even those “survived” the prosecution might come out ruined.

This was a bold movie to make and I am frankly surprised Ray got away with it. Either the committee was dumb as a door or they were ashamed enough to let it pass. It is certainly easy enough to see for what it is and that brings me to the opening question: What is it that makes this movie strange and difficult to understand? Is it just because 60 years have passed and what was obscure then has become obvious now? I mean, we already had “The Ox-Bow Incident” giving us the same theme and none of the themes in the movie are exactly new, except maybe for having two strong women fight it out and that is almost besides the point.

I liked this movie a lot. Mostly for the dynamics of the movie and the interesting allegory, but also the filming is awesome. The colors are interesting and the location shots are just beautiful. I am not a huge fan of Joan Crawford, something that may be colored by her real persona reputation for being a monster, and here her acting feels stylized. She is proclaiming a lot and posing and although I have a feeling she was directed this way it does not feel right. Ray wants her to be a martyr and he succeeds at that, but it makes her odd. At the other end of the spectrum we have Ernest Borgnine as Bart Lonergan. He is just awesome as a scumbag. I hope to see a lot of him in the time to come.

A final interesting element and correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is the first time we have a theme song in a movie. Not just a score or a musical act, but a song being part of the score. It was quite a revelation which is amazing considering how used we have become to songs being part of the score.

Thumbs up from me on this one. Another hit from Nicholas Ray and he is quickly becoming a star director with me.

Beat the Devil (1953)

Fuld af Løgn

The last movie of 1953 is ”Beat the Devil”, an oddity of a movie by all accounts. 

I never entirely worked out what the movie was all about, except that everybody seems to be fooling everybody, but something tells me that the deeper meaning of this movie is not so important. While watching it I decided I liked it quite a bit, but the ending was something of a letdown. I had expected more, some shattering twists and reveals to turn the movie upside down, but instead it fizzles. It is a shame because the road there was funny indeed.

You know those movies where you suddenly see a lot of Hollywood A-listers in an independent movie going absolutely banana? “Beat the Devil” is exactly such a movie. We have John Huston as director, Truman Capote as writer and Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre, Perter Morley, Gina Lollobrigida and Jennifer Jones as principal actors and all outside the big studios.

What that means is that they all had a lot of fun playing scumbags in this outrageous comedy. There is a hilarity to the movie as if the actors were actually on vacation, which in a sense they were since the movie was recorded in very scenic surroundings (maybe Italy?).

A shady quartet of Petersen (Robert Morley), O’Hara (Peter Lorre), Major Ross (Ivor Barnard) and Ravello (Marco Tulli) is going to central Africa to put their clammy hands on some mineral rights. They are a vicious bunch of clowns. Their guide is Billy Dannreuther (Humphrey Bogart), and while not as idiotic as his employers he is no less a shameless crook. His wife and partner in crime is Maria Dannreuther (Gina Lollobrigida).

The first part of the movie takes place in the harbor town of Val Verde, where ever that is. The party is impatiently waiting for their ride to Africa which gives them a chance to meet a curious English couple, Gwendolen (Jennifer Jones) and Harry Chelm (Edward Underdown). Both are characters extraordinaire.

Gwendolen is extremely intelligent, but also impulsive, romantic and imaginative to the point of half living in a fantasy worlds. It is illustrated very well in their opening scene on their porch where Gwendolen is beating the crap out her husband in chess while her attention is entirely focused on fantasizing on what sort of mischief the random passerby’s are up to. Her husband Harry is every inch an Englishman, formerly of the British navy, with genteel aspirations. He is stubborn, single-minded and righteous to the point of idiocy (think something like a John Cleese character). Really a lovely couple.

For the better part of the movie Gwendolen tells fantastic stories to the different members of the team, one more outrageous than the next, to the effect of making the team run circles around themselves. Her very liberal interpretation of reality manages to entirely sabotage the entire expedition. The exact wheres and hows are much too fun to reveal here, but the resulting chaos is the strongest asset of the film.

From the town the mayhem continues on the boat taking them to Africa and this is really the boat ride from hell. No wonder everybody seem to go completely insane.

The quartet is excellent and Morley is effectively stealing the movie from Bogart as the ringleader. Just the sight of him is suspicious and his talk is pure corruption. Sleaze and menace. He is easily my favorite character of the movie. I love the scene where he tries to convince the Arab customs officer of his innocence. No, my friend, you look guilty as hell.

There is clearly something odd about the English couple. Who are they really? Obviously their wild stories are not true, but then what? Are they government agents? Or competitors to those mineral rights intent on sabotaging the opposition? Or are they just two crazy nobodies? I was much looking forward to the big reveal at the end, but without spoiling too much let me just say that that reveal left me rather deflated. 

My copy was in poor condition and that is really a shame. This is an obvious candidate for restoration and definitely worth it. Fading sound and grainy, unfocused pictures simply do not do this movie justice. 

I had a lot of fun watching this movie and would happily see it again. It is not perfect, even if it got restored, but it is stuffed with priceless scenes and that is what this movie is all about. To hell with meaningful plots and realistic characters. This is intelligent slapstick.

Summer with Monika (Sommaren med Monika) (1953)

Sommeren med Monika

Ingmar Bergman is one of the directors with most titles on the List. The record I believe goes to Hitchcock, but Bergman is not far behind. In fact the main reason Swedish films are well represented on the List is largely due to Bergman, a sad fact that the Danish edition tried to remedy by adding a few titles less known outside of Scandinavia. I am not in a position to say if this exalted position of Ingmar Bergman is deserved because, ta-da, I have actually never watched a complete movie of his. The closest thing is fragments of “Fanny and Alexander” and I remember not liking it, well, I was very young. So, having revealed my absolute ignorance I have now embarked on a journey, which over the next years will take me through a fair sized segment of Ingmar Bergman’s catalogue, and the first title is “Sommaren med Monika”.

Straight off the bat I will admit it was a difficult movie to watch. I got the feeling early on that this was going to end badly and that always dampens my enthusiasm. So, for a while I resigned myself to enjoy the two things this movie really has going for it irrespective of the story: The beautiful pictures from Stockholm harbor and the skärgård beyond it (“skärgården” is the unique Swedish landscape of the coastal archipelago, much recommended for vacation!) and the beautiful actress Harriet Andersson in the title role as Monika. Both are worth enjoying all on their own.

But in retrospect this movie has a lot more going for it. Yes, it is ultimately depressing, but it is also a very fine portrait of young love and the crisis of growing up. “Crisis” is a dramatic term, but that is essentially what it is portrayed as. I think I enjoyed it more afterwards, thinking about the movie, than while I watched it.

We meet two very different characters that happen to be in the very same situation (almost).

Harry (Lars Ekborg) is a sweet boy who has some difficulty finding enthusiasm for his life. His mother died years ago and his father has secluded himself in resignation leaving Harry in a very quiet tomblike middle class home. He got a job as a delivery boy, but his lack of enthusiasm makes him slow and forgetful and the butt of harassment from colleagues and supervisors. Harry is a dreamer and he is clearly looking for a target in his life. 

Monika (Harriet Andersson) is impulsive, opportunistic and almost manic in her eagerness to get out of her lot in life. She lives in a small overcrowded working class apartment with a tired mother and a drunkard of a father and about a million siblings. At her soddy work she has to constantly fend off abuse all the while she can see there is a better life out there. Monika is also endowed with a divine body and a sensuality to knock men off their feet and she is fully aware of her assets. 

Harry is Monika’s ticket out of the slums and Monika may be the purpose Harry has been looking for so no wonder they click right away and very soon they decide to simply run away together. Their escape from reality is a summer spent on deserted islands with beautiful sunny nights and tons of sex. This is the fantasy of any youth and probably the main cause of the popularity of the movie. There are no boundaries and no rules. Civilization is gone what remain is primitive sensory gratification. A good example is when somebody trashes the boat Harry flies into a bloody fist fight with the offender all without explanation. 

Then reality returns. Monika is pregnant (of course, all that humping must have some consequence), they are hungry and especially Monika long for material pleasures. So they return to the city.

Here is where the two characters diverge. Harry found his meaning and has grown up. He is responsible for Monika and the baby and as a consequence strive to take an education and get a job. It is clearly understood that what drives him is this responsibility and his love for his dependents. It is not for his own fun that he sits up at night to study.

Monika however does not grow up. She takes no responsibility, but for her own gratification and see adult life as a prison. To her she is right back where she came from. She is a force of nature and has a primeval drive that cannot be caged in. She spends the rent money on fancy cloths, care shit about the baby and take strangers to her bed. Of course this ends in a split, one taking the adult route, the other refusing to grow up.

Is Monika then the bad girl as the story indicates? That is actually a good question because the movie is a bit schizophrenic on that account. On the face of it the conclusion is conservative in its condemnation of the free spirit against conventional values of responsibility, but that is not the entire story. Despite the split Monika was still the best thing that ever happened to Harry. She was the erotic dream, the catalyst for him become an adult. Whenever he sees the baby he thinks of their summer on the island. Monika herself is a rebellion against all the forces that hold her specifically and women generally down. Why does she have to give up her youth at the age of 18 (well, 19 I suppose after the baby is born), why can she not get all those material pleasures she sees in the windows, why is everybody telling her what to do? In many ways this is a precursor to the youth rebellion era of the late fifties and sixties and the 68 summer of love 15 years early. Monika is a male erotic dream and a feminist activist in the same person and I am left with an ambiguous feeling about her. 

“Sommaren med Monika” was marketed as an erotic film and I think that is unfair to the movie. There is nudity in the film, but it serves a purpose, which only far down the line is to please a male audience. Instead it is part of the youthful freedom Monika and Harry experience on the island, strongly offset to the drab and dull gowns they are forced to wear in town. 

This is a civilization vs. nature film and a film about growing up and on both accounts it is a strong film. If it is in any way representative of the Bergman films waiting down the line then I am in for some rough, but ultimately rewarding experiences.