What Price Hollywood? (1932)

4 08 2014

George Cukor’s 1932 portrait of the rise, but not the fall of a young aspiring actress is best remembered as providing the working template for A Star is Born. Opening with its protagonist, Mary Evans, wistfully flipping through a celebrity gossip magazine, Cukor throws us into his world – Hollywood. But instead of another tired Hollywood exposé of the system that casually pokes fun at its own infrastructure, What Price Hollywood? presents something rare even in modern film. It’s a movie whose central relationship is that between a man and a woman, but one without any romantic connotation. Mary Evans’ relationship with Max Carey is friendship, but the film wisely doesn’t see that as a limitation, but instead an entirely new type of connection, one seldom represented in film.

1

Mary Evans is a waitress at a Hollywood restaurant. Seeing stars is not unusual for her or any of her coworkers, but she spots a golden opportunity when filmmaker Max Carey waltzes in one night. Max wakes up the next night with a tremendous hangover, which we soon discover is something of a trademark. He has no idea what happened the night before but Mary is laying on his couch. She tells him it was all rather wholesome, but that he promised her a spot in his next production. Not a problem, at first, but then it soon becomes apparent that Mary can’t exactly act. With her one seemingly washed away, she returns to her apartment exhausted but gets inspired. The next day she nails her scene, and her ascent begins just as Max’s alcoholism triggers his descent.

2

Cukor’s friendship-driven narrative naturally leads itself a queer reading. In one sequence, Max tries to show a distracted Mary how to properly seduce a man. I don’t think such a reading is forced, but I do think it is a little unhelpful here. While I find it’s a necessary viewpoint to consider throughout Cukor’s work, I think the personal thing here is the idea of platonic men-women relationships, which sounds so simplistic and unremarkable on paper but it plays out so beautifully, albeit tragically in Cukor’s hands. Mary does have a love interest, Lonny (who I’ll get to later) and while Lonny is a deplorable individual, his presence seems necessary to make us realize the value of Mary and Max’s friendship. With Lonny introduced, the film sets up an easy love triangle, one that would have been expected in 1932. Cukor wisely steers the movie away from this territory.

3

If there’s one particularly loud hiccup in Cukor’s visions, it is Lonny himself. He quite literally forces Mary on a date, by dragging her out of her bedroom. He later has to feed her. Such a setpiece is meant to be “charming” in the man’s persistence in his love interest. Again, it wouldn’t have been that unusual to see in a screwball comedy at the time. So how can I excuse Cukor for such a character? Well, I think the fact that he does come off so negatively is a conscious move. Mary and Lonny eventually end up together “happily” or at least we would read this from the final scene’s cinematic grammar. Lonny is such a reprehensible character, though, that it feels like an error to read this so easily.

4

Instead, I find Lonny’s presence and representation of romantic love for Mary to be emphasized as negative to contrast to the more positive friendship she has with Max. How often does cinema, like other forms of storytelling, emphasize the importance of finding “the one” or experiencing true love. Weirdly, this kind of grandiose sensation is one we’re suppose to both feel and try act out, which oddly enough leads to troubling and even abusive behaviors. Fittingly enough, it would not be a stretch at all to classify most of Lonny’s behavior in this film as abusive. A similar diagnosis could be made of most romantic relationships in Hollywood films at the time. The question becomes then if What Price Hollywood? romanticizes such a problematic dynamic or it attempts to deconstruct it? I think Cukor’s usual critical eye for Hollywood’s compulsory heterosexuality is present. Within this though, is a tribute to friendship. Again, it sounds corny, but how often have you seen a film about friendship that wasn’t just heterosexual men bonding? It is a vital image when other such relationships are represented, even more so when they’re cloaked in what appears to be a typical romantic situation.

5





The Women (1939)

7 04 2014

I hesitate calling this George Cukor’s “opus” but it’s still certainly the biggest film of his I’ve seen. That’s vague, but a film like The Women has such limitless possibility, that it’s a bit overwhelming to even try to begin at all. I don’t think I’ve seen a film where each reading seems to contradict the others. Some might see the film what it is at its surface: a satire of gossipy women, but such a view is remarkably short-sighted to me, and threatens to destroy the film’s more impressive illuminations. The most succinct and radical of which is that in a world that only physically consists of women, men still have control over them. Sure, the gossip and fights are entertaining, but Cukor’s film manages to live on because it offers something that has to go beyond the simplistic critique of “catty” women.

1

Mary Haines seems to have what many dream of: love and money. The former may be compromised, though. Her husband, Stephen, is having an affair with Crystal, a lowly perfume girl. Sylvia, who has an unhealthy interest in tearing down the Haines marriage, goes out of her way to arrange Mary an appointment with the gossipy manicurist who informed her of the affair. In a cruel twist, Mary learns about her husband’s affair from a complete stranger. Distraught, her mother tries to convince her to keep her marriage alive if only for her daughter. She takes her time to make a decision, but finally decides upon a divorce and to move away from her posh New York City lifestyle to a dude ranch in Reno. While there, she gets word that Stephen is now married to Crystal, but that their relationship has also begun to reach it rough spots.

2

Maybe the best place to begin with The Women is what it isn’t. At least, what it isn’t to me. To me, it isn’t a “satire” because that denotes something flighty, and ultimately inconsequential. Satire usually suggests social commentary, which The Women has, but it suggests a rather benign type of commentary. It’s the type of commentary that is not interested in dismantling the powers that be, but instead revels in their absurdity. There are parts of Cukor’s film that work as satire, particularly when the titular women’s conversations get framed around as being combative, something the film physically illustrates with a rather bizarre fighting sequence during the film’s brief visit to Reno. I think categorizing the entire film as a satire is a disservice, though, as a satire would be content with just presenting a group of women, self-absorbed and materialistic, as being vapid and insincere. This is not what The Women is, it is far more.

3

The dialogue can begin to tell us something about what lies beneath Cukor’s carnival of feminine hjinx. The film’s opening has this comic energy that makes it easy for one to get lost in what the film presents on the surface. The momentum of the introduction seems to channel that of a lengthy tracking shot, but Cukor never actually does this physically. He dissolves, but the pace of the performers every time a new frame bubbles to the surface is so rapid that the editing seems invisible. The film regains the more conventional Hollywood flow, but the opening’s breakneck speed is important in that it introduces us into a film world that doesn’t have an equilibrium. Indeed, things will continue to seem “off” for the audience as the film continues and the reassuring presence of a white, heterosexual male is nowhere to be found. Men still exist in The Women, but the fact that they are not physically represented is in itself, a slyly novel move on Cukor’s part.

4

The presence of the male gaze is not absent in The Women. Again, no physical men, but most queer readings of the film suggest that many of the supporting women, particularly Sylvia take on the male gaze as their own. That’s certainly a sound explanation when she enters the perfume store looking for Crystal. Her and Edith take on the eyes of a man, specifically Stephen, as they enter the store looking for a woman worthy of a man’s desire. This all plays out like simple narrative proceedings under Cukor’s touch where as they would cumbersome in someone else’s hands. Think of Joe Swanberg’s musings on the male gaze in The Zone which I discussed here. Swanberg, although, admirable is inside his own head too much. I like what he’s trying to say, but he says it in his convoluted, ultra heavy, and woefully heterosexual way. Cukor makes the same point, and it breezes by and his queer atmosphere (so to speak) is more beneficial (and relevant) to the experiment.

5

More than Cukor’s own queering of the women’s genre picture, is a profound and kind of heartbreaking critique of a patriarchal society. The film’s saddest moment involves periphery characters. In regards to sex, one proclaims “you can’t trust men, that’s all they want” which is met with “what else do we have to give?” On the surface, this seems kind of backwards, as if Cukor himself is buying into the idea that women are nothing more than sex. The quote reveals, in a rather cynical and deflating way that men often perform their courting (or dating or just “being nice”) all because of sex. Women being viewed by the opposite sex as good for nothing but intercourse is not the most unique idea ever, but its position in regards to Cukor’s world, one dominated by women physically but all of whom are still controlled by men.

6

I think that’s the lasting image of The Women. Yes, it ends with Mary running back into the arms of her cheating husband, but the film doesn’t grant us the satisfaction of their conventional happy ending. If anything, the film’s attitude in the last five minutes seems to suggest that what is happening is somewhat cyclical. The “gold-digger” Crystal, whose designated “low” class status just cries out for more attention that Cukor unfortunately doesn’t give her, gracefully accepts her reunion of a world without financial stability. “Well, girls, looks like it’s back to the perfume counter for me” before putting in one last zinger. Crystal is put back in her place, but so is Mary. Equilibrium has been restored, but everything to this point has suggested that said equilibrium is something to challenge, not accept. It’s a force that is so imposing (again illustrated by the absence of men, but their ability to control the women in the film) that returning to it seems comforting.  Comparing The Women to a film as subdued and observant as Mikio Naruse’s Flowing seems awkward and forced, but Cukor’s protagonists are limited like Naruse’s protagonist. Perhaps its problematic to make such a connection with the differences in class, but Cukor’s women also seem to fall victim to this: ““If they move even a little, they quickly hit the wall.”

7





A Woman’s Face (1941)

24 03 2014

As much as I’ve enjoyed the Cukor films I’ve watched in the past week, they’ve been a little light on personality. Again, they’ve all been good but seem to be missing something that could be classified as uniquely Cukor’s. A Woman’s Face, on the other hand, is the first film of his that I’ve seen that seems especially unique, a film that one probably couldn’t find in the career of any other classic Hollywood director. The film, dripping with melodramatic flourishes, might not seem the most natural or easiest effort of Cukor’s to digest, but it is absolutely one of the richest, most complex films I’ve seen from the era. It’s not quite an out right masterpiece, but it is one of those films that is so singular and unique that it should be (re)considered.

1

Anna Holm storms into the court as the public loudly chatters. The charge is never read to the audience, but we can deduce that she is the one on trial. A group of witnesses explain how they met Holm, but their stories never seem to reach a climax, instead they just seem to be establishing context. Then, it is revealed that Holm is a blackmailer, and she runs a rural bar as a cover. Also, she has a very distinctive scar on the right side of her face, one she conscientiously tries to hide from the rest of the world. Her employees all know her truth, though, and they all gossip about her perceived ugliness. Holm sees herself as a monster as well, and when one Torsten Barring attempts to seduce her, she can’t help but falling helplessly in love with him. His affection comes at a price, though, as he expects Holm to kill off Lars-Erik Barring, his nephew who is the one obstacle to him receiving a large inheritance.

2

While the setup here is melodrama, I feel the need to clarify that I don’t think this is something inherently negative. Additionally, I don’t think Cukor plays things in the manner that an accusation of melodrama would be read as a negative. This is a melodramatic film, and by that I mean that the flow of the narrative is one that, taken out of context, would seem pretty ridiculous. Again, though this doesn’t make a film “bad” and Cukor thankfully handles the frequent emotional turns with a deft touch. The film’s wordless opening is particularly powerful, and it has the type of coldblooded austerity of a Bresson or Haneke. In fact, the visuals of the opening seem like they could easily be mistaken for Bresson’s The Trial of Joan of Arc, perhaps a fitting comparison considering that the protagonist here is thrown into fire by a society already set against her.

3

Joan Crawford is important in selling Anna Holm’s “me vs the rest of the world” mentality. I guess conventional wisdom associates her with a type of heightened performance (see Mildred Pierce) but her ferocity here perfectly underscores the tragedy of her predicament. A woman who has never known love or affection, is suddenly overwhelmed by a wave of positive reinforcement, but her love can only validated if she murders a child. Holm has essentially been trapped in a box, indeed one that a patriarchal society fits for most women. Her appearance further ostracized her, which leads to her violence. “The world was against me so I was against it” she poignantly states during the trial. The use of the past tense suggests that her medical procedure has saved her from this scrutiny but it only leads to another set of issues. Sure, in a society that relates a woman’s worth with her beauty she does have an advantage after her surgery. However, her beauty makes her relationship with Torsten Barring more high-stakes and eventually, tragic.

4

Holm’s doctor, Gustaf Segert, laments pre-surgery that he may invent a monster if the procedure is successful. It’s him posturing as a philosopher when he suggests that a beautiful woman with no heart is a monster. The film doesn’t support his view, but it provides it to illustrate an important point. It’s Holm’s oppression, the disgust everyone greeted her with that made her cold and bitter. This might be the most crucial element of Cukor’s film. His queer identity was something I assumed would be mostly veiled from his actually work with maybe some moments of homoerotic subtext. Instead, here is he making a concise and important point: the need for such an identity and community is necessary because of the oppression. Now, this sounds kind of bad, as if I’m arguing that bigotry brought people closer. I mean that it created a vital resistance, because there had to be one. Holm is not to blame for being a heartless woman, but instead it’s a society that has done everything to point out her perceived flaws and distance itself from her. That’s why when she’s tormented by her acceptance as a beautiful woman, because it almost validates the ill treatment she received when she was (supposedly) hideous.

5

All of this seems like the heaviest political aspect of what is already a heavy emotional film, but Cukor’s own playfulness works to his advantage while it manages to reinforce the above argument. The relationship of Torsten and Holm is one that develops from him seducing her, the first ever femme fatale that identifies as a man. Quietly, Torsten follows the same trajectory of this stock female character. His evilness is meant to be Holm’s downfall, her punishment for not quietly accepting the way society has rejected her entire existence. Instead, the film concludes on a rather happy note. But still, Cukor’s gender reversal is not only sneaky and clever, but illustrates a more realistic point about power dynamics. The conventional femme fatale is an independent woman whose independence is associated with evil, and her modernity is the downfall of the typical, helpless male. This dynamic had such novelty because of its erotic potential, sure, but also because it actually reaffirms a very conservative set of beliefs. Cukor manages to tear all of this down, and the destruction is as captivating as the film’s superficial narrative.

6





Dinner at Eight (1933)

23 03 2014

One could accuse this Cukor effort, based on a stage play penned by George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber, of being too theatrical. However accurate the accusation may be, it seems to miss the point: this is a film whose stylistic proximity to its stage origins help create the sort of nervous tension that such a narrative requires. Cukor himself isn’t trying to salvage something “cinematic” (which is more commonly  and erroneously used to describe a camera moving) but instead reveling in the theatrical nature of the work. He’s not the only director to make a “theatrical” film, nor is he the only one to make a film with a lot of talking and little camera movement. It might not explode out onto the screen, and the character might not be particularly complex and rich, but that doesn’t mean Cukor hasn’t sculpted a dense and worthy drama. Maybe it’s not his film, but it’s still a good film.

1

With the economy collapsing, the wealthy Jordans want to ensure their stockholders that everything is perfectly fine. Millicent plans a dinner party, while Oliver desperately tries to hide both the poor health of himself and his shipping company from his acquaintances. An old flame and former movie star, Carlotta, stops by to mention that she’s considering selling her stock. Oliver, recalling their romance of the past, persuades her to hold off for the time being and suggests she comes to dinner. Meanwhile, businessman Dan Packard is struggling to deal with his much younger wife, Kitty, who refuses to show him affection or any interest in his budding career as a politician in Washington. Olivier convinces Millicent to invite them, and washed up movie star, Larry Renault to the dinner as well. Renault, desperate for parts has been secretly seeing Millicent and Oliver’s daughter, Paula. Paula herself is expected to marry Ernest, who is much closer to her age, but her feelings for Renault begin to grow deeper. At the same time, all the preparations for the dinner itself seem to fall apart.

2

The issue with a script with as many characters as this is that they’re never really given the substantial amount of time needed to be fleshed out. Weirdly, the film feels like a looser, less dense warmup for Jean Renoir’s classic The Rules of the Game. It’s hardly a criticism of Cukor to say that his characters feel a little flat next to one of the most celebrated films of all-time. Still, the issue remains and if there’s anything particularly “off” about Cukor’s film it’s that he seems more deeply invested in some characters, while only having a passing interest in others. In keeping with the “theatrical” style, the performances tend to be broad to begin with, which does suggest the film might just be a wild miscalculation. On the surface, it’s probably too simplistic, both in pen and performance, to really work as a human drama.

3

There are some sincerely tender moments in the film, though. The most fascinating character in the film might be Larry Renault, a washed up actor played by John Barrymore. By 1933, Barrymore himself would have been able to relate to his character. Even if the script itself calls for him to chew the scenery, he does so gracefully. A bitter old man fueled by alcohol and disappointment might seem like its courting something schmaltzy, but Barrymore’s performance stings in its similarity to the actor’s own life. Sunset Boulevard is a fair comparison, but where as Gloria Swanson’s Norma Desmond fall from stardom is contextualized in an exciting mystery, the audience here must sit in Barrymore’s hotel room, one that is expansive but appears increasingly crowded with his dirty clothes and empty bottles of whiskey. His romance with Paula suggests something that would give him energy and motivate him to continue on with whatever is left of his career, but he essentially says that their love does the opposite. It drains him, and his low point might be a hokey, maudlin mess in an other director’s hands but it plays beautifully and tragically with Cukor’s touch.

4

Barrymore’s Renault character is an anomaly, though. Interestingly, Cukor revisits the “gold-digger” discourse of Girls About Town but he has far less interesting things to say here. Instead, Jean Harlow’s Kitty is lazy and needy. To be fair, one should acknowledge that the film wisely views the doctor she has an affair with more harshly. After all, his marriage is one that seems completely fair and loving. The film might sympathize with Kitty’s infidelity by showing her marriage as not just loveless and unfair, but one that anticipates violence. Of course, the pathos of that never appears in Cukor’s frame because the explanation is that both parties in the Packard marriage are pathetic. This is a little unsettling, but the film at least gives Kitty the last laugh, quite literally.

5





Manhattan Melodrama (1934)

19 03 2014

I come to Manhattan Melodrama as a continuing effort to familiarize myself with director George Cukor. His work on this film is apparently minor, he was called in to shot some scenes after the film’s original director, W.S. Van Dyke, had already moved on to work on The Thin Man. This puts me in a tough position because anything I want to extrapolate here as an overall part of Cukor’s cinematic vision is compromised as I don’t know what is his exactly. If there’s something to continue from Girls About Town (1931, and just reviewed yesterday) it’s that Cukor’s character find themselves in unique relationships. One might argue that such novelty is necessary and not particularly remarkable for a dramatic film, but once again, I find something negotiating the expectations of heterosexual relationships. It’s far more subtle (and probably unintentional) in comparison to the aforementioned Girls About Town but it fascinates me just as much.

1

Blackie Gallagher (Clark Gable) and Jim Wade (William Powell)  are friends who lose their parents in the PS General Slucum disaster. Orphaned, the two are taken in by Father Joe who raises them until they are adults. Years later, Blackie is an infamous New York City gangster and Jim is now the district attorney.  Blackie suggests Eleanor (Myrna Loy), his girlfriend, go out with Wade for an evening. When she returns, she begs Blackie for a more secure life, one that isn’t dependent on his risky lifestyle. He declines, and she leaves. Months later, she’s now involved with Wade, who is running for governor of the state of New York. The two plan to wed, but Blackie’s presence in both of their lives makes things complicated. The public begins to grow suspicious of Wade’s relationship with a noted gangster.

2

I’m usually not good for addressing why certain actors are so impressive to me, and I’m not about to have a moment of clarity in describing what makes Myrna Loy so wonderful in this film. Despite my description of the plot above, she actually is a huge part of the story yet a quick synopsis makes her seem like a background character. She leaves Blackie, sure, but this dramatic turn does not feel unearned or sappy. She still loves him, sure and she always will, but she leaves him to pursue her own interests. It’s a hard dynamic to explain but even with Wade and Blackie as intentionally opposing representations of law, one doesn’t get the impression that a binary is in play. I think this is because Loy plays things so casually, I mean she has her teary-eyed moments but there is something in her that grounds the drama. For a film that actually is about life or death, it tries everything in its power to recreate a feeling that is the opposite and for the most part, it is remarkably successful.

3

Loy’s casual performance also brings the film’s most intriguing element: its love triangle. Sure, the love triangle has become a trite angle for dozens of forgettable art films, but Cukor (and Van Dyke) almost benefit from the fact that their trio’s sexuality can’t be too pronounced. It’s not that some bisexual subtext can be read from the three’s relationship (though it’s completely possible) it’s instead that despite the narrative’s dramatic pull, there is something amiable in the way all three communicate to each other. Even in the film’s final twenty minutes, which includes Wade arguing to a jury to put Black to death, there is something remarkably pleasant going on. It seems that the film intends for something dramatic to be happening, but not that the audience feel that typical tension. A perfect encapsulation of this is the film’s final scene, which poignantly reunites Wade and Blackie with Father Joe. Blackie is to be put to death, which is obviously terrible and sad but Gable, as Blackie, temporarily deflects these feelings. He makes jokes about his upcoming demise. Wade offers him a way out, but he explains that he’d rather die when he wants to then not live the way he wants to. The ending is sad, but not tragic. As the title suggests, yes, something of a melodrama but it is never close to schmaltzy.

4