Silent Nights: It moves!

A screengrab from a somewhat dazzling tracking shot in D. W. Griffith’s Orphans of the Storm (1922), a shot made all the more striking considering that a) Griffith’s Way Down East, made only two years earlier, contains virtually no camera movement whatsoever and b) Orphans of the Storm is otherwise pretty dull stuff; Griffith’s best and most interesting films are grounded in an American idiom that doesn’t really translate here to a costume drama set during the French Revolution. 


The Films of 2011: It was a very good year

Like any year, it had its share of disappointments (many of the films I had most anticipated, like David Cronenberg's A Dangerous Method, turned out to be only middling) and outright duds (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and Quentin Dupieux's Rubber, the latter of which I didn't even bother to review on the site, were two of my least favorite films of the year; thankfully, I have the privilege of avoiding fare like Jack and Jill altogether).  Even more frustrating to me than outright-bad films, though, was the on-going willingness to settle for safe, middlebrow fare like Beginners and Win Win, the kinds of films that seem to be tricking audiences into thinking they're great cinema because they're inoffensive and look well put-together--underneath the twee montage sequences and clever, gimmicky banter, is there anything there?  The success of very-good-but-not-great films like The Descendants and The Artist is also distressing, because it suggests that mainstream audiences are so hungry for any remotely intelligent alternative to blockbusters that they will slaver over crumbs.  But, all told, the year's cinematic crop was a fruitful one.  Any season that brings us new films by Scorsese, Malick, Polanski, Haynes, von Trier, Payne, Eastwood, Spielberg, Soderbergh, Cronenberg, and Woody Allen can't be complained about.  And performances were particularly strong, both from veterans and from newer talents: Carey Mulligan, Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling each had two relatively high-profile films this year, and they were still overshadowed by attention for newcomer Jessica Chastain, whose name no one had ever heard of a year ago at this time and who has since appeared in five major films, and for Michael Fassbender, who starred in four.  See my list of the year's ten best films after the cut (click each title to link to a full review of each).


Silent Nights: Griffith and kitties

For the next several weeks, I’ll be brushing up on my silent cinema, both American and international, and I figured I’d start with Griffith’s Way Down East (1920), a film that showcases his talent for melodrama about as well as anything he ever made, it seems to me.  You can’t help but smile all through the damned thing, even while you’re aware of how egregiously hokey it all is.  Eisenstein famously compared Griffith’s technique as a filmmaker to Dickens’ as a novelist, and it’s true that Griffith’s films have the wonderful expansiveness and sheer pleasure of good Victorian fiction—not intellectual novels like those of George Eliot, but page-turners like Jane Eyre.  (Is it an accident that the plot of Way Down East, based on a popular American play, is a transparent rip-off of Tess of the D’Urbervilles?)  The stock characters, the heavy sentiment, the rich tapestry of minor characters, the leisurely pace: Griffith’s films provide all of these pleasures in many of the same ways that the most compulsively readable 19th-century books do.

But what I really want to write about is the shameless exploitation of cute animals in Griffith’s films, as when, for example, he cuts in for a close-up of a kitten asleep on its feet between the legs of a dozing Huck Finn type—a real “awwwww!” moment.  It occurred to me that a good percentage of Griffith’s famous close-ups, both in this film and in others, are of animals; the POV shot of little Flora looking up at a tree squirrel moments before she plummets to her death in The Birth of a Nation comes to mind, for instance.  The farm scenes of Way Down East give us repeated shots of hens, pigeons, baby chicks.  At one point, Lillian Gish bonds with a pigeon on her shoulder, a shot that calls to mind two lovers making love through a dove, so to speak, in Birth.  See below.

And that close-up of the kitten reminded me of a whole set of similar “kitty!” moments in early cinema: the shots of the title “character” in The Sick Kitten (dir. George Albert Smith, 1903; see below), or the close-up of the cat in Grandma’s Reading Glass (dir. George Albert Smith, 1900; bottom).  Is it possible that the visual pleasure experienced by looking at cute animals helped motivate the development of the close-up—that our desire to see kittens and birds and puppies is as powerful as our desire to see spectacular human bodies in motion (one of the main reasons we watch movies, according to Linda Williams)?  Are these the first so-called “animal pictures”?  And if so, can we trace a through-line all the way from these films to Big Miracle (dir. Ken Kwapis, 2012), the new endangered-whale movie that opened in theaters this weekend?  For what it’s worth, Stephanie Zacharek complains in her review of Big Miracle that we don’t get to see enough of the whales.  Maybe what’s missing in the movie are some good close-ups.


The Films of 2011: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

9/11 is everywhere and nowhere in Stephen Daldry’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: it wants desperately to be an Important Movie about 9/11, but it can't see it as anything other than an inciting incident to an otherwise unremarkable melodrama.  (This should be no surprise, coming as the film does from the director of The Reader, in which the Holocaust was used as a MacGuffin.)  In Extremely Loud, 9/11 serves as a plot point, a convenient way of dispensing with little Oskar Schell’s father so that Oskar can embark on a mission to solve the mystery of a key he finds in his father’s closet, encounter a whole host of magical non-white people (!), reunite an estranged married couple (!!), and stumble upon his long-lost grandfather (!!!).  As far as the film is concerned, 9/11 happened so that an elaborate set of coincidences and chance encounters could be set into motion, as a consequence of which husbands reconcile with wives and sons make peace with absent fathers.