Commentaries
An Orson Welles Independent Film Tribute
by Paulette Reynolds
June 15, 2015
There's always an inherent danger in reviewing an actor's body of work, especially if they happen to fall in the category of Film Icon. Movie reviewers and fans may find it hard to be objective when faced with an Oliver, Davis, Burton or Crawford. The bond is so intensely personal that we tend to overlook the staged bits of artifice connected to someone like Orson Welles. I find that relating to Welles as though he were a beloved artistically-flawed relative helps me keep my perspective, well - less subjective.
There is a relentless drive on the part of any artistic soul to exert complete control over their work. Like his spirit's counterpoint, John Cassavetes, the independent film maker will play in the truly great and the horribly awful films just to earn the funds for yet another personal visionary statement. Welles was a bit different in that he played in films but also did a lot of radio and public service work in order to finance his projects, usually working on several projects simutaneously, which impacted each project, for better or worse.
Yet differences between a studio and independently-produced film demand a shift in our appreciation of an artist's work.
After all, the former is a studio vision with the reins firmly in the hands of the Front Office, whose sole purpose is to create another money-maker. The latter is an artist's voice alone, created out of sheer joy. Those of us who love independent films will gladly overlook choppy editing, uneven pacing, and even a poor script, just to see what their favorite auteur is currently creating.
And while a Cassavetes production is strong with solid dialogue and painfully-etched performances, a Welles feature is - well, all about Welles! I sometimes have trouble remembering this fact, but what brings me down to earth is the realization that there is a stark difference between Orson Welles' studio-controlled movies and his free-wheeling independent films.
I will go on record in favor of his studio-produced masterpieces - Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons, The Third Man, The Stranger, Touch of Evil, even his minor works such as The Long, Hot Summer and Jane Eyre. His more flamboyant idiosyncrasies are reeled in and toned down, allowing the full brilliance of his cinematic power to flow forth. The independent Welles productions are always entertaining, but often his genius is drowned out by poor costuming and subjective editing choices. More often than not we are fascinated by the Welles performance at the expense of his cast and even story. Yet getting lost in the world that is Orson Welles can be a convoluted conundrum devoutly to be wished.
TCM recently saluted Orson Welles by featuring his Shakespearean collection of MacBeth, Othello, Chimes at Midnight and his quirky Mr. Arkadin. Now one troubling feature of the Film Icon is that their trademark mannerisms can overshadow even the most brilliant of performances - and nowhere is this more true than with the late and great Orson Welles. His mesmerizing voice, the crafted facial acrobatics and sheer physical presence often divert us from the glaring mixed bag that is his film portfolio. Othello (1952) opens with a stunning funerary prelude, set against an almost white sky. Welles' Othello is a compelling performance, but poor continuity in his makeup and strange use of crowns can be annoying. The weakest link in Shakespeare's duel between good and evil is the choice of Iago in Michael MackLiammour, who labors under a silly wig, never rising to the dramatic level that is required of a man who lives by a personal code of revenge.
MacBeth (1948) for me has always suffered from a choppy beginning, that has the title character winning the king's favor and then immediately plotting against him. (There is speculation by scholars that key opening scenes were lost, which explains the jarring shift in MacBeth's character.) Sparks of true brilliance fire forth, only to fizzle out in uneven pacing, a hammy set of Weird Sisters, the cast laboring under Scottish accents, and the weak interplay between MacBeth and his his co-conspirator Lady, played by Jeanette Nolan, in her first film appearance. Chimes at Midnight (1965) is a more thoughtfully crafted tragicomedy, perhaps because Welles finally gained more experience in the production end of filmmaking. Yet his false nose, frenetic pacing, and the inclusion of Jeanne Moreau in an otherwise superb cast can wear down even the most devoted viewer.
Mr. Arkadin (1955) is added here simply because it appears on television so rarely - I loved his dialogue and the film's premise captivated me - about a man with such a sordid past that even he was running from it. But half-way through the unnecessary odd bits and the addition of his wife Paola Mori - a poor man's Gina Lollobrigida at best - threatened to put me to sleep. Yet I grimly held onto my remote until the amazing conclusion.
It can be said that I am more of a fan than this review may indicate, but for me, watching an Orson Welles independent production is a little like watching a home movie: The wistful sentimentality for the players involved is paired with a 20-20 sense of vision. But the actor is first, foremost, and always, “some kind of man.”
by Paulette Reynolds
June 15, 2015
There's always an inherent danger in reviewing an actor's body of work, especially if they happen to fall in the category of Film Icon. Movie reviewers and fans may find it hard to be objective when faced with an Oliver, Davis, Burton or Crawford. The bond is so intensely personal that we tend to overlook the staged bits of artifice connected to someone like Orson Welles. I find that relating to Welles as though he were a beloved artistically-flawed relative helps me keep my perspective, well - less subjective.
There is a relentless drive on the part of any artistic soul to exert complete control over their work. Like his spirit's counterpoint, John Cassavetes, the independent film maker will play in the truly great and the horribly awful films just to earn the funds for yet another personal visionary statement. Welles was a bit different in that he played in films but also did a lot of radio and public service work in order to finance his projects, usually working on several projects simutaneously, which impacted each project, for better or worse.
Yet differences between a studio and independently-produced film demand a shift in our appreciation of an artist's work.
After all, the former is a studio vision with the reins firmly in the hands of the Front Office, whose sole purpose is to create another money-maker. The latter is an artist's voice alone, created out of sheer joy. Those of us who love independent films will gladly overlook choppy editing, uneven pacing, and even a poor script, just to see what their favorite auteur is currently creating.
And while a Cassavetes production is strong with solid dialogue and painfully-etched performances, a Welles feature is - well, all about Welles! I sometimes have trouble remembering this fact, but what brings me down to earth is the realization that there is a stark difference between Orson Welles' studio-controlled movies and his free-wheeling independent films.
I will go on record in favor of his studio-produced masterpieces - Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons, The Third Man, The Stranger, Touch of Evil, even his minor works such as The Long, Hot Summer and Jane Eyre. His more flamboyant idiosyncrasies are reeled in and toned down, allowing the full brilliance of his cinematic power to flow forth. The independent Welles productions are always entertaining, but often his genius is drowned out by poor costuming and subjective editing choices. More often than not we are fascinated by the Welles performance at the expense of his cast and even story. Yet getting lost in the world that is Orson Welles can be a convoluted conundrum devoutly to be wished.
TCM recently saluted Orson Welles by featuring his Shakespearean collection of MacBeth, Othello, Chimes at Midnight and his quirky Mr. Arkadin. Now one troubling feature of the Film Icon is that their trademark mannerisms can overshadow even the most brilliant of performances - and nowhere is this more true than with the late and great Orson Welles. His mesmerizing voice, the crafted facial acrobatics and sheer physical presence often divert us from the glaring mixed bag that is his film portfolio. Othello (1952) opens with a stunning funerary prelude, set against an almost white sky. Welles' Othello is a compelling performance, but poor continuity in his makeup and strange use of crowns can be annoying. The weakest link in Shakespeare's duel between good and evil is the choice of Iago in Michael MackLiammour, who labors under a silly wig, never rising to the dramatic level that is required of a man who lives by a personal code of revenge.
MacBeth (1948) for me has always suffered from a choppy beginning, that has the title character winning the king's favor and then immediately plotting against him. (There is speculation by scholars that key opening scenes were lost, which explains the jarring shift in MacBeth's character.) Sparks of true brilliance fire forth, only to fizzle out in uneven pacing, a hammy set of Weird Sisters, the cast laboring under Scottish accents, and the weak interplay between MacBeth and his his co-conspirator Lady, played by Jeanette Nolan, in her first film appearance. Chimes at Midnight (1965) is a more thoughtfully crafted tragicomedy, perhaps because Welles finally gained more experience in the production end of filmmaking. Yet his false nose, frenetic pacing, and the inclusion of Jeanne Moreau in an otherwise superb cast can wear down even the most devoted viewer.
Mr. Arkadin (1955) is added here simply because it appears on television so rarely - I loved his dialogue and the film's premise captivated me - about a man with such a sordid past that even he was running from it. But half-way through the unnecessary odd bits and the addition of his wife Paola Mori - a poor man's Gina Lollobrigida at best - threatened to put me to sleep. Yet I grimly held onto my remote until the amazing conclusion.
It can be said that I am more of a fan than this review may indicate, but for me, watching an Orson Welles independent production is a little like watching a home movie: The wistful sentimentality for the players involved is paired with a 20-20 sense of vision. But the actor is first, foremost, and always, “some kind of man.”
Change appears to be happening everywhere; America has its first African-American President, Iranian protesters – many who are women – have taken to the streets of Iran, and Denise Richards has become a mildly successful reality TV star (who knew?). But something still gnaws at me...doesn’t quite add up. When it was announced that the 82nd Academy Awards was going to be held on March 7, 2010, something disturbing occurred - I didn’t get excited.
Anyone who is a Hollywoodphile lives for the annual Academy Awards show: We mark our calendars ahead of time, scout the talent, and begin planning our annual Oscar party. Yet my response was tepid.
Say it ain’t so...! I had become what is an established fact – I had become - an Oscar cynic!
Well, it had to happen, you say. An Oscar aficionado can always look beyond the cheesy musical numbers and maudlin thank-you speeches. We can forgive a star’s dressing too up - or down – for the evening’s festivities. And we do understand that most Best Picture awards will invariably go to a film with an unwieldy ensemble cast. But now, amid all the social and political changes happening round me, I cannot forgive the Academy’s - and by extension - Hollywood’s, unwillingness to change when it comes to women directors.
Ah, what’s wrong, you say. There are plenty of female directors...there’s --- and you draw a blank. We know they're out there, somewhere existing within the ether of Creation. Those faceless and nameless women who do have faces, whose names are known – yes, they do in fact exist!
Yet, ask anyone to name a few male directors, and even the most unschooled of filmgoers will reel off a few well-known names in the business: the Coen Brothers, Quentin Taratino, Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Spike Lee, Judd Apatow, just to name a few. Google “film director” and Wikipedia.com comes up with over 70 + names of male directors and two women directors – one of whom is dead!
So let’s face it, the more things change, the more they stay the same, for women in Hollywood, it appears. Yes, women can be and are successful actresses and producers, some even writing and directing, but the good old boy’s club of directors still firmly excludes women from its inner circles.
A few facts bring this issue into sharper focus (sorry, I couldn’t resist!). The number of women directors working in Hollywood is pretty slim to almost non-existent:
“Dr. Martha Lauzen, the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film's executive director, tracks the employment of women in the industry. Her 2008 figures are striking. Women accounted for 9% of directors of feature films, a number that "represents no change from the percentage of women directing in 1998." Women did a bit better in the world of primetime television, mustering 11%.” 1
The cold fact is that the number of women directors nominated for Best Director by the Academy totals : Four
Lena Wertmuller, Seven Beauties, 1975
Jane Campion, The Piano, 1933
Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation, 2003
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker, 2010
And the grand total of women directors who have won an Oscar for Film Direction, in its 81 year history? Exactly: One
Only 82 years in the making, Kathryn Bigelow beat out her ex-husband, James Cameron, and his 3D blockbuster knock-out, Avatar, for the coveted golden naked guy we all know fondly as Oscar. Of course, there always has to be a Hollywood Hater somewhere. Sigourney Weaver, an Avatar co-star, came out a few weeks later to launch a blistering attack on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, declaring his loss was the direct result of "didn't have breasts". She believed the Academy wanted to make history by naming its first-ever female Best Director.
"Jim didn't have breasts, and I think that was the reason," Weaver told Brazilian news site Folha Online after the award show. "He should have taken home that Oscar." 2
OHLand thinks the Oscar was awarded to director Bigelow for two reasons:
* First, yes, it was time to step up to the plate and give the award to a female director. So in that regard, Ms. Weaver is correct. Yet, we wonder if James Cameron, an Oscar winning heavy-weight himself, released Avatar so close to nominating time because he thought his special-effects wunderkind would easily win and to beat out his ex-wife...mmm...what a doubly sweet moment!
* Second, Kathryn Bigelow won because she played the man's game - simple. The only way for the Academy to acknowledge a female director, was by making a male-centered film. The Hurt Locker - the little movie that could - did win and so *hopefully* pave the way for future women directors. OHLand hopes that this win will not be Hollywood's way of saying, "Now you got a prize, go back into the kitchen and shut up."
Why is the film industry still treating women directors with such contempt and discrimination? While many point to family obligations still falling on women, or the lack of “chick flicks”, an area where female directors have been given free reign, the truth of the matter is two-fold:
1. The film industry is still male-dominated – in all areas.
2. Female directors are still treated as third-class citizens because they allow themselves to be.
Let’s take number one. How many movies are made with male-centered themes? Countless, right? Not only that, but when one looks at the movies that are male-centered, their range is three-dimensional and limitless: Males save the world, grapple with complex issues and situations, are evil-doers, adventurers, supernatural beings, famous historical figures, fathers, brothers, lovers, military heroes, and police officers.
How many films offer female-centered themes? Female-centered cinematic themes still center around the one-dimensional expressions of sex object, mother, and wife, usually wrapped in the over-wrought “chick-flick” genre. Once in a great while, women are lauded by their peers for performances such as Monster and The Queen, but even these plum roles are few.
"I find it staggering and rather depressing when you look at the Oscar list," says Phyllida Lloyd, who directed last year's smash hit Mamma Mia! For Lloyd, it's not just about the "lack of female directors," it's that "the stories are all so male-driven, even with the independent films. It's quite a bleak canvas." 3
The abundance of male-centered movies reflects the balance of power in Hollywood. Actresses and women directors are forever complaining that there is little “availability” of good jobs, scripts and roles, and with good reason – Hollywood film companies and producers keep it that way.
Which leads to my second point. It may sound harsh, as though I’m “blaming the victim”, but until female directors (and producers, scriptwriters, actresses) start forming new paradigms of power, then they – and sadly – we, the film goer – will continue to see more of the same. The greater film industry is ruled by males, and women in Hollywood need to have a more pro-active approach in defining their own success.
The first begins with attitude. Fanzines gush ad nauseum about the numerous pregnancies, birthings, and child-rearing of famous babies by their equally-famous adoring mothers. It’s wonderful to see so many women in Hollywood embracing Motherhood, but we have to wonder why so much ink is spilled in the service of such ga-ga reporting. Encouraging women - even extremely famous ones - to be perpetually "barefoot and knocked-up" has always been the cushion that men in power use to keep women out of the loop and out of the Good Old Boy's Club. Let's face it, while the women in Hollywood are busy creating babies then they're Career Radar is operating on low voltage. Who's going to notice new projects when People, TMZ, and the Enquirer are running features on Suri's shopping haunts?
A second facet of this approach is creating more groups of power, in the form of female-owned and operated film companies and associations. The creation of United Artists in 1919 helped pave the way for the independent spirit, and hence, independent filmmakers. Female directors and producers should take a page from history and create film companies that would exclusively hire female directors, scriptwriters, producers, and actresses.
Also, the film award shows need to reflect the changing industry. If the Academy can add more nomination slots to the Best Film category, then they can get creative and add a new category for female directors. The recent spate of awards for African-American Actors and Actresses ONLY occurred when complaints of racism were followed up with the promise of action. (And Spike Lee still hasn’t won an award for Best Director – but that’s another article!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OHLand’s Fave Films by Female Directors (2009):
1. Christopher Strong : Dorothy Arzner
2. The Piano : Jane Campion
3. Marie Antoinette : Sofia Coppola
4. Mixed Nuts : Nora Ephron
5. Monster : Patty Jenkins
6. Twilight : Catherine Hardwicke
7. Wanda : Barbara Loden
8. Outrage : Ida Lupino
9. A League of their Own : Penny Marshall
10. She-Devil : Susan Sideman
11. Yentl : Barbra Streisand
12. Frida : Julie Taymor
And lastly, the little-known history of women directors should be more well-known to all film goers and fans. Sharing history honors past accomplishments and develops pride in future goals and visions. In this spirit, OHLand wishes to print an abbreviated timeline of female directors and our list of favorite films directed by women: Women Directors - 2009. 4
Additional Citations:
1 Peters, J. (6/11/09) Filmmakers Look Elsewhere for Employment. Variety Online
2 April 13, 2010 FoxNews.com
3 Blakeley, Kiri B. (2/19/09) Up Close and Personal: Women Directors. Power Women, Forbes Online
4 Wikipedia. (2009) Women Directors. [For the entire list - Wikipedia Online]*
Rogers, N. (2008) Tuesday Top Ten: Female Directors @ Box Office. The Film Experience™
Photo: “Ten Interesting Female Directors” * (top view)
Pictured from upper left:
Alison Anders, Kathryn Bigelow, Jane Campion, Sofia Coppola,Claire Denis
Mary Harron, Nicole Holofcener, Mira Nair, Kimberly Peirce, Lynn Ramsey
Anyone who is a Hollywoodphile lives for the annual Academy Awards show: We mark our calendars ahead of time, scout the talent, and begin planning our annual Oscar party. Yet my response was tepid.
Say it ain’t so...! I had become what is an established fact – I had become - an Oscar cynic!
Well, it had to happen, you say. An Oscar aficionado can always look beyond the cheesy musical numbers and maudlin thank-you speeches. We can forgive a star’s dressing too up - or down – for the evening’s festivities. And we do understand that most Best Picture awards will invariably go to a film with an unwieldy ensemble cast. But now, amid all the social and political changes happening round me, I cannot forgive the Academy’s - and by extension - Hollywood’s, unwillingness to change when it comes to women directors.
Ah, what’s wrong, you say. There are plenty of female directors...there’s --- and you draw a blank. We know they're out there, somewhere existing within the ether of Creation. Those faceless and nameless women who do have faces, whose names are known – yes, they do in fact exist!
Yet, ask anyone to name a few male directors, and even the most unschooled of filmgoers will reel off a few well-known names in the business: the Coen Brothers, Quentin Taratino, Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Spike Lee, Judd Apatow, just to name a few. Google “film director” and Wikipedia.com comes up with over 70 + names of male directors and two women directors – one of whom is dead!
So let’s face it, the more things change, the more they stay the same, for women in Hollywood, it appears. Yes, women can be and are successful actresses and producers, some even writing and directing, but the good old boy’s club of directors still firmly excludes women from its inner circles.
A few facts bring this issue into sharper focus (sorry, I couldn’t resist!). The number of women directors working in Hollywood is pretty slim to almost non-existent:
“Dr. Martha Lauzen, the Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film's executive director, tracks the employment of women in the industry. Her 2008 figures are striking. Women accounted for 9% of directors of feature films, a number that "represents no change from the percentage of women directing in 1998." Women did a bit better in the world of primetime television, mustering 11%.” 1
The cold fact is that the number of women directors nominated for Best Director by the Academy totals : Four
Lena Wertmuller, Seven Beauties, 1975
Jane Campion, The Piano, 1933
Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation, 2003
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker, 2010
And the grand total of women directors who have won an Oscar for Film Direction, in its 81 year history? Exactly: One
Only 82 years in the making, Kathryn Bigelow beat out her ex-husband, James Cameron, and his 3D blockbuster knock-out, Avatar, for the coveted golden naked guy we all know fondly as Oscar. Of course, there always has to be a Hollywood Hater somewhere. Sigourney Weaver, an Avatar co-star, came out a few weeks later to launch a blistering attack on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, declaring his loss was the direct result of "didn't have breasts". She believed the Academy wanted to make history by naming its first-ever female Best Director.
"Jim didn't have breasts, and I think that was the reason," Weaver told Brazilian news site Folha Online after the award show. "He should have taken home that Oscar." 2
OHLand thinks the Oscar was awarded to director Bigelow for two reasons:
* First, yes, it was time to step up to the plate and give the award to a female director. So in that regard, Ms. Weaver is correct. Yet, we wonder if James Cameron, an Oscar winning heavy-weight himself, released Avatar so close to nominating time because he thought his special-effects wunderkind would easily win and to beat out his ex-wife...mmm...what a doubly sweet moment!
* Second, Kathryn Bigelow won because she played the man's game - simple. The only way for the Academy to acknowledge a female director, was by making a male-centered film. The Hurt Locker - the little movie that could - did win and so *hopefully* pave the way for future women directors. OHLand hopes that this win will not be Hollywood's way of saying, "Now you got a prize, go back into the kitchen and shut up."
Why is the film industry still treating women directors with such contempt and discrimination? While many point to family obligations still falling on women, or the lack of “chick flicks”, an area where female directors have been given free reign, the truth of the matter is two-fold:
1. The film industry is still male-dominated – in all areas.
2. Female directors are still treated as third-class citizens because they allow themselves to be.
Let’s take number one. How many movies are made with male-centered themes? Countless, right? Not only that, but when one looks at the movies that are male-centered, their range is three-dimensional and limitless: Males save the world, grapple with complex issues and situations, are evil-doers, adventurers, supernatural beings, famous historical figures, fathers, brothers, lovers, military heroes, and police officers.
How many films offer female-centered themes? Female-centered cinematic themes still center around the one-dimensional expressions of sex object, mother, and wife, usually wrapped in the over-wrought “chick-flick” genre. Once in a great while, women are lauded by their peers for performances such as Monster and The Queen, but even these plum roles are few.
"I find it staggering and rather depressing when you look at the Oscar list," says Phyllida Lloyd, who directed last year's smash hit Mamma Mia! For Lloyd, it's not just about the "lack of female directors," it's that "the stories are all so male-driven, even with the independent films. It's quite a bleak canvas." 3
The abundance of male-centered movies reflects the balance of power in Hollywood. Actresses and women directors are forever complaining that there is little “availability” of good jobs, scripts and roles, and with good reason – Hollywood film companies and producers keep it that way.
Which leads to my second point. It may sound harsh, as though I’m “blaming the victim”, but until female directors (and producers, scriptwriters, actresses) start forming new paradigms of power, then they – and sadly – we, the film goer – will continue to see more of the same. The greater film industry is ruled by males, and women in Hollywood need to have a more pro-active approach in defining their own success.
The first begins with attitude. Fanzines gush ad nauseum about the numerous pregnancies, birthings, and child-rearing of famous babies by their equally-famous adoring mothers. It’s wonderful to see so many women in Hollywood embracing Motherhood, but we have to wonder why so much ink is spilled in the service of such ga-ga reporting. Encouraging women - even extremely famous ones - to be perpetually "barefoot and knocked-up" has always been the cushion that men in power use to keep women out of the loop and out of the Good Old Boy's Club. Let's face it, while the women in Hollywood are busy creating babies then they're Career Radar is operating on low voltage. Who's going to notice new projects when People, TMZ, and the Enquirer are running features on Suri's shopping haunts?
A second facet of this approach is creating more groups of power, in the form of female-owned and operated film companies and associations. The creation of United Artists in 1919 helped pave the way for the independent spirit, and hence, independent filmmakers. Female directors and producers should take a page from history and create film companies that would exclusively hire female directors, scriptwriters, producers, and actresses.
Also, the film award shows need to reflect the changing industry. If the Academy can add more nomination slots to the Best Film category, then they can get creative and add a new category for female directors. The recent spate of awards for African-American Actors and Actresses ONLY occurred when complaints of racism were followed up with the promise of action. (And Spike Lee still hasn’t won an award for Best Director – but that’s another article!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OHLand’s Fave Films by Female Directors (2009):
1. Christopher Strong : Dorothy Arzner
2. The Piano : Jane Campion
3. Marie Antoinette : Sofia Coppola
4. Mixed Nuts : Nora Ephron
5. Monster : Patty Jenkins
6. Twilight : Catherine Hardwicke
7. Wanda : Barbara Loden
8. Outrage : Ida Lupino
9. A League of their Own : Penny Marshall
10. She-Devil : Susan Sideman
11. Yentl : Barbra Streisand
12. Frida : Julie Taymor
And lastly, the little-known history of women directors should be more well-known to all film goers and fans. Sharing history honors past accomplishments and develops pride in future goals and visions. In this spirit, OHLand wishes to print an abbreviated timeline of female directors and our list of favorite films directed by women: Women Directors - 2009. 4
Additional Citations:
1 Peters, J. (6/11/09) Filmmakers Look Elsewhere for Employment. Variety Online
2 April 13, 2010 FoxNews.com
3 Blakeley, Kiri B. (2/19/09) Up Close and Personal: Women Directors. Power Women, Forbes Online
4 Wikipedia. (2009) Women Directors. [For the entire list - Wikipedia Online]*
Rogers, N. (2008) Tuesday Top Ten: Female Directors @ Box Office. The Film Experience™
Photo: “Ten Interesting Female Directors” * (top view)
Pictured from upper left:
Alison Anders, Kathryn Bigelow, Jane Campion, Sofia Coppola,Claire Denis
Mary Harron, Nicole Holofcener, Mira Nair, Kimberly Peirce, Lynn Ramsey
Poliwood and the Hollywood Blacklist
by Paulette Reynolds, June 27, 2010
for Outside Hollywoodland.com
by Paulette Reynolds, June 27, 2010
for Outside Hollywoodland.com
"A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
In Roger Corman’s 1961 classic, The Pit and the Pendulum, Vincent Price spent a great deal of time and energy torturing the hapless John Kerr. He fashioned a curved ax as a pendulum, which gradually descended upon our prone and bound Francis. As the ax slowly inched its way to our poor victim, the whooshing sound of the approaching blade became louder and louder. What an agonizing way to go, right?
Politics in Hollywood is much like that swinging ax, in that whatever political party holds sway in Washington, serves to wreck havoc in Hollywood, often slicing and dicing its victims faster than a Cusinart food processor stuck on hyper-overdrive.
One documentary film serves to highlight Tinsel town’s liberal artists and celebrities as they exercise their political voice and power. Poliwood, directed by Barry Levinson and co-produced by actor Tim Daly, of the progressive Creative Coalition, criss-crosses America during the 2008 presidential campaign. Interviewing Hollywood liberals and mainstream media moguls, Daly hopes the production will underscore the main goal of the Coalition, “bringing issues to the table for national discussion”.
Levinson’s Poliwood ambitiously interweaves several issues that that he sees as important in Hollywood:
*How television has changed the nature of politics
*The development of politicians as “actors” in shaping public opinion
*The increasing political polarization of America.
Instead, Poliwood serves to expose the hypersensitivity of today’s liberal Hollywood creative community – which is understandable - given their experiences at the hands of conservative Hollywood in the past. If the shift sometimes appears unfair, it may depend on who’s looking through the lens of history - and from behind the executioner’s ax.
It probably comes as no shock that most artists are a pretty unconventional crew. This is due in part to their creative nature, after all - the very act of creating art needs a rather imaginative soil to grow and thrive. So, it’s a safe bet that most Hollywood artists are liberal in their thinking and hence, in their politics.
Throughout Hollywood’s cinematic history, liberals in the movie industry have been responsible for producing all of our memorable viewing moments. Taking their skills and melding it with their talents, industry professionals – from actors, writers, directors, cinematographers, to the crew hands - have strived to create films, documentaries, and animated features for our viewing pleasure.
Often, these artists have had to be creative under the swinging ax, so to speak.
Flashback to the 1950’s Communist inquisition in Hollywood...
During the Cold War, Republican Washington needed a guinea pig and the conservative studio bosses needed to break the powerful union movement, led by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG). The Right wished to discourage any Hollywood impulse to make films advocating social change at home or critical of foreign policy. *1
A perfect storm of accusations, intimidation, and forced confessions ultimately encircled the film industry, played out under the direction of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC ). The supporting cast of Hollywood’s conservative mainstream media (gossip columnists Louella Parsons, Hedda Hopper, Walter Winchell, et al), the studio CEOs, and SAG’s cooperation (led by its new president, Ronald Reagan), virtually ensured that the progressive movement in Hollywood would be halted.
Newsreels cranked out images of a cast of characters, either “naming names” or denying they had anything to do with communism. High-profile personalities like Robert Taylor, Reagan, Robert Montgomery, Adolph Menjou, Gary Cooper, played their roles to perfection and as HUAC widened its net, it ensnared notables such as Elia Kazan, Edward Dmytryk, Sterling Hayden, Lee J. Cobb, Budd Schulberg, and others from the entertainment community. Every member of the Hollywood community went under the microscope, yet those who were specifically targeted were active SAG members, anyone left of right-wing politics, and worst of all – communist sympathizers.
There is many a Communist in the union, for the SAG doesn't care what a man's politics are so long as he doesn't bring them into the guild. *2
By 1948 SAG members were forced to sign a loyalty oath that became a standard union policy until 1974. Through it all, the studio brass refused to support their industry workers and before long...
“. . . over 500 people from the entertainment industry were black or gray listed. Appearance on either list could end a career. In as many as five cases, including those of John Garfield, J. Edward Bromberg and Philip Loeb, the stress of being named clearly contributed to their early and tragic deaths.” *3
The Hollywood Blacklist served as a stark reminder to successive generations of Hollywood artists that “studio backing” did not always equal support, and that “liberal” could mean a one-way ticket to permanent summer stock theatre. As the studio system crumbled and stars took back personal control of their careers, the creative atmosphere encouraged a class of films that chronicled the era.
The final chapter occurred during the 1999 Academy Awards, when 75 percent of the academy wordlessly sat on their hands as director and HUAC informant Elia Kazan came onstage to receive a trumped-up “lifetime achievement” award. What was remarkable wasn’t the mass response of the industry, or actor Marlon Brando’s refusal to present him with the statuette, but the sad spectacle of a wheezy old man, standing on the stage, unable to look most of Hollywood in the eye. “Can I go now?” he peevishly snapped at Karl Malden, who had spear-headed the bitter award campaign. Luckily for him, he escaped the stage unscathed and his once iconic talent was immediately forgotten.
The televised HUAC spectacle during the early 1950s was the birth of television’s Machiavellian potential to win hearts and minds for whatever cause – and political party – could pay for it. Poliwood never refers to this shabby time in Hollywood’s grand history, which would have gone far in explaining why today’s Hollywood is so hyper-vigilant in protecting its liberal rights and causes.
Instead, Levinson chose the 1959 Kennedy-Nixon presidential campaign to make his point that:
“Television is a medium that lends itself to manipulation, exploitation, and gimmicks. Political campaigns can actually be taken over by the public relation experts who tell the candidate not only how to use television, but what to say, what to stand for, and what kind of person to be.” *4
The movie focuses on some of the Creative Coalition’s more visible members – Tim Daly, Susan Sarandon, Anne Hathaway – as they attend both the Democratic and Republican Conventions during the summer of 2008. Levinson’s camera catches their roller-coaster emotions, from breathless and teary-eyed enthusiasm during the DNC’s homage to candidate Barrack Obama, to their petulant “do-we-have-to-go?” resignation at the RNC.
One revealing scene occurs during an “open dialog session”, facilitated by conservative pollster and communications consultant, Frank Luntz, during the Republican National Convention. He was asked (presumably by the CC) to moderate a discussion between Creative Coalition members and RNC campaigners. Levinson’s camera pans the CC membership, all well-known actors, as the conservative campaigners voiced their concerns on the negative stereotyping that liberal Hollywood practices. Many in the CC entourage became visibly angry, defensive, and hostile. It was left to the more seasoned veteran liberals – Susan Sarandon, Tim Daly, and Ellyn Burstyn – to paint a pretty picture and sooth the hurt feelings all around.
Even the founder of the Coalition, the late Ron Silver, laments before the camera about the current polarization of the country, which is now coming from the left-wing faction. He saw a real danger in the “intolerance on the left”, because they “are unwilling to hear arguments they don’t agree with.”
He could have been describing the current ranks of the Creative Coalition as well: an organization made up of actors, directors, and other artists who lend their activism to goals they deem worthy. It’s difficult to swallow when Tim Daly says that the group is “non-partisan”, as there seemed to be a lack of conservative members appearing during the movie and in the ranks of their membership listed on the Creative Coalition’s national website.
Along the way, Poliwood is successful in interweaving television’s complicity as a propaganda tool with the political processes of Washington. However, the scenes of Hollywood activists displaying their different shades of bias – however humanitarian - make a stronger statement about history repeating itself. Ironically, the conservative branch of Hollywood is now reduced to meeting in palatial backrooms to organize, vis-à-vis, the early days of SAG’s union drive, under the name of The Friends of Abe.
…In a 1992 letter to the New York Times, screenwriter and playwright Jonathan R. Reynolds laments that “… Hollywood today is as fascistic toward conservatives as the 1940's and 50's were toward liberals … And that goes for the movies and television shows produced.” *5
What then, is the central lesson of Poliwood? Perhaps it’s that in the midst of this repeat performance, the lessons of the Blacklist are being willfully ignored. And as with any swinging pendulum, what travels from one point must ultimately travel onward to its opposite end.
An exhaustive list of those blacklisted in the Hollywood industry can be found - and should be remembered - at the end of the citations.
A. QUOTES:
1. Georgakas, D.
2. Thompson, M
3. Ceplair, L.
4. Poliwood, directed by Levinson, B.
5 Quinn, J.
B. RESOURCES:
Andrews, H. (2/2/2007). Conservatives Try to Make Their Voices Heard in Hollywood. Politico.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2932.html
Ceplair, L. (1/1998). SAG and the Motion Picture Blacklist. National Screen Actor.
http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/linkbackups/huac_blacklist.htm
Fagan, A. (7/23/2008). Hollywood’s Conservative Underground. The Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/23/hollywoods-conservative-underground/
Farnsworth, E. (10/24/1997). Seeing Red. PBS Newshour
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec97/blacklist_10-24.html
Georgakas, D. (1992). Hollywood Blacklist. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/blacklist.html
Prindle, David F. The Politics of Glamour, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988, 274 p.
Schwartz, R.A. (1999). How the Film and Television Blacklists Worked. Florida International University.
http://comptalk.fiu.edu/blacklist.htm
Thompson, M. (4/2/1938). Hollywood Is a Union Town. The Nation. Vol.146, No.14, p.381-383. New Deal Network.
http://newdeal.feri.org/nation/na38146p381.htm
Navasky, Victor S. Naming Names: Viking Press, 1980.
Quinn, J. (5/5/2008). Hollywood’s Dirty Little Secret. About.com
http://usconservatives.about.com/b/2008/05/05/hollywoods-dirty-little-secret.htm
SAG-AFTRA History. Wikipedia | via Answers.com
http://www.answers.com/topic/screen-actors-guild
Hollywood Blacklist. Wikipedia. 2010 [Complete List]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
In Roger Corman’s 1961 classic, The Pit and the Pendulum, Vincent Price spent a great deal of time and energy torturing the hapless John Kerr. He fashioned a curved ax as a pendulum, which gradually descended upon our prone and bound Francis. As the ax slowly inched its way to our poor victim, the whooshing sound of the approaching blade became louder and louder. What an agonizing way to go, right?
Politics in Hollywood is much like that swinging ax, in that whatever political party holds sway in Washington, serves to wreck havoc in Hollywood, often slicing and dicing its victims faster than a Cusinart food processor stuck on hyper-overdrive.
One documentary film serves to highlight Tinsel town’s liberal artists and celebrities as they exercise their political voice and power. Poliwood, directed by Barry Levinson and co-produced by actor Tim Daly, of the progressive Creative Coalition, criss-crosses America during the 2008 presidential campaign. Interviewing Hollywood liberals and mainstream media moguls, Daly hopes the production will underscore the main goal of the Coalition, “bringing issues to the table for national discussion”.
Levinson’s Poliwood ambitiously interweaves several issues that that he sees as important in Hollywood:
*How television has changed the nature of politics
*The development of politicians as “actors” in shaping public opinion
*The increasing political polarization of America.
Instead, Poliwood serves to expose the hypersensitivity of today’s liberal Hollywood creative community – which is understandable - given their experiences at the hands of conservative Hollywood in the past. If the shift sometimes appears unfair, it may depend on who’s looking through the lens of history - and from behind the executioner’s ax.
It probably comes as no shock that most artists are a pretty unconventional crew. This is due in part to their creative nature, after all - the very act of creating art needs a rather imaginative soil to grow and thrive. So, it’s a safe bet that most Hollywood artists are liberal in their thinking and hence, in their politics.
Throughout Hollywood’s cinematic history, liberals in the movie industry have been responsible for producing all of our memorable viewing moments. Taking their skills and melding it with their talents, industry professionals – from actors, writers, directors, cinematographers, to the crew hands - have strived to create films, documentaries, and animated features for our viewing pleasure.
Often, these artists have had to be creative under the swinging ax, so to speak.
Flashback to the 1950’s Communist inquisition in Hollywood...
During the Cold War, Republican Washington needed a guinea pig and the conservative studio bosses needed to break the powerful union movement, led by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG). The Right wished to discourage any Hollywood impulse to make films advocating social change at home or critical of foreign policy. *1
A perfect storm of accusations, intimidation, and forced confessions ultimately encircled the film industry, played out under the direction of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC ). The supporting cast of Hollywood’s conservative mainstream media (gossip columnists Louella Parsons, Hedda Hopper, Walter Winchell, et al), the studio CEOs, and SAG’s cooperation (led by its new president, Ronald Reagan), virtually ensured that the progressive movement in Hollywood would be halted.
Newsreels cranked out images of a cast of characters, either “naming names” or denying they had anything to do with communism. High-profile personalities like Robert Taylor, Reagan, Robert Montgomery, Adolph Menjou, Gary Cooper, played their roles to perfection and as HUAC widened its net, it ensnared notables such as Elia Kazan, Edward Dmytryk, Sterling Hayden, Lee J. Cobb, Budd Schulberg, and others from the entertainment community. Every member of the Hollywood community went under the microscope, yet those who were specifically targeted were active SAG members, anyone left of right-wing politics, and worst of all – communist sympathizers.
There is many a Communist in the union, for the SAG doesn't care what a man's politics are so long as he doesn't bring them into the guild. *2
By 1948 SAG members were forced to sign a loyalty oath that became a standard union policy until 1974. Through it all, the studio brass refused to support their industry workers and before long...
“. . . over 500 people from the entertainment industry were black or gray listed. Appearance on either list could end a career. In as many as five cases, including those of John Garfield, J. Edward Bromberg and Philip Loeb, the stress of being named clearly contributed to their early and tragic deaths.” *3
The Hollywood Blacklist served as a stark reminder to successive generations of Hollywood artists that “studio backing” did not always equal support, and that “liberal” could mean a one-way ticket to permanent summer stock theatre. As the studio system crumbled and stars took back personal control of their careers, the creative atmosphere encouraged a class of films that chronicled the era.
The final chapter occurred during the 1999 Academy Awards, when 75 percent of the academy wordlessly sat on their hands as director and HUAC informant Elia Kazan came onstage to receive a trumped-up “lifetime achievement” award. What was remarkable wasn’t the mass response of the industry, or actor Marlon Brando’s refusal to present him with the statuette, but the sad spectacle of a wheezy old man, standing on the stage, unable to look most of Hollywood in the eye. “Can I go now?” he peevishly snapped at Karl Malden, who had spear-headed the bitter award campaign. Luckily for him, he escaped the stage unscathed and his once iconic talent was immediately forgotten.
The televised HUAC spectacle during the early 1950s was the birth of television’s Machiavellian potential to win hearts and minds for whatever cause – and political party – could pay for it. Poliwood never refers to this shabby time in Hollywood’s grand history, which would have gone far in explaining why today’s Hollywood is so hyper-vigilant in protecting its liberal rights and causes.
Instead, Levinson chose the 1959 Kennedy-Nixon presidential campaign to make his point that:
“Television is a medium that lends itself to manipulation, exploitation, and gimmicks. Political campaigns can actually be taken over by the public relation experts who tell the candidate not only how to use television, but what to say, what to stand for, and what kind of person to be.” *4
The movie focuses on some of the Creative Coalition’s more visible members – Tim Daly, Susan Sarandon, Anne Hathaway – as they attend both the Democratic and Republican Conventions during the summer of 2008. Levinson’s camera catches their roller-coaster emotions, from breathless and teary-eyed enthusiasm during the DNC’s homage to candidate Barrack Obama, to their petulant “do-we-have-to-go?” resignation at the RNC.
One revealing scene occurs during an “open dialog session”, facilitated by conservative pollster and communications consultant, Frank Luntz, during the Republican National Convention. He was asked (presumably by the CC) to moderate a discussion between Creative Coalition members and RNC campaigners. Levinson’s camera pans the CC membership, all well-known actors, as the conservative campaigners voiced their concerns on the negative stereotyping that liberal Hollywood practices. Many in the CC entourage became visibly angry, defensive, and hostile. It was left to the more seasoned veteran liberals – Susan Sarandon, Tim Daly, and Ellyn Burstyn – to paint a pretty picture and sooth the hurt feelings all around.
Even the founder of the Coalition, the late Ron Silver, laments before the camera about the current polarization of the country, which is now coming from the left-wing faction. He saw a real danger in the “intolerance on the left”, because they “are unwilling to hear arguments they don’t agree with.”
He could have been describing the current ranks of the Creative Coalition as well: an organization made up of actors, directors, and other artists who lend their activism to goals they deem worthy. It’s difficult to swallow when Tim Daly says that the group is “non-partisan”, as there seemed to be a lack of conservative members appearing during the movie and in the ranks of their membership listed on the Creative Coalition’s national website.
Along the way, Poliwood is successful in interweaving television’s complicity as a propaganda tool with the political processes of Washington. However, the scenes of Hollywood activists displaying their different shades of bias – however humanitarian - make a stronger statement about history repeating itself. Ironically, the conservative branch of Hollywood is now reduced to meeting in palatial backrooms to organize, vis-à-vis, the early days of SAG’s union drive, under the name of The Friends of Abe.
…In a 1992 letter to the New York Times, screenwriter and playwright Jonathan R. Reynolds laments that “… Hollywood today is as fascistic toward conservatives as the 1940's and 50's were toward liberals … And that goes for the movies and television shows produced.” *5
What then, is the central lesson of Poliwood? Perhaps it’s that in the midst of this repeat performance, the lessons of the Blacklist are being willfully ignored. And as with any swinging pendulum, what travels from one point must ultimately travel onward to its opposite end.
An exhaustive list of those blacklisted in the Hollywood industry can be found - and should be remembered - at the end of the citations.
A. QUOTES:
1. Georgakas, D.
2. Thompson, M
3. Ceplair, L.
4. Poliwood, directed by Levinson, B.
5 Quinn, J.
B. RESOURCES:
Andrews, H. (2/2/2007). Conservatives Try to Make Their Voices Heard in Hollywood. Politico.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2932.html
Ceplair, L. (1/1998). SAG and the Motion Picture Blacklist. National Screen Actor.
http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/linkbackups/huac_blacklist.htm
Fagan, A. (7/23/2008). Hollywood’s Conservative Underground. The Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/23/hollywoods-conservative-underground/
Farnsworth, E. (10/24/1997). Seeing Red. PBS Newshour
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/entertainment/july-dec97/blacklist_10-24.html
Georgakas, D. (1992). Hollywood Blacklist. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html
http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/mccarthy/blacklist.html
Prindle, David F. The Politics of Glamour, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988, 274 p.
Schwartz, R.A. (1999). How the Film and Television Blacklists Worked. Florida International University.
http://comptalk.fiu.edu/blacklist.htm
Thompson, M. (4/2/1938). Hollywood Is a Union Town. The Nation. Vol.146, No.14, p.381-383. New Deal Network.
http://newdeal.feri.org/nation/na38146p381.htm
Navasky, Victor S. Naming Names: Viking Press, 1980.
Quinn, J. (5/5/2008). Hollywood’s Dirty Little Secret. About.com
http://usconservatives.about.com/b/2008/05/05/hollywoods-dirty-little-secret.htm
SAG-AFTRA History. Wikipedia | via Answers.com
http://www.answers.com/topic/screen-actors-guild
Hollywood Blacklist. Wikipedia. 2010 [Complete List]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist
COPYRIGHT 2012/2017. Paulette Reynolds. All CineMata Movie Madness blog articles, reviews, faux interviews, commentary, and the Cine Mata character are under the sole ownership of Paulette Reynolds. All intellectual and creative rights reserved.
