Currently watching : THE STRANGER (1946) Movie of the Day!

I have recently purchased the Kino Lorber LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Release of this film, and if ever a movie deserved to be preserved it is this one. That said this release needs some remastering, has noticeable frame drops, and syncing issues, and occasional small picture degradation in places, but nothing that effects the enjoyability of this film, and this is an extremely enjoyable Orson Welles film.

I am on record as calling Orson Welles my favorite director of the sound era, and I have a lot of favorite Directors from David Lean to Carl Franklin to Gordon Parks to Raoul Walsh to Diop Mambety to Johnnie To to John Woo to the Russo Brothers to Alfred Hitchcock to Fritz Lang to Masaki Kobayashi to Haille Gerima , but if I had the unenviable task of only saving one Director’s body of work, for me it word be Orson Welles.

His work is foundational to what cinema is for me, not only the sublime look of his work (which is a huge part of it, those Wellsian perspectives, deep focus, and shadows), but the themes of existential angst, unfocused dread regarding the state of the world or the human condition, that is at the heart of his films. There is a romantic, dark poetry that suffuses his work, and how he crafts his work, that for me is deeply resonant, and is the Alpha from which much of sound based cinema must launch from, to craft their Omegas.

 

Even what is a generally under mentioned, and I think overlooked film, THE STRANGER. Released August of 1946, when this started production World War II had just ended several months ago, in summer of 1945. People were still counting their dead, the damaged living trying to integrate from war back into peace. The process of dealing with war criminals and hunting down war criminals, was not just topical, it was being formulated and ironed out as this movie was in production.

It was the first film to use concentration camp footage. This is just seen as a thriller today, but upon release this was a very sensitive , and explosive topic, especially considering there were elements in the United States that were denying Germany’s concentration camps and extermination programs. The same elements in the United States that were against the US entering the war.

So for Welles to make a film, still in the tumult of a time of war, that warned of the unfinished business of war, was and to some extent remains… ground breaking.

And Welles was critical of this movie, but outside of Citizen Kane he was critical of all his films due to various levels of Studio Interference. Much like the writer Alan Moore, the negative connotations he had with the producers of the work, would  sour his outlook on the work. Welles, was akin to a butcher too close to the slaughtering of the lambs, to enjoy the final meal.

Also while I love Welles as both Director and Actor, he liked to be the star in his films, and liked to work with actors that he was familiar with and could, if not overshadow, to some extent dictate to,  and the casting of Edward G. Robinson that was forced on him by the studios, flew in the face of this.

But in this small case the Studios were… right (I balk to say that because they were typically wrong in their choices to neuter Welles), Edward G. Robinson is brilliant in this role, and a worthy equal to hold his own, in scenes with Welles. THE STRANGER begins with Edward G. Robinson and ends with Edward G. Robinson, making this arguably more his film… than Welles may have been comfortable with.

Going along with that, I cannot see this film being improved, by having Welles’ choice… Agnes Moorehead as the Detective, with all due respect to Ms. Moorehead. It would have been a vastly different film, but arguably per the audio commentary by Bret Wood, that is what Welles was striving for.

Welles was deeply shaken by his exposure in 1945 to the newsreel footage of the liberation of German Concentration camps, footage that would not be disseminated in many American circles, American circles that still sought to downplay this talk of German atrocities as fake news.

This film, true to the wunderkind that Welles always was, was Welles turning outrage to action. While the mass of men did nothing or ignored the news, Welles turned around and in months from seeing that footage had gotten a film into production that touched upon the world of atrocities, that small-town America USA was being kept from, was oblivious to. But his film, based on the story beats that did not make it into the film, was going to be something more harsh and brutal, and far reaching than the film we got.

Possibly Welles, left to his devices and with Agnes Moorhead in the role of the Detective, would have given us something more akin to COME SEE or SHINDLER’S LIST. We will never know. And arguably it is the film he did not make, that is all Welles could see when he looked at THE STRANGER. However the film he did make was successful, did reach audiences, and was impactful. For the time it was made I think the film was as impactful as could have been made, and anything more impactful would not have made it to audiences… not in a 1946, trying to put the horrors of a just won war… behind them.

So it wasn’t his complete vision, but the film that is there I would argue, compromises and all, is like most of Welles’ films… transcendent and says something about who we were, who we are, and who we strive to be. I have watched THE STRANGER easily over a half dozen times now, and every-time it strikes me deeply, in the shots, and the speeches, and the language and the performances, and the direction, it strikes me as… the work of a master visionary and humanist. It strikes me as moving and worthy.

And Loretta Young rounds out the major players in this film, delivering one of the standout lines in a film replete with them, but also a standout line in cinema. When you hear it you’ll know it. It is for me her finest and most memorable role and performance by far.

Movies like CITIZEN KANE and MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS may get the accolades (and deservedly so) but for sheer cinema and rewatchability, for me THIRD MAN (credited to Carol Reed, the uncredited direction is by Orson Welles), LADY OF SHANGHAI and THE STRANGER go at the top of any list.

An overlooked classic. Love this film, and it does deserve a quality restoration. Highly Recommended!

 

Buy your copy here!

 

THE FIFTH HORSEMAN IS FEAR

The Fifth Horseman is Fear
Facets video
1964 / B&W
2:35 anamorphic 16:9
100 min.
…a páty jezdec je Strach
Street Date July 25, 2006

Starring Miroslav Machácek
Cinematography Jan Kalis
Production Designer Milan Nejedla
Film Editor Miroslav Hájek
Written by Zbynek Brynych, Ota Koval, Ester Krumbachová from a book by Hana Belohradska
Produced by Studio Barrandov
Directed by Zbynek Brynych

THE FIFTH HORSEMAN IS FEAR- To go by reviews on IMDB and AMAZON as well as various critics sites this Czech film is supposed to be a masterpiece. The recently departed Roger Ebert who I agreed with in some things called it.. “a near perfect film.”

Having watched it I have to say… not so much.

While I understand its historic significance in being an early filmic examination of life under an oppressive regime, I found its execution falling far short of its acclaim.

And as someone who is a fan of classic cinema and consider films such as THE THIRD MAN, and ODD MAN OUT and THE CRANES ARE FLYING, historically significant and brilliant films, THE FIFTH HORSEMAN IS FEAR is not a brilliant film. It has moments of interesting cinematography that unfortunately gets lost in the unfinished bones of a movie, a movie that is more exercise and experiment than finished film. I found THE FIFTH HORSEMAN IS FEAR tedious rather than engaging; and the screeching and overwrought performances and dialogue, felt false and empty.

I respect the film’s courage for trying to say something of import, given the perilous nature of when and where the film was made, but I have to say I don’t think the film says it well. Not today, and not even upon its release.

A film that by all means view if you can see it for free, but not something that I think you will be particularly enriched or intrigued by in the viewing. GRADE: If you can see it for free… fine, otherwise avoid. ** out of ****.

Why do you care if Avengers, or Dark Knight Rises, or Prometheus in Imax 3D makes a boat-load of Money?

As I’m wont to do, I tend to keep abreast of the entertainment news, specifically film. One thing I’ve been hearing quite a lot in the wake of the Avengers film is talk of it making over a billion dollars. And I listen to the fervor and sense of ownership all these writers and pod-casters are going on with about this financial mark. And I have to ask ‘Why’?

I mean I enjoy the Avengers movie, as much as anyone, arguably more than most people will in 6 months. By that I mean it’s an interesting hive mind approach that occurs in popular films as well as other things, where people’s steadfast belief in whether a movie is good and bad fluctuates with the slightest derision or the popular opinion of the day.

AVENGERS was and is a great movie full stop. Pacing wise, action, wise, story wise. But now barely two weeks into its release you hear a few people say, “oh well the first half was slow”, and people I heard broadcast not even a week ago how great the film was, begin to backpedal and parrot “Oh well the beginning was a little slow”. We live in a monopolized society where the individual is so scared to have an unpopular opinion, to the point that a lot of their opinions generally are not worth the breath they take to say it, or the paper they take to write it.

They have the spineless nature of slugs.

Same change of opinion (but to both a lesser and greater degree) happened to the Bryan Singer film SUPERMAN RETURNS. First week, people came out raving and loving that film. The Airplane scene, the bullet to the eye. It was a solid very good movie. But less than a week later, people began picking up the mantra of ‘why’s the kid there’ and ‘lex again’ and ‘Lois’. And you could see the ship of public opinion so to speak, turn. And people who initially were overjoyed about the film, started backpedaling, “Well, yeah I didn’t really say it was good.”. Until now a few years later people routinely call that movie awful and one of the worst.

It’s something I’ve noticed, Something that is not just American, because I’ve listened to enough British pod-casters do the same thing. So many are seemingly so afraid to hold an opinion derided or frowned upon or be seen cherishing something not embraced by their ‘friends’ or even their ‘enemies’.

It’s a lack of conviction, to anything you believe. Obvious symptoms of a propagandized population, so used to embracing any lie, that will keep it from having to alone, look at uncomfortable truths.

So yeah, when I say I enjoy the AVENGERS more than most people will in 6 months, that’s not me having you on, it’s just a fact. I’m not swayed by the mob.

I thought SUPERMAN RETURNS was a fun, solid B movie when I first saw it, and I still think so. I think AVENGERS is a brilliant, surprisingly so, Grade A movie today, and will think the same thing 5 years from today, when most of you have been pushed far afield of any opinion you may have had on the film.

I mean there’s nothing wrong with changing your opinion, if it’s your change, your growth, your adaptation. But that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is a propagandized population taught by the media to have no constants, no ideals, no values, that will not be torn down; have learned to make their opinions on shifting sands, always ready to be remade at the slightest rise of the tide.

Superman Returns [Blu-ray] 2008 Remastered Version

Which brings us back to the original concern. Why are you celebrating or in any manner cheering the AVENGERS making over a Billion dollars?

Beyond just financial interest, I could care less if the movie breaks even, does 400 million, or does a billion. Honestly I don’t really have a stake in it if it loses money.

Of course liking the film, it’s nice if it doesn’t bomb, for the simple fact it would be nice to see more films by a competent director like Joss Whedon.

But it’s not a passion, I don’t have a dog in this fight. If I’m the studio, or someone with a percentage share in the film, hell yeah I’m celebrating every dime it makes. Or in the days when people from your neighborhood actually owned movie theaters and that blockbuster money actually cycled locally, rather than just getting funneled out of the community to make fat cats fatter, I might be happy.

But none of that is the case. I don’t personally know a single person who is in any way going to profit, by making a monopolized studio and theatrical system a billion dollars richer. All this did is take a billion dollars from a lot of little pockets, and put it into a very few big pockets.

Now I’m not making a deal on that. I went to see the movie like everyone else, but you can be damn sure I’m not celebrating this state of affairs either.

AVENGERS makes a billion dollars, okay. I accept it as a fact. But honestly, until such time as those funds and profits get distributed to real theaters and real people (a billion dollars, hell you can afford to hire real projectionists, pay the ushers, and ticket takers a real wage, get real popcorn and healthy drinks, etc, etc…but you’ll drop dead waiting for that money to trickle down. In fact all the studios can talk about is reducing costs at the local level and maximizing profits by digitizing everything), I have no interest in celebrating billionaires becoming bigger billionaires.

Beyond a movie breaking even to keep a good director or actor I like viable, that’s where my interest in what a film makes or does not make… ends. Some people were complaining because TRANSFORMERS:DARK OF THE MOON was a box office success. Who cares? I personally don’t get the Michael Bay hate, but as we’ve established I don’t follow the crowd.

Michael Bay is a talented director who puts bodies in seats. Some films of his I like, some I don’t. I loved his first film BAD BOYS, and loved his last film DARK OF THE MOON (which the end of the AVENGERS was more than a little like) and in-between like any other director he has been hit and miss. But even the movies I don’t like I don’t wish them ill at the box-office. What sense does that make?

If you don’t like a movie, does that mean everyone has to wish it ill and hate it as well? Does that mean you have to begrudge it its success?

I personally hated Nolan’s first Batman movie, and thought his DARK KNIGHT while better, was still flawed and over-hyped. So not really a Nolan fan, but I don’t begrudge his films their success. As stated, what Billionaires do or don’t make.. not concerned.

When some of that tremendous profit begins cycling back into the communities, well then that will be something to feel pride and ownership of.