LET US NOW PRAISE FAMOUS MONSTERS

Forrest J. Ackerman died last Thursday, at the age of 92.  For anyone who knew his name when they were 12 or 13 or 14, the news comes like the news of Queen Victoria's passing to residents of the British Empire in 1901.  Ackerman presided over an empire of the imagination every bit as grand as Victoria's realm, and far more benign.  He was the editor of Famous Monsters Of Filmland, the sci-fi and horror movie fan magazine around which a generation of buffs rallied during their formative years.  It was a half-silly, half-serious publication devoted to the whole range and the whole history of fantasy on film.  It helped to create and validate the community of kids who loved film of this sort, and gave them permission to take it seriously.

Famous Monsters was single-handedly responsible for focusing my own love of movies.  It opened my eyes to silent film, because there were, after all, silent monster movies, and to other kinds of film.  When I was 12 I started buying books about the history of movies just for their monster movie content and ended up enthralled by every kind of movie.

In seventh grade I met two fellow students who were secret fans of the magazine and introduced me to it — within months we were making our own 8mm monster movies.  The three of us attended a science fiction convention in Washington, D. C. in the early Sixties where we actually met Forrest J. Ackerman (seen above, on the left, with Ray Harryhausen and Ray Bradbury.)  He took us out to lunch.  He took us and our interest in monster movies seriously.  All of us, now in our fifties, are still fanatics of the kind of movies “Forry” loved.

Such stories could be repeated endlessly.  Joe Dante, John Landis and Steven Spielberg were all fans of the magazine when they were kids.  In later life, Spielberg autographed a
poster of Close Encounters of the Third Kind for Ackerman, writing, “A
generation of fantasy lovers thank you for raising us so well.”

And so we all do — now and forever.

STUDIO SNOW

Next to real snow, there's nothing quite as lovely as studio snow in black-and-white films from Hollywood's Golden age.

shahn, at the ever-magical six martinis and the seventh art, is an aficionada of bogus blizzards on film and has posted some screen shots of my favorite ersatz snowfall in movies, from Swing Time.

If you live someplace warm, like the middle of the Mojave Desert, fix yourself some egg nog, light a fake fire, gaze through the window of your computer screen and enjoy the prop flakes in cozy comfort.  Better still, give Swing Time another spin on your DVD player and watch the imaginary snowflakes fall on Fred and Ginger as they sing and dance their way into your heart one more time.

THE BIBLE AND MADAME de . . .

It's almost impossible to understand the culture we live in without knowing the Bible, simply because the culture we live in was created by people for whom the Bible was a central text, a central reference point.  I'm speaking of the Bible as a literary document, a compendium of phrases, images, folk wisdom and psychological insight — all of which it is, quite apart from its specifically religious nature.

This was brought home to me recently listening to the commentary on the recent DVD release by Criterion of Max Ophüls's The Earrings Of Madame de . . . .  It's delivered by two female academics who chatter on at great length about the sexual politics of the film, referencing Freud and Stendhal promiscuously but missing the film's central reference to a passage in the Gospels.

[Warning — plot spoilers ahead . . .]

The commentators disagree about whether or not Louise, the film's main character, consummates her adulterous affair with Count Donati.  This despite the fact that, while praying to the Blessed Virgin in private, she says she was unfaithful “only in thought”.  “And what is a thought?” she asks the Virgin.  One commentator suggests that Louise, an inveterate liar, is here lying to the Mother Of God.  This is, in itself, quite preposterous.  Why would anyone pray to a saint who couldn't see through a human lie?

Both commentators miss the real import of the question — its reference to Jesus's teaching in Matthew's gospel . . . “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

It is precisely this reference which goes to the heart of the film's themes.

Louise's husband in the film commits adultery in the flesh, but in a discreet way that does not disturb the civil compromise of their marriage.  He loves his wife and tolerates her flirtations, because he believes that, while she might not love him, she loves no one else.  For him, this isn't much of a bargain, but it is the bargain on which his whole life depends, as we eventually see.

He might have tolerated a discreet adulterous affair on her part, as long as it was frivolous.  When she falls in love with someone else, he is destroyed.  He cannot tolerate her committing adultery in her heart.

Seen from this perspective it's impossible to read the husband's violent and destructive actions as exercises in patriarchal authority — they are, in fact, exercises in existential despair.  It is also impossible to read Louise's actions as exercises in pure passion, pure self-realization, because they also involve extreme cruelty towards her husband.  Perhaps she doesn't know what she means to him, but we cannot help feeling that she should know — that not knowing, or caring, involves a deep moral failure . . . deeper than any casual extramarital affair would represent.

At the beginning of the film, as Louise is searching through her possessions for something to sell to raise some quick cash, she comes across a prayer book, or an edition of the New Testament, with a cross on its cover.  “I need you now,” she says to the book — meaning, I need your help raising the cash.  Seen retrospectively, in light of her last question to the Virgin, the need she expresses in this first scene has a profound ironic implication.  What she really has needed all along was an appreciation of what it means to commit adultery in one's heart — an appreciation of its extreme seriousness.

Louise's question is not asked at the end of the novel on which Ophüls's film was based — there is no scene in the book corresponding to the one in the film in which Louise donates her fatal earrings to the Virgin.  This was Ophüls's invention — and it's the key to the story he was telling.  For Ophüls (above), a Jew, there was probably no religious dimension to the Christian text he was referencing, but there was certainly a reference to the psychological truth at the heart of Jesus's words.  It is, as I say, a vital element of the film unavailable to anyone unfamiliar with those words.

Ophüls was a highly educated and cultured man.  In 1954 he would have assumed that any educated and cultured viewer of The Earrings of Madame de . . . would register the allusion to the gospel text, and note the irony of a vain and self-centered woman like Louise being clueless about it, even as she prays to her saint for the things she wants in life.  54 years on, we cannot assume that even a college professor will have a clue about it.

SOME THINGS A MAN CAN'T RIDE AROUND

Director Budd Boetticher started out his professional life as a bullfighter in Mexico.  He knew a lot about bullfighting and made three films on the subject.  Because of this it's become a critical commonplace to discuss all of Boetticher's films in terms of bullfighting, finding parallels to and metaphors for bullfighting in his work.

Wary as we must always be of the critical commonplace, it is in fact almost impossible to understand Boetticher's formal methods without thinking of bullfighting.  On a narrative level, the parallels take us only so far.  Boetticher's Westerns invariably involve a duel to the death between two characters, a good guy and a bad guy, which can be read as an image of the duel between matador and bull — but most Westerns involve such a duel.  The bullfighting metaphor doesn't add much to our understanding of the contest — except perhaps in explaining the conflicted emotions Boetticher often encourages us to feel about the two figures involved.

His heroes are never wholly heroic and his villains are never wholly bad.  Hero and villain often share admirable qualities which, given a slight spin in one direction or another, lead to moral or immoral actions.  This can be said to evoke the conflicted feelings about bull and matador in the corrida.  We root for the matador but we also root for the bull, particularly if he is brave and determined and clever, and part of us resents the matador for killing an especially admirable bull, even though this is what we pay him to do.

As I say, though, it's in the area of formal procedure that bullfighting truly illuminates Boetticher's work.  In bullfighting, space is everything — and ultimately the difference between life and death.  Working the bull in the broad expanse of the ring, focusing his attention on smaller and smaller areas of the ring, finally calculating the distance between the bull and himself down to fractions of an inch during the passes with the muleta — these are the concerns of the matador, on which his life depends.

In the framing of his shots, Boetticher has similar concerns.  A man's relationship to vast empty spaces, the way he does or does not make a place for himself in them, tell us much about his character.  The way antagonists move in a contested space, the way they watch each other and calculate their chances, are always the central focus of Boetticher's action sequences.  Martin Scorsese says that this concern with movement and space in Boetticher's work extends to the subtlest gesture — a hand moving six inches can be a crucial fact.

Boetticher's Western stories can seem simple, but they never are — just as a bullfight is never simple.  The meaning is all in the details, and the details require intense concentration to read fully.  Boetticher's use of space to evoke character and relationships is not limited to traditional action sequences, either.  There's a tracking shot towards the end of The Tall T in which the hero and the woman he's trying to protect run from a shack to the shelter of some rocks.  They have just played out a love scene, but the way the camera follows them over dangerous ground, racing with them as they race together towards their destiny, tells us more about what they are to each other than the kiss they've just shared.

She stumbles, he lifts her back up — they get where they need to be.  He tries to send her off to safety alone but she won't leave him — she insists on facing whatever's coming at his side.  The tracking shot has already made us feel what she's feeling.  They're in this together.

In The Tall T the protagonist speaks a line that sums up the code of every Boetticher hero — “Some things a man can't ride around.”  Characteristically, the moral imperative is expressed in spatial terms.  Where you stand, with whom and against whom, the challenge you ride out to meet — these things are character for Boetticher.  They play out in his films like ceremonies in a ritual space, as they do in the bullring.

4 NOVEMBER 2008!

Well, tomorrow is the big day — five of the Randolph Scott/Budd Boetticher Westerns are going to be released on DVD for the first time, including Boetticher's masterpiece Comanche Station.  The box set will mark a major moment in American film culture — a chance for many to see these extraordinary films for the first time.  Though not as profound as Ford's Westerns, spiritually speaking, Boetticher's oaters are almost as exquisite cinematically, though in a subtle, quiet way.  They're largely about the way men, on horseback and on foot, move through landscapes, inhabit space, and how this activity reveals who they are and what they're about.  On that level they're examples of pure cinema, since only cinema can operate on that level.

Apparently there's some sort of election going on tomorrow as well, which will also be worth paying close attention to.  I've posted a link to this clip before, but give it another look as we await the morrow's events:

“When the Ship Comes In”

This is Bob Dylan, joined by Joan Baez, singing Dylan's song at the march on Washington, 28 August 1963, the occasion of Martin Luther King's “I Have A Dream” speech.  In the song, Dylan, twenty-two years-old, envisions, like King, a time when the dreams of the civil rights movement will be fulfilled.  Like King, also, he draws on Biblical imagery, on the rhetoric of prophecy, which alone seemed appropriate then to such awesome hopes, bucking such awesome tides.

Today, the hour when the ship comes in may feel as though it was always inevitable.  Back then, it was only proclaimed with assurance by voices crying in the wilderness, by those who put their strongest faith in God's justice, not man's.  The times when the two converge are rare, times of jubilee.

'TIS BUT A FLESH WOUND

My nephew Harry, 15, is a filmmaker.  He makes mostly short comic films of a satirical or surreal nature.  You can see a selection of them at his YouTube page 'Tis But A Flesh Wound.

This cruel and cynical film made me laugh, though I'm not proud to admit it:

Love Is A Wonderfully Great Thing

Harry also edits clips from movies to unlikely songs.  Here's a piece which cuts together shots from the films of his favorite director, Stanley Kubrick, to the song “Subterranean Homesick Blues” by Bob Dylan:

Kubrick — Subterranean

It's quite cool.

THE LODGER (1927)

Alfred Hitchcock's silent film The Lodger, from 1927, is wonderfully entertaining, alive with visual inventiveness, with the director's unbridled joy in making cinema.  It's not, however, a terribly successful thriller, and thus not a terribly successful film, since a thriller is what it sets out to be.

The problem is the presence of Ivor Novello in the title role — or perhaps the way Hitchcock uses him.  Novello was a handsome fellow with a decidedly fey quality.  Hitchcock would eventually find ways of using an actor's ambiguous sexuality to disturb an audience, keep it off balance, but he doesn't seem to be trying to do that with Novello.  He lurches back and forth between presenting Novello's lodger as an almost inhuman visual icon of menace and mystery (see above) and letting the actor present his own impersonation of a matinee idol.  Novello does his best to appear brooding and menacing from time to time but he succeeds only in suggesting a man vaguely distracted and slightly peeved about something.

There's nothing really creepy about Novello's lodger, except that he seems to inhabit a different film than the one Hitchcock is trying to make.  He comes across as conventionally, not pathologically, insecure.  The unhinged desperation we sense in Bruno from Strangers On A Train or Norman from Psycho is nowhere in evidence.  It's really impossible to take Novello's lodger seriously as a suspect in the “golden curls” murders, or as a passionate suitor of the heroine.  At the same time, he can't really secure our sympathy as that archetype familiar from so many later Hitchcock films, the innocent man wrongly accused, since we spend most of the film without any clear information about his guilt or innocence.

Still, Hitchcock constructs his movie with relentless, creative imagination as though it had a real villain or potential villain or wrongly accused villain at its center.  We can admire and enjoy its brilliance but we can't care about its story — which offers only the most perfunctory kind of  suspense, without any subliminal psychological undertow.  The film is aesthetically dazzling without being really engaging on any other level.

ANOTHER WAY TO DIE

Jack White (of The White Stripes) wrote and produced the theme song for the new James Bond film Quantum Of Solace and performs it on the soundtrack with Alicia Keys.  The movie is coming out in November but you can listen to the song now here.

It's awesome — funked-up John Barry with a nod to McCartney's Bond song and a lot of White Stripes drive.  Jack's work is big because he's got so many strains of music rattling around in his brain and no firewalls of convention, attitude or fashion separating them.  You could say the same of Armstrong, Presley, Hendrix, Dylan.

FILM NOIR REVISITED

It's sometimes noted, quite correctly, that the artists who made what we now think of as the classic films noirs were entirely unfamiliar with the term, and indeed had no conception that they were working in a distinct tradition.  They thought of the movies they were making as crime thrillers.

This is occasionally cited in support of the idea that the term film noir is a category created by cinéastes after the fact, and therefore inauthentic, misleading.  It certainly was created (or at least popularized) by cinéastes after the fact, but that doesn't mean it's inauthentic or misleading.  Such a view fails to take into account how genres and traditions arise, which is a complex process — a combination of historical and cultural trends, influence and imitation among artists, and simple commercial calculation.  All these factors can combine to create distinct new forms, and in the case of film noir I think they did.

Two early films, which I would not call films noirs, nevertheless set the tone for the new form — The Maltese Falcon and Double IndemnityThe Maltese Falcon was a fairly standard work of hardboiled detective fiction but it had a twist.  In hardboiled detective fiction, the world might be a dark and messy place, but the detective had a code of honor which made a kind of grim moral sense amidst the darkness and the mess.

Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon had such a code and he stuck by it — but Huston allowed him more than a trace of doubt as to whether the code had any ultimate meaning, any ultimate value.  This was something new in the crime thriller, in hardboiled detective fiction — this hint of existential uncertainty.

In Double Indemnity, essentially a domestic murder melodrama, Billy Wilder offered a portrait of middle-class American life that was unremitting in its bleakness, its moral vacuousness.  I'm not sure that Wilder had any particular message to convey by this — he just sensed that in the midst of the global horror of WWII audiences were looking for sterner stuff in their melodramas, a darker vision of ordinary life that would accord with the experience of civilization as a whole gone suddenly mad.

Both films were commercially successful — proof that audiences were at the very least receptive to darker visions, to stories that raised the most disturbing (and unresolved) questions about morality and society.  Both films were also well-received critically.  This gave other film artists a kind of permission to experiment with similar themes — within the confines of the crime thriller.  They got very creative within those confines after WWII, when a generation of men scarred by war came home, and when the specter of nuclear annihilation became a reality for everyone.

They didn't think, “We're going to create a new kind of existentially challenging crime thriller.”  They just inflected the crime thriller with a new mood.  Audiences responded, and formulas began to solidify.  Film artists imitated each other, got turned on by each other's work.  Elements that worked in one film got incorporated into other films, given new twists.  It was a combination of playing it safe commercially but also pushing things as far as they could go within familiar territory — testing how much darkness the public really wanted.

It turned out to be quite a lot — so much so that that during the Fifties filmmakers began to realize that the darker themes could be incorporated into other genres besides the crime thriller, as they were, for example, in the domestic melodramas of Sirk, in the Westerns of Ford and Mann.  When that happened, the classic film noir more or less played itself out.  Its usefulness as a cultural escape valve had ended.  Any kind of film in the Sixties could deal with existential angst, with moral bewilderment, with political or social criticism, in more direct terms.  America had internalized the darkness of the film noir — the resulting culture wars were just a matter of time.

Film noir had a beginning in the global dislocations and moral derangement of WWII, and an end in the open social and political critiques of the Sixties.  There had never been anything quite like film noir before WWII, and there has never been anything quite like it since the Sixties.  It was, and remains, a distinct tradition.

[With thanks to Tony D'Ambra at films noir for some thoughts that provoked the above meditation . . .]

PAULINE KAEL, PROVOCATEUR

Tom Sutpen, over at Illusion Travels By Streetcar, has recently posted a delightful recording of a talk, with a question-and-answer session, that Pauline Kael gave at UC Berkeley in 1968.  Kael had just been hired as the film critic for The New Yorker and had just published her second book of collected criticism, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, and she was full of beans.

The talk is a useful reminder of what good criticism is all about — not being right, or consistent, or even terribly logical, but stimulating, challenging, and sometimes downright infuriating.

Kael is remarkably honest about her ambitions as a critic.  She wants to deflate pretension, shake up the common wisdom and promote the films she likes with polemical verve.  She admits to withholding any negative reactions she might have to films she likes, lest this interfere with her promotion of them.  She makes her critical biases perfectly clear — she is interested in the sociology of the film audience and in the literary qualities of film content, and astonishingly unsympathetic to the visual aspect of cinema.

In the course of a thorough demolition of avant-garde and “underground” films (like Andy Warhol's Empire, above), she remarks that longer films “without synchronous sound” are basically unwatchable — a direct contradiction of her love for many silent films.  She says she has lost interest in Westerns because she's seen too many of them and their plots have become overly familiar.  This is an odd sort of nonsense — rather like an art critic saying she's lost interest in still-lifes because she's seen too many painted apples.  (It must be noted, though, that in passing Kael aims a well-deserved shot at the “socially conscious” Western, which was already a tiresome cliché in 1968.)

At a certain point in the talk you begin to realize that she's trying to make you angry, trying to shake you out of your complacency — demanding that you create higher standards for movies and for your reactions to them.  Even when she's talking nonsense, she gets your blood racing.

THE PENALTY

American
popular literature has a long grotesque tradition, stretching back to
Washington Irving, our first literary celebrity. It achieved its
apotheosis, in terms of both sensationalism and art, in the work of
Edgar Allen Poe — and it migrated naturally into the exaggerated
conventions of Victorian theater, and from there into movies.



After
WWI, and perhaps in part owing to the unprecedented horrors of that
conflict, grotesque melodrama became a distinct genre in cinema, much
as
film noir became a distinct genre after the collective nightmare of
WWII. Its power and prestige is best illustrated by the extraordinary
popularity of Lon Chaney. One of the most celebrated stars of the
silent era, he specialized almost exclusively in the genre of the
grotesque.  (He's seen above in and out of make-up for
The Miracle Man.)


In
tracing the rise of the modern horror film from its roots in silent
cinema, we can easily misconstrue the grotesque genre as it was
experienced by early audiences.
The Phantom Of the Opera and The
Hunchback of Notre Dame
, proto-horror films starring Chaney, actually
have more in common with a grotesque contemporary melodrama like
The
Penalty
, also starring Chaney as a legless underworld crime boss —
and the three have more in common with each other than any of them has
with
Dracula, for example, with its supernatural elements, or even Frankenstein, with its elements of mad-science fiction.

The
Phantom, the Hunchback, and the legless Blizzard from
The Penalty are
all disfigured men whose afflictions have rendered them terrifying,
while not quite extinguishing the romantic souls within. It's hard not
to see in this an echo of the many thousands of mutilated survivors of
WWI, and a metaphor for the psyche of a world scarred by previously
unimaginable battlefield carnage.



The
word grotesque does not quite describe the dramatic tone of
The
Penalty
or the world it creates. Demented is closer to the mark. It
does not present us with a vision of normality penetrated by grotesque
elements — it is set in a universe which has become unhinged at the
core, and this nightmare universe is delineated matter-of-factly, as
though its logic were the logic of the world as it is.



This
creates a wonderful, dreamy kind of surrealism, with great poetic
force, and a delightful atmosphere of
frisson — but it is finally very
disturbing. One is tempted for this very reason to dismiss it as lurid
pulp, but one cannot — mostly because of the authority of Chaney . . .
the physical authority of his shockingly convincing impersonation of a
legless man, and the artistic authority of his performance as the
paradoxical Blizzard.



We are
given to drawing a distinction between silent film performers who
“over-acted” and those who played in a more restrained and “modern”
style. Chaney is usually considered more modern in this sense. But in
truth, Chaney overacts in every frame of
The Penalty, by modern
standards. It's just that the broad strokes of his expressions and
gestures are so grounded in psychological truth, so complex in their
suggestiveness, so graceful and sublime in their execution, that we are
swept beyond our modern expectations of what acting should be. We are
experiencing screen performance as audiences of the time experienced
it.



The
intimacy of the camera certainly did require a technical toning down of
physical expression and gesture for actors coming from the stage —
much as a smaller theatrical venue would have for actors accustomed to
playing huge auditoriums — and there were certainly lunkheaded actors
who couldn't pull this off. But most of the time, when we talk about
the difference between over-acting and more naturalistic acting in
silent films, we are simply noting the difference between bad acting
and good acting.


One of
Cocteau's great maxims was “You have to know when it's all right to go
too far.” Great silent film actors knew this — and great modern actors
know it, too. James Cagney and Jack Palance — and Jack Nicholson, for that
matter — habitually overact by so-called modern standards, yet their
performances still seem fresh and convincing, perfectly
au courant.
Daniel Day Lewis's performance in
The Gangs Of New York, one of the
very greatest performances ever committed to film, is as wild and
over-the-top as any silent film performance ever was, and yet it is a
work of complicated and compelling genius.



The
camera did allow a new breed of actors to step to the fore — the
minimalists, of whom Robert de Niro is probably the most astonishing.
But Lon Chaney was no minimalist. He was an actor in the grand style —
and, quite simply, a supreme master of that style, consistently
pitch-perfect, and consistently breathtaking.




The
delirious tale of
The Penalty begins with a boy injured in a traffic
accident, treated by an incompetent doctor who unnecessarily amputates
both his legs. An older doctor covers for the younger physician's
mistake, and the chastened bumbler goes on to an exemplary career in
medicine. But the boy never forgets.

He grows up to be the crippled criminal mastermind Blizzard, played by Chaney, who amasses power, covets more, and plans
his revenge — on the doctor and on the world.



On
the first front, he insinuates himself into the life of the doctor's
daughter — a sculptor torn between her ambitions as an artist and
society's expectations of exemplary womanhood (domestic and submissive)
— by posing for her portrait of Satan. On the second front he is
plotting a takeover of the city of San Francisco by means of a lunatic
scheme involving ten thousand “foreign malcontents”, armed to the
teeth, and uniformed in silly matching straw hats, cunningly woven in
advance by harlots conscripted from the ranks of Blizzard's working
girls.



It's all quite mad, but presented as an authentic threat to the civil order.



A
subplot involves a plucky undercover female police operative who
infiltrates the crucial straw hat operation and quickly learns more
than it's safe for her to know. Principally she discovers the
underground lair where Blizzard stores the munitions for his planned
insurrection — a subterranean world, reached through a trick
fireplace, that's right out of the wildest Gothic fiction, and vaguely
reminiscent of Erik the Phantom's underground kingdom beneath the
Opera.



Blizzard is a beast, with the soul of a poet. He is a fine critic of art, and fires the sculptor with the courage she
needs to break free of her bourgeois shackles and strike out on her own for glory. Villain indeed!



Blizzard
also wins the heart of the undercover operative by his soulful piano
paying — and she wins his by her skillful operation of the pedals
while he plays. She comes to her senses only when she discovers that
his grand plan involves amputating the legs of a certain . . . but you
get the idea.



Female independence is presented as possibly sexy and possibly admirable but, in the end, a very bad idea, for which a
woman will inevitably pay a dreadful price.



The
preposterous villainy resembles the harebrained villainy of Feuillade's
serials — at once innocent and unsettling, mundane and surreal.
Possibly both reflect a post-war malaise informed by a sense that the
ordinary world has gone subtly but irrevocably insane.



Chaney's
performance, as usual, gives it all an unlikely interior coherence and
logic. The filmmaking is aptly described by Michael Blake, Chaney's
biographer, as craftsmanlike — the shots are handsomely framed and
lit, and the narrative moves along at a lively clip. Chaney alone
elevates the film to greatness.



Every
time he moves himself around with his crutches or with his hands alone,
we watch a ballet on stumps unfold — the aesthetic determination and
commitment of the actor become the villainous determination and
commitment of the character he's playing. We admire him and recoil from
him at the same time.



This
is the thrill of the grotesque drama. We are allowed to engage and
embrace our deepest fears and discontents subconsciously, while
retaining our outward allegiance to conventional virtues. The film
dangles the possibility of Blizzard's redemption before us — then
snatches it away at the last moment . . . as it snatches away the
possibility of new horizons for the women.



The
ultimate effect, however, is one of ambiguity, a suspension of faith in
the old certainties — an intriguing discombobulation of the moral
universe.





Kino's
edition of the film on DVD features a splendid print and some wonderful
extras. They include the surviving footage from
The Miracle Man
which is painful to watch, because this lost film looks as though it
might have been marvelous. Included also is one of the few surviving
one-reelers from Chaney's early years at Universal —
By the Sun's
Rays
. It's not much of a film, but it's fascinating to see Chaney at
work at the beginning of his movie career. His physical grace commands
attention, even when his choices as an actor are obvious or even crude.
Chaney was born for the screen, as Chaplin and Pickford were — with an
instinctive insight into the movies's mysterious expressive power.


There
is, perhaps most delightfully of all, a brief short in which Michael
Blake shows us some of the Chaney artifacts held by the Los Angeles
Museum of Natural History. We see the suit and the stumps Chaney wore
in the movie, his make-up case — the mirror he looked into while
working his magic. Blake handles them all with the delicate hands of a
make-up artist, which he is — and the awed respect of someone who
genuinely admires the craft of a master.