Elia Kazan-A-Thon

[mightyjack]

On his majesties request... ;D I'm gonna try and cover the Kazan cannon of films.

The problem will be in finding them. The brilliant "America, America" is looong overdue for a DVD release for example, and an out of print VHS copy is going for $40 and up from sellers!

I will be able to do the 4 I own (Tree Grows in Brooklyn and the 3 Brando films), and I found 5 from the library (Gentleman's Agreement, Baby Doll, Face in the Crowd, East of Eden and the Last Tycoon). Also, "Boomerang" is finally coming to DVD on June 6th. So I'll be able to cover at least 10 of his films. (And though I haven't found it yet, Splendor in the Grass should be in some video store here in town)

Reviewing Kazan will be tough. Unlike Hitch he wasn't a master at framing, storyboarding and composition. His roots are from the stage and he wasn't a visual mastermind in the least.

What Kazan did, was bring out sincere and natural performances from his actors. He tackled social issues and he was very solemn in doing this. Even a satire like "A Face In The Crowd" lacked any true humor.

Kazan wasn't a funny man. He wasn't an entertainer. He took on issues and faced them with full gravity.

The first movie I'll take a look at will be his debut - A Tree Grows In Brooklyn.

As Dr Larry says... Enjoy!

[Chuck]

My personal favorite of Kazan's is Tennessee Williams' Baby Doll.

[mightyjack]

[glow=red,2,300]A Tree Grows In Brooklyn (1945)[/glow]
This story, about a poor family who live in a tenement building, has - hard to believe- not yet been released on DVD in the US (You can get it region 2, in the UK though) - it was suppose to be released in 2005 but was pulled - so I had to drag out my old worn VHS.

This was Kazan's first major motion picture, and while he'd directed a few shorts, he was still very green. In his autobiography Elia admitted that he was learning on the run and that his cinematographer was a big help in teaching him the technical tools of the trade

Therefore, though there is a lack of flash in the direction, and a 'stage play' vibe to the movie; Kazan doesn't allow it to get overly theatrical. The use of the mobile camera technique helps to open things up, keeping the drama alive and never static.

As in most Kazan films, his ability to get the best performances from his actors is what makes his movies special.

The film is centered on young Francine Nolan, played wonderfully by Peggy Ann Garner. Unlike her contemporaries, Peggy Ann wasn't an over polished Hollywood child actor. There’s something world weary in her eyes; a look of someone who's been through hard times. Peggy Ann (Who won an Oscar as most promising new comer) has to carry a lot of the load in this film, and that she does so without slipping into overwrought theatrics is a testament to her maturity and talent.

Dorothy McGuire and James Dunn play her parents, and both are stellar. Kazan doesn't allow either to drift into cartoonish caricatures, but makes them fully nuanced, fallible human beings.

McGuire’s Katie is often harsh, a realist who is trying to keep the family together and to see that her children have a brighter future. While Dunn's Jimmy, in an Oscar winning role, is a charming dreamer who drinks to much.

One sequence illustrates their differences brilliantly: Early in the movie, a sick neighbor child who wants to show off her new dress stops McGuire’s Katie. But practical Katie doesn't take notice.
Later, Jimmy happens upon the child and not only spots the new dress, but realizes its importance to the little girl and lavishes attention on her.

It's a wonderful bit of writing, giving us two different personalities, but not judging either one as good or bad. Each has their strengths and weaknesses; each provides something needed to the family dynamic. Dad might be a pipe dreamer and a drunk, but he's a man who makes everyone feel important and loved.

Tree is a very sad, but not over sentimental. It’s a heartfelt, multi-layered story of struggle and growth

of note:
Gloria Talbot (Girls Town, Leech Woman) had a small uncredited part as a teenage student.

[mightyjack]

[glow=red,2,300]A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)[/glow]
It's interesting to note that the two streetcars seen in this film are named "Desire" and "Cemetery" - Sex and decay is this story in a nutshell.

The film is a series of contrasts. Blanche, the southern bell who loses all and has to stay with her sister Stella and husband Stanley - is lyrical and dreamy, while Stanley is raw and to the point. The acting styles between old Hollywood (Vivian Leigh's Blanche DuBois) and the new method (Brando's Stanley Kowalski) is on full display here as well. And that might be missed by younger audiences - because the way Brando acts is the way all actors act today - but back in 1951 it was ground breaking, different and electric.

Kazan was an actors director, and in Brando he found his quintessential voice. It was the perfect match between two artists - synchronisity, fate, God and his wisdom, whatever one attributes it too, the blending of Kazan and Brando just had to be.

A breakthrough film for it's sexual themes, Tennessee Williams play was chopped up by censors and Kazan had to 'hint' at certain events - Stanley beating his pregnant wife and the rape of Blanche are implied rather than shown fully. And the full reason why Blanche reproached her husband is never revealed (In the play it is said she found him in bed with another man)

The acting across the board is stellar, Vivian and Brando are at the forefront of the plot; and I can't say enough about Marlon's dangerous, sensual performance. Hard as it is to imagine today, but back then the man had the chiseled body of a boxer and the raw sexual animal magnetism that made it wholly believable that Stella (Kim Hunter) would melt just at the thought of him (And Hunter conveys this quite well). Stanley Kowalski is cruel, but there's a cunning intelligence to him that prevents the character from becoming a one dimensional brute (he's actually likable in many ways) - Leigh is old school Hollywood and does a good job portraying the fragile Blanche (Though some might find her performance too mannered).

Karl Malden is also solid in his Oscar winning turn as Mitch, the lonely mommas boy who isn't strong enough to be there for Blanche when she needs him most. Blanche's ruin is chilling and Maldens reaction is heartbreaking.

The ending with Stella asserting her independence was absurd and forced on Kazan by censors (The story wasn't about Stella's move to independence, and for it to end this way goes against the voice of the play)

Kazan's direction is improving, his use of shadow and light is impressive. Camera angles are thoughtful, though he never used storyboards as he didn't want to lock the actors in too tightly - and gave them some wiggle room for improvisation and for his own personal inspiration.

Streetcar is a groundbreaking film - one of the finest of all time and it was recently released with an impressive 2 disc DVD set that is chock full O' impressive and informative extras. Even if you own this movie already, it's worth buying again to see it presented this way.

[mightyjack]

[glow=red,2,300]Baby Doll (1956)[/glow]
Tennessee Williams wrote the wild screenplay and Kazan is now fully matured as a director, showing a good eye for composition, and his use here of the Southern locals and people is impressive. The acting, from Malden, Wallach and Carol Baker is top notch across the board.

But while I acknowledge Baby Doll's craftsmanship in all phases, I don't really enjoy this movie. Kazan isn't a comedic director and what humor that comes through is inherent to the script and comes alive through the actors. Never the less, that Kazan darkness manages to seep through.

Baby Doll is a black comedy about lust and revenge. Its story -about a young bride who agrees to sleep with her husband only when she turns 20- comes off almost like Tennessee Williams writing a parody on his own style and reputation.

It's a broad, weird tale that made me laugh a few times. But more often than not, the humor was less out right hilarious than surrealistically quirky.

It's not that it's a bad movie by any means, and it was one of Kazan's personal favorites - but sometimes, despite all that works in a film, if I'm not having a good time watching it, Or I'm not being moved and challenged in some way (As Streetcar and A Tree Grows in Brooklyn do for me), then all that fine work is for naught.

Baby Doll isn't a pleasant viewing experience for me, nor do I find the story compelling. And frankly, while I love Kazan and respect his work. This Marathon isn't working so well. There's too much madness, painful darkness, angst and twisted relationships to swallow whole.

I just watched what is described as a comedy and I'm feeling bummed out. So I need to take a break and watch something light and stupid, like "Rustlers Rhapsody", and just giggle like a loon.

Baby Doll is one of Kazan's best on a technical level - it's simply not one I enjoy on a personal one.

[mightyjack]

No prob,I just need to take this one slow. I love Kazan, but in smaller doses. It would be like watching "Schindler's List" and "House of Sand and Fog" back to back - I'd need to swallow a whole bottle of Prozac just to make it through the night. lol

[Chuck]

Baby Doll was about sexual politics and the politics of sex. Everybody talked about it. Nobody did it.

Sex was the driving force of this film (no pun intended). Revenge is garnered by seduction. Baby Doll holds sway over her poor, stupid, addled (maybe in-bred?) husband, by holding sex in front of his nose like a carrot to his jackass.

I was surpirsed how much I liked it when I first saw it. I still think it's funny. VERY dark, but funny and ironic.

[mightyjack]

admin said:

Do you think maybe the main problem may be that Tennessee Williams uses all his incredible talents to say that life sucks in the end, lol.

Probably. Also, all his characters were so, unrelatable. Poetic and interesting, but often so far out in their own world that I can't relate.

Streetcar is probably his most grounded and easiest work to understand, but Baby Doll and others are like watching a freak show.

[mightyjack]

[glow=red,2,300]Viva Zapata! (1952) [/glow]
A year after the success of Streetcar, Kazan teamed up with Brando in a decidedly different film. This one a historical drama placed in an expansive western setting.

John Steinbeck's story isn't an accurate portrayal of the Mexican Revolution or the real Zapata, but Hollywood is rarely the best source for a history lesson - so a person has to take it with a grain of salt and enjoy what's presented.

Overall, the "parts" of Zapata are better than the whole - While the screenplay can sometimes get too preachy/talky -which halts the momentum a bit - Kazan's direction here is stellar and has at times, been compared in style to the work of Eisenstein.

The action is finely paced and framed - The scene where the women set off the dynamite has a lot of impact visually, as does the section where Zapata is arrested and quietly rescued by the peasants.

In the lead role, Brando dons the heavy makeup and acts with that same passion which drove many of his early performances. His Zapata isn't as violent as the real man, and he's more introspective. Marlon is bold and charismatic - his transformation from reluctant revolutionary to disillusioned pawn is quite remarkable.

And Anthony Quinn is perfect as Zapata's rough around the edges brother (The role garnered Quinn an Oscar)

Though not a perfect success, Zapata has many memorable moments to recommend it - and Kazan has fully developed as a film director. While not a meticulous technician, he shows he can direct grand sweeping adventures, he has a good eye for the camera and keeps things lose enough to give elbow room for his actors to stretch and challenge themselves.

[Chuck]

Boomerang! is on Fox Classic Movies at the present writing.

Filmed on location, superbly produced, Kazan seems to thrive in location shooting.

If you get FCM, watch for it. It's in the schedule rotation.

[mightyjack]

Bummer, I don't get that one. I have AMC and TCL - On of which showed Pinky, but I only caught the last 4 minutes of it. I should do search on those I can't find, see if they'll be televised soon.

[mightyjack]

[glow=red,2,300]Gentleman's Agreement (1947)[/glow]
Kazan was big on social issues, so it's no surprise that he would be asked to tackle a film on anti-Semitism.

Gregory Peck stars as a journalist who passes himself off as a Jew. And he quickly faces racism up close. The story covers a wide scope: We see the situation from many perspectives (Jews, The rich, Children, etc) and it shows how prejudice can exist within the Jewish community itself and that even so called "good" people contribute to racism without knowing it.

Though it sometimes gets heavy handed (I felt Anne Revere as Pecks Mother was a little too melodramatic at times) and preachy (I know all film makers have a perspective they try to convey - but it sometimes felt as if Kazan was beating me over the head with the point he was trying to make) Overall it rings true and there are many powerful moments (As when Peck confronts the manager at an "Exclusive" Hotel)

Kazan received his first Oscar, and the film also won Best Picture. Celest Holm, who was perfect as Peck's independent, fast talking co-worker, won as Best Supporting Actress.
Peck, Revere and Dorothy McGuire (Pecks love interest) all received nominations but John Garfield -who was better than all three of them- was forgotten by the Academy. John played Peck's Jewish friend, who imparts wisdom from his own experience.

Also look for a cute as a button Dean Stockwell (Al, from Quantum Leap) as Pecks son and there's a waiter who might seem familiar - it's Beauleu from MST's "Bloodlust".

"Gentleman's Agreement" is a polished, earnest production. Groundbreaking and controversal in its day, it comes off a bit forced and creaky in parts, but overall it's worthwhile still.

[mightyjack]

[glow=red,2,300]A Face In The Crowd[/glow] This was the first of Kazan's American Trilogy (Followed by Wild River and Splendor in the Grass) and many felt these films took an anti-American stance. To which his answer back was "America, America", a love letter to the land of opportunity.

But the reason for the criticism towards the American Trilogy is that it slams our foibles and doesn't let anyone off the hook. Face in the Crowd warns against the power of the media to turn us into blind sheep. The Americans in this film swallow everything Lonesome Rhodes feeds 'em.

Andy Griffith is brilliant as Rhodes, the megalomaniac, good ol' country boy - and Patricia Neal is equally as good as the woman who discovered him. Both have great charisma.

The film's a satire but it's not hilarious the way Dr. Strangelove is. Humor is used like a slap in the face, it's very broad and at times, especially at the end, it becomes heavy handed.

My main problem was with the Walter Matthau character. He comes off way to sanctimonious. It is said that people reacted negatively to the portrayal of Americans as unthinking followers - but I had more difficulty with the preachy exposition. In a way, Kazan was guilty of doing the same thing Rhodes is - they just use different tactics. Rhodes cajoles us into thinking his way, while Kazan grabs us by the nap of the neck and rubs our nose in it until we give in.

The direction is impeccable, the shadows, use of montage and framing shows Elia at his finest. There's a real rhythm and maturity to the camera work. The acting is genius and the script by Waterfront writer Bud Schulberg is peppered with lyrical dialog (when it's not preaching at me)

I love this movie, but it's flaws are profound and bothersome. Also, I think one needs to purposefully place themselves back into the era of the movie; where bad press could destroy a career. I've lived through the Regan years. I watched and heard the "Teflon President" say some astoundingly stupid comments, but no one cared. When the public loves someone that much they'll close their ears.

[mightyjack]

[glow=red,2,300]Panic in the Streets (1950)[/glow] This was on AMC this morn and I'd never seen it before. Filmed a year before "Streetcar", Panic is a gripping film noir thriller that works quite well.

Richard Widmark plays a Doctor who is trying to keep a plague from breaking out. Jack Palance, in his first role (according to the blurb posted before the movie) is the bad guy gangster type, who is spreading the disease.

Panic has its plot holes and inconsistencies (Why didn't they lock down the city and bring in more experts, the national guard, etc to help. Anyone Palance came into contact with, anywhere, would be in danger. It ends a little pat, even with Palance in custody, he was around a lot of folks)

Despite these flaws the film is effective. Kazan captures the New Orleans locations well, there's a palpable vibe to the city and the people who inhabit it. The movie had a very old school Hollywood feel to it, script wise -and for once, Kazan doesn't try to force us to feel a certain way. He actually lets the story speak for itself and allows us to think and conclude for ourselves what is right or wrong.

So while Panic might not be a better movie than Face in the Crowd, the fact that I don't feel like I'm being forced to think his way or else, was refreshing.

Another winner from Kazan.

[mightyjack]

admin said:

A Face in the Crowd is probably his best technical achievement.

I agree 100%

I must admit, though I love Kazan (On The Waterfront is, with Seven Samurai, my favorite film) - I'm having a harder time with him than I did writing about Hitchcock. I seem to be able to relate better to a director, on a technical level, who is more of a cinematic artist with the camera.

But Face In The Crowd I got into real easily because it feels like Kazan really focused on the framing, angles and pacing. He might not have story boarded in his career, but AFITC has the look of a movie that used that technique.