Friday, March 30, 2012

Modes of Urban Alienation, pt 2: Midnight Cowboy (1969)



Midnight Cowboy (1969)

Introduction

Midnight Cowboy is a great illustration about the perils of life in the great urban centres of the world. This film captures the essence of urban alienation particularly from the perspective of the underclass that is caught up in the scramble for space.  The illustration of urban life however does not go as in depth as other films such as Taxi Driver (1976) because it is not limited to that particular setting. There is also the presence of the southern states such as Florida and Texas. New York City is at the centre of the film however it is portrayed as a means of entry and exit when compared with the other two territories. The film opens in Texas which does not seem to have many opportunities for the young Joe Buck and then the journey is made by him to New York City where opportunities are supposed to abound; the culture shock is apparently too much for Joe Buck and so he accompanies a dying Rizzo, his only friend, to Florida to escape the perils of city life. New York therefore contrasts with two states in the film for different reasons. The city therefore represents two things to the main characters: success and failure. 

This film does contribute to the filmography associated with urban alienation because it does emphasize the sex trade from the perspective of a male prostitute which was hardly ever addressed in such a gritty manner. This idea of the male prostitute is reinforced by the concept of the surplus population and the underclass caught in the scramble.  This film preceded the cynical decade of the 70s style of filmmaking which sought to expose the underbelly of American society and the power structures that are associated with capital gain with no recourse to morality. It is in this film where we see the dissolution of censorship control.

 The editing in this film is superb and it captures another feature of urban life: constant movement. When you become a member of the underclass you have to constantly be on the move seeking means to earn money simply to survive. This is the hustle (‘struggling man has got to move,’ says Jimmy Cliff, ‘ struggling man no time to lose.’). This film also captures the life of the drifter since the young Joe Buck will never be settled although he hoped to be settled in the city by earning money as a cowboy stud for older females. This dream never materializes due to the unexpected harsh climate of the city and the deterioration in Rizzo’s health. This forces him to move to Florida in an effort to give Rizzo some peace. Rizzo is also conditioned by the constant hustle in New York City since he can never settle because of his position in the underclass. This forces him to be a ruthless con. He sees Florida as a means to settle down however as the final scene suggests he will always be on the move even in death.

  The film captures the essential nature of drift through these characters magnificently. The two individuals are conditioned by their personal histories. Joe Buck for instance was actually settled in Texas with his philandering grandmother and his onetime love Annie. These two individuals were removed from his life and so he was cast into the void and so he suddenly had an urge to join in the glories of city life. Rizzo ( I called him Ratso in my introduction to this series but he will be referred to here as Rizzo, his surname) likewise appears to have lost the security of his family particularly his father, a struggling shoe shiner, who seems to have been the mainstay of his childhood. He tries to break free from this legacy however that is not forthcoming because he is conditioned by an existence devoid of reason apart from money. He will never be able to establish a reasonable legacy however his encounter with Joe Buck gave him a chance at doing this especially as he becomes his manager for a time. His dreams of Florida remain stuck in his mind and are his only saving grace from city life however this is undermined by his health. Joe Buck also has to grapple with the issue of his sexuality. In the city as a midnight cowboy he has to attract both male and female customers and with no solid moral foundation or conscience guide, such as a heterosexual partner, he is forced to question it. This is reflective of his position as a drifter. Money has no scruples once you can get your hands on it so as to spend or to invest. Capital has crippled the moral foundation of the working classes who were once tied to communal living in the countryside. The theoretical reason for Rizzo and Joe being members of the underclass is the concept of the surplus population created by capital. When capital advances constant capital grows to overwhelming proportions in the form of technical applications utilized through machinery  and this forces  the workers onto the market looking for a buyer of their labour power as the machine absorbs their high levels of productivity. The surplus population released by the machinery can either find jobs in other sectors or be forced to wait until new investment opportunities are created for work to be available. If investment opportunities do not materialize for capital to expand then this surplus population become relegated to a class of so called criminals (drug traders and thieves. Murder is mixed in the process when the underclass compete for space that can derive some economic benefit (gangs)or simply to form shelter), beggars or seekers of welfare and prostitutes. This is done to compensate for the position created for them by capital. The most crafty ones can become unproductive servants of the bourgeois class either as housekeepers or security guards. These elements represent the corrupt values of this bourgeois system where the only basis is profit without any recourse to morality. The bourgeois class only gets taken aback by the violence when the proletariat threatens to revolt having been denied a share in the spoils which they have created by generating surplus value or unpaid labour time for the capitalist class. It is as a result of this surplus value that profit is generated on the objective capital advanced.

Midnight Cowboy was the first film to receive an X rating due to its explicit sexual content. It was well received by critics and audiences when released and went on to win academy awards for Best Film, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Director. It was rightfully nominated for Best editing and the performances by Jon Voight  as Joe Buck and Dustin Hoffman as Rizzo for Best Actor. There was a nomination for Sylvia Miles as Cass, a brief role, who cons Joe Buck when he believes that he may have found his first old female customer. I was disappointed by some of the reviews of this film, particularly that of Roger Ebert, for the philosophical dimension is entirely missing from these critiques and so this undermines their analysis of the material. Ebert says that instead of focusing on the relationship between Rizzo and Joe buck the film ‘reaches outside the relationship for a string of melodramatic scenes that will not do.’ This analysis is not complete for it cannot ‘reach outside of the relationship’ when their existence is conditioned by the urban experience. It is necessary to have the main character(s) engage in several encounters to add some form of panache to the setting. If they were to focus solely on the relationship then one would never be allowed to understand the circumstances that brought the two together and what actually keeps them together. In that sense the film had to highlight the material circumstances despite the relationship at its core or momentum will be lost and the relationship itself would become melodramatic, speculative and redundant. In the city there is not much time for introspection based on the constant hustle and the squalid living conditions in which Rizzo and Joe Buck find themselves. It is a miracle that these two characters are able to come together especially as there is an individualist mentality when it comes to the hustle or when the workers compete to sell their labour power to the capitalist. This is what makes the relationship special on its own without any of the characters themselves coming to overly dramatic conclusions. It is clear that a character such as Rizzo wants to matter to someone and he eventually discovers this in Joe Buck who is almost childlike in his naïve charm. Rizzo adopts a more parental role whereas Buck assumes a childlike stance. This is enhanced by the fact that Rizzo is crippled (walks with a limp) and has a debilitating illness. What could have been made clearer is that Rizzo is probably older than Joe Buck and this is the cause for their dichotomy and unity. Rizzo is more concerned about his legacy since he wants to be more than what his father was: a simple shoe shiner. He therefore assumes a big brother sort of role. It is clear that by the end he may have succeeded in doing that since he actually mattered to someone. Joe Buck on the other hand is more concerned about earning money. The time has not come for him to worry about his legacy for he simply wants to enjoy his youth and this is reflected in his naïve approach to money making: being a stud for old women. The fact that Ebert, or other critics along his line of argument, could not highlight these elements undermines his arguments significantly. Ebert also made the mistake of comparing the context of the film to later periods without establishing that the film is actually influential in its approach to city life regardless of the fact that others might have built on its premise and surpassed it. Ebert mentions that it is influential while at the same disregarding this influence on later generations of film and that is absurd to a certain degree. Any film that is not influential is not worth speaking about and the film does not need to be rewritten only some elements elaborated on. The influence of this film is undeniable and its approach must be discussed seriously which is why it is included in this series on ‘Modes of Urban Alienation’.

In this review I will discuss the concept of urban alienation along the lines of the relationship between Buck and Rizzo, life as a midnight cowboy and the drifter elements in the film associated with the displacement in rural and city life. I will also discuss the relationship between New York and the other two states featured in this film Texas and Florida and the relationship between Urban and rural areas. This relationship between rural and urban areas is significant for the concept does not apply only to the country side in America but to the immigrants of the poorer countries entering America. Many immigrants have similar experiences when the American dream begins to fade before their very eyes.   The poorer countries of the world have an agrarian base where the development of industrial capital is slow in coming as a result of low levels of productivity and small scale capital investment or the Government, which is a bastion of the small productive base revels in corruption, and resorts to begging  to stay afloat. The most dominant economic force are the merchants or the commercial and money dealing capitalists. Petty commodity production through avenues such as the artisans and small peasant farmers precludes the possibility of increasing the productive powers of social labour under capital. The patriarchal conditions of production are part and parcel of this tradition of small isolated producers. As a result of the low levels of productivity high tax and interest rates are the norm and usury rears its ugly head. Poverty is glorified through religion/high handed morality, rabid political movements, a warrior class in the form of police, soldiers and the henchmen of the warlords/gangleaders.There are also various spheres of entertainment where entertainers and sportsmen are deified. It is a mere scramble for spoils in such a setting and so it compels many individuals to seek living outside of their shores. The intellectual class is equally impoverished by the surroundings and resorts to penchant idealism in order to counter the destitution at hand. The ‘poverty of philosophy’ is clear for all to see as the intellectuals resort to hollow ideological rhetoric in order to gain some measure of prestige in the society and so ingratiate themselves with the authorities as their main struggle becomes one with the bloated government bureaucracy. The lack of  serious scientific inquiry impoverishes the intellectual capabilities of the poor nation and any possibility of serious innovation within that country is woefully small. Physical posturing becomes the norm of excellence as opposed to progressive improvements through scientific inquiry. This posturing is sold as a cultural accompaniment as the impoverished nation seeks the means to fascinate the world and thereby encourage the wealthier nations to make grants or capital based loans so as to provide relief for the rampant destitution. It is no wonder that Joe Buck in this film is proud of his sexual prowess. It is this physical element that he hopes to sell as a means to earn large sums of cash. It is a reflection of his poverty within the context of capital as the film correctly demonstrates. Physical prowess counts as nothing unless it can appropriate the various sources of revenue as  what occurs with  prostitution in this case. If your physical prowess cannot garner any attention you might need to ship yourself back to the land of the ancients where poverty is enshrined and glorified as a means of salvation as is done here in Jamaica for instance, and there you can utilize your physical skills and charge exorbitant amounts just to make a physical appearance as what some doctors and lawyers trained abroad do. This is not to blame the poor nations of the world because it is clear that  capital from the developed nations has denuded, raped and pillaged the frontiers of the world creating the class of beggars that exist throughout the world. The buffoons remain safe from harm as a result of their corrupt lackeys in the various poor governments and try their hand at philanthropy so as to assuage their guilt as world pollutants; a testament to their waste as they feed people's illusions about their glory. It is this environment which forces individuals to resort to physical posturing with the hope that their eccentricities or physical practical skills will stand out.

The Journey Begins: Exiting the Country and entering the City

The beginning of the journey in Midnight Cowboy is one that most people in similar situations can identify with: exiting the country and entering the city. The film makes clear in these early moments that the countryside represents a binding emotion link firstly because the population numbers are so low and this encourages individuals to reach out with more intense emotion as the particularity of individuals becomes more prominent and seems more eccentric. These eccentricities are however conditioned by the destitute material circumstances on display in the countryside particularly the idea of the cowboy who is one that is expected to grapple with the many facets of the land. The cowboy factor is therefore a product of the vast expanse of land on display in those areas and the women, therefore, are more inclined to favour the man who is physically endowed. When Joe Buck has flashbacks of his grandmother we see why he is conditioned to be a stud or a physical accompaniment or servant to the female. In the flashbacks there are moments where we see a young Joe Buck massaging his grandmother or we see her cowboy lovers with a young Joe caught in the midst; particularly in one scene where he lays in the bed with her and her cowboy lover. The said cowboy lover takes him to rodeos and so on and while on the national bus on the journey to the city Buck is reminded of the his grandma saying that he is going to the best cowboy on show.

 We also get to understand that his idea of servicing older women sexually was conditioned by this experience especially as he doted on her so obsessively in such an intense manner and this would explain why he made the decision to leave Texas for good, after hearing of his grandmother’s death, to the city where there would be a plenitude of such older females to service; however before he could make this break for the city he had to have the original experience with his own grandmother. In a moving scene we see a young Joe being shepherded to his grandmother’s house by two females and it can be presumed that one of them most be his philandering mother who could not manage the so called burden of raising a child. As is customary in the countryside she dumps him on the grandmother as she is either conditioned by poverty and is incapable of raising him as she too bought into the physical prowess of the cowboy producing on the land over the wage earner who can carry in money regularly under the domination of the capitalist. It could be seen as immaturity on the part of the mother but it is more a result of her poverty and the fact that the grandmother would be a more stable source of emotional support for a child ( as she would have acquired a  significant amount of property whether landed or  money). The daughter, as a result of her poverty, either squanders her body through prostitution thus giving birth to Joe Buck or moves to the city to seek a fortune and thereby become settled after dumping the child on her mother.   The cowboy is a mere circus clown in the modern day as opposed to the famous robbers and gunslingers in the Wild West during the nineteenth century which was reflective of the poverty of the locale and therefore glorified/deified by the populace. This is just one reason why the film is masterful by highlighting the cowboy as a mere figure head in the times of advanced capitalism.  The mother is therefore poor and as the basis of landed property becomes eroded she too will be caught up in the scramble for money.    Joe says in one scene that the only thing he has ever been good for is loving. The legacy of poverty is here expressed in a poignant fashion.

Joe Buck’s perchance for loving is reinforced by flashbacks which reveal that he was involved romantically with a girl only referred to as Crazy Annie. She seems to have been the only girl that Joe Buck has been with in life which would explain why it is so resonant. Joe’s liaisons with her and his constant reference to her as he enters the city seems to suggest that he is a romantic by nature who aspires to those ideals of the south where one should act like a gentleman. It seems from Joe’s flashbacks that she was something of a prostitute or a sexually promiscuous woman living in a dingy old house broken by many years of decline in the south where landed property was once the basis of all wealth prior to the advent of capitalism. This also reminds one of characters such as Blanche Du bois in A Streetcar Named Desire (The Decline of the Old South part 2: A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)) who prided themselves on the legacy of landed property and slowly wasted away beneath the burden of acquiring money and resorted to sexual outlets which would represent the essence of their beauty or their desperation in hopefully landing a husband who will be taken in by her beauty.  In the glorious days of the south great physical beauty reinforced by virginity could land you a husband however in the times of decline your beauty is only good for sexual reasons for women are now expected to earn a livelihood in the advanced capitalist economies  as money becomes the basis of wealth. A sap like Joe Buck seems to have naively assumed from Annie’s pronouncements while they have sex  such as ‘You’re the only one Joe’ that he was in the act of lovemaking or some form of transcendent experience. One of his flashbacks reveal one of the males of the town saying that kissing Crazy Annie ‘you better drink a whole drugstore.’ kissing the whole drugstore. The flashbacks also reveal that she was gang raped  on several occasions or that she slept with most of the men in the town through prostitution or simply in desperation to land a husband. This is made even more clear by the fact that she appears lost without the usual guardians or chaperones who would constantly implore her to preserve her virtuous virginity for her husband. This is the ultimate manifestation of the decline of her way of life i.e. landed property in the south. It must have been a great relief for her when she could attract someone as naïve as Joe so that he will commit to marrying her because he would naively believe that he is the only one. We therefore understand by his numerous flashbacks throughout the film that this romance was exposed when there was an invasion by the boys from the neighbourhood who would scribble on the water towers that ‘crazy Annie loves Joe Buck’. We see her carted away to a mental  institution perhaps as she is so enamored by constantly saying that he is the only one. It never had to refer solely to Joe Buck but to the many men she hoped to ensnare into marriage with the same phrase. Love or the ideal that it represents eventually becomes eroded with the realization of the domination of material forces as opposed to grand spiritual revelations normally associated with religion. Joe Buck is also seen in a comprising position where his legs are splayed by the males. This suggests that he too was possibly gang raped because he is a nancy. It is soft hearted characters like Joe Buck that the queens target in prison. This act would have thoroughly shattered any romantic pretensions he might have had about Crazy Annie.  Crazy Annie is a product of the poverty in the south and Joe Buck’s love for her seems increasingly absurd and is brought down to reality by the defeat of the romance through the invasion of the town’s populace in the form of the frisky, sexual robust juveniles into the sanctity of the broken down old house on the prairie. These juveniles have no occupation as poverty becomes the norm and so the sex drive or physical posturing becomes the standard form of expression. This is why these experiences of Joe Buck reveal that in the countryside the family unit is more pronounced as well as the romantic relationships that are tied into notions of landed property are more pronounced.

 Landed property is therefore the basis of glory/wealth in the south however land in all its abundance, uncultivated, represents stagnation and destitution. Individuals in the countryside only become aware of this with the rapid advances of capital where the basis of exchange values is through the purchasing power of money as opposed to barter or communal sharing. This reveals the extent of poverty in the countryside and so some individuals are compelled to seek money outside of the prevailing destitution in the countryside; the money that is being sought is located mainly within the major cities.  Joe Buck from the outset does work at a Diner as a dishwasher and it seems as if Texas has some semblance of a business environment but obviously not as extensive as one would find in New York city which has more variety. In the agrarian based economy of Texas at the time there would be not much avenues for employment in productive based enterprises. A diner seems the most logical outcome in an agrarian based economy that is trying to make a transition to a capitalist mode of development for food production along with the production of raw material is the basis of agriculture which is given shape by capital in the form of the manufacturing process under the factory system. When Joe Buck steps out of the bath, packs his suitcase and dons his cowboy outfit to exit the turkey town we have a brief illustration of the poverty on display where beyond the district one can glimpse the large swaths of land undeveloped in the distance which implies poverty on a large scale particularly where the centre of commerce i.e. the town is quite small in comparison. It is clear that some of the citizens aspire to a life in the diner and when the film opens we see Joe buck envisioning them asking ‘Where’s that Joe Buck?’ because he knows that he is late for work as a dishwasher when in fact he is going there on that particular day to collect his wages so that he may begin his journey to the city. He will soon come to realize that aspirations to become a dishwasher  in a diner in a agrarian economy is the same aspirations for the underclass, that exist on the fringes in a state of destitution, that have been thoroughly exploited by capital in the cities. Joe Buck’s career as a dishwasher in a impoverished town in Texas does lay claim to the few avenues of employment however his aspirations towards the city seem to be motivated by his military experience. This is also not so clear but we glimpse, in a flashback, Joe in military outfit returning to the now derelict house which once belonged to his grandmother’s house. She had passed away while he was away. If he was in the military it is not clear if he fought in a war however his recourse to join the military is also a reflection of the physical posturing that seems to be the norm in poverty stricken districts. Returning as a veteran does not usually guarantee employment as is seen in The Best Years of our Lives (1946) and this would explain why Buck ends up as a glorified dishwasher. Physical posturing only belies your incapacity to earn riches apart from your glorious physical attributes. Without physical posturing poverty would be more visible to the naked eye for the lowly position of the proletariat and the petty bourgeois class would be on full display. For instance entertainers, the media fraternity, police officers, soldiers, priests, high ranking domestic servants and sportsmen/women merely provide an illusion with their riches as they are mere wage earners (directly or indirectly) of the capitalists who are now in full control of the means of production; they could not earn their riches any other way apart from their physical posturing which can be equated with prostitution in some cases. It is a testament to their poverty or the enduring legacy of their poverty as a class where the only way to survive is through selling your body or what  your body represents. Rich capitalists and elitist landowners do the physical posturing also but it is only testament to their inability to do anything else or produce productively and they eventually become symbols of decadence as exploiters of wage labour without the physical posturing which dazzles the eye of the proletariat or the petty bourgeois with their riches.  

Joe Buck is about to become a part of the great migration as he takes the journey to the city from the impoverished countryside with his last payment in wages as a dishwasher. We hear the famous song  ‘Everybody’s talkin’ The important lyrics go as follows: ‘Everybody’s talking at me I can’t hear what they’re saying. All I hear are the echoes of my mind. People stop and stare, I  can’t see their faces only the shadow of their eyes. I’m going where the sun keeps shining through the pouring rain. Going where the weather suits my clothes (testament to Joe’s idealism). Banking off of the north east wind sailing on summer breeze, skipping over the ocean like a storm   ’ These statements remind me of Blanche in A Streetcar Named Desire as she took the street car named desire to the Elysian fields and thereafter was introduced to the dissolution of the morals associated with religion and the dictates of capital with the accumulation of profit and wage earning  being the main drive of the citizens of New Orleans. The drive on the national bus is well constructed and is testament to the superb editing for it highlights the passage and the reflections that take place as we leave the heart of darkness or the vestiges of poverty behind. We see a hopeful Joe Buck get into the bus and we get a sense of his rapport with some of the passengers and his reliance on his trusty radio. During the ride however we get a sense of his pain for on such a long journey all one can do is reflect (or sleep) and the memories of his grandmother and crazy Annie who are the two women he ever loved and made him believe in his ability to love. The superb editing comes to the fore for while reflecting we get the sense of the passage of time during the journey and how he lost track with some of the passengers as he became so engrossed by his flashbacks. There is also a haunting choral arrangement  or one low note as the memories of those two women come to the fore in his mind or the echoes of his mind.  There is also a haunting lullaby sung by his grandmother ‘Grandma is going to buy you a mocking bird.’ He is reminded of this lullaby after the old woman he sits next to on the bus  almost commands him to keep the light on after he switches it off when she says ‘I want it on.’ After he switches it back on we are made aware of  the deep respect he has for old women as a result of his grandmother. When he enters the  city and gives a typical yahoo or yee haw we become aware that he has arrived and is now fully prepared to make the riches that are supposedly so  abundant in New York City. The passage of time is well documented through the radio as it is through that instrument that the signal of the radio stations of New York is transmitted through the FM frequency on Buck’s trusty material friend.  

The Journey continues: Joe becomes a member of the surplus population of New York City

This section is optional for the average reader

(Before I continue with Joe Buck’s story and his first interaction with Rizzo it is necessary to discuss the context within which Joe finds himself. He immediately becomes a member of the surplus population sometimes by choice and sometimes by factors external to his being. As mentioned before the relative/artificial surplus population arises when there is overproduction of capital in the form of commodities and the elements utilized in the production process such as machinery and the means of subsistence in the form of wages for the workers. This overproduction occurs when capital absorbs the large levels of productivity of the productive wage earning class by driving down the necessary labour time and increasing the surplus labour time which becomes surplus value which is afterwards translated into profit for the capitalist. When the labour power of the wage earner becomes devalued (this devaluation is also conditioned by competition among the workers themselves as they scramble to land jobs with the capitalist. Some workers deliberately accept lower wages in order to secure a job) and becomes redundant he is disposed of by the capitalist who invests further in the means of production such as machinery. The devaluation of the workers’ labour power corresponds with the overproduction of capital for this implies a magnificent mass of surplus value which implies a reduction of the necessary labour time to keep the workers alive.  The  growth in relative surplus value also implies the phenomenal growth in the goods produced by capital and so the workers are forced to contend with the fact that the capitalist would not be able to employ the capital he has accumulated in order to continue production on the same scale  as the rate of profit declines with a large concentration of capital and a plethora of goods on the market which are not sold (depressions in trade). With the  large concentration of capital the capitalist class employs, increasingly, machinery or constant capital to replace the workers who are disposed of however this is relative for smaller capitals will emerge who will  eventually absorb this  relative surplus population however these smaller capitals are sometimes offshoots or subsidiaries of the larger capitals who extend their investment opportunities into these offshoots so as to occupy their capital. There is also the situation that occurs where with the decline in the rate of profit the larger capitals will resort to investment overseas so as to ensure a higher rate of profit which cannot be afforded at home where capital has expanded rapidly and with the high levels of accumulation laid on reserve this capital is sent overseas to ensure higher returns. With overproduction at home capital goes through a process of devaluation and sometimes capitalists do not get the necessary returns on their investments and so they are forced to look elsewhere to be assured of a certain profit rate particularly in countries that are labour intensive. At home, where capital has rapidly expanded, therefore according to Karl Marx in Capital Vol. 3, who is speaking about the consequences that occur when the rate of profit declines: ‘ This plethora of capital arises from the same causes that produce a relative surplus population and is therefore a phenomenon that complements the latter, even though the two things stand at opposite poles –unoccupied capital on the one hand and an unemployed working population on the other.’ Marx continues:

 ‘Stagnation in production makes part of the working class idle and hence places the employed workers in conditions where they have to accept a fall in wages, even beneath the average; an operation that has exactly the same effect for capital as if relative or absolute surplus value had been increased while wages remained at the average. Periods of prosperity facilitate marriage among the workers and reduce the decimation of their offspring, factors which, however much they might involve a real increase in population, do not involve any increase in the population actually working, but do have the same effect on the relationship between the workers and capital as if the number of workers actually active had increased. The fall in prices (high levels of productivity)and the competitive struggle, on the other hand, impel each capitalist to reduce the individual value of his total product below its general value by employing new machinery, new and improved methods of labour and new forms of combination. That is, they impel him to raise the productivity of a given quantity of labour, to reduce the proportion of variable capital to constant and thereby to dismiss workers, in short to create an artificial surplus population (occupy wall street). The devaluation of the elements of constant capital, moreover, itself involves a rise in the profit rate. The mass of constant capital applied grows as against the variable, but the value of this mass may have fallen. The stagnation in production that has intervened prepares the ground for a later expansion of production.’

This passage explains the occupy Wall Street movement of last year (2011) and why the jobs now must move to China (China grew  between 8 &9% in 2011 when compared to the US that grew on average 2-3%. This is a clear sign that the rate of profit is higher in China than the US. This is why American capitalists are moving overseas and the members of Government are still exclaiming America for Americans as they raise the tariff barriers which only delay the inevitable) and other developing nations enjoying high rates of profit where there is a high demand for labour (particularly skilled). The world market here comes into play and one cannot keep looking to America in times such as this for capital will move overseas to new markets where labour is in demand and therefore new avenues to generate absolute and relative surplus value so as to keep the rate of profit high. ‘ If capital is sent abroad, this is not because it absolutely could not be employed at home. It is rather because it can be employed abroad at a higher rate of profit. But this capital is absolutely surplus capital for the employed working population and for the country in question. It exists as such alongside the relative surplus population, and this is an example of how the two things exist side by side and reciprocally condition one another.’ (Marx Capital Vol. 3) 
The smaller capitals that emerge as an offshoot of the larger capitals cannot compensate for this decline of the rate of profit and so: 

'The mass of small fragmented capitals are thereby forced onto adventurous paths: speculation, credit swindles, share swindles, crises. The so called plethora of capital is always basically reducible to a plethora of that capital for which the fall in the profit rate is not outweighed by its mass-and this is always the case with fresh offshoots of capital that are newly formed- or to the plethora in which these capitals, which are incapable of acting by themselves, are available to to the leaders of great branches of business in the form of credit.'


This surplus population grows to overwhelming proportions and capital is not capable of absorbing all these numbers. The most viable alternative for the surplus population is in the service industry because with regards to productive employments the members of this group do not have much opportunities to contribute to the growth in the rise of the general rate of profit. ‘What is produced is firstly too great a section of the population which is in fact incapable of work, which owing to its situation is dependent on the exploitation of the labour of others or on kinds of work that can only count as such within a miserable mode of production (small business owner and peasant). Secondly, not enough means of production are produced to allow the whole potential working population to work under the most productive conditions, so that their absolute labour time curtailed by the mass and effectiveness of the constant capital applied during this labour time.’ Marx was way ahead of his time in his assessment of the situation that is in occurrence today as well as what poor Joe Buck encounters in New York City. The service industry therefore remains the most viable productive alternative in this case and so members of the surplus population try and upgrade their skills through additional education so that they can apply for the higher skill level occupations; some become domestic servants, independent artisans, policemen, soldiers, government workers, intellectuals/impoverished philosophers (not speaking about money. I mean the fantasy laden analyses delivered by this group which compensates for their own inadequacies), lawyers, doctors, parsons, nuns and monks, entertainers/media personalities, sportsmen/women and prostitutes (they prostitute either image or body. Image in the case of the entertainers or those who appear through various media formats and sportsmen/women). It is this growth in the service industry that has allowed the harmonizing economists to make erroneous conclusions that the growth in the service industry has accounted for the majority of growth in the economies of Europe and America and therefore these two territories have entered a post industrial phase. The service industry is a result of the increased division of labour that occurs among the productive sectors under capital and so they become revenue based enterprises fishing for money. The service industry only appropriates revenue and when it appropriates all that revenue what does it do with it but invest either in its infrastructure or in stocks that are tied into production somehow. The absence of productive outlets will create an enormous accumulation of capital with no outlets for investment which results in devaluation.

Other members of the surplus population that are born into this cycle of poverty, as a result of them being disposable, are driven into a downward spiral and become permanent members of the underclass. This class resorts to criminal behavior as it preys on those that are able to earn an income, whether productive or unproductive. Gangs are formed, as this underclass settles in the least hospitable conditions, which compete for space or territories where they can exact tribute. A tribal base of economy originates here with drugs, gambling, usury, con men/petty thieves,   petty commodity production,  as what occurs in small businesses or among the members of the peasantry, and illicit services being the predominant offerings which generate an income. This exists in small quarters in the rich cities of the world but it is more dominant in the poorer nations of the world. The legacy of poverty is perpetuated in such conditions as a certain section of individuals become permanent representatives of the underclass and keep competition for employment in menial jobs high thereby allowing for continuous exploitation of the least desired jobs or a high mass of surplus value. Democracy becomes a pipe dream and this underclass is always wooed by the possibility of riches only to have their dreams shattered time and time again. There are some who do make it but only to a limited extent and here the eccentric personality comes into play. Not everyone can be assured of the desired positions that ensure some measure of prosperity but the carrot is always dangled in front of them like lambs being led to the abattoir. The family becomes important here through inheritance because it ensures that the money accumulated through productive labour is kept within certain circles thereby downplaying the risk or possibility of additional investments from outside. This eventually results in monopolies that are shattered ignominiously by competition. The underclass is where Rizzo finds himself from birth.)

Joe Buck goes to the city seeking to become a prostitute for older women however he ends up as a streetwalker ( A Midnight Cowboy) as his ideals crumple in the face of reality. 


ii

Now that the economic framework is out of the way it is now possible to focus on how Joe Buck makes the transition from idealist cowboy to a realistic city dweller caught up in the scramble for gratification. When Joe Buck first enters the city we see an individual with his last wages from the diner believing that he will fulfill his dreams of becoming a stud for older women in the city. When he does arrive we see his naiveté  on full display as he rents a room at a fairly pricy hotel instead of a motel which would have afforded him more opportunities for consumption. It is clear however that the media, the main organ of propaganda for the bourgeois class, also contributes to Joe Buck’s idealistic fantasies and we get an example where he continuously has the radio at his ears. When he eventually loses the radio the reality is made even more apparent. One episode that contributed to his idealized version of New York City occurs when the bus is just about to arrive and the host on the 77 radio station W-A-B-C, Ron Lundy, asks several women the ideal that they look for in a man, and here the editing is superb, as Buck immediately imagines the faces  which are conveniently older women as they describe the features they are looking for: Gary Cooper; a Man who takes pride in his appearance; Consideration;  ‘definitely tall’; ‘Someone I can talk to in bed’; ‘A good sense of humor’; ‘Not afraid of sex’;  ‘A Texas (how convenient from Texas) Oilman’; ‘Aggressiveness’; ‘Outdoor Type’; and ‘ A rebel’. Joe Buck as a lover man could certainly meet all these ideals for which he was reared by his grandmother apart from being a Texas oilman although he is from Texas. The Texas oilman conforms to the notions of the country which produces primarily raw materials; in this case that raw material is oil. The advance in industry forces the countryside to exploit its resources so as to generate revenue as a result of its poverty. Within the context of the world market it encourages exploitation and the increased dependence of one country on that particular resource which eventually impoverishes it as the well dries up and there is a crisis in diversification. The optimistic theme song continues to play but after Joe Buck settles in the hotel and sets out on his quest to discover those older women he can service with his cowboy charm. While amidst the bustling crowd buck gets a firsthand taste of the reality he is about to encounter  when he sees a man laying prostrate, apparently lifeless, in the street as the people move casually by. A few individuals express some interest in the plight of the individual or perhaps they are more interested in Joe bucks fascination with the unfeeling nature of city life. Joe Buck puzzles himself for awhile about this prostrate man and it is this that seems to catch the eye of the other passersby. Joe buck reveals here his romanticism and the moral/Christly teachings that have shaped his perceptions as he stops and stares expressing some sort of strange sympathy in his cowboy outfit. It seems as if he wants to reach out and be the good Samaritan but the stares of the people seem to suggest that his compassionate attitude is strange and so he resists his Samaritan like impulses and moves on like everyone else. This is his first encounter with urban alienation and the increasingly individualistic tendencies of the populace motivated by selfish motives. The competitive struggle among capitalists and workers has made everyone concerned firstly with their own livelihood as opposed to the plight of others.  The large population numbers also render particular individuals as insignificant in the wider movement of commodities/valorization of capital and the leechlike service operations as a result of the division of labour. His stroll also reveals the elitist groups in Manhattan, for that is clearly where he is, and this continues to feeds his dreamlike state for the optimistic theme song is again being played at full force as he searches for older women to service. We see huge bank vaults being opened, we see various high society groups and people on the hunt for luxurious goods such as high priced jewels and fashionable clothes. This side of New York is the home of the elites from the rich bourgeois and landowning classes that have engrossed all this wealth through exploitation of the working classes.  Buck seems ideally (!) placed to land himself an older woman.

When Buck continues on his first stroll we see how ridiculous he sounds and looks to the city dweller. The first old lady he approaches he tries to lure her in by firstly asking for directions to the statue of liberty. The woman casually moves ahead ignoring his question at first but with persistence Buck approaches her once again with the same question. She asks ‘ Were you serious about the statue of liberty? I’m sorry…’ She thought he was one of those cowboys ( or so called cowboys since everyone can cop an outfit) in the city  that target older women or women in genera offering to prostitute themselves in a degrading, sycophantic and pathetic matter. It seems therefore that Buck is late in his pursuit for the phenomenon is dying down in the city and with the plenitude of so called cowboys he seems like an impersonator when he may be the real thing. He asks here, ‘You sure are a pretty lady.’ ‘You’re not looking for the statue of liberty at all?’ ‘No ma’am I ain’t.’  ‘You ought to be ashamed of yourself.’ She ends as she walks off leaving the bumpkin Joe Buck for he was so easy to identify because that type of hustle is now common knowledge.  We see this as he approaches his next victim who in turn cons him for she is a prostitute herself that knows the trade. It is clear that Joe Buck fortunes begin to wane along with his savings associated with his last wages because he will be conned by Cass and Rizzo. He was hustled as he attempted to hustle mainly because of his out of place outfit and his lack of subtlety. When he is finally conned by these two individuals then we see the fate of most hustlers when they don’t have any money they become beggarly as they have no skill which could see them employed in the productive sectors should the opportunity arise. Firstly let us see what happens with Cass he approaches her with the same questions about the statue of liberty as she is trying to get her dog to urinate by a tree. She responds to the question saying, ‘It’s up in Central Park taking a leak. If you’ll hurry up you’ll catch the supper show.’ She is wise to his con but as she has plans of her own she still invites him up to her room which, it is discovered while she is on the telephone, is paid for by  her main man, Morey,  who is a happily married man. She seems to be wise to the trade of prostitution as that is what she is engaged in as the man’s mistress. They eventually have sex in seemingly high passion for Buck seems he has won the jackpot. After the encounter the con is revealed as Cass becomes emotionally distant and tells Joe to clean up certain pieces of the house as well as zip up the back of her dress as she prepares to go out since she is late. She does all this in a hurried fashion so as to hustle him for that is how hustlers work they tried to hurry you into things.  As she scampers about the room speaking about Morey and his ulcers (he must be an old man) Joe buck slows the tempo and this is the first way to trap a hustler but Joe does not know he is being conned. He is also quite soft as we shall see. He says to Cass, ‘I don’t know what line Morey’s in but myself, now, I’m kind of a hustler.’ ‘A person’s gotta make a living’.’. ‘Pardon me ma’am’ (You are being conned). She repeats herself in a slower manner indicating the art of seduction and that she too is a con. It is masterful and we see now why Sylvia Miles was nominated for best supporting actress. ‘ Are you sure you heard what I said?’ ‘Sorry Tex. My mind isn’t all here. I don’t want to be late for my date with Morey. Listen Sweetie. Why don’t you run along and take the number, and we’ll get in touch with each other  real soon. Would you believe that I forgot to get to the bank, and now it’s too late. I have to take a taxi, I need a few bucks. Hate to ask you but you’re such a doll.’ (the con has begun) ‘ You know, Cass, that’s a funny thing, you mentioning money ‘cause I was just about to ask you for some.’ You were gonna ask me for money?’ She seems perplexed which is all in keeping with her experience.  Buck continues, ‘ Hell,  why do you think I come all the way up here from Texas for?’ ‘ You were going to ask me for money? Who the hell do you think you’re dealing with (country bumpkin or country boy she would have liked to say)? Some old slut on 42nd street?(yes that is what Cass is or was)In case you didn’t happen to notice it you big Texas longhorn bull (country bumpkin. She comes out with it for emphasis to lower Buck on the social ladder and elevate herself as a seasoned city dweller). I’m one hell of a gorgeous chick! (highly paid prostitute not aware that her illustrious features are fading and that her aging looks makes her a target for the poor Joe Buck) I’m 28 years old ( oh dear not even her dog would mistake her for 28 years old). You think you can come up here and pull this kind of crap? You’re out of your mind. I could kill you with my bare hands. Will you get outta here?’ She starts crying as a result of her fake agitated state and shows that she is a seasoned con. The poor sap by the name of Joe Buck attempts to console her and thereby acknowledges that he has been conned. ‘Would I be after you for money with a wad like I’ve got ridin’ on my hip? Stop your cryin’. You are one gorgeous chick (really you sap). Guy gets horny just lookin’ at you. How much you want for that taxi? Five? Ten? Twenty?’ as she snatches the twenty dollar note. Joe just lost $20 in the hustle. 

He leaves defeated and immediately after encounters Enrico Rizzo in a bar. Rizzo looks at him deridingly at first: this cowboy figure displaying his crumpled money for the entire world to see. Rizzo introduces himself by commenting on Buck’s shirt and saying that he must have paid a lot of money for that shirt. Rizzo is mocking him for it because it is a shirt with birds and a symbol representing a heart. Rizzo is basically saying that Buck looks like a buffoon and he is trying to discover an angle whereby he can con him. Buck responds to Rizzo’s query about the shirt by saying in typical buffoon fashion ‘ I ain’t cheap.’ They get to talking especially after Rizzo makes Buck aware that a woman who approached him in a flattering manner asking for a ciggarette is a transsexual. Buck upon his/her approach thought his charm was working for him until Rizzo snatches the cigarette he was about to hand to him/ her saying, ‘ More goddamn faggots in this town .’  ‘ Oh kiss it Ratso,’ says the transsexual which means he was right. Buck offers to buy drinks all round  and Rizzo does not mind this at all. They then get to talking about his profession. Buck relays his experience with Connie and how he was conned. Rizzo seems to be at a loss when Buck says that Cass started to bawl when he asked for money. ‘Money for what? ‘ he asks.  ‘Hell I’m a hustler. Didn’t you know that?’ ‘How should I know that? You gotta tell a person things.’ ‘ I’m a hustler.’ ‘shh Alright. You’re  a hustler. But your pickin’ up trade on the street like that…That’s nowhere. (Buck’s first real lesson) You gotta get yourself some kind of management.’ ‘ You put your finger on it,’ says the sap Buck. Rizzo picks up quickly on his sappiness. ‘ You know what you need? You need my friend O’ Daniel. He operates the biggest stable in town. In fact in the whole goddamn metropolitan area. It’s stupid a stud like you payin’. You don’t want to be stupid. I mean, I understand. A dame starts cryin’ I’d cut my heart out for her. ‘ The transsexual intervenes saying, ‘ I’d call that a very minor operation. In fact you just sit comfy and I’ll cut it out with my fingernail file, ratso.’ After a brief intervention from Buck Rizzo says, ‘ I mean, I’m used to these types that get their kicks pickin’ on cripples. The sewers full of them. ‘ The transsexual says, ‘ I wanna ask you one question cowboy. If you’re sittin’ over here and he’s sittin’ over there how’s he gonna get his hands into your pocket? I guess he’s got that figured out.’ The transsexual walks out with Rizzo insulting him/her saying  ‘Faggot.’ He knows that the transsexual is correct. He continues his lecture to Buck on the streets ‘With these gals that wanna buy it most of them are old and dignified. Social register types you know what I mean? They can’t be trottin’ down to Times Square to pick put the merchandise. They gotta have some kind of middleman. That’s where O’ Daniel comes in… he pauses as a Taxi driver blows his horn gesturing that Rizzo should get out of the way and in this famous scene we see Rizzo shouting, ‘ Hey I’m walkin’ here!’ This relates to the urge people have to be recognized amongst the overwhelming population numbers. He consoles Buck about the altercation ‘ Don’t worry about that. Actually that ain’t a bad way to pick up insurance.’ He continues  ‘ It’s crazy, a stud like you payin’ that dame you told me about. With proper management you could be takin’ home $50, maybe $100 a day, easy. Hey Brucey. Hang in there baby.  Him I placed with O’ Daniel about two weeks ago. He ain’t much of a stud either from what I hear.’ The naïve Buck agrees to meet Joe Buck and Rizzo like Cass before feigns helplessness and wonders how he will benefit from such an arrangement. Buck agrees that Rizzo should get a cut. Buck offers ten and Rizzo makes him know that that is cheap and says he will still need another ten for expenses once he has lined up the arrangement and so he offers to take the ten plus the other ten for expenses. Another $20 dollars out of Buck’s pocket and that now comes $40 if we add the hustle by Cass. When Buck and Rizzo do reach O’ Daniels flat we see Rizzo in a hurry to get away. He even says that Buck can reach him at the Chevy-Netherlands hotel. When have you heard that you can reach a street hustler at a prestigious hotel.  Buck takes his steps towards O’ Daniel’s apartment; room 901.

iii

The young sap Joe Buck believes that O’Daniel will offer him the ‘proper management’ that he needs to survive as a stud for older females. When he knocks on room 901 and O’ Daniel opens the door saying ‘You must be Joe Buck let’s take a look at you.’ You would think that Rizzo did play his part and that Joe Buck will finally be able to make some sort of advancement. O’Daniel tells the young Joe Buck to turn around so he can get a good look. He likes what he is seeing ‘ Good strong back you’re going to need it. So you want help eh?’ Buck corrects O’Daniel saying ‘ I ain’t a for-real cowboy but I am one hell of a stud.’ ‘Seems to me you’re different from most of the boys that come to me,’ says O’Daniel ‘Most of those boys are troubled and confused. I’d say you know exactly what you want. But I’ll bet you have one thing in common with those boys. I’ll bet you’re lonesome.’ ‘Well not too. A little, ‘ says Buck. O’daniel begins his tirade and we eventually learn that he is a preacher man. ‘Lonesome! “I’m lonesome, so I’m a drunk.” “I’m lonesome, so I’m a dope fiend.” “I’m lonesome, so I’m a thief.””I’m lonesome, so I’m a fornicator, a whoremonger.” Poop, I say Poop! I’ve heard it all and I’m sick to death of it. Lonesomeness. Lonesomeness, is something you take you hear? Damn it you take it and you go on with your work.’ Joe Buck says he is rarin’ to go and O’ Daniel warns him that he is going to use him and run him ragged while praising his simplicity. ‘Why don’t you and me get down on our knees right now? How does that strike you?’ he asks. Buck is perplexed ‘Where?’ ‘ Here right here. I’ve prayed on the streets. I’ ve prayed in the saloons. I’ve prayed on the toilets(?). It don’t matter where so long as He gets that prayer!’ Buck immediately starts to recall his baptism as a youth when he was dunked in water in the presence of god and his grandmother. In the countryside a baptism is more poignant because of the isolation and the absence of development in capital where the mythic land is prone to legends from the deep and here the moral dictates of the almighty knocks you over and is glorified as a result of the poverty on display. We see a young Joe Buck crying during the flashback because the morality brought to bear on you seems heavy and O’Daniels seems to be in a similar mold to those of the countryside however in the city you seem like a buffoon or a lunatic when you seek to impose such high handed morality. O’Daniel’s character is a feature of city life where the preachers jump around in the streets speaking of judgment and that people should repent. There are also groups that demonstrate in the streets and hold aloft placards saying that judgment is near. As Rizzo says ‘the sewers are full of them’. The high handed morality seems redundant in the city although one can understand how even the religious elements are unable to cease the so called vice on display. There always seems to be some recourse to morality as a result of the abolition of the communal element. The government is also another harbinger of morality, but usually in impoverished nations or impoverished sections of the city, where they ally with the church to conduct ceremonial activities in order to gain some measure of legitimacy,  as well as censor boards, the police etc. In this case the people go underground and let loose but it cannot be stopped. In the city morality does not hold sway since the basis is profit generation or wage labour both associated with productive enterprises and then the services spring up to get a piece of the pie. Once money can be earned it does not necessarily matter what you are involved in and so the recourse by people such as O’Daniel to Jesus is pointless for the basis of the city for the average individual such as me or you is to earn money or you will not survive. Jesus cannot save you. Even some churches engage in earning money by asking the citizens who subscribe to the cult to give all their money to Jesus and live a life of poverty and so be exalted. When Buck escapes the clutches of O’Daniel we here the final word of O’Daniel ‘Don’t run from Jesus.’

After this episode we see buck on the hut for Rizzo/Ratso and you get to understand why he is called Ratso. The usually dreamy eyed Joe Buck imagines himself hunting Rizzo through the populous city and finally gaining a hold of him and choking him to death. This is a fairy tale for in such a populous city as New York City it is unlikely you will connect with someone once the two of you have severed all ties and it is unlikely that a sap such as Joe Buck will kill at that present moment for he has to undergo a series of transformations before that can occur as it does in the end. Unless in some cases you are connected by some mysterious bond as is the case in this film. He goes back to the bar where he first met Rizzo and when he asks around for Rizzo he is rightly greeted with laughter from the transsexual. He imagines smashing the place as he would have done when he was a child but it would be ignominious in this case for it is likely that he would have been killed or beaten severely.  After this episode Joe becomes increasingly alienated and this is reinforced when he goes back to the hotel room and sees how a dog is put on display for its owner who is offering some freaky service on TV as if it were a mascot. It is dressed up like a human female would be and the host of the program asks ‘Isn’t this really the case of conning a lot of lonely people?’Buck also recalls how his grandmother used to leave him alone to go on her dates. In this case there is no one who is going to come home to him; he is all alone. The dog that becomes a mascot reminds Joe of how he too was dressed as a cowboy mascot by his grandmother. Now that urban alienation has set in Buck is now forced to take himself to the streets or in the sphere of the nowhere trade without any management. I must say that while watching this film up to this point most people will notice how sharp the editing is  and how it is able to integrate several shots in a short time frame. When Buck imagines himself chasing Rizzo through the numerous streets in New York and eventually strangling him there is a montage of shots related to the chase through crowds and empty spaces and also references to his past when he and crazy Annie were gang raped thus bringing back to Buck’s mind his shame and being taken advantage of again. When he goes to make his sojourn on the streets during the night and ply his trade as a prostitute seeking older women there are other images that immediately precede this such as a train on an electronic billboard heading towards the viewer and the numbers flashing on screen suggesting that the day of production is basically over and that people will be going home to rest, or to take in the night life so as to consume some of the products and services on offer. This seems to be Buck’s first walkout into the streets of New York at night. It is at night that the prostitutes come out to take advantage of the consumers be it wage earners or capitalists who want to enjoy the fruits of labour. Buck in the streets with his trusty radio that keeps feeding his optimistic thoughts. The media keeps dangling the carrot with such phrases as ‘Gold and silver and candlelight. Wine and skyrockets and butterfly thoughts that glitter in your mind.’ ‘You’re special. Give yourself special treatment.’ Need money? We love to lend it to you.’ ‘Why worry about your future? What do you want more than anything in the world?’ ‘Take it easy. But take it.’ When Buck walks the streets he sees several cowboys such as himself plying their trade. You know they are cowboys as a result of the trade mark hats. It is good that the writers highlighted that Buck himself was not unique as a cowboy prostitute. He has competition and this is why he is immediately identifiable when he approaches an older woman. In one shot we see a group of children surround one cowboy with the hope of learning of the wild west thereby highlighting that the cowboy still holds some measure of respect in the imagination although in the city the figure is a mere figure head with no other feasible means of applying himself than by physical endeavours such as lifting heavy loads or by promising sexual gratification.

As Buck takes all of this in we see him with his trusty radio wandering day and night as indicated by the editing which switches from day to night. He seems to be wandering aimlessly with his radio uttering many falsehoods that keeps his ideals alive and obviously has not received any clients which would allow him to earn some income and pay for his room. When he does go back to his room, it seems he has not been there for awhile because he asks the attendant for the key to his room 514 and is told via note and attendant’s word of mouth that he is locked out of his room ‘‘til you pick up the tab.’ ‘What about all my things?’ Buck asks naively. ‘We keep them nice and safe ‘til you get this thing settled.’ ‘You can keep all the rest of the goddamn junk if you just let me have the suitcase. Suitcase means a lot to me.’ ‘We keep everything. House rules.’ Buck’s last wages are now finished and he is reduced to a state of destitution. Buck’s agrarian background is prevalent when he asks for his special suitcase because the design is modeled off the patterns of a cow (black spots on a white canvas. See the cows featured on anchor cheese). On the streets without the security of lodging he ironically sees a sign outside a restaurant saying ‘Dishwasher needed’. He does not apply and this is testament to his idealism/naiveté because he still entertains ‘dreams of victory’ or dreams that he will make it big in the city and so a dishwasher job will only leave him back where he started however he does not seem to understand that in the city there are many means of employment however unglamorous for whereas in the countryside you will be stuck in such a position, in the city you could use that as a base from which to build your repertoire.  It is the radio that keeps transmitting these daydreams into his head. We also see him begging food (crackers) from a child. The child disregards the food for we see him playing with the crackers and in a very symbolic sequence we see the mother and child play with a plastic rat. It seems to be a reflection of what Joe Buck has become as he scrounges for food. He also humiliates himself by spilling ketchup on his pants. While walking aimlessly in the subway tunnels he sees a reflection of himself and says ‘ You know what you gotta do cowboy?’ He plys his trade on the streets with the common prostitutes and no longer makes himself exclusive to older women. As a common prostitute you have to be flexible which would mean performing acts for both men and women. Buck’s first customer is a lowly male student and the two have a moment in the cinema where Joe Buck allows him to perform oral sex. He tries to stay grounded and to stay true to his heterosexual nature by recalling his sexual encounter with Crazy Annie. The editing here as with Cass uses the images on screen to convey the sexual motion and the final outcome which occurs in the form of Buck’s ejaculation. The sexual act is introduced quite cleverly through the film being viewed in the cinema ‘Spacecraft to Earth control. Check trajectory. We have a malfunction of our instruments (Buck is forced to become a common prostitute). Captain Grace is investigating. Orbital module has failed to separate from upper stage booster as planned (Buck is forced compromise and to abolish thoughts of being an exclusive sexual performer for older women. Before the act with the student Buck needs to let go (orbital module) of his preoccupation with his ideals/upper stage.). His visions of crazy Annie seem to suggest that a lot of the men in the town had her for he recalls seeing her in the cinema walking about like a prostitute as the men arise from their seats to follow. It seems they all lined up to get their turn including Buck. Maybe she charged for it who knows.

Back to the student he makes it known that he does not have the money ($25) to pay and this angers Joe Buck who clarifies it by threatening him with violence and searching him and finding nothing. Again he is taken advantage of but he has an opportunity to compensate himself for the male student has a watch which he can take but the student insists that his mother would die if he came home without it. It seems that the male student has a similar masochistic condition to Buck’s final customer, before he departs the city, because he seems to hope that he will get a beating for his indiscretion. He keeps asking ‘What are you going to do to me?’ after he informs Buck that he does not have any money. If Buck starts to beat him then he would relish it like a true masochist. Buck would learn from this experience and will eventually realize that you cannot be sympathetic in the city. He lets the boy keep the watch which is a testament to his sentimental nature. As a masochist the boy would have relished Buck taking the watch. Overtime the sentiments he arrived it will be gradually eroded by the reality of city life for he just prostituted himself for nothing. Afterwards he tries to get some sleep (and he is in fact sleeping) in the cinema but the authoritarian presence of the policeman swinging his baton in the aisles, knocking it against the seats to awaken those fast asleep, makes him aware of the soulless nature of the city. It must be a public theatre for a policeman to be combing the aisles like that.

Buck is in luck for when he exits the cinema he encounters the petty con Rizzo/Ratso. We see Rizzo’s influence for just before he encounters Rizzo in the coffee store he tries to put himself in the way of a incoming taxi as he crosses the street. He was made aware earlier that it is a good way to pick up insurance. He jostles Rizzo and it seems as if he will assault him with buck like retribution. All Rizzo has to say is ‘Don’t hit me I’m a cripple.’ And Buck relaxes due to his sentimental mentality; he still searches Rizzo in the hope that he might have some money on him in order to rescue his belongings at the hotel. His pockets are empty like so many small time hustlers who ply their trade on deceit. If it were someone else hardened by city life Rizzo would have been beaten senseless.  The movie makes a shift here from Joe Buck to Enrico Rizzo as he tries to make up for his earlier deceit by doing right by Joe Buck and helping him to realize his dream as a stud.

iv Enrico Rizzo as a reflection of the legacy of poverty experienced by the underclass in the City.

‘I’m invitin’ you. If you’re not located I got a place,’ Rizzo says to Buck. Buck is still at arm’s length and Rizzo trying to lay claim to his legacy is adamant in his customary style ‘I’m invitin’ you goddammit.’  Buck accepts the invitation regardless of his reservations about Rizzo’s character.  I already explained the legacy of poverty in the underclass. In the rich cities of the world such as New York the underclass exists in pockets as the glitzy nature of the city obscures to an extent the fate of the downtrodden. In poor countries however the underclass/petty commodity producers/so called criminals are a more prominent factor in those societies and poverty is more obvious to the naked eye. We see that Rizzo’s poverty is concealed from the city because he shacks up or squats in a condemned building like most members of the underclass. The building seems to be located in a neighborhood populated by Italian immigrants and this speaks to the influence of the film on later films during the 1970’s. ‘The ‘X’ on the windows means the landlord can’t collect rent which is a convenience on account of its being condemned. Front door (which is locked). I don’t care.  Actually, I prefer it that way. Keeps the punks and the creeps outta here.’ What an ironic statement coming from Rizzo. ’Watch the plank. Break your goddamn skull. No way to collect insurance.’ This statement just shows the extent that money conditions an individual in the city. Eventually he gets in through his own ‘private entrance’ and has Buck carry a small fridge up to the room.  ‘Where’d you steal this damn thing?’ asks Buck. ‘What do you mean its been sitting down there for weeks.’ ‘I don’t mean now. Before then.’ This is very clever dialogue. When they arrive Rizzo seems to be proud that he can demonstrate that he has a place in the city to the now lowly Joe Buck. His squatting becomes some form of an achievement in the eyes of a drifter like Joe Buck. ‘Not bad uh (it’s a rat hole). There’s no heat here but by the time winter comes I’ll be in  Florida.’ Rizzo seems to be very sincere in his efforts to make Buck feel comfortable. Having been caught up so long in the cutthroat nature of city life he seems to finally be aware through the impoverishment of Joe Buck of what this cutthroat nature can do to unsuspecting  individuals.

Joe Buck collapses in the bed and falls into a deep slumber understandably. His nightmares are also understandable for Buck has always been alienated. We see the usual flashbacks to his romance with crazy Annie ‘do you love me Joe. You’re the only one.’ and it being shattered by the invading cowboys who seem to have raped the two of them. His grandmother also spanks him on the bottom and this image is supposed to correlate with him being gang raped as an adult. We see Annie being carted off to a mental institution and we see Rizzo in the mix taunting Buck with a jeering smile and a broken bottle that he pokes at Joe Buck. Buck is now ironically in a condemned building and he imagines that it will eventually be demolished with him in side. He feels trapped by his legacy of destitution. It seems that Buck was never really loved by anyone. This is the torment of poverty that the rich will never understand; it seems as if there is no way out. He naturally wakes up paranoid and he wonders if he has been again subjected to another con by Rizzo but by this time Rizzo genuinely cares and he never went anywhere. The dialogue that takes place after this is remarkable. Buck is paranoid says a lot of petulant things such as ‘I’m one dangerous person. If I’d caught up with you that night there would have been one dead  Ratso.’ Rizzo, the more mature character/parental figure, responds calmly, ‘I’m impressed you’re a killer.’ Joe Buck is also adamant that Rizzo wants him for something and says he should get out before he is conned again or asked to perform a homosexual act. Rizzo is not a homosexual he sees himself in the role of big brother. Rizzo calmly responds ‘I’m not forcin’ you. Who’s forcin’ you? Look I goddamn invited you didn’t I?’ Buck decides to stay and Rizzo’s calm nature cools Buck down and makes him feel at ease and gives him some sense of stability. Rizzo also asks Buck to stop calling him Ratso because he is now demanding respect as a senior figure. We see them unite to survive in the city henceforward regardless of the arguments that they have. We see them steal food from a petty Italian fruit vendor so that they can eat. The warped moralists would say that is wrong but they have to survive and the petty fruit vendors would never realize the full value of their products anyway. ‘The two basic items necessary to sustain life,’ says Rizzo as he cooks in a very paternal fashion ‘are sunshine and coconut milk…In Florida you got a terrific amount of coconut trees there. And ladies. You know that in Miami you got… Are you listenin’ to me? (Buck is reading’ his comic book suggesting his stunted development)you got more ladies in Miami than in any resort area in the country. I think per capita on a given day there’s probably three hundred of ‘em on the beach. In fact you can’t even scratch yourself without getting  a belly button up the old kazoo there. It’s hot let’s go. Come on.’ In a moment they begin arguing again about the direction each should take. Rizzo says ‘I gotta get outta here.’ He wants to move to Florida. He starts to dream and does  not realize that he is becoming an idealist. ‘Frankly you’re beginning to smell and for a stud in New York that’s a handicap.’ They exchange words about who has scored from who has not scored. Buck thinks he has won when he says that ‘I bet you ain’t never been laid! How about that? And you’re going to tell me what appeals to women.’ ‘I know enough to know that that great big dumb cowboy crap of yours don’t appeal to nobody except every Jacky on 42nd street. That’s faggot stuff! If you wanna call it by its name, that’s strictly for fags!’ ‘John Wayne! Are you gonna tell me he’s a fag.’ After a pause Buck says ‘I like the way I look. It makes me feel good. It does. And women like me goddamnit. Hell the only thing I’ve been good for is loving (the statement that reflects his destitution). Crazy Annie they had to send her away (poor Buck).’ Buck is defending his legacy of destitution but he begins to wise up and jostles Rizzo saying that he must stop dreaming about Florida and earn $20  worth of management.  In The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (see my review) the drifters go on a quest for gold that ends in ignominy whereas here Rizzo sees salvation in Florida.

Rizzo is back in his element as he tries to get Buck looking sharp. He gets his clothes clean at a laundry mat by smuggling in Buck’s clothes with those of a pregnant lady. The typically naïve Buck says ‘It just ain’t right cheating from a pregnant lady.’ ‘What did it cost here? Get outta here. The laundry syndicate lost a couple of coins. I’m cryin’.’ They steal a hat from an enfeebled, old hat maker or retailer, and then get Buck’s  shoes shined. When they are about to get Buck’s shoes shined a policeman sits right next to Buck and then another gentleman takes a seat so as to have his shoes shined.  We learn here of rizzo’s legacy of poverty passed down from his father. Before those two arrive next to Buck Buck says ‘hey you’re pretty damn  good at that. I bet you could make a livin’ at it if you tried.’ ‘And end up a hunchback like  my old man (who tried to pass on his legacy to his son)? If you think I’m crippled you should’ve caught him at the end of the day.’ His father was broken by his destitution as a lifelong shoe shiner. ‘My old man spent 14 hours a day down in that subway. He’d come home at night with two, three dollars worth o’ change stained with shoe polish. Stupid bastard coughed his lungs out from breathin’ in that wax all day. Even the faggot undertaker couldn’t get his nails clean. They had to bury him with gloves on.’ Well Rizzo trims the loose ends of Buck hair to make him look sharp and finally Buck is refashioned as a cowboy stud. One should take a look at how proud Rizzo is as he watches Buck check out his new clean image. ‘Not Bad. For a cowboy. You’re ok.’ They now try and get clients for Buck by stealing the details of an appointment from a gentleman service for high class ladies. Rizzo’s deft hands come into use here. They now feel that they have struck gold and Rizzo’s dreams of Florida come to the foreground as Buck makes his entrance into the hotel to meet the high class lady. He dreams of living life in the clean opens spaces of Florida, running along the beach for instance, with everything at his beck and call particularly the ladies. He will also be able to enter large groups with his skills as a cook and play bingo all day and so on. As Rizzo says ‘I think we struck gold.’ Buck makes a fool of himself and Rizzo’s dreams of Florida come crashing down yet again. Buck grabbed the lady’s behind in the lobby of the hotel room and was in too much of a haste to get things going and was thrown out in the street by the various hotel attendants. As Buck is thrown out onto the street so is Rizzo thrown into the pool by a group of old women in his dream.  The film remains consistent here as the ideals/ dreams of both characters crumple in the face of reality. As a man born in destitution one can only dream of riches as the carrot is dangled in your face and as street smart as Rizzo is he cannot help but dream sometimes of a better life than this drudgery of the mechanized city processes.

The dream is temporarily shattered and Rizzo and Buck have to return to an increasingly cold, condemned building as winter approaches. With no heating appliance they are bound to suffer and we hear the eerie passage of the howling wind outside their window. Time is also running out for just next door construction workers seem to sifting through the remains of a now demolished building as there will be a new development and the construction companies as a result of investment will soon be turning their sights on the condemned building in which Rizzo and Buck reside. The increasing chilly weather seems to be aggravating Rizzo’s lungs and his cough becomes heavier and we understand clearly why he wishes to go to Florida where ‘the sun keeps shining through the pouring rain’. After they see the construction workers next door they take to the streets so as to avoid detection. On the streets we see a striking shot of the two with backs against the wall braving the chilly weather and it is clear that they cannot afford the coats which are necessary to keep warm in this time of year. The grey texture of this shot suggesting the winter chill and the rain is memorable because this shot captures the struggles faced when one is alienated in the great cities of the world. Back in the apartment we see the water trickling in the pipe turn to ice as it is announced: ‘ The temperature right now is 28 degrees and the weatherman says its going down.’ The two have to dance so as to keep warm. It might seem like a joke to some viewers calmly tucked away in their suburbs but this is reality and it is no laughing matter when you have to brave such elements without sufficient protection. The two try and make it funny however as they dance to tune of the commercial ‘orange juice in ice.’ It is made clear in the commercial that the oranges are from Florida. The carrot is being dangled again through this radio and Buck eventually sells his radio for a paltry $5 as the winter is too trying a experience and they need some source of light either in the form of gas for the stove or to keep the candles burning. He will no longer be continuously dangled with the carrot by the ever invasive media, a mere source of propaganda of the bourgeois class. Without the radio we see Buck singing ‘I gotta telephone call from Jesus’ as Rizzo coughs his lungs out along with the howling of the wind.  It is moving although those sitting comfortably will regard it as a mere joke and will miss its significance. The isolation in such a situation is a great burden on the majority that have to experience such alienation. The organ of the bourgeois class: the media chastised the occupy Wall Street movement by saying they should get a job and stop complaining. They said the people were wasting time and that they should conform to the principles of the division of labour by seeking the worst paying jobs as the petty bourgeois and the even mightier members of their class sit comfortable satisfied with their positions and that they have the luxury to even write such articles.

When a revolution hits the petty bourgeois class is usually the first to go; vanquished and condemned to be forgotten never to resurface. Nothing special comes out of such a class. The petty bourgeois will never understand the burden of urban alienation. The burden of the proletariat is not their burden as they continually exploit the labour power of this class that, through repeated cycles, is continuously broken by destitution and ignominy. As they sit comfortably and jeer with the police officers and their baton sticks and men running around in bat suits pummeling them with fists.  Nothing special comes out of the petty bourgeois class. As the Gordian knot tightens Buck heads back to 42nd street to ply his trade as a midnight cowboy. This scene is one of the  best in the film as Buck observes the various members of the surplus population which do not include only the prostitutes but the homeless beggars and drug pushers. In one particular instance Buck observes a woman who is is possibly a prostitute or a junkie. We watch her move to and fro, through Buck’s eyes, and she seems lost as most women do in such a position. Buck gets a reprieve by getting money ($9) by donating blood at a blood bank. When he hands the money to Ratso who has just stolen a coat buck in idealistic fashion still wonders where he stole it from. In any case they get a slight reprieve although Rizzo reveals his dissatisfaction at Buck being at 42nd street which he sees as a faggot haven. This is Rizzo’s moral limitations like Buck who cannot understand why Rizzo is such a thief. In situations such as this the two are trying to build an empire and when an empire is being built a moral consensus is usually required for it to function. It seems as if the construction workers are moving in because they are now beginning to pry the doors open prior to demolition as they seek to discover what’s in there. They visit the grave of Rizzo’s father  and in a funny moment he moves the flowers from another grave to that of his father’s. He then says ‘He was even dumber than you. He couldn’t even write his own name. ‘X,’ that’s what it oughta say on that goddamn headstone. One big lousy X. Just like our dump: condemned by order of city hall.’ Buck tries to console him by relaying his own story: ‘My Grandma Sally Buck she died without lettin’ me know.’ The haunting choral note begins to play and we see Buck sitting outside his grandma’s dilapidated house in a flashback. This is just another reminder of his legacy of destitution or back breaking poverty.










The Journey Ends as it Continues: Exiting the City and Entering the Country

The conversation goes thus: ‘It all depends on what you believe in,’ says Rizzo. ‘Like sometimes your spirit goes up, sometimes it goes other places. This whole kind of thing is spiritual…spiritual matters.’ ‘Oh now you’re talkin’ priest talk,’ says Buck. You’re talkin’ priest talk now.’ ‘I ain’t talkin’ priest talk, I’m talkin’ about what people believe in. Some people believe you can come back in another body.’ ‘Well I hope I don’t come back in your body.’ ‘I ain’t asking you to come back in my body, but you can come back as anything. You could come back as a dog  or a president.’ ‘ If I had my choice, I’d come back as a President. I aint that dumb. What do you think?’ ‘Maybe you gotta think about those things for awhile.’
Two hipsters wandering through the diner where Rizzo and Buck are speaking looking for eccentric characters invite Buck to a party. Buck takes Rizzo along obviously however it is clear that Buck was chosen for his cowboy outfit  for when they enter the arty house there are a lot of eccentric personalities there and this is testament to the bourgeois illusion of enjoyment that some people in the underclass such as Joe Buck aspire to. One nut  dressed as a primma donna says ‘I love everything in the theatre. I would like to die on the stage.’ Another freak says ‘My hair is fur, you know it’s tendrils reaching out into space sometimes. I’ve watched it touch many stars.’ ‘It’s like heroin. Death is like heroin.’ Rizzo accurately concludes: ‘Wackos. They’re all wackos.’ Buck does not care since he has bought into the illusion especially after they took his entrance upon his entering. They are allowed to have anything they want including food and beer. These parties are a means to entice the proletariat and to continually dangle the carrot before their eyes thereby keeping them in line and make them aspire to this sort of lifestyle. The meaningless characters who are mere ‘wackos’ also suggest that this class of individuals have nothing to aspire to with their posturing. Their inability to do anything meaningful is on full display here. Even Rizzo gives in with all the free food on display and we know by now that his condition is worsening and this would explain his spiritual talk with Buck. This notion of enjoyment is accurately described by Karl Marx in The German Ideology. Marx says about this enjoyment promulgated by the bourgeois class after it has become the dominant force in society. Note that this also applies to ruling classes of earlier epochs:

‘The philosophy of enjoyment was never anything but the clever language of certain social circles who had the privilege of enjoyment. Apart from the fact that the manner and the content of their enjoyment was always determined by the whole structure of the rest of society and suffered from all its contradictions, this philosophy became a mere phrase as soon as it began to lay claim to a universal character and proclaimed itself the outlook on life of society as a whole. It sank then to the level of edifying moralizing, to a sophistical palliation of existing society, or it was transformed into its opposite , by declaring compulsory asceticism to be enjoyment.’

This would explain why Rizzo is fed up with the wackos and why the idealist Joe Buck is consumed by the moment.  Rizzo’s worsening health is also a factor in his realization of the hollowness of this sort of enjoyment. Buck does meet a woman named Shirley who he takes back to her home. Prior to all of this Rizzo acts as mediator in determining the price which ended up being $20. He collapses also and this has Buck worried for it is the first time he realizes that Rizzo’s situation is life threatening. Rizzo did collapse as they were about to enter the building but it was not as significant as when they were exiting as he fell down the staircase.  Rizzo eventually goes home with the burden of his ill health as Buck has finally hit the jackpot. Rizzo’s health becomes another reality countering his new found ideas and so the film remains consistent. When Joe fails to perform initially with Shirley he is taunted about his sexuality and it could be see that he has homosexual leanings. Another interpretation could be that Rizzo’s worsening condition affected Buck and so his new found enthusiasm was quenched and so this joy was not really based on the reality in which he lived but on a mere illusion. He finally performs sexually for Shirley but only after great effort. When he returns he sees that Rizzo is a state of oblivion despite all the goodies he brought home. Rizzo claims that he is unable to walk and Buck is upset for just when things are going right for him Rizzo’s illness had to strike. His inability to walk has Rizzo scared that he will be sent to Bellevue in a state of ignominy and so he is desperate to go to Florida.  He then discovers that he has to help Rizzo fulfill the dream of exiting New York to go to Florida although he was promised an appointment with one of her friends  but he cannot wait long enough because it seems he wants to reschedule the appointment which would be later in the week on a thursday.  He has to get money for the journey however and so he decides to hit 42nd street to get a customer which he finds in another masochist from Chicago. In this case he is an older man or an older representation of the student he met earlier by the name of Townsend P. Locke who would like to be called Towny who is there as a result of a ‘paper manufacturers convention’ and wishes to have some fun. He attracts Towny after he is seen playing target practice with a fake gun like a little naïve boy in the arcade.  It seems as if Buck’s fortunes really are changing for before he had to go in search and now people are seeking him. It is not fortune but a part of the trade as various individuals are drawn to others for various reasons; Buck seems to attract the masochists .Towny initially wishes to have dinner but corrects himself by saying that there will be no time for that and so they must go to his room. It does not seem as if he and Buck have done anything for we see Buck practicing, while towny is on the phone with his mother (reminds one of the student earlier), how he is going to roughly ask for money on behalf of his sick child. After Towny’s conversation with his mother Buck asks him what he was brought up here for. Towny cannot seem to come clean. He even immaturely states that he ‘loathes life’ which is only an expression for his inability to state what he really wants especially as a Buck seems to be a lovely person. He gives him a chain representing St. Christopher the patron saint of all travelers after Buck says he cannot see him tomorrow as he is going to Florida. All his interactions with towny are reinforced by separate images of Buck helping Rizzo get onto a bus to Florida. Buck demands money and is handed $10 and he becomes specific when he demands $57.Towny states that he does not have anymore but Buck has learnt from experience with the student that there is no time for sympathy in the city. He hits him and tries to reach for the drawer but Towny is adamant in his defense as Buck tries to remove his grip from the drawer. He uppercuts Towny and his false teeth fly out as he collapses on the bed. He takes the money from his wallet. It is clear he is a masochist for he tells Buck thank you as he prepares to leave. Buck even forces the receiver on the telephone down the throat of Towny as he hears the operator on the line and he probably feared that Towny would have reported him to the police. It is unlikely that towny would have reported him because he was a masochist who relished the pain. Joe’s violence is justified not only because Towny is a masochist but because it is a source of rebellion against his highly praised lifestyle of prostitution and the corruption of city life. It is made more apparent because time is running out on Rizzo.

He gets Rizzo in the bus to Florida and it will take 31 hours to reach there. Rizzo is disappointed because he is worried that he won’t make it. Rizzo is already at death’s door and the fact that Joe has to carry him suggests that the dream is over as far as he is concerned. When they reach Florida Rizzo is in a state because he wet himself but Buck makes him see the funny side as he starts to cry about it by saying that he  took a rest stop that was not on schedule. When the actual rest stop does come we see Buck by some new clothes and shed his cowboy attire which is the first mature step he has taken as he is finally cognizant of the illusion that he is engaged in. He even dresses the helpless Rizzo in Florida garb which is typified by palm trees. We also hear the return of the famous theme song suggesting that this is a new beginning. The palm trees abound like a true paradise. Buck says his final words to Rizzo and it is a expression of his maturity. ‘Y’know Ratso. I mean Rico.  I got this damn thing all figured. When we get to Miami, what I’m gonna do is get some sort of job, y’know? ‘Cause, hell, I ain’t no kind of hustler. I mean there must be an easier of makin’ a livin’ than that. Some sort of outdoors work (Maybe construction). What do you think? Yeah that’s what I’m gonna do. Okay Rico?’ Rizzo is dead and he would have been proud of seeing Buck, his protégé, become mature. His dreams also remain unrealized yet again although he landed on the shores of Florida. Even in death he has to keep moving and he remains unsettled, broken by his legacy poverty. The petty bourgeois cannot hope to understand the trials of the underclass. Buck makes the driver aware of the situation who tells the other passengers that there is nothing to see. The notes from the theme song play as the bus resumes its trek on the pathway to Florida with a dead Rizzo and a Buck who must push on and stay steadfast in his new found maturity  as he attempts to become settled.









Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Film in 2011: A Year for the Romantics

               



This commentary is basically my opinions of the year passed. It cannot be assessed in a vacuum and so references to films of the past and those to be released this year will be made.

The year 2011 was clearly one for the idealists and the romantics and those that emphasized the themes of decline and descent. The decline was clearly linked to the romantic era whereas the descent was linked to the possibilities of the future. These themes are wound up in the notions that some thought has to be given to the future by returning to the past. The best films were able to suggest the dawn of a new era whereas some simply got preoccupied with the notion of decline with only a hint of future possibilities. No Country for Old Men (2007) can be justifiably called a great film for we see its influence in the best films released in 2011. The themes of old vs. new were dealt with more effectively in this Coen’s production which never flinched in its portrayal. The films of 2011 that largely emphasized the theme of decline and descent made too many compromises and so lost some level of integrity. People are forced to come to terms with these notions of decline vs. descent especially as the Western world is seeking to invigorate itself and stave off decay especially as the economies of Euro America are far from enterprising with their high levels of debt. When discussing decline vs. descent one must refer back to the past which must now be considered romantic and objective when contrasted with the subjective present day reality. This return to the romantic past can be symptomatic of a persistent decline because few films such as Tree of Life (2011) Midnight in Paris (2011), Moneyball (2011) and The Descendants (2011) actually showed how the present is changing regardless of old methods. The two front runners at the academy awards Hugo (2011) and The Artist (2011) are rooted in the early twentieth century or the romantic era when film was rapidly advancing from a creative perspective. Midnight in Paris also has its protagonist transported to the roaring twenties where he meets the literary lights of the twentieth century whose influence is unquestioned. This is all good from a romantic perspective but it is not good from the modern day perspective when people are looking for films that reflect contemporary realities. There needs to be stories about lives of today regardless of the grand traditions of the cinema. Why did no one consider doing a film about cinema of today and how it is changing, particularly with the boom in 3D and Imax? It seems that the time is coming when there will have to be increased emphasis on films outside of the euro American zone where people are busy telling their own contemporary stories. It is not new to have several films in one year emphasizing the romantic traditions of the past but the theme seems more striking this year as America and Europe searches for new creative possibilities in film.
This is what causes the relative decline of most artistic fields because it seems that there is only a finite number of ways to tell stories through that format. These artistic fields then retreat to their enclaves and can be only appreciated by the purists or the elites however it can never again capture the imagination of modern day audiences. This year would highlight that the film industry is encountering a relative decline because it is not being spurred on by new creative energy. Hugo (2011) remains an exception because of its use of 3D. The film industry differs from most artistic formats because of the heavy investment in technology and so advancements in technology should go hand in hand with the advancement of film. The stories of contemporary times or those of the past can now be told in different ways. This is why I am surprised to hear so many people attacking 3D because that particular technology can be utilized effectively to enhance certain visual cues. It goes without saying that Imax makes films much bigger and so stories can now be told in a way to make them seem larger than life especially when man is in the foreground or back ground. This is why film is in a state of relative decline only because decline is necessary in order to bring forth a new perspective. After Avatar (2009) and now Hugo (2011) people should be seeking means by which they can make the 3D experience more effective as dramatic tools because film is all about the visuals. It is true that the use of 3D amongst the majority of productions is vulgar with no sense of how to utilize it effectively apart from throwing things in the face of audience members. However when everyone starts buying 3D televisions you won’t be able to criticize it forever particularly from your enclave. The use of technology ensures that film cannot become stagnant for now because there are still many ways to tell a particular story visually. We need people to be experimenting with new camera angles or new modes of storytelling which evoke a sense of the essence of mankind. If you have to revert to the past bring it alive as Scorsese and his team did in Hugo by offering new visual cues; in Hugo those cues are now timeless in my opinion.  The Artist only did this intermittently and not convincingly. It never really brought the past alive definitively as some people seem to be ranting on about. The best films are about the essence of man within a particular context and the only way to convey this to an audience is through the audiovisuals. 

The proliferation of references to the French is also reflective of this romantic tradition since the French are known for romance.  Hugo, The Artist and Midnight in Paris are all influenced by the French (War Horse also makes references to the French when seeking to evoke the peasant idyll). It goes without saying that the last time the French were  truly influential in the cinema was during the first three decades of the twentieth century. They are not so now but the aura seems to remain with the older generation of filmmakers who are trying to transmit this to the modern day audience. The Artist is also tainted with French blood however this is an illusion for this is not innovation but pure romanticism which is symptomatic of relative decline. The innovation only comes with the technology that is utilized to enhance visual cues. The visual cues in The Artist are eclectic and hardly original it only made some headway in the mingling of sound and the silent medium. The silent medium is therefore incapable of being revived as a result because this film highlights that there are few new ways to utilize the medium. This is why it would seem so distinctive if applied to the contemporary perspective. If it was the case that the film was made for purely emotional reasons by highlighting the diminishing French influence in the cinema then it will only be absorbed within the existing silent canon and negate the possibility of its own redemption several years down the line as a source of inspiration for future filmmakers. Winning an Academy Award does not guarantee that. A great film is measured by its influence and not the amount of awards. There are several times, however, when a great film is recognized immediately by the members of the film fraternity as opposed to a decade later. Hugo is more significant as a result of the many layers that reflect the essence of creation and how this is manifest throughout later generations. Scorsese is a great director and this is evident in his choice of film which for a majority of the time reflect on  how individuals are marginalized in society regardless of success in the social sphere. This has kept his craft grounded and realistic and we see those elements in Hugo and that is why I prefer this film to The Artist. It does speak of the innovator George Melies, a French, but only as an abstract within the essence of creation and how this essence can trickle down regardless of  particular forms of relegation. The academy will do well to give this film the main award over The Artist. Hugo reminds us that the film industry must continue to strive through innovation or perish. If Melies was not innovative his works would not have been acknowledged years later by the populace. The Artist treats the subject superficially by beguiling the viewer with romanticism. If The Artist does win then so be it but ten years from now it will not be on the tongue of movie goers especially when people start looking for sources of inspiration. In Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris the protagonist learns to embrace the present although the film would have been better served if it reflected on the progress of the modern day, artistically, over the traditional forms of execution. When  Dujardin can sing the national anthem of his country, France, for winning an award you get the essence of my argument.

The people  from the past that we revere so much demonstrated levels of courage in their works and actions that were striking in their imaginative pronouncements because there were battles to be fought. The artists and protagonists featured in the films of yesteryear resided in the greatest century known to man, the 20th century, as a result of the rapid innovations of technology and the clash of the two ideologies that have characterized how we see the world: capitalism and communism. It was a time when artistic innovation was necessary to reflect the particular time in which those artistes resided. It was a time when the West still had to resolve the issues related to the expansion of capital and the rise of communist states which thwarted this expansion. The 20th century experienced three of the greatest wars in history: WW1, WW2 and The Cold War. There was the nuclear arms race, the space race and the peace race. There were numerous genocides, civil wars and corrupt dictatorships.  There was also the independence of many territories in the Caribbean, Africa and Asia from their imperial masters; the rise of China after years of ridicule; the recognized sovereignty of Israel which fuelled tempers among the Arab spring; and then there was technological and scientific innovation in the US, Japan and the Soviet Union with the rise of the software mechanics (PC, video games, the internet, scientific breakthroughs in physics and medicine etc). Cultural innovations abounded among the oppressed ethnic groups such as the African descendants and then there was the liberation of women and homosexuals who are now having more control over their livelihood. What was taboo becomes accepted as capital sinks its claws into every area ripe for exploitation and hence profit generation. There was mass migration of workers from the poor countries to the industrialized nations and the decreasing influence of Britain in the first half of the twentieth century and, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the recognition of the US as the world’s sole superpower. The European Union also emerged  towards the end of the 20th century.   The 20th century was therefore a period of intense innovation with the expansion of capital and communism and the quest to discover which ideological base would reign supreme as a result of these momentous events following the demise of the Nazis. The artistes duly rose to the challenge and so they seem larger than life to us little people.   There is still something to fight for now in the present day because the first decade of the 21st century continued the developments of the 20th century by continually innovating through technology. Capitalism in the West seemed to have won but there is now the influence of the PRC (People’s Republic of China) which is poised to become the world’s top economy in 10 years or so and so Communism is alive with modifications because it is clear that the communism practiced in the past did not correspond to the scientific abstract known as Marxism. Capital has not developed to its full extent to require a communist revolution in ownership of the means of production. Capital is still innovating however there has been a Global depression since 2008 and this will not be resolved unless there is a shift to the east and the many developing nations where the rates of profit are high such as India. There is now a Russia revival (see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)) and Brazil has taken advantage of its many resources to also make a significant step forward economically and we  see this in The Fast and the Furious 5 (2011). The drug trade in Mexico needs to be explored further by artists for Traffic (2000) and No Country for Old Men was just a start.   After these and other possibilities are exhausted then capital will no longer have a face; neither in the West or the East. It will be the world market. (Blade Runner (1982) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) were way ahead of their time) This should be resolved by the end of the 21st century. The world will then become truly global and there will be no need for tariffs and other boundary measures because most opportunities for exploitation will be exhausted. Almost every country will be lifted out of relative poverty. Nationalities will become obsolete to a certain extent and there will be so much money that the possibility of one man lording it over another will diminish. Technology will become a force of nature and manned space exploration beyond the moon will become more of a reality. So far there has been an unwarranted war in Iraq and turmoil in the Middle East as a result of oil and because these territories are coming to grips with their own nationhood  there are stories abounding  because once there is a level of unease or uncertainty or unsettled station of life be sure that artistic innovation will gain a foot hold. The developing nations are now the source of artistic innovation because the shackles of colonialism are slowly but surely being broken or torn asunder. Empires rise and fall and so artistes are now seeking to explore these issues within the context of various nations. Slumdog Millionaire (2008) was just a start. When empires rise and fall be sure that there will be some spontaneous or violent upheaval in the lives of citizens within the various nations and social philosophy will now come into play i.e. how do we interact with one another? The Iraq War has already produced a best picture winner in the form of The Hurt Locker (2009). There is also the question of America’s internal security following the surprising events of 9/11. We have seen a symbolic representation in the form of the batman franchise revived by Nolan and Syriana (2005), with J. Edgar (2011)  and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011) being released in yesteryear. The glorious past and all its mythic ramifications will be seen as a means to try and rekindle the spirit of innovation among the west. We have seen this with The King’s Speech (2010) (which defeated the more contemporary and relevant The Social Network (2010) at the academy awards) and The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003). When empires begin to decline a romantic urge seems to be aroused.  With the unresolved debt crisis in the West it remains to be seen whether the trajectory will be rise or relative decline. This debt crisis has now called in to question the role of government because it now stands as a barrier to the expansion of capital. The bourgeois class seems to be assuming the position of the ruling classes that preceded it and which it overthrew which is always a bad sign for the closer you reach to the top you will realize that being at the top does not seem as infinite because you lose the will to innovate. We will see therefore if this is the limit of the bourgeois class in the West that once thrived on innovation.

What I am trying to say is that there are many avenues for artistic expression and so this nostalgia, which calls into being dead stars such as Marilyn Monroe in My Week with Marilyn (2011) or the silent film era with films such as The Artist, is part of a trend of romanticism as opposed to innovation. There is even an attempt to revisit Sigmund Freud in A Dangerous Method (2011). Unless there is something to fight for or some tension surrounding the place of man in the present world then innovation will be lost in the film industry in the West. Hugo is therefore a prescient film when it speaks of innovation. Innovation has to be sought among those situations where there is some level of unease which means that there is some measure of growth or decay so that the artist is able to fill that gap. Dichotomy is the necessary element that the arts thrive on. The tension between the old and new will be with us always but there must be more films speaking of the contemporary perspective and what it is like to be living in the uncertain times of today. I appreciate all of the films nominated by the academy however the essence of the new and the old thrives when the present comes more vividly to life as was done when the film industry came into being. The academy cannot be blamed since it has to work with what it has and so what else can you hope for? When you are innovating there is no time to be looking back unless you discover moments in the past that were not portrayed sufficiently and so you fill the gap by reimagining how this past episode forms the essence of the abstract known as man which will be immediately identifiable with present day audiences. You do not revert to the past just for the sake of evoking visions of grandeur and splendor which on closer inspection are visions of decadence. The best films that evoke the past suggest that there were certain hurdles that had to be crossed or that it was not as rosy as it may seem because for us to be where we are there were certain barriers associated with more archaic social norms that had to be overcome. The films of yesteryear address this issue in a bloated fashion but they do not show it by highlighting how we operate differently in the present day. Midnight in Paris, The Descendants, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Drive, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Melancholia, Tree of Life, Pariah, Shame and Money Ball tackle this issue the best among the American films released this year. The rest seem to be rooted in the past such as War Horse and The Artist. Hugo is more relevant because of its story of the cinema as an art form and the use of 3D to enhance its superb visuals and so the past is imagined in spectacular fashion by present day techniques despite the old fashioned bits. As a testament to the cinema it remains relevant. It is therefore not rooted in the past.

There were not much movies dealing with the lives of the ethnic minorities. Once again we have to subscribe to the trials and tribulations of white people. Understandably they control Hollywood and so if blacks are afforded any roles it is as a result of a quota. Prior to the release of Red Tails (2012) George Lucas claimed he was unable to put forward this project back in the day because Hollywood did  not want to hear of stories related exclusively to black people. This sort of propaganda cannot disguise the fact that a film about The Tuskegee Airmen was released in the 1990’s through HBO pictures. The Lucas production house is only trying to make money off the topic and it is no surprise that the Lucas version is receiving poor reviews because it cannot be as sincere as the HBO production as a result of these propagandistic reasons.  Well it  is no surprise that the film executives refused to have an all black story portrayed on film for the whites rule America even if Obama is in the white house. They need to portray their values while acknowledging that they have made mistakes. This is made clear in The Help (2011) a sanitized portrayal of the maids in the  Jim crow south. Black people are portrayed as victims and heavily reliant on the fortunes of the white protagonist who appears to be enlightened.  There is some notion of being apologetic in this film and some of the whites are not all that bad  so lets move on while denouncing the unfortunate ones who were stuck in the past. The film was average but for one or two eccentric moments that failed to be incendiary and only achieved moments of hilarity. This is a sign that the battle is over and blacks are now fully integrated particularly following the rise of rap in the musical scene and that street smarts are being replaced by corporate business ethics. The struggle seems to have disappeared and we seem to be in the period of ‘ I Have a dream’ failing to realize that a large proportion of blacks and the latinos still populate the prisons when compared with their population numbers in America and this group is still marginalized economically to a large extent. The rise of the hip hop and black pop stars and their compromises with the white hierarchy cannot mask this epidemic because the occupy wall street movement clearly means that this is now the struggle of the working class and all races will now have to unite in the struggle against the excesses of capitals exploitation which is reinforced by the lackeys in The Help.   The Help  would only seem relevant if there were still incidents taking place today to  suggest that the struggle continues. This is why a film about the mean streets that blacks, latinos and other ethnic groups reside in was largely absent in the films of yesteryear. Everyone wants to give the impression that the dream is being realized.  Precious (2009) was the last serious effort to accurately portray the current urban plight of the ethnic minorities. The struggle continues with Tyler Perry I suppose but if he did release a film last year, which I think he did, it is no surprise that it is forgotten. Tyler Perry must realize that melodrama does not carry you anywhere without a proper context which requires a certain distillation and not necessarily a proliferation of stereotypes. He is a conformist and that is why he cannot be as assertive as a Spike Lee would be in his dramatic works. Tyler Perry wants to be loved by all and so his weakness is reflected in the direction of his films. Women would have gotten a kick out of The Iron Lady because it would help to reinforce the trend that girls can run the world. This is how it will serve as a source of inspiration for contemporary audiences.  It is hardly necessary for those reasons alone because women have made sufficient strides in the world market. I suppose they needed an extra kick.  The backward and poorer nations still resist these sort of notions unfortunately. 

Films from outside the Euro American zone I cannot comment on although I am hearing a lot of talk about A Separation from Iran. If the Academy Awards wants to extend its influence it should abolish the foreign film category and embrace all films. This will come eventually and obviously the retrogrades will resist such a move for awhile. You cannot claim to be the biggest film award ceremony in the world and still have a Foreign language category. The world will soon refuse the Euro American centric views as definitive. If a so called foreign language film is good enough it should be nominated in the best film category.  If that particular film meets the requirements for other categories then it should be nominated. The case of Cidade de Dues (City of God) (2003) is a classic example for the director, Fernando Meireilles, received a nomination in 2003 for Best director and was released under the umbrella of Miramax. He went on to direct The Constant Gardner (2005) which was a good film and did not have the American feel of a film such as Blood Diamond (2006). He offered a fresh interpretation to a subject in Africa that would be sanitized and denuded by the typical American or European director. The Academy forces a lot of foreign filmmakers to make compromises to be considered the best film of the year. When the Academy does abolish the Foreign language category it will aid in invigorating the film industry globally and so people will be more willing to accept film as a medium of expression instead of being dependent on film as expressing the Euro American way of living which is trumpeted as the best. Empires are on the rise and they will not take kindly to this sort of ideal. Jamaica saw the release of Ghett’ a Life (2011) which was not very good but a step in the right direction for indigenous cultures need an outlet of expression that are not being afforded by the Euro American way of living. Lesser  films were released documenting the Jamaican experience in America but they still remained highly forgettable.  The major films up for contention at the Academy Awards are reflective of a Euro American tradition and if you check the box office figures these films did not do so well internationally outside of America and Europe. Is it that the Academy Awards caters to the fact that the Euro American way of living is the ideal? This is symptomatic of decline when a particular subject is continually posited as the ideal.  There is a wealth of new interpretations begging to come to the fore and public recognition in the west only comes about when the foreign film bears the stamp of a prominent independent American company. The film industry is thriving but from a Euro American perspective it is not looking as vibrant because what more can you say having attained all of this wealth. What is there to look for in the West apart from decadence associated with too much privilege from plunder? The ideas of Empire inherited from Rome still loom over the practices of the Western countries like a grey storm cloud (no it’s not black). Admittedly the film industry in America and Europe has access to the better technology but this is why workshops should be established to encourage the spread of the medium by the major studios into other countries so as to bring forth new talent. As humans we are able to identify with the plight of others and this will become even more relevant when the world becomes increasingly internationalized through the continued expansion of the world market under the umbrella of capital. Fortunately African and Asian films are making a resurgence.

The blockbuster did fairly well with the  two prominent ones being Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt, 2 and Twilight Breaking Dawn, pt 1. This seems to have perpetuated the competition between the two with the former coming out on top with over a billion dollars at the box office internationally. Harry Potter was well received while Twilight, which appears to be a farcical version, was maligned as usual. All is right with the world I suppose. It was an emotional send off for the fans of the Harry Potter franchise as this is the final installment in the series. The Twilight saga will also be wrapped up in 2012 and so filmgoers will now have to await the next major series that will see them flock to the cinemas in droves.  Pirates of the Caribbean and Transformers also made a lot of money with new entries to their franchise. They were critical failures but made a lot of money and they are now forgotten. How is that? Their essence seems to be what carries them forward. In Transformers it is the idea of watching mystical machines transform and in Pirates of the Caribbean it is all about Jack Sparrow. This essence seems to resonate with a particular market that has likened it to a TV series as opposed to a movie franchise with one current storyline. The superhero genre also got a boost in 2011 from Thor and Captain America and a premier trailer of The Avengers (2012). Thor was eclectic with nothing definitive and Captain America seemed to coincide with the release of The Avengers this year and it too lost its way. These two seemed to be extended advertisements. DC comics and Warner Bros. floundered with the release of The Green Lantern (2011) which was a complete disaster financially and artistically. It was an outright abomination; a 1990’s patch job probably. There was hope as The Dark Knight Rises (2012) debuts this year and is assured of 1 billion at the box office. The release of two trailers and the first six minutes of the film in 2011 have more than piqued the interest of movie goers with tickets from IMAX theatres selling out in only a few hours. It will be a major film and let us hope that Nolan does not make too many compromises which will see the entire franchise crumble under conformist ideologies as did the Schumacher versions. He took the right approach in The Dark Knight (2008) by highlighting that there is no definitive answer regarding the good vs. so called evil issue although he is still limited by the stereotypes. The Rise of the Planet of the Apes was a surprise hit because the moral values that it embraces remain relevant; the notion of challenging the existing established order. The superhero genre seems to be a substitute for the absence of something to fight for in the West of the current day. America is still imagining threats externally from outer space and  in the form of people with Red Skulls and black masks which help to feed the nightmares of children born within its sphere of influence.

2011 was not a remarkable year for American filmmaking because of romanticism however this is the calm before the storm and this is one moment of the cycle. The year of dearth (2011) before the year of plenty (2012) maybe. 2012 will hopefully see filmmakers rise to the challenge of innovation that is required for film to ensure its continuity. It is hoped that more foreign films outside Europe and america, will be included in the mainstream in the years to come if only to provide a choice to filmgoers such as myself that are searching for the next great moment in film be it European, American, Asian, African or the Middle Eastern. This year it does not matter who wins the Academy Award because romanticism has stifled any hope of competition which is brought about by high levels of innovation in the way we see the world of today.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

The Artist (2011) ****/5: Good film but clearly exploits nostalgia.




The Artist is a good film but there are numerous weaknesses that are largely external, which will eventually compromise its integrity as a distinct work of art. Firstly, it is amazingly ordinary and regressive and this can be reflective of decline or an exploitation of nostalgia without a specific thrust which would inculcate or reinforce why that transition was made and why there is no going back. I say ‘amazingly’ because the medium of silent film used here seems like a welcome break from the noise associated with dolby stereo however this is not the future and the film certainly highlights why silent films will not resonate with the majority of modern day audiences. There was a reason why sound drubbed the silent format and it is not made so clear here definitively and only in bits and pieces. Secondly, it is without a doubt influenced by Singin’ in the Rain (1952), with no clear distinction apart from its texture. It therefore suffers from one essential dilemma: it has been unable to subsume its influences and therefore shine as distinctive by offering a suitable twist on the perspectives associated with the transition from the silent era to that of sound. What I am saying therefore is that this film only enhances the reputation of Singin’ in the Rain without creating its own abstract format which would render it distinctive. Thirdly, the use of the silent medium will only make some audience members see this as a gimmick as opposed to a serious new innovation of the medium. The film does not foster a sense of innovation which is what people are looking for. Hugo (2011) is a better film because thematically it is dealing with the essence of creation and how this is manifest throughout later generations. This abstract is imminently identifiable. The use of the silent film might be a welcome break for some but at a time when people are clamouring for innovation this is the last thing that is needed: a return to the silent medium. It is regressive and it will be absorbed within the silent film canon. One critic accurately said it and here I paraphrase: At three o clock in the morning and the artist is playing what will most modern viewers do…that’s right change the station. It will be seen as another silent film. Its abstract would not have entered into the consciousness of most filmgoers. It contributes nothing substantial from this point and I am inclined to believe because films like this will underscore the reasoning that says film as an art form is losing its vitality when filmmakers feel it incumbent upon themselves to return to the silent medium.

It is still a good film with the evocation of the period of the 1920’s. This is done through the use of black and white and the silent medium where the characters are determined by their actions and the impressions that these physical actions make on the audience. As Ebert and others have pointed out the face  and smile of Jean Dujardin who plays George Valentin  seem to be a stand out and help to pull the audience into the story.    The story is well connected and all the elements form a cohesive whole. It is predictable however and I was hardly moved by the experience but it has all the elements of a well told story as opposed to a memorable one. The story is too predictable and hardly enterprising and daring apart from the moments where sound is actually present and shatters the façade of  the silent medium. Those were the best moments in the film for the intrusion of sound suggests the mirage of the silent medium as a standard form of expression being shattered. These moments could have been developed some more and some of the dramatic moments would have had a more effective impact.

The story is banal and is clearly influenced by Singin’ in the Rain. It is about a silent movie star whose career takes a nosedive when audio becomes a part of the film medium. While on top he encounters an aspiring performer Peppy miller (Berenice Bejo) whom he helps on the way up by giving her  added advantage by taking a pencil and creating a beauty mark right above her upper lip and convincing the studio head, Al Zimmer (John Goodman), to keep her on following a mild altercation. They clearly have a romantic connection early on and as his career takes a nose dive and she is on the rise their paths intercross guided by the hands of fate until they are reunited. It is not serendipity for the female aggressively pursues him and therefore the outcome seems predictable. Singin’ in the Rain had more layers and is therefore the superior film whereas The Artist is merely superficial but pleasing to the eye for those audiences not familiar with silent film. It is clear however that this film represents  stagnation in the film industry and seems to suggest that the art of  film is on the decline unless people start making innovations instead of using retrograde formats that have no hope of returning to make a point. People are praising this film for the wrong reasons and this confirms my fears that instead of movie events for the ages films such as this are coming through that cater to the purists; and this is what causes the decline of most art forms as they recede into their enclaves as the new modes of expression take hold.  Question: when the auteurs of the past were seeking to advance the artistic possibilities of film did they once revert to the silent medium in their quest to innovate? This film is clearly elitist. The critics have done their job by inflating the film with excessive adulation without assessing whether or not it meets the criterion which would justify such praise.

What’s good about this film?

The best moments of this film are not the evocation of the distant 1920’s with black and white, the use of silent film techniques or Dujardin’s smile. The best moments come when sound actually shatters the silent mirage. These moments in the film are the artistic possibilities that the film should have developed some more in order to become its own abstract within filmdom. These moments may seem implausible from a practical perspective but as an abstraction dealing with the relationship between what is silent as opposed to what is noise or sound they are significant. These moments are not limited solely to the moments of actual sound. For instance when Valentin first meets Peppy there is a moment of silence and it is clear that an impression is made for from the outset the film had us embracing this medium and there is the monotonous music and the quick movements of the actors however when Valentin meets Peppy for the first time it all stops and this could be used in any format of film whether silent or talkie. She accidentally crashes into him, the great silent star at the peak of his powers, and stuns everyone. He and the crowd look with consternation and there is a moment of uneasiness but he warms to her and it is a sign that the essence of this monomaniacal star has been tainted with something pleasant. There are many moments like this such as when the studio head is stared upon as the crew await his decision about the girl who he initially considers disruptive on set.  As a film about essence therefore it works. This sort of minimalist filmmaking resists the flamboyance of making these characters anything more than abstracts.  There is the actor, the studio head, the girl he loves, the faithful chauffeur and the dog. When we actually hear sound Valentin has come to the realization that talkies are here to stay. We see cracks in the façade for the first time and these moments are poignant however there were times later on in the film where they could have been utilized more effectively so as to suggest that a transition is taking place. This would have made the film more effective as a distillation of the true impact of sound on our own personal reveries. It is only utilized effectively once in the middle and towards the end obviously. What is the essence of sound? Can we live in a world of silence? To what extent is silence a reflection of our own sanctity of spirit?  These elements were not addressed sufficiently. We will always seek moments of silence to try and gather our thoughts and reflect on past occurrences or what is to come etc. Some people feel more comfortable in noise since for them what could be more silent i.e. it is in the noise we find our moments of silence by withdrawing from the noise. This film needn’t have been strictly silent it could have shown us more of a contrast between noise and silence not just as it relates to film. This was done before and better in Singin’ in the Rain. Why not use the medium to explore other issues? or Why not highlight the possibilities of utilizing the medium as opposed to doing a retread?

I liked the use of shadow in this film and other such images that emphasized Valentin’s decline.  I suppose it is a Jungian archetype. It could be considered a bit excessive however.

The film obviously evokes the period of the 1920’s well through the use of black and white and the art direction. The use of the black and white along with the silent medium allows for both French and American nationalities to be featured without any hiccups. It does not distract from the premise should these persons be forced to speak on a consistent basis. This is unfortunate however for there are many issues that are not addressed and so the film comes across as superficial and gimmicky.

What’s bad about this film?

I disliked the story but I will not go into that right now. It is enough to say that it is banal and is clearly influenced by Singin’ in the Rain; there are also moments from Citizen Kane (1941) where Valentin and his wife are at the table subtly expressing their dislike while increasing the sense of estrangement between them as Valentin’s career plummets into ignominy.  The story was too predictable and this is always a sore point for me since I am always on the search for the next innovation in the film industry. I was encouraged to watch this because of the inflated praise of the critics and the numerous awards being handed out for this film. This is all unwarranted and only reinforces the subjective elitist views that are suffocating the film industry. The banality of the story is only reinforced by the superficial presentation and the inadequate development of the film’s motifs. Those who have not seen Singin’ in the Rain should also be able to predict the outcome of this film for the story is hardly resonant and you would have seen it in some shape or form before. It is typical romantic drivel with only the guise of the silent medium. The story does arrive logically at its conclusion however and it should satisfy the optimists as it does not take the route of Sunset Boulevard (1950). The superficial elements abound particularly the transition from the silent medium to the one of talkies. Singin’ in the Rain explored this sufficiently and this is why it is a masterwork for it explored all the ramifications associated with the transition which was one of the most epoch making in film history.  Singin’ in the Rain had its banal moments but it was not dominated by it; the framework of the film was about the transition and so all the other elements were subservient to this element. They were not allowed to supersede it. In this film there is no sense of a transition and no revelations that would have made the transition seem definitive. There is no proper discussion of the medium and when the issue arises it is brushed aside when they say ‘this is the future’ or ‘this (the talkie) is only a fad’ or ‘he (valentin) is finished’. This is stating the obvious ; this is utter banality and triteness.  This all exposes the limitations of the silent medium and the production team seem to be content with these limitations and never once is there a suggestion that this medium is dead and buried or that it is or was considered imperfect which is why the transition was necessary. The solutions made in this film in response to Valentin’s crisis are not original. Instead of him embracing his decline he is allowed a lifeline although we are not sure what it is. There is a dance near the end and yet there is no sense of how the idea was arrived at. Singin’ in the Rain did this expertly when it highlighted how the musical would be a likely option for those silent stars that had the will to rebound. This film makes the cardinal mistake of having the romance supersede the necessary elements that require development. This is what lands it in a quagmire for the story is so linear that it never once suggests that there is the possibility that the imagination will be stretched. The film offers nothing new apart from the moments where actual sound is introduced.

 The incessant monotone music is a drag and can be stultifying if you are not well rested. I am annoyed that the producers strove to recreate the silent medium without reinventing it.

This film also highlights that the film industry is in some sort of relative decline. The values that made film great are being strangled in order to preserve some stagnant order of decay. How does the industry expect a film such as this to infuse new blood into the cinema? The silent era makes a return because it was supposed to be dead and buried similar to Chicago (2002) which seemed to revive the musical however the failures of its successors at the box office seemed to be simultaneously driving the nails in the coffin of that genre. People still have to be referring to the past but only with the sense of reinvention not reintroduction. The Artist seems to be taking advantage of this nostalgia with the possibility that it will win the academy award over better films that are striving to reinvent the medium through technology. Film and technology go hand in hand and so if the film industry fails to take advantage of the technology at its disposal it will crumble and decline into a state of warped ideals about human tragedy;  an aging, defeatist philosophy that failed to breathe life back into the decadence of Rome. It will be a shame if other filmmakers start to recreate the silent medium and be forced to absolve themselves of shame when those films crash at the box office. Chicago was good but ordinary. It was popular because it had its own distinctive story that cleverly balanced the superficial and the sublime. It did not hurt that it was based off a Broadway musical. It did not reinvent the musical however but merely reintroduced it in a big way with the hope that people had become so unfamiliar that it would be taken as something new. Even animated films are forced to concede the end of the musical in its own way in film. It was constrained by its genre and failed to supersede it and eventually ran its course with the undeserved academy award. The critics and the promoters and award givers are creating a storm about The Artist much like Chicago. They inflate it with praise and awards thereby creating a compulsion on others to see it and in their own way convince them of this marvel. Then people will talk about it especially the younger filmgoers who are not aware of the genre; they too will spread the love and the popularity will see the film win the academy award yet be forgotten as greater films that are innovative actually reinvent how people see film.

What most concerns me is the film industry as a whole for when there was the break from the silent era and filmmakers were constantly innovating the art how come they never reverted to the silent format? They never looked back as they strove to enhance the viewing experience with fresh stories. If they did look back it was to highlight that there was a definitive break from that medium and those that cling to it are delusional. Film was constantly evolving as it corresponded to each era in which it found itself. When a film such as The Artist can be trumpeted as the next big thing it is clear that a sense of innovation is being lost. Hugo is a better film because although it discusses the birth of the cinema it is also speaking of the essence of creation and how it is manifest through the next generation. Creation takes on new forms by breathing life into the old yet acknowledging that what is old now remains an abstract or objective premise. This film failed to enhance the possibilities of the silent medium in today’s world. They could have chosen a more original subject which could have effectively discussed and simultaneously critiqued the medium of sound vs. silence.

 Whether this film wins the academy award or not is beside the point for it is becoming clearer that the more films like this win the top award the less effective the film industry becomes as a pioneer in the arts. It is now not becoming so important if a film wins or does not win the academy award because they are clearly neglecting the innovators who are actually trying to preserve the age in which we live. If you want to secure an academy award do a silent film like The Artist and win the approval of the critics and the globes and the academy otherwise known as the age old establishment and preserver of the film medium. There is nothing wrong with preservation but thought must still be given to the future and the here and now.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

The Descendants ***½ /5: Good film but too superficial and descriptive without the necessary sublime moments which would make it resonate.




The  Descendants  is a good film but it does not match the catharsis/emotional release in Sideways (2004). It is not nearly as funny as the latter film simply because there are no effective contrasts to the main character, Matt King (George Clooney), which would have made his story more poignant. It is clear now, while at the same time not so clear, why  director Alex Payne took a hiatus from filmmaking after making Sideways which certainly represents the peak of his career so far. Let us hope that this film is not a sign that his craft is in a state of decline. The various elements of the film’s structure were not unified sufficiently so as to distinguish it as a clearly original film in the cinema. When a film displays its influences without properly subsuming them in the form of a new creative thrust it opens itself to the maudlin sentiment which is on display here. Sideways was able to distinguish itself as a true original because the emotions were allowed to unfold without any pretentious moralizing and trite domestic episodes.  The setting in Hawaii does not alter the fact that the emotions in this film are bottled up and are not allowed to project forward unabashedly. This is probably because the characters are not eccentric enough or distinctive to make them interesting enough to care about. There is no sense of the compulsions that make the suffering of these characters seem so understandable. The elements that make the main character suffer are all external it does not seem to arise from the worldly interpretation of his subjective characteristics. It is a petty drama surrounding the landed aristocracy of Hawaii. I was saying to myself while watching this:  O Great! another drama about this long suffering class where millions of dollars cannot compensate for their lack of happiness. There are not enough memorable moments in this film that would make the experiences of these characters seem unique. The outcome was predictable and I am stunned to hear critics suggest that the ending would be something to look forward to. I was let down by this sort of inflated praise I suppose. It is still a well made film but it will be forgotten in a couple years time because there is no momentum generated by the unique experiences of these characters that would give the ending that bittersweet taste that Payne was striving to achieve here as he did in Sideways. The Descendants is a sanitized drama and the moments that pull punches (no pun intended; those who have watched the film or the trailer know what I mean) are too distant from another and so it does not gather momentum. The ‘pull punches’ moments are the eccentric elements every film (or work of art for that matter) needs to make it distinctive. Sideways had the superficial and the sublime in the form of Jack and Miles respectively and this relationship was the source of the memorable moments. The character of Matt King in The Descendants, does not have an effective contrast and at first it seems that his eldest daughter would provide that foil for his character but the compromises come too early on in the film and not enough moments to highlight their distinctive characteristics and the reasons for their unity. If the film wants to move future audiences it should have emphasized the sense of disunity more effectively and this would make the eventual unity more rewarding. I understood the element concerning the cheating wife and her mysterious lover but it did not resonate effectively through the children and the members of Matt’s extended family. It is hinted at but never developed sufficiently to have an impact and so it comes across as superficial without the element of the sublime or that eternal motif sought out by every artist . The notion of inheritance was also not fully explored but it was described in typical fashion however the notion of the descendants does not shine through effectively.

The film is about a real estate lawyer, Matt King, who  is forced to reconcile with his family following the boating accident involving his wife which puts her in a permanent coma. He also has to contend with the fact that his estrangement from the family resulted in his wife’s infidelity and his unfamiliarity with his two daughters who he tries to fathom. He also has to contend with the sale of his family landed property throughout the Hawaiian archipelago especially as the entitlement will expire in 7 years or so.

What’s good about this film?

Despite my opening remarks the film is still well constructed and is easy to follow. I still maintain that the film is superficial however there are moments that do evoke some sense of emotion. These moments of emotion normally occur when Matt discovers that there is the possibility that the essence of his life is about to be taken from him. He already lost his wife, not only through the boating accident but to the man with whom she committed infidelity. He is about to lose his inheritance, the land in Hawaii, to developers and he is in danger of losing his daughters with whom he cannot relate to. He has therefore become estranged from the elements that stabilize him. When this does become clear to him these are the moments that are most striking in the film. When he encounters his cousin Hugh (Beau Bridges) it all becomes clear to him what he is truly losing when he sells the land. This is erroneous but I will speak of that later. His attempt to unite with his daughters thereby restoring some sense of family unity, also ties in with the theme of what constitutes the descendants which is tied in with the landed property of the land. It reminded me of the stagnant mode of thinking present in Gone with the Wind (1939) (see my review) where the land represents some sense of family pride and its root cause of existence.  ‘Land is the only thing that matters; the only thing that lasts’ says Scarlett’s father. When Matt refuses to sell the land to the capitalist developer it is a form of regression as he chooses to focus on the ideal as opposed to the material realities. The economic themes also present in the film reflect the struggle between landed property and the emerging bourgeois class. Matt clearly makes references to the fact that he and his family live off the land by way of lease and sales. They live a luxurious lifestyle backed by excess consumption and the dissolution of character associated with this for they miss the essence of production necessary to make individuals fulfill a certain purpose. This is also reflective of how the aristocrats or landed barons lived prior to the rise of the bourgeois class who used the land productively through mass production. The descendants in this film are therefore landed barons and this is documented well early on in the film where Matt traces the line of his descent. Landed barons, however, represent stagnation in a purely economic sense and the attachment to the land is not necessarily justified apart from emotional reasons which are what you see in this film regarding the sale of the land. This is what occurred in Gone with the Wind where the protagonists were incapable of coping with development. It is no wonder that this film is set in Hawaii, which is more of an exotic location, as opposed to main land America. Hawaii is no great developed area it is dominated by landed barons. It is more of a hindrance to economic  growth than anything positive. These barons extort whatever rents they can from the locals and are not reflective of great production but cottage style industry or peasant based subsistence farming.  This is why Hawaii, an exotic location, caters to tourists who pay rent at the hotels. This is all put forward in the film and this is credit to the writing for at the beginning it is clear that Matt and his family wish to sell to the real estate developers who will convert the land into some resort. The pressure to sell is also reinforced by law where the entitlement to the land expires in 7 years. It makes you wonder what Matt plans to do with the land especially as he is the executor. Is he just going to let it lie idle or will he invest his own accumulated funds and become a capitalist style developer. It is smartly mentioned by his wife’s father who repeatedly berates him for sitting on all of this money without investing it. Matt can therefore make the transition while maintaining his family’s stake in the land. His accumulation of money represents the starting point for most capitalists to invest it in raw materials, instruments of production and exploited wage labour. The other good connection established in this film is the relationship between Matt’s wife and her outside lover. It is ironic that this lover is brother in law to the developer who plans to buy the land from the King family. Is it any irony that Matt’s surname is King? The lover can be seen as a reflection of capital’s greed where it removes all barriers to its expansion and in this case it is Matt’s wife. (This was seen in Melancholia) In a poignant scene where Matt confronts the lover with his wife in the background unaware of what is going on; it is clear that his wife’s lover never loved her but was only using her to get to Matt and thereby destroying his social being or his means for living through the family. It would therefore remove him completely as a barrier to its expansion. This  film merely shows how this is reflective on a personal level. Hawaii as a primarily agrarian area highlights that it really is a small world. In the city trying to find the man who cheated on your wife is pointless. Hawaii seems like a suitable location as a result.   All these elements were explained very well in this film.

The film does try to capture the Hawaiian culture and this is reflected in the musical score and the island hopping of the protagonists and by speaking to the relaxed dressing style of the people. As Matt says the most relaxed dressing style is carried out by even the richest individuals. If you were coming from elsewhere you would feel that these people were bums of some sort but you must not be fooled for it only means that you do not grasp the internal cultural expression of the place. The cinematography is well done and it captures all the spectacle of the Hawaiian environment. There are some moments of surprise such as when an old man punches a younger man. The film needed more physical moments such as this. When matt runs down the block to confront his wife’s friends about his infidelity it was shocking because George Clooney is not as dashing as women make him out to be. Lot of flab there.
What’s bad about this film?

This film regardless of the moments of insight cannot help but seem predictable there are few shocking moments that resonate as the credits start to roll. The film seems a bit superficial as a result because the core of the film is not clearly revealed following the superficial discourse as to whether Matt should sell the land or not. Firstly these people seem to have well to do lives and the problems they are going through do not seem significant. It is an illusion to believe that this story will resonate with future audiences simply because it is elitist. There is nothing that suggests that Matt will truly lose out on his life should his inheritance be lost. If the land is sold he will get a pretty hefty sum and so there is no love lost.  His family could still benefit from the inheritance. In Sideways there were certain elements to suggest that Miles aspirations concerning material property were slowly vanishing in his middle aged years. We see this with his old fashioned car, his small apartment, his small wine collection and that he steals from his mother. In Miles we see a man near the brink of extinction and this is why his story is so moving especially as he does not have children. Matt has everything Miles does not his life is well to do and he does not stand to lose much especially as reconciliation with his daughters comes early on in the film. He has bucket loads of money and so does it really matter that his wife was cheating? He won’t  be the first and last man whose wife cheats on him. Does it matter whether the lover loves her or not? The woman wanted to divorce him. Get over it.   The story does not seem to be saying anything new about humanity. We have to take for granted when Matt harangues his comatose wife about her stupidity despite him showing no affection. It comes across as stupid. When the wife’s lover’s wife starts to wail over her it seems pathetic and unnecessary. It seems like a lifetime style of film but with the feel of Hawaii. It seems so unnecessary. If George Clooney was not the leading man you can see where the film would fail all around. Clooney with his weathered sort of narration anchors the film with some form of world weariness. 

It also seems superficial because there is no effective contrast to the Clooney character. There are flashes and hints but compromises come too neatly. In Sideways, Miles’ counterpart was the superficial Jack who was able to provide Miles with certain insights which would allow him to brush aside his depression. In this current release I thought that the person to counter matt would be his eldest daughter. There are hints that she would be such a person when at first she appears to be a drunkard but father and daughter compromise relatively early and it comes across as a mundane and uninspired relationship. If they clashed more effectively the relationship would clearly have highlighted the risks that Matt faced of losing his family and how difficult it would to reconcile himself with the family he is so close to losing. In the character Miles we see a man who nearly loses all of his close relationships with people before he is reconciled with Maya. This tension is not built sufficiently towards the end and had it been the tension and the idea of life hanging by a thread would be developed more effectively. The reconciliations come too early on in the film. With regards to the inheritance we do not get a clear discourse on the line of descent from a philosophical perspective. Yes the line of descent is described but it is not explored or the idea of descent. There is no sense of letting go here and so the film seems stagnant. There is no sense of a new break or a new thrust in life. The fact that he keeps the land seems like a stagnant move because it is a convenient response to the events in the film. The end is cheap no cycle has been broken no clear new directions are made. Payne should have seen this especially as he expertly rounded off the story of Miles in Sideways by giving that character a new lease on life. The character of Matt does not really get a new lease for he keeps the land and he has some petty reconciliation with his daughters. I never saw the line of descent. This is why although the extended members of the family are mentioned in name they are not given much perspective apart from the cousin Hugh. His role is limited and he just opposes Matt who wants to keep the land. When Matt denounces their lifestyle he seems to be denouncing himself. It is too centred on his views and what he thinks. There is no contrast no proper perspective that runs throughout and makes it clear to the viewer instead of having the film being criticized in such a manner as I am doing now simply because it was not provided in the film. As I said it is hinted at in the form of the elder daughter and cousin Hugh but their characters are not developed sufficiently to provide the necessary contrast that have them resonate apart from the eventual caricatures they eventually become. In Up in the Air (2009) the character played by Clooney was constantly challenged by the youthful character who saw things a different way. This is not present here it only occurs in fits and starts. There are some moments when he consults with his daughter’s male friend but what he says seems maudlin and ineffective and I forgot what he said. The father in Law provides the best contrast but he is dismissed as an old geezer. There is no sense of who the wife is. The character of the wife is not given a chance to defend herself but the clause in her will saying that her life must be terminated should she ever wind up comatose says it all. Free spirited. This is why the daughter who is said to be like her could have provided a more effective contrast instead of her character being compromised. There is no tension as a result. She should have sided with the mother instead of opposing her and this would make for a more lively debate.
The idea of descent is not only limited to the material but to the subjective approach. The descriptive nature of the film does not compensate for the fact that descent implies a definitive break. How surprising it would have been had he sold the land? We would have seen him at sea with his daughters starting a new life with a bittersweet taste for all that they had lost.

The idea that landed property must dominate capital is pretty crude and old fashioned and so there is not much to relate to when you see a man refuse to sell the land and have it lying there in waste. There is no hint about what he plans to do with it. He just wont sell it. There must be a sense of loss and victory. In this film you should be able to have your cake and eat it which is pretty crude in art. Change is compromised by tradition. In Gone with the Wind at least there was a sense of transition to something new despite the sense of melancholy. Landed property must eventually be submerged under the high levels of productivity that comes with capital. When asked what he will do he does not seem to know; he just won’t sell it. Rubbish. There has to be a sense of change but there is none just a lot of compromises. There is no sense that Matt cannot stop what is coming especially as he sees everything centred on him. The film is retrograde and elitist and so there is little sympathy here.

This film might be nominated for best film at the academy awards but it will not win. If the academy has any sense this film will not win. A Golden globe cannot hide that this film has been receiving inflated praise.