Cinema at the Margins

INTRODUCTION

There can be no doubt that we are in an age in which the cinema as we know it has been transformed. The era of film is ending and the era of digital cinema is already hard upon us. While some movies are still shot on actual film, the vast majority of movies are created with digital cameras and hard drives, so much so that one of the industry’s largest equipment suppliers, Birns and Sawyer, recently sold off their entire collection of cameras simply because no one was renting them. There are a few holdouts in the area of actual film production: Steven Spielberg remains a traditionalist, in more ways than one, and no less a figure than Christopher Nolan, who also embraces film over digital media and whose reboot of the Batman series proved incredibly influential. As Nolan noted in a recent interview with Jeffrey Ressner in the DGA Quarterly,

For the last 10 years, I’ve felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I’ve never understood why. It’s cheaper to work on film, it’s far better looking, it’s the technology that’s been known and understood for a hundred years, and it’s extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. We save a lot of money shooting on film and projecting film and not doing digital intermediates. In fact, I’ve never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That’s the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I’ve just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change. But I haven’t seen that reason yet. (Ressner 2012)

And yet, as Nolan himself acknowledges, he’s playing a losing game. Digital is taking over; it’s cheaper to shoot, can be viewed instantly, edited with the touch of a button and cuts cost on every level – from production to final delivery – to the bone. It’s a shift that’s been one hundred years in the making, even since film evolved from paper roll film to cellulose nitrate film and then safety film. Digital is simply the next platform. But make no mistake: 35mm is gone. I predicted this in a lecture at the University of Stockholm, Sweden on 3 December 2000, after the first movie theater in New York had just made the shift to digital and Hollywood studio executives attending the inaugural screening were ceremonially photographed gleefully throwing 35mm film canisters into a large trash barrel. Digital had arrived and there was no looking back.

The members of the Stockholm audience – distinguished academics from around the world – were aghast at this and couldn’t accept the fact that 35mm was heading for its final spin. But, as I pointed out, Alan Crosland’s The Jazz Singer opened in Manhattan in precisely one theater in 1927 and revolutionized the industry with the advent of talkies; this was just the same sort of platform shift playing out yet again. The industry is constantly changing and adapting, relentlessly driven by the bottom line, at once an industry and an art form, but one which, in recent years, seems eager to forget its past and exist exclusively in the present – except, of course, for those few cinephiles who still order DVDs of their favorite titles.

As for the 35mm prints of existing films, they’re being aggressively junked by the studios in favor of DCPs (Digital Cinema Packages) that are unlocked by computer codes called KDMs (Key Delivery Messages) for each individual screening, giving studios an unprecedented control over their product and taking a great deal of discretional leeway out of the hands of theater owners. Want to run an extra midnight screening? You’ll have to clear it first. Want to screen a film for a local critic? Again, you’ll have to log in to the studio’s website, get a clearance, pay a fee and then screen it. With 35mm prints, you could just thread them up and go. Now, that freedom is gone – and, along with it, the ability to shift a film from one screen to another within a multiplex for maximum profitability. The studios are firmly in charge. If you want to screen a classic film – say Blake Edwards’ Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) – you can no longer get a 35mm print; it’s either a DVD, a DCP or nothing at all. Then, too, as the prints become scarcer, so also do replacement parts for conventional 35mm projectors; in an all-digital world, the filmic image has been relegated to museums and archives.

This is the last wave of film, the last chance to capture images with dyes and plastics, the last chance to embrace grain and other filmic characteristics, before the brave new world of digital, perfect cinema takes over. There are all sorts of issues involved here; in particular, archiving digital cinema – a task that this volume will discuss in the essay Vanishing Point – since the new image capture systems reduce everything to pixels, ones and zeros, and have to be constantly upgraded to new platforms to make sure that they continue to exist in an uncorrupted form. It should come as no surprise that the major studios are still creating 35mm fine grain negatives of all their films as a backup in case something happens to the digital masters and often use them when digital files become corrupt. This in itself says something about the ephemerality of the digital image. If everything is converted to digital in the future, what happens to the past of cinema? What happens to the more than one hundred years of cinema that lies in the studio vaults, most of which isn’t inherently commercial and so will never see the light of day?

For example, one studio in particular – Republic Pictures, which operated from the mid-1930s until the late 1950s and produced literally hundreds of films – has all of its films stored in long-term cold vaults, but almost none of them are available in screening copies for the contemporary viewer. When VHS was first introduced, Republic put out much of its back catalogue on tape, but modern audiences weren’t interested in the vast majority of their films, simply because they weren’t aware of either the studio or the films’ existence. William Witney – one of Republic’s most prolific directors and one of Quentin Tarantino’s acknowledged influences – created a vast amount of material for Republic, but when the jump to DVD came, almost none of Republic’s films were introduced in the new format. Thus, much of Witney’s work became invisible; it wasn’t profitable enough to warrant a DVD release and so it was consigned to oblivion. Some titles, including many by Republic – and rather eccentric choices at that – have been picked up by Olive Films, a small DVD distribution outlet, but who knows how long that will last? For most films, if they don’t make money, the studio will put them in a vault and forget about them. Everything must go. As critic Dave Kehr noted,

It’s bad enough, to cite a common estimate, that 90 percent of all American silent films and 50 percent of American sound films made before 1950 appear to have vanished forever. But even the films we have often live on in diminished states. An astonishing number of famous titles – like [Ernest B. Schoedsack and Merian C. Cooper’s 1933 film] King Kong and [Howard Hawks’ 1940 film] His Girl Friday – no longer exist as original camera negatives, but survive only as degraded duplicates and damaged release prints. A great deal of important material – not just features but shorts, newsreels, experimental work, industrial films, home movies and so on – remains on unstable nitrate stock, and must be transferred to a more permanent base before the films turn to goo. And once the endangered material has been stabilized (the preservation step), it often must undergo an even more expensive process of restoration to recover its original luster: the removal of dirt and scratches, the replacement of lost footage or missing intertitles, the cleaning up of degraded soundtracks. (Kehr 2010, emphasis added)

The other thing that’s surprising is that all of this happened in plain sight, so to speak, through neglect and or willful destruction of films that were no longer deemed commercially viable. Also, that the complete digitization of the industry came as such as surprise to everyone – even professionals within the field. As Jan-Christopher Horak, director of the UCLA Archives, noted in an essay in 2012, discussing the 1993 United States Congressional Hearings on Film Preservation, A Study of the Current State of American Film Preservation,

having been a witness myself at those hearings […] I’m struck today by how clueless literally all the participants of those hearings were about the digital tidal wave that would wash over the field in only a few short years. Not one person predicted the end of analog cinema, certainly not within a little more than a decade. (Horak 2012)

And yet that time is now here and there’s no going back. The ruthlessness with which studios are embracing the new digital world should come as no surprise given the enormous cost savings involved in every area – except, of course, in archiving the past. More and more, just a few canonical classics – like Michael Curtiz’s Casablanca (1942) or Victor Fleming’s Gone with the Wind (1939), to name just two very obvious examples – are standing in for the entire output of an era for a new generation that knows nothing of the past and is encouraged by popular media to live only in the eternal present. What will happen to the rest of the films that enchanted, informed and transported audiences of the 1930s, 1940s and even the more recent 1960s?

For the most part, they will be forgotten and their makers forgotten with them. As someone who teaches a film history class on a regular basis, I can confirm that even such an obvious historical marker as Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) is unknown territory for a vast majority of my students. And yet – and here is the nub of my argument with this book, which is an act of historical recovery – once they are exposed to these films that they would never seek out otherwise, they are enthralled by them and wonder why they’ve never heard of them before. Even with films that are readily available as either digital downloads or on DVDs, you have to know that they exist in order to seek them out. In the 1980s and 1990s, at least, the more adventurous video stores served as a useful tool for browsing through the annals of classic cinema, encouraging patrons to sample films they would never have heard of otherwise. Now those stores are gone, along with bookstores and record stores as well, and the days of browsing are over. Much is available, but you have to know it’s there; if you don’t, then how on earth would you even know that it existed? But, as my students’ continued interest demonstrates, it’s still worthwhile to examine these non-mainstream films and filmmakers. They, as much as any of the more popular titles, have something to offer us, and their claim on our memory is more persistent precisely because they have often been neglected in conventional cinema histories.

In the first section of this volume, Genre, I discuss Peter Bogdanovich’s Targets, a prescient film that chronicles the shooting spree of a young Vietnam veteran and is based on real life events from the 1960s – which, in light of recent events in Newtown, Connecticut and elsewhere, seems more relevant than ever before. I also examine the violent and surreal horror films of the late Italian director Lucio Fulci – reviled during their initial appearance, but now acclaimed as classic example of Gothicism – as well as the world of constant peril inhabited by the protagonists of motion picture serials in the 1930s and ’40s, such as Flash Gordon and other films that inspired many of the comic book blockbusters that fill today’s cinemas – George Lucas’s Star Wars (1977) and its many sequels, for example, as well as the continuing series of entries in the Marvel superhero canon. I take a look at the genesis of the television series Dragnet, which is usually credited solely to Jack Webb, but which, as the reader will see, had many hands involved in its creation – not the least of which was Anthony Mann and Alfred Werker’s He Walked by Night (1948), in which Webb appeared as a police forensics expert, and then appropriated the entire structure of the film to create his long running series. And, finally, I cover the more recent, more sophisticated caper and crime thrillers of the late Argentinean director Fabián Bielinsky, who was most famous for his 1998 art house hit Nine Queens, but who found greater depth and resonance in what would sadly be his last film, The Aura (2005).

The second section, History, begins with the works of director Sam Newfield, the most prolific director of the American sound cinema. Newfield labored for the bottom-rung Hollywood studio Producers Releasing Corporation, making sharp and efficient films in every conceivable genre throughout the 1940s – sometimes, as many as fifteen per year under his own name and two pseudonyms. The Power of Resistance: Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne, meanwhile, recounts the production and reception of a key work of French Resistance cinema. Created under the Nazi-directed Vichy government in WWII-era France by director Robert Bresson and scenarist Jean Cocteau, Les Dames marks the pair’s only collaboration on a film. Beyond Characterization: Performance in 1960s Experimental Cinema examines the fringe world of 1960s experimental filmmaking in New York and the ways in which these filmmakers and performers used their own lives as material for the films they created. Finally, Vanishing Point: The Last Days of Film considers the end of actual film production and distribution and the rise of digital cinema, a momentous shift that is taking place even as I write these words and which raises numerous archival, distribution and exhibition questions – all of which are still quite unresolved.

The final section, Interviews, features discussions with the prolific music video director Dale Rage Resteghini – who is now moving into feature films – and examines how changing distribution patterns are changing the face of cinema; J. C. Chandor, the director of the excellent 2011 film Margin Call, which considers the 2008 financial meltdown on Wall Street from the vantage point of one hectic night at a brokerage concern; the final interview given by pioneering British filmmaker Pat Jackson, whose credits range from one of the first Technicolor documentaries to the cult television series The Prisoner, starring Patrick McGoohan; director Gerry O’Hara, who talks about his long career in cinema working with such luminaries as Laurence Olivier, Ronald Neame, Michael Powell, Carol Reed and Otto Preminger; Andrew V. McLaglen, perhaps the foremost exponent of the commercial Western in the last half of the twentieth century; and, finally, director and pop star Michael Sarne, whose notorious film Myra Breckinridge is just the most visible work of a long and varied career.

All of these essays and interviews explore the careers and works of filmmakers who operated in an inherently commercial medium to create films of lasting worth and value – filmmakers who bridged the artificial gap between high and low art to reach audiences through genre films, commercial television or underground films in the 1960s and really get their vision out before the public. Sometimes their works were coded as mainstream entertainment and sometimes they were presented as unvarnished bulletins from the front; but, in all cases, these are films and filmmakers who are vanishing from the cinematic record, unjustly and through no fault of their own.

The marginalization of these artists – and all of them, no matter how commercial they might have been, merit that distinction – is convenient for mainstream historians, but distorts our picture of both the past and present of cinema. As Geoffrey O’Brien, one of the most instructive of all film critics and theorists and something of an enigmatic figure in academia, noted:

[The] decades slid by so quickly in the dark. What year was it, anyway, in which of the worlds you’d lived in simultaneously? A life spent watching movies could best be described by certain movie titles: A Double Life, I Died a Thousand Times, I’ve Lived Before. Caught up in the shifting celluloid waters, living in reverse and playback, you ended up craving an anchor, something that had definitely happened at a definite time, a Great Real Thing providing ballast for the phantoms. Could anything real be inscribed on those liquid surfaces, anything harsh and durable? If you could find your way back to it you could trace another route, a road on which the world could be seen truly as it was. (O’Brien 1995, 78–9)

Val Lewton, producer of some of the most evocative commercial films ever made – a series of dark and deeply personal Gothic films made on shoestring budgets and breakneck schedules at RKO Radio Pictures during the 1940s, such as Jacques Tourneur’s I Walked with a Zombie (1943) – once remarked to an associate in an echo of Keats’ famous self-composed epitaph, here lies one whose name was writ in water, that making films is like writing on water (Dixon and Foster 2011, 20). In other words, nothing is permanent. Everything is fixed only for the moment and only comes to life for that brief fraction of a second when the cinematic image is projected on the screen. If a film isn’t available, it can’t really be said to exist.

Unlocking these phantom visions, then, and seeking the work that comes from the margins is the task that I have set for myself with these essays and interviews. My goal is to document the films that have moved me deeply and yet have been omitted from the dominant canon of film history. Film history is dynamic, not static, but values that we have inscribed in our hearts and minds – values that often have been passed on to us and which we have accepted without fully understanding – keep us from a deeper understanding of our cinematic heritage. No, everything must not go. Instead, as film archivists around the world are fond of saying, everything must be saved. Not all films will be, certainly, and many of the films described in this volume are phantoms already, but brought to light, these oft-obscured titles can teach us much about life as it really was during certain eras – life not as the dominant cinema wishes us to remember it, but rather, as it actually was.

Even as I write these words, the present is inexorably receding into the past. Film, by its very nature, is the sarcophagus of the eternal return of the past, resurrected with each new screening again and again on demand, but only if that demand exists. This is the realm of the cinema, which captures life or, in the words of Jean Cocteau, photographs death at work – a machinery of phantoms, dreams and desires in which constructed realities compete with each other for our collective attention. The world presented here is at once remote and omnipresent, tactile and elusive, present and inextricably linked to the past. And, yet, by the very act of discussing these films and their makers, we can bring them back to a sort of life and celebrate both their existence and their collective hold on our imaginations. The cinema is endless, boundless, too rich to be encompassed by any one history, or even any one set of histories. But, with this book, there is the hope that at least a part of that history is brought to light.

Part I

GENRE

Chapter 1

THE FUTURE CATCHES

UP WITH THE PAST: PETER

BOGDANOVICH’S TARGETS*

Targets are people … and you could be one of them!

(Tagline for Targets)

Peter Bogdanovich got his start as a critic and historian, conducting interviews with some of cinema’s most illustrious directors in their twilight years and publishing them first in a variety of books and magazines, then as a collection in his 1998 volume Who the Devil Made It: Conversations with Legendary Film Directors. Bogdanovich realized early on, however, that these interviews were not enough; he wanted to do more. So he moved to Los Angeles, fell in with the Roger Corman circle at the height of its creative brilliance and soon found himself working on such landmark exploitation vehicles as The Wild Angels (1966), doing double duty as an assistant director and an extra.

After this, the next logical step was directing a movie himself and Corman – then able to green light films with modest budgets that would actually wind up in a theater as opposed to going straight to tape, VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray or VOD – famously offered Bogdanovich a deal. The actor Boris Karloff, famous for his roles in the Frankenstein films, owed Corman two days of work on a multipicture deal and Corman offered the fledgling director these two days with Karloff, twenty minutes of footage from the recently completed film The Terror (1963, ostensibly a Corman film, but one which nearly everyone in Corman’s circle – including Francis Ford Coppola, Monte Hellman, Jack Hill and Jack Nicholson – had a hand in directing), a minimal budget and a shooting schedule. Corman told Bogdanovich that if the finished film was any good he’d distribute it through Paramount; if not, he’d dump it in drive-ins through American International Pictures.

Figure 1. Targets.

Source: Author’s collection.

Absorbing this, Bogdanovich went home and, working with his then-wife, Polly Platt, and an uncredited Samuel Fuller, who contributed considerably to the final script, drafted a screenplay about the last days of an aging horror star, Byron Orlok (Boris Karloff) who wants to quit the business because he’s sick of starring in one rotten horror film after another. Orlok feels that his brand of Gothicism has become outdated and that he should exit gracefully while he’s still in demand. At the same time, in a parallel story, young all-American Vietnam veteran Bobby Thompson (Tim O’Kelly, in a terrifyingly realistic performance) is having trouble readjusting to society after his hitch in the service; he goes on a murderous rampage as a sniper, picking off unsuspecting people from the top of a huge oil refinery tank and, later, from behind the screen of a drive-in theater. Thompson does all of this quite casually, as if the entire rampage was simply a sporting event – which, of course, it is for him. He is incapable of empathizing with his victims – he has no feeling for anyone. All of his victims are simply targets, as the title states with succinct finality.

It is at this point that the two stories converge: Orlok is persuaded to make one final public appearance at the drive-in to plug his final film and, during the screening, Bobby starts killing attendees in their cars with a high-powered rifle. Taking command of the situation, Orlok summons all of his strength and confronts Bobby, knocking him down in front of the screen. He benefits from the fact that Bobby can’t distinguish between on-screen Orlok, striding through the opening of The Terror, and Orlok in real life, walking towards him in a similar outfit (Samuel Fuller suggested this touch and it’s a brilliant one). Once Bobby is subdued, Orlok looks down at the pathetic figure before him and murmurs, Is this what I was afraid of ? And thus the film ends. When Corman saw the finished product, made for less than $100,000 and on which Karloff wound up working five days instead of two – the three extra days were a gift to Bogdanovich from Karloff, who correctly sensed that the project would be an important film – he immediately realized that he’d gotten a much better film than he’d originally bargained for. Corman sold it to Paramount, where it received a desultory release before vanishing into oblivion, resurfacing on DVD and VHS only years later.

But Targets (1968) was and remains a brilliant, stunningly prescient film and perhaps Bogdanovich’s finest work, precisely because he had nothing to work with. When you have nothing, you have to give everything to a project to make it work – unless, of course, you don’t care and Bogdanovich certainly cared. He even cast himself in the film as Sammy Michaels – the man who desperately wants Orlok to make another film and secure Sammy’s big break as a director – simply because he had no money for anyone else. Despite the fact that the film got only a limited release, critics quickly recognized it for the masterpiece it was. Thus, the film ultimately fulfilled its primary function: getting Bogdanovich on the map as a director. Shortly after that, Bogdanovich directed The Last Picture Show (1971) and his career was assured.

The topicality of Targets was also a plus because, for the sniper section of this bifurcated film, Bogdanovich didn’t have to go far to find a story line. The inspiration for Targets was utterly contemporary: the reign of terror inflicted on the citizens of Austin, Texas by Charles Whitman on 1 August 1966 when Whitman, armed to the teeth with an arsenal of legally acquired weapons, ascended to the top of the University of Texas Tower and began randomly shooting anyone who came into view. Before this attack, during which Whitman killed 14 people and wounded 32 others with deadly, methodical precision, Whitman killed both his wife and his mother, leaving behind a suicide note as more than ample evidence of his unbalanced mental state. The partially typewritten note, which was later recovered by police, is dated 31 July 1966 and begins with these chillingly prophetic words: I do not quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed. I do not really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average, reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I cannot recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts (Whitman 1966). Then, after adding several additional sections of text to his note, some in ballpoint pen, Whitman went out to kill. In the end, the Austin police finally stormed the tower and shot Whitman dead. He was 25 years old. The weapons the police found at the shooting site included a machete, a Remington 700 ADL 6mm rifle, a Universal M1 carbine rifle, a 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun, a Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolver, a Luger PO8 9mm pistol and a Galesi-Brescia .25 ACP pistol.

At the time, the Whitman rampage was seen