Hair (1979)

It sure must be great to be such a free spirit that you don’t have to work for a living because you can always beg from people who do. And it sure must be great to be such a free spirit that you never have to wash your clothes or take a bath. And it sure must be great to be such a free spirit that you do not have to worry who the father is if you get pregnant, or, if you are a man, worry about supporting the woman you abandoned when she turns up with your child. And it sure must be great to be such a free spirit that you can display your superior attitude toward life by stomping all over the food that people were going to eat at a dinner party. And it sure must be great to be such a free spirit that you can steal a car just because the guy who owns it is uptight and therefore deserves to be treated with contempt.

What an insufferably sanctimonious bunch these lowlifes are! My flesh crawled all through this movie Hair. Thank goodness people do not put up with this nonsense in real life.

Gone With the Wind (1939)

Most movies can be discussed without comparing them to reality, but not so Gone With the Wind, owing to its paternalistic depiction of slavery in the Old South as something benign, in which the slaves are so well-treated that you would almost think their Southern masters were doing them a favor. The closest thing to slave beating in this movie is when Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) slaps Prissy (Butterfly McQueen) in exasperation. And an unnamed Ku Klux Klan is subtly presented (without sheets) as a force for good. Indeed, this movie is to slavery what The Godfather (1972) is to organized crime: a glorification of something despicable, a beautification of something ugly.

And yet the movie is tame compared to the book, written by Margaret Mitchell, which required a great deal of sanitizing to make it suitable for a Hollywood production. As an example of the sort of thing that had to be excised in the process of turning this book into a movie, there is the passage where Rhett Butler (Clark Gable in the movie) admits to Scarlett that he shot a black man for insulting a white woman: “He was uppity to a lady, and what else could a Southern gentleman do?”

In comparing the movie first to reality and then to the book, we get something of a paradox. By avoiding much of the really offensive material in the book, the movie becomes less realistic than its source, because the racist sentiments expressed in the book accurately reflect the racist sentiments of the white South at the time. However much we might deplore Rhett’s murder of an African American, such things undoubtedly happened in those days.

What is less clear is whether Gone With the Wind is feminist or traditionalist in its attitude toward women. On the one hand, Scarlett is portrayed as strong, resourceful, and shrewd, a woman who chafes at the ridiculous restraints placed on women during those times, and who breaks those restraints one by one as the story progresses. On the other hand, she is portrayed as a wrong-headed woman.  The essence of this idea is that a woman may not know her own mind, and when that happens, a man is justified in using coercive means to bring her around, thereby making her happy in spite of her objections.

Toward that end, Margaret Mitchell sets up a simple opposition in terms of which there is a right and wrong choice in whom one marries, resulting in two possibilities:  the man and woman are alike, which is conducive to happiness; and the man and woman are different, which guarantees misery. Early on in the novel, we find that Scarlett is in love with Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard in the movie), and she is devastated to learn that he is going to marry Melanie Hamilton (Olivia de Havilland in the movie).  Her father (Thomas Mitchell in the movie) tries to console her, telling her that she could never be happy with Ashley, because they are so different from each other.  “Only when like marries like,” he says, “can there be any happiness.” As a way of underscoring just how much Ashley and Melanie are alike, it turns out that they are cousins. Apparently, the idea is that people you are related to will tend to be like you, and so marrying a cousin is conducive to happiness, even if just a tad incestuous.  In fact, we are told that the Wilkes always marry their cousins, the Hamiltons, which is why Ashley’s sister is going to marry Melanie’s brother. Scarlett starts to say, “But you’ve been happy, and you and Mother aren’t alike,” but she thinks better of it.  Her mother, you see, had been in love with her cousin (Oh my!), but her family objected, not because they were cousins, of course, but because he was a little too wild.  Unable to have the man she really wanted, she resigned herself to marrying a man she did not love.

Regarding the ways in which Ashley is different from Scarlett, his love of reading poetry and listening to music, for example, she asserts that she would change all that after they were married, but her father chides her for such foolishness, saying no woman ever changed any man.  And as far as he is concerned, the fact that Scarlett thinks she loves Ashley is no argument.  “All this American business of running around marrying for love, like servants, like Yankees!  The best marriages are when the parents choose for the girl.” Besides, he assures her, for a woman, love comes after marriage.  Scarlett’s father is the first man in her life who knows better than she does what will make her happy.

The next day, at the barbecue, Scarlett confesses her love to Ashley, and he admits that he cares for her too, but that he cannot marry her.  “Love isn’t enough to make a successful marriage when two people are as different as we are,” he tells her.  When she asks him if he loves Melanie, he dodges the question and starts talking about how alike they are:  “She is like me, part of my blood, and we understand each other.  Scarlett!  Scarlett!  Can’t I make you see that a marriage can’t go on in any sort of peace unless the two people are alike?”  And thus Ashley is the second man in Scarlett’s life who knows better than she does what will make her happy.

Right after that scene, she meets Rhett Butler, the third man in her life who knows what is best for her.  He falls in love with her at first sight, and somewhat later in the book he explains the reason he loves her:  “I love you, Scarlett, because we are so much alike, renegades, both of us, dear, and selfish rascals.”  However, it is still Ashley that Scarlett loves, and her persistence in this regard is not presented as merely being an unfortunate circumstance, but is treated as morally unacceptable.  There is the sense that Scarlett is wrong not to accept Rhett’s love, that she is willfully refusing to give up her infatuation for Ashley when she could have Rhett, the idea being that when a man truly loves a woman, she is wrong to refuse him.  And it is this moral dimension that justifies the use of force.  Of course, it is part of this whole notion of the wrong-headed woman that when such force is employed, it turns out to be what she really wants.  The first couple of times Rhett uses force, it only involves aggressive kissing, and in each case, she forgets about Ashley and swoons with passion, leading her to accept Rhett’s proposal of marriage.

After they get married, she still loves Ashley, of course, on account of her being so obstinate. The tension builds, with Rhett becoming increasingly physical and threatening, until one night he carries her up the stairs and rapes her.  And of course it is just what she needs:  “Suddenly she had a wild thrill such as she had never known; joy, fear, madness, excitement, surrender to arms that were too strong, lips too bruising, fate that moved too fast.”  But the effect proves to be temporary, and their marriage returns to its previous state of low-grade misery.

What is ironic is that this book was written by a woman. In The Forsyte Saga, on the other hand, another man rapes his wife for similar reasons, being frustrated by his wife’s love for another man. But in that case, the rape is so traumatic that it not only ruins their marriage, but also ruins things for the next generation. And this novel was written by a man, John Galsworthy, also in the early part of the twentieth century. In short, the novel written by a man was more feminist than the one written by a woman.

Back before the movie version had been made, when people read the novel without knowing how it would end, they probably thought Scarlett would eventually realize how much she really loved Rhett, and they would live happily ever after; or, failing that, she would be punished for her stubbornness. And indeed she is. She realizes just how much she loves Rhett only at the point where it is too late. To this extent, the movie is faithful to the book. But what those who read the novel did not expect was the destruction of Rhett. And this difference in what was expected and the actual outcome is the biggest difference between the movie and the book.

At the end of the movie, when Rhett leaves Scarlett, we feel relieved. He is through with her, and it is as if he has finally been cured of a sickness. There is the hint of a sneer when he tells her that he does not give a damn what happens to her, and there is a spring in his step as he heads out the door. But the depiction of Rhett in the novel is very different: “He looked at her steadily with dark eyes that were heavy with fatigue and there was no leaping light in them…. He was sunken in his chair, his suit wrinkling untidily against his thickening waist, every line of him proclaiming the ruin of a fine body and the coarsening of a strong face. Drink and dissipation had done their work….”

Although Rhett is only forty-five by that time, he seems much older, drained and exhausted, almost as if he is dying.  And much in the way people often express a desire to go back home as they near the end of life, Rhett talks about going back to Charleston, where his family is, in hopes of finding peace and reconciliation.

When Scarlett finally accepts that Rhett is leaving her, she says, “Oh, my darling, if you go, what shall I do?” Unlike the movie, where the tone of Rhett’s voice and the look on his face as he makes his parting remark is almost triumphant, making us want to say, “Good for him,” in the book, he is defeated, and his words are full of resignation and regret: “For a moment he hesitated as if debating whether a kind lie were kinder in the long run than the truth. Then he shrugged. ‘… I wish I could care what you do or where you go, but I can’t.’ He drew a short breath and said lightly but softly: ‘My dear, I don’t give a damn.’”

Whereas the movie stays with the notion that Scarlett is wrong-headed and gets what she deserves, the ending of the novel makes us realize that it was actually Rhett who was wrong-headed, and that he is the one who really pays the price for it. If Scarlett was foolish in thinking she could change Ashley regarding his tendency to spend a lot of time reading books and listening to music, how much more foolish was it for Rhett to think he could marry a woman who loved another man and somehow change that?

Gloria (1980)

From the very beginning, Gloria strains credulity. Jack Dawn (Buck Henry) is an accountant who works for the mob.  He has been keeping a record of certain transactions so that he could inform on the mob to the FBI.  He tells the mob about these secret records he has been keeping, but then says that he was just kidding. There is simply no way to make sense of why he would do that.  But once he has let the mob know about these secret records, he should have called the police and then the FBI to get in the witness protection program, which is presumably what he was planning on doing anyway. Instead, he gives the book to his son, Phil (John Adams), as if he is doing him a favor.

All right, Jack is stupid, and we will let it go at that. Gloria (Gena Rowlands) lives in an apartment on the same floor, and Jack sends Phil over there with the book.  Gloria used to be a mistress of a mobster, so she knows the score.  The simplest thing for her to do is to just hand over the book to the mob right away, but inexplicably she does not. She is not willing to go to the police for help, so what does she think she and Phil will do with the book? The reason she says she cannot go to the police for protection is that the mobsters are her friends. But when a car full of mobsters pulls up next to her while she is walking along the street, saying they want to talk to her, she pulls out a gun and shoots all five of them. I guess it is all right to kill your friends, but not to get the police to protect you from them.

When Gloria eventually hands over the book, the mobsters say they still need to kill the kid, to make an example of him. The problem with that is that it is a cliché that the Mafia leaves the women and children alone, primarily because killing family members invites retribution. So, this determination to kill a young child is not believable.  After all, they had already made an example of Phil’s family, killing his father, mother, sister, and grandmother.

Gloria decides to take Phil to Pittsburg with her. But then it occurs to her that the Mafia is probably in Pittsburg too. No kidding. The thing for her to do would be to go to some small town no one has ever heard of in another part of the country, like Kerrville, Texas, population just over 20,000.  But that never occurs to her.

Finally, just as the plot makes no sense, the dialogue between Gloria and Phil is unnatural. I could feel the heavy hand of John Cassavetes, who directed this movie and wrote the script, making it all up with little regard for realism.

The Noble Lie

The Noble Lie in Plato’s Republic

The idea of a noble lie was first enunciated in Plato’s Republic.  It is a lie that is told for the good of society, for the benefit of those that believe it.  Through the mouth of Socrates, Plato argued that people should be raised to believe in a myth that would justify the stratification of society as something innate.  Those in the lowest class, the Workers, consisting of artisans and farmers, would know their place and stay in it, doing as they were told by the highest class, the Guardians, resulting in social harmony, for the benefit of all.

Such lies may be found in the writings of historians, in the speeches of politicians, and in the sermons of priests.  As for the movies, there is no doubt that the Motion Picture Production Code promoted such lies in requiring, among other things, that the movies show that crime does not pay. That way, those that watched these movies would hopefully be deterred from committing crimes themselves, having been indoctrinated with idea that they would be punished if they did break the law.

One of the problems with a noble lie is that it is condescending.  Those that tell such lies regard themselves as superior to the rest of mankind.  Not needing such lies themselves, they tell them to others for their own good.  Once people realize they have been lied to, however, they are not grateful for the supposed good the lies did them. Instead, they resent it.

A Few Good Men (1992)

In A Few Good Men, Jack Nicholson may have been responsible for the death of a marine, but he seals his fate when he yells at Tom Cruise, “You can’t handle the truth!” That’s when we really detest him.  And that is why this is the most memorable part of the movie.  We in the audience identify with Cruise and others in the movie that have been lied to.  Because we do not identify with Nicholson, we do not approve of his noble lie, which is based on his puffed-up idea of how important he is on that “wall.”

But what about a movie that allows us to identify with those that tell such lies?  In that case, the movie flatters us that we are among the superior few that can handle the truth, while allowing us to look down on those being lied to.

Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)

One such movie is Angels with Dirty Faces.  In that movie, James Cagney plays Rocky, a gangster. When he realizes the jig is up, he wants to go out in a blaze of glory, dying in a hail of bullets by the police as he takes a few coppers with him.  But he runs out of bullets and is captured. Having been sentenced to die in the electric chair, he opts for the next best thing, remaining fearless right to the end, saying he is going to spit in the eye of his executioners.

Pat O’Brien plays Jerry, Rocky’s childhood friend.  They committed crimes together when they were just kids, but during one attempted theft, the police showed up.  Jerry got away, but Rocky was sent to reform school.  Jerry ended up becoming a priest, while Rocky continued to pursue a life of crime.

But now Jerry is worried.  He knows that Rocky is admired by teenagers in the neighborhood, the Dead End kids.  If Rocky fearlessly goes to his death, these kids will want to emulate him and enter a life of crime themselves.  Nowadays, Jerry wouldn’t have had to worry.  By the time all the appeals had been exhausted, another fifteen years would have passed before Rocky finally sat in the hot seat, and by that time, the kids in the neighborhood would all be married and holding down jobs. But things moved quicker back then.

Jerry asks Rocky for a favor.  He wants him to turn yellow, screaming for mercy, while the guards drag him to the chair:

This is a different kind of courage, Rocky. The kind that’s, well, that’s born in Heaven. Well, not the courage of heroics or bravado. The kind that you and I and God know about.  I want you to let them down. You see, you’ve been a hero to these kids, and hundreds of others, all through your life, and now you’re gonna be a glorified hero in death, and I want to prevent that, Rocky. They’ve got to despise your memory. They’ve got to be ashamed of you.

Rocky hates the idea:

You asking me to pull an act, turn yellow, so those kids will think I’m no good.  You ask me to throw away the only thing I’ve got left.  You ask me to crawl on my belly, the last thing I do in life.  Nothing doing. You’re asking too much.  You want to help those kids, you got to think about some other way.

But then, at the last minute, just as he enters the room where he is to be electrocuted, Rocky starts screaming and begging for mercy.  The newspapers report this final act of cowardice on Rocky’s part, and Jerry assures the kids that every word of it is true.  Then they all go into the church to pray for Rocky’s soul.

Admittedly, Rocky’s act of cowardice is ambiguous.  There are four possible interpretations:

  1. Rocky really turned yellow.
  2. Rocky pretended to turn yellow as a favor to Jerry.
  3. God filled Rocky’s heart with fear.
  4. God inspired Rocky to do the right thing.

Assume there has been no divine intervention, leaving us with only the first two possibilities.  But then, we can clearly eliminate the first.  This is James Cagney we’re talking about.  We know his screen persona. He never turned yellow in a movie in his life.  Furthermore, the last time we see Rocky’s face, he looks tough and fearless.  In the scene immediately following, where Rocky supposedly turns yellow, we see only Rocky’s shadow, not Rocky himself.  (We do see his hands, trying to hold on to a radiator, but not his face.) This use of shadows indicates that what we are seeing is not real, but an illusion, much like the shadows on the wall in Plato’s allegory of the cave. Therefore, while the kids in the movie may have bought the noble lie that Jerry told them, we in the audience know that Rocky not only had the courage to face death, but also that he feigned cowardice to help out a pal.

And therein lies the paradox.  As numerous critics have pointed out, there were teenagers sitting in the audience when this movie was shown in theaters.  They saw how the kids in the movie were being fooled. So, while the Dead End kids may be inspired to lead good lives, the teenagers watching this movie were being taught not to fall for such malarkey.  In fact, they were likely to admire Rocky even more for his noble gesture in death.  In this way, the audience is allowed to identify with those like Jerry, who tell noble lies, while feeling superior to those like the Dead End kids, who buy into such deception.

However, the movie clearly wants us to believe there has been divine intervention, leaving us with the last two possibilities:  either God filled Rocky’s heart with fear, or God inspired Rocky to do the right thing.  But here too, Cagney’s screen persona allows us to eliminate the first of these possibilities.  If there really were an all-powerful God, he could presumably turn any man into a coward.  But no one watching this movie ever thought that’s what God did to Rocky.  They might, however, believe that through the grace of God, Rocky overcame his pride, feigning cowardice so that others would not follow in his footsteps, but instead would walk the path of righteousness.

In that case, it might be thought that at least the teenagers watching this movie were nevertheless being taught something about the ways of God; for the implication that there was divine intervention is unavoidable.  Just before we see the shadow of Rocky, when he pleads for his life, we see Jerry open up a prayer book and start reading it. When we see the shadow of Rocky as he starts screaming and crying, Jerry’s eyes begin tearing up as he looks at Rocky in his last pitiful moments, and then those same eyes look upward to Heaven, for he knows a miracle has occurred. And so, it might be thought that what was lost in the moral lesson, in that the teenagers watching this movie would know that Rocky was really a brave man after all, was gained back as a religious lesson, in that those same teenagers would know that it was all due to glory of God.

Nah!  They knew that was a lie too.

In this movie, the purpose of the noble lie was to keep others in the movie from admiring a criminal who was as brave as he was tough, to keep them from thinking of him as a hero.  There are a couple of other movies, however, in which the purpose of the lie is just the opposite, to encourage others to admire someone as a hero, even though it means concealing the fact that he was unworthy of such esteem.

Plato would have approved.  He argued that stories about gods and heroes should be censored, eliminating their immoral and shameful acts, even if the stories are true. In that case, a select few may know these stories, the Guardians of the Republic, but the rest must be educated, not according to what is true, but what is best for them to believe.

Fort Apache (1948)

One of those movies that encourage belief in heroes is Fort Apache.  As the movie opens, we see that Colonel Thursday (Henry Fonda) is an insufferable snob. He is contemptuous of the fact that he is being sent to the title fort to be its commanding officer by a war department that not only is ungrateful for all that he had done during the Civil War, but also fails to appreciate that he was clearly meant for better things. He even prefers Europe to this new assignment.

He is irked to discover that Second Lieutenant Michael O’Rourke (John Agar) is the son of Sergeant Major O’Rourke (Ward Bond) at Fort Apache, and rudely interrogates the sergeant, trying to understand how such a thing could happen.  He believes in a sharp class distinction between officers and enlisted men, and the idea that the son of a sergeant could be admitted to West Point just seems wrong.  The sergeant informs him that it happened by presidential appointment, which Thursday notes is usually reserved for sons of officers.  The sergeant further informs him that he was given a battlefield commission of major during the war.  Thursday persists, saying, “Still, it’s been my impression that presidential appointments were restricted to sons of holders of the Medal of Honor,” to which the sergeant snidely replies, “That is my impression too, sir.”

Thursday seethes with frustration knowing that Sergeant O’Rourke has received the glory that Thursday so desperately wants and thinks he deserves.  And when he discovers that his daughter Philadelphia (Shirley Temple) has been socializing with Lieutenant O’Rourke and his family, he is aghast.  When she accepts the lieutenant’s proposal of marriage, Thursday refuses to give his consent, saying that she will be sent back East.

Thursday is utterly mirthless, barely concealing his displeasure at having to perform certain social functions at the noncommissioned officers’ dance, especially when he is informed that it is the custom at Fort Apache that in the opening dance, the Grand March, the commanding officer lead out the wife of the sergeant major, Mrs. O’Rourke. Adding to that indignity, Sergeant O’Rourke will lead out the colonel’s lady, in this case, Philadelphia.  When that ordeal is finally over, Thursday looks about for his escape, but finds that Mrs. O’Rourke expects him to dance with her in the polka that follows.

Earlier in the movie, we see that he refuses to shake hands with Captain Collingwood (George O’Brien), with whom he is already acquainted, because Thursday believes that Collingwood disgraced his uniform in some way during the war; though we gather that whatever happened was really not Collingwood’s fault, but just the result of some unfortunate circumstance over which he had no control.

Thursday likes to flaunt his knowledge of military history, dropping names like Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, and Napoleon Bonaparte, while refusing to appreciate the tactical cunning of Cochise, because he is just an illiterate savage. He repeatedly rejects the advice of Captain York (John Wayne), a seasoned veteran with extensive knowledge of the Apaches, because Thursday is a colonel and York is just a captain.

It is at this point that his snobbery makes him not just an extremely unpleasant human being, but an incompetent commanding officer as well. After Captain York gives his word to Cochise that a meeting will take place to discuss peace, Thursday announces that he will not honor York’s promise, but will attack the Apaches while they are not expecting it, now that they have been lured back from Mexico onto American soil.  He justifies this treachery on the grounds that Cochise is just a “breechclouted savage,” so there is no question of honor between him and an American officer.  As further proof that Thursday is not a man of honor, when York says that an order just given by Thursday would be suicide, Thursday relieves York of his command and calls him a coward.  York throws down his gauntlet, demanding satisfaction, but Thursday hedges, saying he is not a duelist.  The result is that the order York objected to is carried out, and Thursday ends up getting half the regiment slaughtered during a battle with the Apaches, including himself.

In the final scene, which takes place years later, the now Colonel York talks to reporters, who gush about what a great man Thursday was, a hero to every schoolboy, memorialized in the magnificent painting, “Thursday’s Charge,” and York encourages them in their delusion. The movie seems to imply that this is for the best, that schoolboys need their heroes, that people need to believe that Thursday was a great man.

The reason people need to believe in heroes that were brave in battle, even to the point of losing their lives, is so that those that believe in such heroes will be willing to fight fearlessly to the death themselves. In the words of Bernard de Mandeville, “We honor the dead to dupe the living.”

Also to that end, Plato argued that the tales told by Homer and other poets that depicted a dreadful afterlife in Hades must be expunged, lest the Auxiliaries, the police and the soldiers, would fear death and run from battle.  Instead, they must be led to believe that a pleasant afterlife awaits them.  So, when one of the reporters laments the fact that only Colonel Thursday will be remembered, while the rest are dead and forgotten, York corrects him:

You’re wrong there.  They aren’t forgotten because they haven’t died.  They’re living.  Right out there.  Collingwood and the rest. And they’ll keep on living as long as the regiment lives.

Since Thursday is loosely reminiscent of General George Armstrong Custer, it is interesting to note that a movie explicitly about Custer, They Died with Their Boots On (1941), also suggested a similar kind of immortality for him and the 7th Cavalry Regiment.

And yet, this movie is subversive, undermining the whole notion of heroes and great men, by showing us how unworthy Thursday was of all the adulation he now receives posthumously, and essentially besmirching the legend surrounding Custer as well.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Senator Ransom Stoddard (James Stewart) and his wife Hallie (Vera Miles) return to the small western town of Shinbone for the funeral of Tom Doniphon (John Wayne).  A young reporter and the editor of the local newspaper want to know why an important politician like Senator Stoddard would come to the funeral of someone they had never even heard of.  Stoddard decides to tell them who Doniphon was.

Some of the story the reporters already know.  Stoddard came out West with nothing but his law books, and he was immediately made aware that the law counts for nothing in the territory when his stage is held up, and he is beaten with a silver-handled whip by a bandit named Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin).  He would have beaten Stoddard to death had Reese (Lee Van Cleef) not stopped him.  Later in the movie, Valance does the same thing to a newspaper man, Dutton Peabody (Edmond O’Brian), and again Reese has to stop him before he kills him.  Now, when a bandit played by Lee Van Cleef is the one who has to restrain the leader of a gang from being excessively brutal, you know that gang leader must really be vicious.

After Stoddard is brought to town in a wagon, he is nursed back to health by Hallie and her parents, who run a restaurant.  As he recovers, he helps out by washing dishes. One night he even starts to serve Doniphon his steak when Valance and his gang are there.  Valance laughs at Stoddard, who is wearing an apron, making him look weak and effeminate.  He trips Stoddard as he walks by, which angers Doniphon, but only because that was his steak.  There is a confrontation, but Valance backs down and leaves.

The town marshal, Link Appleyard (Andy Devine), is afraid Valance, so he is worthless. Doniphon is a match for Valance, but he basically just minds his own business.  All he cares about is Hallie, whom he hopes to marry.  The tension between Valance and Stoddard finally reaches the breaking point. Valance comes to Shinbone to kill Stoddard.  Doniphon arranges for his servant Pompey (Woody Strode) to have the buckboard waiting behind the restaurant so that Stoddard can get out of town safely. Hallie and her parents plead with him to leave.

Instead, Stoddard picks up a gun he barely knows how to use and decides to meet Valance out on the street.  But he doesn’t even bother to take off that apron!  As long as you are going to die like a man, you should at least look like one.  Things appear pretty one-sided, but amazingly enough, Stoddard shoots Valance and kills him.

Stoddard was shot in his arm in the gunfight, and Hallie starts dressing his wound.  As she does so, she begins to look at him with admiration.  She always liked Stoddard, but now that he has killed Valance, she has fallen in love with him.  She confesses that she did not want him to run away from Valance, even though she was afraid he would be killed.  But now that she knows he’s a real man, she gives him her heart.  They end up getting married.

Stoddard becomes known as the man who shot Liberty Valance, propelling him into his political career. Doniphon, who came into the kitchen just as Hallie was holding Stoddard’s head to her breast and kissing him on his forehead, angrily goes home and burns up the house he was building for him and Hallie.

But then Stoddard tells the reporters something they did not know.  It turns out that it was Doniphon who killed Valance with a rifle from the other side of the street.  In fact, we see that when Stoddard fired his pistol, he shot way too high.  The thing that made Stoddard famous, then, is basically a fraud.  The editor of the newspaper wads up his notes and throws them in the furnace. “When the legend becomes fact,” he says, “print the legend.”

We even have to wonder if Stoddard’s marriage to Hallie was based on this fraud as well.  She is not in the room when he tells his story about what really happened.  And later, on the train, when the conductor refers to him as the man who shot Liberty Valance, Stoddard’s face falls at being reminded of the lie his prominence is based on, unable even to finish lighting his pipe; while Hallie’s face remains expressionless, looking straight ahead, as if the remark is unproblematic for her.

This ending is similar to that of Fort Apache, although less explicit.  In this earlier film, we definitely get the sense that people, especially children, need heroes, and so that is why the legend is made to prevail over the truth.  In this movie, however, it might be argued that the legend simply makes better copy, and that is why the editor decides to sit on this story.  But if that were true, we would not care for the movie as much. That is, if Stoddard had been the one who killed Liberty Valance, the movie would have been just one more Western in which the hero kills the bad guy and gets the girl. But just as this movie is far more interesting for having a twist ending, so too would the readers of the newspaper have found the truth to be more fascinating than the story they had previously been led to believe. The local paper would have become nationally known as the one that broke the story about what really happened.

But by the same token, Plato never denied that the stories told by the poets about gods and heroes, with all their flaws and misdeeds, were more interesting than the bowdlerized versions that he would have deemed fit for public consumption.  The editor is like one of the Guardians, who knows that such stories are suitable only for a select few, while the masses must continue to believe in the heroic senator of legend.

Conclusion

Angels with Dirty Faces says that it is important that villains not be thought of as heroes; Fort Apache and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance say that it is important that certain men be thought of as heroes even though they are unworthy.  These movies are stroking our vanity.  Other people, these movies are saying, need their illusions, but we know better. Let the masses have their heroes, because they would just fall apart if they did not have something to believe in, but as members of the select few, we are too sophisticated to fall for such nonsense.

Of course, those same masses, who supposedly need to be told noble lies, are the ones who are sitting in the audience along with us, so this may seem like a contradiction. But it is a contradiction with a purpose. The point is to flatter each of us into thinking we are superior to others, who in turn have been flattered into thinking they are superior to us. So, we all get to feel superior to one another, and that makes us like these movies.

Field of Dreams (1989)

A movie about baseball can be enjoyed by someone who cares nothing about baseball, but I doubt that Field of Dreams is one of them. It excessively romanticizes the game, declaring it to be the essence of all that is good about America, so much so that it even glorifies the men who threw the 1919 World Series. What kind of statement about America is that?

But if that were not challenge enough, the movie also involves some kind of supernatural reality in which we are all supposed to follow our dreams and fulfill our destiny. But since some people make bad choices, it is the destiny of Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) to correct some of those bad choices, including his own, and make everything all right again.

And even that might not be so bad if it were not for the movie’s relentless insipid attitude about the wonder of it all.

That Obscure Object of Desire (1977)

I always knew I was not good with faces, but I didn’t realize just how bad I was until I watched That Obscure Object of Desire. It was only after I finished watching the movie and read a review on it that I found out that Conchita was played by two different actresses, Carole Bouquet and Angela Molina, in regularly alternating scenes. Once I read that, I could immediately remember the difference, though I had not noticed it at the time. In fact, there was even a scene in which a third woman, who happened to also be a brunette, made an appearance, and I thought she was Conchita too. Apparently the purpose was to have one actress play Conchita when she wants to have sex and the other actress when she does not.

Anyway, we see some terrorism.

Then, Mathieu (Fernando Rey), a middle-aged man, tries to seduce Conchita, his maid, on her first day on the job, which is creepy (today we would call it sexual harassment). She quits as a result, but he keeps pursuing her (today we would call it stalking).

And then we see some more terrorism.

Our disgust for him as a lecher soon turns to pity, because she keeps egging him on, promising, enticing, getting naked, rubbing her body on him, but he must not have sex with her, because she is virgin and she is saving herself for him and that ought to be enough for him and besides, what kind of girl does he think she is anyway?

More terrorism.

The movie proves there is no fool like an old fool, because he buys her a house to win her love, but she locks him out and has sex with her lover while he watches from outside.

You guessed it, some more terrorism.

He finally gets fed up and says he knows God will never forgive her. But then he forgives her, and they get back together. But wait! They start arguing again. Suddenly a bomb goes off in the marketplace blowing them to bits.

Thank goodness for terrorism.

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

I was in college when Once Upon a Time in the West came out. I had already seen the previous Westerns by Sergio Leone, and was especially awed by The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966), so I looked forward to this new Leone Western with great anticipation. I was disappointed. On the one hand, I could see that it had a lot of good stuff in it, but there was something lacking. As I found out later, what was lacking was all the footage that had been cut out of the movie for its release in America. It was not until the movie came to television, and I saw much of the additional material (with some stuff edited out for the usual reasons), that I realized what a great movie it was. Even then it was not until somewhat later that I saw the restoration, which included even more material. Unfortunately, those who restored this movie messed up on the music at the end, which is hard to understand, because it was done right in the edited-for-television version, and I know it was done right in the German version as well. I guess we Americans were just not destined to see this movie in its perfect form, and certainly not in a movie theater (at least not where I live).

On the whole, the critics did not seem to like the movie when it first came out either. Some of them may have also reacted negatively to the chopped-up presentation, but others were offended by other things, such as the slow pace or the amoral characters. Some of the critics objected to the way it copied stuff from other Westerns. What they (and I) did not realize at the time was that these were quotations, not necessarily in the sense of quoting what had been said in other Westerns, but in the extended sense of creating images and plot points similar to those in previous Westerns. Presumably, Leone had intended that people would watch his movie and smile appreciatively at these quotations, and I suppose some people did precisely that. What he probably did not realize was that these quotations were more likely to be appreciated in reverse, as was the case with me. I had seen many of the Westerns that were quoted, but only once, and thus did not catch the references. Once Upon a Time in the West, however, I watched every chance I got, and I quit counting after I had seen it twenty-five times.

Little by little, I watched the classic Westerns again, or for the first time in many cases, and I would experience déjà vu. For example, one night I was watching The Plainsman (1936), somewhat listlessly, when suddenly, toward the end of the movie, I had the feeling that what I was watching I had seen before. At first, I did not know why, but I quickly realized that when Gary Cooper entered the saloon, dressed in a black shirt, a black hat with a flat brim, and long, black, tight-fitting boots, the scene was similar to the one in which Frank (Henry Fonda) enters the saloon to buy the land back from Harmonica (Charles Bronson).  Even the peculiar tables and chairs, with their short legs, are the same.

From then on I never knew when I would catch another quotation and get another feeling of déjà vu.  For example, when I watched High Noon (1952) and saw three men waiting on a train, it brought to mind the opening scene of Once Upon a Time in the West.  Both The Searchers (1956) and Shane (1953) had elements that suggest the scene at McBain’s ranch.  Brett McBain (Frank Wolff), the owner of the ranch, had named it “Sweetwater.”  In The Comancheros (1961), there is a character named Ed McBain who is said to have killed man in Sweetwater.  The street in 3:10 to Yuma (1957) is just like the street that Frank walks down when his own men are trying to kill him, and Cheyenne (Jason Robards) is put on a train that will take him to that prison in Yuma.  Henry Fonda’s character in Warlock (1959) kicks away a man’s crutches just as Frank does to Morton (Gabriele Ferzetti).  Frank and his men wear dusters when massacring the family at the McBain ranch in order to make it look as though Cheyenne and his men were responsible.  The dusters worn by the outlaws in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence (1962) are like those worn by Cheyenne and his men, though dusters are also worn in My Darling Clementine (1946), so this may be a two-for-one quotation.    In The Iron Horse (1924), a movie about building the transcontinental railroad, a white man dresses up like a Cheyenne Indian in order to make it looks as though the murder of George O’Brien’s father was done by the Indians.  O’Brien’s character later gets revenge against that man, much in the way that Harmonica gets revenge against Frank.  The arch supporting a bell from which Harmonica’s brother is hanged derives from a much smaller arch with a bell in Duel in the Sun (1946).  Those are fairly obvious, but others can easily escape notice, as in the case of the little piece of material missing from the brim of the hat worn by Harmonica, just like the hat Bronson wore in The Magnificent Seven (1960).  There is also the deliberately slow way that Frank dismounts, just as Wilson (Jack Palance) does in Shane. And I don’t suppose I need to mention that the scene of Jill riding through Monument Valley is a quotation of almost every Western directed by John Ford.

Johnny Guitar (1954) gives us the framework for Once Upon a Time in the West.  A prostitute played by Joan Crawford owns land where the railroad is coming through, which corresponds to Jill (Claudia Cardinale) and her situation.  The gang of outlaws headed by the Dancing Kid corresponds to Cheyenne’s gang.  After a funeral, a vigilante posse dressed in black is formed to chase the Dancing Kid and his gang, just as a similar posse is formed after the funeral at the McBain’s ranch to chase Cheyenne and his gang.  Sterling Hayden plays the title character.  Because he is mentally ill, gun crazy, he no longer carries a gun, but only a guitar.  Harmonica, as his name suggests, also has a musical instrument, and when we first see him, as the train pulls away and he is facing three of Frank’s gunmen, it appears as though he has no gun either.  He too is mentally disturbed, carrying “something around inside of him, something to do with death.”  He is obsessed with the murder of his brother to the point of wearing the same type of clothes he wore that day and still playing the harmonica that was shoved into his mouth.  He wore no gun that day either, which is why it is typically concealed throughout the movie.  When he escorts Jill out to the well, after tearing off enough of her clothes so that she will be sex bait, he makes it appear that he has no gun in that case too, in order to lure two of Frank’s killers to ride in close, thinking they can kill him and rape her.  Only at the end, for the final showdown, does he put the gun in a holster and strap it on.

Many of these quotations I noticed myself, but others were brought to my attention by Christopher Frayling in his two books, Spaghetti Westerns:  Cowboys and Europeans from Karl May to Sergio Leone and Sergio Leone:  Something To Do With Death.  In the latter, he not only discusses allusions to other Westerns, too numerous to list here, but he also notes that Bernardo Bertolucci, who helped write the script, pointed out that there are references to the history of cinema beyond the Western genre.  For example, Frank’s contemptuous remark about a man who would wear both a belt and suspenders is a quotation from Ace in the Hole (1951).

Of course, one’s ability to appreciate these quotations in reverse presupposes having seen Once Upon a Time in the West many, many times. No problem.

The basic story of this movie is structured around the building of the transcontinental railroad.  Morton is a railroad tycoon who began his railroad in the East and hopes to extend it all the way to the Pacific Ocean before he dies.  Historically, the transcontinental railroad was built from two starting points, one in the East and one in the West, eventually meeting in the middle; but in this movie, we get the idea that the laying of track is all in one direction, from east to west.

Morton hired Frank when he started, “to remove small obstacles from the path,” as he put it.  In other words, if some farmer owned the land that was in the way, and he didn’t want to sell, Frank and his gang of killers would eliminate him.  In fact, Harmonica is seeking revenge against Frank because Frank killed Harmonica’s brother a long time ago, presumably for just that reason.

And that would make perfectly good sense were it not for a little thing called “eminent domain.”  The railroad companies never had to worry about recalcitrant farmers because the government simply bought the land from the farmers whether they liked it or not and then awarded it to the railroad companies.  The United States marshals would have taken care of any farmers who refused to sell, so Frank’s services would never have been needed.  So, for the sake of this movie, we have to pretend that the government did not use eminent domain to provide the railroad companies with huge grants of land.

But even if we go along with this notion that the railroad companies sometimes had to use force to secure the land they needed, the plot still does not make sense.  Early in the movie, Brett McBain and his family are killed by Frank because McBain owned the land that Morton wanted.  But it turns out that Jill is McBain’s widow, who now owns the land and with whom Morton must contend.  In addition, there is a further complication.  It seems that McBain signed a contract giving him or his heirs the right to own a station and enough land for a town, provided that the station is built by the time the railroad tracks reach McBain’s property.

Fine.  But whose signature would also be on that contract besides McBain’s?  Why, Morton’s, of course.  He owns the railroad, and he would have been the one who signed the contract with McBain for a very simple reason.  He would have wanted the station built by the time the tracks reached McBain’s property so that he would not be delayed in his goal to reach the Pacific Ocean before he died of tuberculosis of the bones.  McBain was not impeding the railroad by refusing to sell.  He was facilitating the railroad by preparing to build a station.  Had Morton not wanted McBain to build that station, he would never have signed a contract with him in the first place.  So, none of this business about Morton wanting Frank to scare McBain in order to get him out of the way makes any sense.

Fortunately, these historical and logical flaws are not likely to occur to one while watching the movie, nor are they likely to interfere with one’s enjoyment of the movie even if they do.

Captain Corelli’s Mandolin (2001)

Regarding the Axis powers of the Second World War, we have always been willing to cut the Italians a big old break. The Japanese pulled a sneak attack on us at Pearl Harbor, and the Germans were responsible for the holocaust, but we like to think that the Italians were basically good people who just got carried away by Mussolini’s speeches. And so, an actual incident during the war, when the Italians teamed up with the Greeks to fight against their former allies, the Germans, fits right in with our inclination to grant the Italians favorable treatment.

In the movie Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, the Italian soldiers that occupy a Greek island have not seen any real action, but that is not surprising, because I have never seen an Italian soldier kill an American in a World War II movie. Moreover, they don’t seem to care about the war. They just want to sing opera. Isn’t that nice? The Greeks also seem to like the Italians better. Despite the fact that the Italians are still part of the Axis forces at this point in the movie, nobody seems to have a problem with the fact that Palagia (Penélope Cruz) is obviously in love with an Italian officer, Captain Corelli (Nicolas Cage), and even has sex with him; but another girl, who just gives a German officer a friendly kiss on the cheek, is lynched by the Greeks for being a traitor.

Reality or no reality, the decision by the Italians to fight with the Greeks against the Germans rather than simply handing over their arms when Mussolini surrenders to the Allies turns out to be a big mistake, because except for Corelli, they are all slaughtered by the Germans for being traitors. But then, that only makes us like the Italians even more.

Breezy (1973)

There has always been a clash between generations: the older person telling the younger one that his world view is naïve, and that one day reality will crush all his foolish notions; and the younger person telling the older one that he has wasted his whole life laboring under outdated notions. And there have always been May-December romances, in which sex gets mixed in with this generational clash. Though in one sense the story is ageless, yet the one depicted in Breezy seems very dated now. Between the sexual revolution of the sixties and the hubris of the Baby Boomers, the generation gap as it was then called had a unique tone to it that sounds flat today.

The title character (Kay Lenz) is a hippie chick of about twenty years, who sees so much good in people that even though she is almost sexually assaulted by a man who picked her up hitchhiking, her Pollyanna attitude is unaffected. In fact, she is such an exceedingly good-natured free spirit that she begins to get on our nerves. And, of course, when it comes to sex she naturally believes in free love.

And then there is Frank (William Holden). He is just as promiscuous as Breezy is, but since he is in his mid-fifties, we cannot call it free love, which seems to connote youth and innocence of a sort. Furthermore, he is grumpy about it. When we first meet Frank, he can barely force himself to be polite as he runs off the woman he just had a one night stand with. Eventually Frank and Breezy meet and eventually they start having sex. Society’s idea of an acceptable couple is one in which the man is of the same class as the woman is or slightly better. Check. He should be bigger and taller than she is. Check. They should be of the same race. Check. He should be about the same age as she is. Oops.

As often happens when a couple deviates from the societal norm, while the man and woman are alone with each other, everything seems fine. They fool themselves into thinking they don’t care what others think. But when they are around those others, what those others think starts becoming a lot more important than they thought it would be. At first, it is little remarks made by strangers. A saleslady refers to Breezy as Frank’s daughter. A waiter asks to see some ID before serving her a drink. Then they run into some of Frank’s friends. They are too polite to say anything about how young Breezy is, but they don’t have to, because they are obviously embarrassed by the awkwardness of the situation.

Breezy, of course, is oblivious, but Frank feels the heavy weight of society’s disapproval. To make matters worse, the next day one of his friends, Bob (Roger Carmel), compliments Frank on his nerve, his ability to have a fling without caring what others think. He says he would like to do the same himself, but he knows he could only be a meal ticket for a girl that young. Besides, Bob goes on to say, he would start thinking of himself a child molester. He says all this believing that Frank is free of such concerns, but it is obvious that he is actually giving voice to all the misgivings that Frank has been managing to repress.

At this point, the movie could have had a realistic ending, which would have been more satisfying. For example, Frank could have gone home and had a heart-to-heart talk with Breezy that their relationship was untenable on account of their age difference, that society’s disapproval was just making him too uncomfortable to continue on with it, and they could have parted as friends. Instead, the movie descends into melodrama and sentiment. First, Frank decides to end it by being mean and treating her with contempt, causing her to leave in tears. Then, Betty (Marj Dusay), the woman he was going with before he met Breezy, who loved Frank but gave up on him and decided to marry someone else, is in an accident in which her new husband has been killed. Frank goes to see her at the hospital, and she starts gushing about how she and her husband only had one week of marriage, but it was a beautiful week, and that is what really matters, and so on in this sentimental vein, which naturally functions as the lesson about life that Frank needed to learn. Frank then goes looking for Breezy and finds her. Of course she forgives him. He says, “Maybe we’ll have a year,” and they walk off happily together.

Not every movie needs to be realistic, of course, and sometimes a tacked-on happy ending is just what we want. But here it really doesn’t work.

Blackboard Jungle (1955) and Lean on Me (1989)

If you ask most people which movie the song “Rock Around the Clock” makes them think of, it will not likely be the movie of the same name made in 1956.  In that movie, a lifeless, ridiculous plot acts as a frame story to showcase some rock-and-roll bands when that kind of music was becoming popular in the 1950s. Young people in their rebellious stage like to shock their elders, so naturally we have a scene in which Bill Haley and the Comets perform at a prestigious and very proper girls school, scandalizing the matronly chaperones. The Comets wear suits, singing songs without suggestive lyrics or hip movements, but no matter, because the beat alone is indecent. So the movie has it both ways, allowing teenagers to enjoy the fantasy of shocking their elders, while the real elders watching the movie in the theaters would be reassured that rock-and-roll was quite harmless.

But there was another movie, made a year earlier, that most people associate with that classic number, and that was Blackboard Jungle.  The movie begins with an exculpatory prologue.  Such prologues were supposed to justify the depiction of immoral or degenerate behavior by the need to bring such matters to the attention of the public as a necessary first step to remedy the problem.  These prologues were disingenuous, to say the least, about as convincing as a statement expressing concern about the prevalence of pornography in our society and the need to make the public aware of the harm that it is doing, and then using that statement as a prologue to Behind the Green Door (1972).  These prologues disappeared after the Production Code was replaced by the ratings system in the late 1960s.

They are to be distinguished from the ex post facto prologues that now appear before the presentation of movies that never had them when first seen by the public.  The first one I recall seeing was for The Godfather Saga, which aired on television in 1977.  NBC added a prologue saying something to the effect that not all Italian-Americans were a bunch of gangsters. These prologues are not always in the form of the written word, but sometimes take the form of a discussion providing the proper social context and obligatory denouncement of the attitudes and values embodied in these films.  TCM did this for The Birth of a Nation (1915) about twenty years ago.  Notably, HBO recently chose to do this for Gone With the Wind (1939).  This was brought about by an opinion piece penned by John Ridley, who wrote the screenplay for 12 Years a Slave (2013).  He felt it would be unseemly to allow people to watch an unvarnished presentation of Gone With the Wind when they should be watching his 12 Years a Slave for their enlightenment and moral improvement.  But you can’t talk people out of enjoying a great movie.  Ridley’s movie may have truth on its side, but people will still be watching Gone With the Wind long after 12 Years a Slave has been forgotten.

The prologue of Blackboard Jungle justifies the movie we are about to see by deploring the scourge of juvenile delinquency and by the need to make us aware of its existence.  But while the words on the screen are somber and serious, what we hear while reading them is an exciting drum solo.  And as noted above in discussing the movie Rock Around the Clock, just that rock-and-roll beat alone was enough to worry the chaperones at a high school dance.  The animal rhythm induces movement in our bodies, making us want to get out of our chairs and dance, just as teenagers did in the aisles when this movie first came out.  Before the prologue has even finished, juvenile delinquency has been glamorized.

Then the movie proper begins and so does the song.  It fades out a little with the end of the credits.  We see Richard Dadier (Glenn Ford), who has just gotten off a bus.  In the background, we see children in bathing suits playing in the water issuing from a fire hydrant that has been opened.  One child, in a bathing suit, who seems to be about six years old, sees his mother and runs toward her.  She is angry.  “Come here!  What’s the matter?” she says as she grabs him while shaking her other upturned hand at him.  “You wanna be a bum?  Come here!”

We can hardly think of this child as a juvenile delinquent.  But the scene is emphatic by position, the mother’s words being the first bit of dialogue in this movie.  Her hand gesture and her use of the word “bum” lets us know she is Italian.  This is the first indication that juvenile delinquency is an ethnic problem.

Dadier crosses the street, and we get our first glimpse of North Manual High School, a vocational school where he hopes to get a job.  It is behind an iron fence, looking like the bars of a cage.  The school is for male teenagers only, but as the music picks up again, which has now become impossibly diegetic, we see two pairs of male students dancing what at that time was called “the bop,” but which is essentially jitterbug or swing.  In some movies, two boys dancing together would have homosexual implications, but that is not the case here.

In fact, it is Dadier who is marked as effeminate, when Artie West (Vic Morrow) whistles at him as one would at a pretty girl.  The fact his name is presumably French, being pronounced \dah-dē-ā\, doesn’t help, for it feeds into the prejudice, often seen in the movies, that anyone who is French cannot be a real man.  Even to be able to pronounce French words correctly is enough to create suspicion about someone’s manhood.  That is why John Wayne’s characters might be able to speak Spanish or the Comanche language fluently, but he always made a point of mispronouncing any word or name that was French.  It also doesn’t help that Dadier’s name sounds like the slang expression “Daddy-O,” which makes him the butt of much humor later on.

All the other guys on the grounds are moving with the music, including those shooting craps.  They are an ethnically diverse bunch, consisting of Irish, Italians, Puerto Ricans, and African-Americans.  Except for the black students, most of them have greaser haircuts.  A pretty blonde comes walking down the street, passing by the iron bars of the fence, trying to ignore the students.  One student uses a trashcan lid to keep the beat of the music, while others leer, whistle, and gesture.  One guy in particular has a bottle of soda pop, which he holds at his crotch, as he might an erect penis.  As she walks by, he flips some of the liquid out, simulating an ejaculation.

Dadier enters the school and goes to the offices, hoping to get a job teaching English.  That’s another effeminate indicator.  Maybe things have changed by now, but back in the 1950s, most English teachers in high school were women.  And this was a choice made by the screenwriter, or rather, Evan Hunter, the author of the novel this movie was based on.  He could have had Dadier teach mathematics or one of the manual trades like carpentry, but he deliberately picked English instead.

Dadier is nervous and unsure of himself while being interviewed by Principal Warneke, who notes that Dadier went to college at a “girls school,” which is another hint at his effeminate appearance and manner.  Dadier explains that exceptions were made for veterans after the war, his having served in the Navy.  It might be thought that Dadier’s masculinity is being redeemed somewhat by the fact that he fought in World War II, but if this were the point, the script would have had him say he was in the Army or the Marines.  Instead, there is an association of homosexuality with the Navy, so his service in that branch does nothing to counteract the suggestions of effeminacy.  Of course, Dadier is played by Glenn Ford, so we in the audience have no doubts about his manhood, but the people in the movie don’t know that yet.

Dadier speaks in a voice so soft that Warneke, speaking loudly and holding a ruler, almost as if he is going to swat Dadier with it, suggests he won’t be heard at the back of the class.  Dadier notes that he did some acting on the stage in college, and he could be heard on the back row.  As a demonstration, he quotes lines from Henry V:

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there’s nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger….

That’s all Dadier quotes, but the rest of the speech goes on in that vein, encouraging the men to “Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage.”  Warneke notes that the speech is apt for the job, and Dadier is hired.  When Dadier asks about the discipline problem in the school, Warneke bristles at the suggestion, saying there is no discipline problem.

Dadier goes to meet the other teachers, who have collected in the gymnasium, one of whom is Jim Murdock (Louis Calhern).  His twelve years of teaching at that school have dispelled any illusions he might once have had about education.  He is now the school cynic.  We see him idly hitting a punching bag, saying he’s getting ready for the fall term.  One of the other teachers sneers at Principal Warneke’s denial that there is a discipline problem at the school, to which Murdock replies that there is no discipline problem at Alcatraz either.  Another new teacher suggests instilling obedience in these students with a ruler, reminding us of the one Warneke was holding, but Murdock says if you try that on one of these students, he’ll take the ruler away from you and beat you to death with it.  When one teacher suggests the possibility of teaching in an all-girls school as a safer alternative, Murdock advises him to think of those twenty-year jail sentences that go with it. He apparently has a dim view of any man’s ability to resist the advances that would inevitably be made by those love-starved girls.

This school, he says, and those like it are the garbage can of the educational system.  It’s the job of the teachers to keep a lid on that garbage can for a few hours a day so women can walk the streets without being attacked.  This recalls the earlier scene where a student repeatedly banged the lid down on the garbage can to the beat of the music while the pretty blonde walked by, just outside the iron bars of the fence.  At this point, another new teacher, Lois Hammond, says there must be some students who want to learn.  She is good looking and wears a tight sweater.  Murdock says she’s just asking for trouble, being dressed like that.

When Dadier says to him, “Say, these kids, they can’t all be bad, can they?” Murdock replies, “No. Why?”  Later in the movie, a teacher notes with surprise that these students don’t even know their multiplication tables, to which Murdock replies, “The only thing they know how to multiply is themselves.”  When asked how these students are ever graduated, Murdock says, “Graduated?  They just get to be eighteen.  Then they’re thrown out to make room for more of the same kind.”

As Dadier looks over the classroom he will be teaching in, he meets Josh Edwards, his opposite in terms of the masculine-feminine dimension.  For one thing, his name tells us he is Anglo-Saxon, not French.  For another, he teaches mathematics.  Again, things may be different now, but in the 1950s, most mathematics teachers in high school were men, just as most English teachers were women.  Finally, his reference to landing in Salerno tells us he was in the army during the war, as opposed to Dadier’s being in the navy.  And yet, he comes across as weak.  He is naïve, idealistic, and excited about teaching the students he just knows will be eager to learn.  We feel a sense of dread, knowing that he is doomed. And indeed, he is foolish enough to bring in his irreplaceable collection of swing records to play for the students, being sure they will enjoy them.  In a way, he is right.  They really enjoy it when Artie West starts whirling the records around the room, smashing them into pieces.

That night, Dadier has dinner at a restaurant with his wife Anne (Anne Francis), who is four-months pregnant.  She is worried, since she already lost one baby.  He tells her that there is nothing to worry about, that the baby will have her looks and his brains.  It’s amusing to hear how innocently those sexist lines were delivered in old movies.  After dinner, they step outside, just as some teenagers come drag racing down the street, sideswiping a car and flipping it over on its side just feet from where Dadier and Anne are standing.  This is the first indication that it’s going to be a struggle getting her through her pregnancy in this neighborhood.

When school begins the next Monday, everyone assembles in the auditorium.  At the microphone is Mr. Halloran (Emile Meyer), the one teacher in the school that seems to belong there.  He comes across as being so tough that none of the students would dare mess with him.  To get things started in that noisy room, he yells, “Shut up!”  And when he says “first,” he pronounces it \foist\.  The joke is that he is the one that teaches public speaking.  But in that school, that is just the kind of public speaking that is needed.

Dadier escorts the students in his homeroom class to the classroom, making the mistake of giving them orders, like, “No talking,” that they know they can flout with impunity.  Halloran would have yelled, “Shut up!” but Dadier is no Halloran.  A teenager of slender build comes out of the restroom with tears coming down his face.  When Dadier asks him what the problem is, he looks at all the toughs standing around and says, “Nothing.”  Dadier decides to go into the restroom to see what is going on.  Just before he walks in the door, we hear Gregory Miller (Sidney Poitier) asking another guy why he made the kid cry, so we know Miller is the good guy in this school.  But Dadier doesn’t know it yet, and he has an ambivalent attitude toward Miller, not being sure what to make of him.  He has no ambivalence about Artie West, however, with whom he shares an increasing mutual animosity.

Murdock gave the new teachers two rules to live by:  Don’t be a hero, and don’t turn your back on the class.  But Dadier breaks the second rule as he writes his name on the blackboard, with an explanation as to how to pronounce it.  Suddenly, a baseball is thrown at him so hard that, though it misses him, it breaks the slate of the blackboard.

By the end of that day, Dadier violates Murdock’s first rule, the one about not being a hero, when he saves Lois from being raped by one of the students.  Trying to get away from Dadier, he crashes through a window, but Dadier drags him back in.  The student’s face is cut in various places.  That night, when he tells Anne about what happened, she says that Lois was just asking to be raped, given the way she was dressed.  Dadier must have described that tight sweater.  By the next day, the story of how Dadier beat up that kid has lost nothing in the telling, leading all the students to become especially hostile to Dadier.  West arranges for his gang to beat up Dadier, with Edwards as collateral damage, causing Dadier to miss a week from teaching class.  He refuses to quit, however.  We understand that.  Dadier is the kind of man we expect to fight back.  What we don’t understand is why Edwards still ends up bringing in his collection of records.

Dadier is taken on a tour of another school by its principal, who was one of his professors in college. What a bunch of polite, well-mannered, well-dressed students they are, attending to their lessons, right after singing “The Star Spangled Banner.” Now, I’m not going to say that all these students had ancestors that came over on the Mayflower, because I did spot one black student and maybe one that was Italian.  The students are seen doing their Latin lessons and carrying out experiments in the chemistry laboratory.  But more important than the fact that most of the students are white and intelligent is the fact that the school has both boys and girls in it.  Girls are a moderating influence on boys.  That is why I always shudder when I hear people argue that students do better when they attend an all-boys or all-girls school. The girls may do better in an all-girls school, but without girls around, boys become even more brutal than they already are.  I learned that every school day during the inevitable hour of physical education, always the low point of my day.  Anyway, the principal offers Dadier a job teaching at that school.  I would have gotten on my knees and wept tears of gratitude, but Dadier does the manly thing and returns to his “jungle.”

A police detective tries to get Dadier to identify the students that beat him up, wanting him to press charges.  We don’t know whether he really couldn’t see who it was in the dark, as he says, or whether he has decided to handle the situation himself.  In either event, he doesn’t seem up to it, for he starts losing his temper, even to the point of snatching the ruler out of Warneke’s hand when accused of using racial epithets in the classroom.  It was in the context of a discussion about insulting others with ethnic slurs, in which he gave explicit examples. We believe his protestations of innocence when he claims that he has no prejudices, but was only trying to make a point.  And yet, when he unfairly accuses Miller of reporting him to Warneke, he says, “You black…,” before catching himself, horrified to realize that he harbors those deep-seated prejudices that he thought he was free of.  As a further indication that he is losing it, he berates the other teachers for being more concerned with avoiding trouble than with actually teaching, though he admits he isn’t doing any better than they are.

There is a whole subplot concerning Lois, who wants to have sex with Dadier.  She is rather obvious about it, and West makes use of this by sending letters to Anne and calling her on the phone, telling her that her husband is having an affair with Lois, which isn’t true.  She becomes so stressed out, she goes into labor, and the baby is born premature.  While Anne is in the hospital, Dadier finds out about the letters, making him so angry that he wants to quit.  He vents his spleen to Murdock, who tries to argue him out of quitting, saying Dadier was finally getting through to the students, that they were even doing better in his class.  And there is a similar reversal with Anne, who is still in the hospital.  She wanted him to quit and get a job teaching at the good school, but just as he’s trying to tell her he is going to quit, she tells him she’s glad he didn’t quit, that she was wrong. Then the doctor comes in and tells them their baby son will be fine.  It is New Year’s Eve, and we sense that Dadier, having reached bottom, is now on his way back up.

I noted above that there were several indicators that Dadier was effeminate.  Had the baby been a girl, that would have been another such indicator.  I knew a guy once whose wife had a baby girl. Upon hearing about it, a woman he worked with said to him, “You mean you weren’t man enough to have a boy!”  Not many would admit to having the prejudice this woman did, but deep down, a lot of people regard the sex of a baby as a reflection on the father’s manhood.  There is even a crazy theory to rationalize these feelings, based on a study of rats. It goes something like this:  alpha males will tend to have male offspring, since they will also be alpha males, and thus get access to all the females; beta males, on the other hand, will tend to have female offspring, since females will get pregnant no matter what.  That way the reproductive potential of a male rat’s offspring will be maximized regardless of whether he is an alpha or a beta.  Whatever the validity of that study, when it comes to humans, the sex of a baby is just a matter of chance.  But in a movie, the sex of a baby is a choice made by the screenwriter.  The fact that the screenwriter chose to make the baby a boy is another indication that things are about to turn around.

The problem is not solved by making the school go co-educational like the good school. Rather, the movie’s solution is to concentrate all the evil into Artie West, and then get rid of him.  The detective that tried to get Dadier to press charges after he was beaten up gives a sociological explanation for juvenile delinquency, saying that these teenagers were just little children during the war, when their fathers were in the army, and their mothers were working in the defense plants.  No home life, no church life.  So, they formed gangs as a kind of family.  The result was that the gang leaders have taken the place of their parents.  And in this school, that means West.

It turns out that West wouldn’t have been bothered by Dadier’s pressing charges anyway.  The way West sees it, if he obeys the law, he’ll get drafted and maybe get his head blown off in some war; if he breaks the law and spends a year in jail, the army won’t want him.  That’s the way to stay alive.

When Dadier returns to school with the beginning of the new year, the moment for the showdown has arrived.  When West flagrantly copies answers from another student’s paper, Dadier tells him to bring the paper to him.  West refuses.  Miller tells him to bring Dadier his paper, as if to say, it’s not worth making a fuss over.  West calls him “black boy,” telling him to mind his own business.  They both rise out of their chairs, ready to fight.  This is the first time we have see a break between the two of them.

Up till this point, we have been hearing the buzzing of the machine shop in the class above them. But now things become silent.  You would think that silence in a movie would best be represented by the absence of sound, but it is best represented by sounds we ordinarily would not hear.  The most well-known example is that of crickets, which is often employed humorously.  Here it is the slow tick of a clock, one tick every second.  The tension builds as Dadier, having indicated to Miller that he should let him handle things, moves toward West, telling him they are going to the principal’s office. West pulls out a wicked-looking, six-inch, switchblade stiletto and flicks it open.  This is just another way that this movie, while supposedly condemning juvenile delinquency, is actually glamorizing it.  There probably wasn’t a male teenager in the audience at that time who didn’t wish he had a knife like that.  In any event, the students get out of their chairs, moving toward the periphery of the room, trying to stay out of the way.

Miller warns Dadier, “Take it easy, chief!  He’s crazy.  He’s high.  He’s floating on Sneaky Pete wine.”  Another student, Morales, says with alarm, “He’s going to kill him.”  It is at this point that most of the students in the class realize things are going too far.  One exception is Belazi, who tries to sneak up on Dadier from behind, but Miller punches him in the gut, taking him out.

Suddenly, we see another black student standing next to Miller, as Miller tells someone in West’s gang that he can have a gang fight, if he wants one.  If you weren’t playing close attention, you wouldn’t have noticed that there were two other black students in the room other than Miller.  The view of the classroom never had them in the frame, except in this scene.  But now it occurs to us that, though there are several black students in the school, yet none of them are bad.  Before the Christmas show, which Dadier was in charge of, we saw a group of them singing “Go Down Moses,” also known as “Oh!  Let My People Go,” a spiritual expressing a connection between the slavery of blacks in America and the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt.  But that was about all we see of them. None of them were part of the gang that beat up Dadier and Edwards, for example.  This should not surprise us. Perhaps starting with The Negro Soldier (1944), the movies began portraying African-Americans in a more positive light, giving them roles of people with the same intelligence and moral character as whites, allowing them to break out of such categories as coons, bucks, and toms.

Let’s take another look at the four ethnic groups in this movie.  Each one has a representative character:  for the Irish, West; for the Italians, Belazi; for the Puerto Ricans, Morales; and for the African-Americans, Miller.  The order in which I have listed these four groups corresponds to increasing degrees of discrimination experienced by them during the 1950s.  Because the Irish and the Italians were experiencing the least amount of discrimination at this time, the movie felt safe in having all the juvenile delinquents come from these two groups.  The converse is not true, however. Not all the Irish and Italians are bad students.  Santini, for example, is Italian, but he is a nice guy, and he is the one that takes out Belazi with the flag pole when Belazi picks up the switchblade after Dadier knocks it out of West’s hand.  And the kid that was crying on account of being bullied, early in the movie, appeared to be Irish.

As the representative of the Puerto Ricans, Morales is likeable, harmless, and funny.  And he is the one that, after picking up the switchblade when dropped by Belazi, drives it into the top of a desk and then breaks off the blade.  In general, as with the black students, none of the Puerto Ricans are portrayed as juvenile delinquents.

Belazi aside, not even West’s gang wants anything to do with him once West pulls out that switchblade.  Realizing he is alone, West begins to show fear.  When Dadier gets hold of him and starts banging him against the blackboard, right near the spot where the baseball West threw at him broke the slate, West says repeatedly, “Not here!” for he feels humiliated and doesn’t want the other students to witness this.  When it is over, Dadier takes West and Belazi to the principal’s office.  As they leave the room, West puts his thumb to his mouth, an infantile gesture.

That’s a little too much. Leave the poor guy some dignity!  I would rather West have taken his beating like a man, but I suppose the movie needed to put him down in a big way.

In the final scene, we see Dadier and Miller outside North Manual High School, having a friendly conversation.  Dadier has decided to keep teaching there, and Miller has decided to stay until he graduates.  Then we hear “Rock Around the Clock” start up again as we watch Miller walking on down the street, looking cool.  Dadier smiles and then heads for home.

Another movie about a tough school is Lean on Me.  It was made in 1989, long after the term “juvenile delinquency” had become quaint.  There is a prologue at the beginning of this movie too, but it is not exculpatory, just a statement to the effect that what we are about to see is a true story.  When the movie proper starts, we see Joe Clark (Morgan Freeman) teaching class at Eastside High School in 1967. His students are intelligent, well-groomed, and well-behaved. The boys wear dress shirts with neckties.  This could easily be the good school that Dadier went to visit right after he was beaten up.

Clark quits because the teachers union has sold out to the school board or something vague like that. Twenty years later, he is the principal of a grade school, where gum stuck under the desk is what passes for a discipline problem.  Back at Eastside High, however, the situation has become so bad it makes the one in Blackboard Jungle look like the blackboard tropical rainforest. The students are the meanest, most vicious bunch of high-school hoodlums ever displayed on the big screen.  So, whereas in Blackboard Jungle, there was a contrast between two different schools at the same time, here the contrast is between the same school at two different times.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention one more difference:  much like the good school in Blackboard Jungle, all the clean-cut, intelligent students in Eastside High in 1967 were white; most of the students in the school twenty years later are black, many are brown, and a mere handful are white.

When I first started watching this movie, I wondered if it had been produced by the Ku Klux Klan, because it comes across as a racist’s worst nightmare, a depiction of what happens when you let the you-know-what take over. But since the story is true, I guess those were the facts, and the people making the movie just went with it. And it helped that Clark was African American himself, which offset the racist implications. And while we are on the subject, you know that grade school with the chewing gum problem?  All those children were white as well.

Anyway, when Clark is asked to become the principal to help improve the students’ test scores, I wondered how he could possibly do anything with them. Well, I don’t want to take anything away from Clark, but not only does he have a bunch of burly security guards with him when he arrives, but on the second day, he also expels all the troublemakers, about three hundred of them.  And he carries around a baseball bat like some kind of Buford Pusser from Walking Tall (1973), which is definitely a step up from Warneke and his ruler.  Anybody could straighten out a school with dictatorial powers like that. Think how much Dadier could have accomplished in Blackboard Jungle if, backed up by his own goon squad, he could have expelled West and his gang on the second day of class.

And teachers that don’t do exactly what Clark tells them to do are suspended or fired at will.  By the time he is through, this school doesn’t even have a chewing gum problem.  In the end, the remaining students, who are still mostly black and brown, are seen to be basically good students that end up doing well on their test scores.  This counteracts the initial impression that Eastside High was having problems because the student body no longer consisted of white students only.  But if the movie has ceased to be an argument for white nationalism, it has now become an argument for fascism.

Toward the end, a girl tells him she is pregnant, and he tells her he will talk to her about it later. We never hear that conversation or find out what she did about it. That way those who are pro-life can imagine her keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption, and those who are pro-choice can imagine her having an abortion. Hollywood has always known how to have things both ways.

By the way, just in case you are wondering what happened to all those students that were expelled by Clark, they all got themselves enrolled in North Manual High School.