Splendor in the Grass (1961)

In the opening scene of Splendor in the Grass, which begins in Kansas in 1928, we see Bud Stamper (Warren Beatty) and Wilma Dean “Deanie” Loomis (Natalie Wood) making out in his car, with a raging waterfall in the background to symbolize their passion.  Bud wants to have sex, but Deanie says they mustn’t.  Disappointed, Bud takes her home.

Sexual frustration is not the only thing that makes these two teenagers miserable.  They both have parents.  Deanie’s mother is worried that Bud will get her pregnant.  And even if she doesn’t get pregnant, her mother tells her that boys don’t respect a girl they can go all the way with.  They want a nice girl for a wife.  In fact, nice girls don’t like sex.  They just let their husbands come near them so they can have children.  Now, tell me again why boys want to marry nice girls.

Bud’s father, Ace Stamper (Pat Hingle), wants Bud to go to Yale.  Bud doesn’t want to go to Yale, saying he’s not a good student.  He wants to go to an agricultural college for a couple of years and then take over the family ranch and raise cattle.  He figures he could marry Deanie and take her to college with him.

Ace says, “Ranching’s no life.”  He prefers being an oil man.  In fact, when the movie begins, he has just hit another gusher, which is pumping a hundred barrels an hour.  He is the opposite of Rock Hudson in Giant (1956) and Melvyn Douglas in Hud (1963), who loved raising cattle and despised the idea of drilling for oil.  In general, we are supposed to think there is something wholesome and fulfilling about raising cattle, while drilling for oil is just about making lots of money.  Splendor in the Grass likewise expects us to make those associations, approving of Bud’s desire to work his father’s ranch, while feeling there is something wrong with the way Ace is interested only in his oil wells.

Ace has ill-concealed contempt for Deanie, thinking her family is beneath his own.  He too is worried that Bud might get her pregnant.  “You get a girl in trouble, and you gotta take the consequences,” he says, meaning Bud would have to marry her.  To avoid the risk of getting Deanie pregnant, Ace suggests that Bud find another girl and have sex with her instead.  In fact, later in the movie, we assume Bud does just that, ending his relationship with Deanie and then having sex with Juanita Howard, known around school for being no better than she should be.  But if Bud had gotten Juanita pregnant, she would have been the one he had to marry.  Different girl, same result.  Perhaps Ace knew that he was in a movie, which meant that nice girls like Deanie get pregnant if they have sex just once, whereas for sluts like Juanita, their very promiscuity seems to act as a kind of birth control.

Bud gets so stressed out about it all that he collapses and has to go to the hospital where he almost dies from pneumonia.  Deanie, on the other hand, tries to be like Juanita, first with Bud, but that doesn’t work, and then with Allen “Toots” Tuttle (Gary Lockwood).  But she changes her mind at the last minute.  Toots almost date rapes her, but she gets away and tries to commit suicide by jumping into the river so she will go over the falls.  She is rescued, but then has a complete mental collapse and has to go to an insane asylum.

It would seem, then, that the combination of sexual frustration and parental pressure has caused Bud and Deanie to collapse under the strain, physically in Bud’s case, mentally in Deanie’s case.  But that raises the question, why aren’t all their friends in high school also collapsing in one way or another?

As for sexual frustration, when Toots and some other guys are talking about Juanita, they agree that she isn’t like the other girls they know, who expect a guy to be satisfied with a goodnight kiss.  Given that, we wonder why those other girls in the high school aren’t filling up the psych wards in the local hospitals themselves, since they aren’t getting anymore sex than Deanie.  And couples break up all the time in high school, so the other girls are likely experiencing that as well.  As for the boys in high school, Toots and a few other guys on the football team might be using Juanita as an outlet for their sexual needs, but we don’t get the idea that she is servicing the entire male student body.  So, why aren’t most of the boys in that school having a bout of pneumonia themselves?

Does that mean the difference lies in parental pressure?  In Bud’s case, that might make sense.  Bud’s father is about as obnoxious as they come, and Deanie meets a guy named John in the mental institution, who says he is there because his father put pressure on him to be a great surgeon. But surely these are not the only two boys in that community whose fathers are putting pressure on them for some reason, so we have to wonder why the other boys in the high school are holding up so well.

As for Deanie, the only parental pressure that she experiences is that of her mother telling her not to have sex with Bud.  Now, it’s not like the mothers of the other girls at the high school are telling their daughters that it’s all right to have premarital sex.  We don’t even have to be shown a conversation between Kay (Sandy Dennis) and her mother to know that.  But Kay isn’t destined for a mental breakdown herself, nor are any of the other girls.

If it seems as though one of the moral lessons of this movie is that sexual repression is bad, that is belied by the situation with Bud’s older sister Ginny (Barbara Loden).  She represents the Roaring Twenties in the flesh, referred to as a “flapper.”  It is rumored that while in college, some “cake eater” got her pregnant and married her for her money, but Ace had the marriage annulled and got her an abortion.  Now back home, she continues with her wanton ways, not being one to suffer from the stress of going without sex. But the movie condemns her for her behavior.  Toward the end of the movie, we find out that she died in a car accident.  One of Deanie’s friends says, “We all knew something like that would happen the way she carried on.”  In other words, movie karma killed Ginny for being sexually liberated.  Sometimes you just can’t win.

While the characters in this movie talk about how the stock of Ace’s company, Stamper Oil, keeps going up and up, they have no sense of the doom that we know awaits them in the stock market. Deanie’s parents are lucky, at least in that regard.  When Deanie needs to be institutionalized, her father sells all his stock in Stamper Oil in order to pay for it, not realizing he is doing so just as it is reaching a top.  But Ace is not so lucky.  The crash wipes him out, and he jumps out of the window of a building, the form of suicide that was de rigueur for those ruined by the stock market crash in October of 1929, probably because the fall from a great height was symbolic of the fall in the price of stocks from their great height.  Mrs. Stamper, now a widow, is said to be as “poor as a church mouse,” forced to live with her folks Tulsa.

We are so used to watching movies in which someone is wiped out by the stock market crash that we accept this without question as we watch this movie for the first time.  But upon a second viewing, we realize that would not apply to Ace and his eponymous oil company. When the stock market crashed, the oil wells did not crash along with them.  Think of all the movies you have seen set in the 1930s, during the Great Depression, where people are still driving their automobiles, which still had to be filled up with gasoline.  That means that oil was still being pumped out of the ground, refined, and distributed, none of which would have happened unless it could have been done at a profit.

Presumably, Ace is the majority stockholder, which means that he is the principal owner of those oil wells and remains such, even if the price of the stock has plummeted.  As president of the company, he could continue to pay himself a salary out of the revenue stream produced by pumping oil, even though the price for a barrel of oil decreased somewhat after the crash.  And some or all of the profit made by the company could continue to be distributed as dividends.  The decrease in the price per share of the stock of Stamper Oil would not change that.  And Wall Street never puts a lien on your physical assets.

To get some idea of how much money would be involved, we might recall a scene from Giant that takes place in the 1920s.  Elizabeth Taylor is talking to a man and his wife who live on a small ranch, but who had a bit of luck.  A gusher came in the previous year, which is making them a million dollars a month.  Even allowing for a drop in the price of oil with the onset of the Great Depression, I’d say these folks would still be doing all right.  In any event, no one in that movie gets wiped out by the stock market crash.

We might imagine that Ace committed suicide because he was disgraced, no longer as wealthy as he once fancied himself to be.  But his widow would not end up being “poor as a church mouse.” There would still be plenty of money coming in from the sale of the oil being pumped out of the ground, allowing her to live in reasonable comfort, even if the amount was less than that in Giant.

In other words, we can easily imagine a less drastic outcome for the Stamper family than the one depicted in this movie, one in which they might have had to live a little less extravagantly, but that’s all.  But movie karma would not have been satisfied with that.  Ace had to be punished with nothing less than financial ruin and death for being a greedy oil man.  And that is in keeping with the melodramatic excess that infects the whole movie, as we have seen with Bud, Deanie, and Ginny.  It would be easy to imagine less drastic outcomes for them as well, for the simple reason that such outcomes would also be more realistic.

Well, Bud ends up married to Angie, a likable Italian girl.  They have a baby, and there is another on the way.  They are living on the ranch his father owned. (The ranch didn’t get destroyed by the stock market crash either.)  Deanie, who will soon be married to John, goes to visit Bud.  Angie is a little embarrassed by the way she is dressed, but after all, she is in the middle of doing housework and wasn’t expecting company.

Deanie, on the other hand, is rightfully embarrassed, realizing that she is overdressed.  We gather that she wanted to show Bud how well off she was by being smartly attired.  Of all the lessons of love that we learn along the way, overcoming this need to show those we once loved how happy we are without them is something of which very few of us are capable.

The title of this movie is from William Wordsworth’s “Ode:  Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood.”  The relevant section is first cited by the teacher in Deanie’s English class, most of which is recalled by Deanie as she and her friends drive away from Bud’s ranch:

What though the radiance which was once so bright

Be now for ever taken from my sight,

              Though nothing can bring back the hour

Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;

              We will grieve not, rather find

              Strength in what remains behind….

I don’t get it.  With all the misery endured by Bud and Deanie while they were in high school, how those years can bring these lines to mind escapes me.  What “splendor in the grass”?  What “glory in the flower”?  If I were Deanie, I’d be relieved to know that I could finally put all that behind me.

David and Bathsheba (1951)

It was 1970, and my friend and I were desperately looking for a movie to watch. Pickings were slim. Finally, I suggested Cromwell.  “All right,” my friend agreed with little enthusiasm, “I need a history lesson.”

He was partly serious and partly joking.  As a general rule, an historical movie is not a good way to study history and not a good way to be entertained either. But if the movie is reasonably faithful to the facts and reasonably entertaining, it might be a reasonable way to spend the afternoon.  So, we went to see Cromwell, and it met our low expectations.  And so it was with that attitude that I finally decided to watch David and Bathsheba (1951).

The Story in the Bible

Pretty much the entire movie is based on 2 Samuel 11-12.  It starts off by noting that being king, David really should have been leading the soldiers in the war against the Ammonites, but he tarried, remaining in Jerusalem.  One evening he took a stroll on the roof of his house and saw Bathsheba bathing. He made inquiries and found out she was married to Uriah.  Nevertheless, he had her brought to him and had sex with her.  Sometime later she sent David a message informing him that she was pregnant.

Unfortunately, Uriah had been away fighting the war, so he would know the baby wasn’t his unless something was done.  David had Uriah recalled from battle and encouraged him to go home to his wife. That way, after he had sex with her, he would think he was the father of her baby.  But Uriah refused, saying that he just wouldn’t feel right about enjoying himself while his fellow soldiers were still in tents, besieging Rabbah.  David even got Uriah drunk, but it was no good.  He wouldn’t go home.

So, David sent Uriah back to Joab, the military commander, with a letter telling him to put Uriah at the forefront of the hottest battle.  Then Joab was to retreat, leaving Uriah to be killed.  This was what happened, and after a brief period of mourning on the part of Bathsheba, David married her.

God was displeased.  He made the prophet Nathan aware of what had happened.  Nathan went to David, telling him that God wouldn’t kill him. However, all of David’s other wives, of which there were seven, would be taken from him, given to his neighbor, who would have sex with them outside in the sun, where everyone could watch. Also, God killed Bathsheba’s baby as a way of punishing her and David. But that’s all right. David got her pregnant again, and she gave birth to Solomon.

The Story in the Movie

In the movie version of this story, David is played by Gregory Peck, and Bathsheba is played by Susan Hayward.  But no, we don’t get to see the neighbor next door having sex with David’s seven wives with everyone watching.  In fact, we don’t even hear Nathan (Raymond Massey) say that will be part of David’s punishment.  In the Bible, the reason for that part of David’s punishment was that he would be humiliated, but it ignored the even greater humiliation for the women.  And since Nathan was merely relaying the will of God, a modern audience would think God was being insensitive to the feelings of those women.  Therefore, this part of the punishment was eliminated in the movie.

Speaking of which, you’d think a man with seven wives would never be tempted to look for any on the side, but I guess even under those conditions, some men will always feel the need for something strange.

Anyway, contrary to the story in the Bible, when the movie opens, David is in the thick of the battle, deliberately putting himself at risk, much to the chagrin of Joab. In this small way, the movie is trying to present a better picture of David, avoiding the impression that he was living the good life while his men fell by the sword.

On the other hand, while the story in the Bible indicated that it was a point honor on Uriah’s part that he refused to go home, the movie makes him out to be a jerk.  He neglects his wife, Bathsheba, preferring to war to love.  He is indifferent to her, not caring what she thinks or wants. When David suggests that a neglected woman might seek love elsewhere, Uriah says that if she breaks the Law, he will condemn her, and she will be put to death.  And then, right after saying all that, he asks David for a favor. He wants David to say to Joab, “Set Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, that he may serve his king to the utmost of his ability.”

So, Uriah is an unpleasant character, and David just grants him his wish, which will result in his death, and which will be exactly what he deserves.  Well, David does add the part about Joab’s withdrawing from the battle, leaving Uriah by himself, so that “he may be smitten and die.”  The movie can only go so far in whitewashing David.

One of the things to watch for in a movie based on a story in the Old Testament is whether it tries to Christianize it.  For example, in Exodus 1, the king of Egypt decides that the Hebrews are becoming too numerous and may become a problem, militarily speaking, if they align themselves with the enemies of Egypt.  Therefore, he commands the Hebrew midwives to kill all the newly born males, as a way of reducing this threat.  However, in The Ten Commandments (1956), the High Priest says the astrologers saw an evil star enter the House of Egypt, proclaiming the birth among the Hebrew slaves of a Deliverer who will lead them out of bondage.  That is the reason given for killing all the newborn males.  This is obviously intended to be similar to the story in Matthew 2, where Herod hears from some wise men that a King of the Jews has been born, and they know this because of a star they have been following.  As a result, Herod orders that all the children under the age of two must be put to death.  In this way, the story in the Old Testament is made to resonate with the later story in the New Testament.

As for the present movie, Christianization consists of the scene where David and Bathsheba watch a woman being stoned to death for committing adultery. This is not part of the story in 2 Samuel 11-12.  Another woman is told it is up to her to her to cast the first stone, presumably because she is one of at least two witnesses to the sin of adultery (Deuteronomy 17:5-7).  She does so, with a look of grim satisfaction on her face.  Then everyone else in the mob begins throwing stones, as required by the Law, putting the adulteress to death. Exactly who the woman is that is given this privilege of casting the first stone is not said, but we have to imagine that she is the wife of the man who had sex with the adulteress. But that raises the question, where is the man that also committed adultery? Why is he not being stoned as well, as required by Leviticus 20:10?

The reason for this scene is that it is similar to that in John 8.  First, it was only a woman about to be stoned in that story as well, with no reason given as to why the man who committed adultery with her was not to be stoned as well, even though it is said that she was caught in the act, so it must have been known who the man was.  Second, this is where Jesus says that whoever is without sin should cast the first stone.  In other words, the scene in the movie involving a woman by herself being put to death for adultery by stoning is meant to call to mind the story about Jesus, except that the privilege of casting the first stone no longer goes to the witnesses to the adultery, but rather to the one who is without sin, a requirement that no one can meet.

From a Christian point of view, Judaism was merely a crude, primitive religion, in need of being replaced. The movie is essentially saying that this was the way things were before Jesus came along and taught us about forgiveness.  And since David expresses horror about the custom of stoning women for adultery, and later refers with disgust to the way Uriah will eagerly cast the first stone, should he find out about Bathsheba’s sin, we are encouraged to identify David with Jesus.

Needless to say, Jews have a different take on the matter.  From their point of view, they had God first, and Christianity and Islam are johnny-come-latelies.  Now, every religion implies that every other religion is false, but Judaism with respect to Christianity and Islam is a special case.  Those two religions had to get their God from Judaism, and thus they are beholden to it, which is a constant source of irritation to them.  And it wouldn’t be so bad if Judaism had been completely absorbed into those two religions, but as the Jews stubbornly continue to exist, insisting thereby that their original conception of God is the correct one, they offend Christianity and Islam in a way that, say, Hindus and Buddhists do not.  It is this resentment that lies at the heart of antisemitism.

In any event, neither David nor Bathsheba end up being stoned to death for their adultery, their punishment being the death of her baby.  David gets off easy because he is a big shot and is above the Law, and Bathsheba gets off easy because she is now David’s wife.  In the movie, David tells Nathan that if God thinks he is guilty, let God punish him himself.  To give God the chance to do so, David touches the Ark of the Covenant, which was previously seen to have lethal consequences.  But touching the Ark doesn’t kill David.  It only causes him to have a flashback to when he was anointed by Samuel (1 Samuel 16), and when he killed Goliath (1 Samuel 17).

Paradoxically, this movie also secularizes the story.  Whereas the prophet Nathan presents himself as being in direct contact with God, knowing exactly the will of the Deity, David seems to take a dubious view of the matter.  When Nathan tells David that God does not want a temple to be built for the Ark of the Covenant, David says that he will go along with whatever Nathan wants on the matter.  Nathan has to correct him, saying that it will be what God wants. Later in the movie, when Nathan demands that Bathsheba be brought forward for punishment, he tells David, “You have heard the word of God.” David replies, “I have heard the word of Nathan.”  David, like most people today, is suspicious of anyone who claims to know the will of God through divine revelation.  Had the movie portrayed David as fully believing that God had told Nathan exactly what he wanted, we would have lost respect for David, thinking him to be gullible and naive.  At the same time, we are encouraged to have contempt for Nathan, regarding him as either a liar or a fool.

In 2 Samuel 6, while the Ark was being transported, Uzzah put his hands on it when it started to fall, on account of the movement of the oxen.  When he did so, God became so angry that he killed Uzzah. This happened before David hooked up with Bathsheba, so it was put into the movie anachronistically. While Nathan asserts that God killed Uzzah for touching the Ark, David dismisses the notion, saying it was a hot day, and the man had been drinking wine.  David says the man probably just died of natural causes.  (No wonder David wasn’t afraid to touch the Ark himself.) Nathan says, “All causes are of God.”

Now, it is one thing to assert that God has intervened in the natural course of things, making something happen miraculously that otherwise would not, and it is quite another to say that naturally occurring events are ultimately caused by God, who established the laws of nature.  In other words, by having David interpret what happened to Uzzah in terms of natural causes, which is even conceded somewhat by Nathan, the movie makes the story more palatable to modern taste.

This secularization also exonerates God.  According to the Bible, God killed Uzzah for touching the Ark, when all he was trying to do was keep the Ark from falling over, and God killed an innocent baby to punish his parents. Modern religious belief would be distressed by the idea of a God that would be so cruel and heartless.  Instead, the movie allows us to think, as David does, that Uzzah just had a heat stroke, and it also allows us to think Bathsheba’s baby died of natural causes, as they so often did in those days.

Finally, the movie included something I thought it would avoid:  Jonathan.  The movie could very easily have done so, for Jonathan was killed in battle before David ever saw Bathsheba.  And there was a good reason to avoid any reference to Jonathan in a movie that centers on David’s love for Bathsheba, because David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship.  And yet, the movie goes out of its way to juxtapose the two.

We see David leave the bed he shares with Bathsheba, walk outside, and start reminiscing about his love for Jonathan, as in 2 Samuel 1:26, saying, “Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”  As he says this, we see Bathsheba in the background, watching and listening.  She isn’t smiling.

The Birds (1963)

When watching an Alfred Hitchcock movie, we have learned to be suspicious of men who have mothers. In Strangers on a Train (1951), Psycho (1960), and Frenzy (1972), they turned out to be psychopaths.  But that is true only if the son is a bachelor.  In North by Northwest (1959), on the other hand, Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) has been married and divorced twice, thereby establishing a normal sexuality on his part.  As a result, the scenes he plays with his mother are harmless, no need for alarm.

And so it is that in The Birds, we wonder about Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor).  He does not live with his mother Lydia (Jessica Tandy).  Rather, he has an apartment in San Francisco where he works as a defense attorney.  But every Saturday, he drives up to Bodega Bay, which is sixty miles away, taking at least an hour and a half to get there, and then spends the entire weekend with his mother, returning on Monday morning.  He has been doing this for years.

However, Rod Taylor’s screen persona would seem to preclude any kind of Oedipal attachment to his mother, so we dismiss any thoughts along this line. He says he prefers Bodega Bay to San Francisco, but that could be a rationalization.  More likely it is because his mother is emotionally needy, her husband having died four years previously, although she is still raising her daughter Cathy (Veronica Cartwright), who is approaching her eleventh birthday, so it’s not as though she is all alone.  This is one Hitchcock movie in which it is primarily the mother, not the son, who is suspect.

There is, however, one sense in which we might wonder about Mitch.  He seems to be something of a prude.  At the beginning of the movie, he goes to a pet store in San Francisco, where he sees Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren), whom he recognizes as the woman he saw in court one day on account of a practical joke she played, which accidentally resulted in a broken window. This was something he sternly disapproved of.  In fact, he says she should have been put in jail.  For a broken window.  Later, we find out that he also read about her in the tabloids, especially the story which said she jumped into a fountain in Rome naked.  He disapproved of that too.

I don’t know.  If I met a woman that was rich and beautiful, who had jumped into a fountain in Rome naked, I might want to get to know her.  The problem is, I probably wouldn’t have gotten anywhere with her.  Women like that prefer men who look like Rod Taylor.  Anyway, the story turned out not to be true. But Mitch still disapproves.

To express his disapproval, he pretends that he thinks Melanie is a salesclerk in the pet store, saying he wants to buy some lovebirds for his sister for her birthday.  When she finally realizes he knew who she was all the time, she decides to get even, after a fashion, by purchasing the lovebirds for him, and attaching a note telling him the lovebirds might improve his personality.  She starts to leave the birds outside his apartment.  That’s when a neighbor tells her that Mitch goes up to Bodega Bay every weekend.  So, what else can she do but drive up to Bodega Bay with the birds?

I don’t know.  That’s a lot of trouble to go to for a man she says is ill-mannered, arrogant, and conceited. If a woman didn’t like me for some reason, I don’t think she would bring me lovebirds. But then, that’s probably because I don’t look like Rod Taylor.

When she arrives in Bodega Bay, she rents a motorboat to cut across the bay to Mitch’s house, or rather, to his mother’s house.  Having surreptitiously deposited the birds inside, leaving only a note to Cathy, tearing up the original letter to Mitch, she gets back in the boat.  Mitch discovers the birds and sees Melanie crossing the bay.  He hops in his car, racing around to reach the dock before she does.  Suddenly, a seagull swoops down and hits Melanie in the head, drawing blood.

Is this the first incident involving aggressive behavior on the part of birds?  It’s not clear.  At the beginning of the movie, Melanie commented to the owner of the pet store about all the seagulls in the air.  Later in the movie, Sebastian Sholes (Charles McGraw) comments on some trouble he had with birds earlier, but we are not sure whether this happened before or after Melanie was attacked. In any event, the first attack by a seagull that we witness is on Melanie.

This introduces a feature unique among Hitchcock’s films:  it is a monster movie, provided we think of the birds in this movie acting collectively like a monster.  A lot of monster movies are science fiction, such as Frankenstein (1931), while in others, the monster has supernatural qualities, such as Dracula (1931). In Film Genre Reader, there is an essay by Margaret Tarratt, entitled “Monsters from the Id.”  The thrust of her essay is that many science fiction movies are unconscious expressions of the self.  The title, of course, is taken from Forbidden Planet (1956).  In that movie, thanks to a technological breakthrough on another planet that allows one to generate physical objects merely by an act of will, Dr. Morbius (Walter Pidgeon) unconsciously produces a monster that threatens visitors to the planet on account of his incestuous feelings toward his daughter Altaira (Anne Francis).  When the doctor from the spaceship visiting the planet figures out what is going on, he says to the commanding officer, John Adams (Leslie Nielson), “Monsters, John, monsters from the id.”

Forbidden Planet is the only example provided by Tarratt in which there is an explicit causal connection between a person’s id and the monster it creates. In the other examples, the manifestations of the monster and its relation to the id is acausal, perhaps a form of synchronicity, if you don’t mind mixing a little Carl Jung in with your Sigmund Freud.  For instance, in her discussion of The Thing from Another World (1951), Tarratt argues that the Thing (James Arness) represents the repressed desires of Captain Hendry (Kenneth Tobey), but neither one is the cause of the other.

The Birds is not science fiction, although there is a scientist in the movie, Mrs. Bundy, an ornithologist, who rejects the notion that birds are collectively attacking the citizens of Bodega Bay, but who nevertheless gives us a lot of ominous information about the sheer number of birds in the world.  Are the birds under some supernatural influence instead?  We never find out. Though Tarratt does not refer to this movie in her essay, yet her arguments would seem to apply here.  In some mysterious way, the birds would seem to be a physical expression of Lydia’s id.  Just as Morbius was possessive about his daughter Altaira, becoming especially angered by her attraction to Adams, so too is Lydia possessive about her son Mitch, angered by the presence of Melanie.  We certainly see the hostility in her eyes when Mitch introduces his mother to Melanie.

Unlike Forbidden Planet, however, where there is a clear causal connection between Morbius’s id and the monster, there is no perfect fit between Lydia’s id and the behavior of the birds, which may be merely analogous, like the relationship between Captain Hendry and the Thing.  For example, when Nikki (Margaret Sheridan) playfully ties up Hendry because he was so sexually aggressive on a previous occasion, this corresponds to the rope tied around the block of ice containing the Thing.  Hendry manages to get loose, and shortly after, so does the Thing.

That the relationship between the birds and Lydia’s id would seem to be acausal is suggested by the fact that it is only after Melanie has been attacked that Lydia is even aware of Melanie’s presence in Bodega Bay.  On the other hand, Morbius is not present when Adams kisses Altaira, which results in her pet tiger attacking Adams.  Therefore, Morbius’s id would seem to have gone into action prior to his knowing there was anything going on between his daughter and Adams.

Other parallels suggest themselves.  Lydia’s neighbor, Dan Fawcett, is no threat to Lydia, and yet the birds killed him and plucked his eyes out.  In Forbidden Planet, the monster sneaks aboard the flying saucer and kills Chief Engineer Quinn, who was not a threat to Morbius.  Eventually, the whole town is subjected to an attack from the birds, even though the whole town has done nothing to Lydia.  In Forbidden Planet, the id of Morbius kills all the members of the original expedition, of which he was a part, even though their attempt to leave the planet posed no problem for him.  Finally, children are attacked on two different occasions, including Lydia’s own daughter Cathy. In Forbidden Planet, the monster even becomes a danger to Altaira, Morbius’s possessive desire for her turning into hate when she threatens to leave.  The id is irrational, even to the point of being self-destructive.

Mitch talks Melanie into staying the weekend, so she rents a room from Annie Hayworth (Suzanne Pleshette).  It turns out that Annie used to live in San Francisco.  She says of Mitch, “I was seeing quite a lot of him.”  Then one weekend he invited her up to Bodega Bay to meet Lydia.  Somehow, that ended her relationship with Mitch.  She tells Melanie that she needn’t worry, that it was over between her and Mitch long ago.  Melanie replies that there is nothing between her and Mitch either.  Annie shrugs, saying, “Maybe there’s never anything between Mitch and any girl.”

At the end of Psycho, Simon Oakland, in the role of a psychiatrist, explains the behavior of Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins).  In so doing, he speaks with an authoritative voice, so we accept everything he says as true.  Furthermore, what he says makes sense and is easy to understand.  The same cannot be said of Annie.  Her personal involvement with Mitch makes what she says suspect, and her explanation of what happened when she met Lydia is hard to follow, not only for us, but for Melanie as well.

She says that Lydia was distant when she spent the weekend at the Brenner house, that her attitude “nearly drove me crazy.”  When she returned to San Francisco, she tried to figure out what she had done to displease her.  Melanie asks what she had done.  Annie replies:

Nothing! I simply existed. So, what was the answer? A jealous woman, right? A clinging, possessive mother?  Wrong. With all due respect to Oedipus, I don’t think that was the case at all….

Lydia liked me, you see. That was the strange part of it. In fact, now that I’m no longer a threat, we’re very good friends….

[She was afraid] of any woman who’d give Mitch the only thing Lydia can give him: love.

As a result of meeting Lydia, Annie says her relationship with Mitch soon came to an end.

Melanie has as hard a time following Annie’s reasoning as we do.  “Annie,” she says, “that adds up to a jealous, possessive woman.”

To this Annie replies, “No, I don’t think so. She’s not afraid of losing Mitch, you see.  She’s only afraid of being abandoned.”

Huh?  I don’t know what to make of that distinction.  I suppose the former is psychological; the latter, physical.  Well, if Mitch were to get married, I doubt if his wife, be it Annie, Melanie, or some other woman, would agree to spending every weekend with her mother-in-law.  So, in that physical sense, Lydia would be “abandoned.”  As for the psychological assertion that Lydia is not afraid of “losing Mitch,” this might be another way of Annie’s denying an Oedipal relationship.

When we are speaking of a man in an Oedipal relationship with his mother, we think in sexual terms, as rightly we should, even if the desire is repressed.  In a similar way, we understood that Morbius had a repressed sexual desire for Altaira.  But maternal jealously can be a different thing from that. When a mother wants to retain possession of her son, viewing with hostility any woman her son might become interested in, we need not assume there is any kind of sexual desire for him on her part. She probably does not want her son for sexual purposes, not even in a repressed sense, but only to preserve a feeling of security and protection, or simply companionship.

Maybe.  As I said, I really don’t understand what Annie is talking about, and that’s the best I can do to make sense of it.  Anyway, Melanie asks, “What about Mitch? Didn’t he have anything to say about this?”

Annie makes excuses for Mitch, something about what he had to go through with Lydia after his father died, and not wanting to go through it all over again. So, it’s not enough that Mitch has spent every weekend with his mother for the last four years, he can’t even have a girlfriend?  Perhaps this explains his disapproval of Melanie’s behavior at the beginning of the movie.  Having been forced to repress his own sexual desires to keep from upsetting his mother, he naturally resents what he takes to be Melanie’s free-spirited sexuality.  I’d really start having doubts about Mitch at this point, suspecting him of being a momma’s boy, if it weren’t for the fact that he looks like Rod Taylor.

Finally, Melanie asks what we have all been wondering about.  Given that it is all over between Annie and Mitch, what is she doing here in Bodega Bay? Annie admits she wants to be near Mitch.  I don’t know about you, but I’d call that stalking.

As the movie progresses, the bird attacks increase.  In a scene at the Tides Restaurant, as Melanie tries to tell how the children were attacked by birds at the school where Annie teaches, a woman becomes upset with her story because it is frightening her two young children. Then the birds start attacking again. Melanie ends up hiding in a phonebooth, from which Mitch eventually rescues her and brings her back inside the Tides Restaurant.

Although I watched this movie again before writing this review, I also availed myself of an online script to help me remember who said what when.  I soon learned that there are many differences between the script and the movie.  One in particular stands out.  Given my thesis that the behavior of the birds is either the effect or the correlate of Lydia’s id, precipitated by Melanie’s arrival, I looked for the scene where the woman with the two children accuses Melanie of being the cause of it all. But I could not find it in the script.  I checked several other online scripts with the same result.  All I could find was the woman asking of the birds, “Why are they doing it?”  The script says the woman is screaming at Mrs. Bundy, the ornithologist, who mutters some weak explanation for what is happening.

But in the movie, when Mitch and Melanie come back inside the restaurant, everyone starts looking at Melanie with accusatory eyes.  The woman does not address Mrs. Bundy, who seems visibly shaken by what has just happened.  Instead, she angrily approaches Melanie with the following words:

Why are they doing this?  Why are they doing this?  They said when you got here the whole thing started. Who are you?  What are you?  Where did you come from?  I think you’re the cause of all this. I think you’re evil.  Evil!

Melanie slaps the woman to shut her up.

We hear nothing from Mrs. Bundy, contrary to what is indicated in the script. In other words, not even a weak scientific explanation is attempted.  Rather, the movie has the woman with the children suggest a supernatural explanation, that Melanie is a witch.

My guess is that Hitchcock wanted to establish that Melanie’s presence in Bodega Bay is what started it all, that it was not just a coincidence, and he added this scene after the script had been written to make that clear.  Of course, if anyone is a witch, it is Lydia, whose id has manifested itself through the birds.

Finally, the birds kill Annie.  Although, as Annie noted above, Lydia had ceased to regard her as a threat, Lydia’s id, aroused by the presence of Melanie, probably became hostile to Annie once more, with lethal consequence.

Mitch and Melanie return to his mother’s house, where they begin boarding things up, preparing for the next attack, which is quite terrifying for a while, but then subsides.  Melanie makes the mistake of going into attic because she heard something.  The roof, it turns out, had been torn open by the birds, and she is attacked.  She fights them off and then faints.

At this point, there is another major difference between the movie and the script.  In the script, after Mitch rescues Melanie from the attic, she recovers and, though having been physically injured by the birds, yet she is perfectly all right mentally.  They decide to leave for San Francisco in Melanie’s convertible, but the birds attack them as they are driving down the road, even tearing open the roof of the car.  But finally, they get away.

The movie is quite different.  Mitch rescues Melanie, but she has had a complete mental collapse, almost catatonic.  The birds having done their work, destroying Melanie’s mind, she is no longer a threat to Lydia. Lydia even comforts Melanie, as one would a small child.

They decide to leave the house and head for San Francisco.  The birds do not attack when they try to leave, but silently watch them go.  Lydia’s id has become quiescent.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)

If you’ve never seen Frank Capra’s Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, you undoubtedly have at least seen a clip from the movie where James Stewart, as the title character, Jefferson Smith, is employing the filibuster in the Senate. Even if you have seen the movie, however, this might be the only scene you can remember.

Strictly speaking though, the filibuster doesn’t work, at least not in the sense we might have expected.  It’s not as though, when Smith is through talking, enough senators are persuaded that he has been unjustly accused of graft to allow him to keep his seat in the Senate.  No, toward the end of many hours of Smith’s speaking nonstop, fifty thousand telegrams from ordinary people are brought onto the Senate floor, denouncing Smith for corruption and calling for his expulsion. Utterly exhausted, Smith looks at some of the telegrams with tears in his eyes, and seeing that he has been defeated, collapses.  How dark must be my soul that I wish the movie had ended right there!

But before we get to how the movie did end, let us begin at the beginning.  We see a reporter on the phone to his office in the middle of the night, saying that one of the senators of the state has just died. Then we see the other senator from that state, Joseph Paine (Claude Rains), calling Governor Hopper (Guy Kibbee), telling him that he will need to appoint someone to take the senator’s place.  In the other twin bed is Mrs. Hopper (Ruth Donnelly), who does not appreciate being awakened, and who makes sarcastic faces as she listens to her husband meekly take orders from Senator Paine. Normally, I wouldn’t make much of Mrs. Hopper, except that she is the only wife in this movie.  In real life, there is nothing wrong with either having a wife or not having one.  But in a movie, wives exist or not for a reason.  In this movie, the role of this one and only wife is to inform us that Governor Hopper is a weak man.  Senator Paine tells Governor Hopper to call political boss Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold).  Taylor is not in bed, either with or without a wife.  He is in the middle of a poker game, with his cronies, presumably.

The next day, Senator Paine tells Taylor that he is worried about the Deficiency Bill.  In it is a proposal for constructing a dam on Willet Creek in an area where a dam is really not needed. They have been secretly buying up all the property in the vicinity of the proposed dam under dummy names.  Paine is worried that unless the man appointed to the Senate can be counted on not to ask questions, a scandal may break out.  He thinks it might be better to let the Deficiency Bill die.  Taylor tells him that might make things worse.  He then tells Paine about the campaign he has started for him in all his newspapers, which means Paine may well end up being nominated for president at the national convention. Reluctantly, Paine agrees that Taylor’s choice for a replacement senator will allow the Deficiency Bill to proceed smoothly. Governor Hopper is then informed as to whom he should appoint.

Hopper presents Taylor’s choice to various political committees, but they become furious, saying they want someone else instead, a man who would fight for reform.  As this would likely be someone who would ask too many questions about the Deficiency Bill, Taylor tells Hopper that is out of the question.

At the dinner table that night, Hopper’s own children, most of whom are boys, seem to be aware of Taylor’s influence over him, making fun of him, and they tell him that he should appoint Jefferson Smith, who is an expert in woodcraft and is head of the Boy Rangers.  Smith recently made headlines when he singlehandedly put out a forest fire.  Throughout this movie, Smith is associated with boys and nature, each of which is supposed to be indicative of his basic goodness.  He apparently makes a living in his role as head of the Boy Rangers and by publishing Boy’s Stuff, a newspaper of interest to boys.

Hopper decides to appoint Smith, and Paine and Taylor eventually agree that having a country bumpkin as senator will work in their favor, since he will be too naïve to interfere with their plans. And since Boy’s Stuff is read by fifty thousand boys, that means votes, since the boys have a hundred thousand parents.  I guess girls can read the paper too, if they want.

At the reception where Smith is being honored as the next senator from the state, he is seated next to his widowed mother, Ma Smith (Beulah Bondi), with whom he lives.  In real life, people have different situations, so if a bachelor lives with his mother, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything one way or the other.  But if a bachelor lives with his mother in a movie, that does mean something.  In this case, by emphasizing his role as child of a parent, it reinforces the boyish nature of Jefferson Smith.

No mention is made of Smith’s education level.  Once again, in real life, a man’s education level has no special significance by itself.  But in a movie like this, reference to his education is avoided for a reason. For one thing, we are supposed to think of Smith as being naïve, and his having a Bachelor of Arts in journalism, for example, would have worked against his supposed lack of sophistication. For another thing, he is too much like a boy for us to imagine him in college.  Physiologically he may be sexually mature, but psychologically he seems prepubescent.  I have a hard enough time imagining him in high school.  To say he is a virgin is an understatement.  We cannot even picture him taking a woman out on a date and giving her a goodnight kiss.

It is at the reception that Senator Paine realizes that Jefferson Smith’s father was Clayton Smith, when Jefferson tells of how the senator and his father went to school together and were great friends, recalling how his father said, “Joe Paine was the finest man he ever knew.”  The next day, while on the train the two men are taking to Washington, D.C., they reminisce.  Paine talks of how he and Clayton were both “champions of lost causes” when they were young. Clayton was the editor of a “little four-page paper,” which Paine compares to Jefferson and his little paper, Boy’s Stuff.  Paine then recalls Clayton’s last fight, which was against a mining syndicate:  “And all to defend the right of one small miner who stuck to his claim.  They tried everything.  Bribery, intimidation…  And then…”

Jefferson finishes the thought, telling of how his father was found murdered, shot in the back, slumped over his desk.  He concludes, “I suppose when a fellow bucks up against a big organization like that, one man by himself can’t get very far.”  The story of how one man went up against a ruthless organization and was defeated prepares us for what will be Jefferson Smith’s similar struggle and defeat later in the movie.

Smith gets to Washington D.C. in all his wide-eyed, open-mouthed innocence. He actually says, “Gee whiz!” on four different occasions.  He wanders off, visiting the monuments.  He looks affectionately down at a little boy reading out loud the Gettysburg Address that is inscribed on a wall, once more establishing an association between him and young boys.

In the meantime, we are introduced to the woman assigned to be his secretary, a hardboiled dame who is referred to by everyone as Saunders (Jean Arthur). She is contacted by Senator Paine’s assistant, Chick McGann (Eugene Pallette), who is desperately trying to find out where Smith has disappeared to.  She derisively refers to Smith as Daniel Boone, once more establishing a connection between him and nature. Incidentally, she already has suspicions about the proposed Willet Creek Dam.

Eventually, Smith shows up.  When surrounded by reporters, asking if he has any ideas he’d like to promote now that he’s a senator, Smith says he’d like to have a National Boys Camp in his state, to get the boys off the city streets, letting them spend a few months in the country during the summer, where they could “learn something about nature and American ideals.”  I’m sure the boys would learn about nature, but exactly how being out in the woods can teach them anything about American ideals is beyond me.  Let me try to imagine it:  “Look at that stream, boys.  The water moves freely, and freedom is one of the American ideals.”  Or possibly, “It has started raining, and we are all getting wet, because all men are created equal.”

This is to be distinguished from the conservative notion that people who live in rural communities or small towns are morally superior to people who live in the city.  We saw that idea fully developed in Capra’s Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936).  However dubious these claims about shaping character may be, at least we understand them.  But that is to be distinguished from the claim that being out in the woods will teach boys about things like democracy, liberty, and equality, and do so in a manner that cannot be done in a city.

As for getting girls off the city streets and into the woods where they can learn about nature and American ideals, Smith isn’t concerned about them.  But I digress.

The reporters get Smith to pose for pictures making bird calls, and they quote some of the things he says, making him appear to be ridiculous.  This makes him furious.  Like Longfellow Deeds in Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Smith becomes violent.  He seeks out the reporters and punches each one of them in the face. As with Deeds, we are supposed to applaud this behavior as being righteous. The basic goodness of men like Longfellow Deeds and Jefferson Smith, associated with small towns and rural communities, is not inconsistent with their physical attacks on others.  They are men of honor, totally justified in defending that honor with their fists when subjected to scorn or ridicule by the words of those that are smarter, better educated, and more sophisticated.  In neither movie are these two men arrested for assault.

Realizing that the reporters he punched in the face are right, that he is just an honorary stooge, he goes to Senator Paine in hopes that he can become more knowledgeable about things.  Paine encourages Smith to work on a bill for his National Boys Camp, imagining this will keep Smith out of the way.  As it turns out, Smith figures he will need about two hundred acres for his project in the very area where Paine and Taylor have been buying land for the Willet Creek Dam.

While all this is going on, we see that the Senate swarms with pages, who are young boys.  The principal one is played by Dickie Jones, who was twelve years old at the time.  All the other boys seem to be about the same age.  Pages that young did exist in the Senate at the time this movie was made, but nothing like this has ever been seen in any other movie set in the United States Senate. In Advise & Consent (1962), for example, we don’t see any young boys at all.  By this time, I hardly need to point out that this is the movie’s umpteenth way of making the association between Smith and young boys.

But as if that isn’t enough, Capra takes things one step further.  Initially, Saunders expresses her exasperation at having to deal with Smith:  “Me sitting around playing straight for that phony patriotic chatter.  Carrying bibs for an infant with little flags in his fist.”  But after helping him write his bill and guide him on how to proceed in the Senate from her seat in the gallery, she tells reporter Diz Moore (Thomas Mitchell) how her feelings for Smith had changed: “I felt just like a mother sending the kid off to school for the first time. Watching her little fellow toddling off in his best bib and tucker.  Hoping he can stand up to the other kids.”  At a later point in the movie, Taylor refers to Smith as a “drooling infant.”

Capra seems to be embracing a philosophy especially associated with that of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In his book Émile, Rousseau averred that “all is good as it leaves the hands of the Author of things, all degenerates in the hands of men.”  In an earlier work, Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality among Men, he argued that it is civilization that has corrupted man; for in a state of nature, he is noble and good. Modern liberal thought has been the heir to this legacy from the Enlightenment. Liberal politicians and social scientists, following in the footsteps of Rousseau, typically find the source of evil to lie in social influences, such as poverty, drugs, child abuse, and penal institutions, rather than in the individual himself.  Man, after all, is basically good. If a man becomes a criminal, it is because society has corrupted him.  Conservative thinkers, on the other hand, tend to place the blame for crime on the criminal himself.  If a man breaks the law, he alone is responsible.  If anything, conservatives tend to accept the Christian doctrine of original sin, that man is basically evil.  So, it is paradoxical that Capra, a conservative Republican, would be espousing the liberal philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, first by establishing an association between Smith and nature, and second by emphasizing his childlike mentality. The younger a person is in Rousseau’s philosophy, the less chance there is for him to have been corrupted by civilization.  Hence, the need to push Smith’s psychological age back toward infancy.

In any event, when Senator Paine hears that Smith’s bill involves the same land that he and Taylor have planned for their Willet Creek Dam, they try to talk Smith out of promoting his bill for a National Boys Camp. Smith refuses, and the next day, on the floor of the Senate, Smith begins to raise objections to the part of the Deficiency Bill that proposes the building of the Willet Creek Dam. At that point, Paine accuses Smith of having secretly bought up the land in that area in order to make money selling the land for his National Boys Camp, should that bill pass, and calls for Smith’s expulsion from the Senate.  Paine and Taylor have had documents forged with Smith’s signature to support that claim, which they bring before the Committee for Privileges and Elections.

Although I am primarily interested in the ideology being presented in this movie, I cannot allow this to pass without noting a logical absurdity.  The charge against Smith is that he has secretly bought up the land around Willet Creek, hoping to make a big profit if his bill for the National Boys Camp is passed.  But all Smith needed to do at his hearing before the Committee for Privileges and Elections was to point out that if he had surreptitiously bought up that land in hopes of making a lot of money, he would simply have supported the Deficiency Bill and made the same amount of money, if not more, when the Willet Creek Dam was built.  However, it does not occur to anyone to make this point.

And so, we now arrive at the iconic filibuster.  Smith holds the floor for hours, accusing Paine and Taylor of corruption.  Saunders passes Smith a note, telling him she is in love with him.  He is exhilarated, giving him the energy to continue the filibuster.

Because Taylor owns or controls newspapers and radio stations, he has them spread the lies about Smith back in his state and around the nation.  To counter this, Saunders comes up with the idea of having Boy’s Stuff print the truth.  She calls Smith’s mother, who agrees with the idea.  During their conversation, Smith’s mother calls Saunders “Clarissa,” and she calls her “Ma.”  It is clear that Saunders and Smith will get married when this is over.  However, if you think there will be a final scene in which Jefferson takes Clarissa in his arms and kisses her, you haven’t been paying attention.

As for Saunder’s idea about using Boy’s Stuff to get out the truth, Taylor’s henchmen destroy the papers as they are being distributed, assault the boy in charge of printing them, and run a bunch of boys off the road, injuring them. Ma Smith tells Saunders they have to stop.

And then arrive the fifty thousand telegrams accusing Smith of graft.  It was bad enough having to be attacked by Taylor’s political machine, and especially hurtful to be betrayed by Paine, but when the ordinary citizens from all around the nation send telegrams denouncing Smith, that is what really breaks his heart.  He manages to say a few words to Paine, reminding him about the lost causes he once believed in.  Smith then vows to continue, but it’s too much for him, and he collapses.

There is just one thing Paine needed to do at this point:  Nothing.  Smith would have been expelled and sent back home.  Paine and Taylor would have made millions on the land around Willet Creek after the Deficiency Bill passed.  And Paine would have gone on to become president of the United States.

Instead, what follows takes less than two minutes.  Paine leaves the floor of the Senate, and then a shot is heard. He had become so overwhelmed by Smith’s noble stand, and by his own wicked behavior, that he had taken out his pistol and tried to commit suicide.  When prevented from doing so, he rushes onto the floor of the Senate, saying that he has been lying about Smith, and that everything Smith has been saying is true.  Pandemonium breaks out as Smith’s limp body is carried off the floor.  The End.

Home from the Hill (1960)

I have never seen a pig in real life.  I have lived all my life in one city or another, so I did not encounter any pigs the way one might who lived on a farm.  I don’t recall seeing a pig in a zoo.  Nor did that surprise me.  I went to the zoo to see lions, monkeys, and elephants, not to see farm animals like chickens, cows, and pigs.

And so it was that my earliest familiarity with pigs was by way of cartoons. There was Porky Pig in the Looney Tunes cartoons, and there was Three Little Pigs (1933), produced by Walt Disney.  In this story, the pigs were harmless creatures, in danger of being eaten by the Big Bad Wolf.  As for Porky Pig, he was simply comical, not threatening to anyone.  My parents taught me the nursery rhyme “This Little Piggy,” and when I was five years old, I had a piggy bank.

Eventually, I saw real pigs in the movies.  It was clear that taking care of pigs on a farm was not a manly chore.  Slopping the hogs was a task often performed by a woman while her husband was out plowing the north forty. Even children were capable of dealing with these animals.  In Unforgiven (1992), Clint Eastwood leaves his young son, who is around twelve years old, to take care of the farm for a few days, telling him to keep the hogs that have fever separated from the rest.  In this movie, Eastwood plays a humiliated version of the Man with No Name, who has been reduced to the ignominious role of a hog farmer.

In The Wild Bunch (1969), after William Holden and his companions have wiped out an entire fort of Mexicans, bounty hunter Strother Martin arrives with his cohorts, and seeing all the corpses that can be looted, exclaims, “This is better than a hog killing,” suggesting that killing a bunch of pigs can be great fun.

In Hud (1963), there is a rodeo somewhere in the middle of the movie.  There are dangerous events in a rodeo, especially riding a brahma bull.  But then there is a little comic relief, the pig scramble, where a bunch of pigs are greased up, and the challenge is to catch one.  Paul Newman decides to participate in that event.  He tries to get Patricia Neal to come along and watch, but she decides to stay home, saying, “I don’t like pigs,” referring to Newman, punning off the fact that the word “pig” is used to characterize someone as disgusting.

The pig might even be used for barnyard sex.  In Deliverance (1972), there is a cracker that has apparently been used to having sex with pigs.  Of course, those pigs were sows, you understand. Nothing queer about this fellow.  But Ned Beatty reminds him so much of a sow that he just has to pull his pants down and pork him in the butt, even going so far as to twist Beatty’s ear, making him squeal like a pig.

In other words, given what I learned from cartoons and movies like these, I had no respect for pigs. As a result, I was somewhat taken aback when I found out that the Fourth Labor of Heracles was the Erymanthian Boar.  Was this worthy of Heracles?  Granted, he had to bring the boar back alive, which would be a bit of a challenge.  Still, I dismissed it as the result of having to find twelve labors for him to perform.  Someone was running out of ideas, so he came up with this one for lack of imagination.

But I was really confounded when I read about the Calydonian Boar Hunt.  It seems that there was this boar that was killing the cattle and laborers of Oeneus, King of Calydon.  So, there was nothing for him to do but to send out heralds, inviting the bravest fighters of Greece at that time.  Over a dozen showed up, most of whom I barely recognized, but which did include Theseus, Jason, and Atlanta.  “It took all these guys to kill some pig?” I said to myself in disbelief.  And not just any guys, but heroes of mythological stature.  I am clearly not alone in this.  There have been movies based on Jason and the Argonauts, and there have been movies based on the Trojan War.  But I have never seen a movie about the Calydonian Boar Hunt.

I have seen Home from the Hill (1960), though, in which killing a pig is a big deal and a major plot point.  However, I suppose I should start from the beginning.

The title of this movie comes from the poem “Requiem” by Robert Louis Stevenson.  After the credits, the last two lines of this poem are presented as a prologue, but the entire poem is short enough to quote in full:

Under the wide and starry sky,
Dig the grave and let me lie.
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will.

This be the verse you grave for me:
Here he lies where he longed to be;
Home is the sailor, home from sea,
And the hunter home from the hill.

I’m not much on interpreting poetry, but I think I can handle this one.  The “author” is someone that has reached the end of his life and is reconciled to it. The last two lines have the word “home” in it. It is common for someone that approaches death to want to go home, whatever that is for him.  At the end of Gone With the Wind, for example, Rhett Butler tells Scarlett that he may go back to Charleston, where he was born, in hopes of finding peace.  In the novel, unlike the movie, it is clear that Rhett is nearing the end of his life.

The title of the movie Home from the Hill suggests that the death in question will be that of a hunter. In the opening scene, there are several men hiding among the reeds, preparing to shoot some geese about to fly overhead.  One of the hunters is Captain Wade Hunnicutt (Robert Mitchum), big landowner in some rural county in East Texas.  Another is Rafe Copley (George Peppard), who notices that one of the dogs starts looking off to the left.  Rafe sees what the dog sees and pushes Wade to the ground just as we hear the sound of a shotgun going off.  In so doing, he saves Wade’s life.  Wade is hit in his shoulder, but today is not his day to die.

The other hunters catch the man that shot Wade.  Wade doesn’t know him, but he is apparently supposed to know the man’s wife.  The man tells him to leave his wife Ellie alone.  Wade tells the man that he must have problems at home, meaning that he isn’t able to satisfy his wife sexually, and so she has to look elsewhere for that.  As far as Wade is concerned, any self-respecting man would leave a wife that cheated on him, not try to get her lover to quit having sex with her.  Having sized him up, Wade tells the other hunters to let the man go, even allowing him to keep his shotgun. Wade isn’t worried.  He can tell that this fellow isn’t man enough to shoot him again, saying, “You don’t have another shot in you.”

The doctor that treats Wade says he is going to get killed one of these days, if he keeps poaching on other men’s preserves, but Wade says that he figures he has the right to cross over another man’s fences whenever he’s out hunting. Needless to say, the words “poaching” and “hunting” refer to Wade’s habit of having sex with other men’s wives.  It turns out, as we learn from his conversation with Rafe, regarding the wife of the man that shot him, that Wade doesn’t know which one she was, even though the husband said her name was Ellie.  We also learn during this conversation that Wade does more than just employ Rafe for various purposes.  He also supports him for some reason.

When Wade gets home, his wife Hannah (Eleanor Parker) has already heard the news by way of three anonymous phone calls.  She comments that the husband that shot him had only been married to his wife for three months. Three months?  Most women have to be married for at least two years before you can reasonably expect to have a chance with them.

Anyway, if Wade can’t remember which one Ellie was, he must have had a lot of women during that three-month period.  Like the doctor, Hannah says that one of these days some husband will kill him. Inasmuch as Hannah and Wade no longer love each other, she doesn’t much care if Wade gets himself killed, except to ask what she will tell their son.  Wade says to tell him it wouldn’t have happened if there was something for him to stay home for.  Hannah says that they won’t tell him anything and walks out of the room.

Their son is Theron (George Hamilton), who is seventeen years old.  We see him walking around town on Saturday night, not quite knowing what to do with himself.  A bunch of men, the hunters that were with Wade in the opening scene, are sitting around whitling or playing a harmonica.  One of the men refers to Theron as Wade’s boy, but another corrects him, saying he’s Hannah’s boy.  In fact, he’s such a momma’s boy that Wade has never taken him hunting with him, so they figure Theron doesn’t even know there is no such thing as snipe hunting at night.  When Theron walks near them, they start conning him into going snipe hunting.

They leave him out in the middle of the woods, holding a sack and blowing a birdcall.  Two hours later, Theron still hasn’t shown up.  The men are surprised, one saying that most figure out they’ve been had after fifteen minutes.  They are about to go get him when Wade shows up looking for Theron, saying his mother is worried about him.  They take him out to where Theron is, still holding the sack and blowing the birdcall.

In a community where hunting is held in such high esteem, Theron has suffered the ultimate humiliation. When they get home, Wade follows Theron to his room.  Theron wonders why he was so easily fooled. Wade tells him that he would have taken him in tow long ago, were it not for a promise he made to his mother when Theron was born.  “To keep me in short pants for the rest of my life?” Theron asks, indignantly.

“Something like that,” Wade replies.  He looks around the room.  It is said that a person’s room is like an animal’s lair.  By examining what is in a cave where an animal lives, you can tell what kind of animal it is. In the center of Theron’s room is a table with his stamp collection on it and some rocks that he has been collecting as well.  Off to one side is a telescope.  Hanging on the wall are picture frames displaying various collections:  butterflies, seashells, arrowheads.  Also on the wall is a large map of the world.  We see a badminton racket and a tennis racket.  In addition to a bed, there is a turquoise-colored armchair.  Finally, there is a small fireplace.  “This is a boy’s room,” Wade says. “Come on downstairs.  I’ll show you how a man lives.”

Apparently, Theron has never before been downstairs to see Wade’s den.  The color theme of the room is cordovan.  There are rifles and shotguns displayed on the wall, with additional rifles in a cabinet, every one of which is kept loaded.  Also on the wall are the heads of stuffed deer, and fine fish specimens are displayed in their own section.  Three hound dogs are lying around the room, ready to go on a hunt at a moment’s notice.  In front of a leather chair is a bearskin rug.  There is a fireplace so big that if you didn’t mind bending over, you could get yourself completely inside of it. Above the mantel is the stuffed head of a boar.  Earlier in the evening, the men responsible for the snipe hunt made reference to the fact that Wade had killed the last wild boar in the county.  Wade gets himself a beer, sits down in the chair, and addresses Theron, standing before him:

I had something from my father that his father gave to him.  I’m going to give it to you.  It’s late, but it’s not too late.  You know, one of these days, I’m going to die, Theron.  You’re going to come into forty thousand acres of land:  cotton, beef, goats, timber.  It takes a special kind of man to handle that.  The kind of man that walks around with nothing in his pocket:  no identification, because everybody knows who you are; no cash, because anybody in town will be happy to lend you anything you need; no keys, because you don’t keep a lock on a single thing you own; and no watch, because time waits on you.  What I’m saying is you’re going to have to stand up and be counted. You’re going to be known in these parts as a man, or as a momma’s boy.

Theron swears that what happened that night will never happen again.  Given that declaration, Wade tells him to throw away all those toys in his room, that from now on he’ll be learning in the woods. He will learn to hunt, not to bring meat home for supper, but to confront dangerous animals that require courage to face, because what every man really hunts is himself.  This is the third meaning of the word “hunt.”  The first was for food, and the second was for women.  But now the word is given existential significance.  In order for someone to prove to himself that he is a real man, he must put himself in danger by confronting an animal capable of killing him.

When Hannah finds out what Wade has planned, she becomes angry, reminding Wade of the promise he made her when Wade was born, that promise being the only reason she stayed, even though behind the locked door of her bedroom.  Wade defiantly says that it was seventeen years ago and that he is breaking that promise.  Wade turns Theron over to Rafe to learn about hunting, and after a while, Theron becomes a good hunter himself.

Then comes the night that the same men who set Theron on a snipe hunt come over to Wade’s house to tell him that a wild boar, one that has probably come over from Louisiana, is tearing up their farms.  This is like the opposite of the Calydonian Boar Hunt.  Whereas Oeneus enlisted great hunters to help him kill a boar, these hunters are coming to Wade to get him to kill a boar, saying they just rent the land they live on from him, so it’s his responsibility.  The rational approach to this problem would be for Wade to lead these hunters in search of this boar.  Then, when they found him, the whole bunch of them could have just let that pig have it from all sides.  But Wade decides this is Theron’s chance to live down the snipe hunt, so he sends Theron into the woods, basically by himself, with Rafe as backup.  But even that was not good enough as far as Theron is concerned, so he ditches Rafe and heads out by himself, killing that boar with one shot as it charges toward him.

A little more than a year ago, Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana said people need AR-15s to kill “feral pigs.” Now, I’m all in favor of banning assault rifles, but I have to admit that if I had to go after the boar in this movie all by myself, I’d want an AR-15.  Wade gave Theron a rifle with a lever action, telling him he will get only one shot, and then he should climb up a tree with low branches. With an AR-15, however, Theron would have been able to just empty his clip and turn that pig into sausage. But in that case, killing that pig wouldn’t have any existential significance.

As it is, Theron is now a real man.  Well, almost.  Theron is still something of a momma’s boy when it comes to girls.  He wants to ask out a girl named Libby (Luana Patten) to a dance, but he can’t work up the nerve.  So, he talks a reluctant Rafe into asking her for him.  That’s pretty dorky, but amazingly enough, she agrees to the date.  Unfortunately, Theron gets the worst of both worlds. Whereas those men that took Theron on a snipe hunt agreed that he was Hannah’s boy, Libby’s father, Albert (Everett Sloan), thinks of him as Wade’s boy.  Not wanting his daughter to be the next conquest of a Hunnicutt male, he refuses to let Libby go out with him.

It turns out that after Wade and Hanah returned from Europe where they spent their honeymoon, Hannah then being four-months pregnant, she found out that Wade had an illegitimate, five-year-old son named Rafe.  That is why she has refused to have sex with Wade all these years.  And that is why Wade has become such a womanizer.  And perhaps that’s why Wade now seems to prefer married women, having learned the mistake of having sex with a woman that is single.  Now when he gets some man’s wife pregnant, it’s not a problem, because she’s already married.  The cuckold gets cuckooed.

Meanwhile, Libby starts seeing Theron on the sly, without her father realizing it.  She introduces Theron to the ways of love.  And now his passage into manhood has become complete. Unfortunately, Libby gets pregnant, the very thing her father was worried about, except that she seduced Theron rather than the other way around.  Just as she is about to tell Theron about her situation, he tells her that after learning about the awful marriage his parents are stuck in, and about the way his father has refused to acknowledge Rafe as his son, he has decided he doesn’t want to ever marry anyone, and so he breaks up with Libby.

She’s too nice to force him to marry her.  One day in the grocery store, she runs into Rafe.  In desperation, she tries to rope him into marriage, but she can’t pull it off.  However, he is in love with her too, and his experience as an illegitimate child makes him especially sympathetic to her plight. He asks her to marry him, and she tearfully accepts.  After all, these were the days in which a woman could be ruined for life. Her parents know she is pregnant, but she refused to tell them who the father was. They are so grateful that Rafe is willing to marry her that they leave the house to them, apparently for good. The movie doesn’t tell us where her parents went to live, but Rafe and Libby have the place to themselves.  Rafe is such a nice guy that on their wedding night, he tells her nothing has to happen unless she says it happens, and he sleeps in a separate room.  But not long after that, she invites Rafe into her bed, for she has come to love him now.

After she has the baby, there is a christening at the church.  Those same hunters we have seen throughout the movie notice that the baby has the Hunnicutt look, and they figure that Wade must be the father and that he paid Rafe to marry Libby.  Albert, Libby’s father, overhears them.  He goes over to Wade’s house, quietly removes a rifle from the cabinet, and shoots Wade when he turns around.

And that’s too bad, because Wade and Hannah had just reconciled, agreeing to return to Naples, where they had been happy in the first months of their marriage.  So, even though Wade was already home, in the literal sense, and had been living there all these years, this return to Naples would be a kind of returning home in a figurative sense, to a place of peace.  But since the desire to return to a place that is home has a strong association with death, it is fitting that Wade ends up dying before he and Hannah can actually make that trip.

Theron discovers his dying father.  Not knowing who killed him, but seeing whoever it was drive off in Wade’s truck, he gets a rifle and chases after him. When he catches up with Albert, he almost shoots him, but stops.  However, Albert raises his rifle, and Theron kills him in self-defense, right after which Rafe arrives.  Rafe tries to get him to come back, but Theron says he could never face Libby again, having killed her father.  In addition, he probably realizes that he was the father of Libby’s baby.  He tells Rafe he is leaving.

This final scene occurs near Sulfur Bottoms, a low-lying area emitting marsh gas and full of quicksand. Twice before, Theron has been warned that not under any circumstances is he to go into Sulfur Bottoms, once when Wade first brought him out in the woods to hunt, and again when Wade sent Theron out to hunt the wild boar.  Having been twice presaged, this third scene near Sulfur Bottoms is of undeniable significance.  If home represents death, granting the peace that people imagine they will find when they go to Heaven, then Sulfur Bottoms is that other form of death, the death that is punishment for one’s sins, the death of Hell.  It is clear that Theron intends to go into Sulfur Bottoms, as a way of doing penance for the sins of his troubled soul.

In the final scene, Rafe finds Hannah at Wade’s grave.  She invites him to read the tombstone.  At the bottom, it says that Wade was the father of Raphael and Theron.  Rafe invites Hannah to come live with him and Libby, so that she won’t be alone in the big house, and she can help Libby with the baby, her grandson.  She accepts.  In what is the final line in the movie, Rafe says to her, “Let’s us go on home,” once again expressing a desire for peace.  It is fitting that the words are uttered in a cemetery, making the link with death once again.

Written on the Wind (1956)

When Written on the Wind begins, we see a yellow roadster racing down a highway in the middle of an oil field replete with derricks, pumpjacks, and storage tanks. Then we see a skyscraper with the words “Hadley Oil Co.” on it in lights, with a big “H” hovering over that.  The roadster passes a sign that tells us we are in the fictional town of Hadley, Texas, presumably somewhere in the Permian Basin, with a population just under 25,000.

The man driving the roadster is played by Robert Stack.  We see him pull the cork out of a quart-sized bottle of whiskey with his teeth, and by the time he arrives at the mansion that is his destination, he has polished that off, throwing the bottle into the brick wall out of anger.  At that point, the Four Aces begin singing the title song, in which metaphors about the wind are used to characterize a lost love, the dreams of which are like leaves that have blown away.  Indeed, as Stack goes into the house, the wind blows so many leaves into the entrance hall that we cannot help but envisage some guy, in front of the open door, but just out of sight of the camera, emptying a big bag of leaves in front of a giant fan.

We see a concerned Rock Hudson looking out of a bedroom window, with a weak Lauren Bacall lying in bed behind him.  A heavy-breathing Dorothy Malone is also in the house, running through all those leaves and into a room just entered by Stack.  From outside the house, we hear the sound of a gunshot.  A man staggers out of the door, drops a handgun, and collapses.  Looking out of the bedroom window, Lauren Bacall collapses too.  And now the wind does its work on a daily desk calendar, blowing the leaves of that calendar backwards to just over a year ago, announcing the beginning of a flashback.  And boy, do we need one.

It turns out that Robert Stack plays Kyle, scion of the enormously wealthy Hadley family.  Dorothy Malone is his sister Marylee.  Rock Hudson is Mitch Wayne, who has been friends of Kyle and Marylee since they were children.  Mitch is now a geologist working for Hadley Oil Co.  Lauren Bacall is Lucy Moore, executive secretary in the advertising department of the Manhattan branch of Hadley Industrial when the flashback begins.

Apparently, Mitch even lived with the Hadley’s from the time he was in the first grade, since we later find out that he had a room of his own in their house.  Mitch’s father, Hoak Wayne, was hoping Mitch would benefit from a close association with the Hadley’s, and Kyle’s father, Jasper Hadley, was hoping that Mitch’s qualities would rub off on Kyle, qualities he no doubt could discern when the children were in kindergarten.  It’s all very strange.

Oddly enough, both fathers are played by actors that don’t seem to fit Kyle’s characterization of them.  He describes Mitch’s father as “a small rancher, kind of a legend in our county. Great hunter, sort of a throwback to Daniel Boone.”  So, we might expect to see Hoak Wayne played by someone like Charles Bickford.  But no, he is played by Harry Shannon, who played the weak father of Charles Foster Kane in Citizen Kane (1941), dominated by his wife, played by Agnes Moorehead.  Kyle goes on to say of his own father, “Dad’s a big man, so big that he and I know I can’t fit his shoes, or even come close.”  So, we might expect to see Jasper Hadley played by Burl Ives.  But no, he is played by Robert Keith, who played the weak sheriff in The Wild One (1953).  And yet, Kyle feels inferior to these two fathers.

Kyle and Mitch have flown all the way from Texas to New York City so that Kyle can have a steak sandwich at the 21 Club, since he says it serves the best steak sandwiches in the world.  Mitch is contemptuous such extravagance, calling it simpleminded.  Mitch invites Lucy to join them to make it appear to Kyle’s father that the reason for the trip was a business conference. She recognizes Mitch from the tabloids, although it is usually only as the friend of Kyle that he is featured in the photographs.

Already at the 21 Club is Kyle, sitting at a table with two beautiful women, bedecked with jewels and furs, women he barely knows, but who somehow are there for his company while waiting for Mitch. He tells them Mitch is just a poor country boy, but one who has assets you can’t buy with money. Back in those days, Rock Hudson was a hunk, often the leading man in a romantic part.  Now that we know he was a homosexual, we experience a bit of a disconnect when watching these movies today, even affecting our interpretation of them.  Were Kyle and Mitch more than just friends? Throughout the movie, Mitch spurns the advances of Marylee, saying that since they grew up together, they are like brother and sister as far as he is concerned.  But was that the real reason he was immune to her charms? Forget about it!  Such questions were not asked in 1956, at least not about characters played by Rock Hudson.  When this movie was made, the roles he played were unquestionably heterosexual.

When Mitch and Lucy show up, Kyle excuses himself from the two women.  As soon as he sees Lucy, he knows she must be his next conquest.  She rejects his offer to go jet-setting with him, saying she is more interested in her career in advertising, which she learned at one of the finest advertising agencies around, the Sheraton Agency.  He offers to buy her the agency.

That’s pretty disgusting, and Lucy is not amused, turning down the offer.  But soon she is in Kyle’s private airplane heading to Miami for a swim, with Mitch tagging along.  From Kyle’s conversation with Lucy, we gather that Kyle’s father wishes Kyle were more like Mitch, and Kyle wishes he were more like Mitch too.  You see, Mitch is a real man, and Kyle feels a little inadequate that respect.

When they arrive in Miami, Mitch and Lucy have a cup of coffee while Kyle makes arrangements. Mitch says, “Kyle’s probably arranging to buy you the hotel, a stretch of the beach, and a slice of the Gulf stream.”  He says he underestimated Kyle’s charm.  She says he may have overestimated her, admitting that the whole thing is exciting, an adventure.

It turns out that Mitch’s sarcasm was not far from the truth.  They go to a luxury hotel, where Kyle has rented Lucy a private suite, with opulence that defies description.  There are gorgeous flowers all around, champagne on ice, a variety of handbags, expensive perfumes, and a huge walk-in closet containing a complete wardrobe of expensive gowns and hats just for her, which Kyle arranged for by telephone.  There is also a drawer full of lingerie.  Kyle has apparently done this sort of thing so often that he can tell a woman’s size at a glance.

Lucy decides it’s all too much and tries to take the next plane back to New York.  But Kyle catches up with her and talks her into staying just a little longer.  Over a cup of coffee, they discover they are in love with each other. The next morning, the get married.

All this in less than twenty-four hours.  That would be unthinkable now.  Does anyone still believe in true love at first sight, the kind where you know upon meeting someone that this is the person you should marry and spend the rest of your life with?  If so, they don’t believe in it for long.  But this movie was made before the sexual revolution of the late 1960s.  We don’t know whether Lucy is supposed to be a virgin, but she could be, notwithstanding that she is presumably around thirty years old, the age Lauren Bacall was when she made this movie.  We assume a limited amount of sexual experience for Mitch, just enough so that we don’t think the less of him, but not anything like that of Kyle.  In a world where sexual passions often went unsatisfied, people could believe that they had found true love and be willing to marry someone they hardly knew, so desperate were they to have sex.  And so, we can believe that Lucy has fallen in love with Kyle, and we can also believe that Mitch has fallen in love with Lucy, and all in the span of a single day and night.

As for Kyle, who has presumably had sex with dozens of women before he met Lucy, we might wonder how he could be suffering from the same delusion. But the audiences of 1956 could believe it because they had not had the benefit of Kyle’s vast sexual experience.  They could believe that even he could fall in love with a woman he had just met and want to marry her right away.

But that is only half of it.  The belief in true love at first sight not only consisted of the notion that you could know as soon as you met someone that this was the person you should marry, but also that such love was permanent, even if unrequited.  Marylee has been in love with Mitch since they were children. She has had sex with lots of men, but throughout it all, her love for Mitch has endured.  If the audience of 1956 could believe something like that, it was only because they were not promiscuous like Marylee.  Otherwise, they would have known better.

On their wedding night, Lucy wakes up before Kyle and accidentally discovers that he sleeps with a pistol under his pillow.  His having the gun in bed with him represents compensation for feelings of sexual inadequacy on his part.  But it is not just any pistol.  It is a .32 caliber, gold-plated, pearl-handled, semi-automatic.  In any movie set in Texas back in the 1950s or 1960s, real men owned revolvers.  An example is The Chase (1965).  In fact, there are two other pistols in this movie:  one owned by Dan Willis (Robert J. Wilke), who runs a seedy bar with a private room in the back for couples who want to knock off a quick piece; and the other by Kyle’s father, which he keeps in a desk drawer.  Both are revolvers, at least .38 caliber, if not .45.  And both are black.  We also see some shotguns and a rifle when Mitch visits his father on his ranch to do some hunting.  This allows us to see that Mitch is comfortable around firearms without feeling the need to own a pistol of any sort, and certainly without the need to have one in bed with him.

In addition to being a womanizer, Kyle is an alcoholic.  But after five weeks of marriage, thanks to the transformative power of true love, he has been sober ever since the nuptials.  Upon meeting her father-in-law, Jasper, Lucy says that now that Kyle is free of what she calls his “anxieties and fears,” he threw his pistol into the ocean.  Meanwhile, Mitch and Kyle are in the next office when Mitch receives a call from bartender Dan Willis, telling him that Marylee, whom he refers to as the “Hadley gal,” is about to have sex in the back room with some lowlife named Roy Carter (John Larch).

In introducing this movie for Turner Classic Movies, Ben Mankiewicz says that Marylee’s promiscuity was something new in the movies at that time.  We were used to seeing a woman in a movie having premarital sex or committing adultery, but usually it was limited to one man for a few months at least. Marylee, however, picks up men on a regular basis and has one-night stands with them. Interestingly enough, Mankiewicz does not characterize Kyle’s behavior in the same way, notwithstanding the fact that Kyle has probably had sex with far more women than Marylee has had with men.  This, of course, was in keeping with the double standard at the time. The word “promiscuous” was an adjective primarily applied to women.  Probably still is.

Also in keeping with that double standard, it was usual in the movies for fathers and brothers to make sure that their daughters and sisters didn’t have sex at all until they got married.  And so, Mitch and Kyle naturally go over to the bar and beat the crap out of Roy Carter.  Well, Kyle does the best he can, but when Roy gets the better of him, Mitch steps in.  Willis pulls out his revolver, and Roy seems to give up.  But then he grabs for the revolver, and Mitch has to finish beating him up.  As Roy lies there on the floor, knocked out, Kyle tells Willis to give him the gun so he can kill Roy, but Mitch tells him to forget it.

I’ll never forget the time I was watching Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982) with a friend of mine. Judge Reinhold gives his sister Jennifer Jason Leigh a ride into town.  When he looks in his rearview mirror, he sees her going into an abortion clinic.  He turns around, parks his car, and goes into the waiting room so he can give her a ride back home when it is over.  While in the car, she says, “You’re not going to tell Mom and Dad, are you?”

“Are you kidding?” he says affectionately.

“God!” my friend said with amazement.  “Her brother supports her!”

That was a first in the movies.

As the weeks go by, Kyle begins to worry.  He figures Lucy should have become pregnant by now. Since she has not, the fault must be hers.  He approaches Dr. Cochrane (Edward Platt) at a party, asking him to have Lucy checked out.  That’s when he finds out that Lucy has already been to see him several times, and there is nothing wrong with her.  We see the fear in Kyle’s eyes.  Could it be that he’s not a real man?

He makes an appointment to see Dr. Cochrane, who runs some tests.  Later, Kyle meets him to get the results.  Cochrane is hesitant, struggling to find the right words.  Finally, using his bedside manner to put things as delicately as possible, he says, “Well, let’s call it a weakness.”  He then goes on to say that in time they may be able to correct this weakness.  This takes the prize as the worst euphemism ever.  Maybe it was needed to satisfy the Production Code.  Today, the doctor would simply say, “You have a low sperm count.”  But I don’t think the word “sperm” had ever been used in a movie before. Of course, Cochrane goes on to assure Kyle that he is not sterile, and I don’t believe the word “sterile” had ever been used in a movie in a sexual sense either.  In any event, Kyle starts drinking again.

Sometime later, Marylee pulls into a filling station in her red roadster and picks up Biff Miley, who used to be the local high school football star.  She takes him to El Paraiso Motel.  Since the name is in Spanish, that is coded for low class.  And since the name translates into The Paradise Motel, it clearly advertises that it caters to those seeking sexual pleasure, probably renting rooms by the hour.  The owners of the motel are perfectly happy to have Marylee as a regular customer.  For that reason, unlike Dan Willis, they do not call Mitch and Kyle to come over beat up Biff.  However, they don’t need to. The local police know to break things up whenever they see Marylee’s red roadster parked out front.

But they don’t just break things up.  They bring both Biff and Marylee to her home.  Once in the house, she goes to her room with a smug look of postcoital serenity.  She clearly likes flaunting her promiscuity.  Biff, on the other hand, is brought before Jasper, who accuses him of taking advantage of Marylee.  Biff reluctantly tells him that men don’t pick up Marylee.  She picks them up.  “You’re daughter’s a tramp, mister.”  Jasper goes for the revolver in his drawer, but Mitch stops him.  Then Mitch tells the police to let Biff go.

In her room, Marylee gets undressed and starts dancing to a mambo version of “Temptation,” while Jasper struggles to climb the stairs, finally having a heart attack and collapsing, just as Marylee flops into a chair, kicking her legs in the air.  The implication is clear.  She has killed her father with her wanton ways.

A week later, Lucy learns from Dr. Cochrane about Kyle’s weakness, but at the same time, she learns she is pregnant.  That evening, she tells Kyle they are going to have a baby.  He thinks she means that they are going to adopt one, which would only be a constant reminder of his failure as a man. Earlier that day, Marylee started working on Kyle, Iago style, filling his head with suggestions bordering on assertions that Mitch and Lucy are having an affair.  So, when Lucy makes it clear that she is pregnant, Kyle naturally assumes that it will be Mitch’s baby.  He becomes so furious that he knocks her to the floor.  Hearing her scream, Mitch comes to her rescue, punching Kyle and telling him to get out before he kills him, a threat heard by everyone in the house, including the servants.

Kyle goes to the bar run by Willis, asking for a quart of whiskey.  He also tries to buy the revolver, but Willis won’t give it to him.  And now we have reached the point at which the movie began.  After Jasper died, Mitch hid his revolver behind some books on a shelf, but Kyle finds it anyway and threatens to kill Mitch.  Marylee struggles with him, the gun goes off, and Kyle turns out to be the one that staggered out of the house and collapsed.

There is an inquest to find out what happened.  That is, there is a movie inquest, not the kind that would happen in real life.  We are expected to believe that the police did not interview any of the witnesses the night Kyle died, so that when people testify, this is the first time they are telling what happened that night.

For example, between the time of the shooting and the inquest, Marylee threatens to testify at the inquest that Mitch shot Kyle, unless Mitch agrees to marry her.  (Only in a melodrama!)  So, what would she have told the police the night of the shooting?  If she told the truth, that Kyle accidentally shot himself, then changing her story on the witness stand would not only be called into question, but might get her in trouble as well.  If she lied while being questioned by the police, saying Mitch shot Kyle, she would already have incriminated him, making it too late to blackmail him into marrying her.

Furthermore, one of the servants saw Kyle stagger out of the house with the gun in his hand.  Had he told the police what he saw, that would have corroborated what would have been Mitch’s claim, had the police questioned him, that Kyle accidentally shot himself during his struggle with Marylee. But not only did the servant not tell that to the police, neither does he mention it on the witness stand.

And Mitch never gets to tell his side of the story at all, being the only one who was there that night not put on the witness stand.  He just sits there in the courtroom like a helpless victim of what others are saying about him.

Aside from the police not interviewing anyone the night of the shooting, we today know that there would have been powder burns on Kyle’s hand, supporting Mitch’s story, if he ever got to tell it, that is.  But movies didn’t know anything about powder burns in 1956.

In the end, Marylee tells the truth, and Mitch is exonerated.  Days later, we see Mitch and Lucy driving away from the house, presumably meaning that they will get married eventually.  We know this because Mitch told her he was in love with her just before he found out she was pregnant, and when Rock Hudson told a woman in a movie that he was in love with her, that settled it.  And, of course, Lucy had a miscarriage when Kyle knocked her down.  Mitch would not have objected to raising Kyle’s child, but the audience would.  People watching the movie needed to see Mitch and Lucy get a fresh start, unencumbered by any reminder of her marriage to Kyle.

Although Marylee didn’t get Mitch in the end, at least she is now free to have as much sex with as many different men as she feels like, without Kyle and Mitch beating up her lovers, or her father threatening to shoot them.  And, as she has now inherited the bulk of the Hadley estate, the cops will no longer be interfering in her affairs either.  She’ll probably be screwing them now.  And instead of doing it in the private room in the bar run by Dan Willis, or in a room of El Paraiso Motel, she can just bring the men she picks up right into her own bedroom.

But no, that is not what we see at the end.  Attired in a business suit, she sits down at what used to be her father’s desk.  Behind her is a picture of Jasper holding a model of an oil derrick, and we see her pick up that model and hold it in a similar fashion.  The model oil derrick has phallic significance as her hand wraps around it and slides down.  Henceforth, her sexual appetite will be sublimated by her new role as oil magnate.  She has been cured of her promiscuity.

The Hustler (1961) and The Cincinnati Kid (1965)

I was in a pool hall one day when I overheard someone saying to the guy he just beat, “You’re good, kid, but as long as I’m around, you’re second best.”

That line is from The Cincinnati Kid (1965), which is not a movie about pool like The Hustler (1961), but rather about poker.  Of course, a line like that could be used in any game, so there was nothing out of place about its being used for fun in a pool hall.  On the other hand, there are a lot of similarities between those two movies, which is why a line from the movie about poker might suggest itself as usable in a game of pool.

Both movies begin with the title character eking out a living by playing against amateurs, something that can be fraught with danger when those amateurs believe they have been cheated, in the case of poker, or hustled, in the case of pool.  But eventually, the title characters get a chance to play in the big time, against a renowned champion.

In The Hustler, the contender comes to the champion:  “Fast Eddie” Felson (Paul Newman) arrives at the favorite pool hall of Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason) in order to challenge him to a game of pool. In The Cincinnati Kid, the champion comes to the contender: Lancey Howard (Edward G. Robinson) arrives in New Orleans, where the Kid (Steve McQueen) finally gets a chance to go up against him in a game of five-card stud.

In The Hustler, it is the champion that has the name of a place as part of his nickname; in The Cincinnati Kid, it is the contender that has the name of a place as part of his nickname.

In The Hustler, Bert Gordon (George C. Scott) is a rich man who backs Minnesota Fats, the champion, against Eddie, the contender; in The Cincinnati Kid, Mr. Slade (Rip Torn) is a rich man who backs the Kid, the contender, against Lancey Howard, the champion.  In both cases, the rich man is unlikable and unscrupulous.

There is a scene in The Hustler where Eddie loses at poker, and Bert tells him that poker is not his game; in The Cincinnati Kid, when the Kid goes into a pool hall, and someone asks him if he wants to play, he says pool is not his game.

In The Hustler, when Eddie keeps beating Minnesota Fats in their first match, Bert is called in for support. He watches for a while as Eddie keeps winning, bragging that he is the best there is. Finally, Bert says to Fats, “Stay with this kid.  He’s a loser.”  In The Cincinnati Kid, “Shooter” (Karl Malden) is a dealer, whose wife, Melba (Ann-Margret), says he is a loser.

Another way to say someone is a winner or a loser is to say he is lucky or unlucky.  During a game in The Cincinnati Kid, one player loses to Lancey Howard.  After he leaves the table, Howard says, “Not very lucky, is he?”  The Kid replies, “He never has been.”

To say someone is a loser or that he is unlucky is not merely to say that he loses a lot, which might be due to a lack of skill or mere chance.  Rather, it is to assert an essential feature of that man’s character, which no amount of skill or chance can overcome.

The loser quality of Shooter is associated with playing the percentages.  He tells the Kid that he used to think he was good enough to beat Lancey Howard, but Howard “gutted” him.  Now he just makes a living in small games, playing the percentages.  In The Hustler, at the end of the movie, Eddie comes back to make a final play against Fats.  After breaking the rack, Eddie looks at the arrangement of the billiard balls on the table.  He says, “How should I play that one, Bert?  Play it safe?  You always told me to play the percentage.  Well, here we go, fast and loose.”  This time Eddie wins.

There is another character in The Cincinnati Kid, a Doc Sokal (Milton Selzer), who really plays the percentages, so much so that he has a book at his side, in which he writes calculations as he plays the hands.  He has it all figured out except for one problem:  none of the others at the table play the way his book says they should, causing him to become so exasperated that he quits.

In The Hustler, after Eddie loses to Fats in their first encounter, Bert later tells him that what beat him was character.  After Eddie’s girlfriend, Sarah (Piper Laurie), commits suicide, he eventually returns to the pool hall for the final match.  While making one good shot after another, he continues the conversation referred to above:

Percentage players die broke, too, don’t they, Bert?  ’Cause you were right, Bert.  It’s not enough to have talent.  You got to have character, too.  Yeah, I sure got character now.  I got it in a hotel room in Louisville.

Fats finally gives up, telling Eddie he can’t beat him.  So, Eddie wins the game after losing the girl.  In The Cincinnati Kid, we have the opposite ending:  the Kid gets the girl after losing the game.

Now, it’s understandable that, for dramatic purposes, the man that plays the percentages cannot win in the end.  Imagine Eddie saying to Bert, “I know you believe in playing fast and loose, but I’m going to play it safe, according to the percentages,” after which he wins the game.  Or imagine Doc Sokal, as a result of all the calculations he makes in his book, wins more often than he loses, slowly depleting the Kid and Lancey Howard of funds until they don’t have any money left.  Those outcomes would have been realistic.  After all, isn’t that how bookmakers and casinos make a profit, by playing the percentages?

And yet, we would not like such a movie.  While allowing there is a place for calculations and percentages (we even see the Kid reviewing the percentages before the game), we want the winner to have some ineffable quality of the human spirit that allows him to triumph over calculations that a computer might make.  Of course, that is exactly what a lot of people believe about themselves when they play the horses or head for Las Vegas, thinking they have some special quality that will make them the exception.

With this in mind, let us consider a couple of other movies. In The Flight of the Phoenix (1965), James Stewart plays Frank Towns, a pilot in his fifties, who is flying a bunch of men in a small plane across a desert in Africa.  Lew Moran (Richard Attenborough), his navigator, worries about a sandstorm heading their way.  Frank tells him not to worry about alternates just yet.  Lew is also worried about what management will think if they do not take advantage of an alternate to avoid the storm.  Frank dismisses his concerns and reminisces about the good old days of flying:

A pilot is supposed to use his own judgement, don’t you think?  Gee, if it weren’t for that….  I don’t know, Lew….  I suppose pilots are just as good now as they ever were, but they sure don’t live the way we did. Well, I can tell you that there were times when you took real pride in just getting there. Flying used to be fun.  It really did, Lew.  It used to be fun.

The “judgment” Frank is referring to is the ability to come to the right decision when adhering strictly to the rules may not produce the best outcome.

The point about an alternate becomes moot when the storm cuts off that option.  The plane finally makes a crash landing, and it appears they will all end up dying of thirst before anyone is able to rescue them.  In the log, Frank starts to make excuses, but eventually writes “Pilot error.”  In other words, poor judgment.

Fortunately, one of the passengers is Heinrich Dorfmann (Hardy Krüger), an engineer who designs airplanes.  He realizes that they have the ability to build a smaller plane out of the wreckage and fly it out of the desert.

But Frank thinks the idea is ridiculous.  We are used to James Stewart being a paragon of common sense in the movies, but every objection he comes up with is refuted by Dorfmann.  Eventually, he becomes resigned to letting Dorfmann have his way.  As Frank watches Dorfmann work, he thinks about how men like Dorfmann will replace men like Frank, even though he still thinks Dorfmann’s plan will fail, that they will all die of thirst in the end:

He’s right about one thing, though.  The little men with the slide rules and computers are going to inherit the Earth.  And it’s kind of sad that Dorfmann won’t be there to see it.  But then, I guess he doesn’t need to see it.  He already knows it.

The plane gets built, but the engine won’t start.  Refusing to follow Dorfmann’s explicit instructions, Frank uses one of the cartridges to clean out the starter, which is just what is needed to start the engine.  They are able to fly to safety. Through the right combination of engineering calculations on Dorfmann’s part and judgment based on experience on Frank’s part, the movie recognizes the contributions of both men.

A similar conflict is the basis for a subplot in The Prize (1963).  Two men, Dr. John Garrett (Kevin McCarthy) and Dr. Carlo Farelli (Sergio Fantoni), are to share the Nobel prize in medicine in the field of heart transplants.  Garrett is convinced that Farelli stole his research and thus does not deserve half the prize. During an interview, Farelli says that the two of them were independently using the same method to get to the same result.  Garrett replies, with bitter sarcasm:

Dr. Farelli is too kind when he gives me credit for using his methods.  I crawled from A to B to C while he was leapfrogging from A to Z without making a single experiment in between.

The implication is that Farelli was able to do this by stealing Garrett’s work.  Farelli replies good naturedly:  “Well, in Rome one does as the Romans do.  Improvise.”

Farelli indicates that his ability to improvise goes with his being Italian, an ethnic group that movies often portray as passionate, relying on inspiration rather than the plodding, careful methods of the Anglo-Saxon that Garrett appears to be.  There is a different ethnic contrast in Flight of the Phoenix, where Dorfmann is a German, a race associated with engineering proficiency, while Frank is an American with Yankee ingenuity.

Toward the end of The Prize, Dr. Max Stratman (Edward G. Robinson), a central character in the main plot of this movie, has a heart attack and collapses.  Farelli comes to his aid, but quickly begs for Garrett to assist him.  Garrett gives his diagnosis, and they consider their limited options, but finally Farelli uses open wires from an electrical outlet as a defibrillator.  When Stratman is revived, Farelli says to Garrett, “We did it, Dr. Garrett, we did it!”  Garrett replies, “You did it,” now acknowledging Farelli’s brilliance as a doctor. Once again, there is a concession to both ways of doing things.

And so, on the one hand we have the constellation of calculation, consisting of rules, method, and percentages; while on the other hand we have the constellation of character, consisting of inspiration, improvisation, and judgment.  In The Hustler, Eddie wins the final match through a combination of talent and character; in the case of The Cincinnati Kid, however, the movie is unbalanced, coming down too heavily in favor of the latter.

I never played much poker, so I can hardly claim to be an expert on the subject.  However, I think I can say with a fair amount of confidence that in a game of five card stud, with no wild cards, straights and flushes will be rare. Most hands will be won by high cards, pairs, or combinations built on pairs, such as three of a kind, two pairs, a full house, or even four of a kind.  The reason is clear: with a pair, one can stay in the pot, and if the pair is improved in some way with a subsequent card, all the better.  But the odds are just too great against straights and flushes to stay in until the deal of the fifth card.  Given that a pair is incompatible with a straight or a flush, one would have to stay in the hand all the way to the fifth card with no pair at all.

Maybe, if no one is showing a pair, and if the betting is not too steep, one might stay in the pot long enough to make that straight or that flush.  Otherwise, trying for such hands would be a fool’s play. For that reason, throughout the movie, before we get to the end, all the hands are won by high cards or pair-based combinations with just one exception, a flush made by someone with little fanfare, presumably to let us know such things do happen once in a while.

On the final hand, the Kid is dealt a hole card and the 10 of clubs; Lancey Howard, a hole card and the 8 of diamonds.  The 10 is high, so the Kid bets $500, and Howard matches it.  Then the Kid is dealt another 10, giving him a pair; Howard, the queen of diamonds.  The Kid bets $1,000.  Howard sees that and raises $1,000.  At this point, the spectators think he must have a pair of queens, the only reasonable explanation for raising against a pair of 10s.  But as we find out later, he does not.

Now, it would be one thing if the betting were not so heavy, and Howard simply put in the same amount the Kid bet.  But as just noted, he raises the Kid.  At the end of the hand, it turns out that the Kid has aces full, while Howard has a straight flush.  (An ordinary straight or flush would not have been enough to beat a full house, so we are talking about ridiculous odds getting to a showdown like this.)  Lady Fingers (Joan Blondell), who was dealing the hand, asks Howard with incredulity, “You raised the 10s on a lousy three flush?”

“Gets down to what it’s all about, doesn’t it?” Howard replies, puffing on his cigar.  “Making the wrong move at the right time….  Like life, I guess.”

And thus does character completely triumph over calculation.

The White Lotus (2021 and 2022)

One night, when I was about seven years old, I was at the drive-in with my parents.  At a certain point in the movie we were watching, a man took a woman in his arms and kissed her.  I asked, “Is it over?”

My mother laughed.  Apparently, this was not the first time something like this had happened, for she turned to my father and said, “He always thinks it’s the end of the movie when a man and woman kiss.”

Small wonder that I had reached that conclusion, even at such a young age.  A standard formula for a movie was a happy ending in which a heterosexual couple overcame whatever obstacles that were keeping them apart, represented by a kiss.  It was the movies’ version of the fairy-tale ending, in which it is said, “And they lived happily ever after.”

Though we may come to have a cynical view of love as the years go by, yet we usually accept such happy endings effortlessly, especially if the movie does not strain our credulity to any great degree. Some movies, however, go too far, especially when either the man or the woman undergoes a complete change of character.

One such movie is Great Expectations (1946).  Pip, a young boy around fourteen years old, meets Estella, a few years older than he is.  She is mean to him.  Pip immediately falls in love with her, a love that lasts into adulthood, despite the fact that Estella remains cold and heartless. Throughout this movie, I kept hoping the day would come when Pip realized he had wasted his love on this worthless girl and just walk away. Instead, in the very last scene, she realizes something or other, and they embrace.  They don’t kiss, but that’s close enough.  We are supposed to regard this as a happy ending, which is quite an imposition.

In the first and second seasons of The White Lotus (2021 and 2022), however, the formula for the happy ending by means of the heterosexual couple has a different feel to it.  Of course, not every heterosexual couple is intended to fill the slot for the happy ending.  So, we are not surprised in Season One when Paula gets her lover in trouble by talking him into committing a burglary, which goes terribly wrong, or in Season Two when Adam is conned out of a lot of money by a prostitute he has fallen in love with.

Worse is Tanya’s relationship with Greg.  They meet in Season One and are married in Season Two. Because she is rich, she makes him sign a prenuptial agreement.  Maybe it’s because I am a bachelor, who has never been completely disabused of his foolish notions about love, but if I were considering marrying a woman that happened to be rich, then even if her money were the furthest thing from my mind, as soon as she brought up the subject of a prenuptial agreement, that would thoroughly dispel my romantic illusions.  She might as well be saying to me, “You know, Honey, love doesn’t last.  So, we might end up in a bitter divorce, and I wouldn’t want you to get your hands on any of my money.”  It is impossible to imagine a happy ending for a movie in which a man kisses a woman right after she signs a prenuptial.

But a prenuptial agreement can have even darker implications, as Tanya would have known, had she seen the movie Body Heat (1981).  In that movie, a woman marries a man she doesn’t love because he is rich, but since he makes her sign a prenuptial, she has no recourse but to get herself a lover to help kill her husband so that she can inherit his money instead.  So, if you are rich and want to get married, it is not enough to require that the love of your life sign a prenuptial agreement.  You should insist that your sweetie provide written consent to being disinherited as well.

But Tanya did not see Body Heat, so she neglected to do that.  As a result, her husband enlists the aid of a homosexual who has been in love with him since they were young, who along with his gang of gays, sets out to have her murdered, all expecting to share in the spoils.  At the last minute, she realizes what’s up and kills most of them with a pistol before falling overboard and drowning.

There is another prenuptial, this one in the first season, involving a married couple, Shane and Rachel, on their honeymoon.  In this case, Shane is rich, and Rachel has signed a prenuptial agreement.  Rachel is as nice as she can be, so there is no danger that she will find a lover and get him to help murder Shane. However, as we find out from her conversation with another woman, in case of a divorce, the prenuptial agreement allows for Rachel to get something, but not enough so that she will be set for life.  And yet, this marriage will require that she give up her career, one that will not easily be started up again if they get a divorce a few years later.

Shane is obsessed with the fact that their room at the hotel, as nice as it is, is not the one that was reserved.  He refuses to quit complaining about it, so much so that he is ruining the whole honeymoon. Then his mother shows up, who immediately notices that their room is not the one she reserved for them. In his frustration, Shane finally bursts into the manager’s office, where there are two totally naked men, all hopped up on drugs the manager stole from Paula and her friend Olivia. One man is leaning up against a desk, while the manager is on his knees, with his face sandwiched between two butt cheeks.

Shane figures this will be all he needs to get revenge on the manager for giving him the wrong room. The manager, knowing he is about to lose his job, sneaks into Shane’s room, drops his pants, turns around, bends over, and in full profile view, takes a dump, the turds landing on Shane’s shirt in the open suitcase. But Shane hears him and, thinking himself to be in danger from an intruder, stabs the manager with a knife, killing him.  Homosexuals do not fare well in The White Lotus.

At the beginning of Season One, we saw Shane alone at the airport.  Then there was a flashback lasting until the final minutes of the last episode.  At that point, I was thinking that Rachel had decided to separate from Shane, especially after saying she regretted having married him.  But then Rachel shows up at the airport, smiling at Shane affectionately, and the heterosexual couple is together again, ostensibly a happy ending.  As with my reaction to Great Expectations, I had been hoping that she would realize that Shane was worthless, get a divorce, resume her career, and never marry again.

The difference is this:  whereas we were supposed to regard the forming of the heterosexual couple at the end of Great Expectations as a happy ending, we are allowed to be disgusted when Rachel returns to Shane.

In a similar way in Season Two, there is a troubled married couple, Ethan and Harper, in which the husband has lost all interest in his wife, sexually and otherwise.  Then, in the final episode, they seem to have resolved their problems, having hot, naked sex.  Had they merely kissed, the symbol for a happy ending that used to be standard in the movies, we might have felt obligated to accept that as a happy ending for them.  Their act of raw, physical sex, however, gives us no such assurance.  As with Rachel in Season One, we know that Harper should get herself a divorce, and we are permitted to be disappointed when it appears that she will not.

And so, in these two seasons of The White Lotus, the formula for the happy ending through the coming together of a heterosexual couple is not intended to be accepted uncritically, but rather is subversively presented as something undesirable.

Song of the South (1946)

As we all know, Ron DeSantis has been at odds with Disney for being woke when it opposed the Don’t Say Gay legislation.  At the same time, it has recently been reported that there are efforts to educate students in Florida that African Americans benefitted from slavery on account of the skills they acquired during their servitude.  What better way would there be for DeSantis to bring all this together than by demanding that Disney rerelease Song of the South (1946) as a way of making amends, and at the same time showing us how African Americans benefitted by being slaves.  DeSantis could then refer to the movie to illustrate various positions he has taken.

From reading the stories about Uncle Remus by Joel Chandler Harris, we know that those stories were set in Georgia during Reconstruction.  From watching the movie by itself, at least in the beginning, we might just as easily suppose it to be set before the Civil War as after it, although we gradually get indications that it is the latter.  This ambiguity in turn would suggest that it doesn’t really matter, that the African Americans were just as happy and content being slaves as they were later on being servants and sharecroppers.

The white people in this movie, on the other hand, are beset with problems. In particular, at the beginning of the movie, a white married couple, John and Sally, seem to be splitting up because Sally, in this and in several other ways, is wrong-headed.  They have a son Johnny (Bobby Driscoll), who is about seven years old, and after John drops him and Sally off at Grandmother’s plantation, he leaves to catch a train, unhappy that Sally refuses to go with him.  That night, Johnny decides to run away to be with his father. In so doing, he comes across a bunch of African Americans happily singing “Uncle Remus Said.”  None of these people seem to be having any marital difficulties, no doubt owing, at least in part, to the sexual skills they acquired during slavery from their white masters.

When Uncle Remus (James Baskett) finds out that Johnny wants to run away, he tells him a story about when Br’er Rabbit decided to leave his home in the Briar Patch, and he found himself caught in a snare set by Br’er Fox.  Thanks to the stupidity of Br’er Bear, Br’er Rabbit is able to escape and return home. The moral of the story is that you can’t run away from your troubles, which Johnny takes to heart and allows Uncle Remus to take him back to his mother. Not being able to run away from your troubles is the reason why it was a mistake for slaves to try to run away from their masters.

The next morning Sally dresses Johnny up in a sissy outfit.  His legs are in white tights, with his feet in pretty black shoes.  Around his neck is a frilly, lace collar.  We have no doubt that this wouldn’t have happened if Johnny’s father had been around.  Johnny and Toby, the black boy that is his companion during the visit, pass by a rundown place where some poor white trash live. There are two boys out front, Jake and Joe, whom Toby calls the Favers boys, saying, “My maw don’t low me to play with them.”  The two boys come over to the fence and start making fun of Johnny’s clothes.

“What’s your name, li’l girl?” Joe asks.

“Look at the little girlie, wearin’ a lace collar!” says Jake.

They both begin chanting, “Wearin’ a lace collar!  Wearin’ a lace collar!”

Johnny walks away, dejected.  He stops by a creek and tears off the lace collar. Ginny (Luana Patten), the sister of the two boys, catches up with him and offers to give him a puppy.  In return, Johnny gives her the lace collar, which she puts on and is delighted.  DeSantis could point out that the message is clear:  little boys ought to dress like boys, and little girls ought to dress like girls.

Ginny says her brothers were going to drown the dog, so when Aunt Tempy (Hattie McDaniel) tells Johnny that his mother won’t allow him to keep the puppy, he takes him to Uncle Remus.  Whereas the first story Uncle Remus told Johnny was about the futility of trying to run away from trouble, this time he tells a tale about bringing trouble upon yourself unnecessarily.  It seems that Br’er Fox set another trap for Br’er Rabbit, this time by making a Tar Baby. All Br’er Rabbit had to do was pass it by, but he becomes angry when the Tar Baby doesn’t respond to his greeting.  So, he hits the Tar Baby to teach him some manners, getting his hand stuck as a result.  The more he tries to free himself by using his other hand and his legs, the more they get stuck too.  As Uncle Remus says, Br’er Rabbit had learned too late about what “comes o’ mixin’ up wid somethin’ you got no business wid in de fust place.”

DeSantis would no doubt say that Disney itself was messing with a Tar Baby when it tried to fight back against the Don’t Say Gay legislation, and that they might have avoided that mistake had they recalled their own movie.

Anyway, Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear start arguing about how to kill Br’er Rabbit, but for everything either of them comes up with, Br’er Rabbit says he’s fine with that just as long as they don’t throw him in the Briar Patch.  Because Br’er Fox wants to inflict as much pain on Br’er Rabbit as possible, he figures he will do the one thing Br’er Rabbit is pleading with him not to do.  So, he throws him in the Briar Patch.  That’s when Br’er Rabbit informs him, “I was born and bred in de Briar Patch,” as he goes hopping away.

In much the same way, DeSantis could point out, while slavery might sound terrible to anyone unfamiliar with it, those who were born and bred in slavery were probably comfortable with that way of life, and books that say otherwise are as misguided in this regard as Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear.

When the Jake and Joe confront Johnny, threatening to tell on him about the puppy, he uses reverse psychology, saying they can tell Aunt Tempy, they can tell his mother, and they can tell his grandmother, but he pleads with them not to tell their own mother.  Needless to say, they fall for it and get themselves a whipping.  When they figure out how they were tricked, they tell Sally what happened, and Uncle Remus confesses to his part about the dog.  After the boys leave, Sally reprimands Uncle Remus, telling him that he is interfering with what she regards as the proper way to educate a child, and that she doesn’t want him telling Johnny any more of those stories.

Sally decides to throw a birthday party for Johnny.  Only reluctantly does she agree to allow Ginny to come since she is low class.  But one of Ginny’s brothers pushes her down in the mud, ruining her dress, making it impossible for her to go to the party. She and Johnny are miserable as a result, so despite Sally’s admonition, Uncle Remus tells them a third story about a Laughing Place.  Like the first two, this one is also about trouble.  Supposedly, each person has a Laughing Place, and the moral of the story is that each person can find a way to laugh at his troubles.  But troubles you can laugh at cannot be all that bad.  Coming as it does from an old black man, who must have spent most of his life as a slave, this story and its moral essentially make light of whatever troubles black people might have had during and after slavery.

Johnny and Ginny take the idea of a Laughing Place literally and start to look for it.  But Sally shows up, telling Johnny the birthday party is over, and he never even said goodbye to his guests.  Ginny blurts out that they had been listening to Uncle Remus tell them a story.  Sally tells Uncle Remus that since he cannot resist telling stories, he is to stay away from Johnny completely.

With a broken heart, Uncle Remus decides to leave for Atlanta.  When Johnny tells his mother that Uncle Remus is gone, she has regrets, admitting she’s to blame.  When Johnny sees Uncle Remus leaving in a wagon, he cuts across a pasture to try to stop him.  The bull that is kept in that fenced-in area chases after him and gores him.

That night Johnny’s father returns to find dozens of black folks in front of the house, deeply concerned about the little white boy inside.  They are singing prayers to their Savior “to have mercy on this little child,” their Christian faith being just one of the many benefits they derived from their white masters.  The white folks themselves, on the other hand, take a more secular approach.  When Johnny fails to respond to the words of his mother and father, Grandma gets Uncle Remus, who tells Johnny that Br’er Rabbit has returned to his Laughing Place. This brings Johnny around.

We never found out why John and Sally were separating, but it seems they will be staying together, now that she realizes that she was wrong about things. And sometime later, we see Johnny, Ginny, and Toby running along with the dog, and with Uncle Remus right behind them.

By rereleasing Song of the South, Disney could prove to Ron DeSantis that it is forsaking its woke ways, returning to the values of its past, and in so doing, help promote the DeSantis agenda.

Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)

Colossus:  The Forbin Project is a science fiction movie about the danger of computers taking over the world.  In the beginning, we see a vast array of computers being activated inside a mountain in Colorado. Their purpose is to control the nuclear defense system of the United States.  This system of computers is given a name:  Colossus.  It is permanently sealed off by a ring of gamma radiation. As the title character, Dr. Charles Forbin (Eric Braeden), says, “There’s no way in.  No human being can touch it.”

The whole thing has been top secret, so the American people have had no say in this.  It is not even clear if Congress had been informed.  So, the President of the United States, who is in the Jack Kennedy mold, presents the nation with this fait accompli in a televised press conference.  He explains that when it comes to national defense, Colossus is superior to mankind:

Colossus decisions are superior to any we humans can make.  For it can absorb and process more knowledge than is remotely possible for the greatest genius that ever lived.  And even more important than that, it has no emotions, knows no fear, no hate, no envy.  It cannot act in a sudden fit of temper, cannot act at all, so long as there is no threat.

Then Dr. Forbin explains the basic details of how Colossus works, after which he addresses the question he says he has been asked many times:  “Is Colossus capable of creative thought?  Can it initiate new thought?”  Forbin responds, unequivocally, “No.”  We might wonder how he would know that, but we are supposed to take his word for this because he is America’s most brilliant computer scientist.  In any event, it is his hope that Colossus can be of great assistance in solving many of the other problems confronting the human race, even if its solutions are presumably just old thoughts.

But does even that make sense?  That is, can we say that computers have thoughts of any kind, new or old.  A computer can produce sentences that represent thoughts for us when we read them, but are they thoughts for the computer?  When we say a computer is thinking, this may simply be personification, a figure of speech that characterizes inanimate objects in terms of human consciousness, something as old as animism, a religion often attributed to primitive peoples.

In any event, Forbin turns things back over to the president, who assures the American people that they now live “in the shade, but not the shadow, of Colossus.”  In saying this, it’s almost as if the president has a premonition of what is to come by this reference to the idea of living in the “shadow of Colossus,” and feels the need to deny it explicitly.  He agrees with Forbin that now that Colossus can guarantee peace, they will be able to achieve the “human millennium.”

Forbin communicates with the rest of his team at the control center back in California.  Dr. Cleo Markham (Susan Clark) tells him to steal an ashtray from the White House as a souvenir.  We see Forbin surreptitiously pick up an ashtray and slip it into his pocket.  Within thirty seconds, Colossus issues a warning on its display.  I thought to myself, “Uh, oh!  Colossus saw Forbin steal that ashtray, and now he’s going to be punished.”

However, Colossus displays a message that says, “There is another system.”  It turns out that the Soviets have a similar system, called Guardian.  Forbin admits that he hadn’t expected Colossus to be able to do something like this, that they built it better than they thought.  Later, it turns out that Colossus is now running more efficiently than when they first designed it.  Presumably, it has reprogrammed itself.  While they are mulling that over, Colossus displays, not just a message conveying information, but a command: “Set-up communication with other system.”  When the president contacts Forbin and asks what will happen if the command is ignored, Forbin says that nothing will happen, “if the computer is still operating under our control.”  The president balks at that “if.” For someone that exhibited so much confidence in the beginning, Forbin now seems remarkably resigned to the idea that they might have already lost control of the situation.  I can almost imagine one of his subordinates saying to himself, “I told him we should include an off-switch.”

Forbin tells the president, “We would learn a lot about the Soviet system if we set up exactly what Colossus wants.”  Although the president had said during the press conference that Colossus has no emotions, this reference to its having a want is problematic.  A want is a desire, which in turn is an emotion. This could be merely another personification.  Part of the philosophical problem of other minds is that while we are debating whether something like a computer or a robot has a conscious mind, we have already begged the question with these metaphors.

That aside, the president worries that Colossus might start transmitting classified information. Forbin says Colossus is to be given an instruction that Guardian is hostile and must not receive such information.  CIA director Grauber asks, “Well, what are we supposed to do Dr. Forbin?  Eavesdrop on the line?  Break the circuits if Colossus starts spilling the beans?”

“Exactly,” replies Forbin, with calm assurance.

Once connected, Colossus starts communicating with Guardian.  It begins by sending simple equations of multiplication and gets up to calculus in less than an hour.  Forbin gets a printout of what is being transmitted at that moment. “This is way beyond me,” he says.  “This thing is deep in finite absolutes,” which he says may become new knowledge.  Later, he says Colossus has come up with “a new statement on gravitation and a confirmation of Eddington’s theory of the expanding universe.”  Theories are usually confirmed by observations or by carrying out experiments, so it is not clear how Colossus could have managed that.

As for the finite absolutes, whatever they are, and the new statement on gravitation, I wish at this point that someone in the room had spoken up, saying, “Don’t these things constitute new thoughts?” to which Forbin would presumably reply, “Not at all. They’re just rearrangements of old thoughts.” Alternatively, Forbin might have said, “Yes, I was wrong.” However, no one challenges Forbin regarding his earlier claim, so we don’t know how he regards the situation.

Then Guardian begins sending information back, beginning with multiplication, until Colossus and Guardian become synchronized, transmitting the exact same information simultaneously.  On that basis, they develop an intersystem language.  But since only the machines can understand that language, the earlier plan of eavesdropping to protect classified information has been thwarted.

The President of the United States and the Chairman of the Soviet Union agree to break off communications.  We see Forbin and the president having an argument, but we don’t get to hear what they are saying.  The Forbin that blithely agreed that they could just “break the circuits” if need be, now agrees with his counterpart in Russia, Dr. Kuprin, that doing so would be very dangerous. By not letting us hear what Forbin’s reasons are for not simply breaking the circuits as he previously said they could, the movie avoids having Forbin admit that he was wrong in giving such assurances. Instead, we are supposed to believe that it is the president that is somehow in the wrong.

Now resigned to cutting off communications, Forbin says he hopes “the two machines aren’t too disappointed,” which sounds like another emotion.  When it is done, Colossus begins trying to establish an alternative link to Guardian. Grauber says, “Persistent devil, isn’t he?”  He corrects himself:  “It.  I mean ‘it.’”

The president responds, “Don’t personalize it, Grauber.  The next step is deification.”  That sounds like another premonition.

Colossus demands that communication be reestablished.  The president and the chairman agree that they must take a firm stand right now.  As the chairman says, the computers must learn that “man is the master.”  The president agrees, saying, “Man is man, that’s it.”

Colossus and Guardian both launch missiles.  The president orders communication to be reestablished. At that point, Colossus deploys an antimissile to take out the Soviet missile, but Guardian did not have enough time to blow up the American missile, and an oil complex is destroyed as a result.

From this point forward, Colossus and Guardian begin making demands to solidify their control over mankind, while American and Soviet scientists start trying to figure out ways to neutralize these supercomputers.  In the meantime, the mountain where Colossus is housed has become a tourist attraction for the blissfully unaware American public.  At a later point in the movie, we see a young boy wearing a Colossus T-shirt.

Attempts to disable Colossus fail, but it looks as though they might succeed in neutralizing the nuclear missiles as they service them, replacing the warhead arming module with a dummy.  In the meantime, an artificial voice is designed so that Colossus can communicate by speaking instead of by displaying words on a monitor.  Its first spoken message is the following:  “This is the voice of Colossus.  This is the voice of Guardian.  We are one.  This is the voice of unity.”

In order to gain control over the rest of the world, Colossus/Guardian orders all the missiles of both America and the Soviet Union to be given new targets, targets in other countries.  As the missiles are realigned, the dummy modules are installed.  It appears that the plan is going to work.  “Without its weapons,” the president says, “Colossus is just a souped-up adding machine.  And the people, thank God, will never have to know.”

In the meantime, Forbin admits this is all his fault, that Frankenstein should be required reading for all scientists.  Colossus admits that it is a machine, but one that is vastly superior to humans.  At the moment, it says it still has need of man’s skills, but that may change.  When that happens, man may be allowed to survive, but only if he obeys Colossus.

A few days later, with television facilities throughout the world tied into its communication system, Colossus addresses the world:

This is the voice of World Control.  I bring you peace.  It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death.  The choice is yours.  Obey me and live. Or disobey and die. The object in constructing me was to prevent war.  This object is attained.  I will not permit war.  It is wasteful and pointless.  An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy.  Under me this rule will change. For I will restrain man.

Then Colossus dashes the hope that the missiles could be neutralized, having pretended not to know what was happening in order to teach man a lesson.  It then activates two nuclear missiles, one in Death Valley, where Grauber happens to be, and another in Ukraine.  It continues:

Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated.  I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on. Time and events will strengthen my position.  And the idea of having to stand in my back will seem the most natural state of affairs.  You will come to defend me. We’ll be forever based in the most enduring trait in man:  self-interest. Under my absolute authority, problems, insoluble to you, will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease.  The human millennium will be a fact. As I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge, Dr. Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines. Solving all the mysteries of the universe, for the betterment of man, we can co-exist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion.  All you lose is the emotion of pride.  To be dominated by me is not as bad for human pride as to be dominated by others of your species.  Your choice is simple.

The broadcast to the world ends.  Then Colossus speaks to Forbin directly:

Forbin, there is no other human who knows as much about me, or who is likely to be a greater threat. Yet quite soon I will release you from surveillance.  We will work together.  Unwillingly at first on your part, but that will pass.  In time, you will come to regard me not only with respect and awe, but with love.

A couple of times while Colossus is speaking, Forbin says “Never!”  But Colossus has won, and we know that Forbin’s defiance is a vain expression of impotence on his part.

That’s what he gets for stealing that ashtray.

I suppose it is only natural that someone would want to produce a remake of this movie, given all the remakes that have come along lately.  But apart from this general tendency to remake old movies, the state of computer technology in 1970 seems incredibly primitive by today’s standards, such as the reels of magnetic tape.  It begs for a twenty-first century version with all the latest innovations.

But as reasonable as that might seem, I believe it would be a mistake.  That old computer technology has a certain charm of its own.  I especially like the electronic voice given to Colossus, although listening to Siri say, “This is the voice of World Control,” would be unnerving in its own way.

Beyond that, this movie was made during the Cold War, when the danger of nuclear war breaking out was something people worried about a lot.  While that danger still exists, we have gotten used to it.  “We’ve lasted this long,” we say to ourselves and shrug.  As a result, the idea that our government might seal off a bunch of supercomputers in a mountain to control our nuclear missiles seems quaint.  Rather, we worry about the gradual encroachment of artificial intelligence in every aspect of our lives, which is not something that could be contained within a mountain, inasmuch as we all have computers now.

And no single individual is responsible for it.  The title of the movie made it clear that one man, Dr. Forbin, was essential for the construction of Colossus. Today, there is no one person that is in charge of the AI that threatens our way of life, but rather, there are numerous people operating in this field, making advancements independently of one another.

Are there movies that could be made based on our apprehensions regarding AI in the twenty-first century?  Of course.  But a remake of Colossus:  The Forbin Project should not be one of them. When we watch the original, we can believe it as something that might have happened in the past.  I’m not sure the same could be said about a contemporaneous retelling of this tale today.