Menu

The Fastest Gun Alive (1956)

What makes The Fastest Gun Alive so unusual is not only that it has a twist ending, but also that the twist ending so thwarts our expectations that a lot of people do not remember it years later, but only recall the ending they were expecting.

By the time this movie was made, the Western formula of the gunfighter with a guilty past who wants to hang up his gun was well established, as in Shane (1953) and Johnny Guitar (1954).  In some of these Westerns, as in The Gunfighter (1950), the point is made that once a man has a reputation for being fast on the draw, he will be plagued by young punks trying to goad him into a fight so that they can prove they are faster, thereby establishing a reputation of their own.

And so it is that early in The Fastest Gun Alive, we are encouraged to fit George (Glenn Ford) into that category.  We see him practicing with his gun, which he has told his wife, Dora (Jeanne Crain), that he threw away a long time ago.  We believe that she does not like violence and killing, and she has made George promise to give up his gunslinging ways.  This recalls the way Peggy (Helen Westcott) in The Gunfighter left her husband, Jimmy Ringo (Gregory Peck), because she abhorred his life as a gunfighter. In other towns where George and Dora have lived, his reputation of being fast with a gun has resulted in his continually being challenged to a gunfight, just as with Ringo.  And just as Ringo promises his wife that he is through with gunfighting, and that they can start a new life in California where nobody will know who he is, George and Dora have started a new life in Cross Creek under assumed names.

Unfortunately, there is no glory in being a shopkeeper, and so every time George and Dora settle down in a new town, there eventually comes a time when he just can’t stand it any more, and ends up proving to everybody what a hotshot he is with a gun.  And once the word is out, he and Dora have to move again.  And thus it is that in Cross Creek, George once again finds himself irked one day when he hears a bunch of men in the saloon talking about men like Vinnie Harold (Broderick Crawford), reputed to be the fastest gun in the West.  George gets his gun and puts on a show, shooting coins out of the air and blasting a mug of beer before it hits the ground.

Now everybody knows.  And now Dora is disgusted.  She tells George that she is all through running.  George tells the townsfolk his problem, and they go along with keeping his expertise with a gun secret, but unfortunately a few letters have already gone out, and word has reached Vinnie, who arrives in town, threatening to burn it all down if George does not come out of the church to meet him in a gunfight.  The townsfolk turn to Dora, begging her to release George from his promise to her not to get into any more gunfights.

And then comes the twist no one expects and which many cannot even remember.  Dora tells them that she doesn’t care if George gets into a gunfight and she never has.  She says he has always been free to use his guns.  The problem is, George is a coward.  He has never been in a gunfight, and so every time men come around challenging him to a fight, he wants to run away and hide out in a new town.  And she is just tired of having to move.

So, George straps on his gun, kills Vinnie in a gunfight, and then the town digs a mock grave with a tombstone that has George’s name on it.  That way, George can stay in Cross Creek without having to worry about men coming around trying to prove themselves by challenging him to a gunfight, and at the same time, he can strut around town like a real man, because everyone knows he is the fastest gun alive.

The Strange Love of Molly Louvain (1932)

In the opening scene of The Strange Love of Molly Louvain, the title character (Ann Dvorak) is crying because she is pregnant. Her rich boyfriend promises to marry her, but he quickly deserts her by leaving town.  There is, however, a nice guy who would be happy to marry her.  This is Jimmy (Richard Cromwell), a clean-cut medical student who is working his way through school as a bellhop. Jimmy loves Molly, but she rejects him. She is attracted to a gangster, Nicky (Leslie Fenton) and runs off with him instead, getting involved in a few of his crimes, and handing her daughter over to an orphanage. When she runs into Jimmy a few years later, he still loves her and wants to marry her and be a father to her daughter. At first she agrees to marry him, but she actually desires Scotty (Lee Tracy), a hardboiled reporter who promises only that he will show her a good time for a while and then dump her. She likes the idea. In fact, this makes her realize why her own mother abandoned her when she was a child, because when a woman really wants a man, nothing else matters, not even her own child. Jimmy walks in while they are kissing, and she tells him she has decided to run off with Scotty instead.

In the last reel, Scotty has a change of heart, promises to help her fight the charges against her for her involvement with Nicky, and then marry her. That a movie should feature a fallen woman who would reject the love of a good man like Jimmy (twice) and knowingly choose men who are scoundrels instead is amazing enough. That she should end up living happily ever after by doing so is a story that could exist only in the pre-Code universe. Or in real life.

Missing in Action (1984)

A long time ago, I saw an essay in a book of film criticism entitled, “How Hollywood Won the War in Vietnam.” I started to buy the book, but to my regret I did not, and so I never got to read the essay. However, I think I am safe in saying that Missing in Action was one of the movies the essay would have discussed, along with Rambo:  First Blood Part II (1985).

People who worry about words will quibble as to whether we “lost” the Vietnam War. Well, we did not lose it in the sense that we were not conquered by the Viet Cong, but we lost in the sense that we failed in our mission, that we gave up, pulled out, and let the Viet Cong take control of the entire country. And that made us feel bad.

But it is Hollywood’s job to create a better world than the one we actually have to live in. Now, Hollywood could not make a movie showing us conquering the Viet Cong and making the country safe for democracy, because the direct contradiction to reality would have been too stark. Instead, it made a movie in which an individual soldier, Colonel James Braddock (Chuck Norris), along with a few associates, goes back to Vietnam and succeeds in freeing some American soldiers still being held in a prisoner-of-war camp.

The Vietnamese government categorically denies having these prisoners, but to what end is a mystery. We simply have to assume that they just enjoy making these American prisoners of war miserable, or that they know that we know they have the prisoners, and that they just enjoy frustrating American efforts to get them back. In either event, they are mean and spiteful.

But what is important is that they give Braddock a mission that he can carry out. The first part of Braddock’s mission is to appear at a diplomatic function and display his contempt, as when he refuses to shake hands with a Vietnamese general. This ostensibly is directed toward the general, but it is really a put-down of American politicians who think that diplomacy is the way to get things done.

The second part of his mission is to personally kill the general and a high-ranking officer who is shown through a flashback to be cruel and evil. This allows him some personal revenge before he sets out to kill a bunch of generic bad guys.

The third part of his mission is to sneak into the jungle and free the American prisoners. Braddock and his few associates kill over ten times their number in doing so, proving that the American soldier is a vastly superior to his Vietnamese counterpart. You see, it was embarrassing that the world’s greatest superpower was unable to defeat such a puny country. This movie essentially declares that it must have been a bunch of spineless politicians back home that caused America to lose the war, probably the same sort that are busy being polite at diplomatic functions, because it is clear that men like Braddock would have won the war given the chance to do so.

This movie allows us some imaginary revenge against an enemy that humiliated us, and that makes us feel good. Of course, we would have felt a whole lot better if the movie had actually been entertaining instead of dull and plodding.

Penny Serenade (1941) and The Marrying Kind (1952)

At the beginning of Penny Serenade, Julie (Irene Dunne) and Roger (Cary Grant) are separating because their marriage is on the rocks.  Roger leaves to do something, and while Julie is by herself, she plays a succession of records associated with different stages of her relationship with Roger. With the playing of each record, the tune becomes the background music of a flashback at important stages in their lives, beginning with when they first met. But the flashbacks show us what a great marriage they have, so we figure something really bad must have happened to cause these two to separate. After an accident, Julie is no longer able to have children, so they adopt a girl. At first I thought that somehow Roger was going to be responsible for her death, perhaps by accidentally running over her when she runs out into the street. She does die, but it is clearly not anyone’s fault, not even accidentally so. Furthermore, her death is not even seen, but only mentioned in a letter, followed by scenes of Roger and Julie being silent and sad. We never really believe that they are going to get divorced, and they don’t.

The plot of this movie is similar to The Marrying Kind, where another couple, Florie (Judy Holliday) and Chet (Aldo Ray) are about to get a divorce. Instead of records playing tunes from the past, the divorce judge, who can see that they have a good marriage, questions them, and their story is told in flashbacks, revealing what a good marriage they have, making us wonder when we are going to get to the part that made them so miserable. Once again, we find that a child died, this time by drowning; once again it is an accident for which neither of them can be thought to be responsible; and once again we can see that this is something that they will eventually get over.  Sure enough, in the end they do not get the divorce.

The moral of these stories is that people who are in an unhappy marriage should stay together and work things out. There is something irritating about the way both movies are dismissive of just how miserable a marriage can be, as if married couples who want a divorce simply don’t realize how much they really love each other.

The Creation of the Humanoids (1962)

I recently watched Ex Machina (2014) and Westworld(2016- ), and I have just started watching Humans (2015- ). Though these movies or television shows all qualify as science fiction, yet they do not seem as far-fetched as robot movies used to.  We are beginning to take seriously the rise of the robots and the implication that will have on humans. We are wondering if they are conscious or soon will be, if they are or soon will be persons rather than things.  And if they supplant us, whether that will be a tragedy or a blessing.

There are basically two types of robot movies:  mechanical men and humanoids. Actually, the term “humanoid” is sometimes used to include mechanical men as well, but I am using it here to refer to robots that look like humans.  So understood, humanoid movies have the advantage of allowing actors to play the parts just as they are.  In the case of mechanical men, it is often the case that an actor has to wear a metal and plastic getup.  It really does not matter, because many of the questions concerning robots and their implication for the human race remain the same, their appearance being of secondary importance. Sometimes the mechanical men are just servants or workers, but when they pose a threat, it tends to be physical; the threat of the humanoids typically constitutes an existential one.  There are exceptions to this, however.

Humanoid movies have a couple of extra features that mechanical men movies do not.  First, if they are humanoid, there is the possibility of having sex with them, although I suppose there may be a few out there kinky enough to want to have sex with a mechanical man or woman, assuming it makes sense to apply the concept of gender to them.  Sex with humanoids has all sorts of advantages: sex when you want it, the way you want it; you don’t have to shave first; you don’t have to worry about your performance; your humanoid won’t cheat on you and bring home an STD; and there will probably be an off-switch right there on your remote.  At least, that’s the way it will be until we start thinking of them as persons.  Then the questions of miscegenation and sex slavery will arise. And then you will have to shave first.

Second, with humanoid movies, there is the question of identity.  Who is a humanoid and who is a real human?  This can lead to paranoia, not unlike the fear of communists in our midst back in the day.  And even if we know who is what, the possibility of a kind of racism will emerge, one that might well be justified.

In any event, all this made me think of The Creation of the Humanoids, a cheesy science fiction movie made in 1962.  You almost get the impression that some friends got into a discussion one night about what was going to happen in the future when robots became advanced, and when the evening was over, they decided to put it into a movie. And because they wanted to get it all in, The Creation of the Humanoids ended up being 98% dialogue and 2% action. In one scene after another, characters speak didactically, informing us of the different types of robots, in what ways they are or are not like humans; the effect that robots are having on humans now that they are doing everything humans use to do only better; the relationships between humans and robots; and whether robots will eventually replace humans altogether. The end result is a low-budget movie with crude special effects that plods along from one dialogue scene to another, with the only redeeming feature being that some interesting ideas about the future of robots are discussed, ideas that are beginning to seem more relevant than ever.

In this movie, there is an organization called Flesh and Blood that is prejudiced against robots, derisively referring to them as clickers, with obvious similarities to the Ku Klux Klan. The main character, Kenneth Cragis, who calls himself “the Cragis” for some reason, is a high-ranking member of Flesh and Blood. He doesn’t hate the robots exactly, but he sure doesn’t want his sister to marry one. As a result, he is appalled to find out that his sister is “in rapport” with one of them, and you can guess what that means. When he went to confront her, I almost expected him to call her a clicker lover.

The robots are secretly trying to develop more advanced models, which are electronic duplicates of humans that have recently died, with all their memories implanted in them. They do this not because they are evil, but because they have been programmed to serve man, and they know what is best for man, even if the law actually forbids the development of robots beyond a certain level. These advanced models think they are human, except at special times, when they realize they are robots and report back to the robot temple.

Cragis falls in love with Maxine Megan, and they plan to enter into a contract, which is what they call marriage in the future. But then the special moment arrives, and they are taken to the temple, where they find out that they are robots. Cragis realizes that he has all the advantages of being human, with the robotic advantage of living for two hundred years, after which he can be replaced with another duplicate that will have all his memories. It is almost as if, in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), Becky and Miles found out that they had already been replaced by a couple of pods, only the pods were an improved variety that also duplicated emotions, making them just like humans, only better, because, being plants, they can live longer.

As for Maxine, when they duplicated her, the robots decided that she was getting a little fat, so they slimmed her down in the duplication process, which is just one more way in which Cragis benefits from this robotic duplication process. In any event, they are duplicates of humans in every way, except for being able to reproduce and have children. Now, I can’t speak for Cragis, but I would call that a benefit. However, Maxine says she wants the fulfillment of having a baby. Dr. Raven, the scientist who is behind these duplications, says he thinks that form of producing new robots is a bit crude, but he agrees to take her and Cragis to the last phase of duplication, which will allow her to get pregnant.

In the final shot, Dr. Raven turns to the camera and suggests that as a result of having taken robots to this final stage, we in the audience are robots too.

Saboteur (1942) and Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

In the early 1940s, Alfred Hitchcock made two movies in with a common theme:  appearances can be deceiving.  The first one, Saboteur, is preposterous; the second, Shadow of a Doubt, is disturbing.

In Saboteur, Frank Fry (Norman Lloyd) sabotages the aircraft plant where he is working, but the police think Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) did it.  And so, Barry has to flee from the police in order to find Fry so he can clear himself.  Along the way, he has to kidnap Pat Martin (Priscilla Lane) because she thinks he is the saboteur and would otherwise go to the police.

“You look like a saboteur,” Pat says to Barry accusatively.  Inasmuch as Barry is played by Robert Cummings, what are we to make of this remark?

First of all, there is reality. We all know that as a general rule, saboteurs do not have a distinctive look. Now, inasmuch as World War II had just broken out, I suppose that if Barry had been Japanese or German, her remark would have been appropriate. Of course, today we would call that racial profiling, but since this movie was made in 1942, she could have gotten away with it. But Barry does not appear to be either German or Japanese.  (No, I didn’t forget about the Italians, who were also one of the Axis Powers.  But as I noted in a previous review, even in World War II, Hollywood always portrayed Italians as good guys, or as gangsters who were patriotic about America.)

Second, there is type casting. A movie producer might call up an agent and say, “We’re making a spy movie. Do you have anyone who looks like a saboteur? If so, send him over for an interview.” And then the agent might send over someone like Norman Lloyd. But he would not send over Robert Cummings.

Because neither reality nor typecasting would make anyone say of Robert Cummings that he looks like a saboteur, it is odd that Pat would think that he does.  Furthermore, she has a very good reason for thinking he is a saboteur, which has nothing to do with his looks. When she first met him, she saw that he was wearing handcuffs, and she realized that he was the fugitive the police were looking for.

Actually, it is precisely because Barry does not look like a saboteur that he is able to avoid the police. Earlier in the movie, Barry is arrested.  After he gets out of the police car, he jumps from the bridge into the river below. The truck driver that had earlier given him a ride recognizes him, and he misdirects the police so that Barry can escape. Now, why would anyone do that? I would have helped the police by pointing out where Barry was hiding. All we can conclude is that the truck driver figured Barry did not look like a criminal, so he helped him escape.

Barry takes shelter in the house of a blind man, Philip Martin.  It is here that Pat makes her entrance into the movie, because she is his niece.  When she arrives at her uncle’s house shortly after Philip and Barry have become acquainted, she sees the handcuffs that her uncle already knew about on account of his acute hearing. She says he should have turned Barry in to the police. Her uncle accuses her of being cruel. He assures her that Barry is not dangerous. And besides, he argues, a man is innocent until proven guilty. Now, because Philip is blind, he obviously cannot be coming to these incredible conclusions simply on account of Barry’s looks.  However, he can hear the sound of Barry’s voice, and by virtue of that kind of appearance, Philip tells Pat that he can see intangible things like innocence.

Pat pretends to go along with what her uncle wants, which is to take Barry to a blacksmith to get the handcuffs off, but she tries to take him to the police instead. That doesn’t work, however, and after some complications, they find themselves in the company of some circus freaks. Some of them want to turn Barry over to the police, who are inspecting the circus trucks, but the deciding vote is the bearded lady who blathers about how fine it is that Pat has stuck with Barry through his difficulties, and therefore they must be good people. This makes about as much sense as when earlier a man and a woman saw Barry kidnap Pat, dragging her into the car against her will, and the woman said, “My, they must be terribly in love.”

What these three instances—that of the truck driver, Uncle Philip, and the freaks—have in common is that appearances, in one form or another, make people decide to thwart the police and help the fugitive. Toward the end of the movie, Tobin (Otto Krüger), one of the villains, says of Barry that he is noble, fine, and pure, and that is why he is misjudged by everyone. But save for the police, Barry is not misjudged by others. The point of this remark is to show just how much evil foreigners underestimate Americans. The idea is that Americans, being basically noble, fine, and pure, can readily see the goodness in others, which is why they are willing to help a fugitive from justice escape from the police: they can just tell from Barry’s appearance that he is noble, fine, and pure.  Of course, Otto Krüger is of German descent, which is why he was selected to play this part.

If this movie had been intended to alert Americans of the danger of enemy agents in their midst during World War II, it would have cast against type, letting Otto Krüger or Norman Lloyd play Barry, the innocent man, and letting Robert Cummings play Frank Fry, the saboteur, or Tobin, the chief villain.  Then the movie would have driven home the point that you cannot tell by a person’s appearances whether he is good or evil.  In such a movie, Pat’s remark that Barry looks like a saboteur would make sense, but the truck driver, Uncle Philip, and the circus freaks would have to be suspicious of Barry instead of trusting.  Instead, the movie seems intended to assure the wartime audience that they could just rely on appearances, which is a much more comforting notion.

We cannot completely blame Hitchcock for all this, because he thought Robert Cummings was wrong for the role, on account of his “comic face.”  And perhaps it was in reaction to the casting of this movie that he decided to make Shadow of a Doubt (1943) the next year, in in which appearances, instead of being dependable, turn out to be deceptive.  In this movie, Joseph Cotten plays Charlie Oakley, a man that murders rich widows.  Needless to say, audiences in 1943 watching a movie about a serial killer would have expected to see someone like Laird Cregar, not Joseph Cotten.

The weakest part of Shadow of a Doubt is the part that involves the detectives. Nothing really makes sense. They want a picture of Oakley so they can show it to witnesses to see if he is the Merry Widow serial killer. All they need to do is bring him in for questioning and take his picture. Failing that, they could have photographed him when he walked right toward them at the beginning of the movie. After he walks past them, they follow him. What for? Do they think that by following him, they will catch him in the act of killing another widow? I could go on, but what would be the point? Suffice it to say that everything involving these detectives is unrealistic. And it is a shame, because with a few changes in the script, they could have been left out entirely.

It is the rest of the movie, the parts where the detectives play no significant role, that the movie really engages us. When the it begins, it is clear that Oakley has just killed another widow, after first getting his hands on her money. But it is not the money he cares about. He hates these women, and it gives him great satisfaction to kill them. But now, thoroughly sated from his recent murder, he is weary, listlessly lying in bed, with some of the money carelessly allowed to fall on the floor. He finally decides to visit his sister and sends her a telegram.

Meanwhile, his niece, young Charlie (Teresa Wright), is first seen lying supine in bed in a way that matches her uncle when we first saw him, giving us just a hint of incest. Her fascination with her uncle is a little unsettling in this regard. They both have the same name, and she is convinced that they are alike, that they have a special connection between them. At first, she too is listless, as her uncle was, but she suddenly decides to send him a telegram, inviting him to visit them, right after he has sent her mother a telegram saying that he is coming.

When her uncle arrives, he gives Charlie a ring, which has an engraving on the inside, “T.S. from B.M.” Later, she reads in the paper that the initials of the deceased husband of a recently murdered widow were “B.M.” Both “T.S” and “B.M.” are abbreviations for expressions involving fecal matter, “tough shit” and “bowel movement” respectively, which is a way of suggesting something foul associated with the beautiful emerald ring. The evil hidden underneath beauty is the theme of this movie.

In a similar way, the town where young Charlie lives is one of those warm, wholesome towns, representing the goodness of America, and good-looking Uncle Charlie is the evil hidden within that town. But that is not the most disturbing example of this theme. We find such evil in young Charlie herself. As the movie keeps emphasizing, and as she keeps insisting, she and her Uncle Charlie are very much alike. And that means that she has her dark side too. Because young Charlie is played by Teresa Wright, a wholesome looking young woman, rather than an actress whom we might see playing a femme fatale in a film noir, the contrast between her innocent appearance and the evil within her is stark.

When she figures out that her uncle is the Merry Widow murderer, she does not turn the ring over to the police and tell them what she knows. Instead, she merely insists that he leave town, so that her mother will not be hurt by the knowledge of what her brother really is. And she does this even when she knows who his next victim will be, a widow he meets in town, and who will be leaving on the same train. This would have made her an accomplice to his next and subsequent murders had he simply left town as she wanted.

In another scene, she tells her uncle that she wants to kill him. And so she does. The scene in which she pushes him into the path of the oncoming train can be understood as merely the accidental result of her effort to get away from him, and it would have been an act of self-defense in any event. But what happens matches what she says she wanted to do. Of course, there is no way her dark side is anything like that of her uncle, the main difference being that her uncle had a head injury when he was young, which allowed his dark side to flourish. But the evil in her is there nevertheless. And so, the movie seems to say, in all of us.

Cheyenne Autumn (1964)

In the old movies, when the Native Americans were depicted as savage Indians, they were a force to be reckoned with. They were part of what made the Old West a dangerous place, for they were always likely to attack a white settlement or wagon train, hoping to scalp the men and rape the women. This made for great cinematic entertainment. But then our conscience began to bother us, and so we started trying to make amends, with movies depicting the Native Americans as victims, more to be pitied than feared. Though such revisionist Westerns may be more faithful to the facts of the Native-American experience, yet they just are not as much fun, and Cheyenne Autumn is a good example of that.

When the movie begins, we see the pathetic Cheyenne Indians, who are forced to live on a reservation in Oklahoma, suffering from neglect at the hands of white men. They weary of this and decide to leave Oklahoma and return to their ancestral home in Wyoming, with the army in pursuit. Now, if I had been chief of this tribe, I would have waited until spring, because such a trek would be easier to make in warm weather. But no, they leave just before winter is about to set in, which only adds to their misery.

Anyway, things are moving along, and left at that, this could have simply been a boring two-hour movie. But John Ford directed this movie, and you know what that means. He always has to put some corny scenes in his movies. I think he calls it comic relief. So we have this pointless, painful segment about Dodge City, where Wyatt Earp (James Stewart) and Doc Holliday (Arthur Kennedy) act silly. There is only a tenuous connection between this segment and what is happening to the Cheyenne, and if it had been left out, you would never have missed it. But it was not left out, and that means that instead of a boring two-hour movie, we end up with a boring and painful two-and-a-half hour movie.

A Slight Problem with Ethical Relativism

Though the moral character of atheists is neither better nor worse than the moral character of people that believe in God, yet there does seem to be a difference in conviction.  And that is perfectly understandable.  A common conception of God is that he is infinitely wise and good, and in one way or another, through sacred text, revelation, or one’s own conscience, God informs us of what is good and what is evil.  People with strong religious beliefs will tend to be firm in their convictions about right and wrong, owing to their sense that they have the word of God on which to rely.

Others, while still believing in God, are less sure about the reliability of sacred text, the revelations of others, or even their own conscience, which often urges them down one path, only to later reprimand them for not taking another.  They figure there are things commanded or forbidden by God, but they just aren’t sure what they are.  This uncertainty leads to tolerance of other religions, in which one regards them as different expressions of the one God common to all, thereby reinforcing one’s doubts in matters of morality, for different religions command and forbid different things.

Taking this to its ultimate conclusion, those totally lacking in belief are fully aware that they must rely on themselves alone when it comes to morality. Through some combination of instinct, experience, cultural influence, and prudence, they muddle their way through various moral difficulties, hoping that they are doing the right thing.

Not being absolutely sure about what is right and wrong leads naturally to the conclusion that nothing is absolutely right or wrong.  Atheism does not entail ethical relativism, but they tend to go together.  From the fact of cultural relativism, that different cultures have different views as to what is right and wrong, there tends to be an inference to ethical relativism, that what is right or wrong is relative to a particular culture, with no culture having a greater claim on the truth in such matters than any other.

When I was young, ethical relativism was cast in the most reassuring terms. Through such examples as belching Arabs and promiscuous Polynesians, I found the idea of moral relativism to be quite congenial.  Other cultures with their different ways seemed benign, even cute. When I got to college, I eventually majored in philosophy, where I discovered that the issue was far more complicated than I ever imagined.  However, I remember one textbook in ethics that had a chapter on ethical relativism. It posed such questions as to whether it was all right to marry more than one wife, kill a hornet, commit incest, or have slaves, if you treat them well.  The point was that each of these actions were regarded as forbidden in some cultures or religions, while others held such things to be morally permissible.

These issues were a touch more serious than the examples to which I was first exposed, but they were not alarming.  I could imagine living among people who believed differently from me on such issues without too much discomfort, although I might find not being able to kill a threatening hornet somewhat inconvenient.

The past was more problematic, for history is replete with examples of societies that once practiced all sorts of cruelties and atrocities with a clean conscience and even a feeling of righteousness about it all.  But as they were in the past, there seemed to be the sense that they could be safely ignored.  It was only modern cultures that need be considered.

Well, we have come a long way since those halcyon days in which one could accept the tenets of ethical relativism as proof of one’s sophistication and enlightenment.  Nowadays, when one thinks of the differences between one culture and another regarding what is right and wrong, it is things like genital mutilation, child brides, forced adultery, and honor killings that come to mind.  And now, as if we needed one more example, we have the situation of boys being held as sex slaves on military bases by some of our Afghan allies, while our own soldiers are being told to accept such practices as just a cultural issue, in what might be the most perverted application of moral relativism ever embraced by our society.  I find it impossible to say, “Well, in that culture, such things are morally permissible.  We must not be judgmental and presume to impose our values on others.”  Instead, I want to say, “That culture is morally depraved.  And it needs to be crushed!”

How about this for a moral absolute:  It is wrong to chain an eleven-year-old boy to a bed so that he can be repeatedly raped no matter how much he screams.  It is easy enough to agree that this is absolutely wrong, although I have no theoretical justification for such a claim.  At best, all I can say is that it feels like a moral absolute.

As long as I am in my absolutist mode, I am also appalled that relatively little attention has been paid to this story.  On the other hand, there has been an excessive amount of coverage on Pope Francis.  As long he was getting so much coverage, it would have been nice to hear him say a thing or two about boys being kept as sex slaves on our military bases, especially since he could have tied it in with the rape of boys by priests, but he said nothing, alas. Perhaps in the next debate Carly Fiorina might talk about the boys being raped with their legs kicking and hearts beating, but I doubt it.

Of course, unlike fetuses, there are no videos of boys being raped, and we tolerate a lot of things as long as we don’t have to see them.  Logically, there should be no difference between seeing pictures of boys being raped and only hearing stories about them, but such is human nature.  After all, that is why ISIS made pictures of their beheadings instead of merely telling us about them, because they knew it would disturb us more and possibly goad us to war with them.  And that is why the CIA destroyed the images of torture so that our moral outrage would be much less.

But videos do not tell the whole story.  After all, it is not American little boys that are being raped, but only little boys in Afghanistan, who are probably going to grow up to be terrorists anyway.  As Jeb Bush might point out in the next debate, at least President Obama is keeping us safe.

Imitation of Life (1934 and 1959)

Imitation of Life began life as a novel by Fannie Hurst, published in 1933.  By the next year, it had been made into a movie.  Although the 1934 version of this novel, directed by John Stahl, leaves out the first part of the book, beginning after the protagonist is already a widow with a daughter, it follows the book more closely than does the 1959 version, directed by Douglas Sirk.  Both movies won awards of various sorts, though neither quite managed to get the Oscar for Best Picture.

Both movies are something of a paradox.  On the one hand, the critics did not seem to care for them.  Writing for the New York Times in 1934, Andre Sennwald made the following comment:  “Despite the sincerity of John M. Stahl’s direction, he scarcely manages to conceal the shallowness of the play’s ideas, the commonplace nature of its emotions, nor the rubber-stamp quality of its writing.”  As for the 1959 version, Danny Peary, in his book Guide for the Film Fanatic, says the movie is “impeccably made Hollywood trash.”  It would be easy to furnish more disparaging remarks regarding these two movies, but these will have to suffice for reasons of space.

On the other hand, these movies provoke strong emotional reactions that vary depending on the person who watches them, and they likewise lend themselves to different interpretations as to the significance of the story and whether we should approve or disapprove of what happens.  In particular, there are those who say that the message of these movies is that we should all accept who we are and not pretend to be something we are not.  Others see these movies as telling us we should know our place and stay in it.  All of this is further complicated by the fact that Stahl presents his movie to be taken at face value, whereas some critics say that Sirk tends to be ironic and subversive in his direction.

So as to avoid anachronisms, I shall, when it seems appropriate, use the terms for African Americans that were in use when these movies were made.  It is one thing to speak generally of how African Americans were portrayed in old movies, but it is quite another thing to actually use the term “African American,” which bespeaks of an enlightened attitude regarding race, to discuss a movie replete with prejudice and demeaning racial stereotypes, resulting in an incongruous combination of connotation.

We begin with 1934 version, in which there are four main characters.  As they are listed in the credits at the beginning of the movie, they are Bea Pullman (Claudette Colbert), Jessie Pullman (Rochelle Hudson, as the grown Jessie), Delilah (Louise Beavers), and Peola (Fredi Washington, as the grown Peola).

In the very title of his book, Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, and Bucks:  An Interpretative History of Blacks in American Films, Donald Bogle lists the five major categories for African Americans in the movies, especially those before the civil rights movement.  Delilah has the physical features of a mammy, a usually overweight black woman with motherly characteristics.  However, despite her sex, she is really a tom, a Negro that wants nothing more out of life than to serve his white master.  This depiction of the Negro servant, as demeaning as it is, nevertheless constituted progress in humanizing such characters, as can be seen when contrasted with movies featuring Stepin Fetchit, the ultimate coon. As for Delilah’s daughter, Peola, she is a tragic mulatto.

Fredi Washington, who plays Peola, had some problems of her own along those lines.  According to Thomas Doherty, in his book Pre-Code Hollywood:  Sex, Immorality, and Insurrection in American Cinema 1930-1934, she was legally a Negro, so she could not play the part of a white man’s girlfriend in the movies.  But at the same time, if she played the part of a black man’s girlfriend, it would look as though a Negro had himself a white woman.  So, when she played in The Emperor Jones (1933), she had to wear dark pancake makeup.

Already we see the elements of discrimination against African Americans in 1934, for as you may have noticed, in the opening credits Delilah and Peola are not given last names.  So, even though this movie was supposedly portraying a Negro servant in a positive light, an unconscious prejudice is revealed right there in the beginning.

As for the plot, one morning while Bea is struggling to get her daughter Jessie ready for the day nursery so she can hit the streets trying to sell maple syrup, Delilah shows up answering an advertisement for a maid and cook, although she has the wrong address.  One of the qualifications in the advertisement is that she must be colored, presumably because she would work for less wages than a white housekeeper.  Eventually, she convinces to Bea to let her work for her just for room and board for her and her daughter Peola.  As Delilah explains to Bea, her daughter appears to be white because her father had light skin.

One morning, just as Bea is leaving to try to sell some more maple syrup, Delilah gives her a rabbit’s foot.  You have to laugh.  They are trying to portray Delilah in a positive light, but then they give in to the stereotype of the superstitious Negro.  Well, at least in the movies, good luck charms do bring good luck.  Bea decides that Delilah’s pancakes are so good, owing to a secret recipe, handed down to her by her mammy, who got it from her mammy, that she should open a restaurant featuring Aunt Delilah’s pancakes, with the maple syrup business on the side.  Things work out well.

As the daughters grow up, Peola, who is slightly older than Jessie, helps Jessie with her homework.  Bea comments that Peola seems to be pretty smart.  Delilah replies that they start out that way, and they only become dumb later.  At first, I thought what she meant was that it is too dangerous to be an uppity Negro, so they have to pretend to be ignorant and poorly educated as they get older.  However, there are one or two scenes where Delilah does slip into the coon category, that of the Negro that is funny on account of being simple-minded, so maybe we are supposed to take what she says seriously.  And besides, we have to wonder if Peola is allowed to be smart in this movie on account of her having white blood in her.

The tragic part of the tragic mulatto begins when Jessie says that Peola is black, causing Peola to cry, insisting that she is white.  Bea tells Jessie to apologize, but Delilah shows her wisdom in saying that there is no good in that, that it’s something Peola will have to accept.  She goes on to say that it’s not Jessie’s fault or that of anyone else.  However, she also says it’s not the Lord’s fault.  I’m not quite sure how she reached that conclusion.

This is followed by the worst day in Peola’s life.  Jessie has stayed home sick, supposedly, and is playing Old Maid with her mother.  It’s pouring down rain, and Delilah is worried that Peola, who forgot her umbrella and rubbers, will get sick too, so she picks up her rain gear and heads out to her school.  The wisdom shown by Delilah when Peola was crying about being called black seems to have left her, for it never occurs to her how her appearance in Peola’s classroom will affect her daughter.  When she enters the classroom, the teacher says she must be mistaken, since there are no colored girls in her room.  But then Delilah spots Peola trying to disappear behind a book.  She asks the teacher if Peola has been passing, and the teacher sadly answers yes.  Peola says, “I hate you,” several times to her mother and runs out into the rain, rendering the entire traumatic experience for naught.  And as several critics have noted, most children would be horrified if their mothers showed up with their rubbers even if race were not a problem.

When a fellow named Elmer Smith advises Bea to “Box it,” meaning to put Delilah’s pancake recipe in boxes and sell them in stores, she takes his advice and makes Elmer her business partner.  The brand name is “Delilah’s Pancake Flour,” with Delilah’s picture on the box as well.  But when they decide to incorporate after becoming successful, Delilah refuses to sign the papers, which would give her a twenty-percent share in the business, making her rich.  Instead, she goes full tom, saying she wants nothing more than to continue to work for Bea as her maid and cook.  Bea tells her she will put her share in the bank for her, and Delilah says she would like the money to be spent on a grand funeral for herself when she dies.  It will be her sendoff to glory.

This appears to be another black stereotype, the white man’s conception of the Negro’s childlike religious notions, the kind we see in The Green Pastures (1936).  It is a literal, physical understanding of religion.  Toward the end of the movie, when Delilah goes into elaborate detail about all the trappings of her funeral procession, this is no mere expression of vanity, as it might be if a white person in a movie wanted such a fuss being made over him.  Rather, Delilah thinks she needs to make a good impression on the Lord.  Speaking to Bea, she says, “I want to meet my Maker with plenty of bands playing.  I want to ride up to Heaven in a white velvet hearse.”  We would probably have a feeling of revulsion if it were Bea that said she wanted a lavish funeral when she died.  And we would think her silly to talk as though God would be impressed by the band that was playing or the hearse that would be transporting her to Heaven. But the movie asks us to smile at Delilah’s notions, the way we might tenderly listen to a child talk about his letter to Santa Claus.

African Americans are often portrayed as more religious in the movies than their white counterparts.  And if true, this should not surprise us, for as we learn from Nietzsche, Christianity began as a form of slave morality, one that promised Heaven for slaves, for the weak and the downtrodden, while Hell awaited their masters, those with money and power.  Therefore, Christianity perfectly suited African Americans when they were slaves and for the next century as they suffered from the aftermath of that period of bondage.  And in many ways, this suited white people too, because it helped to keep blacks in their place, along the lines of Marx’s observation that religion is the opiate of the masses.  It is no coincidence that right after Delilah says she does not want to become rich, she starts talking about her funeral, for Jesus taught that we should despise worldly goods and think of our reward in Heaven.

Ten years pass.  Bea is rich and lives in a mansion.  She throws a party for the swells, and everybody is rich, elegant, and white.  Downstairs, where Delilah and Peola live, Peola is miserable.  No one has told Peola she is not invited to the party.  No one has to.  It’s just understood.  In her frustration, she looks in the mirror and insists to her mother that she is white.  But her difference from her mother is more than just her skin color.  Her physiognomy also indicates a Caucasian influence.  And whereas Delilah speaks the dialect of the southern Negro, Peola’s English is impeccable.  Moreover, while Delilah weighs two-hundred-and-forty pounds, Peola has a slim figure, allowing for graceful movement.

Upstairs, Elmer’s friend, Stephen Archer (Warren William), an ichthyologist, meets Bea.  They eventually fall in love and decide to get married.  But she wants to hold off on telling Jessie for a while, who is coming home from college during a semester break, to give her time to get to know Stephen.

About the same time, Peola, who apparently agreed to go to one of those high-toned Negro colleges in the South, has apparently left, according to a letter that Delilah receives from an official at that college.  Bea and Delilah head south to look for her.  Though Peola could have all the money she wanted by remaining part of the Bea/Delilah household, yet she seems to have found happiness working behind a counter selling tobacco products.  But Delilah comes in and spoils everything.

When Delilah brought Peola her rubbers at school that day, she said she didn’t do it on purpose, and so we wrote it off as inadvertent, as a blind spot she had to her daughter’s suffering, though we didn’t know how could have been so oblivious.  But now there is no excuse.  Delilah comes in the store, acting all pitiful, insisting that she is Peola’s mammy.  Peola denies knowing her, telling those around her that she doesn’t know the woman.  But then Bea comes in and asks Peola how she could do this to her mother.  Peola runs out of the store.  Of course, while I’m seeing Peola’s side of it, the movie seems to insist that it is Peola who is in the wrong, that nothing is more important than a mother’s love, and that Peola has hurt her mother terribly.  And there are doubtless those who would agree with that way of looking at it.  This is one of those different ways of reacting to the movie that make this story so interesting.

When Bea and Delilah return home, they find that Peola is already there, waiting for them.  She apologizes to her mother for what happened, but then tells her she is going away for good, and that should they pass on the street, she asks her mother not to speak to her or recognize her in any way.  After she leaves, there is a decline in Delilah’s health, to the extent of putting her on her death bed, and we are supposed to conclude that she is dying of a broken heart.  She does die, and then we see the grand funeral that Delilah always dreamed of.  Peola shows up in the crowd on the street, tearing up, until she can stand it no longer, calling out “Mother” and rushing to embrace the coffin just as it was put in the hearse.

In the midst of all this, another mother-daughter problem has been in the works.  While Bea and Delilah were out of town, Stephen was graciously keeping Jessie entertained.  For him, she was just the child of his fiancée, but Jessie had been falling in love with him.  Through a combination of coincidental scenes that could only happen in a movie, Bea found out about Jessie’s infatuation without either Stephen or Jessie knowing that she knows.  In real life, Bea and Stephen would go ahead and get married, knowing that Jessie would go back to college and fall in love with someone else in no time.  Stephen says as much when Bea tells him she knows.

But this is a domestic melodrama, the theme of which is a mother’s sacrifice for her daughter.  Bea tells Stephen that their marriage would make for an impossible situation, that she cannot marry him at this time.  She tells him to go to his islands and study fish, and that when the time is right, when Jessie has found someone else, she will come to him, if he stills wants her.  Stephen leaves.  Jessie comes out in the garden where Bea is, and Bea reminisces about the day she first met Delilah.  For what it is worth, in the novel, Bea’s love interest is Frank Flake, who is sort of a combination of Elmer and Stephen, but then again, not really.  Anyway, he is eight years younger than Bea, and she gives him up so he can marry Jessie.

Before quitting this essay, I suppose something must be said about those foot massages.  Twice in the movie, Delilah massages Bea’s feet.  My reaction was the one that occurs to most people, that despite the fact that Bea and Delilah are friends and business partners, a scene in which Bea massages Delilah’s feet would have blown the lid off.  But others, such as threemoviebuffs.com, have seen a lesbian subtext in this, especially since in both foot-massage scenes, they talk about men and love or the lack thereof.  And that reminds me of Pulp Fiction (1994), in which there is a discussion between Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta about how some guy got in trouble with Uma Thurman’s husband for giving her a foot massage.  Jackson dismisses the whole thing as ridiculous, saying there is nothing sexual about a foot massage.  Travolta says that since it is not sexual, would Jackson give him a foot massage, since, he says, he sure could use it.  Jackson gets angry at the suggestion that he would give a foot massage to a man, because he realizes he has been caught in a contradiction.  Another hint at a lesbian subtext is the scene in which Bea kisses Jessie on the lips.  And at cinematasmoviemadness.com, it is suggested that the reason Bea is so willing to break off the engagement is that, being a lesbian, she never really wanted to marry Stephen in the first place.  None of this would ever have occurred to me on my own.  I just figure that women do stuff with each other that men would not.

Speaking of sex, the movie makes no reference to Peola’s love life or the absence of such.  But we think about it, especially when she seems determined to pass for white.  Presumably, since she decides to go back to that Negro college at the end of the movie, we can assume she will marry a black man.  Her love life is made explicit in the 1959 version of Imitation of Life, however, to which we may now turn.

In this 1959 remake, there are several changes.  For one thing, the setting is contemporaneous, at least when we get to the end of the movie.  That is, it begins in 1947 and ends in 1958.  Furthermore, the names have been changed.  Bea has become Lora Meredith (Lana Turner); her daughter Jessie has become Susie (Sandra Dee, when grown); Delilah has become Annie Johnson (Juanita Moore); and her daughter Peola has become Sarah Jane (Susan Kohner, when grown).  Unlike the 1934 version, Annie’s last name is listed in the opening credits, so I guess we can count that as progress in race relations.

On IMDb, Annie is said to be a black widow, “black” in the sense of being African American, of course.  However, in the movie, Annie says that Sarah Jane’s father left before she was born.  Annie never refers to this man as “her husband,” but only as “Sarah Jane’s daddy.”  So, whereas this movie gives Lora the respectability of being a widow, it would seem to be playing into the racial stereotype of the morally irresponsible black man who would abandon a pregnant woman.

For that matter, whereas in the 1934 version, Bea refers to having had a husband that died, Delilah only refers to Peola’s “pappy,” there being no reference to her having had a husband or to her being a widow.  Perhaps this was a deliberately created ambiguity.  For the progressives in the audience, the movie offered them a humanized Negro servant, depicted in a positive light.  They were allowed to assume the best about Delilah and put her into the widow category.  As for those depraved souls that were inclined to think the worst of the black race, they were allowed to imagine that Peola was a bastard.

As for the plot of this version of Imitation of Life, Lora wants to be an actress.  One day at the beach, she meets Annie, a black woman that is taking care of a little girl who appears to be white, but who turns out to be colored.  Lora ends up hiring Annie as a maid, and they all live together from then on.  Whereas Delilah’s pancake recipe is a key to Bea’s success, making them equals in their business relationship, despite Delilah’s refusal to become a stockholder in their corporation, in this movie, it is Lora’s success as an actress alone that results in her becoming wealthy.  Though Lora and Annie may be friends, Annie’s economic relationship with Lora is never more than that of her maid and cook.

While at the beach, Lora also meets Steve Archer (John Gavin), a photographer, with whom she forms a romantic attachment.  The movie implies that Lora should have given up her aspirations to be an actress and married Steve, staying at home to be a good wife and mother. And it implies that Sarah Jane should have accepted the fact that she was colored, and not try to pass for white. Because they prefer imitation over authenticity, they both forgo happiness, until the end, when Sarah Jane openly declares that Annie was her mother at her funeral, and when Lora agrees to give up her career and marry Steve.  As for this latter, the love triangle between Steve, Lora, and Susie ends more realistically, if somewhat melodramatically, with Susie accepting the marriage between her mother and Steve, planning to go to college far away.

There is a foot-massage scene in this movie as well, and it’s no wonder Lora’s feet are sore, since she is always wearing high-heeled shoes, just as Bea did in the original.  Lora is even wearing heels when they are all at the beach at the beginning of the movie.  As David, her favorite playwright, says when Lora says she wants to act in the new Stewart play, “That?  What part?  Not the dull social worker with high dreams and low heels?  … No clothes, no sex, no fun.”  But it is perhaps worth noting that both movies avoid the outrageous scene in the book regarding feet:  rising from her death bed, Delilah manages to get down on the floor and start kissing Bea’s feet, after which she collapses and dies.

Strangely enough, our twenty-first century perspective is likely to make some people more supportive of Lora but less supportive of Sarah Jane. As for Lora, we now believe women are perfectly in their rights to want a career. Some women prefer to be homemakers, allowing themselves to be completely dependent on their husbands financially, and we wish them luck in their choice. But women who want a career of their own have every right to pursue one, and we regard any man who would object as patriarchal.

After all, Steve could have agreed to let Lora continue to pursue her career as an actress after they got married, but that was obviously out of the question as far as he was concerned. And it was out of the question for the 1950s audience as well.  There was an assumed emptiness in the life of a career woman, even if she got married; for she was bound to neglect her husband and miss out on the deep satisfaction of giving herself completely to her family.  Steve is resentful of the way she puts her own ambition before his love, because he thinks his love for her should have been the overwhelming consideration. An underlying assumption in the movies in those days was that if a man truly loved a woman, she was wrong not to accept his proposal of marriage, for it was thought that she would never again have a chance for happiness.  How the woman felt almost didn’t seem to matter.  It was the man’s love that was determinative.

The dialogue makes this perfectly clear.  Right after Steve proposes marriage, but before Lora gives him an answer, she gets the job offer she has been waiting for:

Steve:  I don’t want you to go.

Lora:  Do you realize what this could mean to me?

Steve:  I’m not asking you not to go down there.  I’m telling you.

Lora:  What makes you think you have that right?

Steve:  Because I love you.  Isn’t that enough?

Lora:  No, Steve, I’m sorry.

In the movies of the 1950s, a woman was supposed to give herself to a man unconditionally, and not be thinking about “What if?” But attitudes have changed.  We now believe a woman is better off if she is financially independent, in case the marriage goes bad, as marriages so often do. We are more likely today to think Steve was wrong-headed, and to be a little disappointed at the end when Lora says she is going to give up her career and marry him.

As for Sarah Jane, some people may be less supportive about her desire to pass for white, because today being an African American is not supposed to be something bad, something to be ashamed of. A lot of people would say she should have been proud of her African heritage. Well, that’s a nice attitude to have in the twenty-first century, but considering the prejudice against African Americans in the 1950s, not to mention the laws requiring segregation, trying to escape from such oppressive conditions seems perfectly reasonable. I would have tried to pass for white had I been in her situation.  Actually, Sarah Jane’s problem may not be so much that she tries to pass for white as that she insists that she is white.

Whereas Steve’s attitude toward Lora’s ambition makes us uneasy today, a lot of people feel equally uneasy about Annie. In the introductory scene at Coney Island, Annie refers to how Sarah Jane’s light skin bedeviled her where they used to live (probably the South), and so they moved.  She sees how Sarah Jane hates the black doll that Susie tries to give her. And when they are discussing what color Jesus is, Sarah Jane says, “Jesus is like me. He’s white.” In other words, Annie knows how Sarah Jane feels. And yet, just as in the 1934 version, she shows up at her school to give her an umbrella and her rubbers without the slightest thought that she might embarrass Sarah Jane. We might give Annie a pass on that, but later, when Sarah Jane tries to make her own way performing in a night club, Annie shows up and ruins that for her daughter too. The way Annie disapproves of the night club, you would think it was a den of iniquity and that Sarah Jane was doing a striptease, but she is reasonably attired and merely singing and dancing in a sexy but respectable way. On the other hand, maybe it looked worse to the audience of 1959.  And I must admit, the men in the night club are loud and crude.

Annie should have warned Sarah Jane of the dangers of trying pass for white (“What if you have a baby, and it comes out black?”), but then supported her daughter whatever her decision was.  The possibility that Peola would marry a white man was avoided in the 1934 version, but it is made explicit in the 1959 remake.  Sarah Jane gets herself a white boyfriend, played by Troy Donahue, who becomes angry when he finds out her mother is a “nigger” and brutally beats her.  While the fact that this movie showed Sarah Jane as actually having a white boyfriend may be thought of as a weakening of the Production Code, which forbade miscegenation, I can’t help but think that in order to do this, they picked an actress that was white, unlike Fredi Washington, who was of mixed race like Peola.

Actually, in Fannie Hurst’s novel, Peola nipped the baby problem in the bud by having herself sterilized.  She estranges herself from her mother, marries a blond engineer, and moves to Bolivia, passing for white permanently.  In previous reviews of the movies Stella Dallas (1937), Kitty Foyle (1940), and Tom, Dick, and Harry (1941), I remarked on this theme of running off to South America to get away from one’s family.  There must have been some kind of mystique about South America in the early part of the twentieth century as a place to get away from it all and get a new start.  I suspect this trope was spoiled when the Nazis fled there so they could get a new start themselves.

Anyway, Sarah Jane gets another job dancing, at a more respectable night club.  This time her mother finds her, not to spoil things again, but just to say goodbye.  She is finally reconciled to the fact that her daughter wants to pass for white.  Also, she knows she is dying.  Of course, just as in the 1934 version, Sarah Jane shows up at Annie’s funeral, tearfully crying out for her mother while embracing her coffin.

This movie seems to say that Steve knows what is best for Lora, and that Annie knows what would be best for Sarah Jane.  And there are those who would agree with them.  But I agree with those who say they should not have tried to impose their values on others, and instead allowed them to live their lives the way they wanted to.

The 39 Steps (1935)

Speaking as a bachelor, one who has never even lived with a woman, let alone been married to one, I can only look upon marriage as an outsider, gleaning what information I can from those with experience in the matter.  I gather that marriage suits some people, others not so much.

Even people who are in love and looking forward to a life of connubial bliss will, in anticipating the wedding, refer to it affectionately as “tying the knot.” But the idea of being “handcuffed to a woman” would be an unlikely metaphor, if one wished to suggest a pleasant coupling with a permanent companion of the fair sex.  Rather, that expression would put the idea of marriage in a bad light.  It is not as bad, however, as referring to one’s wife as “the old ball and chain,” for at least handcuffs allow the woman the dignity of being an equal partner in that misery.

Although The 39 Steps is similar to other movies directed by Alfred Hitchcock where an innocent man gets caught up in a situation in which he must flee from the police while pursuing some spies in hopes of proving his innocence, such as Saboteur (1942) or North by Northwest (1959), it is unique among them as being the only one in which the protagonist is literally handcuffed to a woman for some time during the movie.  As such, we cannot help but think of their situation figuratively as well, in the sense referred to above. It should not be surprising, then, that the theme of marriage as an unpleasant business recurs throughout The 39 Steps.

At the beginning of this movie, we see a man enter a place called Music Hall, somewhere in London, purchasing a ticket for a seat in the “stalls,” which is British for the central seats up front in a theater. Just as he sits down, the Master of Ceremonies introduces a man called Mr. Memory, a man with a photographic memory, who has memorized millions of facts about sports, geography, history, and science.  He asks the audience to challenge Mr. Memory with questions. “Ladies first,” he says. With this, the theme of misogamy gets underway.

“Where’s my old man been since last Saturday?” a woman hollers out.  There are jeers from others in the audience, purporting to answer her question:

“On the booze!”

“In quod [prison]!”

“Out with his bit [young woman]!”

The jokes being over, the audience begins asking serious questions, mostly about sports.  Whenever Mr. Memory answers a question in great detail, he asks, “Am I right, sir?”  The response is always in the affirmative.

But questions implying the sorry state of marriage persist.  When a man asks what causes pip [infectious coryza] in poultry, his wife scolds him, saying, “Don’t make yourself so common.”

When someone asks, who was the last British heavyweight champion of the world, someone yells out, “My old woman!”  Mr. Memory gives a serious answer to the question, then asking, “Am I right, sir?”  He is assured that he is right.

Someone asks how old Mae West is.  Mr. Memory says, “I know, sir, but I never tell a lady’s age.”

Finally, the man we saw entering Music Hall in the beginning turns out to be played by Robert Donat, who asks how far Winnipeg is from Montreal.  The purpose of this question is to let us know he is from Canada and just visiting. We later find out his name is Richard Hannay.

The man who asked how old Mae West is keeps asking, becoming belligerent. A policeman goes over to restrain the man, and a scuffle breaks out involving several members of the audience, fists flying.  The Master of Ceremonies makes a final crack about marriage, saying, “Gentlemen, gentlemen, please! You’re not at home!”

We see a pistol firing a shot and then another shot.  Panic breaks out, everyone heading for the exit. Hannay gets thrown together with a good-looking woman and helps her out the door.  When outside, she asks, “May I come home with you?”

“What’s the idea?” he replies.

“I’d like to,” she says.

“It’s your funeral,” he shrugs, another case in which the figurative will turn out to be literal.

We assume Hannay thought she was trying to pick him up, and he was agreeable to the idea of having sex with her.  That’s not much of a sin, not even by the standards of 1935, but he will soon be punished disproportionately for it, nevertheless.

As it turns out, she is a spy, going by the name of Annabella Smith.  She says she is “freelance,” meaning she works for whoever pays her the most money. She refuses to say which country she is from, but she is played by Lucie Mannheim, a German actress, and she speaks with a foreign accent. At the moment, she is working for England, trying to prevent a secret vital to the air defense of England from leaving the country.  She had followed two spies to Music Hall, but when they spotted her, she fired two shots with her pistol to create a diversion.

She should have asked herself why those two spies would be at Music Hall, because that was an important clue, as we find out at the end of the movie.  In any event, she tells Hannay that the two spies are with the 39 Steps, without exactly explaining what that is.  Heading this organization, she says, is a dangerous man with a joint missing on the pinky of his right hand.  She asks Hannay for a map of Scotland, saying there is a man she must meet there.

That having been established, let’s back up for a minute.  When Hannay and Annabella got on the bus just outside Music Hall, the two spies did not jump on the bus with them, so there is no indication they were followed. Hannay and Annabella got off at a hotel, where Hannay said he had just rented a furnished flat, so recently that there are still dust covers draped over the furniture. And yet, within ninety seconds of their entering the hotel, the spies are just outside, at a phone booth, trying to get Hannay on the phone.

Even if we allow that the spies surreptitiously followed them to the hotel, there is no way they could know which flat he had rented.  And even if they did, there is no way they could know what his phone number was.  And what would that conversation on the phone have been like anyway?  “Mr. Hannay,” I suppose they might ask, “may we speak to Annabella, please?”  In any event, Annabella tells Hannay not to answer the phone.

Hannay tells Annabella she can sleep in his bed, pausing just long enough to titillate us, before adding that he’ll sleep on the couch.  Early the next morning, Annabella staggers into the living room with a knife in her back, clutching the map of Scotland, telling Hannay he will be next.  Then the phone starts ringing again.

I had enough trouble trying to imagine the reason for the first phone call.  This one really stumps me.  Let’s try to imagine it anyway in a conversation between the spies:

Spy Number 1:  Did you kill Annabella?

Spy Number 2:  Stabbed her with a knife.

Spy Number 1:  Did you kill Hannay while you were up there?

Spy Number 2: What for?

Spy Number 1:  Annabella may have told him everything she knows.  I’ll try getting him on the phone again.

Spy Number 2:  What for?

Spy Number 1:  If he is still home, you can run back up there and kill him too.

Meanwhile, there is phone call that did not take place.  Had I been in Hannay’s position, I would have called the police and explained what happened. Instead, Hannay decides he will have to go to Scotland and find the man Annabella was going to see, so that that man can call the police and explain what happened.

In order to make his escape from the two spies waiting outside the hotel, he tries to bribe the milkman into lending him his coat and hat as a disguise.  He explains about the spies and the murdered woman in his flat, but the milkman doesn’t believe him.  Then he tries another approach. “Are you married?” he asks the milkman.

In keeping with this movie’s low regard for marriage, the milkman replies, “Yes, but don’t rub it in.”

Hannay says he is a bachelor, who has been having an affair with a married woman in the hotel, and the two men outside are her brother and husband. The milkman smiles, now a willing conspirator in helping Hannay get away, undoubtedly wishing that he were still a bachelor who could have sex with married women, the best kind of sex there is, and the safest too, aside from the danger posed by cuckolded husbands.

Hannay manages to make his escape that way.  He boards a train heading for Scotland.  The spies spot him and try to catch the train but fail.  In the compartment Hannay enters, a salesman in ladies’ lingerie is explaining to another man about his company’s new line of corsets, much prettier than the old sort.  To prove his point, he holds up an example of the old sort, a flat-boned corset.

“Brrr!” the other man replies, as if experiencing a chill.  “My wife!”

When the train stops, the salesman buys a newspaper.  It has a story about Hannay and the murdered woman, which Hannay is able to read while sitting across from the salesman.  The police board the train, looking for him. Hannay sees a woman, whose name we later learn is Pamela, played by Madeleine Carroll, alone in a compartment.  He enters and forcibly embraces her, kissing her, so the police will think they are lovers.  He apologizes, explains who he is, and claims to be innocent.  But when the police enter, she gives him away. Nevertheless, he manages to escape.

Using the map he removed from Anabella’s hand after she died, on which she had encircled a place called Alt-na-Shellac, Hannay tries getting there on foot. He arrives at a “croft,” which is what they called a small, rented farm in Scotland, with use of a shared pasturage.  He finds out from the crofter that there is an English professor at Alt-na-Shellac, but as it is fourteen miles away, he asks if the crofter can put him up for the night, which he agrees to do for “two and six,” but don’t expect me to translate British currency into American dollars.

They go to the man’s small house, where a woman is at the door.  As she appears to be much younger than the crofter, Hannay asks, “Your daughter?”

“My wife,” comes the curt reply.

Theirs is a miserable marriage.  All the previous digs at marriage were jests compared to this.  The woman is comely enough, not as good looking as Annabella, nor as pretty as Pamela, yet we feel she could have done better. But then, this is 1935, a time when women were much more in need of a husband as a way of making it in this world than they are today, so she probably had to take what she could get.  We sense she is attracted to Hannay, and we wish he could take her away from her husband, who is a mean-spirited, religious fanatic, but it was not meant to be.

If there is such a thing as a woman’s intuition, she has it in spades.  From his interest in a newspaper article about the murder, she figures out that he is Hannay.  He admits everything, and she believes his explanation.  The crofter can tell something is going on between them, but he figures it is sexual. In the middle of the night, she sees a car approaching, and she wakes Hannay, telling him it must be the police.  When the crofter catches them, Hannay tells him about his situation.  While the crofter is talking to the police, trying to find out if there is a reward, the woman helps Hannay escape, giving him a dark coat so he won’t be spotted.  She says that when her husband finds out it is missing, “He’ll pray at me, but no more.”  Hannay kisses her affectionately on the lips and leaves.  She looks down, sad to be left alone.  Later, when the crofter finds out about the missing coat, he hits her in the face.

With the police in pursuit, Hannay makes his way to Alt-na-Shellac. Unfortunately, it turns out that the professor who lives there, Professor Jordan, to be exact, has a missing joint on his right pinky. Presumably, Annabella did not realize that Jordan was the very man she warned Hannay about.

Jordan offers to let Hannay take the easy way out by committing suicide, presenting him with a pistol for that purpose.  Now, I would have agreed with the suggestion, taken the pistol from the Jordan, and then used it to make my way out of his house.  But that doesn’t occur to either man because this is a movie, and even in a good movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock, people do stuff they would never do in real life.

As a parenthetical aside, Jordan’s gun is a semi-automatic, but he refers to it as a revolver. I have lost count of the number of old movies I have seen where a semi-automatic is referred to as a revolver. On the other hand, I have never seen the reverse situation, a movie in which someone refers to a revolver as a semi-automatic.

Anyway, Hannay refuses to shoot himself, so Jordan shoots him instead. Hannay collapses, and Jordan believes him to be dead.  But it turns out that the crofter’s coat had his hymn book in it, which stopped the bullet.  When Hannay comes to, he makes it to the local sheriff’s office.  But the sheriff doesn’t believe him, and a handcuff is placed on his right hand.  At that point, Hannay crashes through the window and makes another escape.  He blends in with members of the Salvation Army marching down the street before leaving them and entering a place called Assembly Hall, where he is mistaken for the featured speaker.  While trying to bluff his way through a speech with a lot of platitudes, who should walk in the room but Pamela, the woman on the train, just one of those outrageous coincidences often found in the movies.  Soon after, the two spies enter the room, and Pamela, mistaking them for the police, informs them of what they already know, which is that the speaker is Hannay.

They “arrest” Hannay and insist that Pamela come along with them to the police station.  Hannay figures out that these men are not the police, but spies.  When the car is forced to stop on account of some sheep, one of the spies attaches the other end of the handcuff onto Pamela’s left wrist to keep Hannay from escaping, which he does anyway, dragging Pamela with him, unwillingly, since she still thinks the two men are the police.

After they get away, she tells him it is futile for him to go on like this, trying to escape.  “What chance have you got tied to me?” she asks.

Reminding us of the figurative sense of their situation, he replies, “That question’s for your husband.”

Because she still believes Hannay is a murderer, he is able to compel her cooperation with threats, along with some physical force.  He decides they will spend the night at an inn, pretending to be a married couple.  The owners of the inn are a married couple themselves, the husband smiling knowingly as Pamela signs them in, figuring they are only pretending to be married, but the wife believes they are married in fact, and she is happy for them, since they seem to her to be so very much in love.  Because Pamela is acting under duress, it is strange that the wife interprets her behavior in that way.  This is similar to a scene in Saboteur, in which a married couple witness Robert Cummings kidnapping Priscilla Lane, dragging her into a car against her will, and the wife says, “My, they must be terribly in love.”

Hannay and Pamela got wet hiding under a waterfall during their escape.  In their room, Pamela cannot remove her wet coat, of course, but she does remove her stockings, with Hannay’s hand following hers down to her feet as she does so.  Then they turn to the matter of the bed. Reluctant at first but resigned to the fact that they will have to share that bed, she climbs on it, Hannay following.

Possibly because of all the twin beds married couples used to occupy in old movies, there is the notion that a man and a woman in an old movie, even if they were married, could not both be on the same bed unless one of them had at least one foot on the floor.  That rule is nowhere the Production Code, and there are numerous movies in which this supposed rule is violated even though receiving the seal of approval from the Production Code Administration.  Still, it is interesting that while Hannay lies flat on the bed, his head resting on a pillow, Pamela falls asleep sitting up, resting against the headboard, rather than lying down next to him.

But just as we are accepting this situation of a man and woman in an old movie being on a bed together, we begin to wonder about their need to use the toilet.  That reminds me of a crude joke about when you know the honeymoon is over, but it would be indelicate of me to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that the movie leaves that to our imagination.

When Pamela wakes up, she manages, with some effort, to slide her hand out of the handcuff.  She starts to escape, but just as she leaves the room, she overhears the two spies down below, using the telephone, referring to the 39 Steps and something about Professor Jordan clearing out and picking up someone at the London Palladium.

Realizing that Hannay has been telling her the truth, she returns to the room. She looks at Hannay, still asleep in the bed, and she affectionately pulls the blanket up and around him so that he will be warm and comfy.  She wants to go back to sleep, but she can’t bring herself to get back in that bed with him, so she tries sleeping on the couch.  But the room is cold, and she is uncomfortable.  She looks back at Hannay and the blanket she covered him with.  She gets ahold of the blanket, slides it off him, and uses it to cover herself.  Now she is warm and comfy and able to go to sleep.  I wouldn’t know from personal experience, but I’ve been told that marriage is like that.

When Hannay wakes up the next morning, she tells him what happened.  The two of them head back to London.  Hannay goes to the London Palladium, which is a respectable establishment, catering to the middle class, as opposed to the rowdy, working-class patrons of Music Hall.  After all, someone like Professor Jordan would be out of place at Music Hall.  Pamela goes to Scotland Yard.  Having previously phoned them from the inn about the plot to smuggle vital secrets of the Air Ministry out of the country, she is told that they made inquiries, confirming that there are such secrets, but no papers are missing.

I guess we are supposed to forget that there is such a thing as microfilm and that pictures may have been taken of those papers, after which they were returned to keep anyone from realizing there has been mischief, much in the way Zachary Scott did in The Mask of Dimitrios (1944) or James Mason did in 5 Fingers (1952), which was based on a true story.

In any event, they let Pamela go so they can follow her, and she leads them to Hannay, just as Mr. Memory is being introduced.  At the same time, Hannay spots Jordan in a private box just to the right of the stage, and he sees him showing Mr. Memory his pocket watch, indicating that time is of the essence.  Just as Hannay is about to be taken into custody, he realizes that Mr. Memory is working with Jordan and has memorized the papers containing the vital secret.  Running back into the stalls, he demands, “What are the 39 Steps?” Mr. Memory hesitates.  When Hannay repeats the question, Mr. Memory answers, saying that the 39 Steps is an organization of spies.

Critics speculate as to why Mr. Memory answered the question about the 39 Steps truthfully.  I believe it was a point of pride with him.  He could not bring himself to say, “I don’t know.”

Just as Mr. Memory is about to say which country the 39 Steps works in behalf of, Jordan shoots Mr. Memory.  Jordan is captured, and Mr. Memory, in his dying moments, surrounded by Hannay, Pamela, and the police detectives, reveals the vital engineering secret he has memorized.  “Am I right, sir?” he asks.  Assured by Hannay that he is, Mr. Memory dies a happy man, glad that it’s now off his mind.

While this is happening, we see the right hand of Hannay and the left hand of Pamela come together and hold on to each other.  We gather that they will soon be handcuffed together again, only figuratively this time, by getting married. Notwithstanding the cynical attitude this movie has expressed about marriage throughout, we accept this as a happy ending.