The Half-Life Seven

This time of year is filled with graduations and, being a cinephile who connects even the most meaningless word or phrase to a movie, I can't help but think of The Graduate, with Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft and Katherine Ross, this time each year. And whenever I think of The Graduate I am reminded that I only like one half of it, the first half. The opening party, the seduction of Ben by Mrs. Robinson, the trips to the hotel under the name "Gladstone" and the confusion of his first date with Elaine entertain me one and all. Then comes the disturbing break-up between Ben and Mrs. Robinson and the threats and the college stuff and Mr. Roper and Richard Dreyfuss giving Ben a hard time and bleh, I'm done with it. After Ben's first date with Elaine The Graduate holds no interest for me. And it's not alone.

There are plenty of movies that I call "half-lifers," borrowing the term from the scientific identification for the period of time an object in decay will deteriorate by half. My term has nothing to do with decay and everything to do with half of the movie coming alive for me and the other half being dead to me. And it's not that any of these movies are bad, just that only one half holds any interest for me and it is, almost always, the first half. So none of this is intended as a review of any of the films concerned, simply a statement of personal preference for one half over the other. Starting with The Graduate above, here are six more, in chronological order, that round out my Half-Life Seven. There are more but these are my most extreme cases of Half-Lifers, movies where I am really not interested for almost 50 percent of the movie while very much enjoying the other 50 percent.

Gone with the Wind (1939): Overall I'd have to say this is a movie I don't very much care for and yet, the first half does entertain me. I love all the buildup to both the war and the relationship between Scarlett (Vivien Leigh) and Rhett (Clark Gable) up through the war itself and the burning of Atlanta. And then, I stop watching. If this is on TCM and I happen upon it while the first half is running I'll watch it. As soon as they get to the post-war story and the marriage of Scarlett and Rhett, brother, I am outta there!

Julius Caesar (1953): I guess I should blame Bill Shakespeare for this one but the fact is, I'm with this story as they plot and scheme to kill Caesar (Louis Calhern). I'm with it further as Brutus (James Mason) stands before the Roman masses to justify his actions and I'm really with it as Mark Antony (Marlon Brando) delivers that ingeniously written speech that at first reassures Brutus that Antony will not incite revolt before twisting the rhetorical knife into Brutus' gut. Wow! What a speech! And then... I pretty much just turn it off.

The Ten Commandments (1956): The first three have all been the first half of the movie I like. With The Ten Commandments it's the opposite. Moses' (Charlton Heston) journey from noble prince to exiled shepherd bores me to tears. But once that angry God of his starts killing firstborns and blighting the land and parting seas, oh boy, just try and stop me from watching it! Still some of the most amazing effects of the fifties.

Vertigo (1958): This is the first film on the list that I would qualify as a great film (along with the next film on the list) but I could still survive just taking in a little over half of it. And that half is Scotty (James Stewart) following Madeleine (Kim Novak) around and falling in love with her. Once he goes catatonic after her faked death the movie holds much less interest for me. In fact (BLASPHEMY ALERT) I've always kind of wished that the movie really had been about a woman possessed with the spirit of a long dead, long suffering ghost. When it turns out to be just a piece of a murder plot I'm always a little disappointed.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962): There must be something about first halves because this is another one where the first half hypnotizes me and the second half doesn't. Lawrence's (Peter O'Toole) introduction to the desert and his almost instant connection with it is truly mystical in its presentation. The journey across the desert to attack Aqaba plays like a dream, taking its time, watching, following, always moving towards an unseen destination. Then the second half of the movie loses that mystical quality as it focuses on battles and political maneuvering. The second half is certainly great too and I'll watch it all but given the choice between the two, I'll take the first half.

The Ruling Class(1972): Finishing up the Half-Life Seven is The Ruling Class from 1972. While this film continues the tradition of liking the first half over the second half the difference lies in how dramatically different my feelings are for both halves. The first half with Jack under the delusion that he is Jesus Christ plays like some of the best British comedy of the seventies and I love it. I love the stupid jokes, the barely choreographed song and dance numbers and Peter O'Toole running around delivering bizarre platitudes intended to be taken as gospel. But if ever a movie didn't know when to shut off the valve and roll the credits it's this one. I really can't stand much of the second half as the sledgehammer satire takes over with Jack becoming Jack the Ripper and entering the House of Lords. The problem is that the second half isn't delivering anything the first half didn't already deliver, and better, but it keeps on delivering anyway until everything starts to feel run down. The movie doesn't feel so much like it concludes as it does that the editor just finally said, "Let's put 'The End'... oh, I don't know... um... here!"

And that's The Half-Life Seven. There are many more that could make the list but their splits are not as even. For instance, M*A*S*H kind of loses me at the football game but that's less than half the movie by far. Or Titanic (1997), which is another rare one where I can watch the second half (when the ship sinks) over the first half (when the movie sinks) but even then there's plenty I could do without, like, for example, the cast. And there are plenty of movies where I love the whole thing but because I've seen them so many times I'm happy missing the exposition of the first third or so of the film to get to the major action (too many titles to list).

While I want to love every movie I see, inevitably, many disappoint me. Some the whole way through and others only part of the way. When it's part of the way it's sometimes more disappointing because the promise, the potential, was there but petered out. Still, I'll take whatever solid filmmaking and entertainment I can get, even if sometimes it's only by half.

It's Not Like Life is Such a Vale of Tears

One thing many cinephiles and average movie goers alike rail against is "the happy ending." As in the Happy Ending of cliched legend, where everyone lives happily ever after and reality is thrown out the window. Of course happy endings have their place, but the thing is, while people rail against them, they don't realize most of their favorite movies have anything but an unhappy ending. They are not all over the top happy but few endings are complete downers. Most movies just end, as in the story is concluded. But this is already getting messy so let's step back and qualify.

Most cinephiles agree Alfred Hitchcock is near the top of the world's greatest filmmakers. And most cinephiles have gone off at one time or another about "the happy ending," and how hated it is. But how many Hitchcock films end staring into the stark face of despair? Not many. Vertigo's ending certainly isn't uplifting as Scottie walks to the ledge following Judy's death but it could be argued that with his vertigo and obsessions now gone, exorcised so to speak, perhaps he will finally get on with his life. I doubt it, but there's room there for argument.

And Psycho? Well, Vera Miles doesn't get killed, Norman gets caught and in the safe custody of the state, tips completely to the side of the Mother personality. It's not happy but it's not despairing either and provides closure. And how about Rear Window, Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest, Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt and many others? The guilty are caught, killed or punished, the heroes and heroines rescued and/or vindicated and in some cases, like Strangers on a Train, there's even a little joke thrown in at the end to send everyone home with a smile on their face. Many more Hitchcock's end this way, with a wink and a nod and an "all is right with the world again" philosophy (right up to his last, Family Plot), than don't.

And how about James Bond? The most successful series in film history with over twenty films and exactly one has a downer ending (On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Even Casino Royale has a satisfying revenge ending after an initial downer but the ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service is hopeless. And to me, despite thinking highly of the film as one of the best Bonds out there, feels rushed. I would have like a little more time devoted to Bond and Tracy, just a few more minutes, as husband and wife. Then the ending would have had much more impact.

And now we arrive at the real problem. The problem most of us have with a happy ending is the same problem we would have with a bleak ending that didn't work: We would dislike it if it didn't fit the story. It's not that it's happy or bleak, it's that it doesn't work. Both Ian Fleming and the producers of the film adaptation knew they didn't want Bond married, so both the book and film conclude with Tracy Bond's drive-by killing at the hands of Ernst Stavro Blofeld while George Lazenby as Bond struggles mightily with conveying the emotion of loss (and ultimately loses the struggle). It's an ending that not only feels wrong for this movie (and I know there are plenty of fans of this movie out there - please remember, I'm one of them) but feels wrong as an ending for a movie of this type in this particular franchise. I'm sure Fleming wanted to do something different, wanted to give Bond more depth or just a more complex history, but marrying him only to kill the bride feels like a cheap attempt to add gravitas to the series. [please see comments for further discussion of this]

Most movies find a way of combining despair and redemption for endings that satisfy both needs. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest has despair in R.P. McMurphy's lobotomy and mercy killing by Chief Bromden but then redemption as Bromden escapes to freedom. On the Waterfront has Terry Malloy defeated and beaten but then redeemed as he leads a new work crew aboard the cargo ship. The Searchers has many shades of grey as Ethan (John Wayne) "rescues" Debbie (Natalie Wood) from her new life and returns her to her old providing despair, redemption and moral ambiguity rolled into one tight little package. And one writer whose article I read a while back even states that "happy endings" are more often not happy but affirming of the human spirit. He provides many examples of both happy and bleak endings including one of the bleakest of all, I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang. With the Chain Gang ending now in the mix let's take it a step further.

Beyond fitting or not fitting the feel of a movie or its plot, the biggest difference between a good or bad happy/bleak ending is how long the director dwells upon it. In I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang James Allen (Paul Muni) is an innocent man wrongly imprisoned and subjected to the brutality of the chain gang system in the South. By the end of the film he has escaped and survives by stealing, the false charge thrown on him in the first place. It works because it is expressed quickly and without histrionics. The audience gets it and "The End" flashes on the screen.

On the happy side, Dorothy (Judy Garland) awakens in the concluding scene of The Wizard of Oz to find everything is okay again. It's short and sweet and perfectly befitting of this charming children's tale.

But when those endings are dwelled upon, lingered over, problems arise. Take E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, a film I swear I never thought I'd bring up here. Providing that story with a happy ending makes perfect sense to me given the characters and plot. But oh how that ending is dragged out. In what feels like forever Elliot (Henry Thomas) and E.T. (voice of Debra Winger) say their goodbyes while John Williams' music reaches new levels of goopy ascendance. By the time E.T. says "I'll be right here" indicating he will always be in Elliot's heart this viewer starts to get angry. And if that overwrought sentimentality and hyper emotional piano playing isn't enough, the mother ship upon exiting makes a goddamn rainbow in the sky!!! Crikey! I admit this is one movie loved by many a cinephile with which I am at complete odds. I just don't get it. I find this kind of happy ending to be the kind that gives all other happy endings a bad name. Overdone, overwrought and beaten until dead.

And just when you thought I couldn't possibly annoy my fellow cinephiles any further I offer up as my example of a bleak ending going too far, The Godfather Part II. Now I am a fan of the Godfather movies. I'm not wild about the third one, but as unintentional comedies go, it's not bad (I can already feel the hate mail being written). However, even recognizing the superb filmmaking at work in Part II, I can't help but feel Coppola drags it out too long. Let's face it, there's almost no need for this film to exist in the first place as everything we need to know about Michael's moral downfall is made evident by the conclusion of the first film. The second film doesn't take his character any further than that final scene in the study from The Godfather, it just confirms that he is dead inside and his father was not. Three and a half hours is a long time for a simple elaboration on a point already made. Nevertheless, I like the film ... up to a point. By the time we get to Fredo being killed on the lake it feels as if the ending has been happening the whole movie. From the start we know Michael is a bastard and the second he discovers Fredo's betrayal we know he's going to have him killed. We watch with a sense of dread for what we know is inevitable. That's great and works extremely well. But then Coppola keeps emphasizing Michael's solitude, losing Kay, waiting in the boathouse at his mother's funeral, standing at the window while Fredo is killed and finally, and with a none too subtle visual stroke, alone on a bench in a dead, frozen landscape. It all feels like too much, like the director signalling, "Behold my courageous exploration of the human soul!" The Godfather Part II is an excellent sequel to the first but seems too enamored of its own sense of despair.

And then there are countless other examples of movies with happy or bleak endings that either take it too far or admirably restrain themselves. Too many to mention here but two of my favorites are:

Chinatown - Best bleak ending EVER. Quick, focused, stunning.

Dodsworth - Best happy ending EVER. Despite being made during the Production Code Era, Dodsworth leaves his wife to be with the woman he actually loves. And does it just when you think all is lost.

If you have favorites, happy or bleak, let me know. Or give me hell over some of my opinions expressed here. Either way, I'm just happy to be here for you, even when things look bleak.

*********

Ed. Note - One of the great things about blogging is interacting with people who read and disagree with what you wrote. In the comments I have had the opportunity to re-assess my feelings on the ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service and have changed "tacked on" to describe the ending to "rushed" and have added a sentence of elaboration. I know many still disagree with that but "tacked on" was the wrong choice of words and didn't express what I was trying to say.

Got Hitchcock?

Since I just recently scolded Judy from Vertigo on these pages and have a banner up based on Strangers on a Train, I thought it might be a good time to do a little online promotion for a recent favorite stop of mine, Alfred Hitchcock Wiki, where I got the images for this post.

It's a fairly stunning resource for Hitchcock and his films if only for the graphics. There is a collection of on and off set photos that could fill Charles Foster Kane's warehouse and a collection of screengrabs from his films (over 50,000!!!) clearly compiled by an extremely patient person.

But it's not just the graphics. They have almost as many articles written on Hitch and his films as they do pics, from Film Quarterly to The New York Times, broken down by film, subject matter and dates. Really, if you haven't stopped by yet give it a look. And if you want a banner from a Hitchcock movie you've got over 50,000 to choose from.

I'm Afraid I'm Disappointed in You Judy...

... or Madeline, or whatever your name is. Sure, you were a very apt pupil, no one's questioning that. But Judy, oh Judy, you kept a souvenir from a killing. You shouldn't have been that sentimental. Pretty dumb move Judy. I'm sorry but I'm very disappointed. Very. Goodbye Judy.

A Birthday Tribute to Alfred Hitchcock

Today is Alfred Hitchcock's birthday. He would have 108 (born 1899) if he were still alive. Of course he is, in his movies which are timeless. A quick tribute from Cinema Styles covering the favorites, least favorites, ups, downs and everything in between.

Favorite Hitchcock Film: Notorious (1946)

Favorite Pre-Hollywood Hitchcock Film: The 39 Steps (1935)

Favorite Performance in a Hitchcock Film: Joseph Cotten in Shadow of a Doubt (1944)

Favorite Tandem Performance (that is, two actors playing off each other beautifully): Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman in Notorious (1946)

Least Favorite Hitchcock Film: Topaz (1969)

Least Favorite Performance: John Gavin in Psycho (1960) Damn near stops the movie. Hitch referred to him on the set as "the corpse."

Most Exciting Hitchcock Film: (Tie) Foreign Correspondent (1940) and North by Northwest (1959)

Most Self-Referential (or autobiographical) Hitchcock Film: Vertigo (1958), of course.

Goofiest Hitchcock Film: (tie) Spellbound (1945) and Family Plot (1976)

Scariest Hitchcock Film: Psycho (1960)

Best use of Monuments in a Hitchcock Film: (Tie) Saboteur (1942) Statue of Liberty and North by Northwest (1959) Mount Rushmore

Best Use of Location in a Hitchcock Film: Vertigo (1958) San Francisco

Best Chase in a Hitchcock Film: Cary Grant pursued by crop duster in North by Northwest (1959)

First True "Hitchcockian" Film: Blackmail (1929)

Most "un-Hitchcockian" Film: (tie) The Farmer's Wife (1928) and Waltzes from Vienna (1934)

Best Hitchcock Comedy: Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941)

Favorite Hitchcock Cameo: Walking with his dogs in The Birds (1963)

Most Clever Hitchcock Cameo: Seated at the table in the photograph in Dial M for Murder (1954)

Best "Children in Peril" scene in a Hitchcock Film: (tie) Strangers on a Train (1951) Merry-go-round sequence and The Birds (1963) Attack on the school scene.

Most Underrated Hitchcock Film: The Lady Vanishes (1938)

First Hitchcock Hollywood Film: Rebecca (1940)

First Hollywood-Altered Hitchcock Ending: Suspicion (1941) They just didn't want Cary to be a killer.

Best Un-Resolved "Ending" to a Hitchcock Film: The Birds (1963)

Most Clever Experiment in a Hitchcock Film: The "one-take, unbroken shot" of Rope (1948)

Best MacGuffin in a Hitchcock Film: The lighter in Strangers on a Train (1951)

Only 3-D Hitchcock Film: Dial M for Murder (1954)

Best Jimmy Stewart Hitchcock Film: Rear Window (1954)

Most Used Actor by Hitchcock: Leo Carroll in six films. I'm not counting Hitch and his multiple cameos.

and finally,

Best Use of Salvador Dali in a Dream Sequence in a Hitchcock Film about a Psychiatrist falling in love with her patient who is an innocent man wrongly accused: Spellbound (1945) I had to get that scene on the list somehow.

*****ARCHIVED HALOSCAN COMMENTS FOR THIS POST HERE*****