Lost in La Mancha

Hollywood has had its shares of “The Making Of” specials in the past few years. Most major box office smashes have follow-up videos about how they were made. Lost in La Mancha was supposed to be another one of these promotional specials, but ended up being an interesting documentary on the complete failure of a film.
Filmmakers Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe follow the making of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, Terry Gilliam’s pet project. Gilliam, known for directing unconventional, mind-bending films such as Brazil, Twelve Monkeys, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, wants badly to create the tale of the famous Spanish character. He enlists French actor Jean Rochefort to play the main role, and Johnny Depp as a variation on sidekick Sancho Panza.
The filmmakers track Gilliam as he oversees the pre-production of the film. Gilliam’s delight with the film is obvious as he looks at costumes, storyboards the action, and finds actors to portray ogres. His project runs smoothly, even though he and his producers admit that they are on a tight budget. This documentary shows that films shot outside the Hollywood system have to be careful about their expenses. It is a prime lesson of the film.
When the actual shooting of The Man Who Killed Don Quixote begins, all sorts of problems pop up. Rochefort develops a kidney stone that will not allow him to be on a horse, which is crucial for many of his scenes. This delay hurts the film’s progress, and Gilliam and his assistant struggle to reorganize their schedule.
More problems occur during the shooting when heavy rain changes the scenic desert into a mud pit. Not only that, but Gilliam must deal with planes flying overhead more often than had been planned. All of these problems, plus more, ultimately lead up to the film being called off.
Fulton and Pepe do a masterful job of capturing the emotions and opinions of everyone involved. Gilliam’s disappointment at the end is so obvious, as is that of his producers and crew. This is in stunning contrast to their idealistic, excited mood in the beginning. The filmmakers take us behind the scenes to see the various conflicts that go on between production members. There is also a short segment that explains Gilliam’s history and the characteristics of his films.
This film shows all the things that can go wrong with filmmaking. Some of the problems could be due to a lack of planning, but many of them are stranger acts of circumstance. A sufficient blow comes when one of Gilliam’s producers admits that he does not have all the money he said he had.
It is fortunate to the filmmakers that everyone responds with such honesty and insight. Gilliam happily lets them into his working world, even when the film is going to hell. Jeff Bridges, who worked with Gilliam in The Fisher King, ably narrates the documentary with an even tone.
In the end, this film shows a whimsical project that could have been- and possibly still might be. Gilliam, ever the idealist (another main point of the film), discloses in a late segment that he plans to buy back the rights to this film and finish it someday.
This documentary gives a real look to filmmaking, not like those aforementioned “Making Of” promos. The lessons learned in the filming of Gilliam’s project are sad, but helpful to any potential filmmaker.

College classics: A Clockwork Orange

A lot of people have been asking me for recommendations on films to watch in preparation for college. Some of them are interested in film school, while others just want to be cool and know the classics that all teachers and students will bring up. This is an excellent question. I am going to review several films that I believe are important for anyone entering college to watch - for fun, for knowing pop culture, for class discussions, or for late night viewings with a cold brew. The first one is a film that shocked audiences and still causes trouble in classrooms today.




A Clockwork Orange debuted in America in 1971, even though the copyright in the film is officially 1969. It was directed by Stanley Kubrick, who had just finished 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick adapted the screenplay from Anthony Burgess’s novel of the same name. This film was made in Britain with mostly British actors, and distributed by Warner Brothers. It was nominated for Best Picture, Best Direction, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Film Editing at the 1971 Academy Awards, but won nothing.
The film follows the feats of Alexander De Large (played by Malcolm McDowell), a criminal youth in futuristic Britain. The teenaged Alex is the leader of a gang that enjoys rape, drugs, and causing various other kinds of mischief. Alex’s parents are weak and do not know how to control him, and his guidance counselor/ probation officer, Deltoid (Aubrey Morris), is not much of a force, either. After Alex breaks into a house and murders a woman, his gang turns on him and lets him be captured by the police. He is sent to prison, where he tries to be nice to the Chaplain (Godfrey Quigley) so as to get favorable treatment. He signs up for a new procedure that the government is backing. This procedure tortures him with mandatory films of violence and destruction while a harsh drug makes him extremely ill. The product of this treatment is that Alex cannot use violence without becoming sick, making him harmless. After he enters back into society, all of the people he has hurt get their revenge on him, and, being unable to fight back, he suffers extreme pain.
The film has an interesting chronological feel to it. It was made in the thick of the cultural revolution in the Sixties, and its depiction of a crumbling society reflects how many people saw the world then. Druggie youths causing problems were a major fear to older people at this time. It takes place in the future, though, so it also applies to any destructive time period. The film uses lots of classical music such as Beethoven, which is Alex’s favorite, but it also synthesizes some of these classical pieces for a futuristic effect. The result is a mix of old standards and futuristic ideas. The set designs achieve this effect as well, with shiny, futuristic shopping malls in one scene and a castle-like prison in another.
The movie is historically important for many reasons. It is perhaps the greatest work of Stanley Kubrick’s career, which is remarkable given Kubrick’s place in history. It is widely praised by critics as a masterpiece and a true cinematic classic. Controversy, however, followed this film’s release. Its stark depictions of sex and violence upset many viewers. It was banned in Britain for a few years after some youths admitted to copying violent acts in the film. It was originally rated “X” in the United States when that rating was used, but today it has been lowered to ‘R.” The language in the film can also be frustrating, because Burgess created a new version of slang in his novel by mixing Russian and English words that sound alike.
Critics hail the film as groundbreaking for many of its philosophical and political qualities. The main theme comes from Alex’s new condition at the end of the film. The prison’s chaplain believes that Alex has no freedom if he cannot choose to do good or bad. The minister (Anthony Sharp) focuses on how it will prevent him from doing harm. This is an important ethical issue to the film. The minister also has to deal with accusations that he has used Alex as a pawn to get votes. The film thus makes a statement about government tactics in new programs and elections. The film also mocks the police in various ways.
Kubrick included an ambiguous ending, even though Burgess originally ended the novel happily, with Alex maturing. Kubrick’s denial of this reinforces the cynical feeling of the film, and perfectly demonstrates why it is both loved and hated by so many.

Snakes on a Plane (it had to happen)

Even I was drawn into the marketing blitz that was Snakes on a Plane. How can you ignore that title?

I'll be honest, though - I was almost bored by all the hype. When my friend Steve told me about it months ago I went into a fit of laughing in disbelief, especially when Samuel L. Jackson signed up for it. On many parts of the internet, I had been tracking it delightfully. I saw all the blogs, sites, trailers, and fan videos, and I was proud that fans had actually played a huge part in making movie history.

Then, it took too long to come out. If they released it early on, I might have been more excited. I know they wanted to build up the mystery, but for me, once it became a part of mainstream culture and not an inside joke with my slacker pals, it started to loose its taste for me. Others undoubtedly were more excited, but I knew it couldn't survive the hype. I also knew that I couldn't see it with the guys, which disappoints me. This is what I get for moving cross-country.

I was considering not going, unless my lady friend wanted to. Of course, she's great, and I love her for loving movies where people die in them (who else has a girlfriend that digs action and gruesome horror flicks more than you?). We went and enjoyed it in relative silence. I would've liked to have my pals to liven things up, but we were excited, and that's enough.

As for the film itself? It somewhat lived up to the hype. Not totally, but good enough. I think it made me laugh more than almost any film this year, maybe not Little Miss Sunshine, but more than most comedies. There were, I have to say, some down moments. It took itself too seriously, which is of course the point to it being terribly enjoyable, but that meant scenes of people trying to act, which is no good for any fun crapper.

In fact, I was struggling to sit through the first half hour or so, begging them to please just put one snake on screen. As expected, some of the acting is terrible - the FBI agent in LA and the main kid should never, ever work again - but they also took too much time trying to explain the plot for some odd reason. Come on! Just admit that there's no real explanation for the premise and move on. Get to the blood, which everyone is waiting for. Later on, they had awkward regrouping scenes. It could have been better, and by better, I mean WORSE.

This was redeemed, though, because when the craziness did begin, was it fun. I can't believe they ever considered NOT pushing the envelope (and NOT going for an R rating). That would have sucked, and in a bad way. SNAKE VISION?!?!?!?! Yes! It certainly had a lot of stuff jumping out at you, which I always hate, but it was deliberate bad filmmaking, so I let it go more than I usually would.

I think they also copied off two Simpsons episodes with things that would be spoilers to give away. Let's just say that I was hoping for them to cut to James Taylor in mission control as he snuck away, worried.

The final redeeming point was the last scene, with the final ending shot. That saved it. I don't think I laughed at an ending like that before, not even the impromptu Age of Aquarius video.

This isn't a campy, Troll 2 level B classic quite yet. It needs to age some, become dated, and it has a lot of down time. It's bad enough. If I made a list of enjoyably bad movies, I think it would fight for a top ten spot. I couldn't help comparing this in my mind to Roadhouse, the golden standard, and it just doesn't hold up. It was almost worth the wait, but I'd encourage you to get more excited for stuff you'll like on a normal level coming out soon.

Also... this is why Julianna Marguilles quit ER, right?

The Aristocrats

I kept putting off seeing The Aristocrats until I had almost forgotten about it. It's a freewheeling documentary put together by Penn & Teller and friends about an old joke. Basically, you tell this joke and improvise with the filthiest stuff you can imagine, and close with a cute punchline. It featured interviews and performances from a lot of random famous people in the comedy biz.

It was pretty funny, but it was also a fascinating look at creativity to me. As an aspiring comedy writer, I'm always interested in what creates humor and how delivery counts for so much. Some people really elaborated on how to tell it and why it works, which was great to hear. I'm not going to try stand up again anytime soon (yes, I did once, and I couldn't even get a laugh at an open mic in a crappy Delaware bar), but the science of it made sense to me. It might be interesting if you want to write or try anything in entertainment.

As for famous comedians, there were some annoying ones, some funny ones, and some insightful ones. Older guys like Billy Conolly, Eric Idle, Gilbert Gottfried, Pat Cooper, Richard Lewis, and Richard Jeni were on. George Carlin was probably the best at introducing and explaining it. He's a great guy to listen to. Fresh younger faces like Jon Stewart, Sarah Silverman, Doug Stanhope, and the whole Onion editorial staff were on as well. Then you had people like Robin Williams, Paul Reiser, Whoopi Goldberg, Carrot Top, Drew Carey, Lisa Lampinelli, Chris Rock, and a few others, who were up and down. But they weren't all as bad as I expected.

The best parts for me? Hearing Gilbert go crazy on the joke a few weeks after 9/11, which is the inspirational point in the film. I liked seeing a guy do a very clever rendition of it with playing cards. I liked seeing a mime do it. Mostly, I liked hearing Kevin Pollak do it with one of the best Christopher Walken impersonations ever, which is saying a lot.

It's a good, light viewing for anyone who loves comedy and the art of it. Plus, I haven't even gone into the special features yet. They are worth checking out.

Eight Mile

After I just remembered how awesome L.A. Confidential is, I decided to give in and watch 8 Mile. It wasn't bad.

Eminem’s rap skills have been apparent for some time to our nation’s youth, but his acting skills may catch us by surprise in 8 Mile, a dramatic story of a young rapper’s struggles. Loosely based on the star’s personal life, 8 Mile strives to be an inspirational story of success against the odds.
Director Curtis Hanson, who scored with previous hits Wonder Boys and L.A. Confidential, captures the gritty demise of Detroit’s slums. He ably tracks Eminem’s early days, working at an auto-stamping plant by day, rapping for all sorts of events at night. The rapper might be living with his mom, Kim Basinger, in a trailer park, but he has his sights set higher. His friend, Mekhi Phifer, wants to make deals for him, but Phifer’s idea of getting noticed means competing in insult-spewing rap battles at night. When Eminem gets stage fright on his first try, he’s branded a quitter.
The rapper tries hard to keep his family life in check and achieve his dreams, but his friends don’t always help him. His problems increase with Brittany Murphy, a young seductress who looks for a way out.
Hanson tries to keep the film as real to its street origins as possible, and it is no doubt dark. In the end, however, it remains the clichéd idea of a young person from a poor family trying to make it big, a formula that’s been used so often in films. Fortunately, Eminem stands out from typical heroes with his freestyle ability and rough candor. Rap fans will be delighted with this film, but it may not reach all audiences as well. Nonetheless, it’s a solid pick for an uplifting, rags-to-riches tale.

L.A. Confidential: Script Analysis

Recently, I had the chance to review the original script for L.A. Confidential. This is one of my favorite films, so I jumped on it. I was asked to think about just the script, and analyze it as any production office worker would - on potential. Many of you have asked me how the script process works, so maybe this will give some insight on how a script is seen before it becomes a film.



SYNOPSIS: The city is Los Angeles. The time is the early 1950’s. In a series of images, the world comes alive. The MAYOR announces future plans for the construction of new highways. CELEBRITIES put their marks on the sidewalks of Hollywood. MICKEY COHEN, a local mobster, enjoys a party with his guard, JOHNNY STOMPANATO.

The mayor wants to put a stop to crime and he starts with the removal of Cohen for tax evasion. The D.A., ELLIS LOEW, announces that crime is officially over for the city.

Stompanato turns to snitching for cops. He finds a rough duo in BUD WHITE and DICK STENSLAND. White is a young bull, ready to fight at any time. Stensland is an old veteran. Stompanato gives Bud the name of a THUG who has been abusing a GIRL. Bud goes over to the house, slaps the guy around, and tells the girl to find somewhere safe.

Meanwhile, JACK VINCENNES takes a completely different approach to crime. The smooth, handsome cop spends his time tracking down celebrities with secrets. His unofficial partner, SID HUDGEONS, writes for a Hollywood tabloid and gives Jack extra money and tips to bust actors and get stories. Hudgeons has a task for him involving young actor MATT REYNOLDS. Jack goes over, busts them, and gets a good picture.

Back at the station, young officer ED EXLEY tries to get as report in. Nerdy looking, with glasses, Exley is a no-nonsense cop who strives to achieve.

At his favorite bar, Bud meets up with LYNN BRACKEN, a beautiful but mysterious woman. He sees that she goes into a fancy car with a BRUISED WOMAN, which raises his attention. He inquires, but is told by PIERCE PATCHETT, a wealthy eccentric, that everything is fine. He argues with BUZZ, his bodyguard, who claims that he used to be a cop.

Exley meets up with DUDLEY SMITH, captain of the squad. Smith is impressed with Exley’s rise to prominence in the station, but doesn’t believe he has the mental fortitude to become a detective. They talk about Exley’s father, a former partner to Smith. Exley wants in the bureau.

At the station, these three cops come together when there is a fight. Jack, who has been looking for a underground nightclub, tells Bud to come inside. There Bud sees Stensland beating on two MEXICANS who, rumors say, roughed up a few other cops. Bud tries to stop, but when the one insults his mother, he begins to beat them as well. Exley tries to hold him back, with no luck.

The incident causes a major riff in the department. Jack and Bud are disciplined, while Exley is promoted. Stensland is let go, which upsets Bud. He is ready to quit, but Smith suggests that he work as a mauler for the detectives. Jack has to work in their department as well.

Stensland meets with Bud and cryptically talks of a deal he has. Later on that night, he and several others are gunned down in the Nite Owl Café. Exley springs to the case, using a report he heard earlier. Bud, furious with him, must accompany him to the morgue to identify Stensland. Bud notices that another victim is the bruised woman he saw earlier with Lynn.

Exley thinks that three BLACK YOUTHS are involved in the crime, off the report. Jack takes him to a BOXER who can tip them off. Bud tracks down Lynn and Pierce Patchett, who admits to him that the bruised woman was one of his call girls, like Lynn. Bud questions Lynn about the girl, and they begin to develop a close relationship.

Exley and Jack track down the three youths, who are surprised. Exley interrogates them toughly, but it takes Bud’s threat of violence to get any information. The youths deny any killing but admit that they did beat up a hooker. Bud goes to find her and kills the PIMP holding her. The youths escape. Exley and CARLISLE track them down. IN a tense shootout, Carlisle goes down but Exley gets all of them. The case appears closed, though Exley has doubts.

Hudgeons gives Jack a new piece of information: Reynolds, the actor he previously busted, is gay and has been sleeping with the D.A. Jack doesn’t like the D.A., so he agrees to a setup. Meanwhile, Bud becomes more intimate with Lynn and Exley continues to have doubts.

Jack’s plan goes awry when he arrives to find Reynolds dead. He questions Hudgeons, who claims that he sent the kid home. Jack feels guilt over setting up a death.

Bud begins to echo Exley’s doubts about the Nite Owl Case. Exley finds that the report he used was falsified. Bud goes to the MOTHER of the bruised woman. He learns a little bit about her life, including the fact that his old partner Stensland was involved with her, but finds a better clue: the decomposing body of Buzz, Patchett’s old bodyguard and a former cop.

Exley invokes Jack to work on the case with him. He tells him about his father, and the made-up name of the criminal that killed him. Jack is touched and sees this as a way to make up for all the glitter jobs he’s had. They both head to see Stompanato, and then Patchett. Neither gives much, but they see that Bud has been working hard and has made it with Lynn. Exley goes to question her, surprised that Bud could get a woman.
Exley and Lynn hit it off quickly, but it is a setup by Hudgeons and Patchett. Jack sees the dead body of Buzz, which gets him thinking. He looks up records and finds that Buzz and Stensland were once arrested for backhand deals with Patchett. They would use prostitution as a means for extortion, and Captain Smith was the officer on the case, but never made a charge.

Jack goes to Smith’s house and tells him the news. Smith nonchalantly shoots him. As he dies, Jack whispers the made-up name that Exley revealed to him.

As Smith honors Jack’s career, he makes a quick mention to Exley about the made-up name. Exley is confused and worries that Smith might be behind the murder. He begins to look up what Jack did on that night and discovers the files on Buzz.

Smith persuades Bud to help him beat a suspect into shape. It’s Hudgeons, whom they question about Jack. Hudgeons revels his photos of Lynn, which drive Bud crazy. He finds that they are not of him, but of Exey and Lynn together. This drives him mad and sets off. Hudgeons relaxes, assured that his setup has worked, but he is in trouble after all. Smith orders him dead.

Bud first goes to Lynn, furious. He hits her, which makes him sick. He then goes for Exley, who has been searching hard for files. He beats him hard, wanting to kill him, but Exley keeps telling him what he’s learned. Bud stops as he realizes that his suspicions are the same. Exley goes on to explain, and with Bud’s help, he figures out that Smith is behind this. He explains that it was a setup to get Bud to come after him. Bud relents. They agree to work together.

They go to Patchett’s house only to find that he is dead. A fake suicide note doesn’t impress them. Bud realizes that the next target is Lynn. Exley has her placed in a secret location. He remembers Jack’s attempted setup with the D.A. and heads over there. Exley pleads for help, but the D.A. dismisses them. When Bud threatens him, he tells them that Smith is behind it.

Exley meets up with Lynn, who regrets hurting Bud, and Bud heads back to the station. He gets a message to meet Exley at a motel on the outskirts of town. When they get there, they realize that it’s a trap. They quickly set up defense positions and wait for the onslaught.

In a bloody shootout, Exley and Bud manage to take out all the men Smith has sent at them. They don’t expect to see Smith show up, but when he does, he gets several shots on Bud, who shields Exley. He explains everything, from his replacement for organized crime to his promises for the future. Exley wants nothing of it. As Smith is about to finish him, Bud stabs him, and Exley gets a gun. Smith pleads with him and proposes a deal. Exley says no, but he walks out, thinking that Exley would never hurt him and pass up a deal to advance. Exley, however, doesn’t flinch. He shoots Smith in the back.

As Exley explains everything to the D.A. and chief, they realize that the public can’t hear about it. They make Exley the new captain and let him figure out how to clean up the department. He takes the award, bittersweetly, and meets up with Lynn one last time. Bud has survived, and she is taking him to a new life in Arizona. Exley and Bud share a moment as Exley hands him the medal of honor. Bud and Lynn drive off into the sunset. Exley is left with a massive task.

COMMENT/ ANALYSIS

STORY/STRUCTURE: This is an excellent story; the essential Noir tale of backstabbing and corruption. The clues engage the audience into wanting to know more, and the seedy side of Hollywood’s glory days is fascinating. It presents an interesting view on the balance between order and crime in society. The only concern is that the plot takes a lot of turns and involves a lot of characters, so the audience might get confused at times. There is a lot of information to process, but it all fits together beautifully. Along with the great plot, there are strong characters, so it keeps the emotional part of the story as well. The author handles the introduction and development of the three principle characters well. The plot captivates.

CHARACTER: Although this is a plot-heavy script, these characters all have personalities and depth. The arc for each character is strong, as the three cops must overcome flaws to reach their goal. Exley, the brains behind the operation and a clean-cut, moral person, proves to be physically tough as well, and able to reject the rules if needed. Bud, the brutish mauler, proves to be smarter than even he realizes, and Lynn sees that he has a heart. Jack, the swinging, immoral, uncommitted playboy, finds a purpose and tries to redeem himself through the investigation. All these characters change throughout the story. The supporting characters are vivid and serve their purpose. Smith is an excellent villain because he presents himself in a loving and respectful way, like a father to his men, but secretly controls all. The contrast is powerful.

DIALOGUE: The dialogue is fast and catchy, fitting the genre. There are a lot of good quotes and it works for the piece very well. This script, however, includes a lot of on-the-nose dialogue that could be toned down. The film will do better [in reality, they did a great job of this] if many of the emotions of the characters are shown, not told. Exley and Bud’s backgrounds, for example, become redundant. Overall, though, this is excellent writing.

TRAVELOGUE VALUE: The story pulls audiences in right away because it offers a stark contrast to the glamorous view of old Hollywood. The script has a stylized feel that makes it seem fictional, but enjoyable. The film is definitely a period piece, though the story of power and corruption is timeless.

MARKETABILITY: Adults 18-60, particularly older

WILL YOU SEE THIS MOVIE? Yes. This is a great story with fine characters, and it should be a great film.

MESSAGE/ MORAL: Can any city today truly be crime free? What happens to the police when there is no crime?

PACKAGING POTENTAIL: This is a period piece and a target for classic film (especially Noir) lovers. Still, the idea of authorities abusing power relates to our society today and tomorrow.

Notorious: an academic reading

Notorious and its Relation to Hitchcock as Auteur
Alfred Hitchcock searched the dark depths of mankind in many of his films. For this and other reasons, many proponents of the auteur theory are quick to name him as a prominent auteur- one of the best ever. Notorious, one of his well-known classics, provides an excellent example of his style. While it exemplifies his style, it also veers away at times from some of his typical ideas.
Hitchcock fits the idea of the auteur. Most of his films have similar themes, narrative styles, character situations, and other connectable traits. Notorious fills many of these elements, most notably in its narrative. Hitchcock used irony of quarlixastd in many of his films to build suspense. This particular type of irony comes when the audience knows something the character does not. It creates a sort of helpless feeling by the viewer, who may feel a desire to warn the character of upcoming danger. Of course, the viewer cannot talk to the characters, and the film tugs at the viewer’s emotional connection with the particular character.
Hitchcock was a master of this narrative style. This technique, in fact, is arguably the main stamp of any Hitchcock film, and has become a must today for any horror or suspense film. Psycho, the classic suspense movie that helped spawn a mass of serial killer or “slasher” movies, exposes the Bates Motel as a dangerous place after Lila Crane’s murder. The viewer, if he or she has any emotional connection with the characters, may internally scream, “Don’t go in there!” In Vertigo, the viewer hears the confession letter of the fake wife while the detective is gone, but she decides not to tell him when he comes back. This scene builds tension, because the detective originally thought of that exact situation, but he has no proof. The viewer may want to tell him, “Keep at it! You’re right!”
Notorious, in this sense, fits well with Hitchcock’s style. The viewer knows that Alicia’s marriage to Alexander is for a reason- she is a spy. The viewer also knows later that he has figured Alicia out, but she does not know. Also, the viewer knows that Alexander poisons her coffee, but again, she does not. This knowledge, like most of Hitchcock’s movies, makes the viewer feel a desire to help the character, especially here, because Alicia is the heroine and her husband is a bad man- he’s Nazi war criminal.
The themes of Hitchcock’s films vary, but several story elements appear often. Many of the elements of noir films (without getting into genre discussion too much) apply to Hitchcock films: murder, deception, detective work, financial crimes, and adultery. Psycho may focus on a murderer, but Lila ends up at the Bates Motel because she needs to escape. She has stolen money from her boss, and she is also having an affair. Vertigo deals with a man who creates an elaborate scheme to kill his wife, make it look like a suicide, make her look crazy, and throw everyone off while he gets away as a victim. He hires a lady to act as his wife and deceive the detective. Dial M for Murder contains a man’s plot to kill his wife for both money and revenge for her adultery.
Notorious belongs to a group of Hitchcock films that tackle these subjects on a grander scale. The marriage is deception, and the Nazi criminals living in Brazil are doing quite well, so it fits some of the noir elements. This film, however, is not just between several American citizens. It deals with government action, and that differs from the previous films. Hitchcock used somewhat similar scenarios in North by Northwest and The Man Who Knew Too Much. These films may deal with murder, deception, and money, but on a larger scale of dangerous government agents and complex international scandals.
Recurring themes mix with similar characters to create certain situations that appear often in Hitchcock’s films. As with noir films, the narrative usually has a detective or investigative agent. Psycho and Vertigo have regular detectives, while Notorious has an F.B.I. agent investigating the Nazis. North by Northwest and The Man Who Knew Too Much focus on undercover F.B.I. agents.
Another element of Hitchcock films that deals with a specific character is mental stability. Often, one character has a mental illness or a psychological flaw, and it can get worse as time goes on. The most obvious example of this is Norman Bates. He is the Psycho. His mother’s abuse and their obsessive relationship drove him to an extreme personality disorder. Vertigo focuses on the detective’s fear of heights, and the villain uses this flaw against him. His guilt intensifies when he cannot save the wife from jumping off the tower, and he becomes invalid for a period of time. Rear Window’s protagonist grows more and more unstable as the film goes on. By the end, he has lost touch with reality. The murderers in Rope are disturbed to start out with, and as the one becomes more daring, the other gets very paranoid. Marnie focuses on its title character, a very erratic woman.
Notorious does not have an obviously disturbed character, which separates it from the norm. It does, however, hint at a few mental problems. Alicia’s poisoning leaves her in a confused, sick, eventually delirious state. While not an innate flaw (and more of a physical problem), her sickness alters her mind’s clarity. The relationship between Alexander and his mother pales in comparison to the Bates’, but the mother’s harsh demeanor evokes similar feelings. Both mothers feel jealous and suspicious of the females connected to their sons.
Hitchcock films also often have attractive young females who appear vulnerable. Sometimes these women are stereotypical damsels in distress, like in The Birds. Sometimes, these female characters have secrets to hide, and their past ties into the criminal plot. As mentioned, Lila from Psycho steals money and has an affair. The detective in Vertigo follows who he believes to be an erratic wife, but she is not the real wife. Marnie, the disturbed young title character, initially hides her problems. Family Plot, Hitchcock’s last film, focuses on a phony psychic woman.
Notorious contains a perfect example of this female character in Alicia, because she is both secretive and good. She is young, attractive, and vulnerable. She has a past; the whole reason she needs to spy is because her father was a war criminal. She cannot enjoy his riches unless she helps the United States in its investigation. She has secrets, and she deceives her husband, but she is really a good person at heart. When her lover rescues her, she becomes the poor, innocent damsel.
Characters of Hitchcock films may also deal with some kind of isolation. Ian Cameron points out the isolation of Lila and Norman during their meal in Psycho, and of how their conversation amidst the stuffed game reflects this feeling (65). Rear Window contains an extremely isolated main character. Each day the loneliness wears on him more. The fake wife of Vertigo becomes an isolated stranger. Because of the deception usually involved, this is a common feeling amongst many other characters as well.
Although Notorious has some elements in common with North by Northwest and The Man Who Knew Too Much, one thing that it misses is a case of mistaken identity. Even though most of the characters are deceiving, Notorious does not have an accidental identity mishap like these two (and several other) films by Hitchcock.
The setting of Notorious differs from many Hitchcock films. Although the opening sequences are in Miami, most of the movie takes place in Brazil. Hitchcock films do not generally use exotic settings. Some of the spy films such as The Man Who Knew Too Much take place overseas, but most of Hitchcock’s films are set in America. He did make some Europe-based films while he was still working over there in his younger days, but after he came to Hollywood, he chose the United States much more often as a setting.
Hitchcock focuses often on the darkness of mankind, specifically emphasized by one or a few characters. The situation is just within this smaller, personal group of people. His movies tend to show just how evil or demented people can be. His characters that do wrong fall into several categories. The first category includes simple, weak men (and women) who make horrible mistakes. The husband in Vertigo exemplifies the criminal who is selfish and evil, but not a super villain. He kills his wife, which is an atrocious act, but he is not a huge danger to society. Lila from Psycho is no evil mastermind, but she makes a very poor decision. The second category contains mentally ill characters like Norman Bates, Marnie, and Jeff in Rear Window. They have problems, which excuses them in some ways from contempt. Even Norman, the killer psychopath, comes off at the end as a totally demented child, though he was aware of the harm “his mother” did.
These characters all have flaws and are despicable in many ways, but Notorious reaches the true depths of humanity with the Nazis. The inclusion of Nazis is another facet of Notorious that stands out from most of Hitchcock’s films. The previously mentioned characters were evil and criminal in many ways, but the Nazis represent a far darker reality.
Reality is an important word because Hitchcock’s villains are usually realistic in many ways. He does not create fake monsters; these are real people committing real crimes that could happen, and have already. The atrocities that the Nazis pulled off during the war overshadow the bad people of other Hitchcock films that usually focus on just a few bad individuals. Notorious, admittedly, also does focus on a few bad individuals, and it has personal conflicts, but these individuals are part of a larger evil not seen in most of Hitchcock’s other films. The spy films like The Man Who Knew Too Much contain secretive government enterprises, which is somewhat related, but it is still not as powerful as including the Third Reich.
The auteur theory suggests that every great director has stylish characteristics in his films. It also suggests that an auteur has an interior meaning for his films, a tension between the director and his material. Hitchcock dealt, quite simply, with bad people doing bad things. Every film starts with a crime. His tales of the dark side of human nature might initially suggest intense pessimism about humanity as an interior meaning, but the way these films end suggests that things are not so bleak.
Hitchcock endings are usually not very happy and bright, but they also are not always terribly bleak. Notorious has one of the happiest endings for a Hitchcock film. Alicia’s lover rescues her before she gets deathly sick, and they have the evidence against Alexander. Most of the endings do provide closure to the story, which is important for Hitchcock films, as they are classic Hollywood films.
Most of the endings also include a sense of justice. The criminals usually pay for their mistakes in some way. Notorious ends with the case against the Nazis pending. In the cases of deception and cheating, the cheaters are often caught or killed. The irony of Vertigo comes at the end when the fake wife panics at the sight of a ghost (which it is not), feels grief and guilt, and jumps to her own death. Lila dies, and though it is not because of her wrongdoing, it keeps her from being a totally innocent victim. Her crime leads her to the motel, so one could argue that it is her fault, in a way, when she encounters danger. Norman gets locked up in the end, so that provides safety and justice.
Hitchcock perhaps was sending the underlying message that these people got what they deserved. Many innocent people died and were harassed repetitively in his films, but the traitors often fall to an almost supernatural type of justice. This justice is almost like karma, as if the crimes of these characters have made them cosmic candidates for trouble. The decisions the criminals make come back to hurt them in the end.
All of these characteristics Notorious follows many of the characteristics typical of an Alfred Hitchcock film, but it has a few exceptions. Even though it has a happy ending, this film’s Nazi villains hint at something even darker than Hitchcock’s typical criminal. Hitchcock was an auteur for the evil things that people do. Notorious is a classic example of Hitchcock’s suspense wizardry. The thriller lies within a long line of work by perhaps the most respected director ever.