The Killing, Part 2

Helpful advice - you do not want to mess with guys like Sterling Hayden!

The Killing - Part 2

Kubrickian approaches appeared profoundly in ‘The Killing’, and that was an important factor that made the film stands out from the average crime films from the same era. The first obvious aspect was the clinical feel that would be so familiar with the later Kubrick films. Kubrick showed the story of Johnny Clay and co. with a clinical detachment, he did not judge them, he did not provide personal observations on them. An omniscient narrator was present in the film, and he observed the action with a detachment, and often, dark and ironic humor, which would become commonplace in later Kubrick pictures. The universe these crooks found themselves situating in was at best indifferent, at worst hostile. Unlike some of the other filmmakers, who still wanted to provide a bit of hope and sunshine to the Film Noir, the world in ‘The Killing’ was an unsympathetic one, and any players could hit the wall anytime due to circumstances or intrigue. Nasty as it may be, Kubrick’s world is unfortunately a realistic one, where many of us can easily identify with even nowadays. One diversion from his later work was that the film was more dialogue-heavy than his later heightened work, which relied substantially on filmic images to convey the idea. While this approach fitted well with the Film Noir, it also made the film more humanistic, and offered a human warmth not so common in the later Kubrick films.

Sterling Hayden, who played Johnny Clay in ‘The Killing’, was the organizing symbol of the film, and, also contributed to much of the dry humor in the film. He was the prototypical Kubrickian character, and he very much reflected the worldview Kubrick offered in the film. Cold and cynical, Hayden successfully portrayed the leader of a bunch of underdogs, whose sole purpose for an ambitious heist was to survive, and escape from the harsh reality he and his fiancée found themselves in. Just like many of the later films, Kubrick had no intention to give some sort of transcendent, super-heroic personality to the audience. The characters in his films were often anti-heroic and were conveyed with a strong sense of realism.  

Chess Hustler.

Many Kubrickian motifs were also present in the ‘The Killing’. Chess, which was something Kubrick was particularly masterful at, was featured in the film. The Chess represented a complex and strategic undertaking, which was very much similar to the methodical planning of the caper. Every member was like a chess piece, and was assigned a role in the plan. They were the nut and bolt of the mechanism Johnny Clay has been meticulously devised. Someone to shoot the horse to create panic and chaos, other to pick a fight in the bar to create distractions, so that Clay could hold up the ticket office without much interference. Every move has to be carefully contemplated, and carefully executed to reach the final outcome. Indeed, it is interesting to note that, Jean-Pierre Melville, the master of French heist films, also loved to use chess as a symbol in his minimalist crime films. 

On the other hand, Kubrick's clinical precision can also be felt through the film. The omniscient narrator provided precise details, for example the time and place, when the key action regarding the heist was taking place. This allows the audience to view the unfolding of events in a detached and objective manner, analyzing the heist in their own terms.

Some of the Kubrickian motifs appear in the film, for example:

The Kubrickian perspective

The double

The cosmic joke in the Kubrickian universe

On the edge - the baggage containing Johnny Clay's loot.

Yet, one of the most genius, and indeed philosophical aspect of the whole film was its concluding part. The ordeal ended in a dark and tragic way, for which our poor anti-hero had to submit to the brutal fatalism. Johnny Clay could get away with it – when the luggage with the loot inside was proved too big for a hand baggage to board on the plane, he had to put it with the other luggage. That could still work to be honest, if not because a puppy from a casual lady went off and ran on the track, panicking the luggage cart driver and made Johnny’s luggage fall onto the track! The bombardment sent all the cash flying in the air, and Johnny was doomed. This is Kubrick’s ironic sense of dark humor, and he completely destroyed this character. This scene is very symbolic, and to me it represented two aspects of human experience. First, the scenario reminded me of John Huston’s ‘The Treasure of Sierra Madre’, released a few years before ‘The Killing’. This should not be surprising because the Huston film was one of Kubrick's favorite films (and have also inspired numerous directors including Milius, Peckinpah, Nolan and P. T. Anderson). In the film, after Humphrey Bogart’s character’s paranoid delusion almost screwed up the master plan, the locals, who retrieved the gold dust, had no idea how valuable they were, and just threw them to the air! It seemed to reflect the impermanence of life, that unpredictable things just came and things you wished to persist could even go – everything is ephemeral.

Trouble from puppy, or trouble from fate? The series of events that led to Johnny's doom.

Second, it was that the most circumstantial thing could lead to the most catastrophic outcome and destroyed everything. Johnny Clay has carefully every nuts and bolts in the right place, and though there are a few pitfalls, he was still the pawn piece standing on the chessboard. But, it was the circumstantial chain of events that made him hit the wall, a force truly beyond his control. As his fiancée urged him to escape when the authority was closing in, he uttered the classic line, ‘eh, What’s the difference?’, signifying his submission to fate. This insignificant character was ultimately destroyed by the most circumstantial event in the universe possible.  The theme of fatalism was one that could feature again in Kubrick’s films, in particular ‘Barry Lyndon’. To Kubrick, life is often a balance between determinism and circumstance, and it was intertwined in such a complicated way that the question of free will would become futile. After all, looks like Johnny and his fiancée would not be able to live happily ever after...

'Eh, what's the difference?'

Concluding Remarks

Nuts and bolts fit together to make things work, yet if one falls off, everything screws up  - especially, when that component is known as ‘fate’...

(2/2)

by Ed Law

19/6/2016

Film Analysis - 66

The Killing, Part 1

When you are committed to give your best shot on something, how often will that be burnt to ruins due to one minor diversion? This was a question posed by Stanley Kubrick 60 years ago, through his classic film ‘The Killing’ (1956)!

‘The Killing’ was a heist film about the planning and execution of a daring racetrack robbery, orchestrated by a bunch of underdogs with Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden) as the leader. The meticulously planned heist went out well, yet at the end everything was destroyed either by personal intrigues or, at a darkly ironic twist, fate. I have to say Sterling Hayden was the perfect choice to star as the dark and cynical character, and of course, in the 1950s he was also the protagonist in Nicholas Ray’s ‘Johnny Guitar’. Hayden would appear again as General Jack Ripper in ‘Dr. Strangelove’, who seemed to have issues with contamination of his country men’s bodily fluids. Indeed, when Steven Spielberg was casting for ‘Jaws’ (1975), he had Sterling Hayden in mind as one of the 3 heroes to battle the shark, yet due to circumstances, the role eventually went to Robert Shaw. ‘The Killing’ was also noted for its non-linear narrative, which was not that common in the classical Hollywood era, and Quentin Tarantino has also cited ‘The Killing’ as an important  influence on his debut, ‘Reservoir Dogs’ (1992), which was also non-linear in terms of the narrative.

The gang and the plan.

One of the most stunning attributes of Kubrick’s oeuvre was that he has always been able to build on existing genre with his original touch, and in many case revolutionized the genre in question. This has indeed been happened since his earliest day, and ‘The Killing’ was a nice example to illustrate this aspect. ‘The Killing’ belongs to the genre of Film Noir, for which some commentators may consider that more as a style than a category of film. A strong sense of formalism can be easily spotted in a Film Noir, and Kubrick has made no intention to overturn the table here. Yet, he has included ‘Kubrickian’ elements into his brave attempt at the established genre, and what resulted was an original masterpiece that was very different in tone when compared to the other filmmakers of the day.

Wrong person at the wrong place?

The heist or robbery scenario, which was often termed a caper, was a very popular theme in many of the Film Noir, especially in the early 1950s. Examples ranged from John Huston’s ‘The Asphalt Jungle’ to Jules Dassin’s ‘Rififi’ and Jean-Pierre Melville’s ‘Bob le flambeur’, and many other examples followed. The heist film in the 1950s tended to follow a certain formula – which usually involved a technically-brilliant  and well-planned robbery plan, the successful execution of the crime, and often ended in a tragic way due to some humanistic factors – such as greed or betrayal. It seems that a dark ending is a necessary requirement for many of these heist films, and I have often wondered is this a morality concern or just an illustration of a pessimistic worldview?

Causing trouble or distraction?

Since these heist films could be considered as Film Noir, they often followed the standard style of the 

Noir-ish films. From a high-contrast / low key lighting scheme to the claustrophobic composition, from the depth in composition to suggest intrigue, and the chiaroscuro lighting pattern, these motifs all illustrate the ‘underdog’ status of these petty criminals and the status as the prisoners of their fate. Heist films are particularly good source for Film Noir because they also stressed the paranoia inherent in all of us. The worries that things will go wrong, and the prejudice and distrust exhibited towards the other members are often the factors that will screw up the ambitious train of fame these criminals plan to ride on.

To shoot or be shot?

In ‘The Killing’, Kubrick has adopted the aforementioned motifs so characteristic in the genre of Film Noir, and at the same time instilled his original touch to the film. Some of the techniques and motifs that would appear again and again in his later films gave their first appearance here, and it was also worthwhile to note that more experimental and non-Kubrickian techniques have also been employed. For example, the shots in the film were comparably shorter and faster cuts than his later work, which was characterized often by very protracted tracking shots and deliberate pacing. The shorter average shot length (ASL) in ‘The Killing’ was more akin to the style of Sergei M. Eisenstein and the other Russian montage pioneers, for which Kubrick has been fascinated and inspired by at the early stage of his career. Nevertheless, there were also evidences that Kubrick was experimenting sparingly with fluid tracking shot, which was most likely influenced by Max Ophuls’ ‘Lola Montes’ and his earlier work.  The shorter cut might also contribute to a more fragmented perspective experienced by the audience from the film, where the key characters were giving the own viewpoint on the heist and the matters related to that. Furthermore, the non-chronological narrative disoriented the viewer and increased the paranoia and uncertainty that could be experienced by the viewers, captivating the audience’s attention at the same time.

Solo performance - Johnny Clay's hold-up of the racetrack cashier.

(1/2)

by Ed Law

18/6/2016

Film Analysis - 66

野良犬

自黑澤明的'野良犬'面世後, 電影世界頓時多了很多失槍事件!

'野良犬'是黑澤明在1949年拍攝的作品。四十年代末期, 正值黑色電影(Film Noir)盛行的時期, 所以此片跟夾雜前後的'酩酊天使'和'羅生門'都同時模仿當時美國和歐洲黑色電影的風格。不過, 一如天皇的其他經典般, '野良犬'對後世電影亦有極深的影響。 它可以算是第一部伙伴式電影(buddy movie), 以兩個角色的對立性格去維持戲劇的張力, 經典動作喜劇'轟天炮' (Lethal Weapon)便是好好的例子。 另外, 此片的劇情也曾被多次重拍和改進 : 杜琪峯導演的'PTU'就是一個例子。當然, 警察失槍和在有限時間裏完成艱巨任務的橋段. 也算是對'野良犬'的一種致敬吧!

故事講述年輕而缺乏經驗的警察村上(三船敏郎飾)在公共汽車上被人盗去了自己的佩槍。 他心中感到羞愧時, 又企圖自行偵查, 以便找回手槍。可惜, 疑犯利用村上的佩槍進行了一宗命案。 東窗事發後, 警方便安排資深警員佐藤 (志村喬飾)協助村上一同追捕疑犯。 佐藤經驗老到, 開始找出了一些線索。 不過, 嫌疑犯再度用村上的佩槍搶劫殺人, 而佐藤在加以追踪時不幸被疑犯槍傷!  到最後, 村上自己又能否成功破案, 找回失槍呢?

'野良犬'具代表性的原因, 除了是因為它成為後來許多電影的模範外, 黑澤明亦能夠在一個固有的電影類型中, 融和自己的風格。 這就如我接下會談的史丹利.寇比力克電影’The Killing’ (1956)一樣,  而巧合的是兩片都屬黑色電影的類别。 作為一部黑色電影, 黑澤明除了在片中突顯了道德問題所存在的灰色地帶外, 在風格的處理亦都能夠烘托出破案期間的壓迫感和侷促不安。  在空間感的調度方面 , 黑澤明採納了傳統的佈景手法, 例如把人物排置於較深的景深空間(depth of field),  又或是把兩組動作安排在同一幕 (例如雙警盤問妓女的一場戲) 。 這些手法都是四五十年代西方電影裏常見的手法, 尤其頻見於黑色電影。 因為, 這樣可以給予觀眾一種幽閉的感覺,  加深構圖的張力。 而燈光效果的安排, 光和影在幕中的排佈, 亦給予觀眾一種强烈對比的視覺感受, 這也是黑色電影裏常見的效果。

另外, 黑澤明用自己獨特的手法, 將其融入了這部犯罪電影。 黑澤明擅於用天氣去襯托人的心境和事的情態, 在'野良犬'裏, 他又一次作出了完美的示範。  由片頭的酷熱, 去刻劃主角失槍後的焦急和不安; 然後烈風預示着接腫而來的麻煩和亂子; 到了逼近危險時, 狂雨就敲擊着地上的泥濘。  山雨欲來風滿樓, 變幻莫測的天氣彷彿象徵着村上迂迴險峻的旅程, 和他慌張不安的心情。他儼如一條野犬, 生存在殘酷無憐憫的世界中, 縱使驚惶失措, 亦還要勇鬥下去...

不過片中的戲劇張力, 是兩個主角性格的強烈對比。 師徒關係, 是黑澤明電影常談及的課題。在片中, 志村喬飾演的老差骨佐藤行事老練, 頭腦冷静, 比起三船敏郎飾演的躁警村上更能看透支離的綫索。佐藤把查案推理的手法傳授給處事魯莽衝動的村上。 天氣熱得令人透不過氣來時, 才是最需要平靜如水的心境。 不過, 佐藤最具啓發性的地方, 是他一直作為村上的道德方針。當村上為求達到目的而不擇手段時, 佐藤總能從旁勸導。佐藤彷彿就如黑澤明的化身, 像’羅生門’背後的啓示一樣: 即使在一個無道德的世界, 我們亦要堅信和履行自己的道德判斷。 尤其, 當在後來佐藤倒下時, 村上被逼孤軍作戰, 要獨力面對接下來的挑戰 時, 加深了存在主義的意味。 片中其中一個令人難忘的影像, 就是當兩人在街上走着時, 牆上打着條狀的影子。 縱使這是黑色電影裏常見的拍攝手法,  影子又像把兩人囚禁了起來, 象徵着他們的身不由己。就連村上自己也體會到他和疑犯的共通之處: 大家都像在亂世中苟且生存的野犬。在無道德的國度,  正邪往往只是 一線之差。

只有保持冷静的頭腦 , 和堅持自己的道德觀, 才能迎難而上, 衝破生命的難關!

by Ed Law

11/6/2016

以戲服人 Film Analysis - 65

The Two Faces of Stanley Kubrick

The stare (or scare?) is back!

Stanley Kubrick Series - 3

Though I have been a huge fan of Stanley Kubrick all the time, I feel rather uncomfortable to see that my blog is evolving in a ‘Kubrickian’ pace! Except I am pouring out masterpiece after masterpiece from this blog, this progress seems to be an unjustified excuse. Anyway, we are back and I will continue with my Stanley Kubrick series, along with a number of other great topics later in the year – Taxi Driver, Touch of Evil, Antonioni – to name a few at this stage. Before we drift ourselves through the Star Gate, getting enough peril and wrinkles and beyond, we have to first read the instructions!

You certainly have no idea of what you are stepping into!

I feel that it is an important point to appreciate the two diverse periods of style in Kubrick cinema. The drawing line seems to take place in 1964, when Dr. Strangelove was released. Before Kubrick offered this gift to us, his style was less consistent, though certain stylistic preference and themes have already sparingly appeared in the 5 or 6 feature films in the period from 1951-1963. This is what I would coin as a ‘non-Kubrickian’ period. Since 1964, the last 35 years of his life has seen Kubrick’s fully developed and heightened style, and the theme and stylistic motifs were extremely consistent, from the Kubrick stare to the tracking shot and reserve zoom. And that coldness Kubrick will always be remembered for – this is the period when his detractors would call him ‘clinical’, ‘impersonal’, ‘misanthropic’ or even ‘mechanical’. Yet after all, that is a better name for this wonderful style – Kubrickian. This is the style that appears from ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ to ‘A Clockwork Orange’ to ‘The Shining’, and, if fate allows it, ‘A. I.’ and ‘Napoleon’. The films from the Kubrickian period (1964-1999) are those that have influenced dozens of filmmakers and the ones they have tried so hard to imitate. Of course, it is also the area we will spend most time on in this series!

Kubrick getting really serious with Shelley Duvall during the filming of 'The Shining'. THE Kubrick Stare.

Why is such a distinction important? Because it is too easy to assume in a retrospective manner that ‘Kubrick is God!’ and jump to quick conclusion that everything Kubrick has ever done is considered masterpiece and follows a consistent style. If we really want to understand how Kubrick has inspired the later generation, it is certainly not an objective and indeed,  misleading point of reference. At the early stage of his career, Kubrick has experimented with a number of different stylistic motifs, before evolving into a highly stylized later period (e.g. approach to actors, cinematic rhythm, technical mastery). The early period from 1950s and 1960s consisted of amateurish attempts, films that were not to Kubrick’s original intention, and even work he was personally ashamed of. Some of the films, such as ‘Paths of Glory’ and ‘Spartacus’, are truly non-Kubrickian, and I often feel ‘Paths of Glory’ is too sentimental, a label not often attached to Stanley Kubrick. 

While the films of this period were of diverse style, subtle themes have already surfaced on many of these – as those themes were the ones Kubrick has been deeply concerned with from day one. The themes of the human condition, dehumanization, and fatalism could be found in almost every Kubrick film before Dr. Strangelove. On a positive note, I also feel that these films are nice diversions from the cold and clinical Kubrickian monoliths of the later years, and they serve as windows to explore the other face of Kubrick cinema.

The Killing (1956)

Of all the films from the early Kubrick period, one particular film stands out – ‘The Killing’ (1956). This Heist-Film Noir has received a lot of attention in recent years due to the availability of the DVD version, and it is also a great window to see the early genius of Stanley Kubrick. It is special because it seems to have uncanny resemblance to the ‘Kubrickian’ feel as evident in his post-1964 films. The worldview, the motif, and the ideas behind this Sterling Hayden epic sound too familiar to his later work such as ‘A Clockwork Orange’ and ‘Barry Lyndon’, which I feel to be the most Kubrickian films  - these are the ones showing how Kubrick defines the world we find ourselves situating in. 

Off to the race track, get a rifle and a mask, withhold the puppy – next time we are doing ‘The Killing’! 

This is a hold-up : Still from 'The Killing' (1956).

by Ed Law

5/6/2016

Film Analysis - 64