TITLE: On Old Films AUTHOR: Joe Johnson DATE: 9:03:00 AM ----- BODY:
C.S. Lewis wrote an article called "On the Reading of Old Books." In that short and essential essay, Lewis noted the value and surprise of going back a few centuries - or millennia - to read old authors. He wasn't being scholarly or imposing some kind of classical discipline. Instead, he argued, old books are more helpful. In new books, the accepted beliefs of our day generally go uncriticized. In old books, whatever is true is still true, but whatever is false is obviously false.

There's a similar perspective in watching old - or at least older - movies. Contemporary films have few shocking scenes, especially when they intend to be shocking. I have no interest in watching the Saw series, a work that creates shock from purely visceral extravagances. The lustiness of the American Pie series is lost on me. Instead, I'm more stunned by older films that smuggle in racial, gender, political or religious explosives.

Watching the films of classic era directors is a great starting point. Joseph Mankiewicz played with gender and age in many of his films. The suggestiveness of Cleopatra was dangerous. All About Eve was littered with one-liners and quick glances that packed in more envy, contempt and wit than most modern black comedies can hope to achieve.

Likewise, Howard Hawks never hides his feelings about domesticity - about the nuclear family or the feminine woman (or man). He promotes the power of masculinity, the value of career and sexual politics. He also plays with censor boards, pushing text and context. Consider Gentlemen Prefer Blondes:
Guy 1 (staring at Jane Russell's and Marilyn Monroe's torso): Say, suppose the ship hits an iceberg and sinks. Which one of them do you save from drowning? Guy 2: Those girls couldn't drown.

It's not difficult to go back further, to the silents and people like de Mille and D.W. Griffith. De Mille exploited the R-rated nature of Romans and biblical stories for all they were worth. Consider the Claudette Colbert's donkey milk bath in Sign of the Cross. Griffith decorated the Babylonian court with women in Intolerance. Even Fritz Lang played with highly suggestive nudity in Metropolis.

DeMille, Griffith and Lang worked largely before the production code, and there was an illicit and provocative nature to their naughtiness. It was limited by the social mores of the day, walking a fine line between the lure of cinema and the loud moral charges against it (not unlike the modern era).

The Hayes code may have produced the most interesting and playful shocking scenes. Hitchcock was the master of smuggling sexual tension. His train ride affair between Eva Marie Saint and Cary Grant is the stuff of legends. Notorious is riddled with suggestiveness concerning adultery and promiscuity.

Part of my hatred for the "PG-13" rating is that it allows filmmakers to be lazy. Violence can be loud and vulgar, but the absence of two "F"-words makes it appropriate for teenagers. Likewise, sexual conversation isn't ever muted, subtle or suggestive. It's boringly frank and technical. Violence is exploited.

The Hayes code is not the ideal of any generation, but it did force a level of creativity from writers, producers and directors that is no longer necessary. Instead of Psycho's artfully violent and sexual shower scene - something that shows neither the knife's penetration or nudity - the contemporary film can pull back into wide shots, showing as much of the actress as necessary, with blood spurts and voyeuristic indulgence. And, in the process, the modern film is less shocking and intriguing.

Labels:

--------