国际电影导演词典（英文版）：2-2

415 H HAANSTRA, Bert Nationality: Dutch. Born: Holten, Holland, 31 May 1916. Educa- tion: Academy of Arts, Amsterdam. Career: Painter and press photographer, from late 1930s; joined Royal Dutch Shell Film Unit, 1952; producer and manager, Shell Film Unit, Venezuela, 1956; founded production company, Bert Haanstra Filmproductie, 1960. Awards: Grand Prix (documentary), Cannes Festival, for Mirror of Holland, 1951. Died: 23 October 1997, in Hilversum, Netherlands. Films as Director: 1948 De Muiderkring herleeft (The Muyder Circle Lives Again) (+ sc, ph, ed) 1950 Spiegel van Holland (Mirror of Holland) (+ sc, ph, ed) 1951 Nederlandse beeldhouwkunst tijdens de late Middeleeuwen (Dutch Sculpture) (+ co-ed); Panta Rhei (All Things Flow) (+ sc, ph, ed) Bert Haanstra 1952 Dijkbouw (Dike Builders) (+ sc, ed) 1954 Ont staan en vergaan (The Changing Earth) (+ sc); De opsporing van aardolie (The Search for Oil) (+ sc); De verkenningsboring (The Wildcat) (+ sc); Het olieveld (The Oilfield) (+ sc) 1955 The Rival World (Strijd zonder einde) (+ ed, sc); God Shiva (+ sc, pr, ed); En de zee was niet meer (And There Was No More Sea) (+ pr, sc, ed) 1957 Rembrandt, schilder van de mens (Rembrandt, Painter of Man) (+ pr, sc, ed) 1958 Over glas gesproken (Speaking of Glass) (+ pr, sc, ed); Glas (Glass) (+ co-ed, pr, sc); Fanfare (+ co-sc, co-ed) 1960 De zaak M.P. (The M.P. Case) (+ co-sc, co-ed, pr) 1962 Zoo (+ pr, sc, ed); Delta Phase I (+ pr, sc, ed) 1963 Alleman (The Human Dutch) (+ co-sc, narration for English and German versions) 1966 De stem van het water (The Voice of the Water) (+ co-sc, pr, ed) 1967 Retour Madrid (Return Ticket to Madrid) (+ co-pr, co-ph) 1972 Bij de beesten af (Ape and Super Ape) (+ pr, sc, ed, co-commentary, co-add’l ph, narration) 1975 Dokter Pulder zaait papavers (Dr. Pulder Sows Poppies, When the Poppies Bloom Again) (+ pr) 1978 Nationale Parken . . . noodzaak (National Parks . . . a Neces- sity, National Parks in the Netherlands) (+ pr, sc, ed) 1979 Een pak slaag (Mr. Slotter’s Jubilee) (+ pr) 1983 Vroeger kon je lachen (One Could Laugh in Former Days) (+ pr, sc); Nederland (The Netherlands) (+ pr, sc, ed) 1988 Kinderen van Ghana Other Films: 1949 Myrte en de demonen (Myrte and the Demons) (Schreiber) (ph); Boer Pietersen schiet in de roos (Bull’s Eye for Farmer Pietersen) (Brusse) (ph) 1955 Belgian Grand Prix (Hughes) (co-ph) 1957 De gouden Ilsy (The Golden Ilsy) (van der Linden) (ph); Olie op reis (Pattern of Supply) (Pendry) (pr) 1959 Paleontologie (Schakel met het verleden; Story in the Rocks) (van Gelder) (pr, tech advisor) 1960 Lage landen (Hold Back the Sea) (Sluizer) (tech advisor) 1962 De overval (The Silent Raid) (Rotha) (co-sc, uncredited) 1968 Pas assez (Not Enough; Niet genoeg) (van der Velde) (ed) 1970 Trafic (Tati) (collaborator); Summer in the Fields (van der Linden) (ed) 1972 Grierson (Blais) (role as interviewee) 1979 Juliana in zeventig bewogen jaren (Juliana in Seventy Turbu- lent Years) (Kohlhaas) (advisor) HALLSTROM DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 416 Publications By HAANSTRA: articles— ‘‘Gresprek met Bert Haanstra en prof. dr. G.P. Behrends,’’ with R. du Mèe and others, in Skoop (Amsterdam), vol.8, no.6, 1972. ‘‘Geen klachten over hoeveelheid aandacht voor Nederlandse film,’’ in Skoop (Amsterdam), February 1976. Interview with Freddy Sartor, in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), November 1996. On HAANSTRA: book— Verdaasdonk, Dorothee, editor, Bert Haanstra, Amsterdam, 1983. On HAANSTRA: articles— ‘‘Director of the Year,’’ in International Film Guide, London, 1966. Cowie, Peter, ‘‘Bert Haanstra,’’ in Focus on Film (London), Spring 1972. ‘‘Bert Haanstra,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1981. Bertina, B.J., ‘‘Haanstra en het onverzorgde corpus van Dorothee Verdaasdonk,’’ in Skoop (Amsterdam), December 1983/Janu- ary 1984. ‘‘Niet van deze wereld,’’ in Skoop, December-January 1987–1988. Daems, Jo, ‘‘Het beste van Bert Haanstra. Lang verborgen schat (her)ontdekt,’’ in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), May- June 1990. Hommel, Michel, and Hauffmann, F., ‘‘Hulot in de menigte. Twee kapiteins op een schip,’’ in Skrien (Amsterdam), June-July 1991. Monster, Ruud, and others,’’Ecce homo. Hommage Bert Haanstra,’’ in Skrien (Amsterdam), August-September 1996. Obituary, in Skrien (Amsterdam), December-January 1997–1998. *** Bert Haanstra is one of Holland’s most renowned filmmakers. The twenty-eight films he made between 1948 and 1988 belong to various genres. His first films were documentaries. Typical of these, and a hallmark of Haanstra’s personal style, is the frequent use of ‘‘rhyming images’’ and of images blending into each other. Critics responded warmly to the lyrical and pictorial qualities of Haanstra’s early work. In his films about oil drilling, commissioned by Shell, Haanstra showed that instructional films can be of artistic as well as informative value. Haanstra’s first feature film, Fanfare, was a comedy and a big hit at the box office. The film, however, was also praised for its artistic importance and considered by many as a turning point in Dutch film: ‘‘This film should set the tone for the future production of Dutch feature-films,’’ wrote a critic. His second feature film, De zaak M. P., was very coolly received, however, and Haanstra turned again to making documentaries. Discussions in the 1960s about the establishment of a tradition of Dutch feature films—a tradition lacking at that time—were heavily influenced by the views on film expressed by the French nouvelle vague cineastes. Haanstra’s long documentaries, Alleman, De stem van het water, and Bij de beesten af, show him perfectly able to catch the peculiarities of human behavior, especially those of the Dutch. These three films still enjoy a firm reputation in Holland and elsewhere. Alleman and Bij de beesten af were nominated for Acad- emy Awards. Although the number of movie-goers in Holland has sharply decreased, Haanstra’s public has remained large and loyal. In 1975 Haanstra made his first novel-based film. Dokter Pulder zaait papavers gives a subtle and detailed analysis of a number of fundamental human problems: loss of love, social failure, aging, and addiction to drugs and liquor. The film is psychologically convincing and full of tension. Een pak slaag, again based on a novel by Anton Koolhaas, failed to interest the public. In 1983 Haanstra brought out another feature film with Simon Carmiggelt as the main character listening to the tragicomic monologues of various ordinary people. Carmiggelt’s ability to render this type of monologue had won a wide audience for his daily columns, which have appeared since 1945 in a Dutch newspaper. The film, Vroeger kon je lachen, was well received. By virture of Haanstra’s diversity of films and of his great reputation with critics and the public, Haanstra made an invaluable contribution to the establishment of a Dutch film tradition. He remains a very important representative of the Dutch documentary school, which grew to fame in the 1960s and won countless awards at international film festivals. Haanstra’s own films have won over 70 prizes; he received an Academy Award for Glas, a short documentary film. As a director of feature films he convinced a large audience that Dutch films can (and should) be judged according to the same standards as important foreign films. His films, and also his cooperation with Simon Carmiggelt and Anton Koolhaas, show that Haanstra’s work is firmly rooted in Dutch culture, which, however, he transcended by taking it as an example of more general aspects of human behavior. This is beautifully exempli- fied in Bij de beesten af. Although his films do not contain explicit political statements, Haanstra was anything but a ‘‘neutral observer.’’ By the art of montage he gave his films a deeper meaning which not infrequently embodied a critical view of human society and poignant tragicomic scenes. —Dorothee Verdaasdonk HALLSTROM, Lasse Nationality: Swedish. Born: Stockholm, Sweden, 1946. Family: Married actress Lena Olin; one daughter, Tora, 1995. Career: Made 16mm film as a teenager that was eventually screened on Swedish TV; filmed and edited inserts for Swedish TV; directed program ‘‘Shall We Dance’’ for Danish TV; director and producer of TV programs and feature films. Awards: Academy Award nominations, director and screenplay, for My Life as a Dog. Agent: International Creative Management, 8942 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, Califor- nia, 90211, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1975 A Lover and His Lass 1977 ABBA—The Movie HALLSTROMDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 417 Lasse Hallstrom 1979 Father to Be 1981 The Rooster 1983 Happy We 1985 My Life as a Dog (+ co-sc) 1986 The Children of Bullerby Village 1987 More about the Children of Bullerby Village 1991 Once Around (+ sc) 1993 What’s Eating Gilbert Grape (+ co-exec pr) 1995 Something to Talk About 1996 The Golden Hour 1999 The Cider House Rules 2000 Chocolat Other Films: 1993 World of Film (television special) (role) Publications By HALLSTROM: articles— Interview with W. Schneider, in Video, June 1988. Interview with Anneli Jordahl and H. Lagher, in Chaplin (Stock- holm), vol. 33, no. 2, 1991. On HALLSTROM: articles— Powers, John, ‘‘What’s Eating Gilbert Grape,’’ in New York, 17 January 1994. Alleva, Richard, ‘‘What’s Eating Gilbert Grape,’’ in Commonweal, 22 April 1994. Schickel, Richard, ‘‘Something to Talk About,’’ in Time, 14 August 1995. Travers, Peter, ‘‘Something to Talk About,’’ in Rolling Stone, 24 August 1995. Blocker, Jane, ‘‘Woman-House: Architecture, Gender, and Hybridity in ‘What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?,’’’ in Camera Obscura (Bloom- ington), September 1996. Rooney, David, ‘‘The Cider House Rules,’’ in Variety (New York), 13 September 1999. *** Lasse Hallstrom’s career has been built upon the substantial foundation of a single film, My Life as a Dog, the film that brought him immediate international recognition and achieved (for a film in a foreign language) an appreciable popular success outside Sweden, and on the strength of which he was invited to Hollywood. The lure of Hollywood is obviously very potent—especially if you are a young filmmaker on the threshold of your career. Whether it was wise of Hallstrom to accept the invitation remains, at this point, after three Hollywood movies of varying distinction, open to discussion. Hallstrom’s is the kind of gentle, somewhat diffident talent that can easily get submerged or misused in the Hollywood machinery, its businessmen’s eyes on box office receipts as production costs (and stars’ salaries) soar into the stratosphere. My Life as a Dog is a minor masterpiece, and one of the finest films about childhood ever made, sensitive without sentimentality, generous but clear-sighted, disturbing in its full awareness of what W. B. Yeats called ‘‘the ignominy of boyhood,’’ in turns painful, poignant, and hilarious. Essentially, it is a film about survival, celebrating the resilience of its young hero Ingemar while unflinch- ingly depicting experiences that must leave lifetime scars. One can imagine such a film being made within the Hollywood context only in a much softened, sentimentalized, and bowdlerized form. The early sequences depict Ingemar’s experiences in a family from which the father is completely absent (according to Ingemar, loading bananas somewhere abroad, a task for which the boy tries to convince himself that his father is indispensable—though this may be either pure fantasy or a lie he has been told by adults who lie to him as matter of course), and otherwise consisting of a mother who is dying of (presumably) consumption and an elder brother who has inoculated himself with insensitivity and an assumption of superiority—a ‘‘fam- ily’’ in which his only comfort is a dog on which he showers his otherwise unwanted attentions, and which is casually (while Ingemar is away) ‘‘put to sleep’’ as a mere inconvenience. A running theme is Ingemar’s exposure to adult sexuality in its multitudinous variety. Especially problematic in Hollywood would be his relationship with a young girl who wants to be perceived as a boy in order to continue playing on the boys’ football team, and who becomes Ingemar’s sparring partner/opponent in the boxing ring—her ambivalence to her sexuality expressed in her attempts to conceal her developing breasts HANI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 418 whilst repeatedly attracting Ingemar’s attention to them. The film ends with them huddled up together on a sofa, their complicated sexual/gender problems apparently resolved. Of Hallstrom’s three Hollywood films the second, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?, is clearly the most successful; it is also, not coinci- dentally, the closest to My Life as a Dog, the characters so memorably incarnated by Johnny Depp and Leonardo di Caprio both relating in somewhat different ways to Ingemar, with Juliette Lewis replacing his idiosyncratic and rebellious girlfriend. Far less audacious than the Swedish film, it is nevertheless a very offbeat project for Hollywood, conceived perhaps as much for its variously eccentric stars as for its atypical director. It allows Hallstrom license to develop his favorite themes—the dysfunctional family, survival within conditions so unpromising as to appear to predetermine defeat—and his finest qualities of generosity and emotional delicacy. One might single out (because on paper they would appear particularly hazardous) Depp’s scenes with Mary Steenburgen, the lonely and desperate older woman who uses him as a sexual outlet. Hazardous because such a situation has traditionally (and not only in Hollywood films) been taken as a pretext for the most vindictive and gloating cruelties at the woman’s expense. Here, Hallstrom achieves the perfect balance between conflicting needs, each treated with equal sympathy: Steenburgen’s sense of deprivation, Depp’s need to extricate himself from a situation he has entered into because he is used to being used (everyone in the film has claims on him) and now feels to be false. The least successful seems to me Hallstrom’s Hollywood debut, Once Around, although it contains some wonderful scenes and fine performances: its central premise, that a wealthy and aggressive American businessman, with the kind of energy that goes into the multiplication of dollars, might legitimately incarnate the ‘‘life force,’’ rejuvenating (with occasional setbacks) all the other characters, is quite simply inadmissible, at least as presented here, without apparent irony. Hallstrom’s film Something to Talk About got a generally bad press (a side-effect, perhaps, of backlash against Julia Roberts, as mindless as the previous adulation); it seems to me a more interesting, intelligent, and coherent film than it has been given credit for. It does, however, raise a question: a new departure for Hallstrom (one would never, I think, guess it was his film), or evidence of his final absorption into ‘‘Hollywood’’ and all that word has come to convey? My present inclination is to defend it, as I think it has been misrepre- sented. It has been perceived, generally, as a somewhat banal account of how Dennis Quaid, the unfaithful husband, gets his comeuppance and learns to behave ‘‘correctly.’’ In fact, Quaid is presented no more critically than the other characters. The real subject of the film (and the real meaning of its title) is that sexual and gender tensions and problems in marriage should be ‘‘something to talk about,’’ not push under the carpet. The film’s critique of marital infidelity (in the older, as well as the younger, generation) rests essentially on the old but still operative ‘‘double standard’’: husbands do it, wives don’t. Roberts’s exposure of its ubiquity, although greeted on all sides with horror, becomes an act of liberation, potentially for everyone, male and female. It is only superficially that the film can be read along conventional lines (‘‘Husbands should be punished for infidelity’’); it is open to a different reading, that our attitudes toward marriage, sex, fidelity, etc., all need to be rethought and, above all, opened to discussion. It seems to be an open question as to where Hallstrom will, or indeed can, go from here. —Robin Wood HANI, Susumu Nationality: Japanese. Born: Tokyo, 19 October 1926. Education: Graduated from Jiyu Gakuen, Tokyo. Family: Married actress Sachiko Hidari, 1960. Career: Began working for Kyoto News Agency, 1945; joined Iwanami Eiga production company, initially as still photographer, 1950; directed first film, 1952; producer, writer and director for TV, from 1959; formed Hani productions, mid-1960s. Awards: First Prize (educational short), Venice Festival, and First Prize (short film), Cannes Festival, for Children Who Draw, 1955; Special Jury Prize for Best Direction, Moscow festival, for Children Hand in Hand, 1965. Films as Director: 1952 Seikatsu to mizu (Water in Our Life) (co-d, co-sc) Yuki matsuri (Snow Festival) (+ sc) 1953 Machi to gesui (The Town and Its Drains) (+ sc) 1954 Anata no biru (Your Beer) (+ sc); Kyoshitsu no kodomotachi (Children in the Classroom) (+ sc) 1955 Eo kaku kodomotachi (Children Who Draw) (+ sc) 1956 Group no shido (Group Instruction) (+ sc); Soseiji gakkyu (Twin Sisters) (+ sc); Dobutsuen nikki (Zoo Story) (feature) (+ sc) 1958 Shiga Naoya (+ sc); Horyu-ji (Horyu Temple) (+ sc); Umi wa ikiteiru (The Living Sea) (feature) (+ sc); Nihon no buyo (Dances in Japan) (+ sc): Tokyo 1958 (co-d, co-sc, co-ed) 1960 Furyo shonen (Bad Boys) 1962 Mitasareta seikatsu (A Full Life) (+ co-sc): Te o tsunagu kora (Children Hand in Hand) 1963 Kanojo to kare (She and He) (+ co-sc) 1965 Bwana Toshi no uta (The Song of Bwana Toshi) (+ co-sc) 1966 Andesu no hanayome (Bride of the Andes) (+ sc) 1968 Hatsuoki jig ok uhen (Inferno of First Love; Nanami: Inferno of First Love) (+ co-sc) 1969 Aido (Aido, Slave of Love) 1970 Mio (+ sc, co-ed) 1972 Gozenchu no jikanwari (Timetable; Morning Schedule) (+ co-sc) 1981 Afurika monogatari (A Tale of Africa) (co-d) Publications By HANI: books— Engishinai shuyakutachi [The Leading Players Who Do Not Act, The Non-professional Actor], 1958. Camera to maiku no ronri [Aesthetics of Camera and Micro- phone], 1960. HANIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 419 Susumu Hani Afurika konnan ryoko [My Travels in Africa, Report about Film Making in Africa], 1965. Andes ryoko [Travels in the Andes, Report About Film Making in the Andes], 1966. By HANI: articles— Interview with James Blue, in Film Comment (New York), Spring 1969. ‘‘En préparant Mio,’’ in Ecran (Paris), July/August 1972. ‘‘Susumu Hani: a decouvrir avec Bwana Toshi,’’ interview with A. Tournès, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), April/May 1979. On HANI: books— Mellen, Joan, Voices from the Japanese Cinema, New York, 1975. Sato, Tadao, Currents in Japanese Cinema, Tokyo, 1982. Richie, Donald, Japanese Cinema: An Introduction, New York, 1990. Davis, Darrell William, Picturing Japaneseness: Monumental Style, National Identity, Japanese Film (Film and Culture), New York, 1995. On HANI: article— ‘‘Susumu Hani,’’ in Film Dope (London), September 1981. *** Susumu Hani was born in Tokyo in 1928, the son of a famous liberal family. After schooling, he worked for a while as a journalist at Kyoto Press and entered filmmaking as a documentarist in 1950 when he joined Iwanami Productions. Most of his later dramatic features reflect his early documentary training, relying on authentic locations, amateur actors, hand-held camera techniques, and an emphasis upon contemporary social issues. His film career comprises three areas: documentary films; narra- tives relating to social problems, especially among the young; and dramas focusing on the emerging woman. Of the 18 documentaries made between 1952 and 1960, the best known are Children in the Classroom and Children Who Draw Pictures. The latter won the 1957 Robert Flaherty Award. Hani’s first dramatic feature, Bad Boys, further develops many of his previous concerns. The film, a loose series of situations about HARTLEY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 420 reform school, was enacted by former inmates who improvised dialogue. For Hani, truth emerges from the juxtaposition of fiction and fact. He also believes that all people have an innate capacity for acting. Subsequent films, which deal with the effect of post-war urban realities on the lives of the young, include Children Hand in Hand and Inferno of First Love. The former depicts young children in a provin- cial town and especially one backward child who becomes the butt of the other children’s malicious teasing and pranks; the latter is a story of two adolescents in modern Tokyo, each of whom has been exploited, who find with each other a short-lived refuge. Like his earlier documentaries, these films explore themes relating to broken homes, the alienation of modern society, the traumatic effects of childhood, the oppressiveness of a feudal value system, and the difficulty of escaping, even in an alternative social structure. To all these films Hani brings a deep psychological understanding of the workings of the human psyche. Finally, each of these films focuses on individual growth and self-awakening, although Hani is clear to indicate that the problems cannot be solved on a personal level. Both topics—growing self-awareness and a critique of the existing social order—connect these works with Hani’s second major theme, the emergence of women. Hani’s first film on this subject was A Full Life, which deals with the efforts of a young wife, married to a self-involved older man, to forge a life of her own in the competitive world of modern Tokyo. After demeaning work and involvement in the student demonstrations of the early 1960s, the wife returns home, a changed woman. Hani’s other films on this topic are She and He, the depiction of a middle-class marriage in which the wife gains independence by her kindness to a local ragpicker, and Bride of the Andes, the story of a mail-order Japanese bride in Peru who finds personal growth through her relationship with South American Indians. As in A Full Life, none of these women are able to make a full break with their husbands. However, through personal growth (usually affected by contact with a group or person marginal to society), they are able to challenge the patriarchal values of Japanese society as represented by their husbands and to return to the relationship with new understand- ing and dignity. Both films starred Sachiko Hidari, who was then his wife. Contact with a non-Japanese society and challenging Japanese xenophobia also occur in The Song of Bwana Toshi, which was filmed in Kenya and deals with Toshi, an ordinary Japanese man living in Central Africa. Here he cooperates with natives and rises above his isolation to establish brotherhood with foreigners. Hani’s subsequent work, Timetable, combines his interest in contemporary youth with his continued interest in modern women. The story deals with two high school girls who decide to take a trip together. The fiction feature, which is narrated, was filmed in 8mm and each of the major actors was allowed to shoot part of the film. Further, the audience is informed of who is shooting, thereby ac- knowledging the filmmaker within the context of the work. The use of 8mm is not new for Hani. More than half of his fourth film was originally shot in 8mm. Likewise, the use of a narrator dates back to A Full Life. Throughout his career, Hani has concerned himself with people who have difficulty in communicating with one another. His documentaries, narratives on social problems, and dramas on emerg- ing women have established his reputation as one of the foremost psychologists of the Japanese cinema. —Patricia Erens HARTLEY, Hal Nationality: American. Born: Lindenhurst, New York, 3 November 1959. Education: Attended Massachusetts College of Art, late 1970s; State University of New York at Purchase Film School, graduated with honors, 1984. Family: Married to actress Miho Nikaido.Ca- reer: Freelance production assistant, mid-1980s; worked for Action Productions (public service announcements), whose president spon- sored Hartley’s first feature, The Unbelievable Truth, 1989; this film’s success at the Toronto Film Festival led to its commercial release by Miramax, 1990. Awards: Deauville and Sao Palo Interna- tional Film Festivals, Audience Awards, for Trust, 1990; Tokyo International Film Festival, Silver Award, for Amateur, 1994; Cannes Film Festival, Best Screenplay, for Henry Fool, 1998. Address: c/o True Fiction Pictures, 12 W. 27th St., New York, NY 10001, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1984 Kid (short, student thesis film) (+ sc, ed, pr) 1987 The Cartographer’s Girlfriend (short) (+ ed, pr) 1988 Dogs (short) (+ pr, co-sc) 1990 The Unbelievable Truth (+ sc, ed, pr) 1991 Trust (+ sc); Theory of Achievement (short, for TV) (+ sc, mus); Surviving Desire (for TV) (+ sc, ed); Ambition (short, for TV) (+ sc) 1992 Simple Men (+ sc, co-pr, mus) Hal Hartley HARTLEYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 421 1994 Amateur (+ sc, pr, mus); NYC 3/94 (short) (+ pr, sc); Opera No. 1 (short) (+ sc, mu) 1995 Flirt (+ sc, mus, role) 1997 Henry Fool (+ pr, sc, mu) 1998 The Book of Life (for TV) (+ sc) 2000 Kimono (+ sc) Publications By HARTLEY: books— Simple Men and Trust (screenplays), London and Boston, 1992. Amateur (screenplay), London and Boston, 1994. Flirt (screenplay), London and Boston, 1996. Henry Fool (screenplay), London and Boston, 1998. By HARTLEY: articles— ‘‘The Particularity and Peculiarity of Hal Hartley,’’ interview with Justin Wyatt, in Film Quarterly, Fall 1998. ‘‘Hal Hartley—Nobody’s Fool,’’ interview with Dov Kirnits, http:// filmink-online.com/hbs.cgi/feature=37, May 2000. On HARTLEY: articles— Fuller, Graham, ‘‘Hal Hartley’s World of Trouble and Desire,’’ in Interview (New York), September 1992. Hogue, Peter, ‘‘Bands of Outsiders,’’ in Film Comment (New York), January-February 1993. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Trusting Hal Hartley,’’ in Film Comment (New York), January-February 1993. Bauer, Douglas, ‘‘An Independent Vision,’’ in Atlantic Monthly (Boston), April 1994. Comer, Brooke, ‘‘Amateur’s Tenebrous Images,’’ in American Cinema- tographer (Hollywood), August 1995. Jones, Kent, ‘‘Hal Hartley: The Book I Read Was in Your Eyes,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July-August 1996. Gilbey, Ryan, ‘‘Pulling the Pin on Hal Hartley,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), November 1998. Hernandez, Eugene, ‘‘Digital Video: Catch the Wave,’’ in The Independent, January-February 1999. *** Well known in Europe, but more of a cult favorite than a box- office draw in his native United States, Hal Hartley has been held in high critical esteem for his quirky feature films and shorts and, incidentally, for putting Long Island on the map of famed cinematic locales. Writing his own screenplays, punctuating the dramas with his own sparse music, and working often with the same actors and technicians, Hartley is a model of the resolutely independent film artist. His 1997 Henry Fool, given wider distribution and greater media coverage than any of his previous works, is still far from mainstream American fare. Hartley’s screenplays are among the most distinctive features of his cinema. Reminiscent of both David Mamet (perhaps the film House of Games as well as certain plays) and Harold Pinter (chiefly the period of The Homecoming), Hartley’s dialogue tends toward the laconic and the absurd: occasionally downright hilarious and almost always droll, especially when spoken by mostly humorless charac- ters. Of the actors whom Hartley has used a number of times, Martin Donovan is supreme in his deadpan delivery of lines, with exactly the right amount of dry irony, anger, or cluelessness, as the moment calls for—though stage actor Thomas Jay Ryan, making his film debut as Henry Fool, speaks as if born to the Hartley world. Of cinematic influences, Jean-Luc Godard has constantly been singled out. Occasionally Hartley appears to be doing a conscious homage, as in the sudden burst into dance in Surviving Desire, a nod to Bande à part (Band of Outsiders)—but a dance scene in Simple Men, similarly unexpected but more elaborately choreographed and integrated into the story, seems altogether original. The stylization of violence in Amateur also recalls Godard, though the shoving matches of most of the earlier films are pure Hartley. Perhaps more subtly Godardian, Weekend vintage, are the vacant landscapes of ‘‘Long Island’’ (actually Texas, for the most part) in Simple Men, where characters more or less stumble through their peculiar lives. The Unbelievable Truth displays Hartley’s unmistakable style and tone. With a plot suited for either soap opera or film noir in its melodrama and romantic entanglements—an ex-con returns to the town where he caused the deaths of two people, and where he is shunned by most but loved by a rebellious young woman—the film is instead a black comedy with a bent toward real romance, all centered around the question of trusting people enough to accept their versions of ‘‘the true story.’’ Hartley’s hometown of Lindenhurst, a rather ramshackle-looking small town half metamorphosed into a commuter suburb, seems the perfect pale backdrop for his oddball characters. Trust superficially resembles The Unbelievable Truth, with Adrienne Shelley again as a rebellious youth, Lindenhurst as locus of American family dysfunction, and some of the same droll comedy. Yet it has a considerably darker tone overall, with its brutal parents, severely asocial hero (Martin Donovan), and unexpected violence—as in the liquor store clerk’s attack upon the Shelley character. In its confident handling of mixed moods it foreshadows the emotional complexities of Henry Fool. Simple Men, set on a more rural Long Island after a brief stop in Lindenhurst, has a wilder plot than Trust and if anything more outrageous comedy, as two sons—a criminal and a college student—follow clues in search of their long-missing father, a reputed terrorist bomber. The cynical Bill, who notes that ‘‘you don’t need an ideology to knock over a liquor store,’’ has been betrayed in love, and so is determined to seduce women by appearing to be ‘‘mysterious, thoughtful, deep, but modest’’ and then ‘‘throw them away.’’ Of course he falls for a woman who claims to find him all of those things (she manages to use all four adjectives in a short conversation), although the words seem to apply much more to her. The less- experienced Dennis falls for an eccentric Rumanian who turns out to be his father’s new girlfriend. When he points out that his father is a womanizer—a married man who has also stood her up—she tells him he should be more respectful. Including two actors from The Unbelievable Truth who essentially reprise their roles as garage mechanic and assistant—and featuring a nun who answers a question about a medallion with, ‘‘It’s the Holy Blessed Virgin, you idiot,’’ before wrestling the man to the ground—Simple Men often crosses the border into farce, then withdraws to a dryer detachment. Again issues of truth and reliability are central, though this film is in addition more directly concerned with masculine values and behavior than any HAWKS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 422 of the others. The story is almost always focused upon the two brothers and their attitudes toward their father, or their confusion about women; the women are rarely seen apart from men observing them; the talk is very often macho, though at one point the two couples and another would-be lover preposterously launch into a discourse about Madonna and modern women’s ‘‘control over the exploitation f their own bodies.’’ Amateur, more or less commissioned by Isabel Huppert, who stars in it, is yet more melodramatic, featuring an amnesiac (Donovan again), evidently a sadistic criminal in his ‘‘former life,’’ who is befriended by an ex-nun who wants to write pornography—the pair of them having to flee various crazed and criminal types. Here the themes of trust and the knowability of a mysterious person’s past are developed through the most lurid situations. Flirt is equally about love and betrayal, but is also an experiment in structure: Hartley’s fifth feature is actually a trilogy of short films, each using some of the same dialogue and following the same dramatic trajectory, but with different settings (New York, Berlin and Tokyo) and gender relations, according to whether the character accused of flirting—i.e., being unwilling to commit—is straight or gay, male or female. Some critics found the film boring and pretentious because of its schematic nature and extreme self-reflexivity (in the Tokyo segment the director himself plays a character named ‘‘Hal’’ who carries around a can of a film called ‘‘Flirt’’). However, those content to enjoy some very witty variations on the first segment’s patterns, and to savor contrasts of locale—e.g., the Tokyo is unexpectedly in a dance-studio with performers in white makeup and gauzy outfits—may find Flirt delightful (though with the usual disturbing edge of violence), even if lacking ‘‘profundity.’’ Henry Fool features the Hartley style on what he himself has called a more ‘‘epic’’ scale, beginning with length (it’s more than a half hour longer than any of his other features). Once again we have a man with a mysterious criminal past (‘‘An honest man is always in trouble, Simon. Remember that. . . . I’ve been bad. Repeatedly. But why brag?’’), dead-end blue-collar lives, a contrasting pair of pals (like the brothers in Simple Men), sudden violence (more vicious, less stylized than usual), themes of trust and betrayal, and splendidly non- sequitur dialogue from characters who take themselves very seri- ously. (Henry looking through Hustler: ‘‘I refuse to discriminate between modes of knowing.’’) A parable with an ambiguous mes- sage, the film is initially less focused upon Henry than upon Simon Grim, a despairing garbage man whom Henry encourages to write down his thoughts. The poem Simon comes up with has profound but unpredictable effects on everyone who reads it: a mute Asian clerk at World of Donuts begins to sing; his mother commits suicide; many find it obscene, but Camille Paglia (as herself) loves its ‘‘pungent, squalid element. . . the authentically trashy voice of American culture’’; Sweden gives him the Nobel Prize for Literature, while Henry’s much talked about ‘‘confessions’’ are rejected as bad writing by Simon and his publisher. Henry Fool must have more moments than any film in history in which people read intently, their lives changed by words on a page. Hartley could be accused of conde- scending to his often pathetic Queens characters, but the film is more shocking than and certainly as funny as any of his previous work. All of Hartley’s films call attention to their own artifice, most typically through their stylized dialogue and distinctive manner of acting. The Book of Life, an hour-long work commissioned by French television for an end-of-the-millennium series, pursues some new directions, experimenting with digital video and a prominent musical score for a Second-Coming tale of Jesus in Manhattan (with Martin Donovan in the lead role and singer P.J. Harvey as Mary Magdalene). But whatever directions Hartley pursues, one may expect his work still to feature a curious balance of artifice and passion, melodrama and cool wit. —Joseph Milicia HAWKS, Howard Nationality: American. Born: Howard Winchester Hawks in Goshen, Indiana, 30 May 1896. Education: Pasadena High School, Califor- nia, 1908–13; Phillips Exeter Academy, New Hampshire, 1914–16; Cornell University, New York, degree in mechanical engineering, 1917. Military Service: Served in U.S. Army Air Corps, 1917–19. Family: Married 1) Athole (Hawks), 1924 (divorced 1941); 2) Nancy Raye Gross, 1941 (divorced), one daughter; 3) Mary (Dee) Hartford (divorced), two sons, two daughters. Career: Worked in property dept. of Famous Players-Lasky during vacations, Hollywood, 1916–17; designer in airplane factory, 1919–22; worked in independent pro- duction as editor, writer, and assistant director, from 1922; in charge of story dept. at Paramount, 1924–25; signed as director for Fox, 1925–29; directed first feature, Road to Glory, 1926; formed Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, with Borden Chase, 1944. Awards: Quarterly Award, Directors Guild of America, for Red River, 1948/49; Honorary Oscar for ‘‘A master American filmmaker whose creative efforts hold a distinguished place in world Howard Hawks (center), John Wayne, and Joanne Dru on the set of Red River HAWKSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 423 cinema,’’ 1974. Died: In Palm Springs, California, 26 Decem- ber 1977. Films as Director: 1926 The Road to Glory (+ story); Fig Leaves (+ story) 1927 The Cradle Snatchers; Paid to Love; Fazil 1928 A Girl in Every Port (+ co-sc); The Air Circus (co-d) 1929 Trent’s Last Case 1930 The Dawn Patrol 1931 The Criminal Code 1932 The Crowd Roars (+ story); Tiger Shark; Scarface: The Shame of a Nation (+ pr, bit role as man on bed) 1933 Today We Live; The Prizefighter and the Lady (Everywoman’s Man) (Van Dyke; d parts of film, claim disputed) 1934 Viva Villa! (Conway; d begun by Hawks); Twentieth Century 1935 Barbary Coast; Ceiling Zero 1936 The Road to Glory; Come and Get It (co-d) 1938 Bringing up Baby 1939 Only Angels Have Wings 1940 His Girl Friday 1941 The Outlaw (Hughes; d begun by Hawks); Sergeant York; Ball of Fire 1943 Air Force 1944 To Have and Have Not 1946 The Big Sleep 1947 A Song Is Born (remake of Ball of Fire) 1948 Red River (+ pr) 1949 I Was a Male War Bride (You Can’t Sleep Here) 1952 The Big Sky (+ pr); ‘‘The Ransom of Red Chief’’ episode of O. Henry’s Full House (episode cut from some copies) (+ pr); Monkey Business 1953 Gentlemen Prefer Blondes 1955 Land of the Pharaohs (+ pr) 1959 Rio Bravo (+ pr) 1962 Hatari! (+ pr) 1963 Man’s Favorite Sport (+ pr) 1965 Red Line 7000 (+ story, pr) 1966 El Dorado (+ pr) 1970 Rio Lobo (+ pr) Other Films: 1917 A Little Princess (Neilan) (d some scenes, uncredited; prop boy) 1923 Quicksands (Conway) (story, sc, pr) 1924 Tiger Love (Melford) (sc) 1925 The Dressmaker from Paris (Bern) (co-story, sc) 1926 Honesty—the Best Policy (Bennett and Neill) (story, sc); Underworld (von Sternberg) (co-sc, uncredited) 1932 Red Dust (Fleming) (co-sc, uncredited) 1936 Sutter’s Gold (Cruze) (co-sc, uncredited) 1937 Captain Courageous (Fleming) (co-sc, uncredited) 1938 Test Pilot (Fleming) (co-sc, uncredited) 1939 Gone with the Wind (Fleming) (add’l dialogue, uncredited); Gunga Din (Stevens) (co-sc, uncredited) 1943 Corvette K-225 (The Nelson Touch) (Rosson) (pr) 1951 The Thing (The Thing from Another World) (Nyby) (pr) Publications By HAWKS: book— Hawks on Hawks, edited by Joseph McBride, Berkeley, 1982. By HAWKS: articles— Interview with Jacques Becker, Jacques Rivette, and Francois Truffaut, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1956. Interview in Movie (London), 5 November 1962. ‘‘Man’s Favorite Director, Howard Hawks,’’ interview in Cinema (Beverly Hills), November/December 1963. Interview with James R. Silke, Serge Daney, and Jean-Louis Noames, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1964. Interview, in Interviews with Film Directors, by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1967. Interview with Jean-Louis Comolli, Jean Narboni, and Bertrand Tavernier, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July/August 1967. ‘‘Gunplay and Horses,’’ with David Austen, in Films and Filming (London), October 1968. ‘‘Do I Get to Play the Drunk This Time,’’ an interview in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1971. Interviews with Naomi Wise and Michael Goodwin, in Take One (Montreal), November/December 1971 and March 1973. ‘‘Hawks Talks,’’ interview with J. McBride, in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1974. ‘‘Hawks on Film, Politics, and Childrearing,’’ interview with C. Penley and others, in Jump Cut (Berkeley), January/February 1975. ‘‘You’re Goddam Right I Remember,’’ interview with K. Murphy and R.T. Jameson, in Movietone News (Seattle), June 1977. On HAWKS: books— Bogdanovich, Peter, The Cinema of Howard Hawks, New York, 1962. Missiaen, Jean-Claude, Howard Hawks, Paris, 1966. Wood, Robin, Howard Hawks, London, 1968, revised 1981. Gili, J.-A., Howard Hawks, Paris, 1971. Willis, D.C., The Films of Howard Hawks, Metuchen, New Jer- sey, 1975. Murphy, Kathleen A., Howard Hawks: An American Auteur in the Hemingway Tradition, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978. Giannetti, Louis D., Masters of the American Cinema, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1981. Mast, Gerald, Howard Hawks, Storyteller, New York, 1982. Poague, Leland, Howard Hawks, Boston, 1982. Belton, John, Cinema Stylists, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1983. Simsolo, Noel, Howard Hawks, Paris, 1984. Branson, Clark, Howard Hawks: A Jungian Study, Los Angeles, 1987. McCarthy, Todd, Howard Hawks: The Grey Fox of Hollywood, New York, 1997. On HAWKS: articles— Rivette, Jacques, and Fran?ois Truffaut, ‘‘Howard Hawks,’’ in Films in Review (New York), November 1956. Perez, Michel, ‘‘Howard Hawks et le western,’’ in Présence du Cinéma (Paris), July/September 1959. Dyer, John Peter, ‘‘Sling the Lamps Low,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1962. HAWKS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 424 Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘The World of Howard Hawks,’’ in Films and Filming (London), July and August 1962. ‘‘Hawks Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1963. ‘‘Hawks Issue’’ of Movie (London), 5 December 1962. Comolli, Jean-Louis, ‘‘Howard Hawks ou l’ironique,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1964. Brackett, Leigh, ‘‘A Comment on the Hawksian Woman,’’ in Take One (Montreal), July/August 1971. Wise, Naomi, ‘‘The Hawksian Woman,’’ in Take One (Montreal), April 1972. ‘‘Hawks Issue’’ of Filmkritik (Munich), May/June 1973. Wood, Robin, ‘‘To Have (Written) and Have Not (Directed),’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1973. Haskell, Molly, ‘‘Howard Hawks: Masculine Feminine,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1974. Cohen, M., ‘‘Hawks in the Thirties,’’ in Take One (Montreal), December 1975. Special issue, Wide Angle, vol. 1, no. 2, Summer 1976. Richards, Jeffrey, ‘‘The Silent Films of Howard Hawks,’’ in Focus on Film (London), Summer/Autumn 1976. Durgnat, Raymond, ‘‘Hawks Isn’t Good Enough,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1977; see also February and March/ April 1978. ‘‘Hawks Section’’ of Positif (Paris), July/August 1977. ‘‘Dossier: le cinéma de Howard Hawks,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), March 1978. Rohmer, Eric, and others, ‘‘Hommage à Hawks,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), March 1978. McBride, J., ‘‘Hawks,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/ April 1978. Burdick, D.M., ‘‘Danger of Death: The Hawksian Woman as Agent of Destruction,’’ in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Fall 1981. McCarthy, T., ‘‘Phantom Hawks,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1982. Lev, P., ‘‘Elaborations on a Theme,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film Studies (New York), Spring 1984. Jewell, R.B., ‘‘How Howard Hawks Brought Baby Up,’’ in Journal of Popular Film (Washington, D.C.), Winter 1984. Walker, Michael, ‘‘Hawks and Film Noir: The Big Sleep,’’ in Cine- Action! (Toronto), no. 13/14, 1988. Davis, Teo, interview with Walter Hill, ‘‘Hill on Hawks,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 7, no. 2, February 1997. Gross, Larry, ‘‘Hawks and the Angels,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), vol. 7, no. 2, February 1997. Younis, Raymond, ‘‘Hawks and Ford Resurgent,’’ in Cinema Papers (Australia), no. 120, October 1997. On HAWKS: films— Bogdanovich, Peter, The Great Professional—Howard Hawks, for television, Great Britain, 1967. Schickel, Richard, The Men Who Made the Movies: Howard Hawks, for television, United States, 1973. Blumenberg, Hans, Ein verdammt gutes Leben (A Hell of a Good Life), West Germany, 1978. *** Howard Hawks was perhaps the greatest director of American genre films. Hawks made films in almost every American genre, and each of these films could well serve as one of the very best examples and artistic embodiments of the type: gangster (Scarface), private eye (The Big Sleep), western (Red River, Rio Bravo), screwball comedy (Bringing up Baby), newspaper reporter (His Girl Friday), prison picture (The Criminal Code), science fiction (The Thing), musical (Gentlemen Prefer Blondes), race-car drivers (The Crowd Roars, Red Line 7000), and air pilots (Only Angels Have Wings). But into each of these narratives of generic expectations Hawks infused his particular themes, motifs, and techniques. Born in the Midwest at almost the same time that the movies themselves were born in America, Hawks migrated with his family to southern California when the movies did; he spent his formative years working on films, learning to fly, and studying engineering at Cornell University. His initial work in silent films as a writer and producer would serve him well in his later years as a director, when he would produce and, if not write, then control the writing of his films as well. Although Hawks’ work has been consistently discussed as exemplary of the Hollywood studio style, Hawks himself did not work for a single studio on a long-term contract. Instead, he was an indepen- dent producer who sold his projects to every Hollywood studio. Whatever the genre of a Hawks film, it bore traits that made it unmistakably a Hawks film. The narrative was always elegantly and symmetrically structured and patterned. This quality was a sign of Hawks’ sharp sense of storytelling as well as his sensible efforts to work closely with very talented writers: Ben Hecht, William Faulkner, and Jules Furthman being the most notable among them. Hawks’ films were devoted to characters who were professionals with fervent vocational commitments. The men in Hawks’ films were good at what they did, whether flying the mail, driving race cars, driving cattle, or reporting the news. These vocational commitments were usually fulfilled by the union of two apparently opposite physical types who were spiritually one: either the union of the harder, tougher, older male and a softer, younger, prettier male (John Wayne and Montgomery Clift in Red River, Wayne and Ricky Nelson in Rio Bravo), or by a sharp, tough male and an equally sharp, tough female (Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday, Bogart and Bacall in To Have and Have Not and The Big Sleep, John Barrymore and Carole Lombard in Twentieth Century). This spiritual alliance of physical opposites revealed Hawks’ unwillingness to accept the cultural stereotype that those who are able to accomplish difficult tasks are those who appear able to accomplish them. This tension between appearance and ability, surface and essence in Hawks’ films led to several other themes and techniques. Charac- ters talk very tersely in Hawks’ films, refusing to put their thoughts and feelings into explicit speeches which would either sentimentalize or vulgarize those internal abstractions. Instead, Hawks’ characters reveal their feelings through their actions, not by what they say. Hawks deflects his portrayal of the inner life from explicit speeches to symbolic physical objects—concrete visual images of things that convey the intentions of the person who handles, uses, or controls the piece of physical matter. One of those physical objects—the coin which George Raft nervously flips in Scarface—has become a mythic icon of American culture itself, symbolic in itself of American gangsters and American gangster movies (and used as such in both Singin’ in the Rain and Some Like It Hot). Another of Hawks’ favorite actions, the lighting of cigarettes, became his subtextual way of showing who cares about whom without recourse to dialogue. Consistent with his narratives, Hawks’ visual style was one of dead-pan understatement, never proclaiming its trickiness or bril- liance but effortlessly communicating the values of the stories and the HAYNESDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 425 characters. Hawks was a master of point-of-view, knowledgeable about which camera perspective would precisely convey the neces- sary psychological and moral information. That point of view could either confine us to the perceptions of a single character (Marlowe in The Big Sleep), ally us with the more vital of two competing life styles (with the vitality of Oscar Jaffe in Twentieth Century, Susan Vance in Bringing up Baby, Walter Burns in His Girl Friday), or withdraw to a scientific detachment that allows the viewer to weigh the paradoxes and ironies of a love battle between two equals (between the two army partners in I Was a Male War Bride, the husband and wife in Monkey Business, or the older and younger cowboy in Red River). Hawks’ films are also masterful in their atmospheric lighting; the hanging electric or kerosene lamp that dangles into the top of a Hawks frame became almost as much his signature as the lighting of cigarettes. Hawks’ view of character in film narrative was that actor and character were inseparable. As a result, his films were very improvisatory. He allowed actors to add, interpret, or alter lines as they wished, rather than force them to stick to the script. This trait not only led to the energetic spontaneity of many Hawks films, but also contributed to the creation or shaping of the human archetypes that several stars came to represent in our culture. John Barrymore, John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, and Cary Grant all refined or established their essential personae under Hawks’ direction, while many actors who would become stars were either discovered by Hawks or given their first chance to play a major role in one of his films. Among Hawks’ most important discoveries were Paul Muni, George Raft, Carole Lombard, Angie Dickinson, Montgomery Clift, and his Galatea, Lauren Bacall. Although Hawks continued to make films until he was almost seventy-five, there is disagreement about the artistic energy and cinematic value of the films he made after 1950. For some, Hawks’ artistic decline in the 1950s and 1960s was both a symptom and an effect of the overall decline of the movie industry and the studio system itself. For others, Hawks’ later films—slower, longer, less energetically brilliant than his studio-era films—were more probing and personal explorations of the themes and genres he had charted for the three previous decades. —Gerald Mast HAYNES, Todd Nationality: American. Born: Los Angeles, California, 2 January 1961. Education: Received a Bachelor of Arts degree, with honors, from Brown University, where he majored in semiotics and art. Career: Founded Apparatus Productions, a non-profit organization that funds and produces short films, 1987; directed first feature, Poison, 1991. Awards: Golden Gate Award, for Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story, 1987; Special Jury Prize Sundance Festival, Teddy Award Best Feature, Berlin Festival, Critics Award, Locarno Festival, Special Prize of the Jury, Catalonian International Film Festival, and Best Director nomination and Best First Feature nomi- nation, Independent Spirit Award, for Poison, 1991; American Inde- pendent Award, Seattle International Film Festival, and Best Director nomination and Best Screenplay nomination, Independent Spirit Award, for Safe, 1995; Best Artistic Contribution, Cannes Film Festival, Channel 4 Director’s Award, Edinburgh International Film Festival, and Best Director nomination, Independent Spirit Award, for Velvet Goldmine, 1998. Office: Bronze Eye Productions, 525 Broadway, Room 701, New York, NY 10012–4015. Films as Director: 1978 The Suicide (short) (+ pr) 1982 Letter from a Friend (short) 1983 Sex Shop (short) 1985 Assassins: A Film concerning Rimbaud (short) (+ pr) 1987 Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (short) 1991 Poison (+ sc) 1993 Dottie Gets Spanked (short) (for TV) 1995 Safe (+ sc) 1998 Velvet Goldmine (+ sc, co-story) Other Films: 1988 Muddy Hands (pr); Cause and Effect (pr) 1989 La Divina (pr); He Was Once (pr, role) 1990 Anemone Me (pr); Oreos with Attitude (pr) 1992 Swoon (Kalin) (role as Phrenology Head) Publications By HAYNES: articles— ‘‘Doll Boy,’’ interview with L. Kennedy in Village Voice (New York), 24 November 1987. Zalewska, K., ‘‘Tyklo gra?,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), July 1992. ‘‘Cinematic/Sexual Transgression,’’ interview with J. Wyatt, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), no. 3, 1993. ‘‘We Can’t Get There from Here,’’ in Nation (New York), 5 July 1993. ‘‘Dollie Gets Spanked,’’ interview with J. Painter, in Film Threat (Beverly Hills), April 1994. ‘‘Antibodies,’’ interview with Larry Gross in Filmmaker (New York), Summer 1995. ‘‘Kelly Reichardt,’’ in BOMB (New York), Fall 1995. On HAYNES: articles— Laskaway, M., ‘‘Poison at the Box Office,’’ in Cineaste (New York), no. 3, 1991. Lanouette, J., ‘‘Todd Haynes,’’ in Premiere (New York), April 1991. James, Caryn, ‘‘Politics Nurtures Poison,’’ in New York Times, 14 April 1991. Als, H., ‘‘Ruminations on Todd,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 16 April 1991. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, ‘‘Todd Haynes,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1992. HAYNES DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 426 Todd Haynes directing Toni Colette Gross, L., ‘‘Antibodies,’’ in Filmmaker (Los Angeles), no. 4, 1995. Schorr, S., ‘‘Diary of a Sad Housewife,’’ in Artforum (New York), Summer 1995. Maclean, Alison, ‘‘Todd Haynes,’’ in BOMB (New York), Sum- mer 1995. Reynaud, B., ‘‘Todd Haynes,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1995. Richardson, J.H., ‘‘Toxic Avenger,’’ in Premiere (New York), July 1995. Stephens, C., ‘‘Gentlemen Prefer Haynes,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1995. Dargis, M., ‘‘Endangered Zone,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 4 July 1995. Taubin, Amy, ‘‘Nowhere to Hide,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), May 1996. Mazierska, E., ‘‘Przeczucie apokalipsy,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), Septem- ber 1996. Reid, R., ‘‘UnSafe at Any Distance: Todd Haynes’ Visual Culture of Health and Risk,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1998. Udovitch, M., ‘‘Two Guys Named Todd,’’ in Esquire (New York), October 1998. Mueller, M., ‘‘Glam Bake,’’ in Premiere (New York), December 1998. *** Todd Haynes is no stranger to controversy. He began his career making outrageously personal short films that comment on the manner in which pop culture impacts on the individual. One of them—Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story, featuring an all-doll cast—had to be yanked from distribution because of legal complica- tions, and now is considered an underground classic. Poison, Haynes’s initial, equally incendiary feature, was financed in part by the New York State Council on the Arts and the National Endowment for the Arts. Because of its subject matter, this support resulted in cries of outrage from those who prefer that publicly funded art be as inoffen- sive as a painting of a bowl of fruit. Whether Poison is or is not to one’s individual taste, it is a film of high artistic aspiration. Poison is inspired by the writings of Jean Genet, and consists of a trio of skillfully interwoven stories. The first is a mockumentary about a seven-year-old boy who shot and killed his father and then summar- ily disappeared. How did this happen? Who was the boy, and why was he driven to such an act? A number of clues are offered by his mother. ‘‘I mean, I punished him,’’ she matter-of-factly tells the camera. ‘‘His father beat him, just like any kid.’’ Later, she observes, ‘‘He was a meek soul. People pick on meek souls.’’ The second story is a 1950s science-fiction movie parody, in which a brilliant scientist ingests some serum and becomes disfig- ured. People stare at him wherever he goes, and little girls spit at him. Eventually, he becomes the infamous ‘‘leper sex killer.’’ In the third HEIFITZDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 427 story, a man arrives at a prison. He is an orphan and a thief, and he is gay. In jail, which he describes as ‘‘the counterfeit world of men among men,’’ he has found his true identity—as well as what he calls ‘‘the violence of love.’’ Poison is a jarring film about what it means to be different, what it is like to be so alienated from the mainstream that you feel more at home in a prison than in the outside world. Haynes shows how you are different and victimized if you are gay, physically deformed, or a sensitive child in a dysfunctional family. Poison is a disturbing film. It will make you uncomfortable, but it also will make you think. In Safe, Haynes’s equally strong follow-up feature, he for the first time tells one story through the course of an almost-two-hour film. His heroine is Carol White (Julianne Moore), an emotionally discon- nected, squeaky-clean San Fernando Valley housewife. Lately, she has been feeling run down, which she at first attributes to stress. But her body, and soon her mind, begin to deteriorate. Her doctor cannot diagnose her infirmity, instead suggesting that she see a psychiatrist. She eventually becomes convinced that the cause of her malady is environmental pollution, that she is ‘‘chemically sensitive’’ and ‘‘allergic to the twentieth century.’’ In a more conventional film, Carol not only would find a cure for her illness but would enter into an emotionally fulfilling romance with the agreeable guy (James LeGros) she meets at a New Age retreat. But Haynes had no intention of making a conventional film. He offers no easy answers to his heroine’s predicament, as she declines into a frail apparition of her former self. Hovering unquestionably over her deterioration is the harsh reality of AIDS and the New Age psychobabble that the individual is responsible for his own plight, regardless of the outside forces that one cannot control but that irrevocably impact on one’s physical and mental well-being. In Safe, Haynes has made a scary film without ghouls and gushing blood, a highly politicized story that does not overtly refer to political concerns. He subtly but chillingly captures Carol’s isolation by constantly posing her alone, sitting on a couch, or standing by her pool or looking in a mirror. After Poison and Safe, two films of depth and texture, Haynes faltered with the fascinating yet frustrating Velvet Goldmine, a portrait of the glam rock era in Great Britain. The film is set during two time periods: the early 1970s, the heyday of a bisexual David Bowie-like glam rocker who stages his own murder; and a decade later, when a journalist sets out to write a piece commemorating the tenth anniversary of the rocker’s death. In depicting the writer’s exploration of his subject, Haynes employs a Citizen Kane-like framing contrivance. What Velvet Goldmine has in common with Haynes’s earlier work is thematic, in that he offers a portrait of outcasts who are misunder- stood and shunned by society and who end up acting out their sexual urges. Yet too much of the film is little more than an extended music video, with sequences featuring the glam rocker and others in performance. Haynes has created intriguing characters, to be sure. However, they are given short shrift. What is desperately missing from Velvet Goldmine is more characterization and depth in storytelling. Meanwhile, Haynes has not abandoned the short-film form. Between Poison and Safe he made Dottie Gets Spanked, a twenty- seven-minute examination of the carnal fantasies of a young, highly imaginative boy who is obsessed with watching television sit-coms. —Rob Edelman HEIFITZ, Iosif Nationality: Russian. Born: Iosif Yefimovitch Heifitz (sometimes transliterated as Josef Kheifits) in Minsk, Russia, 17 December 1905. Education: Leningrad School of Screen Arts, graduated 1927. Fam- ily: Married, two sons (filmmakers Vladimir and Dmitri Svetozarov). Career: Formed partnership with fellow student Alexander Zarkhi; they directed first film together, A Song of Steel, for Sovkino, 1928; joined Soyuzfilm, 1933, Lenfilm, 1935; ended partnership with Zarkhi, 1950. Awards: Stalin Prize, for Razgrom Japonii, 1945. Died: 24 April 1995, in St. Petersburg, Russia. Films as Director: 1928 Pesn o metallye (A Song of Steel) (co-d, + co-sc, co-ed) 1930 Veter v litso (Facing the Wind) (co-d) 1931 Polden (Noon) (co-d, + co-sc) 1933 Moya rodina (My Fatherland; My Country) (co-d, + co-sc) 1935 Goryachie dyenechki (Hectic Days) (co-d, + co-sc) 1936 Deputat Baltiki (Baltic Deputy) (co-d, + co-sc) 1940 Chlen pravitelstva (The Great Beginning; Member of the Government) (co-d, + co-sc) 1942 Yevo zovut Sukhe-Bator (His Name Is Sukhe-Bator) (co-d, + co-sc) 1944 Malakhov Kurgan (co-d, + co-sc) 1945 Razgrom Japonii (The Defeat of Japan) (co-d, + co-sc, co-ed) 1946 Vo imya zhizni (In the Name of Life) (co-d, + co-sc) 1948 Dragotsennye zerna (The Precious Grain) (co-d) 1950 Ogni Baku (Flames over Baku; Fires of Baku) (co-d) (re- leased 1958) 1953 Vesna v Moskve (Spring in Moscow) (co-d) 1954 Bolshaya semya (The Big Family) 1956 Dyelo Rumyantseva (The Rumyantsev Case) (+ co-sc) 1958 Dorogoi moi chelovek (My Dear Fellow; My Dear Man) (+ co-sc) 1960 Dama s sobachkoi (The Lady with the Little Dog) (+ sc) 1962 Gorizont (Horizon) 1964 Dyen schastya (A Day of Happiness) (+ co-sc) 1967 V gorodye S (In the Town of S) (+ sc) 1970 Saliut Maria! (Salute, Maria) (+ co-sc) 1973 Plokhoy khoroshyi chelovek (The Duel; The Bad Good Man) (+ sc) 1976 Edinstvennaia (The Only One; The One and Only) (+ co-sc) 1977 Asya (Love Should Be Guarded) (+ sc) 1979 Vpervye zamuzhem (Married for the First Time) (+ co-sc) 1982 Shurochka 1985 Podsudimy (The Accused) (+ co-sc) 1987 Vspomnim, Tovarisc 1988 Vy chyo, starichyo (Who Are You, Old People?) (+ co-sc) 1989 Brodyachij avtobus (Nomad Bus) (+ co-sc) Other Films: 1928 Luna sleva (The Moon Is to the Left) (Ivanov) (co-sc, asst-d) 1930 Transport ognya (Transport of Fire) (Ivanov) (co-sc, asst-d) HEIFITZ DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 428 Publications By HEIFITZ: articles— ‘‘Director’s Notes,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), no. 1, 1966. Interview in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), no. 2, 1971. Interview in Soviet Film (Moscow), no. 9, 1976. Article in Soviet Film (Moscow), no. 11, 1978. Hejfic, Iosif, ‘‘Vzlet I padenie Moej Rodiny,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), December 1990. On HEIFITZ: books— Christie, Ian, and Richard Taylor, editors, The Film Factory: Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents 1896–1939, London, 1988. Leyda, Jay, Kino: A History of the Russian and Soviet Film, Prince- ton, 1999. On HEIFITZ: articles— Soviet Film (Moscow), no. 2, 1967, and no. 2, 1971. Panoráma, no. 4, 1976. Lipkov, ‘‘Iosif Heifits,’’ in Soviet Film (Moscow), February 1983. ‘‘Iosif Kheifits,’’ in Film Dope (London), September 1984. Gillett, John, and Claire Kitson, ‘‘Chekhov and After: The Films of Iosif Heifitz,’’ in National Film Theatre Booklet (London), Decem- ber 1986. Dobrotvorsky, S., ‘‘Father and Sons,’’ in Soviet Film (Moscow), April 1987. Birchenough, Tom, ‘‘Iosif Kheifits,’’ in Variety (New York), 29 May 1995. Brandlmeier, Thomas, ‘‘Iosif Chejfic 4.12.1905 - 24.4.1995,’’ an obituary in, EPD Film (Frankfurt), August 1995. Goldovskaja, Marina, ‘‘Stariki,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), Novem- ber 1995. *** It is impossible to discuss the career of Iosif Heifitz without also paying tribute to Alexander Zarkhi, with whom he worked for over twenty years after they both left the Leningrad Technicum of Cinema Art in 1927. The first film they made together was A Head Wind, but their first collaboration to gain prominence was Baltic Deputy, a landmark film of ‘‘socialist’’ or ‘‘historic’’ realism that tran- scends the genre’s usual bombastic propaganda, moral and political schematism, and impossibly perfect and idealised heroes and hero- ines. This film concerns an elderly professor who, despite the disap- proval of his stuffy academic colleagues, joins the forces of revolu- tion in 1917 and is eventually elected to the Petrograd Soviet by the sailors of the Baltic fleet. It contains both humour and humanistic values, and is particularly distinguished by an excellent central performance from Nikolai Cherkasov. Equally impressive, for the same reasons, is Member of the Government. Set during the rural collectivisation period and focusing on a young farm worker who rises to a government position despite the opposition of her husband, this film concerns the improved status of women in the USSR after 1917. A similar concentration on the social position of women can be seen in his later film, Married for the First Time. Vera Maretskaya is superb throughout Member of the Government, the first of several memorable female leading roles in Heifitz’s films. Both Zarkhi and Heifitz benefited creatively from their split in 1950, although Heifitz has undoubtedly become better known. His impressive second film on his own, The Big Family, is recognised as one of the forerunners of the post-Stalin rejuvenation of the Soviet cinema. This film presents the lives of a family of shipbuilders with a feeling for everyday realities, a lively, detailed texture, a concern with the problems of the individual as opposed to the masses, and generally tries to avoid producing neat, formulaic, ideologically ‘‘sound’’ solutions. In 1960 Heifitz made the film for which he is probably best known, The Lady with the Little Dog, the first of a Chekhov trilogy including In the Town of S and The Bad Good Man. It is hardly surprising that the director should have been drawn to Chekhov, nor that his Chekhov adaptations are among his finest works, for both share an understanding of the complexity of human beings, a feeling for the minute, telling detail, and a remarkable ability to conjure an almost tangible sense of atmosphere. Indeed, in the trilogy some of the most ‘‘Chekhovian’’ moments are not in the original stories at all! Thus, it is hardly surprising to find Heifitz admitting (in an interview in Soviet Film) that ‘‘much as I love Dostoevsky I regard Chekhov as my teacher.’’ Stressing Chekhov’s concern with the importance of clear and legible writing (in both senses of the word), he adds: ‘‘I try to apply the laws of Chekhovian prose, with due adjustments to suit our time, in my films about the present. I have always considered Chekhov to be among the most modern of writers, and have never treated him as a venerable, ‘moth-eaten’ classic. To me Chekhov has always been an example of a social-minded writer.... The hallmark of Chekhov’s approach is that, while describing these small, weak people living in an atmosphere of triviality and inaction, he preserved his faith in a better future and in the power of the human spirit. So he imparted to them an important quality—the capacity to make a critical judgment of the surrounding world and of oneself. This is the quality that I prize most highly.’’ Thus, in spite of his obvious relish for period feel in Chekhov (and Turgenev, in the beautiful Asya), Heifitz was obviously a great deal more than a ‘‘period’’ director. Claiming that modern Soviet filmmakers are ‘‘heirs to the humanistic tradition of Russian literature,’’ he once said that his films are ‘‘a panorama of the better part of a century.’’ Looking at the remarkable gallery of characters he presented with his mix of everyday heroism and humanity, it is hard to disagree. Heifitz was not a stylistic innovator, but his films, whether set in the past or present, all exhibit an equally strong feeling for the minutiae of daily life and the humanity of their characters. In this last respect it should be pointed out that Heifitz was a masterly director of actors, and that he largely ‘‘discovered’’ Nikolai Cherkasov, Vera Maretskaya, Iya Savvina and Alexei Batalov, all of whom gave some of their finest performances in his films. As he himself stated, ‘‘many directors today strive for documentary realism and naturalness of tone. But in that case individuality disappears, and the human voice with its infinite inflections gives way to banality.’’ Heifitz added: ‘‘Directing in the cinema means above all directing the actor. The actor is the focal point of the director’s efforts and experience.’’ —Julian Petley HENNING-JENSENDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 429 HENNING-JENSEN, Astrid and Bjarne Nationality: Danish. Born: Frederiksberg, Denmark; Astrid (née Astrid Smahl): 10 December 1914; Bjarne: 6 October 1908. Family: Married 6 October 1938. Career: Bjarne actor at various theatres, Astrid actress at ‘‘Riddersalen,’’ Copenhagen, 1931–38; Bjarne director at Nordisk Films Kompagni, 1940–50; Astrid assistant director, 1941, then director, 1943, at Nordisk; Astrid at Norsk Film A/S, Oslo, 1950–52; Bjarne and Astrid both worked as freelance writers and directors for film, theatre, radio, and television, from early 1950s. Awards: Astrid: Director Prize, Venice, for Denmark Grows Up, 1947; Cannes Festival Prize for Palle Alone in the World, 1949; Catholic Film Office Award, Cannes Festival, and Technik Prize, for Paw, 1960; Best Director, Berlin Festival, for Winter Children, 1979. Bjarne: Director Prize, Venice, for Ditte: Child of Man, 1946. Address: Astrid: Frederiksberg Allé 76, DK-1820 Copenhagen V, Denmark. Died: Bjarne, 1995. Films as Directors: 1940 Cykledrengene i T?rvegraven (Bjarne only) 1941 Hesten paa Kongens Nytorv (Bjarne only); Brunkul (Bjarne only); Arbejdet kalder (Bjarne only); Chr. IV som Bygherre (Christian IV: Master Builder) (Bjarne only) 1942 Sukker (Sugar) (Bjarne only) 1943 Korn (Corn) (Bjarne only); Hesten (Horses) (Bjarne only); F?llet (Bjarne only); Papir (Paper) (Bjarne only); Naar man kun er ung (To Be Young) (Bjarne only); S.O.S. Kindtand (S.O.S. Molars) 1944 De danske Sydhavs?er (Danish Island) (Bjarne only) 1945 Flyktingar finner en hamn (Fugitives Find Shelter); Dansk politi i Sverige (Astrid only); Folketingsvalg 1945; Brigaden i Sverige (Danish Brigade in Sweden) (Bjarne only); Frihedsfonden (Freedom Committee) (Bjarne only) 1946 Ditte Menneskebarn (Ditte: Child of Man) (Bjarne d, Astrid asst) 1947 Stemning i April; De pokkers unger (Those Blasted Kids); Denmark Grows Up (Astrid co-d only) 1948 Kristinus Bergman 1949 Palle alene i Verden (Palle Alone in the World) (Astrid only) 1950 Vesterhavsdrenge (Boys from the West Coast) 1951 Kranes Konditori (Krane’s Bakery Shop) (Astrid only) 1952 Ukjent mann (Unknown Man) (Astrid only) 1953 Solstik 1954 Tivoligarden spiller (Tivoli Garden Games); Ballettens b?rn (Ballet Girl) (Astrid only) 1955 Kaerlighed pa kredit (Love on Credit) (Astrid only, + sc); En saelfangst i Nordgr?nland (Bjarne only); Hvor bjergene sejler (Where Mountains Float) (Bjarne only) 1959 Hest p? sommerferie (Astrid only); Paw (Boy of Two Worlds, The Lure of the Jungle) (Astrid only) 1961 Een blandt mange (Astrid only) 1962 Kort ?r sommaren (Short Is the Summer) (Bjarne only) 1965 De bl? undulater (Astrid only) 1966 Utro (Unfaithful) (Astrid only) 1967 Min bedstefar er en stok (Astrid only) 1968 Nille (Astrid only) 1969 Mig og dig (Me and You) (Astrid only) 1974 Skipper & Co. (Bjarne only) 1978 Vinterb?rn (Winter Children) (Astrid only, + sc, ed) 1980 ?jeblikket (The Moment) (Astrid only) 1986 Barndommens gade (Street of Childhood) (Astrid only) 1991 In Spite Of 1995 Bella, My Bella Other Films: 1937 Cocktail (Astrid: role) 1938 Kongen b?d (Bjarne: role) 1939 Genboerne (Bjarne: role) 1940 Jens Langkniv (Bjarne: role) 1942 Damen med de lyse Handsker (Christensen) (Bjarne: role) *** Astrid and Bjarne Henning-Jensen started as stage actors, but shortly after they married in 1938 they began working in films. Bjarne Henning-Jensen directed several government documentaries begin- ning in 1940 and he was joined by Astrid in 1943. At that time the Danish documentary film, strongly influenced by the British docu- mentary of the 1930s, was blooming, and Bjarne Henning-Jensen played an important part in this. In 1943 he made his first feature film, with Astrid serving as assistant director. Naar man kun er ung was a light, everyday comedy, striving for a relaxed and charming style, but it was too cute, and it was politely received. Their next film, Ditte Menneskebarn, was their breakthrough, and the two were instantly considered as the most promising directors in the postwar Danish cinema. The film was an adaptation of a neoclassical novel by Martin Andersen-Nex?. It was a realistic story of a young country girl and her tragic destiny as a victim of social conditions. The novel, published between 1917 and 1921, was in five volumes, but the Henning- Jensens used only parts of the novel. The sentimentality of the book was, happily, subdued in the film, and it is a sensitive study of a young girl in her milieu. The film was the first example of a more realistic and serious Danish film and it paralleled similar trends in contempo- rary European cinema, even if one would refrain from calling the film neorealistic. It was a tremendous success in Denmark and it also won a certain international recognition. Astrid and Bjarne Henning-Jensen’s film was a sincere attempt to introduce reality and authentic people to the Danish film. They continued this effort in their subsequent films, but a certain facile approach, a weakness for cute effects, and a sensibility on the verge of sentimentality made their films less and less interesting. In the 1950s Bjarne Henning-Jensen returned to documentaries. In 1955 he made the pictorially beautiful Hvor bjergene sejler, about Greenland. He attempted a comeback to features in 1962 with a rather pedestrian adaptation of Knut Hamsun’s novel Pan called Kort ?r sommaren. His last film, in 1974, was a failure. Astrid Henning-Jensen continued making films on her own. She made two carefully directed and attractive films in Norway, and in the 1960s she tried to keep up with HEPWORTH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 430 the changing times in a couple of films. But it was not until the last few years that she regained her old position. In Vinterb?rn, about women and their problems in a maternity ward, and in ?jeblikket, treating the problems of a young couple when it is discovered that the woman is dying of cancer, she worked competently within an old established genre in Danish films, the problem-oriented popular drama. —Ib Monty HEPWORTH, Cecil Nationality: British. Born: Lambeth, London, 19 March 1874. Career: Patented hand-feed lamp for optical lantern, 1895; assistant projectionist to Birt Acres, 1896; became cameraman for Charles Urban, 1898; formed Hepwix Films at Walton-on-Thames, worked as actor and director, and patented film developing system; formed Hepworth Manufacturing Company, 1904; patented Vivaphone ‘‘Talk- ing Film’’ device and became first chairman, Kinematograph Manu- facturer’s Association, 1910; founded British Board of Film Censors, 1911; founded Hepworth Picture Plays, 1919 (company goes bank- rupt, 1923); technical advisor and producer, National Screen Service, 1936. Died: In Greenford, Middlesex, 9 February 1953. Films as Director: 1898 Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race (short); The Interrupted Picnic (short); Exchange Is No Robbery (short); The Imma- ture Punter (short); The Quarrelsome Anglers (short); Two Fools in a Canoe (short) 1899 Express Train in a Railway Cutting (short) 1900 Wiping Something off the Slate (short); The Conjurer and the Boer (short); The Punter’s Mishap (short); The Gunpowder Plot (short); Explosion of a Motor Car (short); The Egg- Laying Man (short); Clown and Policeman (short); Leap- frog as Seen by the Frog (short); How It Feels to Be Run Over (short); The Eccentric Dancer (short); The Bathers (short); The Sluggard’s Surprise (short); The Electricity Cure (short); The Beggar’s Deceit (short); The Burning Stable (short); Topsy Turvy Villa (short); The Kiss (short) 1901 How the Burglar Tricked the Bobby (short); The Indian Chief and the Seidlitz Powder (short); Comic Grimacer (short); Interior of a Railway Carriage (short); Funeral of Queen Victoria (short); Coronation of King Edward VII (short); The Glutton’s Nightmare (short) 1902 The Call to Arms (short); How to Stop a Motor Car (short) 1903 The Absent-minded Bootblack (short); Alice in Wonderland (short); Firemen to the Rescue (short); Saturday’s Shop- ping (short) 1904 The Jonah Man (short) 1905 Rescued by Rover (short); Falsely Accused (short); The Alien’s Invasion (short); A Den of Thieves (short) 1907 A Seaside Girl (short) 1908 John Gilpin’s Ride (short) 1909 Tilly the Tomboy (short) 1911 Rachel’s Sin (short) 1914 Blind Fate (short); Unfit or The Strength of the Weak (short); The Hills Are Calling (short); The Basilisk; His Country’s Bidding (short); The Quarry Mystery (short); Time the Great Healer; Morphia the Death Drug (short); Oh My Aunt (short) 1915 The Canker of Jealousy; A Moment of Darkness (short); Court-Martialled; The Passing of a Soul (short); The Bot- tle; The Baby on the Barge; The Man Who Stayed at Home; Sweet Lavender; The Golden Pavement; The Outrage; Iris 1916 Trelawney of the Wells; A Fallen Star; Sowing the Wind; Annie Laurie; Comin’ thro’ the Rye; The Marriage of William Ashe; Molly Bawn; The Cobweb 1917 The American Heiress; Nearer My God to Thee 1918 The Refugee; Tares; Broken in the Wars; The Blindness of Fortune; The Touch of a Child; Boundary House 1919 The Nature of the Beast; Sunken Rocks; Sheba; The Forest on the Hill 1920 Anna the Adventuress; Alf’s Button; Helen of Four Gates; Mrs. Erricker’s Reputation 1921 Tinted Venus; Narrow Valley; Wild Heather; Tansy 1922 The Pipes of Pan; Mist in the Valley; Strangling Threads; Comin’ Thro’ the Rye (second version) 1927 The House of Marney 1929 Royal Remembrances Publications By HEPWORTH: books— Animated Photography, London, 1898. Came the Dawn: Memories of a Film Pioneer, New York, 1951. By HEPWORTH: articles— ‘‘My Film Experiences,’’ in Pearson’s Magazine (London), 1920. ‘‘Those Were the Days,’’ in Penguin Film Review (London), no. 6, 1948. On HEPWORTH: books— Barnes, John, The Beginnings of Cinema in England, London, 1976. Barnes, John, Pioneers of the British Film 1894–1901, London, 1983. On HEPWORTH: articles— ‘‘Cecil Hepworth Comes Through,’’ in Era (London), 3 May 1935. ‘‘Hepworth: His Studios and Techniques,’’ in British Journal of Photography (London), 15 and 22 January 1971. *** The son of a famous magic lanternist and photographer named T.C. Hepworth (who authored an important early volume titled The HERZOGDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 431 Book of the Lantern), Cecil Hepworth was—along with Robert W. Paul—the best known and most important of early British film pioneers. In the first twenty years of British cinema, Hepworth’s place is easy to determine. He was a major figure who wrote the first British book on cinematography, Animated Photography, the A.B.C. of the Cinematograph (published in 1897) and who produced Rescued by Rover, which is to British cinema what D.W. Griffith’s The Adven- tures of Dollie is to the American film industry. But as the industry grew, Cecil Hepworth failed to grow along with it, and as the English critic and historian Ernest Betts has written, ‘‘although a craftsman and a man of warm sympathies, an examination of his career shows an extremely limited outlook compared with Americans or his contemporaries.’’ A cameraman before turning to production in the late 1890s, ‘‘Heppy,’’ as he was known to his friends and colleagues, founded the first major British studio at Walton-on-Thames (which was later to become Nettlefold Studios). He experimented with sound films before 1910 and was also one of the few British pioneers to build up his own stable of stars, not borrowed from the stage, but brought to fame through the cinema. Alma Taylor, Chrissie White, Stewart Rome, and Violet Hopson were his best known ‘‘discoveries.’’ So omnipotent was Hepworth in British cinema prior to the First World War that major American filmmakers such as Larry Trimble and Florence Turner were eager to associate with him when they jour- neyed to England from the United States to produce films. Hepworth’s problem and the cause of his downfall was shared with many other pioneers. He did not move with the times. His films were always exquisitely photographed and beautiful to look at, but they were totally devoid of drama. The editing techniques which he had displayed in Rescued by Rover were forgotten by the teens. His productions were all too often like the magic lantern presentations of his father, lifeless creations featuring slow dissolves from one se- quence or even one bit of action to the next, even when it was obvious to others that quick cuts were needed. Hepworth appeared to despise anything that would bring movement to his films, preferring that the camera linger on the pictorial beauty of the scene. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Hepworth’s best-known feature, Comin’ thro’ the Rye (which he filmed twice, in 1916 and 1922). As Iris Barry was forced to admit, when writing of the latter version, it is ‘‘a most awful film.’’ Bankruptcy and a closed mind drove Cecil Hepworth from the industry which he had helped to create. He returned late in life to supervise the production of trailers for National Screen Service, and also served as chairman of the History Research Committee of the British Film Institute, at which time he also wrote his autobiography, Came the Dawn. —Anthony Slide HERZOG, Werner Nationality: German. Born: Werner Stipetic in Sachrang, 5 Septem- ber 1942. Education: Classical Gymnasium, Munich, until 1961; University of Munich, early 1960s. Family: Married journalist Martje Grohmann, one son. Career: Worked as a welder in a steel factory for U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration; founded Wer- ner Herzog Filmproduktion, 1966; walked from Munich to Paris to visit film historian Lotte Eisner, 1974. Awards: Bundesfilmpreis, and Silver Bear, Berlinale, for Signs of Life, 1968; Bundespreis, and Special Jury Prize, Cannes Festival, for Every Man for Himself and God against All, 1975; Best Director, Cannes Festival, for Fitzcarraldo, 1982. Address: Turkenstr. 91, D-80799 Münich, Germany. Films as Director (beginning 1966, films are produced or co-produced by Werner Herzog Filmproduktion) 1962 Herakles (+ pr, sc) 1964 Spiel im Sand (Game in the Sand) (unreleased) (+ pr, sc) 1966 Die beispiellose Verteidigung der Festung Deutschkreuz (The Unprecedented Defense of the Fortress of Deutschkreuz) (+ pr, sc) 1967 Lebenszeichen (Signs of Life) (+ sc, pr) 1968 Letzte Worte (Last Words) (+ pr, sc); Massnahmen gegen Fanatiker (Precautions against Fanatics) (+ pr, sc) 1969 Die fliegenden ?rzte von Ostafrika (The Flying Doctors of East Africa) (+ pr, sc); Fata Morgana (Mirage) (+ sc, pr) 1970 Auch Zwerge haben klein angefangen (Even Dwarfs Started Small) (+ pr, sc, mu arrangements); Behinderte Zukunft (Handicapped Future) (+ pr, sc) 1971 Land des Schweigens und der Dunkelheit (Land of Silence and Darkness) (+ pr, sc) 1972 Aguirre, der Zorn G?ttes (Aguirre, the Wrath of God) (+ pr, sc) 1974 Die grosse Ekstase des Bildschnitzers Steiner (The Great Ecstasy of the Sculptor Steiner) (+ pr, sc); Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle (Every Man for Himself and God against All; The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser) (+ pr, sc) 1976 How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck (+ pr, sc); Mit mir will keiner spielen (No One Will Play with Me) (+ pr, sc); Herz aus Glas (Heart of Glass) (+ pr, co-sc, bit role as glass carrier) 1977 La Soufrière (+ pr, sc, narration, appearance) 1978 Stroszek (+ pr, sc) 1979 Nosferatu—Phantom der Nacht (Nosferatu, the Vampire) (+ pr, sc, bit role as monk); Woyzeck (+ pr, sc) 1980 Woyzeck; Glaube und W?hrung (Creed and Currency) 1981 Fitzcarraldo (+ pr, sc) 1983 Where the Green Ants Dream (Wo Die Grünen Ameisen Traümen) 1984 Ballade vom Kleinen Soldaten (Ballad of the Little Soldier); Gasherbrum—Der leuchtende Berg (Gasherbrum—The Dark Glow of the Mountains) 1987 Cobra Verde (+ sc) 1988 Wodaabe—Die Hirten der Sonne (Herdsmen of the Sun); Les Gaulois (The French) 1989 Es ist nicht leicht ein Gott zu sein (It Isn’t Easy Being God) 1990 Echos aus Einem Dustern Reich (Echoes from a Somber Kingdom) 1991 Schrie aus Stein (Scream of Stone); Jag Mandir (The Eccen- tric Private Theatre of the Maharajah of Udaipur) 1992 Lektionen in Finsternis (Lessons of Darkness) 1993 Bells from the Deep (Glocken aus der Tiefe) HERZOG DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 432 Werner Herzog 1994 Die Verwandlung der Welt in Musik (The Transformation of the World into Music) 1995 Tod für fünf Stimmen (Death for Five Voices) (+ sc) 1997 Little Dieter Needs to Fly (+ sc, Narrator) 1999 Mein liebster Feind—Klaus Kinski 2000 Invincible (+ co-sc) Publications By HERZOG: books— Werner Herzog: Drehbücher I, Munich, 1977. Werner Herzog: Drehbücher II, Munich 1977. Sur le chemin des glaces: Munich-Paris du. 23.11 au 14.12.1974, Paris, 1979. Werner Herzog: Stroszek, Nosferatu: Zwei Filmerz?hlungen, Munich, 1979. Screenplays, New York, 1980. Fitzcarraldo: The Original Story, Seattle, 1983. Cobra Verde, Munich, 1987. Vom Gehen im Eis (Of Walking in Ice), London, 1994. By HERZOG: articles— ‘‘Rebellen in Amerika,’’ in Filmstudio (Frankfurt), May 1964. ‘‘Neun Tage eines Jahres,’’ in Filmstudio (Frankfurt), September 1964. ‘‘Mit den W?lfen heulen,’’ in Filmkritik (Munich), July 1968. ‘‘Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?,’’ in Kino (West Berlin), March/April 1974. Interview with S. Murray, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), Decem- ber 1974. ‘‘Every Man for Himself,’’ interview with D. L. Overbey, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1975. Interview with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), May 1975. L’énigme de Kaspar Hauser, on cutting continuity and dialogue, in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), June 1976. ‘‘Signs of Life: Werner Herzog,’’ interview with Jonathan Cott, in Rolling Stone (New York), 18 November 1976. Aguirre, la colère de Dieu, on cutting continuity and dialogue, in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 15 June 1978. HERZOGDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 433 ‘‘I Feel That I’m Close to the Center of Things,’’ interview with L. O’Toole, in Film Comment (New York), November/Decem- ber 1979. Interview with B. Steinborn and R. von Naso, in Filmfaust (Frank- furt), February/March 1982. Interview with G. Bechtold and G. Griksch, in Filmfaust (Frankfurt), October/November 1984. Interview in Time Out (London), 20 April 1988. ‘‘Io e il mio cinema,’’ in Filmcritica (Siena), March 1990. Interview with Bion Steinborn, in Filmfaust (Frankfurt am Main), July-October 1990. Interview with Z. Nevel?s and P. Sneé, in Filmkultura (Budapest), June 1994. ‘‘Operní patos a Blaise Pascal. Rozhovor s Wernerem Herzogem,’’ an interview with Tomá? Li?ka, in Film a Doba (Prague), Win- ter 1994. ‘‘L’enfer vert,’’ an interview with Bernard Génin and others, in Télérama (Paris), 5 April 1995. On HERZOG: books— Greenberg, Alan, Heart of Glass, Munich, 1976. Schütte, Wolfram, and others, Herzog/Kluge/Straub, Vienna, 1976. Franklin, James, New German Cinema: From Oberhausen to Ham- burg, Boston, 1983. Phillips, Klaus, editor, New German Filmmakers: From Oberhausen through the 1970s, New York, 1984. Corrigan, Timothy, The Films of Werner Herzog: Between Mirage and History, New York, 1986. Elsaesser, Thomas, New German Cinema: A History, London, 1989. Murray, Bruce A., and Christopher J. Wickham, editors, Framing the Past: The Historiography of German Cinema and Television, Carbondale, Illinois, 1992. On HERZOG: articles— ‘‘Herzog Issue’’ of Cinema (Zurich), vol. 18, no. 1, 1972. Wetzel, Kraft, ‘‘Werner Herzog,’’ in Kino (West Berlin), April/ May 1973. Bachmann, Gideon, ‘‘The Man on the Volcano,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Autumn 1977. Dorr, John, ‘‘The Enigma of Werner Herzog,’’ in Millimeter (New York), October 1977. Walker, B., ‘‘Werner Herzog’s Nosferatu,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1978. Andrews, N., ‘‘Dracula in Delft,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), October 1978. Morris, George, ‘‘Werner Herzog,’’ in International Film Guide 1979, London, 1978. Cleere, E., ‘‘Three Films by Werner Herzog,’’ in Wide Angle (Ath- ens, Ohio), vol. 3, no. 4, 1980. Van Wert, W.F., ‘‘Hallowing the Ordinary, Embezzling the Every- day: Werner Herzog’s Documentary Practice,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film Studies (Pleasantville, New York), Spring 1980. Davidson, D., ‘‘Borne out of Darkness: The Documentaries of Werner Herzog,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Fall 1980. ‘‘Werner Herzog,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1982. Goodwin, M., ‘‘Herzog the God of Wrath,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), June 1982. Carroll, Noel, ‘‘Herzog, Presence, and Paradox,’’ in Persistence of Vision (Maspeth, New York), Fall 1985. Kennedy, Harlan, ‘‘Amazon Grace,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1986. Davidson, David, ‘‘Borne out of Darkness: The Documentaries of Werner Herzog,’’ in Film Criticism (Meadville, Pennsylvania), no. 1/2, 1987. Mouton, Jan, ‘‘Werner Herzog’s Stroszek: A Fairy-Tale in an Age of Disenchantment,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Mary- land), vol. 15, no. 2, 1987. Caltvedt, Lester, ‘‘Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo and the Rubber Era,’’ in Film and History (New York), vol. 18, no. 4, 1988. ‘‘Herzog Issue’’ of Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Summer 1988. Elsaesser, Thomas, ‘‘Werner Herzog: Tarzan Meets Parsifal,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), May 1988. Stiles, Victoria M., ‘‘Fact and Fiction: Nature’s Endgame in Werner Herzog’s Aguirre, the Wrath of God,’’ in Literature/Film Quar- terly (Salisbury), July 1989. Uhrík, ?tefan, ‘‘Werner Herzog o ryzyku filmowania,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), July 1991. Pezzotta, Alberto, ‘‘La realtà e il mito,’’ in Filmcritica (Siena), May 1992. Klerk, Nico de, and others, ‘‘De helden van de jaren zeventig,’’ in Skrien (Amsterdam), June-July 1992. Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), November 1993. Andrew, Geoff, ‘‘Plight Relief,’’ in Time Out (London), 17 April 1996. Hogue, Peter, ‘‘Genre-busting. Documentaries as Movies,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July-August 1996. Stiles, Victoria M., ‘‘Woyzeck in Focus: Werner Herzog and His Critics,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), vol. 24, no. 3, 1996. Wiberg, Matts, in Filmh?ftet (Stockholm), vol. 26, no. 104, 1998. McCarthy, Todd, ‘‘My Best Friend (Mein liebster Feind),’’ in Variety (New York), 24 May 1999. On HERZOG: films— Weisenborn, Christian, and Erwin Keusch, Was ich bin sind meine Filme, Munich, 1978. Blank, Les, Werner Herzog Eats His Shoe, U.S., 1980. Blank, Les, Burden of Dreams, U.S., 1982. *** Werner Herzog, more than any director of his generation, has through his films embodied German history, character, and cultural richness. While references to verbal and other visual arts would be out of place in treating most film directors, they are key to understanding Herzog. For his techniques he reaches back into the early part of the twentieth century to the Expressionist painters and filmmakers; back to the Romantic painters and writers for the luminance and allegorization of landscape and the human figure; even further beyond into six- teenth-century Mannerist extremes of Mathias Günwald; and through- out his nation’s heritage for that peculiarly Germanic grotesque. In all these technical and expressive veins, one finds the qualities of exaggeration, distortion, and the sublimation of the ugly. More than any, ‘‘grotesque’’ presents itself as a useful term to define Herzog’s work. His use of an actor like Klaus Kinski, whose HILL DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 434 singularly ugly face is sublimated by Herzog’s camera, can best be described by such a term. Persons with physical defects like deafness and blindness, and dwarfs, are given a type of grandeur in Herzog’s artistic vision. Herzog, as a contemporary German living in the shadow of remembered Nazi atrocities, demonstrates a penchant for probing the darker aspects of human behavior. Herzog’s vision renders the ugly and horrible sublime, while the beautiful is omitted and, when included, destroyed or made to vanish (like the beautiful Spanish noblewoman in Aguirre). Closely related to the grotesque in Herzog’s films is the influence of German expressionism on him. Two of Herzog’s favorite actors, Klaus Kinski and Bruno S., have been compared to Conrad Veidt and Fritz Kortner, prototypical actors of German expressionistic dramas and films during the teens and 1920s. Herzog’s actors make highly stylized, indeed often stock, gestures; in close-ups, their faces are set in exaggerated grimaces. The characters of Herzog’s films often seem deprived of free will, merely reacting to an absurd universe. Any exertion of free will in action leads ineluctably to destruction, death, or at best frustration by the unexpected. The director is a satirist who demonstrates what is wrong with the world but, as yet, seems unable or unwilling to articulate the ways to make it right; indeed, one is at a loss to find in his world view any hope, let alone prescription, for improvement. Herzog’s mode of presentation has been termed by some critics as romantic and by others as realistic. This seeming contradiction can be resolved by an approach that compares him with those Romantic artists who first articulated elements of the later realistic approach. Critics have found in the quasi-photographic paintings of Caspar David Friedrich an analogue for Herzog’s super-realism. As with these artists, there is an aura of unreality in Herzog’s realism. Everything is seen through a camera that rarely goes out of intense, hard focus. Often it is as if his camera is deprived of the normal range of human vision, able only to perceive part of the whole through a telescope or a microscope. In this strange blend of romanticism and realism lies the paradoxi- cal quality of Herzog’s talent: he, unlike Godard, Resnais, or Altman, has not made great innovations in film language; if his style is to be defined at all it is as an eclectic one; and yet, his films do have a distinctive stylistic quality. He renders the surface reality of things with such an intensity that the viewer has an uncanny sense of seeing the essence beyond. Aguirre, for example, is unrelenting in its concentration on filth, disease, and brutality; and yet it is also an allegory which can be read on several levels: in terms of Germany under the Nazis, America in Vietnam, and more generally on the bestiality that lingers beneath the facade of civilized conventions. In one of Herzog’s romantic tricks within his otherwise realistic vision, he shows a young Spanish noblewoman wearing an ever-pristine velvet dress amid mud and squalor; further, only she of all the rest is not shown dying through violence and is allowed to disappear almost mystically into the dense vegetation of the forest: clearly, she repre- sents that transcendent quality in human nature that incorruptibly endures. This figure is dropped like a hint to remind us to look beyond mere surface. One finds, however, in Fitzcarraldo, Herzog’s supreme apotheo- sis of the spiritual dimensions of the rain forest. As much in the production as in the substance of the film, the Western Imperialist will to reshape the wilderness is again and again met with reversals that render that will meaningless. The protagonist’s titanic effort to get a riverboat over a hill from one river to another is achieved only to be thwarted by the natives who cut the ropes, sending it careening downstream through the rapids in a sacrifice to their river deity. The boat ends up uselessly back where it began: a massive symbol of human futility. Only the old gramophone shown playing records of Caruso throughout the jungle voyage offers—like the Spanish noblewoman in Aguirre—Herzog’s vision of beauty that rarely escapes being rendered meaningless by an otherwise absurd universe. Herzog’s Australian film Where Green Ants Dream does penance for any taint of Western Imperialism that Fitzcarraldo might have given him. The director comes down hard against the modern way of life. This film is saved from tendentiousness by movements of human comedy through which a very sympathetic hero learns from the Native Australians, and by Herzog’s much-loved 360-degree pans over the flatness of the Outback. This technique is also used by Herzog to convey the sense of flat immensity of sub-Saharan Africa in Herdsmen of the Sun, a lyrical celebration of the Wodaabe tribesmen, who bend Western gender expectations by having the men and women reverse roles in courtship. Here, too, Herzog evidences his German heritage by following in the African footsteps of his greatest—if most problematic—filmmaking compatriot: Leni Riefenstahl, whose last work was a documentary of a sub-Saharan tribe to the east of the Wodaabe. —Rodney Farnsworth HILL, Walter Nationality: American. Born: Long Beach, California, 10 January 1942. Education: Attended University of Americas, Mexico City, 1959–60; Michigan State University, B.A., 1962, M.A., 1963. Ca- reer: Began in films as writer; directed first film, Hard Times, 1975; created Dog and Cat TV series, 1977. Address: c/o Lone Wolf Co., 8800 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 210, Los Angeles, CA 90069, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1975 Hard Times (The Streetfighter) (+ co-sc) 1978 The Driver (+ sc) 1979 The Warriors (co-sc) 1980 The Long Riders 1981 Southern Comfort (co-sc) 1982 48 Hrs. (+ sc) 1984 Streets of Fire (+ sc, pr) 1985 Brewster’s Millions 1986 Crossroads 1987 Extreme Prejudice 1988 Red Heat (+ sc, pr) 1989 Johnny Handsome; Tales from the Crypt (TV series) (+ co-exec pr) 1990 Another 48 Hrs. 1992 Trespass 1993 Geronimo: An American Legend (+ pr) 1995 Wild Bill (+ sc) 1996 Last Man Standing (+ sc) 2000 Supernova HILLDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 435 Walter Hill Other Films: 1968 The Thomas Crown Affair (Jewison) (2nd asst-d) 1969 Take the Money and Run (Allen) (asst-d) 1972 Hickey and Boggs (Culp) (sc); The Getaway (Peckinpah) (sc) 1973 The Thief Who Came to Dinner (Yorkin) (sc); The Mackintosh Man (Huston) (sc) 1975 The Drowning Pool (Rosenberg) (co-sc) 1979 Alien (Scott) (co-pr) 1986 Aliens (Cameron) (co-pr); Blue City (Manning) (co-sc, pr) 1992 Alien 3 (sc, pr) 1994 The Getaway (sc) Publications By HILL: articles— Interview with A. J. Silver and E. Ward, in Movie (London), Win- ter 1978/79. ‘‘Making Alien,’’ an interview with M. P. Carducci, in Cinefantastique (Oak Park, Illinois), no. 1, 1979. Interview with M. Greco, in Film Comment (New York), May/ June 1980. Interview with Pat Broeske, in Films in Review (New York), Decem- ber 1981. ‘‘Dead End Streets,’’ an interview with D. Chute, in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1984. Interview with A. Hunter, in Films and Filming (London), Octo- ber 1984. ‘‘Walter Hill,’’ an interview with L. Gross, in Bomb, Winter 1993. ‘‘Hill on Hawks,’’ an interview with T. Davis, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1997. On HILL: book— Cantero, Marcial, Walter Hill, Madrid, 1985. On HILL: articles— ‘‘Walter Hill,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1982. Sragow, M., ‘‘Don’t Jesse James Me,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1982. Rafferty, T., ‘‘The Paradoxes of Home: Three Films by Walter Hill,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1982. Sragow, M., ‘‘Hill’s Street Blues,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), June 1984. Heuring, D., ‘‘Red Heat—Cross-Culture Cop Caper,’’ in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), June 1988. Revue du Cinéma/Image et Son (Paris), June 1990. Roth, P. A., ‘‘The Virtue of Violence: The Dimensions of Develop- ment in Walter Hill’s The Warriors,’’ in Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 24, no. 3, 1990. ‘‘Walter Hill,’’ in CinemAction, January 1992. Solman, Gregory, ‘‘At Home on the Range: Walter Hill,’’ in Film Comment, March/April 1994. *** Established in the early 1970s as a writer of action movies (earlier he had ambitions to illustrate comic books), Walter Hill went almost unnoticed for his first two directorial ventures. Not so with his third. The Warriors reportedly occasioned gang fights in the United States, while one British newspaper dubbed it ‘‘the film they mustn’t show here.’’ Replete with highly stylized violence, The Warriors has been described by Hill as ‘‘a comic book rock ‘n’ roll version of the Xenophon story.’’ It is a precise description: the movie takes the Anabasis and adapts it to an appropriately mythical setting among the street gangs of modern New York. The stranded Warriors fight their way home through the subways and streets of an extraordinary fantasy city. This world, as so often in Hill’s movies, is evacuated of any sense of the everyday, and is rendered with the use of the strong reds, yellows, and blues of comic book design. In its subway scenes especially, colors leap from the screen much as, say, a Roy Lichten- stein picture leaps from the canvas, its direct assault on our vision as basic as that of a comic strip. The pleasure of the movie lies in that style, transforming its much- maligned violence into a kind of ritual dance. Given this transforma- tion, you could as well accuse Hill of celebrating gang warfare as you could accuse Lichtenstein of condoning aerial combat in his painting Whaam! The fascination of Hill’s cinema is that it evokes and elaborates upon mythical worlds, in the case of The Warriors grounded in ancient Greece and in comics, though in his other movies more often based in the cinema itself. Thus Driver eliminates orthodox characterization in favour of thriller archetypes: the Driver, the Detective, and the Girl, as the credits list them. They revolve around each other in a world of formally defined roles, roles made archetypal by movies themselves. The Long Riders, in presenting a version of the HITCHCOCK DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 436 Jesse James story, traps its characters in their own movie mythology so that they even seem to be aware that they are playing out a sort of destiny born of the Western genre, a sense of fate which also imbues Hill’s other outstanding Western, Geronimo: An American Legend. Southern Comfort manipulates and undermines the war-movie ideol- ogy of the small military group, while 48 Hrs. pursues its unstoppable and richly entertaining action in precisely the fashion of a Don Siegel cop movie—Madigan, say, or Dirty Harry. It is as if Hill’s project is to tour the popular genres, and although he made a sequence of poor films in the latter half of the 1980s, in 1993 Geronimo triumphantly demonstrated that he remains one of the most intelligent genre directors in the modern cinema. This heralded something of a resur- gence in the quality of his work, if not in commercial success, with Wild Bill and Last Man Standing (a version of Kurosawa’s Yojimbo) demonstrating his continuing grasp of genre conventions and narra- tive technique. He remains highly skilled in the use of chase and confrontation, adept at the montage methods so central to action- movie tension, while offering us not a ‘‘reality’’ but a distillation of the rules of the genre game. In his films we are witness to the enmything of characters, if that neologism is not too pompous for so pleasurable an experience, a self-conscious evocation of genre but without the knowing, postmodern wink which often attends such exercises. Hill manages to take the genre seriously and to reflect upon it, in Wild Bill even to the reflexive point at which Bill Hickock is represented as both victim and product of his own enmything. Inevitably such immersion in popular genre conventions, however skilled, risks critical opprobrium. Although Geronimo has deservedly received its share of positive comment—in part, of course, because it treats its Native Americans with more sensitivity than has generally been the case in genre cinema—The Warriors, Southern Comfort, 48 Hrs., and Last Man Standing. have all been dismissed as shallow and morally suspect, lacking in the ‘‘seriousness’’ considered necessary to redeem their almost exclusive focus upon action. This, however, is to miss the real pleasures of Hill’s cinema, its visual power, its narrative force, and its absorbing concern with myth-making and myth-breaking. These, too, are qualities to which the label ‘‘serious’’ may properly be applied. —Andrew Tudor HITCHCOCK, Alfred Nationality: British. Born: Alfred Joseph Hitchcock in Leytonstone, London, 13 August 1899, became U.S. citizen, 1955. Education: Salesian College, Battersea, London, 1908; St. Ignatius College, Stamford Hill, London, 1908–13; School of Engineering and Naviga- tion, 1914; attended drawing and design classes under E.J. Sullivan, London University, 1917. Family: Married Alma Reville, 2 Decem- ber 1926, daughter Patricia born 1928. Career: Technical clerk, W.T. Henley Telegraph Co., 1914–19; title-card designer for Famous Players-Lasky at Islington studio, 1919; scriptwriter and assistant director, from 1922; directed two films for producer Michael Balcon in Germany, 1925; signed with British International Pictures as director, 1927; directed first British film to use synchronized sound, Blackmail, 1929; signed with Gaumont-British Studios, 1933; moved to America to direct Rebecca for Selznick International Studios, decided to remain, 1939; returned to Britain to make short films for Alfred Hitchcock Ministry of Information, 1944; directed first film in color, Rope, 1948; producer and host, Alfred Hitchcock Presents (The Alfred Hitchcock Hour from 1962), for TV, 1955–65. Awards: Irving Thalberg Academy Award, 1968; Chevalier de la Légion d’Honneur, 1971; Commander of the Order of Arts and Letters, France, 1976; Life Achievement Award, American Film Institute, 1979; Honorary Doctorate, University of Southern California; Knight of the Legion of Honour of the Cinématheque Fran?ais; knighted, 1980. Died: Of kidney failure, in Los Angeles, 29 April 1980. Films as Director: 1922 Number Thirteen (or Mrs. Peabody) (incomplete) 1923 Always Tell Your Wife (Croise; completed d) 1926 The Pleasure Garden (Irrgarten der Leidenschaft); The Moun- tain Eagle (Der Bergadler; Fear o’ God); The Lodger; A Story of the London Fog (The Case of Jonathan Drew) (+ co-sc, bit role as man in newsroom, and onlooker during Novello’s arrest) 1927 Downhill (When Boys Leave Home); Easy Virtue; The Ring (+ sc) 1928 The Farmer’s Wife (+ sc); Champagne (+ adapt); The Manxman 1929 Blackmail (+ adapt, bit role as passenger on ‘‘tube’’) (silent version also made); Juno and the Paycock (The Shame of Mary Boyle) 1930 Elstree Calling (Brunel; d after Brunel dismissed, credit for ‘‘sketches and other interpolated items’’); Murder (Mary, HITCHCOCKDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 437 Sir John greift ein!) (+ co-adapt, bit role as passerby) An Elastic Affair (short) 1931 The Skin Game (+ co-sc) 1932 Rich and Strange (East of Shanghai) (+ co-sc): Number Seventeen (+ co-sc) 1933 Waltzes from Vienna (Strauss’s Great Waltz; The Great Waltz) 1934 The Man Who Knew Too Much 1935 The Thirty-nine Steps (+ bit role as passerby) 1936 Secret Agent; Sabotage (The Woman Alone) 1937 Young and Innocent (The Girl Was Young) (+ bit as photogra- pher outside courthouse) 1938 The Lady Vanishes (+ bit role as man at railway station) 1939 Jamaica Inn 1940 Rebecca (+ bit role as man outside phone booth); Foreign Correspondent (+ bit role as man reading newspaper) 1941 Mr. and Mrs. Smith (+ bit role as passerby); Suspicion 1942 Saboteur (+ bit role as man by newsstand) 1943 Shadow of a Doubt (+ bit role as man playing cards on train) 1944 Life Boat (+ bit role as man in ‘‘Reduco’’ advertisement); Bon Voyage (short); Aventure Malgache (The Malgache Adven- ture) (short) 1945 Spellbound (+ bit role as man in elevator) 1946 Notorious (+ story, bit role as man drinking champagne) 1947 The Paradine Case (+ bit role as man with cello) 1948 Rope (+ bit role as man crossing street) 1949 Under Capricorn; Stage Fright (+ bit role as passerby) 1951 Strangers on a Train (+ bit role as man boarding train with cello) 1953 I Confess (+ bit role as man crossing top of flight of steps) 1954 Dial M for Murder (+ bit role as man in school reunion dinner photo); Rear Window (+ bit role as man winding clock); To Catch a Thief (+ bit role as man at back of bus); The Trouble with Harry (+ bit role as man walking past exhibition) 1955 The Man Who Knew Too Much (+ bit role as man watching acrobats); 1956 The Wrong Man (+ intro appearance) 1957 Vertigo (+ bit role as passerby) 1959 North by Northwest (+ bit role as man who misses bus) 1960 Psycho (+ bit role as man outside realtor’s office) 1963 The Birds (+ bit role as man with two terriers) 1964 Marnie (+ bit role as man in hotel corridor) 1966 Torn Curtain (+ bit role as man in hotel lounge with infant) 1969 Topaz (+ bit role as man getting out of wheelchair) 1972 Frenzy (+ bit role as man in crowd listening to speech) 1976 Family Plot (+ bit role as silhouette on office window) Other Films: 1920 The Great Day (Ford) (inter-titles des); The Call of Youth (Ford) (inter-titles des) 1921 The Princess of New York (Crisp) (inter-titles des); Appear- ances (Crisp) (inter-titles des); Dangerous Lies (Powell) (inter-titles des); The Mystery Road (Powell) (inter-titles des); Beside the Bonnie Brier Bush (The Bonnie Brier Bush) (Crisp) (inter-titles des) 1922 Three Live Ghosts (Fitzmaurice) (inter-titles des); Perpetua (Love’s Boomerang) (Robertson and Geraghty) (inter-titles des); The Man from Home (Fitzmaurice) (inter-titles des); Spanish Jade (Robertson and Geraghty) (inter-titles des); Tell Your Children (Crisp) (inter-titles des) 1923 Woman to Woman (Cutts) (co-sc, asst-d, art-d, ed); The White Shadow (White Shadows) (Cutts) (art-d, ed) 1924 The Passionate Adventure (Cutts) (co-sc, asst-d, art-d); The Prude’s Fall (Cutts) (asst-d, art-d) 1925 The Blackguard (Die Prinzessin und der Geiger) (Cutts) (asst-d, art-d) 1932 Lord Camber’s Ladies (Levy) (pr) 1940 The House across the Bay (Mayo) (d add’l scenes); Men of the Lightship (MacDonald, short) (reediting, dubbing of U.S. version) 1941 Target for Tonight (Watt) (supervised reediting of U.S. version) 1960 The Gazebo (Marshall) (voice on telephone telling Glenn Ford how to dispose of corpse) 1963 The Directors (pr: Greenblatt) (appearance) 1970 Makin’ It (Hartog) (documentary appearance from early thirties) 1977 Once upon a Time . . . Is Now (Billington, for TV) (role as interviewee) Publications By HITCHCOCK: book— Le Cinéma selon Hitchcock, with Fran?ois Truffaut, Paris, 1966; published as Hitchcock, New York, 1985. By HITCHCOCK: articles— ‘‘My Own Methods,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1937. ‘‘On Suspense and Other Matters,’’ in Films in Review (New York), April 1950. Interview with Claude Chabrol, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1955. Interview with Catherine de la Roche, in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1955/56. ‘‘Rencontre avec Alfred Hitchcock,’’ with Fran?ois Truffaut, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1956. ‘‘Alfred Hitchcock Talking,’’ in Films and Filming (London), July 1959. Interview with Ian Cameron and V.F. Perkins, in Movie (London), 6 January 1963. ‘‘Hitchcock on Style,’’ in Cinema (Beverly Hills), August/Septem- ber 1963. ‘‘Rear Window,’’ in Take One (Montreal), November/December 1968. ‘‘Alfred Hitchcock: The German Years,’’ an interview with B. Thomas, in Action (Los Angeles), January/February 1973. ‘‘Hitchcock,’’ transcript of address to Film Society of Lincoln Center, 29 April 1974, in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1974. ‘‘Hitchcock,’’ an interview with Andy Warhol, in Inter/View (New York), September 1974. ‘‘Surviving,’’ an interview with John Taylor, in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1977. On HITCHCOCK: books— Amengual, Barthélémy, and Raymond Borde, Alfred Hitchcock, Paris, 1957. Rohmer, Eric, and Claude Chabrol, Hitchcock, Paris, 1957. HITCHCOCK DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 438 Bogdanovich, Peter, The Cinema of Alfred Hitchcock, New York, 1962. Perry, George, The Films of Alfred Hitchcock, London, 1965. Wood, Robin, Hitchcock’s Films, London, 1965; published as Hitch- cock’s Films Revisited, New York, 1989. Douchet, Jean, Alfred Hitchcock, Paris, 1967. Simsolo, Noel, Alfred Hitchcock, Paris, 1969. Taylor, John Russell, Hitch, New York, 1978. Bellour, Raymond, L’Analyse du film, Paris, 1979. Fieschi, J.-A., and others, Hitchcock, Paris, 1981. Hemmeter, Thomas M., Hitchcock the Stylist, Ann Arbor, Michi- gan, 1981. Bazin, Andre, The Cinema of Cruelty: From Bu?uel to Hitchcock, New York, 1982. Narboni, Jean, editor, Alfred Hitchcock, Paris, 1982. Rothman, William, Hitchcock—The Murderous Gaze, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982. Spoto, Donald, The Dark Side of Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitch- cock, New York, 1982. Weis, Elisabeth, The Silent Scream: Alfred Hitchcock’s Sound Track, Rutherford, New Jersey, 1982. Belton, John, Cinema Stylists, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1983. Phillips, Gene D., Alfred Hitchcock, Boston, 1984. Douchet, Jean, Alfred Hitchcock, Paris, 1985. Deutelbaum, Marshall, and Leland Poague, A Hitchcock Reader, Ames, Iowa, 1986. Hogan, David J., Dark Romance: Sexuality in the Horror Film, Jefferson, North Carolina, 1986. Humphries, Patrick, The Films of Alfred Hitchcock, Greenwich, Connecticut, 1986. Kloppenburg, Josef, Die Dramaturgische Funktion der Musik in Filmen Alfred Hitchcocks, Munich, 1986. Ryall, Tom, Alfred Hitchcock and the British Cinema, London, 1986. Sinyard, Neil, The Films of Alfred Hitchcock, London, 1986. Leff, Leonard J., Hitchcock and Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood, New York, 1987. Modleski, Tania, The Women Who Knew Too Much: Hitchcock and Feminist Theory, New York, 1988. Brill, Linda, The Hitchcock Romance: Love and Irony in Hitchcock’s Films, Princeton, New Jersey, 1988. Leitch, Thomas M., Find the Director and Other Hitchcock Games, Athens, Georgia, 1991. Raubicheck, Walter, and Walter Srebnick, editors, Hitchcock’s Rereleased Films: From Rope to Vertigo, Detroit, 1991. Sharff, Stefan, Alfred Hitchcock’s High Vernacular: Theory and Practice, New York, 1991. Finler, Joel W., Hitchcock in Hollywood, New York, 1992. Kapsis, Robert E., Hitchcock: The Making of a Reputation, Chi- cago, 1992. Price, Theodore, Hitchcock and Homosexuality: His 50-Year Obses- sion with Jack the Ripper and the Superbitch Prostitute, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1992. Spoto, Donald, The Art of Alfred Hitchcock: Fifty Years of His Motion Pictures, New York, 1992. Corber, Robert J., In the Name of National Security: Hitchcock, Homophobia, and the Political Construction of Gender in Post- war America, Durham, North Carolina, 1993. Hurley, Neil P., Soul in Suspense: Hitchcock’s Fright and Delight, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1993. Naremore, James, North by Northwest: Alfred Hitchcock, Director, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1993. Sloan, Jane, Alfred Hitchcock: A Guide to References and Sources, New York, 1993. Arginteanu, Judy, The Movies of Alfred Hitchcock, Minneapolis, 1994. Gottlieb, Sidney, editor, Hitchcock on Film: Selected Writings and Interviews, Berkeley, California, 1995. Sloan, Jane E., Alfred Hitchcock: A Filmography and Bibliography, Berkeley, 1995. Boyd, David, editor, Perspectives on Alfred Hitchcock, New York, 1995. Rebello, Stephen, Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho, New York, 1998. Samuels, Robert, Hitchcock’s Bi-Textuality: Lacan, Feminisms, and Queer Theory, Albany, New York, 1998. Freedman, Jonathan, and Richard Millington, editors, Hitchcock’s America, New York, 1999. Auiler, Dan, Hitchcock’s Notebooks: An Authorized and Illustrated Look inside the Creative Mind of Alfred Hitchcock, New York, 1999. On HITCHCOCK: articles— Pratley, Gerald, ‘‘Alfred Hitchcock’s Working Credo,’’ in Films in Review (New York), December 1952. ‘‘Hitchcock Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1953. May, Derwent, in Sight and Sound (London), October/December 1954. Bazin, André, ‘‘Alfred Hitchcock,’’ in Radio, Cinéma, Télévision (Paris), 23 January 1955. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘The Trouble with Hitchcock,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Winter 1955. ‘‘Hitchcock Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), August/Septem- ber 1956. Pett, John, ‘‘A Master of Suspense,’’ in Films and Filming (London), November and December 1959. Cameron, Ian, ‘‘Hitchcock and the Mechanics of Suspense,’’ in Movie (London), October 1962. Higham, Charles, ‘‘Hitchcock’s World,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berke- ley), December/January 1962/63. Houston, Penelope, ‘‘The Figure in the Carpet,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1963. Truffaut, Fran?ois, ‘‘Skeleton Keys,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1964. Cameron, Ian, and Richard Jeffrey, ‘‘The Universal Hitchcock,’’ in Movie (London), Spring 1965. ‘‘An Alfred Hitchcock Index,’’ in Films in Review (New York), April 1966. Sonbert, Warren, ‘‘Alfred Hitchcock: Master of Morality,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Summer 1966. Lightman, Herb, ‘‘Hitchcock Talks about Light, Camera, Action,’’ in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), May 1967. Braudy, Leo, ‘‘Hitchcock, Truffaut, and the Irresponsible Audi- ence,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1968. Houston, Penelope, ‘‘Hitchcockery,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1968. Millar, Gavin, ‘‘Hitchcock versus Truffaut,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1969. Durgnat, Raymond, ‘‘The Strange Case of Alfred Hitchcock,’’ in Films and Filming (London), February 1970 through Novem- ber 1970. HITCHCOCKDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 439 Smith, J.M., ‘‘Conservative Individualism: A Selection of English Hitchcock,’’ in Screen (London), Autumn 1972. Kaplan, G., ‘‘Lost in the Wood,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November/December 1972. Poague, Lee, ‘‘The Detective in Hitchcock’s Frenzy: His Ancestors and Significance,’’ in Journal of Popular Film (Bowling Green, Ohio), Winter 1973. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Alfred Hitchcock, Prankster of Paradox,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1974. Simer, D., ‘‘Hitchcock and the Well-Wrought Effect,’’ in Literature/ Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), Summer 1975. Fisher, R., ‘‘The Hitchcock Camera ‘I’,’’ in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), December 1975. Silver, A.J., ‘‘Fragments of a Mirror: Uses of Landscape in Hitch- cock,’’ in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), v. 1, no. 3, 1976. Bellour, Raymond, ‘‘Hitchcock, the Enunciator,’’ in Camera Obscura (Berkeley), Fall 1977. Lehman, Ernest, ‘‘He Who Gets Hitched,’’ in American Film (Wash- ington, D.C.), May 1978. ‘‘Hitchcock Section’’ of Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol. 4, no. 1, 1980. Combs, Richard, ‘‘Perché Hitchcock?,’’ and Ivor Montagu, ‘‘Work- ing with Hitchcock,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1980. ‘‘Hitchcock Issue’’ of Cinématographe (Paris), July/August 1980. Lehman, Ernest, ‘‘Hitch,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), August 1980. Wollen, P., ‘‘Hybrid Plots in Psycho,’’ in Framework (Norwich, England), Autumn 1980. Belton, John, ‘‘Alfred Hitchcock’s Under Capricorn: Montage en- tranced by mise-en-scène,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film Studies (New York), Fall 1981. ‘‘Hitchcock Issue’’ of Camera/Stylo (Paris), November 1981. Brown, R.S., ‘‘Herrmann, Hitchcock, and the Music of the Irra- tional,’’ in Cinema Journal (Chicago), Spring 1982. Rossi, J., ‘‘Hitchcock’s Foreign Correspondent,’’ in Film and His- tory (Newark, New Jersey), May 1982. ‘‘Hitchcock Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 Decem- ber 1982. Wood, Robin, ‘‘Fear of Spying,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), November 1983. Jenkins, Steve, and Richard Combs, ‘‘Hitchcock x 2. Refocussing the Spectator: Just Enough Rope . . . ,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), February 1984. Sussex, Elizabeth, ‘‘The Fate of F3080,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Spring 1984. Kehr, Dave, ‘‘Hitch’s Riddle,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/ June 1984. ‘‘Hitchcock Issues’’ of Revue Belge du Cinéma (Brussels), Autumn 1984 and Winter 1984/85. Bannon, B.M., ‘‘Double, Double, Toil and Trouble,’’ in Literature/ Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), January 1985. Allen, J. Thomas, ‘‘The Representation of Violence to Women: Hitchcock’s Frenzy,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1985. French, Philip, ‘‘Alfred Hitchcock—The Filmmaker as Englishman and Exile,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1985. Kapsis, Robert E., ‘‘Alfred Hitchcock: Auteur or Hack?,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 14, no. 3, 1986. Zirnite, D., ‘‘Hitchcock, on the Level: The Heights of Spatial Ten- sion,’’ in Film Criticism (Meadville, Pennsylvania), Spring 1986. Miller, G., ‘‘Beyond the Frame: Hitchcock, Art, and the Ideal,’’ in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Winter 1986. Abel, Richard, ‘‘Stage Fright: The Knowing Performance,’’ in Film Criticism (Meadville, Pennsylvania), no. 1/2, 1987. Anderegg, Michael, ‘‘Hitchcock’s The Paradine Case and Filmic Unpleasure,’’ in Cinema Journal (Chicago), vol. 26, no. 4, 1987. Kapsis, Robert E., ‘‘Hollywood Filmmaking and Reputation–Build- ing: Hitchcock’s The Birds,’’ in Journal of Popular Film and TV (Washington, D.C.), Spring 1987. Greig, Donald, ‘‘The Sexual Differentiation of the Hitchcock Text,’’ in Screen (London), Winter 1987. Lee, Sander H., ‘‘Escape and Commitment in Hitchcock’s Rear Window,’’ in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), vol. 7, no. 2, 1988. Wood, Robin, ‘‘Symmetry, Closure, Disruption: The Ambiguity of Blackmail,’’ in CineAction! (Toronto), no. 15, 1988. American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), January 1990. Desowitz, Bill, ‘‘Strangers on Which Train?’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1992. Foley, J., ‘‘The Lady Vanishes,’’ in Bright Lights (Cincinnati), no. 10, July 1993. Wood, Brett, ‘‘Foreign Correspondence: The Rediscovered War Films of Alfred Hitchcock,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/ August 1993. Green, Susan, ‘‘The Trouble with Hitch,’’ in Premiere, Febru- ary 1994. Salt, Barry, ‘‘. . . Film in a Lifeboat?’’ in Film History (London), vol. 6, no. 1, Spring 1994. Kendall, L., ‘‘Better Is To Catch a Thief: A History of Hitchcock II,’’ in Film Score Monthly (Chula Vista, California), no. 59–60, July- August 1995. Hall, John W., ‘‘Touch of Psycho?: Hitchcock’s Debt to Welles,’’ in Bright Lights (Cincinnati), no. 14, 1995. Hemmeter, Thomas, ‘‘Hitchcock’s Melodramatic Silence,’’ in Jour- nal of Film and Video (Atlanta), vol. 48, nos. 1–2, Spring- Summer 1996. Perry, Dennis R., ‘‘Imps of the Perverse: Discovering the Poe/ Hitchcock Connection,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, October 1996. Hunter, Evan, ‘‘Me and Hitch,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 7, no. 6, June 1997. On HITCHCOCK: films— Casson, Philip, Interview with Alfred Hitchcock, for TV, Great Britain, 1966. Ya’acovolitz, M., and S. Melul, Im Hitchcock bi Yerushalayin (With Hitchcock in Jerusalem), short, Israel 1967. Schickel, Richard, The Men Who Made the Movies: Alfred Hitchcock, for TV, U.S., 1973. *** In a career spanning just over fifty years (1925–1976), Hitchcock completed fifty-three feature films, twenty-three in the British period, thirty in the American. Through the early British films we can trace the evolution of his professional/artistic image, the development of both the Hitchcock style and the Hitchcock thematic. His third film (and first big commercial success), The Lodger, was crucial in establishing him as a maker of thrillers, but it was not until the mid- 1930s that his name became consistently identified with that genre. In HITCHCOCK DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 440 the meantime, he assimilated the two aesthetic influences that were major determinants in the formation of his mature style: German Expressionism and Soviet montage theory. The former, with its aim of expressing emotional states through a deformation of external reality, is discernible in his work from the beginning (not surprisingly, as he has acknowledged Lang’s Die müde Tod as his first important cinematic experience, and as some of his earliest films were shot in German studios). Out of his later contact with the Soviet films of the 1920s evolved his elaborate editing techniques: he particularly ac- knowledged the significance for him of the Kuleshov experiment, from which he derived his fondness for the point-of-view shot and for building sequences by cross-cutting between person seeing/thing seen. The extreme peculiarity of Hitchcock’s art (if his films do not seem very odd it is only because they are so familiar) can be partly accounted for by the way in which these aesthetic influences from high art and revolutionary socialism were pressed into the service of British middle-class popular entertainment. Combined with Hitch- cock’s all-pervasive scepticism (‘‘Everything’s perverted in a differ- ent way, isn’t it?’’), this process resulted in an art that at once endorsed (superficially) and undermined (profoundly) the value system of the culture within which it was produced, be that culture British or American. During the British period the characteristic plot structures that recur throughout Hitchcock’s work are also established. I want here to single out three examples of his work, not because they account for all of the films, but because they link the British to the American period, because their recurrence is particularly obstinate, and because they seem, taken in conjunction, central to the thematic complex of Hitchcock’s total oeuvre. The first Hitchcock theme is the story about the accused man: this is already established in The Lodger (in which the male protagonist is suspected of being Jack the Ripper); it often takes the form of the ‘‘double chase,’’ in which the hero is pursued by the police and in turn pursues (or seeks to unmask) the actual villains. Examples in the British period are The 39 Steps and Young and Innocent. In the American period it becomes the commonest of all Hitchcock plot structures: Saboteur, Spellbound, Strangers on a Train, I Confess, To Catch a Thief, The Wrong Man, North by Northwest, and Frenzy are all based on it. A second Hitchcock plot device is the story about the guilty woman: although there are guilty women in earlier films, the structure is definitively established in Blackmail, Hitchcock’s (and Britain’s) first sound film. We may also add Sabotage from the British period, but it is in the American period that examples proliferate: Rebecca (Hitchcock’s first Hollywood film), Notorious, Under Capricorn, The Paradine Case, Vertigo, Psycho (the first third), The Birds, and Marnie are all variations on the original structure. It is striking to observe that the opposition of the two themes discussed above is almost complete; there are very few Hitchcock films in which the accused man turns out to be guilty after all (Shadow of a Doubt and Stage Fright are the obvious exceptions; Suspicion would have been a third if Hitchcock had been permitted to carry out his original intentions), and no Hitchcock film features an accused woman who turns out to be innocent (Dial M for Murder comes closest, but even there, although the heroine is innocent of murder, she is guilty of adultery). Second, it should be noticed that while the falsely accused man is usually (not quite always) the central con- sciousness of type one, it is less habitually the case that the guilty woman is the central consciousness of type two: frequently, she is the object of the male protagonist’s investigation. Third, the outcome of the guilty woman films (and this may be dictated as much by the Motion Picture Production Code as by Hitchcock’s personal moral- ity) is dependent upon the degree of guilt: the woman can sometimes be ‘‘saved’’ by the male protagonist (Blackmail, Notorious, Marnie), but not if she is guilty of murder or an accomplice to it (The Paradine Case, Vertigo). Other differences between the two types of films are also evident. One should note the function of the opposite sex in the two types, for example. The heroine of the falsely accused man films is, typically, hostile to the hero at first, believing him guilty; she subsequently learns to trust him, and takes his side in establishing his innocence. The function of the male protagonist in the guilty woman films, on the other hand, is either to save the heroine or to be destroyed (at least morally and spiritually) by her. It is important to recognize that the true nature of the guilt is always sexual, and that the falsely accused man is usually seen to be contaminated by this (though innocent of the specific crime, typically murder, of which he is accused). Richard Hannay in The 39 Steps can stand as the prototype of this: when he allows himself to be picked up by the woman in the music hall, it is in expectation of a sexual encounter, the notion of sexual disorder being displaced on to ‘‘espionage,’’ and the film systematically moves from this towards the construction of the ‘‘good’’ (i.e., socially approved) couple. The very title of Young and Innocent, with its play on the connotations of the last word, exemplifies the same point, and it is noteworthy that in that film the hero’s sexual innocence remains in doubt (we only have his own word for it that he was not the murdered woman’s gigolo). Finally, the essential Hitchcockian dialectic can be read from the alternation, throughout his career, of these two series. On the whole, it is the guilty woman films that are the more disturbing, that leave the most jarring dissonances: here, the poten- tially threatening and subversive female sexuality, precariously con- tained within social norms in the falsely accused man films, erupts to demand recognition and is answered by an appalling violence (both emotional and physical); the cost of its destruction or containment leaves that ‘‘nasty taste’’ often noted as the dominant characteristic of Hitchcock’s work. It is within this context that the third plot structure takes on its full significance: the story about the psychopath. Frequently, this struc- ture occurs in combination with the falsely accused man plot (see, for example, Young and Innocent, Strangers on a Train, Frenzy,) with a parallel established between the hero and his perverse and sinister adversary, who becomes a kind of shadowy alter ego. Only two Hitchcock films have the psychopath as their indisputably central figure, but they (Shadow of a Doubt, Psycho) are among his most famous and disturbing. The Hitchcock villain has a number of characteristics which are not necessarily common to all but unite in various combinations: a) Sexual ‘‘perversity’’ or ambiguity: a num- ber are more or less explicitly coded as gay (the transvestite killer in Murder!, Philip in Rope, Bruno Anthony in Strangers on a Train); others have marked mother-fixations (Uncle Charlie in Shadow of a Doubt, Anthony Perkins in Psycho, Bob Rusk in Frenzy), seen as a source of their psychic disorder; (b) Fascist connotations: this becomes politically explicit in the U-boat commander of Lifeboat, but is plain enough in, for example, Shadow of a Doubt and Rope; (c) The subtle associations of the villain with the devil: Uncle Charlie and Smoke in Shadow of a Doubt, Bruno Anthony in the paddle-boat named Pluto in Strangers on a Train, Norman Bates’ remark to Marion Crane that ‘‘no one ever comes here unless they’ve gotten off the main highway’’ in Psycho; (d) Closely connected with these HOLGER-MADSENDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 441 characteristics is a striking and ambiguous fusion of power and impotence operating on both the sexual and non-sexual levels. What is crucially significant here is that this feature is by no means restricted to the villains. It is shared, strikingly, by the male protago- nists of what are perhaps Hitchcock’s two supreme masterpieces, Rear Window and Vertigo. The latter aspect of Hitchcock works also relates closely to the obsession with control (and the fear of losing it) that characterized Hitchcock’s own methods of filmmaking: his preoccupation with a totally finalized and story-boarded shooting script, his domination of actors and shooting conditions. Finally, it’s notable that the psychopath/villain is invariably the most fascinating and seductive character of the film, and its chief source of energy. His inevitable destruction leaves behind an essentially empty world. If one adds together all these factors, one readily sees why Hitchcock is so much more than the skillful entertainer and master craftsman he was once taken for. His films represent an incomparable exposure of the sexual tensions and anxieties (especially male anxie- ties) that characterize a culture built upon repression, sexual inequal- ity, and the drive to domination. —Robin Wood HOLGER-MADSEN Nationality: Danish. Born: Holger Madsen, 11 April 1878, began spelling name with hyphen, 1911. Career: Actor in Danish prov- inces, 1896–1904, and in Copenhagen, from 1904; actor in films, from 1907; directed first film, 1912; director for Nordisk Films Kompagni, 1913–20; worked in Germany, from 1920; returned to Denmark, 1930; manager of small Copenhagen cinema, 1938–43. Died: 30 November 1943. Films as Director: 1912 Kun en Tigger (+ role) 1913 Under Savklingens Taender (The Usurer’s Son) (+ role); Under Mindernes Trae (Dengamle Baenk, Left Alone); Skaebnens Veje (Under Kaerlighedens Aag; In the Bonds of Passion); Det mrke? Punkt (Staalkongens Vilje; The Steel King’s Last Wish); Mens Pesten raser (Laegens Hustru; During the Plague); Ballettens Datter (Danserinden; Un- justly Accused); Elskovsleg (Love’s Devotee); Prinsesse Elena (The Princess’s Dilemma); Den hvide Dame (The White Ghost); Fra Fyrste til Knejpevaert (The Gambler’s Wife); Millionaerdrengen (The Adventures of a Million- aire’s Son); Guldet og vort Hjerte (Et vanskeligt Valg; The Heart’s Voice) 1914 Tempeldanserindens Elskov (Bajaderens Haevn; The Bayadere’s Revenge); Brnevennerne? (A Marriage of Con- venience); En Opstandelse (Genopstandelsen; A Resur- rection); Husassistenten (Naar Fruen skifter Pige; The New Cook); Svngaengersken? (The Somnambulist); Opiumsdrmmen? (The Opium Smoker’s Dream); Den mystiske Fremmede (A Deal with the Devil); Endelig Alene (Alone at Last); Min Ven Levy (My Friend Levy); Ned med Vaabnene (Lay Down Your Arms); Trold kan taemmes (The Taming of the Shrew); De Forviste (Uden Faedreland; Without a Country); Et Huskors (Lysten styret; Enough of It); Barnets Magt (The Child); Et Haremseventyr (An Adventure in a Harem); Evangeliemandens Liv (The Can- dle and the Moth); Kaerlighedens Triumf (Testamentet; The Romance of a Will); Krig og Kaerlighed (Love and War); Spiritisten (A Voice from the Past): Det stjaalne Ansigt (The Missing Admiralty Plans); En Aeresoprejsning (Misunder- stood); Liykken draeber 1915 Cigaretpigen (The Cigarette Maker); Hvem er Gentlemantyven (Strakoff the Adventurer); En Ildprve? (A Terrible Ordeal); Danserindens Haevn (Circus Arrives; The Dancer’s Revenge); Danserindens Kaerlighedsdrm? (Den Ddsdmte??; A Dancer’s Strange Dream; The Condemned); Den frelsende Film (The Woman Tempted Me); Grevinde Hjertels? (The Beggar Princess); Guldets Gift (The Tempting of Mrs. Chestney); Den hvide Djaevel (Caught in the Toils; The Devil’s Protege); Hvo som elsker sin Fader or Faklen (Who So Loveth His Father’s Honor); I Livets Braending (The Crossroads of Life); Manden uden Fremtid (The Man without a Future); Den omstridte Jord (Jordens Haevn; The Earth’s Revenge); Sjaeletyven (The Unwilling Sinner; His Innocent Dupe); Det unge Blod (The Buried Secret); Krigens Fjende (Acostates frste? Offer; The Munition Conspiracy); En Kunstners Gennembrud (Den Ddes? Sjael; The Soul of the Violin) 1916 For sin Faders Skyld (The Veiled Lady; False Evidence); Maaneprinsessen (Kamaeleonen; The Mysterious Lady; The May-Fly); Brnenes? Synd (The Sins of the Children); Fange no. 113 (Convict No. 113); Hans rigtige Kone (Which Is Which); Hendes Moders Lfte? (Ddens? Kontrakt; A Super Shylock); Hittebarnet (The Foundling of Fate): Hvor Sorgerne glemmes (Sster? Cecilies Offer; Sister Cecilia); Livets Gglespil? (An Impossible Marriage); Manden uden Smil; Nattens Mysterium (Who Killed Barno O’Neal); Nattevandreren (Edison Maes Dagbog; Out of the Under- world); Pax Aeterna; Lydia (The Music Hall Star); Lykken (The Road to Happiness; Guiding Conscience); Praestens Datter; Testamentets Hemmelighed (Den Ddes? Rst?; The Voice of the Dead; Nancy Keith); Den Aerelse? (The Infamous; The Prison Taint); Smil (Far’s Sorg; Father Sorrow; The Beggar Man of Paris) 1917 Himmelskibet (A Trip to Mars); Retten sejrer (Justice Victori- ous); Hendes Helt (Vogt dig for dine Venner) 1918 Folkets Ven (A Friend of the People); Mod Lyset (Toward the Light); Manden, der sejrede (The Man Who Tamed the Victors; Fighting Instinct) 1919 Gudernes Yndling (Digterkongen; Trials of Celebrity; The Penalty of Fame); Har jeg Ret til at tage mit eget Liv (Flugten fra Livet; The Flight from Life; Beyond the Barri- cade); Det Strste? i Verden (Janes gode Ven; The Greatest in the World; The Love That Lives) 1921 Am Webstuhl der Zeit; Tobias Buntschuh (+ role); Den dvende Stad (Die sterbende Stadt) 1922 P?mperly’s Kampf mit dem Schneeschuh (co-d) 1923 Das Evangelium; Zaida, die Trag?die eines Modells 1924 Der Mann um Mitternacht 1925 Ein Lebenskünstler 1926 Die seltsame Nacht; Die Sporck’schen J?ger; Spitzen 1927 Die heilige Lüge HOLLAND DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 442 1928 Freiwild; Die seltsame Nacht der Helga Wansen; Was ist los mit Nanette 1934 Kbenhavn?, Kalundborg og—? (co-d) 1936 Sol over Danmark Films as Actor: 1907 Den sorte Hertug 1908 Magdalene; En grov Spg? (A Practical Joke and a Sad End); Verdens Herkules (Hercules the Athlete); Karneval (The Bank Director, Carnival); Svend Dyrings Hus (The Stepmother); De smaa Landstrygere (Sold to Thieves); Smaeklaasen (The Spring Lock); Natten fr? Kristians Fdelsdag? (The Night before Christian’s Birthday); Rulleskjterne? (On Roller Skates); Sherlock Holmes I; Sherlock Holmes III 1909 Den graa Dame (The Gray Dame) 1911 Det store Fald or Malstrmmen?; Ddssejleren? or Dynamitattentatet paa Fyrtaarnet; Den svarte doktorn 1912 Paa Livets Skyggeside 1913 Elskovs Mast 1931 Praesten i Vejlby; Krudt med Knald 1933 Fem raske Piger; Med tuld Musik 1934 Lynet; 7–9-13 1935 Kidnapped *** The two leading directors at Nordisk Films Kompagni in the Golden Age of the Danish cinema from 1910 to 1914 were August Blom and Holger-Madsen. They were similar in many respects. They both started as actors, but unlike Blom, Holger-Madsen began as a director with companies other than Nordisk. When he came to Nordisk he worked in almost all of the genres of the period— sensational films, comedies, farces, dramas, and tragedies. Gradually, though, Holger-Madsen developed his own personality, both in content and style. Holger-Madsen specialized in films with spiritual topics. His main film in this genre was Evangeliemandens Liv, in which Valdemar Psilander plays the leading part of a dissolute young man of good family who suddenly realizes how empty and pointless his life is. He becomes a Christian and starts working as a preacher among the poor and the social outcasts of the big city. He succeeds in rescuing a young man from the path of sin. Several of the clichés of the period are featured in this tale, but the characterization of the hero is largely free of sentimentality, and Holger-Madsen coached Psilander into playing the role with a mature calm, and genuine strength of feeling. Formally the film is exquisite. The sets, the camerawork, and the lighting are executed with great care, and the film is rich in striking pictorial compositions, which was the director’s forte. Holger-Madsen had a predilection for extraordinary, often bizarre images and picturesque surroundings. With his cameraman, Marius Clausen, he emphasized the visual look of his films. His use of side light, inventive camera angles, and close-ups, combined with unusual sets, made him an original stylist. He was not very effective in his cutting technique, but he could establish marvelously choreographed scenes in which people moved in elegant patterns within the frame. Holger-Madsen’s reputation as an idealistic director led him to direct the big prestige films with pacifist themes which Ole Olsen, the head of Nordisk Films Kompagni, wanted to make in the naive hope that he could influence the fighting powers in the First World War. The films were often absurdly simple, but Holger-Madsen brought his artistic sense to the visual design of these sentimental stories. One of his most famous films is Himmelskibet from 1917, a work about a scientist who flies to Mars in a rocket ship. There he is confronted with a peaceful civilization. The film has obtained a position as one of the first science–fiction films. When the Danish cinema declined, Holger-Madsen went to Ger- many. Returning to Denmark after the 1920s, he was offered the opportunity of directing during the early sound film period, but his productions were insignificant. He was a silent film director; the image was his domain, and he was one of the craftsmen who molded and refined the visual language of film. —Ib Monty HOLLAND, Agnieszka Nationality: Polish. Born: Warsaw, Poland, 28 November 1948. Education: Graduated from the Filmova Akademie Muzickych Umeni (FAMU) film school in Prague, where she studied directing. Career: Maintained her studies in Prague even after the Soviet invasion; was jailed by the authorities after months of harassment by Agnieszka Holland HOLLANDDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 443 police, 1970; returned to Poland and became member of film collec- tive ‘‘X,’’ headed by Andrzej Wajda, 1972; began career as a produc- tion assistant to director Krzysztof Zanussi on Illumination, 1973; worked in Polish theatre and television, 1970s; began authoring scripts of films directed by Wajda, 1979; directed first feature, Provincial Actors, 1979; moved to Paris after the declaration of martial law in Poland, and began making documentaries for French television, 1981; earned first major international acclaim for Angry Harvest, 1985; member of board of directors of Zespoly Filmowne; member of board of directors of Polish Filmmakers Association. Awards: Award at TV Films and Plays Festival, Olsztyn, 1976; Prize at San Remo Festival, and MIFED, Milan, 1976, for Sunday Child- ren; Grand Prix, Koszalin Festival, 1979, for Provincial Actors; Co- winner, International Critics Prize, Cannes Festival, 1980, for Provin- cial Actors; Grand Prize, Gdansk Festival, 1981, for The Fever; New Cinema Grand Prize, Montreal Festival, 1981, for A Woman Alone; Oscar nomination, Best Foreign Language Film, 1985, for Angry Harvest; Golden Globe Award, Best Foreign Language Film, National Board of Review, Best Foreign Language Film, and Oscar nomina- tion, Best Screenplay, 1990, for Europa, Europa. Agnt: William Morris, 151 E. Camino Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. Films as Director/Screenwriter: 1973 Le Complot (co-d only) 1974 Evening at Abdon’s (An Evening at Abdon) (for TV) 1976 Niedzielne Dzieci (Sunday Children) (for TV) 1977 Something for Something (for TV); Screen Tests (episode in sketch film) 1979 Aktorzy prowincjonalni (Provincial Actors) 1981 Fever (The Fever: The Story of the Bomb) 1982 A Woman Alone (A Lonely Woman) (co-dir) 1984 Bittere ernte (Angry Harvest) 1988 To Kill a Priest (Le complot) (co-sc) 1990 Europa, Europa 1991 Olivier, Olivier 1993 The Secret Garden (d only) 1995 Total Eclipse (d only) 1997 Washington Square 1999 The Third Miracle 2001 Golden Dreams; Julia Walking Home (+ co-sc) Other Films: 1976 Blizna (The Scar) (Kieslowski) (ro as Secretary) 1978 Dead Case (sc); Bez znieczulenia (Without Anesthesia; Rough Treatment) (Wajda) (sc) 1981 Cziowiek z zelaza (Man of Iron) (Wajda) (sc) 1982 Przesluchanie (role as Witowska) 1983 Danton (Wajda) (sc) 1984 Ein Liebe en Deutschland (A Love in Germany) (Wajda) (sc) 1987 Anna (Bogayevicz) (sc); Les Possedes (sc) 1988 La Amiga (sc) 1990 Korczak (Wajda) (sc) 1993 Trois Couleurs: Bleu (Kieslowski) (additional dialogue) 1994 Trois Couleurs: Rouge (Kieslowski) (script consultant) Publications By HOLLAND: book— Olivier, Olivier (Script and Director Series), with Regis Debray, Yves Lapointe, Gaile Sarma, Leon Steinmetz, Anga Karetnikova and Inga Karetnikova, Westport, Connecticut, 1996. By HOLLAND: articles— ‘‘Agnieszka Holland: le cinema polonais cintinue d’exister mais un lui a coupe le souffle,’’ interview by P. Li in Avant-Scene Cinéma (Paris), December 1983. ‘‘Lessons from the Past,’’ interview by Peter Brunette in Cineaste (New York), no. 1, 1986. ‘‘Off-screen: A Pole Apart,’’ interview by J. Hoberman in Village Voice (New York), 18 March 1986. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Agnieszka Holland,’’ in American Film (New York), September 1986. ‘‘Lekja historii,’’ interview by J. Wroblewski in Kino (Warsaw), August 1989. Holland, Agnieszka, ‘‘Felix dia Wajdy,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), April 1991. ‘‘Spotkanie z Agnieszka Holland,’’ interview by T. Lubelshi in Kino (Warsaw), April 1991. ‘‘Nowa gra,’’ interview by Z. Benedyktow in Kino (Warsaw), 16 February 1992. ‘‘Feint Praise,’’ an interview with Jonathan Romney, in Time Out (London) 13 May 1992. ‘‘Holland,’’ interview by E. Krolikowska-Avis in Kino (Warsaw), October 1992. ‘‘Out of the Ruins: Lonely People,’’ an interview with Amy Taubin and M. Burman, in Sight and Sound (London), October 1993. Interview, in Kino (Warsaw), November 1993. ‘‘Raising Hell,’’ an interview with Nick Bradshaw, in Time Out (London), 9 April 1997. ‘‘The Escape of Bresson,’’ in DGA Magazine (Los Angeles), May- June 1997. ‘‘Squaring Off,’’ an interview with A. Taubin, in Village Voice (New York), 14 October 1997. On HOLLAND: articles— ‘‘Agnieszka Holland,’’ in Avant-Scene Cinéma (Paris), December 1983. Warchol, T., ‘‘The End of a Beginning,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), no. 3, 1986. Stone, Judy, ‘‘Behind Angry Harvest: Polish Politics and Exile,’’ in New York Times, 16 March 1986. Taubin, Amy, ‘‘Woman of Irony,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 2 July 1991. Quart, Barbara, ‘‘Three Central European Women Directors Revis- ited,’’ in Cineaste (New York), no. 4, 1993 Blinken, A. J., ‘‘Going to Extremes,’’ in Harper’s Bazaar (New York), February 1993. Cohen, R., ‘‘Holland without a Country,’’ in New York Times, 8 August 1993. Taubin, Amy, ‘‘Imagination among the Ruins,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 17 August 1993. Clark, J., and H. S. Hample, ‘‘Filmographies,’’ in Premiere (New York), September 1993. HOOPER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 444 Quart, Barbara, ‘‘The Secret Garden of Agnieszka Holland,’’ in Ms. (New York), September/October 1993. Gaydos, Stephen, ‘‘For Holland, Less Is More,’’ in Variety (New York), 30 October 1995. Possu, T., in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 5, 1995. Lally, K., ‘‘Holland’s America,’’ in Film Journal (New York), October 1997. *** The death camps were liberated decades ago. Auschwitz and Birkenau, Chelmno and Dachau—the ABCD’s of the Final Solution— have long been silent memorials to the mass murder of millions. Despite this passage of time—and despite the media-induced impres- sion that Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List is the only movie ever made that confronts the extermination of a people during the Second World War—the Holocaust was and is a fertile subject for cinematic exploration. One filmmaker whose body of work has been profoundly affected by the events of the era is director-screenwriter Agnieszka Holland. Holland is a Polish Jew who was born scant years after the end of the war. She is not so much interested in the politics of the era, in how and why the German people allowed Hitler to come to power. Rather, a common theme in her films is the manner in which individuals responded to Hitler and the Nazi scourge. This concern is most perfectly exemplified in what is perhaps her most distinguished film to date: Europa, Europa, a German-made feature based on the memoirs of Salamon Perel, who as a teenaged German Jew survived World War II by passing for Aryan in a Hitler Youth academy. This thoughtful, tremendously moving film was the source of controversy on two accounts: it depicts a Jew who compromises himself in order to insure his survival; and it was not named as Germany’s official Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award entry, making it ineligible in that category for an Oscar. However, it did earn Holland a nomina- tion for Best Adapted Screenplay. Even though Holland only wrote the script for Korczak—the film was directed by her mentor, Andrzej Wajda—it too is one of her most impassioned works. Her simple, poignant screenplay chronicles the real-life story of a truly gentle, remarkable man: Janusz Korczak (Wojtek Pszoniak), a respected doctor, writer, and children’s rights advocate who operated a home for Jewish orphans in Warsaw during the 1930s. Korczak’s concerns are people and not politics. ‘‘I love children,’’ he states, simply and matter-of-factly. ‘‘I fight for years for the dignity of children.’’ In his school, he offers his charges a humanist education. And then the Nazis invade his homeland. Given his station in life, Korczak easily could arrange his escape to freedom. But he chooses to remain with his children and do whatever he must to keep his orphanage running and his children alive, even after they all have been imprisoned in the Warsaw Ghetto. After directing several theatrical and made-for-television features in Poland, Holland came to international attention in 1985 with Angry Harvest, a superb drama about a wealthy farmer who offers to shelter a Jewish woman in his cellar in World War II Poland. His repressed sexuality transforms this act of kindness into one of hypocrisy, as he attempts to abuse his guest. Films like Angry Harvest, Korczak, and Europa, Europa serve an essential purpose: they are tools that can be used to educate young people, Jew and non-Jew alike, about the exploitation and extermination of a race. They are monuments, as much to the memory of generations past as to the survival of generations to come. Another of Holland’s themes—which by its very nature also may be linked to the Holocaust—is the loss of innocence among children that occurs by odd, jarring circumstances, rather than the natural progression of growing into adulthood. Olivier, Olivier, like Europa, Europa and Korczak, also is a based-on-fact narrative. It is the intricate account of a country couple whose youngest offspring, Olivier, mysteriously disappears. Six years later he ‘‘reappears,’’ but is no longer the special child who was a joy to his family. Instead, he is a Parisian street hustler who claims to have forgotten his childhood. One also can understand Holland’s attraction to The Secret Garden, an adaptation of the Frances Hodgson Burnett children’s story about a ten-year-old orphan who revitalizes a neglected garden in her uncle’s Victorian mansion. And one can see how she would be drawn to Washington Square, Henry James’s story of an awkward, unattrac- tive young woman, the daughter of a well-heeled, domineering doctor, who is wooed by a poor-but-handsome fortune hunter. The characters in Washington Square, The Secret Garden, and Olivier, Olivier are further linked in that they share complex familial bonds. Religion has had a significant presence in Holland’s films. In Europa, Europa, the young hero chooses to disavow his Judaism in order to insure his survival. To Kill a Priest is the story of an ill-fated activist priest in Poland, while The Third Miracle deals with a self- doubting clergyman whose job is to scrutinize the lives of potential saints. In these films, Holland is concerned with various aspects of theology, including religious identity, the manner in which religion affects the individual’s worldview, and how the religious establish- ment deals with the passions and politics of its adherents. Most of Holland’s films have been artistically successful. Two exceptions have been To Kill a Priest, an ambitious but ultimately clumsy drama; and Total Eclipse, about the relationship between French poets Arthur Rimbaud and Paul Verlaine (and based on a play by Christopher Hampton). Total Eclipse was a fiasco—one of the more eagerly anticipated yet disappointing films of 1995. Thank- fully, however, these failures comprise the minority of Holland’s filmic output. —Rob Edelman HOOPER, Tobe Nationality: American. Born: Austin, Texas, 1946. Education: Studied film at the University of Texas. Career: Directed commer- cials and music videos, including ‘‘Dancing with Myself,’’ for Billy Idol; director of TV series’ The Equalizer (1985), Amazing Stories (1987), Nowhere Man (1995), Dark Skies (1996), Perversions of Science (1997), and The Others (2000); assistant director, University of Texas film school. Agent: William Morris Agency, 151 El Camino Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90212, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1963 The Heisters 1969 Eggshells 1974 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (+ sc, pr, composer) 1976 Eaten Alive (+ composer) 1979 Salem’s Lot: The Movie; Salem’s Lot (TV miniseries); The Dark (replaced by John Cardos) HOOPERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 445 1981 The Funhouse 1982 Poltergeist 1985 Lifeforce 1986 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Part 2 (+ composer); Invad- ers from Mars 1989 Spontaneous Combustion (+ sc) 1990 I’m Dangerous Tonight (for TV) 1993 Tobe Hooper’s Night Terrors; John Carpenter Presents Body Bags (Body Bags) (for TV, + ro as morgue worker) 1995 The Mangler (+ sc) 1997 Perversions of Science (for HBO) 1998 The Apartment Complex (for Showtime) 2000 Crocodile Other Films: 1986 Fangoria’s Weekend of Horrors (doc) (ro as himself) 1992 Sleepwalkers (Garris) (ro as forensic technician) Publications By HOOPER: articles— ‘‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,’’ interview with Marc Savlov, in Austin Chronicle, 2 November 1998. On HOOPER: articles— Simpson, Mike, ‘‘The Horror Genre: Texas Chainsaw Massacre,’’ in Filmmakers Newsletter, vol. 8, no. 10, August 1975. Williams, Tony. ‘‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,’’ in Movie , no. 25, Winter 1977/78. Sharrett, Christopher, ‘‘The Idea of Apocalypse in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,’’ in Planks of Reason, Barry Keith Grant, editor, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1984. Brottman, Mikita, ‘‘Once upon a Time in Texas: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre as Inverted Fairytale,’’ in Necronomicon: The Journal of Horror and Erotic Cinema, Book One, edited by Andy Black, London, 1996. Freeland, Cynthia, ‘‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,’’ in The Naked and the Undead: Evil and the Appeal of Horror, Colorado, 2000. *** Tobe Hooper’s career as a director began at the ripe old age of three, when he went around shooting footage with his family’s 8mm camera. While growing up, Hooper continued to make films, and spent as much time as he could watching movies in the Austin, Texas, theatre managed by his father. ‘‘My entire filmic vocabulary came from those days,’’ he once noted. ‘‘It became a way of life, a way of looking at things.’’Hooper’s first production, Eggshells (1969), took place in a haunted commune toward the end of the Vietnam conflict, and garnered very little attention. ‘‘There was a poltergeist in the house, but it was treated subtly. The effects got lost in the statement of the film, so it primarily played at art houses. It only got about fifty play dates.’’ Judging from Eggshells and another early effort, The Heisters (1963), no one could have predicted the attention and storm of controversy that would accompany Hooper’s next effort, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). Inspired by the real-life story of Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein (as was Psycho before it, and The Silence of the Lambs years later), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre—co-written by Hooper and Kim Henkel, and made on a budget of only $140,000—generated heated debate over the aesthetic merits and potentially negative social effects of modern horror cinema. The story, which begins with some voice- over by a young (and then unknown) John Laroquette, tells of five teenagers on a road trip who have the misfortune of bunking down next to an all-male family of cannibalistic ex-slaughterhouse workers. Without a doubt, the most memorable baddie is Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen in the role of a lifetime), he of the eponymous chainsaw and gruesome visage. Upon viewing this intense film, with its relentless pace and documentary pretensions, critic Rex Reed declared it one of the most frightening movies ever made. Immediately, the Museum of Modern Art purchased a print for its permanent collection, and the film was honored in the ‘‘Director’s Fortnight’’ at Cannes. The accolades continued to pour in— the prestigious London Film Festi- val went so far as to name The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Outstand- ing Film of the Year in 1974. Eventually grossing close to $31 million at U.S. box offices, and spawning three sequels, Hooper’s labor of love stood for a time as one of the most profitable independent films in motion picture history. Having earned name recognition and a bevy of devoted fans, Hooper’s next effort, Eaten Alive (1976; also co-written by Henkel) was a disappointment, despite its promising cast. Known by turns as Death Trap, Horror Hotel, Starlight Slaughter, and Murder on the Bayou, the film stars Neville Brand (Al Capone in the original Untouchables television series) as a psychotic innkeeper with a pen- chant for murdering guests and feeding them to his pet alligator. Robert Englund, who would go on to make it big as Freddy Krueger in Wes Craven’s immensely popular Nightmare on Elm Street series, had a bit part. On the one hand, Eaten Alive seemed too much like Texas Chainsaw Massacre for its own good, with its showcasing of random acts of gratuitous violence; on the other hand, it lacked all of the former movie’s grim humor and agonizing tension. Three years later, Hooper had his second success, this time on television, with Salem’s Lot— a faithful, albeit understated, rendition of Stephen King’s atmospheric vampire novel (James Mason co-stars). The most uncanny scene has infected youngster Danny Glick (Brad Savage) floating outside a friend’s window, tapping on the pane and pleading with him to open it. Returning to the big screen in 1981, Hooper directed The Funhouse, an underrated horror tale about four adolescents who spend the night at a carnival funhouse, only to be stalked by a disfigured killer. Based on an early novel by Dean Koontz (who wrote it under a pseudonym), the film was quickly dismissed by both reviewers and fans of the genre, though in retrospect, its self-reflexivity makes it years ahead of its time. 1982 saw Hooper’s biggest commercial success, the Steven Spielberg-penned and -produced haunted house film, Poltergeist. Made on a budget that dwarfed anything he had worked with before (approximately $11 million), Hooper did an excellent job of evoking a creepy atmosphere and utilizing cutting–edge special effects tech- nology. Although criticized for being a little too polished (quite a change from Hooper’s Texas Chainsaw Massacre days!), Polter- geist was a huge hit, grossing upwards of $76 million, and spawning two sequels plus a network television show. Sadly, the original film’s notoriety has increased since its release, due to the deaths of co-stars HOU DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 446 Dominique Dunne (murdered by her boyfriend shortly after it opened) and Heather O’Rourke, the little girl with the phone (from intestinal sterosis) six years later. An inexplicable unevenness has plagued Hooper throughout his career, as is testified to by his work in the 1980s. After Poltergeist came the science fiction-horror hybrid Lifeforce—a thorougly aver- age effort at combining vampires, aliens, and female nudity. Next came the very dark, very gory, and surprisingly intelligent horror comedy, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Part 2 (1986), starring Dennis Hopper as a former Texas Ranger seeking revenge for the chainsaw murder of his brother. A disappointing big-budget remake of the 1953 sci-fi classic Invaders from Mars followed. Since then, Hooper has moved back and forth between the big and small screen; highlights include the pilot for a popular television series, Nowhere Man (1995), starring Bruce Greenwood as a documentary photogra- pher whose whole life is seemingly erased in the course of one evening. An original, talented, and unpredictable director, Tobe Hooper’s contributions to the horror genre are many, and his develop- ing projects are eagerly anticipated. —Steven Schneider HOU Hsiao-Hsien Nationality: Taiwanese. Born: Hour Shiaw-shyan (name in pinyin, Hou Xiaoxian) in Meixian, Kuangtung (Canton) province, 8 April 1947; moved to Hualien, Taiwan, 1948. Education: Attended the film program of the Taiwan National Academy of the Arts, 1969–72. Career: Electronic calculator salesman, 1972–73; script boy, then assistant director, from 1974; scriptwriter, from 1975; directed first film, Cute Girls, 1979; sold house to finance Growing Up, 1982; actor in When Husband Is out of Town, for TV, and director of music video, 1985. Awards: Best Director Award, Asian-Pacific Film Festival, for A Summer at Grandpa’s, 1985; Golden Lion Award, Venice Festival, and Best Director, Golden Horse Awards, Taiwan, for A City of Sadness, 1989. Films as Director: 1979 Chiu Shih Liu Liu Tê T’a (Cute Girls) (+ sc) 1980 Feng Erh T’i T’a Ts’ai (Cheerful Wind) (+ sc) 1982 Tsai Nei Ho P’an Ch’ing Ts’ao Ch’ing (The Green, Green Grass of Home) (+ sc) 1983 Episode of Erh Tzu Tê Ta Wan Ou (The Sandwich Man; Son’s Big Doll) 1984 Fêng Kuei Lai Tê Jen (The Boys from Fengkuei) (+ co-sc); Tung Tung Te Chia Ch’i (A Summer at Grandpa’s) 1985 T’ung Nein Wang Shih (A Time to Live and a Time to Die) 1986 Lien Lien Feng Ch’eng (Dust in the Wind) (+ role) 1987 Ni Luo Ho Nü Erh (Daughter of the Nile) (+ role) 1989 Pei Ch’ing Ch’êng Shih (A City of Sadness) (+ role) 1993 The Puppetmaster 1995 Haonan Haonu (Good Men, Good Women) 1996 Nanguo zaijan, nanguo (Goodbye South, Goodbye) 1998 Hai shang hua (Flowers of Shanghai) Other Films: 1974 Yun shen Pu Chih Ch’u (Lost in the Deep Cloud) (asst-d); Chin shui Lou Tai (A Better Chance) (asst-d) 1975 Tao Hua Neu Tou Chao Kung (The Beauty and the Old Man) (sc, asst-d); Yeuh Hsia Lao Jen (The Matchmaker) (sc, asst-d) 1976 Ai Yu Ming T’ien (Love Has Tomorrow) (asst-d); Yen Shuio Han (The Glory of the Sunset) (asst-d); Nan Hai Yü Nü Hai Tê Chan Chêng (The War between Boys and Girls) (asst-d) 1977 Ts’ui Hu Han (The Chilly Green Lake) (asst-d); Yen P’o Chiang Shang (On the Foggy River) (sc, asst-d); Tsao an Taipei (Good Morning, Taipei) (sc); Pei Chih Ch’iu (Sad- ness of Autumn) (sc) 1978 Tso Yeh Yü Hsiao Hsiao (The Rushing Rain of Last Night) (sc, asst-d); Wo T’a Laong Erh Lai (I Come with the Wave) (sc, asst-d) 1979 T’ien Liang Hao Kê Ch’iu (What a Cold but Wonderful Autumn) (sc, asst-d); Ch’iu Lien (Autumn Lotus) (sc) 1980 P’eng P’eng I Ch’uan Hsin (Pounding Hearts) (sc, asst-d) 1981 Ch’iao Ju Ts’ai Tieh Fei Fei Fei (A Butterfly Girl) (sc, asst-d) 1982 Hsiao Pi Te Ku Shih (Growing Up) (co-pr, co-sc, asst-d) 1984 Yu Ma Ts’ai Tzu (Ah Fei) (co-sc); Hsiao Pa Pa Te T’ien K’ung (Out of the Blue) (co-sc); Ch’ing Mei Chu Ma (Taipei Story) (role); Tsui Hsiang Nien Tê Chi Chieh (sc) 1995 Qunian dongtian (Heartbreak Island) (co-sc, exec pr) 1999 Borderline (pr) Publications By HOU: articles— Interview with Olivier Assayas, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1984. Interview with Tony Rayns, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), June 1988. ‘‘Not the Best Possible Face,’’ an interview with Tony Rayns, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), June 1990. ‘‘City of Sadness,’’ an interview in Film, March 1990. ‘‘Straniero in patria,’’ an interview with Z. Yan, in Cinema Forum, March 1991. ‘‘History’s Subtle Shadows,’’ an interview with P. H. P. Chiao, in Cinemaya, Autumn 1993. Interview with M. Ciment, in Positif, December 1993. Interview with T. Jousse, in Cahiers du Cinéma, December 1993. ‘‘The Puppetmaster,’’ an interview with F. Sartor, in Film und Televisie + Video, January 1994. ‘‘Good Men, Good Women,’’ an interview with Alain Masson and Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), May 1996. Interview with Yann Tobin, Michel Ciment, and Pierre Eisenreich, in Positif (Paris), November 1998. On HOU: articles— ‘‘A Taiwan Tale,’’ in Film, April 1989. Huang, Vivian, ‘‘Taiwan’s Social Realism,’’ in The Independent (New York), January/February 1990. Combs, Richard, ‘‘Dust in the Wind,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), April 1990. HOUDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 447 Grosoli, F., ‘‘Lo sguardo diretto di Hou Xiaoxian,’’ in Cinema Forum, March 1991. ‘‘Hou’s City of Sadness Is Key to Success,’’ in Variety, 17 Febru- ary 1992. Cheshire, G., ‘‘Time Span: The Cinema of Hou Hsiao-Hsien,’’ in Film Comment, November/December 1993. Delval, D., ‘‘Le maitre de marionnettes,’’ in Grand Angle, Janu- ary 1994. Bouquet, Stéphane, Oliver Assayas, and Antoine de Baecque, ‘‘Good- bye South, Goodbye,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1997. *** Hou Hsiao-hsien is the most internationally renowned of the filmmakers associated with Taiwan’s ‘‘New Cinema’’ movement. The ‘‘New Cinema’’ was forged out of the country’s aging industry in the early 1980s by a group of emerging filmmakers, most of whom were in their early thirties at the time. The members of this cohesive group helped each other make films, and were strongly supported in turn by a group of film critics belonging to the same generation. Their works diverged from mainstream films of the time both in style and in content; instead of the escapist romances and propaganda films in melodramatic form that dominated Taiwan’s film market in the 1970s, this new wave of filmmakers used a realistic style to convey their socially concerned themes. The experiences of life in Taiwan figure prominently in Hou’s work, due to his personal background: Hou, who has lived in Taiwan for most of his life, was a year old in 1948 when he and his family, on a visit from the mainland, were forced to remain more or less permanently as a result of the Civil War. Unlike the previous generation of filmmakers, who were brought up and educated in mainland China and who hired professionals to dub all the dialogue with standard Mandarin, the official language of both Taiwan and mainland China, Hou began using large amounts of the Taiwanese dialect spoken by most of the island’s inhabitants. Following The Sandwich Man, Hou also mixed in the dialect of the ancient Hakkas ethnic group, as well as Japanese. (Japan had occupied Taiwan for almost fifty years, previous to the Nationalist takeover.) While the previous generation of filmmakers identified with or bowed to the Nationalist strategy of mandating exclusive use of the Mandarin language to ‘‘Chinacize’’ the people of Taiwan, Hou and his peers, whether mainlander or islander, recognized the fact that Taiwan was not synonymous with China. Due to this break from the state- enforced ideology, the New Cinema practitioners were able to begin to face and examine the sources and manifestations of their society’s problems. Perhaps most dynamic in this rapidly industrializing country was the emotional as well as physical dislocation resulting from the urbanization of Taiwan’s traditionally rural culture. The conflict between urban and rural values is a recurring theme in Hou’s films. Hou, who grew up in the countryside and moved to Taipei at the beginning of his college studies, retains a strong attachment to traditional Taiwanese values. On the screen, he uses country living and sentiments in the idyllic scene structure of his films. In A Summer at Grandpa’s, the protagonist Tung Tung, a young boy who grew up in Taipei but stayed at his grandfather’s in the country while his mother was hospitalized, gained ‘‘real’’ childhood experiences— playing in the river and exchanging his toy car with another child’s live turtle, as well as more gritty life experiences—learning of the complexities of social relationships through the rape of an insane woman and her subsequent unsuccessful pregnancy. Contrasted with the positive influences one can gain from country life in most of Hou’s films are the attractions of the city, with its opportunities for a living wage and concomitant confusion of an alien social structure, and its dissimilar types of human relationships. In The Boys from Fengkuei, when three young men arrive at Kaohsiung, they find that their friend’s sister, who has moved to the city from their hometown, has somehow become ‘‘morally cor- rupted.’’ While they wander around on the streets of the city, a stranger on a motorcycle collects their money to see an underground porno film, sending them into an empty building still under construc- tion. Instead of a movie screen, they view the city landscape from huge holes awaiting windows. A silent long take and a long shot shows the three naive boys staring at the city—the farce turning out to be their first taste of the bitterness of the city—without anger but with a deep sense of helplessness. That the urban experience can prove damaging to one’s physical as well as mental health is illustrated in Dust in the Wind. The protagonist Ah-Yuan is beaten up by his boss’s wife for failing to deliver a lunch box to her son, and some friends of Ah-Yuan, including his girlfriend, are injured during their work. While these country children are wounded by the city, they can always go back to their rural homes to recuperate from their mental and physical injuries. However, in Daughter of the Nile, when the teenaged girl Shao Yang and her brother Shao Fang settle in the city of Taipei, they become the orphans of the world. Daughter of the Nile is Hou’s first and thus far only film that takes place entirely in Taipei. Hou’s shots of the dark city illuminated by the colorful neon signs eerily demon- strate the materialism that dislocates the youths, and finally takes Shao Fang’s life. The uneasiness and the difficulties of adjusting to social changes was the other theme in almost all of Hou’s directorial works. In The Sandwich Man, Hou used a clown costume as the symbol of this discomfort. In Dust in the Wind, this discomfort is transformed into physical suffering when the rural teenagers are beaten and otherwise abused by their working environment. Death also played the main metaphoric role of the transition in A Time to Live and a Time to Die: the deaths of protagonist Ah-ha’s father, mother, and grandmother punctuate his stages of growing up as well as his ideological diver- gence from the Nationalist party between the years 1958 and 1966. Similarly, in A City of Sadness, each of the four brothers of the Lin family was killed either physically or mentally in differing political climates and social circumstances during the 1940s, their deaths indicating their failure in adjusting to the new eras. Hou’s achievement is not only in his cinematic sensitivities but also in his social consciousness. As much as he is a filmmaker, Hou is a historical and social commentator of the first order. In May 2000, Hou’s position in the West was curiously anoma- lous: the majority of serious critics regarded him as among the three or four most important living filmmakers, yet his films remained inac- cessible to the great majority of filmgoers, shown only in film festivals and occasional Cinematheque retrospectives. None had been granted a wide release; a very few hovered in the dim hinterlands of availability on obscure videos—poor color, wrong format, inadequate subtitles. There were no clear indications that this situation would change in the foreseeable future. It must be admitted that Hou’s films—especially the later ones— present the viewer with certain problems, and not only because they demand some awareness of Taiwanese political and cultural history during the second half of the last century. From City of Sadness on, HOWARD DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 448 their treatment of narrative structure has become increasingly chal- lenging and unorthodox. One feels at times that Hou shoots only the sequences that really engage him, leaving the audience to fill in narrative hiatuses with a combination of common sense and imagina- tion. The many characters are seldom given the careful, emphatic introductions to which Hollywood has accustomed us, and closeups are rare, point-of-view shots non-existent; sequences are often en- tirely in long-shot. In short, Hou expects us to work, concentrate, be vigilant; the films construct a spectator who is at once detached but sympathetic. Each of the recent works requires detailed treatment to do it justice; City of Sadness is discussed in the companion volume on Films. The Puppetmaster is a complex study of the relationship of the artist to the social and political vicissitudes of history, raising central questions of responsibility, of the essentially political nature of all art (conscious or not). Good Men, Good Women pursues these themes in different ways, focussing now on actors; it is built upon an intricate double narrative and a complicated time-scheme. Criminality has played a significant thematic role in a number of Hou’s films (Daughter of the Nile, City of Sadness); it becomes central to Goodbye South, Goodbye, which one might describe as Hou’s first gangster thriller, though a characteristically idiosyncratic and off- beat one. Most recently, we have had the extraordinary Flowers of Shang- hai, in some ways the most readily accessible of this group of films. Set entirely inside an expensive Shanghai brothel, it follows the complex lives and interactions of the courtesans and their clients, their stories told mainly in sequence-shots, with a more mobile camera than we are accustomed to in Hou’s films, where static long takes have generally predominated. The film’s great visual beauty and grace are matched by the delicacy of its insights, the respect with which Hou treats both his characters and his audiences. Not surpris- ingly, it headed many critics’ lists of the ‘‘best films of the ’90s.’’ —Vivian Huang, updated by Robin Wood HOWARD, Ron Nationality: American. Born: Duncan, Oklahoma, 1 March 1954; son of Rance (an actor, writer, and director) and Jean (an actress; maiden name, Speegle) Howard. Education: Attended the University of Southern California and Los Angeles Valley College. Family: Married Cheryl Alley, 7 June 1975; children: Bryce Dallas, Paige Carlyle, Jocelyn Carlyle, Reed. Career: First appeared on the Lassie TV series at age one; appeared in TV series beginning in 1960, including The Andy Griffith Show, 1960–68, The Smith Family, 1971–72, Happy Days, 1974–80, and as voice on Fonz and the Happy Days Gang, 1980–82; president, Major H Productions, 1977; pro- ducer and executive producer of TV series, including Maximum Security, 1985, Parenthood, 1990, Sports Night, 1998, and Felicity, 1998; founder (with others), Imagine Films Entertainment, Inc., 1986. Awards: Director of the Year, National Association of Theatre Owners, 1985; Louella Parsons Award, Hollywood Women’s Press Club, 1985; American Cinematheque Award, 1990; Directors Guild of America DGA Award, outstanding achievement in motion pic- tures, for Apollo 13, 1996; DGA Award, outstanding miniseries, 1998, and PGA Golden Laurel Award, television producer of the year Ron Howard award in longform, 1999, for From the Earth to the Moon. Office: Imagine Films Entertainment, Inc., 1925 Century Park East, Los Angeles, CA 90067. Agent: Bryan Lourd and Richard Lovett, Creative Artists Agency, 9830 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90212. Films as Director: 1969 Deed of Derring-Do 1977 Grand Theft Auto (+ sc) 1978 Cotton Candy (+ sc) 1980 Skyward (for TV) (+ exec pr) 1981 Through the Magic Pyramid (Tut and Tuttle) (for TV) 1982 Night Shift 1984 Splash 1985 Cocoon 1986 Gung Ho (Working–Class Man) (+ exec pr) 1988 Willow 1989 Parenthood (+ sc) 1991 Backdraft 1992 Far and Away (+ sc, pr) 1994 The Paper 1995 Apollo 13 (+ music exec pr) 1996 Ransom 1999 Ed TV (+ pr) 2000 How the Grinch Stole Christmas Films as Actor: 1955 Frontier Woman (uncredited bit part) 1959 The Journey (billed as Ronny Howard) (as Billy Rhinelander) 1961 Door-to-Door Maniac (Five Minutes to Live) (as Bobby) 1962 The Music Man (billed as Ronny Howard) (as Winthrop Paroo) HOWARDDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 449 1963 The Courtship of Eddie’s Father (billed as Ronny Howard) (as Eddie) 1965 Village of the Giants (billed as Ronny Howard) (as Genius) 1967 A Boy Called Nuthin’ (for TV) (as Richie ‘‘Nuthin’’’ Caldwell) 1970 Smoke (for TV) (as Chris) 1971 The Wild Country (The Newcomers) (billed as Ronny How- ard) (as Virgil) 1973 Happy Mother’s Day, Love George (as Johnny); American Graffiti (billed as Ronny Howard) (as Steve Bolander) 1974 The Spikes Gang (as Les Richter); Locusts (for TV) (as Donny Fletcher); The Migrants (for TV) (as Lyle Barlow) 1975 Huckleberry Finn (for TV) (as Huckleberry Finn) 1976 The Shootist (as Gillom Rogers); The First Nudie Musical (for TV) (as Actor at Audition); I’m a Fool; Eat My Dust! (as Hoover Niebold) 1977 Grand Theft Auto (as Sam Freeman) 1979 More American Graffiti (as Steve Bolander) 1980 Act of Love (for TV) (as Leon Cybulkowski) 1981 Bitter Harvest (for TV) (as Ned De Vries); Fire on the Mountain (for TV) (as Lee Mackie) 1983 When Your Lover Leaves (for TV) 1986 Return to Mayberry (for TV) (as Opie Taylor) 1992 The Magical World of Chuck Jones (for TV) (as himself) 1997 Frank Capra’s American Dream (for TV) (as Host/Narrator) 1999 From Star Wars to Star Wars: The Story of Industrial Light & Magic (doc) (as himself/interviewee) 2000 The Independent (as himself); Chuck Jones: Extremes and In- Betweens, a Life in Animation (as himself) 2001 Osmosis Jones Films as Executive Producer: 1980 Leo and Loree 1983 When Your Lover Leaves (for TV) 1985 No Greater Gift (for TV); Into Thin Air (for TV) 1987 Take Five (for TV); No Man’s Land 1988 Clean and Sober; Lone Star Kid; Vibes 1991 Closet Land Films as Producer: 1996 The Chamber 1997 Inventing the Abbotts 1998 From the Earth to the Moon (mini, for TV) 1999 Student Affairs (for TV); Beyond the Mat 2001 Eye See You; How to Eat Fried Worms Publications By HOWARD: articles— Interview in Playboy (Chicago), May 1994. Interview in Time Out (London), no. 1380, 29 January 1997. Interview in Radio Times (London), 8 February 1997. Interview in Premiere (Boulder), April 1999. On HOWARD: book— Kramer, Barbara, Ron Howard: Child Star and Hollywood Director, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, 1998. On HOWARD: article— Landrot, M., ‘‘Ivre de contes,’’ in Télérama (Paris), no. 2312, 4 May 1994. *** Ron Howard is the rare Hollywood success story—a child star who became one of the film industry’s most successful and prolific directors. As little Ronny Howard, the sweet-faced redhead spent the better part of his childhood in front of the cameras playing easygoing Opie Taylor on The Andy Griffith Show (1960–68). His small-screen success playing the personable son of the widowed Andy Griffith earned Howard numerous film roles similarly playing good-natured father’s sons. In The Music Man, he made his musical debut singing ‘‘Gary, Indiana’’; in Vincente Minelli’s The Courtship of Eddie’s Father, Howard starred as another sweet son of a widower opposite Glenn Ford. After graduating from high school and attending the University of Southern California, Howard returned to acting in George Lucas’s milestone 1950s film, American Graffiti, playing Steve, the clean-cut, All-American boy about to leave for college. The film spawned the TV sitcom Happy Days, in which Howard played the lead role of the straight arrow, good-natured Richie Cunningham for six seasons. It was time put to good use as Howard learned everything he could about the business. Howard directed his first film while still acting on Happy Days. Like so many first–time directors, Howard received an early break from the low-budget, independent film king Roger Corman. How- ard’s Grand Theft Auto (1977) is rather unsophisticated car crash- filled action fare. His next film, however, made much more of an impression. Night Shift is a wacky but endearing comedy about two morgue attendants who double as pimps. The unlikely premise succeeded due as much to Howard’s brisk direction as to Michael Keaton’s effective acting in his screen debut. Howard’s next film catapulted the young director to the Holly- wood A-list. Splash, a romantic fantasy about a man and a mermaid starring Tom Hanks and Darryl Hannah, proved a hit with 1980s audiences, who welcomed Howard’s wholesome values. Howard brought the same feel-good ethos to 1985’s Cocoon, a sci-fi fantasy about senior citizens who discover the fountain of youth. The respect accorded Howard by the film community gave him the ability to attract some of Hollywood’s best veteran performers, such as Jessica Tandy, Don Ameche, Hume Cronyn, Wilford Brimley, and Maureen Stapleton, bringing the film a heavy dose of class. Although the film was a huge hit with audiences, some critics, such as Pauline Kael, felt that Howard ‘‘overwork[ed] his ecumenical niceness—his attempt to provide something for all age groups and all faiths.’’ But Hollywood HUSTON DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 450 and American audiences couldn’t get enough of Howard’s family values, and he followed up with Cocoon II as well as Willow, another lavish but far less successful fantasy. In 1985 Howard joined forces with producer Brian Grazer to form Imagine Films Entertainment. Their company, with Howard as ex- ecutive producer, oversaw such popular 1980s fare as Clean and Sober and The ‘Burbs. But whenever Howard took the helm as director, audiences came to expect comforting, sweet, and often humorous films such as Parenthood (1991). In the early 1990s Howard began to expand his vision, bringing more ambitious fare to the screen—-from the firefighting romance- adventure Backdraft (1992); to the Tom Cruise-Nicole Kidman Irish- American epic Far and Away (1992); to the comedy-drama about tabloid journalism, The Paper (1994). But Howard’s somewhat sentimental, all-American values continued to permeate his cine- matic vision. In 1995 Howard assembled an all-star cast led by Tom Hanks to take on his most challenging film to date. Apollo 13 depicts the near- disastrous lunar mission in April 1970. But the film is as much about the heroism of the men and women of NASA, and about America’s space program in general. Roger Ebert wrote, ‘‘Ron Howard’s film of this mission is directed with a single-mindedness and attention to detail that makes it riveting.... He knows he has a great story, and he tells it in a docudrama that feels like it was filmed on location in outer space.’’ Hailed by critics and audiences alike as one of the year’s best films, Apollo 13 earned Howard the Directors Guild Award for 1995. Howard followed up his success on Apollo 13 with the rather mindless Mel Gibson adventure Ransom. But his next film, Inventing the Abbotts, brought Howard back to more familiar territory—the 1950s. This time the mature Howard delved beneath the happy veneer of small–town America. Blessed with what one critic called ‘‘the most beautiful cast in the world,’’ Howard examined repressed teenage angst and explored crises of sex, love, and identity at the intersection of rich and poor in Middle America. Though the fresh, crisp, and pretty feel of the film was very Howardesque, the themes ran deeper than many of his previous efforts. The same held true of his 1999 comedy, Ed TV, a satire about late twentieth-century celebrity. Starring Matthew McConaughy and Jenna Elfman, Howard tried to use humor to skewer America’s obsession with fame. Though the picture was moderately well received, it demonstrated the increasing depth of Howard’s thematic interests. Ron Howard once remarked that he became a director in order to avoid being typecast as an actor. He has also refused to be typecast as a director. Although all of his films are explorations of the human experience, he has ventured into many genres—science fiction, fantasy, epic adventure, romance, comedy, drama, satire—as well as into countless worlds. Ultimately, Howard sees himself and his directorial career as a work in progress. He has said, ‘‘One of the great things about being a director as life choice is that it can never be mastered. Every story is its own kind of expedition, with its own set of challenges.’’ It would be impossible to guess what the future will hold for Howard, other than that he will undoubtedly continue to make films at the brisk pace of roughly one a year, and he will explore the human condition with the all-American values and respect for Hollywood tradition inculcated as a child playing all-American boys beloved by all-American audiences. —Victoria Price HUILLET, Danièle See STRAUB, Jean-Marie, and Danièle HULLET HUSTON, John Nationality: Irish/American. Born: John Marcellus Huston, son of actor Walter, in Nevada, Missouri, 5 August 1906, became Irish citizen, 1964. Education: Attended boarding school in Los Angeles and at Lincoln High School, Los Angeles, 1923–24. Military Serv- ice: Served in Signal Corps, Army Pictorial Service, 1942–45, discharged at rank of major. Family: Married 1) Dorothy Jeanne Harvey, 1926 (divorced 1933); 2) Leslie Black, 1937 (divorced 1944); 3) Evelyn Keyes, 1946 (divorced 1950), one adopted son; 4) Ricki Soma, 1950 (died 1969), one son, two daughters including actress Anjelica; also son Daniel by Zo? Sallis; 5) Celeste Shane, 1972 (divorced 1977). Career: Doctors in St. Paul, Minnesota, diagnose Huston with enlarged heart and kidney disease; taken to California for cure, 1916; boxer in California, 1920s; actor in New York, 1924; competition horseman, Mexico, 1927; journalist in New York, 1928–30; scriptwriter and actor in Hollywood, 1930; worked for Gaumont-British, London, 1932; moved to Paris with intention of studying painting, 1933; returned to New York, editor Midweek Pictorial, stage actor, 1934; writer for Warner Bros., Hollywood, 1936; directed first film, The Maltese Falcon, 1941; with William Wyler and Philip Dunne, formed Committee for the 1st Amendment to counteract HUAC investigation, 1947; formed Horizon Pictures with Sam Spiegel, 1948; formed John Huston Productions for unrealized project Matador, 1952; moved to Ireland, 1955; narrator for TV, from mid-1960s; moved to Mexico, 1972. Awards: Legion of Merit, U.S. Armed Services, 1944; Oscar for Best Direction, for Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1947. Died: Of pneumonia, in Newport, Rhode Island, 28 August 1987. Films as Director: 1941 The Maltese Falcon (+ sc) 1942 In This Our Life (+ co-sc, uncredited); Across the Pacific (co-d) 1943 Report from the Aleutians (+ sc); Tunisian Victory (Capra and Boulting; d some replacement scenes when footage lost, + co-commentary) 1945 San Pietro (The Battle of San Pietro) (+ sc, co-ph, narration) 1946 Let There Be Light (unreleased) (+ co-sc, co-ph); A Miracle Can Happen (On Our Merry Way) (King Vidor and Fenton; d some Henry Fonda/James Stewart sequences, uncredited) 1948 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (+ sc, bit role as man in white suit); Key Largo (+ co-sc) 1949 We Were Strangers (+ co-sc, bit role as bank clerk) 1950 The Asphalt Jungle (+ co-sc) 1951 The Red Badge of Courage (+ sc) 1952 The African Queen (+ co-sc) 1953 Moulin Rouge (+ pr, co-sc) 1954 Beat the Devil (+ co-pr, co-sc) 1956 Moby Dick (+ pr, co-sc) 1957 Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison (+ co-sc); A Farewell to Arms (Charles Vidor; d begun by Huston) 1958 The Barbarian and the Geisha; The Roots of Heaven HUSTONDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 451 1960 The Unforgiven 1961 The Misfits 1963 Freud (Freud: The Secret Passion) (+ narration); The List of Adrian Messenger (+ bit role as Lord Ashton) 1964 The Night of the Iguana (+ co-pr, co-sc) 1965 La bibbia (The Bible) (+ role, narration) 1967 Casino Royale (co-d, role); Reflections in a Golden Eye (+ voice heard at film’s beginning) 1969 Sinful Davey; A Walk with Love and Death (+ role); De Sade (Enfield; d uncredited) (+ role as the Abbe) 1970 The Kremlin Letter (+ co-sc, role) 1971 The Last Run (Fleischer; d begun by Huston) 1972 Fat City (+ co-pr); The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (+ role as Grizzly Adams) 1973 The Mackintosh Man 1975 The Man Who Would Be King (+ co-sc) 1976 Independence (short) 1979 Wise Blood (+ role) 1980 Phobia 1981 Victory (Escape to Victory) 1982 Annie 1984 Under the Volcano 1985 Prizzi’s Honor 1987 The Dead Other Films: 1929 The Shakedown (Wyler) (small role); Hell’s Heroes (Wyler) (small role) 1930 The Storm (Wyler) (small role) 1931 A House Divided (Wyler) (dialogue, sc) 1932 Murders in the Rue Morgue (Florey) (dialogue, sc) 1935 It Started in Paris (Robert Wyler) (co-adapt, sc); Death Drives Through (Cahn) (co-story, sc) 1938 Jezebel (Wyler) (co-sc); The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse (Litvak) (co-sc) 1939 Juarez (Dieterle) (co-sc) 1940 The Story of Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet (Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet) (Dieterle) (co-sc) 1941 High Sierra (Walsh) (co-sc); Sergeant York (Hawks) (co-sc) 1946 The Killers (Siodmak) (sc, uncredited); The Stranger (Welles) (co-sc, uncredited); Three Strangers (Negulesco) (co-sc) 1951 Quo Vadis (LeRoy) (pre-production work) 1963 The Cardinal (Preminger) (role as Cardinal Glennon); The Directors (pr: Greenblatt, short) (appearance) 1968 Candy (Marquand) (role as Dr. Dunlap); The Rocky Road to Dublin (Lennon) (role as interviewee) 1970 Myra Breckenridge (Sarne) (role as Buck Loner) 1971 The Bridge in the Jungle (Kohner) (role as Sleigh); The Deserter (Kennedy) (role as General Miles); Man in the Wilderness (Sarafian) (role as Captain Henry) 1974 Battle for the Planet of the Apes (Thompson) (role as Law- giver); Chinatown (Polanski) (role as Noah Cross) 1975 Breakout (Gries) (role as Harris); The Wind and the Lion (Milius) (role as John Hay) 1976 Sherlock Holmes in New York (Sagal) (role as Professor Moriarty) 1977 Tentacles (Hellman) (role as Ned Turner); Il grande attacco (La battaglia di Mareth; The Biggest Battle) (Lenzi) (role); El triangulo diabolico de la Bermudas (Triangle: The Bermuda Mystery; The Mystery of the Bermuda Triangle) (Cardona) (role); Angela (Sagal) (role) 1978 Il visitatore (The Visitor) (Paradisi) (role) 1979 Jaguar Lives (Pintoff) (role); Winter Kills (Richert) (role) 1980 Head On (Grant) (role); Agee (Spears) (role as interviewee) 1981 To the Western World (Kinmonth) (narrator) 1982 Cannery Row (Ward) (narrator) 1983 Lovesick (Brickman) (role as psychiatrist) Publications By HUSTON: books— Frankie and Johnny, New York, 1930. The Maltese Falcon, New York, 1974. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, edited by James Naremore, Madison, Wisconsin, 1979. The Asphalt Jungle, with Ben Maddow, Carbondale, Illinois, 1980. An Open Book, New York, 1980. Juarez, with Aeneas Mackenzie and Wolfgang Reinhardt, Madison, Wisconsin, 1983. Reflections in a Male Eye: John Huston and the American Experi- ence, edited by Gaylyn Studlar and David Desser, Washing- ton, 1993. By HUSTON: articles— Interview with Karel Reisz, in Sight and Sound (London), January/ March 1952. ‘‘How I Make Films,’’ interview with Gideon Bachmann, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1965. ‘‘Huston!,’’ interview with C. Taylor and G. O’Brien, in Inter/View (New York), September 1972. ‘‘Talk with John Huston,’’ with D. Ford, in Action (Los Angeles), September/October 1972. ‘‘The Innocent Bystander,’’ interview with D. Robinson, in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1972/73. ‘‘Talking with John Huston,’’ with Gene Phillips, in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1973. Interview with D. Brandes, in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), July 1977. Interview with P.S. Greenberg, in Rolling Stone (New York), June/ July 1981. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: John Huston,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), January/February 1984. Interview with Michel Ciment and D. Allison, in Positif (Paris), October 1987. On HUSTON: books— Davay, Paul, John Huston, Paris, 1957. Allais, Jean-Claude, John Huston, Paris, 1960. Agee, James, Agee on Film: Five Film Scripts, foreword by John Huston, Boston, 1965. Nolan, William, John Huston, King Rebel, Los Angeles, 1965. Benayoun, Robert, John Huston, Paris, 1966; revised edition, 1985. HUSTON DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 452 Cecchini, Riccardo, John Huston, 1969. Tozzi, Romano, John Huston, A Picture Treasury of His Films, New York, 1971. Kaminsky, Stuart, John Huston: Maker of Magic, London, 1978. Madsen, Axel, John Huston, New York, 1978. Giannetti, Louis D., Masters of the American Cinema, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1981. Hammen, Scott, John Huston, Boston, 1985. Ciment, Gilles, editor, John Huston, Paris, 1987. McCarty, John, The Films of John Huston, Secaucus, New Jer- sey, 1987. Grobel, Lawrence, The Hustons, New York, 1989; updated, 2000. Studlar, Gaylyn, and David Desser, editors, Reflections in a Male Eye: John Huston and the American Experience, Washington, D.C., 1993. Cooper, Stephen, editor, Perspectives on John Huston, New York, 1994. Luhr, William, editor, The Maltese Falcon: John Huston, Director, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1995. Brill, Lesley, John Huston’s Filmmaking, Cambridge and New York, 1997. Cohen, Allen, and Harry Lawton, John Huston: A Guide to Refer- ences and Resources, New York, 1997. On HUSTON: articles— ‘‘Huston Issues’’ of Positif (Paris), August 1952 and January 1957. Mage, David, ‘‘The Way John Huston Works,’’ in Films in Review (New York), October 1952. Laurot, Edouard, ‘‘An Encounter with John Huston,’’ in Film Culture (New York), no. 8, 1956. Archer, Eugene, ‘‘John Huston—The Hemingway Tradition in Ameri- can Film,’’ in Film Culture (New York), no. 19, 1959. ‘‘John Huston, The Bible and James Bond,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma in English (New York), no. 5, 1966. Koningsberger, Hans, ‘‘From Book to Film—via John Huston,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1969. ‘‘Huston Issue’’ of Film Comment (New York), May/June 1973. Bachmann, Gideon, ‘‘Watching Huston,’’ in Film Comment (New York), January/February 1976. Jameson, R.T., ‘‘John Huston,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/ June 1980. Drew, B., ‘‘John Huston: At 74 No Formulas,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), September 1980. Millar, G., ‘‘John Huston,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Sum- mer 1981. ‘‘John Huston,’’ in Film Dope (London), January 1983. Hachem, S., ‘‘Under the Volcano,’’ in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), October 1984. Combs, Richard, ‘‘The Man Who Would Be Ahab: The Myths and Masks of John Huston,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), December 1985. ‘‘Huston Issue’’ of Positif (Paris), January 1986. Taylor, John Russell, ‘‘John Huston: The Filmmaker as Dandy,’’ in Films and Filming (London), August 1986. Edgerton, G., ‘‘Revisiting the Recordings of Wars Past: Remember- ing the Documentary Trilogy of John Huston,’’ in Journal of Popular Film and TV (Washington, D.C.), Spring 1987. McCarthy, T., obituary, in Variety (New York), 2 September 1987. Schulz-Keil, W., and B. Walker, ‘‘Huston,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1987. Buckley, M., obituary in Films in Review (New York), Novem- ber 1987. Combs, Richard, ‘‘John Huston: An Account of One Man Dead,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), December 1987. Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 17, nos. 2 and 4, 1989. American Film (Washington, D.C.), June 1989. Grobel, L., ‘‘Talent to Burn,’’ in Movieline, March 1990. Denby, D., ‘‘A Good Man Is Hard to Find,’’ in Premiere, July 1990. Richards, Peter, ‘‘Huston’s Killer Comedy,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1991. Hagen, W.M., ‘‘Under Huston’s ‘Volcano,’’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 19, no. 3, 1991. James, C., ‘‘John Huston: The Director as Monster,’’ in New York Times, 9 August 1992. Edelman, Lee, ‘‘Plasticity, Paternity, Perversity: Freud’s ‘Falcon,’ Huston’s ‘Freud,’’’ in American Imago, Spring 1994. Magny, Jo?l, ‘‘Huston et les mythes,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 495, October 1995. On HUSTON: films— Kronick, William, On Location: The Night of the Iguana, for TV, U.S., 1964. Graef, Roger, The Life and Times of John Huston, Esquire, Great Britain, 1967. Joyce, Paul, Ride This Way Grey Horse, Great Britain, 1970. Huston, Danny, The Making of The Dead, U.S., 1989. *** Few directors have been as interested in the relationship of film to painting as has John Huston and, perhaps, none has been given as little credit for this interest. This lack of recognition is not completely surprising. Criticism of film, despite the form’s visual nature, has tended to be derived primarily from literature and not from painting or, as might be more reasonable, a combination of the traditions of literature, painting, theater, and the unique forms of film itself. In a 1931 profile in The American Mercury that accompanied a short story by John Huston, the future director said that he wanted to write a book on the lives of French painters. The following year, unable to or dissatisfied with work as a film writer in London, Huston moved to Paris to become a painter. He studied for a year and a half, making money by painting portraits on street corners and singing for pennies. Even after he became an established film director, Huston continued to indulge his interest in painting, ‘‘retiring’’ from filmmaking from time to time to concentrate on his painting. Each of Huston’s films has reflected this prime interest in the image, the moving portrait, and the use of color—as well as the poetic possibilities of natural dialogue. Each film has been a moving canvas on which Huston explores his main subject: the effect of the individ- ual ego on the group and the possibility of the individual’s survival. Huston began exploring his style of framing in his first film, The Maltese Falcon. Following his sketches, he set up shots like the canvases of paintings he had studied. Specifically, Huston showed an interest in characters appearing in the foreground of a shot, with their faces often covering half the screen. Frequently, too, the person whose face half fills the screen is not talking, but listening. The person reacting thus becomes more important than the one speaking or moving. HUSTONDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 453 Huston’s first film as a director presented situations he would return to again and again. Sam Spade is the obsessed professional, a man who will adhere to pride and dedication, to principle unto death. Women are a threat, temptations that can only sway the hero from his professional commitment. They may be willfully trying to deceive, as with Brigid and Iva, or they may, as in later Huston films, be the unwitting cause of the protagonist’s defeat or near-defeat. In The Asphalt Jungle, for example, the women in the film are not evil; it is the men’s obsession with them that causes disaster. Even with changes and cuts, a film like The Red Badge of Courage reflects Huston’s thematic and visual interests. Again, the film features a group with a quest that may result in death. These soldiers argue, support each other, pretend they are not frightened, brag, and, in some cases, die. In the course of the action, both the youth and the audience discover that the taking of an isolated field is not as important as the ability of the young men to face death without fear. Also, as in other Huston films, the two central figures in The Red Badge of Courage, the youth and Wilson, lie about their attitudes. Their friendship solidifies only when both confess that they have been afraid during the battle and have fled. Visually, Huston continued to explore an important aspect of his style: the placement of characters in a frame so that their size and position reflect what they are saying and doing. He developed this technique with Bogart, Holt, and Walter Huston in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and Audie Murphy and Bill Mauldin in The Red Badge of Courage. Early in The African Queen, for instance, after Rosie’s brother dies, there is a scene in which Rosie is seated on the front porch of the mission. Charlie, in the foreground, dominates the screen while Rosie, in the background, is small. As Charlie takes control of the situation and tells Rosie what must be done, he raises his hand to the rail and his arm covers our view of her. Charlie is in command. Thematically, Moulin Rouge was a return to Huston’s pessimism and exploration of futility. The director identified with the character of Lautrec who, like Huston, was given to late hours, ironic views of himself, performing for others, sardonic wit, and a frequent bitterness toward women. Lautrec, like Huston, loved horses, and frequently painted pictures of them. The narrative as developed by Huston and Ray Bradbury in Moby Dick is in keeping with the director’s preoccupation with failed quests. Only one man, Ishmael, survives. All the other men of the Pequod go down in Ahab’s futile attempt to destroy the whale. But Huston sees Ahab in his actions and his final gesture as a noble creature who has chosen to go down fighting. The Roots of Heaven is yet another example of Huston’s explora- tion of an apparently doomed quest by a group of vastly different people, led by a man obsessed. In spite of the odds, the group persists in its mission and some of its members die. As in many Huston films, the quest is not a total failure; there is the likelihood of continuation, if not success, but the price that must be paid in human lives is high. Huston’s The Misfits again featured a group on a sad and fruitless quest. The group, on a search for horses, find far fewer than they had expected. The expedition becomes a bust and the trio of friends are at odds over a woman, Roslyn (Marilyn Monroe), who opposes the killing and capturing of the horses. With the exception of Guido, the characters represent the least masked or disguised group in Huston’s films. Perhaps it is this very element of never-penetrated disguise in Guido that upset Huston and drove him to push for a motivation scene, an emotional unmasking of the character. As a Huston film, Freud has some particular interests: Huston serves as a narrator, displaying an omnipotence and almost Biblical detachment that establishes Freud as a kind of savior and messiah. The film opens with Huston’s description of Freud as a kind of hero or God on a quest for mankind. ‘‘This is the story of Freud’s descent into a region as black as hell, man’s unconscious, and how he let in the light,’’ Huston says in his narration. The bearded, thin look of Freud, who stands alone, denounced before the tribunal of his own people, also suggests a parallel with Christ. Freud brings a message of salvation which is rejected, and he is reluctantly denounced by his chief defender, Breuer. Of all Huston’s films, The List of Adrian Messenger is the one that deals most literally with people in disguise. George, who describes himself as unexcused evil, hides behind a romantic or heroic mask that falls away when he is forced to face the detective, who functions very much like Freud. The detective penetrates the masks, revealing the evil, and the evil is destroyed. Huston’s touch was evident in The Night of the Iguana in a variety of ways. First, he again took a group of losers and put them together in an isolated location. The protagonist, Shannon, once a minister, has been reduced to guiding tourists in Mexico. At the furthest reaches of despair and far from civilization, the quest for meaning ends and the protagonist is forced to face himself. Religion is an important theme. The film opens with Richard Burton preaching a sermon to his congregation. It is a startling contrast to Father Mapple’s sermon in Moby Dick. Shannon is lost, confused, his speech is gibberish, an almost nonsensical confession about being unable to control his appetites and emotions. The congregation turns away from him. This choice between the practical and the fantastic is a constant theme in Huston’s life and films. There is also a choice between illusion and reality, a choice Huston finds difficult to make. Religion is seen as part of the fantasy world, a dangerous fantasy that his characters must overcome if they are not to be destroyed or absorbed by it. This theme is present in The Bible, Wise Blood, and Night of the Iguana. Huston’s negative religious attitude is also strong in A Walk with Love and Death, which includes three encounters with the clergy. In the first, Heron is almost killed by a group of ascetic monks who demand that he renounce the memory of Claudia and ‘‘repent his knowledge of women.’’ The young man barely escapes with his life. These religious zealots counsel a move away from the pleasure of the world and human love, a world that Huston believes in. There are clearly constants in Huston’s works—man’s ability to find solace in animals and nature, the need to challenge oneself—but his world is unpredictable, governed by a whimsical God or no God at all. Each of Huston’s characters seeks a way of coming to terms with that unpredictability, establishing rules of behavior by which he can live. The Huston character, like Cain or Adam, is often weak, and frequently his best intentions are not sufficient to carry him through to success or even survival. The more a man thinks in a Huston film, the more dangerous it is for his survival. Conversely, however, his films suggest that those who are carried away by emotion, or too much introspection, are doomed. Since the line between loss of control and rigidity is difficult to walk, many Huston protagonists do not survive. It takes a Sam Spade, Sergeant Allison, or Abraham, very rare men indeed, to remain alive in this director’s world. Reflections in a Golden Eye raised many questions about the sexuality inherent in many of the themes that most attracted Huston: riding horses, hunting, boxing, and militarism. The honesty with which the director handles homosexuality is characteristic of his HUSTON DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 454 willingness to face what he finds antithetical to his own nature. In the film, the equation of Leonora and her horse is presented as definitely sexual, and at one point Penderton actually beats the horse in a fury because he himself is impotent. Huston also includes a boxing match in the film which is not in the novel. The immorally provocative Leonora watches the match, but Penderton watches another spectator, Williams. Reflections becomes an almost comic labyrinth of voyeurism, with characters spying on other characters. Huston’s protagonists often represent extremes. They are either ignorant, pathetic, and doomed by their lack of self-understanding (Tully and Ernie in Fat City, Dobbs in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Peachy and Danny in The Man Who Would Be King) or intelligent, arrogant, but equally doomed by their lack of self- understanding (Penderton in Reflections in a Golden Eye and Ahab in Moby Dick). Between these extremes is the cool, intelligent protago- nist who will sacrifice everything for self-understanding and indepen- dence (Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon, and Freud). Huston always finds the first group pathetic, the second tragic, and the third heroic. He reserves his greatest respect for the man who retains his dignity in spite of pain and disaster. Many of Huston’s films can de divided between those involving group quests that fail and those involving a pair of potential lovers who must face a hostile world. Generally, Huston’s films about such lovers end in the union of the couple or, at least, their survival. In that sense, A Walk with Love and Death, starring his own daughter, proved to be the most pessimistic of his love stories, and Annie, his most commercial venture, proved to be his most optimistic. —Stuart M. Kaminsky 455 I ICHIKAWA, Kon Nationality: Japanese. Born: Uji Yamada in Ise, Mie Prefecture, 20 November 1915. Education: Ichioka Commercial School, Osaka. Family: Married scriptwriter Natto Wada, 1948. Career: Worked in animation dept. of J.O. Studios, Kyoto, from 1933; assistant director on feature-filmmaking staff, late 1930s; transferred to Tokyo when J.O. became part of Toho company, early 1940s; collaborated on scripts with wife, 1948–56; used pen name ‘‘Shitei Kuri’’ (after Japanese rendering of Agatha Christie), from 1957; writer and director for TV, 1958–66. Awards: San Giorgio Prize, Venice Festival, for Harp of Burma, 1956. Films as Director: 1946 Musume Dojoji (A Girl at Dojo Temple) (+ co-sc) 1947 Toho senichi-ya (1001 Nights with Toho) (responsible for some footage only) Kon Ichikawa 1948 Hana hiraku (A Flower Blooms); Sanbyaku rokujugo-ya (365 Nights) 1949 Ningen moyo (Human Patterns; Design of a Human Being); Hateshinaki jonetsu (Passion without End; The Endless Passion) 1950 Ginza Sanshiro (Sanshiro of Ginza); Netsudeichi (Heat and Mud; The Hot Marshland) (+ co-sc): Akatsuki no tsuiseki ( Pursuit at Dawn) 1951 Ieraishan (Nightshade Flower) (+ co-sc): Koibito (The Lover) (+ co-sc); Mukokuseki-sha (The Man without a National- ity); Nusumareta koi (Stolen Love) (+ co-sc); Bungawan Solo (River Solo Flows) (+ co-sc); Kekkon koshinkyoku (Wedding March) (+ co-sc) 1952 Rakkii-san (Mr. Lucky); Wakai hito (Young People, Young Generation) (+ co-sc); Ashi ni sawatta onna (The Woman Who Touched Legs) (+ co-sc); Ano te kono te (This Way, That Way) (+ co-sc) 1953 Puu-san (Mr. Pu) (+ co-sc); Aoiro kakumei (The Blue Revolu- tion); Seishun Zenigata Heiji (The Youth of Heiji Zenigata) (+ co-sc); Ai-jin (The Lover) 1954 Watashi no subete o (All of Myself) (+ co-sc); Okuman choja (A Billionaire) (+ co-sc); Josei ni kansuru juni-sho (Twelve Chapters on Women) 1955 Seishun kaidan (Ghost Story of Youth); Kokoro (The Heart) 1956 Biruma no tategoto (The Burmese Harp; Harp of Burma); Shokei no heya (Punishment Room); Nihonbashi (Bridge of Japan) 1957 Manin densha (The Crowded Streetcar) (+ co-sc); Tohoku no zummu-tachi (The Men of Tohoku) (+ sc); Ana (The Pit; The Hole) (+ sc) 1958 Enjo (Conflagration) 1959 Sayonara, konnichiwa (Goodbye, Hello) (+ co-sc); Kagi) (The Key; Odd Obsession (+ co-sc); Nobi (Fires on the Plain); Jokyo II: Mono o takaku uritsukeru onna (A Woman’s Testament, Part 2: Women Who Sell Things at High Prices) 1960 Bonchi (+ co-sc); Ototo (Her Brother) 1961 Kuroijunin no onna (Ten Dark Women) 1962 Hakai (The Outcast; The Broken Commandment); Watashi wa nisai (I Am Two; Being Two Isn’t Easy) 1963 Yukinojo henge (An Actor’s Revenge; The Revenge of Yukinojo); Taiheiyo hitoribotchi (My Enemy, the Sea; Alone on the Pacific) 1964 Zeni no odori (The Money Dance; Money Talks) (+ sc) 1965 Tokyo Orimpikku (Tokyo Olympiad) (+ co-sc) 1967 Toppo Jijo no botan senso (Toppo Gigio and the Missile War) (+ co-sc) 1969 Kyoto (+ sc) 1970 Nihon to Nihonjin (Japan and the Japanese) (+ sc) 1972 Ai futatabi (To Love Again) ICHIKAWA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 456 1973 Matatabi (The Wanderers) (+ pr, co-sc); ‘‘The Fastest’’ episode of Visions of Eight 1975 Wagahai wa neko de aru (I Am a Cat) 1976 Tsuma to onna no aida (Between Women and Wives) (co-d); Inugami-ke no ichizoku (The Inugami Family) (+ co-sc) 1977 Akuma no temari-uta (A Rhyme of Vengeance; The Devil’s Bouncing Ball Song) (+ sc); Gokumonto (The Devil’s Island; Island of Horrors) (+ co-sc) 1978 Jo-bachi (Queen Bee) (+ co-sc) 1980 Koto (Ancient City) (+ co-sc); Hi no tori (The Phoenix) (+ co-sc) 1982 Kofuku (Lonely Hearts, Happiness) (+ co-sc) 1983 Sasame Yuki (The Makioka sisters; Fine Snow) 1985 Ohan; Biruma no tategoto (The Burmese Harp) 1987 Eiga Joyu (The Actress); Taketori Monogatari (Princess from the Moon) 1991 Tenkawa Densetsu Satsujin Jiken 1993 Fusa (+ sc) 1994 47 Ronin 1996 Yatsuhaka-mura (The 8-Tomb Village) (+ sc) 1999 Dora-heita Other Film: 1970 Dodes’ka-den (Kurosawa) (pr) Publications By ICHIKAWA: books— Seijocho 271 Banchi, with Natto Wada, Tokyo, 1961. Kon, with Shuntaro Tanikawa, Kyoto, 1999. By ICHIKAWA: articles— Article in Filmmakers on Filmmaking, edited by Harry M. Geduld, Bloomington, Indiana, 1967. ‘‘Kon Ichikawa at the Olympic Games,’’ an interview in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), November 1972. On ICHIKAWA: books— Anderson, Joseph, and Donald Richie, The Japanese Film: Art and Industry, Rutland, Vermont, 1960; revised edition, Princeton, 1982. Mellen, Joan, Voices from the Japanese Cinema, New York, 1975. Soumi, Angelo, Kon Ichikawa, Florence, 1975. Mellen, Joan, The Wave at Kenji’s Door: Japan through Its Cinema, New York, 1976. Bock, Audie, Japanese Film Directors, New York, 1978; revised edition, Tokyo, 1985. Burch, No?l, To the Distant Observer: Form and Meaning in the Japanese Cinema, Berkeley, 1979. Allyn, John, Kon Ichikawa: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1985. On ICHIKAWA: articles— Richie, Donald, ‘‘The Several Sides of Kon Ichikawa,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1966. Milne, Tom, ‘‘The Skull beneath the Skin,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1966. Tessier, Max, ‘‘Kon Ichikawa l’entomologiste,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), March 1967. Dewey, Langdon, ‘‘Kon Ichikawa,’’ in International Film Guide 1970, London, 1969. ‘‘Ichikawa Issue’’ of Cinema (Los Angeles), no. 2, 1970. Johnson, W., ‘‘Ichikawa and The Wanderers,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1975. Gillett, John, ‘‘Kon Ichikawa,’’ in Film Dope (London), Janu- ary 1983. Oliva, Ljubomír, in Film a Doba (Prague), December 1985. Schidlow, Joshka, ‘‘Découvrir Kon Ichikawa,’’ in Télérama (Paris), 3 August 1994. Elley, Derek, ‘‘47 Ronin (Shijushichinin ni shikaku),’’ in Variety (New York), 26 September 1994. Matteuzzi, F., ‘‘Fuochi nella pianura: Immagini del tempo,’’ in Cineforum (Bergamo), June 1996. *** Kon Ichikawa is noted for a wry humor that often resembles black comedy, for his grim psychological studies—often of misfits and outsiders—and for the visual beauty of his films. He is noted as one of Japan’s foremost cinematic stylists, and has commented, ‘‘I began as a painter and I think like one.’’ His early films show a perverse sense of humor as they reveal human foibles and present an objective view of corruption. In Mr. Pu, a projector breaks down while showing scenes of an atomic explo- sion. In A Billionaire, a family dies from eating radioactive tuna, leaving only a lazy elder son and a sympathetic tax collector. In The Key, a group of rather selfish, despicable people are poisoned inadvertently by a senile old maid, who becomes the only survivor. The film is a study of an old man who becomes obsessed with sex to compensate for his fears of impotency. He becomes a voyeur, and through the manipulation of the camera, we come to share in this activity. Slowly, however, he emerges as being sympathetic while the other characters are revealed in their true light. Throughout his career Ichikawa has proven himself a consistent critic of Japanese society, treating such themes as the rebirth of militarism (Mr. Pu), the harshness and inhumanity of military feudal- ism (Fires on the Plain), the abuse of the individual within the family (Bonchi and Her Brother), as well as familial claustrophobia and the tendency of repression to result in perversion and outbreaks of violence (The Key). His films usually refuse a happy ending, and Ichikawa has been frequently criticized for an unabashed pessimism, bordering on nihilism. Two of his most important films, Harp of Burma and Fires on the Plain, deal with the tragedies of war. The former concerns a soldier who adopts Buddhist robes and dedicates himself to burying the countless Japanese dead on Burma; the latter is about a group of demoralized soldiers who turn to cannibalism. A third work, Tokyo Olympiad, provided a new approach to sports films, giving as much attention to human emotions and spectator reactions as to athletic feats. Ichikawa is a master of the wide screen and possesses a strong sense of composition, creating enormous depth with his use of IMAIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 457 diagonal and overhead shots. Often he utilizes black backgrounds to isolate images within the frame, or a form of theatrical lighting, or he blocks out portions of the screen to alter the format and ratio. Ichikawa remains fascinated with experimental techniques. His excellent use of the freeze frame in Kagi reflects his case study approach to characterization. He has also done much in the way of color experimentation. Kagi is bathed in blues, which bleach skin tones to white, thus creating corpse-like subjects. Her Brother is so filtered that it resembles a black and white print with dull pinks and reds. On most of his films, Ichikawa has used cameramen Kazuo Miyagawa or Setsuo Kobayashi. After Tokyo Olympiad Ichikawa encountered many studio diffi- culties. His projects since then include a twenty-six-part serialization of The Tale of Genji and The Wanderers, a parody of gangster films with a nod to Easy Rider, plus a dozen documentaries and fiction features, among which The Inugami Family, a suspense thriller, proved to be the biggest box office success in Japanese film history. —Patricia Erens IMAI, Tadashi Nationality: Japanese. Born: Tokyo, 8 January 1912. Education: Tokyo Imperial University, until 1935. Family: Married in 1934 and 1955. Career: Assistant at J.O. Studio, Kyoto, from 1935; directed first film, Numazu Hei-gakko, 1939; joined Communist party, late 1940s; left Toho, helped initiate independent film production move- ment, 1950; ‘‘prestige director’’ for Toei, Daiei, and other studios, 1953 through 1960s; resumed independent production, 1969. Awards: Mainichi Film Competition Award, for The People’s Enemy, 1946; five Kinema Jumpo Awards for Best Japanese Film, 1950s. Died: 22 November 1991. Films as Director: 1939 Numazu Hei-gakko (Numazu Military Academy); Waga kyokan (Our Teacher) 1940 Tajiko mura (The Village of Tajiko); Onna no machi (Women’s Town); Kakka (Your Highness) 1941 Kekkon no seitai (Married Life) 1943 Boro no kesshitai (The Suicide Troops of the Watch Tower; The Death Command of the Tower) 1944 Ikari no umi (Angry Sea) 1945 Ai to chikai (Love and Pledge) 1946 Minshu no teki (An Enemy of the People; The People’s Enemy); Jinsei tonbo-gaeri (Life Is like a Somersault) 1947 Chikagai nijuyo-jikan (Twenty-four Hours of a Secret Life) 1949 Aoi sanmyaku (Green Mountains) parts I and II; Onna no kao (A Woman’s Face) 1950 Mata au hi made (Until We Meet Again) 1951 Dokkoi ikiteiru (Still We Live) 1952 Yamabiko gakko (School of Echoes) 1953 Himeyuri no to (The Tower of Lilies; Himeyuri Lily Tower); Nigori-e (Muddy Water) 1955 Aisureba koso (Because I Love), episode; Koko ni izumi ari (Here Is a Fountain); Yukiko 1956 Mahiru no ankoku (Darkness at Noon) 1957 Kome (Rice); Junai monogatari (The Story of Pure Love) 1958 Yoru no tsuzumi (The Adulteress; Night Drum); Kiku to Isamu (Kiku and Isamu) 1960 Shiroi gake (The Cliff; White Cliff) 1961 Are ga minato no hikari da (That Is the Port Light) 1962 Nippon no obachan (Japanese Grandmothers; The Old Women of Japan) 1963 Bushido zankoku monogatari (Bushido: Samurai Saga; The Cruel Story of the Samurai’s Way) 1964 Echigo tsutsuishi oyashirazu (Death in the Snow); Adauchi (Revenge) 1967 Sato-gashi ga kazureru toki (When the Cookie Crumbles) 1968 Fushin no toki (The Time of Reckoning) 1969 Hashi no nai kawa (River without Bridges) 1970 Hashi no nai kawa (River without Bridges) Part II 1971 En to iu onna (A Woman Named En) 1972 Aa koe naki tomo (Ah! My Friends without Voice); Kaigun tokubetsu shonen hei (Special Boy Soldiers of the Navy) 1974 Kobayashi Takiji (The Life of a Communist Writer) 1976 Ani imoto (Mon and Ino; Older Brother and Younger Sister); Yoba (The Old Woman Ghost) 1982 Himeyuri no to (Himeyuri Lily Tower) (remake) 1991 Senso to Seishun (War and Youth) Publications On IMAI: books— Anderson, Joseph, and Donald Richie, The Japanese Film, New York, 1961; revised edition, Princeton, 1982. Mellen, Joan, Voices from the Japanese Cinema, New York, 1975. Mellen, Joan, The Waves at Genji’s Door, New York, 1976. On IMAI: articles— Philippe, Pierre, ‘‘Imai: La Femme infidèle,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), February 1964. Tayama, Rikiya, ‘‘Imai Tadashi,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), July 1964. Iawaski, Akira, ‘‘La Production independante,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), September/October 1969. Obituary, in Variety (New York), 2 December 1991. Obituary, in EPD Film (Frankfurt), January 1992. Obituary, in Kino (Warsaw), October 1992. *** After displaying early Marxist commitment, Tadashi Imai was forced to give up politics under Japan’s World War II military regime. Because of the regime’s ideological restriction, Imai’s first works were so-called ‘‘war-collaboration’’ films. Some of them are none- theless valued for Western-style action sequence technique (for example, The Death Command of the Tower) and for the successful depiction of the personality of an army officer (Our Teacher). Imai’s postwar return to Marxism surprised his audience. As early as 1946, he made a film that severely attacked corruption among the wartime rulers, and he preached on behalf of postwar democracy in The People’s Enemy. Imai’s real fame came with his record-breaking commercial success, Green Mountains, which became legendary for its reflection of the almost revolutionary excitement of the postwar IMAMURA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 458 period. The film depicts, in a light, humorous style, the struggle at a small town high school against the established institutions and values. Until We Meet Again became another legendary film for its romantic, lyrical treatment of tragic wartime love. In particular, the scene of the young lovers kissing through the window glass became famous. The Red Purge at the time of the Korean War drove Imai out of the organized film industry. He then became one of the most active filmmakers, initiating the postwar leftist independent film production movement. His successive films fall into two main categories—films analyz- ing social injustice and oppression from the communist point of view, and meticulously made literary adaptations. The films of the first category outnumber the second. Imai was much influenced by Italian neorealism in his themes and semi-documentary method based on location shooting. The hardship and tribulations of the proletariat are depicted in Still We Live (about day-laborers), Rice (concerning farmers), and That Is the Port Light (about fishermen and problems between Japan and Korea). Social problems are treated in School of Echoes (concerning the progressive education movement in a poor mountain village), Kiku and Isamu, which deals with Japanese-black mixed-blood children, Japanese Grandmother (on the aged), and River without Bridges I and II, about discrimination against the outcast class. The mistaken verdict in a murder case is the subject of Darkness at Noon, which condemns the police and the public prose- cutor. Himeyuri Lily Tower, another commercial hit, depicts tragic fighting on Okinawa toward the end of the war, showing the cruelty of both the Japanese and the American forces. Night Drum, The Cruel Story of the Samurai’s Way, Revenge, and A Woman Named En focus on feudalism and its oppression from the viewpoint of its victims. These films all embody an explicit and rather crude leftist point- of-view. However, Imai’s talent at entertaining the audience with deft storytelling and comfortable pacing attracted popular and critical support for his work. Imai is especially skillful in powerful appeals to the audience’s sentimentalism. His distinctive lyrical and humanistic style is valued and helps us to differentiate Imai from other more dogmatic leftist directors. Imai is also appreciated for his depiction of details. This trait helped make his literary adaptations (e.g., Muddy Water) so success- ful that every ambitious actress was said to want to appear in Imai’s films to obtain prizes. His collaboration with the excellent scenario writer, Yoko Mizuki, is indispensable to Imai’s success. Imai’s unchanged formula of the poor being oppressed by the authorities became increasingly out-of-date through the 1960s and 1970s. However, his lyricism still proved to be attractive in more recent works, such as Older Brother and Younger Sister. —Kyoko Hirano IMAMURA, Shohei Nationality: Japanese. Born: Tokyo, 1926. Education: Educated in technical school, Tokyo, until 1945; studied occidental history at Waseda University, Tokyo, graduated 1951. Career: Assistant direc- tor at Shochiku’s Ofuna studios, 1951; moved to Nikkatsu studios, 1954; assistant to director Yuzo Kawashima, 1955–58; directed first film, Nusumareta yokuju, 1958; formed Imamura Productions, 1965; worked primarily for TV, from 1970; founder and teacher, Yokohama Broadcast Film Institute. Awards: Palme d’Or, Cannes Festival, for The Ballad of Narayama, 1983. Films as Director: 1958 Nusumareta yokujo (Stolen Desire); Nishi Ginza eki mae (Lights of Night; Nishi Ginza Station) (+ sc); Hateshinaki yokubo (Endless Desire) (+ co-sc) 1959 Nianchan (My Second Brother; The Diary of Sueko) (+ co-sc) 1961 Buta to gunkan (The Flesh Is Hot; Hogs and Warships) (+ co-sc) 1963 Nippon konchuki (The Insect Woman) (+ co-sc) 1964 Akai satsui (Unholy Desire; Intentions of Murder) (+ co-sc) 1966 Jinruigaku nyumon (The Pornographers: Introduction to Anthropology) (+ co-sc, pr) 1967 Ningen johatsu (A Man Vanishes) (+ sc, role, pr) 1968 Kamigami no fukaki yokubo (The Profound Desire of the Gods; Kuragejima: Tales from a Southern Island) (+ co-pr, co-sc) 1970 Nippon sengoshi: Madamu Omboro no seikatsu (History of Postwar Japan as Told by a Bar Hostess) (+ co-pr, plan- ning, role as interviewee) 1975 Karayuki-san (Karayuki-san, the Making of a Prostitute) (for TV) (+ co-pr, planning) 1979 Fukushu suruwa ware ni ari (Vengeance Is Mine) 1980 Eijanaika (Why Not?) (+ co-sc) 1983 Narayama bushi-ko (The Ballad of Narayama) 1987 Zegen (The Pimp) 1988 Kuroi Ame (Black Rain) 1997 Unagi (The Eel) (+ co-sc) 1998 Kanzo Sensei (Dr. Akagi) (+ co-sc) Other Films: 1951 Bakushu (Early Summer) (Ozu) (asst d) 1952 Ochazuke no aji (The Flavor of Green Tea over Rice) (Ozu) (asst d) 1953 Tokyo monogatari (Tokyo Story) (Ozu) (asst d) 1954 Kuroi ushio (Black Tide) (Yamamura) (asst d) 1955 Tsukiwa noborinu (Moonrise) (Tanaka) (asst d) 1956 Fusen (The Balloon) (Kawashima) (co-sc) 1958 Bakumatsu Taiyoden (Saheiji Finds a Way; Sun Legend of the Shogunate’s Last Days) (Kawashima) (co-sc) 1959 Jigokuno magarikago (Turning to Hell) (Kurahara) (co-sc) 1962 Kyupora no aru machi (Cupola Where the Furnaces Glow) (Uravama) (sc) 1963 Samurai no ko (Son of a Samurai; The Young Samurai) (Wakasugi) (co-sc) 1964 Keirin shonin gyojoki (Nishimira) (co-sc) 1967 Neon taiheiki-keieigaku nyumon (Neon Jungle) (Isomi) (co-sc) 1968 Higashi Shinaki (East China Sea) (Isomi) (story, co-sc) IMAMURADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 459 Shohei Imamura Publications By IMAMURA: book— Sayonara dake ga jinsei-da [Life Is Only Goodbye: Biography of Director Yuzo Kawashima], Tokyo, 1969. By IMAMURA: articles— ‘‘Monomaniaque de l’homme. . . ,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), Novem- ber 1972. Interview with S. Hoass, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), September/ October 1981. Interview with Max Tessier, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), Septem- ber 1983. Interview with C. Tesson, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), Novem- ber 1987. Interview in Revue du Cinéma/Image et Son (Paris), November 1989. ‘‘Silence de Mort,’’ an interview with Gérard Pangon, in Télérama (Paris), 26 July 1995. Interview with Yann Tobin and Hubert Niogret, in Positif (Paris), October 1997. Interview with Pierre Eisenreich and Hubert Niogret, in Positif (Paris), December 1998. ‘‘Dr. Akagi: Kanzo Sensei,’’ an interview with Freddy Sartor, in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), January 1999. On IMAMURA: books— Imamura Shohei no eiga [The Films of Shohei Imamura], Tokyo, 1971. Mellen, Joan, Voices from the Japanese Cinema, New York, 1975. Sugiyama, Heiichi, Sekai no eiga sakka 8: Imamura Shohei [Film Directors of the World 8: Shohei Imamura], Tokyo, 1975. Bock, Audie, Japanese Film Directors, New York, 1978; revised edition, Tokyo, 1985. Tessier, Max, editor, Le Cinéma japonais au present: 1959–1979, Paris, 1980. Richie, Donald, with Audie Bock, Notes for a Study on Shohei Imamura, Bergamo, 1987. INGRAM DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 460 Piccardi, Adriano, and Angelo Signorelli, Shohei Imamura, Bergamo, 1987. Quandt, James, editor, Shohei Imamura, Bloomington, 1999. On IMAMURA: articles— Yamada, Koichi, ‘‘Les Cochons et les dieux: Imamura Shohei,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May/June 1965. ‘‘Dossier on Imamura,’’ in Positif (Paris), April 1982. Gillett, John, ‘‘Shohei Imamura,’’ in Film Dope (London), Janu- ary 1983. Casebier, A., ‘‘Images of Irrationality in Modern Japan: The Films of Shohei Imamura,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Fall 1983. Kehr, Dave, ‘‘The Last Rising Sun,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1983. ‘‘Imamura Section’’ of Positif (Paris), May 1985. Baecque, Antoine de, ‘‘Histoire de douleur,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1989. Baecque, Antoine de, ‘‘Le meurtre du cochon rose,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1990. Boquet, Stéphane, ‘‘Imamura, le porc et son homme,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1997. *** Outrageous, insightful, sensuous, and great fun to watch, the films of Shohei Imamura are among the greatest glories of postwar Japa- nese cinema, yet Imamura remains largely unknown outside of Japan. Part of the reason, to be sure, lies in the fact that Imamura has until recently worked for small studios such as Nikkatsu or on his own independently financed productions. But it may also be because Imamura’s films fly so furiously in the face of what most Westerners have come to expect of Japanese films. After some amateur experience as a theater actor and director, Imamura joined Shochiku Studios in 1951 as an assistant director, where he worked under, among others, Yasujiro Ozu. His first important work, My Second Brother, an uncharacteristically gentle tale set among Korean orphans living in postwar Japan, earned him third place in the annual Kinema Jumpo ‘‘Best Japanese Film of the Year’’ poll, and from then on Imamura’s place within the Japanese industry was established. Between 1970 and 1978, Imamura ‘‘re- tired’’ from feature filmmaking, concentrating his efforts instead on a series of remarkable television documentaries that explored little- known sides of postwar Japan. In 1978, Imamura returned to features with his greatest commercial and critical success, Vengeance Is Mine, a complex, absorbing study of a cold-blooded killer. In 1983, his film The Ballad of Narayama was awarded the Gold Palm at the Cannes Film Festival, symbolizing Imamura’s belated discovery by the international film community. Imamura has stated that he likes to make ‘‘messy films,’’ and it is the explosive, at times anarchic quality of his work that makes him appear ‘‘uncharacteristically Japanese’’ when seen in the context of Ozu, Mizoguchi, or Kurosawa. Perhaps no other filmmaker anywhere has taken up Jean-Luc Godard’s challenge to end the distinction between ‘‘documentary’’ and ‘‘fiction’’ films. In preparation for filming, Imamura will conduct exhaustive research on the people whose story he will tell, holding long interviews to extract informa- tion and to become familiar with different regional vocabularies and accents (many of his films are set in remote regions of Japan). Insisting always on location shooting and direct sound, Imamura has been referred to as the ‘‘cultural anthropologist’’ of the Japanese cinema. Even the titles of some of his films—The Pornographers: Introduction to Anthropology and The Insect Woman (whose Japa- nese title literally translates to ‘‘Chronicle of a Japanese Insect’’)— seem to reinforce the ‘‘scientific’’ spirit of these works. Yet, if anything, Imamura’s films argue against an overly clinical approach to understanding Japan, as they often celebrate the irrational and instinctual aspects of Japanese culture. Strong female protagonists are usually at the center of Imamura’s films, yet it would be difficult to read these films as ‘‘women’s films’’ in the way that critics describe works by Mizoguchi or Naruse. Rather, women in Imamura’s films are always the ones more directly linked to ‘‘ur-Japan,’’—a kind of primordial fantasy of Japan not only preceeding ‘‘westernization’’ but before any contact with the outside world. In The Profound Desire of the Gods, a brother and sister on a small southern island fall in love and unconsciously attempt to recreate the myth of Izanagi and Izanami, sibling gods whose union founded the Japanese race. Incest, a subject which might usually be seen as shocking, is treated as a perfectly natural expression, becom- ing a crime only due to the influence of ‘‘westernized’’ Japanese who have come to civilize the island. Imamura’s characters indulge freely and frequently in sexual activity, and sexual relations tend to act as a kind of barometer for larger, unseen social forces. The lurid, erotic spectacles in Eijanaika, for example, are the clearest indication of growing frustrations that finally explode in massive riots in the film’s conclusion. —Richard Pe?a INGRAM, Rex Nationality: Irish/American. Born: Reginald Ingram Montgomery Hitchcock in Dublin, 15 January 1893. Education: Saint Columba’s College, Dublin; studied sculpture at Yale, 1911. Military Service: Served in Canadian Air Force (wounded in action), 1918. Family: Married 1) actress Doris Pawn, 1917 (divorced 1920); 2) Alice Terry, 1921. Career: Immigrated to United States, 1911; actor in England, 1912; assistant for Edison Co., New York, also scenario writer for Stuart Blackton and screen actor, 1913; moved to Vitagraph, 1914; hired by Fox, changed name to Rex Ingram, 1915; director for Universal, 1916; contracted by Paralta-W.W. Hodkinson Corp., 1918; joined Metro Pictures, 1920; moved to France, 1923; modernized Studios de la Victorine de Saint-Augustin, Nice, 1924; established Ingram Hamilton Syndicated Ltd. production company, London, 1928; moved to Egypt, 1934; returned to Hollywood, 1936. Awards: Honorary degree, Yale University; Légion d’honneur fran?aise. Died: In California, 1950. INGRAMDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 461 Rex Ingram (with megaphone) Films as Director: 1916 The Great Problem (Truth) (+ sc); Broken Fetters (A Human Pawn) (+ sc); Chalice of Sorrow (The Fatal Promise) (+ sc); Black Orchids (The Fatal Orchids) (+ sc) 1917 The Reward of the Faithless (The Ruling Passion) (+ sc); The Pulse of Life (+ sc); The Flower of Doom (+ sc); Little Terror (+ sc) 1918 His Robe of Honor; Humdrum Brown 1919 The Day She Paid 1920 Under Crimson Skies (The Beach Comber); Shore Acres; Hearts Are Trumps 1921 The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (+ pr); The Conquer- ing Power (Eugenie Grandet); Turn to the Right 1922 The Prisoner of Zenda; Trifling Women (+ sc) (remake of Black Orchids); Where the Pavement Ends (+ sc) 1923 Scaramouche (+ pr) 1924 The Arab (L’Arabe) (+ sc) 1925 Mare Nostrum (+ co-pr) 1926 The Magician (+ co-pr, sc) 1927 The Garden of Allah 1929 The Three Passions (Les Trois Passions) (+ sc) 1931 Baroud (Love in Morocco; Passion in the Desert) (+ pr, co-sc) Other Films: 1913 Hard Cash (Reid) (role, sc); The Family’s Honor (Ridgely) (sc); Beau Brummel (Young) (role); The Artist’s Great Madonna (Young) (role); A Tudor Princess (Dawley) (role) 1914 Witness to the Will (Lessey) (role); The Necklace of Ramses (Brabin) (role); The Price of the Necklace (Brabin) (role); The Borrowed Finery (role); Her Great Scoop (Costello and Gaillord) (role); The Spirit and the Clay (Lambart) (role); The Southerners (Ridgely and Collins) (role); Eve’s Daughter (North) (role); The Crime of Cain (Marston) (role); The Circus and the Boy (Johnson) (role); David Garrick (Young) (role); The Upper Hand (Humphrey) (role); Fine Feathers Make Fine Birds (Humphrey) (role); His Wedded Wife (Humphrey) (role); Goodbye, Summer (Brooke) (role); The Moonshine Maid and the Man (Gaskill) (role) INGRAM DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 462 1915 Should a Mother Tell? (Edwards) (sc); The Song of Hate (Edwards) (sc, role); The Wonderful Adventure (Thomp- son) (sc); The Blindness of Devotion (Edwards) (sc); A Woman’s Past (Powell) (sc); The Galley Slave (Edwards) (co-sc, uncredited); The Evil Men Do (Costello and Gaillord) (role); Snatched from a Burning Death (Gaskill) (role) 1916 The Cup of Bitterness (sc) 1923 Mary of the Movies (McDermot) (role as a guest) 1925 Greed (von Stroheim) (co-ed 2nd cut) Publications By INGRAM: articles— Interview with L. Montanye, in Motion Picture Classic (Brooklyn), July 1921. Interview with J. Robinson, in Photoplay (New York), August 1921. Article in Motion Picture Directing, by Peter Milne, New York, 1922. On INGRAM: books— Predal, Rene, Rex Ingram, Paris, 1970. O’Leary, Liam, Rex Ingram, Master of the Silent Cinema, Dub- lin, 1980. On INGRAM: articles— Obituary in New York Times, 23 July 1950. Geltzer, George, ‘‘Hollywood’s Handsomest Director,’’ in Films in Review (New York), May 1952. O’Laoghaire, Liam, ‘‘Rex Ingram and the Nice Studios,’’ in Cinema Studies (England), December 1961. Bodeen, Dewitt, ‘‘Rex Ingram and Alice Terry,’’ in two parts in Films in Review (New York), February and March 1975. O’Leary, Liam, ‘‘Rex Ingram,’’ in Film Dope (London), July 1983. Graham, Ian, ‘‘Rex Ingram: A Seminal Influence, Unfairly Ob- scured,’’ in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), vol. 74, no. 4, April 1993. Bourget, J.-L., ‘‘Entre Stroheim et David Lean: le roi Ingram,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 404, October 1994. On INGRAM: film— Graham, Dan, The Conquering Power: Rex Ingram 1893–1950, 1990. *** Rex Ingram’s work has tended to be overlooked and forgotten as a result of his retirement from films in the early 1930s, an era when sound had taken over the world of cinema. He began his career in films in 1913, working as designer, scriptwriter, and actor for Edison, Vitagraph, and Fox. In 1916 he directed his own story, The Great Problem, for Universal at the age of only twenty-three. His educa- tional background was that of an Irish country rectory and the Yale School of Fine Arts, where he studied sculpture under Lee Lawrie and developed an aesthetic sense which informed all his films. The early films Ingram made for Universal have disappeared. His version of La Tosca, transferred to a Mexican setting as Chalice of Sorrow, and a 1922 remake of Black Orchids titled Trifling Women, earned critical attention for the quality of the acting and their visual beauty. Cleo Madison starred in both these films. The fragment that exists of The Reward of the Faithless shows a realism that is reminiscent of von Stroheim, who was later to acknowledge his indebtedness by allowing Ingram to do the second cutting on Greed. It may be noted also that greed was the theme of The Conquering Power. A characteristic element of Ingram’s work was the use of grotesque figures like dwarfs and hunchbacks to offset the glamour of his heroes. After a period of ups and downs, he made another film for Universal in 1920, Under Crimson Skies, which won critical acclaim. With the release of The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in 1921 Ingram achieved top status in his profession. Ordinarily, Valentino dominates discussion of this film, but Ingram’s work on the feature is of the highest quality. Armed with his team of cameraman John Seitz and editor Grant Whytock, Ingram went on to make a dazzlingly successful series of films for Metro. His financial and artistic success gave him carte blanche and his name became a box-office draw. The Conquering Power, The Prisoner of Zenda, and Scaramouche fea- tured his wife, the beautiful and talented Alice Terry, and the latter two films introduced a new star, Ramon Novarro, who also played with Alice Terry in the South Seas romance Where the Pavement Ends. Ingram made stars and knew how to get the best out of players. He came to be considered the equal of Griffith, von Stroheim, and DeMille. In 1924 the formation of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer saw a tightening up of front office control over the creative director and Ingram sought fresh fields to conquer. He made The Arab with Terry and Novarro in North Africa, a region that he fell in love with. He next moved to Nice, where he founded the Rex Ingram Studios and released his master- piece Mare Nostrum in 1926 for ‘‘Metro-Goldwyn.’’ (He would never allow his arch-enemy Louis B. Mayer to have a credit.) In this work Alice Terry gave her best performance as the Mata Hari-like heroine. This film as well as The Four Horsemen, both of which were authored by Blasco Iba?ez, were later suppressed because of its anti- German sentiments. The German-inspired The Magician featured Paul Wegener (the original Golem) and was based on a Somerset Maugham story. After The Garden of Allah Ingram broke with MGM in 1926. The Three Passions, with an industrial background, followed in 1929. His last film, Baroud, a sound film in which he himself played the lead, completed a distinguished career. Ingram sold his studios in Nice, where he had reigned as an uncrowned king; as the Victorine Studios they were to become an important element in French film production. Ingram retired to North Africa and later rejoined his wife Alice Terry in Hollywood. He indulged his hobbies of sculpture, writing, and travel. Ingram was the supreme pictorialist of the screen, a great director of actors, a perfectionist whose influence was felt not least in the films of David Lean and Michael Powell. The themes of his films ranged over many locations but his careful research gave them a realism and authenticity that balanced the essential romanticism of his work. —Liam O’Leary IOSELIANIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 463 IOSELIANI, Otar Nationality: Soviet Georgian. Born: 2 February 1934. Education: Educated in music, Tbilisi Conservatory; studied graphic art; degree in mathematics, Moscow University; studied under Alexander Dovzhenko, V.G.I.K., Moscow. Career: Directed first feature, April, 1961; failed to receive authorization for its distribution, abandoned filmmaking; returned to direct Listopad, 1966. Awards: FIPRESCI Prize, Berlin Festival, for Pastorale, 1982. Films as Director: 1958 Akvarel (Watercolor) (short, for TV) 1959 Sapovnela (The Song about Flowers) (short) 1961 April (Stories about Things) (not released) (+ sc) 1964 Tudzi (Cast-Iron (+ sc) (short) 1966 Listopad (When Leaves Fall; Falling Leaves) 1969 Starinnaja gruzinskaja pesnja (Old Georgian Song (short) 1972 Zil pevcij drozd (There Was a Singing Blackbird; There Lived a Thrush) (+ co-sc) 1976 Pastoral (The Summer in the Country) (+ co-sc) 1982 Lettre d’un cinéaste (short, for TV) 1983 Sept pièces pour cinéma noir et blanc (Seven Pieces for Black and White Cinema) 1984 Les Favoris de la Lune 1988 Un petit monastère en Toscane (A Little Monastery in Tuscany) 1989 Et la lumière fut (And Then There Was Light) Otar Ioseliani 1992 La Chasse aux papillons (Chasing Butterflies) (+ sc, ed) 1994 Seule, Georgie 1996 Brigands, chapitre VII (+ sc, ed) 1997 Adieu, plancher des vaches! (Farewell, Home Sweet Home) (+ sc, ed, ro as Father) Publications By IOSELIANI: articles— Interview with G. Kopanevová, in Film a Doba (Prague), May 1974. Interview with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), May 1978. Interview with Serge Daney and S. Toubiana, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1979. Interview with A. Gerber, in Film a Doba (Prague), February 1981. Interview with Serge Toubiana and Alain Bergala, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1985. Interview with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), November 1992. Interview with Jacques Kermabon and Marcel Jean, in 24 Images (Montreal), April-May 1993. Interview with Michel Euvrard, in Ciné-Bulles (Montreal), Sum- mer 1993. Interview with Iskra Bo?inova, in Kino (Sophia), no. 1, 1996. Interview with René Prédal, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), March-April 1997. On IOSELIANI: articles— Cereteli, K., ‘‘Stat’ ja iz gazety ‘Zarja Vostoka’,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), November 1973. ‘‘Il était une fois un merle chanteur de O. Iosseliani,’’ in Revue Belge du Cinéma (Brussels), vol. 13, no. 1–2, 1975/76. Martin, Marcel, ‘‘L’Art ‘Comme la vie’ d’Otar Iosseliani,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), September 1980. ‘‘Ioseliani Section’’ of Positif (Paris), January 1985. Gauthier, G., and R. Bassan, ‘‘Otar Ioseliani,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), February 1985. Navailh, F., ‘‘Otar Ioseliani,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), February 1985. Christie, Ian, ‘‘Pastoral Hide and Seek,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), March 1985. Fell, H., ‘‘Wenn alles gut geht,’’ in EPD Film (Frankfurt), June 1990. Bogomolov, Ju., and others, ‘‘U vremeni v gostjah?’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), April 1993. *** The Georgian cinema, which has a history dating back to the 1920s, experienced a renaissance in the 1960s with Otar Ioseliani as its most remarkable representative. Together with Tarkovsky (but in a very different way) he is the Soviet director who has been the most uncompromising and the most consistent in his aesthetic approach. Born in 1934, he studied music as well as graphic art at the Tbilisi Conservatory, and graduated from Moscow University in mathemat- ics. But finally he chose cinema as his favorite field and graduated from VGIK after attending Alexander Dovzhenko’s class. His first film, April, of which little is known, was not released. His second, When Leaves Fall, shows the characteristic elements of his style. Ioseliani, like many of his contemporaries, is hostile to the cinema of Eisenstein—to his intellectual montage and to the theoretical aspect of his work. In presenting Jean Vigo as his master, Ioseliani insists ITAMI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 464 that he tries ‘‘to capture moments of passing life,’’ and in doing so wants to reach the ultimate goal of art. In a way, his films are close to the Czech new wave (Forman, Passer, Menzel), but realism is counterbalanced by a more formal treatment, particularly in the use of sound and off-screen space. His films also show a disregard for conventional ways of life. Ioseliani’s nonconformity, stubbornness, and frankness have alien- ated authorities. When Leaves Fall takes place in a wine factory and shows an innocent and honest young man trying to live in a bureau- cratic universe. He does not wear a moustache, that Georgian symbol of bourgeois respectability. There Was a Singing Blackbird, Ioseliani’s third film, portrays the life of a musician in the Tbilisi orchestra who always arrives at the last minute to perform, being busy enjoying his life, drinking and courting girls. His behavior is an insult to an official morality based on work and duty. Ioseliani’s fancifulness and sense of humor are shown at their best in this sprightly comedy that ends tragically with the hero’s death. Pastoral, which had problems with the Moscow authorities (though the film was shown regularly in Georgia), is about a group of five musicians from the city who come to live with a peasant family. Ioseliani observes the opposition of city and country, and makes a young peasant girl the observer of this delightful conflict of manners and morals. Using many non-professionals—as in his earlier films— the director manages to show us poetically and with truthfulness the life of the Georgian people. Discarding any kind of plot, observing his characters with affection and irony, he is faithful to his anti-dogmatic stance: ‘‘Everyone is born to drink the glass of his life.’’ Ioseliani’s limited output is of a very high level indeed. —Michel Ciment ITAMI, Juzo Nationality: Japanese. Born: Yoshihiro Ikeuchi in Kyoto, May 15, 1933; the son of film director Mansaku Itami. Education: High school. Family: Married actress Nobuko Miyamoto, two children. Career: Amateur boxer and commercial designer; became film actor, 1960 (sometimes billed as Ichizo Itami); subsequently worked as a stage actor, TV actor and director, TV chat-show host, author, translator, and chef; also edited magazine on psychoanalysis; began directing films at age 50, 1984; earned international acclaim with Tampopo, 1986; stabbed gangland-style in his home, allegedly in retaliation for his depiction of Japanese mobsters in Mimbo No Onna (Minbo, or the Gentle Art of Japanese Extortion/The Gangster’s Moll/The Anti-Extortion Woman), 1992. Died: Committed suicide by leaping from the roof of the Tokyo condominium in which he resided and worked, 20 December 1997. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1984 Ososhiki (The Funeral) 1986 Tampopo (Dandelion) 1987 Marusa no onna (A Taxing Woman) 1988 Marusa no onna II (A Taxing Woman Returns) 1990 A-Ge-Man (A-Ge-Man—Tales of a Golden Geisha) (+ pr) 1991 Minbo No Onna (Minbo, Or the Gentle Art of Japanese Extortion; The Gangster’s Moll; The Anti-Extortion Woman) 1995 Daibyonin (The Last Dance; The Seriously Ill); Shizukana seikatsu (A Quiet Life) 1996 Supa no onna (Supermarket Woman) 1997 Marutai no onna Films as Actor: 1960 Kirai Kirai Kirai (Dislike) (Edagawa); Nise Daigakusei (The Phoney University Student) (Masamura); Ototo (Her Brother) (Ichikawa) 1961 Kuroi junin no onna (The Ten Dark Women) (Ichikawa) 1963 55 Days at Peking (Ray) 1964 Lord Jim (Brooks) 1966 Otoko no kao wa rirekisho (A Man’s Face Is His His- tory) (Kato) 1967 Nihon Shunka ko (A Treatise on Japanese Bawdy Songs) (Oshima) 1974 Imoto (My Sister, My Love) (Fujita) 1975 Wagahai wa nwko dearu (I Am a Cat) (Ichikawa) 1980 Kusa Meikyu (Labyrinth in the Field) (Terayama); Yugure made (Until Dusk) (Kuroki) 1983 Sasameyuki (The Makioka Sisters) (Ichikawa); Kazoku gemu (The Family Game) (Morita) 1985 Setouchi shonen yakyu dan (MacArthur’s Children) (Shinoda) 1989 Suito homu (Sweet Home) (Kurosawa) Publications By ITAMI: books— Yoroppa taikutsu nikki (Diary of Boring Days in Europe), Tokyo, 1965. Onnatachi yo! (Listen, Women). Nippon sekenbanashi taikei (Panorama of Japanese Gossips). The Funeral Diary, 1985. Enjoy French Cooking with Me, 1987. By ITAMI: articles— Interview in Cinéma (Paris), June 1985. Interview with B. Meares, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), July 1985. Interview with Tony Rayns, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), April 1988. Interview with Alan Stanbrook, in Films and Filming (London), April 1988. Interview in Films and Filming (London), April 1988. Interview with L. Tanner, in Films in Review (New York), May 1988. ‘‘Death & Taxes,’’ an interview with Jeff Sipe, in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1989. On ITAMI: articles— Canby, Vincent, ‘‘What’s So Funny about Japan?’’ in New York Times, 18 June 1989. Sipe, Jeffrey, ‘‘Death and Taxes: A Profile of Juzo Itami,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1989. Efron, Sonni, ‘‘Japanese Director Juzo Itami Recovering after Gang- land-Style Stabbing at Home,’’ in Los Angeles Times, 26 May 1992. ITAMIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 465 Juzo Itami Sterngold, James, ‘‘A Director Boasts of His Scars, and Says He Is Right about Japan’s Mob,’’ in New York Times, 30 August 1992. ‘‘Five Arrested in Slashing of Tokyo Film Maker,’’ in New York Times, 4 December 1992. Kuzue, Suzuki, ‘‘Juzo Itami, director extraordinaire,’’ in Japan Quarterly (Tokyo), July/September 1993. Friedland, Jonathan, ‘‘Director Uses Films to Question Authority,’’ in Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong), 21 October 1993. Obituary, in Washington Post, 22 December 1997. Obituary, in New York Times, 22 December 1997. Obituary, in Film-Dienst (Cologne), 20 January 1998. Obituary, in Séquences (Haute-Ville), March-April 1998. *** It is probable that Juzo Itami’s films convey meanings to Japanese audiences that are not readily accessible to Westerners: they are pervasively concerned with rituals, customs, and practices that go back through centuries, and their interaction with contemporary economic and socio-political actualities. On the other hand, Itami is clearly aware of international cinematic practice, and his films seem made partly with an international audience in mind. Offered here is a westerner’s assessment of the films: incomplete, but nonethe- less valid. A Westerner, then, would situate Itami somewhere between Bu?uel and Almodóvar, The Funeral leaning toward the former, Tampopo toward the latter (the two Taxing Woman movies, though not at all inconsistent with these in tone and attitude, stand apart from them because of their general irreverence and skepticism). Itami has not achieved the extraordinary distinction of Bu?uel at his best (but neither did Bu?uel until he was very old, and then in only a very few films). On the other hand, if Tampopo, in its comic-erotic audacities and its seemingly free and inconsequential handling of narrative, evokes a heterosexual Almodóvar, the comparison works very much in Itami’s favour, underlining his greater maturity, discipline, and powers of self-criticism: casual divertissement as it may seem, Tampopo manifests a security of taste, tone, and attitude to which Almodóvar, with his apparently uncritical faith in the sanctity of his own impulses, cannot yet lay claim. The Funeral can be at once ‘‘placed’’ and done justice to by being juxtaposed with, on the one hand, Bu?uel’s late films, and, on the other, Altman’s A Wedding. Superficially, it has far more in common IVENS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 466 with the latter: a satirical view of ritualized social performances and their emptiness, exposing the manifold hypocrisies they generate. Yet the complexity of attitude—the disturbing fusion of critical rigour and emotional generosity—is closer to Bu?uel. A Wedding, among the worst films of one of the most uneven of directors, is more compli- cated than complex, its proliferation of characters and incident encompassed by Altman’s contempt for all of it and his desire to assert his superiority: the simplicity and unpleasantness of the attitude precludes any possibility of genuine disturbance. A Funeral analyses the traditional elaborate rites in documentary detail and precision, while simultaneously undercutting the reverence they are supposed to express with a pervasive sense of absurdity: the old man whose death necessitates all this ceremony, expenditure, and hypocrisy was an unlovable egoist for whom no one felt any particular affection or respect while he was alive. Yet Itami, unlike Altman, never presents his characters as merely stupid, and shows no inclina- tion to demonstrate his superiority to them. If the tone is never not satirical, it is also never only satirical. One might single out as an example the disturbing interplay of conflicting responses generated by the scene where the son-in-law has sex in the bushes with his mistress while his wife (the dead man’s daughter), fully aware of what is going on, quietly distracts herself on a swing. The juxtaposition of the seduction (treated as broad comedy) and the wife’s sense of troubled hurt, which takes place in the context of death that encloses the whole action, creates a complex effect capped by the abrupt appearance of Chishu Ryu as the officiating priest, and the accumu- lated resonances he brings with him from so many Ozu movies. If this is not exactly the tone of Viridiana, we are at least not far from that of The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, though the comparison brings with it the reflection that Itami’s film has no equivalent for the three ‘‘insert narratives’’ of the Bu?uel and the dimension of radical pain and disturbance they introduce. A Taxing Woman and A Taxing Woman’s Return represent a re- markably successful attempt to appropriate a popular genre (criminal investigation) for purposes of radical social criticism. For the west- erner, at least, they relate interestingly to the recent wave of feminist detective fiction centered on female investigators, of which Sara Paretsky’s series of novels remains the most impressive example. There is a crucial difference between Paretsky’s V.I. Warshawski and the heroine of Itami’s movies: the former is a ‘‘private eye,’’ a lone operator, the latter the leader of a government-employed team. Yet the parallel is strong: in both cases the woman becomes committed not simply to the solution of a specific ‘‘case’’ but to the exposure of the corruption and inherent criminality of the patriarchal-capitalist power structure. The radicalism has its limitations. The fact that the ‘‘taxing woman’’ (Itami’s wife Nobuko Miyamoto) works for the government prohibits—for all the force of her personal crusade against corporate corruption—the raising of a key question: To what ends are taxes actually used within a capitalist state? The films attack the corruption but are unable to challenge the system that produces it. Itami’s commitment to feminism is also somewhat dubious: one suspects that it is more an incidental offshoot of his desire to work with his extremely talented wife (a brilliant comedienne who com- mands rapid and subtle shifts of tone) rather than being rooted in any firm theoretical basis. Despite these limitations, the films (together with their wide and international commercial success) are, like Paretsky’s novels, suffi- cient proof that popular genres can be used to dramatize radical positions, and for once the sequel actually improves on the original: tougher, darker, with an altogether bleaker ending, its powerful and disturbing rigour was doubtless made possible by the success of its more lightweight predecessor. As Itami’s career progressed, his films did not lose their bite. A- Ge-Man (A-Ge-Man—Tales of a Golden Geisha) is a discerning examination of conventional male-female associations, depicted via the perceptions of a modern-era geisha. Minbo no onna (Minbo, or the Gentle Art of Japanese Extortion/The Gangster’s Moll/The Anti- Extortion Woman), a rapier-witted satire of Japanese organized crime, follows a gritty lawyer who takes on a blackmailing band of yakuza. Several days after the Japanese premiere of Minbo no onna, Itami was severely injured when his neck and face were slashed, allegedly by members of the yakuza. The incident served as sobering proof that Itami’s brand of controversial, radical filmmaking, how- ever high-spirited, can indeed be a dangerous business. This tragedy, however, did not alter his cinematic style. In the aftermath of the stabbing, Itami commenced pondering the insincere, impersonal manner in which hospital patients in Japan are treated. The result was Daibyonin (The Last Dance/The Seriously Ill), a black comedy about a second-rate film director who is diagnosed with cancer. Itami lampooned consumerism in Supa no onna (Supermarket Woman), in which supermarkets compete to lure customers. In Marutai no onna (Woman of the Police Protection Program), he told the story of an actress who finds herself in the title program after witnessing a killing and being threatened by the perpetrators, mem- bers of a religious cult. Itami stated that the concept of Marutai no onna evolved from his attack by the yakuza. One of Itami’s late-career films is a departure from the tone of his other work: Shizukana seikatsu (A Quiet Life), based on the novel by Nobel laureate Kenzaburo Oe which spotlights the writer’s concerns about his disabled son. Primarily, though, Itami’s films maintained their satiric edge. While they are universal in that their lampoonery extends beyond cultural boundaries, they specifically ridicule the hypocrisies of contemporary Japanese society. In late 1997, Itami learned that Flash, a weekly magazine, was about to print an allegation that the filmmaker—who still was married to Nobuko Miyamoto—had an affair with an unidentified 26-year-old woman. Two days before the magazine was to hit newsstands, Itami committed suicide. In a note explaining his action, he vociferously denied the relationship, declaring, ‘‘My death is the only way to prove my innocence.’’ —Robin Wood —Updated by Rob Edelman IVENS, Joris Nationality: Dutch. Born: Georg Henri Anton Ivens in Nijmegen, Holland, 18 November 1898. Education: Economische Hogeschool, Rotterdam, 1916–17 and 1920–21; studied chemistry and photogra- phy at Technische Hochschule, Charlottenberg, 1922–23. Military Service: Lieutenant in Artillery, 1917–18. Family: Married 1) pho- tographer Germaine Krull, 1937 (divorced, 1943); 2) Marceline Loridan. Career: Technical director for CAPI (father’s firm selling photographic equipment); travelled to USSR to meet Soviet filmmakers, 1930; made industrial documentaries in Holland, and began associa- tion with cinematographer John Fernhout (John Ferno), 1931; re- turned to USSR, 1932; clandestinely filmed striking Belgian miners IVENSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 467 for Borinage, 1933; visited New York, formed group, with Ernest Hemingway, John Dos Passos, Lillian Hellman, Fredric March, and Luise Rainer, to finance films on contemporary events, 1936; filmed Spanish Earth during Spanish Civil War, 1937; filmed 400 Million in China, 1938; made industrial documentaries, U.S., 1939–40; taught at University of Southern California, 1941; invited by John Grierson to direct Alarme! for national Film Board of Canada, 1942; worked on Why We Fight series, Hollywood, 1943–44; travelled to Sydney, Australia, to make Indonesia Calls, regarded as traitorous act by Dutch authorities, 1945–46; moved to Prague, 1947; taught in Lodz, Poland, 1950–51; moved to Paris, 1957; taught filmmaking in Peking, 1958; filmed in Italy and Africa, 1959–60; taught filmmaking in Cuba, 1960–61; taught in Chile, 1962–63; Ivens Archive established after retrospective at Nederlands Filmmuseum, 1964; made first of Vietnam War documentaries, 1965; made 12-part documentary, Comment Yu-Kong dépla?a les montagnes, with Marceline Loridan and others, in China, 1971–75. Member: Filmliga film club, Amster- dam, from 1926. Awards: World Peace Prize, Helsinki, 1955; Palme d’Or for Best Documentary for La Seine a rencontre Paris, Cannes Festival, 1958; Diploma Honoris Causa, Royal College of Art, London, 1978. Died: Of a heart attack, in Paris, 28 June 1989. Films as Director: 1911 De brandende straal or Wigwam (Flaming Arrow) (+ ed, ph) 1927 Zeedijk-Filmstudie (Filmstudy—Zeedijk) (+ ed, ph) 1928 Etudes de mouvements (+ ed, ph); De Brug (The Bridge) (+ ed, ph) 1929 Branding (The Breakers) (co-d, ed, ph); Regen (Rain) (+ ed, ph) (sound version prepared 1932 by Helen van Dongen); Ik-Film (‘‘I’’ Film) (co-d, ed, ph) (unfinished); Schaatsenrijden (Skating; The Skaters) (+ ed, ph) (unfin- ished); Wij Bouwen (We Are Building) (+ co-sc, ed, ph) [footage shot for but not used in Wij Bouwen used for following films: Heien (Pile Driving) (+ co-sc, ed, ph); Nieuwe architectur (New Architecture) (+ co-sc, ed, ph); Caissounbouw Rotterdam (+ co-sc, ed, ph); Zuid Limburg (South Limburg) (+ co-sc, ed, ph)] 1929/30 N.V.V. Congres (Congres der Vakvereeinigingen) (+ ed, ph); Arm Drenthe (+ ed, ph) 1930 De Tribune film: Breken en bouwen (The Tribune Film: Break and Build) (+ ed, ph); Timmerfabriek (Timber Indus- try) (+ co-ph, co-ed); Film-notities uit de Sovjet-Unie (News from the Soviet Union) (+ ed); Demonstratie van proletarische solidariteit (Demonstration of Proletarian Solidarity) (+ ed) 1931 Philips-Radio (Symphonie industrielle, Industrial Symphony) (+ co-ph, co-ed); Creosoot (Creosote) (+ sc, ph, ed) 1932 Pesn o Gerojach (Youth Speaks; Song of Heroes) (+ ed) 1933 Zuyderzee (+ sc, co-ph) 1934 Misére au Borinage (Borinage) (co-d, co-sc, co-ed, co-ph); Nieuwe Gronden (New Earth) (+ sc, co-ph, co-ed, narration) 1937 The Spanish Earth (+ sc, co-ph) 1939 The Four Hundred Million (China’s Four Hundred Million) (co-d, sc) 1940 Power and the Land (+ co-sc): New Frontiers (unfinished) 1941 Bip Goes to Town; Our Russian Front (co-d); Worst of Farm Disasters 1942 Oil for Aladdin’s Lamp 1943 Alarme! or Branle-Bas de combat (Action Stations!) (+ sc, ed) (released in shorter version Corvette Port Arthur) 1946 Indonesia Calling (+ sc, ed) 1949 Pierwsze lata (The First Years) (+ co-ed, produced 1947) 1951 Pokoj zwyciezy swiat (Peace Will Win) (co-d) 1952 Naprozod mlodziezy (Freundschaft siegt; Friendship Tri- umphs) (co-d); Wyscig pokoju Warszawa-Berlin-Praga (Friedensfahrt; Peace Tour) (+ sc) 1954 Das Lied der Str?me (Song of the Rivers) (+ co-sc) 1957 La Seine a rencontré Paris (+ co-sc); Die Abenteuer des Till Ulenspiegel (The Adventures of Till Eulenspiegel) (co-d) 1958 Before Spring (Early Spring; Letters from China) (+ sc, ed); Six Hundred Million People Are with You (+ ed) 1960 L’ Italia non e un paese povero (Italy Is Not a Poor Country) (+ co-sc, co-ed); Demain à Nanguila (Nanguila Tomorrow) 1961 Carnet de viaje (+ sc); Pueblos en armas (Cuba, pueblo armado; An Armed Nation) (+ sc) 1963 . . . à Valparaiso (+ sc); El circo mas peque?o (Le Petit Chapiteau) 1964 El tren de la victoria (Le Train de la victoire) 1966 Pour le mistral (+ co-sc); Le Ciel, la terre (The Sky, the Earth) (+ narration, appearance); Rotterdam-Europoort (Rotterdam- Europort; The Flying Dutchman) 1967 Hanoi footage in Loin du Viêt-nam (Far from Vietnam) (co-d) 1968 Le Dix-septième parallèle (The Seventeenth Parallel) (co-d, co-sc); Aggrippès à la terre (co-d); Déterminés à vaincre (co-d) 1969 Rencontre avec le Président Ho Chi Minh (co-d); (next 7 titles made as part of collective including Marceline Loridan, Jean-Pierre Sergent, Emmanuele Castro, Suzanne Fen, Antoine Bonfanti, Bernard Ortion, and Anne Rullier): Le Peuple et ses fusils (The People and Their Guns); L’ Armée populaire arme le peuple; La Guerre populaire au Laos; Le Peuple peut tout; Qui commande aux fusils; Le Peuple est invincible; Le Peuple ne peut rien sans ses fusils 1976 Comment Yukong dépla?a les montagnes (in 12 parts totalling 718 minutes) (co-d) 1977 Les Kazaks—Minorité nationale—Sinking (co-d); Les Ouigours—Minorité nationale—Sinkiang (co-d) 1988 Une Histoire de vent (co-d) Other Films: 1929/30 Jeugd-dag (Days of Youth) (co-ed) 1931 Short film in VVVC Journal series (ed) 1956 Mein Kind (My Child) (Pozner and Machalz) (artistic supervisor) 1957 Die Windrose (The Wind Rose) (Bellon and others) (co-supervisor) 1972 Grierson (Blais) (role as interviewee) 1981 Conversations with Willard Van Dyke (Rothschild) (role as interviewee) Publications By IVENS: books— Lied der Str?me, with Valdimir Pozner, Berlin, 1957. Joris Ivens, edited by W. Klaue and others, Berlin, 1963. IVENS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 468 Autobiografie van een Filmer, Amsterdam, 1970. The Camera and I, Berlin, 1974. Entretiens avec Joris Ivens, with Claire Devarrieux, Paris, 1979. Joris Ivens: ou, La Memoire d’un regard, with Robert Destanque, Paris, 1982. By IVENS: articles— Numerous articles in Filmliga (Amsterdam), 1928–32. ‘‘Notes on Hollywood,’’ in New Theatre (New York), 28 Octo- ber 1936. ‘‘Collaboration in Documentary,’’ in Film (New York), 1940. ‘‘Apprentice to Film,’’ in Theatre Arts (New York), March and April 1946. ‘‘Borinage—A Documentary Experience,’’ in Film Culture (New York), no. 1, 1956. ‘‘Ik-Film,’’ in Skoop (Amsterdam), no. 2, 1964. ‘‘Ivens Issue’’ of Film Culture (New York), Spring 1972. ‘‘Entretien avec Joris Ivens and Marceline Loridan,’’ with J. Grant and G. Frot-Coutaz, in Cinéma (Paris), April 1976. ‘‘Joris Ivens Filming in China,’’ interview with D. Bickley, in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), February 1977. Interview with E. Naaijkems and others, in Skrien (Amsterdam), October 1977. Interview with E. Decaux and B. Villien, in Cinématographe (Paris), September 1982. ‘‘Borinage,’’ in Revue Belge du Cinéma (Brussels), Winter 1983/ Spring 1984. Interview with P. van Bueren, in Skoop (Amsterdam), February/ March 1984. Interview with D. Shaffer, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 14, no. 1, 1985. Interview with Albrecht Betz, ‘‘A Source Is Revealed,’’ Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television (Abingdon, England), vol. 18, no. 4, October 1998. On IVENS: books— Hemingway, Ernest, The Spanish Earth, Cleveland, 1938. Zalzman, Abraham, Joris Ivens, Paris, 1963. Grelier, Robert, Joris Ivens, Paris, 1965. Wegner, Hans, Joris Ivens, Dokumentarist den Wahrheit, Berlin, 1965. Loridan, Marceline, Dix-septieme Parallèle, la guerre du peuple, Paris, 1968. Meyer, Han, Joris Ivens, de weg naar Vietnam, Utrecht, 1970. Kremeier, Klaus, Joris Ivens, ein Filmer an den Fronten der Weltrevolution, Berlin, 1976. Joris Ivens; 50 jaar wereldcineast, Nederlands Filmmuseum, Amster- dam, 1978. Delmar, Rosalind, Joris Ivens: 50 Years of Film-making, Lon- don, 1979. Cavatorta, Silvano, and Daniele Maggioni, Joris Ivens, Firenze, 1979. Passek, Jean-Loup, editor, Joris Ivens: Cinquante ans de cinéma, Paris, 1979. B?ker, Carlos, Joris Ivens, Film-Maker: Facing Reality, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1981. Brunel, Claude, Joris Ivens, Paris, 1983. Waugh, Thomas, editor, ‘‘Show Us Life’’: Toward a History and Aesthetics of the Committed Documentary, Metuchen, New Jer- sey, 1984. Schoots, Hans, Gevaarlijk leven: een biografie van Joris Ivens, Amsterdam, 1995. On IVENS: articles— Ferguson, Otis, ‘‘Guest Artist,’’ in the New Republic (New York), 15 April and 13 May 1936. Grenier, Cynthia, ‘‘Joris Ivens: Social Realist vs. Lyric Poet,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1958. ‘‘Ivens Issue’’ of Cine Cubano (Havana), no. 3, 1960. Waugh, Thomas, ‘‘How Yukong Moved the Mountains: Filming the Cultural Revolution,’’ in Jump Cut (Berkeley), 30 December 1976. Sklar, Robert, ‘‘Joris Ivens—The China Close-Up,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), June 1978. Hogenkamp, B., ‘‘Joris Ivens 50 jaar wereldcineast,’’ in Skrien (Amsterdam), November 1978. van Dongen, Helen, ‘‘‘Ik kwam Joris Ivens tegen’: ‘waarom ben je bij de film gegaan?’,’’ in Skoop (Amsterdam), November 1978. Cavatorta, Silvano, and Daniele Maggioni, ‘‘Joris Ivens’’ (special issue), Castoro Cinema (Firenze), no. 66, 1979. Jervis, N., ‘‘The Chinese Connection: Filmmaking in the People’s Republic,’’ in Film Library Quarterly (New York), no. 1, 1979. Hogenkamp, B., ‘‘Joris Ivens and the Problems of the Documentary Film,’’ in Framework (Norwich, England), Autumn 1979. Waugh, Thomas, ‘‘Travel Notebook—A People in Arms: Joris Ivens’ Work in Cuba,’’ in Jump Cut (Berkeley), May 1980. Waugh, Thomas, and P. Pappas, ‘‘Joris Ivens Defended,’’ letters, in Cineaste (New York), Fall 1980. ‘‘Ivens Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 January 1981. Waugh, Thomas, ‘‘Men Cannot Act in Front of the Camera in the Presence of Death,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 12, no. 2, 1982. ‘‘Joris Ivens,’’ in Film Dope (London), July 1983. ‘‘Special Section,’’ in Film und Fernsehen (Potsdam), vol. 14, no. 7, July 1986. Revue du Cinéma/Image et Son (Paris), March 1989. China, ‘‘The Wind and Joris Ivens,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 58, no. 4, August 1989. Conomos, John, ‘‘An Air of Truth,’’ (obituary), Filmnews, vol. 19, no. 8, September 1989. Costa, J. M., ‘‘Les rêves des hommes,’’ in 24 Images (Montreal), vol. 46, November-December 1989. Groenewout, E. van’t, ‘‘Ich Hasse Stillstand,’’ in Film und Fernsehen (Potsdam), vol. 18, no. 1, January 1990. Schulz, D., ‘‘Hommage fuer Joris Ivens,’’ in Film und Fernsehen (Potsdam), vol. 21, no. 4, 1993. On IVENS: film— Hudon, Wieslaw, A chacun son Borinage, Belgium, 1978. *** From his debut with The Bridge in 1928, Joris Ivens made over 50 documentary films. A staunch advocate of a socialist society, Ivens consistently attacked fascism and colonialism in his films made after IVORYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 469 1930. His first two films, The Bridge and Rain, are rather abstract. Here Ivens’s main concern is the elaboration of a varied, often breathtaking, rhythm of images. In this, he appears to be indebted to the French and German avant-garde films, notably those by Ruttmann and Man Ray. In 1930 Ivens visited the USSR at the invitation of Pudovkin. The compelling expressiveness of Russian agit-prop films had a deep influence upon Ivens in shaping his unique and powerful style. According to Ivens, films should convey social and political insights by confronting the public directly with reality. This analytical and didactic viewpoint was exemplified in Komsomol, the first film Ivens made in Russia. His 1934 film Misére au Borinage not only shows in pitiful and often violent images the miserable conditions under which the Belgian coalminers lived and worked; the film also indicates that the desperate situation of the workers follows necessarily from a specific social order. To deepen his analysis and to strengthen the urgency of his message, Ivens reconstructed a number of scenes, such as the May Day celebration. This procedure also reflects Ivens’s conviction that a documentary film is an emotional presentation of facts. Ivens has said that the maker of a documentary film should be in search of truth. To attain truth, one must have solidarity with the people whose situation is depicted. Mutual confidence and under- standing are essential to a good documentary film. Ivens’s techniques bear the mark of such filmmakers as Eisenstein and Pudovkin. In addition to developing specific ways of shooting and styles of montage, Ivens has always attached great importance to spoken commentary. In Spanish Earth, a film about the Spanish civil war, Ernest Hemingway speaks the commentary; Jacques Prévert does so in La Seine a rencontré Paris. Commentary plays a secondary role in the films Ivens made during the 1970s, notably in How Yukong Moved the Mountains. In this documentary epos about daily life in China after the cultural revolution, people tell about their own situation. Ivens’s style here is descriptive, with many long sequences and with less dramatic montage. Ivens was one of the founders in 1926 of the Dutch Film League, which united a number of intellectuals and Dutch filmmakers. Their efforts to promote quality films included publishing a review, organ- izing film screenings, and inviting important foreign avant-garde filmmakers to give talks. Among these were René Clair and Man Ray; Ivens’s contacts with Pudovkin and Eisenstein also date to this period. Ivens’s contributions to Dutch film culture are immense, although he remained a controversial figure. His manifest sympathy for the struggle of the Indonesian people against colonialism (Indonesia Calling) brought him into conflict with the Dutch government, and until 1956 Ivens was deprived of his Dutch passport. His films have examined important social and political issues. From 1938 till 1945 he lived in the United States. Power and the Land is about the improvements in farming brought about by the use of electricity. With Our Russian Front Ivens intended to urge the Americans to enter World War II and to support the Russians. The film was financed by Ivens himself and some of his New York Russian friends. He hoped to make more films of this kind, but the project titled Letters to the President was coolly received. It led to only one film, A Sailor on Convoy Duty to England, which was financed by the National Film Board of Canada. In the 1950s Ivens worked in Eastern Europe and The First Years shows the transforma- tion of a capitalist society into a socialist one; the film concentrates on episodes from postwar life in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. In 1956 the Dutch government returned Ivens’s passport; he then took up residence in Paris. After that he worked in Latin America (Cuba, Chile) and even more extensively in Asia (Vietnam, Laos, and China). Travel Notebook is about daily life in Cuba; An Armed People shows how the militia of the Cuban people captures a small group of counter-revolutionaries. Le Train de la victoire is a report on the election campaign of Salvador Allende, later president of Chile. Ivens also taught Vietnamese filmmakers, and engagement with the cause of the Vietnamese people manifests itself in such films as The Threatening Sky and The 17th Parallel. Ivens always had great influence on new technical developments in the domain of film equipment. He hailed the professionalization of the 16mm camera as a big step forward, since it enabled the camera to take part in the action. He taught at numerous film schools and advised many colleagues. In the 1950s he was an advisor to the Defa Studios (GDR) and collaborated on many films there. Together with a number of leftist French filmmakers (Jean-Luc Godard, Alain Resnais, Agnès Varda, and others), Ivens made the filmic pamphlet of solidarity Loin du Viêt-nam. For Ivens the documentary film provided the only possibility of surviving as an artist outside the field of commercial films. He always succeeded in financing his projects on such terms that he conserved maximum artistic freedom and full responsibility for the final product. This even holds for the two films which he made at an early stage in his career and which were commissioned by commercial firms (Creosoot and Philips-Radio). Within his lifetime Ivens became a legend. His films comment on many events which shaped the modern world. His art, his intelligence, his sophisticated political views, and his deep sincerity account for the unique position Joris Ivens holds among documentary filmmakers. —Dorothee Verdaasdonk IVORY, James Nationality: American. Born: Berkeley, California, 7 June 1928. Education: Educated in architecture and fine arts, University of Oregon; studied filmmaking at University of Southern California, M.A. 1956. Family: Life companion of the producer Ismail Mer- chant. Military Service: Corporal in U.S. Army Special Services, 1953–55. Career: Founder and partner, Merchant-Ivory Productions, New York, 1961; directed his first feature, The Householder, and also began his collaboration with writer Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, 1963. Awards: Best Foreign Film French Academie du Cinema, and prize at Berlin Festival, for Shakespeare Wallah, 1968; Guggenheim Fellow, 1973; Best Film British Academy Award, for A Room with a View, 1987; Silver Lion, Venice Festival, for Maurice, 1987; Best Film British Academy Award, National Board of Review Best Director, Cannes Film Festival 45th Anniversary Prize, Bodil Festival Best European Film, for Howards End, 1992; John Cassavetes Award Independent Spirit Award, 1993; London Critics Circle Director of the Year, Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists Best Director- Foreign Film, Robert Festival Best Foreign Film, for The Remains of the Day, 1993; Directors Guild of America Lifetime Achievement Award, 1995. Address: c/o Merchant-Ivory Productions, Ltd., 250 W. 57th St., Suite 1913-A, New York, NY 10107, U.S.A. IVORY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 470 James Ivory (left) on the set of Slaves of New York Films as Director: 1957 Venice: Themes and Variations (doc) (+ sc, ph) 1959 The Sword and the Flute (doc) (+ sc, ph, ed) 1963 The Householder 1964 The Delhi Way (doc) (+ sc) 1965 Shakespeare Wallah (+ co-sc) 1968 The Guru (+ co-sc) 1970 Bombay Talkie (+ co-sc) 1971 Adventures of a Brown Man in Search of Civilization (doc) 1972 Savages (+ pr, sc) 1974 The Wild Party 1975 Autobiography of a Princess 1977 Roseland 1979 Hullabaloo over Georgie and Bonnie’s Pictures; The Europe- ans (+ pr, co-sc, role as man in warehouse) 1980 Jane Austen in Manhattan 1981 Quartet (+ co-sc) 1982 Courtesans of Bombay (doc) (+ co-sc) 1983 Heat and Dust 1984 The Bostonians 1986 A Room with a View 1987 Maurice (+ co-sc) 1989 Slaves of New York 1990 Mr. and Mrs. Bridge 1992 Howards End 1993 The Remains of the Day 1995 Jefferson in Paris; Lumiere and Company (co-d) 1996 Surviving Picasso 1998 A Soldier’s Daughter Never Cries (+ co-sc) 2000 The Golden Bowl Other Films: 1985 Noon Wine (Fields) (co-exec pr) Publications By IVORY: books— Savages, with Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, New York, 1973. Shakespeare Wallah: A Film, with Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, New York, 1973. Autobiography of a Princess: Also Being the Adventures of an American Film Director in the Land of the Maharajas, New York, 1975. By IVORY: articles— ‘‘Savages,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1971. Interviews with Judith Trojan, in Take One (Montreal), January/ February 1974 and May 1975. Interview with D. Eisenberg, in Inter/View (New York), January 1975. Interview with P. Anderson, in Films in Review (New York), Octo- ber 1984. ‘‘The Trouble with Olive,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1985. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: James Ivory,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), January/February 1987. Interviews in Hollywood Reporter, 31 March and 6 May 1989. ‘‘Arachnophobia,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1990. Interview with G. Fuller in Interview (New York), November 1990. On IVORY: books— Pym, John, The Wandering Company: Twenty-one Years of Mer- chant-Ivory Films, London, 1983. Martini, Emanuela, James Ivory, Bergamo, 1985. Long, Robert Emmett, The Films of Merchant-Ivory, New York, 1991. On IVORY: articles— Gillett, John, ‘‘Merchant-Ivory,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1973. Gillett, John, ‘‘A Princess in London,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1974. Hillgartner, D., ‘‘The Making of Roseland,’’ in Filmmakers Newslet- ter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), January 1978. ‘‘Quartet Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 October 1981. McFarlane, Brian, ‘‘Some of James Ivory’s later films,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), June 1982. Firstenberg, J.P., ‘‘A Class Act Turns Twenty-five,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), September 1987. Monthly Film Bulletin (London), November 1987. Harmetz, Aljean, ‘‘Partnerships Make a Movie,’’ in New York Times, 18 February 1990. IVORYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 471 ‘‘Is Good Taste Enough? The Gorgeous Films of Merchant-Ivory,’’ in The Economist (London), 29 February 1992. Hirshey, G., ‘‘A Team with a View,’’ in Gentlemen’s Quarterly (New York), March 1992. Dudar, Helen, ‘‘In the Beginning, the Word; At the End, the Movie,’’ in New York Times, 8 March 1992. Maslin, Janet, ‘‘Finding Realities to Fit a Film’s Illusions,’’ in New York Times, 12 March 1992. Corliss, Richard, ‘‘Doing It Right the Hard Way,’’ in Time (New York), 16 March 1992. Lyons, D., ‘‘Tradition of Quality,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1992. Eller, C., ‘‘Merchant Ivory Links with Disney,’’ in Variety (New York), 27 July 1992. Ash, J., ‘‘Stick It up Howard’s End,’’ in Gentlemen’s Quarterly (New York), August 1994. *** The work of James Ivory was a fixture in independent filmmaking of the late 1960s and 1970s. Roseland, for example, Ivory’s omnibus film about the habitués of a decaying New York dance palace, garnered a standing ovation at its New York Film Festival premiere in 1977, and received much critical attention afterward. However, it was not until A Room with a View, Ivory’s stately adaptation of E. M. Forster’s novel, that the filmmaker gained full international recogni- tion. The name-making films he directed earlier in the 1980s—which included adaptations of two Forster works and two Henry James novels—inextricably linked Ivory with the contemporary British cinema’s tradition of urbane, even ultra-genteel, costume dramas. Ivory’s independence, his influential involvement with English film, and his sustained collaborative partnership with producer Ismail Merchant invite comparisons with an earlier pairing in British cin- ema, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. Both teams have found themselves attracted to material dealing with the effects of sexual repression or with the clash of differing cultures, as in, for example, Black Narcissus (Powell/Pressburger, 1947), The Europeans (Ivory/ Merchant, 1979), and A Soldier’s Daughter Never Cries (Ivory/ Merchant, 1998). While Powell and Pressburger worked with various forms of visual experimentation, employing heightened colors, fre- quently moving cameras, and cinematographic juxtaposition to achieve an opulent, metaphorical visual texture, Ivory’s work represents a distinct retrenchment, a withdrawal from visual hyperbole, a com- parative conservatism of visual style. An example of one of Ivory’s few attempts at visual expressionism (a moment in his work that seems directly inspired by Powell, in fact) illustrates this point. In The Bostonians, Ivory attempts to express Olive Chancellor’s hysteria by using stylized colors and superimposition in isolated dream se- quences. Because the film’s style is deeply rooted in naturalism, unlike that of Powell, the sequences look stilted and awkward, remarkably out of place in the context of the film. The naturalism of Ivory’s style often perfectly complements the director’s interest in the dynamics of isolated communities: the drama troupe in Shakespeare Wallah, for example, or the dancers in Roseland, or the members of the New York downtown-punk scene in Slaves of New York. Ivory’s films characteristically trace the formation of community around a common interest—or, more often, a common flaw or a shared loss—and his powers of observation are enlivened by attention to minute details of gesture and a keen sympathy for marginal characters. It is this sympathy that attracts him to works such as Evan Connell’s novels Mrs. Bridge and Mr. Bridge. Ivory thus provides a densely ironic but ultimately sympathetic portrait of the quietly desperate middle-class lives of the Bridges in Kansas City. This sympathy accounts as well for Ivory’s handling of characters such as Charlotte Bartlett in A Room with a View. In Forster’s novel, Miss Bartlett is lampooned tirelessly, emerging as one of the novel’s chief examples of English hypocrisy and Forster’s conception of high culture as the poison of the spirit—this is in spite of a half-hearted reprieve for the character in the novel’s last pages. In the film, Maggie Smith’s agile, witty performance makes the character far more appealing, and Ivory’s treatment of the character (he cuts from the lovers’ final union to shots of Miss Bartlett’s soundless, unbending loneliness) shows that he clearly interprets her as a fully sympathetic character of great pathos. Ivory’s two Forster adaptations, A Room with a View and Maurice, are among the high-water marks of his career through the 1980s. These two films do more than demonstrate Ivory’s often bracingly literary sensibility (most of Ivory’s films are adaptations that dog- gedly strive for extreme ‘‘faithfulness’’ to their source material): In the Forster adaptations, this ‘‘faithfulness’’ co-exists with crucial shifts of emphasis that provide, simultaneously, modern interpreta- tions of the texts. An example of this occurs in the scene of the murder in the square in A Room with a View. In its use of hand-held cameras, graphic matches, and rhythmic editing, which provides mercurial shifts in the tone of the sequence from gravity to exultation, the sequence becomes one of the film’s set-pieces, supplying the complexities that Forster largely avoids in his comparatively laconic treatment of the scene. Upon its release in 1992, Howards End was justifiably hailed as the best film ever in the long and distinguished collaboration of Ivory, Merchant, and screenwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. This stylish work is yet another adaptation of an E. M. Forster novel. Its scenario examines a popular Ivory theme, as it explores the repercussions of social classes coming together at a specific point in recent history (in this case, at the close of the Edwardian era in England). Emma Thompson is altogether brilliant in the role that solidified her career. She plays a cheeky and individualistic young woman who does not come from a monied background, and who is slyly charmed by a prosperous gentleman (Anthony Hopkins) whose upper-class fa- cade hides a deceitful and heartless disposition. The Remains of the Day is nearly as fine a film as Howards End. Based on the acclaimed novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, the scenario dissects the personality of an ideal servant: Stevens (Hopkins), a reserved British butler who is singlemindedly dedicated to his employer, Lord Darlington (James Fox). The time is between the World Wars—and no matter that the misguided Darlington is peril- ously flirting with Nazism, and that Miss Kenton (Thompson), the new housekeeper, might be a potential romantic partner for Stevens. The servant is steadfastly absorbed in his professional role, to the exclusion of all else. He knows only to suppress his needs, feelings, and desires, all in the name of service to his master. The Remains of the Day essentially is a character study of Stevens, who is superbly played by the ever-reliable Hopkins. It is yet one more in a line of Ivory’s meticulous period dramas. The mid-to-late 1990s found Ivory exploring the lives of revered historical figures. Jefferson in Paris concerns the American Thomas Jefferson, one of the nation’s founding fathers, shown here as the U.S. Ambassador to France. However, the film is several shades below the best of the previous Ivory-Merchant-Jhabvala collaborations. While Jefferson in Paris exquisitely captures a time and place, the level of IVORY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 472 detail in the film renders the narrative all too episodic. Still, Ivory offers a full-bodied portrayal of Jefferson (Nick Nolte), while depict- ing a range of his personal and political involvements. Most in- triguing of all is the paradox of Jefferson’s disgust with the overindulgences of the French aristocracy combined with his ago- nized collusion in keeping the status quo with regard to the mainte- nance of slavery as an American ‘‘institution.’’ In Jefferson in Paris, Ivory yet again examines the theme of class differences, exploring the invisible walls that separate those classes. Only here, class is meas- ured by the color of one’s skin. Even though individuals share the same bloodlines because of sexual liaisons between master and slave, those with black skin are enslaved by those with white skin. Ivory portrays the widowed Jefferson falling in love with a married woman (Greta Scacchi) and having a sexual tryst with Sally Hemings (Thandie Newton), an adolescent slave. It remains uncertain if the latter affair ever happened. For this reason, Jefferson in Paris was the subject of debate and controversy among Jeffersonian scholars. Ivory’s next film, Surviving Picasso, charts the relationship be- tween Pablo Picasso (Anthony Hopkins) and Francoise Gilot (Natascha McElhone), a young artist who is several decades his junior. Here, the genius of Picasso is obscured by his all-encompassing cruelty and misogyny. Gilot believes she has the backbone to maintain her individuality while sharing Picasso’s bed, and for ten years she gives it the old college try before finally leaving him. Although vividly played by Hopkins, Picasso is never more than a womanizing caricature; there is little insight into why he is who he is, let alone what made him one of the giants of 20th-century art. Ivory fared somewhat better with A Soldier’s Daughter Never Cries, based on the autobiographical novel by Kaylie (the daughter of James) Jones. A Soldier’s Daughter is the story of an internationally acclaimed expatriate novelist (Kris Kristofferson) and his familial bonds, with the scenario emphasizing his relationship with his daugh- ter (Leelee Sobieski) as she matures from girlhood to young woman- hood. At the outset, the family resides in Paris, with a spotlight on the impact of American pop culture on post-war Europe. Then the clan resettles in the United States, where the children are viewed by their schoolmates as ‘‘frogs’’ and are alienated from their surroundings. The opening section of A Soldier’s Daughter Never Cries is slight and episodic; however, its finale, which centers on the writer’s death, is a knowing exploration of what it means to love, and then lose, a husband and a father. One of the dramatic highlights occurs after the writer’s demise, when his widow (Barbara Hershey) recalls their courting and mourns her loss. Despite its flaws, A Soldier’s Daughter Never Cries is a heartfelt portrait of a loving, non-dysfunctional family—a rarity in contempo- rary cinema. —James Morrison, updated by Rob Edelman 473 J JACKSON, Peter Nationality: New Zealander. Born: Wellington, New Zealand, 30 October 1961. Family: Unmarried; current partner co-screenwriter Fran Walsh. Career: Started making films when given Super 8- millimeter camera by parents at age eight; made amateur fiction shorts, including The Dwarf Patrol, Curse of the Gravewalker, The Valley; left school at age seventeen, failed to get job in film industry, joined local newspaper as photo-engraving apprentice; named top New Zealand photo-engraving apprentice three years running; bought 16-millimeter Bolex, 1983; started making feature film Roast of the Day on weekends with friends and colleagues; renamed Bad Taste, film took four years to shoot; finally completed after funding received from New Zealand Film Commission, 1986, enabling Jackson to quit newspaper job for full-time filmmaking; set up own studio, Wingnut Films, in Wellington, with computer-driven special effects division, WETA; after three low-budget features, international acclaim for Heavenly Creatures led to deal with Universal to make next project in New Zealand with U.S. funding. Awards: Metro Media Award, Toronto, and Silver Lion, Venice, both 1994, and Oscar nomination, Best Screenplay, 1995, all for Heavenly Creatures. Agent: UTA, 9560 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, U.S.A. Films as Director and Co-Screenwriter: 1987 Bad Taste (+ pr, ph, ed, multiple roles) 1989 Meet the Feebles (+ pr) 1992 Braindead 1994 Heavenly Creatures 1995 Frighteners (+ pr) 1996 Forgotten Silver (+ co-sc) 2001 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (+ co-sc, pr) 2002 Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (+ co-sc) 2003 Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (+ co-sc) Other Films: 1995 Jack Brown, Genius (Hiles) (sc, 2nd unit d, exec pr); Good Taste (interviewee) Publications By JACKSON: articles— ‘‘Meet the Feebles,’’ interview with Alan Jones in Starburst (Lon- don), May 1991. ‘‘Peter Jackson: Heavenly Creatures,’’ interview in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), April 1994. ‘‘Gut Reaction,’’ an interview with Tom Charity, in Time Out (London), 25 January 1995. ‘‘Earthly Creatures,’’ an interview with Michael Atkinson, in Film Comment (New York), May-June 1995. ‘‘Heavenly Creatures: Writing and Directing Heavenly Creatures,’’ an interview with Frances Walsh, Peter Jackson, and Tod Lippy, in Scenario, Fall 1995. ‘‘Cryptically Acclaimed,’’ an interview with Michael Helms, in Cinema Papers (Fitzroy), December 1996. ‘‘Scary Rollercoaster Ride,’’ an interview with P. Wakefield, in Onfilm (Auckland), no. 11, 1996–1997. ‘‘Realismens fiende,’’ an interview with Kari Andresen, in Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 39, no. 1, 1997. ‘‘Pure fantasie,’’ an interview with Ronnie Pede and Piet Goethals, in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), February 1997. ‘‘It Was Close Enough, Jim,’’ in Onfilm (Auckland), no. 10, 1997. On JACKSON: articles— Clarke, Jeremy, ‘‘Talent Force,’’ in Films & Filming (London), September 1989. Clarke, Jeremy, ‘‘Photolithographers from Outer Space,’’ in What’s on in London, 13 September 1989. Floyd, Nigel, ‘‘Kiwi Fruit,’’ in Time Out (London), 12 May 1993. Maxford, Howard, ‘‘Gore Blimey!,’’ in What’s On in London, 12 May 1993. McDonald, Lawrence, ‘‘A Critique of the Judgement of Bad Taste or beyond Braindead Criticism: The Films of Peter Jackson,’’ in Illusions (Wellington, NZ), Winter 1993. Salisbury, Mark, ‘‘Peter Jackson, Gore Hound,’’ in Empire (London), June 1993. Feinstein, Howard, ‘‘Death and the Maidens,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 15 November 1994. Charity, Tom, ‘‘Gut Reaction,’’ in Time Out (London), 25 Janu- ary 1995. Cameron-Wilson, James, ‘‘Natural-born Culler,’’ in Times (London), 8 February 1995. Cameron-Wilson, James, ‘‘The Frightener,’’ in What’s on in London, 8 February 1995. Atkinson, Michael, ‘‘Earthly Creatures,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1995. Williams, David E., and Ron Magid, ‘‘Scared Silly: New Zealand’s New Digital Age,’’ in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), August 1996. Filmography, in Segnocinema (Vicenza), January/February 1997. Grapes, D., ‘‘Filmmakers Aim Broadsides at ‘Passionate’ Commis- sion,’’ in Onfilm (Auckland), no. 10, 1997. *** JACKSON DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 474 Peter Jackson (left) on the set of Heavenly Creatures After his first three features, most critics thought they had Peter Jackson neatly pegged: an antipodean maverick whose films made up for their zero-budget limitations with comic gusto and creative ingenuity; films whose gross-out excesses of spurting bodily fluids and splattered guts made George Romero and Sam Raimi look like models of genteel restraint. Jackson’s work, in short, seemed to be comprehensively summed up by the blithely upfront title of his debut film, Bad Taste. And then came his fourth film, the award-winning Heavenly Creatures, and suddenly all the assumptions had to be revised. Jackson himself, noting a hint of surprise behind the acclaim, pointed out that like all his work the film stemmed from his ‘‘un- healthy interest in the grotesque.’’ But if there was continuity in terms of themes and preoccupations, Heavenly Creatures showed Jackson was also capable of emotional complexity, subtlety, and sophis- tication—qualities no one would have suspected from his previ- ous films. Far from striving to disguise the ramshackle, garden-shed genesis of his early work, Jackson gloried in it, making an amateurish, peculiarly New Zealander domesticity central to his humour. The Astral Investigation and Defence Service team (‘‘I wish they’d do something about those initials’’) who foil predatory aliens in Bad Taste are as far from their jut-jawed Hollywood counterparts as could be imagined; inept, nerdish, and post-adolescent, they shamble around bickering over trivialities or moaning about filling in time-sheets. In Braindead, whose showdown erupts in a bland suburban home, the hero demolishes a horde of flesh-eating zombies, not with flame- thrower or pump-action shotgun, but with a rotary lawnmower—‘‘a Kiwi icon,’’ according to the director. It comes as no surprise to read, in the end-titles for Bad Taste, a credit to ‘‘Special Assistants to the Producer (Mum and Dad).’’ Both Bad Taste and Braindead (whose farcical brand of ultra- physical violence Jackson dubs ‘‘splatstick’’) spoof well-established and much-parodied formulas within the horror genre, respectively the space-invaders movie and the zombie movie. Meet the Feebles is more audacious in its choice of target: the hitherto sacrosanct world of Jim Henson’s Muppets. Hijacking the standard Muppet narrative framework of backstage shenanigans, Jackson gleefully subverts the perky ethos of the puppet troupe with lavish helpings of booze, filth, sex, and drugs, culminating in one of his trademark bloodbaths. He also pushes the unstated logic of Muppetry to ends that Henson would shudder to confront; if Miss Piggy can get the hots for Kermit, why shouldn’t an elephant have sex with a chicken? (The resultant JANCSóDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 475 outlandish hybrid is wheeled on—literally—for our delectation.) Jackson further outrages Muppet conventions by making the frog character in his film a Vietnam vet with a heroin habit, while Kermit’s counterpart as stage director is an effete, English-accented fox who mounts a big production number in praise of sodomy. This fascination with outrage, with the consequences of pushing beyond the bounds of convention, carries through into Heavenly Creatures, Jackson’s finest film to date. Based on an actual New Zealand cause celèbre of the 1950s, the Parker-Hulme case, the film traces the progress of two fifteen-year-old schoolgirls into an increas- ingly unhinged world of ritual and fantasy. Instinctive loners, Pauline and Juliet bond together to turn their outsider status into an exclusive, hermetic society tinged with lesbianism and peopled by personal icons—Mario Lanza, James Mason—along with figures from their medieval fantasy kingdom of Borovnia. Drawing on real case docu- ments (Pauline’s diaries and the girls’ own Borovnian ‘‘novels’’), Jackson creates a mood of intense pubescent obsession sliding steadily out of control until—as the borders between the two worlds elide—it culminates in brutal murder. Determined not to present his heroines as the ‘‘evil lesbian killers’’ they were branded by contemporary press accounts, Jackson not only portrays them with sympathy and insight, but captures the richly creative energy of their shared fantasies. Their behaviour is seen as a reaction to the imagination-starved society around them, since 1950s Christchurch, all garish pastels and agonised gentility, appears no less bizarre and unbalanced a world (and a whole lot less fun) than the one the girls create for themselves. Yet the killing—of Pauline’s uncomprehending, well-meaning mother—shares none of the sick-joke relish of Jackson’s previous films; it is shown as clumsy, painful, and distressing. Jackson firmly denies that Heavenly Creatures represents a bid to be seen as a ‘‘serious filmmaker’’ who wants to do ‘‘arty mainstream films.’’ ‘‘People immediately assume that filmmakers do things because of a grand plan.... I do intend to do other splatter films,’’ he told Cinema Papers. ‘‘I have intentions of doing all sorts of films. I have no interest in a ‘career’ as such.’’ As if to prove it, he reverted to splatstick mode with The Frighteners, an Evil-Dead-style horror- comedy made (thanks to backing from Universal) on a less shoestring basis than his earlier films. Jackson’s achievement in staying put at home and persuading the Hollywood money to come to him bodes well for his country’s film industry. Most successful New Zealand directors (Roger Donaldson, Geoff Murphy, Jane Campion, Lee Tamahori) have used their first major hit as a springboard for Hollywood. Jackson, remaining true to his roots, has set up his own production base (Wingnut Films) in his home town of Wellington. ‘‘I choose to stay in New Zealand earning a fraction of what I could make in Los Angeles because I want to do whatever I feel like doing.... The freedom that I have in New Zealand is worth millions of dollars to me.’’ So far, the tactic has worked. By 2000 Jackson was working on his huge, three-part adaptation of Lord of the Rings, with a possible remake of King Kong next in line—all in his native country. The $260 million budget for the Tolkien trilogy is a far cry from the small change it cost to make Bad Taste. But the spirit isn’t perhaps so different: armor for the 15,000 extras is being knitted out of string—by the septuagenarian ladies of the Wellington Knitting Club. —Philip Kemp JANCSó, Miklós Nationality: Hungarian. Born: Vác, Hungary, 27 September 1921. Education: Educated in law at Kolozsvár University, Romania, doctorate 1944; Budapest Academy of Dramatic and Film Art, graduated 1950. Family: Married director Márta Mészáros (di- vorced); son Miklos Jr. is cameraman. Career: Newsreel director, early 1950’s; shot documentaries in China, 1957; directed first feature, A harangok R?mába mentek, 1958; director at ‘‘25th’’ theatre, Budapest, 1960’s. Awards: Hungarian Critics’ Prize, for Cantata, 1963; Best Director Award, Cannes Festival, for Red Psalm, 1972; Special Prize, Cannes Festival, 1979. Films as Director: (of short films and documentaries): 1950 Kezunbe vettuk a béke ugyét (We Took over the Cause of Peace) (co-d) 1951 Szovjet mez?gazdasági küld?ttsek tanításai (The Teachings of a Soviet Agricultural Deputation) (co-d) 1952 1952 Május 1 (May 1st 1952) 1953 Választás elótt (Before Election); Arat az Orosházi D?zsa (Harvest in the Cooperative ‘‘Dosza’’); K?z?s útan (Ordi- nary Ways; On a Common Path) (co-d) 1954 Galga mentén (Along the Galgu River); ?sz Badacsonyban (Autumn in Badacsony); éltet? Tisza-víz (The Health- giving Waters of Tisza; Life-bringing Water); Emberek! Ne engedjétek! (Comrades! Don’t Put up with It) (co-d, co-sc); Egy kiállitás képei (Pictures at an Exhibition) 1955 Angyalf?ldi fiatalok (Children of Angyalfold; The Youth of ‘‘The Land of Angels’’); A Varsoí vit (Varsoí Világifjusági Találkoz? I-III; Warsaw World Youth Meeting I-III); Egy délután Koppánymonostorban (One Afternoon in Koppanymonostor; An Afternoon in the Village); Emlékezz, ifjúság (Young People, Remember) 1956 Móricz Zsigmond (Zsigmond Moricz 1879–1942) 1957 A város peremén (In the Outskirts of the City); Dél-Kína tájain (The Landscapes of Southern China); Színfoltok Kínab?l (Colorful China; Colors of China); Pekingi palotái (Pal- aces of Peking); Kína vendégei voltunk (Our Visit to China) 1958 Derkovitz Gyula 1894–1934; A harangok R?mába mentek (The Bells Have Gone to Rome) (feature) 1959 Halhatatlanság (Immortality) (+ sc, ph); Izot?pok a gy?gyászatban (Isotopes in Medical Science) 1960 First episode of Három csillág (Three Stars); Az eladás müvészete (The Art of Revival; The Art of Salesmanship) (co-d); Szerkezettervezés (Construction Design) (+ sc) 1961 Az id? kereke (The Wheels of Time) (+ sc); Alkonyok és hajnalok (Twilight and Dawn) (+ sc); Indiánt?rténet (In- dian Story) (+ sc) 1963 Oldás és k?tés (Cantata) (+ co-sc); Hej, te eleven Fa . . . (Living Tree . . . An Old Folk Song) (+ sc) JANCSó DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 476 Miklós Jancsó (left) (of feature films): 1964 Igyj?ttem (My Way Home) 1965 Szegénylegények (The Round-up); Jelenlét (The Presence) (short) (+ sc); K?zelr?lia: a vér (Close-up: The Blood) (short) 1967 Csillagosok, katonák (The Red and the White) (+ co-sc) 1968 Csend és kiáltás (Silence and Cry) (+ co-sc); V?r?s Május (Red May) (short) 1969 Fényes szelek (The Confrontation); Sirokkó (Teli sirokkó lek; Winter Wind) (+ co-sc) 1970 égi bárány (Agnus Dei) (+ co-sc); La pacifista (The Pacifist) (+ co-sc); Füst (Smoke) (short) 1972 Még kér a nép (Red Psalm) 1975 Szerelmem, Elektra (Elektreia) 1976 Vizi privati, pubbliche virtù (Vices and Pleasures) 1978 Eletünket és vérunket: Magyar rapsz?dia 1 (Hungarian Rhap- sody) (+ co-sc); Allegro barbaro: Magyar rapsz?dia 2 (Allegro barbaro) (+ co-sc) 1981 A zsranok szíve avagy Boccaccio Magyarországon (The Tyrant’s Heart; Boccaccio in Hungary) (+ co-sc) 1984 Omega, Omega . . . ; Muzsika (Music) 1986 L’Aube (Dawn) 1987 Sz?rnyek Evadja 1989 Jézus Krisztus Horoszkója 1990 Isten hátrafelé megy (God Runs Backwards) 1992 Kék Duna kering? (Blue Danube Waltz) 1996 Szeressük egymást gyerekek! 1999 Anyád! A szúnyogok; Pesten Nkem lámpást adott kezembe az úr (Lord’s Lantern in Budapest) (+ role) Other Films: 1950 A Maksimenko brigád (The Maximenko Brigade) (Koza) (story) 1968 A Pál utcai fiúk (The Boys of Paul Street) (Fabri) (role) 1977 Difficile morire (Silva) (role) Publications By JANCSó: articles— Interview, in The Image Maker, edited by Ron Henderson, Richmond, Virginia, 1971. JANCSóDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 477 ‘‘L’Idéologie, la technique et le rite,’’ interview with Claude Beylie, in Ecran (Paris), December 1972. ‘‘I Have Played Christ Long Enough: A Conversation with Miklós Jancsó,’’ with Gideon Bachmann, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1974. ‘‘Entretien . . . sur Vitam et sanguinem,’’ with Michel Ciment and J.- P. Jeancolas, in Positif (Paris), May 1979. ‘‘A jelenlét,’’ interview with I. Antal, in Filmkultura (Budapest), November/December 1981. Interview with L. Somogyi, in Filmkultura (Budapest), October 1986. Interview in Hungarofilm Bulletin (Budapest), no. 2, 1988. Interview in Filmkultura (Budapest), January 1993. ‘‘Uccu, megerett a meggy,’’ in Filmvilag (Budapest), n. 12, 1996. ‘‘Level-fele a drehbuchrol,’’ in Filmvilag (Budapest), no. 2, 1997. On JANCSó: books— Taylor, John, Directors and Directions, New York, 1975. Petrie, Graham, History Must Answer to Man: The Contemporary Hungarian Cinema, London, 1978. Marlia, Giulio, Lo schermo liberato: il cinema di Miklós Jancsó, Florence, 1982. Paul, David, W., editor, Politics, Art and Commitment in the East European Cinema, New York, 1983. On JANCSó: articles— ‘‘Miklós Jancsó,’’ in International Film Guide 1969 edited by Peter Cowie, London, 1968. Houston, Penelope, ‘‘The Horizontal Man,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1969. Kane, P., and others, ‘‘Lectures de Jancsó: hier et aujourd’hui,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March and May 1969, and April 1970. Robinson, D., ‘‘Quite Apart from Miklós Jancsó,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1970. Czigany, Lorant, ‘‘Jancsó Country: Miklós Jancsó and the Hungarian New Cinema,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1972. Bachmann, Gideon, ‘‘Jancsó Plain,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1974. ‘‘Jancsó Issue’’ of Etudes Cinématographiques (Paris), no. 104–108, 1975. Robinson, David, ‘‘Old Jancsó Customs,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), no.1, 1978/79. Biro, Y., ‘‘Landscape during the Battle,’’ in Millenium (New York), Summer/Fall 1979. Gillett, John, ‘‘Miklós Jancsó,’’ in Film Dope (London), July 1983. ‘‘Special Section’’ of Filmfaust (Frankfurt), March/April 1984. Petrie, G., ‘‘Miklós Jancsó,’’ in Revue Belge du Cinéma (Brussels), Summer 1985. Liebman, Stuart, ‘‘Homevideo,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 28, no. 4, 1991. Gelencsér, Gábor, ‘‘The Acquired Uncertainty: (Order and Chaos in the Art of Miklós Jancsó,’’ in MovEast, vol. 1, no. 2, 1992. Po?ová, Kate?ina, ‘‘Milenky Miklóse Jancsóa,’’ in Film a Doba (Prague), Spring 1994. Stratton, David, ‘‘Let’s Love One Another (Szeressuk egymast gyerekekp),’’ in Variety (New York), 18 March 1996. Elley, Derek, ‘‘The Lord’s Lantern in Budapest (Nekem lampast adott kezembe az ur pesten),’’ in Variety (New York), 22 Febru- ary 1999. On JANCSó: films— Kovács, Zsolt, Kamerával Kosztromában [With a Camera in Kosztroma], short, 1967. Comolli, Jean-Louis, Miklós Jancsó, for TV, France, 1969. *** Miklós Jancsó is probably the best internationally known of the directors to emerge from the new wave Hungarian cinema of the 1960s. With his hypnotic, circling camera, the recurrent—some critics say obsessive—exploration of Hungary’s past, and his evoca- tive use of the broad plains of his countries’ Puszta, Jancsó fashioned a highly individual cinema within the confines of a state operated film industry. Although a prolific director of short films during the 1950s and an equally prolific director of feature films since the early 1970s, it is for his work during the middle and late 1960s that Jancsó is best known outside his own country. Beginning with My Way Home, which dealt with a young Hungar- ian soldier caught up in the German retreat and Soviet advance during the Second World War, Jancsó discovered both a set of themes and a style which helped him to fashion his own voice. My Way Home, unlike most of Jancsó’s films, has a hero, but this hero often behaves in a most unheroic way as he makes his way home. Set free by the chaos of the war’s end, he is fired upon both by the Russians and the Germans and finally dons a Russian uniform as a protective disguise. Although clearly focused on individual figures, Jancsó’s movie does contain an interesting allegory of the fate of his native country as, freed from Nazi oppression, the soldier only reluctantly dons the Russian uniform. Szegénylegények (The Round-up, literally The Hopeless) estab- lished Jancsó as a filmmaker of international importance. The film is set in the Hungarian plain in a fort that houses a group of peasants under surveillance following the Kossuth rebellion of 1848, and focuses on the ritual quality of the games played as tormentors and informers and rebels interchange in a mysterious, elliptical dance of human passions. Shot in black and white, the film also revealed a purity of style as each meticulously composed shot conveys Jancsó’s preoccupation with humans dislodged from convention and victimised by history. In spite of its scope, however, the film won praise for its analysis of the politics of terror and of the Kafkaesque state machinery through which such terror works. Csillagosok Katonák (1967, The Red and the White) and Csend és Kiáltás (1968, Silence and Cry) moved into the early twentieth century and are concerned with communist revolutions of the imme- diate post-World War I period. The Red and the White was commis- sioned by the Soviet government to commemorate the 50th anniver- sary of the October revolution. The film isolates a group of Hungarian volunteers who are fighting on the side of the reds during the Russian civil war. Once again the expansive plain provides an open back- ground against which huddle the opposing groups, both red and white. It is interesting considering the source of his commission that Jancsó refuses to choose to side with either the red or the whites but rather to present each as a mixture of compassion and understanding, barbarity and stupidity. Silence and Cry, operating on a smaller scale, deals with an isolated farmstead but also raises questions about people caught up in a society torn by social and political change. Here Jancsó’s circling camera becomes hypnotic, and his tendency to de- psychologize his characters is at its most extreme. Jancsó explains JARMAN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 478 very little in his plot, leaving the viewer to wrestle with its obscurities and ellipses. The claustrophobic qualities of Silence and Cry prepared his audience for Fényes Szelek (The Confrontation), set in the immediate post-war world and dealing with students, both Catholic and Commu- nist, who square off in a quadrille interweaving accusation and intimidation. Clearly the film was occasioned by the student riots and sit-ins in 1968–69 in Budapest. It pits the Marxist students as the voice of change and revolution against the conventions of the Catholic students. The plot is minimal and Jancsó’s camera at its most vertiginous, hardly ever stopping in its unceasing search for the truth. The truth, of course, as it so often does, eludes us, as the confrontation finally has more to do with temporary power games than it does with ultimate reality. In Sirokkó (Winter Wind), made in Yugoslavia as a Franco-Hungarian co-production, he returned to the use of color (as in The Confrontation) and photographed, like Silence and Cry, with a minimum of shots, twelve in this case. The story deals with the historical and political irony of a Croatian anarchist leader of the 1930s who is destroyed by his own forces, only later to be resurrected as a hero. égi Bárány (Agnus Dei), a favorite film of Jancsó’s and regarded by many Hungarians as his most nationalistic, is once again set in the broad Hungarian plain during the period of civil war, but it is far more symbolic and anticipates the new ground he would explore in his next film. With Még Kér a Nép (Red Psalm), Jancsó returned to the Puszta and to the end of the last century during a period of peasant unrest. A confrontation between workers and their landowners is interrupted by the army. The subsequent action follows patterns established earlier in Jancsó’s other films. But there is a difference in Red Psalm—the symbolic elements always present in the earlier films become foregrounded: a dead soldier is resurrected by a kiss from a young girl; the soldiers join the peasants in a Maypole dance but eventually surround the rebellious farmers and shoot them down; a girl outside the circle using a gun tied with a red ribbon guns down all of the soldiers. The mannerisms noted by a number of critics are missing here, and Jancsó seems to have found a new direction amidst old material: the symbolism of the film elevates it beyond Jancsó’s usual concerns. Red Psalm exemplifies what is often hidden in his other films: the totality of the film, and the celebration of life in the revolution which will bring joy in the renewed possibilities for human expression and freedom. Although Miklós Jancsó has gone on to make other films, many of them outside Hungary itself, his body of work from My Way Home to Red Psalm seems to best exemplify his unique contribution to world cinema. Like many of the other new Hungarian filmmakers, Jancsó rejected the traditions of the conservative and classic bound national cinema he inherited, turning to a more liberating and avant-garde style that allowed him not only greater artistic expression but also increased freedom from state censorship. By adopting a more mod- ernist approach, most notably evident in his use of a minimal plot and in the dialectical tensions between the images, he has urged his audiences out of their complacency by challenging the status quo through his questioning of the uses and abuses of state power wielded in the name of the people. This has made his films truly revolutionary. —Charles L.P. Silet JARMAN, Derek Nationality: British. Born:Northwood, Middlesex, 31 January 1942. Education: King’s College, London, 1960–63; Slade School of Fine Art, 1963–67. Career: First exhibition, Lisson Gallery, London, 1967; set designer for Royal Ballet, Ballet Rambert, and English National Opera, 1968; film designer for Ken Russell on The Devils, 1970; began working in Super-8 film, 1971; directed first feature, Sebastiane, 1976; directed promo videos for The Smiths,1986; diag- nosed as being HIV-positive, 1987; revealed his condition, and began actively speaking out in favor of AIDS research, 1987; directed video and stage show for Pet Shop Boys, 1989. Awards: Peter Stuyvesant Award for painting, 1967; British Film Institute Award, 1990. Died: Of AIDS-related illnesses, 19 February 1994. Films as Director (short Super-8 Films unless stated otherwise): 1971 Studio Bankside; Miss Gaby; A Journey to Avebury 1972 Garden of Luxor (Burning the Pyramids); Andrew Logan Kisses the Glitterati; Tarot (The Magician) 1973 The Art of Mirrors (Sulphur); Building the Pyramids 1974 The Devils at the Elgin (Reworking the Devils); Fire Island; Duggie Fields 1975 Ula’s Fête (Ula’s Chandelier); Picnic at Ray’s; Sebastiane Wrap 1976 Gerald’s Film; Sloane Square, A Room of One’s Own (Re- moval Party); Houston Texas; Sebastiane (16mm feature) Derek Jarman JARMANDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 479 1977 Jordan’s Dance; Every Woman for Herself and All for Art 1978 Jubilee (16mm feature) 1979 Broken English (short, Super-8 and 16mm); The Tempest (16mm feature) 1980 In the Shadow of the Sun (includes re-edited versions of earlier 8mm films) 1981 TG Psychic Rally in Heaven 1982 Diese Machine ist mein antihumanistisches Kunstwerk; Pi- rate Tape (W.S. Burroughs); Pontormo and Punks at Santa Croce 1983 Waiting for Godot (short, Super-8 and video); B2 Tape/Film; The Dream Machine 1984 Catalan (for TV); Imagining October 1985 The Angelic Conversation (Super-8 and video) 1986 The Queen Is Dead (promo videos on Super-8); Caravaggio (35mm feature) 1987 ‘‘Depuis le jour’’ episode of Aria (Super-8 and 35mm); The Last of England (Super-8 feature) 1988 L’Ispirazione; War Requiem (35mm feature) 1990 The Garden (Super-8 and 16mm feature) 1991 Edward II (35mm feature) 1993 Wittgenstein (35mm feature); Blue (35mm feature); Glitterbug (video) Other Films: 1971 The Devils (Russell) (designs) 1972 Savage Messiah (Russell) (designs) 1975 The Bible (Russell) (sc) 1979 Nighthawks (Peck, Hallam) (role) 1986 Ostia (role) 1987 Prick up Your Ears (Frears) (role) 1988 Behind Closed Doors (role); Derek Jarman: You Know What I Mean; Cactus Land (narration) 1993 There We Are John (role); Love Undefeated: Conversations with Derek Jarman Publications By JARMAN: books— Dancing Ledge, edited by Shaun Allen, London, 1984. Caravaggio, London, 1986. Last of England, London, 1987; as Kicking the Pricks, Woodstock, New York, 1997. War Requiem: The Film, London, 1990. Queer Edward II, London, 1992. Dancing Ledge, London, 1993 At Your Own Risk: A Saint’s Testament, London, 1994. Modern Nature, London, 1994. Blue: Text of a Film, New York, 1994. Chroma, New York, 1995. Derek Jarman’s Garden, Woodstock, New York, 1996. Kicking the Pricks, New York, 1997. By JARMAN: articles— Interviews in Time Out (London), November 1976 and 31 Janu- ary 1985. Interview in Film Directions (Belfast), vol. 2, no. 8, 1979. Interviews with Michael O’Pray, in Monthly FilmBulletin (London), June 1984 and April 1986. ‘‘Renaissance Man,’’ an interview with M. Sutton, in Stills (London), April 1986. Interview in American Film (Washington, D.C.), September1986. Interview in Filmfaust (Frankfurt), September/October 1986. Interview with Anne-Marie Hewitt, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), September 1987. Interview with D. Heinrich, in Cinéma (Paris), 16 December 1987. Interview in City Limits (London), 6 July 1989. Interview in Listener (London), 16 August 1990. ‘‘History and the Gay Viewfinder,’’ interview with R. Grundmamy, Cineaste (New York), vol. 18, 1991. Interview with P. Loewe in Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 33, no.6, 1991/1992. Jarman, Derek, ‘‘Jag filmar mitt liv,’’ in Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 33, no. 6., 1991/1992. ‘‘Blue Yonder,’’ interview with P. Burston, Time Out (London), 18 August 1993. On JARMAN: books— O’Pray, Michael, Derek Jarman: Dreams of England, London, 1996. Wollen, Roger, editor, Derek Jarman, a Portrait: Artist, Filmmaker, Designer, London, 1996. Lippard, Chris, By Angels Driven: The Films of Derek Jarman, Westport, Connecticut, 1996. Butler, Ken, Derek Jarman, NewYork, 1997. On JARMAN: articles— ‘‘Jarman Issue’’ of Afterimage (London), Autumn1985. Rayns, Tony, ‘‘Unnatural Lighting,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), September 1986. Olofsson, A., article in Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 30, no. 1,1990. O’Pray, M., ‘‘The Art of Mirrors: Derek Jarman,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), January 1991. Ball, E., ‘‘I, Camera,’’ in Village Voice (NewYork), 29 January 1991. ‘‘Past for the Present,’’ interview with A. Cogolo, Cinema and Cinema (Bologna), no. 62, September-December 1991. McCabe, Colin, ‘‘Throne of Blood,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), October 1991. O’Pray, M., ‘‘Damning Desire,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), October 1991. Rich, B. R., and others, ‘‘New Queer Cinema,’’ Sight and Sound (London), vol. 2, September 1992. Rayns, T., ‘‘Witt’s End,’’ Time Out (London), 24 March 1993. Kennedy, Harlan, ‘‘The Two Gardens of Derek Jarman,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November/December, 1993. Bowen, P., ‘‘In the Company of Saints,’’ Filmmaker (Santa Monica), vol. 2, no. 1, 1993. Obituary, in New York Times, 21 February 1994. Obituary, in Washington Post, 21 February 1994. Obituary, in The Times (London), 21 February 1994. JARMUSCH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 480 Obituary, in Los Angeles Times, 24 February 1994. Obituary, in Chicago Tribune, 27 February 1994. Obituary, in Variety (New York), 28 February 1994. Macnab, Geoffrey, ‘‘Three Cuts and You’re Out,’’ Sight and Sound (London), vol. 7, no. 10, October 1997. *** Derek Jarman became one of Britain’s most original and highly controversial filmmakers. Vilified by the self-appointed guardians of the nation’s morals, he has been hailed as a genius by others. It was Jarman’s uncompromising and direct approach to cinema which resulted in such extreme and polarized evaluations of his work. Like Ken Russell, who introduced him to filmmaking by inviting him to design The Devils and Savage Messiah, Jarman consistently assaulted comfortable, conservative assumptions of ‘‘good taste.’’ The power- ful and explicit treatment of homo-erotic passion in his work has generated the greatest hostility, with Sebastiane, one of the most erotic and uninhibited British films ever made, the target of a particu- larly nasty anti-homosexual campaign generated by the tabloid press. Drawing on personal experience to a greater degree than most British filmmakers, Jarman’s sexuality and his public school/military background profoundly influenced his cinema. He paid tribute to other gay artists such as Caravaggio, deducing his tragic love affair with RanuccioThomasoni from clues in his paintings, and Benjamin Britten, creating stunning images for his War Requiem. He also interpreted the island in Shakespeare’s The Tempest as a metaphor for homosexuality and read his sonnets as homo-erotic love poems, incorporating them into the soundtrack of The Angelic Conversation. Jarman’s films also abound with militaristic images, particularly uniformed authority figures. Such images are often ambivalent, an echo of Jarman’s own relationship with his father, who was a wing commander in the RAF. Jarman’s later work is more explicitly autobiographical. The Last of England, for example, is constructed around the presence of the artist: the fictional elements of the film are integrated with sequences featuring Jarman working at home and wandering around the streets with a camera. There are also fragments of old home movie footage shot by Jarman’s father and grandfather, including images of the filmmaker as a child playing with his mother and sister. Despite being regarded as subversive by many, Jarman is paradoxically a tradition- alist. He is nostalgic for a world uncorrupted by the bourgeois bureaucrats and advertising executives whom he regards as forces controlling our culture. The motif of the garden, that very English symbol of personal spaces, a haven to be cherished and protected, occurs time and time again, particularly in his later work such as The Angelic Conversation, his section for Aria, and The Garden, the title of which relates to Jarman’s own garden at Dungeness on the Kent coast. Trained as a painter, Jarman’s cinema betrays a diversity of aesthetic influences. In contrast to the dominant literary/theatrical tradition in British cinema, he draws heavily on painting and poetry. He consistently experimented with narrative, from the cut-up collage approach of Jubilee to the poetic open narrative style of his Super-8 work from Imagining October to The Last of England. Such an approach requires an active participation on the part of the audience, often forcing them to impose their own coherence and meaning on the visual and aural collage. This aesthetic eclecticism is reflected in the design of Jarman’s productions, which frequently eschew realism by mixing period costumes and props with modern elements, part of the director’s effort to generate and communicate living ideas and concepts rather than attempt to excavate a dead past. In contrast to the clutter that characterizes much British realist cinema, the interior designs in Jarman’s films are often rather austere, drawing attention to the significance of objects. Derek Jarman sought to preserve his independence from the aesthetic and ideological compromises inherent in mainstream com- mercial cinema. This made the task of financing his projects ex- tremely difficult, and he was forced to make his films on shoestring budgets. No other major British filmmaker has consistently worked with such meager resources. The seven-year struggle to raise money for Caravaggio prompted Jarman to return to the Super-8 filmmaking of his pre-Sebastiane days. By the mid-1980s it was possible to make technically sophisti- cated experimental films by generating images on Super-8, then transferring this material to video tape for editing and post-production while maintaining the texture and quality of the Super-8 film image in the process. The results have been extremely interesting, culminating in the production of The Last of England, the first full-length British feature film to be made in this way. These experiments confirmed Jarman’s status as a genuine innovator who constantly challenged orthodox approaches to filmmaking. His refusal to be absorbed into the mainstream ensured his integrity as an artist but kept him on the margins of a rather conservative British film culture. Jarman’s premature death—he was yet another casualty to the scourge of AIDS—robbed the film world of one of its most daring and controversial talents. Among his last films were Wittgenstein and Edward II, both pointed, characteristically outlandish Jarman concoc- tions which deal with the lives of famous homosexuals. The former charts the life of the influential Viennese philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, depicting everything from his family background to his association with Bertrand Russell and John Maynard Keynes, exam- ining the evolution of his ideas as well as his gay relationships with younger men. The latter, detailing the undoing of the title monarch and his lover, serves as an expose of gay oppression throughout theages. Meanwhile, The Garden is yet another of Jarman’s jarring examinations/condemnations of homophobia. Via striking imagery, he offers comparison between the persecution of gays and the crucifixion of Christ. Blue (not to be confused with the Krzysztof Kieslowski film of the same title) is a fitting close to Jarman’s career. It is a deeply personal meditation on the artist’s life in the face of his impending demise. The screen is entirely blue, and via narration Jarman exposes his soul as he considers his existence and his struggle with disease. —Duncan J. Petrie, updated by Rob Edelman JARMUSCH, Jim Nationality: American. Born: Akron, Ohio, 22 January 1953. Edu- cation: Graduated from Columbia University with a Bachelor’s degree in English, 1975; attended New York University Graduate Film School, 1976–79, where he worked as a teaching assistant to his mentor, Nicholas Ray. Career: With the help of Ray, completed first film, Permanent Vacation, for $10,000, 1980; made The New World with 30 minutes of leftover film, 1982; added another hour’s worth of film to it to make Stranger than Paradise, 1984; directed music JARMUSCHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 481 Jim Jarmusch videos for the Talking Heads, Big Audio Dynamite, Tom Waits, and Neil Young & Crazy Horse, 1985–96; also recording artist with ‘‘The Del-Byzanteens.’’ Awards: Locarno International Film Festival Golden Leopard, National Society of Film Critics Best Film Award, Cannes Film Festival Camera d’Or, for Stranger than Paradise, 1984; Bodil Festival Best American Film, Robert Festival Best Foreign Film, for Down by Law, 1986; Cannes Film Festival Best Artistic Contribution, for Mystery Train, 1989; Cannes Film Festival Palme d’Or, for Coffee and Cigarettes III (Somewhere in California), 1993; European Film Awards Five Continents Award, for Dead Man, 1995; Camerimage Special Award (shared with Robby Muller) as Best Independent Duo: Director-Cinematographer, 1998; FilmFest Hamburg Douglas Sirk Award, 1999. Address: Lives in a loft in the East Bowery, New York. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1980 Permanent Vacation (+ sc, pr, ed, mus) 1982 The New World (Stranger than Paradise, Part One) (short) 1984 Stranger than Paradise (+ ed) 1986 Down by Law 1987 Coffee and Cigarettes (short) 1989 Mystery Train 1989 Coffee and Cigarettes II (Memphis Version) (short) (+ ed) 1992 Night on Earth (+ pr) 1993 Coffee and Cigarettes III (Somewhere in California) (short) (+ ed) 1995 Dead Man 1997 Year of the Horse (doc) (d only, + pr, ph, ro as himself) 1999 Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (+ pr) Other Films: 1979 Red Italy (Mitchel) (ro) 1980 Lightning over Water (Nick’s Movie) (Wenders, Ray) (prod asst); Underground U.S.A. (Mitchell) (sound recordist) 1981 Only You (Vogel) (ro); You Are Not I (Driver) (ph, co-sc) 1982 Burroughs (Brookner) (sound recordist); The State of Things (Wenders) (featured songs by The Del-Byzanteens) 1983 Fraulein Berlin (Lambert) (ro); American Autobahn (De- gas) (ro) 1984 Sleepwalk (Driver) (ph); American Autobahn (Degas) (ro, ph) 1986 Straight to Hell (Cox) (ro) 1987 Candy Mountain (Wurlitzer, Frank) (ro) 1988 Helsinki Napoli All Night Long (M. Kaurismaki) (ro) 1989 Leningrad Cowboys Go America (A. Kaurismaki) (ro) 1990 Golden Boat (Ruiz) (ro) 1992 In the Soup (Rockwell) (ro) 1993 When Pigs Fly (Driver) (co-exec pr) 1994 Tigrero: A Film That Was Never Made (M. Kaurismaki) (ro); Iron Horsemen (Bad Trip) (Charmant) (ro) 1995 Blue in the Face (Wang, Auster) (ro) 1996 The Typewriter, the Rifle & the Movie Camera (Simon) (ro); Cannes Man (Martini, Shapiro) (ro); Sling Blade (Thornton) (ro) 1997 R.I.P., Rest in Pieces (Pejo) (ro) 1998 Divine Trash (Yeager) (doc) (interviewee) Publications By JARMUSCH: articles— Interview (on Nicholas Ray) with F. Vega, in Casablanca (Madrid), February 1983. Interview with H. Leroux and Y. Lardeau, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1984. Interview with Harlan Jacobson, in Film Comment (New York), January/February 1985. Interview in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), March 1985. Interview in American Film (Washington, D.C.), October 1986. Interview with Jonathan Rosenbaum, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1986. Interview with Saskia Baron, in Stills (London), February 1987. ‘‘Asphalt Jungle Jim,’’ interview with M. Mordue, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), January 1988. Interview in Cineforum (Bergamo), December 1989. Interview in Films and Filming (London), December 1989. ‘‘Kino podrozujacych ‘Noc na ziem’ nowy film Jima Jarmuscha,’’ interview with W. Brenner, in Kino (Warsaw), March 1992. ‘‘Film as Life, and Vice Versa,’’ interview with Karen Schoemer, in New York Times, 30 April 1992. ‘‘Jarmusch’s Guilty Pleasures,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/ June 1992. ‘‘Home and Away,’’ interview with Peter Keogh, in Sight and Sound (London), August 1992. JARMUSCH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 482 ‘‘A Gun up Your Ass,’’ interview with Jonathan Rosenbaum, in Cineaste (New York), no. 2, 1996. Interview with N. Saada, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1996. ‘‘Dead Man Talking,’’ interview with Amy Taubin, in Village Voice (New York), 14 May 1996. On JARMUSCH: articles— Kiolkowski, F., ‘‘Independent Film: Stranger than Paradise,’’ in On Film (Los Angeles), Fall 1984. Klady, Leonard, ‘‘Jim Jarmusch,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), October 1986. Stiller, Nikki, ‘‘A Sad and Beautiful Film,’’ in Hudson Review (New York), vol. 40, no. 1, 1987. Monthly Film Bulletin (London), January 1987. Leibowitz, Flo, ‘‘Neither Hollywood nor Godard: The Strange Case of Stranger than Paradise,’’ in Persistence of Vision (Maspeth, New York), no. 6, 1988. Pally, Marcia, article in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1989. Article in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1991. Bassan, Raphael, article in La Revue du Cinéma (Paris), Decem- ber 1991. Kilb, A., ‘‘O realni sedan josti,’’ in Ekran (Ljublijana, Yugoslavia), no. 1/2, 1992. Kelleher, E., ‘‘Indie Director Jarmusch Explores ‘Night on Earth,’’’ in Film Journal (New York), May 1992. Schoemer, Karen, ‘‘A Director’s Night on Earth, Close to Home,’’ in New York Times, 1 May 1992. Fabricius, S., ‘‘It’s a Sad and Beautiful World,’’ in Kosmorama (Copenhagen), Summer 1992. Hoberman, J., ‘‘Roadside Attractions,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), August 1992. Lally, K., ‘‘Jim Jarmusch Goes West,’’ in Film Journal (New York), April/May 1996. *** In the 1980s, Jim Jarmusch quickly rose to the forefront of young, independent American filmmakers. Recognition has been his from the very beginning with the release of Stranger than Paradise, a work that won a Camera d’Or at the 1984 Cannes Film Festival (for best ‘‘first film’’) and ‘‘Best Picture’’ from the National Society of Film Critics. The key to Jarmusch’s success is a well-defined and thought- fully conceived stylistic approach and a coherent circle of interests. The focal point of all Jarmusch’s work is the apparent contradic- tion that exists between the popular perception of the American Dream and what that dream actually holds for the individual who doesn’t quite fit in. This contradiction is explored through the interaction of a characteristic ensemble of characters. Each of Jarmusch’s early films is built around a trio of characters, although Mystery Train varies that slightly by using three separate stories to explore this central theme. The characters are all decidedly off-beat, but all seem to have a vision or aspiration which echoes a popular perception of America. The central characters—Tom Waits’ down and out disc jockey in Down by Law, or John Lurie’s small-time pimp in the same film—are forced to confront their misconceptions and misguided dreams when they are thrown together by fate with a foreigner who views this dream as an observer. In Down by Law, for example, the two central characters find themselves in jail with an Italian immigrant who has murdered someone for cheating at cards. The character carries a small notebook of American slang expressions from which he quotes dutifully and incorrectly. He refers to this notebook as ‘‘everything I know about America.’’ It is this kind of character situation that Jarmusch uses to scoff at an America he sees as misguided and woefully out of touch with itself. Stylistically, Jarmusch’s films echo the work of the French ‘‘New Wave’’ directors, in particular the Godard of Breathless and Week- end. Jump-cuts are frequently used to disconnect characters from sublime and rational passages of time and space. A sense of disenfran- chisement is created in this way, separating characters from the continuity of space and time which surrounds them. In Down by Law, for example, Tom Waits sits in his cell, then lays on the floor, then lays across his bed, but what seems like ‘‘a day in the life’’ editing approach actually concludes with days having passed, not hours. Jarmusch also uses moving-camera a great deal, but unlike his predecessors in other traditions, his fluid camera style is not func- tional. Camera movements in films like Down by Law and Mystery Train create a visual world that is always in transition. Down by Law opens with camera movement first right to left down a street in a small town, then left to right. As a result, the audience is introduced, through a visual metaphor, to the collision course that is central to the film’s themes. Jarmusch capped his early period with Night on Earth, an exhila- rating five-part slice-of-life, each of which unravels at the same point in time in Los Angeles, New York, Paris, Rome, and Helsinki. All are set in taxis, and spotlight brief but poignant exchanges between cab driver and passenger. The best of many highlights: the sequence in which a black Brooklynite (Giancarlo Esposito) and an East German refugee (Armin Mueller-Stahl) reveal their names to each other. Jarmusch’s point is that people are people, whether black or white, American or French or Finnish. The filmmaker then disappointed with Dead Man, a well-inten- tioned but annoyingly obvious allegorical Western. Dead Man charts the experiences of a young man named William Blake (Johnny Depp), a bespeckled Cleveland accountant who arrives in a grubby, mud-soaked Western town and promptly finds himself accused of murder and wanted by the law. Jarmusch’s point of view is without argument: America is a violent country, founded on bloodletting and bloodletting alone. But the problem with the film is that his portrait of America-the-violent is all-too-obvious, and anything but subtle. One of the film’s few female characters keeps a gun in her bed. ‘‘This is America,’’ is her reason for doing so. Blake eventually crosses paths with an Indian who is symbolically named Nobody; after all, in the quest to achieve ‘‘manifest destiny,’’ did not the white man render the American Indian anonymous? (In the film’s cleverest touch, Nobody mistakes Blake for the poet-painter of the same name returned to life.) Eventually, and predictably, William Blake becomes a for-real killer— but just as predictably, Nobody is the far more interesting character. He is a spiritual man, the lone one in the story. Even Blake, whom he befriends, is too dense to comprehend the Indian’s worldview. Meanwhile, all the white men endlessly shoot at each other, often with fatal results. One of them, a celebrated bounty hunter, even has a sideline as a cannibal. In one scene, he dines by a campfire on what clearly are the remains of a severed hand. It is here where you will be thankful that Jarmusch has chosen to shoot the film in beautiful black and white. In Dead Man, Jarmusch casts screen veteran Robert Mitchum as the semi-demented industrialist who is the town’s key powerbroker. Mitchum is on-screen ever so briefly, but his presence is one of the film’s few highlights. JENNINGSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 483 After directing Year of the Horse, an affectionate documentary chronicling Neil Young & Crazy Horse’s 1996 concert tour, Jarmusch ended the 1990s with Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai. The film is thematically linked to Dead Man in that it contrasts a knowing, spiritual racial minority and mindlessly violent white men. But the difference between the two is that Ghost Dog is a compelling film, a thoughtful and multi-leveled rumination on age-old enlightenment pitted against modern-era dysfunction. Ghost Dog is a portrait of the title character (Forest Whitaker), an African-American contract killer who is a loner, alienated and cut off from the American mainstream. In a classic Jarmusch touch, his one friend, an ice cream vendor, speaks only French; Ghost Dog does not understand that language, yet the two men somehow communicate clearly and understand each other perfectly. Ghost Dog has earned his nickname because, professionally speaking, he is ‘‘like a ghost,’’ and is ‘‘totally untraceable.’’ He also is fascinated by the disciplines and philosophy of the samurai, and lives by the codes of the 18th-century Japanese text The Hagakure: The Way of the Samurai. This allows him to understand the meaning of loyalty, and so he remains faithful to his boss, a small-time hood who once saved his life. During the course of the film, Ghost Dog is pitted against a gang of Italian mobsters; he is shown to be their superior because he is philosophical—he has firm, grounded beliefs— while they are fallible because they are mindless. The Italians casually whack each other, or any innocent citizen who happens to be in their way, and they order Ghost Dog killed because he has the temerity to spare the life of a young girl who is present during one of his hits. But Ghost Dog will persevere, because the wisdom that permeates his soul is pure and true. Conversely, the Italians are doomed because they are as dysfunctional as they are amoral. Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai is loaded with the ironic, caustic humor that is so typically Jarmusch: the Italian gangsters are disbelieving when they learn that the hit man is called Ghost Dog, yet they remain oblivious to their own ludicrous nicknames (such as Sammy the Snake). Also throughout the film, Jarmusch employs the image of birds as a metaphor for independence; Ghost Dog communicates with his boss via carrier pigeon, and there are recurring shots of birds flying in the sky. Jarmusch also is not averse to working in the short film format. In 1987 he made Coffee and Cigarettes, in which an American (Steven Wright) and an Italian (Roberto Benigni) meet in a cafe and converse over coffee and cigarettes. Jarmusch reworked the film’s concept and structure twice more: Coffee and Cigarettes II (Memphis Version), made two years later, in which an argument between twins Joie and Cinque Lee is intruded on by an overly earnest waiter (Steve Buscemi); and Coffee and Cigarettes III (Somewhere in California), made four years after that, this time featuring a barroom conversation between Iggy Pop and Tom Waits. Jarmusch’s cool style and strangers-in-a-strange-land subject mat- ter have influenced other filmmakers. Cold Fever, a likable 1995 Icelandic feature co-produced and co-scripted by Jarmusch colleague Jim Stark and directed by Fridrik Thor Fridriksson, chronicles a Japa- nese businessman’s odyssey across Iceland to perform a memorial ritual at the spot where his parents had died seven years earlier. Like other emerging filmmakers of his generation, such as Spike Lee, Jim Jarmusch approaches the American way of life with a sense of hip cynicism. A product of contemporary American film school savvy, Jarmusch incorporates a sense of film history, style, and awareness in his filmmaking approach. The tradition which he has chosen to follow, the one which offers him the most freedom, is that established by filmmakers such as Chabrol, Godard, and Truffaut in the 1950s and 1960s. —Rob Winning, updated by Rob Edelman JENNINGS, Humphrey Nationality: British. Born: Frank Humphrey Sinkler Jennings in Walberswick, Suffolk, 1907. Education: Perse School and Pembroke College, Cambridge, until 1934. Career: Joined General Post Office (GPO) film unit as scenic designer and editor, 1934; worked with Len Lye at Shell films, from 1936; returned to GPO film unit (became Crown Film Unit, 1940), 1938; became associated with Mass Obser- vation movement, late 1930s; director for Wessex Films, 1949. Died: After falling from a cliff while scouting locations for film, in Poros, Greece, 1950. Films as Director: 1938 Penny Journey 1939 Spare Time (+ sc); Speaking from America; SS Ionian (Her Last Trip); The First Days (A City Prepares) (co-d) 1940 London Can Take It (co-d); Spring Offensive (An Unrecorded Victory); Welfare of the Workers (co-d) 1941 Heart of Britain (This Is England); Words for Battle (+ sc) 1942 Listen to Britain (co-d, co-sc, co-ed) 1943 Fires Were Started (I Was a Fireman) (+ sc); The Silent Village (+ pr, sc) 1944 The Eighty Days (+ pr); The True Story of Lilli Marlene (+ sc); VI (+ pr) 1945 A Diary for Timothy (+ sc) 1946 A Defeated People 1947 The Cumberland Story (+ sc) 1949 Dim Little Island (+ pr) 1950 Family Portrait (+ sc) Other Films: 1934 Post-Haste (ed); Pett and Pott (Cavalcanti) (sets ed, role as grocer); Glorious Sixth of June (Cavalcanti) (role as tele- graph boy); The Story of the Wheel (ed) 1935 Locomotives (ed) 1936 The Birth of a Robot (Lye) (color direction and production) Publications By JENNINGS: books— Pandaemonium 1660–1886: The Coming of the Machine as Seen by Contemporary Observers, edited by Mary-Lou Jennings and Charles Madge, London, 1985. The Humphrey Jennings Film Reader, edited by Kevin Jackson, Manchester, 1993. JENNINGS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 484 On JENNINGS: books— Grierson, John, Humphrey Jennings: A Tribute, London, 1951. Hardy, Forsyth, Grierson on Documentary, revised edition, Lon- don, 1966. Lovell, Alan, and Jim Hillier, Studies in Documentary, New York, 1972. Sussex, Elizabeth, The Rise and Fall of British Documentary: The Story of the Film Movement Founded by John Grierson, Berkeley, California, 1975. Hodgkinson, Anthony, and Rodney Sheratsky, Humphrey Jennings: More than a Maker of Films, Hanover, New Hampshire, 1982. Jennings, Mary-Lou, editor, Humphrey Jennings: Film-Maker/Painter/ Poet, London, 1982. Vaughan, Dai, Portrait of an Invisible Man: The Working Life of Stewart McAllister, Film Editor, London, 1983. Aldgate, Anthony, and Jeffrey Richards, Britain Can Take It: The British Cinema in the Second World War, Oxford, 1986. Tomicek, Harry, Jennings, Vienna, 1989. On JENNINGS: articles— Wright, Basil, ‘‘Humphrey Jennings,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), December 1950. Lambert, Gavin, ‘‘Jennings’ Britain,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), May 1951. Védrès, Nicole, ‘‘Humphrey Jennings—A Memoir,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), May 1951. Anderson, Lindsay, ‘‘Only Connect: Some Aspects of the Work of Humphrey Jennings,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), April/ June 1954. Dand, Charles, ‘‘Britain’s Screen Poet,’’ in Films in Review (New York), February 1955. Strick, Philip, ‘‘Great Films of the Century: Fires Were Started,’’ in Films and Filming (London), May 1961. Rhode, Eric, and Gabriel Pearson, ‘‘Cinema of Appearance,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1961. ‘‘Jennings Issue’’ of Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1961/62. Millar, Daniel, ‘‘Fires Were Started,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1969. Belmans, Jacques, ‘‘Humphrey Jennings, 1907–1950,’’ in Anthologie du Cinéma (Paris), vol. VI, 1971. Sharatsky, R.E., ‘‘Humphrey Jennings: Artist of the British Docu- mentary,’’ special issue of Film Library Quarterly (New York), vol. 8, no. 3–4, 1975. Zaniello, T.A., ‘‘Humphrey Jennings’ Film Family Portrait: The Velocity of Imagistic Change,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), no. 1, 1979. Eaton, Mick, ‘‘In the Land of the Good Image,’’ in Screen (London), May/June 1982. Robson, K.J., ‘‘Humphrey Jennings: The Legacy of Feeling,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film Studies (New York), Winter 1982. ‘‘Humphrey Jennings,’’ in Film Dope (London), December 1983. Colls, R., and P. Dood, ‘‘Representing the Nation: British Documen- tary Film 1930–45,’’ in Screen (London), January/February 1985. Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey, ‘‘Humphrey Jennings, Surrealist Observer,’’ in All Our Yesterdays, edited by Charles Barr, London, 1986. Britton, A., ‘‘Their Finest Hour: Humphrey Jennings and the British Imperial Myth of WWII,’’ in Cineaction (Toronto), no. 18, Fall 1989. Stewart, S., and L. Friedman, ‘‘An Interview with Lindsay Ander- son,’’ in Film Criticism (Meadville, PA), vol. 16, Fall-Winter 1991–1992. Thomson, D., ‘‘A Sight for Sore Eyes,’’ in Film Comment (New York), vol. 29, March-April 1993. Quart, L. ‘‘Wartime Memories,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 20 1994. Harris, Paul, ‘‘The Past Pays Off,’’ Filmnews, vol. 25, no. 5, July 1995. *** Though Jennings was (from 1934 on) part of the Grierson docu- mentary group, he was never fully part of it. Grierson regarded him as something of a dilettante; Jennings’ tastes and interests were subtler and gentler than Grierson’s. It wasn’t until Grierson had left England to become wartime head of the National Film Board of Canada that Jennings gained creative control over the films on which he worked. The outbreak of World War II seemed to let loose in Jennings a special poetic eloquence, and his finest work was done at the Crown Film Unit during the war years. Listen to Britain, Fires Were Started, and A Diary for Timothy are generally regarded as his masterpieces. Jennings was part of the English intellectual aristocracy. Extremely well educated, he had done a good deal of research into English literature and cultural history. He was also a surrealist painter and poet. In his wartime films his deep-felt affection for English tradition mingles with impressionist observations of the English people under the stress of war. Rather than following the sociological line of the Griersonian documentaries of the 1930s, Jennings offered a set of cultural notations—sights and sounds, people and places—illumi- nated by his very special aesthetic sensibility and complete mastery of the technique of the black and white sound film. His films present an idealized English tradition in which class tensions do not appear. They record and celebrate contemporary achievement in preserving a historical heritage, along with commonplace decencies and humor in the face of an enemy threat. They also are experiments with form, of such breathtaking distinctiveness that they never really have been imitated. (Though Lindsay Anderson and other Free Cinema filmmakers would later acknowledge the importance of Jennings’s work to them as inspiration, the Free Cinema films are radically different from Jennings’s films in what they say about England, and are also much simpler in form.) Listen to Britain, a short, is a unique impressionistic mosaic of images and sounds, including much music (as is usual in Jennings’ work)—a sort of free-association portrait of a nation at a particular historical moment. The feature-length Fires Were Started carries the understated emotionality of the British wartime semi-documentary form to a kind of perfection: a very great deal about heroic effort and quiet courage is suggested through an austere yet deeply moving presentation of character and simple narrative. In A Diary for Timo- thy, which runs about forty minutes, Jennings attempted to fuse the impressionism of Listen to Britain with the narrativity of Fires Were Started. In its formal experimentation it is the most complex and intricate of all of Jennings’s films. With the Germans massed across the Channel, and bombs and then rockets being dropped on Britain, the British people needed a kind of emotional support different from the wartime psychological needs in other countries. In rising to this particular occasion Jennings became one of the few British filmmakers whose work might be JEWISONDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 485 called poetic. He is also one of a small international company of film artists whose propaganda for the state resulted in lasting works of art. —Jack C. Ellis JEWISON, Norman Nationality: Canadian. Born: Toronto, Ontario, 21 July 1926. Edu- cation: Malvern Collegiate Institute; Victoria College, University of Toronto, B.A., 1945; studied piano and music theory at the Royal Conservatory. Military Service: Served in the Royal Canadian Navy. Family: Married Margaret Ann Dixon, 1953; two sons, one daughter. Career: Actor and scriptwriter in London, 1950–52; producer and director, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1953–58; director for CBS, New York, won several Emmy awards, 1958–61; moved to Hollywood, 1961; after directing first feature, 40 Pounds of Trouble, signed a seven-picture contract with Universal, 1963; executive producer, The Judy Garland Show, for television, 1963–64; moved to MGM for The Cincinnati Kid, 1965; moved to the top rank of Hollywood directors with the award-winning In the Heat of the Night, 1968; maintains an office in London and a residence in Malibu, but primarily works out of his native Toronto, where he is the founder and co-chairman of the Canadian Center for Advanced Film Studies. Awards: Best Picture Academy Award, Best Picture Golden Globe, British Academy Award UN Award, for In the Heat of the Night, 1968; Officer, Order of Canada, 1982; honored by the American Civil Liberties Union, 1984; Berlin Film Festival Silver Bear, for Moonstruck, Norman Jewison 1988; Hollywood Film Festival Hollywood Discovery Award for Outstanding Achievement in Directing, 1998; Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award, 1999; Berlin Film Festival Prize of the Guild of German Art House Cinemas, for The Hurricane, 1999; Camerimage Lifetime Achievement Award, 1999; Honorary LL.D, University of Western Ontario. Addess: Yorktown Productions Ltd., 18 Glouster Lane, 4th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M4X IL5, Canada. Films as Director: 1962 40 Pounds of Trouble 1963 The Thrill of It All 1964 Send Me No Flowers 1965 The Art of Love; The Cincinnati Kid 1966 The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming (+ pr) 1967 In the Heat of the Night 1968 The Thomas Crown Affair (+ pr) 1969 Gaily, Gaily (Chicago, Chicago) (+ pr) 1971 Fiddler on the Roof (+ pr) 1973 Jesus Christ Superstar (+ co-pr, co-sc) 1975 Rollerball (+ pr) 1978 F.I.S.T. (+ pr) 1979 . . . And Justice for All (+ co-pr) 1982 Best Friends (+ co-pr) 1984 A Soldier’s Story (+ co-pr) 1985 Agnes of God (+ co-pr) 1988 Moonstruck (+ co-pr) 1989 In Country (+ co-pr) 1991 Other People’s Money (+ pr) 1994 Only You (+ pr) 1995 Bogus (+ pr) 1999 The Hurricane (+ pr) Other Films: 1949 Canadian Pacific (Marin) (uncredited ro) 1970 The Landlord (Ashby) (pr) 1973 Billy Two Hats (Kotcheff) (co-pr) 1980 The Dogs of War (Irvin) (exec pr) 1984 Iceman (Schepisi) (co-pr) 1989 January Man (O’Connor) (pr) 1994 Dance Me Outside (McDonald) (co-exec pr); A Century of Cinema (Thomas) (doc) (interviewee) 1996 The Stupids (Landis) (ro) 1997 An Alan Smithee Film: Burn Hollywood Burn (Smithee, Hiller) (ro) 1998 Steve McQueen: The King of Cool (Katz—for TV) (doc) (interviewee) 2000 The Incredible Mr. Limpet (pr) Publications By JEWISON: articles— ‘‘Norman Jewison Discusses Thematic Action in The Cincinnati Kid,’’ in Cinema (Beverly Hills), July/August 1965. ‘‘Turning on in Salzburg,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), July/August 1969. JEWISON DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 486 Interview in Directors at Work, edited by Bernard Kantor and others, New York, 1970. Interview with Gordon Gow, in Films and Filming (London), Janu- ary 1971. Interview with C. Tadros, in Cinema Canada (Montreal), Septem- ber 1985. Interview in Premiere (New York), Autumn 1987. Interview with L. Van Gelder, in New York Times, 11 Decem- ber 1987. Interview with T. Matthews, in Box Office (Hollywood), Janu- ary 1988. Interview with A. Hunter, in Films and Filming (London), April 1988. On JEWISON: articles— Carducci, M., ‘‘Norman Jewison Directs Rollerball,’’ in Millimeter (New York), March 1975. Mariani, John., ‘‘Norman Jewison Directs And Justice for All,’’ in Millimeter (New York), October 1979. Robertson, R., ‘‘Motion Pictures: The Great American Backlot,’’ in Millimeter (New York), February 1988. Zarebski, K. J., ‘‘Wplyn ksie zyca,’’ in Filmowy Serwis Prasowy (Warsaw), no. 9/10, 1989. Pede, R., ‘‘Norman Jewison: Vietnam: verlies van onschuld,’’ in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), March 1990. Rothstein, M., ‘‘In Middle America a Movie Finds Its Milieu,’’ in New York Times, 6 March 1988. Article in American Film (New York), July 1990. Van Gelder, L., ‘‘At the Movies,’’ in New York Times, 6 July 1990. Lavoie, A., ‘‘Une certaine idee sur le cinema Canadien,’’ in Cine- Bulles (Montreal), no. 4, 1991. Greenberg, J., ‘‘The Controversy over Malcolm X,’’ in New York Times, 27 January 1991. De Vries, H., ‘‘A Director’s Story,’’ in Premiere, November 1991. Eller, C., ‘‘Money Maker Jewison at Work on a Walletful of Pix,’’ in Variety (New York), 4 July 1991. ‘‘Filmografie,’’ in Segnocinema (Vicenza, Italy), March/April 1992. Schwager, J., ‘‘A Little Romance,’’ in Boxoffice (Chicago), April 1994. Lally, K., ‘‘Veteran Director Jewison Returns to Romance,’’ in Film Journal (New York), September 1994. Descamps, S., and J. Noel, ‘‘Bogus,’’ in Les Cine-Fiches de Grand Angle (Mariembourg, Belgium), January 1997. Weinraub, Bernard, ‘‘A Veteran Director Still Fights the Good Fight,’’ in New York Times, 26 December 1999. *** The very model of the modern up-market commercial director, Norman Jewison seems cut out to make the kind of prestige pictures once handled at MGM by Clarence Brown and Victor Fleming. No theme is so trashy or threadbare that he cannot elevate it by stylish technique and apt casting into a work of merit, even on occasion art. Early work with an aging and cantankerous Judy Garland marked him as a man at ease with the cinema’s sacred monsters; in the indifferent sex comedies of the early 1960s, he acquired equal skill with the pastels of Hollywood color and the demands of widescreen. A recognizable Jewison style was first evident in The Cincinnati Kid. Its elements—rich crimsons; the sheen of faces, tanned or sweating, in shadowed rooms; an edgy passion in performance—reappeared in In the Heat of the Night and The Thomas Crown Affair, novelettes redeemed by their visual flair and a sensual relish, not for sex, but for the appurtenances of power. Not at home in domestic or comic realms, Jewison brought little to Ben Hecht’s film memoir Gaily, Gaily, the literary ellipsis of The Landlord, or comedies like Best Friends. Two musicals, Fiddler on the Roof and Jesus Christ, Superstar, did, however, offer an invitation to location-shooting and unconventional staging which Jewison con- fidently accepted. Though little liked on release, the latter shows a typical imagination and sensuality applied to the subject, which Jewison relocated in contemporary Israel to spectacular effect. Rollerball, his sole essay in science fiction, belongs with Thomas Crown in its relish for high life. The film’s strength lies not in its portrayal of the eponymous gladiatorial game but its depiction of the dark glamour of life among the future power elite. A pattern of one step forward, two steps backward, dominated Jewison’s career into the 1980s. The Israel-shot western Billy Two Hats was a notable miscalculation, as was the Sylvester Stallone union melodrama F.I.S.T., a program picture that needed to be an epic to survive. He was on surer ground in . . . And Justice for All, a dark and sarcastic comedy/drama about the idiocy of the law, with a cred- ible Al Pacino in command. But films like the post-Vietnam melo- drama In Country did little to enhance his reputation. It is a cause for concern that he could never put together his projected musical remake of Grand Hotel, whose elements seem precisely those with which he works most surely. A taint of the high-class advertising lay-out characterizes Jewison’s best work, just as the style and technique of that field rescues his often banal material. Among Jewison’s 1990s films are Other People’s Money (about an all-consumingly greedy Wall Street type, a role tailor-made for Danny De Vito) and Only You (the story of an incurable romantic and her quest for true love)—both well-crafted and likeable but never truly memorable. The same might be said for 1988’s Moonstruck, among the biggest hits of the latter stages of his career, a popular comedy of life among New York City’s ethnic Italians. The film was a box-office smash and earned Cher an Academy Award. Yet while entertaining, on closer examination the film is all Hollywood gloss. It fails to authentically capture a true sense of its characters and their down-home ethnicity in a way that independent director Nancy Savoca, working on a minuscule budget compared to Jewison’s, succeeds so brilliantly in doing in True Love and Household Saints. Another project that Jewison had an interest in never came to fruition. The director originally had wanted to film an account of the life of Malcolm X, but he gave up the project upon Spike Lee’s protestations that only a black filmmaker could do justice to the story. But Jewison did complete his trio of heartfelt, humanistic treatises on racism (following In the Heat of the Night and A Soldier’s Story). At the tail end of the 1990s he made The Hurricane, the story of real-life middleweight boxing contender Rubin ‘‘Hurricane’’ Carter, who was falsely convicted of committing a triple murder and spent years in prison before being exonerated. The film was well crafted and impeccably acted (particularly by Denzel Washington, playing Carter), but no sooner did it open theatrically than it earned condemnation for allegedly toying with the facts in the case. In The Hurricane, three Canadians are portrayed as being responsible for uncovering the evidence that cleared Carter, yet the real heroes actually were the boxer’s lawyers. Former middleweight champ Joey Giardello sued the film’s producers, claiming that his 1964 title bout with Carter was inaccurately portrayed on screen; according to the suit, the implica- tion that Carter lost because of racial prejudice on the part of the judges was erroneous. These allegations led New York Daily News JIRE?DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 487 film critic Jack Mathews to remove The Hurricane from his 1999 Top Ten films list. Without doubt, the controversy obscured the film’s high artistic merit—and may have prevented it from earning Best Picture and Best Director Academy Award nominations. Beyond the contention surrounding The Hurricane, a cynic might condemn Jewison for the idealistic liberalism on view in In the Heat of the Night, A Soldier’s Story, and The Hurricane. Yet it must be remembered that In the Heat of the Night, and its portrait of the professional respect that evolves between Rod Steiger’s red-necked, small-town Southern sheriff and Sidney Poitier’s Northern urban policeman, was made at a key juncture in the then-evolving civil rights movement. It is a courageous film for its time. And A Soldier’s Story, a vivid adaptation of Charles Fuller’s Pulitzer Prize-winning play about the murder of a black military officer in the 1940s, was made pre-Spike Lee, in the early 1980s, when precious few serious- minded films about the black-American experience were being produced in Hollywood. —John Baxter, updated by Rob Edelman JIRE?, Jaromil Nationality: Czech. Born: Bratislava, 10 December 1935. Educa- tion: Film technical school, Cmelice; the FAMU Film Faculty, Prague, graduate in photography, 1958, and direction, 1960. Family: Married Hana Jire?ová. Career: Worked with Polyecran and the Magic Lantern, 1960–62; director of feature films, Barrandov Film Studio, from 1963; director of documentary films at Short Film Prague, from 1965; also TV director, from 1974, specialising in opera and ballet, late 1980s; president of Association of Czech Film Directors, from 1992. Awards: Great Prize, Oberhausen, for The Romance, 1966; Prize San Sebastian, for The Joke, 1969; Grand Premio, Bergamo, 1970, and Silver Hugo, Chicago, 1973, for Valerie and the Week of Wonders; Silver Prize, Berlin, 1982, and Best Director, Calcutta, 1983, for Partial Eclipse; Critics’ Choice, AFI International Film Festival, for The Labyrinth, 1992; Great Prize, Harare, for Helimadoe, 1994. Address: Na ostrohu 42, Praha 6, 160 00, Czech Republic. Films as Director: 1958 Hore?ka (Fever) (doc) (+ sc) 1959 Strejda (Uncle) (+ sc) 1960 Sál ztracenych kroku (The Hall of Lost Steps) (+ sc, ph); Stopy (Footprints); Polyekrán pro BVV (Polyecran for the Brno Industrial Fair) (co-d); La salle des pas perdus (The Waiting Room) (doc) 1961 Polyekrán pro Mezinárodní vystavu práce Turin (Polyecran for International Exposition of Labor Turin) (co-d) 1962 Houslovy koncert (The Violin Concert) (co-d, Magic Lantern program) 1963 Krik (The Cry) (+ co-sc) 1964 ‘‘Romance’’ episode of Perli?ky na dně (Pearls in the Deep) (+ sc) 1965 Srub (The Log Cabin) (+ sc); Fuga (for TV) 1966 Ob?an Karel Havli?ek (Citizen Karel Havli?ek) (doc) (+ co-sc) 1967 Hra na krále (The King Game) (+ sc) 1968 Zert (The Joke) (+ sc); Don Juan 68 (doc) (+ sc); Dédá?ek (Granpa) (doc) (+ sc) 1969 Cesta do Prahy Vincence Mo?teka a Simona Pe?la z Vl?nova l.p. 1969 (The Journey of Vincenc Mo?tek and Simon Pe?l of Vl?nov to Prague, 1969 A.D.) (doc) (co-d, co-sc); Tribunal (doc) 1970 Valerie a tyden divu (Valerie and a Week of Wonders) (+ sc); Il Divino Boemo (doc) (+ sc) 1972 . . . a pozdravuji vla?tovky (My Love to the Swallows) (+ sc) 1973 Kasa? (The Safe Cracker) (doc) (+ sc) 1974 Lidé z metra (The People from the Metro) (+ co-sc); Leo? Janá?ek (+ sc, for TV) 1976 Ostrov st?íbrnych volavek (The Island of Silver Herons) 1977 Talí?e nad Velkym Malíkovem (Flying Saucers over the Great Littletown) (+ sc) 1978 Mlady mu? a bílá velryba (The Young Man and the White Whale) (+ sc); Diary of One Who’s Disappeared (for TV) 1979 Causa králík (The Rabbit Case) (+ sc) 1980 Svět Alfonso Muchy (The World of Alphonse Mucha) (doc) (+ sc); Vtěky domü (Escapes Home) (+ co-sc); Bohuslav Martinü (for TV) 1981 Opera ve vinici (Opera in the Vineyard) (+ sc) 1982 Kouzelna Praha Rudolfa II (The Magic Prague of Rudolph II) (doc) (+ sc); Neúplné zatméní (Partial Eclipse) (+ co-sc) 1983 Katapult (Catapult) 1984 Prodlou?eny ?as (The Prolonged Time); The Swan (for TV) 1985 Cuckoo’s Egg: Milos Forman (doc); Eternal Faust (for TV) 1986 Dialogue of Forms (ballet, for TV) 1987 Lev s bílou h?ívou (The Lion with the White Mane); I Love NY: Sidney Lumet (doc); F. Murray Abraham: Man and Actor (doc) 1988 Dialogue with Conscience of the Past (for TV) 1989 Memento Mori (for TV); Vive la musique et la liberté (for TV) 1990 Antonín Dvo?ák (doc, for TV) 1991 The Labyrinth (+ co-sc) 1992 Requiem for Those Who Overlived (doc); . . . About Jaroslav Havlí?ek (doc); Mimikry (ballet, for TV); Music and Faith (for TV) 1993 Helimadoe; New York Diary—Alexander Hackenschmied (doc); GEN—Ji?í Anderle (doc); GEN—Josef Skvorecky (doc); Music and Pain (for TV); Bambini di Praga (for TV) 1994 Teacher of Dance 1995 GEN—Milo? Kopecky (doc); Rodin (doc) 1999 Dvojrole Publications By JIRE?: articles— Interview, in The Image Maker, edited by Ron Henderson, Richmond, Virginia, 1971. Interview with E. Zaoralová, in Film a Doba (Prague), Febru- ary 1981. Interview in Czechoslovak Film, no. 1, 1982. JOFFé DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 488 Interview with V. Kratochvilova, in Film a Doba (Prague), June 1985. Interview with M. Storchova, in Czechoslovak Film (Prague), Autumn 1986. Interview with J. Sitarova, in Film a Doba (Prague), April 1987. Interview with Ralica Nikolova, in Kino (Sophia), no. 1, 1996. On JIRE?: books— Janou?ek, Ji?í, 3 1/2 po druhé, Prague, 1969. Hames, Peter, The Czechoslovak New Wave, Berkeley, 1985. On JIRE?: articles— Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Movers,’’ in Saturday Review (New York), 23 December 1967. ‘‘Jaromil Jire?,’’ in Film Dope (London), December 1983. Cinémaction (Courbevoie), January 1992. Mravocvá, Marie, in Iluminace (Prague), vol. 6, no. 1, 1994. Kundera, Milan, and Jan Luke?, in Iluminace (Prague), vol. 8, no. 1, 1996. *** Having finished his studies at the Prague Film School, Jaromil Jire? entered filmmaking at the end of the 1950s with several short films, the most engaging of which was Sál ztracenych kroku (The Hall of Lost Steps). In 1963 he made his debut in feature-length films with the picture K?ik (The Cry), which earned him a place among the ranks of young directors striving for new content and a new film language. In his debut Jire? reacts to modern film currents, above all to the stylistics of the cinéma vérité, whose elements he utilizes, conscious, of course, of the danger that this can hold for the representation of reality and the expression of truth. The story of The Cry suppresses traditional dramatic structure. It consists of the fragmentary memo- ries of the two main protagonists, a husband and wife, on the day their child is to be born. Arranging individual recollections, combining fictional segments with documentary shots, and using a hidden camera, Jire? seeks to convince the viewer of man’s connection with the present, the past, and the future, and his close and immediate link with the whole world. (Jire?: ‘‘We live in a time when a person’s most intimate experiences are connected with the major currents of world events.’’) The Cry was very well received and won several awards; it is the first pinnacle of Jire?’ creative work. The second pinnacle was achieved in two totally disparate pictures from the early 1970s. One film was Valerie a tyden divu (Valerie and a Week of Wonders), based on a novel by the eminent modern Czech poet Viítězslav Nezval. What interested Jire? about the novel was ‘‘the juncture of reality and dream and the playful struggle between horror and humor.’’ The other film, . . . a pozdravuji vla?tovky (My Love to the Swallows), is purely Jire?’ own. The director was inspired by the life and death of the real-life character of Maru?ka Kude?íková, a young woman who fought against German fascism during the Second World War. Here, in a different connection, Jire? used the same method of alternating real-life elements and reminiscences, as in The Cry, but for a different purpose, namely, to demonstrate a person’s inner strength, the source of her faith and hope. The following years, in which Jire? made three pictures, were a period of stagnation. The fairy-tale film Lidé z metra (The People from the Metro) and Ostrov st?íbrnych volavek (The Island of Silver Herons), in which he returns to the days of the First World War, are equally undistinguished. Even less noteworthy is the fantastic tale Talí?e nad Velkym Malíkovem (Flying Saucers over Velky Malík). Jire?’ creative path took a new turn in 1978 with Mlady mu? a bílá velryba (The Young Man and the White Whale). The film is an adaptation of Vladimír Páral’s novel of the same name and deals with modern man’s uneasy oscillation between a mask of cynicism and pure human feeling. Next came Causa králík (The Rabbit Case), an apparently humorous morality piece with a bitter finale on the struggle for justice against cunning and evil. The heroine of Jire?’ next work, Utěky domu (Escapes Home), is a young woman who must face a conflict between her desire for self-fulfillment in a challenging profession and her duties as a wife and the mother of a family. In Neúplné zatmění (Partial Eclipse), about a little blind girl, he specu- lates on an emotional level about the meaning of life and the quest for human personality. All these films address problems of modern life in the area of the ethics of human relations. Documentary films form an integral part of Jire?’ creative work. Unlike his friends of the same generation, Jire? has remained faithful to the documentary genre throughout his artistic career. This segment of his work shows great thematic breadth. We can nonetheless delineate two fundamental areas of interest for Jire?. In the 1960s his attention was drawn to the folklore of southern Moravia, where several of his short films have their setting. Jire? returned to this region and to this subject matter in a modified form in 1981 with the ballad story Opera ve vinici (Opera in the Vineyard). From the 1970s on, his documentary films turn more and more to the world of art, to music, painting, and architecture. —Vladimir Opela [translated by Robert Streit] JOFFé, Roland Nationality: English. Born: London, 17 November 1945. Educa- tion: Attended Manchester University. Career: Co-founder of the Young Vic and former member of the National Theater under Laurence Olivier; moved into television and made various documen- taries as well as dramatic series; started big-screen production in mid- 1980s with emphases on both the grandeur of the visual and the complexity of politics and religion. Awards: Golden Palm, Cannes International Film Festival, for The Mission, 1986. Films as Director: 1978 The Legand Hall Bombing (for TV); The Spongers (for TV) 1979 No, Mama, No (for TV) 1981 United Kingdom (for TV) 1984 The Killing Fields 1986 The Mission 1989 Fat Man and Little Boy (+ co-sc) 1992 City of Joy (+ co-pr) 1995 The Scarlet Letter (+ co-pr) JOFFéDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 489 Roland Joffé 1999 Goodbye Lover 2000 Vatel Other Films: 1991 Made in Bangkok (pr) 1999 Waterproof (Berman) (pr); Undressed (series for TV) (exec pr) Publications By JOFFé: book— City of Joy: The Illustrated Story of the Film (A Newmarket Pictorial Moviebook), with Mark Medoff, Jake Eberts, and Dominique Lapierre, New York, 1992. By JOFFé: articles— ‘‘Entretien avec Roland Joffé,’’ with M. Ciment, in Positif (Paris), February 1985. ‘‘Light Shining in Darkness: Roland Joffé on The Mission,’’ inter- view with M. Dempsey, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), no. 4, 1987. Interview, in American Film, December 1987. ‘‘Entrevista con Roland Joffé: City of Joy, o la India cercana,’’ in Film Historia, vol. 3, no. 3, 1993. On JOFFé: articles— Michiels, D., ‘‘The Spongers,’’ in Film en Television + Video (Brussels), December 1980. Denby, D., ‘‘Movies: Blood Brothers,’’ in New York, 17 Novem- ber 1984. Kael, P., ‘‘The Current Cinema: Unreal,’’ in New Yorker, 10 Decem- ber 1984. Jensen, L., ‘‘Vietnamkrigen Borte med Blaesten,’’ in Levende Dilleder (Copenhagen), 15 February 1985. Joyeux, D., ‘‘Marknadsforare med sinne for Film,’’ in Chaplin (Stockholm), no. 2, 1985. Park, J., ‘‘Bombs and Pol Pots,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), no. 54, 1984/85. Le Fanu, M., ‘‘Regard Aigu sur un Destin Funeste,’’ in Positif (Paris), February 1985. Agostinis, V., ‘‘Quando l’emozione supera il realismo della politica,’’ in Segnocinema (Italy), March 1985. Pally, M., ‘‘Red Faces,’’ in Film Comment (New York), January/ February 1986. Magny, J., ‘‘Conscience Impossible,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1986. Miller, J., ‘‘The Mission Carries a Message from Past to Present,’’ in New York Times, 26 October 1986. Millar, G., ‘‘The Honourable Dead,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), no. 4, 1986. Mosier, J., ‘‘Tramps Abroad: The Anglo-Americans at Cannes,’’ in New Orleans Review, no. 4, 1986. Lally, K., ‘‘Mission Accomplished: Epic Arrives after 15-Year Strug- gle,’’ in Film Journal (New York), January 1987. Rodman, H. A., ‘‘Director Roland Joffé,’’ in Millimeter (Cleveland), April 1987. Pinsky, M. I., ‘‘The Mission, Junipero Serra, and the Politics of Sainthood,’’ in Jump Cut (Berkeley), February 1988. Rios, A., ‘‘La Pasion segun Roland Joffé,’’ in Cine Cubano (Havana), no. 123, 1988. Lee, N., ‘‘Fat Man and Little Boy: Birth of the Atom Bomb,’’ in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), November 1989. Kael, P., ‘‘The Current Cinema: Bombs,’’ in New Yorker, 13 Novem- ber 1989. Buckley, M., ‘‘Roland Joffé,’’ in Films in Reviews (New York), January/February 1990. Root, D., ‘‘Holy Men in the Wilderness: The Mission and Sainte Marie among the Hurons,’’ in Cineaction (Toronto), Winter/ Spring 1990. Scheck, F., ‘‘Fat Man and Little Boy,’’ in Films in Review (New York), March 1990. Jenkins, S., ‘‘City of Joy,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Octo- ber 1992. Romano, H., ‘‘Cite de la Joie,’’ in Jeune Cinema (Paris), Octo- ber 1992. Welsh, James, ‘‘Classic Folly: The Scarlet Letter,’’ in Literature/ Film Quarterly (Salisbury), October 1995. Filmography, in Segnocinema (Vicenza), March/April 1996. Dunne, Michael, ‘‘The Scarlett Letter on Screen: Ninety Years of Revisioning,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), Litera- ture/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), January 1997. *** JORDAN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 490 Often compared with that of David Lean, the famed epic master of a generation ago, Roland Joffé’s filmic career to date has proven to be an uneven one. Despite several noble attempts to render the grandeur of idealism and the complexity of politics, religions, and history, Joffé often falls short of the truly large-scale perspectives and touches of genuine humanity that underline Lean’s masterpieces, such as The Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia. Having worked quite extensively in both theater and television, Joffé made his big- screen debut with 1984’s The Killing Fields, produced by arguably the most influential British producer of the 1980s, David Puttnam. A story about an interracial friendship set in the time of the genocide in Cambodia during the mid-1970s, The Killing Fields strives to capture the universal spirit of humanity that binds people, despite their differences. A group of Western reporters are rescued by Dith Pran (played by Dr. Haing S. Ngor). The high drama unfolds when those Westerners realize that they are not capable of rescuing their Cambodian friend, their life saver, in return. The beautifully done cinematography and excellent soundtrack of ‘‘Nessun Dorma’’ from Puccini’s Turandot nonetheless fail to save the feeble (when stripped of all its flamboyant superficiality) narrative in its attempt to docu- ment one of the most monstrous tragedies in human history. The highly problematic, revisionist portrayal of South American history during the mid-eighteenth century in The Mission calls for even more scrutiny. Two Jesuit missionaries, played by high-profile Jeremy Irons and Robert De Niro, participate in the resistance against the intermingled conflicts with Spain, Portugal, the Pope, and many a merchant whose monetary concerns dictate their actions. The end result is ‘‘calamitous . . . : the Battle of Caibale (1756), during which [the two Jesuit leaders], several other Jesuits, and some 1500 Indians die,’’ according to Michael Dempsey. Speaking of the seemingly licensed fictionality of the two key Jesuit characters, Joffé refers to ‘‘liberation theology’’ in saying that ‘‘The film in that sense is intimately concerned with the struggle for liberation in liberation theology, and that’s why the historical perspective is very important, because what it’s actually saying is that these people haven’t come out of nowhere’’ [emphasis mine]. It is then Joffé and his team’s historical perspectives that enable them, as Dempsey aptly puts it, to ‘‘re-oppress the people with overbearing film technology and appro- priate their story for a grandiose prestige spectacle.’’ The little-noticed Fat Man and Little Boy, a story about the creation of the atom bomb, failed even with the star power of Paul Newman. Following that was City of Joy, a story celebrating spiritual- ity as the link that crosses all boundaries. Set in Calcutta, City of Joy seems to be over-fascinated with the city itself. As Joffé himself enthusiastically confessed in a publicity essay, Calcutta ‘‘taught me, in its complexity, its passion, anger and pettiness, that our individual failings are no more or less than the failings of the species; as there are no perfect individuals, there are no perfect races.’’ In this spirit, what is being presented in this movie are two individuals, one American (Max, played by Patrick Swayze) and the other Indian (Hasari Pal, played by Om Puri). What they have in common is that they both are not perfect. The problematized narrative falls into an almost stereotypical treatment of interracial relationships. Max’s spiritual fulfillment comes with the ability to help with Hasari’s material needs (for example, the medallion which provides for her daughter’s dowry), while Hasari, though sometimes distrustful and even jealous, is nonetheless a rescuer for the American, who is easily beaten by and lost in the immense (both human—the oppressive ganglord’s son— and natural—the monsoon season) primitiveness of Calcutta. After tracing Roland Joffé filmic career to date, Steven Jenkins’s astute observation particularly rings true. ‘‘One has the feeling that in his striving for epic, the ‘big picture’ indeed, Joffé would like to be David Lean.... But the interrelationship between character and backdrop in The Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia seems ideologically more complex and rigorously scrutinized than anything here.’’ Despite the consistently stunning visuals in Joffé’s films, one cannot help but feel an imbalance, one that tilts between an historical and ideological monstrosity gotten out of hand and a sim- ple-minded heroism blown out of proportion. —Guo-Juin Hong JORDAN, Neil Nationality: Irish. Born: Sligo County, Ireland, 25 February 1950. Education: Read History and literature at University College, Dub- lin. Career: Formed Irish Writers’ Co-op, 1974; had his first collec- tion of short stories, Night in Tunisia, published, 1976; worked as a ‘‘creative associate’’ on John Boorman’s Excalibur, in fringe theatre, and as a writer, before making his directorial debut with Angel, 1982; made his first American film, High Spirits, 1988; directed music videos for The Pogues and Kirsty MacColl. Awards: Guardian Prize for fiction, for A Night in Tunisia, 1979; London Critics Circle Best Film and Best Director, Fantasporto Critics Award and Audience Jury Award and International Fantasy Film Award, for The Company of Wolves, 1984; Palme d’Or, Cannes Festival, and De Sica Award, Sorrento Festival, for Mona Lisa, 1986; Best Screenplay Academy Award, Alexander Korda Award for Best British Film British Academy Award, Writers Guild of America Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Foreign Film Independent Spirit Award, New York Film Critics Circle Best Screenplay, for The Crying Game, 1992; Venice Film Festival Golden Lion, for Michael Collins, 1996; Berlin Film Festival Silver Berlin Bear, for The Butcher Boy, 1997; Brussels Internationa Film Festival Crystal Iris, 1998; Brussels International Film Festival Silver Raven for In Dreams, 1999; Best Adapted Screenplay British Academy Award, for The End of the Affair, 1999. Address: 6 Sorrento Terrace, Dalkey County, Dublin, Ireland Films as Director: 1982 Angel (Danny Boy) (+ sc) 1984 The Company of Wolves (+ sc) 1986 Mona Lisa (+ co-sc) 1988 High Spirits (+ sc) 1989 We’re No Angels 1991 The Miracle (+ sc) 1992 The Crying Game (+ sc) 1994 Interview with the Vampire 1996 Michael Collins (+ sc) JORDANDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 491 Neil Jordan 1997 The Butcher Boy (+ co-sc, exec pr) 1999 In Dreams (+ co-sc); The End of the Affair (+ sc, pr) Other Films: 1981 Excalibur (Boorman) (creative associate); Traveller (Comerford) (sc) 1999 The Last September (Warner) (co-exec pr) Publications By JORDAN: books— A Night in Tunisia, London, 1976. The Past, London, 1980. Dream of the Beast, London, 1983. Mona Lisa, with David Leland, London, 1986. High Spirits, London, 1989. The Crying Game, London, 1993. A Neil Jordan Reader, New York, 1993. Sunrise with Sea Monster, London, 1994. Nightlines, New York, 1995. Michael Collins: Screenplay and Film Diary, New York, 1996. Collected Fiction, London, 1997. By JORDAN: articles— Interview with M. Open, in Film Directions (Belfast), vol. 5, no. 17, 1982. Interviews in Time Out (London), 13 October 1983 and 13 Septem- ber 1984. Interview with Paul Taylor and Steve Jenkins, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), September 1984. Interview with J. Powers, in American Film (Washington, D.C.), July/ August 1986. ‘‘Lines Written in Dejection,’’ in Producer (London), May 1987. Interview in City Limits (London), 8 December 1988. ‘‘Here Comes Mr. Jordan,’’ interview with R. Sawhill in Interview (New York), December 1989. JORDAN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 492 ‘‘Neil Jordan’s Guilty Pleasures,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November/December 1992. ‘‘Irish Eyes,’’ interview with M. Glicksman in Film Comment (New York), January/February 1990. Interview with Lois Gould in New York Times Magazine, 9 Janu- ary 1994. Interview with S. O’Shea in Harper’s Bazaar (New York), Novem- ber 1994. ‘‘Neil Jordan Gets His Irish Up,’’ interview with Dave Karger, in Entertainment Weekly (New York), 24 April 1998. On JORDAN: articles— Barra, Alan, ‘‘Here Comes Mr. Jordan,’’ in American Film (Los Angeles), January 1990. O’Toole, F., ‘‘Neil Jordan Gets Back to Making Home Movies,’’ in New York Times, 14 October 1990. Barra, Alan, ‘‘Jordan Airs,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 6 Au- gust 1991. Hooper, J., ‘‘Pop Terrorist,’’ in Esquire (New York), December 1992. ‘‘Rules of the Game,’’ in New Yorker, 7 December 1992. McDonagh, M., ‘‘Sex, Politics, and Identity Clash in Neil Jordan’s Crying Game,’’ in Film Journal, December 1992. Harris, M., ‘‘The Little Movie That Could: The Crying Game,’’ in Entertainment Weekly (New York), 12 February 1993. Conant, J. ‘‘Lestat, c’est moi,’’ in Esquire (New York), March 1994. Kenny, Glenn, ‘‘Eire Jordan,’’ in Premiere (New York), May 1998. *** The film career of Neil Jordan could be said to parallel the fortunes of the British film industry during the 1980s. He made a stunning impact with his first two films. Angel was arguably the most accom- plished film-making debut sponsored by Channel 4, while The Company of Wolves was the first feature to be produced by Palace, one of the more exciting film companies to emerge in the decade. Mona Lisa consolidated his reputation as a distinctive and visionary filmmaker. However, by the end of the decade both Jordan and the British film industry seemed to have run out of steam. In comparison with his earlier work, the more overtly commercial High Spirits and We’re No Angels can only be described as mediocre and sadly lacking in ideas. While the director recovered in the early 1990s with The Crying Game, a film that rode a wave of publicity to an unlikely level of financial success, his subsequent features have been astoundingly uneven. While always expertly crafted, his more mainstream projects generally have been disappointing; meanwhile, his more personal ones have been consistently outstanding. At its most successful, Jordan’s cinema demonstrates his ability to make the familiar seem strange and in doing so to question our assumptions about the nature of the world. All his films revolve to some extent around the idea that reality is complex and multi-faceted. Jordan’s characters often encounter nightmare worlds that they must negotiate rather than push aside precisely because they are unac- knowledged dimensions of reality. Angel and Mona Lisa, for in- stance, are similar in structure; each deals with individuals who become inadvertently caught up in personal nightmares which threaten to destroy them: Danny with sectarian violence and bloody revenge and George with the hellish underworld of teenage prostitution and drug addiction. The idea of the nightmare world is given a more literal rendition in The Company of Wolves. Based on a short story by Angela Carter, the film is a reworking of the Little Red Riding Hood story, a bizarre and sumptuous mixture of fairy tale, gothic horror, and Freudian psychoa- nalysis which betrays a rich variety of cinematic influences, from Cocteau through Michael Powell and Hammer horror to Laughton’s Night of the Hunter. The film explicitly challenges the spurious division between reality and fantasy by setting up two distinct worlds: the ‘‘real’’ world of the girl asleep in bed, suffering from the onset of her first menstrual period, and the ‘‘dream world’’ of Rosalean and her granny, set in a magical forest which was entirely constructed in a studio. At the film’s conclusion, the barrier between these two worlds is broken down; the wolves from the dream invade the sleeping girl’s bedroom by smashing through a picture and the window. It follows that symbolism is extremely important in Jordan’s work. The Company of Wolves is rife with symbolic images relating to sexuality and procreation. Mona Lisa employs such devices to explore the film’s central thematic concern with innocence and corruption. Images relating to childhood, and by extension innocence— the white rabbit, the silly glasses, the old woman’s shoe, the dwarves— are juxtaposed with scenes of degradation, depravity, and violence. In Angel lost innocence is again explored. Danny’s decision to swap his saxophone for a gun effectively symbolizes the idea of the heavenly musician turned avenging angel. It is precisely the ambiguity of Danny—a figure who straddles the divine/demonic divide—which gives the film its power. Initially repulsed by the violence that claims an angelic deaf-mute girl, Danny becomes a cold-blooded killer himself in his pursuit of the perpetrators. In comparison, the religious symbolism in We’re No Angels seems rather clumsy and sentimental. Despite being a powerful piece of cinema, there were indications in Mona Lisa that Jordan had begun to lose his sense of direction. The film lacks the moral ambiguity that made Angel so challenging. George remains a rather naive and socially inept character, his uncomplicated and thoroughly ‘‘decent’’ moral code at odds with the world in which he becomes involved, a world he cannot begin to understand. But his naivete is too overwhelming to be credible, and his social ineptitude borders on cliché. Unlike Angel and The Com- pany of Wolves, the resolution of Mona Lisa is rather cozy and contrived; George returns to ‘‘normality,’’ apparently none the worse for his traumatic experience. Significantly, Jordan also attempted to lighten Mona Lisa by introducing comic elements, courtesy of the eccentric character Thomas, played by Robbie Coltrane. This familiar strategy in British cinema more often than not serves to blunt a film’s cutting edge. High Spirits and We’re No Angels demonstrate rather painfully that Jordan does not have a feel for comedy. The former relies on unimaginative stereotyping and comic cliché, while the latter descends at times into messy slapstick reminiscent of Abbott and Costello or the Three Stooges. Indeed, apart from the odd visual touch it is virtually impossible to recognize the latter film as the work of the person who made Angel or The Company of Wolves. After the debacle of We’re No Angels, Jordan sensibly returned to Ireland. There he directed The Miracle, an atmospheric, subtly sensuous coming-of-age drama. The scenario’s focus is on James and Rose, alienated adolescents who perceive the world with the type of poetic cynicism that is the license of bright, bored teens. James’s father is introduced as a widower who drinks too much and plays bad music in a ten-cent dance hall. One day a pretty mystery woman (Beverly D’Angelo) comes to town. James and Rose are fascinated by her, and he soon begins wooing her. But he is unaware of her true identity, and Jordan proceeds to throw a curve JORDANDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 493 ball at his audience that rivals the one thrown in Jordan’s next film, The Crying Game. It turns out that the woman is none other than James’s mother. The Crying Game was a sensation, a feature which the film media extolled as a ‘‘must-see.’’ The praise was warranted, for The Crying Game is inventive and entertaining, and it spotlights what was to become one of the most talked-about celluloid plot twists in screen history. It begins as a bleak political drama in which a kidnapped black British soldier (Forest Whitaker) is held hostage by an Irish Republican Army militant (Stephen Rea). Eventually, the latter sets out to locate the former’s sweetheart (Jaye Davidson), who proves to have some interesting secrets. The Crying Game is at once a political drama, a thriller, and a love story. It became one of the rare ‘‘art house’’ films to make its way into mall theaters. Jordan’s follow-up to The Crying Game was the much anticipated but overproduced and ultimately tedious adaptation of Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire. Despite the presence of some of Holly- wood’s hottest actors, including Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas, and Christian Slater, the best thing about the film was the provocative performance of young Kirsten Dunst in the role of Claudia, the child vampire. Equally unsatisfactory was In Dreams, a disagreeable thriller about a woman whose dreams are taken over by the thoughts of a psychic child killer. Despite winning acclaim in some quarters, Jordan’s adaptation of Graham Greene’s The End of the Affair was, in its pace and performances, an unsuccessful throw- back to an earlier era of staid British filmmaking. Happily, not all of the filmmaker’s post-Crying Game projects have been disappointments. Michael Collins was a project close to Jordan’s heart. It is a stirring biography of one of the central figures of 20th-century Irish history: a leader of the failed 1916 rebellion who went on to mastermind the guerilla war against the British, and who was just 31-years-old when he was assassinated. To be sure, Michael Collins is stunning filmmaking, but what makes it most provocative is its take on history. Its central character (Liam Neeson) is portrayed as a combination rabble rouser/rebel leader/reluctant terrorist who de- clares that he despises himself for the mayhem he spreads. He simply has no choice in the matter, and this assertion is meant to humanize him. Meanwhile, the British are portrayed as barbarous imperialists, and so Collins and his compatriots have no recourse but to battle them with equal doses of venom. The difference is that the British indis- criminately brutalize, while the Irish kill out of patriotism. Collins is depicted as a single-minded rebel who puts his country over his ego; his opposite from within the dissident ranks, Eamon de Valera (Alan Rickman), with whom he has political and strategic differences, is portrayed as a back-stabbing schemer. Michael Collins presents itself as a slice of Irish history, yet it should be left for the historians to determine the accuracy of its characterizations, along with the facts as presented—beginning with the assertion that de Valera was responsi- ble for luring Collins to his death. Finally, The Butcher Boy is one of the sleeper films of the late 1990s: an uncompromising and boldly filmed portrait of a hellish childhood. The title character, Francie Brady (Eammon Owens), is a pre-teen who is coming of age in a small Irish village in the early 1960s. This luckless lad is saddled with an ineffectual, alcoholic father and a loony mother. Adding to his plight is his rough treatment by a stern, humorless adult who lives in his town, and his betrayal by his best friend and ‘‘bloodbrother.’’ On the outside Francie is ever- smiling, and blessed with personality to spare. Yet his bravado only hides his heartbreak, and his increasingly disturbing fantasies are running wild in his subconscious. At such a tender age, he is faced with more than his share of rejection and, as a result, he descends into madness. Jordan does a superb job of visualizing the goings-on in Francie’s mind, and the manner in which his youthful fantasies, coupled with the anti-communist paranoia of the times, mix with his reality in the most incendiary manner. Perhaps because it is such a completely unidealized portrait of childhood, The Butcher Boy failed to earn the publicity won by The Crying Game. Yet it is just as fine a film—and it may be linked to Jordan’s most successful earlier work as an exploration of the complex link between brutal reality and nightmarish fantasy. —Duncan J. Petrie, updated by Rob Edelman 495 K KABORé, Jean-Marie Gaston Nationality: Burkinabe. Born: Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, 23 April 1951. Education: Primary school in Ouagadougou; secondary education in boarding school near Bobo Dioulasso; undergraduate studies in history at the Centre d’Etudes Supérieures d’Histoire d’Ouagadougou, 1970–1972; received Master of Arts degree in history at the Sorbonne, Paris, 1974; studied film at the Ecole Supérieure d’Etudes Cinématographiques, Paris, 1974–1976. Ca- reer: Returned to Burkina Faso and directed the Centre National du Cinéma, 1977–1981; taught at the Institut Africain d’Education Cinématographique, 1977–1988; General Secretary of the Pan-Afri- can Federation of Filmmakers, 1985–1997; served as official jury member at Cannes Festival, 1995. Awards: Etalon de Yennega, Grand Prize for best feature film, FESPACO (Pan-African Film and Television Festival of Ouagadougou), for Buud Yam, 1997. Films as Director: 1977 Je reviens de Bokin (I Come from Bokin) 1978 Stockez et conservez les grains (Store and Conserve the Grain) 1979 Regard sur le VIème FESPACO (A Look at the 6th FESPACO) 1980 Utilisation des énergies nouvelles en milieu rural (The Use of New Energy in Rural Areas) 1982 Wend Kuuni (God’s Gift) 1986 Propos sur le cinéma (Reflections on Cinema) 1988 Zan Boko (Homeland) 1992 Rabi (Rabi) 1995 Lumiere et Compagnie (Lumiere and Company) (co-d) 1997 Buud Yam Publications: By KABORé: articles— ‘‘The African Cinema in Crisis,’’ in The UNESCO Courier, July- August 1995. ‘‘Gaston Kaboré, Etalon de Yennega 1997,’’ interview with Mamoune Faye, in Le Soleil (Dakar), 8 March 1997. ‘‘La memoire, la nature, et le hasard,’’ interview with A. Speciale, in Ecrans d’Afrique, vol. 6 no. 19, 1997. On KABORé: books— Pfaff, Fran?oise, Twenty-five Black African Filmmakers, New York, 1988. Malkmus, Lizbeth, and Roy Armes, Arab and African Film Making, London, 1991. Diawara, Manthia, African Cinema: Politics and Culture, Blooming- ton, 1992. Shiri, Keith, Directory of African Film-Makers and Films, Westport, Connecticut, 1992. Ukadike, Nwachuku Frank, Black African Cinema, Berkeley, 1994. Russel, Sharon, Guide to African Cinema, Westport, Connecticut, 1998. On KABORé: articles— Amie Williams, ‘‘Zan Boko,’’ in African Arts, vol. 23, no. 2, April 1990. Gadjigo, Samba, ‘‘Zan Boko,’’ in Research in African Literatures, vol. 23, no. 4, Winter 1992. Andrade-Watkins, Claire, ‘‘Wend Kuuni,’’ in American Historical Review, vol. 79, no. 4, October 1992. Andrade-Watkins, Claire, ‘‘Zan Boko’’ in Historical Review, vol. 97, no. 4, October 1992. Pfaff, Fran?oise, ‘‘Africa from Within: The Films of Gaston Kaboré and Idrissa Ouédraogo as Anthropological Sources,’’ in African Experiences of Cinema, edited by Imruh Bakari and Mbye B. Cham, London, 1996. Chirol, Marie-Magdeleine, ‘‘The Missing Narrative in Wend Kuuni,’’ in African Cinema: Postcolonial and Feminist Readings, edited by Kenneth Harrow, Trenton, 1999. *** Gaston Kaboré is one of the leaders of a movement in African cinema which aims, in his words, ‘‘to root African cinema in African soil.’’ Kaboré uses indigenous language as a medium of expression, and borrows techniques from Africa’s heritage of oral storytelling to craft his narratives. Like his compatriot Idrissa Ouedraogo, Kaboré focuses on the concerns of men and women in rural Burkina Faso. His most celebrated works to date are Wend Kuuni, Zan Boko, and Buud Yam. Wend Kuuni (God’s Gift) takes place in pre-colonial Africa, during the reign of the Mossi Empire. At the beginning of the film, a woman is told that her husband, a hunter, is missing and presumed dead. According to tradition, she must remarry. Instead, she chooses to escape with her son. Her fate is left a mystery until her son, Wend Kuuni, regains his speech, which he loses after witnessing his mother’s tragic death. A story punctuated by silence, Wend Kuuni emphasizes images over words. Until the moment when Wend Kuuni speaks, the viewer observes the daily routines and rhythms of the family who has adopted him. Kaboré’s depiction of the beauty and tranquility of a village before the arrival of Europeans is stunning. He does not, however, glorify tradition. Although Wend Kuuni’s new sister, Pongneré, prefers to follow him into the fields, women are relegated to the domestic sphere. Villagers shun Wend Kuuni’s mother because she refuses to remarry. Kaboré beautifully and delicately provides the viewer with an African perspective on the intricacies of rural life in Burkina Faso. Wend Kuuni’s story is KACHY?A DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 496 continued in Buud Yam. Here, Kaboré artfully expresses his affection for his thoughtful, complex characters. Kaboré’s Zan Boko (Homeland) also focuses on the plight of village dwellers in Burkina Faso. In this case, he reveals how contemporary government policies privilege the city’s economy over the rural population’s concerns. As the urban sphere constantly expands, villages are wiped out. Tinga, a farmer for whom the land is linked to his ancestral heritage, refuses to sell his property to urban developers. His new urban neighbor, an upper class, French-speaking businessman, trumpets city development and disdains tradition. The camera concentrates on the border between Tinga’s land and the growing city sprawl, and lingers on an object or scene, provoking aesthetic and intellectual contemplation. For example, the craftsman- ship needed to construct Tinga’s traditional roof, depicted in a series of long takes, gathers relevance in later scenes in which Tinga’s urban neighbors remark that the home would be ‘‘a good place for a pool.’’ The neighbors, who consume European beer and American soda, do not appreciate Tinga’s art, nor his right to develop according to his own convictions. This story parallels the predicament of a city journalist, Yabre, who is suspended for independently investigating the government’s misappropriation of national food subsidies. At the film’s culmination, a village musician laments, ‘‘Our land is dead, killed by the big city. Our ancestors are without a home. The monster has triumphed.’’ The audience is left to contemplate societies whose intimate connections to the land are destroyed by ambitious, Western- ized urban developers. —Ellie Higgins KACHY?A, Karel Nationality: Czech. Born: Vyskov, Czechoslovakia, 1 May 1924. Education: Film Academy (FAMU), Prague, 1947–51. Career: Associated with co-director Vojtěch Jasny, 1949–55; after working for Armed Forces Film Studio, joined Barrandov Film Studios, 1959; associated with writer Jan Procházka, late 1950s-1970. Awards: Czech Film Critics Award, for Smugglers of Death, 1959. Films as Director: 1950 Není stále zamre?eno (The Clouds Will Roll Away) (co-d, co-sc with Vojtěch Jasny, ph); Vedeli si rady (They Know What to Do) (co-d, co-sc, ph) 1951 Za ?ivot radostny (For a Joyful Life) (co-d, co-sc with Jasny) 1952 Neobyˇejná léta (Extraordinary Years) (co-d, co-sc) 1953 Lidé jednoho srdce (People of One Heart) (co-d, co-sc, co-ph) 1954 Stará ?inská opera (Old Chinese Opera) (co-d, co-sc, ph); Z ?ínsk?o zápisniku (From a Chinese Notebook) (co-d, co-sc, ph) 1955 Dnes ve?er v?echno skon?i (Everything Ends Tonight) (co-d, co-sc) 1956 Ztracená stopa (The Lost Track) (+ sc); K?ivé zrcadlo (Crooked Mirror) (+ sc) 1957 Mistrovstvi světa leteckych modelá?u (World Championship of Air Models) (+ sc); Poku?eni (Temptation) (+ sc, ph) 1958 Tenkrát o vánocich (That Christmas) (+ co-sc); Cty?ikrát o Bulharsku (Four Times about Bulgaria) (+ sc); Městom? svou tvá? (The City Has Your Face) (+ sc) 1959 Král Sumavy (The King of the Sumava) (+ co-sc) 1960 Prá?e (The Slinger) (+ co-sc) 1961 Pouta (The Country Doctor; Fetters) (+ co-sc); Trápeni (Stress of Youth) (co-sc) 1962 Závrat (Vertigo) (+ co-sc) 1963 Nadeje (Hope) (+ co-sc) 1964 Vysoká zed (The High Wall) (+ co-sc) 1965 At ?ije republika (Long Live the Republic) (+ co-sc) 1966 Ko?ár do Vídně (Carriage to Vienna) (+ co-sc) 1967 Noc nevěsty (Night of the Bride) (+ co-sc) 1968 Vánoce s Al?bětou (Christmas with Elizabeth) (+ co-sc) 1969 Smě?ny pán (Funny Old Man) (+ co-sc); Ucho (The Ear) 1970 U7zcaron; zase ská?u p?es kalu?e (Jumping the Puddles Again) (+ co-sc); 1972 Vlak do stanice nebe (Train to Heaven) (+ co-sc); Láska (Love) (+ co-sc); Horká zima (Hot Winter) (+ co-sc) 1974 Pavlínka; Robinsonka (Robinson Girl) 1975 Skaredá dědina (The Ugly Village); Smrt mouchy (The Death of a Fly) 1976 Malá mo?ská víla (The Little Mermaid) (+ co-sc) 1977 Setkání v ?ervenci (Meeting in July) 1978 Cekání na dé?t (Waiting for the Rain) 1979 Láska mezi kapkami de?tě (Love between the Raindrops) 1980 Cukrová bouda (Sugar Cottage; The Little Sugar House) 1981 Pozor vizita! (Watch Out, The Rounds!) 1982 Fandy, ó Fandy (Fandy, Oh Fandy) 1983 Sestricky (Nurses) 1985 Dobré svetlo (Good Light) 1986 Smrt krásnych srncu (Death of a Beautiful Dream) 1987 Kam pánové, kam jdete? (And What Now, Gentlemen?) 1988 Oznamuje se láskam vasim (Let It Be Known to All Your Loves) 1989 Blázni a devcátka (Young Girls, Crazy Guys) 1990 The Last Butterfly (+ sc) 1992 Ucho (The Ear) 1993 The Cow (+ sc) 1994 Prima sezona (The Swell Season) (series for TV) 1995 Fany 1999 Hanele Other Films: 1952 Věda jde s lidem (Science Goes with People) Publications By KACHY?A: articles— Interview with E. Hepnerová, in Film a Doba (Prague), Febru- ary 1976. Interview in Film a Doba (Prague), January 1982. Interview with L. Hofmanova, in Film a Doba (Prague), Novem- ber 1986. ‘‘And What Now, Gentlemen?’’ an interview with Alexandra Prosnicová, in Czechoslovak Film, no. 4, 1987. KADáRDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 497 On KACHY?A: books— Bocek, Jaroslav, Modern Czechoslovak Film 1945–65, Prague, 1965. Bartoskovi, Sárka and Lubos, Filmové profily, Prague, 1966. Liehm, Antonin, Closely Watched Films, New York, 1974. CSF—Czechoslovak Cinema, Czechoslovak Film Institute, Prague, 1982. Hames, Peter, The Czechoslovak New Wave, Berkeley, 1985. On KACHY?A: articles— Melounek, P., in Film a Doba (Prague), May 1984. Dossier, in Filmowy Servis Prasowy (Warsaw), 16 July 1987. ‘‘’Strat’: Ucho (The Ear),’’ in Variety (New York), 9 May 1990. Kudriavtsev, S., in Iskusstvo Kino, no. 4, 1992. Young, Deborah, ‘‘Mestem chodi Mikulas (St. Nicholas Is in Town),’’ in Variety (New York), 14 February 1994. Wellner-Pospí?il, Michael, in Film a Doba (Prague), Autumn 1996. Meils, Cathy, ‘‘Fanny (Fany),’’ in Variety (New York), 29 July 1996. *** Karel Kachyňa is an artist with a broad range of ideas which constitute the starting point for his thinking in images. Despite their formal variety, his works bear an individual creative stamp character- ized by a play of poetic images precisely tailored to the dramatic structure of the story. Like any original artist who continuously seeks new paths of self-expression, Kachyňa has brief periods which seem to be at odds with the rest of his work. These are the exceptions, the experiments, the preparations for great artistic work to come. At first it seemed that Kachyňa’s main calling would be making documentary films. He has gone beyond these; they served as a point of departure for his dramatic films. His first creative period is characterized by innovatively conceived documentaries which not only captured the facts but also expressed the view of the filmmaker. His attempts to combine elements of fantasy, story, and style led him to the dramatic film, where he concentrated on films of wartime adventure and suspense. In so doing he did not forget what he had learned in making documentaries: to capture reality and transform it into a new artistic image in a carefully conceived story. The culmina- tion of this period is Král Sumavy (The King of the Sumava). Gradually other elements asserted themselves in his films: detailed psychological characterization and a precise portrayal of relation- ships against the backdrop of a given historical situation. Since he was never an independent writer of his own films, he was able to detach himself from the given material and consider it from a unique viewpoint. He was most interested in the contradiction-fraught rela- tionships of people taking their first steps into adulthood, or the world of children on the verge of some kind of awakening, a discovery of life in the brief interval in which reality stimulates the world of thoughts, dreams, and memories and becomes itself only a framework for a profound catharsis of feelings: Trápeni (Stress of Youth), Závral (Vertigo), U? zase ská?u p?es kalu?e (Jumping the Puddles Again), Smrt mouchy (Death of a Fly), and others. His films are first and foremost images interspersed with brief dialogue, where small de- tails, objects, and nature come to life. He directs his actors, be they amateurs or professionals, in a way that enables them to live the roles they play, to create the truth of life, to shape and express their own feelings and views. His tendency to create intimate dramas, however, leads to formal refinement in which an objective view of reality is often lost. Kachyňa has been served by several literary works which were sensitively adapted for the screen. But the foundation of his work remains the cinematic poem of feelings, for example Pavlinka, Robinsonka, or Skaredá dědina (The Ugly Village). ‘‘I like drawing- room stories set in an atmosphere of feelings, where the leading role is played by image, music, and often by what cannot even be expressed, that which is a part of our lives but is not concrete and cannot even be described. Apprehensions, hopes, dreams, someone’s touch . . . I would always like to have these things in my films. I think they are an essential part of the truth of life. And this truth is what film is mainly about. A film will never be a work of art unless it mirrors that truth, however subtly it may strive in other ways to express the most sublime thought,’’ said Karel Kachyňa in one conversation. And it is this credo that he strives strictly to uphold in his own films. After a lengthy period in which he focused on the world of children at the threshold of adulthood, he has turned in his more recent works to an adult milieu. —Vacláv Merhaut KADáR, Ján Nationality: Czechoslovak. Born: Budapest, 1 April 1918. Educa- tion: Gave up law studies to study photography at Bratislava school, 1938. Career: Prisoner in Nazi labor camp, early 1940s; after war, producer and director, Bratislava Studio of Short Films; scriptwriter and assistant director, Barrandov Studio, Prague, from 1947; began association with Elmar Klos (born in Brno, 26 January 1910), 1952; moved to U.S., 1969. Awards: Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, for The Shop on Main Street, 1965; National Artist of Czecho- slovakia, 1969. Died: In Los Angeles, 1 June 1979. Films as Director: 1945 Life Is Rising from the Ruins 1950 Katka (Kitty) (+ co-sc) 1952 Unos (Kidnapped) (co-d, co-sc with Elmar Klos) 1954 Hudba z Marsu (Music from Mars) (co-d, co-sc with Klos) 1957 Tam na kone?né (The House at the Terminus) (co-d with Klos) 1958 T?i p?ání (Three Wishes) (co-d, co-sc with Klos) 1963 Smrt si ?iká Engelchen (Death Is Called Engelchen) (co-d, co-sc with Klos) 1964 Ob?alovany (The Accused; The Defendant) (co-d, co-sc with Klos) 1965 Obchod na korze (The Shop on Main Street; The Shop on the High Street) (co-d, co-sc with Klos) 1970 The Angel Levine 1971 Touha zvaná Anada (Adrift), Something Is Drifting on the Water) (completed 1969; co-d with Klos) 1975 Lies My Father Told Me 1978 Freedom Road KADáR DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 498 Other Films: 1947 Nevité o byte? (Looking for a Flat) (sc) Publications By KADáR: book— Selected Speeches and Interviews, London, 1985. By KADáR: articles— ‘‘Elmar Klos and Jan Kadár,’’ interview with Jules Cohen, in Film Culture (New York), Fall/Winter 1967. Interview with Robert Haller, in Film Heritage (Dayton, Ohio), Spring 1973. Interview with L. Vigo, in Image et Son (Paris), June 1973. On KADáR: books— Bocek, Jaroslav, Modern Czechoslovak Film 1945–1965, Prague, 1965. Liehm, Antonin, Closely Watched Films, White Plains, Prague, 1974. Hames, Peter, The Czechoslovak New Wave, Berkeley, 1985. On KADáR: articles— ‘‘Director,’’ in the New Yorker, 12 February 1966. ‘‘The Czech Who Bounced Back,’’ in Films Illustrated (London), April 1972. Obituary, in New York Times, 4 June 1979. Moret, H., obituary in Ecran (Paris), 15 July 1979. Gervais, G., obituary in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), July/August 1979. Keenan, Richard C., ‘‘The Sense of an Ending: Jan Kadár’s Distor- tion of Stephen Crane’s The Blue Hotel,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 16, no. 4, 1988. *** Ján Kadár is undoubtedly best known for his film The Shop on the High Street, made with his long–time collaborator, Elmar Klos. This was the first Czechoslovak film to win an Academy Award and was heralded as the beginning of the Czech film renaissance of the 1960s. In fact, Kadár made his first feature, Katka, in 1950, and Klos was one of those who helped to draw up the plans for the nationalisation of the film industry in that decade. This, of course, was a mixed bless- ing, as Kadár himself pointed out: ‘‘to innovative filmmakers this was a dream—it would liberate them from commercial pressures. Instead, there was political pressure. This was the disadvantage of subsidised art.’’ Katka itself ran into political difficulties. Made in Kadár’s native Slovakia, it tells the story of a village girl who becomes a factory worker. However, as the director points out, at about this time ‘‘it had been decided that it was no longer necessary to urge people to leave their homes for industry. But above all, the film wasn’t ‘national’ enough, it wasn’t sufficiently steeped in folklore and Slovakism. And that was referred to as ‘the bourgeois point of view.’’’ Expelled from the Slovak film industry, Kadár ‘‘became Czech’’ and began his partnership with Klos. Their first collaboration was Kidnapped, which Kadár later described as ‘‘an extremely naive, dogmatic, cold- war type of film’’ but which was nonetheless criticised at the time for ‘‘bourgeois objectivism.’’ Saved by the intervention of V. I. Pudovkin, they went on to make Music from Mars, a musical satire on bureau- cracy, which gave rise to complaints that they had slandered public figures. Their next film steered clear of trouble. This was House at the Terminus, which posed the question of whether is it right to bring children into the world in its present state. Given the country’s low and falling birth rate this was more than simply a philosophical question. By avoiding explicitly ‘‘public’’ problems and issues and concentrating instead on the private sphere, the film managed to avoid censure for drawing what is surely a rather depressing picture of Czech society. Peter Hames in The Czechoslovak New Wave speaks of its air of ‘‘gloomy desolation’’ and remarks that although ‘‘there is little overt political criticism, the implicit criticism is considerable, and the problems with which it deals take place in a social context. Hence loneliness, cynicism, personal and professional failure, com- promise, wrongful imprisonment, and lack of faith are shown as generalised characteristics of a supposedly socialist society,’’ one in which, that is, such problems have supposedly been eliminated. Three Wishes, a modern version of the old fairy tale in which a character is granted his heart’s desire only to find that the dream turns sour, was banned until 1963 (that is, once the process of de- Stalinization had got under way). Again, the problem seems to have been that it painted a less than ideal view of society, since it shows the central character realising his wishes by exploiting the corruption and hypocrisy he finds around him in society. After this film, Kadár and Klos were unable to work again for two years, but during the ensuing ‘‘thaw’’ period they produced their most famous work, The Shop on the High Street. This is set in Slovakia during the period of the independent fascist state, described by one Czechoslovak critic as ‘‘a gruesomely grotesque miniature of the apocalypse of the Third Reich’’ and by Klos as representing ‘‘a special kind of national fascism.’’ The story concerns an old, deaf Jewish woman and her relationship with the Slovak who is assigned to her shop as an ‘‘Aryan controller.’’ An extremely effective picture of everyday fascism in an ordinary small community, the film may revolve around a grim and tragic theme but it is actually played largely as a gentle comedy. Kadár once claimed that his favourite directors were Chaplin, Truffaut, and Fellini, and their presences can all be felt here in the quirky, offbeat humour, the mingling of the comic and tragic, and the gentle observation of its characters’ failures and all-too-human shortcomings. One is also, of course, put in mind of the early works of Passer, Forman and Menzel. Like the old lady at the centre of the film, Kadár was himself Jewish, and although by his own account he never encountered anti-Semitism, The Shop later attracted charges of Zionism from certain quarters, particularly after Kadár’s departure for the States. With the end of the ‘‘Prague Spring,’’ Kadár left Czechoslovakia for Vienna and from there went to America. At the time of the invasion he and Klos were working on a Czech-American co-production titled Adrift, which was made in collaboration with the Hungarian writer Imre Gy?ngy?ssy, who later went on to become a director himself. On his arrival in the States, Kadár was fortunate enough to be offered the direction of The Angel Levine, based on a Bernard Malamud story. He then returned to Czechoslovakia to complete KAPLANDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 499 Adrift. This is an atypical Kadár film, clearly influenced by Resnais and Robbe-Grillet, about a girl who may or may not have been saved from drowning in the Danube. In the States and Canada (where he also found work) Jewish themes in his films clearly came to the fore—hence The Angel Levine, Lies My Father Told Me, and Mendelstam’s Witness. Other works which must surely have had a strong personal resonance for the director were the TV movies The Case against Milligan, which examines the theme of freedom of conscience, and The Other Side of Hell, which looks at the plight of the sane person in an insane society. While none of his later films attain the level of The Shop on the High Street, they nonetheless attest to the warmth and generosity of spirit that is the hallmark of Kadár’s best and most typical work. —Julian Petley KAPLAN, Nelly Nationality: Argentinian. Born: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 11 April 1936 (some sources say 1931 or 1934). Education: University of Buenos Aires, studied filmmaking under Abel Gance, 1954–64. Career: Began as a film archivist, went to Paris as a writer for Argentinean film journals, met and collaborated with film director Abel Gance, 1950s; journalist for various Argentine newspapers; Cythere Films, Paris, France, assistant director, 1957–64, director, 1967—; scriptwriter; also a writer, under the pseudonym, Belen. Awards: Golden Lion, Venice Film Festival, for Le Regard Picasso, 1966; Medaille d’Or, Venice Film Festival, for La Fiancee du Pirate, 1969; Chevalier des Arts et des Lettres, 1970; Officier des Arts et des Lettres, c. 1983; Chevalier dans l’Ordre du Merite, 1989. Address: Cythere Films, 34 Champs Elysees, 75008 Paris, France. Films as Director: 1961 Gustave Moreau 1963 Abel Gance et Son Demain 1966 Les Années 25 1966 La Nouvelle Orangerie 1967 Le Regard Picasso 1969 La Fiancée du Pirate (A Very Curious Girl, The Pirate’s Fiancée, Dirty Mary) (+ sc) 1971 Papa les Petits Bateaux 1976 Néa: A New Woman (A Young Emmanuelle) (+ sc) 1979 Charles et Lucie (+ sc) 1983 Abel Gance et son Napoleon (+ sc) 1994 Plaisir d’Amour (The Pleasure of Love) (+ sc) Other Films: 1954 La Tour de Nesle (La Torre del Piacere) (Gance) (ro as Alice) 1960 Austerlitz (The Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleone ad Austerlitz) (Gance) (asst d, + sc) 1963 Cyrano et d’Artagnan (Gance) (ph) 1974 Il Faut Vivre Dangereusement (You’ve Got to Live Danger- ously) (Makovsky) (pr + sc) 1994 Les Mouettes (Chapot) (for TV) (sc) 1995 Honorin et l’Enfant Prodigue (Chapot) (for TV) (sc + ro as Dora) 1996 Polly West est de Retour (Chapot) (for TV) (sc + ro as Salomé von Jung) Publications By KAPLAN: books— Le Manifeste d’un Art Nourveau on ‘‘Magirama,’’ Paris, 1956. Le Sunlight d’Austerlitz, Paris, 1960. Le Reservoir des Sens, (under pseudonym Belen), Paris, 1966. Le Collier de Ptyx, Paris, 1972. Un Manteau de Fou-Rire ou les Memoires d’une Liseuse de Draps, Paris, 1974 . Abel Gance’s Napoleon (film history), British Film Institute Clas- sics, 1994. By KAPLAN: article— Martineau, Barbara Halpern, ‘‘Nelly Kaplan,’’ interview in Notes on Women’s Cinema, edited by Claire Johnston, London, 1974. On KAPLAN: book— Sebbag, George. Le Point Sublime: Andre Breton, Arthur Rimbaud, et Nelly Kaplan, Paris, 1997. On KAPLAN: articles— Johnston, Clare, ‘‘Myths of Women in the Cinema,’’ in Women and the Cinema: A Critical Anthology, edited by Karyn Kay and Gerald Peary, New York, 1977. Hatch, Robert, ‘‘Charles and Lucie (review),’’ in The Nation, 24 May 1980. Kuhn, Annette, Women’s Pictures: Feminism and Cinema, Lon- don, 1982. Straayer, Chris, ‘‘Sexual Representation in Film and Video,’’ in Multiple Voices in Feminist Film Criticism, edited by Diane Carlson, Linda Dittmar, and Janice Welsch, Minneapolis, 1991. Fincendeau, Ginette, ‘‘Fathers and Daughters in French Cinema: From the 20s to ‘La Belle Noiseuse,’’ in Women and Film: A Sight and Sound Reader, edited by Pam Cook and Phillip Dodd, Philadelphia, 1993. *** Nelly Kaplan’s work has been marketed and promoted frequently as soft-core pornography, but that perhaps only illustrates the scarcity of strong women’s voices in world cinema. That scarcity, extreme when Kaplan first began creating films, still exists at the beginning of the new millennium to an astonishing degree. Apprenticed to such dynamic and sensually open French filmmakers as Gance, Resnais, and Truffaut, Kaplan began her work as a director when the first KAPOOR DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 500 stirrings of second-wave feminism were beginning to be felt. Her films, though often marketed under lurid advertisements, and given leeringly suggestive foreign titles, were most definitely a part of that movement. That Kaplan’s films are erotic is beyond question, but they are much more than pornography, and to dismiss them as such is to deny the woman’s voice that speaks through her work. Kaplan’s films are radical precisely because they are erotic and that eroticism is pre- sented from the female point of view and speaks to the female audience. Though some have called her films anti-feminist because they are often blatantly sexual, many feminists have claimed her as a powerful spokesperson because she gives women a sexual voice. Her first internationally famous film, A Very Curious Girl, tells the story of a town slut, victimized by the appetites of the local men, who claims control of her sexuality by becoming a prostitute. She not only begins to profit from what she once gave away for free, but begins use the power of her new position to exact revenge on those who humiliated her, turning her staid, patriarchial village upside down. Néa: A New Woman, sometimes more suggestively titled A Young Emmanuelle, tells the story of another empowered victim, this time a young girl whose hypocritical father governs her life with an iron hand. To escape, she begins to experiment with the idea of sexuality, finally writing an erotic novel under a pseudonym. Kaplan, who wrote short fiction and erotica under the pseudonym of Belen, might have tucked some of her own history into the story of Néa’s reinvention of herself. Charles et Lucie, about a couple who rediscover love after they have lost everything else, and The Pleasure of Love, about the lives and loves of three generations of women, continue Kaplan’s trend of highlighting the female experience. The tone of most of Kaplan’s films is comic and positive, and the transformation of her female protagonists comes when they claim and control their own sexuality. This fact alone made Kaplan’s work notorious in the 1960s and 1970s, and she continues to hold that feminist viewpoint throughout her work. She has been compared to such French feminist filmmakers as Diane Kurys and Agnes Varda, who also began creating their films during the early days of modern feminism. Kaplan’s documentary work has also been praised, particularly her work about her mentor Able Gance, Abel Gance et son Demain and Abel Gance et son Napoleon. Picasso himself is said to have admired her documentary about his 1966 Paris exhibition, Le Regard de Picasso. —Tina Gianoulis KAPOOR, Raj Nationality: Indian. Born: Ranbirraj Kapoor in Peshwar (now in Pakistan), 14 December 1942. Education: Educated in Calcutta and Bombay. Family: Married Krishna (Kapoor), three sons, two daugh- ters. Career: Entered film industry as clapper boy, late 1930s; assistant on Bombay Talkies, then production manager, art director, and actor, Prithvi Theatres, early 1940s; first leading role, in Neel Kamal, 1947; directed first film, Aag, 1948. Awards: Filmfare Award for Best Director for My Name Is Joker, 1970. Died: Of complications from asthma attack, in New Delhi, 2 June 1988. Films as Director: 1948 Aag (Fire) (+ pr, role) 1949 Barsaat (+ role) 1951 Awara (The Vagabond) (+ role) 1955 Shri 420 (Mister 420) (+ role) 1964 Sangam (+ role, pr) 1970 Mera Naam Joker (My Name Is Joker) (+ role, pr) 1974 Bobby (+ pr) 1978 Satyam Shivam Sundaram (+ pr) 1982 Prem Rog (+ pr) Other Films: 1935 Inquilab (role) 1943 Hamari Baat (role); Gowri (role) 1946 Valmiki (role) 1947 Neel Kamal (role); Chithod Vijay (role); Jail Yaatra (role); Dil Ki Raani (role) 1948 Gopinath (role) 1949 Andaz (role); Parivartan (role); Sunehere Din (role) 1950 Banwara (role); Banware Nayan (role); Dastaan (role); Jaan Pehchan (role); Pyaar (role); Sargam (role) 1952 Ambar (role); Anhonee (role); Aashiyana; (role); Bewafa (role) 1953 Dhoon (role); Paapi (role); Aah (pr, role) 1954 Boot Polish (pr) 1956 Jagte Raho (pr, role); Chori Chori (role) 1957 Ab Dilli Dur Nahin (pr) 1958 Sharada (role); Parvarish (role); Phir Subah Hogi (role) 1959 Anadi (role); Char Dil Char Rahen (role); Do Ustad (role); Kanhaiya (role); Main Nashe Me Hoon (role) 1960 Jis Desh Me Ganga Behti Hai (Where the Ganges Flows) (pr, role); Chaliya (role); Shriman Satyavadi (role) 1961 Nazraana (role) 1962 Aashik (role) 1963 Dil Hi To Hai (role); Ek Dil Sou Afsane (role) 1964 Dulha Dulhan (role) 1966 Teesri Kasam (role) 1967 Around the World (role); Diwana (role) 1968 Sapnon Ka Saudgar (role) 1972 Kal, Aaj Aur Kal (pr, role) 1975 Dhadram Karam (pr); Do Jasoos (role) 1976 Khaan Dost (role) 1977 Chandi Sona (role) 1981 Biwi O Biwi (pr); Abdullah (role) 1982 Gopichand Jasoos (role) Publications On KAPOOR: books— Barnouw, Erik, and S. Krishnaswamy, Indian Film, New York, 1965. Sarkar, Kobita, The Indian Cinema Today, New Delhi, 1975. Abbas, Ahmad, I Am Not An Island: An Experiment in Autobiogra- phy, New Delhi, 1977. Burra, Rani, editor, Looking Back 1896–1960, New Delhi, 1981. KASDANDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 501 Willemen, Paul, and Behroze Gandhy, Indian Cinema, London, 1982. Ramachandran, T.M., 70 Years of Indian Cinema, Bombay, 1985. Dissanayake, Wimal, and Malti Sahai, Raj Kapoor’s Films: Harmony of Discourses, New Delhi, 1987. Reuben, Bunny, Raj Kapoor, The Fabulous Showman: An Intimate Biography, Bombay, 1988. On KAPOOR: articles— ‘‘Special Issue’’ of Film Fran?ais (Paris), Spring 1953. Tesson, C., ‘‘Le Rêve indien,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1985. Thomas, R., ‘‘Indian Cinema: Pleasures and Popularity,’’ in Screen (London), May/August 1985. Hollywood Reporter, November 1985. Sahai, M., ‘‘Raj Kapoor and the Indianization of Charlie Chaplin,’’ in East-West Film Journal (Honolulu), vol. 2, no. 1, December 1987. Obituary in Variety (New York), 8 June 1988. Chandavarkar, Bhaskar, ‘‘The Music Director Who Wasn’t,’’ in Cinema in India, vol. 2, no. 3, July/September 1988. *** Raj Kapoor was the best-known screen personality in India. He acted major roles in over fifty films, produced more than a dozen, and during the course of a thirty-five-year career directed six of the most popular films of the Hindi cinema—Awara, Shri 420, Sangam, Mera Nam Joker, Bobby, and Satyam Shivam Sundaram). The popularity of Raj Kapoor’s work derives from a paradoxical achievement: he intensified in his films both the lavishness and the social conscious- ness of the Hindi cinema. His films are characterized by elaborate sets, evocative music, new stars, dramatic confrontations and narrow escapes from heartbreak. At the same time he addressed poverty, injustice, and the plight of individuals insisting on their own way against the massive force of social conventions. Indian audiences responded enthusiastically to Raj Kapoor’s mixture of entertainment and serious issues; his films articulate at some level the longings of an entire people. Raj Kapoor’s first film, Aag, is restrained by smallness of scale; the set is modest and the fiery character of the emotional triangle in the story is rendered chiefly through high-contrast lighting. But his third and fourth films (Awara and Shri 420) disclose a fully operatic style. In Awara, the key court scene is played in a deep, amply lit hall; and in both Awara and Shri 420, the houses of the rich are magnifi- cently spacious, fitted with winding stairs, high ceilings and tall, curtained windows. For music, Raj Kapoor employed the lyricist Shailendra and the composers Shankar-Jaikishen, who specialized in brightening up traditional melodies; a number of their songs for Awara Hun, Mera Joota Hai Japani are among the most popularly known in India. Raj Kapoor also delights in soaring camera move- ments, as over the courtroom in Awara and under the circus tent in Mera Nam Joker. The speed and freedom of the camera contributes to the audience’s sense of dynamic progress. Raj Kapoor’s films deal with important cultural experiences: Shri 420 is concerned with the ruthlessness confronting new migrants to the city; Awara with the malign influence of slum environments; Sangam, Bobby and Satyam Shivam Sundaram with tensions between spontaneous affection and social protocols for intimacy; and Mera Nam Joker presents the loneliness of a circus clown as an archetype for people who have been uprooted. Both plot and music invite viewers to identify with the experiences of unfortunate protagonists. Meanwhile the mise-en-scene directs the attention of viewers to the furnishings of rich houses (Shri 420 and Awara), to the mountain spectacle of various Himalayan resorts (Bobby), to a spacious temple courtyard and a daringly costumed dancer (Satyam Shivam Sundaram), and to entire acts of the Soviet State Circus (Mera Nam Joker). Since the time of Raj Kapoor’s first films, filmmaking in India has moved toward greater generic variety and coherence. From the perspective of the new political films, Raj Kapoor’s productions seem complacent; from the perspective of the new realist films, his work seems gaudy. Nonetheless, his work is certain to be remembered for its spectacular vitality. —Satti Khanna KASDAN, Lawrence Nationality: American. Born: Miami Beach, Florida, 14 January 1949. Education: University of Michigan, B.A., 1970, M.A. (educa- tion), 1972. Family: Married Meg Goldman, 1971, two sons, includ- ing film writer-director Jake Kasdan. Career: Advertising copy- writer, Detroit, 1972–75, and Los Angeles, 1975–77; screenwriter, from 1977; directed first film, Body Heat, 1981. Awards: Directors Guild of America Award, for The Big Chill, 1983; Golden Lion Lawrence Kasdan KASDAN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 502 Award, Berlin Film Festival, for Grand Canyon, 1992; San Sebastián International Film Festival CEC Award for Best Screenplay, for Mumford, 1999. Address: c/o Kasdan Productions, 4117 Radford Avenue, Studio City, CA 91604. Films as Director: 1981 Body Heat (+ sc) 1983 The Big Chill (+ exec pr, sc) 1985 Silverado (+ pr, cosc) 1988 The Accidental Tourist(+ ro) 1989 I Love You to Death 1991 Grand Canyon (+ pr, co-sc) 1994 Wyatt Earp (+ pr, sc) 1995 French Kiss 1999 Mumford (+ pr, sc) Other Films: 1980 The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner) (co-sc) 1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg) (co-sc); Continental Divide (Apted) 1983 Return of the Jedi (Marquand) (co-sc) 1985 Into the Night (Landis) (ro) 1987 Cross My Heart (Bernstein) (pr) 1989 Immediate Family (Kaplan) (exec pr) 1991 Jumpin’ at the Boneyard (Stanzler) (exec pr) 1992 The Bodyguard (Jackson) (pr, sc) 1997 As Good as It Gets (Brooks) (ro) 1998 Home Fries (Parisot) (pr) Publications By KASDAN: books— The Empire Strikes Back Notebook, edited by Diane Attias and Lindsay Smith, New York, 1980. The Art of Return of the Jedi, with George Lucas, New York, 1983. The Big Chill, with Barbara Benedek, New York, 1987. Wyatt Earp: The Film and the Filmmakers, New York, 1994. By KASDAN: articles— Interview in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1981. Interview with Minty Clinch, in Films (London), March 1982. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Lawrence Kasdan,’’ in American Film (Wash- ington, D.C.), April 1982. Interview with P. H. Broeske, in Films in Review (New York), April 1984. Interview with A. Garel and others, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), December 1985. Interview in American Film (Washington, D.C.), January/Febru- ary 1989. Interview with Geoff Andrew, in Time Out (London), 29 April 1992. ‘‘Lawrence Kasdan,’’ interview with Robert J. Emory, in The Direc- tors, Take One: In Their Own Words, New York, 1999. On KASDAN: articles— ‘‘Lawrence Kasdan,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1984. Fikejzov, M., ‘‘Lawrence Kasdan,’’ in Film Doba, February 1990. Alion, Y., ‘‘Lawrence Kasdan,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris) June 1990. Kaplan, James, ‘‘Talking ‘bout Their Generation,’’ in Entertainment Weekly, February 14, 1992. Griffin, Nancy, ‘‘Return of the Ride-Back Gang,’’ in Premiere (New York), July 1994. Norman, Barry, ‘‘The Man with the Anti-Midas Touch,’’ in Radio Times (London), 8 November 1997. Szebin, F.C., and J.R. Fox, ‘‘Lawrence Kasdan,’’ in Cinefantastique (Forest Park), no. 8, 1997. *** On the basis of relatively few films, Lawrence Kasdan has had a prestigious career as screenwriter and director, though one that is difficult to characterize easily. His early work is notable for toying humorously with established genres like the action-adventure serial, film noir, and the Western without ever going all the way into parody. That is, he was able to convey a certain 1980s ‘‘hip’’ or postmodern sensibility without insulting some viewers’ nostalgia for the past or ignoring popular desire for well-crafted storytelling. His less conven- tional dramas, like The Big Chill and Grand Canyon, experimented with large casts and explored weighty issues, while his most recent work suggests that gentle romantic comedy may be his strongest suit. Kasdan’s ironic toying with older movie genres worked splen- didly in dialogue for Raiders of the Lost Ark, written under the Lucas- Spielberg aegis, and his own hyper-sultry Body Heat. The latter contained gentle, knowing allusions to a film noir past while sustain- ing its own snappy dialogue and suspenseful narrative, and seemed to relish its outrageously steamy setting, an erotic/violent Florida where only the most primitive air conditioners seem to have been invented. Less successful was Silverado, a kind of postmodern Western which shared with the later, lumbering Wyatt Earp a lack of both a coherent tone and effective pacing. Though Silverado’s complicated structure makes sense in outline, some of the subplots do not seem to exist in the same narrative world: for example, the struggling black family is portrayed with heavy-handed seriousness, while the Kevin Kline/ Linda Hunt relationship is preposterously romantic. Curiously, Kasdan’s more recent genre films seem to have lost that bemused conscious- ness, those knowing winks. Wyatt Earp is utterly conventional even while seemingly schizoid in its inability to decide whether it is an old- fashioned, sweepingly grand Western, a cynical expose of the ‘‘real’’ Earp, or a dry chronicle of an historically significant life. And French Kiss is equally conventional as a romantic farce, though far more fresh and spirited than Earp. Kasdan’s less classifiable dramas have some of the same quirky humor as the earlier genre pieces. The Big Chill was variously loved or hated for its sympathetic yet satirical portrayal of the ego crises of a spectrum of 1960s activists finding themselves in the doldrums of the early 1980s. By the standards of classical Hollywood storytelling, The Big Chill is pleasingly loose in structure, with its assembly of former friends in close encounters during a long weekend; but it seemed to some viewers contrived and slick in comparison to the more low-key, low-budget film by John Sayles on the same subject, The Return of the Secaucus Seven. The KAUFMANDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 503 Accidental Tourist, Kasdan’s only effort to date in adapting a literary text, also drew mixed reactions, but this time the debate was over its success in bringing to the screen a highly regarded novel, and over William Hurt’s extremely subdued performance. With Grand Can- yon, another experiment in creating an ensemble film with several interwoven plot strands, Kasdan is again in fine form, even if he leans too heavily toward a feel-good finale. There is a wit in the very talkiness of the film, as characters continually launch into existentialistic discussions of the random violence and miracles of life, with the film producer Davis (Steve Martin) downright Shavian in his defense of ultraviolent movies (like Major Barbara’s father defending his muni- tions plants). Kasdan may eventually be remembered as a starmaker. Body Heat introduced Kathleen Turner and the sultry persona she has continued to use; it offered Mickey Rourke a memorable supporting role; and it made William Hurt a new kind of leading man, with a distinctively 1980s manner, even when playing a 1940s-style victim of a femme fatale or, as in The Big Chill, an erstwhile hippie. The Big Chill boosted the careers of Glenn Close, Kevin Kline, and Meg Tilly, as Silverado did that of Kevin Costner and The Accidental Tourist that of Geena Davis. At the same time as promoting individual talents, Kasdan seems particularly skilled in directing ensemble acting, not only throughout The Big Chill and Grand Canyon, but in the glimpses of eccentric family life in The Accidental Tourist and the joint murder efforts in I Love You to Death—the latter, by the way, a farcical black comedy which many viewers found insufficiently black or comical, lacking the sly, cool wit of both earlier and later Kasdan films. Kasdan’s visual style from film to film may be more difficult to characterize than his handling of genre and actors, though one may note consistently fluid camera movements and a determination to give each film a distinctive look and mood, while keeping a number of the same technical personnel. One remembers the blues, whites, and shadows of a sweltering Florida in Body Heat; the autumnal glow of The Big Chill; the conventional but still handsome Techniscope vistas of Silverado; the glowing landscapes of provincial France in French Kiss and Sonoma County in Mumford; and the pale colors and vacant widescreen spaces of The Accidental Tourist. Grand Canyon has so many scenes inside automobiles, with widescreen two-shots, that it makes the private vehicle seem the modern setting par excellence for meaningful dialogue. Sometimes unfairly slighted as a mere spokesperson for aging baby-boomers when he is not a mere genre artist, Kasdan may not have established the consistently strong individual voice one seems to hear in his early films, but he remains a formidable craftsman. Mumford has a premise and outcome which many will consider stale—a young man unsure of his own identity poses as a psycholo- gist, falls in love with one patient, is eventually exposed but only lightly punished, since he has brought so much mental health and happiness to so many lives—but the film is so deftly achieved that it becomes a pleasure to watch. The editing is crisp, the smalltown California settings are lovely without looking like postcards or The Truman Show, the dialogue is clever without sounding like a sitcom or Broadway, and the some of the actors playing patients (Jason Lee, Mary McDonnell, Hope Davis) make eccentricity genuinely amusing without condescension on the writer-director’s part. If Kasdan is indeed settling into romantic comedy as his genre of choice, one might hope for more that are as graceful as his most recent films. —Joseph Milicia KAUFMAN, Philip Nationality: American. Born: Chicago, Illinois, 1936. Education: University of Chicago, graduated 1958; attended Harvard Law School, 1958. Family: Married Rose Fisher, 1958, one son, Peter. Career: Moved to San Francisco, then to Europe for two years while attempt- ing to write a novel; worked on a Kibbutz in Israel; entered Universal Studios Young Directors’ Program, 1969. Awards: Prix de la Nouvelle Critique for first feature, Goldstein, Cannes Film Festival, 1964. Agent: Creative Artists Agency, 9830 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90212, U.S.A. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1964 Goldstein 1967 Fearless Frank 1972 The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid 1974 The White Dawn 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers 1979 The Wanderers 1983 The Right Stuff 1988 The Unbearable Lightness of Being 1990 Henry & June 1993 Rising Sun 2000 Quills Philip Kaufman KAUFMAN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 504 Other Films: 1976 The Outlaw Josey Wales (Eastwood) (co-sc) 1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg) (co-story) Publications By KAUFMAN: articles— Interview with B. Krohn, in Cahiers du Cinéma, no. 358, 1984. Interview with A. Baecque, in Cahiers du Cinéma, no. 405, 1988. Interview with F. Guerif, in Revue du Cinéma, no. 437, 1988. Interview with M. Ciment, in Positif, no. 357, 1990. Interview with Gavin Smith, in Film Comment, July 1993. On KAUFMAN: articles— Dempsey, Michael, ‘‘Invaders and Encampments: The Films of Philip Kaufman,’’ in Film Quarterly, Winter 1978/79. Goodwin, Michael, ‘‘Riding High with The Right Stuff,’’ in American Film, November 1983. Sojka, Gregory S., ‘‘The Astronaut: An American Hero with The Right Stuff,’’ in Journal of American Culture, Spring 1984. Lavery, David, ‘‘Departure of the Body Snatchers,’’ in The Hudson Review, vol. 39, no. 3, 1986. Klinger, Judson, ‘‘The Casting of Henry & June,’’ in American Film, September 1990. Lindroth, Colette, ‘‘Mirrors of the Mind: Kaufman Conquers Kundera,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 4, 1991. Fellows, Catherine, ‘‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being on Film,’’ in Cinema and Fiction: New Modes of Adapting, edited by Colin Nicholson, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1992. Mitchell, Sean, ‘‘Strangers in a Strange Land,’’ in Premiere, August 1993. Ehrenstein, David, ‘‘War Business,’’ in Sight and Sound, Octo- ber 1993. Hendershot, Cyndy, ‘‘Vampire and Replicant: The One-Sex Body in a Two-Sex World,’’ in Science-Fiction Studies, November 1995. See, Fred G., ‘‘‘Something Reflective’: Technology and Visual Pleasure,’’ in Journal of Popular Film and Television, Win- ter 1995. Cattrysse, Patrick, ‘‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being: Film Adap- tation Seen from a Different Perspective,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), July 1997. *** Philip Kaufman has not set any records for productivity, but the few films he has made have been intelligently and independently done. His choice of topics has been eclectic. He has adapted novels as far removed as Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being and Michael Crichton’s Rising Sun. He adapted Tom Wolfe’s journal- istic epic about the space program, The Right Stuff, brilliantly; he also adapted the personal writings of Anais Nin in Henry & June. His work has ranged from realism to fantasy: The White Dawn, for example, is an historical film about three whalers from New England marooned in the Arctic, shot in a documentary style, while Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a remake of the Don Siegel science-fiction classic, satirically updated. The satire that surfaces in some of Kaufman’s work might be considered part of his artistic ‘‘signature,’’ even though the satire of The Right Stuff can be traced back to Tom Wolfe’s source. The director has asserted himself when artistic differences surfaced: Kaufman quarreled with Clint Eastwood and lost on The Outlaw Josey Wales, which Kaufman originally was to have directed; he quarreled with Michael Crichton and won on Rising Sun, changing the sidekick, the villain, the balance, the tone, and the conclusion of the novel to suit his own purposes and taking the edge off Crichton’s warning about the Japanese. Kaufman has been a risk-taker. The erotic content of Henry & June tested the limits of the MPAA Code and was the first film released with an NC-17 rating (No Children under 17 Admitted), created to remove the stigma of the old ‘‘X’’ rating. In terms of the candid treatment of adult relationships, this constituted an artistic breakthrough, achieved by an unconventional filmmaker who was willing to take a chance and put his career on the line. But Kaufman probably has not worried too much about his career. Born to a cultured German-Jewish family, Kaufman grew up on Chicago’s North Side, studied history at the University of Chicago, and, after a year at the Harvard Law School, enrolled in the master’s program in history at his alma mater. Eventually a wanderlust took Kaufman and his wife Rose to the Bay Area of San Francisco, where he held various odd jobs while attempting to write a novel; he then moved to Europe, taught in Greece and Italy, and worked on an Israeli Kibbutz. By 1962 Kaufman was back in Chicago, where he developed a screenplay from his unfinished novel, working with his friend Benjamin Manaster as co-writer, director, and producer. Kaufman’s debut feature, Goldstein, made for $50,000 with friends from Chicago’s Second City, was, according to one source, loosely based on one of Martin Buber’s Tales of the Hassidim and starred Lou Gilbert as Goldstein, a parody prophet. Kaufman took his film to the Cannes Film Festival in 1964, where it shared the Prix de la Nouvelle Critique with Bernardo Bertolucci’s Before the Revolution, an incredible stroke of good fortune. Encouraged by this success, Kaufman then wrote and directed a second Chicago film, Fearless Frank, in 1965, with Jon Voight making his film debut as a farm boy who goes to the city and falls in love with a gangster’s moll. This film also utilized the satiric talents of the Second City players but won no prizes at Cannes in 1967. In fact, Fearless Frank failed to find an American distributor until American International picked it up in 1969, after Jon Voight’s success in John Schlesinger’s Midnight Cowboy. Though Fearless Frank was not a critical success, Jennings Lang of Universal Studios invited Kaufman into Universal’s Young Directors’ Program. At Universal Kaufman then wrote and directed The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid, starring Robert Duvall as Jesse James and Cliff Robertson as Cole Younger. This film opened to mixed reviews in 1972. Kaufman adapted his next film, The White Dawn, released by Paramount in 1974, from a novel by James Houston, telling the story of three whalers who survived a shipwreck in Baffin Bay in 1896 and were rescued by Eskimos. The film, starring Warren Oates, Timothy Bottoms, and Lou Gossett, was shot in northern Canada under difficult conditions, but it was not given full support by Paramount and was not widely seen. The following year Kaufman was assigned to direct The Outlaw Josey Wales after having worked on the script for Clint Eastwood, but Eastwood soon took over the direction himself. Kaufman got credit with Sonia Chernis for the screenplay, adapted from the Forrest Carter novel Gone to Texas. In 1981 Kaufman also KAURISMAKIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 505 worked as a writer when he helped George Lucas develop the original story for Raiders of the Lost Ark, but most of his work has involved directing. In 1978, at a time when his Hollywood career needed a boost, Kaufman had a major windfall when he was assigned to direct the remake of Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers for United Artists, working from W. D. Richter’s updated screenplay adaptation of Jack Finney’s novel. Kaufman moved the action to San Francisco and redefined the alien threat in a way that was disturbing, humorous, and believable. This was followed by The Wanderers, his adaptation of Richard Price’s comic novel about Italian high-school gangs in the Bronx, set in 1963. Kaufman’s greatest success was his blockbuster hit The Right Stuff, which earned eight Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture. Kaufman also earned Writers Guild and Directors Guild nominations for his satiric adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s account of the astronaut program. Kaufman has a talent for adaptation. Terrence Rafferty praised Kaufman’s adaptation of The Unbearable Lightness of Being for its fidelity ‘‘to the novel as it exists in the mind of the reader,’’ rather than to the novel as an autonomous entity (Kaufman changed and simplified the structure), claiming that ‘‘the movie’s most interesting character is Philip Kaufman.’’ And that claim might be made for other Kaufman films as well. The adaptations are centered in the personality of the filmmaker. For example, Kaufman turned Rising Sun into his own reinvented story. His strength is in the whimsical, the satirical (The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Right Stuff, and Rising Sun), and in the erotic and the lyrical (The Unbearable Lightness of Being and Henry & June). Though the films themselves seem impossibly varied, his best work has a personal imprint. The style of his later films seems vaguely European, but his values, stressing individualism and integrity, are clearly American. Kaufman has not produced a large body of work, but his best work certainly merits critical attention. —James M. Welsh KAURISMAKI, Aki Nationality: Finnish. Born: Orimattila, Finland, 4 April 1957. Ca- reer: Began working as co-scenarist and assistant director with his older brother, Mika Kaurismaki, 1980; co-directed Saimaa Ilmio with Mika, 1981; directed first feature on his own, Crime and Punishment, 1983; directed the music videos Rocky VI, Thru the Wire, and L.A. Woman, 1986; with Mika, runs own production company, Villealfa Film Productions, in Helsinki, operates art movie houses in Helsinki, and organized the Midnight Sun Film Festival. Awards: Best First Film and Script Jussi Award, and diplomas from FILMEX, Nordische Filmtage, and Karlovy Vary Festival, for Crime and Punishment, 1983; Hong Kong Film Festival Special Award, for Calimari Union, 1985; Best Finnish Film Jussi Award, for Shadows in Paradise, 1986; Berlin Film Festival OCIC Award-Honorable Mention and Interfilm Award, Best Director Jussi Award, for The Match Factory Girl, 1989; Berlin Film Festival FIPRESCI Award, for La Vie de Boheme, 1992; Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists European Silver Rib- bon, 1993; Sao Paolo International Film Festival Audience Award- Best Feature, for Drifting Clouds, 1996; Berlin Film Festival C.I.C.A.E. Award-Honorable Mention, for Juha, 1999. Address: Villealfa Filmproductions Oy, Vainamoisenkatu 19 A, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland. Films as Director: 1981 Saimma Ilmio (The Saimma Gesture) (co-d) 1983 Rikos ja Pangaistus (Crime and Punishment) (+ co-sc) 1985 Calimari Union (+ sc, ed, ro) 1986 Varjoja Paratiisissa (Shadows in Paradise) (+ sc) 1987 Hamlet Liikemaailmassa (Hamlet Goes Business) (+ sc, pr) 1988 Ariel (+ sc, pr) 1989 Leningrad Cowboys Go America (+ sc); Tulitikkutehtaan Tytto (The Match Factory Girl) (+ sc, pr, ed) 1990 I Hired a Contract Killer (+ sc, pr, ed, uncredited ro) 1991 Those Were the Days (short) (+ sc, pr, ed) 1992 La Vie de Boheme (The Bohemian Life) (+ sc, pr) 1993 These Boots (short) (+ sc, pr, ed) 1994 Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses (+ sc, pr, ed) 1994 Total Balalaika Show (doc) (+ pr, ed) 1994 Pida huivsta kiinnim Tatjana (Take Care of Your Scarf, Tatiana) (+ pr, co-sc) 1996 Kauas Pilvet Karkaavat (Drifting Clouds) (+ sc, pr, ed) 1999 Juha (+ sc, pr) Other Films: (as co-scenarist and assistant director to brother Mika Kaurismaki) 1980 Valehtelija (The Liar) (+ ro) 1982 Arvottomat (The Worthless) (+ ro) 1984 Klanni—tarina sammokoitten (The Clan—Tale of the Frogs) 1985 Rosso (in other capacities) 1983 Huhtikuu on kuukausista julmin (Manttari) (ro) 1985 Viimeiset rotannahat (Manttari) (asst d, ro) 1986 Morena (Manttari) (sound) 1993 Tuhlaajapoika (The Prodigal Son) (Aaltonen) (pr); Ripa ruostuu (Ripa Hits the Skids) (Lindblad) (pr) 1994 Iron Horsemen (Bad Trip) (Charmant) (pr, asst d, ro) 1997 Vaiennut kyla (Quiet Village) (Vaananen) (pr) 1998 Drifting Bottles (Strohl) (ro) 1999 Kovat miehet (Lalli) (pr) Publications By KAURISMAKI: articles— Interview in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1988. Interview with I. Ruchti in Positif (Paris), June 1990. Interview with B. Fornara and L. Gandini in Cineforum (Bergamo), October 1990. ‘‘Wenn das Kino stirbt, werde ich mit ihm sterben,’’ interview with F. Schnelle, in Filmbulletin (Winterthur, Switzerland), no. 2, 1991. KAURISMAKI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 506 Aki Kaurismaki ‘‘Tyomiehen muotokuva,’’ interview with P. von Bagh, in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 5, 1991. Interview in Filmvilag (Budapest), no. 8, 1991. On KAURISMAKI: articles— Reynaud, B., article in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1988. Fisher, W., ‘‘Aki Kaurismaki Goes Business,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 58, no. 4, 1989. Stein, Elliott, ‘‘Film: Foreign Affairs,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 31 January 1989. Fornara, B., article in Cineforum (Bergamo), March 1989. Tanner, Louise, ‘‘Who’s in Town,’’ in Films in Review (New York), April 1989. Hoberman, J., ‘‘Finland Goes Movies,’’ in Premiere (New York), June 1989. Fisher William, career overview in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1989. Strauss, F., article in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1990. Dieckmann, K., ‘‘Aki Kaurismaki,’’ in Premiere (New York), July 1990. Taubin, Amy, ‘‘The Finnish Line,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 28 August 1990. Causo, Massimo, article in Cineforum (Bergamo), September 1990. Cohn, L., ‘‘For Aki Kaurismaki, It’s Been a Very Good Year,’’ in Variety (New York), 29 October 1990. Sterritt, David, article in Christian Science Monitor (New York), 6 November 1990. Stam, H., ‘‘Geen gram te veel,’’ in Skoop (Amsterdam), December 1990-January 1991. Coulombe, M., ‘‘Kaurismaki, Kaurismaki, Kaurismaki,’’ in Cine- Bulles (Montreal), no. 3, 1991. Bagh, P. von, ‘‘Oloissamme kumma heppu,’’ in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 5, 1991. Helen, I., ‘‘Ajan lapi?,’’ in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 5, 1991. Baron, G., ‘‘Hamet kepregenyt,’’ in Filmvilag (Budapest), no. 8, 1991. Blondeel, J., ‘‘Aki Kaurismaki,’’ in Andere Sinema (Antwerp), January/February 1991. Pulliene, Tim, ‘‘More Time in the Bar—Aki Kaurismaki,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), February 1991. Sauvaget, D., ‘‘J’ai engage un tueur,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Cretail Cedex, France), January 1991. KAURISMAKIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 507 Sauvaget, D., ‘‘Aki et Mika: deux cineastes venus du froid,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Cretail Cedex, France), February 1991. Saada, N., ‘‘Aki Kaurismaki,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1991. De Santi, G., ‘‘L’umorismo de l’anarchico,’’ in Cineforum (Bergamo), June 1991. Jordahl, A. and Lahger, H., ‘‘Aki Kaurismaki,’’ in Chaplin (Stock- holm), no. 1, 1992. Plazewski, J., ‘‘Kaurismaki,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), October 1992. Taubin, Amy, ‘‘Finnish Lines,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 10 November 1992. Sterritt, David, article in Christian Science Monitor (New York), 13 November 1992. Irani, R., ‘‘Between Heaven and Hell,’’ in Cinema in India (Bom- bay), no. 2, 1993. *** The cinema of Aki Kaurismaki is a cinema of the absurd. He and his brother, director Mika Kaurismaki, have become two of the world’s most prolific and uniquely impudent moviemakers. At first, they were far outside the Finnish establishment, in that their parodies and farces lampooned the conventions of their society. Nevertheless, as they became known and respected on the international film scene, they quickly came to be regarded as the leading talents of their country’s minuscule motion picture industry. Certainly, the Kaurismaki brothers’ success helped educate cineastes to the fact that Scandina- vian films do not only come from Sweden and Norway. Aki and Mika Kaurismaki began collaborating in the early 1980s, but Aki was the one who initially established himself internationally. In 1990 alone, seven of his films were screened in various venues in New York City. His films are linked in that they are straightforward, seriocomic studies infused with a unique sense of the ridiculous. His characters are far removed from the mainstream, in some cases to the point of being isolated and completely alone; occasionally, they are on the road, roaming across landscapes in which they will be eternal outsiders. But their feelings of alienation or despondency rarely become the principal force at work on screen. Rather, Kaurismaki elicits poignancy as he charts his characters’ lives, with a special emphasis on the humor that symbolizes the utter absurdity of their situations. A number of Kaurismaki’s heroes are dejected blue-collar loners driven to desperate acts and outrageous behavior by a repressive society. Such is the case in Ariel, a comical, existential road movie about a mineworker (Turo Pajala) who loses his job and sets out on an odyssey across Finland. Ariel offers a textbook example of the manner in which Kaurismaki drolly observes the life of a character whose very existence is outwardly depressing. In a similar vein is The Match Factory Girl, a sharply drawn black comedy about a dreary, oppressed young woman (Kati Outinen). Her job is tiresome, her life is monotonous, and then she becomes involved with a man who is destined to drop her. He expects her to meekly squirm back into her shell, but her response—and her revenge—is way out of character. Retaliation also is a prominent theme in the first film Kaurismaki directed by himself, Crime and Punishment, a reworking of the Dostoyevsky novel. Crime and Punishment is set in 1980s Helsinki, and the hero, Rahikaainen (Markku Toikka), murders a powerful businessman who was responsible for the hit-and-run death of his fiancee. By far, Crime and Punishment is Kaurismaki’s most somber film. On the other end of the emotional scale is I Hired a Contract Killer, in which his comically alienated hero is outlandishly por- trayed. Kaurismaki tells the story of a nebbish (Jean-Pierre Leaud) with nothing to live for who haplessly fails to kill himself. He hires a pro to do the job but changes his mind after unexpectedly falling in love, and then must hurriedly attempt to cancel the contract. Another Kaurismaki concern is the creative lifestyle. He examines this issue in La Vie de Boheme, an affectionate comedy about what it means to single-mindedly devote one’s life to art, regardless of the consequences and sacrifices. The film is a slice-of-life about three men, a writer (Andre Wilms), a painter (Matti Pellonpaa), and a composer-musician (Kari Vaanenen). Each is aging, has little or no money, and has not earned commercial or critical recognition. Indeed, there are no undiscovered Hemingways, Picassos, or Mozarts in the group; it would not be unfair to judge each a mediocre talent. But all three remain steadfastly committed to their work and ideals. The women in their lives remain secondary figures; each values his library, piano, and paint above everything else. One of Kaurismaki’s zaniest films is Leningrad Cowboys Go America, which also features characters with warped senses of their talents. Only here, they revel in their awfulness as they proudly hold the mantle as ‘‘the worst rock ‘n’ roll band in the world.’’ Leningrad Cowboys is a loopy farce that lampoons the manner in which the tackiest aspects of American pop culture have impacted on even the farthest reaches of Finland. His ‘‘cowboys’’ are a deadpan, perfectly dreadful band of rock musicians from the Finnish tundra, who embark on a ‘‘world tour’’ which will take them not to Madison Square Garden but across a vast small-town American wasteland. Kaurismaki had only begun to mine the Leningrad Cowboys’ comic possibilities. He followed Leningrad Cowboys Go America with two short films featuring the Cowboys performing hit pop songs: Those Were the Days, a six-minute mini-saga of a lonesome cowpoke rambling through the streets of the Big City in the company of his donkey; and These Boots, a five-minute history of Finland between 1950 and 1969 as seen from the viewpoint of the Cowboys. Next came the feature-length Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses, in which the Cowboys actually have a top-ten hit to their credit. They start out in Mexico, make their way to Coney Island, and end up back in Europe; their manager (Matti Pellonpaa) professes that he is Moses, and pledges to guide the boys home to the Promised Land of Siberia. Finally, in the documentary Total Balalaika Show, Kaurismaki pre- sents the Leningrad Cowboys in concert before fifty thousand fans in Helsinki’s Senate Square with none other than Russia’s Alexandrov Red Army Chorus and Dance Ensemble—a union described by a Variety critic as ‘‘the most incongruous—and inspired—crosscultural pairing since Nureyev danced with Miss Piggy.’’ In the second half of the 1990s Kaurismaki has been less prolific as a director, yet his films remain sweet and enchanting—and are consistent in tone with his earlier work. Juha, based on an early 20th- century Finnish novel, is the story of a klutzy farmer (Sakari Kuosmanen) and his plain-Jane wife (Kati Outinen), whose union is thrown off-kilter upon the arrival of an aging, womanizing stranger (Andre Wilms). Kaurismaki chose to shoot Juha in black-and-white, and sans dialogue, which adds to the film’s unique charm. Drifting Clouds is the deadpan tale of a hapless, down-on-their-luck husband and wife (Kari Vaananen, Kati Outinen) who somehow manage to stumble into a happy ending that is as unlikely as it is pleasing. Kaurismaki’s worldview may be summed up in a bit of dialogue from the film: ‘‘Life is short and miserable. Be as merry as you can.’’ —Rob Edelman K?UTNER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 508 K?UTNER, Helmut Nationality: German. Born: Düsseldorf, 1908. Education: Munich University and Munich Art School, studying poster design, graphics, and interior design. Family: Married actress/director Erica Balqué, 1934. Career: Writer and director for Munich Student Cabaret, ‘‘Die vier Nachrichter,’’ 1931–35; stage actor and director in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, from 1936; founder, with Wolfgang Staudte and Harald Braun, of production company Camera-Filmproduktion (later Freie Filmproduktion); later director, actor, and designer for television. Died: 1980. Films as Director: 1939 Kitty und die Weltkonferenz (+ sc, lyrics) 1940 Frau nach Mass (+ sc); Kleider machen Leute (+ sc) 1941 Auf Wiedersehen, Franziska! (+ co-sc) 1942 Anuschka (+ adapt); Wir machen Musik (+ sc, lyrics) 1943 Romanze in Moll (+ co-sc, role) 1944 Grosse Freiheit Nr. 7 (+ co-sc, lyrics, role) 1945 Unter den Brücken (+ co-sc) 1947 In jenen Tagen (+ co-sc, role) 1948 Der Apfel ist ab (+ co-sc, role) 1949 K?nigskinder (+ co-sc, role) 1950 Epilog (Das Geheimnis der Orplid) (+ co-sc, role) 1951 Weisse Schatten (+ co-sc) 1953 K?pt’n Bay-Bay (+ co-sc) 1954 Die letzte Brücke (+ co-sc, role); Bildnis einer Unbekannten (+ co-sc); Ludwig II—Glanz und Elend eines K?nigs 1955 Des Teufels General (+ co-sc, role); Himmel ohne Sterne (+ sc) 1956 Ein M?dchen aus Flandern (+ co-sc, role); Der Hauptmann von K?penick (+ co-sc, role) 1957 Die Zürcher Verlobung (+ co-sc, lyrics, role); Montpi (+ sc, role) 1958 The Restless Years (The Wonderful Years); A Stranger in My Arms; Der Schinderhannes (+ role) 1959 Der Rest ist Schweigen (+ co-sc, co-pr, role); Die Gans von Sedan (Sans tambour ni trompette) (+ co-sc, role) 1960 Das Glas Wasser (+ sc, lyrics) 1961 Scwarzer Kies (+ co-sc); Der Traum von Lieschen Müller (Happy-End im siebten Himmel) (+ co-sc, lyrics) 1962 Die Rote (La Rossa) (+ sc) 1963 Das Haus in Montevideo (+ sc) 1964 Lausbubengeschichten 1970 Die Feuerzangenbowle Other Films: 1932 Kreuzer Emden (Ralph) (role) 1939 Schneider Wibbel (de Kowa) (co-sc); Salonwagen E 417 (Verhoeven) (co-sc); Die Stimme aus dem ?ther (Paulsen) (co-sc); Marguerite: 3—Eine Frau für Drei (Lingen) (co-sc) 1947 Film ohne Titel (Jugert) (co-sc) 1951 Nachts auf den Strassen (Jugert) (co-sc) 1955 Griff nach den Sternen (Schroth) (co-sc) 1957 Franziska (Auf Wiedersehen, Franziska) (Liebeneiner) (co-sc) 1961 Zu jung für die Liebe? (Erica Balqué) (co-sc, role) 1972 Versuchung in Sommerwind (Thiele) (role) 1974 Karl May (Syberberg) (title role) Publications By K?UTNER: books— Von der Filmides zum Drehbuch, with Béla Balázs and others, 1949. Abblenden, Munich, 1981. On K?UTNER: books— Koschnitzki, Rudiger, Filmographie Helmut K?utner, Wiesbaden, 1978. Gillett, John, Eighteen Films by Helmut K?utner, Goethe Institute, London, 1980. On K?UTNER: articles— Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July 1957. Obituary in Filme (Paris), no. 4, 1980. Obituary in Screen International (London), 19 April 1980. Obituary in Cinéma (Paris), June 1980. Gillett, John, ‘‘Helmut K?utner,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1984. Fuchs, M., ‘‘Die Wiederentdeckun eines fast Vergessenen?’’ in Film- Dienst (Cologne), vol. 45, no. 19, 15 September 1992. Nrrested, Carl, ‘‘Glemte kontinuitetsfaktorer: tysk film,’’ in Kosmorama (Copenhagen), vol. 40, no. 207, Spring 1994. On K?UTNER: films— Harmsen, Henning, Erlebte Filmgeschichte Helmut K?utner, for German TV, 1975. von Troschke, Harald, Im Gespr?ch portr?tiert: Helmut K?utner, for German TV, 1978. *** Along with Forst and Sirk, Helmut K?utner was one of the great stylists of the cinema of the Third Reich. Admittedly the competition was extremely thin, but this in no way belittles the achievement of the director, whose best work stands comparison with Ophüls and is rooted in the same rich vein of Austro-German romanticism. In particular one notices the same concern with the passing of an era, an elegance bordering on dandyism, and what Louis Marcorelles has called ‘‘a subtle perfume of death and decadence.’’ As John Gillett puts it in the catalogue produced to accompany a pioneering season of K?utner’s films at London’s Goethe Institute, the work of K?utner, Ophüls, and Forst ‘‘consolidated a film-making genre notable for its attention to period detail, its elaborate costuming and art direction, and for directorial styles which used the mobile camera to achieve a uniquely filmic musical structure and rhythm.’’ K?utner entered cinema as a scriptwriter in 1938 (although he had appeared in a small role in Louis Ralph’s Kreuzer Emden in 1932) having studied architecture, philosophy, theatre, and art history, worked in cabaret in Munich as both writer and performer from 1931 to 1935, and gone into ‘‘straight’’ theatre in 1936. Some of his more caustic cabaret sketches had annoyed the Nazis, and as he noted, ‘‘I was not really interested in the cinema. Politically I was left-wing and KAWALEROWICZDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 509 that meant that I was disinterested in the cinema which, since Hugenberg, had been moving in a right-wing, nationalistic direction. I really wanted to go on working in the theatre, and I had very clear- cut ideas about the theatre—others would have called it cabaret.’’ His first film, Kitty und die Weltkonferenz, a light, frothy comedy, evoked comparisons with Lubitsch, but its favourable portrait of a British minister and slightly satirical view of relations between Italy and Germany incurred Goebbels’s displeasure and the film vanished from view. His next film, an adaptation of Keller’s novella Kleider Machen Leute, in which a humble tailor finds himself mistaken for a Russian prince, could certainly be read, beneath its apparent retreat into Biedermeyer mannerism, as an allegory about Germans’ exag- gerated respect for figures of power and authority and their conse- quent readiness to fall under the Nazi spell. However, this does not seem to have occurred to the authorities. The film has a lightness of touch and a feeling for fantasy that anticipates both Minnelli and Cocteau, and is distinguished by some marvellous swirling camerawork in the musical scenes. On the whole K?utner avoided contemporary subjects during his Third Reich period, an exception being Auf Wiedersehen, Franziska!, which deals with the strains in a newsreel reporter’s marriage caused by his numerous absences. The authorities insisted on an upbeat, flag-waving ending quite out of key with the film’s poignant, carefully nuanced atmosphere and, like Sirk in Stutzen der Gesellschaft, K?utner deliberately makes the whole thing stand out a mile. The film is also distinguished by a marvellous performance by Marianne Hoppe. K?utner’s masterpiece is undoubtedly Romanze in Moll, a highly Ophülsian adaptation of Maupassant’s Les Bijoux. Maupassant’s dark vision of life did not endear him to the literary authorities in the Reich, and this film, though not banned, was condemned in some quarters as ‘‘defeatist’’ and ‘‘destructive of marriage and morals.’’ K?utner himself acts in the film, playing the part of a resigned, world-weary poet, a role which, his films suggest, was close to his own in real life. As Francis Courtade and Pierre Cadars put it in their excellent Histoire du Cinéma Nazi, ‘‘Everything centres on the almost palpable re-creation of this fin-de-siécle milieu in which a woman, condemned to death by her surroundings, suffers. Composition, framing, camera movement, editing, sound, remain, from start to finish, crystal clear.... Like Claude Autant-Lara, K?utner is fanatical over details. His direction of actors is magisterial.... The overall result is an exem- plary reconstruction of the style and atmosphere of the original story, and one of the two or three most faithful adaptations of Maupassant.’’ In spite of his difficulties with the authorities, K?utner was entrusted with an expensive and elaborate Agfacolor project in the latter days of the Reich. This was Grosse Freiheit Nr. 7, a melancholy, bittersweet story of disappointed love set amongst the sailors’ clubs and bars of the Hamburg waterfront, with clear overtones of Carné, Clair, and in particular (through the presence of Hans Albers of Blue Angel fame) Von Sternberg. Apart from difficulties caused by bomb- ing, K?utner also had to cope with Goebbels’s request that the film include shots of the harbour with ships flying the Nazi flag. His response was to make copious use of artificial fog in the panoramic long shots. When the film was released Admiral D?nitz complained that its representation of German sailors visiting prostitutes and drinking was damaging to the reputation of Germany in general and Hamburg in particular, and the film was banned. K?utner’s last Third Reich film, and one of his best, was Unter den Brücken, which is set amongst the bargees of the River Havel and, like its predecessor, shows the clear influence of French pre-war ‘‘poetic realism’’: in particular there are distinct overtones of L’Atalante. At one time thought to be a ‘‘lost’’ film, Unter den Brücken finally turned up and revealed itself to be, in the words of the Süddeutsche Zeitung, ‘‘a subtle depiction of a private world, half-tones full of melancholy and a quiet sublimination of the free life . . . a story told with great sensitivity which, softly but insistently, counteracts the grimness of contemporary reality with the longing for private happi- ness and the right to a non-regimented self-realisation.’’ K?utner’s post-war films never reached the heights of his best work in the Third Reich, though some of them are not without interest. The main problem seems to have been a rather ill-advised turn towards social realism and ‘‘problem’’ subjects in films such as In Jenen Tagen, Die Letzte Brücke, Himmel Ohne Sterne, and Schwarzer Kies which simply did not suit his artistic temperament. In Der Apfel ist Ab and Der Traum von Lieschen Müller K?utner attempted to bring something of his old cabaret style into the contemporary cinema, but with mixed results. In 1957 he signed a seven-year contract with Universal in Hollywood which resulted in The Restless Years (The Wonderful Years in the UK) and Stranger in My Arms. In 1959 he directed a modern-day version of Hamlet titled Der Rest ist Schweigen, but in the 1960s his time was increasingly taken up with more conventional literary adaptations (many of them for television), a direction already signalled in the 1950s with his productions of Zuckmayer’s Des Teufels General, Ein M?dchen aus Flandern, and Der Hauptmann von K?penick. He also played the German pulp writer Karl May in Hans-Jurgen Syberberg’s film of the same name, which also included several other notables from the cinema of the Third Reich, a period which it is hard not to regard as representing K?utner’s finest hour. One German critic has suggested that his films of this period are ‘‘illustrative of an inner immigration which could express its opposition only secretly and in cyphers,’’ and it may well be that the need to proceed by allusion, understatement, ambiguity, and suggestion suited K?utner’s remarkable talents peculiarly well. —Julian Petley KAWALEROWICZ, Jerzy Nationality: Polish. Born: Gwózda (Gwozdziec), now part of Soviet Ukraine, 19 January 1922. Education: Film Institute, Cracow. Fam- ily: Married actress Lucyna Winnicka. Career: Assistant director and scriptwriter, 1946–51; co-directed first feature with Kazimierz Sumerski, 1952; head of Studia Kadr, from 1955. Awards: Premio Evrotecnica, Venice Festival, for Night Train, 1959; Silver Palm, Cannes Festival, for Mother Joanna of the Angels, 1961; Silver Bear, Berlin Festival, for The President’s Death, 1977. Films as Director: 1952 Gromada (The Village Mill; Commune) (co-d) 1954 Celuloza (Cellulose) (+ co-sc); Pod gwiazda frygijska (Under the Phrygian Star) in two parts (+ co-sc) 1956 Cién (The Shadow) 1957 Prawdziwy koniec wielkiej wojny (The Real End of the Great War) (+ co-sc) 1959 Pociag (Night Train; Baltic Express) (+ co-sc) 1961 Matka Joanna od Aniolów (Mother Joanna of the Angels) (+ co-sc) KAZAN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 510 1965 Faraon (The Pharaoh) (+ co-sc) 1968 Gra (The Game) (+ sc) 1970 Maddalena 1977 ?mier? Prezydenta (Death of a President) (+ co-sc) 1979 Spotkanie na Atlantyku (Meeting on the Atlantic) (+ co-sc) 1982 Austeria (+ co-sc) 1989 Jeniec Europy 1991 Bronsteins Kinder (+ sc) 1995 Za chto? (Why?) (+ sc) Other Films: 1946 Jutro premiera (Morning Premiere) (asst d) 1947 Zakazane piosenki (Forbidden Songs) (asst d); Ostatni etap (The Last Stage) (asst d) 1948 Stalowe serca (Steel Hearts) (asst d); Czarci ?leb (The Devil’s Pass) (asst d) Publications By KAWALEROWICZ: articles— ‘‘Historia i forma,’’ interview with K. Zórawski, in Kino (Warsaw), September 1977. Interview with M. Dipont, in Kino (Warsaw), October 1980. Interview, in Filmowy serwis prasowy (Warsaw), no. 2, 1983. Interview with G. Delmas, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), May/June 1987. Interview with D. Heinrich, ‘‘La Pologne par le coeur,’’ in Cinéma 72, 10 February 1988. Interview with Peter von Bagh, in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 4, 1993. On KAWALEROWICZ: books— Grzelecki, Stanislaw, Twenty Years of Polish Cinema, Warsaw, 1969. Michalek, Boleslaw, Film—sztuka w ewolucji, Warsaw, 1975. Kuszewski, Stanislaw, Contemporary Polish Film, Warsaw, 1978. Coates, Paul, The Story of the Lost Reflection: The Alienation of the Image in Western and Polish Cinema, New York, 1985. On KAWALEROWICZ: articles— Kornatowska, M., ‘‘Jerzy Kawalerowicz czyli milos? do geometrii,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), February 1978. Modrzejewska, E., in Kino (Warsaw), April 1985. ‘‘Jerzy Kawalerowicz,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1984. Heinrich, D., ‘‘La Pologne par le coeur,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), 10 February 1988. Manceau, Jean-Louis, ‘‘Visitez l’oeuvre de Kawalerowicz,’’ in Cin- ema 72, June 1990. Tabêcki, Jacek, ‘‘Jerzy Kawalerowicz,’’ in Iluzjion, no. 3–4, 1993. Helman, Alicja, ‘‘Mistrz psychologicznej gry,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), March 1997. *** It is no simple matter to give a precise characterization of Jerzy Kawalerowicz. His work is full of twists and turns, strange shifts, and new experiments. The films of Kawalerowicz are uneven; it is as though the filmmaker, after momentary triumphs and outstanding artistic achievements, would lapse into a crisis that prepared him for yet another masterpiece. His films are long in preparation. Between individual works come lengthy pauses in which the director carefully absorbs raw material from a wide range of disciplines in order to personally work it into film form. Only in a very few directors’ works do we find such range, from the realistic film to the profound psychological drama, from the historical epic to the political drama. Kawalerowicz has always gone his own way, and it has not been an easy path, especially when we realize that he has never turned back, never given a particular theme further development. Although he began at the same time as Wajda and Munk, he never created a work that belonged to the ‘‘Polish school of film.’’ After his first independent film, Celuloza (Cellulose), both a realistic portrayal and a literary adaptation, he never came back to this subject or form. In his next creative period he quickly turned out several films that are unusual analytic studies of human relationships, earnest pyschological examinations of lonely people marked by war (The Real End of the Great War), isolated while travelling on an overnight express (Night), or within the walls of a cloister (Mother Joanna of the Angels). Kawalerowicz demonstrates his creative mastery with these films. In fact, they initiated an entire trend of intimate dramas, popular with other directors several years later. The historical epic Faraon (Pharaoh), adapted from the cele- brated novel by Boleslaw Prus, is once again unusual in composition. It is a film on a grand scale, a monumental fresco, but at the same time an unusual psychological film with political and philosophical ele- ments. In this drama of a struggle for power in ancient Egypt, the director finds room for an account of human qualities, motives, and feelings. Emotions are the leitmotif of Kawalerowicz’s work. After the grand epic Faraon, the filmmaker attempted a return to the intimate, psychologically-oriented film. A crisis sets in. His subsequent work fails to attain the level of his earlier pieces. There is a kind of break, a respite that will bear fruit in the later, purely political film and documentary drama Death of a President. The approach taken by Kawalerowicz in this film, which is the chronicle of an actual event— the assassination of President Gabriel Natutowicz in the 1930s— served as the director’s credo. ‘‘When we studied the documents and the testimony and compiled the chronology of events, we ascertained that the drama of history, the drama of real events, is far more persuasive than what we ourselves could invent.’’ Captivated by the facts, Kawalerowicz relates not only a real-life event but also a com- mon human story that is timeless. After this film, critics expected the director to continue in this same genre, in which he had shown such mastery. But once again Kawalerowicz was experimenting with new genres and forms, though outstanding literary works and actual political or historical events, shaped into provocative dramas, remain the foundation of his creative work. —Vacláv Merhaut KAZAN, Elia Nationality: American. Born: Elia Kazanjoglou in Constantinople (now Istanbul), Turkey, 7 September 1909; moved with family to New York, 1913. Education: Mayfair School; New Rochelle High School, New York; Williams College, Massachusetts, B.A. 1930; KAZANDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 511 Elia Kazan Yale Drama School, 1930–32. Family: Married 1) Molly Day Thatcher, 1932 (died 1963), two sons, two daughters; 2) actress Barbara Loden, 1967 (died 1980), one son; 3) Frances Rudge, 1982. Career: Actor, property manager, then director, Group Theatre, New York, from 1933; stage director, including plays by Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller, 1935 through 1960s; co-founder, with Cheryl Crawford, Actors’ Studio, New York, 1948; appeared volun- tarily before HUAC, admitting membership of Communist Party, 1934–36, and naming fellow members, 1952; began career as novel- ist, 1961; left Actors’ Studio to direct newly formed Lincoln Center Repertory Company, 1962–64. Awards: Many awards for theatre work; Academy Award for Best Director, and Best Direction Award, New York Film Critics, for Gentleman’s Agreement, 1947; Interna- tional Prize, Venice Festival, for Panic in the Streets, 1950; Special Jury Prize, Venice Festival, for A Streetcar Named Desire, 1951; Oscar for Best Director, and Most Outstanding Directorial Achieve- ment, Directors Guild of America, for On the Waterfront, 1954; Honorary doctorates from Wesleyan University, Carnegie Institute of Technology, and Williams College; Academy Award for Lifetime Achievement, 1999. Address: c/o 432 W. 44th St., New York, NY 10036, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1937 The People of the Cumberlands (+ sc) (short) 1941 It’s up to You 1945 A Tree Grows in Brooklyn 1947 The Sea of Grass; Boomerang; Gentleman’s Agreement 1949 Pinky 1950 Panic in the Streets 1952 A Streetcar Named Desire; Viva Zapata!; Man on a Tightrope 1954 On the Waterfront 1955 East of Eden (+ pr) 1956 Baby Doll (+ pr, co-sc) 1957 A Face in the Crowd (+ pr) 1960 Wild River (+ pr) 1961 Splendour in the Grass (+ pr) 1964 America, America (+ sc, pr) 1969 The Arrangement (+ pr, sc) 1972 The Visitors 1976 The Last Tycoon 1978 Acts of Love (+ pr) 1982 The Anatolian (+ pr) 1989 Beyond the Aegean Other Films: 1934 Pie in the Sky (Steiner) (short) (role) 1940 City for Conquest (Litvak) (role as Googie, a gangster) 1941 Blues in the Night (Litvak) (role as a clarinetist) 1951 The Screen Director (role as himself) 1984 Sanford Meisner: The American Theatre’s Best Kept Secret (Doob) (role as a himself) 1989 L’ Héritage de la chouette (The Owl’s Legacy) (Marker) (role) 1998 Liv till varje pris (Jarl) (role as himself) Publications By KAZAN: books— America America, New York, 1961. The Arrangement, New York, 1967. The Assassins, New York, 1972. The Understudy, New York, 1974. Acts of Love, New York, 1978. Anatolian, New York, 1982. Elia Kazan: A Life, New York and London, 1988. Beyond the Aegean, New York, 1994. Elia Kazan: A Life, New York, 1997. Kazan The Master Director Discusses His Films: Interviews with Elia Kazan, edited by Jeff Young, New York, 1999. By KAZAN: articles— ‘‘The Writer and Motion Pictures,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1957. Interview with Jean Domarchi and André Labarthe, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1962. Article in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1963/January 1964. Interview with S. Byron and M. Rubin, in Movie (London), Win- ter 1971/72. Interview with G. O’Brien, in Inter/View (New York), March 1972. ‘‘Visiting Kazan,’’ interview with C. Silver and J. Zukor, in Film Comment (New York), Summer 1972. KAZAN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 512 ‘‘All You Need to Know, Kids,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), January/ February 1974. ‘‘Hollywood under Water,’’ interview with C. Silver and M. Corliss, in Film Comment (New York), January/February 1977. ‘‘Kazan Issue’’ of Positif (Paris), April 1977. ‘‘Visite à Yilmaz Güney ou vue d’une prison turque,’’ with O. Adanir, in Positif (Paris), February 1980. ‘‘L’Homme tremblant: Conversation entre Marguerite Duras et Elia Kazan,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1980. Interview with Tim Pulleine, in Stills (London), July/August 1983. Interview with P. Le Guay, in Cinématographe (Paris), Febru- ary 1986. Interview in Time Out (London), 4 May 1988. ‘‘Les américains à trait d’union,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1994. ‘‘What a Director Needs to Know,’’ in DGA Magazine (Los Ange- les), May-June 1996. On KAZAN: books— Clurman, Harold, The Fervent Years: The Story of the Group Theatre and the Thirties, New York, 1946. Tailleur, Roger, Elia Kazan, revised edition, Paris, 1971. Ciment, Michel, Kazan on Kazan, London, 1972. Giannetti, Louis, Masters of the American Cinema, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1981. Pauly, Thomas H., An American Odyssey: Elia Kazan and American Culture, Philadelphia, 1983. Michaels, Lloyd, Elia Kazan: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1985. Ciment, Michael, An American Odyssey: Elia Kazan, London, 1989. Murphy, Brenda, Tennessee Williams and Elia Kazan: A Collabora- tion in the Theatre, Cambridge, 1992. On KAZAN: articles— Stevens, Virginia, ‘‘Elia Kazan: Actor and Director of Stage and Screen,’’ in Theatre Arts (New York), December 1947. Archer, Eugene, ‘‘Elia Kazan: The Genesis of a Style,’’ in Film Culture (New York), vol. 2, no. 2, 1956. Archer, Eugene, ‘‘The Theatre Goes to Hollywood,’’ in Films and Filming (London), January 1957. Neal, Patricia, ‘‘What Kazan Did for Me,’’ in Films and Filming (London), October 1957. Bean, Robin, ‘‘The Life and Times of Elia Kazan,’’ in Films and Filming (London), May 1964. Tailleur, Roger, ‘‘Elia Kazan and the House Un-American Activities Committee,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Fall 1966. ‘‘Kazan Issue’’ of Movie (London), Spring 1972. Changas, E., ‘‘Elia Kazan’s America,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Summer 1972. Kitses, Jim, ‘‘Elia Kazan: A Structural Analysis,’’ in Cinema (Bev- erly Hills), Winter 1972/73. Biskind, P., ‘‘The Politics of Power in On the Waterfront,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Autumn 1975. ‘‘A l’est d’Eden Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), Novem- ber 1975. Kazan Section of Positif (Paris), April 1981. ‘‘Kazan Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 July 1983. ‘‘Elia Kazan,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1984. Michaels, Lloyd, ‘‘Elia Kazan: A Retrospective,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Fall 1985. Neve, Brian, ‘‘The Immigrant Experience on Film: Kazan’s America America,’’ in Film and History (New York), vol. 17, no. 3, 1987. Nangle, J., ‘‘The American Museum of the Moving Image Salutes Elia Kazan,’’ in Films in Review (New York), April 1987. Georgakas, Dan, ‘‘Don’t Call Him Gadget: Elia Kazan Reconsid- ered,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 16, no. 4, 1988. Rathgeb, Douglas, ‘‘Kazan as Auteur: The Undiscovered East of Eden,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 16, no. 1, 1988. McGilligan, Patrick, ‘‘Scoundrel Tome,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1988. Butler, T., ‘‘Polonsky and Kazan. HUAC and the Violation of Personality,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1988. Coursodon, Jean-Pierre, in Positif (Paris), October 1989. Cahir, Linda Costanzo, ‘‘The Artful Rerouting of A Streetcar Named Desire,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), April 1994. White, J., ‘‘Sympathy for the Devil: Elia Kazan Looks at the Dark Side of Technological Progress in Wild River,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), October 1994. Film-Dienst (Cologne), 19 December 1995. Everschor, Franz, ‘‘Arrangement mit dem Schicksal,’’ in Film- Dienst (Cologne), 16 January 1996. Chase, Donald, ‘‘Watershed: Elia Kazan’s Wild River,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November-December 1996. Benedetto, Robert, ‘‘A Streetcar Named Desire: Adapting the Play to the Film,’’ in Creative Screenwriting (Washington, D.C.), Win- ter 1997. Koehler, Robert, ‘‘One from the Heart,’’ in Variety (New York), 1 March 1999. *** Elia Kazan’s career has spanned more than four decades of enormous change in the American film industry. Often he has been a catalyst for these changes. He became a director in Hollywood at a time when studios were interested in producing the kind of serious, mature, and socially conscious stories Kazan had been putting on the stage since his Group Theatre days. During the late 1940s and mid- 1950s, initially under the influence of Italian neorealism and then the pressure of American television, he was a leading force in developing the aesthetic possibilities of location shooting (Boomerang, Panic in the Streets, On the Waterfront) and CinemaScope (East of Eden, Wild River). At the height of his success, Kazan formed his own production unit and moved back east to become a pioneer in the new era of independent, ‘‘personal’’ filmmaking that emerged during the 1960s and contributed to revolutionary upheavals within the old Hollywood system. As an archetypal auteur, he progressed from working on routine assignments to developing more personal themes, producing his own pictures, and ultimately directing his own scripts. At his peak during a period (1950–1965) of anxiety, gimmickry, and entropy in Hollywood, Kazan remained among the few American directors who continued to believe in the cinema as a medium for artistic expression and who brought forth films that consistently reflected his own creative vision. Despite these achievements and his considerable influence on a younger generation of New York-based filmmakers, including Sidney Lumet, John Cassavetes, Arthur Penn, Martin Scorsese, and even Woody Allen, Kazan’s critical reputation in America has ebbed. KEATONDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 513 The turning point both for Kazan’s own work and the critics’ reception of it was almost certainly his decision to become a friendly witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in 1952. While ‘‘naming names’’ cost Kazan the respect of many liberal friends and colleagues (Arthur Miller most prominent among them), it ironically ushered in the decade of his most inspired filmmaking. If Abraham Polonsky, himself blacklisted during the 1950s, is right in claiming that Kazan’s post-HUAC movies have been ‘‘marked by bad conscience,’’ perhaps he overlooks how that very quality of uncertainty may be what makes films like On the Waterfront, East of Eden, and America America so much more compelling than Kazan’s previous studio work. His apprenticeship in the Group Theater and his great success as a Broadway director had a natural influence on Kazan’s films, particularly reflected in his respect for the written script, his careful blocking of scenes, and, pre-eminently, his employment of Method Acting on the screen. While with the Group, which he has described as ‘‘the best thing professionally that ever happened to me,’’ Kazan acquired from its leaders, Harold Clurman and Lee Strasberg, a fun- damentally artistic attitude toward his work. Studying Marx led him to see art as an instrument of social change, and from Stanislavski he learned to seek a play’s ‘‘spine’’ and emphasize the characters’ psychological motivation. Although he developed a lyrical quality that informs many later films, Kazan generally employs the social realist mode he learned from the Group. Thus, he prefers location shooting over studio sets, relatively unfamiliar actors over stars, long shots and long takes over editing, and naturalistic forms over genre conventions. On the Waterfront and Wild River, though radically different in style, both reflect the Group’s quest, in Kazan’s words, ‘‘to get poetry out of the common things of life.’’ And while one may debate the ultimate ideology of Gentleman’s Agreement, Pinky, Viva Zapata! and The Visitors, one may still agree with the premise they all share, that art should illuminate society’s problems and the possibility of their solution. Above all else, however, it is Kazan’s skill in directing actors that has secured his place in the history of American cinema. Twenty-one of his performers have been nominated for Academy Awards; nine have won. He was instrumental in launching the film careers of Marlon Brando, Julie Harris, James Dean, Carroll Baker, Warren Beatty, and Lee Remick. Moreover, he elicited from such underval- ued Hollywood players as Dorothy McGuire, James Dunn, Eva Marie Saint, and Natalie Wood perhaps the best performances of their careers. For all the long decline in critical appreciation, Kazan’s reputation among actors has hardly wavered. The Method, which became so identified with Kazan’s and Lee Strasberg’s teaching at the Actors Studio, was once simplistically defined by Kazan himself as ‘‘turning psychology into behavior.’’ An obvious example from Boomerang would be the suspect Waldron’s gesture of covering his mouth whenever he lies to the authorities. But when Terry first chats with Edie in the park in On the Waterfront, unconsciously putting on one of the white gloves she has dropped as he sits in a swing, such behavior becomes not merely psychological but symbolic and poetic. Here Method acting transcends Kazan’s own mundane definition. His films have been most consistently concerned with the theme of power, expressed as either the restless yearning of the alienated or the uneasy arrangements of the strong. The struggle for power is gener- ally manifested through wealth, sexuality, or, most often, violence. Perhaps because every Kazan film except A Tree Grows in Brooklyn and The Last Tycoon (excluding a one-punch knockout of the drunken protagonist) contains at least one violent scene, some critics have complained about the director’s ‘‘horrid vulgarity’’ (Lindsay Ander- son) and ‘‘unremitting stridency’’ (Robin Wood), yet even his most ‘‘overheated’’ work contains striking examples of restrained yet resonant interludes: the rooftop scenes of Terry and his pigeons in On the Waterfront, the tentative reunion of Bud and Deanie at the end of Splendor in the Grass, the sequence in which Stavros tells his betrothed not to trust him in America America. Each of these scenes could be regarded not simply as a necessary lull in the drama, but as a privileged, lyrical moment in which the ambivalence underlying Kazan’s attitude toward his most pervasive themes seems to crystal- lize. Only then can one fully realize how Terry in the rooftop scene is both confined by the mise-en-scène (seen within the pigeon coop) and free on the roof to be himself; how Bud and Deanie are simultane- ously reconciled and estranged; how Stavros becomes honest only when he confesses to how deeply he has been compromised. —Lloyd Michaels KEATON, Buster Nationality: American. Born: Joseph Francis Keaton in Piqua, Kansas, 4 October 1895. Military Service: Served in U.S. Army, France, 1918. Family: Married 1) Natalie Talmadge, 1921 (divorced 1932), two sons; 2) Mae Scribbens, 1933 (divorced 1935); 3) Eleanor Buster Keaton KEATON DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 514 Norris, 1940. Career: Part of parents’ vaudeville act, The Three Keatons, from 1898; when family act broke up, became actor for Comique Film Corp., moved to California, 1917; appeared in 15 two- reelers for Comique, 1917–19; offered own production company with Metro Pictures by Joseph Schenk, 1919, produced 19 two-reelers, 1920–23; directed ten features, 1923–28; dissolved production com- pany, signed to MGM, 1928; announced retirement from the screen, 1933; starred in 16 comedies for Educational Pictures, 1934–39; worked intermittently as gag writer for MGM, 1937–50; appeared in 10 two-reelers for Columbia, 1939–41; appeared on TV and in commercials, from 1949; Cinémathèque Fran?aise Keaton retrospec- tive, 1962. Died: Of lung cancer, in Woodland Hills, California, 1 February 1966. Films as Director and Actor: 1920 One Week (co-d, co-sc with Eddie Cline); Convict Thirteen (co-d, co-sc with Cline); The Scarecrow (co-d, co-sc with Cline) 1921 Neighbors (co-d, co-sc with Cline); The Haunted House (co-d, co-sc with Cline); Hard Luck (co-d, co-sc with Cline) The High Sign (co-d, co-sc with Cline); The Goat (co-d, co-sc with Mal St. Clair); The Playhouse (co-d, co-sc with Cline); The Boat (co-d, co-sc with Cline) 1922 The Paleface (co-d, co-sc with Cline); Cops (co-d, co-sc with Cline); My Wife’s Relations (co-d, co-sc with Cline); The Blacksmith (co-d, co-sc with Mal St. Clair); The Frozen North (co-d, co-sc with Cline); Day Dreams (co-d, co-sc with Cline); The Electric House (co-d, co-sc with Cline) 1923 The Balloonatic (co-d, co-sc with Cline); The Love Nest (co-d, co-sc with Cline); The Three Ages; Our Hospitality (co-d) 1924 Sherlock Jr. (co-d); The Navigator (co-d) 1925 Seven Chances; Go West (+ story) 1926 Battling Butler; The General (co-d, co-sc) 1927 College (no d credit) 1928 Steamboat Bill Jr. (no d credit); The Cameraman (no d credit, pr) 1929 Spite Marriage (no d credit) 1938 Life in Sometown, U.S.A.; Hollywood Handicap; Streamlined Swing Other Films: 1917 The Butcher Boy (Fatty Arbuckle comedy) (role as village pest); A Reckless Romeo (Arbuckle) (role as a rival); The Rough House (Arbuckle) (role); His Wedding Night (Arbuckle) (role); Oh, Doctor! (Arbuckle) (role); Fatty at Coney Island (Coney Island) (Arbuckle) (role as husband touring Coney Island with his wife); A Country Hero (Arbuckle) (role) 1918 Out West (Arbuckle) (role as a dude gambler); The Bell Boy (Arbuckle) (role as a village pest); Moonshine (Arbuckle) (role as an assistant revenue agent); Good Night, Nurse! (Arbuckle) (role as the doctor and a visitor); The Cook (Arbuckle) (role as the waiter and helper) 1919 Back Stage (Arbuckle) (role as a stagehand); The Hayseed (Arbuckle) (role as a helper) 1920 The Garage (Arbuckle) (role as a garage mechanic); The Round Up (role as an Indian); The Saphead (role as Bertie ‘‘the Lamb’’ Van Alstyne) 1922 Screen Snapshots, No. 3 (role) 1929 The Hollywood Revue (role as an Oriental dancer) 1930 Free & Easy (Easy Go) (role as Elmer Butts); Doughboys (pr, role as Elmer Stuyvesant) 1931 Parlor, Bedroom & Bath (pr, role as Reginald Irving); Side- walks of New York (pr, role as Tine Harmon) 1932 The Passionate Plumber (pr, role as Elmer Tuttle); Speak Easily (role as Professor Timoleon Zanders Post) 1933 What! No Beer! (role as Elmer J. Butts) 1934 The Gold Ghost (role as Wally); Allez Oop (role as Elmer); Le Roi des Champs Elysees (role as Buster Garnier and Jim le Balafre) 1935 The Invader (The Intruder) (role as Leander Proudfoot); Palookah from Paducah (role as Jim); One-Run Elmer (role as Elmer); Hayseed Romance (role as Elmer); Tars & Stripes (role as Elmer); The E-Flat Man (role as Elmer); The Timid Young Man (role as Elmer) 1936 Three on a Limb (role as Elmer); Grand Slam Opera (role as Elmer); La Fiesta de Santa Barbara (role as one of several stars); Blue Blazes (role as Elmer); The Chemist (role as Elmer); Mixed Magic (role as Elmer) 1937 Jail Bait (role as Elmer); Ditto (role as Elmer); Love Nest on Wheels (last apearance as Elmer) 1939 The Jones Family in Hollywood (co-sc): The Jones Family in Quick Millions (co-sc); Pest from the West (role as a trav- eler in Mexico); Mooching through Georgia (role as a Civil War veteran); Hollywood Cavalcade (role) 1940 Nothing but Pleasure (role as a vacationer); Pardon My Berth Marks (role as a reporter); The Taming of the Snood (role as an innocent accomplice); The Spook Speaks (role as a magi- cian’s housekeeper); The Villain Still Pursued Her (role); Li’l Abner (role as Lonesome Polecat); His Ex Marks the Spot (role) 1941 So You Won’t Squawk (role); She’s Oil Mine (role); General Nuisance (role) 1943 Forever and a Day (role as a plumber) 1944 San Diego, I Love You (role as a bus driver) 1945 That’s the Spirit (role as L.M.); That Night with You (role) 1946 God’s Country (role); El Moderno Barba azul (role as a pris- oner of Mexicans who is sent to moon) 1949 The Loveable Cheat (role as a suitor); In the Good Old Summertime (role as Hickey); You’re My Everything (role as butler) 1950 Un Duel a mort (role as a comic duellist); Sunset Boulevard (Wilder) (role as a bridge player) 1952 Limelight (Chaplin) (role as the piano accompanist in a music hall sketch); L’incantevole nemica (role in a brief sketch); Paradise for Buster (role) 1955 The Misadventures of Buster Keaton (role) 1956 Around the World in Eighty Days (role as a train conductor) 1960 When Comedy Was King (role in a clip from Cops); The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Curtiz) (role as a lion tamer) KEATONDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 515 1963 Thirty Years of Fun (appearance in clips); The Triumph of Lester Snapwell (role as Lester); It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (Kramer) (role as Jimmy the Crook) 1964 Pajama Party (role as an Indian chief) 1965 Beach Blanket Bingo (role as a would-be surfer); Film (role as Object/Eye); How to Stuff a Wild Bikini (role as Bwana); Sergeant Deadhead (Taurog) (role as Private Blinken); The Rail-rodder (role); Buster Keaton Rides Again (role) 1966 The Scribe (role); A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (Lester) (role as Erronius) 1967 Due Marines e un Generale (War, Italian Style) (role as the German general) 1970 The Great Stone Face (role) Publications By KEATON: book— My Wonderful World of Slapstick, with Charles Samuels, New York, 1960; revised edition, 1982. By KEATON: articles— ‘‘Why I Never Smile,’’ in The Ladies Home Journal (New York), June 1926. Interview with Christopher Bishop, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1958. Interview with Herbert Feinstein, in Massachusetts Review (Am- herst), Winter 1963. Interview with Kevin Brownlow, in Film (London), no. 42, 1965. ‘‘Keaton: Still Making the Scene,’’ interview with Rex Reed, in New York Times, 17 October 1965. ‘‘Keaton at Venice,’’ interview with John Gillett and James Blue, in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1965. Interview with Arthur Friedman, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1966. Interview with Christopher Bishop, in Interviews with Film Direc- tors, edited by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1967. ‘‘‘Anything Can Happen—And Generally Did’: Buster Keaton on His Silent Film Career,’’ interview with George Pratt, in Image (Rochester), December 1974. Articles from the 1920s reprinted in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1979. On KEATON: books— Pantieri, José, L’Originalissimo Buster Keaton, Milan, 1963. Turconi, Davide, and Francesco Savio, Buster Keaton, Venice, 1963. Coursodon, Jean-Pierre, Keaton et Compagnie: Les Burlesques américaines du ‘muet,’ Paris, 1964. Oms, Marcel, Buster Keaton, Premier Plan No. 31, Lyons, 1964. Blesh, Rudi, Keaton, New York, 1966. Lebel, Jean-Pierre, Buster Keaton, New York, 1967. Brownlow, Kevin, The Parade’s Gone By, New York, 1968. McCaffrey, Donald, Four Great Comedians, New York, 1968. Robinson, David, Buster Keaton, London, 1968. Denis, Michel, ‘‘Buster Keaton,’’ in Anthologie du Cinéma, vol. 7, Paris, 1971. Coursodon, Jean-Pierre, Buster Keaton, Paris, 1973. Kerr, Walter, The Silent Clowns, New York, 1975. Anobile, Richard, editor, The Best of Buster, New York, 1976. Wead, George, Buster Keaton and the Dynamics of Visual Wit, New York, 1976. Moews, Daniel, Keaton: The Silent Features Close Up, Berkeley, California, 1977. Wead, George, and George Ellis, The Film Career of Buster Keaton, Boston, 1977. Dardis, Tom, Keaton: The Man Who Wouldn’t Lie Down, New York, 1979. Benayoun, Robert, The Look of Buster Keaton, Paris, 1982; Lon- don, 1984. Coursodon, Jean-Pierre, Buster Keaton, Paris, 1986. Kline, Jim, The Complete Films of Buster Keaton, Secaucus, New Jersey, 1993. Rapf, Joanna E., and Gary L. Green, Buster Keaton: A Bio-Bibliog- raphy, Westport, Connecticut, 1995. Edwards, Larry, Buster: A Legend in Laughter, Bradenton, Flor- ida, 1995. Meade, Marion, Buster Keaton: Cut to the Chase, New York, 1995. Oldham, Gabriella, Keaton’s Silent Shorts, Carbondale, Illinois, 1996. Horton, Andrew, editor, Buster Keaton’s ‘‘Sherlock Jr.,’’ Cambridge and New York, 1997. On KEATON: articles— Brand, Harry, ‘‘They Told Buster to Stick to It,’’ in Motion Picture Classic (New York), June 1926. Keaton, Joe, ‘‘The Cyclone Baby,’’ in Photoplay (New York), May 1927. Saalschutz, L., ‘‘Comedy,’’ in Close Up (London), April 1930. Agee, James, ‘‘Great Stone Face,’’ in Life (New York), 5 Septem- ber 1949. Kerr, Walter, ‘‘Last Call for a Clown,’’ in Pieces at Eight, New York, 1957. Agee, James, ‘‘Comedy’s Greatest Era,’’ in Agee on Film, New York, 1958. Dyer, Peter, ‘‘Cops, Custard—and Keaton,’’ in Films and Filming (London), August 1958. ‘‘Keaton Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), August 1958. Bishop, Christopher, ‘‘The Great Stone Face,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1958. Baxter, Brian, ‘‘Buster Keaton,’’ in Film (London), November/ December 1958. Robinson, David, ‘‘Rediscovery: Buster,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Winter 1959. Beylie, Claude, and others, ‘‘Rétrospective Buster Keaton,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1962. Bu?uel, Luis, ‘‘Battling Butler [College],’’ in Luis Bu?uel: An Introduction, edited by Ado Kyrou, New York, 1963. KEATON DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 516 Lorca, Federico García, ‘‘Buster Keaton Takes a Walk,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1965. Crowther, Bosley, ‘‘Dignity in Deadpan,’’ in The New York Times, 2 February 1966. Sadoul, Georges, ‘‘Le Génie de Buster Keaton,’’ in Les Lettres Fran?aises (Paris), 10 February 1966. Benayoun, Robert, ‘‘Le Colosse de silence,’’ and ‘‘Le Regard de Buster Keaton,’’ in Positif (Paris), Summer 1966. McCaffrey, Donald, ‘‘The Mutual Approval of Keaton and Lloyd,’’ in Cinema Journal (Evanston), no. 6, 1967. Rhode, Eric, ‘‘Buster Keaton,’’ in Encounter (London), Decem- ber 1967. Houston, Penelope, ‘‘The Great Blank Page,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1968. Villelaur, Anne, ‘‘Buster Keaton,’’ in Dossiers du Cinéma: Cinéastes I, Paris, 1971. Maltin, Leonard, ‘‘Buster Keaton,’’ in The Great Movie Shorts, New York, 1972. Gilliatt, Penelope, ‘‘Buster Keaton,’’ in Unholy Fools, New York, 1973. Mast, Gerald, ‘‘Keaton,’’ in The Comic Mind, New York, 1973. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Buster Keaton,’’ in The Primal Screen, New York, 1973. ‘‘Keaton Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), February 1975. Cott, Jeremy, ‘‘The Limits of Silent Film Comedy,’’ in Literature/ Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), Spring 1975. Rubinstein, E., ‘‘Observations on Keaton’s Steamboat Bill Jr.,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1975. ‘‘Special Issue,’’ Castoro Cinema (Firenze), no. 28, 1976. Everson, William, ‘‘Rediscovery: Le Roi des Champs Elysees,’’ in Films in Review (New York), December 1976. Wade, G., ‘‘The Great Locomotive Chase,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), July/August 1977. Valot, J., ‘‘Discours sur le cinéma dans quelques films de Buster Keaton,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), February 1980. Gifford, Denis, ‘‘Flavour of the Month,’’ in Films and Filming (London), February 1984. ‘‘Buster Keaton,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1984. Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1985. Cazals, T., ‘‘Un Monde à la démesure de l’homme,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1987. Sweeney, K.W., ‘‘The Dream of Disruption: Melodrama and Gag Structure in Keaton’s Sherlock Junior,’’ in Wide Angle (Balti- more), vol. 13, no. 1, January 1991. Sanders, J., and D. Lieberfeld, ‘‘Dreaming in Pictures: The Child- hood Origins of Buster Keaton’s Creativity,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), vol. 47, no. 4, Summer 1994. Gebert, Michael, ‘‘The Art of Buster Keaton,’’ in Video Watchdog (Cincinnati), no. 20, 1995. Gunning, Tom, ‘‘Buster Keaton, or the Work of Comedy in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 21, no. 3, 1995. Tibbetts, John C., ‘‘The Whole Show: The Restored Films of Buster Keaton,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 23, no. 4, October 1995. *** Buster Keaton is the only creator-star of American silent comedies who equals Chaplin as one of the artistic giants of the cinema. He is perhaps the only silent clown whose reputation is far higher today than it was in the 1920s, when he made his greatest films. Like Chaplin, Keaton came from a theatrical family and served his apprenticeship on stage in the family’s vaudeville act. Unlike Chap- lin, however, Keaton’s childhood and family life were less troubled, more serene, lacking the darkness of Chaplin’s youth that would lead to the later darkness of his films. Keaton’s films were more blithely athletic and optimistic, more committed to audacious physical stunts and cinema tricks, far less interested in exploring moral paradoxes and emotional resonances. Keaton’s most famous comic trademark, his ‘‘great stone face,’’ itself reflects the commitment to a comedy of the surface, but attached to that face was one of the most resiliently able and acrobatic bodies in the history of cinema. Keaton’s comedy was based on the conflict between that imperviously dead-pan face, his tiny but almost superhuman physical instrument, and the immen- sity of the physical universe that surrounded them. After an apprenticeship in the late 1910s making two-reel come- dies that starred his friend Fatty Arbuckle, and after service in France in 1918, Keaton starred in a series of his own two-reel comedies beginning in 1920. Those films displayed Keaton’s comic and visual inventiveness: the delight in bizarrely complicated mechanical gadg- ets (The Scarecrow, The Haunted House); the realization that the cinema itself was an intriguing mechanical toy (his use of split-screen in The Playhouse of 1921 allows Buster to play all members of the orchestra and audience, as well as all nine members of a minstrel troupe); the games with framing and composition (The Balloonatic is a comic disquisition on the surprises one can generate merely by entering, falling out of, or suppressing information in the frame); the breathtaking physical stunts and chases (Daydreams, Cops); and the underlying fatalism when his exuberant efforts produce ultimately disastrous results (Cops, One Week, The Boat). In 1923 Keaton’s producer, Joseph M. Schenck, decided to launch the comic star in a series of feature films, to replace a previously slated series of features starring Schenck’s other comic star, the now scandal-ruined Fatty Arbuckle. Between 1923 and 1929, Keaton made an even dozen feature films on a regular schedule of two a year—always leaving Keaton free in the early autumn to travel east for the World Series. This regular pattern of Keaton’s work—as opposed to Chaplin’s lengthy laboring and devoted concentration on each individual project—reveals the way Keaton saw his film work. He was not making artistic masterpieces but knocking out everyday entertainment, like the vaudevillian playing the two-a-day. Despite the casualness of this regular routine (which would be echoed decades later by Woody Allen’s regular one-a-year rhythm), many of those dozen silent features are comic masterpieces, ranking alongside the best of Chaplin’s comic work. Most of those films begin with a parodic premise—the desire to parody some serious and familiar form of stage or screen melodrama, such as the Civil War romance (The General), the mountain feud (Our Hospitality), the Sherlock Holmes detective story (Sherlock Jr.), the Mississippi riverboat race (Steamboat Bill Jr.), or the western (Go West). Two of the features were built around athletics (boxing in Battling Butler and every sport but football in College), and one was built around the business of motion picture photography itself (The Cameraman). The narrative lines of these films were thin but fast- paced, usually based on the Keaton character’s desire to satisfy the demands of his highly conventional lady love. The film’s narrative KIAROSTAMIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 517 primarily served to allow the film to build to its extended comic sequences, which, in Keaton’s films, continue to amaze with their cinematic ingenuity, their dazzling physical stunts, and their hypnotic visual rhythms. Those sequences usually forced the tiny but dexterous Keaton into combat with immense and elemental antagonists—a rockslide in Seven Chances; an entire ocean liner in The Navigator; a herd of cattle in Go West; a waterfall in Our Hospitality. Perhaps the cleverest and most astonishing of his elemental foes appears in Sherlock Jr. when the enemy becomes cinema itself—or, rather, cinematic time and space. Buster, a dreaming movie projectionist, becomes imprisoned in the film he is projecting, subject to its inexplicable laws of montage, of shifting spaces and times, as opposed to the expected continuity of space and time in the natural universe. Perhaps Keaton’s most satisfyingly whole film is The General, virtually an extended chase from start to finish, as the Keaton character chases north, in pursuit of his stolen locomotive, then races back south with it, fleeing his Union pursuers. The film combines comic narrative, the rhythms of the chase, Keaton’s physi- cal stunts, and his fondness for mechanical gadgets into what may be the greatest comic epic of the cinema. Unlike Chaplin, Keaton’s stardom and comic brilliance did not survive Hollywood’s conversion to synchronized sound. It was not simply a case of a voice’s failing to suit the demands of both physical comedy and the microphone. Keaton’s personal life was in shreds, after a bitter divorce from Natalie Talmadge. Always a heavy social drinker, Keaton’s drinking increased in direct proportion to his personal troubles. Neither a comic spirit nor an acrobatic physical instrument could survive so much alcoholic abuse. In addition, Keaton’s contract had been sold by Joseph Schenck to MGM (con- veniently controlled by his brother, Nicholas Schenck, head of Loew’s Inc., MGM’s parent company). Between 1929 and 1933, MGM assigned Keaton to a series of dreary situation comedies—in many of them as Jimmy Durante’s co-star and straight man. For the next two decades, Keaton survived on cheap two-reel sound comedies and occasional public appearances, until his major role in Chaplin’s Limelight led to a comeback. Keaton remarried, went on the wagon, and made stage, television, and film appearances in featured roles. In 1965 he played the embodiment of existential consciousness in Samuel Beckett’s only film work, Film, followed shortly by his final screen appearance in Richard Lester’s A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. —Gerald Mast KIAROSTAMI, Abbas Nationality: Iranian. Born: Teheran, Iran, June 22, 1940. Educa- tion: Studied fine arts at Teheran University. Family: Married (divorced); son: Bahman. Career: Poster designer, children’s book illustrator, and director of commercials, 1960–68; co-founder of state-run Institute for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults, which included film production, 1969; filmaker, 1969—; directed first short film, 1970; directed first feature film, The Traveler, 1974. Awards: Bronze Leopard, Locarno International Film Festival, for Where Is the Friend’s House?, 1989; Critics Prize, Sao Paulo Film Festival, 1994, and Golden Rosa Camuna, Bergamo Film Festival, 1995, for Through the Olive Trees; Palme d’or, Cannes Film Festival, for Taste of Cherry, 1997; UNESCO Fellini Medal, 1997; FIPRESCI Award and Grand Special Jury Prize, Venice Film Festival, for The Wind Will Carry Us, 1999. Address: c/o Zeitgeist Films, 247 Centre St., 2nd Floor, New York, NY 10013. Films as Director: 1970 Nan va Koutcheh (Bread and Alley) (+ sc) 1972 Zang-e Tafrih (Breaktime) (+ sc) 1973 Tadjrebeh (The Experience) (+ sc, ed) 1974 Mossafer (The Traveller) (+sc) 1975 Man ham Mitoumam (So I Can) (+sc, ed) 1975 Dow Rahehal Baraye yek Massaleh (Two Solutions for One Problem) (+ sc, ed) 1976 Rangha (The Colours) (+ sc, ed) 1976 Lebassi Baraye Arossi (A Suit for Wedding) (+ sc, ed) 1977 Gozaresh (The Report); Bozorgdasht-e mo’Allem (Tribute to the Teachers) (+sc); Az Oghat-e Faraghat-e Khod Chegouneh Estefadeh Konim? (How to Make Use of Our Leisure Time?) (+sc) 1978 Rah Hal-e Yek (Solution No.1) (+ sc, ed) 1979 Ghazieh-e Shekl-e Aval, Ghazieh-e Shekl-e Dou Wom (First Case, Second Case) (+ sc, ed) 1980 Behdasht-e Dandan (Dental Hygiene) (+sc, ed) 1981 Be Tartib ya Bedoun-e Tartib (Orderly or Unorderly/Regu- larly or Irregularly) (+sc, ed) 1982 Hamsarayan (The Chorus) (+sc, ed) 1983 Hamshahri (Fellow Citizen) (+sc, ed); Dandan Dard (Tooth- ache) (+ sc) 1984 Avaliha (First Graders) (+sc, ed) 1987 Khane-ye Doust Kodjast? (Where Is the Friend’s House?) (+ sc, ed) 1989 Mashgh-e Shab (Homework) (+ sc, ed) 1990 Nema-ye Nazdik (Close-Up) (+ sc, ed, ro as himself) 1991 Zendegi Edame Darad (And Life Goes On. . . /Life, and Nothing More) (+ sc, ed) 1994 Zire darakhatan zeyton (Through the Olive Trees/Under the Olive Trees) (+ sc, ed) 1995 ‘‘Repérages,’’ segment of à propos de Nice, la suite; segment of Lumière et compagnie (Lumière and Company) 1997 Ta’m e guilass (Taste of Cherry) (+ sc, ed) 1999 Bad ma ra khabad bord (The Wind Will Carry Us) (+ sc, ed) Other Films: 1993 Kelid (The Key) (sc); Sarari be Diare Mosafer (Journey to the Land of the Traveller) (ro) 1994 Safar (The Journey) (sc) 1995 Badkonake sefid (The White Balloon) (sc) 1999 Volte sempre, Abbas! (sc); Beed-o Baad (sc) KIAROSTAMI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 518 Publications: By KIAROSTAMI; articles— Interview with Farah Nayeri, in Sight and Sound (London), Decem- ber 1993. ‘‘Real Life Is More Important than Cinema,’’ interview with Pat Aufderheide, in Cineaste (New York), Summer 1995. ‘‘Kiarostami Close Up,’’ interview with Phillip Lopate, in Film Comment (New York), July-August 1996. On KIAROSTAMI; articles— Cheshire, Godfrey, ‘‘Abbas Kiarostami: A Cinema of Questions,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July-August 1996. Hamid, Nassia, ‘‘Near and Far,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), February 1997. McGavin, Patrick Z., ‘‘A Taste of Kiarostami,’’ in The Nation (New York), October 6, 1997. Mulvey, Laura, ‘‘Kiarostami’s Uncertainty Principle,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), June 1998. Murphy, Kathleen, ‘‘Festivals: Toronto,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November-December 1999. Cheshire, Godfrey, ‘‘Confessions of a Sin-ephile: Close-Up,’’ in Cinema Scope (Toronto), Winter 2000. *** At the beginning of the 1990s, even the most ardent filmgoer could be forgiven for never having heard of Abbas Kiarostami. The Iranian filmmaker, fifty years old in 1990, had worked for two decades for his country’s Institute for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults. Most of his films had been about children, and thanks to some European film festivals in 1989, one of them—Where Is the Friend’s House? (1987)—had finally attracted attention outside Iran. By the end of the 1990s, Abbas Kiarostami had been widely and passionately acclaimed as the director of the decade. Polls in Film Comment magazine and the Village Voice argued over whether Through the Olive Trees or Taste of Cherry—or perhaps the late- arriving The Wind Will Carry Us—were the best film of the preceding ten years. Jean-Luc Godard, no stranger to quotable epigrams, de- clared that ‘‘Cinema starts with Griffith and ends with Kiarostami.’’ Even if one’s enthusiasm did not go that far, Kiarostami unquestion- ably (along with his protégés, and his younger, more explosive compatriot Mohsen Makhmalbaf) pulled the cinema of Iran onto the world stage, both inducing and capitalizing on the gradual thaw in Iran’s strictly controlled popular culture. What was revealed was the most original and vibrant national cinema of the fin de siècle. Kiarostami’s achievement rests on a complex combination of factors, one of which is that his films can be utterly, beautifully simple. Kiarostami is a humanist artist, with a strong commitment to stories of ordinary life. ‘‘My technique is similar to collage,’’ he has said. ‘‘I collect pieces and put them together. I don’t invent material. I just watch and take it from the daily life of people around me.’’ The films of Italian neo-realism were an early and lasting influence, with their unvarnished plots and homely settings. ‘‘I always think,’’ Kiarostami told Sight and Sound magazine, ‘‘that directors who look for stories in books are like those Iranians who live next to a stream full of fish, but eat out of tins.’’ For all the sincerity of his philosophy, Kiarostami is also a for- mally challenging filmmaker—and much of his ‘‘naturalism’’ is carefully planned. Most of his latter-day movies include glimpses of the filmmaking crew, as though to remind the audience of the artifice of what they are watching; Taste of Cherry actually ends with a video sequence of the camera crew on location, dispelling the force of the mesmerizing story we have been watching. Film, Kiarostami has declared, is not ‘‘the manipulation of the audience’s emotions. It’s not educational, it’s not entertainment. The best form of cinema is one which poses questions for the audience. So if we distance the audience from the film and even film from itself, it helps to under- stand the subject matter better.’’ The success of Where Is the Friend’s House? led Kiarostami out of his period of making children’s films and into more daring territory. At the moment of his international breakthrough, real life handed him the material for five years’ worth of remarkable pictures. First, his attention was captured by a news story involving a Teheran man who was arrested for hoodwinking a well-to-do family by pretending to be filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf. In Close-Up (1989), Kiarostami re-constructs the events of the story, but his method is unconventional: the swindler plays himself, and so do the family members (whose enthusiasm for movies created their gullibility in the first place). Makhmalbaf and Kiarostami also play themselves onscreen—according to critic Godfrey Cheshire, setting aside their personal animosity for the purpose of the film. The fascinating result was something beyond fiction or realism—call it a third dimension somewhere between the two—and a signpost for the director’s subsequent films. Reality intruded again with the earthquake in northern Iran in 1991. The rural area in which Kiarostami had shot Where Is the Friend’s House? was devastated; And Life Goes On. . . (1992) is the story of a film director who searches the region for the young stars of that earlier film. The boys are not found, although the real-life kids had indeed survived the quake. What Kiarostami reveals instead is the indomitable adaptability of the human spirit, shaken but not demol- ished. Two years later, Kiarostami returned to the region to round out this unplanned trilogy, with Through the Olive Trees (1994). It recounts a small but charming romance, set against the filming of And Life Goes On.... With both films, Kiarostami bobbles ideas like a master juggler: in one hand a playful blurring of the fuzzy line between movies and life, in the other hand a deep feeling for the triumph of staying human despite unthinkable hardship. All three films in the trilogy featured a Kiarostami trademark, the obsession with journeys, and with the image of people or cars traversing long roads. The repetition of this image reached its culmination in Taste of Cherry (1997), much of which takes place across an oft-traveled stretch of road outside Teheran. A suicidal man picks up a series of strangers and drives around with them, hoping to convince someone to return to a certain spot the following morning and cover his dead body with dirt (a prompt burial being part of Islamic custom). The conversations, the parched, dun-colored locale, the constant movement, become hypnotizing. The 1997 Cannes Film Festival agreed, naming Taste of Cherry the co-recipient of its top award, an official benediction for the Iranian KIE?LOWSKIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 519 film industry (although the film was banned from public screening in Iran, thanks to fundamentalist criticism of the taboo subject of suicide). Indeed, the rapturous response to Kiarostami among critics and festival programmers has been of a kind not seen much since the heyday of the French New Wave, but without the corresponding enthusiasm of the public at large (or at least the segment of the public that can be expected to frequent the arthouse). In the light of the unanimity of critical acclaim, it was intriguing to read Film Com- ment’s Kathleen Murphy sound a note of caution, if not exasperation, with the sometimes ‘‘trying’’ repetitions and metaphysical imagery of Kiarostami’s 1999 release The Wind Will Carry Us, ‘‘raising questions,’’ she suggests, ‘‘of directorial self-indulgence.’’ Despite the demur, Kiarostami’s accomplishment over the course of the preceding dozen years was formidable. Like Hou Hsiao-hsien, his Taiwanese counterpart, he had maintained an incredibly prolific string of artistic successes, and had stretched the definition of what a movie is with each new picture. And the journey continues.... —Robert Horton KIE?LOWSKI, Krzysztof Nationality: Polish. Born: Warsaw, 27 June 1941. Education: School of Cinema and Theatre, Lodz, graduated 1969. Career: Worked as director of documentaries and fiction films for TV, from Krzysztof Kie?lowski 1969; directed first feature for cinema, Blizna, 1976; vice president of the Union of Polish Cinematographers, 1978–81; member of faculty of Radio and Television, University of Silesia, 1979–82; made Dekalog, series of short films for Polish TV, 1988–89, then gained financing to make longer versions of two episodes for cinematic release. Awards: First Prize, Mannheim Festival, for Personel, 1975; FIPRESCI Prize, Moscow Festival, for Amator, 1979; Diploma from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1979; Special Jury Prize, Cannes Film Festival, and Academy Award for Best Foreign Feature Film, for A Short Film about Killing, 1988. Died: Of a heart attack, 13 March 1996. Films as Director: (Documentary shorts, unless otherwise stated) 1967 Urzad (The Job) 1968 Zdjecie (The Photograph) (for TV) 1969 Z miasta Lodzi (From the City of Lodz) 1970 By?em ?o?nierzem (I Was a Soldier); Przed rajdem (Before the Rally); Fabryka (Factory) 1972 Gospordaze (Workers) (co-d); Miedzy Wroc?awiem a Zielona Góra (Between Wroclaw and Zielona Gora); Podstawy BHP w kopalni miedzi (The Degree of Hygiene and Safety in a Copper Mine); Robotnicy 71 nic o nas bez nas (Workers 71) (co-d); Refren (Refrain) 1973 Murarz (Bricklayer); Dziecko (Child); Pierwsza mi?o?? (First Love) (for TV); Prze?wietlenie (X-Ray); Przaj?cie podziemne (Pedestrian Subway) (feature for TV) 1975 Zyciorys (Life Story); Personel (Personnel) (feature for TV) 1976 Klaps (Slate); Szpital (Hospital); Spokój (Stillness) (feature for TV); Blizna (The Scar) (feature) 1977 Nie wiem (I Don’t Know); Z punktu widzenia nocnego portiera (Night Porter’s Point of View) 1978 Siedem kobiet w ró?nym wieku (Seven Women of Various Ages) 1979 Amator (Camera Buff) (feature) 1980 Dworzec (The Station); Gadajace g?owy (Talking Heads) 1981 Krótki dzień pracy (A Short Working Day) (feature for TV); Przypadek (Blind Chance) (feature, released 1987) 1984 Bez końca (No End) (feature) 1988 Krótki film o zabi janiu (A Short Film about Killing) (feature); Krótki film o miló?ci (A Short Film about Love) (feature) 1989 Dekalog (Decalogue) (10 episodes for TV) 1990 City Life (Episode in Netherlands) (feature) 1991 Podwójne ?ycie Weroniky (La Double vie de Véronique; The Double Life of Véronique) (feature) (+ sc) 1993 Trois couleurs Bleu (Three Colours: Blue) (feature) (+ sc); Trois couleurs Blanc (Three Colours: White) (feature) (+ sc); Trois couleurs Rouge (Three Colours: Red) (feature) (+ sc) Publications By KIE?LOWSKI: book— Decalogue, London, 1991. KIE?LOWSKI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 520 By KIE?LOWSKI: articles— Interview, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), December 1979. Interview with H. Samsonowska, in Kino (Warsaw), October 1981. Interview with S. Magela and C. G?ldenboog, in Filmfaust (Frank- furt), April/May 1983. Interview with Marszalek, in Kino (Warsaw), August 1987. ‘‘Un cinéma au-dela du pessimisme’’ (interview), in Revue du Cinéma, no. 443, November 1988. Interview with A. Tixeront, in Cinéma (Paris), December 1988. Interview, in Time Out (London), 15 November 1989. Interview with B. Fornara, in Cinema Forum, April 1990. Interview with P. Cargin, in Film, May/June 1990. Interview with T. Sobolewski, in Kino, June 1990. Interviews with M. Ciment and H. Niogret, in Positif, June 1991 and September 1993. Interview with M.C. Loiselle and C. Racine, in Images, November/ December 1991. ‘‘Dziennik 89–90,’’ in Kino, December 1991/February 1992. Interview with V. Ostria, in Kino, August 1992. Interview with Steven Gaydos, in Variety, 8 August 1994. ‘‘Giving Up the Ghost,’’ interview with Kie?lowski, in Time Out (London), no. 1262, 26 October 1994. On KIE?LOWSKI: articles— ‘‘Krzysztof Kieslowski,’’ in International Film Guide 1981, edited by Peter Cowie, London, 1980. Zaoral, F., ‘‘Krzysztof Kieslowski,’’ in Film a Doba (Prague), September 1985. Kieslowski Section of Positif (Paris), December 1989. Revue du Cinéma/Image et Son (Paris), January 1990. Cavendish, Phil, ‘‘Kieslowski’s Decalogue,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1990. Taubin, A., ‘‘Kieslowski Doubles Up,’’ in Village Voice, 24 Septem- ber 1991. Kie?lowski, Krzysztof, ‘‘Les musiciens du dimanche,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 40, June 1994. Ryans, T., and P. Strick, ‘‘Glowing in the Dark/Trois couleurs,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 4, no. 6, June 1994. Hoberman, J., ‘‘Red, White, and Blue,’’ in Premiere, October 1994. Harvey, Miles, ‘‘Poland’s Blue, White, and Red,’’ in Progressive, April 1995. Lucas, Tim, ‘‘‘How Death Will Judge Us’: A Krzysztof Kie?lowski Videolog,’’ in Video Watchdog (Cincinnati, Ohio), no. 30, 1995. ‘‘Special Issue,’’ Kino (Warsaw), vol. 30, no. 5, May 1996. Macnab, Geoffrey, and Chris Darke, ‘‘Working with Kie?lowski,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 6, no. 5, May 1996. *** In the late 1970s, when the conflict between the State and the citizens of Poland was imminent, a new trend emerged in cinematography—the ‘‘cinema of moral unrest.’’ All the films in this trend have one common denominator: an unusually cutting critical view of the state of the society and its morals, human relationships in the work process, public and private life. It is more than logical that Krzysztof Kie?lowski would have belonged to this trend; he had long been concerned with the moral problems of the society, and paid attention to them throughout his film career with increasing urgency. The direction of his artistic course was anticipated by his graduation film From the City of Lodz, in which he sketched the problems of workers, and by his participation in the stormy protest meeting of young filmmakers in Cracow in 1971, who warned against a total devaluation of basic human values. A broad scale of problems can be found in the documentary films Kie?lowski made between shooting feature films: disintegration of the economic structure, criticism of executive work, and the relation- ship of institutions and individuals. These documentaries are not a mere recording of events, phenomena, or a description of people and their behaviour, but always attempt instead to look underneath the surface. The director often used non-traditional means. Sometimes the word dominates the image, or he may have borrowed the stylistics of slapstick or satire, or he interfered with the reality in front of the camera by a staged element. Kie?lowski did not emphasize the aesthetic function of the image, but stressed its real and literal meaning. His feature films have a similar orientation: he concentrated on the explication of an individual’s situation in the society and politics, on the outer and inner bonds of man with the objectively existing world, and on the search for connections between the individual and the general. He often placed his heroes in situations where they have to make a vital decision (in his TV films The Staff and The Calm, and in his films for theatrical release). The Amateur is the synthesis of his attitudes and artistic search of the 1970s, and is also one of the most significant films of the ‘‘cinema of moral unrest.’’ In the story of a man who buys a camera to follow the growth of a newborn daughter, and who gradually, thanks to this film instrument, begins to realize his responsibility for what is happening around him, the director placed a profound importance on the role of the artist in the world, on his morality, courage, and active approach to life. Here Kie?lowski surpassed, to a large extent, the formulaic restrictions of the ‘‘cinema of moral unrest’’ resulting from the outside-the-art essence of this trend. These restrictions are also eliminated in his following films. In The Accident (made in 1981, released in 1987) he extended his exploration of man and his actions by introducing the category of the accidental. The hero experiences the same events (Poland in 1981) three times, and therefore is given three destinies, but each time on a different side. Two destinies are more or less given by accident, the third one he chooses himself, but even this choice is affected by the accidental element. The transcen- dental factor appears in No End (a dead man intervenes in worldly events), but the film is not an exploration of supernatural phenomena so much as a ruthless revelation of the tragic period after the declaration of the state of emergency in December 1981, and a dem- onstration of the professed truth that private life cannot be lived in isolation from the public sphere. In the 1980s Kie?lowski’s work culminated in a TV cycle and two films with subjects from the Ten Commandments. A Short Film about Killing is based on the fifth commandment (Thou shalt not kill), while A Short Film about Love comes from the sixth. Both films and the TV cycle are anchored in the present and express the necessity of a moral KINGDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 521 revival, both of the individual and the society, in a world which may be determined by accidentality, but which does not deliver us from the right and duty of moral choice. After the fall of communism when, as a consequence of changes in economic conditions, the production of films experienced a sharp fall in all of Eastern Europe, some Polish directors sought a solution to the ensuing crisis in work for foreign studios and in co-productions. This was the road taken by Kie?lowski, and so all his films made in the 1990s were created with the participation of French producers: The Double Life of Véronique and the trilogy Three Colours: Blue, Three Colours: White, and Three Colours: Red—loosely linked to the noble motto of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, fraternity. In these films Kie?lowski followed up on his films from the 1980s, in which his heroes struggle with the duality of reason and feelings, haphazardness and necessity, reality and mystery. Even in these films made abroad we can also trace certain irony and sarcasm which first appeared in his films made in the 1970s in Poland. —Bla?ena Urgo?íková KING Hu Nationality: Chinese. Born: Hu Chin-Ch’üan (as actor known as Chin Ch’üan; name in pinyin: Hun Jinquan) in Peking, 29 April 1931. Education: Hui-Wen Middle School, Peking; Peking National Art College. Family: Married scriptwriter Chong Ling (separated). Ca- reer: Moved to Hong Kong, 1949; worked in design department, Yong Hua Film Company, as actor, and as assistant director and scriptwriter, 1950–54; set designer, Great Wall Film Company, mid- 1950s; radio producer, worked for Voice of America, 1954–58; actor, scriptwriter, and director for Shaw Brothers, 1958–65; director and production manager, Union (Liangbang) Film Company, 1965–70; founded King Hu Productions, 1970. Awards: Grand Prix, Cannes Festival, for A Touch of Zen, 1975. Died: 14 January 1997, of heart disease. Films as Director: 1962 Yü T’ang Ch’un (The Story of Sue San) (credited as exec d, disowned) 1963 Liang Shan-po yü Chu Ying T’ai (Eternal Love) (co-d) 1964 Ta Ti Erh Nü (Children of the Good Earth; Sons and Daugh- ters of the Good Earth) 1965 Ta Tsui Hsia (Come Drink with Me) (+ co-sc, lyrics) 1967 Lung Men K’o Chan (The Dragon Gate Inn) (+ sc) 1970 Hsia Nü (A Touch of Zen) (+ sc, ed); ‘‘Nu’’ (‘‘Anger’’) episode of Hsi Nu Ai Le (Four Moods) (+ sc) 1973 Ying Ch’un Ko Chih Fêng Po (The Fate of Lee Khan; Trouble at Spring Inn) (+ co-sc, pr) 1974 Chung Lieh T’u (The Valiant Ones; Portrait of the Patriotic Heroes) (+ sc, pr) 1978 Shan Chung Ch’uan Chi (Legend of the Mountain) (+ pr) 1979 K’ung Shan Ling Yü (Raining in the Mountain) (+ sc, pr) 1981 Chung Shên Ta Shih (The Juvenizer) (+ pr) 1983 Episode of Ta Lun Hui (The Wheel of Life) 1989 Hsiao Ao Chiang Hu (The Swordsman) (co-d) 1992 Hua Pi Zhi Yinyang Fawang (Painted Skin) Other Films: 1958 Hung Hu-Tzu (Red Beard) (P’an Lei) (sc) 1961 Hua T’ien-T’so (Bridenapping) (Yen Chun) (sc) 1976 Lung Men Fêng Yun (Dragon Gate) (Ou-yang Chun) (sc) Publications By KING HU: articles— Interview with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), May 1975. Interview with Jean Marc de Vos and others, in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), no. 272, January 1980. On KING HU: articles— Rayns, Tony, ‘‘Director: King Hu,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1975/76. Elley, Derek, ‘‘King Hu,’’ in International Film Guide 1978, Lon- don, 1977. Tessier, Max, ‘‘King Hu dans les montagnes,’’ in Ecran (Paris), July 1978. Ooi, V., ‘‘Jacobean Drama and the Martial Arts Films of King Hu: A Study in Power and Corruption,’’ in Australian Journal of Screen Theory (Kensington, New South Wales), no. 7, 1980. Vos, J. M., and others, ‘‘King Hu,’’ in Film en Televisie (Brussels), January 1980. Bady, P., and Tony Rayns, article in Positif (Paris), July/August 1982. Kennedy, Harlan, ‘‘Beyond Kung-Fu: Seven Hong-Kong Firecrack- ers,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1983. ‘‘King Hu Section’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1984. Bourget, J. L., ‘‘Hua Pi Zhi Yinyang Fawang,’’ in Positif, Novem- ber 1992. Stratton, D., ‘‘Painted Skin,’’ in Variety, 9 November 1992. Niogret, Hubert, and others, ‘‘Adieu ma concubine de Chen Kaige,’’ in Positif (Paris), November 1993. Douin, Jean-Luc, ‘‘Hong Kong Stars,’’ in Télérama (Paris), 3 No- vember 1993. Obituary, in Variety (New York), 20 January 1997. Saada, Nicolas, ‘‘King Hu entre dans la légende,’’ an obituary, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1997. Niogret, Hubert, ‘‘King Hu et Li Han-hsiang,’’ an obituary, in Positif (Paris), April 1997. Obituary, in Sight and Sound (London), March 1998. *** KING DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 522 King Hu (right) with Chou Ye-Hsing King Hu was not only a master in the historical martial art film genre (known in Chinese as Wu Hsia P’ien or Wu Xia Pian), but a revolutionary of the form as well. One of the most popular genres in Chinese film history, it reached its peak in the 1970s in Hong Kong. In fact, the very first film made in China was an historical martial art film documenting Peking Opera performer T’an Hsin P’ei, who performed some fighting scenes from the opera Ting Chun Shang in 1906. Influenced by Peking opera, King Hu always presented his main characters clearly and vividly in their first appearances on screen and lets the characters’ interactions occur within a limited space. The presentations provide the audience with an early introduction of the main characters’ backgrounds, personalities, motives, and duties, giving a clear indication of where everyone fits in the moral land- scape. This restricted realm creates denser and more intensive emo- tional developments, paving the way to a higher dramatic climax. Such structuring can be observed at the temple in Raining in the Mountain, and the inn in both The Dragon Gate Inn and The Fate of Lee Khan. Most filmmakers in this genre tend to focus on fighting scenes and on displaying various styles of kung fu. In many cases the plots are constructed simply to support the fighting, which itself is given over to such elaborate special effects as to resemble more closely a supernatural force than a manifestation of human struggle. History itself loses its meaning: it simply provides an excuse for making another ‘‘historical’’ martial art film. This destruction of referentiality becomes all the balder when a character from the Han dynasty wears a hat from the Ming dynasty to go with his Han dynasty robe, goes into an inn that is a mess of Tang architecture and Ching furniture. As a result, the historical martial art film genre’s main function is to create an imaginary and mystical world for the audience to escape to. But King Hu’s work stood out with its professionalism in art direction and the director’s personal philosophy in historical backgrounding. The Ming dynasty (1386–1644 A.D.) was King Hu’s favorite historical period, reflecting as it does two major issues of the contemporary Chinese political situation. First of all, the legitimacy of the Chinese government—should it belong to the Nationalist Party, founded by Dr. Sun Yat-sen, or the Chinese Communist Party, which enjoys the support of the majority of Chinese? King Hu never gave an answer, but he surely did not hesitate to take a Han-centric viewpoint of the Ming dynasty. In Chinese history, it is commonly perceived as an act of legitimization of authority when Chu Yuan-chang, the founding emperor of the Ming dynasty, started a revolution to KINOSHITADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 523 overthrow the Yuan dynasty, founded by Mongolian ‘‘invaders.’’ Chu is a Han, the majority ethnic group of China. In The Fate of Lee Khan, the revolutionaries led by Chu are brave, intelligent, united, self-sacrificing, and virtuous, while the Mongolians are cowardly, stupid, selfish, and morally corrupted. Although it seems to be an exception that the Mongolian lord and princess are equally brave, smart, and know the secrets of kung fu, they are cruel to their people. They even attempt to kill a traitor to Chu who offers them secret information about Chu’s military power. In the end, the Mongolian lord, princess, and the traitor are killed by the revolutionaries. Another parallel to contemporary times is the Ming dynasty’s power struggles. The rivalries among corrupt officers, ministers, and eunuchs not only deceived the emperors, but ruined the welfare of the Chinese people. Facing a chaotic era like this, King Hu’s solution seems to be found in A Touch of Zen, which won the Grand Prix de Technique Superieur at Cannes in 1975, marking a milestone in his career. King Hu expresses the limitations of scholarly and chivalric life in the first half of A Touch of Zen, while in the other half he initiates the audience into a surrealistic visionary world—the realm of Zen metaphysics: a monk bleeds gold and possesses extraordinary powers that seem to stem from the sun and other natural forces. However, one may find a different philosophy in The Swordsman, which he co-directed with Tsui Hark, a leading figure of the Hong Kong New Wave and director of Peking Opera Blues. Although the artistic disputes between Tsui Hark and King Hu caused the latter to leave in the middle of production, The Swordsman surprisingly ends up being a combination of several filmmakers’ virtues. Stylistically, there are kung fu scenes from martial art director Chen Hsiao Tung (director of Chinese Ghost Story), visionary special effects from Tsui Hark, and art design from King Hu, who eventually set the story in his preferred Ming dynasty. Its pace is one of the contemporary commer- cial Hong Kong film, much faster than King Hu’s normal work. It employs Tsui Hark’s cynical view of life, showing almost none of the characters to be trustworthy: they all have their own selfish ambitions, the fact of which breaks down the easy formulation of hero and villain. King Hu’s specialty—the power struggles within intensive circumstances—is still in evidence, while a rather forced romantic relationship is evidence of Chen’s hand. King Hu’s metaphysical Zen and the sublimation of the spiritual are not themes in The Swordsman. They are replaced by the nihilism of Tsui Hark, as seen when the protagonist and his girlfriend ride without a clear direction on an uncultivated field after they both encounter some of the complexities of life. Somehow more rooted in reality, King Hu subsequently prepared a film about the Chinese railroad workers’ early U.S. history following immigration in the nineteenth century. —Vivian Huang KINOSHITA, Keisuke Nationality: Japanese. Born: Hamamatsu City, Shizuoka Prefecture, 5 December 1912. Education: Hamamatsu Engineering School; Oriental Photography School, Tokyo, 1932–33. Military service, 1940–41. Career: Laboratory assistant, Shochiku’s Kamata studios, 1933; camera assistant under chief cinematographer for Yasujiro Shimazu, 1934–36; assistant director, Shimazu’s group, 1936–42; chief assistant to director Kozaburo Yoshimura, 1939; director, from 1943; left Shochiku, began as TV director, 1964. Awards: Kinema Jumpo Best Film of the Year, for The Morning of the Osone Family, 1946, 24 Eyes, 1954, and The Ballad of Narayama, 1958. Died: 30 December 1998, in Tokyo, Japan, of stroke. Films as Director: 1943 Hanasaku minato (The Blossoming Port); Ikite-iru Magoroku (The Living Magoroku) (+ sc) 1944 Kanko no machi (Jubilation Street; Cheering Town); Rikugun (The Army) 1946 Osone-ke no asa (Morning for the Osone Family); Waga koiseshi otome (The Girl I Loved) (+ sc) 1947 Kekkon (Marriage) (+ story); Fujicho (Phoenix) (+ sc) 1948 Onna (Woman) (+ sc); Shozo (The Portrait); Hakai (Apostasy) 1949 Ojosan kanpai (A Toast to the Young Miss; Here’s to the Girls); Yotsuya kaidan, I-II (The Yotsuya Ghost Story, Parts I and II); Yabure daiko (Broken Drum) (+ co-sc) 1950 Konyaku yubiwa (Engagement Ring) (+ sc) 1951 Zemma (The Good Fairy) (+ co-sc); Karumen kokyo ni kaeru (Carmen Comes Home) (+ sc); Shonen ki (A Record of Youth) (+ co-sc); Umi no hanabi (Fireworks over the Sea) (+ sc) 1952 Karumen junjo su (Carmen’s Pure Love) (+ sc) 1953 Nihon no higeki (A Japanese Tragedy) (+ sc) 1954 Onna no sono (The Garden of Women) (+ sc); Nijushi no hitomi (Twenty-four Eyes) (+ sc) 1955 Toi kumo (Distant Clouds) (+ co-sc); Nogiku no gotoki kimi nariki (You Were like a Wild Chrysanthemum) (+ sc) 1956 Yuyake-gumo (Clouds at Twilight); Taiyo to bara (The Rose on His Arm) (+ sc) 1957 Yorokobi mo kanashimi mo ikutoshitsuki (Times of Joy and Sorrow; The Lighthouse) (+ sc); Fuzen no tomoshibi (A Candle in the Wind; Danger Stalks Near) (+ sc) 1958 Narayama bushi-ko (The Ballad of the Narayama) (+ sc); Kono ten no niji (The Eternal Rainbow; The Rainbow of This Sky) (+ sc) 1959 Kazabana (Snow Flurry) (+ sc); Sekishun-cho (The Bird of Springs Past) (+ sc); Kyo mo mata kakute arinan (Thus Another Day) (+ sc) 1960 Haru no yume (Spring Dreams) (+ sc); Fuefuki-gawa (The River Fuefuki) (+ sc) 1961 Eien no hito (The Bitter Spirit; Immortal Love) (+ sc) 1962 Kotoshi no koi (This Year’s Love) (+ sc); Futari de aruita iku- haru-aki (The Seasons We Walked Together) (+ sc) 1963 Utae, wakodo-tachi (Sing, Young People!); Shito no densetsu (Legend of a Duel to the Death) (+ sc) 1964 Koge (The Scent of Incense) (+ sc) 1967 Natsukashiki fue ya taiko (Lovely Flute and Drum) (+ pr, sc) 1976 Suri Lanka no ai to wakare (Love and Separation in Sri Lanka) (+ sc) KINUGASA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 524 1979 Shodo satsujin: Musukoyo (My Son) (+ sc) 1983 Kono ko o nokoshite (The Children of Nagasaki; These Children Survive Me) 1986 Yorokobi mo kanashima mo ikutoshitsuki (Times of Joy and Sorrow; Big Joys, Small Sorrows) Publications By KINOSHITA: articles— ‘‘Jisaku o kataru,’’ [Keisuke Kinoshita Talks about His Films], in Kinema Jumpo (Tokyo), no.115, 1955. Interview with P. Vecchi, in Cineforum (Bergamo), August 1984. Interview with A. Tournès, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), November- December 1986. On KINOSHITA: books— Anderson, Joseph, and Donald Richie, The Japanese Film, New York, 1961. Mellen, Joan, The Waves at Genji’s Door, New York, 1976. Bock, Audie, Japanese Film Directors, Tokyo, 1978. K?nig, Regula, and Marianne Lewinsky, Keisuke Kinoshita: Entretien, etudes, filmographie, iconographie, Locarno, 1986. On KINOSHITA: articles— ‘‘Keisuke Kinoshita,’’ in Film Dope (London), September 1984. Tournès, A., ‘‘Terres inconnues du cinéma japonais,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), October 1984. Niogret, H., ‘‘Keisuke Kinoshita: Un metteur en scène de compagnie,’’ in Positif (Paris), July/August 1986. National Film Theatre Programme (London), March 1987. Obituary, by Jon Herskovitz, in Variety (New York), 11 Janu- ary 1999. *** Keisuke Kinoshita’s films are characteristic of the Shochiku Studio’s work: healthy home drama and melodrama as conventional- ized by the studio’s two masters, Shimazu and Ozu, who specialized in depicting everyday family life. Kinoshita gravitated toward senti- mentalism and a belief in the eventual triumph of good will and sincere efforts. It was against this ‘‘planned unity’’ that the new generation of Shochiku directors (for example, Oshima and his group) reacted. Kinoshita was skilled in various genres. His light satiric comedies began with his first film, The Blossoming Port. Although ostensibly it illustrated the patriotism of two con men in a small port town, this film demonstrated Kinoshita’s extraordinary talent for witty mise-en- scène and briskly-paced storytelling. His postwar comedies include Broken Drum, Carmen Comes Home, Carmen’s Pure Love and A Candle in the Wind, which captured the liberated spirit of postwar democratization. A Toast to the Young Miss was a kind of situation comedy that became unusually successful due to its excellent cast. Among Kinoshita’s popular romantic melodramas, Marriage and Phoenix surprised audiences with bold and sophisticated expressions of love, helping pioneer the new social morality in Japanese film. You Were like a Wild Chrysanthemum is a romantic, sentimental love story. The sentimental human drama became Kinoshita’s most char- acteristic film. It is typified by 24 Eyes, which deftly appeals to the Japanese audience’s sentimentality, depicting the life of a woman teacher on a small island. This was followed by such films as Times of Joy and Sorrow, The Seasons We Walked Together, and Lovely Flute and Drum. The Shochiku Studio was proud that these films could attract ‘‘women coming with handkerchiefs to wipe away their tears.’’ Films of rather straightforward social criticism include Morning for the Osone Family, Apostasy, A Japanese Tragedy, The Garden of Women, The Ballad of the Narayama, and Snow Flurry. These vary from rather crude ‘‘postwar democratization’’ films to films that deal with such topics as the world of folklore, struggles against the feudalistic system, and current social problems. Kinoshita was adven- turous in his technical experimentation. Carmen Comes Home is the first Japanese color film and is sophisticated in its use of the new technology. In its sequel, Carmen’s Pure Love, he employed tilting compositions throughout the film, producing a wry comic atmos- phere. In A Japanese Tragedy, newsreel footage was inserted to connect the historical background with the narrative. You Were like a Wild Chrysanthemum, a film presented as an old man’s memory of his youth, creates a nostalgic effect by vignetting with an oval shape and with misty images. The Ballad of the Narayama, except for the last outdoor sequence, takes place on a set that accentuates artificial- ity and theatricality, with the added effect of a peculiar use of color. Kabuki-style acting, music, and storytelling create the fable-like ambience of this film. The River Fuefuki is entirely tinted in colors that correspond to the sentiment of each scene (e.g., red for fighting, blue for funerals, and green for peaceful village life). After the Japanese film industry sank into a depression in the 1960s, Kinoshita successfully continued his career in TV for a long period. His skill at entertaining and his sense of experimentation kept him popular with television audiences as well. —Kyoko Hirano KINUGASA, Teinosuke Nationality: Japanese. Born: Teinosuke Kogame in Mie Prefecture, 1 January 1896. Education: Sasayama Private School. Career: Ran away to Nagoya, began theatrical apprenticeship, 1913; stage debut, 1915; oyama actor (playing female roles), Nikkatsu Mukojima studio, 1918; wrote and directed first film, 1921; moved to Makino Kinema, 1922; contract director for Shochiku Company, formed Kinugasa Motion Picture League, became involved with new actors’ and technicians’ union, led mass walkout over plan to replace oyama KINUGASADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 525 actors with female performers, mid-1920s; travelled to Russia and Germany, 1928; returned to Japan, 1929; began association with kabuki actor Hasegawa, 1935; moved to Toho Company, 1939; moved to Daiei Company, 1949, (appointed to board of directors, 1958). Awards: Best Film, Cannes Festival, Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, and Best Foreign Film, New York Film Critics, for Gate of Hell, 1954; Purple Ribbon Medal, Japan, for distinguished cultural service, 1958. Died: 26 February 1982. Films as Director: 1921 Imoto no shi (The Death of My Sister) (+ sc, role) 1922 Niwa no kotori (Two Little Birds) (+ sc); Hibana (Spark) (+ sc) 1923 Hanasake jijii (+ sc); Jinsei o Mitsumete (+ sc); Onna-yo ayamaru nakare (+ sc); Konjiki yasha (The Golden Demon) (+ sc); Ma no ike (The Spirit of the Pond) (+ sc) 1924 Choraku no kanata (Beyond Decay) (+ sc); Kanojo to unmei (She Has Lived Her Destiny) (in two parts) (+ sc); Kire no ame (Fog and Rain) (+ sc); Kishin yuri keiji (+ sc); Kyoren no buto (Dance Training) (+ sc); Mirsu (Love) (+ sc); Shohin (Shuto) (+ sc); Shohin (Shusoku) (+ sc); Jashumon no onna (A Woman’s Heresy) (+ sc); Tsuma no himitsu (Secret of a Wife); Koi (Love); Sabishi mura (Lonely Village) 1925 Nichirin (The Sun); Koi to bushi (Love and a Warrior) (+ sc); Shinju yoimachigusa; Tsukigata hanpeita; Wakaki hi no chuji 1926 Kurutta ippeiji (A Page of Madness); Kirinji; Teru hi kumoru hi (Shining Sun Becomes Clouded); Hikuidori (Casso- wary); Ojo Kichiza; Oni azami; Kinno jidai (Epoch of Loyalty); Meoto boshi (Star of Married Couples); Goyosen; Dochu sugoruku bune; Dochu sugoruku kago (The Palan- quin); Akatsuki no yushi (A Brave Soldier at Dawn); Gekka no kyojin (Moonlight Madness) 1928 Jujiro (Crossroads) (+ sc); Benten Kozo (Gay Masquerade); Keiraku hichu; Kaikokuki (Tales from a Country by the Sea); Chokon yasha (Female Demon) 1931 Reimei izen (Before Dawn) (+ sc); Tojin okichi 1932 Ikinokata Shinsengumi (The Surviving Shinsengumi) (+ sc); Chushingura (The Loyal 47 Ronin; The Vengeance of the 47 Ronin) (+ sc) 1933 Tenichibo to iganosuke (+ sc); Futatsu doro (Two Stone Lanterns) (+ sc); Toina no Ginpei (Ginpei from Koina) (+ sc) 1934 Kutsukate tokijiro (+ sc); Fuyaki shinju (+ sc); Ippan gatana dohyoiri (A Sword and the Sumo Ring) (+ sc); Nagurareta kochiyama (+ sc) 1935 Yukinojo henge (The Revenge of Yukinojo; Yukinojo’s Revenge) (+ co-sc) (in 3 parts, part 3 released 1936); Kurayama no ushimatsu (+ sc) 1937 Hito hada Kannon (The Sacred Protector) (+ sc) (in 5 parts); Osaka natsu no jin (The Summer Battle of Osaka) (+ sc) 1938 Kuroda seichuroku (+ sc) 1940 Hebi himesama (The Snake Princess) (+ sc) (in two parts) 1941 Kawanakajima kassen (The Battle of Kawanakajima) (+ sc) 1943 Susume dokuritsuki (Forward Flag of Independence) 1945 Umi no bara (Rose of the Sea) 1946 Aru yo no tonosama (Lord for a Night) 1947 ‘‘Koi no sakasu (The Love Circus)’’ section of Yottsu no koi no monogatari (The Story of Four Loves); Joyu (Actress) (+ co-sc) 1949 Kobanzame (part 2) (+ sc); Koga yashiki (Koga Mansion) (+ sc); Satsujinsha no kao (The Face of a Murderer) 1951 Beni komori (+ sc); Tsuki no watari-dori (Migratory Birds under the Moon) (+ sc); Meigatsu somato (Lantern Under a Full Moon) (+ sc) 1952 Daibutsu kaigen (Saga of the Great Buddha; The Dedication of the Great Buddha) (+ sc); Shurajo hibun (+ sc) (in 2 parts) 1953 Jigokumon (Gate of Hell) (+ sc) 1954 Yuki no yo ketto (Duel of a Snowy Night) (+ sc); Hana no nagadosu (End of a Prolonged Journey) (+ sc); Tekka bugyo (+ sc) 1955 Yushima no shiraume (The Romance of Yushima; White Sea of Yushima) (+ sc); Kawa no aru shitamachi no hanashi (It Happened in Tokyo) (+ sc); Bara ikutabi (A Girl Isn’t Allowed to Love) (+ sc) 1956 Yoshinaka o meguru sannin no onna (Three Women around Yoshinaka) (+ sc); Hibana (Spark) (+ sc); Tsukigata hanpeita (in 2 parts) (+ sc) 1957 Shirasagi (White Heron; The Snowy Heron) (+ sc); Ukifune (Floating Vessel) (+ sc); Naruto hicho (A Fantastic Tale of Naruto) (+ sc) 1958 Haru koro no hana no en (A Spring Banquet) (+ sc); Osaka no onna (A Woman of Osaka) (+ sc) 1959 Joen (Tormented Flame) (+ sc); Kagero ezu (Stop the Old Fox) (+ sc) 1960 Uta andon (The Old Lantern) (+ sc) 1961 Midare-gami (Dishevelled Hair) (+ sc); Okoto to Sasuke (Okoto and Sasuke) (+ sc) 1963 Yoso (Priest and Empress; The Sorcerer) (+ sc); episode of Uso (When Women Lie; Lies) 1967 Chiisana tobosha (The Little Runaway) (co-d) 1968 Tsumiki no hako Other Films: (incomplete listing) 1918 Nanairo yubi wa (The Seven-Colored Ring) (Oguchi) (film acting debut) 1920 Ikeru shikabane (The Living Corpse) (Tanaka) (role) Publications By KINUGASA: articles— Interview with H. Niogret, in Positif (Paris), May 1973. ‘‘Une Page folle,’’ interview with Max Tessier, in Ecran (Paris), April 1975. KLUGE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 526 On KINUGASA: book— Anderson, Joseph, and Donald Richie, The Japanese Film: Art and Industry, New York, 1960; revised edition, Princeton, New Jer- sey, 1982. On KINUGASA: articles— Tessier, Max, ‘‘Yasujiro Ozu et le cinéma japonais à la fin du muet,’’ in Ecran (Paris), December 1979. Tessier, Max, obituary, in Image et Son (Paris), April 1982. Obituary in Cinéma (Paris), June 1982. Petric, Vlad, ‘‘A Page of Madness: A Neglected Masterpiece of the Silent Cinema,’’ in Film Criticism (Meadville, Pennsylvania), Fall 1983. ‘‘Teinosuke Kinugasa,’’ in Film Dope (London), January 1985. Cinema Journal (Champaign, Illinois), Autumn 1989. Murphy, J.A., ‘‘Approaching Japanese Melodrama,’’ in East-West (Honolulu), July 1993. *** Teinosuke Kinugasa made two of the most famous films ever to come out of Japan, and was, historically, the first of his country’s directors known in the West. Rashomon brought wider interest and admiration for Japanese cinema, but some observers fondly recall Crossroads, which had some showings in Europe in 1929 and in New York in 1930, under the title The Slums of Tokyo. On one hand, Crossroads is the Japanese equivalent of the German ‘‘street’’ films, and on the other it is the oft-told local tale of a hard-working, self- sacrificing woman suffering on behalf of her idle younger brother, who is in love with an unvirtuous woman. The pace is slow, but the film is the work of a master. As in his earlier surrealist and experimen- tal film, A Page of Madness, which made a late, freak appearance in the West in 1973, he intercuts furiously to express mental agitation and to move backwards and forwards in time in a way seldom used in Western cinema until the Nouvelle Vague in the 1960s. Kinugasa’s films of the 1930s confirm the impression that he did not regard the camera as a mere recorder: we may be astonished by the number of glides, of overhead shots, of sudden close-ups—each correctly juxtaposed against the images on either side. It is clear that Kinugasa, along with his peers, used this ‘‘decorative’’ approach rather more freely with historical subjects: if you compare his most popular film, The Revenge of Yukinojo with Ichikawa’s 1963 remake, An Actor’s Revenge, you will find many of the shots duplicated, despite the stunning addition of colour and wide screen. (The same actor, Kazuo Hasegawa, appeared in both, but here under the pseudo- nym Chojiro Hayashi.) The two films are too far apart, chronologically, to make further comparisons, but in 1947 Kinugasa directed Actress, while Mizoguchi tackled the same subject, based on fact, in The Love of Sumako the Actress. Mizoguchi’s version has an intensity lacking in Kinugasa’s film, which is more subtle. Gate of Hell (1953) was the first Japanese colour film seen in the West, and only one other film had preceded it, after Rashomon. It bowled over almost everyone who saw it: the gold, scarlet, beige, white, and green of the costumes; the mists, the moon, the sea, the distant hills. We did not know then how many Japanese films start this way, with an exposition of a country torn apart by war and revolution, nor how many concerned murderous and amorous intrigues among feudal warlords and their courtesans. Gate of Hell is an exquisite picture, but it remains overshadowed by Mizoguchi’s (black-and-white) historical films of this period. It lacks their power and tension, their breadth and their sheer craftsmanship. It was in this decade and into the 1960s that the Japanese cinema flowered, with a series of masterpieces by Kurosawa, Kobayashi, Ichikawa, and others. Some of the older directors, including Kinugasa, continued to make films of integrity and skill: but many of their films look a little plodding beside those made by the younger generation. —David Shipman KLUGE, Alexander Nationality: German. Born: Halberstadt, 14 February 1932. Educa- tion: Charlottenburger Gymnasium, Berlin, Abitur 1949; studied law and history at Freiburg, Marburg, and Johann-Wolfgang Goethe Universit?t, Frankfurt (degree in law, 1953). Career: Lawyer, novel- ist, and political writer, 1950s; began in films as assistant to Fritz Lang, 1958; leader and spokesman of group of German filmmakers protesting condition of German filmmaking, Oberhausen Festival, 1962; head of film division of Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm (known as ‘‘Institut für Filmgestaltung’’), from 1962; founder, Kairos- Films, 1963. Awards: Berliner Kuntspreis for Lebensl?ufe, 1964; Bayrischer Staatspreis für Literatur, for Portr?t einer Bew?rung and for Schlachtbeschreibung; Golden Lion, Venice Festival, for Die Artisten in der Zirkus-kuppel: ratlos, 1967; Honorary Professor, University of Frankfurt am Main, 1973; International Critics award, Cannes Festival, for Ferdinand the Strongman, 1976; Fontane-Preis, 1979; Grosser Breme Literatur-preis, 1979. Address: Elisabethstrasse 38, 8000 Munich 40, Germany. Films as Director: 1960 Brutalit?t in Stein (Die Ewigkeit von gestern; Brutality in Stone; Yesterday Goes on for Ever) (co-d) (short) 1961 Rennen (Racing) (co-d) (short) 1963 Lehrer im Wandel (Teachers in Transformation) (co-d) (short) 1964 Portr?t einer Bew?hrung (Portrait of One Who Proved His Mettle) (short) 1966 Pokerspiel (short); Abschied von gestern (Yesterday Girl) 1967 Frau Blackburn, geb. 5 Jan. 1872, wird gefilmt (Frau Blackburn, Born 5 Jan. 1872, Is Filmed) (short); Die Artisten in der Zirkuskuppel: ratlos (Artistes at the Top of the Big Top—Disoriented) 1968 Feuerl?scher E. A. Winterstein (Fireman E. A. Winterstein) (short) KLUGEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 527 Alexander Kluge on the set of Yesterday Girl 1969 Die unbez?hmbare Leni Peickert (The Indomitable Leni Peickert); Ein Arzt aus Halberstadt (A Doctor from Halberstadt) (short) 1970 Der grosse Verhau (The Big Dust-up) 1971 Wir verbauen 3 x 27 Milliarden Dollar in einen Angriffs- schlachter (Der Angriffsschlachter; We’ll Blow 3 x 27 Billion Dollars on a Destroyer; The Destroyer) (short); Willi Tobler und der Untergang der sechste Flotte (Willi Tobler and the Wreck of the Sixth Fleet) 1972 Besitzbürgerin, Jahrgang 1908 (A Woman from the Property- owning Middle Class, Born 1908) (short) 1973 Gelegenheitsarbeit einer Sklavin (Occasional Work of a Fe- male Slave) 1974 In Gefahr und gr?sster Not bringt der Mittelweg den Tod (The Middle of the Road Is a Very Dead End) 1975 Der starke Ferdinand (Strongman Ferdinand); Augen aus einem anderen Land 1977 Die Menschen, die die Staufer-Austellung vorbereiten (Die Menschen, die das Stauferjahr vorbereiten; The People Who Are Preparing the Year of the Hohenstaufens) (co-d) (short); ‘‘Zu b?ser Schlacht schleich’ ich heut’ Nacht so bang’’ (In Such Trepidation I Creep off Tonight to the Evil Battle) (revised version of Willi Tobler and the Wreck of the Sixth Fleet) 1979 Die Patriotin (The Patriotic Woman) 1980 Der Kandidat (co-d) 1983 Krieg und Frieden (co-d); Die Macht der Gefühle (The Power of Emotions) 1985 Der Angriff der Gegenwart auf die Ubrige Zeit (The Blind Director) 1987 Vermischte Nachrichten (+ sc, pr) Other Films: 1965 Unendliche Fahrt—aber begrenzt (Reitz) (feature) (text) 1973 Die Reise nach Wien (Reitz) (sc) 1978 Deutschland im Herbst (Germany in Autumn) (Schl?ndorff) (contribution) 1986 There Must Be a Way Out: The Film World of Alexander Kluge (Buchka) (addl d) 1989 Schweinegeld, Ein Marchen der Gebruder Nimm (pr) KLUGE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 528 Publications By KLUGE: books— Kulturpolitik und Ausgabenkontrolle, Frankfurt, 1961. Lebensl?ufe, Stuttgart, 1962; 2nd edition, Frankfurt, 1974. Schlachtbeschreibung, Olten and Freiburg, 1964; expanded edition, Munich, 1978. Abschied von gestern, Frankfurt am Main, n.d. Die Artisten in der Zirkuskuppel: ratlos. Die Ungl?ubige. Projekt Z. Sprüche der Leni Peickert, Munich, 1968. Der Untergang der sechsten Armee—Schlachtbeschreibung, Munich, 1969. ?ffentlichkeit und Erfahrung. Zur Organisationsanalyse bürgerlicher und proletarischer ?ffentlichkeit, with Oskar Negt, Frankfurt, 1972. Filmwirtschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und in Europa. G?tterd?mmerung in Raten, with Florian Hopf and Michael Dost, Munich, 1973. Lernprozesse mit t?dlichem Ausgang, Frankfurt, 1973. Gelegenheitsarbeit einer Sklavin. Zur realistischen Methode, Frank- furt, 1975. Neue Erz?hlungen. Hefte 1–18 ‘‘Unheimlichkeit der Zeit,’’ Frank- furt, 1977. Die Patriotin, Frankfurt, 1979. Geschichte und Eigensinn, with Oskar Negt, 1982. Die Macht der Gefühle, Frankfurt, 1984. Der Angriff de Gegenwart auf die übrige zeit, Frankfurt, 1985. Theodor Fontane, Heinrich von Kleist und Anna Wilde: Zur Grammatik der Zeit, K. Wagenbach, 1987. Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere, with Oskar Negt, University of Minnesota Press, 1993. Ich Schulde der Welt einen Toten: Gesprache, Rotbuch Verlag, 1995. Learning Process with a Deadly Outcome, translated by Christopher Pavsek, Durham, 1996. By KLUGE: articles— ‘‘Medienproduktion,’’ in Perspektiven der kommunalen Kulturpolitik, edited by Hoffman and Hilmar, Frankfurt, 1974. ‘‘KINO-Gespr?ch mit Alexander Kluge,’’ interview with A. Meyer, in KINO (Berlin), May 1974. Interview with J. Dawson, in Film Comment (New York), November/ December 1974. ‘‘Film ist das natürliche Tauschverh?ltnis der Arbeit. . . ,’’ interview with B. Steinborn, in Filmfaust (Frankfurt), December 1977. ‘‘Das Theater der spezialisten, Kraut und Rüben,’’ interview with M. Schaub, in Cinema (Zurich), May 1978. ‘‘Kluge Issue’’ of ZEIT Magazin, 9 March 1979. ‘‘Die Patriotin: Entstehungsgeschichte—Inhalt,’’ in Filmkritik (Mu- nich), November 1979. ‘‘Eine realistische Haltung müsste der Zuschauer haben, müsste ich jaben, müsste der Film Haben,’’ with R. Frey, in Filmfaust (Frankfurt), November 1980. ‘‘On Film and the Public Sphere,’’ in New German Critique, Fall 1981-Winter 1982. Interviews with B. Steinborn in Filmfaust (Frankfurt), February/ March 1982 and February/March 1983. ‘‘Zum Unterschied von Machtbar und Gewalttatig: Die Macht der Bewusstseinsindustrie und das Schicksal Unserer Offentlichkeit,’’ in Merkur: Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Europaisches Denken, April 1984. ‘‘Das Schicksal und Seine Gegengeschichten: Zu Zwei Textstellen aus Opern,’’ in Merkur: Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Europaisches Denken, September 1984. ‘‘Symposium on Homelessness,’’ in If You Lived Here: The City in Art, Theory, and Social Activism, Bay Press, 1991. ‘‘Film Digression,’’ in Writing in the Film Age: Essays by Contempo- rary Novelists, University of Colorado Press, 1991. ‘‘Kluge’s Dilemmas,’’ in Filmnews, April 1992. ‘‘Resurrection,’’ in Art from the Ashes: A Holocaust Anthology, Oxford University Press, 1995. ON KLUGE: books— Buselmeier, M., In Gefahr und gr?sster not bringt der mittelweg den tod. Zur operativit?t bei Alexander Kluge, Heidelberg, 1975. Gregor, Ulrich, and others, Herzog, Kluge, Straub, Munich, 1976. K?tz, M., and P. H?he, Sinnlichkeit des Zusammenhangs, Zur Filmstrategie Alexander Kluges, Frankfurt, 1979. Lewandowski, Rainer, Alexander Kluge, Munich, 1980. Sandford, John, The New German Cinema, Totowa, New Jersey, 1980. Franklin, James, New German Cinema: From Oberhausen to Ham- burg, Boston, 1983. Phillips, Klaus, New German Filmmakers: From Oberhausen through the 1970s, New York, 1984. Carp, Stefanie, Kriegsgeschichten: zum werk Alexander Kluges, Munich, 1987. Alexander Kluge: A Retrospective, Goethe Institute, 1988. O’Kane, John Russell, Film and Cultural Politics after the Avant- garde, University of Minnesota, 1988. Rentschler, Eric, West German Filmmakers on Film: Visions and Voices, New York, 1988. Elsaesser, Thomas, New German Cinema: A History, London, 1989. Gnam, Andrea, Positionen der wunschokonomie: das asthetische textmodell Alexander Kluges und seine philosophischen voraussetzungen, P. Lang, 1989. Kaes, Anton. From ‘‘Hitler’’ to ‘‘Heimat’’: The Return of History as Film, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1989. Lutze, Peter-Charles, The Last Modernist: The Film and Television Work of Alexander Kluge, Madison, Wisconsin, 1991. Steckel, Gerd, The Empty Space in Between: Alexander Kluge’s Texts and Films between the Traditions of Enlightenment and Romantic Discourses, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1992. Gruneis, Olaf, Schauspielerische darstellung in filmen Alexander Kluges: Zur Ideologiekritik des schauspielens im film, Die Blaue Eule, 1994. Pavsek, Christopher Paul, The Utopia of Film: The Critical Theory and Films of Alexander Kluge, Duke University, 1994. Fehrenbach, Heide, Cinema in Democratizing Germany: Recon- structing National Identity after Hitler, North Carolina University Press, 1995. Huyssen, Andreas, Twilight Memories: Marking Time in a Culture of Amnesia, New York, 1995. KLUGEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 529 On KLUGE: articles— ‘‘Kluge Issue’’ of Filmkritik (Munich), December 1976. Moeller, H. B., and C. Springer, ‘‘Directed Change in the Young German Film: Alexander Kluge and Artists under the Big Top: Perplexed,’’ in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol .2, no. 1, 1978. Bruck, J., ‘‘Kluge’s Antagonistic Concept of Realism,’’ in Australian Journal of Screen Theory (Kensington, New South Wales), no. 13/ 14, 1983. Tournès, A., ‘‘Kluge: L’intelligence du sentiment. Armer les entiments,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), November 1983. ‘‘Alexander Kluge,’’ in Film Dope (London), January 1985. Hansen, M., ‘‘The Stubborn Discourse: History and Storytelling in the Films of Alexander Kluge,’’ in Persistence of Vision (Maspeth, New York), Fall 1985. Steinborn, B., ‘‘Der Verfuhrerische Charme der Phantasie,’’ in Filmfaust (Frankfurt), December 1985/January 1986. Bowie, A., ‘‘Alexander Kluge: An Introduction,’’ in Cultural Cri- tique, Fall 1986. Bruck, Jan, ‘‘Brecht and Kluge’s Aesthetics of Realism,’’ in Poetics: International Review for the Theory of Literature, April 1988. ‘‘Kluge Issue’’ of October, Fall 1988. Huber, A, ‘‘Kluge Sites,’’ in Filmnews, vol. 19, no. 9, 1989. Rainer, Y., and Larsen, E., ‘‘We Are Demolition Artists,’’ in Inde- pendent, June 1989. ‘‘Special Issue on Alexander Kluge,’’ New German Critique, Win- ter 1990. Kaes, Anton, ‘‘History and Film: Public Memory in the Age of Electronic Dissemination,’’ in History and Memory, no. 1, 1990. Mantegna, Gianfranco, ‘‘Television and Its Shadow: New German Video: Kluge, Klier, Odenbach,’’ in Arts Magazine, January 1991. Bruck, J, ‘‘Kluge’s Dilemmas,’’ in Filmnews, vol. 22, no. 3, 1992. Pavsek, Christopher, ‘‘The Storyteller in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction: Alexander Kluge’s Reworking of Walter Benja- min,’’ in Found Object, Fall 1993. Staunton, Denis, ‘‘Vox Appeal,’’ in Guardian, 8 November 1993. Schulte, C. and G. Vogt, ‘‘Vorwort,’’ in Augen-Blick (Marburg), no. 23, August 1996. *** Alexander Kluge, the chief ideologue of the new German cinema, is the author of various books in the areas of sociology, contemporary philosophy, and social theory. In 1962 he helped initiate, and was the spokesman for, the ‘‘Oberhausen Manifesto,’’ in which ‘‘Das Opas Kino’’ (‘‘grandpa’s cinema’’) was declared dead. At the same time Kluge published his first book, Lebensl?ufe, a collection of stories that presented a comprehensive cross-section of contemporary life along with its deeply rooted historical causes. His method is grounded in a rich and representative mosaic of sources: fiction, public records and reports, essays, actual occurrences, news, quotations, observations, ideas, and free associations. The method is used by Kluge as a principle of construction in his best films, such as Abschied von gestern, Die Artisten in der Zirkuskuppel: ratlos, In Gefahr und gr?sster Not bringt der Mittelweg den Tod, and in the series of collective films: Deutschland im Herbst, Der Kandidat, and Krieg und Frieden. The theme of war, in particular the Second World War, appears in all his works. Kluge views filmmaking as another form of writing since it essentially continues the recording of his participation in the develop- ment of society and in everyday life. His unifying creative trait could be called verbal concentration, or image concentration. His filmic activity is a living extension of his comprehensive epistemological and sociological researches, which he has published, together with Oskar Negt (associated with the ‘‘Frankfurt School’’ of Adorno and Horkheimer), as ?ffentlichkeit und Erfahrung (1972) and Geschichte und Eigensinn (1982). Kluge’s films probe reality—not by way of the fantastic fictions of Fassbinder, or film school pictures as with Wenders—but through establishing oppositions and connections between facts, artifacts, reflections, and bits of performance. The protagonists of his feature films are mostly women who seek to grasp and come to terms with their experiences. For the sake of continuity these women are played either by Alexandra Kluge, his sister, or by Hannelore Hoger. They move through the jungle of contemporary life, watching and witness- ing, suffering and fighting. The director mirrors their experiences. As a filmmaker, Kluge is unique, but not isolated. The three collective films, which together with Volker Schl?ndorff, Fassbinder, Stephan Aust, and others he has devoted to the most pressing contemporary events, are something new and original in the history of world cinema. Without Kluge these would be inconceivable, since it is he who pulls together and organizes, aesthetically and ideologi- cally, the fragments filmed by the others. He creates film forms and image structures to transform the various narrative modes and artistic conceptions into a new, conscious, mobilized art of cinema, free of fantasy. This cinema is not only non-traditional, but conveys a socio- historical content. Without Kluge a new German cinema would be scarcely conceiv- able, since creative inspiration needs to be supported by a strong film- political foundation. It is thanks to him, above all, that film was officially promoted in the Federal Republic, and that film in Germany has been taken seriously in the last two decades. An untiring fighter for the interests of his colleagues, Kluge gets involved whenever the fate of the new German cinema is at stake. Since the late 1980s, Kluge has become involved in the production of alternative programming for German television. Like the overtly political aims of his filmmaking, Kluge hopes that his efforts in the television industry will help to assemble and sustain a public sphere where open critical discourse concerning German and European politics may occur. Kluge, by means of his ‘‘Development Company for Television Producers,’’ has been instrumental in arranging for magazines such as Der Spiegel and Stern to purchase air time on German commercial television in order for each of them to produce and broadcast independent news programs. It is Kluge’s hope that ‘‘the complete editorial independence’’ of these productions will ‘‘offer diversity’’ on television, a medium that typically seeks, in formal and thematic ways, to deny the existence of a heterogeneous viewing audience. In a 1988 interview Kluge remarked: ‘‘You only need one percent of alternative television, of calmness within the television set. If you have it, people will accept that this TV world isn’t the only one.’’ In addition to his efforts in television, in 1993 Kluge co-authored another book with Oskar Negt, Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois Public and Proletarian Public Sphere (1993), in which he continues his interrogations of late- twentieth-century culture. Indeed, the proliferation of articles, books, and dissertations examining Kluge’s artistic and theoretical contribu- tions continue to suggest his impact on several cultural fronts. KOBAYASHI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 530 Whether on the screen or the page, the accomplishments of Alexander Kluge continue to distinguish him as a figure sincerely committed to social and political change. —Maria Racheva, updated by Kevin J. Costa KOBAYASHI, Masaki Nationality: Japanese. Born: Hokkaido, 4 February 1916. Educa- tion: Educated in Oriental art at Waseda University, Tokyo, 1933–41. Military Service: Drafted into military service, served in Manchuria, 1942–44; following his refusal to be promoted above rank of private as expression of opposition to conduct of war, transferred to Ryukyu Islands, 1944, then interned in detention camp on Okinawa. Career: Assistant at Shochiku’s Ofuna studios for 8 months prior to military service, 1941; returned to Shochiku, 1946; assistant director on staff of Keisuke Kinoshita, 1947–52; directed first film, 1952. Awards: Recipient, Special Jury Prizes, Cannes Festival, for Seppuku, 1963, and for Kwaidan, 1965. Died: 4 October 1996, in Tokyo, Japan, of cardiac arrest. Films as Director: 1952 Musuko no seishun (My Sons’ Youth) 1953 Magokoro (Sincerity; Sincere Heart) 1954 Mittsu no ai (Three Loves) (+ sc); Kono hiroi sora no dokoka ni (Somewhere under the Broad Sky) 1955 Uruwashiki saigetsu (Beautiful Days) 1956 Kabe atsuki heya (The Thick-walled Room) (completed 1953); Izumi (The Spring; The Fountainhead); Anata kaimasu (I’ll Buy You) 1957 Kuroi kawa (Black River) 1959 Ningen no joken I (The Human Condition Part I: No Greater Love) (+ co-sc); Ningen no joken II (The Human Condition Part II: Road to Eternity) (+ co-sc) 1961 Ningen no joken III (The Human Condition Part III: A Sol- dier’s Prayer) (+ co-sc) 1962 Karami-ai (The Entanglement; The Inheritance); Seppuku (Harakiri) 1964 Kwaidan (Kaidan) 1967 Joiuchi (Rebellion) 1968 Nihon no seishun (The Youth of Japan; Hymn to a Tired Man) 1971 Inochi bo ni furo (Inn of Evil; At the Risk of My Life) 1975 Kaseki (Fossils) (originally made for TV as 8-part series) 1983 Tokyo saiban (The Tokyo Trials) (documentary) 1985 Shokutaku no nai ie (The Empty Table) Publications By KOBAYASHI: articles— ‘‘Harakiri, Kobayashi, Humanism,’’ interview with James Silke, in Cinema (Beverly Hills), June/July 1963. ‘‘Cinq japonais en quête de films: Masaki Kobayashi,’’ interview with Max Tessier, in Ecran (Paris), March 1972. Interview with Joan Mellen, in Voices from the Japanese Cinema, New York, 1975. Interview with A. Tournès, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), April 1985. Interview with G. Bechtold and A. Meyer, in Filmfaust (Frankfurt am Main), January-Feburary 1987. Interview with H. Niogret, in Positif (Paris), December 1993. On KOBAYASHI: books— Bock, Audie, Japanese Film Directors, New York, 1978; revised edition, Tokyo, 1985. Blouin, Claude R., Le Chemin détourné: Essai sur Kobayashi et le cinéma Japonais, Quebec, 1982. On KOBAYASHI: articles— Richie, Donald, ‘‘The Younger Talents,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Spring 1960. Iwabuchi, M., ‘‘Kobayashi’s Trilogy,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1962. Esnault, Philippe, ‘‘L’Astre japonais,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), February 1969. Kobayashi Section of Cinéma Québec (Montreal), February/ March 1974. Tucker, Richard, ‘‘Masaki Kobayashi,’’ in International Film Guide 1977, London, 1976. ‘‘Masaki Kobayashi,’’ in Film Dope (London), January 1985. Gillett, John, ‘‘Masaki Kobayashi: Power and Spectacle,’’ in Na- tional Film Theatre Booklet (London), July 1990. Niogret, Hubert and Eithne O’Neill, ‘‘Masaki Kobayashi,’’ in Positif (Paris), December 1993. Gr?fe, Lutz and Olaf M?ller, ‘‘Die Ethik der nackten Klinge,’’ in Film-Dienst (Cologne), 28 February 1995. Obituary, in Variety (New York), 21 October 1996. Obituary, in Séquences (Haute-Ville), November/December 1996. Obituary, in EPD Film (Frankfurt), December 1996. Obituary, in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), December 1996. Minks, Patrick, ‘‘Masaki Kobayashi (1916–1996),’’ in Skrien (Am- sterdam), December-January 1996–1997. *** The dilemma of the dissenter—the individual who finds himself irrevocably at odds with his society—is the overriding preoccupation of Kobayashi’s films, and one which grew directly from his own experience. In 1942, only months after starting his career at Shochiku studios, Kobayashi was drafted into the Imperial Japanese Army and sent to Manchuria. A reluctant conscript, he refused promotion above the rank of private and was later a prisoner of war. Released in 1946, he returned to filmmaking, becoming assistant to Keisuke Kinoshita, whose flair for lyrical composition clearly influenced Kobayashi’s own style—though he succeeded, fortunately, in shaking off the older director’s penchant for excessive sentimentality. Initially, Kobayashi’s concern with social justice, and the clash between society and the individual, expressed itself in direct treat- ment of specific current issues: war criminals in Kabe atsuki heya—a KOBAYASHIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 531 Masaki Kobayashi (seated) on the set of Shokutaku no nai ie subject so sensitive that the film’s release was delayed three years; corruption in sport in Anata kaimasu; and, in Kuroi kawa, organized crime and prostitution rampant around U.S. bases in Japan. This phase of Kobayashi’s career culminated in his towering three-part, nine-hour epic, Ningen no joken, a powerful and moving indictment of systematized brutality inherent in a militaristic society. The ordeal of the pacifist Kaji, hero of Ningen no joken (played by Tatsuya Nakadai, Kobayashi’s favorite actor), closely parallels the director’s own experiences during the war. Kaji is the archetypal Kobayashi hero, who protests, struggles, and is finally killed by an oppressive and inhumane system. His death changes nothing and will not even be recorded; yet the mere fact of it stands as an assertion of indomitable humanity. Similarly, the heroes of Kobayashi’s two finest films, Seppuku and Joiuchi, revolt, make their stand, and die— to no apparent avail. In these films Kobayashi turned the conventions of the jidai-geki (period movie) genre to his own ends, using historical settings to universalize his focus on the dissident individual. The masterly blend of style and content, with the unbending ritual of samurai convention perfectly matched by cool, reticent camera move- ment and elegantly geometric composition, marks in these two films the peak of Kobayashi’s art. By Japanese standards, Kobayashi made few films, working slowly and painstakingly with careful attention to detail. From Seppuku onwards, an increasing concern with formal beauty charac- terized his work, most notably in Kaidan. This film, based on four of Lafcadio Hearn’s ghost stories, carried for once no social message, but developed a strikingly original use of color and exquisitely stylized visual composition. The crisis that overtook Japanese cinema in the late 1960s hit Kobayashi’s career especially hard. His uncom- promising seriousness of purpose and the measured cadences of his style held little appeal for an industry geared increasingly to flashy exploitation movies. Few of his projects came to fruition, and Kaseki had to be made first for television, a medium he disliked. He refused to watch the eight-hour TV transmission, regarding it merely as rough footage for his 213-minute cinema version. Kaseki, in which a middle-aged businessman confronts the pros- pect of incurable cancer, seemed to mark a move away from Kobayashi’s wider social concerns—as did the far weaker Moeru aki. Tokyo saiban, though, found him back on more characteristic ground. A tour-de-force of editing, it used archive and newsreel footage to make compelling drama of the Allied trials of Japanese wartime leaders. With Shokutaku no nai ie, his final film, Kobayashi returned KOPPLE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 532 to his central preoccupation, with a principled individual (Nakadai once again) standing out against daunting social pressures. Though lacking the impact of Ningen no joken or Seppuku, it evinced his undiminished skill in exploiting the tension between outward formal- ity and inner turmoil and reaffirmed the austere integrity that in- formed all his work. —Philip Kemp KOPPLE, Barbara Nationality: American. Born: New York City, 30 July 1946. Educa- tion: Graduated from Northeastern University with degree in psy- chology. Career: Assisted documentary filmmakers as an editor, sound recordist, and camerawoman; spent four years in coal fields of Harlan County, Kentucky, recording struggles of unionized miners for documentary Harlan County, U.S.A., 1972–76. Awards: Critic’s Choice Award, Cannes Film Festival, 1972, for Winter Soldier; Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary, designation by Congress as American Film Classic in National Film Registry, Blue Ribbon, Grierson Award, and Emily Award at the American Film Festival, all 1977, all for Harlan County, U.S.A.; Christopher Award, 1977; Mademoiselle Award, 1977; National Endowment for the Arts fellowships, 1970s and 1980s; Blue Ribbon, American Film and Video Festival, 1990, for Out of Darkness; Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary, Grand Jury Prize, Audience Award, and Filmmaker’s Trophy at the Sundance Film Festival, Golden Gate Barbara Kopple Award at the San Francisco International Film Festival, Blue Ribbon at the American Film and Video Festival, Outstanding Achievement from the International Documentary Association, Los Angeles Film Critics Award, and National Society of Film Critics Award, all 1991, all for American Dream; Best Feature Documentary, Director’s Guild of America, 1992, for American Dream; Metro Labor Council Award, 1992; Cine Golden Eagle, 1992; John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship, 1992; Dorothy Arzner Directing Award, Women in Film, 1993; Outstanding Directorial Achievement from Director’s Guild of America, Alfred I. duPont-Columbia Uni- versity Award, and Best Special Award from Television Critics Association, all 1993, all for Fallen Champ. Films as Director: 1972 Winter Soldier (co-d) 1976 Harlan County, U.S.A. (+ sound, pr) 1981 No Nukes (co-d) 1983 Keeping On (+ exec pr) 1989 Civil Rights: The Struggle Continues (+ pr) 1990 Out of Darkness (co-d) 1991 American Dream (+ sound, co-pr) 1992 Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy (co-d); Locked Out: Ravenswood 1993 Fallen Champ: The Untold Story of Mike Tyson (+ pr) 1994 Century of Women (segment d) 1995 Prisoners of Hope (co-d) 1998 Woodstock ‘94 (+ pr); Wild Man Blues 1999 A Conversation with Gregory Peck 2000 My Generation Other Films: 1974 Richard III (pr, sound, ed) 1986 Hurricane Irene (pr) 1995 Nails (segment pr) Publications On KOPPLE: books— Rosenthal, Alan, The Documentary Conscience: A Casebook in Film Making, University of California Press, 1980. Shulevitz, Judith, The Women’s Companion to International Films, edited by Annette Kuhn and Susannah Radstone, University of California Press, 1994. On KOPPLE: articles— Dunning, Jennifer, ‘‘A Woman Film Maker in the Coal Fields,’’ in New York Times, 15 October 1976. Eder, Richard, ‘‘Film Festival: Harlan County,’’ in New York Times, 15 October 1976. Verr (A. Verrill), ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Variety, 20 Octo- ber 1976. KOPPLEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 533 Maslin, J., ‘‘Rich Vein,’’ in Newsweek, 1 November 1976. ‘‘Cinema 5’s Probable Harlan County Deal,’’ in Variety, 15 Decem- ber 1976. Biskind, Peter, ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.: The Miners’ Struggle,’’ in Jump Cut, no. 14, 1977. Kleinhans, Chuck, ‘‘Barbara Kopple Interview,’’ in Jump Cut, no. 14, 1977. Kaplan, E. A., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.: The Documentary Form,’’ in Jump Cut, no. 15, 1977. Paramentier, Ernest, ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in FilmFacts, vol. 20, no. 12, 1977. Mills, N., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Dissent, vol. 24, no. 3, 1977. Howe, I., ‘‘Another View of Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Dissent, vol. 24, no. 3, 1977. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Films in Focus: In the Winter of His Discontent,’’ in Village Voice, 31 January 1977. Kauffmann, Stanley, ‘‘Stanley Kauffmann on Films: Importances,’’ in New Republic, 12 February 1977. Blake, R. ‘‘The Reel-y Real,’’ in America, 12 February 1977. Haleff, M., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Film Bulletin, March 1977. Westerbeck, C. L., Jr., ‘‘Women’s Work,’’ in Commonweal, 4 March 1977. McCreadie, M., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Films in Review, April 1977. McNally, Judith, ‘‘The Making of Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Filmmakers Newsletter, May 1977. Carcassonne, P., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Cinématographe, June 1977. Giraud, T., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma, July 1977. Henry, M., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Positif, July/August 1977. Crowdus, Gary, ‘‘Filming in Harlan (Interviews with Barbara Kopple and Hart Perry),’’ in Cineaste, Summer 1977. Jones, E. S., ‘‘Harlan County U.S.A.,’’ in Film News, Summer 1977. Aghed, J., ‘‘Entretien avec Barbara Kopple,’’ in Positif, Octo- ber 1977. Bovier-Lapierre, E., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Cinématographe, October 1977. Martin, M., ‘‘Entretien avec Barbara Kopple,’’ in Ecran, 15 Octo- ber 1977. Le Peron, S., and L. Skorecki, ‘‘Entretien avec Barbara Kopple,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma, November 1977. Thirard, P. L., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Positif, November 1977. Grelier, R., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Revue du Cinéma, Novem- ber 1977. Odebrant, P., and J. Ohlsson, ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Chaplin, vol. 20, 1978. Vrdlovec, Z., ‘‘Harlanski revir,’’ in Ekran, vol. 3, 1978. Heijs, J., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Skrien, May 1978. McCall, A., and A. Tyndall, ‘‘Sixteen Working Statements: Notes from Work on a Film in Progress,’’ in Millennium, Spring/ Summer 1978. Forbes, J., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Sight and Sound, Sum- mer 1978. Coleman, J., ‘‘Crying out Loud,’’ in New Statesman, 2 June 1978. King, Noel, ‘‘Recent ‘Political’ Documentary: Notes on Union Maids and Harlan County, U.S.A.,’’ in Screen, vol. 22, 1981. Ferrario, D., ‘‘Harlan County, U.S.A. di Barbara Kopple,’’ in Cineforum, January 1981. Hoberman, J., ‘‘The Non-Hollywood Hustle,’’ in American Film, October 1980. O’Connor, J. J., ‘‘TV: Keeping On, a Drama of Life in a Mill Town,’’ in New York Times, 8 September 1983. Kaplan, E. A., ‘‘Theories and Strategies of the Feminist Documen- tary,’’ in Millennium, Fall 1982/Winter 1983. Penley, Constance, ‘‘Documentary/Documentation,’’ in Camera Obscura Spring/Summer 1985. Sorensen, S., ‘‘Dokumentarisme,’’ in Film & Kino, no. 4, 1987. Di Mattia, J., ‘‘Of Politics and Passion,’’ in International Documen- tary, Winter 1990/91. Quindlen, Anna, ‘‘Our Bad Dreams,’’ in New York Times, 21 October 1990. Crowdus, Gary, ‘‘American Dream (Interview),’’ in Cineaste, vol. 18, no. 4, 1991. Rossi, U., ‘‘Per una comunicazione attiva,’’ and ‘‘Due scioperi da Oscar nel cinema off Hollywood,’’ in Cineforum, September 1991. Fink, Leon, ‘‘Motion Picture Review: American Dream,’’ in Journal of American History, December 1991. Legiardi-Laura, Roland, ‘‘Barbara Kopple,’’ in BOMB, Winter 1992. Weinberg, Joel, ‘‘Union Maid,’’ in New York, 9 March 1992. Rule, S., ‘‘In Film, a Career of Trying to Balance the Inequalities of Life,’’ in New York Times, 24 March 1992. Rafferty, Terrence, ‘‘No Man’s Land,’’ in New Yorker, 23 March 1992. Brown, G., ‘‘O Say Can You See?,’’ in Village Voice, 24 March 1992. Klawans, Stuart, ‘‘American Dream,’’ in Nation, 30 March 1992. Kelleher, E., ‘‘Kopple’s Oscar-Winning Dream Explores Harsh Labor Dispute,’’ in Film Journal, April 1992. Meusel, M., ‘‘American Dream,’’ in Film Journal, April 1992. Linlield, Susie, ‘‘Barbara Kopple,’’ in Premiere, April 1992. Schickel, Richard, ‘‘Which Side Are You On?,’’ in Time, 6 April 1992. Powers, John, ‘‘Food for Thought,’’ in New York, 13 April 1992. Roberts, S., ‘‘American Dream Charts Labor’s Loss,’’ in New York Times, May 1992. Karp, A., ‘‘American Dream,’’ in Box Office, May 1992. Meyers, Kate, ‘‘American Chronicle: Barbara Kopple,’’ in Entertain- ment Weekly, 1 May 1992. Winokur, L.A., ‘‘Barbara Kopple (Interview),’’ in Progressive, Novem- ber 1992. Tucker, Ken, ‘‘Heavyweight Champ,’’ in Entertainment Weekly, February 1993. Meyers, Kate, ‘‘Barbara Kopple’s KO Punch,’’ in Entertainment Weekly, 12 February 1993. Zoglin, Richard, ‘‘Fallen Champ,’’ in Time, 15 February 1993. Brock, Pope, ‘‘Barbara Kopple: A Firebrand Documentary Filmmaker Moves to TV to Tackle Her Latest Subject: Iron Mike Tyson,’’ in People Weekly, 15 February 1993. Christgau, Georgia, ‘‘The Spirit of Resistance and the Second Line,’’ in Labor History, Winter 1993. Feaster, Felicia, ‘‘Fallen Champ,’’ in Film Quarterly, Winter 1993/94. Espen, Hal, ‘‘The Documentarians,’’ in New Yorker, 21 March 1994. Orvell, Miles, ‘‘Documentary and the Power of Interrogation: Ameri- can Dream and Roger and Me,’’ in Film Quarterly, Winter 1994/95. Rabinowitz, Paula, ‘‘Sentimental Contacts: Dreams and Documents of American Labour,’’ in Media International Australia (North Ryde), November 1996. ‘‘Wind Man Blues: Prova d’orchestra/Barbara Kopple. Woody saisi sur le vif. Sans scénario,’’ an interview with Christian Viviani and Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), February 1998. *** KOPPLE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 534 Barbara Kopple got her start in film working for Albert and David Maysles. In order to make films, she decided it was necessary to learn all aspects of their production. At the Maysles’ studio, she became familiar with the craft—from getting coffee to reconstituting trims, no job was trivialized. She became an assistant editor for the Maysles and began working as editor and sound recordist for other producers. After gaining enough experience and confidence, Kopple decided it was time to direct her own films. Her crews consisted of a camera operator and sound recordist, of which she was the sound recordist. As with most documentaries, such a small crew was an economic necessity, but it also enhanced the filmmaker’s intimacy with the subject. According to Kopple, recording sound brought her ‘‘deeper into what was happening’’; she was ‘‘hearing’’ and participating in the filmic process on multiple levels. As a technician, interviewer, and director, she is both observer and participant. In supervising post- production she becomes the storyteller. Most of Kopple’s independent films require her constant attention to fundraising. Winning the Academy Award for Best Feature-length Documentary for Harlan County, U.S.A. did not ensure funds for another project. While shooting American Dream, rather than process film, she bought freezers to store the exposed rolls until money could be raised for lab expenses. Kopple thinks ‘‘small crews are great, but sometimes it’s better to have money and hire a sound recordist.’’ Kopple was influenced by the Maysles brothers and D. A. Pennebaker, exponents of Direct Cinema. Her method of filmmaking, though owing much to her predecessors, is very much a result of form following content. Though her style may differ slightly from film to film because of the organic strategy she employs for each story, there is an overriding consistency to her work. She gives those not normally heard a voice—the audience of most films are her subjects. Her documentaries have become emblematic of social change films. Most of Kopple’s films have no simple beginning—we enter a story that has already begun. The audience may know the outcome, yet we are engaged in the suspense of how we arrived at that point. Her films examine the antecedents of power relationships, how people are affected, respond, and make sense of their own actions and those of others. Though the chronology of a film may shift through history, intercutting past events with the contemporary, we experi- ence the action in the present tense. Her endings are never clean, sometimes with story updates occurring under the end credits. Kopple’s films create a discourse that cuts through historical time in an attempt to understand where we are today. Kopple’s films create such intimacy of identity that we feel sure she lived the experience. However, Harlan County, U.S.A. took only thirteen months to make. After reading about the death of Joseph Yablonski, his wife, and daughter, and the formation of Miners for Democracy, she decided to make the film and secured a $10,000 loan from Tom Brandon. The film develops small stories to contextualize a larger narrative. The Consolidation Coal Mannington Mine Disaster of 1968, the Yablonski family murder in 1970, and the union election places the Harlan strike in a national relationship. History is seen as a growing organism and montage moves the discourse through time. John L. Lewis is cut against Carl Horn, president of Duke Power, as though they were engaged in debate. Yet the film is faithful to and references the chronology of the Harlan strike. Kopple uses music to remind the audience of our folk storytelling tradition. In geographically isolated regions such as Harlan, music has been a way of sharing experience, creating a unifying identity. In the film music functions to evoke cultural memory and meaning. Though we may be thousands of miles from Harlan, we share a common heritage of labor struggle. The voice of the film is the voice of many. There is no one hero, but a common chorus of purpose uniting gender and race. ‘‘Which Side Are You On’’ functions as Harlan County, U.S.A.’s theme song. The film is about choice. Kopple is asked by Duke Power’s thugs to identify herself; there is no question of her allegiance. Kopple thinks that being a woman may have contributed to the local police letting her film in jail. They did not consider her a threat. There is no question that the film threatened Duke Power; the camera is beaten. And the film is very much about violence: everyday life seems harsh, and the strike heightens the brutality. The audience must look at the conflict’s viscera—pieces of lung and brains in the dirt—and ultimately the death of striker Lawrence Jones. The strike may be won, but it is a momentary victory. The struggle continues without end through the credits. Kopple continues themes developed in Harlan County, U.S.A. in American Dream, but the story and issues have become more compli- cated. Again she films a strike, a labor crisis, and documents the crisis of labor. At issue is whether the union movement will be destroyed by Reaganism, or whether it will transform and once again play an active role in the American drama. The film follows Local P-9 of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union as the rank and file struggles with the International leadership and dissidents among its own membership, as well as labor’s traditional antagonist, in this case Hormel and Company. Again a strike is the motivating force for communality. But because labor is divided—brother pitted against brother—American Dream evokes the heartbreak of the Civil War. The labor movement has lost its innocence, yet Local P-9 seems naive. They lack an historical perspective to labor negotiations. When the strike is going well they are enthusiastic, but they succumb to moral self-righteous- ness when frustrated. Recognizing stasis in the International, they hire an outside labor consultant, Ray Rogers of ‘‘Corporate Campaign,’’ whose strategy is to effect economic distress on Hormel, build solidarity with other locals, and make the strike ‘‘newsworthy.’’ He packages the strike for television, but we are not sure which side of the camera he prefers to be on; as he seems to be playing a role from Norma Rae (Rogers was the organizer at J. P. Stevens). Authenticity becomes problematic. As in Harlan County, U.S.A., there is no doubt that Kopple’s camera is on the side of labor. However, in American Dream the camera re-positions itself to show the conflicting points-of-view within the labor movement. The camera is with Local P-9 leader Jim Guyette, then with Lewie Anderson, director of the International Union’s Meatpacking Division. It is in a car with dissidents as they defy the Local and go back to work. But the camera does not cross the picket line with them; it watches the dissidents go through the gate from the vantage point of the strikers. In American Dream, Kopple utilizes various documentary styles. Direct Cinema techniques are combined with conventional sit-down interviews and narration. The voice of the film is that of labor, but unlike Harlan County, U.S.A., American Dream employs narration. Guyette and Anderson provide commentary for their own stories. And Kopple personally announces voice-over information necessary to move the story forward. As the film proceeds to its end, we are aware of a distance and dislocation of voice and character not experienced in Harlan County, U.S.A. The grand narrative of Ameri- can labor is fractured, and we wonder if the Dream can ever be reconstructed. The film ends with an American Graffiti-style montage of character updates. But it is the 1980s, and although there may be KORDADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 535 personal change, one story remains the same: company profits continue to grow while workers are paid less. Kopple thinks of herself as a filmmaker of traditional dramas, examining how people behave in moments of crisis and change. Her films question the construct of the ‘‘American Dream’’ and the price we pay in its attainment; how this ‘‘Dream’’ influences and informs our collective and individual identity and what we value; and how we are equipped to deal with and interpret issues of justice and change. —Judy Hoffman KORDA, Alexander Nationality: Hungarian/British. Born: Sándor László Kellner in Puszta Turpósztó, Hungary, 16 September 1893; adopted surname Korda, from journalistic pseudonym ‘‘Sursum Corda’’ (meaning ‘‘lift up your hearts’’), 1910. Education: Attended schools in Kisújszállás, Mez?túr, and Budapest, until 1909. Family: Married 1) Maria Farkas (actress Maria Corda), 1919 (divorced 1930), one son; 2) Merle Oberon, 1939 (divorced 1945); 3) Alexander Boycun, 1953. Career: Worked at Pathé studios, Paris, 1911; title writer and secretary, Pictograph films, Budapest, and founder of film journal Pesti mozi, 1912; directed first film, 1914; formed Corvin production company with Miklós Pásztory, built studio near Budapest, 1917; arrested under Horthy regime, fled to Vienna, 1919; formed Corda Film Consortium, 1920 (dissolved 1922); formed Korda-Films, Ber- lin, 1923; with wife, contracted to First National, Hollywood, 1927; hired by Paramount French subsidiary, 1930; moved to British Paramount, London, 1931; founder, London Films, 1932; built Denham Studios, also made partner in United Artists, 1935 (sold interest, 1944); lost control of Denham Studios, 1938; formed Alexander Korda Productions, retained position as head of London Films, 1939; based in Hollywood, 1940–43; entered partnership with MGM, 1943 (dissolved, 1946); reorganized London Films, bought controlling interest in British Lion (distributors), 1946; founder, British Film Academy (now British Academy of Film and Television Arts), 1947. Awards: Knighthood, 1942. Died: In London, 23 January 1956. Films as Director: 1914 A becsapott újságíró (The Duped Journalist) (co-d); Tutyu és Totyo (Tutyu and Totyo) (co-d) 1915 Lyon Lea (Lea Lyon) (co-d); A tiszti kardbojt (The Officer’s Swordknot) (+ sc) 1916 Fehér éjszakák (White Nights) or Fedora (+ sc); A nagymama (The Grandmother) (+ sc); Mesék az írógépr?l (Tales of the Typewriter) (+ sc); A kétszívü férfi (The Man with Two Hearts); Az egymillió fontos bankó (The One–Million– Pound Note) (+ sc); Ciklámen (Cyclamen); Verg?d? szívek (Struggling Hearts); A nevet? Szaszkia (The Laughing Saskia); Mágnás Miska (Miska the Magnate) 1917 Szent Péter eserny?je (St. Peter’s Umbrella) (+ pr); A gólyakalifa (The Stork Caliph) (+ pr); Mágia (Magic) (+ pr); Harrison és Barrison (Harrison and Barrison) (+ pr) 1918 Faun (+ pr); Az aranyember (The Man with the Golden Touch) (+ pr); Mary Ann (+ pr) 1919 Ave Caesar! (+ pr); Fehér rózsa (White Rose) (+ pr); Yamata (+ pr); Se ki, se be (Neither in Nor Out) (+ pr); A 111-es (Number 111) (+ pr) 1920 Seine Majest?t das Bettelkind (Prinz und Bettelknabe; The Prince and the Pauper) 1922 Heeren der Meere (Masters of the Sea); Eine Versunkene Welt (Die Trag?die eines Verschollenen Fürstensohnes) (A Van- ished World); Samson und Delilah (Samson and Delilah) (+ pr) 1923 Das unbekannte Morgen (The Unknown Tomorrow) (+ pr) 1924 Jedermanns Frau (Jedermanns Weib) (Everybody’s Woman) (+ pr); Trag?die im Hause Habsburg (Das Drama von Mayerling) (Tragedy in the House of Hapsburg) (+ pr) 1925 Der T?nzer meiner Frau (Dancing Mad) 1926 Madame wünscht keine Kinder (Madame Wants No Children) 1927 Eine Dubarry von heute (A Modern Dubarry); The Stolen Bride; The Private Life of Helen of Troy 1928 Yellow Lily; Night Watch 1929 Love and the Devil; The Squall; Her Private Life 1930 Lilies of the Field; Women Everywhere; The Princess and the Plumber 1931 Die Manner um Lucie (+ pr); Rive Gauche (French version of Die Manner um Lucie) (+ pr); Marius; Zum Goldenen Anker (German version of Marius) 1932 Service for Ladies (Reserved for Ladies) (+ pr) 1933 Wedding Rehearsal (+ pr); The Private Life of Henry VIII (+ pr); The Girl from Maxim’s (+ co-pr) 1934 La Dame de Chez Maxim (French version) (+ pr); The Private Life of Don Juan (+ pr) 1936 Rembrandt (+ pr) 1941 That Hamilton Woman (Lady Hamilton) (+ pr) 1945 Perfect Strangers (Vacation from Marriage) (+ pr) 1947 An Ideal Husband (+ pr) Publications On KORDA: books— Balcon, Michael, and others, Twenty Years of British Films, 1925–45, London, 1947. Brunel, Adrian, Nice Work: The Story of Thirty Years in British Film Production, London, 1949. Tabori, Paul, Alexander Korda, London, 1959. Cowie, Peter, Korda, in Anthologie du Cinéma no. 6, Paris, 1965. Nemeskurty, István, Word and Image: A History of the Hungarian Cinema, Budapest, 1968. Kulik, Karol, Alexander Korda: The Man Who Could Work Miracles, London, 1975. Korda, Michael, Charmed Lives: A Family Romance, New York, 1979. Stockham, Martin, The Korda Collection: Alexander Korda’s Film Classics, Secaucus, New Jersey, 1993. On KORDA: articles— Watts, Stephen, ‘‘Alexander Korda and the International Film,’’ in Cinema Quarterly, Autumn 1933. Lejeune, C.A., ‘‘Alexander Korda: A Sketch,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1935. KORDA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 536 Alexander Korda Harman, Jympson, ‘‘‘Alex’: A Study of Korda,’’ in British Film Yearbook 1949–50, London, 1949. Price, Peter, ‘‘The Impresario Urge,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), November 1950. Campbell, Colin, ‘‘The Producer: Sir Alexander Korda,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1951. Gilliat, Sidney, and others, ‘‘Sir Alexander Korda,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1956. Richards, Jeffrey, ‘‘Korda’s Empire: Politics and Films in Sanders of the River, The Drum, and The Four Feathers,’’ in Australian Journal of Screen Theory (Kensington, New South Wales), no. 5–6, 1980. Taylor, John Russell, ‘‘Tales of the Hollywood Raj. Alexander Korda: Showman or Spy?,’’ in Films and Filming (London), July 1983. ‘‘Alexander Korda,’’ in Film Dope (London), January 1985. Street, Sarah, ‘‘Denham Studios: The Golden Jubilee of Korda’s Folly,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1986. Street, Sarah, ‘‘Alexander Korda, Prudential Assurance and British Film Finance in the 1930s,’’ in Historical Journal of Film, Radio and TV (Abingdon, Oxon), October 1986. Clarke, S., ‘‘Profile: London Films,’’ in Variety (New York), vol. 348, no. 10, 28 September 1992. Ringer, Paula, ‘‘Alexander Korda: Producer, Director, Propagan- dist,’’ in Classic Images (Muscatine, Illinois), no. 239, May 1995. Fischer, Dennis, ‘‘A World of Childhood Delights: The Thief of Bagdad,’’ in Filmfax (Evanston, Illinois), no. 60, April-May 1997. Wilinsky, Barbara, ‘‘First and Finest: British Films on U.S. Televi- sion in the Late 1940s,’’ in Velvet Light Trap (Austin, Texas), no. 40, Fall 1997. On KORDA: films— Vas, Robert, The Golden Years of Alexander Korda, BBC TV documentary, 1968. *** Alexander Korda may be Britain’s most controversial film figure, but there is no doubt that his name stands everywhere for the most splendid vision of cinema as it could be, if one had money and power. Both of these Korda had, although several times he was close to KORDADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 537 bankruptcy, living on pure Hungarian charm and know-how. He at least had a dream that came near reality on several occasions. Korda had two younger brothers, Zoltan, who worked with him as a director, and Vincent, who was an art director; both were outstand- ing in their fields. Alexander worked as a journalist and film maga- zine editor before he directed his first film in Hungary in 1914. He had labored long in the cinematic fields of Vienna and Berlin when finally in 1926 his film production of A Modern Dubarry earned him a contract in Hollywood with First National, where his initial film was the extravagantly beautiful The Private Life of Helen of Troy, starring his wife Maria Corda as Helen. It brought him instant recognition. He directed four features starring Billie Dove (who should have played Helen of Troy for him): The Stolen Bride, The Night Watch, The Yellow Lily, and Her Private Life, a remake of Zo? Akins’s play, which Corinne Griffith had filmed earlier under its stage title, Declassé. Korda also directed a sound feature starring Griffith, Lilies of the Field. Alexander Korda could soon write his own ticket. He did just that in 1931, leaving Hollywood to return to England where he set up his own production company, London Film Produc- tions. There he was almost fully occupied with production details, and only directed eight of the many films which his company produced. It was an exciting era for an ambitious producer like Korda. His company’s product was so lavish that he seemed in a fair way not only to rival Hollywood but to surpass it. His first big success was The Private Life of Henry VIII, starring Charles Laughton as Henry and with Merle Oberon making her debut as the unfortunate Anne Boleyn. Korda then married Oberon and started to set the stage for her stardom. Hers was not the only career Korda established, for he had much to do with the film careers of Laurence Olivier, Vivian Leigh, Robert Donat, and Leslie Howard, among others. He was the power behind it all, the man who set up financial deals for pictures that starred these actors. While the pictures he directed, like Rembrandt, That Hamilton Woman, and Vacation from Marriage, were done in exquisite taste, Korda was also involved in the production of such pictures as Catherine the Great, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Elephant Boy, The Ghost Goes West, Drums, The Four Feathers, The Thief of Bagdad, The Fallen Idol, and The Third Man. Three times Korda built and rebuilt his company, and the third time it was with national aid. Even after the Korda empire collapsed he was able to secure new financial alliances which allowed him to keep producing until his death in 1956. His name stood for glory, and when, after 1947, his name ceased to appear as part of the film credits, the lustre surrounding a London Films production vanished. —DeWitt Bodeen KORDA, Zoltan Nationality: Hungarian. Born: Zoltan Kellner, Turkeve, 3 June 1895; brother of directors Alexander and Vincent Korda; adopted the surname Korda after his older brother Alexander had done so. Military Service: Served in Hungarian cavalry. Career: Worked as a camera operator and an editor; became director with London Films, run by brother Alexander Korda. Awards: Best Director (with Robert J. Flaherty), Venice Film Festival, for Elephant Boy, 1937; Best Overall Artistic Contribution (with Jean Renoir), Venice Film Festi- val, for La Grande illusion, 1937; Best Screenplay (with Sacha Guitry Zoltan Korda and Christian-Jaque), Venice Film Festival, for Les Perles de la couronne, 1937; Best Director (with Carl Froelich), Venice Film Festival, for Heimat, 1938; Grand Biennale Art Trophy (with Walt Disney), Venice Film Festival, for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1938; Bronze Berlin Bear, Berlin International Film Festival, for Cry, the Beloved Country, 1952. Died: Hollywood, California, 13 Octo- ber 1961. Films as Director: 1918 Károly bakák 1927 Die Elf Teufel (Eleven Devils) 1920 A Csodagyerek (+ sc) 1933 Men of Tomorrow 1933 Cash (For Love or Money) (If I Were Rich) 1935 Sanders of the River 1936 Forget Me Not (Forever Yours) (The Magic Voice) 1937 Revolt in the Desert; Elephant Boy 1938 The Drum (Drums) 1939 The Four Feathers (+ sc) 1940 The Thief of Bagdad (Bergen, Powell, Whelan) (uncredited d; + assoc pr); Conquest of the Air 1942 Jungle Book 1943 Sahara (+ sc) 1945 Counter-Attack (One against Seven) (+ pr) 1947 The Macomber Affair 1948 A Woman’s Vengeance (The Gioconda Smile) (+ pr) KORDA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 538 1951 Cry, the Beloved Country (African Fury) (+ pr) 1955 Storm over the Nile (The Four Feathers) (+ pr) Other Films: 1930 Women Everywhere (story) Publications On KORDA: books— Durgnat, R. A Mirror for England, 1970. Richards, J. Visions of Yesterday, 1973. Cripps, T., Slow Fade to Black, 1977. Armes, R., A Critical History of the British Cinema, 1978. Korda, Michael, Charmed Lives: A Family Romance, New York, 1979. On KORDA: articles— ‘‘Zoltan Korda,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), no. 31, January 1985. Fischer, Dennis, ‘‘A World of Childhood Delights: The Thief of Bagdad,’’ in Filmfax (Evanston, Illinois), no. 60, April-May 1997. *** Along with older brother Alexander and younger brother Vincent, director Zoltan Korda played an important role in the revitalization of British cinema in the 1930s, after the passage of the Cinematographic Act in 1927 created financial conditions favorable for domestic production that could compete with Hollywood. Assimilated Hungar- ian Jews of immense artistic talent, the Kordas seem unlikely candi- dates for such a role, but turbulent social and commercial conditions within their own country, as well as a lack of good fortune with production in Austria, Germany, and the United States, brought them to Britain. Alexander founded London Films in 1931, and it remained an important center of production until his death in 1956. Though Zoltan directed films for other producers, sometimes with no little success, he did his best work in partnership with his forceful and flamboyant older brother. Vincent, who became one of the most noted art directors of the period, contributed importantly to a number of Zoltan’s films. Service during World War I with the Austro-Hungarian army meant that Zoltan was away while Alexander was founding the Hungarian film industry virtually single-handed and beginning publi- cation of that country’s first serious film journal. Invalided out of the army after being wounded in a gas attack, Zoltan joined Alexander’s production team at Budapest’s Corvin studios and worked as an editor. It was at this point that he adopted Alexander’s new surname, adopted from the Latin motto sursum corda or ‘‘raise up your hearts.’’ Though not communists themselves, Alexander and Zoltan cooperated enthusiastically in the nationalization of the film industry during Hungary’s brief flirtation with state communism in 1919. The right wing coup that toppled the communists and the establishment of the anti-Semitic Horthy regime led initially to Alexander’s arrest, but Zoltan, a wounded former officer, was able to obtain his release. Fleeing the country, the Kordas tried their hands in Vienna and then Berlin, where Alexander achieved a modest success producing a few films, one of which, Die Elf Teufel (Eleven Devils), Zoltan directed in 1927. Alexander soon left Germany for Hollywood, followed by Zoltan, but the brothers made little impression on the American film industry. Established in Britain, Alexander, soon joined there by Zoltan, initially turned his hand to the making of ‘‘quota quickies,’’ low- budget programmers designed to fulfill the terms of the 1927 act, which required exhibitors to screen a certain percentage of domesti- cally produced films. Alexander, however, was not content merely to fill such a niche. His bawdy costume drama, The Private Life of Henry VIII, made a modest fortune and, more important, was the first British film in many years to be exhibited profitably on the other side of the Atlantic. The evolving Korda formula, soon taken up in earnest by Zoltan, was simple enough: an almost jingoistic celebration of the empire and aristocratic British traditions, with an emphasis on engag- ing, exotic spectacle. With Sanders of the River, Zoltan proved that he could oversee as successful a film as Alexander. Appropriately derived from an Edgar Wallace story (Wallace was perhaps Britain’s most popular middle- brow novelist at the time), Sanders portrays the success of an undergunned and outnumbered British district commissioner in put- ting down an incipient tribal rebellion in colonial Nigeria. Though many of its interiors, shot in England, have a stagy look, the film is in fact a semi-documentary. Korda traveled to Nigeria with a crew of twelve to spend four months filming authentic exteriors and, espe- cially, native dances and other ceremonies. The plot hinges on the rivalry between a ‘‘good’’ chief (that is, one loyal to the British) and a ‘‘bad’’ chief (that is, one who resents colonial rule). Paul Robeson is, perhaps strangely, cast as the semi-articulate good chief, whose obeisance to Sanders was seen as somewhat excessive by some even at the time. Robeson eventually condemned his participation in the project, protesting, somewhat disingenuously, that the resulting film surprised him with its unflinching support of colonialism and the paternalistic racism upon which it depends. Sanders, no doubt, provided unquestioning support of empire and the necessity for the European stewardship of Africa. Audiences in Britain and the United States, however, were probably more intrigued by its generous portrayal of exotic animals and peoples, including unabashedly bare- breasted women. The film is less political tract and more adventurous romance in the tradition not only of Wallace, but also of H. Rider Haggard and Rudyard Kipling (one of Korda’s favorite authors). Zoltan’s next solo projects were in the same vein; they made London Films a good deal of money and helped establish the British film industry, if only briefly, as an international rival to Hollywood, formerly the world’s sole supplier of such spectacular fluff. Elephant Boy, adapted from a Kipling short story, skillfully blends actual footage of the Indian jungle (footage shot by Robert Flaherty, the famed documentarian) with a flimsy plot and studio interiors. The film’s star is the adolescent boy Sabu, a kind of Indian Tarzan who communicates with the animals and aids in the capture of wild elephants for white hunter Peterson, whose livelihood depends on their successful trapping. The formula, including a central role played by Sabu, was recycled in Drum, where the young man plays a youth- ful satrap who is nearly destroyed by the maneuverings of his anti- British uncle. As in Sanders, it is British authority that intervenes to save the legitimate government that is conveniently friendly to them. Once again, authentic Indian exteriors lend the film a contemporary KOZINTSEVDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 539 semi-documentary look that is only somewhat at odds with its archly conservative politics and evocation of a Kiplingesque past. More successful was Korda’s version of the imperialist classic Four Feathers, which had already been filmed several times previ- ously. Four Feathers is a meditation on the loyalty and responsibility demanded of the ruling classes; it simply assumes the rightness of British rule in Africa, which forms the exciting background to what is essentially a morality play. Refusing to sail with his regiment to the Sudan, a young officer, the scion of a military family, overcomes his disgrace by traveling to Africa, disguising himself as a native, and helping out his regiment and friends as they defeat the Khalifa and his ‘‘fuzzy wuzzies.’’ Novelist A.E.W. Mason’s story depends on a seem- ingly unending series of implausibilities, but the film manages an impressive realism through its reliance on authentic exteriors; even the London sequences are startlingly unstagy. Battle scenes, making use of native extras, are especially striking and well integrated within the story; unlike Drum, the film achieves a nice balance between plot and spectacle, for which it was nearly universally praised. At the close of the thirties, the boom in British production came to an end, a finale symbolized perhaps by the overblown The Thief of Bagdad, which Zoltan directed with a number of others. Here Kipling’s story was overloaded with an ineffective subplot and a surfeit of spectacle in which Sabu, sometimes reduced to miniature proportions, seems lost. Zoltan Korda’s contribution to film history rests primarily on his role in London Film’s imperialist epics, though he showed no little talent in projects not overseen by his brother Alexander. Sahara, a wartime Hollywood production, demonstrates Korda’s ability to elicit and manage effective performances from a varied ensemble cast; it is a suspenseful, well-paced film, with action sequences, benefiting from U.S. Army assistance, that are nearly up to the high standard of Four Feathers. Korda was helped in this film and his next, Counter-Attack, by able scripting from John Howard Lawson, though even this talented scenarist could not disguise the second project’s origins in a stage play. Both are essentially psychological, even ideological dramas, handled adroitly. They are far removed from the Boy’s Life derring-do of the imperial films, whose characters are never allowed much depth. Had he spent more of his career in different production circumstances, Korda might be more noted today for these dramatic abilities. Both The Macomber Affair (despite its African jungle setting) and A Woman’s Vengeance are involving melodramas in which the director affords his actors the opportunity to create nuanced, affective performances (Gregory Peck in the first of these, and Cedric Hardwicke and Charles Boyer in the second are especially impressive). Less worthy is an ill-considered remake of Four Feathers titled Storm over the Nile, whose action sequences are well designed but cannot save the absurdities of the plot from generally uninspired acting. One film stands out from the latter point of Korda’s career, an adaptation of Alan Paton’s celebrated study of South African racism, Cry, the Beloved Country. Here Korda offers up a very different Africa from the one he had brought to the screen in Sanders. The blacks victimized by an oppressive system are not simple peoples in need of a benevolent paternalism; they are shown to possess a culture as complex and worthy of respect as that of the Europeans who have deprived them of their traditional way of life. It is perhaps fitting that Korda in his last years had the opportunity to critique the colonialism that many years before he had done so much to celebrate. —R. Barton Palmer KOZINTSEV, Grigori Nationality: Russian. Born: Kiev, 22 March 1905. Education: Gymnasium, Kiev; studied Art with Alexandra Exter, Kiev; Academy of Fine Arts, Petrograd, 1919. Career: Scenic artist, Lenin Theatre, Kiev, 1918; sent to Petrograd by Union of Art Workers of Kiev, 1919; founder, with Leonid Trauberg and Sergei Yutkevitch, The Factory of the Eccentric Actor (FEKS), 1921; with Trauberg, made first film, 1924; with Trauberg, prepared film on life of Karl Marx (unrealized), 1939–40. Awards: Stalin Prize for the Maxim Trilogy, 1941; Lenin Prize for Hamlet, 1965. Died: In Leningrad, 11 May 1973. Films as Director: 1924 Pokhozdeniya Oktyabrini (The Adventures of Octyabrina) (co-d with Leonid Trauberg, co-sc) 1925 Michki protiv Youdenitsa (Mishka against Yudenitch) (co-d with Trauberg, co-sc) 1926 Chyortovo Koleso (The Devil’s Wheel) (co-d with Trauberg); Shinel (The Cloak) (co-d with Trauberg) 1927 Bratichka (Little Brother) (co-d with Trauberg, co-sc); S.V.D. (Soyuz Velikogo Dela) (The Club of the Big Deed) (co-d with Trauberg) 1929 Novyi Vavilon (The New Babylon) (co-d with Trauberg) 1931 Odna (Alone) (co-d with Trauberg, co-sc) 1935 Yunost Maksima (The Youth of Maxim) (co-d with Trauberg, co-sc) 1937 Vozvrashcheniye Maksima (The Return of Maxim) (co-d with Trauberg, co-sc) 1939 Vyborgskaya storona (The Vyborg Side) (co-d with Trauberg, co-sc) 1945 Prostiye Lyudi (Plain People) (released in re-edited version 1956, which Kozintsev disowned) (co-d with Trauberg, co-sc) 1947 Pirogov 1953 Belinski (+ co-sc) 1957 Don Quixote 1963 Hamlet (+ sc) 1971 Korol Lir (King Lear) (+ sc) Publications By KOZINTSEV: books— Shakespeare: Time and Conscience, New York, 1966. Glubokij ekran, Moscow, 1971. King Lear: The Space of Tragedy, Berkeley, California, 1977. By KOZINTSEV: articles— ‘‘Deep Screen,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer/Autumn 1959. ‘‘The Hamlet within Me,’’ in Films and Filming (London), Septem- ber 1962. ‘‘Over the Parisiana,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1962/63. ‘‘Prostrantsvo tragedii,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), January, April, June, August, and November 1972, and January 1973. KOZINTSEV DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 540 ‘‘A Child of the Revolution,’’ in Cinema in Revolution, edited by Luda and Jean Schnitzer, New York, 1973. ‘‘Gogoliada,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), May, June and July 1974. ‘‘Iz pisem raznyh let,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), May 1983. ‘‘Iz rabocih tetradej. 1969–1971,’’ in Isskustvo Kino (Moscow), no. 10, October 1990. With S. Drejden, ‘‘Iz rabocih tetradej. 1969–1971,’’ in Isskustvo Kino (Moscow), no. 12, December 1990. ‘‘Iz rabo?ih tetradej raznyh let,’’ in Isskustvo Kino (Moscow), no. 8, August 1992. ‘‘Gody s Ejzen?tejnom,’’ in Isskustvo Kino (Moscow), no. 8, August 1994. ‘‘Iz pisem kinematografistam’’ (letters), in Isskustvo Kino (Moscow), no. 7, July 1995. On KOZINTSEV: books— Leyda, Jay, Kino, London, 1960. Verdone, Mario, and Barthelemy Amengual, La Feks, Paris, 1970. Rapisarda, Giusi, editor, La FEKS: Kozintsev e Trauberg, Rome, 1975. Christie, Ian, and John Gillett, Futurism, Formalism, FEKS: Eccentrism and Soviet Cinema 1918–36, London, 1978. Leaming, Barbara, Grigori Kozintsev, Boston, 1980. Christie, Ian, and Richard Taylor, editors, The Film Factory: Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents 1896–1939, London, 1988. On KOZINTSEV: articles— ‘‘A Meeting with Grigori Kozintsev,’’ in Film (London), Autumn 1967. Barteneva, Yevgeniya, ‘‘One Day with King Lear,’’ in Soviet Film (Moscow), no. 9, 1969. Yutkevitch, Sergei, ‘‘The Conscience of the King,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1971. ‘‘Director of the Year,’’ in International Film Guide 1972, Lon- don, 1971. Robinson, David, ‘‘Grigori Kozintsev, 1905–1973,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1973. Obituaries, in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), October 1973. Hejfic, I., and others, ‘‘G.M. Kozincev, kakim my ego znali . . . ,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), November 1974. Tsikounas, M., and Leonid Trauberg, ‘‘La Nouvelle Babylone,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 December 1978. Shklovsky, V., and others, ‘‘Iz myslej o G.M. Kozinceve,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), April 1980. ‘‘Grigori Kozintsev,’’ in Film Dope (London), January 1985. Gerasimov, Sergei, and Iosif Heifitz, ‘‘Licnost’ mastera,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), March 1985. *** A man of enormous enthusiasms, bursting with theories which were always intended to be put into practice as soon as possible, Kozintsev started his career at the age of fifteen by giving public performances of plays in his family’s sitting room in Kiev. When he went to art school in Petrograd he met Sergei Yutkevich, and the two boys joined with Leonid Trauberg to found FEKS, the Factory of the Eccentric Actor. They produced a book on Eccentrism, ‘‘published in Eccentropolis (formerly Petrograd),’’ and they produced all sorts of street theater, an amalgam of music hall, jazz, circus, and posters, meanwhile exhibiting their paintings at avant-garde shows. Kozintsev was barely nineteen when he and Trauberg brought all this flashy modernism, their love of tricks and devices, their commit- ment to a new society, and their boundless energy together in their first film, The Adventures of Oktyabrina. Through their next few productions the two young directors perfected their art, learned how to control the fireworks, and developed a mature style which, how- ever, never lost its distinctive FEKS flavor. In The New Babylon, a story about the Paris Commune of 1870, largely set in a fantastic department store, they reached that standard of excellence only achieved by the greatest silent films: in complete control of the medium, using Enei’s brilliant art direction to the full, but peopling a gripping story with human characters only the correct degree larger than life that the medium demanded. A young com- poser, Shostakovich, was commissioned to write the accompany- ing score. Kozintsev and Trauberg were themselves a little disappointed with their first sound film, Alone, a contemporary subject, although it was by no means a failure and it at least brought Shostakovich to the notice of the world at large. For the Maxim Trilogy they returned to an ‘‘historical-revolutionary’’ subject with tremendous success, build- ing on their own experience with New Babylon, but completely integrating sound and dialogue rather than merely adding them to the previous recipe. Sadly, the trilogy was really the last work of this highly successful partnership; their Plain People, about the wartime evacuation of a Leningrad factory to Central Asia, ran into serious official trouble and, although completed in 1945, was not released until 1956 in a version that Kozintsev refused to acknowledge. For the rest of his independent career he remained loyal to the Leningrad studios and, perhaps because of the troubles with Plain People, devoted himself exclusively to historical or literary themes. After two ‘‘biopics’’—Pirogov and Belinski—he turned to Don Quixote, which was well received at home and abroad. His Hamlet, with its brooding Scandinavian background, superb photography, and beautifully handled acting, won even wider international acclaim, as did his even more brooding and original King Lear. These films were not merely very accomplished interpretations of Shakespeare’s plays: they were the result of Kozintsev’s own ‘‘brooding,’’ years of deep research and careful thought, electrified, however, by equally pro- found emotions—the final flowering, in fact, of that enthusiastic fifteen-year-old in Kiev. Kozintsev himself wrote to Yutkevich after King Lear, ‘‘I am certain that every one of us . . . in the course of his whole life, shoots a single film of his own. This film of one’s own is made . . . in your head, through other work, on paper . . . in conversation: but it lives, breathes, somehow prolongs into old age something that began its existence in childhood!’’ And indeed King Lear still combines Kozintsev’s original emotionalism with his commitment to a cause; it is no accident that, despite its humanistic values, the film can be analyzed in terms of dialectical materialism. Kozintsev’s enthusiasm never deserted him. Not long before his death, after a private London showing of King Lear, the director was asked a question about which translation of the play he had used. Kozintsev, waving his arms in excitement, his eyes flashing, his voice rising several octaves, launched himself into a passionate eulogy and defense of the officially discredited poet Boris Pasternak. So Kozintsev was an ‘‘eccentric actor’’ to the last—but, as always, with KRAMERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 541 a deep concern for humanity and truth, regardless of any personal consequences. —Robert Dunbar KRAMER, Stanley Nationality: American. Born: Stanley Earl Kramer in New York, 29 September 1913. Education: New York University, degree in busi- ness administration, 1933. Military Service: Served in U.S. Army Signal Corps, making training films, 1943–45. Family: Married 1) Anne Pearce, 1950, one son, one daughter; 2) Karen Sharpe, 1966, two daughters. Career: Apprentice writer, 20th Century-Fox, 1934; senior editor, Fox, 1938; staff writer for Colombia and Republic Pictures, 1939–40; joined MGM, 1942; with Herbert Baker and Carl Foreman, formed Screen Plays Inc., 1947; formed Stanley Kramer Productions (became Stanley Kramer Co., 1950), 1949; Stanley Kramer Co. joined Colombia Pictures, 1951; formed Stanley Kramer Pictures Corp., 1954; directed first film, 1955. Awards: Academy Award for Best Director, and Best Director, New York Critics, for The Defiant Ones, 1958; Irving G. Thalberg Award, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, 1961; Gallatin Medal, New York University, 1968. Films as Director: 1955 Not as a Stranger (+ pr) 1957 The Pride and the Passion (+ pr) 1958 The Defiant Ones (+ pr) 1959 On the Beach (+ pr) 1960 Inherit the Wind (+ pr) 1961 Judgement at Nuremberg (+ pr) 1963 It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (+ pr) 1965 Ship of Fools (+ pr) 1967 Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? (+ pr) 1969 The Secret of Santa Vittoria (+ pr) 1970 RPM (+ pr) 1971 Bless the Beasts and Children (+ pr) 1973 Oklahoma Crude (+ pr) 1976 The Domino Principle (+ pr) 1979 The Runner Stumbles (+ pr) Other Films: 1948 So This Is New York (Fleischer) (pr) 1949 Champion (Robson) (pr); Home of the Brave (Robson) (pr) 1950 The Men (Zinnemann) (pr); Cyrano de Bergerac (Gordon) (pr) 1951 Death of a Salesman (Benedek) (pr) 1952 My Six Convicts (Fregonese) (pr); The Sniper (Dmytryk) (pr); High Noon (Zinnemann) (pr); The Happy Time (Fleischer) (pr); The Four Poster (Reis) (pr); Eight Iron Men (Dmytryk) (pr); The Member of the Wedding (Zinnemann) (pr) 1953 The Juggler (Dmytryk) (pr); The Five Thousand Fingers of Dr. T (Rowland) (pr) 1954 The Wild One (Benedek) (pr); The Caine Mutiny (Dmytryk) (pr) 1962 Pressure Point (Cornfield) (pr) 1963 A Child Is Waiting (Cassavetes) (pr) 1964 Invitation to a Gunfighter (Wilson) (pr) Publications By KRAMER: books— A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World: A Life in Hollywood, Fort Worth, 1997. Three Rabbis in a Rowboat: The World’s Best Jewish Humor, (editor), Somerville, 2000. By KRAMER: articles— ‘‘The Independent Producer,’’ in Films in Review (New York), March 1951. ‘‘Kramer on the Future,’’ in Films in Review (New York), May 1953. ‘‘Politics, Social Comment, and My Emotions,’’ in Films and Film- ing (London), June 1960. ‘‘Sending Myself the Message,’’ in Films and Filming (London), February 1964. ‘‘Nine Times across the Generation Gap,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), March/April 1968. Interview, in Directors at Work, edited by Bernard Kantor and others, New York, 1970. ‘‘Stanley Kramer: The Man and His Film,’’ interview, in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), November 1979. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Stanley Kramer,’’ in American Film (Washing- ton, D.C.), March 1987. ‘‘Paul Winfield and Stanley Kramer: A Conversation on the Power of Film between an Actor Who Defied the System and a Director Who Changed It,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C), May 1991. ‘‘Stanley Kramer Remembers,’’ an interview with J. Bawden, in Classic Images (Muscatine), August 1992. On KRAMER: books— Spoto, Donald, Stanley Kramer: Film Maker, New York, 1978. On KRAMER: articles— Houston, Penelope, ‘‘Kramer and Company,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), July/September 1952. Bogdanovich, Peter, ‘‘Dore Schary—Stanley Kramer Syndrome,’’ in New York Film Bulletin, no. 12–14, 1960. Alpert, Hollis, and Arthur Knight, ‘‘Haunting Question: Producer- Director at Work,’’ in Saturday Review (New York), 2 Decem- ber 1961. Tracy, Spencer, and Montgomery Clift, ‘‘An Actor’s Director,’’ in Films and Filming (London), January 1962. Cowie, Peter, ‘‘The Defiant One,’’ in Films and Filming (London), March 1963. Decter, Midge, ‘‘Movies and Messages,’’ in Commentary (New York), November 1965. KRAMER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 542 Stanley Kramer Omatsu, Mary, ‘‘Guess Who Came to Lunch?,’’ in Take One (Montr- eal), vol. 1, no. 9, 1968. ‘‘A Recipe for Greatness,’’ in Films and Filming (London), March 1968. McGillivray, D., ‘‘Stanley Kramer,’’ in Focus on Film (London), Autumn 1973. ‘‘Stanley Kramer,’’ in Film Dope (London), January 1985. Luft, H.G., ‘‘Stanley Kramer,’’ in Films in Review (New York), March 1985. Levy, S., ‘‘Save This Film,’’ in American Film, April 1991. Nosferatu (San Sebastian), February 1994. Labre, C., ‘‘Le secret de Santa Vittoria,’’ in Télérama (Paris), 5 July 1995. *** Stanley Kramer was among the first of the successful, postwar independent producers in Hollywood. His work offers testimony to the virtues of such a position in controlling subject matter, while also confirming the power of the tacit constraints that limit social criticism in Hollywood. Films produced, or produced and directed, by Stanley Kramer remain close to the typical styles of postwar Hollywood narrative: location realism in The Sniper, The Juggler, On the Beach, and Judgment at Nuremberg; a clean narrative trajectory, except for somewhat ‘‘preachy’’ scenes when characters discuss the overt issues confronting them (medical care for the psychopath in The Sniper and Pressure Point, the need to support those with legal authority in High Noon or The Caine Mutiny); and a stress on the dilemmas of particular individuals via the mechanisms of psychological realism, although Kramer’s characters bear a greater than average burden of represent- ing social types and prominent social attitudes or beliefs. Frequent attention to topical social issues gives Kramer’s work its greatest distinction. These issues include criminality vs. mental illness, G.I. rehabilitation, racism, campus unrest in the sixties, juvenile delinquency, the need for and limits to legitimate authority, and the hazard of nuclear war. However, some of Kramer’s work is only obliquely issue-related (The Four Poster, Cyrano de Bergerac, It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, and The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T). Even as fewer and fewer topical, social–issue films were being produced during the 1950s, Kramer continued to bring such fare to the screen. His films are not radical or revolutionary by any means. They tend to plead for a respect for the existing institutions of law and KUBRICKDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 543 authority, although they do point to serious flaws in need of redress. They lack the idiosyncratic, more stylistically expressive sensibility of filmmakers less overtly socially conscious who nevertheless raise similar issues, such as Samuel Fuller or John Cassavetes. Even so, Kramer’s films continue a long-standing Hollywood tradition of marrying topical issues to dramatic forms, a tradition in which we find many of Hollywood’s more openly progressive films. In many ways, Kramer’s films address the issues those who were blacklisted during the 1950s hoped to confront. Kramer himself was not blacklisted, though he was and is still regarded as a socially concerned liberal. In fact, Stanley Kramer’s career is ripe for reinvestigation. Criti- cized or dismissed by the left for failing to support black-listed individuals or for not taking a sufficiently critical view of existing institutions, Kramer has also been criticized and dismissed by auteurist critics for failing to evince a personal-enough stylistic signature (or the kind of fascination evoked by the romantic individualism of a Fuller or Ray). Structuralists have also overlooked his oeuvre and so it remains a scarcely studied, poorly assessed body of very significant work—as revealing of the limits of critical approaches as it may be of Kramer’s own artistic or political sensibilities. —Bill Nichols KUBRICK, Stanley Nationality: American. Born: New York, 26 July 1928. Education: Attended New York City public schools; attended evening classes at City College of the City University of New York, 1945. Family: Married 1) Toba Metz, 1947 (divorced, 1952); 2) dancer Ruth Sobotka, 1952 (divorced), one daughter; 3) actress Suzanne Christiane Harlan, 1958, two daughters. Career: Apprentice photographer, Look magazine, New York, 1946; made first film, 1950; formed Harris-Kubrick Productions with James Harris, 1955 (dissolved 1962); worked on One-eyed Jacks with Marlon Brando, 1958; planned film on Napoléon, 1969; moved to England, 1974. Awards: Best Direc- tion, New York Film Critics Award, and Best Written American Comedy (screenplay) Award (with Peter George and Terry South- ern), Writers Guild of America, for Dr. Strangelove, 1964; Oscar for Special Visual Effects, for 2001, 1968; Best Direction, New York Film Critics, for A Clockwork Orange, 1971; Best Direction, British Academy Award, for Barry Lyndon, 1975; D.W. Griffith Award, Directors Guild of America, 1997; Life Achievement Award, Venice Film Festival, 1997; Special Prize, National Society of Italian Film Critics, for Eyes Wide Shut, 1999. Died: 7 March 1999. Films as Director: 1952 Day of the Fight (doc) (+ pr, sc, ph, ed); Flying Padre (doc) (+ sc, ph) 1953 The Seafarers (+ ph); Fear and Desire (+ pr, co-sc, ph, ed) 1955 Killer’s Kiss (+ co-pr, co-sc, ph, ed) 1956 The Killing (+ co-pr, sc) 1957 Paths of Glory (+ co-pr, co-sc) 1960 Spartacus 1962 Lolita Stanley Kubrick 1964 Dr. Strangelove: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (+ pr, co-sc) 1968 2001: A Space Odyssey (+ pr, co-sc, special effects designer) 1971 A Clockwork Orange (+ pr, sc) 1975 Barry Lyndon (+ pr, sc) 1980 The Shining (+ pr, co-sc) 1987 Full Metal Jacket (+ pr, co-sc) 1999 Eyes Wide Shut (+ pr, co-sc) Publications By KUBRICK: books— Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, New York, 1972. Full Metal Jacket, New York and London, 1987. Eyes Wide Shut, New York, 1999. By KUBRICK: articles— ‘‘Bonjour, Monsieur Kubrick,’’ interview with Raymond Haine, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July 1957. ‘‘Words and Movies,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1961. ‘‘How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Cinema,’’ in Films and Filming (London), June 1963. ‘‘Kubrick Reveals All,’’ in Cinéaste (New York), Summer 1968. ‘‘A Talk with Stanley Kubrick,’’ with Maurice Rapf, in Action (Los Angeles), January/February 1969. ‘‘What Directors Are Saying,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), January/ February and November/December 1971. ‘‘Kubrick,’’ an interview with Gene Phillips, in Film Comment (New York), Winter 1971/72. Interview with Phillip Strick and Penelope Houston, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1972. KUBRICK DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 544 Interview with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), June 1972. ‘‘Something More,’’ an interview with Gordon Gow, in Films and Filming (London), October 1975. ‘‘Stanley Kubrick’s Vietnam,’’ an interview with Francis Clines, in New York Times, 21 June 1987. On KUBRICK: books— Austen, David, The Cinema of Stanley Kubrick, London, 1969. Agel, Jerome, The Making of Kubrick’s 2001, New York, 1970. Kagan, Norman, The Cinema of Stanley Kubrick, New York, 1972, revised edition, 1993. Walker, Alexander, Stanley Kubrick Directs, New York, 1972. Devries, Daniel, The Films of Stanley Kubrick, Grand Rapids, Michi- gan, 1973. Phillips, Gene, Stanley Kubrick: A Film Odyssey, New York, 1977. Ciment, Michael, Kubrick, Paris, 1980, revised edition, 1987, New York, 1984. Kolker, Robert Philip, A Cinema of Loneliness: Penn, Kubrick, Coppola, Scorsese, Altman, Oxford, 1980, revised edition, 1988. Coyle, Wallace, Stanley Kubrick: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1980. Nelson, Thomas, Kubrick: Inside a Film Artist’s Maze, Bloomington, Indiana, 1982. Hummel, Christoph, editor, Stanley Kubrick, Munich, 1984. Brunetta, Gian Piero, Stanley Kubrick: Tempo, spazio, storia e mondi possibili, Parma, 1985. Magistrale, Anthony, et al., The Shining Reader, New York, 1991. Falsetto, Mario, Stanley Kubrick: A Narrative and Stylistic Analysis, Westport, Connecticut, 1994. Corliss, Richard, Lolita, London, 1994. Falsetto, Mario, editor, Perspectives on Stanley Kubrick, New York, 1996. Baxter, John, Stanley Kubrick: A Biography, New York, 1997. LoBrutto, Vincent, Stanley Kubrick: A Biography, New York, 1997. Walker, Alexander, Stanley Kubrick: Director, New York, 1999. Raphael, Frederic, Eyes Wide Open: A Memoir of Stanley Kubrick, New York, 1999. Philips, Gene, editor, Stanley Kubrick: Interviews, Jackson, Missis- sippi, 2000. On KUBRICK: articles— ‘‘Twenty-nine and Running: The Director with Hollywood by the Horns,’’ in Newsweek (New York), 2 December 1957. Noble, Robin, ‘‘Killers, Kisses, and Lolita,’’ in Films and Filming (London), December 1960. Burgess, Jackson, ‘‘The Antimilitarism of Stanley Kubrick,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1964. ‘‘Stanley Kubrick,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1964/ January 1965. Bernstein, Jeremy, ‘‘Profiles: How about a Little Game?,’’ in New Yorker, 12 November 1966. Ciment, Michel, ‘‘L’Odyssee de Stanley Kubrick,’’ in Positif (Paris), October 1968. Houston, Penelope, ‘‘Kubrick Country,’’ in Saturday Review (New York), 25 December 1971. Deer, Harriet and Irving, ‘‘Kubrick and the Structures of Popular Culture,’’ in Journal of Popular Film (Bowling Green, Ohio), Summer 1974. Carducci, Mark, ‘‘In Search of Stanley K.,’’ in Millimeter (New York), December 1975. Feldmann, Hans, ‘‘Kubrick and His Discontents,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1976. Moskowitz, Ken, ‘‘Clockwork Violence,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Winter 1976/77. Kennedy, H., ‘‘Kubrick Goes Gothic,’’ in American Film (Washing- ton, D.C.), June 1980. Brown, J., ‘‘Kubrick’s Maze: The Monster and the Critics,’’ in Film Directions (Belfast), no. 16, 1982. Kinney, J. L., ‘‘Mastering the Maze,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film Studies (New York), Spring 1984. Combs, Richard, ‘‘Stanley Kubrick: To Be or Not to Be . . . Again and Again,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), July 1984. Sklar, Robert, ‘‘Stanley Kubrick et l’industrie Hollywoodienne,’’ in Filméchange (Paris), no. 38, 1987. Rafferty, T., ‘‘Remote Control,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1987. Lacayo, R., ‘‘Semper fi,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/ October 1987. ‘‘Kubrick Section’’ of Positif (Paris), October 1987. Cazals, T., ‘‘L’Homme labyrinthe,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1987. ‘‘Full Metal Jacket Section’’ of Literature/Film Quarterly (Salis- bury, Maryland), vol. 16., no. 4, 1988. French, Philip, ‘‘A Clockwork Orange,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Spring 1990. Brode, Douglas, ‘‘Spartacus, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove,’’ in The Films of the Sixties, New York, 1990. Bookbinder, Robert, ‘‘Clockwork Orange,’’ in The Films of the Seventies, New York, 1990. Norman, Barry, ‘‘Paths of Glory, 2001: A Space Odyssey,’’ in The 100 Best Films of the Century, New York, 1993. Kael, Pauline, ‘‘Lolita, Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket,’’ in For Keeps, New York, 1994. Stein, Michael, ‘‘The New Violence: Clockwork Orange and Other Films,’’ in Films in Review (New York), January/February 1995. Manchel, Frank, ‘‘What about Jack? Family Relationships in The Shining,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), Winter 1995. Combs, Richard, ‘‘Kubrick Talks!’’ in Film Comment (New York), September-October 1996. Bogdanovich, Peter, ‘‘What They Say about Stanley Kubrick,’’ New York Times Magazine, 4 July 1999. Schickel, Richard, ‘‘All Eyes on Them,’’ Time, 5 July 1999. Herr, Michael, ‘‘The Real Stanley Kubrick,’’ Vanity Fair, August 1999. Bernstein, Jill, and others, ‘‘Stanley Kubrick: A Cinematic Odys- sey,’’ Premiere (New York), August 1999. Special issue, Sight and Sound (London), September 1999. Phillips, Gene D. ‘‘Stop the World: Stanley Kubrick,’’ in Major Film Directors of the American and British Cinema, Cranbury, New Jersey, 1999. *** Few American directors were able to work within the studio system of the American film industry with the independence that Stanley Kubrick achieved. By steadily building a reputation as a filmmaker of international importance, he gained full artistic control over his films, guiding the production of each of them from the KULESHOVDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 545 earliest stages of planning and scripting through post-production. Kubrick was able to capitalize on the wide artistic freedom that the major studios have accorded him because he learned the business of filmmaking from the ground up. In the early 1950s he turned out two documentary shorts for RKO; he was then able to secure financing for two low-budget features which he said were ‘‘crucial in helping me to learn my craft,’’ but which he would otherwise have preferred to forget. He made both films almost singlehandedly, doing his own camerawork, sound, and editing, besides directing the films. Then, in 1955, he met James Harris, an aspiring producer; together they made The Killing, about a group of small-time crooks who rob a race track. The Killing not only turned a modest profit but prompted the now-legendary remark of Time magazine that Kubrick ‘‘has shown more imagination with dialogue and camera than Hollywood has seen since the obstreperous Orson Welles went riding out of town.’’ Kubrick next acquired the rights to Humphrey Cobb’s 1935 novel The Paths of Glory, and in 1957 turned it into one of the most uncompromising antiwar films ever made. Peter Cowie is cited in Major Film Directors of the American and British Cinema as saying that Kubrick uses his camera in the film ‘‘unflinchingly, like a weapon,’’ as it sweeps across the slopes to record the wholesale slaughter of a division. Spartacus, a spectacle about slavery in pre-Christian Rome, Kubrick recalled as ‘‘the only film over which I did not have absolute control,’’ because the star, Kirk Douglas, was also the movie’s producer. Although Spartacus turned out to be one of the better spear- and-sandal epics, Kubrick vowed never to make another film unless he was assured of total artistic freedom, and he never did. Lolita, about a middle-aged man’s obsessive infatuation with his pre-teen step-daughter, was the director’s first comedy. ‘‘The surprising thing about Lolita,’’ Pauline Kael wrote in For Keeps, ‘‘is how enjoyable it is. It’s the first new American comedy since those great days in the 1940s when Preston Sturges re-created comedy with verbal slapstick. Lolita is black slapstick and at times it’s so far out that you gasp as you laugh.’’ For those who appreciate the dark humor of Lolita, it is not hard to see that it was just a short step from that film to Kubrick’s masterpiece in that genre, Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, concerning a lunatic American general’s decision to launch an attack inside Russia. The theme implicit in the film is man’s final capitulation to his own machines of destruction. Kubrick further examined his dark vision of man in a mechanistic age in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick’s view of life, as it is reflected in 2001, seems to be somewhat more optimistic than it was in his previous pictures. 2001 holds out hope for the progress of mankind through man’s creative encounters with the universe. In A Clockwork Orange, however, the future appears to be less promising than it did in 2001; in the earlier film Kubrick showed (in the ‘‘person’’ of the talking computer, Hal) the machine becoming human, whereas in A Clock- work Orange he shows man becoming a machine through brainwash- ing and thought control. Ultimately, however, the latter film only reiterates in somewhat darker terms a repeated theme in all of Kubrick’s previous work: man must retain his humanity if he is to survive in a dehumanized, highly mechanized world. Moreover, A Clockwork Orange echoes the warning of Dr. Strangelove and 2001 that man must strive to gain mastery over himself if he is to master the machines of his own invention. After a trio of films set in the future, Kubrick reached back into the past and adapted Thackeray’s historical novel Barry Lyndon to the screen in 1975. Kubrick portrayed Barry, an eighteenth-century rogue, and his times in the same critical fashion as Thackeray did before him. The film echoes a theme which appears in much of the director’s best work, that through human error the best-laid plans often go awry; and hence man is often thwarted in his efforts to achieve his goals. The central character in Lolita fails to possess a nymphet exclusively; the ‘‘balance of terror’’ between nations designed to halt the nuclear arms race in Dr. Strangelove does not succeed in averting global destruction; and modern technology turns against its human instigators in Dr. Strangelove, 2001, and A Clock- work Orange. In this list of films about human failure the story of Barry Lyndon easily finds a place, for its hero’s lifelong schemes to become a rich nobleman in the end come to nothing. And the same can be said for the frustrated writing aspirations of the emotionally disturbed hero of Kubrick’s provocative ‘‘thinking man’s thriller,’’ The Shining, derived from the horror novel by Stephen King. It is clear, therefore, that Kubrick could make any source material fit comfortably into the fabric of his work as a whole, whether it be a remote and almost forgotten Thackeray novel, or a disturbing story about the Vietnam war by a contemporary writer, as with Full Metal Jacket, based on the book by Gustav Hasford. Kubrick’s last film, Eyes Wide Shut, derived from a controversial novella by Arthur Schnitzler called Dream Story, focuses on Dr. William Harford (Tom Cruise), who jeopardizes his marriage by making a foray into the unsavory netherworld of the decadent rich in New York City. Released shortly after Kubrick’s death in 1999, Kubrick’s last film indicates that he was still intent on taking the temperature of a sick society. It is evident that Kubrick continued right to the end of his career to create films that would stimulate his audience to think about serious human problems, as his pictures did from the beginning. His canon of films testifies that Kubrick valued the artistic freedom which worked so hard to win and used so well. —Gene D. Phillips KULESHOV, Lev Nationality: Soviet. Born: Lev Vladimirovich Kuleshov in Tambov, Russia, 14 January 1899. Education: Studied painting at Fine Arts School, Moscow, 1914–16. Family: Married to actress Alexandra Khokhlova. Career: Set designer for director Evgeni Bauer, from 1916, also began experiments with editing; first theoretical article published, 1918; helped found first National Film School, 1919, teacher from 1920; made short agitki and formed film workshop, 1919–21; temporarily stopped filmmaking, 1933; director of State Institute of Cinematography, Moscow, from 1944. Awards: Merited Artist of the RSFSR, 1935. Died: 29 March 1970. Films as Director: 1918 Proyekt inzhenera Praita (Engineer Prite’s Project) (+ art d) 1919 The Unfinished Love Song (co-d, art d); Newsreels: Vskrytiye moshchei Sergiya Radonezhskogo (The Exhumation of the KULESHOV DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 546 Holy Remains of St. Sergius of Radonezh) (co-d); Reviziya VTiSK v Tverskoi Gubernii (The VTiSK Inspection in the Tver Province); Ural (+ sc); Pervoye maya 1920 v Moskve (May 1, 1920 in Moscow) 1920 Na krasnom fronte (On the Red Front) (+ sc, role) 1924 Kavkazskiye mineralniye vody (Mineral Waters of the Cauca- sus); Neobychainye priklucheniya Mistera Vesta v stranye bolshevikov (The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks) (+ art d) 1925 Luch smerti (Death Ray) (+ role) 1926 Po zakonu (By the Law) 1927 Vasha znakomaya (Your Acquaintance) 1929 Vesyolaya kanareika (The Happy Canary); Dva-Buldi-Dva (The Two Buldis) (co-d); Parovoz B-1000 (Locomotive No. B-1000) (unreleased) 1930 Sorok serdets (Forty Hearts) 1933 Gorizont (Horizon) (+ co-sc); Velikii uteshitel (The Great Consoler) (+ co-sc, art d) 1935 Dokhunda (unreleased) 1940 Sibiriaki (The Siberians) 1942 Klyatva Timura (Timur’s Oath); Uchitelnitsa Kartashova (The Teacher Kartashova) (unreleased) 1944 My s Urala (We Are from the Urals) (co-d) Other Films: 1917 Nabat (The Alarm) (Bauer) (co-art d); Za schastyem (For Happiness) (Bauer) (art d, role); Teni lyubvi (Shadows of Love) (Gromov) (art d); Zhizn’trekh dnei (Three Days’ Life) (Gromov) (art d); Korol’ Parizha (King of Paris) (Bauer and Rakhmanova) (art d); Chernaya lyubov (Black King) (Strizhevsky) (art d, role) 1918 Vdova (The Widow) (Komissarzhevsky) (art d); Miss Meri (Miss Mary) (Tchaikovsky) (art d); Slyakot’ bulvarnaya (Boulevard Slush) (Tchaikovsky) (art d) 1919 Thérèse Raquin (Tchaikovsky) (art d) (unreleased); Son Tarasa (Taras’ Dream) (Zhelyabuzhsky) (short) (ed); Smelchak (Daredevil) (Narakov and Turkin) (co-ed) 1930 Sasha (Khokhlova) (co-sc) 1934 Krazha zreniya (Theft of Sight) (Obolensky) (artistic supervisor) 1940 Sluchai v vulkane (Incident in a Volcano) (Schneider) (direc- torial advisor) Publications By KULESHOV: books— Eisenstein: Potiemkine, with V. Shlovsky and E. Tisse, Moscow, 1926. The Art of Cinema [in Russian], Moscow, 1929. Fundamentals of Film Direction [in Russian], Moscow, 1941. Traité de mise-en-scène. Les Premières Prises de vues, Paris, 1962. Kuleshov on Film, edited by Ronald Levaco, Berkeley, 1974. Lev Kuleshov. Selected Works: Fifty Years in Films, edited by E. Khokhlova, Moscow, 1987. Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh [Collected Works in Three Volumes], Moscow, 1987–89. By KULESHOV: articles— Interview with André Labarthe and Bertrand Tavernier, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May/June 1970. ‘‘Souvenirs (1918–1920),’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July 1970. ‘‘Selections from Art of the Cinema,’’ in Screen (London), Win- ter 1971/72. On KULESHOV: books— Leyda, Jay, Kino, London, 1960. Taylor, Richard, and Ian Christie, editors, The Film Factory: Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents, 1896–1939, London and Cam- bridge, Massachusetts, 1988. On KULESHOV: articles— Sadoul, Georges, ‘‘Au début du cinéma soviétique était Lev Koulechov. Portrait d’un ami,’’ in Lettres Fran?aises (Paris), 18 October 1962. Sadoul, Georges, ‘‘Lev Koulechov grand théoreticien du cinéma,’’ in Le Techicien du Film (Paris), January 1965. Hill, Steven, ‘‘Kuleshov—Prophet without Honor?,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1967. ‘‘Lev Kuleshov: 1899–1970,’’ in Afterimage (Rochester, New York), April 1970. Zorkaia, Ne?a, ‘‘Lev Koulechov,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May/June 1970. Taylor, Richard, ‘‘Lev Kuleshov, 1899–1970,’’ in Silent Pictures (London), Autumn 1970. Levaco, Ronald, ‘‘Kuleshov,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1971. ‘‘The Classic Period of Soviet Cinema,’’ in Film Journal (New York), Fall/Winter 1972. Gromov, E., in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), September and Octo- ber 1982. Soviet Film (Moscow), no. 1, 1985. ‘‘Lev Kuleshov,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1985. Navailh, F., in Cinéma (Paris), November 1988. Revue du Cinéma/Image et Son (Paris), February 1989. Nave, B., ‘‘Koulechov révélé,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), no. 204, November-December 1990. Yampolsky, M., ‘‘Kuleshov’s Experiments and the New Anthropol- ogy of the Actor,’’ in Inside the Film Factory: New Approaches to Russian and Soviet Cinema, edited by Richard Taylor and Ian Christie, London and New York, 1991. ‘‘Special Section,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 359, January 1991. Amengual, B., ‘‘1917–1934. Les Soviétiques: Koulechov, Poudovkine, Vestov, Eisenstein, la FEKS,’’ in Cinemaction (Conde-sur-Noireau), no. 60, July 1991. Prince, S., and W. E. Hensley, ‘‘The Kuleshov Effect: Recreating the Classic Experiment,’’ in Cinema Journal (Austin, Texas), vol. 31, no. 2, Winter 1992. *** KUROSAWADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 547 Lev Kuleshov is known to Russian filmmakers quite simply as the ‘‘father of Soviet cinema.’’ He began his career in cinema before the Revolution working with Evgeni Bauer and became one of Soviet cinema’s leading film directors and theorists. Vsevolod Pudovkin, who was one of his pupils, once wrote, ‘‘We make films, Kuleshov made cinema.’’ It was the desire to establish a theoretical foundation for the legitimacy of cinema as an art form independent of theatre that led Kuleshov to be the first to distinguish montage as the key element specific to cinema in an article written in 1917. This idea was to be taken up and developed by various schools of Soviet filmmaking, above all by Eisenstein and Vertov, but the distinctive feature of Kuleshov’s theory was a belief in serial montage, a brick-by-brick construction of a filmic narrative. In the early post-Revolutionary period, when there was a desper- ate shortage of everything, including film stock, Kuleshov worked at the new State Film School with a small workshop of actors, refining his techniques in the so-called ‘‘films without film.’’ Central to these was the experiment that has become known as the ‘‘Kuleshov effect,’’ which demonstrated that the viewer’s interpretation of an individual shot is determined by the context (or sequence) in which that shot is seen. The same shot could be interpreted differently in different contexts. But Kuleshov also appreciated the importance of acting and was responsible for developing the notion of the actor as naturshchik or ‘‘model,’’ deriving from the Delsartian school of acting technique. By economical and stylised gestures, refined during an intensive period of rehearsal, the naturshchik could convey precise meanings to the audience in accordance with the director’s plan. Kuleshov would produce an ‘‘action score’’ for every movement in his films. These techniques were first applied on a large scale in Kuleshov’s first feature film, the highly original satirical comedy The Extraordi- nary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks (1924), in which Pudovkin played one of the criminals. The apotheosis of the naturshchik was the role of ‘‘the Countess,’’ played by Kuleshov’s wife, the extraordinary actress Alexandra Khokhlova. The film’s technique also demonstrated one of Kuleshov’s other preoccupations of the period, an obsession with the characteristic features of Ameri- can cinema, which he dubbed amerikanshchina, ‘‘Americanism’’ or ‘‘Americanitis,’’ and which included fast action, stylised gesture and, above all, rapid cutting and maximum economy. There are no lacunae in a Kuleshov film. His next film, The Death Ray, a thriller, was popular with audiences but not with officialdom. On the other hand, By the Law, set in the Yukon during the Gold Rush and based on a story by Jack London, was a great critical success. But his next three films were variously regarded as failures: Your Acquaintance, The Happy Ca- nary and The Two Buldis. The end of the 1920s was no time for experimentation: filmmakers were increasingly expected to fulfill the ‘‘social command’’ associated with the First Five-Year Plan by making films that were ‘‘accessible to the millions.’’ After this, Kuleshov came under increasingly frequent attack from the authorities for his alleged Formalism and his apparent inability (widely shared) to produce a film on a contemporary theme. His subsequent films include at least one further masterpiece, The Great Consoler, which can be understood on many different, but sometimes overlapping, levels. It confronts the problem of differing layers of reality at a time when the doctrine of socialist realism was being promulgated and a single officially inspired version of reality held up as a paradigm. The Great Consoler was Kuleshov’s first sound film, again starring Khokhlova, and still demonstrating a fascination with experimenting to push cinema to its limits. His other, later films were less distinguished, and he complained vociferously about his treat- ment at the hands of the authorities. Nevertheless, in 1935 he received the title of Merited Artist of the RSFSR. Throughout his career Kuleshov was an eminent teacher: in 1939 he was made a professor at the State Institute of Cinema, and in 1944 he became its director. His theories of cinema are expounded in Russian in his publications The Art of Cinema (1929), The Rehearsal Method in Cinema and The Practice of Film Direction (both 1935), and The Foundations of Film Direction (1941). The importance of his role as teacher can be measured by the fact that almost all these books were published at a time when he was no longer able to make films himself. Kuleshov’s career and influence have been much under-appreci- ated in the West. This is mainly because so much of his significance lies in his scarcely translated theoretical work, known largely by indirect repute, and in his teaching, the impact of which is almost impossible to quantify. But any Russian film scholar asked to list the most important figures in the history of Soviet-era cinema will almost certainly begin with Kuleshov, whether as filmmaker, theorist, or teacher. —Richard Taylor KUROSAWA, Akira Nationality: Japanese. Born: Tokyo, 23 March 1910. Education: Kuroda Primary School, Edogawa; Keika High School; studied at Doshusha School of Western Painting, 1927. Family: Married Yoko Yaguchi, 1945 (died, 1985), one son (producer Hisao Kurosawa), one daughter. Career: Painter, illustrator, and member, Japan Proletariat Artists’ Group, from late 1920s; assistant director, P.C.L. Studios (Photo-Chemical Laboratory, later Toho Motion Picture Co.), study- ing in Kajiro Yamamoto’s production group, from 1936; also scriptwriter, from late 1930s; directed first film, Sugata Sanshiro, 1943; began association with actor Toshiro Mifune on Yoidore tenshi, and founder, with Yamamoto and others, Motion Picture Artists Association (Eiga Gei jutsuka Kyokai), 1948; formed Kurosawa Productions, 1959; signed contract with producer Joseph E. Levine to work in United States, 1966 (engaged in several aborted projects through 1968); with directors Keisuke Kinoshita, Kon Ichikawa, and Masaki Kobayashi, formed Yonki no Kai production company, 1971. Awards: Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, and Grand Prix, Venice Festival, for Rashomon, 1951; Golden Bear Award for Best Direction and International Critics Prize, Berlin Festival, for The Hidden Fortress, 1959; Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, for Dersu Uzala, 1976; European Film Academy Award, for ‘‘humanis- tic contribution to society in film production,’’ 1978; Best Director, British Academy Award, and Palme d’Or, Cannes Festival, for KUROSAWA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 548 Akira Kurosawa Kagemusha, 1980; Order of Culture of Japan, 1985; British Film Institute fellowship, 1986; Honorary Academy Award, 1989. Died: 6 September 1998, in Setagaya, Tokyo, Japan, of stroke. Films as Director: 1943 Sugata Sanshiro (Sanshiro Sugata, Judo Saga) (remade as same title by Shigeo Tanaka, 1955, and by Seiichiro Uchikawa, 1965, and edited by Kurosawa) (+ sc) 1944 Ichiban utsukushiku (The Most Beautiful) (+ sc) 1945 Zoku Sugata Sanshiro (Sanshiro Sugata—Part 2; Judo Saga— II) (+ sc); Tora no o o fumu otokotachi (Men Who Tread on the Tiger’s Tail) (+ sc) 1946 Asu o tsukuru hitobito (Those Who Make Tomorrow); Waga seishun ni kuinashi (No Regrets for Our Youth) (+ co-sc) 1947 Subarashiki nichiyobi (One Wonderful Sunday) (+ co-sc) 1948 Yoidore tenshi (Drunken Angel) (+ co-sc) 1949 Shizukanaru ketto (A Silent Duel) (+ co-sc); Nora inu (Stray Dog) (+ co-sc) 1950 Shubun (Scandal) (+ co-sc); Rashomon (+ co-sc) 1951 Hakuchi (The Idiot) (+ co-sc) 1952 Ikiru (To Live, Doomed) (+ co-sc) 1954 Shichinin no samurai (Seven Samurai) (+ co-sc) 1955 Ikimono no kiroku (Record of a Living Being; I Live in Fear; What the Birds Knew) (+ co-sc) 1957 Kumonosu-jo (The Throne of Blood; The Castle of the Spi- der’s Web) (+ co-sc, co-pr); Donzoko (The Lower Depths) (+ co-sc, co-pr) 1958 Kakushi toride no san-akunin (The Hidden Fortress; Three Bad Men in a Hidden Fortress) (+ co-sc, co-pr) 1960 Warui yatsu hodo yoku nemuru (The Worse You Are the Better You Sleep; The Rose in the Mud) (+ co-sc, co-pr); Yojimbo (The Bodyguard) (+ co-sc) 1962 Sanjuro (+ co-sc) 1963 Tengoku to jigoku (High and Low; Heaven and Hell; The Ransom) (+ co-sc) 1965 Akahige (Red Beard) (+ co-sc) 1970 Dodesukaden (Dodeskaden) (+ co-sc, co-pr) 1975 Dersu Uzala (+ co-sc) 1980 Kagemusha (The Shadow Warrior) (+ co-sc, co-pr) KUROSAWADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 549 1985 Ran (+ sc) 1990 Dreams (Akira Kurosawa’s Dreams) (+ sc) 1991 Hachigatsu No Kyohshikyoku (Rhapsody in August) (+ sc) 1993 Madadayo (+ sc, ed) Other Films: 1937 Sengoku gunto den (Sage of the Vagabond) (sc, asst dir) 1941 Uma (Horses) (Yamamoto) (co-sc) 1942 Seishun no kiryu (Currents of Youth) (Fushimizi) (sc); Tsubasa no gaika (A Triumph of Wings) (Yamamoto) (sc) 1944 Dohyo-matsuri (Wrestling-Ring Festival) (Marune) (sc) 1945 Appare Isshin Tasuke (Bravo, Tasuke Isshin!) (Saeki) (sc) 1947 Ginrei no hate (To the End of the Silver Mountains) (Taniguchi) (co-sc); Hatsukoi (First Love) segment of Yottsu no koi no monogatari (Four Love Stories) (Toyoda) (sc) 1948 Shozo (The Portrait) (Kinoshita) (sc) 1949 Yakoman to Tetsu (Yakoman and Tetsu) (Taniguchi) (sc); Jigoku no kifujin (The Lady from Hell) (Oda) (sc) 1950 Akatsuki no dasso (Escape at Dawn) (Taniguchi) (sc); Jiruba no Tetsu (Tetsu ‘Jilba’) (Kosugi) (sc); Tateshi danpei (Fencing Master) (Makino) (sc) 1951 Ai to nikushimi no kanata e (Beyond Love and Hate) (Taniguchi) (sc); Kedamono no yado (The Den of Beasts) (Osone) (sc); Ketto Kagiya no tsuji (The Duel at Kagiya Corner) (Mori) (sc) 1957 Tekichu odan sanbyakuri (Three Hundred Miles through Enemy Lines) (Mori) (sc) 1960 Sengoku guntoden (The Saga of the Vagabond) (Sugie) (sc) 1999 Ame agaru (After the Rain) (co-sc) Publications By KUROSAWA: books— Ikiru, with Shinobu Hashimoto and Hideo Oguni, edited by Donald Richie, New York, 1968. Rashomon, with Shinobu Hashimoto, edited by Donald Richie, New York, 1969; also New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1987. The Seven Samurai, New York, 1970. Kurosawa Akira eiga taikei [Complete Works of Akira Kurosawa], edited by Takamaro Shimaji, in 12 volumes, Tokyo, 1970/72. Something like an Autobiography, New York, 1982. Ran, London, 1986. By KUROSAWA: articles— ‘‘Waga eiga jinsei no ki,’’ [Diary of My Movie Life], in Kinema jumpo (Tokyo), April 1963. ‘‘Why Mifune’s Beard Won’t Be Red,’’ in Cinema (Los Angeles), July 1964. ‘‘L’Empereur: entretien avec Kurosawa,’’ with Yoshio Shirai and others, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1966. Interview with Donald Richie, in Interviews with Film Directors, edited by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1967. Interview with Joan Mellen, in Voices from the Japanese Cinema, New York, 1975. ‘‘Tokyo Stories: Kurosawa,’’ interview with Tony Rayns, in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1981. Interview with E. Decaux and B. Villien, in Cinématographe (Paris), April 1982. ‘‘Kurosawa on Kurosawa,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), April 1982. Interview with Kyoko Hirano, in Cineaste (New York), May 1986. Kurosawa, Akira, ‘‘Lat oss halla ut tillsammaus,’’ in Chaplin (Stock- holm), vol. 30, no. 2/3, 1988. Interview in Time Out (London), 9 May 1990. Interview in Etudes Cinematographiques (Paris), no. 165/169, 1990. Interview in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1991. ‘‘Moments with Kurosawa,’’ an interview with Shawn Levy and James Fee, in American Film (New York), January/February 1992. On KUROSAWA: books— Anderson, Joseph, and Donald Richie, The Japanese Film: Art and Industry, New York, 1960; revised edition, Princeton, New Jer- sey, 1982. Sato, Tadao, Kurosawa Akira no sekai [The World of Akira Kurosawa], Tokyo, 1968. Richie, Donald, The Films of Akira Kurosawa, Berkeley, California, 1970; revised edition, 1984. Richie, Donald, Japanese Cinema: Film Style and National Charac- ter, New York, 1971. Richie, Donald, editor, Focus on Rashomon, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972. Mesnil, Michel, Kurosawa, Paris, 1973. Mellen, Joan, The Waves at Genji’s Door: Japan through Its Cinema, New York, 1976. Bock, Audie, Japanese Film Directors, New York, 1978; revised edition, Tokyo, 1978. Erens, Patricia, Akira Kurosawa: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1979. Tassone, Aldo, Akira Kurosawa, Florence, 1981. Bazin, André, The Cinema of Cruelty: From Bu?uel to Hitchcock, New York, 1982. Sato, Tadao, Currents in Japanese Cinema, Tokyo, 1982. Desser, David, The Samurai Films of Akira Kurosawa, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1983. Tassone, Aldo, Akira Kurosawa, Paris, 1983. Ito, Kosuke, Kurosawa Akira ‘Ran’ no sekai, Tokyo, 1985. Achternbusch, Herbert, and others, Akira Kurosawa, Munich, 1988. Chang, Kevin K., Kurosawa: Perceptions on Life, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1991. Prince, Stephen, The Warrior’s Camera: The Cinema of Akira Kurosawa, Princeton, New Jersey, 1991. Goodwin, James, editor, Perspectives on Akira Kurosawa, New York, 1994. On KUROSAWA: articles— Leyda, Jay, ‘‘The Films of Kurosawa,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), October/December 1954. Anderson, Lindsay, ‘‘Two Inches off the Ground,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1957. Anderson, Joseph, and Donald Richie, ‘‘Traditional Theater and the Film in Japan,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1958. McVay, Douglas, ‘‘The Rebel in a Kimono,’’ and ‘‘Samurai and Small Beer,’’ in Films and Filming (London), July and August 1961. KUROSAWA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 550 ‘‘Kurosawa Issues’’ of Kinema jumpo (Tokyo), April 1963 and 5 September 1964. ‘‘Akira Kurosawa,’’ in Cinema (Los Angeles), August/September 1963. ‘‘Kurosawa Issue’’ of études Cinématographiques (Paris), no. 30–31, Spring 1964. Akira, Iwasaki, ‘‘Kurosawa and His Work,’’ in Japan Quarterly (New York), January/March 1965. ‘‘Director of the Year,’’ International Film Guide (London, New York), 1966. ‘‘Akira Kurosawa: Japan’s Poet Laureate of Film,’’ in Film Makers on Film Making, edited by Harry Geduld, Bloomington, Indi- ana, 1967. Richie, Donald, ‘‘Dostoevsky with a Japanese Camera,’’ in The Emergence of Film Art, edited by Lewis Jacobs, New York, 1969. Manvell, Roger, ‘‘Akira Kurosawa’s Macbeth, The Castle of the Spider’s Web,’’ in Shakespeare and the Film, London, 1971. Tessier, Max, ‘‘Cinq japonais en quete de films: Akira Kurosawa,’’ in Ecran (Paris), March 1972. Mellen, Joan, ‘‘The Epic Cinema of Kurosawa,’’ in Take One (Montreal), June 1972. Kaminsky, Stuart, ‘‘The Samurai Film and the Western,’’ in The Journal of Popular Film (Bowling Green, Ohio), Fall 1972. Tucker, Richard, ‘‘Kurosawa and Ichikawa: Feudalist and Individual- ist,’’ in Japan: Film Image, London, 1973. ‘‘Kurosawa Issue’’ of Kinema jumpo (Tokyo), 7 May 1974. Richie, Donald, ‘‘Kurosawa: A Television Script,’’ in 1000 Eyes (New York), May 1976. Silver, Alain, ‘‘Akira Kurosawa,’’ in The Samurai Film, Cranbury, New Jersey, 1977. McCormick, Ruth, ‘‘Kurosawa: The Nature of Heroism,’’ in 1000 Eyes (New York), April 1977. Ray, Satyajit, ‘‘Tokyo, Kyoto, et Kurosawa,’’ in Positif (Paris), December 1979. Mitchell, G., ‘‘Kurosawa in Winter,’’ in American Film (Washing- ton, D.C.), April 1982. Dossier on Ran, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), September 1985. ‘‘Kurosawa Section’’ of Positif (Paris), October 1985. Boyd, D., ‘‘Rashomon: from Akutagawa to Kurosawa,’’ in Litera- ture-Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 15, no. 3, 1987. Kusakabe, K., ‘‘Akira Kurosawa, the Emperor of Cinema,’’ in Cinema India International (Bombay), vol. 4, no. 13, 1987. Lannes-Lacroutz, M., ‘‘Le Sabra et la camélia,’’ in Positif (Paris), March 1987. McCarthy, T., ‘‘Kurosawa Mum on Next Film during Audience in Tokyo,’’ in Variety (New York), 7 October 1987. Prince, S., ‘‘Zen and Selfhood: Patterns of Eastern Thought in Kurosawa’s Films,’’ in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Win- ter 1988. Ostria, V., ‘‘Kurosawa en vogue,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1989. Stein, Elliot, ‘‘Film: Foreign Affairs,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 31 January 1989. Peary, G., ‘‘Akira Kurosawa,’’ in American Film (New York), April 1989. Positif (Paris), June 1990. Biofilmography in L’avant Scene Cinéma (Paris), June 1990. Weisman, S.R., ‘‘Kurosawa Is Sailing Unfamiliar Seas,’’ New York Times, October 1, 1990. Bibliography in L’avant Scene Cinéma (Paris), June-July 1991. Bourguignon, Thomas, article in Positif (Paris), November 1991. Medine, David, ‘‘Law and Kurosawa’s ‘Rashomon,’’’ in Literature- Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), January 1992. Sterngold, James, ‘‘Kurosawa, in His Own Style, Is Planning His Next Film,’’ in New York Times, 1 February 1992. Helm, Leslie, ‘‘Is Kurosawa Ready to Stop Making Films? Not Yet . . . ,’’ in Los Angeles Times, 24 June 1992. Segers, F., ‘‘Kurosawa and Toho Go Way Back,’’ in Variety (New York), 9 November 1992. Seltzer, Alex, ‘‘Akira Kurosawa: Seeing through the Eyes of the Audience,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1993. Reid, T.R., ‘‘The Setting Sun of Akira Kurosawa; Japan’s Famed Director Draws Yawns for Film Memoir,’’ in Washington Post, 28 December 1993. Crowl, Samuel, ‘‘The Bow Is Bent and Drawn: Kurosawa’s ‘Ran’ and the Shakespearean Arrow of Desire,’’ in Literature-Film Quar- terly (Salisbury, Maryland), April 1994. Manheim, Michael, ‘‘The Function of Battle Imagery in Kurosawa’s Histories and the ‘Henry V’ Films,’’ in Literature-Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), April 1994. James, Caryn, ‘‘Gleaning a Master Director’s Painted Clues. . . ,’’ in New York Times, 5 June 1994. Masson, Alain, and others, ‘‘Akira Kurosawa,’’ in Positif (Paris), January 1996. Bovkis, Elen A., ‘‘Ikiru: The Role of Women in a Male Narrative,’’ in CineAction (Toronto), May 1996. Carr, Barbara, ‘‘Goethe and Kurosawa: Faust and the Totality of Human Experience—West and East,’’ in Literature/Film Quar- terly (Salisbury), vol. 24, no. 3, 1996. Obituary, in Filmrutan (Sundsvall), Fall 1998. Obituary, in Variety (New York), 14 September 1998. Obituary, in Sight and Sound (London), October 1998. Obituary, in Positif (Paris), November 1998. Obituary, in 24 Images (Montreal), no. 95, Winter 1998. On KUROSAWA: film— Richie, Donald, Akira Kurosawa: Film Director, 1975. *** Unquestionably Japan’s best-known film director, Akira Kurosawa introduced his country’s cinema to the world with his 1951 Venice Festival Grand Prize winner, Rashomon. His international reputation has broadened over the years with numerous citations, and when 20th Century-Fox distributed his 1980 Cannes Grand Prize winner, Kagemusha, it was the first time a Japanese film achieved worldwide circulation through a major Hollywood studio. At the time Rashomon took the world by surprise, Kurosawa was already a well-established director in his own country. He had received his six-year assistant director’s training at the Toho Studios under the redoubtable Kajiro Yamamoto, director of both low-budget comedies and vast war epics such as The War at Sea from Hawaii to Malaya. Yamamoto described Kurosawa as more than fully prepared to direct when he first grasped the megaphone for his own screenplay, Sanshiro Sugata, in 1943. This film, based on a best-selling novel about the founding of judo, launched lead actor Susumu Fujita as a star and director Kurosawa as a powerful new force in the film world. Despite numerous battles with wartime censors, Kurosawa man- aged to get production approval for three more of his scripts before the Pacific War ended in 1945. By this time he was fully established with KURYSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 551 his studio and his audience as a writer-director. His films were so successful commercially that he would, until late in his career, receive a free creative hand from his producers, ever-increasing budgets, and extended schedules. In addition, he was never subjected to a project that was not of his own initiation and his own writing. In the pro-documentary, female emancipation atmosphere that reigned briefly under the Allied Occupation of Japan, Kurosawa created his strongest woman protagonist and produced his most explicit pro-left message in No Regrets for Our Youth. But internal political struggles at Toho left bitterness and creative disarray in the wake of a series of strikes. As a result, Kurosawa’s 1947 One Wonderful Sunday is perhaps his weakest film, an innocuous and sentimental story of a young couple who are too poor to get married. The mature Kurosawa appeared in the 1948 Drunken Angel. Here he displays not only a full command of black-and-white filmmaking technique with his characteristic variety of pacing, lighting, and camera angles for maximum editorial effect, but his first use of sound- image counterpoints in the ‘‘Cuckoo Waltz’’ scene, where lively music contrasts with the dying gangster’s dark mood. Here too is the full-blown appearance of the typical Kurosawan master-disciple relationship first suggested in Sanshiro Sugata, as well as an overrid- ing humanitarian message despite the story’s tragic outcome. The master-disciple roles assume great depth in Takashi Shimura’s por- trayal of the blustery alcoholic doctor and Toshiro Mifune’s charac- terization of the vain, hotheaded young gangster. The film’s tension is generated by Shimura’s questionable worthiness as a mentor and Mifune’s violent unwillingness as a pupil. These two actors would recreate similar testy relationships in numerous Kurosawa films from the late 1940s through the mid-1950s, including the noir police drama Stray Dog, the doctor dilemma film Quiet Duel, and the all-time classic Seven Samurai. In the 1960s Yuzo Kayama would assume the disciple role to Mifune’s master in the feudal comedy Sanjuro and in Red Beard, a work about humanity’s struggle to modernize. Kurosawa’s films of the 1990s were minor asterisks to the career of this formidable, legendary director. Dreams (Akira Kurosawa’s Dreams) is a disappointingly uneven recreation of eight of the director’s dreams; Hachigatsu No Kyohshikyoku (Rhapsody in August) is a slight account of the recollection of a grandmother who remem- bers the bombing of Nagasaki. These films are linked to Madadayo, Kurosawa’s last film, in that all are deeply personal and reflective. Madadayo, released when Kurosawa was 83 years old, is an account of 17 years in the retirement of a beloved teacher who is respected by the generations of his former students. As he ages into a ‘‘genuine old man,’’ he remains as feisty and vigorous as ever; his favorite phrase is the film’s title, the English translation of which is ‘‘not yet.’’ But he is as equally vulnerable to the ravages of time and life’s losses, as illustrated by his grieving upon the disappearance of his pet cat. Madadayo is a flawed film, if only because one too many sequences ramble. While it most decid- edly is the work of an old man, it and his other latter-period work do not negate the vitality of Kurosawa’s many all-time classics. Part of Kurosawa’s characteristic technique throughout his career involved the typical Japanese studio practice of using the same crew or ‘‘group’’ on each production. He consistently worked with cinematographer Asakazu Nakai and composer Fumio Hayasaka, for example. Kurosawa’s group became a kind of family that extended to actors as well. Mifune and Shimura were the most prominent names of the virtual private repertory company that, through lifetime studio contracts, could survive protracted months of production on a Kurosawa film and fill in with more normal four-to-eight-week shoots in between. Kurosawa was thus assured of getting the performance he wanted every time. Kurosawa’s own studio contract and consistent box-office record enabled him to exercise creativity never permitted lesser talents in Japan. He was responsible for numerous technical innovations as a result. He pioneered the use of long lenses and multiple cameras in the famous final battle scenes in the driving rain and splashing mud of Seven Samurai. He introduced the first use of widescreen in Japan in the 1958 samurai entertainment classic Hidden Fortress. To the dismay of leftist critics and the delight of audiences, he invented realistic portrayals of swordfighting and other violence in such extravagant confrontations as those of Yojimbo, which spawned the entire Clint Eastwood spaghetti western genre in Italy. Kurosawa further experimented with long lenses on the set in Red Beard, and accomplished breathtaking work with his first color film Dodeskaden, now no longer restorable. A firm believer in the importance of motion picture science, Kurosawa pioneered the use of Panavision and multi- track Dolby sound in Japan with Kagemusha. His only reactionary practice was his editing, which he did entirely himself on an antique Moviola, better and faster than anyone else in the world. Western critics often chastised Kurosawa for using symphonic music in his films. His reply to this is to point out that he and his entire generation grew up on music that was more Western in quality than native Japanese. As a result, native Japanese music can sound artificially exotic to a contemporary audience. Nevertheless, he succeeded in his films in adapting not only boleros and elements of Beethoven, but snatches of Japanese popular songs and musical instrumentation from Noh theater and folk song. Perhaps most startling of Kurosawa’s achievements in a Japanese context, however, was his innate grasp of a story-telling technique that is not culture bound, and his flair for adapting Western classical literature to the screen. No other Japanese director would have dared to set Dostoevski’s Idiot, Gorki’s Lower Depths, or Shakespeare’s Macbeth (Throne of Blood) and King Lear (Ran) in Japan. But he also adapted works from the Japanese Kabuki theater (Men Who Tread on the Tiger’s Tail) and used Noh staging techniques and music in both Throne of Blood and Kagemusha. Like his counterparts and most admired models, Jean Renoir, John Ford, and Kenji Mizoguchi, Kurosawa took his cinematic inspirations from the full store of world film, literature, and music. And yet the completely original screen- plays of his two greatest films, Ikiru, the story of a bureaucrat dying of cancer who at last finds purpose in life, and Seven Samurai, the saga of seven hungry warriors who pit their wits and lives against marauding bandits in the defense of a poor farming village, reveal that his natural story-telling ability and humanistic convictions transcended all limi- tations of genre, period, and nationality. —Audie Bock, updated by Rob Edelman KURYS, Diane Nationality: French. Born: Lyon, 3 December 1948, to Russian- Jewish immigrants. Education: Lycée Jules Ferry, Paris. Family: Partner of director-producer Alexandre Arcady since the mid-1960s; one son, Yasha. Career: Joined Jean-Louis Barrault’s theatre group, KURYS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 552 Diane Kurys 1970; first feature film, Diabolo Menthe, becomes the year’s largest- grossing film in France, 1977. Awards: Prix Louis Delluc, Best Picture, 1977, for Diabolo Menthe; San Sebastián International Film Festival FIPRESCI Award, for Coup de foudre, 1983. Address: William Morris Agency, 151 El Camino Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, U.S.A. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1977 Diabolo Menthe (Peppermint Soda) 1980 Cocktail Molotov (Molotov Cocktail) 1983 Coup de foudre (Entre Nous; Between Us; At First Sight) 1987 A Man in Love (Un homme amoureux) (+ pr) 1990 La Baule-les-Pins (C’est la vie) (+ pr) 1992 Après l’amour (Love after Love) 1994 à la folie (Alice and Elsa; Six Days, Six Nights) 1999 Les Enfants du siècle (Children of the Century) Other Films: 1972 Poil de carotte (Carrot Top) (Graziani) (ro as Agathe); Elle court, elle court la banlieue (Pirès) (ro) Publications: By KURYS: article— ‘‘Come Hither—But Slowly: Dessert with Diane Kurys,’’ interview with M. Palley, in The Village Voice (New York), 31 Janu- ary 1984. On KURYS: books— Quart, Barbara Koenig, Women Directors: The Emergence of a New Cinema, Westport, Connecticut, 1988. Austin, Guy, Contemporary French Cinema: An Introduction, Man- chester, 1996. Straayer, Chris, Deviant Eyes, Deviant Bodies: Sexual Re-orienta- tions in Film and Video, New York, 1996. Powrie, Phil, French Cinema in the 1980s: Nostalgia and the Crisis of Masculinity, Oxford, 1997. Tarr, Carrie, Diane Kurys, Manchester, 1999. On KURYS: articles— Holmund, Christine, ‘‘When Is a Lesbian Not a Lesbian?: The Lesbian Continuum and the Mainstream Femme Film,’’ in Cam- era Obscura (Rochester, New York), January/May 1991. Lipman, Amanda, ‘‘Après l’amour,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), September 1993. *** It is not unusual for young independent filmmakers to create an autobiographical first or second feature: perhaps a tale of struggling adolescence on the model of Truffaut’s Les Quatres cents coups. But Diabolo menthe, Diane Kurys’ first film, a resounding critical and box-office success in France, was highly unusual in 1977 for having a female perspective on teenage rites of passage. It also initiated a remarkable group of films—one that does not follow the same characters through a series of sequels, à la Truffaut’s Antoine Doinel cycle, but focuses upon essentially the same family (with slightly different names and played by different actors), rather the way some novelists and playwrights have circled around the same traumatic event, catching it from different angles, different characters’ view- points, in work after work. Though her recent films have been more occupied with adult family struggles, Kurys’ most enduring works may turn out to be those directly linked to a divorce in a French- Jewish family and the children who witness the breakup. The title of that first film refers to the ‘‘grown up’’ drink young Anne Weber orders in a café—until Frédèrique, her older sister and sometime confederate, humiliatingly sends her home. This and many other painful moments of budding youth are presented—sometimes with heartfelt intensity, sometimes with a cool comic edge—in vignettes that take us into the sisters’ Paris lycée (schoolyard secrets, wretched teachers) and their lives outside it (mother-daughter con- flicts, reluctant encounters with the divorced father, and most disturb- ingly, Frédèrique’s near-seduction by a school friend’s father). Poli- tics intersect with private life (the year is 1963, marked by Kennedy’s assassination): a girl tells of witnessing a police riot, and Frédèrique’s antifascist student group is disparaged by her principal as well as attacked by neo-Nazi thugs. Quiet observations of character, sudden explosions of emotion, unexpected turns of plot, touches of ironic KURYSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 553 humor: such hallmarks of Kurys’ later work are already evident in this first feature. Cocktail Molotov is marked as a sequel of sorts by the title’s ironic echo of the first film’s less potent concoction, and by the name Anne, though now applied to the older of two sisters (whose boyfriend is named Frederic!). We are now in May 1968, but Anne seems completely apolitical, as do her boyfriend and his best friend; she is exclusively concerned with discovering her own sexuality and run- ning away from her hated mother and stepfather, while the other two follow along. Her notion of joining a kibbutz takes them as far as Venice, but when Bruno’s car and most of their money is ‘‘appropri- ated’’ by an anarchist girlfriend, the trio are forced to hitchhike back to Paris, hearing about the explosive turmoil in the capital via radio and conversations—more often monologues, since the youths don’t talk to older people much. Considering that Kurys herself was an activist in 1968, and did get to a kibbutz, Cocktail Molotov is fascinating in its detached viewpoint: though she seems to have an affectionate eye for the three young people’s energy and misery in their voyage of discovery, she also shows them having no idea of what is going on politically; and while she satirizes a few bourgeois types, she doesn’t seem to mark any of the more opinionated characters as the director’s mouthpiece. Anne is more concerned with getting her father to help her get an abortion than interested in his views, and when Bruno comes across a real Molotov cocktail he just lights and tosses it off the side of a country road for kicks as the three run off like little kids. Kurys’ third film, Coup de foudre (Entre Nous in the United States), is a kind of prequel to Diabolo menthe, but centered upon the girls’ mother and her intense friendship with another woman, with the subsequent breakups of both their marriages. The film became Kurys’ greatest international success to date and certainly remains her most controversial film. It has been admired by some as a superbly powerful and subtle drama, gorgeously realized, while others have dismissed it as too vague in its sexual politics, too chic, too conserva- tive in its filmmaking style. Much of the debate over the film centered upon the question of whether it should be categorized as a ‘‘lesbian film.’’ The original title (‘‘stroke of lightning’’ is an idiom for love at first sight) may suggest as much, and several scenes between Lena and Madeleine certainly have an erotic charge, though the women are never shown to make love. Lena’s husband accuses her of leaving him for a ‘‘dyke,’’ but his outrage is colored by Madeleine’s earlier rejection of his sexual advances. A sympathetic reading of the film—or more, an argument that it is a major achievement in French cinema of the last two decades— might stress its refusal to reduce love relationships to the binary ‘‘sexual/nonsexual,’’ or to make characters simply likable or unlikable. Lena’s husband is heroic in rescuing her from probable death in a concentration camp, tender with his daughters, and quite vicious with Madeleine. The women, memorably played by Isabelle Huppert and Miou-Miou, are seen as both admirable in their quest for independence and selfish—or curiously absent-minded—in their consideration of others; sometimes the viewer’s sympathies seem intended to shift not just from scene to scene but from shot to shot. (Consider the episode of Lena losing little Sophie on the bus, or her encounter with the soldiers on the train and later confession to Madeleine.) The dramatic canvas is broad, with its wartime prologue, crosscutting between Michel’s rescue of Lena (which has its comic moments) and the violent death of Madeleine’s first husband; the women’s first meeting in the 1950s and ultimate decision to move to Paris; and the startling shift to an autobiographical mode (Lena’s daughter’s point of view) in the film’s last moments. Kurys’ consis- tently brilliant use of widescreen Panavision, whether in the epic views of a Pyranees prison camp or the languid reclinings of the two women, is essential to the film’s overall effect, as is the attention to period detail, particularly fashions and music, as a way of dramatizing the 1950s context (the war years seemingly long past, but the possibilities for women’s independence largely in the future) and underlining the women’s interest in fashion as a career. Perhaps most striking, though difficult to pinpoint, is the film’s ability to present scenes with a full sense of immediacy and yet as if we were watching a reenactment of family legends from a distance. This story is told once again in La Baules-les-Pins, named after the seaside resort where the entire film takes place. This time, the daughters are again the central characters; the mother is still named Lena, but she is having an affair with another man, while Madeleine has metamorphosed into a stepsister (whose husband is played by the same actor as in Coup de foudre, the one carryover). The film records the usual lazy amusements of a long summer at the beach, but also the girls’ growing anxiety over their parents’ impending separation. Lena is cruelly distant (literally and figuratively) at some times, warmly affectionate at others. The eruption of violence in this film, when Michel attacks his wife, is truly shocking in its suddenness and brutality (i.e., in the staging of the scene, the editing, the perform- ances); yet the placidities of beach life continue for the children, for some weeks/scenes to come, as they might indeed in life. A Man in Love, made in between Coup de foudre and Les Baules- les-Pins, is equally interested in passion at first sight, adultery, and flares of temper, and has a similar eye for widescreen compositions, but this international co-production has quite a different setting: the glamourous world of international filmmaking, where an American movie star, hired to play Cesare Pavese in an Italian biopic, has a steamy affair with his co-star, who abandons her French lover though the American will not give up his wife. The film has a great many fine moments which, however, do not add up to a coherent whole, and the American actor remains uninterestingly egocentric, thanks to some combination of the screenwriting (including an almost complete shift in focus toward the actress and away from the title character) and Peter Coyote’s wooden performance. A more success- ful, though certainly peculiar, tale of people involved in ludicrously neurotic love relationships is Après l’amour, in which a cluster of affluent Parisians make themselves miserable by oscillating between their old and new lovers. One can only assume the tone is one of detached amusement. Again parental neglect and affection are an important concern of the drama, and the director has not hesitated to say that the Isabelle Huppert character, a writer, is modeled after herself in certain ways. à la folie returns us to the relationship of sisters, but now a pair of adults in an extremely dysfunctional relationship, with implied sado- masochistic and lesbian elements. The tale is strongly reminiscent of Strindberg plays in which a meticulously realistic portrayal of charac- ters at odds with one another, with an underlying sexual current, becomes gradually more expressionistic, reaching toward nightmare violence. Here an older sister, Elsa, leaves her husband and children and essentially takes over the apartment of Anne, a successful Parisian artist (successful because she has broken away from her manipulative family, the film implies) who is already having to adjust to a new life with a live-in boyfriend (whom Elsa will eventually try to seduce). The performances of Béatrice Dalle as the vampirish Elsa and Anne Parillaud as the near-fatally unassertive Alice are harrow- ing to watch, though the film’s shift from subtle observations of KUSTURICA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 554 psychological cruelty to diabolical scheming—the territory of thrill- ers like Barbet Schroeder’s 1992 Single White Female—is problem- atic, as is the conventional ending. Kurys’ Les Enfants du siècle is a considerable departure in being a biography of George Sand and Frederic Chopin, though obviously Sand, as an independent woman artist who defied a number of gender conventions, should be a subject suited to Kurys’ interests. But whatever her future choices, Kurys has already created a half dozen important films, of which Diabolo menthe and Coup de foudre remain among the very significant contributions to French women’s filmmaking. —Joseph Milicia KUSTURICA, Emir Nationality: Yugoslavian (Bosnia-Herzegovina). Born: Sarajevo, Yugoslavia (Bosnia-Herzegovina), 24 November 1955. Education: Studied film direction at FAMU (Prague Film School) in Czechoslo- vakia. Career: Produced amateur films while attending secondary school; moved to Czechoslovakia to study film, 1973; directed Guernica, his diploma film, 1978; directed two television films and played guitar in a rock band, late 1970s; directed first feature, Do You Remember Dolly Bell?, 1981; earned international acclaim with When Father Was away on Business, 1985; came to the United States and began teaching a film directing course at Columbia University, Emir Kusturica 1988. Awards: Venice Film Festival Golden Lion and FIPRESCI Award, Sao Paolo International Film Festival Critics Award, for Do You Remember Dolly Bell?, 1981; Cannes Film Festival Palme d’Or and FIPRESCI Award, for When Father Was away on Business, 1985; Cannes Film Festival Best Director and Roberto Rossellini Career Achievement Award, for Time of the Gypsies, 1988; Berlin Film Festival Silver Berlin Bear, for Arizona Dream, 1993; Cannes Film Festival Palme d’Or, for Underground, 1995; Venice Film Festival Laterna Magica Prize, Little Golden Lion and Silver Lion, for Black Cat, White Cat, 1998. Agent: Creative Artists Agency, 9830 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90212. Films as Director: 1978 Guernica; Nevjeste dolaze (The Brides Are Coming) (for TV) 1980 Bife Titanic (The Titanic Bar) (for TV) (+ sc) 1981 Sjecas li se Dolly Bell? (Do You Remember Dolly Bell?) 1985 Otac na sluzbenoh putu (When Father Was away on Business) 1988 Dom za vesanje (Time of the Gypsies) (+ co-sc) 1993 Arizona Dream 1995 Underground (+ co-sc, ro) 1998 Crna macka, beli macor (Black Cat, White Cat) (+ co-sc) 2000 The White Hotel Other Films: 1982 13.jul (Saranovic) (uncredited ro) 1987 Strategija svrake (The Magpie Strategy) (Lavanic) (sc); Zivot Radina (sc) 2000 La Veuve de Saint-Pierre (Leconte) (ro) Publications By KUSTURICA: articles— Interview with P. Elhem in Visions (Brussels), Summer 1985. Interview with L. Codelli in Positif (Paris), October 1985. ‘‘Emir Kusturica,’’ interview with M. Martin and D. Parra, in La Revue du Cinéma (Paris), October 1985. ‘‘Winner from the Balkans,’’ interview with Henry Kamm, in New York Times, 24 November 1985. Interview with A. Crespi in Cineforum (Bergamo), June 1989. Interview with M. Ciment and L. Codelli in Positif (Paris), Novem- ber 1989. Interview with I. Katsahnias in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), Novem- ber 1989. ‘‘Time for Kusturica,’’ interview with Arlene Pachasa, in American Film (New York), August 1990. Interview with T. Jousse and V. Ostria in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1992. ‘‘A Bosnian Movie Maker Laments the Death of the Yugoslav Nation,’’ interview with David Binder, in New York Times, 25 October 1992. ‘‘A Marriage of Inconvenience,’’ interview with Patrick McGavin, in Filmmaker (Los Angeles), February 1999. KUSTURICADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 555 On KUSTURICA: articles— McCarthy, Todd, ‘‘Yugo Director Kusturica Planning ‘Spirit-Wres- tlers,’’’ Variety (New York), 2 October 1985. Downey, M., article in Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 28, no. 1, 1986. Horton, Andrew, ‘‘The New Serbo-Creationism,’’ American Film (Washington, D.C.), January/February 1986. Cade, Michel, article in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1987. Report on retrospective at Montpellier Film Festival, in Cinéma (Paris), October 1989. Katsahnias, I., article in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1989. Gili, J. A., article in Positif (Paris), November 1989. Ahlund, J., ‘‘Emir Kusturica: regissor med hog kroppstemperatur,’’ Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 32, no. 5, 1990. Insdorf, Annette, article in New York Times, 4 February 1990. Jousse, T., and V. Ostria, article in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1991. Williams, Michael, and Deborah Young, ‘‘Iron Curtain Alums Test West’s Mettle,’’ Variety (New York), 29 June 1992. Maslin, Janet, ‘‘Two Films on Strife in Balkans Win Top Prizes at Cannes,’’ New York Times, 29 May 1995. Turan, Kenneth, ‘‘A Requiem for Yugoslavia Takes Cannes Prize,’’ Los Angeles Times, 29 May 1995. Klady, Leonard, and Todd McCarthy, ‘‘Underground Mines Cannes D’or,’’ Variety (New York), 5 June 1995. Hoberman, J., ‘‘Of Cats and a Keg,’’ in Premiere (New York), June 1999. *** Emir Kusturica’s films radiate a universal humanism. While they come out of a specific part of the world—in which the political situation plays no small role in affecting his characters’ lives—they are timeless stories in that they deal with basic human needs, desires, feelings, and experiences. Do You Remember Dolly Bell?, Kusturica’s first feature, is an insightful, bittersweet comedy about Dino (Slavko Stimac), an ado- lescent who goes about losing his virginity and experiencing first love. There may be political and social implications within the story: Dino’s father is a Muslim-Marxist who fervently believes in a com- munist utopia even though he and his family reside in one crowded room; and the scenario is rife with jabs at Communist Party bureau- cracy. During the course of the story Dino’s father dies, which symbolically mirrors Kusturica’s conviction that the failure of com- munism to improve peoples’ lives is irrevocable. Still, the film mainly is a coming-of-age comedy not dissimilar to scores of other cinematic rite-of-passage chronicles. Undoubtedly, its gently ironic style was influenced by Kusturica’s having attended the Prague Film School, where he studied with Jiri Menzel. Kusturica was to emerge as a force on the international film scene with his next feature, When Father Was away on Business, which won him a Cannes Film Festival Palme d’Or. It is the fresh, winning account of what happens when a philandering, indiscreet Yugoslavian man, Mesha Malkoc (Miki Manojlovic), is sent into exile for three years, with the scenario unraveling through the eyes and perceptions of Malik (Moreno D’E Bartolli), his six-year-old son. Politics and history impact on the story, which is set in the early 1950s after Marshal Tito, Yugoslavia’s ruler, had split with Stalin. This resulted in the country’s expulsion from the Soviet Socialist Bloc. In Yugo- slavia, individual loyalties were harshly divided between Tito and Stalin, leading to mass denunciations and betrayals that often had nothing to do with political leanings. Such is the case with the father in When Father Was away on Business. The spitefulness of one of Mesha’s girlfriends, along with that of his brother-in-law, results in his arrest during a family party. But all Malik knows is that his father has been whisked away from the family, and his mother is left to struggle along as a seamstress in order to feed and clothe her children. The scenario eventually takes Malik and his family to the salt mine where Mesha is being held. The camp is filled with prisoners who, like Mesha, have been incarcerated for reasons having nothing to do with political ideology. There, Malik also comes of age, but in an altogether different manner than depicted in Do You Remember Dolly Bell? Primarily, his maturation results from his interaction with an incurably ill young girl. When Father Was away on Business is a major work, one of the finest films of the 1980s. Kusturica’s next feature, Time of the Gypsies, is another coming- of-age story as well as a flavorful account of gypsy life. It tells of an innocent young boy (Davor Dujmovic) who wishes to make a better life for himself, but finds he can only accomplish this by becoming involved in a criminal lifestyle. In telling his story, Kusturica offers a bitter condemnation of a society’s exploitation of children. Arizona Dream, Kusturica’s first American film, was a major disappointment. It features Johnny Depp as a recently orphaned young man who returns to his Arizona hometown for the wedding of his uncle (Jerry Lewis). The movie only received a limited theatrical distribution in the United States. The civil war that had bitterly divided his homeland was bound to influence Kusturica’s work. In 1995 he won a second Cannes Palme d’Or for Underground, a French-German-Hungarian-produced alle- gorical epic of Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1992. As he charts the camaraderie and conflict between two Belgrade men, Marko and Blacky (Miki Manojlovic, Lazar Ristovski), Kusturica bitterly cen- sures the postwar communist domination of his homeland and the bloody present-day civil war in which, in his view, all sides are culpable. Underground was one of an increasing number of humanist- oriented films that focused on the politics and tragedy of the war. Joining it were Srdjan Dragojevic’s Pretty Village, Pretty Flame (the story of a Serb and Muslim who once were childhood friends but now are adversaries in battle) and Michael Winterbottom’s Welcome to Sarajevo (a reverie on the random brutality of the war, and the manner in which violent conflicts are covered by the media). All three are sobering, heartbreaking films that serve as formidable reminders of what the war in Bosnia was—and of what any war is. However, Underground was the object of much contention in France, where leftists alleged that it was, at its core, pro-Serbian. And so, in his follow-up feature, Black Cat, White Cat, Kusturica es- chewed in-your-face politics in favor of a spirited romp that, like Time of the Gypsies, offers a vivid portrait of gypsy life. The film spotlights two clans whose members become entangled in a frenetic scenario involving love and arranged marriages, family responsibilities, and conspiracies and double-dealing. Given Kusturica’s predilection for examining regional politics, one might see within this tale of feuding families a parable that reflects on the greater conflict in his homeland. The film concludes with the title ‘‘Happy End,’’ which also may be viewed as the filmmaker’s wish for the resolution of that conflict. —Rob Edelman 557 L LA CAVA, Gregory Nationality: American. Born: Towanda, Pennsylvania, 10 March 1892. Education: Educated in Rochester, New York; Art Institute of Chicago; Art Students League and National Academy of Design, New York. Family: Married (second time) Grace Carland, 1941, one son. Career: Cartoonist for American Press Association, New York, then head of animated cartoon unit, Hearst Enterprises, 1917; worked on Mutt and Jeff series, then Torchy stories for Johnny Hines, from 1921; director, from 1922, then writer and director for Paramount, from 1924 (moved to Hollywood 1929); director for First National, 1929, then Pathé, 1930; signed with 20th Century Pictures, 1933, then freelance, from 1934; hired by Mary Pickford company to direct One Touch of Venus, then left set after dispute, 1948. Awards: New York Film Critics Circle Award, for Stage Door, 1937. Died: In 1952. Films as Director: (partial list) 1917 Der Kaptain Discovers the North Pole (‘‘Katzenjammer Kids’’ series) (co-d) (animated short) 1919 How Could William Tell? (‘‘Jerry on the Job’’ series) (ani- mated short) 1920 Smokey Smokes (and) Lampoons (‘‘Judge Rummy Cartoons’’ series) (animated short); Judge Rummy in Bear Facts (animated short); Kats Is Kats (‘‘Krazy Kat Cartoon’’) (animated short) 1922 His Nibs (5 reels); Faint Heart (2 reels); A Social Error (2 reels) 1923 The Four Orphans (2 reels); The Life of Reilly (2 reels); The Busybody (2 reels); The Pill Pounder (2 reels); So This Is Hamlet? (2 reels); Helpful Hogan (2 reels); Wild and Wicked (2 reels); Beware of the Dog (2 reels); The Fiddling Fool (2 reels) 1924 The New School Teacher (+ co-sc); Restless Wives 1925 Womanhandled 1926 Let’s Get Married; So’s Your Old Man; Say It Again 1927 Paradise for Two (+ pr); Running Wild; Tell It to Sweeney (+ pr); The Gay Defender (+ pr) 1928 Feel My Pulse (+ pr); Half a Bride 1929 Saturday’s Children; Big News 1930 His First Command (+ co-sc) 1931 Laugh and Get Rich (+ sc, co-dialogue); Smart Woman 1932 Symphony of Six Million; Age of Consent; The Half Naked Truth (+ co-sc) 1933 Gabriel over the White House; Bid of Roses (+ co-dialogue); Gallant Lady 1934 Affairs of Cellini; What Every Woman Knows (+ pr) 1935 Private Worlds (+ co-sc); She Married Her Boss 1936 My Man Godfrey (+ pr, co-sc) 1937 Stage Door 1939 Fifth Avenue Girl (+ pr) 1940 Primrose Path (+ pr, co-sc) 1941 Unfinished Business (+ pr) 1942 Lady in a Jam (+ pr) 1947 Living in a Big Way (+ story, co-sc) Publications On LA CAVA: articles— Article in Life (New York), 15 September 1941. Obituary in New York Times, 2 March 1952. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Esoterica,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1963. Beylie, Claude, ‘‘Enfin, La Cava vint . . . ,’’ in Ecran (Paris), May 1974. McNiven, R., ‘‘Gregory La Cava,’’ in Bright Lights (Los Angeles), no. 4, 1979. ‘‘Gregory La Cava,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1985. Darrigol, Jean, ‘‘Le règle du jeu La Cava,’’ in Vertigo (Paris), no. 14, January 1996. Adamson, Joe, ‘‘Animation Studio Auteur: Gregory La Cava and William Randolph Hearst,’’ in Griffithiana (Genoa), no. 55–56, September 1996. Viviani, Christian, and others, ‘‘Hollywood années 30,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 434, April 1997. *** Although many of his individual films are periodically reviewed and reassessed by film scholars, Gregory La Cava remains today a relatively under-appreciated director of some of the best ‘‘screwball comedies’’ of the 1930s. Perhaps his apparent inability to transcend the screwball form or his failure with a number of straight dramas contributed to this lack of critical recognition. Yet, at his best, he imposed a vitality and sparkle on his screen comedies that overcame their often weak scripts and some occasionally pedestrian perform- ances from his actors. The great majority of La Cava’s films reflect an instinctive comic sense undoubtedly gained during his early years as a newspaper cartoonist and as an animator with Walter Lantz on such fast and LA CAVA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 558 Gregory La Cava and Irene Dunn on the set of Unfinished Business furious cartoons as those in ‘‘The Katzenjammer Kids’’ and ‘‘Mutt and Jeff’’ series. La Cava subsequently became one of the few directors capable of transferring many of these techniques of ani- mated comedy to films involving real actors. His ability to slam a visual gag home quickly sustained such comedies as W.C. Fields’s So’s Your Old Man and Running Wild. Yet his real forte emerged in the sound period when the swiftly paced sight gags were replaced by equally quick verbal repartee. La Cava’s ‘‘screwball comedies’’ of the 1930s were characterized by improbable plots and brilliantly foolish dialogue but also by a dichotomous social view that seemed to delight in establishing satirical contrasts between the views of themselves held by the rich and by the poor. Although treated in varying degrees in Fifth Avenue Girl, She Married Her Boss, and Stage Door, La Cava’s classic treatment of this subject remains My Man Godfrey. Made during the depths of the Depression, it juxtaposes the world of the rich and frivolous with the plight of the real victims of the economic disaster through the sharply satiric device of a scavenger hunt. When one of the hunt’s objectives turns out to be ‘‘a forgotten man,’’ in this case a hobo named Godfrey Parke (William Powell), it provides a platform for one of the Depression’s victims to lash out at the upper class as being composed of frivolous ‘‘nitwits.’’ The film seemingly pulls its punches at the end, however, when one socialite, Irene Bullock (Carole Lombard), achieves some realization of the plight of the less fortunate, and the hobo Godfrey turns out to be a formerly wealthy Harvard man who actually renews his fortune through his association with her, although he has been somewhat tempered by his experience with the hoboes. La Cava, perhaps more than other directors working in the screwball genre, was able, by virtue of doing much of the writing on his scripts, to impose his philosophical imprint upon the majority of his films. While he was often required to keep a foot in both the conservative and the liberal camps, his films do not suffer. On the contrary, they maintain an objectivity that has allowed them to grow in stature with the passage of years. My Man Godfrey, Stage Door, and Gabriel over the White House, which is only now being recog- nized as a political fantasy of great merit, give overwhelming evi- dence that critical recognition of Gregory La Cava is considerably overdue. —Stephen L. Hanson LANDISDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 559 LANDIS, John Nationality: American. Born: Chicago, Illinois, 3 August 1950. Family: Married Deborah Nadoolman, 1980; children: Rachel. Ca- reer: Writer and director of motion pictures. Crew member of Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) film Kelly’s Heroes in Yugoslavia and stuntman for ‘‘spaghetti westerns’’ in Europe, 1971; executive pro- ducer for television series, including Weird Science (1994), Campus Cops (1995), and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids: The TV Show (1997); consultant, Sliders TV series, 1995. Awards: Special Jury Prize, Cognac Festival du Film Policier, for Into the Night, 1985. Office: Universal Studios, Universal City, CA 91608. Agent: Creative Art- ists, 1888 Century Park E., Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA 90067, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1971 Schlock (The Banana Monster) (+ sc, ro as Schlock) 1977 The Kentucky Fried Movie (+ ro as TV technician fighting with a gorilla) 1978 Animal House (National Lampoon’s Animal House) 1980 The Blues Brothers (+ sc, ro as Trooper La Fong) 1981 An American Werewolf in London (+ sc, ro as man being smashed into a window) 1982 Coming Soon (+ sc) 1983 Twilight Zone: The Movie (prologue and segment 1) (+ sc, pr); Trading Places; Thriller (+ sc, pr); Michael Jackson: Making Michael Jackson’s ‘‘Thriller’’ 1985 Spies like Us; Into the Night (+ ro as Savak) 1986 Three Amigos! 1987 Amazon Women on the Moon (segments ‘‘Mondo Condo,’’ ‘‘Hospital,’’ ‘‘Blacks without Souls,’’ ‘‘Don ‘No Soul’ Simmons,’’ and ‘‘Video Date’’) (+ exec pr) 1988 Coming to America 1990 Dream On (TV Series) 1991 Oscar 1992 Innocent Blood (A French Vampire in America) 1994 Beverly Hills Cop III 1996 The Stupids 1998 Blues Brothers 2000 (+ sc, pr, music exec pr); Susan’s Plan (+ sc, pr) Films as Actor: 1973 Battle for the Planet of the Apes (Thompson) (as Jake’s friend) 1975 Death Race 2000 (Bartel) (as Mechanic) 1979 1941 (Spielberg) (as Corporal Mizerany) 1982 Eating Raoul (Bartel) (uncredited) 1984 The Muppets Take Manhattan (Oz) (as Surprise Cameo) 1989 Spontaneous Combustion (Hooper) (as Radio Technician) 1990 Darkman (Raimi) (as Physician) 1991 Psycho IV: The Beginning (Garris—for TV) (as Mike) 1992 Body Chemistry II: The Voice of a Stranger (Simon) (as Dr. Edwards/Voice of a Stranger); Sleepwalkers (Garris) (as Lab Technician); Venice/Venice (Jaglom) (as John Landis) 1994 The Stand (Garris—mini, for TV) (as Russ Dorr); Il Silenzio dei prosciutti (The Silence of the Hams) (Greggio) (as FBI Agent) 1996 Who Is Henry Jaglom? (Rubin and Workman) (as himself); Vampirella (Wynorski) (as Astronaut νm1/Beard) 1997 Quicksilver Highway (Garris—for TV) (as Surgical Assist- ant); Mad City (Costa-Gavras) (as Doctor) 1999 Diamonds (Asher) (as Gambler); Freeway II: Confessions of a Trickbaby (Bright) (as Judge); Other Films: 1985 Clue (Lynn) (exec pr, sc) 1995 Here Come the Munsters (Ginty—for TV) (pr) 1996 The Munsters Scary Little Christmas (Emes—for TV) (exec pr) 1997 Hollywood Rated ‘‘R’’ (doc) (narrator) 1998 The Lost World (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s The Lost World) (Keen) (exec pr) Publications By LANDIS: articles— Interview in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 319, January 1981. Interview in Time Out (London), no. 1098, 4 September 1991. On LANDIS: books— Farber, Stephen, and Marc Green, Outrageous Conduct, New York, 1988. LaBrecque, Ron, Special Effects—Disaster at Twilight Zone: The Tragedy and the Trial, New York, 1988. On LANDIS: articles— Ansen, David, ‘‘Gross Out,’’ in Newsweek, 7 August 1978. Maslin, Janet, ‘‘Movie: ‘Blues Brothers’—Belushi and Aykroyd,’’ in The New York Times, 20 June 1980. Corliss, Richard, ‘‘Bad Dreams,’’ in Time, 20 June 1983. Sullivan, Randall, ‘‘Death in the Twilight Zone,’’ in Rolling Stone, 21 June 1984. ‘‘John Landis,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), no. 32, March 1985. Farina, Alberto, ‘‘John Landis’’ (special issue), in Castoro Cinema (Firenze), no. 167, September-October 1994. *** Through his work on National Lampoon’s Animal House and Twilight Zone: The Movie, John Landis has the dual distinction of being co-creator of one of Hollywood’s most successful genres, and being associated with one of Hollywood’s most embarrassing catas- trophes. His credits include such successes as Trading Places, The Blues Brothers, and Coming to America, but he will probably be best remembered for directing the first real gross-out comedy and for his association with the deaths of Vic Morrow and two Asian children for which he was charged with involuntary manslaughter. Landis has always been known for his love of movies. He grew up in Westwood, a section of Los Angeles housing 17 movie screens within a five-block radius. After raising financing for and directing Schlock (1971) and Kentucky Fried Movie (1977), Landis’s true LANDIS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 560 John Landis on the set of Animal House breakthrough film was the enormously popular, enormously enter- taining National Lampoon’s Animal House. David Ansen in News- week called the film ‘‘low humor of a high order.’’ The film made John Belushi a major film star, established the toga party as the epitome of college decadence, and began the genre of ‘‘slob come- dies,’’ a term which later evolved into ‘‘gross-out comedies,’’ with There’s Something about Mary (1998) being a direct descendant. Landis’ next film, The Blues Brothers (1980), starred Belushi and Dan Aykroyd as Jake and Elwood Blues, characters they originally created for Saturday Night Live. This movie was a financial success, though not nearly as successful as its predecessor, and the reviewers were less than kind. Janet Maslin in The New York Times said, ‘‘There isn’t a moment of The Blues Brothers that wouldn’t have been more enjoyable if it had been mounted on a simpler scale.’’ For Landis, it wasn’t enough to stage a car crash; he had to stage the most car-filled, most expensive pileup in cinema history. Landis responded to his critics by saying, ‘‘I will never apologize for spending money to entertain.’’ But this propensity for ‘‘bigger/louder/more’’ may be exactly the mindset that doomed him—or more precisely, doomed three of his actors—when he agreed to direct a segment of Twilight Zone—The Movie (1983). The film contained four segments, and the Landis segment, which he also wrote and produced, told the story of a bigot who spouts off against Jews, blacks, and Vietnamese before finding himself ‘‘in a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind,’’ as the oppressed in Nazi-occupied France, at a Klan lynching, and in Vietnam. Because of his recent successes, Landis was given final cut, on condition that he finish shooting on schedule. But he was behind schedule during the filming of a scene where Morrow was to dive into a swampy bog while the banana plants behind him were ripped apart by gunfire. When Landis didn’t like the effect produced by a marble gun and was told that rigging the plants with squibs would put them even further behind schedule, he opted to reshoot the scene using three Remington shotguns and live ammunition, an extremely dan- gerous decision. Then, in the early morning hours of 23 July 1982, Landis began filming a scene where Morrow’s character rescues two Vietnamese children from a hut just before it explodes. Landis refused to substi- tute dummies for children in the shot. As Landis told the helicopter pilot to fly lower and signaled for the explosions to begin, Morrow scooped up six-year-old Renee Chen and seven-year-old My-Ca Le from a hut and began running across a river. The children had been LANGDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 561 hired without the requisite permits and on-location social worker. Suddenly a tremendous fireball engulfed the helicopter, melting off the tail rotor, and the helicopter came crashing down, crushing Chen under its right skid and decapitating Morrow and Le. Morrow never got to deliver his final line: ‘‘I’ll keep you safe, kids. I swear to God.’’ Landis appeared at Morrow’s funeral and, inappropriately, said, ‘‘Tragedy strikes in an instant, but film is immortal.’’ After years of taking credit for his films, he refused to take responsibility for the accident, calling it everything from an act of God to the fault of his special effects crew. OSHA cited 36 violations on the set and levied fines, the three wrongful-death lawsuits filed by the actors’ families were settled out of court, and the criminal case dragged on for months, receiving much media attention. Finally Landis and his co-defendants were able to lay the blame on a special effects technician who had already been granted immunity, and all were found not guilty. The film failed financially, and Richard Corliss in Time said Landis’s segment ‘‘hardly looks worth shooting, let alone dying for.’’ Though some would never forgive Landis for the black eye he gave the film community, his ‘not guilty’ verdict, and especially his next film, went a long way towards restoring his reputation. For Trading Places (1983), Landis reined in his tendency toward excess in the service of a film reminiscent of the socially aware comedies of the 1930s. To settle a nature-nurture argument, the wealthy Duke brothers (Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche) make a bet about what will happen if they cause the wealthy Louis Winthrope III (Dan Aykroyd) and street hustler Billy Ray Valentine (Eddie Murphy) to, in effect, trade places. The laugh-filled movie was a financial and commercial success, despite any negative publicity about the director that may have lingered in the minds of moviegoers. After several flops, Landis would strike gold again with Coming to America (1988), the story of an African prince who goes to America to sow his wild oats before accepting his responsibilities back in Africa. The film’s tone is uneven, but it contains many humorous bits and was generally well received. Unfortunately for Landis, his films in the 1990s weren’t nearly as successful. These include Oscar (1991), Innocent Blood (1992), Beverly Hills Cop III (1994), The Stupids (1996), and Blues Brothers 2000 (1998). Barring future successes, his reputation will continue to rest on his work from the 1980s—in all its innovation and human tragedy. —Bob Sullivan LANG, Fritz Nationality: German/American. Born: Vienna, 5 December 1890, became U.S. citizen, 1935. Education: Studied engineering at the Technische Hochschule, Vienna. Family: Married (second time) writer Thea von Harbou, 1924 (separated 1933). Career: Cartoonist, fashion designer, and painter in Paris, 1913; returned to Vienna, served in army, 1914–16; after discharge, worked as scriptwriter and actor, then moved to Berlin, 1918; reader and story editor for Decla, then wrote and directed first film, Halbblut, 1919; worked with von Harbou, from 1920; visited Hollywood, 1924; Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse banned by Nazis, 1933; offered post as supervisor of Nazi film productions by Goebbels, but fled Germany; after working in Paris and London, went to Hollywood, 1934; signed with Paramount, 1940; co-founder, then president, Diana Productions, 1945; quit Hollywood, citing continuing disputes with producers, 1956; directed two films in India, 1958–59, before last film, directed in Germany, 1960. Awards: Officier d’Art et des Lettres, France. Died: In Beverly Hills, 2 August 1976. Films as Director: 1919 Halbblut (Half Caste) (+ sc); Der Herr der Liebe (The Master of Love) (+ role); Hara-Kiri; Die Spinnen (The Spiders) Part I: Der Goldene See (The Golden Lake) (+ sc) 1920 Die Spinnen (The Spiders) Part II: Das Brillantenschiff (The Diamond Ship) (+ sc); Das Wandernde Bild (The Wander- ing Image) (+ co-sc); K?mpfende Herzen (Die Vier um die Frau; Four around a Woman) (+ co-sc) 1921 Der müde Tod: Ein Deutsches Volkslied in Sechs Versen (The Weary Death; Between Two Worlds; Beyond the Wall; Destiny) (+ co-sc) 1921/22 Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler (Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler; The Fatal Passions) in two parts: Ein Bild der Zeit (Spieler aus Leidenschaft; A Picture of the Time) and Inferno— Menschen der Zeit (Inferno des Verbrechens; Inferno— Men of the Time) (+ co-sc) 1924 Die Nibelungen in two parts: Siegfrieds Tod (Death of Siegfried) and Kriemhilds Rache (Kriemhild’s Revenge) (+ co-sc, uncredited) 1927 Metropolis (+ co-sc, uncredited) 1928 Spione (Spies) (+ pr, co-sc, uncredited) 1929 Die Frau im Mond (By Rocket to the Moon; The Girl in the Moon) (+ pr, co-sc, uncredited) 1931 M, M?rder unter Uns (M) (+ co-sc, uncredited) 1933 Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse (The Testament of Dr. Mabuse; The Last Will of Dr. Mabuse) (+ co-sc, uncredited) (German and French versions) 1934 Liliom (+ co-sc, uncredited) 1936 Fury (+ co-sc) 1937 You Only Live Once 1938 You and Me (+ pr) 1940 The Return of Frank James 1941 Western Union; Man Hunt; Confirm or Deny (co-d, uncredited) 1942 Moontide (co-d, uncredited) 1943 Hangmen Also Die! (+ pr, co-sc) 1944 Ministry of Fear; The Woman in the Window 1945 Scarlet Street (+ pr) 1946 Cloak and Dagger 1948 Secret beyond the Door (+ co-pr) 1950 House by the River; An American Guerrilla in the Philippines 1952 Rancho Notorious; Clash by Night 1953 The Blue Gardenia; The Big Heat 1954 Human Desire 1955 Moonfleet LANG DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 562 Fritz Lang (seated below camera) on the set of Metropolis 1956 While the City Sleeps; Beyond a Reasonable Doubt 1959 Der Tiger von Eschnapur (The Tiger of Bengal) and Das Indische Grabmal (The Hindu Tomb) (+ co-sc) (released in cut version as Journey to the Lost City) 1960 Die Tausend Augen des Dr. Mabuse (The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse) (+ pr, co-sc) Other Films: 1917 Die Hochzeit im Ekzentrik Klub (The Wedding in the Eccen- tric Club) (May) (sc); Hilde Warren und der Tod (Hilde Warren and Death) (May) (sc, four roles); Joe Debbs (series) (sc) 1918 Die Rache ist mein (Revenge Is Mine) (Neub) (sc); Herrin der Welt (Men of the World) (May) (asst d); Bettler GmbH (sc) 1919 Wolkenbau und Flimmerstern (Castles in the Sky and Rhine- stones) (d unknown, co-sc); Totentanz (Dance of Death) (Rippert) (sc); Die Pest in Florenz (Plague in Florence) (Rippert) (sc); Die Frau mit den Orchiden (The Woman with the Orchid) (Rippert) (sc); Lilith und Ly (sc) 1921 Das Indische Grabmal (in 2 parts: Die Sendung des Yoghi and Der Tiger von Eschnapur) (co-sc) 1963 Le Mépris (Contempt) (Godard) (role as himself) Publications By LANG: articles— ‘‘The Freedom of the Screen,’’ 1947 (reprinted in Hollywood Direc- tors 1941–1976, by Richard Koszarski, New York, 1977). ‘‘Happily Ever After,’’ 1948 (collected in Film Makers on Film Making, edited by Harry Geduld, Bloomington, Indiana, 1969). ‘‘Fritz Lang Today,’’ interview with H. Hart, in Films in Review (New York), June/July 1956. ‘‘The Impact of Television on Motion Pictures,’’ interview with G. Bachmann, in Film Culture (New York), December 1957. Interview with Jean Domarchi and Jacques Rivette, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1959. ‘‘On the Problems of Today,’’ in Films and Filming (London), June 1962. LANGDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 563 ‘‘Fritz Lang Talks about Dr. Mabuse,’’ interview with Mark Shivas, in Movie (London), November 1962. ‘‘Was bin ich, was sind wir?,’’ in Filmkritik (Munich), no.7, 1963. ‘‘La Nuit viennoise: Une Confession de Fritz Lang,’’ edited by Gretchen Berg, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), August 1965 and June 1966. Interview with Axel Madsen, in Sight and Sound (London), Sum- mer 1967. ‘‘Autobiography,’’ in The Celluloid Muse: Hollywood Directors Speak, by Charles Higham and Joel Greenberg, London, 1969. ‘‘Interviews,’’ in Dialogue on Film (Beverly Hills), April 1974. Interview with Gene Phillips, in Focus on Film (London), Spring 1975. ‘‘Fritz Lang Gives His Last Interview,’’ with Gene Phillips, in Village Voice (New York), 16 August 1976. On LANG: books— Kracauer, Siegfried, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological His- tory of the German Film, Princeton, New Jersey, 1947. Courtade, Francis, Fritz Lang, Paris, 1963. Moullet, Luc, Fritz Lang, Paris, 1963. Eibel, Alfred, editor, Fritz Lang, Paris, 1964. Bogdanovich, Peter, Fritz Lang in America, New York, 1969. Eisner, Lotte, The Haunted Screen: Expressionism in the German Cinema and the Influence of Max Reinhardt, Berkeley, 1969. Jensen, Paul, The Cinema of Fritz Lang, New York, 1969. Johnston, Claire, Fritz Lang, London, 1969. Grafe, Frieda, Enno Patalas, and Hans Prinzler, Fritz Lang, Munich 1976. Eisner, Lotte, Fritz Lang, edited by David Robinson, New York, 1977. Armour, Robert, Fritz Lang, Boston, 1978. Ott, Frederick, The Films of Fritz Lang, Secaucus, New Jersey, 1979. Jenkins, Stephen, editor, Fritz Lang: The Image and the Look, London, 1981. Kaplan, E. Ann, Fritz Lang: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1981. Maibohm, Ludwig, Fritz Lang: Seine Filme—Sein Leben, Munich, 1981. Dürrenmatt, Dieter, Fritz Lang: Leben und Werk, Basle, 1982. Humphries, Reynold, Fritz Lang: Cinéaste Américain, Paris, 1982. Humphries, Reynold, Fritz Lang: Genre and Representation in His American Films, Baltimore, 1988. McGilligan, Patrick, Fritz Lang: The Nature of the Beast, New York, 1997. Levin, David J., Richard Wagner, Fritz Lang, and the Nibelungen: The Dramaturgy of Disavowal, Princeton, New Jersey, 1998. Minden, Michael, and Holger Bachmann, editors, Fritz Lang’s ‘‘Me- tropolis’’: Cinematic Views of Technology and Fear, Rochester, New York, 2000. On LANG: articles— Wilson, Harry, ‘‘The Genius of Fritz Lang,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1947. Truffaut, Fran?ois, ‘‘Aimer Fritz Lang,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1954. Lambert, Gavin, ‘‘Fritz Lang’s America,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Summer 1955. Demonsablon, Phillipe, ‘‘La Hautaine Dialectique de Fritz Lang,’’ and Michel Mourlet, ‘‘Trajectoire de Fritz Lang,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1959. Franju, Georges, ‘‘Le Style de Fritz Lang,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1959. Taylor, John, ‘‘The Nine Lives of Dr. Mabuse,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1961. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Fritz Lang,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1963. Rhode, Eric, ‘‘Fritz Lang (The German Period, 1919–1933),’’ in Tower of Babel (London), 1966. ‘‘Lang Issue’’ of Image et Son (Paris), April 1968. Joannides, Paul, ‘‘Aspects of Fritz Lang,’’ in Cinema (London), August 1970. Burch, Noel, ‘‘De Mabuse à M: Le Travail de Fritz Lang,’’ in special issue of Revue d’esthétique (Paris), 1973. Appel, Alfred Jr., ‘‘Film Noir: The Director Fritz Lang’s American Nightmare,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November/Decem- ber 1974. Gersch, Wolfgang, and others, ‘‘Hangmen Also Die!: Fritz Lang und Bertolt Brecht,’’ in Filmkritik (Munich), July 1975. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Fritz Lang (1890–1976) Was the Prophet of Our Paranoia,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 16 August 1976. Overby, David, ‘‘Fritz Lang, 1890–1976,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1976. Kuntzel, Thierry, ‘‘The Film-Work,’’ in Enclitic (Minneapolis), Spring 1978. Willis, Don, ‘‘Fritz Lang: Only Melodrama,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1979/80. Magny, Joel, and others, ‘‘Actualité de Fritz Lang,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), June 1982. Neale, Steve, ‘‘Authors and Genres,’’ in Screen (London), July/ August 1982. Duval, B., ‘‘Le crime de M. Lang. Portrait d’un Fritz en artisan de Hollywood,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), November 1982. McGivern, William P., ‘‘Roman Holiday,’’ in American Film (Wash- ington, D.C.), October 1983. Rotondi, C.J., and E. Gerstein, ‘‘The 1984 Review. The 1927 review. Fritz Lang: The Maker of Metropolis,’’ in Films in Review (New York), October 1984. ‘‘Lang section’’ of Positif (Paris), November 1984. ‘‘Der Tiger von Eschnapur Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), April 1985. ‘‘Das indische Grabmal Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), May 1985. ‘‘Fritz Lang,’’ in Film Dope (London), November 1985. Giesen, R., ‘‘Der Trickfilm,’’ in Cinefex (Riverside, California), February 1986. Bernstein, M., ‘‘Fritz Lang, Incorporated,’’ in Velvet Light Trap (Madison, Wisconsin), no. 22, 1986. Pelinq, M., in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), April/May and June/July 1989. Smedley, N., ‘‘Fritz Lang Outfoxed: The German Genius as Contract Employee,’’ in Film History (London), vol. 4, no. 4, 1990. Werner, G., ‘‘Fritz Lang and Goebbels: Myth and Facts,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), vol. 43, no. 3, Spring 1990. LANZMANN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 564 Saada, N., J. Douchet, and M. Piccoli, ‘‘Lang, le cinéma absolument,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 437, November 1990. Smedley, N., ‘‘Fritz Lang’s Trilogy: The Rise and Fall of a European Social Commentator,’’ in Film History (London), vol. 5, no. 1, March 1993. Sturm, G., ‘‘Fritz Lang, une ascendance viennoise,’’ in Cinémathèque (Paris), no. 6, Autumn 1994. ‘‘Special Section,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 405, November 1994. Dolgenos, Peter, ‘‘The Star on C. A. Rotwang’s Door: Turning Kracauer on Its Head,’’ in Journal of Popular Film and Television (Washington, D.C.), vol. 25, no. 2, Summer 1997. On LANG: films— Luft, Friedrich, and Guido Schütte, Künstlerportr?t: Fritz Lang, for TV, Germany, 1959. Fleischmann, Peter, Begegnung mit Fritz Lang, Germany, 1963. Leiser, Erwin, Das war die Ufa, Germany, 1964. Leiser, Erwin, Zum Beispiel Fritz Lang, for TV, Germany, 1968. Dütsch, Werner, Die Schweren Tr?ume des Fritz Lang, for TV, Germany, 1974. *** Fritz Lang’s career can be divided conveniently into three parts: the first German period, 1919–1933, from Halbblut to the second Mabuse film, Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse; the American period, 1936–1956, from Fury to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt; and the second German period, 1959–60, which includes the two films made in India and his last film, Die tausend Augen des Dr. Mabuse. Lang’s apprentice years as a scriptwriter and director were spent in the studios in Berlin where he adopted certain elements of expressionism and was imbued with the artistic seriousness with which the Germans went about making their films. In Hollywood this seriousness would earn Lang a reputation for unnecessary perfectionism, a criticism also thrown at fellow émigrés von Stroheim and von Sternberg. Except for several films for Twentieth Century-Fox, Lang never worked long for a single studio in the United States, and he often preferred to work on underbudgeted projects which he could produce, and therefore con- trol, himself. The rather radical dissimilarities between the two studio worlds within which Lang spent most of his creative years not surprisingly resulted in products which look quite different from one another, and it is the difference in look or image which has produced the critical confusion most often associated with an assessment of Lang’s films. One critical approach to Lang’s work, most recently articulated by Gavin Lambert, argues that Lang produced very little of artistic interest after he left Germany; the Cahiers du Cinéma auteurists argue the opposite, namely that Lang’s films made in America are superior to his European films because the former were clogged with self- conscious artistry and romantic didacticism which the leanness of his American studio work eliminated. A third approach, suggested by Robin Wood and others, examines Lang’s films as a whole, avoiding the German-American division by looking at characteristic thematic and visual motifs. Lang’s films can be discussed as exhibiting certain distinguishing features—economy, functional precision, detachment— and as containing basic motifs such as the trap, a suppressed under- world, the revenge motive, and the abuse of power. Investigating the films from this perspective reveals a more consistent development of Lang as a creative artist and helps to minimize the superficial anomalies shaped by his career. In spite of the narrowness of examining only half of a filmmaker’s creative output, the sheer number of Lang’s German movies which have received substantial critical attention as ‘‘classic’’ films has tended to submerge the critical attempt at breadth and comprehensiveness. Not only did these earlier films form an impor- tant intellectual center for the German film industry during the years between the wars, as Siegfried Kracauer later pointed out, but they had a wide international impact as well and were extensively re- viewed in the Anglo-American press. Lang’s reputation preceded him to America, and although it had little effect ultimately on his working relationship, such as it was, with the Hollywood moguls, it has affected Lang’s subsequent treatment by film critics. If Lang is a ‘‘flawed genius,’’ as one critic has described him, it is less a wonder that he is ‘‘flawed’’ than that his genius had a chance to develop at all. The working conditions Lang survived after his defection would have daunted a less dedicated director. Lang, how- ever, not only survived but flourished, producing films of undisputed quality: the four war movies, Man Hunt, Hangmen Also Die!, Ministry of Fear, and Cloak and Dagger, and the urban crime films of the 1950s, Clash by Night, The Blue Gardenia, The Big Heat, Human Desire, and While the City Sleeps. These American films reflect a more mature director, tighter mise-en-scène, and more control as a result of Lang’s American experience. The films also reveal continuity. As Robin Wood has written, the formal symmetry of his individual films is mirrored in the symmetry of his career, beginning and ending in Germany. All through his life, Lang adjusted his talent to meet the changes in his environment, and in so doing produced a body of creative work of unquestionable importance in the develop- ment of the history of cinema. —Charles L.P. Silet LANZMANN, Claude Nationality: French. Born: Paris, France, 1925. Education: Studied philosophy in Paris and in Germany. Military Service: Member of French Resistance in World War II. Career: Journalist for Le Monde; author of Shoah: An Oral History of the Holocaust, 1985; director of journal Les Temps Modernes. Awards: Decorated by French govern- ment for resistance efforts during World War II; New York Film Critics Circle Award, 1985, Los Angeles Film Critics Award, 1985, and Peabody Award, 1987, for Shoah. Address: Aleph Films, 18 rue Marbeuf, 75008 Paris, France. LANZMANNDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 565 Claude Lanzmann Films as Director and Writer: 1973 Pourquoi, Israel? (Israel, Why?) (doc) 1985 Shoah (doc) 1995 Tsahal (doc) 1997 A Visitor from the Living (doc) Publications By LANZMANN: books— Editor, The Bird Has No Wings: Letters of Peter Schwiefert, trans- lated by Barbara Lucas, New York, 1976. Shoah: An Oral History of the Holocaust, preface by Simone de Beauvoir, New York, 1985. Shoah: The Complete Text of the Acclaimed Holocaust Film, New York, 1995. By LANZMANN: articles— ‘‘Seminar with Claude Lanzmann: 11 April 1990,’’ in Yale French Studies, vol. 79, January 1991. ‘‘The Obscenity of Understanding: An Evening with Claude Lanzmann,’’ in Trauma: Explorations in Memory, edited by Cathy Caruth, Baltimore, Maryland, 1995. On LANZMANN: articles— Siskel, Gene, review in Chicago Tribune, 27 October 1985. Wiesel, Elie, ‘‘Shoah,’’ in New York Times, 3 November 1985. Ebert, Roger, ‘‘Shoah,’’ in Chicago Sun-Times, 24 November 1985. Lewis, Anthony, ‘‘’Remember, Remember’; Shoah Means Annihila- tion,’’ in New York Times, 2 December 1985. Kevin Thomas, review in Los Angeles Times, 27 December 1985. Hollington, Michael, ‘‘Naming, Not Representing,’’ in The Age Monthly Review, March 1988. Koch, Gertrud, ‘‘The Aesthetic Transformation of the Image of the Unimaginable: Notes on Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah,’’ in October, vol. 48, Spring 1989. LANZMANN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 566 Felman, Shoshana, ‘‘In an Era of Testimony: Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah,’’ in Yale French Studies, vol. 79, January 1991. Felman, Shoshana, ‘‘The Return of the Voice: Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah,’’ in Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psy- choanalysis and History, edited by Shoshana Felman and Dori Laub, New York, 1992. Furman, Nelly, ‘‘The Languages of Pain in Shoah,’’ in Holocaust Remembrance: The Shapes of Memory, edited by Geoffrey Hartmann, Cambridge, 1994. Vidal-Naquet, Pierre, ‘‘The Holocaust’s Challenge to History,’’ in Auschwitz and After: Race, Culture, and ‘‘The Jewish Question’’ in France, edited by Lawrence D. Kritzman, New York, 1995. Elsaesser, Thomas, ‘‘Subject Positions, Speaking Positions; From Holocaust, Our Hitler, and Heimat to Shoah and Schindler’s List,’’ in The Persistence of History: Cinema, Television, and the Modern Event, edited by Vivian Sobchack, New York, 1996. LaCapra, Dominick, ‘‘Lanzmann’s Shoah: ‘Here There Is No Why,’’’ in History after Auschwitz, Ithaca, New York, 1998. Fisher, Marc, ‘‘The Truth That Can Only Hurt: To Claude Lanzmann, The Holocaust Has a Human Face and a Cold Heart,’’ in The Washington Post, 25 June 1999. *** Claude Lanzmann has turned to extreme and difficult topics such as the Holocaust in order to address questions of Jewish identity. Perhaps some of his motivation is biographical. Although his family did not practice Judaism, they still suffered on behalf of their heritage. When the Nazis invaded France, Lanzmann’s family moved to the French town of Clermont-Ferrand, where they hid from the German occupiers. As a young adult, Lanzmann joined the French communist party and resisted the Nazis, which caused him to be pursued by the Gestapo, the Nazi secret police. Despite these extreme experiences of his youth, Lanzmann contin- ued his study of philosophy in Germany after the end of World War II. While there, he began his career as a journalist. His first piece unmasked the persistence of Nazism in Germany’s supposedly de- Nazified university system. He then wrote for the French newspaper Le Monde as the first French man to travel through East Germany, which he did (illegally) after being denied a visa. Later, Lanzmann befriended Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir and edited Sartre’s left-wing periodical, Les Temps Modernes. Lanzmann’s 1973 film, Pourquoi Israel (Why Israel?), linked Jewish identity in Israel to the recent history of the Holocaust. It premiered three days after the Yom Kippur War broke out in Israel. During the making of this film, Lanzmann met his wife, a German- Jewish writer to whom the film is dedicated. In 1995, he made a film about the Israeli army, Tsahal. A Visitor from the Living (1997) is a 65-minute documentary about Maurice Rossel, the only Interna- tional Red Cross member who visited the death camps in 1943. In interview footage shot while filming Shoah, Rossel, who visited the death camps of Auschwitz and Treblinka and reported that nothing was wrong, insists that he would write the same report today. He did not look deeply then, and he still refuses to assume any guilt for his position of apathy and blindness. Lanzmann is best known for his critically acclaimed masterpiece Shoah (1985), a complex and powerful cinematic oral history of the Nazi genocide. The title is the Hebrew word for annihilation or catastrophe. Shoah is composed of approximately fifteen first-person testimonials from former Nazis, Polish peasants, and survivors of the death camps (many of whom only survived because they worked as Kapos, assisting the smooth execution of the Nazi death machinery). Shoah is both a film about the relation between witnessing a catastro- phe and a systematic refusal to historicize the subject. One sees this refusal in the absence of documentary film footage of the liberation of the camps by the Allies. ‘‘Image kills imagination,’’ Lanzmann has said in an interview, to explain the sparsity of his choice of presentation. In the place of archival images, the film chronicles the memories of those who lived through the Holocaust and the simultaneous incompatability of the bystanders’ and victims’ points of view. In 1974, Lanzmann began the research for Shoah, a film that Roger Ebert describes as a 550-minute ‘‘howl of pain’’ about the systematic murder of six million European Jews by the Nazis. Lanzmann accumulated more than 350 hours of testimony. Despite the enormity of the topic and breadth of atrocity, there are only two types of scenes: faces of witnesses, and the tranquil contemporary landscapes under which are buried mass graves. The film points out the presence of the past in the places where Jews once lived in Poland, in the haunted ground of Auschwitz and Treblinka, and in the memories of those who survived. The director conducted his interviews with the belief that ‘‘one has to talk and be silent at the same time.’’ The testimonies are given in various languages, underscoring their foreignness. An on-screen translator interprets the words, but they are not dubbed. The spectator can hear but cannot understand the language of testimony. The survivors remember their experience of the camps in heart- breaking detail. Throughout Shoah, Lanzmann takes survivors back to the sites of the death camps and the spectator watches as they relive past traumas. The film opens with a disturbing reenactment. Simon Srebnik, one of only two survivors of the Polish village of Chelmno, follows Lanzmann’s command to sing as they float down a river in a boat, just as he was forced to as a thirteen-year-old by Nazis. The peasants only remember him as a young singing lad, completely erasing the circumstances in which he was forced to sing. In perhaps the film’s most powerful scene, Abraham Bomba, situated in a barbershop for the interview, is asked minute questions about the details of his routine as the barber of women about to be gassed at Treblinka. Bomba, still today a barber in Tel Aviv, insists that in Treblinka, all feeling was impossible; yet, in the face of Lanzmann’s relentless questioning, he breaks down and cries. Contrasted to the survivors are the perpetrators, ex-Nazis who remain unrepentant in their focus on the horrifying efficiency of the camps. Lanzmann painstakingly recorded the details of the mass extermination of the Jews from the mouth of the murderers, all of whom deny actually doing or seeing the killing. Using duplicity, pseudonyms, false identification papers, and a concealed camera, Lanzmann secretly filmed these former Nazis without disclosing the true nature of his project. At one point in the process, a former Nazi discovered Lanzmann’s video equipment, took the film footage, and beat Lanzmann so badly that he was hospitalized for a month. Such responses to his relentless questioning revealed the persistence of anti-Semitism in Europe. When the film premiered in New York in 1985, it met with rave critical reviews, including a statement of praise from Pope John Paul II. Gene Siskel called Shoah ‘‘the greatest use of film in motion picture history, taking movies to their highest moral value.’’ Kevin Thomas in the Los Angeles Times declared that ‘‘Lanzmann has LATTUADADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 567 accomplished the seemingly impossible: He has brought such beauty to his recounting of the horror of the Holocaust that he has made it accessible and comprehensible.’’ And according to Roger Ebert, ‘‘What is so important about Shoah is that the voices are heard of people who did see, who did understand, who did comprehend, who were there, who knew that the Holocaust happened, who tell us with their voices and with their eyes that genocide occurred in our time, in our civilization.’’ Despite the focus of his magnus opus on an historical atrocity, Lanzmann is against building bridges with the past. He is an adamant critic of the film industry’s commodification of the Holocaust with films such as Spielberg’s Schindler’s List and Roberto Benigni’s Life Is Beautiful. Lanzmann insists that ‘‘the Holocaust is not a fairy-tale, it is not digestible.’’ In keeping with this dictum, Lanzmann’s films present contradictions of the past that remain unresolved. —Jill Gillespie LATTUADA, Alberto Nationality: Italian. Born: Milan, 13 November 1914. Educated in architecture. Family: Married Carla Del Poggio, 1945 (divorced). Career: Co-founder of avant-garde journal Camminare, 1933; helped found Corrente; with Mario Ferreri and Luigi Comencini, founder of Cineteca Italiana, Italian film archive, 1940; directed first film, 1942; opera director, from 1970. Address: Via N. Paganini, 7 Rome, Italy. Alberto Lattuada Films as Director and Co-Scriptwriter: 1942 Giacomo l’idealista 1945 La freccia nel fianco; La nostra guerra (documentary) 1946 Il bandito 1947 Il delitto di Giovanni Episcopo (Flesh Will Surrender) 1948 Senza pietà (Without Pity) 1949 Il mulino del Po (The Mill on the Po) 1950 Luci del varietà (Variety Lights) (co-d, co-pr) 1952 Anna; Il cappotto (The Overcoat) 1953 La lupa (The She-Wolf); ‘‘Gli italiani si voltano’’ episode of Amore in città (Love in the City) 1954 La spiaggia (The Beach); Scuola elementare 1956 Guendalina 1958 La tempesta (Tempest) 1960 I dolci inganni; Lettere di una novizia (Rita) 1961 L’imprevisto 1962 Mafioso; La steppa 1965 La mandragola (The Love Root) 1966 Matchless 1967 Don Giovanni in Sicilia (+ co-pr) 1968 Fr?ulein Doktor 1969 L’amica 1970 Venga a prendere il caffe . . . da noi (Come Have Coffee with Us) 1971 Bianco, rosso e . . . (White Sister) 1973 Sono stato io 1974 Le farò da padre . . . (Bambina) 1976 Cuore di cane; Bruciati da cocente passione (Oh Serafina!) 1978 Cosi come sei 1980 La cicala 1983 Cristoforo Colombo (Christopher Columbus) 1987 Una spina nel cuore (+ sc) 1988 Fratelli Other Films: 1935 Il museo dell’amore (asst d) 1936 La danza delle lancette (collaborator on experimental short) 1941 Piccolo mondo antico (Soldati) (asst d) 1942 Si signora (asst d, co-sc) 1958 Un eroe dei nostri tempi (Monicelli) (role) 1994 Il Toro (The Bull) (Mazzacurati) (role) Publications By LATTUADA: books— Occhio quadrate, album of photos, Milan, 1941. La tempesta, Bologna, 1958. La steppa, Bologna, 1962. Gli uccelli indomabili, Rome, 1970. Cuore di cane, Bari, 1975. A proposito di Cosi come sei, edited by Enrico Oldrini, Bolo- gna, 1978. Diario di un grane amatore, Milan, 1980. LATTUADA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 568 Feuillets au vent, Paris, 1981. La massa, Rome, 1982. La luna be partita, Calcata, 1992. By LATTUADA: articles— ‘‘We Took the Actors into the Streets,’’ in Films and Filming (London), April 1959. ‘‘Alberto Lattuada: du néoréalisme au réalisme magique,’’ interview with A. Tournès, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), December/Janu- ary 1974/75. ‘‘Moi et le diable: je ne puis vivre ni avec toi ni sans toi,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1978. Interview with G. Volpi, in Positif (Paris), September and Octo- ber 1978. ‘‘Alberto Lattuada: une foi dans la beauté,’’ interview with C. Depuyper and A. Cervoni, in Cinéma (Paris), April 1981. Interview with L. Codelli, in Films and Filming (London), July 1982. ‘‘Conversazione con Alberto Lattuada,’’ interview with G. Turroni, in Filmcritica (Rome), June 1991. Interview with Peter von Bagh, in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 3, 1992. Article, in Cinema Nuovo (Bari), January/February 1993. Interview with C. Cartier, in Cineaction (Toronto), no. 70, 1994. ‘‘Un film, un realisateur, deux comediennes,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1994. ‘‘La mauvaise éducation en Italie,’’ in Positif (Paris), March 1998. On LATTUADA: books— De Sanctis, Filippo Mario, Alberto Lattuada, Parma, 1961, and Lyons, 1965. Bruno, Edoardo, Lattuada o la proposta ambigua, Rome, 1968. Broher, J.J., Alberto Lattuada, Brussels, 1971. Turroni, Giuseppe, Alberto Lattuada, Milan, 1977. Zanellato, Angelo, L’uomo: il cinema di Lattuada, Padua, 1978. Bruno, Edoardo, Italian Directors: Alberto Lattuada, Rome, 1981. Camerini, Claudio, Alberto Lattuada, Florence, 1982. Cosulich, Callisto, I film di Alberto Lattuada, Rome, 1985. Bondanella, Peter, Italian Cinema: From Neorealism to the Present, New York, 1993. Smith, Geoffrey N., editor, The Companion to Italian Cinema, New York, 1996. On LATTUADA: articles— Turroni, G., ‘‘Film e figurazione: la riflessione metalinguistica,’’ in Filmcritica (Rome), January 1979. Duval, Bernard, ‘‘Lattuada: un précursor perpetuel,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), July 1979. ‘‘Alberto Lattuada,’’ in Film Dope (London), November 1985. Cartier, Clarice, ‘‘A l’origine: le fascisme et la guerre: entretien avec Alberto Lattuada,’’ in Cinémaction (Courbevoie), January 1994. *** One of the most consistently commercially successful directors in Italy, Alberto Lattuada has continued to enjoy a freedom of subject matter and style despite ideological shifts and methodological changes. His main films during the neorealist period, which he claims never to have taken part in, succeeded in further establishing the Italian cinema in the international market and, unlike many of his col- leagues’ works, also proved popular in the domestic market. Il bandito and Il mulino del Po, for example, combined progressive ideology, realistic detail (due to location shooting and attention to quotidian activities), and tight narrative structure through careful attention to editing. In fact, Lattuada’s entire career has demonstrated an ongoing interest in editing, which he considers more fundamental than the script and which gives his films a strictly controlled rhythm with no wasted footage. He shoots brief scenes that, he claims, are more attractive to an audience and that can be easily manipulated at the editing stage. Lattuada’s background stressed the arts, and his films display a sophisticated cultural appreciation. As a boy, he took an active interest in his father’s musicianship in the orchestra of La Scala in Milan. As a young man, Lattuada worked as a film critic, wrote essays on contemporary painters, co-founded cultural magazines, and worked as an assistant director and scriptwriter. Lattuada co-scripts most of his films and occasionally produces them. He also co-founded what became the Milan film archive, the Cineteca Italiana. As a director, Lattuada is often called eclectic because of his openness to projects and his ability to handle a wide variety of subject matter. His major commercial successes have been Bianco, rosso e . . . , which he wrote especially for Sophia Loren; Matchless, a parody of the spy genre; Anna, the first Italian film to gross over one billion lire in its national distribution; La spiaggia, a bitter satire of bourgeois realism; and Mafioso, starring Alberto Sordi and filmed in New York, Sicily, and Milan. Lattuada has also filmed many adaptations of literary works that remain faithful to the original but are never simply static reenactments. These range from the comically grotesque Venga a prendere . . . ; a version of Brancati’s satirical Don Giovanni in Sicilia; the horror film Cuore di cane, taken from a Bulgakov novel; the spectacular big- budget La tempesta, from two Pushkin stories; and Chekhov’s metaphorical journey in La steppa. His 1952 version of The Overcoat is considered his masterpiece for its portrayal of psychological states and the excellence of Renato Rascel’s performance. Lattuada is famous for his handling of actors, and has launched the career of many an actress, including Catherine Spaak, Giulietta Masina and Nastassia Kinski. Notwithstanding the diversity of subject matter he has directed, Lattuada’s main interest has been pubescent sexuality, the passage of a girl into womanhood, and the sexual relationship of a couple as the primary attraction they have for each other. Thus, his films deal with eroticism as a central theme and he chooses actresses whose physical beauty and sensuousness are immediately apparent. This motif ap- peared in Lattuada’s work as early as his second feature and has been his main preoccupation in his films since 1974. His films have been critically well received in Italy, although rarely given the attention enjoyed by some of his contemporaries. In France, however, his work is highly acclaimed; Il bandito and Il cappotto received much praise at the Cannes festivals when they were shown. With a few exceptions, his more recent work is little known in Britain and the United States, although when Come Have Coffee with Us was released commercially in the United States ten years after it was made, it enjoyed a fair success at the box office and highly favorable reviews. —Elaine Mancini LAUNDER and GILLIATDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 569 LAUNDER, Frank, and Sidney GILLIAT LAUNDER. Nationality: British. Born: Hitchin, Hertfordshire, 1906. Education: Brighton. Family: Married actress Bernadette O’Farrell, 1950. Career: Civil servant, then actor, in Brighton; studio assistant, 1928; first collaboration with fellow writer Sidney Gilliat, 1935; with Gilliat, wrote radio serials Crooks Tour and Secret Mission 609, 1939; co-directed first film, Millions like Us, 1943; formed Individual Pictures production company with Gilliat, 1944 (dissolved 1950). Died: 23 February 1997. GILLIAT. Nationality: British. Born: Edgeley, Cheshire, 1908. Education: London University. Career: Hired by Walter Mycroft, film critic of London Evening Standard (edited by Gilliat’s father) and scenario chief at British International Pictures, Elstree, as studio assistant, 1928; gagman and dogsbody for director Walter Forde, 1929–30; collaborator with Frank Launder (see above), from 1935; president, Screen Writers Association, 1936; director, British Lion, 1958–72; chairman of Shepperton Studios, from 1961; also co-founder of TV commercial company, Littleton Park Film Productions; wrote opera libretto for Our Man in Havana, 1963. Died: 31 May 1994, in Wiltshire, England, UK. Films Directed, Produced, and Written by Launder and Gilliat: 1943 Millions like Us (Launder and Gilliat) 1944 Two Thousand Women (Launder) 1945 The Rake’s Progress (The Notorious Gentleman) (Gilliat) 1946 Green for Danger (Gilliat); I See a Dark Stranger (Launder) 1947 Captain Boycott (Launder) 1948 The Blue Lagoon (Launder); London Belongs to Me (Dulci- mer Street) (Gilliat) 1950 State Secret (The Great Manhunt) (Gilliat); The Happiest Days of Your Life (Launder) 1951 Lady Godiva Rides Again (Launder) 1952 Folly to Be Wise (Launder) 1953 The Story of Gilbert and Sullivan (The Great Gilbert and Sullivan) (Gilliat) 1954 The Constant Husband (Gilliat); The Belles of St. Trinian’s (Launder) 1955 Geordie (Wee Geordie) (Launder) 1956 Fortune Is a Woman (She Played with Fire) (Gilliat) 1957 Blue Murder at St. Trinian’s (Launder) 1959 The Bridal Path (Launder); Left, Right, and Centre (Gilliat) 1960 The Pure Hell of St. Trinian’s (Launder) 1961 Only Two Can Play (Gilliat) 1965 Joey Boy (Launder) 1966 The Great St. Trinian’s Train Robbery (Launder and Gilliat) Films Written by Launder and Gilliat: 1936 Seven Sinners (de Courville); Twelve Good Men (Ince) 1938 The Lady Vanishes (Hitchcock) 1939 Inspector Hornleigh on Holiday (Forde) 1940 They Came by Night (Lachman); Night Train to Munich (Reed) 1942 The Young Mr. Pitt (Reed) 1956 The Green Man (Day) (+ pr) Other Films—Launder: 1928 Cocktails (Banks) (titles) 1929 Under the Greenwood Tree (Lachman) (co-sc) 1930 The Compulsory Husband (Banks) (dialogue/dubbing); Song of Soho (Lachman) (co-sc); Harmony Heaven (Bentley) (additional dialogue); The W Plan (Saville) (additional dialogue); The Middle Watch (Walker) (co-sc); Children of Change (Esway) (co-sc); How He Lied to Her Husband (Lewis) (sc) 1931 Keepers of Youth (Bentley) (sc); Hobson’s Choice (Bentley) (co-sc); A Gentleman of Paris (Hill) (co-sc); The Woman Between (Mander) (co-sc) 1932 After Office Hours (Bentley) (co-sc); The Last Coupon (Bent- ley) (co-sc); Arms and the Man (Lewis) (co-sc, uncredited); Josser in the Army (Lee) (sc) 1935 Emil and the Detectives (Rosmer) (co-sc); Rolling Home (R. Ince) (sc); So You Won’t Talk (Beaudine) (co-sc); Mr. What’s His Name (Ince) (co-sc); Educated Evans (Beaudine) (co-sc); Windbag the Sailor (Beaudine) (sc editor) 1937 Good Morning Boys (Varnel) (sc editor); Bank Holiday (Reed) (sc editor); O-Kay for Sound (Varnel) (sc edi- tor); Doctor Syn (Neill) (sc editor); Oh, Mr. Porter! (Varnel) (story) 1938 Owd Bob (Stevenson) (sc editor); Strange Boarders (Mason) (sc editor); Convict 99 (Varnel) (sc editor); Alf’s Button Afloat (Varnel) (sc editor); Hey! Hey! U.S.A.! (Varnel) (sc editor); Old Bones of the River (Varnel) (sc editor) 1939 Ask a Policeman (Varnel) (sc editor); A Girl Must Live (Reed) (sc); The Frozen Limits (Varnel) (sc editor) 1940 Inspector Hornleigh Goes to It (Forde) (story) 1969 An Elephant Called Slowly (Hill) (sc uncredited) 1980 Wildcats of St. Trinian’s (d, sc) Other Films—Gilliat: 1928 Toni (Maude) (titles); Champagne (Hitchcock) (titles); Ad- ams’s Apple (Whelan) (titles); Weekend Wives (Lachman) (titles); The Manxman (Hitchcock) (research) 1929 The Tryst (short) (co-d); Would You Believe It? (Forde) (asst d, + role) 1930 Red Pearls (Forde) (asst d); You’d Be Surprised (Forde) (asst d, + role); The Last Hour (Forde) (asst d); Lord Richard in the Pantry (Forde) (sc); Bed’s Breakfast (Forde) (sc) 1931 3rd Time Lucky (Ford) (additional dialogue); The Ghost Train (Forde) (additional dialogue); A Gentleman of Paris (Hill) (sc); The Happy Ending (Webb) (co-sc, uncredited); A Night in Marseilles (Night Shadows) (de Courville) (sc); Two Way Street (King) (sc) 1932 Lord Babs (Forde) (additional dialogue); Jack’s the Boy (Forde) (sc continuity); Rome Express (Forde) (sc); For the Love of Mike (Banks) (co-sc) 1933 Sign Please (Rawlins—short) (sc); Post Haste (Cadman— short) (sc); Facing the Music (Hughes) (co-story); Falling for You (Hulbert and Stevenson) (story); Orders Is Orders (Forde) (co-sc); Friday the Thirteenth (Saville) (co-story) LAUNDER and GILLIAT DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 570 Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder 1934 Jack Ahoy! (Forde) (co-sc) Chu-Chin-Chow (Forde) (co-sc); My Heart Is Calling (Gallone) (adapt/dialogue) 1935 Bulldog Jack (Alias Bulldog Drummond) (Forde) (co-sc); King of the Damned (Forde) (co-sc) 1936 Tudor Rose (Stevenson) (assoc pr); Where There’s a Will (Beaudine) (sc); The Man Who Changed His Mind (The Man Who Lived Again) (Stevenson) (co-sc, assoc pr); Strangers on a Honeymoon (de Courville) (co-sc) 1937 Take My Tip (Mason) (co-sc); A Yank at Oxford (Conway) (story) 1938 Strange Boarders (Mason) (co-sc); The Gaunt Stranger (The Phantom Strikes) (Forde) (sc) 1939 Ask a Policeman (Varnel) (story); Jamaica Inn (Hitchcock) (sc) 1940 The Girl in the News (Reed) (sc) 1941 The Ghost Train (Forde) (additional dialogue); Kipps (The Remarkable Mr. Kipps) (Reed) (sc); Mr. Proudfoot Shows a Light (Mason—short) (story); You’re Telling Me! (Peak— short) (sc); From the Four Corners (Havelock-Allan— short) (sc, uncredited) 1942 Unpublished Story (French) (co-sc); Partners in Crime (short) (co-d, sc) 1944 Waterloo Road (d, sc) 1957 The Smallest Show on Earth (Dearden) (pr) 1972 Ooh . . . You Are Awful (Get Charlie Tully) (Owen) (co-exec pr); Endless Night (d, sc) Publications On LAUNDER AND GILLIAT: books— Durgnat, Raymond, A Mirror for England, 1971. Brown, Geoff, Launder and Gilliat, London, 1977. On LAUNDER AND GILLIAT: articles— Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1946, December 1949, and Autumn 1958. Films and Filming (London), July 1963. Brown, Geoff, in National Film Theatre Booklet (London), Novem- ber/December 1977. Films Illustrated (London), November 1979. LEACOCKDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 571 ‘‘Frank Launder,’’ in Film Dope (London), November 1985. Tobin, Y., ‘‘Launder et Gilliat: retrospective,’’ in Positif, July- August 1990. Vergerio, Flavio, ‘‘Launder e Gilliat: nel segno della ‘britannicità’,’’ in Cineforum (Bergamo), July-August 1993. Obituary for Sidney Gilliat, in Variety (New York), 6 June 1994. Gilliat, Sidney, ‘‘Le declin de l’empire, et comment nous y f?mes mêlés,’’ in Positif (Paris), December 1994. ‘‘Never to Be Forgotten,’’ an obituary for Frank Launder, in Psychotronic Video (Narrowsburg), no. 25, 1997. Obituary for Frank Launder, in Variety (New York), 3 March 1997. Arnold, Frank, ‘‘Frank Launder 1906–27.2.1997,’’ in EPD Film (Frankfurt), May 1997. *** Frank Launder and Gilliat’s chosen specialty was intelligent entertainment with a distinctive British flavor. Each had their individ- ual style and preferences. Launder favored the breezy implausibilities of farce (The Happiest Days of Your Life, the St. Trinian’s films), tempered with a dose of Celtic whimsy (Geordie, The Bridal Path, parts of I See a Dark Stranger). Gilliat leaned more towards caustic social comedy (The Rake’s Progress, Only Two Can Play) and rigorously detailed thrillers (State Secret). But they functioned admi- rably as a team: first as screenwriters (working in tandem from 1935), then, from 1943, as writer-producer-directors—though only on their first feature, Millions like Us, did they attempt joint direction, side by side. Both separately entered the industry in lowly capacities in 1928, and gradually worked up the ladder during the 1930s, serving in various studio script departments. As a team they earned their reputation with thrillers. Seven Sinners, their first collaboration, established their talent for concocting ingenious plot twists, expertly balancing comedy with suspense, and stamping even the most minor character with individuality. Subsequent films refined the formula: The Lady Vanishes, for instance (their script was substantially written before Hitchcock came on board as director), and Night Train to Munich, one of several scripts directed by Carol Reed. Both these films featured Charters and Caldicott—comic, imperturbable Eng- lishmen, played by Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne, who bumbled obliviously round a jittery Europe, babbling about cricket scores and picking up Mein Kampf at a German station bookstall only after a fruitless request for Punch. Charters and Caldicott make an appear- ance in Millions like Us, laying beach mines. But this was only for old times’ sake: the film belonged firmly to the women factory workers, whose hopes and problems were explored in a rich tapestry of individual plot-lines. Few other British feature films of World War II evoke the Home Front’s daily round with quite the same nose for detail or emotional pull. Gilliat’s next production, Waterloo Road, slipped into melodrama at times, but still maintained a strong realistic atmosphere in its triangular drama of an AWOL soldier, the soldier’s roving wife, and a muscle-flexing local spiv. In 1944 Launder and Gilliat launched their own company, Individ- ual Pictures. They began on a high level, working from their own original scripts. Gilliat’s The Rake’s Progress offered a biting satiri- cal treatment of a profligate charmer (Rex Harrison, ideally cast) washed up on the rocks of the 1930s. Launder’s marvelous I See a Dark Stranger wrapped up its far-fetched story about a naive Irish girl persuaded to spy for Germany with Hitchcockian panache. Subsequent films followed a more obviously commercial path, though Gilliat’s Green for Danger and State Secret demonstrated his witty way with thriller conventions, while The Happiest Days of Your Life, adapted from John Dighton’s popular play, displayed Launder’s happy ability to keep the wildest farce on an even keel. Artistically, the 1950s and 1960s proved less rewarding. The St. Trinian’s series, inspired by the hideous schoolgirls featured in Ronald Searle’s cartoons, began briskly enough within The Belles of St. Trinian’s, but the formula and humor coarsened drastically as the sequels followed. The pleasant whimsy of Geordie—Launder’s tale of the amazing growth of an undersized Scot and his exploitation by others—was no match for the barbed blarney that lit up I See a Dark Stranger, while Gilliat’s gift for social comedy appeared stunted in The Constant Husband and Left, Right, and Centre. Much of their energies were by this time being spent in boardroom activities: as directors of British Lion, they nursed several films by other filmmakers through the production process, including the lively prison comedy Two-Way Stretch. But Gilliat managed a confident return to form in Only Two Can Play, a lively version of Kingsley Amis’s novel about a philandering Welsh librarian, fully alert to the comic drabness of provincial life. After Endless Night, an elegant diversion adapted from Agatha Christie, was unfairly mauled by the critics, Gilliat retired from filmmaking in the early 1970s. Launder, however, unwisely returned in 1980 with The Wildcats of St. Trinian’s—one of the few films in the team’s long career which seemed out of step with audience’s tastes. —Geoff Brown LEACOCK, Richard Nationality: British. Born: the Canary Islands, 18 July 1921. Educa- tion: Educated in England, then studied physics at Harvard Univer- sity, graduated 1943. Career: Began making documentaries in the Canaries, 1935; moved to U.S., 1938; served as combat photographer, World War II; worked on documentaries with Robert Flaherty, Louis de Rochemont, John Ferno, and Willard Van Dyke, among others, from late 1940s; worked with Robert Drew of Time-Life, then formed partnership with D.A. Pennebaker, 1960s; founder then Head of Department of Film at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, from 1969. Films as Director and Cinematographer: 1935 Canary Bananas 1938 Galápagos Islands 1944/49 Pelileo Earthquake 1951 The Lonely Boat 1954 Toby and the Tall Corn 1955 How the F-100 Got Its Tail 1958 Bernstein in Israel 1959 Bernstein in Moscow; Coulomb’s Law; Crystals; Magnet Laboratory; Points of Reference 1960 Primary (co-d, co-ph, ed); On the Pole (co-d, co-ph, co-ed); Yanqui No (co-d, co-ph) LEACOCK DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 572 1961 Petey and Johnny (co-d, co-ph); The Children Were Watching (co-d, co-ph) 1962 The Chair (co-d, co-ph); Kenya, South Africa (co-d, co-ph) 1963 Crisis (co-d, co-ph); Happy Mother’s Day (co-d, co-ph, co-ed) 1964 A Stravinsky Portrait (+ ed); Portrait of Geza Anda (+ ed); Portrait of Paul Burkhard (+ ed); Republicans—The New Breed (co-d, co-ph) 1965 The Anatomy of Cindy Fink (co-d, co-ph); Ku Klux Klan—The Invisible Empire 1966 Old Age—The Wasted Years; Portrait of Van Cliburn (+ ed) 1967 Monterey Pop (+ co-ph); Lulu 1968 Who’s Afraid of the Avant-Garde (co-d, co-ph, co-ed); Hick- ory Hill 1969 Chiefs (+ ed) 1970 Queen of Apollo (+ ed) 1986 Impressions de L’Ile des Morts (co-d) Other Films: 1940 To Hear Your Banjo Play (Van Dyke, W.) (ph) 1946 Louisiana Story (Flaherty) (ph, assoc pr) 1944/49 Geography Films Series (ph) 1950 New Frontier (Years of Change) (ph, ed) 1951 The Lonely Night (ph) 1952 Head of the House (ph) 1954 New York (ph) 1958 Bullfight at Málaga (ph) 1959 Balloon (co-ph) 1968 Maidstone (co-ph) 1971 Sweet Toronto (co-ph); One P.M. (co-ph); Keep On Rockin’ (co-ph) 1984 Ein Film für Bossak und Leacock (Wildenhalm) (for TV) (role as himself) 1986 Working Girls (Borden) (role as Joseph) 1995 Le Fils de Gascogne (Aubier) (role) 1999 Der Letzte Dokumentarfilm (Sebening and Sponsel) (role); Cinéma Vérité: Defining the Moment (Wintonick) (role as himself) Publications By LEACOCK: books— Richard Leacock: An American Film Institute Seminar on His Work, American Film Institute. By LEACOCK: articles— ‘‘To Far Places with Camera and Sound-Track,’’ in Films in Review (New York), March 1950. ‘‘Richard Leacock Tells How to Boost Available Light,’’ with H. Bell, in Popular Photography (Boulder, Colorado), February 1956. ‘‘The Work of Ricky Leacock: Interview,’’ in Film Culture (New York), no. 22–23, 1961. ‘‘For an Uncontrolled Cinema,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Summer 1961. Interview, in Movie (London), April 1963. ‘‘Ricky Leacock on Stravinsky Film,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Fall 1966. ‘‘On Filming the Dance,’’ in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), November 1970. ‘‘Richard Leacock,’’in Documentary Explorations edited by G. Roy Levin, Garden City, New York, 1971. ‘‘Remembering Frances Flaherty,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November/December 1973. ‘‘Leacock at M.I.T.,’’ an interview with L. Marcorelles, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1974. ‘‘(Richard) Leacock on Super 8, Video Discs, and Distribution,’’ interview with M. Sturken, in Afterimage (Rochester, New York), May 1979. Interview with H. Naficy, in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 10, no. 4, October 1982. Interview with M. Petrutiina, in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), July 1989. Interview with Louis Marcorelles, in 24 Images (Montreal), Novem- ber-December 1989. ‘‘Master Home Movies,’’ an interview with Mieke Bernink, in Skrien (Amsterdam), February-March 1994. ‘‘Portrait Gallery,’’ an interview with Bruce Harding, in Wide Angle (Baltimore), vol. 17, no. 1–4, 1995. ‘‘Leacock’s Life Lessons,’’ an interview with G. Fifield, in The Independent Film & Video Monthly (New York), March 1996. ‘‘Life on the Other Side of the Moon,’’ in Film Culture (New York), no. 79, Winter 1996. ‘‘In Defense of the Flaherty Traditions,’’ in Film Culture (New York), no. 79, Winter 1996. On LEACOCK: books— Issari, M. Ali, Cinéma Verité, East Lansing, Michigan, 1971. Mamber, Stephen, Cinéma Verité in America: Studies in Uncon- trolled Documentary, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974. Issari, M. Ali, and Doris A. Paul, What Is Cinéma Verité? Metuchen, New Jersey, 1979. On LEACOCK: articles— Callenbach, Ernest, ‘‘Going out to the Subject,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1961. Bachmann, Gideon, ‘‘The Frontiers of Realist Cinema: The Work of Ricky Leacock,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Summer 1961. Mekas, Jonas, ‘‘Notes on the New American Cinema,’’ in Film Culture (New York), no. 24, 1962. Blue, James, ‘‘One Man’s Truth,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Spring 1965. Vanderwildt, A., ‘‘Richard Leacock Uses Super-8,’’ in Lumiere (Melbourne), September 1973. ‘‘Richard Leacock,’’ in Film Dope (London), November 1985. Barsam. R.M., ‘‘American Direct Cinema: The Re-Presentation of Reality,’’ in Persistence of Vision (Maspeth, New York), Sum- mer 1986. LEANDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 573 Trenczak, Heinz, ‘‘Leacock und Frank in Augsburg,’’ in EPD Film (Frankfurt), May 1991. Harding, R. and E. Barnouw, ‘‘Ricky Leacock,’’ in Wide Angle (Baltimore), no. 17, 1995. *** As cinematographer, producer, director, and editor, Richard Leacock has been an important contributor to the development of the docu- mentary film, specifically in cinéma verité, now often called direct cinema. For direct cinema filming, the lightweight 16-millimeter camera, handheld and synced to a quiet recorder, allows the filmmaker to intrude as little as possible into the lives of those being filmed. From the very beginning of his interest in this kind of filming, Leacock has been an active experimenter and an inventor of mobile 16-millimeter equipment for filming events, lifestyles, ongoing problematic situa- tions, and other varieties of live history. At Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he heads the department of film, he has developed super-8 sync-sound equipment and related technology. As a patient, courteous and informative lecturer to hundreds of teachers in many workshops, he has demonstrated this equipment and its use for TV, shown his films, and indirectly taught many youngsters who went on to work in film, TV, and related fields. At fourteen, Leacock, already an active still photographer, im- pressed his schoolmates in England with a 16-minute film made on his home island. An indicator, perhaps, of his later concentration on non-subjective filming, his 1935 Canary Bananas is still a good, straightforward silent film about what workers do on a banana plantation. Leacock’s later work on diverse topics, including the life of a traveling tent show entertainer, communism and democracy in South America, excitement about quintuplets in South Dakota, the mind and work of an artist, and opera attest to the breadth of his interests. Leacock treasures his experience as photographer with poetic filmmaker/explorer Robert Flaherty on Louisiana Story, which was commissioned by Standard Oil to show preliminary steps in searching and drilling for oil, but emerged as a film poem about a boy in the bayou. Leacock stated that he learned from Flaherty how to discover with a camera. But having realized how difficult Flaherty’s ponder- ous un-synced equipment had made direct shooting, Leacock later joined a group, led by Robert Drew of Time-Life in 1960, committed to making direct cinema films for TV. An example of the Drew unit’s work was Primary, an account of the campaign of Democratic senators John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey in the Wisconsin presidential primary that Leacock worked on with Donn Alan Pennebaker, Robert Drew, and Terry Filgate. Critics called this film an excellent report on the inner workings of a political campaign as well as an appealing glimpse of the personal lives of candidates and their families. But Leacock was dissatisfied because the camera people could never get in to film such vital behind-the-scenes activities as public relations methods. Leacock has frequently indicated his own and other documentarists concerns about obstacles to achieving direct cinema. Leacock, always critical of his own work, is concerned about distribution problems and thoughtful about the role of films in effecting social change. He has dedicated his life to creating less expensive, more manageable apparatus, to portraying art and artists, to experimenting, to letting situation and event tell their own story, and to teaching. —Lillian Schiff LEAN, David Nationality: British. Born: Croydon, Surrey, 25 March 1908. Edu- cation: Leighton Park Quaker School, Reading. Family: Married 1) Kay Walsh, 1940 (divorced 1949); 2) Ann Todd, 1949 (divorced 1957); 3) Leila Matkar, 1960 (divorced 1978); 4) Sandra Hotz, 1981 (marriage dissolved 1985). Career: Clapperboard boy at Lime Grove Studios under Maurice Elvey, 1926; camera assistant, then cutting room assistant, 1928; chief editor for Gaumont-British Sound News, 1930, then for British Movietone News, from 1931; editor for British Paramount, from 1934; invited by Noel Coward to co-direct In Which We Serve, 1942; co-founder, with Ronald Neame and Anthony Havelock-Allan, Cineguild, 1943 (dissolved 1950); began associa- tion with producer Sam Spiegel, 1956; returned to filmmaking after fourteen-year absence to make A Passage to India, 1984. Awards: British Film Academy Award for The Sound Barrier, 1952; Com- mander Order of the British Empire, 1953; Best Direction, New York Film Critics, 1955; Oscar for Best Director, and Best Direction, New York Film Critics, for The Bridge on the River Kwai, 1957; Oscars for Best Director and Best Film, for Lawrence of Arabia, 1962; Officier des Arts et des Lettres, France, 1968; Fellow of the British Film David Lean LEAN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 574 Institute, 1983; Fellow of the American Film Institute, 1989. Died: In London, 16 April 1991. Films as Director: 1942 In Which We Serve (co-d) 1944 This Happy Breed (+ co-adapt) 1945 Blithe Spirit (+ co-adapt); Brief Encounter (+ co-sc) 1946 Great Expectations (+ co-sc) 1948 Oliver Twist (+ co-sc) 1949 The Passionate Friends (One Woman’s Story) (+ co-adapt) 1950 Madeleine 1952 The Sound Barrier (Breaking the Sound Barrier) (+ pr) 1954 Hobson’s Choice (+ pr, co-sc) 1955 Summer Madness (Summertime) (+ co-sc) 1957 The Bridge on the River Kwai 1962 Lawrence of Arabia 1965 Doctor Zhivago 1970 Ryan’s Daughter 1984 A Passage to India Other Films: 1935 Escape Me Never (Czinner) (ed) 1936 As You Like It (Czinner) (ed) 1937 Dreaming Lips (Czinner) (ed) 1938 Pygmalion (Asquith and Howard) (ed) 1939 French without Tears (Asquith) (ed) 1941 Major Barbara (Pascal) (ed) 1942 49th Parallel (Powell) (ed); One of Our Aircraft Is Missing (Powell) (ed) Publications By LEAN: articles— ‘‘Brief Encounter,’’ in The Penguin Film Review (New York), no. 4, 1947. ‘‘David Lean on What You Can Learn from Movies,’’ in Popular Photography (Boulder, Colorado), March 1958. ‘‘Out of the Wilderness,’’ in Films and Filming (London), Janu- ary 1963. Interview, in Interviews with Film Directors, edited by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1967. Interview with S. Ross, in Take One (Montreal), November 1973. Interview with Graham Fuller and Nick Kent, in Stills (London), March 1985. Interview with J.-L. Sablon, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), June 1989. On LEAN: books— Phillips, Gene, The Movie Makers, Chicago, 1973. Pratley, Gerald, The Cinema of David Lean, New York, 1974. Silver, Alain, and James Ursini, David Lean and His Films, Lon- don, 1974. Castelli, Louis P., and Caryn Lynn Cleeland, David Lean: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1980. Anderegg, Michael A., David Lean, Boston, 1984. Sesti, Mario, David Lean, Florence, 1988. Silverman, Stephen M., David Lean, London, 1989. Silver, Alain, David Lean and His Films, Los Angeles, 1992. Brownlow, Kevin, David Lean, New York, 1996. On LEAN: articles— Lejeune, C.A., ‘‘The up and Coming Team of Lean and Neame,’’ in New York Times, 15 June 1947. Holden, J., ‘‘A Study of David Lean,’’ in Film Journal (New York), April 1956. Watts, Stephen, ‘‘David Lean,’’ in Films in Review (New York), April 1959. ‘‘David Lean, Lover of Life,’’ in Films and Filming (London), August 1959. Alpert, Hollis, ‘‘The David Lean Recipe: A Whack in the Guts,’’ in New York Times Magazine, 23 May 1965. Lightman, Herb, ‘‘On Location with Ryan’s Daughter,’’ in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), August 1968. Kael, Pauline, ‘‘Bolt and Lean,’’ in New Yorker, 21 November 1970. Thomas, B., ‘‘David Lean,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), November/ December 1973. Pickard, Ron, ‘‘David Lean: Supreme Craftsman,’’ in Films in Review (New York), May 1974. Andrews, George, ‘‘A Cinematographic Adventure with David Lean,’’ in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), March 1979. Kennedy, Harlan, and M. Sragow, ‘‘David Lean’s Right of Pas- sage,’’ in Film Comment (New York), January/February 1985. Combs, Richard, ‘‘David Lean: Riddles of the Sphinx,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), April 1985. Levine, J.P., ‘‘Passage to the Odeon: Too Lean,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 14, no. 3, 1986. ‘‘David Lean,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1986. McInerney, J.M., ‘‘Lean’s Zhivago: A Re-Appraisal,’’ in Literature/ Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 15, no. 1, 1987. ‘‘Master of Spectacle: David Lean Leaves a Legacy of Movie Epics,’’ obituary in Maclean’s, 29 April 1991. Powers, J., ‘‘Imperial Measures,’’in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 1, no. 2, June 1991. ‘‘David Lean: Un cinéaste dans le silence,’’ in Cinéma 91 (Paris), no. 479, July-August 1991. Hudson, H., ‘‘Dreaming in the Light,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 1, no. 5, September 1991. Horton, Robert, ‘‘Jungle Fever,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1991. McFarlane, B., ‘‘David Lean’s ‘Great Expectations’: Meeting Two Challenges,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 20, no. 1, 1992. Sragow, Michael, ‘‘David Lean’s Magnificient ‘Kwai,’’’ in Atlantic Monthly, February 1994. Brownlow, Kevin, ‘‘The Making of David Lean’s Film of The Bridge on the River Kwai,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 22, no. 2, June 1996. *** There is a trajectory that emerges from the shape of David Lean’s career, and it is a misleading one. Lean first achieved fame as LECONTEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 575 a director of seemingly intimate films, closely based on plays of Noel Coward. His first directorial credit was shared with Coward, for In Which We Serve. In the 1960s he was responsible for extraordinarily ambitious projects, for an epic cinema of grandiose effects, difficult location shooting, and high cultural, even literary, pretention. But, in fact, Lean’s essential approach to the movies never changed. All of his films, no matter how small or large their dimensions, demonstrate an obsessive cultivation of craft, a fastidious concern with production detail that defines the ‘‘quality’’ postwar British cinema. That craft and concern are as hyperbolic in their devices as is the medium itself. Viewers surprised at the attention to detail and composition in Ryan’s Daughter, a work whose scope would appear to call for a more modest approach, had really not paid attention to the truly enormous dimensions of Brief Encounter, a film that defines, for many, intimist cinema. Lean learned about the movies during long years of apprentice- ship, gaining particularly important experience as an editor. It is clear, even in the first films he directed with (and then for) Coward, that his vision was not bound to the playwright’s West End proscenium. This Happy Breed, a lower class version of Cavalcade, makes full use of the modest terraced house that is the film’s prime locus. The nearly palpable patterns of the mise-en-scène are animated by the highly professional acting characteristic of Lean’s early films. Watching the working out of those patterns created by the relationship between camera, decor, and actor is like watching choreography at the ballet, where the audience is made aware of the abstract forms of placement on the stage even as that placement is vitalized by the individual quality of the dancer. The grief of Celia Johnson and Robert Newton is first expressed by the empty room that they are about to enter, then by the way the camera’s oblique backward movement respects their silence. It is in Brief Encounter that the fullness of the director’s talent becomes clear. This story of chance meeting, love, and renunciation is as apparently mediocre, conventional, and echoless as Flaubert’s Madame Bovary. What could be more boringly middle-class than the romantic longing of a nineteenth-century French provincial house- wife or the oh-so-tasteful near adultery of two ‘‘decent’’ Britishers? In both cases, the authorial interventions are massive. Lean conveys the film’s passion through the juxtaposition of the trite situation against the expressionistic violence of passing express trains and the wrenching departure of locals, against the decadent romanticism of the Rachmaninoff score, and most emphatically against one of the most grandiose and hyperbolic exposures of an actress in the history of film. The size of Celia Johnson’s eyes finally becomes the measure of Brief Encounter, eyes whose scope is no less expansive than Lawrence’s desert or Zhivago’s tundra. Lean’s next two successes were his adaptations (with Ronald Neame) of Charles Dickens novels, Great Expectations and Oliver Twist. Again, intimacy on the screen becomes the moment of gigantic display. The greatness of Pip’s expectations are set by the magnitude of his frightful encounter with an escaped convict who, when he emerges into the frame, reminds us all what it is like to be a small child in a world of oversized, menacing adults. A variation of this scale is also seen in Pip’s meeting with mad Miss Havisham, in all her gothic splendor. Lean’s next few films seem to have more modest ambitions, but they continue to demonstrate the director’s concern with expressive placement. Of his three films with his then-wife Ann Todd, Made- leine most fully exploits her cool blond beauty. A significant change then took place in the development of his career. Lean’s reputation as a ‘‘location’’ director with a taste for the picturesque was made by Summertime, an adaptation of the play The Time of the Cuckoo, in which the city of Venice vies with Katharine Hepburn for the viewer’s attention. It is from this point that Lean must be identified as an international rather than an English director. The subsequent international packages that resulted perhaps explain the widespread (and unjust) opinion that Lean is more of an executive than a creator with a personal vision. The personality of Lean is in his compulsive drive to the perfectly composed shot, whatever the cost in time, energy, and money. In this there is some affinity between the director and his heroes. The Colonel (Alec Guinness) in The Bridge on the River Kwai must drive his men to build a good bridge, even if it is for the enemy. Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) crosses desert after desert in his quest for a self purified through physical ordeal, and viewers must wonder about the ordeals suffered by the filmmakers to photograph those deserts. The same wonder is elicited by the snowy trek of Dr. Zhivago (Omar Sharif) and the representation of life in early twentieth-century Russia. That perfectly composed shot is emblemized by the principal advertising image used for Ryan’s Daughter—an umbrella floating in air, suspended over an oceanside cliff. This is a celebration of composition per se, composition that holds unlikely elements in likely array. Composition is an expressive tension, accessible to viewers as it simultaneously captures the familiar and the unfamiliar. It is the combination that makes so many viewers sensitive to Brief Encoun- ter, where middle-class lives (the lives of filmgoers) are filled with overwhelming passion and overwhelming style. Laura and Alex fall in love when they go to the movies. —Charles Affron LECONTE, Patrice Nationality: French. Born: Paris, France, 12 November 1947. Edu- cation: Studied at the Institute des Hautes Etudes Cinematographiques. Career: Directed first feature, Les veces etaient fermes de l’interieur, 1976; often worked with producer Christian Fechner, and actors from the Cafe Splendide, the famed Parisian comedy cafe theater; ce- mented his international reputation with Monsieur Hire, 1989; has directed many commercials for French television, including ads for Peugeot and Carlsberg beer. Address: French Film Office, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10151. Films as Director and Screenwriter: 1976 Les veces etaient fermes d’interieur 1978 Les bronzes 1981 Viens chez moi, j’habite chez une copine (Come to My Place, I’m Living at My Girlfriend’s) 1982 Ma femme’s appelle reviens (Singles) LECONTE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 576 Patrice Leconte 1983 Circulez y a rien a voir (Move Along, There’s Nothing to See) 1985 Les specialistes (The Specialists) 1986 Tandem 1989 Monsieur Hire 1990 Le mari de la coiffeuse (The Hairdresser’s Husband) 1991 Contre l’oubli (Against Oblivion) (co-d) 1992 Le batteur du bolero 1993 Le tango (Tango); Yvonne’s Perfume 1995 Lumière et compagnie (Lumière and Company) (short Lumiere film) 1996 Les grands ducs (The Grand Dukes); Ridicule 1998 Une chance sur deux (Half a Chance) (co-sc) 1999 La fille sur le pont (The Girl on the Bridge) 2000 La veuve de Saint-Pierre (Widow of Saint-Pierre) Other Films: 1984 Moi vouloir toi (Me Want You) (Dewolf) (co-sc) 1994 The Son of Gascogne (role) Publications By LECONTE: articles— ‘‘Recontre: Leconte/Stevenin a propos de Passe-montagne,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), January 1979. ‘‘20 questions aux cineastes,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1981. Interview with P. Carcassonne in Cinématographe (Paris), Janu- ary 1983. Leconte, Patrice, and F. Cuel, ‘‘Rencontre avec Claude Ventura,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), March 1983. Interview with D. Dubroux in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1985. Interview with M. Ciment in Positif (Paris), July/August 1986. Interview with F. Aude in Positif (Paris), May 1991. Interview with S. Brisset in Presence (Paris), January/February 1993. Interview with F. Aude in Positif (Paris), March 1993. ‘‘S’il n’en reste qu’un,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1994. ‘‘Ridicule,’’ an interview with Michel Sineux and Yann Tobin, in Positif (Paris), May 1996. ‘‘Ridicule and Acclaim,’’ an interview with D. Noh, in Film Journal (New York), January/February 1997. LEDUCDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 577 ‘‘Derision Maker,’’ an interview with Trevor Johnston, in Time Out (London), 5 February 1997. Interview with M. Roudevitch, in Bref (Paris), Summer 1997. On LECONTE: articles— Fieschi, J., article in Cinematographe (Paris), July 1979. de Klerk, N., article in Skrien (Amsterdam), December 1991/Janu- ary 1992. Kelleher, T., ‘‘Triton’s Hairdresser’s Husband Leconte’s Light Comic Return,’’ in Film Journal (New York), July 1992. Lenne, Gérard, Jacques Zimmer, and G. Grandmaire, ‘‘Patrice Leconte,’’ in Mensuel du Cinéma, February 1993. Audé, Fran?oise and Michel Sineux, ‘‘Patrice Leconte/De la comédie pour les comédies,’’ in Positif (Paris), March 1993. Thompson, A.O., ‘‘A Cinematic Melting Pot,’’ in American Cinema- tographer (Hollywood), December 1996. *** In 1989 Patrice Leconte earned international acclaim upon the release of Monsieur Hire, a sharp, clever thriller. Yet for almost a decade and a half, he had been thriving as a director of light, strictly commercial satires—smashingly successful at home but little-known outside France—which were crammed with physical slapstick, plays- on-words, and other assorted shenanigans. These films were amusing and nonsensical, with his casts including Josiane Balasko, Michel Blanc, Bernard Giraudeau, and other prominent actors from the French theater and cinema. A typical Leconte film of this period is Les Bronzes, a farce that chides Club Med-style vacation villages by contrasting two single males. One (Blanc) is hopelessly unsuccessful with the opposite sex, even in such ready-made surroundings. The other (Thierry Lhermitte) is a stud who finds it all too easy to seduce women. So it seemed astonishing when Leconte directed Monsieur Hire, a film that was anything but funny. It is a psychological thriller, based on the same Georges Simenon novel that inspired Duvivier’s Panique, in which Blanc appears as the title character—a bald, eccentric, middle- aged loner. The film is a revealing portrait of French-style provincial- ism in that M. Hire resides in a Parisian suburb where the status quo reigns, and where anyone who is different is viewed with suspicion. And M. Hire is different indeed. So he is the logical suspect after a young girl is brutally murdered, and is summarily and mercilessly hounded by the cop on the case. Monsieur Hire may be linked to a film like Les Bronzes in that both deal with men who obsess over women, seeing them not as human beings but as objects. Here, M. Hire has a voyeuristic obsession with Alice (Sandrine Bonnaire), his pretty young neighbor. But M. Hire is no comically inept male; rather, he is a lonely, affection-starved soul who eventually strikes up a friendship with the free-spirited Alice. Of course, M. Hire is not the kind of man to attract such a woman. Because he is blinded by his feelings for Alice and oblivious to her true nature, he ends up being manipulated and victimized. Leconte’s follow-up, The Hairdresser’s Husband, works as a com- panion piece to Monsieur Hire. It is the deceptively simple story of Antoine, who as a young boy on the edge of puberty does not spend his time with other kids, riding bicycles or indulging in sports. Instead, he is constantly at the town barbershop, where he is smitten with the buxom haircutter. As a middle-aged man, Antoine (Jean Rochefort) can describe the woman in minute detail. Back when he was a boy, he decided that his sole goal in life would be to marry a hairdresser. And so he does. He proposes to the beautiful Mathilde (Anna Galiena) while she cuts his hair for the first time. She accepts, and they are wed. Both are content and the days pass, one after the other, as if in a dream. If all of this sounds slight, it is not. The film, as it focuses on Antoine and Mathilde’s love and their attempt to shelter themselves from all that is bad in life, is crammed with profoundly deep layers of emotion. Like Monsieur Hire, it is a concise, knowing allegory about romantic obsession and how a man can be fascinated by a woman. The difference between the two films is that, here, love brings him peace. But how fragile is that peace? All lovers are destined to be separated by death, if not by cruel fate. In Monsieur Hire, a man is thwarted in his attempt to find his idealized love, to the point where his life becomes enveloped by tragedy. While a different (yet not dissimilar) man does find love in The Hairdresser’s Hus- band, Leconte is worldly enough to know that, because of the very nature of human existence, such happiness is fated to be only temporary. In Tango, a third Leconte feature, the filmmaker returned to his comic roots, but with a devilish twist. Tango is the story of a woman- hater (Philippe Noiret) who believes that ‘‘wife-killing isn’t really murder.’’ Via blackmail, he coerces another man (Richard Bohringer), who had killed his own wife and her lover, into murdering the mate of his nephew (Thierry Lhermitte), who is tired of married life and wants the freedom to play around. What sounds like a thriller actually is a freewheeling, ingeniously structured, pitch-black comedy about the manner in which men are endlessly fascinated by women but dislike being tied down by them. In this regard, Tango is an extension of the characters and themes explored in Monsieur Hire and The Hair- dresser’s Husband. These three films are evidence that Leconte has matured as a filmmaker, and that his days making frivolous farces are forever past. —Rob Edelman LEDUC, Paul Nationality: Mexican. Born: Mexico City, 11 March 1942. Educa- tion: Studied architecture and theatre, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; attended Institut des hautes études cinématographiques (IDHEC), Paris, 1965–66. Career: Film critic in Mexico, early 1960s; worked for French TV, then returned to Mexico, 1967. Films as Director: 1968 Comunicados del comité nacional de huelga (3 shorts) 1969 Parto psicoprofiláctico (doc short) 1973 Reed: México insurgente (Reed: Insurgent Mexico) 1974 Sur, sureste 2604 (short); El mar 1975 Bach y sus intérpretes 1978 Etnocidio: notas sobre el Mezquital; Estudios para un retrato (Francis Bacon) (doc short); Puebla hoy (doc); Monjas coronadas (doc short) 1979 Historias prohibidas de Pulgarcito 1981 Complot petrolero; La cabeza de la hidra 1982 Como ves? (Whaddya Think?) LEDUC DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 578 1984 Frida: Naturaleza vita (Frida) 1989 Barroco (Baroque) 1990 Latino Bar 1993 Dollar Mambo 1995 Los Animales 1850–1950 Publications By LEDUC: articles— Interview with Nelson Carro, in Imagenes (Mexico City), Octo- ber 1979. Interview with Enrique Pineda Barnet, in Cine Cubano (Havana), no. 104, 1983. ‘‘Caminar por el continente,’’ in Cine Cubano (Havana), no. 105, 1983. Interview with Dennis West, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 26, no. 4, 1988. ‘‘Nuevo cine latinoamericano: Dramaturgia y autocrítica,’’ in Pantalla (Mexico City), August 1985. Interview with Dennis West, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 16, no. 4, 1988. On LEDUC: books— Blanco, Jorge Ayala, La búsqueda del cine mexicano, Mexico City, 1974. Sánchez, Alberto Ruy, Mitologia de un cine en crisis, Mexico City, 1981. Mora, Carl, Mexican Cinema: Reflections of a Society, 1896–1980, Berkeley, 1982. Blanco, Jorge Ayala, La condicíon del cine mexicano, Mexico City, 1986. Costa, Paola, La ‘‘aperatura’’ cinematográfica, Puebla, 1988. Ramirez Berg, Charles, Cinema of Solitude: A Critical Study of Mexican Film, 1967–1983, Austin, 1992. Paranagua, Paulo Antonio, editor, Mexican Cinema, British Film Institute, 1996. On LEDUC: articles— Espinasa, José María, ‘‘El cine mexicano hoy,’’ in Hojas de cine (Mexico City), vol. 2, 1988. Bejar, Ruth, ‘‘Frida,’’ in American Historical Review, October 1989. Koivunen, A. ‘‘Myytti Naisesta jaa Elamaan,’’ in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 5, 1989. Pick, Z. M., ‘‘Territories of Representation,’’ in Iris (Paris), Sum- mer 1991. Kieffer, A., ‘‘Baroque mexicain et revolution: Paul Leduc,’’ in Jeune Cinema, January/February 1992. Mauro, S., ‘‘Latino Bar,’’ in Segnocinema (Italy), July/August, 1992. Palant, V., ‘‘Latino Bar,’’ in Revista del Cinmetografo (Rome), July/ August 1992. Pezzuto, A., ‘‘Latino Bar,’’ in Film (Italy), no. 4, 1992. Gill, J. A., ‘‘Latino Bar,’’ in Positif (Paris), September 1992. Ha?m, Monica, ‘‘Amérique autre et même,’’ in 24 Images (Montreal), December-January 1994–1995. *** Generally acknowledged as the most talented and socially con- scious of contemporary Mexican directors, Paul Leduc has been forced to make his films on the margins of commercial cinema. Leduc began his career in a university department of film studies, an initiation increasingly prevalent among the younger generation of Mexican filmmakers. His first films were documentaries, a typical beginning for directors of the ‘‘New Latin American Cinema.’’ Then Leduc was able to take some advantage of a novel situation: during the reign of President Luis Echeverria (1970–76) the Mexican gov- ernment actively intervened as a producer of cinema, the only time since the 1930s (e.g., Redes) that it has attempted to create some sort of alternative to the wretched fare provided by the country’s commer- cial film industry. The government paid for the amplification of Reed: Insurgent Mexico to 35mm and co-produced Mezquital with the Canadian National Film Board. Since that time, however, Leduc has funded his films independently, through universities and unions, and with collective efforts. Reed: Insurgent Mexico is perhaps Leduc’s most accomplished fiction film, and was the first really distinctive work of the ‘‘New Cinema’’ movement in Mexico. Although the film was shot on a minuscule budget in 16mm, it has an exquisite sepia tone which reproduces the ambience of antique revolutionary photographs. Deliber- ately undramatic, Reed demystified the Mexican revolution (1910–17) in a way that had not been seen since Fernando De Fuentes’s masterpieces of 1933–35. One Mexican critic, Jorge Ayala Blanco, described Reed as ‘‘raging against, incinerating, and annihilating the spider web that had been knitted over the once-living image of the revolution, while briefly illuminating the nocturnal ruins of our temporal and cultural distance from the men who participated in that upheaval.’’ The film is a dramatization of John Reed’s famous account of the revolution, Insurgent Mexico, with Reed as the main protagonist. Although the film is a beautiful and important work, it does not really rise above the level of a vignette (perhaps too greatly influenced by the book’s form), nor does it achieve the heights of De Fuentes’s films. Leduc’s subsequent works reflected his concern for actuality. Etnocidio: notas sobre el Mezquital is probably the best documentary on the extermination of the native peoples in Latin America, allowing the Otomi Indians of the Mezquital region in Mexico to relate their experiences with ‘‘civilization.’’ The film is an interesting example of collaborative effort, for the ‘‘script’’ was written by Roger Bartra, Mexico’s leading rural sociologist, who based it on his years of research in the area. Historias prohibidas is a flawed work that Leduc made in a collective, but it does contain a lively analysis of El Salvador’s history. Complot petrolero is a made-for-TV thriller about an attempt by right-wing elements (including the CIA and anti-Castro Cubans) to take over the oil and uranium resources of Mexico. Actually a mini-series totaling three-and-one-half hours, it has never been shown on Mexican television, which is largely dominated by series and made-for-TV movies imported from the United States. Just LEEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 579 when it appeared that Leduc was firmly settled in the aesthetic of realism, he directed a highly expressionist, lyrical work on the painter Frida Kahlo, Frida: Naturaleza viva. An experimental film which keeps words, whether spoken or written, to an absolute minimum, the movie has been most controversial. And, while one must admire Leduc for risking a break with traditional cinematographic styles, the absence of dialogue reduces pivotal figures of history and culture such as Diego Rivera, León Trotsky, David Alfaro Siqueiros, André Breton, and Frida Kahlo to caricatures of themselves. Instead of using the film to develop these characters in political or personal terms, Leduc takes the easy way out, allowing them to remain at the lowest common denominator of the popular stereotypes fomented in mass culture. Other critical views of Leduc’s Frida, however, suggest a differ- ent reading: objects such as Frida’s dress become political iconography that proposes ‘‘a self-conscious affirmation of a mestizo identity but also a specifically Mexican rearrangement of the indigenous. From this perspective, as Pick observes, ‘‘the ‘alternative modernism’ . . . intimated by Frida Kahlo’s dress, its effect as representation and self- representation, embodies a distinctly Latin American way to affirm cultural identity.’’ It is exactly in such a retainment of ‘‘the political problematic that has characterized the last three decades of Latin American filmmaking.’’ Leduc’s rejection of social realism may thus be viewed as a step forward, towards a realm of expressionism that crystallizes the political by ways of, according to Jean Franco, ‘‘a struggle over meanings and the history of meanings, histories that have been acquired and stored with unofficial institutions.’’ In general, Mexico has proven to be a difficult context for Leduc, who appropriately describes cinema there as ‘‘a perfect disaster, composed of churros—vulgar, cheap, and badly made films.’’ Domi- nated by the ‘‘fastbuck’’ mentality typical of dependent capitalism, Mexican commercial cinema has offered few opportunities for Leduc to direct the kind of films which interest him. —John Mraz, updated by Guo-Juin Hong LEE, Ang Nationality: Taiwanese. Born: Taiwan; moved to United States, 1978. Education: Attended theater program, University of Illinois. Career: Directed first two features in the United States, 1991–93; returned to Taiwan to direct Eat Drink Man Woman, 1994. Awards: Golden Bear Award at Berlin Film Festival, 1993, for The Wedding Banquet; Golden Bear Award at Berlin Film Festival, Best Director from New York Film Critics, and Best Director and Best Picture from National Board of Review, all 1995, all for Sense and Sensibility. Films as Director: 1991 Pushing Hands 1993 Hsi Yen (The Wedding Banquet) 1994 Eat Drink Man Woman (+ co-sc) 1995 Sense and Sensibility 1997 The Ice Storm 1999 Ride with the Devil 2000 Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2001 Berlin Diaries 1940–45 Publications By LEE: books— Two Films by Ang Lee: Eat Drink Man Woman / The Wedding Banquet, edited by James Schamus, New York, 1994. With James Schamus, The Ice Storm: The Shooting Script, New York, 1997. By LEE: articles— ‘‘Dinner for Two,’’ an interview in Filmmaker, vol. 1, no. 4, 1993. ‘‘Ang Lee,’’ interview in Mensuel du Cinéma (Nice), no. 18, June 1994. ‘‘The New Face of Taiwanese Cinema: An Interview with Ang Lee,’’ interview with C. Berry, in Metro Magazine (St. Kilda West, Australia), no. 96, Summer 1993–1994. ‘‘Ang Lee Returned to His Native Taiwan to Make Eat Drink Man Woman,’’ an interview with Steven Rea, in Knight-Ridder/Trib- une News Service, 19 August 1994. ‘‘Eat Drink Man Woman: A Feast for the Eyes,’’ in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), vol. 76, no. 1, January 1995. ‘‘Home Truths,’’ in Time Out (London), no. 1273, 11 January 1995. ‘‘The Morning After,’’ interview with G. Cheshire, in Filmmaker (Los Angeles), vol. 6, no. 1, 1997. ‘‘The Angle on Ang Lee,’’ interview with O. Moverman, in Interview (New York), September 1997. ‘‘Ang Lee on Directing in an Ice Storm,’’ in DGA (Los Angeles), vol. 22, no. 4, September-October 1997. ‘‘Storm Alert,’’ interview with D. Noh, in Film Journal International (New York), October 1997. On LEE: articles— Shapiro, M., ‘‘Ang Lee,’’ in Independent, May 1993. Hornaday, A., ‘‘A Director’s Trip from Salad Days to a Banquet,’’ in New York Times, 1 August 1993. Noh, D., ‘‘Ang Lee’s Wedding Banquet Serves up a Mix of Cul- tures,’’ in Film Journal, September 1993. Berry, C., ‘‘Taiwanese Melodrama Returns with a Twist in The Wedding Banquet,’’ in Cinemaya, Autumn 1993. Hamlin, Suzanne, ‘‘Le Grand Exces Spices Love Poems to Food,’’ in New York Times, 31 July 1994. Kauffman, Stanley, ‘‘Eat Drink Man Woman,’’ in New Republic, 5 September 1994. Schickel, Richard, ‘‘Sense and Sensibility,’’ in Time, 18 Decem- ber 1995. LEE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 580 Ang Lee Fuller, Graham, and Monk Claire, ‘‘Cautionary Tale / Shtick and Seduction,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 6, no. 3, March 1996. O’Neill, E.R., ‘‘Identity, Mimicry, and Transtextuality in Mina Shum’s Double Happiness and Quentin Lee and Justin Lin’s Shopping for Fangs,’’ in CineAction (Toronto), no. 42, 1997. Williams, D.E., ‘‘Reflections on an Era,’’ in American Cinema- tographer (Hollywood), October 1997. *** In the space of only five years, beginning in 1991, and on the strength of four films, Taiwanese film director Ang Lee grew from art-house phenomenon to major studio director. Lee’s first three films, a sort of trilogy of charming family dramas, established him as a talented director with a particularly deft hand at creating character- driven studies of human nature. His fourth film, Sense and Sensibility (1995), adapted from Jane Austen’s novel, and the winner of a num- ber of well-deserved awards, including Best Director from the New York Film Critics, and Best Director and Best Picture from the National Board of Review (it was also nominated for seven Oscars), marked his emergence from relative anonymity into the film world spotlight. Lee’s first feature was Pushing Hands, a 1991 film in which an aging Chinese martial arts master moves into the New York City home of his son and daughter-in-law. The relationship between the old man, who speaks no English, and his daughter-in-law, who speaks no Chinese, is a difficult one, full of resentment and misunderstand- ing, but both try to make the arrangement work. A languidly paced comedy drama that displayed Lee’s fondness for scenes in which food figures prominently, it was followed by The Wedding Banquet, a film that widened Lee’s public somewhat and which also explored family relationships, this time in the context of sexual as well as cultural differences. It focuses on a successful young Chinese professional living in America, whose equilibrium is upset by the impending visit of his parents, whose arrival finds him engaged in an elaborate marital charade to mask his homosexuality. Beautifully observed, charming, humorous, and very poignant, The Wedding Banquet was rewarded with an Oscar nomination. Released in 1994, Eat Drink Man Woman, the first of Lee’s movies to be shot entirely in Taiwan, confirmed the originality and subtle understanding of his domestic vision and expanded on his LEEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 581 iconic approach to food. It concerns an elderly, widowed master chef at a Taipei hotel and his relationship with his three adult daughters, all of whom are grappling with one problem or another. The action centers around the immense, sumptuous Sunday feasts that he lov- ingly prepares for his daughters; Stanley Kauffmann remarks that ‘‘the preparation of these dishes, their wonderful appearance, their almost tasteable succulence are the film’s true base and being. The stories, the hassle and hustle of the characters’ troubles, are just garnish around the dishes.’’ Managing to be at once highly enjoyable and very moving, one might, with respect, argue with Kauffman that the old man’s gourmet rituals and his pride in them provide the only mechanism by which he can communicate his love and concern for the daughters, who are so thoughtlessly—and humanly—caught up in their own concerns. Next came Sense and Sensibility, actress Emma Thompson’s adaptation of Jane Austen’s nineteenth-century novel about the reduced circumstances in which Mrs. Dashwood (Gemma Jones) and her daughters find themselves after the death of Mr. Dashwood, and their attempts to survive in upper-class English society and find romantic happiness for the two elder girls (Thompson, Kate Winslet). With its impeccable screenplay and a cast of top-rank British actors (including Hugh Grant and Alan Rickman), the film is a fine meld of comedy, drama, and sentiment, held seamlessly together by Lee’s finely tuned direction, and his accurate ear for the nuances of a social and domestic order both British and long past. Sense and Sensibility whisked away the veil of comparative anonymity that had previously covered Lee. As Richard Schickel commented, ‘‘You certainly won- der how a Taiwan-born director like Lee has managed to reach across time and cultures to deliver these delicate goods undamaged. Maybe some of that whoosh of delight one feels at the end of Sense and Sensibility is for him, and his emergence as a world-class director.’’ It is this unique ability acutely to grasp the essence of multicultural customs, combined with his professional polish, that distinguishes Lee from his peers. After the success of Sense and Sensibility, he entered the Hollywood mainstream with The Ice Storm, released in 1997, and examining with awesome accuracy a particular social stratum in American society, that of wealthy, middle-class profes- sionals and their families whose affluence seems to have brought only discontented malaise, dispiriting infidelity, and difficult relationships with their children, conditions that come to a head in an ice-bound Connecticut winter. With a cast led by Kevin Kline, Joan Allen, and Sigourney Weaver, this heavyweight domestic drama (leavened with lighter moments), dissects the weaknesses of its protagonists with uncompromising and often disturbing honesty, and attracted a large number of award nominations at home and abroad. During 1999, the same year that the director returned to the Orient to branch out with a crime film called Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, almost entirely unseen in the West to that date, Ride with the Devil was released. While evidencing yet another area of interest, the American Civil War, for Lee, it proved his least successful film to date. Highly original in treating the war as subsidiary to a small, close band of Southerners, including a freed slave, caught up in it almost, as it were, by accident, and in attempting to depict their inner psychol- ogy, the work is ambitious but overlong, too slow and too opaque to grip the interest. Early in the first year of the new millennium, Ang Lee, striking out yet again, was at work on Berlin Diaries 1940–45, eagerly awaited and certain to emphasize the unique eclecticism, sharp observation, and underlying humanity that are this filmmaker’s trademarks. —Kevin Hillstrom, updated by Robyn Karney LEE, Spike Nationality: American. Born: Shelton Jackson Lee in Atlanta, Georgia, 20 March 1957; son of jazz musician Bill Lee. Education: Morehouse College, B.A., 1979; New York University, M.A. in Filmmaking; studying with Martin Scorsese. Family: Married lawyer Tonya Linette Lewis, 1993; one son, Satchel. Career: Set up produc- tion company 40 Acres and a Mule; directed first feature, She’s Gotta Have It, 1986; also directs music videos and commercials for Nike/ Air Jordan; Trustee of Morehouse College, 1992. Awards: Student Directors Academy Award, for Joe’s Bed-Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads, 1980; U.S. Independent Spirit Award for First Film, New Generation Award, Los Angeles Film Critics Association, and Prix de Jeunesse, Cannes Film Festival, all for She’s Gotta Have It, 1986; U.S. Independent Spirit Award, Best Picture, L.A. Film Critics, and Best Picture, Chicago Film Festival, all for Do the Right Thing, 1989; Essence Award, 1994. Address: 40 Acres and a Mule, 124 Dekalb Avenue, Suite 2, Brooklyn, NY 11217–1201, U.S.A. Films as Director, Scriptwriter, and Editor: 1977 Last Hustle in Brooklyn (Super-8 short) 1980 The Answer (short) 1981 Sarah (short) 1982 Joe’s Bed-Stuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads (+ role, pr) 1986 She’s Gotta Have It (+ role as Mars Blackmon, pr) 1988 School Daze (+ role as Half Pint, pr) 1989 Do the Right Thing (+ role as Mookie, pr) 1990 Mo’ Better Blues (+ role as Giant) 1991 Jungle Fever (+ role as Cyrus, pr) 1992 Malcolm X (+ role as Shorty, pr) 1994 Crooklyn (+ role as Snuffy, pr) 1995 Clockers (+ role as Chucky) 1996 Girl 6 (+ role as Jimmy, pr); Get on the Bus (+ exec pr) 1997 4 Little Girls 1998 He Got Game (+ pr); Freak 1999 Summer of Sam (+ role as John Jeffries, pr) 2000 The Original Kings of Comedy; Bamboozled Other Films: 1993 The Last Party (Youth for Truth) (doc) (appearance); Seven Songs for Malcolm X (doc) (appearance); Hoop Dreams (doc) (appearance) 1994 DROP Squad (exec pr, appearance) LEE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 582 Spike Lee 1995 New Jersey Drive (exec pr); Tales from the Hood (exec pr) 1999 The Best Man (pr) 2000 Famous (Dunne) (role as himself); Michael Jordan to the Max (Kempf and Stern) (role as himself); Love & Basketball (Gina Prince) (pr) 2001 3 A.M. (Lee Davis) (pr) Publications By LEE: books— Spike Lee’s She’s Gotta Have It: Inside Guerilla Filmmaking, New York, 1987. Uplift the Race: The Construction of School Daze, New York, 1988. Do the Right Thing: A Spike Lee Joint, with Lisa Jones, New York, 1989. Mo’ Better Blues, with Lisa Jones, New York, 1990. Five for Five: The Films of Spike Lee, New York, 1991. By Any Means Necessary: The Trials and Tribulations of the Making of Malcolm X, with Ralph Wiley, New York, 1993. Best Seat in the House: A Basketball Memoir, with Ralph Wiley, New York, 1997. By LEE: articles— Interview in New York Times, 10 August 1986. Interview in Village Voice (New York), 12 August 1986. ‘‘Class Act,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), January/Febru- ary 1988. ‘‘Entretien avec Spike Lee,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma, June 1989. ‘‘Bed-Stuy BBQ,’’ an interview with M. Glicksman, in Film Com- ment, July/August 1989. ‘‘I Am Not an Anti-Semite,’’ in New York Times, 22 August 1990. Interview with Mike Wilmington, in Empire (London), October 1990. ‘‘Entretien avec Spike Lee,’’ with A. de Baecque and N. Saada, in Cahiers du Cinéma, June 1991. Interview with M. Cieutat and Michael Ciment in Positif, July/ August 1991. ‘‘The Rolling Stone Interview: Spike Lee,’’ with David Breskin, in Rolling Stone, July 1991. ‘‘Spike Speaks,’’ an interview with Lisa Kennedy, in Village Voice, 11 June 1991. ‘‘Playboy Interview: Spike Lee,’’ with Elvis Mitchell, in Playboy, July 1991. ‘‘He’s Gotta Have It,’’ an interview with Janice M. Richolson, in Cineaste, no. 4, 1991. LEEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 583 ‘‘Generation X,’’ an interview with H. L. Gates, Jr., in Black Film Review, no. 3, 1992. ‘‘Just Whose Malcolm Is It, Anyway?’’ interview in New York Times, 31 May 1992. ‘‘United Colors of Benetton,’’ in Rolling Stone, 12 November 1992. ‘‘Words with Spike Lee,’’ an interview with J. C. Simpson, in Time, 23 November 1992. Interview with David Breskin, in Inner Views: Filmmakers in Con- versation, Boston, 1992. ‘‘Entretien avec Spike Lee,’’ with B. Bollag, in Positif, Febru- ary 1993. ‘‘Doing the Job,’’ an interview with J. Verniere, in Sight and Sound, February 1993. ‘‘Our Film Is Only a Starting Point,’’ an interview with George Crowdus and Dan Georgakas, in Cineaste, no. 4, 1993. ‘‘De qui parler?’’ an interview with V. Amiel and Jean-Pierre Coursodon, in Positif, February 1993. ‘‘Is Malcolm X the Right Thing?’’ an interview with Lisa Kennedy, in Sight and Sound, February 1993. ‘‘The Lees on Life,’’ an interview with Lynn Darling, in Harper’s Bazarr, May 1994. ‘‘Spike Lee: The Do-the-Right-Thing Revolution,’’ an interview with Henry Louis Gates, in Interview, October 1994. ‘‘Spike on Sports,’’ an interview with Daryl Howerton, in Sport, February 1995. ‘‘Ghetto Master/Price Wars,’’ an interview with Tom Charity and Brian Case, in Time Out (London), 31 January 1996. Interview with N.O. Saeveras, in Film & Kino (Oslo), no. 1, 1996. ‘‘The Sweet Hell of Success,’’ an interview with P. Biskind, in Premiere (Boulder), October 1997. On LEE: books— Spike Lee and Commentaries on His Work, Bloomington, Indi- ana, 1992. Patterson, Alex, Spike Lee, New York, 1992. Bernotas, Bob, Spike Lee: Filmmaker, Hillside, New Jersey, 1993. Lee, David, Malcolm X, Denzel Washington: A Spike Lee Joint, New York, 1992. Chapman, Kathleen Ferguson, Spike Lee, Mankato, Minnesota, 1994. Hardy, James Earl, Spike Lee, New York, 1996. Jones, K. Maurice, Spike Lee and the African American Filmmakers: A Choice of Colors, Brookfield, Connecticut, 1996. Haskins, Jim, Spike Lee: By Any Means Necessary, New York, 1997. McDaniel, Melissa, Spike Lee: On His Own Terms, New York, 1998. On LEE: articles— Tate, G., ‘‘Spike Lee,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), September 1986. Glicksman, M., ‘‘Lee Way,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Septem- ber/October 1986. Taylor, C., ‘‘The Paradox of Black Independent Cinema,’’ in Black Film Review, no. 4, 1988. Crouch, Stanley, ‘‘Do the Right Thing,’’ in Village Voice, 20 June 1989. Davis, Thuliani, ‘‘We’ve Gotta Have It,’’ in Village Voice, 20 June 1989. Davis, T., ‘‘Local Hero,’’ in American Film, July/August, 1989. Sharkey, B., and T. Davis, ‘‘Knocking on Hollywood’s Door,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), July/August 1989. McDowell, J., ‘‘Profile: He’s Got to Have It His Way,’’ in Time, 17 July 1989. Orenstein, Peggy, ‘‘Spike’s Riot,’’ in Mother Jones, September 1989. Norment, L., ‘‘Spike Lee: The Man behind the Movies and the Controversy,’’ in Ebony, October 1989. Kirn, Walter, ‘‘Spike It Already,’’ in Gentlemens Quarterly, August 1990. George, N., ‘‘Forty Acres and an Empire,’’ in Village Voice, 7 Au- gust 1990. Hentoff, Nat, ‘‘The Bigotry of Spike Lee,’’ in Village Voice, 4 Sep- tember 1990. O’Pray, Michael, ‘‘Do Better Blues—Spike Lee,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), October 1990. Perkins, E., ‘‘Renewing the African American Cinema: The Films of Spike Lee,’’ in Cineaste, no. 4, 1990. Baecque, A. de, ‘‘Spike Lee,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma, May 1991. Boyd, T., ‘‘The Meaning of the Blues,’’ in Wide Angle, no. 3/4, 1991. Breskin, D., ‘‘Spike Lee’’ in Rolling Stone, 11–25 July 1991. Bates, Karen Grigsby, ‘‘They’ve Gotta Have Us,’’ in New York Times Magazine, 14 July 1991. Gilroy, Paul, ‘‘Spiking the Argument,’’ in Sight and Sound, Novem- ber 1991. Grenier, Richard, ‘‘Spike Lee Fever,’’ in Commentary, August 1991. Hamill, Pete, ‘‘Spike Lee Takes No Prisoners,’’ in Esquire, August 1991. Backer, Houston A. Jr., ‘‘Spike Lee and the Commerce of Culture,’’ in Black American Literature Forum, Summer 1991. Whitaker, Charles, ‘‘Doing the Spike Thing,’’ in Ebony, Novem- ber 1991. Johnson, A., ‘‘Moods Indigo: A Long View, Part 2,’’ in Film Quarterly, Spring 1991. Klein, Joe, ‘‘Spiked Again,’’ in New York, 1 June 1992. Elise, Sharon, ‘‘Spike Lee Constructs the New Black Man: Mo’ Better,’’ in Western Journal of Black Studies, Summer 1992. Weinraub, B., ‘‘Spike Lee’s Request: Black Interviewers Only,’’ in New York Times, 29 October 1992. Harrison, Barbara G., ‘‘Spike Lee Hates Your Cracker Ass,’’ in Esquire, October 1992. Wiley, R., ‘‘Great ‘X’pectations,’’ in Premiere, November 1992. Reden, L., ‘‘Spike’s Gang,’’ in New York Times, 7 February 1993. Hooks, Bill, ‘‘Male Heroes and Female Sex Objects: Sexism in Spike Lee’s Malcolm X,’’ in Cineaste, no. 4, 1993. Johnson, Victoria E., ‘‘Polyphone and Cultural Expression: Interpret- ing Musical Traditions in Do the Right Thing,’’ in Film Quarterly, Winter 1993. Horne, Gerald, ‘‘Myth and the Making of Malcolm X,’’ in American Historical Review, April 1993. Hirschberg, Lynn, ‘‘Living Large,’’ in Vanity Fair, September 1993. Pinsker, Sanford, ‘‘Spike Lee: Protest, Literary Tradition, and the Individual Filmmaker,’’ in Midwest Quarterly, Autumn 1993. Norment, Lynn, ‘‘A Revealing Look at Spike Lee’s Changing Life,’’ in Ebony, May 1994. Rowland, Robert C., ‘‘Social Function, Polysemy, and Narrative- Dramatic Form: A Case Study of Do the Right Thing,’’ in Communication Quarterly, Summer 1994. Hooks, Bell, ‘‘Sorrowful Black Death Is Not a Hot Ticket,’’ in Sight and Sound, August 1994. LEE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 584 Lee, Jonathan Scott, ‘‘Spike Lee’s Malcolm X as Transformational Object,’’ in American Imago, Summer 1995. Croal, M., ‘‘Bouncing off the Rim,’’ in Newsweek, 22 April 1996. Lightning, Robert K., and others, ‘‘Do the Right Thing: Generic Bases,’’ in CineAction (Toronto), May 1996. Jones, K., ‘‘Spike Lee,’’ in Film Comment (New York), January/ February 1997. Pearson, H., ‘‘Get on the (Back of the) Bus,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 7 January 1997. Jones, Kent, ‘‘The Invisible Man: Spike Lee,’’ in Film Comment (New York), January-February 1997. MacDonald, Scott, ‘‘The City as the Country: The New York City Symphony from Rudy Burckhardt to Spike Lee,’’ in Literature/ Film Quarterly (Salisbury), Winter 1997–1998. McCarthy, Todd, ‘‘Summer of Sam,’’ in Variety (New York), 24 May 1999. *** Spike Lee is the most famous African American to have succeeded in breaking through industry obstacles to create a notable career for himself as a major director. What makes this all the more notable is that he is not a comedian—the one role in which Hollywood has usually allowed blacks to excel—but a prodigious, creative, multifaceted talent who writes, directs, edits, and acts, a filmmaker who invites comparisons with American titans like Woody Allen, John Cassavetes, and Orson Welles. His films, which deal with different facets of the black experience, are innovative and controversial even within the black community. Spike Lee refuses to be content with presenting blacks in their ‘‘acceptable’’ stereotypes: noble Poitiers demonstrating simple moral righteousness are nowhere to be found. Lee’s characters are three- dimensional and often vulnerable to moral criticism. His first feature film, She’s Gotta Have It, dealt with black sexuality, unapologetically supporting the heroine’s promiscuity. His second film, School Daze, drawing heavily upon Lee’s own experiences at Morehouse College, examined the black university experience and dealt with discrimina- tion within the black community based on relative skin colors. His third film, Do the Right Thing, dealt with urban racial tensions and violence. His fourth film, Mo’ Better Blues, dealt with black jazz and its milieu. His fifth film, Jungle Fever, dealt with interracial sexual relationships and their political implications, by no means taking the traditional, white liberal position that love should be color blind. His sixth film, Malcolm X, attempted no less than a panoramic portrait of the entire racial struggle in the United States, as seen through the life story of the controversial activist. Not until his seventh film, Crooklyn, primarily an autobiographical family remembrance of growing up in Brooklyn, did Spike Lee take a breath to deal with a simpler subject and theme. Lee’s breakthrough feature was She’s Gotta Have It, an indepen- dent film budgeted at $175,000 and a striking box-office success: a film made by blacks for blacks which also attracted white audiences. She’s Gotta Have It reflects the sensibilities of an already sophisti- cated filmmaker and harkens back to the early French New Wave in its exuberant embracing of bravura technique—intertitles, black-and- white cinematography, a sense of improvisation, characters directly addressing the camera—all wedded nevertheless to serious philo- sophical/sociological examination. The considerable comedy in She’s Gotta Have It caused many critics to call Spike Lee the ‘‘black Woody Allen,’’ a label which would increasingly reveal itself as a rather simplistic, muddle-headed approbation, particularly as Lee’s career developed. (Indeed, in his work’s energy, style, eclecticism, and social commitment, he more resembles Martin Scorsese, a Lee mentor at the NYU film school.) Even to categorize Spike Lee as a black filmmaker is to denigrate his talent, since there are today virtually no American filmmakers (except Allen) with the ambitiousness and talent to write, direct, and perform in their own films. And Lee edits as well. Do the Right Thing, Lee’s third full-length feature, is one of the director’s most daring and controversial achievements, presenting one sweltering day which culminates in a riot in the Bedford Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn. From its first images—assailing jump cuts of a woman dancing frenetically to the rap ‘‘Fight the Power’’ while colored lights stylistically flash on a location ghetto block upon which Lee has constructed his set—we know we are about to witness something deeply disturbing. The film’s sound design is incredibly dense and complex, and the volume alarmingly high, as the film continues to assail us with tight close-ups, extreme angles, moving camera, colored lights, distorting lenses, and individual scenes di- rected like high operatic arias. Impressive, too, is the well-constructed screenplay, particularly the perceptively drawn Italian family at the center of the film who feel so besieged by the changing, predominantly black neighborhood around them. A variety of ethnic characters are drawn sympatheti- cally, if unsentimentally; perhaps never in American cinema has a director so accurately presented the relationships among the Ameri- can urban underclasses. Particularly shocking and honest is a scene in which catalogs of racial and ethnic epithets are shouted directly into the camera. The key scene in Do the Right Thing has the character of Mookie, played by Spike Lee, throwing a garbage can through a pizzeria window as a moral gesture which works to make the riot inevitable. The film ends with two quotations: one from Martin Luther King Jr., eschewing violence; the other from Malcolm X, rationalizing violence in certain circumstances. Do the Right Thing was one of the most controversial films of the last twenty years. Politically conservative commentators denounced the film, fearful it would incite inner-city violence. Despite wide- spread acclaim the film was snubbed at the Cannes Film Festival, outraging certain Cannes judges; despite the accolades of many critics’ groups, the film was also largely snubbed by the Motion Picture Academy, receiving a nomination only for Spike Lee’s screenplay and Danny Aiello’s performance as the pizzeria owner. Both Mo’ Better Blues and the much underrated Crooklyn owe a lot to Spike Lee’s appreciation of music, particularly as handed down to him by his father, the musician Bill Lee. Crooklyn is by far the gentler film, presenting Lee and his siblings’ memories of growing up with Bill Lee and his mother. Typical of Spike Lee, the vision in Crooklyn is by no means a sentimental one, and the father comes across as a proud, if weak, man; talented, if failing in his musical career; loving his children, if not always strong enough to do the right thing for them. The mother, played masterfully by Alfre Woodard, is the stronger of the two personalities; and the film— ending as it does with grief—seems Spike Lee’s version of Fellini’s Amarcord. For a white audience, Crooklyn came as a revelation: the sight of black children watching cartoons, eating Trix cereal, playing hopscotch, and singing along with the Partridge family, seemed strange—because the American cinema had so rarely (if ever?) shown a struggling black family so rooted in the popular-culture iconography to which all Americans could relate. Scene after scene is filled with LEEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 585 humanity, such as the little girl stealing groceries rather than be embarrassed by using her mother’s food stamps. Crooklyn’s soundtrack, like so many other Spike Lee films, is unusually cacophonous, with everyone talking at once, and its improvisational style suggests Cassavetes or Scorsese. Lee’s 1995 film, Clockers, which deals with drug dealing, disadvantage, and the young ‘‘gangsta,’’ was actually produced in conjunction with Scorsese, whose own work, particularly the seminal Meanstreets, Lee’s work often recalls. Another underrated film from Lee is Jungle Fever (1991). Taken for granted is how well the film communicates the African-American experience; more surprising is how persuasively and perceptively the film communicates the Italian-American experience, particularly working-class attitudes. Indeed, one looks in vain in the Hollywood cinema for an American director with a European background who presents blacks with as many insights as Lee presents his Italians. And certainly unforgettable, filmed expressively with nightmarish im- agery, is the film’s set-piece in which we enter a crack house and come to understand profoundly and horrifically the tremendous damage being done to a component of the African-American commu- nity by this plague. Jungle Fever, like Do the Right Thing, basically culminates in images of Ruby Dee screaming in horror and pain, a metaphor for black martyrdom and suffering. Nevertheless, the most important film in the Spike Lee oeuvre (if not his best) is probably Malcolm X—important because Lee himself campaigned for the film when it seemed it would be given to a white director, creating then an epic with the sweep and majesty of a David Lean and a clear political message of black empowerment. If the film on the whole seems less interesting than many of Lee’s films (because there is less Lee there), the most typical Lee touches (such as the triumphant coda which enlists South African President Nelson Mandela to play himself and teach young blacks about racism and their future) seem among the film’s most inspired and creative scenes. If more cautious and conservative, in some ways the film is also Lee’s most ambitious: with dozens of characters, historical reconstructions, and the biggest budget in his entire career. Malcolm X proved definitively to fiscally conservative Hollywood studio executives that an African- American director could be trusted to direct a high-budget ‘‘A film.’’ The success of Malcolm X, coupled with the publicity machine supporting Spike Lee, helped a variety of young black directors—like John Singleton, the Wayans brothers, and Mario Van Peebles—all break through into mainstream Hollywood features. And indeed, Lee seems often to be virtually everywhere. On television interview shows he is called upon to comment on every issue relevant to black America: from the O. J. Simpson verdict to Louis Farrakhan and the Million Man March. In bookstores, his name can be found on a variety of published books on the making of his films, books created by his own public relations arm particularly so that others can read about the process, become empowered, find their own voices, and follow in Lee’s filmic footsteps. On the basketball court, Lee can be found very publicly attending the New York Knicks’ games. On MTV, he can be found in notable commercials for Nike basketball shoes. On college campuses, he can be found making highly publicized speeches on the issues of the day. And on the street, his influence can be seen even in fashion trends—such as the ubiquitous ‘‘X’’ on a variety of clothing the year of Malcolm X’s release. There may be no other American filmmaker working today who is so willing to take on all comers, so politically committed to make films which are consistently and unapologetically in-your-face. Striking, too, is that instead of taking his inspiration from other movies, as do the gaggle of Spielberg imitators, Lee takes his inspiration from real life—whether the Howard Beach or Yusuf Hawkins incidents, in which white racists killed blacks, or his own autobiographical memories of growing up black in Brooklyn. As Spike Lee has become a leading commentator on the cultural scene, there has been an explosion of Lee scholarship, not all of it laudatory: increasing voices attack Lee and his films for either homophobia, sexism, or anti-Semitism. Lee defends both his films and himself, pointing out that because characters espouse some of these values does not imply that he himself does, only that realistic portrayal of the world as it is has no place for political correctness. Still, some of the accusers point to examples which give pause: Lee’s insistence on talking only to black journalists for stories about Malcolm X, but refusing to meet with a black journalist who was gay; the totally cartoonish portrait of the homosexual neighbor in Crooklyn, one of the few characters in that film who is given no positive traits to leaven the harsh criticism implied by Lee’s treatment or to make him seem three-dimensional. Similar points have been made regarding Lee’s attitudes toward Jews (particularly in Mo’ Better Blues) and women. At one point, Lee even felt the need to defend himself in the New York Times in a letter to the editor titled, ‘‘Why I Am Not an Anti-Semite.’’ If Malcolm X brought Lee more attention than ever before, the films he has made since brought critical and/or financial disappoint- ment. Clockers starts powerfully enough with a close-up of a bullet hole and a montage of horrifically graphic images of violence victims. Although Clockers realistically evokes the world of adolescent co- caine dealers within the limited world of a Brooklyn housing project, Clockers ultimately reveals Lee to be either not particularly skillful at or not particularly interested in telling a traditional story. Girl 6 and Get on the Bus reveal similar attitudes toward dramatic narrative. A visually pyrotechnical examination of a fetching contradiction, Girl 6 presents a young black woman circumspect in her private life who nevertheless works as a phone-sex operator. Although not written by Spike Lee, this experimental work’s flaccid narrative is pumped up by its stunning cinematography. The weirdest scene undoubtedly is a postmodern parody of the television show The Jeffersons; in certain regards Lee’s multiple diegeses in Girl 6 suggest an imitation of Oliver Stone’s controversial Natural Born Killers. Although startlingly inventive in the manner of Jean-Luc Godard, Girl 6 was destined, despite its florid subject, to frustrate a popular audience searching for simple coherence. Get on the Bus, like many of Lee’s films, takes a real historical event as its inspiration: the Million Man March organized by Louis Farrakhan. A beautifully evocative credit sequence of a black man in chains cuts to a cross on a church in South Central Los Angeles— certainly an ambiguous juxtaposition. In Get on the Bus, a variety of black men—each representative of a different strain of the black experience—must share a long, cross-country bus ride on their way to the Washington, D.C. march, a conception which recalls the classic American film à thèse of the fifties (for instance, the Sidney Lumet/ Reginald Rose Twelve Angry Men), where each metaphorical charac- ter is respectively given the spotlight, often through a moving monologue or dramatic scene, thus allowing the narrative to accrue a variety of psychological/sociological insights. Notably for the Lee oeuvre, Get on the Bus includes black gay lovers who are treated three-dimensionally (tellingly, only the black Republican is treated with total derision, thrown off the bus in a scene of comic relief). Like much of Lee’s work, this film has a continuous impulse for music. LEFEBVRE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 586 And there is one stunning montage of beautiful ebony faces. Never- theless, the ending of the film seems anti-climactic, because the characters never quite make it to the Million Man March—a disap- pointing narrative choice perhaps dictated by Lee’s low budget. He Got Game, like many Lee films, seems meandering and a bit undisciplined, if with important themes: here, of father/son recon- ciliation, and the meaning of basketball within black culture. Indeed, never have basketball images been photographed so expressively; and apposite, parallel scenes of one-on-one father/son competition high- light the film. Like Accatone, where Pasolini used Bach on his soundtrack to ennoble his lower-class youth, Lee brilliantly uses the most American composer of all, the lyrical Aaron Copland. Summer of Sam likewise has some extraordinary elements, particularly Lee’s perceptive anatomizing of the complicated sex lives of his Italian and African-American characters. Rarely, too, has a film so expressively evoked such a precise sense of place and time—that chaotic summer when New York City was obsessed and terrified by the Son of Sam serial killer. Unfortunately, audiences were largely indifferent to Lee’s interest in character and texture, disappointed that Summer of Sam did not offer a more traditional narrative focused on the killer and his sadism, in the typical Hollywood style. Curiously, one notes that Lee’s documentary for HBO, 4 Little Girls, reveals some of the same problems as Lee’s recent fiction career. A documentary on a powerfully compelling subject—the four little girls killed in a church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963—4 Little Girls, though politically fascinating, is curiously slack, with its narrative as its weakest link, Lee failing to clearly differentiate his characters and not building suspensefully to a clear climax. Stronger are the film’s individual parts: such as the killer’s attorney characterizing Birmingham as ‘‘a wonderful place to live and raise a family,’’ while Lee shows us an image of a little child in full Klan regalia, hand-in-hand with a parent; or one parent’s the memory of Martin Luther King Jr.’s memorable oration at the funeral—‘‘Life is as hard as steel!’’ As Lee’s career progresses, it becomes increasingly clear that his interest in political insight and the veracity of historical details is what impedes his ability to tell a story in the way the popular audience expects. Whereas Lee once seemed the most likely minority filmmaker to transform the Hollywood establishment, he now seems the filmmaker (like, perhaps Woody Allen) most perpetually in danger of losing his core audience. Do the Right Thing and Malcolm X were successful precisely because Lee was able to fuse popular forms and audience- pleasing entertainment with significant cultural commentary. Lee seems now to be making films which—despite their ambitious subjects and sophisticated points-of-view—disappear almost entirely off the cultural radar screen. Interesting, almost as an aside, is Lee’s canny ability, particularly in his earlier films, to use certain catch phrases which helped both to attract and delight audiences. In She’s Gotta Have It, there was the constant refrain uttered by Spike Lee as Mars Blackmon, ‘‘Please baby, please baby, please baby, baby, baby, please. . . ’’; in Do the Right Thing, the disc jockey’s ‘‘And that’s the truth, Ruth.’’ Notable also is the director’s assembly—in the style of Bergman and Chabrol and Woody Allen in their prime—of a consistent stable of very talented collaborators, including his father, Bill Lee, as musical composer, production designer Wynn Thomas, producer Monty Ross, and cinematographer Ernest Dickerson, among others. Lee has also used many of the same actors from one film to another, including his sister Joie Lee, Wesley Snipes, Denzel Washington, John Turturro, Samuel L. Jackson, Ossie Davis, and Ruby Dee, helping to create a climate which propelled several to stardom and inspired a new wave of high-level attention to a variety of breakout African-American performers. —Charles Derry LEFEBVRE, Jean-Pierre Nationality: Canadian. Born: Montreal, 17 August 1942. Educa- tion: Educated in French Literature, University of Montreal. Ca- reer: Staff writer for Objectif (Montreal), 1960–67; Professor of French, 1963–65; formed Cinak production company, 1969; initiated ‘‘Premières Oeuvres’’ section of Office National du Film, 1969–71; President of Association des Réalisateurs de Films du Quebec, 1974. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1964 L’Homoman (short) (+ pr, ph) 1965 Le Révolutionnaire (+ pr) 1966 Patricia et Jean-Baptiste (+ pr); Mon Oeil (My Eye) (unrealized) 1967 Il ne faut pas mourir pour ?a (Don’t Let It Kill You) (+ pr); Mon Amie Pierrette 1968 Jusqu’au coeur 1969 La Chambre blanche (House of Light) 1970 Un Succès commercial (Q-bec My Love) 1971 Les Maudits sauvages (Those Damned Savages); Ultimatum 1973 On n’engraisse pas les cochons à l’eau claire; Les Dernières Fian?ailles (The Last Betrothal) 1975 Le Gars des vues; L’Amour blessé 1977 Le Vieux Pays ou Rimbaud est mort 1978 Avoir 16 ans 1982 Les Fleurs sauvages (The Wild Flowers) 1983 Au Rythme de mon coeur (To the Rhythm of My Heart) (+ ro, ed, ph) 1984 Le Jour ‘‘S . . . ‘‘ 1987 Laliberté (Alfred Lalibereté, sculpteur) 1988 La Bo?te à soleil (The Box of Sun) 1991 Le Fabuleux voyage de l’ange 1998 Aujourd’hui ou jamais (+ ed) Other Films: 1973 Réjeanne Padovani (role as Jean-Pierre Caron) 1975 L’ ?le jaune (role as Le journaliste) 1997 City of Dark (role as Henry) Publications By LEFEBVRE: book— Parfois quand je vis (poems), Montreal, 1970. LEFEBVREDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 587 Jean-Pierre Lefebvre By LEFEBVRE: articles— ‘‘Complexes d’une technique,’’ in Objectif (Montreal), March 1961. ‘‘L’Equipe fran?aise souffre-t-elle de Roucheole?,’’ with Jean-Claude Pilon, in Objectif (Montreal), August 1962. ‘‘Les Années folles de la critique ou petite histoire des revues de cinéma au Québec,’’ in Objectif (Montreal), October/Novem- ber 1964. ‘‘La Crise du language et le cinéma canadien,’’ in Objectif (Montr- eal), April/May 1965. ‘‘La Méche et la bombe,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1966. ‘‘Les Paradis perdus du cinéma canadien, chapitre 1: notes en guise d’introduction à une préface éventuelle,’’ in Objectif (Montreal), November/December 1966. Interview with Michel Delahaye, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1967. ‘‘Les Paradis perdus du cinéma canadien, chapitre 2: illustration existentielle du chapitre 1 à partir de données oniriques,’’ in Objectif (Montreal), May 1967. ‘‘Les Paradis perdus du cinéma canadien, chapitre 3: Saint Gabiaz, priez pour nous,’’ in Objectif (Montreal), August/September 1967. ‘‘Les Quatres Saisons,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April/May 1968. Interview with M. Amiel, in Cinéma (Paris), December 1972. Interviews with J.-P. Tadros, in Cinéma Québec (Montreal), Decem- ber 1973/January 1974, and no. 6, 1977. ‘‘Des lois et des cadres: La Guerre des gangs,’’ in Cinéma Québec (Montreal), no. 4, 1976. ‘‘Commission d’enquête sur le cinéma organisé,’’ in Cinéma Québec (Montreal), no. 5, 1976. Interview with René Prédal, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), February 1978. Interviews with B. Samuels and S. Barrowclough, in Cinema Canada (Montreal), May 1982. ‘‘Un Métier merveilleusement périlleux,’’ in Copie Zéro (Montreal), October 1984. Interview with C. Racine, in 24 Images (Montreal), Autumn 1984/ Winter 1985. ‘‘La le?on de l’ami Moreau,’’ in Copie Zéro (Montreal), March 1986. ‘‘Le point de vue des cinéastes? Jean Pierre Lefebvre,’’in 24 Images (Montreal), January-February 1990. ‘‘Table ronde sur le cinéma indépendant,’’ a discussion with Marie- Claude Loiselle and Claude Racine, in 24 Images (Montreal), September-October 1994. LEIGH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 588 On LEFEBVRE: books— Marsolais, Gilles, Le Cinéma canadien, Paris, 1968. Cinéastes de Québec 3: Jean-Pierre Lefebvre, Ottawa, 1970. Bérubé, Renald, and Yvan Patry, editors, Jean-Pierre Lefebvre, Montreal, 1971. Barrowclough, Susan, editor, Jean-Pierre Lefebvre: The Quebec Connection, London, 1981. Harcourt, Peter, Jean-Pierre Lefebvre, Ottawa, 1981. On LEFEBVRE: articles— Fraser, Graham, ‘‘The Gentle Revolutionary,’’ in Take One (Montr- eal), October 1967. Larsen, André, ‘‘Le Sens de la contestationet Jean-Pierre Lefebvre,’’ in Le Cinéma Québecois: Tendences et prolongements, Cahiers Ste-Marie, 1968. La Rochelles, Real, and Gilbert Maggi, ‘‘Political Situation of Quebec Cinema,’’ in Cineaste (New York), Summer 1972. Gauthier, G., ‘‘Sur deux films de Jean-Pierre Lefebvre,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), January 1975. Barrowclough, Susan, ‘‘The Films of Jean-Pierre Lefebvre,’’ in Ciné- Tracts (Montreal), Winter 1982. Bessette, M., ‘‘Jean Pierre Lefebvre: au rythme de son coeur,’’ in Copie Zero (Montreal), October 1988. Loiselle, M.-C ‘‘Le pouvoir de l’imaginaire,’’ 24 Images (Montreal), Autumn 1991. Stars (Mariembourg), June 1992. Elia, Maurice, ‘‘Le Prix Albert-Tessier à Jean Pierre Lefebvre,’’ in Séquences (Haute-Ville), January-February 1996. Kelly, Brendan: ‘‘Today or Never (Au jourd’hui ou jamais)’’, in Variety (New York), 26 October 1998. *** There is a filmmaker who has been invited to present his work at the Cannes Film Festival Director’s Fortnight more often than any other filmmaker in the world. His career began, not in film school or under the aegis of a state-funded film organization, but instead as a poet, a critic and as a student and then professor of French literature. The filmmaker is Jean Pierre Lefebvre, a French Canadian, born and educated in Montreal, Quebec, respected and lauded by Francophone film audiences and critics, and yet still relatively unknown in the English–language film world and in the world of commercial cinema. In many ways Lefebvre is the archetypal Francophone intellec- tual. His large film oeuvre is stamped with the imprint of a philoso- pher, a humourist, a poet, an observer, and a humble yet assured commentator on the state of things. Lefebvre’s films play with the idea of relationships: relationships among individuals, between indi- viduals and their surroundings, and between individuals and the language they use and personalize through poetic and colloquial misuse. He is concerned also with the relationship of the elements of film language and the relationship between the film spectator and what is projected on the screen. Lefebvre plays with sound, words and images, succeeding in drawing the spectator’s attention to the possi- bilities contained within language, film language, and the situation in which we confront these vehicles for communication. As the Cana- dian film critic Peter Harcourt observed of Lefebvre’s technique, ‘‘the extended takes give us time not only to experience an action but also to think about what we may be feeling.’’ The work of Lefebvre is also indicative of an intellectual and artistic movement endemic to French Canadians of Quebecois origin, and in particular to those who came of age during the 1960s. Quebecois culture, which had been colonized, both literally and metaphorically, by the French, the English, the Church, and the Americans, made its voice heard at home and on the international front through demonstrations, civil disobedience, and the radical presence of the Front de Liberation du Quebec. Quebecois culture began to assert itself through its vocal and visible difference, a differ- ence that hinged greatly on the language of the Quebecois population. Lefebvre describes the role of film in this historic situation: ‘‘In the late 1950s and 1960s, cinema was terribly important for naming our society, for making it exist in people’s mind.’’ Working within the constraints of small budgets, Lefebvre has constructed film works that speak of a specific political time and place, just as they speak of the universal, philosophical, and humourous personal and sexual conditions. Lefebvre’s wife and collaborator, the late Marguerite Duparc, acted as editor and producer on many of Lefebvre’s works as well as co-directing Cinak, the production company set up by Lefebvre in the late 1960s. Duparc was known to sacrifice her own creative projects in order to ensure that monetary assistance would be concentrated on Lefebvre’s own works. The situation for fiction filmmakers in Quebec during the 1970s and 1980s was economically difficult. Lefebvre’s work is ‘‘political’’ in the personal, formal, and aesthetic sense and not always in the easily identifiable party political sense. His style varies with the subject matter he tackles, as he adapts the structure of his features to the nature of the narratives and the queries they pose. Similar in some ways to Godard and Bresson, two filmmakers to whose work Lefebvre’s has been compared, Lefebvre often experiments with sound and image. At the same time, he stands apart from his contemporaries in the Quebecois film industry and cannot be grouped with any particular indigenous movement. Never- theless, the film work of Lefebvre continues to attract critical and public attention for its continuing commitment to the politics and the beauty of language, of Quebecois culture, and of the fine art of cinema. —Clea H. Notar LEIGH, Mike Nationality: British. Born: Salford, Lancashire, 20 February 1943. Education: Attended North Grecian Street County Primary School, Salford, and Salford Grammar School; studied at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, London, 1960–62, Camberwell School of Arts and Crafts, London, 1963–64, Central School of Art and Design, London, 1964–65, and London Film School, 1965. Family: Married actress Alison Steadman, 1973; two sons. Career: Founded, with David Halliwell, the production company Dramagraph, London, 1965; associate director, Midlands Art Centre for Young People, Birming- ham, 1965–66; actor, Victoria Theatre, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, LEIGHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 589 Mike Leigh 1966; assistant director, Royal Shakespeare Company, 1967–68; lecturer, Sedgley Park and De La Salle colleges, Manchester, 1968–69, London Film School, 1970–73; founded Thin Man Films, with producer Simon Channing-Wilson, 1989; directed TV advertise- ments, 1991. Awards: Grands Prix, Chicago and Locarno festivals, 1972, for Bleak Moments; International Critics Prize, Venice, 1988, for High Hopes; Best Film Prize, National Society of Film Critics, 1991, for Life Is Sweet; Best Direction Prize, Cannes Film Festival, 1993, for Naked. Agent: Peters, Fraser and Dunlop, 503–4 The Chambers, Chelsea Harbour, London SW1O OXF, England. Ad- dress: Lives in Muswell Hill, North London. Films as Director: (Feature films) 1971 Bleak Moments 1988 High Hopes 1990 Life Is Sweet 1993 Naked 1996 Secrets and Lies 1997 Career Girls 1999 Topsy-Turvy (Television films) 1972 A Mugs Game; Hard Labour 1975 The Permissive Society; group of five 5-minute films: The Birth of the 2001 FA Cup Final Goalie; Old Chums; Probation; A Light Snack; Afternoon 1976 Nuts in May; Plays for Britain (title sequence only); Knock for Knock; The Kiss of Death 1977 Abigail’s Party 1978 Who’s Who 1980 Grown-Ups 1982 Home Sweet Home 1983 Meantime 1985 Four Days in July 1987 The Short and Curlies 1992 A Sense of History LEIGH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 590 Publications By LEIGH: books— Mike Leigh, Interviews: Interviews (Conversations with Filmmakers), edited by Howie Movshovitz, Jackson, 2000. On LEIGH: books— Clements, Paul, The Improvised Play: The Work of Mike Leigh, London, 1983. Coveney, Michael, The World according to Mike Leigh, New York, 1996. Carney, Ray, The Films of Mike Leigh: Embracing the World, New York, 2000. By LEIGH: articles— ‘‘Bleak Moments,’’ an interview with C. Montvalon, in Image et Son, December 1973. ‘‘Mike Leigh, miniaturiste du social,’’ an interview with Isabelle Ruchti, in Positif (Paris), April 1989. ‘‘Life Is Sweet/A Conversation with Mike Leigh,’’ an interview with Barbara Quart, Leonard Quart, and J. Bloch, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1992. ‘‘Mike Leigh. Chaos in der Vorstadt,’’ an interview with Robert Fischer, in EPD Film (Frankfurt), February 1994. ‘‘L’histoire d’un bad boy,’’ an interview with Cécile Mury, in Télérama (Paris), 10 May 1995. ‘‘Gloom with a View,’’ an interview with Steve Grant, in Time Out (London), 22 May 1996. ‘‘A Conversation with Mike Leigh,’’ an interview with S.B. Katz, in Written By. Journal: The Writers Guild of America, West (Los Angeles), October 1996. ‘‘Exposures & Truths,’’ an interview with A. White, in Variety’s On Production (Los Angeles), no. 10, 1996. ‘‘Life by Mike Leigh,’’ an interview with S. Johnston, in Interview, November 1996. ‘‘Secrets & Lies/ Raising Questions and Positing Possibilities,’’ an interview with Richard Porton and Leonard Quart, in Cineaste (New York), March 1997. ‘‘How to Direct a DGA-nominated Feature: Jeremy Kagan Inter- views Four Who Did,’’ in DGA Magazine (Los Angeles), May- June 1997. Interview with P. Malone, in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), September 1997. On LEIGH: articles— Taylor, John Russell, ‘‘Giggling beneath the Waves: The Uncosy World of Mike Leigh,’’ in Sight and Sound, Winter 1982/83. Boyd, William, ‘‘Seeing Is Believing,’’ in New Statesman, 17 Sep- tember 1982. French, Sean, ‘‘Life on the Edge without a Script,’’ in Observer Magazine, 8 January 1989. Ruchti, Isabelle, ‘‘Mike Leigh, miniaturiste du social,’’ in Positif, April 1989. Kermode, Mark, ‘‘Inherently and Inevitably Awful: Mike Leigh,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin, March 1991. Cieutat, Michel, ‘‘Glauques esperances,’’ in Positif, September 1991. Kennedy, Harlan, ‘‘Mike Leigh about His Stuff,’’ in Film Comment, September/October 1991. Hoberman, J., ‘‘Cassavetes and Leigh: Poets of the Ordinary,’’ in Premiere, October 1991. Adams, Mark, ‘‘A Long Weekend with Mike Leigh,’’ in National Film Theatre Programme, May 1993. Naked Issue of L’Avant-Scene du Cinéma, November 1993. Berthin-Scaillet, Agnes, ‘‘Lignes de fuite,’’ in Positif, November 1993. Medhurst, Andy, ‘‘Mike Leigh: Beyond Embarrassment,’’ in Sight and Sound, November 1993. Ellickson, Lee, and Richard Porton, ‘‘I Find the Tragicomic Things in Life,’’ in Cineaste, vol. 20, no. 3, 1994. Smith, Gavin, ‘‘Worlds Apart,’’ in Film Comment, September/ October 1994. Paletz, Gabriel M., and David L. Paletz, ‘‘Mike Leigh’s Naked Truth,’’ in Film Criticism, Winter 1994/95. Herpe, No?l and O’Neill, Eithne and Ciment, Michel, ‘‘Secrets et mensonges,’’ in Positif (Paris), September 1996. Kino (Warsaw), February 1998. *** The international success, both critical and popular, of Secrets and Lies in 1996 brought British director Mike Leigh his widest recogni- tion to date and almost drew him into the mainstream. However, this fiercely independent minded, and individualistically creative director chose to continue along the same road he had been traveling for some 25 years. Like his compatriots Ken Loach and Stephen Frears, Mike Leigh had built up a remarkable body of television work years before he became known to a wider international audience with his film High Hopes. As early as 1982 the BBC screened a retrospective of his work, as well as devoting a whole edition of its arts programme Arena to him. By contrast, Americans had to wait another ten years to see what had led up to High Hopes, when the New York Museum of Modern Art staged a retrospective in 1992. In fact, High Hopes was only Leigh’s second feature in seventeen years, the first being Bleak Moments, which was largely funded by Albert Finney’s company Memorial Enterprises (also behind Stephen Frears’s Gumshoe in 1971) at a time when the British cinema had almost ceased to exist—- or, as Leigh puts it, ‘‘was alive and well and hiding-out in television, mostly at the BBC.’’ So, as the critic Sean French wrote in an article on the director in the Observer: ‘‘For years Leigh has been making better and more penetrating films than anyone else about the class system (Nuts in May and Grown-Ups), unemployment (Meantime), Northern Ireland (Four Days in July), and family life under Thatcher (High Hopes). By almost any reckoning Leigh should be considered one of our major film directors, yet he is virtually ignored in most considerations of British cinema.’’ With the release of Naked this situation improved somewhat, but it is hard to avoid the conclusion that although Leigh is better known in Britain than he was formerly, he remains, like Ken Loach, generally more highly regarded abroad than in his own country. That Leigh has found it difficult to make feature films is certainly a sad comment on the often sickly state of the British film industry. But as he himself admits, his approach to filmmaking could seem off- putting even to the most sympathetic of financiers: ‘‘I only accept a project if nobody else wants to know what it’s going to be. I come along and say ‘I’ve got no script, I really don’t know what I’m going to do, just give me the money and I’ll bugger off and do it.’’’ And LEIGHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 591 doing it is time-consuming—the rehearsals for High Hopes took a not untypical fifteen weeks. It is impossible to discuss Leigh’s work without discussing his working methods, even though there’s an unfortunate tendency amongst critics to fetishise these to the point of ignoring what the resulting films are actually all about. Leigh himself has referred to such writings as ‘‘an albatross, a media preoccupation,’’ but since misunderstandings abound and are often used as a basis on which to attack his work, it is important to understand what he is doing. In fact, his methods have changed little since he developed them in the theatre in the mid-1960s. As he said in 1973: ‘‘I begin with a general area which I want to investigate. I choose my actors and tell them that I don’t want to talk to them about the play. (There is no play at this stage.) I ask them to think of several people of their own age. Then we discuss these people till we find the character I want.’’ Each actor then builds up his or her own character through a lengthy process of research and improvisation, both in the rehearsal room and in real locations. Only when the actors have fully ‘found’ their characters are they brought together and the all-important relationships are formed between the characters: the play is what happens to the characters, what they make for themselves. Behaviour dictates situation.’’ For Leigh there is no great mystique about improvisation; as he described it in 1980: ‘‘Improvisation is actually a practical way of investigating real-life going on the way real life actually operates. That’s all.’’ At the same time, however, he is utterly opposed to the notion of improvisation as ‘‘some kind of all-in anarchic democ- racy.’’ To quote from the same 1980 interview: ‘‘It is a question of discovering what the film or play is about by making the film. It isn’t a committee job nor is it ‘let’s just see what happens and go along with it.’ Nor is it a question of shooting a lot of footage in which actors improvise. In my films 98 percent is structured.’’ The main work, therefore, is done in research, improvisation, and rehearsal long before the cameras appear; by that time ‘‘there’s very much a script. It just so happens that I don’t start with a document, that’s all. What finally appears on screen is only very, very rarely improvised in front of the camera. For the most part it’s arrived at through a long process, and it’s finally pinned down and rehearsed and very disciplined, while the quality of the language and the imagery is heightened. . . Improvisation and research are simply tactics, a means to an end and not an end in themselves.’’ It is for these reasons that most of his television films carry the unique credit ‘‘devised and directed by Mike Leigh,’’ and the theater critic Benedict Nightingale once described him as ‘‘part composer, part conductor, part catalyst.’’ And whatever the critical misunderstandings surrounding Leigh’s method, it certainly brings results. His cast lists have included some of Britain’s finest younger actors, such as Alison Steadman, Anthony Sher, Jim Broadbent, Gary Oldman, Tim Roth, Lindsay Duncan, David Thewlis, Frances Barber, and Jane Horrocks, many of whom have done some of their best work for him. Given Leigh’s improvisatory methods, it is no surprise to find that films such as On the Waterfront, Rebel without a Cause, and Shadows were early influences. Rather more interesting, however, is his citing of the playwrights Beckett and Pinter and the artists Hogarth, Gilray, and Rowlandson as major inspirations. This points us towards a cen- tral fact of Leigh’s oeuvre: that it is absolutely not naturalistic, and that critics who have tried to pigeonhole it as such are largely to blame for the tired old saw that Leigh cannot portray ‘‘real people’’ without sneering or laughing at them, or being condescending. Perhaps the best way to describe Leigh’s work is as distilled or heightened realism, which certainly does not preclude elements of humour and even caricature in his depiction of character. For example, the frightful yuppies the Booth-Braines in High Hopes and the appalling Jeremy in Naked are certainly caricatures but they are entirely, indeed all too, believable, as is the terrifying Beverly in Abigail’s Party. For all the demotic, quotidian surface appearances of his films, Leigh expresses a remarkably consistent and personal view through them. In his work, implicitly, a great deal is suggested about the way life might, or should, be by showing, in a particular way, the world as it actually is. Speaking at the time of the release of High Hopes Leigh talked revealingly of ‘‘distilling my metaphor out of an absolutely tangible, real and solid and plausible and vulnerable and unheroic and unexotic kind of world,’’ and not for nothing in that film does he have his most positive characters, Cyril and Shirley, visit the tomb of Karl Marx in Highgate Cemetery, on which is written: ‘‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.’’ Not that Leigh offers any easy answers—and certainly not Marxist solutions—something else which has hardly endeared him to the Left in Britain. Or as he puts it: ‘‘For me the whole experience of making films is one of discovery. What is important, it seems to me, is that you share questions with the audience, and they have to go away with things to work on. That’s not a cop out. It is my natural, instinctive way of story-telling and sharing ideas, predica- ments, feelings and emotions.’’ On the other hand, as a perceptive article in Cineaste remarked: ‘‘Although Leigh resolutely refuses to engage in sloganeering, his films are acutely political since they consistently articulate an often hilarious critique of everyday life. This critique is always rooted in the idiosyncracies of individual characters.’’ If anything could sum up Leigh’s vision it might be Thoreau’s famous remark about the mass of people living ‘‘lives of quiet desperation,’’ and one is also reminded of Chekov in the way his films seem constantly to hover between comedy and tragedy, with despair lurking never very far beneath the surface. As he himself once remarked, ‘‘there’s no piece that isn’t, somewhere along the way, a lamentation for the awfulness of life.’’ In more specifically English terms other reference points might be Alan Ayckbourn (however much Leigh would disagree), Alan Bennett, and Victoria Wood. Although his films are often taken to be about ‘‘Englishness’’—or even more specifically, about life under the appalling social experi- ment commonly known as Thatcherism (although much of Leigh’s work actually predates the egregious regime)—their success abroad suggests that they tap into rather more universal doubts and fears about the human condition. This is certainly the case with Naked, which, through Johnny’s rantings and ravings about chaos theory, Nostradamus, Revelations, and God knows what else, achieves much more than a particularly rancid glimpse of a squalid corner of this septic isle and exudes an imminent, all-pervasive sense of geo- political doom. Yet there is something quintessentially English about Leigh’s films, and maybe that is why certain English people do not like them. As the novelist William Boyd observed in a piece on Leigh in the New Statesman, on the occasion of the above-mentioned BBC retrospec- tive: ‘‘Any edginess or unease prompted by his observations can only be a sign that certain truths are too uncomfortable for some critics to acknowledge. Ostrich complexes are easily fostered; complacency is a very tolerable frame of mind.’’ And not for nothing did Vincent Canby once describe Leigh as not only ‘‘the most innovative of contemporary English filmmakers’’ but ‘‘also the most subversive.’’ Whether it’s the cruelly, painfully funny examination of preternatural shyness and sexual ineptitude of Bleak Moments, the suburban LELOUCH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 592 Strindberg of Abigail’s Party, or the excruciating family row into which High Hopes gradually boils up, the vision of England that emerges, though leavened by absurdity, humour, and moments of human warmth and togetherness, is hardly an attractive one. As Andy Medhurst remarked in one of the better British pieces on Leigh: ‘‘This England is specific, palpable and dire, though aspects of it are at the same time liable to inspire a kind of wry resignation.... If anything, Englishness is revealed as a kind of pathological condition, emotion- ally warping and stunting, to which the only response can be a kind of damage limitation. What many of Leigh’s films suggest is that to be English is to be locked in a prison where politeness, gaucheness and anxiety about status form the bars across the window.... His best films (Bleak Moments, Grown-Ups, Meantime) exemplify his skills as a choreographer of awkwardness, a geometrician of embarrass- ments, able to orchestrate layers of accumulated tiny cruelties and failures of comunication until they swell into a crescendo of extrava- gant farce.’’ These elements synthesised into a perfectly orchestrated exposp of racial bigotry and trumped-up suburban pretension in Secrets and Lies which, though profoundly ‘‘English’’ in its locales and modes of spoken expression, cut through cultural barriers to touch a universal nerve. Combining humor with its sly attack on value systems and its overt critique of racist misperceptions, Secrets and Lies offers an unusually (for Leigh) clear redemptive ending to the upheavals caused when a young black woman (Marianne Jean-Baptiste), given up for adoption at birth, seeks out her real mother (Brenda Blethyn) only to discover that she is white. Garlanded with honors, awards, and Oscar nominations, the film made Mike Leigh more bankable than he had ever been and he embarked on his next feature film with unprecedented speed. However, Career Girls, released to eagerly expectant critics and audiences the following year, seemed to puzzle rather than please, and was not a success. It is difficult to account for this reaction. The film, which cuts back and forth between the present—when two young women who shared a flat in their college years meet up again for a weekend in London—and their shared past, certainly deviates from its maker’s previous work in the close focus on the protagonists, each trapped in her own private disillusion, rather than observing a broad canvas of interaction. However, it’s beautifully observed, well- played, and very accessible. Perhaps audiences, post-Secrets and Lies, were more interested in at least the promise of a happy ending than in the unmistakably bleak emotional territory occupied by Career Girls. Mike Leigh ended the 20th century by striking out in a most unexpected direction with Topsy-Turvy, dealing with the relationship between Gilbert and Sullivan and the genesis and first production of The Mikado. It is in many ways a surprising departure: at heart, an old- fashioned backstage story, realised as a visually accurate period piece, and offering sumptuous and joyous extracts from The Mikado. The film points to Leigh’s particular sensibility in the threads of unhappiness that run through several of the characters’ lives, but, it’s something of a rag-bag of ideas that never quite fuse into a successful vision. If nothing else, though, Topsy-Turvy demonstrates and con- firms that Mike Leigh’s imagination is not static and that he is undeniably very much an ‘‘auteur,’’ while the number of awards and nominations it garnered, including those from the British critics and BAFTA, might indicate that appreciation of his gifts in his home country is increasing. —Julian Petley, updated by Robyn Karney LELOUCH, Claude Nationality: French. Born: Paris, 30 October 1937. Family: Married Christine Cochet, 1968 (divorced), one son, two daughters; married Maie-Sophie Pochat (aka Marie-Sophie L.), three children. Career: Maker of short films as ‘‘cinereporter,’’ 1956–58; served in Service- Cinéma des Armées (S.C.A.), 1958–60; founder, Les Films 13 production company, 1960; made some 250 ‘‘scopitones,’’ 2–3 minute mini-musicals shown on a type of jukebox, 1960–62; directed first feature, 1962. Awards: Prize at Cannes’ Amateur Film Festival, for La Mal du siecle, 1953; Oscars for Best Foreign Film and Best Story and Screenplay, and Palme d’Or, Cannes Festival, for Un Homme et une femme, 1966; Grand Prix du Cinéma fran?ais, for Vivre pour vivre, 1967; Prix Raoul Levy, 1970. Address: 15 avenue Hoche, 75008 Paris, France. Films as Director: 1953 Le Mal du siècle (+ pr, sc, ed); USA en vrac (+ pr, sc, ed) 1957 Quand le rideau se lève (+ pr, sc, ed) 1959 La Guerre du silence (+ pr, sc, ed); Les Mécaniciens de l’armée de l’air (+ pr, sc, ed); S.O.S. hélicoptère (+ pr, sc, ed) 1960 Le Propre de l’homme (The Right of Man) (+ pr, sc, role as Claude); La Femme spectacle (Night Women) (+ pr, sc) 1964 Une Fille et des fusils (To Be a Crook) (+ pr, sc, ph); Vingt- quatre heures d’amant (+ pr, sc) 1965 Les Grands Moments (+ pr, sc, ph); Jean-Paul Belmondo (+ pr, sc); Pour un maillot jaune (+ pr, sc) 1966 Un Homme et une femme (A Man and a Woman) (+ co-ed, ph, sc) 1967 Vivre pour vivre (Live for Life) (+ pr, sc); episode of Loin du Vietnam (Far from Vietnam) 1968 Treize jours en France (Grenoble) (+ co-ph, pr, sc); La Vie, l’amour, la mort (Life Love Death) (+ co-sc, pr) 1969 Un Homme qui me pla?t (Love Is a Funny Thing) (+ co-pr, co-sc) 1970 Le Voyou (The Crook) (+ pr, sc) 1971 Smic Smac Smoc (+ ph, pr, sc); Glories of Iran 1972 L’Aventure c’est l’aventure (Money Money Money) (+ co-sc, pr); La Bonne année (Happy New Year) (+ co-pr, co-sc, ph) 1973 ‘‘The Losers’’ episode in Visions of Eight (+ co-sc, pr) 1974 Toute une vie (And Now My Love) (+ pr, sc); Mariage (Marriage) (+ co-sc, pr) 1975 Le Chat et la souris (Cat and Mouse) (+ pr, sc); Le Bon et les méchants (The Good and the Bad) (+ pr, sc) 1976 Rendez-vous (+ pr, sc); Si c’était à refaire (If I Had to Do It All over Again) (+ ph, pr, sc) 1977 Another Man, Another Chance (+ co-pr, sc) 1978 Robert et Robert (+ pr, sc) 1979 à nous deux (An Adventure for Two; Us Two) (+ pr, sc) 1981 Les Uns et les autres (+ pr, sc) 1982 Edith et Marcel (Edith and Marcel) (+ pr, sc); Bolero 1984 Vive la Vie! 1985 Partir, revenir (Going and Coming Back) (+ pr, sc) 1986 Un Homme et une femme: Vingt ans déja (A Man and a Woman: Twenty Years Later) 1987 Attention Bandits (Bandits) 1988 L’Itinéraire d’un enfant gaté (Itinerary of a Spoiled Child) (+ co-pr, sc) LELOUCHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 593 1990 Il y a des Jours . . . et des Lunes (There Were Days and Moons) (+ co-pr, sc) 1992 La belle histoire (The Beautiful Story) (+ pr, sc) 1993 Tout ca . . . pour ca! (All That . . . for This?!) (+ pr, sc) 1995 Les miserables (+ sc, pr, co-ph) 1996 Hommes, femmes, mode d’emploi (Men, Women: A User’s Manual) (+ sc, pr) 1998 Hasards ou coincidences (Chances and Coincidences) (+ sc) 1999 Une pour toutes (One 4 All) (+ sc, pr, ph, ro) Other Films: 1988 Happy New Year (Avildsen) (role) Publications By LELOUCH: books— A Man and a Woman, with Pierre Uytterhoeven, New York, 1971. Ma vie pour un film, with Yonnick Flot, Paris, 1986. By LELOUCH: articles— ‘‘Un homme et une femme Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), December 1966. ‘‘Claude Lelouch at the Olympic Games,’’ an interview, in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), November 1972. Interview with J. Craven, in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), March 1974. Interview with P. Lev, in Take One (Montreal), August 1977. Interview with S. McMillin, in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), February 1978. Interview with Tim Pulleine, in Sight and Sound (London), Sum- mer 1983. Interview with P. Carcassonne, in Cinématographe (Paris), May 1984. Interview and filmography in La Revue du Cinéma (Paris), March 1988. Interview with M. Elia, in Séquences (Montreal), March 1989. Interview in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1990. Interview with Trevor Johnston, in Time Out (London), 31 Janu- ary 1996. Interview with E. Libiot, in Cineforum (Bergamo), November 1996. On LELOUCH: books— Armes, Roy, French Cinema since 1946: Vol. 2—The Personal Style, New York, 1966. Guidez, Guylaine, Claude Lelouch, Paris, 1972. Ronchetti, Pierluigi, Claude Lelouch, Citta di Castello, Italy, 1979. Tonnerre, Jerome, Lelouch filme les uns et les autres: histoire d’un tournage, Paris, 1982. Lev, Peter, Claude Lelouch, Film Director, New York, 1983. Alberti, Olympia, Lelouch Passion, Paris, 1987. On LELOUCH: articles— ‘‘Lelouch: table ronde,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), May 1965. Comolli, Jean-Louis, ‘‘Claude Lelouch, ou la bonne conscience retrouvée,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1966. Perisset, Maurice, ‘‘Le Cas Lelouch,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), May 1969. Carroll, Kathleen, article in Daily News (New York), 2 Decem- ber 1973. Garel, A., ‘‘A propos de Toute une vie ou Lelouchiens si vous saviez,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), January 1975. Eyles, A., ‘‘And Now My Love,’’ in Focus on Film (London), Summer 1975. Lardine, Bob, article in Daily News (New York), 24 July 1977. Lewis, Flora, article in The New York Times, 14 July 1978. Profile in Millimeter (New York), October 1982. Johnston, Sheila, ‘‘The Ins and Outs of Claude Lelouch,’’ in Stills (London), July/August 1983. ‘‘Claude Lelouch,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1986. Hunter, Allan, ‘‘A Man and a Woman: Twenty Years Later,’’ in Films and Filming (London), August 1986. Miller, Judith, article in New York Times, 14 August 1986. Elia, M., ‘‘Claude Lelouch,’’ in Séquences (Montreal), April 1987. Elia, M.,’’Claude Lelouch. Itinéraire d’un enfant gaté,’’ in Séquences (Haute-Ville), March 1989. Remy, Vincent and Rouchy, Marie-élisabeth, ‘‘Chabadabada/Tout ?a?pour ?a,’’ in Télérama (Paris), 16 June 1993. Calderale, M., ‘‘Claude Lelouch,’’ in Segnocinema (Vicenza), March/ April 1997. *** The films of Claude Lelouch may be classified under three diverse headings: romance, crime, and liberal politics. Occasionally, they focus on one specific area; more often, the categories will be combined. A Man and a Woman is a pure and simple love story. Despite Lelouch’s many commercial successes, he is most identified with this glossy, gimmicky, tremendously popular tale of script girl Anouk Aimée, a widow, and her widower counterpart, race car driver Jean- Louis Trintignant. A Man and a Woman became one of the most beloved romantic films of its time, a favorite of young couples. The scenario may be a soap opera, photographed on what some critics perceive as postcard-pretty locations; still, it is emotionally touching and truthful. Most significantly, there is refreshingly flexible camera work. Lelouch, who also served as photographer for the film (besides co-editing the film and co-authoring the screenplay), uses his camera like a paintbrush, with total ease and freedom. More typically, Lelouch mixes several genres together in his work. He combines love and politics in Live for Life, the story of television journalist Yves Montand, whose work takes him to Viet- nam and Africa; this character leaves devoted wife Annie Girardot for fashion model Candice Bergen. The filmmaker combines love and crime in Happy New Year, in which two robbers plan a caper and one falls for the proprietress of a nearby antique store. He blends crime and politics in Money, Money, Money, in which a gang of crooks realize that the changing times will allow them to gain greater profits by committing political crimes. Lelouch has always had one eye on box office receipts, once too often selecting his subject matter with commercial potential being the sole consideration. Early in his career he directed Night Woman, a relatively erotic film about, as the filmmaker explains, ‘‘all the kinds LENI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 594 of women one wouldn’t like to marry,’’ in the hope of earning a financial success. His first box office hit, however, was To Be a Crook, the story of four men and a deaf-and-dumb girl who become kidnappers and murderers; highlighted are gunfights and a striptease. Lelouch does have political concerns: he participated (with Alain Resnais, Jean-Luc Godard, Joris Ivens, William Klein, and Agnes Varda) in the anti-war compilation film Far from Vietnam. And he has made quite a few delightfully clever entertainments: Happy New Year; Money, Money, Money; and Cat and Mouse, a mystery-comedy about a police inspector’s efforts to uncover a rich philanderer’s killer. Other films include The Crook and And Now My Love, which utilizes comedy, music, and drama to unite lovers Marthe Keller and Andre Dussollier. Yet he will all too often repeat himself, with uninspired results. For example, Live for Life, the follow-up to A Man and a Woman, is just too frilly, a slickly photographed soap opera lacking the warmth of its predecessor. Another Man, Another Chance is a blatant rip-off of A Man and a Woman, with James Caan the widower and Genevieve Bujold the widow. None of Lelouch’s recent films have in any way upgraded his status in the pantheon of filmmakers. Un Homme et une Femme: Vingt ans deja (A Man and a Woman: Twenty Years Later) is an uninspired attempt to capture the spark of its predecessor. L’Itineraire d’un enfant gate (Itinerary of a Spoiled Child) is the contrived tale of an industrialist who sets off on a sailing trip around the world, while Attention Bandits (Bandits) is the by-the-numbers account of a young woman who learns that her father, with whom she’s been correspond- ing for years, is in prison for a crime he did not commit. Il y a des Jours . . . et des lunes (There Were Days and Moons) has a clever premise—the lives of various people are controlled by time reversing itself—but the result is instantly forgettable. La Belle histoire is an ambitious but muddled epic, whose scenario covers the biblical era in ancient Rome to the present. In the equally unimpressive Tout Ca . . . pour Ca! (All That . . . for This?!), a woman attorney attempts to discern the truth from three jailed working-class crooks, whose problems stem from the women in their lives; in a parallel story, a married judge has an affair with an equally married woman lawyer. Conversely, Les miserables, an ambitious, three-hour-long epic ‘‘freely adapted’’ from the Victor Hugo novel, was Lelouch’s best film in years. Despite his many successes, however, Claude Lelouch ulti- mately cannot be ranked with the top filmmakers of his generation. —Rob Edelman LENI, Paul Nationality: German. Born: Stuttgart, 8 July 1885. Career: Painter and stage designer, and member of avant-garde movement associated with publication Der Sturm, Berlin, 1900s; production designer, from 1914; directed first film, 1916; also worked as scenarist and actor; hired for Universal in Hollywood by Carl Laemmle, 1927. Died: Of blood poisoning, 2 September 1929. Films as Director: 1916 Das Tagebuch des Dr. Hart 1917 Dornr?schen (+ sc) 1919 Platonische Ehe (+ co-prod des); Prinz Kuckuk (+ co-prod des) 1920 Patience (+ sc, prod des) 1921 Fiesco (Die Verschw?hrung zu Genua) (+ co-prod des); Das Gespensterschiff (+ prod des); Hintertreppe (Backstairs) (co-d, prod des); Kom?die der Leidenschaften (+ prod des) 1924 Das Wachsfigurenkabinett (Waxworks) (+ prod des) 1927 The Cat and the Canary (in US); The Chinese Parrot (in US) 1928 The Man Who Laughs (in US) 1929 The Last Warning (in US) Other Films: 1914 Das Panzergew?lbe (May) (prod des) 1915 Der Katzensteg (Mack) (prod des); Das achte Gebot (Mack) (prod des) 1917 Das R?tsel von Bangalor (assoc d, co-sc) 1920 Der weisse Pfau (Dupont) (co-prod des, co-sc); Die Schuld der Lavinia Morland (May) (co-prod des, role); Veritas Vincit (May) (co-prod des) 1921 Die Geier Wally (Dupont) (prod des); Kinder der Finsternis (Dupont) (prod des) 1922 Frauenopfer (Grüne) (prod des) 1923 Trag?die der Liebe (May) (prod des) 1925 Die Frau von vierzig Jahren (Oswald) (prod des); Der Farmer aux Texas (May) (prod des); Der T?nzer meiner Frau (Korda) (prod des) 1926 Manon Lescaut (Robinson) (costumes); Fiaker Nr. 13 (Kertesz) (prod des); Wie einst im Mai (Wolff) (prod des); Der goldene Schmetterling (Kertesz) (prod des) Publications By LENI: article— ‘‘L’image comme action,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), February 1982. On LENI: books— Kracauer, Siegfried, From Caligari to Hitler, Princeton, 1947. Eisner, Lotte, The Haunted Screen: Expressionism in the German Cinema and the Influence of Max Reinhardt, Berkeley, 1969. Willett, John, Art and Politics in the Weimar Period: The New Sobriety 1917–1933, New York, 1978. Bock, Hans-Michael, Paul Leni: Grafik, Theater, Film, Frankfurt, 1986. On LENI: articles— Buache, Freddy, ‘‘Paul Leni 1885–1929,’’ in Anthologie du Cinéma (Paris), vol. 4, 1968. ‘‘Paul Leni,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1986. Brandlmeier, Thomas, ‘‘Paul Leni,’’ in EPD Film (Frankfurt), vol. 3, no. 12, December 1986. *** LEONEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 595 Siegfried Kracauer, in From Caligari to Hitler, calls Paul Leni ‘‘one of the outstanding film directors of the post-World War I era,’’ and refers to the Jack-the-Ripper episode of Waxworks as being ‘‘among the greatest achievements of film art.’’ Yet Leni’s name is familiar only to film scholars today. Leni predates Hitchcock as a maker of thrillers; the screen clichés of trembling hands intent on murdering unsuspecting innocents, and corpses falling from opened doors, were first presented in his The Cat and the Canary. Excluding the films of Lon Chaney, he was the foremost practitioner of utilizing make-up to create grotesque crea- tures, silent-screen monsters who terrified audiences by looks alone. Leni’s death from blood poisoning at age forty-four denied the cinema what might have developed into a major career. Leni com- menced his work in the German cinema as a painter, set designer, and art director, most notably collaborating with Max Reinhardt. These concerns carry through into his own films: his sets are strikingly stylized, dreamlike, and expressionistic. Leni’s attempt to go beyond the limits of photographed reality utilizing set and costume design was never more successfully realized than in Das Wachsfigurenkabinett (Waxworks). The film, with its distorted sets and ingenious lighting, is as profound an example of surreal cinematic madness as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Three of the best-known actors in the post-World War I German cinema starred as the wax-work villains: Emil Jannings, Conrad Veidt, and Werner Krauss. Each appears in a separate episode as, respectively, Haroun-al-Raschid, Ivan the Terrible (who places hourglasses near each of his poison victims, so that they will know the exact moment of their deaths), and Jack the Ripper (a sequence that, in its dreaminess, is extremely Caligari-like). Veidt’s Ivan allegedly influenced Sergei Eisenstein’s conception of the character. Like many foreign talents of the period, Leni ended up in Holly- wood. As a result of his success with Waxworks, he was signed by Universal’s Carl Laemmle. His first project was The Cat and the Canary, the original haunted-house movie and quite unlike its succes- sor: here, heiress Laura La Plante and her nervous cronies spend a night in an old dark house. To his credit, Leni did not sensationalize the material. The film’s chills result from atmosphere, from stylized, expressionistic set design. The mansion, seen in the distance, is eerily gothic; inside are long, winding corridors and staircases. The Cat and the Canary is not just a chiller, in that Leni adds charming touches of humor to the scenario. Paul Leni made only four features in Holly- wood. His final one, prophetically titled The Last Warning, was his only talkie. —Rob Edelman LEONE, Sergio Nationality: Italian. Born: Rome, 3 January 1929. Education: Attended law school, Rome. Family: Son of director Vincenzo Leone; married Carla (Leone), 1960, three daughters. Career: Assist- ant to, then second unit director for, Italian filmmakers and American directors working in Italy, such as LeRoy, Walsh, and Wyler, 1947–56; Sergio Leone scriptwriter, from late 1950s; directed first feature, Il colosso di Rodi, 1961; headed own production company, Rafran Cinematografica, 1970s. Died: In Rome, April 1989. Films as Director: 1961 Il colosso di Rodi (The Colossus of Rhodes) (+ co-sc) 1964 Per un pugno di dollari (A Fistful of Dollars) (+ co-sc) 1965 Per qualche dollaro in più (For a Few Dollars More) (+ co-sc) 1966 Il buono il brutto il cattivo (The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly) (+ co-sc) 1968 C’era una volta il West (Once upon a Time in the West) (+ co-sc) 1972 Giù la testa (Duck, You Sucker; Il était une fois la révolution) (+ co-sc) 1975 Un genio due compari e un pollo (+ co-sc) 1984 Once upon a Time in America (+ co-sc) Other Films: 1958 Nel segno di Roma (Sign of the Gladiator) (co-sc) 1959 Gli ultimi giorni di Pompeii (The Last Days of Pompeii) (Bonnard) (co-sc, uncredited co-d) LEONE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 596 1961 Sodoma e Gommorra (Sodom and Gomorrah) (Aldrich) (2nd unit d, co-d according to some sources) 1973 My Name Is Nobody (story idea) 1978 Il gatto (pr) Publications By LEONE: book— Conversations avec Sergio Leone, edited by Noel Simsolo, Paris, 1987. By LEONE: articles— Interview, in Take One (Montreal), January/February 1972. ‘‘Il était une fois la révolution,’’ interview with G. Braucourt, in Ecran (Paris), May 1972. ‘‘Pastalong Cassidy Always Wears Black,’’ with Cynthia Grenier, in Oui (Chicago), April 1973. Interview with M. Chion and others, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1984. Interview with J.P. Domecq and J.A. Gili, in Positif (Paris), June 1984. Interview with M. Corliss and E. Lomenzo, in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1984. Interview with G. Graziani, in Filmcritica (Florence), October/ November 1984. Interview in Segnocinema (Vicenza), vol. 4, no. 12, March 1984. Interview in Revue du Cinéma, no. 434, January 1988. On LEONE: books— Lambert, Gavin, Les Bons, les sales, les méchants et les propres de Sergio Leone, Paris, 1976. Frayling, Christopher, Spaghetti Westerns: Cowboys and Europeans: From Karl May to Sergio Leone, London, 1981. Cèbe, Gilles, Sergio Leone, Paris, 1984. De Fornari, Oreste, Tutti i Film di Sergio Leone, Milan, 1984. Cumbow, Robert C., Once upon a Time: The Films of Sergio Leone, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1987. Cressard, Gilles, Sergio Leone, Paris, 1989. Mininni, Francesco, Sergio Leone, Paris, 1989. De Cornare, Oreste, Sergio Leone: The Great American Dream of Legendary America, Rome, 1997 Frayling, Christopher, Sergio Leone: Something to Do with Death, New York, 2000. On LEONE: articles— Witonski, Peter, ‘‘Meanwhile . . . Back at Cinecitta,’’ in Film Society Review (New York), Fall 1965. Sarris, Andrew, in Village Voice (New York), 19 and 26 Septem- ber 1968. Frayling, Christopher, ‘‘Sergio Leone,’’ in Cinema (London), August 1970. Kaminsky, Stuart, in Take One (Montreal), January/February 1972. Jameson, Richard, ‘‘Something to Do with Death,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1973. Garel, A., and F. Joyeux, ‘‘Il etait une fois . . . le western: de Sergio Leone,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), July 1979. Nicholls, D., ‘‘Once upon a Time in Italy,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1980/81. Mitchell, T., ‘‘Leone’s America,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1983. ‘‘Sergio Leone,’’ in Film Dope (London), March 1986. ‘‘Special Issue,’’ Castoro Cinema (Firenze), no. 139, January-Febru- ary 1989. Cohn, L., obituary in Variety (New York), 3 May 1989. Bertolucci, Bernardo, obituary in Film Comment (New York), July/ August 1989. Thomson, D., ‘‘Leonesque,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), September 1989. ‘‘Il Leone sorride: qu’est’ce que le cinéma?’’ in Segnocinema (Vicenza), vol. 10, no. 43, May 1990. Starrs, P.F., ‘‘The Ways of Western,’’ in Wide Angle (Baltimore), vol. 15, no. 4, December 1993. *** Not since Franz Kafka’s America has a European artist turned himself with such intensity to the meaning of American culture and mythology. Sergio Leone’s career is remarkable in its unrelenting attention to both America and American genre film. In France, Truffaut, Godard, and Chabrol have used American film as a touch- stone for their own vision, but Leone, an Italian, a Roman who began to learn English only after five films about the United States, devoted most of his creative life to this examination. Leone’s films are not realistic or naturalistic visions of the American nightmare or fairy tale, but comic nightmares about exist- ence. The feeling of unreality is central to Leone’s work. His is a world of magic and horror. Religion is meaningless, a sham which hides honest emotions; civilization is an extension of man’s need to dominate and survive by exploiting others. The Leone world, while not womanless, is set up as one in which men face the horror of existence. In this, Leone is very like Howard Hawks: as in Hawks’s films, death erases a man. A man who dies is a loser, and the measure of a man is his ability to survive, to laugh or sneer at death. This is not a bitter point in Leone films. There are few lingering deaths and very little blood. Even the death of Ramon (Gian Maria Volonte) in Fistful of Dollars takes place rather quickly and with far less blood than the comparable death in Yojimbo. A man’s death is less important than how he faces it. The only thing worth preserving in Leone’s world is the family—and his world of American violence is such a terrible place that few families survive. In Fistful of Dollars, Clint Eastwood’s primary emotional reaction is to attempt to destroy the family of the woman Ramon has taken. In the later films, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Once upon a Time in the West, Duck, You Sucker and Once upon a Time in America, family life is minimal and destroyed by self-serving evil, not out of hatred but by a cold, passionless commit- ment to self-interest. Leone’s visual obsessions contribute to his thematic interests. Many directors could work with and develop the LeROYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 597 same themes and characters, but Leone’s forte lies in the development of these themes and characters in a personal world. No director, with the possible exception of Sam Fuller, makes as extensive us of the close-up as does Leone, and Leone’s close-ups often show only a portion of the face, usually the eyes of one of the main characters. It is the eyes of these men that reveal what they are feeling—if they are feeling anything. Such characters almost never define their actions in words. Plot is of minimal interest to Leone. What is important is examination of the characters, watching how they react, what makes them tick. It appears almost as if everything is, indeed, happening randomly, as if we are watching with curiosity the responses of different types of people, trying to read meaning in the slightest flick of an eyelid. The visual impact of water dripping on Woody Strode’s hat, or Jack Elam’s annoyed reaction to a fly, is of greater interest to Leone than the gunfight in which the two appear in Once upon a Time in the West. The use of the pan in Leone films is also remarkable. The pan from the firing squad past the church and to the poster of the governor, behind which Rod Steiger watches in bewilderment through the eyes of the governor’s image, is a prime example in Duck, You Sucker. The shot ties the execution to the indifferent church, to the non-seeing poster, and to Steiger’s reaction in one movement. The apparent joy and even comedy of destruction and battle in Leone films is often followed immediately by some intimate horror, some personal touch that underlines the real meaning of the horror which moments before had been amusing. The death of Dominick and his final words, ‘‘I slipped,’’ in Once upon a Time in America undercut the comedy and zest for battle. There is little dialogue; the vision of the youthful dead dominates as it does in the cave scene in Duck, You Sucker, in which Juan’s family lies massacred. At the same time, Leone’s fascination with spontaneous living, his zeal for existence in the midst of his morality films, can be seen in his handling of details. For example, food in his films is always colorful and appetizing and people eat it ravenously. The obsession of Leone protagonists and villains, major and minor, with the attainment of wealth can be seen as growing out of a dominant strain within American genres, particularly western and gangster films. The desire for wealth and power turns men into ruthless creatures who violate land and family. Leone’s films are explorations of the mythic America he created. Unlike many directors, he did not simply repeat the same convention in a variety of ways. Each successive film takes the same characters and explores them in greater depth, and Leone’s involvement with this exploration is intense. —Stuart M. Kaminsky LeROY, Mervyn Nationality: American. Born: San Francisco, 15 October 1900. Education: Attended night school, 1919–1924. Family: Married 1) Doris Warner, 1933 (divorced), one son, one daughter; 2) Kathryn Spiegel, 1946. Career: Newsboy, from 1910; hired to portray news- boy in film Barbara Fritchie, 1912; film extra and vaudeville performer (as ‘‘The Singing Newsboy,’’ later, with Clyde Cooper, as ‘‘Leroy and Cooper: Two Kids and a Piano’’), 1912–1919; through cousin Jesse Lasky, got job in films, folding costumes, 1919; also film actor, to 1924; gag writer and comedy construction specialist for director Alfred E. Green, 1924; directed first film, No Place to Go, for First National, 1927; hired by MGM as producer and director, 1938; started own production company, 1944. Awards: Special Oscar, for The House I Live In, 1945; Victoire du Cinéma fran?ais, for Quo Vadis, 1954; Irving Thalberg Academy Award, 1975. Died: In Beverly Hills, 13 September 1987. Films as Director: 1927 No Place to Go 1928 Flying Romeos; Harold Teen; Oh, Kay! 1929 Naughty Baby (Reckless Rosie); Hot Stuff; Broadway Babies (Broadway Daddies); Little Johnny Jones 1930 Playing Around; Showgirl in Hollywood; Numbered Men; Top Speed; Little Caesar; Too Young to Marry; Broad- Minded; Five-Star Final (One Fatal Hour); Tonight or Never 1932 High Pressure; Heart of New York; Two Seconds; Big City Blues; Three on a Match; I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang 1933 Hard to Handle; Tugboat Annie; Elmer the Great; Gold Diggers of 1933; The World Changes 1934 Heat Lightning; Hi, Nellie!; Happiness Ahead 1935 Oil for the Lamps of China; Page Miss Glory; I Found Stella Parish; Sweet Adeline 1936 Anthony Adverse; Three Men on a Horse 1937 The King and the Chorus Girl; They Won’t Forget 1938 Fools for Scandal 1940 Waterloo Bridge; Escape (+ pr) 1941 Blossoms in the Dust (+ pr); Unholy Partners; Johnny Eager 1942 Random Harvest 1944 Madame Curie 1945 Thirty Seconds over Tokyo 1946 Without Reservations 1948 Homecoming 1949 Little Women (+ pr); Any Number Can Play 1950 East Side, West Side; Quo Vadis? 1952 Lovely to Look At; Million-Dollar Mermaid (The One-Piece Bathing Suit) 1953 Latin Lovers 1954 Rose Marie (+ pr) 1955 Strange Lady in Town (+ pr); Mister Roberts (co-d) 1956 The Bad Seed (+ pr); Toward the Unknown (Brink of Hell) (+ pr) 1958 No Time for Sergeants (+ pr); Home before Dark (+ pr) 1959 The FBI Story (+ pr) 1960 Wake Me When It’s Over (+ pr) 1961 The Devil at Four O’Clock (+ pr); A Majority of One (+ pr) 1962 Gypsy (+ pr) 1963 Mary, Mary (+ pr) 1965 Moment to Moment (+ pr) LeROY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 598 Mervyn LeRoy (right) on the set of Madame Curie Other Films: (partial list) 1920 Double Speed (Wood) (role as juvenile) 1922 The Ghost Breaker (Green) (role as a ghost) 1923 Little Johnny Jones (Rosson and Hines) (role as George Nelson); Going Up (Ingraham) (role as bellboy); The Call of the Canyon (Fleming) (role as Jack Rawlins) 1924 In Hollywood with Potash and Perlmutter (So This Is Holly- wood) (gag-writer); Broadway after Dark (Bell) (role as Carl Fisher); The Chorus Lady (Ralph Ince) (role as Duke) 1925 Sally (gag-writer); The Desert Flower (gag-writer); The Pace That Thrills (gag-writer); We Moderns (gag-writer) 1926 Irene (gag-writer); Ella Cinders (gag-writer); It Must Be Love (gag-writer); Twinkletoes (gag-writer) 1927 Orchids and Ermines (gag-writer) 1932 The Dark Horse (Green) (uncredited help) 1937 The Great Garrick (Whale) (pr) 1938 Stand up and Fight (W.S. Van Dyke) (pr); Dramatic School (pr); At the Circus (pr) 1939 The Wizard of Oz (Fleming) (pr) 1945 The House I Live In (pr) 1947 Desire Me (Cukor) (uncredited direction) 1949 The Great Sinner (Siodmak) (uncredited direction and editing) 1968 The Green Berets (Wayne and Kellogg) (assisted Wayne) Publications By LeROY: books— It Takes More than Talent, as told to Alyce Canfield, New York, 1953. Mervyn LeRoy: Take One, as told to Dick Kleiner, New York, 1974. By LeROY: articles— ‘‘The Making of Mervyn LeRoy,’’ in Films in Review (New York), May 1953. ‘‘What Directors Are Saying,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), May/ June 1970. ‘‘Mervyn LeRoy Talks with William Friedkin,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), November/December 1974. LESTERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 599 On LeROY: articles— Surtees, Robert, ‘‘The Filming of Quo Vadis in Italy,’’ in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), October 1951. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Likable, but Elusive,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1963. ‘‘Should Directors Produce?,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), July/Au- gust 1968. Campbell, Russell, ‘‘I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang,’’ in Velvet Light Trap (Madison, Wisconsin), June 1971. Kaminsky, Stuart, ‘‘Little Caesar and Its Role in the Gangster Film Genre,’’ in Journal of Popular Film (Bowling Green, Ohio), Summer 1972. Canham, Kingsley, ‘‘Mervyn LeRoy: Star-making, Studio Systems, and Style,’’ in The Hollywood Professionals, vol. 5, London, 1976. Veillon, O.R., ‘‘Mervyn LeRoy à la Warner,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), October 1982. ‘‘Mervyn Le Roy revisited,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), Decem- ber 1982. ‘‘Mervyn Leroy,’’ in Film Dope (London), September 1986. Obituary in Films and Filming (London), November 1987. Monder, Eric, ‘‘Mervyn LeRoy’s Little Caesar Salad Days,’’ in DGA (Los Angeles), vol. 21, no. 3, July-August 1996. *** The career of Mervyn LeRoy, one of the most successful in the heyday of the studio system, is a reflection of that system. When at Warner Brothers, through most of the 1930s, LeRoy was a master of the style dominant at that studio, demonstrated in the fast-paced toughness of films like his Little Caesar and I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang. As producer-director at MGM until the mid-1950s, he presided over lushly romantic vehicles for Greer Garson and Vivien Leigh. Prolific, versatile (at home in action films, women’s films, musicals, historical spectacles), LeRoy’s fluency marks him as the kind of director who validates collaborative creativity. Sensitive to the particular individuals with whom he works, and to the wide- ranging needs of the various materials he treats, LeRoy offers us an image of the Hollywood technique during the development of the classic Hollywood narrative. This often makes it difficult to locate that which is LeRoy’s specific contribution to films as dissimilar as the taut courtroom drama They Won’t Forget (that featured the memorable debut of Lana Turner, the ‘‘sweater girl’’ under personal contract to the director) and the colossal pageantry of Quo Vadis?, where decor completely submerges character. But if LeRoy lacks the recognizable visual and thematic coherence we notice in the works of ‘‘auteurs’’ (Welles, Ford, Griffith), it would be incorrect to characterize him as a director without a personal vision, or at least an affinity for specific subjects. Some of his best-remembered films contain narrative configurations that display the protagonists in situations of pathetic isolation. It is as if the director’s eye and the spectator’s eye spied a character in a state of embarrassing vulnerability. At the end of I Am a Fugitive, a film about a man wrongly charged with a crime and perpetually hounded by the police, the hero confesses that he must now steal to live. Staged in a dark alley, the last words emerge from total blackness that ironically hides the speaker’s face in this moment of painful revela- tion. (It has been said that the blackout was due to a power failure on the set. This in no way lessens the significance of the decision to leave the scene in, as shot.) In Random Harvest, one of the most popular films LeRoy made at MGM, the director repeatedly finds ways to underscore the pain of the wife who ‘‘plays’’ at being the secretary of her husband, an amnesia victim who has forgotten her identity. Here, as in Waterloo Bridge, where the heroine represents one thing to the audience (a prostitute) and another to the hero (his long-lost fiancée), the staging exploits this ironic brand of double identity. In a film made at Warners in 1958, Home before Dark, the dual representation of character is extended into the figure of the schizo- phrenic (Jean Simmons) who, wishing to be like her sister, appears in a crowded nightclub wearing an oversized gown and garishly inap- propriate makeup. This sort of embarrassing exposure reaches a theat- rical peak in Gypsy, where the mother of the striptease artists does her own ‘‘turn’’ on the bare stage of an empty theater, stripping down to her raw ambition and envy. —Charles Affron LESTER, Richard Nationality: American. Born: Philadelphia, 19 January 1932. Edu- cation: William Penn Charter School, Germanstown, Pennsylvania; University of Pennsylvania, B.S. in Clinical Psychology, 1951. Family: Married dancer and choreographer Deirdre Vivian Smith, 1956, one son, one daughter. Career: Music editor, assistant director, then director, CBS-TV, Philadelphia, 1951–54; director and com- poser, ITV, London, 1955–57, then producer, 1958; director, Court- yard Films, Ltd., from 1967; also composer, musician, and, from 1960, director of TV commercials. Awards: Palme d’Or, Cannes Festival, for The Knack, 1965; Gandhi Peace Prize, Berlin Festival, for The Bed Sitting Room, 1969. Address: c/o Twickenham Studios, St. Margarets, Middlesex, England. Films as Director: 1959 The Running, Jumping, and Standing Still Film (+ ph, mu, co-ed) 1962 It’s Trad, Dad (Ring-a-Ding Rhythm) 1963 The Mouse on the Moon 1964 A Hard Day’s Night 1965 The Knack—and How to Get It; Help! 1966 A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum 1967 Mondo Teeno (Teenage Rebellion) (doc) (co-d); How I Won the War (+ pr) 1968 Petulia 1969 The Bed Sitting Room (+ co-pr) 1974 The Three Musketeers (The Queen’s Diamonds); Juggernaut 1975 The Four Musketeers (The Revenge of Milady); Royal Flash LESTER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 600 Richard Lester 1976 Robin and Marian (+ co-pr); The Ritz 1979 Butch and Sundance: The Early Days; Cuba 1980 Superman II (U.S. release 1981) 1983 Superman III 1984 Finders Keepers (+ exec pr) 1989 Return of the Musketeers 1991 Get Back (doc) Other Films: 1998 Richard Lester! (Cochran—doc) (as himself) Publications By LESTER: book— Beatles at the Movies, with Roy Carr, New York, 1996. By LESTER: articles— ‘‘In Search of the Right Knack,’’ in Films and Filming (London), July 1965. ‘‘Lunch with Lester,’’ with George Bluestone, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1966. ‘‘Richard Lester and the Art of Comedy,’’ in Film (London), Spring 1967. Interview with Ian Cameron and Mark Shivas, in Movie (London), Winter 1968/69. ‘‘What I Learned from Commercials,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), January/February 1969. ‘‘Running, Jumping, and Standing Still: An Interview with Richard Lester,’’ with Joseph McBride, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1973. ‘‘The Pleasure in the Terror of the Game,’’ interview with Gordon Gow, in Films and Filming (London), October 1974. ‘‘Richard Lester: Doing the Best He Can,’’ interview with Gerald Pratley, in Film (London), February 1975. ‘‘Deux Entretiens avec Richard Lester,’’ with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), November 1975. LEVINSONDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 601 Interview with J. Brosnan, in Sight and Sound (London), Sum- mer 1983. Interview with E. Vincent, in Cinématographe (Paris), July/Au- gust 1986. On LESTER: books— Rosenfeldt, Diane, Richard Lester: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1978. Sinyard, Neil, The Films of Richard Lester, London, 1985. Yule, Andrew and Paul McCartney, Richard Lester and the Beatles: A Complete Biography of the Man Who Directed A Hard Day’s Night, New York, 1995. On LESTER: articles— ‘‘Richard Lester,’’ in New Yorker, 28 October 1967. Gelmis, Joseph, ‘‘Richard Lester,’’ in The Film Director as Super- star, Garden City, New York, 1970. Kantor, Bernard, and others, editors, ‘‘Richard Lester,’’ in Directors at Work, New York, 1970. McBride, Joseph, ‘‘Richard Lester,’’ in International Film Guide 1975, London, 1974. Monaco, James, ‘‘Some Late Clues to the Lester Direction,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May 1974. Armes, Roy, ‘‘The Return of Richard Lester,’’ in London Magazine, December/January 1974/75. Thomas, Bob, ‘‘Richard Lester: Robin and Marian,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), November/December 1975. Maillet, D., ‘‘Richard Lester,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), March 1977. Lefèvre, R., ‘‘Richard Lester: Un odyssée en apesanteur,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), February 1983. ‘‘Richard Lester,’’ in Film Dope (London), September 1986. Hanke, Ken, ‘‘The British Film Invasion of the 1960s,’’ in Films in Review (New York), April 1989. Savage, Joh, ‘‘Snapshots of the Sixties,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), May 1993. Mangodt, Daniel, ‘‘John Barry,’’ in Soundtrack!, June 1996. Hampton, Howard, ‘‘Scorpio Descending. In Search of Rock Cin- ema,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March-April 1997. *** It is ironic that A Hard Days Night, the one film guaranteed to ensure Richard Lester his place in cinema history, should in many ways reflect his weaknesses rather than his strengths. If the film successfully captures the socio-historical phenomenon that was the Beatles at the beginning of their superstardom, it is as much due to Alun Owen’s ‘‘day in the life’’-style script, which provides the ideal complement to (and restraint on) Lester’s anarchic mixture of absurd/ surreal humour, accelerated motion, and cinema verité, to name but a few ingredients. Lester made a mark on cinema through his innovative utilisation of the techniques of television advertisements and pop shows. His inability to entirely dispense with these methods, regardless of the subject matter to which they were applied, wrecked too many of his later projects. The Knack stands as a supreme example of style (or styles) obliterating content. Bleached imagery, choruses of schoolboys recit- ing the litany of the ‘‘knack,’’ disapproving members of the older generation talking straight to the camera, seem randomly assembled to no apparent end. Worse is the lack of taste. Can the sight of Rita Tushingham running down a street crying ‘‘rape’’ to an assortment of indifferent individuals have ever seemed funny? How I Won the War fails along similar lines. Realistic battlefields and bloodshed clash with a ridiculous plot (soldiers sent to construct a cricket pitch on enemy territory) and characters who are peculiar rather than likeable. One does not doubt Lester’s sincerity in his aim of making his audience ashamed of watching men die for their entertainment, but his lack of judgement is disconcerting. Even the more controlled Petulia is afflicted by a surfeit of flashbacks and flashforwards, its often intriguing examination of unhappy relationships in an out-of- control society weighed down by a relentless determination to Say Something Important. All this is a far cry from the skillfully orches- trated physical comedy of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum or the opening section of Superman III, both free from a desire to preach. Where Lester’s major strength as a director lies is in his ability to produce personal works within the confines of an established genre, such as the swashbuckler (The Three Musketeers/The Four Musket- eers), the western (Butch and Sundance: The Early Days), and the fantasy (Superman II). If we wish to seek out underlying themes in his work these later films provide fertile ground (the mythical hero surrendering his power for human love in Superman II, Robin Hood attempting to regain his heroic status in a world no longer interested in heroes in Robin and Marian) while avoiding the collapse into uneasy self-importance or significance suffered by earlier work. Occasional lapses into heavy-handedness (the priest blessing the cannons for use in a religious war while muttering to himself in Latin in The Four Musketeers, the overly bloody beating inflicted on the mortal Clark Kent in Superman II) can be discounted as minor flaws. It is this talent for creating something original out of conventional material that gives Lester his distinction, rather than his misguided, if bold attempts at ‘‘serious’’ comedy (with all the accompanying cinematic tricks which ultimately produce only weariness in the viewer). Though it may seem paradoxical, Lester is a director who needs a firm foundation to work from before his imagination can be let loose. Sadly, he has had little opportunity to demonstrate this since the high-profile Superman films, following the misfiring farce Find- ers Keepers with two slightly threadbare attempts at recapturing former glories. Return of the Musketeers appears to have been ill- fated from the start, with the accidental death of Lester regular Roy Kinnear during filming. Moments of inspired action and slapstick could not disguise an overall feeling of deja vu (the film went straight to cable television in the United States). Get Back amounts to little more than an adequate, if staid record of Paul McCartney’s 1989–90 world tour, though Lester’s use of footage from the Beatles’ heyday serves as a poignant reminder of both the overall 1960s cultural explosion and his own emergence as one of the cinema’s most outlandish frontrunners. —Daniel O’Brien LEVINSON, Barry Nationality: American. Born: Baltimore, Maryland, 1942. Educa- tion: Studied Broadcast Journalism, American University, Washing- ton, D.C. Family: Married 1) screenwriter and actress Valerie Curtin LEVINSON DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 602 Barry Levinson (divorced, 1982); 2) Diana Mona; three sons, one daughter. Career: Comedy performer and writer, Los Angeles, from mid-1960s; writer for TV, including Carol Burnett Show and Marty Feldman Show, winning three Emmy awards, from 1970; directed first feature, Diner, 1982; executive producer and director, for Homicide: Life on the Street, television series, 1993—; executive producer, OZ, HBO series, 1997—. Awards: Emmy Award, for Television Comedy Writing for Carol Burnett Show, 1975; Academy Award for Best Director, Directors Guild Award for Best Director, for Rain Man, 1988; Writers Guild Award for Best Screenplay, for Avalon, 1990; Associated Foreign Press Award for Best Picture, Golden Globe Award for Best Picture, for Bugsy, 1991; Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Emmy Award for Best Director, 1993, Peabody Awards, 1993, 1995, Writers Guild Awards, 1994, 1995, Excellence in Quality Television Founders Award, 1994, 1995, Nancy Susan Reynolds Award for Outstanding Portrayal of Sexual Responsibility in a Dra- matic Series, 1996, all for Homicide: Life on the Street. Films as Director: 1982 Diner (+ sc) 1984 The Natural 1985 Young Sherlock Holmes 1987 Tin Men (+sc) 1988 Good Morning, Vietnam; Rain Man 1990 Avalon (+sc) 1991 Bugsy (+ co-pr) 1992 Toys (+ co-pr) 1994 Jimmy Hollywood (+ co-pr, sc, role); Disclosure (+ co-pr) 1996 Sleepers(+ co-pr, sc) 1997 Wag the Dog (+ co-pr) 1998 Sphere (+co-pr) 1999 Liberty Heights (+co-pr, sc) Other Films: 1974 Street Girls (Miller) (co-sc, asst ph) 1976 Silent Movie (Brooks) (co-sc, role as executive) 1978 High Anxiety (Brooks) (co-sc, role as bellhop) 1979 . . . And Justice for All (Jewison) (co-sc) 1980 Inside Moves (Donner) (co-sc) 1981 History of the World, Part 1 (Brooks) (role as column salesman) 1982 Best Friends (Jewison) (co-sc) 1984 Unfaithfully Yours (Zieff) (co-sc) 1993 Wilder Napalm (pr) 1994 Quiz Show (Redford) (role as Dave Garroway) 1997 The Second Civil War (HBO) (+co-pr); Oz (exec. pr); Donnie Brasco (co-pr); Home Fries (co-pr) 2000 The Perfect Storm (exec pr) Publications By LEVINSON: books— Avalon; Tin Men; Diner: Three Screenplays, New York, 1990. Levinson on Levinson, edited by David Thompson, London, 1992. By LEVINSON: articles— Interview with Stephen Farber, in New York Times, 18 April 1982. Interview with R. Ward, in American Film (Washington, D.C.), June 1982. Interview in Inter/View (New York), July 1984. Interview in Screen International (London), 27 October 1984. Interview with M. Cieutat and G. Gressard, in Positif (Paris), March 1989. Interview with Alex Ward, in New York Times Magazine, 11 March 1990. Interview with M. Chyb, in Filmowy Serwis Prasowy, vol. 36, no. 5/6, 1990. Web site: Official Barry Levinson web site. http://www.levinson.com. May, 2000. On LEVINSON: articles— ‘‘Barry Levinson,’’ in Film Dope (London), September 1986. Alion, Y., ‘‘Barry Levinson,’’ in Revue du Cinéma, July/August 1990. Rothstein, M., ‘‘Barry Levinson Reaches out to a Lost America,’’ in New York Times, 30 September 1990. Yagoda, B., ‘‘Baltimore, My Baltimore,’’ in American Film, Novem- ber 1990. ‘‘Retrospective,’’ in Film Journal, October/November 1991. LEVINSONDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 603 McDonnell, Terry, ‘‘The New Barry Levinson Show,’’ in Esquire, February 1992. Carter, B., ‘‘Pure Baltimore, Right down to the Steamed Crabs,’’ in New York Times, 24 January 1993. Schwed, Mark, ‘‘Kill or Be Killed,’’ in TV Guide, 30 January 1993. Lehman, Susan, ‘‘A Man and His Toys,’’ in Premiere, February 1993. Fretts, Bruce, ‘‘The Dead Beat,’’ in Entertainment Weekly, 5 Febru- ary 1993. Kornbluth, Jesse, ‘‘Wary Levinson,’’ in Premiere, April 1994. *** Although his Oscar-winning, and most lucrative, film, Rain Man, was set in conservative Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and several points in between, Barry Levinson has never forgotten his roots and is still regarded by Marylanders as the ultimate Baltimore filmmaker. Diner, the film that launched his directing career in 1982, was based in the Baltimore suburb of Forest Park, where he grew up. So was Tin Men, made five years later. And in 1989, at the age of forty-seven, following the success of Rain Man and Good Morning, Vietnam, Levinson was back again in Baltimore, to the delight of the Maryland Film Commission, shooting Avalon. It could not have been otherwise, since Avalon is based upon Levinson’s own family, who emigrated from Russia to Baltimore in 1914. Baltimore is his city and his most personal films have focused upon ordinary people he might have met there while growing up during the 1940s and 1950s—the youngsters of Diner, the aluminum-siding hucksters of Tin Men. Levinson has internalized the values of middle-America and has succeeded most brilliantly when filming stories about characters who live by those values. If some of the critics were disturbed that Robert Redford’s Roy Hobbs was not as seriously flawed as the original character in Bernard Malamud’s The Natural, it is perhaps because Levinson’s interpreta- tion of the character is governed by assumptions different from Malamud’s and because Levinson’s orientation is decidedly more optimistic. The fidelity of Levinson’s The Natural can be, and has been, challenged on pedantic grounds. The film might better be regarded not as an adaptation but as an interpretation, able to stand on its own regardless of its source. Levinson told the New York Times Magazine that he does not consider himself as a writer or a ‘‘writer-director.’’ As Alex Ward rightly suggested, however, Levinson can be considered an American auteur who will leave his personal imprint on any project he touches, through sentimental touches (in The Natural or Tin Men, for exam- ple), quirky casting, or inspired comedic improvisation. He has an unfailing sense of what might constitute the right touch in a given dramatic situation. ‘‘I don’t like other people directing what I write,’’ Levinson told Ward, ‘‘but I don’t mind directing something some- body else wrote.’’ In fact, after moving to the West Coast from American University in Washington, D.C., Levinson worked for over two years as a writer for Mel Brooks on two pictures, Silent Movie and High Anxiety (also making his screen debut as an insane bellhop in the Psycho parody scene). While working with Brooks on High Anxiety he first met Mark Johnson, who later became the executive producer of Diner. At that point Levinson had already won three Emmy Awards, writing for the Tim Conway and Carol Burnett shows on network television, and went on to collaborate with Valerie Curtin (whom he met at the Comedy Store in Los Angeles) on two feature film scripts, ... And Justice for All (for Norman Jewison) and Inside Moves (for Richard Donner), before writing the script for Diner. His debut film as director is about young men ‘‘hanging out’’ in Baltimore over Christmas of 1959, one of them (Steve Guttenberg) enjoying his last days of bachelorhood before his approaching wedding. Mel Brooks told Levinson that the script idea resembled I Vitelloni, but the writer- director had not even seen Fellini’s film. He told Stephen Farber of the New York Times that the Guttenberg character was based upon his cousin Eddie, who ‘‘loved fried bologna sandwiches’’ and ‘‘slept until 2:30 in the afternoon.’’ The cast also featured Mickey Rourke and talented newcomers Kevin Bacon and Ellen Barkin. It was the lowest-budgeted ‘‘sleeper’’ produced by MGM that year, and started slowly, but after reviews in Rolling Stone and the New Yorker, the movie built a following and acquired staying power. (The president for distribution at MGM/UA referred to it as ‘‘Lazarus.’’) Vincent Canby in the New York Times called it the ‘‘happiest surprise of the year to date,’’ and Levinson was ‘‘discovered.’’ Levinson also collaborated with Valerie Curtin in writing Best Friends (starring Burt Reynolds and Goldie Hawn) and a remake of the Preston Sturges classic Unfaithfully Yours. The screenplay for ... And Justice for All, meanwhile, was nominated for an Academy Award, demonstrating the quality of the Levinson-Curtin team. Levinson also directed the high-spirited fantasy Young Sherlock Holmes, but aside, perhaps, from Rain Man and The Natural, Levinson will best be remembered for his Baltimore pictures, drawn from his own experience and marked with his own special brand of compas- sionate humor and nostalgia. As a personal filmmaker he is perhaps the nearest American equivalent to Fran?ois Truffaut. During the 1990s Levinson scored a popular and critical success working with author James Toback on Bugsy, starring Warren Beatty as larger-than-life gangster Benjamin (Bugsy) Siegel and Annette Bening as Virginia Hill. The film was much admired for its snappy dialogue and was named best picture of 1991 by the Los Angeles Film Critics, who also voted Levinson Best Director and Toback Best Screenwriter. Bugsy later earned ten Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director. In 1992 Levinson misfired with Toys, an odd antiwar fable written by Levinson and Valerie Curtin, starring Robin Williams, Joan Cusack, and Michael Gambon. Levinson had had the project in mind for years and was able to direct it after the success of Bugsy, but although the idea that children can be conditioned by the kinds of toys they are given seemed viable, the resulting fantasy was too bizarre to be taken seriously. He misfired again in 1994 with Jimmy Hollywood, starring Joe Pesci as a loser and hustler, which was described in Variety as ‘‘an oddball attempt to mix offbeat comedy with social commentary.’’ In 1994 Levinson reclaimed his Hollywood clout with his expert direction of Disclosure, starring Michael Douglas and Demi Moore and adapted by Paul Attanasio from the popular novel by Michael Crichton, who also worked with Levinson as producer. The contro- versial novel, concerning sexual harassment in the workplace, helped to generate interest in the film. But a far more important collaboration between Levinson and Paul Attanasio started in 1993 on the NBC television police series Homicide: Life on the Street, adapted from Baltimore Sun reporter David Simon’s published memoir about policework in Levinson’s hometown. The series was hailed by critics as the best police drama on television, giving it prominence over the flashier but more conventional NYPD Blue. As executive producer of the series Levinson also directed the pilot in 1993 and the season finale in 1995, thus helping Homicide to establish and maintain its LEWIN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 604 quality and authenticity as an outstanding reality-based detective drama. The series, rated among the director’s best work since Avalon and setting a new standard for television police drama, continued until 1999, with a feature film version under Levinson’s executive producership, in the pipeline in 2000. During the Homicide years Levinson also produced the acclaimed prison-set series, Oz and The Second Civil War for HBO, but was far from neglectful of the big screen, directing at least one picture per year and having a hand in the production of Donnie Brasco, Analyse This, and The Perfect Storm. His directorial efforts, however, have remained eclectic, variable, and variably received, with Wag the Dog, filmed as light relief between the harrowing abuse and revenge drama Sleepers and the second-rate Michael Crichton sci-fi saga Sphere, tickling the fancy with its pungent, astonishingly timely political satire and the delicious pairing of Levinson favorite Dustin Hoffman with Robert De Niro. After a hectic decade, Levinson capped his achievements with a long-awaited return to his more personal, semi- autobiographical Baltimore films with Liberty Heights. The fourth in the cycle that began with Diner, and something of a companion piece to Avalon, it is set at the social crossroads of the mid-1950s and explores themes of race, class, and religious division from the perspective of a Jewish family. Once again, Barry Levinson’s affectionate evocations of period, family, and coming of age sit well in the gritty atmosphere of his home town and its people, confirming that he is most at ease and continues to draw his happiest inspiration from simply chronicling the passage of ordinary life. —James M. Welsh, updated by Robyn Karney LEWIN, Albert Nationality: American. Born: Brooklyn, New York, 23 September 1894; grew up in Newark, New Jersey. Education: New York University, B.A. in English; Harvard University, M.A. in English; attended Columbia University. Military Service: U.S. Army, 1918. Family: Married Mildred Mindlin, 17 August 1918; no children. Career: English instructor, University of Missouri, 1916–18; assist- ant national director, American Jewish Relief Committee, 1918–22; drama and film critic, The Jewish Tribune, 1921–22; entered films as a New York-based reader for Samuel Goldwyn, 1921; moved to Culver City, continued as a reader, then trained as script clerk with King Vidor and Victor Sj?str?m and worked unofficially as an assistant editor, 1922–23; hired as writer by Metro Pictures, 1924; promoted to head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) story depart- ment, 1927; promoted to production supervisor, 1929; after death of mentor, Irving Thalberg, moved to Paramount as producer, 1937–40; quit Paramount, founded independent production company with David Loew, 1940; Loew-Lewin released its second production, and Lewin’s first as director, The Moon and Sixpence, after which Lewin returned to MGM as a director, 1942; quit MGM after release of his second directorial film, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and revived Loew-Lewin, 1945; dissolved Loew-Lewin again, after one film, Lewin’s third as director, The Private Affairs of Bel Ami, and returned to MGM as an executive, 1948; wrote and directed Pandora and the Flying Dutchman while on sabbatical from MGM, 1950–51; retired from films after a near-fatal heart attack, 1959. Awards: As producer, received best picture Academy Award for Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935. Died: In New York City, 9 May 1968, of pneumonia. Films as Director: 1942 The Moon and Sixpence (+ co-exec pr, sc) 1945 The Picture of Dorian Gray (+ sc) 1947 The Private Affairs of Bel-Ami (+ co-exec pr, sc) 1951 Pandora and the Flying Dutchman (+ co-pr, sc) 1954 Saadia (+ pr, sc) 1957 The Living Idol (+ co-pr, sc) Other Films: 1924 Bread (continuity) 1925 The Fate of a Flirt (continuity) 1926 Ladies of Leisure (story, continuity); Blarney (co-scenarist); Tin Hats (continuity) 1927 A Little Journey (scenarist); Altars of Desire (continuity); Spring Fever (co-scenarist); Quality Street (co-scenarist, co-adapter) 1928 The Actress (co-scenarist) 1929 The Kiss (production supervisor, uncredited); Devil-May- Care (production supervisor, uncredited) 1931 The Guardsman (production supervisor, uncredited); The Cuban Love Song (production supervisor, uncredited) 1932 Red-headed Woman (production supervisor, uncredited); Smilin’ Through (production supervisor, uncredited) 1934 What Every Woman Knows (production supervisor, uncredited) 1935 China Seas (assoc pr); Mutiny on the Bounty (assoc pr) 1937 The Good Earth (assoc pr); True Confession (pr) 1938 Spawn of the North (pr) 1939 Zaza (pr) 1940 So Ends Our Night (co-exec pr) Publications By LEWIN: book— The Unaltered Cat (novel), Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1967. By LEWIN: articles— ‘‘Fine Art and the Films,’’ in The Temptation of Saint Anthony: Bel Ami International Art Competition, The American Federation of Arts, 1946. Interview in The Real Tinsel, Bernard Rosenberg and Harry Silverstein, editors, Macmillan, 1970. ‘‘‘Peccavi!’: The True Confession of a Movie Producer,’’ in Theatre Arts, September 1941. LEWINDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 605 Albert Lewin (right) on the set of The Picture of Dorian Gray On LEWIN: book— Felleman, Susan, Botticelli in Hollywood: The Films of Albert Lewin, Twayne, 1997. On LEWIN: articles— Arkadin [John Russell Taylor], ‘‘Film Clips,’’ Sight and Sound, Winter 1967–68. Arnaud, Claude, ‘‘Les statues meurent aussi,’’ Cinématographe, January 1982. Combs, Richard, ‘‘Retrospective: The Picture of Dorian Gray,’’ Monthly Film Bulletin, November 1985. Felleman, Susan, ‘‘How High Was His Brow? Albert Lewin, His Critics, and the Problem of Pretension,’’ Film History, Winter 1995–96. Garsault, Alain, ‘‘Albert Lewin: un créateur à Hollywood,’’ Positif, July-August 1989. McVay, Douglas, ‘‘The Private Affairs of Bel Ami (1947),’’ Movietone News, 13 March 1981. Milne, Tom, ‘‘You Are a Professor, of Course,’’ Monthly Film Bulletin, November 1985. T?r?k, Jean-Paul, editor, ‘‘Pandora,’’ l’Avant-Scène du Cinéma, 1 April 1980. *** A genuine Hollywood highbrow, Albert Lewin trod the line between the commercially viable and the artistically daring in his own inimitable way. Friends with the likes of writers Djuna Barnes and Robert Graves, artist Man Ray, and director Jean Renoir, Lewin had given up a nascent career as scholar and critic to pursue the grail of movies. Impressed especially by the most stylized and fantastic aspects of silent cinema, from Sj?str?m to Stroheim, Caligari to Keaton, Lewin left New York for Hollywood in 1922 and—just prior to Sam Goldwyn and Louis B. Mayer—joined Metro Pictures early in 1924. He impressed Irving Thalberg with his combination of erudi- tion and sense and soon made himself indispensable at the Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) story department, where he came to be known as Thalberg’s story brain. He thrived first as a writer, then a producer at MGM until Thalberg’s death. After a brief and unhappy LEWIS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 606 stint as a producer at Paramount, he embarked upon his career as a director, he claimed, out of financial necessity. Lewin and his college fraternity brother, David Loew, had founded their own independent production company, and Loew urged Lewin to direct his own adaptation of W. Somerset Maugham’s The Moon and Sixpence (1942) as an economic measure. The result was a commercial and critical success. Lewin’s adapta- tion of Maugham’s strange novel about a milquetoast English stock- broker and family man turned passionate painter and fierce misan- thrope (his protagonist, Charles Strickland, was based on the French painter Paul Gauguin) was made on the cheap, but includes several original turns and stylistic and thematic signatures that would return faithfully in Lewin’s films, particularly his next two, more lavish productions: The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) and The Private Affairs of Bel Ami (1947). All three films feature suave, cynical George Sanders, who clearly represented a kind of ego ideal for Lewin, in variations on what would become his standard film persona. The three black-and-white films from the 1940s are united not only by Sanders and their fin-de-siècle European settings, but also by the fact that all are essentially morality plays—albeit rather perverse and ambiguous ones—in which art, decadence, and sexual thrall are viewed through the prism of a very pictorial, complex, and studied mise-en-scène. The Picture of Dorian Gray, the most elaborate of the three, is a film of stunning self-consciousness and density—a psycho- sexual horror film, enacted with choreographic precision in exquisite and mannered late-Victorian interiors. Hurd Hatfield plays the eponymous protagonist with chilling circumspection and Sanders is persuasive uttering the Wildean epigrams of Lord Henry Wotton. Harry Stradling’s cinematography won the film’s only Academy Award; it along with the sets and costumes realizes Lewin’s Beardsleyesque visual conception perfectly, while Herbert Stothart’s score employs Chopin’s Twenty-fourth Prelude evocatively. The musical score, this time by Darius Milhaud, was also a strength of Lewin’s next film, The Private Affairs of Bel Ami, based on Guy de Maupassant’s novel Bel-Ami. This story of a narcissistic and calculat- ing Parisian bounder whose successes are achieved through a series of sexual liaisons secured Lewin’s reputation, according to the Times, for achieving ‘‘censor-proof depravity.’’ Subtly feminist, this film revolves around a (rather wooden) male object of female desire (Sanders, again, as Georges Duroy, a.k.a. bel ami) and fea- tures impressive performances from its female cast, including Ann Dvorak, Angela Lansbury, and Katherine Emery. Russell Metty’s cinematography and Gordon Wiles’s set design contribute to Bel Ami’s measured, almost anaesthetic contemplation of desire and duplicity. Here, as in Dorian Gray, the characters move—or are moved—around on patterned floors like chessmen on a checker- board. The metaphysical implications of this trope are reiterated in Bel Ami by a host of symbols: Punch and Judy, dolls and games, and by a somewhat heavy-handed moral coda. Notably, these films each include the revelation in color insert of a painting. In the original prints of The Moon and Sixpence black-and- white photography changed to sepia when the scene changed from Europe to Tahiti and then, momentarily, to color when the painter Strickland’s ‘‘masterpiece’’ (in fact a mediocre Gauguinesque pastiche) was revealed near the end. In Bel Ami it is a shockingly anachronistic painting of The Temptation of St. Anthony by surrealist Max Ernst that erupts from the screen in color. The technique is put more in the service of the narrative in The Picture of Dorian Gray, where Technicolor enhances the vivid senescence and putrefaction of Ivan Albright’s rendition of the titular portrait. Lewin continued to highlight art works in his color films of the 1950s, including in what is arguably his masterpiece, the singular Pandora and the Flying Dutchman (1951), a heady melange of Greek myth, German legend, Shakespearean and Jacobean drama, Romantic poetry, and Surrealist imagery, all spiced up with bullfighting, flamenco dancing, jazz combos, and speed-racing! From an original story, this dazzling film, often deliberately surrealist and sometimes inadvertently camp, was shot on Spain’s Costa Brava and features Ava Gardner (divinely beautiful as costumed by Beatrice Dawson and photographed by Jack Cardiff) and James Mason in the title roles. Its uneven reception—most Anglo-American critics cringed, while the French swooned—is a testimony to its audacity. Lewin’s last two films, made under considerable budget and casting restraints by MGM, were almost unanimously (and fairly) deemed failures. Saadia (1954), based on a minor French novel of colonial Morocco, despite the authenticity and beauty of its location ambience, is an awkward blend of romantic cliché and intellectual speculation. The Living Idol (1957), from an original script, like Lewin’s later novel The Unaltered Cat, is an even uneasier synthesis of formulaic romance, sensational supernaturalism, and almost laugh- able pedantry, in which the plot seems a flimsy armature upon which its director’s pet intellectual obsessions are top-heavily disposed. Albert Lewin was a dilettante in the fullest sense of the word. His profound enthusiasms for the other arts are manifest in his films, several of which have artist-protagonists and all of which incorporate literary allusion, scenes of song and dance (e.g., Tahitian, Indonesian, Parisian, Andalusian, Moroccan, and Mexican), and manifold art objects. But Lewin’s (real and anticipated) battles with the Hays Office and his sense of popular taste seem to have led him to add, as sops to the censors and the box office, plot elements and characters for their strictly comedic, sentimental, or moralizing values. Even his best films are thus occasionally weakened by an anomalous scene or banal figure. And, especially in his original scripts, his literary and dilettantish impulses were wont to run amok. But his efforts resulted in a few films of real distinction, of proto-Godardian reflexivity, visual intricacy, and literary pith. In the United States, where critics and audiences are often alienated by such qualities, Lewin’s reputa- tion has languored, while in Europe, where his influence on directors like Godard and Antonioni has been claimed, it has borne up rather better. —Susan Felleman LEWIS, Jerry Nationality: American. Born: Joseph Levitch in Newark, New Jersey, 16 March 1926. Education: Irvington High School, New Jersey, through tenth grade. Family: Married 1) singer Patti Palmer, 1944 (divorced 1982), five sons; 2) Sandra Pitnick, 1983, one adopted daughter. Career: Stage debut in 1931; developed comic routines and attracted Irving Kaye as manager, 1942; began working with Dean Martin at Atlantic City club, 1946; with Martin, signed by Hal Wallis for Paramount, 1948; acted in first feature, also founded production company to direct series of pastiches of Hollywood films (later Jerry Lewis Productions), 1949; chairman of Muscular Dystrophy Associa- tion of America, raising funds from annual telethons, from 1952; started solo career, 1956; signed seven-year contract with Paramount- York, 1959; after abandonment of The Day the Clown Cried, left LEWISDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 607 Jerry Lewis films for eight years, 1972; appeared on Broadway as the devil in revival of Damn Yankees, 1995. Awards: Commander of the Order of Arts and Letters, and Commander of the Legion of Honour, France, 1984; Nobel Peace Prize nomination, 1978, for work for the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Agent: Jeff Witjas, William Morris Agency, 151 El Camino Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, U.S.A. Address: Jerry Lewis Films Inc., 3160 W. Sahara Avenue #16-C, Las Vegas, NV 89102, U.S.A. Films as Director: (partial list) 1949 Fairfax Avenue (short pastiche of Sunset Boulevard); A Spot in the Shade (short pastiche of A Place in the Sun); Watch on the Lime (pastiche); Come Back, Little Shicksa (pastiche); Son of Lifeboat (pastiche); The Re-Inforcer (pastiche); Son of Spellbound (pastiche); Melvin’s Revenge (pastiche); I Should Have Stood in Bedlam (pastiche of From Here to Eternity); The Whistler (pastiche) 1960 The Bellboy (+ sc, pr, role as Stanley) 1961 The Ladies’ Man (+ sc, pr, roles as Herbert H. Heebert and his mother, Mrs. Heebert); The Errand Boy (+ sc, role as Morty S. Tachman) 1963 The Nutty Professor (+ sc, roles as Julius F. Kelp and Buddy Love) 1964 The Patsy (+ sc, role as Stanley Belt) 1965 The Family Jewels (+ pr, sc, roles as Willard Woodward, Uncle James Peyton, Uncle Eddie Peyton, Uncle Julius Peyton, Uncle Shylock Peyton, Uncle Bugs Peyton) 1966 Three on a Couch (+ pr, roles as Christopher Prise, Warren, Ringo Raintree, Rutherford, Heather) 1967 The Big Mouth (+ pr, sc, roles as Gerald Clamson, Sid Valentine) 1970 One More Time; Which Way to the Front? (+ pr, roles as Brendan Byers III, Kesselring) 1972 The Day the Clown Cried (+ principal role) (not released) 1980 Hardly Working (+ sc, principal role) 1982 Cracking Up (Smorgasbord) (+ sc, principal role) 1990 Good Grief (series for TV) 1993 Super Force (series for TV) Other Films: 1949 My Friend Irma (Marshall) (role as Seymour) 1950 My Friend Irma Goes West (Walker) (role as Seymour) 1951 At War with the Army (Walker) (role as Soldier Korwin); That’s My Boy (Walker) (role as ‘‘Junior’’ Jackson) 1952 Sailor Beware (Walker) (role as Melvin Jones); Jumping Jacks (Taurog) (role as Hap Smith) 1953 The Stooge (Taurog) (role as Ted Rogers); Scared Stiff (Marshall) (role as Myron Myron Mertz); The Caddy (Taurog) (role as Harvey Miller) 1954 Money from Home (Marshall) (role as Virgil Yokum); Living It Up (Taurog) (role as Homer Flagg); Three Ring Circus (Pevney) (role as Jerry Hotchkiss) 1955 You’re Never Too Young (Taurog) (role as Wilbur Hoolick); Artists and Models (Tashlin) (role as Eugene Fullstack) 1956 Pardners (Taurog) (role as Wade Kingsley Jr.); Hollywood or Bust (Tashlin) (role as Malcolm Smith) 1957 The Delicate Delinquent (McGuire) (pr, role as Sidney Pythias); The Sad Sack (Marshall) (role as Meredith T. Bixby); The Geisha Boy (Tashlin) (pr, role as Gilbert Wooley) 1958 Rock-a-Bye Baby (Tashlin) (pr, role as Clayton Poole) 1959 Don’t Give up the Ship (Taurog) (role as John Paul Steckley VII) 1960 Visit to a Small Planet (Taurog) (role as Kreton); Cinderfella (Tashlin) (pr, role as Fella); Li’l Abner (Frank) (brief appearance) 1962 It’s Only Money (Tashlin) (role as Lester March) 1963 It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World (Kramer) (role as man who drives over Culpepper’s hat); Who’s Minding the Store? (Tashlin) (role as Raymond Phiffier) 1964 The Disorderly Orderly (Tashlin) (role as Jerome Littlefield) 1965 Boeing Boeing (Rich) (role as Robert Reed) 1966 Way Way Out (Douglas) (role as Peter Matamore) 1967 Don’t Raise the Bridge, Lower the River (Paris), (role as George Lester) 1969 Hook, Line, and Sinker (Marshall) (pr, role as Peter Ingersoll, alias Dobbs) 1981 Rascal Dazzle (doc) (narration) 1982 The King of Comedy (Scorsese) (role as Jerry Langford); Slapstick (Paul) (role) 1984 Retenex-moi . . . ou je fais un malheur (To Catch a Cop) (Gerard) (role as Jerry Logan); Par ou t’est rentre? On t’a pas vu sortir (Clair) (role); Slapstick of Another Kind (Paul) (role) LEWIS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 608 1989 Cookie (Seidelman) (role) 1992 American Dreamers (role); Mr. Saturday Night (role); Ari- zona Dream (role as Leo Sweetie) 1995 Funny Bones (Chelsom) (role as George Fawkes) 1996 The Nutty Professor (exec pr) 2000 Nutty Professor II: The Klumps (exec pr) Publications By LEWIS: books— The Total Film-Maker, New York, 1971. Jerry Lewis in Person, New York, 1982. By LEWIS: articles— ‘‘Mr. Lewis Is a Pussycat,’’ interview with Peter Bogdanovich, in Esquire (New York), November 1962. ‘‘America’s Uncle: Interview with Jerry Lewis,’’ with Axel Madsen, in Cahiers du Cinéma in English (New York), no. 4, 1966. Interview in Directors at Work, edited by Bernard Kantor and others, New York, 1970. ‘‘Five Happy Moments,’’ in Esquire (New York), December 1970. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Jerry Lewis,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), September 1977. Interview with D. Rabourdin, in Cinéma (Paris), April 1980. Interview with Serge Daney, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1983. ‘‘The King of Comedy,’’ an interview with T. Jousse and V. Ostria, in Cahiers du Cinéma, July/August 1993. ‘‘Thank You Jerry Much,’’ an interview with Graham Fuller, in Interview, April 1995. ‘‘Time and Jerry,’’ an interview with Brian Case, in Time Out (London), 20 September 1995. ‘‘Jerry Lewis on Writing, Directing, and Starring in the Original Version of The Nutty Professor,’’ with S. Biodrowski, in Cinefantastique (Forest Park), no. 3, 1996. ‘‘Not-so-nutty Professor of Laughs,’’ an interview with Andrew Duncan, in Radio Times (London), 12 July 1997. On LEWIS: books— Gehman, Richard, That Kid—The Story of Jerry Lewis, New York, 1964. Simsolo, Noel, Le Monde de Jerry Lewis, Paris, 1969. Maltin, Leonard, Movie Comedy Teams, New York, 1970. Recasens, Gerard, Jerry Lewis, Paris, 1970. Marx, Arthur, Everybody Loves Somebody Sometime (Especially Himself): The Story of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis, New York, 1974. Cremonini, Giogio, Jerry Lewis, Firenza, 1979. Marchesini, Mauro, Jerry Lewis: Un comico a perdere, Verona, 1983. Benayoun, Robert, Bonjour Monsieur Lewis: journal ouvert, 1957–1980, Paris, 1989. Lewis, Patti, I Laffed ’til I Cried: Thirty-six Years of Marriage to Jerry Lewis, Waco, Texas, 1993. Neibaur, James L., The Jerry Lewis Films: An Analytical Filmography of the Innovative Comic, Jefferson, North Carolina, 1995. Levy, Shawn, King of Comedy: The Life and Art of Jerry Lewis, New York, 1996. Krutnik, Frank, Inventing Jerry Lewis, Washington, 2000. On LEWIS: articles— Farson, Daniel, ‘‘Funny Men: Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), July/September 1952. Kass, Robert, ‘‘Jerry Lewis Analyzed,’’ in Films in Review (New York), March 1953. Hume, Rod, ‘‘Martin and Lewis—Are Their Critics Wrong?,’’ in Films and Filming (London), March 1956. Taylor, John, ‘‘Jerry Lewis,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1965. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Editor’s Eyrie,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma in English (New York), no. 4, 1966. Schickel, Richard, ‘‘Jerry Lewis Retrieves a Lost Ideal,’’ in Life (New York), 15 July 1966. Camper, Fred, ‘‘Essays in Visual Style,’’ in Cinéma (London), no. 8, 1971. Vialle, G., and others, ‘‘Jerry Lewis,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), no. 278, 1973. Coursodon, J. P., ‘‘Jerry Lewis’s Films: No Laughing Matter?,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1975. LeBour, F., and R. DeLaroche, ‘‘Which Way to Jerry Lewis?,’’ in Ecran (Paris), July 1976. Shearer, H., ‘‘Telethon,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/ June 1979. McGilligan, P., ‘‘Recycling Jerry Lewis,’’ in American Film (Wash- ington, D.C.), September 1979. Jerry Lewis Section of Casablanca (Madrid), June 1983. Polan, Dana, ‘‘Being and Nuttiness: Jerry Lewis and the French,’’ in Journal of Popular Film and Television (Washington, D.C.), Spring 1984. Liebman, R. L., ‘‘Rabbis or Rakes, Schlemiels or Supermen? Jewish Identity in Charles Chaplin, Jerry Lewis, and Woody Allen,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 12, no. 3, July 1984. ‘‘Jerry Lewis,’’ in Film Dope (London), September 1986. Bukatman, S., ‘‘Paralysis in Motion: Jerry Lewis’s Life as a Man,’’ in Camera Obscura, May 1988. Reynaud, B., ‘‘Qui a peur de Jerry Lewis? Pas nous, pas nous,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma, February 1989. Kruger, Barbara, ‘‘Remote Control,’’ in Artforum, November 1989. Bukatman, S., ‘‘Session: Jerry Lewis,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film Studies, no. 4, 1989. Selig, Michael, ‘‘The Nutty Professor: A ‘Problem’ in Film Scholar- ship,’’ in Velvet Light Trap, Fall 1990. Angeli, Michael, ‘‘God’s Biggest Goof,’’ in Esquire, February 1991. Woodcock, J. M., ‘‘The Name Dropper Drops Jerry Lewis, Part I,’’ in American Cinemeditor, no. 3, 1991. Hoberman, J., ‘‘Before There Was ‘Scarface’ There Was . . . Rubberface,’’ in Interview, February 1993. Bolte, Bill, ‘‘Jerry’s Got to Be Kidding,’’ in Utne Reader, March 1993. Wolff, C., ‘‘Highs, Lows, Joy, and Regret, All in a Single Day’s Living,’’ in New York Times, 5 August 1993. Rapf, Joanna E., ‘‘Comic Theory from a Feminist Perspective: A Look at Jerry Lewis,’’ in Journal of Popular Culture, Sum- mer 1993. LEWISDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 609 Bennetts, Leslie, ‘‘Letter from Las Vegas: Jerry vs. the Kids’’ in Vanity Fair, September 1993. Krutnik, Frank, ‘‘Jerry Lewis: The Deformation of the Comic,’’ in Film Quarterly, Fall 1994. Haller, Beth, ‘‘The Misfit and Muscular Dystrophy,’’ in Journal of Popular Film and Television, Winter 1994. Krutnik, F., ‘‘The Handsome Man and His Monkey,’’ in Journal of Popular Film and Television (Washington, D.C.), no. 1, 1995. Castro, Peter, ‘‘Hellza Poppin,’’ in People Weekly, 27 March 1995. Krutnik, Frank, ‘‘The Handsome Man and His Monkey: The Comic Bondage of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis,’’ in Journal of Popular Film and Television, Spring 1995. Stars (Mariembourg), Autumn 1995. Seesslen, Georg, ‘‘Cinderfella & Big Mouth. Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin,’’ in EPD Film (Frankfurt), April 1996. Mago (Max Goldstein), ‘‘Souvenirs d’un film qui n’est jamais sorti,’’ in Positif (Paris), May 1998. *** In France, Jerry Lewis is called ‘‘Le Roi de Crazy’’ and adulated as a genius by filmmakers as respectable as Alain Resnais, Jean-Luc Godard, and Claude Chabrol. In America, Jerry Lewis is still an embarrassing and unexplained paradox, often ridiculed, awaiting a persuasive critical champion. This incredible gulf can in part be explained by American access, on television talk shows and Lewis’s annual muscular dystrophy telethon, to Lewis’s contradictory public persona: egotistical yet insecure, insulting yet sentimental, juvenile yet adult, emotionally naked yet defensive. Were not the real Lewis apparently so hard to love, the celluloid Lewis might be loved all the more. And yet a Lewis cult thrives among American cinephiles; and certainly The Bellboy, The Errand Boy, The Nutty Professor, and Which Way to the Front? appear today to be among the most interesting and ambitious American films of the 1960s. Lewis’s career can be divided into four periods: first, the partner- ship with singer Dean Martin, which resulted in a successful night- club act and popular series of comedies, including My Friend Irma and At War with the Army, as well as several highly regarded films directed by former cartoonist and Lewis mentor Frank Tashlin; second (after professional and personal tensions fueled by Lewis’s artistic ambitions irrevocably destroyed the partnership), an appren- ticeship as a solo comedy star, beginning with The Delicate Delin- quent and continuing through Tashlin’s Cinderfella; third, the period as the self-professed ‘‘total filmmaker,’’ inaugurated in 1960 with The Bellboy and followed by a decade of Lewis films directed by and starring Lewis, which attracted the attention of auteurist critics in France and overwhelming box-office response in America, culminat- ing with a string of well-publicized financial failures, including Which Way to the Front? and the unreleased, near-mythical The Day the Clown Cried, in which clown Lewis leads Jewish children to Nazi ovens; and finally, the period as valorized, if martyred auteur, exemplified by Lewis’s work as an actor in Martin Scorsese’s The King of Comedy and Lewis’s sporadic, unsuccessful attempts to re- establish his own directorial career. Lewis’s appeal is significantly rooted in the American silent film tradition of the individual come- dian: like Chaplin, Lewis is interested in pathos and sentiment; like Keaton, Lewis is fascinated by the comic gag which could only exist on celluloid; like Harry Langdon, Lewis exhibits, within an adult persona, childish behavior which is often disturbing and embarrass- ing; like Stan Laurel, whose first name Lewis adopts as an homage in several of his films, Lewis is the lovable innocent often endowed with almost magical qualities. What Lewis brings uniquely to this tradi- tion, however, is his obsession with the concept of the schizophrenic self; his typical cinema character has so many anxieties and tensions that it must take on other personalities in order to survive. Often, the schizophrenia becomes overtly autobiographical, with the innocent, gawky kid escaping his stigmatized existence by literally becoming ‘‘Jerry Lewis,’’ beloved and successful comedian (as in The Bellboy and The Errand Boy) or romantic leading man, perhaps representing the now absent Dean Martin (as in The Nutty Professor). Jerry Lewis’s physical presence on screen in his idiot persona emphasizes movement disorders in a way which relates provocatively to his highly publicized work for the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Schizophrenia is compounded in The Family Jewels: what Jean- Pierre Coursodon calls Lewis’s ‘‘yearning for self-obliteration’’ is manifested in seven distinct personalities. Ultimately, Lewis escapes by turning himself into his cinema, as evidenced by the credits in his failed comeback film, which proudly announce: ‘‘Jerry Lewis is . . . Hardly Working.’’ This element of cinematic escape and schizophre- nia is especially valued by the French, who politicize it as a manifesta- tion of the human condition as influenced by American capitalism. Much must also be said about the strong avant-garde qualities to Lewis’s work: his interest in surrealism; his experimentalism and fascination with self-conscious stylistic devices; his movement away from conventional gags toward structures apparently purposely de- formed; his interest in plotlessness and ellipsis; the reflexivity of his narrative; his studied use of extended silence and gibberish in a sound cinema; the ambiguous sexual subtext of his work; and finally, his use of film as personal revelation. The last decade has seen a slight diminution of Lewis’s reputation as a director (Lewis having directed television situation comedies, but no features), but an augmentation of his reputation as an actor and icon. His King of Comedy appearance now seems definitely a major performance in the American cinema, as does the Scorsese film a major statement about the American lust for celebrity. Ever since that film, a variety of younger directors have used Lewis as icon and/or as reflexive comment on the Lewis career. Perhaps Lewis’s most interesting showcase is his 1995 performance as a Las Vegas comedian in Funny Bones, directed by Peter Chelsom. It is hard not to see Funny Bones as a deadly look at the Las Vegas side of the Lewis persona, complete with the jazzy Sinatra score and the institu- tional insincerity: Lewis is the funny father who overshadows his psychologically wounded and relatively untalented son, his own celebrity having a dark, depressing underside and a deleterious effect on family life. Lewis as George Fawkes admits that he was not true to his talent and confesses, ‘‘It kills me that I used writers, instead of using me.’’ The film’s philosophy—‘‘I never saw anything funny that wasn’t terrible, that didn’t cause pain’’—seems a natural segue to other recent events in the Lewis life: his autobiography, written in 1982, chronicled, among other things, his addiction to Percodan and his driven personality. His ex-wife, Patti Lewis, followed with her own autobiography—whose title tells it all: I Laffed ’til I Cried: Thirty-six Years of Marriage to Jerry Lewis. And although Lewis has dedicated his life to raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the Muscular Dystrophy Association, he has been virulently attacked by many adults with the disease—particularly in 1992 and 1993—who claim he publicly demonstrates a patronizing, demeaning attitude and exploits them with a pity which makes their lives in society harder, L’HERBIER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 610 not easier. Lewis responded by attacking his accusers equally viru- lently, thus creating great pathos and bitterness all around: yet another fold in that seamless garment which is Lewis’s life and art. Comic performances in films by younger French directors added little to Lewis’s reputation, but a recurring role in the TV series Wiseguy in 1989 and a triumphant Broadway appearance as the devil in Damn Yankees in 1995, which reprised all his ‘‘Jerry Lewis’’ shtick, have been well received. Perhaps only Lewis’s death will allow any definitive American evaluation of his substantial career. —Charles Derry L’HERBIER, Marcel Nationality: French. Born: Paris, 23 April 1888. Education: Lycée Voltaire, Sainte-Marie de Monceau; University of Paris. Military Service: Served with Service Auxiliaire, 1914–17, and with Sec- tion Cinématographique de l’Armée, 1917–18. Career: Scriptwriter, from 1917; directed first film, Rose-France, 1918; organized Cinégraphic production company, 1922; secretary general of Asso- ciation des Auteurs de Films, 1929; co-founder, Cinémathèque Fran?aise, 1936; co-founder (1937) then president, Syndicat des Techniciens, from 1938; founder and president of Institut des Hautes Etudes Cinématographiques (IDHEC), French film school, 1943; president of Comité de Défense du Cinéma Fran?ais, 1947; producer Marcel L’Herbier for television, 1952–62. Awards: Commandeur de Légion d’Honneur et des Arts et Lettres. Died: 26 November 1979. Films as Director: 1918 Phantasmes (+ sc) (incomplete); Rose-France (+ sc) 1919 Le Bercail (+ sc); Le Carnaval des vérités (+ sc) 1920 L’Homme du large (+ sc); Villa Destin (+ sc) 1921 El Dorado (+ sc); Prométhée . . . banquier 1922 Don Juan et Faust (+ sc) 1923 Résurrection (+ sc) (incomplete) 1924 L’Inhumaine (The New Enchantment) (+ co-sc) 1925 Feu Mathias Pascal (The Late Mathias Pascal) (+ sc) 1926 Le Vertige (+ sc) 1927 Le Diable au coeur (L’Ex-Voto) (+ sc) 1928 Nuits de Prince (+ sc) 1929 L’Argent (+ sc); L’Enfant de l’amour (+ sc) 1930 La Femme d’une nuit (La donna d’una notte) (+ sc); La Mystère de la chambre jaune (+ sc) 1931 Le Parfum de la dame en noir (+ sc) 1933 L’Epervier (Les Amoureux; Bird of Prey) (+ sc) 1934 Le Scandale; L’Aventurier (+ sc); Le Bonheur (+ sc) 1935 La Route impériale (+ sc); Veille d’armes (Sacrifice d’honneur) (+ co-sc) 1936 Les Hommes nouveux (+ sc); La Porte du large (The Great Temptation) (+ sc); Nuits de feu (The Living Corpse) (+ co-sc) 1937 La Citadelle du silence (The Citadel of Silence) (+ sc); Forfaiture (+ sc) 1938 La Tragédie impériale (Rasputin) (+ sc); Adrienne Lecouvreur; Terre de feu; La Brigade sauvage (Savage Brigade) (com- pleted by J. Dreville) 1939 Entente cordiale; Children’s Corner (short); La Mode rêvée (short) (+ sc) 1940 La Comédie du bonheur (+ sc) 1941 Histoire de rire (Foolish Husbands) 1942 La Nuit fantastique; L’Honorable Catherine 1943 La Vie de Bohême 1945 Au petit bonheur 1946 L’Affaire du collier de la Reine (The Queen’s Necklace) 1947 La Révoltée (Stolen Affections) (+ sc) 1948 Les Derniers Jours de Pompéi (The Last Days of Pompeii) (+ co-sc) 1953 Le Pére de mademoiselle (co-d) 1963 Hommage à Debussy (short) 1967 Le Cinéma du diable (anthology film) Other Films: 1917 Le Torrent (Hervil) (sc); Bouclette (L’Ange de minuit) (Mercanton and Hervil) (sc) 1932 Le Martyre de l’Obèse (Chenal) (supervisor) 1933 La Bataille (Farkas) (supervisor) 1938 Terra di fuoco (Ferroni) (Italian version of Terre de feu) (supervisor) L’HERBIERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 611 1943 Le Loup des Malveneur (Radot) (supervisor) 1947 Une Grande Fille tout simple (Manuel) (supervisor) Publications By L’HERBIER: books— Au jardin des jeux secrets, Paris, 1914. L’Enfantement du mort, Paris, 1917. Intelligence du cinématographe (anthology), Paris, 1947 (revised 1977). La Tête qui tourne, Paris, 1979. By L’HERBIER: articles— Interview, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 202, 1968. Interview with J. Fieschi and others, in Cinématographe (Paris), no. 40, 1978. ‘‘Un Cinéaste . . . ,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 Janu- ary 1980. Interview, in Cinémagazine, reprinted in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 15 October 1981. On L’HERBIER: books— Jaque-Catelain présente Marcel L’Herbier, Paris, 1950. Burch, No?l, Marcel L’Herbier, Paris, 1973. Hommage à Marcel L’Herbier en cinq films de l’art muet, brochure for retrospective, Paris, 1975. Brossard, Jean-Pierre, editor, Marcel L’Herbier et son temps, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland, 1980. Canosa, Michele, Marcel L’Herbier, Parma, 1985. On L’HERBIER: articles— ‘‘The Big Screens,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1955. Roud, Richard, ‘‘Memories of Resnais,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Summer 1969. Blumer, R.H., ‘‘The Camera as Snowball: France 1918–1927,’’ in Cinema Journal (Evanston), Spring 1970. Article on five films of L’Herbier, in Ecran (Paris), no. 43, 1976. ‘‘L’Herbier Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 June 1978. Trosa, S., ‘‘Archeologie du cinéma,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), December 1978. Obituary, in New York Times, 28 November 1979. Fieschi, J., ‘‘Marcel L’Herbier,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), Decem- ber 1979. Obituary, in Image et Son (Paris), January 1980. Milani, R., ‘‘Il cinema di Marcel L’Herbier,’’ in Filmcritica (Montepoulciano), vol. 37, no. 364, May 1986. ‘‘Marcel L’Herbier,’’ in Film Dope (London), September 1986. *** Marcel L’Herbier was one of the most prominent members of the French 1920s avant-garde. His direct involvement with filmmaking extended into the 1950s and he made important contributions to the organization of the industry, to the foundation of the film school, the IDHEC, and to early television drama. Like so many of his generation L’Herbier turned to cinema after an early enthusiasm for literature and the theatre, and in his case it was Cecil B. DeMille’s The Cheat with Sessue Hayakawa that opened his eyes to the unrealized potential of the new medium. He came to prominence in the years 1919–22 with a series of films made for Léon Gaumont’s ‘‘Pax’’ series. Among the half-dozen films made for Gaumont, two at least stand out as artistic and commercial successes: L’Homme du large, a melodrama shot partly on location on the Brittany coast, where the director’s interest in visual effects and symbolism is very apparent; and El Dorado, a Spanish drama in which L’Herbier’s use of cinema to convey the mental and psycho- logical states of characters finds perfect expression. El Dorado achieved a success to match that of Gance’s La Roue the follow- ing year. Difficulties with Gaumont over the production of the ambitious Don Juan et Faust led L’Herbier to set up his own company, Cinégraphic, in 1922. He was able to assist the debuts of young filmmakers such as Jaque Catelain and Claude Autant-Lara as well as produce the last film of Louis Delluc, L’Inondation. His own films were made largely in co-production and ranged widely in style and approach. The celebrated but controversial L’Inhumaine, partly fi- nanced by its star the singer Georgette Leblanc, aimed to offer a mosaic of the decorative modern art of 1925, with sets produced by four very individual designers, including Fernand Léger and Robert Mallet-Stevens. In total contrast, Feu Matthias Pascal was essentially an experiment with complex narrative structures, co-produced with the Albatros company which had been set up by Russian exiles and starring the great silent actor, Ivan Mosjoukine. L’Herbier’s eclectic approach and love of juxtapositions are very apparent in these films, together with his immense visual refinement. After a couple of commercial works he made his silent masterpiece, an updating of Zola’s L’Argent, in 1929. Inspired by the scope of Gance’s Napoléon, L’Herbier created a strikingly modern work marked by its opulent, oversized sets and a complex, multi-camera shooting style. L’Herbier was in no way hostile to the coming of sound, but despite a pair of interesting adaptations of comic thrillers by Gaston Leroux, Le Mystére de la chambre jaune and Le Parfum de la dame en noir, L’Herbier was largely reduced to the role of efficient but uninspired adaptor of stage plays in the 1930s. During the occupation years L’Herbier again came to prominence with his delicately han- dled, dreamlike La Nuit fantastique, but his subsequent work, which included a spectacular version of Les Derniers Jours de Pompei in 1948, attracted little critical favor. In more recent years, however, L’Herbier’s reputation has benefitted from the revival of interest in the experimental aspects of French 1920s cinema. Though to some extent overshadowed by the towering figure of Abel Gance, L’Herbier emerges as a figure of considerable interest. In particular the work of the critic and theorist No?l Burch has emphasized the modernity of the approach to shooting and to narrative construction displayed in his ambitious L’Argent. There seems little doubt that French 1920s cinema offers a rich and largely unexplored area for future film studies and that L’Herbier’s reputation can only benefit from fresh investigation of his varied 1920s oeuvre. —Roy Armes LINKLATER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 612 LINKLATER, Richard Nationality: American. Born: Austin, Texas, 1965. Career: Founded Austin Film Society, 1987; directed first feature, It’s Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books, 1988. Awards: Silver Bear Award for Best Director, Berlin Film Festival, 1995. Films as Director: 1988 It’s Impossible to Learn to Plow by Reading Books 1991 Slacker (+ pr, sc, role) 1993 Dazed and Confused (+ pr, sc) 1995 Before Sunrise (+ sc) 1997 SubUrbia 1998 The Newton Boys (+ sc) 2000 Waking Life (+ sc) Other Films: 1995 The Underneath (role as Ember Doorman) Publications By LINKLATER: books— Slacker, St. Martin’s Press, 1992. Dazed and Confused, St. Martin’s Press, 1993. Before Sunrise, St. Martin’s Press, 1995. By LINKLATER: articles— ‘‘Slacker,’’ an interview with C. Gore, in Film Threat, no. 22, 1990. ‘‘Idle Thinking,’’ an interview with Tom Charity, in Time Out (London), 2 December 1992. ‘‘The Six Million Dollar Slacker,’’ an interview with C. Gore, in Film Threat, 29 April 1993. ‘‘Richard Linklater’s Hot List,’’ interview in Rolling Stone, 13 May 1993. ‘‘School Daze,’’ an interview with Tom Charity, in Time Out (London), 31 August 1994. ‘‘The (Not So) Dazed and Confused Richard Linklater,’’ an inter- view, in Suspect Culture (Toronto), Fall 1994. Griffin, D., ‘‘Slackjawing,’’ in Film Threat (Beverly Hills), April 1995. ‘‘Richard Linklater: The Austin Auteur Refuses to Play by Holly- wood’s Rules—and Wins,’’ an interview with Robert Draper, in Texas Monthly, September 1995. ‘‘Suburban Blight,’’ an interview with Chris Pizzello, in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), March 1997. ‘‘Q & A: Richard Linklater on the Independent Film Scene,’’ an interview with J.A. Waltz, in Boxoffice (Chicago), April 1997. On LINKLATER: articles— Horton, R., ‘‘Stranger than Texas,’’ in Film Comment, July-Au- gust 1990. Shulevitz, J., ‘‘City Slacker,’’ in Village Voice, 9 July 1991. ‘‘A $23,000 Film Is Turning into a Hit,’’ in New York Times, 7 August 1991. Dargis, M., ‘‘In the Loop,’’ in Village Voice, 29 December 1992. Kelleher, E., ‘‘Dazed and Confused Recalls ‘70s Teen Days,’’ in Film Journal, August 1993. Brown, David, and Jessica Shaw, ‘‘Look Back in Languor,’’ in Entertainment Weekly, 8 October 1993. Savage, Jon, Bea Campbell, and Mark Sinker, ‘‘Boomers and Busters/ Reality Bites,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), July 1994. Savage, Jon, in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), January 1997. Felperin, Leslie, and Claire Monk, ‘‘Close to the Edge/ SubUrbia,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), October 1997. Speed, Lesley, ‘‘Tuesday’s Gone: the Nostalgic Teen Film,’’ in Journal of Popular Film and Television (Washington, D.C.), Spring 1998. *** Once, in Hollywood, directors were anonymous (despite the fact that their names appeared on many films): I was not aware of Howard Hawks or Leo McCarey until very late in their careers, despite the fact that I had seen a number of their films. Then, in the brief heyday of the Auteur theory, directors became briefly important: some filmgoers, at least, became aware of their names. In contemporary Hollywood, directors are largely superfluous. Aside from one or two tenacious auteurs like Scorsese, what does it matter anymore who directed what? Hollywood films today are, for the most part, produced by cine- illiterate corporations and directed (apparently) by anyone who happens to wander onto the set. They are made by technicians, the directors of ‘‘stunts,’’ and the special-effects department. It is in this context that the careers of several courageous young independent filmmakers, with the nerve to reveal certain seemingly obsolete or unwelcome qualities like integrity, conscience, and per- sonal vision, have to be considered: I have in mind especially Todd Haynes, Gregg Araki, and Richard Linklater. All three are clearly auteurs in that their films are thematically and stylistically consistent and recognizable; but the same could be said of Ken Russell or David Lynch, so that one should add that their work is also distinguished by real intelligence. It is certainly arguable that Safe (Haynes), The Doom Generation (Araki), and Before Sunrise (Linklater) are, Scorsese aside, the three best American films of the 1990s. Each now has a following, and so long as their living arrangements don’t require a house in Beverly Hills and more than one swimming pool, there seems no reason why they should not continue to make the finest American films currently being produced. One may begin at (so far) the end, with Before Sunrise, an oasis in the desert of contemporary Hollywood where one may again breathe fresh air and drink unpolluted water. A film built upon the long take, by a director who trusts and works with his actors for character and nuance, instead of relying on TV-style editing; a film that expresses, at every point, a refinement, a grace, a sensibility one believed long ago destroyed by the advance of corporate capitalism; incidentally, a film that begins with Purcell (Dido and Aeneas) and (almost) ends with Bach (the Goldberg Variations): one could not predict such a film, not only from the Hollywood context, but from Linklater’s previous work, intelligent and distinctive as that is. One also wonders whether anything like it can be done again, given the feebleness of public response and the half-hearted polite interest of most reviewers. At least it was honored at the Berlin Film Festival, but I have not LINKLATERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 613 Richard Linklater found it on a single critic’s list of the best films of 1995 (except my own private one, where it has first place). With its Vienna setting, including a visit to the Prater, and its overriding concern with the redefinition of romantic love, it seems inevitable to compare it with an earlier masterpiece, a film of equal delicacy, subtlety, and emotional fineness, Ophuls’s Letter from an Unknown Woman—the differences being, of course, more important than the parallels. In Letter, ‘‘romantic love’’ entailed lifetime commitment (even when unreciprocated), an existence sustained solely by illusion, and ultimate tragedy; but the basis for that was the subordinate position of women, their complementary options of wife or prostitute, both selling their services. ‘‘Romantic love,’’ as fantasy, represented the heroine’s only means of transcending the ignominy of her situation. Before Sunrise redefines romantic love in a world where the lovers meet on a level of full equality, where permanence of any kind and on either side is uncertain and no longer necessarily desirable. Everyone with whom I have discussed the film asks what is implied by the ending: Will they or won’t they keep their date in Vienna six months later? I think the more interesting question the film raises implicitly is, Would it be better if they did or if they didn’t? Is it better to imprison yourself in the still-dominant conventions of ‘‘the couple’’ (marriage, family, permanence), or to keep fresh the memory of one perfect, magical night, and go on from there? The film’s refusal to answer either question perhaps accounts for its commercial failure: audiences still seem to resent being left in a state of uncertainty, even though most of their members live in one. Despite its extreme difference, Before Sunrise has certain aspects in common with its two predecessors, Slacker and Dazed and Confused. All three take place in less than twenty-four hours; each presents a world in which nothing is certain anymore and where no future is guaranteed; although each is situated within a single town or city, all three are about wandering; in all three, the characters are essentially or literally homeless, if only for the time period of the film. In Slacker, the only home besides cheap, impermanent apartments is that of the first character (aside from Linklater himself, the stranger whose arrival in town initiates the chain of interlocking, overlapping episodes), who is arrested and removed from it for deliberately running down and killing his own mother. In Dazed and Confused, home is something to be escaped from, and in Before Sunrise two people, strangers without money in a foreign city, spend the night wandering the streets. Their attraction to each other clearly has little to do with any possible domestic future. LITTIN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 614 All three films are distinguished by Linklater’s complex relation- ship to the characters and the action, delicately poised between sympathy and critical distance. His characters are neither indulged nor held up to ridicule, they are presented generously but quite unsentimentally. The various ‘‘slackers’’ of the first film are fre- quently bizarre and slightly absurd, but this is understood in terms of their alienation from a culture that offers them no hope and breeds paranoia. Dazed and Confused (the least unconventional of the three, and the one commercial success) is at once modeled on and an antidote to American Graffiti, without a vestige of that film’s conde- scending, audience-flattering ‘‘cuteness.’’ It also never descends into nostalgia for ‘‘the best days of your life.’’ It depicts quite uncompro- misingly the brutality and stupidity of initiation rituals, the variously corrupted and brutalized seniors using the (relatively) innocent young as the victims of their own frustrations, their acquired sadism, the physical cruelty of the males echoed in the females’ desire to humiliate their juniors. Indeed, ‘‘initiation,’’ in a very real sense, is enacted in one of the plot-threads, wherein a freshman learns, as a way to ‘‘belonging,’’ the destructive behavior of his elders. One character, despite severe pressures from both his coach and his peers, manages to preserve his integrity—by refusing to sign a paper promising to forswear drugs and alcohol. In the context Linklater creates, it is a heroic gesture. Finally, one must acknowledge Linklater’s brilliant work with actors, whether the huge cast of non-professionals in Slacker, the multiple narratives of Dazed and Confused, or the marvelously subtle, flexible and nuanced performances of Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in Before Sunrise. —Robin Wood LITTIN, Miguel Nationality: Chilean. Born: Palmilla (Colchagua), Chile, 9 August 1942. Education: Theatre School of the University of Chile, Santiago. Family: Married Eli Menz. Career: TV director and producer, 1963; stage director and actor, and assistant on several films, 1964–67; founding member, Committee of the Popular Unity Filmmakers, 1969; named director of national production company Chile Films by Salvador Allende, 1970; made weekly newsreels for Chile Films, 1970–71; emigrated to Mexico following coup d’etat, 1973; member of Executive Committee of Latin American Filmmakers, 1974. Awards: Chilean Critics Prize, for El Chacal de Nahueltoro, 1970. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1968 Por la tierra ajena (On Foreign Land) 1969 El chacal de Nahueltoro (The Jackal of Nahueltoro) 1971 Compa?ero Presidente 1973 La tierra prometida (The Promised Land) 1975 El recurso del método (Viva el Presidente; Reasons of State) (co-sc) 1980 La viuda de Montiel (Montiel’s Widow) 1982 Alsino y el cóndor (Alsino and the Condor) 1985 Actas de Marusia (Letters from Marusia) 1986 Acta General de Chile (General Statement on Chile) 1990 Sandino (+ sc) 1994 Los Naufragos 1999 Tierra del Fuego Other Films: 1965 Yo tenía un camarada (I Had a Comrade) (Soto) (role) 1966 Mundo mágico (Magic World) (Soto) (role); ABC do amor (The ABC of Love) (role) Publications By LITTIN: books— Cine chileno: La tierra prometida, Caracas, 1974. El Chacal de Nahueltoro: La tierra prometida, Mexico City, 1977. By LITTIN: articles— ‘‘Film in Chile,’’ an interview in Cineaste (New York), Spring 1971. Interview with M. Torres, in Cine Cubano (Havana), no. 76/77, 1972. ‘‘Culture populaire et lutte impérialiste,’’ an interview with J.-R. Huleu and others, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July/August 1974. Interview with Marcel Martin, in Ecran (Paris), November 1977. ‘‘Cine Chileno en exilio,’’ an interview with Gastón Ancelovici, in Contracampo (Madrid), December 1979. Interview with Emilia Palma, in Cine Cubano (Havana), no. 100, 1981. ‘‘Lo desmesurado, el espacio real del sue?o americano,’’ in Cine Cubano (Havana), no. 105, 1983. ‘‘Coming Home,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), January/ February 1986. ‘‘Unter falschem Namen,’’ an interview with A. Eichhorn, in Film und Fernsehen (Berlin), July 1987. On LITTIN: books— Bolzoni, Francesco, El cine de Allende, Valencia, 1974. Chanan, Michael, editor, Chilean Cinema, London, 1976. García Marquéz, Gabriel, Clandestine in Chile: The Adventures of Miguel Littin, New York, 1987. On LITTIN: articles— Wilson, David, ‘‘Aspects of Latin American Political Cinema,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1972. Burton, Julianne, ‘‘The Promised Land,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berke- ley), Fall 1975. Scott, R., ‘‘The Arrival of the Instrument in Flesh and Blood: Deconstruction in Littin’s Promised Land,’’ in Ciné-Tracts (Mon- treal), Spring/Summer 1978. Kovacs, K.S., ‘‘Miguel Littin’s Recurso del método: the aftermath of Allende,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1980. Le Pennec, Fran?oise, ‘‘Cinéma du Chili: en exil ou sur place,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), February 1983. Mouesca, J., ‘‘El cine chileno en el exilio (1973–1983),’’ in Cine Cubano (Havana), no. 109, 1984. LOACHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 615 ‘‘Miguel Littin,’’ in Film Dope (London), September 1986. Zaoral, Zdenek, ‘‘Miguel Littin,’’ in Film a Doba (Prague), March 1987. Blazeva, T., and G.G. Markes, in Kinoizkustvo (Sofia), April 1987. Rinaldi, G., ‘‘Los naufragos,’’ in Cineforum (Bergamo), June 1994. Tobin, Y., ‘‘Los naufragos,’ in Positif (Paris), July/August 1994. *** ‘‘Each of my movies corresponds to a moment in Chilean political life.’’ From this manifesto-like stance in his earlier career, Miguel Littin’s cinematic concerns have widened geographically but main- tained their political orientation. Certainly it is an attitude that has earned him detractors. But it is fair to say that his best work has been provoked by contradictions offered to socialist ideals through the lessons of history. Squaring this circle, or for Littin, seeing how imperialism, dictatorship, and subjugation are self-perpetuating, al- lows us to trace the fine line in his work between political sentimental- ity and genuine cinematic ingenuity. El chacal de Nahueltoro cour- ageously addresses the notion of ideology in the true story of an illiterate peasant who murders his common-law wife and her five children. Taking this popular personification of Evil, Littin shows the irony of a peasant who only achieves self-enlightenment at the point of judicial persecution, only becomes literate to sign his death warrant, and only becomes a good Catholic in time to die one. But the film seeks to avoid the perpetuation of bourgeois forms itself: flashbacks culminate at a point midway through the film when the crime is actually committed; the real dialogue of the peasant is used; and handheld camera shots and journalistic techniques simultane- ously invoke sensations of authenticity and manipulation. The film pitched Littin into the leading ranks of Latin American directors, an achievement he followed with La tierra prometida. Again closely historically detailed, it tells the story of a popular revolt that is finally massacred by the army. But it moved to a larger cinematic scope, starring the peasants of the Santa Cruz region, and invoked the ambiguity of folk symbolism in an allegory of the weaknesses in Allende’s Popular Unity. Two months after it was made a similar military coup put an end to Allende’s government. After the coup, Littin went to Mexico and looked back on Chile’s recent, violent history in Actas de Marusia. This film documents the roots of right-wing domination in an English Mining Company’s exploitation of a small Chilean town at the start of the century, ending in torture, hostage-taking, and mass-murder. For some, however, the film was too one-sided, one critic calling it ‘‘nothing so much as a Stalinist hymn to the glories of suicidal sacrifice.’’ Nonetheless its ochre-toned intensity gained it an Academy Award nomination as Best Foreign Film. From here his career took a different turn. The emerging fashion for Latin American ‘‘magic realism’’ in European and American literary tastes saw Littin making a parallel rapprochement with ‘‘western’’ intellectual culture—the previous agent of cultural con- tamination. El recurso del método, based on a Carpentier novel, was archly thoughtful, quoting from Descartes in its portrayal of an exiled Latin American dictator. But again it detailed Littin’s concern with the forms of ideology that condone dictatorship—here in the delusion of subjectivity: ‘‘The dictator can seem nice and understandable in his behaviour, but at the same time he reveals the extent to which he himself has been destroyed by the ideology of imperialism. . . . Therefore I didn’t want to stress the individual.’’ Mirrors, paintings, and lamps refract the lighting, rendering illumination and identifica- tion uncertain: ‘‘It is a play of reflections between truths, lies, ambiguities, and from the joining of all these elements, the spectator will be able to draw a conclusion, to become aware of what a dictator- ship is.’’ El recurso del método struck the plangent note of the exiled Littin’s own political pessimism, a note that was echoed in La viuda de Montiel, which showed the widow of a local tyrant gradually becoming aware of her previous self-delusions. In spite of Garciá Márquez providing the story, the film failed to take off. But Alsino y el cóndor, taking as its subject a boy’s dream of flying, did take off, showing Littin’s return to contemporary Latin American realities in the context of Somoza’s Nicaragua of 1979. Some saw the film’s clear political sympathies as hampering it at the Academy Awards where it was nominated for Best Foreign Film. But the film cinematically transcended its political objectives in a power- ful, emotive vision of a country torn by civil war, seen through the eyes of a crippled child. That innocent eye is one Littin tried to capture when he surreptitiously returned to Chile after twelve years in exile to secretly film life under Pinochet. He was disguised as an Uruguayan businessman and covertly directed four film crews. The resulting four-part documentary, Acta General de Chile, is a testament to Littin’s flexibility and bravado. Littin’s place in Latin American film history is ensured, for reasons that go beyond the aesthetic. Paradoxically, what has earned him posterity has often cost him aesthetically. Responsiveness to a changing political climate renders him an unpredictable director, but nonetheless bodes well for the future. —Saul Frampton LOACH, Ken Nationality: British. Born: Kenneth Loach in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, 17 June 1937. Education: Studied law at Oxford University. Mili- tary Service: Served two years in the Royal Air Force. Family: Married Lesley Ashton (Loach), three sons (one deceased), two daughters. Career: Acted with a repertory company in Birmingham, then joined the BBC, 1961; director of Z Cars for TV, 1962; directed episodes in the BBC’s Wednesday Play series, including Cathy Come Home, Three Clear Sundays, Up the Junction, The End of Arthur’s Marriage, Coming Out Party, In Two Minds, and The Big Flame, 1965–69; directed his first feature, Poor Cow, 1967; with producer Tony Garnett, set up Kestrel Films production company, 1969; freelanced, though working mainly for Britain’s Central TV, 1970s. Awards: British TV Guild TV Director of the Year Award, 1965; Berlin Film Festival OCIC Award, Interfilm Award, and FIPRESCI Award, for Family Life, 1972; Cannes Film Festival Young Cinema Award, for Looks and Smiles, 1981; Berlin Film Festival OCIC Award, for Which Side Are You On?, 1984; Cannes Film Festival Jury Prize, for Hidden Agenda, 1990; Cannes Film Festival FIPRESCI Award, Best Film European Film Award, for Riff-Raff, 1990; Cannes Film Festival Jury Prize, for Raining Stones, 1993; Berlin Film Festival Prize of the Ecumenical Jury, for Ladybird Ladybird, 1994; British Academy Award Michael Balcon Award, 1994; Venice Film Festival Golden Lion of Career Achievement, 1994; Best Foreign ilm Cesar Award, Cannes Film Festival FIPRESCI Award, Best Film European Film Awards, for Land and Freedom, 1995; Venice Film Festival The President of the Italian Senate’s Gold Medal, Havana Film Festival Coral for Best Work of a Non-Latin American Director LOACH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 616 Ken Loach on a Latin American Subject, for Carla’s Song, 1996; Leipzig DOK Festival Prize of the trade union IG Medien, Marseilles Festival of the Documentary Film Special Mention, for The Flickering Flame, 1997; British Independent Film Award Best British Director of an Indepen- dent Film, Valladolid International Film Festival Audience Award and Golden Spike, Robert Festival Best Non-American Film, Bodil Festival Best Non-American Film, for My Name Is Joe, 1998; Torino International Film Festival of Young Cinema Cipputi Carrer Award, 1998; Evening Standard British Film Award Special Award, 1999. Films as Director: 1967 Poor Cow (+ co-sc) 1969 Kes (+ co-sc) 1971 The Save the Children Fund Film (short); 1972 Family Life (Wednesday’s Child) 1979 Black Jack (+ sc) 1981 Looks and Smiles 1986 Fatherland (Singing the Blues in Red) 1990 Hidden Agenda; Riff-Raff 1993 Raining Stones 1994 Ladybird Ladybird 1995 Land and Freedom 1996 Carla’s Song 1998 My Name Is Joe 2000 Bread and Roses Films for Television: 1964 Catherine; Profit by Their Example; The Whole Truth; The Diary of a Young Man 1965 Tap on the Shoulder; Wear a Very Big Hat; Three Clear Sundays; Up the Junction; The End of Arthur’s Marriage; The Coming out Party 1966 Cathy Come Home 1967 In Two Minds 1968 The Golden Vision 1969 The Big Flame; In Black and White (not transmitted) 1971 The Rank and File Film; After a Lifetime 1973 A Misfortune LOACHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 617 1976 Days of Hope (in four parts) 1977 The Price of Coal 1979 The Gamekeeper 1980 Auditions 1981 A Question of Leadership 1983 The Red and the Blue; Questions of Leadership (in four parts, not transmitted) 1984 Which Side Are You On? (+ pr) 1985 Diverse Reports: We Should Have Won 1989 Split Screen: Peace in Northern Ireland 1997 The Flickering Flame (doc) Publications By LOACH: articles— ‘‘Spreading Wings at Kestrel,’’ interview with P. Bream, in Films and Filming (London), March 1972. Interview with M. Amiel, in Cinéma (Paris), December 1972. Interview with J. O’Hara, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), April 1977. ‘‘A Fidelity to the Real,’’ interview with Leonard Quart, in Cineaste (New York), Fall 1980. Interview with Julian Petley, in Framework (Norwich), no. 18, 1982. Interview with Robert Brown, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), January 1983. ‘‘The Complete Ken Loach,’’ interview with P. Kerr, in Stills (London), May/June 1986. ‘‘Getting It Right!,’’ interview with G. Ambjornsson, in Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 29, no 3, 1987. Interview in Film Dope (London), February 1987. ‘‘Voice in the Dark,’’ interview with Gavin Smith, in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1988. Interview in Cinéma (Paris), June 1990. Interview in La Revue du Cinéma (Paris), November 1991. Interview in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1991. ‘‘Why Cathy Will Never Come Home Again,’’ interview with Julian Petley and Sheila McKechnie, in New Statesman & Society (London), 2 April 1993. ‘‘Sympathetic Images,’’ interview with Gavin Smith, in Film Com- ment (New York), March/April 1994. Interview with Geoffrey Mcnab, in Sight and Sound (London), November 1994. Interview with No?l Herpe, in Positif (Paris), October 1995. ‘‘The Revolution Betrayed/ Land and Freedom,’’ interview with Richard Porton, in Cineaste (New York), April 1996. ‘‘Recontre avec Ken Loach,’’ with Bernard Nave, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), November-December 1996. Interview with Marcel Meeus and Ronnie Pede, in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), December 1996. Interview with Judith Waldner and Peter Krobath, in Zoom (Zürich), April 1997. Interview with John Hill, in Sight and Sound (London), Novem- ber 1998. ‘‘My Life in the Movies,’’ interview with Monika Maurer, in Empire (London), December 1998. ‘‘The Politics of Everyday Life,’’ interview with Susan Ryan and Richard Porton, in Cineaste (New York), Winter 1998. ‘‘Things I Cannot Change,’’ interview with Adam Pincus, in Filmmaker (Los Angeles), February 1999. On LOACH: book— McKnight, George, Agent of Challenge and Defiance, Westport, 1997. On LOACH: articles— Taylor, John, ‘‘The Kes Dossier,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1970. ‘‘Tony Garnett and Ken Loach,’’ in Documentary Explorations: Fifteen Interviews with Filmmakers, by G. Roy Levin, New York, 1971. McAsh, Iain, ‘‘One More Time,’’ in Films Illustrated (London), December 1978. Petley, Julian, ‘‘Questions of Censorship,’’ in Stills (London), Novem- ber 1984. Kerr, Paul, ‘‘The Complete Ken Loach,’’ in Stills (London), May/ June 1986. Fatherland Section of Jeune Cinéma (Paris), January/February 1987. Petley, Julian, ‘‘Ken Loach—Politics, Protest, and the Past,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), March 1987. ‘‘Kenneth Loach,’’ in Film Dope (London), February 1987. Nave, B., ‘‘Portrait d’un cinéaste modeste: Ken Loach,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), October/November 1987. Grant, Steve, ‘‘Troubles Shooter,’’ in Time Out (London), 2 Janu- ary 1991. Pannifer, Bill, ‘‘Agenda Bender,’’ in Listener (London), 3 Janu- ary 1991. Malcolm, Derek, ‘‘Straight out of Britain, Tales of Working-Class Life,’’ in New York Times, 31 January 1993. Fuller, G., ‘‘True Brit,’’ Village Voice (New York), 9 February 1993. Munro, Rona, and Geoffrey Macnab, ‘‘Ladybird, Ladybird,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), November 1994. Garbicz, Adam, ‘‘Brat Loach,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), April 1995. Guérin, Marie-Anne, ‘‘Kenneth Loach,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July-August 1995. Hooper, J., ‘‘When the Shooting Starts,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 26 March 1996. Hill, John, ‘‘Every Fuckin’ Choice Stinks,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), November 1998. Light, Bob, ‘‘Class of ‘98,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Janu- ary 1999. *** Ken Loach is not only Britain’s most political filmmaker, he is also its most censored—and the two are not entirely unconnected. Loach’s career illustrates all too clearly the immense difficulties facing the radical filmmaker in Britain today: the broadcasting organisations’ position within the state makes them extraordinarily sensitive sites from which to tackle certain fundamental political questions (about labour relations, ‘‘national security,’’ or Northern Ireland, for example), while the film industry, though less subject to political interference and self-censorship, simply finds Loach’s pro- jects too ‘‘uncommercial,’’ thanks to its habitually poverty-stricken state. And what other filmmaker, British or otherwise, has found one of his films the subject of vitriolic attacks by sections of his own country’s press at a major international film festival—as happened at Cannes in 1990 with Hidden Agenda? LOACH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 618 For all the obvious political differences with Grierson, Loach is the chief standard bearer of the British cinematic tradition that started with the documentary movement in the 1930s. His quintessentially naturalistic approach was apparent even in his earliest works (in his contributions to the seminal BBC police series Z Cars, for instance) but really came to the fore with Up the Junction and Cathy Come Home. In the days when television drama was still finding its way beyond the proscenium arch and out from under the blanket of middle-brow, middle-class, literary-based classics, Cathy’s portrayal of a homeless family hounded by the forces of a pitiless bureaucracy caused a sensation and led directly to the founding of the housing charity Shelter. Indeed, one critic described it as ‘‘effecting massive, visceral change in millions of viewers in a single evening.’’ Typi- cally, however, Loach himself has been far more circumspect, argu- ing that the film was socially as opposed to politically conscious, that it made people aware of a problem without giving them any indication of what they might do about it. He concludes that ‘‘ideally I should have liked Cathy to lead to the nationalisation of the building industry and home ownership. Only political action can do anything in the end’’—a point of view to which he has remained faithful throughout his career. Accordingly, in The Big Flame, The Rank and File, and the four- part series Days of Hope, Loach turned to more directly political subjects. It is in these dramas that Loach begins his project of giving voice to the politically silenced and marginalised. As he put it, ‘‘I think it’s a very important function to let people speak who are usually disqualified from speaking or who’ve become non-persons—activ- ists, militants, or people who really have any developed political ideas. One after the other in different industries, there have been people who’ve developed very coherent political analyses, who are really just excluded. They’re vilified—called extremists and then put beyond the pale.’’ Such views made enemies across the spectrum of political ideolo- gies but, typically, Loach’s critics cloaked what were basically political objections in apparently aesthetic rhetoric. In particular, Loach was dragged into the much-rehearsed argument that the ‘‘documentary-drama’’ form dishonestly and misleadingly blurs the line between fact and fiction and, in particular, presents the latter as the former. Loach himself dismisses such criticisms as ‘‘ludicrous’’ and a ‘‘smokescreen,’’ citing the numerous uncontroversial disinterrings of Churchill, Edward VII, and others and concluding that ‘‘It’s an argument that’s always dragged out selectively when there’s a view of history, a view of events, that the Establishment doesn’t agree with— it’s not really the form which worries them at all. It’s such an intellectual fraud that it doesn’t bear serious consideration.’’ Loach’s work, especially Days of Hope, was also drawn into a more serious debate which raged at one time in the pages of Screen about whether films with ‘‘progressive’’ political content can be truly ‘‘progressive’’ if they utilise the allegedly outworn and ideologically dubious conventions of realism. Loach’s response was to accuse such critics of ‘‘not seeing the woods for the trees. The big issue which we tried to make plain to ordinary folks who aren’t film critics was that the Labour leadership had betrayed them fifty years ago and were about to do so again. That’s the important thing to tell people. It surprised me that critics didn’t take the political point, but a rather abstruse cinematic point.... Even the more serious critics always avoid confronting the content of the film and deciding if they think it is truthful. They’ll skirt around it by talking about realism and the Function of Film or they’ll do a little paragraph while devoting all their space to some commercial film they pretend to dislike.’’ With the coming of the 1980s Loach began to shift increasingly into documentary proper, abandoning dramatic devices altogether. This was partly a result of the increasing difficulty, both economic and political, that he had in making the kind of films in which he was most interested, but was also related to the advent of Thatcherism in 1979. As he himself explained, ‘‘There were things we wanted to say head on and not wrapped up in fiction, things that should be said as directly as one can say them. Thatcherism just felt so urgent that I thought that doing a fictional piece for TV, which would take a year just to get commissioned and at least another year to make, was just too slow. Documentaries can tackle things head on, and you can make them faster than dramas too—though with hindsight it’s just as hard, if not harder, to get them transmitted.’’ Indeed, Loach had major problems with his analysis of the relationship between trade union leaders and the rank and file in A Question of Leadership and the series Questions of Leadership, the first of which was cut in order to include a final ‘‘balancing’’ discussion and broadcast in only one ITV region, while the second was never broadcast at all after numerous legal wrangles over alleged defamation. Similarly, Loach’s coal dispute film, Which Side Are You On?, was banned by the company (London Weekend Television) which commissioned it. It was finally televised, but only after it could be ‘‘balanced’’ by a programme less sympathetic to the striking miners than Loach’s. It says a great deal about the system of film and television programme making in Britain that one of the country’s most experienced and politically conscious directors was, and re- mains, unable to produce a full-scale work about one of the most momentous political events in the country’s recent history. Exactly the same could be said about Loach and Northern Ireland. Revealingly, the initial idea for what was to become Hidden Agenda came from David Puttnam when he was studio boss at Columbia, after two of Loach’s long-cherished Irish projects, one with the BBC and the other with Channel 4, had foundered. However, Loach has borne his treatment at the hands of the British establishment with remark- able fortitude. With his particular political outlook he would presum- ably be surprised if things were otherwise. Nor does he have an inflated view of the role of film and the filmmaker. As his remarks about Cathy clearly testify, Loach is a great believer in the primacy of the political. And, as he himself concludes, ‘‘filmmakers have a very soft life really, in comparison to people who have to work for a living. And so it’s easy to be a radical filmmaker. The people who really are on the front line aren’t filmmakers. We’re in a very privileged position, very free and good wages—if you can keep working.’’ As Ken Loach ages, his films remain consistently provocative and politically savvy, with a deep respect for and understanding of his struggling, working class characters. Riff-Raff features a prototypical Loach hero: an unemployed blue collar worker who comes to London and lands a job on a construction site. However, the film is no dry, pedantic political tract. While it is never less than pointed in its depiction of the eternal conflict between the classes, it also is piercingly funny. Comic asides also highlight Raining Stones, an otherwise intense drama depicting the efforts of an out-of-work laborer to scrape together funds to feed his family. He is a proud man, who will not accept charity; complications arise when he unwittingly borrows money from a loan shark to pay for his daughter’s commun- ion dress. With vivid irony, Loach graphically portrays the sense of hopelessness of honorable laborers who desire nothing more than the LORENTZDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 619 right to a suitable job, for suitable pay. And he offers another realistic slice-of-working-class life in My Name Is Joe, the story of a jobless alcoholic who attends AA meetings, coaches soccer, falls for a social worker, and finds himself in deep trouble while attempting to aid a recovering junkie and his dope-addicted wife. Loach’s concerns are not solely with the male working class. Ladybird Ladybird is a trenchant, based-on-fact drama about a pro- foundly distressed single mother with a sad history of being exploited by men. He also is interested in the impact of history on the individual. In Land and Freedom, he abandons his usual British working-class setting to tell the story of a jobless but passionate Liverpudlian communist who treks to Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War to do battle for ‘‘land and freedom.’’ The film works best as a potent look at political idealism in the face of the reality of a heartless, brutal enemy. A strong female character and a non-British setting unite in Carla’s Song, an unusual drama-love story. Carla’s Song is set in 1987 and opens in Glasgow, where a bus driver becomes involved with a beautiful, elusive, deeply distressed Nicaraguan refugee. Eventually, the two travel to her homeland to find her former boyfriend, who already may be a casualty of the war between the Contras and Sandanistas. While the first section is not as dramatically involving as it might be, the final part, in which the bus driver finds himself thrust into a war zone, is poignant and heartbreaking. Here are some of the film’s best scenes, which follow what happens as the driver crosses cultures and language barriers and befriends Sandanista soldiers and Nicaraguan villagers. Unsurprisingly, Loach had difficulty finding an American dis- tributor for Carla’s Song, and it was not released in the United States until two years after its completion. Shadow Distribution, the com- pany that picked it up, is far from a high-profile distributor. Loach’s predicament may be linked to his film’s Nicaraguan section, which includes political rhetoric that is distinctly anti-CIA. Here, the filmmaker points out how the CIA backed the Contras in Nicaragua—and sponsored atrocities committed against the Nicaraguan people. All of this is revealed by an ex-CIA operative who underwent a crisis of conscience, and is shown to be toiling for a human rights organization. And Loach has not completely abandoned the documentary. In 1997 he directed The Flickering Flame, the chronicle of a Liverpool dockworkers’ strike in which he spotlights the political struggles of the workers. —Julian Petley, updated by Rob Edelman LORENTZ, Pare Nationality: American. Born: Clarksburg, West Virginia, 11 December 1905. Education: Wesleyan College; University of West Virginia. Family: Married Eliza Meyer. Career: Writer and film critic for McCall’s, Town and Country, and Ring features, 1930s; directed first film, The Plow That Broke the Plains, for the U.S. Resettlement Agency, 1936; director of U.S. Film Service, 1938–40; directed shorts for RKO, 1941; made 275 navigational films for U.S. Air Force, 1941–45; chief of film section of War Department’s Civil Affairs Division, 1946–47; film consultant, New York, 1960s. Awards: ‘‘Saluted’’ by Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, 1981. Died: 4 March 1992. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1936 The Plow That Broke the Plains 1937 The River 1940 The Fight for Life 1946 Nuremberg Trials Other Films: 1939 The City (Steiner and Van Dyke) (co-sc) Publications By Lorentz: books— Lorentz on Film: Movies 1927 to 1941, Norman, Oklahoma, 1986. FDR’s Moviemaker: Memoirs and Scripts, Reno, Nevada, 1992. By LORENTZ: article— ‘‘The Narration of The River,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Spring 1965. On LORENTZ: books— Snyder, Robert L., Pare Lorentz and the Documentary Film, Norman, Oklahoma, 1968; republished Reno, Nevada, with new pref- ace, 1993. Barsam, Richard, Non-Fiction Film, New York, 1973. MacCann, Richard Dyer, The People’s Films, New York, 1973. Barnouw, Erik, Documentary—A History of the Non-Fiction Film, New York, 1974. Alexander, William, Film on the Left: American Documentary Film from 1931–42, Princeton, New Jersey, 1981. Ellis, Jack C., The Documentary Idea, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989. On LORENTZ: articles— Goodman, Ezra, ‘‘The American Documentary,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1938. White, W.L., ‘‘Pare Lorentz,’’ in Scribner’s (New York), Janu- ary 1939. Black, C.M., ‘‘He Serves up America: Pare Lorentz,’’ in Collier’s (New York), 3 August 1940. Van Dyke, Willard, ‘‘Letter from The River,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Spring 1965. ‘‘Conscience of the Thirties,’’ in Newsweek (New York), 5 Au- gust 1968. Harmetz, Aljean, ‘‘Hollywood Hails Lorentz, Documentary Pio- neer,’’ in New York Times, 22 October 1981. LOSEY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 620 ‘‘Pare Lorentz,’’ in Film Dope (London), February 1987. Obituary, in EPD Film (Frankfurt), May 1992. Obituary, in Variety (New York), 9 March 1992. Barnouw, Erik, ‘‘Pare Lorentz’s Nuremberg into the Spotlight,’’ in International Documentary (Los Angeles), June 1997. On LORENTZ: film— Pare Lorentz on Film, in four installments, WGBH (Boston) for NET network. *** In the United States it was Pare Lorentz who was in a position for leadership in relation to documentary film comparable to that of John Grierson in Britain and later in Canada. Lorentz was founding head and leader of the short-lived government program, which began in 1935, became the United States Film Service in 1938, and ended in 1940. He established American precedent for the government use of documentaries, which would be continued during World War II (by the Armed Forces and the Office of War Information) and afterwards (by the United States Information Agency, now International Com- munication Agency). From Lorentz’s efforts five large and important films resulted, the first three of which he directed: The Plow That Broke the Plains, The River, The Fight for Life, Power and the Land (directed by Joris Ivens), and The Land (directed by Robert Flaherty). In The Plow That Broke the Plains and The River, Lorentz developed an original, personal style of documentary that also be- came a national style. In his two mosaic patterns of sight (carefully composed images shot silent) and sound (symphonic music, spoken words, noises), no one element says much by itself. Together they offer form and content that resemble epic poems. They seem close to the attitudes of American populism and are rooted in frontier tradi- tion. The sweeping views of a big country, the free verse commentar- ies with their chanted litany of place names and allusions to historic events, make one think of Walt Whitman. The use of music is quite special, with composer Virgil Thomson sharing more fully than usual in the filmmaking process; a sort of operatic balance is achieved between the musical score and the other elements. Thomson made his scores for these two films into concert suites which have become part of the standard orchestral repertoire. In The Fight for Life, Lorentz is much less sure in his control of its narrative form than he was of the poetic form of the two preceding films. He seems to have been much more comfortable with land and rivers than with people. Fight for Life is about the work of the Chicago Maternity Center delivering babies among the impoverished. It is an interesting film, if curiously flawed by melodramatic excesses. It is important in its innovations and might be regarded as a prototype for the postwar Hollywood semi-documentaries; for example, The House on 92nd Street, Boomerang, Call Northside 777. In contributing two lasting masterpieces to the history of documentary—The Plow and, especially, The River—Lorentz joins a very select company of the artists of documentary. (Flaherty and Jennings would be other mem- bers of that company.) Some would argue that The River is the finest American documentary to date—aesthetically and in terms of ex- pressing aspects of the American spirit. However, Lorentz had major limitations, politically, if not artisti- cally. First, he relied on the impermanent partisan backing of the party in power. Lorentz had the support of President Franklin Roosevelt and the films were associated with Democratic policies. When the balance in Congress shifted to Republican in 1940, the United States Film Service was not allowed to continue. Second, even within the New Deal context Lorentz opted for a few big films sponsored by agencies related to one department (four of the five films were on agricultural subjects), rather than many smaller films from various departments that would have broadened the base of sponsorship and made for a steady flow of film communication. Third, he was creating art at public expense—making personal films à la Flaherty—with no real commitment to public service. (Lorentz disliked the term docu- mentary and considered much of Grierson’s work in England too school-teacherish; instead Lorentz was trying to create, he said, ‘‘films of merit.’’) Finally, Lorentz remained aloof in Washington. He made no efforts to seek sponsorship for documentary filmmaking outside the government; he had no real connection with the New York City filmmakers responsible for the nongovernmental documentaries of the 1930s (though some of them had worked with him on the government films). However one chooses to look at the matter, it would be generally agreed that documentary in the United States remained a non- movement of individual rivalries, competitiveness, and political differences. The closing down of the U.S. Film Service proved a great waste. Shortly after its demise the United States entered World War II and government filmmaking on a vast scale had to be started from scratch. It was the Hollywood filmmakers, without documentary experience, who assumed leadership in the wartime government production. Lorentz spent the war making films as guides to naviga- tion for the U.S. Air Corps. His film on the Nuremberg war-crimes trials became his last, as he chose to work instead mainly as a ‘‘film consultant.’’ —Jack C. Ellis LOSEY, Joseph Nationality: American. Born: La Crosse, Wisconsin, 14 January 1909. Education: Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, B.A., 1929; Harvard University, M.A. in English literature, 1930. Career: Stage director, New York, 1932–34; attended Eisenstein film classes, Moscow, 1935; staged Living Newspaper productions and other plays for Federal Theater Project, New York, 1947; hired by Dory Schary for RKO, 1948; blacklisted, moved to London, 1951; began collaboration with writer Harold Pinter and actor Dirk Bogarde, 1963; directed Boris Godunov, Paris, Opera, 1980. Awards: Chevalier de l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, 1957; International Critics Award, Cannes Festival, for Accident, 1967; Palme d’Or, Cannes Festival, for The Go-Between, 1971; Honorary Doctorate, Dartmouth College, 1973. Died: In London, 22 June 1984. Films as Director: 1939 Pete Roleum and His Cousins (short) (+ p, sc) 1941 A Child Went Forth (short) (+ co-p, sc); Youth Gets a Break (short) (+ sc) LOSEYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 621 Joseph Losey 1945 A Gun in His Hand (short) 1949 The Boy with Green Hair 1950 The Lawless 1951 The Prowler; M; The Big Night (+ co-sc) 1952 Stranger on the Prowl (Encounter) (d as ‘‘Andrea Forzano’’) 1954 The Sleeping Tiger (d as ‘‘Victor Hanbury’’) 1955 A Man on the Beach 1956 The Intimate Stranger (Finger of Guilt) (d as ‘‘Joseph Walton’’) 1957 Time without Pity 1958 The Gypsy and the Gentleman 1959 Blind Date (Chance Meeting) 1960 The Criminal (The Concrete Jungle) 1962 Eve 1963 The Damned (These Are the Damned); The Servant (+ co-p) 1964 King and Country (+ co-p) 1966 Modesty Blaise 1967 Accident (+ co-p) 1968 Boom!; Secret Ceremony 1970 Figures in a Landscape; The Go-Between 1972 The Assassination of Trotsky (+ co-p) 1973 A Doll’s House 1975 Galileo (+ co-sc); The Romantic Englishwoman 1977 Mr. Klein 1979 Don Giovanni 1982 The Trout 1985 Steaming Publications By LOSEY: books— Losey on Losey, edited by Tom Milne, New York, 1968. Le Livre de Losey: entretiens avec le cinéaste, edited by Michel Ciment, Paris, 1979; as Conversations with Losey, London, 1985. By LOSEY: articles— ‘‘A Mirror to Life,’’ in Films and Filming (London), June 1959. ‘‘Entretiens,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1960. Interview with Penelope Houston and John Gillett, in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1961. LOSEY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 622 ‘‘The Monkey on My Back,’’ in Films and Filming (London), October 1963. ‘‘Speak, Think, Stand Up,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Fall/ Winter 1970. ‘‘Losey and Trotsky,’’ interview with Tony Rayns, in Take One (Montreal), March 1973. Interview with Gene Phillips, in Séquences (Montreal), April 1973. ‘‘Something More,’’ interview with Gordon Gow, in Films and Filming (London), October 1975. ‘‘The Reluctant Exile,’’ interview with Richard Roud, in Sight and Sound (London), no. 3, 1979. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Joseph Losey,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), November 1980. Interview with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), October 1982. ‘‘Screenwriters, Critics, and Ambiguity,’’ an interview with J. Weiss, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 13, no. 1, 1983. Interview with Allen Eyles, in Stills (London), May 1985. On LOSEY: books— Leahy, James, The Cinema of Joseph Losey, New York, 1967. Ledieu, Christian, Joseph Losey, Paris, 1970. Hirsch, Foster, Joseph Losey, Boston, 1980. Palmer, James, and Michael Riley, The Films of Joseph Losey, Cambridge, 1993. Caute, David, Joseph Losey: A Revenge on Life, New York and Oxford, 1994. On LOSEY: articles— ‘‘Losey Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1960. Jacob, Gilles, ‘‘Joseph Losey, or The Camera Calls,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1966. Ross, T.J., ‘‘Notes on an Early Losey,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1966. Durgnat, Raymond, ‘‘Puritan Maids,’’ in Films and Filming (Lon- don), April and May 1966. Phillips, Gene, ‘‘The Critical Camera of Joseph Losey,’’ in Cinema (Beverly Hills), Spring 1968. Strick, Philip, ‘‘The Mice in the Milk,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1969. Gow, Gordon, ‘‘Weapons,’’ in Films and Filming (London), Octo- ber 1971. Combs, Richard, ‘‘Losey, Galileo, and the Romantic Englishwoman,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1975. Legrand, G., ‘‘Pro-positions à propos de Losey,’’ in Positif (Paris), October 1976. Phillips, Gene, ‘‘The Blacklisting Era: Three Cases,’’ in America (New York), 18 December 1976. Houston, B., and Marcia Kinder, ‘‘The Losey-Pinter Collaboration,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1978. McCarthy, T., obituary, in Variety (New York), 27 June 1984. Amiel, M., obituary, in Cinéma (Paris), September 1984. Roud, Richard, ‘‘Remembering Losey,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Winter 1984/85. Elsaesser, Thomas, ‘‘Joseph Losey: Time Lost and Found,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), June 1985. ‘‘Losey Section’’ of Positif (Paris), July/August 1985. ‘‘Joseph Losey,’’ in Film Dope (London), February 1987. Alion, Y., ‘‘Joseph Losey,’’ in Revue de Cinéma (Paris), no. 475, October 1991. Gauthier, Guy, and Raymond Lefèvre, ‘‘Joseph Losey,’’ in Mensuel du Cinéma, no. 15, 1994. *** Joseph Losey’s career spanned five decades and included work in both theater and film. Latterly an American expatriate living in Europe, the early years of his life as a director were spent in the very different milieus of New Deal political theater projects and the paranoia of the Hollywood studio system during the McCarthy era. He was blacklisted in 1951 and left America for England where he continued making films, at first under a variety of pseudonyms. His work is both controversial and critically acclaimed, and Losey has long been recognized as a director with a distinctive and highly personal cinematic style. Although Losey rarely wrote his own screenplays, preferring instead to work closely with other authors, there are nevertheless several distinct thematic concerns which recur throughout his work. It is his emphasis on human interaction and the complexity of interior thought and emotion that makes a Losey film an intellectual chal- lenge, and his interest has always lain with detailed character studies rather than with so-called ‘‘action’’ pictures. Losey’s domain is interior action and his depiction of the physical world centers on those events which are an outgrowth or reflection of his characters’ inner lives. From The Boy with Green Hair to The Trout, his films focus on individuals and their relationships to themselves, to those around them, and to their society as a whole. One of Losey’s frequent subjects is the intruder who enters a pre- existing situation and irrevocably alters its patterns. In his earlier films, this situation often takes the form of a community reacting with violence to an individual its members perceive as a threat. The ‘‘boy with green hair’’ is ostracized and finally forced to shave his head by the inhabitants of the town in which he lives; the young Mexican- American in The Lawless becomes the object of a vicious manhunt after a racially motivated fight; and the child-murderer in Losey’s 1951 version of M inspires a lynch mob mentality in the community he has been terrorizing. In each of these cases, the social outsider who, for good or evil, does not conform to the standards of the community evokes a response of mass rage and suspicion. And as the members of the group forsake their individuality and rational behavior in favor of mob rule, they also forfeit any hope of future self-deception regarding their own capacity for unthinking brutality. In Losey’s later films, the scope of the ‘‘intruder’’ theme is often narrowed to explore the effect of a newcomer on the relationship of a husband and wife. The Sleeping Tiger, Eve, Accident, The Romantic Englishwoman, and The Trout all feature married couples whose lives are disrupted and whose relationships are shattered or redefined by the arrival of a third figure. In each of these films, either the husband or the wife is strongly attracted to the outsider. In The Sleeping Tiger, Eve, and The Trout, this attraction leads to tragedy and death for one of the partners, while the couples in Accident and The Romantic Englishwoman are forced to confront a serious rift in a seemingly LUBITSCHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 623 untroubled relationship. A further level of conflict is added by the fact that the intruder in all of the films is either of a different social class (The Sleeping Tiger, Eve, The Trout) or a different nationality (Accident, The Romantic Englishwoman) than the couple, represent- ing not only a sexual threat but a threat to the bourgeois status quo as well. This underlying theme of class conflict is one which runs through- out Losey’s work, emerging as an essential part of the framework of films as different as The Lawless, The Servant, and The Go-Between. Losey’s consistent use of film as a means of social criticism has its roots in his theatrical work of the 1930s and his association with Bertolt Brecht. The two collaborated on the 1947 staging of Brecht’s Galileo Galilei, starring Charles Laughton—a play which twenty- seven years later Losey would bring to the screen—and Brecht’s influence on Losey’s own career is enormous. In addition to his interest in utilizing film as an expression of social and political opinions, Losey has adapted many of Brecht’s theatrical devices to the medium as well. The sense of distance and reserve in Brechtian theatre is a keynote to Losey’s filmic style, and Brecht’s use of a heightened dramatic reality is also present in Losey’s work. The characters in a Losey film are very much of the ‘‘real’’ world, but their depiction is never achieved through a documentary-style ap- proach. We are always aware that it is a drama that is unfolding, as Losey makes use of carefully chosen music on the soundtrack, or photography that borders on expressionism, or deliberately evokes an atmosphere of memory to comment on the characters and their state of mind. It is this approach to the intellect rather than the emotions of the viewer that ties Losey’s work so closely to Brecht. Losey’s films are also an examination of illusion and reality, with the true nature of people or events often bearing little resemblance to their outer appearances. The friendly community that gives way to mob violence, the ‘‘happy’’ marriage that unravels when one thread is plucked; these images of actual versus surface reality abound in Losey’s work. One aspect of this theme manifests itself in Losey’s fascination with characters who discover themselves through a rela- tionship which poses a potential threat to their position in society. Tyvian, in Eve, can only acknowledge through his affair with a high- class prostitute that his fame as a writer is actually the result of plagiarism, while Marian, in The Go-Between, finds her true sexual nature, which her class and breeding urge her to repress, in her affair with a local farmer. Several of Losey’s films carry this theme a step further, offering characters who find their own sense of identity becoming inextricably bound up in someone else. In The Servant, the complex, enigmatic relationship between Tony and his manservant, Barrett, becomes both a class struggle and a battle of wills as the idle young aristocrat slowly loses control of his life to the ambitious Barrett. This is an idea Losey pursues in both Secret Ceremony and Mr. Klein. In the former, a wealthy, unbalanced young girl draws a prostitute into a destructive fantasy in which the two are mother and daughter, and the prostitute finds her initial desire for money becoming a desperate need to believe the fantasy. Alain Delon in Mr. Klein portrays a man in occupied France who becomes obsessed with finding a hunted Jew who shares his name. At the film’s conclusion, he boards a train bound for the death camps rather than abandon his search, in effect becoming the other Mr. Klein. Losey emphasizes his characters’ identity confusion cinematically, frequently showing them reflected in mirrors, their images fragmented, prism-like, or only partially revealed. Losey’s choice of subject led to his successful collaboration with playwright Harold Pinter on The Servant, Accident, and The Go- Between, and Losey once hoped to film Pinter’s screenplay of Proust’s Remembrance of Things Past. Their parallel dramatic inter- ests served both men well, and their work together is among the finest in their careers. Yet if Losey found his most nearly perfect voice in Pinter’s screenplays, his films with a wide variety of other writers have still resulted in a body of work remarkably consistent in theme and purpose. His absorbing, sometimes difficult films represent a unique and uncompromising approach to cinema, and guarantee Losey’s place among the world’s most intriguing directors. —Janet E. Lorenz LUBITSCH, Ernst Nationality: German/American. Born: Berlin, 28 January 1892; became U.S. citizen, 1936. Education: Attended the Sophien Gym- nasium. Family: Married 1) Irni (Helene) Kraus, 1922 (divorced 1930); 2) Sania Bezencenet (Vivian Gaye), 1935 (divorced 1943), one daughter. Career: Taken into Max Reinhardt Theater Company, 1911; actor, writer, then director of short films, from 1913; member of Ernst Lubitsch LUBITSCH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 624 Adolph Zukor’s Europ?ischen Film-Allianz (Efa), 1921; joined Warner Brothers, Hollywood, 1923; began association with Paramount, 1928; began collaboration with writer Ernest Vajda, 1930; head of produc- tion at Paramount, 1935 (relieved of post after a year); left Paramount for three-year contract with 20th Century-Fox, 1938; suffered mas- sive heart attack, 1943. Awards: Special Academy Award (for accomplishments in the industry), 1947. Died: In Hollywood, 29 November 1947. Films as Director: 1914 Fr?ulein Seifenschaum (+ role); Blindkuh (+ role); Aufs Eis geführt (+ role) 1915 Zucker und Zimt (co-d, co-sc, role) 1916 Wo ist mein Schatz? (+ role); Schuhpalast Pinkus (+ role as Sally Pinkus); Der gemischte Frauenchor (+ role); Der G.m.b.H. Tenor (+ role); Der Kraftmeier (+ role); Leutnant auf Befehl (+ role); Das sch?nste Geschenk (+ role); Seine neue Nase (+ role) 1917 Wenn vier dasselbe Tun (+ co-sc, role); Der Blusenk?nig (+ role): Ossis Tagebuch 1918 Prinz Sami (+ role); Ein fideles Gef?ngnis; Der Fall Rosentopf (+ role); Der Rodelkavalier (+ co-sc); Die Augen der Mumie Ma; Das M?del vom Ballett; Carmen 1919 Meine Frau, die Filmschauspielerin; Meyer aus Berlin (+ role as apprentice); Das Schwabem?dle; Die Austernprinzessin; Rausch; Madame DuBarry; Der lustige Ehemann (+ sc); Die Puppe (+ co-sc) 1920 Ich m?chte kein Mann sein! (+ co-sc); Kohlhiesels T?chter (+ co-sc); Romeo und Julia im Schnee (+ co-sc); Sumurun (+ co-sc); Anna Boleyn 1921 Die Bergkatze (+ co-sc) 1922 Das Weib des Pharao 1923 Die Flamme; Rosita 1924 The Marriage Circle; Three Women; Forbidden Paradise (+ co-sc) 1925 Kiss Me Again (+ pr); Lady Windermere’s Fan (+ pr) 1926 So This Is Paris (+ pr) 1927 The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg (+ pr) 1928 The Patriot (+ pr) 1929 Eternal Love (+ pr); The Love Parade (+ pr) 1930 Paramount on Parade (anthology film); Monte Carlo (+ pr) 1931 The Smiling Lieutenant (+ pr) 1932 The Man I Killed (Broken Lullaby) (+ pr); One Hour with You (+ pr); Trouble in Paradise (+ pr); If I Had a Million (anthology film) 1933 Design for Living (+ pr) 1934 The Merry Widow (+ pr) 1936 Desire (co-d, pr) 1937 Angel (+ pr) 1938 Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife (+ pr) 1939 Ninotchka (+ pr) 1940 The Shop around the Corner (+ pr) 1941 That Uncertain Feeling (+ co-pr) 1942 To Be or Not to Be (co-source, co-pr) 1943 Heaven Can Wait (+ pr) 1946 Cluny Brown (+ pr) 1948 That Lady in Ermine (co-d) Other Films: 1913 Meyer auf der Alm (role as Meyer) 1914 Die Firma Heiratet (Wilhelm) (role as Moritz Abramowski); Der Stolz der Firma (Wilhelm) (role as Siegmund Lachmann); Fr?ulein Piccolo (Hofer) (role); Arme Marie (Mack) (role); Bedingung—Kein Anhang! (Rye) (role); Die Ideale Gattin (role); Meyer als Soldat (role as Meyer) 1915 Robert und Bertram (Mack) (role); Wie Ich Ermordert Wurde (Ralph) (role); Der Schwarze Moritz (Taufstein and Berg) (role); Doktor Satansohn (Edel) (role as Dr. Satansohn); Hans Trutz im Schlaraffenland (Wegener) (role as Devil) Publications By LUBITSCH: articles— ‘‘American Cinematographers Superior Artists,’’ in American Cinema- tographer (Los Angeles), December 1923. ‘‘Concerning Cinematography . . . as Told to William Stull,’’ in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), November 1929. ‘‘Lubitsch’s Analysis of Pictures Minimizes Director’s Importance,’’ in Variety (New York), 1 March 1932. ‘‘Hollywood Still Leads . . . Says Ernst Lubitsch,’’ interview with Barney Hutchinson, in American Cinematographer (Los Ange- les), March 1933. ‘‘A Tribute to Lubitsch, with a Letter in Which Lubitsch Appraises His Own Career,’’ in Films in Review (New York), August/ September 1951. Letter to Herman Weinberg (10 July 1947), in Film Culture (New York), Summer 1962. On LUBITSCH: books— Verdone, Mario, Ernst Lubitsch, Lyon, 1964. Baxter, John, The Hollywood Exiles, New York, 1976. Huff, Theodore, An Index to the Films of Ernst Lubitsch, New York, 1976. Poague, Leland, The Cinema of Ernst Lubitsch: The Hollywood Films, London, 1977. Weinberg, Herman, The Lubitsch Touch: A Critical Study, 3rd revised edition, New York, 1977. Carringer, R., and B. Sabath, Ernst Lubitsch: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1978. Paul, William, Ernst Lubitsch’s American Comedy, New York, 1983. Prinzler, Hans Helmut, and Enno Patalas, editors, Lubitsch, Munich, 1984. LUBITSCHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 625 Cahiers du Cinéma/Cinématheque Fran?aise: Ernst Lubitsch, Paris, 1985. Petrie, Graham, Hollywood Destinies: European Directors in Holly- wood 1922–31, London, 1985. Bourget, Eithne, and Jean-Loup, Lubitsch: ou, La Satire Romanesque, Paris, 1987. Nacache, Jacqueline, Lubitsch, Paris, 1987. Hake, Sabine, Passions and Deceptions: The Early Films of Ernst Lubitsch, Princeton, 1992. Bowman, Barbara, Master Space: Film Images of Capra, Lubitsch, Sternberg, and Wyler, Wesport, Connecticut, 1992. Eyman, Scott, Ernst Lubitsch: Laughter in Paradise, New York, 1993. Harvey, James, Romantic Comedy in Hollywood: From Lubitsch to Sturges, New York, 1998. On LUBITSCH: articles— Merrick, Mollie, ‘‘Twenty-five Years of the ‘Lubitsch Touch’ in Hollywood,’’ in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), July 1947. ‘‘E. Lubitsch Dead: Film Producer, 55,’’ in New York Times, 1 De- cember 1947. ‘‘Ernst Lubitsch: A Symposium,’’ in Screen Writer, January 1948. Wollenberg, H.H., ‘‘Two Masters: Ernst Lubitsch and Sergei M. Eisenstein,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1948. ‘‘Lubitsch section’’ of Revue du Cinéma (Paris), September 1948. ‘‘The Films of Ernst Lubitsch,’’ special issue of Film Journal (Australia), June 1959. ‘‘A Tribute to Lubitsch (1892–1947),’’ in Action! (Los Angeles), November/December 1967. Eisenschitz, Bernard, ‘‘Lubitsch (1892–1947),’’ in Anthologie du Cinéma vol. 3, Paris, 1968. ‘‘Lubitsch section’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1968. Eisner, Lotte, ‘‘Lubitsch and the Costume Film,’’ chapter 4 in The Haunted Screen, Berkeley, 1969. Weinberg, Herman, ‘‘Ernst Lubitsch: A Parallel to George Feydeau,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Spring 1970. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Lubitsch in the Thirties,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Winter 1971/72 and Summer 1972. Mast, Gerald, ‘‘The ‘Lubitsch Touch’ and the Lubitsch Brain,’’ in The Comic Mind: Comedy and the Movies, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1973; revised edition, 1979. McBride, J., ‘‘The Importance of Being Ernst,’’ in Film Heritage (New York), Summer 1973. Schwartz, N., ‘‘Lubitsch’s Widow: The Meaning of a Waltz,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1975. Horak, Jan-Christopher, ‘‘The Pre-Hollywood Lubitsch,’’ in Image (Rochester, New York), December 1975. Whittemore, Don, and Philip Cecchettini, ‘‘Ernst Lubitsch,’’ in Passport to Hollywood: Film Immigrants: Anthology, New York, 1976. Baxter, John, ‘‘The Continental Touch,’’ in American Film (Wash- ington, D.C.), September 1976. Bond, Kirk, ‘‘Ernst Lubitsch,’’ in Film Culture (New York), no. 63–64, 1977. Gillett, John, ‘‘Munich’s Cleaned Pictures,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1977/78. Truffaut, Fran?ois, ‘‘Lubitsch Was a Prince,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), May 1978. McVay, D., ‘‘Lubitsch: The American Silent Films,’’ in Focus on Film (London), April 1979. Traubner, R., ‘‘Lubitsch Returns to Berlin,’’ in Films in Review (New York), October 1984. ‘‘Lubitsch section’’ of Cinéma (Paris), April 1985. ‘‘Lubitsch section’’ of Positif (Paris), June and July/August 1986. ‘‘Ernst Lubitsch,’’ in Film Dope (London), February 1987. Nave, B., ‘‘Aimer Lubitsch,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), May/June 1987. Cahir, L.C., ‘‘A Shared Impulse: The Significance of Language in Oscar Wilde’s and Ernst Lubitsch’s Lady Windermere’s Fan,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 19, no. 1, January 1991. Pratt, D.B., ‘‘‘O, Lubitsch, Where Wert Thou?’: Passion, the German Invasion, and the Emergence of the Name ‘Lubitsch’,’’ in Wide Angle (Baltimore), vol. 13, no. 1, January 1991. Eyman, S., ‘‘Lubitsch, Pickford, and the Rosita War,’’ in Griffithiana (Gemona), vol. 15, no. 44–45, May-September 1992. Saada, Nicolas, ‘‘Lubitsch: Le poids de la grace,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 494, September 1995. *** Ernst Lubitsch’s varied career is often broken down into periods to emphasize the spectrum of his talents—from an actor in Max Reinhardt’s Berlin Theater Company to head of production at Para- mount. Each of these periods could well provide enough material for a sizeable book. It is probably most convenient to divide Lubitsch’s output into three phases: his German films between 1913 and 1922; his Hollywood films from 1923 to 1934; and his Hollywood produc- tions from 1935 till his death in 1947. During the first half of Lubitsch’s filmmaking decade in Germany he completed about nineteen shorts. They were predominantly ethnic slapsticks in which he played a ‘‘Dummkopf’’ character by the name of Meyer. Only three of these one- to five-reelers still exist. He directed eighteen more films during his last five years in Germany, almost equally divided between comedies—some of which anticipate the concerns of his Hollywood works—and epic costume dramas. Pola Negri starred in most of these historical spectacles, and the strength of her performances together with the quality of Lubitsch’s productions brought them both international acclaim. Their Madame Dubarry (retitled Passion in the United States) was not only one of the films responsible for breaking the American blockade on imported German films after World War I, but it also began the ‘‘invasion’’ of Hollywood by German talent. Lubitsch came to Hollywood at Mary Pickford’s invitation. He had hoped to direct her in Faust, but they finally agreed upon Rosita, a costume romance very similar to those he had done in Germany. After joining Warner Brothers, he directed five films that firmly established his thematic interests. The films were small in scale, dealt openly with sexual and psychological relationships in and out of marriage, refrained from offering conventional moral judgments, and demystified women. As Molly Haskell and Marjorie Rosen point out, Lubitsch created complex female characters who were aggressive, unsentimental, and able to express their sexual desires without LUCAS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 626 suffering the usual pains of banishment or death. Even though Lubitsch provided a new and healthy perspective on sex and increased America’s understanding of a woman’s role in society, he did so only in a superficial way. His women ultimately affirmed the status quo. The most frequently cited film from this initial burst of creativity, The Marriage Circle, also exhibits the basic narrative motif found in most of Lubitsch’s work—the third person catalyst. An essentially solid relationship is temporarily threatened by a sexual rival. The possibil- ity of infidelity serves as the occasion for the original partners to reassess their relationship. They acquire a new self-awareness and understand the responsibilities they have towards each other. The lovers are left more intimately bound than before. This premise was consistently reworked until The Merry Widow in 1934. The late 1920s were years of turmoil as every studio tried to adapt to sound recording. Lubitsch, apparently, was not troubled at all; he considered the sound booths nothing more than an inconvenience, something readily overcome. Seven of his ten films from 1929 to 1934 were musicals, but not of the proscenium-bound ‘‘all-singing, all-dancing’’ variety. Musicals were produced with such prolific abandon during this time (what better way to exploit the new technology?) that the public began avoiding them. Film histories tend to view the period from 1930 to 1933 as a musical void, yet it was the precise time that Lubitsch was making significant contributions to the genre. As Arthur Knight notes, ‘‘He was the first to be concerned with the ‘natural’ introduction of songs into the development of a musical- comedy plot.’’ Starting with The Love Parade, Lubitsch eliminated the staginess that was characteristic of most musicals by employing a moving camera, clever editing, and the judicial use of integrated musical performance, and in doing so constructed a seminal film musical format. In 1932 Lubitsch directed his first non-musical sound comedy, Trouble in Paradise. Most critics consider this film to be, if not his best, then at least the complete embodiment of everything that has been associated with Lubitsch: sparkling dialogue, interesting plots, witty and sophisticated characters, and an air of urbanity—all part of the well-known ‘‘Lubitsch Touch.’’ What constitutes the ‘‘Lubitsch Touch’’ is open to continual debate, the majority of the definitions being couched in poetic terms of idolization. Andrew Sarris com- ments that the ‘‘Lubitsch Touch’’ is a counterpoint of poignant sadness during a film’s gayest moments. Leland A. Poague sees Lubitsch’s style as being gracefully charming and fluid, with an ‘‘ingenious ability to suggest more than he showed. . . .’’ Observa- tions like this last one earned Lubitsch the unfortunate moniker of ‘‘director of doors,’’ since a number of his jokes relied on what unseen activity was being implied behind a closed door. Regardless of which romantic description one chooses, the ‘‘Lubitsch Touch’’ can be most concretely seen as deriving from a standard narrative device of the silent film: interrupting the dramatic interchange by focusing on objects or small details that make a witty comment on or surprising revelation about the main action. Whatever the explanation, Lubitsch’s style was exceptionally popular with critics and audiences alike. Ten years after arriving in the United States he had directed eighteen features, parts of two anthologies, and was recognized as one of Hollywood’s top directors. Lubitsch’s final phase began when he was appointed head of production at Paramount in 1935, a position that lasted only one year. Accustomed to pouring all his energies into one project at a time, he was ineffective juggling numerous projects simultaneously. Accused of being out of step with the times, Lubitsch updated his themes in his first political satire, Ninotchka, today probably his most famous film. He continued using parody and satire in his blackest comedy, To Be or Not to Be, a film well liked by his contemporaries, and today receiving much reinvestigation. If Lubitsch’s greatest talent was his ability to make us laugh at the most serious events and anxieties, to use comedy to make us more aware of ourselves, then To Be or Not to Be might be considered the consummate work of his career. Lubitsch, whom Gerald Mast terms the greatest technician in American cinema after Griffith, completed only two more films. At his funeral in 1947, Mervyn LeRoy presented a fitting eulogy: ‘‘he advanced the techniques of screen comedy as no one else has ever done. Suddenly the pratfall and the double-take were left behind and the sources of deep inner laughter were tapped.’’ —Greg S. Faller LUCAS, George Nationality: American. Born: George Walton Lucas Jr., Modesto, California, 14 May 1944. Education: Attended Modesto Junior College; University of Southern California Film School, graduated 1966. Career: Six-month internship at Warner Bros. spent as assist- ant to Francis Ford Coppola, 1967–68; co-founder, with Coppola, American Zoetrope, Northern California, 1969; directed first feature, George Lucas LUCASDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 627 THX-1138, 1971; established special effects company, Industrial Light and Magic, at San Rafael, California, 1976; formed production company Lucasfilm, Ltd., 1979; founded post production company Sprocket Systems, 1980; built Skywalker Ranch, then executive producer for Disneyland’s 3-D music space adventure, Captain EO, 1980s. Awards: Locarno International Film Festival Bronze Leopard Award, and National Society of Film Critics Awards, U.S.A., NSFC Award for Best Screenplay, and New York Film Critics Circle Awards, NYFCC Award for Best Screenplay (with Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck) for American Graffiti, 1973; ShoWest Convention Showest Award for Director of the Year, 1978; Academy Awards Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award, 1992. Address: c/o Lucasfilm, Ltd., P.O. Box 2009, San Rafael, California 94912, U.S.A. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: (Short student films) 1965–67 Look at Life; Freiheit; 1.42.08; Herbie (co-d); Anyone Lived in a Pretty How Town (co-sc); 6.18.67 (doc); The Emperor (doc); THX 1138:4EB 1968 Filmmaker (doc) (Feature films) 1971 THX 1138 (co-sc, ed) 1973 American Graffiti (co-sc) 1977 Star Wars (+ exec pr) 1999 Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace (+sc, exec pr) 2002 Star Wars: Episode II (+sc, exec pr) 2005 Star Wars: Episode III (+sc, pr) Films as Executive Producer: 1979 More American Graffiti (Norton) (+ story) 1980 The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner) (+ story); Kagemusha (The Shadow Warrior) (Kurosawa) (of int’l version) 1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark (Spielberg) (+ story); Body Heat (Kasdan) (uncredited) 1982 Twice upon a Time (Korty and Swenson) 1983 Return of the Jedi (Marquand) (+ co-sc, story) 1984 Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (Spielberg) (+ story) 1985 Mishima (Schrader) 1986 Howard the Duck (Huyck); Labyrinth (Henson); Captain EO (Coppola) (+ sc) 1988 Willow (Howard) (+ story); Tucker: The Man and His Dream (Coppola); The Land before Time 1989 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Spielberg) (+ story) 1994 Radioland Murders (Mel Smith) (+ story) Publications By LUCAS: books— American Graffiti: A Screenplay, with Gloria Katz and Willard Stuyck, New York, 1973. The Empire Strikes Back, New York, 1997. The Art of ‘‘Star Wars’’: Episode VI—Return of the Jedi (with Laurence Kasdan), New York, 1997. George Lucas: Interviews (Conversations with Filmmakers Series), edited by Sally Kline, Mississippi, 1999. Star Wars: A New Hope, New York, 1999. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace: Script Facsimile, Los Angeles, 2000. By LUCAS: articles— ‘‘THX-1138,’’ in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), Octo- ber 1971. ‘‘The Filming of American Graffiti,’’ an interview with L. Sturhahn, in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), March 1974. Interview with S. Zito, in American Film (Washington, D.C.), April 1977. Interview with Robert Benayoun and Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), September 1977. Interview with Audie Bock, in Take One (Montreal), no. 6, 1979. Interview with M. Tuchman and A. Thompson, in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1981. Interview with David Sheff, in Rolling Stone (New York), 5 Novem- ber/10 December 1987. Interview with Philippe Rouyer and Michael Henry, in Positif (Paris), October 1994. ‘‘30 Minutes with the Godfather of Digital Camera,’’ interview with Don Shay, in Cinefex (Riverside), March 1996. ‘‘George Lucas: Past, Present, and Future,’’ interview with Ron Magid, in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), February 1997. ‘‘The Future Starts Here,’’ in Premiere (New York), February 1999. Interview with Anne Thompson, in Premiere (New York), May 1999. On LUCAS: books— Smith, Thomas G., Industrial Light and Magic: The Art of Special Effects, New York, 1986. Champlin, Charles, George Lucas, The Creative Impulse: Lucasfilm’s First Twenty Years, New York, 1992. Carrau, Bob, Monsters and Aliens from George Lucas, New York, 1993. Cotta Vaz, Mark, and Shinji Hata, From Star Wars to Indiana Jones: The Best of Lucasfilm Archives, San Francisco, 1994. Baxter, John, Mythmaker: The Life and Work of George Lucas, Shaker Heights, 1998. White, Dana, George Lucas, Toronto, 1999. Pollock, Dale, Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas, New York, 1999. On LUCAS: articles— Farber, Steven, ‘‘George Lucas: The Stinky Kid Hits the Big Time,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1974. ‘‘Behind the Scenes of Star Wars,’’ in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), July 1977. Fairchild, B. H., Jr., ‘‘Songs of Innocence and Experience: The Blakean Vision of George Lucas,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), no. 2, 1979. Pye, Michael, and Lynda Myles, ‘‘The Man Who Made Star Wars,’’ in Atlantic Monthly (Greenwich, Connecticut), March 1979. Harmetz, A., ‘‘Burden of Dreams: George Lucas,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), June 1983. LUCAS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 628 Garsault, A., ‘‘Les paradoxes de George Lucas,’’ in Positif (Paris), September 1983. Schembri, J., ‘‘Robert Watts: Spielberg, Lucas and the Temple of Doom,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), October/November 1984. ‘‘George Lucas,’’ in Film Dope (London), February 1987. Star Wars Section of Variety (New York), 3 June 1987. Kearney, J., and J. Greenberg, ‘‘The Road Warrior,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), June 1988. Kaplan, David A., ‘‘The Force of an Idea Is with Him,’’ in Newsweek, 31 May 1993. Marx, Andy, ‘‘The Force Is with Him: Star Wars Savant Lucas Plans Celluloid,’’ in Variety, 4 October 1993. Marx, Andy, ‘‘Lucas Dishes Future Media at Intermedia,’’ in Variety, 7 March 1994. King, Thomas, ‘‘Lucasvision,’’ in Wall Street Journal, March 1994. Weintraub, Bernard, ‘‘The Ultimate Hollywoodian Lives an Anti- Hollywood Life,’’ in New York Times, 20 October 1994. Biskind, Peter, ‘‘‘Radio’ Days,’’ in Premiere, November 1994. Weiner, Rex, ‘‘Lucas the Loner Returns to ‘Wars’,’’ in Variety, 5 June 1995. Groves, M., ‘‘Digital Yoda,’’ in Los Angeles Times, June 1995. Scorsese, Martin, ‘‘Notre génération,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1996. Kaplan, D.A., ‘‘The Force Is Still with Him,’’ in Newsweek, 13 May 1996. Payne, M., ‘‘Return of the Jedi,’’ in Boxoffice (Chicago), Novem- ber 1996. Uram, S., ‘‘Use the Force, Lucas,’’ in Cinefantastique (Forest Park), no. 6, 1996. Seabrook, J., ‘‘Why Is the Force Still with Us?’’ in New Yorker, 6 January 1997. Lev, Peter, ‘‘Whose Future? Star Wars, Alien, and Blade Runner,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), January 1998. ‘‘How George Did It,’’ in Written By. Journal: The Writers Guild of America, West (Los Angeles), December/January 1998. McCarthy, Todd, ‘‘Mighty Effects but Mini Magic,’’ in Variety (New York), 17 May 1999. Daly, Steve, ‘‘The Star Report,’’ in Entertainment Weekly (New York), 21 May 1999. *** In whatever capacity George Lucas works—director, writer, producer—the films in which he is involved are a mixture of the familiar and the fantastic. Thematically, Lucas’s work is often familiar, but the presentation of the material usually carries his unique mark. His earliest commercial science-fiction film, THX 1138, is not very different in plot from previous stories of futuristic totalitarian societies in which humans are subordinate to technology. What is distinctive about the film is its visual impact. The extreme close-ups, bleak sets, and crowds of ‘‘properly sedated’’ shaven-headed people moving mechanically through hallways effectively produce the physical environment of this cold, well-ordered society. The endless whiteness of the vast detention center without bars could not be more oppressive. Although not a special effects film, American Graffiti, Lucas’s second feature, does show his attention to detail and his interest in archetypal themes. Within the 24-hour period of the film, the heroic potential is brought forth from within the main characters, either through courageous action or the making of courageous decisions. The film captures America on the verge of transition from the 1950s to the brave new world of the 1960s. Lucas does this visually by recreating the 1950s on screen down to the smallest detail, but he also communicates through his characters the feeling that their lives will never be the same again. The combination of convention, archetype, and fantasy comes together fully in Lucas’s subsequent films—the Star Wars and Indiana Jones series. On one level the Star Wars saga is a fairy tale set in outer space, as suggested in the opening title: ‘‘A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. . . .’’ The basic plot conventions of the fairy tale are present: a princess in distress, a powerful evil ruler, and courageous knights. The saga is also a tale of the emergence of the hero within and the quest by which individuals realize their true selves, for the princess is really a Shaman, the evil ruler a self divided in need of healing, and the knights latent heroes who do not realize themselves as such at the beginning of the tale. Scenes, especially from Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, look and sound like Flash Gordon episodes. Members of the Empire— the Emperor, Darth Vadar, the storm troopers—are an easily identifi- able evil in their dark, drab clothing and cloaked or helmeted faces. Their movements are accompanied by a menacing, martial film score of the type that ushered Ming the Merciless on screen. Another reference that associates the Empire with a great evil is that the storm troopers in several scenes resemble the rows of assembled storm troopers on review in Triumph of the Will. In contrast to these images of darkness, the rebel forces and their habitats are colorful and full of life. The Star Wars saga is also very much science fiction. The special effects developed to realize Lucas’s futuristic vision brought about technological advances in motion picture photography. The work- shop formed for the production of Star Wars, Industrial Light and Magic, continues on as an independent special effects production company. While working on Star Wars, John Dykstra developed the Dykstraflex camera, for which he received an Academy Award. The camera was used in conjunction with a computer to achieve the accuracy necessary in photographing multiple-exposure vis- ual effects. Another advancement in motion-control photography was developed for The Empire Strikes Back—Brian Edlund’s Empireflex camera. Lucas and Steven Spielberg then set out to make a film based on the romantic action/adventure movies of the 1940s. The successful result was Raiders of the Lost Ark. Indiana Jones, based on the rough- edged, worldly wise screen heroes of those earlier adventure films, is set to such mythic tasks as the quest for the Ark of the Covenant and the quest for the Holy Grail. Jones’s enemies on these quests (which occur in the first and the last films of the series), the Nazis, are representatives of the dark side of this universe and carry legendary status of their own. As in the Star Wars saga, the main characters, including the extraordinary Indiana, face challenges that will bring forth qualities and strengths they had not yet realized. The dialogue in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade especially emphasizes the theme of the hero within. At one point the senior Jones tells Indiana that ‘‘The search for the cup of Christ is the search for the divine in all of us’’; later in the film Indiana is challenged to look within himself by the enemy as he is told, ‘‘It’s time to ask yourself what you believe.’’ Radioland Murders is set in the world of live radio broadcasts of the late 1930s. All the conventional character types are here—from the inept director and his highly competent assistant to the golden- voiced booth announcer to the ever-creative sound-effects man. This romantic comedy/murder mystery was directed by Mel Smith, pro- duced by Lucas, and based on an original story by Lucas. The LUMETDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 629 narrative contains all the heroic challenges to spirit and character of more epic films condensed into a much smaller space and a much shorter time period. The action takes place within a few prime-time hours as a new radio network premieres. The broadcast carries on to a successful completion in spite of the murders of cast and crew, the police investigation, set breakdowns, and ego clashes. This universe of carefully contained chaos sometimes appears to be on the verge of spinning out of control, but it never does. The narrative, the broadcast, and the main characters persevere to the finish. In 1999, Lucas returned to directing with the first film in the Star Wars saga, Episode I—The Phantom Menace, which he also scripted. The film contains all the Lucas hallmarks, but he was perhaps ill- advised to take on the project himself. The prequel lacks much of the subtlety of Star Wars: Episode IV—A New Hope, the only other film in the sequence he has so far directed, and was nominated in 2000 for ‘‘Razzie’’ awards for Worst Direction and Worst Screenplay. Such is Lucas’s following, however, that Phantom Menace became the third- highest grossing movie of all time, and Lucas has announced his intention to make at least two further episodes. The simple story of a conflict between good and evil (essentially left over from the classic Western) continues to be carried by impressive special effects, but it remains to be seen how long general audiences will remain satisfied by a moral structure indicated by the color of the protagonists’ clothing. Lucas’s films are self-conscious about genre conventions and often refer back to earlier films. Also familiar in his work are the archetypal figures from myths and legends. At the same time, the films are fantastic and unfamiliar, filled with strange creatures and exotic settings. However, the narrative weaknesses of Phantom Menace suggest he is somewhat less adept with the processes of storytelling than with realizing ambitious action sequences and inventive special effects. —Marie Saeli, updated by Chris Routledge LUMET, Sidney Nationality: American. Born: Philadelphia, 25 June 1924. Educa- tion: Professional Children’s School, New York; Columbia Univer- sity extension school. Military Service: Served in Signal Corps, U.S. Army, 1942–46. Family: Married 1) Rita Gam (divorced); 2) Gloria Vanderbilt, 1956 (divorced, 1963); 3) Gail Jones, 1963 (divorced, 1978); 4) Mary Gimbel, 1980; two daughters. Career: Acting debut in Yiddish Theatre production, New York, 1928; Broadway debut in Dead End, 1935; film actor, from 1939; stage director, off-Broadway, from 1947; assistant director, then director, for TV, from 1950. Awards: Directors Guild Awards, for Twelve Angry Men, 1957, and Long Day’s Journey into Night, 1962; D.W. Griffith Award of the Directors Guild of America, 1993. Address: c/o LAH Film Corpora- tion, 1775 Broadway, New York, NY 10019, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1957 Twelve Angry Men 1958 Stage Struck 1959 That Kind of Woman 1960 The Fugitive Kind Sidney Lumet 1962 A View from the Bridge; Long Day’s Journey into Night 1964 Fail Safe 1965 Pawnbroker; Up from the Beach; The Hill 1966 The Group (+ pr) 1967 The Deadly Affair (+ pr) 1968 Bye Bye Braverman (+ pr); The Seagull (+ pr) 1969 Blood Kin (doc) (co-d, co-pr) 1970 King: A Filmed Record . . . Montgomery to Memphis (doc) (co-d, co-pr); The Appointment; The Last of the Mobile Hot Shots 1971 The Anderson Tapes 1972 Child’s Play 1973 The Offense; Serpico 1974 Lovin’ Molly; Murder on the Orient Express 1975 Dog Day Afternoon 1977 Equus; Network 1978 The Wiz 1980 Just Tell Me What You Want (+ pr) 1981 Prince of the City 1982 Deathtrap; The Verdict 1983 Daniel 1984 Garbo Talks 1986 Power; The Morning After 1988 Running on Empty 1989 Family Business 1990 Q & A (+ sc) 1992 A Stranger among Us 1993 Guilty as Sin LUMET DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 630 1997 Night Falls on Manhattan (+ sc); Critical Care (+ pr) 1999 Gloria 2000 Whistle Other Films: 1939 One Third of a Nation (Murphy) (role as Joey Rogers) 1940 Journey to Jerusalem (role as youthful Jesus) 1990 Listen Up! The Lives of Quincy Jones (role) Publications By LUMET: book— Making Movies, New York, 1995. By LUMET: articles— Interview with Peter Bogdanovich, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1960. ‘‘Sidney Lumet,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1963/ January 1964. ‘‘Keep Them on the Hook,’’ in Films and Filming (London), Octo- ber 1964. Interview with Luciano Dale, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1971. ‘‘Sidney Lumet on the Director,’’ in Movie People: At Work in the Business, edited by Fred Baker, New York, 1972. Interview with Susan Merrill, in Films in Review (New York), November 1973. Interviews with Gordon Gow, in Films and Filming (London), May 1975 and May 1978. Interview with Dan Yakir, in Film Comment (New York), Decem- ber 1978. Interview with Michel Ciment and O. Eyquem, in Positif (Paris), February 1982. ‘‘Delivering Daniel,’’ an interview with Richard Combs, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), January 1984. Interview with K. M. Chanko, in Films in Review (New York), October 1984. Interview with M. Burke, in Stills (London), February 1987. ‘‘Sidney Lumet: Lion on the Left,’’ an interview with G. Smith, in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1988. ‘‘That’s the Way It Happens,’’ an interview with Gavin Smith, in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1992. ‘‘L’homme en colère. Une étrangère parmi nous,’’ an interview with Pierre Murat, in Télérama (Paris), 6 January 1993. Interview with Heike-Melba Fendel, in EPD Film (Frankfurt), May 1993. On LUMET: books— Bowles, Stephen, Sidney Lumet: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1979. De Santi, Gualtiero, Sidney Lumet, Florence, 1988. Cunningham, Frank R., Sidney Lumet: Film and Literary Vision, Lexington, Kentucky, 1991. Boyer, Jay, Sidney Lumet, New York, 1993. On LUMET: articles— Petrie, Graham, ‘‘The Films of Sidney Lumet: Adaptation as Art,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1967/68. Rayns, Tony, ‘‘Across the Board,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1974. Sidney Lumet Section of Cinématographe (Paris), January 1982. Chase, D., ‘‘Sidney Lumet Shoots The Verdict,’’ in Millimeter (New York), December 1982. Shewey, D., ‘‘Sidney Lumet: The Reluctant Auteur,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), December 1982. ‘‘TV to Film: A History, a Map, and a Family Tree,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), February 1983. ‘‘Sidney Lumet,’’ in Film Dope (London), June 1987. Tempel, M. van den, ‘‘Chroniqueur van New York,’’ in Skoop, May 1991. Fleming, M., ‘‘New York Banks on Hudson Studio,’’ in Variety, 15 June 1992. Costello, D.P., ‘‘Sidney Lumet’s Long Day’s Journey into Night,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), April 1994. Leventhal, L., ‘‘City of Mind,’’ in Variety’s On Production (Los Angeles), no. 10, 1996. Callahan, M., ‘‘A Streetwise Legend Sticks to His Guns,’’ in New York Magazine, 26 May 1997. Lopate, P., ‘‘Sidney Lumet,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/ August 1997. Sabbe, M., ‘‘Sidney Lumet,’’ in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), September 1997. Wickbom, Kaj, in Filmrutan (Sundsvall), Winter 1998. *** Although Sidney Lumet has applied his talents to a variety of genres (drama, comedy, satire, caper, romance, and even a musical), he has proven himself most comfortable and effective as a director of serious psychodramas and was most vulnerable when attempting light entertainments. His Academy Award nominations, for example, have all been for character studies of men in crisis, from his first film, Twelve Angry Men, to The Verdict. Lumet was, literally, a child of the drama. At the age of four he was appearing in productions of the highly popular and acclaimed Yiddish Theatre in New York. He continued to act for the next two decades but increasingly gravitated toward directing. At twenty-six he was offered a position as an assistant director with CBS television. Along with John Frankenheimer, Robert Mulligan, Martin Ritt, Delbert Mann, George Roy Hill, Franklin Schaffner, and others, Lumet quickly won recognition as a competent and reliable director in a medium where many faltered under the pressures of producing live programs. It was in this environment that Lumet learned many of the skills that would serve him so well in his subsequent career in films: working closely with performers, rapid preparation for production, and working within tight schedules and budgets. Because the quality of many of the television dramas was so impressive, several of them were adapted as motion pictures. Reginald Rose’s Twelve Angry Men brought Lumet to the cinema. Although Lumet did not direct the television production, his expertise made him the ideal director for this low-budget film venture. LUMIèREDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 631 Twelve Angry Men was an auspicious beginning for Lumet. It was a critical and commercial success and established Lumet as a director skilled at adapting theatrical properties to motion pictures. Fully half of Lumet’s complement of films have originated in the theater. Another precedent set by Twelve Angry Men was Lumet’s career-long disdain for Hollywood. Lumet prefers to work in contemporary urban settings, especially New York. Within this context, Lumet is consistently attracted to situations in which crime provides the occasion for a group of characters to come together. Typically these characters are caught in a vortex of events they can neither understand nor control but which they must work to resolve. Twelve Angry Men explores the interaction of a group of jurors debating the innocence or guilt of a man being tried for murder; The Hill concerns a rough group of military men who have been sentenced to prison; The Deadly Affair involves espionage in Britain; The Anderson Tapes revolves around the robbery of a luxury apartment building; Child’s Play, about murder at a boy’s school, conveys an almost supernatural atmosphere of menace; Murder on the Orient Express, Dog Day Afternoon, and The Verdict all involve attempts to find the solution to a crime, while Serpico and Prince of the City are probing examinations of men who have rejected graft practices as police officers. Lumet’s protagonists tend to be isolated, unexceptional men who oppose a group or institution. Whether the protagonist is a member of a jury or party to a bungled robbery, he follows his instincts and intuition in an effort to find solutions. Lumet’s most important criterion is not whether the actions of these men are right or wrong but whether the actions are genuine. If these actions are justified by the individual’s conscience, this gives his heroes uncommon strength and courage to endure the pressures, abuses, and injustices of others. Frank Serpico, for example, is the quintessential Lumet hero in his defiance of peer group authority and the assertion of his own code of moral values. Nearly all the characters in Lumet’s gallery are driven by obses- sions or passions that range from the pursuit of justice, honesty, and truth to the clutches of jealousy, memory, or guilt. It is not so much the object of their fixations but the obsessive condition itself that in- trigues Lumet. In films like The Fugitive Kind, A View from the Bridge, Long Day’s Journey into Night, The Pawnbroker, The Seagull, The Appointment, The Offense, Lovin’ Molly, Network, Just Tell Me What You Want, and many of the others, the protagonists, as a result of their complex fixations, are lonely, often disillusioned individuals. Consequently, most of Lumet’s central characters are not likable or pleasant, and sometimes not admirable figures. And, typically, their fixations result in tragic or unhappy consequences. Lumet’s fortunes have been up and down at the box office. One explanation seems to be his own fixation with uncompromising studies of men in crisis. His most intense characters present a grim vision of idealists broken by realities. From Val in A View from the Bridge and Sol Nazerman in The Pawnbroker to Danny Ciello in Prince of the City, Lumet’s introspective characters seek to penetrate the deepest regions of the psyche. Lumet’s recently published memoir about his life in film, Making Movies, is extremely lighthearted and infectious in its enthusiasm for the craft of moviemaking itself. This stands in marked contrast to the tone and style of most of his films. Perhaps Lumet’s signature as a director is his work with actors—and his exceptional ability to draw high-quality, sometimes extraordinary performances from even the most unexpected quarters: Melanie Griffith’s believable undercover policewoman in A Stranger among Us and Don Johnson’s smooth- talking sociopath in Guilty as Sin. These two latest examples of the ‘‘Lumet touch’’ with actors demonstrate that he has not lost it. —Stephen E. Bowles, updated by John McCarty LUMIèRE, Louis Nationality: French. Born: Besan?on, 5 October 1864. Educa- tion: L’école de la Martinière, Besan?on, degree 1880; attended Conservatoire de Lyon, 1880–81. Career: Chemist and inventor, son of an industrialist specialising in photographic chemistry and the making of emulsions; after seeing Edison Kinetoscope demonstrated in Paris, developed with brother Auguste Lumière (1862–1954) the ‘‘Cinématographe Lumière,’’ incorporating invention of claw driven by eccentric gear for advancing film, 1894; projected first film, showing workers leaving the Lumière factory, 1895; projected first program for a paying audience at Grand Café, Boulevard des Capucines, Paris, 28 December 1895; Société du Cinématographe Lumière formed, 1896; projected film onto 16–by–21–foot screen at Paris Exposition, 1900; company ceased film production, 1905; subse- quently invented and manufactured photographic equipment; worked on stereo projection method, from 1921; première of ‘‘cinéma en relief’’ in Paris, 1936. Died: In Bandol, France, 6 June 1948. Louis Lumière LUMIèRE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 632 Films as Director: 1896–1900 Directed about 60 films and produced about 2000, mostly documentaries 1894 or 95 La Sortie des usines (version no. 1) 1895 La Sortie des usines (version no. 2); L’Arroseur arrosé (Le Jardinier); Forgerons; Pompiers; Attaque du feu; Le Repas de bébé (Le Déjeuner de bébé, Le Gouter de bébé); Pêche aux poissons rouges; La Voltige; Débarquement (Arrivée des congressistes à Neuville-sur-Sa?ne); Discussion de M. Janssen et de M. Lagrange; Saut à la couverture (Brimade dans une caserne); Lyon, place des Cordeliers; Lyon, place Bellecour; Récréation à la Martinière; Charcuterie mécanique; Le Maréchalferrant; Lancement d’un navire à La Ciotat; Baignade en mer; Ateliers de La Ciotat; Barque sortant du port (La Sortie du port); Arrivée d’un train à La Ciotat; Partie d’ecarté; Assiettes tournantes; Chapeaux à transformations (Trewey: Under the Hat); Photographe; Démolition d’un mur (Le Mur); Querelle enfantine; Aquar- ium; Bocal aux poissons-rouges; Partie de tric-trac; Le Dejeuner du chat; Départ en voiture; Enfants aux jouets; Course en sac; Discussion 1896–97 Barque en mer; Baignade en mer; Arrivée d’un bateau à vapeur; Concours de boules; Premiers pas de Bébé; Embarquement pour le promenade; Retour d’une prome- nade en mer; Marché; Enfant et chien; Petit frèree et petite soeur; Douche aprés le bain; Ronde enfantine; Enfants au bord de la mer; Bains en mer; Touristes revenant d’une excursion; Scènes d’enfants; Laveuses; Repas en famille; Bal d’enfants; Le?on de bicyclette; Menuisiers; Radeau avec baigneurs; Le Go?ter de bébé 1900 Inauguration de l’Exposition universelle; La Tour Eiffel; Le Pont d’ Iéna; Danses espagnoles and other films shown on large screen at Paris Exposition 1900 1936 Arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat and other films presented in ‘‘cinéma en relief’’ program Publications By LUMIèRE: books— Cinématographe Auguste et Louis Lumière: Catalogue des Vues, first through seventh lists, Lyon, France, 1897–98. Catalogue des vues pour cinématographe, Lyon, 1907. By LUMIèRE: articles— ‘‘Lumière—The Last Interview,’’ with Georges Sadoul, in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1948. ‘‘Bellecour—Monplaisir,’’ with H. Bitomsky, in Filmkritik (Mu- nich), August 1978. On LUMIèRE: books— Kubnick, Henri, Les Frères Lumière, Paris, 1938. Bessy, Maurice, and Lo Duca, Louis Lumière, inventeur, Paris, 1948. Leroy, Paul, Au seuil de paradis des images avec Louis Lumière, Paris, 1948. Sadoul, Georges, Histoire générale du cinéma vols. 1 and 2, Paris, 1949. Pernot, Victor, A Paris, il y a soixante ans, naissait le cinéma, Paris, 1955. Mitry, Jean, Filmographie Universelle vol. 2, Paris, 1964. Sadoul, Georges, Louis Lumière, Paris, 1964. Chardère, Bernard, and others, Les Lumières, Paris, 1985. Rittaud-Hutinet, Le Cinéma des origins: frères Lumière et leur opérateurs, Seyssel, 1985. Sauvage, Leo, L’Affaire Lumière, Paris, 1985. Redi, Riccardo, editor, Lumière, Rome, 1986. André, Jacques and Marie, Uns Saison Lumière à Montpelier, Perpignan, 1987. Lumière, Auguste, and Louis Lumière; translated by Pierre Hodgson, Letters: Inventing the Cinema, New York, 1997. On LUMIèRE: articles— Browne, Mallory, ‘‘Artisan in Light,’’ in Christian Science Monitor (Boston), 7 August 1935. ‘‘Lumière Jubilee,’’ in Time (New York), 18 November 1935. Deutelbaum, M., ‘‘Structural Patterning in the Lumière Films,’’ in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), no. 1, 1979. Decaux, E., ‘‘Lieux du cinéma: lettre du Chateau Lumière,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), January 1979. Vaughan, Dai, ‘‘Let There Be Lumière,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Spring 1981. Dubois, P., ‘‘Le gros plan primitif,’’ in Revue Belge du Cinéma (Brussels), Winter 1984/85. Rinieri, D., ‘‘Lumière fut,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), Septem- ber 1985. ‘‘Louis Lumière: 8 Films de la soirée du Grand café,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), November 1984. Masson, André, ‘‘Lumière!,’’ in Positif (Paris), January 1986. Chardère, B., and others, ‘‘Les Droits des films Lumière,’’ in Filmèchange (Paris), Autumn 1986. Gorki, Maxim, and P. Delpeut, in Versus (Nijmegen), no. 2, 1988. Chardère, B., ‘‘Les sorties des usines Lumière. Jamais deux sans trois,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1989. Caron, D. ‘‘L’in(ter)vention Lumiere,’’ Cinématheque (Paris), no. 5, Spring 1994. Desbenoit, Luc, ‘‘Les envoyes des Lumiere,’’ in Télérama (Paris), no. 2349, 18 January 1995. Labarthe, Andrés, and Jean Breschand, ‘‘Les frères Lumiere, cinéastes phares,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 489, March 1995. Gardies, André, ‘‘La cité Lumiere,’’ in Cinemaction (Conde-sur- Noireau), no. 75, April 1995. Gaudreault, André, and Germain Lacasse, ‘‘The Introduction of the Lumiere Cinematograph in Canada,’’ in Canadian Journal of Film Studies (Ottawa), vol. 5, no. 2, Fall 1996. *** Few directors since Louis Lumière have enjoyed such total control over their films. As inventor of the cinématographe, the first camera- cum-projector, he determined not only the subjects but also the aesthetics of early cinema. A scientist devoted to the plastic arts, Lumière initially specialised in outdoor photography. This experi- ence, coupled with an appreciation of framing, perspective, and light values in a composition, informed his pioneering films. LYNCHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 633 To promote the cinématographe, he made demonstration shorts which, because of the camera’s limited spool capacity, lasted less than a minute. If art refines itself through constraint, Lumière’s films are excellent models. He overcame the cinématographe’s technical limi- tations to achieve tightly structured views of contemporary life, both public and private. Though Lumière’s role in establishing the cinema has been dutifully recorded together with the audience’s thrilled disbelief at his moving images, his contribution to film practice deserves more recognition. His first film, La Sortie des usines, pictures employees leaving his photographic factory. Framed by the open gates, they disperse before the camera set at a medium close-up distance, and with the closure of the gates the sequence ends. The film does not result from a casual pointing of the camera at the chosen subject: all has been pre-planned, from the placing of the hidden camera to the squaring of the action’s duration with the available footage. Over the next two years or so, Lumière experimented with diverse subjects and filming techniques. His themes reflect an unquestioning confidence in the permanence of contemporary political and social structures. Whether recording aspects of city life or the calmer pleasures of the seaside, the work of the artisan, fireman, or soldier, more personal family subjects or rehearsed comic episodes, his films imply a well-ordered, contented society where individuals cheerfully perform their allotted roles. Images of social deprivation or discontent are noticeably absent. Scenes featuring family or friends are often filmed in medium close-up, with the single framing here reinforcing the intimacy and denying a world outside. Immaculate children, invariably in white, are shown feeding (Repas de bébé), learning to walk (Premiers pas de bébé), playing with toys (Enfants aux jouets), arguing (Querelle enfantine), dancing (Bal d’enfants), or delightfully trying to catch goldfish (Pêche aux poissons rouges). In Concert, Madame Lumière plays a violin, while card games involve family friends (Partie d’écarté and Partie de tric-trac). A cat lapping milk (Déje?ner du chat) is filmed in close-up and in Aquarium the fish tank fills the frame to create the illusion of underwater photography. In films such as Place des Cordeliers and Place Bellecour the atmosphere of public squares alive with horse-drawn carriages and bustling crowds is captured, while in films such as Baignade en mer the novelties of sea-bathing are recorded. Other films prefigure newsreels by documenting particular events. The first of these, Débarquement, records photographers arriving for their conference and was projected the next day. Similar events include a street sack race (Course en sac), the demolition of a wall (Démolition d’un mur), the launching of a ship (Lancement d’un navire à La Ciotat), and various arrivals or departures, such as Touristes revenant d’une excursion, or Arrivée d’un bateau à vapeur. An early triumph was Barque sortant du port, where glistening waves and a sudden swell rocking the boat impressed themselves on a public familiar only with static images. Sequences capturing movement were an immediate attraction. Lumière’s most celebrated arrival subject was the train entering La Ciotat station (Arrivée d’un train à la Ciotat). Here the dramatic resources of depth of field are exploited, with the platform and the track forming strong diagonals reaching into the distance. The train, first pictured in longshot, thrusts itself towards the camera to create a dynamic close-up. So powerful was the illusion of the train’s immanence that the first audiences reportedly feared for their safety. The creative use of perspective was also fundamental to the depiction of ploughing in Labourage and to the sack race in Course en sac. Documentaries concerning artisans or the military reveal a studied composition. The camera is positioned to make actions comprehensi- ble, whether in terms of shoeing horses (Maréchal-ferrant), shaping iron bars (Forgerons), or horsemanship (Voltige). Cooperation with the fire service produced a more substantial documentary. Recognising the dramatic potential of his subject, Lumière portrayed a full-scale fire practice in four linked films: Sortie de la Pompe, Mise en Batterie, Attaque du feu, and Sauvetage. Comic sketches required careful preparation. In L’Arroseur arrosé a young prankster soaks an unsus- pecting gardener by interrupting, then releasing, the water supply to a hose. All is tightly organized in time and space to meet the limitations of the fixed camera. In Photographe the innocent subject is again drenched, while in Charcuterie mécanique (which ridicules American mechanisation long before Tati’s postman in Jour de fête) a pig is converted into sausages which then magically transform themselves into a pig again. Although Lumière renounced filmmaking, he extended his influence through trained operators, such as Promio, Mesguish, and Doublier. His impact on early cinema is evident in the way others, notably Méliès, imitated his subjects. His abiding pres- ence in French film culture is witnessed in various homages: in Les Mistons Truffaut affectionately alludes to L’Arroseur arrosé, while in Les Carabiniers Godard parodies L’Arrivée d’un train à la Ciotat and Le Repas de bébé. —R F. Cousins LYNCH, David Nationality: American. Born: Missoula, Montana, 20 January 1946. Education: High school in Alexandria, Virginia; Corcoran School of Art, c. 1964; Boston Museum School, 1965; Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Art, 1965–69; American Film Institute Centre for Advanced Studies, studying under Frank Daniel, 1970. Family: Married 1) Peggy Reavey, 1967 (divorced, 1974), one daughter, writer/director Jennifer Lynch; 2) Mary Fisk, 1977 (divorced, 1987), one son, Austin. Career: Spent five years making Eraserhead, Los Angeles, 1971–76; worked as paperboy and shed-builder, late 1970s; invited by Mel Brooks to direct The Elephant Man, 1980; with Mark Frost, made Twin Peaks for video (two-hour version) and as TV series, 1989. Executive producer and writer of the CD-rom video game Woodcut- ters from Fiery Ships, 2000. Awards: National Society of Film Critics Awards for Best Film and Best Director, for Blue Velvet, 1986; Palme d’Or, Cannes Festival, for Wild at Heart, 1990. Films as Director: 1968 The Alphabet (short) (sc) 1970 The Grandmother (short) (sc) 1978 Eraserhead (sc) 1980 The Elephant Man (co-sc) 1984 Dune (sc) 1986 Blue Velvet (sc) 1988 episode in Les Fran?ais vus par . . . 1990 Wild at Heart (sc) 1992 Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (co-sc + co-pr, role as Gordon Cole) 1995 episode in Lumiere et compagnie LYNCH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 634 David Lynch 1997 Lost Highway (sc) 1999 The Straight Story (+ mus) 2001 Mulholland Drive (co-sc, exec pr) Other Films: 1988 Zelly and Me (role as Willie) 1991 The Cabinet of Dr. Ramirez (exec pr) 1994 Nadja (exec pr, role as Morgue Attendant) 1997 Pretty as a Picture: The Art of David Lynch (for TV) (as himself) Publications By LYNCH: books— Welcome to Twin Peaks: An Access Guide to the Town, with Richard Saul Wurman and Mark Frost, London, 1991. Images, New York, 1994. Lost Highways, New York, 1997. Lynch on Lynch, with Chris Rodley, London, 1999. By LYNCH: articles— Interview with Serge Daney and Charles Tesson, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1981. Interview with D. Chute, in Film Comment (New York), September/ October 1986. Interview with K. Jaehne and L. Bouzereau, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 15, no. 3, 1987. Interview with A. Caron and M. Girard, in Séquences (Montreal), February 1987. Interview with D. Marsh and A. Missler, in Cinema Papers (Mel- bourne), March 1987. Interview with Jane Root, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), April 1987. Interview with D. Breskin, in Rolling Stone, September 6, 1990. Interview with M. Ciment and H. Niogret, in Positif, October 1990. ‘‘Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me: The Press Conference,’’ with Scott Murray, in Cinema Papers (Fitzroy), August 1992. LYNCHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 635 ‘‘Naked Lynch,’’ an interview with Geoff Andrew, in Time Out (London), 18 November 1992. Interview with Bill Krohn and Vincent Ostria, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July-August 1994. ‘‘A Passage from India,’’ an interview with G. Solman, in Variety’s On Production (Los Angeles), no. 2, 1997. ‘‘David Lynch,’’ an interview with Philippe Rouyer and Michael Henry, in Positif (Paris), January 1997. ‘‘Lynch Law,’’ an interview with D. Yaffe, in Village Voice (New York), 25 February 1997. ‘‘Highway to Hell,’’ an interview with Stephen Pizzello, in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), March 1997. ‘‘The Road to Hell,’’ an interview with Dominic Wells, in Time Out (London), 13 August 1997. On LYNCH: books— Kaleta, Kenneth C., David Lynch, New York, 1993. Chion, Michel, and Julian, Robert, David Lynch, London, 1995. Nochimson, Martha P., The Passion of David Lynch: Wild at Heart in Hollywood, Austin, 1997. On LYNCH: articles— Hinson, H., ‘‘Dreamscapes,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), December 1984. David Lynch section of Revue du Cinéma (Paris), February 1987. Combs, Richard, ‘‘Crude Thoughts and Fierce Forces,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), April 1987. French, Sean, ‘‘The Heart of the Cavern,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1987. ‘‘David Lynch,’’ in Film Dope (London), June 1987. McDonagh, M., ‘‘The Enigma of David Lynch,’’ in Persistence of Vision (Maspeth, New York), Summer 1988. Gehr, R., ‘‘The Angriest Painter in the World,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), April 1989. Saada, N., ‘‘David Lynch,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma, June 1990. Zimmer, J., ‘‘David Lynch,’’ in Revue du Cinéma, July/August 1990. Woodward, Robert B., ‘‘Wild at Heart . . . Weird on Top,’’ in Empire (London), September 1990. Hoberman, J., and Jonathan Rosenbaum, ‘‘Curse of the Cult People,’’ in Film Comment, January/February 1991. Sante, Luc, ‘‘The Rise of the Baroque Directors,’’ in Vogue, Septem- ber 1992. Jankiewicz, P., ‘‘Lynch’s Hall of Freaks,’’ in Film Threat, Octo- ber 1992. Hampton, Howard, ‘‘David Lynch’s Secret History of the United States,’’ in Film Comment, May/June 1993. Rastelli, D., ‘‘Non toccate la mia giacca,’’ in Cineforum (Bergamo), July-August 1996. Wyatt, J., ‘‘David Lynch Keeps His Head,’’ in Premiere (Boulder), September 1996. ‘‘Das Universum David Lynch,’’ a dossier, in Zoom (Zürich), no. 3, March 1997. Dossier, in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 4–5, 1997. Biodrowski, S., ‘‘David Lynch,’’ in Cinefantastique (Forest Park), no. 10, 1997. Szebin, F.C. and Biodrowski, S., ‘‘David Lynch,’’ in Cinefantastique (Forest Park), no. 12, 1997. Leitch, Thomas M., ‘‘The Hitchcock Moment,’’ in Hitchcock Annual (Gambier), 1997–98. *** The undoubted perversity that runs throughout the works of David Lynch extends to his repeated and unexpected career turns: coming off the semi-underground Eraserhead to make the semi-respectable The Elephant Man with a distinguished British cast; then bouncing into a Dino de Laurentiis mega-budget science-fiction fiasco, Dune; creeping back with the seductive and elusive small-town mystery of Blue Velvet; capping that by transferring his uncompromising vision of lurking sexual violence to American network television in Twin Peaks; and alienating the viewers of that bizarre soap with the rambling, intermittently stupefying, road movie Wild at Heart. Although there are recognisable Lynchian elements, with both Eraserhead and Blue Velvet—his two most commercially and critically successful movies—leaking images and ideas into the pairs of movies that followed them up, Lynch has proved surprisingly difficult to pin down. Given one Lynch movie, it has been—until the slightly too self-plagiaristic Wild at Heart—almost impossible to predict the next step. A painter and animator—his first films are Svankmajer-style shorts The Grandmother and Alphabet—Lynch came into the film industry through the back door, converting his thesis movie into Eraserhead on a shooting schedule that stretched over some years and required the eternal soliciting of money from friends, like Sissy Spacek, who had gone on to do well. Eraserhead is one of the rare cult movies that deserves its cult reputation, although it is a hard movie to sit still through for a second time around. Set in a monochrome fantasy world that suggests the slums of Oz, it follows a pompadoured drudge, Henry (John Nance), through his awful life in a decaying apartment building, with occa- sional bursts of light relief from the fungus-cheeked songstress behind the radiator, and winds up with two extraordinarily bizarre and horrid fantasy sequences, one in which Henry’s head falls off and is mined for indiarubber to be used in pencil erasers, and the other in which he cuts apart his skinned fetus of a mutant child and is deluged with a literal tide of excrement. Without really being profound, the film manages to worm its way into the hearts of the college crowd, cannily appealing—in one of Lynch’s trademarks—to intellectuals who relish the multiple allusions and evasive ‘‘meanings’’ of the film, and to horror movie fans who just like to go along with the extreme imagery. It was this combination, perhaps, that caught the eye of Mel Brooks’ Brooksfilms, which was looking to branch into more serious work and tapped Lynch to bring its first foray, The Elephant Man, to the screen. This true story had been the basis of a successful Broadway play. But Lunch was given free reign to mine the historical record for inspiration instead as the film was not drawn from the play. With The Elephant Man, also in black and white and laden with the steamy industrial imagery of Eraserhead, Lynch, cued perhaps by the poignance of John Hurt’s under-the-rubber performance and the presence of the sort of cast (Anthony Hopkins, John Gielgud, Freddie Jones, Michael Elphick) one would expect from some BBC-TV Masterpiece Theatre serial, opts for a more humanist approach, mellowing the sheer nastiness of the first film. In the finale, as the mutant John Merrck attends a lovingly recreated Victorian magic show, Lynch even pays homage to the gentle magician whose The LYNCH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 636 Man with the Indiarubber Head might be cited as a precursor to Eraserhead, Georges Méliès. Dune is a folly by anyone’s standards, and the re-cut television version—which Lynch opted to sign with the Director’s Guild pseudonym Allan Smithee—is no help in sorting out the multiple plot confusions of Frank Herbert’s pretentious and unfilmable science- fiction epic. Hoping for a fusion of Star Wars and Lawrence of Arabia, De Laurentiis—who stuck by Lynch throughout the troubled $40 million production—wound up with a turgid mess, overloaded with talented performers in nothing roles, that only spottily seems to have engaged Lynch’s interest, mostly when there are monsters on screen or when Kenneth McMillan is campily overdoing his perverse and evil emperor act. Dune landed Lynch in the doldrums, and his comeback movie, also for the forgiving De Laurentiis, was very carefully crafted to evoke the virtues and cult commercial appeal of Eraserhead without seeming a throwback. Drawing on Shadow of a Doubt, Lynch made a small-town mystery that deigns to work on a plot level, and then shot it through with his own cruel insights into the teeming, insectoid nightmare that exists beneath the red, white, and blue prettiness of the setting, coaxing sinister meaning out of resonant pop songs like ‘‘Blue Velvet’’ and ‘‘In Dreams,’’ and establishing the core of a repertory company—Kyle MacLachlan of Dune, Isabella Rossellini, Laura Dern—who would recur in his next projects. Blue Velvet, far more than the muddy Dune, established Lynch as a master of colour in addition to his black and white skills, and also, through his handling of human monster Dennis Hopper’s abuse of Rossellini, as a chronicler of extreme emotions, often combining sex and violence in one disturbing, yet undeniably appeal- ing package. Twin Peaks, a television series Lynch devised and for which he directed the pilot film, is a strange offshoot of Blue Velvet, set in a similar town and with MacLachlan again the odd investigator of a crime the nature of which is hard to define. Although it lacks the explicit tone of the earlier film, in which Dennis Hopper is given to basic outbursts like ‘‘baby wants to fuck!,’’ Twin Peaks is also insidiously fascinating, using the labyrinthine plot convolutions of the typical soap opera—among other things, the show is a lineal descendant of Peyton Place—in addition to the puzzle-solving twists of the murder mystery to probe under the surface of a folksy America of junk food and picket fences. As a reaction to the eerie restraint of Twin Peaks, Wild at Heart is an undisciplined road film which evokes Elvis in Nicolas Cage’s subtly overwrought performance and strag- gles along towards its Wizard of Oz finale, passing by the high points of Lynch’s career (featuring players and jokes from all his earlier movies) as it plays out its couple-on-the-run storyline in a surprisingly straightforward and above-board manner. With Willem Dafoe’s dirty-teeth monster replacing Dennis Hopper’s gas-sniffing gangster, Wild at Heart echoes the violent and sexual excesses of Blue Velvet, including one exploding head stunt out of The Evil Dead and many heavy-metal-scored, heavy-duty sex scenes, but suffers from its superficiality, predictability, and a cast of characters so unlikable that we don’t give a damn about the fates of any of them. Notes critic Hen Hanke: ‘‘Wild at Heart is nothing but a con game—a filmic Em- peror’s New Clothes. At least that’s what we hope it is, because of this is truly how Lynch views the world, he must be one of the most unhappy people on the planet.’’ Both a genuine artist (say his supporters) and a cunning commer- cial survivor, Lynch appeared—in the minds of many critics—to be one of the best hopes for cinema in the 1990s. As of 1995, however, his promise as a savior had yet to be fulfilled. Unable to get the ill- fated Twin Peaks out of his system after it went unceremoniously off the air without a resolution, Lynch launched a theatrical version of his TV show, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me. Ironically, it turned out to be a prequel to the events portrayed in the series rather than a sequel, so to date we are still left without a resolution to the labyrinthine mysteries surrounding the puzzle of ‘‘who killed Laura Palmer?’’ Overlong and oddly underheated, it was a commercial bomb, even with hardcore Peaks fans. Not just inclined to listen to the supporters who extol him as an artist but heed them as well, Lynch made his next film, Lost Highway, expressly for this rabid group, it seems. Based on a dream of Lynch’s, the film unfolds with the logic of a dream — which to say, no logic at all. It’s about a man who may or may not be an escapee from prison, who may or may not have killed his wife, and who may or may not be being pursued by the authorities, gangsters, and a host of bizarro Lynchian characters. As self-indulgent as many of Lynch’s previous works, it’s artsy-fartsy pretentiousness is a whole lot more difficult to defend, however. By contrast, Lynch’s next film, The Straight Story, seems almost like a rejection of everything his most rabid supporters hold dear about him. Superficially at least, it is the most un-Lynch-like film in the director’s body of work: A gentle, life-affirming, straight-from- the-heart, family-oriented tribute to the honesty, ideals, and tenacity of Middle America with a G rating and not a baroque or pretentious bone in its warm and fuzzy body. —Kim Newman, updated by John McCarty 637 M MACKENDRICK, Alexander Nationality: Scottish. Born: Boston, 1912. Education: Glasgow School of Art. Career: Commercial artist, animator of advertising films, also worked in Holland with George Pal, 1930s; made short propaganda films for Ministry of Information, World War II; later head of documentary and newsreel department of Psychological Warfare Branch, Rome; joined Ealing Studios as scriptwriter, 1946; directed first feature, Whisky Galore, 1946; signed contract with Hecht-Lancaster (Harold Hecht and Burt Lancaster) to make Sweet Smell of Success in U.S., 1956; Dean, Film Dept. of California Institute of the Arts, Valencia, from 1969; resigned Deanship, contin- ued to teach at CalArts, from 1978. Died: 22 December 1993, of pneumonia. Films as Director: 1949 Whisky Galore (Tight Little Island) (+ co-sc) 1951 The Man in the White Suit (+ co-sc) Alexander Mackendrick 1952 Mandy (The Story of Mandy; Crash of Silence) 1954 The Maggie (High and Dry) (+ story) 1955 The Ladykillers 1957 Sweet Smell of Success 1963 Sammy Going South (A Boy Ten Feet Tall) 1965 A High Wind in Jamaica 1967 Oh Dad, Poor Dad, Mamma’s Hung You in the Closet and I’m Feelin’ So Sad (Quine) (d add’l scenes); Don’t Make Waves Other Films: 1950 The Blue Lamp (Dearden) (add’l dialogue) Publications By MACKENDRICK: article— Interview with Bernard Cohn, in Positif (Paris), February 1968. Interview with Kate Buford, in Film Comment (Los Angeles), May- June 1994. On MACKENDRICK: books— Balcon, Michael, A Lifetime of Films, London, 1969. Barr, Charles, Ealing Studios, London, 1977. Perry, George, Forever Ealing, London, 1981. Kemp, Philip, Lethal Innocence: The Cinema of Alexander Mackendrick, London, 1991. On MACKENDRICK articles— Cutts, John, ‘‘Mackendrick Finds the Sweet Smell of Success,’’ in Films and Filming (London), June 1957. ‘‘Alexander Mackendrick,’’ in Films and Filming (London), Janu- ary 1963. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Oddities and One-Shots,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1963. ‘‘Mackendrick Issue’’ of Dialogue on Film (Washington, D.C.), no. 2, 1972. Barr, Charles, ‘‘Projecting Britain and the British Character: Ealing Studios,’’ in Screen (London), Summer 1974. Goldstone, P., ‘‘Focus on Education: The Mackendrick Legacy,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), March 1979. ‘‘Alexander Mackendrick,’’ in Film Dope (London), June 1987. Kemp, Philip, ‘‘Mackendrick Land,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1988/89. MAKAVEJEV DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 638 Obituary, in Variety (New York), 3 January 1994. Obituary, in Time, 3 January 1994. Obituary, in New Yorker, 31 January 1994. Obituary, in EPD Film (Frankfurt), February 1994. Obituary, in Mensuel du Cinéma, February 1994. Obituary, in Sight and Sound (London), February 1994. Obituary, in Classic Images (Muscatine), March 1994. Claes, G., ‘‘A Dieu,’’ in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), May/ June 1994. Buford, K, ‘‘Do Make Waves: Sandy,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1994. Frears, Stephen, ‘‘Sandy Mackendrick,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1994. *** In 1955 Alexander Mackendrick made The Ladykillers, the last of his four Ealing comedies. Two years later, in Hollywood, came his brilliantly acid study of corruption and betrayal, Sweet Smell of Success. At first glance, the gulf is prodigious. Yet on closer examina- tion, it narrows considerably: the apparent contrast between the two films becomes little more than a matter of surface tone. For behind the comedies that Mackendrick made for Ealing can be detected a mor- dant humor, a pessimism, and even an instinct for cruelty that sets them apart from the gentle sentimentality of their stablemates (Hamer’s Kind Hearts and Coronets always excepted). The mainstream of Ealing comedy, even including such classics as Passport to Pimlico and The Lavender Hill Mob, presents (as Charles Barr has pointed out) ‘‘a whimsical daydream of how things might be.’’ There is little of that daydream about Mackendrick’s films; at times—as in The Ladykillers—they edge closer to surrealist nightmare. In Whisky Galore the English outsider, Captain Waggett, is subjected by islanders to continual humiliation, unalleviated even in their triumph by the slightest friendly gesture. Similarly Marshall, the American tycoon in The Maggie, is abused, exploited, and physically assaulted by the Scots he encounters. Both workers and bosses in The Man in the White Suit turn violently upon Sidney Stratton, the idealistic inventor; and The Ladykillers culminates in a whole string of brutal murders. Not that this blackness detracts in the least from the effectiveness of the comedy. Rather, it lends the films a biting edge that makes them all the funnier, and may well explain why they have dated far less than most other Ealing movies. A constant theme of Mackendrick’s films is the clash between innocence and experience. Innocence connotes integrity, but also blindness to the interests of others; experience brings shrewdness, but also corruption. Generally, innocence is defeated, but not always: in The Ladykillers it is serenely innocent Mrs. Wilberforce who survives— as does Susan Hunsecker in Sweet Smell of Success, albeit at a price. Children feature prominently in Mackendrick’s films—especially Mandy, Sammy Going South, The Maggie—and often embody the principle of innocence, though again not always. In A High Wind in Jamaica, against all audience expectations, it is the pirates, not the children they capture, who prove to be the innocents and who suffer death for it. As so often with Mackendrick’s characters, they are doomed by their lack of perception; trapped, like the deaf heroine of Mandy, in a private world, they see only what they expect to see. Mackendrick established a reputation as an exacting and perfec- tionist director, bringing to his films a visual acuteness and a flair for complex fluid composition to support the tight dramatic structure. After Sweet Smell of Success, though, the quality of his work is generally considered to have declined, and he has made no films since 1967. A planned project on Mary Queen of Scots (intriguingly outlined by Mackendrick as ‘‘a sophisticated French lady landed in Boot Hill’’) never materialised. From 1969 to 1978 he headed an outstanding film department at the California Institute of the Arts; but the withdrawal of such a subtle and individual director from active filmmaking is greatly to be regretted. —Philip Kemp MAKAVEJEV, Du?an Nationality: Yugoslavian. Born: Belgrade, 13 October 1932. Edu- cation: Studied psychology at Belgrade University, graduated 1955; studied direction at the Academy for Theatre, Radio, Film, and Television, Belgrade. Military Service: 1959–60. Family: Married Bojana Marijan, 1964. Career: Experimental filmmaker for Kino- Club, 1955–58; joined Zagreb Films, 1958; worked for Avala films, 1961; went to United States on Ford Foundation Grant, 1968; worked in United States, since 1974; instructor of film at various universities, including Columbia, Harvard, and New York. Awards: FIPRESCI Award and Silver Bear Award, Berlin Film Festival, for Nevinost bez zastite, 1968; FIPRESCI Award, special mention, Berlin Film Festi- val, for W.R.—Misterije organizma, 1971; Mostra Special Award, Sao Paulo International Film Festival, 1998. Du?an Makavejev MAKAVEJEVDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 639 Films as Director: (shorts and documentaries): 1953 Jatagan Mala (+ sc) 1955 Pe?at (The Seal) (+ sc) 1957 Antonijevo razbijeno ogledalo (Anthony’s Broken Mirror) (+ sc) 1958 Spomenicima ne treba verovati (Don’t Believe in Monuments) (+ sc); Slikovnica p?elara (Beekeeper’s Scrapbook) (+ sc); Prokleti praznik (Damned Holiday) (+ sc); Boje sanjaju (Colors Are Dreaming) (+ sc) 1959 Sto je radni?ki savjet? (What Is a Workers’ Council?) 1961 Eci, pec, pec (One Potato, Two Potato . . . ) (+ sc); Pedago?ka bajka (Educational Fairy Tale) (+ sc); Osmjeh 61 (Smile 61) (+ sc) 1962 Parada (Parade) (+ sc); Dole plotovi (Down with the Fences) (+ sc); Ljepotica 62 (Miss Yugoslavia 62) (+ sc); Film o knjizi A.B.C. (Film about the Book) (+ sc) 1964 Nova igra?ka (New Toy) (+ sc); Nova doma?a zivotinja (New Domestic Animal) (+ sc) (feature films): 1966 Covek nije tica (Man Is Not a Bird) (+ sc) 1967 Ljubavni Slu?aj, tragedija sluzbenice PTT (Love Affair; Switch- board Operator; An Affair of the Heart) (+ sc) 1968 Nevinost bez za?tite (Innocence Unprotected) (+ sc) 1971 WR—Misterije organizma (WR—Mysteries of the Organ- ism) (+ sc) 1974 Sweet Movie (+ co-sc) 1981 Montenegro (Or Pigs and Pearls) (+ sc) 1985 The Coca-Cola Kid 1989 Manifesto (For a Night of Love) 1993 The Gorilla Bathes at Noon 1995 A Hole in the Soul (+ sc, role as himself) 1996 Danske piger viser alt (Danish Girls Show Everything) (co-d) Publications By MAKAVEJEV: books— A Kiss for Komradess Slogan, 1964. Nevinost bez za?tite [Innocence Unprotected], Zagreb, 1968. WR—Mysteries of the Organism, New York, 1972. Shooting the Actor; or, The Choreography of Confusion, with Simon Callow, London, 1990. By MAKAVEJEV: articles— ‘‘Fight Power with Spontaneity and Humor: An Interview with Du?an Makavejev,’’ with Robert Sutton and others, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1971/72. Interview with R. Colacielo, in Interview (New York), February 1972. Interview with G. Braucourt, in Ecran (Paris), September/Octo- ber 1972. ‘‘Let’s Put the Life Back in Political Life,’’ interview with C. B. Thompson, in Cinéaste (New York), vol. 6, no. 2, 1974. Interview with Robert Benayoun and Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), June 1974. Interview with Edgardo Cozarinsky and Carlos Clarens, in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1975. ‘‘Film Censorship in Yugoslavia,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1975. Interview with F. La Polla, in Cineforum (Bergamo), June/July 1986. ‘‘Innocence Unprotected,’’ an interview with R. Stoneman, in Sight and Sound, July 1992. ‘‘Nipoèem ne ugadae?’, u kogo v karmane ljagsu?ka,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (UR), August 1992. ‘‘La vie en tant que ‘remake’,’’ an article in Positif, June 1994. On MAKAVEJEV: book— Taylor, John, Directors and Directions, New York, 1975. On MAKAVEJEV: articles— Wood, Robin, ‘‘Du?an Makavejev,’’ in Second Wave, New York, 1970. Oppenheim, O., ‘‘Makavejev in Montreal,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1970. ‘‘Makavejev and the Mysteries of the Organism,’’ in Film (London), Autumn 1971. Robinson, David, ‘‘Joie de Vivre at the Barricades: The Films of Du?an Makavejev,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1971. MacBean, J. R., ‘‘Sex and Politics,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1972. Vogel, Amos, ‘‘Makavejev: Toward the Edge of the Real . . . and Over,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November/December 1973. ‘‘Du?an Makavejev,’’ in Fifty Major Filmmakers edited by Peter Cowie, South Brunswick, New Jersey, 1974. ‘‘Sweet Movie,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), October 1974. Schaub, M., ‘‘Unbeschützte und verlorene Unschuld, Du?an Makavejevs Spekulationen,’’ in Cinema (Zurich), vol. 21, no. 2, 1975. Perlmutter, R., ‘‘The Cinema of the Grotesque,’’ in Georgia Review (Athens, Ohio), no. 1, 1979. Cavell, Stanley, ‘‘On Makavejev on Bergman,’’ in Critical Inquiry (Chicago), no. 2, 1979. Kral, Petr, ‘‘Perles et Cochons: Les Fantasmes de Madame Jordan: Montenegro,’’ in Positif (Paris), March 1982. Eagle, Herbert, ‘‘Yugoslav Marxist Humanism and the Films of Du?an Makavejev,’’ in Politics, Art, and Commitment in the East European Cinema, edited by David W. Paul, London, 1983. ‘‘Du?an Makavejev,’’ in Film Dope (London), December 1987. Makavejev section of Filmvilag, vol. 33, no. 8, 1990. Forgacs, I., ‘‘Ezt mondta Makavejev. . . ,’’ in Filmkultura, no. 12, 1993. Cerneko, M., ‘‘’Big Mak’, ili tragedija s èeloveèeskim licon,’’ an article in Iskusstvo Kino (UR), January 1994. Shaw, David, ‘‘The Mysteries of the Organism called Du?an Makavejev,’’ in Suspect Culture (CN), Fall 1994. *** Before making his first feature film, Man Is Not a Bird, Du?an Makavejev had developed his filmmaking skills and formulated his MAKAVEJEV DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 640 chief thematic and formal concerns by producing a number of 35mm experimental shorts and documentaries. His second feature, Love Affair, furthered Makavejev’s reputation and situated him within a growing community of Eastern European filmmakers committed to exploring the potential of the film medium by opening it up to new subject matter and experimenting with non-conventional narrative forms. Love Affair deals with the romance between a Hungarian-born switchboard operator, Isabella, and Ahmed, an Arab sanitation engi- neer, and the breakdown of the relationship, Isabella’s death, and Ahmed’s arrest for her murder. However, this straightforward plot is only the skeleton which supports the rest of the film. Influenced by Eisenstein and Godard, Makavejev builds an elaborate, Brechtian amalgam of documentary-like examinations of rat extermination, interviews with a sexologist and criminologist, actual stock footage of the destruction of church spires during the October Revolution, as well as almost quaint digressions on how mattress stuffing is combed and how strudel is made. Makavejev questions the nature of sexual relationships in a changing, post-revolutionary, but still puritanical society by juxtaposing ostensibly unrelated images. For example, the razing of the church spires is intercut with and comments on Isabella’s seduction of Ahmed and the destruction of his archaic sexual inhibitions. Innocence Unprotected also manifests Makavejev’s interest in the dialectics of montage, the ability to create new ideas by juxtaposing incongruous or contradictory images. In this film, Makavejev rescues a little bit of ‘‘unprotected innocence’’ from oblivion by incorporat- ing the original Innocence Unprotected, the first Serbian ‘‘all-talk- ing’’ feature, into a new cinematic context. This 1940s romance- adventure—filmed by a well-known local strongman-daredevil dur- ing the Nazi Occupation, censored by the occupation government, and ironically later denounced as being Nazi-inspired—is intercut with interviews Makavejev conducted with members of the original production crew as well as newsreel footage from the period of the occupation. Moreover, Makavejev hand-tints portions of the original film to contribute to the critical distance created by the archaic quality of the footage. Perhaps more than any of his other films, Innocence Unprotected shows Makavejev’s loving interest in traditional Yugoslavian folk culture and humor. WR—Mysteries of the Organism deals with the sexuality of politics and the politics of sexuality. A radical condemnation of both the sterility of Stalinism and the superficial commercialism of West- ern capitalism, WR is certainly a document of its time—of Yugoslavia attempting to follow its ‘‘other road’’ to socialism while America fights in Vietnam and Moscow invades Czechoslovakia. Makavejev looks to Wilhelm Reich (the ‘‘WR’’ of the title) for enlightenment. Reich was, early in his career, one of the first to recognize the profound interconnections between socio-political structure and the individual psyche. His radical sexual ideas alienated the psychoana- lytic profession and his unorthodox medical theories and practices eventually led to his imprisonment in the United States. Although elaborate cross-cutting blends the two sections of the film, roughly the first half of WR is devoted to a documentary study of Wilhelm Reich’s life in the United States. Interviews with Reich’s therapists, Reich’s relatives, even people who knew him casually, including his barber, are intercut with an examination of American sexual mores circa 1970 via interviews with Jackie Curtis, Barbara Dobson, one of the editors of Screw magazine, and others. The second half of the film is primarily a fictional narrative set in Belgrade, which concerns the love affair between a young female admirer of Reich (Milena) and a rather priggish and prudish Soviet ice skater named Vladimir Ilyich. Freed of his inhibitions by Milena’s persistence, Vladimir makes love to her and then, unable to deal with his sexuality, decapitates her with his ice skate. However, after death, Milena’s severed head continues to speak. Vladimir sings a song with a lyric written by a Soviet citizen critical of his government. WR ends with a photo of the smiling Reich—a sign of hope, a contradictory indication of the possibility for change and new beginnings. WR was never released in Yugoslavia, and Makavejev made his two subsequent films, Sweet Movie and Montenegro, in the United States and Europe. Like WR, Sweet Movie has two parts. In the first a beauty contestant, Miss World, is wedded to and violated by Mr. Kapital and, after other humiliations, ends up in Otto Muehl’s radical therapy commune. Miss World is taken in and nurtured by actual commune members who engage in various types of infantile regressions (including carrying their excrement displayed on dinner plates) as therapy. The second part of the film is an allegorical commentary on the East. A ship, with a figurehead of Karl Marx, sails about under the command of Anna Planeta, who seduces and murders young men and boys, while providing for their rebirth out of a hold filled with white sugar and corpses. Montenegro continues this development of allegory in favor of Makavejev’s earlier documentary interests. Marilyn, an American- born Swedish housewife, is lured into a world peopled by earthy and sexually active Yugoslavian immigrants who run a club called Zanzibar as an almost anarchistic communal venture. Like the heroes and heroines of Makavejev’s earlier films, Marilyn cannot deal with her newly acquired sexual freedom, and she—like Ahmed, Vladimir Ilyich, and Anna Planeta—kills her lovers. Montenegro’s linear plot contrasts sharply with the convoluted narrative structure and elabo- rate montage techniques characteristic of Makavejev’s earlier works. While being accused of making needlessly ambiguous films with scenes of gratuitous violence and sexuality, Makavejev has consis- tently explored the interrelationship of sexual life and socioeconomic structure while experimenting with narrative forms that challenge traditional notions of Hollywood filmmaking. Makavejev’s seventeen years as a ‘‘knapsack director,’’ during his exile following WR, were echoed in films about displaced persons, immigrants, and ‘‘nowhere men in nowhere lands.’’ As one of his characters says, ‘‘The place which is nowhere is a true home.’’ Another character similarly notes, ‘‘Everyone has to come from somewhere,’’ prompting a third to reply, ‘‘Not me! I come from here!’’ After Sweet Movie, several promising projects foundered in the choppy sea of international co-financing, until Swedish producer Bo Jonsson, visiting Makavejev at Harvard University, proposed a ‘‘high-quality comedy with a popular appeal and measured eroticism,’’ in which the director could add his ‘‘little somethings.’’ They soon grew into the rich ethnico-socio-political dimensions of Montenegro (Or Pigs and Pearls). The pearl necklace of its Swedish-American heroine (Susan Ansprach) symbolizes her ego and commodity fetish- ism; ‘‘pigs’’ emblemise the funky, ego-despoiling, unbridled in- stincts of work-immigrants from Southeast Europe (promptly pol- luted by consumerism’s teasing of real, biological, desire). Makavejev’s second comedy in the genre (comedy with psycho- political infill) came four years later, from Australia. The Coca-Cola Kid, not sponsored by that corporation’s marketing division, concerns an enterprising young salesman who succeeds in prising open a tiny regional market, a sort of ‘‘last valley,’’ hitherto monopolised by a local dynast’s soft drink; but himself succumbs to its values. Though ten years in preparation with Australian novelist Frank Moorhouse, MAKHMALBAFDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 641 its Local Hero-type story and backwoods setting inspired less intri- cate detail, and a thinner intellectual texture, than the culturally mixed settings of Makavejev’s richest films. His long exile ended with Manifesto (For a Night of Love), by far the best of the art-house films funded, through the good offices of American Zoetrope’s Tom Luddy, by Cannon-Globus (others were by Godard and Norman Mailer). As Bolsheviks of different classes and ideologies fumble their Revolution in 1920 Ruritania, Makavejev hilariously re-explores his abiding subject matter, shared with the Yugoslavian Praxis group of Marxist-humanist writers. His charac- ters can only steer erratically between the four cardinal points of a spiritual compass: True Socialism (which Marxist bureaucratic classes too easily make oppressive), individualism (which Western capitalism makes smilingly rapacious); man’s bodily instincts (com- monly selfish and barbaric, pace Wilhelm Reich); and idealism (which may only camouflage the cold, abstract logic of power). Whereas ‘‘idealistic’’ Freudians (whether bourgeois or radical, or, like Reich, both) claim love and sex are natural but deny egoism and power, Makavejev understands that both instinct and idealism may spread, not just love and desire, but terror and violence. And after all, Mother Nature, like Anna Planeta, is a serial murderess: whatever lives will be killed, by something. Similarly, biological instincts involve, as much as sex, food; whence much play on bodies and nourishment. In WR, egg yolks, transferred unbroken from hand to hand, suggest an optimum of ‘‘communal kindness’’; but even food may be over-refined (like, in Sweet Movie, consumerist chocolate, and the white sugar of revolutionary purity). Hence political history weighs like a nightmare on the minds of the living. And subsequent ‘‘tribal’’ massacres, in the former Yugoslavia and around the world, corroborate Makavejev’s pessimism. Though faint hopes, and pity forhistory’s victims, remain, his ‘‘laughter’’ at ‘‘mankind’s follies’’ is more wistful, bitter, and tragic than many spectators perceive. In his largely German film, The Gorilla Bathes at Noon, a Red Army officer, storming Berlin in 1945, suddenly finds himself in the reunified city near a Lenin statue, which he loyally pickets, as it is marked for demolition with yellow paint, like the egg on Marxism’s face. This fantasy gambit presages a return to the Wit/Sweet Movie genre of allegorical cinema, although the plot becomes uncertain where to go. The problem, perhaps, was topicality, for the conse- quences of political collapse were not yet clear enough to work on. And perhaps Makavejev’s cultural background, a sort of Freudo- Marxist-Marcusian humanism, uneasily mixing economism and in- stinct theory, and concentrating on capitalism, cannot quite get to terms with the wider resurgence of nationalism, ethnicity, and ‘‘tribal’’ psychology. Though to these things the films’ human stories are very sensitive. Some spectators find that Makavejev’s mixture of caricature and pessimism rather freeze their ‘‘rooting interest’’ in his characters, compared with his early dramas. It is a perennial problem in ‘‘serious satire.’’ Nonetheless, Makavejev’s sparkling and poetic inventions make him Eisenstein’s true heir and the great reinvigorator of ‘‘intellectual cinema,’’ integrating montage editing as one instrument in an entire orchestra, with ‘‘non-synch’’ sound, voice-over, music, colour, calligraphic camera, comic symbolism, dramatic fables, and visual sensuality, all weaving arguments so sophisticated that Eisenstein’s look prehistoric. Where Godard faltered and fell, the Nowhere Man from ex-communist former Yugoslavia continues to blaze new trails of ‘‘philosophical cinema.’’ —Gina Marchetti, updated by Raymond Durgnat MAKHMALBAF, Mohsen Nationality: Iranian. Born: Tehran, 1957 (some sources say 1952). Education: Left school at age fifteen to provide for his family. Career: Sentenced to death by firing squad at age 17 for stabbing a policeman, 1974; freed with Islamic revolution against Shah Moham- med Reza Pahlavi’s regime, 1979; one of the founders of the Islamic Propagation Organization; earliest films screened in mosques; shifted from supporter of cleric control in Iran to an opponent of their control; five of his films have been banned in his own country. Awards: Special Jury Prize, Istanbul International Film Festival, for Nasseroddin Shah, hactore Cinema, 1993; Best Director and Prize of the Screenwriter’s Critic and Writer’s Catalan Association, Catalonian International Film Festival (Spain), and Best Artistic Contribution Award, Tokyo International Film Festival, for Gabbeh, 1996; Special Mention, Locarno International Film Festival, for Nun va Goldoon, 1996; ‘‘CinemAvvenire’’ Award and Sergio Trasatti Award (Special Mention), Venice Film Festival, for Sokhout, 1998; and many other awards. Address: c/o Green Film House. 98 Mirdamad Boulevard, PO Box 19395/4866, Téhéran, Iran; c/o MK2 Diffusion, 55 rue Traversière, 75012 Paris, France. Films as Director and Writer: 1982 Tobeh Nosuh (Nasooh’s Repentance) 1984 Do Cheshman Beesu (Two Sightless Eyes); Este’aze (Seeking Refuge in God) (+ ed) 1985 Baycot (Boycott) (+ ed) 1987 Dastforoush (The Peddler) (+ ed) 1988 Bicycleran (The Cyclist) (+ prod des) 1989 Arousi-ye Khouban (The Marriage of the Blessed) (+ ed) 1990 Nobat e Asheqi (Time of Love) (+ ed) 1991 Shabhaye Zayendeh-Rood (Nights of Zaendeh-Rood) (+ ed) 1992 Nasseroddin Shah, hactore Cinema (Once upon a Time, Cinema) (+ ed) 1993 Honarpisheh (The Actor) (+ ed); Gozideh tasvir dar doran-e Qajar (Images from the Ghajar Dynasty) (doc) 1994 Salaam Cinema (+ ed, ro as himself); Sang-o shisheh (Stone and Glass) (doc) 1996 Gabbeh (+ ed); Nun va Goldoon (A Moment of Innocence) (+ ed, ro as himself) 1998 Sokhout (The Silence) (+ ed) 1999 Ghessé hayé kish (Tales of Kish; Kish Tales) (+ ed) Other Films: 1981 Towjeeh (Haghaniparast) (sc) 1982 Marg Deegari (Honarmand) (sc); Hesar dar Hesar (Honarmand) (sc) 1985 Zangha (Honarmand) (sc) 1989 Nema-ye Nazdik (Close-Up) (Kiarostami) (ro as himself) 1990 Deedeh-Ban (Hatamikia) (ed) 1998 Sib (The Apple) (Samirah Makhmalbaf) (sc, ed) 2000 Takhte Siah (Blackboard) (Samira Makhmalbaf) (sc, ed) MAKHMALBAF DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 642 Publications On MAKHMALBAF: articles— White, Armond, ‘‘18th New Directors/New Film Festival,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May-June 1989. Johnson, William, ‘‘The Peddler,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1990. Smith, Gavin, ‘‘Method in Movie Madness: Salaam Cinema,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July-Aug. 1996. Cheshire, Godfrey, ‘‘Makhmalbaf: The Figure in the Carpet,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July-August 1997. Johnson, William, ‘‘Gabbeh,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1997. Ditmars, Hadani, ‘‘From the Top of the Hill,’’ Sight and Sound (London), vol. 6, no. 12, November 1997. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, ‘‘Makhmalbaf and Dostoevsky: A Limited Comparision,’’ in The Chicago Reader, October 1999. Cheshire, Godfrey, ‘‘Overthrowing the Auteur: A Moment of Inno- cence,’’ in CinemaScope, winter 2000. Hoffman, Adina, ‘‘Makmalbaf’s Moment,’’ in American Prospect, vol. 11, 24 April 2000. On MAKHMALBAF: films— Petgar, Maani, director, Cinema Cinema, 1994. Golmakani, Houshang, director, Stardust Stricken—Mohsen Makhmalbaf: A Portrait, 1996. Daneshmand, Shapour, Makhmalbaf: Unveiling an Islamic Filmmaker, 1998. *** One of the indelible images of Mohsen Makhmalbaf comes not from his own work as director but from an onscreen appearance. In Close-Up, a 1989 film by his Iranian compatriot Abbas Kiarostami, Makhmalbaf enters the film in its final minutes, playing himself. Close-Up is an ingeniously layered story, based on fact, about a small- time swindler who convinced a Tehran family he was the famous film director Mohsen Makhmalbaf. In a prime example of Iranian cin- ema’s tendency to turn its fiction in on itself, the real people in the case also play themselves in the film. Makhmalbaf arrives as a sur- prisingly benevolent presence, considering the particulars of the case, a sympathetic and interested artist, not so much angry as curious. All of those words—curious, angry, sympathetic, artist—describe stages of Makhmalbaf’s unusual career. Like the American Paul Schrader, he was raised in a fundamentalist religious household (Islamic, in Makhmalbaf’s case) and did not see a movie until after adolescence. Like the Russian Sergei Eisenstein, he began his career as a maker of revolutionary propaganda, only to run afoul of the authorities (many of his 1990s films have been banned in Iran) when his outlook broadened. In 1974 Makhmalbaf was arrested for terrorist activities aimed at the Shah’s government, and was spared the death penalty by virtue of his youth. These experiences inspired his films Boycott (1985) and the remarkable A Moment of Innocence (1996). Released from prison at the time of the Islamic revolution, Makhmalbaf turned to militant politics, which led to the didactic nature of his early features. A turning point came with The Peddler (1986), a scorching collection of three stories that would not be out of place as Persian episodes of The Twilight Zone. One is a horrific tale of poverty-stricken parents trying to leave a newborn infant with an upper-class family; another depicts the madness of a goony-bird son, part Anthony Perkins of Psycho and part Jerry Lewis, ‘‘caring’’ for his immobile mother; the last is a street-level gangster quasi-parody that anticipates Quentin Tarantino by a decade. Utterly unsparing, The Peddler initiated a cycle of social-comment films that made Makhmalbaf a significant cultural observer in Iran. With Once upon a Time, Cinema (1992), the director turned his attention to film itself. A larky mix of Arabian Nights exotica and film history, the picture cleverly weaves clips from landmark Iranian cinema into a story about an early 20th century ruler. Its references, both cinematic and historical, may not translate in full to an interna- tional audience, but its technical playfulness—not so far from the trickery of Zelig or Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid—is ingenious. Once upon a Time was conceived to mark the 100th anniversary of film, as was the very different Salaam Cinema. The event captured in Salaam Cinema was originally intended as a casting call for non- professional actors, a call that brought out thousands more acting hopefuls than Makhmalbaf expected. These auditions, the interplay between director and inexperienced performers, became the film. The result is, in the words of Film Comment’s Gavin Smith, ‘‘A strange, hybrid document of an experiment-happening.... The auditions range from harmless make-believe exercises in play-acting to emo- tionally manipulative and humiliating challenges that stop just short of abusive.’’ Makhmalbaf ‘‘plays’’ himself in the film, but as an exaggerated dictator, an example of bullying authority. In the middle of the decade, having already gained popularity in his homeland and a certain amount of international notice, Makhmalbaf kept changing and evolving. ‘‘When I started making films,’’ he told Sight and Sound, ‘‘my focus was political. But now I understand that life is larger than politics.... (N)ow I think that the best approach to save humanity is through going back to the beauty and the poetry of everyday life.’’ Two of the truly extraordinary films of the decade, both initially banned in Iran, were the result. Gabbeh (1996), a tale of love and storytelling amongst the nomads of the remote countryside, has a lush visual beauty new to Makhmalbaf’s work. A gabbeh is a densely woven rug, and the film itself is a tapestry of myth, nature, and cultural tradition—with a strong sympathy for the unfair place of women in its world. A Moment of Innocence (1996) returns to Makhmalbaf’s arrest in the 1970s. But it is not a simple dramatic re-creation of a provocative incident (the young Makhmalbaf stabbed a policeman outside a police station, and was himself shot). At the beginning of the film, the policeman stabbed by Makhmalbaf shows up at the director’s house, looking for work in movies—an incident that actually occurred some years earlier. We then watch director and cop cast actors as their younger selves, to play out the 1974 incident on film. Some of the principals, including Makhmalbaf, play themselves, in a device recalling Close-Up. The film flips back and forth between film- making process and the 1970s story, leading to an uncannily moving ending that seems to operate on a half-dozen different levels at once. (At about this time, the director’s daughter Samira had an interna- tional success with her own directing debut, The Apple.) Makhmalbaf’s 1998 film The Silence has the shape of a typical Iranian film: a 10-year-old boy, blind, earns money as a guitar-tuner so his mother won’t be evicted from their home. But the movie upends expectations, as the boy becomes increasingly obsessed with the MALICKDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 643 opening notes of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony, which thrum inside his head. The vibrant colors of the film raise the question of whether the director is becoming self-consciously ‘‘exotic’’ after the success of Gabbeh, but the film’s ideas are tantalizing and powerful. Describing the artisans of Gabbeh, Makhmalbaf has said, ‘‘They weave patterns spontaneously, without planning. They are inspired by reality around them. . . And they also weave their dreams into the carpet.... No two carpets are alike. Each is a unique reflection of the weaver’s life.’’ The parallel with his own films is a powerful one, and stands as a statement of the unique experience—and willingness to change and grow—this director brings to the screen. —Robert Horton MALICK, Terrence Nationality: American. Born: Waco, Texas, 30 November 1943. Education: Harvard University, B.A., 1966; Oxford University on Rhodes Scholarship; Center for Advanced Film Studies, American Film Institute, 1969. Career: Journalist for Newsweek, Life, and the New Yorker, late 1960s; lecturer in philosophy, Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology, 1968; directed first feature, Badlands, 1973. Awards: Best Director Awards, National Society of Film Critics and New York Film Critics, 1978, and Cannes Festival, 1979, for Days of Heaven. Agent: c/o Evarts Ziegler Associates, Inc., 9255 W. Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90069, U.S.A. Terrence Malick (right) and Martin Sheen on the set of Badlands Films as Director and Screenwriter: 1973 Badlands (+ pr, role as architect) 1978 Days of Heaven 1998 The Thin Red Line (d only) Other Films: 1969 Lanton Mills (short) (sc) 1972 Pocket Money (Rosenberg) (sc) 1974 The Gravy Train (co-sc, under pseudonym David Whitney) 1982 Deadhead Miles (Zimmerman) (co-sc) (filmed 1970) Publications By MALICK: articles— ‘‘The Filming of Badlands,’’ an interview with G. R. Cook, in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), June 1974. ‘‘Malick on Badlands,’’ an interview with B. Walker, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1975. Interview with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), June 1975. Interview with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), April 1998. Interview with Michael Henry and others, in Positif (Paris), March 1999. On MALICK: articles— Johnson, William, ‘‘Badlands,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1974. Fox, Terry Curtis, ‘‘The Last Ray of Light,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1978. Hodenfield, Chris, ‘‘Terrence Malick: Days of Heaven’s Image Maker,’’ in Rolling Stone (New York), 16 November 1978. Combs, Richard, ‘‘The Eyes of Texas,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1979. Maraval, P., ‘‘Dossier: Hollywood ‘79: Terrence Malick,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), March 1979. Donough, P., ‘‘West of Eden: Terrence Malick’s Days of Heaven,’’ in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Fall 1985. ‘‘Terrence Malick,’’ in Film Dope (London), December 1987. Vancher, Andrea, ‘‘Absence of Malick,’’ in American Film, Febru- ary 1991. Wondra, Janet, ‘‘A Gaze Unbecoming: Schooling the Child for Femininity in Days of Heaven,’’ in Wide Angle (Baltimore), October 1995. Tapper, Michael, ‘‘Terrence Malick,’’ in Filmh?ftet (Stockholm), vol. 27, no. 105, 1999. MacCabe, Colin, and Geoffrey Macnab, ‘‘Bayonets in Paradise/ Solider Stories,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), February 1999. *** Though in the first two decades of his career he directed only two feature films, Terrence Malick has received the kind of critical attention normally reserved for more experienced and prolific MALLE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 644 filmmakers. His career reflects a commitment to quality instead of quantity—an unusual and not always profitable gamble in the film industry. In 1972, Malick wrote the screenplay for Pocket Money, which starred Paul Newman and Lee Marvin, a film memorable more for character study than story. The following year, Malick made his first feature, Badlands. The film was an amazing debut. Based loosely on the sensational Starkweather-Furgate murder spree, Badlands con- cerns Kit Carruthers, a twenty-five-year-old James Dean look-alike, and Holly Sargis, his fifteen-year-old girlfriend. After murdering Holly’s father, they begin a flight across the northeastern United States, killing five others along the way. This disturbing and beautiful film is narrated by Holly (Sissy Spacek), who unemotionally describes the couple’s actions and feelings. Her partner in crime, Kit (Martin Sheen), is a likeable, unpredictable, and romantic killer who is so confident of his place in American history as a celebrity that he marks the spot where he is arrested, and gives away his possessions as souvenirs to police officers. Days of Heaven, Malick’s long-awaited second feature, was released five years later. The film was critically acclaimed in the United States, and Malick was named best director at the Cannes Film Festival. Days of Heaven is a homage to silent films (the director even includes a glimpse of Chaplin’s work), with stunning visual images and little dialogue. Moving very slowly at first, the film’s pace gradually accelerates as the tension heightens. Its plot and style elaborate on that of Badlands: the flight of two lovers following a murder, and the use of unemotional narration and off-beat characterizations. For years Malick then took up residence in Paris, while critics awaited his next project. Some wondered how the director would remain profitable to any studio with his lapses between projects, his aversion to interviews, and his refusal to help in the marketing of his films. Paramount, however, remained confident of Malick’s value and continued to send the director scripts plus a yearly stipend. Unlike Welles, whose lack of productivity must be traced in large measure to studio hostility to his methods and work, Malick could not blame anyone but himself for a talent and interests that bore no fruit for almost twenty years. Malick’s inactivity, however, came to a surprising end as the decade and century drew to a close. He revived his career with a brilliant film, arguably among the most cinematic and profound the postwar American cinema has produced. Malick’s version of James Jones’s The Thin Red Line, written in the 1950s and brought to the screen for the first time in the 1960s, is a moving, poetic meditation on the contradictions of human nature: man’s compulsive self-destruc- tion yet hunger for life and love. Released not long after Steven Spielberg’s conventional and much acclaimed war story, Saving Private Ryan, Malick’s film disappointed those who expected an exultation at American victory in the bitter battle for Guadalcanal (the island goes unnamed in both Jones’s novel and Malick’s film). Instead, the film is pervaded by a profound sadness at the inalterable fact of organized violence, a sadness transformed into resignation as the main character, a cynical noncomformist, ultimately accepts the hero’s burden of self-sacrifice. Like Jones, Malick fragments the narrative, exploring the use of voice-over to identify and deepen subjective experience. Yet the final result is not hard to follow, as Malick demonstrates the same talent for designing compelling narra- tive that was evident in his early career. The film world can only hope that he does not wait another twenty years before executing yet another cinematic masterpiece. —Alexa Foreman, updated by R. Barton Palmer MALLE, Louis Nationality: French. Born: Thumeries, France, 30 October 1932. Education: Collège des Carmes; Institut d’études Politiques at the Sorbonne, Paris, 1951–53; Institut des Hautes études Cinématographiques (IDHEC), 1953–54. Family: Married 1) Anne- Marie Deschodt, one son, one daughter (divorced 1967); 2) actress Candice Bergen, 1980, one daughter. Career: Assistant and camera- man to Jacques Cousteau, 1954–55; assistant to Robert Bresson on Un Condamné à mort s’est échappé, 1956; cameraman on Tati’s Mon Oncle, 1957; directed first film, 1958; reported from Algeria, Viet- nam, and Thailand for French Television, 1962–64; moved to India, 1968; moved to the United States, 1976; returned to France to make Au revoir les enfants, 1987. Awards: Palme d’Or, Cannes Festival, 1956, and Oscar for Best Documentary, 1957, for The Silent World; Prix Louis Delluc for Ascenseur pour l’échafaud, 1958; special jury prize, Venice Festival, for Les Amants, 1958; special jury prize, Venice Festival, for Le Feu follet, 1963; Italian Critics Association Best Film Award, for The Fire Within, 1964; Grand Prix du Cinema Francais, 1965, and Czechoslovakian best film award, 1966, for Viva Maria; Grand Prize, Melbourne Film Festival, for Calcutta, 1970; Louis Malle MALLEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 645 Prix Raoul Levy and Prix Méliès for Lacombe, Lucien, 1974; five Academy Award nominations, including best picture and best direc- tor, for Atlantic City, 1980; Golden Lion, Venice Festival, and Prix Louis Delluc, fo Au revoir les enfants, 1987; British Academy of Film and Television Arts Awards nomination, best director, and Felix Award, European Film Awards, for Au revoir les enfants, 1988; elected Film Academy Fellow, British Academy of Film and Televi- sion Arts, 1991. Died: Of lymphoma, in Beverly Hills, California, 23 November 1995. Films as Director: 1956 Le Monde du silence (The Silent World) (co-d, ph) 1958 Ascenseur pour l’échafaud (Elevator to the Gallows; Frantic) (+ pr, co-sc); Les Amants (The Lovers) (+ pr, co-sc) 1960 Zazie dans le Métro (Zazie) (+ pr, co-sc) 1962 Vie privée (A Very Private Affair) (+ pr, co-sc) 1963 Le Feu follet (The Fire Within; A Time to Live, a Time to Die) (+ pr, sc) 1965 Viva Maria (+ co-pr, co-sc) 1967 Le Voleur (The Thief of Paris) (+ pr, co-sc) 1968 ‘‘William Wilson’’ episode of Histoires extraordinaires (Spirits of the Dead) (+ pr, sc) 1969 Calcutta (+ pr, sc); L’Inde fant?me (Phantom India) (+ pr, sc) (six-hour feature presentation of TV documentary) 1971 Le Souffle au coeur (Murmur of the Heart) (+ pr, sc) 1972 Humain trop humain (+ pr, sc) 1973 Lacombe, Lucien (+ pr, co-sc) 1975 Black Moon (+ pr, co-sc) 1978 La Petite (+ pr, sc); Pretty Baby (+ pr, co-story) 1980 Atlantic City (+ pr, sc) 1981 My Dinner with Andre (+ pr, sc) 1984 Crackers (+ pr, sc) 1985 Alamo Bay (+ pr, sc); God’s Country (+ pr, sc) 1986 And the Pursuit of Happiness (+ pr, sc) 1987 Au Revoir les enfants (Goodbye, Children) (+ pr, sc) 1990 Milou en Mai (May Fools) (+ pr, sc) 1992 Damage 1994 Vanya on 42nd Street Other Films: 1969 La Fiancée du pirate (Kaplan) (role) Publications By MALLE: books— Lacombe Lucien, with Patrick Modiano, New York, 1975. Louis Malle par Louis Malle, with S. Kant, Paris, 1978. Au revoir les enfants, Paris, 1989. Milou en mai, with Jean-Claude Carrière, Paris, 1990. Malle on Malle, Paris, 1993. By MALLE: articles— ‘‘Avec Pickpocket, Bresson a trouvé,’’ in Arts (Paris), 3 Janu- ary 1960. ‘‘Les Amants,’’ (text) in L’Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 15 March 1961. ‘‘Le Feu follet,’’ (text) in L’Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 15 October 1963. ‘‘Louis Malle: Murmuring from the Heart,’’ interview with N. Pasquariello, in Inter/View (New York), July 1972. ‘‘Phantom India,’’ with E.L. Rodrigues, in Film Heritage (New York), Fall 1973. ‘‘Louis Malle on Lacombe Lucien,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1974. ‘‘Like Acid,’’ interview with Gordon Gow, in Films and Filming (London), December 1975. ‘‘From The Lovers to Pretty Baby,’’ interview with Dan Yakir, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1978. ‘‘Creating a Reality That Doesn’t Exist,’’ interview with A. Horton, in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), no. 2, 1979. Interview with P. Carcassonne and J. Fieschi, in Cinématographe (Paris), March/April 1981. Interview in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Autumn 1982 and Winter 1983. Interview in Jeune Cinema (Paris), June/July 1987. Interview in Cineforum (Bergamo), June/July 1987. Interview in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1987. Interview with Robert Benayoun, and others, in Positif (Paris), October 1987. ‘‘Focus: Au Revoir les Enfants,’’ an interview with D. Chase, in American Film (New York), January/February 1988. ‘‘Off Screen: Louis Malle, Remembrance of Things Past,’’ interview with Stephen Harvey, in The Village Voice (New York), 23 February 1988. ‘‘Movies: Childhood’s End,’’ interview with Elvis Mitchell, in Rolling Stone (New York), 24 March 1988. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Louis Malle,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), April 1989. Interview with Candice Bergen in Interview (New York), June 1990. ‘‘My Discussion with Louis,’’ an interview with George Hickenlooper, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 18, no. 2, 1991. Interview in Mensuel du Cinéma, no. 1, November-December 1992. Interview in Time Out (London), no. 1171, 27 January 1993. Interview with Andre Gregory in Vogue, November 1994. On MALLE: books— Chapier, Henri, Louis Malle, Paris, 1964. On MALLE: articles— Strick, P., ‘‘Louis Malle,’’ in Film (London), Spring 1963. Ledieu, Christian, ‘‘Louis Malle détruit son passé à chaque nouveau film,’’ in Arts (Paris), 9 October 1963. Gow, Gordon, ‘‘Louis Malle’s France,’’ in Films and Filming (Lon- don), August 1964. MALLE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 646 Price, James, ‘‘Night and Solitude: The Cinema of Louis Malle,’’ in London Magazine, September 1964. ‘‘Director of the Year,’’ International Film Guide (London, New York), 1965. Lej, Russell, ‘‘Louis Malle,’’ in the New Left Review (New York), March/April 1965. McVay, D., ‘‘Louis Malle,’’ in Focus on Film (London), Sum- mer 1974. ‘‘Black Moon,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), December 1975. Rollet, R.T., and others, ‘‘The Documentary Films of Louis Malle,’’ in special Malle issue of Film Library Quarterly (New York), vol. 9, no. 4, 1977. Article in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July/August 1987. Chemasi, A., ‘‘Pretty Baby: Love in Storyville,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), November 1977. ‘‘Louis Malle,’’ in Film Dope (London), December 1987. Indsorf, Annette, ‘‘Coming Home,’’ in Premiere (New York), Febru- ary 1988. Denby, David, ‘‘Murmurs of an Expatriate’s Heart,’’ in Premiere (New York), May 1988. ‘‘Au revoir les enfants Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), July 1988. Martin, M., ‘‘Le cinéma d’auteur,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), no. 441, September 1988. Prédal, René, ‘‘L’oeuvre de Louis Malle, ou les étapes d’une évolu- tion personnelle,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), September/Octo- ber 1988. Chase, D., article in Millimeter (New York), January 1989. Roud, Richard, ‘‘Malle x 4,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1989. Chutnow, P., ‘‘Louis Malle Diagnoses His Murmur of the Heart,’’ in New York Times, 19 March 1989. ‘‘Louis Malle Works Both Sides of the Pond,’’ in Variety, 21 March 1990. Bernstein, R., ‘‘Malle Uncorks the ‘68 Crop,’’ in New York Times, 17 June 1990. Bishop, K., ‘‘My dejeuner with Louis,’’ in American Film (New York), July 1990. Weinraub, Bernard, ‘‘Louis Malle Cuts a Film and Grows Indig- nant,’’ in The New York Times, 22 December 1992. Guare, John, article in New Yorker (New York), 21 March 1994. ‘‘Louis Malle’’ (special section), in Positif (Paris), no. 419, Janu- ary 1996. Toubianc, Serge, ‘‘La cinéphile au juste,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 498, January 1996. *** In the scramble for space and fame that became the nouvelle vague, Louis Malle began with more hard experience than Godard, Truffaut, or Chabrol, and he showed in Ascenseur pour l’échafaud that his instincts for themes and collaborators were faultless. Henri Deca?’s low-light photography and Malle’s use of Jeanne Moreau established him as emblematic of the new French cinema. But the Cahiers trio with their publicist background made artistic hay while Malle persisted in a more intimate voyage of discovery with his lovely star. As the cresting new wave battered at the restrictions of conven- tional narrative technique, Malle created a personal style, sexual and emotional, which was to sustain him while flashier colleagues failed. Of the new wave survivors, he was the most old-fashioned, the most erotic, and, arguably, the most widely successful. Re-viewing reveals Ascenseur as clumsy and improbable, a failure redeemed only by the Moreau and Maurice Ronet performances. A flair for coaxing the unexpected from his stars had often saved Malle from the consequences of too-reverent respect for production values, a penchant for burnished low-lit interiors being his most galling stylistic weakness. But playing Bardot against type in Vie privée as a parody of the harried star, and using Moreau as one of a pair of comic Western trollops (in Viva Maria) provided an indication of the irony that was to make his name. Thereafter Malle became a gleeful chronicler of the polymorphously perverse. Moreau’s hand falling eloquently open on the sheet in Les Amants as she accepts the joy of cunnilingus is precisely echoed in her genuflection to fellate a yoked George Hamilton in Viva Maria. Incest in Souffle au coeur, child prostitution in Pretty Baby, and, in particu- lar, the erotic and sadomasochistic overtones of Nazism in Lacombe, Lucien found in Malle a skillful, committed, and sensual celebrant. Malle’s Indian documentaries of 1969 belong more to the litera- ture of the mid-life crisis than to film history. Black Moon likewise explores an arid emotional couloir. Malle returned to his richest sources with the U.S.-based films of the late 1970s and after. Pretty Baby, Atlantic City, My Dinner with Andre, and Alamo Bay delight in overturning the stones under which closed communities seethe in moist darkness. The ostensible source material of the first, Bellocq’s New Orleans brothel photographs, receives short shrift in favour of a lingering interest in the pre-pubescent Brooke Shields. Atlantic City relishes the delights of post-climactic potency, giving Burt Lancaster one of his richest roles as the fading ex-strong-arm man, dubbed ‘‘Numb Nuts’’ by his derisive colleagues. He seizes a last chance for sexual passion and effective action as the friend and protector of Susan Sarandon’s character, an ambitious nightclub croupier. My Dinner with Andre focuses with equal originality on the social eroticism of urban intellectuals. A globe-trotting theatrical voluptu- ary reviews his thespian conquests to the grudging admiration of his stay-at-home colleague. An account of theatrical high-jinks in a Pol- ish wood with Jerzy Grotowski and friends becomes in Andre Gregory’s fruity re-telling, and with Malle’s lingering attention, something very like an orgy. Again, production values intrude on, even dominate the action; mirrors, table settings, the intrusive old waiter, and even the food itself provide a rich, decorated background that adds considerably to the sense of occasion. Malle sends his audiences out of the cinema conscious of having taken part in an event as filling as a five-course meal. Given this general richness, it may be by contrast that certain of Malle’s quieter, less vivid works shine. Zazie dans le Métro, his fevered version of Queneau’s farce, marked his first break with the stable pattern of the new wave. Compared with Godard’s Une Femme est une femme, it shows Malle as the more skillful of the two at remaking the genre film. The terse Le Feu follet, a vehicle for Maurice Ronet adapted from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Babylon Revisited, showed Malle moving towards what had become by then the standard ‘‘new’’ French film, characterized by the work of the so-called ‘‘Left Bank’’ group of Resnais, Varda, Rivette, and Rohmer. But again Malle found in the character a plump, opulent self-regard that turned Le Feu follet, despite its black and white cinematography and solemn style, into a celebration of self-pity, with Ronet at one point caressing the gun with which he proposes to put an end to his life. Like the relish with which Belmondo’s gentleman thief in Le Voleur savours the objects MALMROSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 647 he steals, Malle’s love of physicality, of weight and color and texture, seems so deeply rooted as to be almost religious. (And Malle did, after all, work as assistant to Bresson on Un Condamné à mort s’est échappé.) The latter stages of Malle’s career included one well-publicized fiasco and two very different but equally brilliant films. The former is Damage, a boring adaptation of Josephine Hart’s best-seller, crammed with boring sex footage of Jeremy Irons (as a British politician) and Juliette Binoche (as his son’s girlfriend, with whom he commences an affair). The film is of note only for the hubbub created when Malle was forced to edit footage to earn the film an R (rather than NC-17) rating, and for Miranda Richardson’s brief but riveting presence as Irons’ rejected wife. Au revoir les enfants, on the other hand, is as fine a film as Malle ever has made. It is set at that point in time, if such a moment can be measured, in which childhood inevitably and irrevocably ends. The film is a heartbreaking autobiographical drama which tells the story of Julien Quentin, a universal 11-year-old: a spirited prankster who attends a rural Catholic boarding school in Occupied France. Julien senses something unusual about a new classmate, a sweet-faced, bushy-haired, exceptionally intelligent boy called Jean Bonnet. Jean really is a Jew, in hiding at Julien’s school. And Julien is oblivious to what Jean knows all to well: In Occupied France, it’s highly dangerous—and nearly always fatal—to be Jewish. The film, ulti- mately, is a story of heroes and villains, of those who will risk their all to shelter the needy and those who will collaborate with the enemy to fill their pockets or gain a false sense of power. Malle slowly, carefully introduces you to his characters, so the resulting impact of the unfolding events is that much more profound. One example of Malle’s mastery: Julien and Jean become lost in a forest, and are come upon by German soldiers. Jean’s sense of all-encompassing terror, revealed in a split second as he panics and runs, is explicitly real. Additionally, there is a sequence in which the students come together for some entertainment and laugh at Chaplin cavorting in The Immigrant. Here, Malle communicates how film can be a true universal language, how the genius of an artist such as Chaplin is timeless. In its overall setting and view of life and loyalty in Occupied France, Au revoir les enfants is related thematically to Lacombe, Lucien. Julien’s feelings for his mother, as personified by his sniffing for her scent after reading one of her letters, mirrors the intense mother-son relationship in Murmur of the Heart. Vanya on 42nd Street, which reunites Wallace Shawn and Andre Gregory, the entire cast of My Dinner with Andre, is as stunningly original as the earlier film. The setting is a crumbling theater in midtown Manhattan that once was home to the Ziegfeld Follies. The film opens with actors converging on the theater, where they will rehearse a stage production of an adaptation by David Mamet of Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya. Gregory is the director, while Shawn plays the title role. As the rehearsal proceeds, Vanya on 42nd Street becomes at once a highly cinematic example of filmed theater and an intimate look at the illusion that is the theater. Sensual and perverse, Malle is an unlikely artist to have sprung from the reconstructed film-buffs of the nouvelle vague. It is with his early mentors—Bresson, Cousteau, Tati—that he seems, artistically and spiritually, to belong, rather than with Melville, spiritual hero of the Cahiers group, and there is a strong flavour of essentially French autobiographical soul searching in his Au revoir les enfants and Milou en mai. If Truffaut turned into the René Clair of the new French cinema, Malle may yet become its Max Ophüls. —John Baxter MALMROS, Nils Nationality: Danish. Born: Born Nils Sigurd Malmros, Aarhus, Denmark, 5 October 1944. Education: Student at Aarhus Katedralskole, 1964; studies in medicine, Aarhus University, 1964–1987. Family: Married Marianne Tromholt, 5 June 1982. Career: Doctor at Aarhus kommune hospital neurosurgical depart- ment. Awards: Danish Film Critics Bodil Award for Best Film, for Lars-Ole 5C, 1974; Krebs’ School Award, 1975; Danish Film Critics Bodil Award for Best Film, for Drenge, 1977; Preben Franks Memo- rial Award, 1982; Gjest Baardsen Award, Olso, 1982; Audience Prize of the ‘‘Lübecker Nachrichten,’’ Lübeck Nordic Film Days, for Kundskabens tr?, 1982; Niels Matthiasens Memorial Award, 1983; Albertslunds Cultural Fond’s Honorary Award, 1983; Danish Film Academy Robert Award for Best Film and Best Screenplay, and Danish Film Critics Bodil Award for Best Film, for Sk?nheden og udyret, 1984; Otto Rungs Authors Award, 1990; Danish Playwriter’s Organization Honorable Award, 1993; Danish Film Critics Bodil Award for Best Film, and Danish Film Academy Robert Award for Best Film, for K?rlighedens smerte, 1993; National Art Council’s Lifetime Award, 1995; Danish Film Academy Robert Award for Best Film, and Rouen Nordic Film Festival Audience Award, for Barbara, 1998; Hartmann Award, 1998. Films as Director: 1968 En m?rkelig k?rlighed (+sc, pr) 1973 Lars Ole, 5C (+sc, pr) 1977 Drenge (Boys) (+sc, pr) 1978 Kammersjukjul (short—for TV) 1981 Kundskabens tr? (The Tree of Knowledge) (+sc) 1983 Sk?nheden og udyret (Beauty and the Beast) (+sc) 1989 ?rhus by Night (+sc) 1992 K?rlighedens smerte (Pain of Love) (+sc) 1997 Barbara (+sc) Publications By MALMROS: articles— Thrane, Finn, interview in Kosmorama, no. 123–24, 1974. Nissen, Dan, and Morten Piil, ‘‘Livet er et langt uskyldstab,’’ interview in Information, January 1989. On MALMROS: books— Mogensen, John, Kundskabens tr?: en film bliver til, Centrum, 1981. Daneskov, Lars, and Kim Kristensen, Nils Malmros: Portr?t af en filmkunstner, Hovedland, 1989. MALMROS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 648 Conrad, Karen, Drengedr?mme. Nils Malmros: en auteur, Amanda, 1991. Conrad, Karen, Uskyld og tab, Danskl?rerforeningen, 1992. On MALMROS: articles— Gandrup, Oluf, and Peter Kirkegaard, ‘‘Malmros’ erindringsmageri: Bringing It All Back Home,’’ in MacGuffin (East Melbourne), no. 48, December 1974. J?rholt, Eva, ‘‘Erfaringens filmiske prisme,’’ in Dansk film 1972–97, edited by Jesper Andersen, Ib Bondebjerg, and Peter Schepelern, Munksgaard-Rosinante, 1997. Nissen, Danm ‘‘Alternativernes ?r, 1970–79,’’ in Kosmorama, no. 220, 1997. Schepelern, Peter, ‘‘And the Winner Is, 1980–89,’’ in Kosmorama, no. 220, 1997. *** It is quite characteristic of Nils Malmros that he planned to shoot his major work, Kundskabens tr? (1981), over a period of four years so that his leading characters would experience for themselves the adolescence that the film portrays. For financial reasons the period turned out to be two years, but persistent insistence on realistic detail is one of the ?rhus director’s trade marks; this is also why all his films until Barbara (1996) were set in the city where he grew up and has spent most of his life, and why most of his films are not only set in the city but also in the social conditions and the time when the director himself was the same age as his protagonists: the ?rhus of the 1950s and 1960s. Malmros’s canon is a unique example of the local, personal aspects of an artist’s touch achieving universal applicability. Malmros is an autodidact who describes the loss of innocence with extreme consistency. He was a medical student when his great interest in film led him to his encounter with Truffaut’s Jules et Jim (1961). This experience, and the analysis by the Danish writer Klaus Rifbjerg, inspired Malmros to try to make a Danish counterpart to Truffaut’s masterpiece; a borrowed camera and money contributed by his parents, friends, and night duties at a hospital resulted in En m?rkelig k?rlighed, released in 1968. He had to struggle equally hard to persuade a cinema to screen the film. It was on the boards for two days and was cut to pieces by the critics. The adolescent, unresolved plot and devastating reviews did not dissuade Malmros, and five years later came the release of Lars Ole, 5C (1973) about the everyday life of a twelve year old at school and at home, set in ?rhus in the 1950s. This film was also produced and financed privately, and only received public subsidies after it had been released and shown at Cannes. The following year it received the Copenhagen Film Critics’ Bodil Award as the best Danish film of the year. It is composed as an apparently casual, impressionist chain of individual scenes using the art of suggestion to illustrate with extreme precision the complicated social and psychological interplay at work in 5C, Lars Ole’s class at school. In the film Malmros demonstrates for the first time his unique ability to entice an arresting sincerity of acting, expression, and movement from his non-professional child actors and adolescents that not only allows viewers to perceive the laughter, but also the vulnerability. Lars Ole, 5C is a keen-edged, emotionally precise masterpiece of psychological realism. His next films, Drenge (1977) and Kundskabens tr? (1981), completed the trilogy on the vulnerable years and up through the 1970s and 1980s the medical student became one of the most important auteurs of Danish cinema. The titles reveal a development of his perspective from the specific to the non-specific to the mythological loss of innocence. In the latter, his self-awareness is clear. If anything, again and again Malmros’s films are about the loss of innocence and thereby the fall of man. Drenge is sui generis a triptych: child, youth, and young adult, with emotionally inflamed, problem-packed relationships with the opposite sex at its center. Malmros returns to Drenge in his metamovie ?rhus by Night (1989)—a salute to Truffaut’s La nuit américaine (1973)—about the amateur director from ?rhus who is given a professional film unit to work with for the first time and thereby encounters not only Copenhageners but hardened pros who take every opportunity to make a fool of the amateur and his dispirited love affair. The loss of innocence is once again the focal point, but this time with self- reflecting humour. In Kundskabens tr? the director tackles the years of adolescent proper, with its burgeoning sexuality, when emotions really come to a head and sensitivity is most pronounced. As in Lars Ole, 5C a school class is the pivotal point, but this time it is a class of 14- and 15-year-olds, and the cohesive story of development has a girl, Elin, at its center, who matures early and goes from being the leader of the class to its scapegoat. The director’s alter ego is now christened Niels Ole. Elin’s fall is due merely to the fact that she stands out from the crowd because of her early puberty and conse- quent desire to dance cheek-to-cheek; when she chooses older boys and rejects Helge, the most popular boy in the class, the bullying starts. The meticulous depiction of the lost years of childhood and the loss of innocence becomes magic realism borne by bittersweet insight and keen, but gentle psychological analysis. In its entire approach it is a film about childhood, but for adults. After this trilogy Malmros partly abandoned autobiography in Sk?nheden og udyret (1983), which portrays a father’s custody of his daughter’s virtue with a suggestion of incestuous jealousy towards her friends and potential lovers. He then discovers that what he has guarded was lost long ago—to the person he would have least expected. If one wishes to pursue the semi-autobiographical angle it might be the adult director’s relationship with his young cast, particu- larly in adolescence when they subconsciously know the difference between child and adult that children unconsciously transgress. In K?rlighedens smerte (1992) Malmros returns to the theme of Sk?nheden og udyret, this time with the father-daughter relationship as a teacher-pupil one, initiated by the young female pupil. It begins as a flirt, but turns into mutual relationship and marriage until Kirsten displays the manic-depressive characteristics that lead to the inevita- ble tragic suicidal conclusion. For a director who has cultivated suggestion and shrunk from grand passion, this is a film of unusually powerful emotional depth, an intense, deeply tragic film about a person who is ‘‘in her own pocket,’’ as she says. We recall the director’s medical background, but the film is not a psychiatric case study; on the contrary, it is a portrayal of the unfathomable pain and the ecstatic happiness that may both be part of being a human being. With Barbara (1997), Malmros leaves ?rhus for the first time, and thus the stuff of which all his memories are made, to base a film on a Danish literary classic set in the Faeroe Islands in the eighteenth century. The Barbara of the title is the sensual, irrepressible focal point of the islands, a woman who obeys her desires and sets men’s hearts ablaze, including that of the young pastor, who marries her, well aware that she is more than he can manage. We rediscover the encounter of innocence with another universe, along with echoes of visual and narrative features from Nils Malmros’s two previous films. But Malmros is not on home ground, and the loss of innocence does MAMBETYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 649 not quite possess the same painful sincerity and resonance of knowl- edge that we have grown accustomed to. —Dan Nissen MAMBETY, Djibril Diop Nationality: Senegalese. Born: Dakar, Senegal, 1945. Education: Attended Islamic schools and French high school, Dakar. Career: No formal training in filmmaking; received equipment for first film from the French Cultural Center, Dakar, 1960s; stage actor and filmmaker, Daniel Sorano Theatre, Dakar, 1960s. Awards: Silver Tanit Award, Carthage Film Festival, for Badou Boy, 1970; International Critics’ Award, Cannes Festival, and Special Jury Award, Moscow Film Festival, for Touki Bouki, 1973; Gold Tanit, Carthage Film Festival, for Le Franc, 1994. Died: Of lung cancer in a Parisian hospital, 23 July 1998. Films as Director: 1969 Contras City (A City of Contrasts); Badou Boy (Bad Boy) 1973 Touki Bouki (Journey of the Hyena) 1989 Parlons, grand-mère (Let’s Speak, Grandmother) 1992 Hyènes (Hyenas) 1994 Le Franc (The Franc) 1998 La petite vendeuse de soleil (The Little Girl Who Sold the Sun) Publications By MAMBETY: articles— ‘‘African Conversations,’’ interview with June Givanni, in Sight and Sound (London) September 1995. ‘‘The Hyena’s Last Laugh: A Conversation with Djibril Diop Mambety,’’ interview with N. Frank Ukadike, in Transition, vol. 8, no. 2, 1999. On MAMBETY: books— Ukadike, Nwachuku Frank, Black African Cinema, Berkeley, 1994. Barlet, Olivier, Les cinémas d’Afrique noire: le regard en question, Paris, 1996. Bakari, I., and Mbye B. Cham, African Experiences of Cinema, London, 1996. Russel, Sharon, Guide to African Cinema, Westport, Connecticut, 1998. On MAMBETY: articles— Stadler, Eva Maria, ‘‘Francophonie et cinéma: L’Exemple de deux cinéastes senegalais,’’ in Francographies: Bulletin de la Sociéte des Professeurs Francais et Francophones d’Amérique, Special Edition, 1993. Rayfienld, J.R., ‘‘Hyenas: The Message and the Messenger,’’ in Research in African Literatures, vol. 26, no. 3, Fall 1995. Pfaff, Francoise, ‘‘New African Cinema,’’ in Cineaste, vol. 22, no. 4, Fall 1996. Essar, Dennis, ‘‘Hyenas,’’ in African Arts, vol. 29, no. 4, Autumn 1996. Porton, Richard, ‘‘Hyenas,’’ in Cineaste, vol. 23, no. 2, Spring 1997. *** Djibril Diop Mambety’s work is among the most enigmatic and imaginative in African cinema. This is partially due to his complex use of sound and imagery, which has inspired a wide variety of interpretations. Mambety’s employment of visual and auditory sym- bols reveals both a worldly perspective and a deep concern for marginalized people in his home country. Ultimately, the meanings of Mambety’s films are left to the viewers. As Mambety explains, ‘‘when a story ends, or ‘falls into the ocean,’ as we say—it creates dreams.’’ Mambety’s best-known works are two trilogies. The first is a trilogy of feature films, which includes Touki Bouki (Journey of the Hyena) and Hyènes (Hyenas). The second is a series of short films titled Tales of Ordinary People, including Le Franc (The Franc) and La petite vendeuse de soleil (The Little Girl Who Sold the Sun). Mambety died before completing his work. Mambety’s first trilogy centers around the themes of power and madness. Touki Bouki recounts the journey of two Senegalese youths, Mori and Anta, who dream of finding riches in Europe. The pair make comic attempts to steal money in order to pay for a trip to Paris. The characters’ escapades are combined with dream sequences in which Mory and Anta throw money from a luxurious car, and wave to cheering crowds. While the rebels are portrayed affectionately, Mambety reveals that the Promised Land of Paris is an illusion. As Mory fantasizes about the happiness France will bring him, French visitors in a yacht offshore discuss their racist beliefs about the childishness of Africans. The film’s images suggest that Mory and Anta’s generation have been sacrificed; the horns Mory attaches to his motorcycle remind viewers of the cattle slaughtered at the beginning of the film. Mambety’s compelling story is made even more fascinat- ing by his editing strategy, which ‘‘subverts spacial, temporal, and graphic continuity: disjunctive editing, jump cuts, and calculated disparities between sound and image violate dominant patterns of representation within both Western and African cinema,’’ writes Nwachuku Frank Ukadike. Mambety’s Hyenas, an adaptation of Swiss writer Friedich Dürrenmatt’s play The Visit, delves into the theme of how the influence of Western materialism and neocolonial power has cor- rupted African societies. Linguère Ramatou, an African woman who is ‘‘richer than the World Bank,’’ tempts the Senegalese town of Colobane with her abundant wealth. In a carnivalesque atmosphere reminiscent of an American amusement park, she persuades the town that she is the answer to their economic troubles with a spectacle of fireworks, firing ranges, fast rides, and luxurious prizes. She offers to share her wealth, provided that her former lover, Draman Drameh, be killed. Mambety comically portrays Draman Drameh’s alarm when the townsmen start buying things from his shop that they cannot afford. Lingère Ramatou succeeds in buying the town’s court, in addition to its soul. Mambety’s political message is clear: neocolonial powers such as the World Bank dictate to African governments how to manage their funds, and people suffer devastating consequences. MAMOULIAN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 650 Mambety’s trilogy of shorts is a tribute to the courage of marginalized Africans who are in a state of continuous struggle. Le Franc appreciates the imagination of a poor musician while offering an incisive commentary on the devaluation of the African franc (CFA). La petite vendeuse de soleil is Mambety’s most optimistic work. A courageous young girl, Sili, breaks into the male-dominated business of hawking newspapers, despite her physical handicap. She speaks in positive tones, hoping that one day the Senegalese govern- ment will draw nearer to people living in the street. Mambety does not romanticize her position, but creates what he calls ‘‘a hymn to street children.’’ Sili’s face is often illuminated by sunshine, suggesting that Mambety left the world with an optimistic vision of Senegal’s future. —Ellie Higgins MAMOULIAN, Rouben Nationality: American. Born: Tiflis, Caucasia, Russia, 8 October 1897; became U.S. citizen, 1930. Education: Lycée Montaigne, Paris; gymnasium in Tiflis; University of Moscow; Vakhtangov Studio Theatre, Moscow. Family: Married Azadia Newman, 1945. Career: Stage director in London, from 1920; production director of Eastman Theater, Rochester, New York, 1923–26; directed Porgy on Broadway, 1927; signed to Paramount, directed first film, 1929; stage director, especially of musicals, through the 1940s. Awards: Best Rouben Mamoulian Direction, New York Film Critics, for The Gay Desperado, 1936; Award of Excellence, Armenian American Bicentennial Celebration, 1976. Died: In Los Angeles, 4 December 1987. Films as Director: 1929 Applause 1931 City Streets 1932 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (+ pr); Love Me Tonight (+ pr) 1933 Song of Songs (+ pr); Queen Christina 1934 We Live Again 1935 Becky Sharp 1936 The Gay Desperado 1937 High, Wide, and Handsome 1939 Golden Boy 1940 The Mark of Zorro 1941 Blood and Sand 1942 Rings on Her Fingers 1948 Summer Holiday 1957 Silk Stockings Publications By MAMOULIAN: books— Abigail, New York, 1964. Hamlet Revised and Interpreted, New York, 1965. Rouben Mamoulian: Style Is the Man, edited by James Silke, Wash- ington, D.C., 1971. By MAMOULIAN: articles— ‘‘Some Problems in the Direction of Color Pictures,’’ in International Photographer, July 1935; also in Positif (Paris), September 1986. ‘‘Controlling Color for Dramatic Effect,’’ in American Cinema- tographer (Los Angeles), June 1941; also in Hollywood Directors 1941–1976, edited by Richard Koszarski, Oxford, 1977. ‘‘Bernhardt versus Duse,’’ in Theatre Arts (New York), Septem- ber 1957. ‘‘Painting the Leaves Black,’’ an interview with David Robinson, in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1961. Interview with Jean Douchet and Bertrand Tavernier, in Positif (Paris), no. 64–65, 1965. Article in Interviews with Film Directors, by Andrew Sarris, Indian- apolis, 1967. Interview in The Celluloid Muse, edited by Charles Higham and Joel Greenberg, London, 1969. ‘‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,’’ an interview with T.R. Atkins, in Film Journal (New York), January/March 1973. ‘‘Bulletin Board: Mamoulian on Griffith,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), September/October 1975. Interview with J.A. Gallagher and M.A. Amoruco, in Velvet Light Trap (Madison, Wisconsin), no. 19, 1982. Interview with H.A. Hargrave, in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salis- bury, Maryland), vol. 10, no. 4, October 1982. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Rouben Mamoulian,’’ in American Film (Wash- ington, D.C.), January/February 1983. MANKIEWICZDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 651 On MAMOULIAN: books— Milne, Tom, Rouben Mamoulian, London, 1969. Prinzler, Hans Helmut, and Antje Goldau, Rouben Mamoulian: Eine Dokumentation, Berlin, 1987. Spergel, Mark, Reinventing Reality: The Art and Life of Rouben Mamoulian, Lanham, Maryland, 1993. On MAMOULIAN: articles— Horgan, P., ‘‘Rouben Mamoulian: The Start of a Career,’’ in Films in Review (New York), August/September 1973. McCarthy, T., obituary, in Variety (New York), 9 December 1987. Obituary in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), no. 435, February 1988. Hanke, K., ‘‘Rouben Mamoulian,’’ in Films in Review (New York), August/September 1988. Berthomieu, P., ‘‘Rouben Mamoulian et la rétrospective du cinéma arménien,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 395, January 1994. *** Rouben Mamoulian is certainly one of the finest directors in American film history. While not considered strictly an auteur with a unifying theme running through his films, the importance of each of his movies on an individual basis is significant. Mamoulian did not have a large output, having completed only sixteen assignments in his twenty-year career in motion pictures, principally because he was also very active in the theater. His most famous stage successes were the highly innovative productions of Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II’s musicals Oklahoma! and Carousel in the mid-1940s. Mamoulian’s first film, Applause, is a poignant story of a third- rate vaudevillian played by the popular singer Helen Morgan. The first film to utilize two sound tracks instead of one to produce a better quality sound, Applause is also noteworthy for its innovative use of a moving camera. Mamoulian’s third film, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, is still regarded by most historians as the definitive film version of the Robert Louis Stevenson novella, as well as being one of the best horror films of all time. Yet it would be doing the film a disservice to call it ‘‘just’’ a horror movie. The use of light and shadows, the depth of emotion expressed by the main character, and the evocation of the evil hidden in all men make it a classic. For the time it was a very sensual film. Miriam Hopkins as Ivy Pearson is not just a girl from the lower strata of society, as the character was in other versions. In Mamoulian’s film she is deliberately sensual. Fredric March, in a truly magnificent performance, is troubled by his desire for Ivy long before he turns into Hyde, which is especially evident in the erotic dream sequence. What Mamoulian was able to do in this film is show the simultaneous existence of good and evil in Jekyll before it erupts into the drug- induced schizophrenic manifestation of Mr. Hyde. Becky Sharp, although not particularly noteworthy for its dramatic style, is today remembered as being the first film in the three-strip Technicolor process. Unusually for a director more closely associated with the stage than film, Mamoulian tried to learn and perfect virtually all of the techniques of filmmaking, and he could be accomplished in almost any genre: horror, musical, swashbuckler, or historical drama. Perhaps the only genre at which he was not successful was light comedy. His only real comedy, Rings on Her Fingers, is entertaining, but does not live up to the standards which he set in his other films. The three previous films, Golden Boy, The Mark of Zorro, and Blood and Sand, were all very successful films which are still applauded by critics and audiences alike. Mamoulian’s last film, Silk Stockings, was a very popular adaption of the musical play derived from Ninotchka, with a lively score by Cole Porter. The combination of Cyd Charisse and Fred Astaire in the lead roles was naturally responsible for a great part of the movie’s success, and Mamoulian’s direction and staging allowed their talents to be shown to their best advantage. Silk Stockings has a variety of delightful ‘‘specialty’’ numbers which do not detract from the main action, notably ‘‘Stereophonic Sound,’’ as well as some charm- ing character roles played by Peter Lorre, Jules Munshin, and George Tobias. Rouben Mamoulian was one of the most talented, creative filmmakers of all time, and while his films are few, virtually every one is a tribute to his genius. —Patricia King Hanson MANKIEWICZ, Joseph L. Nationality: American. Born: Joseph Leo Mankiewicz in Wilkes- Barre, Pennsylvania, 11 February 1909. Education: Stuyvesant High School, New York; Columbia University, B.A., 1928. Family: Mar- ried 1) Elizabeth Young, 1934 (divorced 1937), one son; 2) Rosa Stradner, 1939 (died 1958), two sons; 3) Rosemary Matthews, 1962, one daughter. Career: Reporter for Chicago Tribune, and stringer for Joseph L. Mankiewicz MANKIEWICZ DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 652 Variety in Berlin, 1928; with help of brother Herman, became junior writer at Paramount, 1929; writer for MGM, 1933, then producer, from 1935; contract taken over by Twentieth Century-Fox, 1943; directed La Bohème for Metropolitan Opera, New York, 1952; formed Figaro Inc., independent production company, 1953. Awards: Academy Awards for Best Director and Best Screenplay, for A Letter to Three Wives, 1949, and for Best Director and Best Screenplay, for All about Eve, 1950. Died: 5 February 1993. Films as Director: 1946 Dragonwyck (+ sc); Somewhere in the Night (+ co-sc) 1947 The Late George Apley; The Ghost and Mrs. Muir 1948 Escape 1949 A Letter to Three Wives (+ sc); House of Strangers (+ co-sc, uncredited) 1950 No Way Out (+ co-sc); All about Eve (+ sc) 1951 People Will Talk (+ sc) 1952 Five Fingers (+ dialogue, uncredited) 1953 Julius Caesar (+ sc) 1954 The Barefoot Contessa (+ sc) 1955 Guys and Dolls (+ sc) 1958 The Quiet American (+ sc) 1959 Suddenly, Last Summer 1963 Cleopatra (+ co-sc) 1967 The Honey Pot (+ co-p, sc) 1970 There Was a Crooked Man . . . (+ pr) 1972 Sleuth Other Films: 1929 Fast Company (Sutherland) (sc, dialogue) 1930 Slightly Scarlet (co-sc); The Social Lion (Sutherland) (sc, adaptation and dialogue); Only Saps Work (Gardner and Knopf) (sc, dialogue) 1931 The Gang Buster (Sutherland) (sc, dialogue); Finn and Hattie (Taurog) (sc, dialogue); June Moon (Sutherland) (co-sc); Skippy (Taurog) (co-sc); Newly Rich (Forbidden Adven- ture) (co-sc); Sooky (Taurog) (co-sc) 1932 This Reckless Age (sc); Sky Bride (co-sc); Million Dollar Legs (Cline) (co-sc); ‘‘Rollo and the Roadhogs’’ and ‘‘The Three Marines’’ sketches of If I Had a Million (sc) 1933 Diplomaniacs (co-sc); Emergency Call (co-sc); Too Much Harmony (Sutherland) (sc); Alice in Wonderland (McLeod) (co-sc) 1934 Manhattan Melodrama (Van Dyke, W.S.) (co-sc); Our Daily Bread (Vidor) (sc, dialogue); Forsaking All Others (Van Dyke, W.S.) (sc) 1935 I Live My Life (Van Dyke, W.S.) (sc) 1936 Three Godfathers (pr); Fury (Lang) (pr, co-story, uncredited); The Gorgeous Hussy (Brown) (pr); Love on the Run (Van Dyke, W.S.) (pr) 1937 The Bride Wore Red (Arzner) (pr); Double Wedding (pr) 1938 Mannequin (Borzage) (pr); Three Comrades (Borzage) (pr); The Shopworn Angel (pr); The Shining Hour (Borzage) (pr); A Christmas Carol (pr) 1939 The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Huckleberry Finn) (pr) 1940 Strange Cargo (Borzage) (pr); The Philadelphia Story (Cukor) (pr) 1941 The Wild Man of Borneo (pr); The Feminine Touch (Van Dyke, W.S.) (pr) 1942 Woman of the Year (Stevens) (pr); Cairo (Van Dyke, W.S.) (pr); Reunion in France (pr) 1944 The Keys of the Kingdom (Stahl) (pr, co-sc) Publications By MANKIEWICZ: books— More about All about Eve, with Gary Carey, New York, 1972. By MANKIEWICZ: articles— ‘‘Putting on the Style,’’ in Films and Filming (London), Janu- ary 1960. ‘‘Measure for Measure: Interview with Joseph L. Mankiewicz,’’ with Jacques Bontemps and Richard Overstreet, in Cahiers du Cinéma in English (New York), February 1967. ‘‘Auteur de films! Auteur de films!,’’ in Positif (Paris), Septem- ber 1973. Interview with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), September 1973. Interview with A. Charbonnier and D. Rabourdin, in Cinéma (Paris), June 1981. Interview with David Shipman, in Films and Filming (London), November 1982. Laffel, J., ‘‘Joseph L. Mankiewicz’’ (interview), in Films in Review (New York), vol. 42, no. 7–8, July-August 1991, and no. 9–10, September-October 1991. On MANKIEWICZ: books— Taylor, John, Joseph L. Mankiewicz: An Index to His Work, Lon- don, 1960. Brodsky, Jack, and Nathan Weiss, The Cleopatra Papers: A Private Correspondence, New York, 1963. Geist, Kenneth, Pictures Will Talk, New York, 1978. Dick, Bernard F., Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Boston, 1983. La Polla, Franco, L’Insospettabile Joseph Leo Mankiewicz, Ven- ice, 1987. Mérigeua, Pascal, Mankiewicz, Paris, 1993. On MANKIEWICZ: articles— Nugent, Frank, ‘‘All about Joe,’’ in Collier’s (New York), 24 March 1951. Reid, John, ‘‘Cleo’s Joe,’’ in Films and Filming (London), August and September 1963. G?w, Gordon, ‘‘Cocking a Snook,’’ in Films and Filming (London), November 1970. Springer, John, ‘‘The Films of Joseph Mankiewicz,’’ in Films in Review (New York), March 1971. Segond, J., ‘‘More about Joseph L. Mankiewicz,’’ in Positif (Paris), September 1973. Geist, K., ‘‘Mankiewicz: The Thinking Man’s Director,’’ in Ameri- can Film (Washington, D.C.), April 1978. MANNDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 653 Tesson, Charles, ‘‘All about Mankiewicz,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1980. Charbonnier, A., ‘‘Dossier-auteur (II): Joseph L. Mankiewicz—le temps et la parole,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), July/August 1981. Farber, S., and M. Green, ‘‘Family Plots,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1984. Buckley, M., and J. Nangle, ‘‘The Regency Salutes the Brothers Mankiewicz,’’ in Films in Review (New York), October and November 1984. ‘‘Joseph L. Mankiewicz,’’ in Film Dope (London), December 1987. Obituary in Cinéma (Paris), no. 504, 15 February 1993. Obituary in Télérama (Paris), no. 2249, 17 February 1993. Obituary in Mensuel du Cinéma, no. 4, March 1993. TMoullet, L., and P. Merigeau, ‘‘Mankiewicz: l’art de le machina- tion,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 465, March 1993. Obituary in EPD Film (Frankfurt), vol. 10, no. 4, April 1993. Kazan, Elia, and V. Amiel, ‘‘Joe Mankiewicz en son ?le d’Elbe / Mankiewicz, ou le geste interdit,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 386, April 1993. *** Few of Joseph Mankiewicz’s contemporaries experimented so radically with narrative form. In The Barefoot Contessa, Mankiewicz (who wrote most of the films he directed) let a half-dozen voice-over narrators tell the Contessa’s story, included flashbacks within flash- backs, and even showed one event twice (the slapping scene in the restaurant) from two different points of view. Multiple narrators tell the story in All about Eve, too, and in the non-narrated framing story for that film, Mankiewicz uses slow motion to make it seem as if the elapsed time between the beginning of the film and the end is only a few seconds. For much of the film, The Quiet American also has a narrator, and he seems almost totally omniscient. Apparently, he looks back at events with a firm understanding of their development and of the motivation of the people involved. But in the end, we find out that the narrator was wrong about practically everything, and so gave us an inaccurate account of things. A Letter to Three Wives is made up, primarily, of several lengthy flashbacks, and hallucinogenic flashback sequences provide the payoff to the story in Mankiewicz’s adaption of the Tennessee Williams play Suddenly Last Summer. Mankiewicz’s films, then, stand out in part because of the way they tell their stories. But there are also thematic motifs that turn up again and again, and one of the most important is the impact of the dead upon the living. Frequently, a dead character is more important in a Mankiewicz film than any living one. The Late George Apley, of course, concerns someone who has already died. Understanding a mother’s dead son is the key for the psychiatrist in Suddenly Last Summer. In The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, it is the presence of the non- corporeal sea captain that makes the film so entertaining. The Bare- foot Contessa opens with the Contessa’s funeral, and then various mourners tell us what they know about the woman who has just been buried. And, of course, a famous funeral scene forms the centerpiece of another Mankiewicz film: Mark Antony’s oration in Julius Caesar. It is Antony’s stirring performance as a eulogist that turns his countrymen against Brutus. Indeed, Mankiewicz’s films deal constantly with the notion of effective and highly theatrical performance. All about Eve, for in- stance, is all about performing, since it concerns people who work on the Broadway stage. The barefoot contessa goes from cabaret dancer to Hollywood star. In The Honey Pot, an aging man pretends to be dying, to see how it affects his mistress. And in Sleuth, one marvels at the number of disguises worn by one man in his attempt to gain revenge on another. Perhaps because he began as a screenwriter, Mankiewicz has often been thought of as a scenarist first and a director only second. But not only was he an eloquent scriptwriter, he was also an elegant visual stylist whose talents as a director far exceeded his reputation. He is one of the few major American directors who was more appreciated during the early years of his career than during the later stages. He won consecutive Best Director Academy Awards in 1949 and 1950 (for A Letter to Three Wives and All about Eve), but after the 1963 disaster Cleopatra, Mankiewicz’s standing as a filmmaker declined rapidly. —Eric Smoodin MANN, Anthony Nationality: American. Born: Anton or Emil Bundsmann in Point Loma or San Diego, California, 1907. Education: Educated in New York City public schools. Family: Married 1) Mildred Kenyon, 1931 (divorced 1956), one son, one daughter; 2) Sarita Montiel, 1957 (marriage annulled 1963); 3) Anna (Mann), one son. Career: Began work in theatre following father’s death, 1923; production manager for Theater Guild, New York, from late 1920s, then director, 1933; Anthony Mann MANN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 654 director for Federal Theater Project, New York, 1936–38; talent scout for David Selznick, and casting director, Hollywood, 1938; assistant director at Paramount, 1939; signed to Republic Pictures, 1943, to RKO, 1945, then to MGM, 1949; withdrew from Spartacus after quarrelling with Kirk Douglas, 1960. Died: During shooting of last film, in Germany, 29 April 1967. Films as Director: 1942 Dr. Broadway; Moonlight in Havana 1943 Nobody’s Darling 1944 My Best Gal; Strangers in the Night 1945 The Great Flamarion; Two o’Clock Courage; Sing Your Way Home 1946 Strange Impersonation; The Bamboo Blonde 1947 Desperate; Railroaded 1948 T-Men (+ co-sc, uncredited); Raw Deal; He Walked by Night (co-d, uncredited) 1949 Reign of Terror (The Black Book); Border Incident 1950 Side Street; Devil’s Doorway; The Furies; Winchester ‘73 1951 The Tall Target 1952 Bend of the River 1953 The Naked Spur; Thunder Bay 1954 The Glenn Miller Story 1955 The Far Country; Strategic Air Command; The Man from Laramie; The Last Frontier 1956 Serenade 1957 Men in War; The Tin Star 1958 God’s Little Acre; Man of the West 1961 Cimarron; El Cid 1964 The Fall of the Roman Empire 1965 The Heroes of Telemark 1968 A Dandy in Aspic (co-d) Publications By MANN: articles— Interview, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1957. ‘‘Now You See It: Landscape and Anthony Mann,’’ interview with J.H. Fenwick and Jonathan Green-Armytage, in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1965. ‘‘A Lesson in Cinema,’’ interview with Jean-Claude Missiaen, in Cahiers du Cinéma in English (New York), December 1967. Interview with Christopher Wicking and Barrie Pattison, in Screen (London), July/October 1969. ‘‘Empire Demolition,’’ in Hollywood Directors 1941–1976, edited by Richard Koszarski, New York, 1977. On MANN: books— Missiaen, Jean-Claude, Anthony Mann, Paris, 1964. Kitses, Jim, Horizons West, Bloomington, Indiana, 1970. Wright, Will, Sixguns and Society, Berkeley, California, 1975. Basinger, Jeanine, Anthony Mann, Boston, 1979. On MANN: articles— Reid, J.H., ‘‘Mann and His Environment,’’ in Films and Filming (London), January 1962. Reid, J.H., ‘‘Tension at Twilight,’’ in Films and Filming (London), February 1962. Wagner, Jean, ‘‘Anthony Mann,’’ in Anthologie du Cinéma (Paris), vol. 4, 1968. Handzo, Stephen, ‘‘Through the Devil’s Doorway: The Early Westerns of Anthony Mann,’’ in Bright Lights (Los Angeles), Summer 1976. Smith, Robert, ‘‘Mann in the Dark,’’ in Bright Lights (Los Angeles), Fall 1976. ‘‘Special Mann Double Issue’’ of Movietone News (Seattle), Fall 1978. Miller, Don, ‘‘Eagle-Lion: The Violent Years,’’ in Focus on Film (London), November 1978. Willeman, Paul, ‘‘Anthony Mann—Looking at the Male,’’ in Frame- work (Norwich, England), Summer 1981. Pulleine, Tim, ‘‘History, Drama, Abstraction: Mann’s Route to Madrid,’’ and ‘‘Mann’s Route to Madrid, Part II,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), March and April 1982. ‘‘Anthony Mann,’’ in Film Dope (London), December 1987. Boujut, M., ‘‘A l’Ouest, l’éden,’’ in Télérama (Paris), no. 2268, 30 June 1993. Saada, N., ‘‘Les westerns fiévreux d’Anthony Mann,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 470, July-August 1993. Bénoliel, Bernard, ‘‘Anthony Mann: en quête d’innocence,’’ in Mensuel du Cinéma, no. 9, September 1993. Everschor, Franz, ‘‘‘On Some Men It Shows,’’’ in Film-Dienst (Cologne), vol. 49, no. 3, June 1996. Kemp, Philip, ‘‘‘The Story of All Wars’: Anthony Mann’s Men in War,’’ in Film Comment (New York), vol. 32, no. 4, July- August 1996. *** Though he incidentally directed films in various genres (the musical, the war movie, the spy drama), Anthony Mann’s career falls into three clearly marked phases: the early period of low-budget, B- feature films noir; the central, most celebrated period of westerns, mostly with James Stewart; and his involvement in the epic (with Samuel Bronston as producer). All three periods produced distin- guished work (in particular, El Cid has strong claims to be considered the finest of all the wide–screen historical epics of the 1950s and 1960s, and the first half of The Fall of the Roman Empire matches it), but it is the body of work from the middle period in which Mann’s achievement is most consistent and on which his reputation largely depends. The first of the Stewart westerns, Winchester ‘73, contains most of the major components Mann was to develop in the series that followed. There is the characteristic use of landscape—never for the superficial beauty or mere pictorial effect that is a cliché of the genre, nor to ennoble the human figures through monumental grandeur and harmonious man-in-nature compositions, as in the classical westerns of Ford. In Mann, the function of landscape is primarily dramatic, and nature is felt as inhospitable, indifferent, or hostile. If there is a mountain, it will have to be climbed, arduously and painfully; barren rocks provide a favourite location for a shoot-out, offering partial cover but also the continued danger of the ricochet. The preferred narrative structure of the films is the journey, and its stages are often marked by a symbolic progression in landscape, from fertile valley to MANNDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 655 bare rock or snow-covered peak, corresponding to a stripping-away of the trappings of civilization and civilized behavior. Bend of the River represents the most systematic treatment of this prior to Man of the West. Winchester ‘73 also establishes the Mann hero (‘‘protago- nist’’ might be a better word): neurotic, obsessive, driven, usually motivated by a desire for revenge that reduces him emotionally and morally to a brutalized condition scarcely superior to that of the villain. Hero and villain, indeed, become mirror reflections of one another: in Winchester ‘73 they are actually brothers (one has murdered the father, the other seeks revenge); in Bend of the River, both are ex-gunfighters, Stewart bearing the mark around his neck of the hangman’s noose from which, at the beginning of the film, he saves Arthur Kennedy. Violence in Mann’s westerns is never glori- fied: it is invariably represented as ugly, disturbing, and painful (emotionally as much as physicall), and this is true as much when it is inflicted by the heroes as by the villains. Mann’s supreme achievement is certainly Man of the West, the culmination of the Stewart series despite the fact that the Stewart role is taken over by Gary Cooper. It remains one of the great American films and one of the great films about America. It carries to their fullest development all the components described above, offering a magnificently complete realization of their significance. Cooper plays Link Jones (the ‘‘link’’ between the old West and the new), a reformed outlaw stranded in the wilderness while on a mission to hire a teacher for the first school in the new township of Good Hope. Link is sucked back into involvement with his old gang of ‘‘brother,’’ ‘‘cousins,’’ and monstrous adoptive father Dock Tobin (Lee J. Cobb), and forced into more and more excessive violence, as he destroys his doubles in order finally to detach himself, drained and compromised, from his own roots. —Robin Wood MANN, Michael Nationality: American. Born: Chicago, Illinois, 5 February 1943. Education: University of Wisconsin, 1965; London Film School, 1967. Family: Married to artist Summer Mann. Career: Directed shorts, commercials, and documentaries in England, 1967–72; wrote episodes for television series Starsky and Hutch and Police Story and created Vega$ and Miami Vice; directorial debut, The Jericho Mile (TV movie), 1979; screen debut, Thief, 1981. Awards: Directors Guild of America Best Director Award, 1980, for The Jericho Mile; Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing in a Limited Series or Special, 1980, for The Jericho Mile; Cognac Festival du Film Policier Critics Award, for Manhunter, 1987; National Board of Review Freedom of Expression Award, 1999, Golden Satellite Award for Best Director, 2000, and Writers Guild of America Paul Selvin Honorary Award (with Eric Roth), 2000, all for The Insider. Agent: Jeff Berg, International Creative Management, 8899 Beverly Blvd., Los Ange- les, CA 90048, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1979 The Jericho Mile (for TV) (+ sc, exex-pr) 1981 Thief (+ co-sc + exec-pr) 1983 The Keep (+ co-sc) 1986 Manhunter (+ sc, pr) 1989 L.A. Takedown (for TV) (+ exec-pr) 1992 The Last of the Mohicans (+ co-sc, pr) 1995 Heat (+ co-sc, pr) 1999 The Insider (+ co-sc, pr) Other Films: 1978 Vega$ (for TV) (sc); Straight Time (sc, uncredited) 1980 Swan Song (for TV) (sc) 1986 Band of the Hand (exec-pr) 1990 Drug Wars: The Camarena Story (TV mini-series) (exec-pr, co-sc) 1992 Drug Wars: The Cocaine Cartel (TV mini-series) (exec-pr) Publications By MANN: articles— ‘‘Four-Minute Mile: Michael Mann Interviewed,’’ in Films & Film- ing, 1980. ‘‘An Interview with the Director of Thief,’’ in Rolling Stone, 1981. ‘‘Castle Keep,’’ in Film Comment, 1983. ‘‘Wars and Peace,’’ in Sight and Sound, 1992. ‘‘Brave Attempt/Mann Made,’’ an interview with Brian Case and Geoff Andrew, in Time Out (London), 4 November 1992. ‘‘Mann to Man,’’ an interview with Geoff Andrew, in Time Out (London), 17 January 1996. ‘‘Tommy Boy,’’ in Interview, January 1997. On MANN: articles— Greco, M., ‘‘Up and Coming: Michael Mann,’’ in Film Comment, 1980. Murphy, K., ‘‘Communion,’’ in Film Comment, 1991. Smith, G., ‘‘Mann Hunters,’’ in Film Comment, 1992. Ansen, David, and D. Foote, ‘‘Mann in the Wilderness,’’ in News- week, 1992. Schruers, F., ‘‘Mann Overboard,’’ in Premiere, 1992. Hooper, J., ‘‘Mann and Mohican,’’ in Esquire, 1992. Lombardi, John, ‘‘What a Piece of Work Is Mann,’’ in Gentleman’s Quarterly, 1992. Chiacchiari, Federico, and G. A. Nazzaro, in Cineforum (Bergamo), January-February 1996. Combs, Richard, ‘‘Michael Mann: Becoming,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March-April 1996. Schnelle, F., in EPD Film (Frankfurt), March 1996. ‘‘Bob and Al in the Coffee Shop,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), March 1996. Kit, Z., ‘‘Welcome to the Dark Side,’’ in Written By. Journal: The Writers Guild of America, West (Los Angeles), February 1997. *** Michael Mann’s cinematic landscape is the mean streets of urban neo-noir. His stylistic signature is a hip, almost neon look, the images sharply edited and backed by adrenalin-pumping music. Given the razzle-dazzle MTV approach he brings to his craft, it is ironic that he started out wanting to be a writer. However, while attending the MANN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 656 Michael Mann University of Wisconsin and majoring in English literature, he took a film course for a fast A and got hooked on moviemaking instead. Mann transferred to the London Film School in 1965 for training and graduated two years later. Like a number of contemporary directors, he got his start making television commercials, and he has carried over many of the stylistic ingredients of commercials into his subsequent film work. Mann paid his dues in Hollywood writing episodes for TV cop shows of the 1970s, such as Starsky and Hutch and Joseph Wambaugh’s Police Story; for the ABC network he wrote the pilot episode of Vega$, a short-lived Robert Urich private-eye series whose setting lent itself naturally to Mann’s ‘‘neon look.’’ By this time a specialist in the genre the French call roman policier, Mann had little difficulty convincing the network to give him a shot at writing and directing a feature film in a similar vein for its growing made-for-TV movie division. The result was The Jericho Mile (1979), which replaced the sun-drenched mean streets of Starsky and Hutch and the often rain- slicked ones of Police Story with the pallid walls of Folsom Prison. A hard-hitting drama about a convicted murderer (Peter Strauss) who survives the brutality of his surroundings and regains his self-respect by striving to become an Olympic runner, the well-received film added considerable luster to the often maligned TV movie form and won Mann an Emmy award. It also landed him a contract to make his theatrical film debut. Turning again to his chosen milieu—the seedy world of crime and criminals—Mann wrote and directed Thief (1981), the gritty tale (with echoes of the classic Dassin film Rififi) of a safecracker who tries to make one last score and go straight, only to dig himself in even deeper. James Caan played the title role in the doom-laden thriller, a thematic and stylistic throwback to the classic films noir of the 1940s, but updated with the hip look and, especially, sound (courtesy here of Tangerine Dream) that are Mann’s trademark. Mann segued from Thief to The Keep (1983), based on F. Paul Wilson’s novel about German soldiers who encounter a vampiric presence in the title fortress during World War II. Mann again brought considerable stylistic verve to the fantastic drama, but perhaps because he was in unfamiliar territory—the Carpathian mountains rather than the streets of L.A. and Chicago—the film failed to come together. Critics and audiences found it to be incomprehensible. It went belly-up at the box office and Mann went back to TV to create Miami Vice, one of the most influential cop series of the 1980s, and Crime Story. The former was a glitzy roman policier aimed at the MARKERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 657 MTV generation, while the latter was a period noir series with a neo- noir look aimed at older viewers. Mann also directed a mini-series docudrama about the murder of narcotics agent Enrique Camarena called The Drug Wars (1990). In between his TV work, Mann returned to the big screen to make one of his best and most underrated films, Manhunter (1986), based on the novel Red Dragon by Thomas Harris, in which the author introduced his master serial killer character Hannibal ‘‘the Cannibal’’ Lecter to the public. (He is played in the film by Brian Cox.) Produced by Dino De Laurentis’s DEG Entertainment, Manhunter failed to get much of a promotional boost due to DEG’s financial collapse and went nowhere at the box office. It was left to director Jonathan Demme and star Anthony Hopkins to make ‘‘Hannibal the Cannibal’’ a household name with Silence of the Lambs (1991), their Academy Award-winning screen version of Harris’s sequel to Red Dragon. Mann partisans as well as many thriller fans consider Manhunter to be the superior work, however. As he had done with The Keep, Mann shifted gears entirely with The Last of the Mohicans (1992), this time more successfully. It is a harshly beautiful—and definitive—version of James Fenimore Cooper’s oft-filmed novel about the French and Indian War. Mann refused to take the politically correct route of making his Native American characters helpless, long-suffering victims. Instead, the film restores their dignity by restoring their historical fearsomeness as warriors, something the movies have been timid about doing for decades. In fact, Wes Studi’s ferocious and very human villain Magua—who hungers as much for self-respect as for revenge— lingers in the memory more than does the film’s hero, Hawkeye, played by Daniel Day-Lewis. Though the film’s period milieu (with the mountains of North Carolina making a convincing stand-in for the 18th-century Adirondacks) is atypical of Mann, its kinetic mixture of sight and sound (the music score is remarkable) is all Mann. A mov- ing saga of America’s past, it is one of the most exciting adventure movies of recent times. Heat returned Mann to the mean streets of urban America. The film is notable for its first-time pairing of gangster movie icons Al Pacino and Robert De Niro as the drama’s opposing forces (although this dynamic duo shares little screen time together). A sprawling, almost three-hour crime drama, it was hailed by many critics as Mann’s most ambitious study of his traditional milieu to date. Despite some high-powered set pieces (an intense shoot-out on a busy New York City avenue is a particular stand-out), the film, by contrast to many other Mann crime dramas, is turgid and melodramatic in its overall effect, capped by an ending that resolves the plot not with a bang but a whimper. Not so Mann’s next film, The Insider, wherein the director cast his eye not on street crime again but on corporate crime. The film is based on the true story of Jeffrey Wigand (Russell Crowe), a former researcher and executive for the Brown & Williamson tobacco company who blows the whistle on the industry’s awareness of the addictiveness of cigarettes—and covert research to increase that addictiveness (which Wigand took part in)—to 60 Minutes producer Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino). Typical of many Mann heroes, Wigand exposes this public health issue in part to regain his self-respect, an act that comes at great personal cost to him when 60 Minutes bows to pressure from Big Tobacco as well as its own corporate interests, shelves the interview, and Wigand’s life and career crumble as he’s hung out to dry—until the truth finally comes out in the print press. Mann was rewarded for this rich and compelling docudrama—which unlike most big-budget Hollywood product of recent times has more on its mind than just a hat—with the best reviews of his career. Neither the tobacco industry nor 60 Minutes were among those lavishing kudos, however. —John McCarty MARKER, Chris Nationality: French. Born: Christian Fran?ois Bouche-Villeneuve in Neuilly sur Seine (one source says Ulan Bator, Mongolia), 29 July 1921. Military Service: During World War II, resistance fighter, then joined American army. Career: Novelist, poet, playwright, and journalist, from late 1940s; formed SLON film cooperative (Société pour le Lancement des Oeuvres Nouvelles), 1967. Awards: Golden Bear, Berlin Festival, for Description d’un combat, 1961; Interna- tional Critics Prize, Cannes Festival, for Le Joli Mai, 1963. Films as Director: 1952 Olympia 52 (+ sc, co-ph) 1953 Les Statues meurent aussi (co-d, co-sc) 1956 Dimanche à Pekin (+ sc, ph) 1958 Lettre de Sibérie (Letter from Siberia) (+ sc) 1960 Description d’un combat (+ sc); Les Astronautes (co-d, sc) 1961 Cuba Si! (+ sc, ph) 1963 Le Joli Mai (+ sc) 1964 La Jetée (completed 1962) (+ sc) 1965 Le Mystère Koumiko (The Koumiko Mystery) (+ sc) 1966 Si j’avais quatre dromadaires (+ sc) 1968 La Sixième Face du Pentagone (collaboration with Francois Reichenbach) (+ sc) 1969 A bient?t j’espère (+ sc) 1970 La Bataille des dix millions (Cuba: Battle of the Ten Million) (+ sc); Les Mots ont un sens (+ sc) 1973 Le Train en marche (+ sc) 1977 Le Fond de l’air est rouge (in 2 parts) (+ sc) 1983 Sans soleil (Sunless) 1984 2084 (+ sc) 1985 A.K. (A.K.: The Making of Kurosawa’s Ran) (+ sc) 1986 Hommage à Simone Sihnoret (+ sc) 1989 L’Heritage de la Chouette (for TV, 13-part series) (+ sc, pr) 1993 Le Dernier Bolchevik (The Last Bolshevik) (+ sc) 1997 Level Five (+ ph) Other Films: 1957 Le Mystère de l’atelier (commentary, collaborator on production) 1967 Loin du Vietnam (Far from Vietnam) (Resnais) (pr, ed) 1970 L’Aveu (The Confession) (Costa-Gavras) (asst ph) 1973 Kashima Paradise (commentary) 1975/76 La batalla de Chile (The Battle of Chile) (Guzmá) (co-pr) 1976 La Spirale (contributor) MARKER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 658 1988 Les Pyramides bleues (artistic advisor) 1995 Twelve Monkeys (co-sc) Publications By MARKER: books— Le Coeur net, Lausanne, 1950. Giraudoux par lui-même, Paris, 1952. Coreennes, photographs, Paris, 1962. Commentaires, Paris, 1962. La Jetée: ciné roman, New York, 1992. By MARKER: articles— ‘‘Kashima Paradise,’’ interview with G. Braucourt and Max Tessier, in Ecran (Paris), November 1974. ‘‘Interview with Chris Marker,’’ with D. Walfisch, in Vertigo, no. 7, 1997. On MARKER: articles— Cameron, Ian, ‘‘I Am Writing to You from a Far Country . . . ,’’ in Movie (London), October 1962. Graham, Peter, ‘‘Cinéma Vérité in France,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1964. Jacob, Gilles, ‘‘Chris Marker and the Mutants,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1966. Roud, Richard, ‘‘SLON,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1973. Valade, P., ‘‘Un Programme Chris Marker,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), February 1975. ‘‘Si j’avais quatre dromadaires. La Solitude du chanteur de fond,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), March 1975. Roud, Richard, ‘‘The Left Bank Revisited,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1977. Hennebelle, Guy, ‘‘Le Fond de l’air est rouge,’’ in Ecran (Paris), December 1977. Gaggi, S., ‘‘Marker and Resnais: Myth and Reality,’’ in Literature/ Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), no. 1, 1979. Van Wert, W. F., ‘‘Chris Marker: The SLON Films,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), no. 3, 1979. Rafferty, T., ‘‘Marker Changes Trains,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Autumn 1984. Durgnat, Raymond, ‘‘Resnais & Co.: Back to the Avant-Garde,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), May 1987. Bensmaia, R, ‘‘Du photogramme au pictogramme: a propos de ‘La Jeteé’ de Chris Marker,’’ in Iris (Paris), no. 8, 1989. Leeuwn, T. van, ‘‘Conjuctive Structure in Documentary Film and Television,’’ in Continuum, no. 5, 1991. Downie, John, ‘‘’I Know Not Where Russia Lives,’’ in Illusions (Wellington), no. 23, Winter 1994. De Geer, Carl Johan, Mikaela Kindblom, and Petri Knuutila, in Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 38, no. 2, 1996. Lapinski, Stan, ‘‘Kroniek: Op de pier van Orly,’’ in Skrien (Amster- dam), June-July 1996. Aude, F., ‘‘Level Five,’’ in Positif (Paris), March 1997. Kohn, Olivier, ‘‘Chris Marker,’’ in Positif (Paris), March 1997. Logette, Lucien, ‘‘Pesaro (juin 96): Autour de Chris Marker,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), May-June 1997. Smith, Gavin, ‘‘Straight to Film,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July-August 1997. Buchet, J.M., ‘‘Level Five,’’ in les Cine-Fiches De Grand Angle, August/September 1997. Eisenreich, Pierre, ‘‘Les petites fictions du documentary,’’ in Positif (Paris), April 1998. Mount, John, ‘‘Slient Movie: Chris Marker,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), July 1999. *** Chris Marker’s principal distinction may be to have developed a form of personal essay within the documentary mode. Aside from his work little is known about him; he is elusive bordering on mysterious. Born in a suburb of Paris, he has allowed a legend to grow up about his birth in a ‘‘far-off country.’’ Marker is not his name; it is one of a half-dozen aliases he has used. He chose ‘‘Marker,’’ it is thought, in reference to the Magic Marker pen. He began his career as a writer (publishing poems, a novel, and various essays and translations) and journalist (whose travels took him all over the world). He is the writer of all his films and cinematographer on many of them. Their verbal and visual wit almost conceal the philosophical speculation and erudition they contain. Their commentaries are a kind of stream of consciousness; their poetry is about himself as well as about the subjects—his reactions to what he and we are seeing and hearing. Marker is the foreign correspondent and inquiring reporter. He is especially interested in transitional societies, in ‘‘Life in the process of becoming history,’’ as he has put it. His films are not only set in specific places, they are about the cultures of those places. Though he has tended to work in socialist countries more than most Western filmmakers, he is also fascinated by Japan. Concerned with leftist issues, he remains a member of the intellectual Left, politically committed but not doctrinaire. ‘‘Involved objectivity’’ is his own phrase for his approach. In Le Joli Mai, for example, Marker interviews Parisians about their ambitions, their political views, their understanding of the society they live in. His sample is a cross section—a street-corner clothing salesman, a clerk, a house painter, a black student, a young couple wanting to get married, an Algerian worker—with a substan- tial working-class representation. The interviewees find that work offers no satisfaction. Its goal is money; what happiness money will bring is by no means certain. Marker insists to one interviewee who opts for material success that his view of life is ‘‘a trifle limited.’’ ‘‘No interest in other things?’’ Marker asks. This exchange is characteristic. Marker’s tone is frequently ironical and implicitly judgmental. He engages in argument with the interviewees and makes known his disappointment in some of their answers. The interviews assume the form of a dialectic. In the second half of Le Joli Mai Marker breaks away from individuals and interviews altogether. Instead he deals with news events—a police charge which crushed eight people to death in the Métro, the half-million mourners at their funeral, violent responses to the acquittal of General Salan (former commander-in-chief of French forces in Algeria), massive railroad and Renault strikes—intercut with nightclub revelry. The events refer back to those interviewed in the first half who felt themselves ‘‘unfree’’ to alter or even to question the social system. MARKOPOULOSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 659 The Koumiko Mystery, set amidst the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, begins but never stays with them for long. Its real subject is a young Japanese woman named Koumiko Moroaka, her city (Tokyo), her country, and the Far East as a whole. If, in a sense, Koumiko is protagonist, there is also an antagonist of sorts. The Western world and its influences are seen again and again in images on television screens, in the tastes evident in department store windows. Part of the film is photographed directly off black-and-white television screens. In this way the concerns and attitudes of the larger world are isolated. The rest of the film, which is in color, is wholly personal. Marker’s fascination with foreign, particularly Japanese, cultures is evident in the making of Sans soleil and A.K. The former is an idiosyncratic travelogue about Japan, narrated by a fictional cameraman, while the latter is a documentary about Akira Kurosawa’s (arguably Japan’s most renowned filmmaker) making of Ran. In both films, Marker’s point of view remains that of an observer, a bystander. It is exactly through such deliberate distance and distanciation that the filmmaker contemplates issues that have dominated his work to date: How do various cultures perceive and sustain themselves and each other in the increasingly intermingled modern age? How, on the other hand, can one find the space of him/herself when time, place, and memory are obscured, constructed, and forgotten? In the case of Sans soleil, not only are images of Japan—purposefully inserted with those of Guinea Bissau, Ireland, Iceland, and elsewhere—robbed of any consistency and specificity, but memories and perceptions are also fictionalized and therefore called into ultimate question. Following the failure of communism, as most brutally indicated by the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, comes ‘‘one of the most trenchant commentaries Marker has ever allowed himself,’’ according to David Thomson, in his 1993 film Le Dernier Bolchevik (The Last Bolshevik). Although this film still maintains a sense of ‘‘involved objectivity’’ stylistically, it also may suggest a stark disillusionment of a sort in Marker, the Marxist-inspired documentarist. There is, however, no reason to stop anticipating further works by Marker that demonstrate the willingness to impose his own shaping intelligence and imagination on his materials. His films will continue to be most valued for what he perceives and understands about what he is observing, and for their whimsical juggling of forms, their tweaking of conventions and expectations, and their idiosyncratic style. —Jack C. Ellis, updated by Guo-Juin Hong MARKOPOULOS, Gregory Nationality: American. Born: Toledo, Ohio, 12 March 1928. Edu- cation: University of Southern California. Career: Completed first experimental films, 1948; lecturer on film at University of Athens, Greece, 1954–55; worked on Serenity, 1955–60; writer on film, from early 1960s. Died: 13 November 1992. Films as Director: 1947 Du sang de la volupté et de la mort (trilogy comprising Psyche, Lysis, and Charmides) 1948 The Dead Ones 1949 Flowers of Asphalt 1950 Swain 1951 Arbres aux champignons 1953 Eldora 1955–61 Serenity 1963 Twice a Man 1965 The Death of Hemingway 1966 Galaxie; Through a Lens Brightly: Mark Turbyfill; Ming Green 1967 Himself as Herself; Eros, O Basileus; The Iliac Passion; Bliss; The Divine Damnation; Gammelion 1968 Mysteries 1969 Index Hans Richter 1970 Genius 1971 Doldertal 7; Hagiographia; 35 Boulevard General Koenig Publications By MARKOPOULOS: books— Quest for Serenity, New York, 1965. A Bibliography Containing the Marvelous Distortions of My Films as Reviewed in Books, Programs, Periodicals, and Newspapers during Thirty-three Years: 1945–1978, St. Moritz, 1978. By MARKOPOULOS: articles— ‘‘On Serenity,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Summer 1961. ‘‘Toward a New Narrative Form in Motion Pictures,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Fall 1963. Interview with Robert Brown, in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1964. ‘‘Random Notes during a Two-Week Lecture Tour of the United States,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Fall 1964. ‘‘The Driving Rhythm,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1966. ‘‘From ‘Fanshawe’ to ‘Swain’,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Summer 1966. ‘‘‘Galaxie’ (Production and Critical Notes),’’ in Film Culture (New York), Fall 1966. ‘‘The Film-maker as Physician of the Future,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1967. ‘‘Gregory Markopoulos: Free Association—Rough Transcription for Paper on Levels of Creative Consciousness,’’ interview with David Brooks, in Film Culture (New York), Summer 1967. ‘‘Correspondences of Smells and Visuals,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Autumn 1967. ‘‘Index to the Work of Gregory Markopoulos, Years 1967/70,’’ with Jonas Mekas, in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1971. ‘‘The Adamantine Bridge,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1972. On MARKOPOULOS: book— Sitney, P. Adams, Visionary Film: The American Avant-Garde 1943–1978, New York, 1979. Hanhardt, John G., Matthew Yobosky, Whitney Museum of Ameri- can Art, and John G. Handhardt, The Films of Gregory J. Markopoulos, New York, 1996. MARSHALL DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 660 On MARKOPOULOS: articles— Filmwise 3 & 4: Gregory Markopoulos, Spring 1963. Kelman, K., ‘‘Portrait of the Young Man as Artist: From the Note- book of Robert Beavers,’’ in Film Culture (New York), no. 67/ 69, 1979. Ehrenstein, David, ‘‘The Markopoulos Affair,’’ Film Comment (Los Angeles), July-August 1993. Beavers, Robert, and Paul Smith, ‘‘Markopoulos in Passing,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November-December 1993. Beauvais, Yann, ‘‘Kenneth Anger, Gregory Markopoulos et Jean Genet,’’ in Vertigo (Paris), January 1996. Sitney, P.A., ‘‘Man of Myth,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 12 March 1996. Jones, K.M., ‘‘Gregory J. Markopoulos: Whitney Museum of Ameri- can Art,’’ in Artforum, Summer 1996. *** Gregory J. Markopoulos made his first film (a version of A Christmas Carol) in 1940 with a borrowed 8-millimeter silent movie camera. By the time he left the University of Southern California in 1947, he completed a trilogy titled Du sang de la volupté et de la mort (comprising Psyche, Lysis, and Charmides). His first 35-millimeter film was The Dead Ones in 1948. With these beginnings, Markopoulos became one of the best-known of the avant-garde of the post-World War II period, although his output in the 1950s was limited to four films—Flowers of Asphalt, Arbres aux champignons, Eldora, and Serenity. Elements of homoeroticism pervade many of the Markopoulos experiments and they are as audacious and outrageous as the works of Adolfas and Jonas Mekas. In his trilogy, a battering ram becomes a phallic symbol. When the film was shown to a class at New York University in 1951, it caused Henry Hart, then the far-right editor of Films in Review magazine, to berate professor George Amberg for allowing it to be shown. Hart described some of the images included in the films—‘‘a male nipple, a painted and coiffeured male head, a buttock . . . and quite a few suggestions that abnormal perceptions and moods are desirable.’’ Markopoulos soon became a much talked- about and controversial filmmaker. The first Markopoulos film of the 1960s was Serenity, a drama about the Greco-Turkish War of 1921–22, shot in Greece and released in 1962. This was followed by Twice a Man, a recreation of the Greek myths of Hippolytus, Phaedra, and Asclepius dealing openly for the first time (for Markopoulos) with male homosexuality. Galaxie consisted of 30 three-minute 16-millimeter silent clips of his friends (Parker Tyler, Jonas Mekas, W. H. Auden, Allen Ginsberg, Shirley Clarke, Maurice Sendak, Susan Sontag, and Gian Carlo Menotti, among others) with an electronic ‘‘clang’’ ending each segment as the only sound on the film. Markopoulos’s subsequent films are in 16-millimeter. Single-frame editing and superimpositions were used in Himself as Herself, a strange film about a half man/half woman shot in and around Boston and released in 1967. In March of that year, Eros, O Basileus appeared, consisting of nine sequences involving a young man representing Eros. The Markopoulos Passion, a dramatic movie filmed over a three-year period, was finally released in 1968 as The Iliac Passion, a version of the Prometheus legend set in New York City. Until 1981, he resided in St. Moritz, and there published a 1978 folio titled A Bibliography Containing the Marvelous Distortions of My Films as Reviewed in Books, Programs, Periodicals and Newspa- pers during Thirty-three Years: 1945–1978. He continued to be a presence in the avant-garde film movement until his death in 1992. —James L. Limbacher MARSHALL, John Kennedy Nationality: American. Born: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 12 Novem- ber 1932. Education: Harvard University, B.A. in Anthropology, 1957; Yale University, G.S.A.S. in Anthropology, 1960; Harvard University, M.A. in Anthropology, 1966. Military Service: None Family: Married Heather Shain (divorced); daughter Sonja Kirsti; married Alexandra Eliot. Career: Expedition member, Peabody Museum/Harvard University/Smithsonian Institution Expeditions to study the !Kung San, 1950–58; associate director, Film Study Center, Harvard University, 1958–60; director, Bushman Film Unit, Harvard University, 1960–63; cameraman, NBC-TV, during Civil War in Cyprus, 1964–65; consultant, Educational Services Inc., 1965–67; member, Organization for Social and Technical Inovation, 1966–68; film director, Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence, Brandeis University, 1968–69; filmmaker, Pittsburgh Police Department, cine- ma-verité filming of police cases; research associate, Brandeis Uni- versity, 1969–72; president, co-founder, Documentary Educational Resources, non-profit film production and distribution company, 1969—; anthropologist and writer, National Geographic Society, producing television program, Bushmen of the Kalahari, 1972–74; advisor, Society for the Study of Visual Communication (SAVICON), 1973–74; research associate, National Anthropological Film Center, Smithsonian Institution, 1974–75; member, The Kalahari Peoples’ Fund, 1974—; advisory committee, Cultural Survival, Inc., 1975—; guest lecturer, Anthropology and Film, Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1975, Hamilton College, Clinton, New York, 1977, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1979; project director, Festi- val of American Folklife, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 1976; anthropologist and director, expedition to Tshumkwe, Namibia, 1978; project irector, collecting Ju/hoan demographic data, 1980–82; co-founder, Nyae Nyae Development Foundation of Namibia, 1982; filmmaker, ongoing film project documenting changes in the life of the Ju/hoansi in Namibia and Botswana 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998; development worker, rural development project among the Ju/hoansi in Bushmenland, Namibia 1982—; consultant, UNIN, UNTAG, 1989; co-director, producer, and camera operator, for A Kalahari Family, to be released in 2000. Awards: First Prize, Festival de Popoli, Italy, for Inside/Outside Station 9, 1970; CINE Golden Eagle, Flaherty Award, First Prize Festival de Popoli, Salerno International Festival Prize, Athens International Film Festival Prize, and Philadelphia International Festival of Short Films Prize, all for Bitter Melons, 1971; American Film Festival Finalist, for 4th and 5th and the Exclusionary Rule, 1973; American Film Festival Finalist for If It Fits, 1978; American Film Festival Blue Ribbon, CINE Golden Eagle, Gold Medal, Inter- national Film and Television Festival of New York, Grand Prize Cinema du Reel, Paris, Grand Prize International News Coverage Festival, Luchon, France, all for N!ai, the Story of a !Kung Woman, 1981; Honorary M.F.A. in Film, Rhode Island School of Design, 1995. Agent: Documentary Educational Resources, 101 Morse Street, Watertown, Massachusetts 02472, USA. MARSHALLDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 661 Films as Director and Cinematographer: !Kung Series 1957 The Hunters 1961 A Group of Women 1962 A Joking Relationship 1969 An Argument about a Marriage; A Curing Ceremony; N!um Tchai: The Ceremonial Curing Dance of the !Kung Bushmen 1970 Lion Game; The (Nlowa T’ama) Melon Tossing Game 1971 Bitter Melons 1972 Debe’s Tantrum; !Kung Bushmen Hunting Equipment; Play- ing with Scorpions; A Rite of Passage; The Wasp Nest 1973 Men Bathing 1974 Baobab Play; Children Throw Toy Assegais; The Meat Fight; Bushmen Tug of War 1980 N!ai, the Story of a !Kung Woman 1985 Pull Ourselves up or Die Out 1987 !Kung San Traditional Life 1988 !Kung San: Resettlement; Fighting Tooth, (Nail) and the Government 1990 To Hold Our Ground 1991 !Kung San Exhibit/Peabody Museum 2000 A Kalahari Family ‘‘Pittsburgh Police Series’’ (20 films shot in black and white from 1968–69 and released from 1970–73) 1970 Inside/Outside Station 9 1971 Three Domestics; Vagrant Woman 1972 Investigation of A Hit and Run; 35 minutes; 901/904 1973 After the Game; $40 Misunderstanding; The Informant; A Legal Discussion of a Hit and Run; Manifold Controversy; Nothing Hurt but My Pride; $21 or 21 Days; Two Brothers; Wrong Kid; You Wasn’t Loitering; Youth and the Man of Property; Henry Is Drunk; Appitsch and the Drunk; T- Group; The 4th, 5th, & Exclusionary Rule Other Films: 1967 Titicut Follies (camera + co-d with Frederick Wiseman) 1974 Bushmen of the Kalahari (camera + ro) 1976 Festival of American Folklife 1978 If It Fits Publications: By MARSHALL: articles— ‘‘Man as a Hunter,’’ in Natural History Magazine, 1958. With Emilie de Brigard, ‘‘Urban Film,’’ in Visual Anthropology, edited by Paul Hockings, The Hague, 1975. ‘‘Death Blow to the Bushmen,’’ in Cultural Survival Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 3, 1984. ‘‘Plight of the Bushman,’’ in Leadership Magazine (Johannesburg, South Africa), 1985. With Claire Ritchie, ‘‘Where Are the Ju/’hoansi of Nyae Nyae?: Changes in a Bushman Society 1950–1981,’’ for Center for African Studies, University of Capetown, Cape Town, South Africa, 1984. ‘‘Filming and Learning,’’ in The Cinema of John Marshall, edited by Jay Ruby, Philadelphia, 1993. On MARSHALL: books— Tomaselli, Keyan, Visual Anthropology: Encounters in the Kalahari, Chicago, 1999. Ruby, Jay, editor, The Cinema of John Marshall, Philadelphia, 1993. Kapfer, J., W. Petermann, and R. Thoms, Jager und Gejagte John Marshall und seine Filme, Germany, 1991. *** In 1950, Laurence Marshall, John Marshall’s father, retired as president of Raytheon Corp., the giant electronics firm he founded before World War II. Laurence was not one to waste his time on frivolous pursuits so retirement provided an opportunity for him to get to know his son better. As a young boy, John always wanted to go to Africa. He read books about exploring in Africa like Jock of the Bushveld by Percy Fitzpatrick. The Marshalls had heard about an interest in looking for a lost city in the Kalahari Desert and contacted the Peabody Museum at Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution to see if there might be some interest in a Kalahari expedition. The director of the Peabody at that time, J.O. Brew, suggested that they go look for some ‘‘wild Bushmen’’ while they searched for a lost city. In 1950, the entire Marshall family went off on the first of many expeditions to the Kalahari desert in South West Africa (now Namibia). Laurence Marshall assigned the jobs. Lorna Marshall, John’s mother, was to do the ethnography, Elizabeth (later, Elizabeth Marshall Thomas) was to write a book, and John was to make the movies. On their second expedition they did indeed encounter a group of Bush- men living deep in the desert, who had had no direct contact with whites. They were still living by their ancient hunting and gathering ways. These Bushmen began a relationship with the Marshalls that has continued through three generations. John began working with a little hand-held Bell and Howell camera and loads of Kodak film in 100-foot-rolls. The film came with a few instructions on how to make a movie, and John had a shopping list of subject areas for anthropologists in the field, but this was all the direction he had as he launched into what became a lifetime work: filming the Bushmen of the Kalahari. Marshall was a teenager in the 1950 and he became captivated by hunting. His first film, The Hunters (1957), which he shot from 1950–52, became a classic and it enjoyed phenomenal success. It was shown in theaters and was purchased by every major American and European university with a film collection. For many years John has repudiated The Hunters on the grounds that it is an artistic creation, a product of his own imagination and that consequently, it misrepre- sents the real nature of the culture. Throughout his career he has used this to argue for a more meaningful collaboration between anthropol- ogy and documentary film. The general stylistic principle guiding most of John Marshall’s filmmaking has been cinéma vérité, further elaborated by him with the concepts of ‘‘sequence’’ and ‘‘slot.’’ He argues that his method and product are merely ‘‘reporting’’ and that true meaning comes MAYSLES DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 662 from ‘‘immersing’’ the viewer in the ordinary life of the people through ‘‘sequences,’’ snatches of reality. Given this strong commit- ment to what he sees as a scientific or journalistic endeavor, it is interesting that John’s personal commitment to the Ju/hoansi (Bush- men) people and his views of how films may be used in development work on their behalf, are essentially humanistic, relativistic, and postmodern. Marshall continued his film documentation of the Ju/hoansi throughout the 1950s. Due in part to the political ramifications of apartheid, Marshall was not allowed to enter South Africa from the early 1960s and throughout much of the 1970s, for his close relation- ship with the Bushmen was seen as a threat to the satus quo. By 1960 John was working with D.A. Pennebaker and Ricky Leacock to further the development of cinéma vérité. By this time, Marshall was recognized as a gifted cameraman. Never one to shy away from danger, he went to work for NBC, shooting the civil war in Cyprus. From 1969 to 1971 Marshall shot and produced his groundbreaking ‘‘Pittsburgh Police Series.’’ Seen against the background of the civil rights upheaval, and filmed in gritty black and white cinéma vérité, these films were precursors to such TV programs as Hill Street Blues and ‘‘reality’’ TV shows like Cops. In 1978 Marshall returned to South Africa to make the television movie N!ai, The Story of a !Kung Woman. After a nearly twenty year absence he was shocked by the devastation of the people and culture he had recorded in his youth. At this point his film style changed. He lived and worked with the people he had previously filmed throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While continuing to document events on film and later video, he became an advocate and political activist with and for the subjects of his film. The work of John Marshall with the Ju/hoansi (Bushmen) contin- ues in the twenty-first century. A three part series for television, A Kalahari Family, is being edited from the 2 million feet of 16mm film and thousands of hours of video tape that now comprise the Marshall/ Africa archive. The original film materials were used to establish the Human Studies Film Archive at the Smithsonian Institution. A Kalahari Family is scheduled for release in December 2000. —Cynthia Close MAYSLES, Albert and David Paul Nationality: American. Born: Albert born in Brookline, Massachu- setts, 26 November 1926; David Paul born in Brookline, 10 January 1932. Education: Albert attended Brookline High School; Syracuse University, New York, degree in psychology; Boston University, M.A. in psychology. David attended Brookline High School; Boston University, degree in psychology. Military Service: During World War II, Albert served in U.S. Army Tank Corps, David served in the Army at Headquarters, Military Intelligence school, Oberammergau, Germany. Family: David married Judy (Maysles), one son, one daughter. Career: Albert taught psychology at Boston University, from late 1940s, then travelled to Russia to make first film, 1955; David worked as production assistant on Bus Stop and The Prince and the Showgirl, 1956; they make first film together, 1957; David worked as reporter on Adventures on the New Frontier for TV, late 1950s and early 1960s; Albert worked as cameraman for Richard Leacock, 1960; formed production company together and made first film, 1962; Albert worked as cameraman on one section of Godard’s Albert (left) and David Paul Maysles, with Charlotte Zwerin Paris vu par, and the brothers received Guggenheim fellowship in experimental film, 1965; continued making full-length documenta- ries and industrial and corporate promotional films together, from 1970. Awards: Academy Award nomination, Best Dramatic Short, for Christo’s Valley Curtain, 1972; Emmy Award, for Horowitz Plays Mozart, 1987. Died: David Maysles died in New York, 3 Janu- ary 1987. Films as Directors: 1955 Psychiatry in Russia (Albert only) 1957 Youth in Poland 1960 Primary (Albert only, co-d) 1962 Showman 1964 What’s Happening: The Beatles in the USA (Yeah Yeah Yeah, The Beatles! The First U.S. Visit) 1965 Meet Marlon Brando 1966 With Love from Truman 1969 Salesman (co-d) 1970 Gimme Shelter (co-d) 1972 Christo’s Valley Curtain (co-d) 1975 Grey Gardens (co-d) 1977 Running Fence (co-d) 1980 Muhammad and Larry 1984 Islands (co-d) 1986 Vladimir Horowitz: The Last Romantic; Ozawa (co-d) 1987 Horowitz Plays Mozart (Albert only, co-d) MAYSLESDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 663 1989 Jessye Norman Sings Carmen (Albert only, co-d) 1991 Christo in Paris (Albert only) 1992 Baroque Diet (Albert only); Sports Illustrated: Swimsuit ‘92 (Albert only) 1993 Abortion: Desperate Choices (Albert only, co-d) 1994 Umbrellas (Albert only, co-d) Publications By the MAYSLES: articles— Interview, in Movie (London), April 1963. Interview with Bob Sitton, in Film Library Quarterly (New York), Summer 1969. ‘‘Albert and David Maysles,’’ in Documentary Explorations, edited by G. Roy Levin, Garden City, New York, 1971. Interview with R. P. Kolker, in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1971. ‘‘Gimme Shelter: Production Notes,’’ in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), December 1971. ‘‘Financing the Independent Non-Fiction Film,’’ interview, in Milli- meter (New York), June 1978. ‘‘‘Truthful Witness’: An Interview with Albert Maysles,’’ with H. Naficy, in Quarterly Review of Film Studies (Pleasantville, New York), Spring 1981. ‘‘‘Doco direct’ et Albert Maysles,’’ interview with Jane Castle, in Filmnews, vol. 16, no. 3, June 1986. Diamond, Jamie, ‘‘Albert Maysles’ Camera Sees and Says It All,’’ in New York Times, 13 February 1994. ‘‘The Making of Concept of Wills: Making the Getty Center,’’ interview in International Documentary (Los Angeles), vol. 16, no. 12, December 1997. On the MAYSLES: books— Issari, M. Ali, Cinema Verité, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1971. Issari, M. Ali, and Doris A. Paul, What Is Cinéma Vérité, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1979. On the MAYSLES: articles— Heleff, Maxine, ‘‘The Maysles Brothers and Direct Cinema,’’ in Film Comment (New York), no. 2, 1964. Blue, James, ‘‘Thoughts on Cinéma Vérité and a Discussion with the Maysles Brothers,’’ in Film Comment (New York), no. 4, 1964. ‘‘Maysles Brothers,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Fall 1966. Steele, Robert, ‘‘Meet Marlon Brando,’’ in Film Heritage (Dayton, Ohio), Fall 1966. Rosenthal, Alan, ‘‘Salesman,’’ in The New Documentary in Action: A Casebook in Film Making, Berkeley, California, 1971. Sadkin, David, ‘‘Gimme Shelter: A Corkscrew or a Cathedral?,’’ in Film News (New York), December 1971. Safier, A. M., ‘‘Shooting Hidden Camera/Real People Spots,’’ in Millimeter (New York), April 1979. Robson, K. J., ‘‘The Crystal Formation: Narrative Structure in Grey Gardens,’’ in Cinema Journal (Chicago), Winter 1983. Barsam, R. M., ‘‘American Direct Cinema: The Re-Presentation of Reality,’’ in Persistence of Vision (Maspeth, New York), Sum- mer 1986. Obituary, in Variety (New York), 7 January 1987. Biofilmography, in Film Dope (London), March 1989. Owen, D., ‘‘The Maysles Brothers,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), no. 41, March 1989. Elliott, Stuart, ‘‘In Creating a Spot, Many Say There’s Nothing like the Real Thing,’’ in The New York Times, 26 November 1993. ‘‘The Making of Concept of Wills: Making the Getty Center,’’ interview in International Documentary (Los Angeles), vol. 16, no. 12, December 1997. *** Shooting unobtrusively in sync sound with no instructions to the subject, the Maysles brothers made films in what they preferred to call ‘‘direct cinema.’’ Albert, gifted photographer and director of all their projects, carried the lightweight, silent camera that he perfected on his shoulder, its accessories built in and ready for adjustment. Maysles characters, who occasionally talk to the filmmakers on screen, seem astonishingly unaware that strangers and apparatus are in the room. David, the soundman, carried a sensitive directional mike and a Nagra recorder unattached to the camera. He was often involved in the editing and as producer had final say. During the shooting a story might become apparent, or a dominant character may surface. These elements may become clear only as the editors examine, cut, and structure the vast amounts of footage that they receive in the dailies. In 1962, a time when Albert had acquired brief experience in documentary filmmaking and David had garnered a similar amount of experience in Hollywood feature films, they formed a partnership committed to direct cinema. Commercials and industrial filmmaking supported their preferred activity from time to time. The company’s production of two feature documentaries (which they distributed commercially), Salesman, a study of four bible salesmen, and Grey Gardens, an essay on two eccentric women, fed the constant discussions between documentarists and critics about whether objectivity is at all possible in documentaries. Both films were charged with dishonesty, exploitation, and tastelessness, but other quarters praised the Maysles’ sensitivity, rapport with their subjects, and choice of situations that viewers could identify with. The Maysles sought to answer the criticism and describe their philosophy and working methods at screenings of their films, in articles, and in letters to editors. Their instinct took them, they said, to situations related to closeness between human beings, and pointed out that they could not do films about people they dislike. They looked on their work as a discovery of how people really are, first spending time with them to get acquainted, then filming their lives as lived. All their subjects agreed to the project under consideration beforehand, and several have spoken of their satisfaction with the finished film and their good relationship with Albert and David, whom they trusted. The Maysles did not deny that their choices affected their creation in some way. Their methodology, for example, meant that much footage must be discarded. They emphasized that nothing was staged, a structure that eventually emerges from the material. In their own work they saw a relationship to Truman Capote’s concepts and methods for his ‘‘non-fiction novel’’: discarding preconceptions about their subjects, while concentrating on learning about them and understanding their motivations and feelings. Albert and David Maysles have an important place in the history of the documentary for many reasons. They produced a large, varied, evocative body of work in their chosen style, as very active members of their own small company. Despite some severe criticism of their McCAREY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 664 work, they are admired, and probably envied for qualities that Americans value. Directly influential or not on documentaries today, their work is certainly part of the flow of films that aim to show the truth about contemporary problems. While many other filmmakers’ reports and studies embrace large communities, or even whole countries, Maysles productions are about individuals and their con- cerns, which often illuminate larger aspects of society as well as its general attitudes toward non-traditional behavior. Since David Maysles’ death, Albert has continued turning out documentaries, mostly collaborating with Susan Froemke, Charlotte Zwerin, and Deborah Dickson. His subjects are as varied as when he worked with his brother, ranging from classical music (Horowitz Plays Mozart, Jessye Norman Sings Carmen) to social issues (Abor- tion: Desperate Choices, which traces the history of abortion in America) to attempts by artists to realize their visions. One of these efforts, Christo in Paris, chronicles the artist Christo’s efforts to wrap Paris’ Pont-Neuf Bridge; two decades earlier, Albert and David had made Christo’s Valley Curtain, in which the artist tried to hang an orange curtain over a valley. —Lillian Schiff, updated by Rob Edelman McCAREY, Leo Nationality: American. Born: Los Angeles, 3 October 1898. Educa- tion: Los Angeles High School; University of Southern California Law School. Family: Married Stella Martin, 1920, one daughter. Leo McCarey Career: Lawyer in San Francisco and Los Angeles, 1916–17; third assistant to Tod Browning, then script supervisor, at Universal, 1918–19; supervisor and director of about 300 comedy shorts for Hal Roach studios, 1923–28; gagman for Our Gang series, 1923–24; teamed Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, 1927; signed with Fox Studios, 1930; signed with Paramount, 1933; formed Rainbow Productions with Bing Crosby and others, 1946. Awards: Oscar for Best Direc- tion for The Awful Truth, 1937; Oscars for Best Direction and Best Original Story for Going My Way, 1944. Died: 5 July 1969. Films as Director: 1921 Society Secrets (+ pr) 1924 Publicity Pays (+ co-sc); Young Oldfield (+ co-sc); Stolen Goods (+ co-sc); Jeffries Jr. (+ co-sc); Why Husbands Go Mad (+ co-sc); A Ten-Minutes Egg (+ co-sc); Seeing Nellie Home (+ co-sc); Sweet Daddy (+ co-sc); Why Men Work (+ co-sc); Outdoor Pajamas (+ co-sc); Sittin’ Pretty (+ co-sc); Too Many Mamas (+ co-sc); Bungalow Boobs (+ co-sc); Accidental Accidents (+ co-sc); All Wet (+ co-sc); The Poor Fish (+ co-sc); The Royal Razz (+ co-sc) 1925 Hello Baby (+ co-sc); Fighting Fluid (+ co-sc); The Family Entrance (+ co-sc); Plain and Fancy Girls (+ co-sc); Should Husbands Be Watched? (+ co-sc); Hard Boiled (+ co-sc); Is Marriage the Bunk? (+ co-sc); Bad Boy (+ co-sc); Big Red Riding Hood (+ co-sc); Looking for Sally (+ co-sc); What Price Goofy? (+ co-sc); Isn’t Life Terrible (+ co-sc); Innocent Husbands (+ co-sc); No Father to Guide Him (+ co-sc); The Caretaker’s Daughter (+ co-sc); The Uneasy Three (+ co-sc); His Wooden Wedding (+ co-sc) 1926 Charley My Boy (+ co-sc); Mama Behave (+ co-sc); Dog Shy (+ co-sc); Mum’s the Word (+ co-sc); Long Live the King (+ co-sc); Mighty like a Moose (+ co-sc); Crazy like a Fox (+ co-sc); Bromo and Juliet (+ co-sc); Tell ‘em Nothing (+ co-sc); Be Your Age (+ co-sc) 1928 We Faw Down (We Slip Up); Should Married Men Go Home? (+ co-sc, supervisor); Two Tars (+ story, supervisor); Should Women Drive? (+ co-sc); A Pair of Tights (+ co-sc); Blow By Blow (+ co-sc); The Boy Friend (+ co-sc); Came the Dawn (+ co-sc); Do Gentlemen Snore? (+ co-sc); Dumb Daddies (+ co-sc); Going Ga-ga (+ co-sc); Pass the Gravy (+ co-sc); Tell It to the Judge (+ co-sc); That Night (+ co-sc) 1929 Liberty (+ co-sc); Wrong Again (+ co-sc); Dad’s Day (+ co-sc); Freed ‘em and Weep (+ co-sc); Hurdy Gurdy (+ co-sc); Madame Q (+ co-sc); Sky Boy (+ co-sc); The Unkissed Man (+ co-sc); When Money Comes (+ co-sc); Why Is Plumber (+ co-sc) 1929 The Sophomore (+ co-sc); Red Hot Rhythm (+ co-sc) 1930 Wild Company; Part Time Wife (+ co-sc) 1931 Indiscreet 1932 The Kid from Spain 1933 Duck Soup 1934 Six of a Kind; Belle of the Nineties (It Ain’t No Sin); Ruggles of Red Gap 1935 The Milky Way 1937 Make Way for Tomorrow (The Years Are So Long; When the Wind Blows) (+ pr); The Awful Truth 1938 Love Affair 1940 My Favorite Wife (+ co-sc) McCAREYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 665 1942 Once upon a Honeymoon (+ pr) 1944 Going My Way (+ pr, story) 1945 The Bells of Saint Mary’s (+ pr, story) 1948 Good Sam (+ pr, co-story) 1952 My Son John (+ pr, story, co-sc) 1957 An Affair to Remember (+ co-sc) 1958 Rally ‘round the Flag, Boys! (+ pr, co-sc) 1961 Satan Never Sleeps (China Story) (+ pr, co-sc) Other Films: 1927 Second Hundred Years (story) 1938 The Cowboy and the Lady (co-story) Publications By McCAREY: articles— ‘‘What Makes a Box Office Hit?,’’ in Cinema (Los Angeles), June 1947. On McCAREY: books— Poague, Leland, The Hollywood Professionals, Volume 7: Wilder and McCarey, New York, 1979. Gehring, Wes, Leo McCarey and the Comic Anti-Hero in American Film, New York, 1980. On McCAREY: articles— Carroll, Sidney, ‘‘Everything Happens to McCarey,’’ in Esquire (New York), May 1943. ‘‘Leo McCarey Section’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), Febru- ary 1965. Crosby, Bing, and David Butler, ‘‘Remembering Leo McCarey,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), September/October 1969. Smith, H. Allen, ‘‘A Session with McCarey,’’ in Variety (New York), January 1970. Lloyd, P., ‘‘Some Affairs to Remember: The Style of Leo McCarey,’’ in Monogram (London), no. 4, 1972. Lourcelles, Jacques, ‘‘Leo McCarey,’’ in Anthologie du Cinéma, vol. 7, Paris, 1973. Richards, Jeffrey, ‘‘Great Moments: Leo McCarey,’’ in Focus on Film (London), Spring 1973. Silver, C., ‘‘Leo McCarey: From Marx to McCarthy,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1973. Morris, George, ‘‘McCarey and McCarthy,’’ in Film Comment (New York), January/February 1976. Gehring, Wes, ‘‘Leo McCarey: The Man behind Laurel and Hardy,’’ in Films in Review (New York), November 1979. Everson, William K., and others (letters), ‘‘McCarey/Laurel and Hardy,’’ in Films in Review (New York), February 1980; also letter from Wes Gehring, April 1980. Shipman, David, ‘‘Directors of the Decade,’’ in Films and Filming (London), April 1983. Bourget, J.L., ‘‘Rally Once Again: Leo McCarey à la télévision,’’ in Positif (Paris), April 1985. ‘‘Leo McCarey,’’ in Film Dope (London), June 1987. Messias, H., ‘‘Erinnerungen an einen leichtsinnigen Iren,’’ in Film- Dienst (Cologne), vol. 45, no. 6, 17 March 1992. *** Leo McCarey has always presented auteur criticism with one of its greatest challenges and one that has never been convincingly met. The failure to do so should be seen as casting doubt on the validity of auteurism (in its cruder and simpler forms) rather than on the value of the McCarey oeuvre. He worked consistently (and apparently quite uncomplainingly) within the dominant codes of shooting and editing that comprise the anonymous ‘‘classical Hollywood’’ style; the films that bear his name as director, ranging from Duck Soup to The Bells of St. Mary’s, from Laurel and Hardy shorts to My Son John, from The Awful Truth to Make Way for Tomorrow (made the same year!), resist reduction to a coherent thematic interpretation. Yet his name is on some of the best—and best-loved—Hollywood films (as well as on some that embarrass many of even his most fervent defenders). In fact, it might be argued that McCarey’s work validates a more sophisticated and circumspect auteur approach: not the author as divinely inspired individual creative genius, but the author as the animating presence in a project within which multiple determinants— collaborative, generic, ideological—complexly interact. The only adequate approach to a McCarey film would involve the systematic analysis of that interaction. A few notes can be offered, however, towards defining the ‘‘animating presence.’’ McCarey’s formative years as an artist were spent working with the great clowns of the late silent/early sound period: Harold Lloyd, Mae West, W.C. Fields, the Marx Brothers and (especially) Laurel and Hardy, for whom he was ‘‘supervising manager’’ for many years, personally directing two of their greatest shorts (Liberty and Wrong Again). His subsequent career spans (with equal success) the entire range of American comedy from screwball (The Awful Truth) to romantic (An Affair to Remember). The director’s congenial charac- teristic seems to have been a commitment to a spontaneous, individu- alist anarchy which he never entirely abandoned, accompanied by a consistent skepticism about institutions and restrictive forms of social organization, a skepticism which produces friction and contra- diction even within the most seemingly innocuous, conservative projects. Going My Way and The Bells of St. Mary’s are usually rejected outright by the intelligentsia as merely pious and sentimental, but their presentation of Catholicism is neither simple, straightfor- ward, nor uncritical, and it is easy to mistake for sentimentality, in contexts where you expect to find it anyway (such as Hollywood movies about singing priests), qualities such as tenderness and generosity. The celebration of individualism is of course a mainspring of American ideology, yet, pushed far enough in certain directions, it can expose contradictions within that ideology: its oppressive re- sponse to many forms of individuality, for example. Make Way for Tomorrow (which, understandably, remained McCarey’s favorite among his own films) is exemplary in this respect. Taking as its starting point an apparently reformable social problem (with Lee Grant’s Tell Me a Riddle it is one of the only important Hollywood films about the aged), and opening with an unassailably respectable Biblical text (‘‘Honor thy father and thy mother’’), it proceeds to elaborate what amounts to a systematic MEHBOOB DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 666 radical analysis of the constraints, oppression, and divisiveness produced by capitalist culture, lending itself to a thoroughgoing Marxist reading that would certainly have surprised its director. Typically, the film (merely very good for its first three-quarters) suddenly takes off into greatness at the moment when Victor Moore asks the ultimate anarchic question ‘‘Why not?,’’ and proceeds to repudiate his family in favour of rediscovering the original relation- ship with his wife before they become absorbed into the norms of democratic-capitalist domesticity. The process is only completed when, in one of the Hollywood cinema’s most poignant and subver- sive moments, he ‘‘unmarries’’ them as they say their last farewell at the train station: ‘‘It’s been a pleasure knowing you, Miss Breckenridge.’’ —Robin Wood MEHBOOB Khan Nationality: Indian. Born: Mehboob Khan Ramzan Khan in Bilmora, in the Gandevi Taluka of Baroda State, India, 1909. Family: Married 1925, one son. Career: Extra at Imperial Film Studio, Bombay, from 1927; actor of ‘‘bit’’ parts for subsidiary, Sagar Movietone, from 1931; directed first film, for Sagar Film Co., 1935; established Mehboob Productions, 1943; built Mehboob Studios, 1952. Died: Of a heart attack, on hearing of Nehru’s death, 27 May 1964. Films as Director: 1935 Judgement of Allah (Alhilal) (+ sc) 1936 Deccan Queen; Manmohan 1937 Jagirdar 1938 Hum Tum Aur Woh (We Three); Watan 1939 Ek Hi Rasta (The Only Way) 1940 Alibaba; Aurat (Woman) 1941 Bahen (Sister) 1942 Roti (Bread) 1943 Najma (+ pr); Taqdeer (+ pr) 1945 Humayun (+ pr) 1946 Anmol Ghadi (Priceless Watch) (+ pr) 1947 Elan (+ pr) 1948 Anokhi Ada (A Special Charm) (+ pr) 1949 Andaz (Style) (+ pr) 1952 Aan (Pride) (+ pr) 1954 Amar (+ pr) 1957 Bharat Mata (Mother India) (+ pr) 1962 Son of India (+ pr) Other Films: 1927 Alibaba and Forty Thieves (Misra) (role as thief) 1929 Maurya Patan (Fall of Mauryas) (Choudhury) (role) 1930 Mewad No Mawali (Rogues of Rajasthan) (Vakil) (role) 1931 Dilawar (Torney) (role); Abul Hasan (Ghosh) (role) 1932 Romantic Prince (Meri Jaan) (Ghosh) 1933 Premi Pagal (Mad Cap) (Mir) (role); Bulbule Baghdad (Vakil) (role) 1934 Grihalaxmi (Badami) (role); Nautch Girl (Dancing Girl) (Desai) (role); Sati Anjana (Rathod) (role) 1956 Awaz (Sarhady) (pr); Paisa Hi Paisa (Mehrish) (pr) Publications On MEHBOOB: books— Barnouw, Erik, and S. Krishnaswany, Indian Film, New York, 1965. Willemen, Paul, and Behroze Ghandy, Indian Cinema, London, 1982. Pfleiderer, Beatrice, and Lothar Lutze, The Hindi Film: Agent and Re- Agent of Cultural Change, New Delhi, 1985. Ramachandran, T.M., 70 Years of Indian Cinema (1913–1983), Bombay, 1985. On MEHBOOB: articles— Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Autumn 1960. Ray, Satyajit, ‘‘Under Western Eyes,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1982. Tesson, Charles, ‘‘Le rêve indien,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1985. Thomas, R., ‘‘Indian Cinema: Pleasures and Popularity,’’ in Screen (London), May/August 1985. *** The urbane director K.A. Abbas once referred to Khan Mehboob as the ‘‘great rustic’’ of the Hindi cinema. Indeed, a certain mythol- ogy developed around Mehboob—that of the man with popular roots. This image owed much to stories about his origins (the small-town boy who worked his way up through the Bombay studios), and to certain films which dwelt on the travails of the poor and the destitute, such as Aurat (Woman) and Roti (Bread). In fact, however, Mehboob’s output as director was quite varied. After he founded his own company, Mehboob Productions, in 1943, he made historical works (Humayun) and fantasy spectaculars (Aan/Pride). Even films such as Anmol Ghadi (Priceless Watch) and Anokhi Ada (A Special Charm), which appeared to address the class divide, were variations of the triangular love story, the favoured convention of the Hindi cinema. In these films social representation becomes incidental to the basic plot because the narrative spaces of a simple rural life or of urban destitution are constructed in an idealised rather than in a realistic way. The lighting style of such scenes show them as composed of smooth studio surfaces, and there is an indifference to the more squalid details of characterisation. The emphasis lies in the fullness of melodramatic sentiments—of loss and of romantic longing—which occasion the use of lushly orchestrated songs. All this is a pleasurable closing off of the cinema and its audience from social references, a tendency in Mehboob’s work best represented by his venture into the swashbuckling colour film Aan. Elements of this romantic mode are observable even in Mehboob’s ‘‘social’’ films. In Aurat and its MEKASDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 667 later colour version, Mother India, rural life is often conveyed as a series of spectacularly choreographed scenes of harvesting, festi- vals, and the romantic engagement of its characters. Andaz (Style), on the other hand, invites the audience to soak in the luxuries of the modern, upper-class settings in which its characters live. In this sense, Mehboob was not simply a popularly rooted ‘‘rus- tic’’ artist, but engaged in creations of high artifice and escapism. However, these elements were often integrated with quite powerful constructions of meaning. Aurat, for example, achieves an almost anthropological view of gender roles. This is accomplished not by the accuracy of its observations about rural life, but by using the grim struggles of rural life as a way of drawing out the role performed by Indian women. This provides the basis for the film’s main interest, the melodrama of the unrelieved suffering of a woman (Sardar Akhtar) on behalf of her sons (Surendra and Yakub). The subsequent version of this film, Mother India, is an interesting contrast. The focus is still on the suffering of the mother (Nargis); but this capacity to suffer is transformed into a distinctly mythical power which moves beyond her immediate family to inspire the whole village community. In both films the woman is the bearer of a patriarchal inheritance for her son, but Mother India may have represented a new, mythicised role model for women, one whose power often co-exists uneasily with its conservative functions. Perhaps most interesting is Andaz, a drama, at least implicitly, of illicit desire. The story is about Nina (Nargis) who, while faithful to her absent fiancé (Raj Kapoor), relates vivaciously to an attractive young man (Dilip Kumar). The heroine is shown to be a naive innocent who cannot perceive that relaxed social relations between men and women can lead to misunderstanding, and this generates the tragic events that follow. Yet the narration moves beyond, or perhaps deeper into, its own fascination with the settings and mores of its upper class characters, introducing an interesting, fantastical ambigu- ity. Nina’s denials that she is attracted to a man other than her husband are put into doubt for the audience through scenes depicting the hallucinations and dreams that assail the heroine. In this way the ‘‘rustic’’ Mehboob was surprisingly well equipped to convey certain strikingly modern problems of sexuality and desire. —Ravi Vasudevan MEKAS, Jonas Nationality: Lithuanian. Born: Semeniskiai, 24 December 1922. Education: Gymnasium, Birzai, Lithuania, graduated 1942; studied philosophy and literature, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, and University of Tübingen. Family: Married Hollis Melton, 1974; children: Oona and Sebastian. Career: During German occupation, taken, with brother Adolfas, to forced labor camp near Hamburg, 1944; they escaped, 1945; lived in displaced persons camps, 1945–49; while studying in Germany, edited Lithuanian emigré literary maga- zine Zvilgsniai (Glimpses), and wrote collections of short stories and poetry; moved to New York, 1949; worked in factories and shops in various capacities, through 1950s; founded Film Culture magazine, 1955, remains editor-in-chief; began ‘‘Movie Journal’’ column for Jonas Mekas Village Voice, 1958; shot first film, Guns of the Trees, and helped organize New American Cinema Group, 1960; organized The Film- Makers Cooperative, 1961; organized the Film-Makers Cinematheque, arrested and charged with showing obscene film (Jack Smith’s Flaming Creatures), given six-month suspended sentence, 1964; co-founder with P. Adams Sitney, then acting director, Anthology Film Archives, 1970. Awards: Documentary Award, Venice Festi- val, for The Brig, 1965. Address: c/o Anthology Film Archives, 32 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10003, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1961 Guns of the Trees 1963 Film Magazine of the Arts 1964 The Brig; Award Presentation to Andy Warhol 1966 Report from Millbrook; Hare Krishna; Notes on the Circus; Cassis 1968 Walden (Diaries, Notes, and Sketches) 1969 Time & Fortune Vietnam Newsreel 1972 Reminiscences of a Journey to Lithuania 1976 Lost, Lost, Lost 1978 In Between 1980 Paradise Not Yet Lost, or Oona’s Fifth Year 1981 Notes for Jerome 1986 He Stands in the Desert Counting the Seconds of His Life 1990 Self-Portrait; Scenes from the Life of Andy Warhol MEKAS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 668 1993 Jonas in the Desert 1996 Happy Birthday to John (+ pr) Publications By MEKAS: books— I Had Nowhere to Go, New York, 1991. There is No Ithaca: Idylls of Seminis Kiai & Reminiscences, trans- lated by Vyt Bakaitis, New York, 1996. By MEKAS: articles— Founder of Film Culture magazine, 1955, contributes regularly and remains its editor-in-chief. Contributor of weekly column, ‘‘Movie Journal,’’ to Village Voice (New York), since 1958. Statement, in Film Comment (New York), Winter 1964. Interview with B. L. Kevles, in Film Culture (New York), Fall 1965. Interview with Gerald Barrett, in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salis- bury, Maryland), Spring 1973. Interview with Antonin Liehm, in Thousand Eyes (New York), October 1976. ‘‘Master Home Movies,’’ an interview with Mieke Bernink and Richard Leacock, in Skrien (Amsterdam), February-March 1994. Interview with A. Artjuh, in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), Novem- ber 1996. ‘‘Jonas Mekas, ‘Movie Journal,’’’ in Village Voice, 16 September 1959,’’ reprinted in Wide Angle (Baltimore), no. 2, 1997. On MEKAS: books— James, David E., To Free the Cinema: Jonas Mekas and the New York Underground, Princeton, New Jersey, 1992. Ball, Gordon, 66 Frames, with introduction by Jonas Mekas, Consor- tium Book Sales & Distribution, 1999. On MEKAS: articles— Harrington, Stephanie, ‘‘Pornography Is Undefined at Film-Critic Mekas’s Trial,’’ in The Village Voice (New York), 18 June 1964. Levy, Alan, ‘‘Voice of the Underground Cinema,’’ in New York Times Magazine, 19 September 1965. Simon, Bill, ‘‘New Forms in Film,’’ in Artforum (New York), October 1972. Tompkins, Calvin, ‘‘Profile: All Pockets Open,’’ in New Yorker, 6 January 1973. Goldstein, R., ‘‘Give It Away on 2nd Avenue,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 29 January 1979. MacDonald, S., ‘‘Lost Lost Lost over Lost, Lost, Lost,’’ in Cinema Journal (Champaign, Illinois), Winter 1986. Ruoff, J. K., ‘‘Home Movies of the Avant-Garde: Jonas Mekas and the New York Art Scene,’’ Cinema Journal, vol. 30, no. 3, 1991. Siegel, F., ‘‘In Praise of Extraordinary Cinema: Anthology Film Archives,’’ in Boxoffice, October 1992. Rollet, P., ‘‘Les exils de Jonas Mekas,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1993. Bassan, Rapha?l, ‘‘Jonas Mekas le fédérateur du cinéma underground américain,’’ in Mensuel du Cinéma, February 1993. Sitney, P. Adams, ‘‘Three Filmmakers as Culture Heroes,’’ in Yale Review (New Haven, Connecticut), October 1994. Lerman, L. and Leventhal, L., ‘‘Blessed Yankees: Six Reasons Why New York’s Still Habitable—and Stakes a Claim in World Crea- tivity,’’ in Variety’s On Production (Los Angeles), no. 10, 1996. ‘‘Preservation and Scholarship Award: Jonas Mekas,’’ in Interna- tional Documentary (Los Angeles), November 1997. Vogel, A., ‘‘Letter to John Cassavetes from Amos Vogel. 11/20/59,’’ in Wide Angle (Baltimore), no. 2, 1997. *** Born in Lithuania in 1922, Jonas Mekas was a poet and resistance worker against both the German and Soviet occupations during the Second World War. After some years in a German camp for displaced persons, he and his brother, Adolfas, also a filmmaker, immigrated to New York, where they later founded the journal Film Culture. Initially hostile to the American avant-garde, Mekas became its champion and spokesman in the 1960s. Throughout that decade he exerted great influence through Film Culture, his ‘‘Movie Journal’’ column in the Village Voice, and his founding of the Film-makers Cooperative (in 1962) to distribute independent films, and the Film- makers Cinematheque (in 1963) as a New York showcase. His first film, Guns of the Trees, a 35-millimeter feature, describes aspects of Beat culture in New York through the lives of four fictional characters. It reflects his hopes, at that time, for the establishment of a feature-length narrative cinema on the model of the French and Polish ‘‘New Waves.’’ By the time he made The Brig with his brother, directly filming Ken Brown’s stage play in the Living Theatre Production as if it were a documentary, he had already shifted his energies to his ongoing cinematic diary. The diary had actually begun in the mid-1950s when he reached the United States, but it took the liberating inspiration of Stan Brakhage and Marie Menken for Mekas to acknowledge that his artistic talent was focused outside of the feature film tradition he had been espousing. The first installment of his Diaries, Notes, and Sketches, the nearly three-hour-long Walden, records his life, with numerous portraits of his friends and colleagues, in the mid-1960s. Its techniques are characteristic of the filmmaker’s mature work: staccato, single-frame flashes, composed directly in the camera, are counterpointed to longer sketches of weddings, trips to the circus, meetings. Printed intertitles often occur. Long passages have musical accompaniment. The filmmaker repeatedly breaks in on the soundtrack to offer private reflections and aphorisms. In 1976 Mekas released Lost, Lost, Lost, another three-hour section of the megadiary. This time, he went back to his initial experiments with the camera, in a more conventional and leisurely style, to document the aspirations and frustrations of his life as an exile dreaming of the re-establishment of an independent Lithuanian republic. Bits of this material had already appeared in his masterly and moving Reminiscences of a Journey to Lithuania, a three-part film made with the help of German television. The middle section of that film describes the emotional reunion of both brothers with their MELVILLEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 669 mother, then almost ninety years old, when they returned home for their first visit since the war. The film opens with a summary of Mekas’s initial experiences in America and ends with a recognition of the impossibility of recovering the past, as he joins a group of his friends, mostly artists, in Vienna. That elegiac tone is sustained and refined in Notes for Jerome, the record of his visits to the estate of Jerome Hill, in Cassis, France, in the late 1960s, and edited after Hill’s death in 1972. Mekas married Hollis Melton in 1974; their first child, Oona, was born the next year. Paradise Not Yet Lost, or Oona’s Fifth Year deals with his family life, but continues the theme of lost childhood that permeates Mekas’s vision. It is filmed in the style of Walden, as is In Between, which records the years between Lost, Lost, Lost and Walden. —P. Adams Sitney MELVILLE, Jean-Pierre Nationality: French. Born: Jean-Pierre Grumbach in Paris, 20 Octo- ber 1917. Education: The Lycées Condorcet and Charlemagne, Paris, and Michelet, Vanves. Military Service: Began military service, 1937; evacuated to England after Dunkirk, then served with Free French Forces in North Africa and Italy. Career: Founder, O.G.C. (Organisation générale cinématographique) as production company, 1945; built own studio, Paris, 1949 (destroyed by fire, 1967). Awards: Prix René-Jeanne for Le cercle rouge, 1970; Cheva- lier de la Légion d’honneur; Chevalier des Arts et des Lettres. Died: In Paris, 2 August 1973. Films as Director: 1946 Vingt quatre heures de la vie d’un clown (+ sc, pr) 1948 Le Silence de la mer (+ pr, sc) 1950 Les Enfants terribles (+ co-sc, pr, art d) 1953 Quand tu liras cette lettre (+ sc) 1956 Bob le flambeur (+ pr, co-art d, sc) 1959 Deux hommes dans Manhattan (+ pr, sc, role as Moreau) 1963 Léon Morin, prêtre (+ sc); Le Doulos (+ sc); L’Ainé des Ferchaux (+ sc) 1966 Le Deuxième Souffle (+ sc) 1967 Le Samourai (+ sc) 1969 L’Armée des ombres (+ sc) 1972 Le Cercle rouge (+ sc); Un Flic (+ sc) Other Films: 1948 Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne (Bresson) (role) 1949 Orphée (Cocteau) (role as hotel director) 1957 Un Amour de poche (role as police commissioner) 1960 A bout de souffle (Godard) (role as the writer Parvulesco) 1962 Landru (Chabrol) (role as Georges Mandel) Publications By MELVILLE: articles— Interview with Claude Beylie and Bertrand Tavernier, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1961. ‘‘Finding the Truth without Faith,’’ in Films and Filming (London), March 1962. ‘‘Léon Morin, prêtre: Découpage intégrale,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), no. 10. Interview with Eric Brietbart, in Film Culture (New York), Win- ter 1964/65. ‘‘Le Doulos: Découpage intégrale,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), no. 24. Interview with Michel Dancourt, in Arts (Paris), 25 April 1966. ‘‘A Samurai in Paris,’’ interview with Rui Nogueira and Fran?ois Truchaud, in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1968. ‘‘Apres Un Flic, Jean-Pierre Melville a-t-il besoin d’un deuxième souffle?,’’ interview with R. Elbhar, in Séquences (Montreal), April 1973. Interview with F. Guérif, in Cahiers du Cinématheque (Paris), Spring/Summer 1978. On MELVILLE: books— Wagner, Jean, Jean-Pierre Melville, Paris, 1964. Armes, Roy, French Cinema since 1946: Vol.2—The Personal Style, New York, 1966. Nogueira, Rui, Melville on Melville, London, 1971. McArthur, Colin, Underworld U.S.A., London, 1972. Nogueira, Rui, Le Cinéma selon Melville, Paris, 1973. Zimmer, Jacques, and Chantal de Béchade, Jean-Pierre Melville, Paris, 1983. Bantcheva, Denitza, Jean-Pierre Melville: De l’oeuvre à l’homme, Troyes, France, 1996. On MELVILLE: articles— Chabrol, Claude, ‘‘Saluer Melville?,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1956. Beylie, Claude, ‘‘Melville le flambeur,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), no. 40, 1959. Domarchi, Jean, ‘‘Plaisir à Melville,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1959. Ledieu, Christian, ‘‘Jean-Pierre Melville,’’ in études Cinématographiques (Paris), no. 6 and 7, 1960. Porcile, Fran?ois, ‘‘Melville ou l’amour du cinéma,’’ in Cinéma-texte (Paris), January 1963. Austen, David, ‘‘All Guns and Gangsters,’’ in Films and Filming (London), June 1970. Beylie, Claude, ‘‘Quand tu liras cette lettre . . . ,’’ in Ecran (Paris), September/October 1973. Renaud, T., ‘‘Il fut quand même Melville . . . ,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), September/October 1973. ‘‘L’Armée des ombres,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), 1978. Schl?ndorff, Volker, ‘‘A Parisian-American in Paris,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 6 July 1982. MELVILLE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 670 Jean-Pierre Melville (right) with Alain Delon ‘‘Jean-Pierre Melville,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), no. 42, Octo- ber 1989. Kurki, E., ‘‘Valitsen itseni, siis kuolen,’’ in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 3, 1990. Gaeta, Pino, ‘‘Jean-Pierre Melville’’ (special issue), in Castoro Cinema (Firenze), no. 146, March-April 1990. ‘‘Le deuxième souffle de Melville’’ (special section), Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 507, November 1996. Hogue, Peter, ‘‘Melville: The Elective Affinities,’’ in Film Comment (New York), vol. 32, no. 6, November-December 1996. *** The career of Jean-Pierre Melville is one of the most independent in modern French cinema. The tone was set with his first feature film, Le Silence de la mer, made quite outside the confines of the French film industry. Without union recognition or even the rights to the novel by Vercors which he was adapting, Melville proceeded to make a film which, in its counterpointing of images and a spoken text, set the pattern for a whole area of French literary filmmaking extending from Bresson and Resnais down to Duras in the 1980s. Les Enfants terribles, made in close collaboration with Jean Cocteau, was an equally interesting amalgam of literature and film, but more influen- tial was Bob le flambeur, a first variation on gangster film themes which emerged as a striking study of loyalty and betrayal. But by the time that the New Wave directors were drawing from Bob le flambeur a set of stylistic lessons which were to be crucial to their own breakthrough—economical location shooting, use of natu- ral light, improvisatory approaches, and use of character actors in place of stars—Melville himself had moved in quite a different direction. Léon Morin, prêtre marks Melville’s decision to leave this directly personal world of low-budget filmmaking for a mature style of solidly commercial genre filmmaking that used major stars and tightly wrought scripts to capture a wide audience. This style is perfectly embodied in the trio of mid-1960s gangster films which constitute the core of Melville’s achievement in cinema. Melville’s concern with the film as a narrative spectacle is totally vindicated in these films, each of which was built around a star performance: Jean-Paul Belmondo in Le Doulos, Lino Ventura in Le Deuxième Souffle, and Alain Delon in Le Samourai. Drawing on his 1930s viewing and his adolescent reading of American thrillers, Melville manipulated the whole mythology of the gangster film, MENZELDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 671 casting aside all pretence of offering a social study. His criminals are idealized figures, their appearance stylized with emphasis on the belted raincoat, soft hat, and ever-present handgun. Their behavior oddly blends violence and ritualized politeness, and lifts them out from their settings. Melville had no interest in the realistic portrayal of life. He disregarded both psychological depth and accuracy of loca- tion and costume. The director instead used his stars to portray timeless, tragic figures caught up in ambiguous conflicts and patterns of deceit, relying on the actor’s personality and certainty of gesture to fill the intentional void. Le Samourai, a perfect distillation of the cinematic myth of the gangster, remains Melville’s masterpiece. Subsequent attempts to widen his range included an effort to transpose his characters into the world of Occupation and Resistance in L’Armée des ombres, as well as a film—Le Cercle rouge—that combined his particular gift for atmosphere with a Rififi-style presentation of the mechanics of a robbery. These films are interesting but flawed works. Melville’s frustration and dissatisfaction was reflected in his last work, Un Flic, which completed the passage towards abstraction begun in the mid- 1960s. It offers a derisory world lacking even the human warmth of loyalty and friendship which the director had earlier celebrated. In retrospect, it seems likely that Melville’s reputation will rest largely on his ability, almost unique in French cinema, to contain deeply felt personal attitudes within the tight confines of commercial genre production. Certainly his thrillers are unequalled in European cinema. —Roy Armes MENZEL, Jirí Nationality: Czech. Born: Prague, 23 February 1938. Education: Film Academy (FAMU), Prague, 1957–62. Career: Assistant direc- tor on Vera Chytilová’s Something Different, 1963; director at Barrandov Studios, from 1965; also stage director for Drama Club and Semafor Theatre, Prague, from 1967. Awards: Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, for Closely Watched Trains, 1967; Grand Prize, Karlovy Vary Festival, for Capricious Summer, 1968. Ad- dress: Solidarita E/31, 100 00 Praha 10, Czechoslovakia. Films as Director: 1965 Zlo?in v dív?í ?kole (Crime at a Girls’ School) (+ co-sc); Smrt pana Baltisbergra (The Death of Mr. Baltisberger) (+ co-sc) 1966 Ostre sledované vlaky (Closely Watched Trains) (+ co-sc, role as the doctor) 1968 Rozmarné leto (Capricious Summer) (+ co-sc, role as the magician Arno?tek); Zlo?in v ?antánu (Crime in a Night Club) (+ co-sc) 1969 Skrivánci na niti (Larks on a String) (+ co-sc) 1975 Kdo hledá zlaté dno (Who Seeks the Gold Bottom) 1977 Na samote u lesa (Seclusion Near a Forest) (+ co-sc) 1979 Báje?ni mu?i s klikou (Magicians of the Silver Screen) (+ co-sc, role as the director) 1980 Postri?ny (Short Cut; Cutting It Short) (+ co-sc) 1983 Slavnosti sne?enek 1985 Prague; Vesnicko ma strediskova (My Sweet Little Village) 1989 Kone? starych casu (The End of the Good Old Days) Jirí Menzel 1990 Havel’s Audience with History (for TV) 1991 Opera Zebracka (The Beggar’s Opera) (+ pr, sc) 1995 The Life and Extraordinary Adventures of Private Ivan Chonkin Other Films (incomplete listing): 1964 Courage for Every Day (role as guest in a pub); If One Thousand Clarinets (role as soldier Schulze); A Place in a Crowd (role as a secretary of the SCM); The Defendant (role as the young defense lawyer) 1965 Wandering (role as Dohnal); Nobody Shall Be Laughing (role as a bicyclist) 1967 Dita Saxová (role as the shy suitor) 1977 The Apple Game (Chytilová) (role as the doctor) 1981 Upir z Feratu (Herz) (as Dr. Marek) 1989 Hard Bodies (as Pfarrer) 1990 Tender Barbarian (Koliha) (as Doctor) 1995 Jak si zaslouzit princeznu (Schmidt) (as Painter) 1997 Hanna’s Ragtime (Svarcova) (as Pfarrer) Publications By MENZEL: book— Closely Watched Trains (script), with Bohumil Hrabal, New York, 1977. MENZEL DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 672 By MENZEL: articles— ‘‘O re?ii a herectvi, o filmu a dicadle—Rozhovor s Jirim Menzelem,’’ interview with K. Po?ová, in Film a Doba (Prague), Decem- ber 1977. Interview with A. Tournès, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), May/June 1987. Interview with M. Buruiana and J. Beaulieu, in Séquences (Montreal), September 1988. ‘‘Hallo, hast du jetzt Zeit?’’ an interview with G. Kopanevova, in Film und Fernsehen, vol. 18, no. 11, 1990. ‘‘Med smilet som vapen,’’ an interview with K. Lochen, in Film & Kino, no. 8, 1990. ‘‘Jirí Menzel: le printemps de Prague, la normalisation et la revolu- tion de velours,’’ an interview with D. Sauvaget, in Revue du Cinema, June 1990. ‘‘Tragizm i humor to bliznieta,’’ an interview with L. Szigeti, in Kino, March 1991. ‘‘Jirí Menzel,’’ an interview with R. Filac-Schindlerova, in Ekran, vol. 17, no. 4, 1992. ‘‘End of the Line,’’ an interview with R. Carver, in Sight and Sound, May 1993. Interview with J. Varden, in Filmkultura (Budapest), January 1994. Interview with Christina Stojanova, in Ciné-Bulles (Montreal), vol. 15, no. 1, Spring 1996. Interview with Jan Luke?, in Iluminace (Prague), vol. 9, no. 1, 1997. ‘‘Setak, a Doktor Urral,’’ in Filmvilag (Budapest), no. 4, 1997. ‘‘Onova, koeto ostava,’’ an interview with Ralica Nikolova, in Kino (Sophia), no. 2, 1998. On MENZEL: books— Skvorecky, Josef, All the Bright Young Men and Women, Tor- onto, 1971. Liehm, Antonin, Closely Watched Films, White Plains, New York, 1974. Stoil, Michael, Cinema beyond the Danube, Metuchen, New Jer- sey, 1974. Liehm, Mira and Antonin, The Most Important Art, Berkeley, 1977. Skvorecky, Josef, Jirí Menzel and the History of the Closely Watched Trains, Boulder, Colorado, 1982. Hames, Peter, The Czechoslovak New Wave, Berkeley, 1985. On MENZEL: articles— Liehm, A. J., ‘‘Zádny strach o Jirího Menzela’’ [Never Fear for Jirí Menzel], in Film a Doba (Prague), no. 1, 1967. Kolodny, Irving, ‘‘The Man Who Made Closely Watched Trains,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), May/June 1968. Crick, P., ‘‘Three East European Directors,’’ in Screen (London), March-April 1970. Bluestone, George, ‘‘Jirí Menzel and the Second Prague Spring,’’ in Film Quarterly, Fall 1990. Cazals, P., ‘‘Jours tranquilles en Tchecoslovaquie,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma, December 1990. Ahlund, J., ‘‘Hemvavd surrealist gor tragedin till fars,’’ in Chaplin, vol. 33, no. 4, 1991. Schutte, O., ‘‘Wenn wir filme machen, koennen wir nicht zufrieden sein, wenn das Kino leer ist,’’ in Filmbulletin, vol. 35, no. 2, 1993. Turcsanyi, S., ‘‘Mit tehet a kolto,’’ in Filmvilag (Budapest), no. 5, 1995. Rother, Hans-J?rg, ‘‘Der b?hmische Faun: Eine Jiri-Menzel- Retrospektive in Berlin,’’ in Film und Fernsehen (Berlin), vol. 25, no. 3–4, 1997. *** Jirí Menzel’s chief claim to a firm place in the history of the Czech cinema to date is his masterpiece, Closely Watched Trains. He received an Oscar for it in 1967, and the film was the biggest box- office success of all the works of the New Wave in Czechoslovakia. Banned from the industry after the Soviet invasion of 1968, Menzel eventually saved his career by recanting and publicly dissociating himself from his pre-invasion films, including Closely Watched Trains. However, even in his humiliation he scored one important point against the establishment: he refused to return his Oscar to Hollywood as the authorities had demanded (he was supposed to explain that he ‘‘did not accept awards from Zionists’’) and merely made a repentance movie, Who Seeks the Gold Bottom, a social realist formula story about workers building a huge dam. Like Milos Forman, Menzel was influenced by Czech novelists rather than by Western filmmakers, and for a considerable time worked under the tutelage of his teacher from the Film Academy, Otakar Vávra, and his admired older colleague Věra Chytilová. Except for Crime in a Night Club, which was based on an original idea by novelist Josef Skvorecky, his pre-invasion films are adaptions of novels and short stories by Czech authors, either modern classics (Capricious Summer from a novella by Vladislav Van?ura), or his contemporaries (Bohumil Hrabal’s Closely Watched Trains, The Death of Mr. Baltisberger, and Larks on a String, and Skvorecky’s Crime at a Girls’ School). Except for Capricious Summer, all these films were banned, Larks on a String even before release. After three hesitant efforts following his recantation, all developed from original ideas, Menzel found his old self in another adaption of Hrabal, Short Cut. An even less subliminal anti-establishment message is contained in The Snowdrop Festival, whose hero sacrifices his life for a pot of tripe soup. Menzel’s recent, very amusing comedy My Sweet Little Village, and another adaptation of Van?ura, The End of Old Times, though largely apolitical, show him as the supreme craftsman of contemporary Czech cinema. Except in his black comedies (Crime at a Girls’ School, Crime in a Night Club), Menzel is essentially a realist whose method could, perhaps, be described by the theories of André Bazin: he reveals rather than describes reality. There is very little of the formalist elements of movie making, and if, occasionally, there are some (for example, the opening montage in Closely Watched Trains), they are used mainly for comic effect. Menzel even dropped the achronological structure of the novella from which he made Closely Watched Trains, and replaced it with linear narrative. However, there is inventive use of subtle symbolism (for example, the clocks and their chiming in Closely Watched Trains), excellent work with actors, both profes- sional and non-professional, and superb editing. The trend towards subtle symbolism culminates in Short Cut, a Rabelaisian tribute to elan vital which, however, hides a caustic, encoded comment on ‘‘goulash socialism,’’ on the Marxist refutation of Freud (the com- manding image of the pretty girl sitting on a high chimney), and on various smaller malpractices of ‘‘Realsozialismus’’ such as jamming foreign broadcasts. The nearly subliminal nature of such satirical stabs, apparent also in The Snowdrop Festival, is a nut too hard for the censors to crack. MéSZáROSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 673 Unlike his mentor Chytilová’s crude defensive moral statements, the messages of Menzel’s pre-1968 works (and of Short Cut and The Snowdrop Festival) are—in the light of establishment philosophy— extremely provocative. In a way, his entire oeuvre is one continuous eulogy of sex—a subject at best tolerated by Marxist aestheticians in Czechoslovakia. The shock value of Closely Watched Trains is the combination of commendable resistance heroism with an embarrass- ing sexual problem: an anathema in socialist realism. Similarly, the ‘‘crime’’ in Crime at a Girls’ School turns out to be not murder but loss of virginity, and the ‘‘philosophical’’ ruminations of the three elderly Don Juans in Capricious Summer concentrate on a young artiste. The main theme of Short Cut—characterized by the phallic symbolism of the chimney which dominates the small central Bohe- mian Sodom—is simply the joy of sex. Considering that sex has always been the most dangerous enemy of puritanical revolutions, Menzel’s message is clear. It is a much less acceptable one than the moralizing of Chytilová, whose eccentric form and merciless vision, on the other hand, stand against everything the government watch- dogs would like to see. The two artists, taken together, represent the two basic headaches any repressive aesthetic necessarily faces—the objectionable form, and the objectionable content. The survival of Menzel and Chytilová in a national cinema so full of victims demonstrates that, with perseverance, intelligence, cunning, and good luck, art can occasionally triumph over censorship. —Josef Skvorecky MéSZáROS, Márta Nationality: Hungarian. Born: Budapest, 19 September 1931. Edu- cation: VGIK (Film School), Moscow, 1957. Family: Married 1) first husband (name unkown), (divorced) 1959; 2) director Miklós Jancsó (divorced); 3) actor Jan Nowicki. Career: Immigrated with family to USSR, 1936; returned to Hungary, 1946; worked at News- reel Studio, Budapest, 1954; worked for the Alexandru Sahia docu- mentary studio, Bucharest, Romania, 1957–59; made science popu- larization shorts and documentary shorts, Budapest, 1959–68; joined Mafilm Group 4, mid-1960s; directed first feature, 1968. Awards: Golden Bear, Berlin Film Festival, for Adoption, 1975; FIPRESCI Prize, Cannes Film Festival, for Nine Months, 1976; Special Jury Grand Prize, Cannes Film Festival, for Diary for My Children, 1984; Golden Frog, Camerimage and OCIC Award, Venice Film Festival, both for The Seventh Room, 1995. Agent: c/o Hungarofilm, Bathory utca 10, H-1054 Budapest, Hungary. Films as Director: (short films in Hungary): 1954 Ujra mosolyognak (Smiling Again) 1955 Albertfalvai t?rténet (A History of Albertfalva); Tul a Kálvin- téren (Beyond the Square); Mindennapi t?rténetek (Every- day Stories) 1956 Országutak vándora (Wandering on Highways) Márta Mészáros (short films in Romania): 1957 Sa zimbeasca toti copiii 1958 Femeile zilelor noastre; Popas in tabara de vara 1959 Schimbul de miine (short films in Hungary): 1959 Az élet megy tovább (Life Goes On) 1960 Az eladás müvészete (Salesmanship); Riport egy TSZ-eln?kr?l (Report on the Chairman of a Farmers’ Co-Operative); Rajtunk is mulik (It Depends on Us Too . . . ) 1961 Szivdobogás (Heartbeat); Vásárhelyi szinek (Colors of Vásárhely); Danulon gyártás (Danulon Production); A szár és a gy?kér fejl?dése (The Development of the Stalk and the Root) 1962 Tornyai János (János Tornyai); Gyermekek, k?nyvek (Child- ren, Books); Kamaszváros (A Town in the Awkward Age); Nagyüzemi tojástermelés (Mass Production of Eggs); A labda varásza (The Spell of the Ball) 1963 1963.julius 27.szombat (Saturday, July 27, 1963); Munka vagy hivatás? (Work or Profession?); Szeretet (Care and Affection) MéSZáROS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 674 1964 Fest?k városa—Szentendre (Szentendre—Town of Painters); Bóbita (Blow-Ball); Kiáltó (Proclamation) 1965 15 perc 15 évr?l (Fifteen Minutes on Fifteen Years) 1966 Borsós Miklós (Miklós Borsós); Harangok városa—Veszprém (Veszprém—Town of Bells) (feature films): 1968 Eltávozott nap (The Girl) (+ sc); Mészáros László emlékére (In Memoriam László Mészáros) (short); A ‘‘holdudvar’’ (Binding Sentiments) (+ sc) 1970 Szép Iányok, ne sirjatok (Don’t Cry, Pretty Girls) 1971 A l?rinci fonóban (At the L?rinc Spinnery) (short) 1973 Szabad lélegzet (Riddance, Free Breathing) (+ sc) 1975 ?r?kbefogadás (Adoption) (+ co-sc) 1976 Kilenc hónap (Nine Months) 1977 ?k ketten (The Two of Them) 1978 Olyan, mint otthon (Just like at Home) 1979 Utk?zben (En cours de route) 1980 ?r?kseg (The Heiresses) 1981 Anya és leánya (Mother and Daughter) (+ co-sc) 1982 Nema Kiáltás (Silent Cry) (+ sc); Napló gyermekeimnek (Diary for My Children) 1983 Délibábok országa (The Land of Mirages) 1987 Napló szerelmeimnek (Diary for My Loves) (+ sc) 1988 Piroska és a farkas (Bye-Bye Red Riding Hood) 1989 Utinapló (docu) 1990 Napló apámnak, anyámnak (Diary for My Father and My Mother) 1992 Edith és Marlene (for TV) 1993 A Magzat (A Fetus) 1995 Siódmy Pokój (The Seventh Room, La Settima Stanza) (+ sc) 1998 A Szerencse Lányai (+ sc) 2000 Kisvilma: Az Utolso Naplo (Little Vilma: The Last Diary) (+ sc) Publications By MéSZáROS: articles— Interviews in Filmkultura (Budapest), November/December 1972 and March/April 1977. Interview in Hungarofilm Bulletin (Budapest), no. 2, 1977. Interview with T. Giraud and D. Villain, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1978. Interview with C. Clouzot and others, in Ecran (Paris), 15 Janu- ary 1979. Interview with L. Bonneville, in Séquences (Montreal), Septem- ber 1988. Interview with A. Troshin, in Film und Fernsehen (Berlin), vol. 18, no. 9, 1990. On MéSZáROS: books— Portuges, Catherine, Screen Memories: The Hungarian Cinema of Márta Mészáros, Bloomington, Indiana, 1993. On MéSZáROS: articles— Elley, Derek, ‘‘Hiding It under a Bushel: Breaking Free,’’ in Films and Filming (London), February 1974. Elley, Derek, ‘‘Márta Mészáros,’’ in International Film Guide 1979, London, 1978. Martineau, B.H., ‘‘The Films of Marta Mészáros, or, the Importance of Being Banal,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1980. ‘‘Hungarian Film Section’’ of Filmfaust (Frankfurt), January/Febru- ary 1984. ‘‘Diary for My Loves,’’ in Hungarofilm Bulletin (Budapest), no. 2, 1987. Portuges, C., ‘‘Retrospective Narratives in Hungarian Cinema: The 1980s ‘Diary’ Trilogy of Marta Meszaros,’’ in Velvet Light Trap (Austin, Texas), Spring 1991. Quart, B., ‘‘Three Central European Women Directors Revisited,’’ in Cineaste (New York), no. 4, 1993. Waller, Marguerite R., ‘‘Fetus,’’ in American Historical Review, October 1994. Dixon, Wheeler Winston, ‘‘A Personal/Political Artist: Marta Meszaros,’’ in Literature-Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), October 1995. *** Márta Mészáros is one of few contemporary woman filmmakers consistently making films both critically and commercially success- ful for an international audience. Her eight feature films made from 1968 to 1979 are concerned with the social oppression, economic constraints, and emotional challenges faced by Hungarian women. Mészáros explains: ‘‘I tell banal, commonplace stories, and then in them the leads are women—I portray things from a woman’s angle.’’ Trained in filmmaking on a scholarship at Moscow’s film school, she worked at Newsreel Studios in Budapest, made four short films at the Bucharest Documentary Studios, married a Romanian citizen in 1957, and was divorced in 1959. She returned to Budapest, where she made more than 30 documentaries before attempting a feature. Mészáros’s documentaries deal with subjects as diverse as science (Mass Production of Eggs), a Hungarian hero (Saturday, July 27th, 1963), orphans (Care and Affection), and artists (Szentendre—Town of Painters, which she considers her best documentary). In the mid-1960s Mészáros joined Mafilm Group 4, where she met Miklós Jancsó, whom she later married. She wrote and directed her first feature, The Girl, in 1968. A hopeless mood pervades this story of the quest by an orphan girl for her biological parents, who had abandoned her. The girl leaves her textile factory job to comfort her mother, who introduces her as her niece to her husband and relatives. The girl meets a man whom she believes is her father. The man neither confirms nor denies this. The girl returns home and attends a factory dance where she meets a young man who is interested in her. As with most Mészáros features the film is open-ended, lacking a conven- tional plot. Dialogue is sparse. Derek Elley asserts that The Girl is a model to which Mészáros adheres in her subsequent features; her visual compositions are ‘‘carefully composed, rarely showy,’’ and ‘‘characterisation never remains static.’’ In Binding Sentiments the conflicts between an aging mother and her son’s fiancée are delineated with understated solemnity and subtle MEYERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 675 humor. A semi-musical, Don’t Cry, Pretty Girls, lightheartedly captures the romance between a rural girl and a city musician in a hostel and youth camp setting. Mészáros’s short Woman in the Spinnery studies the working status and conditions of the factory worker, the same subjects that she explores in Riddance. In this generation gap tale, a pair of lovers must deceive the young man’s parents, who object to his love for a girl who was raised in a children’s home with no family. Riddance urges assertiveness and truth to oneself, and shows little sympathy for the older generation. A fortyish woman wants a child from her unmarried lover in Adoption. She meets a teenager raised by the state who wants to marry her boyfriend. The relationship which develops between these two women and the man in their lives becomes the subject of Mészáros’s most illuminating work. A factory woman with one child has an affair with an engineer in Nine Months. The conflicts in their relationship are never resolved; they cannot agree on the terms and conditions of a life together; neither can surrender enough self to form a partnership. The woman leaves him to bear her second child alone. The actual birth of Lila Monari’s child was photographed for the film. The aptly titled Two Women depicts a friendship. Juli has a daugh- ter and a husband attempting to find a cure for his alcoholism. Mari directs a hostel for working women, and tolerates a lackluster husband. Juli and Mari enjoy a greater rapport with each other than with the men in their lives. Situations depicting humiliation of and discrimination against women recur. The subject of Mészáros’s next film, about a young man’s attraction to a little girl, makes Just like at Home a departure from her focus on women. In this film, Andras returns to Budapest after study in the U.S. and strikes up a friendship with a ten-year-old Zsuzsi, whose parents agree that she live with Andras in Budapest and be educated there. Their chaste friendship endures despite the intrusion of Andras’s lady friend. Andras learns more from Zsuzsi than she learns from him, to the bewilderment of their parents. In The Heiresses Mészáros used a period setting for the first time. A young, sterile woman marries a military officer during the World War II era. Because she needs an heir to inherit her father’s money, she persuades a Jewish woman to bear a child sired by her husband. After the birth, the woman and her husband become deeply attached, and a second child is born. Then the wife ‘‘turns in’’ the Jewish woman (Jews were deported from Hungary in 1944), the husband is arrested, and the wife is given custody of the second child. The semi-autobiographical ‘‘diary’’ series of films include Diary for My Children, Diary for My Loves, Diary for My Father and My Mother, and, last in the series, the prequel, Little Vilma: The Last Diary. In these films, Mészáros continues her quest to link the personal with the political by showing world events through the eyes of the women living through them. Though critics often call Diary for My Children the best of the group and many complain that the films grow weaker and blander with each installment, the diary series represents Mészáros’s mostly deeply felt political dissent. The films follow the traumatic effects of Stalinism on Mészáros and her family. Especially in Little Vilma, which is both the last and the first film, seesawing from past to present, Mészáros explores the wide and often tragic gaps between ideals and realities, and between parents and their children. Mészáros’s films deal with realities usually ignored in Eastern European cinema: the subordination of women, conflicts of urban and rural cultures, antagonism between the bureaucracy and its employ- ees, alcoholism, the generation gap, dissolution of traditional family structures, and the plight of state-reared children. In her unpretentious works, she creates a composite picture of life in Hungary today. In Derek Elley’s words, she ‘‘has created a body of feature work which, for sheer thematic and stylistic homogeneity, ranks among the best in current world cinema.’’ Her features examine emotional struggles ‘‘in the search for human warmth and companionship in a present-day, industrialised society.’’ —Louise Heck-Rabi, updated by Tina Gianoulis MEYER, Russ Nationality: American. Born: Oakland, California, 21 March 1922. Military Service: Served in U.S. Army Signal Corps, World War II. Family: Married 1) Betty Meyel (divorced); 2) Eve Meyer (di- vorced); 3) Edy Williams (divorced). Career: Made prize-winning amateur films in his early teens; spent World War II in Europe as a combat photographer; returned to United States and worked as an industrial filmmaker for Standard Oil and other companies; worked for Playboy magazine as a centerfold photographer; became commer- cial filmmaker, 1959. Office: c/o RM Films International, P.O. Box 3748, Hollywood, CA 90078–3748, U.S.A. Russ Meyer MEYER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 676 Films as Director: 1959 The Immoral Teas (Mr. Teas and His Playthings; Steam Heat) (+ sc, ed, ro) 1960 The Naked Camera (+ sc, ph) 1961 Eve and the Handyman (+ sc, pr, ph, ed); Erotica (Eroticon) (+ sc, pr, ph, ed, ro) 1962 Wild Gals of the Naked West! (Immoral Girls of the Naked West; Naked Gals of the Golden West) (+ sc, pr, ed, ro) 1963 Heavenly Bodies! (Heavenly Assignment) (+ sc, pr, ph, ed, ro); Europe in the Raw (+ sc, pr, ph, ed); Skyscrapers and Brassieres (+ sc, ph) 1964 Lorna (+ sc, pr, ph); Fanny Hill (Romp of Fanny Hill) 1965 Mudhoney (Rope; Rope of Flesh) (pr, ed, ro as man in lynching crowd); Motorpsycho (Motor Mods and Rockers; Rio Vengeance) (+ sc, pr, ph, ed, ro as sheriff); Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (The Leather Girls; The Mankillers; Pussycat) (+ sc, pr, ed) 1966 Mondo Topless (Mondo Girls) (pr, ph, ed) 1967 Good Morning . . . and Goodbye! (The Lust Seekers) (+ ph, ed); Common Law Cabin (Big Six; Conjugal Cabin; How Much Loving Does a Normal Couple Need?) (+ sc, pr, ed) 1968 Finders Keepers, Lovers Weepers! (+ sc, ph, ed); Vixen! (Russ Meyer’s Vixen) (+ sc, pr, ph, ed) 1969 Cherry, Harry, and Raquel! (Megavixens; Three Ways to Love) (+ sc, pr, ph, ed) 1970 Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (Hollywood Vixens) (+ sc, pr) 1971 The Seven Minutes 1973 Blacksnake! (Duchess of Doom; Slaves; Sweet Suzy) (+ sc, pr) 1975 Supervixens (SuperVixens Eruption; Vixens) (+ sc, pr, ph, ed, ro as motel manager) 1976 Up! (Over, under, and up!; Up! Smokey) (+ sc [as B. Callum], pr, ph, ed, uncredited ro) 1979 Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens (+ sc [as B. Callum], pr, ph, ed, ro as himself) Other Films: 1973 That’s Sexploitation (doc) (ro as himself) 1987 Amazon Women on the Moon (Dante) (ro as Video Salesman) 1989 Cult People (doc) (ro as himself) 1997 Hollywood Rated ‘R’ (doc) (ro as himself); Playboy’s Volup- tuous Vixens (Allen) (ro as himself) 1998 The Story of X (doc) (ro as himself); Voluptuous Vixens II (doc) (ro as himself) Publications By MEYER: books— Meyer, Russ (as Adolph Schwartz), A Clean Breast: The Lives and Loves of Russ Meyer. Hauck Publishers, 1993. On MEYER: books— Frasier, David, Russ Meyer—The Life and Films: A Biography and a Comprehensive, Illustrated and Annotated Filmography and Bibliography, North Carolina, 1990. On MEYER: articles— Morris, Gary, ‘‘An Interview with Russ Meyer,’’ in Bright Lights Film Journal (San Francisco), no. 16, April 1996. ‘‘Knocker, Knocker, Who’s There?’’ at Rough Cut, http:// www.roughcut.com/main/drivel_97apr4.html, 4 April 1997. Rabin, Nathan, ‘‘Russ Meyer’’ (interview), at The Onion A.V. Club, http://www.theavclub.com/avclub3408/avfeatures3408.html, 24 September 1998. Sargeant, Jack, and Stephanie Watson, ‘‘Rope of Flesh: Culture and Identity in Russ Meyer’s Mudhoney,’’ in Necronomicon: The Journal of Horror and Erotic Cinema, Book Two, London, 1998. Gebroe, David, ‘‘Russ Meyer: Evolution of the Supervixen,’’ at http:/ /www.snackcake.com/5/russ.html, 18 May 2000. Crane, Jonathan L., ‘‘A Lust for Life: The Cult Films of Russ Meyer,’’ in Unruly Pleasures: The Cult Film and Its Critics, edited by Xavier Mendik and Graeme Harper, London, 2000. *** Sleaze merchant or misunderstood artist? Glorified pornographer or directorial genius? Such questions have haunted Russ Meyer throughout his career. But regardless of the debates and critical misperceptions surrounding the man’s work, his place in cinema history is secure, and with four of his films a part of the Museum of Modern Art’s permanent collection, it cannot be denied that Russ Meyer’s corpus forms an indelible part of America’s cultural landscape. Born March 21, 1922, in Oakland, California, Meyer’s father was a policeman and his mother a nurse. While in his early teens, the young Russ began making amateur films, winning prizes in contests by the age of fifteen. At the start of World War II, Meyer joined the army, and was assigned to the 166th Signal Photographic Corps, where he was to film General Omar Bradley’s First Army and General George S. Patton’s Third Army throughout Germany and France. Some of Meyer’s amazing war footage turned up later in Franklin Schaffner’s 1970 film, Patton. Returning home after his stint as a newsreel cameraman, Meyer began shooting industrial pictures for companies such as Standard Oil. An interest in commercial filmmaking was temporarily put on hold when he found that Hollywood had no interest in his radical/raunchy ideas. So instead, the well-trained photographer with a passion for well-endowed females turned to Playboy, where he is credited with shooting some of the magazine’s earliest centerfolds. In 1959, Meyer joined forces with producer Peter DeCenzie, owner of the El Ray Burlesque Theatre in Oakland. Given a budget of only $76,000 to work with, Meyer filmed The Immoral Mr. Teas in a mere five days. The first soft-core porn film to earn a substantial profit (over a million dollars), Mr. Teas was a huge success and inspired a ‘‘nudie-flick’’ craze which resulted in approximately 150 MICHEAUXDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 677 substandard endeavors within a three-year period, including five by Meyer himself. Not surprisingly, this craze led to a great deal of controversy, with Hollywood condemning the films in question as ‘‘sleaze’’ and ‘‘smut.’’ The censorship debates which followed, however, eventually resulted in a more tolerant policy towards the presentation of sexually explicit content on the big screen. With the money earned from Mr. Teas, Meyers began to self- finance a string of low-budget drive-in features (all of which he directed, and many of which he wrote, edited, and/or photographed), features which became increasingly bizarre, violent, and cartoonish. In 1964–65, during his so-called ‘‘Gothic Period,’’ Meyer established himself as both a cinematic visionary and a commercially successful auteur. The quartet of stark black-and-white films released during this period—Lorna, Mudhoney (a.k.a. Rope of Flesh), Motorpsycho, and Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!—are considered by many to be his best work, as he downplayed the bawdy voyeurism in favor of more sinister, narrative-driven films. Lorna tells the story of a young, beautiful, sexually frustrated housewife who temporarily falls for an escaped convict. By the time she realizes the error of her ways, it is too late, as she winds up dead following a tussle with her former lover. Among the many surprises of this erotic morality play is the acting of Hal Hopper, utterly convincing as a vulgar rapist with a hankering for Lorna. Hopper also stars in Mudhoney (based on the Friday Locke novel, Streets Paved with Gold), this time as a drunken scoundrel who winds up getting lynched after going insane and burning down his wife’s barn. Like so many of Meyer’s films, Mudhoney exudes a visual, as well as a diegetic, pleasure in assertive, big-breasted women. But as Stephanie Watson and Jack Sargeant point out, unlike the other films ‘‘it both resonates with, and examines the construction of, the American Dream, in a way which goes beyond kitsch parody.’’ With Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, Meyer reached the height of his creative powers. This proto-feminist tale of kidnapping, cat-fighting, and drag-racing stars a trio of ample-chested butch outlaws who let off steam any way they want to out in the middle of the desert. Called a ‘‘head-on collision of respectable art and worthless trash’’ by one critic, Faster Pussycat! was made at the suggestion of Meyer’s wife Eve, and provided a welcome alternative to the often-misogynistic male action films of the era. Though Meyer focuses as much as ever on the gigantic breasts of his lead actresses, these are not dumb bimbos but canny women with a penchant for sadism and an insati- able need for action and excitement. After the blockbuster success of Vixen! in 1968, Meyer was hired by 20th Century-Fox to make big-budget studio pictures. The first of these, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970), was a huge hit, combining Meyer’s trademark directorial style with 1960’s subcul- ture jargon provided by a young Roger Ebert. This ‘‘sex-’n’-sleaze’’ masterpiece was followed the next year by an uncharacteristically serious production, The Seven Minutes, which garnered only a luke- warm reception amongst both audiences and critics. With Blacksnake! (1973), Meyer returned to the kind of filmmaking he did best, and continued in the sex-and-violence vein until his directorial career reached its logical (or rather, absurd) conclusion in 1979 with Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens. Since then, in addition to appearing as himself in a number of X-rated documenta- ries, and overseeing the distribution of his films in Europe and around the world, Meyer has spent his time working on various autobi- ographies—both in print (A Clean Breast) and in film (the uncompleted Breast of Russ Meyers). Fitting occupations for a man who, in the words of historian David Gebroe, ‘‘unleashed a slew of epic Freudian fantasies upon the silver screen of the drive-in,’’ a man who has spent his entire professional life ‘‘rewriting history though the perspective of the overflowing bust.’’ —Steven Schneider MICHEAUX, Oscar Nationality: American. Born: Metropolis, Illinois, 1884. Family: Married actress Alice Russell, 1929. Career: Pullman porter, then farmer, South Dakota, to 1914; published The Homesteader, 1914; founder, Western Book and Supply Company, Sioux City, Iowa, 1915; founded Micheaux Film and Book Corporation (later Micheaux Pictures Corporation), based in Sioux City and Chicago, to produce film version of The Homesteader, 1918; established office in New York City, 1921; company filed for bankruptcy, 1928, reorganized 1929; directed first ‘‘all-talkie,’’ The Exile, 1931. Died: In Charlotte, North Carolina, c. 1951. Films as Director, Producer, Scriptwriter and Editor: (partial list) 1919 The Homesteader; Circumstantial Evidence 1920 Within Our Gates 1921 Deceit; The Gunsaulus Mystery 1922 The Dungeon 1924 Son of Satan; Birthright 1925 Body and Soul mid-1920s The House behind the Cedars 1928 Easy Street 1930 A Daughter of the Congo 1931 The Exile 1932 Ten Minutes to Live; The Girl from Chicago 1936 Swing; Underworld; Temptation 1937 Miracle in Harlem 1938 God’s Stepchildren 1939 Lying Lips; Birthright (sound version) 1940 The Notorious Elinor Lee 1948 The Betrayal Publications By MICHEAUX: article— Article in Philadelphia Afro-American, 24 January 1925. On MICHEAUX: books— Sampson, Henry, Blacks in Black and White, Metuchen, New Jer- sey, 1977. Young, Joseph A., Black Novelist as White Racist: The Myth of Black Inferiority in the Novels of Oscar Micheaux, Westport, Connecti- cut, 1989. MIKHALKOV DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 678 Green, J. Ronald, Straight Lick: The Cinema of Oscar Micheaux, Bloomington, Indiana, 2000. Bowser, Pearl, and Louise Spencer, Writing Himself into History: Oscar Micheaux, His Silent Films, and His Audiences, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 2000. On MICHEAUX: articles— Cox, Clinton, ‘‘We Were Stars in Those Days,’’ in New York Sunday News, 9 March 1975. Fontenot, Chester J., Jr., ‘‘Oscar Micheaux, Black Novelist and Film Maker,’’ in Vision and Refuge, edited by Frederick C. Luebke, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1982. Bowser, P., ‘‘Oscar Micheaux, le pionnier,’’ in CinémAction (Paris), January 1988. Grupenhoff, R., ‘‘The Rediscovery of Oscar Micheaux, Black Film Pioneer,’’ in Journal of Film and Video (Boston), Winter 1988. Green, J.R., and H. Neal Jr., ‘‘Oscar Micheaux and Racial Slur: A Response to ‘The Rediscovery of Oscar Micheaux,’’’ in Jour- nal of Film and Video (Boston), Fall 1988. Gehr, R., ‘‘One-man Show,’’ in American Film (Marion, Ohio), vol. 16, no. 5, May 1991. Regester, Charlene, ‘‘The Misreading and Rereading of African- American Filmmaker Oscar Micheaux,’’ in Film History (Lon- don), vol. 7, no. 4, Winter 1995. Green, J. Ronald, ‘‘Oscar Micheaux’s Interrogation of Caricature as Entertainment,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), vol. 51, no. 3, Spring 1998. *** Until the late 1940s, film roles for blacks in Hollywood were clichéd and demeaning: mammies, butlers, maids, Pullman porters, all decimating the English language while happily, mindlessly serv- ing their white masters. As a result, independent filmmakers—a majority of whom were white—produced approximately three hun- dred ‘‘race’’ films especially for ghetto audiences. Easily the most famous and prolific of these filmmakers was a black man, Oscar Micheaux, a one-man production and distribution company who shot over thirty features between 1918 and 1948. Micheaux’s origins—and even an accurate list of his films— cannot be clearly determined, at least from existing volumes on the black cinema, but several facts are certain. Micheaux was a vigorous promoter who toured the nation’s black ghettos, establishing contact with community leaders and convincing theater owners to screen his films. He would then dispatch his actors for personal appearances. Micheaux’s budgets were meager, between $10,000 and $20,000 per feature, and he economized on sets, shooting schedules, and behind-the-scenes personnel. He often filmed a complete feature on a single set, which may have been a private home or office. Scenes were rarely shot in more than one take; if an actor blew his lines, he just recovered his composure and completed his business. As a result, production values and performances were generally dreadful. Some of Micheaux’s films do attempt to address serious issues. Within Our Gates features a sequence in which a black is lynched. Birthright (the 1939 version) is the tale of a black Harvard graduate who experiences opposition from those of his own race as well as whites. God’s Stepchildren centers on a light-skinned black who tries to pass for white. Because of this subject matter, Micheaux was occasionally threatened by local censors. However, the filmmaker was concerned mostly with entertaining and earning profits, not with controversy. Actors’ screen personas were modelled after those of contemporary Hollywood stars: Lorenzo Tucker was the ‘‘Black Valentino’’ and, after the advent of sound, the ‘‘colored William Powell’’; Bee Freeman became the ‘‘sepia Mae West’’; Slick Chester the ‘‘colored Cagney’’; Ethel Moses the ‘‘negro Harlow.’’ Plotlines also mirrored those of Hollywood prod- ucts: The Underworld is a gangster film; Temptation, a De Mille-like sex epic; Daughter of the Congo, a melodrama set in Africa. Micheaux also directed the first all-talking black independent feature, The Exile, and 26-year-old Paul Robeson made his screen debut in a Micheaux melodrama, Body and Soul. —Rob Edelman MIKHALKOV, Nikita Nationality: Russian. Born: Nikita Sergeyevich Mikhalkov- Konchalovsky in Moscow, 21 October 1945. Education: Studied acting at the Stanislavsky Theater Children’s Studio and the Chuksin School of the Vakhtangov Theater; studied directing under Mikhail Romm at VGIK, the State Film Institute in Moscow. Family: Married 1) Anastasya Vertinskaya (divorced), 2) Tatyana Mikhalkova; two sons, two daughters; Mikhalkov’s great-grandfather is the painter Sourikov; his grandfather is the painter Konchalovski; his father is Sergei Mikhalkov, a writer and former chairman of the USSR Writers Union; his mother is poet Natalia Konchalovskaia; his brother is director Andrei Konchalovski. Career: Began performing on stage and screen, making his movie debut in 1964; directed first short film, I’m Coming Home, 1968; submitted his VGIK diploma film, A Quiet Day at the End of the War, 1970; secured his international reputation with A Slave of Love, 1976. Awards: Grand Prix, San Sebastian Festival, for An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano, 1977; Oscar nomination, Best Foreign Film, and Prize at Venice Festival, for Urga, 1990; Oscar, Best Foreign Language Film, and Jury Prize, Cannes Festival, for Burnt by the Sun, 1994. Address: Malaya Gruzinskaya 28, Apt. 10, 123557 Moscow, Russia. Films as Director and Screenwriter: 1968 I’m Coming Home (short) 1970 A Quiet Day at the End of the War (diploma film) 1974 Svoi sriedi chougikh (At Home among Strangers; A Stranger among His Own People) (+ role) 1976 Raba lubvi (A Slave of Love) (+ role) 1977 Neokontchennaya piesa dlia mekhanitcheskogo pianino (An Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano) (+ role) 1979 Pyat vecheroc (Five Evenings) (d only) 1980 Oblomov (Several Days in the Life of I. I. Oblomov) 1982 Rodnya (Family Relations; Family Ties; Kinfolk) (d only) (+ role) 1983 Bes svideteley (Without Witness; A Private Conversation) 1987 Oci ciornie (Dark Eyes) MIKHALKOVDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 679 Nikita Mikhalkov 1990 Urga (Close to Eden) 1993 Anna: 6–18 (+ co-pr, appearance) 1994 Outomlionnye solntsem (Burnt by the Sun) (+ co-pr, role) 1995 Nikita Mikhalkov: Sentimentalnoye puteshestviye na rodinu. Muzyka russkoj zhivopisi (Nikita Mikhalkov: A Sentimental Trip Home. Music of Russian Painting) 1998 Sibirskij tsiryulnik (The Barber of Siberia) (+ role as Czar Alexander II, co-sc, co-pr) Other Films (incomplete listing): 1964 Ya shagayu po Moskve (Meet Me in Moscow; I’m Wandering through Moscow) (Danelia) (role as Kolka) 1967 Csillagosok, katonak (The Red and the White) (Jancso) (role as White Officer) 1969 Dvorianckoe gnezdo (A Nest of Gentry; A Nest of Noblemen) (Konchalovski) (role as Prince Nelidov) 1971 Krasnaya palatka (The Red Tent) (Kalatozov) (role as Chuknovsky, Icebreaker Pilot); Sport Sport Sport (Klimov) (appearance); Pesnya Manshuk (Song of Manchuk) (Begalin) 1978 Siberiade (Konchalovski) (role as Alexei); Nenavist (Hatred) (Gasparov) (co-sc) 1983 Polioty vo sne naiavou (Flights of Fancy; Dream Flight) (Balayan) (role as Director); Vokzal dla dvoish (Station for Two) (Ryazanov) (role as Vera’s Boyfriend) 1984 Jestoki romans (Cruel Romance; Ruthless Romance) (Ryazanov) (role as Sergei Paratov) 1990 Pod severnym siyaniyem (Aurora) (role) 1991 Unizhennye I oskorblyonnye (The Insulted and the Injured) (role) 1996 Revizor (role as Inspector) 2000 Vera, nadezhda, krov’ (Dubrovina) (role) Publications By MIKHALKOV: books— Griffiths, Trevor, Aleksandr Artemovich Adabashian, and Nikita Mikhalkov, Piano: A New Play for Theatre Based on the Film Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano, London, 1990. MIKHALKOV DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 680 By MIKHALKOV: articles— ‘‘Nikita Mikhalkov: Directing Means Taking a Stand,’’ interview with E. Barteneva in Soviet Film (Moscow), no. 231, 1976. Interview with A. Lipkow in Film und Fernsehen (Berlin), vol. 5, no. 7, 1977. Interview with L. Bajer and J. Plazewski in Kino (Warsaw), Febru- ary 1977. Interview with P. Hoff in Film und Fernsehen (Berlin), vol. 8, nos. 2/3, 1980. ‘‘A Soviet Director Confronts Oblomov,’’ interview with R.W. Apple in New York Times, 8 March 1981. Interview with H. Willemse and O. Surkova in Skoop (Amsterdam), December 1984/January 1985. Interview with Z. Kiraly in Filmvilag (Hungary), vol. 28, no. 9, 1985. Mikhalkov, Nikita, ‘‘Oblomov vagy Stolz,’’ in Filmvilag (Hungary), vol. 30, no. 7, 1987. Interview with K. Jaehne in Cineaste (New York), vol. 16, nos. 1/2, 1987/1988. Interview with P. Taggi in Segnocinema (Vicenza, Italy), May 1987. Interview in Film und Fernsehen (Berlin), vol. 17, no. 5, 1989. Interview with J. Houdek and K. Rihova in Film A Doba (Prague), August 1990. Interview with U. Koch in Film Bulletin (Winterhur, Switzerland), vol. 33, nos. 5/6, 1991. Interview with J. Gazda in Kino (Warsaw), March 1991. ‘‘Un Russe au pays de Soviets,’’ interview with T. Bourguignon and O. Kohn in Positif (Paris), October 1991. Mikhalkov, Nikita, ‘‘Jak narodzila sie Urga,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), February 1992. Interview with P. Murat in Kino (Warsaw), February 1992. ‘‘Into a New World,’’ interview with E. Tsymbal in Sight and Sound (London), November 1992. Interview with L. Joris, in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), October 1994. ‘‘Volt egyszer egy Oblomov?,’’ an interview with P. Vail’, in Filmvilag (Budapest), no. 6, 1996. On MIKHALKOV: books— Borelli, Sauro, Nikita Mikhalkov, Florence, 1981. Sandler, A. M., and Annette Mikhailovna, Nikita Mikhalkov: Sbornik, Moscow, 1989. On MIKHALKOV: articles— Jaehne, K., ‘‘Rehabilitating the Superfluous Man: The Films in the Life of Nikita Mikhalkov,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley, Califor- nia), Summer 1981. Kopanevova, G., article in Film a Doba (Prague), July 1981. Grenier, Richard, ‘‘A Soviet New Wave,’’ in Commentary (New York), July 1981. Forgacs, I., article in Filmkultura (Budapest), vol. 22, no. 11, 1986. Lipkov, A., article in Filmkultura (Budapest), vol. 22, no. 11, 1986. Stuart, J., ‘‘Mikhalkov to Lens First Non-Soviet Pic on Russian Locale,’’ in Variety (New York), 16 July 1986. Bilkova, M., article in Film a Doba (Prague), October 1986. ‘‘Italo-Soviet Pic Mostly a Breeze,’’ in Variety (New York), 22 October 1986. Canby, Vincent, ‘‘Film View: The Brothers Konchalovsky- Mikhalkov,’’ in New York Times, 24 May 1987. Amiel, V., article in Positif (Paris), September 1987. Kral, P., article in Positif (Paris), September 1987. Bennetts, Leslie, ‘‘An Unlikely Match for a Movie,’’ in New York Times, 29 September 1987. Jaehne, K., ‘‘The Brothers M-K,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1987. Harvey, Andrew, ‘‘Infidelity: Italian (and Russian) Style,’’ in Vogue (New York), October 1987. Biography-filmography in L’Avant Scene Cinéma (Paris), Novem- ber 1987. Gold, R., ‘‘Dubbed Version of Dark Eyes Aimed at Widened U.S. Audience,’’ in Variety (New York), 2 March 1988. Goodwin, D., ‘‘Honor among Poets,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), August 1988. Brashinsky, M., ‘‘The Anthill in the Year of the Dragon,’’ in New Orleans Review, vol. 17, no. 1, 1990. Biography-filmography in Film Dope (London), January 1990. ‘‘Feature Hits Going to the Dogs,’’ in Variety (New York), 2 May 1990. Gazda, J., article in Kino (Warsaw), March 1991. Haviarova, M., article in Kino (Warsaw), March 1991. Kopanevova, G., article in Kino (Warsaw), March 1991. ‘‘Pair Who Split a Name Share the Honors,’’ in Variety (New York), 24 June 1991. Sorenson, E., article in Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 34, no. 1, 1992. Young, Deborah, and Michael Williams, ‘‘Iron Curtain Alums Test West’s Mettle,’’ in Variety (New York), 29 June 1992. Hoberman, J., ‘‘Out and Inner Mongolia,’’ in Premiere (New York), October 1992. Jacobson, H., ‘‘Life on the Steppes: Isn’t It Romantic?,’’ in New York Times, 25 October 1992. Ball, E., ‘‘Through a Glasnost Darkly,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 3 November 1992. Epstein, Robert, ‘‘Director Nikita Mikhalkov’s Declaration of Inde- pendence,’’ in Los Angeles Times, 5 November 1992. Carr, Jay, ‘‘Preserving Paradise,’’ in Boston Globe, 14 February 1993. Murray, Steve, ‘‘Improvisation Pays for Oscar-nominated Eden,’’ in Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 15 March 1993. Maslin, Janet, ‘‘A Dark Comedy Wins at Cannes,’’ in New York Times, 24 May 1994. Stanley, Alessandra, ‘‘Surviving and Disturbing in Moscow,’’ in New York Times, 21 March 1995. Lipman, Masha, ‘‘Russians Beam over Sun’s Oscar,’’ in Washington Post, 29 March 1995. Filipov, David, ‘‘Post-Soviet Screen Struggle,’’ in Boston Globe, 12 April 1995. Thomas, Kevin, ‘‘Welcome Rays from Sun,’’ in Los Angeles Times, 22 April 1995. Leydon, Joe, ‘‘From Stalin to Oscar,’’ in Boston Globe, 14 May 1995. Glaessner, V., ‘‘Blind Faith,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Janu- ary 1996. Moskvina, T., ‘‘Velikaia illiuziia,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), no. 6, 1997. *** MILESTONEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 681 Although he did not come to prominence as a director until the mid-1970s, Nikita Mikhalkov ranks among the most gifted Russian filmmakers of the entire post-World War II era. His films are highly emotional examinations of what it means to be Russian amid the swirl of politics and turmoil that has characterized his homeland during the twentieth century. In fact, he presently finds himself one of the few Russian directors whose career has flourished since the disintegration of the USSR. While Mikhalkov’s equally celebrated brother, director Andrei Konchalovsky, decided to leave their homeland in the early 1980s and work in the West, Mikhalkov chose to remain in Russia. From that vantage point he watched his international reputation expand while steadfastly continuing to make films that are uniquely Russian in subject matter and flavor. Burnt by the Sun serves as a high point of Mikhalkov’s career in that it earned him a Cannes Film Festival prize and an Academy Award. It also is the work of an artist completely freed from censorial restriction; the film is dedicated to all those who were ‘‘burnt by the betraying sun of the revolution.’’ The year is 1936, and the filmmaker himself (who began his career as an actor) stars as Sergei Kotov, aging hero of the Bolshevik Revolution. Sergei and his family enjoy an idyllic existence at their country house. The fact of Joseph Stalin’s tyranny seems a fantasy. But all of this is certain to change upon the arrival of Dimitri, the ex-lover of Sergei’s young wife, Maroussia. He begins enticing Sergei and Maroussia’s daughter, Nadia (played by Nadia Mikhalkov, the director’s real-life offspring). The fact that Dimitri is employed by Stalin’s governmental police does not bode well for Sergei. Ultimately, Burnt by the Sun is the statement of an artist attempting to explore and understand the unpleasantries in the not-too-distant political past of his cherished homeland. A number of Mikhalkov’s other films deal directly with the political history of post-revolutionary Russia. At Home among Strang- ers, his very first effort out of film school, is set in the 1920s, during a civil war which occurred directly after the revolution. It is a ‘‘Rus- sian Western’’ about some brigands who steal gold that is meant to be used for the purchase of wheat to feed the hungry. The hero is a revolutionary who is thought to be disloyal to the cause, and who infiltrates the gang. Mikhalkov firmed up his international reputation with his third feature, A Slave of Love. It is set in Southern Russia in the late teens of the twentieth century, during the filming of an inconsequential movie melodrama. The story involves the transformation of Olga, a spoiled, class-conscious actress, as she falls in love with a Bolshevik camera- man. This funny and poignant film is effective as a reflection of both the early years of movie-making and the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. At Home among Strangers and A Slave of Love make for a fasci- nating contrast to Burnt by the Sun. The first two—made when the Soviets were still in power—depict the heroics of the revolution, and characters who become inspired by the revolutionary spirit; the latter spotlights the cruel reality of life under Stalin, and the plight and fate of one once-heroic but now-deluded revolutionary. Meanwhile, other Mikhalkov films are set in pre-Revolutionary times. Oblomov (A Few Days in the Life of I. I. Oblomov)—arguably his most deeply layered and emotionally complex film—is a lyrical adaptation of the famous Russian novel written by Ivan Goncharov in 1858. The title character is a thirtyish civil servant and absentee landlord who decides to retire to a listless existence in bed. The flashback sequences of Oblomov as a boy in his mother’s arms are nothing short of wonderful. Mikhalkov has adapted other works from literary sources, most especially Chekhov; in fact, A Slave of Love was praised by critics for its Chekhovian cleverness. An Unfinished Piece for Player Piano is an affecting account of the various goings-on one lazy summer afternoon at the country estate of a general’s widow. The many guests include husbands, wives, and former lovers, and the film—an adaptation of Platonov, Chekhov’s first play—is noteworthy for its gallery of finely realized characterizations. Despite his loyalty to Russia, Mikhalkov has not worked exclu- sively in his homeland. He went to Italy to film Dark Eyes, featuring Marcello Mastroianni in a role he was born to play: Romano, a likably charming but lazy lothario whose soul is sadly hollow, and who cannot comprehend that he has allowed life to pass him by. The scenario is loosely based on several Chekhov short stories. And Close to Eden is a bright comedy set in a contemporary China where ancient customs conflict with modern values. The story concerns a peasant couple who reside in a small village amid the expansive steppes of Inner Mongolia. They are the parents of three children. Chinese law forbids them to have a fourth, so the husband—a shepherd who reveres Genghis Khan—sets out to procure birth control. Regarding his affinity for Chekhov’s works, Mikhalkov once observed that the writer ‘‘feels very close to me because he offers no answers to the questions he poses. Chekhov’s characters seek an answer which they never find. I too don’t know the answer. I’m not even sure that knowing it would make me any happier. What is important is the search for the truth; that is happiness.’’ This state- ment relates not just to Chekhov but to the manner in which Mikhalkov has attempted to depict and, ultimately, understand the changing face of Russia. —Rob Edelman MILESTONE, Lewis Nationality: American. Born: Family name Milstein; born in Chisinau, near Odessa, Russia, 30 September 1895, became U.S. citizen and changed name to Milestone, 1919. Education: Jewish schools in Kishinev, Russia; University of Ghent, Belgium; engineering college in Mitweide, Germany. Family: Married Kendall Lee Glaezner, 1935 (died 1978). Military Service: Served in U.S. Army Signal Corps photography section, 1917–19. Career: Immigrated to United States, 1913; photographer’s assistant, 1915; after military service, became assistant to Henry King, Hollywood, 1919; worked at Ince and Sennett studios, 1920–21; assistant editor at Fox, 1922; editor at Warner Brothers, 1923; signed contract with Howard Hughes’s Caddo Company, 1927; production head for United Artists, 1932; compiled documentary with Joris Ivens, Our Russian Front, 1942; appeared as unfriendly witness before House Un-American Activities Committee, 1946; directed series for television, 1957–58. Awards: Oscar for Best Comedy Direction, for Two Arabian Knights, 1927; MILESTONE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 682 Lewis Milestone Oscar for Best Direction, for All Quiet on the Western Front, 1930. Died: In Los Angeles, 25 September 1980. Films as Director: 1925 Seven Sinners (+ co-sc) 1926 The Caveman; The New Klondike 1927 Two Arabian Knights 1928 The Garden of Eden; The Racket 1929 Betrayal; New York Nights 1930 All Quiet on the Western Front 1931 The Front Page 1932 Rain 1933 Hallelujah, I’m a Bum 1934 The Captain Hates the Sea 1935 Paris in the Spring 1936 Anything Goes; The General Died at Dawn 1939 The Night of Nights 1940 Of Mice and Men (+ pr); Lucky Partners 1941 My Life with Caroline 1942 Our Russian Front (co-d, co-pr, ed) 1943 Edge of Darkness; The North Star 1944 The Purple Heart 1946 A Walk in the Sun (+ pr); The Strange Love of Martha Ivers 1948 Arch of Triumph (+ co-sc); No Minor Vices (+ pr) 1949 The Red Pony (+ pr) 1951 Halls of Montezuma 1952 Kangaroo; Les Miserables 1953 Melba; They Who Dare 1957 La Vedova (The Widow) 1959 Pork Chop Hill 1960 Ocean’s Eleven (+ pr) 1962 Mutiny on the Bounty Publications By MILESTONE: articles— Interview with Herbert Feinstein, in Film Culture (New York), September 1964. Interview, in The Celluloid Muse: Hollywood Directors Speak, by Charles Higham and Joel Greenberg, Chicago, 1969. Interview with Digby Diehl, in Action (Los Angeles), July/Au- gust 1972. ‘‘The Reign of the Director,’’ in Hollywood Directors: 1914–1940, edited by Richard Koszarski, New York, 1976. ‘‘First Aid for a Sick Giant,’’ in Hollywood Directors: 1941–1976, edited by Richard Koszarski, New York, 1977. On MILESTONE: books— Denton, Clive, and others, The Hollywood Professionals—Vol. 2: Henry King, Lewis Milestone, Sam Wood, New York, 1974. Parker, David, and Burton Shapiro, Close Up: The Contract Director, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1976. Millichap, Joseph, Lewis Milestone, Boston, 1981. On MILESTONE: articles— Goodman, Ezra, ‘‘Directed by Lewis Milestone,’’ in Theater Arts (New York), February 1943. Reisz, Karel, ‘‘Milestone and War,’’ in Sequence (London), 1950. Ferguson, Otis, ‘‘Lewis Milestone ‘Action!’,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1974. Everson, William, ‘‘Thoughts on a Great Adaptation,’’ in The Mod- ern American Novel and the Movies, edited by Gerald Peary and Roger Shatzkin, New York, 1978. Jameson, R.T., ‘‘Style vs. ‘Style’,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1980. Mitchell, G.J., ‘‘Making All Quiet on the Western Front,’’ in Ameri- can Cinematographer (Los Angeles), September 1985. ‘‘Lewis Milestone,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), no. 43, Janu- ary 1990. Hanisch, Michael, ‘‘Sein Thema war der Krieg,’’ in Film-Dienst (Cologne), vol. 48, no. 20, 26 September 1995. *** Lewis Milestone is undoubtedly best remembered for his classic statement against the horrors of war, All Quiet on the Western Front, MILLERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 683 for which he won an Academy Award. The film, coming so early in his career, raised high hopes that subsequent efforts would expand upon the brilliant potential exhibited in his first effort. In the minds of many, his following work, with the exception of 1931’s The Front Page, failed to live up to this early promise. Through films like Rain, Of Mice and Men, Pork Chop Hill, and Mutiny on the Bounty, Milestone achieved a lesser reputation. He came to be known as a competent journeyman director and an excellent craftsman who, with good actors and a strong script, was capable of producing solid, entertaining films. The fundamental charge leveled against him by most critics was that he maintained a lackadaisical attitude toward run-of-the-mill projects. Such assessments, however, overlook the outstanding achieve- ment of at least one film, the much undervalued A Walk in the Sun. In this film the director’s inspired use of sound, coupled with some shifts in perspective, turned a routine war drama into a small classic that compares favorably with his best work. Stylistically and thematically, it expands on the innovations of All Quiet on the Western Front and, at the same time, represents perhaps the most creative use of sound since it was introduced to films. Milestone’s experimentation with what the audience hears began with a unique approach to the film’s narration; he added a brooding, recurring ballad as accompaniment. The ballad functions much like a chorus in a Greek play by introducing and commenting on the action. The sentiments of the song are then fleshed out through the audible thoughts and the dialogues and monologues of individual soldiers. The war is perceived through sound, allowing the audience to experience it as the fighting men do. Modern war is fought against an enemy that the average soldier rarely sees. Instead, bomb blasts, strafing from the air, and mortar fire are heard as soldiers crouch in foxholes, fearing to lift their eyes. A Walk in the Sun, by its very refusal to gratify the eye with images of battle and by its emphasis on the small talk of soldiers, creates a microcosm of war that effectively epitomizes the men who must fight all wars. Through Milestone’s inspired use of previously overlooked audio techniques, he achieves the sensitivity of treatment in delineating his characters that many critics had found lacking in his work. Milestone has yet to receive the critical reassessment that he undoubtedly deserves. Films as diverse as A Walk in the Sun and The Strange Love of Martha Ivers indicate that his later films contain moments of high achievement comparable to his two great early efforts. They also suggest a greater correlation between his technical innovations and his sensitively handled theme of men in groups than many scholars give him credit for. —Stephen L. Hanson MILLER, Claude Nationality: French. Born: Paris, 20 February 1942. Education: IDHEC Film School, Paris, 1962–63. Military Service: National service in Le Service cinématographique de l’armée, 1964. Family: Married writer Annie Miller. Career: Worked in various capacities for other directors, including René Allio, Robert Bresson, Marcel Carné, Jacques Demy, Jean-Luc Godard, and Fran?ois Truffaut, from 1965; directed six-part series Traits de mémoire for TV, 1974; directed first feature, 1976; also director of TV advertisements; Claude Miller President of ARP (Association des Réalisateurs Producteurs), 1999. Awards: Best Screenplay, Montreal, for Garde à vue, 1981; César for Best Scenario, for Garde à vue, 1982; Special Jury prize and Fipresci Award, Istanbul, for L’Accompagnatrice, 1993; Jury Prize, Cannes Film Festival, for La Classe de neige, 1998; Fipresci Award, Berlin, for La Chambre des magiciennes, 2000. Films as Director and Co-Scriptwriter: 1967 Juliette dans Paris (short) 1969 La Question ordinaire (short) 1971 Camille ou la Comédie catastrophique (short) 1976 La meilleure fa?on de marcher (The Best Way of Walking) (+ co-adapter, co-dialogue) 1977 Dites-lui que je l’aime (This Sweet Sickness) (+ co-adapter, co-dialogue) 1981 Garde à vue (Under Suspicion) (co-adapter) 1983 Mortelle randonnée (Deadly Circuit) 1985 L’Effrontée (An Impudent Girl) (+ co-dialogue) 1988 La Petite Voleuse (The Little Thief) (+ co-adapter, co-dialogue) 1992 L’Accompagnatrice (The Accompanist) (+ co-adapter, co-dialogue) 1994 Le Sourire (The Smile) (+ co-exec pr) 1995 Les Enfants de Lumière (The Children of Lumière) (co-d); Lumière et Compagnie (Lumière and Company) (co-d) 1998 La Classe de neige (The Class Trip) (+ co-adapter) 2000 La Chambre des magiciennes (+ co-adapter) MILLER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 684 Other Films: 1964 Patrouille en zone minée (short) (for the Service Cinématographique de l’armée); Transmission de la divi- sion 59 (short; co-directed with Bernard Stora) (for the Service Cinématographique de l’armée) 1965 Trois Chambres à Manhattan (Carné) (asst d); Nick Carter et la trèfle rouge (Savignac) (asst d); Le Dimanche de la vie (Herman) (asst d) 1966 Au Hasard, Balthazar (Bresson) (asst d); Martin Soldat (Deville) (asst d) 1967 Les Demoiselles de Rochefort (Demy) (asst d); 2 ou 3 Choses que je sais d’elle (Godard) (asst d, role); ‘‘Anticipation’’ episode of Le Plus vieux métier du monde (Godard) (asst d); La Chinoise ou plut?t à la chinoise (Godard) (asst d); Weekend (Godard) (asst d) 1968 L’Ecume des jours (Belmont) (production manager); Baisers volés (Truffaut) (production manager); Pierre et Paul (Allio) (production manager) 1969 La Sirène du Mississipi (Truffaut) (production manager); L’Enfant sauvage (Truffaut) (production manager, role) 1970 Domicile conjugal (Truffaut) (production manager) 1971 Les Deux Anglaises et le continent (Truffaut) (production manager); La Voix du large (short) (Porcile) (production manager) 1972 Une Belle fille comme moi (Truffaut) (production manager) 1973 Elle court, elle court la banlieue (Pirès) (asst d); La Nuit américaine (Truffaut) (production manager); Les Gaspards (Tchernia) (production manager) 1975 L’Histoire d’Adèle H. (Truffaut) (production manager) 1976 L’Ordinateur des pompes funèbres (Pirès) (role) 1978 La Tortue sur le dos (Béraud) (co-sc, co-dialogue, role) 1979 Félicité (Pascal) (role) 1981 Plein Sud (Béraud) (co-sc, co-dialogue, role) 1987 Vent de panique (Stora) (co-sc) 2000 Under Suspicion (Hopkins) (co-sc) Publications By MILLER: articles— Interviews in Positif (Paris), March 1976, November 1981, January 1986, February 1989, and September 1994. Interviews in Cinématographe (Paris), April/May 1976, October 1981, July/August 1982, and October 1986. Interview in Cinéma, April 1976. Interview in Film Fran?ais, December 1976. Interview in Jeune Cinéma, November 1977. Interviews in Cinéma Fran?ais (Paris), October 1977 and March 1978. Interviews in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1977/78 and Spring 1978. Interview in 24 Images, no. 11, December 1981. Interview in Télérama, September 1985. Interviews in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1981 and May 1985. Interviews in Première (Paris), December 1985, February 1988, and January 1989. Interview in Revue du Cinéma, no. 412, January 1986. Interview in Positif (Paris), no. 300, February 1986. Interview in Cinématographe (Paris), no. 123, October 1986. Interview with L. Bonneville, in Séquences (Montreal), April 1986. Interview in Première (Paris), no. 131, February 1988. Interview with G. Legrand and O. Curchod, in Positif (Paris), no.336, February 1989. Interview in American Film, vol. 15. no. 1, October 1989. Interview with O. Curchod, in Positif (Paris), no. 493, Septem- ber 1994. Interview with O. Curchod, in Positif (Paris), no. 419, January 1996. Interview in Télérama (Paris), no. 2522, 13 May 1998. ‘‘Journal du montage de La Classe de neige,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 448, June 1998. Interview in Le Film Fran?ais (Paris), no. 2740, 25 September 1998. ‘‘Miller(s) Crossing,’’ interview with Christophe Carrière, in Première (Paris), no. 259, October 1998. On MILLER: articles— ‘‘La meilleure fa?on de marcher Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), no. 168, 1976. ‘‘Garde à vue Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), no. 228, 1982. Article in Revue du Cinéma, June 1984. Article in Cahiers du Cinéma, May 1985. Claude Miller Section of Positif (Paris), January 1986. Chevassu, F., ‘‘Sur cinq films de Claude Miller,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), no. 445, January 1989. Article in Sight and Sound (London) vol.58, no. 2, Spring 1989. Article in Film Comment, July/August 1989. Ellero, R., ‘‘Il cinema secondo Miller,’’ in Segno, July 1990. ‘‘Claude Miller,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham, England), no. 43, January 1990. Article in Positif, no. 403, September 1994. Article in Studio Magazine, September 1994. Télérama (Paris), no. 2603, 1 December 1999. Cliff, N., ‘‘The Lord of Misrule,’’ in The Times (London), 21 January 1999. C., J-M., ‘‘Claude Miller enr?le des magiciennes pour Arte,’’ in Le Film Fran?ais, no. 2774, 14 May 1999. *** In character-centred films that sympathetically portray the tribula- tions of insecure or emotionally disturbed individuals, Claude Miller reveals close affinities with his former mentor Fran?ois Truffaut. He shares not only Truffaut’s humanitarian vision and refusal to moralise, but also his concern for carefully wrought narratives with an eco- nomical, resonant style. After theoretical studies at IDHEC and work with the army film unit, Miller pursued his training under Carné, Bresson, and Demy. However, the most formative experiences came as assistant to Godard (from 2 ou 3 Choses que je sais d’elle to Weekend) and as production manager for Truffaut (from Baisers volés to L’Histoire d’Adèle H.). Godardian aesthetics and political perspectives distinguish Miller’s two early shorts: Juliette dans Paris and La Question ordinaire. The first portrays, in deliberately disquieting detail, the feline vampirism of a seemingly demure female; the second confronts Fascism by counterposing ideological statements and shocking images of torture. MILLERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 685 Miller’s third short, Camille ou la Comédie catastrophique, signals the emergence of a less self-conscious and more personal style. Primarily an exploration of sexual attitudes, the film exposes the inadequacies of two salacious seducers humiliated by the willing Camille. This debunking of male posturing anticipates Miller’s first feature, La Meilleure fa?on de marcher. It is the feature films which reveal striking similarities with Truffaut’s cinema. Miller’s prefer- ence for working with a team of trusted collaborators (photographer Bruno Nuytten, scriptwriter Luc Béraud), or a given actress (Char- lotte Gainsbourg), is much in the Truffaut tradition. Film as a form of personal statement is likewise common to Miller’s conceptions. Thus, where the adaptation of a thriller is involved (Dites-lui que je l’aime, Garde à vue, Mortelle randonnée, La Classe de neige), the narrative is refocused to provide insight into the novel’s tortured souls rather than a simple illustration of their evil deeds. This emphasis on the psychological aligns these adaptations with Miller’s more self-evi- dently personal works: La Meilleure fa?on de marcher, L’Effrontée, Le Sourire, and, from Truffaut’s unrealized scenario, La Petite Voleuse. For Miller no individual is unredeemable, and his portrayal of human frailties eschews facile condemnation. In La Meilleure fa?on de marcher, a moral Fascism is seen as the defence mechanism of males insecure about their own sexual orientation. Highsmith’s psychotic murderer David becomes the pitiful, emotionally inade- quate, and humiliated individual of Dites-lui que je l’aime. In Garde à vue, the rape investigation transforms itself into an examination of the personal relationships of detective and suspect alike, and both, in their common humanity, are found wanting. A more extreme case of symbiotic pairing, which again blurs traditional moralities, occurs in Mortelle randonnée, where the detective colludes with a multiple murderess who resembles his dead daughter. In La Petite Voleuse, as in Truffaut’s 400 Coups, social circumstances largely determine the main character’s descent into crime. Throughout Miller invites under- standing of the misfit. Frequently, the nature or expression of sexuality lies at the core of the narrative matrix. For Miller’s male characters sex is either a clumsy or a violent act, a humiliating fiasco, or for the sexagenarian of Le Sourire, a final assertion of self. In La Classe de neige, the world of the emotionally scarred adolescent Nicolas is filled with sexual fantasies while his dysfunctional father’s suppressed pedophilia is associated with obsessive images of dismemberment. By contrast the director’s females are more at ease with their sexuality. In L’Effrontée and La Petite Voleuse, where the delicately observed transitional stages of adolescence are thematic, the heroines readily antici- pate their first sexual experiences, disastrous though they are. In L’Accompagnatrice, Sophie similarly accepts the disappointment of her first brief love affair as part of a maturing awareness of the fickle nature of adult relationships. With the exception of his early self-conscious shorts, the flashy Mortelle Randonnée, and the more assertive style of Le Sourire, Miller’s work is characterised by understatement and stylistic sobri- ety: his films are concerned with sentiment rather than sensation. Acts of violence such as the murders of Dites-lui que je l’aime and La Classe de neige, or the knife incident in La Meilleure Fa?on de marcher are dramatically necessary, but not dramatised for ef- fect. Self-effacing camerawork is the norm, with close-ups used unemphatically and special effects more generally confined to his advertising work. Music, however, forms an integral part of Miller’s creation and assumes a particular importance both in mood and structure, perhaps no more so than in L’Accompagnatrice, Le Sourire and La Classe de neige. Economy is the hallmark of Miller’s expositions and narrative development: subject, characters, and loca- tions are succinctly established through juxtaposed scenes of sym- bolic resonance. The ensuing narrative is often constructed ellipti- cally and is non-linear in form, with flash-backs and fantasies merging with actual events as meaning is gradually evolved. Since the primary purpose of narrative incident is the revelation of abnormal or antisocial behavior, once this goal has been achieved, closure often follows swiftly, and even summarily, as in the photocollage ending of Garde à vue. Locations are rarely specific. Indeed there is of- ten a deliberate amalgamation of settings, as in L’Effrontée, to achieve generality. Places have importance not as geographical references but as symbolic elements in the exploration of character. The contrastive locations, ordinary house/luxurious mansion, of L’Effrontée represent the pubescent heroine’s reality and her dream; in L’Accompagnatrice, the protagonist is dazzled by the glamorous life-style of wealthy Nazi sympathizers and, rejecting her own modest background, plays along with their values; in Dites-lui que je l’aime, the dark, rainy streets are metaphorical expressions of David’s desperate mood; in La Classe de neige the purity of the snow-covered mountains contrasts the disturbed emotions of the sleep-walking Nicholas and the darker recesses of his father’s mind. The presence of water in a Miller film is frequently associated with sexuality, has connotations of evil, and is invariably a harbinger of fatalities. The lake in Le Sourire and the swimming pools of La Meilleure Fa?on de marcher, Dites-lui que je l’aime, and L’Effrontée become synony- mous with humiliation and death. Period settings are left equally vague to suggest universality, and in this respect, Miller’s uncommon use of epilogues (La Meilleure Fa?on de marcher, Dites-lui que je l’aime) constitutes a distancing from the immediate events with a prolongation of the temporal perspective. La Petite Voleuse and L’Accompagnatrice are excep- tions: the moral dilemmas posed by the Occupation are integral to the thematics of L’Accompagnatrice, while the moral climate of the postwar years is essential to the dynamics of La Petite Voleuse. The director’s films of the last decade may be seen as works of transition and renewal. L’Accompagnatrice testifies to enduring thematic con- cerns with personal values in a morally fluid society which challenges notions of integrity, fidelity, and compromise. However, Miller’s customary freshness is lacking and the film comes close to cliché and dullness. A new directness marks the referential Le Sourire, which, entirely scripted by Miller, signals a return to the more personal statements of La Meilleure Fa?on de marcher or L’Effrontée, and through its obsessional phobic images of blood and vomiting to the early Godardian short Juliet dans Paris. The opening, contrastive locations—the clinic representing order and the fairground social disruption—and the constant mood switches through alternating jazz and classical scores recall Miller at his most accomplished. After two features without children as their subject matter, La Classe de neige marks a successful return to more familiar territory: exploring though the crime genre, formative childhood years corrupted by the murkier realities of the adult world. Produced by his wife Annie, the film was the first to be backed by Warner in France and was awarded the Jury’s Prize at the 1998 Cannes Festival. Although Claude Miller emerged as one of the most promising new French directors of the 1980s, he has directed only three feature films in the last decade, partly due to poor health, but largely because of funding difficulties. In 1997 ambitious plans for a new version of Zola’s Nana with Emmanuelle Seigneur as the free-spending actress- cum-courtesan failed to attract sufficient financial backing, and most MILLER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 686 recently Miller has turned to experimenting with digital video cam- eras for La Chambre des magiciennes, adapted from Les Yeux bandés, Siri Hustvedt’s intimate novel about two hospitalised women sharing their stories. Nevertheless, in 1995, along with forty other well- known directors, Miller marked his enduring commitment to tradi- tional cinema by contributing to compilation films honoring the pioneering work of the Lumière brothers (Lumière et compagnie and Les Enfants de Lumière). Miller’s cinema is a gallery of perceptively drawn portraits, in which delicately observed details register the elusive complexities of human nature. His vulnerable, often misguided and dysfunctional characters, existing in societies where difference is barely tolerated, are invariably bruised and humiliated in their progress towards mature self-knowledge and self-sufficiency. Yet the director’s opti- mism determines that, for the most part, they grow in strength through their experiences, securing their individuality in a world that seeks to deny it. —R. F. Cousins MILLER, George Nationality: Australian. Born: Brisbane, Australia, 3 March 1945. Education: University of New South Wales, M.D. Family: Married Sandy Gore, 1985, one daughter. Career: Physician, St. Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney; began collaboration with writer/producer Byron George Miller with Babe Kennedy, 1971; directed first feature, Mad Max, 1979; producer/ director of The Dismissal for TV, 1982. Awards: Best Director, Australian Film Institute, 1982; Best Foreign Film, Los Angeles Film Critics, 1983. Address: 30 Orwell Street, King’s Cross, Sydney, New South Wales 2011, Australia. Films as Director: 1971 Violence in the Cinema: Part I (short) (+ co-sc) 1973 Devil in Evening Dress (doc) (+ sc) 1979 Mad Max 1981 Mad Max II (The Road Warrior) 1983 ‘‘Nightmare at 20,000 Feet’’ episode in Twilight Zone—The Movie 1985 Mad Max III: Beyond Thunderdome (co-d, + co-sc, pr) 1987 The Witches of Eastwick 1992 Lorenzo’s Oil (+ co-sc, co-pr) 1996 40,000 Years of Dreaming (+ sc, co-pr, ro as narrator) 1998 Babe: Pig in the City (+ co-sc, co-pr) Other Films: 1973 Frieze, an Underground Film (short) (ed) 1980 Chain Reaction (Barry) (assoc pr, collaborator on water- fall scenes) 1987 The Riddle of the Stinson (pr); The Clean Machine (pr); Fragments of War (pr) 1988 Dead Calm (exec pr); The Year My Voice Broke (exec pr) 1989 Flirting (exec pr) 1995 Babe (pr, co-sc) 1997 Heaven Before I Die (exec pr) Publications By MILLER: articles— ‘‘Production Report Mad Max: George Miller, Director,’’ an inter- view with P. Beilby and S. Murray, in Cinema Papers (Mel- bourne), May/June 1979; also September/October 1979. ‘‘The Ayatollah of the Movies,’’ an interview with D. Chute, in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1982. Interview with P. Broeske, in Films in Review (New York), Octo- ber 1982. Interview with Tony Crawley, in Starburst (London), no. 51, 1983. Interview with T. Ryan, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), Janu- ary 1988. ‘‘Lorenzo’s Oil,’’ an interview with S. Murray, in Cinema Papers, April 1993. ‘‘Life Lessons: Babe the Gallant Sheep-Pig/Scoring Babe,’’ in Cin- ema Papers (Fitzroy), December 1995. Dahan, Yannick, ‘‘George Miller: à la recherche de l’homme perdu,’’ in Positif (Paris), April 1999. On MILLER: book— Mathews, Sue, 35mm Dreams, Ringwood, Victoria, 1984. MINNELLIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 687 On MILLER: articles— Samuels, B., ‘‘Dr. George Miller: Mephisto in a Polka-Dot Tie,’’ in Cinema Canada (Toronto), February 1983. George Miller Section of Positif (Paris), December 1985. Rodman, H. A., ‘‘George Miller,’’ in Millimeter, May 1989. Griffin, N., ‘‘Tell Me Where It Hurts,’’ in Premiere, December 1992. Maslin, J., ‘‘Parents Fighting to Keep Their Child Alive,’’ in New York Times, 30 December 1992. O’Brien, G., ‘‘The Doctor and the ‘Miracle’,’’ in New York Times, 24 January 1993. *** Along with contemporaries Peter Weir, Bruce Beresford, and Gillian Armstrong, George Miller helped to bring Australian film to the international forefront by the mid-1980s with his brilliant trilogy of Mad Max, Mad Max II (The Road Warrior in the United States), and Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. In a desolate Australian space, sometime in the future, the police have their hands full trying to keep the roads safe from suicidal, maniacal gangs. Cop Mel Gibson quits, but then seeks revenge when his wife and child are murdered. Mad Max was almost lost when it was released in the late 1970s, but with the success of the sequel, the style and bleak outlook were seen to represent a tour de force of genre filmmaking. We have little doubt what will happen; but the way the story unspools is what attracted audiences around the world. George Miller made Mad Max and made fellow countryman Mel Gibson an international star. The greatness of the Mad Max films come from the images of burnt out men and women in a post-apocalyptic world of desolate highways. Characters are dressed in what was left after the ‘‘end of the world,’’ including football uniform parts from American-style teams and other assorted bits and pieces of clothing. Miller seems to have patterned his hero after a Japanese samurai, but more insight can be gained by comparing these three films with the westerns of Sergio Leone, such as Once upon a Time in the West. The director’s inventions make mundane stories into something altogether new and fresh. For audiences the trilogy was Dirty Harry thrown into a desert of madness. Miller’s style of directing has been called mathematical in nature, building a movie in the same manner prescribed by the early Sergei Eisenstein and utilized by the mature Hitchcock. Many argued that Miller, an Australian, outdid Steven Spielberg, the Hollywood wunderkind. And in the early 1980s Mad Max became a pop cult craze. With the third installment Miller moved into mainstream Holly- wood. Thus while it had the usual cast of unknown character actors and actresses placed in the sweeping, endless desert of the Australian outback, Tina Turner was cast as the ruler of Bartertown, a primitive community in the bleak futuristic post-Atomic world. Mel Gibson, again as Max, battled to the death in the Roman-style arena of Thunderdome. Miller proved he could continue the Mad Max appeal even though his partner of the first two, Byron Kennedy, died in 1983. And although Miller was chosen by Spielberg for a segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie, he continued to work in Australia, on mini-series such as ‘‘The Dismissal.’’ In the late 1980s Miller changed courses and directed the hit The Witches of Eastwick for Warner Bros. With Jack Nicholson and Cher, The Witches of East- wick offered a lively, colorful fantasy set in a New England town. This was a popular film, far from the visceral violence of Mad Max. Miller’s segment for Twilight Zone: The Movie, ‘‘Nightmare at 20,000 Feet,’’ was the ultimate white-knucklers’ airplane paranoid fantasy, with a computer technician staring out the window seeing a gremlin sabotaging the engines. John Lithgow turned in a bravura performance in a role originally played by William Shatner. The Miller segment, of the four, was the one most often praised in a movie now most associated with the grim tragedy of the filming of the John Landis episode. In 1992 Miller directed the acclaimed film Lorenzo’s Oil, a tear- jerker starring Susan Sarandon as a mother fighting to save her terminally ill son. Praised at the time, this film seemed tired and too formulaic a decade later. Then Miller did a course change again in 1998 with the comedic Babe: Pig in the City. This sequel was stunning visually but disappointing at the box office. It has become a cult favorite, but seemed only to indicate that the 50-something Miller may have lost his direction. Miller took a strange path to directorial success, but once one sees and analyzes the Mad Max trilogy, it makes sense. After graduating with a degree in medicine from the University of New South Wales in 1970, this ‘‘self-confessed movie freak’’ spent eighteen months in the emergency room of a large city hospital dealing with auto accident victims. Perhaps this is where he developed his strange view of the world. It worked for Mad Max, but thereafter Miller seemed to drop into the ‘‘almost forgotten’’ category of promising movie makers who never could develop a unified, long term body of creative output. Finally, no essay should end without noting that this George Miller is not the same George Miller, also an Australian, who made a reputa- tion as the director of The Man from Snowy River (1982). —Douglas Gomery MINNELLI, Vincente Nationality: American. Born: Chicago, 28 February 1910. Educa- tion: The Art Institute of Chicago, mid-1920s. Family: Married 1) Judy Garland, 1945 (divorced 1951), daughter Liza; 2) Georgette Magnani, 1954 (divorced 1958), one daughter; 3) Denise Giganti, 1961 (divorced 1971); 4) Lee M. Anderson, 1982. Career: Child actor, Minnelli Brothers Dramatic Tent Show, 1913–18; billboard painter, then window dresser, Marshall Field’s department store, Chicago, 1929; assistant stage manager and costume designer, Balaban and Katz theatre chain, Chicago, then set and costume designer, Paramount Theater, New York, 1931–33; art director, Radio City Music Hall, New York, 1934; director of ballets and musicals for the stage, then signed as producer/director, Paramount Pictures, Holly- wood, 1936; bought out contract after eight months and returned to New York as theatre director; joined MGM under auspices of Arthur Freed, 1940; directed sequences in Babes on Broadway, 1941, and Panama Hattie, 1942; directed first feature, Cabin in the Sky, 1942; returned to stage directing with Mata Hari, 1967, closed after two- week run. Awards: Academy Award for Best Director for Gigi, 1958; Order of Arts and Letters, France, for contribution to French culture. Died: In Beverly Hills, California, 25 July 1986. MINNELLI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 688 Vincente Minnelli with Cyd Charisse Films as Director: 1942 Cabin in the Sky 1943 I Dood It (By Hook or by Crook) 1944 Meet Me in St. Louis 1945 The Clock (Under the Clock); Yolanda and the Thief 1946 Ziegfeld Follies (co-d); Undercurrent 1947 Till the Clouds Roll By (Whorf) (Judy Garland sequences only) 1948 The Pirate 1949 Madame Bovary 1950 Father of the Bride 1951 An American in Paris; Father’s Little Dividend 1952 Lovely to Look At (LeRoy) (fashion show sequence only) 1953 ‘‘Mademoiselle’’ episode of The Story of Three Loves; The Bad and the Beautiful; The Band Wagon 1954 The Long, Long Trailer; Brigadoon 1955 The Cobweb; Kismet 1956 Lust for Life; Tea and Sympathy 1957 Designing Woman; The Seventh Sin (Neame; replaced Neame as director, refused credit) 1958 Gigi; The Reluctant Debutante 1959 Some Came Running 1960 Home from the Hill; Bells Are Ringing 1962 The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse; Two Weeks in Another Town 1963 The Courtship of Eddie’s Father 1964 Goodbye Charlie 1965 The Sandpiper 1970 On a Clear Day You Can See Forever 1976 A Matter of Time Publications By MINNELLI: book— I Remember It Well, with Hector Arce, New York, 1974. By MINNELLI: articles— Interview with Charles Bitsch and Jean Domarchi, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), August/September 1957. ‘‘So We Changed It,’’ in Films and Filming (London), Novem- ber 1958. ‘‘The Rise and Fall of the Musical,’’ in Films and Filming (London), January 1962. ‘‘Rencontre avec Vincente Minnelli,’’ with Jean Domarchi and Jean Douchet, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1962. ‘‘On the Relationship of Style to Content in The Sandpiper,’’ in Cinema (Los Angeles), July/August 1965. Interview, in The Celluloid Muse: Hollywood Directors Speak, edited by Charles Higham and Joel Greenberg, London, 1969. ‘‘Vincente Minnelli and Gigi,’’ interview with Digby Diehl, in Action (Los Angeles), September/October 1972. ‘‘The Nostalgia Express,’’ interview with Gideon Bachmann, in Film Comment (New York), November/December 1976. ‘‘Two Weeks in Another Town,’’ interview with P. Lehman and others, in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), no. 1, 1979. On MINNELLI: books— Truchaud, Francois, Vincente Minnelli, Paris, 1966. Knox, Donald, The Magic Factory: How M-G-M Made ‘‘An Ameri- can in Paris,’’ New York, 1973. Delameter, J., Dance in the Hollywood Musical, Ann Arbor, Michi- gan, 1981. Guerif, Fran?ois, Vincente Minnelli, Paris, 1984. Brion, Patrick, and others, Vincente Minnelli, Paris, 1985. Harvey, Stephen, Directed by Vincente Minnelli, New York, 1989. Lang, Robert, American Film Melodrama: Griffith, Vidor, Minnelli, Princeton, New Jersey, 1989. Naremore, James, The Films of Vincente Minnelli, Cambridge, 1993. On MINNELLI: articles— Harcourt-Smith, Simon, ‘‘Vincente Minnelli,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), January/March 1952. Johnson, Albert, ‘‘The Films of Vincente Minnelli,’’ in Film Quar- terly (Berkeley), Winter 1958 and Spring 1959. McVay, Douglas, ‘‘The Magic of Minnelli,’’ in Films and Filming (London), June 1959. Shivas, Mark, ‘‘Minnelli’s Method,’’ in Movie (London), June 1962. Mayersberg, Paul, ‘‘The Testament of V. Minnelli,’’ in Movie (London), October 1962. Torok, Jean-Paul, and Jacques Quincey, ‘‘V.M. ou Le Peintre de la vie rêvée,’’ in Positif (Paris), March 1963. ‘‘Minnelli Issue’’ of Movie (London), June 1963. MINNELLIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 689 Galling, Dennis, ‘‘V.M. Is One of the Few Hollywood Directors Who Has an Art Sense,’’ in Films in Review (New York), March 1964. Nowell-Smith, G., ‘‘Minnelli and Melodrama,’’ in Australian Jour- nal of Screen Theory (Kensington, New South Wales), no. 3, 1977. Campari, Roberto, ‘‘Vincente Minnelli,’’ Castoro Cinema (Milan), special issue, no. 43–44, 1977. McVay, D., ‘‘Minnelli and The Pirate,’’ in Velvet Light Trap (Madi- son), Spring 1978. Simsolo, No?l, ‘‘Sur quelques films de Minnelli,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), October 1981. Telotte, J. P., ‘‘Self and Society: Vincente Minnelli and Musical Formula,’’ in Journal of Popular Film (Washington, D.C.), Win- ter 1982. McCarthy, T., obituary in Variety (New York), 30 July 1986. Harvey, S., obituary in Film Comment (New York), September/ October 1986. Taylor, John Russell, ‘‘Tribute to Minnelli,’’ in Films and Filming (London), October 1986. Obituary, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), no. 420, October 1986. Gourget, J. L., ‘‘L’oeuvre de Vincente Minnelli,’’ in Positif (Paris), December 1986. Thomas, Nick, ‘‘Vincente Minnelli,’’ in Annual Obituary 1986, London and Chicago, 1989. ‘‘Vincente Minnelli,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), no. 43, Janu- ary 1990. Dalle-Vacche, A. ‘‘A Painter in Hollywood: Vincente Minelli’s An American in Paris,’’ in Cinema Journal (Austin), vol. 32, no. 1, Fall 1992. Goldmann, A., ‘‘‘Madame Bovary’ vue par Flaubert, Minnelli et Chabrol,’’ Cinemaction, vol. 65, no. 4, 1992. Siegel, D., and S. McGehee, ‘‘Hysteria,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), vol. 4, no. 10, October 1994. Tinkcom, Matthew, ‘‘Working like a Homosexual: Camp Visual Codes and the Labor of Gay Subjects in the MGM Freed Unit,’’ in Cinema Journal (Austin), vol. 35, no. 2, Winter 1996. *** Between 1942 and 1962, Vincente Minnelli directed twenty-nine films (and parts of several others) at Metro-Goldywn-Mayer, eventu- ally becoming the studio’s longest-tenured director. Brought to Hollywood following a tremendously successful career as a Broad- way set designer and director of musicals, he was immediately placed at the helm of MGM’s biggest musical productions, beginning with the all-black Cabin in the Sky. Over the next decade-and-a-half, he gained a reputation as the premiere director at work in the genre. This reputation was based on a remarkable series of productions, including Meet Me in St. Louis, The Pirate, An American in Paris, and The Band Wagon, and culminating with a Best Director’s Academy Award for Gigi. Yet Minnelli’s career was by no means restricted to musicals. During the same period he also directed a series of successful comedies and melodramas with flair and stylistic elegance. If anything, Minnelli’s accomplishments as a stylist, which were recognized from the beginning of his Hollywood career, worked against his being taken seriously as a director-auteur. By the late 1950s he had been dubbed (by critic Albert Johnson) ‘‘the master of the decorative image,’’ which seemed, at the time, the highest compliment which might be paid a director of musicals. Indeed, Minnelli’s films are impeccably crafted—filled with lushly stylized sets, clever and graceful performances, and a partiality for long tales. Minnelli also utilized a fluid mobile camera suited to the filming of dance, mounting and preserving performance spatially, even as the camera involves the audience in the choreographed movement. Yet it also informs the non-musical sequences of Minnelli’s films with the same kind of liberal sensibility associated with contemporaries like Otto Preminger and Nicholas Ray, one that allows both the characters and the eyes of the audience a certain freedom of movement within a nearly seamless time and space. An accompanying theatricality (resulting from a tendency to shoot scenes from a fourth-wall posi- tion) blends with Minnelli’s specifically cinematic flourishes in a clever realization of the themes of art and artificiality, themes which run throughout his films. Stylization and artifice are necessarily addressed by musical films in general, and Minnelli’s films do so with great verve—most thoroughly in the baroque otherworldliness of Yolanda and the Thief, and most brilliantly in the interplay of character and actor, stage and screen in The Band Wagon. But an equal concern with levels of unreality informs most of his films. This is perhaps most evident in the Pirandellian meditation on Hollywood, The Bad and the Beautiful, and its bizarre, Cinecitta-made quasi-sequel, Two Weeks in Another Town. This exploration surely reaches a kind of limit in Minnelli’s last film, A Matter of Time. This story of an aspiring actress, played by Liza Minnelli, becomes an examination of his own daughter’s talents and persona (haunted by the ghost of Judy Garland), making the film into the director’s own Vertigo, a fitting conclusion to a career devoted to the interplay of various levels of fantasy. Filmic fantasy is almost always present in Minnelli’s films, even when they address the most mundane human problems in basically realistic settings. Virtually every Minnelli film contains a fantasy sequence, a moment in which the narrative recedes in order to allow a free play of symbols on an almost exclusively formal level. In Minnelli’s musicals, this is invariably an extended ‘‘ballet.’’ The most memorable of these ballets may be the twenty-minute number which concludes An American in Paris, but the most powerful example might be Judy Garland’s erotic fantasy of Gene Kelly as ‘‘Mack the Black’’ in The Pirate. In Meet Me in St. Louis, the burst of pure style occurs in the non-musical, and surprisingly horrific, Halloween sequence. In the comedy Father of the Bride, it is a tour- de-force dream sequence in which all of Spencer Tracy’s fatherly anxieties are unleashed. The position is filled by a hallucinatory chase through a carnival in Some Came Running, by fantastic visions of the title figures in The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and by mad car rides in both The Bad and the Beautiful and Two Weeks in Another Town. Such extra-narrative sequences serve to condense and resolve plot elements on a visual/emotional plane, providing the only escape routes from the exigencies of a world which Minnelli otherwise depicts as emotionally frustrating, overly complex, and terribly delicate. Indeed, Andrew Sarris quite rightly noted that ‘‘Minnelli had an unusual, sombre outlook for musical comedy,’’ a fact which seems responsible for the unexpected depth of most of his films. Certainly one of the factors responsible for the continued interest in Meet Me in St. Louis is the overt morbidity of its nostalgic tone. Yet Minnelli’s troubled perspective is probably most evident in the existential isolation of his characters, and in the humanistic, yet stoic, attitude he adopts in treating equally their petty jealousies and their moral fears. A genuinely pained sense of the virtual impossibility of meaningful human contact informs the machinations of such stylized melodramas as Some Came Running, Home from the Hill, and The Four Horse- men. And the tenuousness of love and power is nowhere more artfully MIZOGUCHI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 690 rendered than in his generic masterpiece, The Cobweb, where an argument over drapes for the rec room of a mental hospital reveals a network of neuroses amongst the staff and their families that is as deep-seated as the disorders of the patients. At worst, Minnelli has been cited as the epitome of Hollywood’s ‘‘middlebrow’’ aspirations toward making art accessible to the mass audience. At best, he was championed by the British critics at Movie during the early 1960s as one of Hollywood’s consummate auteurs. For one such critic, V. F. Perkins, Minnelli’s films provided some of the best examples of classical narrative style, which naturalized meaning through understated flourishes of mise-en-scène. It is cer- tainly this capacity which enabled Minnelli to employ a forty-foot trailer as an effortless metaphor for the marriage of newlyweds Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz (The Long, Long Trailer), to critique the manipulations of parental love by consumer culture through depiction of an increasingly overblown wedding (Father of the Bride), and to displace a child’s incapacity to deal with his mother’s death onto his horror at the discovery of his dead goldfish (The Courtship of Eddie’s Father). We must certainly categorize Minnelli as something more than a decorative artist, for the stylistic devices of his films are informed with a remarkably resilient intelligence. Even if we are finally to conclude that, throughout his work, there is a dominance of style over theme, it ultimately serves only to confirm his contribution to the refinement of those techniques by which Hollywood translates mean- ings into style and presents both as entertainment. —Ed Lowry MIZOGUCHI, Kenji Nationality: Japanese. Born: Tokyo, 16 May 1898. Education: Aohashi Western Painting Research Institute, Tokyo, enrolled 1914. Career: Apprentice to textile designer, 1913; newspaper illustrator, Kobe, 1916; assistant director to Osamu Wakayama, 1922; directed first film, 1923; began association with art director Hiroshi Mizutani on Gio matsuri, 1933; began collaboration with writer Yoshikata Yoda on Naniwa ereji, 1936; member of Cabinet Film Committee, from 1940; elected president of Japanese directors association, 1949; signed to Daiei Company, 1952. Awards: International Prize, Venice Festival, for The Life of Oharu, 1952. Died: 24 August 1956, in Kyoto, Japan, of leukemia. Films as Director: 1923 Ai ni yomigaeru hi (The Resurrection of Love); Furusato (Hometown) (+ sc); Seishun no yumeji (The Dream Path of Youth) (+ sc); Joen no chimata (City of Desire) (+ sc); Haizan no uta wa kanashi (Failure’s Song Is Sad) (+ sc); 813 (813: The Adventures of Arsene Lupin); Kiri no minato (Foggy Harbor); Chi to rei (Blood and Soul) (+ sc); Yoru (The Night) (+ sc); Haikyo no naka (In the Ruins) 1924 Toge no uta (The Song of the Mountain Pass) (+ sc); Kanashiki hakuchi (The Sad Idiot) (+ story); Gendai no joo (The Queen of Modern Times); Josei wa tsuyoshi (Women Are Strong); Jinkyo (This Dusty World); Shichimencho no Kenji Mizoguchi yukue (Turkeys in a Row); Samidare zoshi (A Chronicle of May Rain); Musen fusen (No Money, No Fight); Kanraku no onna (A Woman of Pleasure) (+ story); Akatsuki no shi (Death at Dawn) 1925 Kyohubadan no joo (Queen of the Circus); Gakuso o idete (Out of College) (+ sc); Shirayuri wa nageku (The White Lily Laments); Daichi wa hohoemu (The Earth Smiles); Akai yuhi ni terasarete (Shining in the Red Sunset); Furusato no uta (The Song of Home); Ningen (The Human Being); Gaijo no suketchi (Street Sketches) 1926 Nogi Taisho to Kuma-san (General Nogi and Kuma-san); Doka o (The Copper Coin King) (+ story); Kaminingyo haru no sayaki (A Paper Doll’s Whisper of Spring); Shin ono ga tsumi (My Fault, New Version); Kyoren no onna shisho (The Passion of a Woman Teacher); Kaikoku danji (The Boy of the Sea); Kane (Money) (+ story) 1927 Ko-on (The Imperial Grace); Jihi shincho (The Cuckoo) 1928 Hito no issho (A Man’s Life) 1929 Nihombashi (+ sc); Tokyo koshinkyoku (Tokyo March); Asahi wa kagayaku (The Morning Sun Shines); Tokai kokyogaku (Metropolitan Symphony) 1930 Furusato (Home Town); Tojin okichi (Mistress of a Foreigner) 1931 Shikamo karera wa yuku (And Yet They Go) 1932 Toki no ujigami (The Man of the Moment); Mammo Kenkoku no Reimei (The Dawn of Manchukuo and Mongolia) 1933 Taki no Shiraito (Taki no Shiraito, the Water Magician); Gion matsuri (Gion Festival) (+ sc); Jimpuren (The Jimpu Group) (+ sc) MIZOGUCHIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 691 1934 Aizo toge (The Mountain Pass of Love and Hate); Orizuru osen (The Downfall of Osen) 1935 Maria no Oyuki (Oyuki the Madonna); Gubijinso (Poppy) 1936 Naniwa ereji (Osaka Elegy) (+ story); Gion no shimai (Sisters of the Gion) (+ story) 1937 Aienkyo (The Straits of Love and Hate) 1938 Aa furusato (Ah, My Home Town); Roei no uta (The Song of the Camp) 1939 Zangiku monogatari (The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum) 1944 Danjuro sandai (Three Generations of Danjuro); Miyamoto Musashi (Musashi Miyamoto) 1945 Meito Bijomaru (The Famous Sword Bijomaru); Hisshoka (Victory Song) (co-d) 1946 Josei no shori (The Victory of Women); Utamaro o meguru gonin no onna (Utamaro and His Five Women) 1947 Joyu Sumako no koi (The Love of Sumako the Actress) 1948 Yoru no onnatachi (Women of the Night) 1949 Waga koi wa moenu (My Love Burns) 1950 Yuki Fujin ezu (A Picture of Madame Yuki) 1951 Oyu-sama (Miss Oyu); Musashino Fujin (Lady Musashino) 1952 Saikaku ichidai onna (The Life of Oharu) 1953 Ugetsu monogatari (Ugetsu); Gion bayashi (Gion Festival Music) 1954 Sansho dayu (Sansho the Bailiff); Uwasa no onna (The Woman of the Rumor); Chikamatsu monogatari (A Story from Chikamatsu; Crucified Lovers) 1955 Yokihi (The Princess Yang Kwei-fei); Shin Heike monogatari (New Tales of the Taira Clan) 1956 Akasen chitai (Street of Shame) 1957 Osaka monogatari (An Osaka Story) Publications By MIZOGUCHI: articles— Texts, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1959. ‘‘Kenji Mizoguchi,’’ in Positif (Paris), November 1980. ‘‘Table ronde avec Kenji Mizoguchi’’ in Positif (Paris), December 1980 and January 1981. On MIZOGUCHI: books— Anderson, Joseph, and Donald Richie, The Japanese Film: Art and Industry, New York, 1960. Ve-Ho, Kenji Mizoguchi, Paris, 1963. Mesnil, Michel, Mizoguchi Kenji, Paris, 1965. Iwazaki, Akira, ‘‘Mizoguchi,’’ in Anthologie du Cinéma, vol. 3, Paris, 1968. Yoda, Yoshikata, Mizoguchi Kenji no hito to geijutsu [Kenji Mizoguchi: The Man and His Art], Tokyo, 1970. Mesnil, Michel, editor, Kenji Mizoguchi, Paris, 1971. Mellen, Joan, Voices from the Japanese Cinema, New York, 1975. Mellen, Joan, The Waves at Genji’s Door: Japan Through Its Cinema, New York, 1976. Bock, Audie, Japanese Film Directors, New York, 1978; revised edition, Tokyo, 1985. Freiberg, Freda, Women in Mizoguchi Films, Melbourne, 1981. Serceau, Daniel, Mizoguchi: De la revolte aux songes, Paris, 1983. Andrew, Dudley, Film in the Aura of Art, Princeton, New Jer- sey, 1984. McDonald, Keiko, Mizoguchi, Boston, 1984. Kirihara, Donald, Patterns of Time: Mizoguchi and the 1930s, Madi- son, 1992. On MIZOGUCHI: articles— Mizoguchi issue of Cinéma (Paris), no. 6, 1955. Anderson, Joseph, and Donald Richie, ‘‘Kenji Mizoguchi,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1955. Rivette, Jacques, ‘‘Mizoguchi vu d’ici,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 81, 1958. Godard, Jean-Luc, ‘‘L’Art de Kenji Mizoguchi,’’ in Art (Paris), no. 656, 1958. Mizoguchi issue of L’Ecran (Paris), February/March 1958. Mizoguchi issue of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1958. ‘‘Dossier Mizoguchi,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), August/Sep- tember 1964. ‘‘The Density of Mizoguchi’s Scripts,’’ in interview with Yoshikata Yoda, in Cinema (Los Angeles), Spring 1971. Wood, Robin, ‘‘Mizoguchi: The Ghost Princess and the Seaweed Catcher,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1973. ‘‘Les Contes de la lune vague après la pluie,’’ special Mizoguchi issue of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 January 1977. Cohen, R., ‘‘Mizoguchi and Modernism,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Spring 1978. Legrand, G., and others, special Mizoguchi section, in Positif (Paris), November 1978. Sato, Tadao, and Dudley Andrew, ‘‘On Kenji Mizoguchi,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Spring 1980. Andrew, Dudley, ‘‘Kenji Mizoguchi: La Passion de la identifica- tion,’’ in Positif (Paris), January 1981. Leach, J., ‘‘Mizoguchi and Ideology,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Fall 1983. Douchet, J. and others, ‘‘Traverses Mizoguchi,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1993. Le Fanu, Mark, ‘‘Autour de Mizoguchi,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1993. Nemes, K., ‘‘Mizogucsi Kendzsi,’’ in Filmkultura (Budapest), Octo- ber-December 1993. Janakiev, Aleksander, ‘‘Elitarna projava,’’ in Kino (Sophia), no. 6, 1993–1994. Kirihara, Donald, in East-West (Honolulu), January 1994. Roger, Philippe, ‘‘Mizoguchi inédit,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), no. 228, Summer 1994. Burdeau, Emanuel and others, ‘‘Mizoguchi Encore,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July-August 1996. Brown, G., ‘‘Casting Spells,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 24 September 1996. Macnab, Geoffrey, in Sight and Sound (London), December 1998. *** By any standard Kenji Mizoguchi must be considered among the world’s greatest directors. Known in the West for the final half-dozen films which crowned his career, Mizoguchi considered himself a popular as well as a serious artist. He made eighty-five films during his career, evidence of that popularity. Like John Ford, Mizoguchi is MORETTI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 692 one of the few directorial geniuses to play a key role in a major film industry. In fact, Mizoguchi once headed the vast union governing all production personnel in Japan, and was awarded more than once the industry’s most coveted citations. But it is as a meticulous, passionate artist that Mizoguchi will be remembered. His temperament drove him to astounding lengths of research, rehearsal, and execution. Decade after decade he refined his approach while energizing the industry with both his consistency and his innovations. Mizoguchi’s obsessive concern with ill-treated women, and his maniacal pursuit of a lofty notion of art, stemmed from his upbring- ing. His obstinate father, unsuccessful in business, refused to send his older son beyond primary school. With the help of his sister, a one- time geisha who had become the mistress of a wealthy nobleman, Mizoguchi managed to enroll in a Western-style art school. For a short time he did layout work and wrote reviews for a newspaper, but his real education came through the countless books he read and the theater he attended almost daily. In 1920 he presented himself as an actor at Nikkatsu studio, where a number of his friends worked. He moved quickly into scriptwriting, then became an assistant director, and finally a director. Between 1922 and 1935, he made fifty-five films, mostly melodramas, detective stories, and adaptations. Only six of these are known to exist today. Though these lost films might show the influences his work had on the development of other Japanese films, German expressionism, and American dramatic filmmaking (not to mention Japanese theatrical style and western painting and fiction), Mizoguchi himself dismissed his early efforts, claiming that his first real achievement as an artist came in 1936. Working for the first time with scriptwriter Yoshikata Yoda, who would be his collaborator on nearly all his subsequent films, he produced Osaka Elegy and Sisters of the Gion, stories of exploited women in contemporary Japan. Funded by Daiichi, a tiny independent company he helped set up to bypass big-studio strictures, these films were poorly distributed and had trouble with the censors on account of their dark realism and touchy subject. While these films effectively bankrupted Daiichi, they also caused a sensation among the critics and further secured Mizoguchi’s reputation as a powerful, if renegade, force in the industry. Acknowledged by the wartime culture as Japan’s chief director, Mizoguchi busied himself during the war mainly with historical dramas which were ostensibly non-political, and thus acceptable to the wartime government. Under the Allied occupation Mizoguchi was encouraged to make films about women, in both modern and historical settings, as part of America’s effort to democratize Japa- nese society. With Yoda as scriptwriter and with actress Kinuyo Tanaka as star, the next years were busy but debilitating for Mizoguchi. He began to be considered old-fashioned in technique, even if his subjects were of a volatile nature. Ironically, it was the West which resuscitated this most oriental director. With his critical and box-office reputation on the decline, Mizoguchi decided to invest everything in The Life of Oharu, a classic seventeenth-century Japanese picaresque story, and in 1951 he finally secured sufficient financing to produce it himself. Expensive, long, and complex, Oharu was not a particular success in Japan, but it gained an international reputation for Mizoguchi when it won the grand prize at Venice. Daiei Films, a young company that took Japanese films and aimed them at the export market, then gave Mizoguchi virtual carte blanche in his filmmaking. Under such conditions, he was able to create his final string of masterpieces, beginning with Ugetsu, his most famous film. Mizoguchi’s fanatic attention to detail, his insistence on multiple rewritings of Yoda’s scripts, and his calculated tyranny over actors are legendary, as he sought perfection demanded by few other film artists. He saw his later films as the culmination of many years’ work, his style evolving from one in which a set of tableaux were photo- graphed from an imperial distance and then cut together (one scene/one shot) to one in which the camera moves between two moments of balance, beginning with the movements of a character, then coming to rest at its own proper point. It was this later style which hypnotized the French critics and through them the West in general. The most striking oppositions in his themes and dramas (innocence vs. guilt, good vs. bad) unroll like a seamless scroll until in the final camera flourish one feels the achievement of a majestic, stoic contemplation of life. More recently Mizoguchi’s early films have come under scrutiny, both for their radical stylistic innovations (such as the shared flash- backs of the 1935 Downfall of Osen) and for the radical political positions which they virtually shriek (in the final close-ups of Sisters of the Gion and Osaka Elegy, for instance). When charges of mysticism are levelled at Mizoguchi, it is good to recall that his final film, Street of Shame, certainly helped bring about the ban on prostitution in Japan in 1957. A profound influence on the New Wave directors, Mizoguchi continues to fascinate those in the forefront of the art (Godard, Straub, Rivette). Complete retrospectives of his thirty-one extant films in Venice, London, and New York resulted in voluminous publications about Mizoguchi in the 1980s. A passionate but contemplative artist, struggling with issues crucial to cinema and society, Mizoguchi will continue to reward anyone who looks closely at his films. His awesome talent, self-discipline, and productivity guarantee this. —Dudley Andrew MORETTI, Nanni Nationality: Italian. Born: Brunico, Bolzano, Italy, 19 August 1953. Education: Self-taught. Family: Son, Pietro, with Silvia Nono. Career: Made his first amateur film, La sconfitta, 1973; directed additional amateur films Pate de bourgeois, 1973, and Come parli frate, 1974, shot on Super 8mm, which were screened in local cine- clubs and amateur festivals; directed his first feature, Io sono un autarchico, 1976; started a production company, Sacher Films, and an art house cinema, Nuovo Sacher, which screens independent films from across the globe. Awards: Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists Silver Ribbon-Best Story, for Ecce bombo, 1978; Venice Film Festival Special Grand Jury Prize, for Sogni d’oro, 1981; Berlin Film Festival C.I.C.A.E. Award and Silver Berlin Bear, for La massa e finita, 1985; Sao Paolo International Film Festival Critics Award, Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists Silver Ribbon-Best Original Story, for Palombella rossa, 1989; Italian National Syndi- cate of Film Journalists Silver Ribbon-Best Producer, for Il portaborse, 1991; Cannes Film Festival Best Director, European Film Awards MORETTIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 693 Nanni Moretti with Laura Morante FIPRESCI Award, Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists Silver Ribbon-Best Director, for Caro Diario, 1994; Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists Silver Ribbon-Best Producer, for La seconda volta, 1996. Films as Director/Screenwriter/Actor: 1976 Io sono un autarchico (I Am Self-sufficient) (+ pr, ed) 1978 Ecce bombo 1981 Sogni d’oro (Sweet Dreams) 1984 Bianca (co-sc) 1985 La massa e finita (The Mass Is Ended) (co-sc) 1989 Palombella rossa (Red Lob) (+ co-pr) 1990 La cosa (The Thing) (doc) (d, pr, ed only) 1994 Caro Diario (Dear Diary) (+ co-pr); L’Unico paese al mondo (co-d) (short) 1996 Il giorno della prima di Close-Up (Opening Day of Close- Up) (short) 1998 Aprile (+ pr) 2000 La Stanza del figlio Other Films: 1977 Padre padrone (Paolo and Vittorio Taviani) (ro) 1987 Notte italiana (Mazzacurati) (pr) 1988 Domani accadra (It’ll Happen Tomorrow) (Luchetti) (co-pr, ro) 1990 Nanni Moretti (doc) (ro as interviewee) 1991 Il portaborse (The Factotum) (Luchetti) (co-pr, ro) 1996 Trois vies et une seule mort (Ruiz) (ro, uncredited); La seconda volta (Calopresti) (co-pr, ro) Publications By MORETTI: articles— ‘‘Nanni Moretti,’’ interview by F. Cuel and B. Villien in Cinématographie (Paris), November 1981. ‘‘Conversation con Nanni Moretti,’’ interview by M. Garriba in Filmcritica (Rome), April/May 1984. ‘‘Entretien avec Nanni Moretti,’’ interview by S. Toubiana in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1989. MORETTI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 694 ‘‘Nous voudrions que ce soir ca se termaine bien: entretien avec Nanni Moretti,’’ interview by J. A. Gilli in Positif (Paris), Decem- ber 1989. ‘‘Entretien avec Nanni Moretti,’’ interview with S. Toubiana and N. Saada in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1991. On MORETTI: books— Giovannini, Memmo, Enrico Magrelli, and Mario Sesti, Nanni Moretti, Naples, 1986. De Bernardinis, Flavio, Nanni Moretti, Florence, 1987. On MORETTI: articles— Davis, M. S., ‘‘Meet the Golden Boys Who Make Italy’s New Film Comedies,’’ in New York Times, 6 December 1981. Strauss, F., ‘‘Je suis un autarcique,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1989. Jousse, T., ‘‘Le corps du defi,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1989. ‘‘Nanni Moretti,’’ profile in International Film Guide (London, Hollywood), 1992. Schmitt, T., ‘‘Acrostiche pour Moretti), in L’Avant-Scene Cinéma (Paris), June 1993. Rooney, David, ‘‘Nanni Moretti,’’ in International Film Guide, London and Hollywood, 1997. *** Most Americans have never heard of Nanni Moretti, an Italian- born director-comedian who made his first film in 1973 at age twenty and has been a regular on the international film festival circuit since the early 1980s. This lack of recognition is not without irony, since his style of visually refined physical humor may be linked to the comic techniques of some of America’s most beloved funnymen (including Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, and the Marx Brothers). But Moretti’s cinematic concerns involve much more than making his audiences laugh. He has been compared to Woody Allen in that both filmmakers have intellects, and both fill their work with philosophical deliberations. Moretti is especially concerned with the political situation in his country, and the manner in which politics and politicians affect the lives of citizens. Palombella rossa is a typical Moretti film: both an off-the-wall satire and a pensive allegory about the choices, both personal and political, an individual makes in his life. It is the story of Michele, a character who often appears in Moretti’s films in different guises (and is played by the filmmaker). By 1990s’ standards, Michele is an anachronism in that he is a staunch communist. He also is a politician and a water-polo player. Much of the film is set during a water-polo match in which Michele constantly debates the merits of his politics with various individuals, from his teenaged daughter to journalists and political activists. All the while, the screen version of Dr. Zhivago, Boris Pasternak’s contemplation of communism, airs on a nearby TV set. There also are flashbacks to Michele’s youth. He is shown to be haunted by the more painful of his childhood memories, which adds insight into his present-day character. Despite all this, Michele primarily is a comical creation. In his first appearance on screen, he drives his car and trades funny faces with some children in the back seat of the auto in front of him. This diversion results in his crashing into another car, causing a brief bout of amnesia that leads to the goings-on during the water-polo match. On one level, Palombella rossa serves as an examination of the state of communism in Italy; the athletic contest slowly degenerates into chaos, which may be seen as a reflection of the political state of Italy. But one thing is clear: Moretti is lampooning all political theorists and blowhards, those who are pro- or anti-communist/ fascist/capitalist but who end up becoming tangled in their own rhetoric. Even more specifically, the film serves as his shout of despair for the collapse of communism and the corruption of the true, ideologically pure communist objective: a fair and equitable eco- nomic system in which all people, rather than certain individuals, might thrive. Moretti also overtly deals with politics in his first feature, I Am Self-sufficient, in which he spoofs the totalitarian ideal while chroni- cling the goings-on in a theater group; he also appears as an actor in Daniel Luchetti’s Il Portaborse, an impassioned assault on corruption within Italy’s Socialist party. In his other films, however, Moretti focuses on additional issues with which he is intrigued. In The Mass Is Over, a speculation on the meaning of love, he plays a young cleric whose sense of priestly duty is jarred by the fact that his predecessor had broken his vows. Moretti further spotlights this theme in Bianca, in which he plays a high school mathematics teacher who is consumed by the idea of romantic love. In this film, Moretti also drolly scrutinizes Europeans’ fixation on American pop culture, as his teacher is employed in the ‘‘Marilyn Monroe’’ alternative high school, where each classroom comes complete with a jukebox. In the autobiographical Sweet Dreams, he plays a filmmaker who shares a complex relationship with his mother. As the character is lauded by those who desire to collaborate with him on future projects and censured as a fraud by those put off by his opinions, Moretti reflects on the varied manner in which he is viewed as a filmmaker. Moretti’s most widely distributed film to date is Caro Diario. It is divided into three distinctly personal sections, each of which mirrors the director’s concerns about his culture and, ultimately, his own survival. In the first, Moretti rides around Rome on a Vespa and makes off-the-wall observations about what he sees and feels. He pronounces that he is obsessed with Jennifer Beals, of Flashdance fame. This plays itself out on screen with the sudden appearance of Beals, who just so happens to be on the same street as Moretti at that very moment; as a cinematic effect, this also coincides with the manner in which Woody Allen employed Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall. Moretti also savages pompous film critics who know nothing of real life, and who extol such films as Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, and he ponders why he has never visited the spot where Pier Paolo Pasolini was murdered. In Part 2, Moretti goes island-hopping in Southern Italy. Here, he spotlights the same concerns he had dealt with earlier in Bianca, and considers a most relevant contemporary question: How long can a man exist without a television set? Part 3 is the most serious segment. Here, Moretti re-stages his own cancer treatment. A se- quence he filmed as he readied himself for a real chemotherapy treatment precedes reenactments of him enduring uncomfortable itches and visiting numerous doctors. Each one offers different diagnoses. Each one hands him prescriptions for different pills, and MORRISDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 695 the poor guy ends up with so many that he could open his own drugstore. Once again, Moretti manages to joke about a serious situation, and in doing so pulls off quite a feat: finding humor in his own mortality. Moretti reappears as his humorously obsessive self in Aprile, his Caro Diario follow-up. He again depicts himself as self-absorbed and angst-ridden, and he focuses on three issues that are constants in his films: Italian politics; American culture and movies; and family. Moretti complains that his favored candidates are bound to lose an upcoming election, ponders the 1950s Hollywood-style musical he is set to direct, and prepares for the birth of his first child. The occasion of the latter directly parallels the content of the final section of Caro Diario. While Aprile is often delightful, it is not as incisive as Caro Diario—and it earned neither the acclaim nor the distribution of its predecessor. —Rob Edelman MORRIS, Errol Nationality: American. Born: Hewlett, New York, 5 February 1948. Education: Graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1969; graduate work at Princeton University and the University of California-Berkeley. Family: Married Julia Sheehan, an art historian; Errol Morris with Stephen Hawking one son. Career: After leaving graduate school, held several jobs before beginning work on Gates of Heaven. Awards: Golden Horse award for Best Foreign Film, Taiwan International Film Festival, for The Thin Blue Line, 1988; Grand Jury Prize and Filmmaker’s Prize, Sundance Film Festival, for A Brief History of Time, 1992; Gotham Awards Filmmaker Award, 1997; Independent Spirit Truer than Fiction Award, for Fast, Cheap & Out of Control, 1997; Double Take Documentary Film Festival Career Award, 1999. Agent: ICM, 8942 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211, U.S.A. Address: Fourth Floor Productions, 678 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1978 Gates of Heaven 1982 Vernon, Florida 1988 The Thin Blue Line 1992 A Brief History of Time; The Dark Wind 1996 Fast, Cheap & Out of Control 1998 Stairway to Heaven (short—for TV) 1999 Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr. 2000 The Killer Inside Me (short—for TV); I Dismember Mama (short—for TV) Publications On MORRIS: articles— Hoberman, J., ‘‘Errol Morris: Ordinary Weirdos,’’ in Village Voice, 30 June 1987. Hopkins, E., ‘‘Cameos: Director Errol Morris,’’ in Premiere, Decem- ber 1987. Dieckmann, K., ‘‘Private Eye,’’ in American Film, January-Febru- ary 1988. Hoberman, J., ‘‘Off-screen: Errol Morris Deep in the Heart. . . ,’’ in Village Voice, 30 August 1988. Kelleher, E., ‘‘Director Morris Goes Private Eye for Miramax’s The Thin Blue Line,’’ in Film Journal, September-October 1988. Bates, P., ‘‘Truth Not Guaranteed,’’ in Cineaste, no. 1, 1989. Algar, N., ‘‘Errol Morris, Believe It or Not,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin, April 1989. Lack, R., ‘‘The Shape of Time,’’ in Sight and Sound, May 1992. Chua, L., ‘‘Truth and Consequences,’’ in Village Voice, 22 Septem- ber 1992. Chang, Chris, ‘‘Errol Morris,’’ in Film Comment (New York), 1997. Williams, Linda, ‘‘Mirrors without Memories: Truth, History, and The Thin Blue Line,’’ in Documenting the Documentary: Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video, edited by Barry Keith Grant and Jeannette Sloniowski, Detroit, 1998. Kirtz, Bill, ‘‘Looking through the Eyes of a Groundbreaking Direc- tor,’’ in The Christian Science Monitor (Boston), 31 Decem- ber 1999. Epstein, Leslie, ‘‘Monster and Man,’’ in The American Prospect (Washington, D.C.), 28 February 2000. MORRIS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 696 Gates, Anita, ‘‘What Life May Deal to Beast and Man,’’ in The New York Times, 1 March 2000. Fisher, Marc, ‘‘Trial and Errol: In Mr. Death and Other Works, Filmmaker Errol Morris Explores Where the Truth Lies,’’ in The Washington Post, 5 March 2000. Aufderheide, Pat, ‘‘The Interrogator,’’ in In These Times (Chicago), 1 May 2000. *** Errol Morris’s provocative work challenges documentary conven- tions. His unique style surfaces in his first film, Gates of Heaven, where he examines two California pet cemeteries: one a failure, and the other a successful enterprise run by a man and his two adult sons. Rather than employing an objective reportorial style in which infor- mation is presented and opposing sides are given an opportunity to present their positions, Morris allows the narrative to unfold slowly through the interwoven testimony of the participants. Quite unlike the typical, tightly controlled, interview-based documentary in which participants respond to direct questioning, in Gates of Heaven partici- pants ramble on about issues both related and unrelated to the topic. As the interviews progress, the distinctive personalities of the partici- pants emerge. The viewer is required to piece the narrative together, as the film’s point of view remains ambiguous. Are the pet cemetery entrepreneurs, both successful and unsuccessful, compassionate indi- viduals trying to help bereaved pet owners, or are they curious oddities, pandering to a few marginal individuals obsessed with their departed pets? The audience is left to decide. Vernon, Florida, Morris’s subsequent film, focuses on the resi- dents of a small Florida community. It is a simple film which again employs the unstructured interview, the personal narrative, intro- duced in Gates of Heaven. The town’s residents reflect on many facets of their lives. By conventional standards, their vivid personali- ties and their rural lifestyle appear quirky and eccentric. What emerges is a film that attempts neither to judge its subjects nor to tell the audience what to think. The Thin Blue Line, dealing with the arrest and conviction of Randall Adams for the murder of a Dallas police officer in 1976, is Morris’s best known and most distinctive film. The film created quite a stir when it was released, for several reasons. For example, although the film leaves the viewer with a clear sense that Randall Adams is innocent, it does not present that information directly. In a conven- tional documentary film, the most plausible scenario is represented and supported. Different opinions are introduced, but one clear position is taken. Morris defies that convention by illustrating con- flicting interpretations, and in so doing he calls into question the very nature of the construction of truth. The audience is forced to confront the ambiguity caused by conflicting accounts. This confrontation disrupts the seamlessness of the conventional documentary and is disquieting to many viewers. Morris also drew attention by using a series of highly stylized reenactments to illustrate the narratives told by various individuals. Reenactments have fallen out of favor as a documentary convention, and some critics feel Morris’s use of reenactments detracts from the film’s objectivity. Documentary has a long history of using reenactments, although they usually serve to represent typical rather than specific actions or activities. Today, viewers of documentary films expect to see evidence recorded on the scene from the historical world rather than reenacted scenarios. The introduction of cinema verite in the 1960s and the ubiquitous presence of on-the-scene reporting in the evening news has given rise to these expectations. Reenactments nowadays appear unfamiliar, unrealistic, even manipu- lative to many viewers. Morris takes reenactments an additional step by illustrating conflicting points of view instead of a typical or most plausible perspective. Morris was hired to direct A Brief History of Time, but the film retains many characteristics of his earlier personal work. The film is based on scientist Stephen Hawking’s book of the same title, and Hawking’s computer-synthesized voice provides the structuring voice- over narration for the film. Hawking is presented as an ordinary man with extraordinary characteristics, including extreme physical limita- tions and a soaring intellect. As with the subjects in Morris’s earlier work, Hawking represents himself, and his personal narrative is embellished by the recollections of friends, family, and colleagues. Hawking’s synthesized voice on the soundtrack coupled with images of Hawking confined to a wheelchair, lips immobile, eyes animated, reveal powerful elements of character, personality, and intellect resulting in a complex, multifaceted portrait of the man and the scientist. In 1999, Morris premiered Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr. The film’s focus is on an unprepossessing man who builds and repairs electric chairs in the basement of his home. Fred Leuchter’s macabre occupation might not, in itself, make the man a fitting subject for an Errol Morris documentary—but there is more to his story. A group of Holocaust deniers sent Leuchter to visit Auschwitz (the most notorious of the Nazi death camps), instructing him to steal and analyze some bits of concrete from the ruins of the camp’s gas chambers. Although lacking in scientific credentials, Leuchter claimed that he had found no trace of cyanide in the samples of concrete, and concluded that, therefore, no one had been gassed to death at Auschwitz. Leuchter immediately became the star ‘‘expert’’ cited by neo-Nazis and Klansmen everywhere. Morris had originally planned to let Leuchter’s own specious arguments condemn him. But, upon screening a rough cut of the film for some students at Harvard University, Morris found that some in the audience found Leuchter’s claims reasonable. Thus, the final version of Mr. Death contains scenes of noted Holocaust experts, who refute Leuchter thoroughly and convincingly. Even so, some Jewish groups condemned the film on the grounds that it gives too much exposure to the cause of ‘‘Holocaust revisionism.’’ Morris’ next project involved a series of short (30 minute) documentary films for a program called ‘‘First Person,’’ broadcast over the pay-cable channel Bravo. His subjects included a woman who designed the first ‘‘humane’’ slaughterhouse, a man who at- tempted to cryogenically ‘‘freeze’’ his mother, and a woman who falls in love with serial killers. Morris’s work is unfettered by slavish adherence to current documentary conventions. He does not appear in his films, but his presence is felt in their structure and style. Morris allows the individu- als represented to recount their own, often equivocal narratives, which are then carefully woven into the finished product through editing. The result is not a typical ‘‘objective’’ or journalistic docu- mentary with an easily accessible perspective. The viewer is made aware of the process of documentary construction through interviews MORRISSEYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 697 that last a little too long or through the presentation of conflicting points of view without obvious resolution. The viewer is challenged and required to participate in crafting the narrative and forming an opinion about the individuals and issues presented. Morris brings a new vigor and a new insight to documentary filmmaking by playing with conventions and experimenting with new forms of representation. —Elizabeth Cline, updated by Justin Gustainis MORRISSEY, Paul Nationality: American. Born: New York City, 23 February 1938 (some sources say 1939). Education: Attended Fordham University. Military Service: Served in the United States Army. Career: Began directing short, independent films, early 1960s; began working with Andy Warhol, 1965; left Warhol, and struck out on his own, mid- 1970s. Address: 26 East 81st Street, New York, NY 10028 U.S.A. Films as Director: 1963 Taylor Mead Dances (short) 1964 Civilization and Its Discontents 1968 Lonesome Cowboys (Andy Warhol’s Lonesome Cowboys, Horse, Ramona and Julian) (Warhol) (uncredited, + pr, ph, ed); Flesh (Andy Warhol’s Flesh) (+ sc, ph) Paul Morrissey 1970 Trash (+ sc, ph, ed) 1971 Women in Revolt (Andy Warhol’s Women) (+ sc, ed) 1972 L’Amour (co-d, + co-sc, pr); Heat (Andy Warhol’s Heat) (+ co-sc, ph) 1974 Flesh for Frankenstein (Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein) (co-d, + co-sc); Blood for Dracula (Andy Warhol’s Dracula) (co-d, + co-sc) 1978 The Hound of the Baskervilles (+ co-sc) 1981 Madame Wang’s (+ sc) 1982 Forty Deuce 1985 Mixed Blood (+ co-sc); Le Neveu de Beethoven (Beethoven’s Nephew) (+ co-sc) 1988 Spike of Bensonhurst (+ co-sc) Other Films: 1965 My Hustler (Warhol) (production asst); Space (Warhol) (pro- duction asst) 1966 Chelsea Girls (Warhol) (production asst); More Milk Evette (Lana Turner and More Milk Evette) (Warhol) (production asst); The Velvet Underground and Nico (Warhol) (doc) (ph) 1967 Nude Restaurant (Warhol) (pr); Bike Boy (Warhol) (ph) Superartist (Drago) (short) (doc) (ro as himself, + sound) 1968 The Loves of Ondine (Warhol) (exec pr) Andy Makes a Movie (Smith) (doc) (short) (ro as himself) 1969 Midnight Cowboy (Schlesinger) (ro as Party Guest); Blue Movie (Fuck) (Warhol) (exec pr) 1981 Rich and Famous (Cukor) (ro as Malibu Party Guest) 1982 Chambre 66 (Wenders—for TV) (doc) (short) (ro as himself) 1991 Resident Alien (Quentin Crisp in America) (Nossiter) (doc) (ro as himself) 1994 Jonas in the Desert (Sempel) (doc) (ro as himself) 1995 Nico Icon (Ofteringer) (doc) (ro as himself) 1998 Divine Trash (Yeager) (doc) (ro as himself) Publications By MORRISSEY: articles— ‘‘You Name It, I’ll Eat It,’’ interview with G. Ford, in Cinema (Beverly Hills), no. 1, 1973. ‘‘Heat,’’ interview with A. De Jong and A. Haakman, in Skoop (The Hague), June 1973. ‘‘Morrissey—From Flesh to Trash to Blood for Dracula,’’ interview with M. S. Davis, in New York Times, 15 July 1973. ‘‘Paul Morrissey Seminar,’’ interview in Dialogue on Film (Wash- ington, D.C.), November 1974. ‘‘Conversation with Paul Morrissey,’’ interview with Jonathan Rosenbaum, in Oui (Chicago), March 1975. ‘‘The Movies of Paul Morrissey,’’ interview with B. Berg, in The Thousand Eyes Magazine (New York), March/April 1976. Morrissey, Paul, ‘‘Big Hit in Hollywood: Pat Ast,’’ in Interview (New York), October 1978. MULLIGAN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 698 ‘‘Bianca,’’ interview with Andy Warhol and others, in Interview (New York), December 1978. Interview with John Kobal, in Films and Filming (London), June 1986. ‘‘Paul Morrissey,’’ interview with G. L’Ecuyer, in Interview (New York), December 1986. ‘‘Factory Days,’’ interview with K. Sessums, in Interview (New York), February 1989. On MORRISSEY: book— Yacowar, Maurice, The Films of Paul Morrissey, New York and Cambridge, England, 1993. On MORRISSEY: articles— ‘‘Warhol, Morrissey in Rome; To Film Old Gag Re: Homo on the Range,’’ in Variety (New York), 21 March 1973. Karkosch, K., ‘‘Paul Morrissey,’’ interview in Film and Ton Maga- zine (Munich), April 1973. Bruno, E., ‘‘La persistenza dell’oggetto (note su alcuni film di Warhol e di Morrissey),’’ in Filmcritica (Rome), October/Decem- ber 1973. ‘‘A Warhol Pix Vet, Morrissey Shifts to Horror Films,’’ in Variety (New York), 27 February 1974 Michener, C., ‘‘Put-on Artist,’’ in Newsweek (New York), 23 Sep- tember 1974. ‘‘Flash for Frankenstein,’’ in Film (Woking, Surrey, England), April 1975. Dolce, J., ‘‘Cameos: Paul Morrissey,’’ in Premiere (New York), July 1988. Stein, E., ‘‘Flesh and Fantasy,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 2 January 1996. *** Paul Morrissey started out as one of the countless faces and personalities populating Andy Warhol’s famed Factory in the 1960s. He harbored cinematic aspirations, and worked in various capacities on a number of Warhol’s films; because of the often haphazard manner in which they were shot, Morrissey’s exact role in their production is the subject of debate. In 1968, Warhol nearly was killed after being shot by Valerie Solanis and summarily removed himself from first-hand involvement in his film production. At that point, Morrissey was able to take control and have a more clearly defined, hands-on role in directing the ‘‘Warhol’’ films—and exploiting the Warhol name. The pre-Morrissey Warhol’s films may be far removed from the mainstream; nonetheless, Warhol attempted to commercialize his projects, but did so on his own terms. There is an art and integrity to these films. Morrissey, meanwhile, was more of a packager than an artist. He wanted to concoct a formula that would make the films more mainstream. That formula consisted of imbuing them with a more orthodox cinematic structure, creating more conventional plot lines, and capitalizing on the Warhol name by slapping it on the finished product. Morrissey’s best films of the period may be absurdist classics and impertinent freak-show fun, but they are not art. His outstanding directorial efforts all have monosyllabic titles: Flesh, Trash, and Heat. Superficially at least, they are in the outra- geous Warhol tradition, and are populated by flagrantly campy, Warholian characters who wallow in divine degradation: transves- tites, exhibitionists, drug addicts, go-go dancers, faded screen per- formers, lesbians, and gays. The prevailing attitude is represented by the name of a subsidiary character in Heat: ‘‘Aunt Harold.’’ Their characters—many of whom for all intents and purposes appear on screen as themselves—exist in self-contained and self-created worlds. And while their scenarios are scripted, Flesh, Trash, and Heat do serve as authentic, slice-of-life portraits that capture a time and place. All three feature the Warhol hunk-icon Joe Dallesandro. In Flesh, he stars as a male prostitute who toils to support his lesbian wife and their son. Trash charts the plight of a hard-bitten and resourceful transvestite named Holly, played by Holly Woodlawn; Dallesandro appears as Holly’s lethargic, drug-addicted roommate-lover. Heat is Morrissey’s masterpiece, a clever reworking/updating of Sunset Boulevard with Sylvia Miles and Dallesandro in the Gloria Swanson and William Holden roles. Even though it also is known as Andy Warhol’s Heat, the film is without doubt a Paul Morrissey creation. In both style and substance, all three films are forerunners of the sexually frank independent productions (and, specifically, the New Queer Cinema) that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s. With the exception of Mixed Blood, a darkly comic crime story that has garnered a bit of a cult reputation, all of Morrissey’s work since Flesh, Trash, and Heat has been disappointing: insignificant at best, and downright dreadful at worst. Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula (otherwise known as Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein and Andy Warhol’s Dracula) are odd, boring exercises in camp. Forty Deuce, a sordid story of teen hustlers and heroin, is of note only for the appearance of a young Kevin Bacon. The Hound of the Baskervilles, made in England and featuring a top cast (Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Denholm Elliott, Joan Greenwood, Jessie Matthews, Spike Milligan, Roy Kinnear), is an appalling Conan Doyle spoof. Le Neveu de Beethoven is a disappointing biopic. Spike of Bensonhurst, Morrissey’s most mainstream film, is a sometimes-amusing but ultimately forget- table comedy about a young wannabe pugilist from Brooklyn whose life becomes complicated when he connects with the daughter of a mobster. —Rob Edelman MULLIGAN, Robert Nationality: American. Born: The Bronx, New York, 23 August 1925. Education: Attended theological seminary; studied radio com- munications, Fordham University, New York. Military Service: Marine radio operator, World War II. Career: Worked in editorial department of the New York Times, late 1940s; began working in TV as messenger for CBS, then TV director on Suspense, TV Playhouse, Playhouse 90, and others, mid-1950s; directed first feature film, Fear Strikes Out, 1957; founded Pakula-Mulligan Productions with Alan J. Pakula, 1962 (dissolved 1969). Awards: Academy Award nomina- tion for Best Director, for To Kill a Mockingbird, 1962. Agent: Robert Stein, United Talent Agency, 9560 Wilshire Boulevard, 5th Floor, Beverly Hills, California 90210, U.S.A. Address: c/o J. V. MULLIGANDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 699 Robert Mulligan Broffman, 5150 Wilshire Boulevard #505, Los Angeles, California 90036, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1957 Fear Strikes Out 1960 The Rat Race 1961 The Great Imposter; Come September 1962 The Spiral Road; To Kill a Mockingbird 1963 Love with the Proper Stranger 1965 Baby the Rain Must Fall 1966 Inside Daisy Clover 1967 Up the down Staircase 1968 The Stalking Moon 1971 The Pursuit of Happiness; Summer of ‘42 1972 The Other (+ pr) 1975 The Nickel Ride (+ pr) 1978 Blood Brothers 1979 Same Time, Next Year (+ co-pr) 1982 Kiss Me Goodbye (+ co-pr) 1988 Clara’s Heart (+ co-pr) 1991 Man in the Moon Publications By MULLIGAN: articles— Interview with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), January 1973. Interview with J. A. Gili, in Ecran (Paris), October 1974. ‘‘Time for Thought,’’ an interview with R. Appelbaum, in Films and Filming (London), January 1975. ‘‘Je n’ai pas peur du silence,’’ an interview with M. Henry and A. Garsault, in Positif (Paris), December 1991. ‘‘Entretien avec Robert Mulligan,’’ with H. Merrick, in Revue du Cinéma, January 1992. On MULLIGAN: book— Belton, John, Cinema Stylists, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1983. MULLIGAN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 700 On MULLIGAN: articles— Godfrey, Lionel, ‘‘Flawed Genius: The Work of Robert Mulligan,’’ in Films and Filming (London), January 1967. Taylor, John, ‘‘Inside Robert Mulligan,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Autumn 1971. Falonga, M., ‘‘Mysterious Islands: Summer of ‘42,’’ in Film Heritage (New York), Fall 1972. ‘‘TV to Film: A History, a Map, and a Family Tree,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), February 1983. Barra, Allen, ‘‘Distant Replay,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 17 May 1988. Walker, M., ‘‘Robert Mulligan,’’ in Film Dope, March 1991. Edinger, Catarina, ‘‘Dona Flor in Two Cultures,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly, vol. 4, 1991. Kelleher, E., ‘‘Mulligan Addresses the Heart via MGM’s Man in the Moon,’’ in Film Journal, October/November 1991. Garsault, A., ‘‘L’amer paradis de l’enfance,’’ in Positif (Paris), December 1991. Piazzo, P., ‘‘Un artisan sensible,’’ in Jeune Cinema, February/ March 1992. Strick, Philip, ‘‘The Man in the Moon,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), March 1992. Kimmel, Daniel M., ‘‘Boxed,’’ in Variety (New York), 13 Octo- ber 1997. *** In an era in which consistent visual style seems perhaps too uniformly held as the prerequisite of the valorized auteur, one can all too easily understand why Robert Mulligan’s work has failed to evince any passionate critical interest. His films all look so different; for instance, To Kill a Mockingbird, with its black-and-white meas- ured pictorialism; Up the down Staircase, photographed on location with a documentary graininess; The Other, with its heightened Gothic expressionism rather conventional to the horror genre, if not to Mulligan’s previous work; and The Summer of ‘42, with a pastel prettiness that suffuses each image with the nostalgia of memory. If some would claim this visual eclecticism reflects the lack of a strong personality, others could claim that Mulligan has too much respect for his material to impose arbitrarily upon it some monolithic consistency and instead brings to his subjects the sensibility of a somewhat self- effacing Hollywood craftsman. Yet there are certainly some se- quences in Mulligan’s work that spring vividly to mind: the silent, final seduction in The Summer of ‘42; the almost surreal walk home by a child dressed as a ham in To Kill a Mockingbird; the high school dance in Up the down Staircase; the climactic camera movement in The Other, from Niles to that empty space where Holland, were he not imaginary, would be sitting. Even Mulligan’s two biggest critical successes, To Kill a Mock- ingbird and The Summer of ‘42, both examples of the kind of respectable Hollywood filmmaking which garners Academy Award nominations, have not yet been greeted by any significant critical cult. And yet, if Mulligan’s good taste has been steadfastly held against him, it must be noted that his films, albeit generally ignored, hold up remarkably well. Mulligan has a strong sense of narrative; and all his films are imbued with human values and a profound compassion which make for compelling audience identification with Mulligan’s characteristic protagonists. Mulligan’s tendency is to work in less familiar movie genres (such as Hollywood exposé, the family drama, the teacher film, the cinematic Bildungsroman), but to avoid— through sincerity and human insight—that emphasis on the purely formal which sometimes makes genre works ‘‘go dead’’ for their audiences upon repeated viewings. Perhaps it is American mistrust of male emotional expression which contributes to Mulligan’s facile dismissal by many; certainly it appears that those critics who attacked as sentimental The Summer of ‘42, Mulligan’s tasteful and bittersweet paean to lost virginity, failed to assess negatively those same qualities in so many of the French New Wave films, especially, for instance, the Antoine Doinel cycle by Fran?ois Truffaut, which were instead praised for their lyrical and compassionate exploration of human interaction. Is nostalgia somehow more acceptable when it is French? Certainly Mulligan seems especially interested in the deviant, the outsider, the loner: the mentally unbalanced Jimmy Peirsall in Fear Strikes Out; the enlightened attorney whose values put him in conflict with a bigoted community in To Kill a Mockingbird; the ex-convict trying to accustom himself to life outside the penitentiary in Baby the Rain Must Fall; the character of Ferdinand Demara, based on real life, who, in The Great Imposter, succeeds by the sheer force of his skillful impersonations in insinuating himself into a variety of environments in which he would otherwise never be accepted; the students in Up the down Staircase who, psychologically stunted and economically de- prived, may—even with a committed teacher’s help—never fit into mainstream society. Like Truffaut, Mulligan has an extraordinary insight into the world of the child or adolescent and the secret rituals of that world. Mulligan’s children never display that innocence conventionally associated with children, instead participating in often traumatic ceremonies of passage. One thinks of the child through whose eyes the innate racism of small-town America is seen in To Kill a Mocking- bird; the precocious child-star in Inside Daisy Clover; the lost and often already jaded students in Up the down Staircase; the pubescent adolescents who learn about sex and morality in The Summer of ‘42; and the irrevocably evil child, Niles, and his twin, Holland, in The Other. Unfortunately, despite the high quality of Robert Mulligan’s films, there has been not even a minor re-evaluation of the director as a significant artist who has a consistency of themes (such as his association of puberty with violence)—this neglect despite the fact that To Kill a Mockingbird remains one of the most well-respected and emotionally engaging films in the American cinema, a movie which continues to please audiences whether they remember it from their past or whether they see it today for the first time. Not even the consistently fine performances elicited by Mulligan from his players (Anthony Perkins in Fear Strikes Out, Gregory Peck and Mary Badham in To Kill a Mockingbird, Sandy Dennis in Up the down Staircase, Jennifer O’Neil in The Summer of ‘42, Richard Gere in Blood Brothers, Neil Patrick Harris in Clara’s Heart, and indeed, all the children and adolescents who populate Mulligan’s world) have served to summon ongoing critical attention. Ultimately, Mulligan’s taste may be too fine and his feelings too sentimental to attract contemporary regard in a culture which thrives on the sexy, profane conflicts of a Pulp Fiction. And certainly, even at Mulligan’s best or near-best, one sensed a subtlety or indirection when he dealt with things sexual: such as the homosexual orientation of Robert Redford’s character in the underrated and fascinating Hollywood exposé Inside Daisy Clover. One suspects that if Mulligan may have never really had the gusto to publicize himself in the Sammy Glick-style, he neither had the opportunism or hypocrisy to jump on any passing bandwagon. MURNAUDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 701 In any case, his recent films, though laudable and interesting, are hardly the works that would attract critical or popular attention. In 1982’s curiously unengaging Kiss Me Goodbye, a reworking of the Brazilian film Donna Flor and Her Two Husbands, Mulligan does not seem to be especially inspired by the romantic comedy form, despite the film dealing with typical Mulligan themes of loss and grief. Clara’s Heart, in 1988, reprised Mulligan’s coming-of-age theme and, like To Kill a Mockingbird, dealt with personal relationships between whites and blacks, in this case, the friendship of a young white boy and the black woman who becomes his nanny. Although the narrative develops with surprising turns, the film was unjustly ignored, with Whoopi Goldberg giving a sensitive, often surprising, performance. Ultimately, Clara’s Heart had too much heart and not enough cynicism to be successful; even though it dealt (if gently) with violence, divorce, rape, and incest, Clara’s Heart faded in the glare of more trendy and explicit contemporary films like Do the Right Thing. Mulligan’s final film to date, Man in the Moon, which had a few ardent critical supporters in 1991, is once again a coming-of-age story imbued with feelings of hopefulness and loss, nostalgia and regret. Although beautifully photographed in an older, Hollywood style by Freddie Francis, Man in the Moon—though a period piece—seems almost purposely set in a cultural vacuum so that Mulligan can avoid dealing with a contemporary America from which he seems rather alienated. The result is a film which, despite good performances from everyone, particularly the adolescent leads, seems somewhat dead and unconnected, certainly not the film to ignite a critical re- evaluation of Mulligan’s work. —Charles Derry MURNAU, F.W. Nationality: German. Born: Friedrich Wilhelm Plumpe in Bielefeld, Germany, 28 December 1888. Education: Educated in philology, University of Berlin; art history and literature, University of Heidel- berg. Military Service: Served in German army, from 1914; trans- ferred to air force, interned in Switzerland following crash landing, 1917. Career: Attended Max Reinhardt theater school, 1908, later joined company; founder, with other Reinhardt school colleagues, Murnau Veidt Filmgesellschaft, 1919; invited by William Fox to Hollywood, 1926; returned to Germany, 1927; sailed to Tahiti with Robert Flaherty to prepare Tabu, 1929. Died: In auto accident, California, 11 March 1931. Films as Director: 1919 Der Knabe in Blau (Der Todessmaragd; The Boy in Blue) 1920 Satanas; Sehnsucht (Bajazzo); Der Bucklige und die Tanzerin (The Hunchback and the Dancer); Der Januskopf (Schrecken; Janus-Faced); Abend . . . Nacht . . . Morgen 1921 Der Gang in die Nacht; Schloss Vogel?d (Haunted Castle); Nosferatu—Eine Symphonie des Grauens (Nosferatu the Vampire) 1922 Marizza, genannt die Schmuggler-Madonna; Der Brennende Acker (Burning Soil); Phantom 1923 Die Austreibung (Driven from Home) 1924 Die Finanzen des Grossherzogs (The Grand Duke’s Finances); Der Letzte Mann (The Last Laugh) 1926 Tartüff; Faust 1927 Sunrise (Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans) 1928 Four Devils 1930 Die zwolfte Stunde—Eine Nacht des Grauens (Nosferatu the Vampire; Nosferatu) (adapted for sound); Our Daily Bread 1931 Tabu (+ co-pr, co-sc) Publications By MURNAU: book— Sunrise (Sonnenaufgang), Ein Drehbuch von Carl Mayer mit hand- schriftlichen Bemerkungen von Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, Ger- man Institute for Film Studies, Wiesbaden, 1971. By MURNAU: articles— ‘‘The Ideal Picture Needs No Titles,’’ in Theatre Magazine (New York), January 1928. ‘‘étoile du Sud,’’ in La Revue du Cinéma (Paris), May 1931. ‘‘Turia, an Original Story,’’ and ‘‘Tabu (Tabou), a Story of the South Sea,’’ with Robert Flaherty, in Film Culture (New York), no. 20, 1959. On MURNAU: books— Jameux, Charles, Murnau, Paris, 1965. Kracauer, Siegfried, From Caligari to Hitler, New York, 1966. Eisner, Lotte, The Haunted Screen, Berkeley, California, 1969. Eisner, Lotte, Murnau, Berkeley, California, 1973. Huff, Theodore, An Index to the Films of F.W. Murnau, New York, 1976. Petrie, Graham, Hollywood Destinies: European Directors in Amer- ica 1922–1931, London, 1985. Berg-Ganschow, Uta, and others, editors, F.W. Murnau 1888–1988, Bielefeld, 1988. Collier, Jo Leslie, From Wagner to Murnau: The Transposition of Romanticism from Stage to Screen, Ann Arbor, 1988. Murnau, Lisbon, 1989. Gehler, Fred, and Ullrich Kasten, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, Augsburg, 1990. On MURNAU: articles— Josephson, Matthew, ‘‘F.W. Murnau—The German Genius of the Films,’’ in Motion Picture Classic (New York), October 1966. Domarchi, Jean, ‘‘Murnau,’’ in Anthologie du cinéma, vol. 1, Paris, 1966. Astruc, Alexandre, ‘‘Le Feu et la glace,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1952; in Cahiers du Cinéma in English (New York), January 1966. Wood, Robin, ‘‘Tabu,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Summer 1971. Dorr, J., ‘‘The Griffith Tradition,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1974. ‘‘L’Aurore,’’ special Murnau issue of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), June 1974. MURNAU DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 702 F.W. Murnau ‘‘Per una ri-lettura critica di F.W. Murnau,’’ special Murnau issue of Filmcritica (Rome), July 1974. Castoro Cinema (Milan), special issue, no. 36, 1976. Audibert, L., ‘‘Dossier: Le Pont traversé,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), January 1977. Latil Le Dantec, M., ‘‘De Murnau à Rohmer: les pièges de la beauté,’’ in two parts, in Cinématographe (Paris), January and Febru- ary 1977. Special Murnau issue of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), July/ September 1977. Mitry, Jean, and others, ‘‘Griffith, Murnau et les historiens,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 15 March 1978. Gehler, F., ‘‘F.W. Murnau, Hollywood and die Südsee,’’ in Film und Fernsehen (Berlin), May 1981. Cardullo, B., ‘‘Der letzte Mann Gets the Last Laugh: F.W. Murnau’s Comic Vision,’’ in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Fall 1981. Murnau Section of Casablanca (Madrid), October 1981. Elsaesser, Thomas, ‘‘Secret Affinities,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Winter 1988/89. Ma?nicki, Jerzy, ‘‘Randka z wampirem,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), Novem- ber 1998. Walker, M., ‘‘1192 F.W. Murnau,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), December 1991. Koszarski, R., ‘‘Ernest Palmer on Frank Borzage and F.W. Murnau,’’ in Griffithiana (Gemona), vol. 15, December 1992. *** F.W. Murnau was studying with Max Reinhardt when the First World War began. He was called up for military service, and after achieving his lieutenancy, he was transferred to the air service, where he served as a combat pilot. But his plane was forced down in Switzerland, where he was interned for the duration. Through the German Embassy, however, he managed to direct several indepen- dent stage productions, and he began his lifelong dedication to the motion picture, compiling propaganda film materials and editing them. This experience made it possible for him to enter the reborn film industry after peace as a full-fledged director. Murnau’s first feature film as director was The Boy in Blue, produced in 1919, and he made twenty-one full-length features from that year until 1926, when Fox Studios brought him to Hollywood. Unfortunately, most of the pictures he made in his native country no MURNAUDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 703 longer exist except in fragmentary form. They are tempting to read about, especially items like Janus-Faced, a study of a Jekyll-and- Hyde personality, which he made in 1920 with Conrad Veidt and Bela Lugosi. Critics found it more artistic than the John Barrymore version of the story made at about the same time in Paramount’s New York studios. Extant today in a complete version is Nosferatu, which was subtitled ‘‘a symphony of horror.’’ It was a more faithful version of Bram Stoker’s Dracula than any made thereafter, and the film, starring the incredibly gaunt and frightening Max Schreck as the vampire, is still available. The next Murnau film that is still viewable is The Last Laugh, which starred Emil Jannings. At the time of its release, it was noted as being a picture without subtitles, told almost completely in panto- mime. Its real innovation was the moving camera, which Murnau used brilliantly. The camera went everywhere; it was never static. Audiences watched spellbound as the camera moved upstairs and down, indoors and out, although the film told only the simple story of a proud commissionaire reduced in his old age to menial work as a lavatory attendant. The camera records, nevertheless, a very real world in an impressionistic way. In fact, Murnau, because of his skill with the moving camera, was generally known as the Great Impres- sionist, for he gave a superb impression of actual reality. That title fit Murnau even more aptly in his next two features, both of which also starred Emil Jannings. They are Tartuffe, a screen adaption of Moliere’s black comedy, in which Lil Dagover and Werner Krauss were also featured. It is topped by what must be the most definitive film version of Goethe’s Faust. The film starred Jannings as Mephistopheles, with the handsome Swedish favorite, Gosta Ekman, in the title role; Camilla Horn as Marguerite; the great Parisian star Yvette Guilbert as Marthe; and a young William Dieterle as Valentine. Again, the camera not only moved, it soared, especially in the sequence where Faust is shown the world which will be his if he sells his soul to the devil. Murnau was a master of light and shadow, and his work is always brilliantly choreographed as it moves from lightness to the dark. It came as no surprise when in 1926 Murnau was invited to Hollywood, where the red carpet at Fox was unrolled for him. He was allowed to bring his cameraman, writers, and other craftsmen to work with him, and his initial feature was called Sunrise, subtitled ‘‘a song of two human beings.’’ The two stars were Janet Gaynor and George O’Brien, playing a young farm couple who make their first trip to the big city, which was constructed on the Fox lot, so that Murnau and his camera could follow them everywhere indoors and out of doors and onto a moving streetcar. Again, the story was very simple, adapted from a Hermann Suderman novel, A Trip to Tilsit, and simply proved that real love will always be triumphant. Sunrise was highly praised by all critics, and was one of three pictures which brought Janet Gaynor an Academy Award as Best Actress in the 1927–28 year. Quite naturally, awards also went to cinematographers Charles Rosher and Karl Struss and to interior decorator Harry Oliver, while Sunrise was given a special award for its Artistic Quality of Production, a category never again specified. For all that, Sunrise was not a box-office success, and the studio moved in to supervise Murnau closely on his next two productions. Four Devils was a circus story of four young aerialists that gave Murnau’s camera a chance to fly with them from one performing trapeze to another. All prints of Four Devils are unfortunately lost, which is a fate common to most of the last great silent films. Murnau began shooting on his final film at Fox, called Our Daily Bread, with Charles Farrell and Mary Duncan, but he was not allowed to finish the picture. The overwhelming popularity of the talking screen was allowed to flaw it, for the only version of it now shown is called City Girl, and is only effective when it is recognizably silent and all Murnau. As a part-talkie, the film is crude and not at all Murnau. Murnau then allied himself with Robert Flaherty, and the two men journeyed to the South Seas to make Tabu. Flaherty, however, withdrew, and Tabu is pure Murnau; some praise it as his greatest film. Murnau returned to California and was on the eve of signing at Paramount, which treated directors like Mamoulian, Lubitsch, and von Sternberg very kindly in their talking debuts. Unfortunately, Murnau lost his life in a motor accident on the Pacific Coast highway. He was only forty-two years old at the time, and after the success of Tabu, a new fame might have been his. —DeWitt Bodeen 705 N NAIR, Mira Nationality: Hindi and English. Born: Bhubaneshwar, Orissa, India, 15 October 1957. Education: Studied sociology and theater at the University of New Delhi, where she earned an undergraduate degree; earned a graduate degree in sociology from Harvard University, where she also studied film and directed the documentary Jama Masjid Street Journal for her Master’s Degree thesis. Family: Married the cinematographer Mitch Epstein (divorced); married Mahmood Mamdani, son: Zohran. Career: Worked as a repertory actress in New Delhi theater, 1970s; began directing documentaries, working with Richard Leacock and D. A. Pennebaker, 1980s; di- rected her first fiction feature, Salaam Bombay!, 1988. Awards: Global Village Film Festival Best Documentary, for India Cabaret, 1985; Cannes Film Festival Camera d’Or and Grand Prix du Publique, for Salaam Bombay!, 1988; Los Angeles Film Critics Associa- tion New Generation Award, 1988; Venice Film Festival Golden Osella, Sao Paolo International Film Festival Critics Special Award, Italian National Syndicate of Film Journalists Best Director-For- eign Film, for Mississippi Masala, 1991; Muse Award, New York Women in Film and Television, 1997; Boston Film/Video Associa- tion Vision Award, 1997. Address: Mirabai Films, 24 Belmont Avenue, Oranjezicht, Cape Town 8001, India. Films as Director: 1979 Jama Masjid Street Journal (doc) 1982 So Far from India (doc) 1984 Women and Development (doc) 1985 India Cabaret (for TV) (doc) 1987 Children of a Desired Sex (for TV ) (doc) 1988 Salaam Bombay! (+ co-sc, story, pr) 1991 Mississippi Masala (+ co-sc, pr, ro as Gossip 1) 1993 The Day the Mercedes Became a Hat (short) (+ co-sc, pr) 1995 The Perez Family (+ ro as Woman Buying Flowers) 1996 Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love (+ co-sc, co-pr) 1998 My Own Country (for TV) (+ ro as Saryu Joshi) Publications By NAIR: books— Nair, Mira, and Sooni Taraporevala, Salaam Bombay!, New Delhi, 1989. By NAIR: articles— ‘‘‘Many Stories in India Are Just Crying out to Be Made’—Mira Nair,’’ interview with M. Purohit and S. Parmar, in Cinema India- International (Bombay), no. 3, 1988. ‘‘Star of India,’’ interview with Brad Kessler and Mitch Epstein, in Interview (New York), September 1988. Interview with L. Vincenzi, in Millimeter (New York), March 1992. ‘‘Capturing the Rhythms of Life,’’ interview in Film Journal (New York), October/November 1994. On NAIR: book— Arora, Poonam, ‘‘Production of Third World Subjects for First World Consumption: Salaam Bombay! and Parama,’’ in Carson, Diane, Linda Dittmar, and Janice Welsch, editors, Multiple Voices in Feminist Film Criticism, Minneapolis, 1994. On NAIR: articles— Shah, A., ‘‘Independents: A Dweller in Two Lands: Mira Nair, Filmmaker,’’ in Cineaste (New York), no. 3, 1987. Malcolm, Derek, ‘‘Lessons of the Street,’’ in Cinema in India (Bombay), no. 3, 1988. Purohit, M., ‘‘Mira Nair Scores a Unique Triumph,’’ in Cinema India-International (Bombay), no. 3, 1988. James, Caryn, ‘‘Mira Nair Combines Cultures to Create a Film,’’ in New York Times, 17 October 1988. Ochiva, D., ‘‘Mira Nair,’’ in Millimeter (New York), January 1989. ‘‘Life Is a Cabaret, the Camera Is a Veil: A File on Mira Nair,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), February 1989. Van Gelder, L., ‘‘At the Movies,’’ in New York Times, 10 March 1989. Freedman, S. G., ‘‘One People in Two Worlds,’’ in New York Times, 2 February 1992. Outlaw, M., ‘‘The Mira Stage,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 18 February 1992. Simpson, Janice C., ‘‘Focusing on the Margins,’’ in Time (New York), 2 March 1992. Current Biography (New York), 1993. Anderson, Erika Surat, ‘‘Mississippi Masala,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1993. Negi, M., ‘‘Mira Nair,’’ in Cinemaya (New Delhi), Autumn/Winter 1994/1995. Vahtera, H., ‘‘Mira Nair,’’ in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 5, 1995. Chatterjee, V., ‘‘Mira Nair’s Better Films,’’ in Deep Focus (Banglagore, India), no. 1, 1996. Thompson, A. O., ‘‘The Look of Love,’’ in American Cinema- tographer (Hollywood), February 1997. Major, W., ‘‘‘Kama’ Karma,’’ in Box Office (Chicago), Febru- ary 1997. NAIR DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 706 Mira Nair on the set of Mississippi Masala Calderale, M., ‘‘Filmografie,’’ in Segnocinema (Vicenza, Italy), May/June 1997. Patel, Vibhuti, ‘‘Making a Woman’s ‘Kama Sutra’,’’ in Ms. (New York), May/June 1997. Nechak, P., ‘‘Mira Nair,’’ in Moviemaker (Los Angeles), May/June/ July 1997. *** At their core, the films of Mira Nair are humanist in nature. They spotlight the inequities of traditional, patriarchal Indian society, the manner in which individuals are trapped and victimized because of economic status and gender, and the problems Indians face as they assimilate into foreign cultures. Prior to directing her first narrative feature, Salaam Bombay!, Nair made several documentaries whose subjects reflect her sociological concerns. Jama Masjid Street Journal explores a Muslim community in Old Delhi; So Far from India portrays an Indian immigrant in New York, and examines his emotions as he is separated from his wife and child back home; Children of a Desired Sex spotlights the problems of pregnant Indian women whose offspring will be girls. Her most acclaimed documentary, India Cabaret, records the lives of female Bombay nightclub performers. Here, Nair investigates the distinction between the traditional Indian woman, who is expected to remain in the home, and her more modern, free-thinking counterpart, who yearns for personal and economic emancipation. Salaam Bombay!, a drama of the corruption of childhood, won Nair international acclaim. It is a story of lost young souls who, because of poverty and parental abuse, have no control of their lives, and their fates. At the same time, these children somehow manage to grasp onto their innocence. Nair’s hero is Krishna (Shafiq Syed), a naive, illiterate ten-year-old country boy grappling for survival amid the mean streets of Bombay, which is a garish metropolis of filth, crime, and superficial glitter. Krishna starts off as a chaipau—a deliverer of tea and bread—and quickly finds himself involved with a prostitute, her sadistic pimp-lover (who doubles as a drug kingpin), a teenager sold by her father as a virgin hooker, and a pathetic, ill- fated drug dealer. The scenario is structured as a novel, with all the characters colorfully and three-dimensionally etched. And Nair has crammed the film with memorable images and striking vignettes. Prominent among the latter is the characterization of Manju (Hansa Vithal), NAVADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 707 daughter of the pimp and whore. Manju is a sweet little girl who is regularly ignored, then smothered with insincere kisses by her mother, and finally cast out into the street. Clearly, she too will be destined for a life of prostitution. Nair’s documentary background impacted on the manner in which she enlisted her actors. Seventeen children are cast in Salaam Bom- bay! and all are non-professionals, recruited directly off the city’s streets. ‘‘I knew from the beginning that I had to work with real homeless children,’’ she explained after completing the film. ‘‘It was their spirit of survival, plus their inimitable qualities, that I think inspired me to make the film.’’ Indeed, Nair dedicated Salaam Bombay! to ‘‘the children of the streets of Bombay.’’ In Mississippi Masala, her follow-up feature, Nair further ex- plores the issues she examined in India Cabaret. Only here, even though the main female character no longer resides in India, she still must deal with societal and cultural pressures to conform. The film, set in the sleepy Bible-belt town of Greenwood, Mississippi, is a tale of forbidden romance; the lovers are a self-made African-American businessman (Denzel Washington) and a spirited young Indian- American woman (Sarita Choudhury). Mississippi Masala is a chronicle of clashing cultures that is not unlike Spike Lee’s Jungle Fever. The point of each, simply put, is that people are people, and are united (or divided) in ways that transcend skin color. Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love may be linked to India Cabaret and Mississippi Masala (as well as Deepa Mehta’s Fire) as a film that explores a subject rarely seen on Western movie screens: sexuality and Indian women. Kama Sutra is the story of two women: Tara (Sarita Choudhury), a 16th-century princess; and the seductive, independent-minded Maya (Indira Varma), her servant. Tara is set to wed a king, but Maya slips into his chamber and seduces him just before the nuptials. So as Tara and her new husband consummate their marriage, he only can think of one woman: Maya. Granted that, plot-wise, Kama Sutra is analogous to a daytime soap opera. But what makes it so compelling is the manner in which Nair portrays a period in history when women were trained to be either courtesans or wives, and her depiction of how, within the framework of that time, one woman manages to take power over her destiny. Neither Mississippi Masala nor Kama Sutra—or, for that matter, any of her subsequent films—earned Nair the acclaim accorded Salaam Bombay! Yet she remains consistently committed to human- ist-oriented scenarios featuring characters who struggle against igno- rance and oppression. For example, My Own Country, a made-for-TV movie, is the based-on-fact account of an East Indian doctor who settles in Tennessee and becomes fabled for his compassionate treatment of AIDS patients. —Rob Edelman NAVA, Gregory Nationality: American. Born: 10 April 1949. Education: Attended UCLA Film School. Family: Married Anna Thomas (a writer and filmmaker); two children. Awards: Chicago Film Festival prize for Best First Feature, for The Confessions of Amans, 1976; San Sebastián International Film Festival OCIC Award, for My Family/Mi Familia, 1995; ALMA Award, for Outstanding Latino Director of a Feature Film, for Why Do Fools Fall in Love, 1998. Agent: International Creative Management, 8942 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211. Films as Director: 1976 The Confessions of Amans (+ ph, co-sc, ed, co-pr) 1983 El Norte (+ co-sc) 1988 A Time of Destiny (+ co-sc) 1995 My Family/Mi Familia (+ co-sc) 1997 Selena (+ co-sc) 1998 Why Do Fools Fall in Love? (+ co-pr) 1999 In the Melting Pot (doc; for TV). Publications By NAVA: articles— West, Dennis, ‘‘Filming the Chicano Family Saga: Interview with Director Gregory Nava,’’ in Cineaste, Fall 1995. ‘‘Gregory Nava on Selena,’’ interview with Henri Béhar, in Film Scouts, http://www.filmscouts.com/intervws/gre-nav.asp, July 2000. On NAVA: articles— Simon, J., ‘‘Crowd Pleasers,’’ in National Review, 21 April 1997. Williams, David, ‘‘A Life of Color and Light: Filming Selena,’’ in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), May 1997. Voss, Karen, ‘‘Replacing L.A.: Mi Familia, Devil in a Blue Dress, and Screening the Other Los Angeles,’’ in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), no. 3, 1998. *** Anyone looking for the latest work of Latino filmmakers, particu- larly documentaries and shorter works in alternative styles, will most likely find it in festivals sponsored by universities, cinemateques, or film collectives, and not at the nearest multiplex, where films about the lives of Americans of Hispanic descent are extremely rare. A handful of commercial films have had wide distribution, including the works of several Chicanos: Luis Valdez (La Bamba), James Edward Olmos (American Me), ‘‘Cheech’’ Marin (Born in East L.A), and, far from least, Gregory Nava, who has managed on several occasions to overcome reluctance in Hollywood to produce films about Latino families. Nava has claimed to be first and foremost a filmmaker, not an ‘‘ethnic’’ or ‘‘niche’’ filmmaker, so that, for example, his saga My Family/Mi Familia should be meaningful to any American who has known the immigrant experience, or indeed who has been part of a close-knit family. Still, his career to date exempli- fies the difficulty of getting films—other than crime dramas and broad comedies—about particular ethnic or social groups made and distributed to a wide audience. Nava’s first major film, and arguably still his best, is El Norte, which takes as its subject a pair of Guatemalan refugees, brother and sister, their father brutally slain for his resistance to the ruling class, their mother taken away by soldiers. The film tells of their trip north, through Mexico and across the border to Los Angeles, where they find El Norte is hardly a welcoming haven. Telling its tragic story of the underprivileged with simplicity but not condescension, the film might best be compared to classics of Italian Neorealism in its direct, sometimes brutal, always emotionally powerful presentation and deeply affecting performances. To be sure, it differs in certain conspicuous ways from those black-and-white dramas of post-War NAVA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 708 Gregory Nava Italian life, notably in the gorgeous colors of the Guatemala scenes (actually filmed in adjoining Mexican provinces), including the campesino textiles, brightly painted houses with deep red interior walls, and surrounding greenery. An occasional shot may seem framed as ‘‘picturesque’’—e.g., three girls in their bright shawls with water jugs on their heads—but the clothing is authentic and the constant beauty is ironic and heartbreaking in the context of violence and exile. Another difference from the Italian films is the occasional touch of Latin American magic realism, or perhaps folk tradition, as in omens of Maria’s death. The film has moments of humor—a running gag about Mexican swearing, and a dauntingly complicated washing machine in a wealthy woman’s house—that leaven the mainly somber drama. There are also unexpected moments of elation, such as the burst of Mahler’s Fourth Symphony (quite a contrast to the Guatemalan folk and Mexican popular music accompanying other scenes) that sounds when the exiles have their first glimpse of what they think will be the promised land. The success of El Norte in art-house markets led to Nava (and his collaborator Anna Thomas) working on a Hollywood project with important stars, with somewhat unfortunate results. A Time of Destiny derives its plot from the Spanish play that provided Giuseppe Verdi with a libretto for La Forza del Destino (an aria from which is heard in one scene). A couple attempt to elope; the bride’s stern father is accidentally killed while trying to prevent the marriage; her brother swears revenge on the now separated couple, pursuing the groom even across raging battlefields. Nava updates the story to World War II, keeps a Hispanic flavor by making the father a Basque rancher and setting key scenes in a California mission, and eliminates the tragic ending while keeping some of the stark and brooding quality of the original. Some truly suspenseful scenes and superb photography help the drama, but Timothy Hutton and Melissa Leo are only sweet kids, rather than interesting protagonists, and William Hurt is convincingly demented only in his later scenes. Moreover, the battle footage is a bit too flashy with its artillery-shell POVs (though there is a neat borrowing from Eisenstein’s October to convey machine gun fire by rapid editing), and the climax in the bell tower owes too much to several Hitchcock films and to Orson Welles’ The Stranger. Nava’s ambitious next project, again with Thomas, was a multigenerational tale of a family in East Los Angeles, starting with a couple who arrive from Mexico in the late 1920s (joining a relative who has lived there since California was still part of Mexico, and who significantly gets buried in the back yard among some symbolic corn plants) and NEMECDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 709 continuing with their offspring. Historical events, like the illegal deportation of U.S. citizens to Mexico during the Depression, inter- sect with the family’s lives, but the story keeps circling back to the home itself, and to the nearby bridges that link it to the Anglo world. Each of the children seems to represent a possible direction for a Chicano life between the 1930s and the 1980s. One of the daughters has a big wedding and big family, while the other becomes a nun but later marries an ex-priest and works to help Central American refugees. Of the sons, one is a pachuco who scorns his parents’ work ethic, gets drawn into a knife fight à la West Side Story, and is slain by the police; one goes to UCLA law school; a third becomes a writer, and is in fact the narrator of the film; and the youngest, who witnesses the police slaying, grows up embittered. The struggles of the young parents take up the first part of the film, while the rest concentrates on the brothers with the most violent lives: in the 1950s the seemingly doomed Chucho (Esai Morales) and in the 1970s the tormented Jimmy (Jimmy Smits), who goes to jail more than once, marries a Salvadoran refugee to save her from deportation and death, and, in the film’s extended finale, works to establish a relationship with his own son. Nava compresses this saga into just over two hours’ time, relying at times on cliches in the dialogue and voiceover narration, but he finds dramatic unity not only in the theme of family solidarity but in the mise-en-scene (the gradually changing decor of the house) and a series of parallel situatios. Some critics have questioned what could be called the film’s politics of nostalgia, but My Family/Mi Familia is still an important achievement, with several powerful performances and vivid set pieces. More recently Nava has directed two biographies of popular American singers who died young—though the films are altogether different in tone and structure as well as subject. Given his commit- ment to stories that emphasize family values and the struggle of Latino/as to find a place for themselves in American culture, Nava was a natural choice to direct Selena, the life story of the Tejana singing star killed by a crazed fan at the age of 23. Selena had become astonishingly popular first among Texas Hispanics, then in Mexico (though she was unable to speak or sing in Spanish until her father trained her), and finally, with a crossover album, in America at large. With Selena’s family directly involved in the production, it is not surprising that the film is both saint’s life and American success story, with the usual ‘‘Gotta sing!’’ story impetus, but Nava does find drama in the impulsiveness, hot temper, and unswerving faith of her father Abraham (James Edward Olmos), a combination of ‘‘stage father’’ and Latin patriarch. Unlike the Old World father in A Time of Destiny, however, Abraham reconciles with his daughter after she elopes with her true love, the band’s guitarist with a ‘‘bad’’ reputation. In any case, the film is most successful not as drama but as a document of Selena’s musical achievement. Jennifer Lopez (the young peasant mother in My Family) lipsyncs Senena’s singing and recreates her stage movements convincingly (as we can see when footage of the real Selena is shown as an epilogue), and conveys a sort of wholesome sensuality. The songs are well integrated into the narrative and Nava’s widescreen lensing allows split screen effects, some of them virtually religious triptychs with Selena framed in the center panel. The director’s favorite images of full moon and round sun at the horizon, used in all his preceding films, make their appearance, bt with less ominous foreboding than before. Nava elects not to show the murder of Selena onscreen, and gives only glimpses of the family’s grief, not just out of tact but because the film is clearly intended to be a celebration of Selena’s life and a memorial gift to her fans, with the advantages and drawbacks that such an approach is bound to have. Why Do Fools Fall In Love? posed a different kind of challenge, that of doing something original with the notoriously rigid formula of the biopic of an artist who succumbs to alcohol or drugs: early stardom, break with less talented ‘‘family’’ of fellow artists in favor of a solo career, love problems, loss of popularity, crazed addiction, partial comeback before fatal overdose. The solution was to center the story of Frankie Lymon around his three alleged widows, each claiming the royalties after his death. The resulting film attempts to be both the Citizen Kane and the Rashomon of doo-wop, with Lymon’s life revealed in flashbacks from the viewpoints of those who loved and hated him, but, unlike Citizen Kane, with some directly contradic- tory testimony, as in two alternative flashbacks of a fight around a swimming pool. Unfortunately, Larenz Tate cannot make Lymon much more than cute in some scenes and abusive in a few others, and the comic and horrific scenes seem to come from different movies. Still, Nava offers a number of pleasures: a fantastic sense of color and 1950s decor, most dazzlingly in a tour-bus-and-diner scene; raucous insult matches among the women, with Little Richard as himself whooping it up; and different editing patterns and photography for each musical number, including an elegant Steadicam shot that takes us from a theatre marquee through the doors, up onto the stage, swirling around the Pretenders in mid-number, following them off- stage and Frankie’s group onstage, and circling around Frankie as well. Why Do Fools is Nava’s first major work with only incidental connections to Latino life. Since then he has returned to what is clearly his most passionate concern, by making a pilot film for a TV series about an East L.A. family. One can imagine some of Nava’s strongest virtues as a filmmaker—unreserved emotional perform- ances from his actors, bold color palate, sensitivity to music, broad humor—working well if given free rein in such a series, as one hopes to find them in feature films to come. —Joseph Milicia NEMEC, Jan Nationality: Czech. Born: Prague, 12 July 1936. Education: Film Faculty, Academy of Music and Arts (FAMU), Prague, 1955–60. Family: Married 1) Ester Krumbachová (divorced); 2) Marta Kubisová. Career: While at film academy, assistant to directors Vaclav Krska and Martin Fri?; co-scripted two features, also five shorts and five mini-musicals for TV, with then-wife, 1964–66; after Martyrs of Love, blacklisted by Barrandov Studios for political reasons, 1966; filmed entry of Soviet forces into Prague, footage broadcast around the world (later used in both U.S. and Soviet propaganda films), 1968; made only film following Soviet invasion, a short documentary about intensive care unit, Prague, 1972; able to leave Czechoslovakia, worked with Veronika Schamoni in Germany, 1974, then moved to U.S.A.; occasionally lectured on cinema at American universities; returned to Czechoslovakia, 1989, to direct V ?áru královské lásky (In the Light of the King’s Love). Address: 21607 Rambla Vista, Malibu, California, 90265, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1960 Sousto (The Loaf; A Loaf of Bread; A Bite to Eat; The Morsel) 1963 The Memory of Our Day NEMEC DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 710 1964 Demanty noci (Diamonds of the Night) (+ co-sc); ‘‘Pdvodnici’’ (The Liars, Impostors) segment of Perli?ky na dn (Pearls of the Deep) 1966 O slavnosti a hostech (The Party and the Guests; Report on the Party and the Guests) (+ co-sc) 1967 Mu?edníci lásky (Martyrs of Love) (+ co-sc); Mother and Son (short) (+ co-sc) 1968 Oratorio for Prague (Oratorium for Prague) (doc) (+ co-sc) 1972 Between Three and Five Minutes (doc short) (+ co-sc) 1975 Le Décolleté dans le dos (+ co-sc); Metamorphosis (short) (+ co-sc); The Czech Connection (+ co-sc) 1988 True Stories: Peace in Our Time? 1989 The Poet Remembers 1991 V ?áru královské lásky (In the Light of the King’s Love; The Flames of Royal Love); Strahovská demonstrace 1997 Jmeno kodu: Rubin (Code Name: Ruby) (co-sc) 2000 Nocní hovory s matkou Other Films: 1988 The Unbearable Lightness of Being (special consultant, role) 1998 Vcentru filmu-vteple domova (role as himself) 1999 Po ceste pustym lesem (role as himself) 2000 Bohemia Docta (role as himself) Publications By NEMEC: article— An interview with Milo? Fry? and Milan Doinel and Petr Marek, in Film a Doba (Prague), Spring-Summer 1997. On NEMEC: books— Skvorecky, Josef, All the Bright Young Men and Women, Tor- onto, 1971. Liehm, Antonin, Closely Watched Films, White Plains, New York, 1974. Stoil, Michael, Cinema beyond the Danube, Metuchen, New Jer- sey, 1974. Liehm, Mira and Antonin, The Most Important Art, Berkeley, 1977. Habova, Milada, and Jitka Vysekalova, editors, Czechoslovak Cin- ema, Prague, 1982. Hames, Peter, The Czechoslovak New Wave, Berkeley, 1982. On NEMEC: articles— Skvorecky, Josef, ‘‘Unnepsegrol, bevonulasrol,’’ in Filmvilag, vol. 33, no. 3, 1990. Varga, G., ‘‘A nonkonformizmus lova,’’ in Filmvilag, vol. 33, no. 7, 1990. Durgnat, R., ‘‘Jan Nemec,’’ in Film Dope, December 1991. *** Jan Nemec’s Czech filmography includes three shorts, three features, and a segment of a compilation work. All three features were co-scripted by his then-wife, Ester Krumbachová. He reached inter- national fame with the 1968 screening of The Party and the Guests at the New York Film Festival, which followed a two-year struggle to screen the film within Czechoslovakia. After completing The Martyrs of Love in 1966, Nemec was blacklisted by Barrandov Studios for political reasons and was unable to work in Czechoslovakia. He immigrated to the West in 1974, settling first in Paris, then in Germany, and finally in the United States, but he was unable to re- establish his film career despite the fact that he was one of the foremost talents of the Czech New Wave. Thematically all of Nemec’s films deal with obstacles to human freedom and the ways in which men and women cope with these limitations. He has stated, ‘‘In Diamonds of the Night man is not free as a result of that most external of pressures called war. In The Party and the Guests, it is a lack of freedom that people bring on themselves by being willing to enter into any sort of collaborative relationship. In Martyrs of Love, it is a matter of a lack of freedom or opportunity to act out one’s own folly, one’s own madness, or dreams of love and human happiness.’’ Within the context, Nemec is most concerned with the psychological effects of these restrictions. Stylistically Nemec developed a highly metaphoric cinema utiliz- ing several experimental techniques. He calls this style ‘‘dream realism.’’ His works function as political and psychological parables. His first feature, Diamonds of the Night, based on a novel by Holocaust survivor Arnost Lustig, follows two Jewish boys who jump from a Nazi transport on its way to the concentration camps. As the boys wander through the forest looking for food, time shifts back and forth. There are memories of war-torn Prague, distorted visions of elongated trams, and menacing looks of strangers. The boys halluci- nate about falling trees and swarming ants. Eventually they are arrested by the Home Guard, composed of old men more concerned with drinking and singing than with the boys. The film ends ambiguously with the fate of the two still an open question. Jaroslav Ku?era’s hand-held camera creates tension as the boys scamper like animals or stare subjectively into the impassive faces of their captors. The Party and the Guests begins with a summer picnic. Suddenly a group of men appear, forcing the picnickers to obey new rules. Next they are feted at an elaborate banquet. Only one man is unwilling to participate in the festivities. At the end, accompanied by a menacing dog, the group sets out to capture the nonconformist. Here again are the themes of impersonal group control, conformity, man’s indiffer- ence, and the casual use of violence, and Nemec again creates a surreal world where the extraordinary takes on the look of every- day events. Nemec’s last major work, Martyrs of Love, is composed of three comic stories about young men in pursuit of romance. Their inability to achieve their goal ultimately turns comedy into sadness. In creating the dream-like world of the film, Nemec used only minimal dialogue. The images are accompanied by a jazzy score, reflecting the passion for American music among young Czechs during the 1960s. Nemec’s short works deal with the same themes developed in his features. His graduation film, The Loaf of Bread, portrays a group of prisoners who steal a loaf of bread from their Nazi captors. Here Nemec depicts human beings under stress. As he has commented, ‘‘I am concerned with man’s reactions to the drastic situation in which, through no fault of his own, he may find himself.’’ Mother and Son, made in Holland in 1967, deals with the death of a sadistic soldier, who has beaten and executed prisoners. When young boys try to desecrate his grave, his old mother staunchly protects it. The film NIBLODIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 711 ironically concludes with the title, ‘‘Love between one human being and another is the only important thing in life.’’ Nemec’s contribution to Pearls from the Deep is an episode titled ‘‘The Poseurs.’’ Here two senile patients at a private clinic ramble on about their former achievements, despite their failing memories. Nemec’s shots of the mortuary, the place where they will ultimately reside, provide a sad and chilling commentary on all human life. Nemec’s remaining works are Metamorphosis, an adaptation of the Kafka story filmed in Germany in 1957, and The Czech Connection, made the same year. —Patricia Erens NIBLO, Fred Nationality: American. Born: Federico Nobile in York, Nebraska, 6 January 1874. Family: Married Josephine Cohan (died 1916); one son; 2) actress Enid Bennett, 1917, three children. Career: Vaude- ville performer, blackface monologuist, through 1907; shot trave- logues on ’round-the-world cruise, 1907; company manager and actor for George M. Cohan and Sam Harris; took American repertory company to Australia, 1912–15; directed film for Australian theatri- cal company J.C. Williamson, 1915; joined Ince company, Holly- wood, 1918; co-founder, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, 1928. Died: In New Orleans, 11 November 1948. Films as Director: 1915 Get-Rich-Quick Wallingford (+ role) 1918 Coals of Fire; The Marriage Ring; When Do We Eat?; A Desert Wooing; Fuss and Feathers 1919 Happy Though Married; The Haunted Bedroom; Partners Three; The Virtuous Thief; Stepping Out; What Every Woman Learns 1920 The Woman in the Suitcase; The False Road; Her Husband’s Friend; Dangerous Hours; Sex; Hairpins; The Mark of Zorro 1921 Silk Hosiery; Mother o’ Mine; Greater than Love; The Three Musketeers 1922 The Woman He Married; Rose o’ the Sea; Blood and Sand 1923 The Famous Mrs. Fair; Strangers of the Night (+ co-pr) 1924 Thy Name Is Woman; The Red Lily (+ story) 1926 Ben-Hur; The Temptress 1927 Camille (+ pr); The Devil Dancer (+ pr) 1928 The Enemy (+ pr); Two Lovers (+ pr); The Mysterious Lady; Dream of Love 1930 Redemption (+ pr); Way out West 1931 Donovan’s Kid; The Big Gamble 1932 Two White Arms; Diamond Cut Diamond (co-d); Blame the Woman Other Films: 1915 Officer 666 (role) 1930 Free and Easy (Sedgwick) (role) 1940 Ellery Queen, Master Detective (Bellamy) (role); I’m Still Alive (role) 1941 Life with Henry (Reed) (role) 1944 Four Jills in a Jeep (Seiter) (co-sc) Publications By NIBLO: articles— Interview with M. Cheatham, in Motion Picture Classic (Brooklyn), July 1920. ‘‘Sketch,’’ with K. McGaffey, in Motion Picture Classic (Brooklyn), October 1921. ‘‘The Filming of Ben Hur,’’ interview with R. Wharton, in Classic Film/Video Images (Indiana, Pennsylvania), Winter 1978. On NIBLO: book— Brownlow, Kevin, The Parade’s Gone By, New York, 1968. On NIBLO: articles— Obituary, in The New York Times, 12 November 1948. Obituary, in Variety (New York), 12 November 1948. Route, W.D., ‘‘Buried Directors,’’ in Focus (Chicago), Spring 1972. ‘‘1224 Fred Niblo,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), December 1991. *** Fred Niblo directed some of the most legendary stars of the 1920s in some of that decade’s biggest films: Blood and Sand (with Valentino); The Mark of Zorro and The Three Musketeers (Fair- banks); and Ben Hur. He guided Garbo through The Temptress (replacing her mentor, Mauritz Stiller) and The Mysterious Lady. He worked with Lillian Gish, Ronald Colman, Conrad Nagel, Lionel Barrymore, Vilma Banky, and Norma Talmadge. Valentino, Fair- banks, and Garbo first come to mind at the mention of their films with Niblo. The other actors’ best work was done elsewhere, for other more rightfully distinguished filmmakers. Niblo’s one distinction is his credit on Ben Hur, the cinema’s first real super-spectacle. Ben Hur is the Titanic of its day, a boondoggle that ran way over budget and took two years to complete. It was begun by the Goldwyn Company, and passed along when Goldwyn, Loew’s Metro, and Louis B. Mayer joined together to form Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer. Ben Hur was initially shot on location in Italy. The dissatisfied studio ordered a revised script. Ramon Novarro replaced George Walsh in the title role and Niblo, the choice of Mayer and Irving Thalberg, took over for Charles Brabin. The Coliseum was rebuilt several blocks from the MGM lot; inside the studio, Roman galleys floated inside a large tank. Eventually, the budget climbed to $3 million—perhaps even higher—with over one million feet of film shot. Niblo not so much directed as coordinated Ben Hur, and the result was all effect and no drama. Sometimes the film is confusing, and even tiring, yet it is also at its best thrilling. The image of Novarro and NICHOLS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 712 Fred Niblo (center) with Lillian Gish on the set of The Enemy Francis X. Bushman (as Messala) racing their chariots remains one of the best-recalled of the silent era. This sequence is supposed to have influenced the staging of the same scene in William Wyler’s far superior remake. Ultimately, Niblo’s career success was more a case of luck than any inherent talent or aesthetic vision. In 1917 he married Enid Bennett, who worked for Thomas Ince; the following year, he began making films for Ince. Later, Niblo was hired by Mayer, who liked him and brought him along to MGM. Niblo’s career as an A-film director did not last many years past Ben Hur. He made only a handful of films during the 1930s, even working in Britain before retiring in 1941. In his later years, he took small roles in films—he had commenced his career as an actor, in vaudeville, on tour, and Broadway—and was employed as a radio commentator and master of ceremonies. Before Don Juan, The Jazz Singer, and the demise of silent movies, Niblo made some intriguing prognostications. He foresaw the advent of sound, declaring that motion picture music would be synchronized by radio to replace the live piano; subtitles would be synchronized and broadcast in the same way, in the actual voices of the actors. He predicted other advances as well, including the use of color cinematography, three-dimensional screens to prevent distor- tion, and theaters specializing in children’s films. While Niblo may have been a decent technician at best in the director’s chair, he was far more adept with a crystal ball. —Rob Edelman NICHOLS, Mike Nationality: American. Born: Michael Igor Peschkowsky in Berlin, 6 November 1931; became U.S. citizen, 1944. Education: University of Chicago, 1950–53; studied acting with Lee Strasberg, 1954. Family: Married 1) Patricia Scott, 1957 (divorced), one daughter; 2) Margot Callas, 1974 (divorced); 3) Annabel (divorced), two children; 4) Diane Sawyer, 1988. Career: Member of Compass Players improvisational theatre group, Chicago, 1955–57; partner- ship with Elaine May, 1957–61; director on Broadway, from 1963; produced The Family for TV, 1976. Awards: 7 Tony Awards; NICHOLSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 713 Academy Award for Best Direction, Directors Guild of America Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures, Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture Director, and British Academy Award for Best Direction, for The Graduate, 1968; American Com- edy Awards Creative Achievement Award, 1994; awarded Star on Walk of Fame, 1998. Office: c/o Marvin B. Meyer, Rosenfeld, Meyer and Sussman, 9601 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90210, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1966 Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? 1967 The Graduate 1970 Catch-22 1971 Carnal Knowledge (+ pr) 1973 The Day of the Dolphin 1975 The Fortune (+ co-pr) 1980 Gilda Live 1983 Silkwood (+ co-pr) 1986 Heartburn (+ co-pr) 1988 Biloxi Blues; Working Girl 1990 Postcards from the Edge (+ co-pr) 1991 Regarding Henry (+ co-pr) 1994 Wolf 1996 The Birdcage (+co-pr) 1998 Primary Colors (+co-pr) 2000 What Planet Are You From? (+co-pr) Publications By NICHOLS: articles— Interview with Barry Davy, in Films and Filming (London), Novem- ber 1968. Interview with Lillian Hellman, in New York Times, 9 August 1970. Interview in The Film Director as Superstar, by Joseph Gelmis, New York, 1971. Interview with D. Kennedy, in Listener (London), 16 March 1989. Interview with Richard Combs, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1989. ‘‘Without Cutaways: Mike Nichols Interviewed,’’ by Gavin Smith, in Film Comment, May/June 1991. ‘‘Mike Nichols: Working Man,’’ an interview with Stephen Greco, in Advocate, 5 May 1992. On NICHOLS: books— Kiley, Frederick, and Walter McDonald, editors, A ‘‘Catch-22’’ Casebook, New York, 1973. Schuth, H. Wayne, Mike Nichols, Boston, 1978. On NICHOLS: articles— Rice, Robert, ‘‘A Tilted Insight,’’ in New Yorker, 15 April 1961. Bart, Peter, ‘‘Mike Nichols, Moviemaniac,’’ in New York Times, 1 July 1967. Lightman, Herb, ‘‘On Location with Carnal Knowledge,’’ in Ameri- can Cinematographer (Los Angeles), January 1971. Mike Nichols Brown, John, ‘‘Pictures of Innocence,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1972. Rich, Frank, ‘‘The Misfortune of Mike Nichols: Notes on the Making of a Bad Film,’’ in New York Times, 11 July 1975. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘After The Graduate,’’ in American Film (Washing- ton, D.C.), July/August 1978. Fieschi, J., ‘‘Hollywood ’79: Mike Nichols,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), March 1979. Combs, Richard, ‘‘Mike Nichols: Comedy in Four Unnatural Acts,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), May 1989. Farber, Stephen, ‘‘Waiting for Mike,’’ in Connoisseur, June 1991. Christiansen, Richard, ‘‘Behind the Camera with Mike Nichols,’’ in Chicago Tribune, 7 July 1991. Hale, C., ‘‘Mike Nichols,’’ in Film Dope, December 1991. Buck, Joan Juliet, ‘‘Live Mike,’’ in Vanity Fair, June 1994. *** The son of a Russian-Jewish emigré who fled the Nazis for the U.S. with his family in the 1930s, lived in some poverty, and died when his son was 12, Mike Nichols has displayed the drive, energy, and Jewish-influenced sense of humor germane to his background. A man of cultivated sensibilities and eclectic taste, and an outstanding director of actors on both stage and screen, Nichols also developed an adroit film technique. Fond of foreground shooting, long takes, and distorting close-ups to intensify the sense of his characters’ entrap- ment, he also frequently employs overlapping sound and a spare, modernistic mise-en-scène (the latter at times reminiscent of Antonioni) NICHOLS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 714 to convey an aura of disorientation and sterility. In the underpraised and misunderstood Carnal Knowledge, Nichols uses whiteouts (also prominent in Catch-22) and Bergmanesque talking heads as structural and thematic devices to increase the viewer’s alienation from the two central characters, Jonathan and Sandy—visually (and in Jules Feiffer’s original screenplay) the most isolated and self-deluded of Nichols’s characters—and to ridicule notions of male sexual fantasy at the core of the film. Nichols made an awesome film directing debut in 1966 with Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, earning nine Oscar nomina- tions with a deserved win for Elizabeth Taylor. Thirty years on, he had accumulated sixteen films to his credit which, viewed as a body of work, reveal a range and, in general, a level of quality that places him firmly in the upper echelons of commercial directors working in the pre-high tech-special effects tradition of solid comedy and drama. The films of Mike Nichols are guided by the eye and ear of a satirist whose professional gifts emerge from a style of liberal, improvisational comedy that originated in a Chicago theater club and developed into a performing partnership with Elaine May in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In clubs and recordings, on radio, television, and Broadway, Nichols and May’s routines gnawed hilariously close to the bone. Aimed at literate, self-aware audiences, their skits (sometimes anticipating key elements of Nichols’s films) gleefully anatomized family relationships, and men and women dueling in post-Freudian combat, by turns straying from the marriage bond and clinging to it for dear life. Before entering films, Nichols earned a reputation as a skillful Broadway director with a particular flair for devising innovative stage business and eliciting unusually polished performances. That sure theatrical sense, honed by his subsequent direction of plays by writers as diverse as Neil Simon, Anton Chekhov, Lillian Hellman, David Rabe, and Tom Stoppard, combines in his best films with the sardonic attitude toward American life that underlies even the gentlest of his collaborations with Elaine May. Several of Nichols’s major films begin as comedies and evolve into mordant, generically ambiguous dissections of the American psyche. Their central characters exist in isolation from the landscapes they inhabit, often manufacturing illusions to shield themselves against reality (George and Martha in Virginia Woolf, Sandy and Jonathan in Carnal Knowledge) or fleeing with mounting desperation societies whose values they alone perceive as neurotic (Benjamin in The Graduate) or murderous (Yossarian in Catch-22). Martha and George, Edward Albee’s Strindbergian couple, flail at each other on their New England campus and reveal a tormented relationship which, although concluding with a faint glimmer of hope, seems nevertheless to imply the futility of monogamy, a view reinforced by Carnal Knowledge and The Graduate. In the latter, until he dates Elaine Robinson, Benjamin Braddock is segregated by script and camera from the company of friends: whether in a packed airplane, on the Berkeley campus teeming with students, or sur- rounded by his parents’ partying guests, Ben is alone. His detach- ment, italicized by numerous shots within the film, permits him to function as the funnel for The Graduate’s social satire. In this respect he is Nichols’s surrogate, but the director complicates the viewer’s empathetic response to Ben by scrutinizing him rather as an experi- menting scientist scrutinizes a mouse darting about a maze, especially as he scampers in frantic pursuit of Elaine. In Dustin Hoffman’s memorable screen debut, Ben became the moralistic spokesman for a generation that mistrusted anyone over thirty and vowed never to go into plastics. But, like certain other Nichols heroes, Ben may be more than a little crazy, the inevitable child of a Southern California lifestyle that leads him to anticipate instant gratification. Nichols, moreover, intentionally undermines the comic resolution toward which the film has been heading through ambivalent shots of Ben and Elaine on their departing bus, implicat- ing them in mutual recognition of a colossal mistake. At film’s end, Ben Braddock still has considerable cause to be ‘‘worried about [his] future.’’ For Yossarian, worrying about the future means literally staying alive. To survive a ‘‘Catch-22’’ universe he behaves like a lunatic, but the more bizarrely he acts the more sanely is he regarded according to the military chop-logic that drives him toward madness. In Buck Henry’s screenplay, time is fractured to retain the basic storytelling method of Joseph Heller’s novel. Flashbacks occur within flashbacks. Conversations are inaudible (as in the opening scene), while incidents only partially revealed (as in the first Snowden sequences) are later replayed with deleted elements restored. Things are seldom what they initially seem in this director’s work. Like Nick and Honey, misled by George and Martha’s pretense of hospitality in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, the viewer may be easily lulled by a deceptively comic tone, enticing visual stylization, and innovative storytelling technique into misreading the bleak vision that the films often harbor. The Day of the Dolphin, for example, with its mythic qualities, concerns about good and evil, and a painful ending, is certainly more than just a story of talking dolphins. Even The Fortune, a farce in the screwball tradition, hinges on attempted murder and leaves its heroine’s fate hanging in the balance. Nichols directs literate, intelligent scripts that pull few punches in their delineations of sexual, social or political themes. While The Graduate continues to be regarded as an American classic, Nichols is sometimes undervalued for his film work because he prefers the New York theater and because his contributions to his pictures are periodically credited to their writers’ screenplays (Buck Henry, Jules Feiffer) or their theatrical and literary sources (Edward Albee, Joseph Heller, Charles Webb). But Nichols is very much an auteur, working intimately with his collaborators on all aspects of his films, principally the writing and, as with many auteurs, using many of the same actors and technicians again and again. Nichols’s films uphold his original reputation as a gifted director of actors: Hoffman in The Graduate, Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Jack Nicholson in Carnal Knowledge, The Fortune, Heartburn, and Wolf, George C. Scott in The Day of the Dolphin, Alan Arkin in Catch-22, Meryl Streep in Silkwood, Heartburn, and Postcards from the Edge, Robin Williams in The Birdcage, John Travolta and, indeed, the entire cast, in Primary Colors. The films also reveal, even in their intermittent self-indul- gence and a very occasional descent into the trite or unfocused, a director of prodigious versatility and insight. From Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? in 1966 to The Fortune in 1975, Nichols’s films are pure fiction; with Silkwood in 1983, he moved into a second phase in which reality is rather closer to the surface of the plots. Silkwood itself, relating the experiences of nuclear-plant employee Karen Silkwood (Meryl Streep), stands alone as being based on a true story, but, despite its fundamentally grim and salutary subject matter it, like the several that follow, strikes a note of optimism that springs from the inner growth of characters as they shed illusions and achieve inner peace. Thus, even Karen Silkwood gains awareness and tries to help herself and her friends before her shocking death. Adapted from her own novel by Nora Ephron, writing from the fund of her personal experiences, Heartburn charts the breakdown of a marriage destroyed by a husband’s infidelity but, NICHOLSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 715 once again, Rachel (Meryl Streep), the wronged wife, is able to grow and, with her children, move forward despite her shattered illusions. On this occasion, however, Nichols seemed unable to bind together Ephron’s episodic tragi-comedy into a coherent whole and, despite the excellence of Streep and Nicholson, it is a tedious and unsatisfying film that counts as the director’s one clear failure. Biloxi Blues, from Neil Simon’s semi-autobiographical rites-of-passage comedy of nos- talgia, is no more than a pleasing, workmanlike transposition of the Broadway play, but with Working Girl Nichols evinced a new ebullience. He created a sure-fire hit with a movie that combined a Capra-esque feel-good romantic comedy with an incisive look into the contemporary subculture of working women in Manhattan, satirising female power-hunger and striking a blow for the class war in the triumph of Staten Island secretary Melanie Griffith’s tiumph over her bitch-boss (Sigourney Weaver). Written by Debbie Reynolds and Tony Curtis’s daughter Carrie Fisher, whose credentials for an authentic exploration of her subject matter were impeccable, Post- cards from the Edge deals with the explosively difficult relationship between a self-obsessed former Hollywood star (a tour de force from Shirley MacLaine) and her recklessly unstable daughter (Meryl Streep). Nichols directs this slightly overblown but absorbing and entertaining film with a confident sweep, once again pointing the road to inner growth and reconciliation as Streep’s Suzanne Vale wins the battle for self-awareness. The next protagonist to earn a fresh appre- ciation of life was Harrison Ford, as he recovers from a serious head- wound in Regarding Henry, a film perhaps more personal to Nichols, who claimed to have made a similar inner journey after an illness. From 1993 onwards, Nichols’s eclecticism has been emphasized in his choice of projects, a choice he exercises sparingly. In 1993 his breadth of cultural interest was reflected in his choosing to produce the much-lauded film of Kazuo Ishiguro’s deeply English and very fine novel, The Remains of the Day. In 1994 he directed Wolf, in which he ventured gently into the margins of horror fiction as a Manhattan book editor (Jack Nicholson), caught in middle-age crisis and a love-affair with the daughter (Michelle Pfeiffer) of the boss who has sacked him, is bitten by a wolf. Before the resulting lupine transmogrification takes hold, his senses become more acute and he fights for and regains his job. Entertaining stuff, with a script (on which Elaine May, uncredited, assisted) that hints at a profounder subtext concerning questions about aging, death, the limits of con- crete knowledge, and the possibility of immortality. Drawing the best from Robin Williams, Nichols next made The Birdcage, an Ameri- canized version of La Cage aux folles, and a piece of hilarious, sometimes farcical, frivolity which, again, contains a clear social comment aimed at puncturing pretension, exposing bigotry, and preaching tolerant understanding. Working from Joe Klein’s bestseller, scripted by Elaine May, Nichols made Primary Colors in 1998. This uncomfortable saga of the corrupt trappings surrounding a Clintonesque presidential cam- paign allowed him to exercise his grasp of both dramatic and satirical possibilities with theatrical flair, while drawing heavyweight per- formances from Travolta and Emma Thompson. With the new century came What Planet Are You From? which found Nichols entering the realm of comedy Sci-Fi with a tale conceived by the film’s star Garry Shandling—an intriguing and appropriate pairing of two razor-sharp satirical minds and talents—in which an alien seeks an earthling wife in order to propagate his species and save his planet. The message is clear. At the time of writing Mike Nichols was in pre-production for a film version of the play Wit, scheduled for release in 2001, with Emma Thompson chosen for the role created by Kathleen Chalfant on the New York and London stages. About a woman professor in process of coming to terms with her terminal cancer, the play is both searing and inspirational, but clearly too somber to serve the commer- cial interests of the big screen and is being made for television. It is, however, Mike Nichols’s most uncompromisingly serious-minded venture to date, and indicative of why he holds a respected place as a director of true substance. —Mark W. Estrin, updated by H. Wayne Schuth, further updated by Robyn Karney 717 O OLIVEIRA, Manoel de Nationality: Portuguese. Born: Manoel Candido Pinto de Oliveira in Oporto, 10 December 1908; grandfather of actor Ricardo Trepa. Family: Married Maria Isabel Carvalhais, 1940; four children. Ca- reer: Athlete and race car driver, 1920–27; directed his first film, 1929, then returned to sporting activities, 1930s; directed his first feature, Aniki-Bóbó, 1941; unable to make films, worked in agricul- ture, 1943–71; became a full-time filmmaker, 1972. Awards: Berlin Film Festival Special Prize-Interfilm Award, 1981; Venice Film Festival Golden Lion, ‘‘For His Whole Works,’’ 1985; Sao Paolo International Film Festival Critics Special Award, for Os Canibais, 1988; Cannes Film Festival FIPRESCI Award (Special Award), 1990; Venice Film Festival Special Grand Jury Prize, for A divina comedia, 1991; Locarno International Film Festival Leopard of Honor for Lifetime Achievement and His Latest Movie, O Dia do desespero, 1992; Sao Paolo International Film Festival Critics Award, Tokyo International Film Festival Best Artistic Contribution Award, for Vale Abraao, 1993; Catalonian International Film Festival Prize of the Screenwriter’s Critic and Writer’s Catalan Association, for O Convento, 1995; Cannes Film Festival FIPRESCI Award, European Film Awards FIPRESCI Award, Tokyo International Film Festival Special Achievement Award, for Viagem ao principio do mundo, 1997; Best Director Portuguese Golden Globe, for Inquietude, 1998; Mar del Plata Film Festival Special Jury Prize, 1998; Montreal World Film Festival Grand Prix Special des Ameriques, 1998; Cannes Film Festival Jury Prize, for A Carta, 1999. Films as Director: 1931 Douro, faina fluvial (Hard Labor on the River Douro) (short) (+ pr, sc, ed) 1939 Miramar praia das rosas (short) (+ pr, sc, ed); Ja se fabricam automovels em Portugal (short) (+ pr, sc, ed) 1940 Famalic?o (short) (+ pr, sc, ed) 1942 Aniki-Bóbó (+ sc) 1956 O pintor e a cidade (The Painter and the Town) (+ pr, sc, ed, ph) 1959 O p?o (Bread) (+ ed, ph, sc) 1960 O corac?o (The Heart) (short) (+ sc) 1963 Acto da primavera (The Passion of Jesus) (+ pr, ed, ph, sc); A ca?a (The Hunt) (+ ph, ed, sc) 1965 As pinturas de meu irm?o Júlio (Pictures of My Brother Julio) (short) (+ pr, ph, ed) 1972 O passado e o presente (Past and Present) (+ co-pr, ed) 1975 Benilde ou a Virgem M?e (Benilde: Virgin and Mother) (+ ed) 1978 Amor de perdic?o (Doomed Love) (+ sc) 1981 Francisca 1982 Memórias e confissoes (Memories and Confessions) (to be released only after de Oliveira’s death) 1983 Lisboa Cultural (Cultural Lisbon) 1984 Nice à propos de Jean Vigo 1985 O Sapato de cetim (Le Soulier de satin; The Satin Slipper) (+ sc) 1986 O Meu Caso—Repeticoes (Mon Cas) (+ sc) 1988 Os Canibais (The Cannibals) (+ sc, ed); A Bandeira Nacional (The National Flag) (doc short) 1990 N?o ou a V? Glória de Mandar (Non or the Vain Glory of Command) (+ sc, ed) 1991 A divina comedia (The Divine Comedy) (+ sc, ed) 1992 O Dia do desespero (The Day of Despair) (+ sc, ed) 1993 Vale Abraao (Abraham Valley) (+ sc, ed) 1994 A Caixa (Blind Man’s Bluff) (+ sc) 1995 O Convento (The Convent) (+ sc, ed) 1996 Party (+ co-sc) 1997 Viagem ao principio do mundo (Journey to the Beginning of the World, Voyage to the Beginning of the World) (+ sc, ro as ‘‘Driver’’) 1998 Inquietude (Anxiety) (+ sc) 1999 A Carta (The Letter) (+ sc) 2000 Palavra e Utopia Other Films: 1928 Fatima Milagrosa (Lupo) (uncredited extra) 1933 A Can??o de Lisboa (Telmo) (role) 1982 Conversa Acabada (Botelho) (ro as Priest) 1994 Lisbon Story (Wenders) (ro as himself) Publications By OLIVEIRA: book— Aniki-Bóbó, Porto, 1963. By OLIVEIRA: articles— ‘‘O cinema e o capital,’’ in Movimento (Lisbon), October 1933. Interview with Paulo Rocha, in Critica (Lisbon), March 1972. Interview with Jo?o Botelho and Cabral Martins, in M (Lisbon), August/September 1975. ‘‘A propos de Benilde ou a Virgem-M?e,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), February 1977. ‘‘Los Paisajes pintados,’’ an interview with F. Llináa and S. Zunzunegui, in Contracampo (Madrid), January 1981. Interview with Richard Pe?a, in Journal of Film and Video (Carbondale, Illinois), Summer 1983. Interview with Charles Tesson and others, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1986. OLIVEIRA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 718 Manoel de Oliveira (center) on the set of The Satin Slipper ‘‘Le cinema de demain,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1991 (sup). Bassan, R., ‘‘La divine comedie,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), May 1992. Borlee, G., ‘‘La divine comedie,’’ in Grand Angle (Mariembourg, Belgium), July 1992. Interview with A. de Baecque and T. Jousse, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1993. Interview with J. A. Gili, in Positif (Paris), September 1993. ‘‘Kijk eens Mama, ik heb een takening gemaakt!,’’ interview with G. Lefort, in Skrien (Amsterdam), April/May 1994. Interview with J. M. Lalanne, in Le Mensuel du Cinéma (Paris), June 1994. ‘‘Sommes-nous un divertissement occasinnael pour la nature,’’ inter- view with J.A. Gili, in Positif (Paris), June 1997. Oliveira, Manoel de, ‘‘Petit dialogue,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1997. On OLIVEIRA: books— Manoel de Oliveira, Ciné-Club of Estremoz, 1955. Manoel de Oliveira, with ‘‘Diálogo com Manoel de Oliveira,’’ Cinemateca Portuguesa, Lisbon, 1981. Fran?a, J. A., L. Pina, and A. Costa, Introdu??o à obra de Manoel de Oliveira, Lisbon, 1982. Passek, Jean-Loup, Le cinéma portugais, Paris, 1982. Lardeau, Yann, Manoel de Oliveira, Paris, 1988. On OLIVEIRA: articles— Demeure, Jacques, ‘‘Manoel de Oliveira,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 25–26, 1957. Biette, J.C., ‘‘Notes sur l’oeuvre de Manoel de Oliveira,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1966. Daney, Serge, ‘‘Notes sur les films de Manuel de Oliveira,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1977. Magny, J., ‘‘Dossier-auteur Manoel de Oliveira,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), March 1980. Gillett, John, ‘‘Manoel de Oliveira,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1981. Fonseca, M. S., ‘‘Manoel de Oliveira, o cinema e a crueldade,’’ in Expresso (Lisbon), October 1981. OLIVEIRADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 719 Lehmann, I., ‘‘Die Tetralogie der ‘amours frustrés.’ Zu Manoel de Oliveiras Filmen über Liebe und Tod,’’ in Frauen und Film (Berlin), February 1982. Kinisjarvi, R., ‘‘Manoel de Oliveira,’’ in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 6, 1990. Degoudenne, L., and J. Noel, ‘‘Les cannibales,’’ in Grand Angle (Mariembourg, Belgium), June 1990. Baecque, A. de, ‘‘Comment on filme l’histoire,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1990. Bierinckx, C., ‘‘New York Stories . . . en een Beetje Portugal,’’ in Film en Televisie & Video (Brussels), February 1991. Asselberghs, H., and K. van Daele, ‘‘Artistieke produktiestrategieen,’’ in Andere Sinema (Antwerp), September/October 1991. Bogaert, P. van, ‘‘O dia do desespero,’’ in Andere Sinema (Antwerp), November/December 1992. Szoboszlai, M., ‘‘Mar nem imadkoznak, csak miseznek,’’ in Filmvilag (Budapest), no. 11, 1993. Lalanne, J.M., ‘‘Le jour du desespoir,’’ in Le Mensuel du Cinéma (Paris), April 1993. Rollet, S., ‘‘Entre presence et absence,’’ in Positif (Paris), Septem- ber 1993. Brandlmeier, T., ‘‘Blinde Maenner Zwei Filme von Manoel de Oliveira,’’ in EPD Film (Frankfurt), April 1995. Delpeut, P., ‘‘Een geniale primitief,’’ in Skrien (Amsterdam), Decem- ber/January 1995/96. Montiero, J.C., ‘‘Le passe et le present,’’ in Positif (Paris), March 1996. Diana, M., ‘‘L’immaginazione e il desiderio,’’ in Segnocinema (Vicenza, Italy), November/December 1997. *** Simultaneously rugged and tender, the tortured work of Manoel de Oliveira, in which a personal vision is transformed into a unique expression of Portuguese culture, finds its only counterpart in that of Carl Theodor Dreyer. The radical aesthetic and ethical programs of both filmmakers met with incomprehension during the formative years of their careers. In addition, one finds a tragic fusion of profane desire and an aspiration toward the sacred in the work of both directors. No man is a prophet in his own country; Oliveira, an artist of magnitude disproportionate to such a diminutive nation, confirms this aphorism. He found no favor under the Salazar regime; instead, he was condemned by its pettiness to silence and inactivity. Persecution did not cease with the death of the dictator. Oliveira continued to be charged with ‘‘not being natural’’ and was accused of the sin of ‘‘elitism.’’ This is the reason there are so many films that Oliveira did not make. Only relatively late in his career did international acclaim force a measure of national recognition. The first phase of Oliveira’s work, what he calls ‘‘the stage of the people,’’ was dominated by an intense dialogue between documen- tary and fiction. From the very beginning Oliveira refused to subju- gate himself to ‘‘genres’’ and ‘‘schools’’ of filmmaking. An unmis- takable movement toward fiction, toward the autonomy of the cinema vis à vis the real, can be seen in his documentaries from Douro to Pinturas. In registering its images, Oliveira’s camera approaches quotidien reality as a stage. Through montage, the world can be fixed, cut, and reproduced as a series of fragments. The second phase of Oliveira’s career began in 1972 and was characterized by a more complete expression of the impulse towards fiction. His work featured a concomitant change of objectives: the ‘‘stage of the people’’ is replaced by the ‘‘stage of the bourgeoisie.’’ This phase comprises four films, from O Passado e o presente to Francisca, known as the ‘‘Tetralogy of Frustrated Loves.’’ Allur- ingly romantic, possessed in particular by the love of perdition as expressed in the Portuguese literature of the time, these films attain an aesthetic refinement unsurpassed in European cinema. In the 1930s Oliveira belonged to the cinematic vanguard. From 1940 to 1963 this cinematic craftsman anticipated many of the innovative aesthetic experiments of later filmmakers—from Italian neorealism to the cinema of Straub—without reducing his work to mere formalism. With the ‘‘Tetralogy,’’ a risky and original project makes its appearance: the destruction of the narrative grammar which relies on the shot/countershot, and the destruction of psychological correspondences through the creation, in these films, of a ‘‘point of view belonging to no one.’’ Refusing to identify itself with either the characters or the spectator, the camera alters spatial relationships in an effort not exactly to neutralize itself, but to situate itself in a space without a subject in order to fix faces and voices. His attention to ‘‘Voices’’ is important because, since these films were adapted from literary works, they resolutely assume the literary nature of the text, to which long and fixed shots or the repetition of such shots confer a temporality without parallel in the history of the cinema. The obsessive use of the studio is also underscored, re-enforcing a sense of enclosure and restriction. A similar emphasis is placed on the style or representation which situates actors and objects on the same level; their function is simply to be present. Linking this formal experimentation with undeniably vigorous fiction, Francisca is Oliveira’s masterpiece. In Francisca, a grandi- ose synthesis of literary, musical, and pictorial materials, a tellurian identification is revealed which is the origin of desire, fear, guilt, and perdition—the principle themes of Oliveira. After all, such an identi- fication echoes an entire culture which, at its best, transcends a tor- mented pessimism and bitter irony, though it retains only the consola- tion of melancholy. This culture is Portuguese and Oliveira is its filmmaker. What is truly amazing about Oliveira is that he scripted and directed one film per year through the 1990s—quite an accomplish- ment for an octogenarian/nonagenarian. His 1999 film, A Carta, a contemporary updating of Madame de Lafayette’s seventeenth- century novel La Princesse de Cleves, is the story of a young married beauty of noble background and her plight upon finding herself attracted to another. Here, Oliveira acutely examines the eternal conflict between desire and honor, carnality and spirituality, and what is temporary and what is lasting. Various characters die, and the filmmaker ruminates on the impact of death, and how those who have passed on are remembered by those who remain. As with his other work, Oliveira fills the film with long, lingering takes that allow the viewer to observe what is on the screen, which serves as the filmmaker’s canvas. Those less patient may feel that A Carta is too slow-moving; those more diligent will find views and ideas that are well worth pondering. Perhaps Oliveira’s most revealing late-1990s film is Viagem ao principio do mundo, a poignant, thoughtful road movie. Oliveira tells the story of a wise, aging filmmaker named Manoel (an elderly looking and aptly cast Marcello Mastroianni, in one of his final screen appearances), who remembers his past while traveling by car with several associates and stopping at different sites. The character Manoel surely speaks for the octogenarian filmmaker when he observes, ‘‘The mind is fine, but the wrapping deteriorates.’’ And the character mirrors his creator in that his mind is forever active, and he OLMI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 720 is constantly thinking, recollecting, and philosophizing. ‘‘I am over the hill,’’ the on-screen Manoel observes. ‘‘I am lame and old. . . I am not a masochist, but I remember when I was an innocent child.’’ Later on, he poetically notes, ‘‘Memory is a landslide in a dreaming heart.’’ Oliveira fills the film with subjective shots of the countryside as it appears from the car window; these images serve to offer a view of Manoel’s world as seen by Manoel. But the filmmaker is not the lone sage character. One of Manoel’s companions reflects Oliveira’s worldview when noting, ‘‘Life is what it is, and death never fails.’’ Viagem ao principio do mundo is a meditation on the essence of life. It is crammed with wisdom regarding memory and the past, youth and old age, women and the nature of physical attraction, transgres- sion and admitting transgressions, and, most touchingly, the passing of time and life’s transitions. —Manuel Dos Santos Fonseca, updated by Rob Edelman OLMI, Ermanno Nationality: Italian. Born: Bergamo, 24 July 1931. Education: Attended Accadémia d’Arte Drammatica, Milan. Family: Married Loredana Detto, three children. Career: Worked for electric com- pany Edisonvolta S.p.A., Milan, from 1949; director and supervisor of over forty shorts and documentaries for sponsor Edisonvolta, 1952–61; directed first feature, semi-documentary Il tempo si è fermato, 1959; formed production company ‘‘22 December S.p.A.’’ with Tullio Kezich and others, 1961; TV director, from 1964; co-founded Hypothesis Cinema, a school for aspiring directors; formed Ipotesi Cinema, a workshop for young filmmakers, at Bassano del Grappa, 1980s. Films as Director: 1953 La digi sul ghiaccio (short/doc) (+ spvr) 1954 La pattuglia di passo San Giacomo (short/doc) (+ spvr) 1955 Società Ovesticino-Dinamo (short/doc) (+ spvr); Cantiere d’inverno (short/doc) (+ spvr); La mia valle (short/doc) (+ spvr); L’onda (short/doc) (+ spvr); Buongiorno natura (short/doc) (+ spvr) 1956 Michelino la B (short/doc) (+ spvr); Construzione meccaniche riva (short/doc) (+ spvr) 1958 Tre fili fino a Milano (short/doc) (+ spvr); Giochi di Colonia (short/doc) (+ spvr); Venezia città minore (short/doc) (+ spvr) 1959 Il tempo si è fermato (Time Has Stopped; Time Stood Still) (+ sc, spvr) 1960 Il grande paese d’Acciaio (short/doc) (+ spvr) 1961 Le grand barrage (short/doc) (+ spvr); Un metro lungo cinque (short/doc) (+ spvr); Il posto (The Sound of Trumpets; The Job) (+ sc) 1963 I fidanzati (The Fiancés; The Engagement) (+ pr, sc) 1965 . . . e venne un uomo (A Man Called John; And There Came a Man) (+ co-sc) 1968 Un certo giorno (One Fine Day) (+ sc, ed) 1969 I recuperanti (The Scavengers) (+ co-sc, ph) (for TV) 1971 Durante l’estate (During the Summer; In the Summertime) (+ co-sc, ph, ed) (for TV) 1974 La circostanza (The Circumstance) (+ pr, sc, ph, ed) (for TV) 1978 L’albero degli zoccoli (The Tree of the Wooden Clogs) (+ sc, ph, ed) 1983 Cammina, cammina (Keep Walking) 1984 Milano ‘83 (doc) 1987 Lunga Vita alla Signora (Long Live the Lady!) (+ sc, co-ph) 1988 La leggenda del santo bevitore (The Legend of the Holy Drinker) (+ sc, ed) 1992 Lungo il fiume (Along the River) (+ sc, ed) 1993 Il segreto del bosco vecchio (The Secret of the Old Forest) (+ sc) 1994 Genesis: The Creation and the Flood (+ sc) 1999 Il Denaro non esiste (co-d) 2000 Il Mestiere delle armi Other Films: 1955 La tesatura meccanica della linea a 220.000 volt (short/doc) (spvr); San Massenza (Cimego) (short/doc) (spvr) 1956 Pantano d’avio (short/doc) (spvr); Peru—Istituto de Verano (short/doc) (spvr); Fertilizzanti complessi (short/doc) (spvr) 1957 Fibre e civilta (short/doc) (spvr); Progresso in agricoltura (short/doc) (spvr); Campi sperimentali (short/doc) (spvr) 1958 Colonie Sicedison (short/doc) (spvr); Bariri (short/doc) (spvr); Il frumento (short/doc) (spvr) 1959 El frayle (short/doc) (spvr); Fertiluzzanti produtti dalla Societa del Gruppo Edison (short/doc) (spvr); Cavo olio fludio 220.000 volt (short/doc) (spvr); Auto chiese (short/doc) (spvr); Natura e chimica (short/doc) (spvr) 1961 Il pomodoro (short/doc) (spvr); Il sacco in Plypac (short/doc) (spvr); Po: forza 50.000 (short/doc) (pr) 1962 Una storia milanese (E. Visconti) (role) Publications By OLMI: book— Il ragazzo dell Bovisa, Milan, 1986. By OLMI: articles— Interview with Gideon Bachmann, in Nation (New York), 25 May 1964. ‘‘Ermanno Olmi, a Conversation with John Francis Lane,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1970. Interview with A. Tassone, in Cinéma (Paris), January 1976. Interview with M. Devillers and others, in Cinématographe (Paris), no. 40, 1978. OLMIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 721 Ermanno Olmi (right) and Rod Steiger on the set of ... e venne un uomo Interview with J. A. Gili and L. Codelli, in Positif (Paris), Novem- ber 1983. Interview with Don Ranvaud, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), October 1988. ‘‘Ermanno Olmi: non sono un divo,’’ an interview with F. Cattaneo, in Cinematografo, January 1993. On OLMI: books— Samuels, Charles Thomas, Encountering Directors, New York, 1972. Tassone, Aldo, Parla il cinema italiano, II, Milan, 1980. Witcombe, Roger, The New Italian Cinema, New York, 1983. Bondanella, Peter, Italian Cinema: From Neorealism to the Present, New York, 1983. Liehm, Mira, Passion and Defiance: Film in Italy from 1942 to the Present, Berkeley, 1984. Dillon, Jeanne, Ermanno Olmi, Florence, 1986. Marcus, Millicent, Italian Film in the Light of Neorealism, Prince- ton, 1986. Tabanelli, Giorgio, Ermanno Olmi: nascita del documentario poetica, Rome, 1987. Brunetta, Gian Piero, Cent’anni di cinema italiano, Rome, 1991. Sitney, P. Adams, Vital Crises in Italian Cinema, Austin, 1995. On OLMI: articles— Lane, J. F., ‘‘The Triumph of Italy’s Realism,’’ in Films and Filming (London), December 1961. Solomos, G. P., ‘‘Ermanno Olmi,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1962. Kauffman, Stanley, ‘‘A Fine Italian Hand,’’ in New Republic (New York), 15 February 1964. Houston, Penelope, ‘‘The Organisation Man,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1964. Walsh, M., ‘‘Ermanno Olmi,’’ in Monogram (London), Summer 1971. Gervais, M., ‘‘Ermanno Olmi: Humanism in the Cinema,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1978. Special section on L’Albero degli zoccoli, in Positif (Paris), Septem- ber 1978. OPHüLS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 722 Elley, Derek, ‘‘Ermanno Olmi,’’ in International Film Guide 1981, London, 1980. De Santi, G., ‘‘Il tradimento e la vendetta dei chierici,’’ in Cineforum (Bergamo), January/February 1984. Kennedy, Harlan, ‘‘Searching for the Star Child,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1984. Kieffer, A., ‘‘A la recherche d’Olmi,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), February/March 1988. Keates, J., ‘‘Inn the cascina,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Win- ter 1988/89. Kinder, Marsha, ‘‘The Subversive Potential of the Pseudo-iterative,’’ in Film Quarterly, Winter 1989/90. Casagrande, L., ‘‘Ermanno Olmi,’’ in Film en Televisie + Video, January 1991. Ricci, Steven, ‘‘Una sfida utopica a Bassano del Grappa,’’ in Cinema Nuovo (Bari), January-February 1993. Film Dope (Nottingham), June 1993. Segnocinema (Vicenza), November/December 1993. Scandaletti, P., ‘‘Olmi, poeta della natura,’’ in Rivista Del Cinematografo (Rome), November 1993. Suchet, Simone, ‘‘Les fils du néoréalisme,’’ in Cinémaction (Courbevoie), January 1994. Holloway, Ron, in Filmrutan (Sundsvall), vol. 38, no. 1, 1995. *** Ermanno Olmi, born in Bergamo in 1931, is the Italian filmmaker most committed to and identified with a regional heritage. His films are distinctly Lombardian; for the most part they describe life in Milan, the provincial capital (for example, Il posto, Un certo giorno, Durante l’estate and La circonstanza). He has also filmed in the Lombardian Alps (Il tempo si è fermato), and his native Bergamo (L’albero degli zoccoli), but even when he ventures to Sicily, it is to make a film of a Milanese worker temporarily assigned to the south who longs for home (I fidanzati), and when he makes a semi- documentary biography (. . . e venne un uomo), it is of the Lombardian Pope, John XXIII. Furthermore, his work bears affinities to the central literary figure of the Lombardian tradition, Alessandro Manzoni, whose great historical novel, I promessi sposi, is variously reflected in at least three of Olmi’s films: most directly in I findanzati, whose very title recasts the 1827 novel, but also in the idealization of a great ecclesiastic (. . . e venne un uomo), and in the vivid recreation of a past century (L’albero degli zoccoli), which portrays peasant life in the late nineteenth century rather than Manzoni’s seventeenth. The most significant Manzonian characteristic of Olmi’s cinema is its Catholicism: of all the major Italian filmmakers he has the least problematic relationship with the Church. He embodies the spirit of the ‘‘opening to the Left’’ which has characterized both religious and parliamentary politics in Italy since the early 1960s. For the most part, his films center upon an individual worker caught between employ- ment and an individual quest to assert dignity through labor. Quite often this tension carries over from work to the conjugal or preconjugal love life of the protagonist. Like Pasolini, Rosi, and Bertolucci, Olmi is a filmmaker nurtured by postwar neorealism. Like his great precursors, Rossellini, De Sica, and Visconti, he has worked extensively with amateur actors, chosen simplified naturalistic settings, eschewed elaborate artifices or light- ing, and employed an ascetic camera style. What mobility his camera has comes largely from his extensive use of the zoom lens. In contrast, however, to the first generation of neorealists, he has a high tolerance for abstraction and ambiguity in his storytelling. Dramatic and emotional moments are consistently understated. Instead of a mobile camera, he has relied heavily upon montage (especially in the intercutting of scenes between Milan and Sicily in I fidanzati) and even more on the overlapping of sounds. In fact, Olmi’s meticulous attention to sound, his isolation and manipulation of auditory de- tails, tends to transform his realistically photographed scenes into psychologically inflected domains of space and time. After L’albero degli zoccoli, the predominately latent religiosity in his cinema became more manifest. Cammina, cammina recounts a version of the story of the Three Wise Men seeking the Christ child. La leggenda del santo bevitore turns the last days of a Parisian clochard into a parable of divine intervention. Its plot is perhaps more characteristic of Rohmer than Olmi, but the filmmaker uses it to reimagine the simple daily activities of proletarian life through the eyes of a drunkard bewildered by his sudden streak of good fortune. Similarly, in a wholly secular mode, Lunga Vita alla Signora returns to the topos of Il tempo si e fermato and Il posto after nearly thirty years to glimpse the intricacies of an affluent family reunion from the perspective of a naive adolescent in his first job as a busboy in an elegant Alpine hotel. Olmi released two films in 1992, Lunga il fiume, a poetic docu- mentary on the Po River, and Il segreto del Bosco vecchio, a fable adapted from Dino Buzzati, set in the Dolomites before the First World War, in which a sentient forest, with talking animals and winds, defeats the plans of a retired colonel for its commercial exploitation. Both films celebrate nature as a conduit of Divinity. The commentary of Lunga il fiume even allegorizes the outpouring of the river into the Adriatic as a type of Jesus’s kenosis and death. Throughout the 1980s Olmi directed a workshop for young filmmakers, Ipotesi Cinema, at Bassano del Grappa. In the face of radically reduced film production and the domination of television in Italy, Ipotesi Cinema was a utopian project for helping filmmakers find alternative modes of production and financing without compro- mising the originality of their ideas. —P. Adams Sitney OPHüLS, Max Nationality: Born Max Oppenheimer in Saarbrucken, Germany, 6 May 1902, became French citizen, 1938. Family: Married actress Hilde Wall in 1926, one son, director Marcel Ophüls. Career: Acting debut, 1919; began as stage director, 1924; began working at OPHüLSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 723 Max Ophüls with Daniele Darrieux Burgtheater, Vienna, 1926; dialogue director to Anatole Litvak at UFA, 1929; directed first film, 1930; with family, left Germany, 1932; directed in France, Italy, and Holland, 1933–40; worked in Switzerland, 1940, then moved to Hollywood, 1941; ‘‘rediscovered’’ by Preston Sturges, 1944; returned to France, 1949; directed for German radio, mid-1950s. Died: In Hamburg, 26 March 1957. Films as Director: 1930 Dann schon lieber Lebertran (+ co-adaptation) 1932 Die verliebte Firma; Die verkaufte Braut (The Bartered Bride) 1933 Die lachende Erben (produced 1931); Liebelei; Une Histoire d’amour (French version of Liebelei) 1934 On a volé un homme; La Signora di tutti (+ co-sc) 1935 Divine (+ co-sc) 1936 Komedie om Geld (+ co-sc); Ave Maria (short); La Valse brillante (short); La Tendre Ennemie (The Tender Enemy) (+ co-sc) 1937 Yoshiwara (+ co-sc) 1938 Werther (Le Roman de Werther) (+ co-adaptation) 1940 Sans lendemain; De Mayerling à Sarajevo (Mayerling to Sarajevo); L’Ecole des femmes (unfinished) 1946 Vendetta (co-d, uncredited) 1947 The Exile 1948 Letter from an Unknown Woman 1949 Caught; The Reckless Moment 1950 La Ronde (+ co-sc) 1952 Le Plaisir (House of Pleasure) (+ co-sc) 1953 Madame de . . . (The Earrings of Madame De) (+ co-sc) 1955 Lola Montès (The Sins of Lola Montes) (+ co-sc) Publications By OPHüLS: books— Novelle, by Goethe, radio adaptation, Frankfurt am Main, 1956. Max Ophüls par Max Ophüls, Paris, 1963. OPHüLS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 724 By OPHüLS: articles— ‘‘Hollywood, petite ?le . . . ,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), Decem- ber 1955. ‘‘Le Dernier Jour de tournage,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1956. Interview with Jacques Rivette and Fran?ois Truffaut, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1957. ‘‘Les Infortunes d’un scenario,’’ and ‘‘Mon experience,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1958. ‘‘La Ronde: Scenario et adaptation,’’ with Jacques Natanson, in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), April 1963. ‘‘Memory and Max Ophüls,’’ in Interviews with Film Directors edited by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1967. ‘‘Lola Montès: Scenario et adaptation,’’ with Jacques Natanson, in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), January 1969. Interview with Robert Aldrich, in The Celluloid Muse, edited by Charles Higham and Joel Greenberg, Chicago, 1971. ‘‘Interview with Ophüls (1950),’’ with Francis Koval, in Masterworks of the French Cinema, edited by John Weightman, New York, 1974. ‘‘Madame de . . . Issue’’ of Avant Scène du Cinéma (Paris), no. 351, 1986. ‘‘De lust van het kijken,’’ in Skrien (Amsterdam), October-Novem- ber 1990. On OPHüLS: books— Roud, Richard, Max Ophüls: An Index, London, 1958. Annenkov, Georges, Max Ophüls, Paris, 1962. Beylie, Claude, Max Ophüls, Paris, 1963; revised edition, 1984. Willemen, Paul, editor, Ophüls, London, 1978. Williams, Alan, Max Ophüls and the Cinema of Desire, New York, 1980. Guérin, William, Max Ophüls, Paris, 1988. Asper, Helmut G., and others, Max Ophüls, Munich, 1989. White, Susan M., The Cinema of Max Ophüls: Magisterial Vision and the Figure of Woman, New York, 1995. Bacher, Lutz, Max Ophüls in the Hollywood Studios, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1996. On OPHüLS: articles— Truffaut, Fran?ois, ‘‘Une Certaine Tendence du cinéma fran?ais,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1954. Archer, Eugene, ‘‘Ophüls and the Romantic Tradition,’’ in Yale French Studies (New Haven), no. 17, 1956. Tributes to Ophüls, in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1957. ‘‘Ophüls Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1958. Beylie, Claude, ‘‘Max Ophüls,’’ in Anthologie du Cinéma (Paris), June 1965. ‘‘Max Ophüls,’’ in Retrospektive [1] edited by Peter Schumann, Berlin, 1966. Williams, Forrest, ‘‘The Mastery of Movement,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Winter 1969. Koch, Howard, ‘‘Script to Screen with Max Ophüls,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Winter 1970/71. ‘‘Ophüls Issue’’ of Film Comment (New York), Summer 1971. Camper, Fred, ‘‘Distance and Style: The Visual Rhetoric of Max Ophüls,’’ in Monogram (London), no. 5, 1974. ‘‘Ophüls Issues’’ of Filmkritik (Munich), November and Decem- ber 1977. Castoro Cinema (Milan), special issue, no. 55–56, 1978. Special Ophüls section, in Positif (Paris), July/August 1980. ‘‘Ophüls Issue,’’ of Movie (London), Summer 1982. Koch, G., ‘‘Die Schnitzler-Verfilmungen von Max Ophüls,’’ in Frauen und Film (Berlin), October 1982. Houseman, John, ‘‘Houseman, Ray, and Ophüls,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1986. Amiel, V., ‘‘Ophüls les yeuxs fermés,’’ in Positif (Paris), Decem- ber 1986. Morrison, James, ‘‘Ophüls and Authorship: A Reading of The Reck- less Moment,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), vol. 11, no. 3, 1987. Müller, M., ‘‘Von Souffeurkasten über das Mikro auf die Leinwand: Max Ophüls,’’ in Frauen und Film (Frankfurt/Main), August 1987. Doane, Mary Ann, ‘‘The Abstraction of a Lady: La Signora di tutti,’’ in Cinema Journal (Champaign, Illinois), vol. 28, no. 1, 1988. Rakovsky, A., ‘‘La prison circulaire,’’ in Revue du Cinema, May 1992. Ophüls, Marcel, ’’Correspondance imédite de Max Ophüls com- mentée par Marcel Ophüls,’’ in Positif (Paris), November 1992. Walker, M., ‘‘1266 Max Ophüls,’’ in Film Dope (Frankfurt/Main), June 1993. Beylot, P., ‘‘Premières images,’’ in Focales, no. 2, 1993. Douin, J.-L., ‘‘La passion des femmes,’’ in Télérama (Paris), 6 April 1994. Scorsese, Martin, ‘‘Ma cinéphile,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 500, March 1996. Bello?, Livio, Cinémathèque, no. 6, Autumn 1994. Vecchiali, Paul, ‘‘Max Ophüls: le meneur de jeu,’’ Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 489, March 1995. *** Max Ophüls’ work falls neatly into three periods, marked by geographical locations and diverse production conditions, yet linked by common thematic concerns and stylistic/formal procedures: the pre-Second World War European period (during which he made films in four countries and four languages); the four Hollywood films of the late 1940s (to which one might add the remarkable Howard Hughes- produced Vendetta, on which he worked extensively in its early pre- production phases and which bears many identifiable Ophülsian traces, both thematic and stylistic); and the four films made in France in the 1950s. It is these 1950s films on which Ophüls’ current reputation chiefly rests, and in which certain stylistic traits (notably the long take with elaborately mobile camera) are carried to their logical culmination. Critical estimation of Ophüls soared during the late twentieth century; prior to that, the prevailing attitude was disparaging (or at best condescending), and the reasons for this now seem highly significant, reflecting far more on the limitations of the critics than of the films. The general consensus was that Ophüls’ work had distinc- tive qualities (indeed, this would be difficult to deny), but was overly preoccupied with ‘‘style’’ (regarded as a kind of spurious, slightly decadent ornamentation) and given over to trivial or frivolous sub- jects quite alien to the ‘‘social’’ concerns considered to characterize ‘‘serious’’ cinema. In those days, the oppression of women within the patriarchal order was not identified as a ‘‘social concern’’—especially within the overwhelmingly male-dominated field of film criticism. Two developments have contributed to the revaluation of Ophüls: the OSHIMADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 725 growth of auteur criticism in the 1960s and of feminist awareness, and I shall consider his work in relation to these phenomena. 1. Ophüls and auteurism. One of the first aims of auteur criticism was to dethrone the ‘‘subject’’ as the prime guarantee of a film’s quality, in favor of style, mise-en-scène, the discernible presence of a defined directorial ‘‘voice’’: in Andrew Sarris’s terms, the ‘‘how’’ was given supremacy over the ‘‘what.’’ ‘‘Subject,’’ in fact, was effectively redefined as what the auteur’s mise-en-scène created. Ophüls was a perfect rallying-point for such a reformulation of critical theory. For a start, he offered one of the most highly developed and unmistakable styles in world cinema, consistent through all changes of time and place (though inevitably modified in the last two Hollywood melodramas, Caught and The Reckless Moment). Ophüls’ works were marked by elaborate tracking-and-craning camera move- ments, ornate décor, the glitter of glass and mirrors, objects interven- ing in the foreground of the image between characters and camera. His style can be read in itself as implying a meaning, a metaphysic of entrapment in movement, time, and destiny. Further, this style could be seen as developing, steadily gaining in assurance and definition, through the various changes in cultural background and circum- stances of production—from, say, Liebelei through Letter from an Unknown Woman to Madame de . . . Ophüls could be claimed (with partial justice) as a major creative artist whose personal vision transcended the most extreme changes of time and place. The stylistic consistency was underlined by an equally striking thematic consistency. For example, the same three films mentioned above, though adapted from works by fairly reputable literary figures (respectively, Arthur Schnitzler, Stefan Zweig, and Louise de Vilmorin), all reveal strong affinities in narrative/thematic structure: all are centered on romantic love, which is at once celebrated and regarded with a certain irony. Similarly, all three works move towards a cli- mactic duel in which the male lover is destroyed by an avenging patriarch, an offended husband. All three films also feature patriar- chal authority embodied in military figures. Finally, style and theme were perceived as bound together by a complicated set of visual motifs recurring from period to period. The eponymous protagonist of Ophüls’ last film, Lola Montès, declares ‘‘For me, life is movement’’; throughout his work, key scenes take place in vehicles of travel and places of transition (carriages, trains, staircases, and railway stations figure prominently in many of the films). Even a superficially atypical work like The Reckless Moment (set in modern California rather than the preferred ‘‘Vienna, 1900’’ or its equivalent) contains crucial scenes on the staircase, in moving cars, on a ferry, at a bus station. Above all, the dance was recognized as a central Ophülsian motif, acquiring complex significance from film to film. The romantic/ ironic waltz scene in Letter from an Unknown Woman, the fluid yet circumscribed dances of Madame de . . . , the hectic and claustropho- bic palais de danse of Le Plaisir, the constricted modern dance floor of Caught, and the moment in De Mayerling à Sarajevo where the lovers are prevented from attending the ball: all of the above scens are reminders that ‘‘life is movement’’ is not the simple proposition it may at first appear. There is no doubt that the development of auteur theory enor- mously encouraged and extended the appreciation of Ophüls’ work. In its pure form (the celebration of the individual artist), however, auteurism tends towards a dangerous imbalance in the evaluation of specific films: a tendency, for example, to prefer the ‘‘typical’’ but slight La Ronde (perhaps the film that most nearly corresponds to the ‘‘primitive’’ account of Ophüls) to a masterpiece like The Reckless Moment, in which Ophüls’ engagement with the structural and thematic materials of the Hollywood melodrama results in an amaz- ingly rich and radical investigation of ideological assumptions. 2. Ophüls and Feminism. Nearly all of Ophüls’ films are centered on a female consciousness. Before the 1960s this tended merely to confirm the diagnosis of them as decorative, sentimental, and essen- tially frivolous: the social concerns with which ‘‘serious’’ cinema should be engaged were those which could be resolved within the patriarchal order, and more fundamental social concerns that threat- ened to undermine the order itself simply could not be recognized. The films belong, of course, to a period long before the eruption of what we now know as radical feminism; they do not (and could not be expected to) explicitly engage with a feminist politics, and they are certainly not free of a tendency to mythologize women. In retrospect, however, from the standpoint of the feminist theory and conscious- ness that evolved in the 1970s, they assume a quite extraordinary significance: an incomparably comprehensive, sensitive, and percep- tive analysis of the position of women (subject to oppression) within patriarchal society. The films repeatedly present and examine the options traditionally available to women within our culture—marriage, prostitution (in both the literal and the looser sense), romantic love— and the relationship between those options. Letter from an Unknown Woman, for example, dramatizes marriage (Lisa’s to von Stauffer, her mother’s to the ‘‘military tailor’’) and prostitution (‘‘modelling’’) as opposite cultural poles, then goes on to show that they really amount to the same thing: in both cases, the women are selling themselves (this opposition/parallel is brilliantly developed through the three episodes of Le Plaisir). Essentially, Letter from an Unknown Woman is an enquiry into the validity of romantic love as the only possible means of transcending this illusory dichotomy. Clearly, Ophüls is emotionally committed to Lisa and her vision; the extraordinry complexity and intelligence of the film lies in its simultaneous acknowledgement that romantic love can only exist as narcissistic fantasy and is ultimately both destructive and self-destructive. Far from being incompatible, the auteurist and feminist ap- proaches to Ophüls demand to be synthesized. The identification with a female consciousness and the female predicament is the supreme characteristic of the Ophülsian thematic; at the same time, the Ophüls style—the commitment to grace, beauty, sensitivity—amounts to a celebration of what our culture defines as ‘‘femininity,’’ combined with the force of authority, the drive, the organizational (directorial) abilities construed as masculine. In short, the supreme achievement of Ophüls’ work is its concrete and convincing embodiment of the collapsibility of our culture’s barriers of sexual difference. —Robin Wood OSHIMA, Nagisa Nationality: Japanese. Born: Kyoto, 31 March 1932. Education: Studied political history at Kyoto University, graduated 1954. Fam- ily: Married to actress Akiko Koyama. Career: Student leader, involved in left-wing activities, early 1950s; assistant director at Shochiku Ofuna Studios, from 1954; film critic and editor-in-chief of film magazine Eiga hihyo, from 1956; directed first film, 1959; left Shochiku after Night and Fog in Japan pulled from circulation, founded production company Sozosha, 1961 (dissolved 1973); made OSHIMA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 726 Nagisa Oshima TV documentaries, early 1960s; created Oshima Productions, 1975; acquitted on obscenity charge relating to Realm of the Senses, 1976. Films as Director: 1959 Ai to kibo no machi (A Town of Love and Hope) (+ sc); Asu no taiyo (short) 1960 Seishun zankoku monogatari (Cruel Story of Youth; Naked Youth, a Story of Cruelty) (+ sc); Taiyo no hakaba (The Sun’s Burial) (+ co-sc); Nihon no yoru to kiri (Night and Fog in Japan) (+ co-sc) 1961 Shiiku (The Catch) 1962 Amakusa shiro tokisada (Shiro Tokisada from Amakusa; The Rebel) (+ co-sc) 1964 Chiisana boken ryoko (Small Adventure; A Child’s First Adventure) (+ co-sc); Watashi wa Bellet (collective direc- tion, advertising film) 1965 Etsuraku (Pleasures of the Flesh) (+ sc); Yunbogi no nikki (The Diary of Yunbogi) (+ pr, sc, ph) (short) 1966 Hakuchu no torima (Violence at Noon) 1967 Ninja bugeicho (Band of Ninja) (+ co-pr, co-sc); Nihon shunka-ko (A Treatise on Japanese Bawdy Song; Sing a Song of Sex)) (+ co-pr, co-sc); Muri-shinju: Nihon no natsu (Japanese Summer: Double Suicide) (+ co-sc) 1968 Koshikei (Death by Hanging) (+ co-pr, co-sc); Kaettekita yopparai (Three Resurrected Drunkards; A Sinner in Para- dise) (+ co-sc) 1969 Shinjuku dorobo nikki (Diary of a Shinjuku Thief) (+ co-sc); Shonen (Boy) 1970 Tokyo senso sengo hiwa (He Died after the War; The Man Who Left His Will on Film) (+ co-sc) 1971 Gishiki (The Ceremony) (+ co-sc) 1972 Natsu no imoto (Summer Sister) (+ co-sc) 1976 Ai no corrida (In the Realm of the Senses; Empire of the Senses) (+ sc) 1978 Ai no borei (Empire of Passion; The Phantom of Love) (+ co-pr, sc) 1983 Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence 1986 Max, Mon Amour (+ co-sc); Yunbogi no Nikki (+ sc, ph) 1991 Kyoto, My Mother’s Place (+ sc) OSHIMADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 727 1995 One Hundred Years of Japanese Cinema (+ sc) 1999 Gohatto (+ sc) Other Films: 1956 Shinkei gyogun (sc) (unproduced but published) 1959 Tsukimiso (Iwaki) (sc); Donto okoze (Nomura) (co-sc); Jusan nichi no kinyobi (unproduced) (sc) 1969 Yoiyami semareba (Jissoji) (sc) 1997 Level Five (role) Publications By OSHIMA: books— Sengo eiga: Hakai to sozo [Postwar Film: Destruction and Creation], Tokyo, 1963. Taikenteki sengo eizo ron [A Theory of the Postwar Image Based on Personal Experience], Tokyo, 1975. écrits (1956–1978): Dissolution et jaillissement, translated by Jean- Paul Le Pape, Paris, 1980. Cinema, Censorship, and the State : The Writings of Nagisa Oshima, 1956–1978, edited and with an introduction by Annette Michelson, translated by Dawn Lawson, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992. By OSHIMA: articles— ‘‘Situation et sujet du cinéma japonais (1),’’ in Positif (Paris), October 1972. ‘‘Je suis constamment concerné par le temps où je vis . . . ,’’ an interview with Noel Simsolo, in Cinéma (Paris), November 1972. Interview with R. McCormick, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 6, no. 2, 1974. ‘‘Oshima Uncensored,’’ an interview with M. de la F. McKendry, in Interview (New York), November 1976. ‘‘Ecrits,’’ in Positif (Paris), May 1978 and November 1979. ‘‘L’Empire de la passion,’’ an interview with Max Tessier, in Ecran (Paris), September 1978. ‘‘Currents in Japanese Cinema: Nagisa Oshima, Sachiko Hidari,’’ with S. Hoass, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), September/Octo- ber 1979. Interview with P. Lehman, in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol. 4, no. 2, 1980. ‘‘Tokyo Stories: Oshima,’’ an interview with Tony Rayns, in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1981. Interview with Pascal Bonitzer and others, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June/July 1983. Interview with Nick Roddick, in Stills (London), July/August 1983. ‘‘Oshima and Bowie: Culture Shock,’’ an interview with Tadao Sato, in American Film (Washington, D.C.), September 1983. ‘‘Campaigner in the World of the Absurd,’’ an interview with S. Suga, in Framework (Norwich), no. 26–27, 1985. ‘‘Entretien avec Nagisa Oshima,’’ with K. Ueno, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1990. ‘‘Kyoto, la ville de ma mere,’’ an interview with M. Borgese and others, in Jeune Cinéma, April/May 1992. ‘‘Mes idées actuelles sur le cinéma Japonais,’’ in Positif (Paris), January 1995. Interview with Pierre-Olivier Toulza and Yoichi Umemoto, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1995. ‘‘Zwei Gespr?che mit Nagisa Oshima,’’ with Ulrich Gregor and Klaus H?ppner, in EPD Film (Frankfurt), February 1996. On OSHIMA: books— Sato, Tadao, Oshima Nagisa no sekai [The World of Nagisa Oshima], Tokyo, 1973. Bock, Audie, Japanese Film Directors, New York, 1978; revised edition, Tokyo, 1985. Tessier, Max, editor, Le Cinéma Japonais au présent: 1959–1979, Paris, 1980. Sato, Tadao, Currents in Japanese Cinema, Tokyo, 1982. Magrelli, Enrico, and Emanuela Martini, Il Rito, il rivolta: Il cinema di Nagisa Oshima, Rome, 1984. Polan, Dana B., The Political Language of Film and the Avant-Garde, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1985. Danvers, Louis, and Charles Tatum, Nagisa Oshima, Paris, 1986. Desser, David, Eros Plus Massacre: An Introduction to the Japanese New Wave Cinema, Bloomington, Indiana, 1988. Nolletti, Arthur Jr., and David Desser, editors, Reframing Japanese Cinema: Authorship, Genre, History, Bloomington and Indian- apolis, Indiana, 1992. Cheryn Turim, Maureen, Films of Oshima Nagisa: Images of a Japa- nese Iconoclast, Berkeley, 1998. On OSHIMA: articles— Cameron, Ian, ‘‘Nagisa Oshima,’’ in Movie (London), Winter 1969/70. ‘‘Director of the Year,’’ in International Film Guide 1971, Lon- don, 1970. ‘‘La Cérémonie,’’ special issue of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), May 1973. McCormick, R., ‘‘Ritual, the Family and the State: A Critique of Nagisa Oshima’s The Ceremony,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 6, no. 2, 1974. Dawson, J., ‘‘Nagisa Oshima: Forms and Feelings under the Rising Sun,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), September/October 1976. McCormick, R., ‘‘In the Realm of the Senses,’’ in Cineaste (New York), Winter 1976/77. High, P. B., ‘‘Oshima: A Vita Sexualis on Film,’’ in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol. 2, no. 4, 1978. Hughes, J., ‘‘Oshima in Paris: Reaching for the Flame,’’ in Take One (Montreal), September 1978. Polan, Dana, ‘‘Politics as Process in Three Films by Nagisa Oshima,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Fall 1983. Lehman, P., ‘‘The Mysterious Orient, the Crystal Clear Orient,’’ and M. Turim, ‘‘Oshima’s Tales of Youth and Politics,’’ in Journal of Film and Video (Boston), Winter 1987. ‘‘Oshima Issue’’ of Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol. 9, no. 2, 1987. Bagh, P. von, ‘‘Kolme Tuntematonta Misesta,’’ in Filmihulu (Helsinki), no. 5, 1989. Lehman, P., ‘‘Oshima,’’ in Filmihulu (Helsinki), no. 5, 1989. Coates, P., ‘‘Repetition and Contradiction in the Films of Oshima,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film and Video, vol. 11, no. 4, 1990. Michelson, A., ‘‘Oshima’s Choice,’’ in New York Review of Books, 19 November 1992. OSHIMA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 728 Stren, L., ‘‘Roads to Freedom,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), February 1993. Hale, C., ‘‘Nagisa Oshima,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), June 1993. Piazzo, Philippe, ‘‘Le scandaleux de Tokyo,’’ in Télérama (Paris), 2 October 1996. Miyoshi, M., ‘‘‘Bunburying’ in the Japan Field: A Reply to Jeff Humphries,’’ in New Literary History, no. 3, 1997. *** Nagisa Oshima, the Godard of the East, spent much of the 1980s engaged in international co-productions. He directed Merry Christ- mas, Mr. Lawrence in 1983 for Jeremy Thomas, who was later to produce The Last Emperor for Bertolucci, and he combined with Luis Bu?uel’s old scriptwriter, Jean-Claude Carrière, on Max, Mon Amour— an Ionesco-like anatomy of bourgeois mores in which Charlotte Rampling has an affair with an ape. These European excursions seem a world apart from the early work of the former student activist and leader of the Japanese New Wave of the late 1950s. Back in those days, Oshima was telling cruel stories of youth, using the ingredients of American teenage exploita- tion movies, namely sex and violence, to make a trenchant critique of postwar Japanese society. Railing against the U.S.-Japan Security Pact, and despairing of the old left communists’ ability to make a meaningful intervention as the country experienced its ‘‘economic miracle,’’ Oshima mobilized delinquency and nihilism. Unlike the French nouvelle vague, who tended merely to aestheticize the exploits of their young petty criminals and misfits—the Antoine Doinels and Jean Paul Belmondos—and who took until 1968 to become obstreperously political, Oshima was engaged from the outset. He learned his craft as an assistant-director at the Shochiku Studios, where he directed his first features. However, the contro- versy surrounding his fourth film, Night and Fog in Japan (the title was deliberately designed to echo Resnais’s ‘‘gas chamber’’ docu- mentary), pushed him toward working as an independent. A despair- ing indictment of the disunity of the Japanese left—the old left were felt to have betrayed the new—Night and Fog is as notable for its formal characteristics as for its topical content. For a start, it contains only 43 shots. (Compare this to his 1966 work, Violence at Noon, which is a masterpiece of frenetic cutting, boasting over 2,000 shots in its 90-odd minutes, and you realize that Oshima is a formalist jackdaw, ready to experiment in whatever way he thinks fit.) And it was made in CinemaScope. Oshima, like Godard in A bout de souffle, has a penchant for hand-held camera shots. These, though, are rather more jarring when used in 70mm than in 16mm. Cast out on his own when Shochiku withdrew Night and Fog only three days after its release, Oshima remained active in both film and television throughout the 1960s. His first independent movie, The Catch, set the tone for much that was to follow. It tells the story of a black American POW, held hostage by a small village. While waiting for the military police to remove their ‘‘catch,’’ the villagers make the man a scapegoat for all their own problems, eventually murdering him. In its concern with racism and brutality, whether institutional or practiced by private individuals, The Catch anticipates Oshima’s most famous film of the 1960s, and the one that finally brought his work to the attention of the West. Shown out of competition at Cannes, Death by Hanging is as gruesome a film about capital punishment as one could ever wish to see. Based, like many of this director’s works, on a ‘‘true story’’—of a young Korean sentenced to death for the brutal murder and rape of a Japanese high school girl— the film operates on several levels, both formally and thematically. Japanese racism toward Koreans—for so long the untouchables of Japanese society—the mindless bureaucracy involved in state li- censed murder, and good old adolescent existential angst are amongst its narrative components. As Noel Burch has observed, the film’s style is constantly shifting: it starts as drama-documentary, shot in sober black and white, but it later develops into a self-reflexive avant- garde text in which the audience is addressed directly. It uses theatrical masquerade, paying homage to the tradition of Japanese kabuki theatre. Its early ‘‘classical realism’’ is utterly usurped. The Korean fails to die when he is hanged. The officials—wardens, priests, police—must recreate his crime for him because he has lost his memory. In their bid to remind him of his guilt, they actually repeat his murder. Jean Genet, the French vagabond thief and writer, is Oshima’s constant inspiration. With its emphasis on crime, sexuality, and role playing, Death by Hanging is akin to Genet’s The Balcony. Oshima borrowed a Genet title for his Diary of a Shinjuku Thief, and his rather more whimsical Three Resurrected Drunkards, an exemplary mod- ernist text that literally starts again halfway through (at the 1983 Edinburgh Film Festival there was a minor riot from patrons certain that the projectionist was accidentally replaying the opening reel), looks at the question of Korean immigration in terms of costume and identity. (Three Korean immigrants steal the clothes of three drunken Japanese youths. The three Japanese, with nothing to wear and no money, become ‘‘honorary’’ Koreans and are appropriately persecuted.) It is perhaps unfortunate that Oshima’s best known film remains In the Realm of the Senses, a work customarily shown in late-night double-bills with Last Tango in Paris and, like the Brando vehicle, generally esteemed as the perfect marriage between art and pornogra- phy. Another ‘‘true story,’’ this time of the notorious case of Abe Sada, who strangled and castrated her lover, Kichizo, and was arrested with his genitals in her pocket, it marks Oshima’s most intimate meshing of the political with the sexual. Politics constitute the film’s structuring absence. It is 1936, the high point of Japanese militarism; the two lovers’ retreat into the realm of the senses must always be seen against this historical backcloth. The links between political and sexual repression are obvious, but it seems somewhat glib to view this innately tragic story as being about a straightforward liberation of female sexuality, a sort of ‘‘geisha’s revenge.’’ A famil- iar male response to the movie, as to Bataille’s novel The Story of Eye, is to welcome it as a scathing critique of the male gaze: instead of being a film about a couple making love, it is transmogrified, becoming a film about what it means to be a spectator of a film about a couple making love. And, of course, it sells out every time it shows. Almost five years after In the Realm of the Senses and Empire of Passions (1978) came another international co-production, Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence, in 1983. Pop icons David Bowie and Ryuichi Sakamoto were cast in this film, aptly helping produce what critic Janet Muslin called a ‘‘curiously dislocated quality.’’ This highly stylized picture is filled with erotic tensions, though this time ones homoerotic and interracial in the era of war and confrontation. Repressed sexual energy, in the form of the platonic kisses Bowie (a POW) placed upon Sakamoto’s (the commander of the camp) cheeks, was released probably more in the viewer’s displaced projec- tion than in the digests; Sakamoto’s character was relieved of his command while Bowie was brutally executed. OUEDRAOGODIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 729 Max, Mon Amour (1986) proved to be ill-received—it took three years for it to be released in Britain—and since then Oshima has been working mainly for television as a talk show host. The once ardent advocate and leader of the Japanese New Wave seems to occupy a different orbit that puzzles his admirers and critics alike. —G. C. Macnab, updated by Guo-Juin Hong OUEDRAOGO, Idrissa Nationality: Burkinabe. Born: Banfora, Burkina Faso, 21 January 1954. Education: Primary and secondary education in Burkina Faso; attended film school at the Institut Africain d’Education Cinématographique in Ouagadougou; studied film in Kiev, Ukraine; graduated from the Institut des Hautes Etudes Cinématographiques in Paris, 1985. Awards: Short Film Prize, FESPACO (Pan-African Festival of Film and Television, Ougadougou), for Poko, 1981; Director’s Prize, Carthage Film Festival, and Grand Prize for Short Film, FESPACO, for Issa le tisserand, 1985; International Critic’s Prize, Cannes Festival, Special Jury Prize, FESPACO, and Sakura Gold Prize, Tokyo International Film Festival, for Yaaba, 1989; Special Jury Grand Prize and Critic’s Prize, Cannes Festival, 1990, and Etalon de Yennega, FESPACO, 1991, for Tila?. Films as Director: 1981 Pourquoi? (Why?); Poko 1983 Les écuelles (The Platters); Les funerailles du Larle Naba (Larle Naba’s Funeral) (co-d); 1985 Ouagadougou, Ouaga deux roues (Ouagadougou, Ouaga Two Wheels); Issa le tisserand (Issa the Weaver); Tenga 1986 Yam Daabo (The Choice) 1989 Yaaba (Grandmother) 1990 Tila? (The Law) 1991 A Karim na Sala (Karim and Sala) 1993 Samba Traoré 1994 Le Cri du coeur (A Cry from the Heart) 1995 Afrique, mon Afrique (Africa, My Africa); Lumière et Compagnie (Lumière and Company) (co-d) 1997 Kini et Adams; Les Parias du cinéma Publications: By OUEDRAOGO: articles— ‘‘Africa through African Eyes: An Interview with Idrisaa Ouedraogo,’’ interview with Fran?oise Pfaff in Black Film Review, Win- ter 1987. ‘‘Ouagadougou: Assessing a New Generation of African Filmmakers,’’ interview with William Fisher in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1989. ‘‘Have You Heard the One about . . . ?’’ interview with A. Gallone in Ecrans d’Afrique, vol. 6, n. 19, 1997. On OUEDRAOGO: books— Pfaff, Fran?oise, Twenty-five Black African Filmmakers, New York, 1988. Malkmus, Lizbeth, and Roy Armes, Arab and African Film Making, London, 1991. Diawara, Manthia, African Cinema: Politics and Culture, Blooming- ton, 1992. Shiri, Keith, Directory of African Film-makers and Films, Westport, 1992. Ukadike, Nwachuku Frank, Black African Cinema, Berkeley, 1994. Russel, Sharon, Guide to African Cinema, Westport, 1998. On OUEDRAOGO: articles— Baecque, Antione de, ‘‘Portrait: Idrissa Ouedraogo,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1990. Klawans, Stuart, ‘‘Tilai (The Law),’’ in The Nation, 10 December 1990 Forbes, Jill, ‘‘Yaaba,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1990. Magny, Joel, ‘‘Idrissa Ouedraogo,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1991. Ukadike, N. Frank, ‘‘Yaaba,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1991. Orr, Deborah, ‘‘Law in Action: Burkina Faso Filmmaker Idrissa Ouedraogo’s ‘Tilai’,’’ in New Statesman & Society (London), 22 February 1991. Andrade-Watkins, Claire, ‘‘Yaaba, ‘‘in American Historical Review, October 1992. ‘‘Idrissa Ouedraogo,’’ in Current Biography, May 1993. Kauffmann, Stanley, ‘‘Samba Traore,’’ in The New Republic, 4 Octo- ber 1993. Pfaff, Fran?oise, ‘‘Africa from Within: The Films of Gaston Kaboré and Idrissa Ouegraogo,’’ in African Experiences of Cinema, edited by Imruh Bakari and Mbaye B. Cham, London, 1996. *** Idrissa Ouedraogo is one of Africa’s most prolific filmmakers. His early films are remakable in their ability to communicate through imagery. Poko, Les Ecuelles (The Wooden Bowls), Les Funerailles du Larle Naba (The Funeral of Larle Narba), Ouagadougou, Ouga deux roues (Ouagadougou, Ouga Two Wheels), and Issa le tisserand (Issa the Weaver) appeal to a multi-lingual audience without using dia- logue or voice-over narration. Although his subsequent films incor- porate dialogue, Ouedraogo’s talent for creating meaning with im- ages remains a hallmark of his work. Ouedraogo’s first commercial success, Yaaba (Grandmother), narrates the story of two young children who befriend an old woman wrongly accused of malevolent sorcery. This film exemplifies Ouedraogo’s interest in the multiple ramifications of individual choices. It also demonstrates Ouedraogo’s skill at adapting the poetics of African oral tales to contemporary cinema. Nwachukwu Frank Ukadike notes that Ouedraogo ‘‘fuses the neorealist penchant for eliciting polished performance from nonprofessionals with the African narrative tradition of the griot . . . as in the oral tradition, a story’s interest and attraction for an audience depend upon how creatively a storyteller embellishes what he has heard or taken from his own experience.’’ Ouedraogo’s humor, wit, and keen sense of drama in Yaaba earned him international acclaim as an exceptional storyteller and filmmaker. OZU DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 730 Idrissa Ouedraogo Ouedraogo’s second big success was Tilai (The Law). At the film’s beginning, the protagonist, Saga, leaves his village. His life away from home is left out of the narrative, which speaks to Ouedraogo’s commitment to rural life. Saga returns to find that his father has married the woman he loves, Nogma. Nogma and Saga decide to disobey the law and escape to another village. Saga’s brother, Kougri, also refuses to follow his father’s order to punish Saga with death. Ouedraogo sympathizes with young villagers’ desires for change, but treats his elder characters with sensitivity. The film depicts the injustices of certain traditional laws in addition to the difficulties involved in defying them. At the same time, Ouedraogo deeply respects his country’s cultures, and sides with their battles for self-preservation. Although Ouedraogo often critiques strict traditional laws, his love for his African heritage is clear in his films. His appreciation for African traditional life is expressed poignantly in Un cri du coeur (A Cry from the Heart). Here, a young boy named Moctar moves from his village in order to live with his middle-class parents, who have immigrated to France. Pained by his nostalgia for his village, and especially for his grandfather, Moctar has difficulty adjusting. When he has visions of a hyena on the streets, he alarms his parents, who hoped that France would provide Moctar with better opportunities. Un cri du coeur, like numerous African literary works, examines the affection shared between the older African generation and their grandchildren. When Moctar’s hyena, a strong figure in African folklore, appears for the last time, it takes the form of his dear grandfather. In the context of African cinema, Ouedraogo’s films have been especially successful. He is committed to filming the specific realities of his home country, yet his themes of fidelity, resistance, transforma- tion, and the recovery of traditions have touched diverse, world-wide audiences. —Ellie Higgins OZU, Yasujiro Nationality: Japanese. Born: Tokyo, 12 December 1903. Educa- tion: the Uji-Yamada (now Ise) Middle School, Matsuzaka, gradu- ated 1921. Career: Teacher, 1922–23; after introduction from uncle, OZUDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 731 began as assistant cameraman at Shochiku Motion Picture Co., 1923; assistant director, 1926; directed first film, 1927; military service in China, 1937–39; made propaganda films in Singapore, 1943; interned for six months as British POW, 1945. Died: In Kamakura, 12 December 1963. Films as Director: 1927 Zange no yaiba (The Sword of Penitence) 1928 Wakodo no yume (The Dreams of Youth) (+ sc); Nyobo funshitsu (Wife Lost); Kabocha (Pumpkin); Hikkoshi fufu (A Couple on the Move); Nikutai bi (Body Beautiful) (+ co-sc) 1929 Takara no yama (Treasure Mountain) (+ story); Wakaki hi (Days of Youth) (+ co-sc); Wasei kenka tomodachi (Fight- ing Friends, Japanese Style); Daigaku wa deta keredo (I Graduated, But . . . ); Kaisha-in seikatsu (The Life of an Office Worker); Tokkan kozo (A Straightforward Boy) (+ co-story) 1930 Kekkon-gaku nyumon (An Introduction to Marriage); Hogaraka ni ayume (Walk Cheerfully); Rakudai wa shita keredo (I Flunked, But . . . ) (+ story); Sono yo no tsuma (That Night’s Wife); Erogami no onryo (The Revengeful Spirit of Eros); Ashi ni sawatta koun (Lost Luck); Ojosan (Young Miss) 1931 Shukujo to hige (The Lady and the Beard); Bijin aishu (Beauty’s Sorrows); Tokyo no gassho (Tokyo Chorus) 1932 Haru wa gofujin kara (Spring Comes from the Ladies) (+ story); Umarete wa mita keredo (I Was Born, But . . . ) (+ story); Seishun no yume ima izuko (Where Now Are the Dreams of Youth?); Mata au hi made (Until the Day We Meet Again) 1933 Tokyo no onna (A Tokyo Woman) (+ story); Hijosen no onna (Dragnet Girl) (+ story); Dekigokoro (Passing Fancy) (+ story) 1934 Haha o kowazu-ya (A Mother Should Be Loved); Ukigusa monogatari (A Story of Floating Weeds) 1935 Hakoiri musume (An Innocent Maid); Tokyo no yado 1936 Daigaku yoi toko (College Is a Nice Place) (+ story); Hitori musuko (The Only Son) (+ story) 1937 Shukujo wa nani o wasuretaka (What Did the Lady Forget?) (+ co-story) 1941 Toda-ke no kyodai (The Brothers and Sisters of the Toda Family) (+ co-sc) 1942 Chichi ariki (There Was a Father) (+ co-sc) 1947 Nagaya no shinshi roku (The Record of a Tenement Gentle- man) (+ co-sc) 1948 Kaze no naka no mendori (A Hen in the Wind) (+ co-sc) 1949 Banshun (Late Spring) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) 1950 Munekata shimai (The Munekata Sisters) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) 1951 Bakushu (Early Summer) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) 1952 Ochazuke no aji (The Flavor of Green Tea over Rice) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) 1953 Tokyo monogatari (Tokyo Story) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) 1956 Soshun (Early Spring) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) 1957 Tokyo boshoku (Twilight in Tokyo) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) 1958 Higanbana (Equinox Flower) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) 1959 Ohayo (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda); Ukigusa (Floating Weeds) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) 1960 Akibiyori (Late Autumn) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) 1961 Kohayagawa-ke no aki (The End of Summer) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) 1962 Samma no aji (An Autumn Afternoon) (+ co-sc with Kogo Noda) Publications On OZU: books— Anderson, Joseph, and Donald Richie, The Japanese Film: Art and Industry, New York, 1960. Richie, Donald, Five Pictures of Yasujiro Ozu, Tokyo, 1962. Richie, Donald, Japanese Cinema: Film Style and National Charac- ter, New York, 1971. Sato, Tadao, Ozu Yasujiro no Geijutsu [The Art of Yasujiro Ozu], Tokyo, 1971. Satomi, Jun, and others, editors, Ozu Yasujiro—Hito to Shigoto [Yasujiro Ozu: The Man and His Work], Tokyo, 1972. Schrader, Paul, Transcendental Style in Film: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer, Berkeley, California, 1972. Burch, No?l, Theory of Film Practice, New York, 1973. Tessier, Max, ‘‘Yasujiro Ozu,’’ in Anthologie du cinéma, vol. 7, Paris, 1973. Richie, Donald, Ozu, Berkeley, California, 1974. Schrader, Leonard, and Haruji Nakamura, editors, Masters of Japa- nese Film, Tokyo, 1975. Gillett, John, and David Wilson, Yasujiro Ozu: A Critical Anthology, London, 1976. Bock, Audie, Japanese Film Directors, New York, 1978; revised edition, Tokyo, 1985. Burch, No?l, To the Distant Observer, Berkeley, 1979. Tessier, Max, editor, Le Cinéma japonais au présent: 1959–79, Paris, 1980. Sato, Tadao, Currents in Japanese Cinema, Tokyo, 1982. Bordwell, David, Ozu and the Poetics of Cinema, Princeton, New Jersey, 1988. Hasumi, Shigehiko, Kantoku Ozu Yasujiro, Tokyo, 1992. Hamano, Yasuki cho, Ozu Yasujiro, Tokyo, 1993. Ishizaka, Shozo, Ozu Yasujiro to Chigasakikan, Tokyo, 1995. Yoshida, Yoshishige, Ozu Yasujiro no han eiga, Tokyo, 1998. Skiki, Ichiro, Kurosawa Akira to Ozu Yasujiro, Tokyo, 2000. On OZU: articles— ‘‘Ozu Issues’’ of Kinema Jumpo (Tokyo), June 1958 and Febru- ary 1964. Ryu, Chishu, ‘‘Yasujiro Ozu,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1964. Iwasaki, Akira, ‘‘Ozu,’’ in Film (London), Summer 1965. ‘‘Ozu Spectrum,’’ in Cinema (Beverly Hills), Summer 1970. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, ‘‘Ozu,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Sum- mer 1972. Zeaman, Marvin, ‘‘The Zen Artistry of Yasujiro Ozu: The Serene Poet of Japanese Cinema,’’ in Film Journal (New York), Fall/ Winter 1972. Branigan, Edward, ‘‘The Space of Equinox Flower,’’ in Screen (London), Summer 1976. OZU DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 732 Thompson, Kristin, and David Bordwell, ‘‘Space and Narrative in the Films of Ozu,’’ in Screen (London), Summer 1976. Thompson, Kristin, ‘‘Notes on the Spatial System of Ozu’s Early Films,’’ in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol. 1, no. 4, 1977. Bergala, Alain, ‘‘L’Homme qui se lève,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1980. ‘‘Le Cinéma toujours recommencé de Yasujiro Ozu,’’ special sec- tion, in Cinéma (Paris), January 1981. Bock, Audie, ‘‘Ozu Reconsidered,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Fall 1983. Berta, R., ‘‘A la recherche du regard,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1985. Geist, Kathe, ‘‘Narrative Style in Ozu’s Silent Films,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1986/87. Lehman, P., ‘‘The Mysterious Orient, the Crystal Clear Orient . . . ,’’ in Journal of Film and Video (Boston), Winter 1987. *** Throughout his career, Yasujiro Ozu worked in the mainstream film industry. Obedient to his role, loyal to his studio (the mighty Shochiku), he often compared himself to the tofu salesman, offering nourishing but supremely ordinary wares. For some critics, his greatness stems from his resulting closeness to the everyday realities of Japanese life. Yet since his death another critical perspective has emerged. This modest conservative has come to be recognized as one of the most formally intriguing filmmakers in the world, a director who extended the genre he worked within and developed a rich and unique cinematic style. Ozu started his career within a well-established genre system, and he quickly proved himself versatile, handling college comedies, wistful tales of office workers, even gangster films. By 1936, how- ever, he had started to specialize. The ‘‘home drama,’’ a Shochiku specialty, focused on the trials and joys of middle-class or working- class life—raising children, finding a job, marrying off sons and daughters, settling marital disputes, making grandparents comfort- able. It was this genre in which Ozu created his most famous films and to which he is said to have paid tribute on his deathbed: ‘‘After all, Mr. President, the home drama.’’ Ozu enriched this genre in several ways. He strengthened the pathos of family crisis by suggesting that many of them arose from causes beyond the control of the individual. In the 1930s works, this often led to strong criticism of social forces like industrialization, bureaucratization, and Japanese ‘‘paternalistic’’ capitalism. In later films, causes of domestic strife tended to be assigned to a mystical super-nature. This ‘‘metaphysical’’ slant ennobled the characters’ tribulations by placing even the most trivial action in a grand scheme. The melancholy resignation that is so pronounced in Tokyo Story and An Autumn Afternoon constituted a recognition of a cycle of nature that society can never control. To some extent, the grandiose implications of this process are qualified by a homely virtue: comedy. Few Ozu films wholly lack humor, and many involve outrageous sight gags. As a genre, the home drama invited a light touch, but Ozu proved able to extend it into fresh regions. There is often an unabashed vulgarity, running to jokes about eating, bodily functions, and sex. Even the generally sombre Autumn Afternoon can spare time for a gag about an elderly man run ragged by the sexual demands of a young wife. Ohayo is based upon equating talk, especially polite vacuities, with farting. Ozu also risked breath- taking shifts in tone: in Passing Fancy, after a tearful scene at a boy’s sickbed, the father pettishly says that he wishes his son had died. The boy responds that the father was looking forward to a good meal at the funeral. Ozu developed many narrative tendencies of the home drama. He exploited the family-plus-friends-and-neighbors cast by creating strict parallels among characters. If family A has a son of a certain type, family B will have a daughter of that type, or a son of a different sort. The father may encounter a younger or older man, whom he sees as representing himself at another point in his life. The extended-family format allowed Ozu to create dizzying permutations of comparisons. The sense is again of a vast cycle of life in which an individual occupies many positions at different times. Ozu had one of the most distinctive visual styles in the cinema. Although critics have commonly attributed this to the influence of other directors or to traditions of Japanese art, these are insufficient to account for the rigor and precision of Ozu’s technique. No other Japanese director exhibits Ozu’s particular style, and the connections to Japanese aesthetics are general and often tenuous. (Ozu once remarked: ‘‘Whenever Westerners don’t understand something, they simply think it’s Zen.’’) There is, however, substantial evidence that Ozu built his unique style out of deliberate imitation of and action against Western cinema (especially the work of Chaplin and Lubitsch). Ozu limited his use of certain technical variables, such as camera movement and variety of camera position. This can seem a willful asceticism, but it is perhaps best considered a ground-clearing that let him concentrate on exploring minute stylistic possibilities. For in- stance, it is commonly claimed that every Ozu shot places the camera about three feet off the ground, but this is false. What Ozu keeps constant is the perceived ratio of camera height to the subject. This permits a narrow but nuanced range of camera positions, making every subject occupy the same sector of each shot. Similarly, most of Ozu’s films employ camera movements, but these are also systema- tized to a rare degree. Far from being an ascetic director, Ozu was quite virtuosic, but within self-imposed limits. His style revealed vast possibilities within a narrow compass. Ozu’s compositions relied on the fixed camera-subject relation, adopting angles that stand at multiples of 45 degrees. He employed sharp perspectival depth; the view down a corridor or street is common. Ozu enjoyed playing with the positions of objects within the frame, often rearranging props from shot to shot for the sake of minute shifts. In the color films, a shot will be enhanced by a fleck of bright and deep color, often red; this accent will migrate around the film, returning as an abstract motif in scene after scene. Ozu’s use of editing was no less idiosyncratic. In opposition to the 180-degree space of Hollywood cinema, Ozu employed a 360-degree approach to filming a scene. This ‘‘circular’’ shooting space yields a series of what Western cinema would consider incorrect matches of action and eyelines. While such devices crop up in the work of other Japanese filmmakers, only Ozu used them so rigorously—to under- mine our understanding of the total space, to liken characters, and to create abstract graphic patterns. Ozu’s shots of objects or empty locales extend the concept of the Western ‘‘cutaway’’: he used them not for narrative information but for symbolic purposes or for temporal prolongation. Since Ozu early abjured the use of fades and dissolves, cutaways often stand in for such punctuations. And because of the unusually precise compositions and cutting, Ozu was able to OZUDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 733 create a sheerly graphic play with the screen surface, ‘‘matching’’ contours and regions of one shot with those of the next. Ozu’s work remains significant not only for its extraordinary richness and emotional power, but also because it suggests the extent to which a filmmaker working in popular mass-production filmmaking can cultivate a highly individual approach to film form and style. —David Bordwell 735 P PABST, G.W. Nationality: Austrian. Born: Georg Wilhelm Pabst in Raudnitz, Bohemia, 27 August 1885. Education: Educated in engineering at technical school, Vienna, and at Academy of Decorative Arts, Vienna, 1904–06. Military Service: Interned as prisoner of war, Brest, 1914–18. Family: Married Gertrude (Pabst), one son. Career: Actor, from 1906; travelled to United States with German language troupe, 1910; returned to Europe, prisoner of war, 1914–18; directed season of expressionist theatre in Prague, 1919; artistic director Neuen Wiener Bühne also joined Carl Froelich’s film production company, 1920; directed first film, 1923; formed Volksverband für Filmkunst (Popular Association for Film Art) with Heinrich Mann, Erwin Piscator, and Karl Freund, 1928; studied sound film techniques in London, 1929; moved to Hollywood, 1933, returned to France, 1935; planned to emigrate to United States on outbreak of war, but illness forced him to remain in Austria; formed Pabst-Kiba Filmproduktion in Vienna, 1949; worked in Italy, 1950–53. Awards: Légion d’honneur, 1931; Best Director, Venice Festival, for Der Prozess, 1948. Died: In Vienna, 29 May 1967. Films as Director: 1923 Der Schatz (The Treasure) (+ co-sc) 1924 Gr?fin Donelli (Countess Donelli) 1925 Die freudlose Gasse (The Joyless Street); Geheimnesse einer Seele (Secrets of a Soul) 1926 Man spielt nicht mit der Liebe (One Does Not Play with Love) 1927 Die Liebe der Jeanne Ney (The Love of Jeanne Ney) 1928 Abwege (Begierde) [Crisis (Desire)]; Die Büchse der Pan- dora (Pandora’s Box) 1929 Die weisse H?lle vom Pitz-Palu (The White Hell of Pitz-Palu) (co-d); Das Tagebuch einer Verlorenen (Diary of a Lost Girl) (+ pr) 1930 Westfront 1918; Skandal um Eva (Scandalous Eva) 1931 Die Dreigroschenoper (The Threepenny Opera); Kameradschaft (Comradeship) 1932 L’Atlantide (Die Herrin von Atlantis) 1933 Don Quichotte; Du haut en bas (High and Low) 1934 A Modern Hero 1936 Mademoiselle Docteur (Salonique, nid d’espions) 1938 Le Drame de Shanghai 1939 Jeunes Filles en détresse 1941 Kom?dianten (+ co-sc) 1943 Paracelsus (+ co-sc) 1944 Der Fall Molander (unfinished and believed destroyed) 1947 Der Prozess (The Trial) 1949 Geheimnisvolle Tiefen (+ pr) 1952 La Voce del silenzio 1953 Cose da pazzi 1954 Das Bekenntnis der Ina Kahr 1955 Der Letzte Akt (The Last Ten Days; Ten Days to Die); Es geschah am 20 Juli (Jackboot Mutiny) 1956 Rosen für Bettina; Durch die Walder, durch die Auen Other Films: 1921 Im Banne der Kralle (Frohlich) (role) Publications By PABST: book— Classic Film Scripts: Pandora’s Box (Lulu), translated by Christo- pher Holme, New York, 1971. By PABST: articles— ‘‘Censor the Censor!,’’ an interview with Beatrix Moore, in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1938/39. ‘‘Le Réalisme est un passage,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), Octo- ber 1948. ‘‘über zwei meiner Filme,’’ in Filmkunst (Vienna), 1960. ‘‘The Threepenny Opera,’’ edited by Roger Manvell, in Masterpieces of the German Cinema, New York, 1973. On PABST: books— Kracauer, Siegfried, From Caligari to Hitler, Princeton, New Jer- sey, 1947. Joseph, Rudolph, editor, Der Regisseur: G.W. Pabst, Munich, 1963. Buache, Freddy, G.W. Pabst, Premier Plan No. 39, Lyons, 1965. Amengual, Barthélémy, Georg Wilhelm Pabst, Paris, 1966. Aubry, Yves, and Jacques Pétat, ‘‘G.W. Pabst,’’ in Anthologie du Cinéma, vol. 4, Paris, 1968. Eisner, Lotte, The Haunted Screen, Berkeley, 1969. Hull, David, Film in the Third Reich, Berkeley, 1969. Atwell, Lee, G.W. Pabst, Boston, 1977. Brooks, Louise, Lulu in Hollywood, New York, 1981. On PABST: articles— Bryher, ‘‘G.W. Pabst: A Survey,’’ in Close Up (London), Decem- ber 1927. Moore, John, ‘‘Pabst, Dovjenko: A Comparison,’’ in Close Up (London), September 1932. Potamkin, Harry, ‘‘Pabst and the Social Film,’’ in Hound & Horn (New York), January-March 1933. PABST DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 736 G.W. Pabst Rotha, Paul, ‘‘Pabst, Pudovkin, and the Producers,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1933. Bachmann, Gideon, editor, ‘‘Six Talks on G.W. Pabst,’’ in Cinemages (New York), no. 3, 1955. ‘‘Pabst Issue’’ of Filmkunst (Vienna), no. 18, 1955. Card, James, ‘‘The Intense Isolation of Louise Brooks,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1958. Stanbrook, Alan, ‘‘Brecht et le cinéma,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1960. Luft, Herbert, ‘‘G.W. Pabst,’’ in Films in Review (New York), February 1964. Brooks, Louise, ‘‘Pabst and Lulu,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1965. Rotha, Paul, ‘‘Thoughts on Pabst,’’ in Films and Filming (London), February 1967. Eisner, Lotte, ‘‘Meeting with Pabst,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1967. Stuart, John, ‘‘Working with Pabst,’’ in Silent Picture (London), Autumn 1970. ‘‘Loulou Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 December 1980. Petat, J., ‘‘Pabst, aujourd’hui?—une réévaluation nécessaire,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), April 1981. Elsaesser, Thomas, ‘‘Lulu and the Meter Man,’’ in Screen (London), July/October 1983. Castoro Cinema (Firenze), special issue, no. 104, 1983. Horak, J.C., ‘‘G.W. Pabst in Hollywood, or Every Modern Hero Deserves a Mother,’’ in Film History (Philadelphia), vol. 1, no. 1, 1987. Pacewicz, T., ‘‘Powrot do tworczosci Georga Wilhelma Pabsta,’’ in Iluzjon, April-June 1991. Pacewicz, J., ‘‘Paracelsus oraz niezrealizowane projekty filmowe G.W. Pabsta w Trzeciej Rzeszy,’’ in Iluzjon, April-June 1992. Hale, C., ‘‘1282 G.W. Pabst,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), April 1994. Koch, G., ‘‘Treppensturr ins Exil: du haut en bas,’’ in Frauen und Film (Frankfurt/Main), December 1992. Rauger, J.-F., ‘‘Cinémathèque fran?aise’’ un Pabst retrouvé,’’ Cinémathèque (Paris), November 1992. Landrot, Marine, ‘‘Sur la piste de Pabst,’’ Télérama (Paris), 29 June 1994. *** PAGNOLDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 737 Bryher, writing in Close Up in 1927, noted that ‘‘it is the thought and feeling that line gesture that interest Mr. Pabst. And he has what few have, a consciousness of Europe. He sees psychologically and because of this, because in a flash he knows the sub-conscious impulse or hunger that prompted an apparently trivial action, his intense realism becomes, through its truth, poetry.’’ G.W. Pabst was enmeshed in the happenings of his time, which ultimately engulfed him. He is the chronicler of the churning mael- strom of social dreams and living neuroses, and it is this perception of his time which raises him above many of his contemporary filmmakers. Like other German directors, Pabst drifted to the cinema through acting and scripting. His first film, Der Schatz, dealt with a search for hidden treasure and the passions it aroused. Expressionist in feeling and design, it echoed the current trend in German films, but in Die freudlose Gasse he brought clinical observation to the tragedy of his hungry postwar Europe. For Pabst the cinema and life grew closer together. In directing the young Greta Garbo and the more experi- enced Asta Nielsen, Pabst was beginning his gallery of portraits of women, to whom he would add Brigitte Helm, Louise Brooks, and Henny Porten. Geheimnisse einer Seele carried Pabst’s interest in the subcon- scious further, dealing with a Freudian subject of the dream and using all the potential virtues of the camera to illuminate the problems of his central character, played by Werner Krauss. Die Liebe der Jeanne Ney, based on a melodramatic story by Ilya Ehrenburg, reflected the upheavals and revolutionary ideas of the day. It also incorporated a love story that ranged from the Crimea to Paris. Through his sensitive awareness of character and environment Pabst raised the film to great heights of cinema. His individual style of linking image to create a smoothly flowing pattern induced a rhythm which carried the spectator into the very heart of the matter. Two Pabst films have a special significance. Die Büchse der Pandora and Das Tagebuch einer Verlorenen featured the American actress Louise Brooks, in whom Pabst found an ideal interpreter for his analysis of feminine sensuality. Between the high spots of Pabst’s career there were such films as Grafin Donelli, which brought more credit to its star, Henny Porten, than to Pabst. Man spielt nicht mit der Liebe featured Krauss and Lily Damita in a youth and age romance. Abwege, a more congenial picture that took as its subject a sexually frustrated woman, gave Pabst the opportunity to direct the beautiful and intelligent Brigitte Helm. His collaboration with Dr. Arnold Fanck on Die weisse H?lle vom Pitz-Palu resulted in the best of the mountain films, aided by Leni Riefenstahl and a team of virtuoso cameramen, Angst, Schneeberger, and Allgeier. The coming of sound was a challenge met by Pabst. Not only did he enlarge the scope of filmmaking techniques, but he extended the range of his social commitments in his choice of subject matter. Hans Casparius, his distinguished stills cameraman and friend, has stressed the wonderful teamwork involved in a Pabst film. There were no divisions of labor; all were totally involved. Westfront 1918, Die Dreigroschenoper, and Kameradschaft were made in this manner when Pabst began to make sound films. Vajda the writer, cameraman Fritz Arno Wagner (who had filmed Jeanne Ney) and Ern? Metzner, another old colleague, worked out the mise-en-scène with Pabst, assuring the smooth, fluid process of cinema. With Pabst the cinema was still a wonder of movement and penetrating observation. The technical devices used to ensure this have been described by the designer Metzner. Westfront 1918 was an uncompromising anti-war film which made All Quiet on the Western Front look contrived and artificial. Brecht’s Die Dreigroschenoper, modified by Pabst, is still a stinging satire on the pretensions of capitalist society. Kameradschaft, a mov- ing plea for international cooperation, shatters the boundaries that tend to isolate people. All these films were studio-made and techni- cally stupendous, but the heart and human warmth of these features were given by G.W. Pabst. When Germany was in the grip of growing Nazi domination, Pabst looked elsewhere to escape from that country, of which he had once been so much a part. L’Atlantide was based on the Pierre Benoit novel of adventure in the Sahara. The former success of Jacques Feyder, Pabst’s work featured Brigitte Helm as the mysterious Antinea. Don Quixote with Chaliapin did not fulfil its promise. A Modern Hero, made in Hollywood for Warner Brothers, had little of Pabst in it. On his return to France he handled with some competence Mademoiselle Docteur, Le Drame de Shanghai, and Jeunes Filles en détresse. In 1941 circumstances compelled him to return to his estate in Austria. He was trapped, and if he was to make films, it had to be for the Nazi regime. Kom?dianten was a story of a troupe of players who succeed in establishing the first National Theatre at Weimar. Its leading player was Pabst’s old friend Henny Porten, who gave an excellent perform- ance. The film won an award at the then Fascist-controlled Venice Biennale. Paracelsus, again an historical film, showed Pabst had lost none of his power. For his somewhat reluctant collaboration with the Nazis, Pabst has been savagely attacked, but it is hard to believe that any sympathy could have ever existed from the man who made Kameradschaft for the narrow chauvinists who ruled his country. After the war Pabst made Der Prozess, dealing with Jewish pogroms in nineteenth-century Hungary. It was a fine film. After some work in Italy he made Der letze Akt, about the last days of Hitler, and Es geschah am 20 Juli, about the generals’ plot against Hitler. Both were films of distinction. Pabst died in Vienna in 1967, having been a chronic invalid for the last ten years of his life. As Jean Renoir said of him in 1963: ‘‘He knows how to create a strange world, whose elements are borrowed from daily life. Beyond this precious gift, he knows how, better than anyone else, to direct actors. His characters emerge like his own children, created from fragments of his own heart and mind.’’ —Liam O’Leary PAGNOL, Marcel Nationality: French. Born: Aubagne, near Marseilles, 25 (or 28) February 1895. Education: Lycée Thiers, Marseilles; University of Montpellier, degree in letters. Military Service: Served with French Infantry, 1914–17, and in 1940. Family: Married Jacqueline Bouvier, 1945, two sons. Career: Founded literary magazine Fortunio, 1911; teacher of English, from 1912; appointed professor at Lycée Condorcet, Paris, 1922; resigned teaching position after success of play Marius, 1929; created film company and founded magazine Les Cahiers du film, 1931; opened studio at Marseilles, 1933; directed first film, 1934; President of Society of French Dramatic Authors and Compos- ers, 1944–46. Awards: Member, Academie fran?aise, 1947. Officer of the Légion d’honneur. Died: 18 April 1974. PAGNOL DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 738 Marcel Pagnol Films as Director: 1934 Le Gendre de Monsieur Poirier (+ pr, sc); Jofroi (+ pr, sc); L’Article 330 (+ pr, sc); Angèle (+ pr, sc) 1935 Merlusse (+ pr, sc); Cigalon (+ pr, sc) 1936 Topaze (second version) (+ pr, sc); César (+ pr, sc) 1937 Regain (+ pr, sc) 1938 Le Schpountz (+ pr, sc); La Femme du boulanger (+ pr, sc) 1940 La Fille du puisatier (+ pr, sc) 1945 Na?s (+ pr, sc) 1948 La Belle Meunière (+ pr, sc) 1951 Topaze (third version) (+ pr, sc) 1952 Manon des sources (+ pr, sc) 1954 Les Lettres de mon moulin (+ pr, sc) 1967 Le Curé de Cucugnan (for television) (+ pr, sc) Other Films: 1931 Marius (Korda) (sc) 1932 Fanny (Allégret) (co-pr, sc) 1933 Topaze (Gasnier) (original play) (sc); Un Direct au coeur (Lion) (co-author of original play, sc); L’Agonie des aigles (Richebé) (co-pr, sc) 1934 Tartarin de Tarascon (Bernand) (sc) 1939 Monsieur Brotonneau (Esway) (pr, sc) 1950 Le Rosier de Madame Husson (Boyer) (sc) 1953 Carnaval (Verneuil) (pr, sc) 1962 La Dame aux camélias (Gir) (sc) 1986 Jean de Florette (Berri) (original story); Manon des sources (Berri) (original story) Publications (related to cinema) By PAGNOL: books— Les Sermons de Pagnol, edited by Robert Morel, Paris, 1968. Confidences, Paris, 1981. Inédits, edited by J. and F. Pagnol, Paris, 1986. By PAGNOL: articles— ‘‘Je n’ai pas changé de métier,’’ an interview with Michel Gorel, in Cinémonde (Paris), 17 August 1933. ‘‘Cinématurgie de Paris,’’ in Les Cahiers du Film (Paris), 16 Decem- ber 1933, 15 January 1934, and 1 March 1934; collected in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 173. ‘‘Il n’y a rien de plus bête que la technique,’’ an interview with Maurice Bessy, in Cinémonde (Paris), 6 October 1938. ‘‘Mon ami Rene Clair,’’ in Cinémonde (Paris), 23 April 1946. ‘‘Adieu à Raimu,’’ in L’Ecran Fran?aise (Paris), 3 October 1951. Interview with J.A. Fieschi and others, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1965. Interview with Claude Beylie and Guy Braucourt, in Cinéma (Paris), March 1969. On PAGNOL: books— Clair, René, Cinéma d’hier, cinéma d’aujourd’hui, Paris, 1970. Domeyne, P., Marcel Pagnol, Paris, 1971. Beylie, Claude, Marcel Pagnol, Paris, 1972. Castans, Raymond, Marcel Pagnol m’a raconté . . . , Paris, 1975. Leprohon, Pierre, Marcel Pagnol, Paris, 1976. Castans, Raymond, and André Bernard, Les films du Marcel Pagnol, Paris, 1982. Beylie, Claude, Marcel Pagnol: ou, Le cinéma en liberté, Paris, 1986. Pompa, Dany, Marcel Pagnol, Paris, 1986. Beylie, Claude, Les années Pagnol, Paris, 1989. Bens, Jacques, Pagnol, Paris, 1994. On PAGNOL: articles— Fernandel, ‘‘Mon ami Marcel Pagnol,’’ in Ciné-France (Paris), 19 November 1937. Alpert, Hollis, ‘‘Homage à Pagnol,’’ in Saturday Review (New York), 24 December 1955. Bazin, André, ‘‘Le Cas Pagnol,’’ in Qu’est-ce que le cinéma? (same author), Paris, 1959. ‘‘Spécial Guitry-Pagnol’’ issue of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), 1 De- cember 1965. Polt, Harriet, ‘‘The Marcel Pagnol Trilogy,’’ in Film Society Review (New York), October 1967. Delahaye, Michel, ‘‘La Saga Pagnol,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1969. PAKULADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 739 Ford, Charles, ‘‘Marcel Pagnol,’’ in Films in Review (New York), April 1970. ‘‘Pagnol Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), July/Septem- ber 1970. Gauteur, C., ‘‘Marcel Pagnol inconnu?,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), September 1973. Gévaudan, F., ‘‘Marcel Pagnol: Un Cinéaste mineur?,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), June 1974. Beylie, Claude, ‘‘Le Rire qui vient du coeur,’’ in Télérama (Paris), 28 January 1976. Turk, E.B., ‘‘Pagnol’s Marseilles Trilogy,’’ in American Film (Wash- ington, D.C.), October 1980. Bergan, Ronald, ‘‘Marcel Pagnol,’’ in Films and Filming (London), November 1984. Brisset, S., ‘‘Pagnol, cinéaste de la Méditerranée,’’ in Cinéma ((Paris), October 1990. La Breteque, F., de, ‘‘Le go?t pour la pédagogie et la didactique de Marcel Pagnol,’’in Cahier de la Cinématheque (Perpignan), Decem- ber 1990. Bazin, André, ‘‘The Case of Marcel Pagnol,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), vol. 23, July 1995. Génin, Bernard, in Télérama (Paris), 15 February 1995. Aubert, Michelle, Archives: Institut Jean Vigo (Perpignan), special issue, December 1997. *** ‘‘The art of the theatre is reborn under another form and will realize unprecedented prosperity. A new field is open to the dramatist enabling him to produce works that neither Sophocles, Racine, nor Molière had the means to attempt.’’ With these words, Marcel Pagnol greeted the advent of synchronous sound to the motion picture, and announced his conversion to the new medium. The words also served to launch a debate, carried on for the most part with René Clair, in which Pagnol argued for the primacy of text over image in what he saw as the onset of a new age of filmed theater. At the time Pagnol reigned supreme in the Parisian theater world. His plays, Topaze and Marius, both opened in the 1928–29 season to the unanimous acclaim of the critics and the public. Their success vindicated the theories of a group of playwrights which had gathered around Paul Nivoix, the drama critic for Comoedia. They were determined to develop an alternative to the predictable theater of the boulevards and the impenetrable experiments of the surrealist avant- garde. The group pursued a dramatic ideal based on the well-made, naturalistic plays of Scribe and Dumas fils. The formula featured crisp dialogue, tight structures, and devastating irony. Its renewed popular appeal did not escape the notice of Bob Kane, the executive producer of the European branch of Paramount Pictures. Kane secured the rights for the screen versions of two plays, retaining Pagnol as writer for Marius, to be directed by Alexander Korda, but he then excluded him from any participation in the Topaze project. This neglect spurred the volatile young ex-schoolmaster from Provence to undertake his own productions. With Pierre Braunberger and Roger Richebe, Pagnol produced and adapted his play Fanny, a sequel to Marius, and hired Marc Allégret to direct. Then, in 1933, he formed his own production company, modelled on United Artists, which would control the production and distribution of all his future projects. At the same time he founded Les Cahiers du film, dedicated to the propagation of ‘‘cinematurgie,’’ Pagnol’s theories of filmed theater. Jofroi and Angèle, the first two projects over which Pagnol exercised complete artistic control, established the tone for much of his ensuing career. Adapted from stories by Jean Giono and set in Provence in the countryside surrounding Marseilles, where Pagnol was born and raised, the films treat the manners and lifestyle of the simple farmers and shopkeepers of the south and are executed with the precise principles of dramatic structure Pagnol had developed in his years with Nivoix. Angèle is especially notable because it was shot on location on a farm near Aubagne. The film established a precedent followed by Jean Renoir in making Toni, a film produced and distributed by Pagnol’s company, regarded by many as a forerunner of Italian neorealism. This is the formula to which Pagnol would return with increasing success in Regain and Le Femme du boulanger: a story or novel by Giono honed by Pagnol into a taut drama, elaborating the myths and folkways of ‘‘le coeur meridonale’’ and pivoting on the redemptive power of woman; set on location in Provence; and peopled with the excellent repertory company Pagnol had assembled from the Marseille music halls (including Raimu, Fernandel, Fernand Charpin, Orane Dumazis, and Josette Day). Even after a formal break with Giono in an ugly squabble over money in 1937, Pagnol continued to exploit the formula in La Fille du puisatier and his masterpiece, Manon des sources. Running three hours and more, these films, even more than before, reflected how the pace and flavor of the south colored Pagnol’s approach to filmmaking. As Fernandel has put it: ‘‘With Marcel Pagnol, making a film is first of all going to Marseille, then eating some bouillabaisse with a friend, talking about the rain or the beautiful weather, and finally if there is a spare moment, shooting.’’ Along with Clair and Cocteau, Pagnol was inducted into the Academie Fran?aise. Every year his status grows among historians of cinema who once ridiculed his ‘‘canned theater.’’ —Dennis Nastav PAKULA, Alan J. Nationality: American. Born: The Bronx, New York, 7 April 1928. Education: Attended Bronx High School of Science; studied drama, Yale University, degree 1948. Family: Married 1) actress Hope Lange (divorced 1969); 2) Hannah Cohn Boorstin, 1973, five step- children. Career: Assistant, cartoon department, Warner Bros., also stage director at Circle Theatre, Los Angeles, 1948; apprentice to producer-director Don Hartman at MGM, then at Paramount, from 1950; as producer, founded Pakula-Mulligan Productions with direc- tor Robert Mulligan, 1962 (active through 1969). Awards: Best Director, London Film Critics, 1971, for Klute; Best Direction, New York Film Critics, 1976, for All the President’s Men; Eastman Award for Continued Excellence in Filmmaking, 1981. Died: 19 November 1998, in Melville, Long Island, New York, in a road accident. Films as Director: 1969 The Sterile Cuckoo 1971 Klute (+ co-pr) PAKULA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 740 Alan J. Pakula 1972 Love and Pain and the Whole Damn Thing (+ pr) 1974 The Parallax View (+ pr) 1976 All the President’s Men 1978 Comes a Horseman 1979 Starting Over (+ co-pr) 1981 Rollover 1982 Sophie’s Choice (+ sc, co-pr) 1986 Dream Lover (+ co-pr) 1987 Orphans (+ pr) 1989 See You in the Morning (+ sc, pr) 1990 Presumed Innocent (+ co-sc) 1992 Consenting Adults (+ pr) 1993 The Pelican Brief (+ sc, pr) 1997 The Devil’s Own Other Films: 1957 Fear Strikes Out (Mulligan) (pr); To Kill a Mockingbird (Mulligan) (pr) 1963 Love with a Proper Stranger (Mulligan) (pr) 1965 Baby the Rain Must Fall (Mulligan) (pr) 1966 Inside Daisy Clover (Mulligan) (pr) 1967 Up the down Staircase (Mulligan) (pr) 1968 The Stalking Moon (Mulligan) (pr) Publications By PAKULA: articles— Interview with Tom Milne, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1972. Interviews with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), March 1972 and October 1976. Interview with A. C. Bobrow, in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), September 1974. ‘‘Making a Film about Two Reporters,’’ in American Cinema- tographer (Los Angeles), July 1976. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Alan J. Pakula,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), December/January 1978/79 and November 1985. ‘‘A Walk with Good and Evil,’’ an interview with A. M. Bahiana, in Cinema Papers, December 1990. PALCYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 741 ‘‘Alan J. Pakula: Mester i seksuell besettelse,’’ an interview with F. Johnsen, in Film and Kino, no. 7, 1990. ‘‘Gentleman Pakula,’’ an interview with Isabelle Reffas, in Cinéma 72, April 1997. On PAKULA: articles— Jameson, R. T., ‘‘The Pakula Parallax,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1976. Carcassonne, P., ‘‘Dossier: Hollywood 79: Alan J. Pakula,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), March 1979. Sinyard, Neil, ‘‘Pakula’s Choice: Some Thoughts on Alan J. Pakula,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), July 1984. Seidenberg, R., ‘‘Presumed Innocent,’’ in American Film, August 1990. Downey, S. D., and K. Rasmussen, ‘‘The Irony of Sophie’s Choice,’’ in Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 14, no. 2, 1991. Film Dope (Nottingham), April 1994. Obituary, by Richard Natale, in Variety (New York), 23 Novem- ber 1998. Arnold, Frank, ‘‘Alan J. Pakula 7.4.1928–19.11.1998,’’ an obituary in EPD Film (Frankfurt), January 1999. Viviani, Christian, ‘‘Alan J. Pakula 1928–1998,’’ an obituary in Positif (Paris), February 1999. J?nsson, Mats, ‘‘Parallax Paranoia: Om Alan J. Pakulas amerikanska trilogi,’’ in Filmh?ftet (Stockholm), vol. 27, no. 105, 1999. *** Now considered by many a major cinematic stylist, Alan J. Pakula began his career as a producer. The quality of his films is rather uneven, ranging from the acclaimed Fear Strikes Out and To Kill a Mockingbird to the universally panned Inside Daisy Clover. Critic Guy Flatley noted that Pakula is affectionately acknowledged within the film industry as an ‘‘actor’s director,’’ eliciting ‘‘richly textured performances’’ from Liza Minnelli in The Sterile Cuckoo; Maggie Smith in Love and Pain and the Whole Damn Thing; Warren Beatty in The Parallax View; Robert Redford, Dustin Hoffman, and Jason Robards Jr. in All the President’s Men; Jane Fonda, James Caan, and Robards in Comes a Horseman; and Burt Reynolds, Candice Bergen, and Jill Clayburgh in Starting Over. Many filmgoers are surprised upon discovering that it was Pakula who directed all these films. Pakula’s self-effacement is deliberate. In the Oscar-winning So- phie’s Choice (for Meryl Streep as best actress), the director’s name is less known than the actors who worked so effectively under his direction, and far less known than the tragic personal, social, and historical themes of the film. Pakula stresses the psychological dimension of his films. Klute, one of his most celebrated efforts, is highlighted by his use of taped conversation to both reveal character and heighten suspense. The film is noted for ‘‘visual claustrophobia’’ and unusual, effective mise-en-scène. For her performance, Jane Fonda received an Academy Award. Klute was Pakula’s first ‘‘commercial and critical gold.’’ As one critic writes, ‘‘the attention to fine, authentic detail in Klute reflected the careful research done by both the director and the actress in the Manhattan demimonde, and many of the shadings of the complex character of the prostitute were developed improvisationally during the filming by . . . Fonda in collaboration with Pakula.’’ Critical response to Klute is represented by such writers as Robin Wood, who said, ‘‘If it is too soon to be sure of Pakula’s precise identity as an auteur, it remains true that Klute belongs, like any other great movie, to its director.’’ Characteristically, Pakula believes that ‘‘the auteur theory is half-truth because filmmaking is very collaborative.’’ Pakula’s other films have had equal success: All the President’s Men, for example, was the top-grossing film of 1976, and won four Academy Awards. It was nominated for best picture and best director, as well. Even the critic known as ‘‘Pakula’s relentless nemesis,’’ Stanley Kauffmann, ‘‘relented a little’’ concerning All the Presi- dent’s Men. Alan J. Pakula is a filmmaker whose work most notably features tautness in both narrative and performance; he is a director of ‘‘moods,’’ and is often ‘‘congratulated for the moods he sustains.’’ He has described his approach to filmmaking as follows: ‘‘I am oblique. I think it has to do with my own nature. I like trying to do things which work on many levels, because I think it is terribly important to give an audience a lot of things they may not get as well as those they will, so that finally the film does take on a texture and is not just simplistic communication.’’ Although he has remained active in recent years, Pakula has not produced—with one exception—work of real significance since Sophie’s Choice (itself more of an actors’ than director’s film). See You in the Morning attempts to recycle the melodramatic poignancy of Klute and The Sterile Cuckoo, but does not rediscover the stylistic finesse that made these earlier films so successful. See You in the Morning’s examination of family and personal breakdown is heavy- handed and hence strangely unaffecting. The Pelican Brief, based on John Grisham’s amateurish novel about the corrupt Washington establishment, makes no good sense, but is also strangely unexciting and unsuspenseful. Unlike Hitchcock, Pakula here proves unable to forge a masterful thriller from a mar- ginal literary source; The Pelican Brief, it must be said, also fails to create the paranoid atmosphere that is the hallmark of Pakula’s earlier, more successful forays into the political thriller (The Parallax View is the best of these). Consenting Adults is a domestic thriller centering on an unfaithful suburban husband who falls victim to a psychopath eager to perpetrate insurance fraud and steal his wife. The first part of this film offers a chilling version of contemporary upscale suburban life; but the film’s second half descends into sub- Hitchcockian third-rate twists and turns that fail to engage or excite. Only in Presumed Innocent does Pakula recapture some of his earlier success. Despite numerous plot inconsistencies (the legacy of Scott Turow’s novel), Presumed Innocent is compelling viewing because Pakula takes pains to fashion a detailed setting (heightened by fine character performances); he also astutely directs Harrison Ford in the lead role. —Deborah H. Holdstein, updated by R. Barton Palmer PALCY, Euzhan Nationality: French West Indian. Born: Martinique, France, 1957. Education: Earned degree in French Literature at the Sorbonne, Paris, 1983; attended the Vaugirard Film School; earned degree in Photography, Louis Lumière School of Cinema, 1984. Career: PALCY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 742 Euzhan Palcy Became the first black woman to direct a feature film for a major Hollywood film studio; produced and recorded two albums of songs for children. Awards: Venice Film Festival, Silver Lion Award for Best First Work, for Rue cases nègres, 1983; César Award for Best New Director of a Feature Film, 1984; Orson Welles Prize for Special Cinematic Achievement, Political Film Society, U.S.A., PFS Award, for A Dry White Season, 1990; Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Film, Silver Raven Award, Golden Senghor for Best Direc- tor, Ouagadougou Film Festival, Special Jury Prize, Brussels Film Festival, Prix de la Jeuness, Milan Film Festival, Ban Zil Kreol Award, Montreal Film Festival, all for Siméon, 1993. Address: (c/o) Ada Babino, Nommo Speakers Bureau, 2714 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, D. C. 20001, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1975 La messagère (The Messenger) (for TV) (+ sc) (doc) (ro) 1982 L’atelier du diable (The Devil’s Workshop) (for TV) (+ sc) 1983 Rue cases nègres (Sugar Cane Alley, Black Shack Ally) (doc) (+ sc) 1989 A Dry White Season (+ sc) 1990 Hassane (for TV) (doc) 1992 Siméon (+ sc, pr) 1994 Aimé Céaire: un voix pour l’histoire (Aimé Céaire: A Voice for History) (doc) (+ sc) 1998 Ruby Bridges (for TV) (+ pr) 2000 Wings against the Wind (+ co-sc, pr) Publications By PALCY: articles— Micciollo, H., ‘‘Propos d’Euzhan Palcy.’’ in Cinéma (Paris), no. 298, October 1983. Linfield, Susan, ‘‘Sugar Cane Alley: An Interview with Euzhan Palcy,’’ Cineaste (Berkeley), vol. 13, no. 4, 1984. Glicksman, Marliane, ‘‘Tempest: Euzhan Palcy’s Dry White Sea- son,’’ interview in Film Comment (New York), September-Octo- ber, 1989. Johnston, Sheila, ‘‘Against the Stream: Director Euzhan Palcy Talks to Sheila Johnston about Her Film A Dry White Season,’’ in The Independent (London), 17 January 1990. On PALCY books— Gray, John, Blacks in Film and Television: A Pan-African Bibliog- raphy of Films, Filmmakers, and Performers, Westport, Connecti- cut, 1990. Kuhn, Annett, and Susan Radstone, editors, The Women’s Compan- ion to International Film, Los Angeles, 1990. Acker, Ally, Reel Women, Pioneers of the Cinema 1896 to the Present, New York, 1991. Foster, Gwendolyn Audrey, Women Film Directors: An International Bio-Critical Dictionary, Westport, Connecticut, 1995. Unterburger, Amy L., editor, Women Filmmakers and Their Films, Detroit, 1998. Unterburger, Amy L., editor, Women on the Other Side of the Camera, Detroit, 1999. On PALCY: articles— Curchod, O., ‘‘L’Epure d’une Memoire Antillaise,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 273, November 1983. DeStefano, G., ‘‘Sugar Cane Alley,’’ in Cineaste (Berkeley), vol. 13, no. 4, 1984. Maslin, Janet, ‘‘New Directors/New Films; Sugar Cane Alley, In Martinique,’’ in New York Times, 6 April 1984. Canby, Vincent, ‘‘Film View: Third World Truths from Sugar Cane Alley,’’ in New York Times, 22 April 1984. Irvine, L., ‘‘Sugar Cane Alley,’’ in Film Journal (New York), June 1984. ‘‘Rue Cases Negres,’’ in Films and Filming (London), no. 357, June 1984. Attanasio, Paul, ‘‘Palcy’s Sweet Sugar,’’ in Washington Post, 2 March 1985. Farley, Christopher, ‘‘Her Season Dawns: Director Palcy Breaks H’wood Barriers: She Attacks Apartheid with New Film,’’ in USA Today, 19 September 1989. McKenna, Kristine, ‘‘Tough, Passionate, Persuasive: Euzhan Palcy Battled for Five Years to Put Her Vision of Apartheid on Screen, and Then Lured Marlon Brando Back to Work—for Free,’’ in American Film (Hollywood), September 1989. Infusino, Divina, ‘‘Euzhan Palcy: Directing on Purpose: She Sees Her Season as Opportunity to Tell World about Apartheid,’’ in San Diego Union-Tribune, 8 October 1989. Southgate, Martha, ‘‘Euzhan Palcy: The Director of A Dry White Season May Well Be the First Black Woman Ever to Direct a Major Studio Film,’’ in Essence, October 1989. PALCYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 743 Easton, Nina J., ‘‘New Black Films, New Insights: As Studios Open Their Gates to African-American Filmmakers, Fresh and Power- ful Social Messages Are Making Their Way onto the Screen,’’ in New York Times, 3 May 1991. Easton, Nina, J., ‘‘The Invisible Women: In Hollywood’s Rush to Embrace Black Filmmakers, Women Directors Are Being Left out, but Some Expect that Picture to Change,’’ in New York Times, 29 September 1991. Carchidi, Vitoria, ‘‘South Africa from Text to Film: Cry Freedom and A Dry White Season,’’ in Literature and Film in the Historical Dimension: Selected Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Florida State University Conference on Literature and Film, edited by John D. Simons, Gainesville, 1994. ‘‘New Orleans in ‘60s Comes to Life in Disney’s Ruby Bridges: Six- Year-Old Integrates Public School,’’ in New Pittsburgh Courier, 3 January 1998. Price, Michael H., ‘‘Euzhan Palcy: Director of Ruby Bridges,’’ in Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 13 January 1998. Koch, John, ‘‘Bridges Artfully Traverses ‘60s Racial Divide,’’ in Boston Globe, 16 January 1998. Yarbrough, Freda, ‘‘French Director Just Wanted to Get It Right,’’ in Baton Rouge Sunday Advocate, 18 January 1998. On PALCY: other media— In Darkest Hollywood: Cinema and Apartheid, (video recording), 1993. Filmmakers on Film, Reel Women Videos: The Producer/Director Relationship (video recording), produced by Ally Acker, Reel Women Trust Foundation, Roslyn Heights, New York, 1993. *** ‘‘The power of the film is incredible to change people’s minds, open their eyes, their vision of the world,’’ explained Euzhan Palcy in an interview in American Film in 1989. Her words describe her own effect on film; she is rapidly creating a legacy to the history of film as an artist, vanguard, and pioneer filmmaker. Palcy was born on the French West Indian island of Martinique. From all accounts, Palcy was a precocious and artistically gifted child, encouraged in large part by her father. ‘‘I grew up in a cultured, artistic environment. We weren’t rich but there were painters, writers and intellectuals in my family.’’ Palcy wrote stories, poetry, short dramas and—while still a teenager—produced and directed La messegère (1974), a 50-minute drama about a grandmother who works on a banana plantation. The work stands out as probably the first of its kind to be produced in Martinique specifically for West Indian television. Like many film artists, Palcy admits to having been captivated by movies at a tender age. ‘‘I loved the movies from the time I was a little girl,’’ she reveals in American Film, ‘‘by the time I was 10, I wanted to be a filmmaker.’’ Because the filmmaking industry of Martinique was all but non-existent, she instead was raised on a steady diet of American-produced fare and influenced in large part by the style of some revered directors, including Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, and Fritz Lang. The films Palcy watched included such marginalized, conventionalized, and stereotyped imagery that she was inspired to take a camera into her own hands.’’The desire to be a director came out of rage, anger, she noted in Film Comment. ‘‘I was so upset when I would see all those stupid portrayals of black people in American movies.’’ At the age of seventeen, and to the consternation of her father, Palcy decided to become a filmmaker. ‘‘It is as if your child today would say, ‘I want to be a cosmonaut,’’ Palcy explained in an interview with Ally Acker. She left Martinique for Paris, studying art and French literature at the prestigious Sorbonne and earning a degree in photography at the equally prestigious Louis Lumière School of Cinema. While in Paris she continued work on her screen adaptation of Joseph Zobel’s book Rue cases nègres, a novel that Palcy reveals profoundly effected her. She earned a grant from French television and even won the support of French film luminary, Fran?ois Truffaut, who became part mentor, part godfather. In 1981, she directed the film L’atelier du diable (The Devil’s Workshop) a piece derived largely from the story she would pursue in Rue cases nègres. It took some three years to raise the $800,000 for the production of Rue cases nègres. The film examines the 1930s sugar-cane plantations of the French West Indian island of Marti- nique. Striking are the scenes of crushing poverty and cruel exploita- tion: children go without shoes and marvel at the thought of sharing the taste of a found egg. We see the alleys, lined with the shacks that serve as dwellings for the indigent cane-cutters, and watch as a worker has his already tiny pittance docked simply because he stopped work to relieve himself. Seen through the eyes of a personable young adolescent boy named Jose, Rue cases nègres is a tale of colonialism, exploitation, and hope. Jose’s grandmother M’Man Tine, sacrifices her own well- being so that he may have the benefit of an education and need not follow her into a life as a sugar cane field worker. The success of Rue cases nègres earned Palcy international attention and a number of awards, including the French César. In the space of a few years, Palcy carved a unique place for herself in film largely unbeknownst to women of color. Yet, her story had only just begun. In 1989, she burst into the public eye with the production of the film, A Dry White Season. The legacy of this film is multi-layered. First and foremost is the film’s unflinching depiction of the cruelty of the system of apartheid in South Africa. A few filmmakers had sought to do this, most notably Richard Attenborough’s production of Cry Freedom (1987). Palcy’s film adaptation of the André Brinke novel pulled no punches. The brutality and violence of the system is laid bare. Viewers witness the legacy of institutionalized racism and indifference: a severe lashing given a young boy by police leave his buttocks bloodied, children are gunned down in the streets, and other torture is shown. Critical reviews of the film were abundant and overwhelmingly positive. ‘‘No other contemporary mainstream film takes us so deeply, so unflinchingly into the tragically divided heart of South Africa,’’ noted Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times. The film earned heightened interest because of its high- powered cast. Donald Sutherland played the Afrikaner school teacher Ben du Toit, whose well-ordered and seemingly ideal life is slowly and inexorably shattered by the realities of the brutal and unfair system that he has somehow managed to ignore of for most of his life. In addition, Palcy managed to lure the services of the reclusive and semi-retired Marlon Brando, who took on the role of a sensitive and supportive South African barrister, receiving scale wages and an Oscar nomination for his appearance. Most significantly, the film positioned Palcy as the first black woman director of a feature film for a major Hollywood studio. Palcy continued her success in 1992 when she directed the internationally acclaimed Siméon, a music-filled ghost story about a young Martinican girl who holds the dream of bringing her native PARADZHANOV DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 744 music to the world. In 1994 she produced Aimé Céaire: un voix pour l’histoire (Aimé Céaire: A Voice for History), a three-part study of the life of the celebrated Martinican author. The end of the century saw Palcy’s work take on a slightly different focus. In 1998, she directed the made-for-television movie Ruby Bridges, the poignant story of the little black girl who helped to bring racial integration to the all-white New Orleans school system. She has turned her attention to the production of Wings against the Wind, a tale of the life of Bessie Coleman, black America’s first female aviatrix and has plans for an adaptation of the story of Haitian military leader Toussaint L’Overture. —Pamala S. Deane PARADZHANOV, Sergei Nationality: Soviet Georgian. Born: Tiflis (Tbilisi), Soviet Georgia, 1924. Transliterations of name include ‘‘Paradjanov’’ and ‘‘Parajanov.’’ Education: Kiev Conservatory of Music, 1942–45; studied under Igor Savchenko at Moscow Film Institute (V.G.I.K.), graduated 1951. Family: Married Svetlana (Paradzhanova), early 1950s (divorced after 2 years), one son. Career: Began as director at Kiev Dovzhenko Studio, 1953; following international success of Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors, ten filmscripts rejected by authorities through 1974; indicted for a variety of crimes, convicted of trafficking in art objects, sentenced to six years hard labor, 1974; released after international and Russian protests to Supreme Soviet, 1978. Awards: British Film Academy Award for Shadows of Our Forgotten Ances- tors, 1966. Died: In Yerevan, of cancer, 20 July 1990. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1951 Moldavskaia skazka (Moldavian Fairy Tale) (short) 1954 Andriesh (co-d) 1958 Pervyi paren (The First Lad) 1961 Ukrainskaia rapsodiia (Ukrainian Rhapsody) 1963 Tsvetok no kamne (Flower on the Stone) 1964 Dumka (The Ballad) 1965 Teni zabytykh predkov (Shadows of Our Forgotten Ances- tors) (co-sc) 1969 Sayat nova (The Color of Pomegranates; The Blood of the Pomegranates) (released 1972) 1978 Achraroumès (Retour à la vie) 1985 Legenda o Suramskoj kreposti (The Legend of the Suram Fortress) 1986 Arabeski na temu Pirosmani (doc) 1988 Ashik kerib Publications By PARADZHANOV: articles— ‘‘Perpetual Motion,’’ and ‘‘Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Fall 1968. Interview with H. Anassian, in Le Monde (Paris), 27 January 1980. Interview with M. Vartanov, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1986. Interview with C. Tesson, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July/ August 1988. Interview with B. Steinborn, in Filmfaust, vol. 15, July-October 1990. Interview with Ronald Holloway, in Filmrutan (Sundsvall, Sweden), vol. 39, no.1, 1996. On PARADZHANOV: articles— Marshall, Herbert, ‘‘The Case of Sergo Paradjanov,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1974/75. Liehm, Antonin, ‘‘A Certain Cowardice,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1975. ‘‘Film Names Bid Soviets Be Kind to Paradzhanov,’’ in Variety (New York), 17 November 1976. Fargier, J.P., ‘‘Libérons Paradjanian,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), August/September 1977. Grenier, Richard, ‘‘A Soviet Filmmaker’s Plight,’’ in the New York Times, 16 July 1981. Barsky, V., ‘‘Uber Sergj Paradschanow und seine Filme,’’ in Filmfaust (Frankfurt), October/November 1985. Stanbrook, Alan, ‘‘The Return of Paradjanov,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1986. ‘‘Ukrainian Rhapsody—Sergei Paradjanov,’’ in Monthly Film Bulle- tin (London), November 1986. Williamson, A., ‘‘Prisoner: The Essential Paradjanov,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1989. Rayns, Tony, ‘‘Ashik kerib,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), September 1989. Alekseychuk, Leonid, ‘‘A Warrior in the Field,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1990/91. Obituary, in Cinéma (Paris), September 1990. Obituary, in EPD Film (Frankfurt/Main), vol. 7, September 1990. Olofsson, A., ‘‘Bara en forbanned filmmakare,’’ in Chaplin (Stock- holm), vol. 32, 1990. Kopanevora, G., ‘‘Dilo a osud Sergeje Parad?anova,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), December 1990. Alekseychuk, L., ‘‘A Warrior in the Field,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 55, Winter 1990–1991. Picchi, M., ‘‘L’arte globale nelle forme espressive di Paradznov,’’ in Cinema Nuovo (Rome), vol. 42, July-October 1993. Kuncev, G., and others, in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), no 8, August 1995. *** The cinema, like heaven, has many mansions, and the place occupied by Sergei Paradzhanov is a very rich one indeed. This dissident, highly individual film creator made films startling in their beauty, deeply imbued with ethnic consciousness, as unique in their style as, say, the work of Miklos Jancsó. Paradzhanov was unmistakably a dissident. Not for him the systematic social realism of the authorities. Like his distinguished predecessors Eisenstein and Dovzhenko, it was the poetry of life that he sought. His films must be taken in their totality, for the cumulative effect is stunning. His beautiful images, created with the eye of a painter, while striking in themselves, progress with the steady tempo of tableaux vivants. When Paradzhanov’s Teni zabytykh predkov (Shadows of Our Forgotten Ancestors) burst upon world screens, it was quite evident that a major artist had appeared in Soviet cinema. This film, more PARKERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 745 flexible than his later stylized creations, revealed a powerful individu- ality. A tale of life in an ancient Carpathian village, it revealed also a sensitive feeling for nature and landscapes and an awareness of religious forces as it probed into the recesses of the inherited mind. It was inevitable that Paradzhanov’s work would not be appreci- ated by lesser men. He was uncompromising even when pressures and persecution pursued him. His personal lifestyle and his dogged pursuit of an ideal made him a marked man for bureaucratic tyranny, and after his Sayat nova (The Colour of Pomegranates) was com- pleted in 1972 he was driven from the cinema. He was sentenced to six years in a labour camp for charges ranging from homosexuality and fraud to incitement to suicide. After several years under duress, world opinion forced the Soviet authorities to release him. He knew shame and beggary until with great determination he won his way back to making films once more. The Colour of Pomegranates (or The Blood of the Pomegranates) evokes the life of the eighteenth-century Armenian poet Arution Sayadian. In it the images are almost an embarras de richesses. The bleeding pomegranates, the struggling fish, details of utensils and native crafts, the boy swinging from the bellrope, pages of hundreds of books blown in the wind, the stately horseman parading back and forth, and the blazing colours of textiles in the dye-works scene pile up in a series of unforgettable impressions. More sombre in tone is the Legenda o Suramskoj kreposti (The Legend of the Suram Fortress), made in 1984 when Paradzhanov returned to the Georgian Film Studio. It is again a series of episodes integrated in mood and feeling and characteristically poetic in ap- proach. His last film, Ashik kerib, is suitably dedicated to Tarkovsky and tells the tale of a Turkish minstrel and his frustrated love. Again rich images prevail and the idiosyncratic style persists. Paradzhanov was a poet of the Eastern Soviet Republics. A Geor- gian, born in Tiflis, he was steeped in the culture and traditions of his native region. His concern with its past was the source of his creative strength and his independence of mind. He lived, thankfully, to see repressive forces at least temporarily dissipated, bringing freedom to himself as an artist. Yet it is a great pity that in the West he is known by only a few, if important, key films. The future will no doubt bring a greater knowledge of his work. —Liam O’Leary PARKER, Alan Nationality: English. Born: Islington, London, 14 February 1944. Family: Married Annie Inglis, 1966; four children. Career: Mail- boy, later writer and director, for advertising industry, London, from mid-1960s; with producer Alan Marshall, set up Alan Parker Film Company to make advertisements, 1970; directed The Evacuees for TV, and first feature, Bugsy Malone, 1975; founding member and vice-chairman, Directors Guild of Great Britain, and member, British Screen Advisory Council; directed The Turnip Head’s Guide to British Cinema for Thames TV, 1986; signed deal with Tri-Star Pictures, 1989; also cartoonist and novelist. Awards: British Acad- emy Award for Best Screenplay, for Bugsy Malone, 1984; Special Jury Prize, Cannes Festival, for Birdy, 1984; Michael Balcon Award for Outstanding Contribution to Cinema (with Alan Marshall), 1984; BAFTA Award for Best Director, for The Commitments, 1991. Agent: c/o Judy Scott-Fox, William Morris Agency, Inc., 151 El Camino Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, U.S.A. Address: Lives in Richmond, Surrey, and Los Angeles. Films as Director: 1973 Footsteps (short) (+ sc); Our Cissy (short) (+ sc) 1976 Bugsy Malone (+ sc) 1978 Midnight Express 1980 Fame 1981 Shoot the Moon 1982 Pink Floyd—The Wall 1985 Birdy 1987 Angel Heart (+ sc) 1988 Mississippi Burning 1990 Come See the Paradise (+ sc) 1991 The Commitments (+ role as record producer) 1994 The Road to Wellville (+ pr, sc) 1996 Evita (+ pr, sc) 1999 Angela’s Ashes (+ pr, sc) Other Films: 1971 Melody (sc) Publications By PARKER: books— Bugsy Malone, London, 1976. Puddles in the Rain, London, 1977. Hares in the Gate (cartoons), London, 1983. A Filmmaker’s Diary, London, 1984. In the Lap of the Gods and the Hands of the Beatles, St. Louis, 1990. The Making of Evita, London, 1998. By PARKER: articles— Interviews in Time Out (London), 23 July 1976 and 11 August 1978. Interviews in Focus on Film (London), April 1980. Interview in Cinema (London), August 1982. ‘‘Alan Parker on Pink Floyd—The Wall,’’ in American Cinema- tographer (Los Angeles), October 1982. Cartoons, in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1983. ‘‘Britain’s Angry Young Man,’’ an interview with A. Horton, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 15, no. 2, 1986. Interview in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 15, no. 3, 1987. ‘‘The Making of Angel Heart,’’ in Films and Filming (London), September and October 1987. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Alan Parker,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), January-February 1988. Interview in American Film (Washington, D.C.), September 1990. ‘‘Paradise Lost: Production of the Motion Picture Come See the Paradise,’’ in Premiere, January 1991. Film Dope (Nottingham), April 1994. ‘‘Cereal Thriller,’’ an interview with Brian Case, in Time Out (London), 11 January 1995. PARKER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 746 Alan Parker Interview with Barry Norman, in Radio Times (London), 28 Janu- ary 1995. ‘‘An Iconic Evita,’’ an interview with Stephen Pizzello, in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), January 1997. ‘‘The Thoughts of Chairman Alan,’’ an interview with Nick James, in Sight and Sound (London), November 1997. On PARKER: articles— Roddick, Nick, ‘‘Alan Parker: From Bugsy to Birdy,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), July 1985. Houston, Penelope, ‘‘Parker, Attenborough, Anderson,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1986. Smith, Gavin, ‘‘Mississippi Gambler: Alan Parker Rides Again,’’ in Film Criticism (Meadville, Pennsylvania), vol. 24, no. 6, 1988. Stam, H., ‘‘Het ernstige onderwerp en het grote publiek,’’ in Skoop, April 1989. ‘‘Alan Parker,’’ in Film a Doba, January 1990. Zimmer, J., ‘‘Alan Parker,’’ in Revue du Cinema, July-August 1990. Apted, M., ‘‘One on One: Michael Apted and Alan Parker,’’ in American Film, September 1990. Kirk, P., ‘‘Working for High Standards,’’ in Boxoffice, January 1991. Chase, D., ‘‘Alan Parker,’’ in Millimeter, February 1991. Lally, K., ‘‘Director Parker Makes Hearty Commitments,’’ in Film Journal, August 1991. Dibbell, J., ‘‘Straight outta Dublin,’’ in Village Voice, August 20, 1991. Fuller, Graham, article in Interview, August 1991. Kauffmann, Stanley, article in New Republic, September 16, 1991. Maslin, Janet, article in New York Times, October 28, 1994. Denby, David, ‘‘The Road to Wellville,’’ in New York, November 14, 1994. Benoliel, B., ‘‘Alan Parker,’’ in Film Dope (Nottingham), April 1994. Griffin, N., ‘‘Madonna Tangos with Evita,’’ in Newsweek, 16 Decem- ber 1996. Elder, S., ‘‘Musical Man,’’ in New Yorker, 31 March 1997. *** Of all his fellow graduates from the prolific British commercials school of the 1960s (Ridley and Tony Scott, Hugh Hudson, and others), Alan Parker appears to have made far and away the most successful complete transition to theatrical filmmaking. Which is not PARKSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 747 to say that his movies to date—from Bugsy Malone to Angela’s Ashes—have all been wholly successful in either box-office terms, critical reception or, blissfully, both at the same time. However, what Parker has managed always to achieve, with admittedly varying degrees of success, is that elusive blend of strong story and elegant frame, a symbiosis that tends regularly to elude other directors schooled in (and too often hamstrung by) the purely visual. Two themes could be said to dominate Parker’s work: children and controversy. After an award-winning teleplay, The Evacuees, about the bittersweet plight of evacuated London children during World War II, he made his feature debut with Bugsy Malone, an ingenious gangster spoof substituting kids for adults and cream balls for bullets. It was energetic and surprisingly un-quaint, ingredients that also characterised his high-voltage Fame, centering on a group of ambi- tious students at the New York High School for the Performing Arts. In between, though, controversy had first raised its head in the form of Midnight Express, an ultimately reprehensible and unashamedly manipulative piece of docudrama, unhappily dignified by sheer technique, about the supposed fate of a young American jailed for drug offences in Turkey. Later, after both Angel Heart, a labyrinthine Faustian tale which was briefly threatened with an American ‘‘X’’ rating, and Mississippi Burning, a powerful civil rights drama that was accused of blatant Hollywood-isation, Parker’s unquenchable passion and his admitted preference for ‘‘the theatrical edge’’ have continued to be, rather unfairly, mistaken for a filmmaking arrogance that tends to help make him less than a darling to those critics whom he has always termed ‘‘the Sight & Sound mafia.’’ Shoot the Moon, Parker’s most personal film about marital mis- haps and muddled offspring, and Birdy, which seamlessly transposed novelist William Wharton’s post-World War II traumas to a post- Vietnam setting, best demonstrate his theatrical style carefully crafted into (though never subsuming) strong content. Especially the latter, which deals with two emotionally damaged young men whose bond transcends the scars resulting in a message—common to much of Parker’s work—that is joyously life-affirming. In 1991 Parker released The Commitments, a film based on a novel by Irish writer Roddy Doyle. The film, which garnered mixed reviews, told the story of the efforts of a ragtag group of musicians with widely varied individual agendas and their efforts to launch a successful band. 1994’s The Road to Wellville, meanwhile, despite an impressive cast headed by Anthony Hopkins, was a decidedly unsuccessful adaptation of T. Coraghessan Boyle’s novel. —Quentin Falk PARKS, Gordon Nationality: American. Born: Fort Scott, Kansas, 30 November 1912. Education: Attended high school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Family: Married 1) Sally Alvis, 1933 (divorced 1961); 2) Elizabeth Campbell, December, 1962 (divorced 1973); 3) Genevieve Young (a book editor), August 26, 1973; children: (first marriage) Gordon, Jr. (deceased), Toni (Mrs. Jean-Luc Brouillaud), David; (second marriage) Leslie. Career: Worked at various jobs prior to 1937; freelance fashion photographer in Minneapolis, 1937–42; photogra- pher with Farm Security Administration, 1942–43, with Office of War Information, 1944, and with Standard Oil Company of New Gordon Parks Jersey, 1945–48; Life (magazine), New York City, photo-journalist, 1948–72; Essence (magazine), New York City, editorial director, 1970–73. President of Winger Corp. Film director, 1968—, director of motion pictures for Warner Brothers-Seven Arts, Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer (MGM), and Paramount Pictures. Composer of concertos and sonatas performed by symphony orchestras in the United States and Europe. Also author of Martin, a ballet, 1990, and of several televi- sion documentaries produced by National Educational Television, including Flavio and Mean Streets. Contributor to Show, Vogue, Venture, and other periodicals. Awards: Rosenwald Foundation fellow, 1942; once chosen Photographer of the Year, Association of Magazine Photographers; Frederic W. Brehm award, 1962; Mass Media Award, National Conference of Christians and Jews, for outstanding contributions to better human relations, 1964; Carr Van Adna Journalism Award, University of Miami, 1964, Ohio Univer- sity,1970; named photographer-writer who had done the most to promote understanding among nations of the world in an international vote conducted by the makers of Nikon photographic equipment, 1967; A.F.D., Maryland Institute of Fine Arts, 1968; Litt.D., Univer- sity of Connecticut, 1969, and Kansas State University, 1970; Spingarn Medal from National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1972; H.H.D., St. Olaf College, 1973, Rutgers University, 1980, and Pratt Institute, 1981; Christopher Award, 1980, for Flavio; President’s Fellow award, Rhode Island School of Design, 1984; named Kansan of the Year, Native Sons and Daughters of Kansas, 1986; World Press Photo award, 1988; Artist of Merit, Josef Sudek Medal, 1989; additional awards include honorary degrees from Fairfield University, 1969, Boston University, 1969, Macalaster PARKS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 748 College, 1974, Colby College, 1974, Lincoln University, 1975, Columbia College, 1977, Suffolk University, 1982, Kansas City Art Institute, 1984, Art Center and College of Design, 1986, Hamline University, 1987, American International College, 1988, Savannah College of Art and Design, 1988, University of Bradford (England), 1989, Rocheseter Institute of Technology, 1989, Parsons School of Design, 1991, Manhattanville College, 1992, College of New Rochelle, 1992, Skidmore College, 1993, Montclair State University, 1994, and awards from Syracuse University School of Journalism, 1963, Uni- versity of Miami, 1964, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1964, Art Directors Club, 1964, 1968, and International Center of Photography, 1990. Agent: Ben Benjamin, Creative Management Associates, 9255 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90069, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1969 The Learning Tree (+ mus, pr, sc) 1971 Shaft 1972 Shaft’s Big Score! (+ mus) 1974 The Super Cops 1976 Leadbelly 1984 Solomon Northrup’s Odyssey (Half-Slave, Half-Free) (—for TV) Films as Actor: 1992 Lincoln (Kunhardt—for TV) (voice of Henry H. Garnet) 2000 Shaft (Singleton) (as Lenox Lounge Patron) Publications By PARKS: books— Flash Photography, New York, 1947. Camera Portraits: The Techniques and Principles of Documentary Portraiture, New York, 1948. The Learning Tree, New York, 1963. A Choice of Weapons (autobiography), New York, 1966. A Poet and His Camera (poems), self-illustrated with photographs, New York, 1968. Gordon Parks: Whispers of Intimate Things (poems), self-illustrated with photographs, New York, 1971. Born Black (essays), self-illustrated with photographs, Philadel- phia, 1971. In Love (poems), self-illustrated with photographs, New York, 1971. Moments without Proper Names (poems), self-illustrated with photographs, New York, 1975. Flavio, New York, 1978. To Smile in Autumn: A Memoir, New York, 1979. Shannon (novel), Boston, 1981. Voices in the Mirror: An Autobiography, New York, 1990. Author of foreword, Harlem: Photographs by Aaron Siskind, 1932–1940, edited by Ann Banks, Washington D.C., 1991. Author of introduction, Soul Unsold, by Mandy Vahabzadeh, Marina del Rey, California, 1992. Author of introduction, A Ming Breakfast: Grits and Scrambled Moments, New York, 1992. Arias in Silence, Boston, 1994. Contributor, In the Alleys: Kids in the Shadow of the Capitol, Washington D.C., 1995. Glimpses toward Infinity, Boston, 1996. Contributor, Spirited Minds, Minneapolis, 1996. A Star for Noon, Boston, 2000. Contributor, Autobiography of a People: Three Centuries of African- American History Told by Those Who Lived It, edited by Herb Boyd, New York, 2000. On PARKS: books— Rolansky, John D., editor, Creativity, New York, 1970. Turk, Midge, Gordon Parks, New York, 1971. Harnan, Terry, Gordon Parks: Black Photographer and Film Maker, London, 1972. Monaco, James, American Film Now: The People, the Power, the Money, the Movies, New York,1979. Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 33: Afro-American Fiction Writers after 1955, Detroit, 1984. Bogle, Donald, Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies & Bucks: A His- tory of Blacks in American Films from Birth of a Nation to Malcolm X, New York, 1994. Parks, Gordon, Jr. Half Past Autumn: A Retrospective, Boston, 1998. Martinzez, Gerald, Diana Martinzez, and Andres Chavez, What It Is, What It Was!, New York, 1998. On PARKS: articles— America, 24 July 1971. American Photo, September-October 1991. American Visions, December 1989, February 1991, and February- March 1993. Best Sellers, 1 April 1971. Black Enterprise, January 1992. Black World, August 1973. Commonweal, 5 September 1969. Cue, 9 August 1969. Ebony, July 1946. Films and Filming, April 1972 and October 1972. Films in Review, October 1972. Focus on Film, October 1971. Journal of American History, December 1987. Life, October 1994 and February 1996. Newsweek, 29 April 1968, 11 August 1969, 17 July 1972, and 19 April 1976. New Yorker, 2 November 1963 and 13 February 1966. New York Times, 4 October 1975, 3 December 1975, and 1 March 1986. New York Times Book Review, 15 September 1963, 13 February 1966, 23 December 1979, 9 December 1990, and 1 March 1996. Point of View, Winter 1998. PSA (Photographic Society of America) Journal, November 1992. PARKSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 749 San Jose Mercury News, 23 February 1990. Saturday Review, 12 February 1966 and 9 August 1969. Show Business, 2 August 1969. Smithsonian, April 1989. Time, 6 September 1963, 29 September 1969, 24 May 1976, and 26 June 2000. Variety, 6 November 1968 and 25 June 1969. Vogue, 1 October 1968 and January 1976. Washington Post, 20 October 1978 and 24 January 1980. *** Already an award-winning photographer and novelist, Gordon Parks beat out Melvin Van Peebles by a few months to become, in 1969, the first African American hired to direct a major studio production. Parks had his Kansas-set The Learning Tree under way at Warner Bros. when Van Peebles was tapped to do the satire Water- melon Man for Columbia Pictures. As the trajectory of both men’s careers would later make clear, Parks’ historic role had more to do with versatility and fortitude than timing or blind luck. One need only compare the directors’ follow-up projects—Parks went on to do the trend-setting Shaft for MGM; Van Peebles made the incendiary, X- rated Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song—to understand why Hol- lywood was more comfortable casting Parks as civil rights standard bearer. Professorial in demeanor (with ever-present pipe, ascot, and natty sports jacket), Parks, one could argue, was less threatening to a power structure more interested in salving its conscience and tapping into a new urban market than in advancing the cause of blacks in Hollywood. Was Parks then establishment Hollywood’s token black director, a ‘‘sell-out,’’ in the parlance of the day? This has been a subject of some debate by, among others, Van Peebles (who charges yes) and Parks (who resents the implication, pointing to the large number of blacks employed on his films). To answer in the affirmative is in no way to diminish Parks importance to the erratic, snail-paced integra- tion of the studio system. Someone had to be first, and that role fell to Parks more as an outgrowth of his deep-rooted humanism than as a result of any filmmaking skills. Indeed, Parks learned as he went on the set of The Learning Tree. The son of a Fort Scott, Kansas, sharecropper, Parks, the youngest of 15 children, bounced among menial jobs until, at age 25, he found his niche: still photography. He would go on to break color barriers in the worlds of fashion photogra- phy and photo-journalism, first with Vogue and then with Life magazine. Among Parks’ most famous portraitures were studies of Langston Hughes, Duke Ellington, and Ingrid Bergman. As photojournalist, he chronicled the lives of a Harlem gang member, a Washington, D.C., cleaning woman named Ella Watson, and a Brazilian street orphan named Flavio. The Life studies—bracing, accusatory, always empathetic—brought accolades and retrospectives. In 1963, Parks added an autobiographical novel to his already- standard works on portrait and documentary photography. The Learn- ing Tree, set in Cherokee Flats, Kansas, in the 1920s, is at once nostalgic, heartbreaking, and richly layered. The protagonist, a 12- year-old named Newt, comes of age as he witnesses acts of violence and betrayal from both blacks and whites. Newt’s mother offers a metaphoric lesson: ‘‘Some of the people are good and some of them are bad—just like the fruit on a tree . . . No matter if you go or stay, think of Cherokee Flats like that till the day you die—let it be your learnin’ tree.’’ Likened to stories of Faulkner and Steinbeck, and quickly added to required reading lists, The Learning Tree was immediately sought by Hollywood. Taking a page from silent-movie pioneer Oscar Micheaux, who produced and directed movies from his own books, Parks said he would only option the novel with himself attached as producer, director, screenwriter, and composer. In 1968, Warner Bros. agreed, and Parks, at age 56, returned to Fort Scott, Kansas, to shoot his first film, an at-times jarring blend of soft-focus sentimentality and bitter life lessons. Generally dismissed by critics expecting a harsher indictment of the System, The Learning Tree (1969) found vindica- tion in 1989, when it become, along with Citizen Kane and Casablanca, one of the first ‘‘landmark’’ films selected by the Library of Con- gress’s National Film Registry. Shaft (1971), Parks’ second feature, could not have been more of a departure. It starred Richard Roundtree as a Greenwich Village private eye—‘‘the cat that won’t cop out when there’s danger all about’’—who’s caught between black militants, racist cops, and warring racketeers. The character (created by novelist Ernest Tidyman) remains, according to Time magazine, ‘‘one of the first black movie heroes to talk back to the Man and get away with it.’’ Produced for $1 million, it grossed over $12 million and, with Van Peebles’ Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song, ushered in the short-lived blaxploitation craze. An Oscar-winner (for Isaac Hayes’ theme song), Shaft far outdistanced the black-themed (and predominantly white-produced) action pictures to come by walking the line between crass exploitation and stinging indictment of urban racism, in its many permutations. In 1972—the year his son, Gordon Parks Jr., directed and starred in Superfly (1972)—Parks Sr. directed and composed the music for Shaft’s Big Score (1972), a slicker, less successful sequel that climaxed in a 16-minutes, air-sea-land chase a la countless James Bond capers. Instead of doing the third Shaft (Shaft in Africa), Parks became the first black director to do a non-black-themed studio picture: The Super Cops (1974), starring Ron Liebman and David Selby as undercover narcs who, like Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in the ‘‘Lethal Weapon’’ movies, bend the law to exact street justice. Many critics consider Super Cops Parks’ best film. In his sixties, Parks changed gears yet again to do a period biopic of blues-folk singer Huddie Ledbetter titled Leadbelly (1976). Roger E. Mosley played Ledbetter, a gifted 12-string guitarist who drifts in and out of prison as he’s told, ‘‘It’s gonna cost you to play the blues.’’ Though it received favorable reviews—and remains Parks’ favorite film —Leadbelly failed to find wide release and Parks’ cachet as trailblazer continued to erode. In the 1980s, he turned to public television (doing the music and libretto for a PBS ballet based on Martin Luther King Jr.’s life) and had to content himself with the role of unofficial technical adviser on Steven Spielberg’s The Color Purple and other prestige race films overseen by whites. In 1990, upon receiving the Black Filmmakers Hall of Fame’s Paul Robeson Award, Parks said, ‘‘I found myself thinking, ‘I could direct this film (The Color Purple).’ And looking back, I’m sure certain black directors could have brought a hell of a lot more sensitivity to certain ‘white’ movies about blacks.’’ Little has changed in Hollywood since the early 1970s, he charges. ‘‘There’s still a tremendous amount of discrimination and prejudice, and a lot of black talent continues to be wasted.... Getting money from white-run studios is still the prob- lem. They still pay us a lot of lip service, but that’s all.’’ PASOLINI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 750 Though he continues to write and collect honorary degrees, Parks’ role in the integration of Hollywood has been all but forgotten. Critics generally disparage his studio films, which, like some of his best- known photographs, combine social awareness with a vulgarian’s love of glitz and excess. In the 1990s, Parks was discovered by the new generation of black filmmakers anxious to seek his advice and validation. Boyz N the Hood director John Singleton called Shaft ‘‘a benchmark in American film’’ and added, ‘‘I think I’m walking in the path of Gordon Parks more than anybody.’’ In 2000, Singleton put his own less-political spin on Shaft by casting Samuel L. Jackson as John Shaft’s even more stylish and volatile nephew, now a member of the NYPD. Parks, still sporting a pipe and walrus mustache, can be seen in a Harlem lounge cameo. —Glenn Lovell PASOLINI, Pier Paolo Nationality: Italian. Born: Bologna, 5 March 1922. Education: School Reggio Emilia e Galvani, Bologna, until 1937; University of Bologna, until 1943. Military Service: Conscripted, 1943; regiment taken prisoner by Germans following Italian surrender; escaped and took refuge with family in Casarsa. Career: Formed ‘‘Academiuta di lenga furlana’’ with friends, publishing works in Friulian dialect, 1944; secretary of Communist Party cell in Casarsa, 1947; accused of corrupting minors, sacked from teaching post, moved to Rome, 1949; teacher in Ciampino, suburb of Rome, early 1950s; following publi- cation of Ragazzi di vita, indicted for obscenity, 1955; co-founder and editor of review Officina (Bologna); prosecuted for ‘‘vilification of the Church’’ for directing ‘‘La ricotta’’ episode of Rogopag, 1963. Awards: Special Jury Prize, Venice Festival, for Il vangelo secondo Matteo, 1964. Died: Bludgeoned to death in Ostia, 2 November 1975; buried at Casarsa. Films as Director: 1961 Accattone (+ sc) 1962 Mamma Roma (+ sc) 1963 ‘‘La ricotta’’ episode of Rogopag (+ sc); La rabbia (part one) (+ sc) 1964 Comizi d’amore (+ sc); Sopralluoghi in Palestina (+ sc); Il vangelo secondo Matteo (The Gospel according to Saint Matthew) (+ sc) 1966 Uccellacci e uccellini (The Hawks and the Sparrows) (+ sc); ‘‘La terra vista dalla luna’’ episode of Le Streghe (The Witches) (+ sc) 1967 ‘‘Che cosa sono le nuvole’’ episode of Cappriccio all‘italiana (+ sc); Edipo re (Oedipus Rex) (+ sc) 1968 Teorema (+ sc); ‘‘La sequenza del fiore di carta’’ episode of Amore e rabbia (+ sc) 1969 Appunti per un film indiano (+ sc); Appunti per una Orestiade africana (Notes for an African Oresteia) (+ sc); Porcile (Pigsty; Pigpen) (+ sc); Medea (+ sc) 1971 Il decameron (The Decameron) (+ sc, role as Giotto) 1972 12 dicembre (co-d, sc); I racconti di Canterbury (The Canter- bury Tales) (+ sc, role) 1974 Il fiore delle mille e una notte (A Thousand and One Nights) (+ sc) 1975 Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodome (Salo—The 120 Days of Sodom) (+ co-sc) Other Films: 1954 La donna del fiume (co-sc) 1955 Il prigioniero della montagna (co-sc) 1956 Le notti di Cabiria (Fellini) (co-sc) 1957 Marisa la civetta (Bolognini) (co-sc) 1958 Giovanni Mariti (Bolognini) (co-sc) 1959 La notte brava (Bolognini) (co-sc) 1960 La canta delle marane (sc); Morte di un amico (co-sc); Il bell’ Antonio (Bolognini) (co-sc); La giornata balorda (Bolognini) (co-sc); La lunga notte del ‘43 (co-sc); Il carro armato dell ‘8 settembre (co-sc); Il gobbo (role) 1961 La ragazza in vetrina (co-sc) 1962 La commare secca (Bertolucci) (sc) 1966 Requiescat (role) 1969 Ostia (co-sc) 1973 Storie scellerate (co-sc) Publications By PASOLINI: books— Poesie e Casarsa, Bologna, 1942. Dov’è la mia patria, Casarsa, 1949. I parlanti, Rome, 1951. Tal cour di un frut, Tricesimo, 1953. Del ‘‘diario’’ (1945–47), Caltanissetta, 1954. Il canto popolare, Milan, 1954. La meglio gioventù, Florence, 1954. Ragazzi di vita, Milan, 1955; published as The Ragazzi, New York, 1968. L’usignolo della Chiesa Cattolica, Milan, 1958. Una vita violenta, Milan, 1959. Donne di Roma, Milan, 1960. Passione e ideologia (1948–1958), Milan, 1960. Roma 1950, diario, Milan, 1960. Sonetto primaverile (1953), Milan, 1960. Accattone, Rome, 1961. Il sogno di una cosa, Milan, 1962. La violenza, with drawings by Attardi and others, Rome, 1962; published as A Violent Life, New York, 1968. L’odore dell’India, Milan, 1962. Mamma Roma, Milan, 1962. Il vantone di Plauto, Milan, 1963. Il vangelo secondo Matteo, Milan, 1964. Alì degli occhi azzurri, Milan, 1965. PASOLINIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 751 Pier Paolo Pasolini on the set of Salò a le 120 giornate di Sodome Poesie dimenticate, Udine, 1965. Uccellacci e uccellini, Milan, 1965. Edipo re, Milan, 1967; published as Oedipus Rex, London, 1971. Teorema, Milan, 1968. Pasolini on Pasolini, interviews by Oswald Stack, London, 1969. Medea, Milan, 1970. Poesie, Milan, 1970. Empirismo eretico, Milan, 1972. Calderón, Milan, 1973. Il padre selvaggio, Turin, 1975. La divina Mimesis, Turin, 1975. La nuova gioventù, Turin, 1975. Scritti corsari, Milan, 1975. Trilogia della vita, edited by Giorgio Gattei, Bologna, 1975. I turcs tal Friùl, Udine, 1976. L’arte del Romanino e il nostro tempo, Brescia, 1976. Lettere agli amici (1941–1945), Milan, 1976. L’Experience hérétique: langue et cinéma, Paris, 1976. ‘‘Volgar’’ eloquio, edited by A. Piromalli and D. Scarfoglio, Naples, 1976. Affabulazione, Pilade, Milan, 1977. Le belle bandiere: dialoghi 1960–65, Rome, 1977. San Paolo, Turin, 1977. I disegni, 1941–1975, Milan, 1978. Poems, edited by Norman Macafee and Luciano Martinengo, New York, 1982. Lettere, 1940–1954: Con una cronologia della vita e delle opere, edited by Nico Naldini, Turin, 1986. Lettere, 1955–1975: Con una cronologia della vita e delle opere, edited by Nico Naldini, Turin, 1988. By PASOLINI: articles— ‘‘Intellectualism . . . and the Teds,’’ in Films and Filming (London), January 1961. ‘‘Cinematic and Literary Stylistic Figures,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1962. ‘‘Pier Paolo Pasolini: An Epical-Religious View of the World,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1965. Interview with James Blue, in Film Comment (New York), Fall 1965. ‘‘Pasolini—A Conversation in Rome,’’ with John Bragin, in Film Culture (New York), Fall 1966. PASOLINI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 752 Interview in Interviews with Film Directors, edited by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1967. ‘‘Montage et sémiologie selon Pasolini,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), March 1972. ‘‘Pasolini Today,’’ an interview with Gideon Bachmann, in Take One (Montreal), September 1974. ‘‘The Scenario as a Structure Designed to Become Another Struc- ture,’’ in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol. 2, no. 1, 1978. ‘‘Toto,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1979. Brang, H., S. Beltrami, and P.P. Pasolini, ‘‘Leidenschaft und Trauer. Pasolini als Filmkritiker. San Paolo,’’ Film und Fernsehen (Ber- lin), special section, vol 16., March 1988. Giavarini, L., and P.P. Pasolini, ‘‘Pasolini, la parole ininterrompue,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1992. On PASOLINI: books— Gervais, Marc, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Paris, 1973. Taylor, John, Directors and Directions, New York, 1975. Siciliano, Enzo, Vita di Pasolini, Milan, 1978. Bertini, Antonio, Teoria e tecnica del film in Pasolini, Rome, 1979. Snyder, Stephen, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Boston, 1980. Bellezza, Dario, Morte di Pasolini, Milan, 1981. Bergala, Alain, and Jean Narboni, editors, Pasolini cinéaste, Paris, 1981. Gerard, Fabien S., Pasolini: ou, Le mythe de la barbarie, Brus- sels, 1981. Boarini, Vittorio, and others, Da Accattone a Salo: 120 scritti sul cinema di Pier Paolo Pasolini, Bologna, 1982. Siciliano, Enzo, Pasolini: A Biography, New York, 1982. De Giusti, Luciano, I film di Pier Paolo Pasolini, Rome, 1983. Carotenuto, Aldo, L’autunno della conscienza: Ricerche psicologiche su Pier Paolo Pasolini, Turin, 1985. Michalczyk, John J., The Italian Political Filmmakers, Cranbury, New Jersey, 1986. Schweitzer, Otto, Pier Paolo Pasolini: Mit Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten, Hamburg, 1986. Klimke, Cristoph, Kraft der Vergangenheit: Zu Motiven der Filme von Pier Paolo Pasolini, Frankfurt, 1988. Greene, Naomi, Pier Paolo Pasolini: Cinema as Heresy, Princeton, New Jersey, 1990. Schwartz, Barth David, Pasolini Requiem, New York, 1992. Maurizio, Viano, A Certain Realism: Toward a Use of Pasolini’s Film Theory and Practice, Berkeley, California, 1993. Rumble, Patrick, and Bart Testa, Pier Paolo Pasolini: Contemporary Perspectives, Toronto, 1993. Murri, Serafino, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Rome, 1994. Peterson, Thomas E., The Paraphase of an Imaginary Dialogue: The Poetics and Poetry of Pier Pasolini, New York, 1994. Moscati, Italo, Pasolini e il teorema del sesso: 1968, dalla Mostra del cinema al sequestro : un anno vissuto nello scandalo, Milan, 1995. On PASOLINI: articles— Lane, John, ‘‘Pasolini’s Road to Calvary,’’ in Films and Filming (London), March 1963. Hitchens, Gordon, ‘‘Pier Paolo Pasolini and the Art of Directing,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Fall 1965. Bragin, John, ‘‘Pier Paolo Pasolini: Poetry as a Compensation,’’ in Film Society Review (New York), January, February, and March 1969. Macdonald, Susan, ‘‘Pasolini: Rebellion, Art, and a New Society,’’ in Screen (London), May/June 1969. Armes, Roy, ‘‘Pasolini,’’ in Films and Filming (London), June 1971. Prono, F., ‘‘La Religione del suo tempo in Pier Paolo Paslini,’’ in Cinema Nuovo (Turin), January/February 1972. Bachmann, Gideon, ‘‘Pasolini in Persia: The Shooting of 1001 Nights,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1973/74. Di Giammatteo, F., editor of special issue ‘‘Lo Scandalo Pasolini,’’ in Bianco e Nero (Rome), vol. 37, no. 1–4, 1976. Barthes, Roland, ‘‘Sade-Pasolini,’’ in Le Monde (Paris), 16 June 1976. ‘‘Pier Paolo Pasolini Issues’’ of Etudes Cinématographiques (Paris), no. 109–111, 1976, and no. 112–114, 1977. Escobar, R., ‘‘Pasolini e la dialettica dell’irrealizzabile,’’ in Bianco e Nero (Rome), July/September 1983. MacBean, J.R., ‘‘Between Kitsch and Fascism: Notes on Fassbinder, Pasolini, Homosexual Politics, the Exotic . . . ,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 13, no. 4, 1984. Greene, N., ‘‘Reading Pasolini Today,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film Studies (New York), Spring 1984. Neupert, Richard, ‘‘A Cannibal’s Text: Alternation and Embedding in Pasolini’s Pigsty,’’ in Film Criticism (Meadville, Pennsylva- nia), vol. 12, no. 3, 1988. Joubert-Laurencin, H., ‘‘Portraits: Paolini-Freud, ou les chevilles qui enflent,’’ in CinéAction (Toronto), January 1989. Svenstedt, C.-H., and others, ‘‘Pasolini var samtida,’’ in Chaplin (Stockholm), special section, vol. 32, 1990. Cappabianca, A., ‘‘Pasolini: oltre l’urbano,’’ in Filmcritica (Montepoulciano, Italy), vol. 42, June 1991. Bruno, G., ‘‘Heresies: The Body of Pasolini’s Semiotics,’’ in Cinema Journal (Austin), vol. 30, Spring 1991. Joubert-Laurencin, H., ‘‘1965–1975 Pier Paolo Pasolini, la divine théorie,’’ in CinémAction (Conde-sur-Noireau), July 1991. Orr, C., ‘‘The Politics of Film Form: Observations on Pasolini’s Theory and Practice,’’ in Film Criticism (Meadville, Pennsylva- nia), Winter 1991. Lapinski, Stan, ‘‘Il cinema di Pier Paolo Pasolini,’’ in Skrien (Am- sterdam), October-November 1993. Filmihulu (Helsiniki), special section, no. 2, 1993. Beylot, Pierre, ‘‘Pasolini, du réalisme au mythe,’’ in CinémAction (Conde-sur-Noireau), January 1994. Rohdie, Sam, ‘‘Pasolini, le populisme et le néoréalisme,’’ in CinémAction (Conde-sur-Noireau), January 1994. Gili, Jean A., ‘‘L’histoire du soldat,’’ in Positif (Paris), Decem- ber 1995. Ciné-Bulles (Montreal), vol. 14, no. 4, Winter 1995. Williama, Bruce, ‘‘A Transit to Significance: Poetic Discourse in Chantal Akerman’s Toute une Nuit,’’ in Literature/Film Quar- terly (Salisbury), vol. 23, July 1995. Loiselle, Marie-Claude, ‘‘Poétique du montage,’’ in 24 Images (Montreal), Summer 1995. Mariniello, Silvestra, ‘‘La Résistance su corps dans l’image cinématographique: La mort, le myther et la sexualité dans le cinéma de Pasolini,’’ in Cinémas (Montreal), vol. 7, no. 1–2, Autumn 1996 *** Pier Paolo Pasolini, poet, novelist, philosopher, and filmmaker, came of age during the reign of Italian fascism, and his art is inextricably bound to his politics. Pasolini’s films, like those of his PASTRONEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 753 early apprentice Bernardo Bertolucci, began under the influence of neorealism. He also did early scriptwriting with Bolognini and Fellini. Besides these roots in neorealism, Pasolini’s works show a unique blend of linguistic theory and Italian Marxism. But Pasolini began transcending the neorealist tradition even in his first film, Accattone (which means ‘‘beggar’’). The relationship between Pasolini’s literary work and his films has often been observed, and indeed Pasolini himself noted in an introduction to a paperback selection of his poetry that ‘‘I made all these films as a poet.’’ Pasolini was a great champion of modern linguistic theory and often pointed to Roland Barthes and Erich Auerbach in discussing the films many years before semiotics and structuralism became fashionable. His theories on the semiotics of cinema centered on the idea that film was a kind of ‘‘real poetry’’ because it expressed reality with reality itself and not with other semiotic codes, signs, or systems. Pasolini’s interest in linguistics can also be traced to his first book of poetry, Poems of Casarsa, which is written in his native Friuli dialect. This early interest in native nationalism and agrarian culture is also a central element in Pasolini’s politics. His first major poem, ‘‘The Ashes of Gramsci’’ (1954), pays tribute to Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist who founded the Italian Communist party. It created an uproar unknown in Italy since the time of D’Annunzio’s poetry and was read by artists, politicians, and the general public. The ideas of Gramsci coincided with Pasolini’s own feelings, especially concerning that part of the working class known as the sub- proletariat, which Pasolini described as a prehistorical, pre-Christian, and pre-bourgeois phenomenon, one which occurs for him in the South of Italy (the Sud) and in the Third World. This concern with ‘‘the little homelands,’’ the indigenous cultures of specific regions, is a theme linking all of Pasolini’s films, from Accattone to his final black vision, Salò. These marginal classes, known as cafoni (hicks or hillbillies), are among the main characters in Pasolini’s novels Ragazzi de vita (1955) and A Violent Life (1959), and appear as protagonists in many of his films, notably Accattone, Mamma Roma, Hawks and Sparrows, and The Gospel according to Saint Matthew. To quote Pasolini: ‘‘My view of the world is always at bottom of an epical-religious nature: therefore even, in fact above all, in misery-ridden characters, characters who live outside of a histori- cal consciousness, these epical-religious elements play a very impor- tant part.’’ In Accattone and The Gospel, images of official culture are juxtaposed against those of a more humble origin. The pimp of Accattone and the Christ of The Gospel are similar figures. When Accattone is killed at the end of the film, a fellow thief is seen crossing himself in a strange backward way, it is Pasolini’s indictment of how Christianity has ‘‘contaminated’’ the subproletarian world of Rome. Marxism is never far away in The Gospel; it is evident, for instance, in the scene where Satan, dressed as a priest, tempts Christ. In The Gospel, Pasolini has put his special brand of Marxism even into camera angles and has, not ironically, created one of the most moving and literal interpretations of the story of Christ. A recurrent motif in Pasolini’s filmmaking, and especially prominent in Accattone and The Gospel, is the treatment of individual camera shots as autono- mous units; the cinematic equivalent of the poetic image. It should also be noted that The Gospel according to Saint Matthew was filmed entirely in southern Italy. In the 1960s Pasolini’s films became more concerned with ideol- ogy and myth, while continuing to develop his epical-religious theories. Oedipus Rex (which has never been distributed in the United States) and Medea reaffirm Pasolini’s attachment to the marginal and pre-industrial peasant cultures. These two films indict capitalism as well as communism for the destruction of these cultures, and the creation of a world which has lost its sense of myth. In Teorema (‘‘theorem’’ in Italian), which is perhaps Pasolini’s most experimental film, a mysterious stranger visits a typical middle- class family, sexually seduces mother, father, daughter, and son, and destroys them. The peasant maid is the only character who is transformed because she is still attuned to the numinous quality of life which the middle class has lost. Pasolini has said about this film: ‘‘A member of the bourgeoisie, whatever he does, is always wrong.’’ Pigpen, which shares with Teorema the sulphurous volcanic location of Mount Etna, is a double film. The first half is the story or parable of a fifteenth-century cult of cannibals and their eventual destruction by the church. The second half concerns two former Nazis-turned-industrialists in a black comedy of rank perversion. It is the film closest in spirit to the dark vision of Salò. In the 1970s Pasolini turned against his elite international audience of intellectuals and film buffs and embraced the mass market with his ‘‘Trilogy of Life’’: Decameron, Canterbury Tales, and Arabian Nights. The Decameron was his first major European box-office hit, due mainly to its explicit sexual content. All three films are a celebration of Pasolini’s philosophy of ‘‘the ontology of reality, whose naked symbol is sex.’’ Pasolini, an avowed homosexual, in Decameron, and especially Arabian Nights, celebrates the triumph of female heterosexuality as the epitome of the life principle. Pasolini himself appears in two of these films, most memorably in the Decameron as Giotto’s best pupil, who on completion of a fresco for a small town cathedral says, ‘‘Why produce a work of art, when it’s so much better just to dream about it.’’ As a result of his growing political pessimism Pasolini disowned the ‘‘Trilogy’’ and rejected most of its ideas. His final film, Salò, is an utterly clinical examination of the nature of fascism, which for Pasolini is synonymous with consumerism. Using a classical, unmoving camera, Pasolini explores the ultimate in human perversions in a static, repressive style. Salò, almost impossible to watch, is one of the most horrifying and beautiful visions ever created on film. Pasolini’s tragic, if not ironic, death in 1975 ended a visionary career that almost certainly would have continued to evolve. —Tony D’Arpino PASTRONE, Giovanni Nationality: Italian. Also known as Piero Fosco. Born: Montechario d’Asti, 11 September 1883. Career: Administrative assistant, Carlo Rossi & Company, Turin, 1905; company reorganized as Itala Film, became adminstrative director, 1907; director, from 1910; production supervisor of Itala, from 1914; left film industry, worked on medical research, early 1920s. Died: In Turin, 27 June 1959. Films as Director: 1910 Agnese Visconti (+ pr); La caduta di Troia (+ pr) 1912 Padre (co-d, pr) PECKINPAH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 754 1914 Cabiria (+ pr) 1915 Il fuoco (+ pr); Maciste (+ pr) 1916 Maciste alpino (co-d, pr); Tigre reale (+ pr) 1919 Hedda Gabler (+ pr) 1923 Povere bimbe (+ pr) Publications On PASTRONE: books— Margadonna, Ettore, Cinema ieri ed oggi, Milan, 1932. Palmieri, Eugenio, Vecchio cinema italiano, Venice, 1940. Prolo, Maria, Storia del cinema muto italiano, Milan, 1951. Usai, Paola Cherchi, editor, Giovanni Pastrone: gli anni d’oro del cinema a Torino, Turin, 1986. On PASTRONE: articles— Caudana, Mino, ‘‘Vita laboriosa e geniale di Giovanni Pastrone,’’ in Film (Rome), 25 February and 4 March 1939. ‘‘Omaggio a Pastrone’’ issue of Centrofilm (Turin), no. 12, 1961. Verdone, Mario, ‘‘Pastrone, ultimo incontro,’’ in Bianco e Nero (Rome), June 1961. Special Pastrone and Griffith issue of Bianco e Nero (Rome), May/ August 1975. Cherchi Usai, Paolo, special issue, Castoro Cinema (Milan), no. 119, 1985. *** The firm Carlo Rossi and Company (of Turin) began to manufac- ture films and apparatus in 1907, drawing their personnel from the Pathé Company of Paris. When Rossi left the Company, Sciamengo and Giovanni Pastrone took over what was by then Itala Films, and Pastrone soon proved himself an active and inspired manager. The services of the French comedian André Deed were acquired by the company in 1908. The comedian’s role as Cretinetti proved a goldmine. Another valuable addition to the company was Segundo de Chomon, a Spanish cameraman who was a master of special effects. His first film for Itala was the sensational thriller Tigris in 1912. In the meantime, Pastrone’s ambitions led him into direction, and in 1910 he made Agnese Visconti and the sensational Caduta del Troia, which reached American cinemas in spite of an embargo on foreign films. His film Padre introduced the famous actor Ermete Zacconi to the screen. In 1913 Pastrone conceived a vast project set in the time of the Punic Wars, when Scipio conquered Carthage. Armed with a showman’s instinct, Pastrone approached d’Annunzio and secured the approval and prestige of the great man’s name for a tidy sum. Pastrone, under the name Piero Fosco, directed the film Cabiria with a script duly credited to the famous author, D’Annunzio. Pastrone did his homework for the film with dynamic thorough- ness. The period behavior, architecture, and costumes were patiently researched. Vast structures were built. Shooting took six months, ranging from the Itala studios in Turin to Tunisia, Sicily, and the Val de Lanzo, where Hannibal is reputed to have crossed the Alps. Not only was the film spectacular but, artistically, it broke new ground. The striking camerawork by de Chomon made use of travelling shots with remarkable skill, and the effects of the eruption of Mount Etna and the naval battle of Syracuse were awe-inspiring. The character of the strong man Maciste became a legend of the cinema. Later, Pastrone directed this ex-dock laborer in a further adventure, Maciste, and in the same year, he directed Pina Menichelli and Febo Mari in Il Fuoco, the love story of a young painter and a wealthy woman. The film’s erotic atmosphere caused it to be banned and prompted clerical demonstrations against the film. In 1916 Pastrone again directed Menichelli in a work by Verga, Tigre reale, and in 1919 he directed his former star of Cabiria, Itala Almirante Manzini, in Hedda Gabler. Before he retired at about that time he made several more films with his creation, Maciste. He abandoned the cinema to pursue research in therapeutic medicine. —Liam O’Leary PECKINPAH, Sam Nationality: American. Born: David Samuel Peckinpah in Fresno, California, 21 February 1925. Education: Fresno State College, B.A. in Drama 1949; University of Southern California, M.A. 1950. Family: Married 1) Marie Selland, 1947, four children; 2) Begonia Palacios, 1964 (divorced), one child; 3) Joie Gould, 1972 (divorced). Military Service: Enlisted in Marine Corps, 1943. Career: Director/ producer-in-residence, Huntington Park Civic Theatre, California, 1950–51; propman and stagehand, KLAC-TV, Los Angeles, then Sam Peckinpah PECKINPAHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 755 assistant editor at CBS, 1951–53; assistant to Don Siegel, from 1954; writer for television, including Gunsmoke and The Rifleman, late 1950s; worked on scripts at Walt Disney Productions, 1963. Died: Of a heart attack, 28 December 1984. Films as Director: 1961 The Deadly Companions (Trigger Happy) 1962 Ride the High Country (Guns in the Afternoon) (+ co-sc, uncredited) 1965 Major Dundee (+ co-sc) 1966 Noon Wine (+ sc) 1969 The Wild Bunch (+ co-sc) 1970 The Ballad of Cable Hogue 1971 Straw Dogs (+ co-sc) 1972 Junior Bonner; The Getaway 1973 Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid 1974 Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (+ co-sc) 1975 The Killer Elite 1977 Cross of Iron 1978 Convoy 1983 The Osterman Weekend Other Films: 1956 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (Siegel) (role as Charlie the meter reader) 1978 China 9 Liberty 37 (Hellmann) (role) 1980 Il Visitatore (Paradise) (role) Publications By PECKINPAH: articles— ‘‘A Conversation with Sam Peckinpah,’’ with Ernest Callenbach, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1963/64. ‘‘Peckinpah’s Return,’’ an interview with Stephen Farber, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1969. ‘‘Talking with Peckinpah,’’ with Richard Whitehall, in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1969. ‘‘Playboy Interview: Sam Peckinpah,’’ with William Murray, in Playboy (Chicago), August 1972. ‘‘Don Siegel and Me,’’ in Don Siegel: Director, by Stuart Kaminsky, New York, 1974. ‘‘Mort Sahl Called Me a 1939 American,’’ in Film Heritage (New York), Summer 1976. On PECKINPAH: books— Kitses, Jim, Horizons West, Bloomington, Indiana, 1970. Evans, Max, Sam Peckinpah: Master of Violence, Vermilion, South Dakota, 1972. Wurlitzer, Rudolph, Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, New York, 1973. Caprara, Valerio, Peckinpah, Bologna, 1976. Butler, T., Crucified Heroes: The Films of Sam Peckinpah, Lon- don, 1979. McKinney, Doug, Sam Peckinpah, Boston, 1979. Seydor, Paul, Peckinpah: The Western Films, Urbana, Illinois, 1980. Simmons, Garner, Peckinpah: A Portrait in Montage, Austin, Texas, 1982. Arnols, Frank, and Ulrich von Berg, Sam Peckinpah: Eine Outlaw in Hollywood, Frankfurt, 1987. Buscombe, Ed, editor, The BFI Companion to the Western, Lon- don, 1989. Fine, Marshall, Bloody Sam, New York, 1992. Bliss, Michael, Justified Lives, Carbondale, 1993 Bliss, Michael, Doing It Right, Carbondale, 1994. Weddle, David, If They Move, Kill’em: The Life and Times of Sam Peckinpah, Grove/Atlantic 1994. Seydor, Paul. Peckinpah: The Western Films a Reconsideration, Urbana, 1996. Prince, Stephen, Savage Cinema, Austin, 1998. Prince, Stephen, editor, Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch,’’ Cam- bridge, 1999. On PECKINPAH: articles— McArthur, Colin, ‘‘Sam Peckinpah’s West,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1967. Sassone, Rich, ‘‘The Ballad of Sam Peckinpah,’’ in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), March 1969. Blum, William, ‘‘Toward a Cinema of Cruelty,’’ in Cinema Journal (Evanston, Illinois), Spring 1970. Reisner, Joel, and Bruce Kane, ‘‘Sam Peckinpah,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), June 1970. Shaffer, Lawrence, ‘‘The Wild Bunch versus Straw Dogs,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1972. Andrews, Nigel, ‘‘Sam Peckinpah: The Survivor and the Individual,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1973. Madsen, A., ‘‘Peckinpah in Mexico,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1974. Macklin, Anthony, editor, special Peckinpah issue of Film Heritage (New York), Winter 1974/75. Miller, Mark, ‘‘In Defense of Sam Peckinpah,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1975. Pettit, Arthur, ‘‘Nightmare and Nostalgia: The Cinema West of Sam Peckinpah,’’ in Western Humanities Review (Salt Lake City), Spring 1975. Kael, Pauline, ‘‘Notes on the Nihilist Poetry of Sam Peckinpah,’’ in the New Yorker, 12 January 1976. Humphries, R., ‘‘The Function of Mexico in Peckinpah’s Films,’’ in Jump Cut (Berkeley), August 1978. Fuller, Sam, ‘‘A Privilege to Work in Films: Sam Peckinpah among Friends,’’ in Movietone News (Seattle), February 1979. Jameson, R.T., and others, ‘‘Midsection: Sam Peckinpah,’’ in Film Comment (New York), January/February 1981. McCarthy, T., obituary, in Variety (New York), 2 January 1985. Murphy, K., ‘‘No Bleeding Heart,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1985. PENN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 756 Bryson, J., ‘‘Sam Peckinpah,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), April 1985. Engel, L.W., ‘‘Sam Peckinpah’s Heroes: Natty Bumppo and the Myth of the Rugged Individual Still Reign,’’ in Literature/Film Quar- terly (Salisbury, Maryland), January 1988. Roth, Paul A., ‘‘Virtue and Violence in Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch,’’ in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), vol. 7, no. 2, 1988. Sharrett, Christopher, ‘‘Peckinpah the Radical: The Wild Bunch Reconsidered,’’ in CineAction! (Toronto), no. 13–14, 1988. Rouyer, P., in Positif (Paris), Hors-série, January 1991. Jopkiewicz, T., ‘‘Na Krawedzi koszmaru o filmach Sama Peckinpaha,’’ in Iluzjon, January-March 1993. Garcia Tsao, L., and J. Kraniauskas, ‘‘New Mexican Tales: Stepping over the Border,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 3, June 1993. Kullberg, U., ‘‘Samh?llet som hot mot individen. M?nnens utanf?rskap,’’ in Filmrutan (Sundsvall, Sweden), vol. 37, 1994. Remy, V., ‘‘Avec moi le chaos,’’ in Télérama (Paris), 3 Novem- ber 1993. *** It is as a director of westerns that Sam Peckinpah remains best known. This is not without justice. His non-western movies often lack the sense of complexity and resonance that he brings to western settings. He was adept at exploiting this richest of genres for his own purposes, explaining its ambiguities, pushing its values to uncomfort- able limits. Ride the High Country, Major Dundee, and The Wild Bunch are the work of a filmmaker of high ambitions and rare talents. They convey a sense of important questions posed, yet finally left open and unanswered. At their best they have a visionary edge unparalleled in American cinema. His non-westerns lose the additional dimensions that the genre brings, as in, for example, Straw Dogs. A polished and didactic parable about a besieged liberal academic who is forced by the relentless logic of events into extremes of violence, it is somehow too complete, its answers too pat, to reach beyond its own claustrophobic world. Though its drama is entirely compelling, it lacks the referential framework that carries Peckinpah’s westerns far beyond the realm of tautly-directed action. Compared to The Wild Bunch, it is a one- dimensional film. Nevertheless, Straw Dogs is immediately recognizable as a Peckinpah movie. If a distinctive style and common themes are the marks of an auteur, then Peckinpah’s right to that label is indisput- able. His concern with the horrors and the virtues of the male group was constant, as was his refusal to accept conventional movie morality. ‘‘My father says there’s only Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, with nothing in between. But it’s not that simple, is it?’’ asks Elsa in Ride the High Country. Judd’s reply could almost be Peckinpah’s: ‘‘No. It should be, but it isn’t.’’ In traditional westerns, of course, right and wrong are clearly distinguishable. The westerner, as Robert Warshow has characterised him, is the man with a code. In Peckinpah’s westerns, as in some of his other movies such as Cross of Iron, it is the code itself that is rendered problematic. Peckinpah explores the ethic rather than taking it for granted, plays off its elements one against the other, and uses his characters as emblems of those internal conflicts. He presents a world wherein moral certainty is collapsing, leaving behind doomed varia- tions on assertive individualism. In some modern westerns that theme has been treated as elegy; in Peckinpah it veers nearer to tragedy. His is a harsh world, softened only rarely in movies like The Ballad of Cable Hogue and Junior Bonner. Peckinpah’s richest achievements remain the two monumental epics of the 1960s, Major Dundee and The Wild Bunch. In both, though Major Dundee was butchered by its producers both before and after shooting, there is ample evidence of Peckinpah’s ability to marshall original cinematic means in the service of a morally and aesthetically complex vision. It has become commonplace to associate Peckinpah with the rise of explicit vio- lence in modern cinema, and it is true that few directors have rendered violence with such horrific immediacy. But his cinema is far more than that: his reflections upon familiar western themes are technically sophisticated, elaborately constructed, and, at their best, genuinely profound. —Andrew Tudor PENN, Arthur Nationality: American. Born: Philadelphia, 27 September 1922. Education: Black Mountain College, North Carolina, 1947–48; studied at Universities of Perugia and Florence, 1949–50; trained for the stage with Michael Chekhov. Military Service: Enlisted in Army, 1943; joined Soldiers Show Company, Paris, 1945. Family: Married actress Peggy Maurer, 1955, one son, one daughter. Career: Assist- ant director on The Colgate Comedy Hour, 1951–52; TV director, from 1953, working on Gulf Playhouse: 1st Person (NBC), Philco Television Playhouse (NBC), and Playhouse 90 (CBS); directed first feature, The Left-handed Gun, 1958; director on Broadway, from 1958. Awards: Tony Award for stage version of The Miracle Worker; two Sylvania Awards. Address: c/o 2 West 67th Street, New York, NY 10023, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1958 The Left-handed Gun 1962 The Miracle Worker 1965 Mickey One (+ pr) 1966 The Chase 1967 Bonnie and Clyde 1969 Alice’s Restaurant (+ co-sc) 1970 Little Big Man (+ pr) 1973 ‘‘The Highest,’’ in Visions of 8 1975 Night Moves 1976 The Missouri Breaks 1981 Four Friends PENNDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 757 Arthur Penn with Melanie Griffith on the set of Night Moves 1985 Target 1987 Dead of Winter 1989 Penn and Teller Get Killed (+ pr) 1993 The Portrait (for TV) 1995 Lumière et compagnie 1996 Inside Publications By PENN: articles— ‘‘Rencontre avec Arthur Penn,’’ with André Labarthe and others, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1965. ‘‘Bonnie and Clyde: Private Morality and Public Violence,’’ in Take One (Montreal), vol. 1, no. 6, 1967. Interview with Michael Lindsay, in Cinema (Beverly Hills), vol. 5, no. 3, 1969. Interview in The Director’s Event by Eric Sherman and Martin Rubin, New York, 1970. ‘‘Metaphor,’’ an interview with Gordon Gow, in Films and Filming (London), July 1971. ‘‘Arthur Penn at the Olympic Games,’’ an interview in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), November 1972. ‘‘Night Moves,’’ an interview with T. Gallagher, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1975. ‘‘Arthur Penn ou l’anti-genre,’’ an interview with Claire Clouzot, in Ecran (Paris), December 1976. Interview with R. Seidman and N. Leiber, in American Film (Wash- ington, D.C.), December 1981. Interview with A. Leroux, in 24 Images (Montreal), June 1983. Interview with Richard Combs, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), August 1986. ‘‘1968–1988,’’ in Film Comment (New York), August 1988. ‘‘L’Amerique qui change: entretien avec Arthur Penn,’’ with P. Merenghetti, in Jeune Cinema, October/November 1990. ‘‘The Importance of a Singular, Guiding Vision,’’ an interview with Gary Crowdus and Richard Porton, in Cineaste (New York), 1993. PENN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 758 ‘‘Acteurs et metteurs en scène: Metteurs en scène et acteurs,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1994. ‘‘L’occhio aperto,’’ an interview with G. Garlazzo, in Filmcritica (Siena), May 1997. ‘‘Song of the Open Road,’’ an interview with Geoffrey Macnab, in Sight and Sound (London), August 1999. On PENN: books— Wood, Robin, Arthur Penn, New York, 1969. Marchesini, Mauro, and Gaetano Stucchi, Cinque film di Arthur Penn, Turin, 1972. Cawelti, John, editor, Focus on Bonnie and Clyde, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973. Carlini, Fabio, Arthur Penn, Milan, 1977. Kolker, Robert Phillip, A Cinema of Loneliness: Penn, Kubrick, Coppola, Scorsese, Altman, Oxford, 1980; revised edition, 1988. Zuker, Joel S., Arthur Penn: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1980. Giannetti, Louis D., Masters of the American Cinema, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1981. Haustrate, Gaston, Arthur Penn, Paris, 1986. Vernaglione, Paolo, Arthur Penn, Florence, 1988. Kindem, Gorham, The Live Television Generation of Hollywood Film Directors, Jefferson, North Carolina, and London, 1994. On PENN: articles— Hillier, Jim, ‘‘Arthur Penn,’’ in Screen (London), January/Febru- ary 1969. Gelmis, Joseph, ‘‘Arthur Penn,’’ in The Film Director as Superstar, New York, 1970. Wood, Robin, ‘‘Arthur Penn in Canada,’’ in Movie (London), Win- ter 1970/71. Margulies, Lee, ‘‘Filming the Olympics,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), November/December 1972. ‘‘Le Gaucher Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), Novem- ber 1973. Byron, Stuart, and Terry Curtis Fox, ‘‘What Is a Western?,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1976. Butler, T., ‘‘Arthur Penn: The Flight from Identity,’’ in Movie (London), Winter 1978/79. Penn Section of Casablanca (Madrid), March 1982. ‘‘TV to Film: A History, a Map, and a Family Tree,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), February 1983. Gallagher, J., and J. Hanc, ‘‘Penn’s Westerns,’’ in Films in Review (New York), August/September 1983. Camy, G., ‘‘Arthur Penn: Un regard sévère sur les U.S.A. des années 60–70,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), April 1985. Andrew, Geoff, ‘‘The Shootist,’’ in Time Out (London), 13 August 1986. Matheson, Nigel, ‘‘Arthur Penn,’’ in City Limits (London), 21 August 1986. Richards, P., ‘‘Arthur Penn: A One-Film Director?’’ in Film, Octo- ber 1987. Knowles, Peter C., ‘‘Genre and Authorship: Two Films of Arthur Penn,’’ in CineAction! (Toronto), Summer/Autumn 1990. McCloy, Sean, ‘‘Focus on Arthur Penn,’’ in Film West (Dublin), July 1995. Kock, I. de, ‘‘Arthur Penn,’’ in Film en Televisie + Video (Brussels), November 1996. Lally, K., ‘‘‘Inside’ with Arthur Penn,’’ in Film Journal (New York), January/February 1997. Elia, Maurice, ‘‘Bonnie and Clyde,’’ in Séquences (Haute-Ville), July-August 1997. *** Arthur Penn has often been classed—along with Robert Altman, Bob Rafelson, and Francis Coppola—among the more ‘‘European’’ American directors. Stylistically, this is true enough. Penn’s films, especially after Bonnie and Clyde, tend to be technically experimen- tal, and episodic in structure; their narrative line is elliptical, under- mining audience expectations with abrupt shifts in mood and rhythm. Such features can be traced to the influence of the French New Wave, in particular the early films of Fran?ois Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard, which Penn greatly admired. In terms of his thematic preoccupations, though, few directors are more utterly American. Repeatedly, throughout his work, Penn has been concerned with questioning and re-assessing the myths of his country. His films reveal a passionate, ironic, intense involvement with the American experience, and can be seen as an illuminating chart of the country’s moral condition over the past thirty years. Mickey One is dark with the unfocused guilt and paranoia of the McCarthyite hangover, while the stunned horror of the Kennedy assassination reverberates through The Chase. The exhilaration, and the fatal flaws, of the 1960s anti-authoritarian revolt are reflected in Bonnie and Clyde and Alice’s Restaurant. Little Big Man reworks the trauma of Vietnam, while Night Moves is steeped in the disillusioned malaise that pervaded the Watergate era. As a focus for his perspective on America, Penn often chooses an outsider group and its relationship with mainstream society. The Indians in Little Big Man, the Barrow Gang in Bonnie and Clyde, the rustlers in The Missouri Breaks, the hippies in Alice’s Restaurant, the outlaws in The Left-handed Gun, are all sympathetically presented as attractive and vital figures, preferable in many ways to the conven- tional society which rejects them. But ultimately they suffer defeat, being infected by the flawed values of that same society. ‘‘A society,’’ Penn has commented, ‘‘has its mirror in its outcasts.’’ An exceptionally intense, immediate physicality distinguishes Penn’s work. Pain, in his films, unmistakably hurts, and tactile sensations are vividly communicated. Often, characters are conveyed primarily through their bodily actions: how they move, walk, hold themselves, or use their hands. Violence is a recurrent feature of his films—notably in The Chase, Bonnie and Clyde, and The Missouri Breaks—but it is seldom gratuitously introduced, and represents, in Penn’s view, a deeply rooted element in the American character which has to be acknowledged. Penn established his reputation as a director with Bonnie and Clyde, one of the most significant and influential films of its decade. But since 1970 he has made only a handful of films, none of them successful at the box office. Night Moves and The Missouri Breaks, both poorly received on initial release, now rank among his most subtle and intriguing movies, and Four Friends, though uneven, remains constantly stimulating with its oblique, elliptical narrative structure. PEREIRA DOS SANTOSDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 759 But since then Penn seems to have lost his way. Neither Target, a routine spy thriller, nor Dead of Winter, a reworking of Joseph H. Lewis’s cult B-movie My Name Is Julia Ross, offered material worthy of his distinctive talents. Penn and Teller Get Killed, a spoof psycho- killer vehicle for the bad-taste illusionist team, got few showings outside the festival circuit. Among his few recent directorial works is The Portrait, a solidly crafted adaptation for television of Tina Rowe’s Broadway hit, Painting Churches. ‘‘It’s not that I’ve drifted away from film,’’ Penn told Richard Combs in 1986. ‘‘I’m very drawn to film, but I’m not sure that film is drawn to me.’’ Given the range, vitality, and sheer unpredictability of his earlier work, the estrangement is much to be regretted. —Philip Kemp PEREIRA DOS SANTOS, Nelson Nationality: Brazilian. Born: S?o Paolo, 1928. Education: Edu- cated in law; studied at IDHEC, Paris. Career: Journalist, editor at Jornal do Brasil, late 1940s; directed first feature, Rio, quarenta graus, 1955; teacher of cinema, University of Brasilia, from 1956; collaborated on short films with I. Rozemberg and J. Manzon, 1958–60; director of Department of Cinematographic Art, Federal University of Nitéroi, from 1968; participated in founding of filmmakers’ cooperative, late 1970s; also editor and co-director of film revue Luz e A?ao. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1950 Juventude (short); Atividades politicas em Sao Paolo (short) 1955 Rio, quarenta graus (Rio, 40 Degrees) 1957 Rio, zona norte (Rio, zone nord) 1958 Soldados do fogo (short) 1960 Part of a documentary on Karl Gass made in East Germany 1961 Mandacaru vermelho (+ co-pr, role) 1962 O B?ca de Ouro; Ballet do Brasil (short) 1963 Vidas secas (Barren Lives); Um m?co de 74 anos (short) 1964 O Rio de Machado de Assis (short) 1965 Fala Brasilia 1966 Cruzada ABC 1967 El justiciero (Le Justicier) (+ co-pr) 1968 Fome de amor (Soif d’amour); Abastecimento, nova política (short) 1969 Azyllo muito louco (L’Alieniste) (co-d) 1971 Como era gostoso o meu frances (How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman) (+ co-pr) 1972 Quem e beta (Pas de violence entre nous) 1974 O Amuleta de Ogum (The Amulet of Ogum); Tenda dos milagres (Tent of Miracles) 1980 Na estrada da vida (On the Highway of Life) 1984 Memorias do carcere (Memories of Jail) 1986 Jubiaba 1994 A Terceira margem do rio (The Third Bank of the River) (+ sc) 1995 Cinema de lágrimas (+ co-sc) 1998 Guerra e liberdade Castro alves em S?o Paulo Other Films: 1951 O scai (Nanni) (asst d) 1952 Agulha no palheiro (Viany) (asst d) 1953 Balan?a mas nao caid (Vanderlei) (asst d) 1958 O grande momento (Santos) (pr) 1962 Barravento (Rocha) (ed); Pedreira de S?o Diogo (Hirszman) (ed) 1998 For all o trampolim da Vitória (ro as Almirante Johnes) Publications By PEREIRA DOS SANTOS: articles— Interview with Leo Murray, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1966. Interview with Fedéric de Cárdenas and Max Tessier, in Etudes Cinématographiques (Paris), no. 93–96, 1972. Interview with J. Frenais, in Cinéma (Paris), October 1976. Interview with A. Lima, in Filme Cultura (Rio de Janeiro), Febru- ary 1979. Interview with Agustin Mahieu, in Cine Libre (Madrid), no. 6, 1983. Interview with Richard Pe?a, in Framework (Norwich), no. 29, 1985. Interview with Robert Stam, and others, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 14, no. 2, 1985. ‘‘Manifesto por un cinema popular,’’ in Hojas de cine, by Marcelo Beraba, Mexico City, 1986. ‘‘La comète Grierson en Amérique latine,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1994. ‘‘Cinéma de larmes,’’ an interview with Sylvie Pierre, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1995. On PEREIRA DOS SANTOS: books— Rocha, Glauber, Revisao critica do cinema brasiliero, Rio de Janeiro, 1963. Frías, Isaac Léon, Los a?os de la conmoción, Mexico City, 1979. Johnson, Randal, and Robert Stam, editors, Brazilian Cinema, Ruth- erford, New Jersey, 1982. Johnson, Randal, Cinema Novo x 5, Austin, Texas, 1984. Burton, Julianne, editor, Cinema and Social Change in Latin Amer- ica, Austin, Texas, 1986. On PEREIRA DOS SANTOS: articles— Lefèvre, Raymond, ‘‘Vidas secas,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), Novem- ber 1965. Monteiro, José, ‘‘Nelson Pereira dos Santos,’’ in Filme Cultura (Rio de Janeiro), September/October 1970. Kinder, Marsha, ‘‘Tent of Miracles,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1978. PETERSEN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 760 ‘‘Dossier criticos: Barre Pesada,’’ in Filme Cultura (Rio de Janeiro), February 1979. Xavier, I., and others, ‘‘Cerimonia da purifica?ao,’’ in Filme Cultura (Rio de Janeiro), April/August 1984. Paranagua, P. A., ‘‘Nelson Pereira dos Santos: Trajectoire d’un dépouillement,’’ in Positif (Paris), December 1985. Pe?a, Richard, ‘‘After Barren Lives: The Legacy of Cinema Novo,’’ in Reviewing Histories, edited by Coco Fusco, Buffalo, New York, 1987. Mraz, John, ‘‘What’s Popular in the New Latin American Cinema?,’’ in Studies in Latin American Popular Culture, no. 7, 1988. Stam, Robert, ‘‘S?o Nelson,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Janu- ary-February 1995. Maier-Schoen, Petra, ‘‘Das filmische Gewissen,’’ in Film-Dienst (Cologne), 12 March 1996. *** Considered to be the ‘‘mentor’’ and ‘‘conscience’’ of Cinema Novo (New Cinema)—the movement that fundamentally transformed the theory and practice of film in Brazil and Latin America—Nelson Pereira dos Santos encapsulates many of its ideals in his works. The most important of these is the reaction against the domination of Brazilian screens by foreign films and imported cinematic models, for Cinema Novo is the result of efforts by directors such as Pereira, Glauber Rocha, and Carlos Diegues to make a genuinely ‘‘popular cinema.’’ This concept has been used in a variety of ways, but to Pereira it represents a combination of commercial success and a con- cern with national identity. Thus, though he criticized early Cinema Novo works because they were inaccessible to the general public, he also feels that marketability is not the only criteria by which to judge what is ‘‘popular.’’ For Pereira, films must also affirm the principles of Brazilian popular culture, which he sees as dramatically different from ‘‘superficial, elitist cultural forms that follow antiquated, colo- nized models.’’ The first film to embody the principles of Cinema Novo was Rio, 40 Degrees, which Pereira dos Santos made in 1955. Greatly influ- enced by Italian neo-realism, Rio was made in the streets of that city and outside studios, and was immersed in Brazil’s reality. The storyline presents the poles of Brazilian society, contrasting the lives of the upper and the lower classes through the device of following the activities of five peanut vendors who leave their slum houses to sell their wares in different parts of Rio. Aside from the thematic focus on everyday life, Pereira believes the structure of the production also reflected the film’s innovative approach to storytelling. The work was made with an absolute minimum of technical resources (a camera and some lights); the crew was composed of friends who did whatever was required of them, rather than technicians who worked only in their specialty; and the film was shot on location, in the places where the stories take place. However, in spite of such low-budget strategies, production of Rio was still expensive enough to sink Pereira deeply in debt. As a consequence, he was unable to make another feature for four years. When Pereira did return to feature production, it was to make another ‘‘classic’’ of Cinema Novo, Barren Lives. During 1957 and 1958, the filmmaker had directed documentaries in the Brazilian northeast, where he was greatly struck by the extreme drought conditions typical of that region. At the time, there was much debate about Brazil’s agrarian problems, and Pereira participated in that discussion by adapting Graciliano Ramos’ book Vidas secas to the screen. Pereira’s experience in making documentaries there served him well, for he was aware that the usual camera filters transformed the arid countryside into an exotic garden. He worked closely with Luiz Carlos Barreto, one of the finest Brazilian cameramen of the time, to produce an austere kind of photography, achieved through high- contrast film shot without filters, which reflected the reality of the area. Pereira further struggled against the sentimentalized and pictur- esque vision so often rendered of such regions by creating a soundtrack in which harsh noises punctuate the narrative. History is an important source of national identity, and Pereira has directed two historical films of uncommon power and beauty: How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman and Prison Memories. My Little Frenchman was made at a time when government censorship made it difficult to produce films on contemporary problems; as Pereira noted: ‘‘The government financed historical films, but it wanted the history to be within official parameters—the hero, the father of the country, all those things we have been told since elementary school.’’ This was a seemingly impossible task, but one that Pereira turned to his own uses by making a work that subverted ‘‘official history’’ by focusing on the Indian perspective of the ‘‘discovery’’ of America and through incorporating contradictions between the images shown and the discourses of government officials in the film. With Prison Memories, Pereira returned to Graciliano Ramos for inspiration. Freely adapting the book, in which Ramos described his experiences as a political prisoner during the 1930s, Pereira turned the jail into a metaphor for ‘‘the prison of social and political relations which oppress the Brazilian people.’’ In his contemporary and historical cinema, Nelson Pereira dos Santos has explored the depths of Brazilian reality as well as the heights to which that nation’s culture is capable of rising. —John Mraz PETERSEN, Wolfgang Nationality: German. Born: Emden, Germany, 14 March 1941. Education: Studied theater arts in Berlin and Hamburg at various drama schools, and at the Film and TV Academy in Berlin, where he directed short films. Career: Worked as assistant director at Jungen Theater, Hamburg, 1960; completed studies in film and theater and worked as stage director and actor at the Ernst Deutsch Theatre in Hamburg, 1964–1969; directed six 100-minute episodes for West German TV series Tatort (Scene of the Crime), 1971–1976; directed first feature film, Einer von uns beiden, 1973; earned initial interna- tional acclaim with Die Konsequenz, 1977; directed first American feature, Enemy Mine, 1985. Awards: Prix Futura, Berlin Festival, for Smog, 1972; German National Film Prize Best New Director, for Einer von uns beiden, 1973; Prix Italia and Best Director Monte Carlo Television Festival, for ‘‘Reifenzeugnis’’ (episode of Tatort), 1977; Bavarian Film Award for Best Director, for Das Boot, 1983. Agent: CAA, 9830 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90212, U.S.A. PETERSENDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 761 Wolfgang Petersen (right) with Clint Eastwood Films as Director: 1970 Ich Werde Dich Toten Wolf (I Will Kill You, Wolf) (doc) 1972 Smog (for TV) 1973 Einer von uns beiden (One of Us; One or the Other); Van Der Valk and the Rich (for TV) 1974 Auf’s kreuz gelegt (Pinned to the Ground) (for TV); Stadt im tal (Town in the Valley) (for TV) 1975 Stellenweise glatteis (Icy in Spots) (for TV) 1976 Hans im gluck (Hans’ Good Fortune) (for TV); Vier genen die bank (Four against the Bank) (for TV) 1977 Die Konsequenz (The Consequence) (+ co-sc); Plannbung (The Rehearsal) (for TV) 1978 Schwarz und Weiss wie Tage und Nachte (Black and White like Day and Night) (for TV) (+ co-sc) 1981 Das Boot (The Boat) (+ sc) (originally a TV mini-series) 1982 Reifezeugnis (For Your Love Only) (+ co-sc) 1984 The NeverEnding Story (+ co-sc) 1985 Enemy Mine 1991 Shattered (+ sc, co-pr) 1993 In the Line of Fire (+ co-exec pr) 1995 Outbreak (+ co-pr) 1997 Air Force One (+ co-pr) 2000 The Perfect Storm (+ co-pr) Publications By PETERSEN: articles— Interview with T. MacTrevor, in Cine Revue (Brussels), 22 Novem- ber 1984. Interview with P. Pawlikowski, in Stills (London), April 1985. Interview with D. Osswald, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), May 1986. On PETERSEN: articles— Naha, Ed, article in New York Post, 16 February 1982. Curtin, John, article in New York Times, 15 July 1984. Article in Variety, 25 July 1984. Pourroy, J., article in Cinefex (Riverside, California), February 1986. PETRI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 762 Honeycutt, Kirk, article in Los Angeles Times, 17 June 1990. Chutnow, Paul, article in New York Times, 6 October 1991. Weinraub, Bernard, ‘‘Great Expectations Help Two Directors Enjoy the Summer,’’ in New York Times, 6 July 1993. Anderson, John, article in Newsday (Melville, New York), 8 July 1993. Abbott, D., ‘‘Turning America’s Anxieties Into Big-Screen Sus- pense,’’ in On Production and Post-Production (Los Angeles), no. 4, 1995. Grob, N., ‘‘In the Line of Light,’’ in EPD Film (Frankfurt), June 1996. *** In a review of Wolfgang Petersen’s first theatrical feature, Einer von uns beiden—a suspense drama of romance, blackmail, and murder—a Variety critic noted that ‘‘After some 20 TV pix, many of them detective stories, Wolfgang Petersen is recognized as West Germany’s leading action director in the Hollywood vein.’’ Not all of Petersen’s early films fit into the action genre. The Consequence, for example, is a drama that charts the romantic relationship between an imprisoned gay male and the son of one of his guards. But Das Boot, the film which brought Petersen to interna- tional prominence, might easily have been a Hollywood-produced submarine movie spectacle. At the time of its release, Das Boot was the most expensive German film ever made; it originally was shot as a six-hour television mini-series, and was to become the highest- grossing foreign-language film ever released in the United States. Das Boot is a breathtakingly filmed drama detailing the plight of a German U-boat patrolling the Atlantic during World War II. What is especially impressive about the film is that its scenario runs its course entirely within the tight confines of the vessel. With skill and precision, Petersen uses a Steadicam to visually capture the manner in which the claustrophobic quarters and the constant fear of going into battle affect the crew members, without allowing the lack of space to hamper his directorial style. Furthermore, the film takes on an antiwar aura in that there is an ever-present sense of the wastefulness of war, and the needlessness for the men to have to endure their experience aboard the U-boat. Ironically, Americans who see the film come to empathize with the various characters and pull for their survival— even though, at the time in which the film is set, Germany was America’s enemy. Das Boot is at once an action-spectacle with a provocative point-of-view, a tremendously thrilling entertainment— and an impressive Hollywood calling card for Petersen. The director’s next noteworthy production (as well as first Eng- lish-language feature) is The NeverEnding Story, a German-British- made fantasy about a boy who envisions the story he is reading in a book. Petersen effectively employs his skills as an action director as the book comes alive and a young hero takes on an evil wizard who has threatened to destroy the Kingdom of Fantasia. Unfortunately, the filmmaker faltered in his first two American-made films. Enemy Mine is a middling science-fiction tale, while Shattered is a just-adequate Hitchcock clone about a car crash victim attempting to patch together his life after becoming an amnesiac. With In the Line of Fire, Petersen redeemed himself and proved that he is capable of making a smashingly entertaining, financially successful, big-budget Hollywood nail-biter. Clint Eastwood plays one of his best roles in a non-Eastwood directed film as an aging Secret Serviceman, haunted by his failure to come between President John F. Kennedy and an assassin’s bullet in November 1963, who now must contend with a sadistic killer who aspires to murder the current U.S. chief executive. The director’s follow-up, Outbreak, is another topical thriller, in which an army researcher (Dustin Hoff- man) races to halt the spread of a killer virus. The film’s limitations have to do with the script; what starts out as a credible thriller soon degenerates into a cartoon-like fantasy littered with counterfeit hero- ics. But Petersen’s direction consistently is first-rate. By the late 1990s, the filmmaker was firmly entrenched as a director of slick, high-profile/high-budget Hollywood action-adventures. He returned to the U.S. president-in-danger theme with Air Force One, a top- notch thriller featuring Harrison Ford as a chief executive who, along with his family and staff, is taken hostage by Kazakhstani terrorists while onboard the presidential plane. Petersen also directed one of the most anticipated movies of the year 2000, The Perfect Storm, based on Sebastian Junger’s account of a fishing boat lost at sea in a huge storm. —Audrey E. Kupferberg PETRI, Elio Nationality: Italian. Born: Eraclio Petri in Rome, 29 January 1929. Education: University of Rome. Career: Film critic for communist daily L’Unita, 1950s; scriptwriter and assistant director, through 1950s; directed first feature, 1961. Awards: Academy Award for Best Foreign-Language Film, for Investigation of a Citizen above Suspicion, 1970; Best Film (ex aequo), Cannes Festival, for The Working Class Goes to Paradise, 1972. Died: 1982. Elio Petri (foreground) PETRIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 763 Films as Director: 1954 Nasce un campione (short) (+ co-sc) 1957 I sette Contadini (short) (+ co-sc) 1961 L’assassino (The Lady Killer of Rome) (+ co-sc) 1962 I giorni contati (+ co-sc) 1963 Il maestro di Vigevano 1964 ‘‘Peccato nel pomeriggio’’ (Sin in the Afternoon) episode of Alta infedelta (High Infidelity) 1965 La decima vittima (The Tenth Victim) (+ co-sc) 1967 A ciascuno il suo (We Still Kill the Old Way) (+ co-sc) 1968 Un tranquillo posto di campagna (A Quiet Place in the Country) (+ co-sc) 1970 Indagine su un cittadino al di sopra di ogni sospietto (Investi- gation of a Citizen above Suspicion) (+ co-sc); ‘‘Documenti su Giuseppe Pinelli’’ episode of Ipotesi (+ co-sc) 1971 La classe operaia va in paradiso (The Working Class Goes to Heaven; Lulu the Tool) (+ co-sc) 1973 La proprietà non è piú un furto (+ co-sc) 1976 Todo modo (+ co-sc) 1978 Le Mani sporche (for TV) (+ sc) 1979 Le buone notizie (+ co-sc, pr) Other Films: 1952 Roma ore undici (Rome Eleven O’Clock) (De Santis) (co-sc) 1953 Un marito per Anna Zaccheo (A Husband for Anna) (De Santis) (co-sc) 1954 Giorni d’amore (Days of Love) (De Santis) (co-sc) 1956 Uomini e lupi (Men and Wolves) (De Santis) (co-sc) 1957 L’Uomo senza domenica (De Santis) (co-sc) 1958 Cesta duga godinu dana (La strada lunga un anno) (De Santis) (co-sc) 1960 La Garconnière (De Santis) (co-sc) Publications By PETRI: books— L’assassino, Milan, n.d. Roma ora undici, Rome and Milan, 1956. Indagine su un cittadino al di sopra ogni sospetto, with Ugo Pirro, Rome, 1970. By PETRI: articles— Interview with G. Haustrate, in Cinéma (Paris), July/August 1972. ‘‘Cinema Is Not for an Elite but for the Masses,’’ an interview with Joan Mellen, in Cinéaste (New York), vol. 6, no. 1, 1973. ‘‘Todo modo,’’ an interview with J. A. Gili, in Ecran (Paris), January 1977. ‘‘L’Enfer selon Petri: bonnes nouvelles,’’ an interview with A. Tournès and A. Tassone, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), September/ October 1980. On PETRI: books— Gili, Jean, Elio Petri, Nice, 1973. Rossi, Alfredo, Elio Petri, Firenze, 1979. Michalczyk, John J., The Italian Political Filmmakers, Cranbury, New Jersey, 1986. On PETRI: articles— MacBean, James in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1972 and Spring 1973. Alemanno, R., ‘‘Da Rosi a Peteri todo modo dentro il contesto,’’ in Cinema Nuovo (Bari), July/August 1976. Roy, J., obituary, in Cinéma (Paris), January 1983. Savioli, A., ‘‘I trent’anni di Elio Petri,’’ in Bianco e Nero (Rome), October/December 1983. Elio Petri Section of Jeune Cinéma (Paris), December 1983/Janu- ary 1984. Rausa, G., ‘‘Il grottesco del potere l’ironia della storia,’’ in Segnocinema (Vicenza), vol. 4, January 1984. Goffers, Eric, and Ivo de Kock, in Film en Televisie (Brussels), no. 430, March 1993. Everschor, Franz, ‘‘Faszination mit Gewalt und Tod,’’ in Film-Dienst (Cologne), vol. 47, 20 December 1994. Sight and Sound (London), vol. 5, no. 10, October 1995. Cineforum (Boldone), vol. 36, no. 351, January-February 1996. *** In his brief career, Elio Petri became renowned as one of the major political filmmakers of the 1960s and 1970s. He was also among the directors who achieved an international stature for the Italian cinema for the third time in its history. From his first feature, an original variation on the police thriller, he maintained a consistently high quality of style and poignant subject matter. Even with the bitterness, grotesqueness, and complexity of his films, many of them achieved a huge commercial success. The Tenth Victim, for example, a stylized science-fiction collage of Americanisms that concentrates on the voracious rapport between a man (Marcello Mastroianni) and a woman (Ursula Andress), plays repeatedly on American television. Investigation of a Citizen above Suspicion (which won the Oscar for best foreign film) and The Working Class Goes to Heaven have enjoyed continued success with contemporary audiences through repertory screenings and 16mm distribution. With Investigation, Petri wanted to make a film against the police and the mechanisms that guaranteed immunity to the servants of power, yet intended no precise political references. His claim was that the state manifests itself through the police. Like his earlier film, A ciascuno il suo, it opens with a murder committed by a police official (Gian Maria Volonté), but, because of his position and manipulation of the system, it remains a crime without punish- ment. The film brilliantly studies the psychopathology of power, whereas with his other enormous success, The Working Class Goes to Heaven, Petri wanted to return to what he considered was the real basis of Italian neorealism—a popular hero. Filmed in a factory whose director was serving a prison sentence, it investigates the reasons why a worker is driven to strike. Again the protagonist was played by Volonté (whose name in the film, Massa, means ‘‘the masses’’). Although he is a highly individualized character, Petri PHALKE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 764 continually stresses that his actions, thoughts, goals, and even his sexuality are determined by society and its rules. Two common themes running throughout Petri’s work have been the alienation of modern man and investigations of the socio-political relationships between an individual and his/her society. Petri usually employs a highly stylistic form which he often describes as expres- sionist. This is most obvious, for example, in Todo modo, aptly described as a celebration of death. Quite grotesque, the film was not well received in Italy, where, despite its extreme stylization, it was read as a precise analogy of the ruling political party. Petri began his film career as a scriptwriter, most notably for Giuseppe De Santis’s Rome Eleven O’Clock: Petri often stated that De Santis was his only mentor, and like him, Petri directed relatively few films, carefully chosen for content and precisely planned in style and detail. Filmmaking was, in his opinion, the most popular tool with which a culture could understand itself. Thus, he is considered not an artisan, but an auteur, a filmmaker who closely identified the filmmaking process with personal, social, moral, and political duties. —Elaine Mancini PHALKE, Dadasaheb Nationality: Indian. Born: Dhundiraj Govind Phalke in Trymbakeshwar, near Nasik, 30 April 1870. Education: Studied drawing at J.J. School of Arts, Bombay; art studies at Kalabhavan, Baroda. Family: Married first wife in 1885 (she died in 1900); married Saraswatabai (Phalke), daughter Mandakini. Career: Por- trait photographer and scene painter, from 1900; draughtsman and photographer, Government of India’s Archaelogical Department, 1903; opened Phalke Engraving and Printing Works, 1905; left business, saw Life of Christ in Bombay, inspired to make films, 1910; made short film, Growth of a Pea Plant, 1911; suffered temporary blindness; travelled to London to buy filmmaking equipment, met Cecil Hepworth, 1912; returned to build studio in Bombay, then made first feature film and first Indian film, Raja Harishchandra, released April 1913; ‘‘Phalke’s Films’’ incorporated into the Hindustan Film Company, 1917; daughter played role of boy Krishna in Kaliya Mardan, 1918; retired to Benares, 1919; recalled to direct, 1922; attempted to set up business selling enamel boards, 1933; recalled for last film as director, Gangavataran, 1934 (completed 1936). Died: In Nasik, 16 February 1944. Films as Director, Scriptwriter, Producer, and Cinematographer: (partial list: Phalke made approximately one hundred feature films and twenty-two shorts) 1911 Growth of a Pea Plant (short) 1913 Raja Harishchandra 1914 Mohini Bhasmasur; Pithache Panje (short); Savitri Stayavan 1914/15 Soulagna Rasa; Mr. Sleepy’s Good Luck; Agkadyanchi Mouj (anim); Animated Coins (anim); Vichitra Shilpa (Inanimate Animated) (anim); Sinhasta Parvani; Kartiki Purnima Festival; Ganesh Utsava; Glass Works (doc); Talegaon (doc); Bird’s Eye View of Budh Gaya (doc); Rock-Cut Temples of Ellora (doc); How Films Are Made (short); Prof. Kelpha’s Magic (+ role) 1916/17 Raja Harishchandra (new version); Lanka Dahan 1918 Shree Krishna Janma; Kaliya Mardan 1923 Sati Mahananda 1932 Setu Bandhan 1937 Gangavataran 1965 Raja Harishchandra: D.G. Phalke (1870–1944): The First Indian Film Director (compiled by Prof. Satish Bahadur) Publications By PHALKE: articles— Four articles in Navyug (Bombay), September 1983. Interview reprinted in Close Up (India), July 1968. On PHALKE: books— Barnouw, Erik, and S. Krishnasway, Indian Film, New York, 1965. Ramachandran, T.M., 70 Years of Indian Cinema (1913–1983), Bombay, 1985. On PHALKE: articles— Close Up (India), January/March 1979. Cinema Vision, January 1980. Rajadhyaksha, A., ‘‘Neo-Traditionalism,’’ in Framework (Norwich), no. 32–33, 1986. Shoesmith, B., ‘‘Swadeshi: Cinema, Politics, and Culture: The Writ- ings of D. G. Phalke,’’ in Continuum, vol. 2, 1988–1989. Chabria, S., ‘‘D. G. Phalke and the Méliès Tradition in Early Indian Cinema,’’ in Kintop, no. 2, 1993. *** In 1912 Dadasaheb Phalke made Raja Harishchandra, conven- tionally considered India’s first feature film. Between 1912 and 1917, despite problems relating to finance and the import of equipment because of the war, Phalke and Co. (as the director’s concern was called) managed to remain in production. Given such historical facts, Phalke’s grand claim that he started the Indian film industry is actually quite a reasonable one. Phalke brought an impressive string of qualifications to the cinema: painter, printer, engraver, photographer, drama teacher, and magician. The last distinction is particularly notable. He explained that his decision to make Hindu mythological films was due not only to his religious-minded audiences, but also because such subjects allowed him ‘‘to bring in mystery and miracles.’’ The mythological aspect of the works he pursued was especially suited to fulfil the early fascination with the cinema as magical toy: hence the extensive use of dissolves and superimpositions to herald miraculous happenings in the handful of Phalke’s films that have survived. The Phalke biography is instructive for the insights it provides about media history. A well-known early story is that Phalke’s immersion in intense viewing and experimentation led to ill health and temporary blindness. There is a revelatory, metaphorical aspect to the loss and recovery of sight in a man who declared that he would bring images of revered Indian deities to the screen, just as Christ’s PIALATDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 765 image had been presented in the West. Earlier, as photographer and printer, Phalke had been involved in the mass production of the famous religious paintings of Raja Ravi Varma. Phalke’s work therefore wove into the early history of cultural self-representation through new media technologies, a period intimately related to the creation of a mass market in indigenous imagery and identity. Equally important was Phalke’s relationship with the theatre. At the time Phalke’s first films were released in Bombay, it was said that the cinema was displacing traditional entertainments, such as the theatre and circus, because of its astounding popularity. When Phalke took his films to Poona in 1913, they were screened at a theatre which normally exhibited performances of Tamasha, a western Indian dramatic form. Theatre also left its mark on the new entertainment. In Raja Harischandra, the priest as comic character—a staple of the western Indian stage—was used. Moreover, it was because of the develop- ment of the theatrical tradition that Phalke was able get the women performers he sought for his female roles—even prostitutes had refused to associate themselves with films. A lay-off in a theatrical company briefly secured for him the services of Durgabhai Gokhale and her daughter, Kamalabhai, the first women actresses of the Indian cinema. For financial reasons, Phalke and Co. merged with the Hindustan Film Company in 1918. Except for the period 1919–22, Phalke continued to work with this company till 1932, when it was wound up. In his working life as director, which spanned the ages of forty-two to sixty-four, Phalke made some 122 feature films and shorts, conclud- ing his career with Gangavataran, the only one planned as a talkie. Thereafter he conceived of various schemes, such as setting up a production unit for short films for the Prabhat company, but nothing came of these ideas, and the last years of his life were spent in relative obscurity. —Ravi Vasudevan PIALAT, Maurice Nationality: French. Born: Puy de D?me, 31 August 1925. Educa- tion: Studied Art at Ecole des Arts Décoratifs and Ecole des Beaux Arts, Paris. Career: Exhibited work at salons, 1945–47; actor and assistant stage director to Michel Vitold, from 1955; worked in TV, made films, from 1960; directed first feature, 1967. Awards: Jean Vigo Prize, for L’enfance nue, 1967; Prix Louis Delluc, and César for Best Film, for A nos amours, 1983; Palme d’Or, Cannes Festival, for Sous le soleil de Satan, 1987. Films as Director: 1960 L’amour existe (short) 1961 Janine (for TV) 1962 Maitre Galip (for TV) 1967 L’enfance nue (+ sc) 1971 La maison des bois (for TV) (+ role) 1972 Nous ne vieillirons pas ensemble (+ sc, pr) 1974 La gueule ouverte (+ sc, pr) 1979 Passe ton bac d’abord 1979 Loulou Maurice Pialat 1983 A nos amours (To Our Loves) 1985 Police (+ co-sc) 1987 Sous le soleil de Satan (Under Satan’s Sun) (+ co-sc, role) 1991 Van Gogh (+ sc) 1995 Le Gar?u (+ sc) 1997 Les Auto-stoppeuses Other Film: 1969 Que la bete meure (Chabrol) (role) Publications By PIALAT: book— Nous ne vieillirons pas ensemble, Paris, 1972. By PIALAT: articles— Interview in Image et Son (Paris), March 1972. Interviews in Positif (Paris), May 1974 and October 1980. Interviews in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1979 and Decem- ber 1983. Interview with E. Carrère and M. Sineux, in Positif (Paris), Janu- ary 1984. PIALAT DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 766 Interview with Michel Ciment and others, in Positif (Paris), Octo- ber 1985. Interview with Serge Toubiana and Alain Philippon, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1987. Interview with L. Vachaud, in Positif (Paris), November 1991. Interview with Michel Ciment and M. Sineux, in Positif (Paris), May 1992. Interview with C. Collard, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1993. Interview with Frédéric Strauss and others, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1993. Interview with Philippe Garel, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1994. Interview with Jacques Kermabon, in 24 Images (Montreal), no. 77, Summer 1995. Interview with Vincent Amiel and others, in Positif (Paris), Decem- ber 1995. On PIALAT: books— Magny, Joel, Maurice Pialat, Paris, 1992. Toffetti, Sergio, and Aldo Tassone, Maurice Pialat: L’enfant sauvage, Torino, 1992. On PIALAT: articles— Bonitzer, Pascal, ‘‘Le rayonnement Pialat,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1981. Dossier on Pialat, in Cinématographe (Paris), November 1983. Pialat Section of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1983. Gras, P., ‘‘Maurice Pialat,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), Septem- ber 1985. Vincendeau, Ginette, ‘‘Pialat le terrible,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), March 1986. Martin, Marcel, and G. Lenne, ‘‘Le silence de Dieu: Critiques dans l’auditorium—perplexes,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), Septem- ber 1987. Chevassu, F., ‘‘Les droles de chemins de Maurice Pialat,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), December 1990. Vrdlovec, Z., ‘‘Maurice Pialat,’’ in Ekran (Ljubljana), vol. 16, no. 9/ 10, 1991. Jousse, T., ‘‘L’affaire Van Gogh,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1991. Rouyer, P., ‘‘Quelques jours avec lui,’’ in Positif (Paris), Novem- ber 1991. Signorelli, A., ‘‘France Cinema: la Scoperta si chiama Pialat,’’ in Cineforum (Bergamo), January-February 1993. Roy, A., ‘‘Petit dictionnaire pour Maurice Pialat,’’ in Revue de la Cinématheque (Montreal), March/April 1993. Depardieu Gérard, ‘‘Je vous salue Maurice,’’ in Télérama (Paris), 19 July 1995. *** Described by Alain Bergala in Cahiers du Cinéma as ‘‘Renoir’s true heir today,’’ Maurice Pialat is squarely in the tradition of French auteur cinema. Like Renoir, Feyder, and Grémillon in the 1930s, and Godard, Resnais, Varda, and a few others after the war, Pialat is an artisan who works both within and against the French film industry. He has often acknowledged his ‘‘debt’’ to Renoir, as well as to Pagnol, in terms of both working methods and a certain conception of realism. However, unlike the benign humanism of these two prede- cessors, Pialat’s work is marked by harshness, violence, and conflict, both on and off screen. From his first feature (L’enfance nue, on deprived childhood), Pialat’s films have shown an almost ethnographic concern with unglamorous areas of French society: difficult adolescents (Passe ton bac d’abord), semi-hooligans (Loulou), the bitter breakdown of a couple (Nous ne vieillirons pas ensemble) and cancer (La gueule ouverte), combining a quasi cinéma-vérité approach with the reworking of deeply personal matters. Although Pialat has claimed to be ‘‘fed up with realism,’’ and even though he has made forays into genre films with Police and Sous le soleil de Satan, his cinema is still within a realistic idiom, fusing the New Wave (and neo-realist) concern with location shooting and contemporary setting with the ‘‘intimate’’ realism of the central European cinema of the 1960s. His films draw on basic realist strategies such as the use of non-professional or little- known actors (sometimes alongside stars like Gérard Depardieu, and on occasion—Renoir-style—the charismatic Pialat himself), the fre- quent recourse to improvisation and colloquial language, hand-held camerawork, long takes, and shooting without a finished script. If these strategies traditionally produce a sense of immediacy and authenticity, they often combine, in Pialat’s films, with a rare violence. Pialat has earned a reputation as a ‘‘difficult’’ director. To some extent, this is an inherent part of the myth of auteur cinema which stresses the romantic pains of creation. Yet Pialat’s career is littered with well-publicized working and personal conflicts: with actors Gérard Depardieu (Loulou) and Sophie Marceau (Police), with scriptwriter Catherine Breillat over Police, and with technicians on many occasions. But part of his method consists precisely of inscrib- ing his own personal relationships within the fabric of his films, as epitomised in A nos amours by the Pialat/Bonnaire couple (on several professional and personal levels). ‘‘Pialat le terrible,’’ as he was dubbed by a French paper, sometimes makes headlines, and occasionally the courtrooms. This would be mere gossip if it did not echo the very subject matter of his films. In the same way as Sam Fuller defined cinema as ‘‘a battle- ground,’’ Pialat’s filmmaking might be described as belonging to the boxing ring. He has repeatedly stated his preference for situations where people have rows, where they clash, where ‘‘there is trouble,’’ and this is borne out by all his films, where conflict is the preferred element, a type of conflict which moreover assumes a great physicality. In Pialat’s cinema, contact is more likely to be made through violence than through tenderness, particularly within the family, where the boxing ring overlaps with the Oedipal stage. This is true both thematically (families and couples tearing each other apart) and in the way Pialat’s films address their spectators. A predominance of indoor scenes shot in claustrophobic medium close-ups, and the deliberate inclusion of ‘‘flawed’’ episodes, of moments of rupture or tension in the films, are ways of capturing ‘‘the truth’’ of characters or situa- tions, sometimes with little regard for narrative continuity. Pialat does not pull his punches, and his cinema, in the words of editor Yann Dedet, ‘‘tends more towards emotion than comprehension.’’ PICKDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 767 If Pialat’s films, in their bleak examination of some of the least palatable aspects of contemporary French society and personal emo- tions, make for difficult viewing, their reward lies in an emotional and documentary power rare in French cinema today. —Ginette Vincendeau PICK, Lupu Nationality: Romanian. Also known as ‘‘Lupu-Pick.’’ Born: Iasi (Jassy), 2 January 1886. Family: Married Edith Pasca. Career: Actor in Romania, 1914; immigrated to Germany, acted in Hamburg and Berlin, 1915; founded production company Rex Filmgesellschaft, 1917; directed first film, 1918; elected President of DACHO (German actors’ union), 1930. Died: In Berlin, 9 March 1931. Films as Director: 1918 Der Weltspiegel; Die Liebe des van Royk; Die Rothenburger; Die tolle Heirat von Laló; Mister Wu 1919 Der Seelenverk?ufer; Herr über Leben und Tod; Kitsch; Marionetten der Leidenschaft; Mein Wille ist Gesetz; T?tet nicht mehr!; Misericordia (+ pr) 1920 Der Dummkopf (The Idiot) (+ role); Niemand weiss es 1921 Aus den Erinnerungen eines Frauenarztes Part 2; Grausige N?chte; Scherben (Shattered) 1922 Zum Paradies der Damen 1923 Sylvester (New Year’s Eve); Der verbotene Weg (+ role) 1924 La Péniche tragique 1925 Das Haus der Lüge 1926 Das Panzergew?lbe (Armored Vault) (+ co-sc) 1928 Eine Nacht in London (A Night in London) (+ pr) 1929 Napoléon a Sainte-Hélène (Napoleon auf St. Helena) 1931 Les Quatres Vagabonds; Gassenhauer Other Films: 1915 Schlemihl (Oswald) (role); Hoffmanns Erz?hlungen (Oswald) (role); Die Pagode (Mr. Wu) (role) 1916 N?chte des Grauens (Robison) (role); Homunculus series (role) 1917 Die Fremde (role) 1917/18 Es werde Licht (three episodes) (role) 1922 Fliehende Schatten (Lamprecht) (co-sc, role) 1923 Stadt in Sicht (role) 1926 Alte Herzen, neue Zeiten (role) 1928 Spione (Lang) (role) Publications On PICK: books— Kracauer, Siegfried, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological His- tory of the German Film, Princeton, New Jersey, 1947. Borde, Raymond, Freddy Bauche, Fran?ois Courtade, and Marcel Tariol, Le Cinéma réaliste allemand, Paris, 1959. Eisner, Lotte, The Haunted Screen: Expressionism in the German Cinema and the Influence of Max Reinhardt, translated by Robert Greaves, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969. Manvell, Roger, and Heinrich Fraenkel, The German Cinema, New York, 1971. *** Lupu Pick, a pioneer of the German Kammerspielfilm that led the way from expressionism to the new realism of the late 1920s, came to the cinema from the Berlin stage, where he worked as an actor under Piscator and Reinhardt. His first films as a director were segments of an adventure series for popular actor Bernd Aldor. Two films that Pick created with scriptwriter Carl Mayer, Scherben and Sylvester, are the basis of his reputation. Scherben was the first German experiment in filmmaking without intertitles. Pick and Mayer adapted the name of Reinhardt’s smallest stage—which had come to represent the intimacy and concentration of the plays staged there—in the subtitle of their first film together: Scherben, ein deutsches Filmkammerspiel. Critics often attribute the success of Scherben and Sylvester to Mayer. Indeed, Mayer wrote many of the films usually counted as kammerspielfilme, working with Murnau, Jessner, and Gerlack. But Pick undeniably contributed his unique interpretation of Mayer’s scripts. Scherben uses a single intertitle and is distinguished by the extended use of a moving camera, especially in long tracking shots along railway ties. This movement contrasts sharply with the station- ary plot, the slow movement of the actors, and the long-held, still shots. At times masks seem to be used in response to the expressionist punctuation Mayer used in his scripts. Diagonal slash masks isolate an image just as Mayer’s one word sentences are set off by exclama- tion marks. Pick created a new, non-expressionist style, concentrating on naturalistic detail rather than on abstraction. Perhaps it was this enthusiasm for naturalism that led Pick to linger over the process of mechanical tasks and everyday events. Yet his work remains tied to the expressionist movement. The actors in his films, especially his wife Edith Posca and Werner Krauss, operated within the range of theatrical expressionist style. Shot at Pick’s own Rex Studios in Berlin, Scherben is to a great extent manufactured in the studio, although its intent and its effect involve a realist illusion. Unlike filmmakers truly caught up in expressionism, Pick was concerned with portraying individual psychology. In his attempts to construct a drama without language he developed a system of irises and dissolves that was quite different from the psychological editing style then developing in Hollywood. Rather than cut to a reaction, Pick often masked the frame, isolating a single character. At other times he would compose a shot so that an object, framed in relation to a character, could represent a thought. While the style that Pick developed may have had little influence on subsequent filmmaking, it was nevertheless a bold experiment in film narrative in its time. Originally Pick and Mayer had planned a trilogy that would include Scherben, Sylvester, and Der letze Mann, but a disagreement over the character of the doorman in the third film led to Pick’s departure from the project. The films Pick made after his collaboration with Mayer are not remembered by many. He continued to work as an actor, both on stage POLANSKI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 768 and in films. His best known role is that of Dr. Matsumoto in Lang’s Spione. Pick made a single sound film, Gassenhauer, reportedly an experiment in asynchronous sound. —Ann Harris POLANSKI, Roman Nationality: Polish. Born: Paris, 18 August 1933. Education: Krakow Liceum Sztuk Plastycznych (art school), 1950–53; State Film School, Lodz, 1954–59. Family: Married 1) actress Barbara Kwiatkowska, 1959 (divorced 1961); 2) actress Sharon Tate, 1968 (died 1969); 3) actress Emmanuelle Seigner, 1989. Career: Returned to Poland, 1936; actor on radio and in theatre, from 1945, and in films, from 1951; joined filmmaking group KAMERA as assistant to Andrzej Munk, 1959; directed first feature, Knife in the Water, 1962, denounced by Polish Communist Party chief Gomulka, funding for subsequent films denied, moved to Paris, 1963; moved to London, 1964, then to Los Angeles, 1968; wife Sharon Tate and three friends murdered in Bel Air, California, home by members of Charles Manson cult, 1969; opera director, from 1974; convicted by his own plea of unlawful sexual intercourse in California, 1977; committed to a diagnostic facility, Department of Correction; upon completion of study, returned to Paris; also stage actor and director. Awards: Silver Bear, Berlin Film Festival, for Repulsion, 1965; Golden Bear, Berlin Festival, for Cul-de-Sac, 1966; César Award, for Tess, 1980. Ad- dress: Lives in Paris. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1955/57 Rower (The Bike) (short) 1957/58 Morderstwo (The Crime) (short) 1958 Rozbijemy zabawe (Break up the Dance) (short); Dwaj ludzie z szasa (Two Men and a Wardrobe) (short) (+ role) 1959 Gdy spadaja anioly (When Angels Fall) (short) (+ role as old woman) 1961 Le Gros et le maigre (The Fat Man and the Thin Man) (short) (co-sc, + role as servant) 1962 Ssaki (Mammals) (short) (co-sc, + role); Nóz w wodzie (Knife in the Water) (co-sc) 1963 ‘‘La Rivière de diamants’’ (‘‘A River of Diamonds’’) episode of Les Plus Belles Escroqueries du monde (The Most Beautiful Swindles in the World) (co-sc) 1964 Repulsion (co-sc) 1965 Cul-de-sac (co-sc) 1967 The Fearless Vampire Killers (Pardon Me, but Your Teeth Are in My Neck; Dance of the Vampires) (co-sc, + role as Alfred) 1968 Rosemary’s Baby 1972 Macbeth (co-sc) 1973 What? (Che?; Diary of Forbidden Dreams) (co-sc, + role as Mosquito) 1974 Chinatown (d only, + role as man with knife) 1976 Le Locataire (The Tenant) (co-sc, + role as Trelkovsky) 1979 Tess (co-sc) 1985 Pirates (co-sc) 1988 Frantic (co-sc) 1992 Bitter Moon (co-sc,pr) 1993 Death and the Maiden 1999 The Ninth Gate (co-sc, pr) 2001 The Pianist (+ co-sc, pr) Other Films: 1953 Trzy opowiesci (Three Stories) (Nalecki, Poleska, Petelski) (role as Maly) 1954 Pokolenie (A Generation) (Wajda) (role as Mundek) 1955 Zaczárowany rower (The Enchanted Bicycle) (Sternfeld) (role as Adas) 1956 Koniec wojny (End of the Night) (Dziedzina, Komorowski, Uszycka) (role as Maly) 1957 Wraki (Wrecks) (Petelski) (role) 1958 Zadzwoncie do mojej zony (Phone My Wife) (Mach) (role) 1959 Lotna (Wajda) (role as bandsman) 1960 Niewinni czarodzieje (Innocent Sorcerors) (Wajda) (role as Dudzio); Ostroznie yeti (The Abominable Snowman) (Czekalski) (role); Do Widzenia do Jutra (See You Tomor- row) (Morgenstern) (role as Romek); Zezowate szczescie (Bad Luck) (Munk) (role) 1964 Do You Like Women? (Léon) (co-sc) 1968 The Woman Opposite (Simon) (co-sc) 1969 A Day at the Beach (Hessera) (pr); The Magic Christian (McGrath) (role) 1972 Weekend of a Champion (Simon) (pr, role as interviewer) 1974 Blood for Dracula (Morrissey) (role as a villager) 1991 Back in the USSR (Serafian) (role as Kurilov) 1994 Gross Fatigue (role as himself) 1995 A Simple Formality (role as Inspector) 2000 Ljuset h?ller mig s?llskap (Light Keeps Me Company) (Nykvist) (role as himself); Hommage à Alfred Lepetit (Tribute to Alfred Lepetit) (Rousselot) (role) Publications By POLANSKI: books— What?, New York, 1973. Three Films, London, 1975. Roman (autobiography), London, 1984. Polanski par Polanski, edited by Pierre-André Boutang, Paris, 1986. By POLANSKI: articles— Interview with Gretchen Weinberg, in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1963/64. ‘‘Landscape of a Mind: Interview with Roman Polanski,’’ with Michel Delahaye and Jean-André Fieschi, in Cahiers du Cinéma in English (New York), February 1966. Interview with Michel Delahaye and Jean Narboni, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1968. ‘‘Polanski in New York,’’ an interview with Harrison Engle, in Film Comment (New York), Fall 1968. Interview with Joel Reisner and Bruce Kane, in Cinema (Los Ange- les), vol. 5, no. 2, 1969. POLANSKIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 769 Roman Polanski ‘‘Satisfaction: A Most Unpleasant Feeling,’’ an interview with Gor- don Gow, in Films and Filming (London), April 1969. Interview, in The Film Director as Superstar, by Joseph Gelmis, Garden City, New York, 1970. ‘‘Playboy Interview: Roman Polanski,’’ with Larry DuBois, in Play- boy (Chicago), December 1971. ‘‘Andy Warhol Tapes Roman Polanski,’’ in Inter/View (New York), November 1973. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Roman Polanski,’’ in American Film (Washing- ton, D.C.), August 1974. ‘‘Roman Polanski on Acting,’’ with D. Brandes, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), January 1977. ‘‘Tess,’’ an interview with Serge Daney and others, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1979. Interview with P. Pawlikowski and L. Kolodziejczyk, in Stills (Lon- don), April/May 1984. Interview with O. Darmon, in Cinématographe (Paris), May 1986. ‘‘Roman Oratory,’’ an interview with Andrea R. Vaucher, in Ameri- can Film, April 1991. ‘‘At the Point of No Return,’’ an interview with Rider McDowell, in California, August 1991. ‘‘Entretien avec Roman Polanski,’’ with A. de Baecque and T. Jousse, in Cahiers du Cinéma, May 1992. ‘‘Roman Polanski’s Bitter Moon,’’ an interview with Stephen O’Shea, in Interview, March 1994. ‘‘From Knife to Death with Roman Polanski,’’ an interview with Tomm Carroll, in DGA Magazine (Los Angeles), December- January 1994–1995. Interview with Catherine Axelrad and Laurent Vachaud, in Positif (Paris), April 1995. ‘‘I Make Films for Adults: Death and the Maiden,’’ an interview with David Thompson and Nick James, in Sight and Sound (London), April 1995. ‘‘Death and the Maiden: Trial by Candlelight,’’ an interview with Stephen Pizzello, in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), April 1995. ‘‘Polanski: En studie I skr?ck (och h?mnd),’’ an interview with Anneli Bojstad, in Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 37, no. 2, 1995. ‘‘The Most Popular Illusionists in the World,’’ in Interview, Janu- ary 1996. ‘‘Letters: [I Am Writing You This Letter?],’’ in Vanity Fair (New York), July 1997. POLANSKI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 770 On POLANSKI: books— Butler, Ivan, The Cinema of Roman Polanski, New York, 1970. Kane, Pascal, Roman Polanski, Paris, 1970. Belmans, Jacques, Roman Polanski, Paris, 1971. Bisplinghoff, Gretchen, and Virginia Wexman, Roman Polanski: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1979. Kiernan, Thomas, The Roman Polanski Story, New York, 1980. Leaming, Barbara, Polanski: The Filmmaker as Voyeur: A Biogra- phy, New York, 1981; also published as Polanski: His Life and Films, London, 1982. Paul, David W., Politics, Art, and Commitment in the Eastern European Cinema, New York, 1983. Dokumentation: Polanski und Skolimowski: Das absurde im film, Zurich, 1985. Wexman, Virginia Wright, Roman Polanski, Boston, 1985. Jacobsen, Wolfgang, and others, Roman Polanski, Munich, 1986. Avron, Dominique, Roman Polanski, Paris, 1987. McCarty, John, The Modern Horror Film, Secaucus, New Jer- sey, 1990. Preljocaj, Angelin, Roman Polanski, Paris, 1992. McCarty, John, Movie Psychos and Madmen, Secaucus, New Jer- sey, 1993. McCarty, John, The Fearmakers, New York, 1994. Goulding, Daniel J., ed., Five Filmmakers: Tarkovsky, Forman, Polanski, Szabo, Makavejev, Bloomington, 1994. On POLANSKI: articles— Haudiquet, Philippe, ‘‘Roman Polanski,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), February/March 1964. Brach, Gérard, ‘‘Polanski via Brach,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), no. 93, 1965. McArthur, Colin, ‘‘Polanski,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Win- ter 1968. McCarty, John, ‘‘The Polanski Puzzle,’’ in Take One (Montreal), May/June 1969. Tynan, Kenneth, ‘‘Polish Imposition,’’ in Esquire (New York), September 1971. ‘‘Le Bal des vampires,’’ special Polanski issue of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), January 1975. Leach, J., ‘‘Notes on Polanski’s Cinema of Cruelty,’’ in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol. 2, no. 1, 1978. Kennedy, H., ‘‘Tess: Polanski in Hardy Country,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), October 1979. ‘‘L’Univers de Roman Polanski,’’ special section, in Cinéma (Paris), February 1980. Sinyard, Neil, ‘‘Roman Polanski,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), November/December 1981. Polanski Section of Kino (Warsaw), July 1986. Polanski Section of Positif (Paris), May 1988. Sutton, M., ‘‘Polanski in Profile,’’ in Films and Filming (London), September 1988. Ansen, David, ‘‘The Man Who Got Away,’’ in Newsweek, 28 March 1994. Weschler, Lawrence, ‘‘Artist in Exile,’’ in New Yorker, 5 Decem- ber 1994. Davis, Ivor, ‘‘Out of Exile?’’ in Los Angeles Magazine, January 1995. Heilpern, John, ‘‘Roman’s Tortured Holiday,’’ in Vanity Fair, Janu- ary 1995. Aitio, Tommi, ‘‘Puolalainen Hollywoodissa,’’ in Filmihullu (Helsinki), no. 3, 1997. Robinson, J., ‘‘Polanski’s Inferno,’’ in Vanity Fair (New York), April 1997. Epstein, J., ‘‘Bertolucci Leads a Star-studded Panel on Cinematic Investigation,’’ in Cinema Papers (Fitzroy), August 1997. Leitch, Thomas M., ‘‘The Hitchcock Moment,’’ in Hitchcock Annual (Gambier), 1997–1998. Fierz, Charles L., ‘‘Polanski Misses: Polanski’s Reading of Hardy’s Tess,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), April 1999. *** As a student at the Polish State Film School and later as a director working under government sponsorship, Roman Polanski learned to make films with few resources. Using only a few trained actors (there are but three characters in his first feature) and a hand-held camera (due to the unavailability of sophisticated equipment) Polanski man- aged to create several films which contributed to the international reputation of the burgeoning Polish cinema. These same limitations contributed to the development of a visual style which was well suited to the director’s perspective on modern life: one which emphasized the sort of precarious, unstable world suggested by a hand-held camera, and the sense of isolation or removal from a larger society which follows the use of only small groupings of characters. In fact, Polanski’s work might be seen as an attempt to map out the precise relationship between the contemporary world’s instability and tendency to violence and the individual’s increasing inability to overcome his isolation and locate some realm of meaning or value beyond himself. What makes this concern with the individual and his psyche especially remarkable is Polanski’s cultural background. As a product of a socialist state and its official film school at Lodz, he was expected to use his filmmaking skills to advance the appropriate social con- sciousness and ideology sanctioned by the government. However, Polanski’s first feature, Knife in the Water, drew the ire of the Communist Party and was denounced at the Party Congress in 1964 for showing the negative aspects of Polish life. Although less an ideological statement than an examination of the various ways in which individual desires and powers determine our lives, Knife in the Water and the response it received seem to have precipitated Polanski’s subsequent development into a truly international filmmaker. In a career that has taken him to France, England, Italy, and the United States in search of opportunities to write, direct, and act, he has consistently shown more interest in holding up a mirror to the individual impulses, unconscious urges, and the personal psychoses of human life than in dissecting the different social and political forces he has observed. The various landscapes and geographies of Polanski’s films certainly seem designed to enhance this focus, for they pointedly remove his characters from most of the normal structures of social life as well as from other people. The boat at sea in Knife in the Water, the oppressive flat and adjoining convent in Repulsion, the isolated castle and flooded causeway of Cul-de-sac, the prison-like apartments of Rosemary’s Baby and The Tenant, and the empty fields and deserted manor house in Tess form a geography of isolation that is often symbolically transformed into a geography of the mind, haunted by doubts, fears, desires, or even madness. The very titles of films like Cul-de-sac and Chinatown are especially telling in this regard, for they point to the essential strangeness and isolation of Polanski’s POLLACKDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 771 locales, as well as to the sense of alienation and entrapment which consequently afflicts his characters. Brought to such strange and oppressive environments by the conditions of their culture (Chinatown), their own misunderstood urges (Repulsion), or some inexplicable fate (Macbeth), Polanski’s protagonists struggle to make the unnatural seem natural, to turn entrapment into an abode, although the result is typically tragic, as in the case of Macbeth, or absurd, as in Cul-de-sac. Such situations have prompted numerous comparisons, especially of Polanski’s early films, to the absurdist dramas of Samuel Beckett. As in many of Beckett’s plays, language and its inadequacy play a sig- nificant role in Polanski’s works, usually forming a commentary on the absence or failure of communication in modern society. The dramatic use of silence in Knife in the Water actually ‘‘speaks’’ more eloquently than much of the film’s dialogue of the tensions and desires which drive its characters and operate just beneath the personalities they try to project. In the conversational clichés and banality which mark much of the dialogue in Cul-de-sac, we can discern how language often serves to cloak rather than communicate meaning. The problem, as the director most clearly shows in Chinatown, is that language often simply proves inadequate for capturing and conveying the complex and enigmatic nature of the human situation. Detective Jake Gittes’s consternation when Evelyn Mulwray tries to explain that the girl he has been seeking is both her daughter and her sister—the result of an incestuous affair with her father—points out this linguistic inadequacy for communicating the most discomfiting truths. It is a point driven home at the film’s end when, after Mrs. Mulwray is killed, Gittes is advised not to try to ‘‘say anything.’’ His inability to articulate the horrors he has witnessed ultimately trans- lates into the symptomatic lapse into silence also exhibited by the protagonists of The Tenant and Tess, as they find themselves increas- ingly bewildered by the powerful driving forces of their own psyches and the worlds they inhabit. Prompting this tendency to silence, and often cloaked by a procliv- ity for a banal language, is a disturbing force of violence which all of Polanski’s films seek to analyze—and for which they have frequently been criticized. Certainly, his own life has brought him all too close to this most disturbing impulse, for when he was only eight years old Polanski and his parents were interned in a German concentration camp where his mother died. In 1969 his wife Sharon Tate and several friends were brutally murdered by Charles Manson’s followers. The cataclysmic violence in the decidedly bloody adaptation of Macbeth, which closely followed his wife’s death, can be traced through all of the director’s features, as Polanski has repeatedly tried to depict the various ways in which violence erupts from the human personality, and to confront in this specter the problem of evil in the world. The basic event of Rosemary’s Baby—Rosemary’s bearing the offspring of the devil, a baby whom she fears yet, because of the natural love of a mother for her own child, nurtures—might be seen as a paradigm of Polanski’s vision of evil and its operation in our world. Typically, it is the innocent or unsuspecting individual, even one with the best of intentions, who unwittingly gives birth to and spreads the very evil or violence he most fears. The protagonist of The Fearless Vampire Killers, for example, sets about destroying the local vampire and saving his beloved from its unnatural hold. In the process, however, he himself becomes a vampire’s prey and, as a concluding voice-over solemnly intones, assists in spreading this curse through- out the world. It is a somber conclusion for a comedy, but a telling indication of the complex tone and perspective which mark Polanski’s films. He is able to assume an ironic, even highly comic attitude towards the ultimate and, as he sees it, inevitable human problem—an abiding violence and evil nurtured even as we individually struggle against these forces. The absurdist stance of Polanski’s short films, especially Two Men and a Wardrobe and The Fat and the Lean, represents one logical response to this paradox. That his narratives have grown richer, more complicated, and also more discomfiting in their exami- nation of this situation attests to Polanski’s ultimate commitment to understanding the human predicament and to rendering articulate that which seems to defy articulation. From his own isolated position—as a man effectively without a country—Polanski tries to confront the problems of isolation, violence, and evil, and to speak of them for an audience prone to their sway. After a highly publicized 1977 sex scandal resulted in his flight from the United States and subsequent exile, Polanski surprised many by doing an apparent about face in terms of subject matter, and creating one of his most restrained and visually beautiful films: the aforementioned Tess. It was based on the classic Thomas Hardy novel of innocence destroyed, Tess of the D’Urbervilles. Polanski dedicated the movie to the memory of his murdered wife, Sharon Tate. Tess was followed by Pirates, a parody of the swashbuckling adventure films starring Errol Flynn that Polanski had enjoyed as a youth. Walter Matthau starred in the film as the comically villainous Captain Red, a role Polanski had written for Jack Nicholson. When Pirates failed at the box-office, Polanski returned to the cinema of fear with Frantic, a Hitchcock-style thriller with a Polanski touch, starring Harrison Ford. The story of a man inadvertently trapped in a nightmare situation in a foreign land, Frantic drew upon many of Polanski’s favorite themes. But as a bid for critical and commercial success, it failed to repeat the performance of his earlier fear-films. The master of psychological suspense was not to be counted out yet, though. In 1992, Polanski bounced back with the film his fans had been clamoring for for years—a potent and powerful synthesis of all the absurdist comedies, parodies, thrillers, fear-films, and detective yarns Polanski had made in the past: Bitter Moon. He followed it up with the taut and well-reviewed but only modestly successful Death and the Maiden. Roman Polanski’s importance as a filmmaker hinges upon a uniquely unsettling point of view. All his characters try continually, however clumsily, to connect with other human beings, to break out of their isolation and to free themselves of their alienation. Could it be that his nightmarish films serve much the same purpose? Perhaps they too are the continuing efforts of a terrified young Jewish boy, adrift in a war-torn land, to connect with the rest of humanity—even after all these years. —J. P. Telotte, updated by John McCarty POLLACK, Sydney Nationality: American. Born: Lafayette, Indiana, 1 July 1934. Education: South Bend Central High School; studied with Sanford Meisner, Neighborhood Playhouse, New York. Military Service: U.S. Army, 1957–59. Family: Married Claire Griswold, 1958, three children. Career: Actor on Broadway and for TV, also acting instructor, from 1955; TV director in Los Angeles, from 1960; directed first film, 1965; also produced his own films, from 1975. Awards: Emmy Award for The Game, 1966; Oscars for Best Film and Best Direction, for Out of Africa, 1986. POLLACK DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 772 Sydney Pollack Films as Director: 1965 The Slender Thread 1966 This Property Is Condemned 1968 The Swimmer (Perry) (d one sequence only); The Scalphunters 1969 Castle Keep; They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? 1972 Jeremiah Johnson 1973 The Way We Were 1975 Three Days of the Condor; The Yakuza (Brotherhood of the Yakuza) (+ pr) 1976 Bobby Deerfield (+ pr) 1979 The Electric Horseman 1981 Absence of Malice (+ pr) 1982 Tootsie (+ co-pr, role as George Fields) 1985 Out of Africa (+ pr) 1990 Havana (+ co-pr) 1993 The Firm (+ pr) 1995 Sabrina (+ pr) 1999 Random Hearts (+ pr, role) Other Films: 1961 The Young Savages (Frankenheimer) (dialogue coach) 1962 War Hunt (Sanders) (role as Sergeant Van Horn) 1963 Il gattopardo (The Leopard) (Visconti) (supervisor of dubbed American version) 1973 Scarecrow (Schatzberg) (pr) 1980 Honeysuckle Rose (Schatzberg) (exec pr) 1984 Songwriter (Rudolph) (pr); Sanford Meisner—The Theater’s Best Kept Secret (doc) (exec pr) 1988 Bright Lights, Big City (Bridges) (pr) 1990 Presumed Innocent (Pakula) (pr); White Palace (Mandoki) (exec pr) 1992 The Player (Altman) (role); Death Becomes Her (role); Husbands and Wives (Allen) (role) 1993 Flesh and Bone (Kloves) (exec pr); Sense and Sensibility(Lee) (exec pr) 1998 Bronx County (Carter—for TV) (exec pr); Sliding Doors (Howitt) (pr); Poodle Springs (B. Rafelson—for TV) (exec pr); A Civil Action (Zaillian) (role) 1999 The Talented Mr. Ripley (Minghella) (exec pr); Eyes Wide Shut (Kubrick) (role) 2000 Up at the Villa (Haas) (exec pr) 2001 The Quiet American (Noyce) (pr) Publications By POLLACK: book— Out of Africa: The Shooting Script, with Kurt Luedke, New York, 1987. By POLLACK: articles— Interview with G. Langlois, in Cinéma (Paris), July/August 1972. ‘‘Nos Plus Belles Années,’’ an interview with Max Tessier, in Ecran (Paris), April 1974. Interview with L. Salvato, in Millimeter (New York), June 1975. ‘‘Sydney Pollack: The Way We Are,’’ an interview with Patricia Erens, in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1975. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Sydney Pollack,’’ in American Film (Washing- ton, D.C.), April 1978. ‘‘Sydney Pollack, An Actor’s Director,’’ an interview with P. Childs, in Millimeter (New York), December 1979. Interview with P. Carcassonne and J. Fieschi, in Cinématographe (Paris), March/April 1981. Interview with T. Ryan and S. Murray, in Cinema Papers (Mel- bourne), May/June 1983. Interview in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Fall 1983. Interview with J. A. Gili and M. Henry, in Positif (Paris), April 1986. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Sydney Pollack,’’ in American Film (Washing- ton, D.C.), December 1986. ‘‘Sydney Pollack,’’ an interview with A. Dutertre, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), March 1991. ‘‘Le papillon et l’ouragan: entretien avec Sydney Pollack,’’ with M. Henry, in Positif (Paris), March 1991. ‘‘Intervista a Sydney Pollack fra produzione e regia,’’ with F. La Polla, in Cineforum (Bergamo), July/August 1991. ‘‘J’espere que c’est a cause de Tootsie!’’ an interview with M. Henry, in Positif (Paris), December 1992. ‘‘John Seale, ACS Lends Firm Hand to Law Thriller,’’ an interview with Rick Baker and John Seale, in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), July 1993. McGregor, Alex and Brian Case, ‘‘The Bright Stuff: That Thinking Feeling,’’ in Time Out (London), 1 September 1993. Segnocinema (Vicenza), January/February 1994. POLONSKYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 773 Stivers, C., ‘‘Scions of the Times,’’ in Premiere (Boulder), Novem- ber 1995. Hindes, A., ‘‘Pollack Packs Full Bag,’’ in Variety (New York), 11/17 December 1995. Jacobsen, M., ‘‘Copyright on Trial in Denmark,’’ in Image Technol- ogy (London), May 1997. On POLLACK: books— Gili, Jean A., Sydney Pollack, Nice, 1971. Taylor, William R. Sydney Pollack, Boston, 1981. Leon, Michele, Sydney Pollack, Paris, 1991. Dworkin, Susan, Making Tootsie: A Film Study with Dustin Hoffman and Sydney Pollack, New York, 1991. Meyer, Janet L., Sydney Pollack: A Critical Filmography, Jeffer- son, 1998. On POLLACK: articles— Madsen, Axel, ‘‘Pollack’s Hollywood History,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1973. Massuyeau, M., ‘‘Dossier: Hollywood ’79: Sydney Pollack,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), March 1979. ‘‘Le Cavalier électrique Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 15 June 1980. Camy, G., ‘‘Sydney Pollack: Souvenirs d’Amérique,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), May/June 1986. Wharton, Dennis, ‘‘Top Directors Get behind Film-Labeling Legisla- tion,’’ in Variety (Paris), 29 July 1991. Bart, Peter, ‘‘Filmers Face the Future,’’ in Variety (Paris), 15 Novem- ber 1993. Stevenson, Jack, ‘‘Pan-and-Scan,’’ in Skrien (Amsterdam), April- May 1997. *** Sydney Pollack is especially noted for his ability to elicit fine performances from his actors and actresses and has worked with leading Hollywood stars, including Robert Redford (who has ap- peared in five Pollack films), Jane Fonda, Barbra Streisand, Dustin Hoffman, Paul Newman, and Burt Lancaster, among others. Though Pollack has treated a cross-section of Hollywood genres, the majority of his films divide into male-action dramas and female melodramas. Among the former are The Scalphunters, Castle Keep, Jeremiah Johnson, Three Days of the Condor, and The Yakuza. Among the latter are The Slender Thread, This Property Is Condemned, The Way We Were, and Bobby Deerfield. The typical Pollack hero is a loner whose past interferes with his ability to function in the present. Throughout the course of the narrative, the hero comes to trust another individual and exchanges his isolation for a new relationship. For the most part, Pollack’s heroines are intelligent women, often with careers, who possess moral strength, although in several cases they are victims of emotional weakness. Pollack is fond of portraying the attraction of opposites. The central issue in all of Pollack’s work focuses on the conflict between cultural antagonists. This can be racial, as in The Slender Thread, The Scalphunters, or Jeremiah Johnson (black vs. white; white vs. Indian); religious, as in The Way We Were (Protestant vs. Jew); geographic, as in This Property Is Condemned and The Electric Horseman (city vs. town); nationalistic, as in Castle Keep (Europe vs. America; East vs. West); or based on gender differences, as in Tootsie (feminine vs. masculine). Pollack’s films do not possess a readily identifiable visual style. However, his works are generally noteworthy for their total visual effect, and he frequently utilizes the helicopter shot. Structurally the plots possess a circular form, often ending where they began. Visually this is echoed in the circular dance floor of They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?, but is also apparent in Jeremiah Johnson and The Way We Were. Along with Sidney Lumet, Pollack is one of Hollywood’s foremost liberals. His work highlights social and political issues, exposing organized exploitation rather than individual villainy. Most prominent among the issues treated are racial discrimination (The Scalphunters), the destructiveness of war (Castle Keep), the Depres- sion (They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?), Hollywood blacklisting (The Way We Were), CIA activities (Three Days of the Condor), commer- cial exploitation (The Electric Horseman), media exploitation (Ab- sence of Malice), and feminism (Tootsie). Although Pollack has often been attacked for using these themes as background, rather than delving deeply into their subtleties, the French critics, among others, hold his work in high esteem. Over the years, Pollack’s cache in the Hollywood community has steadily risen. Unlike Lumet, to whom his work and directorial approach bear many similarities, he is not a New York director who occasionally works in Hollywood, but a Hollywood insider. His films make money and score multiple Oscar nominations. He is instantly forgiven for a failure like Havana, his sweeping attempt to recall the filmmaking styles of the Old Hollywood and such pictures as Casablanca. Because of all this, an American Film Institute Life Achievement Award cannot be long in coming for him. Pollack began his career as an actor and frequently appears, sometimes unbilled, in the films of other directors—though, ironically, not his own films a la Hitchcock (for whose legendary TV series Pollack both acted and directed). Woody Allen gave this former actor a particularly juicy part in Husbands and Wives. But Pollack prefers to direct, and with his standing in the industry he is able to command big budgets and big stars—and choice properties—for his work. His The Firm, based on the runaway best-seller by lawyer-turned-novelist John Grisham, and starring Tom Cruise, was a sizable hit, the film’s alteration of the book’s ending not even a minus with Grisham fans. His 1995 work, Sabrina, is, surprisingly, Pollack’s first outright romantic comedy, a remake of the 1954 Billy Wilder gem, with Harrison Ford, Julia Ormond, and Greg Kinnear taking the respective roles of Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn, and William Holden. —Patricia Erens, updated by John McCarty POLONSKY, Abraham Nationality: American. Born: New York City, 5 December 1910. Education: City College of New York; Columbia University, law degree. Career: Lawyer with Manhattan firm, then quit to write; signed with Paramount, late 1930s; served in Europe with Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S.), World War II; moved to Enterprise Productions, 1947; directed first feature, 1948; spent year in France, 1949; signed with Twentieth Century-Fox, 1950; called to testify POLONSKY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 774 Abraham Polonsky before House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), invoked Fifth Amendment, 1951; blacklisted until 1968; also novelist. Died: 26 October 1999, in Beverly Hills, California, of heart attack. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1948 Force of Evil 1970 Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here 1971 Romance of a Horsethief Other Films: 1947 Golden Earrings (Leisen) (sc); Body and Soul (Rossen) (sc) 1951 I Can Get It for You Wholesale (Gordon) (sc) 1968 Madigan (Siegel) (sc) 1979 Avalanche Express (Robson) (sc) 1982 Monsignor (sc) 1991 Guilty by Suspicion (sc) Publications By POLONSKY: book— A Cup of Tear: A Diary of the Warsaw Ghettos, with Abraham Lewin, Malden, 1988. To Illuminate Our Time: The Blacklisted Teleplays of Abraham Polonsky, Los Angeles, 1993. Force of Evil: The Critical Edition (Films as Literature Series), West Hills, 1996. You Are There Teleplays, West Hills, 1997. Odds against Tomorrow, West Hills, 1999. The World Above (Radical Novel Reconsidered), Champaign, 1999. By POLONSKY: articles— ‘‘Abraham Polonsky and Force of Evil,’’ an interview with William Pechter, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1962. Interview in Interviews with Film Directors, by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1967. PONTECORVODIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 775 Interview with William Pechter, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Win- ter 1968/69. Interview with Jim Cook and Kingsley Canham, in Screen (London), Summer 1970. ‘‘How the Blacklist Worked,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Fall/ Winter 1970. ‘‘Making Movies,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1971. ‘‘Nuits blanches pendant la liste noir: Extrait de journal,’’ in Positif (Paris), December/January 1977/78. ‘‘Tutkijasta tekijaksi,’’ an interview with P. von Bagh, in Filmihullu, no. 3, 1991. On POLONSKY: articles— Canham, Kingsley, ‘‘Polonsky,’’ in Film (London), Spring 1970. Butler, T., ‘‘Polonsky and Kazan: HUAC and the Violation of Personality,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1988. Neve, Brian, ‘‘Fellow Traveller,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1990. Schultheiss, John, ‘‘A Season of Fear: The Blacklisted Teleplays of Abraham Polonsky,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury), April 1996. Robinson, David, ‘‘The Unvanquished,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), June 1996. *** Abraham Polonsky’s filmography is quite thin: his second film as director, Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here, was released twenty-one years after his first, Force of Evil. ‘‘I was a left-winger,’’ he told Look magazine in 1970. ‘‘I supported the Soviet Union. In the middle 1940s, we’d have meetings at my house to raise money for strikers and radical newspapers.’’ For these crimes—and, equally, for the less-than-superficially patriotic qualities of his protagonists—a promis- ing, perhaps even major, directorial career was squelched in its infancy by the insidious Hollywood blacklist. A discussion of Polonsky would be incomplete without noting his collaborations with John Garfield, the American cinema’s original anti-hero. Polonsky scripted Body and Soul, one of the best boxing films of all time, and both authored and directed Force of Evil, a ‘‘B film’’ ignored in its time, but now a cult classic highly regarded for its use of blank verse dialogue. Garfield stars in Force of Evil as a lawyer immersed in the numbers racket. When his brother, a small-time gambler, is murdered by his gangster boss, he hunts the hood down and turns himself in to the police. In Body and Soul, the actor portrays a poor boy with a hard, knockout punch who rises in the fight game while alienating his family, friends, and the girl he loves. In the end he reforms, defying the mob by refusing to throw a fight. ‘‘What are you gonna do, kill me?’’ he chides the chief thug, ‘‘Everybody dies.’’ With that, he walks off into the night with his girl. The final cut of Body and Soul is as much Polonsky’s as it is director Robert Rossen’s. Polonsky claimed to have prevented Rossen from altering the film’s finale. Both of Polonsky’s protagonists become casualties of their desire for success. They seek out the all-American dream, but are corrupted in the process. They can only attain status by throwing fights, aligning themselves with lawbreakers. Fame and money, fancy hotels and snazzy suits, come not by hard work and honesty but by cheating, throwing the fight, fixing the books—the real American way. Polonsky, and Garfield, were blacklisted as much for the tone of their films as their politics. Polonsky’s heroes are cocky, cynical loner-losers, estranged from society’s mainstream, who break the rules and cause others extreme sorrow—not the moral, honest, often comic-book caricatures of American manhood that dominated Holly- wood cinema. In addition, Polonsky created a character in Body and Soul, a washed-up boxer (lovingly played by Canada Lee), who was one of the earliest portraits of a black man as a human being with emotions and feelings, a man exploited. Body and Soul and Force of Evil played the nation’s moviehouses in 1947 and 1948, when anything less than a positive vision of America was automatically suspect. Polonsky’s plight is particularly sad. His passport was revoked, and he could not escape to find work abroad. Years after others who had been blacklisted had returned to the good graces of the cinema establishment, he toiled in obscurity writing television shows and perhaps dozens of film scripts—some Academy Award winners— under assumed names. His first post-blacklist directorial credit, Willie Boy, is a spiritual cousin of his earlier work. It is the tale of a nonconformist Paiute Indian (Robert Blake, who played Garfield as a child in Humoresque), victimized by an insensitive society after he kills in self-defense. The parallels between Polonsky and his charac- ter’s fate are clear. Before the blacklist, Polonsky had hoped to film Thomas Mann’s novella, Mario and the Magician; in 1971, he was again planning this project, among others. None was ever completed. But most signifi- cantly, the films that he might have made between 1948 and 1969— the prime years of his creative life—can now only be imagined. —Rob Edelman PONTECORVO, Gillo Nationality: Italian. Born: Gilberto Pontecorvo in Pisa, 19 Novem- ber 1919. Education: Studied chemistry, University of Pisa. Mili- tary Service: Journalist, and partisan fighter, Milan (commanded 3rd Brigade), World War II. Career: Youth secretary, Italian Communist Party, 1946; Paris correspondent for Italian journals, late 1940s; began in films as assistant to Yves Allegret on Les Miracles n’ont lieu qu’une fois, 1951; made ten shorts, 1953–55; left Communist Party following invasion of Hungary, 1956; organizer of Venice Film Festival. Awards: Golden Lion, Venice Festival, for The Battle of Algiers, 1966. Address: via Paolo Frisi 18, Rome, Italy. Films as Director: 1955 ‘‘Giovanna’’ episode of Die Windrose 1957 La grande strada azzurra (La lunga strada azzurra; The Long Blue Road) (+ co-sc) 1960 Kapò (+ co-sc) 1966 La battaglia di Algeri (The Battle of Algiers) (+ co-sc, co-mus) 1969 Queimada (Burn!) PONTECORVO DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 776 Gillo Pontecorvo (right) on the set of Queimada 1979 Ogro (Operation Ogro) 1988 The Devil’s Bishop 1997 Nostalgia di protezione (+ sc); Segment titled ‘‘Nostalgia di protezione’’ in I Corti italiani (+ sc) Other Films: 1946 Il sole sorge ancora (Vergano) (role as partisan) Publications By PONTECORVO: articles— Interview with Guy Hennebelle, in Cinéma (Paris), December 1965. ‘‘The Battle of Algiers: An Adventure in Filmmaking,’’ in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), April 1967. Interview with Joan Mellen, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1972. ‘‘Using the Contradictions of the System,’’ an interview with H. Kalishman, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 6, no. 2, 1974. Interview with C. Lucas, in Cineaste (New York), Fall 1980. ‘‘Che cosa mi sta a cuore,’’ in Cinema Nuovo, November/Decem- ber 1992. ‘‘Fest Topper’s Trip down Memory Lane,’’ an interview with David Rooney, in Variety, August 28, 1995. On PONTECORVO: books— Mellen, Joan, Filmguide to ‘‘The Battle of Algiers,’’ Bloomington, Indiana, 1973. Solinas, Franco, Gillo Pontecorvo’s ‘‘The Battle of Algiers’’: A Film Written by Franco Solinas, New York, 1973. Michalczyk, John J., The Italian Political Filmmakers, Cranbury, New Jersey, 1986. On PONTECORVO: articles— Wilson, David, ‘‘Politics and Pontecorvo,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Fall 1970. Young, Deborah, ‘‘Pontecorvo Roars into Role as Fest Chief,’’ in Variety, March 2, 1992. PORTERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 777 Branbergen, A., ‘‘De stad moet onze prima donna zijn,’’ in Skoop, September 1992. Young, Deborah, ‘‘Fest Topper Crusading for Filmmakers,’’ in Variety, September 6, 1993. Alexander, Max, ‘‘The Road to Venice,’’ in Variety (New York), 30 May 1994. Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), no. 12, 1995. Sight and Sound (London), March 1997. *** Gillo Pontecorvo is concerned with the oppressed, those kept down by the unjust and cruel use of power—and who will eventually rebel against the oppressor. ‘‘I’ve always wanted to look at man during the hardest moments of his life,’’ the filmmaker has stated. An examination of his filmography indicates that he has been true to his goals and ideals. Kapò, for example, is the story of a young Jewish girl and her attempt to survive in a Nazi concentration camp. But Pontecorvo’s masterpiece is The Battle of Algiers, a meticulous re- creation of the historical events surrounding the successful rebellion against the French by Algeria between 1954 and 1962. Shot in authentic locales with both actors and non-professionals in a cinéma-vérité style, Pontecorvo’s black-and-white images seem like newsreels rather than staged sequences; the viewer can easily forget that the film is not a documentary. Additionally, the villains (chiefly the French Colonel Mathieu, played by Jean Martin) are not sadistic, one-dimensional imperialists, thugs and goons who abuse the rights of those they have colonized. While Mathieu is far from benevolent, he is believable and sympathetic, as much the victim of an exploitative society as the Algerians; the colonel even admits that the Algerians are destined to win—this is a lesson of history—and his job is just to temporarily put off the inevitable. The same is true for the most visible tyrant in Burn!, Sir William Walker (Marlon Brando), a confused, self-destructive British adven- turer who betrays the slaves who revolt on a Portuguese-controlled, sugar-producing Caribbean island in the mid-nineteenth century. Both Walker and Mathieu are depicted as human beings—with misguided values, perhaps, but human beings nonetheless. However, while The Battle of Algiers is a near-flawless film, the scenario of Burn! is muddled in that Walker’s motives are never really clear. Both films are potent politically in that the imperialists are not caricatured, yet at the same time it is clear that Pontecorvo sides with the Algerians and the slaves. At the beginning of The Battle of Algiers, for example, a tortured Algerian is held up by French paratroopers. Despite all that follows, this sequence is in and of itself a political statement, one that sets the tone for all that follows. Pontecorvo is a Marxist: in 1941, at the age of twenty-two, he became a member of the Italian Communist Party. His initial film, the ‘‘Giovanna’’ episode from Die Windrose, is a women’s rights movie shot in East Germany. And, in The Battle of Algiers, he deals specifically with partisans of the Algerian National Liberation Front who, via their actions, increase the political awareness of their fellow citizens. Here Pontecorvo illustrates how a group of individuals can unite into a political force and defeat a common enemy. This is achieved by violent means: if freedom is to be earned, suffering and physical force and even the deaths of innocent people may be necessary. Gillo Pontecorvo is a filmmaker whose art is scrupulously true to his politics. —Rob Edelman PORTER, Edwin S. Nationality: American. Born: Edwin Stratton Porter in Connellsville, Pennsylvania, 21 April 1869. Military Service: Served in U.S. Navy, assisted in development of gunnery range finder, 1893–96. Career: Left school at age fourteen, worked as sign painter, theater cashier, and stagehand; after military stint, worked for Raff & Gammon, marketers of Edison Vitascope; helped arrange first New York screening of motion pictures, 1896; invented and manufactured projector, 1898; business ruined by fire, rejoined Edison Company, 1900; director and cameraman, then supervisor of production at Edison studio, New York City; quit Edison, founded Defender Pictures, 1909; organized Rex Film Company, 1910; sold interest in Rex, founded ‘‘Famous Players in Famous Plays’’ company, 1912, with Adolph Zukor; director general and treasurer, supervisor and director at Famous Players until 1915; became president of Precision Machine Corp., manufacturer of Simplex projector, which he helped develop, from 1915. Died: 30 April 1941. Films as Director: (partial list, also frequently sc, ph and ed) 1899 The America’s Cup Race 1900 Why Mrs. Jones Got a Divorce; Animated Luncheon; An Artist’s Dream; The Mystic Swing; Ching Lin Foo Outdone; Faust and Marguerite; The Clown and the Alchemist; A Wringing Good Joke; The Enchanted Drawing 1901 Terrible Teddy the Grizzly King; Love in a Hammock; A Day at the Circus; What Demoralized the Barber Shop; The Finish of Bridget McKeen; Happy Hooligan Surprised; Martyred Presidents; Love by the Light of the Moon; Circular Panorama of the Electric Tower; Panorama of the Esplanade by Night; The Mysterious Cafe 1902 Uncle Josh at the Moving Picture Show; Charleston Chain Gang; Burlesque Suicide; Rock of Ages; Jack and the Beanstalk; Happy Hooligan Turns Burglar; Capture of the Biddle Brothers; Fun in a Bakery Shop 1903 The Life of an American Fireman; The Still Alarm; Arabian Jewish Dance; Razzle Dazzle; Seashore Frolics; Scenes in an Orphans’ Asylum; The Gay Shoe Clerk; The Baby Review; The Animated Poster; The Office Boy’s Revenge; Uncle Tom’s Cabin; The Great Train Robbery; The Mes- senger Boy’s Mistake; Casey and His Neighbor’s Goat 1904 The Ex-Convict; Cohen’s Advertising Scheme; European Rest Cure; Capture of Yegg Bank Burglars; City Hall to Harlem in Fifteen Seconds via the Subway Route; Casey’s Frightful Dream; The Cop Fools the Sergeant; Elephant Shooting the Chutes at Luna Park 1905 The Kleptomaniac; Stolen by Gypsies; How Jones Lost His Roll; The Little Train Robbery; The White Caps; Seven Ages; The Life of an American Policeman 1906 The Dream of a Rarebit Fiend; The Life of a Cowboy; Three American Beauties; Kathleen Mavourneen 1907 Daniel Boone; Lost in the Alps; The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere; Laughing Gas; Rescued from an Eagle’s Nest; The Teddy Bears PORTER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 778 1908 Nero and the Burning of Rome; The Painter’s Revenge; The Merry Widow Waltz Craze; The Gentleman Burglar; Hon- esty Is the Best Policy; Love Will Find a Way; Skinny’s Finish; The Face on the Barroom Floor; The Boston Tea Party; Romance of a War Nurse; A Voice from the Dead; Saved by Love; She; Lord Feathertop; The Angel Child; Miss Sherlock Holmes; An Unexpected Santa Claus 1909 The Adventures of an Old Flirt; A Midnight Supper; Love Is Blind; A Cry from the Wilderness; Hard to Beat; On the Western Frontier; Fuss and Feathers; Pony Express; Toys of Fate; The Iconoclast; Hansel and Gretel; The Strike; Capital versus Labor 1910 All on Account of a Laundry Mark; Russia—the Land of Oppression; Too Many Girls; Almost a Hero; The Toymaker on the Brink and the Devil 1911 By the Light of the Moon; On the Brink; The White Red Man; Sherlock Holmes Jr.; Lost Illusions 1912 A Sane Asylum; Eyes That See Not; The Final Pardon; Taming Mrs. Shrew 1913 The Prisoner of Zenda (co-d); His Neighbor’s Wife; The Count of Monte Cristo (co-d); In the Bishop’s Carriage (co-d); A Good Little Devil (co-d) 1914 Hearts Adrift; Tess of the Storm Country; Such a Little Queen (co-d) 1915 The Eternal City (co-d); Zaza (co-d); Sold (co-d); The Prince and the Pauper (co-d); Bella Donna (co-d) 1916 Lydia Gilmore (co-d) Publications By PORTER: article— Statement, in Filmmakers on Filmmaking, edited by Harry Geduld, Bloomington, Indiana, 1967. On PORTER: books— Balshofer, Fred, and Arthur Miller, One Reel a Week, Berkeley, 1967. Pratt, George, Spellbound in Darkness, Greenwich, Connecticut, 1973. Salt, Barry, Film Style and Technology: History and Analysis, Lon- don, 1983. Burch, No?l, Life to Those Shadows, Berkeley, 1990. Elsaesser, Thomas, and Adam Barker, editors, Early Cinema: Space- Frame-Narrative, London, 1990. On PORTER: articles— Sadoul, Georges, ‘‘English Influences on the Work of Edwin S. Porter,’’ in Hollywood Quarterly, Fall 1947. Spears, Jack, ‘‘Edwin S. Porter,’’ in Films in Review (New York), June/July 1970. Burch, No?l, ‘‘Porter, or Ambivalence,’’ in Screen (London), Win- ter 1978/79. Schulberg, Budd, letter, in Variety (New York), 9 May 1979. Gaudreault, André, ‘‘Detours in Film Narrative: The Development of Cross-Cutting,’’ in Cinema Journal (Evanston), Fall 1979. Musser, Charles, ‘‘Early Cinema of Edwin Porter,’’ in Cinema Journal (Evanston), Fall 1979. Ranvaud, Don, ‘‘After The Great Train Robbery . . . ,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), December 1983. Pearson, R., ‘‘The Filmmaker as Scholar and Entertainer: An Inter- view with Charles Musser,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 8, no. 3, 1984. Turconi, Davide, ‘‘Hie sunt leones: The First Decade of American Film Comedy, 1894–1903,’’ in Griffithiana (Gemona), Septem- ber 1996. On PORTER: film— Musser, Charles, Before the Nickelodeon, United States, 1984. *** In the annals of film history, Edwin S. Porter is often credited as the first American film director. Although this may not be true in the literal sense, it is not unjustified to give Porter this title. Porter was first and foremost an engineer, an inventor, and a cameraman. In the early days of filmmaking, ‘‘cameraman’’ was synonymous with ‘‘director,’’ and Porter found himself handling both jobs. As his own editor, he also discovered new ways of creating a narrative. While most early motion pictures were composed of a single shot showing only one continuous action from beginning to end, Porter began to combine and juxtapose his filmed images, creating new meanings as one scene ‘‘psychologically’’ led into another. Porter became one of the first American directors to tell a story in his films. Porter acknowledged an influence in his filmmaking from Georges Méliès, the French filmmaker whose ‘‘trick films’’ were extremely popular in the United States. A designer of motion picture cameras, Porter was able to study and discover the secrets to many of Méliès’s ‘‘tricks.’’ Most importantly, Porter was struck by the fact that these films told a story. However, while Méliès’s films told a straightfor- ward, linear narrative, Porter expanded this idea with the use of cross- narrative (parallel action) to depict two simultaneous events or points of view. Porter’s first film of major importance was The Life of an American Fireman, made in 1902 or early 1903. This film was largely composed of stock shots from earlier Edison Company films. Racing fire engines were a popular subject for early filmmakers and Porter had much footage at his disposal. To complement these stock shots, Porter filmed additional footage that depicted a mother and child trapped in a burning building. By editing these scenes together Porter created the story of the mother and child’s rescue by the firefighters. Porter intercut the scenes of mother and child with stock footage of the racing fire engines, thereby creating a dramatic tension—will the firefighters rescue the two victims from the burning building in time? While this technique of storytelling may seem blasé by today’s standards, it was innovative and exciting to 1903 audiences. Porter continued to develop his film editing techniques in his best known and most popular film, The Great Train Robbery. On its most simplistic level, the film is a story of crime, pursuit, and capture. But it is perhaps the first great American chase film, a form still popular today. Again Porter edited his film using cross-cutting to show events that were supposedly occurring at the same time: the bandits begin their escape while the posse organizes a pursuit. The Great Train Robbery was an enormously popular film at a time when nickelodeons were just opening across the country, and the film did a great deal of repeat business. POWELL and PRESSBURGERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 779 Surprisingly, after The Great Train Robbery, Porter did little else to advance the art of filmmaking. In 1912 he formed the Famous Players Film Co. with Adolph Zukor and David Frohman, acting as director-general of the company. However, his films of this period (such as The Count of Monte Cristo and The Prisoner of Zenda) contain none of the energy of his earlier films. In fact, they took several steps backward technically, for they were photographed in a very stagy, single point-of-view manner. Apparently, Porter was never really interested in directing films. He soon sold his shares in Famous Players and became more involved in designing motion picture cameras and projectors, including the Simplex. Still, Porter’s one important contribution to filmmaking—a freer style of editing— was a turning point in the development of film as a narrative art form. —Linda J. Obalil POWELL, Michael, and Emeric PRESSBURGER POWELL. Nationality: British. Born: Michael Latham Powell at Bekesbourne, near Canterbury, Kent, 30 September 1905. Family: Married 1) Frances Reidy, 1943 (died 1983), two sons; 2) editor Thelma Schoonmaker, 1984. Career: Worked in various capacities on films of Rex Ingram, Léonce Perret, Alfred Hitchcock, Lupu Pick, from 1922; director, from 1931; senior director-in-residence, Zoetrope Studios, 1981. Died: In Gloucestershire, 19 February 1990. PRESSBURGER. Nationality: Hungarian/British. Born: Imre Pressburger in Miskolc, Hungary, 5 December 1902. Education: Studied at Universities of Prague and Stuttgart. Career: Contract writer for UFA, Berlin, 1930, later in France and, from 1935, in England, for Alexander Korda’s London Films. Powell and Pressburger began collaboration on The Spy in Black, 1939; formed ‘‘The Arch- ers,’’ as producing, directing, and writing team, 1942 (disbanded 1956); also set up Vega Productions Ltd.; Awards: (joint) British Film Institute Special Award, 1978; BAFTA fellowship, 1981; Brit- ish Film Institute fellowship, 1983; (Powell) honorary doctorate, University of East Anglia, 1978; Golden Lion, Venice Festival, 1982. Died: In Suffolk, 5 February 1988. Films by Powell and Pressburger: (Powell as director, Pressburger as scriptwriter) 1939 The Spy in Black (U-Boat) 1940 Contraband (Blackout) 1941 49th Parallel (The Invaders) 1942 One of Our Aircraft Is Missing 1972 The Boy Who Turned Yellow (produced, directed and scripted by ‘‘The Archers’’) 1943 The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp; The Volunteer 1944 A Canterbury Tale 1945 I Know Where I’m Going 1946 A Matter of Life and Death (Stairway to Heaven) 1947 Black Narcissus 1948 The Red Shoes 1949 The Small Back Room (Hour of Glory) 1950 Gone to Earth (The Wild Heart); The Elusive Pimpernel (The Fighting Pimpernel) 1951 The Tales of Hoffman 1955 Oh! Rosalinda (Fledermaus ‘55) 1956 The Battle of the River Plate (Pursuit of the Graf Spee); Ill Met by Moonlight (Intelligence Service; Night Ambush) Other Films Directed by Powell: 1931 Two Crowded Hours; My Friend the King; Rynox; The Rasp; The Star Reporter 1932 Hotel Splendide; C.O.D.; His Lordship; Born Lucky 1933 The Fire-Raisers (+ co-sc) 1934 The Night of the Party; Red Ensign (+ co-sc); Something Always Happens; The Girl in the Crowd 1935 Lazybones; The Love Test; The Phantom Light; The Price of a Song; Someday 1936 The Man behind the Mask; Crown versus Stevens; Her Last Affair; The Brown Wallet 1937 Edge of the World (+ sc) 1939 The Lion Has Wings (co-d) 1940 The Thief of Bagdad (co-d) 1941 An Airman’s Letter to His Mother (short) 1955 The Sorceror’s Apprentice (short) 1956 Luna de miel (Honeymoon) (+ pr) 1960 Peeping Tom (+ pr, role) 1961 Queen’s Guards (+ pr) 1964 Bluebeard’s Castle 1966 They’re a Weird Mob (+ pr) 1968 Sebastian (Greene) (co-pr only) 1969 Age of Consent (+ pr) 1974 Trikimia (The Tempest) (+ pr, sc) 1978 Return of the Edge of the World (doc for television) (+ pr) Other Films Written By Pressburger: 1953 Twice upon a Time (+ d, pr) 1957 Miracle in Soho (Amyes) (+ pr) Publications By POWELL: books— A Waiting Game, London, 1975. The Red Shoes (with Pressburger), London, 1978. A Life in Movies: An Autobiography, London, 1986. Edge of the World, London, 1990. POWELL and PRESSBURGER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 780 Michael Powell (left) and Emeric Pressburger By PRESSBURGER: books— Killing a Mouse on Sunday, London, 1961 The Glass Pearls, London, 1966. The Red Shoes (with Powell), London, 1978. By POWELL and PRESSBURGER: articles— ‘‘Michael Powell: The Expense of Naturalism,’’ an interview with R. Collins and Ian Christie, in Monogram (London), no. 3, 1972. Powell interview with R. Lefèvre and R. Lacourbe, in Cinéma (Paris), December 1976. ‘‘Powell and Pressburger: The War Years,’’ an interview with D.J. Badder, in Sight and Sound (London), no. 1, 1979. ‘‘Michael Powell,’’ an interview with Oliver Assayas, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1981. ‘‘Michael Powell’s Guilty Pleasures,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1981. Powell interview with T. Williams, in Films and Filming (London), November 1981. Powell, Michael, ‘‘Leo Marks and Mark Lewis,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), December 1983. ‘‘Powell’s Life,’’ an interview with Allan Hunter, in Films and Filming (London), October 1986. Powell, Michael, ‘‘Dance, Girl, Dance,’’ in American Film (Wash- ington, D.C.), vol. 12, no. 5, 1987. Interview with Paul Harris and John Flaus, in Filmnews, vol. 20, no. 2, March 1990. On POWELL and PRESSBURGER: books— Durgnat, Raymond, A Mirror for England: British Movies from Austerity to Affluence, London, 1970. Gough-Yates, Kevin, Michael Powell, London, 1971. Armes, Roy, A Critical History of British Cinema, London, 1978. Christie, Ian, editor, Powell, Pressburger, and Others, London, 1978. Cosandey, Roland, editor, Retrospective: Powell and Pressburger, Locarno, 1982. Gottler, Fritz, and others, Living Cinema: Powell and Pressburger, Munich, 1982. POWELL and PRESSBURGERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 781 Christie, Ian, Arrows of Desire: The Films of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, London, 1985. Martini, Emanuela, editor, Powell and Pressburger, Bergamo, 1986. Murphy, Robert, Realism and Tinsel: British Cinema and Society 1939–48, London, 1989. On POWELL and PRESSBURGER: articles— Green, O.O., ‘‘Michael Powell,’’ in Movie (London), Autumn 1965. Gough-Yates, Kevin, ‘‘Private Madness and Public Lunacy,’’ in Films and Filming (London), February 1972. Everson, William K., ‘‘A Meeting of Two Great Visual Stylists,’’ in Films in Review (New York), November 1977. Taylor, John Russell, ‘‘Michael Powell—Myths and Supermen,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1978. Andrews, Nigel, and Harlan Kennedy, ‘‘Peerless Powell,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1979. Everson, William K., ‘‘Michael Powell,’’ in Films in Review (New York), August/September 1980. Thompson, D., ‘‘The Films of Michael Powell: A Romantic Sensibil- ity,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), November 1980. ‘‘Question de vie ou de mort Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 15 December 1980. Durgnat, Raymond, ‘‘Aiming at the Archers,’’ in Positif (Paris), February 1981. McVay, D., ‘‘Cinema of Enchantment: The Films of Michael Pow- ell,’’ and ‘‘Michael Powell, Three Neglected Films,’’ Films and Filming (London), December 1981 and January 1982. Christie, Ian, ‘‘Alienation Effects: Emeric Pressburger and British Cinema,’’ and ‘‘Powell and Pressburger: Putting Back the Pieces,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), October and December 1984. Brennan, M., ‘‘Powell and Pressburger at the NFT,’’ in Film and Filming (London), October 1985. Baron, Saskia, ‘‘The Archer at 80,’’ in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), July 1986. Boyd-Bowman, S., ‘‘Heavy Breathing in Shropshire,’’ in Screen (London), November/December 1986. McCarthy, T., obituary of Pressburger, in Variety (New York), 10 February 1988. Bergan, Ronald, ‘‘Emeric Pressburger,’’ in Film and Filming (Lon- don), April 1988. Norresred, C., ‘‘Det lange mode,’’ in Kormorama, vol. 35, Sum- mer 1989. Christie, I., ‘‘Michael Powell after and before the Archers,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1990. DeKock, I., in Film en Televisie (Brussels), April 1990. Cardiff, Jack, ‘‘Michael Powell,’’ in Films and TV Technician (London), April 1990. Millar, Gavin, ‘‘Cox’s Orange Pippin,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1990. Kolodynski, A., and J. Slodowski, in Iluzjon, January-March 1991. Morris, N. A., ‘‘Reflections on Peeping Tom (1960),’’ in Movie (Dumfiesshire, England), January-March 1991. ‘‘Remembering Michael Powell,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 2, October 1992. Andrew, G., ‘‘Team Spirit,’’ in Time Out (London), 7 Septem- ber 1994. Durgnat, Raymond, ‘‘The Powell and Pressburger Mystery,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 23, no. 2, December 1997. On POWELL and PRESSBURGER: film— Millar, Gavin, The Archers, for ‘‘Arena,’’ BBC TV, 1981. *** Between the years 1942 and 1957, English director Michael Powell and his Hungarian partner, Emeric Pressburger, formed one of the most remarkable partnerships in cinema. Under the collaborative pseudonym ‘‘The Archers,’’ the two created a series of highly visual and imaginative treatments of romantic and supernatural themes that have defied easy categorization by film historians. Although both were listed jointly as director, screenwriter, and frequently as pro- ducer, and the extent of each one’s participation on any given film is difficult to measure, it is probably most accurate to credit Powell with the actual visualization of the films, while Pressburger functioned primarily as a writer. The latter, in fact, had no background as a director before joining Powell. He had drifted through the Austrian, German, and French film industries as a screenwriter before traveling to England in 1936. Many of the gothic, highly expressionistic characteristics of the films produced by the partnership seem to trace their origins to Powell’s apprenticeship at Rex Ingram’s studio in Nice in the 1920s. There he performed various roles on at least three of the visionary director’s silent productions: Mare Nostrum (1926), The Magician (1926), and The Garden of Allah (1927). Working on these films and subsequently on his own features in the 1930s, Powell developed a penchant for expressionism that manifested itself in several rather unique ways. The most fundamental of these was in his use of the fantasy genre, as illustrated by A Matter of Life and Death, with its problematic juxtaposition of psychiatry and mysticism. Another manifestation was an almost philosophical sadism that permeated his later films, such as Peeping Tom, with a camera that impales its photographic subjects on bayonet-like legs. The mechanical camera itself, in fact, represents still another Powell motif: the use of machines and technology to create or heighten certain aspects of fantasy. For example, the camera obscura in A Matter of Life and Death and the German warship in the Pursuit of the Graf Spee (which is revealed through a slow camera scan along its eerie structure, causing it to turn into a metallic killer fish) effectively tie machines into each film’s set of symbolic motifs. In doing so, a technological mythology is created in which these objects take on near-demonic proportions. Finally, the use of color, which most critics cite as a trademark of the Powell-Pressburger partnership, is shaped into an expressionistic mode. Powell chose his hues from a broad visual palette, and brushed them onto the screen with a calculated extravagance that became integrated into the themes of the film as a whole. In the better films, the visual and technological aspects complement each other in a pattern of symbolism. The mechanical staircase which descends from the celestial vortex in A Matter of Life and Death, for example, blends technology and fantasy as no other image has. Similarly, when the camera replaces the young pilot’s eye in the same film and the pink and violet lining of an eyelid descends over it, the effect is extravagant, even a bit bizarre, but it effectively serves notice that the viewer is closing his eyes to external reality and entering another world. The audience is left to decide whether that world is supernatu- ral or psychological. This world has been most palatable in popular Powell-Pressburger fantasies like The Red Shoes, a ballet film used as an allegory for the PREMINGER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 782 artist’s unremitting dedication to his art; and The Tales of Hoffman, in which the moody eccentricities of style have been kept in bounds by the built-in circumscriptions of the fantasy genre. At least one critic, however, has noted a strange morbidity in The Red Shoes derived from the directors’ use of certain peculiarities of color, a criticism that has been magnified when some of Powell’s and Pressburger’s fantas- tic techniques occur in more realistic films. Their appearance in otherwise veracious contexts usually upsets normal audience expec- tations. Black Narcissus and Powell’s Peeping Tom both created some problems for critics, for both films went to extremes in the exaggeration of otherwise plausible storylines. Thematically, Powell and Pressburger operate in a limbo some- where between romance and realism. The former, characterized by technical effects, camera angles and movements, and the innovative use of color, often intrudes in the merest of details in fundamentally naturalistic films. In the eyes of some, this weakens the artistic commitment to realism. On the other hand, the psychological insights embodied in serious fantasies like A Matter of Life and Death are too often dismissed as simply entertainment. Most of the Powell- Pressburger efforts are, in fact, attempts at fundamental reconcilia- tions between modern ideas and the irrational, between science and savagery, or between religion and eroticism. This dichotomy usually occurs in one character’s mind—as with Peter Carter in A Matter of Life and Death or the sex-obsessed nun in Black Narcissus—and hinges upon a second character such as A Matter of Life and Death’s Dr. Frank Reeves, who effects a degree of movement between the two sides of the dichotomy, particularly through his own death. Although such mergings of reality and fantasy met with approval by the moviegoing public, Powell and Pressburger were less success- ful with the British film establishment. In a sense they were alienated from it through their exercise of a decidedly non-British flamboy- ance. To some degree, the Clive Candy character in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp embodies the British film community during the period after the war. Powell and Pressburger’s visual and thematic extravagances of style conflicted with the self-consciousness of the film industry’s strivings for a rigid postwar realism not to be embel- lished by colorful and expressionistic ventures. The team broke up in 1957 after Ill Met by Moonlight, and although Pressburger subsequently made some films by himself, they were not well received. Powell, though, continued in the vein estab- lished by his collaboration with the Hungarian director. Luna de Miel and The Queen’s Guards pursue all of the philosophical concerns of his earlier efforts, while Peeping Tom, which is now regarded as his masterpiece, indicates a certain morbid refinement of his thematic interests. Unfortunately, the film was perhaps ahead of its time—a problem that plagued the director and his collaborator for most of their careers. —Stephen L. Hanson PREMINGER, Otto Nationality: American. Born: Vienna, 5 December 1905, became U.S. citizen, 1943. Education: University of Vienna, LL.D, 1926. Family: Married 1) Marion Deutsch (stage name Marion Mill), 1932 (divorced); 2) Mary Gardner, 1951 (divorced 1959); 3) Hope (Preminger), 1960, two children; also one son by Gypsy Rose Lee. Otto Preminger Career: Actor with Max Reinhardt company, 1924; joined theater in der Josefstadt, 1928 (succeeding Reinhardt as director, 1933); invited to Hollywood by Joseph Schenck, 1935; contract with Fox broken, moved to New York, 1937; director on Broadway, 1938–41 (and later); returned to Hollywood as actor, 1942; signed seven-year contract with Fox, 1945; independent producer, from early 1950s. Died: Of cancer, in New York City, 23 April 1986. Films as Director: 1931 Die grosse Liebe 1936 Under Your Spell 1937 Danger, Love at Work 1943 Margin for Error (+ role as Nazi consul Rudolf Forster) 1944 In the Meantime, Darling (+ pr); Laura (+ pr) 1945 Royal Scandal; Fallen Angel (+ pr) 1946 Centennial Summer (+ pr) 1947 Forever Amber; Daisy Kenyon (+ pr) 1948 That Lady in Ermine 1949 The Fan (Lady Windermere’s Fan) (+ pr); Whirlpool (+ pr) 1950 Where the Sidewalk Ends (+ pr); The Thirteenth Letter (+ pr) 1952 Angel Face 1953 The Moon Is Blue (+ co-pr) 1954 River of No Return; Carmen Jones (+ pr) 1955 The Man with the Golden Arm (+ pr); The Court Martial of Billy Mitchell (One-Man Mutiny) 1957 Saint Joan (+ pr); Bonjour Tristesse (+ pr) PREMINGERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 783 1959 Porgy and Bess; Anatomy of a Murder (+ pr) 1960 Exodus (+ pr) 1962 Advise and Consent (+ pr) 1963 The Cardinal (+ pr) 1964 In Harm’s Way (+ pr) 1965 Bunny Lake Is Missing (+ pr) 1966 Hurry Sundown (+ pr) 1968 Skidoo (+ pr) 1970 Tell Me That You Love Me, Junie Moon (+ pr) 1971 Such Good Friends (+ pr) 1975 Rosebud (+ pr) 1980 The Human Factor (+ pr) Other Films: 1942 The Pied Piper (role); They Got Me Covered (role) 1945 Where Do We Go from Here (role) 1953 Stalag 17 (Wilder) (role as camp commandant) 1981 Unsere Leichen Leben Noch (Von Prauheim) (role) Publications By PREMINGER: book— Preminger: An Autobiography, Garden City, New York, 1977. By PREMINGER: articles— ‘‘Recontre avec Otto Preminger,’’ with Jacques Rivette, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1953. ‘‘Movie Critic versus Movie Director,’’ with Bosley Crowther, in Esquire (New York), October 1958. ‘‘Your Taste, My Taste . . . and the Censors,’’ in Films and Filming (London), November 1959. Interview with Jacques Doniol-Valcroze and Eric Rohmer, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July 1961. ‘‘Sex and Censorship in Literature and the Arts,’’ with Norman Mailer and others, in Playboy (Chicago), July 1961. ‘‘The Cardinal and I,’’ in Films and Filming (London), Novem- ber 1963. Interview with Ian Cameron and others, in Movie (London), Sum- mer 1965. Interview in Interviews with Film Directors, edited by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1967. ‘‘Otto Preminger auteur de force,’’ an interview with D. Lyons, in Inter/View (New York), July 1972. Interview with Gene Phillips, in Focus on Film (London), August 1979. ‘‘Cult and Controversy,’’ an interview with Gordon Gow, in Films and Filming (London), November 1979. On PREMINGER: books— Preminger, Marion Mill, All I Want Is Everything, New York, 1957. Lourcelles, Jacques, Otto Preminger, Paris, 1965. Pratley, Gerald, The Cinema of Otto Preminger, New York, 1971. Frischauer, Willi, Behind the Scenes of Otto Preminger, London, 1973. On PREMINGER: articles— Gehman, Richard, ‘‘Otto Preminger,’’ in Theater Arts (New York), January 1961. ‘‘Preminger Issue’’ of Présence du Cinéma (Paris), February 1962. ‘‘Preminger Issue’’ of Movie (London), September 1962. ‘‘Preminger Issues’’ of Interciné (Toulouse), no. 1, and no. 2, 1963. ‘‘Preminger Issue’’ of Movie (London), no. 4, 1963. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Preminger’s Two Periods—Studio and Solo,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Summer 1965. Ross, Lillian, ‘‘Profiles: Anatomy of a Commercial Interruption,’’ in the New Yorker, 19 February 1966. Bogdanovich, Peter, ‘‘Otto Preminger,’’ in On Film, 1970. Borok, B., ‘‘Laura: The Story behind the Picture,’’ in Thousand Eyes (New York), November 1976. Lacourcelles, J., ‘‘Laura Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), July/September 1978. Wegner, H., ‘‘From Expressionism to Film Noir: Otto Preminger’s Where the Sidewalk Ends,’’ in Journal of Popular Film (Washing- ton, D.C.), Summer 1983. McCarthy, T., obituary, in Variety (New York), 30 April 1986. Hodsdon, Barrett, ‘‘Otto Preminger: Found or Lost?’’ in Filmnews, vol. 14, June 1986. Obituary, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), no. 418, July-August 1986. Luft, H.G., in Films in Review (New York), August/September 1986. Lippe, Richard, ‘‘At the Margins of Film Noir: Preminger’s Angel Face,’’ in CineAction! (Toronto), no. 13–14, 1988. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Otto Preminger,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), June 1989. Castoro Cinema (Milan), special section, no. 145, January-Febru- ary 1990. Kurowski, U., ‘‘Die Imago. Schauspieler bei Otto Preminger,’’ in EPD Film (Frankfurt), vol. 7, May 1990. Rauger, J.-F., ‘‘L’homme qui en savait trop,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1993. Mensuel du Cinéma (Paris), special section, no. 5, April 1993. Everschor, Franz, ‘Rebell in den eigenen Reihen,’’ in Film-Dienst (K?ln), vol. 49, 3 December 1996. *** The public persona of Austrian-born Otto Preminger has epito- mized for many the typical Hollywood movie director: an accented, autocratic, European-born disciplinarian who terrorized his actors, bullied his subordinates, and spent millions of dollars to ensure that his films be produced properly, although economically. Before the Cahiers du Cinéma critics began to praise Preminger, it may have been this public persona, more than anything else, which impeded an appreciation of Preminger’s extraordinarily subtle style or thematic consistencies. Preminger’s career can be divided into two periods. Throughout the first period, Preminger worked as a studio director for Twentieth Century-Fox, where he had several well-publicized conflicts with Darryl F. Zanuck and found it difficult to conform to studio demands or to collaborate without retaining overall artistic control. His evoca- tive and romantic mystery Laura, his breakthrough film, was pro- duced during this period. Among the other eclectic assignments he PROTAZANOV DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 784 directed at Fox, the most interesting include a series of film noir features in the late 1940s: Whirlpool, Where the Sidewalk Ends, The Thirteenth Letter, and Angel Face. Throughout the second and far more interesting period of Preminger’s career, he worked as one of the first notable independent producer-directors, in the process suc- cessfully undermining the studio system in various ways. He fought against institutional censorship by releasing several films without the Motion Picture Association seal (for example, The Moon is Blue) and he explored controversial subjects the studios might have been hesitant to touch (such as criticism of the War Department in The Court Martial of Billy Mitchell or homosexuality in Advise and Consent). Preminger also championed the independent producers movement by exploiting the Paramount Divorcement Decree and aggressively marketing and arranging exhibition for his films Preminger incorporated fresh and authentic backgrounds by pro- moting location shooting away from Hollywood. He worked dili- gently to discover new performers (such as Jean Seberg) and to develop properties (such as Carmen Jones and Hurry Sundown) which would allow the casting of Hollywood’s under-used black performers. Finally, he even helped to break the studio blacklist by hiring and publicly crediting Dalton Trumbo as screenwriter on Exodus. Preminger’s tastes have always been as eclectic as the disparate sources from which his films have been adapted. Through- out the 1950s and 1960s, however, Preminger’s films grew in pretention, displaying considerable interest in monolithic institutions (the military in The Court Martial of Billy Mitchell and In Harms’s Way; the Senate in Advise and Consent; the Catholic Church in The Cardinal; the medical profession in Such Good Friends) as well as the examination of social and political problems (drug addiction in The Man with the Golden Arm; Jewish repatriation in Exodus; racial prejudice in Hurry, Sundown; political terrorism in Rosebud). A con- sistent archetype in Preminger’s films is the quest for truth; indeed, the director’s recurring image is the courtroom. What has especially fascinated Preminger’s admirers is the sub- tlety of his mise-en-scène; his most typical effort is a widescreen film with long takes, no pyrotechnical montage, few reaction shots, fluid and simple camera movements, and careful yet unselfconscious compositions. Preminger’s style, though apparently invisible, is one which forces the audience to examine, to discern, to arrive at some ultimate position. Several critics have written persuasively on the ambiguity associated with Preminger’s apparent objectivity, includ- ing Andrew Sarris, who has characterized Preminger as a ‘‘director who sees all problems and issues as a single-take two-shot, the stylistic expression of the eternal conflict, not between right and wrong, but between the right-wrong on one side and the right-wrong on the other, a representation of the right-wrong in all of us as our share of the human condition.’’ If Preminger’s formula floundered in the 1970s and 1980s, an era in which the American cinema seemed dominated by mainstream genre works and overt escapism, one cannot help but feel nostalgia and profound respect for Preminger’s serious subjects and artistry. Indeed, his series of films beginning with Bonjour, Tristesse in 1957 and continuing through Porgy and Bess, Anatomy of a Murder, Exodus, Advise and Consent, The Cardinal, In Harm’s Way, Bunny Lake Is Missing, and Hurry, Sundown in 1966, constitute one of the longest strings of ambitious, provocative films in American cinema. —Charles Derry PRESSBURGER, Emeric See POWELL, Michael, and Emeric PRESSBURGER PROTAZANOV, Yakov Nationality: Russian. Born: Yakov Alexandrovitch Protazanov in Moscow, 4 February 1881. Education: Commercial school, Mos- cow. Career: Film actor, from 1905; translator, then writer of scenarios and director, Gloria studios, from 1909; moved to Ermoliev company, began collaboration with actor Ivan Mozhukhin, 1915; Ermoliev studios moved to Yalta, 1918, then to Istanbul and Marseil- les, 1919–20; moved to Paris, worked in France and Germany, 1920–22; returned to Russia, joined Mezhrabpom-Rus Studio, Mos- cow, 1923. Awards: Merited Artist of the RSFSR, 1935. Died: In Moscow, 8 August 1945. Films as Director: 1909 The Fountains of Bakhisarai 1911 Pesnya katorzhanina (The Prisoner’s Song) (+ sc) 1912 Anfisa; Ukhod velikovo startza (Departure of a Grand Old Man) (co-d) 1913 Razbitaya vaza (The Shattered Vase) (+ sc); Klyuchi shchastya (Keys to Happiness) (co-d); Kak khoroshi, Kak svezhi byli rozi (How Fine, How Fresh the Roses Were) (+ sc) 1915 Petersburgskiye trushchobi (Petersburg Slums) (co-d, co-sc); Voina i mir (War and Peace) (co-d, co-sc); Plebei (Plebe- ian) (+ sc); Nikolai Stavrogin (+ sc) 1916 Pikovaya dama (The Queen of Spades); Zhenshchina s kinzhalom (Woman with a Dagger); Grekh (Sin) (co-d) 1917 Prokuror (Public Prosecutor); Andrei Kozhukhov (+ sc); Ne nado krovi (Blood Need Not Be Spilled) (+ sc); Prokliatiye millioni (Cursed Millions); Satana likuyushchii (Satan Triumphant) 1918 Otets Sergii (Father Sergius) 1919 Taina koroloevy (The Queen’s Secret) (+ sc) 1920/23 L’Angoissante aventure; L’Amour et la loi (Love and Law); Pour une nuit d’amour; Justice d’Abord; Le Sens de la mort; L’Ombre du pêché; Der Liebes Pielgerfahrt 1924 Aelita 1925 Yevo prizyv (Broken Chains; His Call); Zakroichik iz Torzhka (Tailor from Torzhok) 1926 Protsess o tryokh millyonakh (The Three Million Case) (+ co-sc) 1927 Sorok pervyi (The 41st) 1928 Byelyi orel (The White Eagle) (+ co-sc); Dondiego i Pelaguya (Don Diego and Pelagea) 1929 Chiny i liudi (Ranks and People) (+ co-sc); The Man from the Restaurant 1930 Prazdnik svyatovo Iorgena (The Feast of St Jorgen) (+ sc) 1931 Tommy (+ sc) 1934 Marionetki (Marionettes) 1937 Bespridannitsa (Without Dowry) (+ co-sc) 1938 Pupils of the Seventh Grade 1941 Salavat Yulayev 1943 Nasreddin v Bukhare (Nasreddin in Bukhara) PROTAZANOVDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 785 Publications On PROTAZANOV: books— Yakov Protazanov, Moscow, 1957. Leyda, Jay, Kino, A History of the Russian and Soviet Film, Lon- don, 1960. Lebedev, Nikolai, Il cinema muto sovietico, Turin, 1962. Robinson, David, and others, editors, Silent Witnesses, London, 1989. On PROTAZANOV: articles— Alisova, N., ‘‘Priobzcenie k poesii,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), April 1973. Raizman, Yuli, and others, ‘‘Protazanov,’’ in Soviet Film (Moscow), no. 6, 1981. Vajsfel’d, I., and others, ‘‘Effect Protazanova,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), August 1981. Tumanova, N., ‘‘Zabytaja stat’ja Jakova Protazanova,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), July 1984. Robinson, David, ‘‘Evgeni Bauer and the Cinema of Nikolai II,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1989/90. *** As a pioneer of the czarist cinema, as a director who filmed in Moscow, Yalta, Paris, and Berlin, and as one who worked under various social systems and managed to survive, Yakov Protazanov has a unique place in the story of the Russian cinema. Originally intended for a commercial career, Protazanov fell under the spell of films and began his apprenticeship with Gloria Films, later to become Thiemann and Reinhardt, in Moscow. The cinema in Russia had been socially acceptable from the beginning and enjoyed the patronage of imperial circles. From script-writing and acting Protazanov moved into directing. In 1911 he made Pesnya katorzhanina (The Prisoner’s Song) with Vladimir Shaternikov, an actor he was to use many times. The following year Andreyev scripted for him an adaptation of his play Anfisa. The same year he made Ukhod velikovo startza (The Departure of a Grand Old Man), thereby antagonising Countess Tolstoy, who objected to the depiction of her husband as played by Shaternikov. The film was subsequently banned. A happier venture was Klyuchishchastya (Keys to Happi- ness), written by a popular novelist, A. Verbitskaya. The wide appeal of this film made it a great box-office success throughout Russia. By the time of World War I, Protazanov had directed some forty films covering a wide range of material, from the perfervid, morbid, and even decadent themes so popular in Russia at the time to historical spectacles and films based on the literary heritage of his country. In Kak khoroshi, kak svezhi byli rosi (How Fine, How Fresh the Roses Were) of 1913 he was inspired by Turgenev. He utilized Shaternikov once again in the film, casting him as Lev Tolstoy. After his experiences as a soldier Protazanov joined the Ermoliev Company, as did his former colleague Vladimir Gardin. In 1915 they shared the direction of the elaborate Voina i mir (War and Peace) and a serial called Petersburgskiye trushchobi (Petersburg slums), while Protazanov directed a version of Strindberg’s Froken Julie under the title Plebei (Plebian). In these three films the lead was taken by Olga Preobrazhenskaya, herself to become a director of distinction in later years. Ermoliev’s greatest actor was Ivan Mozhukin, whose knowledge and interest in the whole field of cinema transcended his interpretive skills. Protazanov directed him in Nicolai Stavrogin (based on Dostoievsky) in 1915 and the following year in Pikovaya dama (The Queen of Spades). The latter film was a milestone in Mozhukin’s career. The script, incidentally, was written by a young Fedor Otsep. Other important Protazanov films with Mozhukin were Prokuror (Public Prosecutor), Satana likuyushchii (Satan Triumphant), Andrei Kozhukov, and Otets Sergii (Father Sergius). The last film is undoubt- edly his masterpiece. Tolstoy’s story of the spiritual struggles of a young officer of the Imperial Court who gives up a life of pleasure to become a monk was a tour de force for Mozhukin. The actor’s transition from youth to age, the authenticity of the settings, and the cohesion of the film help to make it one of the great classics of the cinema. On a very different level was Taina koroloevy (The Queen’s Secret), a film based on a novel by Elinor Glynn that again featured Mozhukin. This work was filmed in Moscow and Yalta, for with the coming of the Revolution many film artists fled to the south. Ermoliev transferred his studio to Yalta, bringing all his equipment, techni- cians, and artists with him. Here Protazanov made three films, but political unrest soon made work impossible. Ermoliev and all his people embarked on a British ship at Odessa which took them to Constantinople, where Protazanov continued with the direction of the film L’Angoissante Aventure, from a script by Mozhukin. This ambulatory film went on from Constantinople to Marseilles and Paris, where Ermoliev’s production continued at Méliès’ old studio at Monteuil. In spite of the circumstances under which it was made, L’Angoissante Aventure was a quite ingenious comedy that effec- tively utilized the diverse talents of Mozhukin. The film ranged from comedy to tragedy, but was resolved by the typically Russian device of being a dream. Protazanov’s Justice d’Abord was a remake of Prokuror, but he broke away from Ermoliev and his company. He adapted novels by Zola and Paul Bourget before going to Berlin, where he made Liebes Pilgerfahrt. Invited back to Russia to make a film of Taras Bulba, he instead directed Aelita for Mezhrabpom-Russ. This fantasy, in which life on Mars is compared with contemporary Russia, featured extraor- dinary sets by Alexandra Exter of the Kamerny Theatre. Yevo prizyv (His Call) was released the following year. A propaganda film with a human face, the work showed that Protazanov was still his own man. Protsess o tryoch millyonakh (The Three Million Case) of 1926 and subsequent films like Sorok pervyi (The 41st), Byelyi orel (The White Eagle), Dondiego i Pelaguya (a satiric comment on bureaucracy), Chiny i Liudi (Ranks and People, a compendium of three Chekhov stories), and Prazdnik svyatovo Iorgena (The Feast of St Jorgen, a satirical anti-religious film) all established him as an artist who could hold his own with the new young school of Russian film directors. In Sorok pervyi, a story of the fighting in Turkestan, a young girl partisan is torn between love and duty and has to kill a young White officer, the only man she ever loved. Set in a memorable landscape of sandy desert, the film develops with a powerful impact. Tommy, which was released in 1931, was Protazanov’s first sound film. It tells of a British soldier’s reaction to a group of partisans. A recipient of official honours, Protazanov continued to be regarded as an outstanding creative artist, and many of his films were set in far-flung locations in outlying Soviet republics. When the centre of Soviet film production moved to Alma Ata in the Urals PUDOVKIN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 786 during the German invasion of Russia in World War II, Protazanov moved with it. His last film, though, was filmed on location in Uzbekistan. Nazreddin ve Bukhare (Nazreddin in Bukhara) was a delightful comedy that featured Meyerhold’s great actor Lev Sverdlin in the title role, where he gave a performance reminiscent of Fairbanks’ in Thief of Bagdad. When Protazanov died in 1945 he was working on a script based on a play by Ostrovsky. A prolific creator of films, he remains known as a great man of the cinema. —Liam O’Leary PUDOVKIN, Vsevolod Nationality: Russian. Born: Vsevolod Illarionovitch Pudovkin in Penza, 16 February 1893. Education: Educated in physics and chemistry, Moscow University; entered State Cinema School, 1920. Military Service: Enlisted in artillery, 1914; wounded and taken prisoner, 1915; escaped and returned to Moscow, 1918. Family: Married actress and journalist Anna Zemtsova, 1923. Career: Worked as writer and chemist, 1919–20; worked on agit films, 1920–21; student at Lev Kuleshov’s studio, from 1922; quit State Cinema Institute to join Kuleshov’s Experimental Laboratory, 1923; began collaboration with cinematographer Anatoly Golovnia and scriptwriter Nathan Zarkhi, 1925; with Alexandrov, signed Eisenstein’s ‘‘Mani- festo on Audio-Visual Counterpoint,’’ 1928; travelled to England and Holland, 1929; joined Communist Party, 1932; after car accident, Vsevolod Pudovkin taught theoretic studies at V.G.I.K., 1935; joined Mosfilm studios, 1938. Awards: Order of Lenin, 1935. Died: In Riga, 30 June 1953. Films as Director: 1921 Golod . . . golod . . . golod (Hunger . . . Hunger . . . Hunger) (co-d, co-sc, role) 1925 Shakhmatnaya goryachka (Chess Fever) (co-d) 1926 Mekhanikha golovnovo mozga (Mechanics of the Brain) (+ sc); Mat (Mother) 1927 Konyets Sankt-Peterburga (The End of St. Petersburg) 1928 Potomok Chingis-khan (The Heir to Genghis-Khan; Storm Over Asia) 1932 Prostoi sluchai (A Simple Case) (revised version of Otchen kharacho dziviosta (Life’s Very Good); first screened in 1930) 1933 Dezertir (Deserter) 1938 Pobeda (Victory) (co-d) 1939 Minin i Pozharsky (co-d) 1940 Kino za XX liet (Twenty Years of Cinema) (co-d, co-ed) 1941 Suvorov (co-d); Pir v Girmunka (Feast at Zhirmunka) (co-d) (for ‘‘Fighting Film Album’’) 1942 Ubitzi vykhodyat na dorogu (Murderers Are on Their Way) (co-d, co-sc) 1943 Vo imya rodini (In the Name of the Fatherland) (co-d) 1946 Amiral Nakhimov (Admiral Nakhimov) 1948 Tri vstrechi (Three Encounters) (co-d) 1950 Yukovsky (co-d) 1953 Vozvrachenia Vassilya Bortnikov (The Return of Vasili Bortnikov) Other Films: 1920 V dni borbi (In the Days of Struggle) (role) 1921 Serp i molot (Sickle and Hammer) (asst d, role) 1923 Slesar i kantzler (Locksmith and Chancellor) (co-sc) 1924 Neobychainye priklucheniya Mistera Vesta v stranye bolshevikov (Extraordinary Adventures of Mr. West in the Land of the Bolsheviks) (Kuleshov) (co-sc, asst, role as the ‘‘Count’’) 1925 Luch smerti (The Death Ray) (Kuleshov) (design, role); Kirpitchiki (Little Bricks) (role) 1928 Zhivoi trup (A Living Corpse) (role as Feodor Protassov) 1929 Vessiolaia kanareika (The Cheerful Canary) (role as the illusionist); Novyi vavilon (The New Babylon) (Kozintsev and Trauberg) (role as shop assistant) 1944 Ivan Grozny (Ivan the Terrible) (Eisenstein) (role as Nikolai the fanatic) Publications By PUDOVKIN: books— Film Technique, translated by Ivor Montagu, London, 1933. Film-Acting, translated by Ivor Montagu, London, 1935. Film Technique and Film Acting, New York, 1949. Textes choisis, Moscow, 1955. Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh, Moscow, 1974. PUDOVKINDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 787 By PUDOVKIN: articles— ‘‘Scénario et mise en scène,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), 1 Septem- ber 1930. ‘‘Poudovkine parle du montage,’’ with René Lévy, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), 1 December 1931. ‘‘A Conversation with V.I. Pudovkin,’’ with Marie Seton, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1933. ‘‘The Global Film,’’ in Hollywood Quarterly, July 1947. ‘‘Two Conversations with Pudovkin,’’ with C.H. Waddington, in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1948/49. ‘‘Stanislavsky’s System in the Cinema,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), January/March 1953. On PUDOVKIN: books— Bryher, Winifred, Film Problems of Soviet Russia, London, 1929. Yezuitov, N., Poudovkine, ‘‘Pouti Tvortchestva,’’ ‘‘Les Voies de la création,’’ Moscow, 1937. Mariamov, A., Vsevolod Pudovkin, Moscow, 1952. Leyda, Jay, Kino: A History of the Russian and Soviet Film, Lon- don, 1960. Schnitzer, Luda and Jean, Vsevolod Poudovkine, Paris, 1966. Amengual, Barthélemy, V.I. Poudovkine, Premier Plan, Lyon, 1968. Dart, Peter, Pudovkin’s Films and Film Theory, New York, 1974. Marshall, Herbert, Masters of the Soviet Cinema: Crippled Creative Biographies, London, 1983. Masi, Stefano, Vsevolod I. Pudovkin, Florence, 1985. Taylor, Richard, and Ian Christie, editors, The Film Factory: Russian and Soviet Cinéma in Documents 1896–1939, London, 1988. On PUDOVKIN: articles— Potamkin, Harry, ‘‘Pudovkin and the Revolutionary Film,’’ in Hound and Horn (New York), April/June 1933. Rotha, Paul, ‘‘Pabst, Pudovkin, and the Producers,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1933. Leyda, Jay, ‘‘Index to the Creative Work of Vsevolod Pudovkin,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), November 1948. Sadoul, Georges, ‘‘Un Humaniste et un lyrique,’’ in Les Lettres Fran?aises (Paris), 9 July 1953. ‘‘Pudovkin Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), August/Septem- ber 1953. Weinberg, Herman, ‘‘Vsevolod Pudovkin,’’ in Films in Review (New York), August/September 1953. Wright, Basil, ‘‘V.I. Pudovkin: 1893–1953,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), October/December 1953. Herring, Robert, ‘‘Film Image—Pudovkin,’’ in Cinemage (New York), May 1955. Bizet, Jacques-André, ‘‘Les Théories du langage et de l’expres- sion filmiques selon Poudovkine,’’ in Le Cinéma Pratique (Paris), September/October and November/December 1966 and March 1967. ‘‘Pudovkin Issue’’ of Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), February 1973. Hudlin, E., ‘‘Film Language: Pudovkin and Eisenstein and Russian Formalism,’’ in Journal of Aesthetic Education (Urbana, Illinois), no. 2, 1979. Burns, P.E., ‘‘Linkage: Pudovkin’s Classics Revisited,’’ in Journal of Popular Film and Television (Washington, D.C.), Summer 1981. Weber, A., ‘‘Les deux dernier mousquetaires: Poudovkine et Eisenstein,’’ in CinémAction (Conde-sur-Noireau), November 1982. Pudovkin Section of Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), February 1983. Kepley, Vance, Jr., ‘‘Pudovkin and the Classical Hollywood Tradi- tion,’’ in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol. 7, no. 3, 1985. Jurenev, R., ‘‘Neskol’ko povsednevnyh vstrec,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), August 1985. Hogenkamp. Bert, ‘‘De russen komen! Poedowkin, Eisenstein en Wertow in Nederland,’’ in Skrien (Amsterdam), November/De- cember 1985. Castoro Cinema (Milan), no. 118, 1985. Amengual, B., ‘‘1917–1934. Les Soviétiques: Koulechov, Poudovkine, Vertov, Eisenstein, la FEKS,’’ in CinémAction (Conde-sur- Noireau), July 1991. Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), no. 12, December 1991. Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), special section, no. 11, November 1993. Kepley, Vance, Jr., ‘‘Pudovkin, Socialist Realism, and the Classical Hollywood Style,’’ in Journal of Film and Video (Atlanta), vol. 47, no. 4, Winter 1995–96. *** Vsevolod Pudovkin’s major contribution to the cinema is as a theorist. He was fascinated by the efforts of his teacher, the filmmaker Lev Kuleshov, in exploring the effects of montage. As Pudovkin eventually did in his own work, Kuleshov often created highly emotional moments by rapidly intercutting shots of diverse content. Of course, the results could be manipulated. In The End of St. Petersburg, for instance, Pudovkin mixed together shots of stock market speculation with those depicting war casualties. Occasionally, Pudovkin’s images are uninspired: the above sequence looks static, even simplistic, today. Nevertheless, while other filmmakers may have advanced this technique, Pudovkin was one of the first to utilize it in a narrative. Pudovkin’s essays on film theory, ‘‘The Film Scenario’’ and ‘‘Film Director and Film Material,’’ remain just as valuable as any of his works; these texts have become primers in film technique. Pudovkin wrote that it is unnecessary for a film actor to overperform or overgesture as he might in the theater. He can underplay in a film because the director or editor, via montage, is able to communicate to the viewer the pervading feeling in the shots surrounding the actor. Meanwhile, the actor may concentrate on his or her internal emotions, transmitting the truths of the character in a more subtle manner. Beyond this, contended Pudovkin, an actor on screen is at the mercy of his director. The performer could be directed to cry without knowing his character’s motivations; the shots placed around him will pass along the cause of his grief. A non-actor could even be made to give a realistic performance as a result of perceptive editing. Pudovkin often integrated his casts with both actors and non-actors; the latter were utilized when he felt the need for realism was greater than the need for actors with the ability to perform. In Chess Fever, a two-reel comedy, Pudovkin even edited in shots of Jose Raoul Capablanca, a famous chess master, to make him seem an active participant in the scenario. As the filmmaker explained, ‘‘the foundation of film art is editing.’’ He noted that ‘‘the film is not shot, but built up from separate strips of celluloid that are its raw material.’’ Pudovkin’s first significant credit, The Death Ray, was directed by Kuleshov. But he designed the production, wrote the scenario, assisted his teacher, and acted in the film. Before the end of the 1920s, PUDOVKIN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 788 he completed his three great silent features, which remain his best- remembered films: Mother, The End of St. Petersburg, and The Heir to Genghis-Khan. While they were each concerned with various aspects of the Revolution, they are not totally propagandistic: each film deals with human involvements, conflicts, and the effect that ideas and actions have on the lives of those involved. This is illustrated perfectly in Mother, based on a Maxim Gorky novel. Set during the 1905 Revolution, the film chronicles the plight of the title character (Vera Baranovskaya), who accidently causes her politically active worker son (Nikolai Batalov) to be sentenced to prison. Eventually, Batalov is shot during an escape attempt and Baranovskaya, whose political consciousness has been raised, is trampled to death by the cavalry attacking a workers’ protest. Baranovskaya also appears in The End of St. Petersburg, filmed to mark the tenth anniversary of the 1917 Revolution. The work centers on the political education of an inexperienced young peasant (Ivan Chuvelyov). This film is significant in that it is one of the first to satisfactorily blend a fictional scenario into a factual setting. Typi- cally, Pudovkin cast real pre-Revolution stockbrokers and executives as stockbrokers and executives. The Heir to Genghis-Khan (more commonly known as Storm over Asia) is not as successful as the others, but is still worthy of note. The film, set in Central Asia, details the activities of partisan revolutionar- ies and the English army of occupation in Mongolia (called the White Russian army in foreign prints). It focuses on a young Mongol trapper (Valeri Inkizhinov) whose fate is not dissimilar to that of Pudovkin’s other heroes and heroines: he is radicalized by unfolding events after he is cheated out of a prized fox fur by a European merchant. Pudovkin continued making films after the advent of sound. A Simple Case, revised from his silent Life’s Very Good, was scheduled to be the Soviet cinema’s first sound feature; instead, the honor went to Nikolai Ekk’s The Road to Life. Pudovkin was not content to just add sound to his scenarios. His initial talkie was Deserter, in which he experimented with speech patterns: by editing in sound, he contrasted the conversational dialogue of different characters with crowd noises, traffic sounds, sirens, music, and even silence. But Pudovkin did not abandon his concern for visuals: Deserter contains approximately three thousand separate shots, an unusually high number for a fea- ture film. Pudovkin did make other sound films. His Minin and Pozharsky, released at the beginning of World War II, takes place in the seventeenth century, when Moscow was controlled by King Sigismund; it was the first major Soviet film to depict Poland as an invader. Nevertheless, his cinematic language is essentially one that is devoid of words, relying instead on visual components. —Rob Edelman 789 R RAFELSON, Bob Nationality: American. Born: New York City, 1933. Education: Attended Dartmouth College. Family: Married Toby, one son. Mili- tary Service: Served with Occupation forces in Japan; worked as disc jockey for military radio station. Career: Advisor to Shochiku Films on American market; also worked as rodeo rider and horse breaker, and as jazz musician in Mexico; reader and story editor for David Susskind’s Play of the Week, late 1950s; with Bert Schneider created TV pop group The Monkees, 1966, also directed episodes of their TV show; with Schneider and Steve Blauner formed BBS Productions, and directed first feature, Head, featuring The Monkees, 1968. Awards: Best Direction, New York Film Critics, for Five Easy Pieces, 1970. Films as Director and Co-Producer: 1968 Head (+ co-sc) 1970 Five Easy Pieces (+ co-story) 1973 The King of Marvin Gardens (pr, + co-story) 1977 Stay Hungry (+ co-sc) 1980 Brubaker (d 10 days only, then replaced by Stuart Rosenberg) 1981 The Postman Always Rings Twice 1987 Black Widow 1989 Mountains of the Moon (+ co-sc) 1992 Man Trouble 1994 Wet 1996 Segment titled ‘‘Wet’’ in Tales of Erotica 1997 Blood and Wine (+ sc) 1998 Poodle Springs (for TV) Other Films: 1969 Easy Rider (Hopper) (co-pr) 1971 The Last Picture Show (Bogdanovich) (co-pr) 1972 Drive, He Said (Nicholson) (co-pr) Publications By RAFELSON: articles— Interview with M. Grisolia, in Cinéma (Paris), June 1973. ‘‘Staying Vulnerable,’’ an interview with John Taylor, in Sight and Sound (London), no. 4, 1976. ‘‘Raising Cain,’’ an interview with D. Thompson, in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1981. Interview with Rob Edelman, in Films in Review (New York), May 1981. ‘‘Prodigal’s Progress,’’ an interview with Richard Combs and John Pym, in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1981. Interview with F. Ramasse and M. Henry, in Positif (Paris), May 1987. ‘‘Blood Brothers,’’ an interview with Nigel Floyd, in Time Out (London), 5 March 1997. Interview in Premiere (Boulder), February 1997. ‘‘Jack, Jessica, David, and Me,’’ an interview with Geoffrey Macnab, in Sight and Sound (London), August 1998. On RAFELSON: book— Boyer, Jay, Bob Rafelson: Hollywood Maverick (Twayne’s Filmmakers Series), New York, 1996. Boyer, Jan, Bob Rafelson: Film Director, New York, 1996. On RAFELSON: articles— ‘‘Bob Rafelson,’’ in New Yorker, 24 October 1970. Lefanu, M., ‘‘Notes sur trois films de Bob Rafelson . . . ,’’ in Positif (Paris), May 1978. Carcassonne, P., ‘‘Dossier: Hollywood 79: Bob Rafelson,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), November 1979. McGilligan, P., ‘‘The Postman Rings Again,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), April 1981. Milne, Tom, ‘‘Bob Rafelson,’’ in International Film Guide 1983, London, 1982. Grimes, T., ‘‘BBS: Auspicious Beginnings, Open Endings,’’ in Movie (London), Winter 1986. Turan, K., ‘‘The Wanderer,’’ in American Film, February 1990. Pernod, P, in Positif (Paris), January 1991. Cinémaction (Courbevoie), July 1992. Knepperges, R., ‘‘M?nner-Leiden,’’ in Film-Dienst (Cologne), 27 October 1992. Segnocinema (Vicenza), March/April 1997. *** Bob Rafelson is a neglected director mainly because he lays bare the myths essential to America. He does not sugarcoat the bitter dose of his satire, as do Coppola and Altman. A distaste on the part of mainstream critics has caused attacks upon, but mostly the neglect of, Rafelson’s The King of Marvin Gardens, which is his most repre- sentative film. Head is bound by the conventions of the teenage- comedy genre and shows few marks of Rafelson’s authorship; Stay Hungry is a minor work that sustains his standard theme of the drop- out—this time it is a Southern aristocrat who falls into the under- world, which is ambiguously mixed with the business world above. Something of a popular success, Five Easy Pieces certainly demands attention. Five Easy Pieces was the first expression of the burned-out liberalism that was to become the hallmark of American films of the RAFELSON DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 790 Bob Rafelson 1970s. Rafelson’s film expresses the intelligentsia’s dissatisfaction with its impotency in light of an overweening socio-economic struc- ture. Either capitulating or dropping out seemed the only choices. The film’s protagonist seeks escape, from a successful but unsatisfying career as a concert pianist into the world of the working class—first as an oil-field worker and then, at the end of the film, as a logger. The film centers on his foray into the bourgeois bohemia of his family’s home—a sort of ad hoc artist colony under the aegis of his sister. The world we see is both figuratively and literally one of cripples. His sister’s lover is in traction. His father is a paralytic. All are emblems of a pseudoclass, without a vital motive force, that the protagonist rejects, but cannot replace. The protagonist’s sole contribution to an intellectual discussion among his sister’s friends is an obscene comment on the senselessness of their phrase-weaving. In the largest sense, Five Easy Pieces is about the American intellectual’s self- hatred, his disorientation in an essentially anti-intellectual society, and his resulting inability to feel comfortable with his capacity to think and to create. The King of Marvin Gardens cuts through the American dream— the belief that every man can achieve riches by ingenuity. The protagonist becomes drawn into his brother’s success dream. Rafelson sets the film in pre-boom Atlantic City—an emblem of economic desolation. The locale’s aptness is affirmed by the scene of the protagonist’s sister-in-law throwing her make-up into a fire. Her ageing face, without make-up, is seen against the dilapidated facade of boardwalk hotels. Her gesture (and in Rafelson’s uncommitted world we daren’t ask for more) of defiance is directed against what has been the female share of the American Dream: the male has traditionally taken for himself the power that comes of wealth and left woman the illusion called ‘‘glamour.’’ Another symbol is the blow- ing up of an old hotel; it collapses in a heap like the dream of entrepreneurship the protagonist momentarily shares with his brother. Rafelson’s elliptical style creates tension and interest in the opening moments of thrillers like The Postman Always Rings Twice, Black Widow, and Man Trouble, but this style makes for occasional plot confusion. It is often hard to tell whether the ellipses are accidental or part of aesthetic strategy. In one instance, whatever the intent, an ellipsis poetically seems to suggest a shudder of horror at the human condition and a desire to drop out entirely from it: Rafelson suddenly presents us with the strangely clipped, abrupt walkout of the protagonist at the end of Black Widow. The films focus on what is the main theme of Rafelson’s films of the 1980s and 1990s: betrayal from RAIMIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 791 those closest to you, especially from within the family group. Rafelson cannot ever be said to have been caught up in the recent sentimental- ism about the traditional family structure. In his filmic vision, he places no trust in the values found there. Only in the unconventional pairing between the explorer Burton and a liberated aristocrat (exhilaratingly played by Fiona Shaw) in Mountains of the Moon does one find a positive vision of marriage and human trust, achieved only after the hero drops out from the competitive struggle for grants toward explorations and for credit from the findings. Burton experiences betrayal from Spekes, his boon companion during the exploration of the mountains at the source of the Nile River. While the film tries but fails to exonerate Burton of any deep complicity in British imperialism, it does pointedly show how powerful English interests seek in every possible way to harm his career and discount his accomplishments because he is of Irish birth. The socio-historical impact is otherwise weakened by the narrative. Whereas Rafelson’s thrillers benefit from elliptical expositions, they play considerable havoc with much of the first half of Mountains of the Moon. Rafelson has failed to gain audience popularity and rare critical approval because he does not soften brutal political deconstruction with dazzling techniques. He devotes his attention not only to the straightforward expression of his themes but to getting brilliant acting out of his casts. He forces them to explore the darker sides of their characters—each a microcosm of society. —Rodney Farnsworth RAIMI, Sam Nationality: American. Born: 23 October 1959, Franklin, Michigan. Education: Studied English at Michigan State University, 1977–79. Family: Married Gillian Greene; children: Lorne, Henry, one daugh- ter. Career: Worked as production assitant for industrial filmmaker Vern Nobles; directed television commercials in Detroit area; co-founder of Renaissance Pictures, 1979; executive producer of television series’ Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, Xena: Warrior Princess, and American Gothic, 1995, Spy Game and Young Hercu- les, 1997, and others. Awards: Knokke’heist Film Festival (Bel- gium), best horror film, 1982, Sitges Film Festival (Spain), best horror film and best special effects, 1982, Paris Festival of Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror, first prize of critics and first prize of public, 1983, and Fangoria magazine award for best horror film of the year, 1983, all for The Evil Dead; Catalonian International Film Festival (Spain), best director, for Darkman, 1990; Catalonian Inter- national Film Festival Time-Machine Honorary Award, 1992; Fantasporto Critics’ Award, Brussels International Festival of Fan- tasy Film Golden Raven, for Army of Darkness, 1993; Cognac (France) Festival du Film Policier Special Jury Prize, for A Simple Plan, 1999. Agent: International Creative Management, 8942 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90211–1934. Films as Director: 1977 It’s Murder! 1978 Clockwork; Within the Woods (+ sc) 1982 The Evil Dead (+ sc, pr, ro as Fisherman on side of road [uncredited]) Sam Raimi 1985 Crimewave (+ sc) 1987 Evil Dead II (+ sc, ro as Knight [uncredited]) 1990 Darkman (+ sc) 1993 Army of Darkness (+ sc, ro as Knight in Sweatshirt and Sneakers [uncredited]) 1995 The Quick and the Dead 1998 A Simple Plan 1999 For Love of the Game 2000 The Gift; Doomsday Man 2001 Spider-Man Other Films: 1983 Hefty’s (Premin) (ro as Cook νm2) 1985 Spies like Us (Landis) (ro as Drive-In Security); Stryker’s War (Becker) (ro as Cult Leader) 1988 The Dead Next Door (Bookwalter) (pr [uncredited]); Maniac Cop (Lustig) (ro as Parade Reporter); Intruder (Spiegel) (ro as Randy) 1989 Easy Wheels (O’Malley) (sc [as Celia Abrams], pr) 1990 Maniac Cop 2 (Lustig) (ro as Newscaster); Miller’s Crossing (Coen) (ro as Snickering Gunman) 1991 Lunatics: A Love Story (Becker) (pr) 1992 The Nutt House (Adam Rifkin) (sc [as Alan Smithee Jr.]); Flying Saucers over Hollywood: The Plan 9 Companion (Carducci) (ro as Himself/Interviewee); Innocent Blood (Landis) (ro as Roma Meats Man) RAIMI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 792 1993 Hard Target (Woo) (pr); Indian Summer (Binder) (ro as Stick Coder); Body Bags (Carpenter and Hooper-for TV) (ro as Dead Attendant); Journey to the Center of the Earth (for TV) (ro as Collins) 1994 The Hudsucker Proxy (Coen) (sc, ro as Hudsucker Brainstormer); Timecop (Hyams) (pr); Darkman II: The Return of Durant (May) (pr); The Flintstones (Levant) (ro as Cliff Look-a-Like) 1995 Galaxis (Mesa) (ro as Nervous Official) 1996 Darkman III: Darkman Must Die (May) (pr) 1997 The Shining (Garris-miniseries for TV) (ro as Gas Sta- tion Howie) 1998 Hercules and Xena—The Animated Movie: The Battle for Mount Olympus (Naylor) (pr); Young Hercules (Scott) (pr) 1999 Intimate Portrait: Kelly Preston (Golde) (role as himself) Publications By RAIMI: book— The Hudsucker Proxy, New York, 1994. By RAIMI: article— ‘‘Gun Slinging Sam’’ (interview), in Film Threat (Beverly Hills), no. 22, June 1995. On RAIMI: articles— Warren, Bill, ‘‘Darkman Director,’’ in Starlog, no. 158, Septem- ber 1990. Clark, J., ‘‘Some of Sam,’’ in Premiere (Boulder), March 1995. Hoxter, Julian, ‘‘The Evil Dead: From Splatstick to Slaptshtick,’’ in Necronomicon: The Journal of Horror and Erotic Cinema, Book One, edited by Andy Black, London, 1996. Nashawaty, Chris, ‘‘Out of Left Field,’’ in Entertainment Weekly, vol. 1, no. 503, 17 September 1999. *** Director, writer, producer, and occasional actor Samuel Raimi was born the third of five children, and was raised in a large home in Franklin, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. His father, Leonard Raimi, a furniture and appliance store owner, staged and shot elaborate home movies, and Sam quickly became ‘‘fascinated by the fact that you could capture reality, however staged, with an 8mm camera, replay it, edit it, and make things happen in a different order than they did in real life.’’ When he was just eleven years old, the younger Raimi made his first film. At age thirteen, he bought his first 8mm camera, using money he had earned from raking leaves. The movies he made at this time ranged from slapstick comedies that resembled and were in- spired by his beloved Three Stooges, to a huge ‘‘Civil War extravanganza using props and costumes with fifty extras.’’ Sam and his older brother Ivan (with whom he would later co-write Darkman and Army of Darkness) were constantly experimenting with different camera techniques in order to get the strangest angles possible—a preoccupation evident in his films to this day. At the age of fifteen, Sam and his friend Bruce Campbell (who would go on to attain cult status as Ash in the Evil Dead trilogy) began attending classes taught by industrial filmmaker Vern Nobles. Nobles hired Sam as a produc- tion assistant, and after directing his own amateur films (as well as some commercials in the local Detroit area), Raimi enrolled at Michigan State University. There he met future business partner and aspiring producer Robert Tapert. Sam, Ivan, Tapert, and Campbell formed Renaissance Pictures, and after a few early efforts by Raimi (It’s Murder!, Within the Woods, and Clockwork), they struck gold with The Evil Dead in 1982. Stephen King called The Evil Dead, ‘‘the most ferociously origi- nal horror movie I have ever seen,’’ and this unexpected compliment brought the picture instant credibility. Made on a budget of approxi- mately $50,000, Raimi’s backers were at first annoyed because the film appeared to be a comedy, when they thought they would be getting a horror movie. But it is precisely the director’s trademark combination of gore and slapstick (otherwise known as ‘‘splatstick’’), along with his innovative camerawork—particularly his use of demon point-of-view shots—which made the film a hit. The Evil Dead, an expanded version of Raimi’s earlier short, Within the Woods (also starring Campbell), tells the story of five students who travel to a creepy cabin in the woods for a weekend break and are cut off from the outside world when a bridge collapses beneath them. In the basement of the cabin, the students find the Book of the Dead (bound in human skin) and a tape recorder. The tape’s narrator warns of the evil dead, malevolent demons he has unwisely summoned. Sure enough, the evil dead show up, and all hell breaks loose. One of the female student goes outside and is raped by possessed vines, a scene which incurred the wrath of moralists in Britain, and led to the film being prosecuted under existing ‘‘video nasty’’ legislation. Although The Evil Dead’s super low budget is unintentionally revealed at times, the film’s kinetic camerawork, over-the-top gore, and sheer intensity insured its status as a cult fave. In 1985, Raimi teamed up with friends Joel and Ethan Coen (who hit the big time a year before with Blood Simple) on the flawed but inspired Crimewave. In this movie, a pair of cartoon-like extermina- tor/hitmen kill the owner of a burglar-alarm company, and proceed to stalk the partner who hired them, his wife, and a nerd framed for the murder, who tells the story in flashback from the electric chair. Two years later, Raimi would direct the next installment of The Evil Dead on a substantially higher budget than his previous efforts. Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn retells the entire story of the first film in about ten minutes, and develops the franchise’s underlying mythos, thereby paving the way for the third and most whacked out installment, Army of Darkness, in 1993. One crucial difference between Evil Dead II and its predecessor is that the latter is a more overtly comic film. The gore is still there, in spades, but as one critic puts it, ‘‘the flying eye- balls and lopped-off appendages serve as the functional equivalents of custard pies and buckets of whitewash rather than anything psychologically retrograde.’’ Raimi made his major-studio debut with Darkman in 1990, which he co-wrote as well as directed. Although he tried to secure the eponymous lead role for his friend Campbell, the producers opted instead for established star Liam Neeson. The film—a moderate success at best—concerns a scientist who is horribly burned by a fire in his lab lit by criminals. Using the synthetic skin he had invented, he seeks revenge under different identities. After Army of Darkness, Raimi teamed up with the Coen brothers once again, this time on The Hudsucker Proxy (1994), which he co-wrote. In 1993–94, Raimi also co-produced a pair of Jean Claude Van Damme action spectaculars, Hard Target (directed by Hong Kong legend John Woo), and Time RAINERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 793 Cop. In addition, he found great success as executive producer of the hit schlock television shows Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess. Raimi returned as director on the revisionist Western, The Quick and the Dead (1995), starring Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, and a pre-Titanic Leonardo DiCaprio. But his critical breakthrough came three years later, in 1998, with A Simple Plan, in which Bill Paxton and Billy Bob Thornton play brothers who find a bag full of money in the woods, with disastrous consequences. As well as being Raimi’s first heavyweight, serious film, it was also his first shot at directing an adaptation of a bestselling novel (written by Scott M. Smith). A Simple Plan wound up garnering two Oscar nominations, for Best Supporting Actor (Thornton), and for Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium. Raimi’s next feature, the tepid Kevin Costner baseball vehicle For Love of the Game (1999), led some fans to believe he was selling out. But that view should change with his upcoming film, Spider-Man scheduled to appear in 2001. —Steven Schneider RAINER, Yvonne Nationality: American. Born: San Francisco, 1934. Career: Mod- ern dancer, then choreographer, New York, from 1957; co-founder of Judson Dance Theater, 1962; presented choreographic work in U.S. and Europe, 1962–75; began to integrate slides and short films into dance performances, 1968; completed first feature-length film, Lives of Performers, 1972; teacher at New School for Social Research, New York, California Institute of the Arts, Valencia, and elsewhere. Awards: Maya Deren Award, American Film Institute, 1988; Guggenheim Fellowship, 1969, 1989; MacArthur Fellowship, 1990–95; Wexner Prize, 1995. Address: 72 Franklin St., New York, NY 10013, U.S.A. Films: 1967 Volleyball (Foot Film) (short) 1968 Hand Movie (short); Rhode Island Red (short); Trio Film (short) 1969 Line 1972 Lives of Performers 1974 Film about a Woman Who . . . 1976 Kristina Talking Pictures 1980 Journeys from Berlin/1971 1985 The Man Who Envied Women 1990 Privilege 1996 MURDER and murder (+ sc, ed, pr) Publications By RAINER: books— Work 1961–73, New York, 1974. The Films of Yvonne Rainer, by Rainer and others, Bloomington, Indiana, 1989. A Woman Who Essays, Interviews, Scripts (Art+Performance), Balti- more, Maryland, 1999. By RAINER: articles— ‘‘A Quasi Survey of Some ‘Minimalist’ Tendencies in the Quantita- tively Minimal Dance Activity midst the Plethora, or An Analysis of Trio A,’’ in Minimal Art, edited by Gregory Battcock, New York, 1968. Interview in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), May 1977. ‘‘More Kicking and Screaming from the Narrative Front/Backwa- ter,’’ in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol. 7, no. 1/2, 1985. Interview with Mitch Rosenbaum, in Persistence of Vision (Maspeth, New York), Summer 1988. ‘‘Script of Privilege,’’ in Screen Writings: Scripts and Texts by Independent Filmmakers, edited by Scott MacDonald. ‘‘Yvonne Rainer: Privilegien und Risiken,’’ an interview with K. Easterwood and S. Fairfax,’’ in Frauen und Film, June 1991. ‘‘(Re)position - or - Permission for My Motives,’’ in Felix, no. 2, 1992. ‘‘Rainer Talking Pictures,’’ an interview with T.N. Goodeve, in Art in America, July 1997. On RAINER: book— Green, Shelley, Radical Juxtaposition: The Films of Yvonne Rainer, n.d. On RAINER: articles— Koch, Stephen, ‘‘Performance: A Conversation,’’ in Artforum (New York), December 1972. Borden, Lizzie, ‘‘Trisha Brown and Yvonne Rainer,’’ in Artforum (New York), June 1973. Michelson, Annette, ‘‘Yvonne Rainer: The Dancer and the Dance,’’ and ‘‘Yvonne Rainer: Lives of Performers,’’ in Artforum (New York), January and February 1974. ‘‘Yvonne Rainer: An Introduction, in Camera Obscura (Berkeley), Fall 1976. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, ‘‘The Ambiguities of Yvonne Rainer,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), March 1980. Rich, B.R., ‘‘Yvonne Rainer,’’ in Frauen und Film (Berlin), Octo- ber 1984. Vincendeau, Ginette, and B. Reynaud, ‘‘Impossible Projections,’’ in Screen (London), Autumn 1987. Cook, Pam, ‘‘Love and Catastrophe—Yvonne Rainer,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), August 1987. Martin, Adrian, ‘‘Potholes and Potshots: Yvonne Rainer,’’ in Filmnews, July 1990. Screen (Oxford), Spring 1992. Onasta, Michael, ‘‘Yvonne Rainer: Tanz, Performance, Film,’’ in EPD Film (Frankfurt), June 1994. Stone, L., ‘‘Good Grief,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 24 June 1997. *** Although Yvonne Rainer made her first feature-length film in 1972, she had already been prominent in the New York avant-garde art scene for nearly a decade. She moved to New York from San Francisco in 1957 to study acting, but started taking dance lessons and soon committed herself to dance. By the mid-1960s, she emerged as an influential dancer and choreographer, initially drawing the atten- tion of critics and audiences through her work with the Judson Dance Theater. RAY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 794 Rainer saw a problem inherent in dance as an art form, namely its involvement with ‘‘narcissism, virtuosity and display.’’ Her alterna- tive conception was of the performance as a kind of work or task, as opposed to an exhibition, carried out by ‘‘neutral ‘doers’’’ rather than performers. Thus the minimalist dance that she pioneered, which depended on ordinary movements, departed radically from the dra- matic, emotive forms of both its classical and modern dance precursors. Rainer was not long content with merely stripping dance of its artifice and conventions. She became interested in psychology and sexuality, in the everyday emotions that people share, and grew dissatisfied with abstract dance, which she found too limited to express her new concerns. To communicate more personal and emotional content, Rainer began experimenting with combining movements with other media, such as recorded and spoken texts, slides, film stills, and music, creating a performance collage. Lan- guage and narrative became increasingly important components of her performance. Rainer’s first films, shorts made to be part of these performances in the late 1960s, were ‘‘filmed choreographic exercises,’’ as she wrote in 1971, ‘‘that were meant to be viewed with one’s peripheral vision . . . not to be taken seriously.’’ Her interest in the narrative potential of film and the director’s dominance of the medium drew Rainer further into filmmaking. Her first two feature films, Lives of Performers and Film about a Woman Who . . . , both with cinematographer Babette Mangolte, originated as performance pieces. In these and her two other films, Kristina Talking Pictures and Journeys from Berlin/1971, Rainer interweaves the real and the fictional, the personal and the political, the concrete and the abstract. She preserves the collagist methods of her performances, juxtaposing personal recollections, previous works, historical documents, and original dialogue and narration, her soundtracks often having the same richness, and the same disjunction, as the visual portions of her films. Like Brecht, Rainer believes that an audience should contemplate what they see; they should participate in the creative process of the film rather than simply receive it passively. Thus, instead of system- atically telling a story, she apposes and layers narrative elements to create meaning. The discontinuity, ambiguity, and even contradiction that often result keep Rainer’s audience at a distance, so they can examine the feminist, psychological, political, or purely emotional issues she addresses. Consistent with her dance and performance, Rainer’s films are theoretical, even intellectual, not dramatic, senti- mental, or emotional, despite her subject matter, which is often controversial and emotion-laden. —Jessica Wolff RAY, Man Nationality: American. Born: Emanuel Rabinovitch, Philadelphia, PA, 27 August 1890. Family: Married Adon Lacroix, 1913 (divorced 1920); married Juliet Browning, 1946. Education: Studied art, architecture, and engineering at the National Academy of Design, the Art Student’s League and the Ferrer Center in New York City. Career: 1911—taught at Ferrer Center in New York; 1913—one- man show at the Daniel Gallery in New York;1915—met artist Marcel Duchamp and helped form the New York Dada group; 1916— begins to experiment with photography; 1921—departs for Paris, discovers rayographs (photographs made by leaving objects on photographic paper, and has one-man exhibition at the ‘‘exposition Dada’’; 1923—makes first film, La Retour à la raison (Return to Reason); 1929—rediscovers solarization (rendering a photographic image part negative, part positive by exposing a print or negative to white light); 1940—returns to the United States (Hollywood) to escape the German occupation; 1944—gives a retrospective exhibi- tion at the Pasadena Art Institute; 1950—returns to Paris; 1963— publishes his autobiography (Self-Portrait). Died: Paris, France, 18 November 1976. Films as Director: 1924 Le Retour à la raison (Return to Reason) (+ed, + pr); à quoi rêvent les jeunes films (What Do Young Films Dream About?) 1926 Emak-Bakia (+ph) 1928 L’étoile de mer (Starfish) (+ph, pr) 1929 Les Mystères du chateau de Dé (The Mysteries of the Chateau de De) (+ph) 1935 Essai de simulation de délire cinématographique (Attempt at Simulating Cinematographic Delirium) 1941 Dreams That Money Can Buy Other Films: 1924 Entr’acte (Intermission) (Clair, Picabia) (as Man Ray); Ballet mécanique (Mechanical Ballet) (Léger, Murphy) (ph) 1926 Anémic cinéma (Anemic Cinema) (Duchamp) (ph, asst) Publications By RAY: books— Self-Portrait, R. Laffont, 1964. Man Ray, Aperture, 1973. On RAY: books— Belz, Carl, The Role of Man Ray in the Dada and Surrealist Movements, Princeton, 1963. Penrose, Roland, Sir, Man Ray, Thames and Hudson, 1975. Schwarz, Arturo, The Rigour of Imagination, Rizzoli, 1977. Esten, John, Man Ray: Bazaar Years, Rizzoli, 1988. RAYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 795 Man Ray On RAY: articles— Foresta, Merry, ‘‘Tracing the Line,’’ Aperture (San Francisco), Fall 1991. Hopkins, David, ‘‘Men before the Mirror,’’ Art History (London), September 1998. Boxer, Sarah, ‘‘Surreal, but Not Taking Chances,’’ New York Times, 20 November 1998. Goldberg, Vicki, ‘‘Get a Great Image,’’ New York Times, 5 Febru- ary 1999. *** In 1924, Man Ray, already a renowned painter, photographer, and participant in the Dada movement, began to experiment with the medium of film. At the time Man Ray was in the company of many of his avant-garde comrades, including Marcel Duchamp, René Clair, and Fernand Léger. Under the influence of the avant-garde ideals, Ray and his friends began concentrated on the technical potential of film-making, the possibilities of special effects, cinematic distortion, slow motion, etc., and abandoned the quest for narrative. The effect of this experimentation can be seen in many of Ray’s films. Ray’s first project combined techniques he had cultivated in still photography and the experimental cinematic techniques developed by the avant-garde. This project, Le Retour à la raison (The Return to Reason), was completed in 1923. This film is literally a collection of Ray’s special photographs, or rayographs, strung together to form several series of images. Here, as in Ray’s later films, the emphasis is not on telling a story. Rather, it is to play with the possibility of representing light, shape, and movement on film. Ray’s second film effort came in 1924 and was a collaborative project with his close friend, Marcel Duchamp. Anémic cinéma (Anemic Cinema) for which Ray functioned as cinematographer, is yet another experiment with the possibilities of cinema. The film features a set of spiraling disks, on which are placed French words. Through movement and camera focus, the words combine to form phrases and puns in French. Here again, there is no narrative. Instead, there is an emphasis on the non-sense of language and on the non- sense of art, both of which formed the basis of the Dada movement. In the second half of the 1920s, Ray made three films that he characterized as cinematic poetry. These films, Emak-Bakia, L’étoile RAY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 796 de mer (The Starfish), and Les Mystères du chateau de Dé (The Mysteries of the Chateau de De), were made to cause the viewer to ‘‘rush out and breath the pure of the outside, be the leading actor and solve his own dramatic problems.’’ In that way, Ray affirmed, the spectator realizes ‘‘a long cherished dream of becoming a poet, an artist himself.’’ As revealed by Ray’s comments, this is a participa- tory cinema, where the spectator is expected to form meaning from his own unique viewing experience. Emak-Bakia is in part a continuation of the technique introduced in Le Retour à la raison in that it, too, includes a series of rayographs. This film, however, is more sophisticated in a technical sense than the first, employing rapid cutting, superimposition and slow motion to create a far more complex, though equally abstract film. In addition, Ray also incorporates a great deal more play with light in the film, even inserting non-objective reflections into the body of the film. In addition to these purely abstract images, Ray interposes realistic images of daily objects, people and landscapes. The result is a highly visual study of motion, shape, and light, that reveals a methodical experimentation with the possibilities of representing such phenomena. L’étoile de mer (The Starfish), perhaps Ray’s masterpiece, is literally a poem on film. Based on an unpublished poem by Surrealist poet Robert Desnos, the film is an attempt to represent verbal poetry as visual spectacle. Unlike his earlier films, L’étoile de mer is constructed of realistic images rather than pure shapes or light forms, and yet it is equally non-narrative and equally abstract. In the film, sequences of couples meeting, undressing, getting into bed, parting, are shown in alternation with images of static objects, fields, the sea, a street. Thus, the frenzy and fervor of the human being’s movement toward sexual contact is juxtaposed against the sterility and stasis of everyday life. As in his preceding film, Ray experiments with light, with the camera and with representation in the film, using such techniques as extreme close-up, distortion and soft-focus, all used in contrast with a clear-focus lens. Ray’s third film from this period, Les Mystères du chateau de Dé (The Mysteries of the Chateau de De) shows a further development in the focus on real or realistic images in abstract cinema. Like L’étoile de mer, this film relies heavily on sequences of human beings. Furthermore, of Ray’s films, this one is the closest to being narrative, in that the sequences of images presented in the film seem, on the surface, to form a coherent whole. The film shows the voyage of a couple in a bar, who drive a great distance, arrive at a villa, and interact with other people. A great deal of attention is given to the house and to the actions engaged in by those staying there, and for a time, all seems ‘‘normal.’’ Progressively, however, distortions in the size of objects, in the light and shadows of the background, in the characters’ movements all become apparent. In the end, none of these distortions are ‘‘explained’’ by the film, nor is there a sense given to the actions of the characters. Despite its more narrative appearance, Les Mystères du chateau de Dé remains as abstract as Ray’s earlier films. Furthermore, the influence of the Surrealist movement can be seen very clearly in the seemingly banal images, which present unexplained and eerie irregularities. By the late 1930s and 1940s, Ray had all but abandoned film to return to his two original passions, painting and still photography. Before his death, in 1976, he made only two more films, Essai de simulation de délire cinématographique (Attempt at the Simulation of Cinematographic Delirium) from 1935, and Dreams That Money Can Buy, in collaboration with Hans Richter, and many of his Dada- Surrealist collaborators. The first is highly reminiscent of Ray’s films from the 1920s, and the second is a combination of more developed cinematographic techniques and embodies the spirit of the Surrealist and Abstract Expressionist movements. In fact, it is puzzling that in the very years that Ray was the closest to the film industry (he was living in Hollywood), he was the least interested in cinema. Carl Belz has suggested that Man Ray withdrew from cinema partly because he felt he had exhausted its potential, and partly because it took him away from painting and photography. And it is, in fact, for his contributions to the latter that he is best remembered. Nonetheless, to overlook the impact of May Ray on the cinema is to ignore the influence of one of the early pioneers of cinematic art. It was Man Ray, and many of his Dada and Surrealist contemporaries who first drew attention to a great many of the cinematic techniques widely used today. For this, and for the fascinating efforts at produc- ing a non-narrative cinema, Man Ray’s films remain crucial to any understanding of the development of film. —Dayna Oscherwitz RAY, Nicholas Nationality: American. Born: Raymond Nicholas Kienzle in Galesville, Wisconsin, 7 August 1911. Education: Educated in architecture and theater, University of Chicago. Family: Married Nicholas Ray (left) with James Dean RAYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 797 1) Jean Evans, 1930 (divorced); 2) Gloria Grahame, 1948 (divorced 1952); 3) dancer Betty Schwab (divorced); 4) Susan (Ray), four children. Career: Director, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Taliesin Play- house, early 1930s; in Theater of Action, 1935–37; joined John Houseman’s Phoenix Theater, accident results in loss of sight in right eye, 1938; named War Information Radio Program Director by Houseman, 1942; director on Broadway, 1943; assistant to Elia Kazan in Hollywood, 1944; directed first film, They Live by Night, 1948; walked off set of 55 Days at Peking, moved to Paris, 1962; teacher of filmmaking at State University of New York, Binghamton, 1971–73. Died: In New York, 16 June 1979. Films as Director: 1948 They Live by Night (first released in Britain as The Twisted Road, U.S. release 1949); A Woman’s Secret 1949 Knock on Any Door 1950 In a Lonely Place; Born to Be Bad 1951 The Flying Leathernecks 1952 On Dangerous Ground; The Lusty Men 1954 Johnny Guitar 1955 Run for Cover; Rebel without a Cause (+ story) 1956 Hot Blood; Bigger than Life 1957 The True Story of Jesse James; Bitter Victory (+ co-sc) 1958 Wind across the Everglades; Party Girl 1959 The Savage Innocents (+ sc) 1961 King of Kings 1963 55 Days at Peking (co-d) 1975 You Can’t Go Home Again (+ sc, unfinished) 1981 Lightning over Water (Nick’s Movie) (co-d, role as himself) Other Films: 1977 Der Amerikanische Freund (The American Friend) (Wenders) (role) 1979 Hair (Forman) (role) Publications By RAY: articles— ‘‘Portrait de l’acteur en jeune homme,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 66, 1956. ‘‘Story into Script,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1956. Interview with Charles Bitsch, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), Novem- ber 1958. ‘‘Conversation with Nicholas Ray and Joseph Losey,’’ with Penelope Houston, in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1961. Interview with Jean Douchet and Jacques Joly, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1962. Interview with Adriano Aprà and others, in Movie (London), May 1963. Interview in Interviews with Film Directors, edited by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1967. ‘‘Nicholas Ray Today,’’ an interview with J. Greenberg, in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), January 1973. ‘‘Nicholas Ray: Rebel!,’’ an interview with M. Goodwin and N. Wise, in Take One (Montreal), January 1977. ‘‘On Directing,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1990. ‘‘Ray’s World according to Ray,’’ in Film Comment (New York), vol. 27, September-October 1991. On RAY: books— McArthur, Colin, Underworld U.S.A., London, 1972. Kreidl, John, Nicholas Ray, Boston, 1977. Masi, Stefano, Nicholas Ray, Florence, 1983. Allan, Blaine, Nicholas Ray: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1984. Hillier, Jim, editor, Cahiers du Cinéma 1: Neo-realism, Hollywood, New Wave, London, 1985. Erice, Victor, and Jos Oliver, Nicholas Ray y su tiempo, Madrid, 1986. Giuliani, Pierre, Nicholas Ray, Paris, 1987. Wagner, Jean, Nicholas Ray, Paris, 1987. Eisenschitz, Bernard, translated by Tom Milne, Nicholas Ray: An American Journey, London and Boston, 1993. On RAY: articles— Archer, Eugene, ‘‘Generation without a Cause,’’ in Film Culture (New York), vol. 2, no. 1, 1956. Perkins, Victor, ‘‘The Cinema of Nicholas Ray,’’ in Movie Reader, edited by Ian Cameron, New York, 1972. Wood, Robin, ‘‘Film Favorites,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1972. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, ‘‘Circle of Pain: The Cinema of Nicholas Ray,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1973. ‘‘Johnny Guitar Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), March 1974. Biskind, Peter, ‘‘Rebel without a Cause: Nicholas Ray in the Fifties,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1974. Lederer, Joseph, ‘‘Film as Experience: Nicholas Ray—The Director Turns Teacher,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), Novem- ber 1975. Cocks, J., ‘‘Director in Aspic,’’ in Take One (Montreal), Janu- ary 1977. Thomson, D., ‘‘In a Lonely Place,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), no. 4, 1979. Obituary, in The New York Times, 18 June 1979. Beylie, Claude, obituary, in Ecran (Paris), 15 September 1979. Farrell, T., and others, ‘‘Nicholas Ray: The Last Movies,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1981. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, ‘‘Looking for Nicholas Ray,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), December 1981. Eisenschitz, B., ‘‘Nicholas Ray, téléaste,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1985. Houseman, John, ‘‘Houseman, Ray, and Ophüls,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1986. Tobin, Y., in Positif (Paris), hors-série, January 1991. Rosenbaum, J., ‘‘Guilty by Omission,’’ in Film Comment (New York), vol. 27, September-October 1991. Kennedy, H., ‘‘The Melodramatists,’’ in American Film (Marion, Ohio), vol. 17, January-February 1992. RAY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 798 Margulies, I., ‘‘Delaying the Cut: The Space of Performance in Lightning over Water,’’ in Screen, vol. 34, no. 1, Spring 1993. Wollen, P., ‘‘Never at Home,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 4, May 1994. Hauisch, M., ‘‘Der Poet der nacht, Nicholas Ray und sein werk,’’ in Film-Dienst (K?ln), vol. 46, no. 17, 13 August 1996. *** ‘‘The cinema is Nicholas Ray.’’ Godard’s magisterial statement has come in for a good deal of ridicule, not by any means entirely undeserved. Yet it contains a core of truth, especially if taken in reverse. Nicholas Ray is cinema in the sense that his films work entirely (and perhaps only) as movies, arrangements of space and movement charged with dramatic tension. Few directors demon- strate more clearly that a film is something beyond the sum of its parts. Consider only the more literary components—dialogue, plot, characterisation—and a film like Party Girl is patently trash. But on the screen the visual turbulence of Ray’s shooting style, the fractured intensity of his editing, fuse the elements into a valid emotional whole. The flaws are still apparent, but have become incidental. Nor is Ray’s cinematic style in any way extraneous, imposed upon his subjects. The nervous tension within the frame also informs his characters, vulnerable violent outsiders at odds with society and with themselves. The typical Ray hero is a loner, at once contemptuous of the complacent normal world and tormented with a longing to be reaccepted into it—to become (like Bowie and Keechie, the young lovers of They Live by Night) ‘‘like real people.’’ James Dean in Rebel without a Cause, Robert Ryan in On Dangerous Ground, Robert Mitchum in The Lusty Men, all start by rejecting the constraints of the nuclear family, only to find themselves impelled to recreate it in substitute form, as though trying to fill an unacknowledged void. In one achingly elegiac scene in The Lusty Men, Mitchum prowls around the tumbledown shack that was his childhood home, ‘‘looking for something I thought I’d lost.’’ Ray’s grounding in architecture (he studied at Taliesin with Frank Lloyd Wright) reveals itself in an exceptionally acute sense of space, often deployed as an extension of states of mind. In his films the geometry of locations, and especially interiors, serves as a psycho- logical terrain. Conflict can be played out, and tension expressed, in terms of spatial areas (upstairs and downstairs, for example, or the courtyards and levels of an apartment complex) pitted against each other. Ray also credited Wright with instilling in him ‘‘a love of the horizontal line’’—and hence of the CinemaScope screen, for which he felt intuitive affinity. Unlike many of his contemporaries, who found it awkward and inhibiting, Ray avidly explores the format’s potential, sometimes combining it with lateral tracking shots to convey lyrical movement, at other times angling his camera to create urgent diagonals, suggesting characters straining against the constric- tions of the frame. Equally idiosyncratic is Ray’s expressionist use of colour, taken at times to heights of delirium that risk toppling into the ridiculous. In Johnny Guitar, perhaps the most flamboyantly baroque Western ever made, Joan Crawford is colour-coded red, white, or black according to which aspect of her character—whore, victim, or gunslinger—is uppermost in a given scene. Similarly, the contrast in Bigger than Life between the hero’s respectable job as a schoolteacher and his déclassé moonlighting for a taxi firm is signalled by an abrupt cut from the muted grey-browns of the school to a screenful of gaudy yellow cabs that hit the audience’s eyes with a visual slap. Nearly all Ray’s finest films were made in the 1950s, their agonized romanticism cutting across the grain of that decade’s brittle optimism. ‘‘The poet of American disenchantment’’ (in David Thomson’s phrase), Ray viewed social conventions as a trap, from which violence or madness may be the only escape. In Bigger than Life, James Mason’s smalltown teacher, frustrated by his low social status, gains the feelings of power and superiority he aspires to from a nerve drug. Under its influence the character is transformed into a hideous parody of the dominant father-figure enjoined by society. Similarly—but working from the opposite perspective—In a Lonely Place subverts Bogart’s tough-guy persona, revealing the anguish and insecurity that underlie it and, as V.F. Perkins puts it, making ‘‘violence the index of the character’s weakness rather than strength.’’ ‘‘I’m a stranger here myself.’’ Ray often quoted Sterling Hayden’s line from Johnny Guitar as his personal motto. His career, as he himself was well aware, disconcertingly mirrored the fate of his own riven, alienated heroes. Unappreciated (or so he felt) in America, and increasingly irked by the constraints of the studio system, he nonethe- less produced all his best work there. In Europe, where he was hailed as one of the world’s greatest directors, his craft deserted him: after two ill-starred epics, the last sixteen years of his life trickled away in a mess of incoherent footage and abortive projects. Victim of his own legend, Ray finally took self-identification with his protagonists to its ultimate tortured conclusion—collaborating, in Lightning over Water, in the filming of his own disintegration and death. —Philip Kemp RAY, Satyajit Nationality: Indian. Born: Calcutta, 2 May 1921. Education: Attended Ballygunj Government School; Presidency College, University of Calcutta, B.A. in economics (with honors), 1940; studied painting at University of Santiniketan, 1940–43. Family: Married Bijoya Das, 1949; one son. Career: Commercial artist for D. J. Keymer advertis- ing agency, Calcutta, 1943; co-founder, Calcutta Film Society, 1947; met Jean Renoir making The River, 1950; completed first film, Pather Panchali, 1955; composed own music, from Teen Kanya (1961) on; made first film in Hindi (as opposed to Bengali), The Chess Players, 1977; editor and illustrator for children’s magazine Sandesh, 1980s. Awards: Grand Prize, Cannes Festival, 1956, Golden Gate Award, San Francisco International Film Festival, 1957, Film Critics Award, Stratford Festival, 1958, and president of India Gold Medal, all for Pather Panchali; Gold Lion, Venice Festival, 1957, Best Direction, San Francisco International Film Festival, 1958, and President of India Gold Medal, all for Aparajito; Selznick Award and Sutherland Trophy, 1960, for Apur Sansar; Silver Bear for Best Direction, Berlin Festival, for Mahanagar, 1964, and for Charulata, 1965; Special Award of Honour, Berlin Festival, 1966; Decorated Order Yugoslav Flag, 1971; Golden Bear Award, Berlin Film Festival, 1973, for Distant Thunder; D.Litt, Oxford University, 1978; life fellow, British Film Institute, 1983; Legion of Honour, France, 1989; Indian Awards, Best Picture and Best Director, 1991, for Agantuk; Academy Award for lifetime achievement in cinema, 1992. Died: Of heart failure, 23 April 1992, in Calcutta. RAYDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 799 Satyajit Ray Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1955 Pather Panchali (Father Panchali) (+ pr) 1956 Aparajito (The Unvanquished) (+ pr) 1957 Parash Pathar (The Philosopher’s Stone) 1958 Jalsaghar (The Music Room) (+ pr) 1959 Apur Sansar (The World of Apu) (+ pr) 1960 Devi (The Goddess) (+ pr, mus) 1961 Teen Kanya (Two Daughters) (+ pr); Rabindranath Tagore (doc) 1962 Abhijan (Expedition); Kanchanjanga (+ pr) 1963 Mahanagar (The Big City) 1964 Charulata (The Lonely Wife) 1965 Kapurush-o-Mahapurush (The Coward and the Saint); Two (short) 1966 Nayak (The Hero) 1967 Chiriakhana (The Zoo) 1969 Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne (The Adventures of Goopy and Bagha) 1970 Pratidwandi (The Adversary); Aranyer Din Ratri (Days and Nights in the Forest) 1971 Seemabaddha; Sikkim (doc) 1972 The Inner Eye (doc) 1973 Asani Sanket (Distant Thunder) 1974 Sonar Kella (The Golden Fortress) 1975 Jana Aranya (The Middleman) 1976 Bala (doc) 1977 Shatranj Ke Khilari (The Chess Players) 1978 Joi Baba Felunath (The Elephant God) 1979 Heerak Rajar Deshe (The Kingdom of Diamonds) 1981 Sadgati (Deliverance) (for TV); Pikoo (short) 1984 Ghare Bahire (The Home and the World) (+ pr, mus) 1989 Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People) 1990 Shakha Proshakha (Branches of the Tree) 1991 Agantuk (The Visitor) Publications By RAY: books— Our Films, Their Films, New Delhi, 1977. The Chess Players and Other Screenplays, London, 1989. My Years with APU, New York, 1994. By RAY: articles— ‘‘A Long Time on the Little Road,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1957. ‘‘Satyajit Ray on Himself,’’ in Cinema (Beverly Hills), July/Au- gust 1965. ‘‘From Film to Film,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma in English (New York), no. 3, 1966 Interview, in Film Makers on Filmmaking, by Harry M. Geduld, Bloomington, Indiana, 1967. Interview, in Interviews with Film Directors, edited by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1967. Interview with J. Blue, in Film Comment (New York), Summer 1968. ‘‘Conversation with Satyajit Ray,’’ with F. Isaksson, in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1970. ‘‘Ray’s New Trilogy,’’ an interview with C. B. Thomsen, in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1972/73. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Satyajit Ray,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), July/August 1978. Interview with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), May 1979. Interview with U. Gupta, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 12, no. 1, 1982. ‘‘Under Western Eyes,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1982. ‘‘Bridging the Home and the World,’’ an interview with A. Robinson, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), September 1984. Interview with Charles Tesson, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July/ August 1987. Interview with Derek Malcolm, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1989. Time Out (London), 29 April 1992. ‘‘To Western Audiences, the Filmmaker Satyajit Ray Is Synonymous with Indian Cinema,’’ an interview with Gowri Ramnarayan, in Interview, June 1992. On RAY: films— Satyajit Ray, 1982. Satyajit Ray: Introspections, 1991. On RAY: books— Seton, Marie, Portrait of a Director, Bloomington, Indiana, 1970. Wood, Robin, The Apu Trilogy, New York, 1971. RAY DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 800 Taylor, John Russell, Directors and Directions: Cinema for ‘70s, New York, 1975. Rangoonwalla, Firoze, Satyajit Ray’s Art, Shahdara, Delhi, 1980. Satyajit Ray: An Anthology, edited by Chidananda Das Gupta, New Delhi, 1981. Willemen, Paul, and Behroze Gandhy, Indian Cinema, London, 1982. Armes, Roy, Third World Filmmaking and the West, Berkeley, 1987. Nyce, Ben, Satyajit Ray: A Study of His Films, New York, 1988. Robinson, Andrew, Satyajit Ray: The Inner Eye, London, 1989. Tesson, Charles, Satyajit Ray, Paris, 1992. Sarkar, Bidyut, World of Satyajit Ray, UBS Publishers, 1992. Banerjee, Tarapada, Satyajit Ray: A Portrait in Black and White, New York, 1993. Moras, Chris, Creativity and Its Contents, Chester Springs, Pennsyl- vania, 1995. Banerjee, Surabhi, Satyajit Ray: Beyond the Frame, Allied Publish- ers, 1996. Das, Santi, editor, Satyajit Ray: An Intimate Master, Allied Publish- ers, 1998. On RAY: articles— Gray, H., ‘‘The Growing Edge: Satyajit Ray,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley, California), Winter 1958. Rhode, Eric, ‘‘Satyajit Ray: A Study,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1961. Stanbrook, Alan, ‘‘The World of Ray,’’ in Films and Filming (London), November 1965. Hrusa, B., ‘‘Satyajit Ray: Genius behind the Man,’’ in Film (London), Winter 1966. Glushanok, Paul, ‘‘On Ray,’’ in Cineaste (New York), Summer 1967. Malik, A., ‘‘Satyajit Ray and the Alien,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1967/68. Mehta, V., ‘‘Profiles,’’ in New Yorker, 21 March 1970. Thomsen, Christian Braad, ‘‘Ray’s New Trilogy,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1972/73. Dutta, K., ‘‘Cinema in India: An Interview with Satyajit Ray’s Cinematographers,’’ in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Mas- sachusetts), January 1975. Hughes, J., ‘‘A Voyage in India: Satyajit Ray,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1976. ‘‘Pathar Panchali Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 Febru- ary 1980. Armes, Roy, ‘‘Satyajit Ray: Astride Two Cultures,’’ in Films and Filming (London), August 1982. Robinson, A., ‘‘Satyajit Ray at Work,’’ in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), September 1983. Ray, B., ‘‘Ray off Set,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1983/84. Das Gupta, Chidananda, and Andrew Robinson, ‘‘A Passage from India,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), October 1985. Dissanyake, W., ‘‘Art, Vision, and Culture: Sayajit Ray’s Apu Trilogy Revisited,’’ in East-West Film Journal (Honolulu), vol. 1, December 1986. Gehler, F., ‘‘Wie der Tempel von Konarak,’’ in Film und Fernsehen (Potsdam, Germany), vol. 16, July 1988. Robinson, Andrew, ‘‘The Music Room,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Autumn 1989. Armand, M., ‘‘Satyajit Ray au present,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma, July/ August 1990. Jivani, A., ‘‘Ray of Hope,’’ in Time Out (London), 24 April 1991. Sengupta, Shuddhabarata, ‘‘Reflections on Satyajit Ray,’’ World Press Review, April 1992. Schickel, Richard, ‘‘Days and Nights at the Art House,’’ in Film Comment, May/June 1992. Andersson, K., ‘‘Satyajit Ray,’’ in Cinema Papers, May/June 1992. Chatterjee, D., ‘‘Entretien avec Satyajit Ray,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma, June 1992. Grafe, L., and O. Moller, obituary, in Film-Dienst (K?ln), vol. 45, 12 May 1992. McBride, J., and D. Young, obituary, in Variety, 27 April 1992. Obituary, in Filmnews, vol. 22, no. 4, May 1992. Niogret, H., and M. Ciment, ‘‘Les espaces de Satyajit Ray,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1992. Obituary, in EPD Film (Frankfurt), vol. 4, June 1992. Sight and Sound (London), special section, vol. 2, August 1992. Bonneville, L., in Séquences (Haute-Ville, Québec), November 1992. Heifetz, H., ‘‘Mixed Music: In Memory of Satyajit Ray,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 14, 1993. Mensuel du Cinéma (Paris), special section, January 1993. Andersson, K., ‘‘Lo scambio di culture nell’opera di Satyajit Ray,’’ in Cinema Nuovo (Rome), vol. 42, January-February 1993. Positif (Paris), special section, no. 399, May 1994. Ganguly, Keya, ‘‘Carnal Knowledge: Visuality and the Modern in Charulata,’’ in Camera Obscura (Bloomington), no. 37, Janu- ary 1996. Van der Heide, Bill, ‘‘Experiencing India: A Personal History,’’ in Media International Australia (North Ryde, NSW), no. 80, May 1996. *** From the beginning of his career as a filmmaker, Satyajit Ray was interested in finding ways to reveal the mind and thoughts of his characters. Because the range of his sympathy was wide, he has been accused of softening the presence of evil in his cinematic world. But a director who aims to represent the currents and cross-currents of feeling within people is likely to disclose to viewers the humanness even in reprehensible figures. In any case, from the first films of his early period, Ray devised strategies for rendering inner lives; he simplified the surface action of the film so that the viewer’s attention travels to (1) the reaction of people to one another, or to their environments, (2) the mood expressed by natural scenery or objects, and (3) music as a clue to the state of mind of a character. In the Apu Trilogy the camera often stays with one of two characters after the other character exits the frame to see their silent response. Or else, after some significant event in the narrative, Ray presents correlatives of that event in the natural world. When the impoverished wife in Pather Panchali receives a postcard bearing happy news from her husband, the scene dissolves to water skates dancing on a pond. As for music, in his films Ray commissioned compositions from India’s best classical musicians—Ravi Shankar, Vilayat Khan, Ali Akbar Khan— but after Teen Kanya composed his own music and progressed towards quieter indication through music of the emotional experience of his characters. REEDDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 801 Ray’s work can be divided into three periods on the basis of his cinematic practice: the early period, 1955–66, from Pather Panchali through Nayak; the middle period, 1969–1977, from Googy Gyne Bagha Byne through Shatranj Ke Khilari; and the final period, from Joy Baba Felunath and through his final film Agantuk, in 1991. The early period is characterized by thoroughgoing realism: the mise-en- scène are rendered in deep focus; long takes and slow camera movements prevail. The editing is subtle, following shifts of narrative interest and cutting on action in the Hollywood style. Ray’s emphasis in the early period on capturing reality is obvious in Kanchanjangha, in which 100 minutes in the lives of characters are rendered in 100 minutes of film time. The Apu Trilogy, Parash Pather, Jalsaghar, and Devi all exemplify what Ray had learned from Hollywood’s studio era, from Renoir’s mise-en-scène, and from the use of classical music in Indian cinema. Charulata affords the archetypal example of Ray’s early style, with the decor, the music, the long takes, the activation of various planes of depth within a composition, and the reaction shots all contributing significantly to a representation of the lonely wife’s inner conflicts. The power of Ray’s early films comes from his ability to suggest deep feeling by arranging the surface elements of his films unemphatically. Ray’s middle period is characterized by increasing complexity of style; to his skills at understatement Ray adds a sharp use of montage. The difference in effect between an early film and a middle film becomes apparent if one compares the early Mahanagar with the middle Jana Aranya, both films pertaining to life in Calcutta. In Mahanagar, the protagonist chooses to resign her job in order to protest the unjust dismissal of a colleague. The film affirms the rightness of her decision. In the closing sequence, the protagonist looks up at the tall towers of Calcutta and says to her husband so that we believe her, ‘‘What a big city! Full of jobs! There must be something somewhere for one of us!’’ Ten years later, in Jana Aranya, it is clear that there are no jobs and that there is precious little room to worry about niceties of justice and injustice. The darkness running under the pleasant facade of many of the middle films seems to derive from the turn in Indian politics after the death of Nehru. Within Bengal, many ardent young people joined a Maoist movement to destroy existing institutions, and more were themselves destroyed by a ruthless police force. Across India, politicians abandoned Nehru’s commitment to a socialist democracy in favor of a scramble for personal power. In Seemabaddha or Aranyer Din Ratri Ray’s editing is sharp but not startling. In Shatranj Ke Khilari, on the other hand, Ray’s irony is barely restrained: he cuts from the blue haze of a Nawab’s music room to a gambling scene in the city. In harsh daylight, commoners lay bets on fighting rams, as intent on their gambling as the Nawab was on his music. Audiences in India who responded warmly to Ray’s early films have sometimes been troubled by the complexity of his middle films. A film like Shatranj Ke Khilari was expected by many viewers to reconstruct the splendors of Moghul India as the early Jalsaghar had reconstructed the sensitivity of Bengali feudal landlords and Charulata the decency of upper class Victorian Bengal. What the audience found instead was a stern examination of the sources of Indian decadence. According to Ray, the British seemed less to blame for their role than the Indians who demeaned themselves by colluding with the British or by ignoring the public good and plunging into private pleasures. Ray’s point of view in Shatranj was not popular with distributors and so his first Hindi film was denied fair exhibition in many cities in India. Ray’s concluding style, most evident in the short features Pikoo and Sadgati, pays less attention than earlier to building a stable geography and a firm time scheme. The exposition of characters and situations is swift: the effect is of great concision. In Pikoo, a young boy is sent outside to sketch flowers so that his mother and her lover can pursue their affair indoors. The lover has brought along a drawing pad and colored pens to divert the boy. The boy has twelve colored pens in his packet with which he must represent on paper the wealth of colors in nature. In a key scene (lasting ten seconds) the boy looks at a flower, then down at his packet for a matching color. Through that action of the boy’s looking to match the world with his means, Ray suggests the striving in his own work to render the depth and range of human experience. In focussing on inner lives and on human relations as the ground of social and political systems, Ray continued the humanist tradition of Rabindranath Tagore. Ray studied at Santiniketan, the university founded by Tagore, and was close to the poet during his last years. Ray once acknowledged his debt in a lyrical documentary about Tagore, and through the Tagore stories on which he based his films Teen Kanya, Charulata, and Ghare Bahire. As the poet Tagore was his example, Ray has become an example to important younger filmmakers (such as Shyam Benegal, M. S. Sathyu, G. Aravindan), who have learned from him how to reveal in small domestic situations the working of larger political and cultural forces. —Satti Khanna REED, Carol Nationality: British. Born: Putney, London, 30 December 1906, son of actor Herbert Beerbohn Tree. Education: King’s School, Canter- bury. Family: Married 1) Diana Wynyard (divorced); 2) actress Penelope Ward, two sons. Career: Actor on London stage, from 1924; dramatic advisor to author Edgar Wallace, 1927; stage director, from 1929; dialogue director for Associated Talking Pictures, 1932; directed first feature, 1933; served in British Army Film Unit, World War II; began collaboration with writer Graham Greene, 1946. Awards: Best British Film Award, British Film Academy, for Odd Man Out, 1947; Best British Film Award, British Film Academy, and Best Direction, New York Film Critics, for The Fallen Idol, 1948; Best British Film Award, British Film Academy, and Quarterly Award, Directors Guild of America, for The Third Man, 1949; Knighted, 1952; Oscar for Best Director, for Oliver!, 1968. Died: In London, 1976. Films as Director: 1933 Midshipman Easy (Men of the Sea) 1936 Laburnum Grove; Talk of the Devil (+ story) 1937 Who’s Your Lady Friend? 1938 Bank Holiday (Three on a Week-End); Penny Paradise REED DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 802 Carol Reed (right) with Bernard Lee and Joseph Cotten on the set of The Third Man 1939 Climbing High; A Girl Must Live; The Stars Look Down 1940 Night Train to Munich (Night Train); The Girl in the News 1941 Kipps (The Remarkable Mr. Kipps); A Letter from Home (short documentary) 1942 The Young Mr. Pitt; The New Lot 1944 The Way Ahead 1945 The True Glory (collaboration with Garson Kanin) 1947 Odd Man Out 1948 The Fallen Idol 1949 The Third Man 1951 Outcast of the Islands 1953 The Man Between 1955 A Kid for Two Farthings 1956 Trapeze 1958 The Key 1960 Our Man in Havana 1963 The Running Man (+ pr) 1965 The Agony and the Ecstasy (+ pr) 1968 Oliver! 1970 Flap 1972 Follow Me (The Public Eye) Other Film: 1937 No Parking (Raymond) (story) Publications By REED: article— Interview in Encountering Directors, by Charles Samuels, New York, 1972. On REED: books— Greene, Graham, The Third Man, London and New York, 1968; published as The Third Man: A Film by Graham Greene and Carol Reed, New York, 1984. Phillips, Gene D., Graham Greene: The Films of His Fiction, New York, 1974. DeFelice, James, Filmguide to Odd Man Out, Bloomington, Indi- ana, 1975. REEDDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 803 Armes, Roy, A Critical History of the British Cinema, London, 1978. Moss, Robert F., The Films of Carol Reed, New York, 1987. Phillips, Gene D., Major Film Directors of the American and British Cinema, Cranbury, New Jersey, 1989. Wapshott, Nicholas, The Man Between: A Biography of Carol Reed, London, 1990; as Carol Reed: A Biography, New York, 1994. On REED: articles— Goodman, E., ‘‘Carol Reed,’’ in Theatre Arts (New York), May 1947. Wright, Basil, ‘‘The Director: Carol Reed,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1951. De La Roche, Catherine, ‘‘A Man with No Message,’’ in Films and Filming (London), December 1954. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Carol Reed in the Context of His Time,’’ in two parts, in Film Culture (New York), no. 10, 1956, and no. 11, 1957. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘First of the Realists,’’ and ‘‘The Stylist Goes to Hollywood,’’ in Films and Filming (London), September and October 1957. Fawcett, Marion, ‘‘Sir Carol Reed,’’ in Films in Review (New York), March 1959. Voigt, M., ‘‘Pictures of Innocence: Sir Carol Reed,’’ in Focus on Film (London), Spring 1974. Obituary, in Cinéma (Paris), June 1976. Phillips, Gene D., ‘‘Carol Reed,’’ in Films in Review (New York), August/September 1982. Kemp, Philip, ‘‘Fallen Idol,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1988. Lefèvre, Raymond, and Claude Beylie, ‘‘Carol Reed, un cinéaste au carrefour des influences,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), March 1989. Driver, Paul, ‘‘A Third Man Cento,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1989/90. Thomson, D., ‘‘Reeds and Trees,’’ in Film Comment (New York), vol. 30, July-August 1994. Danel, Isabelle, ‘‘Un homme sans illusion,’’ in Télérama (Paris), 21 September 1994. Everschor, Franz, ‘‘Der unbekannte Carol Reed,’’ in Film-Dienst (K?ln), vol. 48, no. 15, 18 July 1995. *** Carol Reed came to films from the theater, where he worked as an assistant to Edgar Wallace. He served his apprenticeship in the film industry first as a dialogue director, and then graduated to the director’s chair via a series of low-budget second features. Reed’s early films, such as Midshipman Easy, are not remarkable, but few British films before World War II were. In the 1920s and 1930s British distributors were more interested in importing films from abroad, especially from America, than in encouraging film production at home. As a result British films were, with rare excep- tions, bargain-basement imitations of Hollywood movies. In 1938, however, the British government stipulated that producers must allocate sufficient funds for the making of domestic films in order to allow an adequate amount of time for preproduction preparation, shooting, and the final shaping of each picture. Directors like Carol Reed took advantage of this increased support of British production to produce films which, though still modestly made by Hollywood standards, demonstrated the artistry of which British filmmakers were capable. By the late 1930s, then, Reed had graduated to making films of considerable substance, like Night Train to Munich. ‘‘For the first time,’’ Arthur Knight has written, ‘‘there were English pictures which spoke of the British character, British institutions—even social prob- lems such as unemployment and nationalization—with unexpected frankness and awareness.’’ An outstanding example of this new trend in British film making was Reed’s The Stars Look Down, an uncom- promising picture of life in a mining community that brought the director serious critical attention on both sides of the Atlantic. Reed went on to work on some of the best documentaries to come out of the war, such as the Academy Award-winning The True Glory. He also directed the documentary-like theatrical feature The Way Ahead, an unvarnished depiction of army life. The experience gained by Reed in making wartime documentaries not only influenced his direction of The Way Ahead, but also was reflected in his post-war cinematic style, enabling him to develop further in films like Odd Man Out the strong sense of realism which had first appeared in The Stars Look Down. The documentary approach that Reed used to tell the story of Odd Man Out, which concerns a group of anti-British insurgents in Northern Ireland, was one to which audiences were ready to respond. Wartime films, both documentary and fictional, had conditioned moviegoers in Britain and elsewhere to expect a greater degree of realism in post-war cinema, and Reed provided it. The more enterprising British producers believed that films should be made to appeal primarily to the home market rather than to the elusive American market. Yet the films that Carol Reed and some others were creating in the post-war years—films which were wholly British in character and situation—were the first such movies to win wide popularity in the United States. Among these, of course, was Odd Man Out, the first film which Reed both produced and directed, a factor which guaranteed him a greater degree of creative freedom than he had enjoyed before the war. For the first time, too, the theme that was to appear so often in Reed’s work was perceptible in Odd Man Out. In depicting for us in this and other films a hunted, lonely hero caught in the middle of a crisis usually not of his own making, Reed implies that man can achieve maturity and self-mastery only by accepting the challenges that life puts in his way and by struggling with them as best he can. The Fallen Idol was the first of a trio of masterful films which he made in collaboration with novelist-screenwriter Graham Greene, one of the most significant creative associations between a writer and a director in the history of film. The team followed The Fallen Idol with The Third Man, which dealt with the black market in post-war Vienna, and, a decade later, Our Man in Havana. Commenting on his collaboration with the director, Greene has written that the success of these films was due to Reed, ‘‘the only director I know with that particular warmth of human sympathy, the extraordinary feeling for the right face for the right part, the exactitude of cutting, and not the least important, the power of sympathizing with an author’s worries and an ability to guide him.’’ Because most of the films which Reed directed in the next decade or so were not comparable to the post-war films mentioned above, it was thought that he had passed his peak for good. Oliver! in fact proved that Reed was back in top form. In her New Yorker review of the film, Pauline Kael paid Reed a tribute that sums up his entire REINER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 804 career in the cinema: ‘‘I applaud the commercial heroism of a director who can steer a huge production and keep his sanity and perspective and decent human feelings as beautifully intact as they are in Oliver!’’ A genuinely self-effacing man, Reed was never impressed by the awards and honors he garnered throughout his career (he was knighted in 1952). Summarizing his own approach to filmmaking some time before his death at age sixty-nine in 1976, he said simply, ‘‘I give the public what I like, and hope they will like it too.’’ More often than not, they did. —Gene D. Phillips REINER, Rob Nationality: American. Born: 6 March 1945. Education: Attended University of California, Los Angeles. Family: Son of actor/director Carl Reiner; married 1) actress/director Penny Marshall, 1971 (di- vorced); 2) Michele Singer, 1989. Career: Worked as actor and improvisational comedian beginning in 1965; worked as comedy writer for television variety shows, 1968; played key role of Michael Stivic in television series All in the Family, 1971–1978; appeared in wide variety of television comedy as guest performer throughout 1970s and 1980s; directed first film, This Is Spinal Tap, 1984; directed breakthrough film, Stand by Me, 1986; co-founded Castle Rock Entertainment. Awards: Emmy awards for Best Support- ing Actor, 1974 and 1978, for All in the Family. Agent: Jane Sindell, Creative Artists Agency, 9830 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California 90212, U.S.A. Address: Castle Rock Entertain- ment, 335 N. Maple Drive, Suite 135, Beverly Hills, California 90210–3867, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1984 This Is Spinal Tap (+ co-sc, co-songs, role) 1985 The Sure Thing 1986 Stand by Me 1987 The Princess Bride (+ co-pr) 1989 When Harry Met Sally (+ co-pr) 1990 Misery (+ co-pr) 1992 A Few Good Men 1995 North (+ pr); The American President (+ pr) 1996 The Ghosts of Mississippi 1997 I Am Your Child (for TV) 1999 The Story of Us (role) Films as Actor: 1967 Enter Laughing (Carl Reiner) (as Clark Baxter) 1970 Halls of Anger (Paul Bogart) (as Leaky Couloris); Where’s Poppa (Carl Reiner) (as Roger) 1971 Summertree (Anthony Newly) (as Don) 1974 Thursday’s Game (James L. Brooks) (for TV) 1975 How Come Nobody’s on Our Side (Richard Michaels) (as Miguelito) 1977 Fire Sale (Alan Arkin) (as Russel Fikus) 1979 More than Friends (Jim Burrows) (for TV) (+ co-sc, co-exec pr) 1982 Million Dollar Infield (Hal Cooper) (for TV) (+ co-sc, co-pr) 1987 Throw Momma from the Train (Danny DeVito) (as Joel) 1990 Postcards from the Edge (Mike Nichols) (as Joe Pierce); Likely Stories, Volume 1 (comedy sketches for cable TV) 1991 Regarding Henry (Mike Nichols) 1993 Sleepless in Seattle (Nora Ephron) (as Jay) 1994 Bullets over Broadway (Woody Allen) (as Sheldon Flender); Mixed Nuts (as Dr. Kinsky) 1995 Bye Bye, Love (S. Weisman) (as Dr. Townsend) 1996 Mad Dog Time (Bishop) (as Albert the Chauffeur); For Better or Worse (Alexander) (as Dr. Plosner); The First Wives Club (Hugh Wilson) (as Dr. Packman) 1998 Primary Colors (Nichols) (as Izzy Rosenblatt) 1999 Ed TV (Howard) (as Whitaker); The Muse (Brooks) (as himself) Publications By REINER: articles— ‘‘Prince Rob,’’ an interview with Harlan Jacobson, in Film Comment, September 1987. ‘‘Reiner’s Reason,’’ an interview with April Bernard, in Interview, July 1989. ‘‘L’homme qui racontait des histoires,’’ an interview with I. Katsahnias, in Cahiers du Cinéma, October 1989. ‘‘Rob Reiner on Stephen King,’’ an interview with G. Wood, in Cinefantastique, no. 4, 1991. ‘‘Entretiens avec Rob Reiner et William Goldman,’’ an interview with I. Katsahnias, in Cahiers du Cinéma, no. 4, 1991. ‘‘Rob Reiner Makes a Comedy of Youthful Manners,’’ an interview with R. Alexander, in New York Times, 24 February 1985. Interview with D. Rosenthal, in Playboy, July 1985. ‘‘Les fictions fatales,’’ an interview with Iannis Katsahnias, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1989. ‘‘Reiner Reason,’’ an interview with Nigel Floyd, in Time Out (London), 1 May 1991. ‘‘The American President,’’ in Premiere (Boulder), December 1995. ‘‘Ghosts of Past and Present,’’ an interview with G. Fuller, in Interview, January 1997. On REINER: book— Dunne, Michael, ‘‘Jim Henson and Rob Reiner: Kermit’s Dad Meets Rob Petrie’s Son,’’ in Metapop: Self-Referentiality in Contempo- rary American Popular Culture, University Press of Missis- sippi, 1992. On REINER: articles— Harmetz, A., ‘‘Reiner Has Last Laugh with His Rock Spoof,’’ in New York Times, 25 April 1984. Kilday, Gregg, ‘‘Rob Reiner Grows Up,’’ in Vanity Fair, July 1989. Lloyd, Robert, ‘‘Pals,’’ American Film, July/August 1989. REINERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 805 Rob Reiner Weber, B., ‘‘Can Men and Women Be Friends?’’ in New York Times, 9 July 1989. Gray, M., ‘‘Love Story,’’ in Films and Filming, December 1989. Katsahnias, I., ‘‘Les fictions fatales,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma, Octo- ber 1989. Sharkey, B., ‘‘Misery’s Company Loves a Good Time,’’ in New York Times, 17 June 1990. Valot, J., ‘‘Rob Reiner,’’ in Revue du Cinema, September 1990. Bernard, Rita, ‘‘From Screwballs to Cheeseballs: Comic Narrative and Ideology in Capra and Reiner,’’ in New Orleans Review, no. 3, 1990. Kermode, Mark, ‘‘Misery,’’ in Sight and Sound, May 1991. Silveman, J., ‘‘Rob Reiner’s Latest Hat Trick,’’ in New York Times, 21 July 1991. Stefancic, M., Jr., ‘‘Rob Reiner,’’ in Ekran, no. 3, 1991. Goldman, Steven, ‘‘Masters of the Numbers Game,’’ in Guardian, 2 January 1993. Biskind, Peter, ‘‘A Few Good Menshes,’’ in Premiere, January 1993. Newman, Kim, ‘‘A Few Good Men,’’ in Sight and Sound, Janu- ary 1993. Bruzzi, Stella, ‘‘Court Etiquette,’’ in Sight and Sound, February 1993. Rhodes, Joe, ‘‘On Comedy, Books, and Toupees,’’ in Los Angeles Times, 16 June 1993. Meisel, M., ‘‘Friends and Partners Mine Success at Castle Rock,’’ in Film Journal (New York), November/December 1995. Kelleher, E., ‘‘Justice Affirmed,’’ in Film Journal (New York), December 1996. Ansen, D., ‘‘Twister Impossible: The Movie as E-ticket Ride,’’ in Written By. Journal: The Writers Guild of America, West (Los Angeles), July 1997. *** Rob Reiner is a show business kid who has learned much from his famous father, Carl Reiner, creator of the American television series The Dick Van Dyke Show and director of many comedy films—most notably Where’s Poppa and The Jerk. Beginning his career as an actor, Rob Reiner’s most notable role was as Michael Stivic in the long-running American television series All in the Family. Michael Stivic was the not-too-bright comic foil for his right-wing, racist father-in-law, Archie Bunker. Thus, from the beginning of Reiner’s career, several elements become apparent that are important to his REINER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 806 development as a director: 1) a profound sympathy for the actor and the concomitant empathy to elicit skillful performances; 2) a deep understanding of comedy and satire and, more generally, an innate feel for timing and structure; and 3) an inherently liberal, humanistic sensibility. If Reiner’s facility as a comic gives him great abilities of observa- tion, its negative side is that his career has been by and large a series of very skillful imitations of other directors and other styles. In this context, it is hard to think of Reiner as a major Hollywood artist, no matter how successful his films. Indeed, Reiner would have made an extraordinary director at the heyday of the studio system, taking on the A-assignments with dazzling ability. So if Reiner has not yet demonstrated himself to be an auteur—like Woody Allen, with whom he has been compared, or like David Lynch, who seems a polar opposite—he is definitely a metteur en scene, like Sydney Lumet, Norman Jewison, or Sydney Pollack. Reiner’s first film was a mock documentary, This Is Spinal Tap, directed in 1984 and perhaps still one of his finest films. The basic concept of the mock documentary had been undertaken by many before, most notably by Peter Watkins in the 1960s or more popularly by Woody Allen in Zelig the year before. Reiner’s sincerity is apparent in that all satire inherently admits its basis in imitation: and This Is Spinal Tap satirizes the documentary genre, as well as rock documentary and rock bands themselves. A young, hip movie with surprising subtlety, This Is Spinal Tap became a cult film and one of the few Reiner films more popular today than when it was released. Some elements of the rock satire include the early, tragic death of a band member (in this case, a drummer), the physical transformation of the band (a short-lived foray into Kiss-like makeup), the girlfriend involved in the band who virtually destroys it (a la Yoko Ono or Linda McCartney), and of course, life on the road (which includes the most brilliant pseudo- verite repartee). Throughout, the film’s deadpan rhythms are virtually perfect—for instance, Spinal Tap’s manager, Ian, intones, ‘‘There’s no sex and drugs for Ian, David. I find lost luggage!’’ This Is Spinal Tap was followed by a modest, dramatic film, The Sure Thing, a sweet and low-budget coming-of-age story which showed Reiner’s abilities to get very good, charming performances— in this case, from his leads Daphne Zuniga and John Cusack. The Sure Thing, if slight, was well observed, a kind of contemporary It Happened One Night offering a fairly credible view of college students, a not inconsiderable task, rarely accomplished. However, Reiner’s breakthrough film was the higher-budget Stand by Me. A fully realized film based on a very short, uncharacteristic story by Stephen King, Stand by Me presented a day or so in the lives of four pre-adolescent boys. A derivative coming-of-age story which seemed to emulate Francois Truffaut (Les Mistons) or outright imitate Robert Mulligan (Summer of ‘42), Stand by Me is very entertaining, if manipulative, and designed to appeal to the nostalgia of the yuppie— filled to the brim with references to Pez candy, Walt Disney’s Goofy, the Wagon Train television series, and so forth. By the revelations at the end, which propel the characters to their adult fates through the use of voice-over narration, the director clearly has the audience exactly where he wants them for the film’s final, sentimental line: ‘‘I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?’’ If Stand by Me holds up in the future, it will be as much for the unusually skillful performances Reiner has elicited from his very young actors, including wonderful work from the late River Phoenix in one of his first films. The Princess Bride was a huge success in 1987. In this film, Reiner told a whimsical fantasy story, changing his style yet again— recalling Spielberg or Walt Disney, even. But an even bigger success came in 1989 with When Harry Met Sally, an absolutely hilarious comedy which made Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan breakaway movie stars. When Harry Met Sally attempted to answer, definitively, the philosophical question: Can straight men and women ever be true friends without sex causing problems? (No.) Virtually every com- mentator praising the film noted how overwhelmingly it imitated early Woody Allen (the funny period)—the style of joke, the use of music, the characterizations, the philosophical musings, everything. Indeed, it is not far-fetched to call When Harry Met Sally the best Woody Allen film that Allen never made. While the film added to Reiner’s reputation in Hollywood and endeared him to audiences, it also began to raise some doubts about his sincerity as an artist, with no personal sensibility clearly emerging. Misery followed in 1990. Again based on Stephen King material, Misery was in yet another style—showing Reiner to be the most clever study in all of Hollywood—this time emulating Hitchcock and his thrillers, if without Hitchcock’s moral sophistication. The story of a woman who keeps a famous writer her prisoner, Misery made Kathy Bates an Academy Award-winning star, and her line ‘‘I’m your biggest fan’’ a kind of cultural catch-phrase. A Few Good Men, released the next year, was a military courtroom drama evoking The Caine Mutiny Court Martial, A Soldier’s Story, and several contem- porary films of the Reagan/Bush era, like Top Gun, which got great mileage out of men in uniforms. One senses that after having presented James Caan as a weak, passive man in Misery, and after having worked with young people and/or comedians in so many other films, Reiner was eager to show that he could make a man’s man kind of film: a solid, Hawksian drama. And indeed, multiple Academy Award nominations followed; the somewhat liberal, anti-establish- ment theme attracted enough attention to divert from the essential pot- boiler nature of the project. Probably lasting more than the film’s reputation will be the impressive scenery-chewing of Jack Nicholson in the key supporting role. The critical and popular failure of the sentimental and vapid North in 1994 represented a surprise in the Reiner career, which, through seven films, had shown a steady increase in assurance and judgment, as well as in critical and popular success. North was a juvenile effort uneasily combining a Spielberg-like narrative about a boy who travels across the world to pick out better parents with trite references for their own sake to television and popular culture. Thankfully for Reiner, North was followed in late 1995 by a very strong film, The American President—a funny and moving romantic comedy with deft performances by Annette Bening and Michael Douglas. The American President emerges from Reiner’s sympathies for President Bill Clinton, the first liberal Democrat in the White House in twelve years, who was elected in 1992 with great Hollywood support and subsequently excoriated by right-wing commentators over character issues for most of his presidency. The American President, which wears its liberalism proudly on its sleeve, also clearly attacks the domination of the Republican Party by the ‘‘Christian Coalition’’ and its mean-spirited intolerance—as represented by Bob Munson, a Kan- sas senator played by Richard Dreyfuss who is a clear composite of Kansas Senator Bob Dole and others like Phil Gramm, Newt Gingrich, and Pat Buchanan. The film abounds with fetching parallels to people around Clinton (his young advisor George Stephanopoulos, his daughter Chelsea, and so forth), as well as apparent insights into life in the White House. Certainly, most of Reiner’s films have been REISZDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 807 derivative of other directors, and this time it is Frank Capra, although the influence is acknowledged cheerfully and clearly in the dialogue, and Frank Capra III even serves as the film’s first assistant director. Somehow, the Capra vision does not rankle here, not only because it is so suited and similar to Reiner’s (although Capra’s is darker and more complex), but because it is totally clear that the progressive Reiner believes passionately in his material, which gives the popular form that the film takes a great, contemporary resonance. By the film’s end, when the corrupt right-wingers see their influence waning as the president finally gives the speech so many have wished Clinton had given, it is hard—if you possess a liberal vision—not to be moved by Reiner’s popular entertainment. Interesting, too, is that Reiner off- screen started taking on the role as spokesperson for liberal Holly- wood; indeed, in response to Senator Dole’s 1995 (very selective) attacks on Hollywood for trashing American cultural values, Reiner became one of Hollywood’s most eloquent and public defenders. Independently, Reiner even proposed and then tirelessly worked for California’s Proposition 10, an initiative to impose additional ciga- rette taxes in order to support children’s health issues. Unfortunately, Reiner’s last two theatrical films, Ghosts of Missis- sippi in 1996 and The Story of Us in 1999 were not particularly well received. The melodramatic Ghosts of Mississippi, which is animated by the director’s heartfelt liberal convictions, presents the story of the white prosecutor who won a murder conviction in 1990 against Byron De La Beckwith, the bigot who assassinated civil rights hero Medgar Evers in 1963. Although Ghosts of Mississippi was criticized for its narrative strategy of emphasizing the efforts of its white hero and almost completely ignoring the accomplishments of its black martyr, this criticism seems misguided, for the film’s focus is clearly on the failure of white America to take an uncompromising stand for justice. Indeed, Reiner is particularly skillfully at presenting the continuing and subtle racism among his upper-class whites in the Mississippi of 1990. Although arguably a shallow film, Ghosts of Mississippi is nevertheless a melodrama with a bombastic power: when, for in- stance, the bigoted murderer piously announces ‘‘I got tears in my eyes . . . for Dixie,’’ Reiner cuts to the tearful widow of Evers on her knees, scrubbing her husband’s blood off their driveway. More ironies accrue as the prosecutor must actually discard his wife—who is named Dixie—in order to effect justice. As is typical in a Reiner film, performances are extraordinary, particularly James Wood’s scenery-chewing in old-man make-up as De La Beckwith, which received an Academy award nomination. The Story of Us is harder to defend. A comedy in the vein of When Harry Met Sally, if more melancholy, The Story of Us analyzes the fundamental differences between men and women within the context of a dissolving marriage. Although the film evokes the superior Stanley Donen film Two for the Road, it unfortunately feels tedious and formless, dominated by direct-address, voice-over, and unrelated scenes linked only by its stars looking wistful as they try to figure out what went wrong. That The American President (written by Aaron Sorkin), for instance, is so much more engaging and successful, is a sign of how much Reiner’s films really owe to their screenwriters. The Capra-esque happy ending which works so well in The American President, in The Story of Us seems unjustified and unearned—an hypocrisy that contradicts the entire film preceding it, existing only to allow Michelle Pfeiffer her own climactic, histrionic performance opportunity. Unfortunate, too, is that the generally feminist Reiner seems to have lost his bearings, giving in to a casual sexism which implies the woman is more responsible for the marital woes than the man. Clearly, although Reiner can soar when given superior material, he is unable to transcend mediocre material. Finally, it is necessary to comment on Reiner’s overall persona as a performer—for he is a genuinely talented comic actor, clever and canny, who has given a variety of skillful, light performances (notably in Nora Ephron’s Sleepless in Seattle and Woody Allen’s Bullets over Broadway). With a remarkable lack of self-consciousness, Reiner seems to be forming a recent acting career from deviously satirical self-portraits, as in Mike Nichols’ Postcards from the Edge—a film that comically presents the relationship between a parent and adult child in the film industry (based on Debbie Reynolds and Carrie Fisher) and which undoubtedly resonates for Reiner. He has contrib- uted witty, if brief work, too, in Mike Nichols’ 1998 Primary Colors, and a reflexive performance playing himself in Albert Brooks’ 1999 film The Muse. Ultimately, as a performer as well as director, Reiner is nothing if not likeable, and seems giving, open, and unpretentious. —Charles Derry REISZ, Karel Nationality: Czechoslovakian/British. Born: Ostrava, Czechoslova- kia, 21 July 1926. Education: Leighton Park School, Reading, England, 1938–44; Emmanuel College, Cambridge, 1945–47. Fam- ily: Married 1) Julia Coppard (divorced); 2) Betsy Blair, 1963, three sons. Career: Arrived in England as refugee from Nazi threat, 1938; joined Czechoslovakian wing of R.A.F., 1944–45; teacher in London grammar school, 1947–49; film critic for Sequence and Sight and Sound, from 1950; programme director for National Film Theatre, London, 1952–55; ‘‘officer of commercials’’ for Ford Motor Co. in England, 1956–57; directed first feature, 1960. Films as Director: 1956 Momma Don’t Allow (co-d) 1959 We Are the Lambeth Boys (doc) 1960 Saturday Night and Sunday Morning 1964 Night Must Fall (+ co-pr) 1966 Morgan, a Suitable Case for Treatment (Morgan!) 1968 Isadora (The Loves of Isadora) 1974 The Gambler 1978 Who’ll Stop the Rain (Dog Soldiers) 1981 The French Lieutenant’s Woman 1985 Sweet Dreams 1989 Everybody Wins Other Films: 1957 Every Day except Christmas (Anderson) (co-pr) 1963 This Sporting Life (Anderson) (pr) REISZ DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 808 Karel Reisz (left) and John Fowles on the set of The French Lieutenant’s Woman Publications By REISZ: book— The Technique of Film Editing, revised by Gavin Miller, Lon- don, 1968. By REISZ: articles— ‘‘Hollywood’s Anti-Red Boomerang,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), January/March 1953. ‘‘Stroheim in London,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), April/June 1954. ‘‘Experiment at Brussels,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Sum- mer 1958. ‘‘Karel Reisz and Experimenters: An Exchange of Correspondence,’’ in Films and Filming (London), December 1961. ‘‘How to Get into Films—By the People Who Got in Themselves,’’ in Films and Filming (London), July 1963. ‘‘Desert Island Films,’’ in Films and Filming (London), August 1963. Interview with Gene D. Phillips, in Cinema (Los Angeles), Sum- mer 1968. ‘‘Outsiders,’’ an interview with Gordon Gow, in Films and Filming (London), January 1979. ‘‘Karel Reisz: permanence d’un personnage: le mal adapté,’’ an interview with J. Grissolange, in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), Octo- ber 1979. Interview with B. Gilbert, in Stills (London), Winter 1982. ‘‘Recontre avec Karel Reisz,’’ an interview with Francis Donovan, in Cinéma 72, November 1990. ‘‘Of Reisz and Men,’’ an interview with Brian Case, in Time Out (London), 24 April 1991. ‘‘Stroheim revu par Karel Reisz,’’ in Positif (Paris), May 1995. Interview with Tomá? Li?ka, in Film a Doba (Prague), Winter 1996. On REISZ: books— Barsam, Richard, Non-Fiction Film, New York, 1973. Walker, Alexander, Hollywood U.K.: The British Film Industry in the ’60s, New York, 1974. Leyda, Jay, editor, Voices of Film Experience, New York, 1977. Armes, Roy, A Critical History of the British Cinema, New York, 1978. Gaston, Georg, Karel Reisz, Boston, 1980. RENOIRDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 809 On REISZ: articles— Lambert, Gavin, ‘‘Free Cinema,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1956. Hoggart, Richard, ‘‘We Are the Lambeth Boys,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer/Autumn 1959. ‘‘Karel Reisz: Free Czech,’’ in Films and Filming (London), Febru- ary 1961. Zito, Stephen, ‘‘Dog Soldiers: Novel into Film,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), September 1977. ‘‘Reisz Issue’’ of Positif (Paris), November 1978. Kennedy, H., ‘‘Minute Reisz: Six Earlier Films,’’ in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1981. Armes, Roy, ‘‘Karel Reisz,’’ in International Film Guide, edited by Peter Cowie, London, 1982. ‘‘Saturday Night and Sunday Morning Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 15 October 1982. Lebouc, G., ‘‘Chacun sa chance,’’ in Grand Angle (Mariembourg, Belgium), October 1990. Grandmaire, G., ‘‘Filmographie de Karel Reisz,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), June 1991. Lefevre, R., ‘‘Karel Reisz,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), June 1991. McKee, A. L., ‘‘She Had Eyes a Man Could Drown In: Narrative, Desire, and the Female Gaze in The French Lieutenant’s Woman,’’ in Literature Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 20, no. 2, 1992. Breschand, J., ‘‘Lyon fete ses Lumiere,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1995. ‘‘Moonlighting on Broadway,’’ in New Yorker, 2 October 1995. *** Karel Reisz came to filmmaking from the world of academia and scholarship. He had taught in an English grammar school, written film criticism, co-edited with Lindsay Anderson the last issue of the slightly snooty magazine Sequence, and written a theoretical textbook still in use today on film editing techniques (without having spent one working day in the industry). With such a background, it was obvious he would have preconceived notions about filmmaking, but they were notions without regard to established filmmaking practices. Reisz wanted to improve the British film industry (also the critical aim of Sequence). He had his first opportunity to do so with two documen- tary shorts, Momma Don’t Allow (co-directed with Tony Richardson) and We Are the Lambeth Boys. In these films, Reisz depicted contemporary Britain from a working-class viewpoint, and when they were first screened at London’s National Film Theatre, they were presented along with films from Lindsay Anderson and others as ‘‘British Free Cinema.’’ In fact, these films were to herald a new wave in British filmmaking, which reached its zenith with Reisz’s first feature, Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. Jack Clayton’s Room at the Top paved the way for Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, a study of a tough, young machinist, played by Albert Finney, who takes out his frustrations with his work and his life through sex and alcohol. He is the quintessential British rebel, the English answer to James Dean, who takes his revenge on society by impregnating his boss’s wife. It is an uninhibited, fresh, and frank look at British working-class existence, and it brought critical fame to Karel Reisz. The only problem was that Reisz seemed temporarily unable to follow up on that first success. (Reisz’s output is pathetically small: a sign perhaps not so much of a careful director as a director with whom producers feel uneasy.) Next, Reisz directed Albert Finney again in Night Must Fall, which had worked as a classic melodrama in the 1930s but had little relevance to the 1960s. The unconventionality of Morgan also seemed strained, and even a little pretentious (a claim that also can easily be made regarding Reisz’s outdated study of a Vietnam vet, Who’ll Stop the Rain?). It was not until Isadora that Reisz began to demonstrate a new side to his work, a romantic side, perhaps born of his Czech background (he did not come to Britain until he was twelve). Both Isadora and The French Lieutenant’s Woman showed that Reisz had discovered how to successfully blend romanticism and the realism of his first films. In Isadora it is perhaps a little more subtly accomplished than in The French Lieutenant’s Woman, where the two elements fight against each other for existence. As to his directorial techniques, Reisz appears to be very willing to listen to others. He is quoted as saying, ‘‘For me the great thing about a film is to allow everyone to make their contribution and to keep the process fluid. The process of adaptation is a free process and the process of rehearsal is a free process and the process of shooting is a free process.’’ Free process, free cinema, and a healthy freedom in his choice of subjects have marked Reisz’s career to date. —Anthony Slide RENOIR, Jean Nationality: French/American. Born: Paris, 15 September 1894, son of painter Auguste Renoir, became citizen of United States (natural- ized) in 1946, retained French citizenship. Education: Collége de Sainte-Croix, Neuilly-sur-Seine, 1902; Ecole Sainte-Marie de Monceau, 1903; Ecole Massina, Nice, until 1912; University of Aix-en-Provence, degree in mathematics and philosophy, 1913. Military Service: Served in French cavalry, 1914–15; transferred to French Flying Corps, 1916, demobilized 1918. Family: Married 1) Andrée Made- leine Heuschling (‘‘Dédée,’’ took name Catherine Hessling follow- ing 1924 appearance in Catherine), 1920 (divorced 1930); 2) Dido Freire, 1944, one son. Career: Worked as potter and ceramicist, 1920–23; directed first film, La Fille de l’eau, 1924; joined Service Cinématographique de l’Armée, La Règle du jeu banned by French government as demoralizing, 1939; Robert Flaherty arranged Renoir’s passage to United States, 1940; signed with 20th Century-Fox, 1941; signed with Universal, then terminated contract, 1942; re-established residence in Paris, retained home in Beverly Hills, 1951; active in theatre through 1950s; Compagnie Jean Renoir formed with Anna de Saint Phalle, 1958; taught theatre at University of California, Berke- ley, 1960. Awards: Prix Louis Delluc, for Les Bas-Fonds, 1936; Chevalier de la Légion d’honneur, 1936; International Jury Cup, Venice Biennale, for La Grande Illusion, 1937; New York Critics Award, for Swamp Water, 1941; Best Film, Venice Festival, for The Southerner, 1946; Grand Prix de l’Academie du Ciném for French Cancan, 1956; Prix Charles Blanc, Academie Fran?aise, for Renoir, biography of father, 1963; Honorary Doctorate in Fine Arts, Univer- sity of California, Berkeley, 1963; Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1964; Osella d’Oro, Venice Festival, 1968; Honorary Doctorate of Fine Arts, Royal College of Art, London, RENOIR DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 810 Jean Renoir (standing atop camera) on the set of French Cancan 1971; Special Oscar for Career Accomplishment, 1975. Died: In Beverly Hills, California, 12 February 1979. Films as Director: 1925 La Fille de l’eau (+ pr) 1926 Nana (+ pr, adaptation) 1927 Catherine (Une vie sans joie; Backbiters) (co-d, co-pr, sc, role as sub-prefect); Sur un air de Charleston (Charleston- Parade) (+ pr, ed); Marquitta (+ pr, adaptation) 1928 La Petite Marchande d’allumettes (The Little Match Girl) (co-d, co-pr, sc) 1928 Tire au flanc (+ co-sc); Le Tournoi dans la cité (Le Tournoi) (+ adaptation) 1929 Le Bled 1931 On purge bébé (+ co-sc); La Chienne (+ co-sc) 1932 La Nuit du carrefour (Night at the Crossroads) (+ sc); Boudu sauvée des eaux (Boudu Saved from Drowning) (+ co-sc) 1933 Chotard et cie (+ co-sc) 1934 Madame Bovary (+ sc) 1935 Toni (Les Amours de Toni) (+ co-sc) 1936 Le Crime de Monsieur Lange (The Crime of Monsieur Lange) (+ co-sc); La Vie est à nous (The People of France) (co-d, co-sc); Les Bas-Fonds (Underworld; The Lower Depths) (+ adaptation) 1937 La Grande Illusion (Grand Illusion) (+ co-sc) 1938 La Marseillaise (+ co-sc); La Bête humaine (The Human Beast; Judas Was a Woman) (+ co-sc) 1939 La Règle du jeu (Rules of the Game) (+ co-sc, role as Octave) 1941 La Tosca (The Story of Tosca) (co-d, co-sc); Swamp Water 1943 This Land Is Mine (+ co-p, co-sc) 1944 Salute to France (Salut à France) (co-d, co-sc) 1945 The Southerner (+ sc) 1946 Une Partie de campagne (A Day in the Country) (+ sc) (filmed in 1936); The Diary of a Chambermaid (+ co-sc) 1947 The Woman on the Beach (+ co-sc) 1951 The River (+ co-sc) 1953 Le Carrosse d’or (The Golden Coach) (+ co-sc) 1955 French Cancan (Only the French Can) (+ sc) 1956 Elena et les hommes (Paris Does Strange Things) (+ sc) RENOIRDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 811 1959 Le Testament du Docteur Cordelier (The Testament of Dr. Cordelier; Experiment in Evil) (+ sc); Le Déjeuner sur l’herbe (Picnic on the Grass) (+ sc) 1962 Le Caporal épinglé (The Elusive Corporal; The Vanishing Corporal) (co-d, co-sc) 1970 Le Petit Théatre de Jean Renoir (The Little Theatre of Jean Renoir) (+ sc) Other Films: 1927 Le Petit Chaperon rouge (Cavalcanti) (co-sc, role as the Wolf) 1930 Die Jagd nach dem Gluck (Gliese) (role as Robert) 1937 The Spanish Earth (Ivens) (wrote commentary and narration for French version) 1971 The Christian Licorice Store (Frawley) (role as himself) Publications By RENOIR: books— This Land Is Mine, in Twenty Best Film Plays, edited by Gassner and Nichols, New York, 1943. The Southerner, in Best Film Plays—1945, edited by Gassner and Nichols, New York, 1946. Renoir: Souvenirs de mon père, Paris, 1948; published as Renoir, My Father, New York, 1958. Orvet, Paris, 1955. The Notebooks of Captain George, Boston, 1966. La Grande Illusion, London, 1968; Paris, 1974. Rules of the Game, New York, 1970. Ecrits 1926–1971, edited by Claude Gauteur, Paris, 1974. My Life and My Films, New York, 1974. Jean Renoir: Essays, Conversations, Reviews, edited by Penelope Gilliatt, New York, 1975. Oeuvres de cinéma inédités, edited by Claude Gauteur, Paris, 1981. Lettres d’Amérique, edited by Dido Renoir and Alexander Sesonske, Paris, 1984. Renoir on Renoir: Interviews, Essays and Remarks, Cambridge, 1989. By RENOIR: articles— ‘‘Jean Renoir à Hollywood,’’ an interview with Paul Gilson, in L’Ecran Fran?aise (Paris), 15 August 1945. Interview with Jacques Rivette and Fran?ois Truffaut, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1954; reprinted in part as ‘‘Renoir in America,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1954. ‘‘Paris-Provence: Inspiration pour un film,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1954. ‘‘Enquête sur la censure et l’éroticisme: le public a horreur de ?a,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1954. ‘‘French Cancan,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1955. ‘‘Nouvel entretien avec Jean Renoir,’’ with Jacques Rivette and Fran?ois Truffaut, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), Christmas 1957; also in La Politique des auteurs, by André Bazin and others, Paris, 1972. ‘‘Le Testament du Docteur Cordelier,’’ in L’Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), July 1961. ‘‘Jean Renoir: propos rompus,’’ an interview with Jean-Louis Noames, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1964. ‘‘La Grande Illusion,’’ in L’Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), Janu- ary 1965. ‘‘La Règle du jeu,’’ in L’Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), Octo- ber 1965. ‘‘Renoir at 72,’’ an interview with Axel Madsen, in Cinema (Los Angeles), Spring 1966. ‘‘The Situation of the Serious Filmmaker,’’ in Film Makers on Film Making, edited by Harry Geduld, Bloomington, Indiana, 1967. ‘‘My Next Films,’’ an interview with Michel Delahaye and Jean- André Fieschi, in Cahiers du Cinéma in English (New York), March 1967. Interview with Rui Nogueira and Fran?ois Truchaud, in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1968. ‘‘C’est la révolution! (Crème de beauté),’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1968. ‘‘Conversation with Jean Renoir,’’ with Louis Marcorelles, in Inter- views with Film Directors, edited by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1969. Interview with James Silke, in The Essential Cinema, edited by P. Adams Sitney, New York, 1975. Articles and interview, in special Renoir issue of Positif (Paris), September 1975. ‘‘La Chienne,’’ in L’Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), October 1975. On RENOIR: books— Davay, Paul, Jean Renoir, Brussels, 1957. Cauliez, Armand-Jean, Jean Renoir, Paris, 1962. Analyses des films de Jean Renoir, Institut des Hautes Etudes Cinématographiques, Paris, 1966. Bennett, Susan, Study Unit 8: Jean Renoir, London, 1967. Poulle, Fran?ois, Renoir 1938 ou Jean Renoir pour rien. Enquête sur un cinéaste, Paris, 1969. Leprohon, Pierre, Jean Renoir, New York, 1971. Braudy, Leo, Jean Renoir: The World of His Films, New York, 1972; 2nd edition, 1989. Bazin, André, Jean Renoir, edited by Fran?ois Truffaut, Paris, 1973. Mast, Gerald, Filmguide to The Rules of the Game, Bloomington, Indiana, 1973. Durgnat, Raymond, Jean Renoir, Berkeley, California, 1974. Beylie, Claude, Jean Renoir: le spectacle, la vie, Paris, 1975. Faulkner, Christopher, Jean Renoir: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1979. Sesonske, Alexander, Jean Renoir: The French Films 1924–1939, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1980. Serceau, Daniel, Jean Renoir, Paris, 1985. Bertin, Celia, Jean Renoir, Paris, 1986. Faulkner, Christopher, The Social Cinema of Jean Renoir, Princeton, New Jersey, 1986. Vincendeau, Ginette, and Keith Reader, La Vie est a Nous: French Cinema of the Popular Front 1935–1938, London, 1986. Viry-Babel, Roger, Jean Renoir: Le Jeu et la Règle, Paris, 1986. Beylie, Claude, and Maurice Bessy, Jean Renoir, Paris, 1989. Guislain, Pierre, La règle du jeu, Jean Renoir, Paris, 1990. Bergan, Ronald, Jean Renoir: Projections of Paradise, Woodstock, 1994. Cavagnac, Guy, Jean Renoir: Le désir du monde, Paris, 1994. O’Shaughnessy, Martin, Jean Renoir, New York, 2000. RENOIR DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 812 On RENOIR: articles— ‘‘Renoir Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1952. Brunius, Jacques, ‘‘Jean Renoir,’’ in En marge du cinéma fran?ais, Paris, 1954. ‘‘Renoir Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), Christmas 1957. Rohmer, Eric, ‘‘Jeunesse de Jean Renoir,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1959. Belanger, Jean, ‘‘Why Renoir Favors Multiple Camera, Long Sus- tained Take Technique,’’ in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), March 1960. Dyer, Peter, ‘‘Renoir and Realism,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1960. Callenbach, Ernest, and Roberta Schuldenfrei, ‘‘The Presence of Jean Renoir,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1960. Russell, Lee, (Peter Wollen), ‘‘Jean Renoir,’’ in New Left Review, May/June 1964. Millar, Daniel, ‘‘The Autumn of Jean Renoir,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1968. Godard, Jean-Luc, ‘‘Jean Renoir and Television,’’ in Godard on Godard, London, 1972. Diehl, Digby, ‘‘Directors Go to Their Movies: Jean Renoir,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), May/June 1972. Fofi, Goffredo, ‘‘The Cinema of the Popular Front in France (1934–38),’’ in Screen (London), Winter 1972/73. Harcourt, Peter, ‘‘A Flight from Passion: Images of Uncertainty in the Work of Jean Renoir,’’ in Six European Directors, Harmondsworth, England, 1974. Gauteur, Claude, editor, ‘‘La Règle du jeu et la critique en 1939,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), March 1974. Greenspun, Roger, ‘‘House and Garden: Three Films by Jean Renoir,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1974. Thomas, P., ‘‘The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Bazin and Truffaut on Renoir,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1974/75. ‘‘Renoir Issue’’ of Cinema (Zurich), vol. 21, no. 4, 1975. Willis, D., ‘‘Renoir and the Illusion of Detachment,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1977. Beylie, Claude, ‘‘Jean Renoir (1894–1979),’’ in special Renoir issue of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 July 1980. Strebel, Elizabeth Grottle, ‘‘Jean Renoir and the Popular Front,’’ in Feature Films as History, edited by K.R.M. Short, London, 1981. Sesonske, A., ‘‘Discovering America: Jean Renoir 1941,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1981. Rothman, William, ‘‘The Filmmaker within the Film: The Role of Octave in The Rules of the Game,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film Studies (New York), Summer 1982. Turvey, G., ‘‘1936, the Culture of the Popular Front, and Jean Renoir,’’ in Media, Culture and Society (London), October 1982. Lourié, Eugene, ‘‘Grand Illusions,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), January/February 1985. Everson, William K., ‘‘Deana Durbin and Jean Renoir,’’ in Films in Review (New York), August/September 1986 (see also June/July and October 1987). Viry-Babel, R., ‘‘Jean Renoir à Hollywood ou la recherche américaine d’une image francaise,’’ in Cinémas, vol. 1, Autumn 1990. Tesson, Charles, ‘‘La production de Toni,’’ in Cinémathèque, May 1992. Tesson, Charles, ‘‘La production de Toni,’’ in Cinémathèque, Spring- Summer 1993. Harrendorf, M., ‘‘Soziale Utopie und ?sthetische Revolution. Neue Forschungen über Jean Renoir und die 30er Jahre,’’ in Film- Dienst (K?ln), vol. 46, 21 December 1993. Bagh, Peter van, Jean Renoir ja el?m?n teatteri,’’ in Filmihulu (Helsinki), no. 6, 1994. Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 479–480, May 1994. Positif (Paris), special section, July-August 1994. ‘‘Tout Renoir,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July-August 1994. Génin, Bernard, ‘‘Renoir et la comédie humaine,’’ in Télérama (Paris), 14 September 1994. Curchod, Olivier, and others, in Positif (Paris), no. 408, Febru- ary 1995. Gallaher, Tag, ‘‘The Dancers and the Dance Jean Renoir,’’ in Film Comment (New York), vol. 32, January-February 1996. Scorsese, Martin, ‘‘Ma cinéphile,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 500, March 1996. Williams, Alan, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 22, April 1996. On RENOIR: films— Gritti, Roland, L’Album de famille de Jean Renoir, Paris, 1956. Braunberger, Gisèle, La Direction d’acteurs par Jean Renoir, Paris, 1970. *** Jean Renoir’s major work dates from between 1924 and 1939. Of his 21 films the first six are silent features that put forward cinematic problems that come to dominate the entire oeuvre. All study a detach- ment, whether of language and image, humans and nature, or social rules and real conduct. Optical effects are treated as problems coextensive with narrative. He shows people who are told to obey rules and conventions in situations and social frames that confine them. A sensuous world is placed before everyone’s eyes, but access to it is confounded by cultural mores. In Renoir’s work, nature, like a frame without borders, isolates the impoverished subjects within limits at once too vast and too constricting for them. Inherited since the Cartesian revolution, and the growth of the middle class after 1789, bourgeois codes of conduct do not fit individuals whose desires and passion know no end. The patterns established in the films appear simple, and they are. Renoir joins optical to social contradictions in the sense that every one of his films stages dramas about those who cannot conform to the frame in which they live. For the same reason his work also studies the dynamics of love in cinematography that marks how the effect is undeniably ‘‘scopic’’—grounded in an impulse to see and thus to hold. Sight conveys the human wish to contain whatever is viewed, and to will to control what knows no border. As love cannot be contained, it becomes tantamount to nature itself. The director has often been quoted as saying that he spent his life making one film. Were it fashioned from all of his finished works— including those composed in the 1920s or 1940s or 1960s in France, America, or India—it would tell the story of a collective humanity whose sense of tradition is effectively gratuitous or fake. The social milieu of many of his films is defined by a scapegoat who is killed in order to make that tradition both firm and precarious. All of Renoir’s central characters thus define the narratives and visual compositions in which they are found. Boudu (Michel Simon), who escapes the confinement of bourgeois ways in Boudu sauvé des eaux, is the RESNAISDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 813 opposite of Lestingois (Charles Granval), ensconced in a double- standard marriage à la Balzac. Boudu, a tramp, a trickster, and a refugee from La Chienne (1931), changes the imagination of his milieu by virtue of his passage through it. The effect he leaves resembles that of Amédée Lange (René Lefevre) in Le Crime de Monsieur Lange, who gives life to a collective venture—an emblem of Leon Blum’s short-lived Popular Front government launched in 1936—that lives despite his delusions about the American West and the pulp he writes. Lange is the flip side of Jacques Lantier (Jean Gabin) of La Bête humaine (1938), a tragic hero whose suicide prefigures André Jurieux’s (Roland Toutain’s) passion of La Règle du jeu (1939). Boudu floats through the frame in ways that the migrant laborers of Toni or the souls of La Vie est à nous cannot. The latter are bound to conventions of capital exploitation that incarcerate humanity. In these and other films the characters all ‘‘have their reasons,’’ that is, they have many contradictory drives that cannot be socially reconciled but that are individually well founded and impeccably logical on their own terms. When Renoir casts his characters’ plural ‘‘reasons’’ under an erotic aura, he offers superlative studies of love. His protagonists wish to find absolution for their passion at the vanishing points of the landscapes—both imaginary and real—in which they try to move. The latter are impossible constructs, but their allure is nonetheless tendered within the sensuous frame of deep-focus photography, long takes, and lateral reframing. Rosenthal and Maréchal (Marcel Dalio and Gabin) seek an end to war when they tramp into the distance of a snowscape at the end of La Grande Illusion. Lange and Florelle (Valentine) wave goodbye as they walk into the flat horizon of Belgium. But Jurieux can imagine love only as a picture-postcard when he and Christine (Nora Grégor), he hopes in desperation, will rejoin his mother in snowy Alsace. Or Lantier can be imagined jumping from his speeding locomotive into a space where the two tracks of the railroad converge, at infinity, beyond the line between Paris and Le Havre. In Une Partie de campagne, Henri (Georges Darnoux), frustrated beyond end at the sight of melancholy Juliette (Sylvia Bataille) rowing upstream with her husband sitting behind her in their skiff, looks tearfully at the lush Marne riverside. Sitting on the trunk of a weeping willow arched over the current, he flicks his cigarette butt in the water, unable to express otherwise the fate he has been dealt. These scenes are shot with an economy that underscores the pathos Renoir draws from figures trapped in situations too vast for their ken or their lives. If generalization can seek an emblem, Renoir’s films appear to lead to a serre, the transparent closure of the greenhouse that serves as the site of the dénouement of La Règle du jeu. The ‘‘serre’’ is literally what constricts, or what has deceptive depth for its beholder. It is the scene where love is acted out and extinguished by the onlooker. The space typifies what Renoir called ‘‘the feeling of a frame too narrow for the content’’ of the dramas he selected from a literary heritage (Madame Bovary, The Lower Depths) or wrote himself, such as Rules. Renoir’s films have an added intensity and force when viewed in the 1990s. They manifest an urgent concern for the natural world and demonstrate that we are the ‘‘human beast’’ destroying it. Clearly opposed to the effects of capitalism, Renoir offers glimpses of sensuous worlds that seem to arch beyond history. A viewer of La Fille de l’eau (1924), Boudu, or Toni surmises that trees have far more elegance than the characters turning about them, or that, echoing Baudelaire’s pronouncements in his Salons of 1859, landscapes lacking the human species are of enduring beauty. Renoir puts forth studies of the conflict of language and culture in physical worlds that possess an autonomy of their own. His characters are gauged according to the distance they gain from their environments or the codes that tell them how to act and to live. Inevitably, Renoir’s characters are marked by writing. Boudu, a reincarnation of Pan and Nature itself, can only read ‘‘big letters.’’ By contrast, Lantier is wedded to his locomotive, a sort of writing machine he calls ‘‘la lison.’’ The urbane La Chesnaye (Dalio) in Rules cannot live without his writing, the ‘‘dangerous supplements’’ of mechanical dolls, a calliope, or human toys. These objects reflect in the narrative the filmic apparatus that crafted Renoir’s work as a model of film writing, a ‘‘caméra-stylo,’’ or ciné-écriture. Use of deep focus and long takes affords diversity and chance. With the narratives, they constitute Renoir’s signature, the basis of the concept and practice of the auteur. Renoir’s oeuvre stands as a monument and a model of cinematography. By summoning the conditions of illusion and artifice of film, it rises out of the massive production of poetic realism of the 1930s in France. He develops a style that is the very tenor of a vehicle studying social contradiction. The films implicitly theorize the limits that cinema confronts in any narrative or documentary depiction of our world. —Tom Conley RESNAIS, Alain Nationality: French. Born: Vannes, Brittany, 3 June 1922. Edu- cation: St.-Fran?ois-Xavier, Vannes; studied acting under René Simon, Paris, 1940–42; attended Institut des Hautes Etudes Cinématographiques (IDHEC), Paris, 1943–45. Military Service: Served with occupation army in Germany and Austria. Family: Married Florence Malraux, 1969. Career: Member of travelling theatrical company, Les Arlequins, 1945; directed first feature, Ouvert pour cause d’inventaire, in 16mm, 1946; worked as film editor, 1947–58; worked in New York City, 1970–72; directed first film in English, Providence, 1977. Address: 70 rue des Plantes, 75014 Paris, France. Films as Director: 1946 Ouvert pour cause d’inventaire (short); Schéma d’une identi- fication (short) 1947 Visite à Lucien Coutaud (short); Visite à Félix Labisse (short); Visite à Hans Hartung (short); Visite à César Domela (short); Visite à Oscar Dominguez (short); Portrait d’Henri Goetz (short); La Bague (short); Journée naturelle (short); L’Alcool tue (short) (+ ph, ed) 1948 Les Jardins de Paris (short) (+ ph, ed); Chateaux de France (short) (+ sc, ph, ed); Van Gogh (short); Malfray (short) (co-d); Van Gogh (+ ed) 1950 Gauguin (short) (+ ed); Guernica (short) (co-d, ed) 1953 Les Statues meurent aussi (short) (co-d, co-sc, ed) 1955 Nuit et brouillard (Night and Fog) (short) 1956 Toute la mémoire du monde (short) (+ ed) 1957 Le Mystère de l’Atelier Quinze (short) (co-d) 1958 Le Chant de Styrène (short) (+ ed) 1959 Hiroshima mon amour 1961 L’Année dernière à Marienbad (Last Year at Marienbad) 1963 Muriel, ou le temps d’un retour RESNAIS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 814 Alain Resnais (behind camera) on the set of Toute la mémoire du monde 1966 La Guerre est finie (The War Is Over) 1967 Loin du Viêt-Nam (Far from Vietnam) (co-d) 1968 Je t’aime, je t’aime (+ co-sc) 1974 Stavisky 1977 Providence 1980 Mon Oncle d’Amérique 1983 La Vie est un roman (Life Is a Bed of Roses) 1984 L’Amour à mort 1986 Mélo 1989 I Want to Go Home 1992 Gershwin (video) 1993 Smoking; No Smoking 1997 On conna?t la chanson (Same Old Song) Other Films: 1945 Le Sommeil d’Albertine (ed) 1947 Paris 1900 (ed) 1948 Jean Effel (ed) 1952 Saint-Tropez, devoir de vacances (ed) 1955 La Pointe courte (ed) 1957 L’Oeil du ma?tre (ed); Broadway by Light (ed) 1958 Paris à l’automne (ed) Publications By RESNAIS: books— Repérages, Paris, 1974. Hiroshima, Mon Amor, with Marguerite Duras and Richard Seaver, New York, 1987. By RESNAIS: articles— Interview with Fran?ois Truffaut, in Arts (Paris), 20 February 1956. ‘‘A Conversation with Alain Resnais,’’ with No?l Burch, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1960. RESNAISDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 815 Interview with André Labarthe and Jacques Rivette, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1961; reprinted in English in Films and Filming (London), February 1962. Interview with Penelope Houston, in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1961/62. ‘‘Trying to Understand My Own Film,’’ in Films and Filming (London), February 1962. Interview with Marcel Martin, in Cinéma (Paris), December 1964 and January 1965. Interview with Adrian Maben, in Films and Filming (London), October 1966. ‘‘Last Words on Last Year: Discussion with Alain Resnais and Alain Robbe-Grillet,’’ in Films and Filming (London), March 1969. Interview with Win Sharples Jr., in Filmmaker’s Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), December 1974. ‘‘Conversations with Alan Resnais,’’ with James Monaco, in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1975. Interview with S. Daney and others, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1983. Interview with A. Finnane, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), Decem- ber 1984. Interview with Robert Benayoun, and others, in Positif (Paris), September 1986. ‘‘Smoking/No Smoking: Entretien avec Alain Resnais,’’ with Marie- Claude Loiselle and Thierry Horguelin,’’ in 24 Images (Montr- eal), Spring 1994. ‘‘Drags to Riches,’’ an interview with Trevor Johnson, in Time Out (London), 14 September 1994. Interview with F. Thomas, in Positif (Paris) December 1997. Interview with Patrick Duynslaegher and Philip Kemp, in Sight and Sound (London), December 1998. On RESNAIS: books— Cordier, Stéphane, editor, Alain Resnais, ou la création au cinéma, Paris, 1961. Pinguad, Bernard, Alain Resnais, Lyon, 1961. Alain Resnais, Premier Plan no. 18, October 1961. Bournoure, Gaston, Alain Resnais, Paris, 1962. Cowie, Peter, Antonioni, Bergman, Resnais, London, 1963. Armes, Roy, The Cinema of Alain Resnais, London, 1968. Ward, John, Alain Resnais, or the Theme of Time, New York, 1968. Bertetto, Paolo, Resnais: Alain Resnais, Italy, 1976. Kreidl, John Francis, Alain Resnais, Boston, 1977. Monaco, James, Alain Resnais: The Role of Imagination, New York, 1978. Benayoun, Robert, Alain Resnais: Arpenteur de l’imaginaire, Paris, 1980; revised edition, 1986. Sweet, Freddy, The Film Narratives of Alain Resnais, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1981. Vergerio, Flavio, I film di Alain Resnais, Rome, 1984. Roob, Jean-Daniel, Alain Resnais: Qui êtes-vous?, Lyons, 1986. Oms, Marcel, Alain Resnais, Paris, 1988. Riambau, Esteve, La ciencie y la ficcion: El cine de Alain Resnais, Barcelona, 1988. Thomas, Fran?ois, L’Atelier de Alain Resnais, Paris, 1989. Callev, Haim, The Stream of Consciousness in the Films of Alain Resnais, McGruer Publishing, 1997. On RESNAIS: articles— Marcorelles, Louis, ‘‘Rebel with a Camera,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1960. ‘‘Nuit et brouillard Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), Febru- ary 1961. Kael, Pauline, ‘‘Fantasies of the Art House Audience,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1961/62. Taylor, John Russell, ‘‘Alain Resnais’’ in Cinema Eye, Cinema Ear, New York, 1964. Stanbrook, Alan, ‘‘The Time and Space of Alain Resnais,’’ in Films and Filming (London), January 1964. ‘‘Guernica Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), June 1964. ‘‘Toute la mémoire du monde Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), October 1965. ‘‘Resnais Issue’’ of L’Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), Summer 1966. Roud, Richard, ‘‘Memories of Resnais,’’ in Sight and Sound (Lon- don), Summer 1969. Armes, Roy, ‘‘Resnais and Reality,’’ in Films and Filming (London), May 1970. Harcourt, Peter, ‘‘Memory Is Kept Alive with Dream,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November/December 1973. Harcourt, Peter, ‘‘Toward a Certainty of Doubt,’’ in Film Comment (New York), January/February 1974. ‘‘Resnais Issue’’ of Cinéma (Paris), July/August 1980. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, ‘‘In Search of the American Uncle,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), May 1981. Dossier on Resnais, in Cinématographe (Paris), April 1982. Brown, R., ‘‘Everyone Has His Reasons,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), May 1984. Parra, D., ‘‘Alain Resnais, cinéaste de la limpidité,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), September 1984. Moses, John W., ‘‘Vision Denied in Night and Fog and Hiroshima Mon Amour,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Mary- land), vol. 15, no.3, 1987. ‘‘Mélo Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), April 1987. Durgnat, Raymond, ‘‘Resnais & Co.: Back to the Avant-Garde,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), May 1987. Forbes, Jill, ‘‘Resnais in the ’80s,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1987. Tomasulo, Frank P., ‘‘The Intentionality of Consciousness: Subjec- tivity in Resnais’s Last Year at Marienbad,’’ in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), vol. 7, no. 2, 1988. Prédal, René, ‘‘L’oeuvre de Alain Resnais: Regard du cinéaste et place du spectateur,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), April/May 1989. McGilligan, Patrick, article in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 59, no. 3, 1990. Fischer, Robert, ‘‘Buchbesprechung: Alain Resnais,’’ in EPD Film (Frankfurt), December 1992. Philippon, Alain, and others, ‘‘Le petit théatre d’Alain Resnais,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), December 1993. Nacache, Jacqueline, Danièle Parra, and Guy Gauthier, ‘‘Smoking/No Smoking,’’ in Mensuel du Cinéma, December 1993. Lalanne, Jean-Marc, ‘‘Trois formes du temps,’’ in Mensuel du Cinéma, February 1994. Leutrat, Jean-Louis, and others, ‘‘Smoking et No Smoking,’’ in Positif (Paris), January 1994. Scorsese, Martin, ‘‘Cinq questions posées par Martin Scorsese,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1996. RESNAIS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 816 Cremonini, Giorgio, ‘‘30 ragioni per amare Resnais,’’ in Cineforum (Bergamo), July-August 1996. Masson, Alain, and others, in Positif (Paris), 1997. *** Alain Resnais is a prominent figure in the modernist narrative film tradition. His emergence as a feature director of international repute is affiliated with the eruption of the French New Wave in the late 1950s. This association was signaled by the fact that his first feature, Hiroshima mon amour, premiered at the Cannes Film Festival at the same time as Fran?ois Truffaut’s Les 400 coups. However, Resnais had less to do with the group of directors emerging from the context of the Cahiers du cinéma than he did with the so-called Left Bank group, including Jean Cayrol, Marguerite Duras, Chris Marker, and Alain Robbe-Grillet. This group provided an intellectual and creative context of shared interest. In the course of his film career Resnais frequently collaborated with members of this group. Marker worked with him on several short films in the 1950s; Cayrol wrote the narration for Nuit et brouillard and the script for Muriel; Duras scripted Hiroshima mon amour; and Robbe-Grillet wrote L’Année dernière à Marienbad. All of these people are known as writers and/or filmmakers in their own right; their association with Resnais is indicative of his talent for fruitful creative collaboration. Resnais began making films as a youth in 8 and 16mm. In the early 1940s he studied acting and filmmaking, and after the war made a number of 16mm films, including a series about artists. His first film in 35mm was the 1948 short, Van Gogh, which won a number of international awards. It was produced by Pierre Braunberger, an active supporter of new talent, who continued to finance his work in the short film format through the 1950s. From 1948–58 Resnais made eight short films, of which Nuit et brouillard is probably the best known. The film deals with German concentration camps, juxtapos- ing past and present, exploring the nature of memory and history. To some extent the film’s reputation and the sustained interest it has enjoyed is due to its subject matter. However, many of the film’s formal strategies and thematic concerns are characteristic of Resnais’s work more generally. In particular, the relationship between past and present, and the function of memory as the mechanism of traversing temporal distance, are persistent preoccupations of Resnais’s films. Other films from this period similarly reveal familiar themes and traits of Resnais’s subsequent work. Toute la memoire du monde is a documentary about the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. It presents the building, with its processes of cataloguing and preserving all sorts of printed material, as both a monument of cultural memory and as a monstrous, alien being. The film almost succeeds in transforming the documentary film into a branch of science fiction. Indeed, Resnais has always been interested in science fiction, the fantastic, and pulp adventure stories. If this interest is most overtly expressed in the narrative of Je t’aime, je t’aime (in which a human serves as a guinea pig for scientists experimenting with time travel), it also emerges in the play of fantasy/imagination/reality pervading his work, and in many of his unachieved projects (including a remake of Fant?mas and The Adventure of Harry Dickson). Through editing and an emphasis on formal repetition, Resnais uses the medium to construct the conjunctions of past and present, fantasy and reality, insisting on the convergence of what are usually considered distinct domains of experience. In Hiroshima mon amour the quivering hand of the woman’s sleeping Japanese lover in the film’s present is directly followed by an almost identical image of her nearly dead German lover during World War II. Tracking shots through the streets of Hiroshima merge with similar shots of Nevers, where the woman lived during the war. In Stavisky, the cutting between events in 1933 and a 1934 investigation of those events presents numerous, often conflicting versions of the same thing; one is finally convinced, above all else, of the indeterminacy and contin- gency of major historical events. And in Providence, the central character is an aged writer who spends a troubled night weaving stories about his family, conjoining memory and fantasy, past, present, and future, in an unstable mix. The past’s insistent invasion of the present is expressed in many different ways in Resnais’s films. In Nuit et brouillard, where the death camps are both present structures and repressed institutions, it is a question of social memory and history; it is an individual and cultural phenomenon in Hiroshima mon amour, as a French woman simultaneously confronts her experiences in occupied France and the Japanese experience of the atomic bomb; it is construed in terms of science fiction in Je t’aime, je t’aime when the hero is trapped in a broken time-machine and continuously relives moments from his past; and it is a profoundly ambiguous mixture of an individual’s real and imagined past in L’Année dernière à Marienbad (often consid- ered Resnais’s most avant-garde film) as X pursues A with insistence, recalling their love affair and promises of the previous year, in spite of A’s denials. In all of these films, as well as Resnais’s other work, the past is fraught with uncertainty, anxiety, even terror. If it is more comfortable to ignore, it inevitably erupts in the present through the workings of the psyche, memory traces, or in the form of documenta- tion and artifacts. In recent years, Resnais’s presence on the international film scene barely has been noticed. While serious and provocative in intention, none of his films have measured up to his earlier work. However, in the early 1980s, he did direct two strikingly original films which are outstanding additions to his filmography. In Mon Oncle d’Amerique, Resnais probes human responses and relations by illustrating the theories of Henri Laborit, a French research biologist. The scenario’s focus is on the intertwined relation- ship between three everyday characters: a Catholic farm boy who has become a textile plant manager (Gerard Depardieu); a former young communist who now is an actress (Nicole Garcia); and a conformist (Roger Pierre) who is married to his childhood sweetheart. La vie est un roman (Life Is a Bed of Roses) is a bewitching allegory contrasting the accounts of a rich man (Ruggero Raimondi) constructing a ‘‘tem- ple of happiness’’ around the time of World War I, and a seminar on education being held at that location decades later. Resnais’s points are that there are no easy answers to complex dilemmas and, most tellingly, that individuals who attempt to dictate to others their concepts of perfection are as equally destructive as those whose actions result in outright chaos. Resnais’s filmic output has been relatively small. He nonetheless stands as a significant figure in modernist cinema. His strategies of fragmented point-of-view and multiple temporality, as well as his use of the medium to convey past/present and fantasy/imagination/reality as equivocal and equivalent modes of experience have amplified our understanding of film’s capacity for expression. —M. B. White, updated by Rob Edelman RICHARDSONDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 817 RICHARDSON, Tony Nationality: British. Born: Cecil Antonio Richardson in Shipley, West Yorkshire, 5 June 1928. Education: Wadham College, Oxford University, degree in English, 1952. Family: Married actress Vanessa Redgrave, 1962 (divorced 1967); three daughters, actresses Natasha and Joely, and Katherine Grimond. Career: President of Oxford University Drama Society, 1949–51; producer and director for BBC TV, 1953; formed English Stage Company with George Devine, 1955; began collaboration with writer John Osborne on first produc- tion of Look Back in Anger at the Royal Court Theatre, London, 1956; with Osborne, formed Woodfall Productions, 1958; directed first feature, Look Back in Anger, 1959; continued to work as stage director; director for TV, including Penalty Phase (1986), Shadow on the Sun (1988), and Phantom of the Opera (1990). Awards: Oscar for Best Direction, and New York Film Critics Award for Best Direction, for Tom Jones, 1963. Died: November 1991. Films as Director: 1955 Momma Don’t Allow (co-d) 1959 Look Back in Anger 1960 The Entertainer 1961 Sanctuary; A Taste of Honey (+ pr, co-sc) 1962 The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner (+ pr) 1963 Tom Jones (+ pr) 1965 The Loved One; Mademoiselle 1967 The Sailor from Gibraltar (+ co-sc) 1968 Red and Blue; The Charge of the Light Brigade 1969 Laughter in the Dark (La Chambre obscure); Hamlet 1970 Ned Kelly (+ co-sc) 1973 A Delicate Balance; Dead Cert 1977 Joseph Andrews (+ co-sc) 1978 Death in Canaan 1982 The Border 1984 Hotel New Hampshire (+ sc) 1985 Turning a Blind Eye (doc) 1990 Blue Sky Other Films: 1960 Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (Reisz) (pr) 1964 Girl with Green Eyes (Davis) (exec pr) Publications By RICHARDSON: book— The Long-Distance Runner: An Autobiography, 1993. By RICHARDSON: articles— ‘‘The Films of Luis Bu?uel,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), January/ March 1954. ‘‘The Metteur-en-Scène,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), October/ December 1954. ‘‘The Method and Why: An Account of the Actor’s Studio,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1956/57. ‘‘The Man behind an Angry-Young-Man,’’ in Films and Filming (London), February 1959. ‘‘Tony Richardson: An Interview in Los Angeles,’’ with Colin Young, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1960. ‘‘The Two Worlds of Cinema: Interview,’’ in Films and Filming (London), June 1961. Article, in Film Makers on Film-making edited by Harry M. Geduld, Bloomington, Indiana, 1967. ‘‘Within the Cocoon,’’ an interview with Gordon Gow, in Films and Filming (London), June 1977. On RICHARDSON: books— Villelaur, Anne, Tony Richardson, Dossiers du Cinéma, Cineastes I, Paris, 1971. Lovell, Alan, and Jim Hillier, Studies in Documentary, New York, 1972. Walker, Alexander, Hollywood, England: The British Film Industry in the ’60s, London, 1975. Hill, John, Sex, Class, and Realism: British Cinema 1956–63, Lon- don, 1986. Radovich, Don, Tony Richardson: A Bio-Bibliography, Westport, Connecticut, 1995. Welsh, James M., and John C. Tibbetts, editors, The Cinema of Tony Richardson: Essays and Interviews, Albany, New York, 1999. On RICHARDSON: articles— Houston, Penelope, ‘‘Two New Directors,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1958/59. ‘‘Director,’’ in New Yorker, 12 October 1963. Moller, David, ‘‘Britain’s Busiest Angry Young Man,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Winter 1964. Lellis, George, ‘‘Recent Richardson,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1969. Villelaur, Anne, ‘‘Tony Richardson,’’ in Dossiers du Cinéma 1, Paris, 1971. Gomez, Joseph, ‘‘The Entertainer: From Play to Film,’’ in Film Heritage (Dayton, Ohio), Spring 1973. Broeske, P., ‘‘The Company of Birds,’’ in Stills (London), Octo- ber 1984. Barron, J., ‘‘Tony Richardson, Director of Tom Jones, Dead at 63,’’ in New York Times, 16 November 1991. Obituary, in Variety, 18 November 1991. ‘‘The End,’’ in Skoop, December 1991/January 1992. Brandlmeier, T., ‘‘Tony Richardson,’’ in EPD Film, January 1992. Sight and Sound (London), vol. 2, May 1992. Obituary, in EPD Film (Frankfurt), vol. 9, January 1992. Obituary, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), January 1992. Obituary, in Film en Televisie (Brussels), January 1992. Lambert, G., ‘‘Tony Richardson: An Adventurer,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 3, November 1993. Sragow, Michael, ‘‘Fan Letter,’’ in Modern Review, April-May 1995. *** Tony Richardson belongs to that generation of British film direc- tors which includes Lindsay Anderson and Karel Reisz, all of them university-trained middle-class artists who were sympathetic to the RICHARDSON DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 818 Tony Richardson (seated at right) on the set of The Hotel New Hampshire conditions of the working classes and determined to use cinema as a means of personal expression, in line with the goals of the ‘‘Free Cinema’’ movement. After Oxford, he enrolled in a directors’ train- ing program at the British Broadcasting Corporation before turning to theatre and founding, with George Devine, the English Stage Com- pany in 1955 at London’s Royal Court Theatre—a company that was to include writers Harold Pinter and John Osborne. Among Richard- son’s Royal Court productions were Look Back in Anger, A Taste of Honey, and The Entertainer, dramatic vehicles that he would later transform into cinema. Also in 1955, working with Karel Reisz, Richardson co-directed his first short film, Momma Don’t Allow, funded by a grant from the British Film Institute and one of the original productions of the ‘‘Free Cinema’’ movement. Richardson’s realistic treatment of the works of John Osborne (Look Back in Anger), Shelagh Delaney (A Taste of Honey), and Alan Sillitoe (Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner) would infuse British cinema with the ‘‘kitchen sink’’ realism Rich- ardson had helped to encourage in the British theatre. Indeed, Richardson’s link with the ‘‘Angry Young Men’’ of the theatre was firmly established before he and John Osborne founded their film production unit, Woodfall, in 1958 for the making of Look Back in Anger. Richardson’s strongest talent has been to adapt literary and dramatic works to the screen. In 1961 he turned to Hollywood, where he directed an adaptation of Faulkner’s Sanctuary, which he later described as arguably his worst film. His most popular success, however, was Tom Jones, his brilliant adaptation and abridgement of Henry Fielding’s often rambling eighteenth-century novel, which in other hands would not have been a very promising film project but which, under Richardson’s direction, won four Academy Awards in 1963. In 1977 Richardson tried to repeat his earlier success by adapting Fielding’s other great comic novel, Joseph Andrews, to the screen, but though the story was effectively shaped by Richardson and the casting was splendid, the film was not the overwhelming commercial success that Tom Jones had been. Nonetheless, Vincent Canby singled out Joseph Andrews as ‘‘the year’s most cheerful movie . . . and probably the most neglected movie of the decade.’’ Other adaptations and literary collaborations included The Loved One (Evelyn Waugh), Mademoiselle (Jean Genet), The Sailor from Gibraltar (Marguerite Duras), Laughter in the Dark (Nabokov), and A Delicate Balance (Albee). Perhaps Richardson’s most enduring dramatic adaptation, however, is his rendering of Hamlet, filmed in 1969, remarkable for the eccentric but effective performance by Nicol RIEFENSTAHLDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 819 Williamson as Hamlet which it captures for posterity, and also for Anthony Hopkins’s sinister Claudius. Filmed at the Roundhouse Theatre in London where it was originally produced, it is a brilliant exercise in filmed theatre in the way it keeps the actors at the forefront of the action, allowing them to dominate the play as they would do on stage. Richardson has defined cinema as a director’s medium, but his Hamlet effectively treats it as an actor’s medium, as perhaps no other filmed production has done. Other Richardson films seem to place a premium upon individual- ism, as witnessed by his treatment of the legendary Australian outlaw Ned Kelly (starring Mick Jagger, a project Karel Reisz had first undertaken with Albert Finney). This concern for the individual can also be discerned ten years later in The Border, a film Richardson completed for Universal Pictures in 1982, starring Jack Nicholson as a guard on the Mexican-American border, a loner who fights for human values against a corrupt constabulary establishment. Unfortu- nately The Border, which turned out to be a caricatured and flawed melodrama, did not reflect the director’s intentions in its released form, since Universal Studios apparently wanted—and got—‘‘a much more up-beat ending where Nicholson emerges as a hero.’’ That a talented director of considerable vision, intelligence, and accomplishment should experience such an impasse is a sorry com- mentary. Nonetheless, Richardson migrated to the Hollywood Hills by choice and claimed to prefer California to his native England. —James M. Welsh RIEFENSTAHL, Leni Nationality: German. Born: Helene Berta Amalie Riefenstahl in Berlin, 22 August 1902. Education: Studied Russian Ballet at the Mary Wigmann School for Dance, Dresden, and Jutta Klamt School for Dance, Berlin. Family: Married Peter Jacob, 1944 (divorced 1946). Career: Dancer, from 1920; appeared in ‘‘mountain films’’ directed by Arnold Franck, from 1936; established own production company, Riefenstahl Films, 1931; first film, Das blaue Licht, released, 1932; appointed ‘‘film expert to the National Socialist Party’’ by Hitler, 1933; detained in various prison camps by Allied Forces on charges of pro-Nazi activity, 1945–48; charges dismissed by Berlin court, allowed to work in film industry again, 1952; suffered serious auto accident while working in Africa, 1956; commissioned by The Times (London) to photograph the Munich Olympics, 1972; honored at Telluride Film Festival, Colorado (festival picketed by anti-Nazi groups), 1974; was the subject of the documentary The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, directed by Ray Muller, 1993. Awards: Silver Medal, Venice Festival, for Das Blaue Licht, 1932; Exposition Internationale des Arts et des Techniques, Paris, Diplome de Grand Prix, for Triumph des Willens, 1937; Polar Prize, Sweden, for Olympia, 1938. Address: 20 Tengstrasse, 8000 Munich 40, Germany. Films as Director: 1932 Das blaue Licht (The Blue Light) (+ co-sc, role as Junta) 1933 Sieg des Glaubens (Victory of the Faith) 1935 Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will) (+ pr, ed); Tag der Freiheit: unsere Wermacht (+ ed) Leni Riefenstahl 1938 Olympia (Olympische Spiele 1936) (+ sc, co-ph, ed) 1944 Tiefland (Lowland) (+ sc, ed, role as Marta) (released 1954) Films as Actress: 1926 Der heilige Berg (Fanck) 1927 Der grosse Sprung (Fanck) 1929 Das Schiscksal derer von Hapsburg (Raffé); Die weisses H?lle vom Piz Palü (Fanck) 1930 Stürme über dem Montblanc (Fanck) 1931 Der weiss Rausch (Fanck) 1933 S.O.S. Eisberg (Fanck) 1993 Die Macht der Bilder: Leni Riefenstahl (The Power of the Image: Leni Riefenstahl) (Müller) (role as herself) 1995 Die Nacht der Regisseure (Night of the Filmmakers) (Reitz) (role as herself) Publications By RIEFENSTAHL: books— Kampf in Schnee und Eis, Leipzig, 1933. Hinter den Kulissen des Reichsparteitagsfilms, Munich, 1935 (uncredited ghost writer Ernst Jaeger). Sch?nheit im Olympischen Kampf, Berlin, 1937. The Last of the Nuba, New York, 1974. RIEFENSTAHL DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 820 Jardins du corail, Paris, 1978. Memoiren, Munich, 1987 (also published as The Sieve of Time: The Memoirs of Leni Riefenstahl, London, 1992, and Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir, New York, 1994). Wonders under Water, London, 1991. Leni Riefenstahl: Life, Tokyo, 1992. Olympia, London, 1994. Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir, London, 1995. The People of Kau, translated by J. Maxwell Brownjohn, St. Martin’s Press, 1997. By RIEFENSTAHL: articles— ‘‘An Interview with a Legend,’’ with Gordon Hitchens, in Film Comment (New York), Winter 1965. Interview with Michel Delahaye, in Interviews with Film Directors, edited by Andrew Sarris, New York, 1967. ‘‘A Reply to Paul Rotha,’’ with Kevin Brownlow, in Film (London), Spring 1967. ‘‘Statement on Sarris-Gessner Quarrel about Olympia,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Fall 1967. Interview with Herman Weigel, in Filmkritik (Munich), August 1972. ‘‘Why I Am Filming Penthesilea,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Spring 1973. ‘‘Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir,’’ in New York, 13 September 1993. ‘‘After a Half-Century, Leni Riefenstahl Confronts the U.S.,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Winter 1996. On RIEFENSTAHL: books— Cadars, Pierre, and Francis Courtade, Histoire du cinema Nazi, Paris, 1972. Fanck, Arnold, Er furte Regie mit Gletschern, Sturmen, Lawinen, Munich, 1973. Hull, David Stewart, Film in the Third Reich, New York, 1973. Leiser, Erwin, Nazi Cinema, London, 1974. Barsam, Richard, Filmguide to ‘‘Triumph of the Will,’’ Bloomington, Indiana, 1975. Infield, Glenn, Leni Riefenstahl, the Fallen Film Goddess, New York, 1976. Ford, Charles, Leni Riefenstahl, Paris, 1978. Hinton, David, The Films of Leni Riefenstahl, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1978. Infield, G. B., Leni Riefenstahl et le troisieme Reich, Paris, 1978. Berg-Pan, Renata, Leni Riefenstahl, Boston, 1980. Heck-Rabi, Louise, Women Filmmakers: A Critical Reception, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1984. Graham, Cooper C., Leni Riefenstahl and Olympia, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1986. Hinton, David B., The Films of Leni Riefenstahl, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1991. Deutschmann, Linda, Triumph of the Will: The Image of the Third Reich, Wakefield, New Hampshire, 1991. On RIEFENSTAHL: articles— ‘‘The Case of Leni Riefenstahl,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1960. Gunston, David, ‘‘Leni Riefenstahl,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1960. Berson, Arnold, ‘‘The Truth about Leni,’’ in Films and Filming (London), April 1965. Gregor, Ulrich, ‘‘A Comeback for Leni Riefenstahl,’’ in Film Com- ment (New York), Winter 1965. Brownlow, Kevin, ‘‘Leni Riefenstahl,’’ in Film (London), Win- ter 1966. Rotha, Paul, ‘‘I Deplore. . . ,’’ in Film (London), Spring 1967. Corliss, Richard, ‘‘Leni Riefenstahl—A Bibliography,’’ in Film Heritage (Dayton, Ohio), Fall 1969. Richards, J., ‘‘Leni Riefenstahl: Style and Structure,’’ in Silent Pictures (London), Autumn 1970. Alpert, Hollis, ‘‘The Lively Ghost of Leni,’’ in the Saturday Review (New York), 25 March 1972. ‘‘Riefenstahl Issue’’ of Film Culture (New York), Spring 1973. Barsam, R. M., ‘‘Leni Riefenstahl: Artifice and Truth in a World Apart,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November/December 1973. Sontag, Susan, ‘‘Fascinating Fascism,’’ in the New York Review of Books, 6 February 1975. Sokal, Harry R., ‘‘über Nacht Antisemitin geworden?,’’ in Der Spiegel (Germany), no. 46, 1976. ‘‘Zur Riefenstahl-Renaissance,’’ special issue of Frauen und Film (Berlin), December 1977. Fraser, J., ‘‘An Ambassador for Nazi Germany,’’ in Films (London), April 1982. Horton, W. J., ‘‘Capturing the Olympics,’’ in American Cinema- tographer (Los Angeles), July 1984. Lopperdinger, M., and D. Culbert, ‘‘Leni Riefenstahl, the SA, and the Nazi Party Rally Films, Nuremberg 1933–1934: Sieg des Glaubens and Triumph des Willens,’’ in Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and TV (Abingdon, Oxon), vol. 8, no. 1, 1988. Lopperdinger, M. and D. Culbert, ‘‘Leni Riefenstahl’s Tag der Freiheit: The 1935 Nazi Party Rally Film,’’ in Historical Journal of Film, Radio and TV (Abingdon, Oxon), vol. 12, no. 3, 1992. Schiff, Stephen, ‘‘Leni’s Olympia,’’ in Vanity Fair (New York), September 1992. Elsaesser, Thomas, ‘‘Portrait of the Artist as a Young Woman,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), February, 1993. Harshaw, Tobin, ‘‘Why Am I Guilty?’’ in New York Times Book Review, 26 September 1993. Corliss, Richard, ‘‘Riefenstahl’s Last Triumph,’’ in Time (New York), 18 October 1993. Hoberman, J., ‘‘Triumph of the Swill,’’ in Premiere (New York), December 1993. Sklar, Robert, ‘‘The Devil’s Director: Her Talent Was Her Tragedy,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 20, no. 3, 1994. Dassanowsky, R. von, ‘‘‘Wherever You May Run You Cannot Escape Him’: Leni Riefenstahl’s Self-Reflection and Romantic Transcendence of Nazism in ‘Tiefland’,’’ in Camera Obscura (Bloomington), May 1995. Naughton, L., ‘‘Leni Riefenstahl: A Wonderful Life in a Horrible World,’’ in Metro Magazine, no. 106, November 1997. Hitchens, Gordon, ‘‘Recent Riefenstahl Activities and a Commentary on Nazi Propaganda Filmmaking,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Winter 1996. Cohn, H., ‘‘From the Mailbag: Offended by Honor to Riefenstahl,’’ in Classic Images (Muscatine), November 1997. Starkman, Ruth, ‘‘Mother of All Spectacles: Ray Müller’s The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1997–1998. RIEFENSTAHLDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 821 On RIEFENSTAHL: films— The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl, 1993. The Night of the Film-makers, 1995. *** The years 1932 to 1945 define the major filmmaking efforts of Leni Riefenstahl. Because she remained a German citizen making films in Hitler’s Third Reich, two at the Fuhrer’s request, she and her films were viewed as pro-Nazi. Riefenstahl claims she took no political position and committed no crimes. In 1948, a German court ruled that she was a follower of, not active in, the Nazi Party. Another court in 1952 reconfirmed her innocence of war crimes. But she is destined to remain a politically controversial filmmaker who made two films rated as masterpieces. She began to learn filmmaking while acting in the mountain films of Arnold Fanck, her mentor. She made a mountain film of her own, The Blue Light, using smoke bombs to create ‘‘fog’’. She used a red and green filter on the camera lens, over her cameraman’s objections, to obtain a novel magical effect. This film is Riefenstahl’s own favorite. She says it is the story of her own life. Hitler admired The Blue Light and asked her to photograph the Nazi Party Congress in Nuremburg. She agreed to make Victory of the Faith, which was not publicly viewed. Hitler then asked her to film the 1934 Nazi Party rally. Triumph of the Will, an extraordinary work, shows Hitler arriving by plane to attend the rally. He proceeds through the crowded streets of Nuremburg, addresses speeches to civilians and uniformed troops, and reviews a five-hour parade. The question is: Did Riefenstahl make Triumph as pro-Nazi propaganda or not? ‘‘Cinematically dazzling and ideologically vicious,’’ is R. M. Barsam’s judgment. According to Barsam, three basic critical views of Triumph exist: 1) those who cannot appreciate the film at all, 2) those who can appreciate and understand the film, and 3) those who appreciate it in spite of the politics in the film. Triumph premiered 29 March 1935, was declared a masterpiece, and subsequently earned three awards. Triumph poses questions of staging. Was the rally staged so that it could be filmed? Did the filming process shape the rally, give it meaning? Riefenstahl’s next film, Olympia, posed the question of financing. Did Nazi officialdom pay for the film to be made? Riefenstahl claims the film was made independently of any government support. Other opinions differ. The improvisatory techniques Riefenstahl used to make Triumph were improved and elaborated to make Olympia. She and her crew worked sixteen-hour days, seven days a week. Olympia opens as Triumph does, with aerial scenes. Filmed in two parts, the peak of Olympia I is Jesse Owens’s running feat. The peak of Olympia II is the diving scenes. In an interview with Gordon Hitchens in 1964, Riefenstahl revealed her guidelines for making Olympia. She decided to make two films instead of one because ‘‘the form must excite the content and give it shape.... The law of film is architecture, balance. If the image is weak, strengthen the sound, and vice-versa; the total impact on the viewer should be 100 percent.’’ The secret of Olym- pia’s success, she affirmed, was its sound—all laboratory-made. Riefenstahl edited the film for a year and a half. It premiered 20 April 1938 and was declared a masterpiece, being awarded four prizes. Riefenstahl’s career after the beginning of World War II is comprised of a dozen unfinished film projects. She began Penthesilea in 1939, Van Gogh in 1943, and Tiefland in 1944, releasing it in 1954. Riefenstahl acted the role of a Spanish girl in it while co-directing with G. W. Pabst this drama of peasant-landowner conflicts. Visiting Africa in 1956, she filmed Black Cargo, documenting the slave trade, but her film was ruined by incorrect laboratory procedures. In the 1960s, she lived with and photographed the Mesakin Nuba tribe in Africa. Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will and Olympia are two of the greatest documentaries ever made. That is indisputable. And it also is indisputable that they are among the most notorious and controver- sial. Each has been lauded for its sheer artistry, yet damned for its content and vision of Adolph Hitler and a German nation poised on the edge of totalitarian barbarism. After years as a name in the cinema history books, Riefenstahl was back in the news in 1992. Memoirnen, her autobiography, was first published in English as The Sieve of Time: The Memoirs of Leni Riefenstahl, and she was the subject of a documentary, Ray Müller’s The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl. Clearly, Riefenstahl had written the book and partici- pated in the documentary in an attempt to have the final word regarding the debate over her involvement with Hitler and the Third Reich. The documentary, which is three hours in length, traces Riefenstahl’s undeniably remarkable life, from her success as a dancer and movie actress during the 1920s to her career as a director, her post-World War II censure, and her latter-day exploits as a still photographer. Still very much alive at age ninety-one, Riefenstahl is shown scuba diving, an activity she first took up in her seventies. Riefenstahl is described at the outset as a ‘‘legend with many faces’’ and ‘‘the most influential filmmaker of the Third Reich.’’ The film goes on to serve as an investigation of her life. Was she an opportunist, as she so vehemently denies, or a victim? Was she a ‘‘feminist pioneer, or a woman of evil?’’ Riefenstahl wishes history to view her as she views herself: not as a collaborator but as an artist first and foremost, whose sole fault was to have been alive in the wrong place at the wrong moment in history, and who was exploited by political forces of which she was unaware. Upon meeting Hitler, she says, ‘‘He seemed a modest, private individual.’’ She was ‘‘ignorant’’ of his ideas and politics, and ‘‘didn’t see the danger of anti-Semitism.’’ She claims to have acquiesced to making Triumph of the Will only after Hitler agreed that she would never have to make another film for him. To her, shooting Triumph was just a job. She wanted to make a film that was ‘‘interesting, one that was not with posed shots.... It had to be filmed the way an artist, not a politician, sees it.’’ The same holds true for Olympia, which features images of perfectly proportioned, God-like German athletes. When queried regarding the issue of whether these visuals reflect a fascist aesthetic, Riefenstahl refuses to answer directly, replaying again that art and politics are separate entities. ‘‘If an artist dedicates himself totally to his work, he cannot think politically,’’ Riefenstahl says. Even in the late 1930s, she chose not to leave Germany because, as she observes, ‘‘I loved my homeland.’’ She claims that she hoped that reports of anti-Semitism were ‘‘iso- lated events.’’ And her image of Hitler was ‘‘shattered much too late.... My life fell apart because I believed in Hitler. People say of me, ‘She doesn’t want to know. She’ll always be a Nazi.’ [But] I was never a Nazi.’’ ‘‘What am I guilty of?’’ Riefenstahl asks. ‘‘I regret [that I was alive during that period]. But I was never anti-Semitic. I never dropped any bombs.’’ Explained director Müller, after a New York Film Festival screening of the film, ‘‘She was an emancipated woman before there was even such a term. She has a super ego, which has RIGGS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 822 been trod upon for half a century.... [She is] an artist and a perfec- tionist. I believe that she was purposefully blind not to look in the direction that would get her into trouble.’’ In this regard, The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl ultimately works as a portrait of denial. As Müller so aptly observes, ‘‘Any artist has a great responsibility. Anyone who influences the public has this. She is possessed with her art. She says, ‘I’m only doing my thing.’ I think this is irresponsible. She may be obsessed and possessed, and a genius. But that does not exempt her from responsibility.’’ In 1995, Riefenstahl briefly resurfaced in Edgar Reitz’s The Night of the Film-Makers, consisting of interviews with German filmmakers from Frank Beyer to Wim Wenders. Eric Hansen, writing in Variety, summed up the essence of her appearance by noting, ‘‘Names like the ninety-two-year-old Leni Riefenstahl and young director Detlev Buck are allowed only a few self-glorifying or sarcastic comments.’’ Perhaps the final word on Riefenstahl is found in Istvan Szabo’s Hanussen, a 1988 German-Hungarian film. Much of Hanussen is set in Germany between the world wars. One of the minor characters is a celebrated, egocentric woman artist, a member of the political inner circle, who surrounds herself with physical beauty while remaining callously unconcerned with all but her own vanity. Clearly, this character is based on Riefenstahl. —Louise Heck-Rabi, updated by Rob Edelman RIGGS, Marlon Nationality: American. Born: Marlon Troy Riggs, Fort Worth, Texas, 1957. Education: Harvard University, B.A. (with honors), 1978; University of California, Berkeley, M.A. in journalism, 1981. Career: Worked for television station in Texas, 1978–79; moved to Berkeley, California, 1979; produced master’s thesis Long Train Running, University of California at Berkeley, 1981; worked for various producers and directors in documentary film, with particular focus on public television production, 1981–87; began producing, writing, and directing original films, 1987; part-time faculty member, School of Journalism at the University of California at Berkeley. Awards: Berlin International Film Festival Teddy Award for Best Documentary Film Award, Los Angeles Film Critics Association Independent/Experimental Film or Video Award, and National Acad- emy of Television Arts and Sciences Individual Craft Award for Outstanding Achievement in Research, for Tongues Untied, 1990; American Film Institute Independent Film and Video Artists Award, 1992; George Foster Peabody Award, Outstanding Achievement Award from the International Documentary Association, and Erik Barnouw Award from the Organization of American Historians, for Color Adjustment 1992; Sundance Film Festival Filmmaker’s Trophy in Documentary, for Black Is. . . Black Ain’t, 1995. Died: Oakland, California, 5 April 1994, of complications from AIDS. Films as Director: 1986 Ethnic Notions (doc) (+ pr, wr) 1990 Affirmations 1991 Tongues Untied (doc) (+pr, wr, ed); Anthem 1992 No Regret; Color Adjustment (doc) (+pr, wr) 1993 Boy’s Shorts: The New Queer Cinema 1994 Black Is. . . Black Ain’t (doc) Publications By RIGGS: articles— ‘‘Boyz N Hollywood,’’ in High Performance, vol. 14, no. 4, Win- ter 1991. Kleinhans, Chuck, and Julia Lesage, ‘‘Listening to the Heartbeat: Interview with Marlon Riggs,’’ in Jump Cut: A Review of Contem- porary Media, no. 36, 1991. ‘‘Tongues Untied’’ (poem) and ‘‘Black Macho Revisted: Reflections of a SNAP! Queen,’’ in Brother to Brother: New Writings by Black Gay Men, edited by Essex Hemphill, Boston, 1991. ‘‘Unleash the Queen,’’ in Black Popular Culture, edited by Gina Dent, Seattle, 1992. Gerandmann, Roy, ‘‘New Agendas in Black Filmmaking: An Inter- view with Marlon Riggs,’’ in Cineaste (New York), vol. 19, nos. 2–3, 1992. ‘‘Tongues Re-tied,’’ in Resolutions: Contemporary Video Practices, edited by Michael Renov and Erika Suderburg, Minneapolis, 1996. On RIGGS: books— Avena, Thomas, Life Sentences: Writers, Artists, and AIDS, San Francisco, 1994. Holmlund, Chris, and Cynthia Fuchs, editors, Between the Sheets, In the Streets: Queer, Lesbian, Gay Documentary, Minneapolis, 1997. Klotman, Phyllis R., and Janet K. Cutler, Struggles for Representa- tion: African-American Documentary Film and Video, Indianapo- lis, 1999. On RIGGS: articles— Anwar, Farrah, ‘‘Tongues Untied,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), vol. 1, no. 3, July 1991. Walters, Barry, ‘‘Filmmaker’s Social Views Untied,’’ in San Fran- cisco Examiner, 14 June 1993. Mercer, Kobina, ‘‘Dark and Lovely Too: Black Gay Men in Indepen- dent Film,’’ in Queer Looks: Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Film and Video, edited by Martha Gerver, et al., New York, 1993. Scott, Darieck, ‘‘Jungle Fever? Black Gay Identity Politics, White Dick, and the Utopian Bedroom,’’ in GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, vol. 1, no. 3, 1994. Julien, Isaac, ‘‘Long Live the Queen,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 26 April 1994. Harper, Phillip Brian, ‘‘Marlon Riggs: The Subjective Position of Documentary Video,’’ in Art Journal, vol. 54, no. 4, Winter 1995. McEldowney, Elliott, ‘‘Marlon Troy Riggs,’’ in Gay and Lesbian Literature, vol. 2, edited by Tom Pendergast and Sara Pendergast, Detroit, 1998. Petty, Sheila, ‘‘Silence and Its Opposite: Expression of Race in Tongues Untied,’’ in Documenting the Documentary: Close Read- ings of Documentary Film and Video, edited by Barry Keith Grant and Jeannette Sloniowski, Detroit, 1998. RIPSTEINDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 823 On RIGGS: film— I Shall Not be Removed: The Life of Marlon Riggs, directed by Karen Everett, California Newsreel, 1996. *** Though the career of Marlon Riggs was brief, he established himself as one of the most important contemporary documentary filmmakers by producing, writing, and directing some of the most aesthetically innovative and socially provocative documentaries of the 1980s and 1990s. Riggs, the child of a military family, spent a good deal of his childhood traveling. He lived in Fort Worth, Texas, the town of his birth, until age 11, when his family moved to West Germany. He returned to the United States in 1974 to attend Harvard University. For his senior thesis, Riggs chose a topic important to his own identity—the depiction of male homosexuality in American fiction and poetry—a subject not well received by the faculty. He ended up completing his research under the guidance of a graduate teaching assistant; none of the faculty were interested in serving as his advisor on the project. After graduating with honors, Riggs returned to Texas to work at a television station. The racism he encountered while on the job fueled his decision to leave. He pursued a master’s degree in journal- ism at the University of California at Berkeley, graduating in 1981, having produced a thesis titled Long Train Running. After graduation Riggs honed his skills as a filmmaker by assisting documentary directors and producers, working as a production assistant and later editor, post-production supervisor, and sound editor. Much of his work was for those working in public television. In 1989 he com- pleted his own film, Ethnic Notions, an documentary concerning the pervasive and intransigent stereotypes of African Americans. In the film, Riggs used an innovative approach, tracing the history of the stereotypes from slavery to the present, skillfully presenting the ways by which centuries-old attitudes about African Americans inform contemporary racism. Ethnic Notions established Riggs as one of the most important contemporary directors of American documentary. His next film, Tongues Untied, an aesthetically challenging hybrid of experimental and documentary forms, used scenes of fantasy, performance, personal testimonies, direct address, and autobiography to confront, as Farrah Anwar writes in Sight and Sound,‘‘the compla- cency of whites and blacks, hetero and homosexuals, in a bravura display of controlled anger’’ about the oppression faced by gay African American men. Though the film was well received by critics and the public, it was deemed controversial because of its frank depiction of racism and homophobia. The film was used, along with other federally funded art works, by conservative members of the United States Senate to attack the National Endowment for the Arts. During the making of the film, Riggs discovered that he tested positive for HIV, the virus that can cause AIDS. Despite the threat to his health, and complications that ensued, he continued to work, completing two more films: No Regrets (1992), a documentary on the experiences of gay African-American men and HIV, and Color Adjustment (1992), which traces the evolution of African-American images on American television. More than just a history of African Americans on American television, this latter documentary, like all of Riggs’s works, tackles the subject of social relations and social justice. Color Adjustment, narrated by actress and civil rights activist Ruby Dee, places the television images in the context of wider social and political relations, examining the inter-relation between Amer- ica’s racial consciousness and network prime-time programming. Rigg’s final film, Black Is. . . Black Ain’t (1995), which was com- pleted after his death, analyzes the ways in which African-American identity has been formed through an exclusion of the female, the gay, and the lesbian. —Frances Gateward RIPSTEIN, Arturo Nationality: Mexican. Born: Mexico City, 1943. Family: Son of Alfredo Ripstein, one of Mexico’s most accomplished producers, credited with more than 180 films. Career: Began directorial career at the age of twenty-one, with the debut of A Time to Die (screenplay by Gabriel García Márquez, adapted from his own short story). Awards: Golden Ariel, Academy Awards, Mexico, for Castillo de la pureza, 1973; Golden Ariel, Academy Awards, Mexico, for El Lugar sin límites, 1978; Golden Ariel, Academy Awards, Mexico, for Cadena perpetua, 1979; Golden Ariel, Academy Awards, Mexico, for El Imperio de la fortuna, 1987; Grand prize, San Sebastian Film Festival, 1993, for The Beginning and the End; Golden Ariel, Academy Awards, Mexico, for Principio y fin, 1994; Latin America Cinema Award, Sundance Film Festival, for El Cornel no tiene quien le escriba, 2000. Arturo Ripstein RIPSTEIN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 824 Films as Director: 1965 Tiempo de Morir (A Time to Die) 1966 H.O. 1968 Los Recuerdos del Porvenir 1969 La Hora de los Ni?os 1970 El Naufrago de la Calle de la Providencia (co-d with Rafael Castanedo) 1971 Autobiografia (+ sc, pr) 1972 El Castillo de la Pureza (The Castle of Purity) (+ sc) 1974 El Santo Oficio (The Holy Office) (+ sc) 1975 Foxtrot (+ sc) 1976 Lecumberri (+ sc) 1977 El Lugar sin límites (The Place without Limits; Hell without Limits); La Viuda negra (The Black Widow) 1978 Cadena Perpetua (Vicious Circle) (+ sc) 1979 La Ilegal; Tía Alejandra 1980 La Tia Alexandra 1981 Rastro de muerte 1983 La Seducción; Rastro de la Muerte 1984 El Otro (The Other) 1985 El Imperio de la Fortuna (In the Realm of Fortune) 1989 Mentiras Piadosos (White Lies) 1992 La Mujer del Puerto (Woman of the Port) 1993 Principio y fin (The Beginning and the End) 1994 La Reina de la Noche (The Queen of the Night) 1996 La Sonrisa del Diablo (series for TV); Profundo carmesí (Deep Crimson) 1998 El Evangelio de las Maravillas (Divine) 1999 El Coronel no tiene quien le escriba (No One Writes to the Colonel) 2000 La Perdición de los Hombres; Así es la vida (Such is Life) Publications By RIPSTEIN: articles— Interview with N. Ghali, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), April 1975. ‘‘El cine de Ripstein,’’ an interview with Alejandro Ricagno and Eduardo Antin, in El Amante Cine, December 1996. Interview with G. Del Toro, in Village Voice (New York), 21 October 1997. On RIPSTEIN: book— Ramirez Berg, Charles, Cinema of Solitude: A Critical Study of Mexican Film, 1967–1983, Austin, 1992. On RIPSTEIN: articles— Cornand, A., ‘‘Le Chateau de la purete,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), 1974. Pick, Z. M., ‘‘Decouverted’un autre Cinema Mexicain,’’ in Positif (Paris), no. 157, 1974. Lajeunesse, J., ‘‘Le saint Office,’’ in Revue de Cinéma (Paris), October 1974. Hobermen, J., ‘‘Film: Hostage to Fortune,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 24 March 1987. Greenbaum, R., ‘‘New Directors, New Films—1987 (Part 2),’’ in Films in Reviews (New York), December 1987. Vega Alfaro, E. de la, ‘‘Fichero de Cineastas Nacionales,’’ in Dicine (Mexico City), November/December 1987. Berg, C. R., ‘‘Cracks in the Macho Monolith: Machismo, Man, and Mexico in Recent Mexican Cinema,’’ in New Orleans Review, no. 16, 1989. Brandlmeier, T., ‘‘Muenchen: Ripstein und Andere,’’ in EPD Film (Postfach, Germany), August 1989. Orejel, A., ‘‘Mentiras Piadosas,’’ in Dicine (Mexico City), Janu- ary 1990. Carro, N. ‘‘Cineastas y Testimonios del Cine Mexicano,’’ in Dicine (Mexico City), September 1990. Uhlig, M. A., ‘‘Mexico’s Film Industry Looks for a Breakthrough,’’ in New York Times, 22 January 1991. Loffreda, P., ‘‘La Mujer del Puerto,’’ in Cineforum (Bergamo, Italy), June 1991. Rauger, Jean-Fran?is, ‘‘Arturo Ripstein: les origines de la fatalité,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1994. Paranagua, Paulo Antonio, and Hubert Niogret, in Positif (Paris), April 1994. Berthomieu, Pierre, Paulo Antonio Paranagua, and Hubert Niogret, in Positif (Paris), April 1995. Cox, Alex, and Richard Pena, ‘‘Roads to the South,’’ in Film Comment (New York), November-December 1995. Jeancolas, Jean-Pierre, and Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), March 1997. *** With more than twenty directorial works that span almost thirty years, Arturo Ripstein is one of the best-known Mexican directors whose fame reaches beyond the international film festival circuit. Son of one of Mexico’s most accomplished film producers, Ripstein literally grew up on the backlots of studios. He was not only able to observe the techniques of some master filmmakers, such as Luis Bu?uel and Emilio Fernández, but was also taken on as an assistant director by the former. With such a filmmaking background since adolescence, Ripstein made his directorial debut, A Time to Die, at the age of twenty-one. A Time to Die features a Gabriel García Márquez screenplay adapted from his own short story. Following this came a series of collaborations with other Latin American talents, such as Carlos Fuentes, Manuel Puig, José Donoso, Juan Rulfo, Elena Garros, Julio Alejandro, José Emilio Pacheco, Vincete Le?ero, and Silvina Ocampo. As such closeness with literary works may suggest, Ripstein’s films are often precise in their realism yet tacit as well as articulate in their aesthetic visions. His 1985 In the Realm of Fortune depicts the rise and fall of an ambitious peasant in the world of gambling. As the hero, Dionsio, gradually ascends from slavish poverty into affluence, Ripstein captures ‘‘superbly the sleazy, smoke-drenched atmosphere of the world of cheap carnivals, opportunistic women, cock fights and nights-long card games,’’ according to Richard Greenbaum. It is in this world that Ripstein sets out to paint a ghastly portrait of obsession, the downfall of a human being, and fate like a pendulum oscillating between the lucky and the luckless. By the end of the movie, Dionsio commits suicide after losing everything—his wife and his fortune—except for the ornate silver coffin he wishes to be buried in. As his young daughter, Bernardina, sings in a carnival (just RITTDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 825 like her mother did to find a husband) at the very end of the movie, one cannot help but wonder: if poverty is the eternal reality of the luckless and luck does not last, how does one transcend a world driven by materialism? The content is grim and the tonality dark. Deliverance, however, is not out of the question, for, through an understanding of material obsession as such, one needs not emphasize or identify with Dionsio to feel. In 1992, Ripstein started a project collaborating with yet another Nobel Prize winner, Naguib Mahfouz, on his novel The Beginning and the End. A story originally written in the 1940s about the social collapse of a Cairo family due to the death of the father, it takes on a universal quality under the pen of Ripstein’s longtime working companion, Paz Alicia Garcíadiego (who also wrote the screenplays for In the Realm of Fortune, White Lies, and Woman of the Port). The parallels drawn between Cairo and Mexico City are uncanny. As Ripstein himself puts it, ‘‘Mexico City, an enormous urban center, noisy, dusty, like Cairo, is destroyed and reconstructed daily.... They are cities conquered by accelerated urban develop- ment, irrational modernization.’’ In the filmmaker’s vision, ‘‘the family is the guardian of retired values [and] is responsible that destiny is carried out.’’ While the camera work almost renders a mythic texture, the soundtrack provides ‘‘a tragic breath,’’ ‘‘an operatic tone.’’ Recognized for its compelling treatment of a family story and rigorous artistic probing, The Beginning and the End was awarded the Grand Prize at the San Sebastian Film Festival in 1993. Ripstein and Garcíadiego’s 1994 collaboration, The Queen of the Night, is an ‘‘imaginary biography of the sentimental life of Lucha Reyes.’’ Set between 1939 and 1944, the famed folk singer’s life is chronicled in all its intensity as a ‘‘descent into the hell of alcohol, sexual excess and jealousy,’’ writes Jorge Rufinelli. Another puissant theme of neurotic obsession and self-destruction recalls not only Dionsio’s lost battle with luck but also The Beginning and the End’s eerie picture of a domineering mother. Family as well as interpersonal relationships are articulated not in terms of inevitable sufferings per se, but rather, through the alluring singing of Reyes, in terms of an intensity closer to the overpowering force of life. Therefore, with Ripstein’s incisive and sure hand, ‘‘melodramatic themes are filtered through a rigorous aesthetic vision, so that [in The Queen of the Night] sentimentalism ends up becoming its opposite.’’ In his fourth decade of an outstanding filmmaking career, there is no reason not to anticipate more masterpieces from Arturo Ripstein. This must have been a painstaking lifelong process for the filmmaker. However, as Ripstein reminds us, ‘‘all art is painful. Pained by humanity.’’ —Guo-Juin Hong RITT, Martin Nationality: American. Born: New York City, 2 March 1902. Education: Dewitt Clinton High School, New York City; attended Elon College, North Carolina; St. John’s University, Brooklyn. Military Service: Served in U.S. Army Air Corps, 1942–46. Career: Member, Elia Kazan’s Group Theater, 1937–42; stage director, New York City, from 1946; director and actor, live productions for CBS TV, 1948–51; blacklisted by television industry when a Syracuse grocer charged him with donating money to Communist China, 1951; taught acting at Actor’s Studio, directed stage plays, 1951–56; directed first film, Edge of the City, 1957. Died: Of cardiac disease, in Santa Monica, California, 8 December 1990. Films as Director: 1957 Edge of the City (A Man Is Ten Feet Tall); No Down Payment 1958 The Long Hot Summer 1959 The Sound and the Fury; The Black Orchid 1960 Jovanka e le altri (Five Branded Women) 1961 Paris Blues 1962 Adventures of a Young Man (Hemingway’s Adventures of a Young Man) 1963 Hud (+ co-pr) 1964 The Outrage 1966 The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (+ pr) 1967 Hombre (+ co-pr) 1968 The Brotherhood 1970 The Molly Maguires (+ co-pr); The Great White Hope 1971 Sounder 1972 Pete ‘n’ Tillie 1974 Conrack (+ co-pr) 1976 The Front (+ pr) 1978 Casey’s Shadow 1979 Norma Rae 1981 Back Roads 1983 Cross Creek 1985 Slugger’s Wife 1986 Murphy’s Romance 1987 Nuts 1989 Stanley and Iris (Letters; Union Street) Other Films: 1944 Winged Victory (Cukor) (role as Gleason) 1975 Der Richter und sein Henker (End of the Game) (Schell) (role) Publications By RITT: articles— ‘‘It’s the Freedom That Counts,’’ in Films and Filming (London), May 1961. ‘‘Martin Ritt—Conversation,’’ in Action (Los Angeles), March/ April 1971. ‘‘The Making of Conrack,’’ an interview with B.J. Demby, in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), April 1974. ‘‘Paranoia Paradise,’’ an interview with A. Stuart, in Films and Filming (London), March 1977. Interview with D. Chase, in Millimeter (New York), June 1979. ‘‘Portrait of a Director: The Completely Candid Martin Ritt,’’ an interview with D.S. Reiss, in Filmmakers Monthly (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), April 1981. ‘‘Dialogue on Film: Martin Ritt,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), November 1983. Interview with P. McGilligan, in Film Comment (New York), Janu- ary/February 1986. RITT DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 826 Martin Ritt On RITT: books— Whitaker, Sheila, The Films of Martin Ritt, London, 1972. Jackson, Carlton, Picking up the Tab: The Life and Movies of Martin Ritt, Bowling Green, Ohio, 1994. Miller, Gabriel, The Films of Martin Ritt, Jackson, Mississippi, 2000. On RITT: articles— Young, Colin, ‘‘The Hollywood War of Independence,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1959. ‘‘Personality of the Month,’’ in Films and Filming (London), April 1960. Lightman, Herb, ‘‘The Photography of Hud,’’ in Action (Los Ange- les), July 1963. McVay, Douglas, ‘‘The Best and Worst of Martin Ritt,’’ in Films and Filming (London), December 1964. Field, Sydney, ‘‘Outrage: A Print Documentary on Hollywood Film- Making,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1965. Farber, Stephen, ‘‘Hombre and Welcome to Hard Times,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1967. Cook, B., ‘‘Norma Rae’s Big Daddy,’’ in American Film (Washing- ton, D.C.), April 1980. Trainor, Richard, ‘‘Blacklist,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Sum- mer 1988. Ellero, Roberto, in Castoro Cinema (Milan), special section, no. 140, March-April 1989. Tereus, R., ‘‘Martin Ritt en av Hollywoods gamla palitliga,’’ in Filmrutan, vol. 34, 1991. Obituary, in EPD Film (Frankfurt), vol. 8, February 1991. *** As his roots in the Group Theater would indicate, Martin Ritt was a man with a social conscience. He had himself known misfortune: he was blacklisted during the McCarthy years of the 1950s, an odious practice that he poignantly attacks in The Front. Often, the characters in his films are underdogs, victims of racism or sexism or capitalism who live lives of quiet dignity while struggling and occasionally triumphing over adversity. Most refreshingly, Ritt’s films are inhabited by odd couplings, characters from diverse backgrounds who unite for a common good RIVETTEDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 827 while in the process expanding their own awareness. In Norma Rae, for example, Southern cotton mill worker Sally Field and New York Jewish labor organizer Ron Leibman form a curious coalition as they unionize a factory. In a hilarious sequence that symbolizes the cinema of Martin Ritt, Field joins the Lower East Side and Dixie when she petulantly utters the Yiddish word kvetch while complaining to Leibman. (The director also deals with the hardships of overworked, underpaid employees in The Molly Maguires, set in the Pennsylvania coal mines of the 1870s.) Blacks and whites regularly align themselves in Ritt films, from easy-going, hard-working railroad yard worker Sidney Poitier befriending confused army deserter John Cassavetes in Edge of the City to schoolteacher Jon Voight educating underprivileged black children in Conrack. In all of these, the black characters exist within a white society, their identities irrevocably related to whites. The exception is Sounder, released after Hollywood had discovered that black audiences do indeed attend movies; it was produced at a point in time when blacks on movie screens were able to exist solely within a black culture. Sounder pointedly details the struggles of a black family to overcome adversity and prejudice. Although he spent his youth in New York City, Ritt set many of his films in the South, including Sounder, Conrack, Norma Rae, The Long Hot Summer, and The Sound and the Fury—the last two based on William Faulkner stories. While Ritt’s films are all solidly crafted, they are in no way visually distinctive; Ritt cannot be called a great visual stylist, and is thus not ranked in the pantheon of his era’s filmmakers. —Rob Edelman RIVETTE, Jacques Nationality: French. Born: Jacques Pierre Louis Rivette in Rouen, 1 March 1928. Education: Lycée Corneille, Rouen. Career: Moved to Paris, began writing for Gazette du cinéma, 1950; writer for Cahiers du Cinéma, from 1952; worked on films in various capaci- ties, 1952–56; directed first film in 35mm, Le Coup de berger, 1956, co-scripted with Chabrol, and featuring Godard and Truffaut in small roles; first feature, Paris nous appartient, released 1961; editor-in- chief, Cahiers du Cinéma, 1963–65; director for French TV, from late 1960s. Awards: Berlin Film Award, for The Gang of Four, 1989. Films as Director: 1950 Aux Quatre Coins; Le Quadrille 1952 Le Divertissement 1956 Le Coup de berger (+ co-sc) 1961 Paris nous appartient (Paris Belongs to Us) (+ role as party guest) 1966 La Religieuse (Suzanne Simonin, la religieuse de Denis Diderot; The Nun) (+ co-sc); Jean Renoir, le patron (for TV) 1968 L’Amour fou (+ co-sc) 1971 Out 1: noli me tangere (for TV, never released) 1974 Out 1: ombre (+ co-sc); Céline et Julie vont en bateau (Céline and Julie Go Boating) (+ co-sc) 1976 Duelle (Twilight) (+ co-sc); Noro?t (Northwest) (+ co-sc) 1979 Merry-Go-Round (+ co-sc) (released 1983) 1981 Le Pont du Nord (North Bridge); Paris s’en va 1984 L’Amour par terre 1985 Hurlevent (Wuthering Heights) 1989 La Bande des quatre 1990 Belle noiseuse (+ sc) 1991 La Belle Noiseuse 1993 Divertimento 1994 Jeanne la Pucelle 1995 Haut Bas Fragile (+ sc) 1998 Secret defense (Secret Defense) (+ sc) 2000 Va Savoir! (+ sc) Other Films: 1955 French Cancan (Renoir) (asst); Une Visite (Truffaut) (ph) 1960 Chronique d’un été (Chronicle of a Summer) (Morin and Rouch) (role as Marilu’s Boyfriend) Publications By RIVETTE: articles— Regular contributor to Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), 1952–69, and to Arts (Paris), 1950s. Interviews, in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1963 and Autumn 1974. Interview, in Les Lettres Fran?aises (Paris), April 1966. Interview, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1968. Interview, in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1974. Interview, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1974/75. Interview with S. Daney and J. Narboni, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1981. Interview with P. Carcassonne and others, in Cinématographe (Paris), March 1982. Interview with Jo?l Magny, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1991. Interview with Frédéric Strauss, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1993. On RIVETTE: books— Armes, Roy, French Cinema since 1946: Vol 2—The Personal Style, New York, 1966. Monaco, James, The New Wave, New York, 1976. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, editor, Rivette: Texts and Interviews, Lon- don, 1977. On RIVETTE: articles— Burch, No?l, ‘‘Qu’est-ce que la Nouvelle Vague?,’’ in Film Quar- terly (Berkeley), Winter 1959. Tyler, Parker, ‘‘The Lady Called A: or, If Jules and Jim Had Only Lived at Marienbad,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Summer 1962. RIVETTE DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 828 Stein, E., ‘‘Suzanne Simonin, Diderot’s Nun,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1966. Lloyd, P., ‘‘Jacques Rivette and L’Amour Fou,’’ in Monogram (London), Summer 1971. ‘‘Rivette Issue’’ of Cinéma (Paris), March 1975. Bassan, Rapha?l, ‘‘Sur l’oeuvre de Jacques Rivette,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), October 1981. Chevrie, M., ‘‘Jacques Rivette, la ligne et l’aventure,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1984. Blanchet, C., ‘‘Jacques Rivette: Une poétique du complot,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), November 1984. Magny, Joel, and others, ‘‘C?te cour, c?te jardin,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1989. Arecco, S., ‘‘Quel luogo supremo in cui il tempo e abolito . . . ,’’ in Filmcritica, March 1990. Roberti, B., ‘‘Il gioco infinito della ‘messa in scena,’’’ in Filmcritica, March 1990. Sabouraud, F., ‘‘Jue de pistes,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1990. ‘‘Jacques Rivette,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1991. Bassan, R., ‘‘La belle noiseuse,’’ in Revue du Cinema, Septem- ber 1991. Riding, A., ‘‘One Artist Looks at Another in ‘La belle noiseuse,’’’ in New York Times, 13 October 1991. Sartor, F., ‘‘Rivette, Piccoli and Beart,’’ in Film en Televisie & Video, November 1991. Feldvoss, M., ‘‘Die schoene Querulantin, Divertimento,’’ in EPD Film, March 1992. Giavarini, L., ‘‘Ombre portee,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), June 1992. Lane, Anthony, ‘‘Back to the Easel,’’ in New Yorker, September 20, 1993. Rouchy, Marie-élisabeth, and Fabienne Pascaud, in Télérama (Paris), 9 February 1994. Bouquet, Stéphane, ‘‘Le temps de filmer et le temps de vieillir,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1995. Doinel, Milan, ‘‘Out One,’’ in Film a Doba (Prague), Winter 1996. Daney, S., in Revista de Comunicacao e Linguagens, December 1996. Bonnaud, Frédéric, and Milan Doinel, ‘‘Titanic, Vet?elec and Jac- ques Rivette,’’ in Film a Doba (Prague), Winter 1998. *** In the days when the young lions of the New Wave were busy railing against ‘‘Le Cinéma du papa’’ in magazine articles and attending all-night screenings of Frank Tashlin and Jerry Lewis movies at La Cinémathèque, Jacques Rivette was quite the keenest cinephile of them all. He made a short as early as 1950, worked as an assistant director for Becker and Renoir, and wrote endless essays for Gazette du Cinéma and Cahiers du Cinéma, which he would later edit. If his films seem academic and acutely self-reflexive, we must remember that he is somebody who has spent an eternity theorizing about cinema. Rivette’s first feature, Paris nous appartient, clocks in at a mere 140 minutes, and takes as its theme the abortive attempt by a group of French actors to mount a production of Shakespeare’s Pericles. Rivette’s fascination with the play-within-the-film, a leitmotif of his work, is given an initial, and not entirely successful, airing here. The film seems stage-bound, literary, and rather earnest, something which Rivette himself would later acknowledge: ‘‘I am very unhappy about the dialogue, which I find atrocious.’’ After his second feature, La Religieuse, was briefly banned (although it did make money) on account of its perceived anti- clericalism, Rivette decided to abandon conventional narrative cin- ema. Unlike Godard, who never managed to fully overcome the cult of personality (even Tout va bien and his other post-1968 collaborations with Gorin are inevitably treated as the great Jean-Luc’s personal statements), Rivette easily evolved a kind of collective cinema, where the director’s role was on a par with that of the actors. He gave his actors the task of improvising his/her dialogue and character and let the narrative stumble into being. A haphazard and risky working method, Rivette found this infinitely preferable to rigidly conforming to a pre-conceived script. As a result, Rivette’s films rarely appear polished and finished. The subject matter of Rivette films is often rehearsal: they explore the process of creation, rather than the finished artefact itself. L’Amour fou, an account of a company’s attempts to produce Racine’s Andromaque while the director and his actress-wife have a break-up, stops short of opening night. In Rivette’s monumental work Out, which lasts a full thirteen hours but has only ever seen the commercial light of day as Ombre, a four-hour shadow of itself, Rivette takes his theory of Direct Cinema as far as it will go. Determined to make a film ‘‘which, instead of being predicated on a central character presented as the conscience, reflecting everything that happens in the action, would be about a collective,’’ the director assembled a large cast of actor/ characters, amongst them Juliet Berto and Jean-Pierre Leaud. The film opens as a documentary. Only very gradually does Rivette allow a fictional narrative to emerge through the interaction of the cast. He describes Out as being ‘‘like a game . . . a crossword.’’ Rivette commissioned Roland Barthes to write for Cahiers du Cinéma. Rivette share Barthes’ well-chronicled suspicion of authors, and he is also a fervent ‘‘intertextualist’’: his films abound in references to other books and films. The Hunting of the Snark, Aeschylus, Balzac, Shakespeare, and Edgar Allen Poe are all liable to be thrown into the melting pot. He mixes 16mm and 35mm film stock in L’Amour fou, where he actually depicts a television crew filming the same rehearsals that he is filming: a case of Chinese boxes, perhaps, that goes some way to explaining his unpopularity with certain British critics. Harold Hobson in the Sunday Times described the director’s 1974 film, Céline et Julie vont en bateau, as a ‘‘ghastly exhibition of incompetent pretentiousness’’ while David Robinson suggested that L’Amour par terre offered the director’s ‘‘now accus- tomed fey and onanistic silliness.’’ It should be noted that both of the films attacked above offered strong parts for women. Rivette, more than most of his New Wave contemporaries, has provided opportunities for actresses. He is hardly the most prolific director, and the length of his films has often counted against him. Nonetheless, his clinical, self-reflexive essays in film form, coupled with the sophisticated games he continues to play within the ‘‘house of fiction,’’ reveal him as a cinematic purist whose commitment to the celluloid muse has hardly diminished since the heady days of the 1950s. —G. C. Macnab ROCHADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 829 ROCHA, Glauber Nationality: Brazilian. Born: Vitoria da Conquista, Bahia, Brazil, 14 March 1938. Education: Studied law, 1959–61. Career: Founder, ‘‘Lemanja-Filmes’’ production company, 1957; directed first feature, Barravento, 1962; went into exile, 1970; directed in Italy, France, and Spain, early 1970s; returned to Brazil, 1976. Died: In Rio de Janeiro, 22 August 1981. Films as Director: 1957 Um dia na rampa (short) (co-d) 1958 O patio (short); A cruz na pra?a (short) 1962 Barravento (The Turning Wind) (+ co-sc) 1964 Deus e o diablo na terra do sol (Black God, White Devil) (+ co-pr, sc) 1965 Amazonas Amazonas (doc) (+ sc); Maranh?o 66 (doc) (+ sc) 1967 Terra em transe (Land in Anguish) (+ sc) 1968 Cancer (+ sc) (completed in Cuba, 1973–4) 1969 Ant?nio das Mortes (O drag?o da maldade contra o santo querreiro) (+ co-pr, sc, art d) 1970 Der leone have sept cabecas (The Lion Has Seven Heads) (+ co-sc, co-ed); Cabezas cortadas (Severed Heads) (+ sc) 1975 Claro (+ sc) 1978 Di (doc short) 1979 Jorjamado no cinema (doc short) 1980 A idade da terra (The Age of the Earth) (+ sc) Other Films: 1965 A grande feira (d of pr); Menino de engenho (pr) 1966 A grande cidade (co-pr) Publications By ROCHA: books— Revisao critica do cinema brasiliero, Rio de Janeiro, 1962. Revolu?ao do cinema novo, Rio de Janeiro, 1981. Riverao Sussuarana, Rio de Janeiro, 1981. O seculo do cinema, Rio de Janeiro, 1983. By ROCHA: articles— ‘‘Un cinéma en transe,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), January 1968. Interview with M. Delahaye and others, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July 1969. ‘‘Cinema Novo vs. Cultural Colonialism: An Interview with Glauber Rocha,’’ in Cineaste (New York), Summer 1970. Interview with Gordon Hitchens, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1970. ‘‘Beginning at Zero: Notes on Cinema and Society,’’ in The Drama Review (Cambridge, Massachusetts), Winter 1970. Interview in Afterimage (London), no. 3, 1971. ‘‘Lumière, magie, action,’’ in Positif (Paris), December 1974. Interviews in Los a?os de la conmoción, by Isaac Léon Frías, Mexico City, 1979. ‘‘Humberto Mauro and the Historical Position of Brazilian Cinema,’’ and ‘‘Hunger vs. Profit Aesthetic,’’ in Framework (Norwich), Autumn 1979. ‘‘The History of Cinema Novo,’’ in Framework (Norwich), Sum- mer 1980. ‘‘Epistolario: Cartas de Glauber Rocha,’’ in Cine Cubano (Havana), no. 101, 1982. ‘‘The Aesthetics of Hunger’’ and ‘‘Down with Populism,’’ in 25 Years of the New Latin American Cinema, edited by Michael Chanan, London, 1983. ‘‘Deus e o diablo na terra do sol,’’ in Filme Cultura (Rio de Janeiro), January/April 1984. ‘‘Cinema Novo and the Dialectics of Popular Culture,’’ an interview in Cinema and Social Change in Latin America, by Julianne Burton, Austin, Texas, 1986. ‘‘Revisión crítica del cine brasile?o,’’ ‘‘No al populismo,’’ and ‘‘Estética de la violencia,’’ in Hojas de cine: Testimonios y documentos del Nuevo Cine Latinoamericano, Mexico City, 1986. On ROCHA: books— Gerber, Raquel, editor, Glauber Rocha, Rio de Janeiro, 1977. Johnson, Randal, and Robert Stam, Brazilian Cinema, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1982. Hollyman, Burnes, Glauber Rocha and the Cinema Novo in Brazil: A Study of His Critical Writings and Films, New York, 1983. Johnson, Randal, Cinema Novo x 5, Austin, Texas, 1984. Armes, Roy, Third World Filmmaking and the West, Berkeley, 1987. Pierre, Sylvie, Glauber Rocha, Paris, 1987. King, John, Magical Reels: A History of Cinema in Latin America, London, 1990. On ROCHA: articles— Callenbach, Ernest, ‘‘Comparative Anatomy of Folk Myth Films: Robin Hood and Antonio das Mortes,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berke- ley), Winter 1969/70. ‘‘Rocha Issue’’ of Etudes Cinématographiques (Paris), no. 97–99, 1973. Gardies, R., ‘‘Structural Analysis of a Textual System: Presentation of a Method,’’ in Screen (London), Spring 1974. Cinema Novo Section of Jump Cut (Chicago), June 1976. Castoro Cinema (Milan), special section, no. 13, 1977. Van Wert, W.F., ‘‘Ideology in the Third World Cinema: A Study of Ousmane Sembene and Glauber Rocha,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film Studies (Pleasantville, New York), no. 2, 1979. Bruce, Graham, ‘‘Music in Glauber Rocha’s Films,’’ in Jump Cut (Berkeley), May 1980. Armes, Roy, ‘‘The Incoherence of Underdevelopment,’’ in Films and Filming (London), November 1981. Rocha Section of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1981. ROEG DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 830 Rocha Sections of Cine Cubano (Havana), nos. 100 and 101, 1982. Rocha Section of Film Cultura (Rio de Janeiro), August/Octo- ber 1982. Bernadet, J.-C., and T. Coelho, ‘‘Un utopiste flamboyant: Glauber Rocha et L’age de la terre,’’ in CinémAction (Conde-sur-Noireau), March 1983. Paranagua, P., ‘‘Luis Bu?uel et Glauber Rocha,’’ in Positif (Paris), October 1983. Burton, Julianne, ‘‘Modernist Form in Land in Anguish and Memo- ries of Underdevelopment,’’ in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Winter 1984. Vernaglione, P., ‘‘O Cangaceiro do cinema,’’ in Filmcritica (Rome), vol. 37, October 1986. Gomes, P.E. Sallès, ‘‘Glauber Rocha,’’ in Positif (Paris), April 1987. Film und Fernsehen (Potsdam), special section, vol. 18, Decem- ber 1990. Vega, J. ‘‘Glauber Rocha: el santo guerro del Cinema Novo,’’ in Cine Cubano (Havana), no. 134, 1992. Scorsese, Martin, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), no. 500, March 1996. *** ‘‘A camera in your hand and an idea in your head’’ was how Glauber Rocha described the minimalist conditions in which the filmmakers of Brazil’s Cinema Novo (New Cinema) began. Though the origins of Cinema Novo can be traced to Nelson Pereira dos Santos’s movie, Rio 40 Degrees (1955), the ‘‘official’’ starting point for the movement which redefined Brazilian and Latin American film is 1962, when Rocha directed Barravento. Rocha was Cinema Novo’s principle theorist and most flamboyant practitioner, developing many of its key concepts and realizing them on the screen. The most important element in Rocha’s theory of filmmaking was his recurrent insistence on discovering a filmic language of a uniquely Brazilian and Latin American quality, ending the practice endemic to neo-colonies of aping Hollywood and European cinema. This new idiom was to arise out of working directly within the reality of Latin America; thus, in one of his best-known essays, he argued that its core was an aesthetic of hunger and violence: ‘‘Hunger is the essence of our society . . . and hunger’s most noble cultural manifestation is violence.’’ Rocha was looking for a popular, but not a populist, form of expression, and he felt that this would lead to new acting styles, different ways of using music and color, and innovative forms of montage. If the base of Rocha’s cinema was the traditional culture of Brazil, modern influences were also important. One of these was the Cuban revolution, which offered the example of radical social transforma- tion in Latin America and made possible the birth of a truly Cuban cinematography. Another was the New Wave in France, from whence sprang the concept of the director as ‘‘auteur’’ which so influenced Rocha. Adherents of this concept pioneered the path he traveled from critic to filmmaker. However, Rocha clearly distinguished between the cinema of Europe, which expressed the existential anguish of the developed world, and the epic cinema which he believed more appropriate to articulating the social and economic crises of Latin America. As he pithily polemicized: ‘‘We’re not interested in neurotics’ problems, we’re interested in the problems faced by those who are lucid.’’ After some short films, and relatively extensive experience as a critic, Rocha burst onto the international cinematic scene with Barravento. Although in later years he was to express dissatisfaction with the film, even disclaiming authorship because he had taken it over from another director half-way through the shooting, at the time he called it the ‘‘first great denunciation realized in Brazilian cin- ema.’’ Filmed in a neo-realist style that was characteristic of many Cinema Novo directors—though this was the only instance in which Rocha employed this form—the movie focused on the harsh living conditions of a fishing village. If the work’s realism is at odds with Rocha’s later theatricality, the film nonetheless contains many of the elements found throughout his oeuvre. For example, the narrative leaps and the fighting which is choreographed as dancing presage the reflexivity of Rocha films that followed. Also present is the dialectic of the traditional and the modern, for while Rocha criticizes the mysticism that is part of the fishing people’s underdevelopment, he also shows how their popular culture provides them with a defense against the ravages of capitalism. The films that came after Barravento are extravagant and operatic, expressive of Rocha’s search for a cinematic tropicalism equivalent to the magic realism contained in the work of Latin American writers such as Gabriel García Márquez and Alejo Carpentier. One of the unique formal elements in Rocha’s work is the combination of this tropicalism with the self-reflexivity of the New Wave through such strategies as the placing of a film within a film in Land in Anguish and the use of highly stylized violence in Antonio das Mortes. In both of these films he also pricks the audience’s critical sense by making the perspective of the works larger than that of their central protagonist, thus cutting back against the very identification that he simultane- ously foments in the films. This sort of systematic contradiction is characteristic of Rocha’s efforts to realize a dialectical form, and is perhaps most evident in the counter-point he consistently established between image and sound. Rocha’s concern with thematic dialectics is most apparent in his explorations of Brazilian popular culture, which he perceived as representing both a permanent rebellion against oppression and the evasion of social problems. His interest in resolving this contradiction and turning popular culture and myth into a progressive force is portrayed in Black God, White Devil and Antonio das Mortes through the conflict between the cangaceiros, the social bandits of the Brazilian Northeast, and Antonio, the killer hired to eradicate the law- breakers but who ends up embodying their social ideals. That it is popular—not populist—culture which offers the only possibility for national liberation is made explicit by Rocha in Land in Anguish, where he contrasts traditional values to those of liberal populism, which is shown to lead inevitably to co-option by the bourgeoisie. Rocha’s efforts to form a genuinely Brazilian cinema, founded on authentic themes and expressed through an idiom peculiar to Latin America, led him to make beautiful and moving films which continue to speak for his ideals. —John Mraz ROEG, Nicolas Nationality: British. Born: Nicolas Jack Roeg in London, 15 August 1928. Education: Mercers School. Family: Married 1) Susan Rennie Stephens; 2) actress Theresa Russell. Career: Junior at Marylebone ROEGDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 831 Nicolas Roeg Studio, dubbing French films and making tea, from 1947; hired at MGM’s Borehamwood Studios as part of camera crew on The Miniver Story, 1950; camera operator, from 1958; directed first feature (with Donald Cammell), Performance, 1970. Awards: Golden Palm, Cannes Film Festival, for Insignificance, 1985; Lifetime Achieve- ment Award, British Independent Film Awards, 1999. Address: c/o Hatton and Baker, 18 Jermyn Street, London SW1Y 6HN, England. Films as Director: 1970 Performance (co-d, + ph) 1971 Walkabout (+ ph) 1973 Don’t Look Now 1976 The Man Who Fell to Earth 1980 Bad Timing 1981 Dallas through the Looking Glass 1982 Eureka 1985 Insignificance 1986 Castaway 1987 Episode in Aria 1988 Track 29 1989 The Witches; Sweet Bird of Youth (for TV) 1992 Cold Heaven 1993 Heart of Darkness (for TV) 1995 Full Body Massage (for TV); Two Deaths 1996 Samson and Delilah (for TV) Other Films: (as camera operator) 1958 A Woman Possessed (Max Varnel); Moment of Indiscretion (Max Varnel); The Man Inside (Gilling) 1959 The Great Van Robbery (Max Varnel); Passport to Shame (Rakoff); The Child and the Killer (Max Varnel) 1960 The Trials of Oscar Wilde (Hughes); Jazz Boat (Hughes) 1961 The Sundowners (Zinnemann); Information Received (Lynn) 1962 Lawrence of Arabia (Lean) (2nd unit ph); Dr. Crippen (Lynn) ROEG DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 832 (as lighting cameraman) 1963 The Caretaker (Donner); Just for Fun (Flemyng); Nothing but the Best (Donner) 1964 The Masque of the Red Death (Corman); The System (The Girl Getters) (Winner); Every Day’s a Holiday (Hill); Victim Five (Code Seven, Victim Five) (Lynn) 1965 Judith (Mann) (2nd unit ph) 1966 A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (Lester); Farenheit 451 (Truffaut) 1967 Far from the Madding Crowd (Schlesinger); Casino Royale (Huston and others) (some sections only) 1968 Petulia (Lester) Publications By ROEG: articles— Interview with Gordon Gow, in Films and Filming (London), Janu- ary 1972. ‘‘Don’t Look Now,’’ an interview with Tom Milne and Penelope Houston, in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1973/74 and Winter 1974/75. ‘‘Nick Roeg . . . and the Man Who Fell to Earth,’’ with John Lifflander and Stephan Shroyer, in Inter/View (New York), March 1976. ‘‘Roegian Thought Patterns,’’ an interview with J. Padroff, in Films (London), September 1981. Interview with Harlan Kennedy, in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1983. Interview with Richard Combs, in Sight and Sound (London), Win- ter 1984/85. Interview with Brian Baxter in Films and Filming (London), July 1985. ‘‘Private Lives,’’ an interview with G. Fuller, in Stills (London), June/ July 1985. Interview with Nick Roddick, in Cinema Papers (Melbourne), Sep- tember 1985. Interview, in La Revue du Cinéma (Paris), October 1985. ‘‘Roeg Time,’’ an interview with A. Alvarez, in Interview (New York), July 1988. ‘‘Mutha Theresa: Jungle Book,’’ an interview with Alkarim Jivani and Geoff Andrew, in Time Out (London), 28 July 1993. ‘‘Heat and Lust,’’ an interview with Brian Case, 12 June 1996. ‘‘Movie Memories,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), May sup 1996. On ROEG: books— Feineman, Neil, Nicolas Roeg, Boston, 1978. Houston, Beverle, and Marsha Kinder, Self and Cinema: A Transformalist Perspective, Pleasantville, New York, 1980. Walker, John, The Once and Future Film: British Cinema in the ‘70s and ‘80s, London, 1983. Lanza, Joseph, Fragile Geometry: The Films, Philosophy, and Mis- adventures of Nicolas Roeg, New York, 1989. Sinyard, Neal, The Films of Nicolas Roeg, London, 1991. Izod, John, The Films of Nicolas Roeg: Myth and Mind, Lon- don, 1992. Salwolke, Scott, Nicolas Roeg, Film by Film, Jefferson, North Caro- lina, 1993. On ROEG: articles— Kleinhans, Chuck, ‘‘Nicolas Roeg: Permutations without Profun- dity,’’ in Jump Cut (Chicago), September/October 1974. Mayersberg, Paul, ‘‘Story So Far . . . The Man Who Fell to Earth,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1975. Kolker, Robert, ‘‘The Open Texts of Nicolas Roeg,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1977. Kennedy, H., ‘‘The Illusions of Nicholas Roeg,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), January/February 1980. Cros, Jean-Louis, and Raymond Lefevre, ‘‘Pour rehabiliter Nicholas Roeg,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), June 1981. Gomez, J., ‘‘Another Look at Nicholas Roeg,’’ in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Fall 1981. Pursell, M., ‘‘From Gold Nugget to Ice Crystal: The Diagenetic Structure of Roeg’s Eureka,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salis- bury, Maryland), vol. 11, no. 4, October 1983. Heaton, L., ‘‘A True Castaway,’’ in Photoplay Movies & Video (London), February 1987. Bernhard, S., ‘‘Right on Track,’’ in American Film (New York), April 1988. Barker, Adam, ‘‘What the Detective Saw, or A Case of Mistaken Identity,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), July 1988. Mazierska, Ewa, in Iluzjion, July-December 1991. Uszynski, J., ‘‘Demony Nicholasa Roega,’’ in Kino (Warsaw), Octo- ber 1992. *** Nicolas Roeg is a visual trickster who plays havoc with conven- tional screen narratives. Choosing an oblique storytelling formula, he riddles his plots with ambiguous characters, blurred genres, distorted chronologies, and open-ended themes to invite warring interpretations. Even the most facile Roeg synopsis betrays alienation and incon- gruity, with characters getting caught in bewildering and hostile situations. His first effort, Performance (with co-director Donald Cammell) offers a dark look at the last days of a pursued gangster (James Fox) who undergoes a psychosexual identity change while hiding out with a has-been rock star (Mick Jagger). This psychedelic cornucopia of androgynous sex, violence, and Borges allusions blessed and cursed Roeg with the lingering label ‘‘cult director.’’ We had already been warned of Roeg’s charming peculiarities during his cinematographer days. Such notable films as Far from the Madding Crowd and Fahrenheit 451 had odd, even anachronistic looks that sometimes ran contrary to the story proper. In fact, the latter film barely resembles Truffaut at all and looks more Roegish with its dreamy color schemes and chilly atmospherics. Even Roeg’s relatively tame second feature, Walkabout, based on a novel by James Vance Marshall, has narrative trap doors. Jarring cross-cuts, sensuous photography, and Edward Bond’s enigmatic script are more satisfying to mystics than humanists. Marshall’s novel is much more clear in its tale of two Australian children (Jenny Agutter and Lucien John) who get lost in the outback and are saved by an aborigine (David Gumpilil). Roeg’s version is a more complex and fatalistic expose of people from separate cultures who have no hope of connecting. Roeg flaunts a talent for shattering a relatively simple story into heady fragments with his adaptation of Daphne du Maurier’s Don’t Look Now. The tragedy of a couple (Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland) haunted in Venice by a psychic (Hilary Mason) claiming ROGOZHKINDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 833 to communicate with their drowned daughter turns into something more than just a proto-Hitchcock thriller. As in most Roegian journeys, we emerge from Don’t Look Now more discombobulated than we were at the start. Is the psychic a fraud? Is there foul play among the Venetian authorities? Could the occult implications be just a ruse? Roeg operates on a logic that is more visceral than intellectual. Instead of outright clues, we get recurrent shapes, sounds, colors, and gestures that belie a hidden order linking people and events. Of all Roeg’s work, The Man Who Fell to Earth is the most accomplished and de-centered. A space alien (David Bowie) arrives on Earth, starts a multi-million dollar enterprise and is later captured by a government-corporate collusion. What threatens to be another trite sci-fi plot becomes, in Roeg’s hands, a visually stunning mental conundrum. All the continuity gaffes plaguing many an outer-space movie are here intentionally exacerbated to the point where we doubt that the ‘‘visitor’’ is really an alien at all. We see events mostly through the alien’s abstruse viewpoint as days, months, years, even decades transpire sporadically and inconsistently. The story is a sleight- of-hand distraction that forces our attention more onto the transitory mood of loneliness and dissociation. Unlike a purely experimental director who would flout story-lines altogether, Roeg retains the bare bones of old genres only to disfigure them. His controversial Bad Timing could easily have been an updated ‘‘Inner Sanctum’’ spin-off with its pathological lovers (Art Garfunkel and Theresa Russell) and the voyeuristic detective (Harvey Keitel) snooping for foul play. But the film unfolds with vignettes that tell us one thing and show another. Time and motive—the staples of mysteries—are so deviously jumbled that we can only resign our- selves to the Roeg motto that ‘‘nothing is what it seems.’’ Roeg’s under-appreciated and least-seen Eureka starts out as an adventure about a Yukon prospector (Gene Hackman) who finds gold and becomes one of the world’s richest men. But soon the story splinters into soap opera, romance, murder mystery, and even splatter film—a tortuous, visionary, frustrating, and ultimately mad epic. Since Eureka, Roeg has been more skittish about re-entering the labyrinth. Films like Insignificance (about a night when the proto- types of Albert Einstein, Marilyn Monroe, Joe DiMaggio, and Joe McCarthy meet) and Castaway (based on Lucy Irvine’s ordeal with a lover on a deserted island) have shades of the older Roeg films but lack his gift for reckless lust. The ‘‘Twilight Zone’’ teasers reemerge somewhat in Track 29, where he teams with absurdist scriptwriter Dennis Potter in a tale about a woman beleaguered by a man her own age who claims to be her illegitimate son. Once more, Roeg treats us to another story about frustrated love and the fragile border between ‘‘reality’’ and hallucination. The career of Nicolas Roeg has in recent years been in sad decline. By far his best work in this latter period was the made-for-television feature Heart of Darkness, a moody, shadowy adaptation of the famed Joseph Conrad novella. Cold Heaven is a muddled drama about a husband who may or may not have been killed in a grisly accident just as his wife is set to leave him. Though a well-intentioned expose of the horror of war, Two Deaths, his 1994 film, shows no evidence of a return to form. It is set during a bloody conflict. Several aristocratic types sit in a room awaiting the start of a dinner party. They complain about trifling matters, while on the streets around them blood flows like the wine they will enjoy with their meal. All too obviously, before the night is over the violence outside will intrude on their lives, with much moralizing and sermonizing along the way. Roeg beats you over the head with unsubtle symbolism: the guests slurp down oysters while a woman bleeds to death outside, and he even uses the clichéd image of a dead dove. —Joseph Lanza, updated by Rob Edelman ROGOZHKIN, Alexander Nationality: Russian. Born: Leningrad, 3 October 1949. Education: graduated in History from Leningrad State University, 1972; gradu- ated from Director’s Department at VGIK, 1982. Career: designer for Leningrad television, 1971–72; designer at Lenfilm, 1974–77; clip-maker for advertising, 1980–84; author of the very popular Russian television series Cops. Awards: Nika Prize, Russian Acad- emy of Cinematography, for best director, 1995. Films as Director: 1979 Brother has Come (Brat priekhal) (short) 1980 Redheadp Redhead (Ryzhaiapryzhaia) (short) 1985 For the Sake of a Few Lines (Radi neskol’kikh strochek) 1986 The Golden Button (Zolotaia pugovitsa) (for TV) 1988 Miss Millionaire (Miss millionersha) 1989 The Guard (Karaul) 1991 The Third Planet (Tret’ia planeta) (sc); The Chekist (Chekist) 1993 Life with an Idiot (Zhizn’ s idiotom) (sc); The Act (Akt) (sc) 1995 Peculiarities of the National Hunt (Osobennosti natsional’noi okhoty) (sc) 1996 Operation ‘‘Happy New Year’’ (Operatsiia ‘‘S novym godom’’) (sc) 1998 Peculiarities of National Fishing (Osobennosti natsional’noi rybalki) (sc); Checkpoint (Blokpost) (sc); Cops (Menty) (for TV) Publications By ROGOZHKIN: book— Osobennosti natsional’noi okhoty/Osobennosti natsional’noi rybalki, Moscow, 1999. On ROGOZHKIN: articles— ‘‘Blokpost,’’ in Seans (St. Petersburg), 17–18, 1999. ‘‘Osobennosti natsional’noi okhoty,’’ in Seans (St. Petersburg), no. 12, 1996. Saveliev, Dmitri, ‘‘Osobennosti russkogo natsional’nogo travmatizma v novogodnii period,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), no. 10, 1996. Sirivlia, Natalia, ‘‘Vot takoe kino,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), no. 3, 1997. Stishova, Elena, ‘‘Zapiski s kavkazskoi voiny,’’ in Iskusstvo Kino (Moscow), no. 1, 1999. *** ROHMER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 834 Alexander Rogozhkin is a rising star of post-Soviet cinema. His breakthrough came with Chekist (1991), followed by Life with an Idiot (1993), the latter being based on Viktor Erofeev’s eponymous novel about a humanist intellectual and his wife who adopt an idiot to fulfil a mission in their lives, yet never expect the violence they encounter. Rogozhkin gained widespread popularity in Russia with Peculi- arities of the National Hunt and, later, with the sequel Peculiarities of National Fishing. In these films Rogozhkin explores the notorious love of Russians for vodka as a motif for a comedy of social reality. In Peculiarities of the National Hunt a Finn, who is researching the traditions of the Russian hunt from the time of the tsars to the present day, joins a group of five Russians from the military and police forces in the hunt. The excessive drinking bouts the Russians associate with hunting are, however, not what the Finn expects. He initially refuses to drink, while he dreams all the time of the imperial hunting party of the late nineteenth century, stylishly hunting down a fox with their dogs, elegantly riding horses, and, of course, conversing in French, while he, the non-Russian speaker, is marginalized in the group. Drinking may have no purpose, but it is a habit that makes social and national differences disappear, and that lifts temporal boundaries in bringing together past and present. The world returns to its purest form, without any boundaries or limits. Rogozhkin made two sequels to this very popular film, both starring Alexei Buldakov as the General Ivolgin, and the comic actor Leonid Yarmolnik. Operation Happy New Year sees the same charac- ters on a hospital ward, celebrating New Year. The characters’ (or patients’) respective histories bring them, and the spectator, to the neurology department: a writer of erotic novels who broke his fingers in an experiment of having sex while tied to the bed; General Ivolgin who falls off a stage as he has his New Year television address recorded; a Russian businessman who is hunted through fields by two mafia hitmen and runs into a pole, sustaining injury to his genitals. All possible groups, or classes—(pseudo)-intellectual, military, and business—of the new Russian society are brought together in the ward, where they join the patients already there, including an actor and a ‘‘fatally ill’’ patient, and, of course, the hospital staff. Class separation becomes impossible, and social boundaries are broken, while all the patients are dressed in gowns and masked with various parts of plaster-casts. The General organises the party with all the strategic precision of a military manoeuvre: he arranges for a tree to be stolen, food to be bought, and the women from the other wing to be invited. The General represents power, and in his physical appearance he is a cross-section between Brezhnev and General Lebed. He organises the feast, conducts the choir, and supervises the operation. Without military power harmony is impossible. Rogozhkin’s film thus celebrates the return to a past where authority is in command, to the golden past of the Soviet period. In Peculiarities of National Fishing alcohol is responsible for the group of military men and the Finn accidentally mooring on the Finnish coast. In many ways this film is a weak reflection of Peculiarities of the National Hunt. Rogozhkin capitalises, however, on the extremely witty scripts for these films, combined with the casting of very popular Russian actors: not stars, but the darlings of millions of television viewers. One of Rogozhkin’s most recent feature films is an anti-war film set in the Caucasus, titled Checkpoint (1998). Rogozhkin portrays a strategically unimportant checkpoint on some mountain road that leads to a Muslim cemetery. The lack of a general sense of the soldiers’ mission and their part in the overall strategy of the operation is reflected in the film’s composition, focused on detail and episodic in structure. The film takes the genre of notes from a war: a chroni- cler-narrator, no hero, tells the events as they happen: the soldiers raid a house in a local village where a boy is holding on to a mine that he sets off as they enter. The men manage to escape before the house explodes, but they are—mistakenly—thought to have caused the explosion. When the detachment has taken position on the check- point, the soldiers are hampered in their routine by a sniper. In order to negotiate a cease-fire, the soldiers ‘‘High’’ (Kaif) and ‘‘Ash’’ (Pepel) are sent to the village. Scared of what might happen, High clutches on to an activated mine that he later carefully disposes of in the wood. An old shepherd stumbles over the mine off and loses his hand in the accident. Under pressure from the local community to turn over the culprit, the commander surrenders ‘‘Rat’’ (Krysa): he sacrifices one of his men to maintain the status quo. Rat’s body is returned to the checkpoint, wrapped in a sheepskin. As ‘‘Lawyer’’ (Yurist) tries to pull the body off the road, he is shot by the sniper, Masha, a local woman whom he is fond of, since she can no longer distinguish him from the others after he has swapped with Ash his striking helmet decorated with a foxtail. Rogozhkin shows the everyday life and trivial events of the war without glorifying the war or creating heroes. He demythologises the war before a myth has even been created. While the national idea may be contained in fishing or the hunt, it is plainly absent from the military action in the Cauasus. —Birgit Beumers ROHMER, Eric Nationality: French. Born: Jean-Marie Maurice Scherer in Nancy, France, 4 April 1920. Career: Taught literature teacher at lycée, Nancy, 1942–50; was a film critic, from 1948; founder, with Godard and Rivette, of La Gazette du Cinéma, Paris, 1950; co-authored a book on Alfred Hitchcock with Claude Chabrol, 1957; was editor- in-chief of Cahiers du Cinéma, 1957–63; directed his first feature, Le Signe du lion, 1959; made the ‘‘Six contes moraux’’ (Six Moral Tales), 1962–73; with La Femme de l’aviator, began a new series, ‘‘Comédies et proverbes,’’ 1980; began a new series, ‘‘Tales of the Four Seasons,’’ 1989. Awards: Berlin Film Festival Silver Berlin Bear and Youth Film Award, for La Collectionneuse, 1967; Prix Max Ophüls, National Society of Film Critics Best Screenplay, New York Film Critics Circle Best Screenplay, for My Night at Maud’s,1969; San Sebastian International Film Festival Golden Seashell, Prix Louis Delluc, Prix Méliès, for Claire’s Knee, 1971; Cannes Film Festival Grand Prize of the Jury, for The Marquise of O . . . , 1976; Berlin Film Festival FIPRESCI Award, O.C.I.C Award-Honorable Mention, and Silver Berlin Bear, for Pauline at the Beach, 1983; Venice Film Festival Golden Lion and FIPRESCI Award, for The Green Ray, 1986; Berlin Film Festival FIPRESCI Award and Prize of the Ecumenical Jury-Special Mention, for A Tale of Winter, 1992; National Society of Film Critics Best Foreign Language Film, Venice Film Festival Sergio Trasatti Award-Special Mention, for A Tale of ROHMERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 835 Autumn, 1998 Officier des Arts et des Lettres. Address: 26 av. Pierre- 1er-de-Serbie, 75116 Paris, France. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1950 Journal d’un scélérat 1951 Présentation ou Charlotte et son steak (Charlotte and Her Steak) 1952 Les Petites Filles modèles (co-d) (unfinished) 1954 Bérénice 1956 La Sonate à Kreutzer (The Kreutzer Sonata) 1958 Véronique et son cancre 1959 Le Signe du lion (Sign of the Lion; The Sign of Leo) 1963 La Boulangerie de Monceau (first of the ‘‘Contes moraux’’; following five films identified by ‘‘CM’’ and number assigned by Rohmer); La Carrière de Suzanne (Suzanne’s Profession) (CM no. 2) 1964 Nadja à Paris 1964–69 Films for educational television: Les Cabinets de physique au XVIIIème siècle; Les Métamorphoses du paysage industriel; Perceval; Don Quichotte; Edgar Po?; Pascal; La Bruyère; Mallarmé; La Béton dans la ville; Les Contemplations; Hugo architecte; Louis Lumière 1965 Films for television series ‘‘Cinéastes de notre temps’’: Carl Dreyer, Le Celluloid et la marbre; ‘‘Place de l’étoile’’ episode of Paris vu Par . . . (Six in Paris) 1966 Une étudiante d’aujourd’hui 1967 La Collectionneuse (CM no. 4) (+ sc); Fermière à Montfaucon 1969 Ma Nuit chez Maud (My Night at Maud’s) (CM no. 3) 1970 Le Genou de Claire (Claire’s Knee) (CM no. 5) 1972 L’Amour l’après-midi (Chloe in the Afternoon) (CM no. 6) 1976 La Marquise d’O . . . (The Marquise of O . . . ) 1978 Perceval le Gaullois 1980 La Femme de l’aviateur (The Aviator’s Wife) 1982 Le Beau Mariage (The Perfect Marriage) 1983 Loup y es-tu? (Wolf, Are You There?); Pauline à la plage (Pauline at the Beach) 1984 Les Nuits de la pleine lune (Full Moon in Paris) 1986 Le Rayon vert (The Green Ray) 1987 L’Ami de mon amie (My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend; Boyfriends and Girlfriends); Quatre Aventures de Reinette et Mirabelle (Four Adventures of Reinette and Mirabelle) 1989 Conte de printemps (A Tale of Springtime) 1992 Un Conte d’hiver (A Tale of Winter) 1993 L’Arbre, le maire et la Mediatheque (The Tree, The Mayor, and the Mediatheque) 1995 Les rendez-vous de Paris (Rendezvous in Paris) 1996 Conte d’ete (A Summer’s Tale) 1998 Conte d’automne (Autumn Tale, A Tale of Autumn) 2000 L’Anglaise et le duc Other Films: 1954 Berenice (role) 1993 Francois Truffaut: portraits voles (Francois Truffaut: Stolen Portraits) (Toubiana, Pascal) (appearance) Publications By ROHMER: books— Hitchcock, with Claude Chabrol, Paris, 1957; Oxford, 1992. Six contes moraux, Paris, 1974. The Marquise of O, New York, 1985. Le Gout de la beauté, edited by Jean Narboni, Paris, 1989. A Taste for Beauty, Cambridge, 1990. By ROHMER: articles— Interview with Graham Petrie, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Sum- mer 1971. ‘‘Eric Rohmer Talks about Chloe,’’ in Inter/View (New York), November 1972. ‘‘Programme Eric Rohmer,’’ an article and interview with Claude Beylie, in Ecran (Paris), April 1974. ‘‘La Marquise d’O . . . ,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), Octo- ber 1976. ‘‘Rohmer’s Perceval,’’ an interview with G. Adair, in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1978. ‘‘Rehearsing the Middle Ages,’’ an interview with N. Tesich-Savage, in Film Comment (New York), September/October 1978. ‘‘Un Allegorie policière,’’ with Claude Chabrol, in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), June 1980. Interview with Pascal Bonitzer and Serge Daney, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1981. ‘‘Comedies and Proverbs,’’ an interview with F. Ziolkowski, in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol. 5, no. 1, 1982. ‘‘Eric Rohmer on Film Scripts and Film Plans,’’ an interview with R. Hammond and J. P. Pagliano, in Literature-Film Quarterly (Salis- bury, Maryland), vol. 10, no. 4, October 1982. Interview with A. Carbonnier and Joel Magny, in Cinéma (Paris), January 1984. Interview with H. Niogret, and others, in Positif (Paris), Novem- ber 1986. Interview with Serge Toubiana and Alain Philippon, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1987. ‘‘L’homme a la sacoche,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), Novem- ber 1989. ‘‘Lettre d’ Eric Rohmer, a Jacques Davila,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1990. ‘‘Nestor Almendros, naturellement,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1990. Interview with A. de Baecque and others, in La Revue du Cinéma (Paris), April 1990. Interview with G. Legrand and F. Thomas, in Positif (Paris), April 1990. ‘‘La pensee et la parole,’’ in Avant Scène du Cinéma (Paris), May 1990. Interview with A. Danton, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), Febru- ary 1992. ‘‘L’arbre, le maire et la mediatheque ou les sept hasards,’’ in Cahier du Cinéma (Paris), February 1993. ‘‘L’amateur,’’ interview with A de Baecque and T. Jousse, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1993. Rockwell, John, ‘‘Eric Rohmer Writes His Own Winter Tale, in New York Times, 27 March 1994. ROHMER DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 836 On ROHMER: books— Mellen, Joan, Women and Sexuality in the New Film, New York, 1973. Vidal, Marion, Les contes moraux d’Eric Rohmer, Paris, 1977 Angeli, G., Eric Rohmer, Milan, 1979. Mancini, Michele, Eric Rohmer, Florence, 1982. Estève, Michel, Eric Rohmer 2, Paris, 1986. Magny, Joel, Eric Rohmer, Paris, 1986. Crisp, C. G., Realist and Moralist, Bloomington, Indiana, 1988. Bonitzer, Pascal, Eric Rohmer, Paris, 1991. Showalter, E., editor, My Night at Maud’s: Eric Rohmer, Director, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1993. On ROHMER: articles— ‘‘Eric Rohmer,’’ in Film (London), Spring 1968. Clarens, Carlos, ‘‘L’Amour Sage,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1969/70. ‘‘Director of the Year,’’ in International Film Guide 1972, Lon- don, 1971. Nogueira, Rui, ‘‘Eric Rohmer: Choice and Chance,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1971. Mellen, Joan, ‘‘The Moral Psychology of Rohmer’s Tales,’’ in Cinema (Beverly Hills), Fall 1971. ‘‘Director of the Year,’’ International Film Guide (London, New York), 1972. Amiel, M., and others, ‘‘Dossier-auteur: Eric Rohmer à la recherche de l’absolu,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), February 1979. Fieschi, J., and others, ‘‘Dossier: Le cinéma d’Eric Rohmer,’’ in Cinématographe (Paris), February 1979. ‘‘Pauline à la plage Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), no. 310, 1983. Borchardt, E., ‘‘Eric Rohmer’s The Marquise of O . . . and the Theory of the German Novella,’’ in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 12, no. 2, April 1984. Bergala, Alain, and Alain Philippon, ‘‘Eric Rohmer, la Grace et la Rigeur,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), October 1984. ‘‘Rohmer Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), January 1985. ‘‘Le Rayon Vert Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), Decem- ber 1986. Pym, John, ‘‘Silly Girls,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Win- ter 1986/87. Elia, M., ‘‘Les jeux de la liberté et du hasard dans les films d’Eric Rohmer,’’ in Séquences (Montreal), August 1987. Aumont, Jacques, ‘‘L’extraordinaire et le solide,’’ in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), December 1987. Cossardeaux, C., article in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1988. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Films in Focus: Rohmer Resurgent,’’ in Village Voice (New York), 19 July 1988. Teyssedre, A., article in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1990. Mayne, Richard, ‘‘Still Waving, Not Drowning,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1990. Durgnat, Raymond, ‘‘Eric Rohmer: The Enlightenment’s Last Gleam- ing,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), July 1990. Rosenbaum, Ron, ‘‘Eric Rohmer’s Cinema of Snooze,’’ in Madamoiselle, July 1991. Taboulay, C., article in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1992. Noel, B., article in Positif (Paris), May 1992. Baecque, A., de and S. Toubiana, ‘‘L’eglise moderne,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1993. Dalle Vacche, Angela, ‘‘Painting Thoughts, Listening to Images: Eric Rohmer’s The Marquise of O. . . ,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1993. *** By virtue of a tenure shared at Cahiers du Cinéma during the 1950s and early 1960s, Eric Rohmer is usually classified with Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol, and Rivette as a member of the French New Wave. Yet, except for three early shorts made with Godard, Rohmer’s films seem to share more with the traditional values of such directors as Renoir and Bresson than with the youthful flamboyance of his contemporaries. Much of this divergence is owed to an accident of birth. Born Jean-Marie Maurice Scherer in 1920, Rohmer was at least ten years older than any of the other critic/filmmakers in the Cahiers group. By the time he arrived in Paris in 1948, he was an established teacher of literature at the lycée in Nancy and had published a novel, Elizabeth (1946), under the pseudonym Gilbert Cordier. When he joined the Cahiers staff in 1951 Rohmer had already spent three years as a film critic with such prestigious journals as La Revue du Cinéma and Sartre’s Les Temps modernes. Thus Rohmer’s aesthetic preferences were more or less determined before he began writing for Cahiers. Still, the move proved decisive. At Cahiers he encountered an environment in which film critics and filmmaking were thought of as merely two aspects of the same activity. Consequently, the critics who wrote for Cahiers never doubted that they would become film directors. As it turned out, Rohmer was one of the first to realize this ambition. In 1951 he wrote and directed a short 16mm film called Charlotte and Her Steak in which Godard, the sole performer, plays a young man who tries to seduce a pair of offscreen women. Two of his next three films were experiments in literary adaptation. These inaugurated his long asso- ciation with Barbet Schroeder, who produced or co-produced all of Rohmer’s subsequent film projects. In 1958 filmmaking within the Cahiers group was bustling. Rivette, Truffaut, and Chabrol were all shooting features. Rohmer, too, began shooting his first feature, Sign of the Lion. The result, however, would not be greeted with the same enthusiasm that was bestowed on Godard and Truffaut. Rohmer has always maintained that his films are not meant for a mass audience but rather for that small group of viewers who appreciate the less spectacular qualities of the film medium. Unfortunately, Sign of the Lion failed to find even this elite audience. And while Truffaut’s The 400 Blows and Godard’s Breathless were establishing the Cahiers group as a legitimate film force, it was not until 1963 that Rohmer was able to secure funding for a film of any length. That same year he ended his association with Cahiers du Cinéma. The journal had for some time been moving away from the aesthetic policies of Bazin and towards a more leftist variety of criticism. Rohmer had always been viewed as something of a reactionary and was voted down as co-director. He chose to leave the magazine and devote his entire career to making films. At just this moment Barbet Schroeder was able to find money for a short 16mm film. ROHMERDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 837 While writing the scenario for Suzanne’s Profession, Rohmer conceived the master plan for a series of fictional films, each a variation on a single theme: a young man, on the verge of committing himself to one woman, by chance meets a second woman whose charms cause him to question his initial choice. As a result of this encounter, his entire way of thinking, willing, desiring, that is to say, the very fabric of his moral life, starts to unwind. The young man eventually cleaves to his original choice, his ideal woman against whom he measures all his other moral decisions, but the meeting with the second woman (or, as is the case in Claire’s Knee, a trinity of women) creates a breathing space for the young man, a parenthesis in his life for taking stock. The vacillations of the young man, who often functions as the film’s narrator, comprise the major action of the six films, known as ‘‘Six Moral Tales.’’ Rohmer recognizes the irony in his use of cinema, a medium which relies on objective, exterior images, to stage his interior moral dramas. But by effecting minute changes in the exterior landscape, he expresses subtle alterations in his protagonist’s interior drama. This explains why Rohmer pays such scrupulous attention to rendering surface detail. Each film in the ‘‘Six Moral Tales’’ was shot on the very location and at the exact time of year in which the story is set. Rohmer was forced to postpone the shooting of My Night at Maud’s for an entire year so that Jean-Louis Trintignant would be available during the Christmas season, the moment when the fiction was scripted to begin. The painter Daniel in La Collectioneuse is played by Daniel Pommereulle, a painter in real life. The Marxist historian and the priest who preaches the sermon at the end of My Night at Maud’s are, in real life, historian and priest. The female novelist of Claire’s Knee is a novelist, and the married couple of Chloe in the Afternoon are portrayed by husband and wife. Such attention to detail allowed Rohmer to realize an advance in the art of cinematic adaptation with his next two films, The Marquise of O . . . and Perceval. As he entered the 1980s, Rohmer completed two films of a new series of moral tales which he calls ‘‘Parables.’’ In contrast to the ‘‘Six Moral Tales,’’ the ‘‘Parables’’ are not played out on the interior landscape of a single character but rather engage an entire social milieu. In The Aviator’s Wife, a young postal clerk trails his mistress around Paris to spy on her affair with another man. During his peregrinations, he meets a young female student and loses track of his mistress. He decides he prefers the company of the young student, only to discover her in the arms of another man. The Perfect Marriage chronicles the attempts of a young Parisian woman to persuade the man whom she had decided will make her a perfect husband that she will, in turn, make him the perfect wife. She discovers, too late, that he has been engaged to another woman all along. Emerging from the crucible of the French New Wave, Rohmer has forged a style that combines the best qualities of Bresson and Renoir with distinctive traits of the Hollywood masters. And though he was never as flamboyant as Godard or Truffaut, Rohmer’s appeal has proved much hardier. The international success that met My Night at Maud’s and The Marquise of O . . . built a following that awaited the new set of moral dilemmas limned by each further installment of the ‘‘Parables’’ with eagerness and reverence. During the 1980s, Rohmer went on to complete his ‘‘Comedies and Proverbs’’ series. These films include: Pauline at the Beach, a clever, sharply observed comedy that compares the dishonesty of adult alliances and the forthrightness of adolescence; Full Moon in Paris, which details the plight of a willful young woman and her involvement with different men; Four Adventures of Reinette and Mirabelle, which insightfully contrasts the lives of two young women, one from the country and the other from the city; and My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend, which also follows what happens when two very different women begin a friendship and then start playing amorous games with a pair of men. Here, Rohmer proves a master at writing dialogue for characters whose romantic feelings change with the setting sun. Rohmer then began a new series, called ‘‘Tales of the Four Seasons.’’ Its initial entry, A Tale of Springtime, is a typically refreshing Rohmer concoction. The filmmaker tells the story of Jeanne, a high school philosophy teacher with time on her hands who meets and befriends a younger woman. The latter’s father has a girlfriend her age, whom she despises, so she decides to play cupid for Jeanne and her dad. Rohmer’s dialogue is typically casual yet revealing. Beneath what may seem like superficial chatter, much is divulged regarding the characters’ wants, needs, and desires. A Tale of Springtime is a film about everyday feelings and reactions—and Rohmer transforms these everyday feelings and reactions into art. His characters find themselves in uncomfortable or comic situations that are nonetheless of a real-life quality that can be related to on a universal level. Rohmer’s follow-up, A Tale of Winter, is the bittersweet story of a hairdresser who has an affair while on holiday but accidentally gives her lover the wrong address when they part. They lose touch, and she has his baby. All that remains of the child’s father are some photos and memories, her undying love—and the baby. Two ardent but very different suitors have become her boyfriends, and she cannot decide which one to marry. Rohmer’s point, beautifully illustrated, is that one should not settle for second best in love. Follow your heart, and allow it to lead you to your true destiny. A Tale of Winter is flawed, if only because Rohmer’s heroine is far too flaky; she is constantly wavering and unfairly leading on the two suitors in a manner that makes it difficult to sympathize with her plight. Still, Rohmer’s thesis is well-taken; even middle-of-the-road Rohmer is far more engaging than the works of most other filmmakers. The final two ‘‘Tales of the Four Seasons’’ are A Summer’s Tale and A Tale of Autumn. The first is a sweet and airy concoction about Gaspard, a moody math student passing his summer in Brittany, and his involvement with three very different young women. While the result is at best mid-level Rohmer, its point of view—you are defined by the decisions you make, and how you regard those around you and react to daily situations—is vintage Rohmer. The director was back in top form with A Tale of Autumn, the story of Magali, a fortysomething widow with two grown children, who operates her own rural vine- yard. Magali has everything in life she possibly could want—all except for a companion, a relationship with just the right man. She admits this to her best friend Isabelle, but adds that she feels it is too late in life for her to find such a man. The story is set into motion when Isabelle schemes to play cupid for her friend by placing a personal ad in a newspaper. At the same time Rosine, the girlfriend of Magali’s son, plots to set her up with her former professor, who also is her ex-lover. A Tale of Autumn oozes charm. It is vintage Rohmer: a sweet, literate, sophisticated story, crammed with sparkling, Rohmeresque dialogue. The star is the conversation between the characters, who reveal their feelings and how they relate to each other and the world ROMERO DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 838 around them at this particular point in their lives. Indeed, what emerges triumphant in A Tale of Autumn is the art of conversation. —Dennis Nastav, updated by Rob Edelman ROMERO, George A. Nationality: American. Born: The Bronx, New York, February 4, 1940. Education: Studied art, design, and theater at Carnegie-Mellon Institute, Pittsburgh. Career: Maker of short 8mm films, from 1954; actor/director in Pittsburgh, 1960s; directed first feature, 1968; estab- lished ‘‘Latent Image’’ to produce commercial/industrial films, early 1970s; worked extensively as TV director, 1970s; began collabora- tion with make-up artist Tom Savini on Martin, 1977; began associa- tion with writer Stephen King on Creepshow, 1982; executive pro- ducer, Tales from the Dark Side, for TV, 1983. Address: Lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1954/6 The Man from the Meteor (short); Gorilla (short); Earthbottom (short) 1958 Curly (short); Slant (short) 1960/62 Expostulations (short) 1968 Night of the Living Dead (Night of the Flesh Eaters) (+ co-sc, ph, ed) [released in 30th anniversary edition, with addi- tional footage, 1999] 1972 There’s Always Vanilla (The Affair) (+ ph) 1973 Hungry Wives (Jack’s Wife; Season of the Witch) (+ sc, ph, ed); The Crazies (Code Name: Trixie) (+ sc, ed) 1977 Martin (+ sc, ed) 1978 Zombies (Dawn of the Dead) (+ sc, co-ed, role as TV director) 1981 Knightriders (+ sc, co-ed) 1982 Creepshow (+ co-ed) 1985 Day of the Dead (+ sc) 1988 Monkey Shines (+ sc) 1990 Due occhi diabolici (Two Evil Eyes) (+ sc); Dark Half (+ sc, pr) 1993 The Dark Half (+ sc, ex prod) 2000 Bruiser (+ sc) 2001 The Ill (+ sc) Other Films: 1986 Flight of the Spruce Goose (Majewski) (role) 1987 Creepshow 2 (Gornick) (sc) 1990 Night of the Living Dead (Savini) (sc); Tales from the Dark Side—The Movie (‘‘Cat from Hell’’ episode) (Harrison) (sc) 1990 Night of the Living Dead (Savini) (sc, co-exec prod) 1991 The Silence of the Lambs (Demme) (role) Publications By ROMERO: books— Martin (novelization, with Susanna Sparrow), New York, 1977. Dawn of the Dead (novelization, with Susanna Sparrow), New York, 1979. By ROMERO: articles— ‘‘Filming Night of the Living Dead,’’ an interview with A. B. Block, in Filmmakers Newsletter (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), Janu- ary 1972. ‘‘George Romero from Night of the Living Dead to The Crazies,’’ in Inter/View (New York), April 1973. Interview with D. Chase, in Millimeter (New York), October 1979. Interview, in L’Ecran Fantastique (Paris), July 1982. ‘‘The McDonaldization of America,’’ an interview with J. Hanners and H. Kloman, in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Fall 1982. Interview, in Cinefantastique (Oak Park, Illinois), October 1985. Interview, in L’Ecran Fantastique (Paris), December 1986. Interview, in Cinefantastique (Oak Park, Illinois), May 1988. Interview, in Cinefantastique (Oak Park, Illinois), March 1989. On ROMERO: books— McCarty, John, Splatter Movies: Breaking the Last Taboo, New York, 1981. Hoberman, Jay, and Jonathan Rosenbaum, Midnight Movies, New York, 1983. Wood, Robin, Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan, New York, 1986. Gagne, Paul R., ‘‘The Zombies That Ate Pittsburgh’’: The Films of George A. Romero, New York, 1987. Newman, Kim, Nightmare Movies: A Critical History of the Horror Film from 1968, London, 1988. On ROMERO: articles— McCollough, P., ‘‘A Pittsburgh Horror Story,’’ in Take One (Montr- eal), November 1974. Stewart, Robert M., ‘‘George Romero: Spawn of EC,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), February 1980. Yakir, Dan, article in American Film (Washington, D.C.), May 1981. Vernieri, J., ‘‘A Day with the Dead,’’ in Film Comment (New York), May/June 1985. Profile, in Millimeter (New York), August 1985. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, and F. Strauss, ‘‘Les yeux, la bouche. Dis moi qui tu manges je te dirai qui tu es,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1989. Profile, in Cineforum (Bergamo), July-August 1989. Newman, Kim, and M. Kermode, ‘‘Twilight’s Last Gleaming: George A. Romero,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), February 1990. Grant, B. K., ‘‘Taking Back the Night of the Living Dead: George Romero, Feminism, and the Horror Film,’’ Wide Angle, vol. 14, no. 1, 1992. ROMERODIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 839 George A. Romero Caruso, Giacomo, article in Cineforum (Bergamo), March 1993. Schubart, Rikke, ‘‘Romeros mareridt,’’ in Kosmorama (Copenha- gen), vol. 41, no. 212, Summer 1995. Bradley, Matthew R., ‘‘I Am Legend: The Underlying Legacy of a Horror Classic,’’ in Outré (Evanston, Illinois), vol. 1, no. 5, 1996. *** As with Francis Ford Coppola, George Romero’s reputation—his position as a major American filmmaker—rests ultimately upon a trilogy. Without the three ‘‘Living Dead’’ films his work would merit little more than a footnote. The other films can be dispensed with briefly. The interest of the early ones lies primarily in their relation to the trilogy. Jack’s Wife reveals an early interest in feminism that would be fully realized in Day of the Dead; The Crazies takes up certain themes of Night of the Living Dead and anticipates the later concern with militarism. The best of these films, Martin, stands somewhat to one side, though its insights into alienation and its consequences are consistent with the trilogy’s themes. Little need be said of the later films. The liberal attitudes of Knight Riders collapse into liberal platitudes—and are the more surprising given the uncompromising radicalism of the trilogy. The five-part anthology film Creepshow is barely distinguishable from the British Amicus horror films of the 1970s: nasty people doing nasty things to other nasty people. The Dark Half is an undistin- guished adaptation of one of Stephen King’s worst novels. One might rescue Monkey Shines, with its intriguing premise, in which Romero seems somewhat more engaged. The ‘‘Living Dead’’ trilogy, on the other hand, constitutes, taken in its entirety, one of the major achievements of American cinema, an extraordinary feat of imagination and audacity carried through with exemplary courage and conviction. The intelligence it so convinc- ingly manifests in its sustained significance could scarcely be guessed at from the rest of Romero’s work to date. Each of the three films— Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead— belongs absolutely to its period yet still carries resonance today; together, they constitute an implicit radical sociopolitical critique of the dominant movement of American civilization. Night of the Living Dead develops the themes of the modern family horror film inaugu- rated by Psycho: from its initial brother/sister bickering in the cemetery (which conjures up the first flesh-eating zombie) it proceeds ROOS DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 840 inexorably to the destruction of an entire nuclear family (its members killing and literally feeding on each other, as they had done meta- phorically in their lives) and of the young couple (the embryonic future family), characters whose survival has traditionally been generically guaranteed. Unlike its successors, it also kills off its solitary hero-figure, mistaken for a zombie and shot down by the sheriff’s team. As in the other two films, the hero is black, his color situating him outside the dominant mainstream; the authority-figures are treated throughout with bitingly sardonic humor. The whole film is rooted in the disturbance and disillusion of the Vietnam period. Dawn of the Dead, in the 1970s, focuses its attention on consumer- capitalism: the zombies, having taken over a vast shopping mall, proceed to carry on exactly as they did in life, except that they now consume human flesh. As one of the characters remarks, ‘‘They are us.’’ The film makes clear what was already there but unstated in its predecessor: the zombies do not consume for nourishment, they consume in order to consume. In both the first two films the characters are valued very precisely in relation to their ability to extricate themselves from the socially conditioned patterns of behaviour, with the difference that in Dawn of the Dead two are permitted to survive. Although male and female they are not presented as even potential lovers; the woman has earlier rejected marriage to the man (subse- quently a zombie) by whom she is pregnant, not because she no longer loves him but as a matter of principle. The implication is that a non- zombie future would necessitate an entire rethinking of the prevailing social-sexual organization. In Night of the Living Dead the main female character is catatonic through most of the film; in Dawn of the Dead, Fran is treated by the men as the traditional ‘‘helpless female,’’ but at the end, having extricated herself from conformity, she is sufficiently empowered to take over: it is she who pilots the helicopter to a possible though unlikely safety. In Day of the Dead the woman, Sarah, becomes central—active, assertive, intelligent throughout. At the same time Romero extends his analysis of contemporary western culture to a more overtly political level, the critique of ‘‘masculinity’’ now directed at the two main bulwarks of male domination, the scientists and the military. The film is not anti-science: Sarah is herself a scientist. But she detaches herself from the masculinist science of Dr. Logan (aka ‘‘Dr. Frankenstein’’). Logan’s aim is to prove that zombies can be tamed and trained for use as slaves. The zombies have now taken over the earth, what is left of human life driven under- ground, and there is nowhere left to fly away to (the tropical island of the close is surely to be understood as fantasy). Logan’s solution is represented by his prize pupil, Bub. What Bub learns—through Logan’s system of punishments (beatings) and rewards (raw human flesh) that parodies the basis of our educational system—is ‘‘the bare beginnings of civilized behavior,’’ in fact, the conditioned reflex. It is understandable that the film has been the least popular of the trilogy: it is unrelievedly dark both in tone and setting, rarely emerging into the light of day, in stark contrast to the brilliant colors and satirical humor of Dawn of the Dead, and it systematically demolishes all the central assumptions of our culture. What is inexplicable is its critical neglect and misrepresentation: it seems universally regarded as the weakest of the trilogy, yet it is, besides being the one great American horror film, the only one that is about something other than mindless titillation and essentially trivial gory excess since the end of the 1970s, when the genre was invaded and conquered by Michael, Jason, and Freddy. The answer may be that critics see the films only individually, not as panels in a triptych. It seems to be the case that Romero did not conceive them as a trilogy (how could he?—each is a response to a different decade), yet each demands the next, inexora- bly, and that is how they must be read. Romero is currently trying to turn the trilogy into a tetralogy, with the addition of Twilight of the Dead, but has so far been unable to secure the necessary funding. The apparent finality of Day of the Dead makes speculation difficult, but one would certainly want to see what path he can find beyond it. —Robin Wood ROOS, J?rgen Nationality: Danish. Born: Gilleleje, Denmark, 14 August 1922. Family: Married Naomi Silberstein, 1957. Career: Cameraman, 1939–47; founder, Copenhagen film club, with painter Albert Mertz; scriptwriter, director, and cameraman on documentaries, from 1947; co-founder, Association of Danish Film Directors, 1956. Awards: Silver Bear, Berlin Festival, for Knud, 1966. Died: 13 September 1998, in Denmark. Films as Director: (documentaries, unless indicated) 1942 Flugten (The Flight) (co-d with Albert Mertz) 1943 Kaerlighed paa Rullesk?jter (co-d with Mertz); Hjertetyven (Thief of Hearts) (co-d with Mertz) 1944 Richard Mortensens bevaegelige Maleri; Historien om en Mand (Story of a Man) (co-d with Mertz) (unfinished) 1947 Paa Bes?g hos Kong Tingeling (co-d with Mertz); Goddag Dyr! (co-d with Mertz); Isen brydes (co-d); Johannes V. Jensen; Opus 1; Reflexfilm 1948 Mikkel 1949 Paris p? to m?der; Jean Cocteau; Tristan Tzara, dadaismens fader; Det definitive afslag p? anmodningen om et kys (co-d) 1950 Spiste horisonter (co-d); Johannes J?rgensen i Assisi; Shake- speare og Kronborg (Hamlet’s Castle) 1951 Historien om et slot, J. F. Willumsen 1952 Den str?mlinjede gris; Slum; Ferieb?rn 1953 Lyset i natten; Spaedbarnet; The Newborn (Goddag b?rn); Skyldig—ikke skyldig 1954 Kalkmalerier; Inge bliver voksen; Avisen; Martin Andersen Nexos sidste rejse; Johannes J?rgensen i Svendborg 1955 Mit livs eventyr (My Life Story) 1956 S?lv 1957 Ellehammer; Johannes Larsen 1958 Magie du diamant (Magic of the Diamond); 6-dagesl?bet (The Six Days) (feature) 1959 Friluft (Pure Air) 1960 En by ved navn K?benhaven (A City Called Copenhagen); Danish Design; Staphylokok-faren 1961 F?royar Faer?erne; Hamburg 1962 Vi haenger i en tr?d ROSIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 841 1963 Oslo 1965 St?j 1966 Carl Th. Dreyer; Knud; Sisimiut 1967 En fangerfamilie i Thuledistriktet; 17 minutter Gr?nland; Gr?nlandske dialektoptagelser og trommedanse fra Thuledistriktet; Et ?r med Henry 1968 Ultima Thule 1969 Det er tilladt at vaere ?ndssvag 1970 Kaláliuvit (Er du gr?nlaender) 1971 Andersens hemmelighed 1972 Huse til mennesker; Udflytterne; To maend i ?demarken; Ulrik fortaeller en historie 1974 I den store pyramide; J. Th. Arnfred 1975 Andersen hos fotografen 1977 14 dage i jernalderen; Monarki og demokrati 1978 Carl Nielsen 1865–1931 1979 Nuuk 250 ?r 1980 Slaedepatruljen Sirius; Gr?nland 1982 Knud Rasmussens mindeekspedition til Kap Seddon 1984 Lille Cirkus; De unge gamle 1985 Harald S?verud—1 en alder af 88 ?r 1988 Chr. IV—Tegselver icke mig 1989 Den levende virkelighed; Victor Brockdorff—en portr?tskitse Other Film: 1971 Er i bange (Are You Afraid) (Carlsen) (ph) Publications: On ROOS: articles— Variety (New York), 24 April 1974. Variety (New York), 6 May 1981. Hamon, V., ‘‘Chasseur de secret,’’ in Bref (Paris), no. 29, Sum- mer 1996. Brinch, Sara, ‘‘Katalog mellom stive permer,’’ in Z, no. 67, 1999. *** J?rgen Roos is the unrivalled master of the Danish documentary film, having worked for more than forty years in this field. He has won international recognition and has received prizes at international short film festivals. Only once has he tried to direct a feature film. Roos started out as a cameraman, taught by his brother, Karl Roos, and Theodor Christensen, the pioneer of the documentary film in Denmark. Karl Roos and Theodor Christensen were both active filmmakers, and also eminent film theoreticians. Christensen was influenced by the British documentary movement and considered himself a committed documentary filmmaker. J?rgen Roos was inspired by those two and he acquired a wide knowledge of the theory and the history of cinema. After having worked as a cameraman, he made his first experimental film in 1942 with the painter Albert Mertz, and this pair created the most interesting and original Danish avant-garde films of the 1940s. Since 1952 Roos has made numerous documentaries for governmental institutions and private companies. Besides these commissioned films he has worked on projects of his own, and in recent years he has had his own production company. To the commissioned film Roos has brought a fresh and uncon- ventional approach, and his way of solving the official tasks is often witty, surprising, and keen. His films are always one-man projects. He writes his own scripts, directs, and is often cameraman. And he is always the editor, because it is in the cutting room that he gives his films their definitive and personal form. Roos is superior in the short form: his editing is rhythmical, and his films have a fascinating, fast- moving drive. He likes to tease, to find unusual points of view, and he has an eye for the curious. His brilliant technique, however, can lead him into the superficial. In 1955 Roos made one of his best films, Mit livs eventyr, about Hans Andersen. In this film he brought the iconographic technique to perfection, and he used it in later films. One of his most popular and widely known films is A City Called Copenhagen, from 1960, an untraditional and ironic tourist film. Roos was asked to make similar city portraits of Hamburg and Oslo, and has portrayed Danish personalities such as Nobel laureate Johannes V. Jensen, Carl Th. Dreyer, Greenland explorer Knud Rasmussen, and composer Carl Nielsen. In his later years Roos explored his special interest in Greenland. He lost his heart to this exceptional country and he explored both the old and the new Greenland in many films. In these later films, Roos replaced the cool, detached view characteristic of his earlier films with a more engaged view. His films about Greenland highlighted his deep-felt commitment to the land which he, more than anyone else, has brought to the screen. —Ib Monty ROSI, Francesco Nationality: Italian. Born: Naples, 15 November 1922. Education: Studied law, Naples University. Military Service: 1942. Career: Radio journalist in Naples, early 1940s; worked in theatre as actor, stage designer, and assistant director, Rome, from 1946; assistant director and script collaborator, through 1956, also dubbing director for Italian versions of foreign films; directed first film, La sfida, 1957. Awards: Special Jury Prize, Venice Festival, for La sfida, 1958; Silver Bear for Best Direction, Berlin Festival, for Salvatore Giuliano, 1963; Golden Lion, Venice Festival, for Le mani sulla città, 1963. Films as Director and Co-Scriptwriter: 1958 La sfida (The Challenge) 1959 I magliari 1961 Salvatore Giuliano 1963 Le mani sulla città (Hands over the City) 1965 Il momento della verità (The Moment of Truth) (co-d) 1967 C’era una volta (More than a Miracle) 1970 Uomini contro 1972 Il caso Mattei (The Mattei Affair) 1973 A proposito Lucky Luciano (Lucky Luciano) 1976 Cadaveri eccelenti (Illustrious Corpses) 1979 Cristo si è fermato a Eboli (Christ Stopped at Eboli) 1981 Tre fratelli (Three Brothers) ROSI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 842 1984 Carmen (Bizet’s Carmen) 1988 Cronaca di una morte annunciata (Chronicle of a Death Foretold) 1990 Dimenticare Palermo (To Forget Palermo) 1993 Neapolitan Diary 1996 La Tregua (The Truce) Other Films: 1947 La terra trema (Visconti) (asst d) 1949 La domenica d’agosto (Emmer) (asst d) 1950 Tormento (Matarazzo) (asst d) 1951 I figli di nessuno (Matarazzo) (asst d); Parigi e sempre parigi (Emmer) (asst d, co-sc); Bellissima (Visconti) (asst, co-sc) 1952 Camicie Rosse (supervised post-production after director Goffredo Alessandri abandoned project); I vinti (Antonioni) (asst d); Processo alla città (Zampa) (sc) 1954 Carosello Napoletano (Giannini) (asst d); Proibito (Monicelli) (asst d); Senso (Visconti) (asst d) 1955 Racconti Romani (Franciolini) (co-sc) 1956 Il bigamo (Emmer) (asst d, co-sc) Publications By ROSI: articles— Interview with Gideon Bachmann, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1965. ‘‘Moments of Truth,’’ an interview with John Lane, in Films and Filming (London), September 1970. Interviews with Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), January 1974, February 1979, and March 1990. Interview with Gary Crowdus, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 7, no. 1, 1975. Interviews in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1976 and Win- ter 1981/82. ‘‘Un Débat d’idées, de mentalités, de moralités,’’ in Avant-Scéne du Cinéma (Paris), May 1976. ‘‘Sono lo psicologo del film e non del personaggio,’’ an interview with F. Durazzo Baker, in Cinema Nuovo (Bari), October 1979. ‘‘Personalizing Political Issues,’’ an interview with Gary Crowdus, in Cineaste (New York), vol. 12, no. 2, 1982. Interview with M. Kimmel, in Films in Review (New York), May 1982. ‘‘Chronicle of a Film Foretold,’’ an interview with Michel Ciment, in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1986/87. ‘‘Guardian Lecture with Francesco Rosi,’’ an interview with D. Malcolm, in Film (London), April/May 1988. ‘‘Filmare Palermo,’’ an interview with A. Piersanti, in Rivista ddel Ceinematografo (Rome), July/August 1992. ‘‘Le kid at La Terra Tremble,’’ in Positif (Paris), June 1994. ‘‘Et Dourant, Naples est une ville legere,’’ an interview with Philippe Piazzo, in Télérama (Paris), 29 June 1994. ‘‘Il etait une fois le cinema,’’ in Positif (Paris), July/August 1994. Interview with Howard Feinstein, in Film Comment (New York), January/February 1995. ‘‘Fellini Absent,’’ in Positif (Paris), July/August 1995. Interview with L. Codelli, in Positif (Paris), November 1997. On ROSI: books— Michalczyk, John J., The Italian Political Filmmakers, Cranbury, New Jersey, 1986. Ciment, Michel, editor, Le Dossier Rosi, Paris, 1987. Gesu, Sebastiano, Francesco Rosi, Italy, 1991. Testa, Carlo, editor, Poet of Civic Courage, Westport, 1996. On ROSI: articles— Lane, John, ‘‘A Neapolitan Eisenstein,’’ in Films and Filming (London), August 1963. Rosi Section of Image et Son (Paris), June/July 1976. Alemanno, R., ‘‘Da Rosi a Petri todo modo dentro il contesto,’’ in Cinema Nuovo (Bari), July/August 1976. Rosi Section of Thousand Eyes (New York), November 1976. Rosi Section of Positif (Paris), May 1980. ‘‘Francesco Rosi Issue’’ of Cinéma (Zurich), vol. 28, no. 2, 1982. ‘‘Tre fratelli Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 June 1982. Ciment, Michel, ‘‘Rosi in a New Key,’’ in American Film (Washing- ton, D.C.), September 1984. Lennon, Peter, ‘‘A ‘Cinema Fanatic’ with a Social Conscience,’’ in Listener (London), 14 May 1987. Rosi Sections of Positif (Paris), May and June 1987. Crowdus, Gary, ‘‘Francesco Rosi: Italy’s Postmodern Neorealist,’’ in Cineaste (New York), October 1994. Klawans, Stuart, ‘‘Illustrious Rosi,’’ in Film Comment (New York), January/February 1995. Calderale, M., in Segnocinema (Vicenza), March/April 1997. Gili, Jean A., Lorenzo Codelli, and Michel Ciment, in Positif (Paris), November 1997. Mancino, A.G., and S. Zambetti, in Castoro Cinema, March 1998. *** The films of Francesco Rosi stand as an urgent riposte to any proposal of aesthetic puritanism as a sine qua non of engaged filmmaking. From Salvatore Giuliano to Illustrious Corpses and Chronicle of a Death Foretold, he uses a mobilisation of the aesthetic potential of the cinema not to decorate his tales of corruption, complicity, and death, but to illuminate and interrogate the reverbera- tions these events cause. If one quality were to be isolated as especially distinctive and characteristic it would have to be the sense of intellectual passion, of direction propelled by an impassioned sense of inquiry. This can be true in a quite literal way in Salvatore Giuliano, in which any ‘‘suspense’’ accruing to Giuliano’s death is put aside in favour of a search for another kind of knowledge; and The Mattei Affair, in which the soundtrack amasses evidence which is presented virtually in opposition to the images before us; or, in a more metaphoric sense, Christ Stopped at Eboli, which represents an inquiry into the social conditions of the South of Italy. Rosi traces the evolution of his style to his early experience as an assistant on Rosselini’s Terra Trema, where he learnt the value of immediacy, improvisation, and the use of non-professional perform- ers. It was a mode of filmmaking that suited the exploration of concerns found within a particular current in Italian thought. It finds expression in the writings of Carlo Levi and Leonardo Sciascia, both of whom deal with the issue of the South and both of whose work Rosi has adapted for the screen, along with, latterly, that of Primo Levi. It is a current that also finds political expression in the work of Antonio ROSSELLINIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 843 Gamsci. Rosi’s films are perhaps above all the films of an industrialising Italy, the Italy of Fiat, that exists dialectically with that of the peasant South. Throughout his work there is an abiding interest in the social conditions in which individuals live their lives and their expression at the public or civic level, licit or illicit. Concern with organised crime and its social roots—though free from any taint of sociologizing— appears as a major thread through films as diverse as Salvatore Giuliano, Hands over the City, The Mattei Affair, Lucky Luciano, and Chronicle of a Death Foretold. Although Rosi uses the appurtenances of the thriller or the gangster film (in Lucky Luciano, for instance), his interests, as Michel Ciment has pointed out, are not at all with whodunnit but with what the crime reveals about the social context of individual lives. Lucky Luciano, for example, is not (unlike The Godfather) in the business of creating monsters but of creating a way of understanding the men who are thus mythologised. It is a tribute to Rosi’s virtuosity and commitment that the trajectory he describes is not a whit less exciting. He may examine the mesh of the individual and his context from the point-of-view of the public sphere (Illustrious Corpses) or the private (Three Brothers or Christ Stopped at Eboli). The issue might be the ruthless mechanics of market forces in Hands over the City, or the process whereby the Mafia is set in place in The Mattei Affair. But above all Rosi remains a pre-eminent craftsman of the cinema in his acute and responsive relationship with his regular or occasional collaborators, especially with his cinematographers and musicians. Of recent films, Forget Palermo was criticised for superficiality and some awkwardness in its casting of James Belushi. Rosi argues that its initially touristical mode was part of its point. The film follows an American ‘‘man of power’’ to his Sicilian roots. His honeymoon trip cannot be innocent of political implications and the tangled web of drugs and finance is meticulously revealed. Neapolitan Diary was a more personal exploration of the same theme, taking Rosi himself back to the city of his birth and back to the location for Hands over the City. It is harsh and lucid, but never without hope of change, not even in bleak interviews with school- aged drug dealers. The South, urges Rosi, is not other than Italy but the place where the nation’s problems outcrop most painfully. Primo Levi’s The Truce, the subject of Rosi’s most recent film, follows the homeward journey of a mixed group of Auschwitz prisoners. In it Rosi has said he sees a foreshadowing of the tensions that have frighteningly emerged in Europe since the fall of the Wall. If his most recent films may be less wholly satisfying than, say, the urgent definitiveness of Hands over the City, or less rigorously aesthetic than Illustrious Corpses, they still reveal a rare and vital intellectual commitment to cinema as a platform for debate and testimony—a form, he has said, of active participation in public life. —Verina Glaessner ROSSELLINI, Roberto Nationality: Italian. Born: Rome, 8 May 1906. Family: Married 1) Marcella de Marquis (marriage annulled), two children; 2) actress Ingrid Bergman, 1950 (divorced), three children, including actress Isabella; 3) screenwriter Somali Das Gupta (divorced), one son. Career: Worked on films, in dubbing and sound effects, then as Roberto Rossellini editor, from 1934; directed first feature, La nave bianca, 1940; technical director in official film industry, while simultaneously shooting documentary footage of Italian resistance fighters, 1940–45; accepted offer from Howard Hughes to make films for RKO with Ingrid Bergman in Hollywood, 1946; apparently fell out of public favour over scandal surrounding relationships with Bergman and later Das Gupta; television director of documentaries, 1960s. Died: 4 June 1977, in Rome, Italy, of heart attack. Films as Director: 1936 Daphne (+ sc) 1938 Prelude à l’apres-midi d’une faune (+ sc) 1939 Fantasia sottomarina (+ sc); Il tacchino prepotente (+ sc); La vispa Teresa (+ sc) 1941 Il Ruscello di Ripasottile (+ sc); La nave bianca (+ co-sc) 1942 Un pilota ritorna (+ co-sc); I tre aquilotta (uncredited collaboration) 1943 L’uomo della croce (+ co-sc); L’invasore (+ supervised production, sc); Desiderio (+ co-sc) (confiscated by police and finished by Marcello Pagliero in 1946) 1945 Roma, città aperta (Rome, Open City) (+ co-sc) 1946 Paisà (Paisan) (+ co-sc, pr) 1947 Germania, anno zero (Germany, Year Zero) (+ co-sc) L’amore (Woman, Ways of Love) (+ sc); Il miracolo (The Miracle) (+ co-sc); La macchina ammazzacattivi (+ co-sc, pr); Stromboli, terra di dio (Stromboli) (+ co-sc, pr) ROSSELLINI DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 844 1950 Francesco—giullare di Dio (Flowers of St. Francis) (+ co-sc) 1952 ‘‘L’Invidia’’ episode of I sette peccati capitali (The Seven Deadly Sins) (+ co-sc); Europa ‘51 (The Greatest Love) (+ co-sc) 1953 Dov’è la libertà (+ co-sc); Viaggio in Italia (Voyage to Italy, Strangers); The Lonely Woman (+ co-sc); ‘‘Ingrid Bergman’’ episode of Siamo donne 1954 ‘‘Napoli ‘43’’ episode of Amori di mezzo secolo (+ sc); Giovanna d’Arco al rogo (Joan of Arc at the Stake) (+ sc); Die Angst (Le Paura; Fear); Orient Express (+ sc, produc- tion supervision) 1958 L’India vista da Rossellini (ten episodes) (+ sc, pr); India (+ co-sc) 1959 Il Generale della Rovere (+ co-sc) 1960 Era notte a Roma (+ co-sc); Viva l’Italia (+ co-sc) 1961 Vanina Vanini (The Betrayer) (+ co-sc); Torino nei centi’anni; Benito Mussolini (Blood on the Balcony) (+ sc, production supervision) 1962 Anima nera (+ sc); ‘‘Illibatezza’’ episode of Rogopag (+ sc) 1966 La Prise de pouvoir par Louis XIV (The Rise of Louis XIV) 1967 Idea di un’isola (+ pr, sc) 1968 Atti degli apostoli (co-d, co-sc, ed) 1970 Socrate (Socrates) (+ co-sc, ed) 1972 Agostino di Ippona 1975 Blaise Pascal; Anno uno 1978 Il Messia (The Messiah) (+ co-sc) Other Films: 1938 Luciano Serra, pilota (sc) 1963 Le carabiniere (co-sc) 1964 L’eta del ferro (sc, pr) 1967 La lotta dell’uomo per la sua sopravvivenza (sc, pr) Publications By ROSSELLINI: books— Era notte a Roma, with others, Bologna, 1961. Le Cinéma révélé, edited by Alain Bergala, Paris, 1984. Il mio metodo: Scritti e intervisti, edited by Adriano Apra, Ven- ice, 1987. Quasi un autobiografie, Milan, 1987. By ROSSELLINI: articles— ‘‘Paisà: Sixth Sketch,’’ with others, in Bianco e Nero (Rome), October 1947. Interview with Francis Koval, in Sight and Sound (London), Febru- ary 1951. ‘‘Coloquio sul neo-realismo,’’ with Mario Verdone, in Bianco e Nero (Rome), February 1952. Interview with Maurice Schèrer and Fran?ois Truffaut, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July 1954. ‘‘Dix ans de cinéma,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), August/ September and November 1955, and January 1956. ‘‘Cinema and Television: Interview,’’ with André Bazin, in Sight and Sound (London), Winter 1958/59. ‘‘Censure et culture,’’ in Cinéma (Paris), October 1961. ‘‘Conversazione sulla cultura e sul cinema,’’ in Filmcritica (Rome), March 1963. ‘‘Intervista con Roberto Rossellini,’’ with Adriano Aprá and Maurizio Ponzi, in Filmcritica (Rome), April/May 1965. Interview with Jean Collet and Claude-Jean Philippe, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), September 1966. ‘‘Conversazione con Roberto Rossellini,’’ with Michele Mancin, Renato Tomasino, and Lello Maiello, in Filmcritica (Rome), August 1968. ‘‘La decisione di Isa,’’ in Bianco e Nero (Rome), January/March 1985. ‘‘Rossellini a neorealizmusrol,’’ an interview with M. Verdone, in Filmkultura (Budapest), vol. 26, no. 1, 1990. On ROSSELLINI: books— Hovald, Patrice, Roberto Rossellini, Paris, 1958. Steele, Joseph Henry, Ingrid Bergman: An Intimate Portrait, New York, 1959. Mida, Massimo, Roberto Rossellini, Parma, 1961. Verdone, Mario, Roberto Rossellini, Paris, 1963. Guarner, José Luis, Roberto Rossellini, translated by Elizabeth Cameron, New York, 1970. Baldelli, Pio, Roberto Rossellini, Rome, 1972. Menon, Gianni, Dibattio su Rossellini, Rome, 1972. Rondolino, Gianni, Roberto Rossellini, Florence, 1974. Ranvaud, Don, Roberto Rossellini, London, 1981. Cahiers du Cinéma 1, The 1950s: Neo-Realism, Hollywood, New Wave, edited by Jim Hillier, London, 1985. Serceau, Michel, Roberto Rossellini, Paris, 1986. Aprà, Adriano, Rosselliniana, Rome, 1987. Brunette, Peter, Roberto Rossellini, Oxford, 1987. Gansera, Rainer, and others, Roberto Rossellini, Munich, 1987. Rossi, Patrizio, Roberto Rossellini: A Guide to References and Resources, Boston, 1988. Bergala, Alain, and Jean Narboni, editors, Roberto Rossellini, Paris, 1990. Bondanella, Peter, The Films of Roberto Rossellini (Cambridge Film Classics), New York, 1993. Gallagher, Tag, The Adventures of Roberto Rossellini, New York, 1998. On ROSSELLINI: articles— Venturi, Lauro, ‘‘Roberto Rossellini,’’ in Hollywood Quarterly, Fall 1949. Harcourt-Smith, Simon, ‘‘The Stature of Rossellini,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), April 1950. Truffaut, Fran?ois, ‘‘Rossellini,’’ in Arts (Paris), January 1955. Rivette, Jacques, ‘‘Lettre sur Rossellini,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1955. Fieschi, Jean-André, ‘‘Dov’e Rossellini?,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1962. Sarris, Andrew, ‘‘Rossellini Rediscovered,’’ in Film Culture (New York), no. 32, 1964. Casty, Alan, ‘‘The Achievement of Roberto Rossellini,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Fall 1964. Aprà, Adriano, ‘‘Le nouvel age de Rossellini,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), August 1965. ROSSELLINIDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 845 ‘‘Roma, città aperta Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1971. MacBean, J.R., ‘‘Rossellini’s Materialist Mise-en-Scene,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1971/72. ‘‘Rossellini Issue’’ of Screen (London), Winter 1973/74. Norman, L., ‘‘Rossellini’s Case Histories for Moral Education,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1974. Wood, Robin, ‘‘Rossellini,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/ August 1974. ‘‘Rossellini Issue’’ of Filmcritica (Rome), May/June 1976. Walsh, M., ‘‘Rome, Open City; The Rise to Power of Louis XIV: Re- evaluating Rossellini,’’ in Jump Cut (Chicago), no. 15, 1977. Hughes, J., ‘‘In Memoriam: Roberto Rossellini,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1977. Lawton, H., ‘‘Rossellini’s Didactic Cinema,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1978. Ranvaud, Don, ‘‘Documentary and Dullness: Rossellini according to the British Critic,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), Febru- ary 1981. Brunette, Peter, ‘‘Rossellini and Cinematic Realism,’’ in Cinema Journal (Champaign, Illinois), Fall 1985. ‘‘Viaggio in Italia Issue’’ of Avant-Scéne du Cinéma (Paris), June 1987. Tournès, A., ‘‘Rossellini: Le courage d’être humblement un homme,’’ in Jeune Cinéma (Paris), January/February 1988. Gallagher, Tag, ‘‘Rossellini, Neo-Realism, and Croce,’’ in Film History (Philadelphia), vol. 2, no. 1, 1988. Truffaut, Fran?ois, and others, ‘‘Roberto Rossellini,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July/August 1988. Douchet, J., ‘‘Rossellini ou l’évidence,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1990. Nascimbene, Mario, ‘‘Il mio lavoro con Roberto Rossellini,’’ in Cinema Nuovo (Bari), July-October 1991. Wagstaff, Chris, ‘‘True Stories,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), August 1993. Aristarco, Guido, ‘‘Bazin, Rossellini, les néoréalismes et moi,’’ in Cinémaction (Courbevoie), January 1994. Serceau, Michel, ‘‘La ville dans le néoréalisme,’’ in Cinémaction (Courbevoie), April 1995. Marocco, P., ‘‘Secondo Internet,’’ in Filmcritica (Siena), January/ February 1997. Meder, T., ‘‘The Historiographer of the ’40s,’’ in Blimp (Graz), no. 37, 1997. Gallagher, Tag, ‘‘Neorealism?: Roberto Rossellini och teorierna om neorealismen,’’ in Filmh?ftet (Stockholm), vol. 26, no. 101, 1998. *** Roberto Rossellini has been so closely identified with the rise of the postwar Italian style of filmmaking known as neorealism that it would be a simple matter to neatly pigeonhole him as merely a practitioner of that technique and nothing more. So influential has that movement been that the achievement embodied in just three of his films—Roma, città aperta; Paisà; and Germania, anno zero— would be enough to secure the director a major place in film history. To label Rossellini simply a neorealist, however, is to drastically undervalue his contribution to the thematic aspects of his art. At its most basic level, Rossellini’s dominant concern appears to be a preoccupation with the importance of the individual within various aspects of the social context that emerged from the ashes of World War II. In his early films, which a number of historians have simplistically termed fascist, his concern for the individual was not balanced by an awareness of their social context. Thus, a film like his first feature, La nave bianca, while it portrays its sailors and hospital personnel as sensitive and caring, ignores their ideological and political milieu. It is Roma, città aperta, despite its carry-over of the director’s penchant for melodrama, that is properly considered Rossellini’s ‘‘rite of passage’’ into the midst of the complex social issues confronting the individual in postwar Europe. The crude conditions under which it was shot, its authentic appearance, and certain other naturalistic touches lent it an air of newsreel-like veracity, but its raw power was derived almost entirely from the individuals that Rossellini placed within this atmospheric context. With the exception of Anna Magnani and Aldo Fabrizi, the cast was made up of non-professionals who were so convincing that the effect upon viewers was electric. Many were certain that what they were viewing must have been filmed as it was actually occurring. Despite legends about how Rossellini’s neorealistic style arose as a result of the scarcity of resources and adverse shooting conditions that were present immediately after the war, the director had undoubt- edly begun to conceive the style as early as his aborted Desiderio of 1943, a small-scale forerunner of neorealism which Rossellini dropped in mid-shooting. Certainly, he continued the style in Paisà and Germania anno zero, the remaining parts of his war trilogy. In both of these features, he delineates the debilitating effects of war’s aftermath on the psyche of modern man. The latter film was a particularly powerful statement on the effect of Nazi ideology on the mind of a young boy, in part because it simultaneously criticizes the failure of traditional social institutions like the church to counter fascism’s corrupting influence. The Rossellini films of the 1950s shed many of the director’s neorealistic trappings. In doing so he shifted his emphasis somewhat to the spiritual aspects of man, revealing the instability of life and of human relationships. Stromboli, Europa ‘51, Voyage to Italy, and La paura reflect a quest for a transcendent truth akin to the secular saintliness achieved by the priest in Open City. In the 1950s films, however, his style floated unobtrusively between involvement and contemplation. This is particularly obvious in his films with Ingrid Bergman, but is best exemplified by Voyage to Italy with its leisurely paced questioning of the very meaning of life. Every character in the film is ultimately in search of his soul. What little action there is has relatively little importance since most of the character development is an outgrowth of spiritual aspirations rather than a reaction to events. In this sense, its structure resembled the kind of neorealism practiced by De Sica in Umberto D (without the excessively emotional over- tones) and yet reaffirms Rossellini’s concern for his fellow men and for Italy. At the same time, through his restriction of incident, he shapes the viewer’s empathy for his characters by allowing the viewer to participate in the film only to the extent of being companion to the various characters. The audience is intellectually free to wander away from the story, which it undoubtedly does, only to find its involve- ment in the character’s spiritual development unchanged since its sympathy is not based upon the physical actions of a plot. Such an intertwining of empathetic involvement of sorts with a contemplative detachment carried over into Rossellini’s historical films of the 1960s and 1970s. His deliberately obtrusive use of zoom lenses created in the viewer of such films as Viva l’Italia and Agostino di Ippona a delicate distancing and a constant but subtle awareness that the director’s point of view was inescapable. Such managing of the viewer’s consciousness of the historical medium turns his charac- ters into identifiable human beings who, though involving our senses ROSSEN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 846 and our emotions, can still be scrutinized from a relatively detached vantage point. This, then, is the seeming contradiction central to Rossellini’s entire body of work. As most precisely exemplified in his early, pure neorealistic films, his camera is relentlessly fixed on the physical aspects of the world around us. Yet, as defined by his later works, which both retain and modify much of this temporal focus, the director is also trying to capture within the same lens an unseen and spiritual landscape. Thus, the one constant within all of his films must inevitably remain his concern for fundamental human values and aspirations, whether they are viewed with the anger and immediacy of a Roma, città aperta or the detachment of a Viaggio in Italia. —Stephen L. Hanson ROSSEN, Robert Nationality: American. Born: Robert Rosen in New York City, 16 March 1908. Education: Attended New York University. Family: Married Sue Siegal, 1954, three children. Career: Staged plays for Washington Square Players, later the Theater Guild, 1920s; actor, stage manager, and director in New York City, 1930–35; writer under contract to Mervyn LeRoy and Warner Bros., 1936–45; member of Communist Party in Hollywood, 1937–45; directed first feature, Johnny O’Clock, 1947; subpoenaed by House Un-American Activi- ties Committee (HUAC), hearing suspended after arrest of Holly- wood 10, 1947; produced first film, 1949; blacklisted after refusing to cooperate when called again to testify before HUAC, 1951–53; allowed to work again after naming names, 1953. Awards: Best Direction, New York Film Critics, for The Hustler, 1961. Died: 18 February 1966. Films as Director: 1947 Johnny O’Clock (+ sc); Body and Soul 1949 All the King’s Men (+ sc, pr) 1951 The Brave Bulls (+ pr) 1955 Mambo (+ co-sc) 1956 Alexander the Great (+ sc, pr) 1957 Island in the Sun 1959 They Came to Cordura (+ co-sc) 1961 The Hustler (+ co-sc, pr) 1964 Lilith (+ co-sc, pr) Other Films: 1937 Marked Woman (Bacon) (co-sc); They Won’t Forget (LeRoy) (co-sc) 1938 Racket Busters (co-sc) 1939 Dust Be My Destiny (sc); The Roaring Twenties (Walsh) (co-sc) 1940 A Child Is Born (Bacon) (sc) 1941 Blues in the Night (Litvak) (sc); The Sea Wolf (Curtiz) (sc); Out of the Fog (Litvak) (co-sc) 1943 Edge of Darkness (Milestone) (sc) 1946 A Walk in the Sun (Milestone) (sc); The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (Milestone) (sc) 1947 Desert Fury (sc) 1949 The Undercover Man (pr) Publications By ROSSEN: articles— ‘‘The Face of Independence,’’ in Films and Filming (London), August 1962. ‘‘Lessons Learned in Combat: Interview,’’ with Jean-Louis Noames, in Cahiers du Cinéma in English (New York), January 1967. On ROSSEN: books— Hearings before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, 1953 Volume, Washington, D.C., 1953. Casty, Alan, The Films of Robert Rossen, New York, 1969. On ROSSEN: articles— ‘‘Rossen Issue’’ of Films in Review (New York), June/July 1962. Cohen, Saul, ‘‘Robert Rossen and the Filming of Lilith,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Spring 1965. Casty, Alan, ‘‘The Films of Robert Rossen,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1966/67. ‘‘Rossen Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma in English (New York), January 1967. Casty, Alan, ‘‘Robert Rossen,’’ in Cinema (Beverly Hills), Fall 1968. Dark, C. ‘‘Reflections of Robert Rossen,’’ in Cinema (London), August 1970. Wald, M., ‘‘Robert Rossen,’’ in Films in Review (New York), August/September 1972. Neve, Brian, ‘‘The Screenwriter and the Social Problem Film, 1936–38: The Case of Robert Rossen at Warner Brothers,’’ in Film and History (Newark, New Jersey), February 1984. Combs, Richard, ‘‘The Beginner’s Rossen,’’ in Monthly Film Bulle- tin (London), January 1986. Nolletti, Arthur, ‘‘The Fissure in the Spider Web: A Reading of Rossen’s Lilith,’’ in Film Criticism (Meadville, Pennsylvania), vol. 11, no. 1/2, 1987. *** Robert Rossen died as he was beginning to regain a prominent position in the cinema. His premature death left us with a final film which pointed to a new, deepening devotion to the study of deteriorat- ing psychological states. As a contract writer for Warner Bros. in the late 1930s and early 1940s, Rossen worked on many excellent scripts which showed a strong sympathy for individuals destroyed by or battling ‘‘the system.’’ His first produced screenplay, Marked Woman, a little- known and highly underrated Bette Davis vehicle, deserves serious attention for its study of prostitution racketeering and its empowerment of women to overthrow corruption. His fifth film, The Roaring Twenties, is a thoughtful study of the obsessive drive for power and money amidst the harshness of the post-World War I period and the ROTHADIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 847 beginnings of the Great Depression. While his early scripts occasion- ally displayed an idealism which bordered on naiveté, Rossen de- serves credit for his commitment to the depiction of economic and social injustice. According to Alan Casty in The Films of Robert Rossen, Rossen was invited to direct his own screenplay for Johnny O’Clock, a tale of murder among gamblers, at the insistence of the film’s star, Dick Powell. Rossen followed this poorly received directorial debut with two of his most critically and financially successful films: Body and Soul and All the King’s Men, two male-centered studies of corruption and the drive for success. The first of these films is centered in the boxing ring, the second in the political arena. The success of Body and Soul (from a screenplay by Abraham Polonsky) allowed Rossen the financial stability to set up his own company with a financing and releasing contract through Columbia Pictures. As a result, he wrote, directed, and produced All the King’s Men, which was awarded the Best Picture Oscar in 1949. These back-to-back successes apparently triggered an unfortunate increase in directorial ego: production accounts of the later films detail Rossen’s inability to openly accept collaboration. This paranoia was exacerbated by his deepening involvement in House Un-Ameri- can Activities Committee (HUAC) proceedings. Despite a 1953 reprieve after providing names of alleged communists to the commit- tee, he was unable to revive his Hollywood career, although he continued to work. He seemed a particularly unlikely candidate to direct his next three films: the Ponti-DeLaurentis melodrama Mambo, the historical epic Alexander the Great, and the interracial problem drama, Island in the Sun. The last of his 1950s films, They Came to Cordura, is an interesting film that should have succeeded. Its failure so obsessed Rossen that he spent many years unsuccessfully trying to re-edit it for re-release. Rossen’s final films, The Hustler and Lilith, show a return to form, due in great part to the atmospheric cinematography of Eugene Schufftan. Rossen, firmly entrenched in the theatrical values of content through script and performance, had previously worked with strong cinematographers (especially James Wong Howe and Burnett Guffey), but had worked from the conviction that content was the prime area of concern. As he told Cahiers du Cinéma, ‘‘Technique is nothing compared to content.’’ In The Hustler, a moody film about winners and losers set in the world of professional pool-playing, the studied script was strongly enhanced by Schufftan’s predominantly claustrophobic framings. Schufftan, long a respected European cam- eraman (best known for his work on Lang’s Metropolis and Carné’s Quai des brumes), had been enthusiastically recommended to Rossen by Jack Garfein, who had brought Schufftan back to America for his Something Wild. Schufftan’s working posture was one of giving the director what he asked for, and production notes from the set of The Hustler indicate he gave Rossen what he wanted while also achieving results that one feels were beyond Rossen’s vision. There was no denying Schufftan’s influence in the film’s success (it won him an Oscar), and Rossen wisely invited him to work on his next film. Lilith, an oblique and elliptical film in which a psychiatric worker ends up seeking help, signalled an advance in Rossen’s cinematic sensibility. While several of the purely visual passages border on being overly symbolic, one feels that Rossen was beginning to admit the communicative power of the visual. Less idealistic and with less affirmative endings, these last two films showed a deeper sense of social realism, with Rossen striving to portray the effect of the psychological rather than social environment on his characters. Rossen’s last project, which went unrealized because of his death, would have allowed him to portray both the social and psychological problems of people living in the vicinity of Cape Canaveral (Cape Kennedy). Such a project would have provided him with a further opportunity to break away from his tradition of dialogue-bound character studies. —Doug Tomlinson ROTHA, Paul Nationality: British. Born: Paul Thompson in London, 3 June 1907. Education: Highgate School; Slade School of Fine Art, London, 1923–25. Family: Married 1) Margaret Louise Lee, 1930 (divorced 1939); 2) Margot Rose Perkins, 1943; 3) actress Constance Smith. Career: Painter, designer, and book illustrator, 1925; art critic, Connoisseur, 1927–28; property man, 1928, then assistant designer, British International Pictures Ltd.; author and film historian, from 1930; producer, Empire Marketing Board, 1932; directed first film, Contact, 1932; director of productions, Strand Films, 1936–38; Rockefeller Foundation Fellow, 1937–38; set up Associated Realist Film Productions and founded Documentary News Letter, 1939; managing director, Paul Rotha Productions Ltd., 1941–76; made 100 documentaries for British Ministry of Information, World War II; head of Documentary Film Department, BBC, 1953–55; lecturer on documentary films, United States, 1953–54; member of board, Isotype Institute, from 1959; Simon Senior Research Fellow, University of Manchester, 1967–68. Awards: Gold Medals: Venice Festival, 1934, Brussels Festival, 1935, and Leipzig Festival, 1962; British Film Academy Awards for The World Is Rich, 1947, and World without End, 1953. Member: Fellow, British Film Institute, 1951; Honorary Member (posthumous), ACTT, 1984. Died: 7 March 1984. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: (documentary unless indicated) 1932 Contact 1933 The Rising Tide (reissued as Great Cargoes, 1935); Shipyard 1935 Death on the Road; Face of Britain 1936 The Future’s in the Air; Cover to Cover; The Way to the Sea; Peace of Britain 1937 Statue Parade; Today We Live; Here Is the Land 1939 New Worlds for Old; Roads across Britain (co-d with Sid- ney Cole) 1940 The Fourth Estate (not shown until 1964); Mr. Borland Thinks Again 1943 World of Plenty 1944 Soviet Village 1945 Total War in Britain; Land of Promise 1946 A City Speaks 1947 The World Is Rich 1950 No Resting Place (feature) 1953 World Without End (co-d with Basil Wright) 1953/55 Hope for the Hungry; The Waiting People; No Other Way; The Wealth of Waters; The Virus Story 1958 Cat and Mouse (feature) 1959 Cradle of Genius ROTHA DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 848 1961 Das Leben von Adolf Hitler (The Life of Adolf Hitler) 1962 De Overval (The Silent Raid) (feature) Publications By ROTHA: books— The Film Till Now: A Survey of the Cinema, London, 1930; 2nd edition, with Richard Griffith, 1949; 4th edition, 1967. Celluloid: The Film Today, London, 1931. Documentary Film: The Use of the Film Medium to Interpret Crea- tively and in Social Terms the Life of the People as It Exists in Reality, London, 1936; 3rd edition, 1952. Movie Parade, London, 1936; published as Movie Parade: 1888–1949: A Pictorial Survey of World Cinema, with Roger Manvell, 1950. World of Plenty: The Book of the Film, with Eric Mowbray, Lon- don, 1945. Eisenstein, 1898–1948, with others, London, 1948. Portrait of a Flying Yorkshireman: Letters from Eric Knight to Paul Rotha (editor), London, 1952. Television in the Making (editor), London, 1956. Rotha on the Film, London, 1958. The Innocent Eye, with others, London, 1963. Documentary Diary: An Informal History of the British Documentary Film 1928–1939, London, 1973. Richard Winnington: Film Criticism and Caricature, London, 1975. Robert J. Flaherty: A Biography, edited by Jay Ruby, Philadel- phia, 1983. A Paul Rotha Reader, with Duncan Petrie, editor, Evanston, 1999. By ROTHA: articles— ‘‘The Lament,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1938. Documentary News Letter (London), 1939–1946. ‘‘Television and the Future of Documentary,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film, Radio and TV (New York), Summer 1955. ‘‘The Critical Issue,’’ with others, in Sight and Sound (London), August 1958. Films and Filming (London), July 1966 to May 1967 (monthly column). Letter in Film and TV Technician (London), February 1983 (reply, July 1983). On ROTHA: books— Wright, Basil, The Long View, London, 1974. Sussex, Elizabeth, The Rise and Fall of British Documentary: The Story of the Film Movement Founded by John Grierson, Berke- ley, 1975. Morris, Paul, editor, Paul Rotha, London, 1982. Ellis, Jack C., The Documentary Idea, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989. On ROTHA: articles— ‘‘Rotha and the World,’’ in Quarterly Review of Film, Radio, and TV (New York), Fall 1955. Film Forum (London), January 1963. Hollywood Reporter, 23 June 1978. ‘‘British Cinema: Paul Rotha,’’ in National Film Theatre Booklet (London), August 1979. Powell, Dilys, obituary, in Film and TV Technician (London), April 1984. Obituary in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), May 1984. Anstey, Edgar, ‘‘Paul Rotha and Thorold Dickinson,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1984. ‘‘Paul Rotha,’’ in Annual Obituary 1985, London and Chicago, 1985. Leacock, R., ‘‘In Defense of Flaherty Traditions,’’ in Film Culture (New York), Winter 1996. *** Paul Rotha’s position in the British documentary movement has always been somewhat equivocal. Unlike other members of the group, he served only briefly in the government units Grierson assembled in the 1930s. Before that he had trained as a painter and designer, and his book, The Film Till Now—the first aesthetic history of film in English, perhaps in any language—had already been published. After six months at the Empire Marketing Board Film Unit, he continued in documentary as an independent producer. His ability to obtain private sponsorship was unusual for those early years, when documentary was just becoming a recognized mode. Rotha’s films were frequently innovative and experimental, with his creative impulse more akin to conceptual art than to personal expression, often mixing forms and styles. Though original in their combinations, their aspects derived from precedents that attracted Rotha. Shipyard, for example, takes a hard look at the cycles of work followed by unemployment that characterized the British shipbuild- ing industry. (In this respect the film makes one think of Joris Ivens’ Borinage, which concerned the miserable conditions in the mining region of Belgium.) But it also contains extended passages of visual artistry of the giant ship in stages of construction—silhouettes of the hull frame and the like—that seem to stem from the ‘‘city symphon- ies’’ of early documentary, or perhaps from Ivens’ The Bridge (1928). World of Plenty (1943) and its sequel, The World Is Rich (1947), seem equally original and yet, as Rotha acknowledged, their inspira- tion came from the sort of Depression theater called ‘‘The Living Newspaper’’ he had seen while on a trip to the United States in the late 1930s to spread the documentary gospel. They are intelligent, imagi- native, and finally a bit too clever, the rhetorical devices attracting as much attention as the argument itself. World without End is unusual because it couples footage about the work of UNESCO shot by Basil Wright in Thailand with that of Rotha in Mexico, an undertaking reminiscent of D.W. Griffith’s monumental Intolerance. But some- how it evokes no real (or deep) sympathy for the people and their problems. Of Rotha’s three fiction features, the first, No Resting Place, is clearly in the semi-documentary tradition which Harry Watt had carried from the wartime Crown Film Unit over to commercial features. A film about the lives of itinerant tinkers, it was shot on location in Ireland and used non-actors as well as little-known professionals. Rotha’s compilation The Life of Adolf Hitler, again skillful and intelligent, follows a vein much mined by American and British television. (Rotha was head of BBC-TV documentary during 1953–55.) Specifically, it recalls ‘‘The Twisted Cross’’ (1956) of NBC’s Project XX series. ROUCHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 849 In addition to his filmmaking, Rotha wrote constantly; his energy was prodigious, his output prolific. Apart from books and articles and reviews devoted to the entertainment film (some of them anthologized in Rotha on the Film) is the equally large body of writing related to the British documentary of the 1930s. At the time he was acknowledged as the historian of the movement, in large part because Documentary Film and Documentary Diary provide such a comprehensive picture of the subject. A special labor of love is his Robert J. Flaherty: A Biography. One other aspect of Rotha’s role in relation to documen- tary deserves comment. He set himself up alongside Grierson rather than be cast as one of the loyal group members who followed Grierson. Although his politics may have been much like those of other documentarians, he maintained an outspokenness that those working at government units did not permit themselves. As a result, Rotha is honored by young left-wing film scholars and filmmakers who tend to dismiss Grierson and the documentary movement he formed as a tool of the Establishment. Rotha was something of a maverick and gadfly. A testy and quirky man, he was given to self-promotion. But as Grierson once said in defending Rotha to documentary colleagues after he had made some contentious public outburst, ‘‘He is one of us.’’ Rotha would no doubt have agreed, but on his own terms. —Jack C. Ellis ROUCH, Jean Nationality: French. Born: Jean Pierre Rouch in Paris, 31 May 1917. Education: Lycée Henri IV, Paris, degree in literature; Ecole nationale des ponts et chaussées, Paris, degree in civil engineering. Family: Married Jane Margaret Gain, 1952. Career: Became first to make descent of Niger River by dugout canoe, also began making ethnographic films during trip, 1946–47; director of research at Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, 1966–86; Sécretaire Général du Comité du Film Ethnographique, 1972; President of La Cinémathéque fran?aise, 1987–91. Awards: Prize Festival du Film Maudit, Biarritz, for Initiation à la danse, 1949; Prix du Reportage, Paris Short Film Festival, for Circoncision, 1950; Critics Prize, Venice Film Festival, for Les Ma?tres fous, 1955; Prix Delluc, for Moi, un Noir, 1959; Prizes at Cannes, Manheim, and Venice Festivals for Chronique d’un été, 1961; Golden Lion Prize, Venice, for La Chasse au lion, 1965. Films as Director: 1947 Au pays des mages noirs (co-d, sc, ph) 1948 Hombori; Les Magiciens de Wanzerbé (co-d, pr, ph) 1949 Initiation à la danse des Possédés; La Circoncision (+ pr, ph) 1950 Chasse à l’hippopotame 1951 Bataille sur le grand fleuve (+ ph); Cimetière dans la falaise; Yenendi: les Hommes qui font la pluie (+ ph); Les Gens du mil (+ ph) 1952 Les Fils de l’eau (compilation of earlier films; released 1958) 1953 Mammy Water (+ sc, ph) 1954 Les Ma?tres fous (+ ph, narration) Jean Rouch 1957 Baby Ghana; Moi, un noir (+ sc, ph) 1958 Moro Naba (+ ph); La royale goumbé (+ ph); Sakpata (co-d, + ph) 1961 La Pyramide humaine (+ sc, co-ph); Chronique d’un été (Chronicle of a Summer) (co-d, co-sc); Les Ballets de Niger 1962 La Punition (co-d); Urbanisme africain (+ sc); Le Mil; Les Pêcheurs du Niger (+ sc); Abidjan, port de pêche (+ sc) 1963 Le Palmier à l’huile; Les Cocotiers; Monsieur Albert Prophète; Rose et Landry 1964 ‘‘Véronique et Marie-France’’ (also known as ‘‘La Fleur de l’age ou les adolescents’’) episode of Les Veuves de quinze ans (The Adolescents; That Tender Age) (+ sc); ‘‘Gare du nord’’ episode of Paris vu par (Six in Paris) (+ sc) 1965 La Chasse au lion à l’arc (The Lion Hunters) (+ sc, ph, narration); La Goumbe des jeunes noceurs (+ sc, ph) (released 1967); L’Afrique et la recherche scientifique; Alpha noir; Tambours de pierre; Festival de Dakar; Hampi; Musique et danse des chasseurs Gow; Jackville 1966 Batteries Dogon—éléments pour une étude des rythmes (co-d); Fêtes de novembre à Bregbo; Dongo Horendi; Dongo Yenendi; Koli-Koli; Sigui année zero (co-d) 1967 Jaguar (+ ph); Daudo Sorko; Sigui: l’enclume de Yougo; Tourou et Bitti 1968 Pierres chantantes d’Ayorou; Wanzerbe; Sigui 1968—les danseurs de Tyogou (co-d); Un Lion nommé l’Américain 1969 Sigui 1969—la caverne de Bongo 1970 Yenendi de Yantalla; Mya—la mère; Sigui 1970—Les clameurs d’Amani (co-d) ROUCH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 850 1971 Petit à petit (+ co-sc, ph); Porto Novo—la danse des reines (co-d); Sigui 1971—la dune d’Idyeli (co-d); Architectes Ayorou; Yenendi de Simiri 1972 Horendi; Sigui 1972—les pagnes de lame (co-d); Yenendi de Boukoki; Tanda Singui 1973 L’Enterrement du Hogon; VW—Voyou; Dongo Hori; Sécheresse à Simiri; Boukoki; Hommage à Marcel Mauss: Taro Okamoto 1974 Cocorico, Monsieur Poulet (+ co-sc); Pam Kuso Kar; Sigui 1973—l’auvent de la circoncision; La 504 et les foudroyers (co-d); Ambara Dama (co-d); Sécheresse à Simiri (con- tinuation of 1973 film); Toboy Tobaye 1975 Souna Kouma; Initiation 1976 Babatou ou les trois conseils (+ ph); Médecines et médecins (co-d); Rhythme de travail 1977 Makwayela; Ciné-Portrait de Margaret Head (Margaret Head: Portrait of a Friend); Isphahan: Lettre Persanne 1977; Fête des Gandyi Bi à Simiri; Le Griot Badye (co-d); Hommage à Marcel Mauss: Marcel Levy; Hommage à Marcel Mauss: Germaine Dieterlen 1978 Simi Siddo Kuma 1979 Funérailles à Bongo: Le Vieux Anai (co-d) 1982 Yenendi Gengel 1983 Portrait de Raymond Depardon 1984 Dionysos 1986 Folie ordinaire d’une fille de Cham (The Ordinary Madness of a Daughter of Cham) 1987 Enigma (co-d) 1988 Brise-Glace (Icebreaker) (co-d); Boulevards d’Afrique—bac ou mariage 1990 Cantate pour deux généraux (doc) 1993 Madame L’eau (Madam Water) 1997 Moi fatigué debout, moi couché; Faire-part: Musée Henri Langlois (+ ph) Other Films: 1953 Alger—Le Cap (adviser) 1961 Niger, jeune républiquem (adviser) 1976 Chantons sous l’occupation (co-ph) Publications By ROUCH: articles— ‘‘A propos des films ethnographiques,’’ in Positif (Paris), nos. 15/ 16, 1955. ‘‘Migrations au Ghana (Gold Coast)—Enquête 1953–55,’’ in Journal de la Société des Africanistes, no. 26, 1956. Interview, in Movie (London), April 1963. ‘‘Jean Rouch in Conversation,’’ with James Blue, in Film Comment (New York), Fall/Winter 1967. ‘‘Situation et tendances du cinéma en Afrique,’’ in Catalogue des Films Ethnographiques sur l’Afrique noire (Unesco), 1967. ‘‘Le Film ethnographique,’’ in Ethnologie générale, Encyclopédie de la Pléiade, Paris, 1968. ‘‘Je suis mon premier spectateur,’’ an interview with L. Marcorelles, in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), March 1972. ‘‘The Camera and the Man,’’ in Principles of Visual Anthropology, edited by Paul Hockings, The Hague, 1975. Interview in Ecran (Paris), March 1977. ‘‘Ciné-transe: The Vision of Jean Rouch,’’ an interview with D. Yakir, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Spring 1978. ‘‘The Politics of Visual Anthropology,’’ an interview with D. Georgakas and others, in Cineaste (New York), Summer 1978. ‘‘Jean Rouch: A Pastoral Perspective,’’ interview with H. Naficy, in Quarterly Review of Film Studies (Pleasantville, New York), no. 3, 1979. ‘‘Note sur les problèmes techniques soulevés par l’expérience Super 8,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January 1979. Jean Rouch Section of Framework (Norwich, England), Autumn 1979. ‘‘Superserious-8: Chronicle of a Master,’’ an interview with T. Treadway, in Filmmakers Monthly (Ward Hill, Massachusetts), June 1981. Interview with Enrico Fulchignoni, in Positif (Paris), January 1982. Interview with A. Rodrig, in Cinématographe (Paris), April 1985. ‘‘Cocorico monsieur le Président,’’ an interview with Frédéric Sabouraud, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July-August 1987. Interview with Gilles Marsolais, in 24 Images (Montreal), November- December 1989. ‘‘Le caméra comme lien social: cinéma direct et ciné-transe,’’ in Cinémaction (Courbevoie), January 1989. ‘‘A Conversation with Jean Rouch,’’ with L. Taylor, in Visual Anthropology Review, no. 1, 1991. ‘‘Jean Rouch, 54 ans sans trépied,’’ an interview with J.P. Colleyn, in Cinémaction (Courbevoie), May 1992. Interview with F. Maggi, and G. Maggi, in Cinémaction (Courbevoie), no. 4, 1996. Interview with Borjana Mateeva, in Kino (Sophia), no. 3, 1998. On ROUCH: books— Armes, Roy, French Cinema since 1946: Vol. 2—The Personal Style, New York, 1966. Issari, M. Ali, Cinéma Vérité, East Lansing, Michigan, 1971. Marsolais, Gilles, Jean Rouch, Cinémathèque Québecoise, 1973. Marsolais, Gilles, L’Aventure du Cinéma direct, Paris, 1974. Barnouw, Erik, Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film, New York, 1974. Issari, M. Ali, and Doris A. Paul, What Is Cinéma Vérité?, Metuchen, New Jersey, 1979. Eaton, Mick, Anthropology—Reality—Cinema: The Films of Jean Rouch, British Film Institute, 1979. Prédal, René, editor, Jean Rouch, un griot gaulois, Conde-sur- Noireau, France, 1982. Gauthier, Guy, L’Avènement du cinéma direct, Conde-sur-Noireau, France, 1990. Stoller, Paul, The Cinematic Griot: The Ethnography of Jean Rouch, Chicago, 1992. On ROUCH: articles— Tanner, Alain, ‘‘Recording Africa,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1956. Jutra, Claude, ‘‘En courant derrière Rouch,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), November 1960, January 1961, and February 1961. Sandell, Roger, ‘‘Films by Jean Rouch,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berke- ley), Winter 1961/62. ROUCHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 851 Graham, Peter, ‘‘Cinéma Vérité in France,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Summer 1964. Blue, James, ‘‘The Films of Jean Rouch,’’ in Film Comment (New York), Fall/Winter 1967. MacDougall, David, ‘‘Prospects of the Ethnographic Film,’’ in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Winter 1969/70. ‘‘Jean Rouch,’’ in Documentary Explorations, edited by G. Roy Levin, Garden City, New York, 1971. Ensault, Philippe, ‘‘Jean Rouch ou les aventures d’un nègre blanc,’’ in Image et Son (Paris), no. 249, 1971. Fieschi, J. A., ‘‘Dérives de la fiction: notes sur le cinéma de Jean Rouch,’’ in Cinéma, théories, lectures, Paris, 1973. Berman, Bruce, ‘‘Jean Rouch: A Founder of Cinéma Vérité Style,’’ in Film Library Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 4, 1978. ‘‘Moi, un noir Issue’’ of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), 1 April 1981. Howes, Arthur, ‘‘Jean Rouch, Anthropological Film-maker,’’ in Undercut (London), Summer 1983. Kemp, Peter, ‘‘From This-Is-It! to Can-We-Do-It?’’ in Filmnews, February 1988. Bruciamonti, A., in Cinema Nuovo (Bari), March/April 1994. Predal, R., ‘‘Le Cinema Direct,’’ in Cinémaction (Courbevoie), no. 4, 1994. Movahed, A., ‘‘The Eyes of Africa,’’ in Film International (Tehran), no. 3, 1995. Faber, A., ‘‘Szelmalmok Afrikaban,’’ in Filmvilag (Budapest), no. 7, 1996. *** A prolific and innovative ethnographic filmmaker as well as a pioneer of cinéma vérité and improvised film psychodrama, Jean Rouch has not only redefined documentary film practice but also stimulated radical developments in fiction film. It was as a civil engineer preferring West Africa to the German occupation that Rouch came to anthropology through observation of Songhay rituals. After the liberation, his untutored enthusiasm found an intellectual frame- work at the Musée de l’Homme, where he studied social anthropology under Marcel Mauss and ethnography under Marcel Griaule, the initiator of film recording in fieldwork. It was at Griaule’s instigation that in 1946 Rouch descended the Niger in a dugout canoe with a 16mm camera to make the first of over eighty ethnographic films. Rouch’s early films dutifully followed Griaule’s lead in providing celluloid records of cultural practice. Typically, the self-effacing camera discreetly captured events which a later commentary inter- preted for a posited Western audience. However, inspired by Flaherty’s example, Rouch began to incorporate his subjects’ perspective (Cimetière dans la falaise). Rather than make generalist exotic documentaries, he focused on particular aspects of African culture, sometimes in collaboration with fellow ethnographers. In the early years (1950–52), Rouch worked closely with Roger Rosfelder on migration, while in the period 1966–73, he made eight films with Germaine Dieterlen on the Sigui festivals of the Dogon. Salient among the subjects covered during five decades of film- ing are: funeral rituals (Cimetière dans la falaise; Moro Naba; Funérailles du vieil Anai; L’Enterrement de Hogon; Souna Kouma; Pam Kusoka; Ambara Dama; Simir Siddo Kuma), hunting (La Chasse à l’hippopotame; Musique et danse des chasseurs Gow; La Chasse au lion à l’arc; Un Lion nommé l’Américain, Koli-Koli), fishing (Au Pays des mages noires; Bataille sur le grand fleuve; Mammy Water; Abidjan—port de pêche; Les Pêcheurs de Niger), spiritual practices (Les Magiciens de Wanzerbe; Monsieur Albert, prophète; Jackville), possession rituals (Initiation à la danse des possédés; Les Ma?tres fous), rain-making rituals (Yenendi; les hommes qui font la pluie; Dongo Yendi; Dauda Sorko; Yenendi de Ganghel, Yenendi de Yantalla; Yenendi de Simiri; Yenendi de Boukoki), and celebrations (Baby Ghana; Fêtes de l’indépendance de Niger; La Goumbé des jeunes noceurs). Apart from the rituals dealing with possession, rain-making, and funerals, the most celebrated ethnographic films concern the Gow lion-hunters: La Chasse au lion à l’arc and Un lion nommé l’Américain. Filming over a seven-year period Rouch earned the trust of the tribal hunters to capture not only their techniques but, most importantly, the intimate lion hunt rituals and their meaning for the Gow hunters. Rouch’s evolution as an ethnographic filmmaker and his progres- sive exploration of subjectivity can be traced through key films. In the possession rituals of Les Ma?tres fous, participants adopt the personas of their colonial masters. Rouch conveys both collective and personal responses in the self-induced hysteria which culminates in the eating of a sacrificial dog. Inserted satirical images of the British governor break with the tradition of presenting only the pro-filmic event while the commentary indicates the violence as a politically therapeutic act. This combination of socio-political and psychological insights brought a new dimension to the ethnographic film. The powerful exteriorisation of violence and role-play had particular meaning for two creative artists: Peter Brook staging his Marat/Sade, and Jean Gênet in his conception of Les Noirs. Rouch’s first feature film, Moi, un Noir, has thematic links with Les Ma?tres fous. Observation of the daily lives of migrant workers includes their fantasies as they talk to the camera in the guise of their self-attributed movie-star pseudonyms. Discovering himself through the film’s rushes, ‘‘Edward G. Robinson’’ is stimu- lated to talk openly about his problems and ambitions. The valuable perceptions derived from this participatory technique reinforced the importance of including the subjective conscious alongside objective observation in the ethnographic film. As a means to gather further insights into issues of racial and cultural difference, Rouch regularly experimented with improvised dramas: Jaguar; Cocorico, Monsieur Poulet; Les Adolescents; La Punition; or the indicative La Pyramide humaine. In this film Rouch set up the situation of a white girl attempting to integrate with black classmates. With the camera providing the catalyst, pupils developed scenes from their own experiences to create a form of cathartic psychodrama, but the experiment was flawed by the lack of synchro- nized sound, and efforts to recreate raw emotions for a later sound- track proved difficult. At the suggestion of the sociologist Edgar Morin, Rouch applied his investigative documentary approach to a group of Parisians questioned about happiness (Chronique d’un été). With lightweight sound equipment and a special wide-angled camera developed by fellow cinematographer Michel Brault, Rouch achieved a sense of immediacy and intimacy previously lacking. Despite reservations about the interview sample (mostly Morin’s friends) and the post hoc shaping implicit in editing twenty-five hours of recording to the ninety-minute feature, Chronique d’été was lauded as the new real- ism, or in Rouch’s terms, cinéma vérité. The approach differs from the didacticism or idealism of scripted documentaries and implies RUDOLPH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 852 a new directness and truthfulness (the term is borrowed from Vertov’s kino-pravda). Whereas the contemporary ‘‘direct’’ cinema move- ment maintained the camera’s invisibility, cinéma vérité foregrounded the technology, insisting that the elicited information is generated by the interview situation itself. The interventionist approach was geared to stimulate spontaneity, and with it, revelation. The influence of the film was considerable. Radical filmmakers like Jacques Rozier, Chris Marker, and Jean-Luc Godard adapted the approach, so that hand-held cameras, actors addressing the camera, improvisation, or the undisguised directorial voice became staple elements. The experiment of Chronique d’un été was extended in La punition, where Rouch also brought into play the techniques of La Pyramide humaine. Non-professional actors were wired for sound and left to improvise around the theme of a girl’s encounters with three men in Paris. Rouch’s aim was to maximise cinéma vérité spontaneity and, in order to reduce intervention through editing, filming was conducted in ten-minute takes over a single weekend. This attempt at convergence between film time and narrative time was only partially successful, and Rouch returned to the question in his ‘‘real life’’ drama of a fatal quarrel in Gare du Nord, one of the episodes in Paris vu par.... In subsequent films Rouch explored cultural issues through folk tales or contemporary African drama. In Babatou ou les trois conseils, he draws on war chronicles and a fairy tale to articulate views on slavery, while in Cocorico, Monsieur Poulet, a Nigerian tale about a travelling chicken dealer is retold through the collective improvisation of non-professional actors. A stage play is the source both for Folie ordinaire d’une fille de Cham, in which two female inmates of a mental institution act out their frustrations born of gender, race, religion, and upbringing, and for Boulevards d’Afrique, based on a Senegalese musical comedy, in which a young woman challenges her parent’s cultural assumptions about an arranged marriage. Rouch’s most recent work confirms the continuing vitality of his eclectic interests. In the powerful Cantate pour deux généraux, he returns to a possession ritual in which Africans perform voodoo rites on Napoleon’s grave to release the spirit of a black general. With Brise-Glace, he produced a wordless documentary about a Swedish ice-breaker in the North sea, while his current project, Madame l’eau has taken him to Holland. As a self-tutored ethnographic filmmaker, Rouch pioneered ap- proaches which in turn radicalised several areas of filmmaking in the 1960s. His interactive approach to documentary, which evolved into extemporized psychodramas, brought fresh insights into cultural difference, while the French tradition of scripted documentary (en- capsulated in Rouquier’s Farrebique) was jolted into a new form of directness by Chronique d’un été. Latter-day film and TV documetarists as well as radical filmmakers such as Godard attest to his influence in sociological film essays (Masculin et féminin). After half a century as a filmmaker, academic, and author, Rouch’s commitment to promot- ing film as an instrument of enthnographical research remains undi- minished. In 1978, as a mark of his international standing, he was himself the subject of a TV documentary, Jean Rouch and His Camera in the Heart of Africa, but there are no greater monuments to his life’s work than the unique corpus of films produced for the Musée de l’Homme and the worldwide host of filmmakers who have followed his stimulating cross-disciplinary approach to filmmaking. —R. F. Cousins RUDOLPH, Alan Nationality: American. Born: Los Angeles, 18 December 1943, son of actor and film/TV director Oscar Rudolph; sometimes credited as Gerald Cormier. Education: Studied accounting at UCLA. Career: Began work in the Paramount Pictures mailroom, mid-1960s; joined the Directors Guild training program, 1967; worked as an assistant director for TV and films, late 1960s; directed his first feature, Premonition, 1970 (released 1972); worked with Robert Altman at Lion’s Gate, from 1973; Altman produced Welcome to L.A. and Remember My Name. Awards: Los Angeles Film Critics Association New Generation Award, 1984; Berlin Film Festival C.I.C.A.E. Award, for Trouble in Mind, 1985; San Sebastian International Film Festival Alma Award for Best Screenplay, Aspen Filmfest Audience Award, for Afterglow, 1997. Address: 15760 Ventura Blvd., Encino, CA 91436, U.S.A. Films as Director: 1970 Premonition (+ sc) (released 1972) 1973 Terror Circus (Barn of the Naked Dead, Nightmare Circus) (+ co-sc, pr) 1976 Welcome to L.A. (+ sc) 1978 Remember My Name (+ sc) 1980 Roadie (+ co-story) 1982 Endangered Species (+ co-sc) 1983 Return Engagement 1984 Choose Me (+ sc); Songwriter 1985 Trouble in Mind (+ sc) 1987 Made in Heaven 1988 The Moderns (+ co-sc) 1989 Love at Large (+ sc) 1991 Mortal Thoughts 1993 Equinox (+ sc) 1994 Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle (+ co-sc) 1997 Afterglow (+ sc) 1999 Breakfast of Champions (+ sc) 2000 Trixie (+ sc, co-story) 2001 Investigating Sex (+ co-sc, pr) Other Films: 1954 The Rocket Man (Rudolph) (ro) 1969 Riot (Kulik) (asst d) 1973 The Long Goodbye (Altman) (asst d) 1974 California Split (Altman) (asst d) 1975 Nashville (Altman) (asst d) 1976 Buffalo Bill and the Indians, or Sitting Bull’s History Lesson (Altman) (co-sc) 1990 The Hollywood Mavericks (Dauman) (appearance) 1992 The Player (Altman) (appearance) 1994 Would You Kindly Direct Me to Hell: The Infamous Dorothy Parker (doc) (short) (as commentator) RUDOLPHDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 853 Alan Rudolph Publications By RUDOLPH: book— Buffalo Bill and the Indians; or, Sitting Bull’s History Lesson, with Robert Altman, New York, 1976. By RUDOLPH: articles— Interview in Film Comment (New York), January/February 1977. ‘‘Add Romance and a Crazed World,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), August 1985. Interview with Brian Baxter, in Films and Filming (London), Septem- ber 1986. Interview with Karen Jaehne, in Film Criticism (Meadville, Pennsyl- vania), vol. 24, no. 2, 1988. Interview with Richard Trainor, in Sight and Sound (London), Autumn 1988. Interview with Richard Combs and Tom Milne, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), March 1989. Interview with Louise Tanner in Films in Review (New York), April 1990. Interview with Gavin Smith in Film Comment (New York), May/ June 1993. ‘‘The Producer as Gambler,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/ April 1994. On RUDOLPH: articles— Milne, Tom, ‘‘. . . As Suggestive as a Neon Orchid,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1985. Farber, Stephen, ‘‘Five Horsemen after the Apocalypse,’’ in Film Comment (New York), July/August 1985. Garel, A., and F. Guérif, ‘‘Alan Rudolph,’’ in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), July/August 1985. Rensin, D., ‘‘The Man Who Would Be Different,’’ in American Film (Washington, D.C.), March 1986. Jaehne, Karen, ‘‘Time for The Moderns,’’ in Film Comment (New York), March/April 1988. Taylor, Paul, ‘‘Meet All the People—Alan Rudolph,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), November 1990. RUDOLPH DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 854 Nordstrom, V., article in Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 33, no. 1, 1991. Orman, T., ‘‘‘Everything Means Something, Cynthia’: Alan Rudolph’s Mortal Thoughts,’’ in Cineaction, Fall 1992. Appelo, Tim, ‘‘Finding Dorothy Parker’s Voice,’’ in Entertainment Weekly, 23 December 1994. *** Alan Rudolph’s films are populated by mysterious wanderers, musicians, painters, and journalists, people who have flirted with success without ever achieving it and who exist in a timeless, bohemian limbo. It is clear that he identifies with his protagonists. Never as trenchant a satirist as his early mentor, Robert Altman, Rudolph imbues his work with a strong romantic streak. At his worst, he is simply trite and maudlin. At his best, he weaves elaborate fantasies as colourful and eyecatching as anything Coppola ever managed at Zoetrope. Stunned by Altman’s McCabe and Mrs Miller, the young Rudolph quickly attached himself to the shirttails of the great director, co-scripting Buffalo Bill and the Indians, Altman’s bicentennial savaging of Wild West mythology, and also working on The Long Goodbye. Altman’s film company produced Welcome to L.A., Rudolph’s first important feature as a director. While the film was not a particularly scathing critique of Californian social mores, it never- theless introduces themes and motifs which would be further explored in subsequent Rudolph works. For example, the film features a Kerouac- like lonesome traveler as hero. Keith Carradine plays a whisky- drinking songwriter, just arrived in town, who dresses—somewhat incongruously—like the straw man in the Wizard of Oz, with a goatee beard and a tweed hat. But despite his unlikely garb, he manages to seduce everyone from Lauren Hutton to Geraldine Chaplin. Rudolph has spoken of the importance of music to his films. Welcome to L.A. boasts a truly awful soundtrack, comprising the songs which the Carradine character is supposed to have written. This may be an elaborate joke on the director’s part. After all, Carradine is ostensibly a failed songwriter, and his music isn’t meant to be any good. Rudolph’s second feature, Remember My Name, bombed at the box office. Undeterred, he geared up to start work on a third project, a long-cherished movie chronicling the lives and fast times of the American artists and literati in 1920s Paris. Five weeks before the cameras were due to roll, though, the financiers pulled the plug on The Moderns, and Rudolph was cast out into the wilderness of work as a contract director. Between 1978 and 1984, Rudolph was employed on several ‘‘routine’’ movies, directing Roadie, a vehicle for the overweight American rocker Meatloaf, and making a romantic melodrama about cow killing in the U.S. Midwest, Endangered Species. He also found time to direct a highly provocative documentary, Return Engagement, which records a staged encounter between two disgraced figures from the recent American past—Timothy Leary, the psychedelic Harvard academic, and G. Gordon Liddy, mastermind behind the Watergate break-in. Although seemingly from opposite ends of the political spectrum, Leary and Liddy turn out to have a great deal in common. They are bona fide American anti-heroes, not at all dissimilar from the fictional characters with which Rudolph fills his films. As such, they hold an obvious attraction for the director. Choose Me, based on a radio show and shot in less than a month for under $750,000, is quintessential Rudolph, and its success marked his return to the independent cinema mainstream. It centers on a singles bar where glamorous strangers strike up acquaintance. Genevieve Bujold, a Rudolph regular, plays a DJ agony aunt, offering solace and advice to the town’s yearning and heartbroken populace. There is something theatrical and stylized about the movie: for example, the sets could be from a Minnelli musical. But Rudolph manages to create vivid and memorable characters, even as the movie risks becoming an exercise in glamorous facades. In spite of the rain, the neon and the mist, and the soul music soundtrack, this is an absorbing story about sexual jealousy, and it is also genuinely mysterious: all in all, quite a coup for under a million dollars. The follow up, Trouble in Mind, involves quite a bit of tampering with Keith Carradine’s coiffure: the actor, playing a young married delinquent making his first steps in organized crime, sports a lanky 1950s quiff. This contrasts with Kris Kristofferson’s beard and the bald pate of a villain played by Divine, on leave from John Waters. A meticulous stylist, Rudolph is one of the few directors capable of portraying character through hairstyles. A camp film noir, not that far removed in its narrative from Big Heat, Trouble in Mind manages again to blend visual extravagance with downbeat subject matter. The same cannot be said for Made in Heaven, a flimsy and mawkish love story, which in spite of its passing nods to the Sturges/Capra vision of small-town America, and its celestial chicanery (early parts of the film are set in heaven, for this is yet another variation on Heaven Can Wait) seems toothless and bland in comparison with its two predeces- sors. Again, Rudolph didn’t have full artistic control: ‘‘The writer- producers said they wanted me but it turned out they didn’t want the darker touches I would have added.’’ Finally, ten years later than scheduled, Rudolph managed to make The Moderns in 1988. This was not the simple-minded evocation of Gertrude Stein’s tea parties and Hemingway’s alcoholism that some critics presumed. Based on ‘‘memoir, gossip, innuendo and lies,’’ it attempted to question the premises on which aesthetic judgments are made. What is originality, and what constitutes forgery? These rather obvious questions seemed especially relevant in a decade when art prices were shooting through the roof. The Rudolph repertory com- pany turned out in force, with Bujold, Carradine, and Geraldine Chaplin all cast. Playing on stereotypes of 1920s modernism and caricaturing American attitudes toward Europe (The Moderns recre- ates Paris in Montreal), this was a far more tongue-in-cheek creation than its detractors realized. Rudolph’s films are like those of his mentor Altman in that, taken as a whole, they are always interesting and consistently crammed with style. Occasionally brilliant, in the final analysis they are widely— and maddeningly—uneven. Take Love at Large, the story of a private detective and his various encounters after he is hired by a mystery woman. As much as you try to like the film because the characters are, on their surfaces, so intriguing, the result is more chaotic than coherent. The same can be said for Mortal Thoughts, about a murder investigation, and Equinox, about two lookalikes—one a powerless car mechanic and the other a gangland thug—whose lives coincide. One of Rudolph’s most interesting 1990s films is Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, a recollection of life among the 1920s New York intelligencia. At its core is the character of the writer-humorist Dorothy Parker, portrayed by Jennifer Jason Leigh. For all her surface cynicism and tenacity, Parker is depicted as a fragile, sensitive lost soul, a woman who gained a certain measure of professional success but who found elusive any level of personal contentment. The ‘‘vicious circle’’ of the title is the daily luncheon gathering of fabled writers, editors, and wits at the Algonquin Hotel’s Round Table. Parker is one of the regulars. Others include Robert Benchley (Campbell Scott), with whom Parker shares a close friendship and an RUIZDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 855 unconsummated sexual attraction, and Charles MacArthur (Matthew Broderick), with whom she has an ill-fated affair. Flitting in and out of the story are Alexander Woollcott, Edna Ferber, Robert Sherwood, and Marc Connelly, among many others. It is Rudolph’s contention that these celebrity scribes frittered away their talents on drink and idle chatter, while the true and lasting writers of the generation (such as Hemingway and Faulkner) were devoting their energies to their work. Parker aficionados criticized the facts as presented in the film, contending it was unlikely that Parker and Benchley (who was less physically attractive than depicted onscreen) lived with a sexual tension between them. As the on-screen Parker reads her poetry and sits with her friends at the Algonquin, she often appears as a sad sack, an alcoholic bore. Yet in fact she was a true wit, with people flocking to be in her company. Onscreen, her voice is grating and slurring; it is the voice of a drunk. Yet in the biography You Might as Well Live: The Life and Times of Dorothy Parker, she is described as ‘‘possessed of a voice surprisingly rich and full for so small a person.’’ Rudolph’s Mrs. Parker follow-up was one of his more engaging films: Afterglow, a deeply personal, tender, and riveting drama that tells the story of two couples, one younger and the other middle-aged, and the manner in which they become intertwined and linked by fate. Phyllis Mann (a resplendent Julie Christie) is a former B-movie actress who lives with her philandering handyman husband Lucky (Nick Nolte); the scenario follows what happens when he commences an affair with Marianne (Lara Flynn Boyle), a frustrated yuppie who is married to Jeffrey (Jonny Lee Miller), an arrogant corporate climber. Afterglow is a film for mature adults, which is not to say that it should have been rated NC-17. Its characters are finely drawn— disconnected and dissatisfied, and undeniably poignant. Unfortu- nately, Rudolph’s next film was disjointed and uninvolving (however well-intentioned): Breakfast of Champions, a stale adaptation of the Kurt Vonnegut social satire. Rudolph’s wildest—and best—film to date remains Choose Me, a comedy-drama with an evocative from-midnight-til-dawn feel. Choose Me serves as the best illustration of themes which remain constant throughout his work, exploring how some individuals choose to play different roles as they relate to others, and how chance acquain- tances and occurrences affect peoples’ lives forever. Rudolph is something of an anomaly among contemporary Ameri- can filmmakers. In spite of his extravagant visual sense, he seems to work best on small budgets. Although his films seem destined for art houses, the cheerful, upbeat romanticism of some of his stories and his insistence on creating happy couples suggest he is a populist at heart. —G. C. Macnab, updated by Rob Edelman RUIZ, Raúl Nationality: Chilean. Born: Puerto Montt, Chile, 25 July 1941. Education: Studied law, theology, and theatre; spent year at Docu- mentary Film School of Santa Fe, Argentina, 1966. Family: Married to filmmaker and editor Valeria Sarmiento. Career: Prolific writer of stage plays, 1956–62; shot first film La maleta (unfinished) at Grupo Cine Experimental, University of Chile, 1960; directed first feature, Los tres triste tigres, 1968; film advisor to the Socialist Party in Allende’s coalition, 1971–72; forced into exile following Pinochet’s coup, 1973; moved to Germany, then to France, 1974; filmmaker with France’s National Audiovisual Institute, from 1977; director for TV, 1980s; director, La Maison de la Culture, Le Havre, 1985–88. Awards: Grand Prix, Locarno Festival, for Tres Tristes Tigres, 1969; César Award, for Colloque de chiens, 1978. Films as Director and Scriptwriter: 1960 La maleta (unfinished) 1967 El tango del viudo (unfinished) 1968 Los tres triste tigres (Tres Tristes Tigres; Three Sad Tigers) 1969 Militarismo y tortura (doc short); La cate naria (unfinished) 1970 Que hacer? (co-d) 1971 La colonia penal (The Penal Colony); Ahor te vamos a llamar hermano (Now We Will Call You Brother) (short); Nadie dijo nada (Nobody Said Nothing); Mapuches (doc short) 1972 Los minuteros (The Minute Hands, The Street Photogra- pher) (short) 1973 La expropriación (The Expropriation) (completed in Ger- many); Nueva canción Chile?a (New Chilean Song) (short); El realismo socialista (Socialist Realism); Palomilla brava (Bad Girl); Palomita blanca (Little White Dove) (co-d, unfinished due to coup); Abastecimiento (Supply) (short) 1974 Diálogo de exilados (Dialogue of Exiles) 1975 El cuerpo repartido y el mundo al revez (Mensch verstreut und Welt verkehrt; The Scattered Body and the World Turned Upside Down) 1976 Sotelo (doc short) 1977 Colloque de chiens (Dog’s Language) (short); La Vocation suspendue (The Suspended Vocation) 1978 L’Hypothèse du tableau volé (The Hypothesis of a Stolen Painting); Les Divisions de la nature (short) 1979 De Grands Evènements et des gens ordinaires (Of Great Events and Ordinary People); Petit Manuel d’histoire de France (Short History of France); Images du débat (Images of Debate); Jeux (Games); Rue des archives 79 1980 Le Jeu de l’oie (Snakes and Ladders) (short); La Ville nouvelle (The New Town) (short); L’Or gris (Grey Gold); Teletests (short); Pages d’un catalogue (Pages from a Catalogue) (short); Fahlstrom (short) 1981 Le Territoire (The Territory); Le Borgne (serial); Het dak van de walvis (On Top of the Whale; The Whale’s Roof) 1982 Les Trois Couronnes du Matelot (The Sailor’s Three Crowns); Classification des plantes (short); Les Ombres chinoise (Chinese Shadows) (short); Querelle de jardins (The War of the Gardens) (short) 1983 Bérénice; La Ville des pirates (City of Pirates); Point de fuite; Voyage autour d’une main (short); Le retour d’un amateur de bibliothèque (short, for TV); La présence réelle (The Real Presence) 1985 L’éveillé du pont de l’Alma; Les Destins de Manoel (Manuel’s Destinies); Dans un miroir (In a Mirror); Richard III 1986 Mammame; Régime sans pain; L’Ile au trésor (Treasure Island) 1987 Memoire des apparences; Vie est un songe; La chouette aveugle 1988 Brise-Glace (Icebreaker) (co-d) 1989 Allegory 1990 The Golden Boat 1991 Treasure Island RUIZ DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 856 1992 Dark at Noon 1994 The Secret Journey: Lives of Saints and Sinners; Fado, Majeur et Mineur 1995 à propos de Nice, la suite 1996 Trois vies et une seule mort (Three Lives and Only One Death) 1997 Généalogies d’un crime (Genealogies of a Crime) 1998 Shattered Image (d only) 1999 Le Temps retrouvé 2000 Combat d’amour en songe (+ sc); Fils de deux mères ou Comédie de l’innocence Publications By RUIZ: book— Poetics of Cinema: Miscellanies, New York, 1995. By RUIZ: articles— ‘‘Chili: le cinema de l’unité populaire,’’ an interview with H. Ehrmann, in Ecran (Paris), February 1974. ‘‘Notes sur La Vocation suspendue,’’ in Positif (Paris), December/ January 1977/78. ‘‘Les Relations d’objets au cinéma,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1978. Interview with Don Ranvaud, in Framework (Norwich, England), Spring 1979. ‘‘Filters, Exile, and Cunning: Problems of Time, Space, and Percep- tion,’’ an interview with Ian Christie, in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), December 1984. Interview with Alain Philippon, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), May 1985. Interview with D. Ehrenstein, in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1986. Interview with E. Spigland, in Persistance of Vision, no. 8, 1990. ‘‘Horreur Baroque,’’ an interview with Frédéric Strauss, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1992. Interview with A. Masson and P. Rouyer, in Positif (Paris), June 1996. ‘‘Ruiz Hopping and Buried Treasures: Ruiz on Ruiz: A Filmography,’’ an interview and article by Jonathan Rosenbaum, Gavin Smith, and Mark McElhatten, in Film Comment (New York), January- February 1997. ‘‘Histoire grotesque et sérieuse,’’ an interview with Thierry Jousse and Jean-Marc Lalanne, in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), April 1997. Interview with Bruno Barde, in Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), May 1999. On RUIZ: books— Buci-Glucksmann, Christine, and Fabrice Revault d’Allonnes, Raoul Ruiz, Paris, 1987. King, John, Magical Reels: A History of Cinema in Latin America, London, 1990. On RUIZ: articles— Pick, Zuzana, ‘‘Le Cinéma chilien sous le signe de l’Unité Populaire (1970–1973),’’ in Positif (Paris), January 1974. Roud, Richard, ‘‘Turning Points: Ruiz & Truffaut,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1978. ‘‘Exile and Cunning: Raúl Ruiz,’’ special section, in Afterimage (Rochester, New York), no. 10, 1981. ‘‘Raúl Ruiz Issue’’ of Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), March 1983. Raúl Ruiz Section of Positif (Paris), December 1983. Mouesca, J., ‘‘El cine chile?o en el exilio (1973–1983),’’ in Cine Cubano (Havana), no. 109, 1984. Raúl Ruiz Section of Casablanca (Madrid), January 1984. Adair, Gilbert, ‘‘Raúl: Sheheruizade, or 1001 Films,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Summer 1984. Rosenbaum, Jonathan, ‘‘Beating the Labyrinth,’’ in Monthly Film Bulletin (London), January 1985. Christie, Ian, ‘‘Raúl Ruiz and the House of Culture,’’ in Sight and Sound (London), Spring 1987. Pick, Z., ‘‘Le cinema chilien de l’exil: le cas de Raoul Ruiz,’’ in Cinemaction, July 1990. Reynaud, B., ‘‘Ruiz sur l’Hudson,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July/August 1990. Codelli, L., ‘‘Raúl Ruiz,’’ in Ekran, no. 4/5, 1991. Jayamanne, L., ‘‘The Case for Ruiz . . . ,’’ in Filmnews, no. 9, 1991. Strauss, F., ‘‘Horreur baroque,’’ in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), February 1992. Riley, V., ‘‘Endless Vacations—the Journeys of Raúl Ruiz,’’ in Filmnews, no. 11, 1992/1993. Martin, A., and C. Tuckfield, ‘‘Never One Space: The Cinema of Raúl Ruiz,’’ in Cinema Papers, January 1993. Piazzo, P., and F. Richard, ‘‘Entretien avec Raúl Ruiz,’’ in Positif, February 1993. Borroni, M., ‘‘Due film di Raúl Ruiz: Le tre corone del marinaio e La ville des pirates,’’ in Cineforum (Bergamo), November 1995. Beaucage, Paul, ‘‘La démesure baroque de Raoul Ruiz,’’ in Séquences (Haute-Ville), January-February 1997. Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), May 1999. *** A prodigious storyteller, Raúl Ruiz is also a prolific manufacturer of moving images. This Chilean filmmaker, now living in exile in Paris, has molded his films by a deeply personal concern with representation and discourse. His innovative and experimental work thus defies any attempt at classification. The cinema of Ruiz is a cinema of ideas. He has unmasked ideological stereotypes (Three Sad Tigers, Nobody Said Nothing, and Dialogue of Exiles), has exposed the contradictions of despotic institutions (The Suspended Vocation), and unveiled his own tortured world (The One-Eyed Man) torn between his cultural origins and the false cosmopolitanism of forced exile (The Whale’s Roof). His mise- en-scéne is preoccupied with representation (The Hypothesis of a Stolen Painting and The Divisions of Nature) and the fragmentation of reality (The Sailor’s Three Crowns). His narrative is imbued with an intense research into performance and the ambiguity of the spoken language. His storylines never appear to enjoy a privileged position within the overall narrative of his films (The Expropriation). The voice-over narration (The War of the Gardens), the commentary (The Divisions of Nature), or even the dialogue (The Penal Colony), by detaching themselves from the image track, acquire an independent life or serve to lure the spectator into the willful contradictions that Ruiz wants to explore. The spoken language, saturated with Chilean slang, often makes his films incomprehensible for non-Chilean spec- tators. In France, though, Ruiz has found an audience for whom RUTTMANNDIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 857 simulations of Cartesian logic are the playful components of a fic- tional labyrinth. Few filmmakers have taken better advantage of commissioned work. His video essays and documentary films for television and the Centre Beaubourg are original experiments with technology and narrative which inform the strategies of his feature work. A didactic comparison of French- and English-style gardens is displaced in favour of a playful suspense story (The War of the Gardens). A commissioned film on Beaubourg’s cartography exhibition be- comes a diabolic snakes-and-ladders game (Snakes and Ladders). Ruiz has a passionate affair with technology. Working with innovative directors of photography—Diego Bonancina in Chile, Sacha Vierny and Henri Alekan in France—he has brought back the magic of French poetic realism to explore a world of manipulation, impotence, and violence. He favors the use of lighting, filters, and mirrors that deform filmic reality into a kaleidoscopic maze that traps his performers (Snakes and Ladders) and turns familiarity into fantastic exoticism (The Territory). Ruiz’s originality stems from personal paradox. He is an exiled filmmaker in search of a territory, mastering a new language while stubbornly upholding his roots, and confined in a culture he recognizes as having colonized his own. Ruiz’s contribution to Chilean cinema has been openly acknowl- edged since Three Sad Tigers in 1969. His innovative approach to film, his independence, and his critical stance on political reduction- ism have often set him apart from the mainstream. A name rarely mentioned in discussions on the new Latin American cinema, Ruiz retrospectives in Madrid, Edinburgh, London, Rotterdam, and Paris have finally brought him public recognition. After years of relative obscurity, critical acclaim has earned him a leading position within the French avant-grade. Chilean cinema in exile has found in Ruiz a respected and vital representative. A total filmmaker, for whom theater, music, literature, and visual arts are familiar territory, Ruiz successfully combines intellectual inquiry with Latin American hedonism. —Zuzana Mirjam Pick RUTTMANN, Walter Nationality: German. Born: Frankfurt am Main, 28 December 1887. Education: Goethe-Gymnasium, Abitur 1905; architectural studies in Zurich, from 1907; studied painting in Munich, 1909. Military Service: Served as artillery lieutenant on Eastern Front, World War I; suffered nervous breakdown, sent to sanatorium until 1917. Career: Began filmmaking, 1919; moved to Berlin, 1923; worked with Lotte Reiniger and Carl Koch on The Adventures of Prince Achmed, 1923–26; worked with G. W. Pabst and Abel Gance in Paris, 1929–31. Died: In Berlin, 15 July 1941. Films as Director: 1921 Opus I 1920–23 Opus II, III, IV 1923 ‘‘Der Falkentraum (Dream of Hawks)’’ sequence in Die Nibelungen part 1 (Lang) 1924 Abstract Alps dream sequence for Lebende Buddhas (Wegener) 1925–26 Opus V 1926–27 Berlin, die Sinfonie der Grossstadt (Berlin, Symphony of a Great City) 1928 ‘‘T?nende Welle’’ episode for Das weisse Stadion (Fanck) 1929 Melodie der Welt (World Melody); Des Haares und der Liebe Wellen (short fiction film) 1930 Weekend (Wochenende) 1931 In der Nacht (In the Night); Feind im Blut (documentary) 1932–33 Acciaio 1933 Blut und Boden 1934 Short film incorporated into Altgermanische Bauernkultur; Metall des Himmels; Prologue to Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will) (Riefenstahl) 1935 Kleiner Film einer grossen Stadt—Die Stadt Düsseldorf am Rhein; Stadt Stuttgart, 100. Cannstatter Volksfest; Stuttgart, die Grossstadt zwischen Wald und Reben 1936 Schiff in Not 1937 Mannesmann 1938 Henkel, ein deutsches Werk in seiner Arbeit; Weltstrasse See—Welthafen Hamburg; Im Dienste der Menschheit 1940 Deutsche Waffenschmiede (Waffenkammern Deutschland); Deutsche Panzer; Aberglaube 1941 Ein Film gegen die Volkskrankheit Krebs—jeder Achte . . . Other Films: 1923–26 Die Abenteuer des Prinzen Achmed (The Adventures of Prince Achmed) (Reiniger) (collaborated on making ab- stract, moving backgrounds) Publications On RUTTMANN: books— Kracauer, Siegfried, A Psychological History of the German Film, Princeton, New Jersey, 1974. Russett, Robert, and Cecile Starr, Experimental Animation, New York, 1976. Film as Film: Formal Experiment in Film, 1910–1975, exhibition catalog, London, 1979. On RUTTMANN: articles— Falkenberg, Paul, ‘‘Sound Montage: A Propos de Ruttmann,’’ in Film Culture (New York), no. 22–23, 1961. Cowie, Peter, ‘‘Berlin,’’ in Films and Filming (London), August 1961. ‘‘Walter Ruttmann,’’ in Travelling (Lausanne), Summer 1979. Fulks, Barry A., ‘‘Walter Ruttmann, the Avant-Garde Film, and Nazi Modernism,’’ in Film and History (Newark, New Jersey), May 1984. Brandt, H.J., ‘‘Walter Ruttmann: Vom expressionismus zum faschismus,’’ (three parts) in Filmfaust (Frankfurt), October/ November 1985, December 1985/January 1986, and February/ March 1986. *** Walter Ruttmann is often associated with the films of others: he created the ‘‘Dream of the Hawks’’ sequence in Fritz Lang’s Die Nibelungen, and directed several sequences in Paul Wegener’s Lebende RUTTMANN DIRECTORS, 4 th EDITION 858 Buddhas. Later on, he assisted in the editing of Leni Riefenstahl’s Olympia. Easily his own most influential work is Berlin, Symphony of a Great City, one of the outstanding abstract documentaries of the 1920s. Berlin is a visual essay on an average working day in the city, from dawn to the dead of night. The quiet, seemingly abandoned metropo- lis comes alive as a train makes its way through the suburbs, workers travel on their way to factories, the wheels of industry are set in motion, and everyday occurrences unfold in cafes and on streets. Night approaches, and Berlin becomes lit up like a birthday cake. Boys flirt with girls, chorus girls dance, an orchestra performs Beethoven. Lovers seek out privacy in a hotel. And it will all begin again with the sunrise. Berlin is indeed a symphony, with Ruttmann stressing the move- ment of people and machinery in what amounts to a visual tapestry. The key is in the editing: for example, shots of people walking on a street are followed by those of cows’ legs. Ruttmann makes no social commentary, as rich and poor, man and animal, exist side by side. His sole interest is the imagery, the creation of visual poetry— even when he contrasts poor children and the food in a restaurant. Ruttman’s use of montage was influenced by the Russian filmmaker Dziga Vertov. Yet while Vertov’s newsreels depicted the progress of a post-Revolutionary Soviet society, the life in Berlin could just as well be the life in Brussels or Amsterdam or Paris. Ruttmann is concerned with the details of daily reality edited together to form a unified whole, but he never comments or editorializes on the lives of his subjects. The filmmaker, who appropriately began his career as an abstract painter, preceded Berlin with a series of experimental ‘‘Opus’’ films. Siegfried Kracauer describes Opus I as ‘‘a dynamic display of spots vaguely recalling X-ray photographs.’’ Additionally, Ruttmann real- ized that the advent of sound in motion pictures was inevitable. As a result, he attempted to attune his images to the soundtracks that he felt would ultimately outweigh visual components in importance. In World Melody, made after Berlin, music and sound effects are orchestrated to relate to the images; In der Nacht is a union of imagery and Schumann’s music. As Ruttmann did not exhibit a social conscience in his early work, it is perhaps not surprising that, by the end of his life, he had been co-opted as a propagandist. An artist whose work was initially apolitical, Ruttmann neither protested nor went into exile with the advent of National Socialism. Instead, he conformed. His last docu- mentaries were odes to Nazism and Germany’s military might. —Rob Edelman