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: Ameri