Showing posts with label Max Ophuls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Max Ophuls. Show all posts

6/15/2015

Le Plaisir (1952) directed by Max Ophuls

Translated into English, "Le Plaisir" means "The Pleasure".

The film is a compilation of three short stories, and features a fine cast of French actors: Pierre Brasseur, Danielle Darrieux, Jean Servais, Simone Simon, and Jean Gabin.

According to the Criterion website, the film "pinpoints the cruel ironies and happy compromises of life with a charming and sophisticated breeziness."

Story 1: Le Masque (The Mask): Takes place in a dance hall. A rubber mask reveals an old man who loves to dance.

Story 2: Le Maison Tellier. (The Tellier House) A madame by the name of Tellier closes her brothel for the day and travels to the countryside with her workers for a Catholic mass. Meanwhile, a Jewish girl is touched by the serenity of the service.

Story 3:  Le Modele.(the model)  An artist meets Simon Simone in the Louvre and falls in love.

Fluid camerawork by cinematographers Philippe Agostini and Christian Matras.
Written by Guy de Maupassant. Directed by Max Ophuls.


7/25/2010

The Earrings of Madame de... (1953) directed by Max Ophuls

Director: Max Ophuls. Language: French. Based on the short novel by Louise de Vilmorin. Setting: Paris, late 19th Century.


Before the film began, our instructor started off with a brief lecture, informing us of the "circular structure" of the film, which I didn't understand until after seeing it. In the film, a pair of earrings passes through the hands of several owners, which makes for very amusing entertainment. The earrings were originally a wedding present from General Andre (Charles Boyer) to his vain wife Countess Louisa (Danielle Darrieux). After years of marriage, they both end up having affairs, and the earrings are passed along to other people: Louisa sells them to pay off her gambling debts, Boyer gives them to his mistress, and Louisa gets them again as a present from her lover, a diplomat (Vittorio di Sica).

Similar to Caught, this is a film about a woman who is caught between two men - one, her husband, and the other, her lover. It's also the story of a woman caught in a web of her own lies. From the very first scenes we realize she's a chronic deceiver. Boyer's character is not all that sympathetic either. Holding our interest throughout are the earrings, which take on more meaning throughout the film. By the end of the film Lousia has fetishized them to the point where they have overtaken her life.


---- The novel vs. the film version -----


I was curious about why this film was called "Madame de..." and why we are not told the last names of the characters. According to the synopsis from TCM Imports,

(Louise) Vilmorin (the author of the novel) left the characters unnamed, using the abbreviated Madame de and General de in a tribute to 19th century novelists who had used the same device to suggest their stories were based on real-life events. She did not give her story any clear setting in time or place, however, leaving the details to the reader's imagination. In his adaptation, Ophüls kept the naming, creating the suggestion that his characters could represent anybody from the story's milieu. He also fleshed out the other details. In particular, he set the story in Paris during the 1890s, a period with which he felt a strong personal connection. And as a tribute to the author, he gave his leading lady her first name, Louise.


---- The Famous Ballroom Dance Scene -----


In perhaps the greatest sequence in the film, di Sica and Louisa meet in a ball one night and they spend all night dancing. Reminiscent of Letter From An Unknown Woman, one of the band players anxious to go home observes, "Those two are always the last." An analysis of a part of this scene at the blog VCR-chaeology; read the post here.

Roger Ebert, in his review, wrote "On the dance floor, they observe it has been three weeks since they danced together....and then they are dancing still and no time has passed. The dialogue and costumes indicate the time transitions, but the music plays without interruption, as do their unbroken movements together...The economy of storytelling here--a courtship all told in a dance--resembles the famous montage in ''Citizen Kane'' where a marriage dissolves in a series of breakfasts."


---- Final thoughts -----


The camera work is once again incredible, and there are some interesting transitions. In one shot, Louisa tears up a letter, and throws the pieces out of a train window. The pieces fly through the sky and dissolve into snow in the next shot, set in winter.

The ending of the film leaves it open to further speculation, and in the class we had a good time discussing what might have happened next. A few people debated the outcome of a dual that was to happen at the end.



---- For more about this movie -----


Recommended, and available on DVD/Netflix. The Criterion DVD (which I have not checked out yet) has an audio commentary, interviews, analysis of the film, and a booklet. Further reviews of this film could be found at Criterion Confessions, Movie Ramblings, and The Molten Notebook.

7/21/2010

Lola Montes (1955)

We can't have a post about Mel Gibson without one featuring another fallen star recently in the news - Lindsay Lohan. So, in honor of her first day in jail, let's take a look at a film that someone should have shown her a long time ago: Max Ophuls' full-color epic Lola Montes, about the 19th century exotic dancer who died at the age of 39. (And it's no small coincidence that their stage names - Lilo and Lola - sound so similar)

I might add that I'm not the only blogger who feels this film can serve as a cautionary tale to modern starlets - in his review of the movie, Michael of I Shoot the Pictures urged Britney Spears and others to take heed.



French actress Martine Carol plays the fiery Lola, who counted the King of Bavaria and Franz Liszt among her many lovers. These relationships are dealt with in short flashback scenes. Another one of her lovers is played by Oskar Werner in the film, and he's rather enjoyable to watch.

The film starts and ends in a circus tent, where Lola is presented as a freak on display, and eventually ends up in a cage. The Ringmaster is played with great bravado by Peter Ustinov; it's a very interesting role, like that of a Weimar cabaret emcee. He speaks to Lola in both French and English, her native tongue.

The odd part of this is that the real Lola never performed in a "real" circus (with clowns and acrobats and such). But these scenes are all symbolic; it's Ophuls' commentary on the circus of show business, particularly Hollywood, as our instructor said, combined with desire.

Martine Carol's Lola is rather wooden, I felt, though some in the class liked how the character was written and presented. Our instructor said that she is a prisoner of her own image, and throughout the film she feels so trapped, so stiff. Almost like a study of this woman's powerlessness.

Our instructor said that Ophuls doesn't want the audience to get beyond the edifice of this character. But I was yearning to know more about Lola. Ophuls doesn't give that glimpse inside.

This is probably my least favorite film of all the Ophuls films I've seen so far. But it's worth seeing. It's also Ophuls' last film. He originally didn't want to do it, but after he was approached by the producers with the idea, he decided to do it if he could write the original screenplay.

Visually, it's spectacular, and very colorful, which is new to an Ophuls film. But so many elements of his films are here: long takes, some lasting up to 2 minutes, lots of interesting framing when the camera is looking through windows, and numerous scenes of characters ascending or descending staircases.

When the film opened in Europe, it was a epic failure with the public. One person in our class wondered if it's failure had to do with it being in CinemaScope; perhaps these epic films appeared too crass. Also, people may have been turned off if they were expecting something more narrative instead of metaphoric.

In Dave's superb essay on his blog Criterion Reflections, he notes that audiences may have been expecting something a bit more risque, based on what the posters seemed to promise. Yet Ophuls doesn't even show Lola dancing in the film.

The stylized sequences in the circus are often quite lavish, and they undoubtedly served as some kind of inspiration for the 2001 Nicole Kidman film Moulin Rougue!, which I thought of while watching this. There are even some menacing-looking henchman who assist the Ringmaster, adding to the creepiness - this darkness may have been a turnoff to audiences of the time as well.

Another student in the class said this film reminded him of The Blue Angel, where there's also a character named Lola and the idea the theme of people selling their souls.

Last winter Michael wrote a great essay on his blog about this film, and points out how the film was recently restored (in 2008) to better represent Ophuls' original cut. It's this version that we watched in the class (it's also the version on the Criterion DVD)

--------------


Recommended blog posts about the film Lola Montes (1955)

Michael's review: I Shoot the Pictures (May 2009)
Dave's essay: Criterion Reflections (Jul. 2010)
Michael's essay: The Evening Class (Feb. 2010)

7/11/2010

Deep-dive analysis of Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948)

Note: spoilers ahead in this post.



Letter was the second film we watched in the Ophuls appreciation class. at Facets Multimedia (Chicago, IL) There were about 14 of us in the class, most of us - including myself - were watching this for the first time.

Before the film began, our instructor wanted us to pay attention to three things:

1) Music and how it's used - diagetic music (music played in the background that the characters can hear) vs. non diagetic music. (music the characters don't hear).

2) Camera work - the axial, tracking, and crane shots. Our instructor recommended the book: "Max Ophuls in the Hollywood Studios" by Lutz Bacher, where techniques are discussed. On the film, Ophuls worked with his cinematographer from Liebelei - Franz Planer - and was able to achieve the mobility he desired for this film. There will be several crane shots where the camera moves up and is pulled back, such as the steps of the opera scene, a fine example of this. And throughout the film, you'll notice many shots of characters ascending stairs - very symbolic.

3) Melodrama? - is this just an "awful tearjerker" as some have said, or is there more meaning in this? It's a romance, but is it over-the-top?


---ANALYSIS---


The opening credits play over the movie's theme by credited composer "Daniele Amfitheatrof". But who is he? Our instructor said that she thought it might be a pseudonym. With a last name meaning "Amphitheater", she doubted it would be anyone's real name. Perhaps Ophuls did the music himself? Neither I nor anyone else in the class knew at the time. But when I got home, I checked his credits on IMDB -- turns out that that Amfitheatrof is his real name, and among his credits include his Oscar nominated score of Song of the South, The Claudette Colbert vehicle Guest Wife (another Oscar nomination) and several other Joan Fontaine movies, including Ivy and You Gotta Stay Happy.

In the beginning of the film, we see a man getting out of a carriage in front of St. Steven's church in Vienna. He is to fight in a duel later that evening. The year was 1900, and duals still went on. We assume it's due to his hard living, hard drinking lifestyle; another character mentions he has a penchant for Cognac. As he walks into his home, it's raining, and the bells of the church sound - almost as to seal his fate.

His servant brings him the mail, which includes a multiple page letter from a mysterious woman. Who cold this woman be? The rest of the film tells the story...

Joan plays teenage Lisa, a young student who lives with her mother - presumably a widow - in an apartment building. Ophuls wants the audience to become the character of Lisa - we see what she sees, and hear what she hears.

Lisa starts to develop a serious crush on the next door neighbor, a concert pianist named Stefan Brand (a dashing Louis Jourdan), who is trying to make a name for himself. She loves listening to him practice Mozart and Liszt when he's home.

At first, I couldn't tell what age she was supposed to be, but later we find out she's about 17 years old. Youthful looking Fontaine, who was 30 at the time, is a convincing teenager here.

Lisa's infatuation with the musician inspires her to take dancing and music lessons.

One day she even sneaks into his apartment and looks around the flat. We see on the wall portraits of Gustav Mahler and Joseph Joachim, both well known Austrian composers of the time.

In these opening scenes, Lisa is shown hanging out with a friend her age, but this character soon disappears from the film. Perhaps this is intentionally to show that Lisa really didn't have any other friends beyond her fantasy of Stefan.

Meanwhile, Lisa's mother is being courted by a wealthy man. One day the mother sits down with Lisa to have a talk, and he announces that he will be getting married and that they will all be moving to Linz, a town in upper Austria. The look of fear on Joan's/Lisa's face upon hearing the news is priceless.

Despite Lisa not wanting to ever be far from Stefan and his music, they all pack and prepare for the move anyway.

In the train station, right before boarding, Lisa decides at the last minute to run all the way back home; she wants to see Stefan just one more time. She nervously waits in her empty apartment until he comes home. Looking around the empty rooms, she remembers: "These rooms I used to live in were once filled with your music....Would these rooms ever come to life again? Would I?"

She hears a noise coming from outside, and she dashes to look....On the staircase, she sees Stefan and one of his female companions enter his apartment. Ophuls films from above the staircase as we see Stefan and the woman climb the stairs. However, we don't know exactly how she feels - is her heart broken? Will she forget about him forever now? The next scenes answer these questions....

A few years have now passed...Lisa is now living in the little town of Linz. The entire Linz sequence was filmed on a backlot, and the public square was nicely recreated. Lisa dresses fancier now, and has a gentleman friend.

One day we see the two of them walking by a military band, badly performing Wagner's "Song of The Evening Star", which was popular during that time. Though such a mediocre rendition is not how you'd expect to hear such a beautiful piece of music, it does seem to work in this scene. Just as there isn't any romance in the rendition, there isn't any romance in the relationship between Lisa and her suitor. Why? Because she is still holding a torch for Stefan. Her suitor even proposes, but she refuses. With her mother and stepfather disappointed, she moves back to Vienna to get away from the pressure. So the diagetic music we hear from the band is symbolic is this scene - bad music during a painful experience in Lisa's life.

In a montage, we see her new life and career in Vienna. The clips show us that she now has become a successful fashion model with many new suitors, all of whom she refuses; she's still in love with Stefan, a man she has never met.

Then, one day, in the cold of winter, snow on the ground and all, the meeting finally occurs. She's waiting outside his apartment, just as she does every single night. Meanwhile, a street band plays a watered down piece by Strauss. "Do you like to listen to street singers?", he asks. She pauses. "Neither do I", says Stefan. This suggests they need more romantic music, perhaps a full orchestra even. (Later on, destiny has them both meeting up at an opera.)

They go on to have a wonderful, dreamlike evening filled with dinner, long talks, dancing - all the romantic elements of a "perfect date".

They take a long walk together through Prater Park, and as they walk we hear a famous waltz that is often associated with amusement parks or trapeze acts, "Over the Waves" by Juventino Rosas. Because the music is so familiar to us, we think of happy times in our own lives.

The next scene is my favorite in the film.

Ophuls directs a simply amazing sequence. Lisa and Stefan find themselves on the most interesting amusement ride -- a little train car with a window, and on the outside is a moving drape with scenery that simulates a moving ride. Scenes of Paris, Rome, and Switzerland generate romantic images.


One of the great scenes of all time, so brilliant because the ride is symbolic of their night together - temporary and phoney


It's kind of cute when Stefan continues to buy more time on the ride. And the conversation on the ride is a fascinating look into these characters. We learn more about Lisa; she traveled quite a bit with her father and mother when she was a child, she says. Stefan asks her more about her father, but she quickly changes the subject, for reasons that are left to us to interpret. Her father may have died when she was a very young girl.

In a music hall, they dance to a waltz by Strauss, performed by a female band. And they dance all night, right up until closing time. One of the musicians delivers one of the best lines in the film - "I like to play for married people, they have homes".

When the band finishes and steps down, Stefan goes up to the piano and plays a Mozart piece (by either Liszt or Mozart, I couldn't tell) while Lisa watches in awe. Ophuls took great care to film the piano-playing convincingly; I'm not sure if Louis Jourdan played in real life, but he really gets the fingering accurate in this scene.

Another shot that really impressed me is when Ophuls captures Lisa looking up at him playing. This reminded me of Lulu at the end of Pandora's Box

The night of bliss culminates when they finally make love that night, which is implied. There's no need to be overtly graphic; we get the idea when they embrace and kiss in the shadows of his flat. In fact, some of the most emotional scenes in the film are dealt with rather quickly; there aren't any drawn out scenes that you might see in other films considered melodramas.

The next day, Stefan tells Lisa that he must leave for a short 2-week trip to Italy where he will perform with his orchestra.

But he doesn't come back after 2 weeks.

In a twisted turn of events, Stefan abandons about Lisa. We realize that Stefan never thought of her but anything but just another one of his one-night-stand girlfriends.

While he's away, Lisa bears Stefan's child, a boy, and marries a wealthy man, Johann Stauffer (Marcel Journet). She names her son "Stefan"

The story fast-forwards about 10 years. We realize that Lisa has come along way from naive teenager when we first met her - now she's a mature adult, giving advice to her young son, a very intelligent boy. Joan manages this transition brilliantly.

In a later scene, Lisa has to put her son on a train for school. In a great example of Ophuls' repeating elements - the son assures Lisa that he will see her again in two weeks. This reminds us when Stefan promised her the same thing. Both of those scenes mark dramatic changes in her life.

One night, Lisa and her husband prepare for a night at the opera (Mozart's "The Magic Flute"). As the couple returns to their seats after intermission, Ophuls shows us a long take of the couple ascending the staircase of the lobby, a magnificent shot. Suddenly - she sees Stefan in the lobby. Stefan eyes her too, and Lisa is so filled with emotion that she needs to leave the opera house right when Act 2 begins.

"Suddenly, everything was in danger, everything I thought was safe"

She meets Stefan outside and they talk for several minutes. His mind clouded, he doesn't remember the night they had together, but he keeps asking her, "I've seen you somewhere before, haven't I"?

During our class discussion, one of the students thought that he had a mental illness. I thought he was drunk myself. He certainly became a dissolute by this point. In the theater, ordinary people gossip about him as being a has-been.

Scared, Lisa - along with Johann - leave the theater and return home. Having seen the two together outside, Johann is now suspicious, and wants to know what is going on. "We have a marriage" he reminds her. "You have a will - you can do what is right or throw your life away (by going back to him)".

But Lisa can't help it - she still loves Stefan, and thinks about him constantly. At one point, she concludes, "He needs me as much as I need him". The next night, Lisa returns to Stefan's apartment. Johann Stauffer follows her and notices that she goes in the apartment. Our instructor explained that Johann would be even more inflamed with him than he is with her, since he let her inside.

When she arrives, Stefan is excited at the chance to talk to this mysterious, familiar-looking woman again, and plans to celebrate the occasion with dinner and wine. He's still a bachelor, and still lives with his faithful servant, who remembers Lisa from over 10 years ago when she helped him carry up a carpet. Because the servant is mute, he cannot communicate this to Stefan.

Lisa is prepared to remind him about the night, and to tell him he has a son. "I have something to tell you", she says...but never finishes. Stefan keeps talking without letting her finish. For the most part, he talks about being washed up, and no longer does concerts like he used to.

Lisa wonders if he can still play the piano, but it's locked up, and is hardly ever used anymore, he tells her.

The music has been silenced, and this devastates her inside. Our instructor said that it is at this moment when she realizes she was never really in love with him, but the music all along.

She leaves. Ophuls gives us a nice shot of her walking down the stairs, a high angle shot. --- It's the same shot we saw early in the film, where she - as a young naive girl - noticed Stefan with the other woman (another example of repeating elements). Now, she's the woman she always wanted to be, but she's a different woman now.

Her life then takes a turn of events that changes her fate forever. She is infected with Typhus, which she caught from being on the train car with her son, who dies from the disease.

Knowing she will die, she writes a multi-page letter to Stefan...

The story resumes in the present, with Stefan continuing to read the letter to the very last page.



He finally sees photos of the son he never knew he had. "You would have been proud of him" she wrote in the letter.

Stephen then goes off to the duel - with Johann, we learn - and we don't know what happens after that. We hear the bells from the ironically named St. Steven's Cathedral - another exaple of Ophuls' repeated elements.

---POST-SCREENING DISCUSSION---


This is a fun movie to discuss. Everyone in the class was impressed with it. We talked about whether or not this is a melodrama (our instructor doesn't think so, and I tend to agree). Others in the class, including myself, agreed with our instructor that this is really about a romance between a woman and music, not necessarily a man and a woman.

Regarding the Stefan character, Ophuls perhaps saw himself in this character, and could relate to his womanizing (Ophuls was known to have a mistress). It's not until the very last scenes with Stefan do we as the audience really start to feel some kind of sympathy for this character. Fitting, because the film is mostly all from Lisa's point of view. Some have even called this a woman's picture.

We also talked more about Ophuls being the paradigm case of auterism, because he inpired the whole theory. Film critic David Thompson is a fan of Ophuls' films and has written many positive things about this film in particular.

Ophuls and screenwriter Howard Koch (Casablanca) stay true to the the original novel, according to our instructor.

It's certainly a film that would be enjoyed by any fan of classical music. Ms. Fontaine herself has always been a fan, and I could see her enjoying making this movie. But I'm surprised she did not write more about the making of this film in her 1978 autobiography, No Bed of Roses.

---FINAL THOUGHTS---


The performances of the two leads, director Max Ophuls' fluidity of the camera and the beautiful music throughout combine to form a beautiful piece of cinematic art.

Once you see it, you will never forget it.

7/01/2010

Caught (1948) starring Barbara Bel Geddes, Robert Ryan, and James Mason

(Note to readers: spoilers ahead!) A very heavy melodrama from Max Ophuls (much more melodrama here than Letter from an Unknown Woman)

It is based on a book called "Wild Calendar" --
if anyone has any ideas why it's called that, please let me know. No one in the class had a clue.

Regarding the original title of the book ("Wild Calendar"), Gerald was kind enough to write in and add his thoughts on the subject:

In Lutz Bacher’s “Max Ophuls in the Hollywood Studios,” 1996, he gives background on the novel which was the basis for the film. Describing the plot of the novel: “… the events of Maud Eames’ life fail to conform to the calendar her ideal of happiness demands …” Bacher later states “At seventeen (she) loses her chance at a youthful romance” (and later) “attempts to turn back the clock at twenty nine.” Hence, I suppose a wild calendar.


For the film adaptation, the title "Caught" is much more apropos - it describes the situation of Barbara Bel Gedde's character of Leonora, trapped in an abusive marriage with a verbally abusive spouse (Robert Ryan).

When we first meet Leonara, she's a young daydreamer looking at fashion magazines with her party-girl, rich-man seeking roomate. In the book, the roomate commits suicide because she has a child out of wedlock. In the film, this has been changed, but it gives you an idea of what kind of a mood to expect.

She meets and marries Ryan's millionaire character Smith Ohlrig but soon gets to a point where they never look each other in the eye when they talk to each other. When she can't take any more of his abuse she runs away and finds a job as a receptionist in a doctor's office. James Mason is the doctor, and he's pretty much a jerk as well, criticizing her and everything from the very start. Nonetheless, he and Leonora form a relationship, even with a baby on the way.

Other than the stunning camerawork, what people tend to remember about this film is the miscarriage scene, and how it's treated as Leonora's "escape" from her tormented life. One of the doctors in the hospital just "matter of factly" states that the baby has died, and he's relieved that she no longer has to worry about the child ever being abused by Smith. One can also find a message about societal classes, especially the very last scene when Leonora's mink coat is disgarded by the James Mason character (he tells one of the nurses in the hopital to take it away because "she doesn't need it anymore"). All along, his character has tried to explain to Leonora that money does not buy happiness.

Our instructor's take on this this film is that it's about a woman caught in a patriarchal system, especially a woman in that time period, and she said "this film has not been surpassed." Could this be Ophuls' idea of what it is like to be a woman, perhaps? Also, she sees similarities between this movie and a more modern Blue Steel from 1990, directed by Katherine Bigelow and starring Jaime Lee Curtis, a film I have not seen.

Also in the class we learned that the Robert Ryan psycho is supposedly based on Howard Hughes. Hughes was the one who infamously fired Ophuls from Vendetta, so this is not surprising.

This film had no less than two directors attached to it during filming. At one point, Ophuls got very ill and had to take some time off. In the meantime, a new director was brought in - John Berry (1917-1999). He, like Ophuls was just starting his Hollywood career. However, he was let go rather abrubtly by the producers when Ophuls came back, which upset a number of people in the crew who walked off the production (writer Preston Sturges being one of them).

A very fractured behind-the-scenes story, indeed. I don't think Ophuls was happy with this film. He would direct one more picture in the United States, The Reckless Moment, also with Mason.

As a final bit of trivia, Ginger Rogers was originally supposed to play Leonora, interestingly.

Not long ago, Laura wrote a good review of this movie on her blog.

6/29/2010

Letter From An Unknown Woman (1948)

"Letter From An Unknown Woman" was originally a 1922 novella by Austrian writer Stefan Zweig (1881-1942). Hollywood adapted the story in 1933 as Only Yesterday with Margaret Sullivan and John Boles, and directed by John M. Stahl (Leave Her to Heaven, Imitation of Life). Undoubtedly, fans of the original novel - including those in Hollywood - wanted to see a more accurately adapted film version, set in turn-of-the-century Vienna, 1900.

After Joan Fontaine's marriage with Brian Aherne ended in 1945, she dated respected producer John Houseman, and the two were engaged for a time (the engagement ended due to John's overbearing mother, per Joan's autobiography)

In 1948 Joan and her husband, producer William Dozier, formed a new production company called Rampart Productions, where they would serve as co-executive producers on film projects.

In the meantime, filmmaker Max Ophuls was looking for work since he moved to America. He became good friends with top talent such as Preston Sturges and Houseman (who eventually produced the film for Rampart). In 1946 Ophuls was fired from the first production he was associated with, possibly due to arguing with others in the studio system; he very much wanted to be in control of all aspects of the film, and especially wnated to be as mobile as possible with his camera as he shot the actors. Douglas Fairbanks Jr. gave him his first break with The Exile, a mild success with audiences (I haven't seen that film yet). For his second project, it's quite likely that Ophuls was familiar with the Zweig story enough to want to film it.

It's not hard to understand why Joan and Dozier would be attracted to the Letter project. For one, Joan was working on Billy Wilder's musical The Emperor Waltz for Paramount that same year, and like Letter, was also set in Austria. Wilder may have even talked her into the project, if not suggesting it personally. Secondly, music is a main theme of both Letter and Waltz, and Joan is a lifelong classical music fan (one of her favorite composers is Rachmaninoff).

Speaking of music, so many of Joan Fontaine's films are remembered for their musical scores or themes - Rebecca & Suspicion (score by Franz Waxman), September Affair (where Joan plays a pianist), Serenade (with Mario Lanza), and Tender is the Night (featuring its Oscar nominated title song).

Joan, in her autobiography, remembers working with Ophuls: "With [Ophuls], I communicated intuitively. After a take, Max would come over to me and start to speak in German, which I scarcely understood. I would nod before he had said six words and he would then resume his position behind the camera. After the next take was completed, he would rush over and say, "How you know egg-zactly vot I vont? Preent
dat!"


Letter didn't do well at the box office when it was first released, and this may have contributed to the demise of Rampart Productions, which folded after just two productions: Letter and You Gotta Stay Happy (with Jimmy Stewart). Ironically, the inspiration for the name "Rampart" was to project feelings of sturdiness and longevity. Also sadly, Joan and Dozier were divorced in 1951.

I don't say this about too many films, but Letter is a masterpiece. One of Joan's best films, and, as many have said, one of Mr. Jourdan's best as well, next to Gigi. Many feel they both give the best performances of their careers in this movie.

Over the years, Letter has become a favorite among film historians and buffs.

It was also the #1 most requested film from fans of Turner Classic Movies for quite a long time before it finally aired on the channel in April of 2010 as part of a Louis Jourdan marathon.

I will have a deeper analysis of this film in an upcoming post.



6/17/2010

Max Ophuls

This week I had my first class in a 6-week film appreciation series devoted to the films of Max Ophuls, who is regarded as one of the great auteur directors of French cinema.

The films in the summer series are :

June 16: Liebelei (1932)
June 23: Letter from An Unknown Woman (1948)
June 30: Caught (1949)
July 7: Le Plaisir (1952)
July 14: The Earrings of Madame de... (1953)
July 21: Lola Montès (1955)

Our instructor is of the opinion that Ophuls fits the definition of "auteur" much more than the films of Jean-Luc Godard or François Truffaut, also regarded as auteurs.

His films are known for two distinctive styles: 1. Mobile framing / mobile cameras and dolly shots, and 2. Long takes, shots that endure for a long time.

He was born Maximillian Oppenheimer in 1902 in Germany on the border of France, and he grew up speaking both languages fluently. He pursued a career in acting at a relatively young age, and took the stage name of Max Ophuls once he started work in the theater. He either appeared in or directed hundreds of plays over time, and in the late 1920s even pursued films; he went to Berlin's UFA studio to work as assistant, and then made some attempts at his own films.

His first film attempt was a 40 minute comedy called "Dann schon lieber Lebertran" (1931) which translates in English as "I'd Rather Have Cod Liver Oil". Ophuls wasn't happy with the film, and never attempted such a comedy again.

He made Liebelei in 1932, which was based on a somewhat dark play by Arthur Schnitzler about relationships, affairs, and tragedy. Our instructor said that in English, the word "Liebelei" translates into "Games of Love". She said that the Viennese people are fascinated with issues of love and death, and that this would be something audiences would be able to relate to very well in this era of Freud. There's all sorts of situations the main characters find themselves in, love triangles and the like, and it's an impressive film from a new director. Even though Ophuls' background was in theater, this isn't a "theatrical looking" film. But the print we watched was very bad. It was also a poorly recorded VHS tape copy. The white subtitles were often cut off on the left side and very hard to read whenever there was something white in the foreground. I will have to watch the movie again another time, perhaps if its ever restored. Our instructor said this movie is the only German film that is avialable of his.

A Jew, Ophuls had to flee Germany not long after this was made. He moved to France, but he wasn't safe from the Nazis there either.

In the United States, he wanted to do more films, and befriended Preston Sturges, who helped him along the way. In 1946 he was slated to direct a film Vendetta, but was fired for reasons I don't know about exactly yet. He tried again and directed The Exile produced and starring Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. In his next film he directed Joan Fontaine in Letter from An Unknown Woman, which is arguably his most famous work. He made 4 films in the US before moving back to France, where he directed some wonderful movies such as Le Plaisir, which I haven't seen yet but is part of the film series. Ophuls himself was the set designer on the picture, and he was nominated for an Oscar in the US.

On the sets, he drank Schnopps with his lunches every day, he was just that kind of guy. Peter Lorre was a good friend of his. People who worked with him loved working with him, including James Mason who even wrote a poem about him.

He died in 1957 of heart disease and was buried in Paris.


This is the official description of the film series from the website and print ads:

"The camera exists to create a new art and to show above all what cannot be seen elsewhere: neither in theater nor in life. Otherwise, I'd have no need of it; doing photography doesn't interest me. That, I leave to the photographer." (Max Ophüls)

Long praised as a consummate auteur, Max Ophüls commanded control over all aspects of his films, including cinematography and post-production work. His style, exhibiting a commitment to grace, beauty, and sensitivity, celebrates what the camera is able to create. Choreographing the extreme feelings involved in human relationships with an endlessly mobile camera and long takes, Ophüls explores dimensions of time, movement, and fate. The compositions in his films overflow into what film theorist Laura Mulvey calls "ecstatic and extended moments," into which he often incorporates strong visual irony. Ophüls, German-Jewish by birth, was truly an international director. At Ufa in Berlin, he made his first films, among them Liebelei (1932). In 1941, after failed attempts to stay in Europe during Hitler's regime, directing films in Holland, Italy, and France, Ophüls finally moved to the United States as one of the last exiled directors to arrive. Among his American films are Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948), starring Louis Jourdan and Joan Fontaine, and Caught (1949), with Barbara Bel Geddes and James Mason. Upon returning to Europe and settling in Paris in 1950, Ophüls made the films that form the high point of his career, including his last, Lola Montüs (1955), his only film in color. In this class, we will experience the pleasure of being able to watch most of Ophüls' French films, which disappeared from public view, but recently have been re-released.

Therese Grisham has a Ph.D. from the University of Washington in Seattle and was awarded a Fulbright lectureship to the University of Dresden, following which she won a teaching award in film studies. She now teaches film aesthetics and history at Columbia College Chicago and film analysis and media and culture at DePaul University. She has previously taught courses at the Facets Film School, including Watch the Skies! Science Fiction, The 1950's and Us, Through a Technicolor Mirror: The Films of Douglas Sirk and Julien Duvivier: Master of Versatility.