Elia Kazan

Message

skuhn8 · #1 Post by **skuhn8** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:08 am

Thought we could continue a conversation started elsewhere and just talk about Elia Kazan the Director here. I've only seen four of his films (just got the Williams box set so am looking forward to seeing Baby Doll soon).

DIRECTOR FILMOGRAPHY for reference
The Last Tycoon (1976)
The Visitors (1972)
The Arrangement (1969)
America, America (1963)
Splendor in the Grass (1961)
Wild River (1960)
A Face in the Crowd (1957)
Baby Doll (1956)
East of Eden (1955)
On the Waterfront (1954)
Man on a Tightrope (1953)
Viva Zapata! (1952)
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
Panic in the Streets (1950)
Pinky (1949)
Gentleman's Agreement (1947)
Boomerang! (1947)
The Sea of Grass (1947)
Watchtower Over Tomorrow (1945) (uncredited)
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945)
The People of the Cumberland (1937)

And here's my limited take on Kazan:

I watched Streetcar Named Desire yesterday with the specific purpose of--well--enjoying it, but also to look for those chinks that can be found in those films that have not aged well. I couldn't find any. As to Brando being the sole beacon making this film worthwhile, couldn't disagree more. Kim Hunter did an excellent job as did Malden. And if Leigh isn't the best for the role she certainly puts so much gusto into it. Turn the volume off during some of her scenes and just watch her physical presence and movement. She did an excellent job. And what about the blocking, the camera movement in this claustrophobic drama, the incredible lighting and set design, albeit limited. ....But then, I think as great as it all is, Brando is really amazing to watch. The visceral presence. When he's sitting on Blanche's travel chest waiting for her with a wry smile. Amazing.

It's great to see how two years of theatrical "rehearsal" can come to the fore and make the silver screen ignite. Beyond that, there is something so "American" about it--this comes off as a stupid statement but will try to elaborate by means of arbitrary comparison. What is attempted here is not so unlike Bergman's chamber films which were in turn an offshoot of his prolific stage work. But where his work reflects what might be seen as more of a reflection of Scandinavian internalization, of play on silence beyond the margins of its characters' existence [i.e. the quest for Truth, for God or for Truth in a Godless existence, Being and Nothingness, and the whole lot] Streetcar explodes with sound and mayhem, with characters struggling as much against themselves as against each other or at least that can be said of two characters in particular: Blanche and Mitch. For, except for the tacked on "moral" ending, Stella and Stanley know damn well who they are. Common? Indeed. But it is this being common that allows the characters to find a rest in motion denied Bergman's players who move about as intellectual symbols or signifiers working out dilemmas that are unsolvable. Huh. Or maybe not. Just a thought.

As for On the Waterfront: I think this is another untouchable classic, whatever the cloying politics that may lie behind it. I honestly don't think of the unfortunate episode with the HUAC when watching his films, making a point of keeping it separate, which may be as unfair as burying him for those very politics since art and artist are inseperable in a way.

East of Eden is troublesome. I love the film, but then I am in love with its location. Monterey was just about my backyard until recently and the film's cinemaphotographer did a marvelous job capturing that coastal mist which is so essential to the geography and looms over so much of Steinbeck's prose. I also find James Deans' performance a revelation. He really is the character, but unfortunately he is surrounded by some very doltish performers. His "brother" (Richard Davalos) is useless as an actor and my love of the book prevents me from accepting Julie Harris as Abra (she just comes off far too wise and--well--old) or the one-dimensional Raymond Massey who acts as if he just stepped off a 1930's Cukor soundstage. [I'm not happy with the changes from book to screenplay either but don't think it's fair to hold that against a film.] All in all I think it's a good film with a great turn from Dean. And here is where I have trouble with Kazan the director. I get the impression in some of these films that he gives his actors far too much freedom to operate on their own individual interpretation of character and situation without assuming the director's essential responsibility of reigning his players in and communicating a unified vision. He should have seen that Dean and Massey were acting as if they were not even shooting on the same film. And if he couldn't kick Massey up a notch then he should have taken the--albeit unfortunate--step of bring Dean down a notch.

Gentleman's Agreement--"uh...it's a think piece" [Almost Famous]--Have only seen this once and that was when the Fox Studio Classics DVD first came out, so would need to revisit it, but all in all I enjoyed the film. I don't see any particular Kazan mark or signature on it, however. And Peck slips into his wooden Al Gore routine occasionally. I just remember wincing whenever his son said anything at the breakfast table. They certainly let child actors get away with thespian homicide back then.

My limited impression is that he was not a great director, but that he made some great films nonetheless--geez, that sounds stupid, I'm tired. sorry.

Thoughts on the man?

marty · #2 Post by **marty** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:20 am

Elia Kazan is a traitor and I hope he dies in hell!

jcelwin · #3 Post by **jcelwin** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:56 am

marty wrote:Elia Kazan is a traitor and I hope he dies in hell!

Well, he is dead... can you die again in hell?

jesus the mexican boi · #4 Post by **jesus the mexican boi** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:40 am

jcelwin wrote:
marty wrote:Elia Kazan is a traitor and I hope he dies in hell!
Well, he is dead... can you die again in hell?

LOL

Scharphedin2 · #5 Post by **Scharphedin2** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:30 pm

Skuhn, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on Kazan, and it reminded me how long it has been since I actually watched any of his films, although he was one of the first directors I became aware of, when I began taking a serious interest in film.

Just looking at Kazan's list of credits, and considering the long line of amazing screen performances that these films represent, I find it difficult not to acknowledge Kazan as a "great" director. Furthermore, considering the times in which many of these films were produced, and first seen by audiences, they display a lot of guts and boldness on Kazan's part in terms of subject matter.

As stated in your piece, some of these films are almost beyond criticism, and it can be difficult to say much that is new about them. I believe (aside from James Dean's iconoclastic performance) EAST OF EDEN is generally commended for the mastery of use of cinemascope in several scenes. I remember that this was one of the first films that I saw, in which I really understood the possibilities available to a director when working with a wide screen, and it was one of the first films I managed to get in letterbox on laserdisc. The use of the locales, the staging of the characters within their environments (especially those early scenes of Dean loitering outside his mother's brothel), the sense of space and color -- this is truly a lovely film.

ON THE WATERFRONT again has great performances, and there are the unforgetable scenes that everyone knows -- the "contender" speech in the back of the car, the scenes between Brando and Saint, etc. Again, I saw this a while ago, and was of course taken with the performance of Brando, the gritty, and the documentary atmosphere of the film as a whole, but what I remember made just as big an impression was the unsung performances by Steiger, Malden and especially Lee J. Cobb and Eva Marie Saint.

Then there is SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS, which I remember really struck a chord with me, when I saw it as a teenager. It is all about young people in the thirties, and how their burgeoning sexual desires were being repressed by social mores and traditions. Nathalie Wood is really charming in it as I remember it, and Warren Beatty was excellent in one of his first performances.

Going back almost twenty years, I saw STREETCAR, VIVA ZAPATA and THE LAST TYCOON... These were some of the very first "classic films" that I chose to see on my own initiative (renting them at the local video store). I remember really enjoying them, and they helped to lead me on to many other great discoveries, but it would be unfair to comment on them in detail so many years later.

I look forward to (re-)discovering Kazan soon.

Marty -- I have read many of your posts in this forum, and as I recall you often have something valuable and insightful to add to the various discussions. I think the post above was unnecessary and unworthy of you.

Polybius · #6 Post by **Polybius** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:54 am

His later film, Wild River, is one that I've always liked. It has a nice early performance from Lee Remick (who had already stood up nicely with Stewart and George C. Scott in the great Anatomy of a Murder) and a typically raw and open hearted performance from the post-accident Montgomery Clift.

As for Splendor, yeah, it's melodramatic, but God...I love it, so. Natalie Wood just skins herself on camera through most of it, emerging out the other side more gorgeous, more perfect, than anybody has ever looked on screen. That last visit she makes to Bud's house, the regret, the unfulfilled possibilities that hang in the air between them...it's amazing.

I don't want to open this up again, but...let's just say this: if I had been there that night at the Oscars when Scorsese and DeNiro herded him onstage...I might have clapped. A little.

But no power on Heaven or Earth would have gotten my ass out of that seat.

Michael · #7 Post by **Michael** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:59 am

I don't see any particular Kazan mark or signature on it

I'm curious. What would make it a Kazan mark or signature? Of all the Kazan films that I've seen, each one looks like it could be directed by a different director unless I need to get my vision examined. I mean, look at East of Eden, A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront, Baby Doll, and Gentleman's Agreement ..they all differ in general feel, look and style, aren't they? Wild Strawberries and Cries and Whispers were made about two decades apart and it's easy to tell that both were directed by the same director. Ditto for I Vitelloni and Amarcord.

skuhn8 · #8 Post by **skuhn8** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:22 pm

Michael wrote:
I don't see any particular Kazan mark or signature on it
I'm curious. What would make it a Kazan mark or signature?

Was afraid someone would ask [me] that since writing the initial post. I've only seen a few of his films but my Kazan impression is the destructive power of youth coming-to-be which is why Gentleman's Agreement really feels like it could have been directed by one of many contract directors (but then Streetcar isn't really about that either is it?). I've seen the Splendour in the Grass trailer and it has that same vibe. But really this is a lame description. But I've heard Nicholas Ray's signature described as a fascination in alternative lifestyles..or ways of life or some such. Kazan seems to have a penchant for bringing together young 20-something actors and pulling epic performances out of them, usually with the older generation as a foil. I know this is by no means unique to Kazan, not by a long shot and.....

Does the guy have anything like a mark or signature? Short answer: I have no idea.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Michael · #9 Post by **Michael** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:33 pm

No big deal. I was just wondering.

What really matters at least to me is that he made Baby Doll. God, how much I love this film. I've seen it four times already in one month and it keeps getting better. The bizarre thing about my experience with Baby Doll is that not once the film feels like a Kazan film or a Williams film or a Baker film or a Wallach film, etc. It breathes on its own. It's absolutely perfect. I couldn't ask for a better film than Baby Doll.

Lino · #10 Post by **Lino** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:40 pm

skuhn8 wrote:
Michael wrote:
I don't see any particular Kazan mark or signature on it
I'm curious. What would make it a Kazan mark or signature?
Does the guy have anything like a mark or signature?

I'm glad someone asked this because the reason why I personally think his brand of filmmaking is so great is exactly that -- he has no signature at all. The only way you can link his films together is the sheer quality of the acting going on in them.

Kazan gave free rein to his actors and in this relies the true beauty of his films. And by doing just that, the actors become the film and vice-versa. You just cannot separate one from the other. When you think of On the Waterfront, you think of Brando. When you think of East of Eden, you think of Dean. When you think of Face in the Crowd, you think of Andy Griffith and his manic laugh. When you think of Baby Doll, you think of Baker. There is absolutely no way to dissociate the acting from the finished product.

Another of his greatest gifts was to find a way to tell the story that best suited his material. In other words, can you really imagine him shooting Baby Doll in cinemascope and color like he did with East of Eden, two films that he made back-to-back? He was very keen on what kind of film canvas he was after with each story.

He was an actor's director. And God bless him for that. He left us some of the best performances on film we'll ever, ever get. Isn't that enough?

#11 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:43 pm

Isn't that enough?

Not really.

Lino · #12 Post by **Lino** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:50 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:
Isn't that enough?
Not really.

Please don't be afraid to expand on that.

Polybius · #13 Post by **Polybius** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:10 pm

Actually, I don't think he had much of a visual sense, at all. I can easily imagine him shooting East of Eden in black and white with more interiors. He was a stage director at heart and dialogue was what was important to him. I've always said that dialogue and characters are the two main things that draw me to any fiction based medium, and I still do, but on film...you've got to bring more to the table than that. The canvas is just too big to ignore it and he often did.

I know the Tennessee Valley looks great in Wild River and there are other examples from his color films, but that's just because of where he was. I don't think it's a vital part of the experience in his films, the way it is for Anthony Mann or John Ford (who often had the opposite problem of having pretty backgrounds with stiffs in the foreground, mouthing banalities.)

neuro · #14 Post by **neuro** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:00 pm

Just pasting my comments from the "Lists" forum:

Out of all of Kazan's films, there are only three that I like (and they couldn't be more different from each other). Of these three, only one - East of Eden - seems to have anything to do with what's typically considered as Kazan's directorial approach (i.e. "The Method"). It's not really James Dean either; I've always thought that Dean was more interesting in hindsight (as an icon) rather than when you're actually watching him on-screen. The biblical underpinnings don't really help its case either. What gives the film legs is the way Kazan shoots it - the odd camera angles and the way that he plays with the cinematic frame in a response to the then newly-introduced Cinemascope.

The reason I like Panic in the Streets has little to do with the style Kazan became known for either. It's just a tight little noir with great New Orleans atmospherics and a delirious competition between two scenery-chewers: Zero Mostel and Jack Palance.

The aforementioned Baby Doll is great because of the risks it took at the time (although it still seems somewhat shocking today), as well as the absurdly carnal mood it creates (not to mention the great B & W cinematography). It's no wonder John Waters admires it so much - it beat him to the punch by a decade (although, in contrast to Waters, what seems shocking in Kazan's film has more to do with what's off-screen).

That said, I'll agree with zedz on Kazan (with the exception of East of Eden...and you might find it humorous to know that many think that Dean's "histrionics" were the result of a bad case of crabs). Despite these three minor masterpieces, I find most of Kazan's work troublesome. In fact, I think his most famous work - On the Waterfront - is offensive in the lengths it goes to rationalize Kazan's ratting to the HUAC. I'm also not the hugest fan of the acting style he helped create; I always think of Howard Hawks' response to Streetcar: "After I'd spent 20 years trying to scale down and simplify screen acting, Elia Kazan went and shot all my work to hell."

#15 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 11:25 pm

Myra Breckinridge wrote:
Mr_sausage wrote:
Isn't that enough?
Not really.
Please don't be afraid to expand on that.

Well, you know, there was no real explanation of why this was enough, so I decided I would simply disagree as the question begged and save myself some time.

Really, tho', any argument that scolds someone to be satisfied with the little they have rather than the largeness that they expect is unhelpful. And anyway, we should expect 'great' (as in perfectly suited to the film) acting from all movies; true, we do not often get it, but that hardly means we should praise settling for less, especially when all we are praising is a single element to the loss of every other element.

I can certainly understand loving a performance, but could never see myself praising a whole film--and further a whole ouvre--on the basis of one element that should logically be working towards something larger and not be and end in itself. Brando may give a great performance, but if it is to no end outside of itself then its rewards seem hollow. Finally, the mere allowing of actors to do great work is a fairly shallow aesthetic since it really reduces to just not inhibiting the work of others, and further shows no individual fingerprints--such a thing has been done by many other people and bears no special mark of the larger maker.

I am sure one can make a very compelling argument for admiring Kazan. Whether or not this is it is I am far more skeptical.

Derek Estes · #16 Post by **Derek Estes** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:55 am

Where's the love for America, America? This is one of my all time favorite Kazan films, and possibly his most under-rated. I found the story and performances to be beautiful and engaging. I also think the cinematography is quite stunning. Though I've always had a great respect for the man, regardless of politics.

kieslowski_67 · #17 Post by **kieslowski_67** » Tue Jun 27, 2006 6:20 pm

jcelwin wrote:
marty wrote:Elia Kazan is a traitor and I hope he dies in hell!
Well, he is dead... can you die again in hell?

They can burn him in hell for sure.

stroszeck · #18 Post by **stroszeck** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 2:38 pm

Based on the recommendations of some of the members on this forum, I finally watched A FACE IN THE CROWD last night. What a movie! I had NO idea that Andy Griffith could possibly be such a good actor -- what happened to his film career anyway? I've only ever barely seen him in those couple of shows he did throughout the years, but this was awesome. As for the movie, it is simply fantastic, and a much much better film than NETWORK, which I could not help but keep comparing it too. This one was more sublime (in spite of the Griffith performance) and more, I don't know, realistic? I think looking back now, perhaps if Network was shot in Black and White that that would make the difference? Anyways, A FACE IN THE CROWD certainly makes NETWORK look like a far-reaching over-the-top picture.

Oh yea, and I just received THE LAST TYCOON after ordering it from DDD but I'm kinda worried about watching it because I've heard some really bad things about it in various reviews over the last couple of weeks. Is it really that horrible of a Kazan film? I mean Nicholson, De Niro how wrong or flat can it go?

tryavna · #19 Post by **tryavna** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:37 pm

stroszeck wrote:I had NO idea that Andy Griffith could possibly be such a good actor -- what happened to his film career anyway?

Perhaps you haven't heard of a little movie called Spy Hard...?

Oh yea, and I just received THE LAST TYCOON after ordering it from DDD but I'm kinda worried about watching it because I've heard some really bad things about it in various reviews over the last couple of weeks. Is it really that horrible of a Kazan film? I mean Nicholson, De Niro how wrong or flat can it go?

Last Tycoon is a bit of an odd duck because it's a very faithful adaptation of an unfinished novel. F. Scott Fitzgerald had polished what was already written, but as I recall, it's only about 1/3 finished. Thus the movie, like the novel, ends abruptly and unsatisfactorily. Nevertheless, it's worth watching for some fine performances. (As if you wouldn't expect that in a Kazan film!) De Niro is particularly good in a quiet role, as is Jack Nicholson, and it's interesting to see those younger actors playing against old Hollywood pros like Ray Milland and Tony Curtis.

I like the film quite a lot, but I wonder if that's because I've also read the original unfinished novel.... (It's well worth a read, if you like Fitzgerald. I tend to agree with Edmund Wilson that it promised to be his best work.) Fitzgerald has been notoriously difficult to adapt to film, and I think Kazan does as good as job as anyone ever has.

Polybius · #20 Post by **Polybius** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:51 pm

tryavna wrote: Fitzgerald has been notoriously difficult to adapt to film

Ain't that the truth. I think he's co-holder of that title along with Faulkner (whose prose style doesn't really lend itself to narrative storytelling, unlike Scott's, which really does.)

skuhn8 · #21 Post by **skuhn8** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:24 pm

re: Baby Doll

Watched this one the other night and--wow!--I now understand the adoration that a few of our forum members have displayed over this one. What an exciting piece of cinema. Excellent performance of course and a great find in Carroll Baker. Watching Malden's Archie Lee come undone at the seems was a sight to behold, and the dynamic of having three leads adds to the rich tension--it just never lags. This one definitely inched out Waterfront for my number two spot (Streetcar holds the lead still) on Kazan films. A pervert classic.

Roger_Thornhill · #22 Post by **Roger_Thornhill** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:11 pm

I've heard that Kazan's testimony to the HUAC was largely useless and inconsequential since he named people the committee already knew about. And that if he just showed a little regret or didn't defend himself afterwards no one would really care. After all, Edward Dymytrk testified as well but since he regretted his decision it didn't follow him like a curse as it did for Kazan.

As far as Kazan the film director, I personally consider him more of a craftsman than an auteur if only because he never seemed to have a signature visual or thematic style; but I'm sure someone could construct (and probably has) a good arguement as to why Kazan is an auteur.

Polybius · #23 Post by **Polybius** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:34 am

Roger_Thornhill wrote:I've heard that Kazan's testimony to the HUAC was largely useless and inconsequential since he named people the committee already knew about. And that if he just showed a little regret or didn't defend himself afterwards no one would really care. After all, Edward Dymytrk testified as well but since he regretted his decision it didn't follow him like a curse as it did for Kazan.

Exactly. They just wanted the witnesses to grovel and do a dog and pony show. They threatened to kill off his work in Holywood and rather than refusing, he eventually knuckled under.

The problem comes with the fact that he really, really sold it. Hard. His testimony is full of hilarious claims (like that Pinky was intended by him to be anti-Communist

), and he took out a big ad in the New York papers soon after and loudly trumpeted his pride in what he had done.

The disingenuousness. That's why he was so widely loathed. Plenty of people finally testified (Sterling Hayden and Edward G. Robinson come to mind), but both had the simple decency to express regret over it, later.

And I could not care less about twits like Adolphe Menjou or Robert Taylor, who just saw an opportiunity to trash people whose politics they didn't like. That's scummy, but at least it's sort of aboveboard.

Gordon · #24 Post by **Gordon** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:32 pm

I like a few of his films, but the power in Waterfront comes directly from Brando, not Mr Kazan. Visually, his films aren't very daring, but thematically, A Face in the Crowd is very strong and is handled brilliantly in all depts. Panic in the Streets (1950) on the other hand, is AWFUL. How is this suburban cop melodrama with tonnes of bright daylight scenes and homey optimism considered Film Noir? A very, very safe film. Widmark as a concerned U.S. Public Health Service shuffler - what?! I want to see Dick talkin' trash and bustin' heads, not chasing down some loser with plague. Jack Palance is pretty bumbling and useless, too.

Generally speaking, Kazan was a genuinely good filmmaker and I think that without the whole HUAC debacle, he would be as prominent in the Cinema pantheon today. George Stevens is a similar kettle of fish - not the HUAC angle, but in the way he had these BIG VISIONS of Amerika that viewed today, don't seem that deep and often come across as light and low on energy. Meanwhile, Nick Ray, Sidney Lumet and Billy Wilder were ploughing similar fields and the results were stronger and less pretentious. But East of Eden is generally a triumph, which is quite an achievement considering the source.

swimminghorses · #25 Post by **swimminghorses** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:51 pm

Anybody have a secret crush on the never mentioned "Wild River"? Perhaps it is me and my thing for Monty but I have alway thought this film is severely underrated. Can it be underrated when no one even talks about it?