Emperor of the North Pole (Robert Aldrich, 1973)

[Gordon]

Robert Aldrich's unusual and intriguing 1973 film, Emperor of the North Pole was recently released by Fox. Excellent picture and transfer and thoughtful Dana Polan commentary. There's an easter egg in extras menu: push left to highlight Shack's hammer.

It's a wonderfully strange film. I keep getting the feeling that it is an allegory for life itself - life is the train that keeps pulling us along, apathetic if we fall off; Shack represents Death; A no. 1 represents true, earthy experience, cunning and will power; Cigaret represents the cocky ignorance and unpreparedness of most men to the "thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to" in life. The film reminds me, somewhat, of Henri-George Clouzot's masterful, The Wages of Fear (1953). Both films are parables of the fight against existential insignificance.

A no. 1 has a great dictate near the end of the bloody journey:

"You ain't stoppin' at this hotel, kid. My hotel! The stars at night - I put 'em there. And I know the presidents - all of 'em. And I go where I damn well please. Even the chairman of the New York Central can't do it better. My road, kid, and I don't give lessons and I don't take partners. Your ass don't ride this train!"

A no. 1 - or writer Christopher Knopf - is clearly trying to say something significant here: "The stars at night - I put 'em there" - that's a strange thing for a hobo to say. The characters are most definitely archetypes, so the story itself must surely be a parable. A no. 1 could possibly represent that intangible guiding hand that led man from the plains of Africa to the surface of the Moon - a hand that cannot be forced to reveal its secrets, like Cigaret tries to do through bluster, but it must be channelled carefully and without egotistical greed. "My road, kid, and I don't give lessons and I don't take partners" - in other words, you have to learn the skills of how to live through proxy, like the greasing of the tracks: A no. 1 teaches Cigaret - or tries to - without words how to control the speed of the train - life itself - and that is what we all strive for, but usually fail in frustration.

[milkcan]

I really liked this one, but didn't read it as deeply as you have. I'll have to check it out again, since I've done a lot of growing since I last saw it. That opening theme song was pretty funny, though! Loved the gritty action and performances.

[Der Müde Tod]

I was intrigued by this film as well. The other Aldrich films I've seen don't show the same stroke of genius, and, looking for an explanation, I went and watched another film written by Christopher Knopf as well: Kirk Douglas' Posse from 1975. It's available from Paramount , and it has striking similarities with the Emperor: There is the same obsession with trains, and the same conflict between evil law and good outlaw. Posse is clearly political, and I wonder whether there was a reason for writing two scripts in the early 70s, dealing with abuse of power in connection with railroads. Knopf also wrote 20 Million Miles to Earth (1957). The IMDB lists a few more titles (mostly TV) I am not familiar with. In any case, thanks, Gordon, for the great recommendation!

[patrick]

I love this film - there's a terrific review of the DVD in the newest Video Watchdog.

[Nothing]

Ah, there's quite a few 'genius' Aldrich films - Kiss Me Deadly, Attack, Flight of the Phoenix, The Grissom Gang.

Vera Cruz, The Dirty Dozen, The Killing of Sister George, Ulzana's Raid and The Longest Yard are close.

[akaten]

Ah, there's quite a few 'genius' Aldrich films - Kiss Me Deadly, Attack, Flight of the Phoenix, The Grissom Gang.

Vera Cruz, The Dirty Dozen, The Killing of Sister George, Ulzana's Raid and The Longest Yard are close.

No mention of Too Late The Hero? I was wondering if a mod could change this into a thread about Robert Aldrich films in general, would be good to have a lengthy discussion about his films, no doubt there are members here who have a lot of insight into his work.

I've just recently came across his work and been mightily impressed, so would appreciate any chance to read and contribute to a much needed debate on his films...

[Polybius]

I would put The Big Knife quite high on his list, myself.

Alan Sharp, who wrote Ulzana's Raid, also wrote the complex and (to my mind) brilliant neo-noir Night Moves a few years later.

A year before, Burt Lancaster appeared in another revisionist Western called Valdez is Coming, which I (slightly) prefer. They make nice companion pieces.

[akaten]

Alan Sharp, who wrote Ulzana's Raid, also wrote the complex and (to my mind) brilliant neo-noir Night Moves a few years later.

A year before, Burt Lancaster appeared in another revisionist Western called Valdez is Coming, which I (slightly) prefer. They make nice companion pieces.

I tend to feel that Aldrich had already revised the western with his early films, and that Ulzana's Raid is something else entirely but I'd need to watch it again to be sure (yet to see Last Sunset but maybe it offerds some insight to his changing approach to the western). I haven't seen Valdez is Coming but I saw a self financed film of Burt Lancaster's called Go Tell the Spartans (Ted Post 1977). Ideal companion piece and possibly my favourite Vietnam War film...actually I'll start a thread on it later.

Just watched Attack! last night for the first time, incredible piece of film making, almost like a crime melodrama set during the second world war (the line about criminal neglect springs to mind). The compositions of shots and the way it distorts the human form with the camerawork and lighting is the best I've seen in an Aldrich film.

Could go on forever about this film however I'll start with the end (film criticism often operating according to backwards, retrospective logic and all) as it threw me of course. I thought I had a handle on the film, tough as nails, man before morality, squad mentality;

"The Geneva convention doesn't apply out here."

Concepts of morality, politics, law, and justice being bureaucratic, business like conceits that do not take into account the actual nature of conflict. And yet it is the Captain who carries the burden of trying to reconcile the politics of war making top brass and the war fighting grunts. As Captain Cooney believes it would be preferable if the military was run more like a business, not up to the task and hence the flashpoint occurs at this rank. Also note the remark to the SS Officer that all Captains are alike, disdain for this role, but in a pragmatic sense isn't it a necessary role in the army?

Perhaps I'm also way off on Attack! Because I had The Dirty Dozen on my mind specifically this line. "You did everything right, except get caught." The Dirty Dozen – law, justice and morality only exist after the fact, therefore if no crime is detected, no crime has been committed. Lee Marvin's last few lines in Attack! about having too much too lose to tell the truth made me think of this, there's too much at stake on the battlefield.

It seemed to me that the denouement would mean that Lieutenant would accept the promotion to Captain and keep quiet, "it is what you would've done," placing value on those still left alive in the platoon over the truth. In which case he's be a hero, and so would Captain Cooney (the judge had “to lose a son to get one,â€

[Nothing]

I love Attack. For me, the film ends quite brilliantly with the shot of the corpses. The brief scene that follows seems tacked on to please the studio and is best forgotten, or just turn off the DVD.

[souvenir]

I like Attack! also. The best Jack Palance performance I've seen probably. Eddie Albert is a little too extreme for me though, completely inept and cowardly without much depth at all. His character reminded me of Dubya so much it was eerie.

I see Emperor of the North Pole as the better film, completely intense, engrossing and memorable. Again, Keith Carradine's character is a little too one-note for my taste, completely outdone by Marvin and Borgnine. I can't imagine another decade when a somber, lyrical film about the plight of train-jumping hobos could have been made.

[jesus the mexican boi]

I can't imagine another decade when a somber, lyrical film about the plight of train-jumping hobos could have been made.

Call me a softy, or Mr. Softee, but I have a special place in my coeur du cinema for William Wellman's WILD BOYS OF THE ROAD. It shares some of the same ennui as EMPEROR OF THE NORTH, including the sadistic railroad dick (here played by Ward Bond). Definitely worth seeking out when it makes the rounds on TCM. And Warner Brothers, if you're listening, gimme.

[akaten]

Apologies for the late reply, had a quick read up on Wild Boys of the Road, sounds very intriging, would very much like to see it myself. Is it just me or does 30s cinema get the short end of the stick in DVD releases?

Oh finally ordered the Emperor of the North Pole disc, actually this was the first Robert Aldrich film I ever saw, must've been 17 at the time, left an immediate impression even if I couldn't fathom why at the time (or now for that matter!). So when I started to take a more active interest in cinema a year or so back his was one of the first names I looked up...

Eddie Albert is a little too extreme for me though, completely inept and cowardly without much depth at all.

I thought it was interesting how he regressed into a childlike state as the film went on, which actually neatly ties into Autumn Leaves. I believe it was a contract job for Robert Aldrich with Colombia, but he still manages to bring something differant from the norm, and the older woman , younger man relationship is intriging not least because the acting styles of Joan Crawford and Cliff Robertson accentuates the age difference. The extreme violence of the electro shock cuts inserted into the standard montage are notable, and it would seem the subject of schizophrenia is handled well, and is sincere in wanting to discuss it in depth, possibly as a way of drawing on psychology to give the melodrama credence.

However the stand out sequence to me was when Crawford wakes to find Robertson in a childlike pose against a wardrobe mumbling, as she reaches out to him he screams, cutting to a reverse shot through a double mirror (breathe on the mirror adding to the intensity) and she cradles him, coming to the awful realisation of both his condition, and that she is like a mother to him.

Still for the large part it is largely static film making (yet Aldrich won the Silver Bear for directing in Berlin, go figure!) the dialogue can be overcooked, and the ending is again dumb, the overt incest connotations of the relationship simply glossed over with a happily ever after ending.

His character reminded me of Dubya so much it was eerie.

I wonder what kind of film Aldrich would be making in todays world, some sort of lurid, gothic melodrama about a blast victim with organic shrapnel lodged in their body . Lastly, sorry I didn't know about this before, but there's a retrospective at BAM Rose Cinema entitled 'Overlooked Aldrich.' Only two films are remaining the new cut of Twilights Last Gleaming on the 25th July, and Ulzana's Raid on the 31st July.

At the latter, there will be a chat with Elliot Stein and Aldrich's daughter.

Could be interesting, recommend you attend if you can, and if you do go to the 6.50pm screening - please tell us what is said afterwards, would very much like to know.

[Polybius]

Alan Sharp, who wrote Ulzana's Raid, also wrote the complex and (to my mind) brilliant neo-noir Night Moves a few years later.

A year before, Burt Lancaster appeared in another revisionist Western called Valdez is Coming, which I (slightly) prefer. They make nice companion pieces.

I tend to feel that Aldrich had already revised the western with his early films, and that Ulzana's Raid is something else entirely but I'd need to watch it again to be sure (yet to see Last Sunset but maybe it offerds some insight to his changing approach to the western). I haven't seen Valdez is Coming but I saw a self financed film of Burt Lancaster's called Go Tell the Spartans (Ted Post 1977). Ideal companion piece and possibly my favourite Vietnam War film...actually I'll start a thread on it later.

Yes, that's a fine film. I need to see it again, it's been a few years.

All I really meant by using the term "revisionist" is that there is the body of films that started showing up in larger numbers in the mid to late 60's that told the story of the western experience in a more historically accurate and critical way, addressing themes like racism and genocide head on, depicting them as broad social forces instead of individual attitudes.

Not to say there hadn't been isolated examples before (Sam Fuller's Run Of The Arrow comes to mind), but it only became a widespread phenomenon from the studios in the time I'm talking about.

Valdez and Ulzana's Raid fall under that rubric, as do a lot of other films (Little Big Man, Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here.) That probably peaked with Altman's Buffalo Bill. Reagan's ascension signalled a return to ignoring all that unpleasentless, at least for a while.

[akaten]

Sorry for always responding slowly, as good as some of the discussions here are, unless you wanna discuss dvd sleeves and transfers, not worth checking daily.

I think we're just using the term revisionist in differant ways here, rather than disagreeing entirely - not sure about using 'historically accurate' and 'critical' at the same time though. What you're referring to would for me, be symptons of the New Left movement that was occuring in the United States, greater criticism of US foreign policy, and an overall questioning of the myths that exist regarding national identity.

I was thinking revisionist as in if orthodox appraoch to westerns were cowboys good, indians bad; one dimensional, savages even, then films that revised this and make out the opposite, or tend to sympathise and humanise the plight of Indians are revising the western. Films which offer a change the point of perspective either in part or in whole, such as Apache.

Actually I emailed Criterion asking them to consider Ulzanas Raid, in which I referred to it as "post-revisionist" in that it tries to show how neither side can reconcile after the fact (the fact being victory for white settlers on the frontiers) violence is the only way to secure power. I don't feel it fits into the New Left, which are often concerned with atrocities comitted, with references to the Vietnam War. In Ulzanas Raid violence is a means, and Vietnam references are present, but I wouldn't overstate them - its more a development of Aldrich's film making about personal moral codes, relativism and such.

To go back to Apache, to show what I feel is different in his portrayal of the period. In that film Aldrich originally intended Lancaster character to be shot in the back, and throughout there is this foreboding sense of inevitability to it, such a person cannot live, his moral code will not be compromised, to quote Aldrich:

"I felt he could not possibly be re-accepted or survive, for progress had passed him by. I respected his audacity, courage, and dedication, but the world no longer had a place for his kind."

Lancaster's pragmatic character in Ulzanas Raid cannot live and his death is inevitable allbeit for entirely differant reasons. White settlers and Apache will not reconcile, be at peace with one another, cannot live as equals, a person who acknowledges this, one who fears rather than hates Apache (Lancaster's Mcintosh) will die and those with power will dictate to those without.

[Polybius]

I think we're just using the term revisionist in differant ways here, rather than disagreeing entirely - not sure about using 'historically accurate' and 'critical' at the same time though. What you're referring to would for me, be symptons of the New Left movement that was occuring in the United States, greater criticism of US foreign policy, and an overall questioning of the myths that exist regarding national identity.

I was thinking revisionist as in if orthodox appraoch to westerns were cowboys good, indians bad; one dimensional, savages even, then films that revised this and make out the opposite, or tend to sympathise and humanise the plight of Indians are revising the western. Films which offer a change the point of perspective either in part or in whole, such as Apache.

Both of those are bound up in my personal use of the term. I'm not sure I would locate the idea so specifically with the New Left as a movement, myself. I think it was a feeling that reached critical mass in the cultural zeitgeist then, which was probably affected by them, but which seems to me (granted that I'm judging it in retrospect, and thus imperfectly, having been born in '67) to have been something with a broader base. It was a feeling that was present, even earlier, in some films. Even John Ford made an occasional nod to it.

Actually I emailed Criterion asking them to consider Ulzanas Raid, in which I referred to it as "post-revisionist" in that it tries to show how neither side can reconcile after the fact (the fact being victory for white settlers on the frontiers) violence is the only way to secure power. I don't feel it fits into the New Left, which are often concerned with atrocities comitted, with references to the Vietnam War. In Ulzanas Raid violence is a means, and Vietnam references are present, but I wouldn't overstate them - its more a development of Aldrich's film making about personal moral codes, relativism and such.

That assessment works just fine for me, too.

To go back to Apache, to show what I feel is different in his portrayal of the period. In that film Aldrich originally intended Lancaster character to be shot in the back, and throughout there is this foreboding sense of inevitability to it, such a person cannot live, his moral code will not be compromised, to quote Aldrich:

"I felt he could not possibly be re-accepted or survive, for progress had passed him by. I respected his audacity, courage, and dedication, but the world no longer had a place for his kind."

Lancaster's pragmatic character in Ulzanas Raid cannot live and his death is inevitable allbeit for entirely differant reasons. White settlers and Apache will not reconcile, be at peace with one another, cannot live as equals, a person who acknowledges this, one who fears rather than hates Apache (Lancaster's Mcintosh) will die and those with power will dictate to those without.

I'm at something of a disadvantage in this, in that I haven't seen Apache.

Valdez Is Coming is revisionist, to me, in that Lancaster's character is matched against a land baron and his thugs who are quite openly racist, towards him as a half-Mexican and towards the black guy they force him to kill in the incident that sets off the story. It crops up again and again in their underestimation of him. (Althogh to be precise, their leader is Mexican himself and is rather pragmatic.)

There is also the fact that when he was younger he was in the cavalry, fought Apaches and helped hunt buffalo on the plains with a Sharp's rifle, something that he regrets. It's symptomatic of his disillusionment with the whole Manifest Destiny enterprise. He mentions it once and a guy asks him when, His reply is "When I was young. Before I knew better." That is simply a spellbinding line that Burt hits perfectly.

It's an Elmore Leonard story and his Westerns often have a touch of this, a consideration of race and how it affects people's perceptions and actions (Hombre comes to mind.)

[akaten]

Perhaps you've a point with regards to it being broader, afterall, the western myth is indeliably inked into American popular culture, reactions in favour or against these myths must be widespread across the political spectrum.

Oh yeah, had a chance to finally sit down and watch World for Random Robert Aldrich, 1954) typing a few random thoughts now and will tidy it up later. One thing that struck me were subtle homosexual themes regarding male companionship (an article available via senseofcinema discusses this in more depth) that slipped under the radar, but also bisexuality, it would seem there was a shot of Marian Carr kissing another women while dressed as a man being cut, but the suggestion is still present without it (lifts woman's chin, close up, expressing anticipation if I recall).

World for Ransom essentially uses sets and cast, notably Dan Duryea who is great playing the lead, an ageing & unwitting private eye past his prime, (later seen taking out pillboxes, some transformation!) from the TV series China Smith. Interesting (for me at least) it has actual British cast with accents, not something seen until later this side of the pond. It also contains a great exchange late in the picture too:

"When did you learn how to use explosives?"

"My father was a General in the IRA."

"And mine a Colonel with the Black and Tans."

"Well you know what they say, rank counts for everything."

I was actually impressed by how Aldrich's stylistic and thematic preoccupations are already present, allbeit in its early stages to be refined at a later date. Filming through fabric and lace, chequered floors, objectifying the female form to suggest ulterior motive, but also in the script, the ransom for a Hbomb nuclear scientist.

Felt that the script gets bogged down in the middle third losing momentum, chase sequences, but crucially becoming very static during a key scene, the ransom for the kidnapped H-Bomb scientist being announced to the authorities. However, the action scenes, a curious combination of WW2 and Western conventions shot at low and high angles, ahead of the downbeat finale ("love is a white bird, that cannot be bought") more than compensates.

Certainly worth seeing if you're interested in the director, actually this thread has me thinking if I've ever the chance, or the ability, I would want to write a book on him, perhaps entitled Associates & Aldrich focusing on those he worked with, and his desire to be his own boss.

Anyways, I hope World for Ransom is released on DVD, ideally restored with the four episodes of China Smith that Robert Aldrich directed included as extras. No doubt wishful thinking on my part...