Gary Cooper: The Signature Collection

Discuss North American DVDs and Blu-rays or other DVD and Blu-ray-related topics.
Message
Author
User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#26 Post by Scharphedin2 » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:01 am

How is this film so deplorable, when seen in the context of Hawks' oeuvre? The values that York is representative of in this film are largely the same that Hawks habitually espoused in his films.

Also, as Lubitsch points out, it was a film produced during the war, designed to rally the nation around the flag, and as far as I know, it was one of the most successful Hollywood films in this respect.

As for the "lightning conversion" and the Bible opening on the correct passage... is this not simply "(economic) storytelling?"

There are many ways to approach films. I like to try and live in to the place and period in which they were made, and to meet a given film on its own terms. Certainly, there are other ways to view films, and that of course is a different discussion entirely. However, as a '40s Hawks/Hollywood film, I think Sergeant York displays exactly the kind of storytelling and craftsmanship/professional movie making that is emblematic of the period.

The Sergeant York, that I saw, was an exceptionally poignant and entertaining '40s film with excellent people in front and behind the camera, delivering some of their best work of the decade.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#27 Post by HerrSchreck » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:28 am

Scharphedin2 wrote:There are many ways to approach films. I like to try and live in to the place and period in which they were made, and to meet a given film on its own terms. Certainly, there are other ways to view films, and that of course is a different discussion entirely..
Amen, brother.

This is what baffles me, though not really. I was thinking of the SUNRISE thread where another viewer couldn't get with the film because she wouldn't behave as The Wife wouldn't, i e allow her husband back in so soon after contemplating violence.

Films for me are like women-- when I was in my teens and twenties I hunted (for relationships, that is) girls who shared my interests... who were interested in the things I was, were into the same music I was, were arts oriented, who would only hang out with the same kind of folks I would hang out with. Being a snotnose arrogant young bastard this led to terrible times where I felt disappointed and criticized chicks for this or that social or artistic indiscretion.. for not hanging out with those as down as I thought I was, or god forbid listening to pop music or seeing a fuckin Schwarzenegger movie.

As I got older I realized I was tormenting my relationships with an awful challenge and strain. A great weight was lifted as I grew up and sought out girls who were not like me at all (a good thing as I was a drinker, smoker, drug taker anyhow who had problems with the law)... I sought out goodie two shoes Ivory Snow girls who came from completely different worlds. Two completely different worlds coming together and making something new, cornball as that may sound it's real fucking pragmatic. And enjoyable and entertaining as hell, rather than reinforcing the same old iron monotone.

Isn't it fun to forget yourself for awhile and inhabit strange new worlds with strange new people? Isn't it interesting to drift off into a black and white world where everything has a candy gloss and good and evil are easy to define? Trust me, this here sinister world isn't going anywhere-- it'll be here with all of it's rotten facts when you get back. A single film cannot erase the sins against the "niggers" and the "redskins" :roll:

So who gets to make a patriotic war film, who had something worth fighting for? Not the Americans against Hitler? The Russians maybe? Remember that piece of shit Stalin? Is it neccessary to walk in with a laundry list of each sin committed by every potential protagonist to enjoy a simple tale? Lincoln didn't really "free" anybody, and he was a cold manipulating sonofabitch; Martin Luther King was known-- like JFK-- to be a philandering two timing bum who had his routine down in vaudeville terms. Mention Churchill or FDR and poison darts will fly. Margaret Meade? Go buy a fucking aquarium furguchrissakes.. anna dental dam while at it.

Who gets to have a movie? Aren't we all pieces of shit, somewhere somehow?

Just another example where, when we think we've nailed a film down at what it brings to us, it kicks back and tells us just as much about ourselves and what we bring to it.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#28 Post by tryavna » Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:22 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:Of course it's pure Sunday afternoon, watch it like a wide-eyed, opinion-free little kid flopped on the floor with a pillow with the resta the family on the couch kinda way.
I'm with Schreck on this one. When I was growing up, I remember that this was one of my mother's favorite movies. (She always was -- and still is -- a sucker for folksy humor. But there were also strong personal associations: She grew up in southern West Virginia, which isn't that different culturally or geographically from the area of Tennessee where York came from. And her father, who was also a WWI veteran, had actually met and thought highly of York.) So anyway, I remember seeing this film a number of times in my youth.

Watching the movie again several years ago, after I had come to know the work of Howard Hawks, I had a similar reaction to that of Lubitsch and David. It struck me as appallingly superficial and naive. But then I watched it again a couple of months ago -- during a rainy Sunday afternoon -- and found myself enjoying it immensely, in particular the effortless acting of Cooper and Brennan (who always made a good team). It probably helped that I was watching it simply to pass the time, rather than trying to dissect it as I sometimes do when I watch movies in the evening. At any rate, it reminded me of how entertaining the film was when I watched it with my mother years earlier.

As far as the "eye-rolling" moments in the film are concerned (like the thunderstorm conversion, the turkey-call sniping, etc.), I think the best approach is to consider it standard Hollywood bio-pic myth-making. The thunderstorm conversion has an honorable tradition dating back at least to Martin Luther, after all.

The other aspect of Sergeant York that I genuinely like is that it's one of the few films from its period that depicts Appalachian people and culture without really patronizing them. To be sure, there are still stereotypes, but the characters retain their dignity and aren't played for Ma-and-Pa-Kettle-type laughs.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#29 Post by Gregory » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:40 pm

This admirer of Hawks agrees with the consensus that this is one of his most flawed films (though I haven't seen any of the early, pre-Scarface work). The turkey-call thing that lubitsch mentioned gets at one of the worst, most propagandistic things about it: trivializing death on the side of "our enemy."
About the broader discussion here of values and ideology in film, my own position is that I most certainly don't have to agree with a film to find greatness or value in it. However, on the whole (and I emphasize that) film is not just about pure, meaningless beauty. It communicates things to us and of course these should be put in their appropriate contexts. Still, when a film attempts to sell me some extremely problematic notion (morally or otherwise), or that puts its arm around me and assumes that I share in some especially reprehensible idea or world view, that's naturally not going to play well in my appraisal of its project -- how well it accomplishes not just what it set out to achieve but really anything.
The crucial difference, I think, between HerrSchreck's position and mine is his cynicism, e.g. the apparent disdain for all of history and everyone in it without hesitation. I can sympathize with an iconoclastic or skeptical view of the "great" figures and ideals of the past that have been drummed into us, but his comments seem to go way beyond that, although maybe just rhetorically. And I admit my own approach -- watching films as a way of shedding light on often unpleasant issues -- is uncommon. I'm mostly incapable of escapism. Anyway, this part is really off the stated topic of the thread and not the kind of discussion that ever goes anywhere worthwhile on this forum anyway, so I'll drop it there.

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#30 Post by Scharphedin2 » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:29 pm

There is a quote that goes something like "...the sign of a cultured mind is that it can hold two contradictory ideas at the same time..." I unfortunately do not remember the source, maybe you can help me, Gregory... You generally come across as a more cultured man than I.

Sergeant York was released early in the forties; planned and produced I assume before the United States had formally entered in the war. If I understand history correctly, the United States both as a nation, and as a people, was still very much divided on the country's role in concerns of an international nature. Whatever our feelings about war, and the vast casualties and tragedies that it implies, I am sure we can agree that it was a good thing that the United States decided to enter into it. I know that my family was happy for it, and I think I would have been too (all my personal values -- which are anything but in favor of violent resolutions to problems, be they on a personal or social scale -- to the contrary). But the point is that it was not an easy decision, and it took many different arguments to convince the nation and its people that it should participate in another war. After all, why should the American people, who had come to this paradise called America only a few generations before, risk the lives of its young men, to step into a conflict that presently held no great risk to the American way of life.

From what little I know of Hawks and Cooper, they were "cultured" men; I am sure that they also knew that the nation was not peopled solely by cultured men and women, and that the vast majority of their audience in fact concisted of "uncultured" men and women. Furthermore, the people that would be asked to send their loved ones to go and fight and die in the trenches would come out of these uncultured masses. So, during the first two thirds of this film that is Sergeant York, we are treated to a wonderful depiction of how America saw itself at the time done up largely in glossy black and white images of the finest kind that Hollywood could produce at the time, as Schreck would have it, or, we may say it is meaninglessly beautiful. Here is a rich gallery of characters, people who are born with a little good and a little bad in them, and who choose (mainly) to be good people in the end. We are treated to an archetypical story firmly rooted in the American ideals of the time -- The one who is just prevails in the end; through hard work comes great rewards; the one who is true of heart wins the girl in the end; a culture based on respect for the Bible, and respect for ones elders. The idea of leaving ones native soil, to go to a foreign country and fight the people of another nation, does not sit easily with York's ideals and beliefs, but after much soul searching, he understands that to preserve all that he holds dear, he must go. He fights in the war, and he prevails exactly because of who he is, his ideals and beliefs; in short he fights as York the farmer from Tennessee, turkey-calls and all. He then returns from the war a hero, yet (I think) not proud of what he has done, and really in a hurry to return to the life he left behind. It may be just my eyes that are getting weak, but a film like Sergeant York in its own way sheds a lot of light on issues that were, and still are, unpleasant.

Is Sergeant York a "propagandistic" picture; sure. Is it more blatantly so than many another American film of the forties, or, of any other nation engaged in the war; I don't think so. I also do not experience the particular disdain for the enemy in this particular film that is described above. Yes, clearly the German soldiers are the enemy, and, yes, clearly York is an iconic hero, and he defeats the German soldiers perhaps too easily and with tricks like turkey-calls. However, I really see that as who York is, and it is again typical Hollywood story-telling technique. We have heard York talk about this turkey hunting technique earlier in the film, and what is more natural and in character than that he should employ this technique in fighting the enemy.

More interesting perhaps than a discussion of Sergeant York's merits as a picture of its time or any time, is perhaps the persona of Gary Cooper. Look at Cooper (in the probably twenty films or so that I have seen him in), and we see an image of everything that an American man should ideally be (at that time). The Cooper hero is always humble, integrous, generous, idealistic in a quiet way, slow to action, and able. In a way, I suppose one could say that Cooper was a walking, talking commercial for the American, and his way of life. I think, kids looked up to Cooper back in the day. That is another reason that some folks go to the movies, or used to anyway... to experience for a few moments, and possibly to learn, what it is to be a hero. I do not think the American nation was the worse for a Cooper; honestly, I think we could do with a Gary Cooper today. We may call this kind of film-going "escapism," but then "escapism" has its value too.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#31 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:15 am

Gregory wrote:The crucial difference, I think, between HerrSchreck's position and mine is his cynicism, e.g. the apparent disdain for all of history and everyone in it without hesitation..
I'm stripping naked and going into a cave and eating nuts birds & berries for the rest of my life-- if the sarcasm in my "historical condemnation" "list" didn't come across....

greg I was trying to say if we want to get into that lubitsch mode of throwing a "moral application" at every potential figure in every feature film, we'll become so bitter & cynical that there'd be no movies left to watch. I was emphatically arguing for NOT being so cynical, for NOT being so judgemental, because we all have something lousy about us someway, so.....?

That said, the only thing I have a problem with in your post greg is
The turkey-call thing that lubitsch mentioned gets at one of the worst, most propagandistic things about it: trivializing death on the side of "our enemy."
That's a conversation which takes place far far far after a World War is over, and far far behind a front line.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#32 Post by Gregory » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:58 am

HerrSchreck:

Believe me, I could tell you were being sarcastic or at least somewhat facetious, but I also think we can be informed by our humor, and I hope I didn't misinterpret. My reply probably could have been more thorough and thus clearer.
One problem here is that we seem to be using the word cynicism very differently.
Your reductio of lubitsch is based on a slippery-slope argument: if moral principles are involved in film criticism then cynicism will result because we'll end up judging everything harshly and there will be nothing left to watch or enjoy. If this is a fair representation of your point, then I would make two points in response. First, what I meant to defend was not the particular "lubitsch mode," not really knowing what that is, but rather the more school of criticism of film as engaging its ideological elements (and in this case, I agreed with some of the critiques of this film that had been made). Throwing that out in order to avoid potential pedantry is misguided in my view. Second, the normal flaw with the slippery-slope argument is that it doesn't show precisely how one thing leads to another resulting in the undesirable result. More to the point, I think one can make ideological and even moral critiques of a film according to consistent principles without condemning everything. To argue to the contrary, as I took your point to be, suggests that everything is equally deserving of condemnation -- everything is equally problematic and fucked up. That position is what I was terming cynicism. I hope this has made things clearer.
HerrSchreck wrote:That's a conversation which takes place far far far after a World War is over, and far far behind a front line.
The dehumanization of the enemy thing I mentioned gets at the basic issues that underlie the perceived legitimacy of war, but that extends into a huge, off-topic discussion, so I'll resist the urge to make any further reply on that.
davidhare wrote:The biggest problem with York is twofold ...
I agree with these points, more or less, and at least some crucial part of the reason that the propagandistic content is problematic in this film can be traced to precisely the ways in which it diverges from the organization of the themes that are central to Hawks' better films. This is a good example of the how ideology and aesthetics are bound up. The core ideals in Hawks' body of work depended not only on what they were but how he articulated them through the work (and never any other way, so there's a lot of room for interpretation).

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#33 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:58 am

Understood greg, and of course one should neither go completely one way or the other way. That is to say, become totally morally blind in the real world simply because one wants to enter into the false universe of mass market entertainment, or-- the opposite-- becoming so historically and morally demanding that nobody gets to make (or like, or be able to speak approvingly about) a war film, or propoganda film like YORK or BLIMP or COME AND SEE or RYAN. (Like I asked before-- before the bar of history, who is clean enough to make a war film? I'd like an answer to that one? If the American effort in WW1 &2 were not justified, whose were?)

My point is that there is no moral sacrifice in kicking back, watching a piece of superentertaining fluff like YORK, snapping it off and say "Well, a lot of that was, as relates to The Real World Here On Earth, a bunch of bullshit-- but I still had a great time watching it." One is no worse for the wear. It's called watching a movie on downtime for pleasure. I don't mean to sound facetious but isn't this screamingly obvious? Do we hafta chuck THIEF OF BAGDHAD because the charm laid over Haroun Al Rashid-types in the Tales masks the bloody limb chopping reality of medieval life under Islamic sharia, beheadings for nothing, etc?

I find these arguments collegiate. These are pieces of entertainment. They really have no "social or moral responsibility". This is Hollywood, "lies at 24 fps" etc. This is the "anti-world", not life itself. This is where folks go to find a simpler world, sometimes those which evolved back when life seemed to be less ambiguous, when our villains truly were black and white, and where heroes kicked their asses.

Take SCHNINDLER'S LIST. That movie is a tissue of rampant bullshit fore and aft-- historically. Emile Schindler tried to sue Spielbergs face right off of his skull because he warped it all deliberately and with aforethought just to wrap it all up into a male-heroic ball. But it's one of the few films that Spielberg has made over the past 20 years that I have unfettered admiration for. I'm somewhat of a WW2 historian, I have bookcases filled with classic & recent texts... but I still watch the film. Because it's just a film. They're just actors reciting somelines somebody wrote. Which is the point-- you watch it and disappear from the earth for awhile, flying a way to a world of make believe. Wide eyed kids in cinema darkness smashing popcorn into riveted faces etc..

I'll leave you with this, because this, to me, is real pedestrian:

Those who seek their history from Hollywood features, deserve to be deceived. It never did tell the truth in the past, doesn't now, and never will.

I say that because I'm trying to head off the predictable "lies at 24fps is fine so long as you don't allege to be telling a story of real history," etc.

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#34 Post by Scharphedin2 » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:52 am

Davidhare, your points are incontestable, but I think also quite subjective, and in any event I would like to understand why these points necessarily make the film problematic and insufferable to you.
davidhare wrote:1: it doesn't embody the celebration of the "team" which is central to Hawks, and which always extends to the indivual personalities of the teamsters.

With a few exceptions I have seen all of Hawks' films after Bringing Up Baby, and with a few exceptions, nothing before it. In general I find Hawks' films hugely enjoyable as films, which I think would have pleased the director. I know that several critics/historians have pointed out the male "love affairs"/"teams" as central to Hawks' oeuvre. Yet, based on the films that I have seen, I am not convinced about the extent to which this quality is so intrinsic to the quality of Hawks' films in general. True, a great many of his best films have these elements (Only Angels Have Wings, Red River, The Big Sky, Hatari!, and the Wayne trilogy of westerns). Then, on the other hand, the Bogart pictures and the Cary Grant comedies do not really have these elements (at least not in the same way), and I still think these films are amongst his best and most successful (both personally, but also by general critical consensus). So, why does the absence of this element in your view count specifically against Sergeant York?
davidhare wrote:2: Piety and all its ramifications dont really have a place in Hawks' canon. Anyway I always find piety nauseating and particularly so here. It doesnt suit him. Or Cooper.
Piety per se is not my dish either, although I do recognise it as the bedrock of much of American and Western culture, and I think that many of the values that comes with pietism are basically good. I can to a certain extent see what you mean by pietism not having a place in Hawks' work, and I think I understand what you mean by pietism not fitting Hawks or Cooper. On the other hand, I do not really feel that Hawks makes a strong case for pietism in this film; it is simply an ingrained part of the character of York and his development as a character. Again, I would like to understand better the objection to this aspect of the film. Why is this particularly nauseating to you in York?

Gregory, Davidhare, I hope these couple of posts of mine are not seen to be overly antagonistic on my part. I value your insights, and simply wish to understand your views better, as I so obviously had a very different experience of this film from both of you.
Last edited by Scharphedin2 on Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#35 Post by Gregory » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:24 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:Who is clean enough to make a war film? I'd like an answer to that one?

There's no answer to this. I thought it was a rhetorical question the first time. I thought we were criticizing the ways the films was made, not war films as a whole or the worthiness of Hawks or the Americans as a whole to make them. There are plenty of great war films. If you're asking who gets to make a pro-war propaganda film, that leads right into a different discussion about war itself.
If the American effort in WW1 &2 were not justified, whose were?
Again, I think this isn't a crucial question to a criticism of SY -- even if the U.S. effort was 100% justified in both cases I don't think that takes away the reasons SY doesn't work. But I never come across anyone who can give any explanation of what WWI was all about that makes any real sense let alone why one side was justified. Such a thing would be odd and interesting to hear. WWII was a different story, of course, and not something I can try to do any justice to here. The decision to use one to rally support during the other is a subject in itself.
My point is that there is no moral sacrifice in kicking back, watching a piece of superentertaining fluff like YORK, snapping it off and say "Well, a lot of that was, as relates to The Real World Here On Earth, a bunch of bullshit-- but I still had a great time watching it." One is no worse for the wear. It's called watching a movie on downtime for pleasure. I don't mean to sound facetious but isn't this screamingly obvious? Do we hafta chuck THIEF OF BAGDHAD because the charm laid over Haroun Al Rashid-types in the Tales masks the bloody limb chopping reality of medieval life under Islamic sharia, beheadings for nothing, etc?
It may not be a moral sacrifice, but it's only one way of watching movies. I watch movies like that sometimes but there are a lot of ideological themes running through both the best and the worst film has to offer and would feel I were missing out if I didn't ever engage these aspects and learn from them. The point of it really is not judgment in the normal sense or condemnation. And of course we don't have to throw out Thief of Bagdad. It sits on my own shelf, and I can watch it in one of two ways, even simultaneously (even without holding contradictory ideas): as an aesthetic treat and as a companion to the book Orientalism. Sergeant York has some merits, too, but the aesthetic problems AND outright dumb notions the film tries weakly to convey make it one of the least impressive Hawks films I've seen. It is one of those bad or not-so-great films that we can learn a great deal from? Possibly but I'd have to see it again. Is it something that works as a pure escapist treat? Personally no, but that's just me.
These are pieces of entertainment. They really have no "social or moral responsibility". This is Hollywood, "lies at 24 fps" etc. This is the "anti-world", not life itself. This is where folks go to find a simpler world, sometimes those which evolved back when life seemed to be less ambiguous, when our villains truly were black and white, and where heroes kicked their asses.
That's what it is most of the time but it doesn't have to end there. And it doesn't have to be the real world or life itself to inform us. Think of it as anthropological or ethnographic: learning about a society through the stories it tells itself -- this can include the lies, to use your characterization. After all, the way of viewing film that I'm defending isn't really any different from literary criticism or art criticism when it comes down to it.
Those who seek their history from Hollywood features deserve to be deceived.
I see this as in some ways a separate discussion. Our society probably "deserves" to be deceived in a lot of ways, because our parents and teachers didn't raise us to be critical enough. It's easy to see, logically, why someone shouldn't be influenced by a piece of entertainment in a movie theater, but people aren't always logical that way, especially with subtle, propagandistic influences. A lot of these historical Hollywood films are taken into history classrooms as a straightforward part of a lesson plan and shown to kids who don't know any better. As a personal anecdote, when I was in 8th grade history, our entire unit on the Vietnam War consisted of watching John Wayne's The Green Berets. Not a word on the subject before the movie, not a word after (and even if there had been I can only imagine what BS it would have been). The vast majority of Americans never study history again after they get out of high school, so Schlindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and the History Channel are what they get. But this is a tangent, sorry.
Scharphedin2 wrote:Gregory, Davidhare, I hope these couple of posts of mine are not seen to be overly antagonistic on my part. I value your insights, and simply wish to understand your views better, as I so obviously had a very different experience of this film from both of you.
Not at all. I valued the points you raised and agreed with a number of the main ones but didn't have time to respond.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#36 Post by zedz » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:38 pm

I saw Sergeant York for the first time recently and it seemed to me a film clearly out of Hawks' comfort zone: stock characters, weak women, irony-free, folksy, hagiographic. The problem, for me, was that he didn't really know what tone to strike in many scenes, and the performances end up similarly uncertain (ouch, those drunk scenes). Ford, at his best, could make the American rustic / mythic work beautifully (as in Young Mr Lincoln) by playing it completely straight. But even Ford could (often) stumble with folksy material. Hawks can't really do this stuff straight because it seems to be so alien to his core values.

Rather than beat the film up over its failure to match up to contemporary standards / values, I'm more interested in the ways in which it fails to mearure up to its contemporaries (Fordian Americana, Hawks' other work).

I actually find the story of making the film much more interesting than the film itself, so I got more out of the rather dry commentary.

And since it came up, I'm happy to register my loathing for Schindler's List! Even at his worst, Hawks never got that bad!

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#37 Post by Gregory » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:49 pm

zedz wrote:Rather than beat the film up over its failure to match up to contemporary standards / values...

For the record, I would distance myself from any impressions that that's what my response to the film was -- at all. Of course you might have had lubitsch's post in mind.
...I'm more interested in the ways in which it fails to mearure up to its contemporaries (Fordian Americana, Hawks' other work).
This is what some of us have been beating around the bush over numerous times here, but it's hard to do even begin such a comparison without writing a long tome of a post. Ford's war films (20th c.) would make a great comparison, too.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#38 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:29 am

....
Last edited by HerrSchreck on Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#39 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:29 am

zedz wrote:I saw Sergeant York for the first time recently and it seemed to me a film clearly out of Hawks' comfort zone: stock characters, weak women, irony-free, folksy, hagiographic.
Rather than beat the film up over its failure to match up to contemporary standards / values, I'm more interested in the ways in which it fails to mearure up to its contemporaries (Fordian Americana, Hawks' other work).!
I say to comrade zedz (your screen name always gives me vertigo when I hear it in my head... what does it mean?) with all due respect that if one held the buffer of
stock characters, weak women, irony-free, folksy, hagiographic.
over every pre '60 genre film you'd be left with a few documentaries. Certainly the vast bulk of Ford/Wayne, Hawks in sum, the whole Mann catalog (his noirs are 100% amped up stereotypes), and just about every piece of war/western/gangster pic are inhabited by weak women and stereotypical characters with very little development.

As to how it measures up against it's contemporaries-- this is all very personal and subjective, and I rarely can explain my joy in many simple film melodramas based on a factor of measuring up. That's even more alien to me than finding agreement/offense in historical terms. I either like the film or I don't. Why do I like Twizzlers or Ludens mixed fruit cough drops? I just love them, and give little thought about why... unless it's something I'm superfanatical about, then you'll hear me going on and on due to watching it every day.

I really really really mean it when I say that we've lost something here that we had when we were young and impressionable, if we cannot drift away into a simple piece of entertainment without this ponderous language of consideration and comparative analysis of mise en scene (which I admit to be a primary chimney spout of).

Greg, I'd just like to reinforce, in response to
I watch movies like that sometimes but there are a lot of ideological themes running through both the best and the worst film has to offer and would feel I were missing out if I didn't ever engage these aspects and learn from them
that once again, via the last part of that statement, I'm not saying that I don't engage these parts of the film. The failings in historical terms of YORK are obvious to me and flash on and off like neon and require no engagement. My point, and you'll see it in all my above posts, is that it is possible to maintain your fierce fidelity to the truth, yet find escape and enjoyment in a simple, folksy aw shucks kinda tale. The failings of YORK in terms of intelligence, in terms of baseline cognizance of Basic Facts, are as plain and simple as those I note on the radio, on the news, in my family, in my teachers when I was in school, in my friends, in this aggravating studio I work in. I simply cannot allow myself to be driven crazy by it in all corners of my life. I can't stop noting it, ever, but I sure can learn to sit back and have fun. This was one of the biggest successes in my personal life after turning 30-- calming down and letting myself enjoy this kind of stupid shit. I reflexively seek the truth on any nonfiction subject I engage in the cinema. For example, the raves about THE SUN caused me to pick up the AEye disc... and as I know quite a bit about WW2 but very little about Hirohito's "last bunker days of the war", I spent the next couple of days in deep research about him nonstop. But that's just the way I am. I'm such an extreme example I take a little bit of unmbrage at being told this kind of stuff. But of course we don't really "know" one another, and so it's all part of intellgient convo.

I'd like to chime in here and say of course this is all very subjective-- if Lubitsch simply doesn't like the film, that's unimpeachable. It's just my sense that reckoning with 100% historical fidelity as a guideline of thumbs-up-down on an old war picture or genre piece from the golden age is crazy... or conversely, poo-pooing a man for liking such lite fun on those terms is silly. I have a library filled with monstrously impressive cinema, and I think it's an important excercise for the brain to be able to put that stuff down for a time and enjoy a simple film like a child again, in those purest of terms.

And you guys know what a gut holding, floor rolling weakness I have for contradictory impulses imbalancing a film, stereotypical characters delivering stilted lines, strangeness, and outright novel antique badness. I have a catalog filled with cinematic gods, and to offset it I love shitty films of a certain stripe and pedigree, though YORK falls more into simple all american sunday afternoon fun. I won't compare Twizzlers licoriche to goose liver-- I just like it, end of story, who cares "why" in terms of "cooking"? It's just a snack, I dig it, hell with it. (Anyone comes on with diabetes or cavitities I'm stamping me bleedin feet down!)

That said I hope the blankness of internet posting doesn't null the sense of my respect for the opinions & intelligence of all involved. We are who are, I'm certainly no average specimen.

And sir z, I know you're not alone in despising SCHINDLER. But you don't like THIEF OF BAGDAD either so (raspberry/Bronx cheer!)... all in good josh, brother.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#40 Post by Gregory » Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:35 am

Again, I was talking about far more than just failings in historical terms.
Thanks for elaborating, though. I get your position a bit better now. I remember this came up offhand some time ago when we were discussing Griffith (whom I've never been able to develop any deep appreciation for after having seen a few of his films, and not merely because of social/ideological issues) and it didn't get discussed any further, so I'm a little glad we came around to the matter eventually. I would probably agree that something has been lost as you suggest but I've usually seen this as inevitable beyond a certain point. I think some things might be gained in the process, but I dont know.
We'll likely never agree on all this, but nevertheless perhaps I should try taking a leaf from your book -- if I ever end up with this Cooper set, I'll try to watch York your way, which may be impossible as I'm aware it's Hawks. My negative reaction to escapism just comes from the fact that in general it's all too common -- it's the financial raison d'etre of the movie business -- and can be dangerous when combined with the propaganda functions of it, and other media. Plus there's already relatively little serious film criticism (apart from impenetrable, jargon-laden academic stuff) and what there is is under-appreciated. But that's probably enough from me on the subject.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#41 Post by GringoTex » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:31 am

Scharphedin2 wrote: True, a great many of his best films have these elements (Only Angels Have Wings, Red River, The Big Sky, Hatari!, and the Wayne trilogy of westerns).
You can add His Girl Friday (though different in that the woman is central to the team).

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#42 Post by zedz » Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:03 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:I say to comrade zedz (your screen name always gives me vertigo when I hear it in my head... what does it mean?) with all due respect that if one held the buffer of
stock characters, weak women, irony-free, folksy, hagiographic.

over every pre '60 genre film you'd be left with a few documentaries. Certainly the vast bulk of Ford/Wayne, Hawks in sum, the whole Mann catalog (his noirs are 100% amped up stereotypes), and just about every piece of war/western/gangster pic are inhabited by weak women and stereotypical characters with very little development.
What I meant by this is that the film's content was an awkward fit for Hawks specifically in those terms, because I think the major strengths of Hawks' best films are lively and surprising characterisations, including strong women working alongside men (just look at what he does with the potentially boilerplate Only Angels Have Wings), irony, cynicism and (in a special, Hollywood-friendly sense) psychological realism. And his sense of humour is far more hard-edged and urban than what we see in Sergeant York. I'm not demanding these things from other directors of the period (who have their own strengths).

To me, the film seems far better suited to somebody like John Ford (the strong women in Ford films are often mothers, for example), and he's a director who, on a good day, can deliver piety and sentiment with a conviction that takes your breath away. I don't see that kind of conviction in the direction of York (though it's there in Cooper's performance, which works like mad to sell the film), and something like the turkey-gobbling sniper scene just seems embarrassed and embarrassing to me.

That said, there are plenty of films from the period that are quite alien to 'contemporary' values / models, but which still work beautifully for me on their own terms (Now, Voyager is a recently viewed example that springs to mind; and Heaven Can Wait is another, contentious, example), and when you go back to the silent era, this sort of consideration is even more relevant. My problem with York is that, for me, it doesn't work on its own terms, not that it doesn't work on mine (whatever they are).

And then again there are films that work for me on completely gonzoid, unexpected terms, like Somewhere in the Night, which is a thriller with a ridiculous, convoluted (and ultimately nonsensical) plot and absurdly purple dialogue beyond the power of half the cast to sell, but for me it distills the dreamlike, Lynchian side of noir, boiling down to a series of more or less cryptic encounters between characters in or around doorways, and the endless echoing of a heady crash of symbols.
And sir z, I know you're not alone in despising SCHINDLER. But you don't like THIEF OF BAGDAD either so (raspberry/Bronx cheer!)... all in good josh, brother.
Hey, I don't like the other Thief of Bagdad either. Don't get me started!

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#43 Post by HerrSchreck » Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:04 am

It may be that the film stirs something deep inside of Americans, especially those beyond their thirties-- and revolting to non Americans, particularly in light of today's times. That is to say, Americans may be more predisposed to enjoy and be willing to enter the world of those characters... to hearken back to the time when there was more wide open space, more freedom in complete & total isolation from government ("Lord bless this food and help us to never depend on no man"), where the result may have been illiterate huckleberry hick backward folk, but who generally did the right thing in coming together with other Americans from vastly different, and alien, parts, to Do The Right Thing in times of wars which were good causes.

That's all this movie is about-- not the cinema, but an idea of what America can and did once seem to be about in ideal terms. And a desire to believe that America can and did produce-- and in fact found it's best in-- lanky innocuous old christian boys named Alvin York who didn't know what a train was, but who stepped up when asked and meshed with the armies of the sophisticated old world of europe... and proved themselves a thousandfold. It's a good thing to feel good about, even if for a moment while watching the film. York was indeed a pretty good man, could shoot the blackheads out your pores while you stood in Georgia and he sat on the pot in Tennessee, did indeed turn down all those offers, did indeed want to simply go back home and live his simple life. The film simply wants you to feel good about the old boy, and I think it succeeds marvellously. Many people loved the film when it came out and still enjoy it now.

If you think those characters are dumb stereotypes of mountain folk, you're wrong-- they're actually quite literate compared to some. The film presents them in a quite dignified, yet harmlessly fun and entertaining style. I thought the scenes with his mother quite nice.

User avatar
Scharphedin2
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 7:37 am
Location: Denmark/Sweden

#44 Post by Scharphedin2 » Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:59 am

There is little that I would be able to add to Schreck's appraisal of the film above. It seems to me that most of the differences between forum members, when it comes to this film has to do with the way different individuals view films differently. Although there sometimes appear to be a certain sense in which a serious member of the critical establishment shall forego the actual pleasure of viewing films in favor of passing impartial judgment, I will always uphold that (aside from a very small group of ultra-serious high art pictures) the prime reason that films are made, and viewed (and Sergeant York certainly belonging to this type of film), is for the joy and pleasure of it. Something very essential indeed has been lost, and nothing (that I can discern) really gained, if films can no longer be enjoyed on their own terms -- for the stories they tell, the times and places they can transport us to, the odd and different and fascinating people they can let us befriend for an hour or two. That there is learning and insights that can and will be had about all manner of the world's and life's important and less important issues through this joy of watching movies, well... that is the added beauty of it all.

I have a lot of respect for Davidhare's depth of experience and knowledge, and especially his understanding and appreciation of film form. Recently, in a different thread, David commented that, as time passes, the films that he finds it rewarding to go back to again and again are primarily those that display a perfection of form (sorry, if I misquote you David, I think that was the essence of it).

With Hawks, there is the prevalent idea that the recurring motifs of the "team" and/or "male love affairs" are intrinsic to his films, certainly to the best of them. His films are also noted for their masculinity, and I think it can be said that Hawks is a quintessential American director of his time, and a director who mastered action and timing better than just about anyone else. If I read David correctly, and some other posts above, the objection with a film like Sergeant York is that on several points Hawks failed to mold the material into an essentially Hawksian film. I can see these defects, if defects they are, in York. However, this is also where I personally have a difficult time with the auteur-oriented theories. I feel that it is too "scientific" an approach to film, and it seems to me overly reductive. The idea of viewing a body of work by an artist, and finding the commonalities between the individual works, and sketching a picture of the director's style and general worldview from these recurring themes and elements makes complete sense to me, but to turn around and use this sketch to disqualify individual works within the oeuvre based on their lack of correspondence with this ideal picture of the director's work does not really make sense to me.

(I am ready to accept that this perception could change over time with increased experience and knowledge, just as it is clear that Davidhare's sensitivity to form, and what it is that makes a film great, is something that he has developed over many years of viewing and re-viewing films. However, I also think there is room to challenge these ideas and theories; certainly in this case I have a strong feeling that the life of the film is being sacrificed for the purpose of dissecton.)

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#45 Post by tryavna » Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:11 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:If you think those characters are dumb stereotypes of mountain folk, you're wrong-- they're actually quite literate compared to some. The film presents them in a quite dignified, yet harmlessly fun and entertaining style.
Yes, this was one of the points I was trying to make in my previous post. The lack of patronization on the part of the filmmakers is what's so amazing -- especially when you stop to compare this to all those Ma and Pa Kettle movies that were actually made shortly after this film. Perhaps this lack of patronization is the major contribution Hawks made to the film, since I agree that he doesn't explore his usual themes here. (Of course, the fact that it is an a-typical Hawks film is one of the reasons I find it interesting. As some of you know, I tend to find those films that confound auteurist readings particularly interesting -- even if they're problematic.)

Schreck's suggestion that York works on a sort of national-subconscious level is interesting. I'm not sure how you'd prove that, but it strikes me as a distinct possibility (based on what I wrote earlier about my mother's love for it). I wonder what other films might serve as the nearest points of comparison?

PS: What do people who dislike York think of Hawks' Air Force? That's a movie that is far more Hawks-ian (celebrating the "team," etc.). But it's also a propaganda/war film that strikes me as far more embarrassing in its cultural politics than York, especially lines like "Fried Jap going down!" and "Gentlemen, I've studied all the wars of history, and I've never encountered such duplicity!"

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

#46 Post by Gregory » Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:33 pm

tryavna wrote:What do people who dislike York think of Hawks' Air Force? That's a movie that is far more Hawks-ian (celebrating the "team," etc.). But it's also a propaganda/war film that strikes me as far more embarrassing in its cultural politics than York, especially lines like "Fried Jap going down!" and "Gentlemen, I've studied all the wars of history, and I've never encountered such duplicity!"
I haven't seen Air Force recently enough (or enough times) to feel really comfortable commenting on it, but it is one I'd definitely like to see again. As you point out, the Hawksian group element is a clue that there are interesting things at work in the film, though I hesitate to call it fitting a mold because I think there are lots of subtle differences among the groups in Hawks' films. Anyway, it's certainly a film worth watching, and I certainly wouldn't think of completely dismissing the film because of racist dialogue. (And that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, if the points I made earlier have been understood at all.)
It didn't impress me as being among Hawks' very best work, but it's impressive that he was able to execute it as well has he did because of the conditions under which it was made. There were serious problems with Dudley Nichols' script that Hawks tried to cope with even while rushing to get the film in on schedule, Additionally, he was shooting only one take of each shot a lot of the time in order to save film for Warner Bros. so the final result is more impressive taking these kinds of things into account.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#47 Post by colinr0380 » Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:56 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:That's all this movie is about-- not the cinema, but an idea of what America can and did once seem to be about in ideal terms. And a desire to believe that America can and did produce-- and in fact found it's best in-- lanky innocuous old christian boys named Alvin York who didn't know what a train was, but who stepped up when asked and meshed with the armies of the sophisticated old world of europe... and proved themselves a thousandfold. It's a good thing to feel good about, even if for a moment while watching the film.
Sorry this is off topic a bit, but that would seem to describe Audie Murphy perfectly. War hero and movie star!

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

#48 Post by domino harvey » Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:42 am

So I recently picked this up and worked my way through the set as I've become very interested in Cooper lately. Aside from the marvelous Sgt York-- which I agree with the minority, it's one of Hawks' best!-- the next brightest spot was the film I figured would be the worst: the Wreck of the Mary Deare, a very tense little suspense film with a fantastic opening 45 minutes set on an abandoned sinking cargo ship that plays without music and is quite expertly edited. Though it devolves into a competent courtroom thriller, the best moments are those on the water, and there's also the worlds smuggest performance by Richard Harris. It's basically the best kind of pleasant surprise that can come out of one of these boxes-- a great little title that you'd never seek out on your own. As for the Fountainhead... maybe if I didn't understand English, I'd love it. Springfield Rifle should have been better considering how wonderfully twist-heavy it is, but I found DeToth's direction clumsy and often confusing. Dallas didn't even register.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Gary Cooper: The Signature Collection

#49 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Mar 15, 2021 3:02 am

It was suggested that the making of Sergeant York is more interesting than the film itself, and after stumbling on this article by Todd McCarthy, I can't say they're wrong. In a lot of ways, the best parts of Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers addresses the most compelling aspects of that story (the making of the film that is).

Post Reply