850 Something Wild (1961)

Discuss releases by Criterion and the films on them. Threads may contain spoilers!
Message
Author
User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

850 Something Wild (1961)

#51 Post by movielocke » Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:46 am

Ugh the second half of the second half of the film is stomach churning.
SpoilerShow
I think they're going for one of those psych things: Stockholm syndrome or "learned helplessness".

Lord knows in an apartment with cutlery, a gas stove and open windows (to shout from) she could have devised a way out if she wanted. I suppose she didn't want to make a scene or wasn't capable of it?

For some reason not doing anything to get out takes me back to the bit where she cuts her clothing up to bits and flushes it, something she'd only do if she's internalized some really toxic perceptions of herself and her place in the world.

But yeah, a gas stove turn on the gas and the landlord will be bursting through the door before you know it.

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

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#52 Post by HerrSchreck » Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:35 pm

domino harvey wrote:Well, I surely hated this film. I could not give less of a shit about how New York is shot in this film— we’ve all seen countless noirs from this era that tethered this aesthetic to something worthwhile, why praise a movie for doing the bare minimum here?

There’s certainly a key detail to talking about this movie that gets conveniently left out, namely that
SpoilerShow
Something Wild is what would happen if the troupes from Out 1 put on a performance of the Collector. I assume everyone skirts around the second half of the film because addressing it is more weight than a defense can possibly hold. The film was already pretty bad before Meeker showed up, and then when we think we've suffered the most we can in the film, those last fifteen minutes kick in and oh ho one learns the meaning of going off the rails. There’s a good reason no one ever wanted Terence Stamp to get with Samantha Eggar.
I take it that that comment about NYC being shot in the way it is in this film is referencing my raves for it, so I'll address this review directly.

First off, I understand that nothing is more satisfying for some than firing off rockets of aggravation directly at a film one was driven nuts by.. and firing them off fresh from that viewing-- speaking in declaratives, as though the reviewer of the film is writing for the entirety of the world and is jotting down some quick thoughts that surely represent the feelings of all who have clean common cinematic sense. The film is “bad” “shit” et cetera as though these are formally and officially understood facts across the width of the whole world.

Frankly everything that apparently drives some folks berserk with anger (which is not something I encounter an awful lot) over this film are the things I love about it. The characters--one must be warned--are completely and totally retarded. They do not act like characters in a conventional drama. "The window--open the window and go!" and vreep! out the window they go. If you’re looking for logical flow of script convention, you’re seeking to sip your cinematic coffee in the wrong house... you're getting some bizarre Bedouin tea poured from feet in the air, not Starbucks cap.

This film is about what happens in a big, decaying city when people in emotional distress withdraw, grow completely dislocated, and lose just about all contact with common sense and all the better angels of guidance in the outside world. It’s what happens when this dislocation creeps into almost every aspect of their decision making until the lost soul is barely recognizable versus the image of the sensible, functioning human being that existed before the slide.
"Go out the window and save yourself!"

In a large city, just about every day, you will see a perfectly able bodied 25 year old young man who’s taken the wrong turn in life, and he spends his entire day panhandling in the subway; rather than spending a moment’s time looking for a job, seeking help for a drug problem if he has one—no. Rather, he will sit there day after day after day NOT doing the very thing that would be the most obviously sensible thing to do were one to assume the individual wants to extricate himself from the predicament. Rather, something in his mind is shut almost completely off, and he will befuddle his friends and family who wonder “what the &^%$ has happened to ___? Why does he not take the very clear and obvious path to liberation?”

We see men and women in captive, abusive relationships. People are beaten, abused, stolen from—and the target remains, all semblance of integrity and self-defense drained away and they are degraded, befuddled, belittled, a meekly protesting remnant individual unable to stand up for themselves.

Something Wild is a tale about the kind of dislocation in a big city that’s rarely possible nowadays. We are all interconnected. We walk around with devices that put us instantly in touch with any kind of help, or talk, trouble, vice, any kind of companionship or contact with friends & family at the push of a button. Our lives leave literal trails. In the era running up to the mid 1980’s, people lived in dilapidated quarters of an extremely decayed and squalid NYC, a very different world of rust and decay and shambles of living; life could be lived extremely cheaply among the lice and the bedbugs and the mice and the roaches, there were very few cops, (and they were corrupt), there were few to no social services, vice was everywhere, crime ruled the streets, and the city was filled with strangely dissolute, curious individuals, people with unattended mental illness, people whose minds were permeated by the squalid nature of city tenement life, a kind of urban lost soul that could exist no-place else but in NYC.

The fact that these characters behave in a manner that makes little to no sense and drives the viewer insane with confusion because of the strange lunacy of their (lack of) decision making is what I love so much about it. It’s not an unflawed film—it’s nothing close to a universal film… it’s almost a film made for the intellectual urbanite who sees the unique beauty in certain early portrayals of lost urban souls living out on the rarely witnessed fringes. It may be that only people who’ve encountered this fringe form of urban life can find a film like this so satisfying. For me, the characters in Something Wild feel almost as if they’re the ones who’ve just happened to have passed on through. It could be about thousands of others—paranoid, muttering, making no sense, giving a shit about nobody and nothing like raucous Jean Stapleton. Like Taxi Driver, the city is the main character—even though, by contrast to other city symphonies and noirs, its somewhat understated but for the location shooting here and there..

I don’t doubt that Something Wild is something along the lines of a delicacy. But if you recognize the flavor, it’s ecstacy.

jojo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:47 pm

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#53 Post by jojo » Fri May 19, 2017 1:37 pm

movielocke wrote:Ugh the second half of the second half of the film is stomach churning.
SpoilerShow
I think they're going for one of those psych things: Stockholm syndrome or "learned helplessness".

Lord knows in an apartment with cutlery, a gas stove and open windows (to shout from) she could have devised a way out if she wanted. I suppose she didn't want to make a scene or wasn't capable of it?

For some reason not doing anything to get out takes me back to the bit where she cuts her clothing up to bits and flushes it, something she'd only do if she's internalized some really toxic perceptions of herself and her place in the world.

But yeah, a gas stove turn on the gas and the landlord will be bursting through the door before you know it.
I found the 2nd half pretty fascinating.
SpoilerShow
And I was especially intrigued by the mechanics of the door itself--you need a key to go out AND in. And I looked at the door open and close several times and didn't know where the upper keyhole lock was on the outside of the door. So is he really locking the door when he goes out? If he's just locking the door regularly, then Baker should be able to go out as it's only the upper lock that seems to give her trouble. Meeker is seen using the key on the upper lock to go out several times but at one point I also questioned whether it's more psychological than real. There is also one ambiguous line where Meeker tells Baker "You're hopeless." after yet another argument between them about opening the door. One is meant to take the line as Meeker being frustrated at Baker not accepting just living there with him, but reading it another way, it can also suggest that Meeker is implying Baker can get out anytime she wants to and chooses not to. When she finally does leave, it's only when the door is practically wide open.
I think the first half of the film does a pretty good job of predicting her actions and mindset of the 2nd half.
SpoilerShow
She was already setting herself up for isolation and self-confinement before she meets Meeker. This was evident when she moved out of her house to go live in a slummy apartment that was already pre-echoing Meeker's pad.
HerrSchreck wrote:[

Something Wild is a tale about the kind of dislocation in a big city that’s rarely possible nowadays. We are all interconnected. We walk around with devices that put us instantly in touch with any kind of help, or talk, trouble, vice, any kind of companionship or contact with friends & family at the push of a button. Our lives leave literal trails. In the era running up to the mid 1980’s, people lived in dilapidated quarters of an extremely decayed and squalid NYC, a very different world of rust and decay and shambles of living; life could be lived extremely cheaply among the lice and the bedbugs and the mice and the roaches, there were very few cops, (and they were corrupt), there were few to no social services, vice was everywhere, crime ruled the streets, and the city was filled with strangely dissolute, curious individuals, people with unattended mental illness, people whose minds were permeated by the squalid nature of city tenement life, a kind of urban lost soul that could exist no-place else but in NYC.
The biggest thing about having devices that allow us to connect is that it requires money. And for those that are living on the margins, and with mental illness (poverty and mental illness are often interrelated), they are further shut out of society, even more invisible, often by their own doing as well. There are still many people whose only real access to the internet is the public library. And increasingly not even the library, as many now require some sort of ID or library card number to use the computers. And for you to get that, you need a permanent address...
Last edited by jojo on Fri May 19, 2017 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#54 Post by movielocke » Fri May 19, 2017 1:45 pm

Well she also has to live in a slummy apartment because I think it was illegal at the time for a woman to rent an apartment if she was single. Women had to live in supervised boarding houses like in the film Brooklyn , it's why Fran lives with her sister and brother in law in the apartment, and why all those married executives borrow baxters apartment since none of the single women are legally allowed to rent an unsupervised apartment, literally the execs aren't allowed to visit the women's domiciles.

jojo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:47 pm

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#55 Post by jojo » Fri May 19, 2017 2:01 pm

movielocke wrote:Well she also has to live in a slummy apartment because I think it was illegal at the time for a woman to rent an apartment if she was single. Women had to live in supervised boarding houses like in the film Brooklyn , it's why Fran lives with her sister and brother in law in the apartment, and why all those married executives borrow baxters apartment since none of the single women are legally allowed to rent an unsupervised apartment, literally the execs aren't allowed to visit the women's domiciles.
Right, but my point is
SpoilerShow
she was socially retreating from her family. She was living with her mother and stepfather in a comfortable house. She was never kicked out by them, nor did she have any practical reason to leave home, where it is clean and she is well fed and comfortable. She simply leaves. It is never explained "why" she leaves. But the film gradually shows her cutting herself off socially from everyone she knows, to the point where she'd rather live alone in squalor than at home where bed and meals are already paid for.
So, the ending, on a certain level at least, isn't completely inconsistent with her actions throughout what we see in the film.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#56 Post by knives » Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:42 am

I remember some one here asking if The Strange One was any different from this and thus worth seeing. While I can't answer the former question I can definitely answer the later in a strong negative. If half baked Tennessee Williams filtered through the most annoying screaming is your thing maybe you'll enjoy this, but for ridiculous Florida exploitation HGL is a more competent filmmaker.

What's most annoying is that it's easy to see this being turned into a fascinating Jean Genet-Cocteau inspired piece of homo-erotic militant self destruction. It comes close enough to be being good, but can't override a terribly obnoxious opening act. I am glad to see where Cartman got his Ah-thor-ah-tay from though.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#57 Post by knives » Mon May 18, 2020 5:11 pm

Colour me surprised and happy that this is a real great and strange film. It improves upon The Strange One, and actually makes me want to reassess it, in a lot of essential areas primarily thanks to Carroll Baker doing an insane amount of work. This is one of the most effective works about isolation and trauma I've seen in part because it is totally bats. The only negative I have for the film is that Carnival of Souls does everything better. If you can forgive Something Wild for not being that masterwork then it becomes easy to be blown away by the affair.

The second half is the hardest to swallow and I'm not sure that needle is threaded, but what it attempts is very interesting to me. The first half establishes her trauma and proceeds to catalog the difficulty she has in interpreting the next step. The second half is an actorly response of therapeutics reminding me of I Am a Ghost though again not as successful thanks to the central metaphor being clumsy. Essentially the film, as made explicit in a dream sequence, tries to place an exercise forward on if she can see men no matter how gross they may be as someone other than her rapist.

To take this portion of the film literally on the level of narrative is to ignore that narrative as an act of expressionism. This isn't a take of Stockholm, but rather freedom from the oppression the world and the mind can place on a person. Meeker is not a man, but every man. His disgusting behavior is a replicate of the gross men the same way the dates are of Hilligoss in Carnival. The movie isn't necessarily logical, but rather represents the emotional movement of the characters.

I don't go over extras much lately, but because of how complicated the ending is I ran to the interview with Garfein which proved very helpful in interpreting the film.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#58 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon May 18, 2020 5:46 pm

knives wrote:
Mon May 18, 2020 5:11 pm
To take this portion of the film literally on the level of narrative is to ignore that narrative as an act of expressionism. This isn't a take of Stockholm, but rather freedom from the oppression the world and the mind can place on a person. Meeker is not a man, but every man.
Glad someone else read it this way. I don’t get the hate for this one, and on a strange hybrid plane of oppressive allegory and social-emotional realism it succeeded in spades. I can see how this reading demands a lot of rope, maybe too much for some, but it felt like a default analysis for me though maybe this is just how I approach films. Embracing the situation through the power of the mind as a form of freedom in the space of powerlessness can be viewed as resilient or pathetic, depending on how much one takes the film at face value.

Its spiritual sister film feels like Verhoeven’s Elle, which in some ways takes the opposite approach in the power play but with the same themes behind the curtain. That’s another film that’s almost too contradictory and enigmatic to work but it somehow succeeds in its tightrope walk- and even though I like that film a lot more, I’m surprised this one doesn’t elicit a similar response. Maybe because Huppert is aggressive and self-actualized from the start so it’s more accessible? Though that only makes me more impressed with this one in trying to do what it does without this support.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#59 Post by knives » Mon May 18, 2020 5:54 pm

Perhaps. I will admit that I really needed Herr Schrek's comments and Garfein's interview to solidify my feelings on the ending since it is a very shocking sequence. I needed to spend a lot of time thinking what could possibly the motivation for this turn of events? They are uncomfortable because Baker has no power as you say. Still, disgust wouldn't sit with me because the film didn't seem to be treating this as reality in the same way the ghosts in Carnival of Souls aren't reality.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#60 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon May 18, 2020 7:24 pm

I wouldn't stretch my comprehension to the Harvey film (at least not before plenty of others that fill the bill), but the idea of impractical metaphor coexisting with raw semblances of reality sits very comfortably with me, like a barely distinguishable magical realism that, through its own artistic internal logic, hits a deep truth impossible to convey through pure cinematic realism or fantasy. So in that way I guess I can see where your Carnival of Souls comparison is coming from.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#61 Post by knives » Mon May 18, 2020 7:39 pm

The early parts of the film really got me thinking of the Harvey as the performances and the way the social interactions functions hit that so I'm stretching things a bit to fit after that.

Langestreep
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:14 am

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#62 Post by Langestreep » Sun Jun 21, 2020 1:05 pm

Jack Garfein's mostly wordless meditation on trauma and its effects on an individual (a crystalline Carroll Baker) is both unsettling and illuminating...

I don't know what else to write. I had something up my sleeve about the parallels between this story and Plato's "Allegory of the cave," with all of its fire and shadows, and the eventual release of the prisoners into light (and then back into the cave again to rescue the remaining prisoners), but I'm not feeling up to donning a mask of pretension. There was also something about the motif of bridges in the film... During a crucial moment of despair, Mary Ann contemplates death over a high bridge, the water below choppy, and towards the end of the film, after her release, we catch her practically skipping over a low bridge, the water beneath calm and serene.. Words hurt right now and grammar cuts.

I will say this: I don't think Mary Ann was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Mike is living among the shadows just as much as she is and although he veers dangerously close to becoming a monster, he does allow Mary Ann her freedom during the most crucial moments: at the beginning of their encounter and at the end. I think he is damaged, lonely, but also protective of Mary Ann, lest we forget he met her as she was about to kill herself.

Anyway, after viewing the film (I had never seen it) - literally minutes after - I sat at my piano and improvised for the first time in a long time. Something just came over me. It's not perfect, but neither am I, nor was Mary Ann. I suppose its Mary Ann's theme just as much as my own.

https://soundcloud.com/user-699559157/s ... ld-6-19-20

User avatar
DeprongMori
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:59 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#63 Post by DeprongMori » Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:20 pm

Not sure where to put this. I just read a long account of the incredible story of Paul Newman’s first filmOn the Harmfulness of Tobacco, which captured Michael Strong’s performance of Chekhov’s short play — and how the only copy of the film ended up in Jack Garfein’s closet.

The film was shown at the Lincoln Center in 2017 and was accompanied by a panel discussion of the film and its history. It was to be followed by a showing of the film on TCM, but Garfein reneged at the eleventh hour, wanting to use the film as leverage to raise money for a documentary on The Actors’ Studio he wished to make.

Jack Garfein apparently never made the documentary, never allowed Newman’s film to be shown again, and died in 2019. I haven’t been able to find out the fate of Newman’s film. As Newman had his name removed from it at some point, and Garfein was not involved at all in its production, the sole copyright stands with the film’s composer David Amram. Garfein merely had possession of the sole copy of the film.

Does anyone know anything about the fate of Newman’s film?

JMULL222
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:58 pm

Re: 850 Something Wild (1961)

#64 Post by JMULL222 » Sun Jan 31, 2021 12:01 pm

The Harvard Film Archive actually quote-posted that same article to say "The HFA holds a 35mm print of this!" So cross your fingers, basically.

Post Reply