Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

An ongoing project to survey the best films of individual decades, genres, and filmmakers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#251 Post by therewillbeblus » Thu Jul 09, 2020 4:16 pm

The older I get the more I am exposed to a truth hidden from me in much of my past- that most religious people I know believe in and define God as those moments of enigmatic beauty between people or in nature or circumstance that is impossible to explain, and so it pretty much fits with my own definition of spirituality, just with a twist. It's grace, simply put, and I don't see that finale as "salvation" as much as an embrace of the gifts that God has graced them with, which fits with salvation if viewed as an instance of it rather than a finite state. The power of goodness speaks for itself without strings attached and I got the sense that this scene was powerful as more peripheral beauty being exposed, which is limitless with the right perspective of humility.

User avatar
Rayon Vert
Green is the Rayest Color
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:52 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#252 Post by Rayon Vert » Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:16 pm

Twentieth Century (revisit). I’m afraid I’ll have to have the iron door closed on me, as I had again a mixed response to the film (probably the 4th viewing). I definitely derive a fair amount of amusement and wonder at Barrymore’s maniacal performance and mannerisms especially, but despite the wit and the energy in the performances of the leads I only find the film intermittently funny, and the hysteria eventually becomes occasionally tiresome in the longer second train half. It’s pitched at such an intense level, so that something like Bringing Up Baby looks tame by comparisons (no pun intended); maybe it’s because in the later film we have a straight man to counter Hepburn’s outrageousness and anarchic energy, whereas here we have two constantly erupting volcanoes. I probably become a bit lukewarm on it as it goes on also because it’s pretty much hitting that same high note all the time.


To Have and Have Not (revisit). There’s a striking contrast between the pre-Pearl Harbor Sergeant York that is propaganda for interventionism and this film three years deeper into the war with its protagonist uninterested in getting involved in fighting the Nazi regime. Having just reread it before this viewing, I really like Wood’s piece on this film in terms of Captain Morgan as the most exemplary and noble Hawksian hero, the self-responsible, true “individual” operating out of his own moral center, his “empirical” morality growing out of his own perceptions and relationships (see his caring for the “rummy” Eddie) rather than motivated by obeying external power or responding to ideals. I think that really singles out an essential quality to better appreciate this film. Seeing Morgan, Eddie and Slim walk out of the hotel at the end on their own terms really embodies the picture of little family/community made up of such individuals. Apart from that, I’m stuck by how despite the fact that the plot is very distinct, there’s a lot of relaxation and looseness around those key narrative-moving scenes, for example in those several Hoagy Carmichael number sequences that are really delightful. Just a beautiful, well-acted and -directed film to enjoy on a lot of levels.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#253 Post by knives » Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:43 pm

Image

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#254 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:12 am

Out of all the "could have been" films discussed in McCarthy's book, I'm obsessed with the idea of Cary Grant leading a Don Quixote adaptation. It's a shame it never happened, especially with both men apparently talking about the idea from the early 50s into the 70s past Hawks' retirement.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#255 Post by knives » Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:53 am

Ball of Fire finally presents a comedy I'm capable of talking about. Hawks just keeps getting better and better though it's as a Wilder film that the film is most interesting with his obsession with dangerous mobsters in comedies. In a lot of ways this is more a jazz film then the actual jazz remake with a musical bouncing of hot jazz to the feeling and especially look provided by Toland in full Citizen Kane mode. The cold jazz of Song is Born, which hopefully I'll talk about more later, works with the film's overall dorkiness, but here that dorkiness is used for speed in a way making even the dwarfs these exciting zippy things. It's also a sweet little piece that in its duplicitous presentation, Stanwyck acting as much as Lombard, manages to make real the fake emotions giving a beating heart of romance despite the bedrock of lies.

I'm honestly shocked at Wood and McCarthy in their dismissal of the film seemingly just on ill founded auteurist grounds when not only is it simply a great film, but also one that is plainly dear to Hawks given the remake. I'd also argue it, especially in the Stanwyck role, is an immediate reaction to the squeaky clean nature of Sgt. York with understand the need for religion for some to the need for sex for some. Cooper goes through a surprisingly similar arch of being blind to the theme before learning how to grapple with it in a real world situation that presents challenges.

Air Force is a real wonder for how it strays from Hollywood comfort resulting in probably the best Hollywood entertainment. It's completely abstract in order to singularly present the war as not merely a source for vengeance, such ideas get assaulted in the film even as it is hypocritical in that regard, but one of national unity. The text can only really be appreciated as an of the moment thing, but the beauty of the direction and characterization is an eternal statue to the poetics of film. This also features perhaps Hawk's most dastardly use of star power for how Garfield's character has to deal with being a star's character, but not written as such. That is probably the biggest act of an individual working within a group in Hawks' career.

It's also interesting how truly emotionally stirring it remains in the face of Hawks' flat characterization style with muted dialogue and even more muted performances. Characters get over an argument by comparing different kinds of planes and the emotional peak of the film is Harry Carey cracking jokes during FDR's famous speech.
Last edited by knives on Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#256 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:25 am

knives wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:53 am
I'm honestly shocked as Wood and McCarthy in their dismissal of the film seemingly just on ill founded auteurist grounds when not only is it simply a great film, but also one that is plainly dear to Hawks given the remake.
I’m guessing you haven’t gotten to the A Song is Born chapter yet, as McCarthy talks about how Hawks was in desperate need of money, decided to remake one of his films for some serious cash (to pay off gambling debts and now two ex-wives) and actually optioned several other films of his before Ball of Fire was picked, not by him. He also had zero interest in doing it and was reported by all to be apathetic on set. Whether that film was dear to him or not had zilch to do with the birth of the later film.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#257 Post by knives » Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:29 am

That's sad. Though for future reference I'm only as far as my posts in the book. Still, I think my argument about the film's relationship to Sgt. York holds weight if one is desperate to be auteurist about what is good or not.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#258 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:39 am

I figured as much, you just said “plainly” pertaining to the connection, so it was worth mentioning the actual circumstances. The Sergeant York female-answer is an interesting point, especially considering Hawks’ own positioning being an embrace of simple pleasures vs politics and religion, so it would make sense for him to slyly follow a film rooted in characterization that barred his comfortable level of influence with a direction of Stanwyck’s portrayal, even though I doubt he fiddled with Wilder and Brackett’s script so much and some of the inverse is purely coincidental.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#259 Post by knives » Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:52 am

To give two potential answers either take the auteurist concept fully and not just in a pick and choose manner and ignore the writers' contributions. That's an approach I think is pretty stupid, but its not a half measure at least. Alternatively Hawks wasn't afraid of turning down a film and at that point he had a full hand so there's a question of what is attractive about the story to him. I think the above is a good enough explanation including of where his focus in the film's direction is.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#260 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:19 pm

I agree, and I think the biography makes clear that second point which is that Hawks was often very picky and would abandon projects if there was too much red tape delaying them (to some frustrating ‘could have been’s) so not only did he have a hand in constructing Stanwyck’s character but I’d be surprised if the project itself wasn’t a direct response to the previous film in many respects. Part of the lack of clarity to the auteurist argument is the enigmatic nature of Hawks’ intentions and contributions. It’s fascinating how there are many forms of evidence, like what you’re bringing up for this film’s female lead, that he had a more significant hand in reworking scripts and changing things, but the specifics of just how intense the revisions were aren’t always known (especially since he often made these changes with multiple writers who he trusted and issued full credit, so teasing out what was theirs vs his in brainstorming are at times mysteries, albeit ones that we can dissect with interest).

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#261 Post by knives » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:34 pm

That's also why I think a simple model of authorship simply will never hold water. It's Hawks film, but also Wilder's, Toland's, Goldwyn's and a league of other folks. Parsing exactly who can be blamed for what is hard at the least and so without full historical research, which often doesn't exist, seems like the wrong way to talk about authorship. Instead talking about what an individual may have found attractive in a project or what common traits happen to appear is a better approach.

I mean McCarthy makes clear most projects did not originate with Hawks and that he had no temper with post production. So the beginning and end of most projects are at least aided by others. Reliably you can only say this is Hawks version of a Wilder gangster or maybe this is Hawks developing of a Wilder character so that she is fully a Hawks one. Such an approach takes more words, but acknowledging intersectionality in art will ultimately make for better analysis.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#262 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:55 pm

Definitely all true, though I try to treat my own auteurist readings in these projects similarly to therapeutic modalities. There isn't one 'correct' approach, and reading these films with Hawks' stamp, or Wilder's through a proposed interpretation of his worldview, are fun exercises and not definitive truths. It would certainly be ideal to do research on every given film in a director's canon in these projects to analyze that intersectionality though, especially if you're looking for something more concrete beyond loose suppositions on arguing from a given framework.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#263 Post by knives » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:08 pm

I largely agree. I just find it intellectually lazy when professionals dismiss a film for essentially not fitting in with their preconceived notions rather than either taking the film at face value or finding out how it could fit in with their understanding of authorship, which is what I was trying to do.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#264 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:36 pm

I just started catching up on more Hawks thanks to this thread. Count me in as another fan of Ceiling Zero.

Cagney's one of my very favorite actors. Most of what I have seen are star vehicles where the movie rests on his performance, to the point where there's barely anything else to recommend. So it's usually a treat when he's worked with a truly great auteur, with the glorious work he's done for Raoul Walsh and the wonderful performance he delivered in Billy Wilder's One, Two, Three.

The chemistry here is magnificent. With Pat O'Brien once again playing the responsible friend, it does bring to mind some of Cagney's other star vehicles, but all the other elements are now elevated - it's not merely Cagney's show, it's Hawks's world. Even O'Brien fits like a glove - sanctimonious two years later in Angels with Dirty Faces, here he admirably reflects the values of Hawks's community. Paradoxically, while Cagney fits wonderfully in Hawks's cinema, his character realizes that he no longer has a place in the aviation world he once knew. Aging and the changes brought by time are a large part of it, but it's also the terrible elements of his character that have always been there. I absolutely love Cagney's performance, but it says a lot that the most harrowing section of the film (set in motion by something his character did) does not depend on it - for the most part, he looks on helplessly while the consequences of his actions build and build.

EDIT: I just completed The Crowd Roars (1932, four years before Ceiling Zero). It's not bad and Cagney is fine as usual, but given the talent involved (not just the cast, but Niven Busch is one of the credited screenwriters) it's disappointing that so much of it feels undistinguished. Hawks does handle the most harrowing sequence very well.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#265 Post by knives » Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:00 pm

Man, I'm in the midst of the Bacall chapter and it's the grandest and saddest example yet of the pathetic face of Hawks. Not just Bacall's own impression of him, the low light being a reference to Furthman as his pimp, but even just the self serving way he rewrote his own history at the expense of others. Again, it's amazing to see the disconnect between art and artist.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#266 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:14 pm

Also one of the most glaring examples of the enigma-as-man, especially pertaining to the various conflicting accounts of his antisemitism. He was so aloof that even his grudges don't follow a logic when you read down the line about his seeming resentments suddenly upended to the surprise of everyone when he'd see said people later on. It's one of those situations where one has to imagine that the simplicity that he wanted to infuse into his pictures is also as deep as he went into his own psyche (and like his films, there's a lot of complexity to unpack in there), so that harm and projection was in all likelihood unconscious. Not that intent completely matters, but it's truly an example of the limitations of subjective accounts of history not allowing us to 'know'- and so in some cases, truly pass judgment on- the man.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#267 Post by knives » Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:42 pm

I don't really see any enigma there and 100% believe Bacall's account. You need look no further then Mel Gibson to see how long time colleagues will defend the indefensible. Also given Bogart's own work against antisemitism even before this film it is basically impossible to believe Hawks.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#268 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:57 pm

I don't disbelieve her account, but I mean enigma in the sense that pretending to 'know' a person's mind who won't even go there himself, through the fallibility of memory in various accounts, is laughable. His actions, on the other hand, I definitely believe- I wasn't disagreeing with you, just supposing that it's interesting how Hawks was likely unaware of his behavior and we can never know what was going on inside of him despite actions speaking for themselves. Your comparison to Gibson is strange, since you seem to be whittling down one's defensibility on an issue to their worth, which I see as separate. Gibson may be antisemitic, but I don't think people are defending the deep-rooted prejudices and feelings in his deep psyche so much as attempting to express that he is more than just his antisemitic words. I believe in rehabilitation, and so Gibson has always been a primary example of the twosidedness of alcoholism, rightfully taking responsibility for actions committed under a spell of disinhibition, and someone 'earning' their life back through tangible markers of 12-step rehab programs. It's not that Gibson is no longer antisemitic deep down, but that if one wants to take a humanistic perspective, he is more than those actions that have canceled him. Everyone has a right to their own opinion on if he "deserves" a second chance or not, but that is what is being defended not his complete subconscious psychological profile as suddenly purified.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#269 Post by knives » Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:51 pm

The Gibson example was for how his colleagues and friends in a similar manner as described for Hawks' claimed that he wasn't antiseptic because of all the Jewish friends he has.

I'm not trying to psychoanalyze Hawks because as you say that's not really possible from this distance and am only talking about his actions and words.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#270 Post by therewillbeblus » Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:04 pm

I thought the Hawks defenses were more about that nebulous intent than who he was friends with, suggesting that he was either 'joking' or the supposition that he was 'testing' Bacall as a form of provocation to gauge her reaction, to assess acting skills or whatever- though having Jewish friends is definitely one of the other defenses. Similarly I feel like most Gibson defenses aren't minimizing his antisemitism but making a case for his rehabilitation and change, but I'm sure you're right about that happening as well, just not that I've seen. Both of the non-'antisemitic-negating' arguments are attempts by colleagues to dig into other intentions of the psyche that don't fall into a simplified dimension of those actions, which are futile but credit the humanity by putting forth that there are complexities even if we can't specify them. At the same time, they don't take away the reality that the man's actions and words happened and he is responsible for them, so yeah we see eye to eye there.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#271 Post by hearthesilence » Thu Jul 16, 2020 4:04 am

The Hawks of legend hadn't fully crystallized when he made The Dawn Patrol, but he's almost there. Execution can feel a little uneven, but the flight sequences are magnificent, from those misty take-offs at dawn to the virtuosic flight battles - this may be the first time I've seen bombings where we get the pilot's POV of the damage rippling up into the sky and missing the plane by inches. Combined with smooth and fast changes from one bombing perspective to the next, the whole sequence is dazzling in its precision.

Most of the key elements are more or less realized, and with future films like Only Angels Have Wings, he would develop some ideas even further ("Who's Joe?"). The acting is fine, especially given the new challenges with sound, but it's still a long way from either the supreme grace or naturalism of his best performers - to be clear, the cast here doesn't fail the material, but they just don't elevate it to the exalted heights of Hawks's later masterpieces. It took some time for everything to click, so much that for a good 30 or 45 minutes, I thought this wouldn't be more than a display of potential, but the film becomes quite potent, comparing favorably with other celebrated WWI films like All Quiet on the Western Front. One could argue that Hawks's experience as a flight trainer during the war was a big help, but regardless, many of the same powerful ideas are conveyed much more effectively here, often dramatically or cinematically whereas Milestone's film relied a bit more on rhetorical philosophizing (at least in memory). For example, a key promotion in rank allows Hawks to explore one idea much more powerfully and thoroughly than when it was expressed by a soldier's offhand comment in All Quiet on the Western Front. Masterpiece or not, it's quite good and highly important in Hawks's development as a filmmaker.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#272 Post by knives » Fri Jul 17, 2020 1:41 pm

Bogie and Bacall double feature because it feels obligated at this point.

To Have and Have Not definitely benefited from the rewatch especially in the context of Hawks films. It's definitely aimed at being the next Casablanca with Bogart basically playing Rick on a boat, but Bacall playing Hawks' idea of his wife as well as some great Faulkner dialogue shifts things around to its own unique flavour so that it stands on its own despite whatever shadow is cast upon it.

The story just doesn't really matter beyond the relationship between these two. Whereas Casablanca is about the war with the romance showing its importance; the war can't do as much in turn here being mostly flavour for the intensity of their sexuality. Without reading the chapter yet of McCarthy its easy enough to psychoanalyze the picture given it stars an aging man who through his tough exterior and WASP inspired muteness impresses to the point of romance a statuesque woman who can fight with the men nicknamed Slim. This is Hawks' dream of who he was and a fantastic boy's story it is.

The film also does a lot to evade the sentimentality for lack of a better word of Casablanca by making Bogart such a minor figure. He doesn't own the bar this time and he doesn't know any of the people involved ensuring the politics of the film are quite vague even by the low bar Casablanca sets. The script works tirelessly to make him just a guy who wants sex with a girl and needs some money. That leaves an air of transaction to the character. This makes his frustration more palatable as he just wants to get back to fishing.

One interesting narrative element to me is Brennan's character who seems like a precursor to the German doctor in Greene's Our Man in Havana what with both being drunken friends. This connection plus not remembering the plot too well added a lot of tension for me as I assumed something similar might be going on here. In reality though he's probably intended as a stand in for Faulkner, the drunken good friend outside the action, but essential all the same.

Alternatively, The Big Sleep is just as mediocre as I remember. There's nothing bad, though the scene with the General is rough, but so much of the film is turgid waiting for plot when ideally the plot should be waiting for the character moments.

There's a few guide quality things that legitimize my complaints such as the flat television quality of the lighting (McCarthy mentions many cost saving efforts Hawks put in and they really show) and the thudding score by a bored Max Steiner. What is weird though is that I adore the book which I first read after seeing this, just to make things clear. Chandler has a way with character that this movie just drops. It's honestly the worst Marlowe film I've seen. I do like the little running gag about Bogart running into working women all the time though. If the film was as good as the bookstore and cab scenes throughout I'd like it.

Thank goodness Red River is next. That one's going to have to wait a bit as the availability of it and the next few will be harder for me which is my none too subtle way of encouraging others to speak up for a favorite or maybe even a new discovering if you're being adventurous.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#273 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:05 pm

One's infatuation with The Big Sleep completely depends on how enveloped you are in the character dynamics and narrative, or simply put, how 'fun' you find the completely superficial physical actions on the screen. I wouldn't say it's stylistically one of Hawks' best films, I doubt anyone would, but I did get a kick out of recognizing in this last watch that Hawks flips the noir characterization on its head, invalidating traditional fatalism and allowing his protagonist to channel his existentialism into a superior winner. As a result, there's going to be a great dissonance between Chandler's Marlowe and Hawks'.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#274 Post by knives » Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:14 pm

Noir wasn't not really a genre yet and there are enough monfatalistic crime stories from the era, including I would argue the Marlowes, that that sort of looking back reading of the film for subversion strikes me as wrong. It's just playing in a different part of the sandbox.

As for the beginning of your paragraph, well of course a film's quality for a viewer depends on how much you are able to engage with it. That's true of everything! That doesn't strike me too much an argument of quality unless we want to call the very engaging The Room as a high quality film.

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

Re: Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

#275 Post by therewillbeblus » Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:30 pm

I made sure to say the physical actions of character (speaking, movement through narrative) beyond the technical ones you listed as problematic (your focus was on the lighting and score) and you could throw editing or anything else in there that may not be up to snuff with his other work. So I think you definitely misread my statement as vaguer than I intended, which was directly in response to what you listed as flaws that were not "superficial physical actions," not one's ability to generally engage with a film... which, as you proved with your criticisms that spoke to what further hindered your engagement with the film re: style, extend beyond character and narrative.

I also don't think Hawks is actively attempting to do something glaringly exceptional in recontextualizing an established genre, nor did I say that, but I do think he took the often more solemn (now established to be "noir" - I'm well aware of the history of the genre) heroes from these kind of postwar expressionist melodramas and transformed them into a Hawksian hero. It's worth noting this point amidst the modern criticisms that this film doesn't follow a typical noir energy or characterizations, including I believe those made by folks on this forum in the past, and so my awareness to this idea was in response to that. Sure, it's playing in a different part of the sandbox, I'll cosign that reframe, though I still think the implications of the molding of character into a Hawks winner vs more disillusioned or compromised private eye stays true to the point.

Post Reply