1950s List Discussion and Suggestions (Lists Project Vol. 3)

[swo17]

A heads-up: Ida Lupino's The Hitch-Hiker will air on TCM this Saturday morning. Perhaps the transfer will be an improvement on the barely watchable DVDs?

I finally had a chance to compare the TCM HD broadcast to the DVD (the Roan edition, which I understand to be the best available) and it's quite an improvement! They both appear to be working from a similar transfer (which unfortunately looks a little washed out) but the broadcast version was noticeably sharper. (I'm not technologically advanced enough to take screencaps from a TV broadcast though, so you'll just have to take my word for it.) Even more striking was the difference in audio quality, which was substantially cleaner and more full sounding for the broadcast version. I'd definitely recommend recording this the next time they air it. In the meantime, I'll be crossing my fingers for a Kino Blu-ray upgrade.

[domino harvey]

Round Five. Recommended titles in comedy non-red color

SAMUEL FULLER

the Baron of Arizona (1950) R1 Eclipse
the Steel Helmet (1951) R1 Eclipse
Fixed Bayonets! (1951) R1 Fox
Park Row (1952) R1 MGM MOD
Pickup on South Street (1953) R1 Criterion
Hell and High Water (1954) R1 Fox
House of Bamboo (1955) R1 Fox
China Gate (1957) No commercial release
Run of the Arrow (1957) R2 German
Forty Guns (1957) R1 Fox
Verboten! (1959) R1 Warner Archives / R2 Warners France (Open-matte ratio-- arguably better framed for this format)
the Crimson Kimono (1959) R1 Sony

When I was first getting into studio era cinema, Samuel Fuller was one of the first directors to make an immediate impact on me. It's easy to see why: his vibrant, kinetic energy and the fearlessly brash bravado of his pictures exude a confidence that's easy to like. Odd then that the Baron of Arizona (1950), Fuller's tale of a conman who tries to swindle the US out of a state, is so subdued. Fuller is much more at ease with his subsequent war tales, the Steel Helmet (1951) and Fixed Bayonets! (1951). The Steel Helmet (1951) is the first of several intelligent looks at racism by Fuller this decade (see also House of Bamboo, China Gate, Run of the Arrow, the Crimson Kimono, maybe Hell and High Water) that show him to be the anti-Stanley Kramer: instead of mollycoddling viewers into accepting liberal ideology, Fuller swings it in the viewer's face with the subtlety of a brickbat. And it works better because it has the courage of its convictions. I probably will only have room for one Fuller on my list and it'll no doubt be Fixed Bayonets! (1951), one of the great war films of the post-WWII era and the best amalgamation of Fuller's abilities this side of Shock Corridor.

A lot of internet ink has been spilled over Park Row (1952), Fuller's non-stop newspaper fantasy. I won't deny that it's a lively film, and there's a long single-take sequence in the middle of it all that's as crazy as any ever attempted, but eventually the overblown cockiness began to wear on me-- it's a bit much, even for Fuller, and the Electric Co.-style insertion of key learning points at various junctions came off as teachy. Pickup on South Street (1953) will obviously be placing on the board's final list because it's a Criterion and there are still people who don't venture out past that boundary line. I know, as zedz might say, it's terribly inconvenient that it's a good film, Fuller or otherwise. But Fuller newbies should dip their toes in something like Hell or High Water (1954) (also starring Richard Widmark), which for all its flaws has the perverse spectacle of Fuller locking horns with a high profile studio, and it's fun to see what he gets away with. Same could be said for House of Bamboo (1955), Fuller's colorized, 'Scoped, and Asiatic'd remake of the Street With No Name, and while I can't quite recommend either, I sort of am?

China Gate (1957), with the decidedly un-Eurasian-looking Angie Dickinson, has some novel moments of wild punctuation (several characters are eliminated in sudden bursts of action without any warning and without any lingering to consider their fate) to help pepper a less-than-thrilling war actioner. Run of the Arrow (1957) benefits from the titular endurance race and Ralph Meeker's literal cigar-chomping baddie to push it just past mediocre. Forty Guns (1957) and Verboten! (1959) find Fuller moving back to the visual assaults of his most passionate works to good effect, and the ending of Forty Guns, even with its studio-neutered epilogue, is still a shocka. As for the Crimson Kimono (1959)? Eh, sometimes even a crazy genius like Fuller inspires nothing more than a shake of the shoulders.


STANLEY KRAMER

Not as a Stranger (1955) R1 MGM MOD (EDITED)
the Pride and the Passion (1957) R1 MGM
the Defiant Ones (1958) R1 MGM (OOP)
On the Beach (1959) R1 MGM

(Deep breath) A couple years back I suggested Stanley Kramer might be the worst high-profile director of the fifties, and I see no evidence gleaned in the meantime to dispute my thesis. Kramer's films, besides being generally artless and guileless in a filmic sense, are at all times operating under misguided impetuses. Take his debut as a credited director (of course you could really call several of his preceding "producer" credits co-director at the least), Not As a Stranger (1955), which is a film with no credible reason to exist. Robert Mitchum is a young med student passionate about being a doctor but falling behind on his tuition. So he marries Olivia de Havilland's Swedish nurse even though he doesn't love her… or does he… the movie can't ever quite decide (it's fitting that his romantic last words of the film are something to the effect of "I need you," a perfect summation if ever). Early on Broderick Crawford imparts some stern takeseriousness on Frank Sinatra's goofball med student and it looks like there's at least some guiding physician hagiography at work. But then the film takes a left turn and literally becomes a different film halfway through as it drops Crawford and Sinatra for Charles Bickford and Gloria Grahame. There are small pleasures in watching such larger than life icons of cool like Bickord and Mitchum interact, but the film quickly ignores the energy Bickford always brings and settles into a sudsy mess. A word of warning, in case you actually want to see this for some reason: the MGM MOD release (and MGM HD version) are edited by seven minutes from the longer TCM version, which has unfortunately been swept from some of the underground film railroads. As of today the longer version is up on YouTube, might be worth saving for later if the spirit moves you… The Pride and the Passion (1957), Kramer's equally useless revolution tale that unbelievably squanders Sinatra, Sophia Loren, and Cary Grant, is not worth even the effort of looking up on Wikipedia, much less acquiring it, and by no means actually watching it. The Defiant Ones (1958) teaches a valuable lesson in race relations and, like many Kramer films, sitting through it is like being chained to the world's most directionless pamphlet distributor.

Now let's talk about the real feather in Kramer's cap, On the Beach (1959), as horrendously mistaken a film as I can fathom. This is the movie that "saved the world," if you'll recall, by showing us how beautiful life is (via killing everyone in the world). Only Kramer's myopic "Hollywood" liberalism could inform this vision of post-apocalyptic society waiting around to die from radioactive fallout as polite bordering on utopic. The lack of basic insight into human nature ("Of course people will do what's best for each other because we're all wonderful little snowflakes") makes all the truly sick posteuring even more abrasive-- I can envision a sequence like Anthony Perkins telling his beautiful young wife how she'll soon have to kill their infant child to spare it the pain of radiation sickness being powerful, haunting, and other positive emotions. But here it only comes off as what it is: cheap hands-off provocation, lacking in any true dramatic function or purpose other than to serve as morose shoulder-shoving.


FRITZ LANG

House by the River (1950) R1 Kino
American Guerrilla in the Philippines (1950) R2 Fox (Spain)
Rancho Notorious (1952) R1 Warner Archives
Clash by Night (1952) R1 Warners
the Blue Gardenia (1953) R1 Image
the Big Heat (1953) R1 Sony / Twilight Time (Blu-ray only)
Human Desire (1954) R1 Sony
Moonfleet (1955) R1 Warner Archives / R2 (Any Danish port recommended)
While the City Sleeps (1956) R1 Warner Archives
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (1956) R1 Warner Archives
Der Tiger von Eschnapur (1959) R1 Fantomas (OOP) / R2 MOC
Der indische Grabmal (1959) R1 Fantomas (OOP) / R2 MOC

Lang, like Hawks, seems to inspire rampant well-informed defenders for even his marginal works, so I'll concede that I've never regretted sitting through any of his films, even if several don't work too well. House by the River (1950) doesn't have that problem, though, as this is a delightfully tight underlooked noir with some great editing and an utter shit of a protagonist. American Guerrilla in the Philippines (1950) looks like for-hire work, a tired tale of stranded American military men Tyrone Power and Tom Ewell (!) working with island locals against the invading Japanese forces. I've seen worse war films, but far more better. Rancho Notorious (1952) has the benefit of the Dietrich-coterie boostering its reputation, but I've never held this western in too high of esteem. I will go out on a limb for Clash by Night (1952), a superior melodrama (that somehow got slipped into one of the Warners noir sets!) that shows Lang could pull off soapy intrigue with the best of the genre.

The Blue Gardenia (1953) often gets discounted as a minor or also-ran Lang, but to me it is simply Lang's best film. This is a sobering, concise portrait of how society sees women-- and it ain't a nice story. Probably Anne Baxter's best performance, too. The Big Heat (1953) is a film widely touted as amongst Lang's best, and I can't argue too hard against such praise, especially in view of how Lang allows the narrative to fall to such base brutality. I'll say it again, between this and Human Desire (1954), Gloria Grahame really gets put through the wringer by Lang (though to less interesting dividends in the latter). Moonfleet (1955) is a perfectly charming small-scale boy's adventure story with a game George Sanders on hand. Much beloved by the Cahiers crew, as were Lang's next two independent noirs, While the City Sleeps (1956) and Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (1957). Both are slight, unusual films for Lang, with an odd sense of pacing and most of the budget clearly going to attaching stars. While the City Sleeps is an alright mashup of manhunt picture and newspaper intrigue, but Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is easily Lang's worst American film, a stupendously obvious TV detective plot brought down even further by its nonsensical twist. Rivette's essay on the film is a prime example of the frequent disconnects between the actual film and what the Young Turks wanted a given auteur's films to be, and is a good accidental argument in itself against relying solely on auteurism as a defense for anything.

And Lang finishes up the decade back in Germany with his pair of fun, candy-colored adventure tales Der Tiger von Eschnapur (1959) and Der indische Grabmal (1959). I suspect most Lang fans already have this on their shelf thanks to MoC's grandiose treatment, but nevertheless it's certainly worth reiterating that the film's are very good indeed (as is Lang's oft-maligned final film, the 1000 Eyes of Dr Mabuse)-- I suspect that the recent rereleases have turned around the popular opinion on these pictures favorably, but it's an earned distinction.


STILL TO COME: Delmer Daves, John Huston, Anthony Mann, Mark Robson (and, if this trader comes through for me on one particular film not on any back channels tracker, I'll be able to add one more very worthy auteur to the complete column-- don't want to jinx it by saying who, yet)

[matrixschmatrix]

Lang's one of the few where I've seen enough of his work to comment on your walkthrough, Dom, and I pretty well agree with your sentiments- though I'll have to watch Blue Gardenia again, as it seemed solid but unremarkable on a first run through, but your argument seems compelling- but I strongly disagree that While the City Sleeps is one of his weaker efforts. It's not as murderous as The Big Heat, but for me it's got a great Laura like cast of likable bastards (including not-dissimilar Vincent Price and Dana Andrews performances, though I like Andrews better in this one), nearly as much a sense of pace and atmosphere as the best of Lang's work, and enough hard boiled cynicism to make it feel like a throwback to the Ben Hecht era of newspaper movies about how everything's going wonderfully to hell.

[knives]

Ha, and of course I just finished Fixed Bayonets! today. Steel Helmet rightfully gets that first masterpiece recognition, but Fixed really solidifies that Fuller's style which wasn't as distinctive before and really confirms his talent. It's really so bizarre and shocking in the way that Fuller is the king of. Real edge of your seat type stuff with his typical complex view of war. I'm going to be gladly haunted by it the next couple of days.

[knives]

Normally I'd wait for this, but I found Cukor's The Marrying Kind to be truly bizarre at least in my reaction to it which it shouldn't considering how straightforward it is. I think the thing that put me off to start with is Aldo Ray's performance. He's great in war movies and the like, but his voice just doesn't seem to fit the setting so as to almost ruin the joke. That overpowered me so that by the time I got used to it the film was almost over and I had no idea what opinion to form.

[Cold Bishop]

What do you know? Me and dominoharvey largely agree on Sam Fuller's output this decade. Honestly, The Steel Helmet gets most of the ink spilled, but if you haven't, for god's sake track down Fixed Bayonets!, which is a strong contender for best war film of the decade. Two brilliant scenes worth singling out: the minefield walk, and the blink-and-you-miss-it montage when the enemy starts their assault.

[puxzkkx]

I quite liked The Crimson Kimono. It is not a great film but it has a pretty fantastic ensemble, great display of Fuller's eloquent camera movement, a really intriguing East-meets-West fusion score and a level of respect and sensitivity for the cultural milieu it depicts that is probably unique in 50s American film.

[swo17]

(Deep breath) A couple years back I suggested Stanley Kramer might be the worst high-profile director of the fifties, and I see no evidence gleaned in the meantime to dispute my thesis.

Credit where it's due though: The 5000 Fingers of Dr. T, which Kramer produced and apparently directed in part, is rather wonderful, even if/because it makes no attempts to solve racism.

[domino harvey]

I mean, I like Champion and the Sniper, but they could hardly be called Kramer-esque. So I guess it's a bit of a crapshoot for the producer-credits-- I've always wanted to see the Jose Ferrer Cyrano de Bergerac but now I see it too is a Kramer production, so now I'm terrified (not that I have time for it or anything else in the huge backlog of lists and projects)

[knives]

The Sniper for all of its virtues does have a few clear signs for who the producer is (primarily in that one guy who also played the commie in Pickup on South Street). It's a fantastically directed film, but the script has its problems.

[Gregory]

I find The Defiant Ones far more compelling than most people seem give it credit for. IMHO, I'm unconvinced that many of the directors domino includes in these Auteur Guides are really auteurs, and I certainly don't think The Defiant Ones is an auteurist work. Most of Kramer's "social issues" films seem obviously dated now, and it's easy to make fun of their earnestness and of films whites made in this era to use entertainment media to begin to explore issues of tolerance and prejudice.

But there's a lot more than that going on in this film, thanks to the crucial contributions of the blacklisted screenwriter Nedrick Young, under an alias. The direction frequently executes well the film's most powerful scenes, such as the "breaking the chain" scene, which evokes the looming past of chattel slavery. This is followed by the conversation between the two about the "natural" socioeconomic order, the position of a poor black sharecropper (brought alive by Poitier in the particular way his character is shaped by that social-economic role), and the attitudes of a poor, white character (an avowed racist) to that person and that order. This is then followed by tense scenes that complicate and undermine these simple distinctions in ways that develop the characters and allow the viewer to understand their confusions and motivations as they move from vastly different situations in which their humanity and social position never has a clear or predictable relationship to racial identity. Rather than resting on a simple metaphor of blacks and whites chained together, the film consistently elaborates this theme using issues of class that are still ignored today in most discussions of race in this country.

It's easy to see the ending as naively hopeful -- racial solidarity achieved -- but in fact the two are placed back in the custody of the state, where their racial understanding is irrelevant, as both occupy the "equal" position of the very lowest social rung. The film thus leaves it to the viewer to conceive the broader implications of all this for those of us who are not prisoners and have vastly differing relationships to the state (the entire enforcement apparatus running through the film) and to relationships of social class, but even though the story subtly raises such troubling questions, the viewer can genuinely relate to these characters and their predicaments.

As one of the first Hollywood films to have a substantial role for a black character, this is impressively non-simplistic, non-pandering, and non-simplifying of the issues relevant to such a story. I care about it too much to be able to think of it as a "Stanley Kramer film" or a film that was glibly trying to "solve racism."

[knives]

As one of the first Hollywood films to have a substantial role for a black character, this is impressively non-simplistic, non-pandering, and non-simplifying of the issues relevant to such a story. I care about it too much to be able to think of it as a "Stanley Kramer film" or a film that was glibly trying to "solve racism."

I have various nits and picks with your whole comment, but I find this one to be the most beguiling because even only looking at Sidney Poitier's career there were many prominent roles for him before this one that are at least as good if not better. What puts The Defiant Ones above, say, No Way Out, Edge of the City, or The Blackboard Jungle. All of those films at least accomplish what the Kramer film does though all four have their fair share of simplified pandering which is certainly present in the The Defiant Ones no matter who the writer was.

[domino harvey]

As one of the first Hollywood films to have a substantial role for a black character

In 1958?! I mean, off the top of my head this decade pre-dating this: Poitier in No Way Out and Edge of the City, Dandridge (Oscar nominated for Christ's sake) and Belafonte in Carmen Jones, Belafonte again in Island in the Sun, Ethel Waters in Member of the Wedding (and Pinky of course close in '49), and many starring and supporting roles for popular black musicians (Nat King Cole, Eartha Kitt, Dizzy Gillespie, the list goes on)

[swo17]

Not to mention something like MGM's Hallelujah! from 1929.

[knives]

How have we forgotten to mention Vidor's superb Hallelujah! or even a certain actor with an entire boxset dedicated to him by Criterion.

[Gregory]

Substantial in terms of the topics at hand, and substantial enough to be considered worth of an Academy Award nomination at a time when such a thing wouldn't have been largely considered possible. I didn't write that sentence well, but I hope I have the benefit of the doubt that I know other black actors had major roles before 1958 (not the same to me as "substantial")! I don't find many of the characters mentioned as rich as Poitier's is here, especially within the context of this discussion. And Robeson's roles were highly problematic, or confined outside the mainstream. I was talking about regular Hollywood productions here.

All of those films at least accomplish what the Kramer film does though all four have their fair share of simplified pandering which is certainly present in the The Defiant Ones no matter who the writer was.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. A little more elaboration and specific exampes, as I gave, might help.

[domino harvey]

IMHO, I'm unconvinced that many of the directors domino includes in these Auteur Guides are really auteurs, and I certainly don't think The Defiant Ones is an auteurist work.

I can't even comprehend this as the example you use to argue against an auteurist distinction (has there ever been any educated viewer who didn't weigh this film against Kramer's reputation, either to affirm or decry?). I'm not saying my opinion is better or worse or "more correct" than anyone else's (duh), but I do make it a point not to talk about any director for these write-ups whose work I haven't seen in toto for the decade (and, usually, most if not all of their work outside of it). So I should at least win the argument on being as well-informed on the director's work as a whole as any other person who's taken the time, energy, and inclination to do likewise. If you're curious about a distinction I've made or why a given director should be of interest, you could, you know, ask. I don't even know what you mean by making a blanket statement that most of the directors I've talked about aren't auteurs (Unless you think I should be cross-referencing my distinctions with approval from Truffaut et al, which is silly), except as some sort of de-legitimizating cheap shot?

EDIT: Sorry, this came off as whiny and self-important, but in my defense I've put a lot of fucking time into doing the prep work for these and it does touch a nerve to see someone wave off the mere notion that most of these directors are worth the effort

[Gregory]

Someone's extremely defensive.

Has there ever been any educated viewer who didn't weigh this film against Kramer's reputation, either to affirm or decry?

Now how would I answer that? I'd definitely lean toward "yes."

Whether you've seen all of a director's work is irrelevant to the question of whether those directors are auteurs. In my humble opinion, as I wrote, there's no reason to suppose that many of the directors you've included are auteurs. You've chosen to change that to me saying "most of the directors" you've included, which is unfair.* You must know that the question of who is an auteur is always contested and that many of the ones you've included are generally considered outside that distinction (Truffaut has very little to do with that), nor has much attempt been made to make a case for some of these as auteurs.
My point wasn't to de-legitimize anything (again, I don't think I'm being given the benefit of the doubt here, as an opinion about who is an auteur is read as a personal attack on someone). My point was to show that much of the talk about Kramer as an "auteur" has served to taint all of his films in a broad stroke and that one or two of them actually deserve better than that. That's my opinion.

*And even if I don't personally think they're auteurs, I don't see how that means your write-ups of them were not worth your effort. The guides are primarily about the films themselves (and perhaps how they fit into a filmmaker's career) rather than their status as auteurist works, as far as I can see.

[domino harvey]

The guides are primarily about the films themselves (and perhaps how they fit into a filmmaker's career) rather than their status as auteurist works, as far as I can see.

And? That's their admitted exact function. How this discounts the films' ability to be works of an auteur remains unexplained.

Whether you've seen all of a director's work is irrelevant to the question of whether those directors are auteurs. In my humble opinion, as I wrote, there's no reason to suppose that many of the directors you've included are auteurs.

Which of us is supposing here? I already said, if you had a question as to why a given director should be considered an auteur, could you not have asked? Is it not possible that after having seen all of these films I might have something of interest or value to add beyond the simple value judgments I've included for the thumbnails in this thread (the main point being to highlight films for viewing that might get otherwise overlooked) and the easiest way to discover ideas or approaches different than your own was to simply inquire?

[knives]

Substantial in terms of the topics at hand, and substantial enough to be considered worth of an Academy Award nomination at a time when such a thing wouldn't have been largely considered possible. I didn't write that sentence well, but I hope I have the benefit of the doubt that I know other black actors had major roles before 1958 (not the same to me as "substantial")!

As far as an Academy nomination goes (though I don't see what that has to do with the quality of the role versus the quality of the time) as Dom already pointed out Carmen received an acting nomination in an all black cast so that right there puts to moot that comment. I thought the topic at hand was the representation of black people in Hollywood cinema, but if I'm mistaken please say so. In that case all of my and others examples stand except for a few of the Robeson roles. On the account of the role being of substance frankly I don't see Poitier's in The Defiant Ones being of substance, but if we lower the bar to that than there are dozens of films which pass. Carmen and Hallelujah! are to me the best examples, but the three titles I mentioned before also easily pass this low test of not treating the black protagonist as sub human (Not to mention Minnelli's rather good Cabin in the Sky with Lena Horne's fantastic performance amongst whatever else is out there). In the simple terms of featuring in a major role a black character of substance The Defiant Ones is nothing if not absolutely safe to what was already made as a precedent. Again I wonder what causes No Way Out to be such a lesser film to you?

All of those films at least accomplish what the Kramer film does though all four have their fair share of simplified pandering which is certainly present in the The Defiant Ones no matter who the writer was.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. A little more elaboration and specific exampes, as I gave, might help.

The Defiant Ones has a simplistic view of race relations that panders to the feeling of Eisenhower America reinforcing the liberal good vibes rather than challenging that stasis. This isn't unique to The Defiant Ones or even Kramer in general, but adding in how terribly leaden his direction is (even the non social picture The Pride and the Passion is near unwatchable because of his direction) his films become extra terrible.

[Gregory]

The guides are primarily about the films themselves (and perhaps how they fit into a filmmaker's career) rather than their status as auteurist works, as far as I can see.

And? That's their admitted exact function. How this discounts the films' ability to be works of an auteur remains unexplained.

Nothing I've said "discounts" anything as the work of an auteur. I personally don't consider Kramer to be one. If anyone would like to make a case for his filmmaking style or imprint as a filmmaker, I'm willing to consider it. But if you (or others) don't see the point I'm making about putting all of one director's work under the same umbrella where it can be mocked by association with the director's other work (ignoring its individual qualities, which I tried to draw attention to here) then, I guess there wasn't much point in my even raising the matter of auteurism

Whether you've seen all of a director's work is irrelevant to the question of whether those directors are auteurs. In my humble opinion, as I wrote, there's no reason to suppose that many of the directors you've included are auteurs.

Which of us is supposing here? I already said, if you had a question as to why a given director should be considered an auteur, could you not have asked? Is it not possible that after having seen all of these films I might have something of interest or value to add beyond the simple value judgments I've included for the thumbnails in this thread (the main point being to highlight films for viewing that might get otherwise overlooked) and the easiest way to discover ideas or approaches different than your own was to simply inquire?

That's exactly the question I was trying to raise here by saying that I personally have never thought of Kramer as an auteur. I'm sincerely caught off guard by this defensiveness. I'm sorry if my difference of opinion about who among your overviewed directors is an auteur has somehow offended.

[Gregory]

knives: I've already tried to explain what I meant by "substantial." I meant it in a way relating to the issues directly relevant to the film and to the history of mainstream Hollywood. All-black cast films were in a different category.

I've tried to elaborate an argument that the treatment of race in The Defiant Ones is not simplistic. You come back and say, "It's simplistic." Unless you can get into the specifics of the film and the crucial issues of class that I raised, the discussion I was trying to stimulate isn't going to progress.
Kramer's "leaden direction" makes his films "extra terrible"? Okay.

[knives]

Well I think the surprise comes from who you single out as being a non auteur (if someone like Zinnemann got the call maybe there would be more understanding). While Kramer doesn't have his little tea cups his films have several visual cues that are similar including aspect ratio and the stories tend to have the same themes and mistakes regardless of who the writer is to the extant that these elements come up even in the films that he only works as a producer on to the extent where one can say that a film is Kramerish and what that means is well understood. He is so wildly known as an auteur (a terrible one, but one all the same) that I have to wonder why you don't think he is one. You have yet to explain your position though that one is far more controversial. Could you expand upon your statement so that we have something to talk against?

Edit: No Way Out isn't an all black cast with Richard Widmark having a similar relationship to the one in The Defiant Ones. You haven't said why the treatment of race isn't simplistic while I did bring up how it functioned as pandering toward the white liberal sights of the time.

[domino harvey]

Rereading your initial comment, Gregory, I can't help but notice that in true Kramer fashion, you've focused almost entirely on the film's ideology and not its filmic function (though blanket value statements like "The direction frequently executes well the film's most powerful scenes" leaves you in no position to chastise knives' comment that the film is "simplistic"). You say the film offers a more "substantial" role for Poitier (using your own definition) but then chafe at the idea that the other roles mentioned might be in the same league. Have you seen Island in the Sun, for instance? Films don't exist in a vacuum, and just because this is a more popular and well-seen film doesn't mean overarching claims about its importance or supposed social value should be made willy-nilly

[Gregory]

Knives: Saying Stanley Kramer is not an auteur filmmaker is not controversial. I personally don't see enough of commonality in the fundamentals of his filmmaking to consider him one. Aspect ratios and "stories" or "themes" in common don't do it for me, which I believe is also noncontroversial in terms of criteria. What visual cues do you have in mind? I need to be convinced here.
And yes, I did make a case that the treatment of race is not simplistic. To do so in any greater detail would have required a whole essay longer than all but a few on the forum would want to read.
No Way Out is a good film, but it doesn't get quite as deep into the social contexts of racism as the Defiant Ones does, in the ways I tried to mention in a short write-up. If anything, I think No Way Out was more of a feel-good film for those already convinced of the wrongness of virulent racism.