Shock Corridor (Samuel Fuller, 1963)

"Right about now is when he's supposed to ask me if I hear voices..."

Introduction

Back in 2010, I noted Shutter Island as my favourite film of the year. I stand by this. Now, influences are funny - they can sometimes border on remake, they can sometimes be subtle hints within one film which has been carried over to another. The influence here rests in protaganist John (Peter Breck), a journalist desperate to win a Pulitzer prize. He is so desperate, he commits himself into an asylum, in the hope of finding out who killed Sloane, by pretending to be mad. We see him practice the answers he needs to give to get in - his voiceover explains his understanding of psychology and how he aims to use this to get into the asylum - and he succeeds ... but sometimes the most difficult thing in getting into an asylum is how you get out...

Colour or No Colour, that is the question...

Made in 1960, colour-films were common-place. We all know that Psycho was chosen by Hitchcock to be made in black and white to create a old, B-Movie atmosphere and, it seems, this is the same purpose with Shock Corridor. This is why it becomes a shock when colour manages to sprinkle itelf within the film - when John's dreams are visualised, they are in colour. In the entire film, it is only two sequences. The cinematic-experience as you begin watching something you think you understand - oh, its a black-and-white thriller about who killed Sloane - shifting to a strange, unsettling territory - you question whether it was in colour? or is John going mad? etc. The use of a Maguffin too is Hitchcockian unto itself.

In one haunting sequence, I found it terrifying to see John breaking down and to see him begin believing the lies he set-up to get into the asylum. At one point we hear his narration as he loses his ability to talk - the terror which he can't explain. What you initially believed was a film you are entertained by becomes more significant - what if such a thing happened to me? Terrifying.

Mentally Damaged

The question is raised as to where Johnnys madness is from. Thematically, I believe Fuller indicates how it was greed and self-importance (in winning the Pulitzer prize) that destroyed him - the idea that through choosing to go into an asylum for his own gain is verging on madness. His girlfriend (Constance Towers) does not agree with this 'plan', but he goes against her. Against that, there is a clear difference between the Johnny we know before shock-treatment and the Johnny we see afterwards. 

I think it was Mark Kermode who mentioned one particular sequence as Johnny enters a room full of crazy women and he mutters to himself "my god, Nymphos" (Nymphomanics - women obsessed with sex...) before being attacked in a more zombie-flesh-eating fashion, rather than sex-obsessed women fashion. It may be sequences like this that is a little dated and shows a lack of understanding towards madness and the sympathy and support neccessary for people with any type of mental condition. 

 

Influence and Maguffins...

As previously mentioned, the macguffin in the 'killing of Sloane' is core to the film - but it is Johnnys descent into madness that we realise is the real story. You are forced to ask if he can be helped.

It is a great film that pushes farther than thriller territory - whereby you are forced to consider the wider implications and, perhaps, your own mental state. Much like Johnny - can you trust your own mind? The film finishes with a huge fight as Johnny fights who he believes is the killer of Sloane - the fight is huge and breaks everything in shot (seriously, at one point the fight spills into the kitchen and you are looking at every item knowing that, at some point, it will be knocked over). What is stranger, is how all the patients stand back and ignore the fight - there is no connection between what is going on in their lives and the fight happening next to them. Maybe even a minor point as people damage themselves (physically in this case, but mentally is the point) whilst no-one will react until its too late.

There is an influence clearly from Shock Corridor to One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest as in both films the protagonist commits themselves and both films explores the morality behind these institutions. I think, in closing, if you like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or Shutter Island than it is neccessary for you to watch Shock Corridor - because this same situation presents a talking point about your mind and how much control you have over your mind. It could be merely one choice you make that separates you from the patients we observe in these institutions.

From Russia With Love (Terence Young, 1963)

"The first one won't kill you; not the second, not even the third... not till you crawl over here and you KISS MY FOOT!"

Introduction

The problem with Dr No was the lack of success it earned in the US. In fact, Dr No gained an audience slowly but surely in Europe so producers decided that From Russia with Love would capitalise on the European market it had already established. Additionally, the structure of this 007 adventure is unlike any other 007 film - rather than the crazy action films that became the genre-of-choice for James Bond, From Russia with Love was firmly rooted in the Spy-Espionage genre. Something fascinating about this film is how it is reminiscent of the train-espionage stories such as Murder on the Orient Express (1934) and The Lady Vanishes (1938) but, importantly, is missing Ken Adams as he was working on a little known film with a long title called Dr Strangelove or: How I Stopped Worrying and Love the Bomb with Mr Kubrick...

The Sequel to Dr. No...

At the time, this was the only sequel to Dr. No. Nobody knew what was to become of this franchise. People say "the problem with James Bond and his women in the franchise, is how he 'moves on' so quickly". You never see the break-up or any long-term relationships ... well this is simply not true. In fairness to the producers, they attempted to include this element in From Russia with Love through the ongoing relationship Bond has with Miss Sylvia Trench. Who is she you ask? You simply need to skip back to the Dr No and ask who introduced us to 007 in the first place ("Trench, Sylvia Trench - and you are"/"Bond, James Bond"). There is even a mention of a scar James Bond has on his body ... is this a subtle reference to the break-up between Bond and Honey Ryder - the knife-wielding shell-finding hottie. Imagine these subtle hints in 1963, whereby you know Dr No inside and out. Unlike the many Bond film, we even have to wait 17-minutes before we even see James Bond on screen again. We see a fake James Bond in the first 5-minutes, but the actual James Bond is not seen for nearly 20 minutes as the film carefully sets up the film - and indeed sets up the franchise with a bigger reveal of SPECTRE.

Even Dr No himself is referenced as we see the-man-with-the-cat (no name as yet...) introduce Col. Klebb (Lotte Lenya) to Chess-Master Kronsteen (Vladek Sheybal) to concoct a plan to steal the Lektor and set-up Russia against England. Though setting up the franchise, you know the producers had no idea how big this would be as the 'more-than-the-previous-installment' selling-points are included: "Bond is back, and this time there are More locations, More bad-guys and More Women.

Indeed, if they continued to double-up the amount of women in comparison to the previous film, by now, the 23rd James Bond film would be wall-to-wall women-on-women action with James Bond in the centre holding his ... gun. From Russia with Love shows how the 'bad guy' Red Grant gets a massage by a female masseuse who wears only her underwear (why? that is surely not professional etiquette). The love interest, Tatiana, hops into bed completely naked (Bond still as the voyeur ... remember Dr No when we see, unknown to Honey, Bond observing her emerge from the water...). Kerim Bey's mistress writhing about on the bed, nearly falling out of her dress whilst a gypsy-fight midway through is clearly only there for arousal as it finishes to show the two women, not only content in putting aside their differences for James Bond, but also taking part in some love-making, together, with James Bond.

Setting Up The Future

Through setting up SPECTRE for multiple films planned for the future, unknown to the filmmakers, many other components date back to From Russia with Love. Desmond Llewelyn is on screen for the first time as gadget-master 'Boothroyd' - aka, Q. He would become a part of the series through to The World is not Enough. At this point, he has no problems with Bond - he explains the briefcase, the basic weapons and his scene is complete. The Q laboratory is not seen - but I believe it is clear that the island of SPECTRE, whereby we see the training SPECTRE assassins receive, predates the Q-lab and it appears that, to include it again in Goldfinger, they had to create the same type of lab for the good-guys - turning what was once SPECTRE's "lab" and becoming Q's lab.

But the hugely exotic locations are even more classical and inviting to see - the tunnels underneath Istanbul and the San Sofia Mosque are a few locations which, aesthetically, show a real beauty that the blue-sea and beaches of Dr. No couldn't hold a candle to. But, this was inevitably something that now had to be 'topped' in future films - ensuring that the next Bond film would be almost action-film postcards of exotic locations.

Inevitable Sex, Swinging and the Sixties

But this is still 1963 and no James Bond is good without a good dose of sexism - and we do indeed get this through the banter between Kerim Bey and James Bond. Constantly James Bond laughs about Kerim Bey's multiple children - and wives, whilst Kerim Bey mocks James Bond's job - stating that, regarding the questioning of Tatiana, Kerim states "is that all you want?" and the two laugh. After all - women are only there for sex.

But the sixties was also a time for swinging - it didn't matter who you are or where you are from, men and men, women and women - it was all ok. So we see a hint of lesbianism in Col. Klebb - a very butch woman in a dominant, masculine military role for the time. She touches Tatiana to hint at how attractive she finds her - and it is abundantly clear that her feelings are more than platonic.

But hey, that's the sixties. Cinematically, the sixties also proved to be the high-point for Alfred Hitchcock as he always gained success at the box-office. Hitchcock noted how he enjoyed the traditional train journey and this is exemplified in films such as Strangers on a Train, The Lady Vanishes and North by Northwest. Hitchcock and James Bond are often intertwined through history and From Russia with Love is the most overtly influenced Hitchcock-James Bond. Not only do we have the train journey but, as soon as he sets foot on the train, the whole narrative becomes 'Hitchcockian'. In the style of the best 'who-done-its', Kerim Bey is murdered and Bond has to find out who has committed the crime. Additionally he begins to realise that he is completely unaware of the true threat - originally assuming it is Russia. He retreats to his cabin and questions Tatiana - the elegant, blonde haired and blue-eyed love interest - a woman who is as beautiful as Grace Kelly and Kim Novak. Getting off the train, it becomes even more obvious as a helicopter swoops down to hit Bond - completely referencing North by Northwest. It would not be until Marnie in 1964, that Connery himself would work with Hitchcock.

But Why, oh Why ...

Some funny problems with the film. As much as I love it - it is not set in Russa. At All. We see Istanbul, Belgrade, Zagreb and Venice. But no Russia. I assume we are talking about Tatiana, who is Russia herself. Or the Lektor, as it is sent from Russia, with love... but, ultimately, we never see Russia and though a great title, I think most people go into the film in the hope of seeing Russia at the centre.

In the finale, Klebb tries to kick him with a poisoned-spike in her shoe (we will see this shoe again in Die Another Day). It is a clever plan and, when used previously, Kronsteen is killed because he doesn't see it coming. Klebb, the fool, reveals the spike early into her fight highlighting what Bond needs to steer clear of. Even if it wasn't poisoned, it would bloody hurt.

Finally, at the very end, as Bond and Tatiana sail on a gondola through Venice, he holds the film-reel that shows the two having sex and Tatiana asks "what is it?" and he replies: "I'll show you and then he kisses her and they move out of screen. Are they going to have sex? In a gondola?? An open-top gondola for everyone in Venice to see??? That is nuts. He clearly won't show her, and is putting her into an uncomfortable position before she wil re-emerge and say "can we go back to the hotel as this is very public".

Still The Best

Despite these concerns, it is my favourite James Bond film. It is not cheap and it shows a style of James Bond that the current producers should try hark back to. The fight at the end alone shows how incredible James Bond is: the deep blues and shadows, a fight that is rough and aggressive, fist on fist, grabbing, and dangerously holding each close to sharp shards of glass from broken windows.

It is a brilliant film and, as a starting point, this shows a the type of James Bond, on-screen, that should have continued. Fact of the matter is that Goldfinger made more money so, Mr. Accountant, you do the Math.

I have recently read Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Franchise by James Chapman and at the same time, I am re-listening to The Hollywood Saloon podcasts, titled Bond Never Dies. I would highly recommend these books and podcasts as many ideas and parts of my research would be credited to both these sources.

8½ (Federico Fellini, 1963)

"I thought my ideas were so clear. I wanted to make an honest film. No lies whatsoever."

Introduction

What forced me to jump from being a mid-level only-watch-what-is-advertised attitude to film to the 'higher status' of a film-enthusiast-who-has-realised-it-is-actually-impossible-to-watch-all-the-films-but-will-die-trying attitude is Top Film lists. How can I claim to be a film fan if whenever these 'Top 10 Films of all Time' lists appear, I have only seen two of them: 'The Godfather' and 'Casablanca'. I looked at the list and, at the time - we're talking 2005 - I didn't even know who Fellini and Godard were. '2001: A Space Odyssey' , I had heard of, but I didn't watch. Over time, I was watching these - one-at-a-time - and eventually found that Fellini's '8½' was playing at the BFI during an Italian Cinema season. I trotted along with Sarah and, due to the subtitles and often-white-scenery you couldn't read every subtitle which was frustrating but I could see the reason it was so credible - though I don't think Italian Neo-Realism is really my thing.

Following Guido

The film begins as a character is breaking free from a car. This car is filling up with smoke and everyone is looking at this car as it sits, stuck, in a traffic jam. This is a metaphor for the situation our protaganist is in. We soon find that this is Guido (Marcello Mastroianni). He is a film director of Science-Fiction - a genre that is complete fantasy - and is struggling to get inspiration for his next film - effectively his ninth film but he is stuck in limbo between his eighth and ninth film. This is what we see.

He mixes imagination with reality - hence we move from his set and his conversations hrough to circus and parades. We are additionally shown Guido's childhood - or how he imagines his childhood was. This past and dreamlike state in the present is all an attempt to inspire him for a new film.

Inspiration and Self-Reference

This lead character, Guido, is apparently based on Fellini himself and - while strugglinh to create his own film - he created this film. This commentary on Art and Creativity is a tough balance - though something that many other writers and directors have tackled since - namely Charlie Kaufman in 'Adaptation' (as a writer) and 'Synecdoche, New York' (as writer/director), while Woody Allen seems to regularly approach the subject in his films.

Maybe it is this that is 'genius'. Having only seen it once - and you can see that I am merely scraping the surface, so I do not explore all the focus on lust and love and women as inspiration - I think this is primarily one of those contextual successes. At the time, there was nothing so dreamlike and sexy in cinema - clearly '8½' made cinema more reflective of the auteur, the director themselves. This has been done since, stalling my personal passion for the film, but showing me how the sixties was not just historical epics, musicals and theatre adaptations. Then again, as history showed us, Hollywood realised this too - turning to Italian Cinema and the French New-Wave to inspire what became the New Hollywood.