FlickeringLight

"The Wind" is a nice little film in which the desert winds of West Texas are so prevalent and menacing that they become a character in the film. This omnipresent spirit becomes increasingly harsher and louder as the film goes on, mirroring the increasing conflict and desperation of its characters. Like the film "Twister," the winds also serve as a metaphor for the turbulent nature of each character's interactions with the others. This dramatic choice by the screenwriter and director actually serves to heighten the tension of the film beyond what the story and the characters are able to do.

The interesting thing that strikes me about this film is the theme regarding nature vs. industrialization. The film opens with a train rumbling through the Texas desert, and I am not sure that a train has ever looked so out of place. This machine that represents human industry is encroaching on the natural world, and Nature is surely not putting out the welcome mat. Powerful winds and dust storms engulf the train and make it seem small and powerless by comparison. In another scene, a tornado rips through a "shindig" at the town center, almost dropping the ceiling onto those who are feverishly trying to board up the windows. Once the tornado passes, the fools simply go on about their business and ignore the warnings. We can also see wild mustangs roaming freely about the desert plain, apparently impervious to the machinations of the wind until Nature really gets peeved and brings in a "Norther'." When this happens, those horses who are subject to the men who ride them become as unpredictable and impetuous as the wind itself.

Lillian Gish is wonderful as usual. It strikes me how similar she looks to European actress Christianne Georgi, who I suppose is off making films back in Europe now. Lars Hanson is terrific as Lige. The direction couldn't be more flawless.

The thing that keeps "The Wind" from being a great film is the ancient enemy-- The Studio. The ending should have been left as it was, and would have tied the entire story and thematic together. However, The Studio decided that it wanted a happy ending that turned a moving film of cinematic genius into a trite melodrama with a happy ending. I felt ripped off.

Original Ending: 9/10 (Projected) Actual Film: 6/10

I am a big fan of the silent era, especially the German expressionist films, and I would have to say that although there are many great silent films-- Metropolis, Pandora's Box, The Wind, etc.-- this film is my favorite. I feel that it is Murnau's greatest film. While it does not have the social implications of his films such as "Nosferatu" or "Faust," the cinematography, acting, and Murnau's unabashed belief in the power of love helps this film to rise above the rest.

The acting is sterling, with a 21-year-old Janet Gaynor looking incredibly similar to Drew Barrymore, and delivering a layered performance that reveals her character's strong but tenuous emotional state. I suspect that George O'Brien wasn't exactly what Murnau wanted for his lead actor, due to the lengths that Murnau went to to extract O'Brien's performance, but credit is due the actor for a performance which was brave at times and never ego-centric.

Murnau's use of symbolism and metaphor are suppressed compared to the standards of his other films. In this film their use is more to augment the story rather than actually being the story under the narrative. One example is the fish nets waving the wind as O'Brien returns home from his tryst with the dark seductress, a terrific metaphor for his entrapment and helplessness.

The story itself is one that can appeal to many audiences, as it has its fair share of melodrama, comedy, sap, and suspense. I saw this film with my 17-year-old nephew, who is your typical disaffected digital generation teenager, and he was awful quiet during the dramatic sequences and awful loud during the comic portions. It is amazing how I my own emotions were manipulated by the film without Murnau ever being manipulative or obvious.

The true star of this film, of course, is the cinematography. It is simply awesome. I have done a lot of work with old film cameras, and I have no clue how Strauss managed some of the shots he did. Murnau was one of the first directors, if not the first, to use camera motion during a film. This was no small feat in the days where the camera was not motorized and had to be hand-cranked. The camera movement is amazing. There is a shot where O'Brien moves through the swamp, with wet, muddy, and uneven ground, to meet the woman from the city, and the camera tracks along with him. It looks like a steadicam shot! No track could have performed this shot as it exists, and I have no explanation on how he did this other than that he must have suspended the camera from the ceiling of the studio. Shooting a swamp scene with fog and a full moon in a studio is a feat in itself. There are also other feats of cinematography. There are several shots where the city is the typical cardboard cutout, there are people milling around in the street, yet the trains and trolleys are obviously models. HOW????? If you are able to get the DVD with the cinematography commentary, it is well worth the investment.

To the king of the silents... 10/10

"The Clearing" is a perfect example of how to make a great film with the combination of a thoughtful script, brilliant talent in front of the camera, and taut direction behind it.

The script is simple yet complex. On the surface, it is a simple study of the events of the kidnapping and ransom of a multimillionaire, told in two interwoven strains-- one strain showing the grim march of the kidnapper and the millionaire through the mountains over the course of a day, the other strain focusing on the anguish of the millionaire's family over the course of several days after the abduction. However, above the plot lies the meandering meditation on life that provides the common strain between each character. In the end we see parts of each character within ourselves, and question the true nature and purpose of life itself. This is the mark of a great film.

The acting is downright great. Robert Redford is an actor who works from the inside out, and works so hard on the inside that he usually neglects the outside of his characters, so you always see a little Robert Redford in every part he plays. This part is no different, but it works well because in a sense he is playing himself-- a handsome, wildly successful, hard-working person who has entered a stage in his life where he contemplates his mortality above all else. Willem Dafoe is not himself as usual, and takes pains to represent his character both physically and emotionally. We see his character painstakingly comb his hair in the morning, only to have it flop back down by the time he begins his day. His shoulders are hunched low and his chest pulled in like a beaten man. However, his hatred and anger simmer beneath his amiable exterior. Helen Mirren is actually the star of the film, with a quiet but expressive performance in which her face and posture convey everything that you need to know about her without her ever saying a word. In the end, you understand why each of the three stars' characters do what they do, even without it being mentioned explicitly by the script.

The direction is simply superb. Not only does he deserve some credit for the performances by his actors, but he is able to keep a fairly deft pace to a slow-moving film, and turns in a comprehensive psychological drama with plenty of meditations on life in just a shade over ninety minutes. That, my friends, is a feat.

See this movie. It is a great film.