Fronteiras Perdidas

Lost Boundaries (1949)

This affected me more than I would have expected. I mean, the changes in how we see race and "race relations" since 1949 are huge. The acting is really solid, if not searingly intense (which it has room for). And the narrative is complex enough with a few turning points to make it all interesting.

There is a sense as you watch that you're being shown a social issue and that the jury is already in. We know what we are supposed to feel, and we feel it. There is also a sense of something that doesn't happen much any more—the well known trick of "passing," which means being an African-American (usually) who is light skinned enough to "pass" as white. This is no small thing, since it required a social shift and truly living a "white" American's life, including both the advantages and the inner angst of having left behind your own roots.

So it's important stuff, and good stuff. And it was more compelling in its details and acting than you might think, being both socially loaded and a bit low budget. The production standards are high, however, and the results make it worth watching. I frankly did more than confirm what I already knew about the era and race in America. I realigned a little, feeling more than reminded, but also a little educated.

Yes, the approach here is outdated, and it ignores the true range of racism and hatred of the time, even in the supposedly enlightened New England setting here. But it has the truth woven into the stylized telling. If you think you already know all this, give it a look anyway. It's imprtant enough to try.

Others have described Lost Boundaries very well here, so we will not retrace the plot. As we watched this movie on TCM, it again reinforced our feeling that the movie industry has in some ways lost its way today. From what we can see, while Lost Boundaries was well reviewed by contemporary viewers, it was not particularly recognized when it was made. Nevertheless, being a modest production of its time, it easily surpasses so many movies made today with far greater resources in terms of budget, "star power," and other means. When the industry focused on telling human stories with human beings, it was much more convincing. Today, there is so much focus on marketing, gimmickry, "star" power, and extraneous things like special effects and post-production polishing that it seems the stories lack that "human touch."

We live in Hawaii, and recently saw "The Descendants" out of natural curiosity to see our home state featured, and our response, and that of others we know, was lukewarm. The story seemed to lack depth and any real investment of characters to any stakes (since it was in part about land and wealth), yet it is being touted for Best Picture and more. Clooney was already given Best Actor in the Golden Globes, and our belief is that the award is being rigged because he is a Hollywood favorite and insider. It is a typical Clooney job...glib and slightly sarcastic, and it baffles us that it merits any such recognition.

Occasionally someone makes a great picture because talent is irrepressible and will always emerge, but now it seems to be in spite of the industry rather than because of it. It seems that the television producers seem to have passed the feature film producers in telling stories (Mad Men, Breaking Bad). Tell stories with people, about people, by people...please.

No need to detail the plot as others have done. On the whole, this is a very sincere and thoughtful production. Easy to say that by today's standards the film lacks honesty, especially by casting whites in the lead roles. However, I expect the production went as far as any commercial production of its time could in dealing with the emerging issue of race prejudice. Remember, much of the commercial audience was in the Jim Crow South, and I expect many theaters there refused its showing, (probably in the North too, only more subtly).

Besides, the effort to de-glamorize everyone and everything in the film, along with its location photography and varying sound quality, suggests that social conscience is what the film-makers were aiming for and not big box office. This was an independent production, far from the Hollywood glamor factory, even though the executive producer Louis de Rochemont had been a top producer at 20th Century Fox. I particularly like the way they used ordinary looking people in so many of the principal and supporting parts, especially the charming but plain-faced Susan Douglas and the equally charming but goofy-looking Carleton Carpenter. The ending too, is handled with a fair amount of honesty. especially the highly symbolic very last frame.

Too bad that this was precisely the kind of gritty little conscience film that disappeared from the screen following the Mc Carthy purges that loomed on the horizon. Even though the movie is now mainly of historical interest, it indicates the sort of challenging entertainment that was lost to the public during the Cold War decade of the 1950's. More than anything, it now needs to be shown more often, so that younger generations can get a definite sense of time, place, and attitudes, even if the actors are white.

The topic of racial boundaries is explored in fine detail in this story about a light-skinned doctor and his family who all pass for white in a New England town. All points of view and opinions are represented. What makes this such a remarkable film is that it was made in 1949, hardly a year of profound social change in America when it came to the color line. This makes the movie that much more daring. A much better look at the topic of passing than either Pinkie or the second version of Imitation of Life (the first was quite extraordinary, and far superior). There are some really wonderful scenes including one at the town dance when the doctor's son brings home a dark-skinned black friend. The levels of acceptance and non-acceptance of the young black man are nuanced and played out beautifully.

The film suffers a tiny bit from hokey dialogue and mild melodrama, but that is more a result of the year it was made.

Can you imagine Mel Ferrer as a Pullman porter in the 1940s? Neither can I. He doesn't play one but his character, who is a young doctor passing for white, says that if he let his race be known he might end up doing that.

This is (so we are told) a true story. The Ferrer character is given a break: He becomes the local doctor in a small New Hampshire town. His wife, also played by a white actress who therefore can very easily "pass for white" goes along with his charade.

(The actor playing their son as an adult is very good. His character becomes involved in an adventure -- what, I cannot say without giving away the plot. It is related in a noir fashion that both works and seems a little generic.) Possibly we're meant to be inspired. My main feeling about the choice this couple makes is that it is egregiously unfair to their two children. The kids don't know they are black.

It's a low-keyed story, generally well acted. I found it hard not to get caught up in the central characters' dilemma.) I'm not sure why but the casting didn't bother me so much as that of "Pinky." Maybe because "Pinky" is more self-congratulatory about touching such a daring topic. "Lost Boundaries" is really not a message movie. It tells a story and tells it well -- albeit a bit dishonestly