Showing posts with label Ernst Lubitsch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ernst Lubitsch. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

Lubitsch's final film is my favorite


Cluny Brown (1946, Ernst Lubitsch) is a profoundly bleak screwball where the oppressive force of the upper class is no better than the hopelessly stifling plight of the lower class. Concurrent alongside this there’s its basic premise, which introduces a cockney twentysomething orphan whose naivete precludes any instinct she might have to restrain her wanton sexual desperation and her chance encounter with a middle-aged fuckboy whom the narrative deliberately positions on an unavoidable course as a reoccurring mentor to her by way of random events.
     Plumbing is code for sex. In the first act CLUNY BROWN (Jennifer Jones) is introduced knocking on the door of these two men to unclog a drain, her first words, “Should we have a go at it?” They get her drunk. After she’s unclogged it she’s sprawled on her back cooing how she feels chirrupy and like a Persian cat. And when she’s at Friar’s Carmel Manor, the master of the house has that line: “You mean to tell me young girls go in for plumbing nowadays?” to which Cluny replies, “It’s such fun.” And her first night staying there, when the heads of the domestic staff catch her leaving the room of the playboy BELINSKI (Charles Boyer), she exclaims: “I wish I could roll up my sleeves and roll down my stockings and unloosen the joint bang bang bang bang.” The Act II break is Cluny shames the mother of her fiancé at a dinner party at his home because she springs into action with her plumbing skills in the middle of a speech he’s giving. And later, with disdain he reprimands her as being a disgrace because she’s “subject to pipe impulses.”
     How should we take their respective promiscuous tendencies? Is she a slut? Is he a player? Or are they just the way they are by nature and should be free from moral judgment? In Cluny Brown it appears to be all for laughs anyway. Or does it? The theme of Cluny Brown as told to us is: knowing one’s place. With the philosophical implication who’s to say what one’s place is? Who knows what one’s place is? Act II begins with Cluny being courted by the local chaste pharmacist WILSON, played with the same nasal British lilt he voiced the caterpillar with in Alice in Wonderland (1951), Richard Haydn. There’s a scene in his residence where he shows Cluny this picture painted by hand he’s quite taken with hanging on his wall, which she bemoans: “Poor little sheep. He hasn’t much future. Just mutton.” You think the subtext is it’s she who by marrying Wilson will settle for the rest of her life in the same dead end he has.
     Except I don’t buy the ending one bit. It’s atrocious. Are we seriously to believe that after everything we’ve seen, how dutiful the Cluny we’ve come to know is, that she’s to abruptly leave her obligations to both her employer and fiancé? And all because the old lech bought her a pair of black silk stockings? And even if she were to run away with him, what would they live off of? The reality setting in could maybe be a life in poverty grifting a living as Bohemian scenesters. But no. Cut to: he’s overnight a bestselling mystery writer?
     And who could expect him to remain faithful to her? We saw how he nearly sexually assaulted MISS CREAM (great name) in her bedroom. Bolenski’s a chronic philanderer and habitual liar. Methinks the movie really ends in the diegesis point where Cluny is sick to her stomach because Wilson told her she ruined the festivities. And that because high and low class British society are both so cold and ineffectual to treating Cluny as a human, we have to realize how sad reality is. And wonder were she to run off with the only other person who she could have thrillingly satisfying sex is would be using her and throw her away when he’s finished with her, that would be the no future existence, just mutton. Just another piece of meat to him.
     Jennifer Jones as a hot master plumber indefatigably headstrong brimming wide-eyed with joy trying to find her place in life is escapist magic. Cluny Brown is escapist magic. Bolenski gets into the old screwball mistaken identity mixup as a Czech professor war refugee seeking asylum from Nazi occupation. But he’s really just an opportunist out for a good time who’s trying to get laid. This movie is a diversion that isn’t interested in real life conflicts. But Bolenski takes the free ride. And Bolenski forcing himself on Miss Cream is the only way her ANDREW finally proposes. Andrew only recognized his need for Miss Cream out of sexual jealousy and possessiveness. 
     Lubitsch is devious subversive. In Cluny Brown sex shows everything that’s wrong in the world. But just like real life, on the surface it works as an immensely enjoyable farce. And it’s up to us if we want to disregard the ending as a put on or not. I don’t think Cluny ever leaves Carmel Manor. And perhaps more than any other scene I’ve ever seen, when she’s happy having tea with four lumps and crumpets, it’s so perfectly beautiful. Then when they realize she doesn’t belong, that she’s the new maid, it crushes her (and me). “You thought I was somebody else didn’t you? Have I done something wrong?” is when she came to know her place in life. And the movie conveys that feeling. What it’s like to stumble into a point in life where you could be anything you wanted, and then it becomes clear that access to certain areas are off limits. The emotions of processing that. 

Saturday, July 12, 2025

It's a deal. It's a bargain. It's a scandal


Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife (1938, Ernst Lubitsch) conveys a certain condition through both thought and emotion. It’s scenario simultaneously ridicules and empowers women. Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife is a marriage screwball comedy that comes on like a carefree swooning rom com but goes down like a psychological horror.
     Here I argue that other movies don’t do both. Thought and emotion. In Adaptation (2002, Spike Jonze), Kaufman’s screenplay allows us to think about how adapting a cerebral source into a movie has to compromise because we’re watching a movie that tries to and fails at avoiding the very same pitfall. Irreversible (2002, Gaspar Noé) makes us feel what it’s like to be in love with someone who is everything to you and then losing her which is losing everything. It’s one or the other.
     In Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife Lubitsch gets us to think about how marriage is like a business transaction. MICHAEL BRANDON (Gary Cooper) says “Love and business are just the same. You have to gamble. You have to take chances.” (I apologize it’s obnoxious at this point for me to keep repeating this but I’ve always thought the exact same thing. Schopenhauer saying nature doesn’t care about us only for us to reproduce. Nothing’s free.) When Mr. Brandon buys the Louis XIV wash basin NICOLE (Claudette Colbert) sees through him: 60,000 francs is his down payment on me.
     Also when Nicole’s father hears she doesn’t want to marry Mr. Brandon and he starts negotiating the aunt calls him out “Are you a father or an auctioneer?” we know what she’s really implying is more like pimp or sex trafficker. But what’s up with right before the second act break how Nicole is repulsed by Michael’s proposition and wants nothing to do with him and then they’re out dancing and she’s swept off her feet? Doesn’t it feels like a reel’s missing? Plot twist. It’s because she’s scamming him.
     Here’s the empowering women part. So this rich, arrogant, over-confident American businessman thinks he can come along and meet this cute French woman on the Riviera in a luxury boutique and after meeting her one time, marry her? After he’s already been through 7 marriages and 6 divorces (1 died)? Nicole’s dad (I love Edward Everett Horton in a Lubitsch and he’s in many) gets the deal up to a $100K prenup. Cruel plot twist. No sex. Not on the honeymoon. Not ever. Not even a kiss. No touching. He can buy her but he can’t have her. I love to imagine all of these beautiful young women who some rich guy thinks he can swoop up for a trophy wife taking his money and giving him nothing in return to balance the scales.
     Does the scene where Michael is trying to seduce his newlywed bride then resorts to increasingly desperate attempts hint on an elliptical implied attempted rape moment? It’s played cutesy. But when they leave the room and she’s applying iodine to a severe wound she’s inflicted on him by biting him I mean she can only have had to be defending herself for one reason right? That’s what they call the Lubitsch touch.
     Act III Michael changes the terms of the business deal. If she’s nice to him he’ll let her have a divorce. But Nicole, not one to acquiesce to defeat has a scheme of her own. She’ll make him think she’s cheating so he’ll divorce her. Spiteful isn’t she? It works though. And yes very screwball of Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife to employ such a sophisticated deception. So Michael has a nervous breakdown and winds up in a sanatorium. And this is a comedy. I love it.
     Michael tells Nicole “You made a nervous wreck of me. You tortured me. You took my pride away. My self-respect. And I took it.” He’s literally in a straightjacket because of her. And the climax at this point makes me feel like wow that’s exactly how women make you feel. How marriage makes you feel. How love makes you feel. And Nicole tells Michael she had to break him down. Now that’s an ending. A resolution. The power balance is even. They’re now equals. Partners. She’s no longer a possession, a property. And they live happily ever after. And I buy it. That’s why I love screwball. It supports both my most cynical conclusions about life and my most tender romantic desires. Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife makes me think about how unfairly a man can behave towards a woman, and makes me feel what he goes through unless he’s able to recognize it.

Tuesday, July 01, 2025

What's he got that I don't got?

Trouble in Paradise (1932, Ernst Lubitsch) is the greatest film of all time. Because Hollywood rules the world when it comes to getting rich by selling people their own dreams, and Trouble in Paradise is a timeless artifact that proves this can be done without being garbage. 
     What’s the first thing that happens in Trouble in Paradise? We’re in Venice, aka paradise, (to be read as the world of artifice, i.e. cinema itself). And a gondolier is taking out the trash and transporting it away in his trash barge. Why? What’s the meaning of this? The trash is commercial crap romantic movies. The trouble in paradise is artless product pandering to undiscerning mainstream audiences. But we’re not here for that. We deserve better. We deserve suite 253, 5, 7, and 9. And one of the most effectively hottest sex scenes in any movie, by way of some inserts of clocks.


 
At a light 80 minutes, Trouble in Paradise deftly crafts a narrative that is deceptively simple because of its clarity and focus; it’s made for us the audience, always with us in mind; and it’s always one step ahead of us. The most rewarding thing about Trouble in Paradise is trying to guess where its going. Somewhere in the middle of Act II, I asked myself whom I would rather Gaston end up with: MME. COLET or LILY? I couldn’t say.
     That is until Lily asks aloud “What does she got that I haven’t got?” That’s when I realized I am all for Miriam Hopkins in this thing. That’s when I realized this movie is speaking to me; through real emotions. That line is everything. A version of that line is also spoken by another character in one of the quintessential treatises on love, when TONY MONTANA asks MANOLO the same thing in Scarface (1983, Brian De Palma). It’s the logic of unrequited desire.
     And that’s the other thing that makes Trouble in Paradise so profound: it deals with real stakes. Yet what Trouble in Paradise is really saying is so pragmatic it could be mistaken as cynical: that sex is a crooked business transaction. And a limited one at that. That this partnership between man and woman is an endeavor best suited to 2 crooks who know that they’re using each other. Because nothing’s free in this world.
     It’s why I care about Miriam Hopkins’ character but not Kay Francis. Dumping the Miriam Hopkins character hurts. Why is it I’ve always been vulnerable to looking at the popular rich kids’ lives as something far more glamorous and exciting than my own, even after growing up? Why was it the same with the idealized romantic notion of true love? Because Mme. Colet embodies both of these poisonous flaws, along with ultimately being a depiction of overly sentimental Hollywood escapist fantasy. That’s why I know Gaston isn’t really in love with her.
     And that’s why after the denouement, even after the idealized perfect romantic paradise proves a hoax, and the grifters Gaston and Lily walk away with the money, the jewels, and each other, we know it won’t last long. It’s all too shaky. But we get to feel how happy we are that they have each other. That Miriam Hopkins’ character has found her dream of paradise. Because it’s also our dream, and that’s what Hollywood was built for.