Fitzcarraldo (1982)

Almost as famous for the story of its making, a stunningly epic look at idealism and hubris

Director: Werner Herzog

Cast: Klaus Kinski (Brian Sweeney ‘Fitzcarraldo’ Fitzgerald), Claudia Cardinale (Molly), José Lewgoy (Don Aquilino), Miguel Ángel Fuentes (Cholo), Paul Hittscher (Captain “Orinoco” Paul Resenbrink), Huerequeque Enrique Bohórquez (Huerequeque), Grande Othelo (Stationmaster), Peter Berling (Opera manager), David Pérez Espinosa (Campa chief), Milton Nascimento (Opera house doorman), Ruy Polanah (Rubber baron)

Possibly no film is as famous (if not more so) for its making, as much as the film itself. Fitzcarraldo is the epicentre of the Herzog myth (that’s saying something for a guy who once ate a shoe on film and dismissed getting shot by an air rifle during an interview as ‘insignificant’ before continuing). Herzog not only committed his crew to pulling a steamer ship up a jungle mountain for real, but also continued his tumultuous partnership with the notoriously unpleasant Kinski (who the indigenous cast even offered to bump off). Chuck in that Herzog spent had to reshoot most of the film from scratch after original stars Jason Robards and Mick Jagger dropped out, and you have a film that could almost become a film itself.

In the early years of the twentieth century, the shores of the Amazon are being exploited by business barons. Brian Sweeney Fitzgerald (Klaus Kinski) – known as Fitzcarraldo – wants to become one of them. But not because he hungers for money: his passion is opera, and his dream is to raise the capital to build an opera house in Inquitos. This leads to a final desperate throw of the dice: buying a claim to a stretch of rubber trees, inaccessible behind rapids on tributary stream of the Amazon. But there is only one way to get to it: take a ship down a parallel river, then drag it over a small mountain at the narrowest point, farm the rubber and drag the ship back to sail home. Simple right?

At one point, Fitzgerald calls himself the “Conquistador of the useless”. It’s also the title Herzog himself chose when he wrote about making the film, which was born out of his obsession with how ancient civilisations moved giant stone menhirs. You could (very easily) argue Fitzcarraldo is a self-portrait of a man compelled to bring his impossible ideas to life. There is no doubt a lot of the films power comes from knowing a real (admittedly 30-tonne rather than 320) steamship was pulled up a mountain by hundreds of people. It’s one of the reasons why the film’s more luxuriant pace sometimes drag – we want to get into the jungle as much as Fitzgerald does. We know it’s coming and the first hour leading to it, particularly on a first viewing, can try the patience.

Much like his last famous film in the jungles, Fitzcarraldo has a mystic, mythical and timeless quality. With Popul Vuh’s haunting music seeping into your soul, Thomas Mauch’s camerawork stresses the vastness of the jungle and the size of the ship. The riverbanks this ship will be dragged over seem to tower over it, but the ship itself is frequently framed in relation to the crew it dwarves. There is an impossible, suitably Operatic, quality to what Fitzcarraldo (film and man) is attempting, and Herzog’s film doesn’t shirk in presenting the awesome impossibility of it, the dizzying unlikeliness of success, that only the most obsessed would ever even think of attempting. When you watch this ship being winched painfully slowly up a hill, ropes screaming, it’s somewhere between awe-inspiring and rubber-neckingly compelling. Part of the magic of Herzog’s film is that you invest as utterly in its mad quest as its lead does.

Of course, even though the film nearly starred Jason Robards, the wild-eyed intensity of Klaus Kinski was the only suitable channel for this madness. Despite this though, Fitzcarraldo inverts your expectations by giving us Kinski at possibly his most boyish, sweet and endearing (the exact opposite of the actor’s own personality on set). He’s an excitable eccentric, giddy with joy at hearing Caruso sing live, bounding around, forming a natural bond with children and animals, pushing his vision forwards because he earnestly believes it can be done because it must be done. This might be Kinski’s least ‘dangerous’, most gentle role, Fitzgerald able to inject his passion into others.

Not all of course – its notable that, when he reveals his plan, almost the entire crew deserts en masse in shock, leaving him just the eccentric drunken chef, his world-weary captain and cynical indigenous engineer. But there is a messianic quality in Kinski’s Fitzgerald that sweeps up the indigenous tribes into making enormous sacrifices to assist his vision (Fitzgerald’s tragedy is that his naïve, optimistic excitement blinds him to the fact that their motives are radically different to his own).

But then Fitzcarraldo, for all of the stunning excitement of the feat at its centre, doesn’t let you forget this is a grand folly, built on the back of oppression and colonial greed. That the sole reason Europeans have piled down to the Amazon is to dig bucketloads of cash out of the ground and that Fitzgerald also has no problem with sacrificing indigenous lives and tearing up the South American countryside to suit his needs. Fitzcarraldo for all its sanity-defying gorgeous, is about the selfish cost of this, and we are not allowed to forget that Fitzgerald is also a ball of monstrous vanity, the self-proclaimed “spectacle of the forest”. That there is a huge element of hubris in his desire to bend nature to his will to fulfil his artistic dreams.

Early in the boat haul, a slipped rope sends the boat rolling backwards and crushing (horribly) the life out of several workers, with others pulled out to die agonisingly slow deaths. At no point does Fitzgerald break off from his dance of celebration as the boat moves to notice this. Later he offers payment to the indigenous workers in the form of blocks of ice (“do they know it melts” he sheepishly asks his translator). The countryside around the boat is torn apart to produce a mud slope to pull the ship up, and Fitzgerald’s grand plan is to industrialise the area. Really, is he that different from the robber baron industrialists, who are full of self-satisfied, cigar chomping greed, talking about civilising the land but really only interested in lining their own pockets.

They take whatever isn’t nailed down from the tribes, feed bottles of champagne to their horses, mockingly keep bonfires going with bundles of bank notes and congratulate themselves over poker games in posh clubs. Herzog records this all with a calm, measured preciseness allowing us to draw our own conclusions. Soon, we can’t miss that even Fitzgerald’s girlfriend (a charming Claudia Cardinale) makes the money to finance their venture from training up a host of extremely reluctant looking indigenous women in the arts of bordello prostitution (“it’s better than working the street” she blithely says).

For all Fitzgerald’s mission is a last desperate throw of the dice, to raise funds for his opera house (it’s striking by the way how many viewers misremember the steamship as the opera house, as if Herzog was dragging a building up a hill), it’s also a quietly subversive look at the arrogance of the West (Fitzgerald is eventually thwarted, as it never occurs to him that the indigenous tribes have motives independent of his own). It’s a reminder that behind many dreams, is often a selfish obsession around gain – be that for glory, money or art. Fitzgerald loves the opera for sure – but he also loves the idea of himself as the ambassador for the art in South America. That’s the real dream and lives will be lost on the way. Fitzcarraldo is willing to forgive him this; even after death and failure, it gives him a sentimental coda that feels almost not quite real in its quiet optimism. But it won’t turn a blind eye to the losses he has caused. Herzog’s film (and you could accuse it, as some of, of doing the same exploitation of others as Fitzgerald does) is still an impossible, marvellous folly that no one else surely could have imagined or made.

Bad Girl (1931)

Somewhat mistitled film, which is really a sort of dramedy of misunderstandings

Director: Frank Borzage

Cast: Sally Eilers (Dorothy Haley), James Dunn (Eddie Collins), Minna Gombell (Edna Driggs), Claude King (Dr Burgess)

Boy meets girl, they fall in love – what could go wrong? Quite a lot it turns out. Dorothy (Sally Eilers) works in a department store and enjoys nights out with best friend Edna (Minna Gombell). On one such trip she a man she meets is annoyed by her ukulele playing (who can blame him) and then doubles down on his crime by not flirting with her. But she’s fascinated by Eddie Collins (James Dunn) and, before they know it, they are into a whirl-wind marriage. Within months, both are convinced the other believes they have made a terrible mistake and want out.

Despite its salacious title – and the look of its poster – today Moderately Cheeky Girl would be a better title than Bad Girl. A better title than either would really be A Dramedy of Errors. Because that’s really what it’s about: two slightly naïve, decent people terrified that the other feels trapped. It’s the sort of gentle melodrama where the entire plot would fall apart in thirty seconds flat if either spoke honestly to the other. Instead, mistakes and misunderstandings are (often wilfully) allowed to continue, as they conceal things or allow misunderstandings to continue out of social embarrassment.

As such, it’s hard not to think Bad Girl as being both rather slight and silly. It just about manages to counteract this by its careful pacing and the sweet earnestness of the performances by Sally Eilers and James Dunn, counter-balanced by the sparky comic sharpness of Minna Gombell. Between them, these three just about keep Borzage’s sentimental translation (of a far spicey book) going. But, rather like the characters dilemmas, if you stop to think about it, it’s strikingly artificial.

Most of the many misunderstandings revolve around Dorothy’s pregnancy. This pregnancy itself is practically the last vestige of ‘bad’ left in the film: it’s very heavily implied this baby has its roots in a spicey piece of pre-marital sex shortly after they met. (Borzage rather artfully communicates this with a slow pan from a middle-of-the-night shot of a bed to the two lovers hugging – fully clothed – in a chair the other side of the room). But it serves as a jumping off point for paranoid misunderstandings, rooted in Dorothy’s fears that (like her mother) she’s destined to die in childbirth.

First, Dorothy is too panicked to admit she’s pregnant (worried that Eddie will disappear over the horizon the second he finds out he’s destined to be a dad). So she speaks about needing to find her own job, leading to Eddie blowing his entire life savings on setting them up in a fully furnished flat to reassure her she doesn’t need to work. This calamitous decision ends at a stroke both Eddie’s dream of setting up his own business and burns through their reserves for the incoming infant. As such, when Dorothy sweats over needing the finest doctor, Eddie is reduced to (secretly) throwing himself into being beaten to a pulp in a prize fighting ring and then literally begging the doctor to work for free to help her – all while allowing her to believe he doesn’t really give a toss.

The film’s love of melodrama is never clearer than when Dorothy greets the bruised, late-night returning Eddie with a weary contemptuous assumption he’s been out on the piss and Eddie doesn’t even try to correct her. Neither does she question how they can suddenly afford the best doctor in town, nor does Eddie attempt to inform her. In a series of misunderstandings stemming from neither talking honestly to each other at all, Eddie remains convinced Dorothy can’t bear the thought of a child while Dorothy believes Eddie feels she and the child have ruined his life.

How much you run with this sort of stuff, rather depends how much you can lose yourself in a drama where you might be dying for someone to knock some sense into these tyros. Minna Gombell’s Edna seems best suited to do this but, partly due to not wanting to stick in her nose too far, partly because she almost can’t believe these two can be so blind, she doesn’t. Fortunately, James Dunn finds a great deal of little-boy-lost charm in the try-hard but quietly anxious Eddie, while Sally Eilers Dorothy has a winning quality of sounding more worldly than she actually is.

The misunderstandings comprehensively outweigh the “badness” which looks incredibly tame today. She likes to flirt, looks for dates out on the town and doesn’t mind seeing a boy late at night – what a temptress! In fact, if anything, the way poor Dorothy and Edna constantly fall back on a parade of invented prize-fighting husbands and protective grandfathers to fend off the unwanted attentions of lascivious bosses and customers makes them feel rather sympathetic.

Borzage won an Oscar for his direction, which feels slightly surprising today considering the light melodrama of the script (like a puff of air) and the fairly comfortable mid-shot most of the film is shot in. There are some flashes of invention – the film’s opening is a neat misdirect, with Dorothy kitted out in wedding attire for what turns out to be a fashion parade at her department store; there is a neatly shot toboggan ride – but largely Borzage’s main achievement here is not making it seem totally ridiculous. The drama around Eddie’s investment in a top notch apartment they can’t afford actually carries a fair bit of impact – helped by the shocked horror of Eilers when its unveiled in front of a room of their friends – and the film’s final, slightly ridiculous reveal of the truth manages to just about work even though it’s the most swiftly contrived thing you can imagine.

Bad Girl is an entertaining enough little melodramatic semi-comedy of misunderstandings, that powers through with its genuine earnestness and rather winning sweetness. It may not be anything particularly special or striking, but it slides past with a crowd-pleasing ease.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

Second-tier Spielberg sequel, one-for-the-money but still entertaining for fans of Dinosaur action

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Jeff Goldblum (Dr Ian Malcolm), Julianne Moore (Dr Sarah Harding), Pete Postlethwaite (Roland Tembo), Arliss Howard (Peter Ludlow), Richard Attenborough (Dr John Hammond), Vince Vaughn (Nick Van Owen), Vanessa Lee Chester (Kelly Curtis), Peter Stormare (Dieter Stark), Harvey Jason (Ajay Sidhu), Richard Schiff (Eddie Carr)

Sometimes I wonder if Spielberg even remembers he directed The Lost World. I guess he wanted something to ease him back in after a few years off, which came with a nice big pile of cash to set up Dreamworks. There isn’t anything particularly wrong with The Lost World. It just feels from top-to-bottom like something rolled off a production line, largely devoid of any of the spark or magic you associate with the director. It’s like a Spielberg-pastiche and, while still better than several films in the franchise that followed, it’s unlikely to last 65 million years in the mind.

After the disaster of Jurassic Park, turns out there was a Site B. John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) plans to let the dinos there live freely, under observation. But InGen, now led by his greedy nephew Peter Ludlow (Arliss Howard), plans to exploit the dinos for cash. Hammond recruits Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) as part of an island team to build a case for protecting the dinosaurs – having already recruited his Malcolm’s girlfriend Sarah Harding (Julianne Moore). Malcolm high-tails it to the dangerous island to get her back (accidentally dragging his kid Kelly (Vanessa Lee Chester) along), only to find Ludlow also on the island, guided by big game-hunter Roland Tempo (Pete Postlethwaite) to capture dinosaurs. Soon “oohs” and “aahhs” turn to “arragghhs!”.

It was adapted pretty much in name only from Michael Chrichton’s Jurassic Park sequel – in fact, several of its most memorable scenes (such as Stormare’s character being munched by compeys, or its child-attacked-on-a-beach opening) are in fact unused material from Chrichton’s first book. The film feels like a wall where a collection of fun-sounding ideas have been chucked to see what it sticks, right down to the sudden gear-change final act with a T-Rex causing havoc in the streets of San Diego. To make this work, major characters consistently make sudden, contradictory or flat-out-stupid decisions, or abruptly disappear once their plot function has been served.

In fact, it’s basically a film of set-pieces with a very, very thinly plotted through-line. The main beats are either thuddingly obvious (can Malcolm bond with his kid?) or get completely lost (the very-lightly sketched non-intervention plans that kickstart the film quickly get dropped completely). What’s important instead is that this is a series of chases against dangerous dinos, with the T-Rex and the velociraptors playing narrative tag between them as flesh-eating antagonists with various (mostly unsympathetic) humans filling out their lunchboxes.

Spielberg is still Spielberg though, so when he gets into a set-piece it tends to be a good one. The T-Rex assault on our heroes caravan base (in a particularly great Spielberg touch, Moore finds herself on a slowly cracking glass windscreen with a deadly drop below) is genuinely exciting – and, in the fate of Richard Schiff’s luckless team mate, genuinely a bit sad. The rag-tag remains of both parties desperately trying to escape the island gives us exciting T-Rex attacks, Stormare (as slimily detestable as only he can be) eaten by a hundred compeys is well-executed and, finally, a brilliantly conceived sequence of raptors ploughing like torpedoes through a forest of long grass to pluck off stragglers is really striking, despite being very short.

These sit alongside (admittedly fun) set-pieces that also feel a little silly. The entire final sequence of the T-Rex fits neatly into this, full of cartoonish nonsense (a doghouse hanging by a lead from the T-Rex after a dog is consumed, or a giant pool ball sent rolling down a road in its carnage) as people scream, run about and generally panic as the T-Rex bombards down a busy high street. That’s without even thinking about the silliness that the T-Rex, like Dracula on the Demeter, kills everyone on the ship transporting it (including getting its massive body inside some really tiny rooms, to leave grisly remains like a hand hanging from a wheel) then calmly goes back inside its storage hold and (presumably) locks itself back in again.

But then this is also a film that throws in a chase between three of our leads and a group of velociraptors (which feels narratively its there to kill time while a miscast Vince Vaughan – as an all-action animal rights activist of all things – phones for help) which builds towards the totally absurd sight of a 12-year-old dispatching a velocitator to a spikey death via her gymnastic skills. It really hammers home how wildly the velociraptors’ skills vary: against Postlethwaite’s hunters they are ruthlessly effective; here Moore slows them down with well-aimed roof tiles, a limping Goldblum deters one with a car door and of course, Kelly uses them to show why she should never have been cut from the school sports team.

The Lost World barrels along leaving logic in its wake. Julianne Moore’s Sarah Harding is set-up as an expert on animal-survivalism, but in her first scene is nearly killed by that humble “children’s favourite dinosaur” the Stegosaurus, after startling their baby with her noisy camera (she learns nothing from this about the protectiveness dinosaurs have for their young). She presents a list of strict survival “rules”, all of which she promptly breaks, culminating in walking miles in a shirt soaked in T-Rex blood, after telling us their sense of smell is a superpower. Meanwhile Goldblum’s feelings towards Hammond veer between frustration and deep respect depending on the immediate requirements of the scene.

The film is in fact a parade of characters behaving stupidly and slightly miscast actors. –Moore’s chippy feistiness makes her seem reckless and out-of-her-depth rather than plucky and brave, Goldblum isn’t quite right as action hero (interestingly. I can’t really think of them playing as conventional action adventure roles as this again). As a result, its most compelling character is actually Pete Postlethwaite’s Allan Quartermain-throwback. Postlethwaite is by far the film’s most assured and authoritative performer, makes his character the film’s most professional and logical, and our heroes so frequently look frustratingly smug (and incompetent), that you end up seeing things more from his side. Postlethwaite is greatly missed when he departs the film abruptly before the final act.

That all sounds really harsh doesn’t it? The Lost World may well be very much second tier Spielberg, full of moments that don’t quite work, are very silly or feel half-baked. But despite that, it’s swift, pacey and generally entertaining even when it’s stupid. Because when Spielberg fills a bowl of popcorn, he generally knows just how much butter and salt to add in. It’s never going to be anyone favourite Jurassic Park film, but it’s still going to be good entertainment for a Saturday night.

Darling (1965)

Christie is superb in a film that’s more prudish than its reputation – and feels more sympathetic to its heroine today

Director: John Schlesinger

Cast: Julie Christie (Diana Scott), Laurence Harvey (Miles Brand), Dirk Bogarde (Robert Gold), José Luis de Vilallonga (Prince Cesare della Romita), Roland Curram (Malcolm), Basil Henson (Alec Prosser-Jones), Helen Lindsay (Felicity Prosser-Jones), Carlo Palmucci (Curzio della Romita), Alex Scott (Sean Martin), Trevor Bowen (Tony Bridges)

Perhaps no film screams “Swinging Sixties” more than Darling. Diana Scott (Julie Christie), a beautiful and charming model, decides the best way to move up the social ladder is to use those skills. She throws her first husband aside for high-brow TV journalist Robert Gold (Dirk Bogarde), before starting an affair with heartless, philandering marketing executive Miles Brand (Laurence Harvey) all while moving ever upwards. But will she learn there is nothing worse than getting what you want?

You can get a sense of how seismic it must have seemed. Darling was free and open about sex in a way very few films had been before. Today it can seem a bit coy – this is hardly Performance and most of the juicier stuff is implied – but the film starts with adultery and spirals into sex parties, orgies, couple swopping and menage a trois via bisexuality and a hint of transsexuality. What could be more sixties than that – and many at the time were excited (and tantalised) by the world of opportunity it seemed to present.

But, watching today, it hardly feels like Darling celebrates this stuff. Instead, this is a dark satire that heartily endorses the idea that behind all this hedonism is not very much at all. In fact, the most dated thing about Darling might be its air of 1950s frowning discomfort at all the naughtiness – and most of all, a disapproving frown for the ambitious young women at its heart, determined to get what she wants. It’s hard not to escape the feeling the film judges Diana harshly, while giving a pass to Bogarde’s Robert who (to be honest) is scarcely much better.

So why does the film still work – and much better than I expected? Because Schlesinger’s direction of Raphael’s arch and satirical script is inventive and playful enough to nullify the moral lecture elements. There is enough wit in the presenting of puffed-up, hypocritical powerbrokers (like Brian Wilde’s MP, breaking away from a moral sermon to drool over Diana) as two-faced meanies to sooth the moral pronouncements. In fact, with so many elements of that, its possible (and, arguably, hard for a modern viewer not to) to say ‘good on you’ to Diana for chancing her hand.

It’s also hard not to sense Darling taking pops at Diana’s middle-class sister and her husband – so constrained, they apologise to each other in bed – or the pretentious bores at an art gallery or the tedious self-importance of a Waugh-ish author who Robert idolises (and Diana finds boring as shit). This tone of spreading the mockery makes the film feel far even-handed (if a little scattergun). It even has a go at the conservative British public (actual real people) who, in Bogarde’s vox-pop interviews, blame laziness, immigrants and homosexuality for all the faults of Britain in 1965 (how times change).

Take all that into account and balance it against the strength of the performances, with Julie Christie astonishingly good as Diana. Winning an Oscar, Christie bursts at the seams with charisma and wit, making it almost impossible to dislike her, even when part of the film is appalled by her. Christie makes Diana witty, smart but also vulnerable, her manipulation of people is more instinctive than overt and there’s a great deal of sadness in her. She’s a lonely woman who believes being the centre of the attention will cure that feeling – whereas, in fact, the more she does so, the lonely she feels. And it leads to self-destructive behaviour that destroys relationships she cares about.

That loneliness surprisingly powers a lot of the film, giving Darling a sad after-taste. There is something very tender in Diana breaking down in tears at a photography session. Christie brilliantly plays her anxiety at finding the ‘classy’ Parisian joint Miles has taken her is a borderline sex party, translating itself into a desire to fit in, culminating in a burst of childlike delight when she has a hit in a mean-spirited game of abusive comments. And Darling gifts a fantastic scene to Christie near its conclusion, as Diana undergoes a near breakdown in her gilded Italian mansion prison, ripping furnishings, smashing ornaments as she collapses into self-loathing misery.

It’s this tenderness that underpins – or rather undermines – the film’s satirical ticking off for Diana that keeps it entertaining today. Not to mention it’s harder today to find as much sympathy (as I suspect the film wants) for Bogarde’s Robert. Bogarde is very good as this middle rung on society’s ladder, a guy who loves the idea of a hot young mistress but who slips quickly into cardigan-wearing dullness, becoming the same humiliated cuckold told transparent lies by Diana and her lover as her made her first husband.

But Robert is also a hypocrite, cowardly walking out on his family without a backward glance and seeing no irony at all in his own practised ease at planning affairs (he even knows you need to bring a stuffed suitcase to your hotel assignations). And while the film finds a silent disapproval for Diana’s abortion, it’s hard not to notice that Robert is hardly doing cartwheels when she announces her pregnancy.

Surprisingly it’s actually easier to see the shallow Miles as the most honest person in the film. Played with an ice-cold distance by Laurence Harvey (vocally partly channelling Richard Burton), Miles may be a cad but at least he never pretends to be anything else. While every other man spins Diana a self-aggrandising story, Miles openly treats their relationship as transactional and never lies. It says a lot for Darling’s view of its era that the most honest man is a morality-free advertising executive.

He fits in neatly into a world where anything important is roundly ignored. The film opens with Diana’s latest billboard being pasted over a Third World hunger campaign; Diana later presents prizes at a charity fundraiser for this campaign, where the wealthy hoi polloi are more interested in stuffing their faces and gambling (and the only Black people in attendance are servants – one upper class pervert lasciviously asks if they are ‘available’, like they are items on a menu).

On top of this, Diana keeps up a running voiceover commentary, frequently blatantly contradicting her actions on screen. But her tone is so breezy and blissfully guilt-free that, again, it’s a little hard not to warm to her – even as she claims ignorance for deeds we see her carrying out. Schlesinger frequently demonstrates the irony of this spun version of her life.

In all, there is much to enjoy in Darling – more than I was in fact expecting. It’s extremely handsomely filmed (there is a great shot of Diana striding down Miles’ boardroom table from a low angle and a lovely day-to-night cut at a harbour that really stands out) and has some very sharp lines, blessed by a fantastic performance by Christie and great character turns from Bogarde and Harvey. I suspect part of the interest now is delving down into the deeper implications of the film. What may have once been seen as a dark celebration of freedom, now feels at point judgemental and prudish – but, to counter that, its lead now feels less like an amoral temptress and more of a confused and lost tragic soul with genuine warmth. It’s a test case in how time can both define and change perceptions of a film.

Lady for a Day (1933)

Capra’s charming comedy is really a sort of proto-Ealing film, and certainly a lot of fun

Director: Frank Capra

Cast: Warren William (Dave the Dude), May Robson (Apple Annie), Guy Kibbee (Henry D Blake), Glenda Farrell (Missouri Martin), Ned Sparks (Happy Maguire), Jean Parker (Louise), Barry Norton (Carlos), Walter Connolly (Count Romero), Nat Pendleton (Shakespeare), Halliwell Hobbes (Butler), Hobart Bosworth (Governor)

Based on a short story called Madame La Gimp (probably wise to change that title), Frank Capra’s Lady for a Day (for which he received his first Oscar nomination) fits neatly into his wheelhouse in one sense with its feel-good, comic sentimentality. But it also feels rather like an Ealing film made before the studio even existed. It’s a film where ordinary folks, some of them not exactly saints, with a mix of cunning and luck, run circles around the powers that be in the name of a good cause. It’s also a sharp, witty, fast-paced comedy with a happy ending. It’s a real crowd-pleasing comedy.

Apple Annie (May Robson) is an ageing fruit seller in New York City, who has seen better days but now lives in a rundown flat. But she’s doesn’t want the daughter, who she gave up for adoption decades ago, to know that. Using headed notepaper from a posh hotel, she has spun her a story for years that Annie is a well-to-do society figure in the Big Apple. So, it’s a disaster when daughter Louise (Jean Parker) writes back saying she’s engaged to the son of a Spanish count and is bringing him to New York to meet her mother. Apple Annie’s story seems doomed – but her salvation is that she is the lucky charm of rogueish gambler gangster Dave the Dude (Warren William) who never does a deal without buying one of her apples first. Can Dave ‘s money and his crew – with the help of a borrowed apartment – act out her fantasy for real?

Lady for a Day becomes a charming, fast-paced, semi-farce with Dave’s rough-and-tumble crew constantly trying to keep a step ahead of Louise’s prospective husband and father-in-law finding out the truth. They are helped by a large group of semi-vagrants from Apple Annie’s neighbourhood, all presented with an endearingly, non-patronising sense of supportive community. This leads to a constant parade of hustling their visitors from place-to-place, intercepting phone calls to the Spanish consulate and roping in a parade of New Yoick hustlers to play society grandees at a soiree. All of this while trying to stay one step ahead of the police and press, who are both convinced if the Dude is chucking this much money and people around, he must be planning a big score.

It’s the sort of charm you can’t imagine being allowed to fly even a year later: gangsters who don’t for a single-minute consider renouncing their life of making money from illicit deals (among other things), presented as put-upon, but-decent guys, bending over backwards to make an old woman’s dream come true. Lady for a Day doesn’t for a second suggest there should be a price to pay for their naughty day jobs. ‘Worse’ than that, in true Earling style, it presents the police chasing after them as dumb flat foots, hopelessly clueless and off-the-pace. Hard to believe the Hays Code passing that.

But it really works here, especially since Capra directs with phenomenal zip and wit. You could imagine a version of Lady for a Day weighted down in cheap sentimentality (in fact, you don’t need to – Capra made it in 1961 calling it A Pocketful of Miracles), but instead this is genuinely funny with well-drawn characters. Warren William is very good as the increasingly put-upon Duke, who can’t believe he’s been pulled into funding this good deed, but commits to it with world-weary resignation. He ‘sparks’ brilliantly off Ned Sparks’ rat-a-tat, cynical fixer flummoxed by his boss turning ‘Father Christmas’ but as determined to deliver on the deal as he would be on any other criminal enterprise.

And refreshingly Lady for a Day’s plot still has an air of criminal enterprise about it. They aren’t above threatening Halliwell Hobbes’ excellently dry butler with a bit of physical harm if he doesn’t play his part to perfection (doesn’t stop Hobbes getting in a cuttingly witty line about Sparks’ poor grammar). When a trio of journalists cause problems, they kidnap them (only for a few days they promise!). Difficult people are quietly strong-armed out of the way. Capra – working with a typically excellent Robert Riskin script – gets the tone just right, with just enough whimsical, Wildean farce.

This also plays into several set-pieces. The planning of the elaborate soiree is a particular gem. Packed with a parade of gamblers, tough guys and molls – all lacking even a drop of sophistication – they are carefully given a named role (one of them protests playing the Secretary of Defence – “a secretary is a secretary”) and a single line of high-styled dialogue, which they require hours of careful coaching to not fumble. The entire idea is excellent and superbly executed. Their dialogue is all provided by Guy Kibbee’s (quite excellent here) English gent-turned pool hustler, ‘playing’ Annie’s husband and enjoying a taste of the high life – while, in another memorable scene, discovering his pool hustling skills are more than a little helpful to the cause.

The film also works because it has a lovely, heartfelt performance by May Robson (Oscar nominated) as Annie. There is a wonderful Dickensian quality to Robson, with Apple Annie a Mrs Gamp with a tragic past (there are several references that she was once a lot more affluent than shifting apples on the street). Robson makes her sweet but sparky but never loses track of her vulnerability and fear that the truth may be discovered. She makes the character feel real and grounded, meaning the scenes with her daughter (which could have tipped into sentimentality) are genuinely quite touching.

It’s another successful beat in a fast-paced film that is entertaining, genuinely quite heart-warming and stuffed with excellent performances from a parade of studio players grabbing the sort of roles they wouldn’t normally get by the scruff of the neck. With its compassionate regard for the little guys, while not presenting either vagrants patronisingly or gangsters naively, it constantly entertains. It’s got a pre-Code daring about it (there is a neat joke about a gay hairdresser and a hint that Annie had her child out of wedlock, neither of which would have flown years later) and in its comic wit and fast-paced energy it’s one of Capra’s finest. Sure, it ends before Annie has to return to her previous life (and I’ve no idea what they would do if Louise visited again) but the film is as much about spinning a charming fantasy for us as it is for the characters.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Malick’s return from self-exposed exile is, for better or worse, a war film unlike any other

Director: Terrence Malick

Cast: Sean Penn (Sgt Edward Walsh), Adrien Brody (Cpl Geoffrey Fife), Jim Caviezel (Pvt Robert Witt), Ben Chaplin (Pvt Jack Bell), George Clooney (Captain Bosche), John Cusack (Capt John Gaff), Woody Harrelson (Sgt Keck), Elias Koteas (Capt James Staros), Jared Leto (Lt Whyte), Dash Mihok (Pfc Don Doll), Tim Blake Nelson (Pvt Tillis), Nick Nolte (Lt Col Gordon Tall), John C Reilly (Sgt Maynard Storm), Larry Romano (Pvt Mazzi), John Savage (Sgt McCron), John Travolta (Brig Gen Quintard)

There are war movies. And then there are Terrence Malick war movies. With The Thin Red Line Malick returned from a self-imposed twenty-year exile, during which his mystique had grown to mythical status. His return screened the same year Spielberg was widely credited as re-inventing the entire genre with Saving Private Ryan. But, while that was a visceral gut punch, The Thin Red Line makes its men-on-a-mission approach seem conventional. Malick’s film is a poem, musing on man’s place in nature, humanity, spirituality, good and evil – in fact anything except Dirty Dozen style shenanigans.

Set on the US invasion of Guadalcanal, it follows the men of a single company as they march and fight their way across the island, principally focusing its ‘plot’ on a two-day mission to capture a non-descript hill from a largely unseen enemy. In the smorgasbord of characters, Malick’s roving eye lights on a few key figures: the spiritually-minded, independent Witt (Jim Caviezel); Bell (Ben Chaplin) who day-dreams about the wife he left at home; Doll (Dash Mihok) a terrified blow-hard; stoic professional Sgt Welsh (Sean Penn) who holds the company together; feuding commanders, humanitarian Captain Staros (Elias Koteas) and ambitious Colonel Tall (Nick Nolte).

But these characters are merely a jumping off point for a film that ruminates with sometime self-indulgent luxury, and bravely dares to suggest the ‘good war’ of World War II was a pointless, inhuman brawl that served little real purpose. Few war films start with peaceful shots of nature at work, featuring a crocodile drifting lazily through the waters (the same croc is later captured by the soldiers – no escape for nature from the war), lingering shots of birds and wildlife and one of its principal characters (Caviezel’s Witt), AWOL and paddling gently across a river, among an indigenous tribe.

The Thin Red Line draws a tender portrait of these indigenous people – whose calmly life is corrupted by conflict, not in terms of destruction but how the violence of war seeps into their culture. When Witt returns later, on leave after sterling front-line service, he finds these people clashing as never before, mirroring the brutal anger of the war he has left. In the film’s frequent, mumbling, ruminative voiceover, characters ask again and again where violence comes from – does it come from the same place as goodness? If you plug into this sort of thing – and some won’t – it can have a hypnotic power.

What makes The Thin Red Line unique among war films is that its real heart is in the poetry, full of deep, open-ended questions which are either unanswerable or mystifyingly oblique. It stretches as few others do for deeper spiritual answers. Malick adapted the film from a conventional war novel, by James Jones – but during the editing he jettisoned much of its plot (much to the shock of Adrien Brody, playing the novel’s lead character but reduced to a few lines) and leaned into the mystical, spiritual questions he was asking. Malick spotted earlier than any others the messianic, martyr qualities in Jim Caviezel, who is excellent as a rebelliously minded but deeply sensitive and spiritual man who senses instinctively his bond with the world around him.

The Thin Red Line touches throughout on the possibility of some benign – or otherwise – force that runs throughout existence and ties us all together. Malick frequently finds small moments where the soldiers become fascinated and irresistibly drawn towards nature, running their hands over leaves, admiring the waves, watching a bird dance from branch to branch… What, The Thin Red Line wonders, makes us turn from being part of a symbiotic whole, to shooting lumps out of each other? And for what? All for ‘fuckin’ property’ as Welch grouches?

As such it’s fitting the combat almost exclusively revolves a scuffle for Hill 210, a grassy pile that Malick never considers important enough to place in context or give us a clear view of. We are frequently mystified about how far up this lump of earth the soldiers have made, what is on the other side, or how it’s conquest will affect the war effort. Instead, this beautiful countryside surrounding – and Malick doesn’t stint on showing how gorgeous Guadalcanal is – serves to flag up even more the violence happening in it. The stunningly luscious photography by John Toll, becomes almost part of the point, hammering home the vicious inhumanity war brings into the natural world.

Instead, war focuses on brutal and trivial ends, that so often betray us into death. The hill’s main importance for Colonel Toll – a charismatically fierce performance of frustrated bitterness by Nick Nolte – is as a pathway to career advancement in a war he has waited his whole life for. Just as its essential pointlessness – it can be bypassed and taken in a slower flanking approach – means Koteas’ (a wonderfully measured performance) captain is unwilling to order his men into a suicidal attack. The phone clash between these two – a furious Nolte and a pressured Koteas trying to remain calm – is Malick’s most accessible narrative beat, expertly delivered.

In fact, the action and the epic sweep of the combat is a reminder that Malick may long to be a poet but he is also an astute and gifted narrative storyteller (when he chooses to be). For all the excitement of John Cusack’s Captain Gaff leading a charge up the hill, the film’s heart is the strange balance every character walks between the martial and mystical, between the call of nature and the grinding duty of killing. Qualities that can be seen fighting in Sean Penn’s fiercely professional sergeant who can weep at the tragedies around him, and fiercely attack the shallowness of the war they are wrapped up in. In fact, much of Thin Red Line feels like a Malick Art Project, a sort of rarefied air that you need to prep to make an expedition towards.

Of course, with all this to admire, it’s also hard not to deny that The Thin Red Line can also be long (and feel very long) and that it’s air of self-importance does, at times, wear the viewer down. It’s deliberately obscure and oblique narrative – not to mention that its voiceover is frequently rather hard to match to particular characters – can whiff somewhat of overindulgence. You could argue the essential message of the film – we’d all be better off if mankind could accept its place as part of a larger Gaia-like whole – is hardly re-inventing philosophy.

But it’s the undefinable, mystical whimsy of the film that makes it stand out – for good or ill. Since many – and, I’ll be honest, me as well sometimes – will find the films muttered whimsy carrying more than an air of self-important pontificating. Despite this, you can see why so many Hollywood stars were desperate to work on it – Travolta and Clooney have tiny cameos, several others hit the cutting room floor. It’s hard to imagine anyone else in Hollywood making a war film anything like this, to have the artistry to mix gunshots and birdsong and give equal weight to both. There are few films quite like it. So thank God for Malick, an artist who has a distinctive voice, the courage to commit to it and the skill to pull it off. The Thin Red Line has moments that few other Hollywood film makers have matched in their whole career – and that alone makes it a film to hold tight and cherish.

Strike (1925)

Eisenstein’s masterfully stylish slice of pro-worker propaganda, full of political anger and filmmaking flair

Director: Sergei Eisenstein

Cast: Maksim Shtraukh (Police spy), Grigori Aleksandrov (Factory foreman), Mikhail Gomorov (Worker), I. Ivanov (Chief of police), Ivan Klyukvin (Revolutionary), Aleksandr Antonov (Member of strike committee), Yudif Glizer (Queen of thieves) Vladimir Uralsky (King of thieves)

In a touch of irony, Eisenstein was nearly sacked from Strike. After two days, Mosfilm’s Board was certain this experimental theatre director didn’t have a clue what he was doing with a movie camera. It was only the intervention of cinematographer Eduard Tise and producer Bris Mikhin that kept him on. On chances like that, does the history of cinema turn. Eisenstein’s bravura use of visuals and editing would mark him out as a megastar of Soviet filmmaking, a reputation cemented by Battleship Potemkin. Eisenstein gave Strike, in many ways a shameless slice of propaganda, an artistic integrity that dramatically increased its power and legacy.

Strike doesn’t really have a plot as such. Based on a 1903 factory strike under Tsarist Russia, it charts the outbreak of industrial action (sparked by a noble worker committing suicide after being falsely accused of theft by his heartless bosses), the attempts of the police to subvert the noble, unified joint action of the workers and the final brutal repression of the strike by Cossacks and a platoon of rifle carrying soldiers who don’t care who they trample and shoot on the way to restoring ‘order’.

It’s odd watching Strike since, unusually to us Westerners, it’s largely devoid of identifiable heroes or characters. We expect to get to know the leaders of this proto-revolution, but the whole point in the Soviet system is that the individual is the villain and the hero the masses acting as one. As such, the strikers feel very much like a homogenous, organic group, with assorted individuals popping up to carry out specific actions before disappearing into the crowd again. By contrast, Eisenstein’s film spends more time establishing the recognisable faces of the strike’s opposition: the cigar-puffing fat cats with no intention of negotiating, the rat-faced class-traitor supervisors, the weaselly government agents and the vermin-like thieves who are willing to betray the workers. These individuals are the face of greed.

It feels right to use animal metaphors as it echoes one of Eisenstein’s pioneeringly suggestive editing style. Throughout Strike he introduced the sort of implicit suggestion and comparison via cutting between disconnected imagery that would power much of his future career. Strike frequently uses animals for this. The opening sequence introduces a gallery of government agents, nearly all of whom have animal nicknames (the owl, the cat, the fox etc.) with their animalistic, twisted features intercut with the animals they represent. The cutting consciously makes us see them as less human, less noble than the peerlessly upright workers. This suggestive animalistic intercutting reaches its apogee in the film’s closing moments, when the final brutal repression of the strike is intercut with a wide-eyed bull being slaughtered by unseen butchers (as pinched by Coppola, decades later, for Apocalypse Now).

This style is applied masterfully throughout Strike. The mechanical movements of the workers in the factory are intercut with the careful preparations of the suicide of the falsely accused worker. Throughout the factory, we repeatedly cut between the machinery moving the equipment and the hands of the workers, stressing their centrality to the operation of the factory. After the strike, a brilliant shot sees three stoic workers stare directly down the camera while behind them a giant cog slowly grinds to a halt. Later scenes of carnage are intercut with the laughing faces of the head of police and the bosses. Associations are clear to the viewer throughout.

The workers themselves are a dedicated, decent, hard-working but exploited mass, who act together on principle and shun turncoats and traitors. Their outburst of righteous fury in the strike is noticeably not tinged with violence – they restrict themselves to tipping their supervisors into a rancid pool, as opposed to the gunfire of their bosses. During the days of the strike, fathers play with their children and workers gather for bucolic meetings in the forest, embracing the freedom and beauty of nature noticeably absent from the factory where all everything is coldly, dirtily, mechanical.

Contrast with the smug, heartless bosses, who sit in a what looks like a giant gentleman’s club, puffing cigar smoke upwards like the chimneys in their factory, delightedly revealing secret booze cabinets and wiping their shoes with the written demands of the workers for fair pay and fair hours (all while bemoaning how politics has entered the workplace). The authorities will stoop to any low to undermine the noble workers – nearly all of whom are upright, steadfast and have perfect jawlines – including hiring a host of provocateurs (a surreal sequence, where the ‘king of thieves’ and his entourage of class traitors live, like a bunch of circus freaks or herd of rats, in a series of subterranean pots in a junkyard) to justify brutal smackdowns.

Strike is brilliantly assembled by Eisenstein, who has an overlooked eye for beautiful compositions. Wonderful shots, like an overhead camera tracking through the factory office corridor strewn with papers, abound. The chilling suppression of the strike sees some truly unique images of Cossacks riding on horseback through multiple levels of a block of apartments – shots that darkly mirror the imposing view of workers as little more than cogs in the factory complex.

These images are superbly edited together, most strikingly in the film’s final sequences of brutal repression. If there is a joyous sense of release and community action in the outbreak of the strike, as workers strive as one glorious mass through the factory, shutting down machines and driving out the supervisors, it gets its dark mirror when oppression comes. Water cannons spray jets of water on workers, sharp cutting taking us to face after face of innocent people buffeted and flattened by jets. It’s nothing to the brutal suppression, as troops hack down fleeing workers, throw babies from apartment blocks, trample fleeing workers and take potshots at retreating crowds. Fast intercutting and a quick parade of images leave a powerful impression of repression and cruelty.

It would need the Bolsheviks to give these comrades the back-up they need to beat back the heartless bosses, and to let the mass thrive against the tyranny of the individual. Ironically, Eisenstein himself – with the growing fame that started here – would come to be seen by authorities as just such a dangerous individual in a society that praised the masses. But, here and now, he made a statement for the power film and editing could have in forming a political stance.

Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (1925)

Sumptuous silent-epic, full of exciting set pieces that was basically the model for the more famous version

Director: Fred Niblo

Cast: Ramon Novarro (Ben-Hur), Francis X Bushman (Messala), May McAvoy (Esther), Betty Bronson (Mary), Claire McDowell (Miriam), Kathleen Key (Tizah), Carmel Myers (Iras), Nigel de Brulier (Simonides), Mitchell Lewis (Sheik Ilderim), Leo White (Sanballat), Frank Currier (Arrius), Charles Belcher (Balthazar)

Of course, General Lew Wallace’s tombstone historical novel is now best known as the Heston-led, Oscar-winning behemoth Ben-Hur, the self-proclaimed most epic epic ever to arrive on the screens. But it was not the first time this novel had made its way to the screen. Wyler’s film owed a vast amount to this 1925 epic, which inspired so many of its key sequences you’d have to call his version a re-make. This gigantic silent film was itself the second attempt to screen Ben-Hur, but with all the strengths of the 1959 film (namely the set-pieces like that chariot riot) but without some of its weaknesses (its crushing length and heavy-handed self-importance) it’s the better film.

Opening with the birth of Christ, the story is, as always, that of wealthy Jewish noble Judah Ben-Hur (Ramon Novarro) whose old friendship with Roman Messala (Francis X Bushman) collapses into life-long loathing when Messala has Ben-Hur arrested on trumped-up charges and, for good measure, chucks his mother Miriam (Claire McDowell) and sister Tizah (Kathleen Key) into a dungeon. Judah becomes a galley slave until he saves the life of Roman General Arrius (Frank Currier). Adopted as Arrius’ son, Judah returns to Jerusalem for revenge against Messala and to find his missing family. With the best revenge possible being defeating Messala in a deadly chariot race.

Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ is gargantuan in a way only the great silent epics could be. It features huge reconstructions of ancient Jerusalem, crowded with armies of extras – in its opening shots alone, elephants ride through the gigantic gates of the city. Sprawling sets, shot with perfect wide scale to hammer home their size, run throughout the whole film, with the chariot race set a towering grandstand further increased by a skilfully used matte painting. Its set pieces – the naval battle and the chariot race – are both awe-inspiring in their scale, the match of anything in the 1959 film. It’s impossible not to be slightly taken aback by the weight of what it thrown up on screen here.

In this grand-scale, the expressive pose-striking of Ramon Novarro actually feels rather fitting. Particularly as his moments of distraught guilt and fear feels earned, considering the misery of the galleys and the emotion-packed struggle of his family to try and escape unjust arrest. But also, because Novarro has the handsome, matinee-idol looks of a guy you can root for (he replaced George Walsh, who was deemed insufficiently heroic looking). It works because Ben-Hur, for all its ‘Tale of the Christ!’ background, is basically a great big Roman-era soap, an entertainingly, rollicking tale through the turn of the millennium ups-and-downs of a handsome prince who always lands on his feet.

He does so via some truly excellent set-pieces. The naval battle, where Judah wins his freedom, is set on a truly impressive scale. Naval ships crash into each other, soldiers and pirates flood the deck of the flagship. During the battle limbs are hacked off, bodies are skewered and crushed (including one poor soul, tied to the head of the pirate’s ship batting ram, as it ploughs into the Roman flagship) and a newly released Judah escapes the watery doom of the galleys to spray pirate-defying death left, right and centre. It’s a gripping sequence, told on a huge scale.

Even more impressive though is the marvellous chariot race, a sequence so compellingly edited and assembled it not only was essentially used as a shot-for-shot reference in the remake, but its arguably inspired countless race sequences since. From its camera tracking alongside and in front of the racing chariots, low angles that see the chariots racing above, the frantic cutting that keeps momentum flying without ever losing narrative clarity, and the skilful way it keeps returning to Judah and Messala’s very personal battle, its masterfully done. In a nice touch, Judah drives the only white horses meaning we can always spot him. As chariots rip round bends, leaving dust spraying, crash into terrifying pile-ons or leaves competitors mangled and crushed on the track, it’s impossible not to feel impacted by the relentless momentum (certainly Willaim Wyler was – he was one of the assistants working on the sequence).

Away from these dramatic highlights, Ben-Hur remains a soapy, melodramatic tale. The tragic force is dialled up, with Judah’s family suffering for years in a blue-lens-tinged prison, succumbing to leprosy. Bushman’s Messala is devoid of complexity, embracing his role as pantomime villain with relish. Iras (Carmel Myers) bats her eye-lids to seduce both Judah and Messala, playing the two off each other. Its one of two soft-focus romances, that the film frames with unabashed sentimentality. Judah throws himself into a passionate advocacy of the coming of the Lord, the film frequently throwing him into military garb (at the head of a self-funded army to fight the Good Fight) that looks bizarrely like he’s stepped out of Fritz Lang’s Die Nibelungen.

What makes this nonsense work is the film doesn’t take it too seriously and, unlike the 1959 version, doesn’t dwell on it all at great length. However, what it does share with the remake is the reverence for the story of Jesus. Some things never change, and Hollywood worked out an action epic could seem far loftier if it was marketed as “truly the film ever Christian should see!” The Messiah is a frequent just-off-camera figure (just as he would be in 1959), his hand heading into shot to heal the sick or pass a dying Judah some water. The final sequence plays out with the crucifixion front-and-centre and a grieving but rapturous Judah telling us all He will rise again.

Many of the recreations of the Bible – starting with its nativity opening – are filmed in a post-production painted early colour, with the references for the colour clearly being the very best religious art of the Renaissance, most clearly in its beatific Mary complete with halo-like effect. The film returns to these time-and-time again, taking a break from the soap opera to give us worthy shots of the history of Jesus, that look rather like reverent stained-glass windows. It’s all part of adding an important spiritual purpose to the film, to cement it as more important than just sword-and-sandals epic.

In that it’s not dissimilar from the remake. What it does though is manage to wear this slightly lighter and slightly less of an air of bumptious self-importance. Match that with the film’s compelling action highlights and truly stunning scale and you might have a leaner, faster and perhaps just as entertaining version of the story – even if it is in silent and black-and-white. It can certainly claim to be the finest version of Lew Wallace.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Brilliant epic, one of the greatest films ever made – not to mention possibly my all time favourite

Director: David Lean

Cast: Peter O’Toole (T. E. Lawrence), Omar Sharif (Sherif Ali ibn el Kharish), Alec Guinness (Prince Feisal), Anthony Quinn (Auda Abu Tayi), Jack Hawkins (General Edmund Allenby), José Ferrer (The Turkish Bey), Anthony Quayle (Colonel Harry Brighton), Claude Rains (Mr Dryden), Arthur Kennedy (Jackson Bentley), Donald Wolfit (General Archibald Murray), I. S. Johar (Gasim), Gamil Ratib (Majid), Michel Ray (Farraj), John Dimech (Daud), Zia Mohyeddin (Tafas), Howard Marion-Crawford (Medical officer), Jack Gwillim Club secretary)

There is no beating around the sand dune. Lawrence of Arabia is probably my favourite film of all time. It’s also the apogee of David Lean’s career and, arguably, the entire genre of epic film-making. No other epic is as massively, awe-inspiringly grand as this and perhaps no other combines the stunning scale with such intense, fascinating and astute character insight. It’s a film that succeeds on every front and leaves any viewer with such a searing visual impression that, once seen, it’s almost impossible to forget. And, of course, everyone should see it.

It was decades in the making before Sam Speigel and David Lean marshalled it to the screen. Based on TE Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom, it’s strikingly modern in that it’s a biography of Lawrence without attempting the full cradle to grave. Instead, told in what it’s easy to forget is interrogative flashback after Lawrence’s death in a motorcycle accident, it focuses exclusively on Lawrence’s (Peter O’Toole) campaigns with the Great Arab Revolt during World War One – but in a style heavily influenced by Shakespeare’s fast-and-loose approach to history, where events drill down into that elusive question: what sort of man exactly was Lawrence? In other words: “Who are you?”

And fascinatingly for a film increasingly misremembered today as some sort of imperialist fan-fare blower or white saviour narrative, the answer is frequently not particularly flattering. In line with his historical self, this Lawrence is a deeply conflicted figure, perfectly captured in Peter O’Toole’s breath-takingly superb performance as a quirky, thoughtful introvert who frequently role-plays as an extrovert barrelling into the limelight. He’s a man capable of staggering insight, devoid of the knee-jerk racism of his fellow Brits. But he’s also a bombastic egotist with a major messianic complex who compares himself to Moses. That’s not even touching on his repressed sexuality, sadism or his deep discomfort at his in-built relish for violence and bloodshed.

Throughout O’Toole treats triumph with a giggling schoolboy relish, then collapse into dead-eyed, silent gloom when grimmer repercussions emerge. It’s a stunning performance, and fascinating figure to set at the centre of a war epic. O’Toole’s Lawrence is handsome, charismatic and a genius – but also fey, camp even, nervous, confident only when he is in control, likely to collapse into nervous giggles when things go wrong. O’Toole also brilliantly conveys the growing darkness and cruelty in Lawrence, shocked and appalled by his excited relish in killing Gasim or his excited anticipation at the slaughter of a group of Turks. It feeds an ego that believes he is above normal men, stunned at the moments when he discovers he is not, that leads him to ever darker determination to prove he can change the world through will alone.

Lean’s film is remarkable in how it presents Lawrence’s achievements with the jaw-dropping marvel they deserve – but also in showing his failures, cruelties, delusions. It’s remarkable how often Lawrence is punctured or bought-down after moments of success – especially as any moment of success has him even further convinced of his own genius. His saving of Gasim in the Nefud desert is followed shortly after by his executing the same man to preserve the fragile peace in his Arab coalition. His conquest of Aqaba is followed by guiding his teenage servant Daud into quicksand. A successful attack on a Turkish train is followed by getting his other teenage servant, Farraj, killed. His almost suicidal pride in entering Derra alone dressed as an Arab, leads to his capture, beating and rape by a perverted Bey (a lip-smackingly sinister cameo from Jose Ferrer, who considered this his finest performance).

Is there an epic film more cynical and critical about British Empire building than Lawrence of Arabia? Away from Lawrence, the Brits are represented by the Blimp-ish Murray (Donald Wolfit in fine form), Allenby (a marvellous Jack Hawkins) who doesn’t let principle get in the way of duty and a duplicitous Dryden (a magnificently austere Claude Rains). Both Allenby and Dryden well understand the game they are playing (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) – help the Arabs, but not too much, bring them together, but not too much, get rid of the Turks put the Brits in their place. Lawrence of Arabia is far from a flag-waver, presenting a cynical, two-faced view of rapacious Empire building. Its even uncomfortably rejected by Anthony Quayle’s endearingly straight-forward Colonel Brighton (who stands out as the film’s most honourable character).

In comparison, the Arabs are seen as perhaps naïve and chaotic, but largely honourable and honest and their campaign for independence and self-government is presented sympathetically (only their most Westernised representative, Alec Guinness’ reserved Prince Feisel, can match Dryden and Allenby in ruthless politics). There is a vibrant genuineness in Arab culture, even if it’s also shown to be as full of bitter hierarchical rivalries between tribes as the British are in their club memberships. Much of this is captured in Omar Sharif’s extraordinary performance as Sherif Ali (a sort of Arab version of Lawrence, both introverted and extroverted), a man of deep principles whose discomfort grows with Lawrence’s increasing wildness.

Lawrence’s unpredictability is what the film circles round to again and again. It’s fascinating both how flawed and unknowable he becomes. You only need to look at his costume: in ill-fitting military outfit, the trousers too short, O’Toole feels utterly out-of-place compared to his comfort in flowing white robes. But those robes become progressively more filthy, transparent and ghost-like the longer the film goes on. Does any other epic lay so bare the complex sexuality of its hero, his sado-masochistic desires (“the trick is not minding it hurts” indeed!), his part-shame, part-excitement about his assault by the Bey, his unmistakeable relish for death?

It’s striking how Lean so frequently frames Lawrence as unseeable: watch the Act 2 train attack, where we see Lawrence from behind, his feet striding along a train and then his body framed with the sun behind him. Or the film’s conclusion that turns him into even more of a ghost, a spectral figure behind a curtain and a jeep passenger almost invisible behind a mud-smeared windscreen. It’s extraordinary visual work to communicate a depth of theme. Constantly, he’s framed as a figure shrinking into the chaos, slipping through our fingers when we think we understand him.

That’s in a film crammed with extraordinary images. “No Arab loves the desert” are true words, but Englishmen do and Lean certainly did. His shooting of this vast panorama of dunes and sand is second to none. Is there a greater shot in history than the slow arrival of Sharif from the wavy mirage mists of the desert? That stands out in a film of extraordinary images: Lawrence’s progress through the mountains; the tracking shot of the attack on Aqaba, that ends on the powerless guns; a train puffing through the desert; even the small moments – Lawrence’s goggles dangling on a branch after his accident is a gorgeously simply, brilliantly evocative image. Everything in Lawrence is perfect technically: John Box’s superb sets, Maurice Jarre’s breathtakingly evocative music; Anne V Coates flawless editing (witness one of the greatest cuts of all time).

But it’s always bought back to the sharp critical eye on its lead, powered by Robert Bolt’s superbly iconoclastic script and Lean’s directorial discipline. This is a film that mirrors Lawrence’s playful dance in his new robes, stopping to admire himself in the reflection of his dagger with Lawrence, 90 minutes of screentime later, echoing the gesture to stare in horror at his blood-soaked clothing. That makes its last military action not the capture of Damascus, but Lawrence’s brutal massacre of retreating Turks at Tafas. Which ends with its hero covered in failure and sent packing as an awkward figure in the new age by both sides.

It’s a huge thematic complexity that gives Lawrence the chance to cement itself as one of the greatest films ever made. With its matchless technical brilliance, it brings a sharply insightful, critical eye to its lead and resolutely refuses to indulge in any hero-worship at all. It brings great depth and passion to its portrayal of the Arab people (I will grant Guinness’ casting today is unfortunate – less so with Quinn who was always ethnically ambiguous and is knock-out, charismatically brilliant), showing them as warts and all but rejecting the temptation to present them as a noble but simple people, but instead of a rich, non-Westernised culture forced to play by someone else’s rules. Lawrence marshals this while constantly leaving us questioning and changing our mind about the lead character, so superbly bought to life by O’Toole you could make a case for it as one of the greatest performances of all time. You can certainly make the case for the film as one of the greatest, a stunningly assembled, wonderfully directed, breathtaking mix of spectacle and character study that rewards the viewer every single time they see it.

The Last Laugh (1924)

A hotel doorman faces despair, in this fluid piece of film-making brilliance from Murnau

Director: FW Murnau

Cast: Emil Jannings (The doorman), Maly Delschaft (His niece), Hans Unterkircher (The manager), Georg John (The night watchman), Max Hillier (The bridegroom), Olaf Storm (Young guest), Herman Vallentin (Guest with pot belly)

Released in Germany as the Der Letzte Mann, it became The Last Laugh in English-speaking cinema to avoid confusion with a long-forgotten silent comedy The Last Man. Having its title stolen seems very appropriate for Murnau’s masterpiece, a masterfully simple morality tale by Carl Mayer. The Atlantic Hotel’s doorman (Emil Jannings) is the highly respected master of his neighbourhood. All that changes when, due to his advancing age, he is stripped of his position and demoted to cleaning the basement toilets. Humiliation piles on humiliation as word of his new position spreads.

It’s a simple story, in many ways little more than anecdote or an Aesop’s fable of pride before a fall. But you can see it as having universal force, and a particular relevance to its time and place. The doorman, with his ramrod back, carefully manicured moustaches and, above all, his grand uniform emblazoned with epaulettes and tassels, looks like some sort of Field Marshal. He certainly behaves like one, walking through his neighbourhood like it’s a parade ground, dishing out salutes and accepting deference from all and sundry. He’s the puffed-up symbol of pre-War Germany, overwhelmingly certain of his position and obsessed with the ephemera of his office.

All that gets stripped from him in seconds, as he is bluntly called into an office, passed a note by a distracted manager informing him his glory days of greeting guests are over. His uniform is practically torn from him – a button falling from his coat and landing on the floor, a beautiful little moment of visual degradation – and he becomes a stooped, scruffy, shambling old man dressed in a non-descript white jacket. From Kaiser, he’s now the downtrodden and humiliated Versailles Germany, stripped of empire and reduced to passing a towel to guests for coins.

It’s a beautiful little metaphor for a whole country, captured in the collapse of status of a single man, told with a suggestive lightness that makes it universal. It becomes a domestic tragedy could be about anyone, anywhere – and the fact it is a perfect fit for post-war Germany is a happy marriage. Another happy marriage is the casting of Jannings. No actor in history embraced humiliation and masochism as much as Jannings. He eases into his old age make-up like a seasoned ham, his body shrinking and collapsing into a timid stoop. Jannings is left in near catatonic shock at his demotion, then desperately clings to a fantasy of preserving his status outside the workplace, all while he becomes increasingly dishevelled.

The Last Laugh presents this within a gloriously inventive, technically superb version by FW Murnau, working closely with cinematographer Karl Freund. Murnau’s desire to let the visuals do the storytelling sees The Last Laugh almost completely shed any on-screen captions (bar a few close ups on a letter, a newspaper and a final ‘note from the author’). Instead, the story unfolds perfectly and gloriously in images alone, the twists and turns expertly unfolding with perfect clarity.

On top of which, The Last Laugh is awash with cinematic verve. From its opening shot, a pacey tracking shot that reaches the hotel lobby via the lift and then pans through the lobby to the doorman, Murnau makes the camera mobile and engaging. The Last Laugh makes use of several crash zooms to accentuate points, be it shock (a zoom in to the face of the doorman’s housekeeper when she discovers the truth), foreboding (a zoom into the exterior of the hotel and its new doorman), to ironic glory (a diving crane shot that pulls into a trumpeter on the street whose music invades the doorman’s drunken fantasies), it’s a film of dynamic movement.

Murnau also uses doors, fittingly, as a neat visual metaphor. Repeated shots framed through the hotel’s revolving doors hint at the circular nature of fortune that its lead character discovers only too harshly. The doorman’s dismissal is shot from outside a pair of glass doors, the divide separating the shell-shocked doorman from his distracted manager. The door down to the basement toilet, swings shut with the finality of some sort of Dante gateway, leading to the gloom below. Doors appear throughout to separate or trap characters, especially the doorman. And in his fantasy, the doorman pictures himself guarding a revolving door so tall it would dwarf the hotel.

The doorman’s fantasies are another moment of influential cinematic invention. Hearing music in the street, after holding court during his niece’s wedding (dressed in a stolen uniform), the hungover doorman day dreams of being restored to his position. As his head bobs and sways, stationary in the frame, the room around him spins and rotates. Bleary, superimposed fantasy shots intrude as the doorman sees himself restored to glory in the foyer, lifting and juggling singlehanded the massive luggage crate he had been unable to pick up earlier.

The same swirling super-imposed images haunt the doorman when the truth of his demotion becomes known. He imagines a whirling collection of laughing faces, delighting in his humiliating fall. His final fate sees him escorted, late at night, to the bathroom by a kindly night watchman (Georg John), ending sitting against the wall framed in a pool of light, like a condemned man facing a never-ending sentence.

Or is he? Really the film should stop at the 80-minute mark, because there is no coming back from this – only a long trudge towards death. But the money men felt, “Mein got! that’s a bit depressing!”, so we get our first proper caption telling us that, unlike in real life, the author will provide a happy ending. So, the doorman inherits a fortune from an eccentric millionaire, becomes a guest at the hotel and is restored to all his former glory and then some. It’s a crazy ending, framed by Murnau in a comedic fashion (tellingly, the guests all continue to laugh at the doorman behind his back), but at least gives the doorman some sense of closing dignity.

Is it needed? Probably not. And, to be honest, it’s probably better to stop at that 80-minute mark, for all the cinematic invention that continues in that coda. But there is no denying that The Last Laugh is a virtuoso piece of film-making, crammed to the rafters with flair and invention, superbly directed and shot and with a towering performance of puffed-up pride turned shambling shame by Jannings (just the right side of hammy). It’s a film that stands as a milestone of cinema as a visual language.