..
The Bad And The Beautiful (Minnelli, 1952) is a Hollywood drama about the utilitarian nature of Hollywood connections. It centers around a man named Jonathan Shields (Kirk Douglas), the son of a successful but despised Hollywood icon who wants to replicate his father’s legacy following his death. The story is told in a narrative style it’s hard not to compare to films like All About Eve or Citizen Kane. We come in at the end, when Shields is calling a director, an actress, and a writer to get them to work on his new film. They refuse, and then we see the stories of how he used each of them in his path to becoming famous, betrayed them, but made them into successful celebrities in the process.
Each of their flashbacks paint the picture of Jonathan Shields’ character. He is portrayed as an extremely intelligent, but manipulative man who had a sheltered upbringing, feels entitled to his fathers’ fame and doesn’t know how to handle criticism. Our first glimpse of Shields in the director Fred Amiel’s flashback at Shields’ father’s funeral, when we find out he paid a lot of extras $11 to appear as mourners. He does not do this to protect his father’s legacy, he does so to shield himself from the gossip that his father did not have a real legacy. After Amiel makes comments about Shields’ father, not knowing Shields was right in front of him, he goes to apologize and winds up his partner. Following this, Shields intentionally loses thousands of dollars to a film producer Harry Pebbel (Walter Pidgeon) so he can weasel a job out of him. Pebbel sees right through the ploy, but still decides to hire him, if only for the opportunity to see him fail. Through producing a series of low budget monster films, Amiel and Shields learn the trade, and because of Shields’ clever shooting tricks, they’re able to stretch very low budgets into very successful films. Finally they convince Pebbel to let them shoot a serious film with a large budget. Pebbel once again is against it, but gives them the chance just to shut them up, and once they land an A-list actor to star he gets completely on board. Once Shields secures the funding for this project that was Amiel’s ideas, he betrays Amiel, using an A-list director instead.
The second flashback is that of Georgia Lorrison (Lana Turner), the daughter of a famous actor who despised Shields. He makes her from a drunk into a star actress by insisting to her and to everyone else that she be the star of their big budget project. She is reluctant, but he manipulates her by pretending to be in love with her. Through the shooting she learns how to act and becomes a great actress. After the film’s debut when she becomes a star, she goes to bring Shields to the party, only to find her with another woman who tells her “I’m company, you’re business.” In this flashback, and also in the third, we see Shields as a completely different person than he was in the first. He shows a different face to everybody, and it’s whatever face he needs to show them to get what he needs out of them. It’s only when Georgia sees him with the other that we witness his true character in a brilliant bit of acting by Kirk Douglas: Insecure and defensive, unable to cope with criticism.
The third flashback is similar to the first two, Shields finds novelist James Lee Bartlow and makes him into a successful screenwriter. But he does so by secretly trying to get his girlfriend to leave him, which leads to her accidental death in a plane crash. In this one, we see proof that Shields was never manipulating people to his own end to be successful, he was doing so to be respected. In a film he is shooting based on Bartlow’s screenplay, he’s unhappy with his A-list director’s take on his material, so he fires him and tries to shoot the film himself. When it is finished, he hated the film because the directing was terrible, and refused to let anybody ever see the film, leading to the collapse of his studio. He would rather go out of business than open himself up to the criticism he would receive for putting out a bad film.
The film uses the exposition through narrative flashback style to effectively explain the character of Jonathan Shields and why everyone hates him despite him being responsible for their rise to fame, but also uses it a little bit sloppily. This style of exposition relies on seeing the past through the perspective of the other characters. In Citizen Kane, for instance, this had the effect of distancing the audience from Kane because we never really saw Kane, we just saw other people’s opinion of him as people were trying to figure him out. In The Bad And The Beautiful, however, we’re frequently privy to information the narrator wouldn’t have any way of knowing. For instance, in Georgia’s flashback we see Georgia listening in on a phone call. Shields knew she was listening in on the phone call, so while she was listening he talked about how great an actress she was. When she hung up, he changed his tone and said “Don’t worry, I figured out how to control her.” But how could she possibly know he knew she was listening, or that he said that? Also, in other films that use the flashback narrative, each new point of view provides new insight about the target character. In this case, all three flashbacks reveal the same information about him. The film liberally betrays it’s chosen narrative form to the point where I wonder if the film would have had more of an impact if told linearly.
Through these stories of success and betrayal, we see the inherent emotional compartmentalization of the Hollywood system, and are led to criticism. All three are faced with the same dilemma: The man most responsible for building them up into superstars also used them, manipulated and betrayed them. The characters and the audience are left with the question: Do we care more about the means, or the end? Is his pathological behavior tolerable on the grounds that we all came to benefit from it? The audience and the characters come to the same conclusion, that it’s impossible to work with a person you can’t trust, regardless of the result.
finishing up crit now.
Okay, here it is…
The Bad & the Beautiful (1952)
Dir. Vincente Minnelli
While there are some strong points to Vincente Minnelli’s 1952 film “The Bad and the Beautiful,” it also suffers from being a product of Hollywood, just the as the film is about products of Hollywood.
Melodramatic acting was still quite in fashion as method acting had not yet caught on in gangbusters – Elia Kazan’s A Streetcar Named Desire was released the previous – and Minnelli’s film is immersed in melodrama.
Now, an actress like Lana Turner is perfect for the acting style displayed in this film, but Kirk Douglas, not so much. Douglas was very good in comedic scenes and had some nice serious moments when he was calm, but in one of his biggest dramatic scenes – and coincidentally the film’s still image here on Mubi is from that scene – Douglas is downright embarrassing. He was like a child calling for attention, but only half-heartedly, like he didn’t believe in his own tantrum. Douglas’ angst was false, and even if that was what Minnelli was interested in, that Douglas’ Jonathan Shields was trying to dupe Turner’s Georgia, what kind of person would buy into the ruse?
But again, the performance was a product of its time.
Robert Surtees was a fine cinematographer, who could light small scenes in a intimate way and create frames befitting the “grandeurosity” of epics of the era, but he was still handcuffed by glamour lighting on one-shots of the leading lady – “The Bad and the Beautiful” was no different.
The glamour lighting, soft lighting, of the time to help beautify already beautiful women is an affront to filmmaking and a major pain to any editor.
How can one cut back and forth cleanly from two distinctly differently lit shots as people are having a conversation in one location, especially a dramatic conversation?
A perfect example, and proof that it cannot happen, is scene when Shields waits for Georgia back at her boarding house and they discuss her future and drunken present.
The audience is shown a well-lit scene as the two characters interact in a wide shot. The audience is shown Douglas in a single with some nice shadows in the room, and making sure the swell cleft in his chin is noticeable. But then the Minnelli cuts to the single on Turner, with its hazing beauty lighting, and the audience is wrenched from the scene, or did Georgia just chain smoke eight cigarettes in five seconds to get smoke billowing in the room?
While actresses may have loved to have their insecurities masked by this tactic, it screams movie making, it screams deception, and an audience is reminded that they have paid to see this melodrama unfold, instead of being wholly involved in what is happening on screen.
That type of lighting was needed and it certainly didn’t fit the scene of a depressed drunk.
Charles Schnee’s screenplay had good dialogue for the time, and it’s always nice to see Hollywood poke some fun at itself. But in the end, were they poking fun at the money and fame obsessed industry or were they celebrating it.
It could be said that Shields could be a hero to producers, a man who was completely involved in every aspect of his films, including directing actors on set and directors deferring to him on whether they had the scene.
As much as Shields succeeded in creating films, he succeeded in living the grand producer myth, the Selznick myth.
In many other scenes the audience is shown characters choosing money and fame over happiness, shown that a materialistic life is supposedly the life to have.
Fred Amiel – portrayed by Bill Sullivan, the actor who most successfully acquitted himself in the film – was betrayed, yet entertains the idea of re-upping with Shields.
Georgia is heartbroken and had buried herself in her work and become the most popular star in filmdom.
James Lee Bartlow… James Lee Bartlow… Bartlow was the most detestable character in the film and was without redemption. He cared for nothing but being a name and controlling what was his. When his wife mentions his jealous tendencies, it isn’t about her, it’s about him and some other person touching his stuff. He is the perfect, obnoxious academic and he deserves any pain that may have come before, even moreso than Shields did.
When Pebbel (Walter Pidgeon) lists each characters resumes following their affiliation with Shields and insinuates that each is better off for having been burned, he is proposing that life’s great game is won with money, not with love and friendship, and as Georgia, Fred and James show, it seems that they agree with Pebbel and Shields.
But when the film is looked at for what it is, flaws and all, it can be seen as a film that works. It has humor, one genuine shock moment and speaks volumes about the filmmaking in Hollywood in 1951/2. It is enjoyable just as today’s romantic comedies can be enjoyable, but let us not mistakes enjoyable for art.
(Please excuse all typos and mungos)
We are missing the critiques of Max and WBA, hopefully they will come later today.
In the meanwhile, Mubi community — please go ahead and give feedback on the two critiques above for The Bad And The Beautiful.
Bump — please take a look at these two as well, Mubians. WBA’s is up and coming, waiting for Max too.
I’m working on it – 2 “Word” pages so far, so it’ll be coming soon. ;-)
Ok, so as not to make it too long, and as it’s late here (half past midnight), as much as I enjoy the film, I don’t want to watch it to the end – otherwise I don’t know when I’ll be finished with my piece and how long (and repetitive) it might finally get. I promise to try to watch the other assignments in time and get my piece ready earlier in the next round. That is, if I’m not voted out.
The Bad and the Beautiful (Vincente Minnelli / USA / 1952)
Watching „The Bad and the Beautiful“ as an assignment was an interesting experience. I had previously been introduced to the film by an enthusiastic friend and fellow cinephile who is also an ardent supporter of Classical Hollywood cinema, and was totally surprised that it was an ensemble-piece that reflected the young history of American sound cinema through chronicling the rise to fame of a protagonist whose story will be told in flashbacks by some of his associates. Being more or less unfamiliar with Minnelli (of whom I’ve thus still seen only a handful of films) I would have expected a technicolor extravaganza that would be somewhat less critical of the industry of which it was a part of. I liked the film, and enjoyed it quite much, but it didn’t become one of my favorites, or a film I would regularly revisit in my mind.
Watching it for a second time (with the extra task of having commited myself to reflect on it ;-) ), I was struck by the resemblance of Minnelli’s conception (or probably initially the screenplay’s) of his work to that of another film that has nowadays become a classic. I’m speaking of Orson Welles „Citizen Kane“ (1941), which was also the tale of a famous, rich and powerful individual that had risen from modest beginnings to become the self-made-man the American public (at least as an American ideal) largely admires. Kane, like Kirk Douglas’ character was also a difficult man who wasn’t loved as much as feared and respected. Furthermore Welles’ film was also a tale told in retrospect through the eyes of others, a film that played with multiple genres, part noir, part buddy movie, part melodrama and part coming-of-age story. But whereas the overall feeling, it’s vibe if I might say so, I took home from watching „Citizen Kane“ was a bleak outlook on the world and the American dream in general, Minnellis picture is much more ambivalent when it comes to its underlying „message“ regarding the positive and negative aspects of such a career. I don’t want this text to become a comparison between those two films, but bear with me in this realm of thought for a few more sentences. Because the major difference why Minnelli’s film, besides all its scathing cynisism seems at times almost cheerful, and not at all the tale of a wasted life, lies in my eyes in the fact that Douglas’ Jonathan Shields is at once kept even more mysterious than Kane, as we won’t really learn anything substantial about his family’s background, his childhood and his youth, while he is also introduced as a person who himself decides upon his faith, whose path hasn’t been chosen for him by others, but who has always done, what he himself and only himself has deemed worthy of pursuit. Of course all is not as simple as it may sound reading my short critque, but Minnellis film keeps the ideals of the American Dream intact. His isn’t the criticism of a society, but that of an individual, his behaviour and the shortcomings of the industry he chooses to become a part of. Thus, while being critical and analytical, it can still be read as affirmative to the accepted world view of American society during the 50s. In political terms it would be the offer of reform instead of Welles condemnation of ideals that can only be achieved through an inhuman sacrifice of everything that makes us a satisfied and grounded individual. Unlike in Welles view of society, in „The Bad and the Beautiful“ The Pursuit of Happiness is still achievable through the American Dream, and these two ideals don’t contradict themselves from the start. This isn’t to say Minnelli is more naive, though. As a viewer, you still have to decide what you think of the issues presented yourself, and he is as honest with the nature of his undertaking as Welles. The two films have both emblematic titles that foreground their respective agenda in a direct and understandable way: „Citizen Kane“ and „The Bad and the Beautiful“.
Thus I will begin my more focused endeavor on Minnellis drama by initially focussing on the implications of those two aspects in its title. I take it, that the „bad“ and the „beautiful“ refers to the aspects of ones life that one finds successful or not. We all have them, our victories and shortcomings, our visions and ideals. And how we regard them depends not only on our current standing in life, but as we well know, is able to change numerous times through the course that leads us all to our inevitable deaths. Minnellis film thus not only considers the fact, that everybody judges and views a person in different ways and that we can never grasp the whole truth of one person, no matter how many approaches we choose, but more importantly shows the concept of remembering and reflecting as one that in itself brings a change to our perspective. As the film progresses we will come to experience and understand the three characters’ standpoints as they tell their story of Jonathan Shields, while at the end of the tales, together with its narrators, we will come to the conclusion that what has been told has changed the initial concepts and attitudes of looking at Shields. And this hasn’t been simply achieved by adding three viewpoints, but as we come to realise lies at the heart of the whole concept of storytelling. The world as we now it is never quite the same after we have dwelled on it for a while. And cinema, as every artform, is part of that cultural dwelling on and rethinking of our past, while in the hands of a capable individual (and the industry surrounding him or her) a film can become as powerful a tool and an object for this cultural practice as any. In this regard, „The Bad and the Beautiful“ becomes a celebration of and an hommage to the art of film Hollywood has been able to achieve and also as an extension of this an honoring of the people in L.A. whose individual energy and dedication has made this all possible. But let’s return to the film itself for a last cursory look and assessment of its merits, of which I think there are many – regardless if one actually enjoyed the experience of watching it or not.
I really liked the way Douglas’ character is introduced at the funeral of his father, a mighty cinema mogul, who is derided by the person standing next to him, the first of our film’s three narrators , who we imagine could be saying similar words if it would be Swift Junior’s funeral right now. But we are back 18 years, and we will come to find out how the rise to fame of our protagonist began, who even has to pay the funeral guests after the burial in order for them to have come to pay their last „respects“ on this occasion. But Jonathan is honestly moved as we clearly see him grieving at his fathers grave during the priests speech, thus as the reflecting of the film begins, we are immediately reminded of the double nature and ambiguity of life as the screenplay already aknowledges that the dead might have been an asshole while also have been loved by some. Through the mise-en-scene the witticism of the dialogue is shown as an honest way of detached engagement, as the fitting tool to deal with the tears and the drama, the fact that literally no one would have shown up at the funeral of a seemingly important and powerful man, and the reality of everybody always having „their reasons“. The tactics of bypassing the soap opera of the material through always exposing the duality of its title. Showing one thing while letting the characters speak of another. Satire is only one way of looking at things. Melodrama another, and noir… How we perceive is how we react. By mixing genre formulas and using counterpoint tactics to make the viewer unsure what to exactly think and expect of a given situation, Minnelli makes it certain, that we won’t be able to rely on the film „to tell us what everything is really about“ and how we have to take it. The funny thing is: we actually get to see more than the three narrators could have possibly have experienced. In one crucial moment, after Douglas has sent Lana Turner off to a short vacation, we remain with him in the same room as before, only now he’s joined by a colleague (the fantastic-as-always Gilbert Roland) who offers him a ride with a girl, which he tellingly refuses. Thus we are lead to assume his interest in Turner’s character is more than just professional, and more than just a flirt. But we can also see his absolute dedication, his focus on one thing and not another. Thus when he leaves Turner at the end of the episode its clear that wheter he truly loves her or not is unimportant. Knowing more isn’t really knowing anything. Jonathan Swift does what he does for his own reasons. And the film respects this. What I really like is Minnellis conservative way of storytelling. You have different characters and different ideas, but it’s still a linear story. And the ending perfectly wraps up the beginning. And although Swift is the main center of attraction one cannot say Minnelli isn’t interested in each and every one of the characters that also appears on the screen. And it’s not the way he films them when they are talking, but usually the way he looks at them and the way he shows them looking at us. We are constantly able to identify with all of the pople on screen on which the camera chooses to focus. Because they are given time, given space, and paid attention to. Minnelli cares and we can care, if we choose to do so. The music serves to underscore the central characters feelings and emotions when they are on screen. But as the film is about the interaction of people, it doesn’t force us to feel what we feel. We can decide on which side we are on. On the side of the character whose music is playing or on the side of the other who has ideas of their own. It’s difficult to find many scenes in the film, where there are two or more characters having the same goal, the same idea in one moment. Sure, they might agree they might even feel the same. But their reasons are always individual, always their own. So you can also watch and observe identify with everybody and nobody, or distance yourself from the whole undertaking. It’s a difficult life lesson to learn, but everybody has to go their own way, Minnelli seems to be saying. Success and defeat – these are things you can only achive in front of yourself. What others think doesn’t matter, it doesn’t help. It may console you, you may spend great times with other people, but ultimately you’re on your own. Because if you (try to) depend on someone, you’re always trying to make the other person who you want them to be. You’re not accepting them, with their good and bad sides. You’re not seeing the bad and the beautiful.
Come on Max
I’ve nudged Max….
BUMP.
Waiting for Max.
In the meanwhile, Mubi community please give feedback on the three critiques above.
Are we supposed to vote by a PM?
No, that’s just for the participants (if they’d rather). You can state your vote here.
Maa-ax, come out and play-yay
m……. a……. x…….
PROFUSE APOLOGIES
This past two weeks at work has left me so drained, getting ready for trade shows. I just finished watching the film. expect my writeup within the hour. This will no happen again.
Yay! Looking forward to it, Max! :)
The Fifties melodrama is I think one of the most interesting things to come out of the studio system. While overly reliant on the very nuts and bolts of cinematic language developed over the decades, these pictures nevertheless managed to, in their subject matter and direction, cast aspersions, a real bite of the hand that feeds them. In 1952, a mere eight years before shrieks and shower curtains stuck their death blows to the studios, Vincent Minnelli directed a film whose salvos in some small way began to eat away at the dream factory.
Atypical for most of the well known melodramas, THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL is shot in black and white. Whether this was a deliberate artistic choice or dictated by some reason beyond my knowledge I cannot discern. What I can though is that the film seems to be more retrograde in tone and effect as a result. This could almost be considered a proto-melodrama. The pieces are beginning to be assembled, but they just don’t sing in concert. At least not just yet.
Watching the film, I was electrified by the presence Kirk Douglas had on the screen. When Shields and Amiel were discussing and then pitching The Faraway Mountain, Douglas’ sheer infectiousness drew me into what the character was selling. I could just see the traits that his son Michael picked up, right down to the diction and inflection, that would make a character like Gordon Gekko so seductive. That, unfortunately, is where most of my enthusiasm for the film ends. It is not that this picture is terrible by any measure of the phrase. However, there isn’t (apart from the conceit of the flashbacks) any real meat onto which one can chew on. Apart from Douglas’ work, the other characters seemed to be a bit flat/rote as a result.
This may be as from someone who is watching the film from fifty years in the future, but the story itself is incredibly typical, a boilerplate rags to riches to rags of a lovable bastard who may have one more trick up his sleeve. While last year’s THE ARTIST could be accused of treading on similar territory, I think what makes that film shine while this one merely glimmer is an insistence of making the story matter. At the end of the day, Shields may very well yet get to make the picture he wanted, but in the final equation this means the travails of the writer, the director, and the actress were for naught. Yes, Hollywood has always been a place dedicated to churning out product, but this idea isn’t new. Perhaps to audiences of 1952, but not to audiences now (although box office receipts may tell a different story at times).
It is here where I think the idea of a proto-melodrama takes hold. By having one foot still firmly in the tropes of the Hollywood bauble without any real stake in the matter, THE BAD AND THE BEAUTIFUL’s impact on cinema I think becomes merely a footnote.
Alright then, feedback from the Mubi community now please and participants, cast your votes for this group and send them to me so that I can tally — i.e. best, and worst critiques of this film.
Nice job, Max.
I like the variety of styles we got from these reviews. These are four very different approaches.
And we all took a little something different from the film
Now that all the reviews are in, I want to respond to something you said in yours, Uli.
You mentioned Kirk Douglas’s performance was like ‘A child throwing a tantrum, but unconvinced’. But, that’s exactly how I would describe his character, so I’d be interested to hear if you think Douglas was going for something different.
I think Shields is too egotistical not to attend the party unless he was ashamed of his actions with the bit player, both because of Georgia and Gaucho, and his big dramatic moment was either poor acting or Douglas’ part, or Minnelli asked for the farce, and either way, I feel, it brought too attention to itself as acting and took me out of the scene.
You see, I don’t see him as being egotistical, I see him as being narcissistic.
Somebody egotistical is in love with himself. Somebody narcissistic is obsessed with himself. It makes total sense that he didn’t want to go to the party, because his entire self image is based on accomplishment, and the party is just hours of second guessing himself, which for him is an anxiety explosion. He didn’t go to the party for the same reason he didn’t want to release the film that he directed even though it meant destroying his company. He had the same compulsions as Howard Hughes’ portrayal in The Aviator, only he didn’t care about germs.
I’d like to hear other people’s interpretation of that scene. WBA? Max? Odi?
Narcissist. Yep, I agree.
Just curious, do you think this was a character study of sorts, or a comment on personalities in the movie industry, or both?…
And, are there contemporary films you can recall that explore this sort of thing, in the same field, but with a modern twist?
Well, how does Tim Robbins in the Player compare to Douglas here?
I haven’t seen that one. Anybody else seen it?
odilonvert
And… this is the thread for Group 2 to post their critiques on.
To begin, JIRIN, with his critique for The Bad And The Beautiful, Vincent Minnelli.
Hit it, Jirin! :D