Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

The Particulars Are In Your Bill: Words and Flesh in the Coens’ “True Grit”










"'PhD' is a mark of academic attainment, bestowed in my case in recognition of my mastery of the antique languages of Latin and Greek. I also hold a number of other advanced degrees, including the baccalaureate from a school in Paris, France called the Sorbonne."

"'Sore bone.' Hmm. Well that fits."

– Conversation between Professor C.H. Dorr (Tom Hanks) and Marva Munson (Irma P. Hall) in the Coen brothers' 2004 remake of The Ladykillers.

It may be something of a stretch to say that one of the deciding factors for the Coen brothers adapting Charles Portis' 1968 novel True Grit into a film in 2010 was that the antagonist in the book is named "Chaney," pronounced like the more familiar "Cheney" of the last decade, and yet I cannot help but think that the connotations to war criminality in the Bush Administration, headlined by the Vice President's amoral and unrepentant "Dark Side" mentality documented in books like Jane Mayer's The Dark Side or Barton Gellman's Cheney biography Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, was in some way a conscious cause in remaking a revenge fantasy. The allegory, if my interpretive fallacy is by some off-chance correct, is not central to True Grit's appreciation, but it relates to what is the central theme of the picture, namely the uneasy conflict between the actual and the abstract. It is not too far-fetched to think that the Coens and their actors must have had Dick Cheney in mind, reflecting on lines detailing how "Chaney shot a man" and "found himself scot-free." something that when spoken aloud in a contemporary context cannot help but allude to the infamous Dick Cheney hunting accident in 2006, when the “Vice” shot hunting companion Harry Whittington in the face. Subsequent to the incident, somehow Dick Cheney got his victim to apologize to him. The story has the kind of Strangelove-like logic connected to the larger social problem of Dick Cheney, a man probably responsible for an illegal war, and thus thousands of people that consequently died, war crimes involving torture, the outing of dissident CIA agents (the Valerie Plame affair), and the deliberate manipulation of an entire nation. Confronted after his influence had lost the public's faith and support, his responses amounted to "So?" and "Go fuck yourself." There were no regrets. Justification was found in the masterful handling of legalese by lawyers David Addington and John Yoo. The refuge for the Bush Administration was in the law’s language, worthy of the displacement from the reality of war as found in the musings of Jonathan Swift's Laputans. Many on the Left believed that with a Democratic administration taking over, Cheney and his ilk would get a proper judgment: the tag line of True Grit, “retribution.” Rather, the new administration’s strategy was to not rock a partisan nation's boat. The due process for a prosecution of Bush Administration war criminals was something too complicated and disruptive to get started.

Isn't this the same problem young Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) has after finding her father has been shot by Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), who's fled the county into Indian territory, as meanwhile officials representing the law cannot be bothered to give chase? "He might as well have walked with his horse," Mattie reflects on Chaney's flight. The Sheriff cannot be bothered to deal with it, and the U.S. Marshals have bigger fish to fry. The satisfaction of retribution cannot be fulfilled by the mechanics of due processes. "The wicked flee when none pursueth," is the opening placard of True Grit, taken from Proverbs 28:1, plugging us into the Protestant spirit of young Mattie, while also seeming to, at present, call to mind the white collar criminals off "scot free" whether in present day war politics or shady Wall Street economics.

The correlations denoting political/history allegory probably end there, at least with references to concrete issues. The world of True Grit, set in the post-Civil War American Southwest, has the implicit divide of a shattered nation or uneasy boundaries regarding loyalties in the last great military conflict. The richness of the film, though, consistently addresses legal absurdities and specifications that seem inhumane, contrary to "grit," to the ephemeral mental nature of being human. It’s a conflict of mathematical facts versus truth. The mechanical sense of language extends beyond Law and into our social lives nowadays, as a robust physical laugh is rendered in language as LOL or ROFL. Absurdities inherent in our communication, such a wonderful recurring theme for the Coens, are then equated to the perennial theme of the Western and the Frontier, the eternal notion of the entire genre: the past and the future in conflict as Civilization tames – by defining – the wild unknown chaos of Nature.

In the Western, this dichotomy between Civilization and Nature is displayed often as being elegiac, capturing the best of both worlds, our human ingenuity in a dependent relationship with the budding and ageless world beyond the fences. There's glory in the music of Westerns, as Manifest Destiny moves steadfastly with its flexing burliness. There's also sadness, a theme embedded in the Westerns following John Ford's morally confused The Searchers, becoming more central in the radical genre reinventions of Arthur Penn's The Left-Handed Gun and Little Big Man, Robert Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller, and most importantly in Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch. Here you have a world passing on in a fit of melancholia, dying and despoiled as native peoples are obliterated and chivalric ideals are destroyed by more ubiquitous technologies and impersonal treaties, the Heroic Men being filtered out of time.

Bodies and Language are two things that Joel and Ethan Coen have been splendid at playing with throughout their work, and those are the two main combatants in their Western as Civilization (Words) confronts and conquers Nature (Bodies). "What separates us from the animals, from the beasts of prey – Ethics," says Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito) in the opening scene of Miller's Crossing, however ironically given Caspar's own inability to control his temper. The scripting of "the wrestling picture," where characters utter the rather primitive notions like "I will destroy you!" is something treated weightily by the title character in Barton Fink (John Turturro), in addition to many other lofty geniuses of Faulkeresque ambition. Violence, something the Coens are known for doing so well, is often countered ironically by the way language surrounds the gruesomeness, demonstrative in the negotiations between Minnesotans like Jerry Lundegaard (William H. Macy) and seasoned kidnappers (Steve Buscemi, Peter Storemare) in Fargo, or the flowery elegance of Professor G.H. Dorr (Tom Hanks) as he plots the murder of Marva Munson (Irma P. Hall) in The Ladykillers.

This also relates to the primitively amorous, as in Intolerable Cruelty where romance – or finding "an ass to mount" – is reducible to a piece of paper understandable only to lawyers, or the "parlance of our times" in reference to how we label the promiscuity of the trophy slut Bunny in The Big Lebowski, and finally the legal and orthodox religious discussions in A Serious Man, where Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) flees from the gross physical truth of his troubles (best represented by his brother’s cyst), seeking the help of rabbis. The friendly terms and stable social relationships of St. Louis Park Jews cannot save his unconscious from the truth: Sy Ableman is seriously fucking his wife.

Meanwhile, the gross bodies are things to be interpreted and disposed: the discarded corpses in the woods at Miller's Crossing; Barton Fink's head in the box ("I'll show you the life of the mind!" as John Goodman's serial killer guns down his prey); the mysterious toe, the Dude's imperiled "Johnson," and the cremation and scattering of poor Donny in The Big Lebowski; the hair that "never stops growing" in The Man Who Wasn't There; the mysterious and decaying left-over remains leading to a greater story in No Country for Old Men; the plethora of physical references (anaphylactic shock, exercise, "hard bodies") versus digital communication (the "raw shit" of a computer CD, online dating, "the organs of government") in Burn After Reading; and the gurgling sounds, medical examinations, draining cysts, pulsing sci-fi brains, and most remarkably the "Goy's Teeth" with which Hashem/God speaks to us in A Serious Man. The ironic juxtaposition reaps ceaseless meaningful rewards between the primitive and the civilized in the Coen brothers' cinema, where Ulysses Everett McGill justifies his ability to lead in O Brother, Where Art Thou? by his "capability of abstract thought," while John Turturro is "turned into a toad" by sirens. The language in each case – and sometimes the silence (No Country for Old Men) – is musical in its rhythms, repetitions, and alliterations, bespeaking the absurdity of our communication in addition to the way it may often be poetic. For example, the dialogue in O Brother is ridiculous – in a delightful way – but the songs selected by T. Bone Burnett are sincere in their emotional transcendence.

The accent on communication would then be expected in True Grit, and yes, it is more central to the movie than to any kind of post-modern loving nostalgia of "the Western." But the beauty in True Grit is, well, true, just as its focus on the ridiculous quirks of how we handle language and most particularly the language of the law is also quite hilarious. And again, seeing how the Western is the genre capturing that conflict of rugged bodies and terrain versus the burgeoning Iron Horse train as Civilization heads westward, this is a fine garden for Coen themes, which they reap to maximum riches. The theme is perennial and urgent to our own legally confused present.

My sense of seeing True Grit led me to afterwards interpret it as a kind of symphony, comprised of movements where the harmony is dictated by the haggling and negotiations between characters, much more so than the concrete "revenge story" folk melody to which we are, as viewers of the Western, so accustomed. Because it is the practice of critics in our over-televisioned age to focus on plot" many have stated that this is the most mainstream of Coen endeavors, seeing how the story covers a conventional trajectory of murder, pursuit, capture, and catharsis – this coming from the guys who took a James M. Cain scenario of 1950s infidelity, murder, and imprisonment in The Man Who Wasn't There, then somehow inserted a subplot involving UFO abduction. I'm not sure if this is not necessarily the most mainstream film the Coens have made (it's not exactly difficult to make a movie unconventional by most standards and yet still have it be "normal" when compared to other Coen scenarios), but I would argue the formal structure of True Grit is eccentric and off-the-wall in the sophisticated way that it magnificently relates to the content and bare-bones plot – the harmony in the symphonic movements capturing the "negotiations," the particulars, while the grit, the earthiness, the flesh, is secondary, even an afterthought, until the emotionally shattering conclusion. The public performance of grittiness is what we like in a Western revenge story. But while True Grit is consciously deconstructive, the Coens are smart enough to know that the revisionist Westerns of Penn and Altman are of a different tune. The song beneath the symphony, the grit, is finally real with the Coens.

The accent on the "particulars" of language, the faux elegance of civilization and its absurd idioms for communication, gives the whole affair a kind of finesse that is distinct for a Western. Entertainment Weekly critic Lisa Schwarzbaum writes, "What keeps us at arm's length, however, is the almost reflexive Coen instinct to favor controlled surface style over emotional mess and to dote on weird slapshots of violence that don't leave room to feel real horror." Schwarzbaum is completely correct, though she may be fishing for minnows while sitting on the whale, in how her one major criticism of True Grit (she otherwise likes it very much) is actually the central theme of the picture.

The first extensive dialogue scene in True Grit lays everything out. A confrontation evocative of the Dude and Walter haggling over poor Donny's remains in The Big Lebowski, we listen to Mattie talk to the town undertaker over her father's corpse. "Why is it so much?" she asks, regarding the price for handling a body. “The quality of the casket, and of the embalming, the lifelike appearance requires time, and art. And the chemicals come dear. The particulars are in your bill.” He adds, "If you would like to kiss him, it would be all right." "Thank you, the spirit has flown," Mattie responds quickly, still focused on the business side of this transaction and not the sentimental side. The spirit is gone, leaving only the grit, the bones, the empty flesh, and docile body prettified by "art." In this primitive mortuary, we're dealing with the gross physical stuff, the excreted left-overs of civilization, coupled with those "particulars" in the bill, the abstractions translated into numbers and capital. The particulars denote something, but honestly, in and of themselves when set alongside the permanence of death, amount to nothing at all. Mattie will spend a night in the mortuary with the bodies of three hanged men as her father is taken by a black man accompanying her on behalf of her family ("Slavery" is now illegal, but in word only), and it's very significant to note how she relates the experience: "I felt like Ezekiel in the Valley of the Dry Bones." This reinforces how damned literate Mattie is when compared to everybody else; her mother, she says, has trouble spelling "cat" and so cannot be left to the business of handling her father's remains or enlisting help to capture the fugitive Chaney. In addition Mattie’s biblical knowledge shows how deeply a Protestant sentiment runs in her blood. But the allusion to Ezekiel is significant to the interpretation of the whole picture.

The source is Ezekiel, 37: 1-14, where God (or the LORD, as he is identified at this stage in Bible) takes the prophet Ezekiel to a valley strewn with human remains – decayed to the dry bone. God tells Ezekiel, "Prophesy to these bones and say to them, 'Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD."

The idea here is that the WORD of the LORD is the breath of life, animating dead flesh and able to make corpses live. Words give Life to flesh, which otherwise is indistinct from the earthy grit into which they decompose. By consciously inserting this observation of Mattie into their version of True Grit, the Coens build a subtext into the architecture of the work that far transcends the given contrivances of the 1969 John Wayne adaptation of Portis' book, and so elevates the whole sense of how we should approach this film as viewers of a Western. Words, the breath and wind of life, make dead bodies conscious and give them a voice. And yet the contradictions that are imbued in the debates and bargaining comprising True Grit deal with how lifeless those words may be – Storytelling vs. Facts, in legalese the latter being just as dry as the bones among which Ezekiel and Mattie sleep. We will see that any meaningful scene in the context of this Western is contingent on how a character may handle words – and then connected with words, the performance or act of words and roles.

We see the performance of grave matters in the very next scene, where Mattie goes to a public execution to see three men hanged. The scaffold is a stage just as it is a tool of final justice. The first man repentantly cries, lamenting and dictating to his children not to fall into low company as he had. The second man keeps his poise, unapologetic, sneering as he says he killed the wrong man, and had he killed the right man, he wouldn't be in this pickle. But notice the dark hilarity of what the Coens do with the third man, an Indian (significantly named His Tongue in the Rain) who says, "Before I am hanged, I would like to say—" and is instantly silenced by the hangman who puts the obligatory bag over the native's head. This is a wry commentary on the way laws and the performance of those laws are enacted throughout the Coens' Old West, where everyone seems to be filled with "keen talk" – and yet the Native Americans are denied any dignity as individuals, precisely because they are disallowed language. We later will see Reuben 'Rooster' Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) go to a prairie oasis for information, where two young Native children sit on a porch. As he enters the store, he inexplicably abuses the children, kicking them both off the porch before he enters, like they are piles of bones to be senselessly thrown around. There are no words spoken. We also notice a young black boy who talks with Mattie as she takes her pony, which she names "Blackie." "That's a good name," the boy says. As she rides away, she tells him to thank the storekeeper on her behalf. "No, ma'am. I'm not even allowed to utter your name." African Americans, as in the case of Mattie's family chaperon at the mortuary or the young boy, are still slaves and unequal, regardless of any emancipation, because they are denied access to words. The only minority that has any clout is the one who has access to goods for bargaining and weapons of defense. We see this character, an Indian, approach Rooster and Mattie on their journey, holding a gun and apparently bearing trading goods for a dead body.

The rhythm of business negotiation is accelerated in a fascinating scene where Mattie bargains with the horse salesman, Colonel Stonehill, who was in business with her father. Since Frank Ross' horses were stolen by Chaney when they were in the care of the Stonehill, Mattie insists that she's owed the money that her father paid for them. In addition, she demands money for returned ponies, ultimately amounting to, according her calculations, $325. The haggle hilariously moves from Stonehill refusing to give a dime to playing into Mattie's demands, as she defeats him in the art of "hypotheticals" and legal abstractions. "I do not entertain hypotheticals, the world as it is is vexing enough," Stonehill says angrily, but being that Mattie has the ammunition of a powerful lawyer back home in Dardanelle, Arkansas, he is forced to entertain the math of hypotheticals and play by the rules of legalese.

Language in official quarters plays out next in the courtroom, when Mattie seeks out U.S. Marshall Cockburn, who comes recommended as a man with "grit" and will successfully help her find Chaney (she earlier approached him while he was in an outhouse, but with irritation he told her that he was had “prior business,” a humorous alignment of the grittiest form of dirt – pooping – and official work). The context of the hearing at hand is the prosecution of a man captured by Cockburn, whose allegedly murderous accomplices – family members – were killed by the marshal. As Rooster drawls out his words on the witness stand in response to the prosecuting attorney's questions, we notice how he seems to relay the experience like any number of old men who love to tell stories. The defense attorney is not as helpful. Being that he must defend an alleged criminal against the "hearsay" of a lawman, he undercuts the yarn-telling of Rooster with the mathematical precision of facts, particularly regarding the position of the dead bodies and how the "particulars" of forensic evidence (in this primitive pre-CSI age) contradict Rooster. The story told of how Rooster caught his quarry is very good, simply in the fashion of how Rooster tells the story, with the rhythms of his speech, sometimes unintelligible, with a hard-edged focus of a true law man. It's the stuff of, well, good movie Westerns.

But the particulars, damn it, ruin it! The defense attorney asks for a specific number of people Rooster has killed. "Twelve…fifteen," he answers. The choice is not 12 or 13, but the far more random and imprecise choice of 12 or 15. When the attorney mentions the two recent victims of Rooster, the number is revised to 23.

The "factual" inconsistency in Rooster's handling of such bare specifics is evidentiary of how unreliable a storyteller Rooster is. The body of Rooster's victim could not possibly be where Rooster said it was, according to the back-stepping of the attorney – therefore the gritty heroism of the marshal is derided in court as "a cold blooded bushwhack." "I do not remember," Rooster says regarding the specific questions of the attorney, a line he repeats, and it's an important line. Anyone in the business of telling stories, most particularly those that are rooted in true-life memory, understands how the process of memory recall is one of artful revision, however unconscious on the part of the subject. It is simply impossible for any storyteller to relay every fact, while the motive of the teller is to convey truth. Facts and stories are two different things in True Grit. Words are words without the soul of storytelling, which necessitate a departure from facts. Rooster is conscious of this, and lets us know when Mattie introduces herself to him outside the courtroom, making her $50 proposal for Chaney's bounty. Rooster's reaction is skepticism, and he dismisses her talk as the stuff of "fairy tales and sermons," and will later deride her as the girl "with stories of El Dorado." Not until he sees the money – of which there is no better communicative tool in civilization – does he agree to her proposal.

But even after the opening recurrences of negotiations, our Western Revenge tale is not necessarily on its way. The Coens wisely persist with the harmonic conceit of business-speak throughout the journey towards Chaney, consciously downplaying – and parodying – the notion of "grit" in these Old West characters. One stipulation of Mattie's hiring of Rooster – which might as well be contractual – is that she be allowed to go along with him on this "Coon Hunt." The next day, when she discovers that he's already gone and left her with a train ticket back to Dardanelle, she with incomparable muster pursues him on Blackie the Pony, perilously riding across a river to catch up. One of the "particulars" of this agreement is that she be allowed to come with, and if this specific element is not fulfilled, then the contract is nullified. Complicating matters is the appearance of a Texas Ranger, LeBoeuf (pronounced "LeBeef"), played by Matt Damon, and modeled by the Coens in his speech patterns on Bill Clinton, a politician's politician in terms of his aggressive mastery of language – perhaps with little "grit" to back it up.

LeBoeuf is also set to find Chaney, because he shot a state senator – and the senator's dog – in Texas. This has led to an alliance between Rooster and LeBoeuf where they will find Chaney together, and then Rooster will allow the Ranger to take Chaney to Texas for prosecution and hanging. Mattie is, of course, apoplectic. Very fitting to the current Age of Obama, where politicians struggle to maintain poise while making deals, the conflict between the three is nearly insoluble. The problem is adhering to the particulars of a contract where money finally changes hands – the capital exchange – and also keeping a hold of one's integrity, or rather the performative frame of one's sense of self. The heavily costumed LeBoeuf with his spurs and accoutrement is identified by Mattie as a "rodeo clown," and we sense a character that is hilariously showy. Asked by Mattie why he has failed to find Chaney as of yet, Leboeuf defensively replies, "He is a crafty one" (a perfect description of our modern day Cheney). She responds, "That's his act," noting how she found Chaney to be something of a half-wit. Acting becomes an important element in True Grit, as well as a commentary on the Western genre and how we may react to the uneasy position this film finds itself in, being that it's a remake of a film that won "The Duke" his Oscar, and as such will be seen by fans of the genre as blasphemy against John Wayne.

The appeal of John Wayne has much to do with the tough talk and poise of this Hollywood icon, extending beyond movies into politics and day-to-day behavior for how men should act and how women should respond to those men. Wayne won his Oscar for True Grit, but not for his acting ability. It was a lifetime achievement of sorts during a time – 1969 – when the Duke's reputation was up in the air, given the torrid politics of the time and how transparently weak and unexamined those politics were, as displayed in Wayne's 1968 pro-Vietnam propaganda, The Green Berets. Some critics and commentators think remaking John Wayne, as the Coens have done, is blasphemy. But they are not aware of how John Wayne is untouchable not because of the talent and content of whomever he was, but because Wayne is an ideology unto himself, representing a poise that so many of us wish to emulate. But that's the problem of the Western genre, if not human nature. Tough talk, posturing, style, big spurs and big guns are not necessarily reflective of the actual nature of a person or a situation. John Wayne is Rooster Cockburn, because he's a good storyteller just as he's a good bullshitter. But the character, I believe, demands the complexity of an actor's actor, being that this is consciously a story about performance, and Rooster, unlike LeBoeuf, is in on the rouse of tough guys and their talk. LeBoeuf tells campfire stories about being a Texas Ranger and having to drink out of hoof prints to stave off thirst. Rooster mocks LeBoeuf, who asks, "Do you not believe me?" "I believed it the first 25 times I heard it," Rooster answers. LeBoeuf derides Rooster's "keen tongue," and another spat of references and accomplishments begins (talk about accomplishment instead of something we can see – the grit). "This is like women talking," Rooster says, which infuriates LeBoeuf because he believes that Rooster is actively trying to make him "look small" in front of Mattie. "I think she's got you pretty well figured out," Rooster says. The parley of role-playing and performance is picked up by Mattie, who eases the argument by suggesting the three of them play "The Midnight Caller," where one of the two men are to play the "Caller" and she will tell them both what to say. At this stage in this remake of a "classic" (the 1969 film is hardly a classic), the perceptive audience member will note how well the Coens and company are jesting about the posturing featured in so many other Westerns. Later on, we'll see an absolutely absurd – and hilarious – confrontation between Cockburn and LeBoeuf as they shoot at cornbread to determine who is the more talented lawman.

“Business talk" continues to interrupt the dynamics of revenge, as Mattie accuses Rooster of fraud if he should hand Chaney over the LeBoeuf. Even the corporeal flesh and blood punishment of the most gruesome nature – Rooster offers to flay Chaney's feet for Mattie, after which she can rub pepper in the wound – is inconsequential to the demands of the contractual language. "Are you again letting her hoo-rah all over you?" LeBoeuf says to Rooster. "Hoo-rah?" "That was the word." It's a nonsensical word, but it is amusingly appropriate in its definition of how silly contractual language can be. The spat leads to LeBoeuf ending his alliance with Rooster.

When Mattie and Rooster go off in the woods, we notice how much Rooster seems to love telling stories about himself, though of course we can never be sure about their accuracy. Mattie may not even be listening, but on and on Rooster drawls, Jeff Bridges playing him with a vocalization not so different from Billy Bob Thornton's in Sling Blade, a choice that I believe was lovingly embraced by the Coens. Again, we note the connections between words and primal human relationships when Rooster casually talks about his estranged son, who apparently doesn't like the old man. "I did speak awful rough to him," Rooster says remorsefully, "I didn't mean anything by it." Rough talk does not denote the truth of actual emotions.

It's funny to note the amount of times speaking – or just mouths – are referenced in True Grit. We learn that the man who was guarding Frank Ross' horse had his "teeth knocked out" by Chaney; the hanged Indian at the beginning, forbidden from speaking, is named Tongue in the Rain; early on, LeBoeuf says to Mattie in response to an insult, "A saucy line will not get you far with me," and then "You give out very little sugar in your mouth"; a man in a bear suit named Forrester, who comes upon Mattie and Rooster, claims to study dentistry, and offers to bargain the hanged man's body (acquired in a trade from the Indian Rooster and Mattie came upon earlier), though adding, "I have removed his teeth." (One of the conspicuous oddities of the dialogue in True Grit is how the characters seem to speak without contraction, as if they are vessels for the business/legal language of incessant negotiation - e.g. "I do not know this man;" "You will not do that," etc); as mentioned above, though Rooster is a story teller, he's also often hard to understand as he marble mouths his words; the well-spoken LeBoeuf nearly bites off the tip of his tongue during a skirmish with outlaws, causing him to have his own speech impediment throughout the rest of the film; when we see Tom Chaney for the first time, we notice a black mark on his cheek, indicating that his mouth has been wounded and probably has something to do with his own marble mouth; Mattie is from Yell County; Rooster’s enemy, Ned Pepper (Barry Pepper) has a scarred lip. True Grit has a lot of dismemberment – arms, fingers, tongues, teeth, and of course Cockburn's missing eye – but the mouth is the most important organ for the Coens.

This all comes back to the meaninglessness – and paradoxical meaningfulness – of words in the Coens' universe, and as such relates to the cosmological issues in True Grit. This film is an interesting follow-up to one of the Coens' best and richest films, A Serious Man (2009), which dealt with the erratic, unpredictable, contradictory, and often cruel nature of God. Larry Gopnik is in a universe where one may do the right thing their whole lives, and then be – however unfairly – stricken with misfortune. This is the Yahweh featured in the Books of Moses, who when interpreted as a literary figure is a trickster god whose villainy seems to parallel Shakespeare's Iago and Edmund. God is something of a sadistic son of a bitch – who also speaks to us through the human body, namely teeth (the Goy's Teeth), but the significance of that communication and what the Goy's teeth mean to anybody in the day-to-day world is a baffling mystery. The world is just and unjust at the same time, like Schrödinger's cat and the Uncertainty Principle. Everything seems all right, but it's the elliptical elements that the Coens want us to note: a War in Vietnam, a war in Israel, the fact that the Jews of St. Louis Park live in a suburb of what was once the most anti-Semitic city in the nation, social unrest of the inner cities, the "new freedoms" of marijuana and casual sex, and, perhaps most significantly, Sy Ableman fucking your wife, seriously.

The cruel and absurd conundrum of poor Professor Larry is revised in True Grit, where God is active in everything we do, but there is logic in debt and repayment akin to the negotiations that ferment the architecture of the picture. The end credit song is Iris Dement's beautiful rendition of "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms," and the rest of Carter Burwell's score uses Protestant hymns as a model. The Old Testament LORD is revised, and is not a son of a bitch, but is the benevolent “Author of all things." There is an artisan's resonance in the construction of Mattie's world and understanding of the divine, though it may not be reflective of how things actually are. Of course, upon close examination, the world of True Grit may be just as unfair and random as the worlds of A Serious Man and No Country for Old Men, when we think about how Mattie's decision to go after Tom Chaney of her own will leads to a lot of corpses, LeBoeuf and Rooster sustaining injuries, losing a favorite pet, and ultimately an arm, a maiming that may keep her unmarried and undesirable for the rest of her life (this is only speculative; LeBoeuf and the ruffian Quincy both address Mattie as being "ugly," albeit out of frustration, and Mattie's personality is not exactly conductive to any romantic sentiment). The world is chaotic and cruel, nonsensical, and unjust. But returning to the main theme here – in literature perhaps best represented by Shakespeare's The Tempest – the duty of Civilization is to label, define, and identify the chaos of unknown nature, crafting the story with an artisan's sensibility. There’s even a reference for how unwanted horses find their way to the soap factory: dead flesh and grit becomes transubstantiated as a hygiene product that makes us socially presentable.

A central issue to the main cognitive muddle of True Grit is addressed by Mattie and LeBoeuf as they discuss the wrong-doings of Chaney, something that ties in perfectly with the accent on legalese here. LeBoeuf notes how Chaney shot the senator's dog – which he says is something that is Malum Prohibitum – and then shot the senator – which is Malum in se. Rooster, not unlike the audience, wants to know the meaning of these Latin terms. Mattie, unsurprisingly, can define them (earlier she mentioned to Stonehill how she had a “writ of replivan”). Malum Prohibitum is a term referring to something that is wrong due to it being prohibited by the "laws and mores of society," as opposed to Malum in se, which refers to an "act that is wrong in itself," violating the natural, moral, or basic principles of civilization. Prohibitum refers to something that is wrong by "statute" or legislation, a technicality (e.g. insider trading, sex with someone who is not a particular age, etc) versus the crime that is an aberration of Nature, like rape itself, murder, or robbery. This beautifully fits in with the motifs of the movie we've been witness to so far, and how we process the parleys involving revenge, bounties, and bodies used as tools for negotiation. Rooster seems to have his own opinion on the matter. After all, his testimony during the trial is put into jeopardy because of the technicalities addressed by the defense. Something "wrong in itself" is nullified by another action that is "wrong by statute," namely the irresponsible handling of a situation by law officials, akin to illegal wiretaps. Rooster also talks about how he once stole money from a bank, which outrages the law-abiding Mattie. "I never stole from a person, though," he says. "It's still wrong in itself," she retorts, and he admits, "That is about how the folks in New Mexico saw it." Rooster's not afraid to overstep statutory boundaries, but nevertheless adheres to the perennial notions of Good and Evil. Rooster's role as a Lawman makes him an interesting figure to contemplate; he bears the eye-patch, associating him with the blind eye of justice that judges accordingly, regardless of whatever nuances in a given situation; but he's only half blind, the other eye perceiving and making its own evaluative judgments of how to go about things. Of course, back to my incipient Dick Cheney allegory, does this not make Rooster more of a Cheney-esque character than Tom Chaney? After all, the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden – much like Mattie's subsequent misfortunes – will lead to perhaps an unequal amount of sorrow when compared to the initiating crime that demands punishment.

The final act of True Grit finds Mattie unexpectedly encountering Chaney at a riverbank. His demeanor contradicts his lethal reputation. He is indeed a half-wit, a dullard and a dope, as we ask ourselves, “We’ve come all this way for this guy?” He seems to have no intention of hurting Mattie when he recognizes her, his gestures coming across as "gosh gee golly" amusement – after which she shoots him in the arm, as if to remind him of his role as genre villain. Her gun backfires as she takes aim for a second shot, and Chaney takes her hostage along with the posse of criminals with whom he rides, the 'Lucky' Ned Pepper gang. Set alongside Pepper, Chaney's feebleness is more concrete, and he is little more than a complaining mumbler: "Nothing is going my way today. This is not my week," he pitifully says. Pepper himself is vicious in his appearance, bearing ugly teeth, a maimed lip, and a horrifying scowl, making it clear that he's the real heavy of True Grit. He seems to fulfill the perimeters of the role when he puts his boot on Mattie's face and points a gun threateningly at her. But again it's all about the business negotiation, as Pepper is simply using Mattie as a bargaining tool for a final showdown with his longtime nemesis, Rooster. After this moment, Pepper seems a polite captor, offering Mattie bacon and coffee and warning Chaney to keep his hands off of her.

To reiterate, "grit" is still something of a parody in this adventure of role players. Pepper is dangerous, but the content or tone of his conversations is not related to his lethality. Civilized human beings are still held at a distance from heroic grit, which is parodied in the Pepper gang member who only communicates by making animal sounds. There is a disparity between the politely acculturated people of civilization and raw primacy, as we may remember Forrester, a beastly figure in his bear skin, who in his handling of medical arts laments that he is only able to give medicinal treatment to "humans who are willing to sit down long enough." Beautifully as Roger Deakins' camera has hitherto captured natural landscapes in True Grit up to this climactic confrontation between the good guys and the bad guys, the conflict between Man and Nature has been kept at a tidy distance because of the movements of negotiation. The final confrontation between Rooster and Pepper's gang, one against four, is as rousing as it is troubling. The antagonism between Rooster and Pepper is mostly elliptical to the story of this film, and so this confrontation seems forced and inconsequential. But the music and depth charge of the moment as shot, scored, and edited when Rooster boldly charges to this finale (after giving, as Pepper points out, "bold talk for a fat man") is as stirring to me as any likewise moment would be in a canonical Western. It works on two levels: as a thing in itself, but then also as what I recognized as a simulation of the classical Western showdown. At the conclusion, Rooster is victorious, saved by LeBoeuf's long distance shot at Pepper after the marshal's been trapped underneath his horse. Immediately afterwards, Chaney knocks out LeBoeuf with a rock, but is killed by Mattie, who at last achieves her vengeance by blowing him off the perching cliff with LeBoeuf's rifle.

Now, this is where the Coens' eccentricity pays off. Some viewers will dislike True Grit – or rather be confused by it – as these confrontations, as I pointed out, seem a little detached and clean. The vendettas are dealt with in a skin-deep level, and the final moment of revenge towards which the plot has been building is underwhelming and incomplete. Why should we care about what these characters are doing? But the plot is not the harmony of this symphony, only a basic melody. The formal structure of the movie has kept us away from the true grit of a genuine Western; this is the guiding idea for the way the material is handled. The motifs and repetitions that have been moving the story forth come to impactful headway the moment Chaney is shot. The force of the gunshot propels Mattie backwards and down a deep pit, where she becomes entangled in vines. She sees a corpse carrying a knife and tries to pull it close.

Inside the remains of the decayed body is a ball of venomous rattlesnakes, which are stirred awake by Mattie's movement of the corpse, the associations to Ezekiel, God, and Biblical sensibility being limitless. This is an all-too-real confrontation with Nature, something with which one cannot haggle, compromise, or bargain. Mattie is bitten by one of the snakes before Rooster can reach her. The magnificent, cheekily humorous poise of Jeff Bridges's Rooster changes effortlessly, and from this point forth, the Coens will show us the grit of the film's title, promised by Rooster Cockburn's reputation. "Look away," he calmly tells Mattie, and he slices open her hand and tries to suck out some of the snake venom. He pulls her out of the pit with LeBoeuf's help (who, Rooster notes, can only be silenced a couple minutes with a blow to the head), and rides on Blackie towards safety.

The ride through the wild frontier is the most important part of True Grit and bears its crowning distinction. There are no words here as Rooster silently hurries forth, the images not conventionally lush but seemingly made with rear projection, the sense attaining a surreal quality. The bodies of Pepper's men pass into the night and Mattie hallucinates Chaney riding away into the distance. "He's getting away," she says in her poisoned haze. The outcome of any plot, True Grit is telling us, is totally meaningless. The ultimate destination for this story is an emotional one, beyond words. The grit is then reinforced by the necessity of Rooster having to put Blackie down after the horse exhausts itself to collapse, miles before society can aid Mattie. The music reaches its crescendo with this moment. This is the character that Mattie paid for in Rooster, and so it is what she has reaped, biblically speaking. She is resistant to it, batting at Rooster when he tries to carry her off the ground; she relents and he walks on with the physical agency of Raw Nature, Wordless Earth, and True Grit, an individual acting far beyond the demands of the capital exchange involved in his hiring. This moment in True Grit is ultimately, I believe, the most emotionally overwhelming the Coen brothers have ever constructed, the tongue-in-cheek playfulness of the previous 110 minutes having been dashed by its wordless truthfulness. Rooster sees society, falls to his knees, and fires his gun. What he says is a fitting coda to this last movement in the symphony, where bodies like memories drift away into the night, damned to decay and being forgotten, tying into the melancholy resonance of the Western genre. "I have grown old," he remarks.

What follows is the film's epilogue, set a quarter century later, in 1903. The slow and unfinished trains of the film's beginning are now rapidly moving, the cities no longer the rough stuff of newly nailed wood, but ornately designed and painted. We see Mattie, 39 years old, one arm amputated. She narrates how Rooster never collected the remaining $50 of his bounty fee, significant because it signals the completion of the “true grit” in the ride through the night, as Rooster's final action has nothing to do with contractual agreements, but simply symbolic exchanges between breathing human beings. They had "lively times" together, a bond in spite of strife, a natural relationship of which there is increasingly obsolescence in a world of ever-proliferating empty words and simulation. Mattie discovers that Rooster is performing at one of the popular Wild West shows of the period, this one run by James Gang outlaws Cole Younger and Frank James. Younger politely introduces himself and regrets that Rooster had died three days before, buried at a local Confederate cemetery. Mattie accepts the news, and bids Younger goodbye; she utters to Frank James, "Keep your seat, trash" before leaving, a distinction she possibly makes because of Younger's documented repudiation of his crimes, versus James' blatant exploitation of them. Regardless, the setting of the Wild West show is a moving finale to this Western, which laments how the bold talk and posturing of the Old West has become nothing but posturing and the manufactured simulation of heroics, quite distinct from how Rooster saved Mattie's life, a private adventure distinct from the publically documented one.

Mattie has buried Rooster in her own private cemetery, where he's saved from being an anonymous number in a large military graveyard, or bookmark for Wild West entertainment. His physical substance, the dry bone, is preserved in the artistry of her own sanctioned grave marking, memorialized in a private space. This is the best that any body can hope for in a universe where we all end up like grit, but only a few us can live up to the words we breath as civilized individuals. The gesture is futile (or FUDEL, as Rooster spells the word), but it is also beautiful. That is the nature of any kind of artistry, whether it be of a mortician, or of a storyteller relating the mystery of the past. Those with whom we shared "lively times" drift away from us in Time. There is sadness in the impermanence of the players in our stories, which can never be told with any kind of exacting accuracy. Mattie notes how she never knew what happened to LeBoeuf, and speculates how old he must be. Were he alive, she muses, it would be nice to see him. Of course, she will probably never see him again. The memory has its own music, though strained by the melancholy determinism of death and loss. All we can do is lean on the belief of Everlasting Arms. The content of our hymns – here in the indelible vocalization of Iris Dement – may be untrue and false, and the world factually may be godless. Yet the structural craft recalls the capabilities of human kindness and genius, and is itself capable of the deepest stirring. Maybe that's the only consolation we can take with us when our Chaney/Cheneys get away from what they deserve in a nonsensical world.





Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Against Machine Minds and Machine Hearts: Charles Chaplin

















Charles Chaplin writes in his autobiography, "In the creation of comedy, it is paradoxical that tragedy stimulates the spirit of ridicule, because ridicule, I suppose, is an attitude of defiance: we must laugh in the face of our helplessness against the forces of nature – or go insane." Humor is a defiant defense mechanism, the mirthful nuclear option tasked against evidential absurdity and pain. Chaplin's own life was fraught with despair, loneliness, grief – and insanity. Yet he was the most iconoclastic face of comedy in American culture during the last century, certainly transcending the content of his own movies – his image as the duck-walking and dissonantly dressed "Tramp" in oversized shoes, pants, bowler hat, and a tiny mustache, is recognizable to anyone with access to a television set – which is unfortunate because as the world stumbles farther away from Chaplin's golden period, the masterpieces themselves often go unseen and important themes are muffled by the enthusiastic yet hollow alarums of pop culture. Chaplin was a very conscientious artist, with a topical vent that, once given a voice to match its images, eventually exiled him from the Land of the Free. Certainly in a time where both political wings have lost their sense of humor, and the blind embrace of new technology has outpaced any reasoned and cautious restraint in its handling, Chaplin's work and the resonance of his life are important things to wonder about.

This month the Trylon Microcinema is featuring a retrospective on Chaplin (www.take-up.org) , the final bill at the end of the month presenting The Great Dictator, which, if it isn't Chaplin's greatest film and may even be severely flawed with its naked concluding sentiments, still seems to be his grand opus and the most appropriate frame for his life and work. It is Chaplin the stubborn non-conformist finally ceding to the conquering trend of sound cinema, which had immediately taken control of the medium 12 years before. In embracing sound he also got to bite his thumb at the popular mandates of art commercialism, making a film that trumped other talkies in how well it utilized sound design, even in subtextual, self-reflexive ways, while also maintaining the superiority of the silent aesthetic with the greatest dignity, his balletic handling of space, rhythm, and music squarely evidencing how the new format of talking-heads was, in a way, killing the elements that made the picture – evolving so wonderfully in the 1920s – great. The Great Dictator is also the most significant film that relates to Chaplin as a citizen (or rather, an immigrant). Always socially conscious, Chaplin made the film because of what he perceived as an immediate threat – Nazism – which was not simply geographical, but rather was a philosophy latent in the industry, apathy, and blind nationalism he saw in democratic counties. To quote him directly, "The cells of Nazism, although dormant at the moment, can be activated very quickly in every country." The Great Dictator was a counteroffensive weapon against the Nazis, but it also gave ammunition to the American Right throughout the next decade, as it made Chaplin's politics concrete, just as his words with sound became concrete. The beloved Tramp, silenced by sound and compelled to speak a message of tolerance, was smeared, exiled, and made infamous. Chaplin's subsequent films, Monsieur Verdoux and Limelight, were boycotted, censored, and banned. The hilarity of Chaplin's downfall is in the theme of his life and work. An era of conformity and prosperity had to reject him, as the lonely Tramp had shown us all along how what he was always in conflict with was the unspoken absurdity of the "normal" that we take for granted. The vagrant Tramp found sleeping during the public unveiling of a statue at the opening of City Lights makes plain the idea that Chaplin subsequently agreed with: the Tramp is an affront to the Normal.


*


The most significant figure in Chaplin's life was almost certainly his mother, Hannah Chaplin. A musical stage actress, separated from Chaplin's alcoholic actor father before young Charlie could remember, Hannah decorated the poverty of Charlie's childhood with both the make believe of theatricality, and the piety of New Testament stories, with particular attention paid to how the foundation for Christ's pity and compassion was in an unorthodoxy that separated him from the strictures of Law and accepted custom. Charlie had an older brother from an unknown (apparently rich and Jewish) father, Sydney. The three of them -- Hannah, Sydney, and Charlie -- worked closely together as a family unit, their survival dependent on being conscious of one another. Difficulties accelerated, mixed with blessings. Hannah's voice gave out during a stage performance due to laryngitis, in front of an unsympathetic and hostile crowd that booed her off stage. Five-year-old Charlie, having memorized the songs performed by his mother, took the stage by surprise and picked up where she left off, winning the hearts of the drunken spectators. It was his first performance for an audience – and her last. She took to sewing, but began to suffer bouts of insanity, forcing her to be institutionalized. Charlie and Sydney were sent to the boys' workhouse, which served in fostering Charlie's distrust and dislike for authority. At other periods during Hannah's insane periods, which came intermittently like bouts of depression, Charlie and Sydney would live with Charlie's compassionate but perpetually drunk father, much to the chagrin of the father's live-in girlfriend, particularly with regard to Sydney not being in any way related to Chaplin Sr.

Because of his forebears, Chaplin was damned to show business, which was perilous as indicated by the sorry states of his parents. Hannah Chaplin warned about the make believe in theatrical life and how it was dangerous to one's spiritual awareness, her own investment into Fantastic matters – whether as actress or Christian – probably making her emotionally vulnerable so as to be destroyed by her own psychology. Charles Sr.'s alcoholism and the epidemic of alcoholism among actors was probably due to how the London theatres had bars attached to them. According to Chaplin, London stage actors were paid handsomely by theatres, because the performers would immediately flock next door after performing, spending much of their earnings while rubbing shoulders with the audience. Chaplin's father was not unique; he died of cirrhosis to the liver aged 36, when Chaplin was 12.

It was at this age that Chaplin took to acting professionally. Tutored by Sydney, and working a number of odd jobs to survive – including flower peddler, errand boy, doctor's assistant, receptionist, and page boy – Chaplin's bid to become a child actor was something of a last ditch effort to stay out of the workhouse, as his father was dead and mother institutionalized. He surprisingly got some boys' roles, and once he had them, Sydney worked him over to master the parts he won, drilling in the edict: "Don't screw this up." The meager pennies Charlie would earn would be their livelihood. It was from Sydney's pressure and demand of focus that Chaplin's perfectionism developed, which would be instrumental in shaping the type of filmmaker he became as an adult. It was also during this time that Chaplin, through the influence of his elder actors, learned to read, finding strong identification particularly with Dickens, beginning with Oliver Twist, the main character's workhouse vagabond existence vaguely similar to Chaplin's. In The Kid (1921), one can see the influence of Dickens on Chaplin.

Acting came naturally to him – though he admits that his only problem was mugging for attention. Chaplin believed that acting could not be taught, though technique was vital and had to be learned. And yet his pleasure in mugging is tied to another thing Chaplin believes in acting – and we can sense and relish in his own performers: a great actor loves himself in acting; what's difficult is the technique, because the actor must be conscious of every way in which he orients himself to the other actors and is perceived by the audience. The actor is like a musician who loves playing his instrument but knows full well how that instrument and its sound relates to every other sound in the orchestra pit – so as to create a symphony. The visual ballet of choreography with the camera's inflection is the most marked element in Chaplin's films by virtue of its perfection. There are no stand-alone "vaudeville" performances in Chaplin; he is a "character comedian." Groucho Marx, as Rufus T. Firefly in Duck Soup for example, is the vaudevillian character of Groucho Marx. The Tramp of Chaplin, however, in any number of films, is not Chaplin. It is the character of the Tramp.

The other important character of Chaplin's early life may well have been a young performer he fell in love with, though she did not reciprocate, Hetty Kelly. At age 19 he proposed to her, though she was barely 16. The few dates they had – if they could be called dates – were uneventful and unhappy for Chaplin, who was unable to earn the slimmest tender of her affection. Upon saying that he would never see her again, he was disappointed with her response: "I'm sorry," an unfortunate acquiescence to his baiting proposition. Hetty, who would die in the influenza epidemic during World War I, was for Chaplin "the one audience from the past I would like to meet again." The tenderness, fear, trepidation, and bashful affection of the Tramp are apparently reflective of Chaplin's actual shyness, though he would have many romances through his life – particularly with very young women – as if he were still trying to capture Hetty later on through life. The bashfulness of love, with its excited expectation and let-down of rejection, is featured in all of Chaplin's work, though he allows himself the fantasy of a happy ending. But as the Tramp's imagined dinner date (for which he is ultimately stood-up in reality) in The Gold Rush shows, Chaplin had a unique grasp on how often Love is often only fulfilled blissfully in solitary fantasy.

Chaplin's talents as a character comedian bloomed and his success took him with his traveling company to America, where he found himself awed, though disturbed, by the immense pillars of steel, machinery, and industry on the East Coast. "New York was a big monument to success," Chaplin remembered upon his entry to the United States, "and this annoyed me." He fell in love with the Midwest, including Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois, and the Twin Cities, spending a lot of time finally in Butte, Montana, where he was particularly struck by how the local prostitutes seemed just as respectable and dignified as so-called "classy women." At this time, Chaplin also exercised his voice as a performer, seeking to distinguish himself from the highly regarded actors in his troupe that he understudied and was to eventually replace. When motion pictures found him in 1914, the same thing would happen; Chaplin was perturbed that he was expected to follow a kind of tried "stock" practice for the bumbling character he was to play. He unorthodoxly pressed his indelibility into the generic formulas of repetition, and as such created something new.

In motion pictures and working for director Mack Sennett at $150 a week, Chaplin found himself in another circumscribed environment. Though an entertainment industry, the acting techniques regarding blocking and orientation that Chaplin excelled at in theatre were eschewed for simple photographic framing and efficiency. Sennett's practice as a manufacturer of films were quite commonplace; Chaplin describes motion picture production as a kind of sausage factory, where products were just thrown into the meat grinder, any kind of serious deliberation or attempt to play with the language of the new form being a hindrance to time management. Sennett and his Keystone crew churned out short films on an almost weekly basis.

Chaplin was instrumental in changing that – or at least, seeing how Hollywood still wants to churn out mass replications of proven success while stomping out idiosyncrasies, he showed that it was possible to create a better product with honed and careful craft with bravura enthusiasm. Again, his stubbornness and commitment to making a good product rather than merely an efficient product enabled film acting to be more imbued with a learned theatrical sense of space. Chaplin's acting was not about what was easy to capture on film, but what was better. His precociousness led him to sponge-like pick up on how films were made, from writing to editing. He made a deal with Sennett to write and direct his own shorts, working fast on Keystone's pace, while honing his own skills as the Tramp and creating a better comedy product for his backers. While giving the reigns to an actor with no directorial experience was considered risky for Sennett, Chaplin put up his own money as a bond to see that it happened. It paid off. His face recognizable all over the world, Chaplin was practical and understood celebrity, explaining to Sennett that the audience didn't care about who the director or the studio was. They cared about Chaplin, the Tramp. The only thing he needed to make a film were 1) a park; 2) a policeman; and 3) a pretty girl.

As his exposure and income increased, so did the cult of celebrity. A colleague gave him sage advice: "You'll be invited everywhere. Don't accept," adding the lesson, "You've captivated the world, and you can continue doing so as long as you stand outside of it." Chaplin not only understood celebrity, but he also knew how to sustain it. As a man who was very introverted and reflective as a youth, he observed the posh in-crowds of the rich and famous, and how it was perceived as abnormal and unhealthy to take a solitary walk. Chaplin, upon achieving wealth, saw how social dynamics were often based on false myths. As the girls in Butte proved, the rich and well-spoken were not more intelligent or more diligent than the poor. The "best people" were rarely the actual best people, or certainly the most moral and wise. Chaplin was annoyed by how so many of his famous friends needed other people around all the time. Chaplin felt more alone when he was in forced company. Two memorable quotes on friendship by Chaplin, that certainly ring true to me, are as follows: "I like friends as I like music, when I am in the mood;" and, "To help a friend in need is easy, but to give him your time is not always opportune."

Chaplin also said, interestingly, that loneliness was the theme of everyone. It is certainly the theme of the Tramp, a solitary and awkward character who pines for company while seeming to be best suited to his solitude. The Tramp, like Chaplin, is known by everyone, but seems to know no one, and seems unable to get to know anyone. He struggles like a child at play struggles – and he is a child at play. The Tramp acts with the pantomimes of nobility, tipping his hat and tapping his cane – and then opens his cigarette case to show an array of cigarette butts, the comic juxtaposition being just perfect. He is, like a child, in his own world. This is almost poetic to think about while watching The Kid, where the Tramp has his most fulfilling relationship, with his orphan child. The bittersweet relationship between the Tramp and the orphan seems like a psychological autobiography, as the Tramp, who is Chaplin's adult shadow, or an alter ego run amok in a "normal" world, is caring for an orphaned troublemaking kid – and partner in crime – who may be Chaplin's projection of his own childhood. The Tramp and the Kid complete each other; indeed, when a doctor comes over to examine the ailing Kid, the Tramp mistakes the doctor's instructions, saying "ahhh" when the doctor addresses the Kid to open his mouth. In loneliness, what we have is ourselves, past and present.

Chaplin was aware of his disposition towards loneliness and depression, traits that troubled him not only because of his mother's occasional insanity, but throughout his life, beginning as a child actor, he was alarmed by how so many clowns and comedians he knew, all capable of bringing him joy, had committed suicide: separate incidents involving gunshot, hanging, and throat cutting, and all usually without warning. The tragic and the comic formed a devouring circle, something that Chaplin understood was the spark for the best comedy. We see a shining example in The Gold Rush (1923). Chaplin had read about the Donner party, where some individuals in the cold mountains had taken to boiling their shoes for food – and eventually other people. The Gold Rush features two starving men alone in a cabin: the Tramp eats his shoe; later on, his companion gazes at him and sees a gigantic chicken. A gruesome and tragic incident (the Donner party and cannibalism) inspires hilarity in the hyperbole of madness.

Chaplin had formed his own studio and afforded himself the ability to work under his own private auspices, directing and editing The Kid on his own pace. At this point in time, Chaplin was also becoming, along with friends Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford, a spokesperson for war bonds. As he describes it, no one really understood the cause, meaning, or goal of the Great War, and participating in war bond rallies as an entertainer was due to being swept up in the sudden frenzy of the war, and beyond that, simple opportunism. Chaplin was smart enough to note the absurd in the whole affair. Regarding war, he saw that obedience was primary, whereas thought secondary. The environment made him wonder if he could make a comedy about the war, something discouraged by Cecil B. DeMille who warned of the risks when an entertainer enters the terrain of geopolitics, exposing himself.

At this same time, the studios were conspiring to merge as a means of counterbalancing the power of entertainers like Chaplin and Fairbanks. The idiosyncrasies of individuals were seen as a threat to the economic bottom lines of business. In retaliation, Chaplin, Pickford, Fairbanks, and D.W. Griffith formed their own studio, United Artists. The move stopped the proposed merger, and put Chaplin and company in healthy competition with the original moguls. Chaplin was also in a comfortable enough place where he could relax. So prolific during World War I, Chaplin became selective with his projects, making only ten more features over the next half century, all but the last one (A Countess from Hong Kong in 1967) made for UA, a company that would fold in a tragically appropriate manner just three years after Chaplin's death in 1977, as the New Hollywood of the 1970s got drunk on its own excesses and the businessmen of the industry were able to claim their crown from the crazy artists.


*


It's these features, aside from The Kid, that form a consistent and luxuriously stable body of work, making Chaplin's legend: A Woman in Paris, The Goldrush, The Circus, City Lights, Modern Times, The Great Dictator, Monsieur Verdoux, Limelight, and A King in New York. We see the master of silent film ushered, kicking and screaming, into sound, but we can also mark the thoughts of a conscious artist creating to his own social detriment as the 20th century undergoes its own changes. The cycle climaxed in terms of the greatest commercial success midway through, with The Great Dictator, which would strangely also destroy him.

City Lights (1931) was the first Chaplin picture released in the era of sound, and with its opening, the director is eager to ridicule his aesthetically trendy foe. The first scene of City Lights is a kind of political event where the top officials in town present a new statue in the public square. They speak, but the voices Chaplin gives them are of distorted horns (think Charlie Brown's teacher), so as to suggest that all of these "words, words, words" really amount to little more than empty air and noises indistinguishable from each other. Rather than creating talking heads exchanging dialogue, Chaplin was interested in using sound to help his own ends. For example, he composed his own music score, and used sound effects like whistles and coins clanging for clever jokes, perhaps most memorable in using a bell for the film's famous boxing match, where the poor Tramp's neck is attached to a string hooked onto the ring bell; his opponent punches him, the bell rings, and the round ends, saving him. He walks to his corner, pulling on the bell, and the next round starts immediately – where once more he is pummeled hilariously.

It's also, again, a very tender story, another demonstration of Chaplin's impeccable combination of humor and pathos. The Tramp falls in love with a blind girl who sells flowers, trying to win her love by getting the money she needs to pay a threatening landlord. He also saves the life of an alcoholic and suicidal millionaire, a man who is a great friend when intoxicated, but rejects the Tramp and remembers nothing of their relation while sober. In addition to the magnificently choreographed madcap action featured throughout the story, epitomized in the boxing match which plays like a dance, the film's concluding moment is a validation and a statement of silent cinema's golden, well, silence, which transcends language. The blind girl, now with sight, touches the pathetic Tramp's hand. Her hands recognize him as her benefactor; their eyes meet and they smile at each other. It is so beautifully rendered, so perfect emotionally, that to utter a word here would ruin the moment. The expressions and sensuality in the eyes and bodies of the performers communicate volumes. The film is saying, "Oh yeah, can your talkies do this?"

The "convenience" of sound perfectly fed into Chaplin's ideas of technology, which are crucial to know. As far as he was concerned, technology was the trigger for social revolutions. However, our ability to utilize technology, using it, exploiting it, and abusing it, grossly outpaced our sense of ethics and rationality in its handling. Sound talkies marred the possibilities of cinema, just as much as it gave a new avenue of progress. Similarly, mass industrialization and factory machines did not free laborers from work, as Marx optimistically prophesized. Rather, they made humans automatons. Enter Chaplin's next film, 1936's Modern Times, a film that is about the depression era, the present, but feels like a film about the future, and may even be considered one of Hollywood's first high concept futuristic films, at times reminiscent of Fritz Lang's 1927 German sci-fi bit of futurist Marxism, Metropolis.

Modern Times sublimates Chaplin's anxieties about the depression and industrialization, dealing with this particular theme that was very pertinent to his career, seen as early as The Kid, and explicated in the final speech of The Great Dictator – a theme of "machine men with machine hearts," and how the Age of the Machine, the era that would liberate human beings, was rather making humans unnatural. The technology simply enables men to work and produce more, with more ceaseless repetition but no personal or social reward, only more profits for the business. The speed that men work in the factories is determined by the man at the controls, surveying everything with his ubiquitous screen. The bodies of the workers are docile. They are only there to produce. The Tramp is one such anonymous worker at the mercy of an immense machine, tightening the screws on pieces of metal. The machine has its own will; it has no thought of the people working with it. The Tramp is literally swallowed by this machine and run through like another piece of metal, meaning that the paid workers are indeed no different from the parts that they are manufacturing. He becomes the guinea pig for entrepreneurial inventors, who have concocted a device that will feed workers while they eat: the boss can save money on lunch hours, producing more and being more time efficient. We later see the effects of the factory's machines on the Tramp; he is unable to function as a being in control of his own faculties. He's been rendered unnatural and loses his wits. He's sent to prison.

That leads into Chaplin's abstract conception of "machine", as for him the institutions of society are also more machine-like than they are humane; the Law is full of storm troopers, not men who serve and protect. We remember how the Law wants to take the orphan away from the Tramp in The Kid, because that's the dictate of the Law; it's simply protocol, the way things are done. It doesn't matter that the kid has lived with the Tramp for five years. Any human sentiment is meaningless, and the orphan must be taken to an orphanage. Same too with the "Gamin" (Paulette Goddard) in Modern Times, a beautiful vagrant wanted by the Law for her harmless past crimes, even though she has finally found a stable life as a waitress. The Machine is Irrationally Rational.

This attitude towards institutions and industry made Chaplin an enemy of J. Edgar Hoover's newly christened Federal Bureau of Investigation. Hoover and his ideal then becomes a startling foil for Chaplin. Whereas Chaplin is devoted to non-conformity, Hoover's Bureau was constructed to epitomize conformity and obedience, to the extent that agents were not allowed to have any personal affects displayed at their desks, which were all identical. Hoover wanted a patriotic electorate; Chaplin didn't understand patriotism, sometimes even finding it comical, such as in City Lights where a ruckus of officials trying to detain the Tramp is interrupted by the Star Spangled Banner, prompting everyone to cease what they're doing and stand at attention (the Tramp can now get away). Hoover's ideology believed in respecting public officials; Chaplin worked to lampoon them.

In the 1930s, Chaplin recognized that the fascism in Germany and Italy was latent in all nations, and would recognize the same spirit in Hoover's idea for America. Chaplin also had a hard time taking Hitler seriously when he first saw footage of him – a loud and shrieking version of the Tramp! Only when Einstein and Thomas Mann left Germany was Chaplin compelled to take a closer look, being disturbed by the stirrings of anti-Semitism not only in Germany but finding ferment in the United States. Chaplin had a plan: this silly man must be laughed at.

When The Great Dictator (1940) went into production, the subject matter alone – a farce on Hitler – was not what made colleagues discourage Chaplin. Rather, American and Britain were still at peace with Germany at that time of its production (this obviously wasn't the case when the picture was finally released, and Great Britain welcomed it while America was hesitant). After fighting began between the French and Germans, Chaplin was at a dinner with former president Herbert Hoover. Addressing the problem of the Nazis, Hoover said that the United States should deliver aid and food to both sides in the conflict. Chaplin said he would support aid – but not for the Nazis. Hoover said that all sides must receive aid, to which Chaplin compromised, but with the stipulation that the people delivering the food to the starving Germans be Jews. The Great Dictator is cinematic activism, beating conviction in its satire of Hitler, here renamed Hynkel (and played by Chaplin), the swastika replaced by the double cross (a clever double entendre), Germany being renamed "Tomania". It is a story so important to Chaplin that he decided to make it his first fully sound film, and as such, he lays the Tramp, here cast as a Jewish barber, to rest. (Modern Times was technically Chaplin's first sound film, and was originally conceived as such, but in its final form it plays mostly as a silent picture – its sound work, again, being quite clever and reflexive, including the sounds of gastritis, indicating that Chaplin will give his audience sound – though not necessarily the sounds they want to hear or even acknowledge exist in their polite social lives).

Playing these dual roles, as dictator Hynkel and the Jewish barber, The Great Dictator has its own dualism reflecting the medium of film and its relationship to the sound format. The barber, though he speaks, is essentially still an embodiment of the silent Tramp, using his body to express and communicate in a way that Chaplin's audience would be familiar. Hynkel, on the other hand, with his mockeries of Hitler's speeches in a shrieking voice, microphones always pointed at him, is associated with sound and what Chaplin sees as a kind of oppressiveness in sound. Sound in The Great Dictator is always interrupting, jutting out and stomping on top of reason and beauty. The dichotomy between sound and silence is excellently rendered in a classic Chaplin joke, where the barber bursts into a room and pantomimes a warning to his fugitive friend. "Did you tell him?" Paulette Goddard, again Chaplin's leading lady, asks. "Yes." The virtues of pantomime acting have been lost in a talking head world, something sad but nevertheless ample ammunition for a great joke.

Other scenes in the picture relay the glories of silent movies, and how the bodies inhabiting the frame are indeed like dancers, the consonance of movement being like music, asking us to listen – with our eyes. A long scene with Hynkel dancing alone with an inflated globe is immediately followed by the barber shaving a man's face in rhythm to a Brahms Hungarian dance. Ultimately, I think that Chaplin believes that "listening with our eyes" makes us participatory viewers, active in the make believe world rather than lazy, automatic, and passive – and, like a fascist audience or a Milgrims control group, susceptible to manufactured political hatred. The very last scene's last word, uttered by the barber who has unwittingly been mistaken for Hynkel and so has taken his place at the microphone-laden podium, is "Listen!" And what should we be listening to? A future of love, hope, and sunshine – visually abstracted as light breaks through the clouds, the image and consolation again going beyond language. The Great Dictator captures the best of both worlds.

But the film's final speech is something important to discuss on its own. As the barber/Tramp makes his political proclamation of goodwill, he has solidly broken his silence of so many decades, and so too has the aura of comedy been broken with a serious polemic. Many critics have been cool to this concluding sequence, and still are to this day. It is as naked a didactic declaration as one will hear an artist give. Chaplin's barber is no longer the barber. He is out of character; he is Chaplin, and he is looking at us, the audience. He says, "We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance, has left us in want." Seeing how well the fascists – and Hoover – were using the machinery of cinema, Chaplin could recognize that perhaps humanism needed an equal counter-offensive. Even if the final speech of The Great Dictator mars the film, tainting the satire as it takes off the clown mask, on its own the speech is one of the most passionate and beautiful ever featured in a movie. "More the machinery, we need humanity; more than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness." Our machines should bring us together, working in accord with our best ideals and empathy.

The "unnatural men with machine minds and machine hearts", however, were not receptive to Chaplin. Hoover saw Chaplin's address not as decent humanistic antagonism of the Nazis overseas, but rather as an assault on the American system. As if Chaplin's friendships with socialists like Upton Sinclair, H.G. Wells, and George Bernard Shaw wasn't enough, he also held a rally in support of Russia against the Nazis in 1939, referring to the audience as his "comrades". Nor was he an American citizen. Public controversies including a paternity case served as media fodder for his enemies. His 1946 little-seen masterwork, Monsieur Verdoux, a dark comedy about a man who marries old women and kills them for their money, was actively boycotted. Verdoux's opportunism is not only a commentary on capitalism, but like The Great Dictator, there's another concluding didactic speech, where Chaplin insinuates that the opportunistic corpses in Verdoux's wake are no different from the bodies resulting from governments going to war. Chaplin was now an enemy to the "good citizens" of prosperous post-war America, and he was denied re-admittance in 1952 after a short trip to London. His film from that year, Limelight, about an aging comic entertainer, was denied release (until 1972) – ironic, considering that it was his most apolitical film in years.


*


Chaplin's technique as a director was afforded to him by his talent. He would work a scene over many ways, endlessly, given his unlimited resources of time and money. In this sense, he is an anachronistic filmmaker – a novelist among directors, with the power to fly above constraints of deadlines, something that he uniquely shares with perhaps only Stanley Kubrick and, in recent years, Terrence Malick. Kubrick's model, I believe, was Chaplin, and he spoke openly of his admiration, surprising to many because Kubrick, a photographer before he was a filmmaker, is assumed to be more of a formal director than Chaplin. But he has insisted that Chaplin's "mastery over content over form" was what he aspired to. In addition to themes that are dually in love with and anxious about technology, of "machine men with machine hearts" (the lunch-hour contraption of Modern Times certainly seems to have been on Kubrick's mind in realizing Anthony Burgess' Ludovico technique in A Clockwork Orange – the title itself referencing something natural rendered mechanical), they were also masters of poetic movement in the cinematic picture. Kubrick's sentiments regarding the advent of talkies are exactly the same as Chaplin's, as audiences were being told more than they were being shown things, the imagination losing out to concrete words. Both of these master film novelists worked endlessly at perfecting performative ballets of images and music, their tireless toil looking as effortless as it was awesome. 2001: A Space Odyssey is in so many ways a silent film, the spacecraft set to the rhythm and melody of classical music, and while some critics may think of its precedents as being "epics", when I see the "Blue Danube" sequences, I think of Chaplin.

Returning to the introductory paragraph of this essay, I turn back to the relationship between humor and heartbreak, comedy and tragedy. "When a world of disappointment and trouble descends on one, if one doesn't turn to despair, one resorts to either philosophy or humor," Chaplin writes. The comedian is perhaps susceptible to depression because the tragic inspiration for his product is something with which he must be intimately involved. The age of speed and apathy that Chaplin warned of has not been conquered, but accelerated. So too is the world more "clever" than feeling, while sentimental humor too often is kitsch (something Chaplin never was). Technology has continued invading all curbs of life, ushering new conformities and contracts in social behavior and even in the arts, as 3D has suddenly become a mandate for big studios in just the past year.

Chaplin saw a miracle in this thing called cinema; in how it preserved an imaginative enactment of things past. The sausage factory of production has no cause for reflection, though leaving it up to impassioned artists, stocked only with their enthusiasm, to try and hold on, being conscientious artisans in public displays of creativity, and so too as individuals warring against the repetition of seeking easy dollars and apathetic impersonal policies. It's too easy to pay lip service to an iconoclast without taking his art to heart, listening with our eyes and minds in addition to our ears, as what he is showing, though it may nearly be a century old, is still pertinent to our everyday lives. I conclude with another Chaplin quote from his 1964 autobiography, still timely.

"The accumulating complexities of modern life, the kinetic invasion of the 20th century, find the individual hemmed in by gigantic institutions that threaten from all sides, politically, scientifically, and economically. We are becoming the victims of soul conditioning, of sanctions and permits. This matrix into which we have allowed ourselves to be cast is due to a lack of cultural insight. We have gone blindly into ugliness and congestion and have lost our appreciation of the aesthetics. Our living sense has been blinded be profit, power, and monopoly. We have permitted these forces to envelop us with an utter disregard of the ominous consequences."

Chaplin takes hope, though, in the unknown future, and in that sense of the unknowable he sees laughter as he sees salvation. He believes that we must, like the Tramp, be affronts to "normal behavior," suspicious of the normal, and like Chaplin's immortal and silent hero, fall asleep on the statues of high society, play-acting on top of the drudgery of false performances that are not conscious of themselves; we should be unafraid to rest as ironic counterpoints and vagrants on their lofty if empty symbols which mean little, actively thinking and dancing to life's tragicomic ceaseless rhythm.