Tuesday, 16 April 2024

From the Archives: Magnum On Set - Charlie Chaplin’s Limelight


In 1951, photographer W. Eugene Smith travelled to Los Angeles on a five-week assignment for LIFE Magazine: to document Charlie Chaplin during the filming of his movie Limelight. Smith, who, according to photography journalist Sean O’Hagan, “was perhaps the single most important American photographer in the development of the editorial photo essay,” was the ideal photographer to capture Chaplin’s most personal project.


The photographer had come to his craft shortly after his father’s suicide. Smith was still a young man just out of high school, yet he made a personal vow that he would uphold throughout his career: “to hold himself to the highest standards of truth no matter the cost.” It is no surprise, therefore, that Smith’s on-set photographs made during the production of Limelight depict an often harried Chaplin bearing the weight of both filmmaking and troubles in his personal life.


Smith depicts Chaplin directing, performing, and behind the scenes with his family. Sometimes he even appears off-guard, almost in a state of reflection as he possibly contemplates his life up to this point. At this time in his life, Chaplin was striving to retain his relevance in an fast-changing industry. After fighting back against the introduction of sound with the critically acclaimed City Lights in 1931, his satirical turn as Hitler in The Great Dictator (1940) had left a sour taste. Concurrently, accusations were circulating of Chaplin’s involvement in anti-American activities, and his U.S. visa was voided after he left the country for Limelight’s London premiere. Furthermore, a paternity suit with up-and-coming actress Joan Barry had resulted in a loss of audience faith. Yet rather than bow to the pressure and make another political film, in 1952 Chaplin made Limelight, his most reflective and personal piece of work.


Based on his novella, Footlights, Limelight centres on Thereza “Terry” Ambrose, a dancer whose attempt to commit suicide is prevented by Calvero, a down on his luck drunk who was once a celebrated clown. Through caring for Terry, Calvero regains his self-confidence and sense of self-worth and eventually returns to the stage for one final, fatal, show. Throughout the film, there are nods to Chaplin’s personal life: his fall from grace, his relationship with a younger woman, and even a turn from the iconic Buster Keaton as his old partner. In one photograph, they stand side-by-side as Keaton gestures to the violin Chaplin is playing in a behind the scenes moment.


A few years before filming, Chaplin had married his protege Oona O’ Neill. At 18 years of age, their thirty six-year age gap only increased the snowballing speculation and controversy surrounding the once lauded actor. However, this would prove to be Chaplin’s most stable, contented union. Of the eight children the pair had together, many became actors, including Geraldine and Michael, while Victoria became a circus performer, fulfilling her father’s long-abandoned professional desire. We see a paternal side of Chaplin in one photo when he holds daughter Josephine, two years old at the time, in his arms: her brow is fuddled, slightly perplexed by the environment, while he only beams with pride at his toddler.


Despite the overall positive reviews, some critics regarded Limelight as an a attempt at a redemption story, evidence of Chaplin striving to make amends. Europe’s reaction was receptive and positive, while America was the most critical. Yet there was no doubting the sincerity Chaplin was striving to achieve. “What Mr. Chaplin is telling in this film” said Bosley Crowther in a 1952 edition of The New York Times, “is simply a tale of a great comedian of the English music halls who has gone to seed, yet who passes on to a young ballet dancer his vast abundance of courage and hope. That is what he is telling as the author, producer and director of the film—and also as the composer of the music, of one ballet and the comedy routines. But as its principal performer, he is not only playing the role; he is feeling it in its essence and projecting it from the screen.” Smith would be key in capturing the internality of Chaplin’s performance as he worked to project this sincerity onto the screen, and the physical and mental toll this took on Chaplin as a filmmaker and performer. His on-set expressions can be seen veering between intense, almost crazed determination in some photos and silent resignation in others. In some photographs, he can be seen sleeping on-set while still wearing full makeup and costume.


Smith’s photographs are, above all, moving, and perfectly highlight the passing of time. Chaplin is no longer the youthful, rambunctious street urchin twirling his cane, but cuts an almost sombre figure. Sitting at the mirror, we see him duck into his oversized collar, tilt his head and frown, and looked resignedly at his own reflection. Maybe it is a moment of contemplation for his life up to this point, all of his troubles and tribulations, the slight smirk on his face interpreted as either resignation or self victory. Perhaps it is Calvero who is staring back at him—the merging of fact and fiction. It reminds us of Smith’s intention to document to the truth of the image and reveal what was hidden. Is this the real Chaplin we are seeing? Only he himself would ever know the real answer.


This post was written for Magnum Photos and first appeared on their website on Feb 1 2020. The original piece can be found here.

Thursday, 11 April 2024

Film Season: Bad Mums



For those in Birmingham and the West Midlands - as well as those interested - the Midlands Arts Centre has programmed an incredible season of films titled 'Bad Mums: Motherhood In Cinema.' Kicking off in late June, I am fortunate to be presenting four of the ten films screening over the summer. Head over to the MAC's Cinema page for more information—and I hope to see some of you there. 

Newsletter: Emmy

My poor Substack (as well as this page, granted) has been abandoned recently due to my attention being elsewhere, but it's back. This week, I wrote a short piece about the Birmingham Surrealist Emmy Bridgwater. What's that you say, you've never heard of her? You've never heard of the Birmingham Surrealists? Head over to my page to see for yourself.

Thursday, 21 March 2024

Review: Late Night with the Devil



Late Night with the Devil, a found footage horror in which a live late-night talk show goes horribly awry, is 1992’s Ghostwatch for the Shudder generation.

As the host of Night Owls with Jack Delroy, Delroy (an excellent David Dastmalchian) is a modestly successful host who “five nights a week helps an anxious nation forget its troubles.” Although happily married and a member of a powerful all-male secret society called The Grove, Delroy still can’t compete with the popularity and accolades of Johnny Carson.

But with wife’s death comes dwindling fortunes and figures, and bids at television sensationalism prove unsuccessful. That is until the night of 31 October 1977, when a disastrous Halloween episode of Night Owls with its spiritually connected guests – including a psychic, a parapsychologist, and a possessed young woman — made Jack Delroy infamous.

With its meticulous 70s aesthetic, horror references, and satirical nature that refuses to verge into parody, the third film from Australian siblings Colin and Cameron Cairnes offers a contemporary twist on the live TV meets found footage formula. Darkly funny yet refusing to verge fully into parody and coming it at 86 minutes, Late Night does enough to keep audiences on their toes. As is said at one point “join us for a live television broadcast as we attempt to communicate with the devil. But first, a word from our sponsors...”

*This review first appeared on ichoosebirmingham.com
'Late Night With The Devil' received a Birmingham preview screening thanks to the hard work of The Mockingbird, who are showing the movie from tomorrow. You can book tickets here.

Thursday, 1 February 2024

Newsletter: Cut and Tear


I've lagged on the newsletter of late (I spent a chunk of time in January temping which put an end to most of my creativity) - but it's the beginning of February and I have a new dispatch out. Please sign up to Love Letters During a Nightmare and read the new instalment here.

Sunday, 28 January 2024

Film intro: Beth B.’s ‘Salvation!’ (1987) [MAC Birmingham, 28/01/2024]

*The screening was cancelled due to tech problems, but here’s my intro*

 

Beth B. has been a vital figure of the New York underground scene since the late 1970s, with a body of film work including documentary, experimental, and narrative - and sometimes a combination of all three.
 
In a conversation with Interview Magazine last year, she said, 
 
‘filmmaking has always been about power and control, and confronting the oppression of the patriarch. It’s definitely from a female point of view, it’s about the female gaze, and that’s why most of my films have very powerful women.’ 
 
Beth B.’s breakthrough films, which include Black Box (1978), Vortex (1981), and The Offenders (1980) - all co-directed with her then-husband Scott B. - have been screened at such famed New York venues as Max’s Kansas City, CBGB’s, the New York Film Festival, and Film Forum, and have since been shown at - and acquired by - the Whitney Museum and MoMA. Her early work appeared in Celine Danhier’s 2009 documentary film Blank City, alongside work by Jim Jarmusch and Amos Poe, and more recently produced and directed 2019’s The War Is Never Over, a documentary about iconic performance artist and frequent collaborator Lydia Lunch. Speaking to Hyperallergic about Vortex’s status as the last new wave film made, she said:
 
‘What I’m doing is still No Wave. It’s a rejection of what is, and it’s embracing what is not: what we don’t see, what we don’t hear. My mode is to really bring those things to the fore.’
 
Salvation!  - with the secondary title Have You Said Your Prayers Today? (1987) -  was Beth B.’s first solo feature (she has made two solo features) and features a distinctive soundtrack featuring Cabaret Voltaire, Arthur Baker, and New Order (who did the theme) - the sort of film you will find on cult or restoration strands of festival circuits or television in the small hours. 
 
In Beth B.’s glossy 80s parody of televangelism, unemployed, non-religious factory worker Jerome Stample (Viggo Mortensen) ropes in his sister-in-law (Dominique Davalos), to abduct and blackmail a sex-obsessed TV minister, Rev Randall (Stephen McHattie). Events take a bonkers turn when Randall meets Jerome’s religious wife, Rhonda (played by Exene Cervenka of the punk band X), and is immediately convinced she is an evangelical rock star in the making. 
 
Salvation! is wild, scathing, and oddly prophetic because it was made before - but released after - the real-life scandals of televangelists Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart (Jim Bakker was portrayed by Andrew Garfield in Michael Showalter 2021’s The Eyes of Tammy Faye opposite Jessica Chastain as Tammy Faye Bakker). 
 
In her chat with Interview, Beth B. said,
 
'In the eighties, when suddenly these fucking televangelists were taking over America, and nobody seemed to know it except the evangelists. I was like, “I’m going to do some investigating.” I went to Jerry Falwell’s church, the Super Conference, and I found myself so frightened that when he said, “Get down on your knees,” I got down on my knees. I was afraid someone was going to shoot me! Because I’m the enemy. So that film, Salvation! is based on that experience.'

Indeed, Salvation! is a crazy experience, made without apology, but there is a kernel of truth when you get beyond the madness that feels oddly unsettling and accurate. As Beth B. herself admits:
 
Salvation! is a wild film. I mean, just the pace of it. I watched it a few months ago. I hadn’t watched it in decades. I was like, “Wow, holy shit! How did I make this fucking wild film?” Because it’s really insane. It is. It’s also just so hilariously funny. Well, actually not funny, sadly, because it was so prescient that the same shit is still happening now. And worse.’
 
With a career spanning forty-five-years and exploring themes and exploring themes surrounding transphobia, domestic violence, and religious overreach, Beth B. continues to make politically charged and provocative films. And she has no desire to stop.
 
As she said last year:
 
‘I just can’t stop. It’s like my addiction. It’s a really phenomenal way of charting my journey through life. My films are, in some ways, very autobiographical. Even though they are not about me, they usually have some intense questions that I’m trying to work out in my life that the films somehow evolve from. And half the time, I don’t even know that when I’m starting to make a film, I just know I have a burning desire.’ 

Saturday, 13 January 2024

Film Intro: Juliet Bashore’s ‘Kamikaze Hearts’ (1986) [MAC Birmingham, 13/01/24]


Juliet Bashore’s groundbreaking docu-fiction Kamikaze Hearts is very much a product of a very specific period of the late 80s - not only in content, but also cinematic and cultural legacy. Released just prior to the more marketable and popular New Queer Cinema of the 1990s, Kamikaze Hearts’s taboo subject matter (pornography, graphic sex, and drug use), not to mention unstable genre categorisation and potted release history, scuppered the film’s from achieving canon status. But a 2022 release from Kino Lorber and rounds on various festivals’ restoration circuits courtesy of such organisations as Cinema Rediscovered (also known as CineRedis) have brought the film a new audience - and deserving so, because it’s a film that should be seen by a wider audience. 
 
In Kamikaze HeartsSharon ‘Mitch’ Mitchell and Tigr Mennett navigate their relationship as two active participants in the adult entertainment industry while filming a porn parody of Bizet’s opera ‘Carmen’. The production is riddled with set backs and problems, and we see how the filming impacts the couple’s relationship alongside the manipulation, abuse, and the excesses of the underground porn world during the 1980s. 
 
Bashore conceived the idea for the 1986 American quasi-documentary film as a filmmaking student working as an assistant director on a documentary about the porn industry in San Francisco, which is where she met Tigr. Tigr was head over heels in love with Mitchell, and in Bashore’s words, Tigr’s ‘idea of doing this homage to this woman that she was in love with—just came together perfectly. And that’s how it started.’
 
While multiple elements of Kamikaze Hearts are genuine, the ‘Carmen’ parody and the leading couple's arguments were scripted and storyboarded, which assists to blur the line between truth and reality. The film straddles a fine line between fact and fiction - its alternative title is ‘Fact or Fiction’ - and this remains a thorough line throughout the film. Plus, Mitchell never appears to be “off” and is constantly performing. At one point she says, ‘I get paid to wait around between shots. I don't get paid to act. I do that all the time.’
 
Bashore spoke to ScreenSlate in 2022 about the film’s fluctuating perceptions, and it’s tease between documentary and fiction, saying, 
 
‘I've learned to describe it differently depending on who the audience is because, from the very beginning, it was totally misunderstood. And I finally just gave in and said, Okay, it's a documentary. I mean, people wouldn't understand that it wasn't really a documentary. When it first got picked up on the festival circuit it was stuck in the documentary section, and there was nothing I could do. They insisted that it was a documentary. So, I've learned to describe it in a way that I think the audience is gonna be able to understand, but that’s transformed. The audience is so different now and, in a way, I'm not used to talking to an audience that totally gets the way in which it is a documentary and isn't a documentary. That's not confusing at all to audiences now.’
 
The initial critical response for Kamikaze Hearts was varied, but Bashore’s filmmaking was consistently lauded, and the film has achieved something of a reappraisal in recent years. Some of the positive reviews included Kevin Thomas for the Los Angeles Times, who praised Bashore for ‘wisely’ allowing individual viewers to decide which portions are true. Liz Galst of Boston's Gay Community News called Kamikaze Hearts “amazingly powerful,” notably Mitch and Tigr's relationship and how pornographic performers navigate the lines between fiction and reality and went on to herald Bashore for being “at the forefront of U.S. non-fiction filmmaking”. But even the less favourable reviews could not deny the indelible images and people who linger long after the closing credits role.
 
As Bashore told ScreenSlate, ‘my film is about the layers of fantasy that surround that. It's not about the the pornographic image so much as it is [about] all the layers, this other kind of striptease that's going on, this psychic striptease.’
 
Aside from being an time capsule of a very specific time and an insightful depiction of the porn industry, part of Kamikaze Heart’s enduring nature - aside from Bashore’s lens - is due to Sharon Mitchell, who is one of the most charismatic screen presences you’ll encounter: glamourous, uninhibited, charming, cosmopolitan, a woman in command of her power who knows how to use her power. Mitchell made approximately 1,000 pornographic films over a 20-year career, including 38 as a director, but in 1996 she quit drugs, became a certified addiction counsellor, and obtained a MA and a PhD from the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality. Now a credited sexologist, in 1998 Mitchell founded the adult industry’s first mass testing service, which served practically every working performer in the US for 15 years, testing over 1000 performers per month (before being shut down due to data leak in 2011). That’s a film in itself.