|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 29, 2024 15:26:47 GMT
Join us in the coming month for a discussion of four very unique motion picture classics.
Survival stories
February 3: THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME (1932)
February 10: A GAME OF DEATH (1945)
-- remake of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME
February 17: THE NAKED PREY (1965)
February 24: ATANARJUAT: THE FAST RUNNER (2001)
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 3, 2024 18:25:41 GMT
Essential: THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME (1932)TopBilled:
“I’m a hunter, not an assassin!”
There is a line where Joel McCrea’s character, a big game expert, proclaims he is a hunter and not an assassin. He has made a living and a reputation for himself as killer of prey. During the most dangerous events that follow, he becomes the prey of a madman killer (Leslie Banks)— along with beautiful Fay Wray, who seems to be the prize. Which one will win? Well, we know Hollywood would not make a film if there wasn’t any real romantic payoff, and allowing Wray’s character to end up in the arms of Banks, instead of McCrea, doesn’t seem at all likely. So without any real suspense as to the outcome, the film must rely on elements of horror, which it has in spades. It all starts when a ship is lured across dangerous reefs, causing it to capsize. Most of the crew and passengers are killed, except for McCrea. When he swims to a nearby shore, he finds a ghastly abode on an island that is owned by Banks. Though we learn there are already guests at the house, including Wray and her drunken brother (Robert Armstrong), we are not told much about how Banks established himself there. Nor are we told much about his previous guests ahem victims. As for Wray, there is very little provided in the way of her character’s background. And Armstrong’s scenes are quite repetitive; his main character trait is that he’s an alcoholic. Oh, and he becomes the first person we meet who is killed by Banks and laid out by Banks’ loyal henchmen. The most horrific parts of the story are not what we see (heads in jars or ferocious dogs ready to attack)…but rather what we do not see. What is heavily implied is that Banks may not only be a sicko sportsman hunting humans for sadistic pleasure, but he may even be a cannibal. After all, something has to happen to the bodies of the victims, if only their heads are left afterward as the trophies.If you allow yourself to go there with your mind that this is a story about cannibalism, then I think you can go in the opposite direction as well. And that is how on some level the story is a plea for vegetarianism. The strongest indicator in favor of this is when McCrea is being hunted and he’s one step ahead of the dogs. Looking down at the dogs, he comments that he now knows what his game felt like when he had them cornered. Almost as if he regrets it. His strange empathy may cause a real epiphany, but he doesn’t have much time to reflect on this at the moment, since he is still busy saving his life and Wray’s life. The 1945 remake directed by Robert Wise is ten minutes longer and makes the villain a Nazi, instead of a crazy Russian. In both these versions the bad guy is fairly stereotypical without any real hint of vulnerability or suggestion of why he is as he is. I do think Leslie Banks is quite splendid in this first version, though he’s a bit too theatrical at times. McCrea’s more subdued portrayal outshines Banks, because McCrea’s reactions seem to signify a genuine form of realism that Banks’ portrayal lacks. I wasn’t too enamored with Wray’s work here. Maybe it’s because she was also filming KING KONG at the same time on some of the shared sets. So I sense she relies a bit too much on an exaggerated use of her eyes and hysterical screaming to convey emotion; she loses some of the subtlety that could have been better applied to the proceedings. It really is McCrea and McCrea alone who gives us an actual relatable human being on screen. He is the one whose survival means the most to us.***Jlewis:
Also known as “The Hounds of Zaroff”, the original source material by Richard Connell was first published in Collier’s on January 19, 1924 and gained quite a following over the next nine decades, spanning different entertainment media. Old time radio versions include two on CBS’s Suspense, the more lackluster version actually being the one featuring Orson Welles (9-23-43), along with a far superior version on that network’s sister program Escape with William Conrad and Paul Frees (10-1-47), a mini masterpiece in audio theatre-of-the-mind excitement. More recent variations include Justin Lee’s directed 2022 version and an urban “jungle” TV series knock-off of sorts created even more recently by Scott Elder, Josh Harmon and Nick Santora. Backtracking to 1932 is the most famous version of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME, partly due to it falling into the public domain and being shown a lot on TV and in various viewing conditions on VHS (with the later Criterion DVD version boasting the best 35mm print source). It was filmed on the RKO lot with the same jungle sets as KING KONG, being made at the same time and with some of the same names associated: key performers Fay Wray and Robert Armstrong, along with the less familiar support of James Flavin and Noble Johnson.In addition, it boasted the same production team of Ernest B. Schoedsack and Merian C. Cooper with music by Max Steiner. While it may not be an out-and-out classic like KING KONG, THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME is still a wonderfully entertaining relic of its era. Wonderfully entertaining does not necessarily mean realistic or believable in plot-points, but typical of what you would expect in the golden thirties era of Hollywood. There are hokey moments as in the great shipwreck scene early on with tiger sharks feeding on what looks like fish bait and implied that this “bait” is human flesh, but you just know the drowning victims are all fully clothed. The cinematography (Henry Gerrard assisted by Russell Metty and Willard Barth) is absolutely gorgeous, as so many films of this period are, with soft focus and much use of fog effects to obscure what might look studio-bound at times.I even like the scene when the central characters stumble on a huge alligator which is hardly a threat in its sluggishness but is so darkly lit that it takes on a dinosaur-like shape not unlike the stop-motion animated denizens of KONG’s Skull Island. Joel McCrea is a young, virile Bob Rainsford who writes extensively on big game hunting and is involved in an expedition ship to the east-of-Asia seas with other chip-chip-cheerio Brits and Yanks aboard who enjoy their scotch on carefully prepared ship library rooms before the waters get unsteady and all furniture moves about in crashing fashion. Of course, he delivers a line that will backfire on him later: “The world is divided into two types of people, the hunter and the hunted. Luckily, I’m the hunter, and there’s nothing that will change that.”It is implied that only Bob survives the wreck and is accepted into a huge castle occupied by the mighty Count Zarnoff (Leslie Banks really hams up his villain role here) and mostly poker-faced assistants Ivan (Noble Johnson) and Tartar (Steve Clemento). Among the fellow guests from a previous shipwreck are brother and sister Martin and Eve Trowbridge (Armstrong and Wray), the former being constantly drunk and outrageous in behavior and, therefore, our first expected victim of this horror piece. The evil Count plays mind games with Bob and his new romantic interest Eve as he discusses his boredom reading all of Bob’s books on hunting and tracking large cats like tigers and leopards…and Cape buffalo in Africa. He favors the “most dangerous game” of quick-thinking humans. We are teased in a pre-code way with a dark gallery of human heads on trophies and in bottle preserves (scenes that I am sure were cut in most TV prints and post-code theatrical releases) as the morally “good” Bob and Eve discover just how depraved the Count is. Furious that Bob won’t join him on a hunt with him after using intoxicated Martin as target practice, the Count decides to thrust our hero and heroine into the tiny island jungle to fend for themselves against his mighty gun and arrows. As expected, there is high adventure with close calls over deep ravines, booby traps set up against the Count that he outwits and a climactic battle with Great Dane hounds that sends Bob over a cliff-side and fools his adversary into thinking he died. Yet Bob returns to the castle just in time before his virgin lady is potentially deflowered for a final fist fight battle that leaves the Count seriously impaled by his own arrow. As our two leads make a getaway in a motorboat (with absolutely no explanation as to how they find it), the villain dramatically falls out of a castle window to become additional dog food for his hungry pets down below. Yes, there are moments that are a trifle silly but it is all presented with such conviction and sincerity that I myself am emotionally invested in full suspense rather than humored in any camp fashion.No, they don’t make this kind of high adventure any more. The original story was more simple and straight-forward, lacking the female element of Eve and focusing just on male rivalries. In a way, I feel that it works better this way since Fay Wray gives a wonderfully strong adventure-gal performance here, if still acknowledging her fears and displaying a willingness to scream on cue. Since the Count labels himself a “savage” despite being of the same skin tone as Bob, much analysis can be made about this film’s slightly hidden themes a.k.a. how Bob saves HIS “white” woman from losing her “virtue”much as Bruce Cabot’s John Driscoll saves Wray’s Ann Darrow from a giant gorilla. This was all part of a long antiquated colonialism trope that dominated 19th and 20th century pulp fiction with subtle racial after-effects still not fully resolved in much mass entertainment today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 3, 2024 20:15:58 GMT
The Most Dangerous Game from 1932 with Joel McCrea, Fay Wray and Leslie Banks
One of the joys of early 1930s movies is their, often, concise storytelling as seen in The Most Dangerous Game's runtime of sixty-three taut minutes that rips along from setup, to climax, to conclusion with little fuss.
Joel McCrea plays the sole survivor of a small yacht that crashes near an isolated island despite having carefully navigated between the island’s channel markers.
When McCrea washes up on the island’s shore, he quickly finds his way to an eerie castle where he is greeted by a creepy servant, but an ingratiating "Count," played by Leslie Banks.
The only other "guests" are a brother and sister, played by Robert Armstrong and Fay Wray, who also washed up after their boat crashed as, it seems, the island's channel buoys are misleading (cue dramatic music).
The surfacey cordial albeit baleful count is a hunter, like we learn McCrea is. The Count, though, and this comes out early and you'll guess it even earlier, uses his island to hunt human prey that washes up from boat crashes caused by his buoy stratagem.
It's a good set up: a remote and dreary island, a foreboding castle, sinister servants and a flamboyant and obviously insane host, plus a trapped pretty woman, Wray, and handsome man, McCrea, who slowly realize they are in trouble.
The second half of the movie is the hunt as Count Insane gives McCrea and Wray - Armstrong is hunted earlier - a one-day head start, which only means so much on a small island.
In preparation for the hunt, McCrea and Wray use their intelligence to set traps to outwit the soon-to-be stalking Count who'll be using his gun, bow and arrow and vicious hunting dogs.
What follows is a good hunt scene through a thick jungle, a foggy swamp and around dangerous cliffs that keeps you engaged and nervous.
While, by today's standards, some of it feels a bit hokey owing to the limitation of early 1930s special effects, overall, the hunt is a gripping chess match.
The money moment and entire point of the movie, though, is when McCrea and Wray are worn out, seemingly all but trapped by the dogs and thinking they are going to die.
That is when McCrea, the hunter - of animals, not humans because he's not insane - quickly and without flourish says he now knows how his prey has felt all these years.
Bam! Nineteen-thirty-two movie philosophy meets two-thousand-and-twenty-four principles and shows that our present-day sensitivities to hunting are not new ideas.
Modern movies, with all their CGI and progressive tenets, have yet to top The Most Dangerous Game for making a point directly and powerfully, but without pompous virtue signalling.
The entire movie, climax included, also anticipates the typical James Bond story, which was still two decades in the future with its evil, insane villain, remote island hideout, damsel in distress who proves to have grit and square-jawed hero who outsmarts the evil genius.
While most Bond movies riff on the general theme, The Man With the Golden Gun and Octopussy borrow heavily, in several scenes, directly from The Most Dangerous Game. Most good stories are just retold for a new generation.
One has to pity poor Ms. Wray as this jungle hunt was just a warm up for her career-defining (killing?) role as the object of King Kong's affections a year later. The woman knew how to alluringly run through jungles.
The Most Dangerous Game is good, and holds up today because it respects its audience by letting its smart story speak for itself with little embellishment.
Modern filmmakers, who CGI movies to death, create two-plus-hour runtimes out of thin material and hit you over the head with their social and political messages, could learn a lot from this 1932 example of how less, done smartly and concisely, can be more. |
|
|
|
Post by jlewis on Feb 4, 2024 3:18:30 GMT
A lot of movies made in 1932 have a pretty consistent under 90 minute running time unless they were a major epic that sometimes had an intermission such as Cecil B. DeMille's THE SIGN OF THE CROSS (and film like that usually just ran two full hours). That was the nature of the business then when each feature was preceded by a newsreel (RKO boasting the Pathé product), a 2-reel comedy or musical and 1-reel travelogues, sports reels or animated cartoons (Van Beuren's human versions of Tom & Jerry and "Aesop Fables" would have preceded this RKO release in most cases). Basically you spent a good three hours at the movie theater regardless but never got bored in this era before TV and internet streaming. Although the technique had gotten sophisticated by then, somebody still had to change the reels on the one or two projectors being used in each theater. I think this also accounts for why movies overall were just more fun back then. Today the business, much of it operating on your computer or iPhone rather than a theater, is a niche market catering to specific tastes while the business back then had to cater to a wider audience with as much variety as possible in a given time slot.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 10, 2024 19:06:41 GMT
Essential: A GAME OF DEATH (1945)
TopBilled:
Guests of Krieger
 There may be a tendency to compare this remake to the original 1932 version THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME, also produced by RKO. I will refrain from doing that here, because Robert Wise’s version is a worthy effort deserving its own discussion. And despite some outtakes from the original– exterior jungle footage– it is a unique telling of Richard Connell’s 1924 short story.Mostly it is a product meant to show how the grim horror of war, in the form of mad Nazism, can be thwarted and overcome. The villain is no longer a Russian, but a displaced German patriot. Expertly played by Edgar Barrier, he does not value human life. He hunts it for sport. The film is a study of the lunatic’s mind, a man who possesses the key that can destroy humanity. A sense of paranoia began during the last part of the second world war and increased in the years that followed. The free world worried how architects of the Third Reich would try to evade justice and find ways to continue their reign of terror after Hitler’s death, at new outposts.In this story German tyranny can be observed on an unnamed Caribbean island. We’re told the place was once inhabited by a now deceased pirate who built a large castle with bars on the windows. Herr Kreiger has taken over the estate, and he lures ships along the jagged reefs with lighting tricks. The vessels’ bottoms get caught on the reefs and become cut up. They overturn, and survivors if there are any, swim from the wreckage to the shores of the island and become Kreiger’s guests. The beginning of our drama has a world-renowned hunter and author named Don Rainsford (John Loder) as the sole survivor of the latest shipwreck. He meets Ellen Trowbridge (Audrey Long) who was previously shipwrecked on the island with her brother Robert (Russell Wade). The Trowbridge siblings inform Rainsford that Kreiger is preventing them from leaving, even if he appears rather hospitable. They suspect a diabolical motive, and after searching a hidden room, discover the preserved remains of unlucky castaways. Realizing they have to outsmart their host to stay alive, they quickly devise a plan to throw Kreiger and his men off-guard. But Kreiger is no fool and stymies their efforts. He kills Ellen’s brother during an outdoor chase scene that leads to a lagoon. As his henchman Carib (Noble Johnson) looks on, Kreiger takes sadistic pleasure in winning this game by shooting an arrow into Robert Trowbridge’s back, while Trowbridge is trying to swim to safety. The strength of the story is not just its foreboding atmosphere, which Wise and his cinematographer J. Roy Hunt handle so effectively. Or in the suspense that comes from the protagonists attempting to escape. It is more in how Kreiger and Rainsford match wits, since both of them are skilled outdoorsmen. Both see the hunter and the hunted from their own experience. These vantage points shift dramatically at the end when Rainsford finally gets the upper hand.One thing that amuses me about the story, as told on screen, is how the bloodthirsty villain commits savage acts then returns to the living room of his home to play soothing music on the piano. As if nothing violent or horrible has happened. After his game with Rainsford seems to have played out, he sits down at the piano for another requiem. He thinks the big hunt is over. That he is once again alone in this world…until the next ship capsizes and he is joined by someone else. But Rainsford is not done with him. Rainsford is back from the edge of a cliff and re-enters the house. He will kill Kreiger and his brand of evil this time. The door will not be left open for a sequel. Just another remake. ***Jlewis:
Despite being directed by the great Robert Wise in his early years post-editor at RKO, this rehash of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME is clearly B-budget fodder aimed to corner the same market as Sol Lesser’s contemporary, also RKO-backed, Tarzan adventures. Yet the 72 minutes go by without any moments of tedium and the jungle settings still look nice if much more brightly lit in typical forties style, contrasting to the more Gothic early thirties.Equally brightly lit is the menacing mansion where the mighty hunter of the “most dangerous game” resides, more closely resembling an uppity sportsman millionaire’s mansion than a castle of decay, but with the exact same paintings of centaurs attacking humans on the walls. Filmed in early 1945 and released post-war during Hollywood’s biggest boom period, the aim was not to win any Oscars here but keep the popcorn a-flowing in the dark. John Loder plays Don Rainsford with only the first name changed from our 1932 outing. The plot is the same as THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME and there is even repeat usage of stock footage such as workers in the ship boiler room acting frantic when the boat sinks (likely lifted from some earlier silent film) and sharks in the water. One plot detail I forgot to mention previously: the evil island “count,” Eric Kreiger (played by Edgar Barrier, a familiar voice in many radio dramas), purposely turns off emergency lights in the water to shipwreck his victims. Unlike the previous film, this one wastes no time getting Don, rather than Bob, to the island mansion relatively unscathed and no mention of how many casualties were on his ship. There is so much in common with its predecessor that I was unable to enjoy this as a separate entity with too many uninspired comparisons that fall short. My overall vibe here is that the story enjoyed a second vogue by 1945 thanks to its recent two audio presentations on radio and RKO, which owned the rights to the story, needed a programmer to dust off and economically make quickly. Ellen and Robert Trowbridge (Audrey Long and Russell Wade) are repeat characters, again a sister and brother, but neither is as lively as Wray and Armstrong were in their performances. However this Robert survives a little longer than Martin in the former by staying sober and putting up more of a fight. Some of the horror and violence is toned down in this version since it was made post-code (but we still get the head preserved in a glass!). Intriguingly, there is a touch of the Val Lewton influence here in music style and semi-film noir cinematography, which is to be expected given the time period.A few other performers of note: Gene Roth (Stutenroth) is the put-upon servant Pleshke here and another old familiar, Jason Robards Sr., has a bit role as ship Captain. More amusing (unintentionally) is Noble Johnson returning from the original film as Carib but…lo and behold…we also see Noble repeating his old performance in stock footage lifted from the original! Apparently only one dog was cast in this remake and every effort was made to build up a full pack through clever editing of old material. Heck, if you squint hard enough, you might even detect Joel McCrea also making a cameo in these blink-or-you-will-miss repeat sequences. One slight alteration is having Eric Krieger looking brainwashed from a concussion to his head from a previous hunt so that he is a trifle more sympathetic, if JUST a trifle: his killings are sometimes done more as a trance than consciously. Not that he isn’t un-pure in his ideologies, resembling a Nazi in his “strong must conquer the weak” rhetoric regarding the human races and cultures; we all know what must happen to those Nazi types on screen in the end. Another change involves the siblings and Don conspiring against the villain before he puts them out in the jungle, but this plot point merely prolongs the same expected outcomes. Yes, I greatly enjoyed the former version over this one, but there were still some interesting details with this one that maintained my interest. Again, it is fascinating how the major studios remade old movies on a lesser budget in an age before television and home media made the earlier versions enjoy an after-life in repeat showings. Most moviegoers in 1945 had probably half-forgotten THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME and were experiencing déjà vu.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 17, 2024 17:05:00 GMT
Essential: THE NAKED PREY (1965)
TopBilled:
Man’s nature
 THE NAKED PREY has become a cult classic, a film that seems to gain more appreciation with time. Cornel Wilde, who had begun his Hollywood career in the early 1940s was a contract player at Warner Brother, before moving to 20th Century Fox and Columbia. At Fox, he was cast in pretty boy roles because of his good looks. But at Columbia, he had a chance to take risks in edgier material, usually noir or action adventure flicks.Wilde’s work at Columbia in the 40s and early 50s paved the way for his later work at Paramount where he was not only taking on starring roles but directing duties as well. While functioning as a director, he was able to put his own unique stamp on the material, not only safeguarding his own acting work from the interpretation of others, but ensuring that his costars were protected as well. Wilde made films for money, but he also made film for art, and the people that were cast alongside him in these kinds of films shared the same values.THE NAKED PREY has an Academy Award nominated screenplay and is based in large part on the life of an American mountain man named John Colter. As an expert trapper, he provided first-hand knowledge of the Pacific Northwest to explorers Lewis & Clark. But despite his input with regards to map making, which was an accomplishment in itself, he is more known for his standoffs with the Blackfeet tribe in Montana. The most significant standoff had been first depicted on screen in the 1912 silent flick JOHN COLTER’S ESCAPE. The Blackfeet had numerous enemies among other tribal groups, but they were especially not friendly with the white settlers in the region. Though Colter seemed to get along with them at first, he and an associate were ambushed by the Blackfeet at one point. The other man was brutally killed and Colter, after being stripped naked, was allowed to run for his life.Fleeing across the rugged terrain, Colter was pursued by Blackfeet warriors and at one point, when he was cornered. However, he managed to subdue his attacker and kill him. Others continued to pursue him, yet Colter who had remarkable agility and understanding of the land and its waters, was able to get away and make it to a trading post.This experience of Colter’s is what served as the inspiration for Wilde’s film, though Wilde is playing a character without an actual name. The action is shifted from the uncivilized region of the American Northwest to Southern Africa. So instead of having Wilde being chased across Montana, he is chased across the African veldt, a rural area covered in low scrub and grass. The flight and plight of Wilde’s character is reminiscent of the predicament experienced by Joel McCrea in THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME and John Loder in A GAME OF DEATH. The will-he or won’t-he survive aspect of the story provides plenty of suspenseful drama. Wilde is still a very athletic performer at this stage of his acting career (he was 42), and it is not as if he is still some pretty boy actor defying realism with this performance. He would go on to make a few more thought-provoking art films in the 1960s and early 1970s. Wilde was never going to be widely revered auteur, but he was still going to leave us with enough decent filmmaking that we can look at and gain an appreciation of the worth and value of the man.***Jlewis:
 Cornel Wilde directed himself here in this African savanna adventure that made great use of Kruger National Park and other South African locations filled with scenic wildlife. Paramount backed this Theodora Production (much of its filming in the second half of 1964) just before Columbia backed BORN FREE when such adventures were enjoying a second vogue during the environmentally conscious sixties. Yet the plot here is still old school THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME with our hero on the run for his life from human, rather than feline or other non-human, enemies. The sixties was a decade of civil rights reform and expected changes in racial depictions on screen. Although a Caucasian character is on the run from darker toned enemies, every effort is made to not paint one race as better or worse than another. The story is purposely set in the colonial 19th century with a mocking and arrogant elephant hunter (Gert van den Bergh) instigating trouble among the native tribes and Wilde’s character (who has no name) being forced to play “the naked prey” in a “chance of a lion” hunt.Thus, his character gets to experience how the unfair treatment of different races plays out with the tables turned. Ken Gampu and Morrison Gampu play leading characters among the tribes and display a certain sympathy in their roles. Also as a contrast, there are scenes of him seeking aid with others and befriending a little girl (Bella Randles) from a fellow tribe. Overall, I think this film has aged fairly well in that respect.Despite its title, I should point out that Wilde is only naked for a short time (cue bare bottom shot) and, to accommodate the prudes, sports a loin cloth in no time. This will not be the case in our next title up for review, THE FAST RUNNER, which pretty much lets it all hang out, if in arctic frozen glory. To be fair, this film still predated the 1968 MPAA rating system and the continuing looseness of censorship when nudity became more commonplace outside the 16mm and 8mm adult market. A harrowing death scene of an elephant occurs early on, possibly involving footage borrowed from outside sources. Not sure how many animals were killed in the making of this film, but there does seem to be more effort here to be humane to fellow critters than in other films such as the later Australian hit WALKABOUT and many previously. From what I gathered, Wilde himself reportedly prevented a python and monitor lizard from seriously injuring each other in a climactic battle scene, but then got bit by the latter and had to be hospitalized.Wilde certainly suffered greatly making this adventure. There is a final ending with our hero succeeding (cue the great British fortress of protection) while also earning the respect of his chasers as the bravest of “lions.” We viewers may suffer along with him but the end result is well worth the effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 24, 2024 16:03:54 GMT
Essential: ATANARJUAT: THE FAST RUNNER (2001)
TopBilled:
This week Jlewis reviews our final film in the Survival Stories series…***Jlewis:
 This is a fascinating curiosity that was directed by Zacharias Kunuk in 1998-99 in the areas near Igloonik (Nunavut, Melville Peninsula) with some funding by the National Film Board of Canada and a cast of unknowns. Most notable is Natar Ungalaaq, who repeats Cornel Wilde’s excellent performance in THE NAKED PREY with one to match, also under harsh conditions in the name of art. I often wonder why such actors get neglected at awards time considering how much they go that extra mile, quite literally. The already established Leo DiCaprio eventually won in a performance not unlike theirs in THE REVENANT, but…hey!…he was Leo. Not sure if he too ended up in a hospital like Wilde did or suffer the same bloody feet as Ungalaaq that certainly look genuine on screen. I think this film fits in well with THE NAKED PREY and the previous adaptations of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME even though roughly three quarters of its long running time differs in overall story-line with only one major sequence in the final third or so that involves actual running…and with no stitch of clothing too, making Ungalaaq a more consistently naked “prey” than Wilde.A fiction film based on a centuries old folk tale, there are nonetheless plenty of documentary scenes of normal nomad life such as the preparation of raw meat (we don’t see animals actually get killed on screen but their carcasses get shown a lot), many shots of needlework, oil lighting and igloo building. All of this is enhanced by the hi def camera work which, despite plenty of showings at film festivals, is best appreciated on a TV screen instead. Without overdoing it on a trip down memory lane, I do want to comment on a few titles that preceded it and clearly rubbed off some of their influence. Robert J. Flaherty’s NANOOK OF THE NORTH was filmed almost 80 years earlier with far more primitive camera equipment and its producer-distributor Pathé successfully promoted it as the highest grossing documentary feature of its era. MGM and W.S. Van Dyke’s ESKIMO tried not-too-successfully to incorporate documentary elements into a romantic adventure but it is worth noting for all of the effort that went into its making (1932-33) with some of the first sound recordings made in the arctic.Walt Disney and his team of Alfred and Elma Milotte produced THE ALASKAN ESKIMO in 1947-48 and released it to great Oscar winning acclaim in 1953, revamping interest in the subject without the ridicule commonplace in contemporary comedies and animated cartoons, albeit with the usual Disneyesque trademark of depicting constantly smiling faces amid extreme weather conditions. Then there was MAN: A COURSE OF STUDY: THE NETSILIK ESKIMO, filmed in 1963-64 as part of an ambitious educational program designed for public schools and their geography lessons.Its attempt to relate such a radically different lifestyle to the suburban TV and grocery store convenience children of the 1960s and early ’70s backfired when conservative parental groups and politicians all reacted in angry fury and started a pattern that continues today with public education getting intertwined with politics (like Florida and other states in the 2020s). A wonderful documentary that was also backed by the National Film Board of Canada profiles THAT story in great depth here: www.nfb.ca/film/through_these_eyes/ Back to this film, I should point out that the Inuit lifestyle as depicted here may shock some viewers with its graphic detail, but it is a most absorbing melodrama with plenty of human emotion on display. You do genuinely feel for these characters and can relate in many ways despite how different the living conditions and ideologies are. Of course, it’s still rated “R” for “violence” and “sexuality.”This is a tale of closely knit family units who must work as good neighbors together during periods of feast and famine. One patriarch leader Sauri (Eugene Ipkarnak) often ridicules another patriarch Tulimaq (Felix Alaralak and Stephen Qrunnut play him at different ages) for being the weaker hunter and his children often taunt the other’s. Under Tulimaq, brothers Atanarjuat (Ungalaaq) and Amaqjuaq (Pakak Innuksuk) are most protective of each other. Sauri has four children with oldest son Oki (Peter-Henry Arnatsiaq) an angry hot head and youngest daughter Puja (Lucy Tulugarjuk) rather frisky in her, ahem, physical needs while the two middle brothers tag along with their exploits.Panikpak (Madeline Piujuq Ivalu) is the always moral elder in the family and ultimately must make the choice of disowning her grandchildren in the (dare I spoil now?) ending. You can pretty much tell who is “good” and who is “bad” by their body language and, in the case of Atanarjuat and Oki, how they treat their dogs. (No, Peter-Henry Arnatsiaq will not earn any respect from dog lovers for his performance here.) In this patriarchal society, occasionally men take on second wives but the reversal is never accepted. Oki is betrothed to Atuat (Sylvia Ivalu) but she ultimately marries Atanarjuat whom she genuinely loves and bears a son to. Later, when Oki thinks Atanarjuat is dead, he takes her by force as his dark side frequently takes hold. However, his sister also marries Atanarjuat as well and, despite plenty of passion under the furry spreads, she takes on brother Amaqjuaq as well to create much friction between the brothers. When unhappy that she is not getting her own way, she accuses her husband in lies to her brothers that amp up Oki’s thirst for bloodshed.Supposedly father Sauri caused death himself in the past as he usurped a rival leader, something that his mother never forgave him for, and this dark spirit continues on with his son. In a state of rage, Oki and his bothers stumble on Atanarjuat and Amaqjuaq weaponless and naked in their tent while the women are away foraging (and Puja is her usual deceitful self), killing the latter and chasing the former…buck naked…through endless miles of snowy and icy abyss. Running for his life, Atanarjuat is rescued by another family trio lead by Qulitalik (Pauloosie Qulitalik) who heal his injuries and hide him in seaweed when the evil brothers stop by…and Oki using the seaweed hiding place as his urinal. Eventually he is reunited with his family and decides to confront Oki in a final duel after presenting a banquet to him and his brothers upon a most icy igloo floor. However, he does kill his adversaries but spiritually puts a stop to all of the killer instincts that have been acted upon. You see…not only was his brother killed by them but also… again, spoiler alert… Sauri himself! The villains are forced to leave the family units into The Wilderness…There are some fascinating details worth noting, including a curious pair of rabbit (arctic hare actually) feet that are given to Atanarjuat early on that have a curious impact on Oki through some subconscious channeling. Oki catches a hare and is the only one who eats it and his killer instincts subside. Both Qulitalik and Atanarjuat even perform like bunnies in the ritual.In conclusion, this may not a film for everybody but it holds your interest from start to finish and is relatively easy to follow despite the Inuktitut dialogue subtitled for those of us not familiar with that language.
|
|
