The Best Films I Have Never Seen Before: A Face in the Crowd (1957)

A Face in the Crowd (1957)
Directed by: Elia Kazan.
Written by: Budd Schulberg based on his short story.
Starring: Andy Griffith (Larry 'Lonesome' Rhodes), Patricia Neal (Marcia Jeffries), Anthony Franciosa (Joey DePalma), Walter Matthau (Mel Miller), Lee Remick (Betty Lou Fleckum), Percy Waram (Gen. Haynesworth), Paul McGrath (Macey), Rod Brasfield (Beanie), Marshall Neilan (Senator Worthington Fuller), Alexander Kirkland (Jim Collier), Charles Irving (Mr. Luffler), Howard Smith (J.B. Jeffries).

Elia Kazan’s A Face in the Crowd is one of those movies that was years ahead of its time when it was made. In 1957, the film probably seemed a little far fetched and unbelievable, but flash forward 54 years, and A Face in the Crowd seems realistic in its cynicism about the intersection of fame and politics. Like Sidney Lumet and Paddy Chayefsky’s Network or Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers, Kazan and writer Budd Schulberg saw something in the culture before most people had picked up on it, and delivered this perceptive, cynicial, funny tragedy of modern times. It is, quite simply, a masterpiece.

Andy Griffth, in his first major role, well before he became known to everyone as Sheriff Andy, plays Larry “Lonesome” Rhodes, a small time drifter picked up and put in jail in a small backwater town on a charge of drunk and disorderly conduct. This is where Marcia Jefferies (Patricia Neal) finds him. Her uncle runs the local radio station, and she does a segment called “A Face in the Crowd”, where she lets normal people tell their stories. She decides to do one broadcast from the local jail, and in Rhodes, she finds an undiscovered star. He is funny, charming, witty, sings and plays the guitar and can tell a story with the best of them. She doesn’t just want to do a one time segment with him, but convinces him to host a daily radio show. It becomes a huge hit, and soon TV is calling. They want him to do a weekly show from Memphis. But Rhodes plays by his own rules, and tells it as he sees it to the audiences – mocking his mattress salesman sponsor and the inane ad copy they want him to read on the air. This would spell the end of your career – unless you’re as popular as Rhodes, in which case, it gets you a TV show in New York, with a National Audience. A few short months after being a penniless drifter, Rhodes in the biggest TV star in the country. And of course, he’s changed. He likes the fame the TV show brings him, the power and the money and especially the women. It doesn’t matter that his new sponsor is selling a pill that does absolutely nothing – he hocks it as a miracle pill, implying it is an aide in sexual prowess. He brings Marcia along, of course. She’s the brains behind everything, and he needs her to run it. And despite the fact that he’ll screw anything that moves, she still loves him. He uses this to his advantage – and even proposes to her. But not even the fact that on a trip he ends up marrying an 18 year old baton twirler (Lee Remnick, also making her film debut) can make Marcia stop loving him – and trying to protect him. Not even when he has completely sold out, and is not just hocking worthless pills, but a worthless Presidential candidate as well, can get her to give up on him.

A Face in the Crowd is a deeply cynical film. It presents Rhodes as little more than a country bumpkin, who grows too big for his britches. He doesn’t seem to know anything about politics, but that doesn’t matter. His sponsor wants Senator Worthington, an untelegenic, weak willed man to be President, so Rhodes uses his show to promote that. Rhodes doesn’t care about Worthington’s ideas, and says no one else does either. All they need to see is Worthington acting like the rest of them – going hunting, talking in a down home country accent, and spouting off meaningless sound bites. Rhodes has no problem when his sponsor and Worthington tell him that the “workingman”, who Rhodes is supposed to represent, is too stupid to govern themselves, so they need a high powered, intellectual elite to guide them with a firm hand. Rhodes even goes as far as to create another show, that is just him talking to “yokels” about his political ideas, who of course eat up every word he says as if it was the gospel.

The movie was ahead of its time in the way it tied together entertainment and politics. While many have compared someone like Glenn Beck to Peter Finch’s Howard Beale from Network, some have pointed out the similarities between people like Beck and Lonesome Rhodes. They talk like they’re one of the little guys, one of the underdogs, when really they are powerful and wealthy beyond measure – and they have a vested interest in maintaining that power. Elections stop being about who is most qualified, or who will do a better job or even who you agree with, but it becomes a mere popularity contest, based on how people come across on TV. It has often been said that in the age of TV, Franklin Roosevelt and his wheelchair never would have become President. Why? Not because of his politics, but because of his appearance. A Face in the Crowd was ahead of the curve in pointing all this out.

In a movie like this, a lot depends on the performances. Walter Matthau is in fine form as someone who sees through Rhodes from the beginning, but sticks around because he’s in love with Marcia. Lee Remnick is perfect as the doe-eyed ingénue turned sexpot, who loves fame as much as Rhodes does. Patricia Neal may never have been better than she is here as the woman who cannot help but be drawn to Rhodes, despite her better judgment, and how that all but destroys her. But most of all, there is Andy Griffth. It takes a scene or two to get over seeing Sheriff Andy in this role, but that does go away rather quickly. This is a loud, boisterous performance – not a whole lot of subtlety, but since Rhodes is not a subtle character, it works brilliantly. It is a big, bold, brash performance, and Griffth nails it.

If I have one problem with the movie, it’s the ending. It all seems a little too neat for me. I wish that the film had a darker, more cynical ending – one that didn’t insist on giving Rhodes his comeuppance, which strikes me as more wishful thinking that realistic. And the ending goes far too easy on Marcia, who afterall, created this monster, and even though she destroys him as well, gets away too cleanly for my tastes.

But that’s a minor flaw, in what is one of the great films from the 1950s. I have no idea why it took me so long to watch this film. It is a masterpiece in every way imaginable.

The Best Films I've Never Seen Before: Splendor in the Grass (1961)

Splendor in the Grass (1961) *** ½
Directed by: Elia Kazan.
Written by: William Inge.
Starring: Natalie Wood (Wilma Dean Loomis), Warren Beatty (Bud Stamper), Pat Hingle (Ace Stamper), Audrey Christie (Mrs. Loomis), Barbara Loden (Ginny Stamper), Zohra Lampert (Angelina), Fred Stewart (Del Loomis), Joanna Roos (Mrs. Stamper), John McGovern (Doc Smiley), Jan Norris (Juanita Howard), Martine Bartlett (Miss Metcalf), Gary Lockwood (Allen 'Toots' Tuttle), Sandy Dennis (Kay), Crystal Field (Hazel), Marla Adams (June), Lynn Loring (Carolyn).

I like a good teenage melodrama, and Elia Kazan’s Splendor in the Grass is a very good one indeed. Watching the film, I couldn’t help but think of a current teen melodrama making tons of the money at the box office – of course I’m think of the “Twilight Saga”. Both films are about good looking teenagers trying their best not to give into their sexual urges. The difference is that Twilight is merely skin deep – you never feel those teenage hormones waiting on the inside ready to explode, whereas in Splendor in the Grass that is all you feel. These kids are in heat, and it will drive them insane.

The movie takes place in Kansas right before the outbreak of the Great Depression. Wilma Dean Loomis (Natalie Wood) is the most popular girl in school – because she is dating Bud Stamper (Warren Beatty), captain of the football team and the son of the wealthiest man in town, Ace (Pat Hingle). Right from the film’s opening scene, we know they are fighting their urges – he pressures her, but she eventually gets him to stop. Bud is frustrated, but he loves Wilma – he plans on marrying her. His father is pressuring him to go off to college, to follow him into the business world, but all Bud wants to do is run one of his dad’s old ranches and marry Wilma. Ace thinks this would be tantamount to throwing his life away. For her part, Wilma seems addicted to Bud – she wants him badly, but her overbearing mother (Audrey Christie) never leaves her alone – talking about “nice” girls, and what they do and do not do – and more than that, how it makes one “not nice” to even want to do it. There are cautionary tales all around them – Bud’s sister Ginny (Barbara Loden) who has become known as the town tramp, and a girl in high school with them, Juanita (Jan Norris) who is on her way to taking over the crown. Bud tries – he really does – to deal with his urges, but everywhere he turns for advice, he is given bad advice. His father tells him that there are girls out there who he can use to meet those urges, without spoiling a nice girl like Wilma, whom he may want to marry. Things get complicated, Bud leaves Wilma, and soon, she is spiraling out of control.

The film was directed by Elia Kazan, who spent much of his career advancing sexuality onscreen well before many other directors were doing it. The carnal lust felt in A Streetcar Named Desire is palpable, the strange, creepy attraction Karl Malden feels for his child bride in Baby Doll, and her own way of manipulating men with her seemingly naïve sexuality, was scandalous in 1956. In 1961, these things were still not talked about on screen very often. Watching the film now, it may seem dated, and yet it in many ways it seems relevant. Teenagers still struggle with these questions – in a very different way of course – and the ultimate message of the movie remains relevant – that teenagers are going to have sex, or at least want to have sex, no matter what adults do – so it is better to give them a healthy attitude towards it, rather than try to repress it.

Would Wilma Dean have gone crazy had her mother not given her famous speech about “A woman doesn't enjoy those things the way a man does. She just lets her husband come near her in order to have children”? Probably not. Wilma is convinced that her sexual desire is a sign that she is already insane, and she freaks out. Bud is taught that sex is dirty – that you don’t actually want to do it with the person you love, and spoil them. Ginny exposes the hypocrisy on the whole situation in her memorable breakdown, when none of the men at a party will dance with her – and she yells “You only come near me in the dark!”

The film works tremendously well as a steamy, soap opera. The sexual chemistry between Beatty and Wood is remarkable, and the viewer grows just as frustrated as they do that they don’t just give into their urges. Had they done that, things probably would have turned out much better for both of them. The movie does end on a more positive note – one that gives hope to the future that perhaps both of these young people will be okay. But the healthiest thing that both of them can do, is get away from their parents. It isn’t until they do, that they start to grow up.

The Best Films I've Never Seen Before: America, America (1963)

America, America (1963) ****
Directed by: Elia Kazan.
Written by: Elia Kazan.
Starring: Stathis Giallelis (Stavros Topouzoglou), Frank Wolff (Vartan Damadian), Elena Karam (Vasso Topouzoglou), Lou Antonio (Abdul), John Marley (Garabet), Estelle Hemsley), (Grandmother Topouzoglou), Katharine Balfour (Sophia Kebabian), Harry Davis (Isaac Topouzoglou), Joanna Frank (Vartuhi), Robert H. Harris (Aratoon Kebabian), Salem Ludwig (Odysseus Topouzoglou), Paul Mann (Aleko Sinnikoglou), Linda Marsh (Thomna Sinnikoglou), Gregory Rozakis (Hohannes Gardashian).

Elia Kazan’s America, America is perhaps the best movie ever made about immigrants coming to America. It is not a happy film about good hearted immigrants working hard, but a film filled with anger and violence. The hero of the movie is Stavros Topouzoglou (Stathis Giallelis), who is a good man, but in order to get to America, he needs to do some very bad things. This is a journey that costs him and his family everything.

The movie opens in 1896 Turkey. Stavros and his family are Greek, which means they are second class citizens in the country – but at least they are not Armenian, as they are treated even worse. Stavros has an Armenian friend, and together the chip ice off the mountains, and then sell it in town. His family, and the Greek community, look down on his friendship, saying that it will bring him nothing but trouble – and the Armenian concerns are not theirs. Stavros sees things differently – once the Turks have disposed of the Aremenians, who do you think they’ll turn on next? This all comes to a head in a violent clash that starts Stavros’ father thinking that it may be time to move their large family to Constanipole – on the other side of the country. He has a cousin there that can set them up in business. The family gives all their valuables, and sends him on the cross country journey. It is this journey, not the one to America that comes late in the film that takes up much of the running time. Stavros does not meet anyone helpful to him on his journey – and in fact by the time he gets to Constanipole, and the cousin whose business is not what he claimed it was, Stavros will have lost everything and become a murderer. But for Stavros, he has only done what he needed to do to survive, and get to where he needs to go. But also, it is also only the first step for him – he wants to go to America.

Elia Kazan’s career can really be split into two different segments – before and after 1952. It was in 1952 that he testified in front of the Joseph McCarthy’s House of Un-American Activities Committee, where he named names of people he knew were Communists. This act defines Kazan for many people – and is the reason why his lifetime achievement Oscar in 1999 was so controversial – Hollywood has a long memory, and hated HUAC, and many considered Kazan a traitor for testifying. And yet, even according to Kazan himself, that was a defining moment in his career as a director. His films before then were mainly Hollywood studio movies – safer projects, issue driven and impersonal. Even if some of the films before then were great (and at the very least his 1951 film A Streetcar Named Desire has to be considered a masterpiece), it was not until after his testimony that he started to make his more personal films. These include such great films as On the Waterfront (1954), East of Eden (1955), Baby Doll (1956) and America, America (1963) which is inarguably his most personal film. (It also includes four films I haven’t seen, but want to catch up with Man on a Tightrope (1953), A Face in the Crowd (1957), Wild River (1960) and Splendor in the Grass (1961). He wrote a book called America, America in 1962, which recounted his uncle’s journey to America, and the following year he made it into a movie. This was his story, and one that he had to make.
America, America is an epic film –the type that Hollywood has all but forgotten how to make. Kazan’s eye for detail is exacting here, and the film is perhaps the superb technical accomplishment of his career. The film lacks theatricality, instead focusing on realism that is only aided by shooting on location in Turkey and Greece. This is not a movie that feels like an old time Hollywood epic, but something much more personal and real. As always, Kazan had an eye for unknown acting talent (among others he helped start the careers of Marlon Brando, James Dean and Warren Beatty), and here with a cast of largely unknown actors, he has given us a wonderful ensemble cast. Yes, it may be marred by the fact that some of the Turks are played by white men, but that is one of those things you simply have to accept in movies from this era.

There are some films that a filmmaker simply has to make. Great filmmakers often have a passion project that they dream about for years – and sometimes are lucky enough to make. For Kazan, that film was inarguably America, America. He struggled for years with this story – never knowing if he would be able to make it – not just because of financial reasons, but for personal ones. But he finally did make it, and perhaps after that, there was little else he felt needed to be said. He took six years off of filmmaking after America, America, before returning to make 4 more films (of these only The Last Tycoon in 1976, his final film, is all that well regarded). But he made his film. And it is a masterpiece.