Showing posts with label 1950s films. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1950s films. Show all posts

Sunday, September 22, 2024

"I have a taste for poison" : Quo Vadis (1951)


      Quo Vadis. Metro Goldwyn Mayer. Produced by Sam Zimbalist; screenplay by John Lee Mahin and S.N. Behrman, Sonya Levien; directed by Mervyn LeRoy. Based on the novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz. Originally produced as a motion picture in 1951. Performers: Robert Taylor, Deborah Kerr, Leo Genn, Peter Ustinov, Patricia Laffan, Finlay Currie, Nora Swinburne, Buddy Baer, Marina Berti, Abraham Zofaer. Summary: the story of Emperor Nero’s persecution of the Christians set against the canvas of the decadence and decay of the Roman Empire.


     In a separate post I wrote, favorably, of the of the movie Pompeii. It inspired me to investigate, among other things, volcano stories. But the theme of Ancient Rome led me elsewhere, specifically to those bloated late Forties and early Fifties epic movies, for which, guilty pleasure-esque, I confess a fondness. One of my favorites is Quo Vadis.

     To be sure, there are things about QV I’m not so fond of: the slow patches, Finlay Currie’s heavy-handed monologues, the overture, the romantic subplot with the Robert Taylor and Deborah Kerr characters. But these quibbles can be overlooked in view of the pluses: the huge spectacle, costumes and sets; Strelsa Brown’s golden-voiced invocation of the gods; Peter Ustinov’s serious scenery chewing as Nero, as well as his more low keyed interactions with mentor and ‘critic’ Petronius (Leo Genn). Finally the Miklos Rosza score which set the template for historical epics.

     But for my money the best thing about QV is Patricia Laffan’s scrumptious turn as Empress Poppea. Everything about her – wardrobe, pet leopards, sideways glances, nibbling on a red tinted magnifying glass, munching grapes as she watches lions devour the Christians, and not least, her plummy, slithering enunciation – just screams glorious excess and depraved sexuality. But there’s nothing screaming or excessive about her performance, which can be described as a miraculous tightrope walk of understated nuance combined with touches of high camp.

     I’m not familiar with Miss Laffan’s theatre work but it’s no exaggeration to say she was criminally underutilized as a film actress [1]. To be sure there were a few minor roles, including nice cameos in Shoot First and 23 Steps to Baker Street. Alas she’s best remembered today as the man-hungry Nyah in the sci-fi cult classic Devil Girl From Mars. But we're the richer for her supreme cinematic moment, which occurs in a far more worthy vehicle, namely Quo Vadis, where she plays, well, a different kind of man-eater, one with greater appetites and literally much more color.

Slithering malice

     We first view her in QV, significantly, from the back, which gives us a pleasing peek at her topographic charms. Reclining resplendent in green dress and regal purple cape, leopards in tow, Poppea observes the ponderous goings on at Nero’s court. She appears to be both bored and suspiciously alert, but in any case her visage suggests she just can’t wait for all the pomp to be over so she can get back to her scheming. Miss Laffan must have enjoyed this role immensely as she chews over every line she speaks, suggestively projecting the character’s barely concealed sadism and perverse lust. In fact so serpentine is her Poppea that we have to wonder: was the historical Poppea as irredeemably evil and corrupt as the portrayals in pop culture make her out to be? Maybe so. This was Ancient Rome after all.

     In any case has an actress ever brought elegantly sinister depravity to the screen with such relish, and in such a sensually alluring package? [2] Most of all, we admire her pluck. Much as Poppea always seems to be pre-empting Nero in Quo Vadis, it’s only appropriate that Patricia Laffan, the actress who embodies Poppea, does the equally impossible: (almost) upstaging Peter Ustinov, in his signature role at that [3].



[1] Incredibly, aside from QV and the aforementioned 23 Steps, Patricia Laffan made no American films, and even these two films have dubious American bonafides, one shot in Italy with a largely British cast and the other shot in and around London. Maybe the filmmakers thought her screen persona was too Lady Macbeth-like and as a result she’d be hard to cast.

[2] For all her beauty and ability as an actress, Claudette Colbert, the Poppea from Sign of the Cross (1932), nude milk bath and all, simply can’t compare, at least in this writer’s humble opinion.

[3] Aside from Ustinov I've pretty much neglected the rest of the mostly splendid cast. Leo Genn as Petronius and Rosalie Crutchley as Acte especially shine. The one weak link is Robert Taylor, whose bland presence and Midwestern twang seems singularly out of place amongst the other cast members' savoire faire and cultivated Brit accents.  

Sunday, July 24, 2022

the baroque pleasures of Mr. Arkadin

 


    The complete Mr. Arkadin a.k.a. Confidential Report (Motion picture). Janus Films; written and directed by Orsen Welles; photography, Jean Bourgoin; editor, Henzo Lucien; music, Paul Misraki. Special edition 3-disc set, fullscreen. Irvington, New York: The Criterion Collection, c2006. 3 DVDs (approximately 302 min.); booklet (35 pages, illustrations).
   Includes: "The Cornith version," originally released as a motion picture in 1955; "Confidential report," originally released as a motion picture in 1995; "The comprehensive version," originally released as a motion picture in 2006.
    Performers: Orson Welles, Robert Arden, Akim Tamiroff, Mischa Auer, Michael Redgrave, Jack Watling, Paola Mori, Patricia Medina. Summary: American smuggler Guy van Strattan decides to investigate the mysterious Mr. Arkadin after hearing about the wealthy man from a prison cellmate, but Arkadin claims amnesia about his own life, sending van Strattan off to investigate Arkadin's past. Filming locations: Sebastiansplatz, Munich, Bavaria, Germany; Spain; Bavaria Studios, Grünwald, Bavaria, Germany; France; Germany; Italy; Sevilla Films, Madrid, Spain; Switzerland (Château de Chillon); London, England, UK.

 

    Mr. Arkadin is one of the films in the Orson Welles oeuvre that I haven’t seen, at least not all of it: until recently I’d only caught snippets via various Welles documentaries. As I don’t possess the DVD and my public library lacks a copy, I was delighted at my good fortune to stumble upon it recently on television [1]. While flipping channels I came across this strange, Bergmanesque movie that was totally fascinating. I was hooked even before I knew what the movie was, and it didn’t take me long to figure out that it was a Welles film. Best of all I came in at a point near the beginning so I was able to see the bulk of the film. Despite its reputation as a ‘problematic’ Welles product, I enjoyed it very much. Still, and while very much a Welles fan, I readily admit that Arkadin isn’t his best movie, or even close to his best, but it’s one strange movie and in its wacky way one of his most enjoyable. Moreover, the convoluted plot and visual felicities most definitely reward repeated viewings. It’s been compared to The Third Man and Citizen Kane in style and content, and some go so far as to say it’s a Third Man sequel, of a sort. Commentators also note similarities to The Trial. I can appreciate the sentiments but, with its off-kilter angles, densely packed bric-a-brac visuals, and character grotesques, including a more or less villain protagonist, among other touches, Arkadin has strong overtones of the Welles film that immediately follows, Touch of Evil [2]. In fact, Arkadin might well be considered a warm-up for Touch of Evil.  


     There's no one authoritative version of Arkadin/Confidential Report, much less a director’s cut, though the Criterion release generously gives us three versions to choose from. I leave to others to sort out all the different edits, influences, chronologies, intrigues and permutations (some sources claim there are as many as seven separate incarnations, including two Spanish versions) [3]. At the very least, as is the case with many of his films, Mr. Arkadin – in any of its iterations – probably doesn’t reflect Welles’s original, auteurist vision, whatever it might have been. By the way a great introduction (14 min.) to Arkadin by ‘Joel’ covering many aspects is available on Youtube.


    Arkadin/Confidential Report is endlessly fascinating, in almost equal measure for its near incomprehensible plot and surrealist visual style as for its labyrinthine production history. Mr. Arkadin then is the definitive Welles cult film, though hardcore Welles heads may argue the point. Whichever version we’re served up, from the three in the Criterion set, or amongst the other … four(?), as is always true for a Welles film, there’s plenty to savor. In this case not the least of the riches is the, typically Wellesian, offbeat cast: the much-maligned Robert Arden as the shady journeyman is actually pretty good, at least a good fit in the role; Katina Paxinou as a no-nonsense brothel madam who oozes cynicism; Mischa Auer who manages his flea circus; Paola Mori, Welles's to-be wife, as Raina, Arkadin’s daughter; Akim Tamiroff, the worse-for-wear Jakob Zouk; Suzanne Flon as the shady Baroness Nagel; Michael Redgrave as a fey shop owner; and best of all Patricia Medina as the dancer Milly. And of course Welles himself as the portentous title character.

   1 The Mr. Arkadin I caught on tv, appropriately late at night, is probably the public domain cut that Wellesophiles famously disapprove of, though in truth I can’t verify which Arkadin it was that I saw (even if I could tell the difference).
   2 Other than style one similarity to Touch of Evil are the many studio-imposed cuts and changes, thus both films have a bumpy narrative.
  3 The above referenced Criterion release apparently covers these and other issues pretty thoroughly. Indeed, a study of the film’s mangled evolution and resultant permutations would seem ready-made grist for the mill for an enterprising doctoral student: if a PhD thesis hasn’t already been done, I’m sure one is not far off. Be that as it may, I can’t resist recalling a couple of the myriad stories of the film’s dark, tangled past: one is the tale of Welles and his collaborators ‘liberating’ hotel furniture for one location scene; another yarn, even more bizarre, involves the film’s co-producer, one Louis Dolivet, who may well have been a KGB agent who was laundering money he’d embezzled from his Soviet masters.

Friday, June 3, 2022

the girl who got away ... twice

   Vertigo. Cast: James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes, Tom Helmore, Henry Jones, Raymond Bailey, Ellen Corby, Konstantin Shayne, Lee Patrick. Director: Alfred Hitchcock. Screenplay: Alec Coppel, Samuel Taylor, from the novel D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac. Cinematography: Robert Burks (colour by Technicolor, Vistavision). Art directors: Hal Pereira, Henry Bumstead. Costumes: Edith Head. Editor: George Tomasini. Music: Bernard Herrmann. Special effects: John P. Fulton, Farciot Edouart, W. Wallace Kelley, John Ferren. Production: Alfred J. Hitchcock Productions. Restoration: Robert A. Harris, James C. Katz, 1996. USA, 1958, 127 minutes.

Style ****   Substance ****


Take it from Scottie Ferguson: If you’re not careful, an affair can make life shorter still. Need a painkiller? See Vertigo again. – Julia Szabo, “Why Vertigo Beat Citizen Kane to Become the Top Rated Film”

In a post elsewhere online I opine that Ernst Lubitsch’s frothy Trouble in Paradise may well be my favorite movie. However, a recent viewing of Vertigo may make the result more like a tie [1]. Anyhow fascinating to note that in both films the central character has broken the rules and  fallen in love with the mark, but how different the treatment: with its intense emotional content, Vertigo may be seen as the dark mirror to Trouble in Paradise’s ebullient, quasi-screwball comedy feeling, the latter film nothing more and nothing less than a Cole Porter tune come to life. But where we might shrug our shoulders and simply say ‘it was just one of those things’ when referring to Trouble in Paradise, we’d never indulge ourselves in such an offhand dismissal when considering Vertigo.

Kim Novak resplendent

It was a sometimes surprising experience to see the great film again, the first time I’d caught it on the big screen since its mid-80s re-release [2]. So many praiseworthy things about it: Herrmann’s haunting score, the phantasmagoric colors, Edith Head’s costumes … one could go on and on; critics and devotees have gone on and on. This time I was struck by its incredible, and incredibly complex, emotional content, and most of all, by the sadness and desperate longing embodied in the character of Judy/Madeleine, brought so spellbindingly to life (or is it death?) by Kim Novak in her wondrous performance. Up until the scene at Ernie’s in which Miss Novak enters the movie, it’s a fairly bland, and talky, mystery story set-up. But once the mysterious Madeleine makes her unforgettable entrance, the film really takes off and never lets up. Indeed, and with no disrespect to the great James Stewart, a terrific actor, from this point forward it’s really a Madeleine story.


As for our nominal hero Scottie, he’s already a broken man long before he meets Judy/Madeleine, the acrophobia and his back injury a metaphor for his irreparably damaged psyche. Although we're given few details about his past and as a result mostly in the dark as to his psychological history, we're thrown a nugget of a clue early on when it's revealed that Midge broke off their engagement twenty years or so prior, for reasons not revealed. Even so, he continues to needle her about it and protest too much that he’s still available (‘available Ferguson’). Another viewing helps me appreciate Barbara Bel Geddes’ touchingly sensitive portrayal – much overlooked in light of Stewart’s showy performance and Kim Novak’s more subtle, enchantress-like presence. In spite of all this Midge still loves him, treating him much like a mother, even referring to herself as such.


This time around I wasn’t quite so upset by Scotty’s heavy-handed treatment of Judy; the guy’s not a monster, he’s just hopelessly misguided and obviously unbalanced, more to be pitied than vilified. And we have to remember that Judy, sympathetic and beautiful as she is, is herself at least accessory to murder, just one step away from being a murderess. Indeed, unpleasant as Scotty may be, Judy is arguably technically the more evil of the two. Which reminds me: a fussy plot complaint (one of potentially many) – why didn’t Judy simply leave San Francisco, and for that matter why would Elster abandon someone so ethereally beautiful, to say nothing of the fact that she has the goods on him? And another thing … well, as you see, Vertigo isn’t about plot – a Golden Age puzzle mystery where all the pieces fit comfortably and logically together it most certainly is not, quite the contrary. And that’s rather the whole point: that life, and love, doesn’t always come out right in the end.


But, as intimated above, Vertigo is ultimately about Madeleine/Judy, and Kim Novak is utterly convincing in assuming the personas of two very different women. Moreover, everything about her performance is absolutely flawless; it’s a no brainer that it’s her best role ever. And, reports to the contrary that Hitchcock didn't like her as an actress, one could make a case that she's the ultimate icy Hitchcock blonde. I’d go one better and declare that her incredibly nuanced reading, revealed only though repeated viewings, is the best single performance by any actress in cinema history, or close to it. It’s almost fantastical to think she was all of 25 years of age when she delivered such a rich portrayal. Vera Miles? Grace Kelley? In this role? Gimme a break. It all inspires me to up the ante even further and suggest that, based on this performance alone [3], she has a strong claim as the best film actress of all time, though I do confess a great fondness for Gloria Swanson, especially her incomparable turn as Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard. In either case: take that, Kate Hepburn!



Interesting to consider Ms. Novak’s recent comments on her bipolar disorder :

“I was very erratic. I did suffer from mental illness. I didn’t know it at the time. At times I was focused. Other times, the press would come on the set and I’d feel the energy of people laughing at me or not approving of my style of acting. You could pick up those feelings. I was distracted. I couldn’t perform as well. I was erratic in my performances, I feel.” 

It goes a long way toward explaining her wafty, slightly unfocused acting style. To a certain extent this is present in Vertigo, but somehow this time she was able to magically transform this disability into a positive with her multi-layered, enigmatic performance. Curiously, she considers Vertigo not one of her better films. Sorry, Kim, I beg to differ, in a big way. It’s also fascinating to recall the possibly spurious stories that she could be glimpsed during subsequent visits to San Juan Bautista Mission, where she would sit on the wooden benches and stare across the large lawn at the church, lost in her own meditation. A penny for her thoughts. Somehow, even if apocryphal, it’s an irresistible image.


Things we do for love

Officially anointed the greatest movie of all time, Vertigo is easliy Hitchcock’s most written about work. And inasmuch as critics and film historians have explored its aesthetic depths more fully, Julia Szabo’s above-referenced essay is perhaps my favorite, as it comes closest to the bone in getting to Vertigo’s fear of falling (in love) message for today’s chatroom gestalt, especially for those of us of a certain age who feel especially susceptible to the seductive, but alas, elusive, and often illusory, allure of the perfect love. We may not be as damaged, or obsessive, or legally culpable as the characters in Vertigo, but in our ways just as imperfect.

Case in point: the one ‘normal’ character, Midge (Barbara Bel Geddes), is at best a flawed heroine. Nonetheless, how beautiful – and passionate – the character, and actress; Scotty was a fool to reject her, and perhaps she’s as much a fool in her obviously hopeless quest to win his affections.


Indeed, what strikes me upon re-visiting the film is not the incredible visual flourishes, or great detail [4], to mention only a couple of its virtues, but its compassion and humanity, for Vertigo is not really about romantic obsession per se, and it’s absurd to call it a murder mystery. Ultimately it’s of the human impulse, and, yes, need, to connect with others, to love and be loved, and the sometimes heavy toll said impulse takes on the spirit and psyche, even when things work out well in the end. At its core then Vertigo is a love story, however offbeat.

But as for the vehicle and style to express such a story: as mentioned above Vertigo is not a conventional romance and even less a mystery, but rather, a mood piece, a meditation, similar in tone to the Forties supernatural romantic fantasies like Portrait of Jennie, The Uninvited, The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, and Pandora and the Flying Dutchman. And for all of Vertigo’s much discussed extravagant colors and luxuriant on-location San Francisco photography, it has a remarkable similarity in mood and treatment to the low budget RKO Val Lewton supernatural noir thrillers of the early Forties, however different, at least in purely visual terms, its saturated look is from the stripped down studio bound aesthetic of the Lewton films.

As if in an attempt to restore all the illusions and hopes Vertigo so cruelly thwarts, Stewart and Novak were paired again the same year in the much more feel good if arguably artistically inferior Bell, Book, and Candle, which might be seen as a sunny sequel, or even the happy ending version of Vertigo, in which Kim Novak  reprises, or to be more precise, offers a lightweight variant of the enchantress Madeleine in the form of a looking-for-love Greenwich Village witch, who, like Judy/Madeleine, becomes mortal when she falls in love. One is tempted to invoke the film’s memorable closing line: “who knows what magic really is.” But, as Ms. Szabo gently cautions us in her aforementioned essay, this soothing balm in Gilead doesn’t even come close to exorcising the psychic demons which Vertigo conjures up.

The greatest film?

Much has been made of Vertigo’s bumping Citizen Kane as the #1 film of all time [5], at least according to the critics (Sight & Sound poll, 2012). A separate S&S directors’ poll places  Ozu’s Tokyo Story as #1, with Kane second, actually tied with 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Vertigo placing a respectable seventh. In any event, we have a split decision of sorts, though the critics’ poll has gotten a lot more ink.

For me, however, it’s the great emotional and, if you will, spiritual, content of Vertigo that sets it apart from other masterpieces or near-masterpieces, whether directed by Hitchcock or not. We can cite two examples : Hitchcock’s North by Northwest and Welles’s Kane, both eminently watchable, and impressive technical achievements, but both of which have barren emotional/metaphysical cores.

Even so, Vertigo divides viewers and critics to this day. There’s still lots of debate about whether Hitchcock was right to reveal Judy’s secret to the audience two thirds of the way through. My feeling is that he was correct, absolutely, because, on a simplistic level, this creates suspense, and yes, discomfort, for the rest of the film, rather than relying on an Agatha Christie-esque scenario in which the surprise is revealed only at the end.

But one can bend a reader’s ear only so long …. I’ll conclude with a minor criticism: I never much cared for the dream sequence in which James Stewart literally goes off the deep end. Hitchcock gets his message across, yes, but it’s clunky compared to the incredible elegance & beauty of the rest of the film. It just goes to show that even a masterpiece of masterpieces can have a flaw or two.

[1] Two recent viewings actually, one of them in HD no less – incredible.

[2] I remember watching Vertigo on TV in the 60s and 70s, 'Saturday Night at the Movies', I think the program was called, and the narrator portentously intoned “Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo.” And I was hooked for life. Then the film went into its legendary out of circulation status, to re-emerge in the mid-1980s when I last saw it in the theatre. I also caught the expert 1996 restoration and its commentary a couple of times on DVD.

[3] To say nothing of her other, not so well known roles: Of Human Bondage, Middle of the Night, The Man with the Golden Arm.

[4] Just the art works and antiques alone in Scottie’s and Midge’s apartments merit especial praise. Ditto for Elster’s office and its scrumptious carpet and furniture. And still more  kudos for the gossamer lighting effects at Mission Dolores. But for all its detail, there’s an artificial quality to Vertigo, which, combined with the great washes of color and the dreamy San Francisco landscapes and environs, that suggests a quasi-surrealist feeling akin to films like the aforementioned Pandora and the Flying Dutchman.

[5] Oops! In the 2022 poll, Vertigo slipped all the way to second place, being supplanted by Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles as the current critics' choice as the 'greatest movie of all time.'

Further reading: Brandie Ashe, Kim Novak in Vertigo: A Hypnotic Presence; Death and the Detective : Vertigo Revisited; A Month of Vertigo : the Boggers and Their Posts; Vertigo (no. 2)Rhik Samadder, My Favorite Hitchcock : VertigoAn Inconsequential Yarn: Writing Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo; The Critical Transformation of Hitchcock’s Vertigo.


Sunday, June 13, 2021

brief candles: Lola Montez (1821-1861)

    Lola Montès [videorecording (DVD)]. Gamma-Film prèsente un film de Max Ophuls; scenario de Max Ophuls; adaptation de Annette Wademant et Max Ophuls; dialogue de Jacques Natanson; une co-production Gamma, Florida, Union Films; producteur délégué, Albert Caraco. Criterion Collection, 2009. 2 videodiscs (114 min.). Based on the novel by Cécil Saint-Laurent. Originally produced as a motion picture in 1955.

   Performers: Martine Carol, Peter Ustinov, Anton Walbrook, Henry Guisol, Lise Delamare, Paulette Dubost, Oskar Werner, Jean Galland, Will Quadflieg, Helena Manson, Germaine Delbat, Jacques Fayet, Friedrich Domin, Werner Finck, Ivan Desny. Summary: The life of the notorious showgirl who had affairs with kings, became a courtesan, and traveled the world trying to fit in. Charts the course of Montès's scandalous past through the invocations of the bombastic ringmaster of the American circus where she has ended up performing


whatever Lola wants ...

   The woman we know today as Lola  Montez was actually of impeccable British pedigree, having been born in Ireland as
Eliza Rosanna Gilbert to well-to-do upper middle class parents: her father was a career officer in the King’s army and her mother’s father a member of Parliament. Most decidedly she did not descend from a Spanish noble family, as she later would claim. But somehow along the way the deception stuck, and she metamorphosed, spectacularly, into the more modish and exotic identity of ‘Lola Montez.’

   She was best known as a notorious dancer but from all accounts wasn’t very good. As if to compensate she cometimes danced naked. She was also an actress but apparently couldn’t act. More to the point, she was the century’s most notorious femme fatale before the term existed. Indeed some sources say the phrase had to be invented to describe Lola.

   If contemporary portraits and vintage photographs are any indication she was an attractive woman but not really a great beauty, at least by Twentieth and Twenty-first Century ideals of female physical perfection. But like Cleopatra she had something that inspired various male suitors – rich, famous and otherwise – to seek out her company, often with unfortunate consequences for the suitor, Lola too sometimes. Anyhow, and to invoke Twentieth Century comparisons further, Lola might be described as a Nineteenth Century version of Marilyn Monroe, Bettie Page and Eva Peron all rolled into one, with more than a touch of the Gabor sisters. In a word she was famous for being famous.

   Accordingly Lola’s life had numerous permutations, convolutions, confluences and connections. Classical music buffs glimpse her as one of Franz Liszt’s many amours. Other liaisons included author Alexander Dumas, newspaper publisher Alexandre Dujarier, and King Ludwig I of Bavaria. Herein another, albeit tenuous, connection with Liszt. Ludwig’s grandson, later King Ludwig II, was a near fanatical admirer of Richard Wagner’s operas. Wagner just happened to be Liszt’s son-in-law, having married Liszt’s daughter Cosima. Indeed some sources claim that Lola had a fling with Wagner himself, though this is doubtful. By all accounts Wagner met Lola only briefly and didn’t much like her.

   Her liaison with Ludwig I created a furor at court and resulted in the king’s eventual abdication. Thus with her star fading fast in Europe Lola in the early 1850s moved to America and eventually made her way to the bawdy environs of San Francisco in the Gold Rush days. Lola was an immediate succès de scandale in America, with one of the more sensationalist stories about her being, apropos her fiery ‘Latin’ temperament, that she whipped a German policeman who had offended her.
She later disowned the story but it’s a great story all the same, so much so that she always carried the horse-whip onstage during performances to discourage men from treating her disrespectfully. As her popularity waned she took her shtick to smaller mining towns in northern California and eventually made a tour of Australia.

   Lola returned to the United States again in 1856. At this point, only 34 years old and in poor health she turned to spirituality and lived quietly in New York, mostly doing charity work for homeless women, until her death from complications of pneumonia and syphilis at age 39 in 1861.

   Lola’s tempestuous life and career has been essayed by most every art form and entertainment medium, but film connoisseurs best remember her from the 1955 widescreen extravaganza Lola Montès, directed by legendary German auteur Max Ophuls, with Martine Carol in the title role.

   Mirroring the woman herself the film Lola Montès has had a bumpy evolution. From its riotous, scandalous premieres in 1955 – accompanied by mixed, mostly negative, reviews – to its gradual comeback, it has survived various studio-imposed cuts and revisions, finally receiving a glorious and much deserved full restoration in 2008. Still, Lola has polarized fans and critics since its first screening nearly seven decades ago.
Jacques Rivette and Francois Truffaut praised the film on its initial release, and in 1963 the eminent American critic Andrew Sarris famously proclaimed it the greatest movie of all time [1], surely an exaggeration but not that far off the mark. Moreover Lola is getting further, more recent, critical love: in 2012 the film received five votes in the BFI/Sight and Sound poll of the greatest films of all time, which might place it as a low grade honorable mention but nonetheless a sign of its growing critical acceptance.

   Today Ophuls is the cult director par excellence and Lola Montès his cult movie of choice by devotees (even if his The Earrings of Madame de … remains the critical darling). Indeed if we grant that Lola Montès is an art movie then it’s not hyperbole to describe it as one of the half dozen or so greatest art movies ever.
   Hitherto best known for appearing in French boudoir farces in the 1950s, Martine Carol is the perfect embodiment of Lola, a little too much as it turned out. As though providence itself had been tempted Miss Carol was struck down by cardiac arrest in 1967 at the youthful age of forty-six.

[1] Mr. Sarris seems to have had second thoughts given his subsequent reflections on the ‘greatest films.’

Thursday, March 4, 2021

no exit : D.O.A. (1950)

[Minor SPOILERS in this post]. Noir-heads are only too familiar with the genre’s favorite tropes: doomed heroes, back-stabbing femme fatales, visual flourishes, fatalistic plots, thunderous music. But D.O.A. stands out amongst the noir oeuvre for its totally sui generis status. Yes, it has virtually all the noir themes and characters, in abundance. But its premise, and to some extent, underlying psychology, is unique. I can’t think of any film, noir or otherwise, that has as its main plot point a guy that’s been murdered and he’s still literally alive [1], not just alive but trying to solve the case. Probably the closest is Sunset Blvd., in which we have a wise guy narrator who talks to us from beyond the grave. But it’s not quite the same thing; the William Holden character in Sunset is already dead and is just retelling the story. In D.O.A. the murdered hero is still alive, kicking, and trying to figure out what’s going on in a spiritual and existential morass that spirals out of control to a degree that’s extreme even by noir standards.

   The basic issue is not whether Frank Bigelow will die or not – that’s been pre-ordained – but why. Our hero’s eventual discovery, far too late, is as much about the how as the why of his murder. As for the real reason, well, it’s merely the vicissitudes of fate, or to put it more bluntly, and quintessentially noirishly, for no good reason at all. Yes, there is a technical reason – notarizing a bill of sale. But the ultimate consequences are hardly proportional to the transgression, if one may put it that way. Again we have a classic noirish message: it’s an unfair universe, fella. Get over it.

   As the movie whirls and twists its way through the maelstrom we become more, not less, confused amongst the myriad receipts, bills, sales, aliases, spiked drinks, femmes fatales, false leads, photographs, love letters, philandering and threats of philandering, and we never quite know the full story. But who cares? Best to sit back and enjoy the wild ride and delight in the dream-like excess. Indeed the whole production is awash in over-the-topness, especially the earnest B level acting that verges on camp but never quite gets there. My guess is that all involved were playing this totally straight as just another B movie, Ed Wood with a bigger budget and more talent, if you like.

   But first, let’s get to the only real misstep, and dispense with it straight away. It’s of course the hokey and hopelessly in-bad-taste (to current sensibilities anyway) wolf whistles while Frank ogles the ladies upon his arrival at the hotel. The whistles are especially incongruous given that the women Frank admires look singularly unappetizing, adorned as they are in frumpy, Forties-style garb. (Perhaps it's appropriate that, among the ladies at the hotel, it's the flirtatious Sue that's the only woman who dresses with any sense of style and elegance). D.O.A.'s only other, arguable, misfire is the prolonged romantic scene between Paula and Frank toward the end of the film.
     Now moving on to the good stuff: there’s great on-location scenes in San Francisco and Los Angeles (you can’t go wrong with the Bradbury Building for a thriller). Maybe the best sequence in the film is the scene at the jazz club (appropriately named The Fisherman) [2], shot in an orgiastically expressionist manner with alternating hopped up audience and wild-eyed musicians performing a bobsled ride of a jazz tune at an ever frenzied pace. By the way the proto-Beat clientele is mostly white but if one looks closely we can see hints of a multi-racial crowd, something quite unusual for a late Forties film, even an under the radar product like D.O.A. Oddly enough, and contrary to popular opinion, jazz features little in noir either as background or source music [3]. Jazz clubs are even scarcer, and this is one of the best sequences ever. The more conventional film music for D.O.A. is, in its different way, just as good. The manic pace and sweltering, claustrophobic feel throughout the story is perfectly complemented by Dmitri Tiomkin’s intrusive, bombastic score.

   Anyhow, as to the cast, Edmund O’Brien is perfect in the role of Frank Bigelow, in many, and sometimes surprising ways. For a hefty guy he shows some pretty fancy footwork skipping down steps and sprinting to avoid the bad guys chasing him. And as much as O’Brien more or less dominates the film as the frantic, frazzled Bigelow, it’s the women who steal the show.

   Pamela Britton as Paula usually gets the brunt of the bad reviews, both for the performance and the character. Okay, Miss Britton may not be the best actress in the world, or even the best in this movie. Similarly the character Paula is usually savaged for being a stereotypical clinging, whiny girlfriend/wife wannabe. But upon repeated viewings, and from the perspective of seventy years on, Paula (and Miss Britton’s performance) becomes something of an acquired taste, growing more appealing, human and sympathetic each time [4]. Indeed a case might be made that she’s the only admirable character in the story. She’s attractive, loyal, steadfast, speaks her mind (albeit sometimes impulsively and not too wisely), wants to love and be loved, and moreover is a darn good secretary. She actually looks pretty good next to the various specimens of womanhood – grifters, schemers, low-lifes, alcoholic nymphomaniacs, jazz freaks, double crossers, and who knows what else – Frank encounters on his quest. This doesn’t excuse his unchivalrous penchant for roughing up women along the way. No sympathy points for Frank here. To his credit he reserves even rougher treatment for the men, most of whom, happily, have it coming.

   1950s B movie scream queen Beverly Garland (here billed as Beverly Campbell) has a small role but registers a wallop with her bulging eyes. Ditto for a snarling Laurette Luez as the duplicitous ingénue – why didn’t this woman have a bigger career? [5] We talk more about Virginia Lee as the jazz obsessed ‘Easy’ in the footnote, below. But maybe best of all among the ladies is a 26 year-old Lynn Baggett playing, very convincingly, a fortyish grieving widow with something to hide. Her real life saga is only too noir-like: her career and life were cut short in most untimely, and most cruel, fashion. (After a tumultuous life she died in 1960 at the age of 36 from an overdose). Then there’s salon stylist and small town femme fatale Kitty (Carol Hughes) who has the eye for Frank. Alas she departs the story much too soon. Finally, how can we overlook Cay Forrester as Sue, the woman who likes to dance, and likes her alcohol. She comes on to Frank a bit too strong, much to her husband’s disapproval.

   The spot on remainder of the cast sparkles, even – especially – the supporting and bit players, who include some familiar faces in the noir universe. Peter Graves lookalike William Ching makes for a wonderfully smooth bad guy. The suave, always delightful Ivan Triesault, so memorable as the sinister Mathis a few years earlier in Notorious, here is reduced to a cameo as the manager of the photography studio where Frank goes to track down ’George Reynolds.’ Nonetheless he’s a welcome touch of Old World savoir faire. Which reminds me, yes, I have to give props to Neville Brand as Majak’s psychotic enforcer Chester. His is a chillingly overwrought take. By contrast, Luther Adler as the aging capo Majak oozes calm, sinister elegance. Trivia: IMDB credits Hugh O’Brian and John Payne for bit parts in D.O.A., but darned if I see them.


   So … is there a moral to D.O.A.? Indeed a case can be made that all films noirs are at heart morality plays, in which the (anti)-hero, or –heroine, eventually learns the folly of his ways, at great remove, i.e. too late, usually accompanied by a very steep, sometimes irreversible, price. Such is the case with Frank Bigelow. Yes, his behavior is often loutish and he's something of a cad, but he doesn't deserve his ultimate fate. To his credit he passes by several temptations, thus implying that, perhaps unconsciously, he was really more committed to Paula than he realized. But for Frank, the epiphany comes much too late, with the resultant cost being very high indeed. If there is a moral to D.O.A. it’s perhaps this: to know what we’ve already got, and be grateful for it. It may not be too much of a stretch to see a mythic quality to D.O.A.: Frank’s loss of Pamela and subsequent, alas far too late, appreciation of just how much he’s lost has overtones of the Orphic legend.
  
   The seemingly inevitable, nowhere near as good, remake appeared in 1988. There was also an unofficial remake, Color Me Dead (1969).

   [1] D.O.A.’s murder plot exists in a sort of reverse-retroactive time frame: the crime of murder has been committed but the hero’s death will actually take place in the future. This is distinct from the similarly plotted ‘spectral incognizance’ story, in which the unbeknownst protagonist has been dead or is in the process of dying all along, and it’s only revealed to the audience, and the protagonist, at the end. The early Sixties cult classic Carnival of Souls is a good example. The trope was also employed for at least one Twilight Zone episode.

   [2] The scene at The Fisherman is one of the more unvarnished portraits of a jazz club in a mainstream film up to this time. A few years later the Brit noir Sleeping Tiger did a pretty good job of a realistic depiction of a jazz club, as did Kiss Me Deadly (1955), I Want to Live (1958), and Odds Against Tomorrow (1959), with KMD presenting a fairly sedate, otherwise all-black club where Mike Hammer likes to hang out. Like The Fisherman, the club in Odds Against Tormorrow is multi-racial, rare for films of that era. The jazz club in the below mentioned Sweet Smell of Success (1957) is a low-keyed, well scrubbed affair. Another depiction of a 1950s jazz club, this one another fairly bland, clean cut example, can be seen in the Perry Mason tv series, ‘The Case of the Jaded Joker,’ episode (1959).
    One of the aficionados of The Fisherman is an uptown, enigmatic blonde with a hint of the femme fatale. She seems to use jazz as an opiate, and there are even hints that she gets sexual pleasure from listening to the music. Naturally she catches Frank’s wandering eye. Anyhow she’s played perfectly in mildly flirtatious, come-hither form by Virginia Lee. IMDB lists her character’s name as Jeannie (actually Bigelow addresses her as such), but I swear she calls herself ‘Edie’ or ‘Easy.’ In either case Miss Lee, whether as ‘Easy’ or ‘Jeannie,’ goes uncredited in the final print. By the way, the character of 'Easy' recalls the unnamed woman (memorably portrayed by Joan Miller) who also sat at the end of the bar in Criss Cross of a few years earlier, though her thing was strictly alcohol, not music.
    Trivia: In D.O.A. the bartender at the club chastises Bigelow for not being very hip. Surprising that he uses this term given ‘hep’ was more in fashion in the Forties and even Fifties. Interestingly, in Sweet Smell of Success, which appeared nearly a decade after D.O.A., Hunsecker lectures the senator that any hep person could see that he and the young woman who accompanies him are an item. In the 1946 film Ziegfeld Follies Judy Garland performs “The Great Lady Gives an Interview,” in which she declares that she wants her fans to know she’s really hep. In 1958 Ann Miller essayed a live TV version of the same number and also used the word ‘hep.’ By the way, Ann Miller's version holds up pretty well when compared with the Garland.

[3] Joel Dinerstein, The Origins of Cool in Postwar America, Univ. of Chicago Pr., 2017, pp.198-206.

[4] Miss Britton was woefully underutilized in the movies, and in the Fifties and Sixties she confined her work mostly to theater and television, most notably as Mrs. Brown on the tv series My Favorite Martian. Panela Britton was only 51 years old when she died of a brain tumor in 1974.

[5] Miss Luez plays Marla Rakubian in D.O.A. Marla's a bit of a mystery woman since her status in Majac's criminal organization, as well as her ultimate fate, is murky.
(Perhaps she used that ticket to Buenos Aires after all). We can assume she's 'George Reynold's'/Ray Rakubian's cousin, sister, or, most likely, widow. She seems to have a cozy, albeit non-romantic, relationship with Majac: he treats her in the manner of an affectionate uncle, but he actually seems more fond of his brutal protégé Chester.
     Curious, considering D.O.A.'s all-time classic noir status, the film lacks a true femme fatale. Cay Forrester as the gin-soaked Sue and Virginia Lee as the jazz obsessed 'Jeanie' have femme fatale qualities but aren't the complete package. Ditto for the ostensibly neutral secretary Miss Foster (Beverly Garland), who has her own secrets and deceptions. Even the flirtatious hairdresser Kitty might be considered a small-town version of the trope.
    Aside: the fatale femme's mirror image, the virtuous heroine, here is embodied by Bigelow girlfriend and wife wannabe Paula, played to perfection by the much maligned – unfairly so, in this writer's opinion – Pamela Britton. In any case, probably the two characters who come closest to filling the femme fatale role are Marla Rakubian (Laurette Luez) and Mrs. Phillips (Lynn Baggett). Miss Rakubian probably best fits the physical mold with her long dark locks, black dress and dusky looks, and she scores extra points for her testy attitude. But Mrs. Phillips is probably the most fatale of the women in D.O.A. in that her actions lead directly to Eugene Phillips' death, and moreover she participates in the cover-up. And with her elegant uptown style she more or less looks the part.


Saturday, January 2, 2021

brief candles: Estelita Rodriguez (1928-1966)


   On March 12, 1966, singer and film actress Estelita Rodriguez was found dead on the kitchen floor of her home in Van Nuys, California. She was 37 years old [1]. The cause of her death remains undetermined to this day. Accounts vary: tradition maintains that she died of influenza, but other sources cite the possibility of foul play.

   Estelita Rodriguez was Cuban-born, and after being discovered in Havana nightclubs in her teens, moved to New York City with her family in the early 1940s. A few years later she found herself acting in the movies, specializing in Westerns with Roy Rogers. She remained one of the busiest and most popular actresses in the late Forties and early Fifties, albeit always in B pictures. Most of the time she was billed simply as Estelita. But in the early Fifties she more or less left movies altogether: after 1953 she only made two more films [2], one a bonafide classic and one an all-time anti-classic.

   In any event, and in a professional high point of sorts, she appeared in the Howard Hawks/John Wayne epic Rio Bravo. Filmed in 1958, it was her only A-picture, but despite her relatively high billing in the credits her part is a small one [3]. Seven years later her career came to an inglorious end with her appearance in the camp classic Jesse James Meets Frankenstein’s Daughter, in which she essayed the strong willed Mexican peasant girl Juanita. The film is often cited on worst movies of all time lists, but Estelita’s presence, along with that of leading lady Narda Onyx, adds some much needed energy to the absurd premise, slow pacing and otherwise indifferent cast. Alas, Estelita would not live to see her performance: her death occurred a few weeks before the film’s initial release in April 1966 [4].

   Happily there's a fairly generous sampling of Estelita’s Forties and Fifties films on YouTube, and they show her at her best: a polished performer in her peak years with lots of charisma and stage presence. The Estelita renaissance has also gotten a huge boost by the recent publication of the novel Find Me in Havana by Serena Burdick. Based on the true life of Estelita and interviews with daughter Nina, Find me in Havana tells its story through letters the two exchange.

[1] 1928 is given as her official year of birth, though some sources claim the year as early as 1915 or 1913.

[2] To be sure IMDB lists some television credits during those years.

[3] It’s our loss that Estelita doesn't sing in the film, a luxury by the way afforded Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson, who between them had two songs.

[4] Estelita was reportedly working on a cinematic biography of Lupe Velez when she died. In the film she was to portray the famed Mexican film star of the Forties.



Saturday, April 20, 2019

the sad pleasures of Moulin Rouge



Moulin Rouge
[videorecording (DVD)]. Romulus presents; screenplay by AnthonyVeiller and John Huston; directed by John Huston. Santa Monica, CA: Metro Goldwyn Mayer Home Entertainment, 2004. Originally produced as a motion picture in 1952. From the novel by Pierre La Mure. Director of photography, Oswald Morris; music, George Auric; editor, Ralph Kemplen. Performers: Jose Ferrer, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Suzanne Flon, Claude Nollier, Katherine Kath, Muriel Smith, Mary Claire, Colette Marchand.

Cinematic treatments of the lives of composers and writers seem predestined to fail. To be fair, there are exceptions. Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky is pretty darn good, and so is, in its wacky way, Amadeus. Still, posterity has been kinder to films about painters: we have Rembrandt, The Moon and Sixpence, Lust for Life, Girl with the Pearl Earring, the two Frida movies [1], Edvard Munch, Hilma, Modigliani, Pollock, Mr. Turner, to cite only the more obvious exemplars.
   
Maybe it’s the very visual nature of painting that translates better to the big screen. But that doesn’t explain the success of films that concentrate more on the life, and not necessarily the work, of the artist. Perhaps we have a clue in one of Toulouse-Lautrec’s acidy quips, delivered with characteristic brio by José Ferrer: “One should never meet a person whose work one admires; what they do is always so much better than what they are.” Hear, hear.

And while there’s certainly something to the notion that the great artist as failed human being makes for a more interesting story than a virtuous artist, that doesn’t necessarily explain why painterly movies turn out so well – there have been plenty of examples of life failures among composers, poets and novelists. Maybe it’s all just a happy accident. Then again it could be that the above films stick pretty close to the biographical facts, while composer and writer biographies usually play fast and loose with the truth, sometimes grotesquely so (Song to Remember, anyone?).

In any case, the film Moulin Rouge, released in 1952 and directed by the redoubtable John Huston, is the proverbial embarrassment of cinematic riches, chief among them setting and milieu. Confession: I’ve always liked movies set in Paris. There are so many good ones that I won’t even begin to list them. I’m especially fond of those that capture the special magic – or in some cases darkness and sordidness (there’s both in MR) – of that at once most magical and mysterious yet tantalizingly dangerous of cities.

Truth be told, the reality of Paris ca. 1890, especially the Montmartre and -like quarters, was probably a lot earthier and rougher than even Moulin Rouge suggests. However, given the restrictions of the Production Code of the time, the film gets away with quite a bit [2].

Thus while Moulin Rouge may not be completely accurate on all the biographical details, there’s a core of truth to it, a spiritual and emotional truth, if you like. Thus, MR occupies a special niche because it transcends a conventional biopic and emphasizes the sense of place, and era. The Parisian belle epoch of the 1890s, conveyed through the film’s glorious Technicolor palette - sometimes garish, sometimes romantic, sometimes subdued - is presented in full-on cinematic glory. I can’t think of any other movie that recreates a time, and locale, quite so well.

Another overlooked plus is George Auric’s by turns raucous and haunting score. Two examples: when Toulouse-Lautrec longingly spies on Myriamme (Suzanne Flon) from the street below as she opens her window at night, presumably to prepare for bed, the music underscores his loneliness and emotional attachment to her. And in the very next scene, in which Toulouse waxes ecstatic over the Venus de Milo, Myriamme in tow, the music is, curiously, tinged with a dark undercurrent as if to suggest something isn’t quite right, and indeed something is very much not right with the relationship, if one might call it such.


For a film so awash in vibrant colors and exuberant movement, this is one of the saddest movies I know. We sense Toulouse-Lautrec’s – rarely shown – physical and psychic pain; we sense it perhaps because it is not shown, suggested rather than revealed in Ferrer’s nicely underplayed performance. When Toulouse’s bitter angst bubbles to the surface it’s done so by way of the zingy one-liners he delivers. Then he retreats just as quickly. Listen fast: the accented, rapid-fire dialogue, frequently spoken sotto voce, is sometimes difficult to make out. 

Henri’s two significant romantic connections in the film are with the volatile streetwalker Marie (Colette Marchand) and the supremely elegant haute couture model Myriamme. Both relationships are doomed to failure and the breakups are painful to watch, in no small part because Toulouse in turn rejects both women, perhaps for different reasons, but rejects them nonetheless. In a sense Marie and Myriamme might be considered doubles: they bear a vague physical resemblance, and even their names are similar. And each in her own way appeals to the dual sides of Toulouse’s complicated psychic makeup.

Otherwise Henri instinctively feels most comfortable with, and is drawn to, society’s outcasts and marginalized characters: streetwalkers, derelict alcoholics, saloonkeepers, disreputable entertainers (both current and washed-up), to whom he shows a kindness and generosity of spirit, if selectively dispensed. At the same time he’s perfectly at home amongst more polished folks, Jane Avril (Zsa Zsa Gabor) and her crowd in particular. But in these upper crust friendships one senses an edgy unease as Toulouse keeps the folks at arm’s length via his pungent witticisms and philosophical musings.

Interestingly, the Toulouse-Lautrec as portrayed in the film doesn’t get on so well with his fellow artists. Moreover, given his testy disposition, it’s no surprise that he has little patience with the public relations and business aspects of the art world; he whimsically gives away masterworks as gifts and shows up drunk at openings, where he insults the guests.

The cast of Moulin Rouge is well nigh perfect; I can’t think of any weak links. Ferrer is wonderful of course, and Zsa Zsa Gabor, terrible lip synching to the tune “It’s April Again” and all, is compelling when she’s actually given a chance to speak her lines, i.e. to act. As the icily smoldering Myriamme, Suzanne Flon conveys a frustrated calm tinged with romantic longing. But pride of place must go to relative newcomer Colette Marchand, who plays the high-strung grifter Marie with a suitably mercurial touch. In this admittedly fictional account Marie was the love of Toulouse-Lautrec‘s life [3], and this makes their eventual disintegration as a couple all the more painful. From her initial appearance Marchand steals every scene she’s in, displaying a range of emotions from off-handed coquettishness to knife-edged nervous desperation expressed through her angry diatribes. That such a young actress could hold her own against the formidable Ferrer is quite an accomplishment.

But – and with no disrespect to other elements of the production – the real star of the film is its set decoration and opulent production design (costumes, too!), all of which miraculously recreate the joie de vivre Paris of the late 1890s. If one sequence stands out for me it’s the bravura first fifteen minutes or so at the club, with the smoky atmosphere, Offenbach music, and those shrieking can-can dancers, so authentic looking they might have been plucked out of history a half century prior.

One sliver of criticism in the otherwise praiseworthy DVD release: the lack of bonus features. A film like Moulin Rouge, with so many confluences historical, aesthetic and cinematic, indeed would seem to scream out for a bevy of bonus extras. Perhaps Criterion will someday release an all-the-trimmings package. This minor quibble notwithstanding, Moulin Rouge is for me that rare cinematic double pleasure: my favorite movie about Paris and my favorite artist biography.

[1] I refer here to the well-known Frida (2002) and the earlier, much less familiar but arguably superior Frida: Naturaleza Viva (1983), with Ofelia Medina in the title role.

[2] For an unvarnished treatment of the darker side of the City of Light, focusing on criminals, the lower classes, and various other outcasts, eccentrics, and unsavory characters, see Luc Sante’s The Other Paris (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015).

[3] Research indicates that Marie Charlet was a real person, who modeled for Toulouse-Lautrec. Thus the portrayal of  ‘Marie’ in Moulin Rouge is at least partially accurate, as there’s a scene where she does some modeling for the artist, the result being the haunting portrait that Myriamme eventually purchases and finds so fascinating. On the other hand, there’s no evidence to suggest that the real Marie Charlet was the great love of Toulous’s life. That distinction may well belong to model, painter and artist’s muse Suzanne Valadon, who, curiously, doesn’t appear in Moulin Rouge.
   As for the historical equivalent of the incredibly elegant Myriamme, information is scant. Biographers glimpse a ‘Myriame Hayem,’ a marginal character who modeled for Toulouse for a time and by all accounts was closer in spirit and personality to the Marie character of the film. Otherwise the ‘Myriamme Hayam’ in Moulin Rouge seems to be a composite of society types and well-to-do patrons the kind of which Toulouse met during his peak years in Paris.

Further reading

Julia Bloch Frey, Toulouse-Lautrec: a Life, Viking, 1994.

Emile Schaub Koch, Psychanalyse d'une Peintre Moderne, L'Édition Littéraire Internationale, 1935.
Gerstle Mack, Toulouse-Lautrec, Knopf, 1938.
David Sweetman, Explosive Acts: Toulouse-Lautrec, Oscar Wilde,
Félix Fénéon and the Art & Anarchy of the Fin de Siècle, Simon & Schuster, 1999.