AestheticsAffinitiesAuteursDVDGreat Art

The dark at the top, and at the bottom, of the stairs, or, there's always "Bigger Than Life"

By March 8, 2010No Comments

Ray:MasonNicholas Ray and James Mason,Bigger Than Life, Ray, 1956

Two films of 1956 seem to turn one of the pre­dom­in­ant genres of the Eisenhower era on its head. In cer­tain very spe­cif­ic senses, Nicholas Ray’s Bigger Than Life and Douglas Sirk’s There’s Always Tomorrow are melo­dra­mas. Ray’s film, writ­ten by Cyril Hume and future James Bond scen­ar­ist Richard Maibaum, from a true-life chron­icle by Berton Roueché first pub­lished in The New Yorker, is the more flor­id, fant­ast­ic­al one, very close, in cer­tain respects, to a widescreen, col­or film noir, but this story of addic­tion and mega­lo­mania is still a melo­drama. Tomorrow, being a tale of impossible and unre­quited love, has a more con­ven­tion­al fit into the genre. What’s dif­fer­ent in both is that the main sub­jects are male, not female; neither of these are what the gen­re’s detract­ors could call “women’s pictures.”

In Life, James Mason’s Ed Avery, decent teach­er, hus­band, and fath­er, is pre­scribed cortisone to treat a poten­tially fatal med­ic­al con­di­tion. Overusing the drug, he goes mad, re-inventing him­self as a reac­tion­ary mar­tin­et and finally as a mur­der­ous prim­or­di­al pat­ri­arch in the mold of, he believes, Abraham. In Tomorrow (writ­ten by Bernard C. Schoenfeld from a story by Ursula Parrot), a suc­cess­ful toy man­u­fac­turer (Fred MacMurray), taken crassly for gran­ted by his petty, selfish family—a wife (Joan Bennett) and three kids at vari­ous stages of devel­op­ment­al awfulness—finds his zest for life renewed by an ini­tially entirely inno­cent encounter with an old flame (Barbara Stanwyck); his fam­ily’s sus­pi­cions of his revived friend­ship with the woman engender such resent­ment as to push him deep­er into the rela­tion­ship and very close to a rejec­tion of home and hearth. 

There are very few things that bore me to more tears than lit­er­ary or cine­mat­ic con­dem­na­tions of sub­ur­bia as soul-crushing hell­hole of con­form­ity. But Sirk and Ray were both smart enough artists, smart enough men, to under­stand that con­form­ity and banal­ity can blos­som in any social milieu, even that of the putat­ively clev­er and class­less and free. Conditions are states of mind, and each film has a very par­tic­u­lar way of depict­ing what “home” becomes for each of its fam­il­ies, and their heads. What each artist shows is so acutely spe­cif­ic as to com­pletely sidestep the stand­ard facile suburb-critique.


One lovely thing about the depic­tion of the Avery home in Bigger Than Life (pho­to­graphed by the spec­tac­u­larly under­rated Joe MacDonald) is how its prox­im­ity to Expressionism is really only a heightened real­ism. I grew up in a sub­urb­an house of ’50s vin­tage, and I recall how a single lamp in my bed­room could cast such long shad­ows. Hence, the sin­is­ter scene of the now dic­tat­ori­al Ed “coach­ing” son Richie (Christopher Olsen) with his home­work is both hugely creepy and not alto­geth­er far-fetched in its depiction.

Shadows
There’s Always Tomorrow was shot by the great Russell Metty, a fre­quent Sirk col­lab­or­at­or, in a tight­er 1.85:1 fram­ing. The way the cam­era moves as the fam­ily mem­bers crowd each oth­er out is mar­velously flu­id. Both films are remark­ably tight in con­struc­tion, with not a gra­tu­it­ous scene or even shot. Aside with their shared con­cern with male char­ac­ters, anoth­er affin­ity  I’m par­tic­u­larly taken with is in where both film situ­ate the locus of the fam­ily sick­ness: the stair­case of the sub­urb­an home. 

In Bigger Than Life the stair­case grows dark­er as the film inex­or­ably pro­ceeds to its post-Sunday-sermon mad scene, one of the greatest set pieces in all of cinema, cli­max­ing with Mason/Avery’s hor­rif­ic pro­nounce­ment “God was wrong!” And all along this center­piece of the house has func­tioned as a character…

Stairs
In There’s Always Tomorrow the stair­case func­tions for the most part as the bor­der of a sta­ging area, or a launch­ing pad for depar­tures from the house, or a second proscenium.

Tomorrow stairs

Tomorrow stairs 2
Until the very end, wherein the cam­era pulls back from this shot (which occurs not too long after the above shot fea­tur­ing the fam­ily por­trait from which MacMurray’s fig­ure is absent:):

Tomorrow jail
And as the cam­era pulls back from MacMurray’s char­ac­ter, who’s clearly hold­ing in his con­tempt for his sniv­el­ling, con­niv­ing chil­dren (from left, Gigi Perreau, William Reynolds, and Judy Nugent), we see Metty’s been shoot­ing from behind the stair­case­’s long dow­els, which now form the bars of MacMurray’s pris­on, as it were. 

Bigger Than Life comes out on DVD and Blu-ray on March 23, in spec­tac­u­lar edi­tions from The Criterion Collection. There’s Always Tomorrow was recently released in a won­der­ful ver­sion from the U.K. out­fit Eureka!/Masters of Cinema; a domest­ic edi­tion of the pic­ture is soon to come from Universal, part of a Barabara Stanwyck col­lec­tion that also includes Sirk’s All I Desire

No Comments

  • Giles Edwards says:

    I retract the earli­er erro­neous “minor” com­ment even fur­ther hav­ing watched the MoC disc *again* for the second time in a week or so. Wonderfully rumin­at­ive and exhaust­ively ana­lyt­ic­al essay regard­ing the spa­cial geo­graphy of the block­ing (of which Sirk was such a mas­ter) in rela­tion to famili­al psy­cho­logy in the TOMORROW disc as well.
    It does lack a bawdy THEY LIVE-esque fist­fight that so mem­or­ably caps BIGGER THAH LIFE, though.

  • Goodvibe61 says:

    You are truly on a Douglas Sirk roll these days Glenn. And I must admit you’ve really piqued my curi­os­ity, as I’ve only seen a couple of his films, and those were awhile back. I’m gonna go over to Netflix and put everything they have into my queue. Can you tell me: of what they DON’T have over there, what should I seek out?

  • Cyril Hume not only wrote BIGGER THAN LIFE (with a little help from pro­du­cer James Mason, among oth­ers) but also FORBIDDEN PLANET (with a little help from Shakespeare). Was he really as tal­en­ted as those two films suggest?
    The pro­to­type of the middle-class-home-as-trap film, also fea­tur­ing a stair­case, might be Ophuls’ great THE RECKLESS MOMENT.

  • Asher Steinberg says:

    What each artist shows is so acutely spe­cif­ic as to com­pletely sidestep the stand­ard facile suburb-critique.”
    Sure – although I don’t know that I’ve ever seen any film from the 50s that one could label a facile suburb-critique (per­haps the bad ones are for­got­ten?) the way you can with Little Children, American Beauty, Rev. Road, Pleasantville, etc. That said, There’s Always Tomorrow played for me like a pretty inferi­or rethink of The Reckless Moment. Compare, for example, the end­ings. They’re the same story, really – Stanwyck leaves MacMurray to his spouse, Mason leaves Bennett to hers, the kids clasp their hands in joy that their par­ents’ threatened mar­riages are safe – but Ophuls’s is heart­break­ing, while Sirk’s is just snide. Everything in the Ophuls film is more nuanced, while in There’s Always Tomorrow you have the Failed Marriage and the Evil Kids who pre­vent their Poor Henpecked Father from run­ning off with his True Love. There’s very little empathy on Sirk’s part for the kids, whose reac­tion to their father­’s appar­ent infi­del­ity, after all, isn’t exactly unun­der­stand­able. And the pho­to­graphy, while gor­geous, at times is a bit of a dis­trac­tion (I feel the same way about a lot of James Wong Howe’s work), and only adds to the mor­ally over­de­termined qual­ity of the film. Even the begin­ning (“one day in Sunny California,” reads the title card – cut to a rainy day in California) is much too cut-and-dry, and really not so far in spir­it from a lot of the sub­ur­b­phobic dreck we’ve been sub­jec­ted to the last ten years. Same goes for the overt “Fred MacMurray is a broken robot” symbolism.

  • Glenn Kenny says:

    As fond as I am of “The Reckless Moment,” which I con­sider a sub­lime mas­ter­piece, I’m rather dis­in­clined to use it as a cudgel with which to beat “There’s Always Tomorrow.” Pace Asher Steinberg, but I think the two are very dif­fer­ent films. It isn’t just the thrill­er ele­ment of “Moment” that sets it apart; it’s also the fact that it’s a kind of dual redemp­tion nar­rat­ive. Bennett gets her mar­riage back, Mason saves his own soul. Bennett’s char­ac­ter isn’t so much dis­sat­is­fied with her mar­riage as she is with its cir­cum­stances. In “Tomorrow” no one is redeemed; it’s a dark­er vis­ion over­all. Here, the view­ers’ sym­path­ies are (delib­er­ately) shaken up a good deal more; while one feels for MacMurray’s char­ac­ter, one also, at the begin­ning, sees him rather petu­lantly in deni­al of his pat­ri­arch­al duties, as it were. The reas­on Sirk does­n’t show much empathy for the kids, is, frankly, because they’re self-involved jerks who treat their fath­er with abject indif­fer­ence until the point when they sus­pect him of wrong­do­ing, as which point they pounce with even more petu­lance than MacMurray showed when he did­n’t get to take the wife out for their anniversary. It’s true that both film’s could bear the motto “No one is inno­cent,” but that’s hardly what you’d call an uncom­mon them­at­ic statement.