Showing posts with label Thomas Andersen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thomas Andersen. Show all posts

Sunday, September 24, 2017

Bless Their Little Hearts









Charles Burnett





Billy Woodberry








BLESS THEIR LITTLE HEARTS                B+                  
USA  (80 mi)  1983  director:  Billy Woodberry  writer and cinematographer:  Charles Burnett

By the turn of the next century, film historians will recognize that a decisive turning point in the development of Black cinema took place at UCLA.  By then, persuasive definitions of Black Cinema will revolve around images encoded not by Hollywood, but within the self-understanding of the African-American population.
—Clyde Taylor, film scholar and cultural critic who coined the phrase “L.A. Rebellion,” 1986

One of the strengths of cinema is the power of observation, taking audiences into worlds they would otherwise never see, generously allowing viewers to size up a situation often without any words being spoken, where it’s all about what’s real, what stands out, and what we can take from any given scene, where in this film we become fascinated by the curious eyes of children, where brief looks and short glances say it all, as they are literally engulfed in the adult world around them, watching and learning, where it seems like nothing gets by them.  Prominently featured in Thomas Andersen’s splendid documentary Los Angeles Plays Itself (2003), that film identified black independent filmmakers like Charles Burnett’s Killer of Sheep (1979) and Billy Woodberry’s BLESS THEIR LITTLE HEARTS (1984), both of which focus on working-class black families living in South Central Los Angeles living from paycheck to paycheck, which come across as near documentary truth without an ounce of artifice about life or the black experience, offering a mirror image of August Wilson’s poetic revelations about growing up on the streets of Pittsburgh, filmed about the same time he was writing his 1985 play Fences (2016).  These two films happen to be connected, as Burnett wrote the script and provided the camerawork in Woodberry’s film, while the children onscreen are Burnett’s daughter Angela along with nieces and nephews.  Perhaps unsurprisingly, both films were selected for inclusion in the National Film Registry, Burnett’s in 1990, while Woodberry’s film was added in 2013.  Both were key figures in the L.A. Rebellion, black and brown UCLA film students from the 70’s that brought a different perspective, committed to creating authentic cinematic depictions of black peoples and experiences, creating a new aesthetic to American independent films, following the Civil Rights movement and having witnessed the 1965 Watts riots, which included the burning down of their neighborhoods, with both of these films revealing empty lots where children play that were once homes or businesses, yet a decade or so later nothing has been rebuilt, instead vacant space has become part of the existing urban landscape.  Burnett and Woodberry were in school together, along with an influx of other minority students, with this being Woodberry’s graduation film, where part of their focus was redefining the black image in American films, as the lives of blacks were all but absent in Hollywood films, or stereotyped beyond recognition, so these films corrected the strange narratives in the Hollywood tradition regarding a false and inaccurate depiction of black life.  The L.A. Rebellion came immediately after the Blaxploitation period, exaggerating the world of guns and gangsters or mythical heroes, yet continuing to associate blacks with criminality.  In Woodberry and Burnett’s films, criminality exists, but on the periphery, where the main characters turn their backs to it and refuse to rob or cheat people to make a buck, instead they’re continually seen searching (or perhaps meandering) for a righteous path, but not always finding it.   

Featuring the uncredited blues music of Little Esther Phillips and jazz saxophonist Archie Shepp, it resembles the cool jazz of the 50’s, which was particularly West coast oriented, as the Southern California lifestyle is more laid back and sunny, even in Watts, a mostly black, segregated neighborhood about seven miles from downtown Los Angeles, which includes many who migrated post WW II from the American South.  Shot in a neo-realist Italian style, raw and unpolished, like the late 40’s work of Roberto Rossellini, where the focus of his films was exposing the underlying conditions of poverty, set amongst the working class poor, using non-professional actors to convey the harsh realities of everyday life, contending with often brutal economic and moral conditions.  Similarly, here work is scarce, as there are few jobs in the neighborhood, where part of the segregated racial isolation means schools, hospitals, and industry have moved elsewhere, where most have to travel significant distance just to look for what’s available, where much of their world is portrayed as a broken down, industrial wasteland.  Enter Charlie Banks (Nate Hardman), cigarette dangling from his mouth, who is seen filling out applications (in pencil!) at a neighborhood job center, writing down names and numbers of possible prospects, where it’s clear this is a frustrating way of seeking employment, as nothing moves quickly, instead you’re always waiting for someone to call your name and contact you, but that waiting grows increasingly tiresome, as the frustration feels endless, where this film shows how humiliating it becomes, eventually taking a toll on his family, as there’s a ripple effect of continuing hopelessness.  While we watch him cut weeds and tall grass with a scythe under the hot sun and stack it into a pile, he also paints the walls of a graffiti-laden storage bin for daily pay, returning home with a special gift for his three kids, three-favored ice-cream, where each can have their own favorite flavor.  Of course it’s amusing to see Burnett’s daughter Angela as the oldest immediately assume the role of mother and tell the other kids no one gets to eat anything until the kitchen table is all cleaned up.  This mimicking of adult behavior is a charming aspect of the film, as these kids spend a lot of time inside the congested four walls of the room, where constantly rubbing elbows can grow testy, as they taunt and tease one another.  His wife Andais (Kaycee Moore, also in Killer of Sheep) is exhausted from working a job and continually looking after the children, making them help in the preparation of meals or doing the chores, while also making sure they do their homework.  By the time Charlie gets back home, they’re often in bed already, leaving him awake at night contemplating his continual frustrations.  With no money in his pocket, there’s a telling scene when the kids get dressed for Church, with Andais in the hallway taking change from her purse and giving it to Charlie to give to the children, sparing him the humiliation of having nothing to give them.  This offers the appearance of being involved, while the truth is otherwise, especially when he runs into an old flame down the street, a woman he begins hanging around for comfort. 

Andais is not easily fooled, especially when it comes to paying the bills, as some of the money he supposedly earned comes up missing, with Charlie offering a lame excuse to cover his butt, a diversionary technique used since the dawn of time, but Andais is having none of it, as it’s affecting the rest of the family, so his little misdirection plot misfires, only aggravating things further, as she needs some regular income from her husband that just never seems to come, instead it’s a day here or there, but nothing regular.  This kitchen scene explodes into genuine anger and indignation, as Andais has put up with his two-timing with a hussy down the street, which she hears about from everyone on the block, which is demeaning enough, working like a dog and then hearing people laugh at her situation, where even the kids are asking about it, but she can’t take the fact money is disappearing into someone else’s pocket, as her children need things she can’t afford all on her own.  For him to be so useless at this stage in his life, it’s as if he’s never really grown up and learned to face his responsibilities.  While he pleads that he’s doing the best that he can, claiming everyday he’s trying, she angrily reacts, “Don’t try, do it, do it!”  Exasperated beyond belief, she breaks down in a soul-crushing chorus of “I’m tired, tired, tired…Start trying to be a man.”  And herein lies the heart of the film, pointing out how joblessness leads not only to a road to oblivion but to a condition of emasculation, as men learn how to evade or con their way through life rather than accept responsibilities.  In impoverished, segregated neighborhoods, jobs are hard to come by, so this emasculation becomes a stigmatized social condition where you give up, becoming resigned to your fate.  While not talked about much in Hollywood portrayals, where blacks are usually oversexed and overly aggressive, this inner resignation works its way into the gut of a man, leading to a kind of hopeless paralysis, where he has to literally re-learn what he’s supposed to do, as men in similar circumstances are on every street corner, each one lying and bluffing their way through, but they only end up conning themselves.  With so few role models, Charlie has few options to turn to for advice, seeking out the neighborhood barber, asking how a man is supposed to find work when there’s none around.  It’s an understated scene, one with no easy answers, with the usual advice that you have to get up earlier than the next guy and literally beat him to whatever job is available, claiming there is no other choice.  He adds that there’s plenty of guys that can pull that off for awhile, but they can’t seem to do it on a regular basis.  With that brief aside, the film ends with a self-imposed ambiguity, where Charlie has to turn his back on a couple of swindlers, literally walking “away” from them, but where he’s heading is a complete unknown.     

Preceded by a 13-minute short, THE POCKETBOOK (1980), which was also shot by Charles Burnett and two other UCLA students, the film is based upon a short story by Langston Hughes entitled Thank You, Ma'am (by Langston Hughes) 3-page short story, 1958 (pdf), adapted and directed by Woodberry, given plenty of flexibility, particularly in the improvisational opening, which resembles the playfulness of Burnett’s Killer of Sheep (1979), showing children at play in abandoned industrial zones, hopping on trains, or walking on rails, fleeting images that inspired the early indie work of David Gordon Green in George Washington (2000).  Using a Leadbelly blues song as a continual refrain, this wordless opening introduces us to one kid, initially seen among a group of five, but later this anonymous youth (Ray Cherry) takes it upon himself to try to snatch the purse of an older woman (Ella “Simi” Nelson), who instead catches him by the arm and pulls him all the way into her apartment.  Giving him the business for making the wrong choice, as she hasn’t much to spare, she’s a stern but sympathetic woman who immediately cooks him up a meal, even offers him a few bucks before he leaves, showing him some grandmother kindness, talking to him as if he was a member of her own family, taking great care to make sure her message sinks in.  Many of the night-time street scenes are reminiscent of Kent MacKenzie’s The Exiles (1961), particularly the illuminated store windows on the sidewalk and headlights from the passing street traffic, with additional music by Thelonious Monk and Miles Davis, where the final musical choice is pitch perfect, a final glimpse of this young man released out into the world with just the opening few bars from My Funny Valentine - Miles Davis [1964] - YouTube (15:03). 

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Los Angeles Plays Itself






Kent Mackenzie’s The Exiles, 1961
 








Kent Mackenzie’s The Exiles, 1961
 







Charles Burnett’s Killer of Sheep, 1979
 





LOS ANGELES PLAYS ITSELF    A                    
USA  (169 mi)  2003  d:  Thomas Andersen 

This is the city, Los Angeles, California. They make movies here.  I live here.  Sometimes I think that gives me the right to complain about the way it’s been treated in movies.
—Thom Andersen, film narration by Encke King

Consisting entirely of clips used from more than two hundred films, where one website lists them all, List of movies mentioned in Los Angeles Plays Itself (in order of appearance), with an accompanying narration, Andersen is quick to credit film editor Yoo Seung-Hyun for her “research/text/production,” forming a stream-of-conscious video mosaic humorously explaining how “the most photographed city in the world” could be so utterly misrepresented.  Originally intended to be a lecture shown to his students at the California Institute of the Arts where he has taught film and videomaking since 1987, Anderson grew frustrated by the perpetual lies and distortions expressed by Hollywood studio pictures about the history of the city, but the overall length and meticulous detail of movie clips makes this more of a historical document, a time capsule that in essence freezes in our imaginations countless distorted images of the city, gleefully pointed out in detail by the narrator, Encke King, becoming an essay on film itself and how it mythologizes what it sees.  Divided into three sections, “The City as Backdrop,” “The City as Character,” and “The City as Subject,” with an intermission somewhere in between, the bombardment of early clips is quite simply hilarious, something of a sensory explosion of Hollywood cinema mixing the familiar with the completely obscure, from classics to B-movies, where Andersen’s voice of reason loves to assert “silly geography makes for silly movies,” identifying a chase scene in Sylvester Stallone’s COBRA (1986) where the chase jumps from the Venice Canals to the Los Angeles harbor 30 miles away.  Movies never bother to explain these minor impossibilities, but instead create an overall story built upon the viewer’s supposition that it doesn’t know any better.  Because Andersen lives in Los Angeles, and knows better, he proceeds to debunk the myths, becoming a laceratingly sarcastic piece of vitriol by the end lambasting against the need for movies to continually force-feed a big lie rather than address simple and more meaningful truths that exist for ordinary people.  Lacking that, Andersen is quite right in suggesting how movies “betray my city,” but the blunt force of the director’s passionate emphasis and the rarity of the film clips themselves make this a film whose value will only increase over time.   

From an outsider’s view, Los Angeles is one big cliché, a sprawling city built in the desert, spread out over such an extensive geographical reach that the public transit system is all but non-existent, where everyone needs a car, creating a continuously clogged inter-connecting freeway system that is choked and suffocated by the damning presence of too many cars, where the toxic effects of seemingly immovable smog asphyxiates everyone’s lungs…but the sun shines every day!  Certainly of interest is perennial New Yorker Woody Allen’s take on the city, claiming the only thing good he had to say about Los Angeles was that you could turn right on a red light.  Offering bits of insight and wisdom from film to film, certainly part of the fun in viewing this film is whole-heartedly disagreeing with Andersen’s assertions.  For every bit of insight he offers, claiming he loved watching the TV show Dragnet (1951 – 59) because it was the closest thing in America to Ozu and Bresson with its spare minimalism, or making the intriguing claim about American independent film legend John Cassavetes, that “His comedies face up to tragedy and reject it,” which certainly opens up one’s perspective to call any of his films “comedies,” but after teasing us with this provocative idea, he then buries his premise with what feels like a callous afterthought, “For Cassavetes, happiness was the only truth.  So he drank himself to death.”  Actually Cassavetes in films like Faces (1968), Minnie and Moskowitz (1971), A Woman Under the Influence (1974), The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976), and Love Streams (1984), was one of the few filmmakers whose integration of real Los Angeles locations, including shooting films in his own home, add to the authenticity of his films, where Robert Altman in The Long Goodbye (1973) and Short Cuts (1993) follows in his footsteps.  Robert Aldrich’s classic film noir fatalism was never more beautifully expressed than his use of Los Angeles in Kiss Me Deadly (1955), where Detective Mike Hammer has an actual city address, visiting places at their real locations, where the contrast between this grim, real-life authenticity only heightens the final dreamlike qualities of the apocalyptic ending, perhaps making it an even more horrifying experience because the audience all along can identify with an essential core reality in the film.  

One of the ideas posited by the director comes from his provocative statement, “As a rule, reality is richer than our imaginations,” suggesting some of the more celebrated films about the city, including CHINATOWN (1974), Blade Runner (1982), and L.A. Confidential (1997), are cynical, overly fatalistic views that contribute to a myth of impenetrability, where viewers often confuse this alternate Hollywood reality for the real thing, using it as a basis of historical fact.  One the other hand, some of the more eye-opening images uncovered by Andersen are the movies set in and around the run-down and dilapidated downtown Bunker Hill neighborhood, a now demolished slum with its irregularly shaped streets, steep angular slope of the Angels Flight tramway, shabby rooming houses and Victorian-era mansions memorialized by pulp writers such as Raymond Chandler.  The discovery of Kent Mackenzie’s The Exiles (1961), a time capsule portrait of the Bunker Hill district in the 50’s, is a revelation, chronicling a day in the life of hard-living and hard-drinking native American Indians who have left the reservation to seek non-existent opportunities in the city, causing Andersen to exclaim, “Better than any other movie, it shows that there was once a city here, before they tore it down and built a simulacrum.”  It’s here that the director finds the beating heart of city residents eking out a living, later supported by black independent filmmakers like Billy Woodberry’s Bless Their Little Hearts (1984) or Charles Burnett’s Killer of Sheep (1979) that focus on working-class black families living in South Central Los Angeles living from paycheck to paycheck which comes across as near documentary truth without an ounce of artifice about life or the black experience.  It is here that the natural artistic expression of realism provides more depth and complexity than the more heralded and critically acclaimed, yet melodramatically overblown Hollywood versions that exaggerate and distort the truth, and for that they make tons more money, where the Hollywood business model may as well be a metaphor for capitalism, where the more outrageously exaggerated the myth, the more money the movie brings in.        

Omitted from the film as well as throughout the first century of Hollywood filmmaking is the city’s own often violent history, once a part of Indian territory before being claimed by the Spanish empire, becoming part of Mexican territory until the Mexican–American War, where the entire American southwest was ceded to America in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.  Railroads helped the population swell to over 100,000 by 1900, placing pressure on the city’s water supply, but the completion of the politically controversial Los Angeles Aqueduct in 1913, spearheaded by William Mulholland, assured that water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains could be delivered to the city of Los Angeles, even if it was at the expense of agricultural farmers in the valleys in between who were using the water at the time.  By 1910 there were already ten Hollywood movie companies operating in the city.  Within a decade 80% of the world’s film industry was concentrated in Los Angeles, eventually becoming a major center of wartime manufacturing, such as shipbuilding and aircraft.  The growth of the city was unprecedented following World War II, where the Interstate Highway System of the 50’s and 60’s helped propel suburban growth, where the freeway system connected Los Angeles to a host of surrounding suburban regions and the car became a symbol of the American Dream, popularized by Jan and Dean songs or The Beach Boys in the early 60’s.  While Hollywood loves to tell the story of Bugsy Siegel, they express ignorance in the matters of various racial clashes, like the Watts Riots of 1965 which resulted in 34 deaths and over 1,000 injuries, or the Los Angeles riots of 1992 in South Central Los Angeles which followed the acquittal of police officers on trial in the beating of Rodney King, the worst riots in the city’s history that revealed rampant corruption within the police department, causing widespread looting, arson, assaults, and murder, with 53 deaths and more than 2000 injured, where estimates of property damages topped one billion dollars, which were only quelled after bringing in soldiers from the National Guard, the 7th Infantry Division and the Marines. 

“If the world really is falling down around us, can’t we at least try and understand what started its collapse?”  Citing a continual barrage of destruction brought down upon the city with a host of Hollywood disaster movies, or endless signs hastily posted along street corners to direct wayward cast and crew members to the locations of a daily movie shoot, Andersen offers sharp observations about the undervalued modern architecture, often used as a symbol of vice and corruption, or as props for destruction in disaster movies.  Coining the phrase “high tourism” for tourist art directors like Antonioni’s Zabriskie Point (1970) or Jacques Demy’s MODEL SHOP (1969), Europeans that may as well be strangers in a strange land, filming the city as if seeing it for the first time, or “low tourism” which offers a cynical, one-dimensional view of the city, like John Boorman’s POINT BLANK (1967), where Andersen claims “People who hate Los Angeles love POINT BLANK.”  While gazing at The Hollywood Sign that sits atop the Hollywood Hills, Andersen informs us the film title actually originates with Fred Halsted’s “gay porn masterpiece” L.A. PLAYS ITSELF (1972), though this Los Angeles native director wouldn’t be caught dead using the abbreviation.  Finally the director suggests there are films that defeat the myths about the city, where tension remains between using Los Angeles as a metaphor and the actual city itself, where Andersen believes the city deserves more than the conventional treatment it has received.  While it is a city born out of racial strife and economic exploitation, the chief aim of the film is to restore the city’s heritage above the lies and myths that have distorted its image and reputation.  Highlighting the city’s landmarks, the Griffith Observatory, the Bradbury Building, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Angels Flight, Frank Lloyd Wright’s Ennis House, or Union Station, Andersen lends a kind of surreal beyond the grave anger that Terence Davies brings to his excoriated portrait of his hometown, Liverpool, England in Of Time and the City (2008), both bitingly sarcastic films, though Andersen targets the film industry with the same feverish moral indignation as Davies attacks the Catholic church, both personally affected by the devastating lies and deception that are inherent in both corporate enterprises, where the lure of the myth is used as scented perfume to attract potential customers while lining their pockets with the proceeds from the business at hand.