The Aesthetic and Economic Characteristics of The 'Film Europe - Essay Example

? Discuss the aesthetic as well as economic characteristics of the ‘Film Europe” movement, referring to a filmic case study of your choice [Course] [Professor’s name] [Date]Introduction The Great American Hegemony has retained its economic autocracy for more than a century. Right from the birth of the 20th century, the US Congress had begun to consciously mold its economic stratum into a shock proof imperialist extravaganza. This surmounting imperialist approach towards the global economy, made USA as the immediate ‘universal bone of contention’. Nations felt an urge to create long term bilateral relations with this humungous political blitzkrieg. There after gradually & quite naturally, the ‘American influence’ begun to overflow in diverse domains. It slowly initiated to engulf spectrums such as art, theatre, culture, music, films. The next step was to classify those apparently ‘non political’ artistic components at par with the lines of the grand old American maneuver. This cultural autocracy created a stir amongst the enlightened & elitist in Europe. Film corporations like the Metro Goldwyn Mayer had already infiltrated the economies of third world nations like India by 1920 (Thomas, 1987, pp.1-2). While American film corporations’ encashed rich dividends from colonial markets, the European heavy weights were coerced to remain at a bay. This naturally sprouted a furor across the cultural horizon. The European mavericks & thespians felt that a cultural reincarnation was long overdue. German filmmakers like Dupont, Eichberg & Bolvary, plunged into the galaxy of filmdom, with the aim to break the American jinx (Thomas, 1987, pp.1-2). Their unbridled apathy against US monopoly led them to the shores of Britain, from where they churned out numerous path breaking films. This unique film movement came to be known as the ‘Film Europe Movement’, & gained massive popularity throughout the European peninsula. The noble ideals of combating capitalist aggression with socialist principles augured magically with the masses. ‘Film Europe’ managed to successfully batter up American aggression, intertwined with egalitarian theologies. The concluding research deals with the FILM EUROPE MOVEMENT with E.A. DuPont’s English film ‘Piccadilly’ juxtaposing the centre stage. The Birth of the ‘Film Europe Movement’ The culmination of the First World War had precisely ravaged up the economies of France & Italy. They were in no position to stifle or even stand a chance against the ever expanding ‘American menace’. The calculating American theorists embarked on their global economic conquest, & by 1917, had South America, Australia, Asia Minor & vast territories of Africa amidst their grasp. The birth of the ‘Film Europe Movement’ was hence not just a united cultural Endeavour, but a collaborated strategy of economic survival. These Siamese goals gave birth to quintessential cinematic forms, the German ‘expressionism’, the French ‘impressionism’ & the Soviet schooling of ‘montage’. Interestingly, as time stroked away, films began to emerge which contained a profuse blend of two or more cinematic schooling. For example, Marcel L’Herbier’s French saga, ‘Don Juan et Faust’ borrowed extensive German expressionism throughout its making, while Karl Grune’s 1923 German biopic ‘Die Strasse’, successfully utilized French impressionism in its narration (Thomas, 1987, pp.2-5). Later of course, hoards of films were created blending two or more cinematic ideologies. This pan European cinematic outburst not only created an upheaval in the European domain, but also proved to be cinematically superior to its American counterparts. The unique ideas, bold subjects, & timeless concepts gave birth to films that would change the course of history itself. Geniuses like Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevold Pudovkin & Lev Kuleshov made films which enthralled film voyeurs throughout the planet. Films began to be created with an international appeal. This continental outlook started to crack the American jinx (Thomas, 1987, pp.2-5). But the united European front did not have anything easy. The American film corporations had gigantic shares in the German film fraternity. Though Germany had emerged from the First World War with a stronger cinematic infrastructure than Italy or France, it somehow remained as one of America’s most loyal foreign customers. The American production houses controlled a massive 45% share in the German domestic periphery as opposed to the 36% share held by the local power houses (Thomas, 1987, pp.5-10). The general reservation against the Germans just after the termination of the world war did not help anybody’s cause either. Things took a turn with the formation & establishment of the Universum Film Aktiengesellschaft, i.e. the most monumentous German film corporation created on a public- private partnership basis (Thomas, 1987, pp.5-10). This was perhaps the landmark in the history of German film industry, as big scale investments began to come on a cyclic basis. The German filmdom, which previously had a torn & tattered look, gradually began to bloom with a disciplined approach towards the art of film making. Their approach towards the world market began to be paired with a sense of confidence. Nevertheless the US coercion continued to trouble the German production houses even after 1926. Thus creating a formidable nexus against a common foe became evident. The economic as well as the practical qualm on the forefront was the nature & extent of American films. With 18,000 theatres & a guaranteed global economic return, the American industry always possessed an edge. American films could easily spend gigantic budgets on films even with low contents, because of their certified global reach. As a result, big budget movies could be sold at a trivial rate. Hence those lavish films could be sold to local producers at a much cheaper rate (Thomas, 1987, pp.5-10). The European films on the other hand faced optimum economic hurdles. As their initial market reach was nothing compared to that of the US, European producers were compelled to sell low budget films at higher prices only to retrieve their cost price. This obviously did not augur well for their plannings & programmes. Local distributors & exhibitors of buying nations did not seem inclined in buying low budget ‘serious films’ as opposed to cheap lavish films which promised of untapped grandeur, pomp, & entertainment (Thomas, 1987, pp.3-7). The fathers of the film movement were well aware of these hindrances. As time ticked by, they realized that remaining loosened & scattered up would squander their enhancement on all fronts. Thus from divided, they began to ponder over the idea of being united. To compete with America, they had to create a united front based on any means what so ever. The notion of pan-European cooperation began to gain popularity on the political front as well. The leftist wing, which was gaining astronomical popularity, began to advocate of a joint European force to combat capitalist aggression. The policy makers of the European nations also rediscovered that the First World War had completely toppled the pre existing economic balance. Henceforth, the seeds of socialism crept amidst the ranks of central European stalwarts, who realized that rotten age old imperialistic decisions would not reap too much success. In the years 1923 & 1924, a Franco-German unification seemed plausible. Other spectrums, such as the business corporations, also supported the idea of a united Europe for their own vested interests (Thomas, 1987, pp.5-10). The newly evolved UFA chieftain Erich Pommer emerged as one of the strongest leaders in the pan European circuit. Supporters & followers of the movement vested their hopes & aspirations upon Pommer & his band of associates. Pommer emphasized the urgency to create “European films” & not just English, French, or Italian movies. Thus ‘continental films ‘turned out to be the need of the hour as well as the order of the day (Thomas, 1987, pp.5-10). Unfortunately, even after all these measures; the movement could not prosper at full gusto. The American-German lineage was too strong to break. The American hegemony persistently tormented the German industry till 1926 (Thomas, 1987, pp.5-10). Thereafter the movement came into its own. Effective & aggrandized cooperative measures made the American share in Germany fall rapidly from 45% in 1925-26 to 32% in 1930 (Thomas, 1987, pp.5-10). All the major European nations like England, France, Germany, & Italy had increased shares of film markets in each other’s geographic area. While path breaking films continued to enthrall the viewers, the dividends transfused the much needed oxygen for the down trodden investors. But quite unfortunately, this cyclic order failed to keep up for long. Dooms day came faster than anyone expected. While the US economic aggression was being withheld, another catastrophic event occurred on the financial frontiers. The dreaded ‘Great Depression’ arrived like a pre ordained calamity. The depression struck a fearsome blow beneath the knees, a force which none of the European countries had ammunitions to deal with. Economies began to suffer incessantly. There was a single way out of this abyss of despair. The bond of cooperation was required to be broken off (Thomas, 1987, pp.5-10). The European euphoria met a premature death. Nations withdrew from economic & cultural cooperation & started to build up their respective internal economies. Bilateral & trilateral relations had to be vaporized for the crudest purpose of existence. As nations withdrew from bipartite political & cultural havens, the fate of the conjoined European film fraternity dealt a fatal blow. Thus the depression was definitely one of the most influential catalysts that sunk the raft of brotherhood. But this was not the sole determinant (Thomas, 1987, pp.1-5). The arrival of sound & the introduction of talkies in the US was another factor that added a nail in the coffin of despair. While sound had been introduced in the US in 1926-27, it arrived in Europe as late as 1929 (McNally, 2010, pp. 35-40). During the initial stages, the weaponry & artistry of ‘sound’ was not used in Europe to much effect. On the other hand, the Americans made optimal usage of this newly founded galvanizer, right from the word go. This utilization & non utilization of the ‘art of sound’, made a vast difference between the combatants of this epic cultural struggle. Not only this; the diversity in European languages as contrary to a single American language proved fatal. Audiences faced trouble deciphering alien mediums of conversations in Europe, while the English speaking custodians welcomed the introduction of voice & sound gleefully. It may be concluded that sound in fact wrenched the common European order or rather ripped it apart. While sound unified the states of America, it befriended the racially diversified European peers. Even the impartation & implication of dubbing & subtitles could not resist the inevitable. People simply did not have the patience or interest to concentrate on the subtitles alongside the frames (Higson, 1999, pp.15-35). The great depression & the arrival of sound had a two pronged effect on the outcome of European film industries. In all the nations, an added cost of wiring the cinema houses had to be coughed out by the local exhibitors. This was indeed a body blow for the already financially drained out & exasperated European exhibitors. As they began to wire up their theatres, they started to dig up their own graves. Sound guided ‘the great depression’ directly into the production rooms of the EU film fraternity (Higson, 1999, pp.15-35). Finally, USSR comes into the scenario. Soviet Russia was something larger than what the world ascertained. It was something greater than Vladimir Lenin or Rosa Luxembourg or Count Leo Tolstoy or maybe Maxim Gorky (Bartolo, 2001, pp.1-2). It was a set of new ideals – something, which the west did not approve of; something to which the USA had a perennial allergy. The fake idiosyncrasies of American modernism were beginning to be exposed. People questioned religion, some even thwarted it. Profit making as a process came under the scanner. Naturally the American extremists viewed the ‘movement of equality’ as a threat to their very existence. Soviet Russia could have been a determining factor. But sadly it abstained from active participation in the movement. Even though Russia formed the German-soviet film company Prometheus in Berlin in 1924, it never became a major participant in the film Europe movement. The soviet ditheism was too much to take for the European family. Eventually it crashed (Thomas, 1987, pp-1-5). Dupont & the Creation of ‘Piccadilly’ In the centre stage of all these bilateral clamoring, German born film maker E. A. Dupont produced one of his most vibrant as well as versatile creation - ’Piccadilly’. Directed by Dupont, scripted by Arnold Bennett & financed by British International, Elstreet Studios, ‘Piccadilly’ was essentially an English production with a universal appeal. ‘Piccadilly’ released at the Little Carnegie Playhouse on the 13th of July, 1929, armed with sound effects & an ethereally synchronized background score (Bartolo, 2001, p.1). The ensemble cast of the film comprised of international talents like Gilda gray, Anna May Wong & Jameson Thomas. The film became so much popular throughout Europe that it broke the international barriers & released in the US. The film, its wily characters, & the effervescent director Ewald Andre DuPont, all reincarnated to become historical phenomena. The grit, maestro, & courage of DuPont had revamped the entire movement to next level. It was DuPont, who made ‘Piccadilly’ possible. Sans his un-put-downable firepower, the film would not have faced the day light (Bartolo, 2001, p.2). E. Andre DuPont was born in Leitz, Germany, in the year 1891 (Bartolo, 2001, p.2). Right from his childhood it seemed that DuPont was pre ordained to conquer the filmy terrestrial. He harnessed profound interest in cinematic language, even when there was no German film industry in existence. At the tender age of 20, DuPont evolved as the most radical film analyst in Germany (Bergfelder & Christian, 2008, pp.24-35). It was a mind boggling as well as an astonishing fact for the thespians of those ages that a 20 year old guy could possess such an effective penetration within the abyss of the art of film making. But this was just the beginning of one of the most intriguing cinematic journeys of all times. Dupont began to pen scripts from the year 1916, & plunged into the milky way of direction in the concluding year itself. Commercial success continued to elude DuPont until 1923. He finally whacked the commercial jinx with his blockbuster picture, ‘The Ancient Law’. The success of this film made DuPont a prized property for production houses outside Hollywood. Be it German expressionism or dynamic mundaneness, DuPont was revolutionary from every aspect. His bold treatments, blazing close shots, riveting screenplays & extra ordinary view points made his movies an artistic delicacy to savor on. In 1925, DuPont lambasted the pre existing social order, with his sex-triangle hyper drama, ‘Variety’ (Bartolo, 2001, p.1). This film rewrote the pages of cinematic history, & effectively throned him as the quintessential emperor of German film noir. After the creation of ‘Variety’, DuPont was ordained & contractualized by the Universal Studios from the US. But DuPont was a man of staunch ideals. His stint at Hollywood proved to be rather ineffective & colorless. After making a single film with the Hollywood goliaths, he left for England to create films of ‘his ordeal’. Dupont made 5 films in Great Britain (Bartolo, 2001, p.1). Amongst those, ‘Piccadilly’ was undoubtedly the pick of the lot. The colors, the approach, the meticulous details, & the directional firepower took the film to the euphorian heights of success. ‘Piccadilly’ was a film that redefined the art of parallel cinema. The manner, in which DuPont exploited the acting prowess of Anna May Wong, was simply unbelievable. He dissected a matinee idol like Gilda gray into the insecure Miss Mabel. Jameson Thomas as the dominating Valentine Wilmot & Cyril Richard as the battered up Victor complete the perfect cinematic aroma. ‘Piccadilly’ is an inter-personal melodrama in essence. It is based on the Piccadilly area of London, where Mabel (Gilda Gray) & Victor (Cyril Richard) are the centrifugal dancers in a renowned cabaret. One night, a patron gets served in a filthy dish & creates a furor (Bartolo, 2001, p.2). The proprietor of the cabaret, Valentine Wilmot (Jameson Thomas), goes in to the kitchen to discover the reason for this unwanted mess, only to witness a young Chinese maid, Shosho (Anna May Wong) entertaining her co workers with a jolly dance. Wilmot’s angst & despair becomes unbounded. He loses himself & fires Victor on trivial pretext of concerning Mabel. As a consequence, Mabel begins to dance alone, resulting in a stark downfall of revenues. In the mean time, Wilmot decides to represent the young Shosho as the cabaret’s latest dancing sensation. Shosho clicks. Her innovative act turns out to be a massive crowd puller. Shosho’s success squeezes out the jealousy from Mabel. She throngs to de throne Shosho. Mabel’s level of despair over steps limits, when Wilmot becomes interested in Shosho. On the other hand Shosho’s over possessive beau turns green in envy after visualizing the latest proceedings. All these plots & sub plots have been sublimely woven into a perpetual assimilation of inter personal under currents by the enigmatic DuPont (Bartolo, 2001, p.2). The reviews of the film were encouraging & as well as exciting. The PHOTOPLAY magazine wrote IN October 1929,’Wonder of wonders- a truly fine British picture! Gilda Gray is starred, but Anna May Wong brings home the bacon’ (Bartolo, 2001, p.1) The New York Times posted on the 14th of July 1929. It wrote,’ Miss Gray seems to have been rediscovered as an actress. For a long time she has been docketed as an exponent of ‘shimmy’, but in ‘Piccadilly’ she appears to show that acting is not above her’ (Bartolo, 2001, p.2). ‘Piccadilly immortalized Anna May Wong. The way she cast out her aura was nothing less than a viewer’s delight. After working with the imperious Douglas Fairbanks in ‘Thief of Baghdad’, this was the character which epitomized her as an actress par excellence (Bartolo, 2001, p.1). e. Piccadilly was the final silent movie in which she enacted. DuPont’s extensive usage of extreme close ups catapulted the mysticism embedded within the almond shaped eyes of Wong. Each frame created a devastating effect. The mesmerizing close ups were definitely one of the catalysts that remained associated with the film’s astounding success. For the US release of this film, verbal & musical frames were conjoined in the effort to sum its appeal at a time when sound had already created an amicable ambience amidst the US viewers (Bartolo, 2001, p.1). Piccadilly as a film was surely one of its kind. Its charm, story line, & idioms continue to rejuvenate cinematic admirers even after so many years. The guile, the boldness & the tantalizing talent of DuPont remains as a quality to admire. The intoxication & charm through which ‘Piccadilly’ penetrates deep into the soul would enable it to remain ‘young & vibrant’ for years to come (Bergfelder, 2008, pp.27). As for the movement, it was not just any other incident, but a definite collage of principles & ideals which bravely confronted the US materialistic approach towards humane life & humanity. The crux of attention should thus be laid on the fight & not on its premature demise. References 1) Higson, A. (1999), ‘Film Europe’ & ‘Film America’: Cinema, Commerce, & Cultural Exchange, New York, University Of Exter Press. 2) Mcnally, K. (2010), Billy Wilder, Movie Maker: Critic Essays On The Films, Mc Farland. 3) Bergfelder, T. (2008), Life Is A Variety Theatre-E. A. Dupont’s Career, In German & British Cinema’, London, Berghahn. 4) Bergfelder, T. & C. Christian (2008), German Speaking Emigres And British Cinema 1925-1950, New York, Berghahn. 5) De Bartolo, J., (2001), Piccadilly (1929) ‘You’re The Little Girl I Saw Dancing In The Sculberg A Few Seconds Ago-Aren’t You’, available at: Http://Www.Silentsaregolden.Com/Debartoloreviews/Rdbpicadilly.Html (accessed on August 17, 2011) 6) Thompson, K. (1987), The End of The ‘Film Europe’ Movement, In T. O'Regan & B. Shoesmith eds. History on/and/in Film. Perth: History & Film Association of Australia, 1987. available at: http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/hfilm/KRISTIN.html (accessed on August 17, 2011) Read More