Tag Archives: Marlene Dietrich

Movies: A MAJORITY OF ONE

Over the weekend, I stumbled across a quiet little movie from 1961 called A MAJORITY OF ONE. Starring Rosalind Russell and Alec Guinness, it deals with cultural and generational differences as a Jewish woman and a Japanese man develop a friendship.

Russell built much of her film career on roles where women broke the mold in some way, either by pursuing a profession (such as the reporter Tildy in HIS GIRL FRIDAY) or by being a free thinker in an era of rigid conformity (as Auntie Mame). In A MAJORITY OF ONE, she plays an older widow, a Russian-Jew that immigrated to America as a child and has spent her life in Brooklyn. Her only son died in WWII’s Pacific theater, and her daughter is now married to an up-and-coming young diplomat. When her son-in-law is posted to Japan, Bertha is persuaded to go there with the young couple. During the ship’s crossing, she meets a Japanese man–a widower whose son also died in WWII and his daughter, a nurse, died in a Hiroshima hospital. Despite a rocky start, Bertha and Mr. Asano overcome misunderstandings, bigotry, and wrong advice from her daughter to establish a friendship.

This is a gentle story, with a message against bigotry that’s in favor of keeping an open mind and relating to people as people and not common stereotypes. I think it’s remarkable to find a film dealing with an older couple just as the Hollywood studio system was crumbling and the industry’s focus shifted toward youth.

I was struck most by the courtesy reflected in the film. Even Bertha and her best friend Essie are unfailingly polite to each other. While that was common at the time, it reflects a layer of civility that we seldom encounter now. We are too casual for such formalities. We are too busy, too rushed, to take the time to compliment the ice bucket a friend is loaning us for the little dinner party we’re giving.

Of course, the film’s stance against bigotry is undercut by the fact that Alec Guinness was cast as a Japanese man. Modern critics, quick to decry the practice of yellowface casting, point out that the choice of Guinness (never mind how good he is) is itself an act of Hollywood bigotry.

So I thought about that issue. The character Charlie Chan, created in the novels by Earl Derr Biggers and appearing on film for the first time in 1931, was designed to present the American moviegoers with a positive Chinese character to balance the portrayal of all Chinese men as an evil Fu Manchu. The role of Chan was played by three successive Caucasian actors–first by the Swedish actor Warner Oland (considered the best)–then by Sidney Toler, and finally by Roland Winters. Interestingly enough, Chan’s sons were played by Asian actors.

As for novelist Pearl S. Buck, she insisted that the film version of her book, THE GOOD EARTH, be played by Asian or Asian-American actors, but Hollywood could not deliver. Instead, big star Paul Muni was cast in the leading role. Who would play his wife, O-lan? Anna May Wong, the first Chinese star on the big screen and a strikingly beautiful actress who had started her film career in 1922, lobbied hard for the role. However, the Hays Code of censorship’s rules forbade her casting. Muni (being white) had to be cast with a white wife. Therefore, German-born actress Luise Rainer was given the role, and she played it exquisitely. Anna May Wong was offered instead the role of an evil dragon lady in the movie, but she turned it down because she didn’t want the only authentic Asian actress in the movie to play a villain.

In the 1932 film SHANGHAI EXPRESS, staring Marlene Dietrich, Anna May Wong plays a very strong supporting role in a film about prostitutes–both Asian and Caucasian–and manages to steal at least part of the movie away from Dietrich. But her role is secondary, not a lead part.

THE DRAGON SEED of 1944 improbably features Katharine Hepburn and Turhan Bey as an Asian couple. And in 1946, Rex Harrison was cast as the king in ANNA AND THE KING OF SIAM opposite Irene Dunne. An even bigger stretch of the imagination is Lee J. Cobb playing the Siamese prime minister in THE KING AND I with Yul Brynner. No amount of squinting and heavy eye makeup could make Cobb look Asian.

But I think the worst offense among all yellowface casting has to be the choice of John Wayne as Genghis Khan in the 1956 flop, THE CONQUEROR. Suffice it to say that this film is listed among the fifty worst movies ever made.

Hollywood did not set out to be bigoted. It did not intend to offend. It has always been driven by economics, and although in the 1920s Asian actors were sometimes utilized in major roles, the films that succeeded featured white actors as the leads. And so to guarantee box-office success, filmmakers moved Asian actors to supportive and minor parts with white stars playing the starring roles.

As for Alec Guinness, who spent six months in Japan observing the culture in order to prepare for his role in A MAJORITY OF ONE, is he to be blamed for taking the part of Mr. Asano?

Is Rosalind Russell to be criticized for playing a Jewess when that was not her actual religion?

If we can’t accept that–because it isn’t authentic–where is the justification for the producers of the BBC television program MERLIN to use a rainbow cast including blacks and Asian actors to play pre-medieval British roles? That’s hardly authentic either.

All I know is that–issues aside–A MAJORITY OF ONE remains a charming film that requires you to use your imagination and accept the casting. Just as you have to use your imagination and accept that Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon could not even remotely pass themselves off as women in SOME LIKE IT HOT.

It’s called “make-believe.” And while that doesn’t excuse the bigotry shown in a film thematically opposed to bigotry, at least the play ran and the movie was made and audiences were exposed to its message.

Give A MAJORITY OF ONE a chance. It has sweet things to say about how far kindness, honesty, good manners, and an open mind can take you.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Story Genius: Agatha Christie and Billy Wilder

As many of you know, I’m a rabid old-movie buff. This week was exciting because I showed my students a 1957 courtroom thriller called WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION. Based on a play by Agatha Christie, the idea was subsequently translated to the screen by genius writer/director/producer Billy Wilder. Christie supplied the plot and the dynamite twists; Wilder fleshed out her characters. (I think I read somewhere that Christie was paid about $450,000 for the film rights. Not bad in 1950s-era money! Even today’s money would do.)

Over the years, whenever I have coached students wanting to write a courtroom drama, nine times out of ten they make the same mistake:  they establish the defendant as their protagonist. In theory, this should work. After all, the protagonist is supposed to have the most at stake and be at the heart of the story.

Well, the defendant has the most at stake, but otherwise is stuck passively in a jail cell, unable to drive the story action. Therefore, the defendant can not be an effective protagonist.

In WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, the protagonist is Sir Wilfrid, an experienced and wily defense barrister considered to be the best in the Old Bailey, but he is recovering from a serious heart attack and his health remains uncertain. His doctors have forbidden him to conduct any more defense trials, yet he cannot resist taking on the case of Leonard Vole who has been accused of murder on circumstantial evidence.

Wilder, directing the film, is smart enough to take his time. We don’t meet the accused, Vole, right away. Instead, Sir Wilfrid is introduced first and shown pitted against his nurse who is determined to make him follow doctor’s orders to take it easy, get plenty of rest, and avoid cigars and brandy. Their conflict starts in the first movie frame and continues to arc over the entire duration of the movie. And that arc about whether Sir Wilfrid will achieve his goal of resuming his trial career is the spine of the story. The primary subplot centers on the trial itself and attempts to gather sufficient evidence to exonerate Sir Wilfrid’s client. And although the trial is gripping–not to mention twisty, thanks to the devious imagination of Dame Agatha–it is the characters that make this film stand out.

Therefore, it is these characters that I use as classroom examples of design, introduction, and revelation of true nature. They have vivid and distinctive entry actions, usually in plot conflict or in dramatic contradiction to audience expectation. They wave numerous distinctive tags–e.g. the nurse Miss Plimsoll in her uniform, carrying her small medical bag, wielding her syringe for Sir Wilfrid’s calcium injections; and Sir Wilfrid’s monocle, his wig, his thermos of coco, his pills, and his cigars. Each of them with possibly the exception of the murder victim is designed with complexity. True nature is revealed and concealed in various ways. At first we think of Sir Wilfrid as a sick old man long past his prime, even a bit of a mischievous buffoon who is rude and unnecessarily gruff, but then we learn how intelligent, how clever, how determined to save his client, how wily, and how caring he is. The characters’ clashing goals and motivations bring all of them to life.

Although several characters are introduced through characteristic entry action, some are brought in differently. One such alternative method is through discussion, whereby two characters are talking about a third character about to appear in the story for the first time. The introduction of the defendant’s wife is done through character discussion. Sir Wilfrid, before meeting her, makes an assumption about her that proves to be entirely erroneous the moment she first appears. His mistake emphasizes our dominant impression of her vividly and unforgettably.

The mystery clues are planted through dialogue and character behavior. In watching the film for the first time, you sense something is off and yet you find yourself doubting your judgment. Is it the actor’s performance? Is the character lying? What’s wrong? As Sir Wilfrid says in frustration, “It’s too symmetrical. Something is wrong, but I can’t put my finger on it!”

I love how the plot is put together. There is comedy and broad exaggeration. There is audience manipulation. There is the buildup of anticipation and the creation of suspense. The two ticking clocks–Sir Wilfrid’s worsening health and the trial’s verdict–keep your attention hooked to the finale. Even the flashback–always a risk to pacing–works beautifully in planting more clues and pointing to motivations.

I don’t know how many times I’ve watched this film. I don’t care, because every time I am struck anew with how well-written it is, how well-plotted and paced it is, how well-acted it is, and how well-directed it is without any reliance on fancy-schmancy special effects. The sets are limited and very tight–reflecting its origins as a play. I’ve read a modern-day review that pokes a hole in the storyline, criticizing it for allowing Vole to exclaim and interrupt during the trial, but I don’t know enough about British courtroom procedures in the 1950s to understand if this is a valid criticism or not. All I perceive as a writer is that Vole’s comments serve a specific plot purpose, and from that restricted perspective they work.

Beyond my enjoyment of the movie’s skillfully employed techniques, I love the reactions of my students. At first they’re delighted to watch a movie in class instead of sitting through a dull lecture. But then they realize it’s an old movie. Even worse, it’s in black and white. They’ve never heard of any of the actors–Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich, Tyrone Power, Elsa Lanchester–and the cars are weird, the clothes are weird, the setting is a London from an era they don’t recognize so it’s also weird. I watch them stiffen in their seats, rolling their eyes and sighing a little. The movie starts with the comedic bit they find cheesy. I can feel them wishing they could ditch class and check their text messages. I know they’re wondering how long this torture will take.

(This time, one brash young man actually asked me if we were going to watch the whole movie. “Yes,” I replied firmly. “You have to stay with it to the end.”)

And then, as always, there comes that moment when I sense a change in the room. The silent intensity in the class tells me they’re absorbed. I know the movie has grabbed my young students by their throats. They are captured by the story question. They want to know what will happen and how it will turn out. And that capture has nothing to do with technicolor, a soaring soundtrack, special effects, wild stunts, exploding buildings, or CGI. It has everything to do with plot and characters–with story.

And that is what writing should be about.

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized