|
Post by geode on Aug 10, 2019 8:32:55 GMT
I suck at criticism, I don't never know what i'm talking about, but... He seems like a fish out of water, in this movie . lol.
In a way, you do know what you're talking about here, because "a fish out of water" is exactly what Holly Martins (Cotten) is: a true, 20th-century "innocent abroad," to borrow a phrase from Mark Twain, uninformed and unprepared for the corruption and political intrigue in postwar Vienna. While the film is constructed in mystery form, the central drama revolves around Holly's loss of that innocence, as the scales fall from his eyes about his old friend Harry, and about issues like trust, loyalty, love, betrayal and the way the world works when desperation coexists with predatory opportunism. Yes, this is very true. Holly being a fish out of water is central to the plot and theme. I rather frequently have seen people analysing the film as saying that he is not very bright, and what they really are reacting to his his being naive. In recent years I have found what he does in the sewers to be considered a violation of his principals and integrity. I don't believe I ever saw that interpretation in decades past. Is the perception of morality shifting?
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Aug 10, 2019 20:47:34 GMT
In a way, you do know what you're talking about here, because "a fish out of water" is exactly what Holly Martins (Cotten) is: a true, 20th-century "innocent abroad," to borrow a phrase from Mark Twain, uninformed and unprepared for the corruption and political intrigue in postwar Vienna. While the film is constructed in mystery form, the central drama revolves around Holly's loss of that innocence, as the scales fall from his eyes about his old friend Harry, and about issues like trust, loyalty, love, betrayal and the way the world works when desperation coexists with predatory opportunism. Yes, this is very true. Holly being a fish out of water is central to the plot and theme. I rather frequently have seen people analysing the film as saying that he is not very bright, and what they really are reacting to his his being naive. In recent years I have found what he does in the sewers to be considered a violation of his principals and integrity. I don't believe I ever saw that interpretation in decades past. Is the perception of morality shifting? It's an interesting question I admit not having considered, and off the top of my head, I'm honestly not sure. Maybe you could expand upon it. I can say this much: perhaps I hadn't considered it because it seems to fit so well from the standpoints of both dramatic construction and thematic unity. Holly, writer of Zane Grey-like old west fiction, finds himself in the position of administering "frontier justice" by his own hand, but also able to do so sympathetically out of what remains of his sense of friendship toward Harry. EDIT: With a couple or so hours since posting to consider those issues, I still have no clear opinion on the first, but have some thoughts on the second: "Is the perception of morality shifting?" Since we're talking films, there are two ways to approach it: 1) movie morality; 2) real-life morality. What do I mean by these? By 1949, there had been decades of westerns, crime dramas and private-eye yarns in which the nominal hero - frontier sheriff, urban cop or private gumshoe - summarily executes the clear-cut bad guy(s) in the final reel. I can't say to what extent these dramatic resolutions influenced attitudes toward real-life justice or merely reflected those existing at the time, but they often seem simplistic from today's points of view. As an example, at the climax of one of the films noir I most admire (from only two years prior to The Third Man), the calm, methodical, straight-arrow police detective fatally shoots - in the back from an upper-floor window - the unarmed killer he's been after as the guilty party runs away down the street. That's the sort of thing that now generates public outrage when occurring in the real world, and would be acceptable on the screen (I'm guessing) only in cartoonish action features with high body counts in service to youth audience tastes (but equally simplistic). And that's perhaps where movie morality and real-life morality both converge and diverge: what causes public outrage in reality can be cheered from a theater seat in entertainment that most audiences understand to be purely escapist. In that sense, it can be said that morality has indeed shifted...although current political attitudes more than suggest that some have regressed in that regard (and that's all I'll say about that). What director Reed and screenwriter Greene do with their version of "frontier justice" is suffuse it with emotional investment for both characters and viewers that goes beyond "black hat/white hat" simplicity, and ultimately, the moral choices involved are murkier and more profound for Holly than for anyone else: Calloway, Anna or even Harry himself.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Aug 12, 2019 4:37:17 GMT
Yes, this is very true. Holly being a fish out of water is central to the plot and theme. I rather frequently have seen people analysing the film as saying that he is not very bright, and what they really are reacting to his his being naive. In recent years I have found what he does in the sewers to be considered a violation of his principals and integrity. I don't believe I ever saw that interpretation in decades past. Is the perception of morality shifting?It's an interesting question I admit not having considered, and off the top of my head, I'm honestly not sure. Maybe you could expand upon it. I can say this much: perhaps I hadn't considered it because it seems to fit so well from the standpoints of both dramatic construction and thematic unity. Holly, writer of Zane Grey-like old west fiction, finds himself in the position of administering "frontier justice" by his own hand, but also able to do so sympathetically out of what remains of his sense of friendship toward Harry. EDIT: With a couple or so hours since posting to consider those issues, I still have no clear opinion on the first, but have some thoughts on the second: "Is the perception of morality shifting?" Since we're talking films, there are two ways to approach it: 1) movie morality; 2) real-life morality. What do I mean by these? By 1949, there had been decades of westerns, crime dramas and private-eye yarns in which the nominal hero - frontier sheriff, urban cop or private gumshoe - summarily executes the clear-cut bad guy(s) in the final reel. I can't say to what extent these dramatic resolutions influenced attitudes toward real-life justice or merely reflected those existing at the time, but they often seem simplistic from today's points of view. As an example, at the climax of one of the films noir I most admire (from only two years prior to The Third Man), the calm, methodical, straight-arrow police detective fatally shoots - in the back from an upper-floor window - the unarmed killer he's been after as the guilty party runs away down the street. That's the sort of thing that now generates public outrage when occurring in the real world, and would be acceptable on the screen (I'm guessing) only in cartoonish action features with high body counts in service to youth audience tastes (but equally simplistic). And that's perhaps where movie morality and real-life morality both converge and diverge: what causes public outrage in reality can be cheered from a theater seat in entertainment that most audiences understand to be purely escapist. In that sense, it can be said that morality has indeed shifted...although current political attitudes more than suggest that some have regressed in that regard (and that's all I'll say about that). What director Reed and screenwriter Greene do with their version of "frontier justice" is suffuse it with emotional investment for both characters and viewers that goes beyond "black hat/white hat" simplicity, and ultimately, the moral choices involved are murkier and more profound for Holly than for anyone else: Calloway, Anna or even Harry himself. Spoilers folliow: Well, as I said, the most modern critiques I have been reading feel that Holly has been compromised by what has occurred in Vienna and acts against his native and noble principles by shooting Harry.... that it is murder. Obviously Calloway does not view it this way in the film. He has of course even admonished Holly to shoot Harry on sight. I have read a couple of times that this line from Calloway was added to satisfy American censors who refused to allow "mercy" killings, that it makes it basically Holly being instructed by the police to do what he does, sort of like a deputy carrying out the law. Earlier in the film we have Holly telling Calloway that he doesn't like policemen, that in his novels he calls them sheriffs. it would seem that in Holly's novels sheriffs are not necessarily straight-forward figures that are "true blue".... he may be a better author than he gives himself credit to be. Was Graham Greene having fun with what he wrote for an author in this work? Anyway, Holly finds himself in a role he has earlier disdained. Despite what the censor forbade, I think what does come across is a mercy killing. It is open to interpretation but many of us read into Harry's eyes and motions at the end a signal to Holly to act. He knows if captured that his death by execution is all but certain should he survive to trial and it would be better for a quick end.... at his request, from an old friend. Perhaps audiences in 1949 saw it more as avenging the death of Sgt. Paine, perhaps in a simple way the most likeable character in the film. The irony is Holly acting in the role he has earlier disdained. One might say that he has matured, and now sees the world as less B&W and more morally ambiguous. But really, ultimately has he violated his principles and betrayed Harry or instead done him one last favor? I would guess that Anna and Calloway see it differently.
|
|