Elia Kazan

[Polybius]

Anybody have a secret crush on the never mentioned "Wild River"? Perhaps it is me and my thing for Monty but I have alway thought this film is severely underrated. Can it be underrated when no one even talks about it?

From a couple of weeks ago:

His later film, Wild River, is one that I've always liked. It has a nice early performance from Lee Remick (who had already stood up nicely with Stewart and George C. Scott in the great Anatomy of a Murder) and a typically raw and open hearted performance from the post-accident Montgomery Clift.

[Polybius]

It's been a while since I've seen it, but it's a terrific film.

Lee Remick gets more to do than in A Face In The Crowd (not that she didn't make the most of her limited screen time in that role) and Clift turns in one of his best and most heartfelt post-accident performances. It also features some fine cinematography (not a feature of most of Kazan's work.) It's an underappreciated gem.

[exte]

So no mention of Elia Kazan creating the Actors Studio in 1947? That has no basis or historical significance to either his career or the history of acting in America? I just watched America, America tonight (available off of google video, though I went ahead and ordered a PAL dvd from eBay after absorbing the shock from the film) and realized I have (already) five films in my collection that I didn't necessarily think of as "Kazan" films like I do with Kurosawa or any other director. As an intense film buff, that's shameful, but as a Greek I don't know what to say... As for this thread and the general attitude of Kazan and his widespread treatment as a nonperson in the shadows of film history - of which I myself have been somewhat guilty or convinced, and how there's still not yet a boxset with his name on it or how some of his best films have yet to even be released on dvd (America, America) is beyond me - I will quote Martin Scorsese:

"If the handful of film directors we refer to as masters have one thing in common, it's that they each brought something new to the movies, something that had been previously unimaginable. Elia Kazan is most definitely a master, and what he brought to the medium was a frankness - a brutal frankness, in fact - about life. In films like On the Waterfront and East of Eden, he stripped the glossy, genteel surfaces away from American movies, and he got at a greater, more piercing truth. I'll never forget my first experience of those films, as an adolescent. The raw, physical quality of the acting left an indelible impression, and laid a solid foundation which I tried to build from in my own work years later. Kazan's films are never sweet or easy, but they are all deeply rewarding. This book (Kazan on Kazan), an invaluable addition to film scholarship, allows aspiring filmmakers to study the working methods and wisdom of one of our greatest artists."

Anyway, here's more on the Actors Studio history. To desperately catch up with the man, I have "A Life", his 800 page autobiography which so far is a hell of a book, Schickel's book (which my mom got for me at the dollar store and set off this firestorm), a used vhs copy of "Elia Kazan: A Director's Journey", "Elia Kazan: Interviews", A Face in the Crowd dvd, and the aforementioned Kazan on Kazan (1999) and America, America. Oh, and the Kazan on Kazan book from 1974 my library has and I put that on hold, too... And in case anyone is wondering, the five Kazan films I had that I didn't give much thought of are On the Waterfront, East of Eden, Panic in the Streets, Gentleman's Agreement and The Last Tycoon...

[domino harvey]

Elia Kazan is a traitor and I hope he dies in hell!

I had no idea Ed Harris posted here

[exte]

I like a few of his films, but the power in Waterfront comes directly from Brando, not Mr Kazan.

I can certainly understand loving a performance, but could never see myself praising a whole film--and further a whole ouvre--on the basis of one element that should logically be working towards something larger and not be and end in itself. Brando may give a great performance, but if it is to no end outside of itself then its rewards seem hollow. Finally, the mere allowing of actors to do great work is a fairly shallow aesthetic since it really reduces to just not inhibiting the work of others, and further shows no individual fingerprints--such a thing has been done by many other people and bears no special mark of the larger maker.

Once again, his existence is a non-existence. Nevermind that:

Directed 21 different actors in Oscar-nominated performances: James Dunn, Celeste Holm, Gregory Peck, Dorothy McGuire, Anne Revere, Jeanne Crain, Ethel Barrymore, Ethel Waters, Karl Malden, Vivien Leigh, Kim Hunter, Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn, Eva Marie Saint, Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger, Jo Van Fleet, James Dean, Carroll Baker, Mildred Dunnock and Natalie Wood. Dunn, Holm, Malden, Leigh, Hunter, Quinn, Brando, Saint and Van Fleet all won Oscars for their performances in one of Kazans movies.

[Polybius]

I'm probably setting some dubious record by quoting myself for a second time in this thread, but...just to be clear

I don't think it's a vital part of the experience in his films, the way it is for Anthony Mann or John Ford (who often had the opposite problem of having pretty backgrounds with stiffs in the foreground, mouthing banalities.)

That refers to Ford, only. Nobody ever spoke banally in any Anthony Mann film that I've ever seen.

[Scharphedin2]

Kazan was clearly a gigantic figure in the history of American cinema. I have seen most of his films, and very few of them have failed to move me in their understanding of human experience and emotion. And, yes they are frank, and they all have wonderful performances from the wide range of actors that Kazan worked with throughout his career, and many of the films are visually splendid -- East of Eden and Wild River are textbook examples of effective composition for the wide screen. It has been longer since I saw Waterfront, Streetcar, and Zapata, but all of them have left me with unforgetable impressions of Kazan's compositions and effective use of black and white.

From what I gather, many people feel inclined to slight the director on the basis of his decision to witness at McCarthy's communist witch hunt trials. As with many of these historical events down through time, none of us born in the past 30, 40 or 50 years are really in a position to judge. How is it possible for us to know the alternatives Kazan was faced with. Seeing the man receive an honorary Oscar some years before his death, I was stricken with the look on his face, and his comment to the effect that he just wanted to get off that stage and away from the scrutiny of the public. I cannot know, but the impression was of a human being crushed by decades of vicious criticism, and probably personal regret. But, we still cannot know what went on in his life and mind at the time, when he named the names of his colleagues. Clearly, Kazan was a truly humane individual, or he could not have made the films he did; surely, any course other than the one he took must have been of even more dire consequence to him than that of collaborating.

The point is that we don't know, and it should not matter when considering the quality of his films. And, any question concerning the quality of those films is easily settled by sitting down and viewing them.

Fascinating to think about the connection between Scorsese and Kazan. I had not thought about this before, but the debt is of course very obvious in many of Scorsese's early films.

[Polybius]

From what I gather, many people feel inclined to slight the director on the basis of his decision to witness at McCarthy's communist witch hunt trials.

Not McCarthy literally. He chaired a Senate committee. Kazan and the others testified in front of the House Unamerican Activities Committee, chaired by an oaf named J. Parnell Thomas (who himself was later convicted of corruption, winding up in Danbury federal prison along with Ring Lardner, Jr and Lester Cole of the Hollywood Ten.)

As with many of these historical events down through time, none of us born in the past 30, 40 or 50 years are really in a position to judge. How is it possible for us to know the alternatives Kazan was faced with.

That's far too pat. None of these events happened under cover of secrecy. Many of the principals recorded their views and impresions then and in later years. The historical record is rich and easily accessed.

I cannot know, but the impression was of a human being crushed by decades of vicious criticism, and probably personal regret.

If he was crushed, or evinced any personal regret, he did a damned impressive job of hiding it for several decades.

surely, any course other than the one he took must have been of even more dire consequence to him than that of collaborating.

Perhaps you would care to outline that course? More than a few people refused and took a hit to their careers. Some of them were able to resume their work in a few years, but none of them were anywhere near Kazan's stature. He possessed a unique position among those expected to testify. We'll never know how he would have fared, but it would have been far more difficult to bury such a noted and accomplished director than it was to marginalize generally anonymous writers and actors who weren't leading box office stars.

The point is that we don't know, and it should not matter when considering the quality of his films. And, any question concerning the quality of those films is easily settled by sitting down and viewing them.

No argument there.

However, I think there is a perception floating in this thread that Kazan is such a pariah that he's nearly on Leni Riefensthal's level, a view that I don't think is borne out by the facts. He's still a controversial figure, but I don't know too many people, even those who dislike him and his actions, who deny the greatness of his body of work, myself included.

[Scharphedin2]

The point is that we don't know, and it should not matter when considering the quality of his films. And, any question concerning the quality of those films is easily settled by sitting down and viewing them.

No argument there.

Apologies for a fairly unclear and weak post yesterday, Polybius. This was really the most important point I was trying to make, and I am happy that you agree that Kazan's films have value (as is clear after reading back over the thread).

[Mr Sausage]

I like a few of his films, but the power in Waterfront comes directly from Brando, not Mr Kazan.

I can certainly understand loving a performance, but could never see myself praising a whole film--and further a whole ouvre--on the basis of one element that should logically be working towards something larger and not be and end in itself. Brando may give a great performance, but if it is to no end outside of itself then its rewards seem hollow. Finally, the mere allowing of actors to do great work is a fairly shallow aesthetic since it really reduces to just not inhibiting the work of others, and further shows no individual fingerprints--such a thing has been done by many other people and bears no special mark of the larger maker.

Once again, his existence is a non-existence. Nevermind that:

Directed 21 different actors in Oscar-nominated performances: James Dunn, Celeste Holm, Gregory Peck, Dorothy McGuire, Anne Revere, Jeanne Crain, Ethel Barrymore, Ethel Waters, Karl Malden, Vivien Leigh, Kim Hunter, Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn, Eva Marie Saint, Lee J. Cobb, Rod Steiger, Jo Van Fleet, James Dean, Carroll Baker, Mildred Dunnock and Natalie Wood. Dunn, Holm, Malden, Leigh, Hunter, Quinn, Brando, Saint and Van Fleet all won Oscars for their performances in one of Kazans movies.

It's a strange feeling to be quoted for something you wrote years ago and don't even remember writing; but I think my point was not to devalue the work that goes into helping an actor utilize their full potential, but to point out that applying your critical focus to only that one element devalues the rest of the good work put into the film, as tho' everything else were set trapping behind an actor's grand monologue. There should be--must be--more to a film than just one great performance, else it's hardly a film at all.

I also question the auteurist application of the "actor's director." David Lynch is an actor's director, in the sense that he gets unbelieveable performances out of actors, includings ones you never felt had such potential in them. But would anyone hold this up as being a Lynch signature, a part of his unique artistic stamp? No. It's a talent he shares with many other directors, and more importantly, with the actors themselves, who deserve no less than 50% of the credit.

All I tried to say is that if Kazan is a great director then there is more to his movies.

[exte]

I've been thinking about how people who directed theater in Kazan's day compare in terms of their career paths, like Orson Welles and how they differed. I've also been thinking about other directors with scandalous histories who still continued on like Roman Polanski, and I have to say I don't think the outrage over what he did compares to the zealous rage over Kazan's naming of names (that were perhaps named, already?) Maybe if I find actual footage of this famous hearing in 1952 I will get a better perspective... I also wonder if the bitterness over his honorary Oscar in 1999 in anyway influenced the drop of 11 spaces that placed On the Waterfront out of the top ten in the AFI's Top 100 list last year.

[Polybius]

I've also been thinking about other directors with scandalous histories who still continued on like Roman Polanski, and I have to say I don't think the outrage over what he did compares to the zealous rage over Kazan's naming of names (that were perhaps named, already?)

They were. Again, that's not the point.

He helped unscrupulous people ruin the careers of people in less secure positions than himself. He participated in this effort of his own free will, albeit under duress. However much you like his films, and I like most of them, you simply can't scrub that from his record. You can't scrub Polanski's crime from his, either, and they're both pikers compared to John Landis, but that doesn't make me love Animal House any less. It simply informs me on what kind of man was in the chair making it.

[knives]

Of the available discs for The Visitors which is the best quality?