The story behind Shark
seems to be something like this: after a fifteen year run of getting financing
for his punchy low-budget films, Samuel Fuller hit a rough patch in the
mid-60’s and couldn’t get anything. Perhaps out of desperation, he swallowed
some misgivings and decided to work with some inexperienced producers on an
adventure film set in a Sudanese port city. The experience was a mess, but
Fuller escaped intact and cut the film to his general satisfaction; however,
the producers messed around with it, to the extent that he unsuccessfully tried
to get his name removed. Subsequently, despite being one of American cinema’s
great raconteurs, he could hardly bring himself to mention the picture. His
career never regained its earlier pace, but a decade later he managed to make
at least two other astounding pictures: The
Big Red One and White Dog.
Shark
When I watched the film again recently, it was as if the
elements were conspiring to prevent a viewer from gleaning any sense of what
Fuller might have had in mind. I watched it on DVD, but in a terrible print
with awful sound quality. It was released on the Troma label, which is usually
associated with consciously ridiculous exploitation movies, and although
Troma’s intentions seemed entirely respectable – the disc contains several
extras attempting to argue for the film’s merits – the fit seemed inherently
weird. It’s subsequently been released again in a Blu-ray version, so I’m sure
that would help in some respects, but with Fuller long gone and no apparent
hope of recreating his original cut, it’ll always be a bloodied carcass of a
film.
The film stars Burt Reynolds (at the very dawn of his film
career) as Caine, a gunrunner stranded with few resources, looking for a way
out. The only other Westerners around are a pathetic drunk of a doctor (Arthur
Kennedy) and a man and woman engaged in some mysterious underwater “research,”
looking for a new helper after the local boy they engaged was killed by a (of
course) shark. Reynolds takes the job and soon discovers there’s more to the
project than they’ve let on. The set-up also includes a conniving police chief
and a local kid who latches onto Reynolds: it’s the kind of sparse set-up
that’s powered hundreds of Hollywood movies, with vague echoes of Casablanca
and Howard Hawks and plenty of others. Caine is a relentlessly self-defined
protagonist, not without a moral code (he cares about the kid) but generally
happy to work every angle, because everyone else is doing the same. The primary
points of interest include some diverting local colour, good underwater
sequences and a moderately clever twist ending, but none of this is fundamental
to what one usually enjoys about Fuller’s cinema. The film, at least in this
version, doesn’t have much sign of the compelling characterizations, visual
force and clear attitude-striking that marks his best work.
House
of Bamboo
Still, I have a weakness for these bereft back alleys of
cinema, and allowed myself to imagine it might even be better viewed in this
sorrowful condition than in Fuller’s ideal version. The film in this form has
an end-of-the-world feeling to it, a stripping down to the edge of oblivion,
where everyone wants only to escape the present, whether by inviting death at
the bottom of the sea, or at the bottom of a bottle, or by repeated
recklessness that can’t beat the odds forever, with the decaying sound and
image and craft conspiring in the self-obliteration. The casting supports the
sense of a weird, bleak melting pot: Reynolds on the verge of stardom but with
a long decline to follow; Kennedy with five Oscar nominations behind him but
heading into twenty years of trashy pictures. The femme fatale is played by
Silvia Pinal, who a few years earlier had starred in some of Luis Bunuel’s best
films; it’s hard to look at her, in this displaced dubbed version, without
thinking of the surrealist master’s rebukes to society.
A few days later, feeling a desire for a more conventional
and canonical Fuller experience, I watched one of his most famous films, the
1954 House of Bamboo. It stars Robert
Stack as Eddie, an undercover army cop who infiltrates himself into an American
crime gang operating in Tokyo; Robert Ryan is Sandy, the man in charge. This
time, the quality was gorgeous, showcasing Fuller’s wonderfully precise
execution and the magnificent CinemaScope imagery. This is one of the Fuller
films where you can feel the man behind the camera, wholly engaged and on top
of his game, tolerating no slackness or wrong turns. Of course, it’s expressed
through the conventions of the day – Stack’s hard-boiled manner is rather
ridiculous by contemporary standards (which is probably why Ryan, working
through more subtle shadings, has had the more lasting reputation) and although
the film starts by emphasizing its use of real Japanese locations (and makes
remarkable use of those at several points, particularly in its high-concept
shoot-out finale), it’s still a highly stylized portrayal of the country and
society.
World
turning
But in Fuller’s peak period, this was one of the most
effective cinematic vocabularies ever devised. Sandy’s gang is made up entirely
of former GIs who went bad in one way or another during the war, now exiled in
the strangest of societies, where they hide in plain sight, each man with a
“kimono” to soothe his rough edges. The apparent exception is Sandy himself,
whose affinity for Eddie has a classic unexpressed homoerotic element (forming
a bridge to the anguished domestic melodramas of the time, some of which also
starred Stack). Eddie falls for the Japanese widow of a former gang member;
while investigating what happened to the dead man, he’s actually drawn largely
into retracing his footsteps, acting out a psychological exile that intersects
with the gang’s polished nihilism (they all wear nice suits and behave like
businessmen, but Sandy dictates that any man injured on the job must be shot
dead on the spot – the rule holds until he breaks it, to save Eddie).
The distance between the two films seems to evidence a
multi-faceted decline in confidence and certainty: not just that in Fuller’s
own circumstances, but in the industry surrounding him, and in the surrounding world
(which, via an amusement park exhibit, ominously circles at the end of House of Bamboo). The first film reflects
a post-WW2 clarity; beneath the cultural differences and psychological
shakiness, there’s still a relative morality that powers crisp narrative, and
lays a claim to razor-sharp imagery. A decade and a half later, the underlying
trauma and fractures have caused that surface to degrade, demanding a new
suitably conflicted breed of artist (as Fuller was eclipsed, Peckinpah rose).
Modern American cinema draws on both strands I suppose, while seldom addressing
how even the sharks are in danger now.
No comments:
Post a Comment