The Big Sleep *****

Politics is not my job. It's an interest of mine, but it's not my job and I don't even claim to be an expert on the matter. But recently politics have become involved in movies and in my opinion have caused a deterioration of today's films. Now, it is my job.

If I was a history teacher, the one thing I would want to get across is Newton's Third Law. What does physics have to do with history? Let me explain. The law states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This law not only regards two physical objects, but two or more social forces as well.

Union's started only because large Trusts in a thirst for money deprived their workers of a livable wage. This situation left many coal miners and factory workers living with large families in single room slum apartments. The social force of the trusts' pushed until the reaction was inevitable and the result of Newton's Third Law is the powers of unions that you see today.

In late 18th Century France, King Louis XVI tried to support his government by taxing the lower classes since the wealthy would not accept a tax. Newton's Third Law takes effect and the result is the bloody French Revolution.

What does this have to do with movies? In the 1960s and 1970s, the outdated New Dealers were frantically trying to retain power and their savage tax rates and unnecessary programs led to Newton's Third Law going into effect - meet the Christian Conservatives, who even scared right wing stalwarts like Barry Goldwater. These characters have been running the show for about 13 years now down there and have made every effort to rip the First Amendment out of the Constitution.

Now here's where the movie part comes. You are starting to see the reaction now and in all societies, revolutions, not matter how beign, usually begin with the arts. The result in these cases is a series of outlandish and extremist fringe movies that are getting publicity that is completely undeserved. The first is a documentary about men who fornicate horses. The second is a film containing a scene where you see a 12-year-old girl being raped. Not off camera, mind you, but right there - front and center.

Back in the day, when people promoted common sense instead of political agendas, it would have been universally agreed by all that these films are completely outrageous and the directors would have been drummed out of the business.
That can't happen today because the extreme left is afraid to insult their "base" and the extreme right has no credibility anymore after doing things like accusing the creators of some stupid kid's cartoon named SpongeBob Squarepants of promoting a gay agenda. And there's no one left in the middle.

This new shock tactic further hurts movie-making today because the act of subtlety has been obliterated. Thirty years ago, you'd hear the toilet flush and see Archie walk down with the newspaper. It was crude, but funny. Today, you'd be right in there with Archie reading the funnies. Just hysterical.

Back in the days, you could talk about anything, as long as you were smart about it. The writers and directors were creative enough back then to imply just about anything. It made you think, God forbid.


Take the Big Sleep - directed by the great Howard Hawks and written by the equally great Jules Furthman and William Faulkner. Bogart and Bacall are both great, but I'm not concerned with that here. It's the sublety that Hawks and his writers used to get points across.

The basic premise is a nonsensical adaptation of a nonsensical detective novel by Raymond Chandler. (As an aside, Bogart and Hawks got into an argument about who killed a certain character. They sent a telegram to Chandler to get the definitive answer. Chandler wrote back, "How the hell do I know?" Of course, Jack Warner got pissed about the cost of the telegrams.) The movie and book are about a Los Angeles detective hired by a rich dying magnate to find out why his daughters are being blackmailed. Chandler's books are not about the plots as much as they are about the scenes - the interplay between characters - and this is right up Hawks alley.

There's one scene where Bogart, who plays private investigator Philip Marlowe, finds the daughter of his client in an empty house. He looks in another room waiting for her. Bogart knows she's there, but looks away. She walks into the room looking discheveled and acting flighty. Bogart looks through draws in a desk and finds a case. He opens the case, looks inside, looks at the woman in disgust, and puts the case back. In the same desk, he finds pictures. After looking at the pictures, he give the woman the same look and pockets the pictures for evidence.

What does that scene tell you? You have drugs involved, a potential rape, and pornography. All told through implication.

Why can't something like the be done today? Is it laziness, crudeness or a combination of the two? I don't know. But the bottom line is this, no matter how much you want to shock, what is not on screen is always more powerful that what is. Let's call that James's First Law of Movies.

There was a German film called M made in the 1930s. During one pivotal moment, you see a man in the shadows (you can't see his face) walking behind a little girl bouncing a red ball. The girl walks down an alley and the man follows off camera. The director holds the shot for a moment and all you see is a long red ball bounce across the screen.

Can you think of anything scarier than that?