Guest Post: The Apartment

The Apartment; Directed by Billy Wilder
1960; Starring Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine


Only recently have I come to the realization that I love movies made by Billy Wilder. Prior to this enlightenment, I had only digested his films piecemeal, walking away from each thinking “well, that was a pretty damn good movie” and not recognizing my appreciation of his films in a totality. Searching through the films of Wilder in my Netflix account, and from the films that I have seen, most have been rated 5 or 4 stars, with a few exceptions (apparently I absolutely hated the film “One, Two, Three”, most likely on the account of its lampooning of Reds). The generally appreciated canon of Wilder needs no explanation as to why they are great and recognized films (Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard, Sabrina, Seven Year Itch, those being only a few selected from a prodigious and celebrated catalog). Recently, I just had myself a second viewing of what I consider to be one of his finest and yet most ignored films, The Apartment starring Jack Lemmon and a very coquettish Shirley MacLaine who sports a most adorable 60’s bob.

Having at least two viewings of a film is the only way one can truly appreciate a film in its totality. The first viewing has the audience more interested in following the subject of the film, the story, what is being said, etc. The second viewing, with the audience already being savvy to the subject, allows the viewer to meditate further upon the substance of the film, its form and style. Hence why, great films hold up strong against the test of time, while mediocrity is precipitated beyond the continental slopes and onto the abyssal plains only to be picked apart by bioluminescent fish and/or on dollar racks at discount grocery stores.



As I mentioned in the first paragraph, it is to much wonderment on my part as to why this film is not instinctively recognized as one of Wilder’s best (or, to be more accurate, when in discussion of great films, particularly by Wilder, why this one is not as readily referenced as say “Some Like it Hot” or “Sunset Boulevard”). While, in my opinion, the overall aesthetic of his films might be common and antiseptic, the temperament of Wilder’s films is what seduces the audience. This is especially true for The Apartment. There are two very distinct classes in this film; (1)those who have an ‘excess’ of company and love, and as result of this, are numb to the humanity that surrounds them, solipsists, (2)and those who are deprived of company and love, and are acutely aware of their solitude. Appropriately set during the holidays, this allows Wilder to honestly and genuinely articulate the infinite distance between the “haves and have-nots”. It is with much solemnity that one who is alone approaches the merriment of holidays, not unlike travelling alone through Venice or being caught in the snack bar alone on a Saturday night at a movie theater by an acquaintance who then proceeds to mercifully invite you to join their company but you are too proud to accept and tell them that you have friends waiting for you anyways, even though you don’t. Off topic.

Not to simply present a synopsis (those I am certain can be found all over the internets), but for a quick glance at the film I will briefly summarize it. The loner is played by Jack Lemmon, whose character C.C. Baxter uses his bachelor’s apartment to maneuver his way up the corporate ladder, that is, he allows his superiors to use his place after office hours to bring their extramarital intrigues for a quick tryst. This eventually results in a promotion for Baxter, but under a specific condition, his boss, Sheldrake, gets to use his apartment to bring over his “other woman” (every Monday and Thursday). This other woman, no less, happens to be Shirley MacLaine’s character, the woman who Lemmon proceeds to masochistically romanticize over.

There is something to be said about the masochism of both Lemmon’s and MacLaine’s character. That in their inherent masochism lies their raison d'être and it can also be observed that it keeps them sensitized towards their fellow man, particularly Lemmon’s character. In their isolation, paradoxically, is where they find their solidarity with their fellow human beings. It is in their isolation that the viewer can sympathize, empathize, or even relate with the character. While the end film ended just as how people would expect it to end, a generic and stereotypical romantic Hollywood ending, the actual the purpose of the film is not about the bliss of being with that special someone. The film actually recognizes and demonstrates the romanticism of solitude, and the selfless humanity that can be born from such a condition. That there is nothing more humanist than the altruism that is born from unrequited love.

Guest Post: Salo: Film Review

As those of you close to me know, of all the modern arts, I have a certain special affinity towards the cinematic medium. My tastes I consider to be fairly eclectic, never leaning towards any specific genre, I will watch anything, silent German expressionism, Italian Neo-realism, Bollywood spaghetti westerns, trashy seventies exploitation, modern blockbusters, I will watch ANYTHING. With no guiding criteria regarding genre, I make an effort to watch the supposed zeitgeists of any given epoch, the cultural vanguards, or simply films whose singular purpose is to push certain cultural boundaries. Trash and sleaze included… Throughout my viewing history, I have seen a rather large amount of sleaze, films that are sordid even to me. Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust, the Japanese Guinea Pig series, anything that was ever put onto celluloid under the guidance of Jesus Franco. I have seen almost just about all of it. I then recently came across a film which had developed quite a notorious representation since, well probably before it was even released. It was a little piece of work created by a filmmaker that I greatly admire, Pier Paolo Pasolini. Though I have been vaguely aware of its existence, I never actually took the time to watch it (until recently of course), never really paying attention to the reputation that the film had acquired, that was….until someone told me it was probably the most vile thing they have ever seen, which I took to be a challenge. The film is titled Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom.

The second part of the title probably sounds familiar to some of you who might be familiar with the works of the Marquis De Sade. The film is an adaptation of the work, so that should already give you a hint as to what the film might be like. Though, Pasolini was not the first, nor last, filmmaker to adapt a work by De Sade for the cinema, what differentiates his work from most of the others who had made film adaptations of works by De Sade is level of competence, and it is this competence which also gives it that certain quality that makes the film that much more repulsive, for what makes those other films so trashy is their tastelessness and intent of exploitation, Paolo's work of vulgarity is a work of class and art. Throughout the film there is a stark contrast, rather even a dialectic (for Pasolini was an outspoken Italian communist) between that which is beautiful and that which is grotesque, speaking about both the aesthetics and ideologies presented in the film. Pasolini presented De Sade's tale in the context of World War II, cleverly mixing philosophical Sadism (as a philosophy of nature and morality, not to be mistaken with the word sadism) with the branch of nihilism that was adopted by the Nazis with the help of Elisabeth Forster (though the setting of the film is in Italy). Aside from simply being an assault on fascism, (Pasolini grew up in Fascist Italy), it was also an enquiry into sex, and how a certain culture can mold not only ideas about sexuality, but ones sexuality itself. The film in short, is about four men who ranked in the upper echelons of fascist society, the Duke, the Bishop, the Magistrate, and the President, and the film is broken up into four different chapters. The film starts off with the four men agreeing to marry each others daughters, then from there, they organize the kidnappings of a number of youth, both male and female, throughout the city of Salo. The victims of the kidnappings are then brutalized throughout the entirety of the film, this includes (indiscriminate of either sex) rape, torture, murder, forced acts of coprophagia, and much more, and all of this while a former prostitute who takes delight in the sufferings of the youths tells tales of her former life concurrent with a live romantic classical pianist.

Obviously, this is not a film that I recommend to everyone, but for those of you whose interest I have piqued, it is undoubtedly a film that you will not forget, whether you "enjoyed" it (this isn't really a film one enjoys) or absolutely hated it. Pasolini, who I consider to be rather ground breaking filmmaker (and not even really referring to this picture, if one is unfamiliar with his works I recommend the Hawks and the Sparrows or the Gospel According to St. Matthew prior to seeing Salo) certainly rid himself completely of all inhibitions when he created this film, keeping the content of the film as close as one can to the works of Marquis De Sade, and he did this by focusing more on the philosophical nature of De Sade's work and not just the sexual nature of his work (as what most exploitation films do). So not only is the aesthetic content of the film troubling to the senses, but also…the imputations regarding man, nature, philosophy, and morality (or there-lack-of).

Just as a little heads up, here is the cover of the DVD.

Could be considered inappropriate....
Criterion Collection DVD cover: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/curefiend/cover.jpg


--Kyo