What does it say about the sta­te of cine­ma when the cine­phi­le exci­te­ment and qua­li­ty of a fes­ti­val such as the 70th edi­ti­on of the Locar­no Film Fes­ti­val deri­ves more from a retro­s­pec­ti­ve than the latest batch of con­tem­po­ra­ry films? The­re is more than one pos­si­ble ans­wer to such a ques­ti­on, so we might as well pose ano­ther one: Why is it important to see Jac­ques Tour­neur? Isn’t it just self-affir­ma­ti­on, a sort of home­co­ming, or even a cele­bra­ti­on of sorts? When I told peo­p­le that I would be in Locar­no this year, many repli­ed rather envious­ly: “Ah, I would love to be the­re with Mr. Tour­neur.” Is such a desi­re con­nec­ted to the idea of dis­co­ve­ring some­thing new with or in Mr. Tour­neur or is it just about the plea­su­re of retur­ning to a place one likes? Both might be true and valuable, and after Olaf Möller’s dis­co­very tour into the negle­c­ted histo­ry of Ger­man cine­ma during the 69th edi­ti­on Mr. Tour­neur is a reasonable step for the fes­ti­val. Yet, I couldn’t help thin­king – though I must admit I didn’t see as much of Mr. Möller’s choices as I could have – that the ele­ment of sur­pri­se and dis­co­very was much big­ger in Mr. Tour­neur, who always swit­ches bet­ween cha­me­le­on and auteur. One is never quite sure what to expect, always asto­nis­hed at whe­re one lands but still fee­ling that all the­se dif­fe­rent paths were fol­lo­wed by the same filmmaker.

I walked with a Zombie

Befo­re see­ing and re-see­ing many of his works in Locar­no, my impres­si­on of Jac­ques Tour­neur was a cer­tain move­ment con­nec­ted with a cer­tain half-light. It is a tra­vel­ling that fol­lows cha­rac­ters through various sta­tes of light and shadow, like the famous invi­si­ble cha­se sequence in Cat Peo­p­le, or a slee­p­less night and dre­a­my gaze into the dark hori­zon in Anne of the Indies. The­se cer­tain­ties are in fact describ­ing uncer­tain­ties of inter­me­dia­te worlds, desi­res, absen­ces, or the super­na­tu­ral which, as the direc­tor sta­tes in the accom­pany­ing cata­lo­gue of the fes­ti­val, he belie­ves in. Through tho­se moments and sta­tes, a fee­ling that I can best descri­be as a sort of fever ari­ses. It is con­nec­ted to some­thing I dis­co­ver­ed while revi­si­ting films like I Wal­ked with a Zom­bie (which was shown at mid­night at the Piaz­za Gran­de while a thun­der­storm approa­ched and even­tual­ly made me lea­ve in the pou­ring rain) or Night of the Demon: The­re is an idea of the past ten­se in the films of Mr. Tour­neur. His cine­ma­to­gra­phic lan­guage speaks in the pre­sent but his nar­ra­ti­ves seem to have alre­a­dy hap­pen­ed. This beco­mes very clear in the short films he did for MGM such as the mes­me­ri­sing The Ship That Died or The Face Behind the Mask. Most of tho­se shorts are nar­ra­ted by Carey Wil­son or John Nes­bitt in an exag­ge­ra­ted, dra­ma­tic, but still sober tone, recoun­ting mys­te­rious inci­dents in the way an enthu­si­a­stic explo­rer might tell a sto­ry to a group of old, cigar-smo­king men. The man­ner in which the­se sto­ries are told makes it clear that they have alre­a­dy hap­pen­ed. The­re is a time befo­re the film, some­ti­mes even a time befo­re time. Fit­tingly, some of the shorts deal with his­to­ri­cal topics such as the French Revo­lu­ti­on or the histo­ry of radi­um in Romance of Radi­um. Tho­se films are less about what is hap­pe­ning than they are about our posi­ti­on towards it. Most of all, they ask the ques­ti­on: Do we belie­ve or not? The same is true for many fea­ture films. In fact, the came­ra deli­bera­te­ly tends to arri­ve at the sce­ne a bit too ear­ly or a bit too late. Actions have alre­a­dy taken place or will take place no mat­ter what we see. May­be some secrets can’t be shown at all. One could talk about an eco­no­my of means that was per­haps also for­med during the short film years. Mr. Tour­neur doesn’t show too much, he just shows what is neces­sa­ry. The­re is an air of some­thing unavo­ida­ble, as if many cha­rac­ters in his films were not pre­sen­ted as real beings but ghosts from a sto­ry that has alre­a­dy been told.

Mr. Tour­neur has always been the Hol­ly­wood direc­tor I found most dif­fi­cult to wri­te about. The­re are many ele­ments that escape us while being with his films and a high level of ambi­gui­ty to them. It seems fit­ting that Chris Fuji­wa­ra used intro­duc­to­ry quo­tes by wri­ters such as Mau­rice Blan­chot or Hélè­ne Cixous in his gre­at book on Mr. Tour­neur cal­led Night­fall – wri­ters who are capa­ble of expres­sing things that escape the noti­on of expres­si­on. The retro­s­pec­ti­ve didn’t make the task any easier sin­ce it was the first time I saw very strong films like Les fil­les de la con­cier­ge or Easy Living, which add new colours to the palet­te of the film­ma­ker. His very pre­cise, come­dic talent which shows in Les fil­les de la con­cier­ge is came as a par­ti­cu­lar sur­pri­se. In con­stant move­ment bet­ween dif­fe­rent love sto­ries, the film tells not only about class rela­ti­ons but more about the way gazes and per­spec­ti­ves are orga­nis­ed bet­ween desi­re and duty, expres­sing and hiding. It was also a plea­sant sur­pri­se that the scree­ning of the film (even if it was shown wit­hout sub­tit­les) was packed. So the­re might be a hun­ger for dis­co­very in Locar­no. I wasn’t able to see Pour être aimé, ano­ther French come­dy by Mr. Tour­neur befo­re he moved back to the USA. Despi­te tho­se “new” facets, the­re was some­thing that struck me in almost all the films and which shed a new light, or may­be a shadow on all of his films: The mode of resi­gna­ti­on. Fuji­wa­ra men­ti­ons resi­gna­ti­on in his book. He writes:

“For Tour­neur, resi­gna­ti­on isn’t a moral ide­al in its­elf but comes as the ine­vi­ta­ble result of the dis­pla­ce­ment of the hero in histo­ry (the pro­lon­ged apo­ria of Way of a Gau­cho) or as a con­vul­si­on or exhaus­ti­on, like the con­fes­si­ons of cha­rac­ters in I Wal­ked with a Zom­bie, The Leo­pard Man, and Gre­at Day in the Mor­ning and like the sur­ren­der of Van­ning in front of the church in Night­fall. Tourneur’s sen­se of pas­si­vi­ty and ine­vi­ta­bi­li­ty colors even his most straight­for­ward and posi­ti­ve prot­ago­nist, Wyatt Earp in Wichi­ta, who has to be goa­ded into action by events and who apo­lo­gi­zes to his ene­my in advan­ce for the bul­let with which he kills the lat­ter in a duel.“

anne of the indies

It is an obser­va­ti­on I find to be very true. The dis­pla­ce­ment of the prot­ago­nists as well as the fee­ling of exhaus­ti­on are on the one hand con­nec­ted to what I descri­bed as the past ten­se in Mr. Tour­neur, but, on the other hand, they are rela­ted to a form of resis­tance his cine­ma keeps hid­den like a tre­asu­re. In this aspect of his cine­ma we can find an anti­po­de to film­ma­kers like Ste­ven Spiel­berg for whom won­der and over­powe­ring mean ever­y­thing. Mr. Tour­neur tells about grea­ter and truer mira­cles, but he never counts on the reac­tion of the prot­ago­nists to tho­se mira­cles and super­na­tu­ral hap­pe­nings. Of cour­se, in some of his films clo­ser to the hor­ror gen­re, most nota­b­ly in Night of the Demon, the­re are clo­se-up shots of peo­p­le being afraid and sta­ring at some­thing unknown. Howe­ver, the­re is a resis­tance to see­ing super­na­tu­ral and natu­ral mira­cles as some­thing extra­or­di­na­ry. This is most nota­b­ly true for one of his best films, Stars in my Crown. In the film, a typho­id fever breaks out in a small vil­la­ge. It is one of the many sick­nes­ses in the films of Mr. Tour­neur. One finds many fra­gi­le and ten­der shots of peo­p­le lying in bed, unable to move, pale and in a sta­te bet­ween life and death or just bet­ween being able to per­form or not as in Easy Living. It seems very fit­ting that the well-deser­ved win­ner of the Gol­den Leo­pard, Mrs. Fang by Wang Bing is also a medi­ta­ti­on on sick­ness and death. Whe­re Wang Bing finds a ten­der inse­cu­ri­ty in the clo­se-up of a dying woman, Mr. Tour­neur tends to avo­id lin­ge­ring on a dying face becau­se it might move and rea­wa­ken any second. Both film­ma­kers find each other in open eyes that are not awake.

Tho­se sick­nes­ses add to the fee­ling of exhaus­ti­on but they also help estab­lish the recur­ring con­flicts bet­ween resi­gna­ti­on and hope. In Stars in my Crown a moral con­flict bet­ween a priest and the new doc­tor deve­lo­ps as both strugg­le with hel­ping the despe­ra­te peo­p­le. After the dis­il­lu­sio­ned priest goes through a peri­od of resi­gna­ti­on, he per­forms a mira­cle on the doctor’s dying wife. Despi­te the musi­cal cre­scen­do accom­pany­ing this mira­cle, which almost recalls Carl Theo­dor Drey­er (the mira­cle, not the music), Mr. Tour­neur does not call atten­ti­on to this sce­ne as one of an over­powe­ring sal­va­ti­on. Ins­tead, it seems very natu­ral that saving lives is not only about bodies but also about souls. The true mira­cle fol­lows and it is an act of huma­ni­ty in the face of racism. The priest addres­ses the heart of Ku Klux Clan riders who want to slaugh­ter a black man to gain his pro­per­ty. He reads them (from an emp­ty pie­ce of paper) how the man about to be mur­de­red bequeaths them his belon­gings. After lis­tening to the priest, con­su­med with a fee­ling of shame and guilt, the men lea­ve the place. One can find a lot of belief in the­se shadows of resi­gna­ti­on, sin­ce they are not about tel­ling us some­thing extra­or­di­na­ry has hap­pen­ed but just that it has hap­pen­ed. This means a gre­at deal if we are tal­king about miracles.

stars in my crown

Mr. Tour­neur con­s­tructs his stra­te­gies of resi­gna­ti­on con­cis­e­ly. Often, estab­li­shing shots are a dra­ma of their own. The films jump right into some actions lea­ving the view­er clue­l­ess as to how they got the­re; it is like the dis­pla­ce­ment of the prot­ago­nists beco­mes clear in the very first shot. For exam­p­le, in Cir­cle of Dan­ger (Mr. Tourneur’s first inde­pen­dent pro­duc­tion), one of the many films that begin on a ship, the­re is a sca­le to the ope­ning which almost feels like a red her­ring. We are on a ship and the prot­ago­nist play­ed by Ray Mil­land is in the midd­le of some mas­cu­li­ne action. Tho­se seconds on a ship that mere­ly ser­ves as a cha­rac­ter back­ground and has not­hing to do with the nar­ra­ti­ve of the film, shows how much Mr. Tour­neur is inte­res­ted in the mood sur­roun­ding his cha­rac­ter and how he con­s­tructs a fee­ling of being out of place not only for the prot­ago­nists but also for the view­er. Fuji­wa­ra wri­tes about this sce­ne: “As in I Wal­ked with a Zom­bie, Out of the Past, and Appoint­ment in Hon­du­ras, we have the fee­ling of having arri­ved late to wit­ness a pro­cess alre­a­dy about to be con­cluded.” The stuffy atmo­sphe­res, the sweat, the shadows, the male should­ers and soft fema­le voices add to a mix­tu­re of tempt­a­ti­on, sick­ness and giving in. Many wri­ters on Mr. Tour­neur (appar­ent­ly most­ly male as the cata­lo­gue and the round table in Locar­no unwit­tingly show­ed) men­ti­on that he loved to make his actors talk very sil­ent­ly and move slow­ly. The lat­ter is, for exam­p­le, also true for Man­oel De Oli­vei­ra with whom Mr. Tour­neur shares the sen­se of pre­desti­na­ti­on as well as the poe­tic sober­ness of loo­king at it. A title of a never-rea­li­sed film of Mr. Tour­neur, Whis­pe­ring in Distant Cham­bers, seems to best descri­be the way peo­p­le talk in his films. Espe­ci­al­ly in Night­fall, whe­re the voice of Aldo Ray is sur­pri­sin­gly soft and silent in the face of the bru­ta­li­ties he has to go through. Detach­ment on the brink of ali­en­ati­on crea­tes a distance in accordance with a know­ledge about life which will soo­ner or later come to an end. For bet­ter or worse. Mr. Tour­neur also talks about this pro­cess in an inter­view on Appoint­ment in Hon­du­ras: “But I noti­ced that actors in most films tend to shout. The same dia­lo­gue said half as loud is more memo­rable and inten­se. To be wort­hwhile, dia­lo­gue should be said natu­ral­ly, the way we talk ever­y­day. You need to make actors not decla­im and when they talk loud­ly, they have a ten­den­cy to decla­im.” In his cas­ting choices, espe­ci­al­ly con­cer­ning male actors, Mr. Tour­neur seems to look for the type of actor that is sure not to decla­im: Dana Andrews, Robert Mit­chum or Aldo Ray are per­fect examp­les of this. One could right­ly ask what all of this has to do with resi­gna­ti­on. It is the under­state­ment and som­nam­bu­li­stic way of move­ment that is true for the prot­ago­nists as well as the came­ra and the way tho­se move­ments face mira­cles and dra­mas. Moreo­ver, the films focus on an absence of hys­te­ria when con­fron­ted with tra­ge­dy. It is not that any of tho­se ele­ments, be it the past ten­se, the half-light, the came­ra move­ments, the way of tal­king, or the estab­li­shing shots are spe­cial per se. Howe­ver, the com­bi­na­ti­on of tho­se ele­ments forms a bro­ken unity aiming at moods and memo­ries in distant chambers.

easy living

Resi­gna­ti­on is also a way of con­ce­al­ing an immense capa­ci­ty for roman­ti­cism. In many films “stran­ge forces” are at work. They bring per­di­ti­on or redemp­ti­on. The prot­ago­nists pro­tect them­sel­ves against tho­se forces by trea­ting them nor­mal­ly. Even Dana Andrew’s role of the sci­en­tist in Night of the Demon or Fran­ces Dee’s nur­se in I Wal­ked with a Zom­bie are never tru­ly naï­ve when con­fron­ted with things they nor­mal­ly wouldn’t belie­ve in. They just strugg­le for ratio­na­lism which is, for Mr. Tour­neur, clo­se­ly rela­ted to resi­gna­ti­on. In Easy Living, a film which Mr. Tour­neur did not par­ti­cu­lar­ly like alt­hough it con­ta­ins some of his finest direc­ting, the who­le idea of ratio­na­lism ver­sus super­na­tu­ra­lism is tur­ned upsi­de down. A sports­man and star is told he should stop play­ing foot­ball becau­se of a heart murm­ur. Afraid of his deman­ding wife and inse­cu­re about his post-care­er life, he keeps his con­di­ti­on a secret and goes on play­ing. Here, the see­mingly super­na­tu­ral force is the most natu­ral of all: The fading of the body. The super­na­tu­ral lies in not accep­ting natu­re. So, the film nar­ra­tes the same batt­le as many other films by Mr. Tour­neur, yet the prot­ago­nist has to learn to belie­ve in the natu­ral ins­tead of the other way around. In place of fear, a sort of sad­ness informs the pic­tu­re. In a bril­li­ant move, the film estab­lishes a cha­rac­ter who could be cal­led a figu­re of resi­gna­ti­on, the one who knows about all this days befo­re the prot­ago­nists or the view­er, the one who has seen it all befo­re: A cyni­cal jour­na­list-pho­to­grapher hap­pens to be in the right place at the right time and helps dedra­ma­ti­ze every pos­si­ble fli­cker of roman­ti­cism until the very last shot. He appears to com­ment on the reuni­on kiss: “Yeah, yeah.” The­re is a sad under­to­ne in this. The­se cha­rac­ters appear in all of Mr. Tourneur’s films and are best con­den­sed in the stage worker in the short The Rain­bow Pass, which should have been part of the pro­gram but was left out. The film pres­ents a Chi­ne­se stage play and focu­ses on a stage worker dres­sed in black whom ever­yo­ne in the audi­ence pre­tends not to see when he goes about his busi­ness in crea­ting ima­gi­na­ti­on in the most bored way ima­gi­nable. To speak in John Ford’s terms: The­se are the men that print the legend. Yet, they don’t belie­ve in it. The ques­ti­on is rather, as ano­ther title of a Tour­neur short pro­po­ses: What Do You Think?