Wuthering Heights (1939)

Merle Oberon, Laurence Olivier, David Niven
2/4

I enjoy watching movies made 70 years ago for several reasons. The only one I can actually articulate at the present is that I'm unfamiliar with most of the actors, and therefore don't feel laboured at knowing who is playing whom, or to make excuses for their bad behaviour, or in some cases, their bad acting. Of course, I still have my preferences for actors (Gene Kelly and Jimmy Stewart), but I'm more aware of the character than the actor, which really, is what it should be.

Wuthering Heights is some pretty good use of some recurring scenery. I enjoyed watching the actors, I thought they did a marvelous job. I even enjoyed some of the costumes, everyone looked dignified, as I assume they're all supposed to. Unfortunately, this was my first Laurence Olivier movie. I say unfortunately because this plot either didn't translate well into screenplay or wasn't very good to begin with.

Wuthering Heights is, of course, based on the 1847 Emily Bronte novel that several people seem to find romantic. I'm not really sure what they find romantic about it - is it Cathy (Oberon)'s materialism? The part where Heathcliff (Olivier) finally smacks Cathy? Or is it the part where he marries another woman to make Cathy jealous, then ignores the poor thing (his wife, not Cathy) despite the fact that she truly loves him and wants him to be happy? Most people spend the movie worrying about poor Cathy. No one seems to care about poor Heathcliff and then poor Isabella (Geraldine Fitzgerald). They let Cathy's jerk of a brother do whatever he wants - gambling and drinking.

And here be spoilers:

The movie starts out with Mr. Earnshaw bringing home Heathcliff, an orphan. Heathcliff and Cathy are in love from the very start. Heathcliff is bullied by Cathy's brother from the begining. They grow up a little. Cathy has become a materialistic girl obsessed with society, Heathcliff still has her love and loves her as well. Cathy's brother is still a bully. Cathy and Heathcliff spy on a dance, are chased by dogs, and Cathy is taken care of while Heathcliff is kicked out because he is a dirty stable boy. He vows to come back with a vengence, but that doesn't happen any time soon. The next time he arrives, Cathy has become a girl of status and rejects Heathcliff for a rich boy, then decides she loves Heathcliff again. She does this a second time, but is too late to catch Heathcliff from his downfall. She marries the rich guy, Heathcliff goes to America, gets rich, comes back, is still bullied by Cathy's brother, Cathy refuses to acknowledge any love for Heathcliff, Heathcliff marries Isabella - Edgar (Niven) the rich guy's sister - out of spite. Cathy tries to warn Isabella against marrying Heathcliff, but she insists that he loves her and that she can make him happy. The great piece of acting here is that you know that's what Isabella's thinking and saying, but you also know she's not believing any of it. Heathcliff is a jerk to his wife Isabella. Cathy is dying, but no one wants Heathcliff to know. Heathcliff goes off to see her. Cathy decides to confess her love to him. They kiss. She dies. People mourn poor Cathy.

I'm sorry, does any of that sound romantic to you? Perhaps Heathcliff's determination to win Cathy's heart is romantic, but his insistant ugliness when she doesn't accept him and her insistant materialism when she apparently actually loves Heathcliff is a sad - even if true - version of love. Not everything has to have a Jane Austen ending, but can't someone wind up happy? Can't something turn out right? Is there no sense of justice? Does Cathy, with all her snobbery and stubbornness, really deserve to be loved by someone as caring as Heathcliff? When was it ever her right to turn a sweet man into a careless monster? Why does Isabella marry Heathcliff when she knows he is a hopeless case? For that matter, why does her brother Edgar allow it? Is he afraid that Heathcliff is competition despite that Cathy is so determined to have no feelings for him? Why does Ellen (Flora Robson), Cathy's companion, allow all of this to go on when she knows perfectly well how all parties involved feel? And - I cannot press this enough - why on earth should we feel bad for Cathy?

(Picture: http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2009/04/30/wutheringheights_wideweb_470x310,0.jpg)

Psycho (1960)

4/4

dir. Alfred Hitchcock

I don't think you can really judge something like Psycho. Obviously it's a classic. It's something that's kind of pointless to explain, you just have to see it. Explaining it at all would take away part of what makes it so creepy; the opening scenes about the stolen money have next to no significance to the rest of the movie. Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) is the most important factor to the movie. The movie could be run without any dialogue whatsoever, and it would still be just as creepy. From the way the movie is shot, you could probably get a good idea of the plot without any clues, though the musical score adds even more to the creepy factor. By the way, we all know Psycho's most famous scene - accompanied by it's most famous music. Personally, I agree with David Gilmour (The Film Club; it's a good memoir, you should check it out); the scenes leading up to the notorious one, the stalker shots, are much more terrifying.

What I think makes Psycho special is that it's even creepier the second time that you watch it. Most horror movies are so predictable that watching them at all is kind of pointless. A few horror movies have things left unsaid and unexplained that keep you wondering, and encourage you to watch them a couple of times. Donnie Darko, for example, is so creepy and confusing that it takes a couple of viewings before you're sure as to what's really going on.

After you've already seen Psycho once and know perfectly well what's going on, you will start noticing things you didn't know to look for the first time you watched it. Hearing everything that Norman says and connecting it to the movie's conclusion turn your view of Norman and his mother into something else entirely.

(Picture: http://avantgaudy.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/psycho_anthony_perkins_as_norman_bates.jpg)