The Thief of Bagdad (1940)

Alexander Korda's The Thief of Bagdad is a straight forward a fairy tale, a relic of a bygone era. Modern Hollywood has no interest in making simple fairy tales, they either inject them with steroids by turning their protagonist into a sword wielding bad ass, or they infuse them with irony by constantly having characters make asides to the camera. If The Thief of Bagdad were to be remade today, no doubt the character of Ahmad would be transformed from a gaunt, ineffective protagonist into an ass kicking, muscle bound man of action. There would be action scene piled upon action scene, and the movie would end with Ahmad, on a magic carpet, chasing the evil Jaffar, on his flying mechanic horse, across the skies of Bagdad. The character of Abu, if he survived the adaptation, would be relegated to comedy relief and that's about it.

The Thief of Bagdad itself was a remake of the 1924 Douglas Fairbanks film of the same name. Fairbanks stars as a Ahmed, a thief who lives a leisurely existence and by the motto, "What I want, I take!"
He becomes enamored with a princess and initially plans to kidnap her, but has a change of heart when he meets her in the flesh. The rest of the film centers around Ahmed undertaking epic tasks to prove his worth to the princess. 1924 version is a magnificent film that stills holds up, despite being 90 years old. The Korda remake takes the character of Ahmed and splits it up into two roles, the prince Ahmad and thief Abu. Just like in the original film, Ahmad becomes smitten with the princess and will do anything in his power to win her over, much to annoyance of his new found friend Abu, who just wants to go an adventure.

The Thief of Bagdad begins in media res with Jaffar arriving in Bagdad,on a ship, after receiving news that the "blind man" has been found. The blind man turns out to be Ahmad, a beggar on the streets whose only companion is a dog. Jaffar's lackey, Halima, invites Ahmad to take refuge in her harem (which in reality is Jaffar's palace). Ahmad is first suspicious of her motives, but ultimately accepts her hospitality. At the harem, Ahmad proceeds to tell a bevy of beauties all about how he came to be this way and how is dog is, in fact, not really a dog at all, but was once a thief named Abu. The film goes into flashback; the eyes of the dog dissolve into the eyes of Abu as he is sizing up a potential target. As the flash back is told from Ahmad's point of view, it's not surprising that he is more prominent in this half of the film. The Thief of Bagdad has two distinct halves; Ahmad's flashback (first half) and Abu's adventures (second half). Ahmad is the rightful king of Bagdad who has been usurped by his Grand Vizier Jaffar.  Ahmad is naive king, completely oblivious to the injustices that are being carried out during his reign in Bagdad. When a peasant is executed, he wonders if ruling in fear is the only way. Jaffar convinces Ahmad to roam about the citizens incognito to see what the citizenry really thinks about him. Ahmad enthusiastically agrees and while in disguise he comes across a prophet who speaks of a boy that will deliver the people from the tyranny of the king. Jaffar points out Ahmad to his thugs and tells them to arrest the king and to eliminate anyone that might by sympathetic to his cause.

Interestingly, Ahmad's arrest happens off screen. This happens a few times throughout the The Thief of Bagdad in which the audience is told a pivotal plot point rather than shown it. Later, the princess, appalled by the thought of marrying Jaffar, dons a disguise and runs away. We are told that she was captured by slave traders and sold in a slave market. She has been secretly bought by Jaffar, who then takes her to his palace. The princess has fallen into a deep sleep that only Ahmad can wake her up from. In most movies this plot point would take up a considerable amount of screen time, in The Thief of Bagdad it's mentioned only in passing. This may seem like lazy story telling, but it's actually  a red herring, misleading the viewers into believing that the Ahmad/Princess love story is the central focus of the story, when in reality it's merely a subplot. The first half of The Thief of Bagdad is a great piece of misdirection, by making Ahmad the narrator we assume that he is the protagonist of the piece, while Abu is his scrappy but comical sidekick. We are convinced that Ahmad will eventually exact his revenge on Jaffar, while winning the love of the princess in the process.

This is what Ahmad endures in the first half of the film (power point style):

1. He is usurped by his treacherous Grand Vizier, Jaffar.

2. He is thrown in the dungeon, but escapes thanks to the cunning of his new friend, Abu.

3. Him and Abu flee to another kingdom, Basra.

4.It's love at first sight, when he sees the princess riding atop of an elephant, while marching towards the kingdom.

5. He sneaks into the princess' garden and manages to win her over. Modern audiences will probably find this scene rather laughable, at one point the princess asks, "Who are you?" 

 Ahmad replies, "You're slave."

He promises to come back for the princess tomorrow.

6. Unbeknownst to Ahmad, Jaffar is also in Basra hoping to win the princess' hand in marriage. Her father, the Sultan, agrees to the proposed marriage after testing out Jaffar's new toy, a mechanical horse that can also fly. The Sultan is very childlike and has biggest collection of toys in the world. The princess is appalled by the very idea of marrying Jaffar and runs away. Ahmad and Abu get caught by the Sultan's guard while waiting for the princess in the garden. Ahmad pleads his case to the Sultan, but before he can say too much, Jaffar casts a magical spell and blinds him. Jaffar then takes his wrath on Abu by turning the thief into a dog. Jaffar states that this curse will be lifted once he has the princess in his arms.

7. Ahmad awakens the princess from her deep slumber.

8. Halima tricks the princess into going onto Jaffar's ship, telling her that there's a doctor that can cure Ahmad's blindness. Jaffar tells the princess, he can cure Ahmad's blindness, if she allows him to hold her in his arms. She obliges and Ahmad regains his sight. Abu returns to his human form as well.

9. The two of them sail after Jaffar's ship, but he uses his magic powers to conjure up a storm and the two of them get shipwrecked.

This first half of the film is about the trials and tribulations of poor Ahmad. He suffered a lifetime's worth of indignities in the first hour alone. The audience wonders how he will overcome this latest set back. Well, he doesn't! In fact, Ahmad is practically a non factor in The Thief of Bagdad's second half, he's off screen for nearly thirty minutes. This development would be almost unacceptable in today's cinema. Just imagine if the Rock made a movie in which he loses everything in the first half and sets out for revenge, only to completely disappear for half hour, while his comedic sidekick saves the day by sheer happenstance. This would enrage movie audiences. Ahmad is the audience surrogate, we experience the movie through his eyes. Therefore, it is completely disorienting when the character we identify most with completely vanishes in the second half. Modern audiences will probably find it irritating just how passive of a character Ahmad truly is. In the film's climax, he is about to get beheaded, when Abu saves the day by swooping down on his magic carpet. They head to the castle to save the princess from Jaffar's vile clutches. Ahmad embraces the princess, while Abu shoots an arrow into the back of the fleeing Jaffar. Ahmad never exacts revenge on Jaffar, but then again it would defeat the purpose of the character. Ahmad's character arc is more of a personal and spiritual one, he goes from being a distant, naive king to a more wiser and compassionate ruler, and he has Abu to thank for the transformation. It is the first taste of living he's actually experience in his short, sheltered life. In a way it's fitting that Ahmad vanishes in the film's second half, because his character arc has been fully realized at the film's midway point, he goes from being completely alone to having a loyal companion in Abu and finding the love of his life.

It is in the second half that Abu emerges as the film's true protagonist, albeit an incidental one. It is a role that Abu literally stumbles into when he is first thrown into the dungeon with Ahmad. While Ahmad bemoans that fact that he is going to be beheaded in the morning, Abu remains surprisingly calm - and with good reason, he has lifted the keys to the cell from the jailer. This is the first glimpse we get at how cunning Abu is, despite his childish demeanor. This cunning serves Abu later on after he has accidentally released a Djinn (genie) from it's bottle. The Djinn is bitter at having been cooped up in the bottle for 2,000 years and threatens to flatten Abu with his foot. Abu tricks the Djinn into going back into the bottle by merely stating that he doesn't believe the Djinn came from the bottle as he's too big to fit in it. The Djinn scoffs at this claim and goes back into the bottle to show Abu that it is, indeed, possible for him to fit in the bottle. Abu then corks the bottle, trapping the Djinn in the process. Abu lets the Djinn out of the bottle after the Djinn has promised to grant him three wishes. This sets up a chain of events which leads to the downfall of Jaffar, and the fulfillment of the prophecy from the beginning of the movie.

The Djinn scene is the mast famous moment from the movie and it benefits greatly from Rex Ingram's towering, and often malevolent, performance. The Djinn's first appearance is extremely effective; Abu pulls out the cork from a bottle he finds floating in the sea and smoke beginnings to spew from it. The smoke then begins to form an outline of giant man, and then finally the Djinn materializes in his full form. It's a terrific moment, punctuated by the fact that Abu can be seen in the bottom portion of the frame, reacting to what is unfolding before his eyes. The special effects in The Thief of Bagdad run hot and cold, the scenes with the Djinn flying through the skies are fairly clumsy; the actor Rex Ingram is replaced with a very unconvincing, immobile plastic model. It's a minor flaw in an otherwise great movie.

The Thief of Bagdad is riddled with inconsistencies and plot holes, but visually it is breathtaking, it's visual style is often reminiscent of the early Disney features like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Pinocchio. The acting is fairly strong, most notably Conrad Veidt, who gives  a commanding performance as the treacherous Jaffar.  Jaffar is an interesting villain in that he genuinely is in love with the princess. In most movies the villain merely lusts after the heroine, but Jaffar is deeply hurt when the princess doesn't reciprocate his feelings.  He talks about hypnotizing her, rationalizing that it will allow him to do whatever he wants to her, but changes his mind when he realizes that just having her isn't enough.

Ahmad is a rather thankless role, but John Justin some how makes the character seem more interesting than it actually is, largely due to his wonderful, commanding voice. He's especially effective in the early scenes in which he serves as the film's narrator.
June Duprez isn't given much to do as the princess, except look beautiful. However, she is a strikingly beautiful woman and it's easy to believe that a young king like Ahmad, not to mention a sinister old bastard Jaffar, would immediately fall in love with her.

Sabu is a lot of fun as Abu. He's really the heart of the film, as it is his innocent nature and bravery that end up saving the day. Sabu livens up the proceedings with the humor he brings to the role, most memorably in a scene in which he tricks a vendor into giving him and Ahmad free honey for their recently acquired pancakes. Abu tells the vendor he is looking to buy a huge supply of honey, but needs a sample first, because he will only buy the best. The vendor acquiesces and pours honey on the pancakes. Abu takes a bite and then tells the vendor that this will not do and that he has tasted better honey. Before the vendor can react, Abu and Ahmad quickly walk away. It's nice touches like this that help make the The Thief of Bagdad a classic movie. 

Credits

Cast: Conrad Veidt (Jaffar), Sabu (Abu), June Duprez (Princess), Ahmad (John Justin), Rex Ingram (Djinn), Miles Malleson (Sultan), Mary Morris (Halima), Morton Selton (The Old King).

Directors: Michael Powell, Ludwig Berger, Tim Whelan.
Screenplay:  Miles Malleson, Lajos Biro (scenario)
Running Time: 106 min.

The Amityville Horror (1979)

When it comes to the Amityville Horror, I take the claim that it was "based on a true story" with a grain of salt. In his book, "The Amityville Horror Conspiracy," Stephen Kaplan does an excellent job of pointing out the many inconsistencies in George Lutz's account of the haunting. However, The Amityville Horror needs to be judged as to whether or not it succeeds as a horror film, rather than if it's an accurate depiction of a supposedly true event. The Amityville Horror is an infuriating film, in that it has the makings of a classic horror film, but is often undermined by the hammy performances of James Brolin and Rod Steiger, and some rather questionable directorial decisions.

The first half hour is wonderfully effective, the director, Stuart Rosenberg, does a wonderful job of hinting at the paranormal by often framing his shots with doors or windows, often given the viewer the unsettling feeling that the Lutz family is being watched an external force. In one memorable moment, after Ronald DeFeo has brutally slayed his family, there is a point of view shot from inside of a hearse with the Amityville house stationed in the background.   The shot lingers for a few seconds before fading to black. It's an extremely creepy moment and certainly far more effective than it's fire and brimstone ending.

In another effective scene, a real estate agent is giving the Lutzes a tour of the house and whenever they enter  a room the movie cuts to the night of the DeFeo murders and then cuts back to present. It serves two functions:
1) It allows the audience to know where the rooms and the family are in relationship to one another. Horror films tend to be confusing in terms of where one character is in relationship to another. Friday the 13th, the unseen killer often seems to be in two places at the same time, or has the ability to teleport, because film does a poor job of laying out the geography of summer camp. The Amityville Horror avoids such confusion and when something startling does happen we know where the characters are.
2) During the tour, Kathy turns to George and expresses her disgusts over the murders that took place in the house. George counters, "Houses don't have memories." However, in this case George is wrong as the memories of the murders pervade the house. Almost everything is a reminder of that horrible night and despite  George's apparent calm demeanor, it's something that the family can't shake off.  A sense of dread hangs in the air from the very get go, never allowing the audience to get comfortable.

Unfortunately, things take a turn for the worse with the arrival of Rod Steiger as Father Delaney. Steiger was on Oscar winning actor (In the Heat of the Night) and I'm guessing his presence was supposed to add prestige to the picture, kind of like how  Marlon Brando brought respectability to Superman. The irony is that the well respected actor Steiger gives easily the worst performance in the film (and probably his career). Steiger's performance single handedly sinks the film with his laughably over the top performance; he does a lot of shouting, while his eyes bug out of his head.  The character of Father Delaney is fairly extraneous to the film, he doesn't share a single scene with either George or Kathy. The scenes of Father Delaney tend to undermine the tension that has been building up in the Lutz household; often the film will be building up to a scare, only cut to Steiger hamming it up. The movie could have easily removed the Delaney subplot without missing a beat, not to mention it would  be about  twenty minutes shorter.

James Brolin seems to take his cue from Steiger often bugging out his eyes to show that George Lutz is slowly losing his mind, but Margot Kidder is surprisingly sympathetic as Kathy Lutz and gives the film a soul that it desperately needs. Kathy is often trying to make the best of a bad situation, while George essentially just grumbles on about how cold it is. The other actors are adequate, if unmemorable; Murray Hamilton seemingly couldn't shake off his Mayor Vaughn role in Jaws, as he is cast as a similar character, Father Delaney's skeptical superior in the diocese. Hell, the scene in which Delaney tries to convince his superiors of a genuine haunting is almost a carbon copy of a similar scene in Jaws (Chief Brody attempting to convince his superiors of a shark), the only difference being that it's set in a church as opposed to a ferry.

There's a few other questionable decisions by the filmmakers as well; in one scene a window crashes down on the hand of the of the Lutz boys, while Psycho-like music blares on the soundtrack. That such a minor scare is given the grandiose treatment makes it rather laughable. The other "scare" scene that always stands out is when Kathy's aunt Helena, who happens to be a nun, visits the house and becomes nauseous. She offers up Kathy a half assed apology, for leaving so abruptly, and then runs out of the house to her car. Finally, she can't hold it any longer and vomits, off screen. Again, this scene is more laughable than scary, due to the rather poor acting by the actress; she makes a lot of loud heaving sounds and that's about it.  It is a rather brief sequence and doesn't do any long term damage.

A flaw that is inherent among all Haunted House movies is that they tend to be anti-climatic, they either end with the family fleeing house and getting consumed by it. The Amityville Horror ends with the Lutzes finally deciding they had enough and hauling ass, though, George does go back to save the family dog from danger. It's a rather weak ending, given how effectively the film builds up to this moment. Again, this plagues most Haunted House movie; the only film in the genre that comes closest to having a "satisfying" ending is Poltergeist.  However, for all it's faults The Amityville Horror is a fairly entertaining film, largely due to Margot Kidder's likable performance and some truly unnerving scenes scattered through the film.

Cast: Margot Kidder (Kathy Lutz), James Brolin (George Lutz), Rod Steiger (Father Delaney), Don Stroud (Father Bolen), Murray Hamilton (Father Ryan), Natasha Ryan (Amy), K.C. Martel (Greg), Meeno Peluce (Matt), Michael Sacks (Jeff), Helen Shaver (Carolyn), Amy Wright (Jackie), Val Avery (Sgt. Gionfriddo), Irene Dailey (Aunt Helena), James Tolkan (Coroner).

Screenplay: Sandor Stern
Director: Stuart Rosenberg
Running Time: 117 min.