WEEK SIX
1950
Terms:
Epidemic
Pandemic
Bubonic plague
Pneumonic plague
Icon
text/subtext
BEFORE THE FILM
This sequence of disaster films is about plagues - So Long at the Fair, Panic in the Streets, Outbreak and 28 Days Later.
Panic in the Streets is a reasonably well known film, directed by the famous director Elia Kazan (1909-2003) who directde among other things, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Gentlemen's Agreement, Pinky, Streetcar Named Desire, Viva Zapata, On the Waterfront, East of Eden, Baby Doll, Face in the Crowd, Splendor in the Grass, among others. Kazan was born in Constantinople (now Istanbul) and migrated to America. His initial involvement is with acting and his links to the theater are very strong. In fact many of his early films (including this one) are thought of as rather stagey, and without a real "film style". He is known for getting extremely good performances out of his actors, several of whom he "discovered" including Marlon Brando and James Dean.
Kazan has an interest in social issues as is clear from his films. This one is no exception, although perhaps the social message is less blatent in this film than in some of his others, and it holds up somewhat better. Gentlemen's Agreement(1947), which was one of the early films to attack anti-semitism and Pinky(1949), which dealt with a woman trying to "pass" as white seem rather naive and tame now, but at the time were remarkable.
Again, we need to look at the basic "themes" that run through many of the disaster movies: how do the various aspects of society respond to the disaster (police, fire, scientists, media, religious people, civilians) and what stand does the film take about them. How are they depicted photographically in the film and what kind of iconography is associated with them.
In addition there is a question of "blame" and who or what is responsible for the disaster. There is also often (but not always) as sense of isolation about disaster films in people being "cut off" from other people and becoming a kind of "microcosm" of the society as a whole.
Does the disaster represent something? If so what? This is often a funtion of the period of time in which the story was written or the film made. Most commonly we have seen that novels like Last Days of Pompeii written in the Romantic period may use the disaster as an "externalization" of some internal turmoil in the characters. Monsters and aliens in the films of the '50's are often related by film historians and analysts to the cold war. In this sense then, films are a product of their times and we need to be aware of this when we watch them.
How the film uses film techniques (visual and auditory) to depict the characters and events is also a crucial part of the film's method of sending message. How is the film lit? How is the film edited (cut)? How are these techniques used to advance the story?
We also need to question the criteria for defining a film as a "disaster film".
As would be the case with a novel, we need to discern what we believe to be the author's message. We can never really know what the author of a work of art meant. In part because there is no way to get into the author's head and in part the translation of the ideas of the work of art into a different media may alter the message. Martha Graham once performed a dance after which her friend came back stage and said "Oh Martha, it was wonderful. What does it meam?", to which Martha is supposed to have replied, "If I could tell you I wouldn't have to dance it would I?" This doesn't mean that we can't make a stab at explicating the work of art (the film in this case. By making certain choices the author makes certain points.
In this film, the government is represented by two different agencies who have different ideologies about how to handle things - the medical profession (represented by the Public Health Service in the person of Lt. Commander Dr. Clinton Reed, played by Richard Widmark, and the police in the person of Capt. Tom Warren played by Paul Douglas.
What is happening in the story? Who is responsible - and for what? How does the author attempt to have the characters resolve the problem - in this case there are alternate modes of resolution. Which one wins out? Is it successful? What does that say about the author's opinion or attitude toward the people involved in the story?
AFTER THE FILM
This film is driven by a potential disaster - potential in the sense that if the outbreak occurs there will be a real disaster. The disaster, while ultimately blocked, motivates the entire action of the film. The contrast with So Long at the Fair proves interesting. In the latter film, a potential disaster (unknown to the audience) motivates the entire film. Until the final moments of the film we have no idea what has happened to Johnny Barton (played by John Tomlinson) or why it has happened. When the end is revealed, the nature of the disaster becomes apparant. The two films, Panic in the Streets and So Long at the Fair are very similar - the difference is when the audience learns about the disaster. In neither film does the disaster actually happen, and in both films it motivates the action of the story.
The story is to all intents and purposes a suspense story as are many disaster films. Will they or won't they be able to stop the plague. In this film, the government is represented by two different levels and forces - the Federal level represented by the Public Health Service and the local level represented by the New Orleans Police Department.
What does such a conflict imply? Who has superiority in the story?
What two ideas are in conflict - Are solving crimes and solving a public health issues similar tasks? In this case the two are intertwined. Which takes precedence?
Are crime and illness equated? If so, how?
Which approach - the one to crime or to health wins out?
What does that say about approaches to the other?