Dante’s Inferno
1935

Harry Lachman director Lachman direcrted a number of Charlie Chan movies.

There are several films based in some way or another on Dante’s epic poem. L’Inferno which we saw from 1912, Dante’s Inferno from 1924 and the one we are going to see tonight from 1936. There is a “cut out puppet version” from 2006 and a 2007 version in production. There is also a 2006 TV version also in production.

This film has several devils in it, the question is are any of them really the Devil. None the less, the impact of the Devil is so strong in this film (like Rosemary’s Baby) that despite a brief questionable appearance, there is much to be said about the film and the Devil.

The film deals with the problems of what the Devil actually does. In last weeks film, Angel on My Shoulder, we began to discuss the problems of just what the Devil does. In that film social injustice was clearly part of the deal. This film implies there are other things the Devil can do and does.

This film sets itself in a particular environment – an amusement park (which in this case is on a pier). Amusement parks, carnivals and circuses all have a kind of fantastic quality about them which we might label “The Fantastic”

FANTASTIC

People have distinguished to general spheres of belief – the sacred and the profane. This concept developed from early social sciences where people had evolutionary ideas that people went from magic-religion to science. Malinowski argued this is untrue and that all people have all three, they are not evolutionary stages at all.

Instead of a sequence he postulated that different areas of the world are cut out by these two areas. Sacred is a marked area, whereas profane is not. The sacred is “holy” while the sacred is not. Using sacred and profane, we can define certain possibilities:

	Sacred	Marked
Religion	+	+
Profane	-	-

Other possibilities would be

	Sacred	Marked
Religion	+	+
Profane	-	-
X	+	-
Y (Fantastic)	-	+

X seems highly unlikely – a category that is sacred yet not special. Y on the other is what may one define as the area of the fantastic. This is a world which is marked – that is it is not “everyday” but also is not sacred. Within this category one might find such events as carnivals, amusement parks, circuses and so on, where one suspends disbelief.

Examples: rides must appear dangerous but not be; things appear to be at a “higher” evolutionary level than they are – circuses – animals act like people, people act like superhumans flying through the air etc.

Hence the film uses an amusement park – a place where disbelief is suspended – at least by visitors. People who work in the fantastic normally do not view it as such. Remember this is a symbolic classification of the world, not a realistic one. In the same way one can not tell drinking water from holy water or private property from public property, different people viewing the same thing will view it differently.

People who work in the "fantastic" as opposed to those who "visit" see it as a reality of nuts and bolts, not the fantasy that the vistors see.

The Devil in the film is more “influential” than visible. Does this really qualify as a “Devil” film (compare L’Inferno, where the devil appears only briefly.

Watch for the usual things:

Lighting, images of Hell and the Devil (and any other imagery you can find), cutting, and so on.

AFTER THE FILM

Hellish Imagery:

Is the Devil in the film? There are certainly people who are performing as the Devil, both in the exhibit and in the descent into Hell section of the film. Are those internal demons

The Amusement Park

Using the Fantastic in a film about the sacred is almost an ideal choice since both categories are very marked and linked, as we discussed. What things do we learn in the amusement park – cheating with the wheel, etc.

Social Problems

Lighting

Images of hell are lit dramatically with shadows and high contrast lighting. “Pops” is often surrounded with a soft glow when he has been hurt in the collapse looking almost angelic.

Images of Circles and Cycles

Censorship

Code formulated. Amazing amount of nudity in the film. Probably film was moralistic and the nudity was acceptable as images of hell.

The film, like Angel on My Shoulder is something of a moralistic tale. It indicates the Devil as causing social ills rather than doing spectacular things like getting a little girl's head to rotate! The film implies the upper classes regard the lower classes as a source of amusement (watching the stokers work). People like Jim and his wife find the upper classes atagonostic to them denying their son entry to school, but money wins them over.

Perhaps more importantly the film tends to imply that the acquisition of money when done in a way that injures others is a bad thing. Jim constantly causes problems for others so that he can acquire money. He has other people shovel coal so he wins bets, he causes the owner of teh Shoot the Chutes to lose his business which ultimately leads to the owner's suicide after his wife dies. He bribes the building inspector in order not to have to spend monety repairing the pier and then threatens him with the loss of his job if her files a report. The inspector commits suicide when the ride collapses and people are injured and killed as a result.

The imagery of the amusement park - where people suspend disbelief - is particularly fitting in this film since Betty (Jim's wife) seems to view Jim in an unrealistic way.