WilliamsT

What for most is a non-place, becomes for Sarah and Eddie a place which reflects their own existential absence of meanings. This fact is highlighted in O’Beirne’s reading of Augé, which finds non-places to be, ‘manifestations and above all agents of a contemporary existential crisis, a crisis of relations to the other, and by extension a crisis of individual identity constituted through such relations.’ (2006: 38) The bus terminal becomes Eddie’s new home. He stores all his belongings in a locker, and he uses the bathroom to freshen up, as if it were his own, whilst a shoe-shine man sleeps in the background, oblivious that anyone should choose to occupy such a space. Schüfftan lights this non-place by emphasizing the strong artificial light sources. An example can be seen in Figure 81, where the long bars of electric light suggest the cold reality of the space Eddie is choosing to use as his home. By emphasizing such light sources, Schüfftan highlights that this is a merely functional space, intended only to be passed through. Both characters also display an understanding of how this space ought to function. Sarah establishes a thin pretense that she is waiting for a bus (she says that she has been at the terminal since four o’clock and is waiting for a bus which leaves at eight o’clock), but leaves when Eddie falls asleep, to return to the city where Eddie will later rediscover her. When Eddie awakens, he is surrounded in the café by a new crowd of people, the next set of fleeting passengers passing through the terminal.

331

Figure 81: Eddie enters his new home at the bus terminal, as passengers pass through the non-place.

A rather different representation of transport is given in Something Wild, although still one which contributes to our understanding of Mary Ann. The mode of transport here is the New York subway, which Mary Ann rides soon after her rape (see Figure 82). Mary Ann is jostled around the tightly filled commuter train, until eventually the experience becomes overbearing, so that when, finally, she is released onto the platform, she collapses to the floor. The subway, like the bus terminal in The Hustler, is also presented as a non-place. A consequence of Mary Ann’s rape is her inability to negotiate the non-place in the same manner as other passengers. We see those other passengers join and disembark the train, jostling Mary Ann whose fixed position is not recognized. When she does eventually disembark, Mary Ann passes out on the platform of the subway station, as if her loss of identity has come to overwhelm her in this non-place. This was filmed on location, and with the use of genuine commuters who mixed with the extras and were entirely unaware that a film was being shot. Garfein therefore allows for an accurate representation of a non-place being negotiated, by genuine commuters passing through the subway, the normality of which functions to highlight Mary Ann’s inability to function appropriately within such a space.

332

Schüfftan emphasizes Mary Ann’s distress through extremely tight framing on the subway train, in which Mary Ann is almost entirely obstructed from our view by the many passengers who compete for space.

Figure 82: Mary Ann struggles amongst the commuters on the subway.

That Schüfftan was fully aware of the powerful representative possibilities that the subway train could hold for Mary Ann is evident from both his previous experience of shooting the atmospheric mirage of the Paris Metro in Georges Franju La Première nuit (1958), and from Eugene Archer’s anecdote from the set of Something Wild: ‘the company waited for twentyminute intervals between takes for a subway train to arrive on a distant elevated track for an atmospheric fillip. “When we saw the rushes,” Mr. Justin [producer] commented wryly, “we couldn’t even see the train in the darkness.”’ (Archer, 1960) Clearly in this instance,

333

Schüfftan had striven a little too far to create the appropriate atmosphere. However, Schüfftan was also keen to fulfill Garfein’s wishes, and to temper this stylization with a degree of actuality. In the instance of Mary Ann’s subway experience Schüfftan employed an old Mitchell sound camera (likely the ‘newsreel camera’, or the ‘blimped newsreel camera’, the most ubiquitous models since their introduction in 1932), to capture Mary Ann’s distress with a certain degree of realism (Johnson, 1963: 41).

Another form of non-place is the hotel. In The Hustler Eddie and Sarah stay at a hotel when they visit the Kentucky Derby, and a hotel is the first location which plays host to Kay and François’s blossoming relationship in Trois chambres à Manhattan. In each case the hotel is a prime example of the non-place, a site which embodies how the protagonists have found themselves unable to find a functioning role for themselves within society.

The first use of a hotel in The Hustler is seen directly after Eddie’s loss to Minnesota Fats, before he ‘moves in’ to another non-place, the bus terminal. The hotel in The Hustler embodies Eddie’s transitory lifestyle, the nature of his business in moving from town to town trying to hustle money. However, in this instance, even the non-place of the hotel is invested with too much meaning for Eddie. Directly opposite Ames pool hall, he cannot help but be reminded of his humiliating defeat, and the cohabitation of the hotel room with his business partner Charlie reinforces the fixity of Eddie’s identity, an identity he no longer wants, and which he seems intent to lose by progressing to a further non-place, in the form of the bus terminal. Schüfftan’s lighting of the hotel room highlights the temptation of the pool hall for Eddie. As he moves around the room, the flashing neon light from the pool hall opposite glows on Eddie’s face, illuminating him in the dim hotel room, as if beckoning for him to return.

334

The second time we see Eddie inhabit a hotel room is near the end of the film, with Sarah, upon his visit to the Louisville Derby as the nefarious Bert coaxes Eddie back in to his hustling ways. This hotel room acts as the site of Bert’s abuse of Sarah and her subsequent suicide in the bathroom. Schüfftan’s lighting of this bathroom conforms to his previous lighting of the non-place of the bus terminal. It is rather cold, harsh lighting, reinforcing the functionality of this space. It is therefore significant that her suicide is enacted in the bathroom of the hotel room, a non-place which reflects Sarah’s sense of loss, whereby the developing stability of her life with Eddie is removed by his return to the hustle. We can therefore see the return of the non-place of the hotel room as part of the cyclical nature of the film’s narrative. Eddie’s hustling activities and the ever-changing hotel rooms that accompany it are shown at the start of the film and return at the end, and this dystopian sense that Sarah, and Eddie, will never be able to break from this destructive cycle results in her decision to take her own life.

The hotel room in Trois chambres à Manhattan is the first of three rooms noted in the film’s title which span the course of Kay and François’s relationship. In fact, despite both characters admitting to having their own apartments, and living alone (although Kay’s situation is more complicated as we come to learn), they opt for the Hotel Sherman as the location to commence their romance. This exterior was shot on location on 302 West 47th

Street, outside the Hotel Sherman which has since been replaced by the Econo Lodge (see Figure 83). This does not appear to be a choice of luxury for the couple. In fact Kay seems to assume that François will take her to his apartment, but François’s reluctance results in a glance across the road to the Hotel Sherman, rather ungraciously located next to the ‘Samicraft Lighting Co.’, which Kay confirms with a resigned ‘sure, why not?’ Confirming the rather sordid nature of this arrangement, Kay comments of the staff in the foyer, ‘I can smell whiskey, they must have been drinking.’

335

Figure 83: The Hotel Sherman, where Kay and François choose to establish their tryst.

I have discussed with regard to the park spaces how Kay and François reach a crucial point in their relationship in Central Park, resolving their issues and allowing them to move forward. It is worth noting here that is the Hotel Sherman from which they flee, the host site of their faltering relationship. The non-place of the hotel allows François to devoid himself of the identity which is connected to him through his apartment. This gives him the freedom to attempt to leave Kay, by paying for the hotel room and not returning. Kay does not know where his apartment is, the hotel being the only shared font of their relationship. François is able to disavow the existence of the relationship from the wider social existence he inhabits in his apartment, by leaving it behind in the non-place of the hotel. François however, changes his mind, and the couple resolve their issues in the park space. Describing their time spent together within the hotel room, Kay tells François, ‘You made love as if it was suicide,’

336

demonstrating how this hotel has acted as a non-place similar to that of The Hustler, which was host to Sarah’s suicide.

As if to emphasize that their relationship in the hotel room had been entirely built on sex, Schüfftan filmed the scenes with a strong key light cast upon the bed, often making it the brightest part of the frame. Significantly, it is at this juncture in their relationship, after their prolonged existence within the non-place has driven them to breaking point, that François decides to take Kay back to his apartment, and to introduce her to the rest of his life. He says, ‘The place I’m taking you to, it’s less ugly at night.’ They can welcome daylight at last in their relationship, just as Mary Ann is released into daylight at the conclusion of Something Wild.

Conclusion

That Schüfftan should find success and acclaim with these three films is fitting. Through their similarities and differences each of these films forms the culmination of various different approaches and techniques to the moving image perfected by Schüftan throughout his illustrious career. This case study began by noting that Metropolis, Schüfftan’s introduction to the film industry, was his first visualization of the city, and that the three films discussed here, which arrived towards the end of Schüfftan’s career, present a return to such representations. It is appropriate therefore to compare such representations, which span almost forty years. This is best achieved by addressing the denouement of each film. In

Metropolis, the divided society is resolved at the film’s close, with Freder uniting his father Joh, the leader of the city, with Grot, a foreman who had led the revolt. As Freder combines their hands, the title appears, ‘The mediator between head and hands must be the heart!’ R. L. Rutsky (2000: 218) argues of this conclusion that the technologies of Metropolis are

337

dystopian, and that it is only when these dystopian technologies ‘can be “mediated” and synthesized that a utopian technology becomes possible.’ It is a dystopian city, which, once unified transcends to a utopian society.

Through this case study I have similarly highlighted that the Secondspace subjective representations demonstrate a dystopian perception of the city. However, the 1960s films present a rather different outcome. Rather than resolving into a unified singular society, as occurs in Metropolis, the protagonists resolve their loss of identity (which had produced the image of the dystopian city), to find a new sense of individualism, and to move forward in to the city anew. In the case of Something Wild, Mary Ann has resolved her issues, allowing the dystopian city to disappear, resulting in new possibilities for her. We therefore find Mary Ann at the end of the film, following her cathartic return to the city, happily married to Mike, no longer trapped by the city, or by Mike’s apartment, but content. Therefore, from the objectivity of Firstspace and the dystopian subjectivity of Secondspace, results a fresh Thirdspace, an understanding of each character’s individual identity. This is also true for the other two films.

The Hustler, for example, presents Eddie’s final pool match against Minnesota Fats, in the wake of Sarah’s suicide. He stands alone, without either of his partners (Charlie or the manipulative Bert), and defeats Fats. When Bert challenges for his share of the winnings as his business partner, Eddie defiantly refuses him, in memory of Sarah. Eddie walks away the victor, and leaves the pool hall with what seems to be a new sense of self. He departs Ames pool hall, leaving behind this underside of the city, to emerge back in to society with a fresh start, at last controlling his own destiny. The final shot is of Eddie walking from the hall, on the threshold of his new beginning, leaving Bert, Fats and the camera behind. Trois chambres à Manhattan presents a similar conclusion. Having battled throughout the film with their

338

insecurities, and hiding themselves from society in the various bedrooms of the title, the relationship finally breaks down when Kay finds out that François had acted unfaithfully. He chases after her and they argue on the stairs, before finally realizing how anxieties had driven their actions throughout. Resolving their issues, the pair makes a fresh start, not by returning to the insular world of the bedroom, but by leaving. ‘Not inside,’ Kay says, ‘I’d prefer to leave it behind.’ Instead, they step out in to the city in daylight, with, like Mary Ann and Eddie, a new sense of identity. Whilst the city in Metropolis, which presented fears of Modernity, found the comforting conclusion of unity through utopia, the characters in these 1960s films all dispel those fears of the dystopian city, allowing them instead, not to find comfort within the whole, but to discover a new sense of self.

The city of New York comes to play as important a role in these three films as it did in Schüfftan’s career. The city which is host to such complex representations of characters, and the variety of spaces they inhabit in Something Wild, The Hustler, Trois chambres à Manhattan, is also the city which finally offered Schüfftan a celebrated welcome to American cinematography, some twenty years after he had arrived on those shores. In this sense, it is hardly surprising that Schüfftan’s photographic representation of New York City is so complex.

339

Conclusion

This study of cinematography was inspired by the realization that Eugen Schüfftan was a little known name, despite having contributed to the aesthetic of a wide variety of important works of film. My first aim was to understand why such a figure had been so overlooked by film history. I soon realized that the field of cinematography as a whole has received little attention, beyond interviews and ‘how to’ guides. The various challenges that I have encountered during the course of researching and writing this thesis are a testament to why so little literature exists on this key figure of filmmaking. The crucial challenge was how best to write about the work of a cinematographer, when so little groundwork exists in this field. I soon realized that this dearth of writing on cinematography is symptomatic of wider trends in film studies that have focused on the director, and of an historical approach in the industry that had positioned the cinematographer as a technician, rather than an artist. I set out to rectify such oversights and misunderstandings, by using the case of Eugen Schüfftan to bring

340