Anti-hero as icon
Kirk Douglas (1916-2020), one of the unlikeliest superstars of the Golden Age of Hollywood, opened up new creative possibilities for lead
actors with his choice of roles and his craft.
THE scene is a boxing arena and the crowd wildly cheers the entry of Midge Kelly, the defending middleweight champion. Confident, smiling and basking in his popularity, Midge Kelly enters the ring. But his handsome face, with its set jaws, dimpled chin and ruthless eyes, in a close-up seems to be concealing some dark secrets that are apparently tearing apart the champion from inside.
Champion (1949) is about the story of a man’s moral descent as he ascends to the top of his field, pitilessly discarding those who had helped him on his way. The role of Midge Kelly, played by Kirk Douglas, created one of the first anti-heroes in Hollywood. At a time when the success and popularity of an actor were believed to depend on his screen image, Kirk was among the first to break away from the mould. In another scene from Champion, when the girl whom Kelly used to facilitate his quick success threatens to expose him, he grips her hand, and even as the girl winces in pain, breaks into a slow cruel smile and, gently massaging her hurt hand, tells her in a low, even voice that he will put her in the hospital “for a long, long time”. The champion gently taps her on the chin with his deadly fist before casually walking out of the room.
The unstated violence in that scene, particularly when seen in contrast with the earlier portrayal of the protagonist as a happy-go-lucky, lovable hobo, is horrifying. Champion
FEBRUARY 26, 2012:
earned Kirk the first of his three Academy Award nominations and catapulted him to stardom.
Kirk was one of the biggest and unlikeliest superstars of the Golden Age of Hollywood, when glamour ruled supreme and stars dazzled as never before and never since from the silver screen. With his death on February 5, at the age of 103, the world of cinema lost the last great link to that “golden” period.
Kirk had none of the roguish charms of Clark Gable; the dapper, debonair appeal of Cary Grant; the laconic elegance of Gary Cooper; the boyish innocence of James Stewart; the uber coolness of Humphrey Bogart; the overpowering presence of John Wayne; the sleepy-eyed machismo of Robert Mitchum; the sullen beauty of Marlon Brando; or the overall gorgeousness of Eroll Flynn and Gregory Peck. But he had the
ability to touch a raw nerve in viewers. Never one to be typecast or dependent on the onscreen image of the hero, he played deeply complex, flawed and all-too-human characters.
“I am drowning. Drowning in my own juice,” says the detective James Mcleod (played by Kirk) in Detective Story (1951, directed by William Wyler), a film about a hard-nosed, honest detective whose uncompromising adherence to the rule of law, even at the expense of compassion, brings about shattering consequences that destroy his life.
In Ace in the Hole (1951, directed by Billy Wilder), Kirk plays Chuck Tatum, a ruthless, ambitious reporter who for the sake of keeping alive a hit story conspires to prolong the agony of a man trapped in a cave collapse, until the victim dies. “I like a role that is stimulating, challenging, interesting to play. That’s why I am often attracted to playing characters that are unlikeable,” Kirk wrote in his autobiography, The Ragman’s Son.
He was unparalleled in projecting the inner conflict within a character. In a scene in Ace in the Hole, Chuck, who is having an affair with the dying victim’s wife, tries to strangle her in rage for her coldhearted attitude towards her husband, but the genius of Kirk conveys to the viewer that Chuck’s loathing is directed more at himself for being responsible for her husband’s misfortune. Chuck’s moment of repentance comes too late, and his ignominious death feels like a welcome relief from the agony that is eating him up from within.
In The Bad and the Beautiful (1952, directed by Vincent Minelli), Kirk plays Jonathan Shields, a cunning, manipulative film producer whose passion for cinema and selfaggrandisement comes hand in hand with his complete lack of scruples and moral integrity. He has no qualms whatsoever about doublecrossing his closest friends, stealing ideas from those who trust him, even using the girl who loved him to fulfil his own dreams. But unlike the protagonists of Ace in the Hole or Champion,
Jonathan Shields still has scope for redemption in the form of his all-consuming love for cinema. It is a passion so powerful that the very people he has wronged come back and work for him. It was a role Clark Gable turned down. Kirk jumped at the offer and it earned him his second Oscar nomination. As he once said, he never found virtue photogenic.
In 1956, Kirk played one of his most iconic roles—the Dutch painter Vincent Van Gogh in Lust for Life based on the biographical novel of the same name by Irving Stone. By his own admission, it was one of the few roles he almost completely lost himself in. In his method of acting, an actor’s task is to create an “illusion” and not allow himself to be consumed by the illusion. “The actor never gets lost in the character he is playing, the audience does,” he had said. But during the filming of Lust for Life, he admitted that he “was close to getting lost in the character of Van Gogh”.
He had collected a lot of artwork in his lifetime but never an original Van Gogh. Years later, he jokingly wrote: “Aside from the fact that I cannot afford to buy his paintings now, it would be too weird—i’d feel as though I’d painted it myself.”
His fellow actors could not understand why an overtly masculine star like Kirk Douglas would choose to play vulnerable characters such as Van Gogh. John Wayne apparently told him after watching Lust for Life: “Christ Kirk! How can you play a part like that? There’s so goddamn few of us left. We got to play strong, tough characters. Not those weak queers.” Kirk got his third and final Oscar nomination for Van Gogh, but it was his co-star Anthony Quinn, who won the Best Supporting Actor award for playing Paul Gaugin. Later, Kirk said it was the “most painful” movie he had ever acted in.
Kirk’s performances in two of the greatest movies of that time, Paths of Glory (1957) and Spartacus (1960), both directed by Stanley Kubrick, were ignored by the Academy. Both films were produced by Bryna Productions, the production company Kirk established in 1955 in his mother Bryna Demsky’s name. Spartacus, a magnificent star-studded (Laurence Olivier, Peter Ustinov, Tony Curtis, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton and Kirk Douglas) spectacle that took several years to make, is the film that Kirk is perhaps most immediately associated with.
Interestingly, it was Kirk who put Kubrick on the Hollywood map. Before Paths of Glory, Kubrick’s notable work was the small-budget noir masterpiece The Killing (1956). Kubrick had been knocking on doors in vain with the script of Paths of Glory until Kirk decided to produce it. Today, Paths of Glory is considered one of the landmark films of modern cinema and Kirk’s role of a soldier and a lawyer trying to defend three men from being unfairly executed was one of his most outstanding performances. The success of the
film launched Kubrick as a major force in world cinema although it was not the kind of film one would associate Kubrick with. Again, Kirk brought Kubrick into Spartacus after he dismissed the initial director Anthony Mann after one week of shooting.
VERSATILE
John Wayne’s anguish at his friend’s choice of roles was understandable. Wayne had become an American icon playing tough-guy-withgolden-heart roles. In Kirk’s powerful screen presence, he thought he had found a kindred spirit, for Kirk was equally good at playing tough guys, as is evident in some of the classic Westerns he starred in. He was the alcoholic, consumptive but ever-so-deadly Doc Holliday in Gunfight at OK Corral (1957); he was the avenging Matt Morgan, taking on an entire town in order to bring to justice the killer of his wife in Last Train from Gun Hill (1959); he was Harry Pitman Jr, the cunning and ruthless but charming career criminal in There was a Crooked Man (1970). Even in his seventies, Kirk showed that his machismo had not diminished with age, when he teamed up with his old friend and fellow-legend Burt Lancaster in the comic gangster movie Tough Guys (1986).
Kirk was one of the most versatile actors of all time. In a career spanning seven decades and more than 90 films, he had starred in practically all genres of cinema. In the 1950s, the decade known for expansive epic dramas such as Ben Hur, The Robe and The Ten Commandments, Kirk starred in three of the biggest hits of that period, Ulysses (1954), The Vikings (1958) and Spartacus.
Born Issur Danielovitch on December 9, 1916, in Amsterdam, New York, to illiterate Jewish Russian immigrants Herschel and Bryna Danielovitch (later they changed their surname to Demsky), young Issur and his six sisters spent their childhood in abject poverty. Their father, a ragman by trade, was a hard-drinking, champion barroom brawler who was hardly ever there for his family. Issur realised that a way out of poverty was education and college, and by sheer dint of merit, he got through school with high grades and entered St. Lawrence University, in Canton, New York, where he also distinguished himself in wrestling.
After graduating in 1939, Issur, determined to be an actor, went to work on stage in the Tamarack Playhouse, and changed his name to Kirk Douglas. He secured a scholarship at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, where he was taught by the legendary acting teacher and hard taskmaster Charles Jehlinger. He graduated from there in 1941, and when the United States finally joined the War the same year, Kirk got into the Navy. After an honourable discharge in 1944, Kirk married his first wife, Diana, and the same year Michael (who went on to become a huge star and a great producer in his own right) was born. His second son, Joel, was born three years later. In 1954, Kirk married Anne Buydens, with whom he spent the rest of his life. They had two sons, Peter (born 1955) and Eric (born 1955; died 2004).
As a professional actor, Kirk began by doing bit parts in Broadway until his friend from his days in the American Academy of Dramatic Arts, Lauren Bacall, got him a job in the movies. It was a Hal B. Wallis production, The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946). But it was not until 1949 that he got his big break, Champion. Interestingly, it was Kirk’s willingness to take chances that prompted him to turn down an important role in The Great Sinner, an MGM production starring Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner and Ethel Barrymore, and choose a film by a completely unknown young producer, Stanley Kramer. That choice made all the difference in his life.
Kirk felt suffocated being tied to a production house and rejected Wallis’ offer of a long-term contract long before he became a star. However, after the success of Champion, he took the deal offered to him by Warner Bros. The first movie he did with Warner Bros was Man with a Horn (1950), based on the life of the early jazz trumpeter Bix Beiderbecke. He even learnt to play the trumpet for the role.
With the establishment of Bryna Productions, Kirk freed himself from the control of the big production. Bryna’s first film, The Indian Fighter, a Western starring Kirk and a young Walter Mathau, was a big hit. Bryna went on to produce some of his greatest films. In 1960, by giving screen credit to Dalton Trumbo, the scriptwriter for Spartacus, Kirk struck a blow against the Hollywood blacklist. Trumbo, one of the greatest scriptwriters of Hollywood, refused to testify before the House Committee on Un-american Activities and had to work under pseudonyms after he was blacklisted for his communist leanings. Dalton and Kirk collaborated again for the cult classic Lonely are the Brave.
If there was one regret in Kirk’s long, illustrious career, it was not about being overlooked for the Oscars, it was about not being chosen for the role of Randle P. Mcmurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975). Kirk had spent a decade trying to bring Ken Kesey’s cult novel to screen so that he could play the role of Mcmurphy. Finally, when Michael Douglas managed to get finances for the project, and Kirk felt he would finally get to play his dream role, the part went to Jack Nicholson. “Jack Nicholson played my part— brilliantly, damn it! But he played him differently than I would have,” wrote Kirk. Nicholson won the Oscar for his role, but Kirk’s great consolation was that Ken Kesey said that he should have played Mcmurphy. $
ONE OF PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE’S stated goals since coming to power in 2016 has been to distance the Philippines from the tight political and military embrace of the United States, the former colonial power. His immediate predecessor, Benigno Aquino, had forged a particularly close relationship with the U.S. as the Barack Obama administration launched its military “pivot to the East”. The Philippines at the time was also playing a leading and vocal role in the territorial dispute in the South China Sea.
Encouraged by the Obama administration, the Philippines had taken the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) where it got a favourable ruling, which dismissed much of China’s claims to the South China Sea. But Duterte, after taking over as President, decided to put the territorial dispute on the back burner, indicating that he preferred a negotiated settlement to the South China Sea dispute. He said that implementing the ICJ’S decision would have meant getting sucked into “an unwinnable war” with China. Under Duterte, bilateral ties with China have flourished, with Beijing investing in many multibillion-dollar developmental projects. At the same time, Duterte, despite his periodic anti-american rhetoric, was careful to maintain the strong military links between the two countries. However, in the second week of February, he surprised the U.S. and even some of his domestic political allies by announcing that he had decided to scrap the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the two countries.
The military pact, signed in 1998, allowed the U.S.
Army to rotate its forces in Filipino military bases. The two countries used to hold more than 300 annual joint military exercises. The announcement by the Philippine President was followed by an official notice of termination issued by the Filipino government on February 10. The military pact will lapse after 180 days, the mandatory notice period that was agreed on by both sides when the deal was first initialled.
After Duterte was elected to office, Filipino officials started talking about the need to review the “Mutual Defence Treaty” the two countries had signed at the height of the Cold War 69 years ago. The Philippines Secretary of National Defence, Delfin Lorenzana, stated in March last year that the security environment in the region had become “much more complex” since then. “The Philippines is not in conflict with anyone and will not be in war with anyone in the near future,” he said.
After Donald Trump became President, the U.S. started conducting more military exercises and joint patrols in the disputed waters of the South China Sea. The Philippine government under Duterte made it clear that it did not want to get involved if trouble broke out between the U.S. and China in its neighbourhood. Lorenzana warned that there was a likelihood of “a shooting war” erupting because of the increasing frequency of U.S. naval ships passing through the disputed waters.
BAN AND AFTER
Duterte, who had been threatening to scrap the VFA as he moved closer to Beijing and Moscow, finally bit the bullet after the U.S. imposed a travel ban on some of his closest advisers for alleged human rights violations. Among the senior Filipinos affected by the ban is Senator Bato Dela Rosa, who was earlier in charge of Duterte’s controversial “war on drugs”, which human rights activists claim has come at a cost of more than a thousand encounter killings.
In response to the ban, Duterte also announced that he had advised his senior officials to “boycott” the U.S. and desist from travelling to the country. Only the Secretary of Foreign Affairs was exempted from the ban. Duterte said he was “toning” down relations with the U.S. and revealed that he had turned down an invitation to attend a U.S.-ASEAN summit meeting to be hosted by Donald Trump in the first week of March. He said his decision was based on “geopolitical and strategic considerations”.
The scrapping of the VFA has also put another complementary military treaty, the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), in peril. The EDCA, signed in 2014, provided U.S. troops unfettered access to Philippine military facilities and allowed them to pre-position defence equipment in the country. Under the U.s.-philippines Mutual Defence Treaty, it would have been mandatory for the Philippine Army to fight alongside the U.S. Army in the eventuality of hostilities breaking out.
Mike Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State, during a visit to Manila last year, reasserted this position, giving the impression that he was blissfully unaware of the current government’s fear of getting entangled in a war instigated by the U.S. “As the South China Sea is part of the Pacific, any armed attack on Philippine forces, aircraft or public vessels will trigger mutual defence obligations,” Pompeo stated. The Secretary of National Defence said that his government doubted the U.S.’ sincerity in its commitment to its country. “It is not the lack of reassurance that worries me,” Lorenzana said. “It is being involved in a war that we do not seek and do not want.”
The termination of the VFA in a way has made the 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty irrelevant. A leading member of Duterte’s Cabinet, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, said that the withdrawal from the VFA had made the Mutual Defence Treaty “a hollow agreement”. The decision by the Philippines President also took many of his Cabinet Ministers and the leadership of the country’s armed forces by surprise. Many in the top echelons of the Philippine political and security establishment, like their counterparts in India, have been strong votaries of military engagement with the U.S.
The Philippine Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Teodoro Locsin, said in January that the continuance of the military agreement with the U.S. would “be more beneficial” for the country compared with any
benefits that could accrue if it was to be terminated. The Filipino elite believe that they owe a debt of gratitude to the U.S. It was U.S. military help that staved off a left-wing revolution in the country in the early 1950s. The Philippines was among the first Asian countries to join U.s.-led military alliances such as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) at the height of the Cold War.
After the fall of the Marcos dictatorship, mass protests forced the eviction of U.S. forces from their two biggest military bases in the Philippines, the Clark Air Base and the Subic Bay Naval Base, in 1991. Within a decade after that, the U.S. military made a comeback with the signing of the VFA.
The U.S. military helped the Philippine Army defeat armed Islamic insurgents in Marawi city on the island of Mindanao in 2017. U.S. Special Forces and surveillance drones were deployed in the siege of Marawi, which lasted a few months. The U.S. also lent a helping hand in the fight against the Moro insurgency which erupted in the 1970s in the south of the country. The Philippine Secretary of National Defence was apparently not in favour of terminating the VFA. He told the Philippine Senate last year that the VFA assured critical help to the country in times of crisis. Lorenzana said that the VFA had facilitated the transfer of $1.3 billion in military assistance to the Philippines.
Some of Duterte’s closest political allies have started questioning openly his decision to terminate the VFA.
There are rumours being spread in the Philippine media that the Army’s top brass is so angry with the decision that they are even contemplating a military coup. The head of the Philippine Armed Forces, Gen. Felimon Santos. Jr., said that the VFA’S abrogation would adversely impact military cooperation with the U.S. He warned that many of the joint exercises and war games planned with the U.S. Army in 2020 could be called off by Washington. The Navy chief, Vice Admiral Robert Empedrad, has defiantly stated that his forces will continue with the joint exercises with the U.S. Navy. Sections of the Philippine Army are known to be trigger-happy and have made abortive attempts at overthrowing popularly elected governments in the past.
After Duterte announced the termination of the VFA, President Trump said he was not too concerned by the move. He said that he was okay with the decision as “we’ll save a lot of money”. At the same time, he insisted that he shared “a very good relationship” with his Philippine counterpart. Duterte said that Trump wanted to save the defence deal but had told the U.S. President that he did not want to do so for a number of reasons. “One is that the Americans are very ill-mannered,” he said.
Duterte stressed that the U.S. got a better deal out of the arrangement, pointing out that after large-scale joint military exercises, they did not leave any of their weaponry behind for the use of the Philippine Army. Duterte accused the U.S. of treating the Philippines “like a dog on a leash” and dismissed claims that the U.S. forces were acting as a deterrent to China. He accused the Pentagon of secretly keeping nuclear weapons on Philippine territory.
“It is about time that we rely on ourselves. We will strengthen our own defences and not rely on other countries,” the President told his Cabinet Ministers. Duterte said that the Chinese military posed no threat to the security of his country. “They do not mean harm” as long as “we do not also do something that is harmful to them”, he said.
However, the Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for Political/military Affairs, R. Clarke Cooper, said that the move would jeopardise continued military cooperation between the two countries. The U.S. Secretary of Defence, Mark Esper, said the move by the Philippines would have a significant negative impact on bilateral strategic ties. Esper said the decision would send the wrong signal to other allies of the U.S. in the region who were telling the Chinese government “to obey international rules of order”. He was alluding to the South China Sea territorial dispute in which countries such as India and Vietnam are openly siding with the U.S.
Under the pretext of exercising the “freedom of navigation” rules, the U.S. has been sending its warships and conducting joint military exercises with its allies in the South China Sea. “Terminating the VFA will negatively impact Philippine defence and security arrangements as well as overall bilateral relations with the U.S. and perhaps even at a subregional and multilateral level,” Esper warned. $