Fri 26 Sep 2014
A Movie Review by Jonathan Lewis: THE JUGGLER (1953).
Posted by Steve under Films: Drama/Romance , Reviews[16] Comments
THE JUGGLER. Columbia Pictures, 1953. Kirk Douglas, Milly Vitale, Paul Stewart, Joseph Walsh, Alf Kjellin, Beverly Washburn, Charles Lane. Director: Edward Dmytryk.
The Juggler is a good, although deeply unsettling, film about a Holocaust survivor with what we’d now likely call post-traumatic stress. Directed by Edward Dmytryk, this Stanley Kramer production stars Kirk Douglas (born Isser Danielovitch) as Hans Muller, a German Jewish refugee who arrives in Israel in 1949, just after the nascent Jewish state had defeated several invading Arab armies.
The film’s title comes from Muller’s profession. Prior to his traumatic experiences in concentration camps and losing his wife in the war, he was a famous juggler and entertainer in Germany. Muller (Douglas) is the definition of a sad clown, a man who, from the outside looking in, jokes around to cheer others up.
But he’s deeply scarred man inside, plagued by guilt for not leaving Germany earlier. (For historical purposes, it’s interesting to note that Muller’s character is an assimilated German Jew rather than an Eastern European Jew from Poland or Russia, people who didn’t face the same historical choices as did German Jews, many of whom did emigrate to Palestine in the 1930s.) After a tense encounter with a refugee camp doctor who urges Muller to seek the aid of a psychiatrist, Muller flees the confines of the Israeli resettlement camp for the city of Haifa.
While walking on a city street, Muller witnesses a policeman talking to another man. This triggers something terrible inside of him. He begins to run. In a vividly realized scene, a frantic Muller courses down stone steps. The policeman, who we soon learn was looking for a suspect, chases after him. In a fit of fear and rage, Muller strikes the policeman with his feet, seriously injuring the Israeli cop.
Enter Israeli investigator, Karni (Paul Stewart). Karni, along with a witness, seek to track down the man responsible for the injured Haifa cop. The trail leads them to the resettlement camp and eventually they have a face and a name. That man’s name is Muller. Karni is resolute. He will get his man.
In the meantime, Muller has teamed up with an Israeli orphan boy by the name of Josh. The two of them hike through the beautiful countryside of northern Israel, eventually settling in at an Israeli kibbutz close to the Syrian border.
It’s there that Muller encounters Yael (Milly Vitale), a woman who is willing to give the hurt Muller a second chance at life. When Karni shows up, however, she realizes just how troubled a man her love really is. Muller barricades himself in one of the kibbutz’s buildings, loaded rifle in hand.
The final showdown is in some ways reminiscent of Edward Dmytryk’s The Sniper (1952), also produced by Stanley Kramer. In that film, a deeply troubled war veteran goes on a killing spree in San Francisco, eventually holing himself up in a small boarding house room. In The Juggler, the protagonist/anti-hero isn’t responsible for murdering anyone, so much as for failing to acknowledge how desperate in need of help he really is.
While The Juggler was not a commercial success and is at times, a very uneven film, it remains an important work. It should be of particular interest to persons interested in Kirk Douglas’s filmography. Douglas is really good here, delivering his performance with a mixture of drama, humor, and pathos. His fits of anger seem extraordinarily real and have an unnerving sense about them.
Indeed, there’s almost something noir about Muller’s plight. He’s a man who commits a crime and is hunted by the police. But at the end of the day, he’s hunted – and haunted – by so much more than a lone Israeli detective. It’s not the easiest film to watch, but it’s worth the effort.
September 27th, 2014 at 9:26 am
I’ve never seen, and barely heard of The Juggler. Thank you for this informative review. It sounds like a film I should see.
My take on Edward Dmytryk after seeing only a portion of his many films: a man whose left-of-center political commentary is often fascinating and courageous, but whose lack of story telling skills, visual style, and individual personality generally prevents him from making “good movies” in any conventional sense.
Because of this general ambiguity, I’ve had a hard time coming to terms with Dmytryk’s films. Are they good movies? Bad movies? Should they be recommended to other people? Who knows!
First, some of the bad stuff. There seems to be a law that middle brow, mainstream critics must refer to him as “Edward Dmytryk, the director of the Caine Mutiny”. Why they single out this conformist junk is beyond me.
I don’t share some people’s enthusiasm for such film noir as “Farewell, My Lovely” and “The Sniper”. These just seem like mediocre, inept filmmaking. I don’t object if other people like these. But still, “Farewell, My Lovely” seems like an archetypal example of a mainly worthless film made out of an impressive book. Only Dick Powell’s transformative performance as a tough guy seems creative.
On the good side: the Dmytryk films that succeed best as all-around-entertainment are the serious drama/romance “Till the End of Time” and the Western “Broken Lance”. These mix pleasant performances with fervent anti-racist social commentary. “Broken Lance” also deals at an early date with environmental issues.
The scene in “Crossfire” where Robert Young denounces anti-semitism is classic. But it is embedded in what is otherwise a dull crime thriller.
Unique in Hollywood history is “Hitler’s Children”, one of the most blistering, corrosive films ever made. This ferocious expose of the Nazi programs for young people reaches horror story levels. It is a unique, original film, on the political level.
***
Complicating the picture is the visual image that recurs in numerous Dmytryk films: the handsome hunk in a sharp uniform. It is hard to interpret this image. Did Dmytryk believe such men added to the box-office appeal of his films? Are they a gay sub-text? What biographical info is available on Dmytryk does not support a gay interpretation. He was a married-with-children guy whose name has never been linked to any gay real-life activities.
Still, these men are too forceful onscreen to ignore. Guy Madison in his Marine Corps uniform early in “Till the End of Time” is simply one of the most handsome men to step in front of a Hollywood camera.
September 27th, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Sorry: I should have remembered that “Farewell, My Lovely†was retitled for the movies “Murder, My Sweet”.
I should never try to post while having a bad cold!
September 27th, 2014 at 2:44 pm
I believe “Hitler’s Children” was on TCM a month or so ago. Now I wish I had seen it.
I agree with you regarding “Crossfire”. All told, I found it to be a rather boring, slow moving affair with somewhat going-through-the-motions acting by Mitchum and Ryan. I think Sam Levene actually has more of a memorable presence. The ending has its noir aspect — with the rainy Washington DC night and the shootut — but aside from the anti-Semitism speech, I don’t think it’s the great film that some people seem to think it is
You should try to find a DVD copy of “The Juggler.” I believe that it may be out of print, but it should be available on ebay or Amazon somewhere. There isn’t anything exceptional about the filmmaking, but the story — especially for its time — was unique.
Regarding ED’s political views, in “The Juggler,” when Douglas’s character is holed up with a gun in a kibbutz building and threatening to shoot the Israeli cop, he is standing under a photo of VI Lenin. Make of that what you will
September 27th, 2014 at 4:24 pm
Mike
Jonathan
Wow, I cannot think of two movies I disagree with more in regard to their quality. MURDER is visually and in storytelling style one of the most influential noir films ever made and one of the few films based on Chandler’s work to find a visual representation of his literary style in terms of metaphor and simile. THE BIG SLEEP is arguably a better and more important film because of Hawks, Bogie and Bacall, and that script, but it is also a big sloppy mess in many ways where MURDER is Chandler’s novel. Mike Mazurki gives a pitch perfect performance as Moose as does Trevor as Velma and Kruger the villain.
Save for moving the location of the climax and a bit more of a romance it is very faithful, and a few scenes such as Marlowe in his office when he first meets Moose, his pitch forward into the famous ‘black pool’, the little hopscotch Powell does across the checkered floor when introduced to Trevor, the asylum sequence, and the last confrontation when he is blinded are all telling moments. I can’t think of any film but THE MALTESE FALCON to capture the visual equivalent of the hard boiled private eye any where near as well.
Visually MURDER ranks with FALCON and CITIZEN KANE (admittedly in third place) as one of the screens most influential influences on style.
I honestly can’t see how anyone could like or love the book and not like the film, it’s one of the screen’s most faithful adaptations. Chandler even loved it.
CROSSFIRE isn’t as visually inventive, but the performances by Mitchum, Young, Levine, and especially Ryan give the film a tension that is almost palpable. I saw and admired this one long before I knew what film noir was or that it was one of the classics of the genre. I’ll grant it is a plot and character piece, but I can think of few films to tackle that subject as intelligently and as well in a dramatic structure. Unlike GENTLEMAN’s AGREEMENT (which I admire a great deal) it doesn’t beat you over the head with an ‘important’ message, but confronts you not only with others prejudice but just how terrible any of your own may be towards any group.
Ryan’s great triumph here isn’t that he is a monster, but that he is a monster beneath a fairly normal form. His character is never likable, but sorry to say I have known dozens like him, if not quite so psychopathic. Neither Mitchum or Young are presented as angry social crusaders. One is just a good man forced to find his moral center by an act of injustice and the other a moral hard working cop with a soul.
Of course anyone can dislike anything and has the absolute right to and I would never argue with your reactions to the films, just your critiques.
Re CAINE MUTINY it was a huge hit, multiple nominations, and one of Bogie’s most famous roles as well as career boosters for MacMurray and Ferrer. Money talks as does name recognition, and while TIL THE END OF TIME is a better film, it is nowhere near as well known. I’m no fan of GIANT, but when I see George Stevens name I know that is more likely to be listed than TALK OF THE TOWN among his credits — well, not by me, but in general. Anyway that’s why the mainstream, and in my opinion rather pedestrian, CAINE MUTINY gets listed.
THE JUGGLER is a good film I saw once and just don’t desire to see again despite Douglas performance. It’s too grim for me for all its power. I may watch it again some day, but I doubt it. That said it is a very good film and a very personal one for Douglas. It’s just that at the end I felt as much a victim of PTSD as the protagonist. There are very good films and books that really are designed to see or read once only, but I agree with most Jonathan and Mike have to say about it.
Anyway, I always hope disagreement like this inspire good conversation about something I love, film. Perfect agreement teaches no one anything and is deadly dull.
September 27th, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Leslie Halliwell, one of the most knowledgeable men in British television and film buyer for The Granada Network wrote this about the Juggler: “Well meaning cheapie, a curiously aimless topical drama which fails to make any of its several points.” My sentiments, exactly. Stanley Kramer’s name is really all one needs to see.
David Vineyard, I believe all you have written illustrates comprehensive insight into filmmaking and the people who made them. On a personal note, I don’t enjoy Crossfire, but all the actors do yeoman’s work, add Gloria Grahame and Paul Kelly to the list mentioned above.
September 27th, 2014 at 9:01 pm
Barry
Thanks, high praise from you.
Agree about the rest of the cast of CROSSFIRE and especially the ones you added. It’s one of those films that whether you like it or not you have to recognize its importance and that it does what it means to do.
Halliwell is one of my favorite critics and his books among the best on film I had in my library. He can be very hard, sometimes too hard as I think he is on JUGGLER, but even when I disagree I usually see his points as I do here. I actually think it may be more important JUGGLER was made than how well it turned out. Intent can be more important than achievement in some cases as I think it is here since few others were trying to tell that story.
Halliwell coined my favorite critical term for film or literature, “thud ear” to describe bad dialogue. Steve tried to credit to me at one point, but I gave the credit to Halliwell. It may be the best phrase ever coined to describe an author or screenwriter who just doesn’t hear the music of good dialogue and prose.
September 27th, 2014 at 11:46 pm
David,
I see your point — The Juggler just being made — and that time and date that it was being enough. Douglas is compulsively watchable until he is not any more and becomes a man of presence overwhelming the screen and seeming to be overwhelmed by it. Not the only time I’ve felt that way about him. Never came to the conclusion that it was always pleasure to see Kirk Douglas on screen, but the memories are mostly all good. I would trade his work for Michael’s any time.
September 28th, 2014 at 4:55 pm
Come to think of it, there have been very few American or English-language films dealing with Holocaust survivors. There have been obviously quite a few about the Holocaust itself, especially after 1980 or so, but few about people rebuilding their lives after.
This was from the early 1950s, so it is important just for being made, as discussed above
September 28th, 2014 at 11:24 pm
Jonathan,
That seems to be the consensus regarding The Juggler. There have been a few, very few, American films dealing, in some way with this subject. Maybe. The Stranger certainly qualifies and Jerry Lewis had a go at the subject in The Day The Clown Cried. I’ve not seen this, and in fact have never met or heard of anyone who has, but the synopsis seems just awful.
September 29th, 2014 at 10:38 am
Two places to start learning more on this subject:
Annette Insdorf, “Indelible Shadows: Film and the Holocaust” is an academic book. Insdorf is a Columbia University professor. See:
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/arts-theatre-culture/film/indelible-shadows-film-and-holocaust-3rd-edition
The Wikipedia has a long (but doubtless incomplete) list of films about the Holocaust:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_films
A famous film about a Holocaust survivor: “The Pawnbroker”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pawnbroker_(film)
September 29th, 2014 at 2:45 pm
Thanks, Mike.
“The Pawnbroker” is certainly an important, and well regarded film, in this sub-genre
September 29th, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Agree about the PAWNBROKER and there is also LISA based on Jan de Hartog’s THE INSPECTOR, but most of those come a decade or more after THE JUGGLER. There is at least one early film about the foundation of Israel (Dana Andrews, Jeff Chandler)and some about stateless people, but in general it is much later before you see films about survivors struggle. Even THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK comes much later.
I don’t know if it was too sensitive and films shied away from it, too raw, or what, because the era was rife with books, many bestsellers, about the subject in popular and serious fiction.
September 29th, 2014 at 5:58 pm
I actually recently saw that film with Jeff Chandler and Dana Andrews. It’s called SWORD IN THE DESERT. The first half deals with refugees in Israel, but then the film (in my mind, unfortunately) morphs into a “revenge fantasy” against the British Army. Not to say that the British weren’t horribly unfair, but it just detracts I thought away from the film’s staying power. Andrews is good in that one, which makes it worth seeing, if for no other reason
September 30th, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Jonathan
That, and the fact it may be the only time Jeff Chandler actually played a Jew in a film and not everything else but.
September 30th, 2014 at 6:26 pm
David Vineyard
I thought Chandler’s Sword In The Desert performance his best, by far, on film. Your observation may have something to do with that.
October 1st, 2014 at 11:10 pm
Yes, I noticed that. It was Chandler’s (born Ira Grossel in Brooklyn) only role playing a Jewish character. Interestingly, Douglas played Jewish characters several times in film