Shanghai Express (1932)

Approved.  Outside of the dated racism, occasionally touching on yellowface, the film is actually a little more violent than I'm used to in 1932.  We're not talking about anything by today's standards.  But considering a lot of these films that I'm watching in this box set tend to lean towards just discussion back-and-forth, Shanghai Express actually has people die quasi-violent deaths.  There's also some implication that sexual assault might happen, but nothing to explicit when it is presented on screen.

DIRECTOR:  Josef von Sternberg

This is supposed to be one of the more popular movies in the box set, right?  I mean, for the first time in the box, I don't completely hate the movie.  I'd even go as far as to say that I like a good chunk of this movie.  But I am going to be as fortright as possible:  this movie has a lot of flaws that will keep it from being one of those greats that I've been looking forward to.

Because I've basically tried to mold my personality into being a political turd, I have / want to talk about the specific racism of 1930s Hollywood.  It's not like I'm completely removed from this racism.  I can just imagine how excited the studio was to make a movie that took place in far off China.  This is the China of mystery and intrigue.  It's what we thought of most of Asia, the notion that these people were barely people.  I want to throw as many stones as I can at movies like Shanghai Express, but we're really crossing into Indiana Jones territory as well.  I can't help but sit through Shanghai Express and think that this is more Mann's Chinese Theater than it is anything that represents the nuance of Chinese culture.  I mean, you see those opening credits in that American Chinese restaurant font and you know exactly what you are getting into.

I need to learn more about the history of Warner Oland.  I did the Wikipedia article.  It was meh.  The stuff that I'm finding on YouTube seems to be more fluff than actual in-depth study of what Orland thought about his specific appearance.  But it does seem like a red (pun unintended) flag when Warner Oland appears in a movie as a person of Asian descent, especially when it comes to playing a villain.  To the film's credit, Orland plays a person of mixed race who is often commented on as acting mostly like someone from  the West.  But there is something sinister about Oland's performance as Mr. Chang.  I'm really going to be insufferable to any conservative voices out there, but there is a really weird implication behind some of the choices behind Mr. Chang.  Shanghai Express --admittedly made by a German ex-pat --presents Westerners as charming and quirky.  If there is criticism thrown to the people visiting this mystical East, it's that they are fairly superfluous and shallow people.  But they are used for comedy.  Mr. Chang is something else.  When Sam Salt interacts with Chang in the first act, he points out that he mostly looks and acts like a White man.  To Salt --who is admittedly a bit of a dunce --White means normal. 

But as silly as Salt comes across in the movie, his distrust of Chang ultimately ends up being right.  When the train is pulled aside, Salt is the one who takes the victory lap knowing that he couldn't really trust a man like Chang.  Chang actually becomes a really good villain if it wasn't for the racist overtones, implying that even a little bit of Chinese blood makes someone untrustworthy.  Anna Wong's Hui Fei is meant to be a contrast to Chang.  She's on the side of the angels.  But even Hui Fei doesn't present her character as something that is gauged as normal.  She's always presented as a woman of mystery, allying herself with Shanghai Lily.  She has few lines in the movie and always seems angry at the world around her.  

But the big frustrating thing about Hui Fei is the fact her heroic moment aligns with Western views on Eastern characters.  No one on the train is really willing to commit any act of violence.  When Captain Harvey punches Chang when Chang threatens to assault Madeline, it is his cultured stance as a British soldier to deliver a single punch to preserve Madeline's maidenhood...whatever it may be.  (Note: the film makes a big point to tease the notion that Madeline may be a ruined woman.  Not independent.  Ruined woman.) Contrast that to Chang, who finds his fragile honor contested by the slight and tries to blind Harvey for his assault.  Hui Fei, like Chang, isn't afraid to get her hands dirty.  The way that she gets her hands dirty is in line with how the West views the Chinese.  If Chang is willing to betray everyone on the train through his duplicitous identity, Hui Fei is willing to stab Chang in the back, a term we use for dishonor.  

Also, there's the term "Shanghai Lily", a moniker bestowed on Madeline the protagonist.  I won't deny that the name "Shanghai Lily" is perfect for the archetype that Marlene Dietrich built up for herself.  The notion that she's somehow different from other White Westerners.  I won't go as far as "less than", but rather the embodiment of sin.  Mr. Carmichael is meant to be a foil to the persona of Shanghai Lily.  We're meant to be intrigued by the adventures of Shanghai Lily, often using Carmichael as the buffoon who gets stymied everytime he tries landing a point against her.  Yes, we root for her, but it comes from the narrative that Madeline is a ruined woman and it takes a dashing captain / doctor to redeem and domesticate her.  Maybe that's the frustration in all of these movies starring Dietrich seem to be about the fantasy about domesticating this wayward woman.

Okay, I got off of my high horse.  I've proven that I'm the most evolved person in the room, so I suppose that I should talk about the movie outside of the heavy racial and sexist overtones.  From an enjoyment perspective, there is something very fun about this movie, even if it is incredibly disjointed.  I can't stress that enough.  This is three movies linked together like train cars.  The first act, the exposition, is filmed like a comedy.  Von Sternberg fits as many jokes as he can into this first act.  Part of it comes from the need for Chang to be a trustworthy character.  I won't lie.  I was a little tired from the first act.  We needed to know that Harvey still held a painful torch for his lost love, the wayward Madeline.  We needed to completely embrace the mythos of Shanghai Lily and imagine what adventures she had been up to since she left the arms of Harvey.  But in terms of great storytelling?  There's not much there.  It's not insane that an exposition spends a lot of time on setting and character, but it honestly goes on a bit long before the inciting incident happens all the way in Act II.

Act II is what I'm here for.  While there are lighthearted moments in Act II, the movie takes the tone of a --albeit silly --political thriller.  As much as I rally against the Warner Oland portrayal of a Chinese rebel, who is as evil as they come, he does make a compelling villain.  The movie wanted to show the dynamic of a woman trying to control an ancient society using her own sexuality to become a hero in an unwinnable situation.  And for a lot of Act II, again, a silly Act II, that narrative kind of works.  It becomes this fascinating triangle between Chang, Madeline, and Harvey that seems like it is the end of the line for these characters.  It actually gets so locked into the notion that Madeline and Harvey are doomed to stay in the middle of China that I was questioning if Shanghai Express was an appropriate title for this movie.  Unfortunately, the second act resolves far too nicely.  Considering that Chang is the head of the rebels --who are borderline Stormtroopers from Star Wars --once Chang is killed, the protagonists' escape back onto the train (an object that is locked to a track) is surprsingly easy.  So I can like the suspense of the second act all I want, but it doesn't really resolve in a meaningful way outside of the knowledge that Madeline was willing to sacrifice herself for Harvey's wellbeing.

But the final act?  Man, that act doesn't really make any sense, does it?  The final act shifts away from political intrigue to over the top romantic melodrama?  And the thing is, to make that work, Harvey has to become a crazy person.  He has to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire scenario.  I know that he doesn't have the metatext that I'm dealing with.  But it isn't much of a leap to imagine why Madeline would want to run away with Chang.  Also, the notion that Madeline didn't fight Harvey on the escape kind of implies that she was going with Chang against her desires.  Now, there is a perk to the final act and that's the role that Mr. Carmichael plays.  I really like the sitdown between Carmichael and Madeline.  It's a nice beat in a story that needs to talk about the role of the overly pious.  But as a narrative device, it's completely unnecessary.  Unfortunately for von Sternberg, that would meant that the film wasn't long enough to be a film.  It feels like the last act is tacked on because there's not enough content to make a movie here.  You really could have the emotionally resonating moment with Harvey pulling Madeline onto the train and passionately kissing her.  But the movie would be 20 minutes too short.  

All of this means that the film is not only watchable, but it's more than watchable.  I can't say it's great or even that good.  But it is a watchable movie that helps me understand why people love Marlene Dietrich.  It's a fun movie, even if it is a bit racist.  And a bit sexist.  And a bit of a mess.