Nicholas Ray's 'Bigger Than Life' was released to little fanfare in 1956. Ever the proficient filmmaker, it was Ray's third film in the span of a year. Following the hugely successful 'Rebel Without a Cause' and the forgotten 'Hot Blood'.
Like 'Rebel' before it, 'Bigger Than Life' attempted to address a prevalent issue that was more often than not ignored by the majority of filmmakers. In 'Rebel' it was all about teenager disillusionment with their place in society and their disenchantment with their parents generation. In 'Bigger Than Life' it focuses on the surprisingly forward topic of the dangers on drug overdose. Moreover it creates an interesting debate on the dangers of conformity.
The story was inspired on an article by Burton Roueche, a medical writer for the New Yorker. Roueche was a highly intelligent writer who wrote of many case studies and the film's narrative was based on a case he had chronicled in the danger of experimental drugs. The film avoids documentary style analysis and instead experiments with melodrama and it mostly succeeds in getting its points across.
The film's protagonist, Ed Avery (Mason) is a family man who is devoted to his wife Lou (Rush) and his son Richie. Having problems in keeping up financially, he is employed in two jobs so that he can afford to keep their household running. The Avery's are an average American family and according to Ed are boring. They enjoy all the benefits of the typical 50s American family. They own a house, a station-wagon, a television and they have a group of friends to play bridge. Where the film delivers is in what it doesn't tell the viewer. This can be seen, for instance, in the Avery's desire to have something more than their domestic life provides. Their house, containing multiple tourism posters for world destinations, such as London and Madrid - hints at the desire to break free, yet this is a family that is unable to travel to these places, limited to viewing them from afar, on their wall.
Perhaps owing to his extra work, Ed begins to experience terrible pain, but ignores it deciding that he is just overly tired. One day after hosting a bridge evening, Ed falls unconscious in his bedroom after having an argument with his wife and he is hospitalised. Whilst in hospital, the doctors are particularly concerned with his symptoms and bring in several specialists who eventually diagnose him with a rare inflammation of the arteries. They say that his case will prove to be fatal, unless he takes an experimental drug, 'a miracle drug' - a cortisone injection, but in pill form. Ed agrees to take it and eventually is released from hospital, but not before being warned by his doctor to only take one tablet every 6 hours - no more, no less.
Upon being released from hospital, Ed feels great and returns to work immediately. Whilst taking the drug his moods vary significantly, but he feels great when he takes the correct amount, but his mood changes quite significantly when he overdoses. His personality completely changes and this ranges from making insulting (yet viable) statements on the state of child development to snapping at his wife and child. The drugs have changed him, but he is unable to come off them because he could die without them.
The film has been called by numerous critics as an attack on 1950s conformity. Ed is freed from these standards when he takes the drug, and the effects are truthful, yet terrifying. There is a scene in Ed's school where he complains of society raising their children as a race of 'moral midgets'. He delivers his points in an almost Fascistic method and one parent even jumps up and declares how Ed is correct in his opinions. His teaching friend Wally (Matthau) is concerned at Ed's sudden change and break from conformity and eventually discovers that it is a side-effect of the cortisone.
The film is magnificently shot with Ray's famous expressionist shadows employed in the later segments of the film, particularly when Ed is in pain or has his mood swings. The bouts of pain that Ed experiences are shot exactly like a scene in Mamoulian's 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' - dark shadows employed and Mason's face is obscured. Close-ups are often used in order to emphasise Ed's mood. Perhaps the most potent imagery in the film however is the use of the broken mirror, which could be seen as representing Ed's breaking free of conformity. The concluding fight with its carnival music blaring from a television is reminiscent of 'Strangers on a Train', but it is also terrifying. Ed's transformation is so significant that Ray questions whether it is just the drug that changes Ed. Are these psychotic tendencies inherent in all humans? Perhaps the only real weakness in the film is in the overly happy ending. It would perhaps be unfair to criticise a film for having a happy ending, especially in one that was produced under the production code, but with Ed's prognosis being that of having to take the drug for the rest of his life and under strict supervision, the character's future looks bleak - a fact that is glossed over by the ending.
All in all, however, 'Larger Than Life' is a highly recommended film that was ahead of its time. I feel that its current rating of 7.1 is unfair, but this is perhaps due to the lack of its availability on video. In my opinion this is a film that deserves to be on a par with Ray's other classic 'Rebel Without a Cause'.
Like 'Rebel' before it, 'Bigger Than Life' attempted to address a prevalent issue that was more often than not ignored by the majority of filmmakers. In 'Rebel' it was all about teenager disillusionment with their place in society and their disenchantment with their parents generation. In 'Bigger Than Life' it focuses on the surprisingly forward topic of the dangers on drug overdose. Moreover it creates an interesting debate on the dangers of conformity.
The story was inspired on an article by Burton Roueche, a medical writer for the New Yorker. Roueche was a highly intelligent writer who wrote of many case studies and the film's narrative was based on a case he had chronicled in the danger of experimental drugs. The film avoids documentary style analysis and instead experiments with melodrama and it mostly succeeds in getting its points across.
The film's protagonist, Ed Avery (Mason) is a family man who is devoted to his wife Lou (Rush) and his son Richie. Having problems in keeping up financially, he is employed in two jobs so that he can afford to keep their household running. The Avery's are an average American family and according to Ed are boring. They enjoy all the benefits of the typical 50s American family. They own a house, a station-wagon, a television and they have a group of friends to play bridge. Where the film delivers is in what it doesn't tell the viewer. This can be seen, for instance, in the Avery's desire to have something more than their domestic life provides. Their house, containing multiple tourism posters for world destinations, such as London and Madrid - hints at the desire to break free, yet this is a family that is unable to travel to these places, limited to viewing them from afar, on their wall.
Perhaps owing to his extra work, Ed begins to experience terrible pain, but ignores it deciding that he is just overly tired. One day after hosting a bridge evening, Ed falls unconscious in his bedroom after having an argument with his wife and he is hospitalised. Whilst in hospital, the doctors are particularly concerned with his symptoms and bring in several specialists who eventually diagnose him with a rare inflammation of the arteries. They say that his case will prove to be fatal, unless he takes an experimental drug, 'a miracle drug' - a cortisone injection, but in pill form. Ed agrees to take it and eventually is released from hospital, but not before being warned by his doctor to only take one tablet every 6 hours - no more, no less.
Upon being released from hospital, Ed feels great and returns to work immediately. Whilst taking the drug his moods vary significantly, but he feels great when he takes the correct amount, but his mood changes quite significantly when he overdoses. His personality completely changes and this ranges from making insulting (yet viable) statements on the state of child development to snapping at his wife and child. The drugs have changed him, but he is unable to come off them because he could die without them.
The film has been called by numerous critics as an attack on 1950s conformity. Ed is freed from these standards when he takes the drug, and the effects are truthful, yet terrifying. There is a scene in Ed's school where he complains of society raising their children as a race of 'moral midgets'. He delivers his points in an almost Fascistic method and one parent even jumps up and declares how Ed is correct in his opinions. His teaching friend Wally (Matthau) is concerned at Ed's sudden change and break from conformity and eventually discovers that it is a side-effect of the cortisone.
The film is magnificently shot with Ray's famous expressionist shadows employed in the later segments of the film, particularly when Ed is in pain or has his mood swings. The bouts of pain that Ed experiences are shot exactly like a scene in Mamoulian's 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' - dark shadows employed and Mason's face is obscured. Close-ups are often used in order to emphasise Ed's mood. Perhaps the most potent imagery in the film however is the use of the broken mirror, which could be seen as representing Ed's breaking free of conformity. The concluding fight with its carnival music blaring from a television is reminiscent of 'Strangers on a Train', but it is also terrifying. Ed's transformation is so significant that Ray questions whether it is just the drug that changes Ed. Are these psychotic tendencies inherent in all humans? Perhaps the only real weakness in the film is in the overly happy ending. It would perhaps be unfair to criticise a film for having a happy ending, especially in one that was produced under the production code, but with Ed's prognosis being that of having to take the drug for the rest of his life and under strict supervision, the character's future looks bleak - a fact that is glossed over by the ending.
All in all, however, 'Larger Than Life' is a highly recommended film that was ahead of its time. I feel that its current rating of 7.1 is unfair, but this is perhaps due to the lack of its availability on video. In my opinion this is a film that deserves to be on a par with Ray's other classic 'Rebel Without a Cause'.