Week Four: Rams at Bears Open Thread
I.
Always.
Like.
THE.
Chicago.
Bears.
The Rams are 29th in passing yards allowed per game through three weeks. They have only four sacks, while allowing seven passing touchdowns. Opposing quarterbacks are tossing to a rate of 127.3, ranking them next to last in the league. Line ’em up, spread ’em out, chuck it.
(They are also a bad rush defense, but does that matter?)
There is a grace period in the NFL, when teams are allowed to look messy and disjointed. Bill Simmons and Cousin Sal, hosts of my favorite NFL podcast, joked that while we the NFL fans were ready for this season, the NFL season was not ready for us. But that grace period usually ends after the first four weeks. The Bears have looked solid and prepared on defense, incoherent and unprepared on offense.
They don’t have to light the Rams up for 40 Sunday, but the non-rookies need to start producing.
Let’s start linking these units together. We discussed Lumet’s ideological foundations with The Group Theater, and his development of early television aesthetics. So, it’s unsurprising that Lumet’s cinematic career, at least at the early stages, is peppered with stage adaptations.
Stage Struck (1958), his second film, is based on the play Morning Glory. But it’s a light comedy and produces light fare. Lumet quickly understands the in order to bring the stage to the screen, and achieve his sensibility, he has to bring the stage’s heavyweights to the screen. And while he’ll make some script alterations here and there, he’s loyal to the power of the text. (This will be discussed later in the term as one of the reasons Lumet is not a favorite of the auteur theory folks.)
Who are these heavyweights? Tennessee Williams. Arthur Miller. Eugene O’Neill. The three most important American dramatists of the first half of the 20th century. In 1960, Lumet adapted Williams’ Orpheus Descending as The Fugitive Kind, starring Marlon Brando. The film is a strange one, but worth seeing as an example of the dramatic hurdles one faces when bringing the stage to the screen. Lumet’s adaptation of Miller’s A View From the Bridge is far more straightforward, but a rather bland cinematic effort.
It is with Long Day’s Journey into Night that Lumet finds his theatrically adaptive form. It is a beautiful film and an exquisite piece of cinematic craftsmanship. From Film at Lincoln Center:
The definitive Eugene O’Neill on film, Lumet’s flawless adaptation of the author’s autobiographical, Pulitzer Prize-winning masterpiece stars Ralph Richardson as the embittered stage actor James Tyrone, husband to a recovering (or relapsing?) morphine addict (Oscar-nominee Katharine Helpburn) and father to an alcoholic fellow actor (Jason Robards Jr., recreating his role from the original Broadway production) and a tubercular merchant seaman (Dean Stockwell). Shot entirely in sequence at New York’s Chelsea Studios following a lengthy rehearsal period with the cast, Long Day’s Journey swept the acting prizes of the 1962 Cannes Film Festival, winning a collective Best Actor trophy for Richardson, Robards, and Stockwell, and Best Actress for Hepburn.
“After such an experience, I don’t see how one can niggle over whether it’s ‘cinema’ or merely ‘filmed theatre.’ Whatever it is, it’s great…Katharine Hepburn has surpassed herself—the most beautiful comedienne of the thirties and forties has become our greatest tragedienne; seeing her transitions in Journey, the way she can look eighteen or eighty at will, experiencing the magic in the art of acting, once can understand why the appellation ‘the divine’ has sometimes been awarded to certain actresses.”
—Pauline Kael
Lumet always felt he didn’t get enough credit for the cinema of this adaptation. I think anyone revisiting it now understands his displeasure was well-founded.
Here is my favorite speech from the piece. Watch the subtlety of Lumet’s camera, and the effectiveness of the lighting design, in allowing Dean Stockwell, as Edmund, to tell this story.
Tomorrow: Week 4 game preview!
The league makes little sense through three weeks. Let’s discuss.
I picked the 2024 Chicago Bears to win eleven games.
Spoiler alert: the 2024 Chicago Bears are not likely to win eleven games.
That is not to say this cannot be a good season, or even a very good season. It can. The Bears have a defense that will keep them in every single game; they have been borderline incoherent offensively through three weeks and are still a play or two away from being 3-0. Teams in this league are separated by inches, not yards, and the Bears will be improving incrementally as the campaign continues. They can absolutely still be playing relevant football deep into December and competing for one of those wildcard spots.
But there were a few “givens” heading into this season that have not materialized, namely the team’s ability to run the ball and consistently stop the run. The latter is less of a concern. Defenses face undeserved scrutiny when their offenses don’t score enough points. The former, however, is a five-alarm fire. Why can’t they run the ball? Sure, the Bears currently have liabilities at center and right guard, but they also had those liabilities in 2023. The other three starting offensive linemen are exactly the same, but Darnell Wright, Teven Jenkins and Braxton Jones are all performing way below expectations. Is it a performance issue? Is it opposing scheme? Is it simply a group struggling to implement a new system? Hello? Can anyone hear me?
And it seems the Bears themselves have been shocked by this development. You don’t call four runs, including an insane college option on 4th and goal at the one, unless you think you’re a running team. After Sunday in Indy, the Bears are now hopefully well aware of their changed identity. They can’t run the ball. But it seems they sure can toss it around.
This season is all about Caleb Williams and that running game was the primary reason many of us believed he’d have one of the easiest transitions to the NFL in years. Without it, we see games like Sunday, games where he’s being asked to throw the football more than 50 times. And what we saw in Indianapolis was Caleb doing the things supremely talented rookies do when they’re asked to throw the football that much, preparing a pigskin paella of electric moments, befuddling errors, and plenty of flavors that leave us wanting to come back for more. This is likely to be a very good season because of Caleb, who now projects to throw for more 3,500 yards in his rookie campaign. But the hope was he’d be a complementary asset as a rookie and that hope is quickly dwindling as the Bears sit 30th in the league in rushing.
It is still early. My 11-win prediction broke down as 4-2 in NFC North, 2-2 splits with the NFC West and AFC south, and a sweep of the three last place opponents, New England, Carolina, and Washington. I’m not ready to dramatically alter that, with the exception of Minnesota and Sam Darnold looking way better than I had expected. The Bears have three more games before the bye, and that bye week will be their next opportunity to make wholesale changes with personnel and scheme. If they can be 3-3 heading into that break, the season is still right in front of them.
But if the team doesn’t solve their problems in the run game, they’re going to be asking an awful lot from their rookie quarterback. That’ll be a lot of fun to watch, but it also requires slight alterations of seasonal expectations. Asking a rookie quarterback to win you eleven without help is asking too much.
The Good: Caleb Williams, Rome Odunze, and Cole Kmet’s performances yesterday were more than enough to get excited about.
#Bears Caleb Williams:
– Was nails on 3rd down
– Hit multiple deep shots, threw 2 TDs
– Made a silly mistake throwing late to the flat
– Became Chicago’s only source of offense lateFor a Week 3 Rookie QB, that’s about all you can ask for. Waldron has to figure out the run.
— Robert Schmitz (@robertkschmitz) September 22, 2024
The Bad: The Bears’ running game really is that bad right now.
The #Bears finish with 55 non-QB rushing yards on 27 carries after facing a team that entered the week with a historically bad rushing defense and was missing it’s best DL. Their big-ticket FA signing averaged 1.5 YPC yet again.
The alarm bells are going off. They’re LOUD.
— Robert Schmitz (@robertkschmitz) September 22, 2024
The Ugly: If they can’t beat a bad Colts team on a worse day, how many more of the “easy” games on their schedule are at risk of ending similarly? And if they’re only 4-5 when they host Green Bay in Week 11, what will their final record be?
The more I dwell on this #Bears game the less positive I am. They got ref help all day, got exactly what they wanted from Anthony Richardson, and still couldn’t beat a bad Colts team
Rams just beat the 9ers, the Panthers have life again. The “easy” schedule isn’t looking so easy
— Robert Schmitz (@robertkschmitz) September 22, 2024
Postgame Wrap-Up…
I.
Always.
Like.
THE.
Chicago.
Bears.
Sidney Lumet is not a cinematic stylist; there is no signature, visual aesthetic attributable to his work. His camera is a collaborator in service of the story. This is one of the reasons he has not received proper consideration.
But to understand Lumet’s technique, per se, one must understand where he began as a director: live television. Throughout the early 50s, Lumet directed hundreds of live specials for shows like Playhouse 90 and Kraft Television Theater. These had minimal sets (often one), small budgets and tight production schedules. Lumet learned the craft of filmmaking – camera movement, lighting, handling actors – in what amounted to a cinematic bootcamp.
How does one show this? Lumet does it brilliantly in his must-read book, Making Movies:
12 Angry Men, Boris Kaufman, photographer. It never occurred to me that shooting an entire picture in one room was a problem. In fact, I felt I could turn it into an advantage. One of the most important dramatic elements for me was the sense of entrapment those men must have felt in that room. Immediately, a “lens plot” occurred to me. As the picture unfolded, I wanted the room to seem smaller and smaller. That means that I would slowly shift to longer lenses as the picture continued. Starting with the normal range (28mm to 40mm), we progressed to 50mm, 75mm, and 100mm lenses. (p. 81)
When you watch 12 Angry Men, pay close attention to what we in the sports world might call “the thirteen man” – the camera. (The film is available to stream everywhere but it’s free on Roku Channel and with your MGM+ and Criterion subscriptions.)
Your Turn: What do you think is going to happen in Indy this weekend?
