Showing posts with label william devane. Show all posts
Showing posts with label william devane. Show all posts

Sunday, August 6, 2023

Marathon Man (1976)

Babe Levy (Dustin Hoffmann) is a New York student working on a thesis connected to the death of his father, who killed himself after being subjected to one of the McCarthy “hearings”, something Babe clearly can’t get away from, and so doesn’t try. Apart from his training up to run marathons, if you go for that kind of psychology; the film certainly does. Babe believes his brother Doc (Roy Scheider) is some high-level businessman working from Washington, but in truth, he is involved in the shadiest parts of espionage work, where it’s okay to keep mass murderers safe as long as they are convenient sources of information.

Said mass murderer is Nazi Szell (Laurence Olivier), and he’s grown rather paranoid in his old age. Believing Doc to be part of a conspiracy to steal his retirement nest egg of diamonds, the old man eventually kills him. Because Doc, despite all his faults certainly a loving brother in his way, stumbles into Babe’s apartment to bleed to death there, Szell assumes the younger Levy knows something about his most probably imagined conspiracy, so he begins to threaten and torture Babe.

Babe eventually escapes and turns rather more lucky at vengeance than Szell could have feared.

It is one of the fine ironies in John Schlesinger’s often brutal and really rather wonderful paranoid thriller Marathon Man that Szell is very much the architect of his final doom, driven by madness and an immense guilt this monstrous little man could only ever channel into anger and violence to create enemies and his own final catastrophe by his own blind brutality and cruelty. Laurence Olivier plays up the basic horribleness and horridness of the man wonderfully, grasps enough of the pathos of the character to make him interesting and complex, yet also keeps well away from making this murdering Nazi bastard “sympathetic”; as Olivier plays him, he’s small, cruel and painfully human in his quotidian monstrosity – there’s a controlled restraint in the actor’s approach that’s absolutely right for what is happening here.

Hoffman’s Babe is just as driven by the shadows of the past and guilt as Szell is, but where Szell is actually as guilty as a person can be, Babe’s guilt is based on a past history he had no hand in shaping and bears no responsibility for. In truth, Babe starts out as the innocent his name suggests (the script by William Goldman based on his own novel and apparently doctored by Robert Towne isn’t subtle about these things), and is dragged into growing out of assumed guilt into accruing some of his own through machinations he has little control over. I have seen Babe’s development read as the process of him growing up, but I’m not quite cynical enough to understand “learning that your loved ones are lying to you about the most crucial elements of their lives, and being involved in several violent killings” as growing up. I can’t imagine Babe after this as nothing but broken, dysfunctional and utterly alone, having shed the guilt for what his country did to his father only to have to replace it with one all of his own, however much the film tries to sell its ending as a happy one. To be fair, there’s also a second thematic strand about endurance (another reason for the marathon running) under horrible circumstances running through the film, but its darker thematic vein isn’t just richer, it is also much better embedded into the deeper strata of the film itself, at least to my eyes.

There’s a deep sense of urban paranoia running through much of the film; there isn’t only the heavy burden of hidden or at least unresolved history to carry, the characters also have to cope with a world where betrayal is a given as if it were a natural law. In the Paris and New York of this film, it’s a given that your partner and your lovers will betray you, that your brother’s friend is a rat, and so on. Though, in a curious sense of fairness, the worst of us, like Szell, can’t rest easy either.

On a cinematic level, this is a rather fantastic film. Schlesinger, whose body of work I generally find inconsistent but genuinely interesting, creates dark, grubby versions of New York and Paris that fit the grim and desperate tone of the film perfectly. Even by day, this particular version of the world is dominated by shadows and only the coldest of artificial light; everything is grubby, grimy, and used-up. Even the Paris Opera looks as if it had seen better days.

The suspense scenes follow classicist Hitchcockian forms, but Schlesinger often adds little notes of historical verisimilitude here Hitchcock would have avoided, probably very consciously keeping to the film’s main theme of the psychologically (possibly psychically) disfiguring burden of history and guilt. These scenes are often incredibly tight and tense, be it Szell torturing Babe dentally, Babe’s ensuing escape attempts and eventual escape, or the long, final sequence in which a panicked Nazi war criminal makes its way through a Jewish part of New York (at a time when you’d still meet quite a few survivors of the concentration camps there). The film’s actual finale isn’t much of one, in comparison, with a strong whiff of studio executives getting cold feet when confronted with the consequent grimness of Goldman’s initial ending. The rest of Marathon Man is so strong, the mildly botched ending isn’t much of a problem however.

Sunday, June 5, 2022

The Dark (1979)

aka The Mutilator

Los Angeles. A mysterious killer stalks the streets at night, ripping heads off, or vaporizing people and/or heads with laser beam eyes.

Roy Warner (William Devane), man slaughterer turned writer and father of the latest victim is rather disappointed in the police work concerning the case and kinda-sorta starts an investigation of his own. For about half of the time, this investigation consists of following the police and staring angrily at them. One can understand this behaviour, however, for Detectives Mooney (Richard Jaeckel) and Bresler (Biff – seriously - Elliot) have investigation techniques very much their own: they love to complain about the press, the public, their moms as well as yours, while looking around confused about why nobody takes them seriously. Mooney also just loves to antagonize everybody he meets while showing not on iota of empathy or understanding: witnesses, victims, reporters, fathers of decapitated girls – you name someone, he’s an asshole to them; Bresler for his part eats, and eats, and then eats some more. Yes, of course donut jokes are involved.

Also on the case is up and coming TV anchor Zoe Owens (Cathy Lee Crosby), getting her teeth into the business in hopes of becoming a proper journalist instead of just a pretty face.

The Dark is another among the considerable number of projects that initially involved the great Tobe Hooper as a director. As it goes with Hooper, he soon found himself released of his duties by one of the producers. Depending on whom you ask, because his lunch breaks were too long, or because he got over budget, or, rather more believable, because a cranky producer simply didn’t like his style. Said producer then proceeded to put John “Bud” Cardos on the director’s chair, re-write the script, and probably do terrible things to the final cut as well.

That story, with its typical mix of rumours and angry mutterings by Hollywood people who were working on the same film together saying completely different things about anyone and anything involved in the production, is a lot more entertaining than the movie that came out without Hooper’s name in the credits. Because for some godawful reason what sounds like a cool monster movie that includes a couple of nice places to insert social criticism into Hooper would probably have had a feast day with is turned into a pretty damn boring police procedural. Most of the film consists of Mooney and Bresler doing little and complaining a lot while Bresler leaves food crumbs in every shot, followed by Warner doing very little as well, followed by Zoe having a discussion or three with her boss (Keenan Wynn). Repeat until runtime is full, add some surprisingly well staged monster attacks with a couple of really bad ideas (laser eyes), and a finale in which the hero just needs to touch the monster once with a torch to let it go up in flames.

It’s just painfully boring, includes no character that isn’t a static stock trope, no developments of plot lines or these characters, and really, no actual plot. Scenes that shouldn’t have started in the first place just go on and on and on, the dialogue is generally bad as well as unfun, and pain don’t hurt, because it’s too boring for it.

The only thing that’s actually remarkable – apart from the stalking scenes that really should have been in a better movie – is that the quality of the photography (DP John Morrill) is pretty great throughout in a late 70s/early 80s Dean Cundey sort of way. Alas, too many of the shots done so prettily are focussed on Richard Jaeckel looking constipated.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

A Handful of Toughts On Family Plot (1976)

Alfred Hitchcock’s final film is generally, though certainly not universally, rather unloved. It’s not much of a surprise either, for this peculiar comedy thriller (thriller comedy?) most of the time doesn’t feel at all like the sort of films you think about when it comes to defining an Alfred Hitchcock movie, even though it is certainly working in a genre space Hitchcock very much helped define.

Which is why I rather like the film, I think. At the very least, I find it very difficult not to respect a filmmaker who has been making movies since silent film times, and in the late 70s still goes out to make a film that’s not typical of him. Family Plot is not a stone cold Great Film mind you - it lacks that slightly abstract crystallized and unmoving quality films marked with this word not seldom suffer under; it doesn’t feel like a part of a canon but like part of a life’s work that could have gone on from there.

The film’s great strength and its great weakness lies in its playfulness, the director’s willingness to let his very wonderful, very 70s cast – particularly Karen Black, William Devane, Bruce Dern and Barbara Harris – interact in often funny ways that suggest personal histories between characters instead of explaining them, and to let them show off-beat flaws, how the film suggests all sorts of interesting stuff you couldn’t get into a film that’s interested in tight plotting. For Family Plot really is a rather meandering kind of movie, with quite a few scenes you’d just cut if its aim were are tight unified experience but which are left in here to create more of a space for the characters to inhabit. The plot for its part is weird, rather intricate, but also not at all the point of the film.


There are two nice Hitchcock suspense set pieces to enjoy too, but what really lets this film stay in my mind is how little this is “An Alfred Hitchcock movie”, and how much the work of a veteran director of huge talents trying on elements of what the new kids have been up to in the last years.