Category: Nominees – 1970s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Julia – 1977

I need to confess, I didn’t have very high hopes for this movie.  First of all, I didn’t know anything about it except that it starred Jane Fonda, who I always have a difficult time appreciating, and Vanessa Redgrave, who is easy to appreciate.  Second, it was about Lilian Hellman, an author about whom I know nothing, and in whom I have no interest.

But that just goes to show you what I know.  I was wrong on both counts.  Let me discuss each of those points in a little more detail.  I know that Fonda has had a prolific career and has done some great acting.  However, it has been my misfortune to have only seen one of her films: Barbarella.  I think that gave me a skewed sense of her skills as an actress because it was so campy and poorly acted.  But in Julia, I have had to revise my opinion.  She did a great job, and though I didn’t always like her character, it doesn’t mean she played it badly.

But that being said, I think that Redgrave was better.  Fonda’s acting was all on the surface and sometimes lacked subtlety.  But Redgrave had that unique unseen quality that set her above her costar.  There were hidden depths in her eyes that made her fascinating to watch.  Then again, I think my opinion may be biased.

Lilian Hellman, played by Fonda, was a famously celebrated dramatist, screenwriter, and playwright for over 50 years.  Julia, played by Redgrave, is her dearest childhood friend.  She is a very wealthy heiress who studies medicine in Vienna in the years before WWII.  When the fascist regime begins to rise to power and the Nazi party starts to assert their authority in Europe, Julia uses her personal resources to fight them.

The film’s plot spends significant time developing the friendship between the two women, from their young and innocent beginnings to the dangerous days of the war.  It follows Lillian’s rise to prominence as an author, and only follows Julia’s life as a medical student through Lilly’s sporadic correspondence with her.  In fact, most of the 2 hour film is spent exploring their relationship and leading up to the last half-hour or so.

And it is that last half-hour that made the film so good.  Julia has gotten involved with resistance fighters and asks Lilian to smuggle some of her family’s vast wealth into Germany.  Lilian agrees because of her love for Julia, a love which, I might add, was depicted as nearly homosexual, though the point was made that their love was strictly emotional, and never physical.  The tension that is created when Lilian agrees to smuggle the money into Berlin was wonderfully built and held until Lilian is able to leave Germany.

The way Lilian is met by one stranger after another, each of whom guides her towards the success of her mission, was very interesting to follow.  The money is hidden in the lining of a fur hat which Lilly wears while all her baggage is confiscated and searched.  And there is always a lot of natural suspense whenever Nazis are involved.  In that way, most of the movie was a little slow without much action or tension, but the payoff of the climax was worth the wait.

And finally, I’ll say that the movie was only slightly feminist, which is perfectly fine.  Sure, there were the lesbian overtones in the relationship between Lilian and Julia, but they were appropriate in setting up Lilian’s motivations for agreeing to take on the dangerous mission.  I found it interesting that the book upon which the film is based was actually written by Hellman, and she claimed that the events depicted were factual.  I wonder if the homoerotic relationship was there in Hellman’s autobiographical novel, or if the filmmakers added it to liven things up.

This movie is notable for a few other actors, like Jason Robards who played Lilian’s mentor and sometimes lover, Dashiell Hammett, Lilian’s initial contact in Paris who asks her to smuggle the money into Berlin, Johann, played by Maximillian Schell, Hal Holbrook as one of her wealthy friends, and Meryl Streep in her big screen debut as Ann Marie, Lilian’s snobbish socialite friend.

As with all film based on historical events, I did a little reading, and found that though Hellman purports the truth of her story, the filmmakers came to the conclusion that it was mostly fiction.  Director Fred Zinnemann was quoted as saying, “Lillian Hellman, in her own mind, owned half the Spanish Civil War, while Hemingway owned the other half. She would portray herself in situations that were not true. An extremely talented, brilliant writer, but she was a phony character, I’m sorry to say. My relations with her were very guarded and ended in pure hatred.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Goodbye Girl – 1977

This was a romantic comedy done right.  It was well-written, expertly acted, and fun.  The characters were realistic and charming.  But it makes sense.  The script was penned by the famous playwright Neil Simon who is known for his witty and well-crafted dialogue, and good character development.  If you know Simon’s most famous play, The Odd Couple, then you would easily be able to see his handy-work in The Goodbye Girl.

The film stars Marsha Mason as Paula McFadden, a single mother raising a ten-year-old daughter, Lucy, played by child actor, Quinn Cummings. The little girl is written to be precocious and very mature for her age.  If the film had any flaws, I might point the finger at her, not because of how Cummings played the part, but because of how Simon scripted the character.  He came very close to breaking the cardinal sin of movie-making – Cute for the sake of cute is never cute… never.  But Simon stands right on that line without ever really crossing it, so I’ll let it pass.

The story begins as Paula and Lucy arrive home to find a note from Paula’s live-in boyfriend, saying that he has left them.  But he has also rented the apartment to another tenant since the apartment is in his name.  Eventually, the new tenant, a quirky young actor named Elliot Garfield, played by Richard Dreyfuss, arrives and demands to be let into the apartment.  Rather than keeping Elliot locked out in the rain, and rather than throwing Paula out on the street, they agree to try living together.  From there, personalities clash and hijinks ensues

Dreyfuss won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his efforts, and I think he really deserved it.  He created a wonderful and likeable character who was very believable as the romantic lead.  As professional actor, he was an egomaniac.  He had eccentric personal habits and, since the lease was technically in his possession, he started off with a bold disregard for the two ladies.

Mason did a great job, as well, though this is the first role in which I can remember seeing her.  She was pretty, though not gorgeous, and her on-screen chemistry with the young Lucy was fun and light.  At first, she barely has a kind word to say to Elliot, but eventually he actually calls her on it and she realizes that he is right.  She immediately softens her attitude toward him, causing him to fall in love with her.  Also, her own sub-plot as a middle aged woman struggling to get back into shape to get a job as a dancer, the only profession she has ever really known, is interesting and fun.  It was also realistic, as she ultimately fails simply because directors are looking for young dancers with youthful faces.

Paula is able to help Elliot through a difficult experience, which I felt was one of the movie’s funniest sub-plots.  Elliot had moved to New York to play the lead in an off-off-Broadway production of Shakespeare’s Richard III.  Unfortunately, the terribly self-aggrandizing homosexual director, Mark, played by Paul Benedict, wants the character of King Richard III to be played as a flaming sissy.  The way that Dreyfuss agonizes over this ridiculous direction in what is supposed to be his big break in the Big Apple is so well acted.  Dreyfuss played it perfectly.

The romance between Elliot and Paula is very well written.  The two start off as complete opposites and the building of their romance is slow and grudging.  Simon allows the relationship to take its time and grow in an easy and understandable way.  I always have to roll my eyes at movies that portray true love as something that strikes instantly and conquers all.  Real life doesn’t work that way.

One of the major themes in the movie is the emotional damage that Paula suffers because of the abandonment.  Apparently this is not the first time she has been deserted.  Naturally, when love blooms with Elliot, she is afraid that he will do the same thing.  But the ending is so well done.  Elliot’s career takes a surprising turn because of his involvement with the terrible Shakespeare tragedy and he eventually lands a part in a major film with a famous and respected director.  However, this would require him to go to Seattle for a month.  Paula assumes the worst.

But Elliot proves her wrong by going out of his way to reassure her that he loves her.  He asks her to come to Seattle with him.  The invitation is enough to convince Paula that he loves her, and her fears of another abandonment vanish.  Her joy at this realization is infectious, and I found myself smiling right along with her.

So, I have to give this film a great big thumb-up for its brilliant script and its wonderful acting.  If you like romantic comedies, this is one you should definitely see.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taxi Driver – 1976

This was a strange little movie.  First of all, if you like Robert De Niro then you will love him in this film.  Many critics have called this his best performance ever, which is saying a lot for the prolific actor.  He plays the character of Travis Bickle, a Vietnam vet who is socially inept.  He is passionately disgusted by the ills of a society he feels has rejected him, and yet decides to become a murderous vigilante, perpetuating the problems he supposedly hates.

That contradiction has been debated by film scholars and critics.  He abhors pimps, junkies, pushers, and whores, while at the same time going to pornographic theatres on a regular basis, and making plans to murder a senator.  And though his motives for that could also be debated, he altruistically goes on a suicide mission to save a 12 year-old hooker named Iris, played by a very young Jody Foster, planning to go out in a blaze of glory.  He murders several men in cold blood before getting wounded, himself.

Though he expects to die, he ends up living and being praised as a hero.  The media and the young girl’s family treat him as a savior.  Personally, I couldn’t see it that way.  Sure, he put an end to the child’s sexual servitude, but what gave him the right to play God?  There were other ways for him to be the hero and punish the men who were exploiting her, legal ways.  In my eyes, he was just as criminal as the men he executed.  He did the wrong thing, but for strangely righteous reasons.  Fortunately, I think the filmmakers thought the same way, and the end of the movie, where Travis is deified, is meant to be ironic.

As I mentioned, Travis’s motives for wanting to assassinate the Senator are a little ambiguous.  The character that De Niro created is obviously mentally unstable.  He sees a beautiful woman while driving his taxi, and falls in love with her.  But he is so socially awkward, he creates one uncomfortable scene after another.  He is positively creepy at times.  The object of his desire is Betsy, played by Cybill Shepherd.  He forces his way into her life and she is intrigued by his boldness.  She agrees to go out with him a few times, but is disgusted when he takes her to an adult movie theatre on their second date.  Betsy works for Senator Charles Palantine, played by Leonard Harris.

So after Betsy rejects Travis, he undergoes a frightening transformation.  De Niro was incredible and very convincing in portraying this change.  He changes his appearance, buys 4 guns, and plans to murder Senator Palantine.  But why?  Is he doing it to punish Betsy for rejecting him?  Or does he want to simply get her attention?  Or perhaps he thinks that her job is what is turning her against him, and eliminating the Senator will change that.  It was not explained to my satisfaction.

Foster, was already known as an established child actor.  She was obviously talented and comfortable in front of the camera.  I’m not surprised she has had a very successful career.  Shepherd was also good and she looked fantastic.  One of Betsy’s co-workers who I recognized was Albert Brooks, playing the part of Tom.  He was interested in Betsy and was appropriately protective of her when the creepy taxi driver started to lose control of himself in his anger at her.

And I have to mention the last 2 members of the cast who caught my attention, simply because they were names that I recognized.  Peter Boyle played a fellow taxi driver called Wizard.  There is a touching scene in which Travis goes to him looking for advice but is unable to express his feelings sufficiently to ask an answerable question.  Wizard grows too uncomfortable and leaves him with no answer.

Then, finally, there is Harvey Keitel.  I have always thought of Keitel as an exceptional actor.  Here, he plays the sleazy lowlife, Sport, the pimp who is selling the 12 year-old Iris.  When Travis shoots him in the stomach, I had mixed feelings.  I hated him for becoming a cold-blooded killer, something he clearly loathed in others, and cheered him for disposing of the child molester.  I also noticed that Sport had a long painted nail on his pinky finger, presumably for scooping and snorting cocaine.

I found it interesting to learn, through my research, that director Martin Scorsese, who had an interesting little cameo as a crazed passenger in Travis’s cab, was quoted as saying that the character of Travis Bickle was not cured of his mental deficiencies because of his cathartic experience.  After all was said and done, he was still a mentally and emotionally unstable man who would eventually return to his violent tendencies, and it is hard to like such an anti-hero.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Network – 1976

This was a good movie that I enjoyed watching, but was a difficult movie to place.  Wikipedia calls it a “satirical black comedy-drama,” but I’m not sure I’d agree with that.  It is certainly a satire, but if it is supposed to be comedic as well, I didn’t see it.  It was a film in which the writer, Paddy Chayefsky, was going on an angry rant about the morally and emotionally crippled generation of people who grew up watching the boob-tube.  It very pointedly condemns us all as dummies who know, and for that matter, believe, nothing except what we are shown on the devil box.

But it doesn’t stop there.  It goes on to say that there is no such thing as freedom, no such thing as democracy, and no such thing as nations.  There are only corporations and the money they use to control the world.  “It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet.”  The film is a complaint about the pathetic state of the global conscience.  It is this self-righteous anger that produced the film’s famous line which we’ve all heard: “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

But, of course, that is only one iconic scene in a 2 hour film.  The movie starred William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Peter Finch, and Robert Duvall, with Ned Beatty in a supporting role.  The central character was Finch as Howard Beale, a TV news anchor who, during a live broadcast, had a mental breakdown, telling the nation that he planned to commit suicide on the air.  Apparently, he had become tragically desensitized to the horrific nature of his broadcasts.  He felt no more emotion when reporting mass murders and criminal scandals than he felt when reporting sports or lost puppies.  In addition to that, his news program has depressingly low ratings.  In his madness, he hears voices and has visions.

Holden plays Max Schumacher, president of the network’s news division.  He is a middle-aged man who is Howard’s friend and boss.  He cares for Howard as he sees him descending into the madness of a pseudo-religious zealot or prophet.  Dunaway plays Diana Christensen, an emotionally dead, ambitious, network programmer who sees the crazy Howard as a resource to exploit in order to raise the network’s ratings.  She starts an affair with Max, but cannot feel love or any other kind of emotion for him. She will apparently do anything to improve her network’s ratings.  To this end, she wants to program crass sensationalism that put me in mind of shows like The Howard Stern Show or Jerry Springer.

Duvall plays Frank Hackett, Diana’s boss.  He is just as ambitious as Diana, but he is also greedy and power-hungry.  He approves the implementation of the Howard Beale Show, on which Howard can rant about the ills of society.  Beatty plays Arthur Jensen, the president of the network who allows Beale to have his show until one of his tirades hurts one of his business deals with Arab oil corporations, at which point he reigns Howard in and gets him to preach a different gospel.

Like I said, all the characters were larger-than-life and over-the-top.  There were a lot of long speeches that were very much like sermons.  As I do my research about the movie, I can see why this movie is called a comedy.  A lot of the dialogue, when taken out of the context of the plot, is viciously cynical and even humorous.  But they were played so straight in the context of the film, that I never once found myself laughing or even chuckling.  It was all performed so seriously that I didn’t hear acerbic one-liners.  I heard extreme characters.

For example, when Diana          meets a character named Laureen Hobbs, played by Marlene Warfield, because she wants to pitch a counter-culture, anti-establishment show that shows real acts of criminal terrorism, she introduces herself, saying, “Hi, I’m Diana Christensen, a racist lackey of the imperialist ruling circles.”  Hobbs replies, “I’m Laureen Hobbs, a badass commie nigger.”  Diana says, “Sounds like the basis of a firm friendship.”  See?  It is funny, if you think about it, right?  But it was delivered so straight, that you might almost see it as a civil way for the two characters to break the initial tension in an uncomfortable meeting between people who are normally on opposing sides.  When you look at it that way, it isn’t funny, it’s just clever.

The movie’s ending wasn’t funny at all.  It was biting and horrific, but not funny.  The rating of Howard’s show start to tank after he starts preaching Jensen’s depressing message about the illusion of individuality and personal freedom.  Diana and Hackett see their hit show dying, but Jensen refuses to take him off the air.  The only thing they can do to prevent the network from dying with it is to have Hobbs’s terrorist group assassinate Howard on his live program.  The movie ends with a bit of narration saying, “This was the story of Howard Beale: The first known instance of a man who was killed because he had lousy ratings.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bound For Glory – 1976

David Carradine stars as Woody Guthrie, the famous American folk singer in this biopic film that chronicles the beginnings of his career as a musician.  The movie was good enough, I suppose, except that I have never been a fan of Guthrie’s music, nor have I ever been a fan of politics and activism.  However, I will still call Bound for Glory a good movie.  I enjoyed it because of its beautiful cinematography, and its competent acting.

The film was based on the auto-biography of the same name, written by Guthrie.  However, certain small things were omitted.  For example, the movie leaves out 2 of his 3 wives, and 6 of his 8 children.  But I’ll give it credit for leaving the extra-marital affairs in. But it’s alright.  The key points are all there, and I think a lot of that happened after the film’s stopping point.

Guthrie was a sign painter living in the dust bowl era, otherwise known as the Dirty Thirties.  He had a certain amount of wanderlust that drove him to leave his wife, Mary, played by Melinda Dillon, taking with him his paint brushes and a guitar.  He became a vagabond and a boxcar hobo, making his way from Texas to California, constantly looking for work in exchange for food.  Along the way, he becomes a part of the poor migrant culture, and is affected by the terrible conditions caused by extreme poverty.

He uses his music to speak out against the social injustice and inequality.  Eventually, he is noticed by a man in a position to get him a job as a radio singer.  He becomes popular and gains money and status.  He uses his newfound wealth to bring Mary and his children to California.

But here is where I felt the real drama of the movie showed its face.  The sponsors of his radio program wanted him to stop singing about the horrible conditions of the working class migrants.  Mary urges him to give in to the corporate sponsors so that he can keep his job.  His friend, singing partner, and fellow activist, Ozark Bule, played by Ronny Cox, also begged him to follow the rules.

But the plight of the working class affected Woody too much and he refused to do as he was told.  But then Mary, seeing that the money would soon be gone, left him.  And she was right.  He gets fired from his job.   Finally, in order to stay true to his principles, he goes back out on the road so that he can sing to and support the poor workers to bring them hope.  He says he is headed for New York, and of course, that is the point where Guthrie’s career really takes off.  But it is also where the movie ends.  The last shot is the image of Guthrie sitting alone on top of a train boxcar, playing his guitar as he rides off into the sunset.

One of the best things about the movie was its wonderful cinematography.  The realistic depiction of the dry and dusty town of Pampa, Texas was appropriately depressing and colorless.  The dust storm was particularly impressive.  In fact, Best Cinematography was one of the two Academy Awards the movie won, the other being Best Music, Original Song Score.

Carradine did a good enough job, as did Dillon and Cox.  I have no complaints about the acting.  I think if the movie had any real failings it was the pacing.  It was just way too slow.  The trick is that I believe that the problem was inherent in the era in which the story took place.  It was the middle of the Great Depression.  It was a time of unemployment, frustration, and emotional depression.  Such a story doesn’t easily lend itself to a quick, energetic pace.  Unfortunately, it sometimes came across as just dull, especially for someone like me who is not interested in twangy folk music or social activism.

And another thing.  Guthrie was portrayed as a hero of the working class, the common man.  But he was a terrible husband and an irresponsible father.  I suppose it all depends on one’s personal philosophies.  Is it alright to abandon your family if you are serving a greater social good?  As far as I’m concerned, no, it is not.  If a man chooses to have a family, his first responsibility should be to them if he has any say in the matter.

And as a last thought, I have to mention two other actors with smaller parts that I thought actually did very well, creating memorable characters.  First was a fellow migrant worker with a wife and child, Luther Johnson, played by a very young Randy Quaid.  The other is Pauline, a very wealthy woman who Woody has an affair with, played by Gail Strickland.  They both played their parts well and deserve to be recognized.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All The President’s Men – 1976

On the surface, this film might seem like a political drama.  It deals with the Watergate Scandal that took place in 1971.  However, it is not about the actual break-in at the infamous hotel, but the shady aftermath of the crime which grew and grew, culminating in the resignation of the President of the United States.  The story, as it is presented, is almost like a detective story, except that the investigators are newspaper journalists.

Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman star as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.  Woodward is a young, green reporter, and Bernstein is an experienced newspaper writer.  The two men are assigned to work together investigating the scandal, and the information they gather consistently leads to more questions than answers.  They become obsessed with following the conspiracy to its end, talking to everyone they can, asking all the questions that people are afraid to ask, and using any resource available, reputable or not, to put all the pieces together.  It was interesting how the two reporters were able to get people to talk, despite the extremely sensitive nature of the questions.

Obviously the plot of the film is a fictionalized telling of true events.  But as with all films based on real stories, I have to do a little research and try to determine how accurate the film was able to be.  In this case, the script was based on the first half of the book that was the source material, written by the two reporters.  They were interviewed by William Goldman, the man hired to write the screenplay.  I found nothing saying that the events weren’t true to life.  Apparently, Woodward was very helpful to Goldman, but Bernstein was not.

The movie ends with the two reporters making a mistake which lets the man they are after get away, the White House Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman.  Their executive editor at the Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, played by Jason Robards, has put his own neck out on the line to trust them, and their blunder brings him under negative attention.  But then, the movie just ends with Woodward and Bernstein in the dog house.

Then a few seconds are allotted to show a teletype headline montage which tells the viewers what happened next.  For those of us who do not know the story, we are told that Haldeman and several other suspects implicated in the Watergate cover-up are arrested, none of whom spend as much time in prison as I would have thought.  The brief montage ends by telling us that Nixon has resigned and Gerald Ford has been inaugurated as the President.

The plot was a little confusing for me to follow simply because I was not familiar with the characters.  And speaking of the characters, it was interesting to note that the names of the characters were not changed for the film.  In most movies based on true events, “the names have been changed to protect the innocent.”  But not here.  The only name that was never really given in the film was the name of the mysterious informant, Deep Throat, played by Hal Holbrook.  But I have learned that the name of that informant was kept secret until 2005, when, after his death, it was revealed that he was Mark Felt, the man who had been the Associate Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the time of the scandal.

There were a few other notable actors in the cast such as Martin Balsam, Ned Beatty, and Stephen Collins.  Everyone did a fine job, but if I had to pick some stand-outs, they would be Jack Warden as Harry Rosenfeld, the editor in charge of local news at the Washington Post who backed Woodward and Bernstein in their investigations, and Jane Alexander, a reluctant informant who is clearly afraid for her safety when being interviewed.

The movie was alright, but it was a little confusing at times.  There were so many names being thrown around that I sometimes found the plot hard to follow.  But that being said, I don’t know how else they could have done it.  They couldn’t take out any characters or combine any, as movies often do, especially since the real scandal was only a few years old and most people would have known the real story, and it was nothing if not topical for its time.  I’d even say that it holds up well for a modern viewer, if you are interested in learning about the Watergate scandal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nashville – 1975

I was only 2 years old in 1975, so I wasn’t aware of the world politics.  So today, it is difficult for me to gauge just how serious the political climate was.  All that being said, I don’t really understand why this was such a beloved movie.  It certainly painted a picture of the Country & Western music subculture in the mid-70s, but beyond that, I can’t see why Nashville has gotten such great reviews.

It felt to me like it was trying too hard to be socially significant and poignant.  It was a movie that had a large cast and a lot of stories being told at the same time, though I was only intrigued by a few of them.  There was a climax that was never really explained to my satisfaction, so it was difficult for me to feel passionate about it.  I’ve never been a huge fan of C&W music, especially from that era, so I was a little bored by that aspect of the film that was supposed to be one of its biggest attractions.

The movie did have several names that I recognized like Ned Beatty, Karen Black, Shelly Duvall, Henry Gibson, Scott Glenn, Jeff Goldblum, and Lily Tomlin, though none of them played a character that was more important or more central to the overall film than any other character.  If the film had any lead, I would have to say that it was Ronee Blakley in her first film role.  She played the sweetheart of Nashville, country singer, Barbara Jean.  She is fragile, both physically and emotionally, and much of the movie’s drama revolves around her.

The film’s climax is the most interesting thing that happened in the film, but even that was only mildly engaging, and I’ll explain why.  Throughout the movie, a running political commentary is drilled into the viewer about how the current government of the time needed to be supplanted with a new party called the Replacement Party.  A van with loudspeakers affixed to its roof is constantly roaming the city, spouting this new party.  The film’s climax takes place at a political rally where many of the characters who aspire to be country stars are ready to perform.

Except that the point is made that almost none of these performers have any interest in supporting the candidate’s politics.  They each have their own reasons for performing at the rally.  Barbara Jean is cornered into performing in order to salvage her faltering career.  Sueleen Gay, played by Gwen Wells, is a talentless singer who just wants to perform on the same stage as Barbara Jean.  Haven Hamilton is a star of the Grand Ole Opry, and Barbara Jean’s friend, though he has his own political aspirations.

Anyway, after Barbara Jean sings a few songs, Haven joins her on the stage.  Suddenly, a character, who, up until this point, has been so unimportant as to be unnecessary, Kenny Fraiser, played by David Hayward, pulls out a gun and shoots Barbara Jean and Haven, presumably killing her and wounding him.  Unfortunately, it is never revealed whether the shot that hit Barbara Jean was fatal or not.  The issue is left unresolved.

It was supposed to be tragic, poignant, and dramatic, but unfortunately, it was none of these things to me.  Kenny’s motives were never explained.  He had obviously come to Nashville with the intent to murder, but why?  Was it an act of violence aimed at the music industry, or was the political party the target?  Or was there a personal reason why Barbara Jean or Haven Hamilton might have been the target?  Another unanswered question.  And when it came down to it, there were so many different stories being told, and so little time was given to developing any one character, I just didn’t really care either way.

As a matter of fact, I didn’t really care about any of the characters.  Many of them were just plain annoying.  For example, Shelly Duvall played Martha, the niece of an old man whose wife was dying in the hospital.  Martha dressed weird just to be weird, adding to the already weird and unattractively skinny appearance of the gawky actress.  Geraldine Chaplin played Opal, a celebrity-obsessed BBC journalist who is so rude that she, in stereotypical reporter style, barges into any situation in which she might get an interview with a star, as if anyone would drop everything they are doing to answer her ridiculous questions.  One of the only characters I actually liked was Bud Hamilton, Haven’s son and lawyer.  He seemed like a genuinely nice guy, but once again, he had very little screen time and was vastly unimportant to any of the plots.

I think that if I was more knowledgeable about the politics of the mid-70s, I would have understood more of the film’s social agenda and significance.  Maybe the film would have been more palatable if the various stories had more interaction with each other.  Sure, the different characters often showed up peripherally in other people’s plots, but not in any important way.  For my tastes, the separate tales were just too isolated and underdeveloped to be very impactful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jaws – 1975

Ok, it is difficult to decide where to begin with one of the biggest blockbusters of all time.  I know, it is nowhere near being the biggest, but it is up there.  And as such, there are so many things I’d like to say about it.  First and foremost, I need to call this movie a suspense thriller.  It’s a monster movie done right.  And it is the most effective kind of monster movie there is, because the monster, a giant-sized great white shark, could very easily be real.

According to the film’s director, Stephen Spielberg, the star of the film is really the shark.  Its costars, Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and Robert Shaw, each did a great job, but they all had to take a back seat to Jaws.  One story after another is told about how the mechanical shark caused such serious problems during filming that it nearly shut down the production.  But really, it is what we have all come to see.  Even though we know the shark, at times, looked pretty fake, we love believing that it is real.

The film is about the shark as it terrorizes the waters of the fictional town, Amity Island, in New England.  The town depends on tourism and Mayor Vaughn, played by Murray Hamilton, refuses to close the beaches, stubbornly claiming that the monster poses no threat to anyone’s safety.  Scheider plays Police Chief Brody.  He is constantly trying to get the Mayor to close the beaches.  Enthusiastic young oceanographer, Matt Hooper, played by Dreyfuss, arrives to assess the situation.

Eventually, after one too many bloody deaths, the beaches are closed, and professional shark hunter Sam Quint, played by Shaw, is hired to kill the beast.  Chief Brody, Hooper, and Quint go to sea on a wooden boat called the Orca to do battle with the leviathan.  The first half of the movie is all set-up for the hunt.  Until then, we have barely seen the shark, which many say, and I agree, is part of the film’s genius.  I think that it is human nature to be the most scared of what we cannot see.  That is what makes that opening scene so frightening!

The shark’s first victim is a young woman who is swimming naked in the moonlight.  Actress Susan Blacklinie played Chrissie Watkins.  Anyone who has seen that opening sequence will understand just how scary it really is.  We can only see and hear what is above the water.  We see her terrified face, hear her quick, short breaths, see her get dunked as Jaws begins to devour her.  Then, as he grabs her and begins thrashing her around in the water, her blood-curdling screams for help are like a knife to the heart of the viewers.  And then the sudden, ominous silence, as he pulls her under for the last time, is enough to make anyone afraid to get into the bathtub.

But despite the film’s suspense-thriller tone, there are plenty of dramatic moments, and even light-hearted scenes which do a wonderful job of humanizing the characters and making us afraid for them as they face the monster shark.  The scene where the mother of a dead child, eaten by Jaws, publicly accuses Chief Brody of allowing the beaches to stay open when he knew that there was a dangerous shark in the water is poignant and well played.  Quint’s unexpected and dramatic little speech about how he was one of 1,100 men who were stranded in the ocean during WWII, was one of the best scenes in the movie.  He told of how they were attacked by sharks and he was one of the 316 survivors.

Spielberg has been quoted as saying that the movie wouldn’t have been half as good as it was if it were not for the incredible soundtrack by his friend, composer, John Williams.  Just hearing those two simple notes is enough to strike fear in the heart.  The music has become synonymous with more than just shark attacks, but with unseen danger, in general.  John Williams is known for writing some of the most memorable movie themes in history, and Jaws was, according to the composer, the one that really jumpstarted his career.

If I had any complaints about the film, it would be a mild one concerning the ending.  The ending was changed from the original book for a very understandable reason.  Jaws still died, but in the source material, it was just from extensive wounding.  For a film, it would have been a bit anticlimactic.  Spielberg wanted an exciting and visually stunning ending.  Well, he certainly got that.  He placed an oxygen tank in the shark’s mouth which Chief Brody shot with a rifle.  The tank exploded, blowing up the beast in a shower of blood and shredded shark parts!

Ok, let’s take a quick look at this.  Could it work?  Maybe, but unlikely for the simple reason that when the tank was put into the shark’s mouth, one of two things would probably have happened:  Either the giant shark would have swallowed the tank down its gullet, thus making it impossible for Brody to shoot it, or it would have ejected the tank, rendering it useless as a means of killing the shark.  It probably would not have kept it in its mouth like a toothpick in the mouth of a gangster.  Oh, who am I kidding?  It was an awesome and exciting ending, and I loved it!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dog Day Afternoon – 1975

This was an unexpected movie.  I knew next to nothing about it before watching it.  I knew that it starred Al Pacino and Chris Sarandon, and that everybody who has seen it seemed to like it, but that was about it.  I have never been a huge Al Pacino fan, so I would have never watched Dog Day Afternoon, which is unfortunate because it really was a very good movie.  I wouldn’t call it great, but it was very good.  Either way, Pacino impressed me.  He played a multi-layered character that was complex and realistic.  Of course, the film was based on real events and people, so the script writer, Frank Pierson, had a natural base from which to work.

The film follows the failed bank robbery attempt that took place in 1972 in Brooklyn, NY.  A man named John Wojtowicz and his partner Salvatore Naturale were the perpetrators who held 7 employees of the bank at gunpoint for 14 hours.  According to the film, whose accuracy is somewhat in question, their ineptness as bank robbers alerted the police to the situation, and a full-blown hostage crisis developed which had the nation watching.  According to the article I read, the film covered all the key points of the event.  But when the real Wojtowicz was interviewed, he claimed that the movie was only about 30% true, though he did praise Pacino and Sarandon’s portrayals as accurate.

Pacino played Sonny Wortzik, a man whose sanity is unstable.  Those who know him say he has always been a good man, but then they go on to tell how he is subject to fits of anger and violence.  The film portrays him as a somewhat religious man, a Catholic, but also reveals that he has several distinctly un-Catholic-like traits, the most obvious of these being his homosexuality.

However, the film was very hands-off about the touchy subject.  They kept it in because it established the real reason behind the bank robbery, but didn’t explore whether it was the reason behind his fragile mental state or his explosive temper.  His preoperative transsexual wife, Leon, played by Sarandon, was in a mental institution after a failed suicide attempt.  He said that he was trying to “get away” from Sonny.  But the bank robbery was Sonny’s way to get money for Leon’s sexual reassignment surgery.

However, after further research, I have learned that in the real story, the money for the surgery was only a secondary reason for the heist.  The primary reason was that John Wojtowicz was involved with the Mafia and the whole thing was a well-planned operation that had gone horribly wrong.  The movie left that entire angle out.  But I guess that wouldn’t have been as shocking or controversial as a homosexual relationship and a sex-change operation.

The film’s director, Sidney Lumet, did a great job of keeping the pace quick, though not frantic.  The moments of negotiations between Sonny and the Police officer, Sergeant Moretti, played by Charles Durning, were engaging and played out very well.  The tension inherent in a dangerous hostage situation started the film off in a way that drew me in and kept me hoping for the safety of the bank employees.  But it wasn’t until the FBI arrived to take over the negotiations that the kid gloves really seemed to come off.

Agent Sheldon, played by James Broderick, did an impressive job as a man who was in complete control of the situation.  Sergeant Moretti did a good job, but the games were over when Agent Sheldon arrived.  Fellow FBI employee, Agent Murphy, played by Lance Hendrickson, was also memorable, and really seemed like a man who knew what he was doing.

Other notable actors in the film were John Cazale as Sonny’s partner, Sal, Penelope Allen as senior bank teller Sylvia “Mouth”, and Sully Boyer as the stout-hearted bank manager, Mulvaney.  I have discovered that Cazale is really a great actor.  He is consistently good in everything in which I’ve seen him, and this film is no exception.  His character was played as slow-minded, strangely religious, easily manipulated, and completely loyal to Sonny.  Cazale created a very memorable tragic character.

Here is a little quote from Wikipedia that I found interesting.  “The original inspiration for the film was an article written by P. F. Kluge and Thomas Moore for Life Magazine in September 1972. The article included many of the details later used in the film and noted the relationship which Wojtowicz and Naturale developed with hostages and the police. Bank manager Robert Barrett said, ‘I’m supposed to hate you guys but I’ve had more laughs tonight than I’ve had in weeks.  We had a kind of camaraderie.’  Teller Shirley Bell said, ’If they had been my houseguests on a Saturday night, it would have been hilarious.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barry Lyndon – 1975

Barry Lyndon was a film by Stanley Kubrick, and as such, it was slow, but never boring.  It was a period piece that took place in the 1700s, and followed the life of a handsome Irishman named Redmond Barry, played by Ryan O’Neal.  The story begins when he is a teenager and falls for his first love.  She spurns him to marry a rich soldier.  He challenges the man to a duel, kills him, runs off and joins the army.  He deserts his post, gets conscripted into the Prussian army, and then recruited to become a spy after the war is over.  He escapes Prussia with the man on whom he is spying, settles in England, becomes a successful gambler, marries a wealthy woman for her money, spends most of her fortune, is challenged to a duel by her high-born son, and gets shot in the leg which must then be amputated.  He finally returns to Ireland with his mother.

That’s the entire plot, in a nutshell.  Of course, it took Kubrick 3 full hours to tell the story.  Fortunately, the film was visually interesting and engaging the entire time.  The characters were well developed, the sets and costumes were flawless, and the cinematography was incredible.  That’s the thing with Kubrick’s films.  He is never afraid to really take his sweet time when telling his story, but he also never leaves you bored.

My first thought, when learning that Ryan O’Neal was playing the lead in a period drama was that his face was too modern.  I also thought, when I found he was playing an Irishman, that his face was too American.  Fortunately, I was wrong on both accounts.  He did a very good job and didn’t seem out of place at all, except for one thing.  His Irish accent was very inconsistent, coming and going throughout the film.

But that was easy enough to overlook.  The trouble I had with his character is that he was not a very likeable man.  But it’s alright.  I don’t think he was supposed to be likeable, exactly.  Redmond Barry was a self-centered opportunist who had no problem hurting other people if it got him what he desired.  More than once, he betrayed those who loved him for personal gain.

He loved his mother, Belle, played by Marie Kean, and in Act II, his son Bryan, played by David Morley.  His love for his first girlfriend, his cousin Nora, played by Gay Hardin, was the selfish and obsessive love of a youth.  He loved his Commanding officer in the English army, Captain Grogan, played by Godfrey Quigley, and he loved his gambling partner, Chevalier du Balibari, played by Patrick Magee.

Everyone else, he seemed to step on as easily as breathing.  This included his commanding officer in the Prussian army, who was always very kind to him, Captain Potzdorf, played by Hardy Kruger.  He so badly mistreated his wife, Lady Lyndon, from whom he gained his new last name, played by Marisa Berenson.  And he rarely showed any kindness to her son Lord Bullington, played by Leon Vitali.

The film was beautifully shot and was awarded 4 Academy Awards.  It took home Oscars for Best Art Direction, which is set design, Best Cinematography, which is camera-work, Best Costume Design, and Best Musical Score.  Kubrick went out of his way to make every detail look as realistic as possible.  He used as much natural lighting as he could.  He also found a way to successfully film by candle light since the story took place before the age of electricity.  He used filming locations that were perfectly suited to the opulence and grandeur of the time period.

While the original novel on which the film was based had a much more playful feel, treating the character of Barry Lyndon as a fortune-hunting Irish rogue, Kubrick’s film treated it as more of a dramatic tragedy.  And no character was more tragic than Lady Lyndon.  The way Redmond wantonly ignored her and squandered her fortune was nearly enough to make me despise him.  Fortunately, her son, who never believed that Barry loved his mother, rebelled.  True, Lord Bullington wasn’t a likeable character either, but at least I thought he was justified in the way he got rid of his step-father, and he was even generous, giving him an annuity for the remainder of his life.  He saved his mother, though perhaps at the cost of her happiness, except that she had never truly been happy with her husband.

The tragic and melancholy ending was indicative of the entire film.  The whole thing had very little joy in it.  The story was told with a perfunctory coldness that, at times, felt too sterile and passionless.  But I think that was the style that Kubrick was trying to achieve.  Even the constant narration that helped to propel the story from beginning to end, was told from an omniscient, third-person perspective, establishing a detachment from the events taking place.  The tone of the narrator was the same whether Barry was being robbed or married, whether his son was dying or his leg was being amputated.  Incidentally, it also had a hand in causing the film’s slow pace.