Showing posts with label Gene Hackman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gene Hackman. Show all posts

Wednesday, 3 June 2020

Twilight - 1998 film review

Twilight, a crime film originally released in 1998 is an entertaining but slightly curious film. Curious because its ingredients are of high quality, yet one feels that more could have been made of them. The script offers a private eye's investigation, a mystery with its roots in the past, touches of comedy and moments of violence, and a meditation on friendship. Richard Russo, one of the writers, is a Pulitzer Prize winner. Yet at times the story seems under-powered.

The cast is brilliant. Paul Newman is a veteran gumshoe who, at the start of the film, rescues a teenage girl (Reese Witherspoon) who has run off with a young man to Mexico. After the credits roll, the story moves two years on. Newman is staying with the girl's wealthy parents, played by Gene Hackman and Susan Sarandon, both of whom are former film stars. Hackman's character is dying of cancer; Newman fancies Sarandon; the scene is set for all manner of complications.

Newman finds himself looking into the mysterious disappearance of Sarandon's former husband. Does she, or her new husband, have something to hide? You don't have to be Sam Spade to figure out that the answer is yes, but the more interesting and nuanced question is: who, precisely, is guilty of what? Does Newman's old pal, another ex-detective, played by James Garner, have some of the answers?

The soundtrack is by Elmer Bernstein, and it's clear that a lot of money was spent on this film. It wasn't a box office success and yet it's perfectly watchable. I felt, however, that a tighter script would have made the movie more memorable. Some of the gentler and amusing moments seemed to belong in a different film. Perhaps the writers were simply trying to do too much.

 

Wednesday, 24 April 2019

Bonnie and Clyde - 1967 film review

I'm more than half a century late, which even by my standards is exceptionally tardy, but I've finally got round to watching Bonnie and Clyde, the highly successful movie starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway which (among other things) inspired a song by Georgie Fame. The director was Arthur Penn, whom I know best as director of a rather good crime film, Night Moves.

It was a historical film, set in 1934, and it's a tale of two outlaws. There are some similarities to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which came along soon afterwards, although the latter is more of a comedy, and has a superior soundtrack. Clyde Barrow (Beatty), recently released from prison, picks up an attractive young waitress (Dunaway), who is fascinated by his looks and his refusal to conform to society's norms.

Patricia Highsmith famously argued that such characters are dramatically interesting because they have a kind of freedom in the way they behave (I'm paraphrasing), and although I don't entirely buy into this argument, I can see its force. The trouble is that the likes of Bonnie and Clyde are essentially doomed figures. They are really not very bright, and neither is their hapless sidekick C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard). They also team up with Clyde's brother Buck (Gene Hackman) and his wife Blanche (Estelle Parsons). The stellar cast also includes Gene Wilder.

It's a film that doesn't shy away from violence, and it was shocking in its day. Some saw it as glorifying violence, and historical accuracy certainly is not a strong point. But it was enormously successful and influential. I found it very watchable, and the relationship between the impotent Clyde and Bonnie is cleverly presented. Does it glorify violence? On balance, I'd argue that it doesn't, because you'd have to be very stupid indeed to see someone as brainless as Clyde as a role model. I suppose the counter-argument is that people with a propensity to violence are often very stupid, and crime should not be made to seem attractive. But you only have to consider what happens to the criminals in this film to see that there's nothing attractive about dying young and painfully. 

Sunday, 7 March 2010

The Lives of Others


I don’t watch too many German language films with sub-titles, even though there was a long ago time when I was very keen on studying German. Undoubtedly, though, The Lives of Others, which won the Academy Award for best foreign language film is the best German movie I’ve ever seen.

The film is written by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck and stars Ulrich Muhe, Martine Gedeck and Sebastian Koch. The setting is East Germany in the 1980s, a time of severe state repression. A writer called Dreyman is having a relationship with an actress, Christa-Marie Sieland. A secret service man from the dreaded Stasi, Wiesler, is told by a superior to head a surveillance operation focused on Dreyman’s flat. The reason is that a minister is besotted with Christa-Marie and wants to find evidence of treachery on the part of his rival, Dreyman.

As Wiesler conducts the operation, he becomes fascinated by Dreyman and Christa-Marie, and his unquestioning obedience to the totalitarian regime begins to falter. He tries to warn Christa-Marie, but she finds herself trapped, and a series of cheerless events lead to tragedy. The ending of the film is, however, unexpectedly uplifting.

The Conversation, starring Gene Hackman, has long been my favourite film about surveillance, but this one runs it close. Muhe’s nuanced performance is excellent, and the claustrophobic feeling of a state-controlled society is conveyed with great power. One would like to think nothing similar could ever happen in Britain, but our surveillance society is developing apace, so who knows? This is a truly thought-provoking film, and it deserves the acclaim it has received.