Browsed by
Author: admin

Hour of the Furnaces, The (1968)

Hour of the Furnaces, The (1968)

Comments 0 Comment

“Revolutionary violence will put an end to imperialist crimes. Liberation or death!”

Synopsis:
Argentina’s neo-colonialist and revolutionary histories are explored as part of a call for national liberation.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Documentary
  • Revolutionaries
  • South and Central American Films

Review:
Octavio Getino and Fernando Solanas co-directed this four hour and 20 minute political documentary about Argentina, which was shown in extremely limited release in its home country given its incendiary content. It is considered a key entry in the Third Cinema movement (so called as a response to Hollywood films as First Cinema, and European art/auteur films as Second Cinema), and it specifically “rejects the view of cinema as a vehicle for personal expression, seeing the director instead as part of a collective; it appeals to the masses by presenting the truth and inspiring revolutionary activism.”

The Hour of the Furnaces is comprised of diverse historical footage alongside current “stealth” footage and interviews with key players, and is divided into three parts of unequal lengths with intentional time built in for discussion. As one set of title cards tell us:

“This film is a pretext for dialogue, for the search, for different wills to meet. It’s an open report that we offer for your consideration, for you to discuss after the screening is over. The most important thing is to create this unitary space, this dialogue for liberation. Our opinions are as valuable as yours, and you can add to this action any other view or experience.”

In segment one — titled “Neo-Colonialism and Violence” (1 hour and 25 minutes long) — we are informed in all caps:

WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT A FALSE HISTORY, FALSE HOPES OF WEALTH, A FALSE INTERNATIONAL VIEWPOINT, FALSE ECONOMIC BELIEFS, A FALSE FREEDOM. TO BE FREE, THERE IS ONLY ONE CHOICE: PUT THE PEOPLE IN POWER.

We are given an overview of Argentina’s history of oppression and imperialism by Spain and England:

… and then shown how the hegemonic forces of global capitalism are still at play, with one particularly notable extended sequence intercutting the slaughter of cattle with facile advertisements.


We see and are told that native peoples have been dehumanized (“The Indian was worthless; only a Christian had value”) and are living in poverty:

… while “50% of the land is in the hands of 1.5% of the landowners.”

Segment two (“Act for Liberation”) is the lengthiest at nearly two hours, and includes a more detailed overview of Argentina’s 20th century political history, including Peronism:

… and activist resistance.

Segment three (the shortest at just over 30 minutes) is entitled “Violence and Liberation,” and includes an interview with a political dissident (“Comrade Troxler”) who was tortured and meant to be assassinated but escaped with his life through sheer luck.

We are shown imagery of liberation movements taking place across the globe:

… and reminded that “peaceful coexistence is just opium that permits imperialism.” While this lengthy, history-intensive, no-holds-barred political rejoinder is certainly not for all tastes, it represents a unique moment in cinematic history and will likely be of interest to film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Highly effective “guerrilla” filmmaking

Must See?
Yes, for its importance in international cinema.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Lion in Winter, The (1968)

Lion in Winter, The (1968)

Comments 1 comment

“I’ve built an empire — and I must know it’s going to last.”

Synopsis:
In 1183 England, King Henry II (Peter O’Toole) — living with his mistress Alais (Jane Merrow) — summons his imprisoned wife (Katharine Hepburn) back home to his castle, so they can determine who among their living sons — Richard (Anthony Hopkins), Geoffrey (John Castle), or John (Nigel Terry) — will be named as his successor; meanwhile, Merrow’s half-brother Philip II (Timothy Dalton) arrives for a diplomatic visit from France.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Historical Drama
  • Inheritance
  • Katharine Hepburn Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Peter O’Toole Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Royalty and Nobility

Review:
Katharine Hepburn won her third Best Actress Oscar (sharing it with Barbra Streisand in Funny Girl) for her stand-out performance as Elinor of Aquitane in this adaptation of James Goldman’s play — which, for the record, is not necessarily historical accurate. As a royal drama, however, it plays out beautifully, with Hepburn making a truly majestic entrance by boat:

… and O’Toole – who played a younger version of the same character in Becket (1964) — appropriately larger-than-life from beginning to end. He’s arrogant and emotional, pig-headed yet practical — and it’s easy enough to understand how and why beautiful young Alais (Merrow) loves him and remains loyal.

The entire storyline is about power and succession (topics which remain of enduring interest to current viewing audiences). These particular two narcissistic monarchs equally “love” and loathe their children, despairing over who can or should replace them (no one, naturally; they should live forever) and ultimately shaping their offspring into differently problematic pieces-of-work. Richard’s alleged homosexuality is turned into a significant plot point regarding a dalliance with Philip II (Dalton):

… while “idiotic” John is played for disturbing laughs, openly reviled as a gullible “pustule”:

… and Geoffrey simply seems to be struggling with major Middle Child syndrome. (I can’t really figure out why he wouldn’t be a reasonable option.)

To its credit, given that we know how history turned out, we’re kept on our toes throughout the entire film, wondering what will happen next — and things wrap up in a reasonably satisfying manner. This well-acted historical drama remains worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Katharine Hepburn as Elinor of Aquitane
  • Peter O’Toole as King Henry
  • Anthony Hopkins as Richard
  • Fine supporting performances by Timothy Dalton, John Castle, and Nigel Terry as Philip, Geoffrey, and John
  • Douglas Slocombe’s cinematography

  • Effectively authentic historical sets
  • John Barry’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a fine film and for the powerhouse performances. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Lucia (1968)

Lucia (1968)

Comments 1 comment

“Wake up, Cubans!”

Synopsis:
Three generations of women named Lucia reflect Cuba’s history: in 1895, during the Cuban War of Independence from Spain, upper-class Lucia (Raquel Revuelta) falls in love with a deceptive soldier (Eduardo Moure) who puts her guerrilla-fighting brother in harm’s way; in 1932, middle-class Lucia (Eslinda Núñez) falls in love with a Machado dissident (Ramón Brito) and becomes politically active herself; and in the 1960s, working-class Lucia (Adela Legrá) meets her husband-to-be (Adolfo Llauradó) at a farming compound, but is distressed to learn that he is heavily patriarchal, abusive, and jealous.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cuban Films
  • Feminism and Women’s Issues
  • Historical Drama
  • Revolutionaries
  • Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, “Humberto Solás directed this monumental three-part epic about three women, each named Lucia, who lived during three pivotal times of modern Cuban history,” featuring episodes “filmed in wildly divergent styles” which “show how the political consciousness of these politically naive women is raised as the result of jolting personal experiences.” Each Lucia in the film comes “to realize that the same betrayers, opportunists, and oppressors (ranging from friends, lovers, and husbands to imperialists and uncommitted revolutionaries) who damage them as individuals are also undermining the progressive political movement in Cuba.”

Indeed, this is far from light fare: feminist themes and concerns are front and center, and none of these women has an easy time of it.

SPOILERS AHEAD

In the first episode, “Lucia is an aristocratic Cuban spinster (Raquel Revuelta) who becomes the lover of a married Spanish stranger (Eduardo Moore)” only to find out he is “using her to find the whereabouts of a mountain plantation where her brother and other revolutionaries are hiding.” He notes that this episode — which is “almost operatic in style”:

… is “the most visually impressive of the three episodes,” and “contains two astonishing sequences: several nuns being raped on a battlefield; [and] naked Mambi soldiers on horseback chasing and killing terrified Spanish soldiers.”

The second episode shows what happens when a “new regime turns out to be equally corrupt and oppressive” as the one taken down. Peary notes that “of the three episodes, this is the most politically provocative” — and “this Lucia is by far the most appealing” (meaning, traditionally beautiful).

The third episode brings us to (then) current times, “when Castro’s regime [was] attempting to set up a revolutionary society where men and women work and everyone is literate.” Ultimately, Peary argues that this “silly, comedic episode is like a sex battle in a Lina Wertmuller film,” with the “issues brought up… by today’s standards very simplistic” — but I don’t agree. There’s a huge discrepancy between the jaunty score running through this episode and the blatant violence we see happening on screen.

There is really nothing “silly” or “comedic” about it except perhaps what Solás felt obliged to include as a way to make it past censors. To that end, it’s astonishing to know that Solás (who was closeted gay) was only 26 years old when he made this impressively scoped film, which remains well worth a look by film fanatics interested in the evolution of international cinema.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Jorge Herrera’s cinematography


Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance in Cuban cinema.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem
  • Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

Once Upon a Time in the West (1968)

Comments 0 Comment

“People scare better when they’re dyin’.”

Synopsis:
Shortly after a harmonica-playing stranger (Charles Bronson) rides into in a western town seeking a man in black (Henry Fonda) who has just slaughtered a farming patriarch (Frank Wolff) and his children, Wolff’s newly widowed wife (Claudia Cardinale) arrives and is told that a man named Cheyenne (Jason Robards) was responsible for her husband’s death; however, she soon learns that Fonda has been ordered by his boss — a disabled railroad baron (Gabriele Ferzetti) — to do what it takes to earn control over her newly acquired land, and she becomes caught up in a deadly web of greed, lust, and revenge.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Charles Bronson Films
  • Claudia Cardinale Films
  • Corruption
  • Henry Fonda Films
  • Jason Robards Films
  • Keenan Wynn Films
  • Revenge
  • Sergio Leone Films
  • Westerns
  • Woody Strode Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is an enormous fan of this “baroque epic western,” which he refers to as “Sergio Leone’s masterpiece” — indeed, he names it Best Picture of the Year in his Alternate Oscars and discusses it at length in his first Cult Movies book. He argues that this movie — co-scripted by Leone, Dario Argento, and Bernardo Bertolucci — is Leone’s “most pessimistic film,” given that “its end signals the death of his ‘ancient race’ of superwarriors (first seen in his Clint Eastwood ‘Dollars’ films) and the moment when there is no more resistance to advancing civilization.” This is “represented by laying down of railroad tracks, the building of a town, and a whore (Claudia Cardinale) becoming a lady, a businesswoman, a maker of coffee, [and] a bearer of water”:

… all of which means that “in the new matriarchal West, money will be more important than the gun and super-gunfighters will be passe, part of the Western folklore.”

In Cult Movies, Peary elaborates his thoughts on how this “mythological progression” came to be across Leone’s westerns, writing:

“In A Fistful of Dollars, civilization doesn’t exist; in For a Few Dollars More, it serves as a background. In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, the mythological and historical worlds overlap, but ‘The Man With No Name’ is still able to literally send history/the Civil War elsewhere by blowing up a strategic bridge so he can carry on his own greedy activities. But Bronson’s ‘The Man’ is forced to move elsewhere when he realizes that post-Civil War civilization… cannot be denied. He won’t even try to fit into the civilized West as Frank [Fonda] did before realizing the futility of it.”

Back to GFTFF, Peary notes that “in an incredible scene that recalls the family massacre in John Ford’s The Searchers” Fonda’s Frank (he “finally got to play a villain!”) “wipes out Brett McBain (Frank Wolff) and his children”:



… simply so that his boss “can use McBain’s land for a railroad station” — a crucial driver of the narrative, with ongoing impacts for everyone involved. Meanwhile, Frank’s sadistic past comes back to haunt him, as we gradually learn why Bronson is so insistent on capturing and killing him.

Peary posits (and I agree) that the “film is incredibly ambitious, splendidly cast, beautifully shot (no one uses a wide screen better than Leone)”:

… “hilarious, erotic, psychologically compelling, and wonderfully scored by Ennio Morricone;” as Peary notes, Morricone’s score “shifts easily from dramatic to ethereal to ironic to comical,” offering “haunting melodies, musical motifs, theme songs, and choral numbers that comment on the action, add humor, and help move the story forward.” He points out that “among the many highlights are the lengthy, humorous title sequence in which three villains” (Jack Elam, Woody Strode, and Al Mulock*) “await The Man’s arrival by train (only to be killed by him)”:

… “Frank’s seduction of Jill” (I’m not a fan of this sequence; she’s clearly terrified and simply doing what she needs to do, as she always has, to survive — though it is creatively filmed):

… “the elaborately staged gunfight between Frank and The Man (how splendidly Leone uses space and close-ups)”:


… “the final scene between Cheyenne and The Man”:

… “and seeing The Man ride off into mythology at the end of the picture.”

In bit parts, watch for Keenan Wynn as the Sheriff of Flagstone:

… and Lionel Stander as a barman.

* Note: Mulock — a Canadian character actor who trained with Lee Strasberg — committed suicide by jumping out of his hotel window right after filming his scene for this movie; according to one source, he was purportedly depressed and drug-addicted and couldn’t find a fix.

Wolff also committed suicide the following year.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Henry Fonda as Frank
  • Claudia Cardinale as Jill
  • Jason Robards as Cheyenne
  • Charles Bronson as ‘Harmonica’
  • Gabriele Ferzetti as Morton
  • Tonino Delli Colli’s cinematography

  • Excellent use of location shooting

  • Many memorable faces, shots, and moments



  • Excellent management of scores of extras
  • Ennio Morricone’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a deserved classic of the genre.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Isadora / Loves of Isadora, The (1968)

Isadora / Loves of Isadora, The (1968)

Comments 1 comment

“You’re a legend, aren’t you? A legend in your own lifetime.”

Synopsis:
During the year before her premature death, American dancer Isadora Duncan (Vanessa Redgrave) reflects back on her troubled past, including love affairs with scenic designer Edward Gordon Craig (James Fox), sewing machine heir Paris Singer (Jason Robards, Jr.), and Soviet poet Sergei Yesenin (Zvonimir Crnko).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Biopics
  • Dancers
  • Flashback Films
  • James Fox Films
  • Jason Robards, Jr. Films
  • Karel Reisz Films
  • Strong Females
  • Vanessa Redgrave Films

Review:
Vanessa Redgrave received an Oscar nomination for her role in this biopic of controversial modern dance pioneer Isadora Duncan, whose grisly death by automobile added to her notoriety. Not knowing much at all about Duncan or her innovations to dance prior to watching this film, I began by listening to a two-part podcast episode on her life, which was helpful in laying out the details of her rise from poverty and hustling to provide for her family:

… to her creation of a bohemian, naturalistic dance style (in direct contrast to the constraints of classical ballet):

… to her affairs with Craig (Fox):

… and wealthy Singer (Robards, Jr.):

… both of which led to beloved children.

SPOILER

The tragic deaths of her son and daughter had an enduring impact on Duncan, one from which she understandably never fully recovered. We see her trying to find meaning and purpose in her life after this by following an invitation to the newly emergent Soviet Union:

… where she embarked on an affair with a poet (Crnko) 18 years her junior.

Throughout the film, all of these storylines are intercut as asynchronous flashbacks told by a perceptibly distressed and distraught Duncan, whose life continued on a downward spiral.

We see what brought her the most joy — primarily her work with children:

… though unfortunately there isn’t enough emphasis in the film on this, despite an overly lengthy running time (itself cut down from Reisz’s original vision) which often drags. The overall impression we get of Duncan was that she was a free-spirited, non-conforming, at-times-loopy woman who relentlessly lived according to her own sensibilities; it’s too bad her innovations in dance were ultimately overshadowed by her challenging life and hideous death.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Vanessa Redgrave as Isadora Duncan
  • Larry Pizer’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look for Redgrave’s performance. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Therese and Isabelle (1968)

Therese and Isabelle (1968)

Comments 1 comment

“They’ll never separate us — never!”

Synopsis:
While revisiting the boarding school she attended as a teenager, a woman named Therese (Essy Persson) reflects back on her friendship and romance with Isabelle (Anna Gaël).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Boarding School
  • Lesbianism
  • Radley Metzger Films
  • Sexual Liberation

Review:
This softcore lesbian coming-of-age flick by director Radley Metzger — who later turned to helming adult films under pseudonyms such as “Henry Paris” — features Swedish actress Essy Persson in her best known follow-up to I, a Woman (1966). It’s a terribly written, banal tale of a poor young rich woman (Persson) abandoned at a boarding school by her mother (Barbara Laage):

… who has remarried and no longer has time or attention for her daughter. Persson finds friendship-with-benefits in Gaël, who is more than willing to induct her into sensual realms.

Their lovemaking scenes together primarily consist of their semi-nude bodies while Persson recites hideously prosaic dialogue in voiceover: she informs us that she and Gaël “could find no shelter from the great tide of time;” that Gaël “found [her] as one who finds a fruit;” that she herself “was a violinist stroking the bow.” (There is plenty more of this, albeit much racier and more explicit.) Skip this one unless you happen to be curious.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Hans Jura’s cinematography

Must See?
No.

Links:

Mercenary, The (1968)

Mercenary, The (1968)

Comments 3 comments

“Never question a man who pays well.”

Synopsis:
In early 20th-century Mexico, an emergent revolutionary (Tony Musante) hires a Polish mercenary (Franco Nero) to help him and his female companion (Giovanna Ralli) fight against the government — all while fending off a menacing villain named Curly (Jack Palance).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Jack Palance Films
  • Mexico
  • Revolutionaries
  • Westerns

Review:
Peary only lists one title by Italian director Sergio Corbucci — perhaps best known these days for his influence on Quentin Tarantino — in his GFTFF: this “Zapata western” set during an era of Mexican revolutionary activity. In doing a little more research, I found that not many consider this Corbucci’s top title; that designation would likely go to The Great Silence (1968) — a direct inspiration for Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight (2015) — with Django (1966), given its obvious ties to Tarantino’s Django Unchained (2012), coming next.

With that said, I was glad to be introduced to Corbucci — the “other Sergio,” who also collaborated with Ennio Morricone — through this film; he was quite skilled at crafting both ultra-violent and humorous sequences. Nero and Musante make an effective “odd couple” — at times collaborative, at other times nemeses:

… and Palance rounds things out nicely as a curly-headed ultra-baddie.

(Together, the trio are a clear variation on the “good” [Nero], the bad [Palance], and the “ugly” [Musante].) This flick remains worth a look for fans of spaghetti westerns, but I’ll have to check out a couple of Corbucci’s other titles before deciding which one is must-see.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Creative direction
  • Alejandro Ulloa’s cinematography
  • Ennio Morricone and Bruno Nicolai’s score

Must See?
No, though of course it’s worth a look if you’re a fan of the genre.

Links:

Shame (1968)

Shame (1968)

Comments 1 comment

“What happens when they wake up and feel ashamed of all this?”

Synopsis:
A husband (Max von Sydow) and wife (Liv Ullmann) surviving on an island farm during a civil war find their marriage increasingly strained.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ingmar Bergman Films
  • Liv Ullmann Films
  • Marital Problems
  • Max von Sydow Films
  • Scandinavian Films
  • Survival

Review:
In this follow-up to Hour of the Wolf (1968), Ingmar Bergman reteamed Max von Sydow and Liv Ullmann as a husband-and-wife duo, this time reflecting feistier dynamics. While these former classical violinists want to simply live a peaceful rural life together:

… they can’t stop quibbling, a situation made even harder given that their lives are repeatedly interrupted by violence from an ongoing civil war, with soldiers and tanks everywhere on the streets.

Made during the height of the Vietnam War, this semi-absurd socio-political film seems to be Bergman’s attempt to comment upon a potential dystopian near-future. As noted in Michael Sragow’s essay for the Criterion Collection:

“As the sixties neared their end, even Bergman, the screen’s foremost investigator of private life, intimate behavior, and post-religious faith, felt the need to make a statement on that turbulent decade and the legacy of World War II.”

To that end, while Sweden infamously took a neutral stance during World War II, things are far from impartial in this film; the island is in a perpetual state of disarray and disruption:

… and the couple literally can’t find anywhere to rest or stay safe. The main narrative arc shows von Sydow becoming more determined than ever simply to survive at any cost; while Ullmann hates seeing his increasing brutality, she also knows she can’t live without him during such uncertain times. This challenging and provocative film isn’t easy to watch, but represents a unique entry in Bergman’s oeuvre and is must-see for fans of his work.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Liv Ullmann as Eva Rosenberg
  • Max von Sydow as Jan Rosenberg
  • Fine location shooting on Fårö island
  • Sven Nykvist’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Hour of the Wolf (1968)

Hour of the Wolf (1968)

Comments 4 comments

“They want to separate us; they want you for themselves.”

Synopsis:
While visiting a remote island, a mentally unstable artist (Max von Sydow) and his pregnant wife (Liv Ullmann) encounter a variety of odd and menacing characters.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Artists
  • Ingmar Bergman Films
  • Liv Ullmann Films
  • Max von Sydow Films
  • Mental Breakdown
  • Psychological Horror
  • Scandinavian Films

Review:
Ingmar Bergman’s feature-length follow-up to Persona (1966) was this unique entry in his oeuvre: a surreal, psychologically dense horror tale which comes across like a fever dream. The film opens and closes with Ullmann narrating the story:

… but she is otherwise relegated to an observer’s view, as her husband experiences increasingly troubling memories, encounters, and visions. Early on, he shows Ullmann a series of art works that we can’t see, but which all eventually — later — come to life in some fashion.

“Look here; I haven’t shown these to anybody. You see, I’ve drawn them. This is the most common figure: he’s almost harmless. I think he’s homosexual.”

“Then there’s the old lady who’s always threatening to take off her hat. You know what happens then? … Her face comes off with it, you see.”



“Here. This is the worst one. I call him the Bird Man; I don’t know if it’s a real beak or if it’s only a mask. He’s so remarkably fast! He must be related to Papageno from The Magic Flute. The others: the flesh-eaters, the insects, and especially the spider man.”

“Here, the schoolmaster with the pointing stick in his trousers, and the chattering, hard-as-metal women.”

None of this makes much logical sense — though it does take place within an actual visit to a castle on the island, populated by a chattering group of art-lovers:

… who seem to dabble in the macabre.

Events culminate in a morbid reunion between von Sydow and his former lover (Ingrid Thulin), who he’d “seen” formerly on the rocks.

The film ends with an incomplete sentence spoken by Ullmann.

“There are so many things to ponder — so many questions; sometimes you don’t know up from down, and you get completely…”

What? We’re not sure. End scene.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Max von Sydow as Johan Borg
  • Liv Ullmann as Alma Borg
  • Sven Nykvist’s cinematography
  • Numerous memorable images

Must See?
Yes, as another unique and intriguing Bergman movie. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Madigan (1968)

Madigan (1968)

Comments 1 comment

“Damn that Madigan; he was bound to get caught in a wringer sooner or later.”

Synopsis:
In New York City, two police detectives (Richard Widmark and Harry Guardino) lose their gun while attempting to bring in a suspect (Steve Ihnat) who got away, and are given 72 hours by their police commissioner (Henry Fonda) to find him. Meanwhile, Fonda is distracted both by his affair with a married woman (Susan Clark), and by news that his long-time colleague (James Whitmore) has been caught taking a bribe; and Widmark must try to placate his lonely wife (Ingrid Stevens).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Don Siegel Films
  • Henry Fonda Films
  • James Whitmore Films
  • New York City
  • Richard Widmark Films
  • Susan Clark Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Don Siegel directed this police drama that, regrettably, has been overshadowed by his later Dirty Harry” — indeed, he argues “it’s a brilliantly crafted film that all directors should study to see how action scenes should be staged, photographed, and edited.” He points out that the film structure “is split in two,” with one storyline telling the “efforts of tough street detectives” (Widmark and Guardino) “trying to nail a psycho killer who got away from them”:

… and the other focusing on “the efforts of police commissioner Henry Fonda to deal with some minor police corruption involving his life-long friend James Whitmore.”

The juxtaposition of these two narrative threads offers an opportunity for effectively contrasting “Widmark’s frantic world of killers, pimps, addicts, hookers, drunks, stoolies, midgets, and assorted lowlifes and outcasts”:

… with “Fonda’s serene and secure world.” Peary notes that “Widmark gives a standout performance as a very believable cop, one of Siegel’s renegade heroes: he has no idea how to comfort his wife (Inger Stevens), who expects him to lead a normal home life”:

… “and he acts like a nervous kid with his hand in the cookie jar in the presence of the commissioner”:

… “but on the streets he is king, the number-one man at getting the job done” — he is “the man crooks fear and despise and outcasts trust.” Peary further adds that this “exciting, atmospheric film takes time to explore the characters so that by the end we know exactly what makes each tick and what they find most essential in their lives.”

While I’m not quite as much a fan of this film as Peary is, I agree that it’s expertly crafted and offers up enjoyable entertainment. The action sequences alone merit close review given how skillfully they portray rapid-fire movements made on the spot, with potentially life-and-death consequences — from the opening scene in Ihnat’s apartment (which very quickly goes in an unexpected direction), to the tragic closing sequence. This one remains worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Richard Widmark as Daniel Madigan
  • Steve Ihnat as Barney Benesch
  • Russell Metty’s cinematography
  • Excellent use of location shooting throughout New York (as much as possible)

Must See?
Yes, as a fine police thriller.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Important Director

Links: