Beyond the Law (1968)

Beyond the Law (1968)

“I did nothing — absolutely nothing.”

Synopsis:
An Irish-American lieutenant (Norman Mailer) presides over a fictional Manhattan precinct while two of his detectives — Rocco (Buzz Farber) and Mickey (Mickey Knox) — mercilessly grill various suspects.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Marsha Mason Films
  • Police
  • Rip Torn Films

Review:
Norman Mailer’s second of four directorial outings (his third, Maidstone [1970], is also listed in GFTFF) was this documentary-esque independent film, inspired by Andy Warhol, which according to Wikipedia “was shot over four nights with three film crews and sound professionals” and made with “next-to-no script;” instead, the actors were told to “wing it” and “explore some ideas that echo [Mailer’s] literary concerns, like the psychopathic hipster, the home-grown totalitarian, complex give-and-take of lovers, and the existential relationship between the cop and the criminal.”

Is it successful, or at least interesting? Marginally so — but this one will really only appeal either to fans of ’60s independent films and/or Mailer. Watch for Rip Torn as “Popcorn”:

… Marsha Mason as a young woman out to dinner with the detectives:

… George Plimpton as the town’s visiting mayor:

… and, of course, Mailer himself.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • D.A. Pennebaker, Nicholas Proferes’ and Jan Welt’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look if you’re curious.

Links:

Charlie Bubbles (1968)

Charlie Bubbles (1968)

“What do you do all day?”

Synopsis:
A hugely successful writer (Albert Finney) living and working in London travels with his secretary (Liza Minnelli) to his hometown of Manchester, where he visits his ex-wife (Billie Whitelaw) and child (Timothy Garland).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Albert Finney Films
  • Liza Minnelli Films
  • Writers

Review:
Albert Finney’s sole directorial outing was this highly personal film — scripted by Shelagh Delaney — about the downsides of fame. As the movie opens, we see Charlie (Finney) talking about taxes and money in a high-brow restaurant, where he encounters an old friend (Colin Blakely) who brings out the child in him.

Unfortunately, this is the most carefree we see Charlie throughout the entire film; after getting drunk with Blakely at a working men’s pub, he returns home to his glacially austere residence, with surveillance cameras set up in every room:

… and a young secretary (Minnelli) eager to do anything and everything for and with him.

However, Charlie is clearly both exhausted and unhappy, to the point where even a beautiful young assistant can’t meet his needs. A road trip to visit with his son results in an awkward outing to a soccer game:

… and his ex-wife seems equally miserable, raising chickens and making awful organic food from scratch while smoking non-stop.

The paparazzi won’t leave Charlie alone, either. What’s a poor rich man to do? Well, the film’s final scene provides one convenient option, though it can’t last for long.

It’s easy to see why Finney gravitated towards this material — surely it mirrored many of his own sentiments and experiences — though it doesn’t leave the viewer with a particularly satisfying feeling, other than to be grateful for a lack of fame and fortune in our own lives.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Peter Suschitzky’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Warkill (1968)

Warkill (1968)

“It’s just another war, Mr. Sutton — and I’m just another guy doing a job.”

Synopsis:
A war correspondent (Tom Drake) sent to investigate a renowned guerrilla colonel (George Montgomery) in the Philippines is dismayed to learn that Montgomery is brutally no-holds-barred in his approach to finding and killing Japanese soldiers.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Journalists
  • Jungles
  • Soldiers
  • World War II

Review:
Ferde Grofé Jr. (son of composer Ferde Grofé) wrote and helmed this low-budget action flick filmed in the jungles of the Philippines, set during World War II but released during the height of the Vietnam War. I wasn’t able to learn too much more about the film — it has only four User Reviews on IMDb, and no External Reviews — but it effectively tells the tale of a writer whose rosy image of the “war hero” he’s written about in books for children:

… becomes instantly deflated upon meeting and spending time with him. Drake is disgusted to learn that Montgomery has no mercy at all for the enemy, resorting to whatever means necessary to find and kill them, and never taking prisoners of war — except in one particularly brutal sequence when he uses a wounded soldier as bait to lure more men out. When Montgomery and his crew (nicely populated by a mix of races):

… arrive at a hospital housing wounded Japanese POWs, he has no intention of doing anything to protect them, even upon learning that they will be mercilessly slaughtered by their own commanders if found. The main arc of the storyline shows Drake and Montgomery in a sort of cat-and-mouse tension with one another, as Drake becomes increasingly disillusioned while we (and he) simultaneously learn more about why Montgomery makes the choices he does. This isn’t easy viewing, but it nicely challenges our expectations about war heroes — which I believe was precisely Grofé Jr.’s point.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Many tension-filled moments

Must See?
No, but it’s strongly recommended for one-time viewing if you can find it. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book, which makes sense.

Links:

War and Peace (1965-67)

War and Peace (1965-67)

“Why cannot men do without war? How is it we women are content with things as they are?”

Synopsis:
During Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, wealthy Pierre Bezukhov (Sergei Bondarchuk) marries a beautiful woman (Irina Skobtseva), but pines after young Natasha (Lyudmila Saveleva), who is pursued by both widowed Prince Andrei (Vyacheslav Tikhonov) and handsome Anatole (Vasiliy Lanovoy).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Historical Drama
  • Love Triangle
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Russian Films

Review:
Relatively unknown writer/actor/director Sergey Bondarchuk was selected by the Soviet government to helm this massive, Best Foreign Oscar-winning adaptation of the nation’s most beloved novel, by Leo Tolstoy. Almost no expense or detail was spared in bringing the Napoleonic era — specifically the years from 1805-1812 — to life: 103 different shooting locations were used; over 100 studio sets were built (including a replica of Moscow simply to burn down); “original art, jewelry, swords, guns, and period furniture from several museums, as well as replicas of period military uniforms, decorations, ball gowns and costume jewelry pieces” were used:

… and there were no less than 1,500 horses and 12,000 extras (including many from the military, working at no additional expense) utilized in the four battle sequences: the Battle of Schöngrabern, the Battle of Austerlitz, the Battle of Borodino, and the Battle of Krasnoi.

Split into four separate films, the adaptation faithfully tells the epic tale of Pierre Bezukhov, Natasha Rostova, and Prince Andrei Bolkonsky — as well as various other supporting characters — through the following segments (totaling 6 hours and 33 minutes).

In “Part I: Andrei Bolkonsky,” we’re introduced to primary characters, with highlights including a wild night of debauchery:


… the death of Pierre’s father:

… and a snowy duel.

In “Part II: Natasha Rostova,” we see 16-year-old Natasha attending her first ball:

… falling in love with Andrei:

… going on a wolf hunt:

… dancing in a rural cottage:

… and being seduced by wily (married) Anatole (Vasiliy Lanovoy).

“Part III: The Year 1812” consists of nearly non-stop battle sequences (and their aftermath), taking place as Napoleon’s army invades Russia.


“Part IV: Pierre Bezukhov” wraps things up with plenty more violence and destruction, including the burning of Moscow:

… Pierre’s attempt to go undercover and assassinate Napoleon:

… and a deathbed reconciliation for Natasha and Andrei.

Little of this is told or filmed in a conventional manner; as noted in Keith Watson’s review for Slant:

“In contrast to Hollywood epics of the era like Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s Cleopatra and William Wyler’s Ben-Hur, which are marked by long, static processions of extras marching around expensive sets, Bondarchuk never simply shoots for coverage. His camera instead darts and dashes through grandiloquent interiors and hellish battlefields, roving through burning buildings and flying through the air like a cannonball. Where another director might have resorted to a simple wide shot or close-up, Bondarchuk gives us a sweeping helicopter aerial, a complicated superimposition, an expressive split screen, or a camera that seems to float above a ballroom…”

Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov’s unusual score adds to the at-times surreal nature of what’s taking place, which feels appropriate given the grand scope of what Tolstoy and Bondarchuk are aiming for. While it’s obviously a huge investment of time, this historical drama represents the best of mid-century Soviet cinema, and should be seen once by all film fanatics.

Note: This film (really a mini-series) has been the most challenging to pin a date on out of all titles in Peary’s book. The first two films “had their world premiere on 19 July 1965, in the Kremlin Palace of Congresses,” and were screened more broadly across the USSR in 1966, with the next two episodes following in 1967 (though with distribution across 117 countries, screening dates and total lengths varied). It won an Oscar as Best Foreign Film in 1969 (meaning it was entered in 1968), and it was screened on ABC television in 1972. Suffice it to say that people across the globe saw this film in a variety of formats, lengths, and languages, all simply adding to its truly epic scope.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Truly incredible sets, costumes, and overall production design
  • Fine cinematography
  • Vyacheslav Ovchinnikov’s very unique score

Must See?
Yes, as a Soviet-era masterpiece.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem

Links:

Herostratus (1967)

Herostratus (1967)

“If I’m born, I’ll have a few laughs — and then I’ll kick out.”

Synopsis:
A nihiliastic young man (Michael Gothard) pushes his way past the secretary (Gabriella Licudi) of a big-wig advertiser (Peter Stephens) to convince Farson (Stephens) that he wants to commit suicide amidst media fanfare — but will he change his mind before the pivotal moment arrives?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Experimental Films
  • Media Spectacle
  • Suicide

Review:
Australian-born writer-director Don Levy was inspired by the legend of Herostratus when making this experimental art film early in his career. According to Wikipedia:

Herostratus (Ancient Greek: Ἡρόστρατος) was a 4th-century BC Greek, accused of seeking notoriety as an arsonist by destroying the second Temple of Artemis in Ephesus (on the outskirts of present-day Selçuk), one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The act prompted his execution and the creation of a damnatio memoriae law forbidding anyone to mention his name, orally or in writing. The law was ultimately ineffective, as evidenced by surviving accounts of his crime. Thus, Herostratus has become an eponym for someone who commits a criminal act in order to become famous.

Why this was intriguing to him is unclear. The film itself is widely viewed as a critique of manipulative advertising, though that’s not quite accurate — rather, we see a tale of a thoroughly unlikable, self-obsessed protagonist we can barely stand to be around during the first hour of the film:

… who gradually becomes tolerably sympathetic as he makes romantic connections with a beautiful secretary (Licudi):

… and comes to realize that Farson is an even greater cynic and coercive asshole than he is.

If none of this sounds particularly appealing, that’s because — it’s not. Making things even more challenging is Levy’s relentless use of artsy experimental techniques, including intercutting fairly obvious symbology (i.e., meat being cut), utilizing occasional rapid-fire (subliminal) editing, and incorporating freeze-frames.

Sadly, both Levy and star Gothard (who is well cast) committed suicide themselves at the ages of 54 and 52 respectively, showing that the film’s topic wasn’t too far off the mark in relevance for those involved.

Note: Watch for Helen Mirren in her screen debut as a sexy commercial actress modeling orange rubber gloves.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Keith Allans’ cinematography

Must See?
No, unless you’re curious. Listed as a Cult Movie in the back of Peary’s book, which it may at one point have been.

Links:

Reflections on Must-See Films From 1967

Reflections on Must-See Films From 1967

It’s already time for another yearly overview! I’m now done watching (almost) all titles from 1967 listed in GFTFF, and am happy to report I voted more than 50% (39 out of 76) as must-see. Many are stand-out movies worthy of recommending, so let’s go!

  • Of the 39 must-see titles, nine are in languages other than English. Five are in French: Godard’s Weekend and La Chinoise; Chris Marker’s Far From Vietnam; Claude Berri’s The Two of Us (discussed below); and Bunuel’s Belle du Jour. Two are in Swedish/Danish; one is in Italian; and two — The Firemen’s Ball and Closely Watched Trains — are in Czech.

  • There are several noteworthy cult favorites from 1967, including Monte Hellmann’s existential western Ride in the Whirlwind:

    … Mark Robson’s “infamously trashy adaptation of Jacqueline Susann’s bestselling novel,” Valley of the Dolls:

    … and Jack Clayton’s delightfully dark Our Mother’s House, about seven orphans who bury their deeply religious mother in the backyard and are unsure how to respond when “a man named Charlie (Dirk Bogarde) suddenly appears at their doorstep claiming to be their long-lost father;” “the children find themselves torn between delight and apprehension.”
  • A cult and box office favorite was Mike Nichols’ The Graduate: we not only laugh with discomfort at Dustin Hoffman’s (Ben’s) seduction by Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft), but it’s “easy to relate on a personal level to Ben’s broader existential dilemma, as he contemplates how to craft a life for himself without automatically following in his parents’ footsteps.”
  • Richard Brooks’ In Cold Blood has held up well as a hyper-realistic adaptation of Truman Capote’s true-crime thriller “about the senseless murder of the Clutter family in Kansas.” It features “natural performances by… two relatively unknown leads (an intentional decision on Brooks’ part); appropriately noir-ish cinematography by Conrad Hall; and an effective soundtrack by Quincy Jones.”
  • Lee Marvin was a bad-ass in two notable thrillers that year: Robert Aldrich’s The Dirty Dozen — about “a critical suicide mission at a Nazi-filled chateau in France” — and John Boorman’s Point Blank, in which Marvin “stays uncannily calm, cool, and collected as he carries out his deliberate quest to first annihilate [his] seemingly untouchable [nemesis], and then collect the money he is owed, going as high up as he needs to on the organizational food chain.”

  • Meanwhile, Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke “embodies our deepest wish-fulfillment” of “sticking it to the man” given that “he refuses to give up or give in, and justifiably earns the intense respect and admiration of his fellow inmates.”
  • Speaking of non-conformists, 1967 gave us Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde, “one of the most highly regarded and influential post-war American films ever made.” It provides an “unapologetic portrayal of young gangsters who rob banks on a lark and become national celebrities,” thus paving “the way for countless other tales of ‘romantic couples on the run’.”
  • Race-related films from that year included not only Norman Jewison’s Oscar-winning In the Heat of the Night and Stanley Kramer’s Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, but also Shirley Clarke’s Portrait of Jason and Melvin Van Peebles’ The Story of a Three Day Pass — set in Paris and telling a “straightforward yet emotionally complex tale of racism and cross-racial romance at a time when the United States was about to pass Loving v. Virginia, a landmark civil rights decision ruling laws banning inter-racial marriages as unconstitutional.”
  • In John Huston’s magnificently hued Reflections in a Golden Eye (based on Carson McCullers’ novel of the same name), Marlon Brando gives “a truly heartbreaking and noteworthy performance” as “a tragically repressed army major who has clearly maintained a facade of ‘normalcy’ and rigor for far too long.” As I note in my review, “Brando’s every expression reveals the depth of his character’s confusion, anger, and desire, and he’s consistently fascinating to watch.”
  • I’m a huge fan of Frederick Wiseman’s documentaries, including his notorious debut Titicut Follies, about “the lives of criminally insane inmates at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution.” Wiseman “takes a no-holds-barred approach to his sticky subject matter, never flinching from even the most uncomfortable interactions.”
  • Other noteworthy documentaries from that year include The Lenny Bruce Performance Film and Emile De Antonio’s Rush to Judgment, in which “lawyer-author Mark Lane [speaks] with various individuals regarding the veracity of the Warren Commission‘s inquiry into the murder of JFK.,” revealing “a disturbing insight into how and why conspiracy theories immediately began to circulate.”
  • Finally, don’t miss Claude Berri’s feature debut The Two of Us,
  • “a gentle fable about the absurdity of prejudice” based on Berri’s “own experiences as a [Jewish] boy in the French countryside during World War II,” and starring Michel Simon in a late-life performance.

1968 was another good year for movies, so I’m looking forward to covering that. Stay tuned!

In the Heat of the Night (1967)

In the Heat of the Night (1967)

“They call me Mister Tibbs!”

Synopsis:
After a businessman is murdered in the Deep South, a visiting black homicide detective (Sidney Poitier) is recruited by the town’s bigoted white police chief (Rod Steiger) to help solve the case.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Deep South
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Lee Grant Films
  • Murder Mystery
  • Norman Jewison Films
  • Police
  • Race Relations and Racism
  • Rod Steiger Films
  • Sidney Poitier Films
  • Warren Oates Films

Review:
Norman Jewison’s Oscar-winning race-relations drama — based on John Ball’s 1965 novel of the same name — isn’t reviewed in Peary’s GFTFF, but he discusses it briefly in Alternate Oscars, where he notes that “the Academy felt proud and in tune with changing America when it gave its Best Picture award to” this film, a movie “in which Sidney Poitier’s character works with a white man instead of one in which his character marries a white woman” (as was the case in the same year’s Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner).

He refers to In the Heat of the Night as a “muddled” mystery (I disagree), noting that while both Poitier films “were noncontroversial ‘controversial’ films,” “at least Jewison’s film had some bite to it, provided by Poitier as a surly cop from Philadelphia and Rod Steiger as the redneck sheriff with whom he forms an uneasy alliance” — though he ultimately doesn’t think it stands up against other formidable films released that year, such as Bonnie and Clyde, which he names Best Picture of the Year instead.

Regarding Steiger’s Oscar-winning performance, Peary writes: “It’s hard to fathom today, but for a brief time in the mid-sixties, beginning with an uncharacteristically restrained performance in The Pawnbroker, Rod Steiger was considered by many to be America’s foremost movie actor.” He adds, “The egotistical actor himself believed this, and, taking charge of his career, promptly drove it into the ground, giving himself a heart attack in the process.”

Touché, Peary! In trying to research this claim, the only “evidence” I could find was this quote by Steiger on IMDb.

“It sounds pompous but it’s the nearest thing I can do to being God. I’m trying to create human beings and so does He.”

At any rate, Peary argues that while “Steiger was well cast and forceful as usual,” many “at the time failed to notice” that “he used a combination of (undeniable) talent and bluster to cover up a lazy, shallow portrayal of a potentially fascinating character,” and laments what could have been “if he’d only stopped shouting and calmed down for a moment.” I respectfully disagree with Peary’s take on Steiger’s performance, which to me seems spot-on — after all, his character IS lazy and shallow, and probably not all that fascinating. Chief Gillespie is part and parcel of a small, deeply racist town where within ten minutes of the film, Poitier’s character is arrested for being black:

… and drawn against his will into a murder mystery being handled with spectacular incompetence by Steiger and his accomplice, Warren Oates’ Officer Sam Wood.

Their incompetence doesn’t abate, and it’s crystal clear that they need Poitier in order to do their job.

In the Heat of the Night remains a challenging film to watch precisely because of how many truths it lays out for us to witness: there is simply no denying the role played by race and racism in every move made throughout the screenplay. In the film’s most satisfying sequence — indeed, it ranks among the top moments in cinematic history — Poitier delivers an unhesitant slap to a white cotton plantation owner (Larry Gates) who he believes to be a prime suspect.

This sustains us for a while, though we worry even more for Poitier as he instantly becomes the target of lethal mobs:

… and sticks around simply to see justice of one kind or another playing out. Film fanatics will definitely want to check this one out — though whether you can stomach watching it more than once will be up to you. (I saved re-watching it until near the end of this film review project, precisely because I accurately remembered how rough it was.)

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Sidney Poitier as Virgil Tibbs
  • Rod Steiger as Chief Bill Gillespie
  • Fine supporting performances
  • Haskell Wexler’s cinematography
  • Good use of location shooting

  • Quincy Jones’s score

Must See?
Yes, as a still-powerful race-related drama. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

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

Links:

Will Penny (1967)

Will Penny (1967)

“Nobody stops on Flat Iron Range.”

Synopsis:
An aging cowhand (Charlton Heston) shot by a vengeful, deranged preacher (Donald Pleasence) becomes romantically involved with a woman (Joan Hackett) who is living illegally with her son (Jon Francis) in a lineman’s shack.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ben Johnson Films
  • Bruce Dern Films
  • Charlton Heston Films
  • Donald Pleasence Films
  • Joan Hackett Films
  • Westerns

Review:
Writer/director Tom Gries’ “one hit wonder” was this fine western which Heston referred to as his personal favorite among his own roles — and his performance is indeed among his best. Gries nicely establishes a gritty western milieu where work must be found and negotiated on a day to day basis:

… and tussling over the body of an elk could very well turn into a life-or-death situation, especially when dealing with unhinged individuals on the range, such as Pleasence and his daughter and three sons (Bruce Dern, Gene Rutherford, and Matt Clark).

Heston’s illiterate, hardworking Will Penny is a pragmatic and overall decent guy, as evidenced by his fair and humane treatment of Hackett and her son when he finds them camping out unlawfully on property he’s supposed to be safeguarding. The relationship he develops with them — and how this changes him (or not) — serves as the heart of the film:

… with plenty of tension and drama interspersed along the way. This film remains worthy one-time viewing.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Charlton Heston as Will Penny
  • Joan Hackett as Catherine Allen
  • Donald Pleasence as Preacher Quint
  • Lucien Ballard’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a fine western, and for Heston’s performance.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967)

I Am Curious (Yellow) (1967)

“You destroy everything with chatter and questions!”

Synopsis:
A politically curious drama student (Lena Nyman) making a film for a director (Vilgot Sjöman) gets romantically involved with a salesman (Börje Ahlstedt) who has a partner and child on the side.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Movie Directors
  • Scandinavian Films
  • Sexuality
  • Strong Females

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that this “important film breaking down U.S. censorship rulings between 1969 and 1972” contains a “lengthy scene containing full frontal nudity of both the” female and male leads, in addition to other seemingly-natural simulated sexual interactions — all of which are “incorporated into a political comedy,” thus making it “a rare legitimate film that contains explicit sex as just an element of the story.” As Peary writes, “Nyman plays herself, the actress who’d starred in Sjöman’s 491 (1964). She and director-writer Sjöman have become lovers”:

… and “now she is starring in his new film as the daughter of a political sellout (he’d fought with the Republicans in Spain for a couple of weeks before returning home).”

Peary notes that Nyman “considers herself a nonviolent radical and, in a very funny [extended] scene, asks people on the street about class structure and sexual equality in Sweden,” in addition to spending “time protesting U.S. involvement in Vietnam.”

Soon “she has an intense affair with car salesman Ahlstedt,” not realizing “he lives with another woman and their child.”

Another notable sequence — very much of its time — involves Nyman heading off to a spiritual retreat, which is interrupted when Ahlstedt shows up.

Peary argues that while this film is “overlong,” it’s “worthwhile” and “has substance.” However, though the film is certainly startling for what Sjöman was willing to put forth at the time, the experimental storyline itself hasn’t aged particularly well; these days, viewers will likely simply be “curious” to check it out once given its historical notoriety.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Lena Nyman as Lena

Must See?
Yes, once, but simply for its historical relevance.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Billion Dollar Brain (1967)

Billion Dollar Brain (1967)

“Some games are more dangerous than others.”

Synopsis:
Special agent Harry Palmer (Michael Caine) is pulled by his boss (Guy Doleman) into another case, this one involving an old friend (Karl Malden) and his mistress (Françoise Dorléac) in Finland, and an eager Texas tycoon (Ed Begley) working to eradicate Communism across the globe.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cold War
  • Ed Begley Sr. Films
  • Karl Malden Films
  • Ken Russell Films
  • Michael Caine Films
  • Spies

Review:
Ken Russell’s follow-up to his (non-GFTFF-listed) debut film French Dressing (1964) was this big-budget entry in Harry Saltzman’s Harry Palmer trilogy, based once again on a novel by Len Deighton. While Russell struggled and felt constrained under Saltzman’s leadership, the resulting film nonetheless shows his unique directorial style at play, to compelling effect.

The Cold War storyline is typically wild, sending Palmer to the coldest reaches of Finland, over to Texas, and back again to Latvia through cinematic feats of magic.

There are double crossings, seductions, and an encounter with a beloved character from Funeral in Berlin, Oskar Homolka’s Colonel Stok.

Malden is an appropriately slimy shyster, well-paired with beautiful but deceptive Dorléac.

It’s a good thing Palmer keeps his wits about him at all times.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Michael Caine as Harry Palmer
  • Françoise Dorléac as Anya
  • Karl Malden as Leo Newbegin
  • Ed Begley as General Midwinter
  • Billy Williams’ cinematography

  • Fine production design

  • Creative opening credits
  • Richard Rodney Bennett’s score

Must See?
Yes. While its value is debated, I consider this a fine and worthy entry in the Harry Palmer trilogy – and an auspicious post-debut for Russell.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Important Director

Links: