Browsed by
Month: June 2024

Wild Bunch, The (1969)

Wild Bunch, The (1969)

Comments 0 Comment

“I’d like to make one good score and back off.”

Synopsis:
An aging outlaw (William Holden) on the border of Mexico and the United States in 1913 leads his motley crew of men — including loyal Dutch (Ernest Borgnine), brothers Lyle (Warren Oates) and Tector (Ben Johnson), and young Angel (Jaime Sanchez) — in a bank robbery attempt foiled by a group of bounty hunters headed by a former colleague (Robert Ryan) who has been hired by a corrupt railroad baron (Albert Dekker). After collaborating with vicious General Mapache (Emilio Fernandez), Holden’s “wild bunch” of outlaws decide to engage in a final railroad heist before retiring — but will Angel’s loyalty to his people get in their way?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Ben Johnson Films
  • Bounty Hunters
  • Edmond O’Brien Films
  • Ernest Borgnine Films
  • Heists
  • Mexico
  • Outlaws
  • Robert Ryan Films
  • Sam Peckinpah Films
  • Warren Oates Films
  • Westerns
  • William Holden Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that “Sam Peckinpah’s violent, controversial western” borrows from the “caper” genre in its tale of a group of men “needing to pull off one more job before they can retire,” and is typical of “Peckinpah westerns” in that “over-the-hill losers, whom time and glory have passed by, are given a chance for redemption.” He points out that “visually, the picture contains much that is stunning, even mesmerizing; however, the battle scenes, containing great slaughter, are what gives the film its rhythm, power, spectacle, and excitement.”

Indeed, “It is known for its bloody, slow-motion death scenes” — though Peary writes that he finds “them self-consciously presented” rather than “realistic, as Peckinpah intended.” He argues that “much more impressive are the quieter scenes: when the Wild Bunch rides majestically through Sanchez’s village, proud that the people look on with respect:”

… “and that wonderful moment before the [final] battle with Fernandez when Holden looks back and forth between his last bottle of whiskey and his last woman.” Peary notes that while “Peckinpah was a tough guy,” his “best screen moments were those when he allowed his romantic tendencies to slip through, when he gave his characters the dignity that means so much to them.”

On the flip side, he argues that “the worst aspect of the film is that Peckinpah never establishes any camaraderie among members of the gang” (I wasn’t bothered by this, given that there truly is no honor among thieves), and complains that Peckinpah “went through so much trouble creating an authentic western milieu, only to fill it with stereotypes speaking in cliches.”

Peary points out that this film is “a semi-remake of Peckinpah’s Major Dundee,” and “he also borrows freely from John Huston’s The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,” Bunuel, Kurosawa, and Aldrich’s The Dirty Dozen.”

In terms of the film’s controversial release, Peary notes that Peckinpah “managed to sneak [it] by anti-war protesters under the guise of being a western” — but “actually, it’s a war film (check out the weapons used).” The “controversy surrounding the film was centered on its violence,” with “few at the time notic[ing] the strong parallels between Peckinpah’s Mexico and North Vietnam.”

In Cult Movies, Peary goes into more detail with his review, pointing out some of the particularly spectacular scenes and sequences — including “the dusty, yellowish Mexican landscape; the numerous parades that pass through Peckinpah’s frame”:

… “the train robbery sequence”:

… and “the bridge that collapses with horses and Thornton’s posse on top of it.”

Overall, Peary doesn’t seem to be a big fan of this film, which is my personal stance as well; while I sincerely admire Peckinpah’s talent, watching violence cinematically glorified — despite Peckinpah’s insistence he was NOT doing this — isn’t my preference. However, this movie is far too iconic to miss, and should definitely be viewed at least once by film fanatics. To that end, a few bits of trivia are worth sharing; as noted on IMDb:

– There are about 2,721 editorial cuts throughout the 138-minute film (with an average shot length of 3 seconds).
– Peckinpah purportedly wanted to deglamorize violence in the west and show a more realistic, brutal, and crude view of how outlaws operated. (John Wayne was vocal in his disapproval of this approach.)
– Due to excessive violence, the film was threatened with an X rating (though it ended up with an R).
– To its credit, “Of the 40 performers credited at the end of the film, 24 are Latinos. Except for Puerto Rico-born Jaime Sánchez, all were actual Mexicans or of Mexican ancestry.”

Note: The film’s most unrecognizable actor is O’Brien (wearing a TON of make-up) as grizzled Sykes, a side-kick member of the Bunch.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine performances by the ensemble cast



  • Numerous memorable (if often disturbing) sequences


  • Lucien Ballard’s cinematography
  • Excellent use of location shooting in Mexico
  • Clever opening credits
  • Groundbreaking editing by Peckinpah and Louis Lombardo

Must See?
Yes, as a cult favorite and for its historical status.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Controversial Film
  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

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

Links:

Pigpen (1969)

Pigpen (1969)

Comments 1 comment

“I killed my father, I ate human flesh and I quiver with joy.”

Synopsis:
In primitive times, a cannibal (Pierre Clementi) on the slopes of Etna wanders around killing animals and people; meanwhile, the son (Jean-Pierre Leaud) of a post-WWII German industrialist (Alberto Lionello) neglects his politically radicalized girlfriend (Anne Wiazemsky) to go lie with the pigs.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cannibalism
  • Italian Films
  • Jean-Pierre Leaud Films
  • Pier Paolo Pasolini Films

Review:
Pier Paolo Pasolini’s follow-up to Teorema (1968) was this inscrutable mash-up of two different “stories” which only vaguely (possibly) relate to one another. As the movie opens, we see a man (Clementi) in a barren landscape killing a snake to eat:

… and then the scene suddenly shifts to a modern, urban, upper-class setting, as a quibbling young couple deliberates in front of the man’s parents (Alberto Lionello and Margarita Lozano).

The fact that Lionello has a Hitler-esque mustache seems fully intentional; indeed, as he engages in later conversations with the other main player in the film, Mr. Herdhitze (Ugo Tognazzi) (his “mysterious rival”):

… we learn a little more about his political views. The story continues to toggle back and forth between the two settings and sets of characters, with no explicit rhyme or reason — and the opaque dialogue doesn’t help matters whatsoever. Take this interaction between Leaud (Julian) and Wiazemsky (Ida), for instance:

Julian: Even if you were to betray not just those of your generation, but yourself and the truth, you’ll never find out what I’m going to do.
Ida: What right do you have not to tell me?
Julian: It’s just my right, that’s all.
Ida: What good will it do you?
Julian: If anything, to make you cry and suffer. Tra-la-la.
Ida: And without fail I’ll cry and suffer. Tra-la-la.
Julian: Just little things: a wandering leaf, a creaky door, a grunt.
Ida: What do you mean, Julian?

Etc. Oh boy. It really never gets better or clearer. With that said, Time Out’s reviewer refers to this film as “not only an exquisitely revolting satire,” but “also Pasolini’s most fascinating piece of cinema.” — so, to each their own.

In terms of what it’s actually about –well, Wikipedia claims: “The story is about the human capacity of destruction and a rebellion against the social prerequisites implied against it.” OK. Meanwhile, in an essay written for Criterion about Pasolini more broadly, James Quandt notes that enduring themes of his work include “the sacred purity of the dispossessed and the inevitability of their destruction.” My personal take-away is that this film is simply about the awful ways people treat one another, ranging from not-so-subtle critiques to outright cannibalism — be forewarned that it’s ugly stuff.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Tonino Delli Colli’s cinematography

Must See?
Nope.

Links:

Journey to the Far Side of the Sun / Doppelganger (1969)

Journey to the Far Side of the Sun / Doppelganger (1969)

Comments 1 comment

“It’s an inside joke against me and myself.”

Synopsis:
In 2069, the director (Patrick Wymark) of the European Space Exploration Council sends two astronauts (Roy Thinnes and Ian Hendry) to explore a mysterious “mirror planet” which is orbiting the sun opposite of the Earth; what will the pair find when — or if — they land?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Astronauts
  • Science Fiction
  • Space Exploration

Review:
Husband-wife team Gerry and Sylvia Anderson — best known for their marionette-based television shows such as Thunderbirds (1965-66) — were the creative forces behind this odd flop of a science fiction film, released just after Stanley Kubrick’s groundbreaking 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). The story’s premise of a mirror-image planet is intriguing but barely explored; the main gist we get is that people-in-charge are hiding things, and we can’t really trust anything we’re seeing.

I’ll quote at length from DVD Savant’s review, given that he effectively nails this film’s many frustrations.

“[The film] has unfortunately [been] designed almost identically to one of [the Andersons’] marionette shows. People stand and talk a lot… The Anderson’s script is at least 60% hardware-talk and exposition, some of it handled well, but little of it advancing the story. The characters are never really established… The film’s ‘character’ dead ends are matched by a tendency to stop dead in its tracks for frequent hardware scenes — the bread and butter of the Anderson TV shows. We see a long sequence of the landing of a jet, and then sit back for the thuddingly generic, drama-challenged main rocket launch. … The designs on view are neither attractive nor convincing… The lighting overall is garish and high key… ”

Etc. Indeed, I was curious enough the Andersons’ work (which I hadn’t heard of) that I checked out The Thunderbirds and noted that this film does indeed seem to be simply a life-action analog to that.


Oh well.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Earnest performances by Thille and Wymark

Must See?
No.

Links:

Medium Cool (1969)

Medium Cool (1969)

Comments 1 comment

“The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching!”

Synopsis:
After being fired by his station, a television news cameraman (Robert Forster) works freelance for the Democratic National Convention and falls for an Appalachian widow (Verna Bloom) with a young son (Harold Blankenship).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Journalists
  • Television
  • Verna Bloom Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “Godard-influenced political film” — “directed, produced, written, and photographed by noted leftist cinematographer Haskell Wexler” — is today “a curio, a time piece, but when it came out it caused tremendous excitement among young viewers involved in anti-establishment causes and interested in political films, as well as those who may simply have appreciated unique ways to tell stories on film.”

In describing the movie, Peary writes that Forster’s “cocky Chicago television reporter… tries to remain detached from his stories despite their increasing political and social significance,” but “we see his social consciousness rise after he is told off by some ghetto blacks [sic] for being part of establishment media that distorts news”:

… and “after covering the Democratic Convention and the ensuing riots during which Mayor Daley’s gestapo police beat up countless protestors.”

Then, “when he learns that his network has been handing over his tapes to the FBI, he finally understands the function of the media/press and how uninvolved newsmen” — like himself — “are doing a disservice to the people.” Forster’s process of humanization is made especially apparent as he moves away from dating “a sexy bubblehead” (Marianna Hill) and falls for a “poor, kindly widow” from West Virginia,” and “befriends her son.”

As described by Peary — and documented at length in Look Out, Haskell, It’s Real: The Making of Medium Cool (2001) — “Wexler interweaves professional actors with amateurs, his fictional story with real footage of the Chicago convention”:

… “and violent police-protestor confrontations” to the extent that “at times the actors are on the scene during the rioting and Wexler takes his camera right into the fray,” to “remarkable” impact.

At the time of this writing, the film is now 55 years old and even more relevant than ever, as protests and violent clashes with police continue, and the role of the media in covering such events remains hotly debated. To that end, the historical footage Wexler managed to capture and weave together from this specific point in time is truly impressive. Unfortunately, the impressionistic storyline meanders to the point of not quite cohering, and the abrupt ending — including a fun self-referential turn — is jarring.

However, this film is far too creative, eclectic, and historically relevant for film fanatics not to check out at least once.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Robert Forster as John Cassellis
  • Verna Bloom as Eileen
  • Harold Blankenship as Harold
  • Wexler’s cinematography

  • Remarkable cinema verite footage throughout

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance. Selected in 2003 for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Castle Keep (1969)

Castle Keep (1969)

Comments 1 comment

“You can’t save anything by giving it to the Germans; if you give them anything, you have to give them everything.”

Synopsis:
During the Battle of the Bulge, Major Falconer (Burt Lancaster) and his platoon pass by a local religious zealot (Bruce Dern) leading a small group of conscientious objectors as they head to a castle near the Ardennes owned by a count (Jean-Pierre Aumont) and his beautiful wife Therese (Astrid Heeren). As the men prepare for onslaught from Germans, Pvt. Benjamin (Al Freeman, Jr.) reflects on the novel he’ll write from his experiences; Captain Beckman (Patrick O’Neal) admires the castle’s art collection and is jealous of Lancaster’s affair with Heeren; a baker (Peter Falk) finds the local baker’s widow (Olga Bisera) and lives with her; Corporal Clearboy (Scott Wilson) falls in love with a rusty Volkswagen; and many of the men seek pleasure at a local brothel run by the Red Queen (Caterina Boratto).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bruce Dern Films
  • Burt Lancaster Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Patrick O’Neal Films
  • Peter Falk Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Soldiers
  • Sydney Pollack Films
  • World War II

Review:
Sydney Pollack’s follow-up to The Swimmer (1968) was this semi-surreal adaptation of a novel by William Eastlake, about a somewhat anachronistic encounter between nobility and military forces at a 10th century castle. As in Lancaster’s earlier The Train (1964), there is a bit of a focus on the preservation of precious art during a time of war — in this case embodied by O’Neal’s art-loving captain:

… who relates to the count’s desire to preserve his domain at all costs.

Lancaster’s primary interest (at least at first) is pairing up with Heeren:

… which Aumont is eerily accepting of (we later learn why). Meanwhile, as Lancaster’s men roam into town and encounter the beautiful women of the Red Queen brothel, we wonder if this is all a dream, or if these men are even actually alive.

It’s hard to tell, because the film mixes realism with satire pretty liberally — as in the subplot of Falk settling down with the baker’s wife and resuming his old craft.

While the film doesn’t really “work” overall, Pollack keeps things moving nicely, and the cinematography (by Henri Decae) is luminous throughout.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Peter Falk as Sergeant Rossi
  • Henri Decaë’s cinematography

  • Michel Legrand’s score

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one time look, and of course must-see for Pollack fans.

Links:

Learning Tree, The (1969)

Learning Tree, The (1969)

Comments 1 comment

“You just hate us colored kids, don’t you?”

Synopsis:
A young man (Kyle Johnson) coming of age in a racist 1920s Kansas town witnesses a robbery leading to the death of a white man; will he tell what he saw?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Coming of Age
  • Historical Drama
  • Race Relations and Racism

Review:
Acclaimed photojournalist Gordon Parks became the first Black person to direct a major studio picture with this adaptation of his own semi-autobiographical novel about experiencing life, love, and racism in 1920s Kansas. The drama-filled storyline opens with a tornado, as Newt (Johnson) finds himself holed up in a shelter with the town prostitute (Carol Lamond):

… but emerges ready for church, where he meets a beautiful young teenager (Mira Waters) who has just moved to town with her family.

A gentle romance ensues, though it’s interrupted by racial- and gender-based violence (discreetly shown off-screen). Meanwhile, the crux of the narrative centers on Johnson’s friendship with other local boys — including the troubled son (Alex Clarke) of a local drunk (Richard Ward) — and their interactions with a white farmer (George Mitchell) whose apples they steal, as well as the town’s racist sheriff (Dana Elcar).

Johnson’s homelife with his mother (Estelle Evans):

… father (Felix Nelson), and sister provides him with plenty of solace in the midst of increasingly challenging situations, culminating in a dramatic court case.

Given this film’s historical precedence, it seems worth citing at length from TCM’s article:

Although he came to the project with a considerable reputation as an accomplished artist, Parks had to deal with the expected resistance to a black director helming a studio-financed film. One producer offered him major funding if he would change all the black characters to white, and another suggested silent film diva Gloria Swanson for the part of Newt’s mother. But Parks had a great ally in director-actor John Cassavetes, who introduced him to gutsy Warner Brothers producer Kenny Hyman. Not only did Hyman agree to let him direct, in quick succession Parks found himself assigned to writing the screenplay, producing the film and — after Hyman heard him play a song he had written on the piano — composing the score. Only a handful of filmmakers had been given such sweeping control; Chaplin and Welles are among the few that come to mind.

It’s too bad that the movie itself isn’t more compelling: the performances are stiff at best, and everything seems filmed with an eye towards dignity rather than raw emotion. To his credit, however, Parks doesn’t shy away from depicting racism in all its forms across this supposedly desegregated community, ranging from lowered expectations from Johnson’s teacher (Peggy Rea):

… to mob vitriol. This film is worth a look for its historical significance, but ultimately not must-see viewing.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Burnett Guffey’s cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended to watch once given its historical status as one of the first 25 films selected in 1989 by the Library of Congress for preservation in the National Film Registry.

Links:

Monitors, The (1969)

Monitors, The (1969)

Comments 1 comment

“The Monitors are your friends. Depend on the Monitors. Work for peace. Violence solves nothing. The Monitors bring peace. Peace brings happiness.”

Synopsis:
During a time when the Earth is ruled by benevolent aliens known as the Monitors — who suppress all negative impulses and force humans to reflect on how great their new lives are — an actress (Susan Oliver), a bi-plane pilot (Guy Stockwell), and the pilot’s brother (Avery Schreiber) join forces with an undercover operative (Larry Storch) and a Monitors-trainee (Sherry Jackson) in a group known as SCRAG (the Secret Counter Retaliatory Group).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Black Comedy
  • Ed Begley Sr. Films
  • Keenan Wynn Films
  • Revolutionaries
  • Science Fiction

Review:
This satirical sci-fi flick was made with cast members from Chicago’s Second City comedy troupe (their first feature together), and was explicitly designed to encourage more people to come and film in Chicago — which didn’t happen. The film itself starts off with a promising opening sequence and song, as synthesized voices intone: “We are here to serve humanity — here to reaffirm gentility, light the way from fear to sanity, carefully promote tranquility” while various silhouetted shots (we presume from the film itself) are circulated through in various colors.

As soon as we “land” on Earth, we see men in black coats and bowler hats walking around monitoring people and situations, with their oath and guidelines repeated ad nauseum, Big Brother-style.

Interspersed throughout the film are commercial-like snippets of citizens sharing why they believe life is better with the Monitors in control. (Below is Alan Arkin playing a sanitation worker with a heavy accent.)

The storyline itself loosely follows Oliver, Stockwell, Schreiber, Storch, and Jackson as they navigate romance with one another alongside learning more about the Monitors — including meeting the head operational manager (Shepperd Strudwick):

… and/or revealing themselves to hold different identities and allegiances; unfortunately, little of this coheres or is very funny.

Howard Thompson of the New York Times referred to the film as “a one-joke warning that states its case and asks where we go from here,” which just about sums up my impression as well. In his review for Moria, Richard Scheib elaborates a bit more on what doesn’t work:

Much of the film feels like it is trying to be hip and improvisational. It has no real plot, just lots of scenes with the characters running around. It seems to be trying to tap an anti-establishment vibe without actually finding it has anything to say. There is no clear idea in the script what the characters are trying to achieve, what they are running from or even the sense you get in comedies of characters stumbling/bumbling from scene to scene in a haphazard way.

It’s too bad, because the premise is quite intriguing: if well-meaning forces offered to oversee our planet and ensure peace and goodwill, but at the loss of our freedoms and more complex emotions, would we take it? It seems pretty clear that the answer is “no” — but a different film would need to take this up to sufficiently explore it. Watch for bit cameos by Keenan Wynn as The General:

… and Ed Begley as The President (without nearly enough to do in such a peaceful and boring world).

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • The opening sequence
  • Some creative imagery

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re curious.

Links:

Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here (1969)

Tell Them Willie Boy Is Here (1969)

Comments 0 Comment

“Nobody gives a damn what Indians do — nobody.”

Synopsis:
In early 20th century California, a sheriff (Robert Redford) searches for a young Pauite man (Robert Blake) who has killed the father of his girlfriend (Katharine Ross) in self-defense after returning to be with her.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Fugitives
  • Katharine Ross Films
  • Native Americans
  • Race Relations and Racism
  • Robert Blake Films
  • Robert Redford Films
  • Sheriffs and Marshals
  • Susan Clark Films
  • Westerns

Review:
Black-listed writer-director Abraham Polonsky finally returned (legally and formally) to his craft with this adaptation of Harry Lawton’s novel — based on a real-life event — about a “Native American named Willie Boy and his run-in with the [white man’s] law in 1909 in Banning, California, United States.”

The fact that neither New Jersey-born Blake (nee Michael Gubitosi) nor Katharine Ross are Native actors is clearly problematic; within those constraints, however, Polonsky and his team do a reasonably good job presenting ongoing power tensions between Indians and white people, including white saviorism as embodied by Susan Clark’s do-gooding “reservation superintendent”.

Unfortunately, Redford apparently did not have a good experience on set; according to TCM’s article:

He had issues with both the direction and the script, which he felt portrayed Indians unrealistically. “Polonsky had Indians talking like characters out of some of his thirties films,” Redford said. “Some of it really made me cringe when I read it.” Polonsky counter-attacked by claiming Redford’s emerging star ego made him take unfair swipes at the picture. “Redford was a big supporter of my movie until everyone started saying how wonderful Robert Blake was,” the director said, ignoring the fact that Redford had fought for Blake to play the part when it became obvious that the studio would not hire a real Native American. “He was jealous of the Indian, so now he hates the movie.”

Ah, Hollywood drama. The resulting film is nonetheless a compelling story attempting to show “The West’s Last Famous Manhunt” — and while the factual outcomes are contested (this video provides an alternative, Native-centered account of how things actually transpired), Blake’s performance is top notch and well worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Robert Blake as Willie
  • Conrad Hall’s cinematography

  • Dave Grusin’s score

Must See?
Yes, for Blake’s performance and as one of far-too-few films by Polonsky.

Categories

  • Important Director
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

Putney Swope (1969)

Putney Swope (1969)

Comments 1 comment

“There are no losers — every product has potential!”

Synopsis:
After the death of the chairman (David Kirk) of an advertising board, the sole Black member, Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson), is accidentally put in charge and renames the organization Truth and Soul, Inc., populating it with primarily Black employees and making increasingly erratic creative decisions.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Advertising
  • Race Relations and Racism
  • Satires and Spoofs

Response to Peary’s Review:
In his description of this “infamous, irreverent cult comedy from writer-director Robert Downey” — yes, the “Sr.” father to Robert Downey, Jr. — Peary notes it’s “about a ruthless, opportunistic, gravel-voiced black man” (Downey subbed Johnson’s voice) “who is accidentally elected head of a Madison Avenue ad agency” and “fires or demotes all the whites on the board of directors, hires a staff of black militants, and renames the agency Truth and Soul, Inc.”:

… getting “scores of rich white clients because his obscene commercials prove extremely effective” — “no matter that he steals the ideas for the ads.”

Peary points out that Swope “is as money-hungry and unscrupulous as his white predecessors (although he refuses to run ads that promote war toys, alcohol or cigarettes)” — and, in a telling early scene, he “rips down a poster of Sidney Poitier,” revealing that “Downey has no intention of populating his picture with blacks whom the white male audience will feel comfortable watching.”

“Indeed,” Peary says, “Downey’s film was designed both to satirize those black militant prototypes he regarded as politically insincere and to present the bigoted white viewer’s nightmare vision of what would happen if black militants came into power.”

Peary asserts that the picture is “dated (the once hilarious color commercials now seem trite)”:

… it “hasn’t two funny lines in a row,” and it “has an end that foolishly undermines Swope’s character.” However, he notes that “while it’s overrated, it’s certainly unique, if only because it attacks most everyone, even midgets.”

I agree the film isn’t funny, and that it’s quite “dated” — but in precisely the way it should be, given it was intended as a disruptive cinematic experiment which Downey himself noted he didn’t necessarily think people should try to make sense of. It’s primarily of interest these days for its historical relevance within late-1960s underground cinema. Check out the DVD extras, and/or Criterion’s essay, for more on the experimental work that preceded this most enduring facet of Downey’s output.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Some creative cinematography

  • Several amusing advertising sequences

Must See?
Yes, once, but simply for its cult status; I can’t guarantee you’ll get much out of it.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

Death of a Gunfighter (1969)

Death of a Gunfighter (1969)

Comments 0 Comment

“I tried my damnedest to not kill him!”

Synopsis:
When a marshal (Richard Widmark) kills a drunken civilian (Jimmy Lydon) in self-defense, the entire town decides to fire him from his job — but Widmark isn’t interested in leaving town.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Don Siegel Films
  • John Saxon Films
  • Lena Horne Films
  • Richard Widmark Films
  • Sheriffs and Marshals
  • Westerns

Review:
This decent if uneven western is primarily notable for what it prompted: the creation of “Alan Smithee” as a pseudonym for a director whose actual director (or some other key player) doesn’t want to be associated with the film. In this case, Widmark didn’t get along with the original director, Robert Totten (who primarily worked in television), so Don Siegel was brought in to finish up the job — but he didn’t want to take credit for work mostly completed by someone else, so “Alan Smithee” (a creative variation on the too-simple first pass try of “Al Smith”) was the result.

(I find it interesting that this film is about attempting to fire someone perceived as incompetent in his job given what it became known for.)

Perhaps I was unduly biased, but as soon as I saw Smithee’s name flashing across the screen, I started noticing the film’s clunkiness; indeed, many wonder what this film could have been like with Siegel at the helm the entire way.

The storyline — hinging on an entire town feeling resentment for Widmark’s character, for no clear reason — doesn’t quite hold its weight; though Kent Smith, who film fanatics should fairly quickly recognize from Cat People (1942), plays the role of a desperately ashamed lawyer quite well.

The film is also notable for featuring Lena Horne in a supporting role as Widmark’s girlfriend, without any comment on her race.

Watch for Royal Dano hovering menacingly (what else?) around the periphery:

… and John Saxon as a county sheriff brought in to help mediate the situation.

Note: Subtle yet overt antisemitism is briefly shown through the treatment of the town’s “peddler,” Mr. Rosenbloom (David Opatoshu) — though it’s simply included without any explanation or resolution.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Richard Widmark as the Marshal
  • Kent Smith as Andrew Oxley
  • Fine Technicolor cinematography

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look for curiosity’s sake (and of course Siegel completists will want to check it out).

Links: