Archive for Bad Company

For Art’s Sake

Posted in FILM with tags , , , , , , , , , , on May 27, 2017 by dcairns

Have I ever watched a whole Robert Benton film? Maybe BAD COMPANY? It’s not from any great antipathy, honest.

THE LATE SHOW is, in Sarris’ useful kiss-off phrase, Lightly Likable. I was trying to work out who should have been cast. They must surely have wanted some RESONANCE, since it’s a variant of THE LONG GOODBYE’s gimmick of 40s P.I. meets 70s L.A. (Altman was a producer on it). But who was around who would have been good — Mitchum would have seemed too cool and tough, no matter what you did with him. His hangdog perf in THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE is great, but it relies on a dopey melancholia that’s different from the quality needed here — a tough old scrapper on his uppers. in fact, Art Carney is perfect. He just doesn’t call to mind 40s movies, which is a shame. Burt Lancaster wouldn’t have worked, Kirk Douglas didn’t think he was old, Tony Curtis was still trying to look like the kid with the ice-cream face, only the cream had not only melted but curdled. Everyone else was dead (Bogart), drunk (McGraw) or just wrong (Elisha Cook Jnr.) Art Carney is perfect.

But the normally magnificent Lily Tomlin isn’t perfect. I think they got the wrong one by mistake — I think they thought they were hiring Goldie Hawn. Tomlin can’t play scatterbrained, or she can, but she doesn’t make it in any way charming. It took me half the movie to work up a tolerance to her. By the end, I was OK with her, but I never had that kind of difficulty with the Divine Miss T before.

Best perf in the film may be Bill Macy, but Eugene Roche and John Considine make good baddies, and Joanna Cassidy confirms her status as a queen of neo-noir. Howard Duff, making a brief cameo at the start (he’s the Inciting Incident), is the only one with actual resonance from golden age Hollywood.

As director, Benton never gets excited by his own material, which makes it feel a bit Rockford Files — not a bad thing, if it were a piece of television. He milks outrageous suspense with a corpse in a Frigidaire, before blowing the pay-off in disappointing fashion. And the generational clash depends on caricaturing both leads in unconvincing ways (the way he keeps calling her “doll”) which would maybe work better if the film had a handle on how to behave or look like a film noir.

Still, I picked up a copy of Benton’s vampire-free TWILIGHT in Bo’ness a year or two ago, maybe I’ll finally watch it — this was enjoyable enough.

 

Advertisements

The Monday Intertitle: No Atheists in the Foxholes

Posted in FILM with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 13, 2014 by dcairns

vlcsnap-2014-01-13-10h24m32s0

I was wondering, looking at early Lewis Milestone talkies, what made him so kinetic and exciting? The charging camera of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, surging headlong across the battlefields, is the best-known example of this, but the kinetic, fluid and nimble movements of RAIN are extraordinary, and in THE FRONT PAGE he seems to be pushing for the steadicam thrillrides of vintage Scorsese before the technology existed to allow it. In the less celebrated NEW YORK NIGHTS he goes so far as to stick his camera in a dumb-waiter and ride it up to the second floor. Yet my impression was that in silents, Milestone had not distinguished himself with the dynamism of his camerawork. Why did he becomes so willfully fleet-footed at exactly the moment sound technology made the roving eye of something like WINGS almost impossible to achieve?

(The other guy with itchy tracks was Tay Garnett, whose restless visuals in BAD COMPANY paved the way for SCARFACE, no question, and who combined tracking and panning with the Paramount zoom lens on PRESTIGE, with results that seem to echo Visconti or Fulci for ADHD antsiness.)

vlcsnap-2014-01-13-10h23m39s199

So seeing TWO ARABIAN NIGHTS, a big-budget WWI romp (a far cry from the anti-war sentiments of ALL QUIET) from 1927, is instructive. It’s true, there are few impressive camera movements, but nor are we stiff or static. Designer William Cameron Menzies is much in evidence, a man who liked to design not just sets but SHOTS, reducing the director to mere drama coach for the cast (here, a pre-Hopalong Cassidy William Boyd and thuggish Louis Wolheim, paired as an imitation of Edmund Lowe and Victor McLaglan in the previous year’s Raoul Walsh smash WHAT PRICE GLORY?). Early on, the two frenemies are fighting in a crater, unmindful of the encroaching Germans. When they realize they’re surrounded, we get two shots which flamboyantly make this apparent, one a low-angle POV, in which the shallow ditch they’re in is suddenly fifty feet deep to afford the best view, and a God Shot looking down like Busby Berkeley in which the bomb-site is a fairly shallow depression, but much wider. The lesson comes from German expressionism, of which Menzies was a student — a different set for each angle gives you the strongest possible graphic impact, which is fine if what graphic impact is what you want.

vlcsnap-2014-01-13-10h24m00s167

At any rate, the central mystery remains, and will do until I’ve seen more silent Milestone, preferably with the distinctive influence of Menzies removed from the equation. Unfortunately, I’ve only got THE RACKET to watch, plus FINE MANNERS and THE KID BROTHER, each of which Milestone directed parts of — and we don’t know which parts.

How about a Lewis Milestone Week, everybody?