“Mon Oncle D’Amerique” (1980) Dir- Alain Resnais

What I Remember:

Hoo boy. Here I go, babbling on about psychology again. This time it’s Behaviorism, the psychological principle that conditioning is the cause of much of our behavior, both normal and aberrant. This theory comes in handy if you want to blame your parents for everything, as many in my generation are wont to do.

Our parents were maybe the most traumatized generation in the past few centuries, thanks to the double childhood/teen whammy of the Great Depression and World War 2 to deal with as they grew up. This conditioning caused them to overreact and try and make everything wholesome and wonderful in the ‘50’s for us Baby Boomers. It turned out that this was a big mistake. When we realized how hypocritical that was, we spit out the pacifier.

So yes, behaviorism made sense to our generation. Yet it is not cultural behaviorism that this film represents, but individual. Or is it? Honestly, I can't remember what was the theoretical basis of “Mon Oncle D’Amerique”. I recall that we follow three different people, all of whom are facing a crisis, and that the film intercuts their actions and reactions with a scientist and laboratory rats who represent the same kind of behavior. This would seem contrived, but in the hands of a genius like Resnais, I remember it as both riveting and very moving.

Alain Resnais is perhaps the most oblique auteur this side of Michael Haneke. “Inscrutable” would be the first word that comes to mind when watching “Last Year at Marienbad” or “Hiroshima Mon Amour”.  I recall that “Mon Oncle D’Amerique”, while not exactly being “Rambo”, was also a bit more intelligible than some of Resnais’ earlier work.

This film also marked my introduction to the great French actor Gerard Depardieu, who had previously been in International hits “Get Out Your Handkerchiefs” and “1900”, neither of which I had seen yet. Subsequently he appeared in Truffaut’s “The Last Metro:, and famously in “The Return of Martin Guerre” on route to being a world-famous star.

I waited patiently for this film to show up in Netflix either streaming or DVD, but to no avail. I finally broke down and bought a copy. Just for you, my fair readers! Good move.

After re-watching:

“I thought happiness was something I had coming to me, like an inheritance from an uncle in America”--Janine

“America doesn’t exist. I know, I lived there.”—Jean

PLOT SUMMARY

Three people from very different backgrounds find their life stories intertwined, and all face a crisis regarding either their love lives or their careers. These stories are also intercut with the theories of Dr. Henri Laborit, who posits that societal and individual conditioning causes unhealthy response to these types of crises. Wealthy, privileged Jean (Roger Pierre) is a successful Radio producer with political aspirations, which get sidetracked when he meets a young actress named Janine (Nicole Garcia). They start an affair which breaks up his marriage. Meanwhile Rene (Gerard Depardieu) is asked to change jobs which pits him under much pressure and causes him to be separated from his family.

STORY/THEME

I was right to be confused about whether the target of Laborit and Resnais was individual or societal malady. It is both, we find out, as the film wraps up. Laborit and his theories are the focal point of this film. I am not as versed in behaviorist psychology as I probably need to be to fully understand him, but that’s not necessary to be moved and informed by "Mon Oncle d'Amerique".

All three stories are familiar to an audience: a loveless marriage, a wayward career, parental disapproval, societal and personal stress. Indeed, though we are constantly getting the science treatment, we are also very caught up in the stories. It is a sugar coated pill that Resnais presents to us. He gives us plot and character development, beautifully acted and scripted. What we don’t realize is that it’s all part of the experiment; the scientific study. If you had to watch two hours of Laborit babbling on about conditioning, you would tune out 20 minutes in. The genius of Resnais is to give us these universal stories to illustrate, and Laborit shows us how certain situations cause aberrant behavior.

As you watch, you start to think, “now hold on a minute! We are not all rats in a cage! We have more than our basest instincts to rely on. We have reason! We have free will!” Of course, that’s what they want you to think. This movie convinces you that you are still acting and reacting based on childhood training and trauma. Only the most enlightened of us is able to transcend this. Being aware of it is the first step. 

But what of Nature vs. Nurture? Separated twins with completely different parents grow up to both be firemen, or both be horse trainers. And apparently, it doesn’t matter if you smoke three packs a day or eat only organic food. If your Dad had pancreatic cancer, you’re doomed. If your Mom was Bipolar, then you are probably not going to be a stable person. The answer is probably a combination of these things. The point that Laborit and his lab rats make, is that certain highly stressful situations are of our doing, thanks to our conditioning. These situations cause a lasting and deep harm to not just the psyche, but also to the body, thanks to illnesses brought on by the stress. Common knowledge now, but back in the 80's it was anything but. 

Look, if a film gets me to think on subjects as important and deep as these, then it’s very special indeed.

 What is facinating is the turn it makes at the end, when Laborit goes from micro to macro, explaining that these same conditioning influences are what cause a society to malfunction. War, genocide etc. can all be blamed on actions that we are not aware of, that our societal unconscious can be as easily polluted as our individual unconscious.

Go watch this, then follow with Haneke’s “The White Ribbon”.  That film posits the idea that a strict upbringing enforced by morally corrupt adults will turn a young generation into.....well, into Nazis! Societal conditioning indeed!

FILMMAKING

In "Mon Oncle d'Amerique", Resnais mixes a lot of different narrative techniques together, yet it never feels jumpy or confusing. The film starts with a montage of the backgrounds of all three characters, described using voice-over, with cutaways to something that looks like a giant cork board filled with images of them. Not much later he introduces us to his main character, our real-life Dr. Laborit. This mixture of documentary and fiction is seamlessly presented. When Laborit describes his upbringing in an area of France that was victimized by the revolutionary government, it feels like another character backstory. (Yes! So THIS is why he wants to take the work of Pavlov and Skinner to a societal level). There is another point where our characters tell their stories as superimposed faces over the action, taking the voice over concept one step further. 

The film smoothly morphs into a typical multi-story narrative, kind of like the precursor to films like "Crash" and "21 Grams". It doesn't  seem typical, what with the fourth story being the good Doctor butting in with his commentary that usually reflects where the story is at. The other undercurrent that is highlighted by our story juxtaposition is the story of class struggle. One character is bourgeois, one a not-to-bright worker bee, the third a child of the Proletariat. Our Bourgeois leaves his Proletariat lover and returns to his wife, so his career can advance. Our disappointed Proletariat woman becomes a Fashionista and oversees our Worker Bee, making his life miserable. Again, our two authors show us the effects of societal trauma on the world at large.

My two favorite moments are cinematic, of course. The first is when our worker bee, Rene, is threatened by someone vying for his position at the textile company. Laborit describes a lab rat experiment that ends with two rats trapped in a cage and turning violent. He cuts to Rene and his competitor wrestling with each other wearing giant rat heads over their khaki suits. It is comic and whimsical, but at the same time, quite jarring. 

The other moment I love is the concluding series of shots. A city building in somewhat a state of decay has a large 10 story tall mural of a pastoral forest scene. The camera jump-zooms in until you only see the rotting bricks of the building, and of course the immediate connection is made that no matter the beauty and power of the individual or society, it is only as healthy and strong as its underlying foundation.

PERFORMANCES

I'm not going to say that any one of the three stars has a standout performance, but they are all equally suited and well cast. My only complaint is that I'm not entirely sure what the attraction is between Janine and Jean-- the chemistry is never really spelled out, and not very evident on screen. Depardieu is very convincing in his anguish. Also the frustration and depression that Nicole Garcia shows during her scene when she realizes that Jean's wife has duped her is very convincing. Roger Pierre as Jean is maybe the least impressive of the three, but that doesn't mean that it's a poorly acted role. He is just more reserved, and plays the love-torn rich guy with suitably Waspy undertones. 

One of the interesting sidebars by the filmmakers was the assigning to each character a fandom of a famous French actor. For Jean, it's Danielle Darrieux, famed for her portrayal of Madame de in the masterpiece "The Earrings of Madame de..". For Janine it's Jean Marais, a superstar of early French Cinema, famed for his role as the Beast in Cocteau's "La Belle et La Bete". For Rene, it's Jean Gabin, actor from the anti-war classic "Grande Illusion" and "Le Jour se Leve". These are the Hepburn, Gable and Grant of France. Resnais intersperses cutaways to the character's favorite actors in quick takes representing how our characters feel at a certain moment. When Janine feels like a hero for giving back Jean to his dying wife, we cut to Marais as Bete carrying a fainted Belle back to her boudois. Again...our reactions to life's situations are conditioned. We react as our cinematic heroes reacted. 

WAIT- my cinematic hero was Zero Mostel! Does that mean I react to everything by either yelling, cajoling or mincing around like a buffoon? Don't answer that.

The supporting cast is actually quite a standout collection- especially the two wives. Nelly Borgeaud as Arlette, Jean's wife, is very convincing. But even better is Rene's wife played by Marie Dubois, who I remember as Jim's girlfriend, Therese, from Truffaut's "Jules and Jim". She truly encapsulates the put upon wife, widow to her husband's job, but still very sympathetic.

ON SECOND LOOK

When you see one of those lists with the 100 greatest films of all time, sadly "Mon Oncle D'Amerique" is never on it. I don't get it. It has all the right requirements. It was made by a respected auteur, it is a powerful thinking man's film, it works as drama and documentary, it is highly original, and very influential. At the Cannes Film Festival it won the FIPRESCI prize, and Resnais won the Grand Jury Prize. Richard Corliss of Time Magazine rated it his best film of 1980. Why is this a forgotten movie? When critics rank Resnais films, they always default to Marienbad or Hiroshima, or maybe even the weakest of the three, La Guerre est Finie. This is a beter film across the board than those, and it deals with a very serious subject. If there is a flaw, it's a bit preachy. Otherwise, I think it's a masterpiece.

On First Look: ✭✭✭✭        On Second Look: ✭✭✭✭

"The Seven-Per-Cent Solution" (1976) Dir. Herbert Ross

What I remember:

It was quite a conceit, and quite an inspiration for the people behind this film to have two iconic turn of the century characters, one real and one fictional, meet and interact. The fact they they are two of my most studied characters during my teen years, made the movie irresistible.

      The Sherlock Holmes stories were one of the few series that I read cover to cover; they were my Harry Potter. The Freud texts were far too difficult to wade through as a teenager, but I did read some books and articles bout psycho-analysis, and was fascinated with the detective connection. 

The similarities found in the Freud/Holmes pairing are unmistakeable. Both characters use logic, deduction and intellect to decipher the clues at hand. Both are usually in life and death scenarios. Both spent a good deal of time fighting superstitious colleagues and religious mumbo-jumbo. Both doggedly knew they were right at all times, in spite of much evidence to the contrary. And, both had a history of drug usage; cocaine, to be exact. 

The fact that they never inhabited the same world really shouldn't be a big deal, now, should it?

Well, with me, usually it would be a HUGE deal. One of my major pet peeves is when a film violates the "suspension of disbelief" line. It's my personal DMZ. Time travel movies do it to me all the time. I enjoyed Rian Johnson's "Looper", but as soon as I started thinking about it, all the gigantic holes in the plot began to open, and suddenly I was annoyed. If something seems just impossible, I hate it. I know "Compliance" is supposed to be a real story, but I am sorry, NOBODY IS THAT STUPID. And if they are, I have no desire to know they exist, much less spend two hours with them. My friends and I used to call this "The Stupid Factor" . Your protagonist can't be stupider than you. Unless, of course, it's a comedy (e.g. " A Fish Called Wanda", "Burn After Reading"). 

No problem with the Stupid Factor in "Seven Percent Solution". These were two of history's/fiction's smartest people. But what of the Suspension of Disbelief?

 It should have kept me from the theater. But it's so well done, so beautifully acted by Alan Arkin as Freud and Nicole Williamson as Holmes that I was never pulled out of the film for a second. I guess you have to go into this thing buying the concept.

Up until this film, there had been many renditions of Sherlock Holmes, with Basil Rathbone's take being the best. It was those Rathbone/Nigel Bruce movies on Channel 9 that got me into the books to begin with. There had only been one major film representation of Freud, and that was the brilliant John Huston film that was marred by the poor casting of Montgomery Clift ( see my On Second Look on this one).

I recall that Williamson lived up to Rathbone in every way, and that Arkin was vastly superior to Clift. 

In my memory, this was an inventive, clever, funny and well-paced movie that has just within the last months or so finally received a DVD version. My only copy was a VHS off broadcast version with ads and parts chopped out. Because of this, I waited until it was released to rewatch it, but it was maybe one of the first films I wanted to write about. Why is it not considered one of the greats? It's in my top 25. Let's see if it stays up there!

After re-watching:

"Beyond the fact that you are a brilliant Jewish physician who was born in Hungary and studied for a while in Paris, and that certain radical theories of yours have alienated the respectable medical community so that you have severed your connections with various hospitals and branches of the medical fraternity, beyond this I can deduce little." --Sherlock Holmes

PLOT SUMMARY

Dr. Watson (Robert Duvall) and Sherlock Holmes (Nicol Williamson) have been out of touch with each other for months. Holmes has been in seclusion, but the pursuit of his arch-enemy Dr. Moriarty (Sir Laurence Olivier) has caused Holmes to summon Watson. Upon seeing his old friend, Watson immediately surmises that Holmes is in the throes of a deep addiction to cocaine. Watson and Holmes' brother Mycroft enlist the services of Dr. Sigmund Freud (Alan Arkin) to help Sherlock overcome his addiction. They travel to Vienna, wherein Freud helps Holmes kick. In the process, Freud, Watson and Holmes become aware of a dastardly deed involving the abduction of world famous Soprano Lola Devereaux (Vanessa Redgrave). The solving of this case proves helpful in Holmes' rehabilitation.

STORY/THEME

Drugs are bad. Very, very bad. I find it fascinating that a film made in 1976 would be so obsessed with cocaine and its addictive qualities. The real spike in coke use was about 4 years later, when the Hippie generation started making money. 1976 was the beginning of the Disco era, and the drugs of choice were Marijuana, Quaaludes and pills. Not that I know anything about this type of recreational activity. I was a musician fresh out of college living in New York City. (Throat clearing sounds heard). 

That gifted people get involved in drug use is certainly no surprise. It is a theme found time and again in the creative arts. But in this story we have a fictional character who fights ennui with drugs, and a real person who also was addicted  thanks to his scientific curiosity. Both were gifted and creative people one might even refer to as geniuses. It seemed that in neither situation was their brilliance the cause of their addictions.

Whatever. They're users, you dig? This story hinges on the theory that Holmes' drug use, lack of interest in women, his OCD and his borderline paranoia all stem from a childhood trauma. 

Enter Dr. F! "Childhood trauma? Why, that's my BAG, baby!" With a lovely Viennese accent, of course. 

Truly, the concept is very high (like our protagonist), but the presentation is very much in the tradition of the Conan Doyle stories. Weirdly, Freud only hypnotizes Holmes throughout the film to help relieve the mental stress of withdrawal. Only near the very end does he actually attempt to discover the root of his mental imbalance, the traumatic occurrence with which he associates Moriarty. Well, duh! That had to be saved for the denouement, right? Or did it? Why couldn't this have been a more ongoing analysis, going hand in hand with the Devereaux case? Holmes solves the kidnapping, Freud solves the kid-snapping. I'd need to read the original book by screenwriter Nicholas Meyer to know if that was what the source material offered.

FILMMAKING

Herbert Ross was a curious choice to direct this film. He was known for his comedies, musicals and dance films. Actually, his dance films ("The Turning Point" and "Footloose") came after this picture, but he had done the horrendous musical version of "Goodbye Mr. Chips" and the equally nauseating "Funny Lady" beforehand. Ross had some fine comedies under his belt by 1976, in particular "Play It Again Sam", penned by Woody Allen, and "The Sunshine Boys", by Neil Simon. What a gift it must have been to direct films written by two of America's greatest comedy writers, both near or at their career peaks. Meyer's screenplay adaptation for "Seven-Per-Cent Solution" received an Oscar nomination. Plus, the cast was beyond stellar; in Duvall, Redgrave, Arkin, Olivier and Joel Grey, we have FIVE Oscar winners. Both Olivier and Williamson had played Hamlet in feature film versions, Olivier having won his only Lead Actor Oscar for that role (amazing, no?).  The film had a huge budget, and the sets and costumes were impressively accurate and stunning.

Ross---with all that going for you, you'd really have to be a talentless fool to mess it up. When I saw this in the theater, I was very impressed. Like I said, I was a fresh out of film school kid with an artsy fartsy chip on my shoulder, and I really loved this movie. I remember watching it once again on TV, and assumed that it was so chopped up and edited down to make 2 hours with commercial breaks, that the sketchiness of the plot seemed way too disjointed and flimsy.  

Now having finally re-watched the full unedited version I can report to you that....the sketchiness of the plot seems way too disjointed and flimsy. 

Just ONE of these stories would make an entire film. Holmes kicking drugs. Devereaux kidnapped. Freud analyzing Holmes' trauma. And yet it still works fairly well. The only problem for me is that most of the last 20 minutes are a wild train chase and sword fight that just doesn't do the rest of the film justice. It watches like a "Perils of Pauline" two-reeler. The only thing missing from the sequence is sped up camera work like a Keystone Cops short. Take that sequence down to 5 minutes (the way a Rathbone/Bruce film would have) and give us more mystery and solution, and the film becomes a classic, I think. Anyway, the image of Freud wielding a rifle rings ridiculous.

There are moments of sheer brilliance. The first time we see Holmes, it is through a crack of his door, outside of which Watson is awaiting entry. We see only Holmes' left eye, with a pupil that is clearly dilated almost to the rim of its iris. This is a beautiful touch. During Holmes' withdrawal delusions, we see brief glimpses of his most famous cases; the Red-Headed League, and of course, the Hound. 

The camera work reflected the style of the day in pop filmmaking. Soft focus and sepia tones were the norm, kind of the visual version of Phil Spector reverb. You can thank "The Sting", probably the biggest period piece of that era, for stylistically influencing a ton of films in the mid '70's. 

All of the sets, decor and location shots are on the highest level, not to mention the period costumes and makeup. The train chase, while tedious in length, is breathtaking to watch, particularly because of the aerial shots of the lush countryside and the antique locomotives. Sadly, the sword fight that takes place on top of the moving train between Holmes and the Viennese anti-Semitic prick who kidnapped Lola is poorly matted; the two stand out absurdly against the background. 

As for the music, it is appropriately melodramatic. There is a song, sung in the brothel wherein Lola is being held captive, entitled "I Never Do Anyhing Twice". Written by Steven Sondheim, it's racy lyrics and brashness have kept it in the cabaret singer songbooks throughout the years.

PERFORMANCES

With a cast like this, it's hard to be critical. The temptation is to go overboard with praise, and I find it hard to resist. 

Williamson is phenomenal. He is the embodiment of freneticism throughout. The moment when Freud makes him own up to his addiction, is a miraculous representation of the manic retreating to the morose. I've never seen it done better. 

Duvall had yet to become the bombastic thespian we remember from "The Apostle" and "Apocalypse Now". He handles the Victorian accent pretty well, and does the narration with British restraint, Olivier has a small part, and since we know he absolutely KILLS as the heavy ("Marathon Man"), it's particularly ironic for him to play the evil Moriarty as a shy, pathetic school tutor. Redgrave has few moments, the part is quite small, but her presence is memorable. Joel Grey has a small weasel of a character to play, and does a fine job. 

The most interesting part and interpretation however is Arkin's take on Freud. The edgy, explosive comic presence we have come to love in "Little Murders", "The In-Laws", "Little Miss Sunshine" and most recently "Argo" is nowhere to be found. Instead we have a calm, intellectual and reflective take on Freud. Having also been the only Jewish actor of the three to portray Freud as a lead character in a major motion picture, (the other two being Montgomery Clift and Viggo Mortensen), he is the only one who gets that connection, and the importance of how it factored into Freud's personality, professional and personal life. It's a very different actor we watch here, one who has respect for the historical personage, but still plays him with humanity and pathos. 

The film is Williamson's, Arkin's and Duvall's to dominate, and they do a fantastic job. 

ON SECOND LOOK

In trying to make an entertaining film, I feel that the filmmaker's Hollywood touch removes a lot of gravitas from the proceedings, leaving us with a movie that treats such serious considersations as kidnapping, drug addiction and childhood psychological trauma as bumps in the road towards a swashbuckling climax. Make no mistake, the film IS entertaining, and the performances and period trappings are first rate. Had I been in charge, I would have given Holmes and Freud more to do in the detective part, and much more analysis by Freud of Holmes' mental issues. Kudos for the great idea, and the successful casting. Too bad they felt it necessary to steal The Marx Brothers' chopping up a train for firewood stunt and some awful matte shots. Wasted footage, indeed, that would have been much better used on the personalities and mysteries. Top 25? Sorry, no. 

On First Look: ✭✭✭✭        On Second Look: ✭✭✭

“Sorcerer”- (1977) Dir- William Friedkin

What I Remember:

This was a film that came out and closed before anybody got to see it in theaters. I mean, it was a huge bomb. I got to see this on HBO, and watched it with my Sister and Brother-In-Law. We were all astounded by how great the film was. For years afterwards, I wondered why nobody knew or talked about it.

Obviously it is poorly named, and I have a theory about this. “Sorcerer” is based on the French classic, “Wages of Fear”, by Henri-Georges Clouzot, which is itself a film adaptation of the novel by Georges Arnaud. So why the name change? This from IMDB:

“The film was originally to be titled "The Wages of Fear" from the original French film and novel. Friedkin has stated that the strange title of "Sorcerer" refers to the evil wizard of fate.”

 What the fuck? What “evil wizard of fate” is he talking about? This, to me, is total bullshit. The studio had to have talked him into the title. Friedkin was coming off two of the most famous films in recent memory, Best Picture winner “The French Connection”, and even more recently the blockbuster “The Exorcist”. Here was a film opening at Mann’s Chinese in Hollywood, that started with 15 minutes of subtitles. That’s no way to open a blockbuster! Plus, that 15-20 minute opening has zero exposition. You are thrown right into the middle of 3 stories, with no clue as to what their connection might be. No spoon-feeding here. I loved it!

I am guessing that the Studio, which had sunk 21 million (a huge budget for the time) into it, was scared of losing a fortune, and they figured if they named it something that sounded evil and mystical, people would think, “Wow, the guy who made “The Exorcist” with another scary thrill ride. Let’s go!” Then it’s 20 minutes of exposition-less subtitles, and no pea-soup vomit, and they are pissed off.

 Well, in my memory, this film was 10 times as tense and scary as “The Exorcist”, and in every way its superior. I have since seen “Wages of Fear”, which is a fine film, but I feel that “Sorcerer” is the better version.

 So if it’s that good, then why did “Sorcerer” get ignored at the time? Well, if you went to see a movie named “Sorcerer” directed by a guy famous for a horror film, and you ended up watching what resembled an art-house thriller, your word-of-mouth might be critical. Of course, there was one other factor. Maybe, just maybe, a little movie that opened the same week might have stolen its thunder. A little sci-fi joint named “Star Wars”.

After re-watching:

“Listen Pancho, I've been clocking you every second you've been in this town. If you wanna pick your nose in this truck, you better clear it with me first, otherwise I'm taking you and this nitro right into a ditch!”- Scanlon

PLOT SUMMARY

Four men from different countries all find themselves in a South American backwater, running from the law or organized crime. The place they are in is so miserable, that they jump at the chance to earn enough money to get the hell out of there. The opportunity arrives when an oil well in the jungle gets blown up by terrorists, and the only way to cap it is with a large amount of nitro-glycerin. The explosives, it turns out, are far too volatile to be choppered in to the well, so the company hires a small detail of men to drive the material over rough terrain and deteriorating roads and bridges 200 miles to the well.

STORY/THEME 

Wow. That really doesn’t sound like much of a film, does it? Oh, but it is. It is.

Let me begin at the opening of the film, which I addressed before re-watching. There are no opening credits. Big deal, right? Well it was a big deal in 1977! Shall I remind you of how “Star Wars” starts? “A long time ago, in a galaxy….”

That’s right. Music and a long expository crawl. This is the opposite of what we have here in “Sorcerer”. All we see is a Central American Indian carving, and graffiti-like letters saying the word “Sorcerer”. Then it’s “Vera Cruz”. A man gets shot in his office. Then the graphics say, “Jerusalem”. 4 PLO men posing as Israeli students bomb a bank. Only one, Kassem (Amidou) escapes. Then, the graphics say “Paris”. This story is more developed. We have a wealthy banker (Bruno Cremer) who is in deep poop for fraud, and his partner commits suicide, leaving him even further up the creek. Then it’s “Elizabeth, NJ”. WHOA! Sing along with Elmo everybody, “One of these things is not like the other”. I knew Elizabeth, and Paris is no Elizabeth, sir! I don’t even need to visit Jerusalem or Vera Cruz to know that the same applies there. More on this later. Scanlon, (finally, an actor we recognize, Roy Scheider) is one of 4 men (again!) who rob a Catholic Church, which happens to be presided over by the brother of a mob boss. They shoot the Priest, not killing him. As they get away, the car gets into an accident, and again, only one survives. At this point you are thinking, what the hell do these stories have to do with one another?

It would have been easier on the audience if Friedkin would have started the movie at the beginning of the men’s time in the South American hellhole, and have flashbacks for each character. But I feel that the way he chose was much more effective. Each successive story reveals more of what’s going on, and at the end of Scheider’s time in NJ, you understand that all 4 of these characters need to go into hiding.

Truthfully, they are all pretty bad people. The Mexican hit man, the PLO terrorist, the French spoiled white collar criminal, the petty Jersey thief. It is hard to root for them, but this is exactly what you end up doing. There’s no real character development like you have in “Dog Day Afternoon”, for instance. You solely root for these guys because of the tension and film technique. You might think, “really? I’ve seen tense movies before. Why would that be enough for me to root for the ‘70’s version of Al Qaeda to survive?” Answer; this is a level of tension unlike anything I have seen in the movies before or since. It’s a special skill to make the audience squirm this much. The last 20 minutes of “The Birds” does it. “Alien” can also get to that point. But even while re-watching, fully knowing what’s going to happen, I white-knuckled the sequences where the trucks cross those bridges.

FYI- "Sorcerer" is the name of one of the two trucks. Why trucks need names, you know like WWII bombers, I have no idea.

FILMMAKING

Friedkin obviously wanted to give this film the realistic treatment that he used so successfully in “The French Connection”. Extras and small parts were cast using native Dominicans from the location. All of the other location shoots are viscerally real. The sequence in Jerusalem in particular has a contemporary feel, and you can see the influence Friedkin's original style has had on the genre of International Intrigue thrillers. The hell-hole where they are in hiding is pretty miserable, and he makes it as awful as possible, with trash everywhere, and lots of rooster close-ups, corrupt police, trash strewn everywhere, flophouses and dive bars, etc. So, how does this differ with Elizabeth, exactly? Scanlon should feel right at home!

The heart and soul of this film are the two spectacular bridge crossing scenes. Our anti-heroes manage to take these explosive-filled jalopies across two of the most decrepit looking crossings you can imagine. The use of angles and zoom settings, the stellar editing and acting make the tension and suspense nearly unbearable. The result is anxiety akin to the bottom of the 9th of a tied World Series Game 7, with some unforgettable images; the truck tipping on the rope bridge, the tire getting stuck in the rotted wood plank,  the deadfall rushing down the flooding river, the winch buckling under pressure. 

One of my favorite sequences is when they encounter a huge tree that blocks their only path. Faced with a lose/ lose situation, they are about to give up, but the terrorist figures out that with just the right amount of nitro, they can blow up the tree. How he rigs the thing up (with an improvised timer) makes you alternately really respectful of his ingenuity, and really afraid of how easy it is for these guys to figure out a path to destruction and mayhem.

The use of music is really strange and a bit wonderful, too. The score was by Electronic Music nut-jobs "Tangerine Dream", and really sounds dated. But you must remember how very modern it sounded at the time. It predates Giorgio Moroder's score for "Midnight Express" by a full year, and Vangelis' score for "Chariots of Fire" by 4. The droning of synths and the repetitive nature of the sequenced lines are very much in line with the tension of the film. Apparently they wrote and recorded the score without seeing a single second of footage!

Then, in total antithesis to this machine music, we hear a clip of some imitation of "So What" by Miles Davis as incidental music in one scene, and in the denouement there is a moment when one of our anti-heroes dances with an old Latina barmaid to the strains of "I'll Remember April" from the Charlie Parker and Strings recordings. In the credits, there is a huge mention of Bird, which, as a Jazz musician, I really appreciated, but I found somewhat head-scratching.

Re-watching "Sorcerer" did make me notice some other pretty strange goings on, and some pretty weak moments that I did not recall. Primarily, Nilo, the Mexican hit man, is a man of mystery, with zero backstory and very little personality. When the truck he and Scanlon are in gets stopped by Guerillas, he saves the day, getting shot in the process. Suddenly he goes from self-serving murderer to courageous savior, and develops a personality of sorts. So I'm supposed to feel for this guy? 

Another weak moment is at the climax, when Scheider is in the truck and negotiating some moonscape which would have no business in the jungle. You can't figure out if he is imagining this terrain , or he's just lost. There's a lot of voice-over flashback noise, and double exposure shots. Is Scanlon going nuts from the pressure? Is the truck breaking down or lost? It's just not worthy of the rest of the trip. 

PERFORMANCES

This is not a film that acting will make or break. It's good that our cast did most of their own stunts, because the dialogue is not exactly Billy Wilder. IMDB says that Friedkin intended the role for Steve McQueen, probably the top action star of that era. Steve insisted that a part be written for his then wife, Ali MacGraw, and Friedkin and screenwriter Walon Green refused. Scheider was kind of a last option, after Jack Nicholson and Clint Eastwood also passed. Interestingly, the DVD I watched stated that there was never any question about Scheider's being cast as Scanlon. Hmmm.

Friedkin's other top choices for the 4 men were Marcello Mastroianni, Lino Ventura and Amidou. Only Amidou took his part, the other two stating that they didn't want second billing to anyone but McQueen.  Bruno Cremer was quite good, I thought. His part was probably the meatiest, and I wonder how Mastroianni would have fared in it. 

ON SECOND LOOK

Maybe "Sorcerer" is a bit more flawed than I recalled. I had kind of put it up on a pedestal thanks to its almost invisible status in the annals of film. Yes, it's still quite a good film, and stylistically a trendsetter for sure. But the film has its problems, and is not something that you will cherish, watching again and again. It's damn good, though, and I recommend it, if you can find it somewhere. Make sure you have your Xanax handy!

1^st Look- ✭✭✭✭   2^nd Look- ✭✭✭

"Champagne for Caesar" (1950) Dir- Richard Whorf

What I remember:

When I wrote about "The Rocking Horse Winner", I told you that my college

girlfriend talked me into watching it. In the case of "Champagne for Caesar", it was my post-college girlfriend who turned me on to it.

We watched it on our huge 19 inch screen Toshiba, which was more than ample for this film. To that point, that TV was the most expensive thing I'd ever bought that didn't help me make music in some fashion; that is until I bought my first VCR, a Panasonic 2 piece unit with separate tuner and video recorder/player.

Ahh, technology of the early '80's. Remember tracking dials? How about having to tune your TV to channels 3 or 4 depending on your local stations? Oh yeah, early Manhattan Cable, with some of the most unintentionally hilarious Cable Access programming you can imagine.

My girlfriend was quite the intellectual, and she was pretty funny too. She

certainly got comedy, and this movie was right up her alley. In order to make

money, a super-intelligent professor goes on a quiz show, and proceeds to clean up. He's got a parrot who gets drunk, and a very acerbic tongue. His arrogance, I think, ends up tripping him up at some point.

What sets this comedy apart from the usual dopey '50's chucklers is the cast, in particular Ronald Coleman as genius Beauregard Bottomley, and a crack supporting crew headed by Celeste Holm, Vincent Price and, gasp, Art Linkletter. Not to mention the great Mel Blanc as the voice of Caesar, the tippling talking bird.

It feels like this one has been all but forgotten. Time to change that, at

least with 5 or 6 of you who will ever read this thing.

After re-watching:

 Happy Hogan: “You have five seconds to tell us the Japanese word for goodbye. 1... 2..”

Bottomey: “Sayonara. Not to be confused with cyanide, which is, of course, goodbye in any language.”

PLOT SUMMARY

Beauregard Bottomley (Ronald Coleman) is a true intellectual, who sadly for him, is unemployed. He lives with Gwenn (Barbara Britton), his piano-teaching sister in a bungalow in Hollywood. At the unemployment office, he gets wind of a job with Milady Soap, run by the eccentric Burnbridge Waters (Vincent Price). Waters is horrible to Bottomley at the interview, so Bottemley hatches a revenge plan that centers around a trivia based game show sponsored by Milady. Bottomley shows up on the show dressed as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and proceeds to win week in and week out, until he becomes a celebrity. He won't be satisfied, however, until he bankrupts the soap company and Waters to boot. Complications arise when Gwenn falls in love with the quiz show host Happy Hogan (Art Linkletter), and Waters hires a siren named Flame (Celeste Holm) to addle Bottomley’s mind.

STORY/THEME

There might be a lot more going on here than just your average frothy comedy. It’s confusing that the quiz show is first seen in a store window as a TV show, yet subsequently is referred to as a radio show. Initially it feels like this film is a vendetta by Hollywood against the lowbrow world of TV. But then when you keep hearing that it’s on radio, you start to think that it’s all in your mind. Curiously, the only real dummy in the film is Frosty, the starlet neighbor of the Bottomleys, who is at least quite sweet, and very attractive. Everyone else is quite erudite and well spoken, even Happy Hogan. You want stupidity and ignorance? Try 2012, my friends, not 1950.

The indictment of encroaching ignorance in society, which seems like the purpose of this film, begins to take a back seat to the comedy, which really dominates the proceedings. In fact, much of the comedy is physical, which would seem lowbrow to a lot of people. But really, what makes you laugh harder than such brilliant physical comedy as the opening of “City Lights” (Chaplin and the statue), or the stateroom scene in “A Night at the Opera” (“and 3 hard-boiled eggs”), or Alvy Singer’s LA bumper cars in “Annie Hall”? You don’t get smarter than those three comedy icons, that’s for certain.

The movie is filled with memorable characters, especially the two male leads.

Bottomley is a snob’s snob, but he is also quite witty and, even though the term is anachronistic, I’d say snarky. His insults aimed at Milady, Hogan and even the listening audience themselves are couched in such wit, that nobody seems to mind. In fact, the audience appears in on the joke. If this were today’s reality TV, a guy like this would be vilified. At one point when leaving Waters’ office, he says “Shall I genuflect, or just face Mecca?” Nobody is put off by his snarkiness, in fact, they applaud his gambling spirit; that he is willing to risk it all solely on the confidence that he feels he can’t be stumped.

Waters is the worst kind of psycho-boss. You have no problem with Beauregard’s vendetta; you want this prick taken down as much as he does. Vincent Price’s read on the character is about as funny as you can imagine. He’s completely unscrupulous, and also as corrupt and crazy as absolute power can make someone.  More on this later. Suffice to say that he makes the bosses in “Horrible Bosses” look like Ben and Jerry. One of my favorite TV comedies is the Aughties British series “The IT Crowd”. The boss in that show, Denholm Reynholm is absolutely insane, and hilarious. I wonder if the writer, Graham Linehan, had ever scene "Champagne for Caesar", because the resemblance of Denholm to Waters is unmistakable.

Look, this is no “Sullivan’s Travels”. You’re not getting a deep message along with your chuckles. It seems like this will happen, but it never really does. That doesn’t make the film any less enjoyable.

FILMMAKING

Richard Whorf had directed a bunch of very unremarkable post-war features up until "Champagne for Caesar", a few musicals and comedies, and one noir, creatively titled “Love From a Stranger”. He went on to direct a ton of television shows, including a bunch of “Gunsmoke” and “Have Gun, Will Travel” episodes. We’re not talking Raoul Walsh, here, despite the initials being the same. Whorf does a great job with this film, mostly. There is a bit of slowdown in the 3^rd act, where there should have been some acceleration in the proceedings.

After Waters hires Flame O’Neill to seduce and confuse Bottomley, their courtship and her use of feminine wiles is more than predictable. As much as I love Celeste Holm, she brings little new to this role, and certainly toils in the shadow of others before her, notably Barbara Stanwyck and Jean Arthur. Ronald Coleman isn’t really great at this kind of humor. While he does a masterful job at the quick retorts and the slapstick, his take on a lovesick professor is lacking. I think of the actors who had this sort of character down; Jack Lemmon, Cary Grant, even Henry Fonda in “The Lady Eve”. I feel that in different hands, the comedy in this section would have been much stronger and believable, and "Champagne for Caesar" would be considered a masterpiece of the genre.

The sets are stellar throughout, particularly the Milady offices. Photography is simple and direct, nothing gets in the way of the humor or story. The score has one memorable theme, and is typical of comic films of that era.

PERFORMANCES

In spite of the flaws of Coleman’s and Holm’s realization of the romance/anti-romance, most of the acting herein is just perfect. Coleman is a revelation as a physical comic. His bit with the Milady arms is as well done as Buster Keaton. As you would expect, his delivery of barbs is low key and yet still stingingly funny. And his frustration with the dumbing down of society comes across with palpable clarity. It is a very different role from the man who played Sidney Carton, Charles Rainier and Robert Conway. 

As for Vincent Price, this film predates his horror genre dominance, and follows his turn as Shelby Carpenter in “Laura”. To my knowledge, other than guest turns on variety hours, this is his only true comic role, and he is brilliant. Right in the middle of a conversation he will go into freeze mode, his assistant insisting that he has “entered another plane”. Suddenly he’ll snap out of it in full conversation. His timing and expressions hit every note pitch perfectly. Who knew? It makes you wish he had done much more like this.

Like I said before, I am a fan of Celeste Holm, and she rarely disappoints. Rarely however, has she been employed as a femme fatale, albeit a comic one. She doesn’t really have that animal magnetism or overt sexuality that the part calls for. She is a fine comedienne, but sadly miscast in this film. Bottomley admittedly wants an intellectual peer for a mate, but there still needs to be some chemistry to make that relationship and his sudden inability to concentrate believable. I think Rita Hayworth could have pulled this off far better.

As for Art Linkletter---it’s so hard for people of my generation to separate him from the TV icon--“Kids Say the Darnedest Things” and all that. When I was growing up, he and Ed Sullivan were the two biggest TV personalities that weren’t animated or on strings. At least as far as I know! It is no stretch for me to see him as a Quiz Show host, especially one as clownish as Happy Hogan. Of course, when Gwenn falls in love with him, uhhhhh, no. Art Linkletter a chick magnet? What the hell? Then again, I totally love dancing ingénue Dick Powell playing Phillip Marlowe in “Murder My Sweet”, so preconceptions be damned.

And what of our titular character, the parrot named Caesar? His voice was portrayed by the genius Mel Blanc, but given only a few good lines. I guess the concept of an alcoholic talking bird was enough to keep audiences in stitches in 1950. The film would have been fine without him, and his comic part is overshadowed by Coleman and Price. No upstaging by this pet, unlike Uggie in “The Artist”. It’s also kind of hard to understand what he’s saying through Blanc’s voice tricks. Too bad…there could have been a lot more great moments in here.

ON SECOND LOOK

"Champagne for Caesar" is a great and original comedy, but could have been much, much better. I think there is a reason why it’s been forgotten, and we can point directly to the lack of real romantic tension and chemistry between the two leads.  It’s absolutely worth the time, if nothing else for watching two masterful genre actors go completely outside their milieus, and for some terrific highbrow AND lowbrow comedy.

1^st Look- ✭✭✭1/2   2^nd Look- ✭✭✭