Film Friday: The French Connection (1971)

Today we come to The French Connection. The French Connection is a fascinating film that has been recognized by many as one of the best films of the 1970's. Its hero, Popeye Doyle is also routinely voted as one of the top movie heroes, though I find that somewhat questionable. Interestingly, Doyle will become the model for all future cops. Let’s discuss.

Plot

The French Connection begins in France, where rich French criminal Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey) is visiting the docks. Charnier runs the largest heroin smuggling ring in the world. He’s working on a plan to bring millions of dollars in heroin to the United States hidden inside the car of his friend Henri Devereaux, a French television personality. The idea is to hide the heroin inside the car's frame or lining. After the car gets shipped to the US, the car can be taken apart and the heroin removed. The heroin can then be passed along to various distributors.

Meanwhile, in New York City, we meet two cops: Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle (Gene Hackman) and Buddy “Cloudy” Russo (Roy Scheider). Doyle and Russo are on the narcotics squad and they go around the city busting pushers and users. In one early scene, we see them chase down a suspect with Doyle dressed as Santa. In another, Doyle and Russo shake down a bar full of black patrons, each of whom seems to be carrying drugs. Finally, we are shown that Doyle is very unpopular with the other detectives because he is blamed for the death of another cop. He and his superiors do not like each other either.

The two stories begin to merge when we are told by an undercover cop during the bar shakedown that all the drugs have dried up on the street. There is almost nothing to be bought or sold at the moment and no one has any idea when more is coming. Doyle and Russo pass this on to their commander, and go to a bar for the night. As they sit at the bar, they see a table packed with mobsters and attractive. Doyle's instincts tell him that there is something "wrong" with that table. He decides to investigate.

By investigating the people at the table, Doyle learns of a connection between the mobsters and lawyer Joel Weinstock, who acts as a go-between between the mob and Charnier. Indeed, Weinstock’s chemists checks a sample of the heroin for purity and advises that what is being bought is worth $32 million on the street. Following Weinstock leads Doyle to Charnier, who is trying to sell his heroin to the mob, who will distribute it.

What follows is a rather clever, interesting and at times tense battle between Doyle and Charnier, wherein Doyle tries to catch Charnier with the drugs, while Charnier tries to kill Doyle and then escape him.

What Made This Film A Classic

There is so much for which to commend this film. Doyle is a fascinating character. Charnier is a fascinating villain. This was one of the first films to look at the drug trade in a serious way and that made it rather interesting. The scheme used by Charnier is clever and makes for a good mystery toward the end of the film. The film is gritty rather than glossy, which gives it a fascinating ambiance. That ambiance is enhanced both by the setting being a decaying New York (indeed, the police station almost looks like something out of Mad Max) and the comparison between the cold, hard life of Doyle and Russo and the luxury in which Charnier surrounds himself. All of that makes for a great viewing experience.

What really made this movie standout, however, was Doyle. Doyle is an interesting character. On the one hand, he's a total jerk. He's abusive in a way that would not be tolerated today even by the worst police departments. We see this in particular in the bar shakedown scene where he threatens with violence and false allegations, where he leaves the appearance of having beaten a patron (who is actually an undercover cop – as an aside, we have already seen Doyle beat another suspect he arrests), and where he appears to steal either drugs or money from the people he shakes down. That makes him an abusive, corrupt cop and a truly unlikely hero.

It's possible too that he's racist, but it's more likely he hates everyone equally. He's a bad cop too in that he plays vague hunches and becomes obsessed with them to the point of needing to be ordered to abandon the hunch, he ignores orders and doesn't care at all about procedures, and he focuses on crimes the department isn't focusing on. None of his arrests would withstand legal scrutiny today, and it's even less likely they would have withstood the more liberal justice system of the 1970's. It is also suggested that these misbehaviors led to other officer(s) being hurt or killed, which seems to be why the other cops don't like him.

So why does the audience connect with this train wreck of a cop? Why has he become one of the favorite film heroes of all time? I suspect there's only one reason and it is the reason that makes this film work: Doyle is right. His instincts have led him straight to the biggest heroin deal in history and he's latched onto it like a pit bull to a BBQ-sauce-covered child. There is something about the guy everyone claims is wrong, but who is really right and who fights to prove that which attracts us as viewers. It comes from our love of the underdog, from our love of getting things right, and I think it comes from the fact that so many of us think we are right even as society tells us repeatedly that we are wrong. We want to believe that we know something THEY don't and Doyle represents us in that. He acts the way we wish we could, by flipping his middle finger at everyone else and doing what needs to be done.

Now, there are a lot of reasons why this type of behavior, especially in a police officer, should offend and bother us all, but it doesn't seem to stop us. I think the key in creating this kind of thinking is that Doyle is right. If he had been wrong, I doubt he would be viewed as a hero by anyone. What’s more, I get the sense that society loves to philosophize about abusive cops, but is in reality happy to allow abuse so long as “the right people” are getting the abuse... which speaks volumes about humanity.

Interestingly, Doyle became the template for so many future movie cops. In fact, he became the only acceptable template for cops in modern films: the rebel who plays by his own set of rules and stares down his screaming captain to get the job done! You will see this character over and over in films like the Lethal Weapon franchise, and Doyle was the first. Guys like Steve McQueen in Bullitt played something similar, but never took it to the point of being openly hostile to his superiors. Hackman takes it to that extreme. His Doyle is a wrecking ball and he doesn't care.

At the same time, by the way, it must be noted that Doyle's character wouldn't be that interesting if Charnier wasn't an exceptional villain. Rich, powerful, ultra-smart and with ice water running through his veins, Charnier comes across as a worthy challenge for Doyle. Charnier isn't some cardboard character who will act stupidly at the wrong times to let Doyle win, nor will he devolve into insanity nor will he shoot his henchmen. He is the scariest of villains: extremely competent.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guest Review: Narrow Margin (1990)

by ScottDS

Andrew’s reviewed a few of them already so now it’s my turn to review a Peter Hyams movie. 1990’s Narrow Margin is a slightly better-than-average thriller, not really memorable, but quite watchable if it comes on TV. It’s also a little too convenient at times and, thanks to technology, it falls into the “Couldn’t be made today” category.

Carol Hunnicut (Anne Archer) witnesses the murder of Michael Tarlow by crime boss Leo Watts. Apparently, Tarlow spent some of Watts’ money without his permission. Los Angeles district attorney Robert Caulfield (Gene Hackman) is desperate to put Watts behind bars. He travels up to a secluded cabin in Canada where Hunnicut’s been hiding. She refuses to go back to LA but they’re ambushed by Watts’ goons (who seem to pop up everywhere). They drive to a train station and board a passenger train bound for Vancouver. Two of Watts’ men are also on the train but they don’t know what Hunnicut looks like. Caulfield has an encounter with an attractive woman and believes the goons think she’s Hunnicut. He also spots a mysterious man who turns out to be a transit cop... and not long for this world. The climax takes place on top of the train... Caulfield dispatches the goons as well as the attractive woman who it turns out is also a villain. We also find out there’s a traitor in the DA’s office, which explains why the villains always know Caulfield’s plans. Hunnicut testifies against Watts and all is well in the world.

There’s really not much to it. Reportedly, Hyams was looking for an older movie to adapt and stumbled across 1952’s Narrow Margin, starring Charles McGraw and Marie Windsor. I vaguely remember it and honestly, I get it confused with another transit-themed mystery: 1950’s Union Station, starring William Holden. (Now where’s that remake?) As I said above, it’s one of those movies that couldn’t be made today because we all have cell phones. Caulfield has no way of contacting his superiors, the villains disable the train’s communications gear, and the only radio aboard belongs to the aforementioned transit cop who gets killed. So what’s a hero to do?

The acting elevates things somewhat above B-movie level. Gene Hackman is the bespectacled Caulfield and his presence is always appreciated. He’s one of those actors who does well both with quiet moments and action and he makes everything sound believable even when it isn’t. Anne Archer is Hunnicut and I’m pleased to say she takes a role that could’ve been “damsel in distress” or “stuck-up bitch” and makes it work (mostly). The rest of the supporting cast features some familiar character actors. Leo Watts is played by Harris Yulin. He does “menacing” very well. The late, great J.T. Walsh is Tarlow and James B. Sikking is Nelson, the main goon aboard the train. (Sikking also appeared in Hyams’ Outland and The Star Chamber.) Nelson’s associate Wootton is played by Nigel Bennett and Susan Hogan plays Kathryn, the attractive woman whose height quickly becomes a disadvantage while standing on top of the train. J.A. Preston is Hackman’s boss and M. Emmet Walsh shows up (all too briefly) as a detective who travels to Hunnicut’s cabin with Caulfield... and gets killed.

And then there’s Peter Hyams. I watched a recent interview with him and, while I’m usually not very good with this sort of thing, if you read between the lines, you can tell he’s kinda resigned to the fact that he never quite became as big as Spielberg. The man is talented and he had a pretty good run. Capricorn One, Outland, and 2010 I consider the perfect “comfort food sci-fi trilogy” and I mean that as a compliment. Stay Tuned is a childhood favorite. Timecop and Sudden Death are over-the-top cheese. The Star Chamber and The Relic were okay but The Presidio and Running Scared didn’t do it for me, though I know the latter has its fans. I have yet to see his earliest work nor have I seen Hanover Street, End of Days, or his latest: Enemies Closer (available at your local Redbox). He’s only had one major clusterf--k and that was A Sound of Thunder. The short version: it wasn’t his fault! He and James Cameron even collaborated on a killer asteroid script which was never made.

In addition to directing, Hyams wrote the screenplay and served as his own DP. The film exhibits his trademark use of naturalistic lighting. I say “naturalistic” because people say he only uses “natural light.” Hyams scoffs at this: when you’re on a soundstage, there is no natural light! His script features his usual trademarks: the names Caulfield and Tarlow (no Spota this time), referring to the bad guys as “grown-ups,” a reference to Con-Amalgamate, and the characters are so damned... sarcastic! I don’t know if this is just his personality, or his New York upbringing, but in all of the movies Hyams writes, the characters are often wise-asses: the heroes, the villains, everyone. Sometimes it sounds natural while other times it sounds too “writerly.” It works in something like Outland or Sudden Death but 2010 suffers at times from making Scheider and Lithgow too snarky. And aside from Connery’s “Think it over” in Outland, I can’t think of a “classic Hyams line” that anyone would remember. (Again, I have yet to see all of his movies.)

I said above this movie was a little too convenient at times. Hackman and Archer are trying to get a passenger compartment. Archer says she needs to lie down because she’s pregnant and the baby is due in a matter of weeks. One problem: she does NOT look pregnant!!! She puts her hands in her sweater pockets... big deal. Then there’s the transit cop. He’s, uh... he’s fat. He even makes a joke about it. I can’t believe this guy would: a.) be a cop, and b.) work on a train where the corridors are smaller than normal. He even has to back up to let Hackman through... how efficient could this cop be? Hackman reaches Archer’s cabin via helicopter yet they can’t hear the villains’ helicopter until they start shooting. And I’m still not sure how the goons made it to the train station. Sure, they were in a helicopter but did it just land next to the train without being noticed? Hackman also fools the villains with a kid’s water gun but he gives himself away too fast – never tell the villain with the real gun that your gun is fake! [smile]

So that’s Narrow Margin. Not a classic but it’s also the kind of movie that isn’t made today. In case you haven’t noticed, the studios don’t make mid-level movies anymore: everything is either very small or very, very... very big. If this movie were released today, Hunnicut would be a 20-something model, Caulfield would be a young hotshot intern at the DA’s office, there would be some useless plot complication in the third act, and the train would explode in a flurry of CGI. The bad movies of today seem to make the average movies of yesterday appear better than they are. At least, that’s the theory!

“This guy's lying – he’s a train robber!”
“What would I want with a train?”

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: No Way Out (1987)

You wouldn’t think I would like No Way Out. It relies on some huge coincidences and the characters all act in some pretty outlandish ways. But I love this film. This is probably the top political thriller I’ve seen on film. Here’s why.

** Spoiler Alert -- If you don’t know the ending, see the movie before you read this review. **

No Way Out stars Kevin Costner as Navy Lieutenant Commander Tom Farrell, who seduces Susan Atwell (Sean Young), who turns out to be the mistress of his boss Secretary of Defense David Brice (Gene Hackman). Atwell is Brice’s kept-woman, but falls for Costner, until Brice kills her in a jealous rage. Enter Brice’s assistant, Scott Pritchard (Will Patton), who covers up Brice’s involvement with the death by blaming Pentagon boogeyman “Yuri,” a supposed deep-cover Russian sleeper agent. When Pritchard puts Costner in charge of the investigation, things spiral out of control. Oh and there's a twist.

Why I Buy The Coincidences

I hate to admit it, but if someone pitched me the above as a film, I would have turned them down. Why? Because it’s all based on massive coincidences. It’s a coincidence Costner gets called in to work for Brice. It’s a coincidence Brice and Costner fall for the same woman. Then Brice picks Costner to lead the investigation? Come on. Also, Costner just happens to have a friend who can protect him when they find a photo incriminating Costner? Not to mention the coincidence that Hackman, Pritchard and Atwell are all morally vacant to begin with. And then following the twist we learn that Costner just happens TO BE the Yuri they’re looking for? Give me a break.

But you know. . . none of this bothers me. Why? Because they explain it all.

The movie goes to great lengths to point out that Costner is a social climber. He went to the right schools, got to know the right people, and attends the right functions. He befriended Pritchard long before these events, and thus it’s no stretch to see Pritchard reach out to Costner when he and Brice need a new point man. That Costner has a friend at the Pentagon isn’t such a surprise either as he’s moved up through the Navy and likely has friends everywhere. With regard to Atwell, we learn at the end that Costner was ordered to seduce her. Suddenly the coincidental love triangle involving the Secretary of Defense isn’t so coincidental. That Atwell falls for him makes sense too, as Costner no doubt has been given inside information about her. And the fact Brice and Atwell are immoral isn’t hard to accept because that’s precisely why Costner came after them: because they’re susceptible.

The only real coincidences seem to be that he is Yuri and that Brice kills Atwell. But we accept those. The fact he’s Yuri makes sense because who but Yuri would take the risks Costner takes to inject himself into these events. Most people wouldn’t seduce their boss’s mistress and most would go to the police once the murder happens. Costner could have gone to the CIA for protection and ended the story there, but he doesn’t because he is Yuri and he’s playing a dangerous game to destroy Brice. It is somewhat coincidental that Pritchard tries to use Yuri for cover, but who else would he use except the Pentagon’s boogeyman? Nor does Costner getting appointed to run the investigation seem coincidental because that’s precisely why he was brought into the fold -- to protect Brice. Atwell’s murder doesn’t bother us either because we see it as an accident and it’s just how the story plays out. Had she not died, Yuri would have tried something else to disgrace Brice.

So even though the film is packed with incredible coincidences, you never really feel like they are coincidences because enough explanation is given to let you believe these events flowed logically from the intentional actions of the characters.

Why I Buy The Outlandish Characters

On its surface, this story also contains some pretty outlandish characters. A Washington, D.C. socialite with multiple lovers? The Secretary of Defense having a murderous affair? Brice’s assistant killing people to cover up Brice’s crime? Really? Yeah, really.

Atwell is a kept woman, which means her morality is already questionable. She clearly doesn’t love Brice and it’s easy to see why she would fall for Costner, especially if he had help from his Russian friends. As for the Secretary of Defense having an affair, we’re long past the point that should surprise us. Killing his mistress is pretty extreme, but he didn’t intend to kill her. He got upset and smacked her and she died in an accidental fall. This is believable because we’ve already seen that he’s an abusive man because of how he treats Pritchard. And cover ups are always in fashion in Washington.

Pritchard is the real question mark. Would he really kill to save his boss? Actually, he would. Pritchard is gay and is infatuated with Brice. He worships Brice. That doesn’t make him a killer, but there’s more. Brice is abusive. He screams at Pritchard, throws things at him, strikes him, and humiliates him. Yet Pritchard responds by blaming himself. This is classic battered spouse syndrome and battered spouses often become insanely devoted to their abusers. Add in some instability and a sense by Pritchard that he’s above the law, and it’s not a stretch to see Pritchard turn the Pentagon upside down, kill the people who can hurt Brice, and make the ultimate sacrifice to save Brice. What’s more, both Patton and Hackman sell this perfectly, with Hackman never once showing a hint of kindness to Pritchard and Patton giving an incredible performance as a man desperate to obtain Brice's approval.

Why This Twist Is So Great

Finally, we come to the twist. The twist is great because it is organic to the story, it completely changes the meaning of the story, and it’s foreshadowed constantly. Why are we shown his bag being stolen overseas? Who does he keep calling on the phone? Why is his neighbor a Russian? (As an interesting aside, the Russian safehouse is a block from a home I owned in Virginia.) Heck, the coincidences alone should have tipped us off something was wrong. This is excellent foreshadowing.

Moreover, the story works completely even without the twist. Indeed, the depth of this story is astounding. You get a solid glimpse into Washington politics, with the Secretary of Defense trying to kill a weapons program favored by a powerful Senator. On the Senator’s side you have the CIA snooping around. Against this, you have a solid love story between Atwell and Costner. The love story is made all the more interesting because the lovers are kept apart by the fact Atwell has another lover, upon whom she relies to maintain her lifestyle. Adding intrigue, it turns out that lover is Costner’s boss.

Then Brice kills Atwell. This injects all kinds of suspense as only Costner knows the truth, but he can’t tell anyone or he will be murdered. What’s worse, Brice has the power to pull this investigation into the Pentagon where he can control it. Then Costner gets put in charge of the investigation, which puts Costner in an impossible situation as he's leading an investigation which will cause his own destruction. To add even greater suspense, we are given the “ticking clock” of the Pentagon computer slowly deciphering a Polaroid which will incriminate Costner.

This is a powerful story. Costner’s emotional rollercoaster goes from happiness as he falls for Atwell, to jealousy as he learns he can’t have her, to anger as he learns his boss is the man standing in his way. Then she dies and we see Costner suffering with his grief while feeling his revulsion at having to work with the very people he wants to expose and his fear at learning they will kill him if they discover the truth. At the same time, we have an intensely emotional performance from Patton who goes from abused-spouse to insane dictator to reckless and desperate murderer. Hackman simultaneously shows us a man we think is trying to do his best for the nation, but who has brought himself down with his tragic flaw and who falls apart as the scandal overwhelms him. . . only to throw our sympathy back in our faces when he realizes he’s found a way to save himself.

What more can you ask for? Even without the twist, this is a heck of a story.

But adding the twist was a masterstroke because it changes the meaning of everything we just saw. We saw Costner as an innocent victim of circumstance. But now we know he’s the manipulator behind it all. He’s the instigator, playing a high stakes game of political intrigue. He never cared for Atwell, he even calls her “the Atwell woman” when speaking with the Russians just so we know she meant nothing to him. All that fear and disgust we thought we saw in Costner -- which made us so sympathetic -- wasn’t because of the death of Atwell or concern for her friend, it was fear he would be exposed as Yuri. And the whole time we were rooting for innocent Kevin against evil Brice, we now realize we were rooting for a traitor, whose real goal was the destruction of Brice, an apparently effective Secretary of Defense. That is an incredible transformation and a great twist.

I highly recommend this film.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...