The French Connection: 1971

If I learned anything about being a narcotics detective in New York City in the early 1970s from The French Connection it's that the job involves a lot of standing in the cold and walking around. Of the 104 minutes, I think at least 40 minutes consisted of the two detectives tracking their suspects, and while that made for some interesting shots, it didn't make for a very entertaining story. The plot itself was promising: two narcotics detectives working on busting a drug ring with connections in France. But maybe being based on a true story hurt the film instead of helping it since real detective work is probably not as exciting as Hollywood typically portrays it.

Doyle and Russo, the detectives, spend a lot of time following suspects on foot and by car, allowing for interesting cuts and longer shots that highlighted the grime of the city. One scene where Doyle is tracking a sniper involves lots of smashed up cars, so of the tracking scenes, it was perhaps the most exciting:

The director cuts between the suspect on the subway and Doyle in the car, building tension as the train speeds up and passes stations without stopping. Of all the scenes I found this one the most exciting because I couldn't tell how it was going to end. It seems ridiculous to think the suspect will get away, but at times, it almost seems possible.

There were a few close up shots that I still don't understand in this film, and one in particular is the straw hat in the back window of the detectives' car. Russo (I think) throws the hat in the back window, and the camera lingers on it. Later, during a stake out, there's another close up of this hat, but I'm not sure what it's showing. Is it to show how little things have changed in the case? Or is it to suggest that these two men are not good at their job, allowing something so distinctive to be in the window that might help suspects identify their car? Surely there's a reason...I just can't figure it out.

Patton: 1970

I should have written this blog a couple weeks ago when I watched Patton, but I'm going to do my best to remember my thoughts at that time and reflect on the film. At least I have the advantage of Patton being a memorable film, one that made me think about its genre (biopic) and how a well done biopic may not necessarily be completely true but tells a compelling story.

Patton tells the story of General Patton and his role leading troops in battle during World War II. What I found interesting was how the story wasn't just from the American perspective. The writers included the German perspective. Throughout the film, there were scenes from the German war room where the German officers discussed Patton. One officer was assigned to research Patton and report his findings to his superiors. This made me think about war strategy in a different way. While I knew that enemies study each other to learn their strengths and weaknesses and to anticipate their movies, I hadn't seen this done in this way in a film before. The officer in charge of researching Patton becomes so completely involved and invested in his research and seems to read Patton's mind. His superiors, however, belittle his work, suggesting that the Germans might have fared better if they had listened to this one man. Of course, this seems extreme to me, done to enhance the plot and build suspense. Yet it was effective in presenting the idea that Patton was a well-respected man whose tactics were unusual and unique because when the German officer suggests what he thinks Patton will do (and later we see is what Patton does), the commanding officer simply can't believe him.

While I have seen several war movies (some for this blog and others), I had yet to see one that focused as much on battle strategy like Patton. The film portrays General Patton as a scholar of military history, knowledge that he uses to develop plans to fight the Nazis. His knowledge of German warfare benefits him in what becomes a slightly humorous scene when Patton wins his first battle against the Germans.

Moments like this one provided some levity in an otherwise intense film. Patton often seems like a jerk, calling soldiers cowards when they can't fight because of fear. While watching, I wondered how much of this was true about the real Patton and how much was fictionalized to tell a more compelling story.

Overall, Patton was a pleasant surprise. I wasn't sure how I would like the film (it's nearly three hours, so it's a commitment), but I found it moving faster than I expected and providing an interesting perspective on World War II.

Oliver!: 1968

So I just should have kept moving ahead.

I'll admit, I'm not quite an hour into the film version of the musical Oliver!, and I've sat through some pretty awful films for this blog but the excessive overacting that I'm watching is just too much. I realize that for a Broadway stage the actors need to be powerful to broadcast their emotions, but this seems extreme even for a live performance. For example, when Bill tells Fagin that he killed Nancy, Fagin bits his finger and turns away. It's just to over the top. The only believable acting is done by the young Oliver (played by Mark Lester, whose filmography shows that he was a child star), but I wonder if that's due more to being young and the role requiring him to look scared most of the time, which isn't difficult to do given the situations he's in.

Immediately what bugged me was how off the lip-syncing seemed to be. I understand that the actors cannot sing while being filmed, but a couple of the songs early on (one performed by Nancy who was singing about how she simply cannot leave Bill even though he's a jerk) seemed so off I was distracted and couldn't follow the song.

Good news, though, the disc wasn't clearly labeled, and apparently instead of watching the first half, I was watching the second half of the movie. That clearly explains why there wasn't a menu when I started the disc. I'm counting this viewing...I'm not watching any of this film, unseen or seen, again.

Midnight Cowboy: 1969

While waiting for a copy of 1968's winner Oliver! (a movie that I'm not sure about), I decided to skip ahead and watch Midnight Cowboy, a drama starring Jon Voight as Joe Buck and Dustin Hoffman as Ratso (an unfortunate nickname the character constantly tries to throw off for his given name Rico).  I knew the movie was about a guy from Texas who moves to New York City with hopes of becoming a hustler and instead makes friends with an unlikely guy. Joe is the Texan; Ratso is the new friend. I also knew the movie was the only X-rated movie to earn an Oscar for Best Picture (it has since been rated R, which I can assure you seems right given what we see in R-rate movies today).

Knowing that little about a movie like this was probably best. Midnight Cowboy is dark, dreary, miserable, and frustrating. The story includes flashbacks from Joe's life to help us understand why this "cowboy" as  he calls himself while admitting he isn't an actual cowboy would want to sell himself for a living. What's frustrating, though, is the flashbacks are jumbled, just as they would be from a person who is tormented by his past. The effect as far as the film is powerful as we better understand how Joe is not only lonely but haunted by his childhood and teen years. I gathered that Joe experienced abandonment as a child, living with his grandmother after his mother (I'm guessing this...there was no dialogue and not much of a clip of this in the montage) dropped him off. At times, Joe seems deserving of our sympathy, but then again, he seems despicable in how he assumes that women are going to fall all over themselves in order to pay him to sleep with him. His arrogance is disgusting. It's Joe in the present day that makes the film so miserable.

Ratso, though crippled and homeless, is even less deserving of sympathy. He operates his life by stealing and conning. All of it is small (we are introduced to him when he cons the incredibly gullible Joe), but that doesn't make what he does right. To make matters worse, Ratso acts like his stealing is perfectly fine. I guess the point is to prove that New York eats people alive, and the cycle of poverty causes Ratso to do this, but Ratso makes a point to say that he will not work in the subway shining shoes like his dad, which suggests that there are jobs out there for someone like Ratso; he's choosing not to take them. I pity Ratso for his increasing illness, but that doesn't mean I like him.

Besides the interesting use of montages to present Joe's flashbacks and to draw connections between his current situation and his past, this movie was a waste of my time. I considered not finishing it, but then my husband said I only had half an hour left, so I might as well. I won't spoil the ending, but I will say that it doesn't redeem Joe even as he comes to some realizations about life. This is a film where I'm just unclear on the point of the story. Perhaps the point is to show how being lonely forces us to find companionship; people are social creatures and need to make connections in order to survive. That would explain Joe and Ratso's friendship, but if that's the case, then large portions of this movie seem unnecessary to me. And if that was the case, I don't think the movie would focus as much as it does on Joe's life. So that leaves me wondering, what was the point? And then that leaves me wondering why did this get an Oscar?