If I learned anything about being a narcotics detective in New York City in the early 1970s from The French Connectionit'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.
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.
