Skip to main content

Condor is an amateur. He's lost, unpredictable, perhaps even sentimental. He could fool a professional. Not deliberately, but precisely because he is lost, doesn't know what to do.


Three Days of the Condor
(1975)

Sandwiched between two grittier, but equally star-powered, conspiracy thrillers (The Parallax View and All the President’s Men, both from Alan J Pakula), Three Days of the Condor essays a shift from the bleak resignation of the machine (be it corporate or state) consuming all resistance that was found in the 1974 Warren Beatty picture. There, a dogged journalist finds himself completely ill-equipped for the truths he uncovers. In contrast, Condor finds its protagonist already part of the system. And, only being a lowly “bookworm” (reading manuscripts from across the Globe to sniff out hints of spy code and communication within them), he proves surprisingly resourceful when the agency that gave him an easy-going job, requiring little self-reflection, turns against him.


I’m not sure that any of this could be argued to represent a more benign (or, perhaps, less malign) government/corporate structure than had been depicted in the first half of the decade, following late ‘60s comedown. But there is certainly a sense of acceptance and resignation that this is how things are, no matter how many times Redford’s Condor expresses outrage at this superiors (“Son of a bitch” being a frequent go-to expression).


It could, in part, just be a natural consequence of the mainstream tendencies of its director and lead actor. Redford’s was proficient by this point at turning the least likely (liberal and politically-aware) properties into box office thanks to his easy-going blonde-haired, blue-eyed charisma. Condor represented a hat trick of collaborations for the star-director team, following Jeremiah Johnson and The Way We Were. You only have to look at the romantic fluff masquerading as insightful commentary of the latter film to realise that Redford’s choices did not necessarily stand-up to the same painstaking analysis that Beatty brought to his projects (which isn’t to say that the results could not be as valid; they rarely felt obsessed over, however).


Pollack, who started out as an actor and thus found himself a frequent repeat-collaborator with stars, possessed a reliable eye and an adaptable style which saw him helming fare that varied from thrillers to romantic comedies (most famously, Tootsie). Out of Africa, another Redford starrer, was showered with Oscars although it’s probably fair to say that post-‘70s his acting roles (and producer ones) tended to be much more interesting than his director vehicles. Condor remains one of his most satisfying films. It was a big hit too (although there are discrepancies between the grosses recorded by Box Office Mojo and The Numbers it appeared to be in the region of the Top 10 films of 1975 in the US).


It’s a shame, in some ways, that Pollack didn’t dabble in thriller territory more often as his instincts for drawing out tension tended to be spot-on. He’d later give Tom Cruise a big hit in that genre (The Firm) but there was more uncertainty with what might happened to a lead actor at the end of a film during the ‘70s. Redford didn’t expire often in his pictures, but it wasn’t unknown.


The opening sequence is allowed to play and play by Pollack, because he knows he has something shocking in store; every choice he makes in teasing it out for all its worth is the right one. Of course, this also means an introduction to a very Redford-tailored persona; brilliant (his high IQ is mentioned), idiosyncratic (he rides a flimsy motorised bicycle amidst heavy traffic) and outfitted in scruffy professor-chic (glasses, jeans and sports jacket). Despite his lazy brilliance, he gets on great-guns with the blue-collar types in the diner where he buys lunch. But this indulgence works to the benefit of the set-up; it tells us he’s a nice guy (fortunate, as later he won’t be in very nice situations) and it allows us a brief spell getting to know his co-workers.


We see that his office is under surveillance almost immediately. It just so happens that Redford’s Joseph Turner (his codename is Condor, but he has difficulty even remembering this when he calls in the incident) has left by the back door to pick up lunch when the three hit men (led by a menacing-but-later-to-prove-erudite Max von Sydow as Joubert) converge on the entrance and proceed to gun down all those within. Pollack only appears to have reservations about showing the impact of this when it comes to Turner’s girlfriend , Janice (Tina Chen).

Joubert: Would you move from the window, please?
Janice: I won’t scream.
Joubert: I know.

Pollack cuts before the bullets spray her. Redford sells the panic of discovery and flight from the scene effectively. The paranoia that anyone on the street might be your assassin is palpable (Turner zeros in on a mother in sunglasses pushing a pram).


You’d think that, in an era of limited computer technology and no mobile phones, the tracking down and surveillance of a subject was much more difficult. But, for all his craftiness at times (Turner scrambles the lines at a telephone exchange so the CIA can’t trace his call), rudimentary mistakes are inevitable (a number plate here, an obviously predictable pattern of movement there). Condor is something of a progenitor in the genre, as this is a world where we see the technology in development that will later make the spy business more omniscient. Compare this to the tech on display in Enemy of the State (another on-the-run from a government agency thriller, also set at Christmas; it bears more resemblance to Condor than The Conversation which it overtly refers to in the casting of Gene Hackman). There is much emphasis on the CIA’s use of computers, both by the bookworms and in the analysis of Condor’s possible agenda.


Condor’s contact with his CIA masters (headed up by Cliff Robertson as Higgins) leads to an agreed meeting place where he will “come in”. That this turns out to be a trap further blurs the boundaries of who is doing what to whom and why. As mentioned, fear of government’s proclivities is a standard response by this point in the ‘70s. Most contemporary movies include some level of suspicion (even if it is of the localised variety; keeping the beaches open for the worshipful dollar, in the face of shark attacks, in Jaws), and one might argue that there is a degree of appeasement in Condor. It is not, after all, the CIA itself that is the villain. Rather it is a splinter cell within the organisation. This would later be the formula adopted by Enemy of the State. It’s left to the viewer whether this controllable and solvable presentation of corruption and lies is a comforting indication that it will all be all right in the end or leaves the unmistakable message that the state is never to be trusted.


Indeed, in Condor it is quite clear that Turner’s problems have not gone away now that the CIA splinter faction has been put to rest. Turner is a loose-end.

Turner: I’d like to get back to New York.
Joubert: You have not much future there. It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring. And a car will slow beside you, and a door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, will get out of the car. And he will smile, a becoming smile. But he will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift.

Condor provides a “heroic” solution in that Turner disappears off the grid; it is enough that he survives. He doesn’t get the girl, doesn’t really see justice served. He even makes sort-of friends with the man responsible for killing his colleagues and girlfriend. But he has the moral high ground, which has to be worth something.


Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Turner: Ask them?
Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

One might claim prescience in respect of the splinter faction’s plan (to take over Middle East oil fields), but given the out-of-control oil prices around the time the film was made it doesn’t seem all that abstract. If one were cynical one might suggest that the plan has not-so-covertly been put into effect since the turn of the millennium.


Where Condor arguably isn’t an outright success is the romantic subplot with Faye Dunaway’s character. You can see why an interlude was necessary, both in terms of raising the stakes (for a subsequent assassination attempt) and fleshing out the plans and objectives of Turner, but Kathy just doesn’t really work. Initially, the attempts at making her respond realistically to abduction and bondage are commendable. But you’d believe them more if Turner were a really ugly kidnapper. And because Dunaway’s a star there’s a sop to her in fleshing out her character that only ever feels artificial. When Kathy and Turner sleep together it isn’t clear if this is some weirdly accelerated case of Stockholm Syndrome, whether Kathy is just a bit weird anyway or if she’s been overcome by her proximity to Golden Boy’s tousled locks. Ultimately, Kathy is more of a plot convenience than a character in her own right. It is at least something that Pollack and Redford don’t reduce themselves by having Turner and Kathy reunite in the final scene.


Condor was adapted from James Grady’s Six Days of the Condor. In the book, the rogue CIA group was importing drugs from Laos; a decidedly small-fry enterprise next to the film’s machinations. It was adapted by Lorenzo Semple Jr and David Rayfiel. I don’t know who came on board first, but I’d hazard that it was Semple Jr, whose script for The Parallax View was resolutely uncompromising the previous year. Semple Jr shifted from working in television (notably the ‘60s Batman TV series) to film scripts in the late ‘60s. Condor was part of a brief period of more serious-minded scripts (including Papillon). Subsequently he would pen the 1976 King Kong remake and the likes of Flash Gordon and Never Say Never Again. David Rayfiel was co-credited, who worked both credited and uncredited, on Pollack films from his debut The Slender Thread. They collaborated right up until the 1995 remake of Sabrina and it’s likely that he was asked by Pollack to smooth out what were seen as rough edges on the Semple Jr draft.


One trick Pollack gets right with Condor is that if you set up the this kind of thriller correctly much of it will sustain itself. You don’t need constant encounters with danger by the protagonist because the audience is expecting it at every turn anyway. So the visit by the “Postman” to Kathy’s flat is the second of only two physical engagements by Turner in the movie. It’s a pleasingly messy, awkward encounter. Turner emerges on top by luck rather than skill. We’ve been informed that he was enlisted (the Signals Corp) but any proficiency in fighting a trained assassin would have beggared belief. Once again too, Pollack allows the encounter to unspin slowly before the first blows are rained. We saw the Postman in the opening extermination, so the scene is all about how quickly Turner realises what the audience knows.


Another aspect of the film that deserves particular credit is the presentation of the agency hierarchy. Usually the power structures are virtually faceless or unblinkingly nefarious in conspiracy thrillers. Robertson’s Higgins is transparently just a cog in the wheel, though (it is even noted that he has not risen in the organization as fast as might be expected). We see whom he answers to (who treats him dismissively) and what he doesn’t know. It doesn’t make him more sympathetic, since he has no qualms about ordering any necessary business, but it makes Joubert’s warning to Turner one that we know could apply to Higgins as well, at some point.


Joubert’s philosophising in the penultimate scene should perhaps come as a surprise. Until you reconcile that Max von Sydow had to be employed for some reason other than as relatively taciturn gunman. It’s an interesting character moment, both cynical and revealing. In part it is required to spell out the schemes that have brought us to this point. Possibly it does this with unnecessary flourish; I’m willing to forgive this indulgence as it’s wonderful to hear von Sydow add depth and resonance to his dialogue. Joubert, formerly a freelance, has been retained by the agency to take out the guy who initially employed him to take out Turner’s division.

Joubert: Well, the fact is, what I do is not a bad occupation. Someone is always willing to pay.
Turner: I would find it... tiring.
Joubert: Oh, no - it's quite restful. It's almost peaceful. No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause. There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision.

This is as close as you get to an espousal of the post-‘60s collapse in idealism. Working for a better world has dissolved into resignation of working for the dollar. In Joubert’s case there is as at least a pride in one’s skill, so he hasn’t fallen victim to morass of ‘80s “greed is good”. But there is no conscience involved, and in that sense blindly following a skillset is not so different to pursuing unchecked capitalism.

Turner: Why?
Joubert: I don't interest myself in "why". I think more often in terms of "when", sometimes "where"; always "how much".


The final scene sees Turner confront Higgins and inform him that he has taken the story to The New York Times. Higgins is initially shocked (“Oh, you… you poor dumb son of a bitch. You’ve done more damage than you know”), but then mocks Turner’s faith in it being published.

Higgins: Hey, Turner! How do you know they'll print it? You can take a walk. But how far if they don't print it?
Turner: They'll print it.
Higgins: How do you know?

It’s curious that this uncertainty (and, let’s face it, the audience is in little doubt that publication will be halted) will receive a fact-based reproof in Redford’s next film (All the President’s Men). Truth can out in certain circumstances.


Condor isn’t the unqualified success of the two Pakula films surrounding it, but as a thriller its qualities are undiminished in the 37 years since it was released. Dunaway’s character doesn’t really work, and Turner is occasionally given to surmisals that aren’t quite germane to character or situation (“Boy, what is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?”). Additionally, Pollack’s choice of Dave Grusin to provide the score is varyingly effective. Grusin’s quite capable of complementing a dramatic scene, but elsewhere his jazzy doodlings seem out of place with the tone. I’ll readily admit to finding his soundtrack work tends to date a film more than any other aspect (Tootsie’s a prime offender). But these are relatively minor issues within the whole, an intelligent and literate thriller that remains relevant.

****1/2



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.