Skip to main content

Reindeer-goat cheese pizza?


Hudson Hawk
(1991)

A movie star vanity project going down in flames is usually met with open delight from press and critics alike. Even fans of the star can nurse secret disappointment that they were failed on this occasion. But, never mind, soon they will return to something safe and certain. Sometimes the vehicle is the result of a major star attaching themselves to a project where they are handed too much creative control, where costs spiral and everyone ends up wet (Waterworld, The Postman, Ishtar). In other cases, they bring to screen a passion project that is met with derision (Battlefield Earth). Hudson Hawk was a character created by Bruce Willis, about whom Willis suddenly had the post-Die Hard clout to make a feature.


But, rather than bowing down in veneration towards its star, Hawk relentlessly deconstructs and mocks its lead. This is the wise-cracking Bruce Willis of Moonlighting, slightly disbelieving of his new status as an action icon, let loose in a toy box with a bag full of cash. Chaperoned by Joel Silver, never one to rein in excess, the budget ballooned along with the constantly under-revision script. Ironically, the chastening effect of the film’s failure (this, and another picture Willis saw as a chance to increase his acting credibility where the changes he ushered in were widely seen as contributing to its failure; Bonfire of the Vanities) resulted in its star leaving behind his anarchic sense of humour (something that also fed into the first Die Hard) and concentrating on sombre, smirk-free fare. Far more in line with what one might have expected of someone with a lack of self-awareness and an unchecked ego. Bruce became boring, basically.


Maybe Willis always caused difficulties on his sets; notoriously restrained Kevin Smith gave him short shrift following comedy classic Cop Out. Antoine Fuqua reportedly found him such a pain he said he’d never work with him again. Richard E Grant documented the disastrous production of Hawk in his With Nails memoir. Reports at the time suggested Willis’ bald spot had been touched up by hand, frame-by-frame. On the other hand, Bruno shows up on Letterman regularly and seems like a fun, self-deprecating guy. Who knows, it’s Hollywood. If two people clash there, invariably both have large egos. Much about his instincts for Hawk cannot be faulted; he brought on Steven E de Souza (Die Hard), then Daniel Walters (Heathers). Although the latter was a result of enlisting director Michael Lehmann, which means Bruce must have seen an enjoyed Heathers. Likewise, Richard E Grant’s casting suggests an awareness of Withnail & I; Willis may be a right-leaning curmudgeon, but he clearly knew what was funny (and let’s not forget he was key to Moonlighting’s success).


Critics, and the general public, disagreed with this. Hawk bombed; it didn’t satisfy as an action movie (which was how it was misleadingly promoted) and the comedy was too anarchic, too cartoonish and unconcerned with sticking to formula. How dare characters suddenly break into song, acknowledge the camera, question plot logic? It was as if the Marx Brothers had been let loose on the set of Die Hard. Of such failures, cult movies are made. It’s rare that you’ll find discussion on the internet of the film without coming across unbridled adoration for it.


But the legacy for those involved was one of difficulty in getting the stink off. Lehmann and Walters had shone so brightly with Heathers, but the former ended up steering lacklustre big screen comedies before finding a current niche in TV (including True Blood, Californication and Dexter). Walters has directed a couple of times, and Sex and Death 101 displayed the same acid humour as Heathers, but there can be little doubt that Hawk adversely affected their careers. Ironically, Arnie would come unstuck with a more calculated piece of post-modern deconstruction a few years later. Last Action Hero attempted to be a commentary on the action genre, but made a number of fundamental mistakes; the director was unable to tonally distinguish between the parodic and the “straight” worlds, the script wanted to be clever but couldn’t escape the shackles of formula structuring. And the child actor stank. Action Hero double-thought itself into oblivion. Hawk, in contrast, did exactly as it saw fit. For better or worse. In my view, consistently for better. A few years earlier, John Carpenter’s Big Trouble in Little China also mocked action heroics. It also flopped, but it wasn’t nearly as expensive as the other two would be.


The assembled cast is suitably divergent in backgrounds and styles. Grant has been noted; his cachet was on the rise at the time as more and more people discovered Withnail & I, all of whom considered themselves in on a private joke. Around this time he was a cult actor, and it seems entirely appropriate that he ended up in a cult blockbuster. A couple of years later, Grant’s mannered vibrancy had worn thin although I’d maintain that much of that is to do with directors not knowing how to get the best out of him (as his founder, Bruce Robinson clearly did). 



Sandra Bernhard came from stand-up, and the two (outrageously indiscreet luvvies, both) bonded off screen and on. In contrast, the down-to-earth Danny Aiello was one of Bruce’s real life buddies; at the time, I’ll admit he seemed a bit out of place, as if he was a last minute replacement (he wasn’t). He also seemed to be in every other film you watched during that period. Now, it’s clear that he brought essential warmth to the main relationships; which may sound redundant given the film’s rule breaking remit, but you still need to touch some bases. 



Andie McDowell replaced Maruschka Detmers, who in turn had replaced Isabella Rossellini. I’ve never been McDowell’s biggest fan, to the extent that there are several films where you’d swear the leading man went off with the wrong lady (Green Card, Four Weddings and a Funeral, even Sex, Lies and Videotape), but she deserves much credit in this for her deadpan playing, comic timing, and dolphin impressions.

Anna: I feel like a dolphin who's never tasted melted snow. What does the color blue taste like? Bobo knows? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! I must speak with the dolphins now. Eeeee-eeee-eee-eeeeeee!

Probably my favourite cast member (and from the evidence of the DVD commentary, it sounds like he was tops with Lehmann) is veteran James Coburn. Lehmann acknowledges the debt the film owes to Coburn’s ‘60s persona (Our Man Flint and The President’s Analyst in particular, with the passcode on Hawk’s electronic cuffs quoting Flint). Coburn’s screen presence during the ‘80s had been patchy, having suffered (and professed to have cured himself of) rheumatoid arthritis. Coburn has a wonderful, inviting screen presence, and his toothy grin at times seems to suggest genuine delight in the witty lines Waters gives him.

George Kaplan: The last time you saw me, I was bald, with a beard and no mustache, and I had a different nose. So if you don't recognize me, I won't be offended.
Hudson Hawk: My high school science teacher?

George Kaplan, of course, references the man Cary Grant is mistaken for in North By Northwest. Also appearing are Donald Burton as a vicious butler (Alfred) and David Caruso in a pre-fame role as Kit Kat, one of Kaplan’s CIA team. Frank Stallone, Sly’s brother plays one of the Mario brothers (just one of the film’s overt Nintendo references; these were cut down, but represent a running gag as to how out of touch Hawk is with the modern world).


The ostensible plot sees Hawk pressed back into service to purloin works of art created by Leonardo Da Vinci; these contain the key to a device that will convert lead into gold. That’s all you really need to know, except that the Mayflowers (Grant and Bernhard) are out to get it along with the CIA and the Vatican. The prologue shows Da Vinci hiding the secret to his device (while deciding what to do about his Mona Lisa portrait – his model has a ghastly smile, of course); the voice over comes from William Conrad, known for Rocky and Bullwinkle (as a British viewer I was unaware of this, although readily able to appreciate Conrad’s distinctive delivery).


The introduction of Willis, exiting prison, sets up a number of elements that undermine his presumed status as an action star. While we see him get one-up on his parole officer, his self-conscious badinage with Aiello’s Tommy “Five-Tone” has homo-erotic undertones, underscored by the jabs at each other’s sexuality. Hawk has a preference for “unmasculine European coffee” (Cappuccinos were not as widely known at the time, and there was even talk of whether this should be changed as the audience wouldn’t get it; hard to believe today). This sets the tone for Hawk, who gets his fair share of “heroic” moments, but is consistently undermined and beaten and bested by other characters. He is even knocked out by a model winged horse, just as he is extoling his heroic virtues (“Because danger, doc, is my middle na…”). He and Tommy are paralysed, then “modelled” displaying effete hand positions. He is roundly mocked (by heroes and villains alike) for not realising that Anna is a nun.


But, crucially, he is the inimitable Bruce Willis who we knew and loved as David Addison in Moonlighting. In a classic set piece, he flies out of the back of an ambulance on Brooklyn Bridge, clinging to a gurney. He catches a discarded cigarette and tosses it away in disgust (“Menthol?!) before giving a bemused look as a bimbo in a sports car asks, “Hey, mister, are you going to die?


The comedy in Hudson Hawk is scattershot, both base and highbrow, at times within the same sequence of gags. I mentioned The Marx Brothers, but a more accurate reference point would be The Three Stooges (curiously, also a touchstone of action star and current persona non grata Mel Gibson) for the sight gags, and the Road… movies (Hope and Crosby) for the Willis/Aiello chemistry.


As a result we go from incredibly lowbrow culture gags (“That’s a lot of Wong numbers” notes a security guard, leafing through the telephone directory), to similar but more surreal (an Italian security guard empties spaghetti from his thermos flask, Hawk orders a dish with perfect Italian pronunciation then adds, “Oh, and bring me a bottle of ketchup, will ya?” Copious fat gags (“Big Stan”) nudge next to those teetering on the surreal (the Pope’s TV reception acting up, so he can’t watch Mr Ed in peace). Hawk lands on the top of a lamp post, before falling backwards into a truck full of chickens. As it careers around a corner he is ejected and lands, perfectly seated, at dinner with Anna. Coughing, feathers fly out of his mouth. Either you’re on board with the tone or you’re not. There is little middleground. On the commentary track Walters suggested the feather-coughing was a beat to far (as he does later when a sprung spring noise is used for Alfred being hit with a tennis board. All I can say is, he’s wrong. The feathers are the perfect punchline to the sequence.


Unlike Coburn’s The President Analyst, there is no serious attempt at satire or commentary. As Kaplan plunges to his death, his last words are “MY PENSION!”Any spikey remarks are as absurdist as the flashing crucifix intercom that Anna (the nun) speaks into (“Catholic girls are scary!”).

Cardinal: Oh, the Pope warned me never to trust the CIA!

Darwin Mayflower introduces his intentions with “I’m the villain!” It’s a film that can be that flippant about its artifice. Yet Walters cannot just right gags, great lines flow from his pen (apologies if this was a de Souza).

Darwin Mayflower: I’ll torture you so slowly, you’ll think it’s a career.

As Lehmann also notes during his commentary, Hawk did the dog flying out of a window gag seven years before There’s Something About Mary. It also indulged cruelty to soft toys, namely Pokey (“Can you believe that kooky little elephant?”)


When all else fails, and the unlikeliness of the plot is exposed (Tommy’s escape from a fiery wreck) there’s nothing else to do but acknowledge it.

Hudson Hawk: Yeah, that’s probably what happened.

And tonally, once you’ve been introduced to the surrealistic tendencies, the sudden lurches into gore still come as a jolt; when the parole officer request his cut, Alfred slashes his throat open (“So much for his “cut”. Forgive my dry, British humour”). When Minerva takes Darwin literally and shoots Ig and Ook, Darwin exclaims, “God, Minerva! I was only joking!” before leading her on an impromptu waltz. There’s even a rape joke. It’s the kind of ramshackle, take-no-prisoners approach that recalls John Landis at his peak.


Back, briefly, to George Kaplan. Not only is Coburn’s performance a joy, his lines are solid gold. From quoting “the late, great” Karen Carpenter, to reminiscing about the heady days of the Cold War.

George Kaplan: Yes, I have always had a soft spot in my heart for Rome. I did my first bare-handed strangulation here. Communist politician.
Hudson Hawk: Why George, you big softie.

As noted, the musical numbers didn’t go down well. Lehmann notes that they debated how big to go with it (sung or given the full orchestral backing) but he was absolutely right with his choices. There’s an unfettered glee in the way that, as the “number” finishes, Hawk and Tommy are not even paying attention to their surroundings any more (they are supposed to be engaged in a robbery).


Dante Spinotti’s cinematography is gorgeous, although it’s never certain where he begins and originally contracted Jost Vacano (a frequent Verhoeven collaborator) ends.  Then there are the jump cut scene transitions, which are a willful affront to narrative logic; Hawk falls from the roof of a building towards an awning, “landing” in a chair in front of the Mario brothers.


It is nearly 22 years since Hudson Hawk was released, and it seems unlikely that it will ever be fully rehabilitated as a neglected comic masterpiece. It has a dedicated cult following though, which may not seem like much given that any old crap can have an underswell of appreciation. I don’t know if Willis has ever spoken about the film, but he should embrace it to his bosom in the knowledge that other comedy flops that have been recognised as classics in the fullness of time (Duck Soup, Bringing Up Baby) and still more remain tantalizingly on the periphery of wider acclaim or acceptance. Yes, there are elements that don’t work, gags that fizzle and moments that are over-played, but Hudson Hawk is the most lovely of failures; one that reveals not an empty carcass, bereft of life, but a strange, unruly, crazed creature that just needs a little openness and understanding to appreciate.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …