Skip to main content

How're you gonna round up a rattlesnake?


The Electric Horseman
(1979)

Director Sydney Pollack’s fourth teaming with Robert Redford (and second with Jane Fonda) is a warm but “soft” critique of the erosion of individual values and the encroaching blight of corporate greed. Just the kind of fare you’d expect from the lead duo, really, but a bit lacking in teeth when it comes down to it. Also a bit lacking in logic in places, but it’s clear that star and director have their eyes on the bigger message rather than the “minutae” of plotting.

Washed-up rodeo star Sonny Steele (Redford) has been reduced to selling breakfast cereal (Ranch Breakfast!). He spends most of his time drunk or making public appearances in a suit bedecked with lights, riding a twelve million dollar race horse (owned by the company). Or both. When he discovers that his employers have been drugging said horse, mistreating it and pumping it full of steroids, Sonny rides her off the Vegas strip and a national manhunt for him and gee-gee begins. Jane Fonda’s journalist (Hallie Martin) quickly works out where Steele is, and tags along with him in his effort to release the horse into the wild. Of course, romance blossoms.

Pollack’s film might have been more satisfying if it had kept in focus the clash between big business and the individual. As such, the first half is the most satisfying, as jaded Steele discovers that he does actually care. The corporation, meanwhile, attempts to manipulate the media and exercise as much damage limitation as possible to present Steele in a bad light. One can’t help but feel that more could have been made of this, particularly as John Saxon’s mogul is a delightfully malign force; the more he is built up, the more pleasure there is to be had in Sonny getting the better of him. However, in the second half, the already leisurely pace reduces to an amble, as Sonny and Hallie travel by foot to a remote canyon to release the equine.

One might suggest that Sonny’s journey represents the rediscovery of traditional American values within him. But, despite the cowboy iconography, Pollack never really seems to be hearkening back to a bygone era so much as pointing out an awareness of what has been lost as a value within us. Both Sonny and the horse break free from the corrupting influence of a society founded upon money above all else, and they do so by leaving behind the urban jungle (overtly represented by Las Vegas as a wretched hive of scum and villainy) to be cleansed by the natural world.

Along the way, Fonda’s fastidious reporter is taught to lighten up too, even though she doesn’t ultimately break with her lifestyle. This isn’t a great Fonda role, truth be told; her chemistry with Redford is ever-present, but the character is overly-familiar and far less engaging than her journo in the same year’s The China Syndrome. In addition, Fonda’s hampered by an extremely unflattering perm.

Realism is low on the film’s list of priorities. Particularly anomalous is Sonny’s concern for the horse, which he then rides the hell out of to escape the law. Perhaps not the most remedial of treatments (and, I’m no horse whisperer, but would she actually take to the wild?) But this is all metaphor, and as such the whole is gently persuasive. And crowd-pleasing; Pollack throws in an extended chase sequence halfway through the film. If nothing else the ability to outrun police vehicles and cause mass carnage should inform the viewer that this is not to be taken too literally.

This was Willie Nelson’s first acting role, as one of Redford’s aides, and he acquits himself agreeably. Wilford Brimley appears too (an ex rodeo rider himself); he also appeared with Fonda in The China Syndrome.

*** 

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…

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…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …