Skip to main content

Yowza! Yowza! Yowza!


They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?
(1969)

Did Sydney Pollack’s film about a Depression Era dance marathon inspire Derek and Clive’s Non-Stop Dancer sketch (“I said, “All right, you non-stop dancer, start dancing”)? It would be perversely appropriate if it did, as They Shoot Horse, Don’t They? is Hollywood cinema at its most banal and self-important. Its characters wear their pain on their sleeves and the film does the same with a subtext so blatant it could only have come from an era when a strong message could be mistaken for depth.

It’s 1932, and a selection of hopefuls assemble under a big top to dance (and race) their way to a promised $1,5000. Hours turn into days and days into weeks. It’s a metaphor for life under the American capitalist system, geddit? The commentary is so overt that it is unsurprising to learn Jane Fonda only came on board after she was promised script input (the film is based on Horace McCoy’s 1935 novel, and was once lined up as a Charlie Chaplin vehicle, until he was labelled a Commie and refused re-entry to the States). With lines like, “Maybe it’s just the whole world is like Central Casting. They got it all rigged before you ever show up”, nothing is left for the viewer to intuit. Indeed, given the distance between how important the filmmakers think this is and the actual content, one has to lay the charge of pretentiousness at their door.

And yet, Horses appears to be held in consistently high regard; certainly in its home country. Or perhaps it’s that those who love it, really love it. I readily admit that although I knew the title (as I’m sure most people do) I had no advance awareness of the story. As realisation dawned that the entire film would constitute the dancing competition, furnished with woefully theatrical scenarios, and in the company of characters who elicit little sympathy but really suffer (and who, consequently, are dream roles for actors), I had that sinking feeling. Because the film becomes an endurance test for the viewer not dissimilar to the one for the characters. I even wondered if it was based on a play, as the confined setting and indulgent character vignettes lend themselves more to the stage than cinema. You could almost see the flip side of the pitch for the film as a Producers-esque disaster-waiting-to-happen (Leslie Nielsen would have been great in the Red Buttons role).

As it is the film just goes on and on and on, resistant to structural forms such as acts or dramatic turning points. To be fair, the last fifteen minutes do engage. But the rather clumsy gimmick of the flashback structure has already telegraphed this (early on we see that Michael Sarrazin’s Robert has been arrested).

Pollack isn’t as relaxed a storyteller at this point, or maybe he’s just indulging in the more experimental impulses of the era. Some of his choices, particular in an opening flashback to the childhood of Robert, are downright clumsy (such that, when the film’s title is finally uttered, it comes across more as a laboured punchline than a profound insight into the state of things). He’d directed TV for a number of years, and his first couple of features were jobbing director ones. But, in 1969, things changed. He’d just come off extensive reshoots on (arty, political) Burt Lancaster fable The Swimmer. His wannabe WWII art film Castle Keep was a bit of a mess but, like Horses, shows a desire to explore big ideas but without the required restraint or judgement to do so successfully. The success of Horses gave him the cachet to pursue his own projects, which tended to be much less ambitious in content and theme (but, invariably, quite successful) than either of these films.

Horses was highly acclaimed and garnered nine Oscar nominations (the highest ever without a Best Picture nod). Gig Young won Best Supporting Actor for his jaded compere (the actor died in a murder-suicide in 1978). The performances are strong across the board, albeit some are expectedly indulgent. Sarrazin is the reactive, reserved centre. Accordingly, it is Fonda’s brittle, caustic Gloria who invites the attention. This isn’t such an unfamiliar type for Fonda during that period, and neither is Susannah York’s Alice; both are expectedly accomplished and both received Academy nominations. York’s breakdown scene, in particular, is a moment where the film escapes its all-encompassing despair and becomes something more; alive. Also appearing are the great Bruce Dern, a very young Bonnie Bedelia (she seems to have spent most of the next 20 years on TV, until her late ‘80s rebirth) and Al “Grandpa Munster” Lewis.

It’s been interesting discovering (or revisiting) a few of Pollack’s films of late, especially since he is one of those seamless storytellers who doesn’t tend to betray himself with stylistic touches or particular narrative obsessions; you might not be able to tell one of his movies just by looking at it, but if you were told he had directed a given film you might well connect it to his trait of assured handling of material and the confidence to let it breathe. And while, of the four of his films I have looked at in the last few months (Horses, The Way We Were, Three Days of the Condor, The Electric Horseman), I would praise only one of them unreservedly (Condor) all of them have strong themes and accomplished performances, sufficient to make them worth investigating.

**

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.