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.

**

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .