Skip to main content

You get off this case or you don’t ever come home.

Someone to Watch Over Me
(1987)

(SPOILERS) It isn’t too difficult to see why Ridley Scott (Sir Ridders to you) was attracted to what has become one of his least conspicuous pictures. He had, after all, completed a trilogy of sci-fi/fantasy opuses, all of which had been criticised to a greater or less extent for favouring style and setting over substance. Here was his chance to respond to his critics, to deliver a fully-explored character piece, and set foot on solid contemporary ground (his first feature to do so). The problem with Someone to Watch Over Me is, while it is indeed a character piece through-and-through, certainly over the rather dissatisfying thriller elements when they sporadically surface, its characters aren’t all that interesting.


To be fair to Scott, he did receive some tempered praise in response, for making a low-key, atmospheric feature (albeit with copious dry ice drowsing a veritable cornucopia of lovingly framed architecture) that eschewed easy theatrics. And to be fairer still, not withstanding my comments in the opening paragraph, the project’s ties with the director extended back to 1982, so the tone and content may as much be coincidence as intent.


But Someone to Watch Over Me was a fizzle at the box office. Most damagingly, another tale of fall-out from marital infidelity, one also directed by a British former ad man, was the second most successful movie of 1987. One that engaged in the tawdry theatrics and superficial thrills of such illicit relationships and then some (both also feature the spurned wife slaying the antagonist, saving the helpless, culpable male). Fatal Attraction garnered all the column inches, captured the zeitgeist and even grabbed a Best Picture Oscar nomination. It seemed Scott, the great new name in cinema at the beginning of the decade (even in his 40s), was losing his touch.


The plot’s fairly straightforward; rich Manhattan socialite Claire Gregory (Mimi Rogers) witnesses an old chum being murdered by national monument-faced hoodlum Joey Venza (Andreas Katsulas, all one-dimensional despicability, although he’s got less to work with). Until the trial, she remains in danger if Venza can get to her (although the police don’t want her to know just how much danger), so she’s put under police guard, one of whom happens to be newly promoted NYPD detective Mike Keegan (Tom Berenger; his boss is resident Law & Order bloodhound Jerry Orbach). Keegan’s a blue collar guy, living in a cheap house in Queens with a salty wife (Ellie, Lorraine Bracco) and a precocious moppet of a son. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that distraught, lonely Claire, who has a prig of boyfriend (Crazy Like a John Rubinstein) will end up involved with the guy from the other side of the tracks.


Claire Gregory: I never saw anybody killed before.
Mike Keegan: I never been a detective before.

Some of the class and gender commentary is shrewdly observed, from Mike attempting to temper his natural tendency to bravado in the face of someone genuinely terrified, to Claire picking out his ties and gradually weaving a cultured spell; in due course, Mike is complaining to Ellie about her trash mouth, and quite understandably she retorts that he never cared before.


Bracco is absolutely terrific, and this is surely where Scorsese got the initiative to cast her in Goodfellas; natural, vibrant, smart, we’re completely on her side througout. That doesn’t necessarily mean the affair can’t work, quite the contrary, but we have to feel invested in the parties if we’re to develop conflicted emotions and face a quandary over how it should resolve itself. Instead, we just don’t care.


Rogers has given numerous strong performances, not least on behalf of the Church of Scientology, but Claire is inaccessible, glacially coiffured but inert as a character. Berenger, coming off Platoon and with ultimately short-lived prospects as a next-big-leading-man-thing, is solid, and has an easy rapport with Bracco, but there are no sparks between Mike and Claire. It’s all rather subdued and formal, like the picture Scott has taken pains to produce.


The contrast with how the other half lives doesn’t really help Scott’s cause either, not when he shoots their crappy house as if it’s starring in a chic commercial. You can still see the Blade Runner lifeblood pulsing through his veins in the way he captures the night-time New York cityscape. Every nightclub has a tech noir chic, the introductory one possessed of a basement that appears to have been transported from an exotic future locale (it was shot on the Queen Mary). Interiors are immaculately smoky and Scott’s ever-dependably looking for that highly-prized, distinctive shot; Berenger is framed from above on a subway train, foregrounded handgrips resembling some kind of other-worldly artefacts from Alien.


The score is variable, either too obvious (uber-rich, classy Claire listens to opera, all the bleeding time) or inadvisably evokes Blade Runner (Memories of Green is reprised). Elsewhere we get Sting singing Gershwin’s Someone to Watch Over Me, and… Fine Young Cannibals. Michael Kamen’s contribution (his only collaboration with Scott) is okay, when he isn’t turning up the Lethal Weapon sax.


Scott handles the set piece moments – the initial murder, the shooter in the house (the hall of mirrors boudoir, which Mike initially got lost in, now allows him to outmatch the perp) – with agreeable precision, but the climax is the silliest and most OTT of developments, following all this measured composure; it’s as if it they decided to “fix it” in reshoots, so at variance is the excess with the preceding film. Venza kidnaps Mike’s kid and holds him hostage. Yeah, that’s a plan. Couldn’t they come up with something giving him a little more credibility? He had, after all, extracted himself from a fairly watertight arrest.


The screenplay came courtesy of Howard Franklin, who worked on the previous year’s The Name of the Rose and subsequently wrote and directed Quick Change. There’s nothing especially wrong with it – the climax aside – but nothing to suggest why it caught Scott’s eye. Working in less rarefied territory, where world-building can no longer disguise flaws, would increasingly shine an unforgiving light on Sir Ridder’s greatest weakness, his erring eye for a screenplay. Someone to Watch Over Me came at the wrong point for the director, showing that he could make a merely an “okay” movie if he set his mind to it.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.