Skip to main content

And my father was a real ugly man.

Marty
(1955)

(SPOILERS) It might be the very unexceptional good-naturedness of Marty that explains its Best Picture Oscar success. Ernest Borgnine’s Best Actor win is perhaps more immediately understandable, a badge of recognition for versatility, having previously attracted attention for playing iron-wrought bastards. But Marty also took the Palme d’Or, and it’s curious that its artistically-inclined jury fell so heavily for its charms (it was the first American picture to win the award; Lost Weekend won the Grand Prix when that was still the top award).

Perhaps it was the way Marty carried with it an upfrontness, and unabashed sense of honesty, as epitomised by its title character, that felt fresh. That, and its (TV) play origins, of a mere two years earlier, pitched as “a guy who goes to a ballroom”, are never in doubt. It’s an interior, character-driven piece of one-on-one conversations, regardless of the exteriors director Delbert Mann (also the director of the Philco Television Playhouse production) brings to the material. Rod Steiger led the TV version – there are different accounts of who didn’t want him in the film, Steiger himself or producers Harold Hecht and Burt Lancaster – which ran a half hour shy of the feature version, but Marty the movie nevertheless ranks as the shortest Best Picture winner.

That’s a blessing, in that it doesn’t outstay its welcome, but I have to agree with Tony Schwartz’s New York Times critique of the TV version’s “stilted subplot about his mother’s attempts to convince a sister to move into their household”. However, that element, also found here, does serve to emphasise the bind of Marty Piletti’s situation, 35, living with his mother and constantly being harangued that he “should be ashamed of yourself” for not being married; when he does find someone, everyone it seems, from his best friend to his mother, suddenly wants him to be exactly the Marty he always was, which offers them a familiarity and a safety zone. For his part, every romantically-inclined social interaction is painful: “I’m just a fat, ugly man” and “Whatever it is that women like, I ain’t got it”. He’s entirely matter-of-fact about his lot, but gets on with his (lack of) life anyway, and as such, you can’t help but sympathise with him.

Marty’s turning point when it comes is genuinely touching, meeting Clara (Betsy Blair, Gene Kelly’s wife and then blacklisted), who has already been snubbed at the ballroom by someone upset at finding himself with “a dog”. “Dog” evidently meant something of what it means now then, although I suspect it was slightly less derisory, or we wouldn’t have such blunt dialogue as “You see, you’re not such a dog as you think you are” and “See, dogs like us. We ain’t such dogs as we think we are”.

Blair, who was also nominated, gives a very understated, keenly self-aware performance, as downtrodden as Marty and just as resigned to her situation. The scene in which, having returned to his house, she resists letting him kiss her, is quite shocking in its way (“All I wanted was a lousy kiss!”), suggesting an undercurrent of rejected rage even as Marty epitomises the mild-mannered lug, instantly regretting his outburst (Chayefsky argued there were intentional undercurrents in his play, of both Oedipal and latently homosexual nature, the latter of which he considered worthy of a study in the “normal” American male; those elements, particularly in respect of best pal Ange’s annoyance and the manner in which his pals are all talk, remain resonant in the picture).

One of the main rumours you’ll read about Marty is that Lancaster and Hecht had expected to claim the movie as a tax write-off, so convinced were they it would lose money. But it has other notables to its name also, including being the first American film since World War II to be shown in the Soviet Union. It’s perhaps debatable whether Borgnine would have snagged the Oscar with the benefit of hindsight, since Frank Sinatra, Spencer Tracy and most of all a posthumous James Dean were in the running, and given that his subsequent career was very much not that of a lead player.

As for its Best Picture win, it remains innocuous, a blue-collar Joe movie à la Rocky, but without that film’s get-behind-him, path-to-glory element. Another adaptation, Mister Roberts, is the better known and probably more loved nominee today, although Pauline Kael could be relied upon not to like either much; Marty was “small-scale, overly celebrated” and victim to Chayefsky’s “insistence on the humanity of “little” people, and his attempt to create poetry out of humble, drab conversations”. I think she’s too harsh on it; whatever faults it has are writ large in the indulgent scenes between the mother and her sister, but the performances of Borgnine and Blair ensure the picture remains genuinely affecting.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

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.

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979) Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.