Skip to main content

Man, I didn’t pull you out. I kept you from pulling me in.

The Defiant Ones
(1958)

(SPOILERS) The progenitor of the buddy movie – most notably, 48Hrs took the template and freshened it up, with laughs rather than social commentary emphasising the racial divide – The Defiant Ones certainly couldn’t be called subtle in its conceit. But that upfront quality is key to its success… and Best Picture Oscar nomination; the Academy still loves to be led by the nose with regard to issue-based material.

Fugitives from a prison truck mishap, Noah Cullen (Sidney Poitier) and Joker Jackson (Tony Curtis) attempt to outrun the pursuing posse, heading for a train that promises to take them to safety. There’s just a little problem en route that they’re at each other’s throats, of course, Joker manifesting as an undiluted racist who uses the n-word in their first exchange and habitually calls Noah “boy”. Because they’re chained together, though – Robert Mitchum turned the role down on the basis of realism, that blacks and whites would never be chained together in the South – they have to learn to help each other, and so, inevitably develop tolerance and finally respect through a series of trials and hardships (surfing rapids, climbing out of a clay pit, a lynching, with some impressive actual stunts performed by the leads along the way).

The material is much too obvious to get by now (you’d have to tone it down to Green Book levels of mutual mistrust to get a free pass, and even then…), but Stanley Kramer’s film remains potent on a key, core level: dramatic heft. The director’s oeuvre can often look not a little earnest with the benefit of hindsight – albeit, he was often called out even at the time – but the best of them share this quality. It helps considerably that The Defiant Ones’ convicts are performed with such conviction. Curtis is often characterised post- his Some Like It Hot persona, the point at which he began, by dint of broad comic playing there, to descend into caricature. Here, he’s never less than compelling, even if he can’t entirely establish the veneer of a hardened con. It’s a role that, while it inevitably leads to a point of relieving Joker of an entirely vilifiable status, doesn’t go in for massaging a rising star’s ego. The points regarding prejudice are often crudely made – Joker’s prolonged anecdote about parking cars – and the emphasis that he is, relatively, a good man comes at the expense of revealing Cara William’s desperate deserted housewife to be the most coldly ruthless character in the picture (and that includes the lynch mob), but Kramer doesn’t wrap the character’s “progress” (if you will) in a neat bow, or speech.

Joker: You calling me a weasel?
Cullen: No, I’m calling you a white man.

Poitier’s performance is the more interesting, because it’s in stark contrast to the more genteel types of the heyday of his stardom (or, as his Wiki page notes, he “began to be criticised for being typecast as over-idealised African-American characters who were not permitted to have any personality faults”). Noah represents a much rawer role than we tend to associate with the actor, and the performance consequently feels much fresher than we might expect. It’s notable that, while they receive equal billing – reputedly at Curtis’ insistence, though Curtis does rather go to town on how instrumental he perceives himself as being to the picture’s success – the obligatory romantic subplot is at the expense of his role, meaning that he’s side lined for a significant period.

There’s good support dotted throughout, particularly Lon Chaney Jr as an ex-fugitive who defends them and releases them from the lynch mob, and Theodore Bikel as the fair-minded, moderate sheriff. Both Bikel and Williams were Oscar nominated, as were Curtis and Poitier, in the first lead nomination for a black actor. Out of eight nominations, including Best Picture, The Defiant Ones won two, for Black and White Cinematography and Original Screenplay; the latter as noted, is more uneven than its victory may suggest, but then the reward was for the message rather than the delivery. There’s a sense with the picture that, because it’s such an obvious premise, it almost writes itself, always a danger since the social conscience-driven movies of yesteryear can appear painfully ill-conceived with hindsight. But if you can get past the lack of nuance and occasional clumsiness of the execution, enjoying it for Kramer’s foregrounding rather than in spite of it, and that may be a big if, The Defiant Ones retains an appreciable impact. 


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

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

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.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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.

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.