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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

How do you like that – Cuddles knew all the time!

The Pleasure Garden (1925)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s first credit as director, and his account of the production difficulties, as related to Francois Truffaut, is by and large more pleasurable than The Pleasure Garden itself. The Italian location shoot in involved the confiscation of undeclared film stock, having to recast a key role and borrowing money from the star when Hitch ran out of the stuff.

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.

I’m not the Jedi I should be.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)
(SPOILERS) Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the only series entry (thus far) I haven’t seen at the cinema. After the first two prequels I felt no great urgency, and it isn’t an omission I’d be hugely disposed to redress for (say) a 12-hour movie marathon, were such a thing held in my vicinity. In the bare bones of Revenge of the Sith, however,George Lucas has probably the strongest, most confident of all Star Wars plots to date.

This is, after all, the reason we have the prequels in the first place; the genesis of Darth Vader, and the confrontation between Anakin and Obi Wan. That it ends up as a no more than middling movie is mostly due to Lucas’ gluttonous appetite for CGI (continuing reference to its corruptive influence is, alas, unavoidable here). But Episode III is also Exhibit A in a fundamental failure of casting and character work; this was the last chance to give Anakin Skywalker substance, to reveal his potential …

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

I think the exorcism made the problem worse.

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
(SPOILERS) While I’ve seen instalments the originaland III a number of times, until now I hadn’t got round to checking out the near-universally reviled first Exorcist sequel. Going in, I had lofty notions Exorcist II: The Heretic would reveal itself as not nearly the travesty everyone said it was, that it would rather be deserving of some degree of praise if only it was approached in the right manner. Well, there is something to that; as a sequel to The Exorcist, it sneers at preconceptions right off the bat by wholly failing to terrify, so making its determined existence within the fabric of that film becomes downright bizarre (the relationship is almost like Back to the Future Part II to Back to the Future, but not). Further still, it warrants a twisted validation for being its own thing, refusing to rehash its predecessor like 90% of sequels, then and now, thus exerting fascination all its own. Unfortunately, John Boorman’s film is also equal parts lis…