Skip to main content

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.

But then, leanness, precision and focus have never really been Barry Levinson’s deal. He’s good with character and with actors, to the extent that the alchemy of performance and story hit its resounding sweet spot with deserved Best Picture and Director wins for Rain Man, but he’s otherwise marked out by being a seamless journeyman, not so very far from Rob Reiner (who also saw a successful spate during the period of Levinson’s zenith).

You look at Levinson’s best work from the ‘80s – Diner, Tin Men, Rain Man, even the very patchy Good Morning, Vietnam – and they’re characterised by the unobtrusive anonymity of a director who knows not to get in the way. Certainly, there’s nothing in them to suggest he’d be ideally placed to turn in outright genre fare such as a gangster movie (any more than for an Amblin fantasy effects piece, Young Sherlock Holmes). This flitting would lead to uneven results throughout the course of the next decade, with the likes of Disclosure, Sphere and Bandits; in retrospect, it doesn’t seem so surprising that he hasn’t had a hit in a decade, as if his top-of-the-world run was a fluke (ditto Reiner).

Levinson started out as a writer, so he certainly has a sense of a scene, but there’s also a sense of someone trying too hard when it comes to impressing artistic stylings onto Bugsy, most notably the meta element of filmmaking (Bugsy’s first meeting with Annette Bening’s Virginia Hill on a film set, their making out in silhouette against a projection screen). With the support of a mediocre Ennio Morricone score, one that serves only to remind one of other, superior mob movies (The Untouchables, Once Upon a Time in America, even State of Grace), Bugsy lacks a sense of urgency or danger in the mob element (at least, until very late in the day, and even then, almost nonchalantly) and seems to believe we’re as invested in the Bugsy-Virginia romance as Beatty clearly is in Bening.

The strange thing about the film is that there’s lots of really good material here, even while it fails to come together as a whole and leaves you feeling curiously unaffected. Unaffected aside, that is, from being slightly askance at the manner in which, at the final titles, we are presented with the vindication of Bugsy’s big Vegas idea, an idea that really came from William Wilkerson, who doesn’t get so much as a mention; the Flamingo Las Vegas Hotel Casino, which devoured spiralling costs to the tune of $6m and eventually got Siegel whacked, has since made $100bn. You see, Bugsy’s a visionary hero.

Purportedly, the now persona non grata Toback lost all his research on Siegel, and under the clock of a threatining rival project, Beatty asked him to knock something together based on what he remembered. The result features some marvellous material for the producer-star, from Bugsy’s elocution practice, to his screen test, to his precision with regard to language, be it the wrath visited on those calling him Bugsy (“A bug is a colloquialism”) or misused words (“Uninterested. Disinterested is impartial. Uninterested means not interested”). Then there’s his crazy desire to kill Mussolini (Ben Kinsley’s Meyer Lansky implores him never to tell anyone else this as it makes him look like a nut) and the observation early on that comes back to bite him: “Ben has one problem – he doesn’t respect money”. But set down the they are by Levinson, they seem like vignettes rather than acting in the service of a greater story. A scene where Bugsy, sporting a chef’s hat, must juggle making food for his daughter’s birthday with selling the Flamingo idea to Meyer and fielding calls from Mickey Cohen (Harvey Keitel) is entertaining, but there’s never any mistaking what it is: a lower energy riff on Henry Hill’s last day of freedom in Goodfellas.

It takes a while for Bening to unpack a character in Virginia Hill, having to play someone Bugsy may or may not fully know and given dialogue such as “Why don’t you go outside and jerk yourself a soda” (fittingly, this comes shortly after the line “Dialogue’s cheap in Hollywood, Ben”). The makers settle on Hill having genuine affection for Siegel, but there are some rocky scenes here, such as her making love to him while he’s stuffing his face. Keitel’s Cohen is even more of an age aberration than Beatty’s Bugsy, but he’s great; both he and Kingsley were Oscar nominated, but Keitel has the edge due to being awarded the more substantial character. There are also notable bits for Elliott Gould, Joe Mantegna (as George Raft) and Bebe Neuwirth.

Beatty might well have thought he was going to finish the night with the big one (Anthony Holden tells it that way in The Oscars – The Secret History of Hollywood’s Academy Awards), what with Bugsy being the most nominated film that year (at ten) and his attracting additional attention in the season’s run up for finally settling down as a father and husband. Particularly so with Dick Tracy having been a technical awards-only fizzle the previous year (perhaps most shocking about all this was the surge in profile, the increasingly inactive star releasing two movies in consecutive years).

And yet, the same would hold true for Bugsy, claiming only art direction and costume design (the traditional go-to territory of the period piece). The Wilkinson controversy hadn’t done it any favours (although, pretty much any factually based nominee must expect such scrutiny), while Holden suspects voters might have regarded it as the account of “a somewhat two-dimensional, cardboard cut-out gangster, despite the hype suggesting that Beatty the actor had never shown more range”. I think it’s more this: Levinson, as is his wont, failed to create a movie with a sufficient point of view – aside from suggesting a vague, misplaced ennoblement – and the story similarly lacked a punch. Both were in thrall to their star – his romance, his scene-stealing – whereas Levinson’s earlier successes had blended the elements of character, story and star power cogently. Bugsy is thus handsome but hollow.

If Beatty had gone to, say Brian De Palma, then it might have been a different story. But De Palma is the star of his films. Levinson managed a couple of minor hits during the subsequent decade – Disclosure, Sleepers, Wag the Dog – but none of them felt fully formed either. He has since become more associated with big screen dreck (What Just Happened, Rock the Kasbah), while eking out a comfortable TV biopic niche (You Don’t Know Jack, The Wizard of Lies, Paterno) with the likes of Pacino and De Niro. Beatty mustered three more pictures (flops Love Affair, Town and Country and the still dazzling Bulworth) before his recent seemingly-forever-vaunted Howard Hughes jaunt, the dud Rules Don’t Apply. I don’t expect to see anything further from him any time soon, if ever, so Bugsy will go down as his last realistic hope of (further) Oscar recognition.


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 can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

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.

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985)
(SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and gleefully distr…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).