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.

Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

You have a very angry family, sir.

Eternals (2021) (SPOILERS) It would be overstating the case to suggest Eternals is a pleasant surprise, but given the adverse harbingers surrounding it, it’s a much more serviceable – if bloated – and thematically intriguing picture than I’d expected. The signature motifs of director and honestly-not-billionaire’s-progeny Chloé Zhao are present, mostly amounting to attempts at Malick-lite gauzy natural light and naturalism at odds with the rigidly unnatural material. There’s woke to spare too, since this is something of a Kevin Feige Phase Four flagship, one that rather floundered, showcasing his designs for a nu-MCU. Nevertheless, Eternals manages to maintain interest despite some very variable performances, effects, and the usual retreat into standard tropes, come the final big showdown.