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

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…