Skip to main content

You must be one of those hardened criminals that corrupts the younger offender.

The Anderson Tapes
(1971)

(SPOILERS) A cult curio. Simultaneously ahead of its time in its pre-Watergate grasp of all-pervading surveillance and behind it in its quirky technique, this second collaboration between Sean Connery and Sidney Lumet succeeds in both engaging and vaguely dissatisfying. The essential problem is that Lumet probably wasn’t the ideal guy for the job. The Anderson Tapes needed someone with a much tighter control of the frame; indeed, this would probably be the Brian De Palma picture, if only it hadn’t been another half decade before he had the clout to command this sort of budget.

Lumet commented of the picture that “It’s actually very simply done, and that’s part of why it’s so much fun and so gay and it’s got life in it. It’s because there’s very little directorial composition” (in Sidney Lumet: Interviews) Conversely, I think that’s the reason the surveillance side, complete with rather atonal electronica courtesy of the Quincy Jones soundtrack, never really clicks as it should in terms of the picture’s attempts to suggest pervasive paranoia.

In part, there’s a key intentional aspect to this in the Frank Pierson (Dog Day Afternoon, Presumed Innocent) screenplay, an adaptation of Lawrence Sanders’ novel. None of the various surveillance parties (PI, DEA, FBI, IRS) are actually after Connery’s Duke Anderson; in his quest to stage his burglary, he merely slips – or lumbers – between various operations and stings, but none of these preoccupied agencies are interested in following up on his motives.

There’s considerable opportunity for satire here, or even just knockabout jokes at the expense of government bodies getting in each other’s way (as The President’s Analyst played on about five years earlier). One might posit the currently percolating idea that all this surveillance doesn’t add up to much if you don’t know what you’re looking for (which is what why we “need” the AIs), but again, Lumet just sort of leaves any significance hanging there. The likes of The Conversation and Blow Out made much of the paranoia element of being monitored, but since Anderson is mostly unaware he’s being watched (except when girlfriend Dyan Cannon’s rich gentleman friend reveals he knows everything), it has no impact on the operation. There’s a dramatic disconnect here, and because the nature of the agency operations is, for the most part, intentionally oblique, little tension is generated for the viewer. At best, they provoke mild curiosity.

The robbery element is more effective, much of it flourishing the iconography of your classic heist (boiler suits and facemasks). Well, I say more effective. There’s never any sense that Anderson has much in the way of smarts; he’s no Danny Ocean, that’s for sure (although Connery, famously going rugless for the first time, has a haircut that slight resembles Clooney’s mid-90s look). He’s no sooner released from a ten-year stretch and reunited with Dyan Cannon’s Ingrid than he’s deciding to pull a job on her entire apartment building. Very sensible if you’re intent on covering your tracks. He secures mob financing, but they require him a to bring along and plug a dodgy thug as part of the deal (Val Avery’s Socks); any self-respecting safe cracker would call the whole thing off there and then.

On the surface, Anderson seems to have done his homework, bringing in old associate Haskins (Martin Balsam having a ball camping it up) to figure out the necessaries in casing the joint. However, he also makes a series of odd choices, sentimentally including Stan Gottlieb’s old-timer Pop, who really isn’t up to it, and taking at face value paraplegic kid Jimmy (Paul Benjamin) when he attests he can’t do anything to impede their robbery in progress (Anderson is out of the door and Jimmy is straight into his cupboard and on his ham radio). Anyone who’s a stickler for a precision operation would have a fit.

But the dynamic of this section of the picture is tense and commanding – Pauline Kael called it “energetic but coarsely made” – particularly when we can see the police actions outside. It’s like a test run for the siege of Lumet’s later Dog Day Afternoon. The New York location filming is a highlight, as it would be for that film. An additional conceit of flashforwards is thrown into the mix when the crew are looting the individual apartments, with the victims interviewed about their experiences. Again, though, it doesn’t add up to very much (albeit, there are some nice character sketches among them, including an old lady who enjoys being robbed and the guy who’d rather see his wife beaten up than give away the combination of his safe).

Indeed, when the police are in the building and the gang make their failed escape, the picture is all set for Anderson’s escape… which comes to nothing. The cops rather “fortunately” hear Connery breathing on one of the surveillance devices at an opportune moment and his plans are scuppered. You can see the fingerprints of the ending that wasn’t here; Connery was originally intended to take off in a van pursed by helicopters, but Columbia nixed it on the grounds of higher moral codes away from the debauched theatres: “They were afraid they wouldn’t get a good TV sale” as Lumet put it.

Connery’s really good, of course. He’s the glue that holds The Anderson Tapes together. But Anderson is a strangely drawn character. He appears to be a decent enough boyfriend, yet begins the picture with an ugly analogy comparing safecracking to rape – is it just to impress his fellow inmates? Christopher Bray, in Connery: Measure of a Man, refers to the original novel presenting his character as “an existential individualist whose every crime is seen as a noble challenge to the authority of an overweening state”. There’s little of that kind of self-awareness on display, except in Anderson’s cynicism regarding the illusory difference between the legal and illegal; he launches into a tirade against advertising, marriage, the stock market, and he takes apart the basis of insurance companies, suggesting that stealing from someone who is insured benefits everyone – the victim, the company, and the police – before amending his perspective to a more perfunctory “It’s bullshit. It’s just dog eat dog, but I want the first bite”.

There’s also strong soiled support from the likes of Avery and Alan King (as mob guy Angelo, who has misgivings over Anderson’s work). Christopher Walken is fully formed and charismatic in his role as fellow ex-con the Kid; he’d do little notable screen work between then and his Oscar-winning turn The Deer Hunter seven years later.

The Anderson Tapes culminates in the various agencies ordering the erasure of their illegal recordings; the idea that the government would now erase anything pertaining to constant surveillance of its citizens, legal or otherwise, is entirely laughable, of course (just look around you, if they’ll let you outside to do so). One of those offbeat thrillers the 70s managed to turn out quite regularly, then, but one definitely comes away feeling that another director could have turned it into a classic.


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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism