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.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

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 glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.