Skip to main content

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.

That and the casting. Hurt is solid, but not really a perfect fit for such mainstream fare, bringing ill-serving passivity and introspection to a character whose most noteworthy trait is a very capable ability to reimagine the scene of the crime and the circumstances leading up to the victims’ deaths (in the novel, Renko is said to suffer from the made-up Pathoheterodoxy Syndrome, or “misguided arrogance”). If Renko sounds like a pet detective (as in, the author’s pet), Smith would use him in a further seven tomes. I can feel Netflix calling…

Hurt’s supported by Joanna Pacula, whose character knew two of the victims, and further American muscle in the form of Brian Dennehy, filling out the kind of brawny sidekick role you entirely expect of him. If anything, there isn’t enough Dennehy, although he’s memorably disposed of at a late stage, courtesy of disembowelment by Lee Marvin’s sable-smuggling businessman. Marvin’s fine; he always makes an impression, even here where he’s called upon to underplay, but the intended Burt Lancaster would have been better.

The ante ups agreeably during the Stockholm-set closing stages of the picture, when the net draws in on Marvin. Unfortunately, though, the sheer mundanity of his operation rather lessens the impact of the web of intrigue Renko becomes embroiled in. Sure, there’s the requisite dodgy superior (it’s clear quite early on that Ian Bannen’s Chief Prosecutor Iamskoy isn’t straight as a die), and the KGB are constantly lurking on the edges of the investigation, but Apted fails to create the kind of oppressive atmosphere that would ensure a lingering impact.

In principle, Gorky Park represents a nice shift from the norm: a Cold War thriller from point of view of the Soviets. But the movie lacks the resonance of more “authentic” western protagonist fare; maybe it’s partly the hurdle of presenting a Hollywood-ised, English-speaking tale that does for it – more recently, both Child 44 and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo went down underwhelmingly – but the presence of a broad selection of British faces in the cast tends to underline that this is from the same era as classic La Carré, just much lower calorie (both Bannen and Alexander Know had appeared din Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, while Hurt eschews his native accent for an English one).

You’ve also got two later Withnail & I players: Michael Elphick (as Renko’s sergeant) and Richard Griffiths. Plus Alexei Sayle as a Muscovite wideboy. Best of the lot is the same year’s Emperor Palpatine, Ian McDiarmid, in the part of a professor asked to reconstruct the faceless faces; it’s the one role where you can actually hear Potter’s voice coming to the fore (“Promise me I can have your face when the breath has left your body”) and McDiarmid relishes it.

There are other well-written scenes; Hurt meets with Marvin, more concerned with the food on his lip than the corpses; Hurt’s confrontation with Bannen in a bath house. And there’s a nimble piece of action where Renko leaps, Bourne-like, through a window to save Pacula. For the most part, though, you wouldn’t place the screenwriter’s involvement if you hadn’t been told. Likewise, you might not realise Helsinki was cast as Russia. Unsurprising, given the less than laudatory depiction of the KGB, although the reason given for denying access was that there was no crime of the movie’s ilk there. Naturally. James Horner furnishes a disappointingly anonymous score, the epitome of intrusive 80s blare, which rather adds to the sense of Gorky Park’s lack of finesse where it counts. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

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 .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.