Skip to main content

You’re even more beautiful in person than you are in real life.

After the Fox
(1966)

(SPOILERS) I’ve always liked After the Fox, from when I first saw it as a youngster, in thrall to its catnip Burt Bacharach score while simultaneously perplexed by its final reveal. It has to be admitted, though, that it perhaps isn’t quite as funny as it might have been. And further, that it may have been a bit too clever to have stood a chance of garnering another The Pink Panther (1963) size hit for Peter Sellers (it came complete with animated-animal titles and potential hit single from The Hollies that failed to chart). Taking shots at Fellini movies simply isn’t the kind of thing that engenders mass-audience raves.

The Fox: If only I could steal enough to become an honest man.

Because, for a movie about a brilliant master thief, Neil Simon’s screenplay spends very little time on how brilliant he is, or indeed riffing on criminal tropes. It’s far more concerned with sending up the vanity of the movie industry, its seductiveness and affinity for pseudish self-regard. It was purportedly the latter element that attracted legendary The Bicycle Thieves (1948) director Vittorio De Sica, an unlikely choice on the face of things. Simon set out to target the art-house movie, and if Sellers involvement – Simon favoured a genuine Italian actor – turned it into a different beast, it also brought De Sica. If the collaboration was a less than joyous one, that shouldn’t be entirely surprising; Sellers, fuelled by several big hits and accompanying critical raves, was very much the prima donna by this stage (most conspicuously leading to his firing from the following year's Casino Royale).

Tony Powell: What’s neo-realism?
Harry Granoff: No money.

While these moviemaking sequences are amusing, they’re rarely uproariously funny, aside from Victor Mature’s winningly self-effacing turn as an unaware, baffled and dense over-the-hill, “internationally handsome” Hollywood star Tony Powell (who wears his trademark trench coat in every movie). One can readily appreciate the inanity of art cinema as summoned by Sellers’ Aldo Vanucci, posing as a neo-realist director Frederico Fabrizi (uh-huh) in order to facilitate smuggling the stolen Gold of Cairo into Italy, casting his sister (Britt Ekland) as the leading lady and desperately improvising motivation and plot to Powell: “No matter how fast you run, you can never run away from yourself!” To which Powell responds with an enthusiastically indiscriminate “It’s beautiful!

Vanucci: In films either you have got a face or you don’t got a face. You have got a face.

But much of the accompanying wash of eagerly dupable locals, dazzled at the thought of being stars of a real movie, is a little lacking. Lando Buzzanca makes an impression as the hapless town police chief, similarly seduced and incessantly practising his solitary line of “Good morning!” (Buzzanca would appear in another English-language comedy a few years later, essaying one of Monte Carlo or Bust’s stereotype sex-mad Italians). Martin Balsam is the solitary rock of sanity as Powell’s manager, who knows something’s very wrong with this picture but is unable to convince his star of the same. There’s also amusement to be had when the shockingly inept footage is shown in court; a film critic leaps to its defence, claiming it “A work of art! I cried, I cried! It’s the greatest film to come out of Italy in forty years!

The consequence, however, is that the most enjoyably comedic parts of the movie come during the early stages, when Sellers gets to dress up and assume a variety of roles, from policeman to priest, his excursions accompanied by Bacharach’s delirious score. His early scenes of incarceration, which include the novel conceit of giving his visiting friends and family difficult-to-obtain desirables, finds Aldo offered respect from fellow inmates in the manner of Noel Coward in The Italian Job (1969) a couple of years later; it’s a wonder he was never tempted to do a Godfather spoof.

There are also laughs to be had at the suspiciously over-protective brother trope, with Aldo continually putting his foot in it in his attempts to keep Gina on the straight and narrow. This extends to his dalliance with the extraordinarily pulchritudinous Maria Grazia Buccella, going rather splendidly until Aldo discovers she is the sister of his business partner Okra (Akim Tamiroff). The most memorable sequence involving the two finds Aldo making a play for Buccella while the words coming from her mouth are those of Okra (he is seated behind her, in aid of an “inconspicuous” meet). This would be riffed on by Mike Myers in Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002), with Nathan Lane and Beyoncé Knowles.

Vanucci: When I give you the signal, do nothing, absolutely nothing.

It’s possible that After the Fox’s director wasn’t the man to mine the material’s comic potential to the max. Simon opined that De Sica’s editors didn’t understand the jokes, and that even recut, many funny moments were lost. Certainly, revisiting the final scene with Sellers at his most post-modern (or conversely, Goonish), what strikes me now is not the absurdity, but that the timing is off. As if he told De Sica his notion, and Di Sica didn’t really understand but let him run with it. Much as I appreciate the puncturing of Fellini et al, I can’t help think the movie After the Fox was sold as, with its daring cartoon fox bank robber and exaggerated Frazetti poster design, would have been a much funnier one.



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.

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…

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

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.

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.

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