Skip to main content

You’re going to have a lot of trouble getting in… but you’ll never get out.


Point Blank
(1967)

(SPOILERS) The Cliff’s Notes for Point Blank require one to note its nouvelle vague influence (fractured time lines and the ilk), but the likelihood is that anyone coming fresh to the film now will be fully au fait with its various stylistic and narrative devices, so assimilated are they into the mainstream. Still striking, however, is John Boorman’s stylistic sensibility, coming on like a noir comic strip brought to life, yet shot through with Technicolor purpose. It’s an existential mood piece, yes, but it’s translated into the language of an action spectacle, one with a particularly dark sense of humour.

Steven Soderbergh hosted a commentary track for the movie with director John Boorman (the latter’s Hollywood debut), in which he admits to having stolen from Point Blank many times. That much is plain, but his copying is characteristically Xerox-thin, absence the attitude and point of view brought to bear by Boorman and star Lee Marvin (as Walker). Just look at The Limey, also built around an out-of-time revenger and concise in its length. Yet contrastingly rather flaccid when it isn’t energised by a ferocious Terence Stamp, and bearing the tell-tale signs of its somewhat turbulent readjustments in order to shape it into a passably functional state on screen.

Soderberg referred to Point Blank as a memory film, and there’s no argument that it encourages a less than entirely literal approach to its proceedings. It’s there in the framing, the architecture, the lighting and the claustrophobic sparsity of inhabitants. Is this Walker’s dying revenge fantasy, having been shot on Alcatraz by erstwhile accomplice Rees (John Vernon)? Chris (Angie Dickinson) seems to think so: “You died at Alcatraz, alright”. Boorman offered no opinion, admitting Walker could just as easily be a shadow or a ghost as the live article. But the soundtrack, before diving into our protagonist’s mission to secure his $93,000, repeats “a dream… a dream”, and frequently returns to Walker’s “dying” moments while offering disorientating montages (the clothed/unclothed Walker and Chris). Chris’ sister (Sharon Acker) earlier recalls “Suddenly we were together” of their failed romance, as if to emphasise that none of this is happening outside of a spontaneous imagination.

Indeed, I was in minded of Nicolas Roeg’s juxtapositions, his blurring of subjective, objective, and time and place. And let’s not forget he and Donald Cammell made their directing debuts in the gangster milieu too, just a short time later. Although, I doubt Roeg would ever have considered making a genuine crime movie (Cammell certainly did).

Boorman also lends a propulsion to the Point Blank that’s at odds with the often indulgently less focussed milieu of the art movie; indeed, there’s an idea, one that will afflict you mightily if you check out the recent The Green Knight or any of Terrence Malick’s latter-day offerings, that for existential ramifications to be worthy, they must be slow, languid, devoid of dramatic engagement. Point Blank is a vibrant riposte to such a pseudy perspective (as is the cinema of Michael Mann, at its best anyway).

Indeed, the picture’s a delight in its kineticism, be it Walker’s percussive footsteps as he pursues his dogged quest down corridors and through streets and up tall buildings; is it a coincidence that the titles of the same year’s The Prisoner, the existential spy series par excellence, also began each episode with an audible march down a corridor? Walker breaks into Lynne’s apartment, brandishing his handgun, and blows away the bed (later, he will do the same to Brewster’s phone). There’s a fight – among film reels – at a psychedelic night club where the band’s “Ow!” performance forms a punchy accompaniment. Rees takes a tumble over the penthouse suite balcony, his bedsheet unravelling as he goes, as if in parody, a twisted inversion of a fairy tale.

Brewster (Carrol O’Connor) delivers a very funny remonstration of Walker’s behaviour – bridling against an enraged antagonist with a very big gun – in which he charges “You’re a very bad man, Walker. A very destructive man!” and all but mocks him for his inability to comprehend that the Organisation just does not parlay in cash. As Chris Peachment put it in Time Out, Walker, a ’50s anachronism – Robert Altman would later lean into something similar with The Long Goodbye – is “increasingly puzzled and frustrated when he finds there is no money, because the Organisation is the world of big business run by respectable men with wallets full of credit cards” (credit cards soon to boast carbon credits; one wonders how the Organisation would get around that. Perhaps put Great on the payroll). Peachment also drew parallels with Godard’s Alphaville, whereby both “use the gangster/thriller framework to explore the increasing depersonalisation of living in a mechanised urban world”.

Walker is on a quest for answers, Number Six is plied for answers, and when answers finally come into play for both, they prove paradoxically elusive. We see Walker break into the numerologically significant Henley hotel, run by the Organisation (1111, or 11:11). Walker is ostensibly tracking down his money, yet that in itself is an existential McGuffin. What he really wants is more elusive (we never see him take his cash, if indeed it is cash in the package).

And like any quality existential musing, there’s ultimate doubt cast on the validity of his motivation; it turns out that Yost (Keenan Wynn) is Organisation man Fairfax, getting Walker to do his dirty work. Who are the Organisation, ultimately? Is Yost the man on top? Or like the Elite, is there always someone one level above? Boorman invoked Arthurian legend in respect of Yost (“the mysterious figure who comes and goes”). He’d be doing a lot more of that in the future.

Point Blank was based on a Donald Westlake novel (The Hunter), one later remade by Mel Gibson as Payback (with, famously, two different cuts, after Gibson had production designer John Myhre reshoot thirty percent of Brian Helgeland’s version). The cast – Dickinson, Wynn, Vernon, Acker; James Sikking would later play another hit man in Peter Hyams’ Narrow Margin, quite possibly cast in homage – are all good. This is arguably Marvin’s movie, however (albeit, one could readily imagine a more commercial take with James Coburn). It was Marvin who “transferred” his star approval he granted by the studio to Boorman, and thus his carte blanche.

Pauline Kael called the picture “Showoffy, brutal, somewhat inexplicable” determining that it was the director’s “virtuosity that is the star…Point Blank, she muttered, offered “more energy and invention than Boorman seems to know what to do with”. Other movies would subsequently attempt this seemingly effortless existential action pose (The Driver; Soderbergh, of course), but there’s a very thin line between pulling it off and making it seem either a pretentious doodle or emotionally inert, such is the manner in which many of the elements of the traditional thriller are pared down to essentials of dynamic and aesthetic.


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