Skip to main content

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment

(SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“boy forgives girl and all’s well”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Dobisch: Listen, Baxter. We made you, we can break you.

That soft centre to a rather crunchy bauble – a movie set over the Holiday period and culminating on New Year’s Eve – is absolutely the key to its success (Milne again: “its jaundiced vison leavened by a tender sympathy for the fragility of human motives”). The Apartment is irresistible, despite Lemmon’s occasional tendencies towards shameless mugging (admittedly, this is more a case of being reminded where his worst proclivities will later surface, albeit most often when tackling straight dramatic parts).

Margie: Some lover you are. Some sexpot.

It’s essential that Lemmon makes Bud Baxter likeable in spite of his willingness to sell any scruples or betray any backbone in order to climb the corporate ladder (Lemmon: “a nice guy but gullible, easily intimidated, and fast to excuse his behaviour. In the end, he changes because he faces up to having rationalised his morals. He realises he’s been a dumb kid, he’s been had”). We’re under no illusion that Wilder sees Bud’s job – working in an open-plan office on the nineteenth floor of an insurance corporation – as white-collar factory farming, soulless and dehumanising. Or that it breeds contempt in those that reach its top, their empathy thoroughly processed from them. And that’s a fair call.

One Pauline Kael chimed in on (in her essay Fantasies of the Art-House Audience), objecting, seemingly to everything about Wilder’s underlying statement. Because it was… well, I guess she’s saying it’s essentially facile: “It is a depressing fat that Americans tend to confuse morality and art… and that, among the educated, morality tends to mean social consciousness… explicit, machine-tooled, commercialised social consciousness”. Wilder, it seems is guilty of characterising the corporate players in inappropriate broad strokes and the serfs also: “little people are little dolls; the guys at the top are vicious and corrupt and unfaithful to their wives as well”. And that’s a problem because…

I mean, Wilder’s presenting a process of evolution here, evidently. Budd catches his soul exiting stage left only because he has feelings for the latest duped contest crossing his apartment threshold. For Kael, this is simplistic: “The moral is, stick to the bottom and you don’t have to do the dirty”. I confess, I can’t see anything wrong with that particular moral, because as broad morals go (and morals tend to be broad ones; that’s the idea), it’s fairly on target and legitimate. The idea that the capitalist system isn’t, by and large, suffocating of one’s essential self, the more immersed in it one becomes, shouldn’t really be up for debate. Most recognise it as an inherent truth, whether or not they’ll admit to it.

So again, when Kael snarks at The Apartment’s position, that is “so old-fashioned and irrelevant, its notions of virtue and vice so smugly limited, it’s positively cosy to see people for whom deciding to quit a plushy job is a big moral decision” one wonders both at the thinking ( a more optimistic or nuanced view of big business is in order?) and the level of realism she is seeking that would be a corrective to Wilder’s ‘false’ massaging.

Ironically, she’d lay into the same director’s mercenary manipulativeness in her review of One, Two, Three, charging him with the kind of attitude she objects to in The Apartment’s players. Wilder is, she suggests, far from the world’s greatest movie director; “he’s s a clever, lively director whose work lacks feeling or passion or grace or beauty or elegance. His eye is on the dollar, or rather success, on the entertainment values that bring in dollars”.

In the interests of a degree of balance, Baxter himself identifies that the four or five execs making use of his apartment represent the minority “out of a total of 31,259 – so actually, we can be very proud of our personnel – percentage-wise”. The effect of this mode of existence on the ants on the treadmill is also very evident – as opposed to Kael, luxuriating in her relatively lofty critic’s tower – revealed as urban emptiness and a diet of TV dinners over TV itself, before another day attempting to scale the ladder in a manner that has very little to do with talent and acumen (and even if it did, this is the insurance industry, the very definition of a racket).

Fran: Watch your hands, Mr Kirkeby.

Musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, staged the following year (and eventually becoming a movie in 1967) would play with the same essential themes for broader laughs, with a shrewder central operator (Robert Morse’s Ponty), but a similar milieu of manipulative, degenerate bosses (A Secretary is Not a Toy). In both cases, our hero isn’t a “real man”; he’s a besuited, emasculated average joe, and it’s only by finding his moral centre that he becomes “himself”. Albeit, this is less John Wayne machismo than Jimmy Stewart decency.

Fran: Yeah, that’s me, the happy idiot. A million laughs.

In How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, the object of Ponty’s attention has been unsullied by such attentions. Shirley MacLaine’s lift operator Fran Kubelik is something of a doormat for love, though, in thrall to conniving adulterer Fred McMurray as Personnel Manager Sheldrake (even more ironic, since that’s the equivalent of the modern HR Department, theoretically bastions of fair treatment of staff and protectors of their interests and welfare. Theoretically). The idea of hanging on to an impossible promise (and so winning the married man) wasn’t remotely a new one then, of course, and if such a role might be seen to lack agency (dependent as it is on the affirmation of the elusive would-be partner), MacLaine breathes life into Fran.

My recollection is that, when I first saw MacLaine in movies, around the time of her ’80s second wind, my perception of her earlier roles was filtered through that later, steelier, no-bullshit personality (although, even by 1970, Don Siegel was complaining she had no “redeeming” feminine qualities). Revisiting her early career, though – such as her debut The Trouble with Harry – she’s wholly winning, and you can readily see why schmuck Bud confesses “I absolutely adore you” at the conclusion (less winning is Bud’s admission of reading her personnel file and her thinking it’s okay for him to do so!)

Fred MacMurray, meanwhile, going through a Disney “renaissance” at the time, is strikingly unsympathetic. Even when his game is called by former conquest Miss Olsen (Edie Adams), who talks to the wife after being dismissed, Sheldrake has no intention of doing the right thing by Fran (instead, he’s going to “enjoy being a bachelor for a while”).

Amongst Kael’s objections to The Apartment were “its cute, soft-hearted Jewish doctor and his cute, soft-hearted, fat, mama-comic Jewish wife – so unworldly and loveable that they take the poor frustrated sap for a satyr”. Or “notorious sexpot”. Undoubtedly, Dreyfus (Jack Kruschen – the studio wanted Groucho Marx) is broadly played, and the responses to Bud’s assumed behaviour are cartoonish, but that’s rather a legitimate and discerning device on Wilder’s part, defusing the starkness of the nasty business Bud is mixed up in, leavening the harsh spotlight.

Fran: Good luck, and wipe your nose.

I could mention how Baxter’s cold (from getting cold) displays all the failings of germ theory, and how Fran knows better (“I never catch colds”). And the Monroe-alike (evidently Wilder taking revenge) going on about Castro for no clear reason, unless it’s poking the badger. There are also name checks of The Music Man (turned into a Best Picture Nominee two years later), Grand Hotel (a Best Picture winner 29 years earlier) and a “lost weekend” (the title of Wilder’s previous Best Picture winner.

The Apartment was, it seems, a big influence on American Beauty (unsurprising, since Sam Mendes’ filmmaking has little genuine inspiration in its bones). It received mixed reactions at the time, not just from Kael, and there were those, both critics and audiences, who considered it unwholesome, unsuitable and rather filthy (“a dirty fairy tale”).

Bud: I’ve decided to become a mensch. You know what that means?

But if one looks at its positioning, on the cusp of a decade that would make its content seem bashful and discreet in retrospect, it takes on a greater import. This was an early strike in breaking down Hayes Code-era barriers and encouraging greater permissiveness, however expressly manufactured one may consider the cultural developments of the ’60s (Tavestock Institute et al). Arguably, Wilder could be seen to stand with Hitchcock in delivering his peak moment at that point, leading the vanguard yet gradually dwindling in relevance thereafter, despite occasional box office flurries or attempts by critics to persuade us otherwise. The Apartment won five of its ten Oscar nominations, and its crowning victory at the 33rd ceremony is one whereby the deservedness is undiminished with hindsight.

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

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.