Operation Paperclip — The Sequel: “Marathon Man” (1976)

Standard

By Scott Ross

This dark, visceral adaptation by the screenwriter William Goldman and the director John Schlesinger of Goldman’s “What-If?” novel about a Mengele-like Nazi in South American unavoidably drawn to New York City was one of the first “R”-rated movies I ever saw, and as Laurence Olivier’s Szell does to Dustin Hoffman’s Thomas “Babe” Levy with his dental equipment, it took the top of my young head off. I’d never seen anything like it before, and although I’d read Goldman’s book the year previously, the movie of Marathon Man shook me to the core. I’m not sure if it was the violence, always sudden and genuinely shocking, or the blood (which I gather was toned down for the Ratings Board) or perhaps the total, lacerating effect, that did such a number on me but I well remember having to pull myself out of my seat when the lights came up and maneuver outside the theater on legs that suddenly didn’t seem entirely solid any longer. It was perhaps the most visceral movie experience I, at the age of 15, had ever had.

Sitting down recently with the new Kino 4K UHD disc of Marathon Man — a superbly engineered scan of the original negative that surpasses every previous digital release and makes the movie look better than at any time since its original run in 1976 — I felt something strongly akin to the same feverish response I’d experienced then. Pauline Kael was put off by the movie’s classical realism, believing the book’s potboiler-thriller status called for a slicker, whorier approach, but I disagree; Schlesinger’s elegant verisimilitude, captured in Conrad Hall’s extraordinary, deep-saturated imagery, gives the pulp plotting both a stylish patina and a prevailing sense of dread that drenches the narrative like a fever-dream from beginning to end. As the scenarist, Goldman cleverly re-imagined his exciting novel for the screen, and his increasingly frightening use of the question “Is it safe?” briefly became a part of the American cultural language… and inspired a new fear of your friendly neighborhood dentist only slightly less pronounced than the sheepish terror with which swimmers regarded the sea a year earlier, during the theatrical run of Jaws.

I have been musing lately that, surprisingly to me, Dustin Hoffman is either the star or one of the stars of five movies dear to me (The Graduate, Midnight Cowboy, All the President’s Men, Marathon Man and Tootsie), several others (Papillion, Agatha, Straight Time, Ishtar, the television Death of a Salesman, Wag the Dog) I’ve admired to greater or lesser degrees depending on their qualities, and a few about which I have ambivalent feelings (Little Big Man, Lenny, Kramer vs. Kramer, Rain Man) not because of his performances but for other reasons. Yet, strangely, I never considered him a favorite actor. Perhaps he’s too easily ridiculed for his narcissistic perfectionism, the same traits for which his character Michael Dorsey is sent up in Tootsie, to be taken as seriously as I now realize I should have. I still recall with pleasure the Hoffman puppet on the British “Spitting Image” who, conspiring with a similarly caricatured Walter Matthau in a plot to dominate the world kept whining nasally, “I don’t think my character would do that.” I am also, I suspect, influenced by Hoffman’s unfortunate appearances on Blu-ray and DVD documentaries in which he makes such ludicrous statements as, “Screenplays are just blueprints”, and my increasing awareness that no single anecdote he’s related about the making of the pictures he’s been in has borne more than a passing resemblance to the truth.*

The repellent aspects of Hoffman’s personality have nothing to do with his looks, about which he whinges continually and self-pityingly. (Indeed, there are numerous shots of him in Marathon Man where, with his fashionably long shaggy haircut — worn in part to disguise the fact that he’s a bit too … is “mature” the polite word?… for Babe Levy, Goldman’s angry, bewildered graduate student drawn into an escalating, increasingly violent maelstrom — he looks shockingly like the young Tom Cruise. At these moments, and against the odds for an actor with a nose as prominent as his and with a mouthful of such badly-spaced teeth, Hoffman seems, as long as he keeps his mouth closed, almost pretty.) What causes my reservations are the accounts by writers — Goldman in Adventures in the Screen Trade, Larry Gelbart in Laughing Matters — of his on-set or rehearsal behavior, such as the gut-churning afternoon Goldman describes in which Hoffman goaded the very frail Laurence Olivier into long (and, for Olivier at that stage of his life, agonizing) bouts of physical activity, presumably out of his own terror of acting with a genuine theatrical legend. This is the picture, after all, in which Hoffman’s determination to create the proper haggard look during Babe’s torture at the hands of Szell to him meant staying awake for days and to be out of a breath for a scene required running around the block, which occasioned Olivier’s famous rejoinder, “Why not try acting, dear boy?” Despite Olivier’s equanimous demeanor toward his co-star, and his generosity as a fellow actor, there’s a barb hidden in that gentle bon mot, and not one I think we need begrudge the old Knight.

However masochistic his “process” (to use the actor’s word for preparation) and however difficult he has been to work with, however, with Hoffman the proof is in the pudding, and he seldom disappoints. From the ostensible beginning of his movie career (he had a small role in the screen adaptation of Murray Schisgal’s play The Tiger before being cast in The Graduate) he has consistently given performances that are, perhaps uniquely for an actor with his stage experience, scaled entirely to the movie camera. Not even Olivier, widely and reflexively regarded in the 1960s and ’70s as the Greatest Actor in the World, had such admirable consistency when it came to acting on film. Before Marathon Man, he had a tendency to ham it up, or at least to be notably bigger than life, which while it could yield delightful results in the right vehicle, such as the movie of Anthony Shaffer’s Sleuth, was disastrous in things like his own 1965 film production of Othello, in which he gives the single worst performance by a major star in a Shakespearean role I’ve ever seen. Hoffman, whatever his faults as a collaborator, is only ever big when the role, or the moment, requires it. It’s hard to imagine any actor at the time, of his age and limited film experience, giving the beautifully detailed rendering of comedic panic Hoffman gives in The Graduate, for example, even granted Mike Nichols’ guidance. And while he is perhaps a little too imitable in Midnight Cowboy (“G’head, g’head”) and Rain Man (“One minute to Wapner”) there is nothing artificial in those performances either; although they just miss the heartbreak we expect of them, they’re technically perfect. Even in the somewhat outrageous drag role of Tootsie’s Dorothy Michaels, the sweetness and decency of the comic contrivance gets filtered through the essential loneliness of her creator, culminating in one of the great comic characterizations in American movies, a performance to put on the shelf alongside Jack Lemmon’s in Some Like it Hot and Gene Wilder’s in The Producers. Although, at close to 40, Hoffman exceeded Babe Levy’s age by 15 years, and while he was certainly not the tall, gangly youth Goldman describes, he gives a performance of edgy intelligence, haunted by his father’s McCarthy era suicide and by his own anxieties, pushed nearly beyond endurance by the Kafkaesque circumstances of the novelist’s plot and emerging from it with his spine stiffened and his soul intact. It was Hoffman who objected to this Jewish boy becoming a kind of vigilante, and you can see his point; Goldman disagreed, and preferred the ending of his book, and that’s understandable too.


As Szell, Olivier is the smoothest, most reasonable — thus, most terrifying — Nazi imaginable. Unless you are aware of how physically depleted he was in 1976, you’d never guess it from his performance. Goldman’s Szell, famously sporting a head of white hair during his concentration camp period (Der Weisse Engel, as his victims knew him), shaves it for his trip to New York, and Schlesinger further wanted Olivier to grow a mustache. His Lordship demurred, suggesting his director instead “use my mean little mouth.” Schlesinger did. (He also scarred up that mouth.) Olivier, as with so many of his contemporaries, like Gielgud, worked from the outside in rather than, as is usually the case with American actors, the reverse, and the details that brought his characters alive often came from elsewhere. Observing the way a gardener tended his roses, for example, gave him one of the insights that make his performance as Szell so fascinating: He approaches his dentistry with the gentleness of a lover, which makes his sudden imposition of torture on Babe so shocking. As usual with Olivier, there are little moments that excite, and that delight you by their perfect instinctual quality. Here it’s the exclamation of uncontrolled glee, self-consciously choked off for the benefit of the bank guard on the other side of the door, with which he responds when Szell sees just how many diamonds are waiting in the safe-deposit box.

(Parenthetically, Szell’s field of medical expertise is one of two aspects of Goldman’s book about which I am skeptical. One understands the rise of Mengele, on whom Szell was clearly based, and whose horrific experiments on camp inmates were anatomically based. But while there were certainly dentists in the camps, skilled at removing the gold from the teeth of exterminated Jews, would a DDS obtain the kind of reputation equaling that of a Mengele? It seems unlikely. Similarly, why does Szell need to visit the Jewish diamond district in Manhattan to determine current rates of exchange on gems? Couldn’t he get that information from his American handlers, or if he didn’t trust those men, send his own aides to the library? Although Szell’s walk through the diamond exchange is one of the book’s, and the movie’s, highlights, you have to wonder if it was really necessary.)

Employing a sly literary device, really little other than the code-name “Scylla,” Goldman kept from both Babe Levy and the reader the knowledge that the PhD candidate’s beloved older brother “Doc” is actually the deadly shadow-government courier whose chapters alternate with those concerning Babe; only at the moment of Scylla’s horrendous death did the reader become aware, with a shock, that he and Doc were the same character. Similarly, Scylla’s deep-state compatriot and lover Janeways is introduced in the novel, sans any reference to sex, as “Janey,” leaving the reader to assume the character is a woman. So there was a nice shock there as well when Janeways showed up in Babe’s apartment and he and Scylla were suddenly revealed, to the reader, as having been male/male, not male-and-female, lovers. Obviously, these devices cannot translate to the more surface-oriented world of film. Similarly, the homosexual relationship between Scylla and Janey, more or less explicit in the novel by the way they speak to each other, is hinted at more obliquely here, notably by the way William Devane cradles Roy Scheider’s injured hand with his own; Schlesinger, one of the few great “out” filmmakers of his time, was notoriously shy of including overt homoerotic references in his movies. (Aside, obviously, from Sunday, Bloody Sunday, which he commissioned from the screenwriter Penelope Gilliatt and silently co-authored.)†

The Scylla/Janeways relationship, like Doc’s profession (and the fact that both are assisting the old Nazi Szell) was more than a literary trick: These ruses went with the espionage the story revolves around — Goldman wanted to keep his readers off-balance, confused and upset and disoriented by things so dark they seemed to defy sane, rational belief. This is what I mean by my headline, above. If more of my fellow Americans really knew, and understood, what their government has been up to for decades… if they realized that the same banks and families, here and in Britain, that bankrolled Marx and Engels and Lenin (and Mao) also backed Herr Hitler (and inspired his mad embrace of eugenics) even as they supported those allied against them… if they comprehended that the complicity of such people went hand-in-hand with the profiteering and pro-Nazi activities of the Dulles brothers and the Rockefellers and the progenitors of CIA (then the OSS) and the bringing to the United States of unrepentant Nazi scientists to work in our government organizations… and that these same attitudes and insane predilections are at play in our government’s current lethal support for Ukrainian Nazi battalions in a collective deranged rush to nuclear confrontation… it would be pretty to think those Americans might demand a change. But then, the last man in a position to make that change, and who intended to effect it, had his head blown off at high noon on a Dallas street.

Roy Scheider, who lent so much substance to the movies of my adolescence and whom I miss more than I can say, gives one of his standard superb performances as Babe’s laconic, dangerous brother. Scylla is, as Goldman describes him in the novel, in exceptional shape physically (his hands are his weapons of choice) and Scheider is so trim and well-muscled he does push-ups at a right angle to the floor, his toes pressing into his Parisian hotel room bed. He also clearly performs his own stunt-work in the fight with the milky-eyed Chinese assassin played by James Wing Woo, a sequence whose brutality is as notable as the elegance of its appointments. (I’m thinking especially of the blood-stained diaphanous curtains on Scylla’s terrace seen by the confused elderly man in the wheelchair across the boulevard, a touch which feels directorial, especially since, as in the book, Goldman’s published screenplay places the fight in a London park.) I suppose that, even in the more ethnically diverse, antiheroic 1970s Scheider’s tough, broken-nosed prizefighter look made him a harder sell as a leading man even than Hoffman, despite his having starred in Jaws. Whatever the case, he had fewer great roles in great movies than he deserved and it’s impossible, at least for me, to imagine Marathon Man without him. William Devane provides a nice mix of charm and menace as Janeways, flashing that Kennedy-like, toothy grin of his seductively and speaking in a comforting, reasonable voice Babe rightly finds suspicious. (In the novel, Babe equates him to Jay Gatsby.)

While as these things go the loss of Goldman’s clever literary conceits is a relatively small one, it’s still a loss… although less of one than our not understanding why Doc made the trek to Babe after being disemboweled, explained in a sequence early in the novel and in the screenplay, which Schlesinger shot but subsequently cut from the picture, in which Scylla goes somewhat mad at the killing of an old adversary by callous agents in an airport men’s room: In the book, Scylla explains his reaction to himself by admitting that he feels his own violent death is imminent and he wants to die with someone who loves him. Conversely, the Olivier character’s ironic demise — well and truly hoist on his own petard — is more satisfying in the picture than in Goldman’s book. The confrontation between Babe and Szell in the movie was written by Robert Towne (and I presume, his weirdly silent partner Edward Taylor) and Goldman hated it. I concede he had a point in considering Babe making the villain eat diamonds “Hollywood bullshit,” and I sympathize as well with those who roll their eyes at Szell accidentally impaling himself on the knife he’s trying to kill Babe with. Let’s just say that when I saw Marathon Man as a teenager I had not yet experienced the old Production Code-era cliché of the villain falling on his knife, and the thing still works for me. It’s certainly more interesting and exciting than Goldman’s climax, in which Babe simply shoots Szell down. (Re-reading the book again, I was struck by how many scenes of violence Goldman set in public greenery: Scylla’s encounter with the Chinese assassin; the fatal meeting between him and Szell; and his finale. That’s not to mention Babe and Elsa being assaulted in Central Park. Was there something about urban parks Goldman found oddly suggestive of violence?)

This brings us rather nicely to the subject that most talked about in 1976 when Marathon Man was new. The violence in the movie is sudden and bloody, but as with the later The Silence of the Lambs, it’s the threat hanging over the action that makes the picture feel like a bloodbath. It’s violence meant to disturb, and unsettle and not, as is and was the case with so many contemporaneous action movies, to titillate. One of the conventions of the James Bond movies of the period that used to bug the hell out of me was the way dozens, sometimes seemingly hundreds, of the villain’s minions are killed, usually by gunshot or explosion, and all without a droplet of blood being spilled. That sort of mayhem, done painlessly to armies of anonymous extras, is the essence of un-felt violence, the kind which causes us to shrug and which after enough exposure can inure us to the suffering of others. Schlesinger felt that Marathon Man was about enduring pain, psychic and emotional as well as physical, and I think he was correct. He and Goldman not only put their characters through the ordeal; they put the audience through it as well.


For a movie which so keenly depicts a major city during its time of decline (two cities, really, since the early Scylla sequences in Paris are so creepily memorable, and Schlesinger was able to capture the grungy effects of a garbage strike on the streets) four of Marathon Man’s most striking settings — two exterior, two interior — are either created, disguised or wholly out of place: The scenes of Szell’s exile in and covert escape from Uruguay were shot at the Los Angeles Arboretum; the interior of the supposed Columbia University library was shot at USC; the Central Park Zoo Waterworks used in the finale was the creation of the Production Designer Richard MacDonald; and the brightly-lit orange fountain structure behind Scylla and Szell at their fatal confrontation was Herbert Bayer’s Escheresque “Double Ascension” sculpture at the ARCO Plaza, also in L.A. The first three are well integrated into the movie, but that last is so striking, particularly as the location for one of the picture’s most shocking sequences, that its inclusion is as puzzling in its way as the soccer ball that comes sailing out of the darkness of the Paris Opera façade after Scylla has discovered the body of his Parisian contact, a deliberately surreal effect designed to keep the audience as off-balance as Scylla feels at that moment. There are a couple of notable continuity errors in the picture as well, at the beginning, just before Szell’s brother (his father in the novel) and the irritable old driver Rosenbaum ram into the oil truck at full speed. In the first instance, the alter kaka’s distinctive green boat of a car is seen pulling around the corner into traffic behind the German but the next cut shows the old crank (Lou Gilbert) arguing with his mechanic. The second, also minor, involves the man guiding the oil truck as it backs up, whose breath is visible on the street… on a day when Rosenbaum’s radio tells us it is unseasonably warm for September in Manhattan. I’m sure you can, if you are so inclined, find dozens more mistakes cited by the obsessives who habitually post to the Internet Movie Database. I mention these because I’ve seen the picture so many times that noticing the (to me, anyway) rare anomalies of a remarkably professional endeavor has become almost a secondary pleasure in watching it.

Other, more traditional pleasures include the extensive use of the then-revolutionary Steadicam system, introduced in the Woody Guthrie biopic Bound for Glory earlier in 1976 and which was so necessary for capturing Babe in motion; the occasional, effective flashbacks to Babe’s childhood; the late Michael Small’s eerie, disturbing electronics-heavy score with its addition of an effect by the keyboardist Ian Underwood which Small accurately described as “a kind of scream”; and the splendid supporting cast whose members include the great Fritz Weaver as Babe’s crisp doctoral advisor, Richard Bright and Marc Lawrence as Szell’s German henchmen, Tito Goya as the leader of the Puerto Rican street-gang that harasses Babe, Jacques Marin as Scylla’s highly suspect Parisian contact, Michael Vale and Harry Goz as jewelry salesmen, the magnificent Lotte Palfi Andor as the old woman on 47th Street who spots Szell, and the impossibly (self-)named Ben Dova as Szell’s brother. Even Marthe Keller, as Babe’s meet-cute girlfriend, the enigmatic Elsa Opel, manages to give an effective performance, aided I suspect by Schlesinger’s use of her; there is a shot of her at the Reservoir where Babe does his practice runs in which, after he has passed she looks into the middle distance with a troubled, slightly wistful glance, that conveys something unreadable about her character which, in retrospect, feels like a clue. Schlesinger and his editor, Jim Clark, weave in footage of the Ethiopian runner Abebe Bikila from the 1964 Olympics during Babe’s runs which, while compelling, would be even more useful if we could see his feet: Bikilia won his Gold Medal running barefoot, and the parallel with Babe Levy becomes explicit, and vital, when, after he makes his escape, he, also barefoot, is chased through the early morning streets of New York by his captors.

Although Goldman never directly identifies Scylla and Janeways’ agency (“The Division”) as CIA, and in fact deflects the notion, the implication is obvious.‡ I don’t know whether the author of Marathon Man knew about Operation Paperclip, although I assume he did. But as the devolution, at least since the killing of Jack Kennedy (and, I would argue, long before that officially sanctioned murder) of the American Experiment and the growing strength of its permanent unelected government make clear, Hitler was the American ruling class’s ideal model from the beginning. His portrait should hang in the vestibule at Langley, in a hallowed spot just to one side of that hilarious carving from the Book of John: “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

Pull the other leg, boys.


*Just try changing a blueprint on a whim while you’re constructing the building, and see what you end up with.

†Oddly, in Brothers, his novelistic sequel to Marathon Man, Goldman seems to have had second thoughts about Scylla, who, rescued from death, given plastic surgery and put on ice for years by The Division until it requires his services, is now entirely heterosexual, complete with an ex-wife and one-night stands with women. Talk about disorientation!

‡Janeways, to Babe: “Now, when the gap gets too large between what the FBI can handle effectively and what the CIA doesn’t want to deal with, that’s where we come in.”

Revised text copyright 2023 by Scott Ross

Impermanence: “Ordinary People” (1980)

Standard

By Scott Ross

Mental illness (real or perceived), particularly among the young, is talked about today with such volubility, and at so high a decibel level, and medications meant (or at least advertised) to combat depression distributed with the nonchalance of a candy-butcher pushing Pez tabs to sugar-saturated preschoolers, that it may be difficult for people younger than myself to imagine a time when none of this attended the issue — when clinical depression and suicide were not public badges but private shames. To a teenage depressive with periodic suicidal ideation Judith Guest’s novel of 1976, which I read two years later in paperback, had the force of a punch to the gut; while on the surface I had little in common with Conrad Jarrett, Guest’s deeply troubled (straight, athletic, upper middle class) young protagonist, and while his grieving parents (cold and unresponsive mother, warm and worried father) were in some ways the sexual opposites of my own, the specifics were less important than the generalities — or, if you prefer, the universalities.

Guest’s was the best sort of popular novel: Mainstream fiction written with literate grace. Here, for example, is the father, Calvin, musing, when the previously institutionalized would-be suicide Conrad bringing home an “A” leads him to become unreasonably optimistic that his broken son is mended: “So truth is in a certain feeling of permanence that presses around the moment. They are ordinary people, after all. For a time they had entered the world of the newspaper statistic; a world where any measure you took to feel better was temporary, at best, but that is over. This is permanent. It must be.” While much of the novel’s power and observation arrives in the form of internal, sometimes stream-of-consciousness monologue, the book seemed a natural for the movies then, when the American studios still routinely invested in making small, important human dramas, if only for the prestige it might bestow upon them, especially during awards season. Ordinary People is very much a ’70s picture, its sensibilities and storytelling techniques rooted in that last great decade and a half (roughly 1968—1982) of American movies. Today, I suppose, any movie of this material that respected its upper-middle-class WASP characters and their concern with the dangerous shoals onto which their own lives are headed would be declared irredeemably racist.

We didn’t, in 1980, know what to expect of Robert Redford as a director, since Ordinary People was his debut in that role, and I remember being pleasantly surprised at how intelligently he and the screenwriter, Alvin Sargent, put the picture together, particularly the way the details of the death of the Jarrett’s older son are teased out as the movie progresses. Although Guest’s original material is undeniably emotional, its emotions are contained, scaled to the characters without overbalancing them. Yet it’s easy to see how in lesser hands the picture might have become fussy or hysterical. Sargent cannily used Guest’s already very good dialogue and what is not hers is written in pleasing imitation of her style. Although the screenwriter leaves out little of importance, the only miscalculations in the movie are interpolations — two sequences not in the novel: When Conrad’s estranged friends invade the McDonald’s where he and the girl he’s stuck on (Elizabeth McGovern) are enjoying a tentative first date and she begins laughing at their hostile antics, and the following scene, in which Conrad (Timothy Hutton) expresses his delight at her subsequent encouragement of him by launching into a mock bass-baritone rendition of the Messiah‘s “Hallelujah Chorus.” The two meet as fellow high school choristers, so the choice makes a certain amount of sense, but it’s so out of character for the fragile, slowly recovering Conrad that it feels less like Judith Guest than warmed-over Andy Hardy. (At least Sargent didn’t repeat the novelist’s error of attributing Herb Gardner’s play A Thousand Clowns to Neil Simon, as Guest did in 1976 and still had not corrected by the time of the 1980 paperback reprint.) Other than these two, bookended scenes, Sargent retains the structure of the book as well as its best dialogue, telescoping its events expertly into the two hours’ traffic of an effective and satisfying dramatic motion picture.

John Bailey’s fall and winter photography carries a burnished autumnal glow but doesn’t prettify the world of the Jarretts, which seems somehow both lived-in and sterile — a representation of the unsettling mania of the mother, Beth Jarrett (Mary Tyler Moore), for keeping a perfect house against the reality of the household’s disintegration. Marvin Hamlisch’s musical score, on the other hand, when it isn’t content with variations on the Pachelbel Canon in D major lends to be soupy in the worst manner of over-emphatic Hollywood mickeymousing. The acting, however, impresses me now, as it impressed me then, as above reproach, particularly Moore’s stark depiction of the classic narcissist mother, Donald Sutherland’s of the gentle, decent father, Judd Hirsch’s of Conrad’s earthy psychiatrist and Hutton’s exceptional rendering of the boy. People both in and out of show business still tended to think of Moore as either Laura Petrie or Mary Richards and seemed amazed the woman could act. (Just what did they think she’d been doing all those years?) As Beth, she smothers whatever natural inclinations she, as a parent, had toward her own child in her vivid depiction of a mother nearly incapable of giving, and with accepting that anything in her ordered world could be as out of whack as one dead son or the guilt-ridden would-be suicide of his surviving brother.* The scene in which Calvin tries to take a Christmas photograph of her with Conrad, and you see the panic rising in her eyes at being forced to stand alone with and embrace the boy she’s been keeping entirely at arm’s length, is breathtaking for what Moore reveals of the character.

In a typically boneheaded move, the members of the Motion Picture Academy nominated Hutton, the leading performer in the picture, as “Best Supporting Actor,” due not to the amount of screen-time Conrad has but solely to the actor’s fourth-place billing. Hutton captures this injured youth in all his moods, his self-conscious anxieties and seeming contradictions, and with such naked ingenuousness you never catch him acting. Donald Sutherland has perhaps the most difficult role in the movie, and as a consequence got the least amount of love from critics in 1980. Yet without Cal’s graceful, quietly anguished presence — and Sutherland’s expert rendering of him — the story would lack a central pillar. What happens to his family shakes Cal out of the necessary complacency he lives within, that his children are safe and that his wife is perfect, and although in the movie we lack the details that shaped him, of his orphaned childhood and the abandonment of his first father-figure, Sutherland somehow manages to give us Cal Jarrett whole. When at the climax he is forced to come to a conclusion that shatters his carefully constructed world, the look of hurt on his face, as if life had been betraying him for years and he’d just noticed, is extraordinary. Hirsch’s role as Dr. Berger struck some at the time as too deliberate a contrast with the hermetically sealed Lake Forest world of the Jarretts — natural urban-Jewish warmth stacked against resigned-in WASP suburbia — but Berger provides the shock Conrad needs, and Hirsch is too sharp an actor for obviousness. Dinah Manoff has a nice scene as Conrad’s friend from the institute into which he was committed after his aborted attempt at suicide and who isn’t anywhere near as together as she pretends, M. Emmet Walsh gives a fine account of Conrad’s insensitive swimming coach and even the generally blank McGovern is better than usual as the object of his attentions.

Redford directs with just enough restraint, and has a good eye for where to place his camera without seeming arty or pretentious, excesses which material of this kind often invites from filmmakers. But Timothy Hutton’s description, on the “Paramount Presents” Blu-ray, of his director’s treatment of him as a 20 year-old taking on his first important role (and which I hasten to add Hutton does not criticize) strikes me as devious and manipulative in a way Redford himself would have, quite properly, resented had a filmmaker done it to him. I was reminded by Redford isolating Hutton on the set, presumably to make him relate to Conrad’s anxiety, of Herbert Ross getting Anne Bancroft to hurl a drink in Shirley MacLaine’s face on The Turning Point without MacLaine’s knowledge, to get a reaction from her, and of William Friedkin similarly manipulating Ellen Burstyn on The Exorcist… (or, indeed, although he was a producer then and not a director, of Redford’s own “gutless betrayal” of William Goldman on All the President’s Men.) I imagine there must be thousands of similar cases. Why, I wonder, is it so difficult for directors, especially actor/directors, to trust their actors, or to work with them, to get the performances they want, and so damned easy instead to conspire against them?


*In a horrible irony, Moore’s son Richard was killed in a gun accident less than a month after Ordinary People‘s release.

Text copyright 2023 by Scott Ross

The much bigger circle: “Fiddler on the Roof” (1971)

Standard

Note: This essay dates from 2014. As is now sadly usual, however, my ability to add to it in the proper format has been abridged by the “Blocks” system WordPress imposed some time ago. As a result, I’ve had to re-post the piece. Which sounds like the beginning of a tongue-twister but isn’t.

By Scott Ross

“For everything you have missed, you have gained something else, and for everything you gain, you lose something else.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson

The 1971 film transmigration of the 1964 Broadway phenomenon Fiddler on the Roof is arguably the most beautifully made of all adaptations from the musical stage, and certainly one of the most faithful. By filming it in as realistic a manner as possible, and as close to the birthplace of its progenitor, Sholem Aleichem, as the director, Norman Jewison, could get (Yugoslavia), the filmmakers honored the material as well, I think, as the source. What fell away, inevitably, was much of the very thing that made Jerome Robbins’ original so striking and even, in the terms of the musical theatre of its time, revolutionary. Any truly theatrical experience, play or musical, that exists in a heightened, stylized state can only be diminished by literalism. This is why any sane admirer of Follies, say, can only hope no movie ever gets made of it. Unless (as here) the material can support the transliteration, and the filmmakers are able to balance the inevitable losses with considerable gains of their own.*

Boris Aronson’s set design for the interior of Tevye’s home. Note the circle of houses surrounding it representing Anatevka.

Realism cannot take in, for example, the potent abstraction of Boris Aronson’s original Fiddler set. Inspired by (but in no way slavishly reproducing) the shtetl-based paintings of Marc Chagall, Aronson constructed a series of stage images that fully expressed the key concerns of Robbins and his collaborators: Not merely the sense of tradition (arrived at through Robbins’ insistent, necessary, question, “What is this show about?”) but the crucial aspect of the circle which binds the community, the people of the play, even the faith itself. Aronson placed Aleichem’s dairyman Tevye’s home in a central position; above it he depicted a semi-circle of upside-down houses, and around it several more, representing the village of Anatevka. Like the figure of the Fiddler himself, they are precariously balanced — even topsy-turvy — but they hold.

“Tradition”: Zero Mostel’s Tevye leads the original company of the stage musical.

Nor can a realistic style encompass the inherent theatricality of the piece in totalis, especially as Robbins directed and choreographed it — as when, in the opening Tevye is suddenly joined by the figures of the villagers, hands linked, emerging from either side of the stage to create the circle that stands for Anatevka itself. A couple of Jerry Bock/Sheldon Harnick songs from the original were also shed during filming, but their omissions are more than adequately compensated for by the filmmakers’ otherwise rare fealty to the score, superbly enhanced by John Williams’ rich, sensitive and often thrilling arrangements.

Thus, what was lost. (For some die-hards, the replacement of Zero Mostel with the earthier and less ostentatious Topol was likely also a grievous deficiency.) So what was gained? On a simplistic, yet pleasurable, level, the land itself — vast, verdant, arable, even majestic — and the physicality of Anatevka, especially the magnificently realized wooden shul with its intricate murals, glimpsed in the opening number and, at the climax, gazed at in anguished silence by Zvee Scooler’s Rabbi as he prepares to depart its walls forever. (In her splendid book Wonder of Wonders: A Cultural History of “Fiddler on the Roof,” Lisa Solomon reports that Jewison wanted the production designer Robert F. Boyle’s original building preserved but, by the time he’d reached an agreement in Israel for its transportation it had, heartbreakingly, already been torn down.) And too, the pogrom that destroys the wedding of Tevye’s daughter Tzeitl at the end of the first act is, because of film’s innate ability to realistically depict such events (Cossacks on horseback, flaming torches, shattered glass, the shredding of the young couple’s gifts) far more gripping, and powerful, on the screen than it can ever be on the stage.

Tevye and his director: Topol and Newman Jewison.

The strength of photographic imagery in the movie of Fiddler begins almost immediately, and to the point; as Topol warms up “Tradition,” Jewison and his editors (Robert Lawrence and Anthony Gibbs) cut, in rhythm, to Anatekva’s various articles of faith as well as to the villagers themselves, engaged in their respective tasks. Not quite the depiction of the circle as enacted by the company on the stage, but each rapidly glimpsed clip sets, and reinforces, the theme of communal traditions as the glue that allows those in the Russian Pale of Settlement “to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking [their] neck[s].” Nowhere in the show, or the movie, of course, do the authors (Joseph Stein in his book and screenplay, Bock and Harnick in their score and, although un-involved with the movie, Jerry Robbins) suggest that the bending of ritual leads to the eventual expulsion of Anatekva’s Jews. It’s all of a piece: The advent of 20th century modernity and czarist anti-Semitism, conspiring by accident to alter the face, and form, of institutional observance. Tevye, seemingly the least hidebound of the older Anatevkans, bends, as he says, only so far. And although he is unwilling to break entirely, even he softens enough by the end to at least express his parting concern for his wayward daughter Chava, if only through the intermediary of his eldest, Tzeitl.

Topol, that “huge dancing bear of a man,” singing “Tradition.”

The one, indispensable, element of the movie’s strength must be accounted the performance of (Chaim) Topol as Tevye. As a Sabra the actor was, in common with many of his fellow Israelis of the time, not especially attuned to Yiddishkayt. (Indeed, many were entirely antipathetic.) But Topol’s size, his vigor, his warmth and his courage — as much as, when compared to that of Mostel, his smaller but no less compelling theatrical presence — bring him closer to us, and perhaps even to Sholem Aleichem. Pauline Kael, in her review of the movie, which she called “the most powerful movie musical ever made,” referred to Topol as “a huge dancing bear of a man.” That’s just about perfect, I think. Although the then-35-year-old actor was (if only slightly) younger than Zero Mostel when he first assayed the role on stage, he carries with him an authority, and an expansiveness, that goes well beyond the touches of added gray in his hair and beard. And while he is a far more handsome man than Mostel, sings better and more easily attains the higher notes without noticeable strain what’s essential, even elemental, about Topol is the sense he projects of a man who, while firmly affixed to the appurtenances of his faith, is capable of elasticity — the flexibility a plant, however well rooted, needs to survive.†

The lyricist (Sheldon Harnick) and the composer (Jerry Bock)

Essential, too, are the songs by Bock and Harnick. It is not merely fashionable to dismiss them; most of the show’s original reviews expressed reservations (is that the polite term?) about this treasurable score. But as much as Sholem Aleichem himself, the Fiddler songs are inextricably linked to the show’s sense of identity, its abundant charm and humor, and its remarkable power. Bock, one of his era’s most accomplished musical dramatists, as at home in New York’s Tenderloin as in the 1930s Hungarian milieu of She Loves Me, steeped himself in Yiddish folk melody and klezmer, and refracted it through the prism of his own exceptional composition acumen. While the ultimate tone of, and concept for, Fiddler (then called Tevye) was not set during much of the writing process there is in Bock’s supple, often yearning, melodies the concert of the shtetl, at once vigorous and elegiac. And they are perfectly complemented by Harnick’s alternately playful, moving, direct and ruefully funny lyrics all of which seem, as he said of his experience wedding his words to Bock’s music for “Sunrise, Sunset,” to “crystallize on the music,” as though there could be no other possible lyrics to any of those tunes, although there were, reportedly, dozens of attempts for every song that finally placed. I’ve noted this before, but I think it bears repeating: If you think evoking Sholem Aleichem’s people, and place, and doing so while keeping in your mind the correct rhythms and cadences, and the needs of the performers, and making the humor or the pathos land properly and effectively on 1,500 minds and hearts and pairs of ears hearing them for the first time, is easy, then go ahead: You write something as effective as “Tradition.” I’ll wait.

Norma Crane (Golde) and the Yiddish theatre star Molly Picon (Yente the Matchmaker). Note Picon’s playful signature.

Kael, who loved the movie in spite of what she saw as the “squareness” of Jewison’s direction and the (to her) Broadway jokes and disposable songs, nevertheless carped about the performance of Molly Picon as Yente the Matchmaker. For all her gifts, Kael sometimes seemed to go to inordinate lengths to separate herself from her own Jewishness. I don’t mean her less than laudatory remarks about Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah (with many of which I agreed — not least her complaints about its sheer, numbing length — but which got her in hot water with some readers and colleagues); I refer instead to her rejection of some of the richer veins of humor which American show business has accepted as a delicious gift from its creative Jews but which, for Kael, smacked either of special pleading or of unconscious self-abasement. She was hardly alone in this. Indeed, as Solomon points out in Wonder of Wonders, resistance to, and rejection of, Yiddish theatrical traditions lies at the heart of controversies that attended every mid-century attempt to place Sholem Aleichem’s stories on the stage; second and third generations of Jewish-Americans didn’t want all that schmaltz and inflection with which their parents and grandparents cluttered up a brave new assimilationist world. So, nu?

But Yente — her very name a Yiddish convention — is, while admittedly an invention of the show’s book writer Joseph Stein, very much a part of the soil of the shtetl — indeed, its soul — at least as delineated by the creative team that put the show together. Even granted Robbins’ understandable aversion, as Solomon also tells us, to making his Sholem Aleichem musical The Return of the Goldbergs, who better to embody Yente’s very yenteism than Picon? As the one-time undisputed queen of the Yiddish theatre (although when she began she neither spoke nor understood Yiddish) Picon knew this woman in her very bones; the kvetching and kvelling, the self-martyring geshrais, the constant smug (and self-justifying) nudzhnikness of a woman who is despaired of but never entirely dismissed (all those children to be wed!) Picon’s performance, always pleasurable, is especially — sorry, it’s the only word that will do — piquant, now that Molly herself is no longer with us.

Few such grumbles greeted Norma Crane’s Golde, although Kael did complain that the role was under-written. Perhaps. But so is everyone’s, aside from Tevye; after all, the show is not called Hello, Golde! What Crane achieves in her limited screen-time is a highly believable portrait of a careworn, un-lettered woman of the earth with a great deal of love but no time for sentiment. The actress (who died, shockingly young, of breast cancer, three years after the movie opened) had an almost Classical beauty, but hers is no glamour-puss Golde. No-nonsense, she bears her husband’s mischievous wiles as she does her daughters’ unruliness: with a shrug, an exasperated bark, or a sighing aside (“You can die from such a man…”) Yet Crane’s strength of character is not merely admirable, it’s necessary. How else could a woman like Golde bear the vicissitudes of that life? And when she breaks, after Tevye orders her on the road to forget her middle child Chava, the effect of her normally ram-rod straight body, black-clad as though in mourning and whipped by the winter wind, bent double in hopeless despair, is harrowing.

As Tzeitl, the eldest of the three marriageable daughters (the youngest pair are marginal) the curiously beautiful Rosalind Harris makes an impression that can remain with you a lifetime. At a precocious 20 when the film was made, Harris carries herself with such wry dignity and open honesty of expression that she lingers in your memory long after Tzeitl’s major part in the family drama is over. And as her nebbishy swain Motel, the adorably tongue-tied Leonard Frey is utterly endearing. Frey, who played the Rabbi’s son Mendl in the 1964 production (and who would eventually graduate to Motel on stage) had just come off reprising his definitive Harold in the movie of Mart Crowley’s The Boys in the Band. Here, he is scarcely recognizable as the actor who portrayed that acid-tonged, “32-year-old, ugly, pock-marked Jew fairy.” He nabbed an Academy Award nomination for Motel (as Topol did for his Tevye) and one would have thought that, if he could successfully negotiate those two, wildly disparate, roles, the world should have been open to him. (Alas, it wasn’t, and he succumbed to AIDS at 50, in 1988, leaving behind the sense that an important career had, somehow, been thwarted aborning. By homophobia? Perhaps. Or maybe just the usual Hollywood myopia.) When he finds his voice at last, his serenading of Harris, and their delighted dance to “Wonder of Wonders” is one of the most rapturous numbers of its kind ever filmed.

Bending, but not breaking: Perchik (Michael Glaser), Hodel (Michele Marsh) receive Tevye’s permission, and his blessing.

Michele Marsh, as Hodel, is a touch too conventionally cute, but she does convey the spirited independence of the role and sings a notably beautiful, poignant “Far from the Home I Love.” Hodel’s vis-a-vis, Perchik, is a bit of a pill in his ardent Socialist mania, which could make him a self-righteous boor in the wrong hands. Blessedly, Michael Glaser (later, as Paul Michael Glaser, the Starsky of television’s “Starsky and Hutch”) brings a kind of thoughtless, arrogant charm to the part, making Hodel’s eventual willingness to follow him as far as Siberia at least explicable.‡

Neva Small as Chava.

The third daughter, Chava is, in her way, as crucial to the success of the narrative as Tevye.  Her determination, not merely to throw over tradition for love but to engage in apostasy, risking the eternal enmity and alienation of her beloved family and the entire Jewish circle of Anatevka, must be absolutely grounded or the increasingly troubling arc of the play’s darker second act can topple off its delicately balanced wheels. In Neva Small, Jewison found his ideal. In each of the show’s succeeding marriage stories, one gets the sense that these girls have been paying sharper attention to Tevye’s warm interior than his gruff exterior, and play off it in ways that place their father in ironic binds. But in the Chava story, that reading has not been nearly close enough; she pushes back harder, and more devastatingly, than she knows. Small somehow manages to embody both her father’s idealized vision of her (his “little bird,” his cherished Chavelah) and the less perfect self of reality. Inquisitive, keen, at once guarded and openhearted, Small’s face radiates intelligence and love in equal measure, making Chava’s eventual estrangement (and Tevye’s anguish) deeply and palpably traumatic.

Zvee Scooler lends his beautiful, gaunt face and gentle gravitas to The Rabbi.

The smaller roles were cast with similar care. Zvee Scooler, who played the innkeeper in the “To Life” scene for the entire seven-year run of the play, makes a superb Rabbi. His gaunt, moving face and his gentle gravitas do much, I think, to take the curse off a role some Jewish commentators felt was too condescendingly comic on Broadway. Paul Mann’s Lazar Wolf, with his charmingly Santa Claus-like mien, is nicely judged as well, neither as boorish as Tevye at first believes nor as docile in the face of marital defeat as the peripatetic dairyman might hope. Louis Zorich likewise does wonders with the off-handedly anti-Semitic Constable who — in a scene added by Stein to the screenplay — makes agonizingly clear what Edmund Burke meant when he wrote that “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Well, maybe not “good” so much as halfway decent.)§ And the Welsh singer Ruth Madoc is an unforgettable Fruma-Sarah in the inspired dream sequence, wildly funny in her witchy ululations.

“The Dream”: Tevye and Golde menaced by Fruma- Sarah (Ruth Madoc.)

Which brings us rather nicely around to the strengths of Jewison’s imagery, and to the movie’s  ravishing cinematography, the work of the great Oswald Morris. Onstage, “The Dream” leaps from one form of heightened theatricality (Aronsons’ set) to another (folk-inspired ghost story.) In the movie the effect of the humor, and the quality of its tongue-in-cheek ghoulishness, in the midst of the filmmaker’s “square,” quotidian visual palette, is even stronger, and funnier. (There’s a shot of Topol reacting to Fruma-Sarah with knock-kneed terror that is especially uproarious.) It’s a folk nightmare, the colors de-saturated, the costumes and make-up both over-the-top and eerie. That push-pull of the pragmatic and the fantastic is also true of the sudden distancing effect Jewison goes in for when Tevye confronts his daughters’ romantic yearnings: Topol is seen at a vast remove, suspended in agrarian space between his core beliefs and his overmastering love for his children. But when he speaks/sings, “Look at my daughter’s eyes…” the director immediately closes on those expressive orbs, bringing Tevye, and us, instantly back to the crux — the material’s emotional center. Likewise, the gorgeously realized “Chava Ballet” is rendered as a hallucination-like reverie, Tevye’s sense of his immediate world crumbling in the face not only of modernity but of the inevitable loss a parent experiences when his children move, as they must, away from his sphere of influence, and his love.

The “Chava Ballet.”

In his quest to hone Fiddler to its essentials, the director Jerry Robbins left the choreographer Jerome Robbins somewhat high and dry; that “Chava Ballet” arrived at its effective abbreviation only after a much longer, more frenzied and frightening, number outstayed its welcome on the road. But Robbins at least had a first act topper in the famed “Bottle Dance” during Tzeitl’s nuptials. Inspired by a trick he witnessed a red-bearded wedding guest perform at two different Jewish weddings, the dance has since become so much a part of the Fiddler ethos that many assume it’s an actual freylekh. Having been fired from the movie of West Side Story for the very deliberateness that led his theatrical collaborators to despair but which enhanced his unique staging, Robbins was never truly considered to helm the movie of his most successful stage musical, so it was up to his assistant, Tom Abbott, to re-create the original choreography, and it’s nowhere more ebullient or felicitous than during the wedding, and not only the sinuous “Bottle Dance”; the entire sequence is informed by Robbins’ meticulousness in recreating the exuberant, uninhibited, even frenetic, merry-making he witnessed at various Jewish weddings preparatory to mounting the show. And it’s here that Jewison makes one of his few missteps. The dance is shot, and edited, too casually, denying us the pleasure of watching those limber bodies going through their joyous paces. This is even more obvious when watching the Canadian Broadcasting documentary about Jewison on the Fiddler DVD, when the CBC’s camera placement during the “Bottle Dance” trumps Jewison’s own. Dance on film is always a sticky problem. Fred Astaire felt, with no small justification, that the camera should be placed at a distance (and not further cluttered up by fancy editing) so the audience could appreciate not just the footwork but the dancer’s entire body in motion. Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen concurred, and they never interfere with our enjoyment of, and exultation in, even the most complex numbers in Singin’ in the Rain. So documentary realism does have its limits, especially in musicals.  (The obvious exception is Bob Fosse, but he was the exception to everything.)

Fiddler on the Roof was, seemingly, a tough Broadway sell in the mid-1960s. Not only was the material overtly, even proudly, Jewish (as indeed were the Sholem Aleichem stories on which it was based) but its action embraced a pogrom and the saddest of all possible climaxes — the enforced expulsion of an entire people. In comfortable, and comforting, hindsight, one can always look back and say, of a hit, “Well, of course…” (I always thought John Simon was being more than slightly disingenuous when he opined during that decade that the most enormous possible sure-fire Broadway hit would be “a big, vulgar musical about black, Jewish homosexuals.” Simon’s target was theatrical parochialism, I know. But let’s not be ridiculous.) No, Fiddler was no sure thing, in 1964 or 1971. What sold it, and continues to sell it, was the collective intelligence, even genius, of its creators as much as — and I would argue, more than — the universality of the underlying material. The unwavering devotion of Robbins, Bock, Harnick, Stein and the original producer Harold Prince to telling this story well, and with scrupulous dedication to its shades of meaning within a specific confluence of humanity, was picked up, and codified, by Jewison & Co. in sumptuous turn. Those final, ineffably moving, images of a new Diaspora infused both with hope (in the amorphous forms of Palestine and America) and hopelessness (in the unutterable grief of the dispossessed that presages the Shoah) contain, in microcosm, everything that made, and makes, Fiddler on the Roof such an imperishable fact of modern life.

Exodus: The haunting finale.

Text copyright 2014 by Scott Ross


Post-Script. March 2023

When Fiddler on the Roof was released in 1971, United Artists Records, unusually for the time, issued a two-LP soundtrack album, beautifully designed, with a soft matte-finish gatefold jacket and a lovely color booklet of photographs from the movie. Yet as “complete” as this Fiddler was, it omitted much (the wedding music, the first act finale, the entr’acte, the exodus, the end titles) and a great deal of song. The album was a satisfying keepsake, one I have had in every format, from LP to cassette tape to compact disc. Yet subsequent viewings of the movie convinced me that very little of what we hear on the UA set corresponds to the actual soundtrack of the movie.

It was common, in the 1960s and well into the ’70s, for film composers and orchestrators to reconstruct their work into briefer — and, it was assumed — more pleasing (or at least, potentially more commercial) home-listening arrangements of movie music. John Williams, who orchestrated and conducted Fiddler, did this for some of his own finest scores of the period: The Towering Inferno, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Dracula and The Fury each had a “soundtrack” album consisting of re-arrangements of the cues. All of these titles, I am happy to say, have been rescued by, respectively, La-La-Land Records, Itrada and Varèse Sarabande, giving those of us who care about such things not only the complete renderings of these scores as heard in the movies for which they were written, but remastered versions of the content of the original LPs and additional material including outtakes, alternate versions and, in the case of La-La-Land’s 3-disc 50th Anniversary Remastered Limited Edition of Fiddler, the songs as they are performed in the picture. The additions also include the cut “Any Day Now” and, blessedly, all of Tevye’s musical monologues in response to his various daughters’ marriage requests, ending with his heartbreaking rejection of Chava.

It took a half-century to get there, but this Fiddler on the Roof is, at last, definitive.


*One of my five favorite movies is the 1972 Bob Fosse version of Cabaret, itself, under Harold Prince’s direction, a highly stylized show. But as Fosse and his collaborators re-imagined the material, hewing more closely to the Christopher Isherwood model and throwing out the “book” songs, it’s the exception that proves the rule. Especially as the name most often reported in connection with a movie of Follies is — saints preserve us! — Rob Marshall.

†Topol was the London Tevye in 1967, based in part on the producer Richard Pilbrow’s having seen his 1964 Israeli comedy Sallah (or Shallah Sabbati) and thus expecting to meet much older man. Topol, who had succeeded Bomba Zur as Tevye during the highly successful 1965 Israeli Fiddler, was not what you would call proficient in English before he starred in London, and it’s interesting to compare his performance on the movie soundtrack with that on the ’67 Columbia cast recording, as his inflections in the latter tend to Anglicized pronunciation: “You may ahsk” rather than “You may ask.”

‡Glaser/Perchik lost out on a solo in the movie. Motel’s original number during rehearsals for, and early performances of, the show (“Now I Have Everything”) was eventually ceded to Bert Convy’s Perchik but Jewison didn’t think it right for the movie. Jerry Bock’s replacement melody, “Any Day Now,” is among the finest and most rousingly apposite he ever composed, and Harnick’s lyrics are in admirably quirky character. But the moment is a bit of a dead-end, and it’s probably just as well the number was cut. You can hear it, in Glaser’s somewhat over-taxed rendition, on the reissued Fiddler soundtrack CDs and the DVD/Blu-ray.

§ Zorich is probably best known for his role on Mad About You as Paul Reiser’s father Burt. From conductor of pogroms to befuddled Jewish pater familias — that’s one hell of a range.

Monthly Report: February 2023

Standard

By Scott Ross

As ever, click on the highlighted text for links and fuller reviews.

Fort Apache (1948) The first picture in what later became informally known as John Ford’s “Cavalry Trilogy” is the most deeply flawed yet also the most visually and dramatically overwhelming of the three.


That’s Jon Provost at right with the radio transmitter.

The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes (1969) The first of the Disney “Dexter Riley” comedies, a trilogy of a very different kind from Ford’s. In this initial outing, a mishap with rainwater and a vast, complex computer causes an electrified Dexter (Kurt Russell) to become a weird sort of human cyborg, complicating academic matters at Medfield College and attracting the notice of a suave local gangster (Cesar Romero). Although there’s little in the picture that a child of 10 couldn’t follow — I saw it at 8, when it was new, and don’t recall that my enjoyment was in any way hampered by the “adult” contours of it — Joseph L. McEveety’s clever script is one that can also be enjoyed by grown-ups. Robert Butler’s direction is agreeable and there’s a good score by Robert F. Brunner to accompany the silliness. The technology is of course hopelessly superannuated (these were the days when a computer system like the one Dexter runs afoul of required an entire room to house) and the special effects are dopily conceived: When Dexter is examined, the doctor sees images in his ears and eyes. There’s also a weird scene inside Dexter’s car in which the rain outside his windows is, shockingly for a Disney movie, indifferently animated. But it’s a funny movie generally, especially in Joe Flynn’s typical portrait of the dean, half harassed and half harasser. In addition to such wonderful old pros as William Schallert, Alan Hewitt, Richard Bakalyan, Pat Harrington and Fritz Feld (complete with mouth-pop) there’s a nice scene between Bakalyan and Russell in a jail cell that, while not tipping over into the bathetic, adds a welcome touch of sentiment to the story.

For those who grew up with his presence as Timmy on the old “Lassie” program and may have harbored a secret crush, the recurrent sight of diminutive Jon Provost as one of Dexter’s pals may stir a few old throbs of the heart. Some of the guys in the gang are, to be charitable, strange-looking. But at 18, Provost was adorable.


Rio Grande (1950) The final entry, after the wonderful She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949), in the unofficial “Cavalry Trilogy.”


The Strongest Man in the World (1975) The last of the “Dexter Riley” movies is the weakest of the three but has the most impressive cast. Curiously, Kurt Russell is almost a supporting actor here; the real stars are Joe Flynn (as the Dean of Medfield, of course), Eve Arden as a cereal executive, Phil Silvers as her arch-rival, and Cesar Romero in his perennial role as the gangster A.J. Arno; only slightly less prominent are Dick Van Patten as a sleazy industrial spy and Richard Bakalyan as Romero’s perennially baffled second in command. Although much of the physical humor in the picture is on a cartoon level, Bakalyan and Romero share the best sustained sequence of slapstick comedy, involving a window washer’s elevated platform. The movie was directed with no special distinction by Vincent McEveety, written by the series scenarist Joseph L. McEveety (with Herman Groves) and photographed with variable quality by Andrew Jackson. Robert F. Brunner’s music includes a pleasing ear-worm of a theme, and while Art Cruickshank and Danny Lee’s special effects are occasionally sub-par the animated titles by Art Stevens and Guy Deel are charming.

The always likable William Schallert, absent from Now You See Him, Now You Don’t, returns as the amiable science professor and the supporting cast includes seemingly dozens of wonderful character actors including Harold Gould, Benson Fong, James Gregory, Fritz Feld (without mouth-pop this time), Ronnie Schell, Kathleen Freeman, Iggie Wolfington, Eddie Quillan, Burt Mustin, Art Metrano, Lennie Weinrib, Milton Frome, Gordon Jump, Raymond Bailey, James E. Brodhead, Jack Bailey, Larry Gelman, Roy Roberts and John Myhers. Some of them barely register, or have a single line (if that) but they make an impressive aggregation nonetheless.


How to Frame a Figg (1971) A surprisingly cynical Don Knotts comedy, tuned to the growing late ’60s/early ’70s American disgust with government that would find its apotheosis in Watergate a scant few years later. Although America loses her innocence with greater regularity than a side-show virgin, a basic skepticism about government seems to me the healthiest of signs. I wish a few more Democrats and Republicans would develop it. Interestingly, the movie’s story was by Knotts and his producer, Edward Montagne, and although advertised as a family comedy — it was rated “G” when it was released — and set in the same sort of small town depicted in his first successful comedy The Ghost and Mr. Chicken it almost has more in common with his previous picture, the Nat Hicken-scripted and directed The Love God? than with his previous run of thematically inoffensive movies. It was also the end of Knotts’ five-picture deal with Universal, leaving him to wander the show-biz wilderness until the Disney company rescued him mid-decade.

The movie, written by George Tibbles and directed by Alan Rafkin, isn’t particularly funny but it has its moments, and Knotts himself is entertaining as he nearly always was, even with feeble material. The comedian who fares least well here is the young Frank Welker, whose co-starring role as an excitable sanitation worker is one of those woeful conceptions that must have sounded hilarious to somebody but which as it lives is merely annoying. (You’d never guess from How to Frame a Figg that Welker has since become one of the most prolific voiceover actors in America; he’s been everything from Freddy Jones on “Scooby Doo, Where Are You!” since its debut in 1969 to the tiger in the animated Aladdin.) The city government villains include an amusing Edward Andrews and an under-used Joe Flynn; and, as their ancient, avaricious chief, Parker Fennelly has the movie’s funniest role. Bob Hastings and Bruce Kirby appear as Figgs’ bowling teammates, the somewhat horse-faced Elaine Joyce is his love interest, Yvonne Craig has some mildly comical scenes as a femme fatale, James Millholin a good brief role as a funeral director, Benny Rubin another as a crusty old elevator operator (a what?, I hear you cry), and Eddie Quillan shows up as an old roué who develops an unaccountable yen for Figg in old-lady drag, Tyrone F. Horneigh to Knotts’ Gladys Ormphby. The music, as usual for a Don Knotts comedy, is by Vic Mizzy, whose main theme is (also as usual) charming and infectious.


The Wobblies (1979) Stewart Bird and Deborah Shaffer’s late ’70s documentary feature on the then largely forgotten Industrial Workers of the World, with the observations of Roger Baldwin serving as narration. It’s a lively portrait, occasionally heartbreaking and often infuriating — the viewer’s anger directed not at the filmmakers but at the actions they report by both industry and government which constitute textbook examples of the unofficial fascism that has ruled The Land of the Free for hundreds of years but which reached a certain pinnacle of perfection in the industrialized early 20th century; the Wobblies (the popular etymology of the name varies) had to fight not merely the bosses and their local, state and Federal lackeys but the right-wing official unions under the death-grip of the reactionary A.F. of L.

The filmmakers were able to interview a surprisingly large number of surviving Wobblies, so we get first-hand accounts of strike actions and sometimes horrific official responses to labor agitation: The Lawrence, Mass. textile strike (1912; in E.L. Doctorow’s Ragtime the character Tateh escapes from anti-labor violence in Lawrence with his little daughter), the Paterson, NJ silk strike (1913), the Everett Massacre (1916) in Washington state, the Seattle General Strike (1919) and the stunning 1917 “deportation” at Brisbee, Arizona in which between 1,100 and 1,300 IWW strikers were arrested, placed on trains and dumped in the New Mexico desert. Government suppression of labor is a major factor in American life, hence a large part of the Wobblies’ history. So is music, and the movie contains a great deal of song, like Joe Hill’s “There’ll Be Pie in the Sky When You Die” and “Mac” McClinton’s “Hallelujah, I’m a Bum.” (Although they’re not sung in The Wobblies, “Union Maid” and “Solidarity Forever” were also from the IWW’s Little Red Songbook.) Given the downbeat history it recreates, The Wobblies is a surprisingly buoyant movie, and one whose techniques, arrived at via a shoestring budget, have been widely influential in documentary filmmaking in the years since the movie’s release. The worst of these, alas, is the most persistent: Bird and Shaffer’s layering in of created sound effects under their found silent footage, a barbarism now so much a part of the documentarian’s toolbox that it seems unlikely ever to die, although I wish it would.

Seeing Roger Baldwin again in The Wobblies (he’s also one of the witnesses in Reds) caused me to reflect, as I have often over the past three years, on what that radical firebrand, one of the proud founders of the American Civil Liberties Union, would say if he could see his brainchild today, devoted partly to pretending Julian Assange does not exist and wholly not to defending but to suppressing free speech in preference to assisting the victims of that suppression… when, that is, it can find the time in between pushing the phony transsexual “crisis.” I suspect his response would be long, and properly incendiary.


Images (1972) An interesting failure written and directed by Robert Altman. Susannah York is a woman in the throes of schizophrenia, and it isn’t clear at first that the fantastic elements are all in her head, such as her encounters with her dead lover (Marcel Bozzuffi) and her current one (Hugh Millais). Since her husband (Rene Auberjonois) is a photographer, the manipulated images are sometimes in her mind and sometimes in his work, but as we don’t know who York’s character is, we don’t feel much about her plight one way or another. It’s one of those intellectual exercises in which the actors take on each other’s first names (Auberjonois is “Hugh,” Bozzuffi is “Rene,” Millais is “Marcel” and York is “Cathryn” while young Cathryn Harrison is “Susannah”) and much is improvised, some of it badly. Auberjonois’ idea of effective improvisatory dialogue, for example, is to repeat words and to decorate them with mild obscenities. This sort of thing can be effective when a gifted writer does it, as when in Network Paddy Chayefsky has William Holden bellow,

And I’m tired of pretending to write this dumb book about my maverick days in the great early years of television. Every goddamn executive fired from a network in the last 20 years has written this dumb book about the great early years of television! And nobody wants the dumb, damn, Goddamn book about the early days of television!

Compare that to Auberjonois shouting, “Who shot off the goddamn gun?… Who shot off the goddamn shotgun in the Goddamn house?” or “Son of a bitch! Son of a bitch! Son of a bitch!” and tell me which represents the truer rhetorical expostulation.

Despite some effective moments, Images is neither good drama because it’s cold to the touch and we don’t care to know about any of its characters, nor good horror because nothing that happens in it is horrific enough. It certainly isn’t a good psychological mystery. Similarly, the spare score by John Williams might be effective if not for the annoying sounds by Stomu Yamash’ta imposed upon it. Vilmos Zsigmond’s cinematography is beautiful, however, and the Irish countryside is mouth-watering. But Altman fared much better five years later with the biting, occasionally hallucinatory character study 3 Women, a movie you actually want to see a second time.


Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959) I was always, from a very young age, profoundly vulnerable to imagery, especially motion picture imagery, and seeing this beguiling Walt Disney fantasy in the lone Mt. Vernon, Ohio movie-house on its 1969 theatrical reissue was one of those formative childhood experiences whose effects stick with a person for life. I vividly remember hiding behind the seat in front of me every time the banshee appeared, and if that wasn’t enough there was a horse maddened by moonlit enchantment, Darby escaping from the lair of the leprechaun king and the beautiful horror of the ghostly Cóiste Bodhar descending from the skies to take Darby away. Yet Darby O’Gill and the Little People is no horror-show, merely a charming story with fantastic elements, beautifully rendered by artisans who knew their shamrocks. The picture, based on stories by H. T. Kavanagh, was wonderfully written by Lawrence Edward Watkin (who also created flavorsome lyrics for a pair of songs), perfectly cast and thoughtfully directed by Robert Stevenson, with much of its enchantment coming not via expensive graphic blandishments but from in-camera effects by Eustace Lycett, the cinematographer Winton Hoch, Peter Ellenshaw and an uncredited Ub Iwerks. The sequence in which old Darby (Albert Sharpe) visits the realm of tiny King Brian (Jimmy O’Dea), and in which he walks through the massed leprechauns and interacts with them, is so simply yet brilliantly done, largely through forced perspective and literal mirrors, it remains in the memory as one of the most perfect fantasy sequences committed to film in the 20th century.

Rather amazingly, the verdant Irish village setting was shot on the Disney backlot and at a ranch in the San Fernando Valley, its hillsides and Norman castle ruins the work of matte painters (Albert Whitlock was one). Although I suppose the entire thing adds up to the biggest load of blarney in the world, it’s done with such likeability and charm that it sweeps aside all possible objections. Chief among the charmers are Shape, the original Finian of Finian’s Rainbow, the adorable Janet Munro as his devoted daughter Katie, the engaging young Sean Connery as her swain and the marvelous O’Dea as King Brian. O’Dea, as the most fantastic of the movie’s characters, somehow grounds the nonsense; while the twinkle in his eye is no less starry than O’Gill’s, King Brian’s practicality, and his adherence to ancient forms, militates against any silliness that might accrue to the narrative. Among the other actors who add spice to this flavorsome Irish stew are Kieron Moore as the town’s smug bully, Estelle Winwood as his perfect conniving witch of a mother, Jack MacGowran as Brian’s adjutant Phadrig Oge, Denis O’Dea as the village priest and, as the denizens of Darby’s favorite pub, Nora O’Mahoney, J. G. Devlin and Farrell Pelly, the Harry Hope of the 1956 Broadway and 1960 television editions of The Iceman Cometh. The splendid animation effects are by Joshua Meador and the tasty score is by Oliver Wallace, his finest for Disney after Dumbo.

Text copyright 2023 by Scott Ross

Waltzing in the wonder of why they’re here

Standard

By Scott Ross

As ever, click the links for more complete reviews.

If it is true, as Pasteur noted (and the late Harlan Ellison often repeated) that chance favors the prepared mind, the role of coincidence in that preparation is perhaps under-explored. Exhibit A: When I recently watched the wholly unnecessary and weirdly schizophrenic, simultaneously gay-courting and fag-bashing 1975 Funny Girl sequel Funny Lady something about its worst musical number kept tapping at the back of my brain, a niggling half-memory I couldn’t recover. Consequently, after taking a look at the 1974 That’s Entertainment! for the first time in decades I took down my paperback copy, left in my Christmas stocking in 1976, of Howard Dietz’s autobiography Dancing in the Dark. Dietz wrote, among so many marvelous lyrics,* those for the song “That’s Entertainment,” which premiered in the 1953 The Band Wagon, and in one of the photo sections of his book was the answer I had been seeking: A Florence Vandamm shot of the dancer Tilly Losch in the expressionistic “Dancing in the Dark” number in the 1931 musical revue also called The Bandwagon, from which the movie later took its name. There Losch was, swathed from head to toe, elevated on a platform, the entire stage decorated with large abstract triangular figures, the lower floor populated by Albertina Rasch’s massed dancers.

Thus we see that when it came to their big, embarrassing (and — to give Herbert Ross et al. the benefit of the doubt — unconsciously racist) production number “(It’s Gonna Be a) Great Day,” the people who made Funny Lady simply stole from Albert R. Johnson’s designs and Constance Ripley’s costumes of 1931, made a few surface tweaks, “integrated” the number by making the dancers black instead of white (while also making it seem they are worshipping the great white goddess Streisand), and called it new.

The reason I take issue with this is that it’s an especially blatant example of the sort of sleazy “creative” thinking that goes on in modern Hollywood, where anything is original until someone notices that it isn’t… and then it’s called something other than what it is. (See below.) Although “Great Day” isn’t nearly as appalling a case of plagiarism, I’m reminded by it of the self-same Harlan Ellison mentioned above, who sued that talented hack James Cameron over The Terminator when he saw the movie and discovered that Cameron had gleefully and shamelessly admitted (to Starlog magazine) he’d stolen its plot from the Ellison teleplays “Soldier” and “Demon with a Glass Hand,” written for the old “Outer Limits” series in 1964. “Ripped off” were Cameron’s own, apt words for what he did.

People in the movie industry, even very gifted ones, often think nothing of lifting what they like from the work of others, without attribution. Nothing I have read about Funny Lady mentions “Dancing in the Dark,” yet that provenance, once you examine the photographic evidence, could not be more obvious or explicit. It’s perhaps especially egregious a case of theft since The Band Wagon was regarded, in its time and after by those who saw it, as the pinnacle of the American musical revue. But it had been over 40 years since that show ran on Broadway, and how many of its admirers were in a position to raise the alarm about it? Apparently no one remembered the “Dancing in the Dark” number, except perhaps the people who created it… and the ones who stole from it.

Speaking of Ellison: He once used as an example of paralogical thinking a convicted murderer who kept protesting that he couldn’t have killed a little boy by repeatedly kicking him because he was wearing sneakers at the time. “It’s an hommage!” I can just hear them all squealing. No. You saw photographs in the New York Public Library Collection of someone else’s work, lifted it, refitted it, and claimed it as your own. And it’s still the worst goddamned number in your lousy movie.

“But in theirs the performer was dressed in white! In ours she’s in black!”

Yeah, and that killer couldn’t have kicked that child to death with sneakers.

I will grant that Bob Mackie and Ray Aghayan’s costume for Streisand is more flattering to her than Constance Ripley’s was for Tilly Losch, what with those weird metallic-looking cylinders sticking out at right angles from the top of her head.

However, the basic concept of the dress is still a rip-off of other people’s work. When you see something like this, and either know instantly what’s being stolen or figure it out, it causes you to wonder what the cost in Hollywood of having integrity is.

That is, if it exists at all.

Herewith, more photographic evidence against the accused. The beautiful black and white portraits from 1931 of Tilly Losch are by Vandamm.

Text copyright 2023 by Scott Ross


*Among them: “Alone Together,” “By Myself,” “Got a Bran’ New Suit,” “Haunted Heart,” “I Guess I’ll Have to Change My Plan,” “I Love Louisa,” “If There is Someone Lovelier Than You,” “I See Your Face Before Me,” “Louisiana Hayride,” “Love Is a Dancing Thing,” “Magic Moment,” “New Sun in the Sky,” “Shine on Your Shoes,” “Something to Remember You By,” “Triplets” (all with music by Arthur Schwartz) and “Moanin’ Low” (music by Ralph Rainger). That last one contains the wonderful couplet,
“Moanin’ low, my sweet man, I love him so
Though he’s mean as can be…”
which Edward G. Robinson remembers so vividly in Key Largo and which prompts him to goad Claire Trevor into singing the song in her ruined alcoholic voice.