|
Post by pizzaboy on Jun 18, 2008 14:48:12 GMT
[Review deleted due to plagiarism.]
|
|
|
Post by Mike Sullivan on Jun 18, 2008 18:56:31 GMT
Ahh, this used to be Capo's favorite film five years ago. Times change.
Of all the police procedural films I've seen, this easily the best. It's a hard hitting, gritty masterpiece. Popeye Doyle is one of the great screen characters. He's unrelenting, flawed and an utterly complicated man and it doesn't help that the film doesn't really try to explain to you why he is who he is. We're shown everything. We're shown the whole racket and the underworld of 1962 New York. It's a film that fimmereses us in the culture and in the story. Though there have been bigger chases with more explosions in recent years, I dare you to find anything as gripping as the chase in this film.
It's unsettling, dark and one of the best films of its decade. If only Friedkin could have made better films after this one...
|
|
|
Post by pizzaboy on Jul 3, 2008 16:38:02 GMT
Ahh, this used to be Capo's favorite film five years ago. Times change. I know. I think the Mick might have "outgrew" this classic. See how snobby film school can be? ;D
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 3, 2008 19:25:01 GMT
It's still among my favourite films, it's just I've outgrown the notion of having a single favourite film. I think.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 17, 2009 16:51:35 GMT
Spoilers ahead...
I watched this last week. It's still a great film. Friedkin shows little interest in the usual filmic New York, and so what we get is the social underbelly, and it's all visually appealing stuff. As a police procedural it's tense and succinct.
More problematic is the depiction of Popeye Doyle, the racist vigilante cop. Friedkin not only seems to relish his vigilantism, he encourages it: the posters read "Doyle is bad news, but a good cop." What makes him a good cop is seemingly what also makes him bad news: he shows no moral concern for the people pertinent to the case at hand, be it a black drugs peddler or a fellow cop.
Much to the real life Sonny Grosso's dismay, the writers have Doyle shoot one of the Frenchmen he's chasing in the back. This is also the still that dons the more well-known promotion posters. This is murder, and nothing comes of it in the narrative (by that point we're into the final act). At the film's end, Doyle shoots at a shadow that he believes to be the elusive Charnier, only to find it's Mulderig, the wiseass Fed assisting the case. Doyle shows no remorse; at this point he's obsessed with Charnier, and the film ends with him running off in pursuit. (A title card reveals Charnier was never caught.) And so this vigilantism is - if not justified - accounted for by means of Popeye's seeming psychological disintegration, the start of which is how quickly he realises he's met more than his cunning match in Charnier.
But there is no critical distance between the makers and Doyle. Cloudy (Scheider) grounds him somewhat, but otherwise, there is nothing to counteract his actions; his boss Simonson - played by real life Eddie Egan, on whom Popeye is based - is concerned more about Doyle's high number of arrests (due to their low quality) than the way he achieves them; and the FBI, from the outset, are portrayed as more a nuisance to "good" police work than anything else. Mulderig holds a grudge against Popeye because of a past case (vaguely referenced) in which a fellow cop got killed due to one of Popeye's decisions; but Mulderig is too peripheral a character to have any emotional weight - ultimately, he's there to make Popeye less despicable: we care little when he's killed.
This is something Frankenheimer addresses more in the sequel,when he takes the Doyle of this film and places him into an alien setting (to good effect). The sequel isn't as grounded in reality (this film is based on real life events), so I guess there's a flexibility there with which Frankenheimer could play.
Friedkin notes what drew him to the project, beyond the narratvie potential of the case itself, was the fact that most of the arrested principals got away with it; they received acquitted or reduced sentences. Friedkin shows fascination in the extra material with this, and it's a fascination I share with him. But as it is in the final film, these are mere endnotes; the commercial factors of making a police thriller outweigh the possibility of going further than the case at hand and showing the inadequacies of the judicial system - how, once the hard work is done, little actually comes of it. It would have possibly made for a more fascinating (albeit lengthier) film had these aspects not been reduced to brief, ironic and somewhat confusing text conclusions.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Jul 17, 2009 17:00:49 GMT
I really want to see this again.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jul 17, 2009 23:59:36 GMT
Spoilers ahead... I watched this last week. It's still a great film. Friedkin shows little interest in the usual filmic New York, and so what we get is the social underbelly, and it's all visually appealing stuff. As a police procedural it's tense and succinct. Agree, and once upon a time you made a terrific observation that FC was so ripped off, it can be hard to see what was so revolutionary about FC in the first place. I'm reminded of A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, which looking in context of the music video, was ahead of the musical-synching visualization narrative 20 years before MTV...who apparently wrote a letter to that director saying as much. But those that don't, probably think of it as a charming little cash-in, nothing more. More problematic is the depiction of Popeye Doyle, the racist vigilante cop. Friedkin not only seems to relish his vigilantism, he encourages it: the posters read "Doyle is bad news, but a good cop." What makes him a good cop is seemingly what also makes him bad news: he shows no moral concern for the people pertinent to the case at hand, be it a black drugs peddler or a fellow cop. See I disagree right there. For one thing, Friedkin and Hackman were/are both liberals, and I always thought it was pretty obvious how they painted Doyle as what he is: A racist asshole, but you gotta admit, you got a kick out of that legendary car-chasing-subway sequence, that persistent mother fucker after the crooks. And I think to a certain extent he shows some moral concern. If he didn't, why did he make a conscious effort to try to dodge other cars and pedestrians during that whole scene? Besides, the ending makes clear the limits of such vigilante procedural. In other words, the more realist (for better or for worse) DIRTY HARRY, which interestingly also came out in 1971. You should review that one sometime Capo, out of curiosity, history, politics, etc. I would love to read it. Much to the real life Sonny Grosso's dismay, the writers have Doyle shoot one of the Frenchmen he's chasing in the back. This is also the still that dons the more well-known promotion posters. This is murder, and nothing comes of it in the narrative (by that point we're into the final act). At the film's end, Doyle shoots at a shadow that he believes to be the elusive Charnier, only to find it's Mulderig, the wiseass Fed assisting the case. Doyle shows no remorse; at this point he's obsessed with Charnier, and the film ends with him running off in pursuit. (A title card reveals Charnier was never caught.) And so this vigilantism is - if not justified - accounted for by means of Popeye's seeming psychological disintegration, the start of which is how quickly he realises he's met more than his cunning match in Charnier. This point adds to my argument above. But there is no critical distance between the makers and Doyle. Cloudy (Scheider) grounds him somewhat, but otherwise, there is nothing to counteract his actions; his boss Simonson - played by real life Eddie Egan, on whom Popeye is based - is concerned more about Doyle's high number of arrests (due to their low quality) than the way he achieves them; and the FBI, from the outset, are portrayed as more a nuisance to "good" police work than anything else. Mulderig holds a grudge against Popeye because of a past case (vaguely referenced) in which a fellow cop got killed due to one of Popeye's decisions; but Mulderig is too peripheral a character to have any emotional weight - ultimately, he's there to make Popeye less despicable: we care little when he's killed. Friedkin of sorts did something similar with TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A., where there this is whole plotturn where the "hero" Secret Service agents need cash quick so they hear of this airport drop-off which they steal, only to find out the $$$ and the guy they waste are the Feds...and end up in a great chase (even better than FC) where the movie wants you to somehow root for them against the odds, even though they deserve to be arrested and prosecuted. This is something Frankenheimer addresses more in the sequel,when he takes the Doyle of this film and places him into an alien setting (to good effect). The sequel isn't as grounded in reality (this film is based on real life events), so I guess there's a flexibility there with which Frankenheimer could play. Yeah I loved that element, and Hackman's Doyle being such an unabashed asshole regarding the French who don't speak American. Of course you (might?) agree that the highly of the underrated FC2 was the whole lengthy cold turkey storyline. How many modern movies would bother and be patient with such a plot-turn? Friedkin notes what drew him to the project, beyond the narratvie potential of the case itself, was the fact that most of the arrested principals got away with it; they received acquitted or reduced sentences. Friedkin shows fascination in the extra material with this, and it's a fascination I share with him. But as it is in the final film, these are mere endnotes; the commercial factors of making a police thriller outweigh the possibility of going further than the case at hand and showing the inadequacies of the judicial system - how, once the hard work is done, little actually comes of it. It would have possibly made for a more fascinating (albeit lengthier) film had these aspects not been reduced to brief, ironic and somewhat confusing text conclusions. A good point, one that maybe doesn't bother me as much as it does you, but still a relevant point none the less. You know what I wish? I wish Hollywood would quit doing the text epilogue, shit even PUBLIC ENEMIES did that and it annoys me. I mean its a cheap narrative device to cover storytelling ground the filmmakers don't want to fucking bother with, and it comes off as just lazy.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 20, 2009 12:16:35 GMT
For one thing, Friedkin and Hackman were/are both liberals, and I always thought it was pretty obvious how they painted Doyle as what he is: A racist asshole, but you gotta admit, you got a kick out of that legendary car-chasing-subway sequence, that persistent mother fucker after the crooks. Yeah, Hackman reportedly had difficulty getting into the role. But I don't think any of that matters when the final presentation is problematic; Friedkin gets deliciously excited when talking about the real life Egan - he may not agree with his moral stance, but he relishes his cinematic appeal. And the treatment of character can only be superficial in this respect, without any critical detachment. The chase sequence is extraordinarily put together, but its aesthetic excitement may distract from the unfolding vigilantism. Fast edits do that. Well, it's in his interest not to crash; both the camera and Doyle treat other vehicles and pedestrians as obstacles (nuisances) between the cop and his quarry. But like I said, when Doyle kills Mulderig, there's little concern shown for the fact that this fellow policeman is dead. And that's made easy for us in advance: Mulderig is the pestering FBI agent who hinders Doyle more than he assists him; conveniently, he's a bigger pain in the ass than Doyle himself.
|
|