Cast:
Lee Marvin (Walker), Angie Dickinson (Chris), Keenan Wynn (Yost), Carroll O'Connor (Brewster), Lloyd Bochner (Frederick Carter), Michael Strong (Stegman), John Vernon (Mal Reese), Sharon Acker (Lynne), James B. Sikking (hired gun), and Sandra Warner (waitress) Directed by John Boorman (#565 - Zardoz, #975 - Deliverance, #1210 - Excalibur, #1915 - Exorcist II: The Heretic)
Review:
"I don't think it does, but what it is, is what you see." - John Boorman
There was a time where a star could just say to let the director get his privileges right then and there. John Boorman had made his film debut with Catch Us If You Can (known as Having a Wild Weekend in the U.S.). That movie was a vehicle for the band The Dave Clark Five that had a few good notices. Anyway, Boorman was sent by who else but Irwin Winkler (producer of Double Trouble, soon to be released in 1967 and, well, the Rocky films) to meet Lee Marvin when the latter was in the midst of filming of The Dirty Dozen (also released in 1967) because Winkler was interested in having Marvin read for a script he had seen. Boorman (who was interested in making more ambitious films in Hollywood) and Marvin didn't really care for the script but were intrigued by the lead character. Anyway, Marvin bargained for approval of the script and cast in order to want to star in the film, which would be done by MGM and with those privileges granted to him, he immediately deferred it to Boorman. Officially the script was credited to Alexander Jacobs (future writer of one more Boorman film with Hell in the Pacific), David Newhouse, and Rafe Newhouse, but Boorman and Marvin essentially cultivated their own vision of what is basically a loose adaptation of the 1962 novel The Hunter, as written by Donald E. Westlake (writing under the name Richard Stark). Westlake would write two dozen books with the lead character (referred to as "Parker") prior to his death in 2008. It actually wasn't the first adaptation of a Westlake novel, as Jean-Luc Godard did a loose unauthorized adaptation of one of Westlake's other novels to mash up with The Big Sleep (1946) for what was called Made in U.S.A (1966). In 1999, a loose remake was done (i.e. a second adaptation of the book that renamed the character to Porter) that had Mel Gibson play the lead in what was called Payback, which has two distinct versions (as provided by its director in 2006). Boorman made a crack about how the script for that film seemed to resemble the one he and Marvin threw out.
There is an alluring quality to be found in its elusive energy within a clearcut revenge thriller. It is the kind of film where dream and memory really could be more than meets the eye. It is a sleek feature packed with a grimly captured atmosphere with a lead actor clearly ready to meet the challenge in basically playing a myth of a figure. The movie was a modest success with audiences and has since become a cult classic with plenty of admirers, theories and studies about it. Of course one could ask Marvin about what he thought about seeing it on screen around the time of the 1980s: he found it "very unpleasant", one made "for the violence" that saw him shocked at what was shown, particularly from himself, with him ending that thought by stating, "See, there is the fright; and this is why I think guys back off eventually. They say, 'No, I'm not going to put myself to those demons again.' The demon being the self." I probably should see more Marvin films, but even I know his hard-lined appeal from the jump of a film where he practically glides in violence, and it perhaps best comes out in the sequence (involving where the money went) where he doesn't talk (as guided to that point by Marvin) and instead lets Acker essentially ask and answer the questions herself. The fact that he is surrounded by a tremendous supporting cast helps matters in a way that one could only, well, dream, particularly with the grace of Dickinson and the magnetic slime of both Vernon and O'Connor (each had varying level of experience in films and theater, but the former is given the "Introducing" credit) to go with Wynn and his own type of foreground expressive presence. This is a 92-minute film that is uptight to the core that has boiling dedication seen within distinct sounds and color (take a look at the scene of Marvin just walking and see what I mean). By the time the film departs, one knows they have watched a worthwhile noir drenched in commitment from cast and crew for a pretty good time.
Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment