Film Pairings — An Escapist Night With Harrison Ford

Forget for a moment Harrison Ford’s work in Indiana Jones, Star Wars and the superior Blade Runner. He has anchored dozens of popular movies reflecting our times and dozens more of pure escape. I do not know him, nor do I have any knowledge or opinion about the man as a human being. Like everybody else I’ve seen an occasional interview on TV.  Ford seems uncomfortable, awkward, as most of us non-celebrities would be with a camera in our face. That may be the magic he brings to his roles, a man uncomfortable with the expectations others have of him or those he has of himself. He is much like us.  He is for his generation what Jimmy Stewart was for his — our stand in.

There are actors — James Garner, Tom Hanks, Gene Hackman among them – who have an easy believability.  Harrison Ford is also one of those. He’s not Daniel Day Lewis or Christian Bale, an actor convincing us he’s Lincoln or a serial killer; but this guy, essentially the same guy he’s been in the last several movies, effortlessly it seems, convinces us that Harrison Ford is not the character, but that the character is Harrison Ford. And he’s damned good at it.

Instead of going for Indiana Jones, Hans Solo, or Jack Ryan, characters he helped make icons, there are several films that are especially well done thrillers: Frantic, Witness, and Presumed Innocent. They are well worth your time. Then there are those in which Ford adds just enough to standard fare, making what might otherwise be a mere modest evening’s entertainment an enjoyable adventure.  Here are two:

Air Force One — If one wanted to learn how to put together a thriller, he or she would do well to study Air Force One.  The bones of the movie’s structure are entirely visible. It’s about a nice guy, former war hero, his lovely wife and daughter whom he loves.  Make him the leader of the free world and put the lives of that world and his lovely family in constantly changing yet increasing jeopardy. Next, once this thing takes off (plane and story) don’t let anyone take a breath. Add lots of patriotism, including a stern President Harrison Ford telling villainous Russian Gary Oldman, in Reagan-like tones, “Get Off My Plane.” Nothing new here. However this is a solidly made film that does what it sets out to do and you will watch it on the edge of your seat while you moan at its predictability and overwrought patriotism. Directed by Wolfgang Peterson, this 1997 film also features Glenn Close, Dean Stockwell, William H. Macy and Paul Guilfoyle.

The Fugitive — This is a story thrice told. It is based, however loosely, on real life story in which a physician is accused of killing his wife. The reporting of of the crime and trials were sensationalized and formed the basis for the wildly popular TV series starring David Janssen and making the “one-armed man” a regularly used phrase to create doubt in an excuse or alibi. In film as in the TV series, to prove his innocence he must be free to find the actual murderer. But the main pursuer is no idiot and he has resources the lonely runner does not. It is cat and mouse all the way. Who knows why anyone would try to top the TV show? But producer Roy Huggins and his crew did so in a remarkably successful way.  The 1993 movie, with Harrison as fugitive Dr. Kimble accused of the crime, goes on the run and the rest is cinematic history. This was a huge box office triumph and whatever negative criticism surfaced was buried in the film’s success. In the end The Fugitive not only made tons of money, but was also nominated for seven Academy Awards, with Tommy Lee Jones winning Best Supporting Actor for his role as the chaser in this thrilling chase movie. Andrew Davis directed.

If you’re having a mixed drink, nothing too sweet.  Think about Scotch and water, soda or on the rocks.  These are old-fashioned thrillers.  They will keep you wide awake without taxing the gray matter.  If you’re going alcohol free, I’ve found tonic with a bit of lemon to have the right touch.  It’s not wrong to have popcorn and Coke with these two.

Film Pairings — Two More You Might Have Missed

Unless you are of a certain age, you may not remember the times, but I do.  In the ‘50s, you would go to a major movie theater to see a popular new movie, maybe the Guns of Navarone starring Gregory Peck and David Niven. If you cared to stick around, you could watch a second film free.  It would probably be in black and white and star someone like Dennis O’Keefe or Richard Denning, not that there’s anything wrong with them.  I usually enjoyed these lower-budget second films.  Then again I wasn’t that particular.  All movies were magic.  The two films paired today are both second features.  They are not in black and white, but they are movies that either weren’t intended to be box office bonanzas or simply didn’t fully succeed.  Even so, they provide an evening more interesting than back-to-back episodes of “Mike and Molly.”

Paranoia —It’s an interesting, but not novel set up, pitting two aging, empire-building  computer mega execs against each other. It would be like watching Larry Ellison and Bill Gates at each other’s throats.  In this case, Harrison Ford and Gary Oldman are the dueling corporate heads and Liam Lambert is the hunky, supposedly brilliant pawn they maneuver to achieve their evil ends.  The film was directed by Robert Luketic and was based on the book of the same name by Joseph Finder. It’s always great to see Ford and Oldman, as well as Richard Dreyfuss who is also featured in this film you’ve seen before. Even so, this is a pleasant if somewhat mindless diversion.

Good People — Just a touch of greed. The tenant in a run-down home of a struggling young couple (James Franco and Kate Hudson) dies, leaving behind a pile of dangerous dough, residue from a double double-crossed dope deal.  The criminal doesn’t appear to have a next of kin and the cops have cleared his abode without discovering the stash. After a brief wait, the couple, (nice kids) decide to keep the money.  After all, what cold possibly go wrong? As it turns out there are two gangs who had been screwed over, and the police have more than a professional interest. There’s really no way they can do the right thing once things get going. Again, the plot is not exactly new.  Most plots aren’t. What we’re interested in here is how can two ordinary people deal with all the powerful and evil forces mounted against them and each other.   There is a certain amount of suspense.  However I kept thinking about Home Alone and how much more effective Macaulay Culkin was in his dealings against his home invaders.  Tom Wilkinson adds a more realistic dimension to the action, but this film, like Paranoia, wasn’t really ready for the big screen.  But again, while you will not be forced into hours of distressed thought about the meaning of life, the goodness or badness of humanity, there are entertaining moments. Good People was directed by Henrik Ruben Genz and based on a book by the same name, written by Marcus Sakey.

Both films were released in 2013 without fanfare and not much in the way of box office receipts.  As an accompaniment, maybe a Kalua and coffee or just coffee to provide that extra boost of energy.

Film Pairings — RoboCop, Double Bill, Double Take

1987

While I’ve read a few science fiction classics, I’ve gravitated toward crime fiction. The same is true for film.  Quite often though a work is a beautiful amalgam of the two. Blade Runner, for example, tops my list of all-time favorite movies. I also remember watching  RoboCop years ago, and how surprised I was that I liked it. I googled it and found out that not only had that been 27 years ago, but that there had been a RoboCop 2 and a RoboCop 3 and all sorts of Robos. Then, as if I needed further proof that I’ve slept through a decade or two, I discovered there was a big-budget RoboCop released this year. Really? Next you’ll tell me the Republicans have taken the Senate.

I decided to watch the original from 1987 again as well as the most recent remake.  I skipped 2 and 3 because reviews, including those from Rotten Tomatoes, suggested the two sequels might not be worth the time.

The 1987 original RoboCop is compelling.  It is a bit more cartoon-like (as Seinfield says, “not that there is anything wrong with that”).  The lines of good and evil are clearly drawn. The emphasis is on action-adventure.  Blood, explosions and chases dominate, yet they’ve made some room for not so subtle satire.  The setting is a crime-ridden Detroit, where we see a greedy high-tech security corporation, in collusion with police, politicians, property developers and the media who benefit at the expense of an unaware, easily led public. Why are we calling this fiction? 

The original classic, directed by Paul Verhoeven gets extra points for being the original and for its earlier warning about the corruption of the authority we have blissfully allowed. It also pointed to the many issues having to do with high-tech and what it means to be human.  Peter Weller is excellent.  Because he is the first RoboCop and he did it so well, it makes it difficult for anyone else taking the role.  The supporting cast does a great job with dialogue lacking in subtlety.  We can thank Nancy Allen, Dan O’Herlihy, Ronny Cox, Kurtwood Smith and Miguel Ferrer for their solid work.

2014

If the 1987 RoboCop told us what was coming, the 2014 version said, “it’s here,” though perhaps not as convincingly as it could.  On the other hand, what the story lost in terms of edge and humor, it gained in creating more depth for its characters and the story beneath the action.  Because it is a high tech-film, we expect the special effects to be better now. They are. There are also more timely tie-ins. Think NSA spying, the use of drones, the regular and publicly accepted  purchase of politicians, not to mention the emergence of partisan media claiming to provide balanced reporting.  You know who you are. 

The supporting cast is top notch.  Michael Keaton doesn’t bother with a cardboard cutout of evil.  Instead, as the slippery CEO, Keaton almost convinces me that he means well.  Smooth as a Wall Street banker.  In director José Padilha’s version, Gary Oldman plays a character not in the original — a doctor who exemplifies the moral dilemma of creating a crime-free city (and make billions for Keaton’s corporation) but also allowing computers to override human judgment and hinting at the slippery slope that implies. Samuel L. Jackson portrays a pro-corporate political commentator with his own show. The Peter Weller role went to Joel Kinnaman, who did a fine job of walking the line between robot and human. His performance was understated as was the movie itself, compared to the original. Both movies are recommended.

Not particularly romantic or especially profound, both Robocops are at least thought provoking and certainly entertaining.  For those who like to imbibe while taking in movies at home, beer and popcorn are just fine.

Film Pairing — The Naughty Joe Orton And A British Education

While the American establishment was attempting to quash the literary influences of such iconoclastic writers as Jack Kerouac, Great Britain’s legendary theatre scene was dealing with its own challenge to the status quo. Out of nowhere a naughty, disrespectful playwright emerged, bringing dark humor, violence, and obscenity to the London stage. His name was Joe Orton and like many rebels, his early death may have sealed his fame. Kerouac died at 47 in 1969 of alcohol abuse. Orton out did him. He died at 34 in 1967 of repeated hammer blows to the head.

In his short life Orton wrote several well-received plays — What the Butler Saw, The Ruffian on the Stair and Loot to name a few. As far as I know only Loot and Entertaining Mr. Sloane made it to film, and also as far as I know, only Sloane (1970) is available for viewing. It stars a very funny and horny Beryl Reid and a hilariously prim and proper Harry Andrews. It also stars Peter McEnery who spends most of the film in his jockey briefs attempting to titillate or offend those with whom he co-inhabits a big, gloomy house. There is sex, murder, and an unquantifiable amount of rude behavior. The play was outrageous and caused the young Orton to be noticed and applauded. Orton seemed to enjoy the attention, positive and negative.

Murder and other forms of criminal behavior appear to be central to all of Orton’s work. They were, in fact, central to his life. If you are interested in this brief but significant period of British theatre and quick rise and fall of one of its legends, you may also want to watch Prick Up Your Ears. The biographical film is based on the book by John Lahr, senior film critic for The New Yorker and directed by award-winning film director Stephen Frears. Gary Oldman, who resembles Orton, plays Joe. Alfred Molina plays Orton’s frustrated lover. Vanessa Redgrave is Orton’s agent and Wallace Shawn plays Lahr. The film (1987) covers the creative years that began when Orton and his lover met and lasted until the last brutal seconds of each of their lives.

The pairing of one of Orton’s most famous plays (adapted to film for posterity) and his well-told, if discomforting, biography can only intensify the argument of whether life mirrors art or visa versa. They certainly won’t settle it. Even so, it is quite an evening.

Not sure what to recommend as accompanying drinks. Certainly beer would work. This isn’t Noel Coward. Because it is cold in most of the English speaking countries in January, maybe a hot toddy — whiskey, hot water and honey with cloves or cinnamon. Or lemon. A hot toddy might calm your nerves and help bring on slumber after an evening of uneasy, embarrassingly funny and tragic drama.