Film Pairings — Two Thrillers From Roman Polanski

Roman Polanski

The director of, Knife in the Water, Repulsion, Chinatown and Rosemary’s Baby is no stranger to horror in the cinematic world or the real one.  He was an all too young witness to the Nazi invasion of his native Poland. In the late ‘30s, his parents were taken to concentration camps. His father managed to survive.  His mother didn’t.  She perished in Auschwitz.  In 1969, Polanski’s wife, actress Sharon Tate, and some of her friends were violently slain by Charles Manson’s “family” and, for years now the director has been dogged by U.S. authorities and the international press for an alleged molestation of an underage model in 1977.  Today, at 81, Polanski rarely leaves France or Poland for fear of extradition to the U.S. where he would likely face incarceration.  While in exile, he continued to make movies.  One of them, The Pianist, brought Polanski another Academy Award, one he could not accept personally without risking arrest. The two movies below are not necessarily his greatest work perhaps, but great work nonetheless. They make for a night of intelligent crime films.

From Frantic

Frantic – A physician and his wife visit Paris for a medical conference. When they get to the hotel, they discover she has the wrong suitcase. While he showers, she steps out to replace some items in her lost luggage.  She doesn’t return. Harrison Ford, as the good doctor, gets a cold shoulder from the French police who believe she is not missing, but that there is trouble in the doctor’s marriage. Without knowing the language, or the city Ford strikes out on his own and finds himself in the middle of a smuggling ring with international security implications as well as in the crossfire between Arab and Israeli agents vying for the smuggled item.  Released in 1988, the thriller holds up as well as any Hitchcock film, perhaps better.  One of my favorites. Spending part of the evening in Paris is a bonus.

From Ghost Writer

Ghost Writer – Also a thriller, this 2010 Polanski film is more mental suspense than physical and alludes not so subtly to real life politicos (Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice, for example). Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Hutton, Kim Cattrall and Eli Wallach are part of the fine cast in this award winning film based on the novel The Ghost by Robert Harris. McGregor is a ghostwriter helping a former British prime minister complete his memoirs. But the writer digs in a little too deep. Torture, anyone? Other war crimes perhaps?  Conservative Brits were outraged by the film. But that wasn’t the only event connected to the film’s release. Polanski was arrested by the Swiss while he was en route to an award ceremony in Berlin. The arrest was requested by U.S. authorities allegedly because of the previous molestation charges.

For the evening’s libations, perhaps Pernod or Absinthe (it’s now legally sold in the U.S.)  For those not imbibing in spirits, there is nothing wrong with Pellegrino. I know that’s Italian, but it’s better than Perrier and this is a Eurozone evening.

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 Pairing — Keep The Kid In The Picture, And Keep Him Alive

This double feature represents that old saying “keep the kid in the movie…because the kid is the movie.  That’s not altogether true for Witness and The Client, both big box office successes that deal with protecting a child who becomes a target for elimination because he knows too much.

The Client (1994) is based on John Grisham’s bestseller. Brad Renfro plays a mature beyond his years teen caught between an overly ambitious U.S. attorney (Tommy Lee Jones) and some gangsters who killed a high-ranking Louisiana politician.  Susan Sarandon plays Reggie Love, an ex-alcoholic attorney on the comeback trail.  She is the character who must keep young Renfro from being run over by the competing forces, both, it seems, intent on destroying him as well as his moonbeam of a mom in order to win the battle.  All three main characters are strong, as is the plot, but Renfro is the draw here.  He plays a tough, uncannily wise country bumpkin. Sarandon was nominated for an Academy Award for “Best Actress.”  Anthony LaPaglia, Ossie Davis and William H. Macy also appear in the film.  Joel Schumacher directed.

Witness (1985) cleaned up in the awards department. I remember loving the movie. My worry, when I sat down to watch it again these many years later, was that it wouldn’t hold up.  I needn’t have worried.  Director Peter Weir created a nearly timeless film that delivers a sit-on-the-edge-of-your seat plot and sets it against both a rarely used social environment and a strikingly visual landscape.  A young Amish kid witnesses the brutal killing of a cop in the restroom of a train station.  Because of corruption in the police department, neither the young witness (Lucas Haas) nor his police protector Harrison Ford, are safe — anywhere.  They retreat, Ford reluctantly, to an Amish community in Pennsylvania, where we meet an attractive Amish woman played by Kelly McGillis and other members of the boy’s family.  We also see Alexander Godunov, Patti LuPone and the first Hollywood appearance of Viggo Mortensen.  Danny Glover plays a significant role and if you pay attention you’ll get a glimpse of James Earl Jones.

As far as what to have with your double feature, maybe this is an alcohol free night.  The Client takes you back and forth from New Orleans to Memphis, but despite this two-hour plus film, time goes quickly.  Witness moves a little more slowly and lusciously. But when you are in Amish country, you have to be content with sipping lemonade on the porch swing.

Film Pairing — The Once And Future Noir

Blade Runner ranked first on a list of top nine crime films I posted here earlier. If I were to redo the list I might have to make room for Inception. 

While it doesn’t have the wonderful noir moodiness of Blade Runner, Inception is exceptional.  Someone described it as a heist movie.  That works for me.  A team of criminals with specialized talents go about the delicate process of stealing information from the brain of one person in order to implant that idea into the brain of a person who will believe is his own.  We travel not in the outside world but in the world of dreams and dreams within dreams.  The laws of reality, as they often do in my dreams anyway, are suspended.

Directed by Christopher Nolan, the film’s protagonist, played by Leonardo DeCaprio, is a deeply flawed dream traveler who brings with him a team of experts to carry out the heist.  Among the other actors are Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ken Watanabe, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Marion Cotillard, Cilian Murphy and Tom Berenger.  Michael Caine makes a brief appearance.  As you might expect from Nolan, though, the real star are the special effects — dazzling in their imagination and convincing in their execution.  Oddly enough and unlike say, Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, there remains a cold genuine connection to reality after all.  The images may be oddly placed and even fold into themselves, but it is not truly as fantastic as dreams or nightmares might be. No matter which dream we are witnessing, these are familiar worlds.  Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Blade Runner is a masterpiece.  I have no authority to say so.  It is simply my opinion.  The world created in this film is recognizable in the sense that we understand such things as modes of transportation, the concept of robots designed to be human-like, and characters who are cops and robbers.  However, the characters are more broadly and colorfully imagined — more exotic and unpredictable without being absurd.  These are people we can come to believe exist, which is important because some of them are “replicants,” who are not considered human, have no feelings, aren’t, in some minds, alive. But is this true? The simple plot belies the implications, historically and currently, of those who view others as unlike them, perhaps even less than human.  Other races or ethnicities.  Undocumented immigrants.  People of another class or in a different circumstance.  It’s a simple, but powerful story.

Based, many say “loosely,” on Philip K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Ridley Scott has a world that is both different and relatable.  Harrison Ford is at his best.  Rutger Hauer and Sean Young are perfectly cast and give the performances of their careers. 

These two films offer a night of challenge.  Inception, particularly, demands that you pay attention.  If you get up for a second glass of Pernod, put the DVD on “pause.”  For a different reason, you won’t want to miss a moment of Blade Runner.  Each frame is a work of art.  Both films will make you think, imagine, question. 

I suggested Pernod as an accompaniment to the night of films because of its near hallucinogenic quality.  Whatever you choose, it should loosen you up a bit.  It’s not a night for Scotch or Martinis.

Film Pairing — Your Cheating Heart, Intimate Murders, Titillating Tales

I confess. I am among those who watch 48 Hours, Dateline and 20/20 when they devote the hour to telling stories of real life murder. As a mystery writer I remain curious about what happens in the real world versus how we interpret such things for fiction. For the most part, these shows represent a type of murder, which isn’t numerically at least, a reflection of what many real life murders are, which is more often unsolvable gang-related slayings, the immediately solved, out of control bar fights, etc.

What we mostly see on network TV are the more interesting personal cases, quite often family related. They involve wives, husbands, and lovers. And while the stories aren’t necessarily classically told, the motives for these murders are classic. Jealousy, greed, revenge. Usually there are least three major people in the equation. The story is usually stretched to fill the time slot with questions like “Just what did she do that cloudy afternoon that could have caused her violent death?” Or, “Everyone liked Henry, but was he the God-fearing man and the devoted husband everyone thought he was?” Usually he wasn’t, but did he kill her? The narrator pushes the story forward in soft, insinuating tones. “No one knew what was waiting for that beautiful young woman on that moonless night, except the person who killed her and who might that be? The police are zeroing in the husband, but was there someone else who had a motive?”

If I were a network programmer, I would call these “intimate murders and titillating tales.” In the end, what we have is murder, mystery, suspense and sex. Hollywood, making the drama from scratch and with far more poetic license, does more, much more. They are able to cast more beautiful women, create more exciting visuals and shape the drama without the constraints of trying to stick to a pre-established set of facts. Usually the TV dramas amount to an arrest and trial. There are only two options: “guilty” or “not guilty.” In the movies, the end can be a complete surprise. And if nothing else, the big-screen, fictional version will have better lighting.

Enter Presumed Innocent. It is hard for me to imagine I first watched this 22 years ago. The reasons I did were probably Harrison Ford, who, with the exception of Indiana Jones, usually played a kind of everyman, and the fact the book was based on a Scott Turow novel. A marriage, an affair, a murder, unintentional consequences, a trial and a twist or two. Sometimes “innocence” isn’t so innocent. Brian Dennehy, Raul Julia and Paul Winfield provide solid support to a solid script in this box office success of 1990.

I hadn’t thought much about Diane Lane before Unfaithful. And while the movie might have been watchable without her, she brought incredible depth to a relatively common triangle. She could have been you or your wife. She was a good person who dares to step out of her predictable role as wife and mother for a moment, just a moment. Life, of course, is never the same. What might be considered shameful becomes much, much worse. The 2002 film features Richard Gere as the husband and Olivier Martinez as the other half of a brief but steamy affair.

Lane is remarkable here. But don’t take my word for it. Though the film came in for some mixed reviews, she was nominated for both the Academy and Golden Globe awards for best actress and won the best actress award from the National Society of Film Critics and another from the New York Film Critics. The film, more erotic than most crime films and perhaps because of its sensuousness, was a major box office hit.

One of the saving graces of both films, not that they necessarily need them, is that the characters are far from pure. Like most of us, just about everyone involved has committed a multitude of small sins and indiscretions. And all it takes is one small misstep to turn a whole life on end.

As accompaniment to this evening’s double feature — and with apologies to the purist drinkers among us — I recommend something rich and sweet. Maybe a Black Russian or a Brandy Alexander. It’s an emotional evening.