The Towering Inferno (1974)

 

Det tårnhøje helvede

The last movie of 1974 is “The Towering Inferno”, an added movie from the 10^th edition revision of the Book.

This is one of the most iconic of the seventies disaster movies, the one most people would have seen. It was frequently enough on television in my childhood but was, rightly so, deemed unsuitable for children to watch.

On the opening night of the tallest skyscraper in the world a fire breaks out due to faulty electrical wiring and hundred of people are trapped in the building, including 300 guests at the opening party on the top floor. In classic disaster movie style, we follow a variety of characters through a night that is growing increasingly desperate as the fire spreads.

Paul Newman is the chief architect of the tower, Doug Robert, who, too late, discovers that his specs has not been followed in a bid to reduce costs. Rather than attend the party, he goes on a hunt to survey the scale of the problem. Too late as it turns out, the bad wiring has already started a fire on the 81’st floor. The fire brigade, headed by Michael O’Halloran (Steve McQueen) are called in but as bad wiring is just one of many unsafe shortcuts, the fire spreads fast and is soon out of control.

A stellar ensemble cast includes William Holden as James Duncan, builder of the tower, Faye Dunaway as his daughter, Susan. Richard Chamberlain as her scumbag husband Roger, Robert Vaughn as a senator, O.J. Simpson as Harry Jernigan, security and not least Fred Astaire as an elderly con-man, just to mention a few.

This is a big movie in every sense of the word. Irwin Allen really went out of his way to create a spectacle. A skyscraper on fire is no simple affair and though some of the cinematography looks a bit dated, there is no doubt this is a landmark movie on pyrotechnics, special effects and stunts. The scale of the thing makes Allen’s previous movie, “The Poseidon Adventure” small and primitive by comparison. Usually on large scale disaster movies the acting drama takes the back seat and suffers as a result, but for a change this is not too shabby. Not surprising, really, when you have both Newman and McQueen in the movie. That cannot go wrong.

I was worried going in how this movie would work post-9/11. We have all seen the pictures of the twin towers on fire and people trapped on the top floors desperately trying to escape, recently even, as media was full of it less than 2 months ago at the marking of 20 years since the event. There are a lot of parallels and I kept making comparisons. The problem is that no matter how brutal Allen is, killing people left and right, it pales compared to the horror of 9/11. Reality trumps fiction. I suppose it takes something away from the movie and leaves a bit of poor taste in the mouth. McQueen’s last words that some day thousands of people will be stuck in such a building turned uncanny prophetic.

There is a parallel as well to human hubris, a combo of the Tower of Babel and the Icaros myth. Humans reaching for the sky, but being only humans with human failings, they get, literally, burnt.

I liked the movie a lot better than I had expected. It works on many levels, and I think that the lack of CGI and other modern tricks forces an emphasis on other element. Not for lack of trying, there is a lot of fire here, but there is also dramatic content.

And with that, I am ready for 1975…

 

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)

 

Bring mig Alfredo Garcias hoved

The Book writes that “Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia” is a polarizing movie. I see what the editors mean as this goes both ways for me. It is brutal and disgusting, but also it is also fascinating and raw like few movies. But then, you can say that about any of Sam Peckinpah’s movies.

Bennie, played by a very grimy Warren Oates, is a bar manager in some seedy part of modern Mexico. When some big money gangster types walk in and offer a lot of money for information on a person called Alfredo Garcia, Bennie smells a chance to get out of this dump and move on. Garcia was quite a women’s man and had impregnated a gangster boss’ daughter. He also had an affair with Elita, Bennie’s girlfriend, and now Bennie can get 10.000$ if he can bring back the head of Alfredo Garcia.

Elita (Isela Vega) knows Garcia recently died in a car accident so now she and Bennie embarks on a road trip to find his grave and chop of his head. This turns out to be quite an odyssey with rapist bikers (Kris Kristofferson), Garcia’s mourning and vengeful family and other gangsters looking for that reward. Bennie will find out how far he is willing to go for money.

That is essentially the core of the movie. Bennie must bend all hos moral principles on the way. He has to desecrate a grave, subject his girlfriend to degradations beyond belief, shoot people left and right and drive through the desert with a stinking head in a bag. It costs him everything, including Elita and the accumulation drives him mad. Is it worth it? What is money when it costs you everything else?

This is a grungy movie, almost grindhouse in style. Everything is dirty, the cars, the roads, houses and especially the people. Sometimes on the outside, sometimes inside, usually both. Even the Madonna character of Elita is a whore with crabs. There is a moral capitulation everywhere, closely linked to poverty and the condition that among the poor you can buy anything with money. Mexico here is the lawless place the West is in Peckinpah’s Western movies. There is very little romantic about this world, it is one you suffer, not enjoy, and it is one you need to get away from if you want a chance to save anything of yourself.

Needless to say, this makes “Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia” a rather depressing movie.

There are a lot of Peckinpah staples here. The already mentioned griminess for one. Tons of very graphic shootings, all of which are in slow motion with blood splattering in all directions. There is a liberal use of alcohol, Bennie is rarely seen without a bottle of liquor in his hand or at his side. The liquor is a crutch to cope with the misery, something apparently adopted from Peckinpah himself. The women in the movie are madonnas and whores and generally being abused. We see a lot of Vega’s breasts, but it is used as a sign of her degradation, and you have to be a very disturbed person to see anything arousing in that. Some say Peckinpah hated women and I can believe that.

There is some high art in the very awful and that is more or less where “Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia” is. It is great and horrible at the same time. I cannot say that I liked it, but there is something impressive about it that makes me respect it. Would I recommend it? Not to everybody.

 

Stjerner og vandbærere (1974)

 

Stjerner og vandbærere

For my third off-List movie for 1974 I had chosen the legendary Danish sports movie “Stjerner og vandbærere” (which apparently go by the English title of “The Stars and the Water Carriers”…), but it turned out it was not legendary enough to be available in any format. You cannot buy this movie and the YouTube version is with English speak, which completely misses the point. This movie is all about Jørgen Leth’s narration in Danish. The only way, seriously, to watch this movie is to venture into Copenhagen to the Cinematek of the Danish Film Institute and ask to watch a copy on the spot. That I finally got around to do last Wednesday along with another movie I had picked for 1975. More on that one in a few weeks.

This was actually a very nice experience. They are very helpful at the Cinematek and you get a nice room to watch the movie in, with headphones and soft seats. A great afternoon, really, for both my movies were all I hoped they would be.

“Stjerner og vandbærere” is a film epos, a poem, really, on the 1973 edition of the Giro d’Italia bicycle race. It is a feature length movie by Jørgen Leth who until recently was an integral part of the commentator team of any large bicycle race on Danish television such as Tour de France or Giro d’Italia. His style is poetic with short, clipped sentences, painting an epos out of the duels and endurance of the riders in these races. In his story they become heroes battling for the highest glory, knights with superhuman capabilities.

Giro d’Italia takes place over a few weeks and for those not into bicycling the winner is the one who finishes in the combined shortest time. Each rider is part of a professional bicycling team where some are stars, and some are there to help the stars. It is a grueling race over a very long distance and with many, very tall mountains.

It is telling about the style that we almost never get any results in this movie or times or positions. These, normally so essential, elements are completely uninteresting to Jørgen Leth. For him it is the dynamics, how the assistant riders, the water carriers, are helping the stars, the support teams with the doctors and mechanics, the concentration before the race, the excitement of the towns the race is passing through, and, perhaps more than anything else, the duels, the battles, the king and the challengers.

Eddy Merckx was the ruling king and famous for grinding the opposition with his constant, powerful speed. Gimondi his rival and Fuente, the Spanish climbing specialist who may or may not be able to challenge the king in the mountains. In Leth’s narration this is so much more than bicycle duels. These are big tactical games and demonstrations of superhuman strength, desperate attacks and honorable defeats.

A second main character is Ole Ritter, the single Danish participants, who officially is a support rider for Gimondi on the Bianchi team, but because he is doing so well, gets a chance to race his own chance.

This was exactly the movie I had expected it to be, exactly the Jørgen Leth I know from watching bicycling 10-20 years ago and exactly the larger than life epos I hoped it would be. Technically it is not up to today’s standard and also the race has evolved since then. Thankfully the riders are now wearing helmets and the roads on the mountains are now paved, but there is also an innocence here. Riders picking up cola and beer en-route to drink and interviewing each other for television. It is charming, no doubt about that.

If you can get your hands on this movie it is definitely one I recommend, I just wonder if the narration will come through in the subtitles. Stay away from the English version on YouTube.

    

Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (Angst Essen Seele Auf) (1974)

 

Angst æder sjæle op

The next installment from the hands of Rainer Werner Fassbinder is “Ali: Fear Eats the Soul” (“Angst essen Seele auf”). This time Fassbinder takes on the theme of racism.

One rainy night, Emmi (Brigitte Mira), a 60 or so year old widow, enters a bar to seek shelter. This is a bar frequented by guestworkers and she is clearly a rare sight in the bar. The patrons want to have fun with her and suggest Ali (El Hedi ben Salem) to dance with her. Ali, however, is a gentleman and he helps her home and as it rains, Emmi asks him inside until the rain clears. Emmi and Ali fall for each other.

This is controversial. Ali is 20 years younger than Emmi, but, a lot worse, he is also Moroccan, one of the many guestworkers that had started to arrive in Germany. Emmi and Ali do not seem to care but everybody else does. A large chunk of the movie is the reaction of their surroundings. The gossiping Hausfrau in her apartment block, her narrowminded colleagues at work, the deeply racist grocery storekeeper across the street, even the staff at Ali’s bar. The most hurtful reactions come from Emmi’s grown children who essentially cut her off for marrying Ali. Not that they cared much about her to begin with.

Eventually Emmi starts to adopt her surrounding’s view on Ali. She starts acting as his superior as if she is barely tolerating him and their relationship falls apart. Is their relationship now beyond repair?

“Ali: Fear Eats the Soul” is filmed in a strange, stilted manner. The actors are frequently just standing still, looking with the camera just lingering. The dialogue is often short and clipped and delivered as if the actor is just reading from a script. It is an odd impression, somewhere between theatrical and amateurish. Eventually I realized it is a stylistic choice. It removes it a little bit from reality and perhaps allows it to caricature some of the characters and reactions.

It is a very focused story, on the racism met by this mixed couple. We learn very little about them. The only reason for them falling for each other seems to be that they are both lonely and colorblind (as well as age-blind). The stylism allows this singular focus. This also means it is a very easy movie to read: It is simply an exposé of all the racism and prejudice people who are different are faced with. Make them gay or in other ways different from mainstream and it would be the same story.

I think Fassbinder had a good time making this movie. It is an open provocation of mainstream Germany, exposing both smaller and large scale racism and also the often ridiculous opinions and reactions. All these people get to look incredibly small and stupid. The best scene is when Emmi is presenting Ali to her grown children. The look, drawn out, of their stunned disbelief, shock and embarrassment is so hilariously funny that I just could not stop laughing. Fassbinder made these children 10 years again.

The movie takes place in Munich. Fassbinder had some relation to Munich, and the movie allegedly takes place some month after the Munich Olympic Games tragedy, helping to explain some of the animosity towards foreigners, but it also feels like an apt choice. My wife has some relation to Munich and used to live there so I have visited Munich frequently. Let us just say that it is not surprising that Hitler started his career in Munich.

I would not go so far as to say “Ali: Fear Eats the Soul” is a great film, but it is interesting enough and of course just as relevant today as it was in 74. If you are in a Fassbinder mood, this would be a good pick.  

Anyway, I am off to Germany tomorrow, not Munich this time, but Berlin (much nicer place) for a little vacation. If weather holds, we are going to visit the Babelsberg studios in Potsdam. Cannot wait…

The Godfather, Part II (1974)

 

The Godfather II

The big winner at the Academy awards in 1974 was “The Godfather Part II”. It was the first sequel to win Best Picture and is, as I understand it, by many ranked even higher than the first Godfather movie.

It is a great movie, I am just not certain I would swing myself that high.

“The Godfather Part II” continues where “The Godfather” left off. Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) is in full control of the family and all its activities. It is big business and big money and despite his promises to his wife, Kay (Diane Keaton) it is still mostly on the wrong side of the law. As in the first movie, this one starts with a big family party, eating, dancing, family and friends while inside presides Michael, giving audience to applicants. There is no doubt Vito’s role is now Michael’s.

Something in the line of a big business venture is in progress involving a competitor or business partner, Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg). The game in underhanded and involves treason and violence and soon Michael sees enemies everywhere. He finds himself very much alone, up there on his throne.

Intermixed we follow the story of the young Vito (Robert De Niro), how his family was killed by the mafia in Sicily and how he came to America and eked out a living. Eventually, Vito gets involved with the underworld and it turns out he has a real talent. Soon he is the king of the Italian community in New York.

“The Godfather Part II” is an interesting film that tries to dig into the nature of the mafia phenomenon. It is examining how it works, what makes people do what they do and the price they pay morally and as well as physically. It is fascination and abhorrence at the same time. Respect and disgust. The problem is just that as a driver of a movie, especially a very long one as this is, it is not enough. Where Part I had an evolving plot that kept the movie interesting, Part II is more about disintegration than actual plot and it makes the story feel long. I never worked out the details of the plot with Hyman Roth, which is frustrating, but also not really important. Michael probably did not work it out either, he just lashed out left and right, wielding his significant power.

The mixing in of the Vito story did a lot to lift the movie and I found it potentially more accessible, but just as it was getting interesting, it is left floating. When Vito has become a mafioso, he is home, and the story is left there.

On the technical side this is a true dazzle movie. The new year party in Cuba, the Little Italy setting, and the court hearings are such time capsules, full of interesting details. There are so many great acting performances here by such a stellar cast like Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall, Robert De Niro and so many more. This is a big movie by any standard and maybe that was what dazzled the Academy.

Gangster movies was never really my thing and I do not share that fascination with thugs, so this is a bit uphill for me. Having now watched “The Godfather Part II” I am convinced “Chinatown” was robbed. That was the best movie back in 1974.

I do give my recommendation for “The Godfather Part II”, although I may be the last person above 40 to have watched it. It is a big and important and very impressive movie. It just did not keep me that engaged.

  

Blazing Saddles (1974)

 

Sheriffen skyder på det hele

“Blazing Saddles” is the second Mel Brooks film for 1974. Considering how happy I was with “Young Frankenstein”, I had high hopes for “Blazing Saddles”, but alas, this is in my humble opinion a far inferior movie.

“Blazing Saddles” is a spoof on every Western ever made, trying as it is to cramp every trope and cliché of the genre into a single movie and turning them upside down. This is the lonely sheriff (Cleavon Little) against ungrateful townspeople, a drunkard of a gunslinger as the sheriff’s sidekick (Gene Wilder), an evil railroad baron (Harvey Korman as Hedley, not Hedy, Lamarr), a corrupt governor, uncivilized cowboys, exotic saloon performers and so on. On top of that Brooks throws in racism and bigotry as a major theme.

The story is… well, I am not too certain what the story really is, because it is very clear from the get go that the objective here is to fire off as many jokes as possible far more than drive a story forward. I imagine there was an outline of a story somewhere, but in some frenzied brainstorming among the scriptwriters it sort of got lost. It is something about a railroad baron who needs to drive his railroad through a town and so he needs people to move. To that end he gets them a black sheriff, expecting that will drive them out of town. Then he wants to get rid of the sheriff and then get rid of the townspeople again… well, I am not too sure.

In any case, the jokes here have totally taken over the movie. They fail more often than fly, and that is not necessarily because they are bad, but mainly because they flood the movie. It all becomes terribly silly and infantile and it seems as if Brooks forgot the principle that worked so well in “Young Frankenstein” that every joke needs a straight partner. There are no straight partners here. What would have been a funny scene in any other context or as a stand-alone scene becomes a wish-wash of silliness.

A wonderful scene like Gene Wilder telling Cleavon Little that these people are “just simple villagers, the clay of the West, you know, morons” is super funny when I watch that snippet, but in the movie, I hardly smiled at it and it is such a shame. Madeline Kahn’s Lili Von Shtupp sings the wonderfully terrible “I am Tired”, but in the context it is almost boring. There is simply an overload of jokes, and this is unfortunately Mel Brooks as I know him.

The anarchy of it all goes all in towards the end with a complete breakdown of the fourth wall, with actors of this movie breaking into the set of another movie and trashing it and sheriff and sidekick wondering off to find a cinema to watch the end of their own movie while talking to the audience…

With “Young Frankenstein” Brooks could restrain himself enough to maintain a balance and it worked. With “Blazing Saddles” that balance is completely gone. I am sure it works for some people, I am almost convinced my son will like it, but it did not work for me. When I start glancing at my watch it is a bad sign.

When I think about it, I could say almost the same things about “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, but with a completely different outcome. There it all works. Curious…

 

Celine and Julie go Boating (Celine et Julie Vont en Bateau) (1974)

 

Céline og Julie ta'r sig en tur

The Book writes that if you do not master French, you will not fully appreciate this movie. This is likely true, and I suspect this can be extended to not even understand this movie. I know, I know, I have been here before and yes, I seem to be one those plebeian viewers who need the movie to make sense on the immediate level to appreciate it. It is clearly a failing in me, so my views are strictly for myself and not a general verdict on the movie.

I was rather lost watching “Celine and Julie Go Boating” (“Céline et Julie vont en bateau”).

Or, to be more precise, every time I thought I understood what it is going on, something happened to convince me that I do not understand it after all.

Julie (Dominique Labourier) sits in a park reading a book on magic spells. She sees another woman, Celine (Juliet Berto) rush by and drop something. Julie picks it up and runs after Celine to return it, but she keeps running away, dropping more things. After a long run through Paris, they meet up in a café and soon after they are best friends (?). They start sharing each other’s life, literally, and they start visiting a strange house. Coming out from the house they are confused and do not remember anything, but there is a candy in their mouth and using this candy they can relive what appears to happen in the house as if it is a movie.

The story in the house is a loop around a triangle drama where a child ends up dead, but they only see bits and pieces, so they have to return to get more candy. Julie also finds out this is a house she visited a lot when she was younger, maybe even as a child.

Eventually, Julie and Celine cook up a magic brew so they can enter the story and save the girl.

There are elements that are naturalistic, like the Paris setting and the bohemian lives of the women and then there is the fantastic, Alice in Wonderland, element of entering a magic fantasy world. The problem for me is that neither are very consistent. In both, the things they say or do or events they are subjected to make very little sense, as if it all take place on a planet where cause and effect are messed up. When I started to settle on the idea that they have found an entrance to a fantasy world where they can change events I actually did get invested in the story, almost understanding it, only to get thrown off again when clearly something else was going on.

So, what is actually happening here? Forget about the apparent story. The real story is something about fantasy worlds, about loops, inner-lives and some meta-themes around being a viewer and active participant at the same time. From what perspective are we watching a story? Can we take on the role of somebody else? Who is the viewer anyway? Is all this actually the imagination of a cat?

Heady stuff, and I am not at all certain any of this is even remotely correct.

What I do know is that “Celine and Julie Go Boating” clocks in at over 3 hours and that I had to stop it several time because I was zoning out. You have to be really into this stuff to stay focused throughout its running time and I cannot say that I was. Half the time I had no idea what was going on. My mastery of French is clearly insufficient.