Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Dick Tracy (1990) Re-Visit

 

The 1990 version of Dick Tracy from director/star Warren Beatty has a lot going for it that I think people have ignored over the years. The look of this movie is impressive, coming years before the innovation of CGI that would make movies like this much more typical. This film uses a very simple color palette to make the comic strips from the Sunday funny papers come to life as a motion picture.

Warren Beatty probably remembered the comics fondly from his childhood which explains why he finds Dick Tracy a compelling character. I read the comics as well but I mostly knew Dick Tracy from the cartoons that played during the 1960s. Because those cartoons featured ethnically questionable characters, it is rare to find them easily available. Beatty did the right thing by leaving out all of those sidekicks from the cartoons and sticking with the villains who are cartoonish in the first place.

The movie also features Madonna, who sings three or four of the songs, and does a great job vamping it up as a femme fatale in what is basically a children's cartoon. That is except for the one sheer black nightgown that she's wearing which leaves little to the imagination and would certainly justify dad accompanying the children to see this movie in a theater. They're also some risqué lines that are delivered by Madonna and to which Beatty's character of Dick Tracy seems nonplussed. It's a lot of fun and full of cliches, but still spectacular looking with the photography and the production design.

People may forget that Al Pacino got an Academy Award nomination for supporting actor in his role as Big Boy Caprice in this movie. Pacino appears under a thick layer of makeup and an exaggerated bodysuit that makes him look thicker and nearly a hunchback in his role as the mobster who wants to run the city. This is one of those roles where the actor hams it up and gets away with it because of the nature of the film. I was happy to see Pacino get honored, but there's so much about this film that is enjoyable that he is not the only reason to see it.

It may be the Warren Beatty fell in love with shooting machine guns when he made "Bonnie and Clyde" back in 1967, and he still hasn't gotten over the thrill of pointing a Tommy Gun in the direction of things you want to destroy and pulling the trigger. This movie is full of gangsters and cops who arm themselves with this weapon from 1930s gangster films, and then go out at it in a largely bloodless outcome but with lots of explosions. In the wake of "Batman" the year before, I'm sure the studio was looking for a Hero film with spectacular visuals, and they almost got it. When Warren Beatty as Dick Tracy swings around and his yellow top coat flies open at the waist as he points his Tommy Gun in the direction of criminals who are shooting at him, it's a perfect trailer moment.

A terrific Glen Headley played Tess Trueheart, Tracy's love interest, and she is really under playing it in comparison to both Beatty and Madonna. She feels like a real character from a 1930s screwball comedy, although she's not the daffy one in the film. There are a variety of character actors who joined Pacino in the makeup chair to portray the Rogues gallery of criminals that Dick Tracy faces down. We can also throw in Charles Durning and Dick Van Dyke, both without much makeup, as characters in the film that add some interesting elements to the plot. The kid actor, Charlie Korsmo, appeared in a few other films as a child, but as far as I know his acting career didn't reach much further than the early 1990s. There should have been a sequel to this movie. It probably underperformed, and I know that Beatty fought some rights issues. 

When this movie was first released, it got a lot of publicity to launch it and of course the studio was marketing the images from the film as much as they could. I wish I had saved all of the McDonald's toys, and drinking glasses, and t-shirts that I purchased at the time. The most interesting artifact from my point of view, was the original ticket for the preview screening that we went to. It was a t-shirt with the ticket printed on it, and you wore it to gain admission to the theater on the night of the show. Even though my children were only four and two at the time, I was going to make them attend with me and so our whole family, all four of us, wore our t-shirts that night. I really wish I had that t-shirt to wear to the Paramount screening this last Saturday.

KAMAD Throwback Thursdays 1975: Dog Day Afternoon

Throwback Thursday #TBT

Throwback Thursday on the KAMAD site will be a regular occurrence in the next year. As a motivational project, to make sure I am working on something, even in a week where I don't see a new film in a theater, I am going to post on movies from 1975. Along with 1984, this is one of my favorite years for movies and it is full of bittersweet memories as well. 1975 was my Senior Year in High School and my Freshman Year in College. The greatest film of the last 60 years came out in 1975, as well as dozens of great and not so great cinematic endeavors. Most of the films in this weekly series will have been seen in a theater in 1975, but there are several that I only caught up with later. I hope you all enjoy.

Dog Day Afternoon

We are just over halfway thru this series, and although I have covered a lot of interesting pictures, the ones most likely to be recalled by audiences have stacked up a bit in the queue. That logjam of high quality, award worthy, box office successes, is about to be broken. "Dog Day Afternoon" is one of those films from the 70s that everyone knows, admires and it came out in 1975. It was nominated for six Academy Awards including, Best Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor and it won for Original Screenplay. This is the first of the nominated films to be covered on the project, but we will certainly be getting to the others.

The Director, Sidney Lumet, is an icon of the film world. His gritty New York stories filled theater screens in the early 70s, and he made films that actors lionize, like "12 Angry Men", "Fail Safe", "the Pawnbroker" and "The Verdict". It is amazing that he was never awarded a competitive Oscar in his career, but thankfully, the Academy provided him an Honorary Award for his body of work. I would say that this film was probably the best of his career, although "The Verdict" might make a run at that title. The fact that the film is set in a Brooklyn neighborhood, on a hot summer day, makes it a perfect medium for Lumet. He has a knack for filming gritty environments and plugging the story into those places which served those stories so well.

Before any of the main characters are introduced, we are shown a variety of quick moments of people walking on the sidewalks, working in the sweltering heat, trying to cool off in a park, and just generally surviving the day. Our two bank robbers, Sonny and Sal, are doing the same thing, but their venue is a bank and the activity is illicit. The world is tough enough when things go wrong, but when you add the oppressive heat and the tension from an illegal activity with the threat of violence, looming over everything, that's when you get a film like this from Lumet. This is not a precision heist, timed out with meticulous planning, this is a poorly thought out act of desperation, by two men who are in over their heads. 

One of the ways that the film feels so natural is the way the characters inside the bank act. Sonny is bellicose to try and gain control, but he is also thoughtful of the employees in spite of his threats. Al Pacino may have had his best role with the character of Sonny, who is conflicted about his actions, motivated by very different pressures and coping with braggadocio at times. In the scenes where he is talking with his lover, there is an odd tenderness but also frustration and his temper is barely contained. When he gets on the phone with the mother of his two kids, he loses all composure and explodes. This is a character that allows an actor to show his range and not be accused of grandstanding. Pacino takes the part and owns every moment on screen.

The supporting cast is equally up to the challenge. The lead bank teller is marvelous, the pizza delivery guy is just right. The manager of the bank is neither craven or heroic, he is just trying to do what will keep his employees safe and get the experience over as fast as possible. Carol Kane plays one of the "girls" who is a teller in the bank, this same year she was an Academy Award Nominee for Best Actress, so she was having a career year. Charles Durning, who has made a ton of films better over the years, adds another fine performance to his body of 1970s films that include: "The Hindenburg", "The Sting", "Sisters", "Twilight's Last Gleaming" and "The Muppet Movie". Also in the cast is future vampire and prince, Chris Sarandon, and Lance Hendrickson who will make a lot of bad movies over the years but also a lot of great ones. James Broderick, who plays a warm hearted father in the TV show "Family", is a steely eyed, manipulative FBI agent in this movie.

I certainly do not want to forget to mention the late great John Cazale who plays Sal, Sonny's partner in crime. Cazale famously only made five movies, and all of those films were nominated for Best Picture. I tried to watch this film on a streaming platform, but I decided to buy a Blu Ray because I could not believe I did not have this movie in my collection. The Blu ray package I bought includes the wonderful documentary "I Knew it was You", about the career of Cazale. Sal is a sad sack introvert, who Sonny brings to the robbery as a menacing wing man.   The actor gives him a pathos in spite of his job as intimidator. You can understand the Stockholm Syndrome identification that the hostages have with Sal because of Cazale's gentle eyes and subdued voice. 

Whenever someone levels a criticism at a movie plotline, suggesting that it is improbable enough to reject as realistic, they should be reminded of this film, which was based on a real incident with real people, in the same scenario. The dramatic license the film takes is with the characters, but not with the plot, which takes a turn that uniformed audiences would not see coming. 

This is one of the true classics of 70s American Cinema, and it came out in 1975. It is arguably Pacino's best performance, Lumet's best film and has an ensemble cast that can match up with any film of the era. There are a lot of films that I covered on this project so far, that are not memorable. This is not one of those, it is a film that stands the test of time and can be rewatched on a regular basis if you ever want to feel like you were living in NYC in the seventies. 

House of Gucci

 

If the person who assembled the trailer above, was responsible for editing the movie, this would be a more positive evaluation. The trailer emphasizes the key ideas in the film, but does so more efficiently than the actual film does. So the trailer is more fun to watch and it moves with a sense of purpose, building to a withheld climax. The film, tells the story more completely, but it lingers over material that is not essential to the plot and the dynamics of the characters are a bit inconsistent. Director Ridley Scott seems to be aiming for an epic, when what he has is a melodrama with some goofy and off-putting characters.

The star of the show is Lady Gaga, portraying Patrizia Reggiani, a young woman who meets Maurizio Gucci, heir to a portion of the family business, and subsequently marries and manipulates him to become the head of the company, at the expense of other members of his family. She is not quite Lady Macbeth, but her ambitions are what fuels the narrative in the film, and her abilities to push in the right direction using her romantic relationship with Maurizio are the means by which she accomplishes her goal. Lady Gaga has established some creds as an actress and she acquits herself well in a role that she is properly cast in. She is youthful, sexy in a non conventional way and ambitious as hell, just as the character in the film she plays. Criticism of the accent is beside the point, the film is not looking for authenticity, the verisimilitude is provided by her smirk, eyes, and body. The dialogue occasionally contributes but the Italian Accented English is simply typical of films of this ilk. 

The cast of the film is impressive. Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons have a great scene together and the two aging lions play it more subtly than you might think. Irons is Rodolfo Gucci, father of Maurizio, and brother of Pacino's Aldo Gucci. Rodolfo Gucci is ill and aging in the film and Irons looks like he is going through the process himself, I hope it is mostly acting and makeup that accounts for his condition in the movie. His best scene is with Jared Leto, who plays his nephew Paolo Gucci. Both father and Uncle have distain for Paolo, for reasons that are comically depicted here. The verbal takedown of Paolo by Rodolfo is the most fun scene in the movie, and oddly it generates some sympathy for the craven Paolo who is the butt end of nearly every comic moment on the film. Leto is flamboyant in the part and unrecognizable in the make up and costuming he has been given. Obviously he has been portrayed this way as a counterpoint to the taciturn Maurizio, who is brought to life by current hot actor of the moment Adam Driver. The son of Aldo Gucci, Driver plays his character almost as somnambulant in the early part of the film, and he only exhibits occasional moments of  personality when he is with Patrizia. The character is a key element in the events that takes place but Driver is so passive in the first two thirds of the movie that when his character eventually tries to switch off his wife, it comes as something of a head turner, how did he become that character all of a sudden?

Similar turns in the characters are found in other places in the script as well. Aldo goes from doting to controlling on Maurizio, Paolo goes from sniveling to conniving to repentant, and not with much explanation. Gaga's character has the clearest path that explains the turn she makes, although to get there, she has to develop a relationship with a oddball psychic played by Selma Hayek. The climax of the film depends on the third act working, and there were some shortcuts taken that probably needed some explanation. The sudden appearance of a romantic rival, and the absence of any story concerning the developing love affair, makes the transition to the third act very jolting.  This was another opportunity to take the satiric route suggested by the trailer, instead of the epic path the film tries to follow. Scott and writers Becky Johnston, Roberto Bentivegna and book author Sara Gay Forden, insist on playing it straight when a mocking sarcastic tone would have helped make the movie come alive. 

The film looks marvelous with expensive locales and lush furnishings and artwork distributed throughout the interiors. The timeline for the story is suggested by title cards but there seem to be gaps in time that can cause confusion. The soundtrack of contemporary music used to set scenes or make transitions is fitting for the times although not necessary accurate as to when the music was released. That is a minor criticism, but those of us who lived through the era will probably be the only ones who notice it, and no one will or should care. Although based on real people, the film plays like a soap opera but does not quite embrace the high camp that can make a movie like this entertaining. This is the second Best Ridley Scott Movie of the year, but it is the one that is more successful. Sometimes it is the material rather than it's execution that matters.

 

The Irishman

Let me start off with a couple of justifications. This is a Netflix created project, designed to be shown on their streaming service. As such, there are doubts about whether it should be included in my usual project since I try to focus on theatrical material. Last year I participated in some spirited discussions of "Roma" based on the premise that it is not "cinema". This seems oddly ironic given the take Martin Scorsese has on the comic book movies that dominate theaters these days. Unlike "Roma" however, I did see this in a theater and it was an exclusive run before any streaming of it on the home network is available. The major theater chains were unwilling to book this without a traditional window of exclusive exhibition, so I still think my doubts are relevant. There are some mitigating issues however. First, this is a Martin Scorsese project and he clearly sees it as a film. Second, I have made exceptions in the past about what I cover on this site and I have written about documentaries or "films" made for premium channels in the past. I have also covered related material, concerts for instance that are inspired by movies. So my rules are a little flexible. Finally, I think the battle will be lost in the next few years and I will be doomed to be a collaborator in the destruction of the cinema going experience by day and date VOD, so I may as well start kowtowing now to get into practice. I will still scream about it but lets face it, my finger in the dike is will not stop it.

Last night's screening at the Egyptian was sold out, there was not a seat to be had and there were people standing in the wings, the whole time the movie was playing. Anticipation was high and I was quite excited about seeing the film. It is a solid piece of gangster story telling told by the master of that genre, but it is not the masterpiece of his career. The three and a half hour running time is very noticeable, especially in the last forty minutes of the movie. This could easily be broken into two parts for the television mini series presentation it probably deserves. The sprawling story covers five decades and it is told through a series of flashbacks and forwards that also make the pacing seem slower than it actually is. The fact that the finale plays out in one long sequence with the main character in a wheelchair dying of cancer, feels anti climatic although it does contain some of the only moments of emotion that the main character exhibits.

"Mean Streets" was low level street gangsters, "Goodfellas" was gangsters on drugs, "Casino" was gangsters and gambling, "The Departed" was gangsters with police corruption, "Gangs of New York" was historical gangsters and "The Irishman" is gangsters and unions. The same template that was used for "GoodFellas" and "Casino" is found here. We are given a narrator who is telling us the story as we see it play out. There are beats of violence every few minutes and grim humor pops up occasionally to keep it entertaining. The actors are all fine, but this movie lacks some of the grace points of those previous classics. The bravura one take Steadicam nightclub scene in "Goodfellas" was a moment that made that film special. There is no equivalent film making technique here. Joe Pesci was lightning on screen in both "Goodfellas" and "Casino", no such character exists in this trudge through Teamster/Mafia politics of the 60s and 70s. Sharon Stone was a dynamic female character in "Casino" there are virtually no important women characters featured in this story. The pacing of those two movies, especially in the last segments built into a crescendo that made us quickly in hale to try to catch our breath. "The Irishman" does little to keep us from nodding off at the end except hope that we care how Frank manages to reconcile himself with the world.

Joe Pesci came out of semi-retirement to make the movie, but his character could have been done by any number of actors. His unique volatility and vocal delivery is never called upon by Scorsese to make the film sing.  Harvey Kietel is in the movie, but I will be amazed if you remember that at the conclusion of the running time. His character is so far in the background that we only know what he thinks through his orders being repeated by those he supposedly conveyed them to.   Robert DeNiro is the star of the film, and he turns in a credible performance but nothing close to earlier work in this milieu. The character of Frank Sheeran is a cipher in most of his scenes. DeNiro is trying to make a nearly personality free low level thug into an interesting character, but it is only the alleged acts of violence he claims to have carried out that make him noticeable.  The hollow award that the character gets during his time as a union president would be hard to justify given the lack of any outgoing charisma.

The actor who scores best in the film is Al Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa. Having been parodied for years for his throaty overacting in recent films, Pacino is more realistic here. There are a few scenes where the bellicose Hoffa goes off but Pacino plays them in character rather than making him a character. The rest of the time he seems to be a committed and forceful man who was too pig headed to notice that those closest to him were the ones who were the most dangerous. The simple scenes that Pacino plays opposite DeNiro's on screen daughter are the ones that sell us on him as a real person. The contrast in the relationship between Hoffa and Sheeran's family versus Pesci and DeNiro who mimic family love but can't really sell it, that is the best directed part of the film, but it's only enough to make Pacino's character come to life, not enough to make the film do so.

Two other things that I saw as drawbacks to the film include the early de-aging CGI and the musical score. I got used to the CGI miracle after a few minutes, but that does not mean that it worked perfectly. As this technology gets better, I think actors will have to be careful because they could be replaced by AI created performers that might get us to respond to them by reading analytics of audience reactions. The other mild complaint is the score by Robbie Robertson. Maybe it is a good thing that there is no memorable theme or consistent melody running through th film story, but I think that makes it harder to feel the film is memorable. The only bits that were significant to me were the doo wop clips and the background music in particular scenes. Jerry Vale was the musical high note of the film, and while he was a fine vocalist, I don't think that is enough to hang your musical hat on for a film.

In summary, you have seen this before and it has been better done in other Scorsese films, but that does not make this a bad movie. The film is quite good and it almost convinces us that this is the real story. All of the performances are solid but nothing historic that people will look back on and say, "that was a milestone" in that guys career. The history lesson we get of mob infiltration of the unions works pretty well at getting to the heart of the idea, even if the details are invented. There is enough blood and betrayal to clearly mark this as a Scorsese film, but in the end, most of out characters get wacked by cancer and heart disease rather than other mob guys or the cops. It is a little indulgent but a story that is pretty well told using tried and true techniques we have experienced many times before.