Tonight's movie was another World War Two saga, "Castle Keep"(1969). In my experience, you have to be careful with pictures from the late 60s, because counterculture influences were seeping in to the content. This was most apparent in the screenwriting of that era, and while many movies adhered to tried and true formulaic writing, there were also attempts to break out of the mold and experiment, especially with philosophical or existential dialogue. In movies, books and art in general, it was a time to look inward and "pull things out", bring them to the surface. Psychoanalysis became the great healer in the time of Vietnam.
Of course, people in real life don't usually speak in the way a screenwriter has dictated, even in the most well written, standard format films. But that's okay, because we are experiencing drama in it's ten states of conflict (man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. himself, etc.) I learned about those in Mrs. Fields' English class in 8th grade. My point is that the embellishment of ordinary speech, or putting one's personal stamp on the dialogue ala Aaron Sorkin or someone like that, is standard procedure for the industry and perfectly fine, because it is how entertaining drama is created.
But in the late 1960s, and especially after LSD use became popular, the oratorial horizons were broadened. This turn toward deep emotional expression in theater and motion pictures actually began in the 1950s, and was promulgated though the technique of Method Acting, but at that time directors were mainly using the body language of the actors to get the point across. Though heavy psychological themes were explored, and characters engaged in self-examination, the dialogue in most scripts was still composed of more or less straightforward conversation. But after pot and acid came into prominence, the gates were thrown open. Now anything went. A writer could use a character to express an abstract concept through dialogue that he or she would never have uttered in a normally scripted film, and it was okay - it got green-lighted - because This Was The Late 1960s. The Revolution was at hand, we were gonna do away with all the "isms" and personal hang-ups, and everyone would be free. It was a time to experiment and explore.
Unfortunately, this led to some really bad scripts, and one of them was used to produce "Castle Keep".
The story is as follows : a group of eight battle weary soldiers, led by a one-eyed Major (Burt Lancaster), arrive at a beautifully preserved castle in Belgium. They've been ordered there to bivouac and wait for a possible German advance. Right away the existentialism begins. No sooner does Lancaster set foot in the castle than he is sleeping with the owner's young wife. This is partly because he's an immoral horndog, but also because the castle's owner, a Count, has ED. He wants a child but cannot produce one. This too, would be a standard dramatic plotline if it weren't for the way it is presented, almost as if it were foretold. We see the soldiers slogging through the mud and then - boom - Lancaster is in bed with the Count's wife. Maybe Burt had that stipulated in his contract, haha.
Lancaster's right hand man is Captain Beckman (Patrick O'Neal), an art historian in civilian life. He takes one look at the Count's collection of paintings and sculptures and vows to protect them from the Germans. Early on, he tries to give a lecture to the rest of the men on the importance of great art, but his speech is continuously interrupted by sex jokes. This would seem normal in the case of macho soldiers who've been looking death in the eye. Quiet reverence during a professorial chat would not be an expected reaction. But again, the way this scene is presented doesn't have a "ring of truth", or accuracy. The writer wants to present his soldiers like the characters from M.A.S.H., each man a Cutting Wit with an endless supply of one liners at the ready, but instead of using cynical or even crude humor of the type Hawkeye might utter, the men here speak in flat, idiosyncratic dictums. The conversation often seems to consist of non-sequiturs, and it's not just the dialogue that's the problem. Everyone delivers their lines as if they were speaking to a wall. And that's only during the art lecture. Things get a whole lot worse as the movie progresses.
There is a whorehouse in town called The Red Queen. Some of the men head over there in the evenings. Peter Falk, the tough Sergeant, joins them at first, until he spies a nearby bakery. He'd been a baker himself before the war, and as soon as he sees the joint, we are back in Existential Mode. The writing switches immediately from standard narrative to whatever fantasy Falk is experiencing in his head. "Where are you going"?, the men ask him. "I'm a baker", he replies. "I'm going to see the baker's wife". Now, on paper this sounds like type of sexual double-entendre a movie soldier would use, but in Falk's case, it is meant also to show that he is detached from reality. And so is the film. Falk knocks on the door, the baker's wife does answer, she invites him in with no questions, and - voila! He starts baking and becomes The Baker immediately. The Baker's Wife becomes his wife......as he gets to work baking bread, he spouts more nutty dialogue.
Scott Wilson, a great character actor most recently seen in "The Walking Dead", is another of the soldiers who bypasses the whorehouse to pursue an obsession. He discovers a disused Volkswagen on the castle grounds and falls in love with it. Literally. This is meant as light comedy, and it works as such, but again, the rapidity with which Wilson loses his mind doesn't make any sense. It feels as if we are watching an Experimental Theater production. Characters spout whatever they are thinking at a given moment. Everyone is acting out. Half the time, you can't tell if Major Lancaster is giving orders or reciting abstract philosophical concepts. It all becomes a bit maddening to keep track of.
There is a point to the story - the question of whether or not to try and save the castle and it's artworks (hence the title "Castle Keep"). Captain Beckman is willing to give his life to the effort, but Lancaster, knowing the Nazi penchant for looting, wants to use the castle as a trap. Once the Germans are inside, ka-blammo! He will explode the building. The enemy will be destroyed, but unfortunately so will the art. Whose plan will win out? Documenting the mission is a young private who dreams of becoming an author. "Castle Keep" is the name of the book he is working on, and was also the title of an actual book by writer William Eastlake, on which the movie is based. Actor/Producer Tony Bill plays the company chaplain and Bruce Dern appears late in the proceedings, leading a band of conscientious objectors. He's as nutty as a fruitcake, but then isn't he always? It's what you expect from Dern, lol. He makes the other crazy characters seem sane in comparison.
"Castle Keep" was directed by Sidney Pollack, who went on to make some pretty big films like "Tootsie" and "Out Of Africa". It says on IMDB that he was also the uncredited director for a film called "The Swimmer"(1968) that also starred Burt Lancaster and preceded this picture by a year. I have "The Swimmer" on dvd and have seen it several times. If you want Abstract, that's the movie for you. I wasn't aware Pollack was the director, but he did that one right. With "Castle Keep" I was on the ropes by the middle of the movie and was struggling to make it to the finish line. I guess it was the production values that kept me afloat. The whole thing looks great. The castle location is real and gorgeous. There is also some battle action toward the end that is, to quote the dvd box, "epic" and "furious". This much is true, though for a war film there is much less war than usual. What there's way too much of is talk, and not just talk but nonsensical talk. In the spirit of the times, they were trying to create an Existential War Movie, but it just didn't work out.
There are things to like about "Castle Keep". It's not a terrible movie, or even a bad one, per se, where you just go "this is awful". Instead, it's a misfire, a bad concept for a war film. Existentialism didn't work for Terrence Malick either, in "The Thin Red Line", which almost put me to sleep. "Castle Keep" is marginally more entertaining for it's kookyness, but I'm afraid I can't recommend it.
I'll give it One and One Half Thumbs Up just because it looks great. See it if you must. /////
That's all for the moment. What'd you think of the first day of the Impeachment Hearings? Do you think Trump is Toast? Me, I do think so (ohpleaseohpleaseohplease). Let's keep our fingers crossed! I'm off to the store, then back to Pearl's. I'll see you tonight at the Usual Time.
Tons of love! xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment