Wow and yikes. I'm afraid we're gonna have a couple of difficult reviews this time. I'm just gonna dive into the first one so I can dispense with it. The movie was "The Incident"(1967), which I found after another hour long search on Youtube. The release year should've set off an alarm bell. Late '60s realism is rarely gonna be a good thing (and maybe never). I used to think the 1960s was the worst decade ever for films, but then I remembered all the great big budget epics from that decade, some of which we've watched this year, and do you know what? It turns out that the 60s was one of the best decades ever.......for Studio Films. Big widescreen epics to be specific.
But it was also when independent filmmaking began, and I'm not talking low budget B-movies made by guys like Roger Corman, but producers and directors (and screenwriters) who subscribed to the Auteur Theory, where the movie is entirely the director's vision. I'd like to jump in to say there's a reason the studios were so successful. From the Silent days to the mid-1960s, they gave us stylised filmmaking, which made the stories and the characters larger than life, and also removed them from real life. Studio execs knew that folks have enough trouble of their own, hence if they were gonna go buy a ticket for a crime film, say, they wanted to see Bogie play a tailor made Hollywood tough guy. Hollywood romanticized all it's characters, that was the studio bosses' genius. Why see "real" real life on the screen when it's depressing and you can walk down the street to see it? This was especially true during the Depression years, which coincided with the rise of sound era cinema. It was a wonderful formula, the Hollywood Studio style of the Golden Era, and as we've seen, it produced thousands of memorable pictures.
But then came the mid-60s, when the counterculture changed the world. So called "independent" filmmakers filled the void when the studio system broke down. This ultimately led to auteurs like Martin Scorcese, who some say is the greatest American director. I say he's not even close, not even in the top twenty, though he did make one all-time great film, "Taxi Driver". I mention all of this in my preamble, because somewhere along the line, in nouvelle cinema's effort to "get real", they decided to do away with all pretense to the prior (and freaking great) tradition of stylised Hollywood moviemaking, and simply Go For The Throat. Shove gritty stories in the audience's face. Rub their noses in the street.
"Let's break taboos", was the unofficial motto. Usually however, because most early "independent" filmmakers were inept, they gave us what now look like dated, hippie era "psychodrama" flicks. Once in a while, though, a talented crew produced a film that was real to the point of extreme. This was what led to the Scorsese's of the future. Such a film was "The Incident", which against my better judgement I sat all the way through. It was extremely well acted, to the point where you are watching real life. The director is in your face, because he wants you to face up to what is happening. The film is notable as the debut of Martin Sheen and Tony Musante. Beau Bridges is tremendous in his role and is part of a well known ensemble cast.
The problem is that it may be the ugliest film ever made, unless your idea of a good time is watching two psychos (as realistic as in real life) terrorize a car load of subway riders for an hour, and that's after we see Sheen and Musante mug a man at the beginning of the film, and then watch the subways passengers "converge on each other's lives" (ala "Crash") while they bicker at one another in their own little familial dramas.
Have you ever seen "Last House on the Left"? You may have thought that was cool when you were 17, but now you know it's not cool, and not just for cancel culture PC reasons, right? It's not cool anymore because there are certain scenes that are just too real, and there's no reason to watch the movie because why would you want to watch what is happening? (I won't even describe the scene in "Last House" if you don't know it). The same is true of "The Incident". It was made with a skill way beyond the level of Wes Craven's movie, which makes it even more nauseating (or horrifying) to sit through. The acting, again, is as if you're watching real life, only why in the hell would you want to watch such torment? Tony Musante and Martin Sheen should have gone to prison for their performances.
I'm gonna shut up now, and give "The Incident" Two Gigantic Thumbs Down, while also calling it perhaps the most effective film of it's kind. The problem is that it will just make you sick.
My review in a nutshell : "Where's Bernard Goetz when you need him"? /////
The previous night's movie was "Good-Time Girl"(1948), and man oh man, I've gotta add a warning to this one also. Though made in the traditional style of the old days, in this case by a British studio called "Triton", it's nevertheless an exploitation picture, by which I mean a "public warning" for young girls against a life of crime. The subject is a sixteen year old (Jean Kent) who leaves home after repeated beatings from her drunken father. I have to jump in again to say "sorry about this folks". I search and search on Youtube, and I try to avoid depressing fare. If it was just the opening scene of the movie, which then went on into an intriguing Film Noir plot, that would be one thing and whatever happened to the protagonist might be okay in the end, and you'd have an entertaining movie. But when the filmmakers are on a mission - as they were in "The Incident" to shove extreme violence down your throat - then I think you as the viewer have to consider whether you should sit through such a movie. Because "Good-Time Girl" is made in the studio style, it's easier to watch (though not by very much), but the problem is that you know the trajectory from the get-go.
This is because Jean Kent's story is being told to another troubled teen (Diana Dors) by a counselor (Flora Robson), and you can see quite clearly that it's a Warning Tale, so you know as it proceeds that it won't have a happy ending. Thus, it's telegraphed and the only question is how will it resolve? Meanwhile, you're subjected to the unfair and brutal premature demise of a teenage girl who, through no real fault of her own, has been buried under her life's circumstances. It's a head on collision of a plot, and while it's a heck of a lot more interesting than "The Incident" (because it actually has a story), it's no less demoralising. Jean Kent is terrific as the abused girl "Gwen Rawlings", and I suppose I could give this one a recommendation along with Two Thumbs Up (to whatever degree you choose), but it's still a major downer because we know what is going to happen to Gwen from the outset. She's gonna go down the tubes.
That's why I like real, Golden Age Hollywood Stories over "warning" movies and in your face "independent" filmmaking. Sure, some of those filmmakers have talent. But why do they want to lay us in the gutter when they could be lifting us up, or simply telling a story where we don't know the outcome from the start?
Oh well, screw it. I won't be making these viewing mistakes again. Do watch "Good Time Girl" for Jean Kent's performance. As a movie it gets Two Big Thumbs Up. As a story, fuggeddabout the whole thing. ////
That's all I've got for tonight. I finished "Billy Summers", which I thought was one of Stephen King's best. It's a crime story rather than horror, but filled with the kind of deep insight into the human condition that only SK can deliver. And.........it includes the Overlook Hotel in a surprise cameo! Give it a read, it's a non-stop page turner. I hope you're enjoying your weekend and I send you Tons of Love as always.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment