The Best Films I Have Never Seen Before: The Magnificent Seven (1960)

The Magnificent Seven (1960) *** ½

Directed by: John Sturges.

Written by: William Roberts based on the fim Seven Samurai.

Starring: Yul Brynner (Chris Larabee Adams), Steve McQueen (Vin Tanner), Eli Wallach (Calvera), Charles Bronson (Bernardo O'Reilly), Robert Vaughn (Lee), Brad Dexter (Harry Luck), James Coburn (Britt), Horst Buchholz (Chico), Jorge Martínez de Hoyos (Hilario), Vladimir Sokoloff (Old Man), Rosenda Monteros (Petra), Rico Alaniz (Sotero).

The Magnificent Seven is one of the most popular films the Western genre has ever produced. Even many people who don’t much like Westerns, or who don’t watch movies made before 2000 have stumbled across this film on cable, and watched it to the end and loved it. But somehow, I had never seen it before. I think it’s because I love Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai so much, I felt I didn’t need to see its American remake. Or because I have never been as big of a fan of Steven McQueen or Yul Brynner as others are (sorry The King and I fans, but to me Brynner’s most memorable film role will always be as the murderous robot cowboy in Michael Crichton’s Westworld). It certainly isn’t because I dislike director John Sturges – who made some great films like Gunfight at the OK Corrall (1957) and The Great Escape (1963).  I always suspected than I when I did see The Magnificent Seven, that I would enjoy it. And the film does not disappoint.

The story is standard issue stuff – pretty much copied from Kurosawa’s masterpiece. An aging gunslinger, Chris Larabee Adams (Brynner) is hired by poor, Mexican farmers to defend their small village from the evil Calvera (Eli Wallach), who comes into town a few times a year, and takes almost all of their food to feed his men – leaving the villagers barely enough to survive on. Although the pay isn’t much, Adams agrees to help, and soon he has rounded up five others – Vin Tanner (McQueen), a little younger than Adams, but also slowly burning out, Bernardo O’Reilly (Charles Bronson), who once commanded a lot of money, but is now flat broke, Harry Luck (Brad Dexter), who is convinced the Mexicans have gold to pay them, Britt (James Coburn), tired of being a cowhand and Lee (Robert Vaughn) on the run from the law. They initially reject Chico (Horst Bucholtz), who is just a kid, but he won’t take no for and answer, and tags along anyway. Once in the village, they try and teach the peaceful people to defend themselves, and prepare for Calvera’s annual visit.

The film’s impact may have dimmed slightly over the years, since much of what it does has become standard issue action movie clichés. The assembly of a ragtag group of men to pull off an impossible mission, the quirky character traits of each individual member, the snarling villain, the action shootout. These weren’t exactly new in 1960, but they were certainly newer – Roger Ebert pointed out that many of these things were used for the first time in Seven Samurai, which means to American audiences, they probably would not have seen too many “audition” sequences like the ones that make up the first third of the film.

I have to admit though, that no matter how much of the movie may seem clichéd today, the film still works wonderfully well. Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen are well cast in their roles – the strong, silent gunmen who have seen too much killing, too much death in their lifetimes and want to do something good for a change. I also liked Charles Bronson’s bonding with some of the young kids in the village and Robert Vaughn’s bout with cowardice. And Horst Bucholtz plays the wide eyed kid with much to learn well. James Coburn and Brad Dexter are the two of the seven who get the short stick here. The best performance though clearly belongs to Wallach, who revels in going over the top as his Mexican badass, with an exaggerated accent and he even has a mustache to twirl. Wallach is an actor who is capable of playing a variety of different roles, but he really does like to play the bad guy.

And John Sturges handles the action sequences with style. There are many gunfights in the movie, the most famous being the climatic one of course, and as he proved again and again in his career, Sturges was one of the best around at staging them. Whenever I see an old movie like this, that has action sequences this crisp and clean, it makes me wish that modern filmmakers would do the same thing, instead of relying on rapid fire editing and shaky camera movements that make action incomprehensible much of the time.

Yet, I also have to admit that while I was watching the film, I couldn’t help get the impression that I had seen it all before. In a way I had, with Kurosawa’s film, that this film follows pretty closely, even though it is about half the length, right up to the final line, which for some reason, rung truer in the Kurosawa film. Part of the problem with being an influential film – and The Magnificent Seven certainly qualifies as one – is that what you did so well, and seemed so original at the time, becomes cliché, so when future generations watch the film they wonder what was so special. It’s clear what is special about The Magnificent Seven – it is a well structure, exciting action Western (with one of the greatest film scores of all time by Elmer Bernstein). It just can't have quite the same impact as it once did.

The Best Films I Have Never Seen Before: The American Friend (1977)

The American Friend (1977) *** ½ 

Directed by: Wim Wenders.

Written by: Wim Wenders based on Ripley’s Game by Patricia Highsmith.

Starring: Dennis Hopper (Tom Ripley), Bruno Ganz (Jonathan Zimmermann), Lisa Kreuzer (Marianne Zimmermann), Gérard Blain (Raoul Minot), Nicholas Ray (Derwatt), Samuel Fuller (Der Amerikaner), Peter Lilienthal (Marcangelo), Daniel Schmid (Igraham), Sandy Whitelaw (Arzt in Paris), Jean Eustache (Freundlicher Mann), Lou Castel (Rodolphe).

I am currently making my way through Patricia Highsmith’s masterful Tom Ripley novels, and decided I should go back and check out the cinematic representations of her sociopathic “hero”. I had only seen Anthony Minghella’s The Talented Mr. Ripley (which is far and away the best film of his all too short directorial career), but considering that Wim Wenders was one of the most interesting directors in the world at the time he made The American Friend, an adaption of the third Ripley book, Ripley’s Game, I decided to start there.

Wenders film doesn’t seem all that interested in Highsmith’s plot – which is odd, because he went to great lengths to adapt one of her books (he discovered that all of her books had already been optioned, and he couldn’t get the rights to any of them, but when she heard, she offered to supply with the as yet unpublished Ripley’s Game). This is a film much more about attitude and style, than about plot, which means that at times, it is confusing because there is so much plot in the movie. Wenders it seems, is more interested in making a commentary on American crime movies – and their influence on European film – than on a crime film himself. What is remarkable however is that The American Friend, while certainly an intellectual exercise on behalf of Wenders, is still a rather remarkable, fascinating little film.

The film opens in Germany, where Tom Ripley (Dennis Hopper) is now making his living dealing in high end art forgeries. We first meet him dealing with his forger (the famed filmmaker Nicholas Ray), and then he’s off to an art auction. It is there that he meets Jonathan Zimmermann (Bruno Ganz), once a highly sought after art restorer, who now makes a measly living with his little picture framing shop. He has leukemia, and a wife and young son, who he is worried about leaving behind. At the auction, he snubs Ripley’s simple offer of a handshake – and this simple slight turns into something that will forever alter his life. It seems that an old associate of Ripley’s needs someone killed – and wants to use someone outside of his regular organization, which brought him to Ripley. Ripley does not want to job, but suggests Zimmermann. No, he’s not a professional killer, but he can be manipulated into doing it for the money. And thus, Ripley can have his revenge on him for slighting him.

Dennis Hopper’s take on Tom Ripley is slightly odd, but that simply adds to his appeal. He certainly enters the movie with a history, but the movie never hints at it – so unless you’ve read the other novels, you have no idea what it is. He seems to be playing the role of the “Ugly American”, with his big cowboy hat, and lazy drawl. He doesn’t seem like quite the cold, calculating sociopath from the books or the other movies. And yet, I couldn’t help but like Hopper’s performance. He keeps Ripley an enigma in the movie, keeps you guessing as to who he is. If his name wasn’t Ripley, it wouldn’t be as initially disconcerting as it is here. Besides, Wenders’ film certainly centers more on Zimmermann, and the great Bruno Ganz gives a fascinating performance in that role as well. It’s more straight forward than Hopper’s Ripley, but equally complex.

Wenders’ film is one that is all about style. It borrows elements from American crime movies, and even winks at the audience by casting directors like Ray and Samuel Fuller (chomping a cigar, naturally), who made their share of crime movies in America in small roles (the French director Jean Eustache also appears). The plot is deliberately confusing at times – we are stuck filing in a lot of the blanks ourselves – but this is part of Wenders point. Many crime films are on autopilot, so we can predict where it is going before it gets there – Wenders trusts we’ll do the same thing here.

Wim Wenders is a fascinating, German filmmaker – part of the German New Wave that emerged in the 1970s. I have never had a chance to see his films like Alice in the Cities or Kings of the Road, but into the 1980s, he made some truly great films like Paris, Texas (1984) and Wings of Desire (1987). He seems fascinated by American film, and a film like The American Friend or Paris, Texas (or hell, even Don’t Come Knocking from a few years ago), takes the outline of an American film, and yet has a distinctly European art film feel to them. The disconnect is fascinating, and when it works, it works wonderfully well. It works in The American Friend. We are always aware we are watching a movie, that Wenders is behind the scenes pulling the strings, and yet somehow the film works. It is one of Wenders best films.

The Best Films I've Never Seen Before: Europa (1991)

Europa (1991) ****

Directed by: Lars von Trier.

Written by: Lars von Trier & Niels Vørsel.

Starring: Jean-Marc Barr (Leopold Kessler), Barbara Sukowa (Katharina Hartmann), Udo Kier (Lawrence Hartmann), Ernst-Hugo Järegård (Uncle Kessler), Erik Mørk (Pater), Jørgen Reenberg (Max Hartmann), Henning Jensen (Siggy), Eddie Constantine (Colonel Harris), Max von Sydow (Narrator).

I am of two minds on Lars von Trier. On one hand, he is one of the most daring, innovative and ingenious filmmakers of his generation. No matter what one thinks of films like Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, Dogville or Antichrist, you cannot really remain neutral on them. He forces audiences to think, and react, and shoves his style down your throat for you to choke on. Personally, I have loved most of his films (I could have done without The Idiots and The Boss of It All, but other than that, it is a solid filmography), but I completely understand why people hate them. On the other hand, Lars von Trier seems like a spoiled child, who simply wants to piss people off. There is a certain degree of this in his films, but it is much more prevalent in his media interviews. The famed director has recently proclaimed “persona non grata” at the Cannes Film Festival (where he has debuted almost all of his film since his debut in 1984 – The Element of Crime) because he expressed sympathy for Hitler and proclaimed himself a Nazi. Now, if you actually read what he said, you’ll probably come to the same conclusion that I did – that this was just a poor joke gone horribly awry, but this is in essence what Trier has done his whole career – say incredibly stupid things. He’s like Sacha Baron Cohen playing Borat, or Joaquin Phoenix playing himself, except he lives like this all the time. You cannot take anything the man says seriously – even about his own films, because often what he says about them, and what’s onscreen is completely opposite of each other. The man simply enjoys pissing people off. This was true even in 1991, when the young filmmaker’s Europa won three prizes at the Cannes Film Festival – the Technical Grand Prize, Best Artistic Contribution and the Jury Prize (which is essentially third in the festival, losing the Palme to the Coen’s Barton Fink). So incensed was he that he did not win the Palme, that his acceptance speech was to give the jury the finger, and storm out of the awards ceremony. So when judging the work of Lars von Trier, I think it is necessary to separate the artist from the art – much like one has to do with Roman Polanski. Think Lars von Trier is a spoiled child or an asshole all you want, but I prefer to judge his work by what he puts on the screen, not on what he says at press conferences.

Europa is the most stylized of all of Trier’s films. The film is the complete opposite of the Dogme 95 films that he became known for later in the 1990s (and that thankfully, he has left behind as he went as far with them as he could). The film is hyper stylized, switching between color and black and white (often in the same scene), and using rear projection in some truly unique, innovative ways. The film is like an old Hitchcock movie, crossed with Franz Kafka – a surreal, paranoid thriller set just after WWII, in Germany where an idealistic young American, Leopold (Jean-Marc Barr) comes to Germany to show its people “a little kindness”. He takes a job as a sleeping car conductor on the Zentropa rail line  - the same rail line that was used to shuttle Jews to Concentration Camps during the war – and quickly gets in over his head. He meets, and falls in love with Katharina Hartmann (Barbara Sukowa), the daughter of the owner of the Zentropa railway. She seduces him, and soon after they are married, he becomes unwittingly involved with a pro-Nazi conspiracy, that aims to destroy the recently restored peace.

The storyline of Europa is purposely complex and confusing. People come in and out of the plot at various times, for various reasons, that serve to muddle the goings on. On one level, the film is very much inspired by the old Hitchcock movies, where a seemingly innocent man gets caught over his head. On another, the film is certainly inspired by Kafka – as seen in scenes involving Leopold’s hapless uncle, and the men who have come to give Leopold his “test” to end his probationary period. Comedy and tragedy are hand in hand here.

But, this being a Trier film, the morals are more complex than that. By the end of the film, when everything comes out, Leopold is accused of being the worst of anyone in the film – either pro-Nazi or anti-Nazi. “But I haven’t done anything!” he complains, and is told “Exactly”. Leopold has sat out the war, and is now sitting out its aftermath, trying to make everyone happy, be everyone’s friend, and in doing so is worse than anyone else. At least they all believe in SOMETHING.

Yet for me, when I think back on Europa, what I remember most are the visuals. They are intricate and complex, every shot visually fascinating and interesting. You could get lost in the visuals of the film, and simply sit back and ignore the plot and marvel at what exactly Trier has put on the screen. Trier’s first film The Element of Crime was a similar visual extraganza, but this one brings it to the next level.

Perhaps that is why Trier soon abandoned this hyper stylized work for the Dogme movement, and why, he abandoned the Dogme movement later on as well, and why after two films shot on an empty soundstage, he moved back to more traditional filmmaking with Antichrist, and supposedly his latest film Melancholia. Trier seems to like experimenting with his films, but eventually, he gets bored and moves on – trying to find another challenge for himself. I like the fact that Trier reinvents himself as a visual filmmaker every few years, even as his films remain thematically all part of a series – a progression. He is one of the most interesting filmmakers anywhere in the world right now. Yes, he’s an asshole. But then lots of people who are far less talented than he is are as well. Perhaps the price we have to pay for his films, is to listen to the man speak.

The Best Films I've Never Seen Before: The World (2004)

The World (2004) *** ½

Directed by: Jia Zhangke

Written by: Jia Zhangke.

Starring: Tao Zhao (Tao), Taisheng Chen (Taisheng), Jue Jing (Wei), Zhong-wei Jiang (Niu), Yiqun Huang (Qun), Hongwei Wang (Sanlai), Jing Dong Liang (Tao's ex-boyfriend), Shuai Ji (Erxiao), Wan Xiang (Youyou), Alla Shcherbakova (Anna), Sanming Han (Sanming), Juan Iu (Yanqing).

It takes courage to call a film The World, as the title implies a certain all encompassing, epic scope that few, if any films, could possibly live up to. But in the case of Jia Zhangke’s 2004 film, the title is appropriate. It is a film about an amusement park in China called The World, but it also looks at where the world is at this stage in its economic development. Jia has always been a filmmaker who has examined China’s continuing economic and political reinvention – from communism to capitalism – and both the positive and negative things that it entails. In The World, he even reaches slightly beyond China’s borders.

The World is perhaps the saddest amusement park I have ever seen in a film. It’s whole purpose is to recreate all the planet’s landmarks, at a reduced scale, all in one spot. As a voice over the loud speaker tells visitors – “You can visit the entire world without leaving Beijing!”, as if that is a good thing. Tour guides show visitors their Eiffel Tower, and one even brags that while September 11^th got rid of the real Twin Towers, the park still has theirs for all to see.

The people who work at the park at sad, lonely people. They didn’t really see this as their future under the new capitalist regime in China. Their jobs are thuddingly dull and boring – and worse rather pointless. The visitors to the park, who are not shown in great detail, don’t seem to be getting much joy out of their visit – and the same is definitely true for the people who work there. When an ex-boyfriend shows up to visit Tao (Jia regular Tao Zhao) on his way to starting a new job elsewhere, she is embarrassed by her surroundings – and more embarrassed by her brash boyfriend, who seems to take pleasure in the fact that he owns a car, so he can drive her ex-boyfriend to the train station. She is so embarrassed, that she ends up insisting they leave when her ex goes to buy snacks for his journey – but that’s okay, because you get the feeling that the ex just wanted an excuse to leave as well, and was probably not coming back.

The World resembles Jia’s earlier films – Platform and Unknown Pleasures (the former has already been reviewed in this series, the later will be posted at some point in the near future) – in the portrait is paints of a people living a life in transition. As with the characters in those films, these people are “free” to do what they want – work as they choose, which is an advantage that their ancestors did not have. But now, they are living a life without purpose – without fulfillment – working at a dead end job that has no future. Yet, China has become an economic powerhouse – so much so that people are no longer leaving to work elsewhere, but they are actually bringing in people from other countries to fill jobs in China. We meet a group of Russian women, who come to the park to be dancers. They are told by their “handler” to hand over their passports. It is easier this way, he tells them, because now you won’t lose them. After a few shorts weeks at the park, the one Russian woman we’ve come to now – Anna (Alla Shcherbakova), confesses in broken Mandarin to Tao, her only friend, that she is going to leave to start a new job. The next time we see Anna, it’s at a nightclub – where it becomes clear that she is working as a prostitute, and when Tao sees her, she is so ashamed, she breaks down in tears.

To me, The World like Jia’s previous film Unknown Pleasures (2002) is a transition film between Zia’s two masterpieces – Platform (2000) and Still Life (2006). After Platform, which made Jia one of the most important directors in China, he didn’t quite seem to know what to do next. As good as Unknown Pleasures and The World are – and they are both very good – they do seem a little like Jia is treading water, figuring out where to go to next. The World is the better film – more ambitious in scope, including more characters, and introducing us to characters from outside China, whose economic reality is even worse than those inside the country. Jia even tries his hand at animation, with a few sequences thrown in, and while they look wonderful, they do feel at least slightly out of place. With Still Life, he moved beyond these films, into a quietly moving and profound movie. Here, Jia, while he has made an excellent film, is searching for a way out of the corner he painted himself into by making a masterpiece like Platform. That he found his way out is cause for celebration. That he made a film as good as The World, while trying to do so is remarkable.

Movie Review: Horrible Bosses

Horrible Bosses ***

Directed by: Seth Gordon   

Written by: Michael Markowitz and John Francis Daley & Jonathan M. Goldstein.

Starring: Jason Bateman (Nick Hendricks), Charlie Day (Dale Arbus), Jason Sudeikis (Kurt Buckman),

Kevin Spacey (Dave Harken), Jennifer Aniston (Dr. Julia Harris, D.D.S.), Colin Farrell (Bobby Pellitt), Jamie Foxx (Dean 'MF' Jones), Lindsay Sloane (Stacy), Donald Sutherland (Jack Pellit), John Francis Daley (Carter), Ioan Gruffudd (Wetwork Man), Julie Bowen (Rhonda Harken), Bob Newhart (Lou Sherman).

I don’t care who you are, there are times when you don’t like your boss. They can be the nicest person in the world, but there are days when you cannot stand them. Anyone who tells you different is lying. Horrible Bosses does two things – the first being that it makes you feel better about your own boss, because there is no way in hell that your boss could possibly be worse than the three assholes here, and the second being it lets you indulge your fantasies – however infrequent they may be – in knocking off your boss and taking their job. In does this all in one of the funniest mainstream comedies of the year so far. Forget The Hangover Part II, hell forget Bridesmaids. Horrible Bosses is just plain funnier.

The movie stars Jason Bateman, Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis as three nice normal guys. Bateman is Nick, who has been slaving for years trying to make a good impression on his boss, Harken (Kevin Spacey) to land a promotion that Harken has just decided to give to himself instead. Day is Dale, an amusing little man, who works as a dental assistant to Dr. Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston), who is constantly sexually harassing him – but he cannot quite, because he once got busted for peeing in an abandoned children’s park at night, and is now a registered sex offender. Sudeikis is Kurt, who actually loves his boss (Donald Sutherland), until he dies, and his cokehead son Bobby (Colin Farrell) takes over – and immediately tells Kurt to fire all the fatties, because they depress him. Clearly, their only option is to kill their bosses, which after consulting with Mother Fucker Jones (Jamie Foxx), they decide to do – Strangers on a Train style. But these three idiots can’t get it right.

The premise of the movie is simple, but it works. It works mainly because of the performances. Bateman, Day and Sudeikis spend most of the movie together, bickering and arguing like children, and they have an easy, natural chemistry together. Yes, to a very real extent, Jason Bateman is playing the same, buttoned down character he has played countless times over the past few years, and Sudeikis is pretty much playing the same character he did in Hall Pass earlier this year. If I cannot say the same thing about Charlie Day, it’s because I’ve never seen his show – It’s Always Funny in Philadelphia – and if he’s been in another movie before, I can’t remember him. Yet, together, these three feel fresh and original. As for their bosses, they are perfectly cast. Kevin Spacey may simply be playing the same psycho boss he played in Swimming with Sharks (1995), but I’m not sure how many remember that movie – or remember just how great Spacey was in it. It’s always good to see Spacey in a movie, since he doesn’t make a lot, ever since he won his second Oscar more than a decade ago. Jennifer Aniston hasn’t been this good in a movie in a while now, and I am completely relieved that she does not simply play Rachel here, as she seemingly does in so many of her movies. She is hilarious as the sexually aggressive boss – that of course had to be a woman, because if it had been a man doing this to a woman, it would be disturbing, and not funny. Sometimes double standards work. And although he is painfully underused, Colin Farrell is my favorite of these three idiot bosses, dancing around, doing his kung fu fighting, and being completely clueless as to what is going on around him. The supporting cast – especially Jamie Foxx – is wonderful as well.

And that’s really all I can think to say about the film. It certainly doesn’t reinvent the wheel or anything, but what it does, it does well. I laughed more at this movie than any other recent mainstream comedy – and what’s more, I never felt guilty about laughing either. Yes, there are some crude jokes, but the film never devolves into gross out humor. It’s just pure comedy – a nice distraction for midsummer – and on that level, the movie works.

Movie Review: The Sleeping Beauty

The Sleeping Beauty no stars

Directed by: Catherine Breillat   

Written By: Catherine Breillat & Charles Perrault.

Starring:  Julia Artamonov, Carla Besainou,  David Chausse,  Kerian Mayan.

Catherine Breillat is one of the most incendiary filmmakers in the world. All of her films are obsessed with sexuality, and most of them deal with pure virgins and the dastardly men who rob them of that virtue. In films like Fat Girl, Breillat puts that adolescent sexuality, in all its ugliness and beauty, right in our faces – particularly in a long sequence where the boyfriend of the protagonists younger sister gradually wears down her resistance and gets her to have sex with him for the first time – which of course leads the ugly final scene where the younger sister (the Fat Girl of the title) is thrilled that the rapist picked her instead of her mother or sister. Breillat is a woman who seems both fascinated by the beautiful young bodies she puts on full display in her movies, and yet repulsed by them – often showing sexuality as ugly and dirty and painful. She has made some films that are great – Fat Girl, The Last Mistress – and some films that are simply horrible – Romance, Anatomy of Hell and many that are somewhere in between. Unfortunately, The Sleeping Beauty is one of those horrible films.

Watching The Sleeping Beauty, I became increasingly frustrated, because in all honesty, I really have no idea precisely what Breillat was trying to achieve here. If you want to say I hated the film simply because I didn’t “get” it, then go ahead – I can live with that. But what I saw on the screen was a director flailing around for ideas, trying to make it all seem so important, and looking absolutely ridiculous in the process.

The film is pretentious crap, featuring an adorable 6 year old girl going through one fairy tale setting after another – encountering boiled covered giants, knife wielding gypsies, snippy dwarves, an icy snow queen, topless fairies and evil witches – all before she drifts off for her 100 year sleep. When she wakes up, she is now the type of 16 year old girl that Breillat loves – innocent and naïve, yet curious about sexuality. She first meets an impossibly handsome young man, said to be the great-grandson of her long ago lost love, but when he leaves, she meets up with her old knife wielding gypsy friend (who for some reason hasn’t aged much more than the sleeping beauty herself in 100 years), and they two of them share a lesbian tryst. Then the impossibly handsome young man shows back up, and we are treated once again to Breillat’s favorite scene – that of an innocent young painfully losing her virginity to an insenstivie, uncaring young man who will say anything to get into her pants (although this time it should be noted, he doesn’t have to say all that much).

I’m sure Breillat thinks all of this is terribly important and artistic – and I look forward to reading someone’s no doubt incredibly positive take on the film, explaining to cinematic idiots like myself why this really is a masterpiece. There are admittedly some very strange images in the film (a group of kindergarteners in strange, bright pink kimonos was more disturbing than any of the monsters she encounters), and I suppose you could say that the movie is really takes place in a dream world, so narrative coherence is not really a must – but all of that strikes be as excuse making by critics who want to seem hip and defend a film that almost no one would actually want to sit through. The Sleeping Beauty is an absolute horrible film.

The Best Movies I've Never Seen Before: Two Lane Blacktop (1971)

Two-Lane Blacktop (1971) ****

Directed by: Monte Hellman.

Written by: Rudy Wurlitzer and Will Corry.

Starring: James Taylor (The Driver), Warren Oates (G.T.O), Laurie Bird (The Girl), Dennis Wilson (The Mechanic).

Two-Lane Blacktop was supposed to be the movie event of the year in 1971. Before anyone saw the film, Rolling Stone called it an instant classic and Esquire put it on its cover, and published the entire screenplay. This was supposed to be the next Easy Rider, Bonnie and Clyde or The Graduate. Then it opened, and no one showed up. The film didn’t even come out in any form of home video until 1999. Now it is regarded as a classic – which it surely is – but in 1971 it was a flop.

Why no one showed up in 1971 becomes clear when you watch the film. This was never going to be the next Easy Rider – the film it most resembles of the three mentioned above – because Monte Hellman, the director, had no interest in doing a version of Easy Rider. The movie is actually the antithesis of Easy Rider. This is not a romantic version of two counter culture martyrs, who get high, hit the road, drop out of society, with a rock n’ roll sound track and orgies in cemeteries. Where Dennis Hopper’s movie celebrated its “heroes” (even giving them names straight out of Western – Wyatt and Billy, for Wyatt Earp and Billy the Kid), Hellman sees their lives as empty and meaningless. The kids wanted fast moving, violent, sexy movies inspired by the French New Wave, and instead Hellman gave them a slower, more meditative film influenced by Antonini. Even something as simple as the direction they are travelling – from the West to Washington DC - flies in the face of movies like Easy Rider, where everyone always heads West. The question isn’t why no one showed up to see the film in 1971 – but why anyone ever expected them to.

But it’s these differences that make Two-Lane Blacktop seem so contemporary even 40 years later, and makes Easy Rider seem so dated. I like Easy Rider for what it is – a time capsule of 1960s cinematic style and attitude – but the film has never excited me as much as it did the kids in the ‘60s. It is from another time and place, whereas Two-Lane Blacktop still feels fresh.

Hellman’s movie doesn’t even bother to give names to its characters. Folk Singer James Taylor plays The Driver and Beach Boys drummer Dennis Wilson plays The Mechanic. They have hit the road in their supped up 1955 Chevy, driving along Route 66 from one desolate town to the next, making money by drag racing, in which they never lose. They pick up The Girl (Laurie Bird), who simply gets into the back of their car one day. By the end of the movie, she will have slept with both The Mechanic and The Driver, but this isn’t a love triangle – that would require at least one of the characters to feel something and I don’t think any of them do. Along the way, they meet GTO (Warren Oates), who yes, is driving a brand new GTO. He is older than the others, but he gets sucked into their game anyway. They agree to race across country to Washington DC. The stakes? The winner gets the loser’s car. But pretty much right from the get go, no one seems all that interested in the race. The Driver and The Mechanic have an opportunity to put themselves so far ahead in the race early on that GTO could never catch up, but they don’t take it. Instead, they decide to help him out. “I have no interest in being 600 miles ahead” The Driver says at this point. The winner of the race is never determined in the movie – they simply seem to give up on the race altogether once The Girl leaves with a boy on a motorbike at a diner – leaving her backpack behind her.

I’m not sure if Taylor and Wilson are actually poor actors, or if Hellman told them deliberately to deliver all their lines flat and emotionless. No matter the reason, it works here. The Driver and The Mechanic never really say much of anything to each other – just talk about the car and what needs to be done, and their current money situation. They don’t even turn on the radio because it would be a distraction. They seem to have hit the road in order to avoid all sort of human connection to anyone else – including each other. They simply do not care. GTO is different – he seems to have hit the road because there is nothing for him at home, wherever that may be, and being on the road gives him the chance to talk to people. Throughout the movie, he picks up hitchhiker after hitchhiker, and tells each one of them a different story of what he’s doing on the road, and how he got the GTO. The last hitchhiker he picks up, he tells that he got the GTO by beating its driver in a cross country race in his supped up 55 Chevy – thus adopting The Driver and The Mechanic’s story as his own. Oates’ performance is the best in the movie – one of the best of the 1970s really – because it perfectly captures his story – that of an older man, who seems to have missed out on the 1960s, but is trying anyway.

The film has, what Richard Linklater has called, the “most purely cinematic ending in film history”, and in a certain way, he is correct. The film, as I mentioned before, doesn’t answer the question of who won the race, because no one seems to be racing anymore. Instead, it ends with The Driver and The Mechanic involved in yet another drag race – this time though, we don’t even get to the end of that race. The film starts slowly down, and eventually, will catch fire and simply disintegrate in front of our eyes – as if the film itself caught fire in the projector. As Neil Young once said “It’s better to burn out than fade away”.