http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullitt
Watched two classics over the weekend, “The Lord of the Flies” from 1963 and “Bullitt” from 1968. Very different movies, but equally good in their own way.
That I’ve never seen “Bullitt” until now is a little surprising. It was already an action-adventure classic when I was a teenager and I had friends who raved about it, and though it sounded good, I never caught it. I wasn’t a huge Steve McQueen fan – his peak was slightly before I was old enough to go to movies on my own – and I somehow never caught “Bullitt” on TV. A while back I programmed the movie into my TiVo and the machine recorded a showing on TCM which I’ve had for a few months. Melanie’s in Vegas for an extended weekend so I finally got around to seeing it.
I like it. If I were to give it a star rating I’d go with either three-out-of-four or three-and-a-half-out-of-four. Call it three-and-a-quarter.
The problem with seeing a movie many years later is you’re already familiar with the ground-breaking effects because they’ve influenced so many later films which you have seen. Makes it harder to appreciate how new things like the car chase were at the time. I am able to appreciate the scene though. It’s a visceral chase with nice cutting between interior driver points-of-view and exterior shots of cars skidding and leaving rubber around turns, and flying/bouncing/bottoming-out over hilltops.
But I’ve seen lots of cool car chases. That’s the problem. It’s hard to appreciate how new this was at the time.
So look at it this way. The movie was made in 1968. To see how advanced it might be, let’s look at films of say 20 years earlier. When I think of 1948 movies I think of movies in black and white with fake studio-set exteriors. Any action was tightly controlled and ball-less.
The problem with seeing a movie many years later is you’re already familiar with the ground-breaking effects because they’ve influenced so many later films which you have seen. Makes it harder to appreciate how new things like the car chase were at the time. I am able to appreciate the scene though. It’s a visceral chase with nice cutting between interior driver points-of-view and exterior shots of cars skidding and leaving rubber around turns, and flying/bouncing/bottoming-out over hilltops.
But I’ve seen lots of cool car chases. That’s the problem. It’s hard to appreciate how new this was at the time.
So look at it this way. The movie was made in 1968. To see how advanced it might be, let’s look at films of say 20 years earlier. When I think of 1948 movies I think of movies in black and white with fake studio-set exteriors. Any action was tightly controlled and ball-less.
By contrast “Bullitt” is a revelation, truly night-and-day compared to those films.
Let’s update that to today. This is 2013. How different are movies today from 20 years earlier in 1993? What were some of the great action and special-effects movies in 1993 and how different are today’s movies in terms of evolution and advancement? We have “Jurassic Park,” “The Fugitive” and “Carlito’s Way.” I would argue that no film today has made any dramatic leaps forward in terms of suspense, effects or action from these 1993 movies. There’s more CGI now, but remember “Jurassic Park” put CGI on the map, and the effects hold up so well, “Jurassic park” has just been re-released in 3D. And is CGI such a revolutionary advancement? We know CGI can be handled badly, so despite its revolutionary nature, it’s just a tool that, even when good, can be misused. I would argue CGI hasn’t advanced cinema as much as give filmmakers another color in a diverse palette.
OK, now I’m appreciating “Bullitt’s” car chase even more.
I like the subtle ways some of the scenes in “Bullitt” play out. The camera is like a distant observer in the crowd and you overhear scenes in snatches of conversational dialogue. People drift in and out of the foreground of the frame while we focus on the action in the distance. Nothing seems staged, there’s an almost documentary feel. There’s a convincing subtlety to the interactions which is a bit distancing at first, but then involving because it comes off as being natural.
I think the storyline is a little vague though. At times I wasn’t sure where the movie was going or what to think of what I was seeing. I don’t have a 1968 frame of reference so I don’t think I’m as equipped to appreciate the movie as its intended audience was. But I got caught up in the suspense and action of it. The final big scene, where Bullitt chases Ross across the airport runway into the field beyond, reminded me of a similar scene with Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro in “Heat.” I think the scene in “Heat” is better done, it’s tighter and more gripping with light, the light of the passing planes, playing a big part in enhancing the suspense. The scene in “Heat” also plays for a longer time which I like. But now I see how derivative that scene is, because I’ve seen the source in “Bullitt.”
I was disappointed how at the end of “Bullitt” the whole mission is a failure. If the driving thread of the film is to get the mobster to testify, it fails. On the other hand, the character Bullitt is a classic anti-hero of the time and clearly anti-establishment, even if he is a cop. We see early on he plays by his own rules, and his own code, and his sense of justice takes precedence over the politician who just wants the glory of bringing down the Chicago mob with a star witness. So maybe the story succeeds after all. I’m still thinking it over.
I like “The Lord of the Flies,” though in a sense not a whole lot happens in the film. Apparently there wasn’t much of a script. Instead the kids were given descriptions of what to do in the scenes and told to make it up as they went along. This creates a documentary feel which is effective, but it robs the film of any kind of narrative complexity. If the whole thing had been written and planned out ahead of time, the storyline could have been richer and more nuanced. Instead we have a film which is straight-forward in its narrative and lacking in surprise or nuance. It’s interesting and effective in its own way, but also kind of slight. It’s also technically primitive by today’s standards. The overdubs are obvious and unnatural, clearly recorded in a studio instead of in the open natural environment of the movie. The same for the sound-effects, the background noises and group sounds of the kids, they’re artificial sounding. Things like that pull me out of whatever’s going on and I have a hard time getting back into the movie.
But the movie is surprisingly spooky and unnerving. Even today, fifty years later, it’s unsettling to watch these kids – “proper” kids, we know they’re proper because they have English accents – reduced to savage animals who accept killing and murder as natural.
The end of the film is great, the well-dressed naval commander standing on the beach while a tattered hunted kid crawls up to his feet, behind him the foliage of the beech engulfed in a hellish fire. Oh how far these kids have come. I never read the novel the film is based on, but I’ve read so much about it I feel I know it fairly well. It seems to me this film version is emotionally successful at emulating the novel, but without a novelist’s nuance. As with “Bullitt,” I’d give the movie three-and-one-quarter stars. It’s good, not great, but very good in many ways.
Let’s update that to today. This is 2013. How different are movies today from 20 years earlier in 1993? What were some of the great action and special-effects movies in 1993 and how different are today’s movies in terms of evolution and advancement? We have “Jurassic Park,” “The Fugitive” and “Carlito’s Way.” I would argue that no film today has made any dramatic leaps forward in terms of suspense, effects or action from these 1993 movies. There’s more CGI now, but remember “Jurassic Park” put CGI on the map, and the effects hold up so well, “Jurassic park” has just been re-released in 3D. And is CGI such a revolutionary advancement? We know CGI can be handled badly, so despite its revolutionary nature, it’s just a tool that, even when good, can be misused. I would argue CGI hasn’t advanced cinema as much as give filmmakers another color in a diverse palette.
OK, now I’m appreciating “Bullitt’s” car chase even more.
I like the subtle ways some of the scenes in “Bullitt” play out. The camera is like a distant observer in the crowd and you overhear scenes in snatches of conversational dialogue. People drift in and out of the foreground of the frame while we focus on the action in the distance. Nothing seems staged, there’s an almost documentary feel. There’s a convincing subtlety to the interactions which is a bit distancing at first, but then involving because it comes off as being natural.
I think the storyline is a little vague though. At times I wasn’t sure where the movie was going or what to think of what I was seeing. I don’t have a 1968 frame of reference so I don’t think I’m as equipped to appreciate the movie as its intended audience was. But I got caught up in the suspense and action of it. The final big scene, where Bullitt chases Ross across the airport runway into the field beyond, reminded me of a similar scene with Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro in “Heat.” I think the scene in “Heat” is better done, it’s tighter and more gripping with light, the light of the passing planes, playing a big part in enhancing the suspense. The scene in “Heat” also plays for a longer time which I like. But now I see how derivative that scene is, because I’ve seen the source in “Bullitt.”
I was disappointed how at the end of “Bullitt” the whole mission is a failure. If the driving thread of the film is to get the mobster to testify, it fails. On the other hand, the character Bullitt is a classic anti-hero of the time and clearly anti-establishment, even if he is a cop. We see early on he plays by his own rules, and his own code, and his sense of justice takes precedence over the politician who just wants the glory of bringing down the Chicago mob with a star witness. So maybe the story succeeds after all. I’m still thinking it over.
I like “The Lord of the Flies,” though in a sense not a whole lot happens in the film. Apparently there wasn’t much of a script. Instead the kids were given descriptions of what to do in the scenes and told to make it up as they went along. This creates a documentary feel which is effective, but it robs the film of any kind of narrative complexity. If the whole thing had been written and planned out ahead of time, the storyline could have been richer and more nuanced. Instead we have a film which is straight-forward in its narrative and lacking in surprise or nuance. It’s interesting and effective in its own way, but also kind of slight. It’s also technically primitive by today’s standards. The overdubs are obvious and unnatural, clearly recorded in a studio instead of in the open natural environment of the movie. The same for the sound-effects, the background noises and group sounds of the kids, they’re artificial sounding. Things like that pull me out of whatever’s going on and I have a hard time getting back into the movie.
But the movie is surprisingly spooky and unnerving. Even today, fifty years later, it’s unsettling to watch these kids – “proper” kids, we know they’re proper because they have English accents – reduced to savage animals who accept killing and murder as natural.
The end of the film is great, the well-dressed naval commander standing on the beach while a tattered hunted kid crawls up to his feet, behind him the foliage of the beech engulfed in a hellish fire. Oh how far these kids have come. I never read the novel the film is based on, but I’ve read so much about it I feel I know it fairly well. It seems to me this film version is emotionally successful at emulating the novel, but without a novelist’s nuance. As with “Bullitt,” I’d give the movie three-and-one-quarter stars. It’s good, not great, but very good in many ways.
So what do these movies have in common? Why did I write about them at the same time? No reason, I just happened to watch them back-to-back so they’re both fresh in my mind. I’m not a movie critic, I’m just a guy who likes to write and post things online, so I can do what I want. It’s nice what you can do when you’re not controlled by a paycheck.
---
The evening is looking up. Alain called a little while ago. He and Kacie invited me over to their new digs. We'll grab a bite to eat somewhere, then go back to their place where Kacie will mix cocktails and we'll watch... "Mad Men." I'm taking tomorrow off so I can even stay up late. Life is good. Only downside is, it'd be better if Melanie was here too.
