HARPER

Directed by Jack Smight.  Written by William Goldman.  Stars Paul Newman, Lauren Bacall, Julie Harris, Arthur Hill, Janet Leigh, Robert Wagner, Shelley Winters, Strother Martin.  
1966, 121 minutes, Color, Not Rated.

HARPER is based on the first of the Lew Archer" series of books by Ross MacDonald.  The film version had a screenplay written by William Goldman, who had written only one movie prior to this but had written several books.  He later credited this film as being the one where the lightbulb went off in his head about screenwriting, and that he would be successful at it.  He was, in fact, very successful at it and would later write such films as BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (1969), PAPILLON (1973) , THE GREAT WALDO PEPPER (1975), MARATHON MAN (1976), ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976), THE PRINCESS BRIDE (1987), MISERY, and MAVERICK.  He was also gainfully employed as a script doctor.

The film is remarkably faithful to the book, but it has been judiciously edited to be more streamlined.  In this way, Goldman proves that he understands movie plotting, innately (apparently) understanding what can be glossed over and what needs to be shown in detail.  The plot involves a missing husband.  Newman plays Lew Harper (changed for Lew Archer for some reason), a private detective hired by Albert Graves, the lawyer of the man who's gone missing.  Harper is a bit of a sad sack, but as we ultimately see is pretty good at his job.

The film is stylishly made but almost undone by its desire to be topical--it wallows in the Holywood vision of the hip and swinging 1960's and this ultimately dates it badly; Go-Go dancing is featured entirely too much for this to be a timeless entertainment.  By contrast, the novel is not nearly as locked in time even though it was originally published in 1949 and is awash in all kinds of post-war ennui.  Graves and Archer/Harper are not quite near enough in age to have their friendship make sense.  The fact that they served together in the war helps fill in the story there.

Aside from Newman, the cast is full of lead actors of a somewhat faded luster, as well as some competent character actors.  Lauren Bacall and Shelley Winters and Janet Leigh do the best with their roles, but Robert Wagner and Strother Martin come off best of the secondary roles.  Casting less old-school Hollywood faces may not have helped the film, but I can't really say that anyone is bad in the film.

Newman was active in the 1960's--HARPER is one of seven films he appeared in that were released from 1966-1969.  All of these films are interesting roles for Newman, with the standouts being HOMBRE and COOL HAND LUKE (both 1967).   He is interesting in even the misfire films, like TORN CURTAIN (1966).  Newman was uncommonly subtle in his craft by this point in his career which no doubt cost him some acting awards, but his work was way above average.  A method actor, much of his work is internal, and was not helped by his preference for playing strong silent types whose actions ultimately tell the audience what kind of person his character really is.  

In HARPER he keeps everything close to his vest until the very end of the story.  Newman is quite good in the role, bringing a lot of reality to the proceedings.  He is consistently behind the curve plot-wise so the majority of what he does is reactive, but that is exactly his strength.   He plays the sad sack well--so much so that the majority of the people he interacts with consistently underestimate him.  When the time comes, Harper brings the goods, in much the same way that Eliot Gould's Philip Marlowe does in Robert Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE (1973).

While Newman would return to the role nine years later in THE DROWNING POOL (1975), his work in this film should have been the start of more than it was.  As it turned out, this film wasn't the hit everyone wanted.  He would score with COOL HAND LUKE (1967) the following year, but big box office success would not come until BUTCH CASSIDY.

Still, the plot is intelligent, the characters are interesting and the mystery well handled.  Jack Smight directs with style and the widescreen cinematography by Conrad Hall is fabulous. I especially like how Smight uses long tracking shots in the film.

Warner Archive released an outstanding Blu-Ray of this a few years back.  It features a commentary by William Goldman that originally appeared on the DVD.

Young Adam

Written and Directed by David Mackenzie.  Stars Ewan McGregor, Tilda Swinton, Emily Mortimer, Peter Mullan.  
2003, 98 minutes, Color, Rated NC-17.

Summary:

Joe (Ewan McGregor), a rootless young drifter, finds work on a barge traveling between Glasgow and Edinburgh, owned by Les (Peter Mullan) and his wife Ella (Tilda Swinton). One afternoon they discover the corpse of a young woman floating in the water. Accident? Suicide? Murder? As the police investigate and the suspect is arrested, we discover that Joe knows more than he is letting on. Gradually we learn of Joe's past relationship with Cathy, the dead woman (Emily Mortimer). Meanwhile, an unspoken attraction develops between Joe and Ella, heightening the claustrophobic tensions in the confined space of the barge.

This is an interesting film, full of unhappy characters, death and what looks like some extremely chilly weather.  It's a mood piece, really, but notable because it is intelligent and just ambiguous enough to require the viewer to pay attention.  Character interactions are realistic, the way of life depicted is hard, and there is very little joy to be found in the film.  To say that it is unrelentingly bleak would be accurate but the film has much to offer in its darkness.  Life in the tiny barge is all about enforced intimacy and disillusionment. 

Based on a short 1957 novel by Alexander Trocchi, YOUNG ADAM unfolds in a manner that makes the central mystery difficult to anticipate.  This mirrors in some ways the way the book unfolds, which is written in the first person but nevertheless still conceals the mystery for an impressive amount of time.  Early in the film we see Joe on the barge from above as it passes by.  He is walking towards the back of the barge, and because the boat is moving forward it appears as though he is walking place.  This illusion perfectly mirrors Joe's life at this moment--he is a writer suffering from writer's block and has escaped from that by taking a job loading and unloading cargo on a small, barely-solvent barge.  He is neither confronting his past, or trying to move forward.  He is merely keeping time until the next thing comes along.  Walking in place as it were. 

We learn that Joe had been seeing a woman named Cathy.  When his relationship with her reaches a crossroads, he takes the easy way out and walks away rather than commit to her and their relationship.  Joe, we come to learn, is somewhat selfish.   The only thing he takes with him is his typewriter and that he throws that into the river.  On the boat, When confronted with his desire of Ella he ignores the consequences and goes after her.  When this drives away Les and leaves him with more responsibility than he wanted, he again takes the easy way out and walks away.  When he meets up with Cathy months later and she tells him that she is pregnant, once again he takes the easy way out and walks away.  When Cathy accidentally falls into the river, he does not jump in after her.  We had already seen him jump into the river to save Ella's son, so we know he has it in him.  One can surmise that there was no upside for him to go after Cathy.  He did not want a relationship with her.  When he jumped in for Ella's son, it is quite likely he did so to earn favor with her.

We never truly understand Joe perhaps, but the trick of the film is disguising his true nature for as long as it does.  There were certainly clues to his character. Joe literally has consensual sex with EVERY woman we meet in the film*.  However, it should be said that he finds willing partners wherever he goes.  McGregor gives a good performance, remaining legitimately likable even after we find out he was there when Cathy died and has kept it to himself with tragic results.

For all of the above Joe is a troubling character.  If not for the genuine remorse he exhibits when Joe the plumber is arrested for killing Cathy--he knows how she died after all--one could make a case that Joe is a sociopath.  So, not a sociopath, just weak and selfish.

Tilda Swinton gives an impressive performance, infusing her character with a lifetime full of disappointment, and masterfully displays raw sexuality in a real and non-glamorous manner.   They say that when contempt enters a marriage there is probably no way to recover from it.  Ella has contempt for Les, and it seeps out in their every interaction.   We learn that Les is impotent and unable to satisfy his wife sexually, and he proves to be equally impotent when faced with Joe taking his place in both Ella's bed and as the man of the barge.  

Emily Mortimer as Cathy should have received an award of some sort for a scene in which she is debased with food.   She is less clearly defined than the other characters.  Pretty, intelligent, and capable, she would seem to be the idealized companion that Joe thinks he wants.  However, in day to day life, he sees faults and can't help but be disappointed in her. 

At this point, it might be interesting to ponder the meaning of the title of the film.  There is no character named Adam in the story and apparently, Alexander Trocchi never explained what he meant by it.  It's possible he meant Adam in a biblical sense, and if the fruits of the Garden of Eden is a metaphor for sex, then Joe is a main character partaking of many apples.

The film remains in the memory long after viewing it.  

*Or does he? I admit I missed the possibility of an unreliable narrator the first few times watching the film, even though as the novel is told in the first person it is a shining example of the form.  I haven't re-watched the film since making this connection to see if it really changes anything.  It's just another potential layer of a truly remarkable film.

THE OMEN

Directed by Richard Donner.  Written by David Seltzer.
Starring Gregory Peck, Lee Remick, David Warner, Billie Whitelaw, Leo McKern
1976, 111 minutes, Color, Rated R, Panavision 2.35:1

SPOILERS BELOW- READ WITH CAUTION

A diplomat (Gregory Peck) discovers that his son was switched at birth with the spawn of Satan.  When one of the priests involved in the deception recants years later and tries to make amends by confessing his sins to the diplomat, the diplomat is initially skeptical.  When people start dying under mysterious circumstances he slowly comes around to the notion.  When his wife (Lee Remick) is killed he becomes a believer and with the help of a journalist (David Warner) decides to try and take care of the problem himself.

Like all films that deal with Satanic issues, THE OMEN offers up a vast conspiracy of people working together for evil--knowing nods, subtle glances, all but winking at each other as they effortlessly work together to complete complicated plans.  I think this encourages the viewer to lose themselves to something much bigger than themselves, or at least the idea of something much bigger.  THE OMEN is very much a story of faith, but rather than faith in something better it instead plays upon the faith of something worse.  Evil with a big supernatural 'E' is real in the world of THE OMEN, but THE OMEN's faith of evil is stylized enough to simplify one's response to it.  Since one cannot relate the events in THE OMEN in the real world it is easier to go along with the "what if" scenario it puts forth.

What sets THE OMEN apart from other examples of this genre is the degree of subtly regarding the Satanic aspects of the story.  For the most part this is achieved by simply avoiding the typical trappings of the Satanic film--there are no pentagrams, cloaked and hooded characters, or blood sacrifice rituals overtly on display in THE OMEN.  These symbols are replaced almost completely by Jerry Goldsmith's tremendous film score and the wildly inventive death scenes. Unlike most Satanic films, we only see a few people actively involved in the plot at hand. By comparison 1975's RACE WITH THE DEVIL seemingly involves the entire southwest United States.  In THE OMEN, it is almost is if the entire thing was carried out solely by the participants we see on the screen.

Shots like these work best in widescreen presentations

The story is nominally constructed so that one can take it either as a supernatural thriller or a story of a man undone by a series of coincidences.  Gregory Peck at some point becomes convinced that his son is, in fact, the spawn of Satan, and the fact that this feels organic to the story and not unbelievable is a testament to the fine film-making at work.   That said, you can't truly take the film two ways.  Oh, I suppose if you weren't paying attention too hard it would stand, but if you look at it closely the film unequivocally plays its hand as a supernatural film.  If the filmmakers really wanted to try and sell the "maybe it was all in Gregory Peck's head" angle they needed to clearly show his point of view during the scenes of coincidence, i.e. the supernatural goings on.  When the nanny is instructed by the hound of Hell to hang herself to make room for Mrs. Baylock, this occurs with no one else around.  The possibility that the nanny was simply having a psychotic break is not seriously entertained due to the presence of tense music during the exchange.  Maybe it's best not to think too hard about it.

While primarily all about the spawn of Satan, the film does touch on a few other themes.  For instance, Lee Remick grows to feel that the son is not hers and does not to want to be around him.  I'm sure every parent has had feelings of this sort at one point or another about their children, but it is usually in the heat of the moment and once calmed down things go back to normal.  Remick's character comes to feel this way over time with no real "reason".   This could be a symptom of depression, but the film doesn't dwell on this aspect.  Ultimately, it's too bad that Remick is not used much beyond what these few sentences set up, and in the end her role is underdeveloped.

The cast is first rate from top to bottom, and it helps immeasurably that everyone involved takes it seriously.   Gregory Peck lends a certain aura of respectability to the proceedings, and his earnestness helps keep things in the believable range far longer than it should.  David Warner is fun as the photographer trying to piece the story together.  Billie Whitelaw as Ms. Baylock steals the movie, however.  She is so chilling that I have never been able to see her in any other role without thinking of her work here.

Richard Donner had primarily done television work prior to this, and one feels that he was trying to impress with his work here.   He displays a deft hand by mixing the patently absurd and realistic by disguising the absurd behind a sheen of style.  THE OMEN features strong compositional choices throughout, and Donner does a great job of using closeups for maximum effect.   The film remains tense and scary even after multiple viewings, and this is due to the craftsmanship of the British crew and the Richard Donner's direction.  Have I mentioned Jerry Goldsmith's music yet?  I'm not sure there has ever been creepier music to a horror film.  It takes all of the opening credits to put the viewer into the mood for the dark tidings to come.   There is an isolated score included on some of the DVD versions and the latest Blu-Ray version that includes some tracks not used in the final movie and it's fun to listen to it.

This was not the first movie that ever scared me silly* but was one of the first, and it scared me silly without my actually having seen it.  When I was quite young someone told me the story of the film and it gave me nightmares that night.  I woke up convinced that there was a line on my pillow and that my head was going to be cut off.   I was six so I am going to cut myself some slack.

When I did see the movie proper several years later it was on a crappy Beta rental.  I greatly enjoyed that first viewing and have consciously or not spent the rest of my life collecting it on home video.  I think I've bought this movie more than any other: I bought it on VHS, I bought it on laserdisc, letterboxed for the first time though the print was beat up and featured distracting splice marks**. I bought it again on laserdisc, this time remastered with Jerry Goldsmith's score isolated in stereo on the analog channels.   There was extra music that was mixed out of the final mix and the splice marks were reduced.  Then I bought the four-disc DVD box set from a number of years ago.  I was pretty sure that the DVD box set was going to be it, but then it was released again with a new transfer and new extras, so I got it once more.  At that point surely I was old enough to be able resist buying the movie yet again, right?  What could they possibly add to make me want to buy it again?

I bought THE OMEN again on Blu-Ray in 2008.  It was on sale and, well, I am weak.  The Blu-Ray came with the two theatrical sequels and the truly awful remake from 2006.  It also gathered just about every special feature that ever graced a home video release for this title.  That isolated score on laserdisc?  It's there.  The "The Omen Legacy" documentary that was on the last DVD release?  It's there.  The "666: The Omen Revealed" documentary that was on the original DVD release--but not the last release?  It's there.  There are a couple two-three new things as well.  Really, it was a no-brainer.  The splice marks are gone, though they are still visible in some of the older "making-of" features.

The film features a preponderance of earth tones, as well as a filtered look that has always kept it from sparkling on home video.  When there are lush greens at the end of the film it is borderline startling.  It looks the best it ever has on this Blu-Ray. 

Update:  In 2019 Shout Factory released the films again in their THE OMEN COLLECTION: DELUXE EDITION.  This has all three of the original films, the awful 2006 remake and the 1991 TV Movie OMEN IV: THE AWAKENING, which while nice to have is not at all essential.  The original film has again been remastered, this time from a 4K master, and again looks the best it ever has on home video.  It probably looks better than theatrical prints at this point as well.  The earth tones are still there, but whites are a lot better balanced.  The original mono mix is included again, this time in lossless sound.  I believe all of the extras from the 2008 set is here, save for a trivia track.  There are new extras as well.  Not sorry I got it.  Screen captures are from the 2019 version.

* I believe the first movie to scare me silly was FRANKENSTEIN: THE TRUE STORY (1973).  I had fallen asleep in front of the TV and woke up not knowing what it was.  I would have been 5 or 6.  That said, the first movie to scare me past the point of silly was Tobe Hooper's SALEM'S LOT (1979).  I was visiting family and unhappy with the noise in the main gathering room took up watching TV in a back room, which was very, very dark.  When the little Glick boy sat up in the coffin I almost wet myself.   To this day I have never been as scared watching anything as I was that night watching SALEM'S LOT.

** I know the damage I'm talking about is not truly a splice mark.  It's just what it looks like.  What I think the damage is a result of the film (negative?) being pulled too hard which left stress damage.  Mind you this is just a guess.  Here's an example.  I had to pull it from one of the older SD special features.  I added the arrows.