THE FRENCH CONNECTION (1971)

Ira says

“Nobody’s gonna get hurt! Everybody’s cool”. We all remember that famous car-train, chase sequence don’t we, which even in this day and age of better technology, CGI, faster cars, faster action,and considerably larger amounts of money, has the ability to keep you sucking your breath in with its gripping execution and palpable suspense. Lets not forget that much of that suspense also comes from a gruff, gritty, top of his game Gene Hackman who’s swerving, thumping, surging energy with that car contrasts completely with the steely determination in his fixed, intense eyes (What an actor, yikes). But does anyone remember the shot of Hackman on the street in a quieter moment somewhere just before the chase sequence, quickly walking past a red flag? Its hard to recall, barely registers but its a wonderful touch from director Friedkin, alerting us that the real fun and the real danger is just about to start. The thing I marvel at most in William Friedkin’s FRENCH CONNECTION is the completely absorbing way Friedkin handles his material despite it being a true story. Sure, it was one of the first few drug crime dramas of the 1970’s in Hollywood and became a forerunner to a decade of a New American docu style realism in cinema. Sure, it is historically significant for the way it looks at the underbelly of New York and exposes the extent of a thriving drug trade and, a particular drug bust of the time. But, it was also the first R rated film to be nominated and to win, the Academy Award for Best Picture, and to go on to win in 4 other categories. Even today, when I watch it again, I cant help but pay attention to the fact that this is an extremely well made film, and Friedkin doesn’t forget to tell you a really good story.

With the Taking of Pelhams, Traffics, and dozens of crime/drug/cop/action thrillers that have been around in the past few decades, some may say what’s all the fuss about, that there is hype because its a true story, or that the film is basically a long chase sequence, there is always something so refreshing and satisfying about going back to filmmaking without frills, and about filmmaking that excels in almost every department. Whether its Tidyman’s Golden globe winning, tight screenplay or the brilliant editing which makes not a single moment, scene or shot feel extraneous, or unnecessary, Friedkin controls his storytelling with a focus that is compelling to watch.

After venturing into comedy/musical comedy with Good Times and then Pinter’s A Birthday Party, Friedkin found his feet and firmly established himself as a director of note with this one and even to date it is probably his best film. (He pretty much became a hot favourite with others like Coppola and Bogdanovich at the time because of it in fact!).

Using a lot of handheld camera work, I liked that doesn’t beat around the bush at all and how he creates a sense of intrigue right from that opening sequence where a man going about his normal business, sitting at a cafe, buying bread, checking his mailbox, suddenly gets shot dead. And as he dives into the story, moving swiftly from France to the sights, sounds and not so sweet smells of New York City, the mystery begins and the pieces are as puzzling to us as they are to our leading duo, the very nonplussed, very tough cops POPYE DOYLE & BUDDY RUSSO. The beauty is, by the time you have started to put those pieces together you have been sucked in by the performances and world of the film.

A world that is far from glamorous and often very ordinary. I like how, if you look carefully, Friedkin constantly gives you subtle glimpses into character, moods, motives, and offers you New York city at its most un-glorified, mucky and dirty best. And dirty is what this ones all about. Be it the smoke in a seedy nightclub, or the undergarments of a one-night stand Hackman has that are strewn across his room, nothing is pretty here. Most interestingly, neither are the characters and lives of NY city cops, something the film is always sensitive to as well and which the performances bring wonderful nuances to.

From the excitement of discovering clues and the beginnings of a new case, long hours of waiting, the lack of sleep, the silent trailing, the endless watching, the frustration of hunches turning out wrong, to outbursts of frustration and taking refuge in women or drink, HACKMAN delivers a crackling performance here making POPYE far more that just the wronged, good guy cop stereotype, but breathing a real life into a grey character. Who was the real guy after all? I loved the silently dependant relationship and implicit understanding he shares with his partner RUSSO, a very good contained and intense ROY SCHEIDER. With almost no women apart from some singers in a club and Hackman’s one faceless liaison, this ones male driven cast is superb all round and at a short 104 minutes, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, will always remain one of the most cult crime thrillers Hollywood can boast of.

Neha says

“Based on a true story” - now doesn’t that make you immediately sit up and pay attention? Well it sure peaked my attention as I skimmed through the DVD cover of the 1971 crime thriller THE FRENCH CONNECTION. Now the danger of being too faithful to a “true story” could be that you’re running thin on plot turns that translate engagingly on film- and while most of this story involves an undercover operation with cops keeping tabs or more aptly stalking their suspects what director William Friedkin does remarkably is understand the trap of “inaction” that his story could find itself in and smartly focuses for the large part on creating long, suspenseful, thrilling, cleverly constructed and superbly visualized chase sequences. I don’t remember the last time I saw a film in which 60% of the running time involved a cat and mouse chase across the Big Apple.

The action shuffles back and forth between France and Brooklyn, New York and involves a Narcotic Bureau investigator Detective Jimmy Doyle played masterfully by Gene Hackman who along with his partner Detective Russo (Roy Scheider) follows up on a lead involving a major drug deal that’s about to go down in the city. While Jimmy needs to placate his chief’s anxiety at the number of dead ends he finds himself at, he’s more than driven to reach the bottom of this case when someone tries to kill him. Slowly if you haven’t guessed already there is a French connection to this drug deal as a celebrity French actor Henri Devereaux (Frederic de Pasquale) and a diplomat Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey) seem to be in the fray. Jimmy is consumed by the case leading up to a climatic encounter that’s hard hitting in its starkness and blind passion.

This is one thriller that justifies its setting. In fact you can’t imagine the film being shot anywhere else but New York. The way in which locations, set pieces, by lanes, alley ways, the subway and the entire landscape of New York has been used is truly riveting. Not only does Friedkin capture the bustling beat of the city, but he also uses the city’s landmarks as important plot points in the chase sequences. Bravo to you Sir! The way in which the camera follows the characters- you always feel like even those doing the watching are being watched. There is this looming danger and heightened anticipation to every chase and helping matters is the delicious Hitchcockian use of music.

Watch it for Gene Hackman who’s just the kind of detective Hollywood loves- charismatic, witty, intense, aggressive, intimidating, persistent and passionate. Admire it for its thrilling tempo that never lets up and sit back and be captivated by one of the longest and most dynamic chase sequences you’ve ever seen on celluloid.

PULP FICTION (1994)

Ira says
“Nobody’s gonna get hurt! Everybody’s cool”. Hell, excuse my language here Jules, that first part’s a darn lie. But; ‘everybody’ and everything is cool. PULP FICTION has got to be the coolest movie I have ever seen and remains to date amongst my top twenty favorite films of all time. Why? Well, I know everyone has got answers to that question. And a whole booklet of em. But this is about me and my relationship with a gentleman named Quentin Tarantino, a wonderful, unique, smart director who gave us his best work with this one back in 1994; a film I have seen about 6 times since and never had enough of.

Now, 1994 was the year of some big movies including the heartwarming journey of a man named FORREST GUMP and the moving, liberating story of pair of friends in prison in SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. And then there was one that was, well, somewhat unconventional. A film that came out of nowhere and whacked you right in the eyeballs with a startlingly new, absolutely irresistible kind of storytelling. Tarantino took the by-the-book rules of filmmaking and genre conventions as we’d known them, turned them inside out and sometimes upside down to give us ‘pulp’ and ‘fiction’ in cinema like you had never seen it before.

Pulp: ‘lurid subject matter on rough paper’. Taken from the American heritage dictionary, (notice how he gives his material some pop-cultural gravitas right from here), the words on the screen are ironic because its not merely ‘lurid’ and its certainly not ‘rough’. PULP FICTION is a well-made movie in every sense of the term. Refreshing, original, smart, violent, shocking and very, very funny, Tarantino gives us a ‘Royale with Cheese’ here, ladies as gentlemen, as Vince would say. And here are just some of the reasons why.

Lets talk language and dialogue: Blood, action, satire, humour, unforgettable characters, tense drama and low bred criminal behaviour all go hand in hand with some classy writing in a truly inventive, smart screenplay. You want to learn the basics of the legality surrounding marijuana in Amsterdam? Do you want to learn what a TV show pilot is? Do you want to know where some phrases we use today in common parlance, actually came from? Example. One character to another: “I’m gonna go take a piss”. Other character to the first, “that’s a little too much information for me there Vince but, go right ahead.” That catchphrase “little too much information for me”. Damn, it was the coolest thing to say for a while, well at least us teenagers were doing it all the time!

And have you ever really seen a film where criminals are quoting scriptures, or talking about burgers and foot massages like it’s the most normal thing in the world while they are on their way to finish a job that just MAY involve killing, oh, five people? Or a killer pointing a gun at a guy’s head and apologizing to him if something he happened to do in between had broken his concentration? Its not just about the cool dialogues, it’s the language that is so wonderful to listen to in a film about criminals. Going against our expectancies, playing with English and with plenty of repartee Tranatino infuses his story with lots of clever, contemporary wit.

Lets talk structure: Non-linier, episodic, pot boiling with seven separate chapters (the deadly sins, anyone?), each amazingly complete in themselves and perfectly executed. From that hilarious opening prologue which hangs in the air like a simmering question mark that doesn’t go off till the final half hour, to each unit in itself. Mia and Vince at Jack Rabbit Slims: the TWIST sequence (one of the most talked about in the film), the scene in the Chrysler between Vince and Mia full of uncomfortable silences, relationship analysis, and a little battle on the nature of fallacy, romour, truth. The melodious irony of GIRL YOU’LL BE A WOMAN SOON and one of the scariest, realest and funniest overdosing episodes I have ever seen in any film. Soliloquy number 1 in a seedy restaurant introducing Marsellus Wallace and Butch. Soliloquy number 2, a flashback from Butch’s childhood and a recounting of the history of a family heirloom in a mock serious, succinct, and alarmingly precise way. A taxi ride that questions Butch’s motivations and experience of what it ‘feels like to kill a man’ and never forces you with a dumb answer. A motel room where you see the only glimpses of real and true love in the film between Butch & Fabienne (the closest thing you’re getting to romance in this one let me tell you). The deliciously built climax sequence through Butch’s apartment, to a regular corner store backroom, to a shocking, disturbing rape scene and soliloquy number 3 where Butch & Wallace call it quits. (We still cool people? You still on the same page, or chapter at least?).

To finally, THE BONNIE SITUATION where many of these very pieces I’m talking about above, come hurtling back together and make sense in a way that tickles. The funny part is, in the final act, when Tarantino enters for a bit part along with a guy who solves problems (the fantastic HARVEY KIETEL as Wolf), many plot points and threads have been tied already but you just haven’t had the chance to pause and say, ‘what??’ or ‘wow!’ (because you are always between those two words really). On the surface, its only because something major happens about halfway though the film, a character casually dies that you’re really waiting to see how that happened. But if you look carefully, plenty of question marks remain even when that closing epilogue begins because you’re winding back all around to the very beginning, when you began to meet this world of unforgettable people.

So, lets talk character: As problem solver, WINSTON WOLF says, a person can ‘be a character’ but may not ‘have character’ . This one has characters that are both things simultaneously. It cannot be said enough that performances drive PULP FICTION into a whole new arena of have-to-be-owned movies. This is the film that gave TARVOLTA his groove back, got SAMUEL L JACKSON his most talked about role to date, made UMA THURMAN the number 1, Goth like, sexy kitten of the 90’s, found Bruce Willis a role he could sink every morsel into, gave Hollywood MARIA DE MEDEIROS (Fabienne) and VING RHAMES (Marsellus Wallace) and gave HARVEY KIETEL & CHRIS WALKEN the chance to prove just why they are veterans of their craft.

And lets then, finally talk craft, style, genre; lets talk Tarantino. PULP FICTION set the bar for what we today know as a postmodern crime drama. Like a pastiche, Tarantino blends and subverts genres like thriller, black comedy, noir, drama and action, and makes references to several other films and styles within these genres and to popular culture as well (note the Marylyn Waitresses and a host of others). He creates moods and tones that are comical, reflective, violent, brooding, mock satirical and often mundane, giving the film attitude, texture and a lot of flavor. He uses long takes where the camera follows a character from behind, watching, tailing, as well as quick cuts, hand held movements, clean frames, and graphic colours in the art direction and production design. And he punctuates and controls his storytelling not just through words but also through silences, bursts of sudden violence, and music. Not a moment feels wasted, things happen quickly and the film moves fast even at 2 and a half hours, leaving you vaguely hungry for more. Watch it, watch it again, and watch it all over again. You marvel at the ingenuity and mastery each time because this is a that film never underestimates its audience or their intelligence. It knows its cool, it doesn’t try to be. What can I say, PULP FICTION, I love you too honey bunny.

Neha says

So much has been said about this masterpiece that I’m less inclined to quantify it and would like to simply tell my fellow blogger’s that if you love cinema and the creative process of it all-then PULP FICTION a landmark exercise of 1994 even today has the power to shock, satisfy and seduce movie lovers with its sheer attitude, style and ingenuity. Hell not only did it resurrect the flagging careers of John Travolta and Bruce Willis, even a certain Mr. Tarantino is trying to eclipse the Pulp Fiction hangover.

W ith Pulp Fiction Hollywood gave birth to a new genre and for now let’s just call it “THE TARANTINO FORMULA.” Bloody violence, gun power, a stylish criminal underbelly, black comedy, pulsating, heavy metal music, a complex, multi-layered, non-linear screenplay divided into chapter format with multiple characters converging at some point, an uber-cool surprising climactic twist and memorable bad boys that are as audacious as they can be compassionate. These are the rough bullets of the Tarantino formula. But it can’t be replicated. Many have tried and failed miserably. Even Tarantino’s recent Inglourious Basterds revisits this formula and while it’s a defiant and rock solid piece of work it still doesn’t match up to the Pulp Fiction tour de force. It’s just hard to match the confidence and the rebellious spirit of Pulp Fiction’s writing, direction and performance art.

Every character is well defined-be it big or small. Uma Thurman as Mia, the wife of Mafioso Marselles (Ving Rhames) in just a few scenes redefines the term “seductress.” John Travolta gives one of his more mature and understated performances as Vincent Vega who works for Marselles and in his attempt to make big daddy happy he takes Mia out and hilariously struggles with keeping his attraction for her under wraps. Now the most delicious character of this ensemble cast is Samuel Jackson playing Jules Winnfield, whose Travolta’s partner in crime and through the course of the film we see him struggling with his conscience. We see two sides of that magnetic struggle-his compassion and faith in God verses his instinctive and intimidating authority at the job.

Every other dialogue is a quote unquote- loaded with thought and weight and laced with wit. 50% profane and 50 % poetic in tone- it takes one heck of a confident actor to pull it off. In this case 11 confident and fully immersed ones who commendably make it their comfort zone.

But for me it’s really an “experience” to see how the TARANTINO FORMULA comes together and it’s mainly got to go with how Tarantino constructs his long drawn out, leisurely paced scenes. Take the second scene in the film for example- Here’s where we are introduced to Travolta and Jackson who are on their way to do a job (that basically entails getting rid of some young boys who cheated and stole a mysterious black briefcase from their boss). It starts of with them talking about the most random stuff- What the Big Mac is called in Europe, the French metric system and then it eases its way into talking about how Marselles threw a colleague out of the window because this buddy gave the Boss’s wife a “foot massage.” Now the sexual decorum of a foot massage becomes one of the funniest points of debate between the two and all of this while they are heading to kill a few guys. The scene changes its beat when Jackson says to Travolta “Time to get into character” and soon after what we witness is theatrics at its superlative best when Jackson quotes from the bible in a dramatic baritone and takes care of business. One almost felt he was like a priest reading someone’s last rites in a Shakespearean tragedy but Tarantino masterfully uses dramatic flair to give us an insight into Jackson’s bible-reading, god-fearing, miracle-believing ways. From here on it’s really about Travolta and Jackson getting that stolen black briefcase to their boss, dealing with a tizzy of twists and turns and other characters along the way.

One could deconstruct every other scene in the movie and here’s what you’d find- Tarantino trusts his audience and their intellect; there is a certain awe-inspiring confidence and rebelliousness to formula and conventional archetypes; there is an intuitive style and boldness in treatment and a clever if not complex spin to a crime story. Pulp Fiction will remain a radical effort and for a long time be relevant to world cinema but most importantly it’s a TARANTINO signature effort that’s one bloody entertaining and engaging ride.