Sunday, March 29, 2020

INTERVIEW WITH ACTOR MICHAEL MARGOTTA

Today I have the happy pleasure of welcoming a very special guest, actor Michael Margotta, to CINEMATIC REVELATIONS for an interview. Michael has acted in various motion pictures and television series over the years, in films such as DRIVE, HE SAID (1971) [My review of the film can be found here] WILD IN THE STREETS (1968), THE STRAWBERRY STATEMENT (1970), and I NEVER PROMISED YOU A ROSE GARDEN (1977), to name a few examples. Michael will today be discussing his role in DRIVE, HE SAID, acting, The Actors Studio, Film Festivals, and, as an acting coach.

Welcome to CINEMATIC REVELATIONS Michael!


Athan: When did you first realize that you wanted to be an actor?

Michael: I was 18 years old. Wasn’t sure about what I wanted to do with my life. I had already had a physical for the Draft so it was just a matter of time before my number would come up and I would be in Vietnam. I was sitting in a library reading magazines and in the back of one I saw an advertisement for a theater academy in California that was also an accredited college. Thought maybe that might be a way to stay out of a war that I knew was wrong early on. Started doing research on other places but there really wasn’t a lot of choices in 1965. I had never done anything related to acting before so I didn’t have much to base a choice on. I had a hunch that film was the medium that would interest me so I focused in that direction.

*

Athan: Where did you study acting?


Michael: I made the decision to go to the Pasadena Playhouse College of Theater Arts. One reason was that it offered a department for studying acting related to film and television.

Another was that it was situated near Hollywood. I grew up in New York and for an 18 year old in 1965, California seemed like the most exciting place to be.

 *

Athan: Your performance in DRIVE, HE SAID was a powerful, compelling viewing experience. How did you become involved in this project?


Michael: My involvement in Drive was on the surface like any other project. Agents setting up meetings and auditioning to get the role. I had been under contract to Columbia Pictures before this and had a reputation of fighting for what I believed in and Jack [Nicholson] knew all those stories. I had fought for creative freedom in a Studio system and that was rare and risky in those days. The Producers of Drive had all been working in Columbia so they knew the stories about me as well.

*

Athan: Much of the film was shot at the University of Oregon, which gave the movie a freshness and realism that a studio could not offer in this instance. What were both the logistical advantages, and challenges, of filming on a real location?

Michael: The location issues were many. First, there were only two Universities in the U.S. that would allow filming by this time. It was 1970 and there had been problems in the past with film studios shooting on campuses. With the anti-war movement and antiestablishment atmosphere that circulated around Universities the consensus then was that a film shoot might create problems depending on content. So the only two choices left were University of Oregon or Colorado. There was so much going on around the University of Oregon at that time in terms of political polarization that could be interesting plus being situated in a very beautiful area of the country and fairly close proximity to California that it became the choice with a contract that stipulated no sex, no drugs, nothing detrimental to the name of the University.

The city of Eugene, where the University is situated, is surrounded by mountains and there were many communes established where groups were living in whatever ways they chose. And also communities where you would have right wing good ol’boys.

I don’t know if you remember the scene in Easy Rider when Jacks character is murdered but that location is known as the Paris Line and it was famous in Louisiana because many young people disappeared going through there. And the other famous place where young people disappeared is Grants Pass, Oregon, near the border with California.

So there were these extreme energies in the location.

One week before the shooting began I went with Jack to a location in the mountains in Oregon where a train was to arrive with a shipment of nerve gas to be stored in some kind of underground structure. Oregon is a Federally funded State so this Federally mandated shipment meant business and there was a protest taking place and we went to get a sense of the kind of atmosphere we would be eventually dealing with.

To give you a broader perspective, the week we arrived in Eugene there were two events that had just taken place. One was that a building was burned down that was run by the R.O.T.C. Reserve Officer Training Corps was a training program of the United States armed forces present on college campuses to recruit and educate commissioned officers. This brought in the F.B.I. The other event was someone driving around in a green pickup truck at night shooting anyone with long hair. This was all just for starters. The challenges had just begun.

All these events were part of the background of the filming but there was an internal event taking place that would affect shooting for days. This was the first film Jack directed and the Director’s Guild of America demanded he join the union because it was a union project.

He was refusing to pay for membership on the grounds that he may never direct again so the Directors Guild threatened to shut down the project by having other unions pull the crews off the production. The Producers brought in an alternative non-union crew in case the plug was pulled. So there were two crews, one sitting around watching while the other one worked. This stalled the shooting for awhile but eventually an agreement was reached and the non-union crew returned to L.A.

But this had an effect that was not obvious at first. The crew was becoming polarized like the environment. Which would blow up in the end when some rules were broken.

A major turning point was reached when a nationwide event started taking place on or near college campuses. It was the first time Earth Week, an event that represented ecological and environmental issues would be set up across the country. And the University gave permission for a street on campus to be used for the displays.


There was a radical movement that built a wall each night at each end of the street. They used cinder blocks and quick dry cement. In the morning the authorities would knock it down. But at the end of the week the radical movement took over the administration building next to the street and would not leave.

Just before all this chaos I met with Jack and Jeremy Larner (the writer of the novel that the film was based on) to discuss the ending of the film. The ending of the film is very different from what was originally in the script and the script ending very different from the novel ending (which I preferred). In the script, Gabriel(the character I played)does break into the Biology Lab but is captured and given a shot with a needle and put into a cage and taken away. In the novel there is a parade in the town and Gabriel who has been pursued by the authorities suddenly appears on the top of a huge float, fires up a cigar and in a relaxed mood in front of the world, sets the float on fire and self immolates.

What we discussed was a variation on the script which would most likely create a big problem because it involved not only doing the scene nude in the Lab but include streaking nude across the campus... a direct violation of the contract between the Producers, Studio and University. And instead of the needle and straitjacket and cage... I would let the animals go free and when the authorities finally catch up with me, walk out and get in the ambulance on my own free will. But we had to convince the Producer on location.

His answer to this idea about nudity in the Lab was that it was okay but not in the Lab originally designated, which was situated on University property. He offered to rent an abandoned school building in another area. The streak nude across the University campus idea was out. So it was left like this.

But as I mentioned before, there was a major turning point that would cause events to spiral out of control. The Administration building was now completely occupied by students.

I should mention here that I had made a decision that I would stay in character through the entire filming even when I was not working. I wore the same costume even when I was not working. I had a lot of free time when all the basketball sequences were being shot and I used it to stay in character and live in that place. I even convinced Bill [William] Tepper at one point to sleep in the boiler room space that the characters shared. I was continually doing my ‘research’ about what was going on in the area when I wasn’t shooting.

I happened to be on the campus and spotted the camera equipment truck in a parking area and I strolled over to sit and talk with some of the camera crew. Within a few minutes the Producer (Steve Blauner) came running up shouting, “Break out a camera... c’mon with me Gabriel... something is happening.”

So with one camera operator, I followed Steve up a hill and arrived on one side of the Administration building where a few people were gathered. A Military transport vehicle was parked in front of this side door and there two rows of Police in full riot gear... shields, riot helmets, rifles, batons, etc; creating a path from the door of the building to the back of the transport and at the same time students were being dragged/carried from the building and put into the truck.

Things were happening fast. The students’ hands and legs were tied with plastic bands that were adopted from the Military in Vietnam. It was as if Steve, the cameraman and myself were all on the same wave length. With no time to waste I positioned myself right in front of one of the men in riot gear and started a monologue. I forgot completely about Steve and the camera operator. I could see the nervousness in the eyes of the man behind the plastic face mask that I was monologuing with. More students dragged out behind him but now something else was happening.

Crowds started gathering quickly behind me and on both sides of me and at the same time the transport was overloaded with tied up students so they started lining them up on the ground at the back of the vehicle in a rush to get them out and get out themselves because now there were a couple of hundred people shouting at them and more arriving. They underestimated this operation.

And then all hell broke loose in seconds. It remains in my memory as a series of snapshots. On my left I was aware of an older man with a briefcase, a kind of professor type. Suddenly, over our heads, a huge piece of cement, like the base of some kind of street sign that had been ripped out of the ground came crashing down on the head of the man in the mask that I was talking with. He dropped like a sack of potatoes. Immediately the professor guy next to me reached down to try and help him. Instantly, someone behind me put a hand on my left shoulder and I could see it was holding a handkerchief. I reached for it and at the same time an officer who was standing behind the one I had been talking with, who was now lying on the ground semi-conscious, raised a pepper fogger and blasted me with gas.

This all happened in seconds.

Everything went black. My eyes were sealed, my skin was sealed! I instinctively knew I shouldn’t try to breathe and I had to protect my head. I was backing up, bent over, trying to protect my head with my arms and holding the last breath I had taken before getting hit with gas. It was Dante’s Inferno. Blackness. Bumping into people. Screaming and yelling all around me. And one minute became an eternity.

I stopped and still, with my eyes sealed, I started sipping little bits of air until I could breathe again and wiped my eyes with the handkerchief that mysteriously appeared on my shoulder.

The Producer was gone. The cameraman was gone. The transport was gone.

But there were hundreds of students chasing after a column of men in riot gear as they tried to retreat. Sometimes the last man in the column would be hit by some kind of projectile and the next man would have to carry him along.

And this was a strange moment for me. I’m not in a movie now. This is another dimension of ‘acting’ of ‘being’.


I started going with the flow. I was curious. Following this column now off the campus trying to make its way through a street in Eugene followed by an angry mob, every once in awhile having to stop alongside a building to put their backs against a wall for protection before attempting another block. The automobile traffic jammed up because of the crowd and mayhem.

And then I heard the sound of a helicopter in the distance. Someone ran by me screaming, “the national guard is coming!”

And I knew this did not bode well and it was time to call it quits.

Oddly enough all this movement seemed to be flowing in the direction of the center of Eugene where the Hotel was situated that the Production was based in. I went to the Hotel and sat at a window and watched as the riot worked its way to an underground parking garage and in swooped the Calvary (National Guard) and it was a bad day for everyone. I sat in that chair and cried. It was not only a release of a hell of a lot of adrenaline but something intensely soulful.

As an actor, prejudice is death. I was caught up in the rage. The rage of a nation at war with itself. This was 1970. The previous decade is difficult to explain. Like being in a dark room and someone turned on the light for the first time. And now they want to turn it off again and all this struggle is to keep that light on and keep exploring what was impossible to see before.

Needless to say, this event became the turning point for the production. The press was all over this event. It was the first time gas was used in the 40 year history of the University at that point in time. And this was covered up in the press. The subject of gas was a big issue as I mentioned in the beginning when the State had to accept the storage of nerve gas in one of its mountains.

The problem was... we had footage of gas being used and they knew it. And that footage was already on its way to California. It wasn’t long before the Governor of Oregon had a team of his aides at the Hotel trying to get that footage. Jack and the Producer had their hands full. It was clear that the material could create legal problems. And for that reason, when you see the film, after the first basketball game where my character with his misfit team of radicals stopped the game by turning off the lights, you see me outside the stadium supposedly getting arrested and I put my hand over the camera lens. Those few seconds are just before I was gassed. And I didn’t remember until I saw the film the first time that I did that in reality. It was as if I was saying...no, this is real..go away.

It was the beginning of the end. The Producer was now fired up and changed his mind about the ending idea for the film. He said if I wanted to streak nude to the Lab on University property it was fine. But... it would have to be a secret. It would not appear on any schedule. Only a few people on the Production would know. The idea was, I would get a phone call early in the morning on a weekend and be ready to go.

I got the phone call at 5am on a Sunday morning. There was a station wagon waiting outside the Hotel. There were six of us. Nicholson, Steve Blauner the Producer, Harry Gittes the Set Designer, Fred Roos the casting director, Bill Butler the director of Photography, and myself.

We drove over to the campus. Parked next to the entrance of the Lab building. Bill, Steve and Harry got out and started setting up a tripod and getting the camera ready. Jack was behind the wheel. Fred in the back seat and I was in the passenger seat. The idea was that when the camera was ready, Jack would drive to an area around 500 meters away and we would wait for a signal and Fred and I would get out and he would be an extra watching me streak nude to the building and enter while Jack drove back to the camera area.

As we sat there I was scanning the grounds of the University and I saw a pickup truck pull up to a building not far from where I was going to get out of the car and start running. A man got out of the truck, stood there watching us and then entered a building. I had a strange feeling in that moment. Bill signaled he was ready with the camera. We drove to our starting point and as soon as we stopped we saw a Eugene Police car pull up to the camera.

Jack got out and went to see what was happening while Fred and I waited…

The Police car drove away and Jack came back and said they were just curious why someone was shooting at 6am on a Sunday morning.

I stripped off my clothes and wrapped myself in a blanket. They waved and I got out and started running. Fred got out and was walking in the background and Jack was driving back towards the camera.

I ran towards camera which was placed on a tripod next to some stairs that led up to a glass door entrance of the Laboratory and the set up was that I would enter the building and shot finished. I was hoping we would get it in one take.


I ran up the stairs, past the camera, reached for the door and it was locked! Immediately a man appeared on the other side of the locked glass door and in one hand he had a walkie-talkie and in the other he was holding up a badge and shouted at me, “don’t move, you are under arrest!”

Without hesitation I ran back down the stairs and jumped in the car which had just returned and immediately started getting dressed. Jack was helping everyone collect the gear and throw it in the station wagon and by the time everyone was back in the car, there were men coming out of different buildings and surrounding the car before we could move. One guy actually had his hip up against the headlight on the driver’s side and Steve Blauner was behind the wheel now. We had the windows up and doors locked. The guy leaning on the headlight had his hand inside his jacket the whole time as if he was holding onto a weapon. It was a standoff. Blauner was racing the engine to try and threaten the guy off but he wouldn’t budge. There was a construction site nearby and the other guys were picking up boards and whatever they could find and jamming it under the car.

Blauner gunned the engine and tried to move an inch and the guy in front whipped his hand out of his jacket and pointed a kind of pen at the windshield which was a relief at that moment but it made Steve crazy. He jumped out of the car and started screaming at the guy that if he didn’t move he was going to drive over him. Got back in, revved up full speed and let it go and the guy up front jumped/fell backward and was just missed as we bounced full speed over boards and bricks and raced back to the Hotel but not to stay.

It was obvious we were set up. But by who?

Everything was moving fast. Blauner got his girlfriend and the footage we had just shot and got in his Porsche and headed for the California border. There was definitely going to be some fallout from this especially after what happened with the footage of the gassing and the Governor becoming involved. So the message was we were going to have breakfast at a Pancake House restaurant. A long breakfast. Because a team of lawyers were on the way from L.A.

It was a pretty quiet breakfast. When the lawyers arrived they just sat there watching us eat. Like everyone was trying to be serious but the subtext was more like, a bunch of kids sent to the Principles Office.

The plan was that we would go back to the Hotel but I should avoid my room. Wait in the Dining Room for a car to pick me up and drive me to the Oregon coastline and stay there one night and we would improvise shooting something there. Jack and the Lawyers would be busy with Police Authorities for awhile.

I had already cleaned out my room before we went out for breakfast so when we returned to the Hotel I went right to the Dining Room. The Police were arriving at the Hotel at the same time. Jack had a room full of Lawyers and Police.

When I entered the Dining Room, I saw the Assistant Director and a couple of crew members sitting at a table at one end of the room. I saw Jacks girlfriend, Mimi, sitting at another table with a guy who was a Nicholson fan that appeared whenever and wherever Jack worked. More than just a fan, he was obsessed with Jack and would pop up on location all the time. I sat down with them and immediately Mimi explained to me that she would be a go-between what was happening upstairs with Jack and what I should do.

And in walked two Police Officers. They came to our table and one of them asked if we knew the actor Michael Margotta. Instinctively I knew I should answer fast and first so the other two would know what do. I shook my head and said no. Mimi and the guy knew to say no as well. The two officers looked around the room, spotted the Assistant Director and crew at another table and made their way over. Mimi left quickly to go to Jacks room.

I watched as the Police asked the same question at the other table. I saw the Assistant Director point in the direction of me and Jacks fan guy. And I knew in that moment that the Assistant Director was the person that tipped off the authorities about the shot we did earlier. There are very strict union rules in the U.S. about shooting. The Assistant Director is like a Sergeant in the Military. He has to be informed of everything. And in a Studio system he has to control everything. He was not informed about what we were doing but somehow he figured it out. And in order to save himself from any blame in the fiasco, he alerted the Police.

The two officers walked out. Mimi returned and told me there was a van waiting for me outside and she was going to travel with me and later Jack would join us.

The three of us walked out together and as soon as we entered the Hotel Lobby the two Police Officers appeared from a side door and stopped Jacks fan guy. One of the officers took off his hat and pulled out of it a little card and started reading the poor guy his rights.

They were called Miranda Rights and had only recently become a law that the Police had to abide by. ‘You have the right to remain silent..etc; etc.’ This officer didn’t have it memorized yet so he was reading it.

I did not pause but kept going. It was obvious what happened. When the finger was pointed at our table they thought the other guy was Michael Margotta.

Mimi kept pace with me. As we entered the parking area where the van was waiting a Police car pulled up alongside of me with one officer in it and I stopped. Through his rolled down window he asked me if I was Michael Margotta and I said no. He asked me what my name was and a name popped out of my mouth of one of my high school friends. “Andy Dunne’” was my answer. I saw him pick up a little notebook and start searching for the name. We continued on, jumped in the van and were driven to the coast.

So these were a few of the challenges in shooting in a real location.

*

Athan: What did you most enjoy about the experience of filming DRIVE, HE SAID?

Michael: One of things I enjoyed in the project is the research that I was doing day to day. It is my favorite part of acting. I dropped into a part of the world that was all new to me. I was spending time with people from the area and going into worlds that were interesting. Communes where groups were living alternative life styles. I was from New York and had only been in LA for 5 years and these two zones were best characterized by an iconic cover on THE NEW YORKER magazine which represented a map of the United States in which we see LA on the west coast and NYC on the east coast and nothing but a desert in between. There were some far out individuals living in Oregon. Ken Kesey who wrote, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest had graduated from the University of Oregon more than a decade before this but had a kind of commune life style that he supported as an example. So, I enjoyed being in these different worlds. And I developed a kind of group of locals that helped me explore the more radical undercurrents. And I enjoyed my fellow actors. Bill Tepper and I became life-long friends until he died recently. And Henry Jaglom and I worked together again many years after on a film in NYC called, CAN SHE BAKE A CHERRY PIE. And we are still in touch with each other. I greatly enjoyed the freedom I had working on the film. And the discoveries I made because of that freedom. Working with Nicholson and Bill Butler (Director of Photography) opened up possibilities to explore technically in ways I had not been able to do on productions before this one.

*

Athan: What research did you undertake after you decided to take on the role of the irreverent, troubled Gabriel in DRIVE, HE SAID?


Michael: The research was pretty much about what I experienced living in the environment we worked in. Some of that I mentioned before. The political and social issues that were primarily the conflicts the character faced, were all too familiar. I had done a film (STRAWBERRY STATEMENT) before this that dealt with similar themes based on a real event at Columbia University. But a much more Hollywood version of events in my opinion. I drew from different sources for the character. A teenage friend who had dropped out of high school, a real rebel who opened up my mind by handing me a copy of ‘Coney Island of the Mind’ by Lawrence Ferlinghetti. An African American street guy I studied for a couple years named Andy, who would never reveal his last name to me. The last line of the film is, “Your Mother called...your Mother called” as I was taken away. And for me this was the first time that there was some sense of this guy was just a kid who was angry and willing to go against Goliath even if it meant ending up in the asylum. There was an incredible sequence that we shot that never made it into the film. It took place in the Draft Board location. It was to take place after the scene where I attack the psychiatrist and I get dragged out by some guards. I went back at night and broke into the building and destroyed the whole interior. We spent a long time on that. Some of it symbolic, like destroying a Coca Cola machine and dozens of bottles of Coca Cola in slow motion and the rest just pure, poetic rage in real time taking the whole building apart. The character was doing so many drugs that he was ultimately alone in another dimension. The freeing of the animals in the end, his ultimate expression. I saw many people lost in drugs so it wasn’t difficult to draw from those impressions.

*

Athan: Bruce Dern did a wonderful job as the coach in DRIVE, HE SAID, a character who was totally no-nonsense, the complete antithesis to Gabriel. What was it like to work with the talented Mr Dern? 

Michael: Working with Bruce Dern was minimal. We only had one scene together. But we would sometimes watch each other work. He was very supportive and it was always a pleasure to see him standing off to the side and giving me the ok sign after I did a scene. He had a phenomenal stamina. Sometimes we would cross paths early in the morning as I was leaving to shoot and he was just coming back from a 50 mile run. On the weekends he would run 100 miles with his girlfriend driving alongside handing him Coca Cola. I was happy for Bruce that he had this opportunity because the film helped his career tremendously. I had heard a story that when he was much younger he was up for the leading role in Elia Kazan’s, Splendor In The Grass and the only other actor being considered was Warren Beatty who did get the role in the end. When he spoke to Lee Strasberg about his disappointment, Lee told him, Bruce you are going to have to wait another 20 years. Pretty devastating to hear for a guy driving a taxi to survive. The last time I saw him was years after the film. I was doing something in the Actors Studio in NYC and he stopped in because he was doing something on Broadway and it was great to see him. He was surprised to see me working on a play by Chekhov.

*

Athan: How was the experience of being directed in DRIVE, HE SAID by the renowned Jack Nicholson? 

Michael: Working with Jack directing was very liberating. At the same time he is a strong personality. As a result of the freedom it was possible to push the limits in some scenes in ways that I had not experienced in my previous work. Improvising scenes as an example. Or following an impulse that would not have been acceptable in a more traditional shooting situation. Some of those moments surprised me because in any other situation a director would have said, “Cut.” There is a scene that takes place before the Draft Board sequence when I’m sitting with a couple of the guys and Henry Jaglom is asking me why I am so morose and I was upset to the point where I got up and walked out of the scene but kept talking and then walked back in and sat down again still talking. I was surprised to see it in the final cut. Because Jack was so laid back (sometimes literally lying on the floor) when we were shooting, the atmosphere was relaxed for the most part.

Most films made in that era generally shot around one hundred and fifty thousand feet of film, max. I think we came back with three hundred and fifty thousand. A lot of that was basketball footage for sure but also things like the destruction of the Draft Board that never made it into the final cut.

There are as many different kinds of directors as there are actors and I have had the good fortune of working with directors who had been actors and they tend to have a trust in who they choose to work with so it becomes more of a collaboration. There is a vocabulary we can tap into and a lot of that is non-verbal. Jack liked it when I would do the hambone thing of slapping my leg rhythmically (which I stole from my teenage rebel friend) and I was using sparingly in key scenes and I would see him off camera doing it to encourage me to do it again and again and at a certain point I realized that he was pushing me to do it more knowing that only a percentage of it would end up in the final product and it would become a character trait.

One day he said something to me that I will always be grateful for. Learn film editing. It will save you eight years. And I did right after we finished shooting.

*

Athan: Have you kept in contact with any cast members and crew from DRIVE, HE SAID? 

Michael: I did stay in touch with Jack, Bruce, Henry, Bill Tepper, Karen Black, Bob Rafelson. I did another film with Karen, ‘Can She Bake A Cherry Pie,’ directed by Henry Jaglom. And Bill was developing a script that he wanted me to do with him in Prague right up until he passed away last year. Henry wrote to me yesterday. Pierre Cottrell was also a dear friend. His Company did the subtitles for foreign distribution and he was also an important producer. So, Bill, Karen and Pierre have passed away. I have been living in Italy for almost twenty years and working non-stop and have a tendency to disappear into my work.

*

Athan: Are you still recognized today for your role in DRIVE, HE SAID?


Michael: ‘Drive’ was certainly a unique film but from the beginning it was a film that came too late into the world. The University, anti-war themes had been done. After ‘Easy Rider’ there was a period when anyone that had a script that dealt with youth issues found Hollywood very receptive. Most Producers were looking for the formula of B.B.S. Productions. I did some of the earlier films that dealt with similar issues. ‘Strawberry Statement,’ ‘Wild In The Streets.’ The wave was finished by the time Drive was released. But in most respects it was in my opinion the best of the genre. In the 70’s there were young people that would stop me, mostly University types that would want to say something about how the film effected them. And here in Italy more people of that generation saw ‘Strawberry’ than ‘Drive.’ About ten years ago Sony released a collection of all the B.B.S films and that was the last time I heard anything.

 *

Athan: What for you was the scene(s) in DRIVE, HE SAID you are most proud? 

Michael: Over the years I have become a firm believer in less is more. That the gold is in the details. Take the s and the m off the word small and you get all. So I have a tendency to look at scenes under the microscope and when I look at my own work I focus more on moments. I’m not proud of any of the scenes as much as I am moments. When I saw the film the first time I was not excited about it. Of the genre it was the most original. It was pushing the limits in many areas. The Catholic Review Board which existed for years, walked out when they saw it and never came back. Initially it received an X-Rating and it took some legal work to get an R=Rating. Jack went after the hypocrisy in the Rating system. The philosophy being that it was okay to shoot or stab a woman in the breast but not show male frontal nudity.


I think there were too many cooks in the kitchen during the editing of the film. And there was an enormous amount of film to edit, more than twice an average film. So there are moments here and there in my own performance that I can see something. Most of them are silent moments.

*

Athan: In 2009 you directed your first feature film, MISS JULIE. What is it that attracted you to directing this film?


Michael: The writings of August Strindberg always fascinated me. His perspective on theater was visionary, far ahead of the times. In the preface for Miss Julie he was pleading with Producers, Theater Managers, to make changes in productions that would add more realism. He is considered one of the three Grandfathers of Modern Realism, along with Anton Chekhov and Henrik Ibsen. When Tennessee Williams received an award for ‘Streetcar Named Desire,’ he thanked Strindberg because in many ways, Miss Julie was the inspiration for Blanche DuBois. What I found challenging in Miss Julie is how Strindberg packed so much into the small space. It’s a one act play that takes place in one night in one room and has so many levels running through it in a unique language. I had been working on several projects as Artistic Director of The Actors Center Roma, a non-profit organization made up of two hundred actors, writers and directors. And it was several years later that I realized that three of the productions I was working on were in one way or another connected with suicide. I made a short version film of Chekhov’s ‘The Sea Gull.’ And shot an original story, ‘Everything Counts, Nothing Matters,’ about a film director that commits suicide while the entire cast is waiting for him in a hotel on an island. I was very curious about the subject of suicide and in all these projects I was working to remove all the moral issues connected with it and exploring how powerful that switch is that overrides our associations connected with pain and pleasure. Miss Julie was also an exercise with the actors in approaching material without assumptions. The initial intention was to explore the themes and see if we could find the play. The Actors Center was designed with this kind of approach in mind. I’m a member of the Actors Studio in the U.S. and it is similar in that it is made up of professional actors who come together to cause each other to grow in the art. So it wasn’t the kind of traditional approach. Meaning, we decide on a script and go into production. Instead, we decide on a script and work on it and see if we can find the soul of it, test it, get feedback on it and then take it to production. Miss Julie grew up in this way. I had worked this way as an actor in the past on many projects and it was a pleasure to share this with the actors in Miss Julie.

*

Athan: What did you most enjoy about directing MISS JULIE? 

Michael: It was very satisfying to see the actors make the commitment to work on developing their characters and explore the text without any concern for performing for such a long period. I watched them grow in so many ways. They knew this was an opportunity they might never have again so they were devoted to it. In the Actors Center in Rome we had sessions twice a week for eight years in which the actors could bring in work and present it for feedback. And Directors sessions once a week for the same purpose. The actors in Miss Julie used these sessions for almost a year in order to test their development, sometimes with my input about what to focus on. Rai television came in and shot one of the sessions for a special they were doing on the Actors Center and this increased the interest in the project. The whole project developed in the Center. It was literally shot in the basement of the Center. It was challenging to design it to run like a play with three cameras inside the action at all times but I enjoyed that process very much. And the camera operators enjoyed it as much as I did.

*

Athan: When did you first become involved in The Actor’s Studio?

Michael: I became involved in the Actor’s Studio in the late seventies in L.A. first and then right after in N.Y. I was asked to work on a play in development with Jocelyn Brando, Marlon’s sister and it was around the same time that I became friends with Jack Garfein, the Director who along with Paul Newman put together the Actors Studio West. Jack was creating two new theaters in NYC and very excited about the move because after years in LA he felt it was an intellectual desert and he convinced me that it could be good for me to go back to my roots which began in the theater. My career started in the theater in LA in a production of Eugene O’Neil’s, ‘Ah,Wilderness.’


It was an enormous success and from there I went under contract to Columbia Pictures and working in films and television. Jack convinced me to come back to theater and especially theater in NYC. Ellen Burstyn invited me into the East Coast Actors Studio as a Professional Observer. After a few years of trying to live on two coasts I became a member of the Studio.

 *

Athan: You coach students on acting in seminars across the world. In which countries do you hold seminars? What gives you the most satisfaction about teaching the art of acting to students?


Michael: Until 2000 I taught in NYC. Then I started a routine which lasted a few years. Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Austria, Turkey, Costa Rica and U.S.A. Then something happened that changed everything. I was doing a seminar on the Spanish island, Formentera when 9/11 happened and I could not go home. There were people working with me from five countries, one of them Italy. The Italians were asking me to come back to Rome which I did and life changed. There were so many people coming in that it was overwhelming and we started the Actors Center Roma. I continued to try and keep the commitments with other countries but it became very difficult. If I was in Portugal adapting Virginia Woolf’s ‘The Waves,’ and directing it for theater for six months, I would have to leave the Center in Rome and going back and forth meant leaving the actors alone and losing momentum. I closed the Center after eight years. I do seminars and coaching all over Italy now. I work with individuals and productions and started a company in Milan called MIAT, Milan Institute for Arts and Technology.


There was a moment when I was asking myself, why do so many young people want to become actors. There are so many courses, classes, schools, seminars for acting all over the world. I was teaching in the jungle of Costa Rica, on a Blue Boat off of Turkey, in East Berlin on Pushkin Strasse, in the incredible Duomo of AMALFI, on islands like Sardinia, Sicily, Mallorca, Formentera, Maddelana, in the Algarve section of Portugal, in Tel Aviv, in an ancient cemetery in Turin and every region of Italy. Why do so many young people want to join an endangered species?


I thought about all the obvious reasons, superficial reasons, but I came to the conclusion that there is something much deeper going on. Something ancient. That an actor is someone who can change, transform. Which means they have some kind of control over their existence. And when have we needed control over our existence more than now?

With the Actors Center in Rome I had a laboratory that I could experiment in, explore in, with two hundred and nineteen members made of actors, directors, writers. With different countries and environments I worked with diverse energies culturally, socially, artistically and that made it possible to adapt the work I was doing and experience the influences that were effecting different countries as we became more global. Some of the actors that came to work with me twenty years ago are now considered the best actors in Italy.


In all that time I was teaching acting, directing, writing, life issues, script analysis and developed exercises to address the issues that actors deal with so they can get into their power as actors and know how to get results.

And to take responsibility for the purpose and meaning of acting.

And when I see, and everyone else sees an actor discover the ability to be swept beyond themselves, I feel a great satisfaction. It’s really fulfilling when I see someone take on the discipline. I have watched lives change.

*

Athan: What is the most thrilling aspect of being involved in film festivals, and selecting the movies which are to be screened? 

Michael: If it’s the Cannes Festival it’s very different from Ischia Festival or some newly formed festival. I was in Cannes with Nicholson for Drive, He Said and there you have a tough audience. For the past few years I have been doing seminars in the Ischia Film Festival with not only a special friend but a wonderful director and writer named Paul Haggis. We started doing seminars together three years ago on the subject of acting and also on writing short films.


In Festivals where I am involved in the selection process it is not thrilling at all. It is a lot of work and patience. Conferences and deliberations. For three years I was the Artistic Director of a small film festival in Sardinia. It was hard work to get it to another level and to introduce new ways of seeing. Last year I helped launch a new festival outside of Rome and it was consuming. Not only selecting but judging the work.


Sometimes I am asked to select works in festivals and sometimes just be a judge. I enjoy meeting interesting people who are trying to say something important. And when I interview people for an audience it can be educational and fun. Actors like Antonio Banderas or Directors like Billie August. These people have wonderful stories to tell about their lives and work.

Three years ago I received an Artistic Achievement Award at the Ischia Festival. And it was nice to be on the other end of a festival. Ten years ago the Mayor of Rome threw a big event for the Actors Center at the Roma Film Festival. It was a great pleasure to see the Center acknowledged for its artistic efforts. It can also be scary to be a judge of an anti-mafia film festival in Calabria. I have fond memories from all of them.

*

Thank you so much today for your time Michael, and for the fascinating insight you have provided into the art of acting, film, film festivals, directing, and DRIVE, HE SAID. It has been wonderful to have you on CINEMATIC REVELATIONS. You are welcome to return whenever you wish.

Athan's note: I wish to express my great appreciation to Michael for agreeing to answer my questions for the interview, as he is currently in a difficult position in lockdown in Italy with his family during the coronavirus pandemic. Thank you again to Michael for an incisive, and thoroughly compelling discussion from which we have learned so much. Also, with a sincere hope that the crisis will end soon, and that life can eventually return to a sense of calm and normality, but with added understanding for humanity at large.

*

Michael Margotta links





+Short Virtual Reality Project To Study Problems Of Acting In New Medium, Milan And Venice, Italy:

*Facebook post

*Facebook Video Link


Friday, March 20, 2020

GETTING STRAIGHT (1970)


Title: GETTING STRAIGHT

Year of Release: 1970

Director: Richard Rush

Genre: Drama, Comedy

Synopsis: Masters student Harry Bailey becomes involved in the anti-establishment student protests at his university, all the while maintaining a messy personal life on the side.

Within a film history context: In the late 1960s and early 1970s, several movies were released by major Hollywood studios which explored university life, and the place of youth in contemporary society. In their attempts to reflect life in this era, these films were variously successful in their execution. One of the first to deal with university life and the personal life of students was Samuel Goldwyn Jr.'s THE YOUNG LOVERS (1964). Arriving well before the late 1960s, it dealt with its themes, such as pregnancy and parental disapproval, in a more romantic manner than later films. Coming in 1970 were three movies which dealt with university, and youth alienation in a more explicit way than could be attempted earlier, the concurrent censorship breakdown allowing this. Michelangelo Antonioni's ZABRISKIE POINT explored not only university relations but also capitalism, alienation, and disenchantment in a vivid fashion. Stuart Hagmann's THE STRAWBERRY STATEMENT mined similar material, but also focused upon university politics in an intensive fashion. R.P.M, directed by Stanley Kramer, featured Anthony Quinn as a university professor who is involved with student activism.

GETTING STRAIGHT, as with the other movies, arriving on screen in 1970, is generally regarded as the best of the cycle of university-themed films, and was also the most financially successful. Unlike the other films, GETTING STRAIGHT projected its points with healthy doses of humour, which made the whole experience of viewing it more balanced than the more dramatic films. The humour is borne out of the characters, never becoming slapstick or forced. GETTING STRAIGHT, though, was not all fun and games, and contained many serious moments.

The trials and tribulations of the main character have serious implications for him in the film, such as his friendship with the unstable Nick, and the effect on his university career. Harry's own idiosyncrasies come to the fore, especially at the movie's conclusion, which also have a massive impact on his life as he has lived it until now. While the film mainly revolves around Harry Bailey, it could also be classified as a multi-character narrative, the audience able to see events through the eyes of other people. Unlike ZABRISKIE POINT, with its small cast, where the viewer interprets events as they occur to the two protagonists, GETTING STRAIGHT offered a more expansive, inclusive, and realistic view of the world than its counterparts.

Overview: Richard Rush directed twelve movies in his career, beginning in 1960, and ending in 1994. Mr Rush made his debut in 1960 with TOO SOON TO LOVE, a drama about unwed teens dealing with an unexpected pregnancy. He followed this with a romance starring Merle Oberon, OF LOVE AND DESIRE (1963), and subsequently helmed action movies such as HELLS ANGELS ON WHEELS (1967), and THUNDER ALLEY (1967). In his thirty-four year career Mr Rush also directed varied movies such as PSYCH-OUT (1968), THE STUNT MAN (1980). His final feature, the controversial COLOR OF NIGHT (1994), with its nudity and violence attracted criticism. GETTING STRAIGHT was his ninth movie, and one of his best efforts.

Mr Rush shrewdly combines comedy and drama in GETTING STRAIGHT, never becoming overtly comic but also, never going overboard in the drama department. The events in the life of university professor Harry Bailey, and the assortment of characters with whom he comes into contact, are handled with style and sympathy by Mr Rush. While there are many raucous moments in the film, they are always related to the characters in a natural manner, never making them seem like caricatures. Mr Rush traverses tricky territory, such as the central themes of narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy in university circles, with humour and grace, never becoming heavy-handed. Despite the film's strengths, there are some deficiencies during the film's running time.

While the first half of the movie is entertaining, it takes somewhat too much time to establish the characters, which takes a little away from its impact. The second half of the film, though, is where the action picks up considerably, and it begins to come together in a cohesive manner. Once the motives of certain characters are evident to the audience, the drama starts to explode. One of the elements that could have been excised is Harry Bailey's amorous pursuits of women apart from Jan. These do nothing for the film, and the character, but just seem to be an excuse to showcase bare female flesh. They may be present as an example of Harry's libidinous ways, and that he wastes no time in finding a substitute for Jan, but, seem extraneous in retrospect. Overall, though, GETTING STRAIGHT has more positives than negatives, and these are what the film is remembered for more than half a century after its release.

The riot scenes at the university are well-handled, compelling, and feel as if they could realistically have taken place, without being exploitative in terms of blood and violence. Confrontations between characters, particularly between teaching staff at the university, are excellent. The scene with Elliott Gould at the meeting with the professors is sublime, the directing of the actors, and the delivery of the dialogue priceless. In terms of the treatment of its themes, GETTING STRAIGHT is the main of the films of its era to have held up exceedingly well today, and, is still highly watchable, and thought-provoking.

Acting: The acting in GETTING STRAIGHT is of a very high standard, something that greatly assists in conveying its message to the audience. Elliott Gould, in the lead role of university professor Harry Bailey, delivers a marvellous performance, his presence ensuring its success. He is depicted as being a multi-faceted character, the film showing him from all sides. Harry Bailey the masters student, the confidant, the lover, the friend, the comic, the open-minded man...Mr Gould does it all in GETTING STRAIGHT. As his girlfriend Jan, Candice Bergen projects a frankness and vulnerability that make her a suitable match for Mr Gould, and their chemistry works in a natural way. Apart from Elliott Gould and Candice Bergen, the film's supporting roles have been filled by actors who make the very best of their roles.

John Rubinstein, as student activist Herbert, projects sincerity, and aspirational qualities in his part. An actor of pleasing demeanour, Mr Rubinstein always brings a refreshing genuineness to his roles, such as in ZACHARIAH. It is as if through his eyes there can be a better world, and he is adept at conveying this quality to the audience through his acting. Max Julien is charismatic and forceful as the passionate Ellis, a man for whom the word no does not exist. His final scenes in the film with Elliott Gould's Harry are touching and realistic, indicating a new phase in what was a tenuous relationship throughout the movie.

Veteran actor Cecil Kellaway, in a small part, underplays his role as Harry's advisor and friend in the movie, adding a solemn and dignified note to the proceedings. The final performance of note in GETTING STRAIGHT was that of Robert F. Lyons as Nick, Harry Bailey's drugged-out friend. When first seeing Mr Lyons, I was struck by how he resembled actor Jack Nicholson in looks, but his Nick is one of the most complicated, intricate characters in the movie. Both friend and foe, comic but dead real in his scenes with other characters, Mr Lyons offered a great interpretation of the psychologically complex, ingratiating Nick.

Soundtrack: The movie employs music of the era throughout the film to back up what is occurring onscreen. The opening credits feature an introspective ballad which aptly sets the thoughtful, intimate tone for the film. The use of guitar rhythms, which marked much music of the late 1960s and early 1970s, is prevalent in the music of GETTING STRAIGHT, lending it a contemporary feel for its time. The movie does not overdo the use of music, deploying it sparingly, preferring for scenes to largely stand alone for their emotional impact.

Mise-en-scene: The homes of the various characters are also suitable to their personalities and reflective of their state of mind in the film. A good example is Harry's home in the film. Harry Bailey's apartment is rather messy, but a quintessential 1970s space in terms of décor; reminiscent of his turbulent love and working life. The university setting is utilized in a thorough manner in the film, with lecture rooms, the library, and offices being realistic in nature. The riot scenes make excellent use of university grounds and architecture, such as courtyards, beams, columns, and lecture room blocks.

The opening credits are interesting, featuring the symbol of the world in the sky, and this metamorphoses into an apple which the university's students variously handle. There is the inference that the world is the student's apple, with the film testing this particular theory through its running time, something for the audience to ponder and discuss. This motif is also employed at the film's conclusion, showing how the film, and its characters have come full circle, in a matter of speaking.

Award-worthy performances in my opinion: Elliott Gould, Candice Bergen, John Rubinstein, Max Julien, Robert F. Lyons, Cecil Kellaway.

Suitability for young viewers: No. Infrequent coarse language, male nudity, female nudity, adult themes, medium-level violence.

Overall Grade: B

Link: IMDB Page



Wednesday, March 11, 2020

THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD (1975)

  
Title: THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD

Year of Release: 1975

Director: J. Lee Thompson

Genre: Supernatural, Drama, Horror

Synopsis: University professor Peter Proud begins to have dreams of a man being murdered by a woman in a lake, and believes that he may have been this man in a previous life.

Within a film history context: Films exploring reincarnation have been present many times since the silent period. One of the first documented films dealing with reincarnation is the 1901 short A MYSTIC RE-INCARNATION. Later in the 1910s came Kenean Buel's THE MYSTERY OF THE SLEEPING DEATH (1914) with silent screen stars Alice Joyce and Tom Moore in the lead roles. The 1920s brought ALL SOULS' EVE (1921) a vehicle for Mary Miles Minter directed by Chester M. Franklin, with a young woman inhabiting a late woman's soul. Reincarnation received another workout in the famous 1932 film THE MUMMY, a horror entry starring Boris Karloff, and directed by Karl Freund. The majority of the films in these eras also highlighted horror and mystical elements, with exotic settings, but the 1940s onwards presented further interesting, original movies with a reincarnation theme.

One of the most well-regarded was Alexander Hall's HERE COMES MR JORDAN from 1941, with Robert Montgomery coming back to earth in another guise after an accident. A comic fantasy directed by Rene Clair in 1942, I MARRIED A WITCH with Veronica Lake as the witch and Fredric March as her hapless victim, was another entertaining take on reincarnation. With the 1950s, 1956 marked the release of Richard Bartlett's I'VE LIVED BEFORE, with Jock Mahoney as a pilot who believes he was someone else from the first World War, another notable film in the genre. Vincente Minnelli's GOODBYE CHARLIE, from 1964, differed from the previous films in one major manner. Instead of a man or woman being reincarnated back into a body of the same sex, this time a man is reincarnated as a woman. In the 1970s several movies dealing with reincarnation were released which were also thoroughly original in character.

ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER (1970), another reincarnation movie directed by Vincente Minnelli, starred Barbra Streisand as an emotionally troubled woman who finds herself reliving a past life in the Victorian era. AUDREY ROSE (1977), directed by Robert Wise, was a fantasy drama of a young girl reincarnated from another young woman's soul. HEAVEN CAN WAIT (1978) was a financially successful comedy of a man reincarnated into another man's body, with amusing results. Possibly the biggest reincarnation film ever at the box office, it starred Warren Beatty in the title role, who also co-directed with comedy writer Buck Henry.

In comparison to these movies, THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD was the least humorous, but the most sexually forward of the reincarnation films released. It also delved in a more exhaustive manner into the inner psychological life of its protagonist, possibly with the exception of ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER. The use of technology also distinguishes THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD from the other entries, infusing it with a contemporary, cutting-edge feel for the time. Its lack of overt horror or mayhem also made the film one of the most subtle, uncanny films dealing with reincarnation ever presented to audiences.

Overview: J. Lee Thompson was a prolific director, an all-rounder who directed forty-five motion pictures over his thirty-nine year screen career. His first film, MURDER WITHOUT CRIME, made in Britain, was released in 1950, and this set the tone for his cinematic oeuvre, tackling challenging subjects and themes in an uncompromising manner. He presented war in ICE COLD IN ALEX (1958) and THE GUNS OF NAVARONE (1961), but diverted to suspense in CAPE FEAR (1962), and adventure in MACKENNA'S GOLD (1970) famous for its high cost but low box office receipts. Mr Thompson also headed two Planet of the Apes films, being CONQUEST FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES in 1972, followed by BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES in 1973. He also experimented with crime and horror films, most notably in ST. IVES (1976), and in HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME (1981). THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD was his thirtieth movie, and one of his best.

Mr Thompson has crafted a film which maintains an eerie, solemn mood throughout, never letting up on tension, that lends itself to a suspenseful, thoughtful viewing experience. The theme of reincarnation, and the consequences for the lead character, are explored in great detail in THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD, never becoming boring or too technical. The director has largely kept a distance from mumbo jumbo which would have stalled the film, and instead takes the viewer on an emotional rollercoaster. The only slight that could be mentioned in the movie is that it never explains exactly how, and why, Jeff Curtis' soul is now within the mind, and body of Peter Proud. Despite this, the film's forceful and compelling presentation leave the viewer to suspend disbelief in this instance, and just enjoy the ride.

Other features of the film deserve mention for their impact on the movie as a whole. Mr Thompson has also added lashings of sex and nudity to the proceedings, but these elements were presumably to just ensure controversy, and a sense of sensuality to the film. The nature of 1970s film, and censorship freedoms allowed these liberties to be taken, with the box office take largely in mind. These scenes are, thankfully, not the centre of the movie, more of which would have tarnished its supernatural feel with soft core porn trimmings. THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD's overriding mood, and the director's belief in the material, though, shows in the final polished, intriguing product.

Acting: THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD has strong performances, particularly the lead roles, with supporting actors also well represented. Michael Sarrazin as the film's protagonist, Peter Proud, is thoroughly convincing, taking the viewer along for the journey with his distinctive low-key acting style. His understated, subtle aura makes the movie's events even more shattering when unexpectedly charged scenes arrive. Cornelia Sharpe as his girlfriend, Nora Hayes, is effective in the film. The lovely Miss Sharpe delivers some savvy barbs in the course of her portrayal, despite her small role, and manages to strongly deliver her character's ethos with humour and restrained style. Paul Hecht is jovial and authoritative as Peter Proud's friend who both wants to assist him, but has ulterior motives of his own. The bearded Mr Hecht is a delight to witness in action, utterly in tune with the enthusiasm of his character. Other players in the film have also been well-cast which bear well for the film as a whole.

Jennifer O'Neill does good work here in THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD, as young divorcee Ann Curtis who finds university professor Peter Proud both enchanting, but also, mystifying. While Miss O'Neill deilvers perky performances of young women well in her other films, when she is more serious and measured, such as her sensitive Miranda in SUCH GOOD FRIENDS, she comes off best. Her Ann in this film is spirited, needy, confused, loving, but also, sympathetic to her mother. Anne Ives, in a tiny role, is excellent as Jeff Curtis' mother in the nursing home, a cameo which provides moving emotional mileage in the movie. Debralee Scott is noteworthy as Suzy, the young woman who directs Peter Proud to the Curtis family home. Wearing skimpy shorts and speaking with gusto, Miss Scott is memorable for brazenly attempting to seduce Peter Proud, in a great turn.

Apart from Debralee Scott, Tony Stephano is also well-utilized as Jeff Curtis, the man whose soul Peter Proud now inhabits. A handsome actor and model who unfortunately did not act in many films, his short but pithy scenes highlight the villainous Jeff Curtis. Mr Stephano manages to convey the abusive, controlling husband who is also a manipulative but troubled man, with complex shades of gray. Margot Kidder, as Marcia Curtis, Jeff's wife and Ann's mother, though, offers the film's best performance. Often with a minimum of dialogue, Miss Kidder played her role with dexterity, her character alternately victim and tormentor, her skilful facial expressions, careful movements, and voice well orchestrated. All of these qualities make Marcia Curtis a fascinating figure indeed, and THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD's most haunting, memorable character.

Soundtrack: Jerry Goldsmith's creepy score reinforces a sense of foreboding which plays to dramatic effect in THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD. The score complements, in its subtle manner, what is taking place onscreen without taking attention away from the happenings, whether they are horrifying, tender, or tense.

Mise-en-scene: The mise-en-scene in THE REINCARNATION OF PETER PROUD is just one of the reasons it is such an hypnotic, mezmerising viewing experience. There are so many instances in the film that it is difficult to narrow the list, but, a few stand out for their sheer excellence. The scenes where Jeff is swimming in the lake, the 'Puritan Hotel' sign evident in the sky, the graveyard scene with Peter Proud, Peter Proud's time at the Psychiatry Lab, for example, all stand out for adding to the movie's authenticity. The opening credits are very spare, with the titles and actor credits accompanied by Jerry Goldsmith's taut score, laying the groundwork for the remainder of the movie.

Award-worthy performances in my opinion: Michael Sarrazin, Margot Kidder, Anne Ives, Cornelia Sharpe, Paul Hecht, Tony Stephano, Jennifer O'Neill, Debralee Scott.

Suitability for young viewers: No. Female nudity, male nudity, adult themes, medium-level violence.

Overall Grade: A

Link: IMDB Page

Trailer



Friday, March 6, 2020

THE NATURAL (1984)


Title: THE NATURAL

Year of Release: 1984

Director: Barry Levinson

Genre: Drama, Romance, Fantasy

Synopsis: The life of a professional baseball player from childhood, until middle-age.

Within a film history context: Films about baseball and specifically, male baseball players, have been present in cinema from the silent era. BASEBALL AND BLOOMERS (1911) is a lost film that centred around an entirely female baseball team, and a subsequent battle of the sexes with a male baseball team. Other films with male baseball players as protagonists during the silent era include George Ridgwel's SOMEWHERE IN GEORGIA (1917) with real-life player Ty Cobb in the main role, Jerome Storm's THE BUSHER (1919), a romance with Colleen Moore, and Monte Brice's CASEY AT THE BAT (1927), featuring Wallace Beery as the eponymous Casey. Later films include Sam Wood's PRIDE OF THE YANKEES (1942), an account of real-life player Lou Gehrig's life, and musicals such as Busby Berkeley's TAKE ME OUT TO THE BALLGAME (1949). The 1950s brought Harmon Jones' THE PRIDE OF ST. LOUIS (1952) to the screen, with Dan Dailey as baseball pitcher Dizzy Dean, and other productions such as Lewis Seiler's THE WINNING TEAM (1953), starring Ronald Reagan as pitcher Grover Cleveland Alexander.

With the 1970s came John Hancock's BANG THE DRUM SLOWLY in 1973, with Robert De Niro and Michael Moriarty as baseball players with a special connection. Later in the decade, in 1976, marked the release of THE BINGO LONG TRAVELING ALL-STARS & MOTOR KINGS directed by John Badham, a financially successful movie revolving around African-American baseball players in the 1930s. Arriving on screen in 1984, THE NATURAL differed from these films in that while it was based in an overriding realism, it contained fantastical elements which provided the film a spirit which edged it slightly into supernatural territory. While it shared with some of the other movies the account of a male baseball player's life in a biographical fashion, being based upon a real-life incident, THE NATURAL largely lacked humour which worked in its favour, the narrative events presented in a sombre, elegant manner.

Overview: Director Barry Levinson is credited with helming twenty-three movies as of 2015, with another two currently in post, and pre-production respectively. Mr Levinson's first film was 1982's DINER, an exploration of a group of friends in 1959 Baltimore, and he has also directed other such notable movies as GOOD MORNING, VIETNAM (1987), RAIN MAN (1988), AVALON (1990), BUGSY (1991) and SLEEPERS (1996). He has variously tackled human dramas and social issues with panache in his cinematic career, but, has a penchant for period films which have an ethereal touch. This is evident in THE NATURAL (1984), his second film.

A film set in the 1910s and spanning into the 1950s, Mr Levinson gives author Bernard Malamud's story a gentle but involving rendering, with the narrative unfolding in a naturalistic, luxuriously paced fashion. The director has made a film which explores events in the main character's life with all the emotional hooks present for the audience, and, a lack of sentimentality. The character's life is marked by his involvement with three women, which present his positive qualities, and foibles, to the audience through his relationship with them. His era with Harriet is marked by instability, the era with Memo Paris one of glamour but instability, but, the final era with Iris one of growing emotional maturity and balance.

The film is an odyssey for both the character and the audience, witnessing Roy Hobbs' evolution as a person from a young boy, to middle age. Mr Levinson presents dazzling set pieces in the film which occur at the most unexpected moments; this is a film where events take place, and their emotional significance hits the viewer suddenly. Mr Levinson has succeeded in making THE NATURAL a lyrical, beautiful viewing experience with valid comments on life, love, family, self-respect, temptation and, staying true to oneself.

Acting: The acting in THE NATURAL is one of its finest qualities, and something which makes the movie eminently watchable. The lead actor is ably supported by an illustrious group of thespians who provide allure to the film in supporting roles. As central protagonist Roy Hobbs, Robert Redford offers a solid rendition of the introspective, dreamy, but hopeful baseball player, another creditable performance from a most cerebral actor. Mr Redford receives excellent backing from a number of actors who provide their small roles with life. Joe Don Baker shines in a tiny part as Whammer, Roy Hobbs' rival at the beginning of the movie. A character actor who always delights with his easy manner and personality, Mr Baker's role in the movie is effective, if too brief in duration.

Barbara Hershey's turn as the mysterious, enigmatic Harriet Bird is a potent performance adding an unexpected twist to the story. Her understated acting style makes the quiet scenes involving her and Mr Redford all the more shocking when they unravel. Kim Basinger exudes fire and vulnerability as Memo Paris, a character who on the surface appears to be a vapid sex symbol, but Miss Basinger's skilful interpretation, voice and facial expressions show the audience the depth of her loneliness, and frustration, in not capturing Roy Hobbs' heart. Glenn Close, as Roy Hobbs' first love Iris, adds a charming presence to the film as the most emotionally secure of the women with whom he is involved. From the first moment Miss Close appears on screen, she captures a luminosity, a dignity that makes her the film's ideal of femininity.

Soundtrack: Randy Newman's score is perfect, melding seamlessly with the visuals for a beautiful aural experience. Softer in the more intimate, emotional scenes, stronger and rousing in the bolder segments, it is a credit to THE NATURAL as a whole.

Mise-en-scene: The period detail in THE NATURAL is exquisite, bathing the film in an authentic, but appropriate mood without being overwhelming. From the beginning to the end of the film, it does not overdo the attire or locations of a bygone era, but, complements it in a natural manner. There are many examples of this that stand out, such as scenes from Roy Hobbs' childhood, to the baseball stadiums, to the party thrown by Memo Paris, and, to Iris' homely apartment. The production design is an aspect of the film that adds not only realism but beauty to THE NATURAL as a whole. In addition to this, the cinematography captures the people and places in subdued tones, the colour measured but never garish, and easy on the eyes.

Costume design is another part of the film that adds to its historical authenticity. The clothing worn by the male characters, designed by Bernie Pollack, fits with their distinctive quirks and personalities. The costuming for Miss Hershey, Miss Basinger and Miss Close, arranged by Gloria Gresham, also delineates their traits in a subtle way. The dark coloured garments worn by Miss Hershey perfectly express her spider woman character, as does the glamorous clothing Miss Basinger wears for her femme fatale role. Miss Close is adorned in more low-key attire than the other actresses, befitting the more sensible, down-to-earth Iris.

Award-worthy performances in my opinion: Robert Redford, Joe Don Baker, Barbara Hershey, Glenn Close, Kim Basinger.

Suitability for young viewers: Suitable for children with adult discretion. Mild adult themes, low-level violence.

Overall Grade: B

Link: IMDB Page

Trailer