MR. MAJESTYK (1974): Elmore Leonard and Melon Farming

Many early reviews of Mr. Majestyk seemed put-off by the film because it lacked social dogma.  Yet critics that didn’t outright dismiss the movie upon its release found the low budget film to be entertaining and unpretentious.  It was based on a novel of the same name by Elmore Leonard before the novelist was particularly famous.  The movie only deviates once from the novel in any major way (one of the major characters, Bobby Kopas, does not get himself blown away like he does in the book), and that deviation was actually an improvement.

The movie is more than a simple and violent story.  Mr. Majestyk is a character study.  It’s a study in that it contrasts the character of three different individuals:

1.      Vincent Majestyk (Charles Bronson): a melon farmer and former war hero who has endured hardship throughout his life, who craves simplicity and who would like to get ahead in life through hard work and the true companionship he finds from his co-workers on his small melon farm.

2.      Frank Renda (Al Lettieri): a hit man, who has probably also endured hardship throughout his life, and takes his bitterness and regrets out on the remainder of the world by taking his revenge on anyone that tries not to let him get his way.

3.      Bobby Kopas (Paul Koslo): a down and out and emasculated loser who desperately wants to make something better of his life, but who does not have the courage to make ends-meet legitimately.

Only one of the three characters will ever be happy with what he has, and therefore the other two try to thwart him in any way they can.

Majestyk meets Renda in jail.  Majestyk was provoked into assaulting Bobby Kopas and is thus sent into lockup while his melons are waiting to be picked.  Renda is quite understandably in jail for a murder, though we already suspect that the authorities are never going to make any charges stick against him.  Kopas meanwhile is licking his wounds after being humiliated in a fight with Majestyk.

An attempt to break Renda out is made that goes badly wrong.  This ultimately results in both Majestyk and Renda fleeing, but with Renda dependent upon the whims of Majestyk as to where they go.  Majestyk wants to use Renda as a bargaining tool with the authorities so that he can get out of jail and get back to finishing processing of his melons before the growing season ends.  Unfortunately, Majestyk outthinks himself and Renda escapes through the assistance of Renda’s love interest, Wiley (Lee Purcell).  (Wiley is essentially treated by Renda as a fifth-rate person, but she remains loyal to Renda until it’s fairly obvious that Renda has met his match dealing with a baffling melon farmer.)

Renda, in the meantime, was so offended by the way Majestyk belittled him and treated him while they were on the run that he decides his next hit is going to be on Mr. Majestyk.  Renda drives off many of Majestyk’s workers, threatens various contractors not to do business with him, shoots up some of his melons and eventually breaks the legs of one of Majestyk’s best friends.  Though there should be some consolation in knowing that he has brought hardship and hurt upon his adversary, Renda remains unsatisfied because Majestyk shows no signs that he either fears or respects Renda in anyway.  In a face to face confrontation when Renda tells Majestyk that he is going to kill him, Majestyk responds (since he has nothing to lose) by punching Renda in the face.  Majestyk then tells Renda to go talk to the cops if he wants to press charges.

Though essentially a loner, Majestyk really is not in this fight all by himself.  Many of his workers respect Majestyk so much that they continue to work in the face of some very real threats.  And Majestyk meets up with a beautiful migrant worker by the name of Nancy Chavez (Linda Cristal), who in her own way is every bit as tough as Majestyk, and who in just a few days falls in love with the man.  In a pursuit through the mountains with Majestyk and Nancy on one side and Renda and his henchmen on the other (also joined by Bobby Kopas who doesn’t do much to help Renda’s cause), Majestyk ultimately becomes the pursuer while Renda is the pursued.  Majestyk kills Renda and his men, spares the lives of Wiley and Kopas, and waits for the incompetent police to arrive.  We are to assume that Majestyk and Nancy finish up on picking their melons and settle down to a somewhat satisfactory life alternating with long years of labor and struggle.

Many characters in the film appear to have little or no acting experience, but the acting of the three leads is sufficient.  In fact, the character of Renda might be almost incomprehensible to most film goers if not for the acting of Lettieri (who unfortunately died shortly after this movie was released).  Paul Koslo as Kopas was perfectly cast as a heel.  For Bronson, the film had an unfortunate side effect in that it led to him to starring in the Death Wish films that forever typecast Bronson into one particular role (a role that really was very different from what we had here). 

As for the criticism that the film did not raise social consciousness, it would be interesting to consider how many books and films would have no merit whatsoever if this was the sole criteria for judging a work of art.  The director of this film, Richard Fleischer, had already tried his consciousness-raising a few years before in a film called Che!  That ludicrous attempt to glorify a historical figure that we would all be better off remembering as a murderously idealistic clown, should have warned the critics that most of Hollywood was hardly equipped to put out a respectable “message film.” 

However, there is far more to the film that these ill-witted critics originally could fathom.  Elmore Leonard’s novels, I believe, are better than those of Larry McMurtry – another writer whose fame is essentially due to his works being adapted by the film industry.  Leonard comes across straight forwardly and this makes his stories fit easily upon the screen.  In the case of Hombre, the book is better than the film.  Paul Newman was badly cast as the lead in that movie.  In the case of Mr. Majestyk, the film is better because actually seeing the main character in action makes the individual more understandable.  If Majestyk were only a loner as is implied by the early criticism, he could just as well have pursued the path of Renda.  But Majestyk found warmth and humor in his relations with the migrant workers he did business with and thus we have sympathy for those migrant workers as well.  The message is just not forced, and the story is not reduced to social issues alone.

Mr. Majestyk is far from a perfect film, but it triumphs over so many other clumsy Hollywood attempts to appear relevant.  Mr. Majestyk is a film that can be enjoyed in subsequent viewings without the viewer having to pretend to having really enjoyed what he or she has seen.

January 15, 2012 

© Robert S. Miller 2012

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS – Both the Good and the Bad

Most recent commentary in the United States – be it political, economic or scientific – is predictable.  There is doctrine on the left and doctrine on the right that liberals and conservatives abide by without second thoughts.  The notable exception to this predictability (in practically all areas of thought except one area where he became all too predictable) has been Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens was all over the board concerning whatever else he believed in.  He criticized people from all sides.  Against the war in Vietnam in 1960s, he became a supporter of America’s efforts in Iraq following the 2004 invasion.   He was an avowed socialist in his youth but later flirted with libertarianism.    During his later years he spoke glowingly of capitalist innovation.  Yet even after this reversal he still somehow managed to assert that Lenin and Trotsky were great men.  Hitchens was against George W. Bush in 2000, briefly for Bush in 2004 and later became a Bush’ neutral.  God only knows where he stood on relations with Israel because his viewpoint on the matter always seemed to be in flux.  It was I guess his prerogative to later think something else, but it was also a fault.  His varied views may in part be due to his temperament, his need for attention, and his lack of intellectual discipline.

I’m not going to defend the man and suggest that he had a great mind or had his hand upon the pulse of our times.  What Christopher Hitchens did have was a certain degree of courage.  No matter how many times he changed his mind on any particular subject, I don’t doubt that he was always speaking his mind concerning what he felt at the time he spoke it. 

Religion was the one area where his views always remained consistent – and strident.  He once said that he wanted none of the promises of religion and instead seemed to prefer oblivion at the end of his life.  When Christopher Hitchens spoke regretfully how Christians are passing up the wonders of today for some obscure hope during the afterlife, I believe that he was being sincere.  Yet when he referred to religion poisoning everything around him, he was pandering to nihilists that like to loudly boast about their intellectual superiority. 

The followers of Hitchens religious theories were also the followers of Richard Dawkins.  Their admirers are non-believers that disparage religion and describe theists as a grouping of weak-minded individuals subsumed by fairy tales.  Such non-believers are usually college educated and often overstate their own IQ scores.  For the most part they’re as narrow-minded, dogmatic, humorless, disingenuous, unhappy and deluded as a member of any religion or cult.  These were the very people that Hitchens should have sought to avoid.  One can admire an honest atheist.  One can admire another person that wonders about the magic of our world and still does not see a divinity behind it.  One can’t admire a person that refuses to pause and wonder yet still belittles those that come to different conclusions than they do.

We all make mistakes.  Even Christopher Hitchens made mistakes as many of his obituaries will attest.  Hitchens claimed to be fairly well read, though he probably was guilty of a few misreadings in his lifetime.  For example, he admired the works of Dostoyevsky – a writer whose primary theme was religion and who was a defender of the Russian Orthodox Church (the church Hitchens was so happy to see Lenin overthrow).  Also, as a student of history, Hitchens seemed to miss that history lesson beginning in 1917 (or maybe even 1789) where attempts to remove religion from our lives, under whatever guise, have been no less injurious than inquisitions performed by any sect. 

We know quite a bit about Hitchens’ personal life.  We know that he admired George Orwell above all other writers.  We know that he smoked and drank too much.  We know that his mother committed suicide with her lover in Greece.  We know that he was married twice, and that for a number of years he didn’t speak to his brother (a born again Christian).  He was said to possess an extraordinary memory.  And, probably, Hitchens was not a particularly happy man. 

Hitchens publicly pronounced that he didn’t want to contemplate God or prayer from his deathbed.  This was somewhat due to his stubbornness, but it was also his own personal business.  Cancer of the esophagus is not the way any of us want to go and Hitchens had the right to deal with his impending death in any manner that he pleased.  Still, I hope the suffering was somewhat bearable for him - with or without religious faith.  

December 20, 2011

© Robert S. Miller 2011

AL DAVIS AND THE OAKLAND RAIDERS: “Just Win, Baby!”

The Pittsburgh Steelers were the dominant football team in the late 1970s, but their chief rival was on the opposite coast.  In 1975, Oakland defensive back George Atkinson delivered a blow to the Steelers’ great receiver, Lynn Swann, and in the process Swann suffered a concussion.  In 1976, Atkinson again delivered a blow to Swann in a regular season game and this caused the receiver to suffer a second concussion.  So outraged was Pittsburgh Steelers coach, Chuck Knoll, that Noll was quoted as referring to Atkinson as being part of the “criminal element” of the National Football League.  Few people doubted that Noll was referring to the Oakland Raiders overall when making his statement.  It was a statement that Noll would come to regret.  Not only was Noll fined by the NFL for making this statement, he was also sued by Atkinson for defamation.

Atkinson lost his lawsuit, but it proved to be a victory for Al Davis.  The Raiders have always been renowned as the dirtiest professional football team in the league.  However, introduced as evidence in the lawsuit were film clips showing other professional football players -including members of the Pittsburgh Steelers – taking dirty shots at their opponents.  Al Davis was allowed to put on display the hypocrisy of Noll and others like him that hurled accusations of dirty play by the Raiders while not cleaning up their own actions.

It seems ironic that Davis, who for a number of decades ran the team that produced the highest winning percentage in all of football and who for four years was the commissioner of the AFL, was disliked and considered an outsider by most of the other football owners.  It’s understandable, however, because Davis was never hesitant to take the NFL to court if they objected to any of his proposed moves.  It seemed like Davis could never decide whether he wanted to play in Oakland or Los Angeles.   Any effort to block him from moving from one city to the other resulted in an antitrust suit being filed by Davis against the league.  Davis actually openly supported the creation of the USFL, which was competing directly with the NFL. 

Davis was long time enemy and tormentor of NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle.  Rozelle probably long resented that Davis, while involved in the AFL, was aggressively scouting and recruiting players that it was taken for granted would sign with the NFL.  So successful was Davis in his pursuit of such players that the NFL finally decided to merge with the AFL rather than continue to compete against them.   Rozelle certainly must have suffered each and every time that he had to award Davis the Vince Lombardi trophy after the Raiders won the Super Bowl.  The Raiders won the Super Bowl three times while Rozelle was commissioner.

Probably the most fascinating aspect of Al Davis as an owner of a professional football franchise was the colorful characters that he introduced and/or brought to the AFL and NFL as members of the Oakland Raiders franchise.  These would have included: Darryle Lamonica, George Blanda, Gene Upshaw, Jim Otto, Willie Brown, Ted Hendricks, Ben Davidson, Fred Biletnikoff, Art Shell (coach and player), John Matuszak, Jack Tatum, Lyle Alzado, Ken Stabler, Jim Plunkett and Howie Long.  John Madden, Tom Flores and John Gruden were some of his head coaches.  Many of these players were either recruited directly by Davis or brought in after being rejected by other franchises.

Sadly, Davis was probably a victim to his own ego when he continued trying to fully control a football team while not keeping up with football trends.  The scouting techniques he had used so successfully during the 1960s through the 1990s was not conducive with the internet age.  Davis, who used to personally scout every player that he drafted to get an edge on his opponent, couldn’t understand that other owners and coaches could now effectively scout through use of a wireless connection.  And his habit of micromanaging his football team became counterproductive.  It seemed like during the last dozen or so years of his life Davis could not go a season without having to fire the Raiders’ head coach.  The Raiders could no longer claim to be the most successful team in the NFL during these last years, and much of the reason could be blamed on Al Davis.

It’s probably been overstated about how much Davis cared for his players.  Many of his players adored the miscreant, but others didn’t seem to come to such a great ending in their playing careers.  Matuszak and Alzado both had their lives cut too short – the former because of known substance abuse and the latter allegedly by steroid use.  I use the term “allegedly” here because, though Alzado claimed the brain tumor that would eventually kill him came about due to steroid use, no medical specialist has yet to give his claim any credibility.

There are few things I do admire about Al Davis.   One was that he seemed more concerned with his football team’s success on the football team that he did about any ledger statement.  The other was that he kissed up to no one and ran his team exactly like he wanted it to be run.  It’s remarkable story that he could have so much success in a league that wanted nothing to do with him or his organization.  From the day he took over as head coach and general manager of the Raiders in 1962, he put his personal mark on the team that was to be his until the date of his death almost fifty years later.  At the age of 33, he was the youngest individual to ever play these two roles.  Besides revolutionizing the scouting of players, he opened up the passing game and created what was to become known as the “west coast” offense.  Only Al Davis, someone with enough assets to run a professional sports franchise, could have been viewed as an anti-establishment outsider.  The logo of the Raiders, one of the most famous in all of football, was one that Davis created.

In one real sense Davis had a positive influence upon the game.  Davis was well ahead of his time for an owner of a football team when it came to race relations.  Davis scouted heavily for black players in the early 1960s.  Davis refused to allow the Raiders to play a preseason game in Mobile, Alabama and also refused to allow an AFL “All Star” game being played in New Orleans because of segregationist policies in both cities.  Davis was the first NFL owner to hire a black coach.  The rest of the owners were far behind Davis in these practices.

For sentimental reasons, I wish that there could be more owners of sports franchises like Al Davis.  I grow tired of a media that covers sports as if all great athletes were plaster saints.  Al Davis was at least open about his own flaws.

October 29, 2011 

© Robert S. Miller 2011

THELMA & LOUISE (1991): Tale of Desperate Women

Thelma and Louise is part tragedy, part slap-stick and part self-righteous melodrama.  It has its merits in that we feel for the two main characters.  Yet this is a movie that is brought up in every tabloid headline whenever women get together to go on a crime spree and thus can never live up to all of the hype.

Louise (Susan Sarandon) is in a long term relationship with Jimmy (Michael Madsen), a man she loves and can never commit to emotionally.  Thelma (Geena Davis) has been married to Darryl (Christopher McDonald) since she was 18 years of age, and feels no love from him whatsoever.  The two bored women take a road trip.  Thelma gets drunk and is almost raped, but the rapist is shot dead by Louise.  The two suspect that the authorities will have no sympathy for them, so they decide to flee for Mexico.  Unfortunately, any money they have is stolen from them by a thief and rogue named J.D. (Brad Pitt).  Thelma, feeling that she has let down her friend by allowing herself to be seduced by such a cad, robs a grocery store which then alerts the authorities to their location.  A good hearted FBI enforcement officer named Hal (Harvey Keitel) does all he can to save the women, but eventually a car chase ends in Arizona where the two women deliberately take their own lives by driving their car into the Grand Canyon.

Susan Sarandon acting ranges from being strident to helplessly overwrought as Louise.  Only during certain moments in the film does she seem to experience joy.  Gina Davis was much better cast as the younger and more innocent Thelma.  Thelma shows great range from silliness to despair.  Harvey Keitel could not be more ill suited for his role as the character he plays is a long ways from the one he played in The Bad Lieutenant.  Brad Pitt is an able actor, but he’s a bit too cute to end up being such a hick.  And no one else in the film is memorable.  Every other character in this movie is a type.

To read the reviews of this film, one is supposed to be impressed by the Director and Producer of this film, Ridley Scott.  I guess he does all right for someone as inexperienced in the film industry as he was at the time.  He never directed or produced a blockbuster film before this.  Yet he directs this more as a crowd pleaser than a film we really should take seriously.  For two women so down and out, their dialogue is a bit too clever and witty.  The comeuppance for almost every male character that gets on their wrong side comes too easily.  The ending is predictable. 

Having said this, Ridley Scott probably never did such a good job of directing since that time.  For a 130 minute film, it is well paced.  The film projects energy among the two leads.  We can understand by their circumstances why they are unhappy.  The film is just not believable.  Are we really to believe that only an FBI agent named Hal would be willing to listen to the two characters?  Does anyone think that they made their own circumstances one iota better by going on a crime spree?  Does the director really need to make their circumstances anymore dire by having every law enforcement officer from Texas, New Mexico and Arizona (not to mention Federal agents) pursue the two wayward gals?  Ridley Scott wants to make a statement and show off his wit.  He also wants to show off his talent at filming scenery and knowledge of film history by show casing his heroines in a modern day western.  This is a better film in style than it is in substance.  Emotionally, the film only succeeds at some level because we care for the two characters.  Yet with the hullabaloo surrounding the chase, it is difficult not to be distracted watching the film from remembering that we are supposed to care for these two women.

September 30, 2011

©  Robert S. Miller 2011

CAT ON A HOT TIN ROOF (1958): “Lies and Mendacity”

It’s not often that we could say that a Tennessee Williams play turned movie would give the viewer a break from reality, but what poses as reality on television in the movies is so stultifying that we need to escape it by watching something with intelligent content.  For all of its melodrama, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof seems more authentic than all of the dramas being paraded across theatres as entertainment.  With Liz Taylor playing Maggie and Paul Newman playing Brick, we would think we’d be viewing a classic Hollywood romance.  Yet it is Burl Ives as Big Daddy that gives the film substance.  Big Daddy barrels through the lives of his sons and his wife in such a manner that we barely recognize until the end of this 108 minute film that he is the most emotionally stable character in the film.  Big Daddy’s son Brick drinks while Brick’s wife, Maggie, nags her husband to change.  Big Daddy’s other son, Gooper (Jack Carson), craves the affection of his father and is jealous of the attention Big Daddy pays towards Brick.  Gooper is married to Mae (Madeline Sherwood), who seems only interested in receiving an inheritance from Big Daddy when the old man dies.  One has the feeling that Mae is hoping this will occur very soon.  And finally there is Big Mama (Judith Anderson), the wife of Big Daddy, who has long endured the tirades of Big Daddy and has no idea how to please her husband.

Big Daddy and Big Mama know there are problems in the marriage of Brick and Maggie since the couple has not delivered to them a grandchild.  Big Momma accurately perceives that the lack of a grandchild is not due to infertility but rather Brick’s lack of desire to sleep in the same bed as Maggie.  Now in the original play, Brick was plagued by homosexual desires.  In the tamed down film version, it’s just that Brick cannot admit his best friend in high school (who ended up committing suicide) was actually a failure as a man.  Apparently, in 1958, a blockbuster film could not be made with any inference of homosexual desire.  Ultimately, this leaves a gaping hole in an otherwise well done movie.

Anyway, Big Daddy comes to the rescue.  Though suffering from cancer (kept hidden from Big Daddy until Brick crudely reveals the prognosis), Big Daddy provides Brick with an example of facing up to all of the “lies and mendacity” that the remainder of the family tries to thwart upon him.  Gooper in the end even admits that the example of his father is more important to him than any estate.  Inspired, Brick takes Maggie to bed and we can presume that a child will soon be born to the couple.  Big Daddy then takes Big Mama on his last look around of his vast estate.

There is a problem with the film with such major quarrels and resentments being resolved so neatly by the overbearing father.  The director, Richard Brooks, and the screenwriter, James Poe, so drastically altered the script of the original play that one wonders why everyone in the film is basically screaming at each other from beginning to almost the end of the movie.   The theme of the film is simple: at some point we need to quit lying to each other.  With each lie, our problems are only exasperated.  Unfortunately, I would say there is something disingenuous in presenting a theme in this way while the filmmakers shy away from a major theme in the Tennessee Williams’ play. 

Elia Kazan did a similar thing in A Streetcar Named Desire, another Tennessee Williams play filmed in 1951, where the seduction of a young man by Blanche and the sexual attraction of Stella and Stanley are suppressed in the film.  Yet nevertheless, Streetcar remains one of the greatest movies ever filmed because so much more was revealed in this film than anything ever released in Hollywood before.  Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is not that good because the storyline is so changed. What saves the film is that each actor plays his or her character so well that we believe the antagonism to be real for whatever reason that it was brought on.  Maggie, despite looking so lovely, often comes across as shrill.  The two sons understandably are frightened by their father’s dominance and seem unable to ever please him.  And Big Daddy is repulsed by the dishonesty of his family – the family in this case representing society in general.

August 31, 2011

©  Robert S. Miller 2011