DUEL @ 55

David Mann is in sales and has to drive across the state to meet a client. It's all routine. He'll take the highway, stop at a diner, get some petrol if needed and roll on to the meet. It'll take most of the day. Driving blithely along, he gets overtaken by a truck with the word flammable on the back of its tank. Annoyed, he overtakes it at the next opportunity. The truck sounds its deafening horn and the game's afoot. David and the huge, loud, faceless machine are bound together in a death duel. Roll credits.

Well, no. This ballet of road rage, stressed metal and fossil fuel is not so simple as that makes it. You don't have to care about any of the subtext because, though it was made for TV, this is the directorial debut of Steven Spielberg from a story by the great Richard Matheson and there is a vipers nest of theme beneath the action.

As David is driving out of the city he listens to talkback radio. A man is stuck filling in his census form because he has opted to stay at home in a then reversed role marriage. This takes so long to make its point that it forms a kind of introduction to the theme. This is a story of masculinity in contest. David is bullied by his wife and, while his rage is doing the driving whenever the big oily monster of the truck appears, he quickly assumes the role of the victim and the greater part of the film becomes his survival story. You see the boots and the arm of the truckie but nothing else; he is male threat incarnate and doesn't need an individual face. 

The rest plays out as you would expect except that even the young Steven Spielberg applies his skills like a newbie director possessed. Perfectly wound tension and release and the reminder, out here in the badlands, of the civilisation they have broken from. This is a developing master of his art announcing himself. One more and it's Jaws and then it's history.

But there's a problem. This was shot for TV and brought in at seventy-four minutes. With ads, that would get you to an easy ninety. When it was released to cinemas it was with that gap filled by extra scenes. This later version has been presented as the director's cut ever since the mid-seventies. 

When I first saw it on TV, it was the original and, even with the ads, it was rivetting. The longer version I watched for this review, ad-free, felt repetitive, obvious and endless. I kept checking the time. This is comparable to thinking of Bon Scott as the real singer of ACDC when Brian Johnston has been at the mic for decades longer. The longer cut of this film is the version. I still think it drags and overstates.

The other thing is the George Lucas style revision of effects in the vision and the audio. This movie has been scrubbed to bare skin and then glazed until it looks like it's been in the Bain Marie for weeks. While the overall effect of this is easy on the eye, it does let the side down. Can't we celebrate this master of movies with his real first step, warts and all? Doesn't that only accentuate how far he has come and how natively skilled he was way back then in his twenties? But no, we have to have it through the rinse cycle before the French polishers get to it. 

It reminds me that if you listen to the first Velvet Underground album on hi-res digital you will just hear how crappily it was produced. It doesn't stop it from being a great record but there is a real disappointment to hearing how it cannot be improved, only made clearer. I'm not a original is always better type and have only disdain for the analogue is better bullshit but when you lengthen a tight action movie with more statements of the obvious and use AI to pretend it wasn't made in 1971, you effectively  change its story; not it's narrative progression, the story of its birth and life as a movie. The job isn't as bad as those that James Cameron and George Lucas done with their back catalogue but it is a misrepresentation. At least the shark in Jaws on 4K is still allowed to look fake here and there. Then again, that's part of its story. Duel's is in danger of being obscured by recent history.

Viewing notes: I saw this as a rental on Prime. The 4K picture was true to itself, as long as you're ok with AI polyfiller. There is currently a reasonably priced 4K double disc available to buy and it does include the original TV version. I'm tempted to get that, just for the old cut but I just don't love the movie that much.

WAKE IN FRIGHT @ 55

John Grant is in a bind. Young, intelligent and middle class, he signed on for a teaching career as a way of getting to an interesting and fulfilling life through a transformation into journalism. But the Department sent him to Woop Woop to teach the entire schoolage population in a single room as flies buzzed around them and the great arid outback wasteland spread to all horizons. He's in a bind because the only two ways of escaping are through seeing his contract through or buying his way out at a hefty 1971 thousand dollars. Not even the lump he gets for his upcoming holidays would come close to that.

But he is about to flee the scene for the Christmas holidays. His frequent daydreams of his girlfriend in Sydney emerging from crystal waters, gliding over the sand to plant a soft and loving kiss on his mouth keep him going through the rowdy train journey with its deafening drunks and racial exclusion. He has to stop at Bundanyabba overnight to hook up with a Sydney flight the next day. 

The Yabba clings around a mine and its pub is filled with loud, sweating men. John, bumping his way through to the bar gets a beer and retires to the closest thing to a private corner he can find. The cigarette he takes out is lit by Jock the local cop whose avuncular method of interrogation has John blurting out his predicament and sense of superiority over everyone that surrounds them. Jock then proceeds to lock John into the kind of shouting match that, in the Aussie lingo, only ends up with everyone plastered and vomiting beer. 

At the end of the night, at John's pleas, Jock takes to an afterhours diner where he finally gets something to soak up all that beer and hosts a constant two-up game. John looks at the Boschian nightmare of barking men in a room whose odour makes it through to the celluloid it was shot on, and he thinks: one thousand dollars. Soon enough he's shirtless. Bye bye, plane to Sydney and even train back to Tiboonda. He's stuck. If his teaching job was in Purgatory where he might just wait it out before redemption, he's now in Hell, possibly forever like the old Doc Tydon a man whose peace with the Yabba has made him poetically cynical and irretrievably depraved. 

What follows is a journey through that blistering wasteland. There's more ribbing and torment, violence and spooring toxic masculinity and rivers of beer. Kenneth Cook's source novel (same title) is a reference to an old saw: dream of the Devil and wake in fright. Well, that happened

Ted Kotchieff's film of the book from Evan Jones's screenplay is a carefully measured depiction of a steel trap closing on a victim. From the oppressively overheated plains of the opening shots to the inferni both meteorological and human, the crowd choreography that never feels staged, to the insertion of the brutal roo hunt, Kotchieff builds a world of minimally clothed savagery that, substantially exists to this day. The inclusion of period slang customs, aside, Wake in Fright feels as timeless as Hell itself.

The movie was considered lost. I saw it on late night TV in Brisbane in the early '80s but that was from the same kind of crud source that made it onto home video. It wasn't until the 2000s that the original elements were excavated and restored that anyone saw it in anything like its original form. I say this because the lost years created an impression that John Grant plummeted into a world of torture and depravity because of the bad boys in town but a good solid viewing of the film shows an ostensibly civilised man tearing away at the cuts from a few stoushes to find himself as feral as all the others. The early signals of his conversational hubris are punished until his increasing compliance is brought to screaming life as he strives to outdo the worst acts he sees, to make that same claim of superiority. He is not a babe in the woods, he is the sneering, me-first overgrown baby that anyone can be if given a little licence.

When he has a moment of lucidity towards the very end and rails at a local about the nightmare ethics of the culture, it's only partly from moral outrage; the other part is his failure to excel at it. The conclusion, emerging minus his pretensions to accept a fate mundane, humbling and ugly, shows us one changed from baseless arrogance to a life of accepted mediocrity. It's my view that it's this, rather than the obnoxiousness of the Yabbans that audiences in this country really objected to. If we really were that worried about bush machismo we wouldn't have had Crocodile Dundee.

But it's not all extreme fist fights and pub lore and an unforgiving pallet of barren earth that makes Wake in Fright the deserving classic that it is. We also get performances the like of which Australian cinema had never sported and it was a rich mix of bravura playing and sullen natrualism. 

Gary Bond, a British stage actor, gives John Grant a put upon pain that his looks (near identical to Peter O'Toole) and initial confidence render reasonable. His transformation through brutality are all the more striking and even shocking because of this. Australian veteran actor Chips Rafferty was never before not after as sinister as he is here. Typically, the Everystralian, good bloke in every crowd, character, he presents that but with a manipulative edge and a sneering superiority that has seen too many John Grants to care about their formal education and airs. In context, his performance is the most frightening.

Donald Pleasance, another import, is Australian enough to make it through his lines smoothly gives us a brutalised man whose pragmatism suggests far darker bargains and interactions than we see here. Sylvia Kay whose longing eyes show a detachment to her surroundings that has led her to a confusion between escape and oblivion whereby her joyless sexual excursions have become her sole exit. The attempted seduction of John and his response (is it revulsion or just too much beer?) ends with a rebuttoning and a lack of comment. For her the myth of Sisyphus might as well be a kind of lifestyle porn. The young Jack Thompson who was about to have an enviable '70s, bursts in with all the dangerous energy of that bloke at the barbie that you hear before you see, loud, intimidating, unstoppable. Hell of a debut.

Is this film unfair? On release, it was championed by all the John Grants in the community and condemned by all the Jock Crawfords. Did it really take a foreigner to show us ourselves? Ted Kotcheff went on to the satire Fun With Dick and Jane and the tougher First Blood. He knew the importance of details in world building so that the globe is bigger when seen in closeup. The documentary feel to the crowd scenes would have been familiar to local viewers from the likes of 4 Corners on the ABC. That he set a compelling drama within that points forward to the decade of Martin Scorsese and Robert Altman. He wasn't attacking Australia or its stereotypical blokes, they just got in the way via the setting of a novel. Masculinity? Yes, that's most of the bullseye on the target as it is the root cause of almost everything in the general malaise. It's not Australian culture but that of a people who will not break it where it needs breaking. We might have moved on, here, but incidents like the Nazis at populist rallies and deflating referendums (the Voice as well as the republic) and other horrors lead us right back to the room for improvement. Wake in Fright is not a time caspule. It's a clear and present caution.

Viewing notes: For this blog I watched Umbrella's outstanding 4K presentation of the 2000s restoration. Goodbye gluey video, this looks like film. It's available on 4K with a Blu-ray on disc, and streaming for hire on several platforms. A the moment you can see it for free with ads on Brollie and without ads on ABC iView. Go ye!

CATCH-22 @ 55

It's World War II and Yossarian the bombardier wants out. He asks the squadron doctor to ground him but learns the paradoxical clause of the title. If someone was insane they would not be permitted to fly more missions but only sane people would ask to be relieved of the duty so they are fit to fly more missions. The doctor can't ground Yossarian without compromising his own position. The limit on missions before relief keeps growing, well past the initial twenty-five limit. Meanwhile, the supply officer, Lieutenant Minderbinder is doing deals on goods between the air base and anyone else who'll trade. As a sticky web of rorts and absurdist situations grows the military life looks both like a lark and a huge deadly nightmare.

It was 1970 and any military-based movie that wasn't an old school gung-ho shouter was anti-war and, whatever war it was superficially referring to, always led back to the one the U.S.A. was losing in Vietnam. The conflict that was revealing to Americans through its own tv screens, the wasting decay of old heroism and the way of the good guys, was linked inextricably to anything on screen in a uniform. Claims like destroying a village in order to save it and the atrocity at Mi Lai had rewritten the order and the culture was ready for cynicism and a slap in the face to authority. They were ready, in other words, for Catch-22 and M.A.S.H.

Mike Nicholls who had made a name on TV not only with directorial efforts but as part of a satirical improv act with the great Elaine May (this is worth YouTubeing) but more recently had impressed with his transposition of the Albee stage nerve-fest Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf with the world's celebrity divorcees Burton and Taylor and then the middle class shock comedy of The Graduate. Joseph Heller, author of the source novel, knew Nicholls was right after rejecting the redoubtable Richard Brooks and Richard Quine. Nicholls worked with black comedy stalwart Buck Henry for two years on the screeenplay and, though it diverted from the novel, got the author's full approval. 

Nicholl's cast was of the massive kind touted for major event movies but on a more varied scale: Orson Welles, Martin Balsam, Anthony Perkins, Alan Arkin, John Voigt, Richard Benjamin, Paula Prentiss, Bob Newhart, Charles Grodin. Add pop star Art Garfunkel and you have a castlist that doesn't play fair. Is it a send-up or serious? Nicholls' wrangling of this herd alone should earn him kudos but that he manages to allow someone like Newhart his comedic hysteria but Perkins his restrained explosion and so on, while giving Orson any damn thing he pleased, makes this potentially cutesy comedy a multi-textured tour de force.

This is before you get to astounding sequences in which actors have to deliver layered dialogue against the sights and sounds of massive explosions and a Mitchell bomber crash landing behind them. The aircraft management is, of course, done without a frame of anything but cameras and lighting (but that does include some rear projection): when you see planes, you are really looking at planes. One shot of a downed bomber's tail section in the sea as a distant intact one flies closer to the horizon while dialogue continues will inform or remind you that they really just can't make 'em like this anymore.

But none of this visual dazzle suggests the depth of the satire and how it mounts to epic scale toward the third act. Yossarian (an explosive and hilarious Alan Arkin) with his highly localised mission to escape the military and the war might be rendered insignificant by Milo's rampaging and stinkingly corrupt capitalism, but its essential humanity is never lost to us. By the time Milo is marshalling the streets in control of the local sex work, he has secured control of the war itself on the local scale, resembling both a carnival barker and a fascist dictator. Even more, we want Yossarian out of there.

My memory of this film is one of hearing it from behind the wall of the front seat of my father's Humber on a family outing to the drive-in. After Snowden's guts pour out of his life jacket in Yossarian's motif memory, that's how I "watched the rest of hte film. My brother exaggerated the grisliness of the scene and for years I dared not watch the movie. I had seen the bisection of Hungry joe by McWatt in the light plane and thought that was bad. Then again, I was eight or nine (parents, what were you thinking?) It turned up on Brisbane TV in 1980 and I did watch it. The guts scene was edited and the film played fine without it. Two decades later, on DVD, I was ready for it after a bout half a decade of catching up with horror movies I'd missed from the '80s onwards.

Catch-22 was beaten at the box office both by Robert Altman's M.A.S.H. and Franklin Schaffner's Patton, two very different films, but its reputation has since lifted. It has also aged much better than both. The male-gaze leering that feels juvenile and icky in M.A.S.H. is more diegetic here; the bomber crews' lust is offered as comic but is also saddening. Nurse Duckett gives way better than she gets from Yossarian with a double knee to the groin in a scene that calls for both. The sex workers in Rome are given more economic understanding that Fellini gave them two years later. The film has more compassion than a satire's ethical mudget usually gets. Against its example the swathe of late '60s and early '70s knockabout examples seldom come close to matching it for its underlying gravity.

But that's it, the dark undercurrent's energy saves it the way it saved the following year's Harold and Maude from ever straying into the cultural safety of M.A.S.H. (for all its frat boy jibes) or the still queasy unease of Patton. It's Catch-22 that reaches from the past as a response to an exhausting era. When the time came to take a similar look at the first Gulf War in Three Kings, this was the example that led it. 

THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE @ 55

Sam, an American in Rome, walks past a gallery on the way home one night to witness a masked figure attacking a woman inside. He runs to her aid, getting into the glassed off antechamber, inadvertently locking him self between two glass walls and watches powerlessly as the attack proceeds. Getting a passing stranger to call the cops, he pounds at the glass ineffectively. The assassin leaps away at the sound of the siren but the woman is on the floor with an abdominal wound.

Sam was about to decamp to New York with his Brit girlfriend but the detective who interviews him takes his passport. The case is so baffling that anyone could be involved. Sam has to clear his name but also is intrigued to play detective, himself, haunted by the notion that he saw something that the excitement erased. The killer is picking off women around the city. Sam is about to enter a labyrinth of intrigue, danger and after dark puzzles. Does he have the key?

The Giallo genre was about a decade old when Dario Argento entered the scene with this film. Argento had already been a film critic and had made a good start at screen writing, collaborating with the likes of Bertolucci and Leone (the tense opening of Once Upon a Time in the West has his stamp all over it). Italy had already shown its endless appetite for the violence and engaging mysteries of Giallo as dished up by the great Mario Bava among many others. These were shot for international markets and, as with all Italian film production at the time, made with the intention of dubbing the dialogue. Argento wrote his own adaptation of the novel The Screaming Mimi for his debut.

While the gallery attack scene is not the very opening it's the way the film is recalled opening, with a situation straight out of Hitchcock as a would be hero is prevented from helping and must watch an act of violence from a trap. It's a nightmare situation and won't be the last one this movie offers.

Actually, that's a point: Bird is so stuffed to the gills with Giallo quirks that it would be considered a postmodern parody if it had been made now. the cross-dressing lineup guy giving better than he gets, the Breughel style naive painting of the sexual assault, the ugly but funny comedy scene with the artist, the too-urbane detective, right down to the hit man in the bright yellow leather jacket (Giallo is Italian for yellow, Argento even made a later movie with that as the title) which has one of the best comic relief transitions before getting scary again. Argento isn't trying to send anything up, though, he is gleefully picking genre tropes off the shelf and setting them off as perfect plot bombs. Hitchcock himself dismissed the plot drivers of his films with the joke about the McGuffin (Google it) he much preferred the visual puns, social commentary and mechanics of suspense. See also everyone who made a Giallo except that Argento even more, outdoing the great Bava himself.

So, if anything, The Bird With the Crystal Plumage pays nothing but service to the genre it declares. That said, it is not a series of ticks on a checklist. Argento warms everything up with real humour and builds a nocturnal Rome that feels of its time but also darkly medieval. On board as cinematographer is Vittorio Storaro  who also lensed The Conformist, The Godfather and Apocalypse Now among many others, having a deadly sense of the effects of colour on the psyche. Bird still looks like a zillion dollars. And while we're talking collaborators, let's throw in the great Ennio Morricone who provides a score that mixes cute girl pop with avant orchestral noise motifs and electronica. This movie sounds scared.

As a sub-genre of crime fiction The Bird With the Crystal Plumage still delivers and in a much more insistent manner than most of them. Argento perfected the traditional Giallo with his next string of films, adding more peculiar style each time until Deep Red a few years on which all but rendered the genre impossible to top. After some extraordinary horror outings he then returned but to decreasing effect as some of the later entries could not outgrow the limitations of the Giallo's heyday. There are always exceptions (Opera, The Stendhal Syndrome) but the more recent films have felt like the first ones never did: routine. Before that, back in 1970, he climbed to the peak of his adopted genre on his first go. If you can find this, watch it.

Viewing notes: We watched Arrow's 4K presentation of this and it is stellar. In the convivium and sipping of bubbly stuff we all got a little lost. As these movies were never shot with direct sound and intended to be dubbed even in their native Italian it's not a big deal unless you really want ot hear actor's own voices (E.g. David Hemmings in Deep Red). The subtitles might prove a boon, here. I can't find it for purchase or rent on any streamer. If you are feeling adventurous you can get a physical copy from a few boutique labels. Maybe Shudder or Tubi in the future.