DarkImbecile wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 4:48 pm
Created on request for tolbs1010, who will now present his dissertation on why
Rules of Engagement is the greatest film in Friedkin's oeuvre
Rules Of Engagement? Don't be silly. Everyone knows that
Jade is the masterwork that this community has been clamoring to discuss at length.
What a random grab bag of films. Stage play adaptations, straightforward action pictures, a horror classic, a couple of attempts at comedy...Friedkin doesn't really fit the auteur model. Much more of a slick craftsman. David Thomson wrote that Friedkin is a director who is "convinced that the zoom and the insistent violence of unexpected images need only a raw feeling for sensation to outflank traditional requirements of construction and meaning." I think that's pretty spot on even if it is a bit dismissive and doesn't give any credit to Friedkin's willingness to go all out for unconventional and/or difficult material. And what's wrong with 'a raw feeling for sensation' once in a while?
What's interesting for me about Friedkin is that I like his 'failures' and forgotten films much more than the two big hits that made his name and fortune.
The Exorcist is mercilessly effective though not very enjoyable for this viewer. But I've never understood the general praise and love for
The French Connection. It looks, sounds, and plays like a TV movie in most scenes and it features one of Hackman's worst performances (Oscar schmoscar).
My top 5 Friedkin would be:
1)
Cruising: It's just a riveting piece of filmmaking and I'm pleased that it has enjoyed a slight critical re-evaluation in recent years. The exacting compositions and editing, the locations, the night photography/lighting, the sweaty vividness of the club scenes, the outstanding soundtrack and how Friedkin uses it--it all contributes to a sustained mood of bleak edginess from start to finish. At the center of it is Pacino's gloriously uncomfortable performance. It's maybe the most muted, uncertain performance he has ever given, and yet it works because it mirrors the viewer's unresolved feeling about the character. Whether the film is coherent or not is certainly debatable. I view the ambiguity in it as purposeful and a strength.
2)
Sorcerer: It takes balls to remake a perfect film like
The Wages Of Fear, and it takes skills to up the ante in both excitement and thematic depth. The lengthy character development in the first hour gives us national, economic, political, and relationship details of the main characters--the kinds of details/attributes that society uses to create an individual's identity. That lengthy buildup makes the reversion to bare humanity/survival more meaningful as the characters' desperation and reliance on each other deepens with the escalating perilousness of their circumstances. The score is legendary, of course, and proves once again that Friedkin has a great feel for pairing music and images. The title is still baffling, though.
3)
The Birthday Party: I blind bought this recently because I like Pinter and think it is one of his best plays. I was very skeptical that Friedkin would do it justice. To my pleasant surprise, he not only does the play justice, he finds every angle possible in the single setting (with just a couple of outdoor shots) to make it as intelligently cinematic as possible. Ultimately, it's an actor's piece, and Friedkin wisely let Pinter recruit actors that were familiar with his work. Sydney Tafler, an actor that I wasn't very familiar with, is AMAZING in his role. Patrick Magee is endlessly entertaining doing his tighly-wound suppressed intensity thing. Dandy Nichols is so effortless in conveying her character's battiness that one wonders if she had gone 'round the bend herself. Robert Shaw seems a bit miscast in the central role (feels like he could play Magee's role and vice versa) but it's a disciplined performance that allows Tafler and Magee to shine in the more entertaining roles. Friedkin loved the play and wanted to put a definitive performance of it on film. I think he succeeded. It rivals Peter Hall's
The Homecoming as the best film of a Pinter play.
4)
To Live And Die In L.A.: This one is neither a failure nor forgotten. It has a solid following. Yet, when I see the praise heaped on Michael Mann's crime films, especially the bloated and ridiculous
Heat (which shares some of the same themes as TLADILA), it makes me wonder why this film isn't more appreciated. Choosing and utilizing locations to their fullest is a Friedkin strength, and I love how this film characterizes Los Angeles by shooting mostly in the day with a lot of bright colors--unusual for a crime film. The one thing I don't care for in this film is the car chase scene. Friedkin seems to be trying to recapture old glories and it just isn't that exciting or necessary.
5)
Blue Chips: A favorite that I watched on cable many times as a teenager, when my basketball fandom was at its peak. The best movie ever about the corruption in college sports--I guess there aren't many contenders for that title, but the subject itself has become much more prominent since this film was released. It doesn't look as good as most Friedkin films--rather plain by his standards--but the basketball scenes are handled well (Friedkin was a baller himself in his younger days). A little too on-the-nose in parts, it still touches upon several themes that resonate beyond sports.
Honorable mentions:
The Night They Raided Minsky's: This is much more Norman Lear than William Friedkin, and apparently Ralph Rosenblum helped save this movie in the editing room. It's light, suggestive, and moves quickly like the burlesque/vaudeville shows that it fondly conjures. It's nothing special but it has a nice spirit.
The Boys In The Band: a solid, entertaining film of a somewhat thin, dated play.
The Hunted: Ridiculous yet it's lean enough to be compelling.
