The Train (John Frankenheimer, 1964)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Person
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 3:00 pm

The Train (John Frankenheimer, 1964)

#1 Post by Person » Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:36 pm

For me, the concept of an 'action' film is the most curious, as many examples of the genre seem very static to me - even today where it seems that anything can be shown on screen. A fight, car crash, explosion, etc is rehearsed, staged, simultaneously photographed and edited in a certain way that brings out and sometimes enhances the action. But, as the event is meticulously planned, rigorously controlled and sometimes, or always re-shot, spontaneity cannot be part of the action, or plays a small part. The action may be impressive, but it still seems unreal, too chaotic, or even more importantly, the sense that the action is not integrated into the story and maybe even more importantly, the attitude and motivation of the characters. Most action films are far from being this sophisticated.

Almost everything that Burt Lancaster does, or experiences in John Frankenheimer's, The Train seems real, necessary and interesting. He did all his own stunts in the film, learned to cast driving axel bearings, which we see in the film in a contunous take. Frankenheimer was one of the true masters of the audacious, complicated, continuous scene and this film has many astounding set-pieces. The film is also one of the last great films shot in deep focus black and white (mostly with a 25mm lens) and it is the bold, striking compositions of the intense and vigorous action that elevates the film to an even higher level. Frankenheimer never took the bland, straightforward choices of blocking and positioning the camera in his films - certainly not in the first half of his career and The Train is a veritable textbook in imaginative visual directing.

There is great sense of danger in the film, much like the feeling that The Wages of Fear produces - and indeed in one scene, we see an actual train-crash that smashed nine cameras, and was only captured by one camera which yielded one of the most startling shots in all of Cinema! The whole film has sense of almost reckless daring, but was carefully controlled throughout. The scene where Albert Rémy uncouples the engine from the cars is insane! I can't think of another film where a key actor does something so dangerous on their own, with a stunt double.

But all of these scenes and shots serve the story, which is in itself fascinating. It asks the question: What is more important - irreplaceable works of art or the lives of common human beings? Col. von Waldheim is an unorthodox Nazi, who has a deep admiration for 'decadent' paintings and is willing to save them posess or save them at any cost , regardless of his orders. Paul Labiche knows trains inside out, but a painting means as much to him as "a string of pearls to an ape," but his morals are infinitely more compassionate than von Waldheim, which he makes clear without speech at the end - where, in fact, twenty minutes go by without Lancaster uttering a single word, which was unheard of them of a superstar male actor, but it totally appropriate. It is one of the great performances in all of war/action Cinema, I feel. And his antagonist is the legendary Paul Scofield in his first screen appearance in six years, who is, as always, magnificent. Everyone did a first-rate job on this film, yet only the screenwriters were nominated for the 1966 Oscars (the film was not released until May 1965 in the USA) which is yet another example of Academy madness.

Everything about The Train is unconventional. It was made at a time when other studios and directors would have gone for colour and CinemaScope, Frankenheimer went for deep-focus, black and white 1.66:1, went for authenticity, verisimilitude - no back-projection or models. Arthur Penn actually began the film, but I have never been able to ascertain how much material he shot, or why he was fired, but it would have been a very different movie; Frankenheimer's vigorous, but elegant style is so perfectly right for this film.

One thing that makes some films extra special is those that have many scenes where a process is at work and is shown in detail, seem more powerful. One cannot shown process in any other medium of art. Heist scenes, as in The Asphalt Jungle, Rififi, Le Cercle rouge, etc are prime examples, the escape preparations in Bresson's, A Man Escaped and Becker's, Le Trou are also enthralling and 'make' each movie what it is. The working out of a life-ir-death puzzle, as in Blowup, The Conversation and De Palma's, Blow Out also illustrate the power of the medium. What makes these scenes - 'process of action' - interesting and occassionally powerful, is that they make us look at human interaction with matter is a different, even deeper way. Slow motion cinematography remains one of man's greatest inventions. Before it, we had no idea how fast moving objects worked or behaved. There was over 50 years of gunfire in Cinema, until we saw what a bullet leaving the barrell of a gun looked like, in The Omen (1976). It spins, for one thing. That must have surprised many people.

On the whole and after seeing it for the first time in about six years, I firmly feel that The Train is one of the greatest action films ever made, not only for its audacious crashes, bold style and unintrusive score by Maurice Jarre, but also for it simply being a fascinating and unusual story this is brilliantly acted. The trailer for Die Hard 4 had been in hysterics, but with a sliver of interesting in seeing it. Not any more - it looks as safe as milk, frankly.

Image

"I really, really love directing films." (actual quote!)

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#2 Post by Polybius » Sat Jun 23, 2007 1:58 am

Besides, if John McClane were in Labiche's place, he'd just call Von Waldheim a sissy, shoot him and then probably let the paintings burn.

Frankenheimer and Lancaster were always money in the bank together. Even their more prosaic films were interesting and well worth watching (I'm thinking of The Young Savages.)

This is by far my favorite Scofield performance. He manages to imbue a man without any apparent empathy whatsoever (even over and above his status as a Nazi), with a certain dignity. At times, you almost feel yourself switching allegiance to him, just a little.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#3 Post by tryavna » Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:04 pm

Polybius wrote:This is by far my favorite Scofield performance. He manages to imbue a man without any apparent empathy whatsoever (even over and above his status as a Nazi), with a certain dignity. At times, you almost feel yourself switching allegiance to him, just a little.
Absolutely! What's particularly disturbing for me (as, I imagine, it must be for others on this forum) is that we can especially sympathize with Waldheim's love of art. As his final lines bear out, in a sense, he deserves those paintings far more than Labiche because he can actually appreciate their value. (At which point, Labiche's only response is to mow him down with a machine gun -- an action that, whether justified as retribution or not, is shocking in its brutality.) And Scofield imbues those lines with a great deal of emotional power:

"Labiche! Here's your prize, Labiche. Some of the greatest paintings in the world. Does it please you, Labiche? Give you a sense of excitement in just being near them? A painting means as much to you as a string of pearls to an ape. You won by sheer luck: you stopped me without knowing what you were doing, or why. You are nothing, Labiche -- a lump of flesh. The paintings are mine; they always will be; beauty belongs to the man who can appreciate it! They will always belong to me or to a man like me. Now, this minute, you couldn't tell me why you did what you did."

Despite the relative paucity of his screen appearances, Scofield's delivery has probably given my spine more chills than any other actor.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#4 Post by Polybius » Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:28 am

It's a really wonderful speech. It just jumps off the screen or page right at you.

The tone he gets across: contemptuous, angry, with just a slight hint of dread, is truly intense.

User avatar
NABOB OF NOWHERE
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Brandywine River

#5 Post by NABOB OF NOWHERE » Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:09 am

Person wrote:Arthur Penn actually began the film, but I have never been able to ascertain how much material he shot, or why he was fired, but it would have been a very different movie; Frankenheimer's vigorous, but elegant style is so perfectly right for this film.
At his talk at the Edinburgh festival last year, Penn intimated that Frankenheimer's relationship with Lancaster had actively led to his dismissal and he felt that his (Penn's) difficulties with Lancaster up to that point were most likely Burt's machinations to have him replaced. None of the footage in the film was shot by Penn.

User avatar
Person
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 3:00 pm

#6 Post by Person » Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:10 pm

Ah, that makes sense. It does seem strange that a film like The Train would be directed by the young Penn with Lancaster and Scofield in the leading roles when Frankenheimer had already made Birdman and Seven Days in May with Burt. Penn also got mucked about on The Chase, though it remains a damn good film.

Tuco
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:57 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

The Train (John Frankenheimer, 1964)

#7 Post by Tuco » Sun Jun 02, 2013 11:28 pm

A pretty smart action picture, one of the best IMHO. Unless I've missed something, are the chances of this ever being on Blu still slim to none?

User avatar
MyFathersSon
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:33 pm
Location: Grand Junction, CO

Re: The Train (John Frankenheimer, 1964)

#8 Post by MyFathersSon » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:06 pm

"The Train" is a good example of how all the non-disk options in 2013 are sapping demand for a Blu-ray release.

MGM's attitude is 'why should we'? I'm partly responsible in a small way, because I bought and own it in the cloud. I love this film.

The director's commentary that's on the 1999 non-anamorphic DVD might eventually be made available as a streaming option.

Post Reply