"Nickelodeon" ** (out of ****)If I had to pick one filmmaker to sit down and have a cup of coffee with or a drink or just a conversation with, I think I would pick the director of "Nickelodeon" (1976), the great Peter Bogdanovich.
What modern filmmaker has spent as much time as he has trying to re-create the past? Which filmmaker has tried to recapture the charm of old Hollywood for younger generations and preserve its memories?
I often think Bogdanovich and I are kindred spirits. We both have a similar love for the classics. We admire the great directors of the past and have been deeply influenced by them. We both want to share the style of old Hollywood with today's audience. But I know that lunch date will never happen with Bogdanovich. I've heard people describe him as arrogant and snobbish. I've heard he isn't very kind to his fans. Which, believe it or not, I perfectly understand. I realize he is an artist and simply doesn't want to be bothered with the rest us. And I don't mean that as a putdown.
I mention all of this for several reasons. First of all, this is the first time I'm writing about Peter Bogdanovich, and sadly my first review is a negative one. So I want to make it clear to my readers that I am a great admirer of Mr. Bogdanovich. Secondly because I want to emphasis that there was probably not another director in the 1970s who would have made a film about the early days of Hollywood in the same style that Bogdanovich did.
Peter Bogdanovich came onto the scene in the 1970s, just in time for the "New Wave" of American filmmakers for the new generation. Others included Martin Scorese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Altman (Altman was actually making films in the 1950s but really hit his peak in the 1970s with "M*A*S*H" (1970), which is when I feel his career really began) and Woody Allen. But while those filmmakers were making films about contemporary issues, Bogdanovich was trapped in a time zone. He wanted to make the kind of films John Ford, Howard Hawks and Orson Welles made.
For a while in the 1970s he was a big deal. He really broke out after "The Last Picture Show" (1971) was released. It was nominated for multiple Oscars and even won two in the supporting acting categories. Roger Ebert, at the time, named it the best film of the year. The following years were also very good to Bogdanovich. His follow-up film was the Howard Hawks inspired screwball comedy "What's Up, Doc?" (1972) with Ryan O' Neal and Barbara Streisand. It was basically a remake of Hawks' "Bringing Up Baby" (1938). Next was "Paper Moon" (1973) a depression bound light-hearted comedy with O'Neal again and his daughter, Tatum O' Neal, who even won an Oscar for her performance, making the youngest Oscar winner. But then something happened. Bogdanovich had fallen out of taste with the public. His next films were savagely dismissed by both the critics and the public. He's never quite been able to fully recover in the public's eye, as none of his films have managed to have the impact those earlier films did.
And this is the environment Bogdanovich found himself in when he made "Nickelodeon". The film followed two flops, which never deserved the harsh reactions they were met with. His "Daisy Miller" (1974) is actually a fine adaptation of Henry Miller's novel and has a good performance by Cybill Shepherd. His "At Long Last Love" (1975) was a 1930s inspired musical with a Cole Porter score. It doesn't exactly work but people treated the film as if it had the plague. "Nickelodeon" basically was the final nail in the coffin.
Some have suggested the reason Bogdanovich never had the lasting impact that his contemporaries had was because he never really had his own vision. He simply borrowed from others. His films were homages to the great directors of the past. But there was nothing unique about him. I personally don't buy that argument. It is not as if Bogdanovich was merely re-shooting other director's work. It takes a lot of skill to be able to get the feeling of those classic films correct. Not everyone can do it.
I think the real reason Bogdanovich's films were met with resistance was because he, like me, was cursed to be born in the wrong decade. Modern audiences aren't interested in revisiting the past. They don't know it exist and guess what? They are fine with that. If they never see a D.W. Griffith movie in their life it wouldn't matter. If I asked 10 people on the street, "do you know who D.W. Griffith is?" I bet every one of them will say no. There were a lot of issues going around in the 1970s.
Audiences wanted to see films address the current problems of the youth movement. A movie which was going to take audiences back to the 1930s or in the case of "Nickelodeon", 1910, wasn't going to interest them.
"Nickelodeon" was Bogdanovich's homage to the early, silent days of cinema. Right before the time it was emerging as an art form. We were still in the days when literally anyone could make movies. There was no NYU film school back then. People didn't have formal training in cinema. The rules were still being invented. People didn't quite know what to do with films at this point.
The film starts off around 1910. The first image we see is of a lawyer, Leo Harrigan (Ryan O' Neal). He is in court about to lose a case, after some new information is brought in. His plan. Escape. And as he runs out of the courtroom, while his client chases after him, Harrigan, finds himself in front of the office of H.H. Cobb (Brian Keith), an independent movie producer. And before Harrigan can spell his name correctly to Cobb, he is hired as one of the studio's writers.
One of the main plot points in "Nickelodeon" is the "patent wars". The major movie studios felt they had a patent on the movie camera and didn't want any competition from the smaller independent studios. So pressure was put on movie houses or "nickelodeons" not to play their movies. According to "Nickelodeon" these actions resulted in very dangerous situations were henchmen were sent by the major studios to destroy cameras and burn film from the competition.
It is through this environment that Harrigan now finds himself directing films. But before he does that he meets the lovely Kathleen Cook (Jane Hitchcock) and for him it is love at first sight. She is "blind as a rat", so maybe she needs to take a second look. She is going on a train from Chicago to New York when they meet. Their meeting offers a similar set-up in "What's Up, Doc?" where they accidentally mix-up their suitcases. She wants to be an actress, he wants to see her again.
While shooting his first film Harrigan meets Buck Greenway (Burt Reynolds, who was also in "At Long Last Love"), who has been sent by the studios to assassinate Harrigan. But Harrigan likes his looks and make him the new leading man, replacing Reginald Kingsley (George Gaynes).
We also have the leading lady, Marty Reeves (Stella Stevens) the cameraman, Frank Frank (John Ritter, whom supposedly Bogdanovich originally wanted in the lead) and Alice (Tatum O' Neal) a 10 year con-artist (she played the same role in "Paper Moon"). She loves to read Shakespeare and eventually becomes the clan's writer. I guess proving the point that sometimes it seems like 10 year olds are writing movies.Both Harrigan and Greenway fall in love with Kathleen, as soon she becomes the stock company's new leading lady. And it is a race to see which man will win her heart first.
A lot of this may make "Nickelodeon" sound pretty good. But unfortunately "Nickelodeon" is not a good movie. One of the film's problems is it is absolutely lifeless. The pace of the film drags. There is not enough energy in the performances. But the real problem with "Nickelodeon" is Bogdanovich doesn't show the joy of film making. The film gets so boggled down in the politics of the patent war. That should have been a very small sub-plot, taking place in the background of the film, if at all. Why do these people want to make movies in the first place? There is never a moment when we believe these people truly love what they are doing. The film doesn't feel like a celebration.
Bogdanovich does a lot of things right with the movie. The musical score is quite good, a ragtime piano score. The film even uses title-cards between scenes and iris fade in and outs. He gets the look of a silent film correct. Bogdanovich even wanted to shoot the film in black and white but the studios ruled against it. However the film was put on DVD in April of this year, it includes the original theatrical version (which is what I saw) and a director's cut in black & white. Some say the black & white improves the film greatly. I can't quite understand how this can be true. It might add to the mood of the film, but, how will black & white cinematography change the story?
The best scene in "Nickelodeon" is at the end. The gang gets together for the premier of D.W. Griffith's "Birth of A Nation" (1915). They are in awe of the film. Harrigan simply wants to give up film making after seeing it. He feels it is the greatest movie ever made (I've reviewed it on here). We see the audience's reaction as they watch the film. It is the only moment where we see how powerful the movies can be and why audience's loved them. It is the only moment of celebration and joy. And we also see that these people love movies. This is what Bogdanovich's film should have been about.
Some have suggest the film was actually loosely based on Cecil B. DeMille's career. I personally don't know enough about DeMille's career, I haven't even reviewed something by him. I promise to do so. But the credits have a special thanks to Raoul Walsh, whose work I have reviewed, and Allan Dwan. Both were contemporaries of DeMille. Maybe they told Bogdanovich stories about DeMille or maybe Bogdanovich based elements of the film on their lives.
Either way, while one can appreciate what Bogdanovich wanted this film to be, too much doesn't work. The comedy isn't inspired. It doesn't feel as if the humor grows out of the situation. It seems contrived at times, too well staged. And the performances are the same way. Too cliched. These aren't real people just functions of the plot.
I really wanted to enjoy "Nickelodeon". I looked forward to seeing this film for years. It was never available on VHS or DVD, so I had to wait all these years to see it. I'm glad I finally got it out of my system, but I'm greatly disappointed. If you chose to watch Bogdanovich's films (and you should) see "What's Up, Doc?", "Paper Moon", "The Last Picture Show" and "The Cat's Meow" (2001) first. See this after you've developed a taste for his work. Also if you love silent films and early Hollywood as much as I do, see it too, just for curiosity sake.
Posts
