Film Review: Noises Off!

  "Noises Off!"

*** (out of ****)

[This review is dedicated to actor / director Peter Bogdanovich, who died January 6th, 2022 at the age of 82]

When the world of cinema lost Peter Bogdanovich in early January it lost one of its great, passionate ambassadors. Bogdanovich was a man filled with a love and knowledge of cinema's history. 

Heartbroken, I knew I wanted to write a tribute to him by reviewing one of his movies but which one? I could have went the obvious route and reviewed a popular choice like "Paper Moon" (1973) or "What's Up, Doc?" (1972) but why not take the opportunity to introduce readers to something different? "Noises Off!" (1992) seemed like a pretty good choice, a sadly forgotten 90s comedy that could use a second look.

On paper the combination of "Noises Off!" and Peter Bogdanovich seemed like a natural fit. Bogdanovich, the das wunderkind of 1970s  American cinema, spent his career paying homage to the masters of the past - Orson Welles, Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock, and John Ford. "Noises Off", a stage play written by British playwright Michael Frayn, allows for a lot of physical comedy and verbal wit giving Bogdanovich a chance to nod to the great comedy filmmakers of the 1930s & 40s like Ernst Lubitsch, Preston Sturges, and Billy Wilder.

Of the great comedy directors however it is Howard Hawks whom Bogdanovich seems to have lifted his greatest inspiration from (just as he did in "What's Up, Doc?"). This time "borrowing" from the pacing of "His Girl Friday" (1940) and that movie's machine gun like speed of dialogue. In "Noises Off!" Bogdanovich is working at an equal frenetic pace, spinning multiple plates in the air due to his much larger ensemble. 

Michael Caine plays Lloyd Fellowes, a theatrical director driven to valium, trying to keep his cast and crew on track as they prepare for the Broadway opening of their bedroom farce called "Nothing On". Backstage dalliances (does anyone use that word anymore or am I the only one?) between various actors and actresses  lead to on-stage shenanigans resulting in frequent outbursts, accusations, ad-libs, and all around general confusion.

In addition to Caine, the absolutely terrific cast includes Carol Burnett, John Ritter, Marilu Henner, Denholm Elliot, Christopher Reeve, Julie Hagerty, Mark Linn-Baker and Nicollette Sheridan! To his credit, first time screenwriter Marty Kaplan does a wonderful job trying to juggle all the characters, giving them distinct traits. Unfortunately, that compliment can't be taken further for one to say the script gives these characters distinct traits and interesting personalities. That might be what prevents this movie from being great.

We have John Ritter as the actor unable to completely express a thought, ending each sentence with "ya know"? Christopher Reeve needs the director to explain the motivation for his every action. Carol Burnett and Denholm Elliot are the veteran actors with Elliot also a drunk. Nicollette Sheridan is the sex kitten and Marilu Henner as the equally sexy but more professional and "stable" actress.

These personalities collide when accusations are made that Frederick (Reeves) was with Dotty (Burnett) the night before a performance and spent the night together at a hotel. This upsets Garry (Ritter) who is involved with Dotty while Belinda (Henner) is a bit more understanding. Professionalism flies out the window with each actor having to fend for themselves and a director that would love nothing more than to drink his problems away.

"Noises Off!" was structured as a trio of one act plays. The "first act" gives the audience the most complete run through of the material. The "second act" only shows us back stage and is where the accusations start flying. The "third act" takes us back on-stage with the show spinning out of control. The problem with all of this is by the third act it feels repetitive. We don't need to see essentially the same thing three times. What I think would have made "Noises Off!" an even better movie is eliminating the second act and changing it to actually showing us the events at the hotel. You can present the misunderstandings with characters spying on one another with everyone jumping to their own conclusions. Then you carry all of that tension onto the "third act", while on-stage we see everything flair up. Thematically we hit all the same points as we do now but we don't have to see the same thing three times and there really isn't any reason for the breakdown in the "third act" when everything should have been cleared up after the "second act".

Some may object to my suggestions and say "that's not how it was in the play"! That's nice but we are making a movie. Things need to be changed. "Noises Off!" feels very theatrical, mainly taking place in one setting. Maybe for budget reasons things needed to be kept more confined but truly adapting this material for the big screen, even if it meant changing the material slightly, would have been an improvement.

Still the movie didn't get a fair shake with the sheep (movie critics). A lot of the reviews I read mentioned the stage play was British but no British actors were in the movie except for Caine and Elliott. Personally I can't understand why this matters. It was actually the playwright who suggested to Bogdanovich that he change the characters to Americans and was quite pleased with the final film. Some sheep even wrote the film is much different than the play but again the playwright said the movie was exactly the same as the play. This is a good example of why I hate modern day critics. So often it seems they make up stuff to justify their opinions. They just pull things out of thin air and assume the rest of us won't know the difference. And they pick on the most minute (my-noot) details to serve as their reasoning for writing a negative review. Infuriating!

For whatever faults "Noises Off!" may have there is no way I could tell someone not to see this movie. I'd recommended it if only to see Bogdanovich and these actors working on all cylinders. These are performances you need to see and Bogdanovich's craft here needs to be appreciated. "Noises Off!" is "controlled chaos" with Bogdanovich at the helm stirring this ship on the correct path. It may not be great but it is quite entertaining.

While a movie's box-office never influences my judgement, Bogdanovich badly needed a hit after suffering from personal tragedy and financial lost in the 1980s. Hollywood cooled on Bogdanovich after a successful track record including "The Last Picture Show" (1971), "What's Up, Doc?", and "Paper Moon". Those movies combined equaled a total of 12 Academy Award nominations, including one for Bogdanovich himself as best director ("The Last Picture Show").

A relationship with actress Cybill Shepherd created media fodder leading to Bogdanovich's slow decline with titles like "Daisy Miller" (1974), "At Long Last Love" (1975) and "Nickelodeon" (1976). Each of those movies has their own charm. "Daisy Miller" is actually an exceptional adaptation of Henry Miller's novel and was unfairly slammed by the sheep.

Like for so many other great  American filmmakers from the 70s - Scorsese, Coppola, and Altman, the 1980s proved to be a rough decade for Bogdanvich. After putting up his own money to distribute "They All Laughed" (1981) he eventually had to file for bankruptcy when the movie flopped at the box-office. Prior to that his girlfriend, Dorothy Stratten, a Playboy model, was murdered by her estranged husband. Bogdanovich found mild (personal) success with the release of "Mask" (1985) starring Cher, who won a best actress award at the Cannes Film Festival. In the end it was Cher that garnered all the praise and not Bogdanovich.

In 1990 Bogdanovich went back to "The Last Picture Show" and directed a sequel called "Texasville" but it wasn't greeted with the same success. Neither were his follow up movies - "Noises  Off!" and "The Thing Called Love" (1993). Having directed a few made for television movies a comeback seemed within his grasp with the theatrical release of "The Cat's Meow" (2001). While it did receive some (deserved) positive reviews it never found an audience. Bogdanovich didn't direct another feature-length film for 13 years with "She's Funny That Way" (2014). His last movie was a documentary on the career of silent film comedian Buster Keaton, "The Great Buster: A Celebration" (2018) it is a great documentary and in a way a fitting ending to Bogdanovich's career, bringing the rich history of cinema's past to today's audience.

It wasn't only through films Bogdanovich was able to tell the story of cinema. He also wrote many books like "Who The Devil Made It" (which proudly stands on my book shelf), a collection of interviews with some of Hollywood's legendary filmmakers. It was followed up with "Who The Hell's In It", a collection of interviews with Hollywood's legendary actors. Then there was "John Ford", "This is Orson Welles",  and "Allan Dwan: The Last Pioneer" among many others.

All of this history, in one way or another, finds itself in "Noises Off!" and was most likely what attracted Bogdanovich to this material. It allowed him to express his love for movies, theatre, comedy and acting. Like Caine's character Bogdanovich knew of the struggles it took to make a successful piece of art. He knew what it felt like to face a potential failure face to face.

I don't know who will pick up the baton now that Bogdanovich is gone. There's a fairly good chance no one will. That makes it all the more important film lovers keep his memory alive. "Noises Off!" may not be the best place to start on that journey but it should certainly be one of your destination points.

Film Review: The Conversation

"The Conversation"  

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

The movie starts off with a bird's eye view looking down on a San Francisco park of a crowd of people walking and talking. As the observers we don't know who to follow. Who are we looking for? Where should our eyes settle? And from who's vantage point are we seeing this? That, to me, is the point of Francis Ford Coppola's "The Conversation". Eyes and ears are always upon us. No action goes undetected.

It is a fitting message for today's technology age when the government and corporate America eavesdrop on citizens under the dual guises of "national security" and good ol' fashion commercialism. But in 1974 it could have been viewed as a commentary on Nixon and Watergate. Released two years after that infamous hotel break-in, here is a story dealing with wiretapping, hotels, and paranoia. It's hard not to think of Nixon.

But Coppola's ambitious, thought-provoking, and nuanced cornerstone of 1970s American cinema, can also be viewed minus the political messaging and simply as a story about loneliness, secrets, and privacy. The lengths an individual will go through to isolate himself to protect his privacy and the consequences of those actions in what is ultimately a fruitless exercise.

Gene Hackman is Harry Caul, a middle-aged man that works in surveillance. Highly regarded in his profession, some would call him an expert, all want to know his tricks. The day we meet Harry it is his birthday. When he walks into his apartment no one is there to greet him. He has no family. He opens three locks on his door before he can enter. He takes his privacy serious. When the door opens an alarm goes off. Harry shuts off his security system but wait a minute, a birthday gift has been left inside the apartment. Who left it and how did the person get in? Having left a birthday card with the gift, Harry discovers it was left by the landlord, who naturally had a key (which Harry didn't know) and knew it was his birthday. So much for privacy!

Later that day Harry walks into an apartment building and enters his girlfriend,  Amy's (Terri Garr) apartment. It is not a warm welcome on either person's part. Amy doesn't even know it is Harry's birthday. When she asks him how old he is, he lies (the landlord knew his age!). Amy wants their relationship to grow and learn more about Harry. He can't commit to such demands. Amy even reveals she always knows when Harry is about to enter her apartment based on the way he opens the door. She even tells Harry she once spotted him waiting outside of her apartment though he never entered.

There is the irony of the fact Harry works in surveillance and yet people enter his apartment without is knowledge, he is spotted spying on others, people know his birthday and age but Coppola and "The Conversation" don't play this for comedy or even put dramatic emphasis on it. We just quietly observe. Our mind goes back to the first sequence - eyes and ears are all around us. Harry even believes his telephone number is unlisted and yet he receives phone calls. No one's life is a complete secret. A surveillance expert, above all others, should have known this.

As Coppola and his movie slowly reveal details about Harry we discover he is Catholic. A statue of the Virgin Mary stands in his apartment. We even see him go to church and hear his confession. Here is another example of eyes and ears all around us. As it states in the Bible (Proverbs 15:3) "the eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good". Again, I call your attention to the movie's first sequence and what I called the "bird's eye view". Could it also be interpreted as having a religious meaning? Looking down from the Heavens, "God's eye view".

Catholic guilt will soon consume Harry because the opening sequence, we eventually find out, involved Harry working on an assignment. He has been paid to follow and record a man (Frederic Forrest) and a woman (Cindy Williams) having a conversation in the park. To outsider's ears the conversation doesn't amount to much. Harry doesn't even know why the person wants the conversation recorded or the individual's relationship to either of these people. It doesn't matter to Harry because it is just a job but then something happens. Did the man say "He'd kill us if he got the chance"? Who is "he"? The man paying Harry? What will happen when Harry hands him the recording? But Harry isn't sure what was said. This takes on further implications when we learn back in New York one of Harry's assignments may have lead to the death of two people. Harry takes no responsibility, as we hear during his confession but can he really be sure he bears no responsibility? That feeling of guilt makes him question what is the moral thing to do.

In a sense "The Conversation" is a thriller but there are no car chases and explosions. I don't believe modern audiences would recognize it as a thriller but Coppola creates suspense and builds tension. Someone wants Harry's tapes. That is the person calling his supposedly unlisted number. Harry suspects he is being followed and soon paranoia sets in. Who is watching Harry? Can his apartment be bugged?

Of the many great actors of Hackman's generation I believe only he could bring out the sensitivity of the character. Al Pacino and Robert De Niro are too macho. Maybe Dustin Hoffman would have been interesting to watch. There is a lot of vulnerability in the way Hackman plays Harry. One of my favorite scenes is between Harry and a woman he has met for the first time. Harry wants the woman's advice on something and gives her a "hypothetical" situation which seems to mirror Harry's own with Amy. It is essentially a "confession" but it is more sincere than his actual confession at church. Harry is aware of the choices he is making and the negative consequences of those choices.

The movie ends with a famous sequence involving Harry receiving a phone call as a recording of him in his apartment is heard on the other end of the line. A voice informs Harry they will be listening to him. Harry has tried to live a life devoid of meaningful, personal interaction to protect himself, to shield himself, and live a life of privacy. Where has it gotten him? In a completely justified act of paranoia he strips down his apartment to the bare essentials, just as he has stripped down his life, desperately looking for the microphone bugging his apartment. One of the last objects he hesitates to inspect is his Virgin Mary statue because it would mean breaking it. In the end there Harry sits, in his broken apartment, playing his saxophone. Couldn't the saxophone be bugged? That was what was played back to him over the phone. Could the saxophone have been as much an object as salvation as the statue? It is the one thing Harry didn't break. What else in life besides music does Harry have? What has he left himself, even before destroying his apartment?

Watching "The Conversation" again two things struck me. Both filled me with disappointment and are two sides of the same coin. One - why can't filmmakers make movies like "The Conversation" anymore? Character studies that just follow people. Hollywood seems so mired in politics and social messaging that it interferes with those old-fashion concepts of artistic merit and good storytelling. Two - is "The Conversation" too slow for today's audience? Steven Soderbergh released "Kimi" (2022) this year. It was obviously inspired by movies like "The Conversation" and Antonioni's "Blow-Up" (1966) and may prove to be one of the year's best movies but it moves so fast. Audiences seem to need a lot of action. Character studies may not hold their attention. We can't take a moment to reflect on things. People confuse me. On one hand they will sit and binge watch an entire Netflix series but seem to have short attention spans. A lot of movies, especially the Netflix movies, run over two hours (when did this trend happen that all movies must be over two hours) but they don't ask much of us attention-wise. The movies have gotten longer but they have less meaningful things to say. Even today's "message movies" feel rather pedantic.

"The Conversation" was released after Francis Ford Coppola had broken out into the mainstream with the release of "The Godfather" (1972). In the same year as "The Conversation", "The Godfather Part II" (1974) would also be released and that would be the movie Coppola would win the Academy Award for best director. Both movies however are actually about dealing with the consequences of our choices. "The Conversation" is the more subtle of the two and it was the movie Coppola said was his most personal. It would win three Academy Award nominations of its own (Picture, Screenplay, and Sound) and was even the preferred movie choice that year for both Siskel and Ebert, placing on both of their annual top ten list, leaving "The Godfather Part II" off.

Film Review: The Color of Money

 "The Color of Money"  *** (out of ****)

[Warning: This review will contain spoilers without proper notice.]

Martin Scorsese's "The Color of Money" (1986) is as much about pool as Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" (1957) is about chess.

Yes, on the surface this somewhat sequel to "The Hustler" (1961) is about pool, pool players and hustling but it's a pretext for deeper existential issues - mortality, masculinity, and time (young vs old). Pool is just a plot gimmick, it's not where the action is. If anything pool serves to establish competition between the old man and the young kid but the real game isn't being played with cue balls and sticks. It's being played between the characters' minds, their fears, and desires.

The old man is "Fast" Eddie Felson (Paul Newman), the pool shark we followed 25 years earlier, who cemented his reputation by beating the legendary Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason). The kid is Vincent Lauria (Tom Cruise), a young, good-looking, cocky, wet behind the ears, talented pool player. Or, as Eddie describes him, a flake. But a flake the now retired Eddie could potentially make money with, acting as Vincent's stakehorse. The question is, can Eddie teach Vincent what he knows or will Vincent's cockiness get in the way? 

Like Scorsese's other films - "Mean Streets" (1973), "GoodFellas" (1990), "Raging Bull" (1980), or "Casino" (1995), "The Color of Money" feels like it is giving us insider information into a seedy, underground, sub-culture we know nothing about. The characters speak in a manner we assume is authentic. Sometimes I didn't understand all of the slang expressions, but, no matter. The other characters seemed to. At times the characters sound like they are speaking in short hand, creating a certain rhythm, making the dialogue sound (almost) poetic. Much credit should be given to the script written by Richard Price, based on a novel by Walter Tevis (who also wrote the novels "The Hustler" and "The Man Who Fell To Earth").  

For me there are four key scenes that encapsulate "The Color of Money". My first choice is Eddie meeting Vincent. Vincent has been humiliating Eddie's protege, Julian (John Turturro) game after game at a local bar. Intrigued by who can be beating Julian so handedly Eddie takes a look at Vincent's game. Pay close attention to Eddie's face and body language as the scene captures the vigor of youth Eddie feels in the moment. It's not just a spark for the game of pool that's ignited within Eddie, it's a spark of life. Yes, Eddie makes a good living now as a liquor peddler but what can beat the thrill of the hustle? In the words of Eddie, "money won is twice as sweet as money earned". In this scene it becomes crystal clear the potential Eddie sees in Vincent and soon a mental game of chess is played as Eddie tries to persuade Vincent to take him up on an offer to hit the road with him in preparation for a 9 ball tournament in Atlantic City. Eddie even goes as far as pitting Vincent and his girlfriend, Carmen (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) against each other. 

The next scene depicts the themes of masculinity and how it is tied to one's self-worth as the ever calm, cool, and collected Eddie finds himself a victim of his own game and is hustled by a young pool shark (Forest Whitaker). Eddie is shown in his most vulnerable state, shaken at his very core. How could he, the great "Fast" Eddie, be taken in by a hustler? What does it say about Eddie as a man, a pool player, and a teacher to Vincent (who looks on with Carmen at Eddie's defeat)? Could it have been Eddie also exhibits the same cockiness he sees in Vincent? Was it Eddie's arrogance that allowed him to be hustled?

Contrast this moment of defeat with the moment Vincent reveals he dumped his match with Eddie. By playing the odds Vincent is able to give Eddie an envelope with $8,000 in it. Vincent thought he was doing what Eddie would have wanted him to do - follow the money. Eddie is shaken but doesn't break down as he did when hustled by the pool shark, it is much more subtle. Eddie tries to hide his emotions as the air of his victory has been deflated. Eddie took great pride in beating Vincent, his youth and vigor had been rejuvenated. The old man still had a few tricks up his sleeve. But it wasn't so. Twice now youth has outsmarted the old veteran. Is Eddie's time up? Has it come and gone?

And that takes us to the somewhat divisive final scene between Eddie and Vincent. Eddie wants Vincent's best game. Eddie needs to prove not only to Vincent but to himself who is the best. But Eddie takes it a step further. He tells Vincent it doesn't matter who wins this game tonight because there is another tournament a month away, and if he loses now, he'll beat Vincent than. And if he loses than he'll beat him a month after that. You see, this final sequence isn't really about this particular pool game between the two. The game is really the long road ahead of them. A lot of people felt by ending the movie the way it does, it cheated audiences. Eddie's dialogue however gives us the answer. Too much male ego is on the line for one game to settle the matter. Eddie will not go gently into that good night.

Ironically the most interesting characters I believe are Eddie and Carmen. These two are the real hustlers in the movie. Vincent is the innocent bystander, the prey each of them is prepared to exploit and pounce on. Yeah, there's a game being played between Eddie and Vincent of student and teacher but Eddie and Carmen are playing for control of Vincent. Each sees an untapped resource. Pay attention to the eyes. When the three characters are together, look at Carmen. Look at the way she looks at Eddie when he speaks. She's studying Eddie, learning his way. She's picking up on the hustle faster than Vincent is. Mastrantonio was nominated for an Academy Award in the best supporting actress category for her performance. It was well deserved.

Paul Newman won an Academy Award for his performance though some (perhaps correctly) saw it as a "pity win", rectifying an obvious error on the part of the Academy for never presenting Newman with an Oscar. He had been nominated 7 times prior with no win. Newman is giving an acting lesson with his performance here. There is no wasted gesture. Again, pay attention to the eyes. They show a man always thinking. Always observing, always trying to figure out the odds and reading the room.

Not taking anything away from Tom Cruise, he plays his part well and does what the role requires of him. His character goes through an arc and is a much different man from the beginning of the movie until the end. He nails the young, cocky, naïve punk. His "maturity" in the later scenes is a bit lacking and feels like he is still playing a variation of the cocky kid. It isn't quite as transformational as it could have been.  

Over the years I've read reviews praising Scorsese's use of popular music. Sometimes I've agree but the majority of the time it never stood out to me. Watching "The Color of Money" however, I see it. The song selections really hit on the emotions being played in the scene and serves as a commentary on what we are seeing. I won't go through the entire soundtrack but lets focus on two scenes in particular.

Going back to the first time Eddie meets Vincent, as Eddie watches Vincent play, Scorsese uses Phil Collins on the soundtrack singing "One More Night" as Eddie sits with a grin on face, lost in his own thoughts. Some of the lyrics go "Please give me one more night/ Give me one more night/ One more night/ Cause I can't wait forever". Clearly the song is a reflection of Eddie. What does "one more night" mean? One more night of youth? Of pool playing? Hustling? All of the above? Is it not a comment on mortality? What about "Cause I can't wait forever"? Time is fading for Eddie. What exactly can't he wait for? Money? The big score? A second chance? This sequence is perfect unto itself with the acting, the framing, the music. An entire story is being played out before your eyes.

Listen to the music now in the scene when Vincent agrees to hit the road with Eddie. By now Eddie has already started his head games. He has placed a seed in Vincent's head that Carmen is becoming restless with their relationship. Eddie, who claims to be a master of human moves, knows that's his ace in the hole. He can control Vincent through Carmen. Vincent and Carmen go back to the same bar they met Eddie at to give him their answer. As Vincent plays a game of pool, Eddie walks up to Carmen and whispers something in her ear. When he is done, Carmen leaves the bar. While this is going on Don Henley's "Who Owns This Place" plays. At the very moment Eddie whispers to Carmen, the lyrics "snakes in a garden" is heard. A reference to Adam and Eve of course and what does a snake represent in their story? We know who the two snakes are - Eddie and Carmen. Each tempting and manipulating Vincent to take a bite of the apple and act accordingly to their will.

Scorsese was one of the great voices of the "new Hollywood" in the 1970s but it is no secret the 1980s were shaky ground for him, just as it was for other great American filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola and Robert Altman. The freedom they had in the independent 70s was crushed by the corporatization and commercialization of the 1980s. Scorsese had fallen into a depression and became a drug addict. He thought his film career was over. Movies like "The King of Comedy" (1983) and "After Hours" (1985) didn't do much for his career and were box-office disappointments. "The Color of Money" was seen as Scorsese's first mainstream, commercial project. It is also said Newman had his pick of who would direct the picture. Could Scorsese have been attracted to this movie because he saw a tale of redemption and second chances in this story?

Even though it ever so gently grazes one of Scorsese's favorite themes - loyalty, "The Color of Money" isn't great Scorsese. Even with Paul Newman's performance this still isn't one of Scorsese's best movies. It is mid-tier Scorsese but it's effective and definitely worth taking a look at.

Film Review: The Jerk

 "The Jerk"  

*** (out of ****)

"The Jerk" (1979) is a sophomoric, lowbrow, and occasionally vulgar comedy! God bless it!

As I reflected on "The Jerk" my past memories organized the movie as a collection of vignettes that never quite equaled a whole. In other words, I really didn't remember a plot so much as a series of gags. As I watched the movie again that description is partially true but I now believe the movie is a kind of comedic riff on "Easy Rider" (1969) - a man going off on an adventure to "find himself".

In my memories "The Jerk" was very much a "Steve Martin comedy". Yes, him starring it in factors into that but I remembered the story and comedy being centered very much on Martin's sense of humor. He may not have directed the movie but it was his story. Again, in part, that description is true but I now see the hand of the movie's actual director, Carl Reiner, playing a part.

Ever since the legendary comedian Carl Reiner died two years ago, at the age of 98, I have been trying to deal with his death. He was a comedy hero of mine. Yes, he was 98 years old but his death still shocked me. It has led me to go back and examine his work, something I neglected to do while he was alive (I only reviewed three of his movies during that time). Reiner's movies were never really given a critical analysis. He wasn't deemed worthy of such an effort. He wasn't an artist. He wasn't celebrated in pop culture for his movies the way his contemporaries Mel Brooks and Woody Allen were. I began to wonder, was Carl Reiner a great comedy director? Was my admiration making me bias? Were Carl Reiner's movies actually about something? Could we apply the auteur theory to his work? And so, I rewatched his comedies with this in mind and sure enough I began to notice themes re-emerging through his comedies and I see hints of those central themes in "The Jerk".

Reiner's movies follow men going after their dreams. Those dreams usually center around breaking into show business and becoming famous. The more you learn about Reiner's life you soon realize how autobiographical this is. Carl Reiner was such a man that dreamed of  making it in show business, after working as a machinist as a young man. It became the only life he knew. Wasn't that really at the center of what his beloved sit-com, "The Dick van Dyke Show", was about? And we see this in his feature films like "Enter Laughing" (1967), "The Comic" (1969), "The One and Only" (1978), "Bert Rigby, You're A Fool" (1989) and sort of in "The Jerk". Our movie's hero, Navin Johnson (Martin) may not want to enter show business but he wants to become somebody.

Prior to the movie's release, Steve Martin was known as a stand-up comic, a "wild and crazy guy" that would wear an arrow going through his head prop and play the banjo. Martin would say he wanted his act to be as irrelevant as possible to counter the heavy mood of the times, post Vietnam. Ironically, he and Rob Reiner (who makes a cameo here) were writers on the Smother Brothers comedy show, known for its anti-Vietnam views. "The Jerk" would be Martin's acting debut in a feature-length movie and begin his collaboration with Carl Reiner. The two men would work on four comedies together, in perhaps what would be the most significant period of Reiner's directing career.

The strategy for "The Jerk" was something similar to what Woody Allen did ten years earlier or Jerry Seinfeld, Roseanne Barr, and Tim Allen a decade later - base material on a comedian's stand-up act. The appeal of the "early, funny" Allen comedies for example was to see the beloved persona Allen created further expanded and developed. The comedy would be in placing the character in unique settings (the future, 19th century Russia...etc). With Martin it was trying to find a character as zany as his act to sustain a 90 minute comedy. Martin didn't really develop a persona as much as an attitude or style. Allegedly the basis for the movie came from a line in Martin's act - "I was born a poor black child". From this Martin and co-writers (Carl Gottlieb and Michael Elias) created a character and a plot.

Reiner on the other hand had directed five feature length comedies. Unfortunately, none of them were box-office successes. Reiner's greatest commercial success at the time was "Oh, God!" (1977), which would rejuvenate the career of George Burns, introducing him to younger audiences. The movie would even score an Academy Award nomination but it would be for the movie's screenplay written by Larry Gelbart (who worked with Reiner back in the 1950s writing for the legendary comedian Sid Caesar). And Chicago's own Gene Siskel, film critic for the Chicago Tribune, would place the movie on his year's end top ten list (the only time Siskel would ever place a Carl Reiner movie on such a list)! But Reiner wasn't given credit for the movie's success. That largely went to George Burns and to a lesser extent co-star John Denver. This "oversight" would continue again with Reiner's collaboration with Martin. Because Martin is the face on the screen, audiences shower him with all the praise (and sometimes the criticism) with Reiner an afterthought. 

The premise for "The Jerk" is Navin Johnson, a young adult white male, was taken in by a Southern black family. On the day of his birthday, Navin learns the truth. His skin will never turn black ("you mean I'm gonna stay this color"?) and he was left at the family's doorstep. With this revelation Navin decides he must set out on his own and discover what else is out there in the world.

These opening sequences between Navin and his family go to great comedic exaggerations to present Navin not as a jerk but a simpleton while also engaging in racial stereotypes. For example Navin's favorite sandwich is on white bread and has mayo on it. The first time he hears music that speaks to him and allows him to discover "rhythm" is when he hears what the movie wants us to believe is "bland white music" (in reality it sounds like the kind of arrangement you would hear popular dance bands of the era play. Like something by Roger Wolfe Kahn or Guy Lombardo). This is meant to be in contrast to the "soulful" blues music he hears sung by the family on their front porch. While it may read offensive to young, liberal audiences (whom I'm sure aren't going to be watching this movie anyway) it all actually plays out quite funny. When Navin hears the band play "Crazy Rhythm" on the radio, for the first time ever he starts to snap his fingers to the beat and tap his foot. He wakes up the entire house to share in his accomplishment. It is after hearing this glorious music Navin decides if something like this is out there in the world, what other fantastic things are yet to be revealed to him.

His father (Richard Ward, a weak link in the cast. The character was written as not having much affection for his "son") attempts to "prepare" Navin for the world by taking the literal translation of the phrase not knowing "shit from shinola". Sufficiently groomed for the real world, Navin takes his first step on his exploration and plans to hitchhike a ride. After waiting most of the day for someone to drive by, the best he can do it hitch a ride to the end of his family's fence.

"The Jerk" has a comedy style I often associate with silent slapstick comedy - if it is funny, it will make it in the movie. It doesn't matter if it disrupts the movie's tone or pacing or interferes with character development. The main objective (really the only one) is to make the audience laugh. As such Navin is presented to be an absolute dim-wit, not able to grasp or adjust to basic societal functions. He has no idea how to socially interact with people or understand the ways of the world. He is Forrest Gump before there was Forrest Gump. And like "Forrest Gump" (1994), Navin's journey allows him to meet others that will help guide him. These people include his first boss (Jackie Mason), a business partner (Bill Macy), and love interests - Patty (Catlin Adams) and Marie (Bernadette Peters, who was dating Martin at the time).

Of course, if you are going to head out in the world to find out about life, you're going to have to learn about the ways of the heart. Plus, we could only follow Navin around for so long until the premise wears thin. The introduction of Marie helps kick the movie into another gear and allow more opportunities for jokes. Peters and Martin also have good on-screen chemistry. I particularly love a scene on the beach where Marie gets to display her the musical gifts (I won't spoil the joke). Marie also helps give the movie a goal for Navin to achieve - making Marie fall in love with him and holding on to her. Otherwise, how do you conclude a movie like this?

Although the movie is set in "modern times" (the 1970s) it has a kind of depression era comedy feel to it. I mentioned "Easy Rider" but if we really want to stretch our imagination we could also mention Steinbeck's classic, "The Grapes of Wrath". Like so many other depression era comedies, "The Jerk" tells the story of a man looking for prosperity. He hits on a get rich quick scheme when he invents a device that prevents glasses from falling off your face. It allows the movie to comment on the distinction between "old money" and the nouveau riche. Pay attention to a funny scene where Navin and Marie go to a fancy restaurant and are horrified to discover snails are on Marie's plate! It is the kind of thing you would find in a Three Stooges comedy. If that's too old of a reference for you, try "Caddyshack" (1980). If that's still too old of a reference for you, we can't be friends!

And that's the thing about comedies like "The Jerk". Audiences may quickly dismiss these movies as having dumb characters who do dumb things. That's not fair! It isn't easy to write a movie like "The Jerk" or "Airplane" (1980) or "The Naked Gun" (1988), movies that hang on a string of jokes. It takes great skill to make movies like this. Do you really believe Steve Martin is like the character he plays here? Did you think Leslie Nielsen was a bad actor? "The Jerk" is a smart movie and in its own way is making commentaries.

In another sign of the movie's intelligence, did you know the name Navin means "young" or "fresh" in Sanskrit? That kind of describes our lead character - young and innocent. Extremely naive. Do you want to write this off as a happy accident or intentional? How much credit are you willing to give the creative people involved in this movie? 

There are those that consider "The Jerk" one of the funniest movies of all-time. It made the American Film Institute's list of the funniest comedies ("100 Years...100 Laughs"), the British newspaper "The Guardian" singled it out as one of the 25 best comedies of all time, and in a Rolling Stones magazine reader's poll it was recognized as one of the 25 funniest comedies of all-time. For me, it's a step too far but I greatly admire what Steve Martin and Carl Reiner accomplished here.

For Martin and Reiner's next movie they would try to class things up a bit with a noir parody, "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" (1982), artistically it is superior and features great cinematography but laughwise there's nothing quite like what you find here. Does that make me a jerk for saying that?