Serpico

Dir: Sidney Lumet

1973

*****

It is astonishing now to think that Sidney Lumet started principle photography on his 1973's classic only twelve months after Serpico's resignation from the Police Force. Based on Peter Maas's biography of NYPD officer Frank Serpico, it tells of his twelve year undercover operation to expose corruption in the New York Police Department at the expense of his career, relationships and almost his life. It's the perfect neo-noir crime drama, a classic 70s masterpiece and one of Sidney Lumet's best. It was a huge success, owing to its faultless direction, the razor sharp script and Al Pacino's captivating performance. It was nominated for pretty much every award going that year. The NYPD were apparently very helpful, Sidney Lumet was assigned two officers to assist him while filming and when they found out that the film would be less glorified and more truthful and gritty, they couldn't be more happy to offer their help and share their experiences. Pacino played it method all the way, which I imagine must have been difficult, given that the film was filmed in reverse, so he could begin the filming with long hair and big beard and slowly cut it short until he was short back and sides and clean shaven. Even though the end of the film states that Serpico was in hiding, somewhere in Switzerland. The truth is that Serpico didn't care much for Swiss life and came back to New York soon after. After accepting the role, Al Pacino invited Serpico to live with him to understand his stance, copy his mannerisms and do the role justice. After the two became friends Serpico wanted to spend more time on set, to act as an adviser and to make sure everything was authentic but producer Martin Bregman had to 'hurt his feelings' as he put it and order him off the set as he believed his presents was too much of a distraction to the cast and crew. Lumet let the actors play their parts naturally and Pacino improvised a fair bit, especially in one particularly explosive scene whereby Serpico is told by his captain that the investigation is going to be aborted. Pacino is utterly convincing, in many films you can't help but only see the actor but not with Pacino, here he is most certainly Frank Serpico. It is impossible to see anyone else in the role, although bizarre as it sounds, Serpico was intended for Paul Newman and Robert Redford, following on from their success with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Redford was to be Serpico and Newman was going to be his lawyer friend David Durk (renamed Bob Blair in the finished film and played by Tony Roberts). As much as I love the two actors, I can't see it, it would have been a totally different film that wouldn't have done the story justice. Pacino knew Serpico, he lived and breathed the role. He later said that when asking Serpico why he did what he did, he answered "Well Al, I don't know. I guess I would have to say it would be...if I didn't, who would I be when I listened to a piece of music?". I think I understand that, thanks to Pacino, who certainly knows what it means. Al Pacino has since said that he considers Serpico to be one of his greatest achievements as an actor and I agree one hundred percent, with maybe only his role in The Godfather Part II and Dog Day Afternoon coming close or breaking even. A masterpiece and one of the decades very best.

Network

Dir: Sidney Lumet

1976

*****

Sidney Lumet was a master director, his film, based on Paddy Chayefsky's brilliant script, is easily one of the best of the 1970s and indeed, of all time. It's a rich satire and black comedy, a masterpiece in the genre and the one movie that all political films, whether they be satirical or not, now look up to. It has also become something of an eerie prediction. It has often been mistakenly reported that Chayefsky was inspired by the real life on-air suicide of Christine Chubbuck in 1974 (Chubbuck, who was suffering from manic depression, calmly read the news but when a reel of film about a nearby shooting at a restaurant jammed she quipped "In keeping with Channel 40's policy of bringing you the latest in blood and guts, and in living colour, you are going to see another first - a live suicide" at which point she pulled out a gun and shot herself in the head) but the truth is that Chayefsky had already written the suicide part of Network before the event, it was just an eerie coincidence. However, the way the media work, the manipulation, dishonesty and underhand goings on is as old as the newspapers but quite how low they are prepared to go is clearer now all these years later and yet nothing has actually changed, if anything, it has got worse. Whoever controls the news controls everything, from what people buy to how people vote and seeing a veteran news anchor explain this in a mid-air breakdown as the brilliant Peter Finch does, is quite exhilarating. Howard Beale is undoubtedly one of the greatest movie characters ever written, Finch, in his last ever role, certainly did him justice. After learning he is about to get the axe due to a lack of ratings, after many years of service, Beale gets drunk and comes to work the next day and threatens to kill himself live on air on his last day. He is sacked instantly but when the network learn just how big the ratings were during his outburst they give him his own show. He soon becomes a people's champion, adopting the famous 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore' tagline. His show becomes almost evangelical and people flock to see him. Meanwhile, his friend and colleague Max Schumacher (the great William Holden), who is deeply worried and protective of his friend, enters into an affair with the Network's head of programming Diana Christensen (the brilliant Faye Dunaway), who is developing a radical new documentary series following global terrorist organisations. When the news that the Network is about to be bought out by the Saudis, Beale calls for viewers to stand against the merger and the Network gets nervous. Eventually the powers that be, the collective 'Network' find a solution to the problem that Schumacher brilliantly describes as "Television incarnate. Indifferent to suffering, insensitive to joy. All of life is reduced to the common rubble of banality". The script is just incredible, the collective cast of truly great actors certainly did it justice but I wonder if anyone could make it sound bad. It remains an incredibly important film and one that changed the way films were approached in many respects. I'm a huge fan of satire but it only works when performed properly and I'm not sure Network has or will ever be matched. The most masterful thing about it is that as well as holding up the mirror to the TV news networks, it also makes the audience turn and look at themselves. You know something is bad for you and yet you still pay for it, consume it and ask for more. TV in the 70's is almost art compared to the garbage that would follow in the next couple of decades, in this sense Network was way ahead of the times. At the time, the critics accused the film of attacking its own audience, which is quite absurd and totally misses the point. Today, the film is considered a classic, one of the best of all time, and yet TV news is worse and we're still buying it, making the film something of a tragic masterpiece.

The Anderson Tapes
Dir: Sidney Lumet
1971
****
Sidney Lumet's The Anderson Tapes represents the beginning of a sub-genre that was quite prolific in the 1970's; the surveillance thriller. The story begins with some old-school crooks getting out of jail. Old habits die hard and the men decide to rob each apartment of an exclusive apartment block. The plan is ultimately flawed as the use of electronic recording equipment, CCTV etc has developed much further than they had though while in prison. The film reflects a mood of futility, paranoia and pervasiveness that only the audience (society) are attuned to, the characters themselves represent the old fashioned and naive. It's an interesting exploration of the ethics of surveillance. Our thieves are anti-heroes, we want them to 'get away with it' but at the same time we know what they are doing is wrong. Lawrence Sanders, who wrote the novel, is commenting on the ethics of the new wave of technological surveillance, Sidney Lumet takes it one step further and shows film lovers just how this will change cinema and the thriller genre. It's a fascinating document of that time and interesting to look back on seeing as it was released just a couple of years before the Watergate scandal. It also represents a new style of cinematography. For the first time the audience sees the turn of events as captured on CCTV, heightening the paranoia and adding to the realism. It's been reproduced and developed many time since but The Anderson Tapes still remains one of the best accomplished. The film also represents the great Christopher Walken's first feature and an impressive debut it is too. It's slick, a little flawed in places but overall a great 70's thriller. It represents a big change for thrillers, different from everything that came before and everything that came after, making it quite a unique piece of cinema.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Dir: Sidney Lumet
2007
***
A heist film that is all about the people more than the heist itself. Personally, I like heist films when they are about the heists themselves, I like a clever crime thriller, if I want personal drama I usually look elsewhere but in Lumet we trust. The multi-layered juxtaposition and somewhat repetitious jump from one scene to the next was not easy viewing for me, I'm not sure it added anything to the film overall, but what was really good were the performances from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Albert Finney. Not so much from Ethan Hawke though sadly, it's a miss this time for the hit & miss actor I'm afraid. My favourite thing in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead though is Marisa Tomei. I love that woman.

Find Me Guilty
Dir: Sidney Lumet
2006
****
Sidney Lumet back in the courtroom, sadly for the last time. It's an impressive last outing though, with Vin Diesel putting in what is easily has best performance to date. I've said some unkind things about his acting in the past but I now eat my own words. He was and can be, when given the chance, really good. I really loved the story, it's funny and clever and never predictable. Sidney Lumet was a great, sadly missed

Q & A
Dir: Sidney Lumet
1990
***
The fact that Q&A is a Sidney Lumet film only opens it to more scrutiny than it probably really deserves. It's another corrupt NYC police movie among many. I've seen worse, I've seen better. Nick Nolte is however on fine form, larger than life and as terrifying as ever, our protagonist Timothy Hutton however, is a little less well written. It's never clear whether he is naive or just acting naive, I'm not sure this is intentional either. The other problem (Columbo fans may disagree) is that we already know the outcome at the end of the film, we know who did what and we know that they'd eventually find out. The conclusion however was a nice surprise and probably puts it in the above average category, however it is only a fleeting flash of how great Lumet could be.