1941 or Never Let Spielberg Near a Comedy

1941I finally managed to watch the film 1941. Before, I had never made it more than a half hour in because the beginning is so tedious. But now that I’ve seen the whole thing, I can say that in addition to the first half hour of tedium, there is also another two hours of tedium. It doesn’t really matter where you come into the film, you will see exactly the same thing: overcrowded, comedic action sequences that are hard to follow, and almost completely lacking in any wit. And each one of those sequences goes on for at least three to four times as long as anyone could be expected to watch.

What’s interesting about the film is that it is actually well made. It looks great and the acting is wonderful. This makes it all the more bizarre that with such onscreen comedic talent, the film could so consistently avoid being funny. John Belushi spends the whole film doing Bluto from Animal House but without anything to do that is actually funny. In the end, it isn’t clear at all who his character is supposed to be. But the same thing could be said for pretty much all the characters in the film. There are an enormous number of them and mostly, if it weren’t for costumes, it would be impossible to tell them apart. Indeed, Wally goes from zoot suit to navy uniform to army uniform and it takes some time to understand that he is the same character.

It is hard to fault the script, because I doubt it was written to be two and a half hours long. Some of the scenes in between the interminable action sequences are very funny. The best involve Joe Flaherty as the bandleader Raoul Lipschitz. There is a nice joke with the name. A woman asks him what his name is and he answer, “Raoul.” She says, “I knew it!” — apparently excited that he is a hot blooded Latino. Then he finishs, “Lipschitz.” But even better, after a (typically outrageous) brawl destroys the USO club, he signs off his radio broadcast with only a hint of sarcasm:

I’d like to thank all the GIs for helping make tonight’s evening such a… a memorable occasion. Maybe in the future we can have some negroes come in and we’ll stage a race riot… Right here.

But such bits are swamped by the rest of the film. And it isn’t just that the action sequences are long. They are mostly pointless. Much of the destruction that takes places is gratuitous. Army personnel shoot into crowds for no reason — of course no one dies. I’ve often complained about characters acting in odd ways for the sole purpose of furthering a plot. Well, that’s about all that happens in 1941. Things must be destroyed, so the characters act stupidly. Ned Beatty as Ward Douglas shoots a cannon at a submarine through his house rather than, I don’t know, moving the cannon a yard or two to the right.

Ultimately, what most misses in the film is that no one is well enough developed to actually care about. So it is just a bunch of action sequences and stunts that work in a technical sense but fail in any emotional sense. And the tragic thing is that the film could have been a hundred times better with a budget that was one-fifth. If there is a primary narrative in the film it is Wally and Betty’s forbidden love and the evil Corporal Sitarski’s apparent rape efforts. But nothing really comes of any of that, just like nothing comes of the narratives about any of the characters.

It is, however, curious how a film with so much comedic content could be so barren in terms of laughs. I think it is the editing. I think that Spielberg had the film cut as though it were just an action film. But even if there had been real life and death drama to pull the viewer along, I doubt it would have worked. Again, the characters are so poorly rendered I literally didn’t care what happened to anyone other than Betty who I may have only cared about because I have fatherly feelings about young women like her.

I wouldn’t have even written about the film, except that it still bothers me how much I didn’t like it. It isn’t that the film is bad. It is just that there is really nothing to grab onto in it. There is no point to it. But when I saw the filmmakers on a documentary on the DVD talking about how the film did well in Europe and how people like it a lot now, I thought these guys must be deluded. They were going for It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. What they made was a cinematic essay about how Steven Spielberg should never be allowed to direct a comedy.

Sergio Leone

Sergio LeoneOn this day in 1929, the great film director Sergio Leone was born. It’s rare that a filmmaker like Leone comes along. I wouldn’t call him a complete filmmaker like Akira Kurosawa — from whom Leone learned a great deal. Leone was a highly idiosyncratic filmmaker. There are a lot of fetishistic elements to his films — and I’m not just talking about his vaguely creepy sexual interests. There is something extremely sensual about the way he told stories. His films have a fascination with point of view. I think that is where his interest in extreme close-ups and long takes comes from.

There is one thing that I think we really need to clarify, however. I’m very fond of A Fistful of Dollars. But it is nowhere near as good a film as Yojimbo. There simply isn’t a single thing that Leone did better in remaking the film. And mostly, he did worse. But given that Yojimbo is both a great and a perfect film, that maybe doesn’t say much. But if you have never seen Yojimbo, you really should.

The Leone film that I like best is A Fistful of Dynamite. Most of Leone’s films are more about style than about substance. But this one is about something. Set during the Mexican Revolution, it turns a very cynical eye toward revolution as a means of progress. War means death — whatever the cause. And usually, the cause is just an excuse. Of course, personally, I have mixed feelings about the Mexican Revolution. I certainly admire a lot of the people involved in it, but in the end it didn’t come to much. And even today when Mexico is nominally a democracy, look who leads the country.

Here is the whole movie online. Watch it while it is available:

Happy birthday Sergio Leone!

Ben Kingsley

Ben KingsleyThe great actor Ben Kingsley is 71 today. He is probably best known for his Academy Award winning role in Gandhi. But that just shows what a crock the Academy awards are. They just love giving out awards to films that are about “important” subject. Leave it to Hollywood to make an important movie not just decades after Gandhi’s death, but also after Martin Luther King’s death. Kingsley was great in the film, but then he always is.

Most recently, he was absolutely great in Iron Man 3 — a film that literally had nothing else to recommend it. In it, he plays the Mandarin — a supposed terrorist who is, in fact, just a down on his luck actor with a weakness for drugs and women. You know: my hero! But don’t watch the film. It’s tiring. But Kingsley is great.

There are so many films where Kingsley shines that it is hard to list them all. I will just mention a few that you really must see. Obviously, Schindler’s List should be seen for a number of reasons, but his role as Itzhak Stern is the heart of the film. Another is Sexy Beast. And for a sweet one, there is Hugo.

One film that I love but bombed (probably because it is great) is War, Inc. Here is a scene, but John Cusack gets the best line, “I signed up to kill the bad ones! Health clinics, trade unionists, journalists, agricultural co-ops, Catholic liberation theologians, impoverished Colombian coffee farmers, these are the barbarians that are brave opponents of civilization. We turned Central America into a f**king graveyard. Whoever momentarily interrupts the accumulation of our wealth, we pulverize. I’m just not feeling good about that anymore, sir.”

But for a limited time only, two of my favorite Ben Kingsley films are complete and on YouTube. The first is Turtle Diary with Glenda Jackson. It’s one of those little gems that the studio can’t even be bothered to release on DVD. (It is available on VHS.) So you can be sure that that before too long, the studio will notice that it’s online and say, “We don’t care enough to sell this title, but we’ll be damned if we’ll let anyone watch it for free!” While it lasts my friends:

The second film is available on DVD (sadly not letterboxed), Without a Clue — I own it and watch it quite a lot. It is a reversal where it is really Watson who is brilliant and he’s hired an actor to play the part of Holmes. It isn’t great, but it’s sweet and very funny. Sadly, I can’t embed it, but you can watch it over on YouTube (but at least it is letterboxed).

Happy birthday Ben Kingsley!

Religious Offense and The Life of Brian

Life of BrianAs I’ve been on a Monty Python kick recently, I’ve revisted Life of Brian. It is the best thing that the group ever did — in terms of comedy, theme, and simple move making. It is a great film. But I don’t think we need to discuss that. Most people I know think that Life of Brian is the pinnacle of their work. What I find more interesting is the fact that the film was controversial. But my memory about it was vague. And I really wondered whether there was much of that. I know that there are silly people who get offended by any discussion of Jesus that isn’t reverential. But were they really upset about Brian? It is hard to believe.

The main reason that it is hard to believe is that the film is reverential toward Jesus. If you ask me, it tries rather too hard in this regard. There are only three instances where Jesus plays a role at all. The first is after the wise men mistake Brian for the Jewish savior. When we finally do see the baby Jesus, the whole scene is lit with halos of Mary and Joseph. The second time we see Jesus is at the Sermon on the Mount where he is portrayed with great seriousness by the fine Kenneth Colley, surround by hundreds of followers. And the only other time I recall him mentioned is when the ex-leper discusses how Jesus cured him and deprived him of his livelihood as a beggar. In all these cases, Jesus is presented as he is in the Bible. Brian is just this regular guy who lives at the same time.

But I think I know why the Christians got upset about the film. It isn’t the portrayal of Jesus that they have a problem with. It is that the film makes fun of fanaticism. It has no opinion about being fanatical about a good cause. But most people are just keen on following anything at all. And that is key, I think. Most Christians are only followers of Jesus for one reason: their parents were. So Life of Brian brings up a very uncomfortable question for Christians, “Does your belief make any more sense than the Heaven’s Gate cult?” To me it is very clear that the Heaven’s Gate cult makes a lot more sense because at least those in it, chose it rather than just accepting what they heard as children.

What’s remarkable, however, is that it wasn’t just your garden variety cultural Christian who had a problem with the film. In the follow interview from the time on Friday Night, Saturday Morning, Malcolm Muggeridge and Anglican Bishop Mervyn Stockwood debate John Cleese and Michael Palin. And they both make the argument that Brian is Jesus. I suppose that that is about the only argument that you can make. The truth isn’t going to fly. They just can’t say, “The film makes us look stupid.” But it does show that even those we think of as serious Christians really aren’t.

What’s perhaps most interesting in this interview is how angry Michael Palin is during this. By all accounts, Palin is a the nicest guy you would ever meet. But here, he really doesn’t seem to like the way that his work has been misinterpreted. Still, he maintains his composure. It speaks rather poorly of Christianity that Stockwood and most especially Muggeridge go out of their way to be offensive about the film. Muggeridge refers to it numerous times as being “tenth rate” and discusses how the film got easy laughs with four-letter words and nudity. That simply isn’t true. I suspect that his mind was as closed to the film as it was to his religion.

It was curious to be reminded of all this. I do wonder what Christians think they are doing by being so closed minded. But it goes right along with my thinking about religion. The general level of religious thought is so simplistic and useless that a film like Life of Brian really does act as a kind of criticism. And this debate serves the same purpose that the film itself does: the Pythons hold up a mirror to our society. In this case, they didn’t even say very much. The religious figures made the argument themselves. Regardless if one is a Christian or not, he must decide that he doesn’t want to be that kind of Christian. And that is the the main kind of Christian around.

Update (29 December 2014 8:30 pm)

Infidel753 reminded me of this great parody of the debate:

Jon Polito

Jon PolitoToday, the great character actor Jon Polito is 64 years old. I featured him last year for the birthday post, but there really is no one else I feel that I ought to talk about. It isn’t just that I admire his work. It is also that I’m extremely jealous of him. He has the kind of career that every actor ever wanted to have when they started out. Even though he’s still pretty young, he has over 200 entries on IMDb — and that doesn’t include multiple appearances on a single television show. He also has the sweet spot of fame: famous enough for it to be flattering, but not so famous that he can’t have a regular life.

Primarily, I think his is a great actor. There is depth in his performance that you just don’t find in a lot of established actors. I think it is interesting that in his scene with Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowski, he dominates. And I say that even as I think Bridges is an okay actor. Anyway, someone put together this nice comedy reel of Polito’s work. Check it out:

My favorite role of his is Johnny Caspar in Miller’s Crossing. He’s the heart of the film, because as much of a psychopath as he is, he’s the only one who has a sense of justice and right and wrong. Sadly, his opening speech about ethics is not online. But here is a little bit from the very end of it:

Happy birthday Jon Polito!

F W Murnau

F W MurnauOn this day in 1888, the great German filmmaker F W Murnau was born. He started in film right around the time when it had come into its all as an artistic medium. And his films are always quite beautiful to look at. He had a great eye. But he is best known for the mood of his work — he is one of major figures in German Expressionistic cinema. And like others in that movement, he was very interested in horror. This first film was based upon The Picture of Dorian Gray. He later did adaptations of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde and Faust.

He is best know, however, for his horror classic, Nosferatu, a Symphony of Horror — one of the first true horror films. Of course, like all of his films, he never got the rights to make the film. And in this case, it brought legal action from Bram Stoker’s widow. As a result, the film never had the chance to be commercially successful. But it is considered a classic today. All prints of the film were supposed to be destroyed. Luckily, one was saved.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of many of Murnau’s films. His first six films have been lost except for some minor fragments. And three of his later films are lost. This includes one he made in Hollywood, 4 Devils — which is thought by film historians to have been one of his best works. In all, he directed 21 films and nine of them are lost — almost half! That’s shocking for a major filmmaker of such a late date. And these are all feature films — 50 minutes and longer.

Still, you can find many of his films on the internet: Nosferatu, Faust, Tabu. And that’s a lot more than you can say for a lot of people. There are many whose films exist but no one cares enough to release them or put them online. I especially recommend checking out Tabu, because it shows a different side of Murnau than we normally see and you get a good feel for his keen visual sense.

Happy birthday F W Murnau!

Image Inconsistency in Rocky and Bullwinkle

Rocky and BullwinkleAs regular readers know, I am a huge fan of The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. I learned how to be a real man from Rocky — voiced by the beautiful and talented June Foray. And Bullwinkle is the prototype of all my close friends. (Oh, I’m kidding!) But most of all, I learned my philosophy of life, and I am very serious about this: it is much better to be lucky than smart. Most people throughout the world understand this philosophy, but Americans are strangely ignorant about it. They foolishly believe (despite all evidence including that from their own lives) that the world rewards talent and hard work. (Of course it does — as long as you are lucky.)

But all the time growing up, there was one thing that bothered me: animation inconsistencies. The show was produced in the United States. But all the animation was done in Mexico — an early example of outsourcing. And as is often the case in such situations, communication was not great. And it resulted in sequences that were clearly done at different times with little knowledge of each other. As a kid, the part that really bugged me was Rocky’s jump into the tub of water.

It starts with an image of a pool of water and the camera tilts up the ladder to a diving board where we see our plucky hero. But you can see it is very large pool — much wider than it is deep. We watch Rocky as he flies through the air. Then the image cuts to Bullwinkle, who is leaning against what is clearly a different water container — a tub now, not a pool. And this is very important because Bullwinkle could never have moved that pool around. See what I mean:

Bullwinkle tub

But there is another one that has bothered me a lot more as an adult. In the opening of “Aesop and Son” the titular characters are brunets. But once the story starts, they are blonds. As a brunet, I find it vaguely offensive. I’m sure the title sequence was created first. You can just imagine some executive saying, “Can’t we make those characters look more American?!” And by “American” he meant, “Someone who would fit right in at a a meeting of the Aryan Brotherhood.”

Aesop and Son

This is all due to the fact that The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show was made on a shoestring. And that is part of its charm. The animation is clunky. The writing is idiosyncratic. And they go together. Some of the visuals are inconsistent and some of the puns are unforgivable. “Parole out the barrel”?!

Rod Serling

Rod SerlingOn this day in 1924, the great writer and television producer Rod Serling was born. He served in the Pacific during World War II and after returning home, he went to Antioch College where he received his bachelor’s degree in literature. During his time there, he became involved in radio and so he began working in it. Soon, he moved to into television. Probably most notable during this career was the production of his teleplay, Requiem for a Heavyweight.

In 1959, Serling got to produce the series that he was best known for, The Twilight Zone. As great as Serling was as a writer, just important to the success of the show was his decision to work with Charles Beaumont and Richard Matheson. All three of them are among the best television writers ever — regardless of genre. And the shows hold up remarkably well even today.

Since it is Christmas, I have to mention what is by far the best Christmas show ever made, “Night of the Meek.” It was the ninth episode of the second season of The Twilight Zone. And it does a better job than anything else in summing up what I think Christmas is all about. Of course, I feel an extremely strong kinship with Henry Corwin (played by Art Carney). It’s beautiful.

I used to embed it, but the embed got taken down. Search Google for “Night of the Meek” and you will almost certainly find it.

After The Twilight Zone, Serling created Night Gallery. I still think it was a fine show — in many ways as good as The Twilight Zone. But Serling didn’t stay in charge of the series for very long and it rather quickly got terrible. But at first, it was great. And it was quite good for a while.

Before, I embedded the pilot, but of course, it always gets taken down. You can usually find it somewhere online. Also, I recommend checking out my page about the show on Psychotronic Review: Night Gallery.

Serling had heart trouble when he was only 50 years old. It quickly led to his death. I’m sure if he had lived at a later time, things would have gone better for him — and for us. Still, it is amazing how much great work he produced in his short lifetime. He really was a kind of Christmas present for our culture 90 years ago.

Happy birthday Rod Serling!

Rush Limbaugh’s Racist James Bond Thoughts

Rush LimbaughI have a very low opinion of Rush Limbaugh but I’ve always thought he was fairly smart. I don’t think that anymore. In the following audio from his show yesterday, he went on a seven minute racist tirade about the possibility that Idris Elba might be the next movie James Bond. You see, Elba is black and British and according to Limbaugh, “James Bond was white and Scottish, period.” But his concern is clearly not that Elba isn’t Scottish. And rightly so!

James Bond was never Scottish until the second to the last novel, You Only Live Twice. That was after Fleming saw Sean Connery in Dr No. So Fleming, being the total hack that he was, just went along with. So Bond was Scottish just because the first actor cast to play him in a movie was Scottish. The second actor, George Lazenby, was Australian. The third, Roger Moore, was English. The fourth, Timothy Dalton, was Welsh. The fifth, Pierce Brosnan, was Irish. And the current, Daniel Craig, is English. So it is good that Limbaugh doesn’t have a problem with Elba being English, since the majority of the actors who played Bond have been English and the majority of the films have featured an English actor.

Idris ElbaBut we do know from the very first novel that Bond is probably white. In Casino Royale, a character says, “Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless.” (It’s funny how much that reminds me of the artless style of Ayn Rand.) I’m terrible with faces, but I do know enough to see that having a different skin color doesn’t preclude people from looking like each other. Elba does have a slightly broader nose than Carmichael — but it isn’t extreme. And it is no more out of keeping than Pierce Brosnan’s nose. As far as I can tell, Roger Moore is the best model and Daniel Craig is the worst. I wonder if Rush Limbaugh had a problem when Craig was cast for the part. “James Bond looked like Goagy Carmichael, period!”

Of course, what Limbaugh is really bothered about is that Elba might get this job out of some sense of racial fairness. Because we can’t make this about race because, as Charlie Pierce says, it is never about race. Limbaugh doesn’t like the idea that we are being forced to think in terms of race. To cast a successful and charismatic black actor as James Bond isn’t a craven attempt to revitalize what was a tired franchise by the late 1960s. No, it is affirmative action designed for no other purpose than to make Rush Limbaugh and other right thinking dittoheads uncomfortable. Those evil Hollywood liberals!

Most of his rant is a long list of famous black people with Limbaugh’s ideas for what white actors ought to play them. Somehow, he thinks that a white actor playing Obama is exactly the same as a black actor playing a fictional character in a film that is not based on any of the novels. He does mention towards the end of the rant that some people would notice that these are not the same things. But he does so, just to deflect criticism that might come, before continuing on with his list. He provides no reason for thinking that the criticism is not completely justified. That’s because the criticism is completely justified.

Limbaugh also gets sidetracked along the way with The Bishop’s Wife and the fact that it was remade with black actors in the leads as The Preacher’s Wife. Limbaugh doesn’t think this is just another example showing that Hollywood is completely devoid of any new ideas. Rather, it was some kind of payback. It was a big “Screw you!” from Denzel Washington to Cary Grant. I don’t know if you are aware of this, but Dudley (the angel) was white and English, period. It is clear that all of this is vaguely disturbing to Limbaugh but he isn’t sure why. But I am: it’s because Rush Limbaugh is a bigot. He really should spend some time considering just why black spies and angels bother him so much.

Personally, I don’t think we should stop at race — especially given that it is only a social construct. I think we should move on to different species. When they make I Was a Hypocritical Dope Fiend: the Rush Limbaugh Story, I see no reason that we should use a human for the role. But I don’t think this because I want equality among the species. I just think other species could better capture the essence of the man. Rather than going with something obvious like a domestic pig or a hyena, I thought something more accurate: a deadly virus. It does seem to be self-limiting. But it has done vast damage. And continues to do it. I image dittoheads all over the country sitting in their cars yesterday, “Yeah! How dare those Hollywood liberals upset the racial purity of James Bond! And Cary Grant!”

Nicholas Meyer

Nicholas MeyerThe great film writer and director Nicholas Meyer is 69 years old today. You probably know him because he wrote and directed the two best Star Trek movies: The Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country. They are probably the best ones because Meyer was not a Star Trek fan. Of the former film, he got to the heart of what’s wrong with the series (and even more so the later versions), “I didn’t insist that Captain Kirk go to the bathroom, but did Star Trek have to be so sanctified?” Clearly not.

Meyer hasn’t worked as a director in a long time. I think he’s always seen himself as a writer. He did recently write that four-hour History Channel series Houdini. I didn’t see it, but my father really enjoyed it. It’s interesting that he should have come to prominence because of the Sherlock Holmes novel, The Seven-Per-Cent Solution. Houdini and Arthur Conan Doyle were friends — at least until all the mystical stuff ripped them apart.

What I’m most interested in is Meyer’s made-for-television film, The Day After. That was the one that was about nuclear war and how horrible it would be. I never saw it. I didn’t feel the need. Didn’t we already know? Plus, Threads provided more than enough information. (My understanding is that The Day After is rosy compared to Threads.) After the film, I guess they had a discussion with Carl Sagan on the anti-nuke side, and William F Buckley, always on the wrong side of history, pushing for the importance of nukes.

Normally, these kinds of issue films are totally worthless — preaching to the choir. But in this case, the film had a very special viewer: President of the United States Ronald Reagan. Apparently, it is not true that Reagan sent a message regarding the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to Meyer saying, “Don’t think your movie didn’t have any part of this, because it did.” But Reagan (along with much of his staff) was apparently greatly affected by the film. He wrote in his journal that it was “very effective and left me greatly depressed.”

Let’s revisit Khan’s great Melville death:

Happy birthday Nicholas Meyer!

The Man Who Would Be King

The Man Who Would Be KingHaving watched Zulu recently, I decided to watch another film with red coats in it, The Man Who Would Be King. I’d never seen it before and I was interested — especially because it was directed by John Huston. And I can see why he wanted to make the film: it is epic. And it was a chance to make his generation’s Gunga Din. Just the same, I don’t really think the film works very well.

There are things to like about the film. The main thing is that it is a gorgeous film. That isn’t just because of all the beautiful locations. It is also despite all the beautiful locations. When movies started moving out to location shooting, it caused a problem. Movies began to present places like Egypt as they were instead of how they ought to have been. The Man Who Would Be King gets the best of both worlds with actual locations and wonderful sets. The designs by Alexandre Trauner and their implementation by Tony Inglis are stunning. The costumes by Edith Head are also great — simple but beautiful.

Also of note in the film is the vaudeville act that is Sean Connery and Michael Caine. They really are good as a couple of lovable rogues. And they are what give the film a feel of Gunga Din: Victor McLaglen and Cary Grant in color! The problem in this regard is that when they are not in the film, the entire experience seems hollow. And poor Christopher Plummer is so constrained in his part that he hardly leaves a mark. That’s saying something for one of the most charismatic actors of his generation. On the plus side, Saeed Jaffrey as Billy Fish is really good in the Gunga Din part.

What most fails in the film is the script. It is entirely too dependent upon narration. This isn’t just a problem with drawing attention to the fact that Peachy is telling the story, and thus taking the viewer out of the narrative. Even more, the entire story telling is dependent upon the narration. It is as though Huston and co-writer Gladys Hill never figured out how to translate Kipling’s novella to a visual framework. There is far too much inexplicable action followed by Peachy’s voice-over explaining what had happened. And when it isn’t done with narration, it is done with dialog as when Preachy explains that the avalanche has created a bridge for them to pass or when Danny explains that the arrow was stopped by his bandolier.

The bigger problem with the film is in stark contrast to Zulu. This film is racist. This is entirely due to the filmmakers’ decision to follow the novella so closely. Whereas the Zulu are portrayed from the outside and as the enemy, they are always rational. But the local people here are not. And the entire plot is dependent upon them not being rational or loyal. For example, at one point Preachy tells Danny that they must go to see the religious leader Kafu Selim, or else their own men will turn on them. Ultimately, the local people were not given the dignity of being anything but a plot device.

Still, the film is marginally worth watching. If it shows up on television, it is worth a look. As I said, it is wonderful to look at. And much of it does work rather well. But there are so many films that are more worth watching. Like Gunga Din.

George Roy Hill

George Roy HillOn this day in 1921, the great American film director George Roy Hill was born. I always associate him with William Goldman’s book Adventures in the Screen Trade. The entire chapter on directors consists of the following sentence, “Some of my best friends are directors.” This sentence did have a footnote where Goldman explained that directing was a hard job — not like a theoretical physicist’s job is hard, but like a coal miner’s job is hard. And he noted that directors help everyone involved in the production. His point was that we have mythologized directors and that given all the other creative minds on a film, the director is not that important. He has a vision of the film director that is more like that of a theater director: the person who manages all the creative activity. I agree with this vision to a large extent. And this is the kind of director that George Roy Hill was.

To a large extent, the film directors who are considered “auteurs” are generally the ones who talk a certain way. There is no doubt that someone like Jon Jost absolutely is the author of his own films. But it is hard to make that claim even for David Cronenberg, much less Martin Scorsese. This doesn’t say anything about the quality of the films these three men make — they all produce films that are without exception worth making and are sometimes great. But $100 million budgets are collaborations. Regardless, I don’t think that Scorsese has a more distinctive visual style than Hill does.

Of course, the thing is that Hill does have a distinctive style. Or rather: his films have a distinctive visual style. It is just that no one fetishizes that style. But as a result of that, Hill’s films tend to age better. I know for a lot of people, Goodfellas is a favorite film. To me, it is almost un-watchable; it is filled with tricks that Scorsese would (gratefully) eventually get over or refine. (I think Scorsese is at his best in films like The Age of Innocence and Bringing Out the Dead and Kundun.) Hill doesn’t have that problem.

So let’s look at a few of his classic films — and I will be ignoring a number of others! First is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid — one of the greatest westerns ever made. (I want to say “the greatest” but that’s hard.) In a sense, that is William Goldman’s film, because it is drenched in his sensibility. Just the same, it looks and feels like a Hill film. It was a collaboration of a lot of great people, including Burt Bacharach. But Hill brought it all together in a film I still love watching.

Do I need to mention The Sting? Maybe we should just move on to The Great Waldo Pepper. When I was a kid, I didn’t much like it. But it ages well. Also: it helps to be an adult. This trailer makes it seem like it’s a comedy, but it really isn’t. It’s an interesting film about a man trying to find meaning in life. But it is done in a very Hollywood (false) way:

Other films that are well worth watching include: Slap Shot, A Little Romance, and The Little Drummer Girl. I will say nothing about the Chevy Chase film, because I haven’t seen it. But let’s take a look at The World According to Garp, which is still a joy to watch:

Happy birthday George Roy Hill!