Friedkin

Fenster writes:

I have long been a fan of William Friedkin’s movies.  Sure he has made his share of turkeys, but they are not that great in number.  And I have found a lot to like even among the films the critics have tended to beat on, like Jade.  And even when he veers from films that have a Friedkin aura into more mainstream projects, like Rules of Engagement, I think he pulls them off quite well.

For some reason I don’t think he ever got the attention he deserved among the rising Young Turk directors of the 70s.  He didn’t have Spielberg’s sunny optimism and way with audience affections.  He didn’t have the art pretensions of Coppola.  And he didn’t quite have the downscale genre affectations that would endear critics like Kael to directors like De Palma (Kael apparently didn’t like Friedkin or many of his films).  But there is something of a Friedkin sensibility, and it runs off and on throughout the length of his career.

Here are a few scenes from three of his movies that seem to stick with me, and for similar reasons.

Take this scene from the underappreciated and truly great Sorcerer (1977).  The film was a remake of the Clouzot classic The Wages of Fear, and the critics never warmed to even the idea of an American remake of a French classic.  But it is a thrilling ride.

Some other director might add heroism and glory to the squalid proceedings but, fully in keeping with The Wages of Fear‘s existential roots, Friedkin makes no such concessions.  It’s brutal all the way, with four hardened losers on the run, strangers to one another, running extremely dangerous explosives through the South American jungle to reach a blown-out oil rig.  In the scene below, it’s near the end of the film and the harrowing journey, and two of the characters are just, just, just beginning to make human contact with one another.  The way their conversation comes to an abrubt end is totally unsentimental and unromantic.  Spielberg might have milked a scene like this for all it is worth in emotional terms, and the Bruckheimer version would be all razzle-dazzle,  pumping music score and multiple explosions.  Here it is cut-cut-boom that’s the way it goes.  Scene around 1:41:35.

Link here.

And here is the near-final scene in To Live and Die in LA.  William Petersen, the main character, is a detective in LA.  In standard genre style, he is a not-so-good guy up against even worse guys.  So when he and the bad guys meet, he may learn a lesson but he’ll end up on top, usually in a blaze of glory, high drama and neat-o explosions.  Right?  Not so fast.

Link here.

Also a very unsentimental, unromantic end.  Cut-cut-bang and it’s over.  In fact so quick and brutal that whoever put together the YouTube video above felt that need to show the shotgun blast to William Petersen several times over, following movie convention that if one explosion good many explosion better.  But the Friedkin version in the film doesn’t feel the need to repeat the shot.  Bang.

And think of poor Father Merrin.  You’d think when you issue a command from God, it will be obeyed, Harry Potter style.  Here, in The Exorcist, the chant “the power of Christ compels you!” does no such thing.  Yes, Linda Blair settles eventually to the bed, but it is hard, hard work for the two priests, who cannot be certain what the outcome of their spell is likely to be.

All in all, a lot of good stuff.  See Sorcerer if you have not already.

About Fenster

Gainfully employed for thirty years, including as one of those high paid college administrators faculty complain about. Earned Ph.D. late in life and converted to the faculty side. Those damn administrators are ruining everything.
This entry was posted in Movies. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Friedkin

  1. junedentzer says:

    His more recent Bug is extremely compelling, and I’m anxiously awaiting the chance to see Killer Joe

    Like

  2. Agree with you completely. (Plus: I liked “Jade” pretty well too.) He’s a really interesting filmmaker. Nearly all of the Friedkins I’ve seen have been pretty dynamic and juicy. Double-loved “To Live and Die in L.A.” And he’s having a great period in his 70s, which is pretty amazing for any filmmaker. I loved “Killer Joe”, for instance. (And “Bug” too.)

    Like

  3. Fenster says:

    his work can get under your skin (i.e., the final scenes of Sorcerer, for instance), so his taking on of Bug was entirely appropriate.

    Like

  4. Sax von Stroheim says:

    Glad to see that there are a number of Friedkin fans here. “To Live and Die in L.A.” is one of my all time favorites. It’s a tough guy neo-noir, that doesn’t get caught up in the all the B.S. romanticizing of most examples of the genre (for instance, the films of Michael Mann), yet it still provides everything you’d want from a good thriller. That is: Friedkin isn’t interested in “deconstructing” anything, but rather in trying to show whatever it is he’s decided to show with all of the messiness intact.

    Like

  5. Toddy Cat says:

    I took a date to see “Sorcerer” in High School. I loved it, but as for her – well it was pretty much over after that. Looking back on it, it was worth it – girls are a dime a dozen, but really good movies are rare.

    Like

  6. Pingback: “Sorceror” | Uncouth Reflections

  7. Pingback: Notes on “Sabotage”, and Triggers | Uncouth Reflections

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s