So I had been contemplating checking out some cinema that would enhance my overall aesthetic well-being and extend my appreciation of art’s human dimensions, and stuff, but there was this brand-new Blu-ray of WIlliam Friedkin’s To Live and Die in L.A. that had just come in under the transom, and sometimes the heart wants what it wants, so I settled in and had a good wallow. The 1985 picture remains very impressive in very many respects—great early Willem Dafoe, to name just one thing—but I can’t say that it’s exactly got the quality of timelessness. But that’s part of what makes it such a kick; it’s kind of a compendium of things I miss, and don’t miss, about ’80s crime thrillers.
I certainly DON’T MISS those opening credits that juxtapose “bold” cursive script with big block letters, for one thing.
I rather DO MISS certain oddball casting choices in supporting roles, such as Robert Downey as in “A Prince” Robert Downey, that is, Sr., the great director, in the role of the head of the impossibly uptight bureaucratic Secret Service office…
I DON’T MISS bad dialogue looping, as in this scene wherein Mr. PANKOW’s character visits a corrupt lawyer played by Dean Stockwell, who apparently can articulate whole sentences with a cigar in his mouth. Here he is describing the problems inherent in a particular warrant.
I DO MISS, weirdly enough, the near-nihilistic cynicism inherent in the worldview of certain such films, not because I agree with it but because it could lead to certain bold choices in the storytelling, as in what happens to the film’s putative hero (named Chance!) after he releases this particular round. It’s kind of surprising!
And finally, I DO MISS the frankness about sex and sexuality and the almost casual willingness to go with the sleaze (see also Frankenheimer’s 52 Pick Up, which applies to several of these made-up categories) in any and all cases. Who would believe, incidentally, that the smoldering number seen here would go on to play the utterly sweet Daphne on Frasier, huh? Yes, that is Jane Leeves, then spelling her name “Leaves.”
And it is also entirely possible that such a mix of ingredients could only really work in its time. Consider that Friedkin tried to concoct a similar mix ten years later with Jade and fell flat on his directorial face. Was it a failure of talent, or was he just a man out of time? It’s an interesting question.
god, i love this movie. don’t forget the excellent wang chung soundtrack.
I haven’t seen this movie since I was a kid, and I had not idea that was Jane Leeves…oh my stars.
Friedkin is almost an “interesting question” all by himself. I watched THE FRENCH CONNECTION again recently, and it holds up beautifully, while THE EXORCIST is, to me, the gold standard of, at least, modern horror filmmaking. And then what? A lot of his films have their supporters, but nothing again like that mid-70s stuff. Except BUG is pretty darn good, and, damn it, so is THE HUNTED. He can be so precise, and his eye can be so beautiful, when he’s not spinning his wheels and burning bridges.
Glenn, I always enjoy reading your blog, though, occasionally, I regret checking it out at work. What if my boss were to walk by just in time to see me scrolling down to a picture of a spread-eagled Daphne Moon?
@ Matt: Oops, sorry. I figured that, as she was clothed, it would be okay. Clearly I need to get some kind of office job again, as my sense of “safe for work” has gone all askew…
i love this movie but the looped dialogue distracts me through the whole movie on dvd. i certainly didn’t notice it was that bad in the theater.
also, your “safe for work” seems fine by me. rowrrr.
Yeah, that ain’t “spread eagle”. Wishing it was will not make it so.
The more I think about The Hurt Locker, the more I appreciate what TO LIVE AND DIE does with its take on an “adrenaline junkie”.
What Bill said in re: early Friedkin, and I’ve opined enough on my love for Sorcerer on this site to hold me (possibly you, as well) for a few years.
How spectacularly Mr. Billy went off the rails prior to/following Live/Die (Deal of the Century, Blue Chips, et., you’d better believe, cetera), which is, as you observe, truly an epicenter for sui generis 80’s-ness. Starting with Mr. Peterson, who I’ve never watched on this CSI program the kids cvontinue to like on the television but who impressed me again recently when watching Mr. Mann’s Manhunter, notably his scenes with Brian Cox and Kim Griest (WEHT her?). Also, the neon cursive blocked Mr. Pankow, doing time “also starring” here and in excitable period pulp like Romero’s Monkey Shines and Stone’s Talk Radio.
As to Friedkin’s failure – not to have it both ways, but maybe, he ended up both outta time AND talent? Hard to know how he went from some of the finest films of the 70’s to some of the worst films of subsequent decades. Cf. Woody Allen directing both Annie Hall and Anything Else? Jim McBride going from David Holzman’s Diary and Glen and Randa to Great Balls of Fire. Add your own examples of directors so in-tune with the times early on and embarrassingly not working at a peak thereafter. Time marches on, sometimes with deterioration in its wake.
That said, I do want to see Bug. Sort of.
BUG is worth seeing, and I liked it quite a bit, though I make no guarantees. Also, oh yeah, SORCERER…that’s a great one, that I think we’ve agreed on here before.
Just for the sake of neurotic clarification: THE EXORCIST and THE SHINING are in a dead-heat as the gold standard for modern horror filmmaking.
Ah Glenn. Love you, loved this post, but…only a man could write about this movie with nary a mention of the hotness that once was William Petersen.
Jane who?
Love this movie. Don’t know if I need it on Blu-Ray; my “special edition” DVD from a few years back holds up just fine. Really wish Sorcerer would get the same treatment – hell, if they could reissue Cruising in a nice widescreen print with commentary track etc., why not what I really do think is Friedkin’s best movie? And yeah, I’ll stick up for Bug, too.
Bill, I agree with you re: THE SHINING but don’t share the love for EXORCIST– it was brilliant in parts but mostly left me bored. I actually think Paul Schrader’s prequel is a much, much stronger film: deeper, scarier and more audacious.
Admittedly, I am someone who actively dislikes most of Friedkin’s work. I’m not sure if I can exactly articulate why, which is why I don’t participate too much in Friedkin discussions, and I have been meaning to give his films another shot– which is something I’ve been doing with Rohmer, who I must say I’m getting more out of then I did oh-so-many years ago.
And reading through the Biskind book recently gave me a new appreciation for Friedkin the man– there was something just so cheerfully, enthusiastically crass about the quotes attributed to him that I couldn’t not like him, kinda like how you can’t hate John Falstaff and Eric Cartman. If for no other reason than that, I plan on approaching his films again.
@ The Siren: It’s interesting; with the exception of Pankow’s character, who I think is mean to be a bit epicene if anything at all, the sexuality/sexiness of all the main characters is a crucial part of the narrative. There’s that notorious first kiss between Dafoe’s character and the one played by Debra Feuer, who I think is doubled by a man in the first of the two shots to create the necessary illusion. And Petersen’s hotness of the day was used in a really interesting way. He’s less sleek than Dafoe, a little softer, rounder-cheeked, and it adds to his toughness a kind of callowness that works on the character in a fascinating way; the character played by Darlanne Fleugel seems somehow harder than his. Indicative of Friedkin’s thorough engagement with this project is the way he’s always juggling these various opposing qualities of the characters throughout the picture
Speaking of Friedkin and William Petersen, CSI hired Friedkin to direct two episodes of the show and seemed to let him have his head. He added an over the top hallucinatory quality to those episodes (especially the second) that almost made it possible to ignore the formulaic scripts – and, of course, anything you do to mess with CSI has got to be an improvement (as in Quentin Tarentino’s episode). In any case, these are worth tracking down for the dedicated Friedkin fan.
I’d be willing to make the case that the storytelling in TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. is crisper, more coherent than in the still potent THE FRENCH CONNECTION.
Petersen’s one-two punch of L.A. and MANHUNTER is still astonishing.
I’ll also defend JADE. I saw it recently and realized that Friedkin’s direction is quite good. He nails the atmosphere of sleaze and perversity beautifully. It’s just too bad that the screenplay by Joe “She-fucked-me-so-I’m-gonna-fuck-her Ezsterhaus is an utter mess.
His made-for-Showtime remake of 12 ANGRY MEN is vastly underrated. Amazingly, George C. Scott gives a weak performance, while Tony Danza quite good.
And Friedkin directed two episodes of CSI and, like Tarantino, brought life to the show.
Friedkin’s worst film remains the morally offensive RAMPAGE.
What a movie. I saw it on my cousin’s (a fellow movie buff) recommendation years ago. For the first 2/3, I was dumbfounded at what seemed to be an exceedingly sleazy, formula action film, admittedly with some nice auteurial touches here and there (like the Feuer male double thing, for instance).
Then the thing you refer to as “what happens to the film’s putative hero (named Chance!) after he releases this particular round” occurs. And I just about pissed my pants with the giddy laughter one gets when a film transcends whatever hopes one might have had for it. Talk about game-changer. And it reframes all of the wild 80s joyride action setpieces that I wrote off only minutes before.
PS: To borrow a phrase from the Siren, what happened to “the hotness that once was” Darlanne Fleugel? Leone’s ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, Mann’s CRIME STORY television series, this film, and not a word since.
I’ve always wanted to see that 12 ANGRY MEN remake. Also, I liked RAMPAGE. Sue me. It is, in fact, a personal favorite, though I haven’t seen it in a very long time (don’t think there’s ever been a DVD).
Tom – I don’t know, man. I was bored stiff by Schrader’s movie. When I heard it got Blatty’s seal of approval, I got very excited, but it really let me down. It was better than that other prequel by what’s-his-name, but not by much.
If you’re bored by the original EXORCIST, I don’t know what to tell you. I think as a piece of directing it’s abosultely brilliant (and deeply influenced Blatty’s own two, excellent, directing efforts) – patient, and attentive to the small details, and strangely, creepily orderly (I don’t know quite what I mean by that, but it sounds good), and the use of sound is unmatched in the genre. Add to that Jason Miller’s world-class performance, the inspired use of Mercedes McCambridge and images that still disturb, a deeply provocative take on regaining one’s lost faith (through coming face-to-face with unspeakable evil), and I don’t know what more you could ask.
If memory serves, Jane Leeves got her start on “The Benny Hill Show.” The girl’s gotten around.
See, that’s the funny thing– I love detail work (big Zodiac fan), I understand exactly what you mean by “creepily orderly” (love that too, it’s what attracts me to a lot of Schrader’s work) and I love slow-build cinema. I should clarify that I actually saw the rather inapty named “Version You’ve Never Seen” with 12 or so minutes of added footage– in your opinion, does it make for a substantially different (by which I mean, worse) film?
Either way, I sincerely hope he doesn’t carry through on his threat to color, er, “correct” the film in the same way he did THE FRENCH CONNECTION.
Tom – The extended edition is substantially worse. And that’s Blatty’s fault, in my opinion, not Friedkin’s. Blatty’s is correct that some people do miss the point of the ending – he believes too many people think that Pazuzu wins, and that the demon hurled Karras out of the window, instead of the intended reading, which is that Karras sacrifices himself – but I think they’re a very small minority. Anyway, that’s the main reason Blatty pushed for that version, and I think it was a big mistake. Thank God I have the original on DVD.
Thanks for the feedback, Bill, I’ll definitely give the original cut a go when I have some time.
Blatty is honoured in a local museum and represented by a screaming typewriter.
That’s funny, Tom, because he kind of fell ass-backwards into horror. Up until he hit on the idea for THE EXORCIST, he was a comedy writer, both novels and film. The last piece of fiction he published, a HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE/HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL riff called ELSEWHERE, was pretty dire. Oh well. He has at least four good books to his credit, two great films as a director, and lots of solid screenplay credits.
It’s the Arab-American National Museum in Dearborn. In the same room, they represent Moustapha Akkad– not with, say, Lion of the Desert, or The Message, but with Halloween 6.
Christ, why not HALLOWEEN 1??
The Blu-ray of THE EXORCIST will come out later this year. Cinematographer Owen Roizman WAS consulted on that transfer. There will not be any of that infamous color-timing that divided people with last year’s THE FRENCH CONNECTION.
There’s nothing like great 80s sleaze. (Or great 80s Friedkin, for that matter–anybody else willing to defend Cruising, even sheepishly?)
Incidentally, Glenn, I’m one of the invisibles who frequents your site but never comments. I felt compelled to do so here because I also recently watched a fine piece of 80s sleaze myself: the Steven Bauer sex thriller THIEF OF HEARTS. Nowhere near the genuine artistry of the Friedkin picture, but it’s got an air of irresistible 80sness about it: over-earnest pop tunes sung by the likes of Joe Esposito, tacky interior decorating, Steven Bauer, sex so “hot” the actors glisten. David Caruso (so great in JADE!) is also in it, and looks unmistakably like a redheaded Mozzer, circa Viva Hate.
Anyway, I just wrote about the movie over at my own blog, if anybody cares to take a peek. (Sorry about the self-promotion!)
Glenn, do you perchance recall that one of our VIDEO REVIEW colleagues – who later attained considerable prominence on the staff of a major entertainment magazine – used to consider TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. the best movie he’d ever seen? True, he was a callow youth back then, but still.…
Actually a good companion piece to this is Hal Ashby’s last film 8 Million Ways To Die (1986)with the great Jeff Bridges.
McBride was mentioned for a brief second there. I like his work – what little I’ve seen, in particular is made-for-TV vampire movie (!), BLOOD TIES.
But my friend, filmmaker and critic Dan Sallitt, wrote about a practically invisible McBride film called UNCOVERED. And man, does he make you want to see it:
http://sallitt.blogspot.com/2009/12/uncovered.html
What? No props for early John Turturro? Dangerous. Love the guy.
I’ve got nothing but love for Turturro, but I don’t miss him. Happily.
Hey pdf, CRUISING has been released in anamorphic (1.85:1), with a commentary track from Friedkin, by Warner Home Video. Netflix has it. I watched it the other night. The portrait of pre-AIDS New York is fairly mind-bending, and it’s amazing to see what you could get away with at that time. The extra features are good, describing the controversy surrounding the film as well as Friedkin’s take on that controversy.
Damn, Jaime, UNCOVERED does indeed sound like something to see.
Steve: I’ve seen only the second of Friedkin’s CSI episodes, but I agree that the producers seem to have given him a lot of control. Unfortunately, I ultimately thought that might have been a problem with the episode. It just seemed like he didn’t want to tighten it up – if I’m remembering correctly, they even cut the usual opening credit sequence to Friedkin a little extra running time to play with – and I started getting a bit bored with it (to be fair, the script may have been as much or more to blame). Still, I like most of what I’ve seen from him, including TLADILA, FRENCH CONNECTION, THE EXORCIST and THE HUNTED.
It’s about time a guy who got his start filming the WGN newscasts in Chicago got a little credit. Friedkin’s never strayed too far from TV work, at least since the 70s have been done. There were the ridiculous CAT Squad made-for-TV movies, but what I remember most is an amusingly tawdry Tales from the Crypt (redundant?) about a hair band’s lead singer (band’s name: The Exorcists) who gets a haunted tattoo on his chest from Heavy D. Yeah, this stuff is deep. I seem to recall it was part of a three-handed season première thing for Tales…, it might have been when Tom Hanks showed up in an episode, but what’s distinct about Friedkin’s contribution is the To Live and Die in LA level sleaze seeming very fatigued and ready for a nap.
Bill: using Halloween 6 is even more perverse, since Dimension took it away from Akkad and reshot a lot of it. There’s been a bootleg “producer’s cut” of the film floating around for years.
The Friedkin Question is indeed a pressing one; I haven’t seen many of his later films, but there does seem to be a significant drop in quality among those I have.
I’ll happily join in the praise for TL and direct my particular shout-out to the brief but brilliant sequence in which Defoe makes the counterfeit bills. That, as they say, is Cinema.
Bug had major potential but was overblown and sloppy, I thought.
In terms of cross-referencing other movies that drip of a certain sleaze and a potent mix of sensuality and despair, I gotta point out Internal Affairs. True, it’s technically a ’90s film, but it belongs in many ways to the previous decade; it’s much more Mann than Friedkin, but it’s a marvelous example of sleek, bleak modern noir, and it makes me wish Figgis was making more movies.
Amazing how much bashing CSI: Crime Scene Investigation gets from people who probably never watch it. When Peterson was on it, it was the best network program in prime time, and certainly the most politically progressive: a dominatrix as a wholly sympathetic and at times tragic heroine? “plushie” fetishists and their need to be understood and accepted? Jerry Stahl’s finest hours were writing for CSI. Get the dvds: without the commercials, the show is an entirely different experience.
Chuck:
You’re right. I’m sorry I was so glib about CSI. I actually enjoy the show often. My negative feelings come from the fact that with three identical shows running for so long, the format can start to feel calcified, which means that a good shake-up, from a different director or from the writers taking a chance on a new variation, can only be helpful.
I will, however, go on record as saying that David Caruso is the worst actor in the known universe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5ZPxCjIjEc