In Memoriam

Irvin Kershner, 1923-2010

By November 29, 2010No Comments

Kershner

A dif­fi­cult dir­ect­or to “place,” as it were; the early work is replete with well-observed detail and nuance, as in, say, 1964’s The Luck of Ginger Coffey, which I took a look at here. I think his 1971 Loving is gal­van­ic and very nearly proph­et­ic, among oth­er things; oth­ers will tell you it’s more Strained Seriousness than Expressive Esoterica. He is, of course, best known for hav­ing brought a sense of grav­itas to the Star Wars fran­chise, dir­ect­ing the best and the “darkest” of the films in that series, 1980’s The Empire Strikes Back. Which made him “bank­able” in a way he had not been before; but sub­sequent fran­chise or pseudo-franchise efforts—the half-blood Bond Never Say Never Again and the almost proudly point­less RoboCop 2—betrayed a cer­tain, shall we say, dis­en­gage­ment from the mater­i­al at hand. Indeed, RoboCop 2 is as close to a genu­ine, out-and-out fas­cist motion pic­ture than any­thing Hollywood has ever pro­duced. But Kershner was of course no fas­cist him­self. (The qual­ity under con­sid­er­a­tion here was the byproduct of a script writ­ten in part by Frank Miller.) The one time I inter­viewed the late Kershner, he struck me as an urbane and com­pas­sion­ate fel­low of sub­stan­tial wit and irony. The shot above is of Kershner in the role of Zebedee in Scorsese’s under­ap­pre­ci­ated 1988 The Last Temptation of Christ. Kershner’s web­site is here

No Comments

  • Mat Viola says:

    Hey,
    I’m glad you men­tioned Loving – a keenly observed study of middle-class dis­con­tent which belongs squarely in the Expressive Esoterica cat­egory. I’m curi­ous what you mean by “proph­et­ic”, though. I assume you’re refer­ring to the farcical/dramatic cli­max in which Segal’s extramar­it­al dal­li­ance is caught on closed-circuit tele­vi­sion – much the way sim­il­ar “indis­cre­tions” are today being broad­cast on vari­ous media.
    Mat

  • Oliver_C says:

    RoboCop 2 is as close to a genu­ine, out-and-out fas­cist motion pic­ture than any­thing Hollywood has ever produced.”
    ‘300’ comes closer, surely? (Or should that be, “Shirley”? 😉 Of course, the com­mon factor is Mr. Miller.
    Remember the days when Miller was a Japanophile liber­tari­an, whose work expressed sus­pi­cion of those in power, and not a foaming-at-the-mouth, conscription-advocating NeoCon?

  • Kershner also dir­ec­ted anoth­er, unsung sequel, 1976’s THE RETURN OF A MAN CALLED HORSE. Maybe not as mag­ni­fi­cent as Pauline Kael (his girl­friend? One-time flame?) claimed, but I think bet­ter than the original.
    And THE EYES OF LAURA MARS is straight-up 70s stu­dio sleaze with an “arty” edge.

  • Adam K says:

    I’ve always delighted in George C. Scott’s perf in Kershner’s THE FLIM-FLAM MAN.

  • markj says:

    Very sad… The Empire Strikes Back was a monu­ment­al part of my child­hood. Farewell, and thank you.

  • jbryant says:

    Kerschner was def­in­itely hard to get a handle on, but he made a num­ber of good films. I liked his pre­co­cious debut, STAKEOUT ON DOPE STREET, which was one of James Ellroy’s picks when he was guest pro­gram­mer on TCM a while back. It’s like Roger Corman meets DRAGNET meets THE KILLING. And LOVING is great; superbly visu­al­ized (Gordon Willis was DP), very adult and soph­ist­ic­ated in a way that does­n’t interest the stu­di­os much any­more. I thought it played very much like the stuff Claude Sautet was doing dur­ing the same period.

  • Brian says:

    Very sad news– like marki, EMPIRE was (and still is) a big part of my cinephil­ia. And I’ll stick up for NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN: like its loose inspir­a­tion, THUNDERBALL, it falls apart until the end, but Kershner gets superb per­form­ances out of Connery (much, much bet­ter here than in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER or YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE), an eer­ie Klaus Maria Brandauer, and a very witty Barbara Carrera. Its cred­its sequence action is well-staged, and in Edward Fox’s M and Alec McCowen’s Q Kershner has fun both tweak­ing the Bond tropes and pok­ing fun at Thatcher’s England in a man­ner not dis­sim­il­ar to what Richard Lester does with Wilsonian Britain in HELP and A HARD DAY’S NIGHT. The 80s video-game show­down and Kim Basinger’s lousy act­ing haven’t aged well, but it’s cer­tainly a more con­sist­ently enjoy­able Bond film than OCTOPUSSY or A VIEW TO A KILL, its the­at­ric­al contemporaries.

  • Brian says:

    Oops- that should be “falls apart at the end” above.

  • EOTW says:

    Clearly I haven’t seen most of his stuff, but I truly mar­vel at how he was able to give ESB EVERYTHING (and under GL’s power­ful eye) all 5 oth­er films were lack­ing. it just oozes greatness.

  • AeC says:

    I just re-watched LAST TEMPTATION this week­end for the first time in a few years. I’ve always loved Kirshner’s deliv­ery in Zebedee’s con­front­a­tion with Jesus dur­ing the ston­ing scene.
    “Listen to him! He does­n’t want this. Well, *we* want it.”
    “Why?”
    “We don’t have to TELL you why!!!”
    Comes per­il­ously close to camp but he makes it work, even if it does make me chuckle each time.

  • Greg Ferrara says:

    THE LUCK OF GINGER COFFEY had a pro­found effect on me as a bud­ding cinephile and I wish more people were famil­i­ar with it. He had real tal­ent for get­ting to the char­ac­ter­’s insides, I think. Wish he’d done more.

  • Flickhead says:

    THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK has the dis­tinc­tion of being one of three films I’ve walked out on mid­way through. At roughly the one hour mark, its hol­low grand­stand­ing became unbear­ably bor­ing. Kirschner was a bet­ter dir­ect­or than Lucas (who isn’t?), but at least the film which it fol­lowed attemp­ted to move what little story it pos­sessed at some­thing of a clip.
    NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN has the finest cast ever assembled for a Bond movie, even though it was not part of the Cubby Broccoli series: Sean Connery, Max von Sydow, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Kim Basinger, Barbara Carrera, Bernie Casey, Alec McCowan, Edward Fox, even Rowan Atkinson. And, des­pite years of pre­par­a­tion on the part of the pro­du­cers, it’s slug­gish, drawn down by action scenes that are incom­pet­ently staged and edited, the tale of hijacked nuc­le­ar bombs mean­der­ing on without an ounce of ten­sion, the humor unfunny. It does have, how­ever, Barbara Carrera’s best per­form­ance, and whenev­er she’s onscreen the film comes to life, some­times mag­ni­fi­cently so. When her char­ac­ter dies (too early), the pic­ture flat­lines. Unless I’m mis­taken, Kirschner cred­ited Carrera for the char­ac­ter­iz­a­tion and let her have her way with the part – which then excludes him from receiv­ing any cred­it for it.
    THE LUCK OF GINGER COFFEY seems to me gen­er­ic Kitchen Sink. A FINE MADNESS is vir­tu­ally unwatch­able, that rare film that makes one want to strangle Joanne Woodward. THE FLIM FLAM MAN is anoth­er gen­er­ic 60s con­coc­tion with an amus­ing George C. Scott per­form­ance and a bouncy Jerry Goldsmith theme that’s been rat­tling in my head for forty-three years from back when I saw it first run.
    If there’s an auteur at work here, col­or me blind.

  • Mr. Peel says:

    Here’s Barbara Carrera (a per­son­al favor­ite of mine) on Irvin Kershner in THE BATTLE FOR BOND, a very good book that details the his­tory of the THUNDERBALL prop­erty from its begin­nings in the late 50s all the way through to NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN and bey­ond: “To me he’s the greatest because he was the first dir­ect­or who allowed me to pull out all the stops. He allowed me to take con­trol of this char­ac­ter. When I came to him with ideas he did not reject them, in fact he listened and then he enhanced them. I’ve nev­er had that rela­tion­ship with a dir­ect­or again. As an act­or one yearns for this kind of work where one can be very cre­at­ive and have the sup­port of those around you to help you be cre­at­ive. And I had that on this film. It was the first and the last.”

  • lipranzer says:

    Jbbryant – that’s a very apt com­par­is­on you make with LOVING and Sautet’s work (I’m a big fan of his as well). Though I still admit to lik­ing the now much-derided “sub­ur­bia sucks” films of the late 90’s (THE ICE STORM, AMERICAN BEAUTY), I fully admit LOVING is bet­ter than both (and was argu­ably a big influ­ence on both). And sorry, Flickhead, but I don’t think EMPIRE is full of “hol­low grand­stand­ing”; I think it dis­penses with most of the clunky dia­logue of the pre­vi­ous install­ment, con­tains the same excite­ment, and builds to some­thing more involving than the pre­vi­ous install­ment did. Not a fan of NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN, though I attrib­ute that to the fact I was­n’t a fan of the ori­gin­al either.

  • Dan Coyle says:

    You know, it was an untold legend in com­ics that Frank Miller’s ori­gin­al Robocop 2 script, before it was rewrit­ten by Miller him­self Walon Green (among oth­ers), was really good, so good, that Avatar Press had Miller’s friend Steven Grant adapt it for com­ics about six years ago as Frank Miller’s Robocop.
    In that par­tic­u­lar case, the legend should not have been prin­ted. Because if you thought the movie was inco­her­ent, miso­gyn­ist­ic, and fas­cist… oh dear lord.

  • RoboCop 2 is as close to a genu­ine, out-and-out fas­cist motion pic­ture than any­thing Hollywood has ever produced”
    With the excep­tion, per­haps, of GABRIEL OVER THE WHITE HOUSE, which is a total piece of fas­cism advocacy.

  • Oliver_C says:

    The Ice Storm’, “much-derided”?! Not in this house­hold, nor by advoc­ates as diverse as David Thompson and Brian de Palma.

  • It’s hard for me to focus purely on the storytelling about “Empire” when the visu­al and music­al sweep of the thing is so over­power­ing. The effects have that magic­al qual­ity that’s in a dir­ect lin­eage from Melies, and the col­or palette (from the whites of Hoth to the blacks and browns of the aster­oid chase to the pinks of Bespin) feels much rich­er than that of the first movie. Williams’s score – well – I sup­pose it’s all ripped off from Holst, that’s what they tell me, but damn if it does­n’t achieve an oper­at­ic intens­ity that’s rare in movies of any era. Neither of these, I sup­pose, is par­tic­u­larly Kershner’s con­tri­bu­tions, but I ima­gine we can set oth­er vir­tues at his door­step. I am chag­rined to admit that not only haven’t I seen “Loving,” but I had nev­er even heard of it until this wave of obits kicked off. One for the Netflix queue; thanks all.
    (As for Lucas’s pre­sumed awful­ness as a dir­ect­or, well, I still like all of his first three fea­tures [THX, American Graffiti, and Star Wars] – three suc­cess­ful efforts in three totally dif­fer­ent genres. I could name a hun­dred dir­ect­ors who have done a hell of a lot worse.)

  • Dan Coyle says:

    I still con­sider American Graffiti to be a won­der­ful film. I have a hard time believ­ing that Lucas ever really exis­ted, though.

  • hamletta says:

    Kirschner cred­ited Carrera for the char­ac­ter­iz­a­tion and let her have her way with the part – which then excludes him from receiv­ing any cred­it for it.”
    Huh? Isn’t that the mark of a good dir­ect­or? And a gra­cious one?

  • Flickhead says:

    You’re right. I have no idea what I’m talk­ing about. Please excuse my out­burst. It won’t hap­pen again.