BEFORE: I've expressed already my dissatisfaction with this year's "31 Days of Oscar" programming on TCM - not the films themselves, but the scheduling. Films were arranged according to the studio or distributor that released them, and I really don't care about that. I don't know anyone who does - when have you heard of anyone refusing to see a film because it was released by Fox, or Paramount, or Dreamworks? It seems really petty - a good film is a good film, and whoever releases it, releases it. So, who cares?
I've got a proposal for TCM's Oscar-themed programming next year - why not run films that rhyme back-to-back? It's just as arbitrary, and a lot more fun! You could follow "The Italian Job" with "The Lavender Hill Mob", or pair "Mutiny on the Bounty" with "Bridges of Madison County". I'm sure there are plenty more examples - no need to thank me, I hereby give up the idea and all claims to it in order to make their programming better. ("Glory" and "The Philadelphia Story"? "Gaslight" and "It Happened One Night"? "Gladiator" and "The Aviator"? "Key Largo", "Fargo" and "Argo"?)
This heist film comes next because Audrey Hepburn has a quick cameo in the beginning, one of her first screen roles, so she carries over from "How to Steal a Million". So I don't even need to link from Peter O'Toole to Alec Guinness through "Lawrence of Arabia".
THE PLOT: A meek bank clerk who oversees the shipment of bullion joins with an eccentric neighbor to steal gold bars and smuggle them out of the country as miniature Eiffel Towers.
AFTER: Yes, I'm definitely seeing a pattern develop with these heist films. No matter how clever the theft is, something always seems to go wrong, or there's always a slip-up that puts the cops on the trail, or there's some kind of problem leaving the country. When I take a step back, I can see the same DNA of a classic heist film in a more modern film like "Quick Change" or "A Fish Called Wanda" (which was helmed by the same director as tonight's film, coincidentally).
However, it seems like the criminals were more likely to (eventually) get caught in the films of the 1950's, and the more modern thieves seem more likely to succeed and end up with the cash. I'm not sure if that reflects a change in society's morals, or the conventions of filmmaking, or something else. Perhaps it was that production code of 1950's that demanded that crime not be glorified on film, or else audience members would be likely to go rob an armored car or something, expecting to succeed.
It's funny, not only was I talking about Alec Guinness yesterday, but I was talking about how the best way to get away with something is to win people's trust first, and then when committing the crime, to completely act like nothing is amiss. Seems simple, really, but then I guess most criminals get caught when they panic or try to run. Tonight's film highlights these points perfectly - Guinness plays a bank clerk who accompanies the armored car shipments of gold, monitoring the entire process. He does this for 20 years, so the bank trusts him implicitly, before he gets the idea to pull a heist and fund his retirement. In becoming the person the bank trusts the most, he's also become the person they'll suspect the least.
Throughout the staged heist and the police investigation, he's got to maintain his cool, even when it looks like the plan's fallen through. Commit to the plan, act natural, stick to your story - all great advice. There's a point late in the film where he's being chased by the cops and he's carrying a briefcase. Instead of running, he jumps into a crowd of businessmen, blends in perfectly, and casually walks away. It runs completely counter to one's fight-or-flight instinct, but it's completely the right move.
The endgame drags on a bit too much - when some of the gold souvenirs are accidentally sold to some tourists, our two anti-heroes have to track them down, travelling all the way back to the U.K. from Paris just to keep anyone from figuring out where the gold went. This is a bit of a contrivance, especially when their quest leads them right into the "belly of the beast", the police testing lab (what are the odds on that?)
Come to think of it, there are quite a few contrivances here. What are the odds of two people with an interest in metallurgy occupying the same boarding house? Or similarly meeting the right accomplices for the job at just the right time?
P.S. "A Streetcar Named Desire", "Jerry Maguire" and "Chariots of Fire". "Three Coins in the Fountain" and "Brokeback Mountain". "A Touch of Class" and "Splendor in the Grass". "State Fair" and "Up in the Air". "Moonstruck" and "Good Night and Good Luck". "Cocoon" and "Platoon". I could literally do this all day long.
Starring Alec Guinness (last seen in "A Passage to India"), Stanley Holloway, Sid James, Alfie Bass,
RATING: 6 out of 10 bobbies
No comments:
Post a Comment