Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Sidney Lumet. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Sidney Lumet. Mostrar todas las entradas

10 sept 2015

Serpico (8/10): Al Pacino's powerhouse performance remains one of his best

“What's this for? For bein' an honest cop? Hmm? Or for being stupid enough to get shot in the face? You tell them that they can shove it.”

If you were alive during the 70’s then there is no question in my mind that your favorite actor was Al Pacino. He ruled during that decade. His performance in Serpico playing the title character, an honest cop who refused to participate in the corruptive system that surrounded the NY police department, is considered by many to be his best work, which is saying a lot when you take into account his other films during that four year span: both Godfather films, Dog Day Afternoon, and Scarecrow. He was nominated for an Oscar for his performances during four straight years and surprisingly came out empty handed. It wouldn’t be until his eight nomination in 1993 for his lead performance in Scent of a Woman that he would finally receive his dues (a category in which he was also nominated for Glengarry Glen Ross). It’s astonishing to look back at his career and see how many great performances he delivered over time, but especially during the early 70’s. Serpico is a film that must be seen primarily for his energetic performance, which foretold what an illustrious career he would have ahead of him. It didn’t hurt that the great Sidney Lumet was directing this true story based on the biographical book written by Peter Maas. His choices for location all over the different NY boroughs gave the film a sense of authenticity for this genre film. Lumet was interested in focusing on this character and portraying the emotional effect that the corruptive system had on him in the most realistic way possible and he succeeded. It’s been more than 40 years since Serpico has been released and its themes remain relevant to this day.

The film opens with a bloodied officer being rushed to a hospital in the back of a police car. We find out that he’s an undercover cop named Frank Serpico (Al Pacino) and he has been shot in the face. When one of the police inspector’s receives the news his immediate reaction is that a fellow officer must have shot him. The next scene is a close-up shot of Serpico’s eyes that are still moving and then the film takes us to the 60’s where we see a younger version of him graduating as a police officer from the Academy. From the very beginning we can tell that Serpico is self motivated and honest. He aspires to become a detective, but his idealistic world comes crumbling down when he witnesses his fellow officers accepting bribes from gamblers and drug dealers. They offer him money, but he doesn’t accept, which in turns makes him new enemies. His next move is to enlist the help of a trusted officer named Bob Blair (Tony Roberts) who sets him up with higher ranked officers to whom he can report his partners’ corruptive behavior, but all they end up doing is transferring him to new divisions. Their promises of cleaning up the department go nowhere and Frank’s increasing frustration begins to take a toll on his relationship with his fiancee Laurie (Barbara Eda-Young) as several years go by with the same results. With very few friends and a lot of enemies, Frank knows that his days as a police officer are numbered, but he remains hopeful that someday the truth will be revealed. 

Lumet expertly manages to portray the passage of time in a rather convincing manner here without resorting to spoon feeding the audience. The editing is handled in superb fashion and Al Pacino’s physical transformation is a great indicator of how distrusting of the system he’s becoming. He is the driving force of the movie and the main reason why the film succeeds. He gets to shine in the subtle and quiet moments such as when he’s simply enjoying his back yard listening to opera and starting a conversation with his next door neighbor, or during the powerful emotional scenes where he takes all his anger and frustration out on his fiancee or a criminal he just busted in the streets. Serpico shaped the genre and the way some action films were being handled by delivering a more authentic and true to life film that added resonance to the subject that was being handled. The material was handled seriously by the screenwriters who delivered an honest adaptation and weren’t there simply to entertain audiences, but to deliver a message. That is what has made this such a memorable and thought provoking film to this date. Al Pacino is the only actor who really gets to stand out here because the entire focus is on him and as time passes the rest of the characters come in and out of his life, but he is reason enough to check the film out.          


27 jun 2012

My Review: 12 Angry Men (10/10)


¨It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is.¨

12 Angry Men is one of the best courtroom dramas I`ve seen despite the fact of it being filmed way back in 1957 in black and white and happening almost entirely (except for the opening 3 minutes and a few seconds in the end) inside an enclosed room. So why is this so good? Because Reginald Rose came up with an excellent story, which he wrote as a play first and was later turned into a movie under the direction of the great Sidney Lumet. This was actually Lumet`s first feature film and among his best movies all time, although it wasn’t received really well when it first came out. This film paved the way for Sidney who in the 70`s made one great film after another (Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, and Network). 12 Angry Men works thanks to the strong characters that are introduced in the story starring Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb. In order for a film in an enclosed room to work you need a very engaging story with interesting characters and that is what Rose was able to do. Many great plays have failed to perform well in film, so credit has to be given to Sidney who managed to maintain the tension and suspense in the movie. As the film moves on the enclosed room seems to be closing in on each character, and this was achieved really well by Sidney. The dialogue in this film is really powerful and authentic as we see how each character interacts with one another. Sidney manages to let the action play out through words because the entire film is one giant deliberation between these 12 men.

 The film opens in a courtroom where we hear the judge say his final words before sending the 12 men in the jury to deliberate over whether the accused young Spanish American is guilty or not of murdering his father. He reminds the jury that if they find the teenager to be guilty then he will be sentenced to death. The 12 men enter the jury room where the rest of the film takes place as they deliberate whether or not the kid is guilty. Everyone seems to have made their mind up and believe he`s guilty even before beginning to debate the issue. The first thing they do is vote and 11 of the 12 men believe he`s guilty pointing to the clear evidence, but Juror #8 (Henry Fonda) claims to have his doubts. He isn`t sure the guy is innocent, but he has reasonable doubts so he asks the rest of the jurors to deliberate about it for the next hour considering that the young man`s life is in their hands. Once the jurors begin to debate the issue the more difficult the case becomes and doubts begin to creep in all over the place. The rest of the jury is played by Martin Balsam (#1), John Fiedler (#3), Lee J. Cobb (#4), E.G. Marshall (#4), Jack Klugman (#5), Edward Binns (#6), Jack Warden (#7), Joseph Sweeney (#9), Ed Begley (#10), George Voskovec (#11), and Robert Webber (#12). The debate escalates as tension builds and the jurors begin to grow impatient over one another`s arguments. The small room and the heat also seem to play an important factor in the story.

One of the greatest things about the film is that it actually serves as a case study as how small groups work and how important communication can be in these scenarios. Many of the jurors entered the room with prejudice and had their own conceived ideas, but sometimes in order to find the truth you have to discuss the issue as objectively as possible. As the men debate we see how all of this plays out, and Reginald Rose writes the story in such a way that it begins to unfold through the conversations these men are having about their own views. There is no mention of names (except for the final scene where we hear the name of two of the jurors), but we do find out a lot about each character through the way they think and act. Their personalities are very different and that always makes it hard to have everyone agree with each other. This is why the film is used in so many business and communication schools today. These characters are well crafted and we might even have come across a couple of these jurors in real life because their personalities and views are still very much alive in the 21st century. Overall I believe this to be a great film and a must watch for all cinema lovers. It is really well executed and one has to admire the talents of Sidney Lumet and Henry Fonda who have left us with their rich legacy.