Monthly Archives: November 2017

  • The Conversation

    Francis Ford Coppola (1974)

    Francis Ford Coppola, inspired by the perception vs reality conundrum of Antonioni’s Blow-Up and anxiety about the developing techniques of surveillance and wiretapping, started writing the script that became The Conversation in the late 1960s.  It was a coincidence that the film finally saw the light of day in early 1974, when the Watergate scandal was continuously in the headlines.  Topical it may have been but this remains a fascinating film more than forty years on.  The sound-recording technology that generates the plot, though now antique, is as spooky as ever.   (Its antiquity may actually increase its spookiness – certainly its strangeness.)  Because The Conversation is a compelling character study, it is genuinely a psychological thriller.

    Harry Caul (Gene Hackman), who now runs his own surveillance company in San Francisco, has the professional reputation of being ‘the best bugger on the West Coast’.  With his colleague Stan (John Cazale) and several freelance operatives, Harry bugs the conversation of a young woman and man (Cindy Williams and Frederic Forrest), two among a crowd of people in San Francisco’s Union Square.  Operatives stationed at different points around the Square record the conversation, some of which is picked up immediately.  The pair express a fear of being watched.  They talk about meeting in a hotel room a few days hence.  When they see a tramp out cold on a park bench, the woman says:

    ‘Every time I see one of those old guys, I always think the same thing … I always think that he was once somebody’s baby boy.  Really, I do.  I think he was once somebody’s baby boy, and he had a mother and a father who loved him, and now there he is, half dead on a park bench …’

    Much of the rest of what’s said is muffled or distorted by the hubbub of background noise.  After Harry’s painstaking work to merge and filter the various tape-recordings, the words are entirely audible but their meaning remains ambiguous.  The conversation is thus the auditory equivalent of the photograph in Blow-Up but paranoia, which is mostly implicit in Antonioni’s film, is salient in Coppola’s, thanks to the personality of his main character.

    Harry Caul lives alone in an apartment protected by a triple-lock door.   To describe the inside of the place as sparsely furnished is putting it mildly.  There is a telephone but Harry makes calls only from pay phones.  His office, occupying part of a warehouse, is enclosed in wire mesh.  He regularly visits and sleeps with a woman (Teri Garr) but she is frustrated that she still knows next to nothing about him.  This pathologically private protagonist, superbly played by Gene Hackman, is a memorable creation, right down to his name.  Harry is ordinary; Caul has a glum, colourless sound but a rich significance.  A caul is part of the amniotic sac that may cover a baby’s head at birth, and in the context of the film, it connotes both a covering and an innate condition.  Harry wears, in all weathers, a mac – like a suit of armour, except that it’s made of thin, translucent material.  His feelings of paranoia seem inseparable from his propensity to a twofold guilt – a function of his strict Catholicism and the legacy of a past wiretapping job that resulted in the murder of three people.

    In spite of his elaborate precautions, Harry is disturbed to discover, almost from the start of the film, that he is accessible, and therefore vulnerable.  He returns home from supervising the Union Square recording to find a birthday present waiting for him inside the apartment.  At a surveillance convention taking place in San Francisco, Bernie Moran (Allen Garfield), a crude showman whom Harry despises professionally and personally, startles him twice – first by revealing what he knows about Harry’s earlier career, then with a practical joke:  Moran presents him with a freebie pen that conceals a recording device.  Harry becomes obsessed with the Union Square dialogue and convinced that the client (Robert Duvall) for whom he recorded it means to harm the overheard couple:  it becomes clear that the woman is the client’s wife and the man she was with her lover.  The momentum of this thriller thread builds in tandem with Coppola’s dramatisation of Harry’s increasing inability to find a safe place for himself – in the outside world, his apartment or his mind.

    In the event, he fails not only to prevent a murder from happening but also to guess who is to be murdered and by whom.  In The Conversation’s famous closing episode, Harry receives a warning on the apartment telephone.  The voice of the client’s creepy assistant (Harrison Ford) warns him, ‘We’ll be listening to you’.  Harry takes the apartment to pieces – the floorboards, the cheap Madonna figurine that was virtually its only ornament – in a fruitless attempt to discover the bug he now knows must be there.

    The Conversation’s schematic structure and realistic style occasionally conflict.  It’s unlikely that anti-social Harry – shortly after being enraged that he let his guard slip with the bugged pen and, as a result, was publicly made a fool of – would go back to his workplace with Moran and other convention delegates for a late-night drinking session.  This extended and important episode is developed and played so credibly, however, that you almost forget its inherent implausibility.  And Harry has what is a bad dream in more ways than one:  it’s too neatly self-revealing.  The film’s strengths hugely outweigh its imperfections, though.  With the considerable help of Walter Murch, Coppola uses sound – especially the numerous replays of the key conversation – to discomfiting effect.  (Murch served as both supervising editor and sound designer.  According to Wikipedia, he ‘had more or less a free hand during the editing process, since Coppola was already working on The Godfather: Part II at the time’.)  David Shire’s eerie score is cleverly used too.  There are passages in which it’s so insistent that it’s nagging.  The music will then disappear for some time.  These intervals naturally ensure impact each time it returns.

    The one activity that seems to give Harry Caul something approaching pleasure is, alone in his apartment, putting on a jazz record and accompanying it on tenor saxophone.  At first, this choice of relaxant, cool and stylish, seems too obviously un-Harry-like but its meaning is transformed in the closing scene.  The sax is the only thing in the apartment that Harry doesn’t destroy.  He sits among the debris playing it.  The instrument, it now seems clear, is where the listening device that he couldn’t find is located. The repetition of the Union square conversation on Harry’s equipment reverberates in his head and our heads too.  This increases sympathy with the isolated, unloved Harry Caul – and not just because the ‘he was once somebody’s baby boy’ refrain seems to refer increasingly to him.  The Conversation taps into audience unease that someone is eavesdropping on our lives.  That unease, potent at the time the film came out, is enduring.  Secret recording devices may not be what they were in the 1970s but we can always worry about internet algorithms.

    20 October 2017

  • Marjorie Prime

    Michael Almereyda (2017)

    If you could be reunited with a long-known loved one who’s died, what age would you want them to be?   This familiar metaphysical poser is central to Marjorie Prime, adapted by Michael Almereyda from Jordan Harrison’s Pulitzer Prize-nominated stage play of the same name (first performed in 2014).  The premise is that, by the middle of this century, technology will enable the creation of holographic projections of the deceased, and their survivors to communicate with these holograms.  The film starts with a conversation between octogenarian Marjorie (Lois Smith) and forty-something Walter (Jon Hamm), soon revealed to be a computer-designed resurrection, known as a ‘Prime’, of Marjorie’s late husband.  In advanced democracies, a person’s gender is already becoming a matter of consumer choice.  It feels almost logical that, in two or three decades’ time, those with the inclination (and financial means?) to do so will be able to select a favourite version and enjoy the quasi-company of their dear departed.  Almost more surprising in the film’s set-up is that an American woman born in the 1960s has a name that was popular many decades earlier.  Walter seems less oddly antique – it emerges that he was Marjorie’s senior by some years (and memories of Walter White, the baby-boomer protagonist of Breaking Bad, will still be fresh in many minds).  Even so, it’s mildly disappointing that the futuristic Marjorie Prime doesn’t vindicate, in transatlantic terms, Alan Bennett’s thoughts in Telling Tales (published in 2000):

    ‘One of the ways the young think they are safeguarded against the fate and future of their grandparents is by their names:  Sharons don’t suffer from dementia or Damians from incontinence.  … And if a Darren dies, it’s in a motorway pile-up, not a sunshine home.  But not for much longer.’

    The advent of Walter Prime causes tension between Marjorie, who is suffering from dementia, and her daughter Tess (Geena Davis).  Tess’s unease must in part be down to the presence of a prime-of-life copy of her father that makes him younger than she now is.  The tension remains until a scene between Tess and her mother where not only is the mood calmer but the appearance of Marjorie less unkempt than before:  we twig that Marjorie has died and that this is Marjorie Prime.  One might suspect that Tess’s selection of a pre-senile but still elderly version of her mother reflects economical casting rather than personal choice but it’s plausible in view of the doleful family history that emerges:  a younger model of Marjorie might have reminded Tess more painfully of this.  Marjorie and Walter had a son who committed suicide and whose name – Damian! – went unspoken by his mother for forty years, until she reached her dotage.  Marjorie’s computerisation announces the structure of what’s to follow.  In due course, Tess becomes Tess Prime – a companion for her grieving husband Jon (Tim Robbins), whose reliance on a bottle of Scotch increases in tandem with the accumulating gloom of the narrative.  Tess too, Jon reveals, has taken her own life.

    I’ve an excessive appetite for extended melancholy conversations on screen but Marjorie Prime more than satisfied it.  The setting – an isolated house by the sea, with tasteful, chilly décor – recalls Woody Allen’s Bergman-indebted Interiors (1978) but the characters, except for Marjorie, are low-key, to put it mildly.  All four principals give scrupulous, controlled performances but the measured delivery of lines, rarely interrupted by raised voices, proves to be less hypnotic than soporific.  Michael Almereyda is clearly keen to subtilise the apparent differences between living people and their post-mortem Primes but the prevailing lack of animation of the people on the screen – even in the occasional flashbacks to their younger selves (Hannah Gross plays Marjorie in the early stages of her relationship with Walter) – is problematic.  It’s curious in a piece that predicates a painful gulf between the living and the dead.  There are lovely shots of fading light over the sea and tragic music (another impressive Mica Levi creation) but they contribute to a generalised atmosphere of regret.  An elegiac pall envelops the film.   The high suicide rate within the family doesn’t exactly create a sense of existence being, as well as transient, precious.

    Almereyda may not intend the details of how Primes operate to eclipse their relationships with human beings but they did for this viewer.  The hologram, although a precise physical copy of the person it replaces, is otherwise a virtual tabula rasa.  In order to become a functioning replica, it needs living people to supply facts about its human counterpart and their experiences of that person.  The facts are then logged in the memory of the Prime, which isn’t restricted to interactions with a single individual.  Whereas Tess refuses to speak to Walter Prime, Jon supplies him a large part of the data that he assimilates, including the family secret about Damian.  The basic initial programming apparently includes knowledge of the Prime’s therapeutic purpose:  more than one Prime request to a human for information comes with an assurance that ‘I can help you’.  Marjorie regrets that Walter proposed to her the same evening they watched My Best Friend’s Wedding.   It would be much nicer, she says, if they’d watched Casablanca instead.  If she substitutes it for the truth, she wonders aloud to Walter Prime, will he register that she’s making it up?    The question remains unanswered though Walter Prime, from what he says in the film’s last scene, seems to have accepted the substitution of Casablanca without qualification.

    Given the subject matter, it sounds like a good idea that, from the outset, Marjorie’s memory is failing but though I know my own brainpower is in decline, I couldn’t see that the implications of this were followed through.  Marjorie Prime isn’t too concerned with the technicalities of its controlling idea.  The viewer isn’t meant to watch the finale – a three-way conversation involving the Primes of Marjorie, Walter and Tess, many years in the future – wondering why a Prime persists after the death of the person who originally felt a need and placed an order for them.  All three of Marjorie, Walter and Tess might have remained important to the sole human survivor Jon but a brief insert shows him as, by now, geriatric and infirm – past caring about Primes.  (If he weren’t and still wanted them, that would raise a different question:  since it wasn’t Jon who chose the Prime ages of his parents-in-law, could he, if he so wished, get those changed?)  Except for Marjorie’s ambiguous closing line (‘It must be nice to have loved someone’), the Primes’ concluding conversation implies that they are either unaware or unwilling to admit that they’re holographic facsimiles.  At this stage, they seem to be morphing from computer programmes into a more traditional conception:  ghosts persisting in a thin, sad, ongoing afterlife – though stuck at the age someone else preferred them to be.  I may well have misunderstood all this (and definitely didn’t grasp the significance of the stuff about the family dog(s) in the last scene).  But I got the impression the film wanted to jettison its sci-fi underpinning in favour of fuzzier ideas of the we-are-what-others-remember-about-us variety.

    For me, Marjorie Prime derives what emotional power it has from the sense of ageing and implicit mortality that the actors bring to the screen, awareness of which depends on film-going memory.  Jon Hamm, although more effective than in other recent cinema roles, is inevitably at a disadvantage in this respect: a good deal younger than any of the other three leads, his screen life, for most viewers, began as recently as 2007 when Mad Men was in its first season.  There’s a more potent difference between the Geena Davis and Tim Robbins who came to fame in the 1980s and the senior citizens we now see.  The effect is magnified by how rarely they’ve appeared on the big screen in recent years – that’s especially the case with Davis, whose playing is the most delicately nuanced in the film.  Most poignant of all is Lois Smith – not least when the camera travels across a series of framed photographs of Marjorie at different ages in her long life, and which are actually photographs of the actress playing her.  Smith, who turned eighty-seven earlier this month, inaugurated the role of Marjorie when Jordan Harrison’s play had its first production in Los Angeles, and played it again Off Broadway the following year.  Michael Almereyda has done well to retain her services – and give Lois Smith, whose movie career goes all the way back to East of Eden (1955) and who is perhaps best known for her role in Five Easy Pieces (1970), a very belated star turn.  She makes the most of the opportunity.

    13 November 2017

Posts navigation