Two men in suits and sunglasses walk into a blind school, tip out a vase of flowers, terrorise a secretary, and shoot a teacher. Sounds like fun, right. Still, it’s not precisely the done thing; not the tipping of flowers, anyway. To experience the thrill we need the magic of movies, in this case Don Siegel’s The Killers.
(1964. Colour. Script: Gene Coon. Direction: Don Siegel. Cinematography: Richard Rawlings. Score: Don Ray and John Williams. (Yes, that John Williams.)
The Killers starring Lee Marvin, John Cassavetes and Ronald Reagan, is a remake of a fine 1946 film by Robert Siodmak that starred Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner. They are based on a short story by Ernest Hemingway.
The two are roughly the same in structure. Hired goons bump off a “nobody” who was a “somebody” until he met a girl. The girl being a certified Femme Fatale, sans accent. Both then go to flashback to tell what happened to said somebody.
The difference is in the detail. Burt Lancaster is/was a boxer while John Cassavetes is/was a racing car driver. This difference is neither here nor there; they could have been dentists, if that’s what it took to advance the story. Mind you, had Cassavetes been a dentist, he mightn’t have been much of a getaway driver.
The main change is Siodmak's heavy focus on Lancaster and Gardner at the expense of hired goons Charles McGraw and William Conrad. A mistake. The goons are superb and deserved more screen time. Was it because brilliant goons were a dime a dozen in the 40s? Anyway, it’s a mistake Siegel gleefully corrects as he shifts the focus from Cassavettes and sleazy squeeze Angie Dickinson over to hit man Lee Marvin and his apprentice Clu Galager. Galager almost steals the film, but not quite. Lee Marvin is still Lee Marvin and not often upstaged. In The Killers you can see his progress from The Big Heat and Bad Day at Black Rock, and forward to Point Blank. Will we see his like again?
Ronald Reagan plays a dodgy gangster. “I approve of larceny; homicide is against my principles.” Yeah, right. The Gipper is excellent as Jack Browning. (His offsider is popular 60s shlub Norman Fell.) Ironically, the film with the future president had its TV release shifted to theatres because it was deemed too violent in the aftermath of the killing of the previous president. One scene in particular is framed through the scope of a sniper.
But the movie is still very much Siegel. Tight storytelling, good bad guys, bad good guys, no nonsense. You can see all the traits of his later films Dirty Harry, Escape from Alcatraz, Telefon, The Shootist, The Black Windmill, Charley Varrick (one of my favourites), The Beguiled, Two Mules for Sister Sara and Coogan's Bluff. Sure, some are dodgy, especially those I liked as a youngster such as The Beguiled and Two Mules, but all of them are dead easy to watch.
I will say, though, that I've never much been a fan of flashback. Even here I would have preferred it if Siegel had found another way to tell the story. I've never quite worked out why storytellers want to tell you the end at the start.
So, before Nabakov returns to G-Flog you with Convoy, Hotel New Hampshire and Lost Horizon (Who can resist a film where George Kennedy sings?), check out The Killers. Both Killers, if you like, they come in the same package. The former is a recognised “classic” of noir, while the latter although not as polished, is well worth a squizz. While you're at it, try to spot the Tarantino influences.
GrogFlog’s verdict: "There's only one guy who's not afraid to die; that's a guy who's already dead.” Is Don, is good.
Coming soon: You'll love Rod Steiger in shades.
Comments
Sharron
UNDERWEAR BADNESS (13)
Professor Rosseforp
UNDERWEAR BADNESS (13)
Big Ramifications
UNDERWEAR BADNESS (13)
Professor Rosseforp
UNDERWEAR BADNESS (13)
Tony Tea
UNDERWEAR BADNESS (13)
os
UNDERWEAR BADNESS (13)
Big Rammer's mum
UNDERWEAR BADNESS (13)
Big Ramifications
UNDERWEAR BADNESS (13)
Tony Tea
UNDERWEAR BADNESS (13)
Big Ramifications