The Robert Aldrich movie adaptation of Clifford Odets' play, The Big Knife, has been praised to the skies for its boldness in attacking the Hollywood studio system in its prime, criticized for being badly written, with stereotyped people going through the motions, and for lacking any real depth or insight. I've watched the film a few times, and I must say that it does not improve with each viewing, not a good sign. The second time around everything plays as it did before, only now one knows the ending. There are few ancillary pleasure along the way, as the production is cheap looking and appears to have filmed in someone's house and backyard.
As to the story, just about everything revolves around the anguish of movie star Charlie Castle, a man who gave up a promising career as a serious actor on stage to become a big name in Hollywood, and who wants to bail out of his studio contract. The studio has different ideas. There are women in Charlie's life; a dark secret in his past that his bosses know about and use against him. Poor Charlie is trapped,--in a six figure job he despises! (Now it would be millions.) We should all be so unfortunate. He's a hard guy to sympathize with, made worse by the casting of the charmless Jack Palance in the role, who seems to be suffering from a splitting migraine for the entirety of the picture.
Director Aldrich keeps his camera close to his characters, to the extent that one feels trapped in the same room with them. He might have pulled back a bit, given us more reactions shots, not focused so intensely on each player in his Big Moments. It's like he's encouraging them to ham it up, and most of them do. Rod Steiger playing a caricature of a studio chief is like, well, Rod Steiger playing a caricature of a studio chief. There are no surprises with him. Nor do Ida Lupino or Shelley Winters fare better in their roles. Wendell Corey, who had a way of savoring his lines, has some good moments, but the lines he delivers are ghastly. At least he didn't go over the top, as most of the rest of the cast did.
Why watch this movie? Because it's watchable. The major players are all talented, interesting even when they're not at their best. We also get a nice glimpse of the Eisenhower years, when conformity ruled and people weren't supposed to speak out on matters of great importance, especially when of a highly personal nature. Pleasant chitchat was the norm. Not in this movie. Since people sound off on all manner of issues these days the film hasn't got the shock value it had back when it was first released. With the Hollywood studio system long gone, the movie has lost its relevance. To many younger viewers Charlie's angst probably comes across as much ado about nothing. For this reason, however, the picture is important. Artists took themselves seriously back in the day. Irony wasn't hip yet. Charlie's predicament is heartbreaking to him, even if it doesn't make much sense to the viewer. Since he was a classically trained actor he felt like he was betraying himself, selling his soul to the money men of Hollywood. "Selling wha?", a younger person might ask. People are different today. There's no longer the huge alternate universe of high art to oppose the popular art of Hollywood and the mass media. They've gobbled everything up. The gobbling up of talent is the point of the movie, and also why it seems so dated. Art was a serious matter back in the 50's, in a way that it isn't anymore. For this reason alone the movie is worth watching.
As to the story, just about everything revolves around the anguish of movie star Charlie Castle, a man who gave up a promising career as a serious actor on stage to become a big name in Hollywood, and who wants to bail out of his studio contract. The studio has different ideas. There are women in Charlie's life; a dark secret in his past that his bosses know about and use against him. Poor Charlie is trapped,--in a six figure job he despises! (Now it would be millions.) We should all be so unfortunate. He's a hard guy to sympathize with, made worse by the casting of the charmless Jack Palance in the role, who seems to be suffering from a splitting migraine for the entirety of the picture.
Director Aldrich keeps his camera close to his characters, to the extent that one feels trapped in the same room with them. He might have pulled back a bit, given us more reactions shots, not focused so intensely on each player in his Big Moments. It's like he's encouraging them to ham it up, and most of them do. Rod Steiger playing a caricature of a studio chief is like, well, Rod Steiger playing a caricature of a studio chief. There are no surprises with him. Nor do Ida Lupino or Shelley Winters fare better in their roles. Wendell Corey, who had a way of savoring his lines, has some good moments, but the lines he delivers are ghastly. At least he didn't go over the top, as most of the rest of the cast did.
Why watch this movie? Because it's watchable. The major players are all talented, interesting even when they're not at their best. We also get a nice glimpse of the Eisenhower years, when conformity ruled and people weren't supposed to speak out on matters of great importance, especially when of a highly personal nature. Pleasant chitchat was the norm. Not in this movie. Since people sound off on all manner of issues these days the film hasn't got the shock value it had back when it was first released. With the Hollywood studio system long gone, the movie has lost its relevance. To many younger viewers Charlie's angst probably comes across as much ado about nothing. For this reason, however, the picture is important. Artists took themselves seriously back in the day. Irony wasn't hip yet. Charlie's predicament is heartbreaking to him, even if it doesn't make much sense to the viewer. Since he was a classically trained actor he felt like he was betraying himself, selling his soul to the money men of Hollywood. "Selling wha?", a younger person might ask. People are different today. There's no longer the huge alternate universe of high art to oppose the popular art of Hollywood and the mass media. They've gobbled everything up. The gobbling up of talent is the point of the movie, and also why it seems so dated. Art was a serious matter back in the 50's, in a way that it isn't anymore. For this reason alone the movie is worth watching.