Tag Archives: Peter Bogdanovich

Paper Moon-1973

Paper Moon-1973

Director Peter Bogdanovich

Starring Ryan O’Neal, Tatum O’Neal

Scott’s Review #1,352

Reviewed March 23, 2023

Grade: A-

Peter Bogdanovich’s follow-up to the 1971 brilliance that belongs to The Last Picture Show is a film called Paper Moon named after a song introduced during the opening sequence.

While similar in texture and tone to the former the latter takes much more time to become absorbed in. But the payoff finally arrives. There are also hints of comedy in Paper Moon which The Last Picture Show had virtually none of but they are companion pieces for sure.

The cinematography could even be classified as a carbon copy and the isolated midwest (this time Kansas and Missouri rather than Texas) is on full display, rather than a 1950s Korean War dilemma. In Paper Moon the time is the 1930s Depression Era United States when everyone and their brother was looking for a way to survive.

To make things interesting, real-life father and daughter star together. Ryan O’Neal and Tatum O’Neal are a remarkable dynamic duo and the connection is evident.

They portray slick con artists Moses Pray (Ryan) and Addie Loggins (Tatum) who play off of each other in a relaxed easy fashion.

When “Moze” is unexpectedly saddled with getting the nine-year-old Addie to relatives in Missouri after her mother’s death, his attempt to dupe her out of her money backfires, and he’s forced to take her on as a partner.

Swindling their way through farm country, the pair is nearly done in by a burlesque dancer (Madeline Kahn) and an angry bootlegger (John Hillerman).

Knowing that years later Ryan would unwittingly proposition his daughter at a funeral unaware of who she was, is both comical and sad.

But, I digress.

The chemistry makes Paper Moon work though Bogdanovich’s direction is second to none in creating the proper mood as he did so well two years earlier. The muddy, crusty atmosphere is palpable with miles and miles of desolate land on full display for the viewer.

Everything looks dirty, dusty, and depressing which is to the film’s credit.

The small characters are a winning formula as they hope against hope that the scheme Moze is selling (a first-rate Holy Bible inscribed to them by their recently deceased loved one) could be true and is heartbreaking.

I’d give the first half a B or a B+ but the second half earns a solid A. The events start slowly and are a bit tough to get into from a storyline perspective.

I wasn’t so much enamored with Madeline Khan’s character, though the actress is one of the strong aspects of the film. Moze is hot and heavy for Miss Trixie Delight but besides being busty she has little else to offer. She doesn’t treat her downtrodden teenage maid, Imogene (P.J. Johnson) very well and makes a spectacle of herself wherever she goes.

Satisfyingly, Addie, and Imogene make quick work of her when they conspire to have Moze catch Trixie in bed with a hotel clerk. Khan is a hoot but Trixie is mediocre.

When events get back to the Moze and Addie story it’s off to the races. An enthralling final sequence occurs when the pair uncovers a bootlegger’s store full of whiskey, steals some of it, and sells it back to the bootlegger.

Unfortunately, the bootlegger’s twin brother is the local sheriff, and he quickly arrests Addie and Moze. The climax is on par with 1967’s Bonnie and Clyde without the killings- instead, the pair are on the run and foraging for an uncertain future.

The characters may not have the best morals but they are survivors and that makes them appealing. I’d venture to say Tatum O’Neal is the standout though Ryan’s good looks are hard to ignore.

Paper Moon (1973) starts slow but becomes infectious during the final thirty minutes or so.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Supporting Actress-Madeline Kahn, Tatum O’Neil (won), Best Screenplay-Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Sound

The Last Picture Show-1971

The Last Picture Show-1971

Director Peter Bogdanovich

Starring Timothy Bottoms, Jeff Bridges, Cybill Sheperd

Scott’s Review #1,349

Reviewed March 9, 2023

Grade: A

1971 was a great year in American cinema from The French Connection to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory to Fiddler on the Roof to Dirty Harry. The list goes on and on.

The brilliantly filmed and directed The Last Picture Show is easily ensconced in the year’s top ten featuring an embarrassment of riches across the board. Important to promote is the successful use of the dusty setting and time which is the film’s secret sauce.

Peter Bogdanovich crafts a dreary coming-of-age tale of small-town life in landlocked Texas. The film is loosely based on a 1966 novel of the same name written by Larry McMurtry.

The film includes many songs by Hank Williams Sr. and other country & Western and 1950s popular music recording artists to reflect the era.

Most of the townsfolk are bored to tears in the windswept hamlet of Anarene, Texas. Their saving grace is a local cinema (the picture show) run by the popular Sam the Lion (Ben Johnson) which is about to close its doors forever.

Others frequent the café run by sultry waitress Genevieve (Eileen Brennan) who knows everyone’s business.

The gossip and scandals run wild throughout town following several principal characters and their trials and tribulations. High school students Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Duane (Jeff Bridges) lust after flirty Jacy Farrow (Cybill Shepherd) while trying to figure out their futures.

Sonny also finds time for an affair with depressed housewife Ruth Popper (Cloris Leachman), twenty years his senior, who is married to the school gym teacher, Coach Popper (Bill Thurman), who may be gay.

The year is 1951 when the Korean War is broiling and the once profitable oil town is in major decline.

Bogdanovich’s apt camerawork, shot in black and white, is central to the film and the winning recipe (well, one of them). If The Last Picture Show were shot in color or worse yet, colorized, it would detract from the proper mood of sadness.

The exterior scenes involve swirling dust and wide-angle shots of the main street often enough to relay a comparison to a ghost town especially as events go along. There are also some sequences involving vehicles or highway scenes conjuring up thoughts of escape or departure.

The other key ingredient is the ensemble of characters led by exceptional acting. Sonny is the handsome lead character who has a lifetime ahead of him and is the kindest of all the players. His all-American good looks infuse a vulnerability to the character especially revealed during scenes with Sam, his mentor, and his friend Billy.

Other quiet scenes reveal much about the supporting characters. Ruth sadly hangs the wash on her clothesline looking worn and weary while Genevieve grills a cheeseburger in the café, cigarette dangling and her once youthful aspirations slipping away.

Leachman and Johnson, both Academy Award winners in the supporting categories, deserve their awards. Successful at portraying their anger in quiet ways they also both have dignity and self-worth making their characters complex and revered.

The heartiest scenes belong to the younger set as they deal with simmering sexuality and hopes for college. Jacy experiments with sex, even sleeping with the man who her mother Lois (Burstyn) is having an affair with.

Shepherd also gives Jacy vulnerability as she awkwardly strips off her clothes during a pool party encouraged by a handsome boy she hopes to impress. At times, she is childish, other times a selfish bitch. It’s mentioned that her family is wealthy so the assumption is that she is spoiled.

The 1950s usually provides a level of nostalgia and good, old-fashioned, carefree Americana. The Last Picture Show (1971) thanks to the flawless direction and screenwriting of Bogdanovich and McMurtry instead paints a perfect portrait of misspent youth and shattered dreams.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Peter Bogdanovich, Best Supporting Actor-Ben Johnson (won), Jeff Bridges, Best Supporting Actress-Cloris Leachman (won), Ellen Burstyn, Best Screenplay-Based on Material from Another Medium, Best Cinematography

What’s Up, Doc? -1972

What’s Up, Doc? -1972

Director Peter Bogdanovich

Starring Barbra Streisand, Ryan O’Neal 

Scott’s Review #1,162

Reviewed July 20, 2021

Grade: B+

Careful trepidation must be advised for filmmakers chartering into humorous or slapstick comedy waters especially if known more for dramatic films.

Since we’re talking 1970s cinema here, there is only one Mel Brooks, and plenty of films with physical humor and gags fail miserably.

What’s Up, Doc? (1972) is not one of them and is a refreshing success.

Brooks’s influence can easily be seen throughout the film and this is no surprise. Before doing any post-film research I immediately was reminded of the popular television sitcom Get Smart which ran from 1965-1970.

Buck Henry, a frequent Brooks collaborator, co-created Get Smart and wrote the screenplay for What’s Up Doc?

The antics and comedic moments scream Brooks. If one is unfamiliar it is like watching a Mel Brooks film.

Director, Peter Bogdanovich, most notably known for the 1971 masterpiece, The Last Picture Show, changes course and instead goes for comedy with lots of screwball situations and physical comedy activities that are completely different from his previous works.

Speaking of Brooks, Madeline Khan, a mainstay of his films, makes an appearance as a particularly neurotic character named Eunice Burns. It is her first film role.

I must say I was thoroughly impressed by What’s Up, Doc? which oddly pairs two Hollywood superstars of the time, Barbra Streisand and Ryan O’Neal. One might be surprised to think of the duo as romantic partners, and the chemistry comes and goes throughout the film but the antics and quick dialogue are joyous and timed perfectly between the actors.

What’s Up, Doc? intends to pay homage to comedy films of the 1930s and 1940s, especially popular Warner Bros. Bugs Bunny cartoons, hence the title, but the reference doesn’t appear until the final scene.

This caused me to ponder why the specific title was used.

The premise goes something like this. Doctor Howard Bannister (O’Neal) arrives in San Francisco to compete for a research grant in music. He is accompanied by his overbearing wife, Eunice (Khan).

Already nervous and on edge because of Eunice, he meets a strange yet charming woman named Judy Maxwell played by Streisand at the drugstore. They are drawn to each other yet are not sure why. She both annoys and fascinates him.

In a subplot, a woman has her jewels stolen and a government whistleblower arrives with his stolen top-secret papers. Ironically, all the players have an identical red plaid bag and stay in neighboring hotel rooms, adding to the confusion and the hilarity.

My favorite moments are the screwball scenes. Especially memorable are the hilarious sequences that take place in and around the hotel guest rooms as a constant in and out of parallel rooms transpires. Each character has a particular motivation as he or she sneaks around the hallways and rooms.

It is delightful fun.

When I realized that Streisand and O’Neal were the romantic leads I was skeptical at first but their chemistry is not bad. They are not the sort of couple that he and Ali MacGraw were in Love Story (1970) and certainly have no heavy drama to play but they play comedy off of each other well.

The film makes a joke about the film Love Story.

Unfamiliar to me, I am glad I took the chance and watched What’s Up Doc? (1972). The film provides laughs, entertainment, and good chemistry among the cast who know how to deliver rapturous humor with perfect timing.

Rated G, the film can be enjoyed by the entire family as there is not a double entendre or otherwise offensive moment to be found. Just good, old-fashioned humor. I would argue that the film influenced the 1970s as much as paid homage to comedy films made decades earlier.

I would see it again.

A Decade Under The Influence-2003

A Decade Under the Influence-2003

Director Ted Demme, Richard LaGravenese

Starring Francis Ford Coppola, William Friedkin

Scott’s Review #392

60027599

Reviewed April 5, 2016

Grade: B+

Produced by the cable network Independent Film Channel (IFC), A Decade Under The Influence explores the decade of 1970s film, a decade that was arguably the most creative and liberating to filmmakers and audiences alike.

A period in film defined by the directors securing creative freedom instead of the studios, where artists instead of corporations finally ruled the roost. A Decade Under The Influence gives us an overview of the era.

Despite some conspicuous omissions, I enjoyed this informative piece a great deal.

The documentary is divided into numerous segments including sections on women in film, the transition into a different period in Hollywood, and the subsequent close of the decade.

The interviews are plentiful including a who’s who of stars: Martin Scorsese, Ellen Burstyn, Clint Eastwood, Robert Altman, Julie Christie, Francis Ford Coppola, and numerous other influential directors, actors, and filmmakers.

Each individual describes his or her perspective on 1970s cinema, and personal anecdotes of experiences or challenges are shared.

Ellen Burstyn, for example, describes how the success of The Exorcist afforded her a plethora of other film offers, but all of the roles were of prostitutes, dutiful wives, or women in peril.

She needed roles more stimulating than those so she chose to star in Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, which was a much better-written role. What I found a bit sad is how there are still limited, layered roles for women in Hollywood to this day unless one goes the independent film route, which this documentary touts as a savior.

Francis Ford Coppola relays how The Godfather was never expected to be a success, but rather, how he was chosen to direct the film merely because he worked for cheap and was Italian-American.

How ironic that the film became such a monumental success and influential to film making as a whole for generations to come.

The documentary, at times, seems like an overview of the decade, with many clips of classic 1970s cinema interspersed with the talking points.

Despite being three hours in length, I still felt that there was so much more than the documentary could have explored. Not surprisingly, the stars granting interviews were granted heavy screen time for their films.

The documentary was fine, but could have delved much deeper- I could see a multiple-disc set totally of ten or more hours dedicated to the decade.

One conspicuous omission was Robert Altman’s Nashville, arguably, the best film of the decade. While it was briefly mentioned, and a still frame of a scene from it did appear, I felt that it warranted more dissection and discussion.

This was more surprising given that Altman was interviewed for the documentary.

Another miss was Halloween or any mention of John Carpenter films. Halloween influenced many horror films to come and The Exorcist received heaps of coverage, undoubtedly because star Burstyn and director William Friedkin appear at length throughout the production.

Additionally, in the horror genre, Black Christmas (a highly influential horror film) was not mentioned at all.

A celebration of my favorite decade of cinema, A Decade Under the Influence is a documentary that is a basic must-see for fans of 1970s cinema, or film students perhaps immersing themselves into the world of great film for the first time.

Daisy Miller-1974

Daisy Miller-1974

Director Peter Bogdanovich

Starring Cybill Shepard, Cloris Leachman 

Scott’s Review #383

DaisyMillerPoster

Reviewed March 6, 2016

Grade: B

Daisy Miller is a largely forgotten 1974 film based on a Henry James novella of the same name, directed by Peter Bogdanovich and starring then-girlfriend Cybill Sheperd in the title role.

I admire the film in certain aspects, but ultimately rank the film as good, but not spectacular. I pondered the film afterward and had a feeling that something was missing from it.

The story, set in the late 1800s, tells of a wealthy upstate New York family, led by the naïve Daisy Miller (Sheperd), visiting Europe in the hopes of becoming more cultured and worldly, but instead, are largely met with defiance and snobbery from European sophisticates. Daisy attempts to find love with her numerous potential suitors.

The film is largely shot in Switzerland and Italy.

The romantic story between Daisy and upper-class Frederick Winterbourne is the focal point. Daisy, a chatterbox and flirtatious, captures Winterbourne’s fancy and he gradually woos her but is conflicted by social norms and her innocent involvement with other men, most notably dashing Italian Giovanelli.

This leads to conflict. I noticed some chemistry between Daisy and Winterbourne.

Bogdanovich, who only directed a handful of films, including the masterpiece The Last Picture Show (1971), uses several great actors in both films.

In addition to Sheperd, Cloris Leachman, and Eileen Brennan appear in supporting roles. Leachman as Daisy’s equally chatty and naïve mother, and Brennan as the vicious socialite Mrs. Parker.

Brennan, in particular, shines. Outstanding at playing snobs and unique character roles, this was right up Brennan’s alley and she almost steals the show.

I adored the cinematography and the costumes featured in the production and thought both were the film’s main strengths.

The clothing that the characters were dressed in is both gorgeous and believable for the period. The backdrop during the hotel garden scene is exquisite and picturesque as the lake, sky, and mountain are all in full view adding a unique viewing experience.

I also found the subject of cultural class distinctions quite interesting. The Millers are rich but uneducated and unlikable- they live in Schenectady and are considered far beneath the clever, intelligent figures of Europe.

They do not measure up and they lack the same breeding and class as many of the characters.

Adding to this is the fact that the Millers never really seemed all that interested in being in Europe, almost taking the opportunity for granted, so I was never completely captured by the Millers or found them particularly sympathetic as a group.

Given that she is the focus, I found the character of Daisy Miller a bit unlikable and this could be due to the casting of Sheperd. Daisy’s endless rants, largely about herself, teetered on annoying to say nothing of her irritant little brother.

Sure, Daisy is sweet and kindhearted, but there is something that did not compel me about her. She was a less charismatic, northern version of Scarlett O’Hara.

I kept wondering if other actresses might have brought more to the character and given her more muscle. Was this role a showcase for Sheperd because of her relationship with Bogdanovich?

The conclusion of the film surprised me and features a downcast ending that I did not expect given the sunny mood of the rest of the film, and this is to Bogdanovich’s credit.

He certainly did not make a mainstream film and I admire that.

Daisy Miller (1974) is a mixed bag for me. I give my admiration for some aspects, but the story and the casting could have used a bit of altering.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design