QQ & A (1990) (***, crime, drama
Quick and the Dead, The (1995) (*** or ***1/2, Western)
Quiz Show (1994) (****, docudrama)
Q & A (1990) (***, crime, drama) (D.-Sidney Lumet; Nick Nolte, , Timothy Hutton, Armand Assante, Patrick O'Neal, Lee Richardson, Luis Guzman, Charles Dutton, , Jenny Lumet, Paul Calderon, Leonard Cimino) A passable tale of police corruption, but in an atypical role, Nick Nolte is the corrupt psychotic cop who is absolutely and totally terrifying. He is your worst nightmare, a primordial force that exudes malevevolence. Barely surpressed violence quivers just under the surface--if you are lucky. Just the way he stands is unnerving. You would walk around the block rather than walk past him, even on the opposite side of the street. You know that if you crossed him, he would, irrespective of the consequences to himself, destroy you with the finality of an onrushing express train. One of the most frighteningly, utterly believable human monsters that I have seen on film. (reviewed early 90s) Beginning
Quick and the Dead, The (1995) (*** or ***1/2, Western) (D.-Sam Raimi; Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Roberts Blossom, Kevin Conway, Lance Henriksen, Pat Hingle, Gary Sinise, Leonardo DiCaprio) First a word on the dual rating. My wife and I strongly disagreed. She felt the plot depth, development, and overall acting was better than I did. Entertaining, stunningly photographed "spaghetti western" style film with stellar (what else) performance by Hackman. Lots of good supporting low lifes. Hackman is a retired desperado who runs "his" small town with a brutal iron fist (this does sound a bit familiar). For entertainment he has a shootout contest with the last one standing taking all. Among other things, he figures that this opportunity to blow him away minimizes the chances of being shot in the back. Into this impending contest arrives Stone, who has some serious reasons for desiring to see Hackman interedvery deeply. In fact, interesting depths revolve around the large number of contestants who are not interested in the considerable prize money. Contributing characters include a preacher (an ex associate of Hackman) and Hackman's troubled son. The continual set up of the duels, clicking of the town clock, and the sound of falling bodies creates the tapestry against which the subplots unfold. Hackman's monologue on fear and his acting out of his beliefs is one of the high points of the movie. (2-21-95) Beginning
Quiz Show (1994) (****, docudrama) (D.-Robert Redford; John Turturro, Ralph Fiennes) At Seminole. In my opinion one of the best films of the year. Clearly a possible academy award for the best picture and best actor (Turturro). Superb story, acting across the board, and cinematography. Based on the quiz show scandals of the 50's where contestants were being fed the answers and where who lived or died in a given week was carefully orchestrated by how it affected ratings. Herb Stempel (Turturro) was a nerdy, Jewish blue collar veteran whose ratings on the show, 21, started to fall and so he was told to take a dive. His replacement was articulate, photogenic Columbia lecturer, Charles Van Doren (Fiennes) of the wealthy, well known, intelligentsia Van Dorens. Stempel was greatly put out by the network's failure to deliver on their implied promise to put him on TV later; however, he was upset, probably most of all, by the question he was required to throwthe best picture of 1955. The answer was Marty ,which happened to be one of his all time favorites and an answer that everyone knew. Stemple goes for revenge and finally ends by upsetting the entire applecart when the issue comes to the attention of a federal regulator. It sounds dull. It isn't. Within the first few second, I was wired and I didn't relax until long after I got home.
The seduction of the contestants was so subtle and masterful that I kept asking myself "Could I have resisted such pressures?" I believe so, but... In its own way the internal logic of why shows were rigged is faultless. The public loved it, no one was hurt, the money was great, and the publicity was better.
Turturro's performance is breath-takingly good. He plays the kind of abrasive, obnoxious and ultimately petty person that I would not like to be around, yet I managed to feel genuinely sorry for him as his life was ripped asunder; at the end I still didn't like him. To carry off such a balancing act where you are deeply moved by the character in spite of dislike is an incredibly difficult task, which Turturro manages effortlessly.
Van Doren's devastation as his world crumbles around him is superbly shown by his intimate relationship with his family. The magnitude of his betrayal and ultimate destruction is brought home by these little family scenes.
Everyone in Quiz Show from the contestants, to the show managers, to the investigator wants something. The fascination is in watching what each person is willing to do, how they rationalize things, and ultimately how they react as the situation changes and they need to reassess their priorities. In short, real people.
Reviewers have referred to Quiz Show as witty, rollicking and satirical. Not in my opinion. I suspect what you see in the studios was exactly the way things happened then and not a parody of it. Even now the behind the scenes action is probably very similar. I lived through this time, and people's reactions to these shows were exactly as you see them. To the public, this was serious business. We thought we were getting the real thing. Boxing, not wrestling. Real drama, not choreographed entertainment. We felt cheated and betrayed when the scandal was over. We expected high drama but the networks' hidden agenda was entertainment for ratings. The resolution of these questions is still with us. Turn on the TV, even the nightly news, and you must ask, where does reality end and entertainment begin? What are the networks' responsibilities in clearly separating the two, and how should they go about doing it? The networks themselves cannot even agree.
However, while an interesting window into the 50's, Quiz Show is ultimately human tragedy. People's live are destroyed, especially Stemple's and Van Doren's. While both picked up the pieces in one way or another, their lives were irrevocably changed. Today, Stemple works for the city and would like a rematch. Van Doren is an editor with Encyclopedia Britannica and refuses to return calls. Stemple had the opportunity to rise out of his meager beginnings, had the money in his hands, blew it, and was forever left with that knowledge. Van Doren had everything including a promising future as a noteworthy professor at Columbia, which would carry on the family tradition, blew it, and was forever left with that knowledge. All went down in flames along with his name, which his father points out is his name also. Not precisely life and death Greek Tragedy, but still human devastation. (11-21-94) Beginning