data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/82188/82188d25a90ef31d7fea3b78b991b939bfe1d11e" alt=""
If you love films there are many, many reasons why you have to see Richard Rush's 1980 film, The Stunt Man.
First is Richard Rush's Academy Award, DGA Award and Golden Globe Award nominated direction. The film is a delight from the very first frentic shot of an escaped fugitive being chased. It reminded me of Hitchcock the way it moves and is linked together by seemingly unrelated things. Beautifully filmed and impeccably edited. And the performances Rush coerces out of his cast bring me to the second reason to see this film: Peter O'Toole.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/546e3/546e34426dd558066d7983bc09fb1ea47341049d" alt="".jpg)
In one scene, when during filming, a cameraman says "cut" because there's only 22 seconds of film left, O'Toole's Cross explodes. "In 22 seconds, I could break your fucking spine. In 22 seconds, I could pinch your head off like a fucking insect and spin it all over the fucking pavement. In 22 seconds, I could put 22 bullets inside your ridiculous gut. What I seem unable to do in 22 seconds is to keep you from fucking up my film."
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/29a48/29a4817f6088edb0c85406825516f06457ced417" alt=""
And the writing is another reason to see The Stunt Man. Nominated for an Academy Award, a Golden Globe and a WGA Award, the script weaves a complicated and convoluted yarn, at the heart of which is, "Would Cross kill to get his picture made?" As filming continues, Cameron is placed into ever more dangerous stunt scenes. Is Cross trying to kill him or is Cameron just losing it? It's hard to tell what is real and what is "movie real," and that is what is really at the core of the film. The actual blurring of reality and fantasy is what this film is all about. Yet, as complicated as the film is, if you pay attention all is made perfectly clear.
Two other reasons for seeing The Stunt Man are the beautiful Barbara Hershey and the wonderful Allen Garfield. Both have some amazingly well acted scenes featuring impeccable writing. Garfield's best line: "I had a virgin once. I had to fly to Guatemala for her. She was blind in one eye and had a stuffed alligator that said 'Welcome to Miami Beach.'"
So, what is my beef with the film? Without giving away too much, there is a scene where if escaped prisoner and faux stunt man "Burt" were not really named "Cameron," which sounds a lot like "Camera on?," then the scene would not work. It is the only example I can think of where a character's name is crucial to making a plot continue.
1 comment:
Barry,
As I said in the Tony Board
BURN HOLLYWOOD BURN, AN ALAN SMITHEE MOVIE is another movie wehre the character's name is crucial to making the plot work.
It's not a plot worth working, but the plot can't advance if Eric Idle's character isn't named Alan Smithee.
I've seen THE STUNT MAN -- once, when it originally came out. So I didn't remember this bit from the end.
Bob Ingersoll
Post a Comment