Dirty Movie Club: A Face in the Crowd

[grady]

A Face in the Crowd
dir: Elia Kazan
starring: Andy Griffith, Patricia Neal, Walter Matthau
1957

imdb wiki netflix blockbusters amazon

Synopsis
Andy Griffith in his first film role plays a drifter name Larry 'Lonesome' Rhodes who is made into a star by a radio producer who discovers him in a small Southern Jail while doing a story. The film explores the corruption of power as this small time thug/con artist/womanizer rises up with megalomanical power to help sway an election with his public persona

Why I chose it?
Much like b.miller and Stranglet before me, I had an idea of selecting some canonical, appreciated, and lauded film that everyone will agree was good but then felt compelled to go in the opposite direction. Elia Kazan made this film three years after On the Waterfront and two years after East of Eden. As good as those two films are, I still like this film more. The first time I saw the film I was bowled over by it. Part of my awe came from it's social commentary that seemed perfectly applicable when I saw it in 1998 and even more so now with our media saturated lives.

Another thing I wanted to avoid was rambling on about the film, pontificating so I attempt to make this brief. Andy Griffith had always been the Sheriff of Mayberry and Matlock until I saw this film. This film made me sit up at attention. This was made before the Andy Griffith show, but the role confronted my preconceived ideas towards Griffith.

Finally, this like b.miller mentioned in his posting is a movie I wish more people would see, especially in regards to Kazan film's and career. When the film was released on DVD last year I was overjoyed that someone had finally got around to it.

Enough from me. Time to watch.

This film also echoes some films made a few dacades later, especially Network.

[Strangelet]

sweet. 1957 seems like a good year for movies

[grady]

I noticed the 1957 connection when I was copying b.miller layout/format for my post.

Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory also came out in 1957 too!

[b.miller]

So... yeah I guess I liked it. It's one of those situations where I am constantly aware of how "good movie" this is, but it still just borders my visceral entertainment zone. The acting is (expectedly) superb, the message strong and prophetic, shot well, told well, cut well, all that stuff. But the whole movie I was just waiting for the huge long monologues to start coming in. Those virtuoso passages just waiting for acting class exercises about one's inability to love or frustration at being human... and at the very very end I sort of got a few, but for the most part I was pleasantly surprised.

It helps to have Matthau deliver those by the way. For whatever reason, his brooding quiet tone agrees with me much more than a southern-accented belle or whatever. The few times he gets more than one line at a time to say he reminds me a lot of his jaded scientist in Fail Safe. Clearly intelligent with an edge like he's aware of how above everyone he is but also with some pity because he knows he puts himself there. At the very end when someone finally gets to tell Rhodes off, I suppose what he says is sufficient but I wanted him to just sock it to him... like the verbal equivalent of a mack truck hitting a kitten. I guess it was a lot closer to that back in 1957.

So... I think the biggest surprise in the movie for me was the Vitajex success montage. I honestly didn't think Kazan could get that excessive with his imagery. It's like for a moment there he turned into Eisenstein or Godard with his cutting. It's really a pretty scary minute or so... very mocking and cynical. Actually the whole movie was very dark... surprisingly dark for me. I liked that about it, although the nihilist in me wanted Patricia Neal to go back up to him at the very end, leaving Matthau alone and the two leads stuck in a continuing downward spiral. I suppose her walking away is one glint of light for the audience to hold onto... I like to think it was studio-mandated.

The reason why I liked this movie more than I thought I would is that I expected a story that boiled down to two words: power corrupts. What I got however, was much richer. And that's because Rhodes starts out as an asshole. If he was a nice simple country guy that gets whisked (or even worse, groomed) into sudden stardom and becomes a bastard, it'd get old. But instead, the first thing we learn about him is that "he's a mean one" and instead of being a comment on power, it's a comment on, via television, human nature's willingness or even eagerness to follow.

In that respect, I think this makes a great double feature with Sweet Smell of Success. Plus Winchell appears in this film which is fun.

Speaking of... I didn't recognize him until I saw on IMDb but that's Rip Torn as Barry Mills! Crazy!

And also, I absolutely love the term "gentleman loafer" which Rhodes says very early in this movie. That's an amazing title and if I ever get business cards printed that will be my title.

So, summing up. I must admit I liked this more than I thought I would. Clearly a good movie. I still won't be running out to buy the DVD...

[gambit]

Andy Griffith made this movie work, and that surprised me. I did not expect him to be so energetic, charming, and controlling in that country bumpkin sort of way. That and he was, like b.miller said, an asshole, which added about a dozen more layers to his character. Unlike the other 1957 movie we watched, this one held my attention better and works better today, I think. I liked some of the scenes here, especially where Rhodes, at the end, was ranting and raving to the applause machine and all we see is his shadow.

But a few things bugged me. First off, Rhodes invents an applause machine? I'm assuming they meant he paid someone to make it, but the way they said it in the film, he made it himself. Second, I know Rhodes is an influential guy and all, but I don't buy that he could make so many groups of people do whatever he wants after one or two radio/tv shows. It just doesn't work. And maybe this is just my modern movie tastes, I didn't like the fades at the end of many of the scenes. It's probably the method back in the day, but I don't care for it.

Otherwise, thumbs up.