* *
The day-to-day challenges faced by a movie producer. Not as interesting as that sounds.
Starring Robert De Niro, Tony Curtis, Robert Mitchum, Jack Nicholson, Donald Pleasence
Written by Harold Pinter
Produced by Sam
Spiegel
Duration 123 minutes
Are older movies
slower? Are they, dare I say it ... more boring?
So, recently I was watching HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH with an audio commentary by writer/director Tommy Lee Wallace. At one point Wallace reflects on what he would change about the movie. "I'd make it faster," he says. "By today's standards, it just feels so slow."
Now, HALLOWEEN III came out in 1982. That commentary was recorded for the 2022 special edition Blu-ray. That's a 40-year gap in expectations of film pacing. So what does that mean for ones made even further back? Fifty, 60, even 70 years?
I don't personally mind the pace of HALLOWEEN III. My 10-year-old son might struggle; we'll see, when he's old enough for his proper cinema education to begin. And I'm certainly not saying that the kind of hyperactive 'content' (shudder) his generation enjoys is an improvement.
But yes, I do
often struggle with old films, anything earlier than about 1960.
Look, you've got
your CITIZEN KANEs and your CASABLANCAs; your 12 ANGRY MENs and ON THE WATERFRONTs.
No issues there. But the majority of so-called classics do test the modern
viewer's patience.
THE LAST TYCOON is a little more recent than those I just mentioned, coming from 1976. But the movie actually positions itself further into the past. This is a feature in common with many older movies: not only were they made a while ago, they're set in bygone eras.
I'm talking about things like:
– SINGIN' IN THE RAIN: released 1952, set in 1927 (25 years prior).
– GONE WITH THE WIND: released 1939, set in 1861 (78 years prior).
– THE SEARCHERS: released 1956, set in 1968 (88 years prior).
– BEN-HUR: released 1959, set in 26AD (1,933 years prior!)
No wonder those movies feel so slow; they're not only old now, they were old back then! Whereas the likes of KANE, CASABLANCA etc all take place in their contemporary period.
LAST TYCOON, meanwhile, is set sometime in the 1930s, the so-called 'Golden Age' of Hollywood. And I'm afraid it does nothing to disprove my old-is-slow theory. One-word review: snoozefest.
The plot, such as it is, follows studio executive Monroe Stahr (Robert De Niro), a much-respected 'production genius'. Stahr has several hassles: demanding writer Donald Pleasance; ambitious starlet Theresa Russell; and many other movie studio problems, none of them very compelling.
At one point, Jack Nicholson turns up and attempts to inject some life into proceedings, but even he can't inject a pulse into THE LAST TYCOON.
This was the final release from ON THE WATERFRONT director Elia Kazan. You can practically feel the old guy falling asleep behind the camera; it's a wonder the frame never suddenly tilts down as Kazan slumps onto his Panaflex for his afternoon nap.
Yes, this movie is slow. Slooo-ow. Much of TYCOON follows Stahr romancing a young actress. Their courtship has all the energy of a movie left on pause overnight. She's British, so is of course posh, inert and frigid – right up to the moment she suddenly takes all her clothes off. Stahr responds in kind, somehow removing his shirt, tie and jacket in one motion, a moment that recalls Leslie Nielsen's Frank Drebbin.
De Niro, who I usually love, is tragically miscast: his intensity weighs this lead balloon
down even more. The movie is crying out for a lighter touch,
some easy-going charm. Robert Redford would have been perfect. Or Warren Beatty? Hell, even Burt Reynolds might have pulled it off.
But things do happen in THE LAST TYCOON, surely? Well, of course. De Niro repeatedly walks around his half-built beachside house, a metaphor for ... something. Bob and Jack play an aggressive game of outdoor table tennis. Head exec Robert Mitchum's daughter opens his closet and a naked woman topples out. De Niro gets drunk on scotch and soda then throws up in his own swimming pool (not sure we've ever seen Bobby D hammered before; possibly in MEAN STREETS?)
The whole movie-exec-in-strife thing is handled much more entertainingly in the later HAIL CAESAR (2016). Heck, even 1992's THE PLAYER is more compelling, and that followed TYCOON by less than two decades.
F Scott Fitzgerald wrote the novel upon which this movie is based, and I mentioned his amusing short stories about fictional screenwriter Pat Hobby in a previous review.
Except, old F Scott never actually finished that TYCOON novel, dying of a heart attack first. Quite why uber-producer Sam Spiegel elected to option an only three-quarters-done book is beyond me.
But let's just say that if the movie had remained unfinished, the world wouldn't have missed out on much.
Two stars out of
five.
Valid use of the
word ‘last’? Who is supposed to be the last of what
here? Is it Stahr, and is he really a 'tycoon'? Overall, confusing.
What would a movie called THE FIRST TYCOON be like? There's a biography out there called The
First Tycoon: The Epic Life of Cornelius Vanderbilt, by TJ Stiles. Maybe
someone should film that? Hey, it could be the directorial debut of Zoe Kazan,
Elia Kazan's granddaughter. (Similar to how she's writing and producing a new adaptation of East of Eden for Netflix, 70 years after it was made into a movie by Elia.)
Previously: THE LAST RIGHT
Check out my books: Jonathanlastauthor.com
