|
|
#1
11-22-2005, 07:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
100 films: Sweet Smell of Success
 starring: Burt Lancaster, Tony Curtis, Susan Harrison, and Martin Milner written by: Clifford Odets and Ernest Lehman, from the novel by Lehman directed by: Alexander Mackendrick NR, 96 min, 1957, USA All-powerful gossip columnist J.J. Hunsecker (Burt Lancaster) has blacklisted press agent Sidney Falco (Tony Curtis) until he can fulfill a promise to break up the impending nuptuals of his daughter (Susan Harrison) to guitar player Steve Dallas (Martin Milner). Falco devises a plan, but Hunsecker's protective nature goes too far and he discovers too late that not everything can be manipulated like the lives of the people in his column. Sweet Smell of Success was roundly panned upon its release in 1957, and it's box office failure ensured that director Alexander Mackendrick's first big American film[1] would essentially be his last. Really it's a shame, because Sweet Smell of Success is the sort of taut battle of wills we don't see all that often from Hollywood. Both Lancaster and Curtis play men lacking a moral compass--completely unsympathetic people--which probably goes a long way toward explaining the tepid box office. American audience don't usually react all that well to films where all the main characters are sleazy, manipulative creeps, so the studio couldn't exactly have been expecting lines around the corner, but this is exactly the type of film critics would normally champion. Methinks perhaps it was a victim of bad timing. The two big films of 1957 were 12 Angry Men, a moral tale of standing for your convictions, and The Bridge on the River Kwai, a big war movie. It could be that Sweet Smell of Success was just a couple of years too early for critical acclaim. And critical acclaim is precisely what this deserves. Set in the New York theatre district, it follows Tony Curtis (in a great performance) as he plays the angles, desperately trying to get his clients mentioned in Burt Lancaster's column. But Lancaster has a great deal of leverage over Curtis. He knows that Curtis relies on his column to live; without his gratis, Curtis is as good as dead. So he uses that leverage to force Curtis to do things against his will, like get a guitar player to stay away from his sister. Curtis views Lancaster as a friend, but there's really no give and take to the relationship. It's one man grovelling for a crumb and another making him dance for it. Pretty much Lancaster operates his column with the all-encompassing power of a mafia boss, moving people around like pawns with little to no consideration for their well-being. Even his concern for his sister has selfish motivations. Mackendrick wisely made the simple but effective choice to give Lancaster a pair of glasses that cast a shadow over his eyes, so even if his face is fully lit, we never see his eyes. Whenever we see him, it's clear to us that he's not to be trusted, but what choice do the other characters have? He has the power to crush them with a single phone call. He is king of a theatre underworld brought to life with expert camera work and cinematography. You feel as if you've walked these streets a hundred times and can't get rid of the smell. *********** [1] He made a name for himself with the British comedies Whiskey Galore! (1949), The Man in the White Suit (1951), and The Ladykillers (1955). He made a couple of films after this one, but nothing of any real substance. Previously in the 100 films series: Bande à part, Children of Paradise, Bride of Frankenstein, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, His Girl Friday, Dodsworth , Metropolis , Casablanca , The Searchers 
|
|
#3
11-22-2005, 07:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 films: Sweet Smell of Success
It's Lancaster's sister, not his daughter. Ah, I see you fixed that in the 3rd paragraph, but it's still up top.
I don't usually find films about show biz very interesting, but I liked this one more than I thought I would. The corruption of everyone, including the police, was completely taken for granted. Pretty boy Tony Curtis played a craven jerk it was pretty hard to identify with -- not the usual thing a star does. Lancaster was fairly despicable and played enjoyably against type as a gossip columnist instead of a teeth gritting tough guy. The beauty of his plan in the movie is that it not only goes so far and does so much horrendous damage to people, but is really so ill thought out and virtually arbitrary. This isn't a guy doing the best he can in a tough world and sometimes coming across the same mistakes we all would, or maybe one or two more; it's an egomaniac with all their usual sloppiness and vindictive destruction causing so much more trouble than the situation could possibly call for, and everyone suffering the result. The relish Lancaster brings to abusing the people he's with isn't something you see often on a screen; the guy seems to live for the satisfaction of just grinding the boot into people. For a guy who's basically on top of the world, he sure doesn't know how to enjoy it sanely. He's bitter and petty and pretty fun to watch. The film is not one I enjoyed immensely, but I did like the way it painted an incredibly clear picture of its casually ruthless and sordid world and the various sniveling bastards inhabiting it. And the very unconventional, for that time or any time, look at the arbitraryness and spiteful pettiness of power. And the stars playing so opposite to type.
|
|
#5
11-22-2005, 12:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 films: Sweet Smell of Success
this film is definitely in my personal top 50. I remember when Entertainment Weekly came out with their top 100 movie special and they said that this film "blows you away when you stumble upon it at 2am" (or something like that). Very modern film with absolutely fantastic dialouge.
|
|
#6
11-22-2005, 02:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 films: Sweet Smell of Success
[ QUOTE ]
It's Lancaster's sister, not his daughter. Ah, I see you fixed that in the 3rd paragraph, but it's still up top. [/ QUOTE ] huh, look at that. i was really tired when i wrote this. if i can find the edit button, which seems to be missing, i'll fix it.
|
|
#7
11-22-2005, 02:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 films: Sweet Smell of Success
Easily in my top 10-20 of all-time favorite films. It's just so naaaaaaasty.
Curtis and Lancaster were never better. And why hasn't Curtis been given his due as an actor? The man was flat out great.
|
|
#8
11-23-2005, 06:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 films: Sweet Smell of Success
I had never really seen Tony Curtis in anything, but stumbled on "The Boston Strangler" one night on cable, and I was stunned at how good he was. The movie was nothing special, but his performance was eye-opening.
I had never heard of "Success", but it sounds like my kind of flick.
|
|
#9
11-23-2005, 07:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 films: Sweet Smell of Success
[ QUOTE ]
I had never really seen Tony Curtis in anything, but stumbled on "The Boston Strangler" one night on cable, and I was stunned at how good he was. The movie was nothing special, but his performance was eye-opening. [/ QUOTE ] "Some Like it Hot" is also very good and is coming soon in the 100 films.
|
|
#10
11-23-2005, 08:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 100 films: Sweet Smell of Success
I knew someone would mention that as soon as I said, "I haven't seen much Tony Curtis." [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
All those Billy Wilder films were on tv a lot when I was a kid, and too young to appreciate them. Now that I'm ready, they're never on any more. Instead, we get "St Elmo's Fire" 100 times per week.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
