Gangster Flick 3-Pack: Mafioso (1962); Al Capone (1959); Charley Varrick (1973)

Mafioso (1962)

Director: Laberto Lattuada

A slow, frightening burn of a mafia movie. This was one of the more unique and unnerving gangster movies I've yet seen.

Mafioso takes some time to get to the "mafia" elements. For much of the film, we follow Antonio Badalamenti, a native Sicilian who has long since left his home island and become a successful manager in a Milanese industrial factory. He has a beautiful wife and two charming little daughters, whom he is bringing home for a 2-week vacation during which they will meet his family for the first time. Antonio has also been given a peculiar little task by his superior at the factory - to deliver a "very valuable" small package to Don Vincenzo, an extremely prominent man in Antonio's hometown. Antonio's manager says that he and his "friends" in New Jersey, U.S.A., have some business with Vincenzo, though the details are not explained to Antonio. The fastidious and ever-pleasant Antonio agrees without hesitation.

Upon arriving in Sicily, Antonio quickly embraces his old roots. His large and traditional family welcomes him warmly into their home, though Antonio's cosmopolitan wife has difficulty adjusting to the earthy and standoffish demeanor of her husband's mother and aunts. Antonio begins to reconnect and catch up with his old friends, who refer to him by his old nickname "Nino." It soon becomes clear that the entire town is still dominated by Don Vincenzo, the patriarchal mafia leader who commands respect and admiration of nearly everyone in town. There are hints at possible dissenters, though we are led to believe that such malcontents have been dispatched. Despite this air of death, Antonio pays his obligatory respects and delivers his manager's package to the Don.

Then Antonio's world goes completely sideways.

Just as his wife seems to be acclimating and Antonio begins to fully relax, he is pulled into the mafia world which he had left behind long before. Being an "outsider" and a preternaturally good shot, Antonio is pegged to exact an assassination. The otherwise kindly factory manager is all but kidnapped and forced to embark on a strange and dizzying journey to New York City, where he is expected to execute a rival Don.

Mafioso is undoubtedly one of the strangest and most intriguing gangster movies I've ever seen. The senses of place are so well established that we can easily grasp the anxiety, confusion, and terror that Antonio falls into. Our introduction to Antonio is in Milan, where his satisfied clockwork attention to detail speaks of a man right at home in the bustling modern city. Once in Sicily, though, we soon see the culture from which he comes. His town and family follow modes that are fastly fixed in traditions hundreds of years old, from the burka-like robes that the older women wear to the vicious culture of murder and vendetta which the men fully embrace and accept as a fact of life. When Antonio is made an assassin against his will and whisked away to New York City, we get the sense that he has fallen down some horrible rabbit hole where he must act out the very worst things which he had sought to escape in going to Milan.

This movie has stayed with me since watching it a few days before writing this. It is a frightening prospect to consider that one's childhood environment can reach out and warp a person into becoming a monster, and this is what Mafioso presents to us. It can be slow in the telling, as the buildup is very gradual, but this lends it even more power. It is not at all difficult to see why this is considered one of the great gangster movies.

Movie pairing: I couldn't help but think that the modern Sicilian mafia movie Gomorrah makes for a great follow-up viewing for Mafioso. Like the latter, the former explores just how organized crime can impact average people who may have or may want nothing to do with the nefarious crime organization.

Al Capone (1959)

Director: Richard Wilson

A solid film which is even more fascinating when taken in the historical context of gangster movies which came before and after it.

As you can guess, Al Capone offers the tale of the infamous Chicago gangster's violent and ruthless rise to power in the Depression Era. It starts from his arrival in Chicago, following his departure from his native New York City under shady circumstances. Capone (Rod Steiger) becomes a bouncer at a bar run by friend and fellow criminal Johnny Torrio. Through Torrio's connections to Chicago's organized crime syndicates, the ruthless and vicious Capone quickly rises to the head of the local families. He readily employs any method to obtain and maintain power, including murder, extortion, election fixing, and legal manipulation. Law enforcement does catch up to Capone by the mid-1930s, though, after he has spent nearly a decade lording over much of Chicago. His many legal transgression land him in Alcatraz Prison for several years.

The historical points covered in the film are familiar to most Americans with any interest in this iconically notorious criminal. What Al Capone offered was a less glamorous portrait of the title villain than many previous biopics had offered. In fact, star Rod Steiger had refused the first three scripts sent to him since he felt they showed Capone in overly glamorous tones. What the 1959 version gives us is a snarling, pugnacious, and murderous thug who happened to be in the right place at the right time, and who had enough low cunning to satisfy his unrelenting greed. This was a rare depiction of a man who had often been exhibited without his more repellent characteristics.

The fascinating aspect of this movie was how, technique-wise, it so clearly had a foot in both the past and future, with 1959 being the fulcrum. Rod Steiger's performance is the most obvious. While his raging, manic rants evoked images of more overblown acting techniques from the earlier half of the 20th century, the dialogue sometimes had a more disturbing and modern authenticity. The quieter, creepier moments also had a realism which is far eerier than nearly any movie that came before it. The sliminess with which Capone oozes his way into the life of his future wife has a naturalistic look which is unnerving.

This is a great gangster movie to watch in the middle of several of it's predecessors and successors. One can clearly see how it acted as a sort of bridge between earlier films like Key Largo or White Heat, and later films like Bonnie and Clyde or Dillinger.

Charley Varrick (1973)

Director: Don Seigel

Interesting in its grittiness and tension, but a crime movie lacking soul.

Walter Matthau plays the titular thief, a very clever and calculating bank robber who pulls a daring heist with his wife and three other professional larcenists. Things don't go quite as planned, though, in several ways. During the robbery, Varrick's wife and two other members of the five-person crew are killed by police. Once Varrick and the lone other survivor, the hot-headed Harman, execute the rest of their careful getaway, they discover that the amount of cash taken far exceeds their expectations. While the impetuous Harman thinks little of this beyond imagining just how he'll spend his six figures in stolen loot, the wiser Varrick knows that such a large sum will be sorely missed. The two soon learn that Varrick is all-too correct, as the money belonged to the mafia, who has sent a ruthless hitman on their trail.

The crime elements of the story are actually quite good. In ways that foreshadow Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men (as well as the Coen Brothers superb film adaptation), you have a cold-blooded and chillingly intelligent killer chasing down an equally crafty thief. Watching just how they circle and re-circle one another makes for fairly compelling viewing. For me, though, this is where my interest stopped.

The characters simply didn't evoke any kind of empathy, sympathy, or any other emotion which made me care for them one way or the other. Walter Matthau has often played ornery but likable characters. Charley Varrick is not one of them. Varrick doesn't bat an eye as his wife and fellow bank robbers mercilessly gun down police officers. Varrick himself also shows little care for any of the other people whom he sells out or puts in harm's way. The only thing you're left to admire about him is that he is smarter than the other criminals around him and after him.

And then there's the misogyny. What gritty crime movie made between 1967 and 1978 would be complete without a funk jazz music score to accompany a woman getting slapped a few times before jumping into bed with her abuser? Between movies like Point Blank, Dirty Harry, and plenty of others including Charley Varrick, this bizarre sadomasochism was practically a matter of course. For my part, such scenes make me want to take a shower afterwards.

Charley Varrick is a decent enough movie to see one time, if you know how to take your '70s film crime with its requisite amount of sleaze and utter lack of amorality. I'll never need to bother again, though. 

Film #41: On the Waterfront (1954)

Director: Elia Kazan

Initial Release Country: United States

Times Previously Seen: twice (last time = about 3 years ago)

Teaser Summary (no spoilers)

Slightly dense young dock worker takes on union-controlling mob on the Jersey shore; raises pigeons while being one.

Uncut Summary (The full plot, spoilers included. Fair warning)

On the shores of northern New Jersey, young former prizefighter and current longshoreman Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) wants to keep his life simple. He just wants to keep his head down, not cause trouble, and continue getting cushy jobs at the dock through his brother's connections to dirty union boss, John Friendly (Lee J. Cobb). This is all upended when Terry semi-unwittingly takes part in the murder of Joey Doyle, a beloved young local who was about to turn state's evidence against the rampant corruption surrounding the docks.

Terry (middle) meets with the crooked & powerful John "Friendly" (left), while his brother listens in.

The local priest, Father Barry (Karl Malden) implores the workers to muster their courage and testify against the rotten dealings that they all know are wrong, but are too afraid to stand up against. Terry is among those who will not only refuse to testify, but feels obliged to back his crooked brother, Charlie “The Gent” (Rod Steiger), who is one of Friendly's lieutenants. Terry's method is the same as the other longshoremen – to be steadfastly “D and D” - “Deaf and Dumb”.

Terry sticks to these guns until he reunites with Joey Doyle's sister, Edie (Eva Marie Saint), who is home on a break from school and is now desperately trying to find someone who can uncover her brother's killers and put a stop to their brutality. Though rather callous at first, Terry's guilt mounts at seeing the anguish that Edie suffers. Urged by his conscience and Father Barry, Terry eventually confesses to Edie his part in her brother's murder. He then swears to a devastated Edie that he will testify against John Friendly and his crew of thugs.

Word of Terry's relationship with Edie reaches John Friendly, who gives Charlie “The Gent” an ultimatum: convince his brother not to testify or force him into permanent silence by killing him. Charlie meets Terry and tries to sell him on remaining quiet, but Terry refuses. Charlie comes within a trigger pull of killing his brother, but relents. The younger Terry then lets loose all of his pain and disappointment at how his older brother never looked out for him, chasing instead the short-term gains offered by mobsters like Johnny Friendly. A repentant Charlie allows Terry to escape, thus putting himself directly in the line of fire.

Later that same night, Terry meets with Edie, but is lured outside and nearly killed by some of Friendly's goons. They fail to kill Terry, but they leave him a clear message – Charlie's dead body hung up on a fence. Terry becomes enraged, finds a gun, and goes hunting for John Friendly at the local bar. Fortunately, Friendly is not there, forcing Terry to wait for him and giving Father Barry and Edie enough time to come and convince Terry not to try and kill Friendly. Instead, he agrees to bury Friendly in court, which is exactly what he does the following day. An enraged John Friendly erupts and swears that Terry will never work a shore on the eastern seaboard as long as he lives.

After testifying against Friendly, Terry's life becomes far from easy. Quite the contrary, he has now been labeled a rat and stool pigeon by most of the longshoremen who have for decades adhered to the gospel of “D and D”. With Terry's name being sullied seemingly beyond repair, Edie urges him to leave with her to some other part of the country. Terry refuses and heads down to the dock to receive his “rights” - a regular job.

At the shore, Terry stands in a crowd, though is clearly a pariah. While John Friendly may be under indictment and unable to openly muscle anybody at the dock, he still holds sway. Jobs are offered to every longshoreman but him. Terry stalks towards Friendly's headquarters just off of the main pier, in order to confront him. Terry pummels Friendly in a fistfight, only to be beaten unmercifully by Friendly's entourage of goons.

Father Barry & Edie try to get the battered Terry back on his feet.

All of the dockworkers are called back to their jobs. Now, however, they are greatly heartened by Terry's willingness to go toe to toe with John Friendly. They all refuse to work unless Terry is given a job first. Terry must overcome his physical pain and get on his feet. With extreme effort, he does so, and leads the dock workers to their day's work, now seemingly out from underneath the crushing thumb of John Friendly and his gang.

Take 1: My Gut Reaction (Done after this most recent viewing, before any research)

Great movie, though one that had a few blemishes that only five-plus decades reveal and that I didn't recall from past viewings. Basically, though, the things that irked me were either in the first half of the movie, or were easily overlooked. By the end, they were nearly forgotten.

Right away, the music bothers me. It's a score by the famous Leonard Bernstein, and I found it way too bombastic and intrusive. I realize that this is simply the way dramatic effect was achieved in a lot of films of the day, but I found it jarring at times. No sooner are the opening credits finished than an assault of typanies, cymbals, and strings are shattering any attempt at gradual tone-building. It's about as subtle as getting smacked with a mallet.

There is also a lingering silliness to some of the melodrama in the film, something that ties to the music and is, of course, par for the course in a 1950s movie. Really, though, the semi-hokey emotional outbursts and humor are relegated to the already two-dimensional supporting characters. The primary characters are blessedly free of the cliched.

Aside from these, On the Waterfront is outstanding to me. The tale itself is something that has been redone in lesser forms many times over (think The Insider and others), but stands out as being one of the best character development stories I can think of. Terry Malloy is such a well-conceived, plausible and fully formed character that I completely buy the stunning metamorphosis from self-interested layabout to righteously indignant revolutionary. The four characters that lead him on this journey are equally well-constructed: Friendly, Father Barry, Edie and Charlie. Each one, sympathetic or otherwise, is part of the stuff that transformations are made of, and each one awakens a different part of Terry that he didn't seem to know he had in him. Edie inspires compassion, Father Barry courage, Charlie disappointment, and Friendly wrath. It's a wonderfully composed positioning of characters that culminates in a truly satisfying story arc.

Here's the single most famous scene in the film. If you've seen the movie before, it's well worth another watch. If not, you may not want to spoil the impact by watching it by itself. Either way, you're witnessing film acting evolve right before your eyes:



Of course, even the most carefully crafted characters on paper can fall flat if not performed well. No such problem here. Marlon Brando is so incredible as Terry that it's hard to imagine anyone else doing the part. For an actor to be convincingly brutish, callow, remorseful, playful, charming, forlorn, and enraged in turns is an amazing feat. It's even more amazing when you compare this role to others that he played, notably A Streetcar Named Desire, in which his Kowalski was far less charming and much more of a true lout.

As mentioned, the supporting cast is equally strong, especially Karl Malden. Here again it helps to compare his role as the smoldering Father Barry with his role in Steetcar, in which he played a sad, lonely bachelor who invited little more than sympathy. The contrast is marked and impressive.

As he did with Streetcar, director Elia Kazan displays incredible skill in choice of cinematographers. The play of light and shadows throughout the movie give On the Waterfront just the right feel. The night scenes convey such a palpable sense of darkness and danger that a viewer understand that these Jersey docks are no place for outsiders, and it is not in one's best interest to go poking into its darkest corners. On the opposite side, the daylight scenes on the shores, either on the docks or especially when Terry is with Edie, offer those moments of hope and freedom that Terry aspires to, perhaps unconsciously at first, but with growing awareness as the story progresses.

Worth mentioning is something that might not seem as obvious but my girlfriend pointed out – the extras in the movie, even all those without a single line of dialogue, add a great aesthetic element to the whole film. In her words, she had, “never seen so many faces with so much character in one movie.” Too true. I have to think that most of those guys were the real deal: honest-to-God dockworkers whose back-breaking work and arduous lives were obvious in the lines and scars running across their weathered faces.

On the Waterfront has now spent over five decades among the pantheon of “greatest American movies” with good reason. This recent viewing of mine tells me that there's no reason that it shouldn't spend many more decades in exactly the same place.

Take 2: Why Film Geeks Love This Movie (Done after some further research)

Plenty of storylines emerge as one digs into the film just a bit further.

One is the political context. On the Waterfront was, as director Kazan openly admitted, his response to those who criticized his testimony to the House Un-American Committee two years before the release of Waterfront, in which he “named names” of associates with ties to the Communist Party. Many would never forgive Kazan for this, but he used the story of Terry Malloy to present his position in a sympathetic light. Whether one wants to see Kazan and Malloy's stories as analogous is up to the viewer.

The story of the movie was taken from very real occurrences on the Hoboken docks in the 1940s, particularly the latter part of the decade. It all came to a head when a whistle-blower named Anthony DiVincenzo dropped dime on the rampant corruption and was somewhat ostracized, the condition dramatized at the end of On the Waterfront.

I found it interesting that, despite being roundly lauded by nearly all critics and raking in 11 Oscar nomination and winning 8, the original TIME review is a bit lukewarm. However, even the harshest critiques I came across could not ignore the power of the acting and the masterful cinematography by Boris Kaufman. I find it also of note that more than a few critics, both past and present, point to Marlon Brando as ringing in the modern style of “realistic” acting. This is rather clear when you compare his performance to nearly any other actors' in his 1950s movies. Current day film critic royalty Roger Ebert covers a lot of ground on this and nearly everything else in the film in this essay.

Less important but equally curious trivia about the film: the extras in the movie were, as a viewer would expect, authentic dock workers; the men who played John Friendly's tough-guy bodyguards and goons were, in fact, former heavyweight boxers. The stunner piece of trivia to me was the original choice for the role of Terry Malloy: Frank Sinatra. That's right. The Jersey native Ol' Blue Eyes had been given the thumbs up, and the ball was rolling on getting him outfitted when Kazan and the studios decided to go for Brando, whose prestige and higher price tag would allow them to ask for a larger budget. The studio agreed and Sinatra was out. Imagine that – Mr. “New York, New York” himself in that same role. I guess it could have worked, but it's tough to picture.

Here's the grande finale, in which Terry delivers a beat-down, receives an even bigger beat-down, and then heroically recovers from said latter beat-down. As with the previous clip, you may not want to watch if you've never seen, and have intentions of watching, the movie:



So there it is. Just a few of the interesting footnotes on a film that any cinema fan needs to see. One can certainly debate the relevance of the political themes and the artistic credibility of using a movie to defend one's real-life political actions, but I don't see that one can question the clear merits of this movie. If you haven't seen it, it's more than just worth your time – it's all but required viewing.

That's a wrap. 41 shows down. 64 to go.

Coming Soon: Pather Panchali (1955)


And our first entry from India! I have seen this once, and it's widely considered one of, if not the, titan of Indian film. We'll see how it comes off.

Please be sure to pick up all empties on the way out.