If Memory Serves… The Stunt Man

Posted by Greg Ferrara on November 16, 2011

Back in 1980, Richard Rush, fresh off of… well, actually, he wasn’t fresh off of anything. He directed Freebie and Bean six years earlier and before that a Jack Nicholson biker movie (Hell’s Angels on Wheels) and an Annette Funicello, Fabian movie (Thunder Alley). So in 1980 he wasn’t coming fresh off of anything except an impressively undistinguished career. But in 1980, he made The Stunt Man and that made his entire career worthwhile. It was fourteen years before he made another movie, his last feature film, the Bruce Willis mystery/thriller, Color of Night. To quote Orson Welles, in response to a remark that Greta Garbo only had two great movies, “You only need one.”

The Stunt Man was Richard Rush’s one and when it was released in 1980, it was lavished with high praise and awards from critics and festivals, including two nominations for Rush himself, for Best Screenplay and Best Director. I saw it in 1980 and loved it. And when I say “I saw it” that means “repeatedly.” I watched it practically every time it ran on cable and had most of it memorized. Then, as with all things concerning my memory, it slowly receded into the cold, dark corners of things once knew, now long gone. I saw it again about ten years ago to see if I could rekindle the magic. I couldn’t. In fact, I didn’t like it at all during this second stage viewing. How would I feel about seeing it again, now, after ten years since my last viewing? Would I like it again, love it or hate it even more? Think Goldilocks and you may have your answer.

The Stunt Man begins its story with a frenzy of visual references and jokes that clearly signal this movie is all about having fun, not sending heavy-handed messages about the nature of reality. The first thing we see, in fact, is a vulture atop a pole, recalling the opening to Gunga Din, although it would be a far stretch to link up any of the characters in this tale with that one. The vulture quickly flies off, over a dog that would appear to be on its dying breath until it decides to lick itself, in its (ahem) special place, oblivious to the fact that it’s in the middle of the road and a police car needs to get by. Honking furiously, the police manage to get the dog to finally move and briefly, very briefly, we get a glimpse, or rather a sound, of Eli Cross (Peter O’Toole), flying in a helicopter, circling the area, just like that buzzard. The scene moves into a diner, and a little dog, held by the waitress, snips at the customers while on the tv, a pampered dog jumps through the legs of actress Nina Franklin (Barbara Hershey). Finally, we meet our hero, or anti-hero, Cameron (Steve Railsback), sitting at the counter taking detailed note of those policeman who just pulled up. We get the feeling they’re here for him and sure enough, as he tries to leave, they cuff him. But Cameron is clearly a man of tough physical stamina and, breaking free from them, jumps through the back door, beats up a telephone lineman who stands in his way (don’t worry, they weren’t in Wichita and it wasn’t Glen Campbell) and heads for the safety of a lonely bridge. There, he sees a beautiful, vintage 1918 Duesenberg and thumbs for a ride. The car stops, Cameron gets in, the mysterious driver kicks him out and speeds away down the bridge. Once there, he spins around, hits full throttle and heads back for Cameron, intent, it would seem, on killing him. Cameron throws a large bolt pulled from the bridge at the car which goes over the side. At last, Cameron stands looking as the helicopter swoops in, camera at its side, filming, while Eli stares him down. Soon, an entire movie crew appear.

That full description covers only the first seven minutes of The Stunt Man and that detail-packed opening practically functions as a mini-action-adventure-mystery movie all by itself. Soon, we learn the stunt man in the car, Bert, drowned after he went off the bridge and Eli, the director, blackmails Cameron into taking his place. Cameron avoids the police for his as yet unknown crime and Eli avoids telling the press someone on his movie set died. A deal is struck and Cameron learns the ropes of being a stunt man but soon becomes convinced that Eli will have him killed in a stunt as payback for Bert. Maybe.

When I first saw the film in 1980 the main thing that struck me was how it wove in and out of reality with ease. Reading the negative review of it by Roger Ebert, I was shocked. Here, in the midst of all the praise it was getting, with Pauline Kael being its biggest champion, Ebert was criticizing it for, essentially, “cheating” him. He felt cheated because the film does things that, normally, would be impossible. For instance, the crew films a battle scene on the beach, with locals standing around watching. Extras and stunt man take their positions and a plane flies in firing bullets at the soldiers. A few explosions goe off, smoke covers everything and when it clears, we see the soldiers torn apart and bloodied. The spectators gasp and then we see the stuntman get up, uncovering their hidden leg under the sand to make it look like it was shot off. Now, even someone without movie experience knows that you don’t go from one to the other without extensive makeup and prep work before the camera rolls. The stunt men don’t all just wait for the smoke to cover them up and then quickly apply hours worth of makeup and hide their legs and arms in the sand. So Ebert felt that was cheating. And it is. But here’s the thing: Richard Rush doesn’t care.

When I saw it in 1980, that seemed really deep to me, for lack of a better word. When I saw it again around ten years ago, it seemed forced and obvious. When I watched it this week I thought, “Why did I take it so seriously ten years ago? And why did I think it was making any kind of mind-bending statement on reality thirty years ago? It’s a black comedy, it’s absurd and it works!”

Obviously, my take this time around was much different. I really enjoyed it this time around and I think it’s because I let the absurd nature of the film seep back in for me. Richard Rush doesn’t worry about whether this bit or that bit is technically some form of cheating or not. He doesn’t care and, in a way, he’s daring you to. I imagine he had a pretty good laugh over Ebert’s take. I mean, this is a film in which the fictional film crew in 1980 is making a World War I epic in the tradition of Wings, The Dawn Patrol and The Big Parade. Surely, that must signal right there that this movie has no concerns towards realism.

The film is greatly aided by the two lead performances of the magnificent Peter O’Toole and the magnificently odd Steve Railsback. I don’t know if it was intentional but Railsback’s casting is note perfect. Railsback has always been known as an actor who gives performances that seem just a touch off-kilter. Since the entire cast of characters are people who work in the movies, their timing and speaking cadences are all rehearsed, assured and confident. Cameron, on the other hand, replies in rhythms that signal he truly is an outsider, someone who doesn’t belong. And Railsback plays this perfectly.

As for playing against that strangeness, well, you couldn’t ask for a better choice than Peter O’Toole whose Eli seems to absolutely relish Cameron’s oddness. He plays with Cameron, constantly, always baiting, always tempting, always forcing a reaction and then walking away smugly satisfied. The two actors do a wonderful job of forcing the other’s strength to the surface.

Barbara Hershey plays the self-absorbed, yet vulnerable, Nina Franklin exceedingly well, too, and makes her own character just off-center enough that you can see her falling for Cameron, weirdness and all. When the two plot their revenge on Eli at the end (sort of, but not really – oh, just see it and you’ll know what I’m talking about) she seems just crazy enough to throw it all away on an impulse. Even if it might end up getting her killed.

But two of the biggest treats in the film are Allen Goorwitz (aka, Allen Garfield) as the writer and Chuck Bail as the stunt coordinator. The two of them play their small parts with enough charisma that you actually kind of miss them when they’re not onscreen, even if Peter O’Toole’s currently the man in front of the camera (okay, maybe not that much but they are good).

One final word of praise for Dominic Frontiere’s exciting and amusingly period score. The whole film, not just the film within the film, is scored like a 1930′s movie about World War I. It’s the final touch of absurdity that nicely complements the film.

While I liked it better than I did ten years ago but probably not as much as I did thirty years ago, I can’t help but feel it’s a film that’s going to stick around. Somehow, thanks to its odd melding of 1980 and 1918, O’Toole and Railsback and reality and unreality, it dates well. And if it works exactly how Rush wants it to work or not is out of his control anyway. Once the movie’s made, it’s up to the audience to decide how they want to view it and sometimes, as evidenced by my three separate periods of viewing it, that can mean something different every time. As Eli puts it, when explaining to Cameron how these things work in real life:

“I know a man who made an anti-war movie, a good one. When it was shown in his hometown, army enlistment went up 600 percent.”

Exactly.

41 Comments |

submit

41 Responses If Memory Serves… The Stunt Man

Posted By Tom S : November 16, 2011 9:21 am

Is there a more fun actor than Peter O’Toole when he’s having a good time? Here, The Ruling Class, My Favorite Year (which is marred horribly by Cousin Larry’s performance and some lame scripting, but more than redeemed by O’Toole)- it’s a shame he damn near killed himself in the 70s, but it doesn’t seem to have affected his skills at all.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 16, 2011 10:07 am

Boy, Tom, you got that right, about all of it. I personally love My Favorite Year but Mark Linn-Baker tests my resolve each time I see it. I really cannot stand his performance. Fortunately, there’s O’Toole (and Joseph Bologna and Bill Macy) to take up the slack.

The Ruling Class is another movie where O’Toole’s feverish performance carries the whole thing. In fact, I think Peter O’Toole is always my favorite thing in any movie he’s in, even when surrounded by other superb actors.

Posted By Jenni : November 16, 2011 11:09 am

Saw this movie when tcm aired it in the summer. I dimmly recalled it being advertised in it’s release year, but hadn’t seen it then. Loved O’Toole’s role of the film director. He was an absolute hoot,ham, with the part, and the part called for all of that. Didn’t he get nominated for this part for an award? If not, he should have. Agreeing with My Favorite Year, another role O’Toole shone in.

Posted By Larry Aydlette : November 16, 2011 1:14 pm

I used to have that soundtrack on vinyl, and rue ever getting rid of it. I like the shot where the Dusty Springfield song comes on and Hershey is laughing through the multicolored glass door.

Posted By Larry Aydlette : November 16, 2011 1:17 pm

By the way, you forgot to mention Rush’s other significant film, the ’60s campus drama GETTING STRAIGHT. Elliot Gould, Candice Bergen, a very young Harrison Ford.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 16, 2011 1:26 pm

Jenni, yes, he was nominated for Best Actor for it. He was nominated again a couple of years later for My Favorite Year, both nominations richly deserved.

Posted By Kingrat : November 16, 2011 1:59 pm

THE STUNT MAN was a hit when shown at the first TCM Film Festival in 2010. In fact, it was repeated because the first showing sold out. Richard Rush was there to hear people praise and enjoy his film. I had only seen it on B&W TV. They did not show all those scenes with nekkid people–no wonder the movie seemed kind of choppy. With the fine restoration and all scenes present, the film made much more sense.

Not many directors as obscure as Rush get nominated for Best Director, even if their film is well-reviewed. This shows how much other directors admired his work. By the way, O’Toole reportedly based his characterization on David Lean.

Posted By JeffH : November 16, 2011 2:15 pm

I saw this movie when it opened in Cleveland back in ’80 (it had been finished for two years but Rush and the Melvin Simon company had been battling with Fox for a release, even after a very positive sneak in Seattle) and I loved it so much that I stayed for two more shows that night-I wasn’t the only one, either; even though the theater was packed for all three shows, I saw a number of people doing the same as me. Bought the soundtrack and even the movie poster and treasured them. Our campus films group also fell in love with the film and we had a very successful weekend with the film in ’81.

Some years later there was a screening at UCLA with both Rush and Railsback in attendance (another full house) and the film still worked for me, and I was lucky enough that both men were very happy to sign my poster (Hope to get O’Toole’s and Hershey’s, if possible). I had the 2-disc SE of the DVD and now have the Blu-Ray-THAT is devotion.

For me, remembering a lyric from the song “Bits and Pieces” that says “a world where nothing is what it seems” and “reality is yours to deny” is enough to say that this movie is basically a fever dream and to just go with it. This film is still a total blast and you can tell that everyone in front of the camera (and probably behind it) was having a real blast.

By the way, have you ever noticed that movies-within-movies are usually pretty bad when you look at them independently from the original? The movie in THE STUNT MAN still looks pretty lame to me, although I do like the Charleston on the airplane wing (even if it was a dance that wasn’t invented until a few years after WWI).

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 16, 2011 2:29 pm

Kingrat, glad to hear it was so popular at the TCM festival.

I had heard that O’Toole based his portrayal on Lean and watching it again that makes me like Lean even more. O’Toole’s Eli Cross really is a great guy. He plays tricks to get his way, the worst on Nina with her parents and he can be harsh on the set but only once, really, and that’s because someone stopped the camera during a scene. Otherwise it’s clear everyone feels comfortable around him and, importantly, when you first see him, after the Bert incident, his eyes are blood red, something I hadn’t paid much attention to before. These are the eyes of someone who’s been weeping. It’s a nice touch and Cross comes off as an intelligent, thoughtful and, yes, generous director. What a great performance.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 16, 2011 2:36 pm

Jeff,

I’ve written about movies within movies before on my personal blog. I love analyzing them and breaking them down for what they might be and I’ll probably do it with this one soon enough. It seems like a grand soap opera in which our hero dies fleeing the Germans (World War I) to get to his love, a German. Then, years later, she remembers his sacrifice as she is honored in Nazi Germany! What a hoot!

Bought the soundtrack and even the movie poster and treasured them.

I was looking for the soundtrack the other day and let me just say, you’re lucky. An out of print CD of it goes for around $140. I love the music in this movie so much but I can’t afford that.

This film is still a total blast and you can tell that everyone in front of the camera (and probably behind it) was having a real blast.

That’s what I got from it this time, too. I just let myself be taken in by its feverish absurdity and had a great time watching it.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 16, 2011 3:00 pm

Larry – You got rid of it?! Why? Oh, I shouldn’t talk. I got rid of all my vinyl lps, like a moron.

I love that part through the hotel lobby window, too. Railsback’s staring at her, knowing it’s all a put-on and yet, not quite able to break away.

And there’s plenty of Rush films I didn’t mention, I just felt like highlighting those three or four would suffice but now that you mention it, Getting Straight probably should have been one I included. Never saw it myself. Any good?

Posted By JeffH : November 16, 2011 3:31 pm

There was also AIR AMERICA, which is an interesting misfire, but good performances by Mel Gibson and Robert Downey, Jr.

Posted By Larry Aydlette : November 16, 2011 4:40 pm

It’s not as good as WILD IN THE STREETS (what is?), but it’s better than a lot of other campus films, including RPM and DRIVE, HE SAID. Mainly because of Gould, who gives another of his many underrated performances.

Posted By Tom S : November 16, 2011 4:48 pm

The only movie I can think of with O’Toole where he’s not the best part is Ray’s The Savage Innocents, and he’s barely doing anything in that one. Even as a walking poster for the ravages of age, he’s delightful- his character in Ratatouille could have come across as a dull stereotype of Those Damn Critics!, but O’Toole gave him enough nuance and delicacy to make the third act turnaround convincing. Besides, Lawrence of Arabia’s my favorite movie, I have to be a Peter O’Toole fan.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 16, 2011 4:51 pm

Jeff, I was checking out what he had directed and so I didn’t even realize he was one of the screenwriters for Air America. Interesting.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 16, 2011 4:53 pm

Mainly because of Gould, who gives another of his many underrated performances.

That’s how I feel about a lot of movies Gould was in, i.e., he’s the one that makes them work.

Posted By Tom S : November 16, 2011 4:54 pm

And Linn-Baker really is turning in a weak sitcom performance in My Favorite Year, isn’t he? It’s almost like casting him is some kind of Brechtian device to make you realize that you don’t always give a damn about a bland protagonist just because the movie says you should- but his dullness certainly highlights how great O’Toole is. He’s like Welles in the Third Man- some actors, if you build them up as the most interesting person in the world, fall apart and wind up looking like boring jerks. O’Toole and Welles have big enough screen presences to take it- you believe that they get these cults of personality growing around them, because you the viewer want to spend more time around them too.

Which, obviously, is a key to the way The Stunt Man works. If you put Bill Paxton or Gregory Peck in that role, the movie wouldn’t just fail, it’d be baffling- no matter how good or bad the performance, neither of those guys can pull off megalomaniacal charisma. O’Toole has that Ahab quality, you can understand how he’d get people following him and doing as he wants even if he’s doing the craziest fucking things in the world.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 16, 2011 4:55 pm

Tom, I think O’Toole’s performance in Lawrence of Arabia is one of the great performances of cinema. I know, I know, that’s not exactly going out on a limb but, still, it’s important to state. It’s a shame, a real shame, that after fifty some years, he still hasn’t received an Oscar. Gregory Peck be damned, I would have given it to O’Toole for Arabia.

Posted By Tom S : November 16, 2011 5:04 pm

Haha unintentional dogpile on Gregory Peck up in here

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 16, 2011 5:08 pm

We overlapped and took down the Peck!

O’Toole and Welles have big enough screen presences to take it- you believe that they get these cults of personality growing around them, because you the viewer want to spend more time around them too.

Tom, I agree with everything you say in that comment. He delivers his lines with such a relish and passion that each turn of phrase becomes an event. Also, about Linn-Baker: Having the movie on DVD enables one who has already seen it several times to skip past most of Linn-Bakers stuff but definitely, absolutely and most assuredly that painful scene where he’s on the “date” with Jessica Harper. Groan.

Posted By John Maddox Roberts : November 16, 2011 6:43 pm

I thought the director-as-god bit was signalled a bit heavy-handedly. I mean, Eli Cross? Eli is Hebrew for God, of course, and Cross explains itself. And he’s always descending from Olympus in a helicopter or camera boom, deus ex machina personified. Still, if anyone is typecast as God, it’s O’Toole.

Posted By Tom S : November 16, 2011 7:48 pm

The Stunt Man definitely isn’t a subtle movie, but I don’t think it needs to be, any more than Buster Keaton needed subtlety. Besides, at least it’s less aggravating name symbolism than in Harry Potter.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 16, 2011 8:26 pm

John, there’s nothing subtle anywhere in the movie which, as I said, bugged me a bit ten years ago but this time, it seemed fitting. Especially funny to me is that opening bit with the dog. It’s a movie about self-absorbed Hollywood people and the opening image is a of a dog, licking itself, oblivious to the needs of others. It’s the perfect image to lead us into the story.

Posted By dukeroberts : November 17, 2011 1:14 am

Coincidentally, I had just moved The Stunt Man up in my Netflix queue. Very soon I will be able to enjoy it as the rest of you have. I am looking forward to it. I can’t think of a Peter O’Toole movie that I have seen where you take your eyes off of him, regardless of what he might be doing or whoever might be in the shot with him.

And Color of Night wasn’t all bad. It had that sexy little girl with the overbite, Jane March. She’s the reason I have seen half of The Lover several times.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 17, 2011 8:49 am

Very soon I will be able to enjoy it as the rest of you have.

Or not like it, like me ten years ago. I’ll be curious to know where you fall on this one. It’s such an imperfect movie, and deliberately heavy-handed (as discussed here already), that I can understand someone falling on either side. Of course, you’ll like O’Toole, of that I have no doubt.

I’ve never seen Color of Night. Not high on my list but maybe one day.

Posted By JeffH : November 17, 2011 4:04 pm

Greg-stay away from COLOR OF NIGHT, stay far, far away-horrible film, blech!

And I have never thought that Lynn-Baker was that bad in MY FAVORITE YEAR-I find the “date scene” to be quite sweet, because he learns to turn off the schtick and be a human being. Considering that his character is “supposedly based” on Mel Brooks, he is quite toned down in comparison. O’Toole and Bologna are the greatest thing in the film, along with Adolph Greene. It is Benjamin’s best film.

Posted By dukeroberts : November 17, 2011 11:39 pm

Color of Night is unremarkable. It’s not terrible though. Jane March does give the movie something memorable at least.

Posted By JeffH : November 18, 2011 1:04 am

You’ve got that right-she does give the movie someTHING memorable.

Posted By Richard Harland Smith : November 19, 2011 12:40 pm

Back in 1980, Richard Rush, fresh off of… well, actually, he wasn’t fresh off of anything.

Okay, the thing is… The Stunt Man was shot in 1977, so the gap between films wasn’t so big. Can you believe this sat around for 3 years waiting for somebody to see the value in it?

As for the gap between this and his next film… well, that’s showbiz!

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 19, 2011 12:49 pm

According to my sources, which are of course imdb and wikipedia (what the hell am I supposed to do, contact the Rush household?), it was 78, which is virtually the same as you say but that’s still four years after Freebie and the Bean. Besides, directors come “fresh off” of hits, never “fresh off” bombs, especially ones named Freebie and the Bean. No one ever comes fresh off of Freebie and the Bean (don’t tell Dennis Cozzalio I said that).

Posted By Richard Harland Smith : November 19, 2011 1:15 pm

I remember ’77 but maybe you’re right. Anyway, another good source for production dates and other making-of trivia is the AFI online catalog. Unfortunately, details for movies from the 80s on can be sketchy.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 19, 2011 1:18 pm

Late 77, early 78, what’s the difference? A few months, maybe. Like you said originally, why did this just sit, waiting? For chrissakes, Moment by Moment was approved for release before this! Moment by Moment!!!

Posted By Richard Harland Smith : November 19, 2011 1:23 pm

Looks like filming extended from 1977 into 1978. So, you’re right – completed in 1978.

http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/2002-2/imagesfilming.htm

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 19, 2011 1:25 pm

We’re both right! Again.

So you’re not doing anything right now, either, huh? I’ve got stuff to write and I’m just farting around. I hate when that happens.

Posted By JeffH : November 19, 2011 3:20 pm

Evidently, Stanley Kubrick loved FREEBIE AND THE BEAN and told Rush that.

One of my favorite things in the documentary about THE STUNT MAN is watching the background during some of Rush’s on-camera talk. At one point, he keeps riding the same elevator up and down at the Bonaventure Hotel in downtown LA, which must have been both amusing and frustrating to hotel guests and visitors…

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 19, 2011 6:49 pm

Evidently, Stanley Kubrick loved FREEBIE AND THE BEAN and told Rush that.

Dennis Cozzalio’s in good company.

Posted By Juana Maria : November 20, 2011 10:00 pm

Personally, “My Favorite Year” is not my favorite Peter O’Toole movie,it is not his fault, the movie suffers from the other actors bad acting. That is only my opinion I know. Anyway, I loved when Peter O’Toole said in an interview that he could have made a career of playing King Henry. You know I think he could have, he really shined when he was in that role. It was if he became King Henry II. Wow! Peter O’ Toole is such a great actor that sadly is not mentioned enough. Thanks for the article!

Posted By swac : November 23, 2011 9:51 am

Hey, I have a soft spot for Freebie and the Bean, but then I first saw it (cut-up network TV version) when I was a kid, so that’s my excuse. I have a friend who told me it’s his dad’s favourite movie.

Just don’t tell Alan Arkin, apparently he’s still embarassed by it to this day.

Posted By Greg Ferrara : November 23, 2011 10:10 am

Had no idea Arkin felt that way. Personally, I begrudge no one liking Freebie and the Bean. Hell, Dennis Cozzalio will not only tell you he likes it, he’ll tell you why it’s good. Alan Arkin should read about that and Kubrick’s opinion if he wants to feel better about it.

Posted By John : December 10, 2011 4:01 pm

I saw this film when it was first released and loved it, more for the action aspect that anything else. I was a teenager at the time and have not seen it since. I do remember Peter O’Toole being extremely manipulative as the director and Railsback was pretty good as a forced stuntman. Of course the lovely Barbara Hershey was a plus.

Posted By JeffH : December 11, 2011 4:11 pm

Just found a near-mint copy of the vinyl LP STUNT MAN soundtrack-anyone interested?

MovieMorlocks.com is the official blog for TCM. No topic is too obscure or niche to be excluded from our film discussions. And we welcome your comments on our blogs and bloggers.