The Films of Robert Mulligan, Part 4

This the final post in my series on the films of Robert Mulligan. Click for parts one, two and three.

As much as Robert Mulligan is associated with the South, for To Kill a Mockingbird and The Man in the Moon, he was actually born in the Bronx. A few years after his tepidly received L.A. noir The Nickel Ride (1975), he adapted Richard Price’s Bronx-set second novel, Bloodbrothers, which was released in ’76 (the film came out in September of 1978). An epithet-laced trawl through an Italian working class family, Mulligan toned-down the language (from the book’s first page: “His hand smelled from that oily shit inside Trojans”), but captured the twitchy, carnal energies that fueled such texturally dirty talk.

Robert Surtees, who had shot Mulligan’s Summer of ’42 (’71) and The Other (’72), returns as the director of photography, although the the gauzy images of those films are replaced with hard-edged, dark blue tones. Clearly Mulligan was impressed with Jordan Cronenweth’s similarly detailed work in Nickel Ride. The film opens in a helicopter shot of a smoggy Bronx as night falls, crossing highways and subways until there is a cut to a crane shot that eases onto the facade of Banion’s Bar, seemingly the palpitating heart of the borough.  This amiable joint, the local watering hole for the construction worker’s union, is named after wheelchair bound Irish carouser/owner Banion (played with immense warmth by Kenneth McMillan) who trades handjob jokes and chummy backslaps with the volatile De Coco brothers, the insecure macho teddy bears whose family is the center of the film.

Banion’s is more home to the brothers than their walk-up apartments, filled as they are with the disheartening markers of adulthood like children, wives and bills. Tommy De Coco (Tony Lo Bianco) and his brother Chubby (Paul Sorvino) are the patriarch of a struggling clan, with Tommy’s wife Maria (Laila Goldoni) on the brink of a nervous breakdown, while his fragile, feminine youngest son has been browbeaten about his weight into anorexia. Tommy’s hope lies with his eldest, Stony (Richard Gere), a handsome, reassuringly hetero playboy who is about to enter the construction union. But alas, Stony has dreams of escape, implied in the cut from Banion’s to the elaborately outfitted cavern-disco he frequents, with faux-stalactites dripping from the ceiling in honor of his own raging, confused hormones. Focused by the straight talk of liberated chick Annette (an inflammatory Marilu Henner) Stony shirks construction for a job as a recreation assistant at the local hospital, fulfilling his dream of working with kids. Tommy is incensed, and Stony has to choose between family or freedom.

The script by studio veteran Walter Newman (Ace In the Hole) is overstuffed with incident (and received an Oscar nomination for it), and Mulligan embraces the abundance by pushing for an across-the-board hysterical style of acting. This is grating and invigorating in turn, with Tony Lo Bianco performing as an over-gesticulating stereotype, while Paul Sorvino’s papa bear routine secrets away layers of pain that well up in his often overfilled eyes (although he does have the benefit of the most emotionally naked monologue in the film). Richard Gere is effective in mumbly James Dean mode, a figure of naive charm starting to become aware of a world outside the Bronx. Although, as with all of Mulligan’s coming-of-age films, this knowledge is rife with dangers. Just as William and Jane fly away into uncertainty in The Pursuit of Happiness, so do Stony and his brother drive off into the unknown, with only a few bucks to their name, but a dream of independence just over the horizon.

There is none of this richly moving ambiguity in Same Time, Next Year, a stodgy farce that Mulligan cranked out quickly the same year. It was released in November of 1978, only two months after Bloodbrothers. It was based on a hugely successful Broadway play of the same name, about two lovers who meet once every year for a one-night stand. Written by TV scribe Bernard Slade (The Flying Nun, The Partridge Family), it ran for close to 1500 performances and netted Ellen Burstyn a Tony Award. For the film, Slade wrote the screenplay and Burstyn returned to play the role of Doris. Charles Grodin, who played George in the stage version, was replaced by Alan Alda.

It is nothing more than a filmed version of the play, taking place almost entirely in a hotel room, with little choreography inside the frame. It’s mostly Alda and Burstyn jawing back and forth at each other.  Robert Surtees returns as DP (his final film credit), and it contains the warm, nostalgic filtered light of Summer of ’42, but is only shown to its full beauty in a few exterior shots. The play itself is a clunky contraption, revisiting the lovers every five years or so, larded with cheap signifiers to denote each era. In the 60s, Burstyn dons Native American dress and talks about protesting, while Alda slides into a suit and talks about voting for Goldwater. The characters get lost in symbolism, and never crackle with erotic intensity (which comes with casting Alan Alda). The film was then of course nominated for four Oscars.

Mulligan, now deep into his 50s, began to slow down his working pace considerably. He had made ten features in the 60s, and six in the ’70s, but would go on to direct only two films in the ’80s, before capping his career with The Man In the Moon in 1991. He was still garnering awards and praise, so it is likely Mulligan could have been more productive if he so chose. But with the  turn to Jaws-imitating blockbusters, perhaps there were just not many appealing projects offered to him. His next feature, the supernatural romantic-comedy Kiss Me Goodbye (1982) would tend to affirm this theory.

Never one for “high-concept” plots, Mulligan has here agreed to direct a very loose adaptation of Dona Flor And Her Two Husbands (1976), about a woman whose dead husband begins to haunt her when she is to marry again. At the time of its release, the original was the most successful film in Brazilian history. It seems Mulligan could only make his kind of intimate drama if it had this kind of box-office goosing gimmick. And despite how ill-suited he was to this kind of genre mash-up, it ends up as a diverting treat, if not at the top-tier of his accomplishment.

He’s helped be a game cast, first and foremost Jeff Bridges, whose uptight Egyptologist at the Met Museum honorably channels Cary Grant’s similarly anal scientist in Bringing Up Baby. While not matching Grant’s athleticism and uncanny comic timing, Bridges does have a talent for embattled exasperation, his expression one of barely concealed disgust. And as Grant is drained by the  kookiness of Katherine Hepburn’s wealthy family, so is Bridges of his rich fiance, Sally Field. Field is innocuous in her usual chipper munchkin routine, so Claire Trevor (as her mother) easily sashays away with the show in her final feature film. It is worth watching just to see her grand industrial-strength bitchiness cut Bridges down to size. James Caan, as Field’s ghost husband, is woefully miscast as a charismatic Broadway choreographer, but he is nothing if not game, which could be said for this entire film, a modern contraption that Mulligan manages to make look towards the past. The film performed modestly at the box-office, finishing with $15.78 million, right in between Death Wish 2 and the re-issue of Star Wars (according to Box Office Mojo).

Then came the longest layoff in his career, six years, before he agreed to make Clara’s Heart (1988) for Mary Tyler Moore’s production company, MTM. He was clearly only willing to make films on his terms at this point, and this coming-of-age tale returns to his favored themes of maturation and disillusionment. Based on the novel by Joseph Olshan, it follows teenaged David (Neil Patrick Harris, in his first screen role), as he grapples with the death of his baby sister and the resultant crack-up of his parents’ marriage. He turns to his Jamaican nanny Clara (Whoopi Goldberg) for stability and strength. I harbored fears that this would devolve into one of those Hollywood wish-fulfillment fantasies where the kindly black character solves all of the rich white people’s problems, but thankfully, things simply get more complicated from there.

Mulligan had the good fortune to hire Freddie Francis (The Elephant Man) as his DP, and the film includes some of the most emotive set-ups of his career. In the opening sequence, Mulligan and Francis hold a close-up of David as a funeral ends, with flashes of black tuxedos passing him in the foreground. It is an image of a boy made scattered and incomplete by mourning. Later, they execute another shot of incompletion, during one of his parents’ arguments. In one long take, the mother is sitting screen right in a living room, the father to the left, in his study. The rooms are separated by a wall, so each are ensconced in their separate worlds. This image alone defines the dissolution of their union, and yet another rupture in David’s life.

His relationship with Clara is fraught, as he transitions from bratty teen to the realization that she is the only stable part of his life. They test and circle each other, waiting to expose each other’s vulnerabilities, as their racial and class boundaries are forefronted by Mulligan (the cut from David’s suburban mansion to the Jamaican neighborhood in Baltimore acts as a closure – there is not easy passing between these two zones). They develop their own wary love for each other, and by the time Clara reveals her own past traumas (that are as vast and unresolved as David’s), they accept each other for the imperfect, guilt-ridden creatures that they are. This is Mulligan’s kind of (ir)resolution, the recognition of limitations his own happy ending. So he ends it with another close-up of David, this time free and clear of all obstructions, aside from the ones in his memory. The film bombed, earning just over $5 million (right behind the Chuck Norris cheapie Hero and the Terror) and earned no Oscar nominations.

The Man in the Moon is a distillation of this theme of irresolution, one which opens with the idolized older sister saying, “sometimes things just don’t make sense, and all of a sudden, I get scared.” As with the opening shot of Bloodbrothers, Mulligan has his DP (Freddie Francis this time), crane his camera down into the film’s thematic heart, instead of a bar, it’s a screened in porch. This downward craning shot also has an echo in To Kill a Mockingbird, in which the camera descended a tree and outlined the main drag of the town, before backtracking to introduce Scout. The Man in the Moon‘s shot reveals another headstrong tomboy, Dani (Reese Witherspoon, who, like NPH, makes her screen debut. Mulligan was an ace talent scout). She is listening to Elvis’ “Loving You” for the umpteenth time, and is chastised by her older sister Maureen (Emily Warfield), who a few moments later will discuss her undefinable fear.

The story is utter simplicity, but rendered with subtlety in Jenny Wingfield’s original script (her first). Dani is in the process of trashing her Elvis posters and fixing her attentions on a real live boy – the dreamy new neighbor Court (Jason London). He literally crashes her childhood idyll, jumping into a swimming hole she had considered her own private domain. This rupture spurs Dani’s maturation, and engages her in a world of petty jealousies, shocking violence, and unutterable tragedy. All of Mulligan’s coming-of-age stories are steeped in death, the loss of innocence revealing the world in all its unresolved, unanswerable reality. Dani, as with Scout, or William (Pursuit of Happiness), or Hermie (Summer of ’42) has the veil removed from their childhood games, and they shift from a mythologized childhood to fraught adulthood. This transition is made visible Mulligan’s through subjective camera, the low-angles in Mockingbird and the idolizing slow-motion of ’42 changing to sober eye-line matches and close-ups.

Dani is visualized in tracking shots, speeding from house to lake in frolics of determined intensity. The first is seen before her initial encounter with Court at the lake, the last in a mournful sprint from her first funeral service. She opens by racing to something, and ends by sprinting away, into the unknown.  There is also a visual rhyme to that opening crane shot, which has its correlate in the shattering closer. The camera drifts towards the front of the house, reversing the opening shot, before cutting to the interior. It floats past the newborn baby and settles on their  Mom and Dad in bed, as Dani asks (offscreen): “Marie? Is it always going to hurt this bad?”. The implicit answer is in their father’s face, played so engagingly laconic by Sam Waterston, who has an inexplicable smile on his face as he turns and faces his wife, happy to be at home, regardless of the tragedies outside.

This reverie stops as Mulligan cuts to a static shot of the walled-in patio, where Maureen is combing Dani’s hair. Now the dreams are in the interior of the house, and the adolescents outside are growing into the no-nonsense world of static two-shots:

Dani:  “Sometimes, I think that nothing’s ever going to make sense again”

Maureen: “Maybe life’s not supposed to make sense.”

Dani: “Doesn’t that scare you?”

Maureen: [whispered] “Yes, it does.”

Maureen’s tossed-off lines at the beginning of the film, meant to assuage Dani’s own insecurities, are now repeated, and have accrued layers of resonance. It is one of those scenes that can reduce me to tears, regardless of how many times I’ve seen it, which has made this particular transcription particularly vexing.These lines are an acknowledgment that there is no governing logic to our lives, but whatever happens, that it can be endured with grace. There is no better way to encapsulate his extraordinary career than those words of Dani and Maureen, in their brave resignation.

So, watch some Mulligan.

0 Response The Films of Robert Mulligan, Part 4
Posted By swac : March 13, 2012 11:07 am

One bit of proofreading: you’ve got James Bridges where you should have Jeff Bridges in Kiss Me Goodbye (feel free to delete this comment after the correction gets made).

Posted By swac : March 13, 2012 11:07 am

One bit of proofreading: you’ve got James Bridges where you should have Jeff Bridges in Kiss Me Goodbye (feel free to delete this comment after the correction gets made).

Posted By R. Emmet Sweeney : March 13, 2012 11:13 am

I guess I had undervalued auteurs on the brain. Thanks for that. And I’m all for transparency in my idiocy, so this will stay up in perpetuity.

Posted By R. Emmet Sweeney : March 13, 2012 11:13 am

I guess I had undervalued auteurs on the brain. Thanks for that. And I’m all for transparency in my idiocy, so this will stay up in perpetuity.

Posted By Kingrat : March 13, 2012 12:42 pm

Thanks for a great series. Not much has been written about Mulligan. You’ve discussed some films I’d like to check out, and made aware of who directed other films that I had seen.

Posted By Kingrat : March 13, 2012 12:42 pm

Thanks for a great series. Not much has been written about Mulligan. You’ve discussed some films I’d like to check out, and made aware of who directed other films that I had seen.

Posted By Kimberly Lindbergs : March 13, 2012 3:25 pm

I really appreciated this series. Mulligan’s films have impacted me a lot over the years. THE MAN ON THE MOON was an impressive swan song. He really seemed to “get” kids and how they observed the world. Few directors do.

Posted By Kimberly Lindbergs : March 13, 2012 3:25 pm

I really appreciated this series. Mulligan’s films have impacted me a lot over the years. THE MAN ON THE MOON was an impressive swan song. He really seemed to “get” kids and how they observed the world. Few directors do.

Posted By Adam Zanzie : March 14, 2012 11:06 am

Yeah, great job on this series, Robert. Our only serious disagreements seem to be on two films: The Other, which I honestly think is Mulligan’s crowning masterpiece, and Same Time, Next Year, which, while I understand your criticisms of it as being a filmed play, strikes me as a profound statement on adultery, its luxuries and its problems. I love how the movie acknowledges that what Doris and George are doing is downright selfish but never lets them off the hook (except maybe for the ending, which I’ll admit is too happy). What’s great about the movie is that even though their spouses never make an appearance, we have a good picture in our heads of who they are. George himself is the one who repairs Doris’ marriage with Harry with that one single phonecall. And when Helen dies, Doris confesses it’s like she’s lost her best friend. They know they’re hurting their spouses, and they’re guilty about it, even though they don’t want to stop seeing each other. I’d say it’s Mulligan’s most complex portrayal of adultery, a theme he didn’t always juggle comfortably in his career.

Bloodbrothers and Clara’s Heart, for example, are fiercer criticisms of adultery, but I’d say the former is more successful at it than the latter. For me, Bloodbrothers is, like The Pursuit of Happiness, an uneasy but still exhilarating film about economic and political uncertainty in the wake of young adulthood (I usually despise Gere in movies, but this his hands-down his best performance, and of course Sorvino and Lo Bianco are great as always).

On the other hand, I struggle a lot with Clara’s Heart. I’ve only seen it once, and perhaps repeated viewings will help me appreciate it more, but I’ve always felt that that movie is badly structured; Siskel & Ebert were on to something, I think, when they complained that the whole subplot involving Clara’s rape by her son is revealed WAY too late in the movie to have any real impact on the story. Clara’s firm refusal to tell the Neal Patrick Harris kid about her son doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, either; when she’s freaking out about him touching her legs, you’d think she would explain, right then and there, that it’s because of what her son did to her all those long years ago, but instead she just reprimands the kid for touching her that way, which seems so arbitrary, contrived and mean-spirited. The movie does have some unforgettable moments, like that wall shot you’ve mentioned, but I seem to be in the minority amongst Mulligan fans in that I don’t think the finished film is as well-rendered as it could have been.

The Man in the Moon is masterful, though, absolutely. That might be because it retains the warm simplicity of Summer of ’42 and doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is. It’s one of the greatest swan songs of any filmmaker.

And we agree about Kiss Me Goodbye, which has its funny moments but ultimately fails as screwball. That one sequence where everybody is screaming at each other in the lodge out in the woods is just awful, too; I’m sure Mulligan intended it to be the film’s comic set piece, but instead it has this very nasty and ugly tone that almost permeates the movie itself. That’s another movie that could have been great, but by then I think Mulligan was pretty disillusioned with the changing studio system. The 80′s was just as bad for him as it was for a lot of directors, so maybe that’s why after the early 90′s (when The Man in the Moon was censored on airlines) he decided to call it quits. The industry just wasn’t built for directors like him anymore.

Again, awesome series, Robert. I’m happy to see it has inspired interest amongs other cinephiles in Mulligan’s work.

Posted By Adam Zanzie : March 14, 2012 11:06 am

Yeah, great job on this series, Robert. Our only serious disagreements seem to be on two films: The Other, which I honestly think is Mulligan’s crowning masterpiece, and Same Time, Next Year, which, while I understand your criticisms of it as being a filmed play, strikes me as a profound statement on adultery, its luxuries and its problems. I love how the movie acknowledges that what Doris and George are doing is downright selfish but never lets them off the hook (except maybe for the ending, which I’ll admit is too happy). What’s great about the movie is that even though their spouses never make an appearance, we have a good picture in our heads of who they are. George himself is the one who repairs Doris’ marriage with Harry with that one single phonecall. And when Helen dies, Doris confesses it’s like she’s lost her best friend. They know they’re hurting their spouses, and they’re guilty about it, even though they don’t want to stop seeing each other. I’d say it’s Mulligan’s most complex portrayal of adultery, a theme he didn’t always juggle comfortably in his career.

Bloodbrothers and Clara’s Heart, for example, are fiercer criticisms of adultery, but I’d say the former is more successful at it than the latter. For me, Bloodbrothers is, like The Pursuit of Happiness, an uneasy but still exhilarating film about economic and political uncertainty in the wake of young adulthood (I usually despise Gere in movies, but this his hands-down his best performance, and of course Sorvino and Lo Bianco are great as always).

On the other hand, I struggle a lot with Clara’s Heart. I’ve only seen it once, and perhaps repeated viewings will help me appreciate it more, but I’ve always felt that that movie is badly structured; Siskel & Ebert were on to something, I think, when they complained that the whole subplot involving Clara’s rape by her son is revealed WAY too late in the movie to have any real impact on the story. Clara’s firm refusal to tell the Neal Patrick Harris kid about her son doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, either; when she’s freaking out about him touching her legs, you’d think she would explain, right then and there, that it’s because of what her son did to her all those long years ago, but instead she just reprimands the kid for touching her that way, which seems so arbitrary, contrived and mean-spirited. The movie does have some unforgettable moments, like that wall shot you’ve mentioned, but I seem to be in the minority amongst Mulligan fans in that I don’t think the finished film is as well-rendered as it could have been.

The Man in the Moon is masterful, though, absolutely. That might be because it retains the warm simplicity of Summer of ’42 and doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is. It’s one of the greatest swan songs of any filmmaker.

And we agree about Kiss Me Goodbye, which has its funny moments but ultimately fails as screwball. That one sequence where everybody is screaming at each other in the lodge out in the woods is just awful, too; I’m sure Mulligan intended it to be the film’s comic set piece, but instead it has this very nasty and ugly tone that almost permeates the movie itself. That’s another movie that could have been great, but by then I think Mulligan was pretty disillusioned with the changing studio system. The 80′s was just as bad for him as it was for a lot of directors, so maybe that’s why after the early 90′s (when The Man in the Moon was censored on airlines) he decided to call it quits. The industry just wasn’t built for directors like him anymore.

Again, awesome series, Robert. I’m happy to see it has inspired interest amongs other cinephiles in Mulligan’s work.

Posted By Medusa Morlock : March 15, 2012 10:05 pm

On my list of screen deaths that are genuinely horrifying, “The Man in the Moon” rates a high place, though you never actually see it. Such a terrific movie! Great analysis of all the films and you’ve now sent me into Mulligan Madness and given me a long list of films to visit and revisit!

Wonderful posts!

Posted By Medusa Morlock : March 15, 2012 10:05 pm

On my list of screen deaths that are genuinely horrifying, “The Man in the Moon” rates a high place, though you never actually see it. Such a terrific movie! Great analysis of all the films and you’ve now sent me into Mulligan Madness and given me a long list of films to visit and revisit!

Wonderful posts!

Posted By R. Emmet Sweeney : March 16, 2012 5:39 pm

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read this series.

And Adam, I really appreciate your thoughtful comments on each of the posts, especially since we approach Mulligan’s work from different angles. I really can’t get beyond the stylistic blandness of SAME TIME, which was not aided by the clumsy symbolism of Slade’s play.

I agree with you generally on BLOODBROTHERS, though I don’t think Mulligan was ever really criticizing adultery, as much as presenting it as inevitable in these particular circumstances. I also disagree with you, Siskel and Ebert about CLARA’S HEART’s structure. Clara’s character is very interior and protective, so I see nothing unusual in her hiding the most traumatic event of her life from a bratty teen.

If there’s one thing anyone can agree on, it’s THE MAN IN THE MOON. Unassailable!

And finally, a general note: Jenny Wingfield (the screenwriter of MAN IN THE MOON) wrote her debut novel last year. I’m going to have to pick it up soon. It’s called THE HOMECOMING OF SAMUEL LAKE.

Posted By R. Emmet Sweeney : March 16, 2012 5:39 pm

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read this series.

And Adam, I really appreciate your thoughtful comments on each of the posts, especially since we approach Mulligan’s work from different angles. I really can’t get beyond the stylistic blandness of SAME TIME, which was not aided by the clumsy symbolism of Slade’s play.

I agree with you generally on BLOODBROTHERS, though I don’t think Mulligan was ever really criticizing adultery, as much as presenting it as inevitable in these particular circumstances. I also disagree with you, Siskel and Ebert about CLARA’S HEART’s structure. Clara’s character is very interior and protective, so I see nothing unusual in her hiding the most traumatic event of her life from a bratty teen.

If there’s one thing anyone can agree on, it’s THE MAN IN THE MOON. Unassailable!

And finally, a general note: Jenny Wingfield (the screenwriter of MAN IN THE MOON) wrote her debut novel last year. I’m going to have to pick it up soon. It’s called THE HOMECOMING OF SAMUEL LAKE.

Posted By dukeroberts : March 16, 2012 7:10 pm

The Man in the Moon is a very good movie. Maybe a little too manipulative in its tear-jerking, but there are so many other good things to ponder about it. Reese Witherspoon was fantastic and heartbreakingly crushworthy in her first movie.

And I must agree with you, RES. Clara’s reaction makes total sense. If she wasn’t interior and protective before her son raped her, that would have made her so.

I have really enjoyed your series on the films of Mulligan, a director I never gave much thought to outside of Mockingbird and connecting its “feel” to that of The Other. I hope you take up the task of doing a similar series on other underappreciated directors as well.

Posted By dukeroberts : March 16, 2012 7:10 pm

The Man in the Moon is a very good movie. Maybe a little too manipulative in its tear-jerking, but there are so many other good things to ponder about it. Reese Witherspoon was fantastic and heartbreakingly crushworthy in her first movie.

And I must agree with you, RES. Clara’s reaction makes total sense. If she wasn’t interior and protective before her son raped her, that would have made her so.

I have really enjoyed your series on the films of Mulligan, a director I never gave much thought to outside of Mockingbird and connecting its “feel” to that of The Other. I hope you take up the task of doing a similar series on other underappreciated directors as well.

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r *

We regret to inform you that FilmStruck is now closed.  Our last day of service was November 29, 2018.

Please visit tcm.com/help for more information.

We would like to thank our many fans and loyal customers who supported us.  FilmStruck was truly a labor of love, and in a world with an abundance of entertainment options – THANK YOU for choosing us.