← Back to Reviews
in
Well The Duellists was a new discovery as 70s films go. Now I think we'll go with a few favourites of mine. These were films I was planning on revisiting for my top 100 list anyway; the fact they coincided with the 70s list was just a bonus.
Plot - A seemingly normal, run-of-the-mill day on the New York Subway system will turn out to be anything but. The Pelham 123 subway train is running to a standard schedule when four men, all brandishing submachine guns, board the train who have their own very unique ideas for the train. With each man donning code names, Mr. Blue (Shaw) leads the group of Mr. Green (Balsam), Mr. Grey (Elizondo) and Mr. Brown, as they hijack one of the train cars and hold its 18 passengers hostage, demanding a ransom of $1 million from the city for their release. With Mr. Blue taking the lead in negotiations, he begins conversing with the New York transit police in the form of Lieutenant Zachary Garber (Matthau), informing him that he has one hour to deliver the ransom or he will start killing the hostages. As the negotiations continue in an attempt to safeguard the safety of the passengers, Garber becomes fascinated with trying to work out how exactly the gunmen plan to escape given that they're in a tunnel and surrounded by the police on all sides. Surely the men are trapped. Or are they?
Something that was rather common amongst the thrillers of the 1970s is that very often they made for great city movies. While there were a few exceptions (San Francisco in Dirty Harry for example) the city in question was frequently New York, with films such as Marathon Man, Serpico and The French Connection being prime examples. Well The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is another you can add to that list. Now that may sound strange given that the large majority of the film is set on a train underneath the city itself, but it most certainly still manages it. There are only a few rare examples of scenes set on New York's streets but they still manage to capture a great deal of atmosphere despite their limited use. While Joseph Sargent does a great job with the subway, managing to extract a great deal of interest and character from the limited surroundings. I also really like the look of the film. Aesthetically it's certainly not a 'beautiful' film to look at, but with Owen Roizman's cinematography taking on a very grim and grubby appearance it feels very fitting as it highlights the urban nature of the film and even gives it a bit of a documentary/docu-drama vibe.
Further enhancing its credentials as a great city movie are a number of little subtexts spread throughout the film. The main thrust of the story remains the hijacking and subsequent negotiations, and the film never forgets that. However it does drop in several other connotations, sometimes rather subtly, that reflect issue both social and economic that were affecting both New York and America at large during the 1970s. The negativity in relations to politics at the time can be seen in Lee Wallace's mayor. A bit of an incompetent, bumbling and indecisive fool he certainly doesn't inspire confidence, he's not exactly a leader amongst men. Even the fact that he is sick with the flu could be viewed as a metaphor for the ineptitude of government. Onboard the train we see minor examples of racial tensions flare up. Gender equality in the workplace can also be seen throughout the film. In the transit system itself we see there's a recently hired female member of the staff, much to the consternation of Tom Pedi's Caz Dolowicz. And then when it's learned that there is an undercover cop on board the train there is a discussion about whether they are male or female, and if they're female that it's not going to do much good. Even Walter Matthau's Lieutenant Garber, the good guy of the piece, is shown to be perhaps not a bigot, but someone who has very clear ways of thinking in regards to people, and has not adjusted his views to contemporary times. When he first meets Chief Inspector Daniels, the police officer in charge he had been conversing with on the radio, we can see that he is very taken aback to discover that he is actually black. Similarly when he sees the undercover cop (credited as 'The Hippie') lying face-down on the track he instantly assumes he's a woman just because of his long hair. And of course early on in the film there is the very humorous incident where he is giving a tour to a group of visiting Japanese individuals from the Tokyo Metro system, and begins to insult them because he believes they don't understand English, only to be left dumbfounded when he discovers they understand him perfectly well.
The film also reflects the general apathy that seemed to overtake the country following the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, domestic riots etc. Here it is most noticeably reflected by Dick O'Neill's transit operator who seemingly couldn't give a s*it about the fate of the hostages, instead just concerned with how difficult the whole event is making his job. His attitude is most aptly summed up by his exclamation of “Screw the god damn passengers! What the hell did they expect for their lousy 35 cents; to live forever?”There are also several quotes, commonly little more than throwaway remarks, that allude to issues that were affecting the city during the era. At one point, when discussing how to deal with the situation, the police commissioner remarks, “We don't want another Attica do we?”,referring to the police response to a prison riot that resulted in dozens of deaths. When the mayor is first informed that there's a problem, his initial response is to ask, “There's another strike taking place?”, referring to the numerous strikes that plagued the city during the decade. There are also little allusions to the Vietnam war and to the fact that the city is completely broke.
Where the film really comes into its own as a New York movie is on the train itself, with the 18 passengers taken as hostages acting as a sample, or a petri dish if you will, of the people of New York as a whole. Admittedly you could accuse some of those on board as being little more than stereotypes, classic stock New York characters, but it works to get the idea across of this city populated by all manner of races, colours, sexes, ages, cultures etc. So amongst the 18 people you've got a young black man dressed like Huggy Bear sitting alongside an old Jewish man. You've got a scantily dressed prostitute sitting beside a single mother of two kids. And you've got a a businessman in a sharply dressed suit sitting alongside a drunken bum. It's a real cross-section of the population. In fact the actual credited characters include 'The Hooker', 'The Homosexual', 'Old Man', 'Spanish Woman', 'The Alcoholic', 'The Pimp', 'The Hippie' and 'The Wasp'. The film actually embraces the notion of stereotypes so that it can then show no matter how different we may be, in such a situation we're all the same. So for all the differences that may divide them, when placed in the middle of a hijacking they all react the same; with great fear.
There can be very films ever produced that have had so damn many character actors all collected in the one place; I don't think I've ever seen so many wrinkles, scowls and craggy faces. It's an absolute joy to bask in all of the character and colour they bring to proceedings. Leading the film with great aplomb is one of my favourite 'classic' actors Walter Matthau. I honestly don't think I've ever seen any other actor who can do curmudgeonly or world-weary as well as he can. Going purely by appearances, his Lieutenant Garber doesn't seem like a man who is going to pose much of a threat to the hijackers' plans. His wrinkled and crumpled face, slumping frame and the hangdog expression that he constantly wears just giving him such a richness. At the same time however there is a real doggedness to the character, his face belying the intelligence that lies behind it. Indeed had the iconic Peter Falk not landed the role of Lieutenant Columbo, then it's tough to think of a more suitable alternative than Matthau. Additionally he is also responsible for a number of laughs thanks to his dry, sardonic demeanour and line delivery. As the main antagonist that Matthau pits his wits against is Robert Shaw. In the role of the group's leader, Mr. Blue, Shaw is able to create a chilling presence without resorting to any histrionics. Instead he plays the part very calmly but with a great intensity. He creates a great sense of composure for the character, conveying the fact that he is in complete control of the situation. At the same time however he has no qualms about getting his hands dirty. This is a man with ice running through his veins, prepared to put a bullet through anyone who gets in his way, be they friend or foe. As Mr. Green, the motorman without who the plan would not work, is Martin Balsam who is strangely sympathetic as the fairly hapless and out-of-his-depth train driver. Hector Elizondo is terrifically despicable as the psychotic Mr. Grey, a man so violent and out of control that even the mafia kicked him out. He is very much a man from a time before the term 'political correctness' came into existence. In addition to those already mentioned there are just so many character-filled faces stacked from top to bottom of the whole film, all of them feeling like 'real people', with Dick O'Neill (Frank Correll), Tom Pedi (Caz Dolowicz) and Jerry Stiller (Rico Patrone) making particular impressions.
In comparison to many of its fellow thriller films from that decade,Pelham is perhaps not the most action-packed or obviously thrilling film. Instead it concentrates more on being interesting and goes more for a great level of intrigue, which thanks to the razor-sharp script from Peter Stone results in a thrilling film all the same. The storytelling is exceptionally strong, keeping us in the dark right alongside its characters as to how exactly the hijackers plan to get out of this situation. Stone's script is full of sharp, witty and natural dialogue and a fair few surprises; with a electrifying suicide proving particularly shocking. Thanks to the attention to detail in the script in regards to the transit system it's also rather interesting just to see its inner workings with the large control board and all that. Stone's script, Sargent's direction and the editing deserve a lot of credit for being able to maintain the thrills despite the fact that the film is largely stationary, taking place predominantly on the claustrophobic train or in the offices of the transit system. The editing during the sequence where the ransom is being arranged is especially impressive with the film cutting to and fro between the several different aspects to create a thrilling episode; the hijackers, the cops, the transit officials, the mayor and the money counters.
And to end the review it seems only appropriate to talk about the film's terrific ending. Again breaking away from many of its 70s thrillers brethren the film does not end with a massive explosion, an epic car chase or a big shoot-out. Instead it ends on a quiet moment that plays back into what has gone before; Balsam's Mr. Green sneezing to give the game away. A moment made all the more satisfying by the fact that he would not have been caught had he not felt the need to gloat and harangue Matthau's Garber and Stiller's Patrone for daring to question him. It's such a lovely, subtle and very clever conclusion. To paraphrase the classic cliché; the film ends not with a bang, but with a sneeze. And it's all the better for it. Gesundheit!
Conclusion - Too often it seems that The Taking of Pelham One Two Three gets overlooked when it comes to discussions about the best films of the 1970s, and I think that's a real shame as it's a little bit of a gem. With its taut script, sharp direction, fine work in both editing and cinematography and a slew of entertaining performances, there really is very few areas where the film does not impress. Oh and the score! How could I forget David Shire's wonderful score; it's dirty, jazzy sounds fitting the surroundings like a glove.
|
|
Year of release
1974
1974
Directed by
Joseph Sargent
Joseph Sargent
Written by
Peter Stone
Peter Stone
Starring
Walter Matthau
Robert Shaw
Martin Balsam
Hector Elizondo
Dick O'Neill
Jerry Stiller
Walter Matthau
Robert Shaw
Martin Balsam
Hector Elizondo
Dick O'Neill
Jerry Stiller
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three
Plot - A seemingly normal, run-of-the-mill day on the New York Subway system will turn out to be anything but. The Pelham 123 subway train is running to a standard schedule when four men, all brandishing submachine guns, board the train who have their own very unique ideas for the train. With each man donning code names, Mr. Blue (Shaw) leads the group of Mr. Green (Balsam), Mr. Grey (Elizondo) and Mr. Brown, as they hijack one of the train cars and hold its 18 passengers hostage, demanding a ransom of $1 million from the city for their release. With Mr. Blue taking the lead in negotiations, he begins conversing with the New York transit police in the form of Lieutenant Zachary Garber (Matthau), informing him that he has one hour to deliver the ransom or he will start killing the hostages. As the negotiations continue in an attempt to safeguard the safety of the passengers, Garber becomes fascinated with trying to work out how exactly the gunmen plan to escape given that they're in a tunnel and surrounded by the police on all sides. Surely the men are trapped. Or are they?
Something that was rather common amongst the thrillers of the 1970s is that very often they made for great city movies. While there were a few exceptions (San Francisco in Dirty Harry for example) the city in question was frequently New York, with films such as Marathon Man, Serpico and The French Connection being prime examples. Well The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is another you can add to that list. Now that may sound strange given that the large majority of the film is set on a train underneath the city itself, but it most certainly still manages it. There are only a few rare examples of scenes set on New York's streets but they still manage to capture a great deal of atmosphere despite their limited use. While Joseph Sargent does a great job with the subway, managing to extract a great deal of interest and character from the limited surroundings. I also really like the look of the film. Aesthetically it's certainly not a 'beautiful' film to look at, but with Owen Roizman's cinematography taking on a very grim and grubby appearance it feels very fitting as it highlights the urban nature of the film and even gives it a bit of a documentary/docu-drama vibe.
Further enhancing its credentials as a great city movie are a number of little subtexts spread throughout the film. The main thrust of the story remains the hijacking and subsequent negotiations, and the film never forgets that. However it does drop in several other connotations, sometimes rather subtly, that reflect issue both social and economic that were affecting both New York and America at large during the 1970s. The negativity in relations to politics at the time can be seen in Lee Wallace's mayor. A bit of an incompetent, bumbling and indecisive fool he certainly doesn't inspire confidence, he's not exactly a leader amongst men. Even the fact that he is sick with the flu could be viewed as a metaphor for the ineptitude of government. Onboard the train we see minor examples of racial tensions flare up. Gender equality in the workplace can also be seen throughout the film. In the transit system itself we see there's a recently hired female member of the staff, much to the consternation of Tom Pedi's Caz Dolowicz. And then when it's learned that there is an undercover cop on board the train there is a discussion about whether they are male or female, and if they're female that it's not going to do much good. Even Walter Matthau's Lieutenant Garber, the good guy of the piece, is shown to be perhaps not a bigot, but someone who has very clear ways of thinking in regards to people, and has not adjusted his views to contemporary times. When he first meets Chief Inspector Daniels, the police officer in charge he had been conversing with on the radio, we can see that he is very taken aback to discover that he is actually black. Similarly when he sees the undercover cop (credited as 'The Hippie') lying face-down on the track he instantly assumes he's a woman just because of his long hair. And of course early on in the film there is the very humorous incident where he is giving a tour to a group of visiting Japanese individuals from the Tokyo Metro system, and begins to insult them because he believes they don't understand English, only to be left dumbfounded when he discovers they understand him perfectly well.
The film also reflects the general apathy that seemed to overtake the country following the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, domestic riots etc. Here it is most noticeably reflected by Dick O'Neill's transit operator who seemingly couldn't give a s*it about the fate of the hostages, instead just concerned with how difficult the whole event is making his job. His attitude is most aptly summed up by his exclamation of “Screw the god damn passengers! What the hell did they expect for their lousy 35 cents; to live forever?”There are also several quotes, commonly little more than throwaway remarks, that allude to issues that were affecting the city during the era. At one point, when discussing how to deal with the situation, the police commissioner remarks, “We don't want another Attica do we?”,referring to the police response to a prison riot that resulted in dozens of deaths. When the mayor is first informed that there's a problem, his initial response is to ask, “There's another strike taking place?”, referring to the numerous strikes that plagued the city during the decade. There are also little allusions to the Vietnam war and to the fact that the city is completely broke.
Where the film really comes into its own as a New York movie is on the train itself, with the 18 passengers taken as hostages acting as a sample, or a petri dish if you will, of the people of New York as a whole. Admittedly you could accuse some of those on board as being little more than stereotypes, classic stock New York characters, but it works to get the idea across of this city populated by all manner of races, colours, sexes, ages, cultures etc. So amongst the 18 people you've got a young black man dressed like Huggy Bear sitting alongside an old Jewish man. You've got a scantily dressed prostitute sitting beside a single mother of two kids. And you've got a a businessman in a sharply dressed suit sitting alongside a drunken bum. It's a real cross-section of the population. In fact the actual credited characters include 'The Hooker', 'The Homosexual', 'Old Man', 'Spanish Woman', 'The Alcoholic', 'The Pimp', 'The Hippie' and 'The Wasp'. The film actually embraces the notion of stereotypes so that it can then show no matter how different we may be, in such a situation we're all the same. So for all the differences that may divide them, when placed in the middle of a hijacking they all react the same; with great fear.
Film Trivia Snippets - During an interview for Canadian TV, the film's producer revealed that The Taking of Pelham One Two Three did terrific box-office in New York, Toronto, London and Paris; all cities with substantial subway facilites. The film was considered a bit of a flop around the rest of the world however. /// At one point Steven Spielberg was under consideration to direct. /// In a delightful slice of coincidence, the actor who played the role of Subway Guard was named Jim Pelham. /// After firmly establishing himself in a series of comedies, Walter Matthau all of a sudden became a bit of an action star, appearing in Charley Varrick and The Laughing Policeman in 1973 and this film the following year. When he had to undergo bypass surgery in 1976 however it prevented him from taking on such roles anymore. /// In the film's title, 'Pelham One Two Three' refers to the New York subway timetable terminus and time of departure schedule radio call sign. As explained in the movie, "Pelham" is the name of the station of origin where the subway train departs whereas "One Two Three" refers to the time of departure i.e. 1.23 pm. Following the film's release it became the operating practice of the New York City Transit Authority never to have a train leave the Pelham Bay Park Station at either 13:23 or 01:23. The policy was subsequently discontinued after many years. However both as a tradition and a cautionary measure, dispatchers still generally avoid scheduling a train to leave Pelham at either 1.23 am or pm. /// David Shire's score was chosen as one of the top 10 film scores of all time by NPR film music expert Andy Trudeau.
In comparison to many of its fellow thriller films from that decade,Pelham is perhaps not the most action-packed or obviously thrilling film. Instead it concentrates more on being interesting and goes more for a great level of intrigue, which thanks to the razor-sharp script from Peter Stone results in a thrilling film all the same. The storytelling is exceptionally strong, keeping us in the dark right alongside its characters as to how exactly the hijackers plan to get out of this situation. Stone's script is full of sharp, witty and natural dialogue and a fair few surprises; with a electrifying suicide proving particularly shocking. Thanks to the attention to detail in the script in regards to the transit system it's also rather interesting just to see its inner workings with the large control board and all that. Stone's script, Sargent's direction and the editing deserve a lot of credit for being able to maintain the thrills despite the fact that the film is largely stationary, taking place predominantly on the claustrophobic train or in the offices of the transit system. The editing during the sequence where the ransom is being arranged is especially impressive with the film cutting to and fro between the several different aspects to create a thrilling episode; the hijackers, the cops, the transit officials, the mayor and the money counters.
And to end the review it seems only appropriate to talk about the film's terrific ending. Again breaking away from many of its 70s thrillers brethren the film does not end with a massive explosion, an epic car chase or a big shoot-out. Instead it ends on a quiet moment that plays back into what has gone before; Balsam's Mr. Green sneezing to give the game away. A moment made all the more satisfying by the fact that he would not have been caught had he not felt the need to gloat and harangue Matthau's Garber and Stiller's Patrone for daring to question him. It's such a lovely, subtle and very clever conclusion. To paraphrase the classic cliché; the film ends not with a bang, but with a sneeze. And it's all the better for it. Gesundheit!
Conclusion - Too often it seems that The Taking of Pelham One Two Three gets overlooked when it comes to discussions about the best films of the 1970s, and I think that's a real shame as it's a little bit of a gem. With its taut script, sharp direction, fine work in both editing and cinematography and a slew of entertaining performances, there really is very few areas where the film does not impress. Oh and the score! How could I forget David Shire's wonderful score; it's dirty, jazzy sounds fitting the surroundings like a glove.