MPAA Rating: PG/Genre: Neo-Noir Mystery Drama/Stars: Gene Hackman, John Cazale, Allen Garfield, Cindy Williams, Frederic Forrest, Harrison Ford, Michael Higgins, Elizabeth MacRae, Teri Garr, Phoebe Alexander, Mark Wheeler, Robert Shields, Bill Kilgore/Runtime: 113 minutes
I think it can safely be said that, amongst the many distinct ailments which a human being could ever find themselves stricken with at virtually any point in time during their lives, an argument could be made that few of those have such a mixed bag of potential consequences to them as the decision to observe life with a heavy dose of dispassion or just choosing to watch others live rather than trying to live yourself. To be sure, it can potentially result in one developing a higher degree of self-awareness thus making it easier for you to grow as a person, yes I suppose it could lead to the individual becoming more likely to discover possible solutions to life’s many dilemmas to say nothing of make decisions that are more rooted in the rational than the emotional, and sure there is the possibility that living in such a way could dramatically lower one’s stress levels much to their benefit on both a psychological and physical level. At the same time however, there is also no denying that choosing to go about life in such a way can not only cause a person to not really trust others thus causing you to potentially put up quite the walls- psychologically speaking- in your life, but it can also result in the individual in question becoming perhaps more than just a tad bit paranoid and not really able to form genuine emotional attachments with people despite some part of them really wanting to. In short: it can cause the person to become quite the lonely individual indeed. Yet what would happen if such a person found themselves caught up in a situation where they, for the first time in either a really long time or ever, inadvertently listened and/or watched something unfold that caused them to rejoin the world in an effort to help make sure nothing bad would happen as a result of their involvement in said event? Indeed would that individual be able to actually help bring about a positive outcome for all parties concerned or would the event trigger their already built-in sense of anxiety/paranoia and take it to such an extreme that they were left with the very disheartening realization that all of the barriers they had constructed to ensure they felt safe and/or protected were actually at best worthless and at worst taken quite the toll on them psychologically? Yes it might seem like I am giving you yet another TED talk here dear reader, but actually the aforementioned mini Psychology lecture of sorts is the core supposition of a slice of cinema from 1974, and film I happen to be reviewing for you today incidentally, known as The Conversation. A film that might not be for everyone yet I still feel is most assuredly worthy of checking out at the very least once. This is because, with the aid of extremely solid work on both sides of the camera, The Conversation is a gripping, riveting, and yet quite somber cinematic outing that feels just as timely today as it did 5-plus decades ago.
The plot is as follows: Taking us as movie goers to that distinct locale known as the City by the Bay (or San Francisco for those you who prefer formalities), The Conversation gets its puzzler of a story underway in Union Square as we witness an occurrence that is, if I’m being honest, more than just a tad bit commonplace. That being a couple walking around the Square during a hectic afternoon and just simply having a conversation (hence the title of the film) with each other….or so it seems. I add that last part incidentally because it isn’t long before we see that while the couple and their interactions with each other are completely normal, I can’t exactly say the same about their surroundings or the people around them in the Square. That’s because, unbeknownst to them and in case you hadn’t put two and five together yet dear reader, this couple is the latest individuals to be monitored by a man by the name of Harry Caul and his team. A man who, among other attributes worth knowing about him, is an expert in the respective arts of wiretapping (or bugging if you prefer) and just overall surveillance in general. He also happens to be someone who is extremely private, very much determined to keep himself at arm’s length from everyone be they his co-workers and colleagues/friends in his respective field to even the clients he provides his services for, and who is also more than just a tad bit stricken with guilt due in no small part to the aftermath of a previous job he conducted while living in New York City. At any rate, we soon learn that the motive behind Caul observing and eavesdropping on this particular couple is because a client, known only as the “Director”, has hired him to do so for reasons of a mysterious and unknown nature. Yet, as paranoid as Caul has been up to this point, we see that things are about to take a turn that is perhaps a bit more on the sinister side. This is because, whilst cleaning up the tapes in order to deliver a final product to the client that is as clear and concise as possible, we see as Harry manages to decipher one of the people saying to the other that “He’d kill us if he got the chance”. As seemingly commonplace as this phrase can be in the world around us to such an extent that 99.9% of us might either shrug it off and/or just roll with it, we see that’s not entirely the case with Harry. Instead, it seems that this phrase will be the catalyst for our hero to break his 1 rule of never getting involved and try to seek out the truth only to become embroiled in a web made up of equal parts paranoia, deception, and misdirection respectively. As to if there is any truth to his paranoia to say nothing of the impact that it will have on him however that is something I will let you uncover….
Now right off, it should be said that the work done by the various departments operating behind the camera on this distinct cinematic outing all manage to be absolutely stellar in every sense of the word. This starts with the work done in the director’s chair by iconic helmer Francis Ford Coppola (1983’s The Outsiders, The Godfather trilogy, Apocalypse Now, and Finian’s Rainbow from 1968 among others) and this is easily one of the more underrated efforts of his career. Indeed perhaps the best thing about Coppola’s direction on this particular film is not so much the fact that he has a brilliant comprehension for the cynical and more than slightly distrustful era in which he made this particular film (2 years post the Watergate scandal and the ensuing fallout) despite Coppola claiming that wasn’t meant to be the case. Rather, it’s more so the fact that this is very much a film that is the dictionary definition of what constitutes as a “slow-burn” kind of viewing experience. As a result, yes it does take awhile for things to happen in the film, but by doing so this permits the movie to do an (arguably) more effective job at really placing us in the headspace of our protagonist and letting our own levels of anxiety and unease rise at the same time as his. Along with the riveting work done by Coppola in the director’s chair, we also see that he is able to succeed immensely when it comes to the penning of this slice of cinema’s script which he penned as well. Indeed not only is Coppola’s script here brilliant in terms of exploring such complex topics as guilt, privacy, and surveillance in a way that feels both relatable and insightful, but it also is wonderfully constructed in terms of how it focuses just as much on the main character and his psyche as it does on the chilling mystery at the heart of the story respectively. Alongside the dynamic duo work done by Coppola at both the helm and on the written page, this slice of cinema also manages to contain absolutely brilliant work by Bill Butler (Jaws, Grease, Rocky 2-4, and Frailty) in this slice of cinema’s cinematography department. Indeed not only does Butler’s visual perspective do a wonderful job of conjuring up a spot-on mood of suspense and anxiety, but he also utilizes a terrific collection of rather distinct camera angles and ways the camera moves around in order to more effectively showcase for us as movie goers Caul’s paranoia-drenched point of view of the world around him. Lastly, I definitely feel like this particular section in the review would be woefully incomplete if I didn’t take some time in it to talk about the work done by noteworthy composer David Shire (Zodiac from 2007, 1977’s Saturday Night Fever, All the President’s Men, and the original Taking of Pelham One Two Three among others) on this slice of cinema’s musical accompaniment. Indeed not only does Shire’s work here succeed at being both stylish and unadorned in equal measure, but it also manages to do an incredibly effective job at being the kind of score that I promise will stay with you long after the credits have begun to roll. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in wonderful work in the editing department by Walter Murch and Richard Chew among others it’s clear that this slice of cinema might not be for everyone, but for those who are able (or willing) to dial into its distinct wavelength I can most definitely assure you that you will find quite a bit to enjoy and appreciate here.
Alongside the nothing short of impeccable work done by the various departments operating behind the camera, this slice of cinema is able to provide us as movie goers with an equally as top-tier collection of performances in front of the camera as well courtesy of the efforts of a talented and extremely well-chosen cast of players. Without a doubt in my mind, this starts with the work done by screen legend Gene Hackman in the lead role and he is magnificent here. Indeed as Harry Caul, we see that Hackman does a heartbreakingly great job at giving us a man who, from a professional standpoint, might be one of the best in his respective field yet from a personal perspective is very much the dictionary definition of a wreck. Not just because he’s a wee bit on the paranoid side, but because his fixation on keeping his life private at all costs to say nothing of the work he does has started to erode away the few personal relationships he has in life with particular regard to his co-worker Stan and his long-suffering girlfriend Amy. As a result, when this situation emerges we see that for the first time Harry finds himself really having to come face to face with both the ethical issues that his profession comes with which he had been conveniently able to ignore to say nothing of his own personal demons that have been eating away at him for quite some time. Yet rather than see the character descend into one-note territory or become unworthy of our empathy as an audience, we see that Hackman is able to do a fantastic job of keep us invested in his character and these struggles throughout not so much by what he says, but rather by what he does and how he acts respectively. Suffice it to say that it’s a fantastic turn from an actor who certainly gave us more than his fair share of those throughout his career. Alongside Hackman, this slice of cinema also provides us as movie goers with a solid performance from the late John Cazale in the role of Harry’s colleague Stan. Indeed Cazale does a brilliant job of really contributing a spot-on mix of both empathy for Harry and his predicament and unease toward him and his highly secretive nature as well. Lastly, this section would be woefully incomplete if I didn’t take the time to talk about the work done here by none other than Harrison Ford in the small yet pivotal role of Martin Stett. Yes he might only be in about 20-30 minutes of the film at most, but even so however, there is no denying that Ford does a wonderful job here of being very much the imposing with just the right hint of ominously sinister equivalent to Hackman’s paranoia-drenched timidness especially in the handful of scenes that they have together. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in solid work from such talents as Allen Garfield (1987’s Beverly Hills Cop II) as a more than slightly smarmy/arrogant colleague of Caul’s, Teri Garr who is heartbreakingly wonderful in her 10-15 minutes of screentime, Cindy Williams (Shirley from Laverne & Shirley), Frederick Forrest (Apocalypse Now and Falling Down), Michael Higgins (1987’s Angel Heart), and a surprise 3rd act extended cameo that I shan’t spoil for you here among others it’s clear that this slice of cinema’s cast knew exactly the kind of movie they were making to say nothing of what was being asked of their respective characters. As a result, not only are they all on-point with their performances, but each of them manages to do extremely solid work here no matter how much or little in terms of screentime they are ultimately given.
All in all and at the end of the day is The Conversation a perfect and flawless cinematic experience in every way possible and then some? Sadly that is not the case though by no means due to a lack of effort on the part of either the insanely talented cast or crew involved in the making of it. With that in mind, is this the worst cinematic endeavor to be found on the resumes of anyone who helped bring it to life? Oh no. Definitely not. Trust me when I say that Gene Hackman definitely has a few entries on his that I have no doubt he wishes he had said no to. With that in mind, it should be pointed out that this slice of cinema is most assuredly not going to be everyone’s distinct cinematic brew of choice. Not only because of the slow-burn nature style that the film’s narrative is operating with, but also because this is a film that gets most of its suspense through atmosphere and mood rather than anything actually seen on screen to say nothing of the fact that this slice of cinema is one that is without question designed to make you think as well as keep you on the edge of your seat. With that out of the way however, I feel it should be said that as far as I am concerned this slice of cinema is fanfreakingtastic in the best ways possible. Indeed the work done in the director’s chair and on the page by Coppola is both extremely well-done and incredibly insightful with the thematic concepts that this story is working with, the cinematography is absolutely outstanding, the score is brilliantly in synch with the rest of the movie, and the performances by the undeniably skilled cast of performers (with an incredible lead turn from Gene Hackman at the forefront) are all absolutely top-tier in every sense of the word. Suffice it to say that for those of you who are willing to sit down and give this slice of cinema the chance that I feel it deserves I definitely think that you will find that this is one cinematic, for lack of a better word, conversation that is most assuredly worth having time and time again. Just make sure to keep an eye out when you do. Not saying for sure that anyone will be watching your every move nor would I want you to think that in the first place, but if this film taught me anything it’s that sometimes it’s better to be safe than sorry as long as you don’t take it too far. Make of that what thou will dear reader. On a scale of 1-5 I give The Conversation “74” a solid 4.5 out of 5.
