Starring Clint Eastwood, Jeff Daniels, WandaDeJesus, Paul Rodriguez, Tina Lifford, Dylan Walsh, and Anjelica Huston.
Written by Brian Helgeland.
Based on the book by Michael Connelly.
Cinematography by Tom Stern.
Music by Lennie Niehaus.
Edited by Joel Cox.
Starring, produced, and directed by Clint Eastwood.
A Malpaso production.
A WarnerBros. release.
Preceded by Space Cowboys(2000).
Followed by Mystic River(2003).
Blu-ray cover art.
Warner Bros. official synopsis:
“FBI profiler Terry McCaleb almost always gets to the heart of a case. This time, that heart beats inside him. He’s a cardiac patient who received a murder victim’s heart. And the donor’s sister asks him to make good on his second chance by finding the killer. That’s just the first of many twists in a smart, gritty suspense thriller that’s ‘vintage Eastwood: swift, surprising, and very, very exciting!’”
Blu-ray reverse sleeve.
It was an opportunity to do a different slant on detective work, which I’ve been associated with over the years. At this particular stage in my “maturity,” I thought it was maybe time to take on some roles that had different obstacles than they would, say, if I was a man in my 30s or 40s doing these kinds of jobs.
Clint Eastwood on Blood Work.
Author Michael Connelly (L), and director/star Eastwood (R) on location for Blood Work.
Eastwood’s underrated 2002 cop-chases-serial-killer picture, Blood Work, wasbased on the novel by bestselling thriller writer, Michael Connelly, whose work has since been adapted with much greater success on both the big screen: the Matthew McConaughey-vehicle, The Lincoln Lawyer (2011), and small: Netflix’sMcConaughey-less The Lincoln Lawyer series; Amazon’s Bosch.
In-demand screenwriter of the day, Brian Helgeland.LA Confidential director Curtis Hanson, Helgeland, and their Oscars.
The book was adapted by (sometime) director (A Knight’s Tale; Payback), andprolific screenwriter, Brian Helgeland (Tony Scott’s Man on Fire, 2004), who was on a real career-high in the period between winning an Oscar for his James Ellroy adaptation, LAConfidential (1997), and being nominated for his next Eastwood collaboration, Mystic River (2003), adapted from the book by (sometime) TV-writer (HBO’sThe Wire) and novelist (Gone Baby Gone; Shutter Island) Dennis Lehane.
Opening helicopter POV shot.Arriving at the crime scene.Harry? Is that you?!
Based upon the opening images, with the camera swooping down from God’s point-of-view, descending on a fresh crime scene just as Clint Eastwood arrives flashing a badge, you could easily be forgiven for coming to this picture cold and assuming within the first few minutes that you’re watching Dirty Harry 6.
Clint Eastwood, as FBI profiler Terry McCaleb, ducks police tape.Author, Michael Connelly.
Despite superficial distinctions like the fact that Blood Work’s Terry McCaleb is an LA-based FBI-profiler rather than a San Francisco homicide dick, much of the film does play like the natural successor to Eastwood’s last outing as Det. Harry Callahan in 1988’s The Dead Pool.
Love notes from a serial killer.
But there is one significant way in which Blood Work distinguishes itself as not just another entry in the ongoing series of Dirty Harry misadventures: McCaleb is not the indestructible force that Det. Callahan was.
Kurt Russell (R) as Jack Burton in John Carpenter’s Big Trouble In Little China (1986).
Even as he aged throughout the decades with his off-screen alter-ego, Harry was always, to quote Big Trouble in Little China’s Jack Burton, “kind of invincible.” McCaleb, on the other hand, is vulnerable to the point of fragility.
McCaleb is an older man with a bum ticker, which we learn in the opening sequence when he spots a suspicious man gathered amongst the onlookers at the murder scene. McCaleb gives chase, only for his heart to give out on him before he can collar the suspect, allowing him the opportunity to flee, which he does, though not right away.
In an effectively creepy and surprising moment, which would not have been out of place in something like David Fincher’s genre-best, Se7en (1995), rather than run, the suspect turns, and never letting the light hit his face, comes closer. He seems to be concerned with McCaleb’s well-being as the elderly federal agent collapses against the chain link fence he was unable to scale.
We begin to think the suspect might even help McCaleb, who appears to be fast approaching death’s door – before pulling his piece (not a .44 Magnum, but might as well be) and begins blasting away.
Despite the barrage of bullets McCaleb unleashes in his direction, the suspect manages to escape, though one of the shots wounds him, before it’s lights out for poor Terrry McCaleb.
But McCaleb doesn’t die. He’s given a new heart via life-saving surgery by his frustrated doctor, a small part played well by a ridiculously over-qualified Anjelica Huston.
Theatrical poster.Angelica Huston in The Royal Tennenbaums.Theatrical poster (detail).Bill Murray (L) with Anjelica Huston (R) in The Life Acquatic (with Steve Zissou).Theatrical poster (detail).Anjelica Huston in The Darjeeling Limited.
At this time, Huston’s career was just beginning its late-period flourish. Call it her “Wes Anderson-period,” from The Royal Tennenbaums (2001), through Life Acquatic (2004) to The Darjeeling Limited (2007). Her presence here just adds a touch of class, though one can’t help but wish she had been given more to do.
As for McCaleb, his heart attack has finished his career, but at least he’s still alive. Though he’s not out of the woods just yet. Throughout the picture, McCaleb occasionally raises a hand to his chest, reminding us, and himself, of his precarious mortality. We begin to fear he may not be up to the task. Just about everyone he comes into contact with tells him he looks like death warmed over.
It’s hard to imagine seeing Det. Harry Callaghan in so fragile a state. Dirty Harry doesn’t get heart attacks. He doesn’t even have a heart.
McCaleb seems to have settled into his forced retirement, living an old boat he’s fixing up.
His neighbour in the marina is surfer bum, Buddy Noone, played by Jeff Daniels (The Purple Rose of Cairo; TheNewsroom), as a goofy, but harmless and likable harmonica-playing surfer bum.
Buddy alerts McCaleb to the presence of a woman waiting for him on his boat.
Her name is Graciela. She’s read about McCaleb in the paper and wants his help tracking down her sister’s killer.
“Which one is dead?”
McCaleb tells her he’s retired and offers to recommend a good private eye. But Graciela believes McCaleb is going to want to help her after all.
“You have my sister’s heart,” she tells him.
The news shakes McCaleb.
It keeps him up at night.
And so he calls Graciela, telling her not to get her hopes up, but promising her he will look into it.
He goes to see the cops working her case, the same two dicks he clashed with at the opening crime scene. He bribes them with some Krispy Kreme donuts for a look at the murder tape.
Paul Rodriguez plays the murder tape.
The more openly hostile of the detectives plays McCaleb the tape, which shows a Good Samaritan entering the store moments after the shooting, trying to save Gloria’s sister’s life. McCaleb thinks the Good Samaritan must have seen the killler, but the tape never reveals his face.
McCaleb visits the scene of the crime and spots the store’s CCTV.
Agita.
He also picks up a tail.
At the public library he does a little research into the liquor store homicide (and remembers to take his heart pills).
Then visits an old cop friend, who we learn he worked with on the “cemetery man murders,” the case we assume made his career.
The tape shows the killer addressing the surveillance camera directly, though there is no audio. “Yeah, he’s a real chatterbox,” McCaleb’s police friend tells him. MCCaleb remembers the killer appeared to speak in the liquor store tape, too. “Have you given this to any lip readers?” He asks her. She hasn’t. But she sure will.
“You look tired.”
McCaleb can’t drive with his heart condition so he recruits his marina neighbour, Buddy (Daniels). Buddy worries about McCaleb. “You look tired,” Buddy tells him. “You should get some rest.” It’s good advice.
But McCaleb cannot rest until he catches Graciela’s sister’s killer. He is literally haunted by her murder – dreaming about it from her perspective.
For my money, McCaleb’s nightmare sequence is the best use of negative imagery in any film since Scorsese deployed it in his Cape Fear remake (1991).
“Oh man, Starsky & Putz.”Clint interviews a witness played by Rick Hoffman (Louis Litt on Suits).Blame it on the Russian.
With Buddy now in tow as Clint’s personal chauffeur and the audience’s comic relief, McCaleb continues to follow clues, interview witnesses, and search for new suspects.
And as his investigation grows, so too does his relationship with, and affection for, Graciela. Their slow-burn romance is one of the best things about Blood Work. The part of Graciela could have felt like little more than a plot device, but in the hands of director Eastwood, screenwriter Helgeland, and actor WandaDeJesus, who plays her, Graciela is a fully realized character, suffering a terrible loss, trying to do the right thing by pursuing justice for his sister. Her presence in the picture moves the story along but also deepens our understanding for McCaleb through her eyes, and gives greater purpose to his mission. It’s one thing to lay everything on the line for a ghost, another for a living person, whom you will have to face when this is all over. Their blossoming love story gives the investigation emotional stakes.
Blood Work author, Michael Connelly.https://screenrant.com/blood-work-movie-clint-eastwood-terry-mccaleb-death-michael-connolly-hate/
Much of what makes Blood Work a satisfying thriller is down to author Michael Connelly, who apparently hated Clint’s adaptation (according to the Screen Rant article above) so much, he killed the character off. In the novel, Connelly created a character of uncommon vulnerability and compassion amongst thriller genre protagonists, and plotted an air tight-mystery where the killer’s reveal matters to us for once.
At this point, if you haven’t seen the film, you should save this post to your Reading List and seek out the movie, because you are leaving the spoiler-free zone.
Jeff Daniels as Buddy Noone.
Last warning…
There is no way to talk about Jeff Daniels’ performance without addressing the fact that he is ultimately revealed to be the psycho killer behind the blood-stained love letters to McCaleb, and the long string of dead bodies he offers up like wilted roses in a perverse courtship. Which is what the killings amount to.
Buddy is a little like JessicaWalters’ deranged stalker-fan in Eastwood’s directorial debut, Play Misty For Me (1971): obsessed and delusional.
Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire.
When Buddy is finally caught, he makes declarations straight out of the Jerry Maguire “You complete me”handbook.
Even though this is a thriller with Clint Eastwood, the character (of Buddy Noone) was like a distant cousin to Dumb & Dumber.
–Jeff Daniels on Blood Work.
Interview with Daniel’s for DVD supplemental materials.Not a still from Dumb & Dumber.Theatrical poster.
Casting Daniels was a brilliant choice. Having long since established himself as an affable, non-threatening, light-comic leading man in pictures like WoodyAllen’sThe Purple Rose of Cairo (1984) and Pleasantville(1998), as well as slapstick comedies like the FarrellyBrothers‘ Dumb & Dumber pictures, his presence in Blood Work as Clint’s funny sidekick made a lot of sense. But that well-established screen persona is used here as a smokescreen. Daniels is such a likeable performer, with such an air of decency and kindness, that the reveal of Buddy as the twisted serial killer is a total surprise. But Daniels seems to have so much fun once Buddy is unmasked, that the audience can’t help but have fun with him, too.
Take the scene where Buddy encounters the dead body of a murder victim and becomes visibly upset before having to walk away. This moment connives us that Buddy is a harmless, sensitive guy, and his revulsion at the killer’s violence speaks to our own. We identify more with Buddy than Clint’s tough-guy FBI profiler. Buddy is us. But of course Buddy’s reaction to the dead body is just a performance that he is putting on for McCaleb’s benefit (like everything else he does in the picture).
What really makes the twist work may not be evident upon first viewing, but on a second look, knowing that Buddy is the villain, you can see the slight undercurrent of menace and perversion to Daniels‘ performance. There is something creepy upon second viewing about the way that Buddy is overly concerned about McCaleb in all of their scenes together. Buddy is a little too invested in McCaleb’s well-being. When you know Buddy’s true intentions, his actions are all the more unnerving.
Following the reveal of the Code Killer’s true identity, the story becomes a more perfunctory plotting out of their inevitable confrontation.
But it is so gorgeously shot, with McCaleb slipping in and out of the shadows and fog of the marina at night, that you can forgive the simplicity of its narrative design.
This is where the film plays most like the closing chapter in the Dirty Harry saga. McCaleb isn’t here to make arrests. There’s nothing he wants more than a justifiable reason to pull the trigger on Buddy and close the book on the Code Killer once and for all.
You can’t help but anticipate McCaleb spitting out Dirty Harry’s trademark, “Make my day,” before Buddy does just that by pulling his machine gun.
McCaleb shows no hesitation or mercy. Like Det. Callaghan, he has no qualms about putting down a rabid dog, which is what a psychopathic killer like Buddy is to a man like McCaleb.
But it’s the water, not the bullets, that finally puts an end to the Code Killer. And not McCaleb’s hands…
But Graciela’s. She has avenged her sister’s killing. She is at peace.
One look at McCaleb tells us he is at peace, too. His mission is complete. He can move on with his life now and enjoy what’s left of it. And he won’t have to do it alone anymore, either.
This being a Clint Eastwood picture, in the end, the bad guys are punished (killed), order is restored, and the hero is rewarded for his bravery (violence).
And they all live happily ever after.
When last we see him, McCaleb and his new love, Graciela, are literally sailing off into a perfect, golden sunset.
Theatrical poster.
It’s a far cry from the sadistic head-in-box ending that Fincher gave us in Se7en.
If it never achieves Se7en’s lofty heights, or those of that other genre benchmark that has so rarely been equaled, Jonathan Demme’s Silence of the Lambs, it still manages to rise above so many other lesser attempts to capture the magic of those two suspense classics (see: The Cell, Taking Lives, The Little Things, Longlegs, etc.).
Eastwood, his own best director.
You can tell when a scene is good. If you’re in the scene, and you’re playing the scene, you can tell when it’s working for all the characters. It can be difficult. Sometimes, when actors direct, when they are off camera, they start watching it, instead of participating in it. That can be a problem. You have to make sure you’re always throwing the switch.
–Clint Eastwood on directing himself.
Eastwood (L), and director DonSiegel (R), on set for their iconic film, Dirty Harry (1971).
Once again, Eastwood proves that no one since his mentor,thelate, great Don Siegel (Dirty Harry; Escape From Alcatraz), directs him better than he does himself. He never attracts attention with frivolous framing or movement, but in the opening and closing chase sequences he proves that he’s as good a genre filmmaker as anybody.
And as an actor, Eastwood understands his relationship to the camera and to the audience. It may seem, superficially, that he is often playing the same character, but it is in the fine nuances and subtle variations on his screen persona that his skill as a performer really shines through. It reminds me of listening to Philip Glass’ music. Initially, all his compositions sound the same, but the more you listen, the more you hear and feel the impact of even the slightest variation on a melody. Blood Work may be a familiar tune, but it’s catchy, and you may find yourself humming it long after the picture is over.
SolveigDommartin (WimWenders’ Wings of Desire) stars as Claire, inUTEOTW.Title shot from the original trailer.
Produced and directed by Wim Wenders.
Starring SolveigDommartin, William Hurt, Sam Neil, Rudiger Volger, Ernie Dingo, Adele Lutz, Chick Ortega, Eddy Mitchell, Allen Garfield, David Byrne, Tom Farrell, Kuniko Miyake, Chishu Ryu, MaxVon Sydow, and Jeanne Moreau.
Story by Solveig Dommartin & Wim Wenders.
Screenplay by Peter Carey and Wim Wenders, with an early, uncredited draft by Michael Almereyda.
Cinematography by Robby Müller.
Edited by Peter Przygodda.
Music by Graeme Revell.
Produced by Anatole Bauman and Jonathan Taplin.
An Argos Films production.
A Warner Bros. release.
Restoration and release of the Director’s Cut by TheCriterion Collection, Janus Films, and Wim Wenders Stiftung.
UTEOTW was confoundingly Rated-R upon it’s initial release considering there is nothing in the way of gratuitous sex, or violence, excessive profanity, or any of the other fun things that usually earn a picture its R-rating.
Original French theatrical poster.Title shot.
When it was originally released theatrically in 1991, in its excessively-abbreviated form, cut down to a more theatre-friendly 128 mins from Wenders’ 247-min Director’s Cut (finally made available in North America in recent years by The Criterion Collection), and the (allegedly) 20-hour first assembly, Wenders’ strange, quirky, romantic, sci-fi road movie epic was mostly met with earth shattering silence. It is an exhibiting artist’s worst fear: widespread indifference.
The release of the restored and expanded Director’s Cut has significantly improved UTEOTW’s reputation, and gives cause for a major re-appraisal.
Panicked dreams.
Selections from the original story treatment, published in Wim Wenders On Film, by Faber & Faber:
“It’s surely no exaggeration to say that in the whole history of the cinema, no subject has been handled as much as love.
Wim Wenders, On Film
A story in which love is possible, love works , is right and proper, and with an ending to match. At any price. All received wisdom to the contrary. (And where did that ever get us?) With a courage born of despair. With fortunefavouring the brave. In spite of everything and, if need be, TO THE END OF THE WORLD.
Wim Wenders, On Film
The story itself is very simple. Maybe it will become more complicated. We’ll see. At any rate I’d like to make this film in the same way that I made Alice in The Cities, Kings of the Road, The State of Things, and not least, the second half of Paris, Texas.
Wim Wenders, On Film.
Use an almost empty ‘narrative structure’ and gradually have it filled in by the actors and by pooling all of our experience. Discover the story, in other words.
Wim Wenders, On Film.
It’s the only way I can do it now. And there’s no better way of making an adventure film.
Wim Wenders, On Film.
Waking from one dream to find yourself living in another.
Wenders’ resulting “adventure film” tells the story of Claire Tourneur, a listless young Parisian woman trying to find herself in Venice, Italy, but mostly losing herself in “a lot of parties, designer drugs, and one-night stands.”
Claire, through the looking glass.Nouvelle Vague star Anna Karina and her trademark bangs.International theatrical poster.
As an off-course Indian satellite circles the earth, threatening to destroy it, Claire wakes up from a falling nightmare, in bed with one of her disposable lovers (in a black wig, looking like Anna Karina in Alphaville), though we assume she hasn’t rested long, since we learn that Claire doesn’t really sleep.
Claire and some Talking Heads.
She wanders, drifts, really, through the stragglers, die hards, and miscellaneous detritus left over from last night’s revelry (or however long ago this Bunuelian-party-that-never-ends began).
Party like it’s 1999, because, it is.
Claire seems at once to belong to and remain apart from the people and environment she wanders past and through.
She is clearly very far from home. This place is not a final destination for her, just a quick stop along the way to who-knows-where?
And like the shark that will surely die if it stops swimming, Claire must move on from here. But where will she go?
She is on the run, even though no one is chasing her. Yet. Calire is simply trying to escape the very relatable pain of a recent breakup.
But, of course, heartbreak is something you carry with you, and so, everywhere that Claire goes, and she goes just about everywhere over the course of the film, there it is: heartbreak.
Her writer boyfriend, now ex, the film’s ever-patient narrator, Gene, played by Sam Neil (Żulowski’s Possession; Jurassic Park I & III), has just cheated on Claire with her best friend, Makiko. And though her friendship with Makiko seems to have survived, maybe a little bruised, but mostly unscathed, what Claire had with Gene has forever been lost.
Off the map.Taking the road less travelled.The freedom of the open road.Claire’s world is literally turned upside down.
Claire is on the fast track to nowhere-in-particular when a (miraculously non-fatal) automotive crack up irrevocably changes the course of her life forever.
Chick Ortega as Chico.Eddy Mitchell as Raymond.Shoot The Piano Player.Charles Aznavour and his captors in Piano Player.Theatrical poster.
Claire rolls her car, swerving to avoid collision with a vehicle driven by two French bank robbers, played here by Chick Ortega (Wings of Desire; Jeunet&Caro’s Delicatessen) and Eddy Mitchell (Bertrand Tavernier’s Coup de Torchon and Round Midnight) as a friendlier, goofier version of the two hoods who harassed Charles Aznavour in FrancoisTruffaut’sShoot The Piano Player.
Claire entertains an unusual job opportunity: stolen money courier.
A surprising exchange follows. Rather than a road rage incident erupting at gunpoint (as one might expect when colliding with a pair of desperate, armed, fleeing bank robbers) out in the middle of Italy’s version of nowhere, these apparrently harmless bandits have a surprisingly attractive, albeit highly dangerous, and clearly illegal, proposition for Claire.
If she will transport the money they have stolen in a headline-making heist at the Nice airport (they are too hot, and one of them too injured, to do it themselves), they will cut Claire in on thirty-percent of the loot.
Suddenly, Claire’s wayward wanderings are given purpose and direction. She has a mission. And she sets out to accomplish that mission with great enthusiasm. With her 30 percent, she can buy herself an apartment back in Paris, perhaps overlooking the Seine.
At the very least, she will not have to return to Gene, whom she still loves, but can no longer trust.
William Hurt as Trevor McPhee/Sam Farber.
Her mission is initially derailed, then defined by, a chance encounter at a (video!) pay-phone with a man claiming to be an Australian called Trevor McPhee, but who is really an American named Sam Farber.
You have very sad eyes.
-Claire to Sam.
I’m not a sad man though.
-Sam to Claire.
Played by a never-so-dashing William Hurt (Altered States, Body Heat). Sam is handsome, charming, and mysterious, with a little boy lost quality to him. Claire naturally falls in love at first sight. The first thing she notices? His eyes.
Sam is being followed by a mysterious man with an Australian accent (Ernie Dingo), who may or may not be a hitman. Claire covers for Sam, and when he is desperate for her help in evading his pursuer, she reluctantly agrees.
Where have you been?
Sam to Claire.
Everywhere… and back.
Claire to Sam.
Claire whisks Trevor away in her badly damaged (and foam-covered) automobile, and unknowingly embarks on the beginning of what will be the adventure of her lifetime, one that will take her across the globe and possibly heal her heartache.
When they are stopped by some futuristic police vehicles for a roadside check, Sam learns that he isn’t the only one on the run. Claire is afraid of the police and it has something to do with the heavy bag she’s carrying.
Sam offers to drive, and surprising herself, in his presence, Claire is able to finally fall (and stay) asleep.
While she’s lost in dreams, curious about the contents of Claire’s luggage, Sam exploits the opportunity to search her bag and help himself to some of the cash.
How long did I sleep?
Claire to Sam.
About 500 kilometres.
Sam to Claire.
It’s telling that in a road movie like this, time is measured not in seconds, minutes, and hours, but in distance travelled.
Pygmy singing.
Claire returns to Paris to deliver the stolen money and collect her cut. She drops Sam off, only to discover once he’s gone that so is some of her money. In its place is an I.O.U. and Sam’s prized recording of a group of Pygmy children singing.
“I went to a lot of parties. I cried a lot.”
Taking brief refuge at Gene’s apartment to count the money and figure out how much is hers, Claire decides she has to go after Sam, telling herself that it’s only to retrieve the money stolen from her, but knowing, as we do, that the money is only an excuse.
Gotta be 5 o’clock somewhere in the world, right?Claire takes in the Tokyo skyline.Relics of the future past.At the end of the world.
And so Claire departs to track down Sam and the stolen money, a journey that will take her from Paris to Berlin, to Moscow, to Tokyo, and beyond, ultimately to the Australian outback, where Sam hopes to reunite with his parents before the Indian satellite brings about the last of days.
Rüdiger Volger as Winter.
The trail leads to some encounters with the other interested parties who are hunting Sam for their own reasons, apparently having to do with some rare opals that Sam has stolen along with a mysterious, top-secret video-camera headset that his father has invented.
Volger in Wenders’ Kings of the Road (1976).
Chief amongst Sam’s pursuers is the rumpled, German private-eye, Winter, played by Rüdiger Volger (Wenders’Alice in the Cities, Kings of the Road, and Lisbon Story), who proves alternately annoying and useful to Claire.
Winter has resources that Claire does not, and with his high tech tracking gear, he quickly picks up Sam’s scent. Reluctantly, Claire agrees to partner up with Winter. Perhaps together they will have a greater chance of finding Sam.
A young Max Von Sydow (R) plays games with Death (L) in Ingmar Bergman’s masterpiece.Three Swedish legends of cinema: MaxVon Sydow (L), Liv Ullman (M), and revered auteur-filmmaker, Ingmar Bergman (R).
Sam’s father, Dr. Farber, is played by the great icon of Ingmar Bergman’s cinema, Max Von Sydow (The Seventh Seal; Spielberg’sMinority Report).
Like so many brilliant but myopic men of his generation, and every generation before him and since, Dr. Farber has been figuratively blinded by his career ambitions to the harm that his life’s work is causing the people who love him most, mainly his son, Sam. Slowly, Sam is being literally blinded while trying to complete his father’s research through over-exposure to the visionary camera that Dr. Farber has invented, the American government has stolen, and Sam has “repossessed.” What makes the camera so special? Among other things, it can record our dreams.
Sam looks, but cannot see.
Blindness, literal or otherwise, is one of (if not the) main themes of the picture, which is highly ironic given that UTEOTW is a film with such an abundance of visual splendour.
The late, great Robby Müller.
It should be counted among the finest examples of the late Dutch cinematographer Robby Müller’s very best work, a long list of excellent pictures that includes:
German poster for Down By Law, JimJarmusch’s triumphant follow-up to his indie debut, Stranger Than Paradise.Theatrical poster for Wenders‘Paris, Texas (1986).Theatrical poster for Alex Cox’s Repo Man.Theatrical poster for Jarmusch’s brilliant, dead-panwestern.Theatrical poster for Lars Von Trier’s most acclaimed film.Spanish poster for Von Trier’s Dancer In The Dark.Theatrical poster for Michael Winterbottom’s 24 Hour Party People.A walk to the end of the world.
Perhaps it is precisely because UTEOTW is so beautiful to look at that the prospect of losing our ability to see, as Wenders’ story presents, becomes so terrifying, and thus, such an effective dramatic engine for what may initially appear to be a rambling, globetrotting journey without destination. That all changes once we learn the true nature of Sam’s mission. But first, back to blindness:
Beloved French film icon (and ex-wife to William Friedkin), Jeanne Moreau.
Sam’s mother (played by Jeanne Moreau, another legendary icon of international cinema), is already clinically, legally blind, which is why Dr. Farber invented the camera in the first place.
Sam and his father’s camera.Sam records a video message from his sister in Siberia.Sweet dreams (machine).
Sam’s true mission, we eventually learn, is to travel the world collecting images of family, friends, and various landscapes for his mother to finally “see.” Dr. Farber’s camera does have the capacity to record our dreams, but it was originally designed for the sole purpose of allowing blind people to see.
Reeling from the fresh heartbreak of Gene and Makiko’s betrayal, Claire is now “love blind” over Sam. As she says, she is like some teenage girl with a bad crush, refusing to see the many red flags warning her off pursuing the troubled Sam, who robs her, abandons her, sleeps with her, ties her up, robs and abandons her again.
Winter’s upgraded bounty hunter software finally locks in on Trevor McPhee, who is really Sam Farber.
Sam really does not want to be followed, even by someone as intriguing, beautiful, and selflessly invested in helping him (for no discernible, logical reason), as Claire.
Winter and Claire chained to the bed and each other.
When he skips out on her for a second time, leaving her stranded, broke, and handcuffed to Winter in a Tokyo hotel room, Claire calls Sam a bastard. But she isn’t going to give up on him. When Claire loves someone, she is prepared to go to the ends of the world for them. And thats’s exactly what she will have to do for Sam.
For his part, our hapless narrator, Gene, is blind to how badly he has hurt Claire, and how she could have so easily and speedily fallen out of love with him, only to immediately fall in love with a criminal like Sam, who treats her so much worse (in Gene’s estimation) than he did through his one-off transgression with Makiko.
Gene and Winter make unlikely bedfellows.Claire, Gene, and Winter, unable to find beds at their Moscow hotel.
Gene will have to traverse the globe chasing after Claire, then chasing Sam with her, footing the bill along the way, before he is ready to see that he has lost her forever as a partner, but never as a friend. And anyone who knows Claire will attest that, to be her friend, is certainly worth crossing the globe for, even if only to finally let her go.
Winter cuts the figure of a classic Hollywood gumshoe, like a German version of Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe.
Winter, the lovable, but lonely private eye, by the very definition of his occupation, is always looking for what cannot be found, and therefore cannot be seen.
Like his Bounty Bear program, Winter is perpetually searching, searching, searching.
Winter is his name, finding people is his game.
But by the time he reaches the Australian outback in the film’s more philosophical and decidedly slower-paced second-half, his eyes are now open to something more profound than the endless pursuit of chasing people for money.
He is, after all, as Gene tells us in his narration, a “bleeding heart,” who previously made finding lost children his life’s mission.
End of the world music.
And though poor Winter suffers much through the film, always the one most put out by the double crosses and desperate attempts to evade him, the experience of venturing to the end of the world with Claire, et al, has seemingly delivered him to a moment approximating some form of enlightenment. By the film’s end, Winter is at peace, his heart still bleeding, but intact.
Claire comforts Sam.You’ll see me in my dreams.
Ultimately, the most urgent concern of Wenders’ film is with the blindness that we all share — the inability to truly see into each other’s hearts, minds, and dreams.
A frustrated scientist & his microscope: LiamNeeson in SamRaimi’sDarkman (1990).
We have modern, ultra-sophisticated microscopes that can show us our cellular makeup…
Jim Carrey discovers one of the hidden cameras in Peter Weir’s The Truman Show.
Tiny, fibre-optic videocameras that can be inserted under our skin to allow us to see inside our bodies and study our internal organs…
Theatrical poster.
We have X-ray machines that sometimes look and make us feel like we’re strapped in for one of those nasty procedures in JohnFrankenheimer’s prototypical 1966 body-horror, Seconds, that show us our bones, but none of this technology can show us what we feel or think.
MRI brain scan.
We can look at our brains with an MRI machine, but we cannot see our thoughts. Dr. Farber’s revolutionary dream camera rectifies that.
Dr. Farber in his underground lab (lair?).Claire (L), and Farber, Sr. (R).
To see each other’s dreams would be to reveal an open window directly into the deepest, hidden, unexpressed reservoirs of our innermost thoughts and feelings.
Sam’s blind mother dreams…And can finally see her son, as he was when he was a little boy.
And Farber’s device records not only what we are looking at, but also how we feel about what we are looking at. It records our emotions. It can “see” a child’s love for its mother, for example.
This site’s favourite film critic, Mr. Roger Ebert, in his best formal wear.
My favourite quote ever about movies comes from Roger Ebert, the one about how they are “empathy machines,” but a camera that can show us our own and other people’s dreams? With all due respect, admiration, and apologies to Sir. Roger, Dr. Farber’s camera would easily have the movies beat.
Incidently, Ebert gave UTEOTW a very lacklustre two stars in his contemporaneous review, and wrote somewhat dismissively: “The movie itself, unfortunately, is not as compelling as the tempest that went into its making.”
Ebert and the thumbs of judgment.
But in all fairness to him, Ebert only saw the truncated version, not the Director’s Cut. In effect, he only saw half the picture, so awarding the original version half of the stars that the Director’s Cut rightly deserves actually seems apropos.
Claire is weary of Sam’s futuristic head gear.
Should such a device as the one Dr. Farber invents in the film ever come into existence, I fear that, at least for the cinema, it truly would be the end of the world.
From lonely heart…To mad bomber.
But with the exception of a small bit of comic relief around one minor character (Tom Farrell) whose apocalyptic Cassandra Complex turns him from anxious dive-bar lonely heart into an anti-nuclear-activist-cum-terrorist, that sort of thesky is falling (or in this case, Indian satellite), doomsday rhetoric is mostly avoided by Wenders’ hopeful, romantic, ode to travel, technology, love, and dreams, and so, I’ll avoid it here.
Poster for Paul Schrader’s 2002 sex and videotape drama,Auto Focus.Family man Bob Crane (Greg Kinnear) shows off his new video camera in Paul Schrader’sAuto Focus (2002).Then puts it to its real use…A different kind of “home movie.”
Like Paul Schrader’s 2002 sex-and-videotape drama, Auto Focus, would do a little over a decade later, UTEOTW also holds a special significance for those of us with an interest in the history and development of digital video photography.
Early reel-to-reel video tape.
At the time of UTEOTW’s production, although analog tape had been around since 1951, the digital medium was very much in its infancy. If it were a baby, it would have taken its first breath, but not yet opened its eyes.
To sleep… Perchance, to dream.Farber’s tech is the holy grail in the search to capture our dreams.Shades of Hurt’s earlier immersion in visionary sci-fi, Ken Russell’s 1980 film of Paddy Chayevsky’s script for Altered States.Hurt in Altered States.Theatrical poster for KenRussell’sAltered States.
Dr. Farber’s camera remains the stuff of science-fiction fantasy, but since the audience would have to view so much of the footage that the Farber’s device was supposedly capturing, there was a real need for Wenders to find a credible way of presenting digital images that would still be recognizable as videotape to an audience in 1991, when the film was to be released, but also show how the technology might significantly advance by the year 1999, when the story takes place.
This required Wenders, his creative and technicalteams, and the Japanese engineers in R&D over at SONY, who would have to actually develop or invent the working hardware and software required by the task at hand, to imagine the potential future of video ten years down the road.
Claire captures the sights.Playback.Early digital video capture of Hurt, as Sam.You can just barely make out the shape of a doorway captured by Claire’s handicam.The canals in Venice.Thai-chi at the end of the world.Child on bicycle.Face of the future.Visions from the underground.Self-portrait of a hitchhiker.
They set about accomplishing this in three ways. First, they would have to create the blurry, pixelated, desaturated digital images captured by Claire with her consumer-grade mini-handicam.
Then there would be the higher resolution, but still slightly impressionistic (since they are imbued with the beholder’s feelings about what they are seeing), much crispier, high-end digital images captured by Sam while out in the field. We see them as double images as we would with modern 3-D cameras, which, like our own brains, rely on two overlayed visual inputs to create the illusion of depth, as we perceive it with our eyes.
Terminator (2) vision.
With the on-screen computational overlays, Sam’s footage is a little like Schwarzenegger’s POV shots from James Cameron’s Terminator 2: Judgement Day, released the same year as Wenders’ film, though obviously to much greater box office.
Lastly, they would need to create the vibrant, impressionistic, colour-saturated (occasionally black-and-white or monochromatic) images, distorted to the point of abstraction, of the various characters’ dreams (and sometimes, nightmares).
Digital vision of Claire.An analogue one.
The first challenge for the team of artists and technicians assembled by Wenders’ would be the inevitable, unfavourable comparisons of the aesthetic qualities of the digital footage to the well established look of traditional film.
Pixel-vision Claire.
By juxtaposing digital video images with those shot on celluloid, as Wenders intended to do, the fear was that, by contrast to the pristine look of contemporary film stocks, which, unlike digital video, had advanced considerably by the early 90s (film admittedly had more than half-a-century’s head start on its baby-sister medium), that video footage would just look bad. Grainy. Ugly. Unusable.
Digital noise.
Pixels were simply no match for film grain in 1991. Was it even possible to make video look beautiful back then? Wenders and his collaborators were undaunted in their many trials and errors along the way in that most honourable of pursuits: artistic and technological innovation.
The real-world images that Sam and Claire would record with their respective cameras in their across-the-world adventures would be challenge enough, but how could Wenders and team even hope to approximate the look and feel of our dreams?
SalvadorDali’s conceptual sketch for the “eyeball” set from AlfredHitchcock’sSpellbound.
Beyond those technical difficulties associated with the use of digital media in its early form, there was an even more daunting artistic obstacle: the generally accepted notion that dream sequences in cinema (and television) have traditionally, more often than not, simply been inadequate in their attempts to articulate the intangible, amorphous look and feel of our dreams, which do not adhere to any of the visual logic that film grammar is dependent upon. Of course, there are exceptions:
The Salvador Dali sequence in Alfred Hitchcock’sSpellbound (1945)is one prime example.
The world’s most famous surrealist painter and its most famous director of suspense pictures, respectively, Dali’s and Hitchcock’s worlds collided in Spellbound with stunning results.
Gregory Peck needs a nap after all that dreaming!60th anniversary Vertigo re-release poster.The director’ screen credit.Bass’ screen credit (detail).
Topping his work inSpellbound, the Saul Bass psych-out sequences in Hitchcock’s1958 masterpiece, Vertigo, remain the very best of their kind.
A restless night of sleep for Jimmy Stewart’s Scotty. Haunted in dreams.Or is he awake?Flowers for the dead…Transform into cartoon leaves.They tumble towards us.Scotty travels through the void.He sees red.He is transported to a graveyard.Where an open grave is waiting…For him!Head trip.The face of fear.Not Boris Karloff.A falling silhouette.The trademark Bass cut-out style.Falling in black and white.Scotty wakes up in fright.Fellini’s masterpiece. Or, at least, one of his masterpieces.
Fellini’s opening to 8 & 1/2 (1963)isanother exampleof dreams done right, probably the finest articulation of dream imagery in international cinema to date.
Stuck in traffic.Under the watchful eyes of strangers in the other vehicles.A busload of passengers, so jammed in, their limbs are spilling out of the windows. Makes the TTC look slightly less like Dante’s Inferno.Trapped in his car.Glared at, by more commuters.Ignored by those with more pressing things on their minds.Riders on a bus to nowhere.Freeing himself from the vehicle…But not the scrutiny of the strangers.Preparing for take-off.Rising.Taking flight.Comes a horseman.“Down you come!”Tethered to the earth.Some people just don’t know when to let go!Prognosticator of prognosticators.“Down for good!”Shades of Vertigo.
Woody Allen’s opening to Stardust Memories (1980), riffing on Fellini’s opening to 8 & 1/2, also comes to mind.
Allen & longtime casting director, Juliet Taylor, proved they could rival Fellini in selecting extras with great faces. Just look at the mug on the train’s ticket-taker. Is that not the face of Judgement?
There are even those few, extra rare examples of films which successfully create and sustain a dreamlike quality for the entirety of their runtime.
Theatrical poster for DavidLynch’sLost Highway.Theatrical poster for what some say is Lynch’s best work, Mulholland Drive.
The most obvious example would be the cinema of(recently departed genius) David Lynch, especiallyLost Highway (1997), and Mullholland Drive (2001).
Season 5 advert.
Outside of the movies, the most successful dream sequences in narrative television are likely to be found in select episodes of HBO’s landmark mafia & psychoanalysis drama, The Sopranos (1999-2007).
Tony goes full Gary Cooper, his spirit animal.
The most notable example would have to be Season 5’s 11th episode, The Test Dream – the one where Tony rides a horse through his living room.
What sets UTEOTW apartfrom those other stories in this regard, is that it never attempts to recreate the distorted narrative logic of our dreams. It’s not bothered with their elusive plots (trying to remember the stories in our dreams only ever proves to be an exercise in frustration), but is instead preoccupied with the meaning of the images and with the emotions they elicit in the dreamer.
The dazzling, impossible physics of Christopher Nolan’s dreamthrillerInception (2010).
There are no gravity-defying Inception-like dream-within-a-dream (within a dream!) heist sequences to be found here. Instead, Wenders and team explore the new and emerging aesthetic possibilities inherent in imagining how our brains would interpret and process images without the benefit of our eyes to actually see them.
It’s a fascinating visual problem, and as such, a distinctly cinematic one. And because it is so interested in how we see, how we feel about what we see, and how we reproduce and share what we see, UTEOTW is a story that can really only be properly told through the uniquely visual medium that is the magic of moving pictures.
Cinema remains the art form that most closely approximates our dreams, despite its over-reliance on pesky little elements like visual and narrative logic.
Lovers in flight.
The great joys of the film’s first half are to be found in exploring the visual pleasures of our external realities: of so many diverse, breathtaking landscapes (from the Blade Runner-esquemetropolisof near-future Tokyo, to the vast, tranquil emptiness of the Australian outback) in such rapid-fire succession; of so many beautiful and captivating movie-star faces; of such a rich and varied, and when called for, impressionistic colour palette (remember when movies weren’t just orange and green?!); of the great sounds and songs that play throughout Claire’s big adventure on the film’s soundtrack (more on that later).
In contrast, the great pleasures of the second half are to be found in the film’s scientific and philosophical musings, its ideas about ways of seeing, and in its intellectual curiosity about humankind’s shared compulsion to steal glimpses into the mysterious abyss of our unexplored interior lives through our dreams. Wenders’ characters do this armed with the full knowledge, as Nietzsche warned us, that the abyss always stares back.
Sam’s fading eye-sight is but one of the dangers (physical, psychological, moral, and otherwise) inherent in the use of Dr. Farber’s dream machine.
The good doctor’s intention of restoring sight to the blind is, of course, a noble one, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.
Philip K. Dick: The Man Who Saw The Futute (and was terrified).
You don’t have to be a paranoid genius on the level of Philip K. Dick (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?; We Can Remember It For You Wholesale) to imagine the real world implications and potential for harm that abuse of Farber’s device would cause if placed in the proverbial wrong hands.
We have been well warned by Dick in his novels and the films adapted from them.
NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden.
The concept that technology might be used in the future to harm us is one that we are all very familiar with in the post-EdwardSnowden reality in which we find ourselves currently living, as we’ve seen in Laura Poitras’s documentary Citizen Four (2014), and Oliver Stone’s Snowden (2016).
But the surveillance state hasn’t just been forced upon us by Big Brother, like we saw in Michael Radford’s 1984 adaptation of George Orwell’s dystopian 1949 novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Theatrical poster.
We happily adopted it ourselves, volunteering our locations, memories, and thoughts in an endless stream of Facebook updates, Instagram posts, and Twitter/X tweets (Xs?), as we saw in David Fincher’s The Social Network (2010).
Gunmen hot on Sam’s trail.
That using the futuristic tech his father invented will put Sam’s life in danger is more than a distinct possibility considering the rogues gallery of bounty hunters, private dicks, and even hitmen, that the US government has dispatched to solve their Sam problem. All of that makes for great high stakes drama and suspense as Sam circumnavigates the planet in his efforts to evade them.
The personal risks that Sam takes in his righteous quest to collect images for his mother almost excuse his bad behaviour towards Claire before they inevitably (as people must do in the movies), finally, properly fall in love.
Sam slips away again.
It’s not that Sam is a bad person, it’s just that he has a mission, too, and he cannot afford to get distracted or waylaid by anyone or anything, not even true love. Time is running out for Sam before, like his mother, he can no longer see.
In Tokyo, Sam is lost in more than translation. He has finally, completely lost his sight.
By the time Claire and Winter finally track Sam down to that Tokyo hotel, he is now effectively, totally, blind.
Since an image collector needs only two things: a camera, and the use of their eyes, at about the halfway point in UTEOTW, Sam is unable to complete his mission, and here, the film does something very odd. Already more than two hours in (more than the entire length of most movies) Wenders stop the story cold, pausing the frenetic pace of the global chase narrative, to allow Sam as much time as he needs for his eyes to heal, and for he and Claire to really get to know each other, and genuinely fall in love. From here on out, Claire will no longer have to chase after Sam.
The chemical process we experience as romantic love may occur in an instant, hence, “love at first sight,” but that is only the intense, but shallow, quick-fading flame of lust and infatuation, not the everlasting, till-death-do-us-part, raging fire of selfless, heart-bursting, life-lasting true love, the stuff Shakespeare and Dylan Thomas wrote about, the kind of love that can make you forget the world is soon coming to an end.
Lovers embrace.
Once Sam stops running, and lying, and finally tells Claire all of his secrets and fears, when he is truly vulnerable with her for really the first time, Claire isn’t angry that he has been keeping so much from him.
She says only, “You could have told me this before.” It’s not the admonishment that it sounds like. Claire just wants Sam to know that everything she learns about him only makes her love him more. It has taken them such a long time, over so many miles, to finally reach this place of trust, affection, and connection with each other, and it could well prove to be that very rare and special kind of love after all.
Despite its never-ending fountain of ideas, optimism, and hope for the coming (now past) future of 1999, it is Wenders‘ romantic, humanist tendencies that have had me revisiting a film which perplexed me greatly 34 years ago, when both the movie and I were so much younger.
Spanish VHS cover art.
Not really understanding the deeper implications of the story as an 11 or 12 year-old, and despite the aesthetic limitations of first seeing it on VHS tape, the movie’s sumptuous visuals and its ultra-cool soundtrack intrigued me sufficiently to return to it again and again every few years. Now that we’ve both matured (hopefully, in my case) with the passage of time, UTEOTW has finally, totally enchanted me.
Though the film fared poorly at the box office, the soundtrack album was a considerable hit for a little-seen art film, peaking at #114 on the US Billboard 200 sales chart.Reverse album cover with one hell of an impressive track listing!
I’m not ashamed to tell anyone who will listen that I absolutely adore this film. To echo Nick Cave’s words on my favourite (among many standouts) track from the album, which I’ve happily had stuck in my head since re-watching UTEOTW for this post, (I will love it) till the end of the world!
Gene and Claire reminisce.The Stones, still at it.
There is a funny music joke in the film, too. When Claire reminisces with Gene about the time they saw The Rolling Stones’ last concert, Gene corrects her. “But it wasn’t their last concert, was it?” Claire smiles, knowingly, and we smile, too. That’s another of many predictions that Wim got right.
The Stones (who did not contribute any songs to the soundtrack) did not have their last concert in 1999 nor, as of this writing in early 2025, in any year since. In fact, according to our friends at Google (by which I mean myself, using their search engine), The Rolling Stones are currently planning a 2025 European tour. Wherever they are in the world right now, I’m sure they are either performing live, or rehearsing to do so imminently.
Dommartin (L), shares a laugh with Wenders (R), her then-partner in life and art.
Wenders’ former screen muse and life companion, the luminous Solveig Dommartin, died tragically young on January 11th, 2007 in Paris, France, after a heart attack. She was only 48 years young.
Dommartin (L), with Wenders (R).Dommartin (L), with Wenders (R).Dommartin (L), with Wenders (R).Wenders (L), with Dommartin (R).Wenders (R) directs Dommartin (L) on location for Wings of Desire.Dommartin with Bruno Ganz as the love-struck angel, Damiel, in Wim Wender’smasterpiece, Wings of Desire.
I hope she is with Damiel and Cassiel now, and all the other angels of heaven, joyfully spreading her own wings of desire, while keeping a friendly watch over the great many of us who return again and again to the enduring gifts she left behind in her all-too-few screen appearances.
Dommartin with Peter Falk in Wings of Desire.
In Wenders’ Wings of Desire she gave one of world cinema’s finest performances, one that must not be forgotten.
But it is her portrayal of Claire in UTEOTW that remains my personal favourite. I think I fell a little bit in love with Dommartin myself when I was 13 or 14 and first saw her lighting up the screen in that circus tent, or going alone to a dingy underground club to see Nick Cave perform live in Desire. And that’s the other bit of magic to be found at the movies. It doesn’t matter where I am in my life, whenever I see this picture, or Wings of Desire, or any of the films I fell in love with in my formative movie-watching years, I am instantly 13 again, and happily love blind.
Immersed in a digital landscape.
But I’m not 13 anymore, of course. I’m 45 now. It is January 27th, 2025 as I write this. Nearly 35 years have passed since the film was made, and more than a quarter-of-a-century since 1999, when it take place. We are living in the future of the future that UTEOTW envisioned.
Dr. Farber, by way of Steve Jobs.
Probably the closest thing we have today to a device that even remotely resembles Dr. Farber’s dream machineis Apple’sVision Pro headset.
Shades of that iconic, Sam Farber style.Merging reality with your desktop. Images come to life.An out-of-this-world experience for just under $6,000!
The Vision-Pro looks a little like Dr. Farber’s device, and though the headsets may not be able to record our dreams (yet!), they do just about everything else, including immerse us fully in an alternate, 360-degree-spanning, dream-like reality.
Staying connected with friends and family anywhere in the world.
Not to mention video calling, as predicted in the film (along with the internet, GPS, and Winter’s iPad-like computer tablet).
Record your loved ones…Just by looking at them!
Apple’s Vision Pro offers the wearer of its headset the ability to record, as Sam does, their memories, not as they might do through the cumbersome apparatus of a video camera in their hands, but hands-free, just by looking.
Our greatest hope for realizing Farber’s vision of seeing our dreams through some kind of digital medium continues to rest on tbe efforts of doctors, scientists, and technicians (and dreamers!) working to find new and improved technologies for mapping and reading our brains. According to the BBC article above (its slightly misleading headline aside), we’re getting a lot closer to achieving the reality that UTEOTW envisages. Soon, it will be science-fiction no more.
Claire sees the future.The Orgasmitron from Sleeper.
Whatever technology we do ultimately adopt to enhance it (Sleeper’s Orgasmitron, anyone?), human beings will always seek most to connect to each other, to fall in love, to share our memories, our fears, our hopes, and, perhaps more than anything else, our dreams.
And so, this post is dedicated with much respect and admiration to the memory, and in honour of, the great, multi-talented, human being and artist, Solveig Dommartin. May she forever rest in peace and power.
*This post is dedicated to Watercat, who was able to source a copy of the film for me, a major blind spot in my Friedkin viewings.
French poster for William Friedkin’s “Rampage” aka “LeSangDuChatiment.”Album cover art.The Maestro in 1986, with his score to RolandJoffe’s “TheMission,” a much more famous work composed the same as the music for WilliamFriedkin’s “Rampage.”
Written, produced, and directed by WilliamFriedkin (TheFrenchConnection, TheExorcist), this barely released, and still little seen serial killer thriller features one of Morricone’s most quietly unnerving scores.
Trailer.
Original trailer.
The Album:
Album cover art.Side One.Side Two.Reverse album cover.
Listen to Morricone’s complete score for “Rampage” here:
“Legal insanity is so often the default, modern-day defense for gruesome crimes and for Alex McArthur the claim is no different. Alex is an outwardly normal man who goes on incredible killing and mutilating sprees. When he is finally captured and brought to trial, the district attorney is torn between his own liberal ideals on guilt and personal responsibility, and the heinous crimes for which the accused is being tried.”
The film premiered at the Boston Film Festival on September 24, 1987, but its theatrical release was stalled for five years due to production company and distributor De Laurentiis Entertainment Group going bankrupt. In 1992, Miramax obtained distribution rights and gave the film a limited release in North America. For the Miramax release, Friedkin reedited the film and changed the ending.
Plot summary
Charles Reece is a serial killer who commits a number of brutal mutilation-slayings in order to drink blood as a result of paranoiddelusions. Reece is soon captured. Most of the film revolves around the trial and the prosecutor’s attempts to have Reece found sane and given the death penalty. Defense lawyers, meanwhile, argue that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity. The prosecutor, Anthony Fraser, was previously against capital punishment, but he seeks such a penalty in the face of Reece’s brutal crimes after meeting one victim’s grieving family.
In the end, Reece is found sane and given the death penalty, but Fraser’s internal debate about capital punishment is rendered academic when Reece is found to be insane by a scanning of his brain for mental illness. In the ending of the original version of the film, Reece is found dead in his cell, having overdosed himself on antipsychotics he had been stockpiling.
Alternate ending
In the ending of the revised version, Reece is sent to a state mental hospital, and in a chilling coda, he sends a letter to a person whose wife and child he has killed, asking the man to come and visit him. A final title card reveals that Reece is scheduled for a parole hearing in six months.
Charles Reece is a composite of several serial killers,[5] and primarily based on Richard Chase.[6]
The crimes that Reece commits are slightly different from Chase’s, however; Reece kills three women, a man and a young boy, whereas Chase killed two men, two women (one of whom was pregnant), a young boy and a 22-month-old baby. Additionally, Reece escapes at one point—which Chase did not do—murdering two guards and later a priest. However, Reece and Chase had a similar history of being institutionalized for mental illness prior to their murders, along with sharing a fascination with drinking blood and cutting open the organs of their victims. Reece wears a bright colored ski parka during his murders and walks into the houses of his victims, as did Chase. The two also share the same paranoia about being poisoned. When Reece is incarcerated, he refuses to eat the prison food since he believes it has been poisoned, which mirrors the behavior of Chase in prison. who tried to get the food he was being served tested since he thought it was poisoned.[7][8] Unlike with Reece in the 1992 cut, Chase was sentenced to death, but he was found dead in his prison cell, an apparent suicide, before the sentence could be carried out.[9][10] In the early 1990s, Friedkin said he changed this detail of Chase’s life in the second cut since having him be released from prison fitted better with the traditions of the United States.[11] In both versions of the film, Reece lives with his mother and has a job. When Chase’s crimes were being committed, he lived alone in an apartment and was unemployed. Reece’s father is also said to have died when he was a child, whereas Chase’s father was still alive when his crimes were being committed.
While Chase was noted for having an unkempt appearance and exhibiting traits of paranoid schizophrenia in public, the film’s makers intended to portray Reece as “quietly insane, not visually crazed.”[5] Alex McArthur said in 1992 that “Friedkin didn’t want me to play the guy as a raging maniac. We tried to illustrate the fact that many serial killers are clean-cut, ordinary appearing men who don’t look the part. They aren’t hideous monsters.”[5] To prepare for the role, Friedkin introduced McArthur to a psychiatrist who deals with schizophrenics. He showed McArthur video tapes of interviews with different serial killers and other schizoids.[5]
The incident where Reece goes on a rampage after escaping custody was inspired by a real-life event in Illinois, that occurred while the film was in production.[5] In this event, the killer painted his face silver, something which Reece also does.[5]
The film had a negative portrayal of courtroom experts, and this was personally motivated by Friedkin’s ongoing custody battle for his son, which he was having with his ex-wife.[12]
Soundtrack
The film’s score was composed, orchestrated, arranged and conducted by Ennio Morricone and was released on vinyl LP, cassette and compact disc by Virgin Records.[13]
Release
Rampage was filmed in late 1986 in Stockton, California, where it had a one day only fundraising premiere at the Stockton Royal Theaters in August 1987. It played at the Boston Film Festival in September 1987, and ran theatrically in some European countries in the late 1980s. Plans for the film’s theatrical release in America were shelved when production studio DEG, the distributor of Rampage, went bankrupt. The film was unreleased in North America for five years.[14] During that time, director Friedkin reedited the film, and changed the ending (with Reece no longer committing suicide in jail) before its US release in October 1992.[2][15] The European video versions usually feature the film’s original ending. The original cut of the film has a 1987 copyright date in the credits, while the later cut has a 1992 copyright date, and includes new distributor Miramax‘s logo at the beginning, instead of DEG’s. The original cut also has the standard disclaimer in the credits about the events and characters being fictitious, unlike the later cut, which has a customized disclaimer, mentioning that it was partly inspired by real events.
In retrospect, William Friedkin said: “At the time we made Rampage, [producer] Dino De Laurentiis was running out of money. He finally went bankrupt, after a long career as a producer. He was doing just scores of films and was unable to give any of them his real support and effort. And so literally by the time it came to release Rampage, he didn’t have the money to do it. And he was not only the financier, but the distributor. His company went bankrupt, and the film went to black for about five years. Eventually, the Weinsteins’ company Miramax took it out of bankruptcy and rereleased it. But this was among the lowest points in my career.”[16] There was a year long negotiation with Miramax, and a disappointing test screening of the original cut. The changes that Friedkin made with the 1992 cut addressed concerns from Miramax that the film was not coherent enough, in addition to addressing Friedkin’s changing stance towards the death penalty.[12] The 1992 cut included a previously unreleased scene of Reece buying a handgun at the beginning and lying about his history of mental illness (just as Richard Chase did), whereas the original cut begins with one of Reece’s murders, without explaining any of his background.
Regarding the five year gap between the film’s American release, McArthur said in 1992: “It was a weird experience. First it was coming out and then it wasn’t, back and forth. The fact that it was released at all is amazing.” McArthur added that: “I’ve changed a lot since that picture was made. I have three children now and I’m not sure I would play the part today. I certainly wouldn’t want my kids to see it.”[5]
In 1992, the film played at 175 theaters in the United States, grossing roughly half a million dollars against a budget of several million dollars. McArthur said in 1992 that the film was never intended to be a big commercial hit.[5]
Reception
The film received a polarized response.[17][18] Some critics ranked Rampage among Friedkin’s best work.[2] In his review, film critic Roger Ebert gave Rampage three stars out of four, saying: “This is not a movie about murder so much as a movie about insanity—as it applies to murder in modern American criminal courts…Friedkin[‘s] message is clear: Those who commit heinous crimes should pay for them, sane or insane. You kill somebody, you fry—unless the verdict is murky or there were extenuating circumstances.”[19]Gene Siskel opined the film needed more scenes in the courtroom.[20]Janet Maslin of The New York Times praised the acting and commented: “Rampage has a no-frills, realistic look that serves its subject well, and it avoids an exploitative tone.”[21]
Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly called the film “despicable”, saying that the “movie devolves into hateful propaganda” and “its muddled legal arguments come off as cover for a kind of righteous blood lust”.[22]Stephen King, an admirer of Rampage, wrote a letter to the magazine defending the film.[2]
Desson Howard of The Washington Post noted that in the film’s five year delay, there had been several high profile serial killer cases, saying: “In this Jeffrey Dahmer era, McArthur’s claims of unseen voices and delusions that he needed to replace his contaminated blood with others’ are familiar tabloid fare”, however, he noted that despite this, the film “still preserves a horrifying edge.”[23] In a separate 1992 review for The Washington Post, Richard Harrington had a more negative view, criticizing the film for feeling like a made for television feature, and claiming that it had a dated look to it due to its long delay.[24]
In retrospect, William Friedkin said: “There are a lot of people who [now] love Rampage, but I don’t think I hit my own mark with that”.[16] In another interview, Friedkin said he thought the film failed because audiences perceived it as being too serious, and they were expecting something different from him.[12]
In 2021, Patrick Jankiewicz of Fangoria wrote: “Half-serial killer thriller, half-courtroom drama, Rampage is an unnerving study on the nature of evil and what society should do about it.”[25]
Home media
Friedkin’s original cut featuring the alternate ending and some additional footage was released on LaserDisc in Japan only by Shochiku Home Video in 1990.[2]
The American edit of the film was released on LaserDisc in 1994 by Paramount Home Video.[2] The film received a DVD release by SPI International in Poland.[26]
Kino Lorber announced plans to release Rampage on Blu-ray in 4K UHD sometime in 2024.[27]
“William David Friedkin (/ˈfriːdkɪn/; August 29, 1935 – August 7, 2023) was an American film, television and opera director, producer, and screenwriter who was closely identified with the “New Hollywood” movement of the 1970s.[1][2] Beginning his career in documentaries in the early 1960s, he is best known for his crime thriller film The French Connection (1971), which won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director, and the horror film The Exorcist (1973), which earned him another Academy Award nomination for Best Director.
Friedkin’s other films in the 1970s and 1980s include the drama The Boys in the Band(1970), considered a milestone of queer cinema; the originally deprecated, now lauded thriller Sorcerer (1977); the crime comedy drama The Brink’s Job (1978); the controversial thriller Cruising (1980);[3][4] and the neo-noir thriller To Live and Die in L.A.(1985). Although Friedkin’s works suffered an overall commercial and critical decline in the late 1980s, his last three feature films, all based on plays, were positively received by critics: the psychological horror film Bug (2006), the crime film Killer Joe (2011), and the legal drama film The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (2023), released two months after his death. He also worked extensively as an opera director from 1998 until his death, and directed various television films and series episodes for television.
Early life and education
Friedkin was born in Chicago, Illinois, on August 29, 1935, the son of Rachael (née Green) and Louis Friedkin. His father was a semi-professional softball player, merchant seaman, and men’s clothing salesman. His mother, whom Friedkin called “a saint,” was a nurse.[5][6] His parents were Jewish emigrants from Ukraine, in the Russian empire.[7]His grandparents, parents, and other relatives fled Russia during a particularly violent anti-Jewish pogrom in 1903.[8] Friedkin’s father was somewhat uninterested in making money, and the family was generally lower middle class while he was growing up. According to film historian Peter Biskind, “Friedkin viewed his father with a mixture of affection and contempt for not making more of himself.”[5]
After attending public schools in Chicago, Friedkin enrolled at Senn High School, where he played basketball well enough to consider turning professional.[9] He was not a serious student and barely received grades good enough to graduate,[10] which he did at the age of 16.[11] He said this was because of social promotion and not because he was bright.[12]
Friedkin began going to movies as a teenager,[9] and cited Citizen Kane as one of his key influences. Several sources claim that Friedkin saw this motion picture as a teenager,[13] but Friedkin himself said that he did not see the film until 1960, when he was 25 years old. Only then, Friedkin said, did he become a true cineaste.[14] Among the movies that he also saw as a teenager and young adult were Les Diaboliques, The Wages of Fear (which many consider he remade as Sorcerer), and Psycho (which he viewed repeatedly, like Citizen Kane). Televised documentaries such as 1960’s Harvest of Shame were also important to his developing sense of cinema.[9]
As mentioned in his voice-over commentary on the DVD re-release of Alfred Hitchcock‘s Vertigo, Friedkin directed one of the last episodes of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour in 1965, called “Off Season”. Hitchcock admonished Friedkin for not wearing a tie while directing.[20]
Friedkin’s later movies did not achieve the same success. Sorcerer (1977), a $22 million American remake of the French classic The Wages of Fear, co-produced by both Universal and Paramount, starring Roy Scheider, was overshadowed by the blockbuster box-office success of Star Wars, which had been released exactly one week prior.[23] Friedkin considered it his finest film, and was personally devastated by its financial and critical failure (as mentioned by Friedkin himself in the 1999 documentary series The Directors). Sorcerer was shortly followed by the crime-comedy The Brink’s Job (1978), based on the real-life Great Brink’s Robbery in Boston, Massachusetts, which was also unsuccessful at the box-office.[25]
Publicity photo for “The Brink’s Job.“
1980–1999
In 1980, Friedkin directed an adaptation of the Gerald Walker crime thriller Cruising, starring Al Pacino, which was protested during production and remains the subject of heated debate. It was critically assailed but performed moderately at the box office.[26]
In 1985, Friedkin directed the music video for Barbra Streisand‘s rendition of the West Side Story song “Somewhere“,[28] which she recorded for her twenty-fourth studio LP, The Broadway Album. He later appears as Streisand’s interviewer (uncredited) on the television special, “Putting It Together: The Making of the Broadway Album”.[29]
The action/crime movie To Live and Die in L.A. (1985), starring William Petersen and Willem Dafoe, was a critical favorite and drew comparisons to Friedkin’s own The French Connection (particularly for its car chase sequence), while his courtroom drama/thriller Rampage (1987) received a fairly positive review from Roger Ebert.[30] He next directed the cult classic horror film The Guardian(1990) and the thriller Jade (1995), starring Linda Fiorentino. Though the latter received an unfavorable response from critics and audiences, he said it was one of the favorite films he directed.[31]
Friedkin directs Nick Nolte in the under appreciated basketball drama “Blue Chips.”
“BlueChips” trailer.
“Jade” trailer.“Jade” suffered from the backlash against star DavidCaruso, who had the audacity (!) to leave his hit TV show, “NYPDBlue,” at the height of its popularity, seeking leading man status on the silver screen. The result of his short lived foray into big screen roles also included the excellent but overlooked pictures “MadDog& Glory” and “KissofDeath,” both personal favourites of the period.Brian De Palma favourite, DenisFranz (l), with Caruso, in the show that made him a star, NYPDBlue, which ruled the airwaves in the 90s.This oddly miscast, occasionally misguided, but unmistakably charming DeNiro / BillMurray vehicle was written by RichardPrice.This remake of the JulesDassin classic also features a crackling script by RichardPrice.
Also under-appreciated in “Jade” is the small but crucial part played by redheaded supermodel AngieEverhart, who may have played a disproportionate role in why I loved the film so much as a 15-year-old in 1995.Everhart in the DennisMiller horror-comedy, “Tales From The Crypt Presents: Bordello of Blood.”Everhart in modelling photo circa the filming of “Jade.”
*Before this post gets derailed into an Angie Everhart appreciation, we now return to Friedkin’s late-period career:
2000–2023
In 2000, The Exorcist was re-released in theaters with extra footage and grossed $40 million in the U.S. alone. Friedkin directed the 2006 film Bug due to a positive experience watching the stage version in 2004. He was surprised to find that he was, metaphorically, on the same page as the playwright and felt that he could relate well to the story.[32] The film won the FIPRESCI prize at the Cannes Film Festival. Later, Friedkin directed an episode of the TV series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation titled “Cockroaches”, which re-teamed him with To Live and Die in L.A. star William Petersen.[33] He directed again for CSI‘s 200th episode, “Mascara”.[34]
From left: Godard, Fellini, Kurosawa, Truffaut.WoodyAllen, before the controversies that would overshadow his film career.
In regard to influences of specific films on his films, Friedkin noted that The French Connection[‘s] documentary-like realism was the direct result of the influence of having seen Z, a French film by Costa-Gavras:
“Z” director, CostaGavras.
After I saw Z, I realized how I could shoot The French Connection. Because he shot Z like a documentary. It was a fiction film but it was made like it was actually happening. Like the camera didn’t know what was gonna happen next. And that is an induced technique. It looks like he happened upon the scene and captured what was going on as you do in a documentary. My first films were documentaries too. So I understood what he was doing but I never thought you could do that in a feature at that time until I saw Z.[42]
Poster for CostaGavras‘ “Z,” a major influence on Friedkin.Z – 40th Anniversary Trailer
Friedkin with his 1st wife, French film icon JeanneMoreau.
While filming The Boys in the Band in 1970, Friedkin began a relationship with Kitty Hawks, daughter of director Howard Hawks. It lasted two years, during which the couple announced their engagement, but the relationship ended about 1972.[51] Friedkin began a four-year relationship with Australian dancer and choreographer Jennifer Nairn-Smith in 1972. Although they announced an engagement twice, they never married. They had a son, Cedric, on November 27, 1976.[52][53] Friedkin and his second wife, Lesley-Anne Down, also had a son, Jack, born in 1982.[46] Friedkin was raised Jewish, but called himself an agnostic later in life, although he said that he strongly believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ.[54][55]
Friedkin, William. The Friedkin Connection: A Memoir. New York: HarperCollins, 2013. ISBN978-0-06-177512-3
Friedkin, William. Conversations at the American Film Institute With the Great Moviemakers: The Next Generation. George Stevens, Jr., ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2012. ISBN978-0-307-27347-5
The Friedkin Connection: A Memoir:
The Friedkin Connection by William Friedkin.
From the Amazon product page:
“’Friedkin’s book does the unthinkable: It relates the behind-the-scenes stories of his triumphs like The French Connection and The Exorcist, but also sees Friedkin take responsibility (brutally so) for his wrong calls. . . . In doing so, he captures the gut-wrenching shifts of a filmmaker’s life—the bizarre whipsaw from success to disaster.” —Variety
An acclaimed memoir from William Friedkin, a maverick of American cinema and Academy Award–winning director of such legendary films as The French Connection, The Exorcist, and To Live and Die in LA.The Friedkin Connection takes readers from the streets of Chicago to the suites of Hollywood and from the sixties to today, with autobiographical storytelling as fast-paced and intense as any of the auteur’s films.
Friedkin’s success story has the makings of classic American film. He was born in Chicago, the son of Russian immigrants. Immediately after high school, he found work in the mailroom of a local television station, and patiently worked his way into the directing booth during the heyday of live TV.
An award-winning documentary brought him attention as a talented new filmmaker and an advocate for justice, and it caught the eye of producer David L. Wolper, who brought Friedkin to Los Angeles. There he moved from television to film, displaying a versatile stylistic range. In 1971, The French Connection was released and won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director, and two years later The Exorcist received ten Oscar nominations and catapulted Friedkin’s career to stardom.
Penned by the director himself, The Friedkin Connection takes readers on a journey through the numerous chance encounters and unplanned occurrences that led a young man from a poor urban neighborhood to success in one of the most competitive industries and art forms in the world. In this fascinating and candid story, he has much to say about the world of moviemaking and his place within it.”
The Doc: “Friedkin Uncut”
Poster for the career-spanning Freidkin documentary.
Watch a trailer for the career-retrospective documentary “FriedkinUncut” here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBLUKjrdH3M
Trailer.
Watch a long discussion with WilliamFriedkin at the NewYork Film Academy here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLCvMA4KM1I
Friedkin at NYFA.From the late director’s X (Twitter) account.
Film Posters:
Miramax re-release poster.French theatrical poster.1987 Japanese mini-flyer.1987 Japanese mini-flyer.U.S. poster.
Lobby Cards:
Home Video:
French VHS cover art.1992 Canadian VHS re-release.Reverse 1992 Paramount and Miramax VHS cover.
Ebert’s Take:
Still my favourite film lover, the late-great RogerEbert.
“He is a pleasant-looking young man with a smile on his face…
…perhaps too bland a smile, as if he is not smiling about anything – as if the smile is a mask. He goes into a sports store to buy a gun, and makes small talk with the clerk, who apologizes that there is an obligatory waiting period. Hey, no problem! He comes back two days before Christmas to pick up his purchase, and then walks into a home and shoots people dead and carves out parts of their bodies with the precision of an experienced butcher.
The police, confronted by the murder scene, call it the work of a madman. A few days later, he strikes again, in broad daylight, walking into a home and butchering a woman while her helpless child looks on in terror. Nobody in his right mind could commit an act like this, without apparent motive or even with one. And yet the man, whose name is Charles Reece, is played by Alex McArthur as the kind of guy you’d see at a football game, or out washing his car. He doesn’t even make much of an attempt to evade discovery, wearing the same windbreaker to all of his crimes.
William Friedkin’s “Rampage” is based, the movie assures us, on a real story. We do not need the assurances. Serial killing is the crime of our times, and who knows what confluence of forces has led to these strange people who stare out at us from the covers of true crime paperbacks, their appearance as normal as their crimes are bizarre. Jeffrey Dahmer, a bystander said on television, looked like such a nice young man.
ChevyChase (l) cannot believe what Ebert (c) is saying, but Siskell (r) is amused.
Friedkin tells the story of his killer more or less as a police procedural. We meet a cop (Michael Biehn) who tracks the killer, and then we see Reece captured by a simple means: He is identified by an eyewitness. Cornered at the gas station where he provides service with a smile, Reece leaps the back fence and runs away. The act of a reasonable man.
Eventually we see where Friedkin is going with the story.
This is not a movie about murder so much as a movie about insanity – as it applies to murder in modern American criminal courts. Friedkin plays with two decks and is happy to stack them both. His killer’s crimes are beyond our conception of possible human behavior, and then, in court, he is defended on the grounds that he must have been insane, and prosecuted on the grounds that he acted reasonably in so many other ways that he must have been sane. The difference between these two theories is the death penalty.
Friedkin does not quite say so in as many words, but his message is clear: Those who commit heinous crimes should pay for them, sane or insane. You kill somebody, you fry – unless the verdict is murky or there were extenuating circumstances. “Rampage” is not, however, a polemical film; it doesn’t press its points and doesn’t spend a lot of time on theory. It simply lays out the facts of a series of gruesome crimes, and then shows us how our gut feelings of good and evil grow confused after the testimony.
We are not much persuaded by the court arguments for either side. Friedkin wants it that way. Reece was sane, the prosecution argues, because he planned ahead to buy the gun and fled to avoid arrest. He was insane, the other side argues, because his crimes could not have been contemplated by a sane man. The prosecution offers an expert psychiatrist known as “Doctor Death” because of his invariable diagnosis of sanity. So it goes.
The film is realistic and matterof-fact, subdued compared to Friedkin’s great film of evil, “The Exorcist.” Alex McArthur, as the killer, is as unemotional and inoffensive as the protagonist of “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.” The movie was completed five years ago and then caught in the bankruptcy of the Dino De Laurentiis studio. Finally released, it has, if anything, benefited by the delay; five years ago, we would not have known how much Charles Reece resembles Jeffrey Dahmer, how little the face can reveal of the soul.”
Additional Links:
Watch the original 1987 VHS trailer for “Rampage” here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SwE6DXL3Ew
Original trailer.
Listen to Friedkin discussing his work with Morricone here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMA9QwtceiA
Friedkin on Morricone.
Read Giant Freakin Robot’s re-appreciation of “Rampage” here:
Horn, D. C. (2023). The Lost Decade: Altman, Coppola, Friedkin and the Hollywood Renaissance Auteur in the 1980s. United States: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Terry, Clifford (October 30, 1992). “From mad to worse”. Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on December 30, 2023. Retrieved December 30, 2023.
Brent Lang (April 12, 2013). “Director William Friedkin on Clashes With Pacino, Hackman and Why an Atheist Couldn’t Helm ‘Exorcist'”. The Wrap. Retrieved October 4, 2020. My personal beliefs are defined as agnostic. I’m someone who believes that the power of God and the soul are unknowable, but that anybody who says there is no God is not being honest about the mystery of fate. I was raised in the Jewish faith, but I strongly believe in the teachings of Jesus.
Winkler, Irwin (2019). A Life in Movies: Stories from Fifty Years in Hollywood. New York: Abrams Press. pp. 525–726. ISBN9781419734526.
“Daily News from New York, New York”. New York Daily News. January 20, 1970. p. 47. Production Merger Phil D’Antoni and William Friedkin have joined forces with Milton Berle Paul W. Benson Productions to do the film version of “The Brass Go-between,” a novel by Oliver Bleeck. The suspense-thriller will be shot on locations in Washington, D.
Pinnock, Tom (October 19, 2012). “Peter Gabriel: “You could feel the horror…””. Uncut. Retrieved July 24, 2023. I had written a short story on [the sleeve of] Genesis Live – one of the stories I used to tell onstage – and William Friedkin, who was the king of Hollywood because of The Exorcist, wanted me to work with him. Not as a musician, but as a screenwriter and ideas man. That was very exciting to me. In the end, unfortunately, nothing happened; it was one of many Hollywood projects that bit the dust.
Clagett, Thomas D. (August 1, 2002). William Friedkin: Films of Aberration, Obsession and Reality. Los Angeles, Calif.: Silman-James Press. ISBN9781879505612.
Archerd, Army (May 14, 2003). “Zanuck advises Polanski on next move”. Variety. Retrieved July 25, 2024. Friedkin will direct a movie based on an incident in Puccini’s life — the pic to star Placido, who will be needed (he’ll also sing) for three months on the pic!
“CONFUSING LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT WITH STAR POWER”. Sun Sentinel. February 9, 2000. Retrieved August 13,2023. Ms. Burke handed over the dais to producer Richard Zanuck (Jaws, Driving Miss Daisy), who would present the evening’s first Lifetime Achievement Award to director William Friedkin.
Aftab, Kaleem (June 7, 2012). “Killer instincts”. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved August 12, 2023. Was in competition at Venice, where it won the Golden Mouse (online critics’ best film).
“‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’ reçoit le Grand Prix de l’Union de la Critique de Cinéma”. RTBF.be (in French). January 6, 2013. Retrieved August 12, 2023. Cinq films étaient en lice pour cette récompense: “Beasts of the Southern Wild”, de Benh Zeitlin, “Take Shelter”, de Jeff Nichols, “Shame”, de Steve McQueen, “Ernest et Célestine”, de Benjamin Renner, Vincent Patar et Stéphane Aubier, et “Killer Joe”, de William Friedkin.