Marathon Man (1976)

O

OldCorpse

Rockin the Boat
I love this movie more than it deserves by pure merit, but objectively it’s very good anyhow. Here is an example of a film that’s great mostly due to the script and actors, and the director simply got out of the way.

It was written by the great sage of Hollywood, William Goldman (“Nobody knows anything” - truer words have rarely been spoken). This was actually a book first, by Goldman.

One can truly admire the structure here, the thematic brilliance and just how engaging the story is. Of course the actors did their part - Olivier, Scheider, Hoffman, Devane.

The film could’ve been a true masterpiece, but apparently, the studio got their dreaded scissors out based on deplorable “audience feedback screening” - and they cut out scenes which could’ve elevated this movie immeasurably, but oh well. These screenings really are a plague.

In any case, here is something filmmakers should study - how a good script works. YMMV, all IMHO.
 
a film that’s great mostly due to the script and actors, and the director simply got out of the way
Click to expand...

It's hard to argue against the screenwriter and actors, but I wouldn't say the director simply got out of the way. John Schlesinger had style! In that clip is some good editing too, by Jim Clark --- not just of the action-and-suspense scene but even the simple dialog scene at the end. He knows that you don't simply cut back and forth between whoever's talking.

Cinematography by Conrad Hall.

Produced by the legendary Robert Evans, who took some risks in casting:
  • Marthe Keller could not speak English, at all.
  • Dustin Hoffman played a college student but in real life was 39 years old
  • Laurence Olivier was Laurence Olivier, but he was so ill (with cancer and other things) that Robert Evans had trouble even getting him insured for the movie
Oh, and that legend about how Dustin Hoffman stayed awake for three days, to play a character who had been awake for three days, and Laurence Olivier said to him, "Why don't you just try acting?" --- it's true but out of context. Laurence said it as a joke, because he himself had insisted on doing a perilous stunt every night in his days playing Hamlet on the stage.

---

On Youtube there are a couple of half-hour behind-the-scenes documentaries, one from 1976 and one much later, in 2001 (but they have spoilers, for those who haven't yet seen the film).
 
Have always enjoyed this film.

Perhaps it's worth noting that this was only the second film to utilize the Steadicam, after "Bound for Glory" and before "Rocky".

Every time I use the Zelle service to transfer money, I think of the old lady yelling across the street at Olivier's character in the jewelry district.
 
CharlesPapert said:
Have always enjoyed this film.

Perhaps it's worth noting that this was only the second film to utilize the Steadicam, after "Bound for Glory" and before "Rocky".
Click to expand...

Can't imagine the excitement surrounding that. So cool.
 
Marathon Man reminds me of Three Days of the Condor, which came out the year before. Both of them, good stuff. Max Von Sydow so impressed me.
 
"The director got out of the way." You should know better than that. Schlesinger was one visual fella. Ask the DP's he worked with.
 
kevin baggott said:
"The director got out of the way." You should know better than that. Schlesinger was one visual fella. Ask the DP's he worked with.
Click to expand...

Most artists try to get out of the way. I thought that was sort of the hallmark of a good craftsperson. The getting out of the head and the strict structure of formal training. Not sure what OldCorpse meant, but it sounded like a thing we should all sort of aspire to in art and craft. As long as it is in the context of someone who has put in the hours of training and learning, "getting out of the way" is sort of the goal. In particular when the script or the momentum of something might exceed us. One of the worst things is when people tighten up and try to control things too much. Never stop doing your job, but director and producer roles are such that they can often over step their actual jobs in an effort to make things better. I wish more directors took on the spirit of getting out of the way, at times. But there may not be enough context with what OldCorpse wrote, so who knows, maybe I disagree with him. I just wanted to make a remark about directors, art, craft, life, and work. Thank you for reading along.
 
Pretty much what James0b57 said wrt. “getting out of the way”. To elaborate a bit more. A director sometimes inserts themselves more conspicuously because the material benefits from that insertion in heightening the involvement or engagement of the audience. Directors to it all the time, but again, sometimes super conspicuously - Brian De Palma did it routinely (I thought of BDP, because I’ve just watched some of his early movies - all very good!). Think of the example of the camera in Body Dobule going around the protagonists on the beach, heightening the audiences sense of being overwhelmend and under the influence and intoxication that the interaction caused for our protagonist. Hitchcock did that very, very often - the ostentatious camera movement that just sends everthing to another level.

There is an absolute masterpiece out there - in the top 10 films for me, Miklos Jancso’s “The Red and The White”, which is such a tour the force that after seeing that movie I wept (not even ashamed to admit it) for the sheer brilliance of the idea and execution. There the director used something else to astounding effect - staging. Dear Lord almighty - I have never, ever, ever, ever seen staging being used in such a central way, and become so integral to the very meaning of the film, you understood it (it’s about the civil war in early Soviet history) just based on the staging. I was blown away.

Again, that’s a director using technical means to enhance the audience involvement.

But then there are films - many, many films - where the director tries to “disappear” and let the material do all the work. It’s a situation where you as the audience never NOTICE the camera or the staging or editing - you are just totally immersed in the content with nothing else obtruding on your attention. This is often very effective when the material or acting is so strong, that you cannot really enhance it with some *conspicuous* (to the audience) directorial intervientions. You do that when your material and actors are extrememly strong, so adding anything else becomes a distraction, and your job is to present it as plainly as possible and remove yourself from the audience attention.

It’s similar to a trend in high level cooking. There is a philosophy of “superlative raw materials”. That’s when the cook focuses on gathering the very, very, very best raw ingredients (whatever - mushrooms, eggs, veggies etc.). And the ingedients are so brilliant, so good, so fresh, that you do minimal preparation, you let the ingredients speak for themselves, you do as little processing of it as possible. At the other extreme, of course you make extremely elaborate sauces and tons of elaborate spices to the point where that egg tastes divine, but nothing like an egg. Both approaches are fine. But the idea in that philosophy is that when your raw materials are so superlative and fresh, they are the highest expression of the taste of food, and any additional spices and prep only serve to obscure and intrude. The cook at that point presents the ingredients with minimum - and hardly noticeable to the eaters - prep, and lets the materials speak for themselves.

So too in this case. The material is so strong - Goldman’s brilliant structure - and the actors so involving, you are 100% drawn in, and you don’t want to *notice* any direction (although, of course, there always is direction!). You as a director (or cook!) - say “here it is” and you disappear behind the material. You don’t notice any conspicuous camera movements or other traditional directorial tools claiming your attention in Marthon Man. It’s just he material and the actors. This doesn’t mean the director does nothing and goes home while production is taking place, LOL. Of course he’s directing - with great skill - but has the excellent judgment to keep focus 100% on the material and actors - he figuratively “disappears” behind his art. And he can do it, because of how strong the material is and how good the actors - in other words, the cook found superlative ingredients and lets them speak for themselves. YMMV, all IMHO.
 
'As long as it is in the context of someone who has put in the hours of training and learning, "getting out of the way" is sort of the goal.' I get it. There are directors who yell behind the camera "Look ma I'm directing!" And they make masterpieces. And others who yell the same thing and nothing. Kurosawa said near the end of his life, "I'm just now figuring out how to make a film." "Get out of the way." All these words in our language that balloon in different shapes in our noggins. It's amazing I can go to the store with a grocery list and come back with one correct item.
 
For more 1970s paranoia, and even more understated camerawork, you might try the three films by Alan J. Pakula: Klute, The Parallax View, and All the President's Men. I used to think I loved Pakula's visual style: conservative but well chosen. Then I realized who I really liked was Gordon Willis, the cinematographer for all those movies. Pakula was more of an actor's director and let Willis do his thing.
 
combatentropy said:
For more 1970s paranoia, and even more understated camerawork, you might try the three films by Alan J. Pakula: Klute, The Parallax View, and All the President's Men. I used to think I loved Pakula's visual style: conservative but well chosen. Then I realized who I really liked was Gordon Willis, the cinematographer for all those movies. Pakula was more of an actor's director and let Willis do his thing.
Click to expand...

Klute and All the President's Men, I really thought that I would not like them, but they are so well crafted. Gordon Willis did some cool things, sort of intangible, but certainly effective. Film making tools have come a long way, it is amazing what they were able to do back then, and how somethings were still effective even when they weren't perfect. Which leads back to the sense of design and intention, communicating an idea rather than just flourishes of pretty pictures.
 
Gordon Willis... If I could download on a hard drive what one person in the film biz possessed as far as talent/knowledge - he'd be my guy. And I'm not even a DP. Was recently watching the Godfather's 1&2 and it doesn't get better.
 
You can say it was a director "getting out of the way," but Marathon Man certainly has a 70s look & feel to it. And what about the flourishes of meeting by the Lincoln Center fountain or the inserts of the Olympic marathon runners? How about the filmic choice of the pump room for the Central Park Reservoir for the ending? A terrorist bombing in Paris ending with a slow motion turning of an overturned baby carriage's wheel? Dustin Hoffman strapped into the chair in the dental scene? These aren't elements that are simply written out on the page and faithfully executed by the director. They are stylistic choices made throughout, sometimes designed before production, sometimes discovered on set, sometimes figured out during post. But all by the director.
 
"But all by the director." Indeed. I mean look at the intro of Midnight Cowboy - that is not a director coming from the theatre.
 
kevin baggott said:
Gordon Willis... If I could download on a hard drive what one person in the film biz possessed as far as talent/knowledge - he'd be my guy.
Click to expand...

While I was in the advertising business (at McCann-Erickson), I worked with both Gordon Willis, Jr. and Conrad Hall, Jr. - both as DP's. The one thing I was told before meeting them was: "Don't ask about their father(s)!" I can't imagine working in such shadows.
 
Like I said, “got out of the way” doesn’t mean the director goes home while the shooting takes place. I mean, his “felt” presence (to the audience) is minimal. Obviously, he has to cast his film, work with the actors and crew above the line and below and so on. And it also means that he has to actually film the script. A script is just a blueprint. Even a novel still has to be adapted to the screen, and since it’s a different art form, you must make adjustments. A script necessarily is just a schematic, and a director needs to put flesh on the bones.

Take the example of the baby carriage slo-mo wheel turning. A screenwriter may describe a scene, or even a detail, like a baby carriage wheel turning. But most of the time, the screenwriter avoids camera instructions, so it’s highly unlikely that Goldman would put “slo-mo on the wheel turning” - that’s purely the director. But now that the director put in slo-mo even though it was not in the script does that qualify as the director not getting out of the way? Of course not - there is a description, and he has to execute it, so that kind of putting flesh on the bones of the script schematic is literally part of the job of the director, how could it be otherwise. The screenwriter is not going to put in every detail or camera direction or an aside to the DP!

But let’s take a closer look at that scene. Let’s even assume that all Goldman did was write “explosion” and didn’t provide any details like the baby carriage wheel turning, or even a baby carriage at all. So all the details in that scene including the slo-mo wheel turning were the contribution of the director. Does that mean the director “inserted” themselves into the scene and didn’t get out of the way? No, because the director did what was *minimally necessary* to shoot that sequence. He didn’t go overboard, or make elaborate conspicuous camera moves or a million setups and angles to make it eye-candy. We all know such sequences, where the director delights in all the special effects and we get those giant OPERATIC SLOW MOTION explosions and debris and people getting hit (so many filmmakers took the wrong lesson from Peckinpaw) and flying through the air and music soaring and all your speakers get a workout and the movie theater is shaking. No, he didn’t call attention to himself and the filmic techniques. He did the minimum required. How do we know it was in fact the *minimum* and not a flourish, especially with the slo-mo?

Let’s assume all the script said was “explosion”. Now the director has to ask himself how much weight to give to this event. It is a very significant development. It’s a possible assasination attempt, something that is significant enough to cause Scheider’s character to attach a great deal of significane to, and to then subsequently discuss at some length with his handler. This is clearly a very significant event. But an explosion is a split second. Sure, you could show the explosion, Scheider’s shocked face and then cut to a convo with his handler. Let’s even assume that’s how it is in the script. Very obviously, you can’t simply do 1.explosion 2. Scheider’s reaction shot 3. Scheider and Devane talking. That would totally not land emotionally for the audience and would not in any way signify for us the significance/honor the weight of this event. No, you had to put in quite a bit more time and emotion into this for it to land. The simplest way to gain time and underline the gravity of this is through literally slowing down the time - slow-mo. In fact with explosions, people have the reaction that everything that happens in the time immediately after an explosion seems like in slo-mo. So that’s totally a good move by the director - a minimally NECESSARY move. You have to honor the moment - SIMPLEST way, do slo-mo. Get out of the way. No big elaboration, camera spinning, bodies flying. The baby carriage is a nice emotional touch, because it is a good representation of the vulnerability of random vicitims. And that’s all.

Schlesinger saw the blueprint - script - scene: explosion. How do I make it land for the audience wrt. importance and emotional impact… need a bit of time, can’t be simple explosion cut… OK, slo-mo on a baby carriage wheel. Boom. Done. Michael Bay: I DISAGREE!!!! I need shards of glass flying toward the camera a huge reflection of a fireball in blah, blah, blah, blah. Schlesinger: no, Michael, you need to get out of the way - pick the simplest way, and step aside.

Both approaches are successful - Bey’s and Schlesinger’s. But it’s successful based on the material. Schlesinger’s minimalistic “get out of the way” is better for his material, and Bey needs his TAKE A GANDER AT THIS!!!!UNO!!! approach clearly works for his. My point was - Marathon Man is the kind of material that promotes just getting out of the way for the director.

As to the choice of locations - well, duh. It’s filmmaking 101, something that even Barry has promoted in his instructional videos on this very site - the set and location make a gigantic contribution to your scenes/film! Or to hark to filmmaking history, Hitchcock famously always looked to insert iconic locations and monuments into his films: Eiffel Tower, London Bridge, Mount Rushmore etc. It’s the admonishment from Barry: don’t film your dialogue in a room with white walls, that’s dullsville. So the fact that Schlesinger competently decided to bring in good locations, I’d say, well, thank you, and you took the lens cap off too. That was minimally necessary to make it a good film - which is not to say, sadly that so many directors still have not managed to absorb this basic lesson. But let’s not confuse due diligence and competence with the low standards of so much filmmaking.

To say that Schlesinger “got out of the way” is in no way to say - gee, Schlesinger made no contribution to the movie, or he’s a poor director or whatnot. Quite the opposite. Just like a perceptive chef, he recognized that when you are handed that caliber of material, it’s best to be minimalistic and let the material speak for itself. That takes a lot of ability - not just the accurate assesment of the material, but the emotional control to not let your ego get in the way as so often we have directors who just have to make their “mark” (commonly referred to as dog pi$$ing on the material). So all that defending of Schlesinger I’m seeing here is a lot of strawman - the guy is not being attacked by me, not in the least. In fact, it’s a kind of compliment. Set in the context of how RARE it is that such excellent material exists, and when you come across it, you have the brains and ego to let it speak for itself and you do your directing job by disappearing behind the work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top