(John Huston, 1972) Whenever you hear someone telling people about the great run of films America made in the early 1970's, and they get to the list, and they begin to feel fatigue, just wait for a pause and say "And Fat City. John Huston's Fat City." At that point the kids frown, and they admit they've not even seen Fat City. "Right," you say, "and you never even heard of "Fat City"
David Thompson - Have You Seen?
I love the quote above for two reasons, one it highlights the thrill of finding those gems that may have escaped the praise, adulation and fawning bestowed upon their contemporaries and two it demonstrates that no matter how far you dig, no matter how much you watch, there is always something out there to challenge your perspective of a previously held belief. Cinema is simply more diverse, thrilling and robust than any canonical list or critic's all-time top ten would have you believe and as a cinephile the discovery that film extends beyond those hallowed chosen ones is a wonderful thing in itself.
So, take Fat City for instance, a little gritty boxing movie by a director that most believed had seen better days, adapted from a book which was pretty downbeat with no discernible happy ending, add to the mix the young bucks (Bogdanovitch, Friedkin, Speilberg, Penn, Altman, Ashby, Scorcese, Coppola etc) now re-shaping Hollywood in their own idiom and in hindsight it really shouldn't have worked so clearly as it did. Essentially a story of two boxers, Billy Tully (Stacey Keach) once a contender now is steep decline and Ernie Munger (a young, puppy dog faced Jeff Bridges) with his career going in the opposite direction, Fat City is character driven, following the parallel lives of Billy and Ernie as they take their separate paths and their continuous attempts to carve some sort of meaning out of their lives.
Jeff Bridges (Ernie) in the ring
The fact is 'Fat City' is a city of the walking wounded, all are beaten before they enter the ring, right down to the trainer Ruben (Nicholas Colasanto) believing he's finally spotted the 'next great thing' in boxing to Susan Tyrell's scene stealing whirlwind as the bloated Oma, a wreck of a human being, red faced and beaten down, life has dealt her one too many jokers and she's no longer playing cards. Jeff Bridges adds another notch to those roles of blank-faced young men in which the world and it's worries seem to play no part (think The Last Picture Show - in fact it's almost as if Duane has basically packed in Texas for a life in the ring) yet even he can't escape Fat City's harsh realities, accidentally making his girlfriend pregnant and having to marry at a young age, in turn giving up any dreams for a world of mind numbing work.
Stacey Keach (Billy) and Susan Tyrell (Oma)
Looking as it reads, Fat City, beautifully photographed by Conrad Hall, feels like a world in despair, the city covered in a film of hopelessness, a place where dreams go to die. Authenticity is key, Huston surrounded the actors in boxers and real fighters, throwing them into the ring at certain intervals to keep the whole thing looking real, there's a sense that Bridges and Keach are actually fighting for real in parts. There's real insight to a world on skid row, nothing is blown out of proportion or for strict dramatic purposes, action is low key and dialogue sometimes lengthy or stilted, there are no 'I could have been a contender' soliloquies, albeit a few tall stories, just a quiet understanding that life has zipped by and left you with nothing. Keach is the key here, his face looks battered, a fragile giant akin to letting himself dream now and again about what he had, what he could have had and what he could achieve; the whole film could be told with just one still of that magnificent broken man. You never believe he can make it, although you hope he will, but the apathy is such that those scenes in the fields picking fruit for next to no money seem to be the limit of his possibility and ambition.
Apathy, giving in and a sort of unrealised acceptance permeates throughout Fat City, it's not so much that our characters fight against the life dealt out to them but how much they accept their fate without so much as a whimper that really devastates. Life in Fat City is harsh and through Oma's bitter rants at all those around her, Ernie's blank expression and Billy's refusal to accept he's past it, it has a way of grinding you down and keeping you compliant. Like much of that golden period in American Cinema and despite the harsh realities on show, Fat City is so watchable and rewarding it knocks most, if not all, modern American independent filmmaking out of the ball-park. Take for instance the infamous last scene, see the scene below, where the world stops for one moment of drunken clarity, where everything futile makes sense but resolves nothing for our protagonists, who would take such a risk these days? Cinema seems far less brave now.
'Maybe we're all happy'
Not long before the infamous climax we witness two old workhorses, Billy and, an out of town old pro, Lucero (Sixto Rodriguez, a former boxing champion), going at one another for the gratification of a baying crowd, both of whom are aware at some level of the absurdity and hopelessness of their predicament. Mirroring Billy's infamous 'Panama story' - in which he claims to have been cheated out of a great destiny in boxing despite evidence to the contrary, Lucero travels to California all alone, pissing blood and looking as if he would rather be anywhere but here, desperate for the cash. Their fight scene is one of the most humiliating of all boxing matches ever caught on camera and for what? Exit right, Billy makes $100, Lucero, maybe more but not much, exits the arena in the dark as the lights are turned off before he leaves. Fat City has built to that moment any yet it's almost too horrifying to watch, at one point we are shown an extreme close up of Billy's bloody eye, staring vacantly into the ring, whilst his corner go about stopping the blood, and he goes on waiting in silence, waiting for the pummeling to start again.


wow, you and david thompson are right, i've never heard of this movie. although i have now and don;t want to wait too long before seeing it. is that the same thompson who wrote all of my film studies text with bordwell?
ReplyDeleteIf all this post does is make people want to watch this film then it's been a success.
ReplyDeleteI think you're thinking of Kirsten Thompson, she co-wrote those books with Bordwell.
David Thompson is a passioned and accquired read, the man lives in movies and sees things in them that most others don't, I find him a brilliant read and at times controversial and other times inspired.
I recommend 'Have You Seen?' and his 'New Biographical Dictionary of Film', recently voted the greatest ever film book by film critics in Sight and Sound magazine, to get a flavour of his musings.
I knew the name was familiar. I just jumped at the one that had been shoved in my face repeatedly for years and whose book I recently rebought for $1.
ReplyDeleteWe've all had that particular book thrown at us at one time or another, it just becomes part of the landscape. I would be thankful never having to read the damn thing again :)
ReplyDeleteOh its most definitely not for me. Although I do feel more warmth towards it now im years from having graduated.
ReplyDeleteTerrific review, this is the best I've read of this film so far.
ReplyDeleteI have actually seen this film, and I was rather impressed, it's quite a forgotten gem.
It was not easy to find though, which puzzles me as it is a Huston film which Jeff Bridges in, hardly unknown names to most cinephiles...
Anyway, you make some excellent observations, it really is a daring film but ultimately it succeeded in my opinion.
You're right that films aren't as daring these days as they used to be, which is a real shame as Fat City may be unconventional, but it's far less forgettable than most films these days.
Thanks Jack, I know what you mean, I found this purely by chance and couldn't believe it had been hidden from view. I suppose that has something to do with what I was mentioning about sacred cows and there being no room at the inn for these forgotten little classics.
ReplyDeleteI suppose my argument was that film can be brave, and outside of Western cinema, bravery is seen more often on the big screen, it just feels a crying shame that all risk is now taken out of those films in fear of it bombing at the box-office.
It's these short term goals that really bother me, time and again it is proven that a film with the longest staying power is rarely the box office success story.
Great review without question Ric!
ReplyDeleteYes this has always been an under-appreciated film in Huston's canon, but one that delivers the goods on re-viewing. It's one of the most renowned "boxing films" for sure, deserving of inclusion on a list with RAGING BULL, THE SET-UP and BODY AND SOUL. Yes Thomson is quite a brilliant critic, but also exaspertaing...i.e. his views on Kubrick and Ford.
Sam, for some reason I was unable to respond to your comment until now due to some comment board issues with blogger, so sorry for the delay in responding.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kudos Sam, Fat City gave me an unexpected jolt and it felt a crying shame that it was not wider known.
Thompson can sometimes infurate me as well, especially the views you've previously expressed but then again that's exactly why I like to read him, he doesn't hold off sacred cows and more than often he will have me in uproar, either at a killing line or a acid barb.