A quick online search of ‘Cool Hand Luke’ shows that popular opinion of the film falls into two camps. It is regarded as either exhaustingly slow and boring or an enthralling tale of man’s will. In truth, it’s both. While nearly every scene’s running time could quite easily be cut in half, the story as a whole is gripping.
Paul Newman stars as Lucas Jackson, a man caught vandalizing public property in the first scene. By the second, Lucas is reporting for duty at the prison work camp that will lord over the rest of his life. Like Jack Nicholson’s McMurphy in ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,’ Lucas slowly becomes a hero to a group of caged men, a rebellious symbol of freedom and free will. He is opposed by both physical imprisonment and a web of rules enforced by numerous ‘bosses.’
The first half of the film is almost entirely dedicated to showcasing how cool Luke Jackson can be, and though it plays too slowly, it exceeds this goal. By the one hour mark, every woman in the audience wants to sleep with Paul Newman. In turn, every man wants to be him (without the jail time, of course).
Even as it builds tension, the second half of ‘Cool Hand Luke’ becomes almost bizarrely repetitive and more and more heavy-handed with symbolism. Still, any viewer who’s been paying attention is far too attached to Lucas to look away. When his fate finally is revealed, the film attempts to make some big statements about faith, perseverance, loyalty, and a host of other issues. It needn’t bother. The story of one man fighting authority and himself is more than enough. Unfortunately, only those who haven’t turned off their television in frustration will find that out.
MAYBE SO (6/10)
5 comments:
Can I get a "Yes?" On something...someday?
Maybe Cool Hand is slowly paced by todays standards (I'm very happy with myself by not saying "in todays mtv culture") but back when I was a kid movies were slow on purpose: it's realistic. AND it's what makes a tense drama like "Luke" really work.
We need the time to watch Luke develop, to watch the emotions and tensions develop. we need the time to watch Newman work his craft portraying a man who can handle anything thrown at him as, over TIME the pressures of his hero/rebel status SLOWLY wears him down.
Again, I remember when movies were slowly paced on purpose. When Westerns spent time following gritty men on horse back for long scenes with no dialogue. The old west was slow paced and so were the movies about the old west
Today, to sound like an old crumudgeon, viewers are inundated by action to the point where a scene without any loses the attention of the average viewer. A movie like the Thin Red Line doesn't get watched because brilliant, realistic scenes of intensity bore viewers because nothing happens. But they miss the point: Nothing happening at war is the most dramatic part because at any moment you may be dead.
All I'm saying is that if you give Cool Hand Luke a maybe so because of it's pacing you may be missing something. Look not through the lens of the present day, but through the objective eye of timelessness.
Thanks for your thoughts on Cool Hand Luke.
I certainly agree that slow films can work magic - see my 'Yes' reviews of 'Yesterday,' 'Dead Man, 'Elephant,' and '8 1/2' for slow films that I think are must-sees.
'Cool Hand Luke' gets an above average rating because of all the things it does right. It doesn't get a 'Yes' not because it is slow but because it doesn't use its time as well as it could. Slow films should feel luxurious, not like a shorter idea stretched. Add the overwrought symbolism and 'Dukes of Hazard'-style chases and the film can't be considered essential viewing.
I may be missing something in the movie; that's certainly true. But if I'm able to miss a film's greatness, it's most likely the film's fault and not mine.
Let me also follow up and say that you can expect a glowing review of 'The Thin Red Line,' a brilliant and underappreciated film, in the near future.
Thanks for commenting back. How ridiculously slow Elephant was...I loved it. I feel one needs to fall in to the pace of a movie to really appreciate it. I also think the key to understanding art, and in this case film art is to try to understand what the artist is attempting to do, and judge it on those merits. Did the filmmaker pull off what he/she was trying to do?
All to often people judge a movie by what they expected, or by what they wanted a film to be. That's unfair.
For example, nobody I know really like Donnie Brasco. They were expecting a violent gangster flick, maybe even a rip off of Goodfellas. What they missed was a dialogue driven look at what the the mob life might actually be like. I'm not saying that Donnie Brasco was a classic Gangster flick, I'm just saying that it was a different kind of gangster flick and needs to be appreciated accordingly.
I know you'll agree, that's why I like you.
I'm soory. Now that I think about it, I'm happy you gave Cool Hand Luke a maybe so. Because that's what you felt it was worth.
I hate when reviewers give glowing reviews just because everyone says a movie is a classic. Even the best movies need to be objectively scrutinized.
Good work
Post a Comment