TV Bites: The Hit

THE SNACK:
Terence Stamp's Scotch Pancakes w/Bramble Jelly


A version of this post appears at the Criterion Collection website

This is the fourth movie I've featured that was released in 1984, which like previous multi-film posts, I have no idea why this year is rearing its head so often. And it's my second Criterion post of films from 1984. The four are: Broadway Danny Rose, Paris, Texas, Blood Simple, and now The Hit. I'll leave this to my biographers to work out someday.

I have enjoyed this movie so much over the years. It not only grows, but continues to blossom, with every viewing. It's all so very Zen.

Since I first saw The Hit, I have been convinced that it was a third version of Ernest Hemingway's The Killers. (The first two versions - are availabe in a lovely box set by Criterion, hint hint.) In the first version (starring Burt Lancaster), the killers are in and out, and the story of why the man died without a fight is left to an investigator. In the second (starring Lee Marvin, John Cassavetes & Ronald Reagan), the killers go on an adventure to figure out why the man they just shot didn't put up a fight. This would be the third, in which the killers explore the subject with the victim before they kill him. In researching the film for this post, I found several other folks who feel the same way. (One fellow noted: "If Jean-Paul Sartre had adapted Hemingway’s The Killers, [such a movie] might play like this."

Now, about a decade ago, a dear friend of mine in London happened to mention to me he was going to interview Stephen Frears the following day. I begged him to ask Frears the one question I'd always wanted answered - was The Hit inspired by The Killers? The next day, I got my answer. Frears told my friend "Absolutely not." But, I still don't believe it and you won't convince me otherwise. But even if it wasn't conscious, even if Frears and Prince were unaware of, nor seen either version of the The Killers, it is still in my mind a further exploration of that story.

TV Bites: Citizen Kane

THE SNACK:
Hearst Castle Rich Biscuits w/Pear Honey



This is the third movie I've written about released in 1941. The first being The Lady Eve, then The Maltese Falcon, and now Citizen Kane. What an amazing year for movies, no?

And this is part one of my breakfast double bill. Not because you should watch these films in the morning, but that I've paired them both with two breakfast dishes. Though, feel free to snack on them at any time of day.

When I was at vocational film school (what we used to call it - not much on theory, but a lot of practicality), my film history teacher used to do "Citizen Kane Day." What that entailed was coming in at 10am watching the film from beginning to end. Take a lunch break. Watch the film again as she paused during each sequence, pointing out and discussing details, then take a dinner break, come back and watch the whole thing again with no pauses. A very memorable and educating experience it was.

So, let's just dive into it. I'm not trying to be lazy or anything here, but as has been remarked by many - there is probably no other film which has had so much written about it, analyzed, dissected, deconstructed, poured through, and poured over, no more so than Citizen Kane. You want analysis? Here you go.... pages and pages of it!

Maybe you want to hear from experts? Martin Scorsese? Steven Spielberg? Peter Bogdanovich? Francois Truffaut? How about Eric von Stroheim ranting?

Maybe you want to hear from some big time film critics? Pauline Kael? Andrew Sarris's rebuttal to Pauline Kael? Would you prefer Roger Ebert? AO Scott? How about Bowsley Crowther's original 1941 NY Times review?

Is that not enough? How about ex-presidential candidate Donald Trump (interviewed by Errol Morris!) speaking about the film?