Watched: 03/11/2024
Format: Amazon
Viewing: First
Director/ Writer: Jack Hill
This one was viewed on the rec of JAL, who will watch just about anything (and does), and only sends things my way if he's pretty sure he knows I'll find something at least interesting about a flick. And, indeed, this is no exception. Sadly, this same rule doesn't apply to everyone else who seems to have whole TV shows you want for me to watch instead of a 90 minute movie.
I'm always curious about the folks who run parallel to the studio system, especially those with minimal artistic aspirations - a la Roger Corman. Like, I get that David Lynch was not going to get Disney to make Eraserhead. But there's a lot of folks out there, and always have been, making movies fast and cheap in genre spaces, with a wildly varying level of skill. It seems like a curious world, and it's funny that - for as much as Hollywood loves a story about movie making - I don't know that many movies about this part of the industry, and it seems rife with possibility.
Writer/ Director Jack Hill swung back and forth between respectable studio work (IMDB says he designed the Disneyland castle?) and independent work. And I get the feeling, a movie about making Pit Stop (1969)* might be more fun than the actual film - which is pretty watchable itself. Hill came out of the Corman shop, and this movie is produced by Corman (credit-free), so that explains no small part of it.
The movie's villain, if it has one, is played by former leading man Brian Donlevy, now 25 years past his prime and looking like he's been asking for the exact same haircut and tailored suit since his heyday. It's great use of the guy. He's not a badguy, exactly, he's just a capitalist above all else, so he can be charming and pure of intention - and his intention is making some money off cars and dumb, young drivers. It was also Donelvy's final film. He would pass in 1972.
Our lead is Richard Davalos, who is a "that guy" actor when he was still young and had magnificent hair. He's pretty good as our gear-head lead who falls into the world of Figure-8 Track racing against his better judgement, and tastes what it means to be a winner.
But then the movie also features a young Sid Haig, who would go on to be a character/ genre-film staple. And while he's set up to be a villain-ish, you still like the guy. He seems like maybe he's just wound wrong and kinda nuts. But seeing him here, just before he became THE Sid Haig is wild. Beverly Washburn plays the lead's love interest, a tomboy who isn't sure what arc her dude is on, and is the innocent of the story. And then there's Ellen Burstyn, just showing up in this nutty movie actually doing some acting that feels almost out of place.
Real racers show up, and famed Hollywood car-guy George Barris is in the film.
The basic set up is that Donlevy discovers Davalos during a drag race (for pinks!) and draws him into the worlf of Figure-8 racing, which is... yeah, a track with an intersection. And it was/ is real and as dangerous as it sounds. The movie has no small amount of stock footage used of the races, and it's absolutely insane. Would not do.
Sid Haig is the champion driver, having seemingly no fear - and his drive scares the other drivers into staying out of his way on the track, until Davalos shows up.
The movie is a lot of that stock footage, a lot of footage of Davalos in junkyards building his cars and finding parts, and then some heavy drama around the craziness of the sport. Eventually both Haig and Davalos get a chance to race legit Stock Car races (predecessor to NASCAR, I assume) and wind up working with a champion driver whose wife is Ellen Burstyn.
I almost want to categorize this as noir - and maybe I should. But it feels like it has the beats of a sports movie, mostly. Minus the ending, which is very noir. And indie-noir at that, where the protagonist maybe doesn't learn a little studio-mandated lesson and go on their way.
Released in '67, it's really late to still be shot on black and white, which may be a product of needing to merge the stock footage with the rest of the movie. Or simply a cheap-out. And I expect we were right at the end of anyone using black and white except as a pastiche. But it does give the movie a good, gritty feel and enables shooting in low-light and night. There's also a curious bit of hand-held, which was just coming in at this point, and gives an immediacy to some of the film. (I wouldn't be shocked to learn this was 16mm and not 35mm).
Is this movie great? No. Is it watchable, entertaining and does it take some big swings narratively? Absolutely.
*I had a hard time figuring out if this was filmed and released in 1967 or 1969. I'm not quite sure when it was filmed, but the release date seems to be '69
No comments:
Post a Comment