Page 1 of 1

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:31 pm
by kaytodd
Big Magilla wrote:I know we had this discussion before but I can't find the thread.

It was appreciated, just not as appreciated as Dr, Strangelove or Seven Days in May, another topical political thriller.

I, for one, took Fail-Safe quitie seriously in 1964. I remember coming out of the theatre happy to see that NYC was still there.

I remember when we had this discussion. It was when it was announced that Sidney Lumet was receiving a Lifetime Achievement Oscar. And you made the same very valid points.

Many on this board did not believe Lumet merited such an honor, especially since so many more deserving artists have not yet been so honored. The ones, like myself, who supported giving Lumet the award pointed to Fail Safe as an example of his bona fides as a film artist.

I much prefer Strangelove and, especially, Seven Days over Fail Safe as the best 1964 political thriller. Fail Safe is an overheated melodrama with some over the top performances. But I rarely miss it when it is on TV. It has very talented people behind and in front of the camera and several unforgettable moments (spoilers below):

-Late in the film, Walter Matthau was at the podium speaking to the Joint Chiefs Of Staff. He was mentioning how, while there were no essential federal government records in the soon to be destroyed NYC, many large corporations keep essential records there. He started to say how it was important to help these corporations recover these records when he stopped himself. The look on his face showed he realized the absurdity of what he was saying.

-The look on the face of the very young Dom Deluise and the sound of his voice as he was forced to tell the Soviets tips to help destroy U.S. military planes.

-Larry Hagman's fine performance as U.S. President Henry Fonda's interpreter as he is speaking with the Soviet Premier as they are trying to avert the tragedy. Hagman was convincing as the somewhat nerdy figure and I thought he did interesting things with his voice as he was interpreting what the Soviet Premiere was saying. And I liked the stunned look on his face and the way he whispered "Holy Mother of God" when Fonda said he was going to destroy NYC.

-The performance of Dan O'Herlihy (who sadly died 18 months ago) after he realized Fonda was going to order him to destroy NYC. Fonda asks O'Herlihy if his wife and kids are in NYC and, when told they are, Fonda says "I may be asking a lot of you, Blackie." O'Herlihy has a very pained look on his face when he tells Fonda, "I'll do anything you ask, Mr. President." By the time Fonda wishes O'Herlihy good luck he is already out the door, on his way to do his duty. And O'Herlihy's speech on the plane, as he croaks out to the rest of the crew that he had ordered them to take no part in flying the plane or in dropping the bomb; he insisted he do that himself.

I am sure most people who have not seen Fail Safe and read the above will conclude that it is over the top, cornball melodrama. And they would be absolutely correct. But, it is very well done over the top, cornball melodrama. I have a lot of films in my library in every possible genre that fall into that category, and I love to watch them.

Fail Safe claims to say something significant about the Cold War and the then current policy of Mutual Assured Destruction. But it is way too shallow to say anything meaningful. It is not one of the best films in my library, but it is one of my favorite.

Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:04 am
by Reza
Big Magilla wrote:I, for one, took Fail-Safe quitie seriously in 1964. I remember coming out of the theatre happy to see that NYC was still there.
What a sad state of affairs that only 42 short years later your fear could become reality!

And to think it was the Russians who were the villains once upon a time. Who could have guessed that the villains lurking in the woods are none other than ''wholesome Americans'' placed in high offices?

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:54 pm
by Big Magilla
I know we had this discussion before but I can't find the thread.

It was appreciated, just not as appreciated as Dr, Strangelove or Seven Days in May, another topical political thriller.

I, for one, took Fail-Safe quitie seriously in 1964. I remember coming out of the theatre happy to see that NYC was still there. While the irreverant Dr. Strangelove is artistically the better film, and Seven Days in May the more prescient, I liked all three. As for awards, BAFTA and the defunct Golden Laurels did recognize it, with Henry Fonda receiving a best actor nod for his performance. Fonda was one of four actors providing outstanding portrayals of presidents in prestige films that year, along with Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove, Fredric March in Seven Days in May and Lee Tracy opposite Fonda in The Best Man.

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:35 pm
by Sonic Youth
It wasn't considered a given that more than one nuclear holocaust anxiety film would be made in 1964?

I need to see it again. I haven't seen it since high school, and I thought it was very well made but much too earnest and high-minded. But I've found it curious that Lumet has a much stronger visual sense when working in B&W (The Pawnbroker, The Hill, 12 Angry Men) than in color.

I don't think Matthau had a "type" yet.

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:25 pm
by Damien
Henry Fonda has said that because it was released after Dr. Strangelove, it was hard for people to get interested in Fail-Safe and, with thoughts of Peter Sellers, Sterling Hayden and Slim Pickens in their minds, it was hard for those who did see it to take the film seriously.

Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:33 pm
by FilmFan720
This is a post more directly aimed at some of our elder board members, who will hopefully have a clear recollection. I watched Fail Safe on TV last night, and found it a monumental achievement in filmmaking. I tend to like Lumet's films (sorry Damien), but found this much different then his other work, but just as gut-wrenching. Add on powerful performances by Fonda and Matthau (cast against type, in my opinion) and this seems like the kind of film the Academy would eat up, especially in the 1960s.

It seems, though, that there were no accolades for this film at all. Why is this? Was it too similar to the earlier released Dr. Strangelove? Was it not appreciated at the time? Did it just fly under the radar?

Tripp