An In-Depth Look at Conspiracy Films:

There are countless genres of film, too many to mention here. However, one example worth looking at is the ‘conspiracy’ film. What exactly is a conspiracy film, one might ask? The short answer: a film dealing with a conspiracy, or hidden network of individuals at its core. Typically, the main character in this kind of film is tasked with unmasking said conspiracy and saving the day. The genre seems to reach its heyday in the 70’s in the wake of the Watergate scandal, though the genre still continues to resonate today in the post 9/11 political climate.

This article shall focus on four notable examples in the genre, the first of which was released in the 1950’s, and the last some twelve years ago. When did the conspiracy film first emerge? What are the conventions or staples of the genre? And, how has the genre changed over time? These are some of the questions we shall consider, and hopefully, answer by the end.

The Man Who Knew Too Much

Dir: Alfred Hitchcock

Release Date: 1934 and remade in 1956

For the purpose of this article, we shall focus on the remake, which also was directed by Hitchcock, and stars Jimmy Stewart. Stewart plays an American tourist, Dr. Ben McKenna, who while vacationing in Morocco with his wife and son stumbles upon an assassination plot. He cannot turn to the police, however, as the perpetrators kidnap his son and hold him for ransom. While perhaps not the earliest example of a conspiracy film it is certainly one of the first within the mainstream, studio system.

Hitchcock’s film establishes certain conventions, or staples, and paves the way for other films in the genre. One of these conventions is the protagonist of the film being an ‘everyman’ character, thrust into a world outside of his control. Dr. McKenna is simply an American tourist on vacation with his family in Morocco when, all of a sudden, he is right in the middle of a conspiracy to assassinate a government official. He has done nothing to deserve his fate, but somehow he must be resourceful and find a solution to the problem(s) ahead.

Another convention established by the film is that the main character must go about unearthing the conspiracy, and saving the day, alone. In other conspiracy films the protagonist is forced to work alone because everyone else around him has a hard time believing said conspiracy exists, particularly since the main character usually has no concrete proof to back up his claims. In Hitchcock’s film, Dr. McKenna must work alone because the conspirators have taken his son hostage, and will kill him if he goes to the police. Interestingly, these conventions established by Hitchcock begin to shift during the conspiracy films of the 70’s.

The Conversation

Dir: Francis Ford Coppola

Release Date: 1974

Gene Hackman plays Harry Caul, a surveillance expert in the private sector who while monitoring a conversation between two executives at a company discovers a sinister plot. Rather than simply turn in the tapes of the recorded conversation, Caul decides instead to investigate further and, in the process, finds himself questioning everything that has led up to this pivotal moment. Coppola’s film is one of many conspiracy films that emerge in the wake of the Watergate scandal where the American public is first introduced to the subject of government wiretaps.

In Coppola’s film, Caul is less of an ‘everyman’ character thrust into a series of unpredictable events. The film establishes early on that Caul is a surveillance expert, one who has become an expert at listening to other people’s conversations. It is his job to spy on people and to record anything that might incriminate them. In a sense, Caul is already a part of the world that Dr. McKenna in “The Man Who Knew Too Much’ is arbitrarily thrown into.

As with Hitchcock’s film, Caul must go about unearthing the conspiracy alone. Not because no one believes him or because someone dear to him is being held for ransom but simply because Caul leads a life modeled on the idea that he is better off alone.

Where Coppola’s film begins to shift the conventions established by Hitchcock is in the resolution. In Hitchcock’s film, Dr. McKenna unmasks the conspiracy, saves his son, and everyone lives happily ever after. Harry Caul has no such luck. He finds himself in a far worse off position by the film’s denouement, one where he is never certain of who is looking over his shoulder. This somewhat pessimistic outlook continues in other conspiracy films of the 70’s, especially Sydney Pollack’s “Three Days of the Condor”.

Three Days of the Condor

Dir: Sydney Pollack

Release Date: 1975

Robert Redford plays Joe Turner, a CIA researcher who works at a New York Literary Society, reading through all different sorts of books to try to find secret plots and machinations against the government of the United States. On one fateful day, Turner returns from lunch to find all his coworkers dead, and is forced to go on the run and figure out who is behind the murders before he becomes the next victim.

Pollack’s film shares many similarities with Coppola’s “The Conversation”. Turner, like Caul, is no ‘everyman’ who just happens to find himself at the center of a conspiracy. The film establishes early on that Turner is an undercover CIA agent, one who is using the cover of a literary society in New York City to carry out his duties for the Agency. Turner is thrust into a series of unexpected events, not unlike Dr. McKenna in Hitchcock’s film. And yet, he is not some hapless tourist who just happens to cross paths with the bad guys. He already is connected to the conspiracy simply by the job he carries out for the CIA.

Another parallel that Pollack’s film shares with Coppola’s film is the profoundly bleak resolution to the story. In keeping with Coppola’s pessimistic outlook on the future, things do not look good for Turner’s character either. He finds out that there is a hefty price to pay for all the damning information he uncovers. He has unmasked the conspiracy, but at what cost? Interestingly, the bleakness, and pessimism found in these two conspiracy films from the 70’s is somewhat absent in Clint Eastwood’s “Absolute Power”, a more contemporary example in the genre.

Absolute Power

Dir: Clint Eastwood

Release Date: 1997

Clint Eastwood stars as Luther Whitney, a cat burglar who stumbles upon a massive government cover-up during a robbery. When the perpetrators discover there is a witness at the crime scene, Whitney is forced into a game of cat and mouse. The perpetrators, who have all the resources of the government at their disposal, will stop at nothing to pin the crimes on Whitney. He must find a way to outwit the perpetrators, however cannot turn to the police for help. Eastwood, as filmmaker, shares less of the pessimistic outlook of the conspiracy films of the 70’s and keeps more in the spirit of Hitchcock’s film with a few important variations.

Whitney is somewhat different from the main characters found in other conspiracy films. He is neither an ‘everyman’ character nor a surveillance expert nor CIA agent. Rather, he is a cat burglar who happens to stumble upon a massive government cover-up during a burglary. Whitney is a complex character, someone who defies simple categorization. He blurs the line between hero and criminal though one could certainly argue he has more of an affinity towards the former than the latter.

Eastwood’s film does share one of the important conventions established in the genre: Whitney goes about his business alone. In this case, Whitney is forced to work alone because if he asks anyone else for help they might turn him in to the police for being a cat burglar. Furthermore, he is not certain who he can trust since potentially anyone can be working on the side of the conspirators in an effort to bring him in.

Interestingly, “Absolute Power” marks a significant departure from the bleak endings in conspiracy films of the 70’s and back to the spirit championed by Hitchcock. Whitney exposes the conspiracy and brings all of the perpetrators to justice. In keeping with the spirit of Hitchcock’s film, Whitney can go about his life as before without having to worry about danger lurking around the corner. Although, it is important to recognize that Whitney has found redemption and will likely retire from his life as a cat burglar and go on to more noble pursuits.

Alfred Hitchcock brings the ‘conspiracy’ film to the mainstream, studio system with his release of “The Man Who Knew Too Much”. He establishes a set of conventions, or blueprint, from which subsequent films of the genre maintain, update, and/or change accordingly. He makes the main character an ‘everyman’. A perfectly ordinary person, abruptly thrown into a crazy world turned inside out. As time goes on, the main character changes from someone who just happens to fall into this topsy-turvy world to a person already familiar with it, someone who knows it all too well. Perhaps this is because the world changes-in the wake of the Watergate scandal- and the idea of someone listening to other people’s conversations, or spying on someone, is not so novel anymore. The conspiracy films of the 1970’s seem to take a darker turn, often leading to a resolution which leaves very little in the way of hope, or optimism. In Hitchcock’s film the protagonist saves the day and keeps everyone safe. In “The Conversation” and “Three Days of the Condor” the hero saves nothing, not even himself. After this dark period, the genre looks more towards the light. Eastwood’s film, “Absolute Power”, conveys great hope, not only in the sense that conspiracies can be taken down, yet also that human beings have the capacity to change for the better. In Luther Whitney’s case, a cat burglar gives up a life of crime to become a better father.

Sincerely,

Darren Lurie

Film Review: “Inglourious Basterds”

Quentin Tarantino is something of a polarizing figure in film. There are those who defend his films to the end, saying he creates a unique voice from his seemingly endless knowledge of even the most obscure films of the past. Yet, for all his fans, Tarantino has many detractors-on the rise in recent years-who claim his films are shamelessly derivative, stealing the best ideas from more capable, talented filmmakers. Many critics argue that the Tarantino, of late, has started to lose his way. To some, Tarantino’s last two features (“Kill Bill” and “Grindhouse”) are guilty of his worst crime as a filmmaker: self-indulgence. Gone are the graces that defined his early career-the storytelling ingenuity of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction- and many people question whether he will ever regain his former glory. It is, thus, with great anticipation that Tarantino releases his latest film, the quirkily titled, “Inglourious Basterds”. The question remains whether the film is a return to form, or yet another step in the wrong direction. Fortunately, the film is closer to the former than the latter.

“Inglourious Basterds” is an unabashedly violent, satirical, and frequently entertaining film regarding one of the most serious subjects: WWII. It is perhaps surprising, unsettling even, that a film about such a somber subject can be so humorous and entertaining. And while the film is not without its shortcomings, it is still, nonetheless, a formidable entry in the Tarantino canon, another success to throw in the faces of all his doubters, and detractors.

The film is loosely based, unsurprising for Tarantino, on another WWII film entitled “Inglorious Bastards”. That film stars Bo Svenson and Fred Williamson and was released in 1978. Besides sharing the backdrop of Nazi-occupied France, Tarantino’s “Basterds” is a completely different film. Brad Pitt takes the title role as Aldo Raine, the leader of the Basterds, a renegade squadron of Jewish soldiers whose sole mission is vengeance against the Nazis. The chief opposition to the Basterds comes in the form of the Nazi Colonel Hans Landa-played to perfection by Christoph Waltz. Femme fatales (Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger) on the side of the Allies also figure into the story, which is divided into chapters. Without giving too much away, Tarantino ties all these characters together so that by the end they have all crossed paths in one way or another.

The best thing about the film, without a doubt, is Waltz’s performance as Col. Landa. From the film’s opening scene-an interrogation between Landa and a French dairy farmer suspected of harboring Jews- to its final moments, Waltz walks away with the film. He conveys menace, dark wit, intelligence, cruelty, sometimes all these things at once, with the simplest gestures. The interrogation scene at the beginning is certainly a highlight, but there are so many other moments, smaller moments, where one can’t help but marvel at his talent. Even when he says something as trivial as the word ‘bingo’-you’ll know it when you see it- he leaves an indelible mark on the film. Pitt gives a good performance as the leader, or anti-hero, one might even say. He conveys a rugged, all-American demeanor, a throwback to the classic screen idols (Gable, Lancaster, etc). Except, in this case he has a penchant for carrying out gruesome acts-scalping and face carving to name a few-on his enemies. He nails the accent, a Southern drawl, and proves to be a humorous, energetic screen presence, a worthy opponent to Landa. Finally, one cannot overlook Tarantino’s role in the whole enterprise. He manages to sustain tension throughout, and take the film in some unexpected directions. The dialogue is noteworthy, as with all his films, but in this case he has managed to strike a delicate balance between word and action. Needless to say, the film’s two and a half hour running time flies by.

As for the film’s flaws, there are a few worth mentioning. Tarantino is no doubt a gifted storyteller, and yet, there are moments in the film that feel a little too obvious, or heavy-handed. For example, Pitt’s character insists on explaining why he must leave his mark on his enemies’ faces. While it should be clear to the viewer after the first time he does this, Tarantino insists on explaining it over and over again, even at the film’s conclusion. Furthermore, Tarantino sometimes goes off on tangents in the film-one involving the extreme flammability of film reels-which often do not really go anywhere.  Often, these asides have the effect of bringing the film’s momentum to a standstill, and a better editor would have trimmed the film accordingly. The film’s most jarring problem, however, lies in its muddled message. It is clear that Tarantino is taking a satirical swipe at war and the notion of vengeance; how it leads people to do heinous things to one another on both sides of the warfront. Yet, it remains unclear what Tarantino wants the viewer to take away at the end of the film. The film is unquestionably entertaining from beginning to end, featuring some good, some magnificent performances, but something seems missing at the end. It is as if Tarantino spends the whole film examining the how (how war makes monsters of men, how vengeance creates a never-ending cycle of violence, etc) without ever bothering to question the why.

A triumphant return to form, though not without its faults, “Inglourious Basterds” proves Tarantino is back on track. Christoph Waltz is certainly a front-runner at this year’s Academy Awards, and nominations in other categories may follow suit.

Sincerely,

Darren Lurie