Street of No Return

After having watched a few Fullers, I found this DVD. One must admit that it is partly a wonderful movie, with a feeling of film noir or is it a " blue film" since the lightning is always dark and bluish? On the other hand, the music sounds terrible to my hears, and Carradine's character as a rock star looks incoherent, it blocks all possibilities of identification and empathy. Some "adults" bits are quite acceptable esthetically, namely those which actually happen; however, Mikael's ( Carradine's) fantasies and remembrances about his video clip gave me the impression that I had unconsciously changed channels and was watching a bad quality X movie. I think the bum part of Carradine's role is convincing; the stance Fuller takes at riots and racial issues is more complex than in "China Gate". Ideological issues are difficult to assess since there is theatrical edge to the film, at some point it resembles a musical, which soothes a little the otherwise unbearable violence.

Street of No Return is and is not a real return to form for maverick B-movie director Samuel Fuller, chiefly because he never really lost a form in the first place. But in essence, the story he's tackling here, based on a David Goodis novel, calls out to a pulpy melodrama/film-noir from the 50s ala Pickup on South Street. There aren't any sensationalized messages being laid out like in a Shock Corridor or Park Row, yet Fuller, even at the ripe old mid 70s, wasn't about to skimp out in his swan song for his die-hard fans.

There's plenty of "realistic" violence (in quotes because, as Fuller says in an interview on the DVD, it's not really real, but fictionalized there's a deeper reality to the dramatizing of it), particularly the opening riot sequence, one of the best scenes, and in the climax of the film, where everything is shrouded mostly by smoke as cops and bad guys duke it out. There's emotion- in the total Fuller sense- as he still to the end embraces melodrama as something that can work when not distilled for the audience, especially through intuitive manipulations of the camera in point of view and the wallops of timing with the editing. There's even a fairly decent, if a little estranged, performance from Keith Carradine, and an excellent bad-ass cop turn from character actor Bill Duke.

But then there's also the side to Fuller, as Eastwood is in the midst of right now, in his style and approach to the script where trying new things goes with going old and having (seemingly) nothing to lose as an artist. The only problem is Fuller skirts the edges on whether or not he's making a serious thriller or more of a satire of one set squarely in the mid 80s. Carradine's character, for example, is an 80s era pop singer named simply Michael (a possible in-joke towards Michael Jackson), who sings and plays songs that are kind of second rate power ballads that only work on a level of cheesy enjoyment; this goes also for his music videos, even though one might sense Fuller working some of his more jokey stabs there, and it's not as abhorrent if one just takes a total sense of disbelief.

Actually, that might count for a good deal of the movie, because at the core the story is so set in its one-dimensional ways: the mistreated and helpless woman taken away from Michael (who meet and fall in love in a manner only Fuller could pull off with a wink and a nod); the hard-bitten cop looking at trouble if he doesn't crack the case; the unrepentant criminals- white and black- who conspire to have whatever at their will, either by corporate schilling or by immediate gang warfare. This, plus the musical score by Karl-Heinz Schafer which is maybe the worst aspect to making it more dramatically powerful when needed, hamper what are the better qualities.

I wouldn't trade seeing any Sam Fuller motion picture, warts and all, because there's always something to experience and take-in as the director's ideals at showing something compelling from real-life situations (eg the crack years in the urban areas in the 80s, and the underlying issue of race) are never out of sync with making such two-dimensional characters alive and a style angry at conventional ways. It lacks the full drive of a classic, but there's still a pulse that throbs enough to make it worthwhile. Carradine fans, I might add, may be in for a small surprise seeing such a dialog-free performance as a man stripped of his life, or at least dignity, and then given it back piece by piece.

I have seen almost all of director Samuel Fuller's films and I know that to many he is a god. However, I have noticed that later in his career, some of his films were just too sloppy or had crazy premises that make them far from classics. While one of the other reviews is rather harsh for this film, I do agree that later in his career, Fuller seems to have lost his golden touch. I recognize none of his early genius in this bizarre and annoying film. This is certainly no "Steel Helmet" or "Pickup on South Street"! The film has a strange look to it--much of this was due to it being filmed in Lisbon. Why Lisbon?! And, for that matter, why have a lot of supporting actors that seem to really struggle with speaking English?! This doesn't look like a work of genius--just desperation to go to such efforts to get the film made. My assumption is that with advanced age and reputation for being cantankerous, this was the best opportunity he could get to direct. It's sad...and I wish he'd just retired after making "The Big Red One". Films like "White Dog" and "Street of No Return" just weren't quality products or up to his earlier standards.

The film tells the story of an idiot musical star. Keith Carradine plays this idiot. He's on top of the world but insists on canceling his concerts and throwing away his life on a woman he just met--and who insists she is "not worth it". And, frankly, other than the hot sex, it's inexplicable why he would so actively pursue this lady--she ISN'T worth it. Ultimately, the lady's very controlling boyfriend and Carradine's agent(?!?!) work together to "teach him a lesson"--severing his vocal cords and leaving him for dead.

Later, after a lengthy flashback scene, the film returns to the present day where Carradine is a homeless guy. He wakes up next to a dead cop and the police think Carradine did it. So, he's off to jail. The cops aren't subtle and spend their time screaming and hitting people. Not surprisingly, Carradine doesn't wish to stay and he rather easily escapes. There's more to it than that, but frankly at this point I was ready to call it a day.

The problem is that although the basic idea isn't horrible, the characters make very little sense, the camera angles and camera work look sloppy, the music is far from great and the film comes off as loud, garish and annoying. No one is subtle or interesting--just loud and obnoxious. And, I think that Fuller thought that to be modern and relevant, having everyone curse and scream would do the trick...it didn't. The loudness and overacting might have worked years earlier in such great Fuller films as "Shock Corridor"...but here, it's just loud and overacted. Oddly, however, despite most of the supporting actors screaming and overdoing it, the leading man is, at times, a bit of a zombie. Wow...this is bad...really, really bad.

A popular actor/musician who like many genuine rock stars can't keep it inside his trousers, crosses the wrong person and ends up with his throat slit, an injury intended to punish and ruin his career rather than kill. After refusing to name his attacker, he gets up from his hospital bed, and heads for skid row where after an indeterminate time he is framed more or less by accident for the murder of a police officer.

Escaping from custody in a unique fashion he somehow stumbles upon his assailant, who just happens to be involved in a plot to take over the city if not the world, and by a serendipitously circuitous route, justice is served. There is quite a bit more to it than that, none of it any more believable, but it shouldn't take the viewer long to realise this film was never intended to be taken seriously.

Well this movie brings a big question to me. Why did they do it? With a director, that has been good although irregular. He seems to have done it without caring much about his movie. The actors are very bad, especially Keith Carradine, who acts like a robot, and gives no feeling to his role. They look as if they're asking themselves what they are doing here, and overplay, in a totally not realistic way. The lights, filming, and style of the film, is outdated, of course, but it's outdated in a way that makes it dull. Many movies of the eighties still look good, but this one, just looks old. It seems that Fuller wanted his movie to look modern, but in fact, he was overwhelmed by the era he was living in at the time, he didn't understood what were the times he was living, like a poor old guy, hanging to his old ideas. So his movies doesn't look either modern or timeless. Maybe the book was good, but this strange mix of French and American actors, French team and American director is a total failure.