Point noir

One thing about me and my love of movies is that I very rarely prefer remakes. However, this movie is an exception--a film far superior than the original. Now that might surprise you, as Victor McLaglen received the Oscar for Best Actor AND the great John Ford the Oscar for Best Director. Yet, I STILL liked the remake better. Much of it is that "The Informer" has not aged well and is dated. In particular, McLaglen's performance seems over-the-top--very, very unsubtle indeed. Also, while it's hard to imagine someone making a film better than John Ford, it's not as surprising when you learn that it's Jules Dassin--one of the best film directors of the 20th century but whose career was severely affected by the Red Scare--when he was forced to move to Europe and managed to STILL keep making great films.

Dassin decided to remake the story and set it in black America--in 1968. The film was VERY timely, and is set just after the murder of Martin Luther King--a time when black men and women were understandably talking about revolution. While the term 'Black Panthers' was never used in the film, clearly the film is intended to be about them...and their weakest link, a sad and worthless individual named Tank. Also, since time had past since Dassin's exodus from Hollywood, he was now able to return to the States to make a film and this one was made in Cleveland. This locale was great--adding to the realism. In addition, while most of the actors are unknowns (apart from folks like Roscoe Lee Browne and Ruby Dee), they did a great job--and Dassin got the most from them. Overall, a very hard-hitting and enjoyable film--and a nice update to the original.

I saw this movie when it was first released with my girlfriend (later, my wife). I would love to see it again but it seems to have disappeared. Not only can't I find a copy of this movie, I can't find anyone else who has seen it. If I did not have the sound track, I would start questioning if I saw it or not.

It was not a "great" movie but much better than many of the Black subject movies made at that time. I also saw the "Informer" from which this was taken but I prefer "Up Tight". I hope someone re-releases this movie. A generation has passed without anyone knowing that several "large", named stars acted in this largely unknown movie.

I saw "Up Tight" yesterday (3/25/08) at the Cleveland Cinematheque. It is an interesting, but violent, story about a person who "snitched" on a criminal. The 1968-vintage scenes from Cleveland, ranging from downtown to the steel mills to a post-riot Hough, as well as other east side inner city scenes, is both historic and breathtaking. As a lifelong Clevelander, I enjoyed comparing the 1968-vintage east side scenes to what they look like today, especially the scene at East 55th and Woodland, which is desolate today compared to how it looked in 1968-the Cleveland Trust bank building is now a vacant lot, the Shell station is currently on its third rebuilding, the Sohio station now the site of a post office, the "Saveway" gas station...which advertised 28.9 cent gas!!!...now the site of a fish and chicken restaurant-that was once a Burger King...so many changes over 40 years. Seeing "Tank" going out on the town, buying everyone rounds at the bar with the stolen money, then staggering drunk all over Cleveland broke, makes this film a must-see. I also liked the scene where guns were stolen from a warehouse, with the old-geezer security guard chasing them, then falling. I also liked the scenes, as well as the old pinball machines and shoot-em-up games, at that arcade in the film, which, I believe, was once at East 105th and Euclid. A lot of easily recognizable locations if you are a lifelong Clevelander, or have once lived in the area around the time this film was shot. Sadly, this film was rarely seen since its December, 1968 theatrical release...I would love to see Paramount release this piece of Cleveland cinematic history to DVD someday. I highly recommend it.

I too saw this movie when it first came out. I was in college and involved in the student movement for more multi-cultural curriculum on campus. The movie was right on target and sensationally provocative at the time. At the end of the movie, just when you think there will be a political cop out in the story line, you're mistaken. The movie follows through on its no holds barred depiction of African American life in the USA at the time. It also depicts accurately how the 'black power' movement was resonating very powerfully in the countries urban ghettos. It is a terrific movie with a fabulous cast.A few years after seeing the movie I became very friendly with one of its stars, Raymond St. Jacques, he told me that "nobody could find a copy of the movie, not even Jules Dassin", it director. Many people felt that the movie industry and "gov't" had moved to squelch the showing of this film. It is curious that no one seems to be able to find a print of this film. Finally the sound track is amazing. Booker T of the MGs created just the right propulsive tension to capture the story's essence. I still listen to the sound track because the songs have such a great groove.

Isn't it so telling how the liberal filmmakers who were blacklisted generally re-emerged with their most groundbreakingly progressive works, or at least their edgiest? After Trumbo was reinstated into the Writers' Guild, he made Johnny Got His Gun, completely turning the conventional sensibilities of his own Guy Named Joe on its head. Dmytryk began working with the socially impactful liberal filmmaker Stanley Kramer. It was after Kazan testified that he made the revolutionary On the Waterfront and the prophetic A Face in the Crowd. One could say that American B director Jules Dassin was transformed as a filmmaker by his time in Europe, having made his masterpiece Rififi in France, but Up Tight! could've only been made by an American, with his finger truly on the pulse of the American state of affairs, which is to say very few Americans could've made this film.

Repressive, fascistic conservative policies and propaganda are constantly suppressing freethinking and truth, but they only make it rebound more outspoken and with more passion than ever before. Up Tight! is a quintessential case in point. It's a candid handling of black militancy. A little to my amazement, it doesn't cop out. There's no regressing toward an appeasing moderate end. The zeal and attitude of black revolutionaries are seen face to face with us, with little in the way of consolation for white liberals maybe even including myself.

Black communities celebrated this complete surprise discovery on my part as a film that said something for them. It had audacity enough to represent the rage of the ghetto. And its characters behave and think like it. It's outstanding that a major studio like Paramount backed and distributed this film. Whenever Hollywood itself has gotten involved in the envelope-pushing independent filmmaking sensibilities, it has made it viable for other movies to reflect on the American reality.

Julian Mayfield is sturdy as granite in his depiction of Tank, the informant. It's a thorny role since Tank is by and large garbled and unversed in his own intentions. But Mayfield moves with conviction. When Tank pays a visit to a wake, his bewilderment and anguish are so poignant. Raymond St. Jacques, as a centrist turned radical, is commanding and somewhat startling. He has awesome screen presence. Ruby Dee is affecting, moving and absolutely beautiful as Laurie, Tank's girlfriend.

Up Tight! is a high-quality and attention-grabbing film mainly owing to separate elements. It has no-nonsense and plain-spoken dialogue. It has more than a few commanding performances. It has moments of truth, as when the cops mow down a radical leader, while residents of a projects bucket down tin cans and abuse. These moments have their own life and continuation. To see them on the screen is sufficient.

Dassin returned to the U.S. after a long and transformative absence to deal with a precise time and setting, and he has a great deal he wants to show us about it. This triggers challenging changes in the movie's pitch as he moves between his underdog protagonist, a heartfelt, half-wit alcoholic informer, and the rebellious leaders, straightforward, skillful, fanatical, vicious. Our feelings become mixed. This is good! When whites saw Up Tight! in 1968, many alleged to have been troubled by the audience reaction: There was a shout of approval each time a white guy got hit. Huh. Well, this should've been an enlightening experience, affording us whites with a fraction of the same kind of gut reaction that blacks had for a seeming eternity when a black guy got hit. Or had to scuff their feet. Or had to squeeze inside the Mantan Moreland and Sleep 'n' Eat stereotypes. Up Tight! brought those days to an end, that is before black filmmakers began pigeonholing themselves.