O Último Magnata

Films about the film industry tend to be self-mocking at the best of times. Singin' in the Rain poked fun at the coming of sound and outlined the difficulties it brought to the industry amongst a love story and a few other things. Additionaly,the more contemporary The Player brought to our attention the trials and tribulations of a Hollywood film producer as he struggles to balance everything at once, complete with disgruntled rejected writers. So it's sort of a shame as well as a surprise that The Last Tycoon does not hit as many spots as I thought it might with it ending up as a slow burning but ultimately unrewarding experience.

The film adopts an approach that makes it come across as more of a love story than anything else, but there is a sub-narrative involved that revolves around De Niro's character of Monroe Stahr gradually getting more and more confused with his life and things around him. The primary problem here is the film is not involving enough to warrant it an interesting or touching love story and the dedication to the focus of a man slowly getting more and more overwhelmed is undercooked – both are there and done reasonably well but both feel anti-climatic. Along with this and like I said in the opening paragraph, the film does not poke fun at and nor does it reference enough the industry in which it's set so it doesn't feel particularly clever, something Singin' in the Rain and The Player were because they did it very well and to good comic effect.

There is a definite study going on here with some substance in the sense it is about Stahr and his struggles with his current life and his love for newly acquired girlfriend Kathleen Moore (Boulting) but nothing much else. Is it a romance? Probably, but is it a good romance? Not really. Ingrid Boulting is shot in an extremely objective manner with lots of brightly lit shots and compositions that reveal enough of her body at particularly nicely timed incidences in the film. This is twinned with several close ups of De Niro's facial expressions in which the lust and desire is very much apparent. It would be easy to argue that these objective and obvious set ups revolving around a gaze of some sort are deliberate given the film is about film-making and that very early on there is a scene involving a man and woman shooting a romantic scene of some sort. But the concentration on a genuine romance between two characters in the story we're watching is clearly trying to come across as serious and thus; being self-aware of its own compositions is an idea the film fails to get across.

But before this romantic distraction gets involved, the film begins in a light-hearted but intriguing style. An individual answers a question on how difficult it must be to shoot an earthquake scene and they laugh, replying that shaking the camera usually works and insulting the idea as a cheap effect. Sure enough about ten minutes later, there is an earthquake within the universe of The Last Tycoon and we realise the film is poking fun at itself. Then there is the other concentrated dig early on that, unfortunately, isn't played on an awful lot and that involves Tony Curtis' character Rodriguez and Tony Curtis as a whole. The character name of Rodriguez is short and sharp – it is exotic in the sense it sounds 'Latino' and we all know that 'Latinos' in Hollywood cinema are usually scorching hot in their appearance (at least the women are). Rodriguez is an actor who appears in lots of films about love and making love; he appears topless in the scenes within the scenes that Tony Curtis is filming. The point here being that Curtis himself is (or was) a bit of a pin-up and his public figure is being spoofed through him playing the part of a romantic lead in a film within a film.

When all is said and done, The Last Tycoon is a study of one man and his issues. It is not as engrossing as De Niro's own Taxi Driver from the same year and nor is it as interesting or disturbing as more contemporary examples like American Psycho and One Hour Photo. The film substitutes daily rigmarole and movie set interaction for the introduction of Boulting as the dull love interest and shoots her body accordingly. Twinned with this is a visit from Brimmer, played by Jack Nicholson, which is ill timed and feels out of place given the route the film had gone down at that point. While the film isn't particularly bad, it feels underdone and somewhat one dimensional. Its study of love and stress is alright but it does not demonise the film industry in ways it could've and nor does it feel particularly urgent. This could revolve around anyone, in any industry, at any time and that said, The Last Tycoon is pretty ordinary.

For a little while as I watched the Last Tycoon, I thought I could understand what the critics said of this film when it first came out (the majority of them I mean). The screenplay, written by Harold Pinter from what is supposedly a much richer (albeit incomplete) text from F. Scott Fitzgerald, stages many scenes like how one would see on a theater stage, with only one or two little directional differences with Elia Kazan's take on the material. This, plus its slightly 'dry' style (i.e. very little musical score, limited camera movement, performances kept without much, if at all, improvisation), makes things seem almost too much in the realm of the naturalistic, of drama kept to a minimum of interaction.

But as the film went along like this, I started to notice something: the sort of coldness, almost a loneliness, with the character of Monroe Stahr, is what actually makes a lot of the movie work for all its intents and purposes. It has the veneer of being a little distanced, of not having the full driving force of drama and comedy (although it does have both of those in bits and pieces, more as little familial or romantic drama or one-line throwaways) like an 8 1/2 or the Player with dealing in the problems of a professional in the film industry. But because of Stahr's method of practices, of being as Mitchum's character describes "like a priest or a rabbi, 'this is how it will be'", when he's told 'no' it shatters him. As a film about loss, and the very calculated realization that his code in business spills over into the personal, the Last Tycoon does work.

Maybe not very well, but work it does, as storytelling and as a character piece. Sure, it might not be De Niro's best, but he does deliver subtle like it's as second nature as breathing (kind of a twist on his other 1976 character, Travis Bickle, whom he played subtle but also crazy, where as here it's subtle and empty), and he's got plenty of backup. There was some critical flack for the actress Ingrid Boutling, playing the nearly obscure object of Monroe's desire-cum-demand, but she too is better than she was given credit for, at least within the range she's allowed to work in (which, granted, isn't as much as one might think, but she's seen not as a fully-fleshed person but as someone with hints of a reality she needs and a fantasy world of movies she doesn't).

Then there's Nicholson, showing up in the final reels for a couple of amazing scenes sparring with De Niro, barely ever raising voices for a low-key one-on-one as a movie exec and communist writer organizer. Not to forget Mitchum, in maybe his last good performance, and Theresa Russell in also an underrated turn as a woman grown up way past her years. Did I mention Jeanne Moreau? She's Moreau, that's about it, playing a completely self-absorbed star for all its one dimension is worth. Only Tony Curtis, with his libido problems isn't par for the course, and Donald Pleasance has a shaky (if darkly funny) scene as a scorned writer.

Does the Last Tycoon have some problems as feeling like compelling historical drama? Sure. But does it somehow get into the atmosphere of its character in the context of his profession, revealing all that's absent for him every day coming home to his Asian butler? Absolutely. It's a mix and match that will disappoint some, and for those who want to take the chance on a somewhat forgotten 70s film- Kazan's last and Spiegel's final ego-tickler- might be even more impressed than I was. 7.5/10

What a mystery THE LAST TYCOON has been. This is a large-scale film with perhaps the greatest cast of male actors in history and nary a mention is made of it. Most critics bash it, the common viewer may dismiss it, but you cannot deny its place in history. It is not often you will find such a pool of talent AND a movie with both Robert De Niro and Jack Nicholson on screen together. They even FIGHT! By the way, THE LAST TYCOON also happens to be an excellent, if flawed, work of art.

Director Elia Kazan (GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT, ON THE WATERFRONT) and company have taken F. Scott Fitzgerald's unfinished novel about the politics and personal conflicts of 1930's Hollywood and put forth an off-beat, unusual picture. Kazan is one of only three directors to successfully direct motion pictures between the 1940's on through the 1970's (the other 2 being Hitchcock and Huston). A staggeringly legendary cast play their parts effectively instead of just calling in their performances, which easily could have happened. Perhaps there was some competition between the old school actors and their methods (Mitchum, Milland, Andrews, Curtis, Pleasence to name a few) and the "method" actors like De Niro or Nicholson who symbolically take the torch in this film. This is especially true of De Niro's extraordinary lead as "Monroe Stahr" (based on Irving Thalberg). Kazan helped to create the "method" acting concept, so who better to direct such a crossroad of talent.

"Monroe Stahr" is a no nonsense "Studio Chief" who I'm sure Fitzgerald encountered while a hack writer in Hollywood during his final years. De Niro as "Stahr" orders cuts here and fires directors there and caters to what he thinks audiences want. He is actually a noble character, something Fitzgerald may not have meant to express. He must deal with Robert Mitchum and Ray Milland, who represent the corporate, artless side of the picture business and later the writer's wing (represented by Mr. Nicholson). As expected, there are many conflicts of interest but the movie's magic lies in the amazing contrast Kazan and company make between the dream world of an old black and white movie and what happened when the director yelled "CUT".

I love classic black and white films and one of the aspects that made them so great was the world you were thrust into. Fake backdrops, miniatures, and grand sets surrounded the actors in most of them, but the dream-like quality of a black and white film kept you involved. With this film, some curiously familiar "fictional" film clips are used for screening purposes where the studio executives would clap or claw at what was projected (They were filmed specifically for this film). Kazan and co. create scenes from supposed films (one was CASABLANCA turned inside out) to add some realism to it all. We get to see an actor from the movies-within-the-movie "on" and "off-screen". Tony Curtis has some good early scenes as a perfect screen presence, but an awfully inept star "off-screen" when he meets with De Niro to confess his sexual confusion in real life. You'll know what I mean if you see the flick for yourself.

LAST TYCOON is a love story more than anything. Many people may dismiss the love angle as a distraction. I found it slightly hypnotic and mysterious. The love interest, played by a beautiful actress named Ingrid Boulting, is great at exuding an elusive quality, something the De Niro character can't put his finger on. It all leads up to a somewhat vague climax and ending, but perhaps the filmmakers were unable to come up with the final stamp Fitzgerald failed to accomplish himself.

This is a film for discerning and patient film-goers only. It is unlike anything I have ever seen before. That is why I see movies. Why the film has been so looked over is bizarre. Even if you consider it a complete flop, it deserves recognition, if only for the great cast. If you like classic films and know a thing or two about film history, you may know why THE LAST TYCOON is so captivating.

RATING: 8 1/2 of 10

Robert De Niro arguably gave the most critically acclaimed performances during the 1970's in movies like "Mean Streets", "Bang the Drum Slowly", "The Godfather, Part II", "Taxi Driver, "The Deer Hunter", etc.,. Little has been said, however, about his turn as Monroe Stahr in "The Last Tycoon" - quite possibly De Niro's most underrated and most uncharacteristic performance on screen. "The Last Tycoon", itself, was a mixed bag among the critics. Some liked it. Some didn't. In my view, "The Last Tycoon" was a movie that deserves a place in film history for exploring Hollywood in the inside. This movie, however, provides only a small glimpse into this which was why the critics were divided. Shortly put, "The Last Tycoon" deals with a top producer's (De Niro) everyday life and the conflict that arises when he sees a lost loved one - albeit in a different way.

The movie boasts of several big names of the past as well as the present. Robert Mitchum, Jeanne Moreau, Anjelica Huston (in a cameo), Tony Curtis, John Carradine, etc., were few of the key players. Jack Nicholson makes a late appearance in the film providing for some brilliant, electric scenes with De Niro. In fact their scenes together (undoubtedly the highlight of the movie) make the one scene that De Niro and Al Pacino shared in Michael Mann's "Heat" seem pedestrian. De Niro and Nicholson, two of the greatest actors American film has even seen, will most likely never work together again considering their stature today which makes their scenes together in "The Last Tycoon" that much more priceless. Ingrid Boutling, a British model, is cast opposite De Niro and gives a wooden performance. She is the only weak link of the picture. A young Theresa Russell also gives an able supporting performance. Ultimately, however, "The Last Tycoon" lies solely on De Niro's shoulders and he makes full use of the opportunity and then some. De Niro's interpretation of a movie mogul (reportedly based on Irving G. Thalberg) is absolutely genuine and original. Looking trim and handsome, De Niro gives a towering, commanding performance as Monroe Stahr and it is his work here that holds the picture together. Though the critics were split down the middle in their opinion regarding this film, there was one thing they agreed upon. Robert De Niro gives an authentic, striking performance in the central role. In my opinion, a performance which deserved an Oscar nomination.

After reading the book (and Fitzgerald's notes about how he saw the story progressing) I expected high quality from Kazan's film treatment. Much has been made of his decision to have an almost comatose Monroe Stahr, unable to express emotion on anything but movies, and in this I think he partly succeeded. But the film as a whole irritates me. It's one I've gone back to several times and I can't work out why it has that effect. It just does. In relation to the book, some scenes are pretty much verbatim, some are added to, some are ditched altogether, there just seems no reasoning behind it. The plusses - it has an interesting ending and an equally interesting supporting cast of old timers, most of whom are always worth watching. It has a certain amount of style and character of its own. It's just not that easy to enjoy, IMO.