Harry Plotnick seul contre tous

This movie is a gem. In plot, scripting, acting and direction, there is wit and verisimilitude. It's a favorite of mine that deserves to be more widely known.

The 'hero' is a small time numbers runner who returns home after a stretch in prison to find lots of changes on the 'job' and at home. His life becomes more and more complicated as he copes with his new life. There's a clever ending.

I give it 'only' 9 of 10 only because it's not 'a 100 best of all time' film. Still, it's one of my favorites. I saw it once on its release, and spent a lot of time tracking it down for a second view. The effort was worth it.

This little indie sleeper--made in the sixties, died immediately, was resurrected in the 1989, and is now part of the New Yorker Video series--is distinguished by an original satiric story and a fine, sympathetic performance by Martin Priest who plays the title character Harry Plotnick, a middle-aged New York Jewish racketeer.

The film begins as Harry is being released from prison after a nine-month stay. His chauffeur immediately tells him some of his numbers runners have jumped ship and his gambling flotilla is in danger of sinking. They pick up a couple of his lieutenants who speak Spanish (which Harry doesn't understand) and they more or less ignore him. Harry quickly learns that they and his other runners think of him as washed up. Meanwhile he runs into a couple of his ex-wives and discovers that he has grandchildren. Now a rather unusual mid-life crisis ensues for Harry. He wants to give up the rackets and become an upstanding member of the community, to attend weddings and bar mitzvahs. Just how difficult that is and what transpires form the comedic story of the film.

Director Michael Roemer who also wrote the script uses authentic New York/New Jersey lifestyle details from the sixties (contemporary to him and therefore without the strained or flashy, obtrusive effect we often encounter in period piece movies) to spin his tale. There is a documentary feel to the film overlaid with light-hearted irony. The camera work is amateurish at times and the abrupt cuts lend a kind of jumpy, somehow authentic feel to the story. This can be seen as a satire of gangster films with the warm-hearted and gentle Harry as a kind of anti-Al Capone.

Bottom line: wryly original.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

The Plot Against Harry is an extraordinary, forgotten film that pops up from time to time in revival houses and late night television and is not to be missed. It's as if Scorcese did comedy - a great slice of criminal life and the true criminal mind - very reminiscent of today's "Sopranos" on HBO.

If Diane Arbus made a comedy from a script by Ernest Lehman and Cliffford Odets, the result would LOOK a lot like The Plot Against Harry. This is an icy-hearted comedy with scarcely a normal-looking human being in sight. Nearly everyone is some sort of New York Jewish grotesque. And yet there are dribs and drabs of sympathetic characterization throughout, as well as a fascinating and broad sociological survey of a range of urban types. We move easily from gangster-limo to garmento fashion-show, to a heart-charity telethon where an impossibly bland crooner entertains on the improbably shoddy set of a TV studio. By the end, you're rooting for Harry, a small-time hood with the personality of a pickled whitefish. This movie is one of my all-time favorites.

On September 19 I saw "The Plot Against Harry." It was projected using a 35mm film reel and the film was restored into 4K picture quality. The picture and sound quality were terrific, almost as if the film was made and released recently. I counted a total of eight people, including myself, in the auditorium. You could hear lots of laughs, the movie was pretty darn funny. Once it ended, I had to visit the bathroom, and two of the guys from my screening were also in there discussing the film. They compared it positively to "Uncut Gems" and "The Sopranos;" the movie was about a Jewish mobster, after all. I made "The Sopranos" connection personally while watching, but didn't identify "Uncut Gems," but it made sense once I heard it.

There weren't any special guests or Q&As regarding the film, even while being at an indie theater. The reason I think it was this way is because from my understanding this film has sort of become obscure in this day and age. Looking at the film on Letterboxd, it has just over a thousand viewers. For reference, the most seen movie on the website is Bong's 2019 film "Parasite" which is nearing three million total viewers. In comparison, it has a mere 408 viewers on IMDb. No single cast member from it has more than five film credits, and I personally never have heard of the director, Michael Roemer, or any of his films, although some of his other work seems compelling and I'd like to check it out. I think this is honestly the most interesting thing about the movie, how under the radar it seems for not just me, but pretty much wherever I can find it online. The biggest shout I can seem to find was that both Wes Anderson and Roger Ebert praised the film some time ago, however that's about where it ends. Despite it being very obscure and hard to find, I'd recommend anyone who gets a chance to check this one out.

The aspect that stuck out to me the most was the performances, namely the film's leading man, Martin Priest, who portrays the titular Harry Plotnick. As I said, nobody in the film seems to be a star, which perplexes me because Priest gives a terrific comedic performance, using deadpan delivery to his advantage, which made me and several other audience members laugh to ourselves on multiple occasions throughout the film's short, but sweet runtime. This isn't to say the other cast doesn't shine, the next best performance was Ben Lang as Leo, Harry's ex-brother-in-law. Leo was such a ditzy, lovable buffoon that Lang brought the perfect amount of chipperness to. After my viewing, I did read that the film had its premiere in 1971 but wasn't publicly screened until eighteen years later, so that could be a key factor of none of the cast being very famous, which is pretty unfortunate.

Personally, nothing much frustrated me or challenged me with the film. It was just a nice little film made to give its audience a good time, nothing too thought provoking came out of it, which isn't a bad thing. I'd like to watch it again sometime and maybe even find the rare DVD, the only listing of it on eBay right now is $75! It kind of concerns me that movies like this are still at risk of being hard to find for years to come even though it was released on DVD, because as physical media is becoming less and less popular, collectors like me get concerns that we could lose quality films if we don't have hard copies. I guess this is pretty frustrating but isn't really the fault of the movie itself, but rather the way studios and audiences have let films fade into rarity.