Harry Plotnick seul contre tous

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.

I love the feel of Roemer's second film, between its non-professional cast and how it immersed the viewer into the streets of New York and various aspects of Jewish culture. The black and white cinematography was fantastic and probably the biggest highlight. Oh, there were some amusing moments and also pathos in the main character's situation, having just gotten out of prison but seeing others move in on his illegal businesses, and connecting to his ex-wife and adult children who don't even know him. However, while I was constantly engaged, I don't think the film went to particularly interesting places with the story, squandering at least some of its potential. I kind of wish Ben Lang had appeared in more films too, he was so charismatic as Leo, the sunny friend with a genuine smile.

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.

The Plot Against Harry is about a smalltime Jewish mobster who is released from prison and realizes his numbers racket has mostly fallen apart in his absence. Most of his crew has abandoned him to work for other local thugs, except for his loyal but often inept driver. At first he tries to regain control and call in a few favors, but it becomes more and more clear his time on the streets is up. Harry starts casting about for something else and maybe going legit, and his ex-brother-in-law convinces him to buy a Jewish event hall and catering business. It's through seeing the various Jewish ceremonies - weddings, bar mitzvahs, even a circumcision, that Harry starts to feel more connected with the Jewish community.

Meanwhile, he tries to reconnect on some level with his ex-wife, as well as the children he never really knew, none of whom want anything to do with him. There's a sense they're all politely trying to avoid each other but can't stop bumping into one another, once even literally, as he runs into their car. He somewhat reminds me of Gene Hackman's character in The Royal Tenenbaums, and I wouldn't be surprised if that film took inspiration from this one.

Harry is then informed he has an "enlarged heart" and isn't sure just how much longer he has to live, accelerating his desire for redemption. But getting on the straight and narrow has a lot of twists and turns.

To describe this film to a modern viewer, it has a wryness not unlike some Coen Bros films like Fargo or Burn After Reading, in that it takes a close look at the mundane and everyday, and finds humor and a story worth telling. There's occasionally also some Wes Anderson elements of charming and surreal set pieces and characters. Yet it must be said, this film is far more understated than any Coen Bros or Wes Anderson film. Additionally, as it's an indie film with some rough edges, it's not always obvious what we're supposed to take from each scene, but that's also part of its charm. All of this added up to a film that struggled to find an audience in 1969, but did lead to some indie success when it was released two decades later.

Comparisons aside, The Plot Against Harry is a good film but not a great one. It gets a bit too much praise because critics and film buffs just love when a film like this surfaces and offers something fresh, which it legitimately was in 1989. With the passage of time it takes on some period charm as well with a sweet and sentimental look at Jewish life in the late '60s.

It's hard to point to any one particular thing The Plot Against Harry really excels at but likewise it never drags and the sum of the parts kept me watching and rooting for Harry till the end.

If there were such a thing as a Jewish New Wave film movement in the late 60's, director Michael Roemer would certainly have been in its vanguard. His long lost, low budget comedy about a strictly small time New York City crook readjusting to life after a nine month prison stretch recalls some of the stylistic freedom of early Truffaut, while at the same time anticipating by two decades the deadpan anti-plot devices of Jim Jarmusch. In place of a story it offers a number of grotesque, eccentric characters, all bouncing off each other in unpredictable and unlikely places: a lingerie show, a dog obedience school, a bar mitzvah, and so forth. What the film lacks is enough substance to justify the overwhelming praise that greeted its belated release in 1989; it's fun, but at the same time it's also a negligible experience. The story behind the film is actually more interesting than the film itself, and after twenty years all the tardy attention probably benefited Roemer more than the movie-going public.