Harry Plotnick seul contre tous

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.

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.

I Only heard of this recently - once again thanks to my favorite NYC theater, Film Forum - and I wish I had seen it years ago. The Plot Against Harry (the title itself seems like a kind of cruel joke that could have been played on Harry, or the name of a podcast about him, like who is the plotter or ployee) is a deadpan comedy that is not shot like a documentary but is peopled like it, and is packed full of incident and (in Yiddish speak) mishegas and tsuris (sic) for one man to deal with in 80 some odd minutes.

Thankfully, Michael Roemer, who I imagine took on a herculean feat with a low budget to direct so many regular people in big celebration after big gathering scene (location work that would make Lumet's head spin), and Priest is close to perfect at looking and behaving so dejectedly and miserable in scene after scene even as you can guess he has brought some of this on himself, you can't help but feel a little bad for him... until things just get more cruel and ironic. I mean, Harry's heart (mild spoiler, it's not the heart) is the least of his worries with his ex and his estranged kids and that one guy who was probably an extra in Goodfellas, etc.

Think like, I dunno, a less visually dazzling but no less biting East Coast late 60s Coen brothers - this is up there with the most relentlessly bittersweet (mostly bitter) Jewish films I've ever seen, and I mean that as a compliment. I'm sure the Safdies studied this like a conspiracy nut with the Zapruder footage, even if this is less anxious and more doomed in how the filmmaker treats its hapless anti-hero.

Here's something new: a little B/W film with no stars, about a middle-aged Jewish ex-gangster who wants to go into the catering business --AND it's not "Hollywood sit-com cute"! It's understandable that with all of that going 'against' it, no one wanted to release this film back in 1970. Luckily, director Martin Roemer never underestimated the richness of his film. Twenty years after being turned down by Hollywood, he decided to try the independent festival circuit and there, he found his audience.

The plot against Harry Plotnick is basically his own conscience and paranoia working against him. He'd left a good marriage unaware that his wife was pregnant at the time, not that it probably would have made a big difference to him back then. He was obsessed with the numbers racket, where he made a fair amount of money but ultimately spent a fair amount of time in prison, only to discover upon his release that the rackets had been taken over by various minorities. Now Harry is beginning to see the signs that it's time to make good with his conscience, with his family and with God. Not an easy feat!

This film is a wonderful glimpse into the kind of independent cinema that was around during the early seventies. It's 'early John Cassavetes meets early Woody Allen'. Unlike THE FRENCH CONNECTION or MEAN STREETS, both good films that depicted very specific worlds within Manhattan at that time, this film opens up a whole variety of worlds. Thus it steers free of cliches, no matter how deep it goes into the ethnic backgrounds of its characters. People are just people. Not all good or all bad. This film is like a breath of fresh air compared to the ultra-hip indie films of today. It's effortless, humorous, poignant, and an extremely enjoyable time capsule of the recent past.

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.