Les rênes du pouvoir

"The Big Brass Ring" tells of a Missouri gubernatorial candidate (Hurt) who find himself haunted by guilt, stalked by a beautiful reporter, and the possible target of an assassination plot. A blotch on "Singblade" director Hickenlooper's resume coming on the heels of a worthy little indie "Dogtown", this tale of redemption and regret loses it humanness in a circus of pompous dialogue, overwrought histrionics, vague noir ambiance, and disjointed editing. In spite of fine performances and filming, "The Big Brass Ring" can't manage one believable character much less one reason to care leaving only a sense of detached ambivalence and confusion. A very attractive but passable DVD watch for fans of the players only. (C)

William Hurt plays Gubernatorial candidate William Blake, in the final days of his election campaign. Nigel Hawthorne is Kim Mennaker, a svengali figure from Blake's childhood, who lives in Cuba for some reason, and has evidence which can sink Blake's election chances. Actually, by halfway through the movie, half of Missouri seems to have this evidence, and why nobody actually uses it is about as bewildering as why Hurt wanders about all night with a monkey on his shoulder, which he had previously complained had urinated all over him - unless that's a pun on a monkey for his back.

As usual, William Hurt is boring (look, I'm sorry, but he just is). Nigel Hawthorne, on the other hand, is incapable of being less than good, though his character is really quite ridiculous.

An understated movie, which, I admit, has emotional subtleties and plot complexities which keep it above average, but which ultimately don't save it from being a bit soporific. I'll give it 6.0. Worth watching, but don't expect to be dazzled.

Many viewers have raised the issue about how true or false this film is to the original screenplay Orson Welles developed in 1982 with Oja Kodar. Because I wrote the many final drafts of the screenplay directed by George Hickenlooper, I can comment with authority. (Fear not -- I'll avoid spoilers.)

On the surface it is a very free adaptation. Underneath, it is highly faithful... Welles's original script was set in Spain and the Congo. We set ours along the Mississipi and in Cuba. Nevertheless, the characters have kept their original names and essential personalities through the many adaptations George and I devised (whether separately or together) between 1991 and '98.

Welles's tale centered on a Presidential hopeful who escapes his wealthy wife's yacht and pursues a clandestine adventure with his aged political mentor (a part Welles wrote for himself). This grand sage, a fallen Lucifer of American politics, was a candidate for President in his own prime -- until he was outed as a homosexual. In Welles's original, the two old friends engage in a psychological chess match involving a long-vanished woman they both know. In ours, they play an equally rough game over a long-lost brother.

(Welles himself had a troubled brother, Richard, who shadowed him throughout his life. THAT felt like a deeper wound to explore in Welles's wake than the ghost of a missing mistress.)

In both versions, the reunion between the hero and his old mentor sparks a dark merry go round of busy pursuits. An ambitious reporter modeled on Italy's Oriana Fallaci chases Blake and flirts with him, and tries to penetrate the secret of his soul, particularly his connection to the old man. The candidate's wife (jealous of the mentor) schemes and looses a murderous espionage agent on the old man's tail.

Details vary, sometimes wildly, between what Welles conceived and what we executed. My wish in retrospect is that we had played certain cards face up in terms of story secrets. (I won't say which ones here -- no spoilers!) More and more, I'm convinced that Hitchcock was right to keep as few secrets as possible from HIS audience. Less confusing AND more suspenseful!

Were we wrong to take liberties? No. A film must be a living thing. As Welles always advised young filmmakers, "Be Bold!" He is after all the guy who conflated five Shakespeare plays into a single new one centered on the character Falstaff -- CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT.

I'm giving this movie only a "7 out of 10" out of respect to everyone who adds posts to this board yet is NOT one of the filmmakers. (I'm too close to be objective: My heart says, "Give it a ten." Flaws and all, I'm very proud of it.)

I can offer one bit of impartial praise: William Hurt, Nigel Hawthorne, Miranda Richardson, Irene Jacob, Jeff Mayes and Ewan Stewart all give superb, multi layered performances. Welles could have asked for no better group to embody the characters he originated.

This may be a flawed masterpiece or perhaps a mediocre movie with a lot to recommend it. I enjoyed it and would like to see it again, partly to make sure the plot worked and partly to catch some nuances that I missed. And also because, as my esteemed colleague, flickjunkie, notes below, the audio is atrocious and my ears are not as sharp as they once were. But life is short and the entire opus of film is long...but maybe I can edit with the fast forward!

Okay, let's look at the evidence. Script by Orson Welles: somewhat amazing since he died in 1985. His last work. That alone may make this worth watching. William Hurt plays a southern pol, Blake Pellarin, running for governor of Missouri. Miranda Richardson plays his rich, alcoholic wife, and she is very good. Nigel Hawthorne is Kim Mennaker, Blake's one time mentor, a shadowy, behind the scenes political figure, a cynical character who is writing a 27,000-page memoir, which no doubt includes much about his love for the Pellarin boys. Irène Jacob plays Cela Brandini, a TV reporter fascinated with Blake. The one-time protégé of French-Polish director Krzysztof Kieslowski is not shown to advantage here. I'm not sure why, but there is little subtlety in the way she plays the part. To really appreciate what she can do, see her in La Double vie de Véronique (1991) or Trois Couleurs: Rouge (1994), both directed by Kieslowski. She is very beautiful and very winning.

William Hurt, contrary to some opinion, was excellent. His characteristic laid-back, almost languid style works strangely well for a southern pol. He is certainly different, but believable, although I don't think his style would have worked had his character been running for president, as in Welles's original script. (Incidentally, they really wanted Louisiana, not Missouri, for the locale.) Hurt's performance reminds me in some ways of his work in the outstanding but now somewhat neglected, Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985), for which he won an academy award.

The Big Brass Ring never had a theatrical release, and it is not hard to see why. The print is too dark and the story too murky and hard to follow. It appears that the brothers changed identities when young and never bothered to change back. Apparently Blake's brother and not Blake was the subject of the homosexual photo, but I'm not sure. To make this movie work for a mass audience, the true status of the boys then, and during the time of the action, must be made clear.

(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 Big Brass Ring apparently never made it to a movie theater, and doesn't get anywhere else, either. The script, credited posthumously to Orson Welles, takes a number of twists and turns, but they are neither clever or clear. William Hurt portrays Missouri gubernatorial candidate Blake Pellarin, an independent running against another independent, which is unlikely enough. The fact that both candidates sport Southern accents even though it is set in Missouri is another peculiarity that is never explained. Miss it and you'll be better off.