With the growing impatience of the modern film-goer, it's no wonder people can't watch this film today. It's long. There's no music. People don't talk enough. The violence isn't bloody. The photography is very boring. The ending sucked. These were just a few of the complaints that I received upon screening this to about 50 high school students at a recent film club meeting. It was my week to show a movie, and I wondered how people might respond to this. Well, we started with 50, and by the end, there were about 7 kids left. Allow me to explain.
This film, has a very specific look and feel for its time. Set in the early sixties, we follow a fictionalized account of an assassination attempt on the life of Charles De Gaul. The OAR, a conservative underground movement angry about De Gaul's ending of the war in Algeria, decides they must take back power. Ultimately, almost all of their attempts have failed, so in desperation, the OAS decides to hire an outside assassin to eliminate De Gaul. At the time, this scared viewers, the thought of controlling and altering government, through illegal action. In a way, it's comparable to Grisham's Runaway Jury, in the sense that the law has few boundaries when change is wanted. The OAS hires the Jackal, played with dry cool by Edward Fox, an amazing underground assassin, with a reputation preceding him, even if he isn't supposed to exist.
Now, in accordance with the IMDb's rules concerning spoilers and revealing the ending, I won't divulge much in the ways of plot, but I must say, this is an excellently crafted piece of political thriller. From the novel by Frederick Forsyth, and scripted by Kenneth Ross, the script merely acts as a smart guideline for the action. Fred Zinnemann, directing his first film in several years, observes the actions of The Jackal and the French Secret Service's attempts to capture the Jackal with a carefully detached eye. He pays close attention to detail, much like the Jackal, leaving little room for error. Several people complained that the direction was boring, but really, it's very smart in its simplicity. Zinnemann allows for his actors and action to play out in very realistic manner, giving the film an engaging sense of time, making its viewers engaged in what's happening. The straight, no nonsense photography and lack of music add to that feel, giving this film much more credibility. Oh, and the settings utilized incredibly well too. The only noticeable style in this film is the editing, in its creation of clever transitions, like cutting shots, while using the previous soundtrack. Michael Lonsdale plays the head detective for the French Secret Service with collected calm. Highly aware and patient, he creates a smart and understated hero for the film. Meanwhile, on the other side of the political scandal, we have Edward Fox's Jackal, a super cool, highly resourceful, and highly aware individual. He too, practices the art of patience, and at any set- back, he's able to resourcefully able to work his out of it. But, don't try to negotiate with Mr. Jackal, because if he must come to it, he has no qualms about hurting someone in order to protect himself. A very amoral, if not fascinating anti-hero for this film.
The film was released in July of 1973, as an action thriller for Universal, labeled as dime a dozen action flick by publications such as the New York Times. Yet its gained longevity because of it's it tight plotting, nuanced performances, realistic action, and dark and unusual humor, this film will live far beyond its years. This film transcends the typical Hollywood action genre by being smarter than the average thriller, and by patiently waiting for the Jackal's next move, it's hard not to finish this movie. Some might speak of Michael Caton-Jones 1997 remake favorably, but the only reason people may think it's any good at all is because of impaired judgment from excessive repeat viewings on USA network... But seriously, while the remake is violent, stylized, and dull, the original is engaging, smart, and thoughtful. My only complaint is the ending's similarities to the original Manchurian Candidate's finale. But even so, this film has a satisfying conclusion.
To those who think that is long and boring, try sitting through this with an open mind. Unfortunately, modern audiences have tricked into thinking that good film-making consists if gritty realistic violence like Gladiator, or irritatingly hyperactive style and pace like The Matrix. This is film of great substance and intrigue. I'm 18 and in high school, and even I was willing to give this a chance, and it's one of my favorite films because of that. It's movie making in the true sense of the word, because it shows you a story. So please, forget about your MTV or Jerry Bruckheimer produced material, and try something thoughtful and interesting. This may be long by today's standards, but it's well worth the wait in the end.
-Blake Goble, film watcher, maker, and addict
This film, has a very specific look and feel for its time. Set in the early sixties, we follow a fictionalized account of an assassination attempt on the life of Charles De Gaul. The OAR, a conservative underground movement angry about De Gaul's ending of the war in Algeria, decides they must take back power. Ultimately, almost all of their attempts have failed, so in desperation, the OAS decides to hire an outside assassin to eliminate De Gaul. At the time, this scared viewers, the thought of controlling and altering government, through illegal action. In a way, it's comparable to Grisham's Runaway Jury, in the sense that the law has few boundaries when change is wanted. The OAS hires the Jackal, played with dry cool by Edward Fox, an amazing underground assassin, with a reputation preceding him, even if he isn't supposed to exist.
Now, in accordance with the IMDb's rules concerning spoilers and revealing the ending, I won't divulge much in the ways of plot, but I must say, this is an excellently crafted piece of political thriller. From the novel by Frederick Forsyth, and scripted by Kenneth Ross, the script merely acts as a smart guideline for the action. Fred Zinnemann, directing his first film in several years, observes the actions of The Jackal and the French Secret Service's attempts to capture the Jackal with a carefully detached eye. He pays close attention to detail, much like the Jackal, leaving little room for error. Several people complained that the direction was boring, but really, it's very smart in its simplicity. Zinnemann allows for his actors and action to play out in very realistic manner, giving the film an engaging sense of time, making its viewers engaged in what's happening. The straight, no nonsense photography and lack of music add to that feel, giving this film much more credibility. Oh, and the settings utilized incredibly well too. The only noticeable style in this film is the editing, in its creation of clever transitions, like cutting shots, while using the previous soundtrack. Michael Lonsdale plays the head detective for the French Secret Service with collected calm. Highly aware and patient, he creates a smart and understated hero for the film. Meanwhile, on the other side of the political scandal, we have Edward Fox's Jackal, a super cool, highly resourceful, and highly aware individual. He too, practices the art of patience, and at any set- back, he's able to resourcefully able to work his out of it. But, don't try to negotiate with Mr. Jackal, because if he must come to it, he has no qualms about hurting someone in order to protect himself. A very amoral, if not fascinating anti-hero for this film.
The film was released in July of 1973, as an action thriller for Universal, labeled as dime a dozen action flick by publications such as the New York Times. Yet its gained longevity because of it's it tight plotting, nuanced performances, realistic action, and dark and unusual humor, this film will live far beyond its years. This film transcends the typical Hollywood action genre by being smarter than the average thriller, and by patiently waiting for the Jackal's next move, it's hard not to finish this movie. Some might speak of Michael Caton-Jones 1997 remake favorably, but the only reason people may think it's any good at all is because of impaired judgment from excessive repeat viewings on USA network... But seriously, while the remake is violent, stylized, and dull, the original is engaging, smart, and thoughtful. My only complaint is the ending's similarities to the original Manchurian Candidate's finale. But even so, this film has a satisfying conclusion.
To those who think that is long and boring, try sitting through this with an open mind. Unfortunately, modern audiences have tricked into thinking that good film-making consists if gritty realistic violence like Gladiator, or irritatingly hyperactive style and pace like The Matrix. This is film of great substance and intrigue. I'm 18 and in high school, and even I was willing to give this a chance, and it's one of my favorite films because of that. It's movie making in the true sense of the word, because it shows you a story. So please, forget about your MTV or Jerry Bruckheimer produced material, and try something thoughtful and interesting. This may be long by today's standards, but it's well worth the wait in the end.
-Blake Goble, film watcher, maker, and addict