La Revolución is like a great love affair. In the beginning, she is a goddess. A holy cause. But, every love affair has a terrible enemy: time. We see her as she is. La Revolución is not a goddess but a whore. She was never pure, never saintly, never perfect. And we run away, find another lover, another cause. Quick, sordid affairs. Lust, but no love. Passion, but no compassion. Without love, without a cause, we are nothing! We stay because we believe. We leave because we are disillusioned. We come back because we are lost. We die because we are committed.
Random musings on the nature of revolution, words which have an attractive feel, a weary patina lying somewhere just the right side of cynicism. That, I think, is the effect they are meant to convey, but therein is their problem, and by extension part of the problem of the movie they appear in. Hearing them spoken by Jack Palance’s wounded rebel and reading them back here leaves me with the impression that they have been crafted for just that, for effect rather than for truth or out of any real conviction. I watched The Professionals (1966) again the other day, a movie I’ve seen fair few times now, and came away from it thinking it entertaining enough although somewhat lacking in substance. Like so many films by Richard Brooks, it doesn’t do much wrong, doing a lot right in fact, yet never actually amounts to as much as the filmmaker would have us believe.
During the latter half of the Mexican Revolution a group of four men, introduced via brief sketches during the opening credits, are hired by a wealthy businessman to get his kidnapped wife back. That’s the plot of the movie in a nutshell. It’s a simple enough setup, fleshed out by the colorful nature of a some of the leads as well as the dynamic created by their intertwined pasts, and of course the turbulent background of a country riven by internal conflict. The hired hands are led by Rico Fardan (Lee Marvin) a former associate of Pancho Villa, Bill Dolworth (Burt Lancaster) a womanizing rogue with a talent for blowing things up, Ehrengard (Robert Ryan) a diffident wrangler, and Jake (Woody Strode) a tracker and expert with a longbow. Their employer is one J W Grant (Ralph Bellamy), an ageing tycoon married to the much younger Maria (Claudia Cardinale). On the other side is Raza (Jack Palance), one of those bandits with a reputation approaching legendary status. The story is broken into a classic three act structure – the preparation and the journey out, the rescue, and the ride back leading to the denouement. If it sounds a bit formulaic, that’s because it is. There aren’t really too many surprises and the twist that is supposed to grab the viewer comes as more of a shock to the characters on screen.
This probably sounds more negative than I mean it to – the film is (as one would hope from the title) all very professionally shot and put together. It’s amiable and exciting in all the right places, the big set piece assault on Raza’s hacienda is filmed with style, the dialogue is peppered with memorable one-liners, and Conrad Hall photographs the desert locations beautifully. Yet when it all wraps up and the final credits roll, I can’t help feeling I’ve just had the cinematic equivalent of an attractively packaged fast food meal – pleasing and enjoyable while it’s there in front of you, but not something that is going to linger long in the memory when it’s finished.
A film scripted and directed by Richard Brooks (The Last Hunt) from a novel by Frank O’Rourke (The Bravados) inevitably raises expectations given the examples of the author’s and the director’s work cited. I guess that’s why it belongs in my own personal category of movies I like and enjoy even though I don’t believe they warrant an especially high rating. Films such as The Last Hunt and The Bravados stay with you long after they have been viewed, the performances and themes, the images and the very philosophy underpinning them have a way of boring into one’s consciousness and commanding attention. I guess what it comes down to is this – those are movies which touch on greatness, The Professionals is fun.
Lee Marvin and Jack Palance appeared in, by my count, four movies together – in additions to this, there’s Attack, I Died a Thousand Times and Monte Walsh. I feel confident that the latter is by far the best of them, closely followed by Aldrich’s intense study of men in war. The fact is all of the star players, and I’m counting Lancaster, Ryan, Cardinale, Strode and Bellamy here, all made much stronger films, all had roles that stretched them and highlighted their strengths to a greater degree than this. On the other hand, every one of these people are in essence playing types in The Professionals. This is not to say their performances are poor or weak, merely that the way the roles are written allow for next to no development – there are hints of back stories, mentions of experiences that would shape characters, but none of those characters grow over the course of the story. What we see at the start is pretty much the same as what we see at the end.
So, is The Professionals a good movie? The critics seem to have been kind over the years and its reputation remains strong. I like it well enough myself; I’ve watched it a number of times and I’m not in the habit of doing so with films which hold no appeal. Even so, I retain reservations about it, which I think is representative of my attitude to or how I respond to much of Richard Brooks’ work. Parts of his oeuvre hit the mark, have an impact beyond the immediate and provoke me in some way. On the other hand, all too often I find I’m left only half satisfied.
Riding the High Country 
Nice pick my good man. As it so happens, I watched this one for what must be the 10th time just before the New Year. For me it is a solid western with decent work from the entire cast and crew. Every time I see Woody Strode in something, he impresses me all the more. A much better actor than given credit for. Am also a big fan of Conrad Hall. Films like ROAD TO PERDITION, FAT CITY, IN COLD BLOOD and others grab me as do several of his THE OUTER LIMITS episodes. Nice work as always, Colin.
Gordon
LikeLike
Woody Strode had great presence on screen, which comes across in this movie but he’s not given much to do to tell the truth. His best part was as the title character in Sergeant Rutledge of course, and his Pompey in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is another highlight.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And his billing here is unfortunately subordinated to the others’. Most memorable for me in “Spartacus,” in perhaps that film’s finest scene.
LikeLike
His part was not as good nor was his career as the other men.
LikeLike
Colin
No argument there. You are right about the cast needing a bit more story to chew on, but I still like the film.
As for Strode, SERGEANT RUTLEDGE, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, as well as SPARTACUS and PORK CHOP HILL are all good examples of his fine work.
Gordon
LikeLike
Not one I’ve seen – I have’t seen many 60s westerns. It obviously has a strong cast and maybe I should seek it out.
LikeLike
Westerns from the 60s are an odd breed, lacking that sense of direction and purpose that characterized the genre in the post-war years and on through the 50s. Overexposure via TV, competition from other genres and a kind of flagging confidence that saw filmmakers attempting to mimic the sensibilities of the Italian and Spanish spins on the form were gradually eroding the distinct character of the Hollywood western. It’s an interesting period if not a wholly successful or rewarding one, which I guess could be said of all transitional periods.
This is certainly a very entertaining film, one of the more focused and assured efforts to come out of the 60s. It looks good, it’s fun, and the cast is enormously attractive. Now there’s no great depth to any of it, but I don’t believe it will fail to entertain you.
LikeLike
Excellent, fair review. I like the movie and the players in it. I watched the excellent Blu last year. I find it an easy rewatch film. A sort of comfort movie. One of my favorite parts is how all the characters are introduced. While not ‘The Wild Bunch’ or ‘The Magnificent Seven’ it’ll do. I really like Brooks’ muscular direction, Conrad Hall’s wonderful shots, and Jarre’s jangly score. As I said I enjoy it.
LikeLike
A good summation. I couldn’t fault Brooks’ direction – he has a great sense of space and movement that flows very organically. I suppose it’s the glibness of his writing in this one that is less effective for me.
LikeLike
Yes, Brian Garfield in his Western guidebook mostly praises the film but like you has reservations about the speeches on the Revolution and the nature of man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is just Richard Brooks, a pretentious jerk masquerading as an artist of depth.
LikeLike
Personally, I wouldn’t want to go that far. I can’t comment on brooks as a person, but I don’t doubt he was capable of depth and feel he got there on occasion. If anything, his films as director often fall down when it comes to consistency – there are moments and sequences where he attains what he was trying for, but then there tend to be misses in between, sections that veer off target.
LikeLike
His films, as writer and diretor speak for him. An interesting man, but pretentious and self-absorbed.
LikeLike
On the subject of Richard Brooks, I watched Looking for Mr Goodbar (1977) a couple of weeks ago. Written and directed by Brooks. Great performance by Diane Keaton. Total trainwreck of a movie. Heavy-handed and confused. Interesting subject matter handled in a clumsy manner.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have it.
LikeLike
Good take, Colin, and very fair to the film. As a writer-director, Brooks always had a tendency to favor his writing over the cinematic aspects of his films, leading to pacing problems. When he got it right, the results were unforgettable (as with THE LAST HUNT, which I’m glad you champion). Like you, I like THE PROFESSIONALS, but I don’t love it, which I find to be the case with most Brooks films (SOMETHING OF VALUE and BITE THE BULLET are good examples). … And to Chris Evans, thanks for “It’ll do.” Made me smile.
LikeLike
Funny you should mention Something of Value. I watched that film a year or perhaps 18 months ago for a blog post that never materialized in the end. It’s packed with ideas and tries for a nuanced view of a complex problem. It has some good performances from the leads, a number of well shot and frankly powerful scenes, but taken as a whole it doesn’t quite work.
By the way, sorry for the delay in your comment and this response appearing. Somehow it ended up in the spam folder and I only just noticed it and fished it out. I have no idea why WordPress does that sometimes.
LikeLike
Two of my favorite Brooks’ films are ‘In Cold Blood’ and ‘Cat on a Hot tin roof’. The performances are so powerful in them. One day his controversial film with Diane Keaton ‘Looking for Mr Goodbar’ should be put out on Blu so it might be reevaluated.
LikeLike
I’m very fond of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof too. It’s doesn’t all work as it might but there are some terrific scenes. I really like the interlude in the cellar when Ives is with Newman and reminiscing/musing about his relationship with his own father – it’s a quieter passage and all the better for it.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree so much. Elizabeth Taylor was so great too (looked great also). She should have won all the awards for Maggie the Cat! The WAC Blu is really ravishing with great color.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Warner released it in the UK as a DVD/Blu combo. While the DVD wasn’t bad, the Blu-ray really is a significant step up.
LikeLike
I love Cat on a Hot Tin Roof but mostly for the performances of Elizabeth Taylor and Burl Ives. As is usual with Paul Newman one can’t be sure if he’s suffering from existential angst or a tummy-ache.
LikeLike
Brooks sometimes bit off more than he could chew. “The Brothers Karamazov”!!?? “The Professionals” was his follow-up to the very expensive fiasco of “Lord Jim” (1965). He needed a hit and he put his considerable talents to work concocting a slick, commercial package that would turn the trick. Obviously he succeeded. The witty twist ending seems to have lingered in many memories. I’ve met lots of people who can quote it. Agree, however, that all the talk about “the Revolución” is sheer blarney.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I tend to agree with you Colin. I re-watched it last month in a fine HD version on Netflix and thoroughly enjoyed it and had no trouble remembering all the best bits (Marvin’s last line is a beaut). But it doesn’t really have a lot of depth – this a big budget star vehicle that works extremely well, looks a treat (thanks to the great Conrad Hall) and works like a really well-oiled machine. First time I saw it the big reversal in the middle did come as a nice surprise – but it’s definitely not an earth shattering development! It’s lightweight but great fun.
LikeLike
I think, as rozsaphile mentioned above, it was and is a film that aimed to be a crowd-pleaser and to its credit it is exactly that. There’s nothing wrong with that and I wouldn’t want to knock any movie for doing what it sets out achieve. But yes, it is basically a confection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Would you say ‘Silverado’ was like that too? It’s a Western I really like but its also trying not to reinvent the wheel and I’m fine with that. Just came to my head for some reason.
LikeLike
It’s a long time since I last saw it but yes, it’s certainly a “light” western that draws on its star cast and aims to entertain the audience without taxing them too much. One thing I would say though is that I don’t think Silverado could be said to have the kind of very high profile star power of The Professionals, some well known faces and some whose star would rise much higher in the years to come of course but still not the same.
LikeLike
This is in my Top Ten Westerns of All Time.
Brilliant Casting, Story, Star Power … it has it all.
Eminently rewatchable.
LikeLike
It will place high with most people for all those reasons. And I like it too, and have revisited it a good many times down the years. Still, and I’ll concede this may mark me as a contrarian, I wouldn’t rate it among my top westerns.
Nevertheless, it works very well on its own terms, which is as much as any movie can hope for, and certainly has accumulated lots of fans over time.
LikeLike
Guess I’ll have to quality my assessment – having come in only at the end of the 50’s. Surely many great Westerns were done prior. I doubt I’ll ever catch up.
LikeLike
I’m certainly not suggesting anyone alter their assessment of the movie, I’m not arrogant enough to do that. All l can do is offer my own response, but I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I regard it as in any way definitive, or that others should adopt my view. We all come to these movies with our personal criteria to fulfill, all of which are valid. I mean it’s nice when we’re able to find value in something we’d previously dismissed, but I’m not especially comfortable with the notion of anyone going away feeling they ought to think less of a film as a result of one of my posts here.
LikeLike
So true. Excellent way to put it. I’m sure there are films I love that others loathe but I wouldn’t try to change their opinions on it or want them to alter mine. Just the fun of it all.
LikeLike
I’ve had this on my Tivo waiting for several months- must get around to it soon, thanks for the reminder!
LikeLike
Hope you get to it soon, and I reckon you’ll probably have a good time with it.
LikeLike
I’m sold. I’ll be checking this one out. And I’ll check my expectations at the door!
— Karen
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you’re at all a fan of the genre or any of the stars, then the chances are you’ll have a very good time with this film. Personally, I probably wanted the movie to do a little more, but that’s not to say it actually does much wrong.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Last Hunt | Riding the High Country