Year of the Gun (1991)

Monday-Wednesday-Friday reviews this week, and posts might be late up.

1978. An American journalist (Andrew McCarthy) living in Rome becomes entangled with the Communist terrorist Red Brigades organisation. He also becomes entangled (ho ho) with a sexy photojournalist (Sharon Stone) who just gets him into more trouble.

John Frankenheimer, director of one of my favourite political thrillers of all time, The Manchurian Candidate, returns with this story that attempts to copy the success of Day of the Jackel (one of the characters even admits as such) by fictionalising the story behind a real-life kidnap and murder. He also directed Ronin, which was decent but not that good, The Island of Dr. Moreau, which I’ve heard was bad, and Reindeer Games, which I want to see. Year of the Gun is set in what was a turbulent time in Italy, later dubbed the ‘Years of Lead’, and you’d think this would make for a very exciting film. However, Year of the Gun not only borrows Day of the Jackel‘s story and title devices (“time period of the thing”) but its incredibly laboriously slow pacing and story-telling. An entire subplot (whether the main character is part of the Red Brigades) amounts to nothing more than a way to make Sharon Stone’s character appear smart before the real story begins.

It’s a shame, because the real story is actually fairly entertaining and competently done, but we don’t get to it until about 50 minutes in. The journalist has written a semi-fictional book that is stolen by the Red Brigades who coincidentally had the idea of kidnapping Aldo Moro that forms the plot in his book. This idea is almost completely wasted. When the melodrama gives way to action, it’s equally disappointing. The whole film has a distinct 1970s aesthetic, from the long takes and zooms down to the typewriters and so on, which is, I suppose, accurate for the time period but also uncomfortably clashes with what a 1990s audience wants to see (presumably, action and romance). The benefit of making a movie decades after when it’s set is that you get to present that time period in a way that a modern audience can relate to. For example, would The Godfather be as powerful if it was made in the style of a 1940s gangster film instead of in the style of a 1970s epic? Would Bonnie & Clyde be the same if it was made as a 1940s noir instead of a taboo-breaking film that ushered in New Hollywood? (In fact it would be Gun Crazy, its good but not great precursor.) Same with Chinatown. Even Public Enemies, Michael Mann’s recent movie about Dillinger, was shot in his signature digital style, justifying its existence if not guaranteeing its quality. In this way Year of the Gun is a missed opportunity to present a period of time in a new way, and lift the veil of history.

The cast do some good work with their limited roles. Andrew McCarthy has this weird facial twitch when he gets mad that is somehow compelling. Sharon Stone is annoying, but she tries her best. I don’t think her role was thought through enough though. She’s the love interest but actually causes the main character all of the trouble in the movie. For that she deserved to die. It would have upped the stakes and given the movie a more serious tone. John Frankenheimer also makes some incredibly strange directorial choices near the end of the film, including one supposedly dramatic but in effect laughable use of slow motion. The editing is also bad, although it might be because I watched a version pan-and-scanned to 4:3 (I do feel guilty about it and will apologise to Martin Scorsese if I ever meet him). The film also attempts to say something meaningful and profound about the nature of journalism; either how it can change the entire perception of a series of events or how it doesn’t have any effect whatsoever. It’s never clearly decided. What was clear was the heavy-handedness involved in transposing rhetoric straight into the characters’ mouths. I could have also done without the 1980s synth music.

I’m actually interested in Italian politics, having studied Mussolini last year for As History. Unfortunately, like Day of the Jackel (which I didn’t really like), this film doesn’t give you much of an insight into the country or the political period. A far more captivating watch is Il Divo, an Italian film about the Prime Minister of this period, Guilio Andreotti (you’ll be equally as lost without some prior knowledge on the subject but it gives you a grander impression and spans more time). Also worth a watch is Gommorrah, which isn’t about politics but is about the Mafia. Another great recent political thriller is The Ides of March, which is being shadowed both by George Clooney’s other hit The Descendents and Ryan Gosling’s other hit Drive. Although it doesn’t say anything new about politics, it’s definitely worth your time. All these films are better than this.

This is simply a case of a movie outside its time. If it had been made in the 1970s, it might be a classic.

Verdict: Ambivalent.

Advertisement