BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Conversation [spoilers]

 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
08:37 / 25.03.02
Right.

Went to see The Conversation again the other night with invisible_al and Barry Auckland, and am just keen to kick up a bit of conversation about it (ho ho) because it seems to be the kinda film that'd get a bit of attention here.

So. Who's seen it? And what did you think? And have you seen it more than once?

I found out that (much like The Usual Suspects), once you know the ending, you start processing the film in a different way. You know what's going to happen, so you begin to focus on different aspects of the film. For me, this time, most of my investigations focussed on the ideas of voyeurism and morality. Harry Caul is, by his nature, a very quiet, personal man. His interactions with women aren't effective - he's lost in a world of hookers with whom he doesn't have to engage or reveal too much about himself - and he consistently tells Stan that he doesn't care what's on the tapes he's making; he just cares about "a big fat recording". What's interesting about this to me is that his morally-dubious behaviour is offset by his religious nature - he goes to confession to tell the priest that he's possibly instrumental in people being hurt, and the reason Stan leaves the room to work for the other wiretapper is down to the fact that Caul gets really riled over Stan's use of "Christ!" as an expletive. It's intriguing to me further because in the dream sequence, Caul tells the woman he's been trying to record (and the audience) that "I'm not afraid of death... but I am afraid of murder!".

Why?

Because he's already been dead once (the near-death experience in the bath, when a child) and because he's religious, so he believes he must go to heaven if he dies: however, murder is still a sin, which'd place this in danger, especially if he was even tangentially responsible.

More later, but this exploration by Coppola of the idea of the job/duty versus morality/religion intrigues me, particularly because it shows up elsewhere in his films, notably in The Godfather and its sequel.

Oh - could the final "we want you to know we'll be listening" be a reference to the constant vigilance of God, too?

Thoughts?
 
 
Baz Auckland
14:37 / 25.03.02
I love looking up actors on the Movie Database after I get home. I didnt remember until now, but:

Ann was Shirley from Laverne and Shirley, and Paul was Chef in Apocalypse Now AND the nazi in Falling Down. Very strange. You wouldn't have thought it looking at him in the movie...
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
14:54 / 25.03.02
You're thinking of the guy who played Mark, one of the two being tailed - Frederic Forrest. He was Chef in Apocalypse Now. Paul (Michael Higgins) was in The Stepford Wives and Angel Heart, amongst others.
 
 
Jack Fear
16:41 / 25.03.02
Roger Ebert's essay on The Conversation, which he considers one of "The Great Movies," is a good starting point for discussion and critical thinking about the film. A few tidbits...

quote:His colleagues in the surveillance industry think Harry Caul is such a genius that we realize with a little shock how bad he is at his job...

[In the confessional, Harry says]" . . . I was in no way responsible. I'm not responsible. For these and all my sins of my past life, I am heartily sorry." If he's not responsible, why is he sorry?

Coppola ... was working two years after the Watergate break-in, amid the ruins of the Vietnam effort, telling the story of a man who places too much reliance on high technology and has nightmares about his personal responsibility. Harry Caul is a microcosm of America at that time: not a bad man, trying to do his job, haunted by a guilty conscience, feeling tarnished by his work.

The word "Caul" has two meanings, both relevant: It is a spider's web, and the membrane that encloses a fetus. If it is found on a child's head after birth, we learn, "it is supposed to protect against drowning."

[Harry] has no entertainment except playing his saxophone with jazz records (again trying to make a recording more complete)...

... a sadly observant character study, about a man who has removed himself from life, thinks he can observe it dispassionately at an electronic remove, and finds that all of his barriers are worthless. The cinematography (opening scene by Haskell Wexler, the rest by Bill Butler) is deliberately planned from a voyeuristic point of view; we are always looking but imperfectly seeing. Here is a man who seeks the truth, and it always remains hidden....


Smart man, that Roger Ebert.

[ 25-03-2002: Message edited by: Jack Fear ]
 
 
invisible_al
21:09 / 27.03.02
The ending had me just starring at the screen dumbfounded, its a rare film that will just leave things like that. I was wondering when the conclusion would come and that was it, him siting in the ruins of his life, with only his music left. He's symbolicly killed his faith and neat little world that the audience could see was precarious has toppled.
I'm having trouble thinking of films that have endings that feel like that, I was reminded of Eyes Wide Shut where I realised there wasn't enough time left in the film to go where your standard hollywood treatment would take you.
And btw, that first scene knocked my socks off, the rest of the film is spent partly trying to unravel that first scene, us watching them watching others. Beautiful.
 
 
videodrome
23:52 / 27.03.02
Thanks for the Ebert quotes, Jack. Nice stuff. I really love this film, and have a lot to say about it, but am too swamped to go into detail now. So I'm just going to lamely provide a link to comments I made on my own a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.theporkstore.org/blog/2002_02_01_videodrome_archive.html#10051979
 
 
The Strobe
19:17 / 28.03.02
OK. I've been rewatching it, but due to it getting late, we gave up halfway through to continue tomorrow, so these are the comments I can pass after the second serious watch of halfway through.

I'm not going to bother reviewing it again, bar the fact I didn't notice that the score is David Shire who, of course, did Pelham 1-2-3. Very different.

And it was Shire's score that pointed out the big motif in the film: circles. The couple at the beginning are walking around in circles ("Don't you feel strange, walking around in circles like this?"), and Shire's pentatonic musings on the piano send us spinning into further circles. Caul, is of course, caught up in this circle of trying not to understand human emotion in order not to get involved with his work, but when he does, he can't help but be involved - and he feels like he's let himself down. The spinning reels of the tapes, so carefully observed, are further spinning wheels in Harry's circular downfall. And there's that scene in the warehouse, where Harry's standing with the girl, and Stan on the scooter is running rings around him. It's shot quite distant, and you just see Harry as a helpless epicentre, the world turning around him. Shire's score branches out in its jazzy minor sevenths, but it's that pentatonic motif, twinkling around that has the strongest hold over me. I'd entirely forgotten the score, and the moment that motif arrived, as Harry walks across the railway to his building... that's when I remembered why I love the film so much.

Also note the other trappings of observation - the telescope in Ford's office, for instance, and the slow realisation even early on that anything could be a bugging device.

There's also something in Bill Butler's cinematography; note the early shots of Harry in his apartment. The camera's fixed, and he'll walk in, only to hide in the kitchen. You think there'll be a cut, but there isn't; he walks out, and goes over to pick up the phone, again hiding himself. When he's on the phone, he gets up and walks around, defying the camera, trying to hide from it, and the camera lets him: it stays fixed on that sofa, voyeursitic in its fixed nature, and doesn't follow him; he sits back down in front of it again in the end. Similarly, in the party-in-the-warehouse, as he's fixing himself that drink, he's right-of-frame behind the blue transparent screen, almost out of focus, looking like he's in cine film, detached, but still obvious to the rest of the world. He hasn't mastered hiding places.

That's what I've got so far; when the circles thing hit me, I wanted to jump up and down. More tomorrow night when I've finished it off. I need the soundtrack recording...
 
 
The Strobe
19:47 / 28.03.02
http://www.bfi.org.uk/showing/nft/zoetrope/conversation.html

An article on the restoration for DVD... when's the Region2 version coming out, eh?

Also, found many good articles on David Shire's score... it's been rereleased on CD, so do check it out...
 
 
Mystery Gypt
18:06 / 31.03.02
there is an excellent book, who's title escapes me, about soung design in film, with a chapter on each ground breaking film. the guy who did the sound design for the conversation also did apocalypse now; he was a sound editor / recordist who essentially single handedly invented sound design as a complex filmic element, pushing technology and skill through the roof in his collaborations with coppola.

it was in fact his concept that the conversation recording be heard differently at the end. they had a million takes of that scene, and going through them he realized they could play a take with a different emphasis at the end and totally transform the entire film. coppola loved it and that's how they did it. interesting bit of film history in the problem of auteur theory, no?
 
 
The Strobe
19:07 / 31.03.02
Mmn. His name's Walter Murch, and the reason the R1 DVD intrigues me so much (if you check the link above) is that the commentary is from Coppola and Murch. That's it.

But yeah, the first time I saw it, I almost watned to rewind the tape to check if I'd misheard that line, or if they'd changed it. And then you start wondering if every single time you hear the conversation it's different. I mean, it may as well be; Harry keeps randomly fast winding through the tape, trying to detach any sense of humanity from it by deconstructing it, but that just makes us hear all manner of meanings and interpretations.

Note also that Murch singlehandedly described the sound of helicopters on film for 30 years. That's not a helicopter in Apocalypse Now. It's a synthesizer. And yet you play that sound, devoid of the picture - and nowadays, ANYONE will tell you it's a chopper. Too many action movies.
 
  
Add Your Reply