The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (William Friedkin, 2023)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author

beamish14
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 3:07 pm

Re: William Friedkin

#2 Post by beamish14 » Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:55 pm



As someone who really enjoys his 1997 adaptation of 12 Angry Men, I’m definitely excited about this

The 1988 Robert Altman version that he made for HBO is one of my few blind spots in his catalog

DimitriL
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:07 pm

Re: William Friedkin

#3 Post by DimitriL » Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:21 pm

The Altman version is spare and focused and pretty extraordinary. (It was for CBS, not HBO.)

User avatar
tolbs1010
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:01 pm

Re: William Friedkin

#4 Post by tolbs1010 » Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:50 pm

I watched the Altman version for the first time a couple of months ago and enjoyed it. Altman's signature roving camera gives this more faithful adaptation a little dynamism in its (mostly) one-location setting. Having seen the Dmytryk film (which I also like a lot) made watching this stagier version more enjoyable. Cast is solid across the board (Bogosian and Gallagher are standouts), though Jeff Daniels doesn't have much to do in it. The Dmytryk film fleshes out that character more.

I added Friedkin's 12 Angry Men to my list after recently watching and being impressed with two of his stage adaptations. What an amazing cast, and I'm even more enthused to see it after seeing beamish14's recommendation.

nicolas
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2023 11:34 am

Re: William Friedkin

#5 Post by nicolas » Fri Oct 06, 2023 8:10 pm

I watched Friedkin’s The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial and it’s absolutely incredible. I’ve quickly cobbled together some spoiler-filled thoughts. It’s so, so sad that this man had to stop when he was still that good.
SpoilerShow
Oh, Hurricane Billy. Why does this have to be your last work and why wasn’t this merely the start of an exciting new chapter? Questions over questions and an impenetrable sadness that hovers over this picture. I’m calling it a motion picture with a script and not a TV movie with a teleplay because in a correct world, a sane world, this would be a movie event. Pure cinema, actors going against each other violently but with dignity.

But it’s not the sense of dignity the world we live in understands right now. There’s not much of that dignity in Friedkin’s world either. The court-martial is an attempt to restore dignity on the basis of a lie. The characters use language - wonderful language, expertly delivered - to get to the truth and it’s proven impossible.

The ending is brutal and doubles down on the tone and seeds the film’s been setting. A harsh confrontation with the possibilities of when innocence (the two officers) leads to unfathomable consequences. As the court has correctly pointed out, this is essentially a sham trial with endless fighting over peculiarities.

The language that is used during the process penetrates the modern mind and pierces right through the ever-increasing attempt to be as sensitive and inoffensive as possible. Language has become all but impersonal as a result. Less direct, less affecting and memorable. The modern setting by Friedkin and the (from a cinema lover’s point of view unfortunate) starkly digital, low-budget, realistic look work to the film’s advantage as the officers fit exactly into today’s age in how innocent and powerful they consider themselves among a general, modern, youthful thrive to challenge superiority and an establishment despite (maybe) no actual and credible reason for it. They (ab)use a momentum in society that challenges power-structures and exposes disproportionate behavior by those considered superior. The defense lawyer’s (in retrospect after knowing the ending) constant battle to juggle that kind of knowledge is nothing short of soul-shattering and heartbreaking.

Friedkin’s explicit wish to cast Kiefer Sutherland as Captain Quegg has turned out to be a phenomenal idea. Sutherland seemingly struggles to show the same sense of control the other actors have and frequently attempts to outpace them by using his voice expressively. Sutherland’s strong performance is about a man desperately trying to protect a small degree of integrity against what has already (maybe irreversibly) been taken away from him despite his lack of total innocence.

As such, despite reports to the contrary, the film does NOT advocate for anything “conservative”, not in the slightest. If anything, the film argues for truth and the awareness about the two sides of “innocence” - youthful and the one solemnly sweared in front of God. It may also argue very subtly and intelligently about the abuse of societal movements (for the benefit of the abused) for a selected group’s own benefit.

As with “Killer Joe” in 2011, William Friedkin couldn’t have found a great many more prevalent scenario that speaks to us right now and especially those who exactly know what and how they were doing that in order to attain their power in whatever circles higher or lower. If only they could see it reflected to their faces, if only Hollywood would let them. But no, this rebellious film exists on the outskirts of the system Friedkin inadvertently helped growing in another era, ironically as did many of the now-revered and widely known masterpieces of the 60s and 70s.

“The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial” doesn’t show much hope for change to be found in these tight, isolated spaces and especially at that time right now. We’ll see, we’ll see. The longer William Friedkin will be gone, the more I’ll miss him. For this enormous farewell gift, I’ll be forever thankful.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: William Friedkin

#6 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Oct 09, 2023 10:37 am

Great thoughts, nicolas - I loved this as well. I doubt there’s ever been such a lean courtroom thriller (one of my least favorite dramatic subgenres), with Friedkin charitably exhibiting a fundamental trust in his actors and the source material to hook and hold the audience, primarily shooting this with a direct, restrained objectivity and razor sharp editing. Reddick and Sutherland have never been better, the latter in particular showing new skills as an actor that were an absolute pleasure to absorb - and yes, with his last three films being a switch to (mostly-chamber) play adaptations as well as, I think, his best work overall, one has to wonder what could’ve been. I never would’ve thought the expansive, location-hopping hound of the 70s would’ve settled into a self-actualized interest focused on the possibilities of sparse, closed settings. But that’s what happened, and thank god we got what we did while he was there, and here

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: William Friedkin

#7 Post by knives » Mon Oct 09, 2023 11:15 am

In a lot of ways I think it’s a return for him to his roots, and something you see sprinkled throughout his career like in his superior adaptation of 12 Angry Men, where he has this hard edged simplicity which is provoking through small singular punches.

It’s no wonder, for example, The Exorcist is at its best when claustrophobically restrained between a fight of wills. I imagine Sorcerer works in a similar register. Friedkin kind of reminds me of Fitzgerald or Fuller that way where things succumb to this newsman tit and tat.

nicolas
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2023 11:34 am

Re: William Friedkin

#8 Post by nicolas » Mon Oct 09, 2023 1:14 pm

therewillbeblus wrote:Great thoughts, nicolas - I loved this as well. I doubt there’s ever been such a lean courtroom thriller (one of my least favorite dramatic subgenres), with Friedkin charitably exhibiting a fundamental trust in his actors and the source material to hook and hold the audience, primarily shooting this with a direct, restrained objectivity and razor sharp editing. Reddick and Sutherland have never been better, the latter in particular showing new skills as an actor that were an absolute pleasure to absorb - and yes, with his last three films being a switch to (mostly-chamber) play adaptations as well as, I think, his best work overall, one has to wonder what could’ve been. I never would’ve thought the expansive, location-hopping hound of the 70s would’ve settled into a self-actualized interest focused on the possibilities of sparse, closed settings. But that’s what happened, and thank god we got what we did while he was there, and here
Totally agree, TWBB. Once more about Sutherland. It first seemed like an odd choice but once he delivered that lengthy monologue, I just thought “wow, this is exactly why Friedkin wanted him and no one else”. Because he’s completely different tonally than all the other actors, from the language, to his behavior and the face as well. To be visibly insecure and channel that into the performance. (I have a feeling that it was him whom Friedkin took aside during filming when a scene wasn’t working. Friedkin then postponed that to the next day). While viewing the monologue, I felt heartbroken - a rarity for me. I instinctively knew that this man, although having made bad choices that affected the crew, was a good one inside and someone wants to frame him, although I resisted that gut feeling as Queeg was cleverly framed the other way with convincing arguments against him before his big monologue. Maybe this didn’t come as big a revelation for others familiar with previous adaptations of the piece (I wasn’t) but I’d be comfortable claiming that this something unique in Friedkin’s version due to Sutherland’s casting.

It’s funny that knives mentioned Friedkin’s 12 Angry Men remake. I think it’s pretty much identical here in how he manages to make the original disappear because of the very different casting choices, resulting in different viewer expectations as to what the actors are “supposed” to do. Combine that with “updated” writing and a good directorial hand and a new adaptation is totally legitimate. I had no idea what would happen and how to everything would come together in the remake despite my familiarity with the Lumet masterpiece.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (William Friedkin, 2023)

#9 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Oct 09, 2023 2:32 pm

Maybe it was just how I was taught to watch films by films, but
SpoilerShow
I was firmly rooting for the accused until the final scene, and felt the questioning to Sutherland and the psychologists was fair in leaning into the appropriately-gray space of circumstantial moral relativity and emotional lability present in crises, when one's psychological vulnerabilities are at risk. The way the film/play pitched this against the necessity for order, rigidity, chain of command, etc. was respectfully balanced and affirming (while also provoking) both sides. But Sutherland's ignorance of his insecurities' effects on others seemed to be the focus until the zoom-out at the end, which revealed a more conservative validation that men like Sutherland, while flawed, did a lot of good and a lot right to get where they are today - simultaneously shining a spotlight on the entitled new generation of critical, anti-institutional youth as both dangerous and tragic to the hope of (imperfect, but attempted) connectivity by systems. A brilliant sociopolitical 'twist'.

I agree with you that the film itself is not conservative, but it wedges itself in that neutral objectivity curiously attending to both sides and the space in between. It certainly feels timely, essentially challenging ACAB logic in the denouement, but it's also baldly compassionate to the sensitivities of man that have been bottled up for so long and that the new generation has helped progress and process, whereas men like Queeg were always at a disadvantage generationally (and I did feel for him when his mental health was being openly discussed in court without confidentiality even attempted to be protected - the one moment where it became obvious this was being faithfully adapted from a dated play). The curt gesture that ends the film feels like a frustration aimed at the weaponization of this admirable and necessary change - channeling a rapidly-issued impatience with the polarized left to offset the film's established slow-burning impatience with the polarized right. The film is angry at the consequences born from myopic perspectives filtered into selfish ends, not any one in particular. But it's brave enough to outline the few that we'll recognize, and dare to hold both side by side as cousins rather than aliens.

User avatar
Persona
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:16 pm

Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (William Friedkin, 2023)

#10 Post by Persona » Sat Oct 14, 2023 4:23 pm

In concept and execution, this isn't exactly my cup of tea, but I have to admire the precision with which it was realized. And in some pretty subtle ways, I think it might be one of Friedkin's most self-reflexive works. He doesn't hold Queeg blameless, but he does understand him.

User avatar
diamonds
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:35 pm

Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (William Friedkin, 2023)

#11 Post by diamonds » Fri Nov 10, 2023 12:44 am

Little to add to the discussion about this modest late triumph, a difficult and sober reflection on the old and new men, except simply to say that I was moved by the dedication to Lance Reddick, whose gravitas here is as note-perfect as ever. What a marvelous actor.

And it was a small delight seeing this beauty again :D
SpoilerShow
Image

Post Reply