I’m a big Sydney Lumet fan. I’d heard of The Anderson Tapes, but never got around to watching it until recently. It’s been a few days since I watched it, and I’m still not sure what to make of it.
At first glance, it appears to be a light-hearted heist involving Anderson (Sean Connery), fresh out of prison, and his accomplices–including a baby-faced Christopher Walken as the safe cracker, and a prancing Martin Balsam as the flaming homosexual who knows what the good stuff is worth. There’s also a couple others to round it out, but they’re given short shrift on the characterization chart. It’s plot, plot, plot in these kinds of movies.
So Anderson gets the gang together, planning on robbing the luxury apartment building of all its worth; hitting all the apartments over a Labor Day weekend. Oh, yeah, and Dyan Cannon plays Anderson’s girlfriend.
But…it’s called The Anderson Tapes, not The Anderson Building so we’ve got a lot of surveillance going on. Private detectives, FBI, IRS, and, I think, some DEA guys. Basically every federal agency is taping someone involved with the players in the flick.
It works as a heist movie; maybe a little too cute at times, and maybe a little too trivial. I mean, robbing an apartment building? Yeah, yeah, it was based on a bestselling novel by Lawrence Sanders, but novels are obviously different from films. I don’t think there’s enough weight to just make this a heist flick.
I haven’t read the novel, but from the reviews I’ve read it pretty much stays close to the source material. So why the ambiguity? You either like this or you don’t.
I liked it. But, again, it just doesn’t have the weight a heist flick needs. In Roger Ebert’s review, he thought by getting rid of the tapes angle it would’ve been up there with Rififi. Roger’s full of shit. (And if you haven’t seen Rififi, check it out. Talk about weight…) If you get rid of the tapes angle, there’s not much there.
Oh, there’s some great scenes ’cause it’s Sydney Lumet and if anyone knows his way around Manhattan, it’s him. A couple stand out: The police commisoner, strolling down the block where the robberies are taking place; very much alone, no traffic, no pedestrians, and just as you’re beginning to wonder if the director lost it (it’s Manhattan, there should be traffic), you see the Commisioner turn the corner and you see the crowds blocked off as the police surround the entire block.
Another one involves a telephone operator receiving a call from Kansas (I think) about the robbery taking place in Manhattan. Seems that the ashmatic kid from one of the apartments being robbed has a HAM radio. Some guy in Kansas (or was it Texas?) got the call, called the operator and the operator patched him through to Manhattan. It’s a long scene involving nothing but the Manhattan operator and two voices on a phone (the guy and the operator) as they try to convince the Manhattan operator to take the collect call. If you’re under 30, you have no idea what you’re watching since it would be so foreign to you, but that scene alone is worth the price of admission.
Ok, so I’m saying it’s a lightweight heist flick so now you’re asking, “Why bother? I’ll just wait for the remake.” Yeah, you can do that, but Lumet is trying for something else here, which will be hammered home with as much subtlety as the other Rush Hour movies.
Surveillance plays a big part in this flick. We’re introduced to Connery’s character via a television screen by a prison doctor putting on his own Jerry Springer show. Quite prescient, too, actually. Anyway, we’ve got surveillance all through the thing: scenes of people slapping listening devices onto cars, bugs everywhere, magnetic reels of tape spinning all over the place…it’s almost out of place in this heist movie.
And that’s when it hits me that this isn’t a heist movie. It’s a movie about tape, about the government’s ability to listen to people for whatever reason they want. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
All these government agencies know about the heist, but they don’t get involved ’cause it’s not their department. Plus they don’t talk to each other. They’ve got bigger fish to fry. A robbery is beneath them.
It’s interesting. As the robberies take place, we jump forward in time, to the aftermath, as the victims relate the circumstances of the robbery. We cut back and forth in time…almost like we’re listening to a tape.
And here’s the ending so again SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS:
They fail. Everyone involved in carrying out the robbery dies or is put in prison. Even Connery’s character dies. The movie literally ends with a shot a reel tape and a voice over informing us that the agencies that did all the surveillance erasing tapes, not wanting to get caught with wiretapping people without court orders.
Almost like the movie never happened.
This would be an interesting remake, given what we know the Bush Administration is doing/was doing regarding surveillance of Americans. Let’s hope they get a writer as good as Frank Pierson, who went on to help Lumet make Dog Day Afternoon. It’s almost The Anderson Tapes was a dress rehearsal for Dog Day.
Anyway even if you don’t like subtext, check this one out.
Tags: anderson tapes, balsam, frank pierson, heist movie, lumet, movie, sean connery, walken
