The St. Valentine's Day Massacre

Why is it that people quibble about Jason Robards not looking like Capone? Many actors who have played him, from F. Murray Abraham to William Forsythe, really didn't resemble him. Maybe it's because this film attempts a semi-documentary approach. Perhaps it's the most accurate Hollywood drama on Capone, but the other semi-documentaries of the time (such as Fox's own THE LONGEST DAY), had the look and lighting that reminded a viewer of a documentary, while this one doesn't. In fact, its style is more evocative of a 1930's Warner Bros. gangster film. Even George Segal's bullying the bartender and his mashing his girlfriend's face with food are bits very comparable to ones Cagney does in THE PUBLIC ENEMY. Segal playing a mean Cagney-type might seem very offbeat casting, but in this film it works, because all its casting is offbeat--even deliciously over the top. It's a lot of fun.

It's incredible to think that this film, Roger Corman's major studio debut, and THE GODFATHER (made by Corman alumnus Coppola) were made within five years of each other. They could be decades apart, in look, in sensibility, in impact. Whereas GODFATHER gropes for a rich, mythic timelessness, MASSACRE seems brittle, thin, a mere pastiche of, variously, 30s Warners gangster films, 40s B-movies, or Corman's own early work. Whereas Coppola's characters have passed into popular culture, Corman's gangsters are thinly characterised, theatrical, parodic; whereas GODFATHER's plot is slow-burning, tense, silent, punctuated with shocking shards of tangible violence, MASSACRE is almost cartoon-like in its relentless gunfire, which, because it's not rooted in character, does not have as traumatic an effect.

Some of us, however, might recoil a little from the major film's more questionable posturing, and MASSACRE has many excellencies. Most immediately pleasurable is the plot, mathematically simple, as Corman narrates the titular bloodbath like a theorem, showing A (Capone) meeting B (Moran) to create C (the massacre). QED. Nothing is allowed interfere with this beautiful simplicity - every scene, every character, every action refers to this theorem alone. Even scenes which seem to illustrate character (eg Peter Gusenberg and Myrtle) only do so to 'explain' why one side got the better of another.

This quality extends to the film as a whole, which is a series of repetitions and mirroring scenes. Another pleasure is the voiceover, which again transforms a conventional narrative about real people into abstract formalism. Like a voice of God, it intrudes without warning, frequently, mixing bald factual details about all the players (eg Such and such, born 1893 in such a place, suspected gun-runner, killer etc., will die on 3 May 1957 of heart failure) with speculation. Before any character has even begun their parts in the film, their life stories are known to us. This robs them of everything that makes us human - motivation, hope, action. Sartre said we are what we do. Not here. Robbed of human characteristics, they become mere ciphers, playing out their inevitable fates, and denying the viewer the kind of emotional empathy that Coppola will dubiously over-indulge in.

Despite the (relatively) high budget, production values do nothing to make the film more realistic. Indeed, the uniformity of colour (predominantly grey), the repetition of scenes and places, the reduction of sequences to sheer functionality, makes the film increasingly artificial. The theatricality of the acting adds to this, with Robards especially hamming away to amusingly grand effect, but theatricality is embedded too, as narratively crucial scenes become sites for rhetoric, oratory, dramatic performance, an actor declaiming to an enrapt public, hanging (for dear life) to his every word.

Add to all this Corman's stunning, playful direction, confident and fluid, making interiors and objects live, fixing characters in their place. The violent scenes are expertly choreographed, if they aren't disturbing, their formal excellence is undiminished. All this formalism is not an empty, academic exercise. By revealing the phoniness of his subject matter, Corman reveals the processes of myth-making that, especially through the cinema, curiously glamourised an era, when America was in thrall to a number of violent fascists.

Corman is not seriously moralistic, he is cheerfully aware of human nature's strange pulls - he shows how the need for violence and sensation in cinema is close to the fascistic, but also undeniable. It is a trap Coppola doesn't always avoid. The score, which makes ragtime eerily modernist, is astounding, while Corman reveals, as in TALES OF TERROR, that he has a canny sense of the domestic's comic violence - the Pete/Myrtle scene is a hilarious-troubling classic.

This is a very entertaining account of the famous rub-out in 1929 Chicago. Jason Robards is a decent Al Capone, and thankfully, doesn't try for an Italian accent. He also wields a mean baseball bat, thus having Capone's malice down but not his mass. Ralph Meeker plays Bugs Moran, leader of the rival Chicago gang. The cast is loaded with familiar faces and future stars, and it seems like somebody gets bumped off every ten minutes. Harold J. Stone plays Frank "The Enforcer" Nitti and almost, but not quite, convinces me he could be Italian. George Segal has a riotous brawling scene with Jean Hale after he finds out she spent three grand on a fur coat. Joan Shawlee has a bit as a "streetwalking entrepreneur," as we call it now. Jack Nicholson has one line, which he grunts out in a hoarse voice pre-Don Corleone. And you may even feel sorry for Bruce Dern in this film.

The movie was directed by Roger Corman, and features some of his stock players, including Dick Miller as one of the hit men. Paul Frees supplies the narration, giving this a semi-documentary feel. But he is no Walter Winchell. Definitely worth a look.

"The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre" is a very good gangster movie, released five years before the all-time great "The Godfather". It's pretty accurate in its chronology, according to the books and documentaries I've seen about the incident, only a couple of dramatic licenses taken. The film unfolds like a documentary, showing the dynamics of the rival gangs and their blood feud. Opening with the killers leaving the garage and then the neighbors discovery of the massacre, it proceeds to detail the buildup to the crime. The victims are introduced, along with the killers and planners. Lots of good actors are in this, veterans of both the big and little screen. Jason Robards has been slammed for his over-the-top portrayal of Al Capone, but everything I've seen about Scarface shows that he was over-the-top himself. George Segal is especially good as a Moran gang member, Peter Gusenberg. Ralph Meeker is a tough , barrel chested Bugs Moran. Both gangs are filled with familiar, competent actors. Jean Hale has a nicely done cameo as a classic "gun Moll", Myrtle, Pete's squeeze. Even Jack Nicholson shows up as a Tommy gunner! The climactic massacre is chillingly accurate using forensic evidence to show how the victims fell and their final positions. All-in-all, a really good movie and record of one of the most famous and shocking events in American criminal history. 8 of 10.

Taking a step back from the intellectual surmising involving Godfather, Goodfellas et al., I thought this was an enjoyable film, 'a live action cartoon' as it was put.

Yep, sure it was a tad formulaic with characters going about their predetermined business and the armchair historians knew the conclusion of the film before it happened. I accept this as valid criticism, but I would stress more that it is supposed to be a quasi-documentary, with the solemn narrator venting sparse mechanical facts about each character and their relevance to the bigger picture as they were introduced. The film itself wasn't trying (I felt) to make a big artistic or intellectual statement, just an enjoyable and disposable piece of cinema. I think that it would be worse if it had been trying top make a 'big point' but fell on its arse, which a number of mobster-related films are guilty of.

As an enjoyable 'get on and enjoy the ride' movie I think it succeeded very well. Having only a basic knowledge of prohibition gangsterland, I found it quite gripping and that the documentary style enhance my enjoyment of an otherwise complex background. The set was also very well done, though Capone was miscast.

I would recommend this to most, unless they are Godfather fans!

8/10