Written & Edited By: Lee Fenton
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three
A subway train is taken hostage by a team of criminals sporting automatic weapons. They demand a hefty sum of 1 million dollars US or they will start executing passengers – one every minute. Walter Matheau stars as a Transit Detective named Zachary who ends up with the unlucky job of negotiating with the hostage takers. Robert Shaw is the lead bad-guy, “Blue” an ex-mercenary who leads his team with deadly poise. Martin Balsam stars as a disenfranchised transit worker, the accomplice – and inside man.
This film was heralded as an accomplishment in scale and for its visual characterization of New York, nominated for 2 Bafta Awards in 1974 (one for Best Supporting Actor – Martin Balsam, the other – Anthony Asquith BAFTA for Film Music.)
But I’m going to be blatantly honest…
‘The Taking of Pelham One Two Three’ just didn’t do it for me.
Keep in mind that I am a rabid Walter Matheau fan, and I truly adore his performances in ‘Grumpy Old Men’ and ‘Dennis the Menace’, both are films I’ve viewed too many times in my childhood. I find his sardonic, yet approachable candor to be rather entrancing on-screen. He has this ability to disarm the audience and to contrast the action around him with his downplayed performance. Obviously I am more used to him filling a role that’s comedy driven – but his ability to act in a drama/thriller isn’t the problem – no, I believe the failings of this film (for me, anyways) come down to tonal clashes, botched editing, and a serious pacing issue.
There are also some strange filmmaking decisions when it comes to the main antagonist(s) of the show. (All the hostage taker’s look interchangeable because of their getups. Bad visual storytelling.)
However, I really enjoyed some of the elements contained therein, and I think my review will end up being somewhere between Roger Ebert’s and Pauline Kale of The New Yorker.
Here’s a quote from Ebert about the piece:
“What’s good about “Pelham’s” example of the form is that the performances are allowed enough leeway so that we care about the people[,] not the plot mechanics. And what could have been formula trash turns out to be fairly classy trash, after all. (sic)”
Indeed the director himself, Joseph Sargent said, “It was one of the most stressful experiences I’ve ever had to go through. I was surprised so many people would come up to me and say, ‘how much they enjoyed the movie’.” – Video interview from EMMYTVLEGENDS.ORG
The production was a bit of a mess due to safety concerns around filming in an underground transit tunnel. Subway rail systems are a dangerous location, and the production had to contend with wearing respirators and avoiding electrified rail. These conditions, along with 14 to 16 hour days spent in the gloom of a subterranean space caused the crew and actors to despair. If you watch the interview, Sargent makes it sound like a truly trying ordeal.
I’m going to guess that this contributed to the general lack of cohesion that movie suffers from. Esteemed critic Pauline Kale called it “An editing nightmare” in her review in The New Yorker OCT.28th 1974 issue. I don’t feel that strongly about the edit, but I can see why she felt that way. It’s rather jarring the way the scenes are thrown together, haphazardly. The performances don’t have the time to settle into your consciousness before you’re assaulted by the next sequence of shots. The sound mixing seems to be an attempt at heightening this feeling with its bombastic sound effects — perhaps meant to evoke the feelings of the captive passengers?
With that consideration, it might be a smart choice just lost on me, yet I feel like inducing displeasure in the viewer is rarely a smart decision.
The humour was rather dry, which — at times I enjoy, yet most of the jokes did not “hit” for me. I wish they did, but in the end I’m going to have to give ‘The Taking of Pelham One Two Three’ a rather sub-par rating.
4.5/10
A New York hot-dog fresh off the grill. Only problem is you dropped it.
‘Three second rule’, I suppose.
