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.

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.

It took me a while before I really appreciated this film. Despite its flaws, this is probably the most serious, accurate, and restrained treatment on the subject you're ever going to get without watching a straight-out documentary. What you have is sort of a "docudrama" on the infamous St. Valentine's Massacre, and the events leading up to it.

Not that the film ST. VALENTINE'S DAY MASSACRE takes itself too seriously. It doesn't, but all of the over-the-top acting merely enhances the product. There are still some inaccuracies but the story adheres so closely to the actual facts that these discrepancies are easily forgiven. The violence shown might have been considered sensational in 1967, and this was most probably the intent, but it's pretty tame by today's standards. And if it falls short of being a great film, it's a near miss rather than one by a mile.

In this dramatization of the final showdown between the South Side and North Side gangs for control of Chicago's underworld in 1929, Jason Robards takes center stage as Al Capone. He might have been much older and looked nothing like the real Capone but then so what. As they say, you want an interpretation and not an impersonation. His histrionic performance, with all of its eye-rolling and exaggeration, strikes just the right note and does its part to help keep things moving throughout. This was an actor who knew what he was doing, and exactly how he should play it in this instance.

But it takes a while for Capone to show up, finally seen casually arriving in a limousine on his way to a board meeting with his underlings. The first hood to show up on screen is played (some could say overplayed) by George Segal as Pete Gusenberg, a member of the rival gang, who proceeds to intimidate a bar-owner. Actually, Segal gives a rather convincing performance as a very smug, arrogant thug who enjoys pushing people around, and acting like he's one bad dude, with guns and a gang to back him up.

A very effective technique employed throughout the film, provided by narrator Paul Frees, is the frequent voiceover commentary on various characters. Information is given, such as that the individual was born on this or that date, at whatever place, something about his background, and his place in the particular gang, etc. (often including his time of death as well). Not only does this provide an easily-understood guide for who's who, but it helps to get the viewer involved with these characters however unsympathetic or unsavory they might be.

In brief but well-played roles, on the Capone side, there's Paul Richards as Charlie Fischetti, Joseph Turkel as Jake Guzik, and Harold Stone as Frank Nitti, with a more conspicuous role played by Clint Richie as Jack McGurn, who gets put in charge of organizing the title massacre. That particularly bloody episode was designed to rid Capone of his archenemy and chief rival, George "Bugs" Moran, capably played by tough-talking Ralph Meeker. Moran was the head of the North Side gang, and in flashback scenes we're shown what befell Moran's two predecessors, Dion O'Bannion (played by John Agar) and Hymie Weiss (played by Reed Hadley).

The rest of the cast is made up of many fine actors, some familiar and others less so. Among the unlucky seven who have an appointment up against a certain garage wall, besides Segal's Pete Gusenberg, included are David Canary as Pete's brother Frank, Kurt Krueger as Moran's top lieutenant, Milton Frome as the gang's accountant, Joseph Campanella as a low-level employee, Bruce Dern as a mechanic, and Mickey Deems as a hanger-on. Not to be overlooked is the always excellent Frank Silvera as Nick Sorello, a not completely innocent pawn used in trying to set up Moran.

Almost every actor with a speaking role gets at least one good scene and a chance to shine, from the major actors right on down to several of the minor supporting players. An attempt is made to show some of the camaraderie and interaction among the members of each gang. The careful planning of the "hit" is laid out, including an amusing scene where two gunmen, posing as musicians, are renting a room from a wary landlady.

Such details add to the plot and the characterizations, with keen attention being paid to recreating a 1920s atmosphere, and don't forget all of the various gunplay and assorted mayhem along the way, leading up to the fateful massacre. They even throw in a completely superfluous fight between Gusenberg (Segal) and his girlfriend over a fur coat. Since it's only a brief rest from the action, and we get to rest our eyes on Jean Hale, then what's the harm. Enjoy this trip back in time to gangland Chicago.

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.

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