The term "hidden gem" is usually reserved for films that were unappreciated because they were unknown – small, low-budget films, made by filmmakers who never became popular or by film industries that don't have a reputation for winning festival awards. However, one of the more blatant cases of a "hidden gem" is a film that doesn't meet all those criteria. There Was a Crooked Man... was a 1970 big-budget production by a respected Hollywood studio, featuring big names and directed by a respected director. More than a quarter of a century later, this film is ignored and almost forgotten. I was very surprised by that because There Was a Crooked Man… happened to be a film that had left a big impression on me when I saw it for the first time. I had to wait almost a decade to see this Western comedy for the second time, but the long wait really paid off. After that viewing, I began to appreciate it even more and wonder why other filmophiles ignore it.
The protagonist of this film is Paris Pittman Jr. (played by Kirk Douglas), a bandit endowed with intelligence and charm. However, those qualities can't save him from bad luck; he is caught and sentenced to ten years in prison for his latest robbery. Conditions in the prison, placed in the middle of the desert, are hard, but Pittman could endure those years simply by thinking about the half a million dollars of loot that he had stashed outside. Pittman's days in prison get even easier when word of his fortune spreads among the inmates and even some guards; everybody starts doing him favours, expecting a share of the loot in exchange. That provides opportunities for a jailbreak, in which Pittman could expect cooperation from his picturesque cellmates. However, Pittman's plans are temporarily halted by the appearance of Woodward Lopeman (played by Henry Fonda), a new idealistic and incorruptible warden who is more interested in improving prison conditions and penal reform than in Pittman's bribe.
The script for There Was a Crooked Man..., written by Robert Benton and David Newman, is a surprisingly good piece of work. The plot is relatively simple, but it is laced with interesting subplots and even more interesting supporting characters. Each of those characters has an interesting story and those stories are often funny and very entertaining. But the most important element of the film is the acting talent, and this film had a place for two giants. Kirk Douglas and Henry Fonda have a more than interesting interaction as two completely opposite characters. Douglas is splendid as a totally immoral but intelligent and charming villain. Fonda, on the other hand, uses a minimalist approach in the more serious role of an idealist good guy. However, that seriousness and good old American values, in the context of this film, provide a comical effect. The dynamic duo of Douglas and Fonda is accompanied by a small army of excellent character actors in equally impressive supporting roles. Burgess Meredith is great as the oldest, most experienced inmate, Warren Oates is good as a strong but naive bandit, but nothing can top the comic relief provided by Hume Cronyn and John Randolph as a pair of two old, presumably gay, swindlers. Michael Blodgett is somewhat overshadowed by them in his role as a young man sentenced to death. The great script and many great actors provided good material for Joseph L. Mankiewicz to make a truly great film. Mankiewicz did it for the most part; on the other hand, some scenes are too repetitive or unnecessary, making this film longer than it should have been.
The reason why this film failed to become an instant classic lies in the worldview it showed. That worldview uses an uncompromising and extremely cynical portrayal of the Old West in order to portray humans as greedy, lustful and entirely amoral creatures, and all those who think that there are some higher ideals in life, like Lopeman, are portrayed as idiots. Critics at the time would probably appreciate a film that was brave enough to show a film that undermines the old American values by showing their dark side (the film also shows racism towards blacks and Chinese in a few scenes). On the other hand, this film actually fails to bring any alternative – There Was a Crooked Man... lacks any positive role models, and in their absence viewers are left with the impression that human beings are simply rotten and that there is nothing that can be done about it. Such nihilism was something that the highly idealistic audience of the late 1960s couldn't swallow. Feminists would also be infuriated by the way women are portrayed – as nothing more than whores and amoral sex addicts. Even the implied gang rape is seen as something quite funny. On the other hand, perhaps the audience that had grown up on Tarantino would find a way to really appreciate this film.
RATING: 8/10 (+++)
(Note: The text in its original form was posted in Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.movies.reviews on November 26th 1999)
==Blog in Croatian https://draxblog.com Blog in English https://draxreview.wordpress.com/ Cent profile https://beta.cent.co/@drax Minds profile https://www.minds.com/drax_rp_nc
Brave browser: https://brave.com/dra011
BTC donations: 1EWxiMiP6iiG9rger3NuUSd6HByaxQWafG ETH donations: 0xB305F144323b99e6f8b1d66f5D7DE78B498C32A7
Movie URL: https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/27172-there-was-a-crooked-man Critic: AAA
