MovieChat Forums > Play Misty for Me (1971) Discussion > is it just me or was this movie REALLY B...

is it just me or was this movie REALLY BADLY DIRECTED

posted 20 years ago by bendy11
91 replies | jump to latest

I like Clint Eastwood's later films, but I think Play Misty For Me might be one of the worst directed movies I've ever seen. I say that because it had a pretty well-written script and characters, and still managed not to be a good movie.
In horror movies, the director always has to cheat a bit, and make it look like it's harder to escape from a situation than it actually would be- ie cut really quickly, and only use closeups, so that you can't tell the character should have been able to see the knife coming and run from it. It's hard to explain, but watch any well-made horror movie (ie Psycho, and most De Palma films- no matter what you say about De Palma, he can direct convincing horror scenes) and you'll see what I mean.
In this movie, Clint Eastwood utterly fails at this in one crucial scene, which I won't mention in order to avoid spoiling it for anyone who hasn't seen it. All I'll say is that the scene is directed so badly, it almost looked like a parody.
If that were its only fault, it would still be a good movie. However, at this point in his career, Clint was highly amused by long shots of himself driving along a coastal highway. It didn't make a bad opening scene, but I really was not interested in seeing virtually the same sequence nearly every time Clint drives his car- especially in a movie where much, much more interesting things happen. Clint also pauses for twenty minutes or so near the end to show a slow love scene, and then a jazz concert. In these scenes, we see nothing of relevance to the characters- in the love scenes, we don't see the couple's faces, we see them posed in pastoral scenery and we see shots of their legs in the grass. In the jazz concert, we hardly see the characters at all. It seems as if Clint thought he was making a concert film for ten minutes.
If he wanted to make a film that was a mishmash of styles, he should have indicated it at the beginning. But, as it stands, we have a movie that abruptly turns into a soft-core easy listening music video, and then a concert film a good two thirds in, and then gets back to finishing the story it started earlier.
Oh yeah, and the cinematography is dark and dull. The Californian coast is beautiful, but you wouldn't know it from this movie. Maybe the old film is deteriorated? In any case, compare the cinematography in this film to many other movies, and you will probably agree with me that the colors in this movie are dull and pasty-looking. I saw a super-8 film of my family from 1971, and even that looked better than this.
It's a shame, because it's a good story, with believable characters. As a matter of fact, the script and the acting are so good in parts that they almost redeem it. But they don't. In a world where bad scripts can be made into fun movies with good direction (Dressed to Kill, to me, is a good example of that), it's a shame to see good stories ruined by bad direction.
Clint- if you by any chance should read this (though I doubt it)- don't take offense, I think you became a great director when you got older.

[–] joekiddlouischama 19 years ago

The song is a little sentimental, but thanks to Flack, it's quite stirring. Her voice is incredibly sonorous.

[–] todtomorow 16 years ago

i just heard Flack sing this and i was floored especially with the beautiful Cali coast in the background; an incredible sequence

[–] tanner3212001 19 years ago

First I must say I really enjoyed this movie.But I too found the jazz sequence painfully boring it look like some cheesy documentary.I know Clint is a big jazz fan but geeze We are in the middle of a movie.LOL I really thought the directing was awesome when dave and tobie are walking along the shore and the waves break and from the angle the scene is filmed looks like they are about to crash down on them.

[–] patbrien 19 years ago

The jazz sequence reminds me of the Hitchcock story, where he used the British Philamonic, turning a dramatic scene into tribute to them, rather than using them effectively for the scene. If it had been his first film, people would have said it was the mistake of an 'amateur'. He did it because he felt people with taste would appreciate it (and everyone else could go to hell!) Eastwood had Siegel on hand. He didn't make amateurish mistakes. As for excess and experimentaion, this was the early seventies. Take a look at other movies being made around the same time. I enjoyed this movie; and besides, it has 'The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face,' in it, by Ewan MacColl. 'Nuff said.

http://www.kirstymaccoll.com/

[–] tanner3212001 19 years ago

Easy Kristy I own this movie and like The first time every I saw your face.I remember the movies from the early 70`s there was some real stinkers released.I like jazz too Charlie Parker,George Benson,and on and on.I just did`nt care for the shooting of the jazz scene.The rest of the movie I enjoyed.

[–] Dracarys13 16 years ago

I just finished watching this movie, and I was thinking the same thing. I thought Clint's acting was much better than his directing- in this movie, anyway. The jazz sequence kind of got on my nerves a bit. I do like this movie, and his directing wasn't terrible; it was his first time directing, and he has definitely made progress since then! The jazz scene just seemed completely unnecessary to me. It was totally irrelevant to the plot. The scene (montage?) with Dave and Tobie was actually pretty well shot- it was just very long. There are a few parts where the movie lags a little, but you can see potential in Eastwood's directing nonetheless.

How many more lives? You want another life? Then take ME!
-Reverend Scott, The Poseidon Adventure

[–] JimmyL5555 19 years ago

**********POSSIBLE SPOILERS*********

It isn't too badly directed, but I'll say something which does ruin the tension and make it seem it's badly directed: toward the end when David tiptoes through the house looking for Evelyn. The music being played sounds very pop and light, unless they're trying to say the radio is playing, but if the radio is playing, let it sound like the radio instead of added music in the post-production. The light pop-styled music should be replaced with more tension-like shrills or heart thumping or something that would put us to the edge of our seats.

[–] WarpedRecord 18 years ago

I don't think this was badly directed, but it is awkward at times, especially when it comes to the action sequences. The romantic scene with "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" and the jazz concert should have been cut, because they really are out of sync with the rest of the film.

[–] Rupert_Pupkin1 18 years ago

I find it strange that so many users think this film had a good script but was BADLY directed. Quite the contrary; the film was elegantly, visually, and suspensefully directed and well paced, despite suffering from numerous cliches and tepid dialogue. I don't know how much Eastwood contributed to the script, but he did well with the material he worked with. Attempting to direct this rather cliched set-up like an expressionist horror director would have may have given the film less credibility and Eastwood less individualism. Eastwood was and still is a maverick and for that reason, when the parodic violence appears on screen, it does not feel like indulgent homage.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joekiddlouischama 18 years ago

Did Eastwood use story boards to set up each scene?

As a near-rule, Eastwood does not use storyboards because, in his words, he hates to be the prisoner of a diagram. (The second half of Firefox, with its heavy reliance on special effects, marked an exception; the same, perhaps, might have been true of Space Cowboys, the other film where Eastwood relies on special effects.) According to Eastwood, he has the images in his mind and knows what he's looking for, but he doesn't want the shots to be ironclad. He seeks to be flexible enough to make adjustments on the set as he sees fit, because the light can shift, an actor might have a hang-up about moving in a certain way, or some other unforeseen challenge might arise.

Anyway, I agree with Rupert that Eastwood realized the script as vividly as one might have hoped while thankfully avoiding horror-film pretentiousness. Also, the narrative setup probably seems cliched nowadays because others have ripped off Play Misty for Me so many times in the last 35 years. Indeed, when Fatal Attraction rocked the box-office in 1987, critics pointed back to Play Misty for Me and nowhere else.

[–] joekiddlouischama 18 years ago

I don't think this was badly directed, but it is awkward at times, especially when it comes to the action sequences. The romantic scene with "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" and the jazz concert should have been cut, because they really are out of sync with the rest of the film.

I think that they are in line with the film's rich emphasis on atmosphere and location, however, while also offering a sense of spatial and temporal balance to an otherwise harrowing narrative. About the romantic sequence filmed to the tune of Roberta Flack's song, Eastwood said that he went in that direction to avoid a scene with cheap "I love you"-style dialogue. Indeed, I'd rather have Eastwood's visually rich outdoors sequence than some lame setup with the following expository dialogue:

DAVE: "I've really learned my lesson. I love you so much, babe."

TOBIE: "That's what I've always been hoping to hear."

DAVE: "It's all coming together for us now."

Maybe that could have been effective, but I consider Eastwood's choice defensible for its emphasis on nature and the promise of life and regeneration offered by mating in the natural world (as opposed to f*%^ing in a dark bedroom, which is what Dave does with Evelyn). Plus, without that sequence, Roberta Flack might have never become a star. After Play Misty for Me hit theaters, Flack's song, which had been languishing, zoomed to the top of the charts. Years later, Flack would pay Eastwood back by recording "This Side of Forever" for the end credits of Sudden Impact (Eastwood, 1983).

As for the Monterey Jazz Festival sequence, I enjoy it for its phenomenological atmosphere, color, and emphasis on live music. After all, Dave is a disc jockey who deals in music: shouldn't a sequence like that be part of the film? It also provides a cathartic release for the viewer before the claustrophobic stalking and suspense begin anew.

As for the knife-attacks, I think that Eastwood stages them with aplomb and repulsive impact. Sure, they don't measure up to Psycho's attacks, but what does?

Overall, I feel that Eastwood's direction is quite assured for a first-time director. At the same time, his style became much more forceful and confident in his second directorial film, High Plains Drifter (1973), which marks an early tour-de-force for Eastwood.

[–] Rupert_Pupkin1 18 years ago

As for the Monterey Jazz Festival sequence, I enjoy it for its phenomenological atmosphere, color, and emphasis on live music. After all, Dave is a disc jockey who deals in music: shouldn't a sequence like that be part of the film? It also provides a cathartic release for the viewer before the claustrophobic stalking and suspense begin anew.

But is it really cathartic, or does it serve to suspend the real catharsis at the end, which according to Aristotle must always culminate in resolution? If Eastwood's intention was the place the scene so near to the end for cathartic reasons, then he made a miscalculation, because it cannot and doesn't function that way. It is a rather gratuitous sequence when placed at that point in the film, as we already know that David is a disc jockey and really don't need reminding. It's an easy scene to carp about, but i do agree that it was elaborate and atmospheric.

As for the knife-attacks, I think that Eastwood stages them with aplomb and repulsive impact. Sure, they don't measure up to Psycho's attacks, but what does?

And they don't try to either. Eastwood avoids elaborate set-ups and fluid montage editing. The attacks are "live" and end very quickly. There's no time to appreciate them artistically.

[–] joekiddlouischama 18 years ago

But is it really cathartic, or does it serve to suspend the real catharsis at the end, which according to Aristotle must always culminate in resolution? If Eastwood's intention was the place the scene so near to the end for cathartic reasons, then he made a miscalculation, because it cannot and doesn't function that way. It is a rather gratuitous sequence when placed at that point in the film, as we already know that David is a disc jockey and really don't need reminding. It's an easy scene to carp about, but i do agree that it was elaborate and atmospheric.

You raise a compelling artistic and philosophic point, one that bares reflection. Thinking more about it, it strikes me that what's really cathartic may be the music in that sequence's final nighttime scene, rather than the overall sequence itself. The coolly funky mellow groove created by saxophonist Cannonball Adderley's group is dreamily enveloping and constitutes a cathartic sound in and of itself. But overall, I'm realizing that the sequence serves to suspend catharsis rather than achieve it, and actually, that Adderley tune creates a suspended state in the listener/viewer, as if one could just listen to that music forever and drift away. I think that Eastwood's overall purpose with this sequence is to essentially suspend the drama and entrance the viewer while innocuously slipping a crucial plot detail into place (the revelation that Tobie has a new roommate, "Annabelle"). More broadly, Eastwood probably wanted the sequence to further his sense of location, atmosphere, and diegetic music, all of which serve as aesthetic pillars of the film.

In Directed by Clint Eastwood (1996), Laurence Knapp argues that the Monterey Jazz Festival sequence was crucial in Eastwood's directorial career, for it pointed the way towards a cinema of phenomenology that Eastwood would fully realize in A Perfect World (1993) and The Bridges of Madison County (1995). Significantly, several scenes in The Eiger Sanction (Eastwood, 1975) work rather akin to the concert footage, as an espionage thriller almost seems to become a visually stunning documentary about mountain climbing. While Knapp admires the Monterey Jazz Festival footage in Play Misty for Me, he criticizes the reliance on outdoor location footage in The Eiger Sanction, suggesting that while visually beautiful, it detracts from the actual suspense narrative and overwhelms the characters and story. However, without those sequences, The Eiger Sanction (which suffers from a disjointed, tenuous narrative) would doubtlessly be less distinctive and memorable as a film. Ultimately, then, it seems to me that the Monterey Jazz Festival sequence in Play Misty for Me and the climbing footage in The Eiger Sanction can be read as both flaws and assets. On the one hand, Eastwood’s apparent desire for a kind of "pure cinema" beyond narrative reduces the priorities of story and character and hardly serves to further those aspects. On the other hand, these sequences are so vivid, atmospheric, and phenomenological that their sheer beauty, color, ambience, and naturalism become cinematic jewels. I suppose that later in his career, in films such as Unforgiven (1992), A Perfect World, and The Bridges of Madison County (and maybe even The Outlaw Josey Wales in 1976 and Honkytonk Man in 1982), Eastwood would more effectively and seamlessly blend narrative with phenomenology. In Josey Wales, for instance, I'm thinking of some of the scenes later in the film at the Crooked River Ranch, where atmosphere appears to take over and yet still organically furthers the narrative, rather than clashing with or suspending it. The film’s coda at sunrise is also highly atmospheric (although a little more stylized), but it never loses sight of the story and characters.

And they don't try to either. Eastwood avoids elaborate set-ups and fluid montage editing. The attacks are "live" and end very quickly. There's no time to appreciate them artistically.

You're absolutely correct. Whereas Hitchcock's aim is formal staging with striking symbolic resonance (mainly with regards to voyeurism), Eastwood opts for raw visceral impact. Hitchcock is concerned with the "third person," otherwise known as the voyeur; Eastwood is interested in the spontaneous energy of the frenzied attacks in and of themselves.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joekiddlouischama 18 years ago

You must work for Eastwood because he is not the worlds greatest director.

I never said that he was, although an argument can be made that he's doing the best work of anyone right now. Regardless, his direction can certainly be discussed seriously.

Million Dollar Baby was just sick. You are kidding, High Plains Grifter.

A) Million Dollar Baby won Best Picture and Best Director at the 2004 Oscars. It seems as if many people thought highly of it.

B) Many people think highly of High Plains Drifter, too. See the following posts:

http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000030/thread/48124512?d=48228882#48228882

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001466/board/thread/11517859?d=latest&t=20060707232429#latest

And here's what author Bruce Jay Friedman wrote in a September 1976 Esquire article titled, "Some Thoughts on Clint Eastwood and Heidegger":

Let Eastwood keep on refining mythic, although how on God's earth he's going to refine what he did in High Plains Drifter is a question I'd rather not have to answer. ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068699/board/thread/34074202?d=46407693#46407693

But wendi, what can I say to someone who considers Unforgiven "awful"? You seem to be a hater.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Bondfu 18 years ago

trust me it's just you

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joekiddlouischama 18 years ago

if i were to have any complaint........it would be that eastwood followed those hitchock movies too closely when directing scenes like when evelyn comes at dave with the knife. it's still effective and creepy, but perhaps a bit unoriginal.

Eastwood does separate himself from Hitchcock in some respects. For example, as opposed to formal staging with crisp montage, Eastwood springs the attacks with seeming spontaneity and subjective, frenetic camerawork for a more "realistic" visceral effect. Also, Eastwood, in contrast to Hitchcock, shows a heavy amount of blood, although that may partly be due to the difference in eras.

eastwood's "sudden impact." also, found it interesting eastwood uses portraits in both these movies as well, representing a feeling towards a certain character in the movie.

That's an observant connection.

[–] brownjackie 18 years ago

It's just you. Although this "thriller" never really thrills you, it has so many other fine qualities.

[–] tweedly 18 years ago

the scenes you're referring to are amazing and beautiful. i respectfully disagree and think eastwood showed truly original directing chops with those scenes inclusions.

[–] Kent_The_Movie_Guy 18 years ago

i'd agree with you, except it's Poorly directed. Badly would indicate that the device that allows you to direct was broken. MORON

[–] ecarle 18 years ago

SPOILERS

I remember it well. The fall and Christmas season of 1971. Clint Eastwood went and recreated himself as a film director and a modern-day superstar and got a whole bunch of new fans, including me.

The fall movie was "Play Misty for Me," which established Clint as a director of some talent. The Christmas movie was "Dirty Harry," which was a hit that felt as big as "Star Wars" at the time and made Clint a "superstar."

Clint had been a star at various levels for about a decade before 1971, with at least three incarnations: TV star ("Rawhide"), Spaghetti Western star ("A Fistful of Dollars") American movie star in big productions ("Where Eagles Dare," "Paint Your Wagon," "Kelly's Heroes.")

But "Play Misty for Me" established the Clint Eastwood Template to last forever more: cheaply made, sexy/violent, tight little movies, directed by Clint, starring Clint (their major asset, every time). "Play Misty for Me" also allowed Clint to break free from his "period typecasting" in Westerns and WWII films. He looks a little silly today in "Misty," but here's 1971 Clint with long, fluffy hair, flowered shirts, bellbottoms: a modern man of his day.

In addition, "Misty" allowed Clint to show off his gorgeous "home town" of Carmel, California, on the northern California coast. For years thereafter, we'd read of Clint's bucolic home life in that city, away from the smog of Hollywood, and he actually became Mayor of the town in the 80's. "Play Misty for Me" is Clint Eastwood's ode to his home, and now everybody knows where he lives.

Thanks to the next movie, "Dirty Harry," Clint Eastwood would embark on a career of "Play Misty"-like movies, made totally under his control.

Time changes things. When I first saw "Misty" as a young person, it seemed a very taut and thrilling thriller, indeed. It was given a Halloween Night sneak preview, and was promoted as a horror movie.

All these years later, "Misty" looks a bit weaker than on its first release.

The script is good in its dialogue, but Jessica Walter's psycho reveals her nuttiness too early, too often, and too "wackily" for Clint to seem so believable in trying to reason with her. The movie pointedly avoids having Clint look into this woman's life and past AT ALL: where does she live? does she work? where is her parental family? Most importantly: what kind of mental health history does she have? Evelyn is simply too crazed from the outset to be treated so "normally" by Dave, and that now stands as the film's central narrative flaw. The script also tends to "plant plot points" too heavily along the way,as Clint makes sure we understand about the isolation of his girlfriend's home, her various roommates, etc.

For what was his first time out, Clint's direction is fairly professional and assured, but "first timer weaknesses" are prevelant. His biggest problem is not being willing to cut his film down. A love sequence cut to "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face" is allowed to go on and on to MATCH THE SONG'S RUNNING TIME, which is what student filmmakers sometimes do. It's too long.
That is followed by a long "documentary" sequence of the 1970 Monterey Jazz festival that is nice and all, but way too long as well. (Yes, the "Annabel" plot point is planted, but Clint is really interested in showing all his footage of the show.) Thus does "Play Misty for Me" lose shape and form as a narrative, and thus is "Young Clint Eastwood" revealed as an unsure novice at the directorial trade.

Clint is wonderfully in control of his suspenseful climax, btw. I love how the pleasant, sexy jazz instrumental is playing in his studio as he reads the "Annabel" poem (the bright-lit close-up on this passage is most Hitchcockian in its look) and realizes his girlfriend is in mortal danger. The counterpoint of the sleepy jazz music and Clint's sudden panic is very nice. Clint races off to try to save the day. And we almost forgot: there's a friendly police detective on his way over to check in on the girlfriend...

Passing note about a "Psycho" connection: I'm surprised more people haven't noticed Clint's ode to "Psycho": the killing of the police detective played by amiable and wry John Larch (who would appear next as a police CHIEF in "Dirty Harry.") The scene is staged to mimic the killing of the private eye Arbogast on the stairs, though in this case, Clint didn't have the time or budget to stage something as grandiose as Hitchcock's great staircase murder scene. It suffices that Larch gets a "shock reaction close-up" (wide-eyed, open-mouthed) after being stabbed with scissors that matches that of Martin Balsam getting killed in Hitchcock's film.

"Play Misty for Me" was the exciting prelude to "Dirty Harry" in 1971 (and both films followed "The Beguiled" in this prolific year for Clint). In some ways, maybe you had to be there, when shockers weren't so prevalent and Eastwood was coming into his own as a young superstar. This was a one-two punch that took Clint straight to the top of his profession. We noticed.

But "Misty" does look a bit green now, a bit unpolished and clumsy, the competant but minor first work of a director who would need a decade or two to become truly great at his craft.

P.S. For me, the truly painful scene in the movie is always the one where Dave is doing the job interview with the matronly woman at the Monterey pier and Evelyn shows up and tears into the woman as some sort of "senior citizen whore." You can FEEL Dave's humiliation and rage in this extremely embarrassing scene.

[–] thebrain_nz 18 years ago

I remember seeing this movie quite young, being allowed to stay up late on saturday night and having the beejeebuz scared outta me. I saw it recently on dvd and enjoyed it thoroughly. Sure, it may have dated a little, and perhaps seemed (in retrospect) a little self indulgent and adolescent - but this was the precursor to the modern bunny boiler thriller: Fatal Attraction et all, which basically ripped it off and remade it it with bigger dollars, more writers and more time.

I think it still holds up as a great period piece for the early 70's, with great scenery and a feel that you just don't get with todays movies - which cater to the rapid frenetic attention spans of todays audience/ marketing.
I'm a huge C.E. fan and although this movie isn't exactly 'Unforgiven' it clearly documents an immense talent on the rise.

PS Dirty Harry also invented the tough cop movie formula - still in use today - all modern westerns, thrillers and tough cop movies still copy from the man!

[–] lillerotta 18 years ago

IT`S JUST YOU!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] billyed 17 years ago

Re: is it just me or was this movie REALLY BADLY DIRECTED

..IT'S JUST YOU!!!..This isn't a horror film...it's a thriller! Get over it!!

"If you can make a girl laugh, you can make her do anything!"....