The In-Laws (12A.)
Directed by Arthur Hiller. 1979.
Starring Alan Arkin, Peter Falk, Richard Libertini, Nancy Dussault, James Hong, Ed Begley Jr and David Paymer. 103 mins. Released on Blu-ray from the Criterion Collection.
The In-Laws is a film that I have been waiting to see for over three decades – not desperately, just on the backburner, but one day I had to see. I'm not quite sure how it put its hook in me, but the image of it being reviewed, lukewarmly, on Nationwide when it was released and them showing the “serpentine” scene had stuck in my head: plus the fact that Brando was such a fan of the film, he agreed to send up his Godfather performance in The Freshman, directed by writer Andrew Bergman. It has that reputation as a film that if you get it, you really get it.
The story throws Manhattan dentist Sheldon (Arkin) together with unconventional CIA man Vince (Falk) in the days before their offspring get married, with Vince sucking Sheldon into his latest mission. As is usually the case with something you've been building up to seeing, the initial reaction is uncertainty. The scene where the two families first meet and over dinner Falk tells outrageous tales about his time in the jungle and the tsetse flies the size of eagles that would pick up kids and fly away with them, was distinctly underwhelming. It takes about half an hour for the film to get into gear -or more precisely it takes that time to work Arkin's Shelly into a manic state – but once it's going, it goes, and by the end its rolling around funny.
Though there are some memorable support roles, the film is all about the two leads. I think both Falk and Arkin are performers that you know what you're going to get, and performers that you don't need to see too often. But as long as there's a decent interval between seeing them, they are always a joy to watch and The In-Laws is an almost perfect vehicle for them. Falk does his passive aggressive thing, underplaying the danger and getting people to what he wants through flattery and smooth talk while Arkin is like a self boiling kettle, continually boiling up a head of steam that will erupt in all kind of strange directions.
They are two great performances but, despite the film being conceived simply as an opportunity for them to work together and everybody on the extras saying otherwise, I'm not sure they every really become a great team. Primarily this is because they don't look right together. It seems wrong for Arkin to be the taller person in a relationship – he's always the short one. Similarly you may instinctively feel that Arkin's mania needs someone stronger to bounce off, but you would be wrong.
The film was directed by Arthur (the director of “Love Story” according to every obituary) Hiller who died last week. It's a marvellously rich and yet scatty creation. It looks like an insipid Hollywood product but inside there is a tremendously loose, freewheeling mix of comedy, ranging from slapstick to dry and offbeat. I'll admit I was a bit slow on the uptake with this, that it wasn't until halfway through that I really got into it, and at the end I felt like I needed to watch it over again. It may be that this will become a recurring comedy friend, something like The Producers or Spinal Tap, a film that one needs to drop in on every two or three years to catch up.
Extras.
Two interviews filmed specially for this release.
The 25 minute chat with Arkin, covering his career leading up to it is really interesting (he claims that Bergman's original script for Blazing Saddles was fifty times funnier than the finished film.)
There is also a 35 minute piece interviewing various supporting performers: David Paymer, Ed Begley Jr, James Hong and Nancy Dussault.
The commentary comes from 2003 and features Hiller, Bergman and the two stars. It's very much of the “oh this is a good bit coming up, you were marvellous here” school of commentary, which is frustrating in scenes where you'd like a little more factual insight. So for example there's no explanation of “serpentine” or why they left in the scene where Arkin is running through a crowd in New York and momentarily a kid seems to run at him.
Directed by Arthur Hiller. 1979.
Starring Alan Arkin, Peter Falk, Richard Libertini, Nancy Dussault, James Hong, Ed Begley Jr and David Paymer. 103 mins. Released on Blu-ray from the Criterion Collection.
The In-Laws is a film that I have been waiting to see for over three decades – not desperately, just on the backburner, but one day I had to see. I'm not quite sure how it put its hook in me, but the image of it being reviewed, lukewarmly, on Nationwide when it was released and them showing the “serpentine” scene had stuck in my head: plus the fact that Brando was such a fan of the film, he agreed to send up his Godfather performance in The Freshman, directed by writer Andrew Bergman. It has that reputation as a film that if you get it, you really get it.
The story throws Manhattan dentist Sheldon (Arkin) together with unconventional CIA man Vince (Falk) in the days before their offspring get married, with Vince sucking Sheldon into his latest mission. As is usually the case with something you've been building up to seeing, the initial reaction is uncertainty. The scene where the two families first meet and over dinner Falk tells outrageous tales about his time in the jungle and the tsetse flies the size of eagles that would pick up kids and fly away with them, was distinctly underwhelming. It takes about half an hour for the film to get into gear -or more precisely it takes that time to work Arkin's Shelly into a manic state – but once it's going, it goes, and by the end its rolling around funny.
Though there are some memorable support roles, the film is all about the two leads. I think both Falk and Arkin are performers that you know what you're going to get, and performers that you don't need to see too often. But as long as there's a decent interval between seeing them, they are always a joy to watch and The In-Laws is an almost perfect vehicle for them. Falk does his passive aggressive thing, underplaying the danger and getting people to what he wants through flattery and smooth talk while Arkin is like a self boiling kettle, continually boiling up a head of steam that will erupt in all kind of strange directions.
They are two great performances but, despite the film being conceived simply as an opportunity for them to work together and everybody on the extras saying otherwise, I'm not sure they every really become a great team. Primarily this is because they don't look right together. It seems wrong for Arkin to be the taller person in a relationship – he's always the short one. Similarly you may instinctively feel that Arkin's mania needs someone stronger to bounce off, but you would be wrong.
The film was directed by Arthur (the director of “Love Story” according to every obituary) Hiller who died last week. It's a marvellously rich and yet scatty creation. It looks like an insipid Hollywood product but inside there is a tremendously loose, freewheeling mix of comedy, ranging from slapstick to dry and offbeat. I'll admit I was a bit slow on the uptake with this, that it wasn't until halfway through that I really got into it, and at the end I felt like I needed to watch it over again. It may be that this will become a recurring comedy friend, something like The Producers or Spinal Tap, a film that one needs to drop in on every two or three years to catch up.
Extras.
Two interviews filmed specially for this release.
The 25 minute chat with Arkin, covering his career leading up to it is really interesting (he claims that Bergman's original script for Blazing Saddles was fifty times funnier than the finished film.)
There is also a 35 minute piece interviewing various supporting performers: David Paymer, Ed Begley Jr, James Hong and Nancy Dussault.
The commentary comes from 2003 and features Hiller, Bergman and the two stars. It's very much of the “oh this is a good bit coming up, you were marvellous here” school of commentary, which is frustrating in scenes where you'd like a little more factual insight. So for example there's no explanation of “serpentine” or why they left in the scene where Arkin is running through a crowd in New York and momentarily a kid seems to run at him.
