MovieChat Forums > Bullitt (1968) Discussion > Is Chalmers really necessary in the movi...

Is Chalmers really necessary in the movie? He's not the bad guy, but why is he the bad guy?

posted 5 years ago by jasonbourne (1027)
56 replies | jump to latest

I think Robert Vaughn did a fine job in the movie playing the authoritarian Federal figure which the local cops and brass thought had "a lot of juice" However, he is primarily the set up guy in the plot. The plot is a bit confusing because we do not know how the hit men, presumably from the organization, know where Ross is staying. They even used his name to get the room.

After that, he seems to just be the guy who holds Bullitt responsible for what happened. Sure, there are going to be tensions between Bullitt and Chalmers, but why does it become to the level of Bullitt saying he doesn't like Chalmers?

I understand that Chalmers will fold up the case and Bullitt and the SFPD look bad, but Chalmers has to have some questions about what happened since they knew where Ross/Rennick was stashed.

It appears the movie makes him out to be more of a villain than the bad guys. To Chalmers, getting his witness, who is in grave danger, to testify against the mob is his main goal. I doubt he wants to just blame Bullitt and the SFPD for what happened and walk away. Would that make much sense? What Bullitt ends up saying to him and doing shows his distrust and yet Bullitt ends up putting a lot more on the line in getting himself more time to solve the case. He should not be held responsible as much as he think he is or would he?

Anyway, I don't think Bullitt handled everything the right way even though he did solve the case. He took a big chance in order to get more time to solve the case, but then forgets about what the importance of Ross testifying meant to Chalmers, his department, and himself, and leaves to Chalmers fold up the case when Bullitt makes him fold up the case.

It makes for an unsatisfactory ending as no one really gets what they want. Bullitt was cool and all that, but what was the point?

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

The best way I have of answering your question is with the same one I gave four years ago on the "Is Chalmers an unnecessary character" thread:

"The true villains - the hitmen (Mike, the shooter; Phil, the driver) - are figures rather than characters, remaining largely silent and basically anonymous. The dramatic purpose Chalmers serves is that of antagonist to Bullitt's protagonist.

Without Chalmers' presence, we'd be left with a rather dry investigative procedural generating little dramatic conflict or emotion. Because the Senate Subcommittee hearing is a political function and Chalmers an ambitious type hoping to use it as a springboard to elective office, it makes dramatic sense to involve politics, both within and outside the police department, as a central element of conflict, a part of which entails the divergent motivations of both Bullitt and Chalmers. As you suggest, each is concerned only with his personal priority: Chalmers, the hearing and his witness; Bullitt, apprehending the killers.

Bullitt's run-ins with Chalmers, occasioned by his single-minded focus on his own job and refusal to sell out for career advancement, reveal aspects of his character that would otherwise have remained obscure. And that his most frequent episodes of conflict occur with one who is supposed to be on his side, rather than with the "outlaws," makes for a richer and more complexly-layered story."

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

Some additional thoughts on your further questions:

"The plot is a bit confusing because we do not know how the hit men, presumably from the organization, know where Ross is staying. They even used his name to get the room."

The plot is actually simplicity itself, and Bullitt sums it up in two sentences: "Ross took close to two million dollars from the Organization, and he set Renick up to get the heat off of him. Then he killed Renick's wife to shut her up."

Here are two key things we see happening: Pete Ross helps his brother John escape from Chicago; Renick, posing as Ross, phones Chalmers after arriving in San Francisco. It's at this time he gets the instructions to go to the Daniels Hotel.

We later learn from Bullitt that he next phoned his wife at the Thunderbolt Hotel in San Mateo where she's hiding out, and we can assume he told her where he'd be. Remember: the Renicks are working for - and getting paid by - the Ross brothers, and we can further assume that Mrs. Renick then reported her husband's whereabouts to either John or Pete, who then see that the info gets to the hitmen (and that's also how they knew to use Chalmers's name).

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"It makes for an unsatisfactory ending as no one really gets what they want. Bullitt was cool and all that, but what was the point?"

It's satisfactory insofar as Chalmers, the guy we're supposed to boo and hiss throughout the film, getting screwed, and Bullitt getting the killers of Renick and his wife. But the underlying point and message is Bullitt's coming to an understanding of Cathy's warning about what his job is doing to him: "You're living in a sewer, Frank. With you, living with violence is a way of life; living with violence and death. How can you be part of it without becoming more and more callous?"

This is what overtakes him as he closes in on Ross, eventually killing him, at the airport: he's so narrowly focused on only getting the bad guy, even to the point of hiding from Delgetti and airport security as he stalks Ross, that all other considerations - the Senate hearing, bringing Ross to trial - are forgotten.

This is what the final scene when he arrives home is about. The peacefully sleeping Cathy reminds him (and viewers) of what she said, and this is what he's thinking about as he stares into his bathroom mirror. And the closing shot of his holstered gun on the railing visually drives the point home.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

It's not the anti-hero 60s anymore. That's why I didn't think Chalmers as the authoritarian bad guy. Maybe he was snooty, but that doesn't make him a bad guy haha. For whatever reason, free-wheeling Bullitt didn't like him. If Renick/Ross wasn't killed, then we could have had a Bullitt 2. They had a French Connection 2 with Popeye Doyle.

I didn't think Bullitt had to kill Renick at the airport even though he was a threat. I agree he was dangerous. Bullitt put him down with the first shot and he was going down. Renick could have cooperated with Chalmers and testified in order to avoid the death penalty.

Thank you for coming back to answer my questions. I think I read a post on this elsewhere and got the idea for this post. Was it yours?

ETA: "But the underlying point and message is Bullitt's coming to an understanding of Cathy's warning about what his job is doing to him: "You're living in a sewer, Frank. With you, living with violence is a way of life; living with violence and death. How can you be part of it without becoming more and more callous?"

I wanted to see more of their relationship. The way the movie ended, their relationship may not last. Bullitt isn't going to quit and take an office job somewhere. That's a major problem for her if she is to become his wife.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

You're quite right: Chalmers isn't the authoritarian bad guy. He's an opportunistic, grandstanding political snake, and is a character designed to be hated.

This is what Bullitt reacts to, and is the reason he doesn't like Chalmers, who hints at rewarding those who help him, and crushing those who get in his way. On their very first meeting, he tells Bullitt, "You know, a Senate Subcommittee hearing has a way of catapulting everyone involved into the public eye...with subsequent effect on one's career." He tells Bennett when he wants him to order Bullitt to reveal his witness's whereabouts that, "There's no reason why a man with your potential shouldn't move right up...given the right support." He's still at it in their final scene at the airport, telling Bullitt, "Several murders could do us both a great deal of good. We both know how careers are made."

But when he thinks Bullitt is crossing him up, he makes no secret of his intention to go for the jugular: "Lieutenant, I shall personally officiate at your public crucifixion if Ross doesn't recover during the course of the hearing." And when Bullitt refuses to tell him where he's keeping the witness, Chalmers tells Capt. Baker, "Alright, nail him. I want him written off."

And if all this wasn't enough, the film makes sure we despise him by hinting at his racism when he wants Dr. Willard replaced.

I agree with you about the unnecessary killing of Ross, and this ties in to the point Cathy made about fearing for Bullitt's loss of humanity. Delgetti's alarmed expression at seeing Ross's corpse confirms it; it's an expression that pretty much says, "What the fuck have you done?"

I wish I knew what post(s) it was you read, but I do recall the discussion with several others back on the old board (now archived here, happily).

But it's fun to revisit the topic. I love this film and never tire of discussing it.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

Further thoughts on your ETA:

The future of their relationship and conflicting values would definitely be an issue. The character of Cathy exists not only to articulate a moral dilemma, but also to humanize Frank. In the Coffee Cantata scene, we hear no dialogue, but we see Frank out with friends, being a fun guy. This and other scenes with Cathy humanize him by showing him in contexts other than just work.

I'll add that Frank's arrival back at his apartment gives a brief and humorous hint at where their relationship might go: Cathy's Porsche is parked right next to a fire hydrant, suggesting that she has a streak of the rule-breaking rebel in her as well.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

We must've watched different movies.

Usually, what I've seen is the rogue cop is the bad guy. I mean they're the ones who are racist and bend the law to favor themselves or to make their job easier. They may be on the take. It's not just the criminals who break the law.

Chalmers is making a grandstand play and may be shooting for political office is what I got. Any time you bring a big head of the crime syndicate down, then it is big news. Even Bullitt's own men were telling him that he's got a lotta juice. It means you do this assignment well, and then people get promotions and raises. So, to me, bringing Ross in to testify is the main point despite what differences Bullitt and Chalmers have. It's okay that Bullitt doesn't like Chalmers, but his interest should be getting the job done and that's having Ross testify. I think we see that in his character.

This is where the movie got confusing because we have Renick as Ross in some seedy motel where he's a great target from the freeway. Next, the hit men know the room and do not make certain to finish him off. They had plenty of time. I can see them leaving the cop alone once he's out of the way.

But that would be the end of the movie, so we have the hospital scenes. I get Bullitt caring for his own man, but he should be confused as to what happened just as well. The same with Chalmers, especially Chalmers. He's got the most at stake. Thus, you would think they work together to figure out what happened. Instead, we get Bullitt breaking protocol and move a dead man's body to the morgue and keeping him alive. I didn't get why Chalmers would fold up the case if he knew Ross was dead. That was confusing, too.

Anyway, Bullitt breaks the case when he finds the real Ross through Mrs. Renick. That part was clear. He even has the Captain know, so it must've gone back to Chalmers. At this point, it doesn't matter if Renick is dead. The rest of the movie is pure Steve McQueen. (continued)

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

And it was awesome except for the VW complaints about continuity. I thought the same thing. Anyway, we have the buildup to a grand finale and then the Bullitt kills Ross or the real one, and we see Chalmers driving away with nothing. That doesn't make any sense to me. We had all this great build up, mystery, and drama and nobody gets what they wanted. The final part of Bullitt looking in the mirror seemed like Bullitt was thinking about where their relationship was going to go and about his own job. It's stupid to deal what he has to deal with, realize that Cathy is right about some of the parts of his job, but then think I did my job and I'm the hero, but there's no payoff. Chalmers just folded up the case and is gone.

Was there even a discussion about having a sequel?

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

What I think we're meant to take from Chalmers calmly reading the Wall Street Journal as he's chauffeured away in his Lincoln (with the ironic Support Your Local Police bumper sticker) is that he's going to land on his feet no matter what. From the very first scene (at what I assume to be a political fund-raiser in his home), it's clear that he's media savvy, knows just how to best promote a favorable public image and roll with the punches (which would include blaming others for his own mistakes).

While different viewers can come to their own varying conclusions about Bullitt's introspective gaze into the mirror, we can probably all agree that he's embarking on some personal re-evaluations. He's done what he set out to do ("If Chalmers finds out Ross is dead, he's gonna fold this up, and I want the man that killed him"), but where has it all left him?

The film was a big hit, so I wouldn't be surprised if some Warners executives kicked around the idea of a sequel, but I've never heard anything about McQueen being interested in one. There was some talk back in the '90s about McQueen's son Chad doing a follow-up film as Frank's son, but it never came to anything.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

Ah, now this is where it really gets fun: exploring possibly different perspectives.

Seems to me there were as many examples of the good-guy-rebel or "rogue cop" as there were of the other type in that era, of which Dirty Harry would be a prominent example, each of whom had a hyperventilating, desk-pounding boss who was forever getting red in the face over the hero rogue cop's rule-bending.

But be that as it may, the focus of Bullitt's job immediately shifts when the witness whose safety he's tasked with ensuring gets hit (along with one of his own men). That's how I think he sees it, anyway: the hearing and Chalmers's political concerns become secondary when the department is facing a public black eye that Chalmers makes clear he intends to exploit.

I believe Bullitt was indeed confused by the set-up. He at first suspects Chalmers of having leaked his witness's location, if only inadvertently ("They knew where to look for him, and they used your name to get in...it didn't come from us"), and doesn't understand why he let the killers in himself ("Ross got to the door and unlocked it, from the inside"). So he retraces Ross/Renick's steps from the moment he arrived in San Francisco, which eventually leads him to Dorothy Renick and reveals the impersonation.

As far as keeping Ross/Renick's death secret, Bullitt's concern, I think, is with Chalmers using his influence - and his personal police lapdog, Capt. Baker - to write the assassination off as just another routine, unsolvable mob hit. And where Chalmers makes a big mistake is in assuming he can still get Ross to testify. I think it was you who said as much in another thread, stating that neither Renick nor the real Ross was ever going to do so. By the time of the Monday hearing, Renick would be dead and Ross would be out of the country. That was right on-target.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Not much fun for me. It never was explained why Renick unlatched the door. The comment I made in my other thread was that is even if Bullitt left Ross alive, then he may not have testified, but who knows? It would have left it open for Bullitt 2. The way this movie ended, I can see why they never bothered to think about a Bullitt 2. Chalmers was gone and Bullitt probably broke up with Cathy.

Dirty Harry was pretty clear on who the bad guys were. He may have been more violent than other cops, but he hit what he aimed at. It would have been fine if he killed the serial killer instead of bringing him in. In Bullitt's case, it would have been better if he brought his man in.

ETA: If Ross was left alive, then Chalmers would definitely be back to be an a-hole to Bullitt again. We could see how his people are handling things. This time the captain sides with Chalmers and puts the heat on Bullitt to comply with Chalmers. Bullitt would probably be guarding the real Ross in the hospital. The mob would be going all out to kill Ross as he made a fool out of them twice. I could see it be an all out battle between the mob and the cops and maybe Ross takes advantage since he's not ready to squeal. That's probably not enough for Bullitt 2, so some other case and factors come in to screw up Bullitt's time.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

Well, I can at least help out on Renick unlocking the door. It's true the film doesn't explain it, but it does provide the dots for viewers to connect.

The best way to do that is to review the way Ross set the whole thing up. On the run from the mob, he offers himself as state's evidence witness to the Senate subcommittee, which is one aspect of his plan to flee the country. He hires Renick to impersonate him and in addition to paying him, promises that his people will come on Saturday night to get him away from whoever's guarding him so he and his wife can fly to Italy. When Renick arrives in San Francisco and is told by Chalmers where to go, he then calls his wife, who tips off Ross to where Renick is, unwittingly setting them both up to be killed.

How do we know this? Little clues which are dropped unobtrusively: Ross unhooks the chain; when the gunmen burst in, he has his coat halfway on because he's expecting to leave; when they turn the gun on him after shooting Stanton, he protests, "Now wait...now look...he told me..."

In the ambulance, Stanton tells Bullitt, "He unlocked the door, like he was expecting someone." And so he was. What he wasn't expecting was to be shot.

I think the rest you know: Bullitt learns of the impersonation by tracing Renick's phone call to Dorothy in San Mateo, and about their travel plans by inspecting their luggage; next stop is the airport, where he discovers that Ross, now using Renick's identity, has switched the Rome flight to one to London at the last minute. So if Ross's plan had worked out, the mob would think he was dead, and he'd have escaped with the $2 million under the identity of someone they'd never heard of and couldn't connect to him.

One of the things I most admire about the film is the way it lets viewers use their own intelligence to connect these dots - revealing in dribs and drabs a detail here, another one there - instead of spelling it all out for them. It's a thinking person's thriller.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Suffice it to say that you are making a lot of assumptions that wasn't in the movie. Here's what I can believe and most people believe.

Ross set this up (unbeknownst to audience while watching the movie develop) - He hires Renick to get surgery to look like him and notify the Feds and Chalmers that he will turn evidence against the mob in return for his safety. His real motive is he wants to get away to Europe as Renick with $2 M (which is $14.7 M in today's dollars).

Why does Ross go to the Mark Hopkins luxury hotel? - It's to get him recognized by the doorman working for Ross presumably, to see if Renick/Ross can follow directions (it's a clue that Renick is surprised that there are no messages), to see if the mob will take Renick as the the real Ross if he is recognized, get Ross into his Sunshine cab to take him to his next destination, and get some scenery shots in of the hills of San Francisco. This isn't set up by Chalmers. By then, his brother's men and the mob's men are after Renick. Back in the cab, we see Renick's instructions are to call Chalmers. This is when he comes in. So much for your connecting the dots haha.

I lived a couple blocks down on California St. some time after the movie and it was an interesting and beautiful place to live. However, parking was hell. Expect to visit the parking commissioner on a monthly basis to pay your fines (usually cut in half). If you can afford it, then it's cola. I found out there are 700 K parking spaces in SF and the population rises to 2 M from 700,000 (around the 80s) during the work day. The parking problem probably goes back to the 1940s.

Why does Renick unhook the chain? - I suppose you got this part right. Do you know who sent the hitmen? Was it Pete's or the organization's men?



reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

So much for your connecting the dots haha.
I'm getting a hint of disagreement here, but I don't know that we have any. Call them assumptions, deductions, conclusions, connecting the dots or doing the math, it amounts to pretty much the same thing: figuring out what the film doesn't tell us from the things it does. You asked about Renick unlocking the door, so that and the other plot elements to which it relates was all I explained.

I'm not sure what the Mark Hopkins scene has to do with that point, but your citation of it illustrates exactly what I'm talking about. The film tells us only this:
- Renick goes to the Mark to pick up a message and is puzzled not to find it there
- a doorman identifies him as Ross, and makes a phone call to relay the information
- Renick stops the cab at a pay phone to call Chalmers

Those are the dots you connected to reach your conclusions (or assumptions or deductions or whatever) about why he was sent there and who set it up, with most of which I agree. Making sense of the plot requires this on the part of viewers.

I would add, however, that Renick getting surgery to look like Ross is not only a large assumption, but an unnecessary one; all they needed to find was a guy resembling him who'd impersonate him for money (that's all the casting director did, after all, with no need for surgery).

The answer to your final question about the hitmen is: it doesn't matter. Whether Pete's men or the organization's, either one gets you from Point A to Point B - "Ross" officially dead - and the one theory works just as well as the other.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Sorry, I'm just kidding. I'm not criticizing how you saw the movie as we are going to externalize how we think onto Bullitt. I'm just trying to explain what the movie presented. I think I said I'll buy your explanation of why Renick unlocked the chain.

As for the Mark Hopkins scene, the point was for the doorman and possibly the mob to see Renick, but it was Ross he was calling and not Chalmers. I suppose it was to see if Renick would follow directions and to have a chance to be recognized by the mob's hit men. I figure it was the mob's hit men because they would not trust Pete to get the job done after he missed getting Johnny. Pete may have been involved and let him go from the way they looked at each other; it's not explained how their relationship was like though. Anyway, Ross got away and I think Pete was going to pay for the hit men.

The only other thing was Renick getting surgery to look like Ross. The coroner explained that he had surgery on his face or something like that during the autopsy.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

It's always interesting to compare interpretations. I generally try not to overthink them, and tend to go with the simplest.

For example, I take the film at its word that Renick stopped to call Chalmers (and got Chalmers's instructions to go to the Daniels Hotel). There wouldn't be any reason for Renick to write a note to himself, "Call Chalmers," if he were intending to call Ross.

The next call to his wife was to tell her where he'd be, and she in turn relayed that information, along with her own location, to Ross (who was the one paying them). That's the only way Ross could know where both would be so each could be killed.

The coroner, I'm sure, was simply describing the effects of the wounds and the emergency surgery performed after the shooting:

"There are multiple gunshot wounds on the left side of the face, the left side of the neck and about the left upper thorax. These extend from the lateral extent of the left eye, and a portion of the left orbit has been lacerated and aqueous humor protrudes from the laceration. There have been deep lacerations in the immediate area, and these have been approximated by fine surgical sutures. There are multiple surgical incisions about the left side of the face. There is considerable hemorrhage in these deep tissues, and a number of surgical sutures are present about this area. There are entrances into the sinuses and several pellets are found located within this area. There are also multiple lacerations and multiple gunshot entrance wounds about the left side of the neck, and similar wounds are found on the left upper thorax."

All of these descriptions - lacerations, pellets, incisions, sutures - are consistent with either the gunshot or the emergency surgery.



reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>It's always interesting to compare interpretations. I generally try not to overthink them, and tend to go with the simplest.

For example, I take the film at its word that Renick stopped to call Chalmers (and got Chalmers's instructions to go to the Daniels Hotel). There wouldn't be any reason for Renick to write a note to himself, "Call Chalmers," if he were intending to call Ross.<<

I may overthink the ending because this movie doesn't make sense, but not who the doorman called. We are talking about who the doorman called. He called Ross. Who else could he have called? The mob or hit men? How would they know Renick/Ross would show up at the Hopkins?

>>For example, I take the film at its word that Renick stopped to call Chalmers (and got Chalmers's instructions to go to the Daniels Hotel). There wouldn't be any reason for Renick to write a note to himself, "Call Chalmers," if he were intending to call Ross.<<

I agree with this. After going to the Hopkins to pick up a message, he was to call Ross. This is when Chalmers got involved.

>>The next call to his wife was to tell her where he'd be, and she in turn relayed that information, along with her own location, to Ross (who was the one paying them). That's the only way Ross could know where both would be so each could be killed.<<

Agreed.

(continued)

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I may overthink the ending because this movie doesn't make sense, but not who the doorman called. We are talking about who the doorman called. He called Ross. Who else could he have called?"

- We obviously had some miscommunication here: I thought we were talking about who Renick called. Apologies.

"After going to the Hopkins to pick up a message, he was to call Ross. This is when Chalmers got involved."

- I thought we just got this cleared up, but now you've got Renick calling Ross again (?). We know that Renick made only two calls from the pay phone: to Chalmers and Mrs. Renick.

As far as Chalmers's involvement, there are some presumptions to be made simply from knowledge of how things work in the real world. Chalmers's involvement would have to have begun sometime before, while Ross was still in Chicago. State's Evidence witness testimony before Senate subcommittee hearings doesn't get arranged and scheduled in as brief a time as from a Saturday to the following Monday, and certainly not during a quick call from a pay phone. This would all had to have been arranged with both Chalmers and the committee quite some time in advance of Renick's Friday night flight - using Ross's name - from Chicago.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>> I thought we just got this cleared up, but now you've got Renick calling Ross again (?). We know that Renick made only two calls from the pay phone: to Chalmers and Mrs. Renick.<<

My bad. I meant to type Renick was supposed to call Chalmers, not Ross, as per his note. He called Chalmers and then his wife from the pay phone.

>>As far as Chalmers's involvement, there are some presumptions to be made simply from knowledge of how things work in the real world.<<

This is another important detail that was left out and we may not have a movie that we saw. I agree Ross would have had to call Chalmers to let him know that he was the mob's accountant and give him proof of what he got to get him to buy in. I agree it would take time for Chalmers to set his end up. Ross would have to let him know to meet in San Francisco. Maybe that was where Chalmers worked. Once Chalmers decided to help Ross and give him a new identity for his testimony (another assumption), then Ross would send Renick. What about the money? I doubt Ross could keep the money if he testified. Maybe that was part of the evidence. If Chalmers did not know anything about the money, then Ross could keep the money, testify, and live his life with his new identity. Then, we have no movie. For some reason, Ross decided to double cross Chalmers and get Renick killed as himself.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"My bad. I meant to type Renick was supposed to call Chalmers, not Ross, as per his note."

- OK, cool. I was afraid I'd made another error.

"Ross would have to let him know to meet in San Francisco. Maybe that was where Chalmers worked."

- All the film makes clear is that the hearings are being held there because, as Chalmers tells Bullitt, "Ross is safer here." Of course, the real reason is that producer Phil D'Antoni and Steve McQueen wanted to stage an auto chase in San Francisco. If I recall, the novel (Mute Witness) took place in NY, and the testimony was to have been before a state crime commission rather than a Senate subcommittee.

"For some reason, Ross decided to double cross Chalmers and get Renick killed as himself."

- From the beginning, the whole point of Ross's plan was to get himself officially dead so he could get out of the country with the money. Involving Chalmers, arranging to testify (and setting up Renick to get hit in his place) were merely the means to that end. Chalmers didn't know it, but he was going to get screwed no matter what, and likely didn't know about the money; all he knew was that Ross had offered himself as State's Evidence witness to, as Chalmers put it, "expose the Organization," and wanted protection for doing so.

It's like Bullitt says just before he and Del go to the airport: "Ross took $2 million from the Organization, and he set Renick up to get the heat off of him."

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>The coroner, I'm sure, was simply describing the effects of the wounds and the emergency surgery performed after the shooting:

"There are multiple gunshot wounds on the left side of the face, the left side of the neck and about the left upper thorax. These extend from the lateral extent of the left eye, and a portion of the left orbit has been lacerated and aqueous humor protrudes from the laceration. There have been deep lacerations in the immediate area, and these have been approximated by fine surgical sutures. There are multiple surgical incisions about the left side of the face. There is considerable hemorrhage in these deep tissues, and a number of surgical sutures are present about this area. There are entrances into the sinuses and several pellets are found located within this area. There are also multiple lacerations and multiple gunshot entrance wounds about the left side of the neck, and similar wounds are found on the left upper thorax."

All of these descriptions - lacerations, pellets, incisions, sutures - are consistent with either the gunshot or the emergency surgery.<<

This explains why Renick looks like Ross. Ross had Renick get cosmetic surgery to look like him. It shows that Renick was to get paid a lot of money, so he and his wife could disappear.

The black doctor would not use fine surgical sutures during surgery when they were trying to save Renick's life. Cosmetic surgery would be afterward. Afterward, we saw and heard what they did in ICU.

The movie does not explain what happens. It just gives you enough so you can figure out what happened. This was not done in the best way, so you get into arguments about these fine points.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"The black doctor would not use fine surgical sutures during surgery when they were trying to save Renick's life. Cosmetic surgery would be afterward. Afterward, we saw and heard what they did in ICU."

- Once again, we're faced with a situation requiring understanding of real-world procedures. Sutures are nothing more than stitches used to close wounds and/or surgical incisions. If I understand you correctly about cosmetic surgery being performed after the emergency surgery for gunshot wounds, I'm afraid I don't find that a realistic interpretation. Renick remained in the ICU and suffered fatal cardiac arrest there only hours after the emergency surgery. I'll stand by my previous remarks on the topic.

Please understand, I have no interest in "internet arguments" for their own sake; I find the value of comparing interpretations to be only in better appreciation of the films we know and love so well.

Just a note of trivia about Doctor Willard: have you ever noticed that the surgeon we see in the ER is not Georg Stanford Brown (yes, that's the way it's spelled), the actor we see playing him in the other scenes? The producer and director were so emphatic about authenticity that actual medical personnel were used in place of actors in the ER scene. Apparently, they felt that the real surgeon, with a cap and mask, could be easily taken for Brown (just as they relied on audiences taking Felice Orlandi, as Renick, for Pat Renella, the actor playing Ross).

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>Once again, we're faced with a situation requiring understanding of real-world procedures<<

We saw different movies and I think I would have a better understanding of real world procedures. As I said early on, this was a story made to fit 60s beliefs to question authority. Chalmers is the guy who is made the authority and he ends up using legal procedures to put heat and blame on the SF police force when his witness is missing. Before that, he was someone with "juice" who could help the SFPD with money and possible promotions. He probably was shooting for political office with publicity of bringing organized crime down. Chalmers may not have been necessary as he is just there as a foil for Bullitt. Bullitt ends up saying you work your side of the street and I'll work mine. There is truth in this as law enforcement does not share information with others. Even with the victims or witnesses except on a need to know basis. What was hard to believe was Chalmers would just fold the case if he knew Ross was dead; he'd want heads!!!

It would be highly unlikely for Ross to find Renick as his doppelganger in Chicago. This would need explanation as why Renick could pass for being Ross. However, there was no explanation given except they looked alike. The audience would buy Renick being made to look like him via cosmetic surgery and this is what we were suppose to get via Renick's autopsy. Fine surgical suture's would be for the cosmetic surgery. There would be no time for it when trying to save Renick's life. You don't have to buy this because you've bought something else already to make it fit your movie.

It's a convoluted story and a thinking man's detective story. The audience has to pay attention to figure out things while watching, but there isn't enough to understand completely until discussed afterward. Many people see Cathy's and Bullitt's relationship continue and that is the happy ending.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"He probably was shooting for political office with publicity of bringing organized crime down."

- Correct. The film explicitly states that. It presents Chalmers as wealthy, well-connected, publicity hungry and associated with Senate Subcommittee hearings. The logical inference is that he's a high-powered lawyer who's functioning as Special Council to that committee, in much the same way as Roy Cohn did for the McCarthy hearings and Fred Thompson for the Watergate ones.

"What was hard to believe was Chalmers would just fold the case if he knew Ross was dead; he'd want heads!!!"

- And he'd get them. It's made clear at several points in the film where he intended to find those heads, beginning with Bullitt and Bennett. He wouldn't be interested in a homicide investigation into what appeared to be a routine mob hit, which is what Bullitt's referring to about folding it up. That wouldn't suit Chalmers's goal of crucifying the cops in the press for inadequately guarding his witness, and a full investigation into the hit could publicly expose details - like the hitmen using his name - that would be embarrassing for him.

"It would be highly unlikely for Ross to find Renick as his doppelganger in Chicago."

- I don't know why. The film makers found two actors with a close enough resemblance to be mistaken for one another. Expecting audiences to infer unmentioned cosmetic surgery from something as obscure as a passing reference to sutures strikes me as unlikely, so I'll stick with the simplest explanation: they found a guy who looked enough like him to pass, just as the producers' casting people did.

"It's a convoluted story and a thinking man's detective story. The audience has to pay attention to figure out things while watching..."

- We're basically in accord here, although, as I said a couple weeks ago, I find the basic plot simple rather than convoluted. The rest is only connective tissue between the main points all leading to one outcome.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>Correct. The film explicitly states that. It presents Chalmers as wealthy, well-connected, publicity hungry and associated with Senate Subcommittee hearings. The logical inference is that he's a high-powered lawyer who's functioning as Special Council to that committee, in much the same way as Roy Cohn did for the McCarthy hearings and Fred Thompson for the Watergate ones.<<

I figured Chalmers was an assistant US attorney. He's shooting for higher office, maybe a run at the US Senate. You mentioned Mute Witness. Have you read the book? Stuff like this may be explained better in a book. I didn't think he was wealthy. He just had wealthy friends and connections. More reason to seek a higher office than US attorney. I think he'll hand out monetary rewards if the local SFPD does their job well. Yeah, it's set up in San Francisco for the chase scene. What else? If they didn't shoot multiple shots of the VW, then it would have been a near-perfect sequence.

Finally, fine sutures would not be done to close emergency facial wounds or to open and close facial areas in order to get the pellets out. They do it ASAP to get the pellets out and stop any bleeding. Renick wasn't shot in the face, but near the heart. The black doctor or even the transportation medic just wants to stop the bleeding and get him into ICU for the heart. It's another detail that they put in to explain why Renick would pass for Ross. What's weird about real life is I have a doppelganger from HS and we both lived in San Francisco. He still looks like me as we are much older now. I even worked at Macy's which is around the block from the phone where Renick called from when in my 20s living on Nob Hill.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I figured Chalmers was an assistant US attorney. He's shooting for higher office, maybe a run at the US Senate."

- I can't rule out that he's a U.S. attorney, though I tend to doubt it. Bennett's statement to Bullitt, "He's grooming himself for public office," suggests he held none at the time. Sam's no doubt referring to elective office as you say, so it's possible he's a DOJ appointee, but it would be odd in those circumstances that he never states any such official capacity, having to rely on Capt. Baker to flash his badge and calling it "an official police request" when he wants Renick's medical chart, for instance. So: possible, but I think unlikely.

Chalmers's wealth is communicated all through the film by his expensive clothes, chauffeur-driven Lincoln, personal staffers trailing him everywhere and remarks like that he makes to the supervisor about replacing Dr. Willard: "I'd prefer my personal physician." But the most explicit giveaway is his identification of the Pacific Heights mansion where he and Bullitt meet as "my house:" "So now that you know where my house is, Lieutenant, I hope that we'll get to see a lot more of each other."

"Renick wasn't shot in the face, but near the heart."

- Here, I must refer you again to the coroner's remarks: "There are multiple gunshot wounds on the left side of the face, the left side of the neck and about the left upper thorax."

"If they didn't shoot multiple shots of the VW, then it would have been a near-perfect sequence."

- Yeah, it's those multi-camera setups - one in the Charger, one in the Mustang, and two stationary ones along Taylor - all shooting simultaneously and conferring immortality upon that green Beetle.

Funny about your doppleganger. I'd hate to confront mine. When I was shy of 30, people used to tell me I looked like Tommy Smothers, but I met him once at an after-theater party in the early '80s, and neither of us thought so. These days, I look more like James Finlayson.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>I can't rule out that he's a U.S. attorney, though I tend to doubt it. Bennett's statement to Bullitt, "He's grooming himself for public office," suggests he held none at the time. Sam's no doubt referring to elective office as you say, so it's possible he's a DOJ appointee, but it would be odd in those circumstances that he never states any such official capacity, having to rely on Capt. Baker to flash his badge and calling it "an official police request" when he wants Renick's medical chart, for instance. So: possible, but I think unlikely.

Chalmers's wealth is communicated all through the film by his expensive clothes, chauffeur-driven Lincoln, personal staffers trailing him everywhere and remarks like that he makes to the supervisor about replacing Dr. Willard: "I'd prefer my personal physician." But the most explicit giveaway is his identification of the Pacific Heights mansion where he and Bullitt meet as "my house:" "So now that you know where my house is, Lieutenant, I hope that we'll get to see a lot more of each other.<<

I thought he held some Federal appointed position such as an assistant US attorney because why would Ross, whom you just got through explaining, contact him before Renick to set his duplicitous plan into motion? Furthermore, he has immediate influence on the SFPD. They all believe he has "juice." Just being wealthy will not do that. He may not be a full US attorney because he is interested in acquiring publicity and more power. Becoming a US Senator would give him that.

I did not pick up that it was his house in Pacific Heights (parent's house?). Good catch.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the fine sutures and Renick being made to look like Ross surgically. Anyway, it was nice discussing this movie with you. I still think the story is convoluted, but it was written well and had some fine camera angles and filters by the director to make it realistic. I'm glad the book was changed to make the story in San Francisco instead of NYC.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I thought he held some Federal appointed position such as an assistant US attorney because why would Ross, whom you just got through explaining, contact him before Renick to set his duplicitous plan into motion?"

- As I say, I can't rule it out; I simply find his being a high-powered private attorney serving as Special Council to the committee (a very common occurrence) more likely and better suiting the character. It's uncommon for a staff U.S. Attorney to be actively involved in a legislative body's investigative functions, beyond furnishing evidence in the form of documents or giving his own testimony, much less publicly grandstanding by courting the press and giving TV interviews.

I can't really speak to the exact chronology of who Ross contacted first, although I don't think it matters. He'd have had to concoct his scheme while still in Chicago to offer himself as a witness, line up Renick as his impersonator and plan for him to be killed before the hearing so he could flee the country under his identity.

"Furthermore, he has immediate influence on the SFPD. They all believe he has "juice." Just being wealthy will not do that."

- Quite so; hence, my theory that he's a private attorney who has developed his "juice" while doing legal work for those in city, state and/or federal government, forming political alliances along the way that he could leverage into a place serving the committee and his own personal political ambitions (another common occurrence).

"We'll just have to agree to disagree on the fine sutures and Renick being made to look like Ross surgically. Anyway, it was nice discussing this movie with you."

- For me too. I agree there's no point in belaboring the cosmetic surgery issue. Even if it appears I'm trying to change someone's mind about a plot point, all I really try to do is explain my own reasons for interpretations I've made.

Cheers!

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

What a great thread...focusing appropriately on Chalmers (villain? or just annoying) but also going into the "clear confusions" about the plot that have dogged Bullitt since its Xmas 1968 release.

I suppose all I would add is that it is important to note that in 1968, major studios were putting a lot of emphasis on the "youth audience" and had a certain fear that youth hated the police. Hence, Bullitt needed to be (quietly) "anti-establishment" and "cool" as a cop....and the Chicago hit men were of less relevance to 1968 than Chalmers.

"Bullitt" was one of two scripts written or co-written for McQueen in 1967/1968 by an "amateur" screenwriter whose main job was as a prominent Boston attorney. (Thomas Crown Affair was the other one.) The scripts are at once very intelligent and somewhat ambiguous.

I think Chalmers' true political status is kept rather obscure. Norman Fell says, at one point "he can speak for us at the Legislature," which would suggest he is a California state legislator, not a federal one. On the other hand, he could be a federal official who speaks at the State Legislature. The hearing at which Ross is to testify, is meant to be a political hearing, not a trial. A California State Legislative hearing -- or a quasi-judicial federal hearing? It doesn't much matter.

We first meet Chalmers at his San Francisco mansion, so he's clearly rich, likely with family wealth. He has "matron types" there, so he is likely running for office(getting their donations.)

But his emphasis on ambition and career advancement clearly bugs Bullitt from the first meeting("I read your speech," Bullitt says in cutting off another speech; Bullitt then says to Delgetti about Chalmers, "We're pals" -- as if the rich politican and the working class cop could BE pals -- its a joke to Bullitt.)



reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And it only gets worse. Chalmers bullies people and pulls rank when there is no need to at all; Chalmers has the black surgeon removed from treatment of "Ross"; Chalmers makes direct and angry accusations directly at Bullitt when Ross is shot; to which Bullitt calmly responds "Who put out the information that Ross was in that room?"(directly challenging Chalmers fact set, and enraging the politico) and then, more personally "Look, you work your side of the street and I'll work mine." Bullitt is actually giving Chalmers a "friendly" warning here -- but Chalmers doesn't take it.

Chalmers later villainous action is to threaten Bullitt's boss -- on the steps of his church yet, in front of his family -- to come down hard on Bullitt...with Chalmers again looking at the boss's life through a "cost benefit" analysis ("Putting young people through college can be hard on a captain's salary."...(you'll want to advance.)

There is no doubt that circa 1968, Chalmers is the villain of Bullitt as much as the mob killers in the tale. And McQueen's Bullitt stands in for all of us who try to "play it straight and honest" in our lives, its why it is so satisfying when Bullitt finally says to Chalmers: "Look, let's get something straight -- I don't like you" (cheer!) and then a more curt "Bull-st" when Chalmers says "we must all compromise." (Bigger cheer)

I've always liked how the late Robert Vaughn noted that he kept turning down the role of Chalmers, until the money offer got so big he couldn't. Vaughn was just coming off playing heroic superspy Napoleon Solo on The Man From UNCLE and likely saw Chalmers as real slime(Vaughn was big in Democrat politics at the time.) But money talked and Robert Vaughn probably ended up with his greatest role of all time...other than Solo. One good guy, one bad guy.


reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

Hello!

Reading your replies, many thoughts occurred but, in reviewing the thread before responding, I realized that most of them are ones I'd already expressed upthread, so I beg indulgence if I repeat one or two.

"The scripts are at once very intelligent and somewhat ambiguous...I think Chalmers' true political status is kept rather obscure. Norman Fell says, at one point "he can speak for us at the Legislature," which would suggest he is a California state legislator, not a federal one."

- It's indeed ambiguous, in terms of lacking any explicit statement, but the hook upon which we can hang conclusions about Chalmers is furnished in characteristically terse fashion by Capt. Bennett: "He's grooming himself for public office."

If you won't mind my picking nits, Capt. Baker's (Fell) choice of word bears out the nature of Chalmers holding elective position to be one of ambition rather than fact: "He could speak for us where it counts. He could fight for us in the legislature." The difference between "could" and "can" tells us a lot.

And a lot about Baker, if I may add. He's a cop, but one who's hitched his wagon to a rising political star, understanding that his career could benefit from having done so (just as Chalmers hints to Bullitt and Bennett...and gets rejected by both with that characteristic terseness). Even in his little speech to Bullitt about complying with Chalmers's subpoena, he's doing a bit of electioneering.

Somehow, I don't think Bullitt's gonna vote for him when he eventually declares for whatever office he seeks.

Cont'd...

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

Another thought about word choices: the screenplay skillfully provides marvelous texture by drawing contrasts between the punchy directness with which Bullitt, Bennett and Delgetti communicate and the erudite, insinuating and slimy grandiloquence Chalmers employs. Compare, for example, the way Bennett expresses a concern about him...

"Now he can't produce the big surprise he promised, he may try to make up some mileage by layin' it on us"

...and the way Chalmers, in his evenly measured diction, soon articulates it as a threat:

"Lieutenant, I shall personally officiate at your public crucifixion if Ross doesn't recover during the course of the hearings so I can at least present his deposition. And I assure you I shall not suffer the consequence of your incompetence."

Whatever his reason was, taking that role and running with it was gold for Vaughan.

"The hearing at which Ross is to testify, is meant to be a political hearing, not a trial. A California State Legislative hearing -- or a quasi-judicial federal hearing? It doesn't much matter."

- Bingo and bingo. Any conclusion one draws that doesn't conflict with what the screenplay explicitly states is as good as another.

In instances such as this, I like to cite Vertigo as an example. How did Scottie escape from hanging onto that rain gutter? Another cop came along and rescued him. Or he pulled himself back up. Or the fire department came with a hook and ladder. Or angels floated him up to the roof. Whatever. Who cares?

He escaped. Think of any way he could have done so, and it's good enough.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

- Bingo and bingo. Any conclusion one draws that doesn't conflict with what the screenplay explicitly states is as good as another.

---

I so like the detail of your discussion with jasonbourne and yet I will note that Steve McQueen himself said of Bullitt something like "The story made no sense but it didn't matter with that car chase." Well, maybe Steve McQueen didn't understand the script, but others do...including the fact that sometimes the script does NOT spell things out, and we get to guess on our own.

Many "thumbnail" summaries of Bullitt go all wrong and call Chalmers a "United States Senator" just because that's the easy call (federal case, his opulent home, etc.) But he's DEFINITELY not that. Funny: 6 years later, Vaughn WOULD play a US Senator in another movie set in SF, with Steve McQueen(and Don Gordon). The Towering Inferno. In a twist, Vaughn's Senator in that movie is entirely a good guy, a real hero. We were all expecting "Chalmers again," and a rematch with McQueen(now transferred to the SF fire department. Hah.) Its a twist where the new movie refers to the older one.

---

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

In instances such as this, I like to cite Vertigo as an example.

--

Another movie set in SF. Maybe that city is prone to ...ambiguity and a lack of resolution?

--

How did Scottie escape from hanging onto that rain gutter? Another cop came along and rescued him. Or he pulled himself back up. Or the fire department came with a hook and ladder. Or angels floated him up to the roof. Whatever. Who cares?

He escaped. Think of any way he could have done so, and it's good enough.

--

Ha. And true. And Hitchcock felt exactly that way. Though in one interview -- and one interview only -- he finally answered the question: "He used the fire escape but I didn't want to waste time filming it."

A dissolve can solve a lot of story problems.

Its akin, in Psycho, to the dissolve between Norman captured in the fruit cellar by Sam and Lila and his reappearance later in a Shasta County jail cell. Hitch felt no need to explain how Sam and Lila handled Norman in between. A dissolve out of the fruit cellar and to the county courthouse handled our thoughts.

To keep my Psycho references to this one post only, I remind of this opinion of mine: Psycho and Bullitt are very linked, this way: they seem to be ONLY about their "historic scene"(violent shower murder; realistic car chase.) But the REST of both movies are as expert and interesting as their "big famous scene."

That is all on that!

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Hello!

--

Hello back atcha!

---

Reading your replies, many thoughts occurred but, in reviewing the thread before responding, I realized that most of them are ones I'd already expressed upthread, so I beg indulgence if I repeat one or two.

--

Well, I came in late to the thread and may have missed those replies up thread, so...please do.

(I am very much enjoying reading jasonbourne and yours discussion...not trying to "invade" it.)

---



"The scripts are at once very intelligent and somewhat ambiguous...I think Chalmers' true political status is kept rather obscure. Norman Fell says, at one point "he can speak for us at the Legislature," which would suggest he is a California state legislator, not a federal one."

- It's indeed ambiguous, in terms of lacking any explicit statement, but the hook upon which we can hang conclusions about Chalmers is furnished in characteristically terse fashion by Capt. Bennett: "He's grooming himself for public office."

---

Ya see, I just don't pay the proper attention to the scripts -- even for my all-time favorite movies. Here, I REMEMBER NOW that Bennett said that...but I didn't earlier.

---

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

If you won't mind my picking nits, Capt. Baker's (Fell) choice of word bears out the nature of Chalmers holding elective position to be one of ambition rather than fact: "He could speak for us where it counts. He could fight for us in the legislature." The difference between "could" and "can" tells us a lot.

--

Pick those nits...it makes all the difference. If Chalmers isn't in the Legislature now -- he may be seeking office there, or indeed seeking influence there as a federal official of some sort. (Hence, Bennett's comments and the "fundraiser" at Chalmers home in the beginning.)



And a lot about Baker, if I may add. He's a cop, but one who's hitched his wagon to a rising political star, understanding that his career could benefit from having done so (just as Chalmers hints to Bullitt and Bennett...and gets rejected by both with that characteristic terseness).

---

Yes, in any organization, you've got the political animals and the straight shooters. Bullitt flat out hangs up the phone on Baker on one occasion(no respect for Baker) but appreciates how Bennett(even with respect for his boss) is putting himself on the line to back Bullitt as long as he can.

---
Even in his little speech to Bullitt about complying with Chalmers's subpoena, he's doing a bit of electioneering.

---

Yes.

Somehow, I don't think Bullitt's gonna vote for him when he eventually declares for whatever office he seeks.
---

Ha. No. But Bullitt will probably just let political events occur. Work his side of the street. I doubt that Chalmers will ever hassle Bullitt again...Bullitt knows too much about Chalmer's "chump status" with Rennick and Ross.

---

In a cynical world, some movies still do (or did) teach us regular folks "the better way to be." Bullitt and Bennett should be our role models. Not Chalmers and Baker.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I am very much enjoying reading jasonbourne and yours discussion...not trying to "invade" it."

- As though you could ever be considered an invader. Something else I realized when reviewing the thread is that, until now, jasonbourne and I were the only ones participating, so I'm happy to see you, as always.

On the more general topic of ambiguity, jasonbourne raised some issues with the film's conclusion upthread, relating specifically to Frank and Cathy's future and the killing of Ross as it concerns Bullitt and Chalmers: "It makes for an unsatisfactory ending as no one really gets what they want."

WHEN you end your movie determines HOW you end it. Another minute or so of The Birds might have shown us Hitchcock's unshot bird-laden Golden Gate Bridge, or even another attack tearing the soft top of Melanie's car apart and killing them all. Anything's possible.

Running for another minute, King Kong could have concluded not with Denham's triumphant and poetic, "'Twas Beauty killed the Beast," but with exactly what the sequel, Son Of Kong, delivered in its first: Denham holed up in a hotel hiding from process servers because virtually the entire city of New York is suing him.

Bullitt could have ended at the airport, with a frustrated Chalmers being chauffeured away and Frank standing rather sheepishly over the corpse of Ross, without the tag scene of Cathy sleeping peacefully in his bed, suggesting a future for their relationship, and Frank gazing introspectively into his bathroom mirror.

Or it could have continued for another couple minutes to one of its logical outcomes: Chalmers embarrassed in the press and his political future derailed. Or another: making good on his promise of a "public crucifixion," with Bullitt's L.E. career destroyed.

And setting up the premise for a round of sequels: Frank Bullitt, P.I.

It all depends on where you put the fade-out and cut to the end credits, don't it?

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>What a great thread...focusing appropriately on Chalmers (villain? or just annoying) but also going into the "clear confusions" about the plot that have dogged Bullitt since its Xmas 1968 release.

I suppose all I would add is that it is important to note that in 1968, major studios were putting a lot of emphasis on the "youth audience" and had a certain fear that youth hated the police. Hence, Bullitt needed to be (quietly) "anti-establishment" and "cool" as a cop....and the Chicago hit men were of less relevance to 1968 than Chalmers.<<

I agree. It's the period piece in throughout the story is what sorta bugs me. The other movie that I remember being a period piece is Easy Rider. Now, I can get behind an anti-authoritarian, question authority movie like that. Even the early scene where Wyatt tosses his watch away is cool. With Bullitt, I suppose Bullitt one upping Chalmers throughout in the scenes you mention makes him cool. However, even though Bullitt works his side of the street, he should be focusing on doing his job and delivering the real Ross to testify. I mean the story did not have to have him kill Ross at the end. Bullitt had already established himself as the, I don't want to say "rogue," but what you said as "anti-establishment" cop. I don't think this term has aged well. Anti-authoritarian is fine tho. Question authority theme is fine, but just being anti-establishment makes the story end the way it did and to me didn't make sense. If Ross lived, then we would've had Bullitt 2.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

With Bullitt, I suppose Bullitt one upping Chalmers throughout in the scenes you mention makes him cool. However, even though Bullitt works his side of the street, he should be focusing on doing his job and delivering the real Ross to testify.

---

Fair enough. Bullitt thinks for about half the film that the real Ross is dead -- his goal is to catch the killers before Chalmers goes nuts in public. But eventually, he figures out the real story - and CATCHING Ross(before he flies away) becomes the new goal. (Ross killed Mrs. Rennick, minimum, and set up her husband and the young cop.)

That the airport chase leads to Bullitt having to kill Ross(says I)...well, Bullitt was just working his side of the street.

But fate is there, too. Because Chalmers WON'T have Ross as his hearing witness. Chalmers loses...which is what the bad guy is supposed to do. Except of course: Chalmers will keep on with his career in other ways(and honestly, just how important WAS Ross' testimony going to be?)

---

I mean the story did not have to have him kill Ross at the end. Bullitt had already established himself as the, I don't want to say "rogue," but what you said as "anti-establishment" cop. I don't think this term has aged well. Anti-authoritarian is fine tho. Question authority theme is fine, but just being anti-establishment makes the story end the way it did and to me didn't make sense. If Ross lived, then we would've had Bullitt 2.

---

All true, but here I think we differ a bit on just how much of a "rogue" Bullitt really is. Compared to the coming "right wing gunslinger rebel" that Dirty Harry will be, Bullitt is shown to be a pretty by-the-book guy himself. He's very polite to everybody, and he's pretty quiet, doesn't offer opinions unless pressed(by Chalmers.) All through the film, Bullitt is trying to do his job(with some personal anger because the young cop was wounded, let alone "Ross" being killed.)

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Bullitt is a rebel only towards the political bullying of Chalmers (who is only ever polite for a short bit of time before threatening whoever gets in his way) and the political expediency of Baker. In short, Bullitt isn't much of a rebel at all. The promotions tried to push him as such, but he's pretty straight-arrow. IMHO.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>As I say, I can't rule it out; I simply find his being a high-powered private attorney serving as Special Council to the committee (a very common occurrence) more likely and better suiting the character. It's uncommon for a staff U.S. Attorney to be actively involved in a legislative body's investigative functions, beyond furnishing evidence in the form of documents or giving his own testimony, much less publicly grandstanding by courting the press and giving TV interviews.<<

Ross is from Chicago, so he would go to the Feds. I assume he is calling the shots, so he just happens to end up with a guy in San Francisco. The US Attorney's office would have someone in that area and that was Chalmers. It just so happened that he was looking to make a name for himself and would want the publicity. His character is an a-hole, but he's not a stupid a-hole. He knows how to handle the case, but the story makes him out as the patsy. I don't think he would've folded the case after Bullitt killed Ross. What has changed since he found out Renick was killed?

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"Ross is from Chicago, so he would go to the Feds. I assume he is calling the shots, so he just happens to end up with a guy in San Francisco. The US Attorney's office would have someone in that area and that was Chalmers."

- Maybe; it's entirely possible. As ecarle points out above, the subcommittee hearings could also be ones conducted by the state. But neither state Senates nor the U.S. Senate maintain permanent, ongoing committees on organized crime, so Ross would have contacted the legislative arm - either state or federal - that was conducting such hearings at the time. But as ecarle also says, it doesn't much matter. For the reasons already stated, I stand by my theory: a private attorney functioning as Special Council to the committee.

"His character is an a-hole, but he's not a stupid a-hole."

- He's crafty and self-serving, but not as clever as he thinks he is. He doesn't properly vet his "witness," and sends him to a waterfront dive on the Embarcadero (to suit his publicity-seeking sense of the dramatic, I think) rather than to first-class lodgings like the Mark or the St. Francis where security would be easier to maintain.

"He knows how to handle the case, but the story makes him out as the patsy."

- Well, he is. And after being drawn into it, Bullitt becomes one too. The difference between them is that when Bullitt realizes they've been had, he goes after the facts; Chalmers, instead, goes into damage control mode so he won't come out looking bad.

"I don't think he would've folded the case after Bullitt killed Ross. What has changed since he found out Renick was killed?"

- Bullitt's concern about Chalmers folding the case takes place before Ross's death. I stated the reasons in an earlier post, but they boil down to this: with no witness to testify, Chalmers's interest becomes only saving face by placing blame on the police (Bullitt and Bennett, specifically), and avoiding embarrassing revelations about how the hitmen located their target.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>Bullitt's concern about Chalmers folding the case takes place before Ross's death. I stated the reasons in an earlier post, but they boil down to this: with no witness to testify, Chalmers's interest becomes only saving face by placing blame on the police (Bullitt and Bennett, specifically), and avoiding embarrassing revelations about how the hitmen located their target.<<

We've disagreed on two issues so far (fine sutures and Chalmers' position), but I doubt Ross from Chicago would call California to turn state's evidence. He would contact the FBI first and go from there.

Moreover, it wasn't realistic for Bullitt to put his ass on the line by moving Renick. It wasn't his fault that Renick got hit because the hit men used Chalmers name and they knew where he was. The scene where Chalmers and Bullitt discuss this points to Chalmers being an a-hole. Chalmers tries to blame Bullitt and SFPD. I can buy him being such an a-hole and not letting Bullitt know about his deal with Ross, but I still don't think Bullitt had to move Renick. Then his ass is on the line. What was puzzling was why Bullitt thought Chalmers would fold up the case? It's not a plot hole, but doesn't make sense. What PD folds up a murder case even if Chalmers and the Feds are not interested anymore? If Chalmers knew Renick was dead, Bullitt could still continue working his side of the street and the case since he still has a murder to solve. Bullitt's and Chalmers' dialog ends up as diversion so he can outdo Chalmers in his own cool way. I can accept it, but Chalmers folding the case would not make sense at this point; he would still want heads including Bullitt's. Also, there really wasn't a need for Bullitt to move Renick's corpse and put his arse on the line.

(continued)

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Okay, I came up with the term. The story uses a literary device to keep the protagonist and antagonist at odds with each other. This explains why Bullitt says Chalmers will fold up the case and he moves Renick's corpse without letting Chalmers know. It's not realistic, but it's moves the story along and Bullitt and Chalmers can continue going at each other.

I'll drop changing the story at the end. Will just have to accept that Bullitt killed Ross, Chalmers folded the case, and Cathy and Bullitt lived happily ever after, and that was the story.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I'll drop changing the story at the end. Will just have to accept that Bullitt killed Ross, Chalmers folded the case, and Cathy and Bullitt lived happily ever after, and that was the story.

--

Ha. Well, that SEEMS to be the ending, but alternative outcomes based on your analysis are sound.

And maybe Chalmers didn't fold the case. On the other hand, Ross was intended to "tell all" about the workings of the Chicago mob, and without a witness...not much to do.

I'll have to go look at the airport climax again, but I'm pretty sure once Ross killed the security guard(which made him a dangerous killer to be stopped) and the security guard's body blocked the door(which cut off Ross's escape so he turned his gun on Bullitt), Bullitt HAD to kill him.

Indeed -- unlike Dirty Harry to come -- Bullitt shows a lot of remorse on having had to kill Ross, I think.

Its a classic movie, with a great historic car chase to be sure, but plenty of narrative tension in between. The ongoing showdown between Bullitt and Chalmers seems to me to be a middle-class "straight shooter" taking on an upper class bully who won't acknowledge his own responsibility for the deaths and woundings in the story, and who instead tries to ruin other people's careers in retaliation.

McQueen got great reviews, BTW. Watch how often in the movie he SAYS NOTHING. Its a cool performance based on saying very little and knowing everything. Or at least starting to...

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I doubt Ross from Chicago would call California to turn state's evidence. He would contact the FBI first and go from there."

- With Ross's plan being to palm off an imposter who thinks he's going to escape before testifying, but who's actually intended to be killed instead, I'm not so sure he'd tangle with the FBI, which would most probably do a proper job of checking the witness out. Having done so, getting as far as protecting him would likely never come up. As I said before, Chalmers didn't properly vet the guy, and was more interested in good press.

I'd say Ross contacts Chalmers because he's aware of the hearings from their publicity, and figures a politically ambitious local to be easier to dupe than the feds. It's apparent that Chalmers never even got around to meeting his "witness" face to face.

"What was puzzling was why Bullitt thought Chalmers would fold up the case?"

- Chalmers as much as tells him so: "I shall personally officiate at your public crucifixion if Ross doesn't recover during the course of the hearings so I can at least present his deposition. And I assure you I shall not suffer the consequences of your incompetence. And even if there wasn't any, I'm rather certain I can prove negligence on your part."

Bulliitt understands that Chalmers, aided by his "juice" and personal PD lapdog Baker, can have him sidelined, placed on desk duty or administrative leave and get Delgetti reassigned, dropping the murder issue while tearing Bullitt apart with his own charges of negligence or whatever else for the headlines.

"What PD folds up a murder case even if Chalmers and the Feds are not interested anymore?"

- Sadly, the news is all too full every year of examples of investigations or prosecutions being slow-walked, soft-pedaled and/or quietly dropped through political pressure and influence.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

"- With Ross's plan being to palm off an imposter who thinks he's going to escape before testifying, but who's actually intended to be killed instead, I'm not so sure he'd tangle with the FBI, which would most probably do a proper job of checking the witness out. Having done so, getting as far as protecting him would likely never come up. As I said before, Chalmers didn't properly vet the guy, and was more interested in good press.

I'd say Ross contacts Chalmers because he's aware of the hearings from their publicity, and figures a politically ambitious local to be easier to dupe than the feds. It's apparent that Chalmers never even got around to meeting his "witness" face to face."

Now, who's thinking too much? You're reading too much into the story. Occam's razor is best and that is Bullitt and Chalmers going at each other as protagonist and antagonist. The literary device of Ross folding up the case and trying to pin the blame for Renick getting shot on Bullitt and SFPD. Chalmers is the establishment and Bullitt will be the anti-hero. It doesn't matter about the backstory as long as these two go toe-to-toe with each other and Chalmers ends up looking like the fool and Bullitt as cool.

Ross' plan is acceptable. Renick is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he is seeing $$$ signs and a chance for a new identity with his wife in Europe. However, it's Ross turning the tables and assuming Renick's identity in Europe and keeping the money (minus what he gave Renick upfront). It doesn't matter what Ross set up. The mob breathes easier not being exposed and chalk up $2 million as cost of doing business and Pete Ross ends up paying the hit men. He probably got a cut from his brother, but it doesn't matter if he did or not. The details at that point become moot and is not explained.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"Now, who's thinking too much? You're reading too much into the story."

- With all respect, Ross contacting the FBI was your idea, not mine. Having considered it, I'm simply explaining why I don't see it fitting into the film as structured.

Explanations the film gives us - Ross uses an offer of testimony to subcommittee hearings as cover for staging his own death and fleeing the country, and contacts Chalmers, whose name's been in the newspapers in connection with them - are the simplest and make sense to me, so I've no reason not to accept them.

"Occam's razor is best and that is Bullitt and Chalmers going at each other as protagonist and antagonist."

- Just so. That's the gist of what I wrote in my very first reply in your thread: "The dramatic purpose Chalmers serves is that of antagonist to Bullitt's protagonist."

The issues surrounding details of the arrangements of Ross's plan, Bullitt's conflicts with Chalmers and so forth are merely the connective tissue I referred to in an earlier post that flesh out the screenplay to make it credible.

Whether regarding those, or ones relating to who (and when/why) Ross contacted, cosmetic surgery and so forth, I can only try to explain the film as I understand it when you raise them.

About the basics of your final paragraph, we're on the same page, and I see no differing interpretations arising therefrom.

So all is well.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>- With all respect, Ross contacting the FBI was your idea, not mine. Having considered it, I'm simply explaining why I don't see it fitting into the film as structured.<<

It's what most people would think of for this type of film. I think this is acceptable. I think you agreed that it is.

>>Explanations the film gives us - Ross uses an offer of testimony to subcommittee hearings as cover for staging his own death and fleeing the country, and contacts Chalmers, whose name's been in the newspapers in connection with them - are the simplest and make sense to me, so I've no reason not to accept them.<<

Which subcommittee is not explained. It is more likely the Federal level instead of state. Ross gives no indication of going to California, so there is no reason to contact Chalmers if he's strictly California. Also, Renick has to go there with his wife. Who is more likely to bring Ross, Renick, and Renick's wife there than Chalmers? Furthermore, the mob now knows that Renick is there, too. Renick and his wife arrived there first, then the mob and their hit men, and then Ross came in when Renick was hit. It was all going to plan except Chalmers decided to blame Bullitt and Bullitt had moved the body.

Personally, I wouldn't use a literary device like that to continue their feud. It could have just as well beem served with Bullitt not moving the body and both knowing Renick was dead. Dead men are mute witnesses. Chalmers continues to blame Bullitt and the SFPD. As he is a Fed, it makes it worse on them. Then we can avoid serving the papers to the captain and the rest. That just shows Chalmers as more of an a-hole. However, Chalmers would have to realize there was leak, too, and start his own investigation. You make him more intelligent than the schmoe the movie depicts him as. He could still issue his papers to get the Captain to release what information Bullitt has, so can continue to be an a-hole but a smarter a-hole. I downgraded the movie because of the nonsensical literary device. Then our discussions of the details of the movie would have more significance. Yet, Bullitt knows about the chain being unfastened and getting his lead first, so the movie plays out, and we see different movies, but it is still satisfactory.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

This covers some ground we've already covered. Whether it's a state Senate committee or a U.S. Senate one doesn't much matter. Chalmers is serving it, and that's who Ross offers his testimony to. I'm okay with it.

"Who is more likely to bring Ross, Renick, and Renick's wife there than Chalmers?

- With this, I do have disagreement. Chalmers doesn't even know about Renick until his passport application comes through on the TeleCopier:

"Who's Renick," Chalmers asks, and Bullitt replies, "He's the man who was shot at the Hotel Daniels. You sent us to guard the wrong man, Mr. Chalmers."

"Chalmers would have to realize there was leak, too, and start his own investigation."

- And what I just wrote above about Renick is why Chalmers wouldn't want his own investigation, and doesn't want Bullitt's to continue. If all those details come out, it makes Chalmers look like a fool in the press: there wasn't a "leak;" Chalmers was duped by Ross. So, as you say...

"Chalmers continues to blame Bullitt and the SFPD."

- Exactly. He wants Bullitt and the PD getting bad press, not him.

"I downgraded the movie because of the non-senseical literary device."

- I don't have a problem with the device. As I wrote in my first reply, it "makes for a richer and more complexly-layered story" than just a cop against The Organization.

Instead of just good guys and bad guys, you've got good guys, bad guys, and one guy who's supposed to be a good one (exposing organized crime) who's out only to serve his own ambition, and will even crucify the police to do so.

That kind of anything-to-get-ahead ambition is still relevant even now, 50 years later. Perhaps even more so.*


*Some people object when current politics are brought into movie threads, so I apologize if you do, but they're illustrative in this instance, when we have a very prominent politician today who publicly savages his own LE and intelligence agencies in the media to make himself look good.

It seems to fit.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>"Who is more likely to bring Ross, Renick, and Renick's wife there than Chalmers?

- With this, I do have disagreement. Chalmers doesn't even know about Renick until his passport application comes through on the TeleCopier:<<

I was talking about Ross' plan. No, I do not mean Chalmers knows anything. First, he is duped by Ross thinking he could get some mob leaders by his testimony. He's also "seeing" a run at the Senate or gaining more power from the publicity of putting organized leaders away. Once Chalmers is aboard, then it describes who arrived in San Francisco according to Ross' plan. It's Chalmers who wants it to be San Francisco imho.

>>"Who's Renick," Chalmers asks, and Bullitt replies, "He's the man who was shot at the Hotel Daniels. You sent us to guard the wrong man, Mr. Chalmers."<<

That was a great line. I lmao hearing that. It must've deflated Chalmers high opinion of himself. Yet, he's still formidable as he'll be pressuring the higher ups at SFPD to produce his witness. Trying to get testimony from a severely injured witness is proper procedure, but Bullitt is the only one blocking him. That said, what Chalmers does after that is "Mickey Mouse" as for lack of a better description. It's to set him up to be more stupid and more embarrassing scenes for him. Instead, we got a fine performance from Robert Vaughn as Chalmers, so why not keep his as an a-hole, but a smart a-hole. He'll be conducting his own investigation with his own people. We do not see this, but if he's a Federal assistant DA or DA, he could have the FBI involved. It's each side working their side of the street, but Bullitt still has the advantage. We also have the mob, but they were smart enough to put a tail on Bullitt in order to find out what he knows. They probably tailed Chalmers, too, but he's chauffered around in a limo, and a limo would probably break in half jumping hills, so it's not likely he'll get physically involved.

(continued)



reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>- I don't have a problem with the device. As I wrote in my first reply, it "makes for a richer and more complexly-layered story" than just a cop against The Organization.

I can't argue against the literary device because they wrote it that way, but can argue against supporting it, and that has to do with it being nonsensical.

It's not cop vs. the organization. It's Chalmers vs. Bullitt. The mob who figured prominently with Ross' double cross has become backstory because of it. With the new story of Bullitt vs. Chalmers, we see the anti-hero come out against the "establishment." I think this makes the story dated.

>>"Instead of just good guys and bad guys, you've got good guys, bad guys, and one guy who's supposed to be a good one (exposing organized crime) who's out only to serve his own ambition, and will even crucify the police to do so..."<<

Instead, why not make Chalmers smarter. Vaugh's portrayal isn't some stereotype, but his ambition for more power ends up becoming a stereotype. He's going to try to find the hospital report to find out what happened. That will expose Bullitt if he finds out Renick is dead this way. Chalmers would probably be pissed and want heads. I think you agree the personal ambition of Chalmers and we, as the audience, hate that, i.e. we become against the authoritarian figure, but the antagonist still he has the power to hurt our protagonist.

(continued)

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>That kind of anything-to-get-ahead ambition is still relevant even now, 50 years later. Perhaps even more so.*

*Some people object when current politics are brought into movie threads, so I apologize if you do, but they're illustrative in this instance, when we have a very prominent politician today who publicly savages his own LE and intelligence agencies in the media to make himself look good.

It seems to fit. <<

This is more of where we saw different movies. I don't associate the story with any established power today. I think the story is supposed to be a complex one, and could be done the way you see it, but even if I follow your story line, I can't see it being relevant to today.

What is "LE?" I don't want to mention any politician's name as I do not want to get into that. Just asking for clarification.

Back to our discussion, I re-read what you said and you said that Bullitt is out to get the killers. That should not be his main focus. It is, but his main job was to protect the witness. After what happened, then I understand it becomes his main focus, but he still has to produce Ross, the real one. However, if you argue that Bullitt had every right to kill Ross at the airport since he killed a deputy, then I can't complain. Furthermore, Ross was trying to kill Bullitt and it became a bang-bang situation. It ends the main conflict between Bullitt and Chalmers, as Chalmers is an eyewitness to what happened. It also solves the case for Bullitt, but the mob leaders get away. The ending is to make Chalmers look bad once again for his power ambitions. We could've had Bullitt 2 if the writers kept Ross alive. He wasn't a stereotype dumb criminal and another interesting figure. We could have Chalmers return and continue their feud as he runs for Senate while Bullitt is a captain.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

Although we have our diverging takes on points here or there, I'd say we're not all that far apart on what story the film's telling, and what messages it's sending.

I've just a few observations, clarifications or amplifications of selected comments.

"With the new story of Bullitt vs. Chalmers, we see the anti-hero come out against the 'establishment.' I think this makes the story dated."

- They're distinctly '60s tropes, but rebellion against authority and disrespect for pomposity are dramatic devices that go at least as far back as Mark Twain and Louisa May Alcott, and continue through comedies of Chaplin, along with "flaming youth" examinations of the '20s, the Marx Bros in the '30s, and persisting into youth-oriented films remaining popular since the '80s. Different decades have their own slants on it, but it's a recurrent aspect of the human condition.

"I don't associate the story with any established power today."

- Not so much the story as the character of Chalmers and the way he operates. I got as close as I could to describing one very visible present-day politician without naming names, but if you don't "see it being relevant to today," it's perhaps best to let it go at that, and chalk it up to current political polarization.

"What is "LE?" I don't want to mention any politician's name as I do not want to get into that."

- Law Enforcement.

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I agree, although we saw different movies, we aren't too far off from the story. I think the disagreement is it being made into a 60's trope. Chalmers is suppose to represent the government and its power, so I get that when young men were forced to go fight a war that they didn't believe in. I think the "establishment" at the time thought that countries would fall like dominoes if they became communist. It's part of the communist fear that was especially strong in the 50s after WW II. We still have that today, but I doubt we would go to war in a foreign country over it. Today, we would still go to war over oil and weapons of mass destruction in the enemies hands. Can you think of anything else?

Thus, they turn Chalmers into that guy who represents that. He's a bit prissy and uses too much protocol, but they could have made him more of a LEO like Bullitt. I guess he became a stereotype instead of just being an individual and I don't think he deserved that. He could have carried the character further instead of just someone who will fold up the case. That's why I put the topic as such. The way he is, he could have been played by a lesser actor and became a shill. Maybe I am giving Vaughn too much credit for his role, but he seemed to be a good foe for Bullitt until he was going to "fold up the case." As is, the movie is just a star vehicle for McQueen. His star power hit a new high and surpassed that of Paul Newman, but I think Newman was a better actor and was able to rise above McQueen in his roles in the 70s. The 60s seemed like a strange era, but it continued rock and roll era and moved the music to different types of rock. Psychedelic rock, heavy metal, punk rock, and such still sound good today. Watergate was another big deal, so I can see something like that would make young people distrust the government.

reply
formatting help
[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"Maybe I am giving Vaughn too much credit for his role, but he seemed to be a good foe for Bullitt until he was going to "fold up the case." As is, the movie is just a star vehicle for McQueen."

- Although Bullitt dislikes him from the beginning, Chalmers doesn't become his foe until the witness is shot. Before that, they had a common interest: protecting him.

Afterward, Chalmers remains interested only in the witness, but Bullitt has an additional one separate from Chalmers's: finding the people who shot him, about which Chalmers gives no hint of much caring. After they both believe the witness to be dead, their interests are then in conflict: Bullitt wants the killers; Chalmers wants only to scapegoat Bullitt and his associates.

No question the film was engineered as a star vehicle for McQueen, but he understood that a formidable and dislikable foe for him to lock horns with through escalating conflict would enrich the drama, and Vaughan does a top-notch job filling those requirements.

- - - - -
This is your thread and topic and I don't want to be presumptuous, so I wonder if you'd consider something that, to use Chalmers's words, "could do us both a great deal of good." For any further examinations of it, do you think it would be worth starting a new thread with the same topic, designated Part 2, so we'd be back up at the top of the page with more room to write?

reply
formatting help
About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Civil War Discussion | Dune: Part Two Discussion | Monkey Man Discussion | Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Discussion | The First Omen Discussion | Abigail Discussion | Poor Things Discussion | Kung Fu Panda 4 Discussion | Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire Discussion | The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare Discussion | Wicked Little Letters Discussion | Late Night with the Devil Discussion | Love Lies Bleeding Discussion | Immaculate Discussion | Maidaan Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit