MovieChat Forums > The French Connection (1971) Discussion > The French Connection - in historical co...

The French Connection - in historical context


It seems strange to read many posters complaints that this film is "boring" or questioning its point. It's almost like someone of my generation (b. 1959) asking what was the importance of World War I. For we who lived through the late 60's and 70's, THE FRENCH CONNECTION remains a cultural touchstone that defines the era. Who can forget the nightly news in 1971 leading off with the mounting death toll of the Vietnam War, followed by some inner city story about the war on drugs? The U.S. seemed to be losing both wars. And if you lived in New York City, like me, urban blight wasn't just a news story, you could drive in any direction and see it. The newspapers' end of the year edition always provided a roll call of the twenty or thirty police officers who were killed in the line of duty in the previous twelve months.

It was only a couple of weeks before THE FRENCH CONNECTION opened that the riot in Attica Prison occurred. Not much earlier that year, the particularly horrific murders of P.O. Waverly Jones and P.O. Joseph Piagentini, while they ate their lunch in their squad car in Harlem, dominated the news. The city homicide rate was over 2,500, and poised to increase in 1972. Then there was the heroin epidemic, and the crime that it fostered. This was society out of control. Nobody was safe.

That October, THE FRENCH CONNECTION opened with little if any fanfare. But in the weeks that followed, everybody was talking about it. Here was a film that showed how a big-city Narcotics squad operated. The only thing I knew about "narcs" was that one had arrested a high school student down the block from my house for carrying a bag of weed. The police portrayed on television were all cleaned up for "Dragnet" and "Adam-12." In the movies, the cops were slick fantasy characters like Dirty Harry and Bullitt. THE FRENCH CONNECION confirmed what many suspected, that the real cops were brutal, often racist, sometimes lawless. When Eddie Egan and Sonny Grosso (the real "Popeye" and "Cloudy") appeared on The Merv Griffin Show and "60 Minutes," they were treated as heroes fighting the good fight. They were never questioned about the illegal tactics they used, some which were shown in the film, instead they were lauded for being tough guys holding the line on the front. When a real major heroin ring was smashed a week or so after the film opened, the news reports showed the police removing the drugs from hidden traps in the car, just like in the film.

The film got even more national attention when Nixon announced his national "war on drugs." In the Spring of 1972, my junior high school started a program of having policemen come into the classroom and talk about the dangers of drug use (accompanied by a slide show or short movie). It was inescapable, it was real and it was playing at your local cinema.

Of course, the film became a victim of its own success. Every ensuing urban thriller copied its gritty style until it became a cliche. Now it seems many modern viewers see the film as a relic, a historical footnote; so perhaps Kubrick's A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is the more enduring classic. However, I will never forget leaving the theater after seeing THE FRENCH CONNECTION in the summer of 1972, and getting on the subway to go back to my Queens home. I watched a junkie nod out on the seat across from me. It's like the movie didn't stop playing.

reply

I think you're right in that it probably caught the Zeitgeist that represented that seamier side of New York at that time.

reply

On the Vietnam war protests of that time. There was this guy I met by accident he was a hippy. He would be in all of the protests. Funny thing about him for a pacifist he was always fighting at those protests.

He was the guy that introduced me to all the cool music of the 70's. Like the grass roots, black sabbot, cream, etc.

Well he gets married to this knockout Irish girl unbelievable hot girl. They live in a hole in the wall apartment. I knew they had no money. I did so I would get things for their apartment that they did not have.

I wanted that girl from the first minute I met here. So I made it my business to be there friend. Later everytime he went out to protest. I was banging his wife.

In my world if people saw someone burning an American flag at a war protest. They would kidnap him off the street take him to a safe house. Take an American flag rap it around his head and set fire to it.

reply

That's sick and despicable. If someone's burning a flag, that's on them. You don't have the right to play God and punish them because they are. They have that right.

reply

cool story, bro

reply

OP: I'm a little older than you, and also a Queens native (born in Far Rockaway, went to Archbishop Molloy at Queen Blvd & Van Wyck). Thanks for recapturing that time in NYC so vividly. It was as awful as you describe - but I still have fond memories!

reply

Great post!

reply

Thank you so much for this post. I've been catching up on my classics, and having historical context is very important for me. You heightened my experience of watching The French Connection for the first time, and I enjoyed it greatly. What an incredibly gritty, erratic, and realistic thriller.

Cheers!

reply

I thought i left a comment on this post,anyway,great post here wrfarley,i'm not a lover of Kubrick or A Clockwork Orange,give me TFC any day,did Friedkin make any great films after The French Connection and The Exorcist? i was always intrigued by him but never followed him up to see if there were other films of high quality?

reply

SteverRG, they just released Friedkin's magnum opus, SORCERER (1977) on BluRay and DVD after many years in distribution limbo. It's very much a technical triumph, which stars Roy Scheider and an international cast, taking place mostly in South America, where Scheider and three other dregs from society are hired to drive trucks laden with nitroglycerin over treacherous mountain roads to put out an oil well fire.

Some of SORCERER is spectacular (it cost $23 million, which was super big budget at the time), and contains some of Friedkin's best action sequences. However, none of the main characters are sympathetic, as they are various types of criminal who wound up in the South American jungle to escape their past.

If you've never heard of SORCERER, there's a good reason. It debuted in the U.S. the same week as STAR WARS and was buried at the box office, never to be heard of again. At least, until this year. If you like Friedkin's work in the other films you mentioned, you might want to check out SORCERER. It's downbeat and dreary, but definitive William Friedkin.

reply

wrfarley,thanks for your reply and the info,i have read about Sorcerer when reading about Friedkin and was curious about it,i had also heard of it as my brother is a Tangerine Dream fan and they did the soundtrack to it,so i will add it to my wishlist on Amazon.

reply

I'm old enough to remember, Sorcerer, but never got round to seeing it for whatever reason. And I was a big fan of Scheider - and not just for his work on TFC, but also the 7 Ups and of course Jaws.

I have watched the original French film, "Wages of Fear", many times, and I regard it as a classic of French cinema. But I think one reason why I never got round to watching the remake was perhaps down to the rather ambiguous title!

Back in the 70s there were a number of horror/supernatural films doing the rounds off the back of Friedkin's superb, "The Exorcist". I guess I thought "The Sorcerer" was just another Exorcist rip-off based purely on its title.

However, given your rather encouraging words, I think I will check it out and see how it measures up to the French classic :)





...but what I know about is Texas; and down here, you're on your own!

reply

I'm anxious to hear your critique, Sonatine97. I don't know what Friedkin was thinking naming the film "Sorcerer." He claims he got the title from a Miles Davis song, but to me, it seemed an intentional mis-direction to capitalize on THE EXORCIST.

reply

I have managed to borrow a DVD of the "Sorcerer" from a work colleague; so I aim to have my little double-bill over this coming weekend, starting with "Wages of Fear", followed by "Sorcerer"

So this could end up one of two ways: up to 4+ hours worth of awesomeness; or 148minutes of awesomeness, followed by 30 minute of "OMG, this is truly terrible! Where's the <stop> button?" (although to be honest, I do have high hopes the remake will be at least entertaining and worth a repeat viewing or two)

Will let you know how I get on :)












...but what I know about is Texas; and down here, you're on your own!

reply

Sonatine97, report back here first thing in the morning. Lol!

reply

Well here's my report of "Sorcerer" (I know I should really post this on the Sorcerer Board, but I'll keep it brief here)


I would probably need to watch this a 2nd or 3rd time to really aprpeciate its subtle qualities. It is without doubt a good, competent, un-Hollywoodesque, action/drama, but it is not without its faults.

I guess it is always going to be difficult to be objective with any remake of a truly classic original: I was making mental comparisons throughout, and because of that reasoning, "Sorcerer" falls well short of "Wages of Fear"

The good points:-

the sound quality, and especially the cinematography. Excpetional to the last, especially some of the truly depressing scenes in those South American shanty towns.

The tight editing was also very well done; especially during the truck scenes through the jungle and of course the rope bridge.

A solid performance from Scheider. Fresh from his blockbuster success with Jaws, he was a complete revelation as the hopelessly pessimistic, desperate & forlorn Jackie. His expressionless face & soulless eyes near the end, just said it all really.

Some good action points throughout, and I particularly liked the four prologs.



Now for the weak points (IMHO at least)

The Tangerine Dream score, didn't quite fit the mood in most of the film. I do like TD, especially ih James Caan's "Thief"; but here, I found some of the techno/synth sounds rather jarring/distracting at times (although I know I'm in the minority here)

The four protagonists, I never cared for throughout, especially given their backgrounds. I didn't really have much sympathy for Jackie, even though it was played by the only familiar face in the film - Scheider. I also realise that the 4 men in "Wages of Fear", are of a similar nature. But at least in that film there is a growing compassion/humanity/bonding going on between most of them. To the point where you do pity them, and wish they succeed. Whereas, in this film, I don't know enought about them to really care.

Some of the action sequences through the jungle trail, had great build-up, but suffered from anti-climax. The blowing up of the trees, for example, was good during the build up, but I never felt in awe of it's execution. And this wasn't the only instance. The hold-up by those bandits near the end, never really worked for me either. But then again I'm making comparisons.

There was no empathy at all in this film; no love interest either. Whereas in the original, there was the tempestuous on/off romance between the gorgeous, Véra Clouzot & arrogant lead, Yves Montand. This added a bit more depth & emotion to the film, whereas here there is nothing.

It is still a good film for all that, but for the moment I think it warrants a decent 7/10. But I will give it the benefit of the doubt with some repeat viewings.

But the problem is that this film doesn't engross you enough to want to do that straight away; unlike "Wages..." or indeed "French Connection", where I felt inclined to rewatch within minutes of the credits rolling.

I hope I haven't dented your enthusisatic support for this film too much, Wrfarley? :)





...but what I know about is Texas; and down here, you're on your own!

reply

Sonatine97, I agree with a lot of your critique, still I think you will gain appreciation of it with a couple more viewings.

After about my third time around, I started to like the bums on screen, but that's probably because of what we learn from Hitchcock: as long as they are ON screen and get big close-ups we have no choice but to identify with the characters presented. However, another thing I believe is when you have unsympathetic lead characters they need sharp and funny dialogue for the audience to see them as at least likeable rogues: think Humphrey Bogart in TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE (the film SORCERER is really trying to emulate) or Fred MacMurray in DOUBLE INDEMNITY or Jimmy Cagney in WHITE HEAT. What sets these losers apart is that their dialogue is incisive. They're also too smart for their own good. The dialogue in SORCERER is sparse, and what there is of it is rather pedestrian.

Unlike most of the film's fans, I, too, am not a big fan of Tangerine Dream's score here. Too urban for the jungle, and it makes the film feel a bit low rent in spots. Friedkin should have gotten Ennio Morricone.

My memory of the original is not so sharp, but what remains to this day is the tough guy gangster who emotionally falls apart as the journey drags on ("I see death in every pebble on the road").

reply

I'm old enough to remember, Sorcerer, but never got round to seeing it for whatever reason. And I was a big fan of Scheider - and not just for his work on TFC, but also the 7 Ups and of course Jaws.


Not forgetting Robert Shaw who was also great in Jaws and The Taking of Pelham One Two Three.

reply

Every ensuing urban thriller copied its gritty style until it became a cliche. Now it seems many modern viewers see the film as a relic, a historical footnote.


wrfarley: I don't think the current generation of moviegoers (those who go to actual cinemas) are adept at sitting through this type of narrative mostly because they confuse boxoffice success with quality and/or film making skill (and I enjoy the current action packed SF/superhero genre(s) too, just for the record.). Consequently, modern moviegoers when they do see a film that takes its time or isn't one sensational scene after another, they find them boring or passe.

For me, The French Connection is good because I can watch over and over and still enjoy it. Each time, I find something new about it. Unlike you, I didn't experience NYC as portrayed in the movie, but for a little high school kid, it was f#$king good nonetheless. It still is.

reply

To that point, pilarinhavana, I saw TFC three times when it was originally released. I saw THE GODFATHER and CUCKOO'S NEST at least as many times on their initial runs, and enjoyed them each and every time. Great films deserve second viewings in the theater I think. Of course, in the 1970's and before there were fewer films playing in theaters at any one time, so the supply was more limited than today (and, of course, there's no such thing as a re-release anymore).

Still, I often ask, after someone recommends a film to me, "Would you pay to see it again?" On rare occasions I get a yes answer, but generally, when someone really likes a film today, they answer my question with, "No, but I'll definitely watch it when it comes out on DVD or Blu-Ray." To me, that's not as strong a recommendation.

reply

I don't see what "modern moviegoers" and current box office numbers have to do with anything. People can go to see a modern film and still enjoy this movie. Frankly, this movie seems very modern to me, compared to the 1930s whodunnits which I normally watch.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply

I'm watching it now (first viewing). I think that this is a film which anyone can enjoy, anyone of any age.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply