MovieChat Forums > Tough Guys Don't Dance (1987) Discussion > Mailer's movie needs to be rediscovered

Mailer's movie needs to be rediscovered


Saw TOUGH GUYS DON'T DANCE in the theatre and later on VHS. I think it's a classic film waiting to be re-discovered. When it was released, the critics didn't seem to understand Mailer's level of satire. Director Mailer played the most outrageous aspects of the story straight, so there was never that wink to the viewer telegraphing intention or response. John Bailery's camera supported this approach with a cold, detached visual style. Most of the men in this story are characterized in one form or another by a kind of macho posturing. Mailer, just as in the novel, has tongue firmly in cheek, but allows the noirish action to speak for itself. Despite what's said about Ryan O'Neal's "Oh, God, Oh, Man" moment, I think this is one of the last great performances he's given. Perfectly cast, the young man we remember in LOVE STORY and all the rest ends up in this lonely landscape, stagnant, drunk, and so worn out he can barely move. Lawrence Tierney, a big bull waylaid by cancer and regret, deadpans, "I just deep-sixed three heads" in a moment that's both surreal and terribly human. Wings Hauser's on camera stroke alone should have earned him an Oscar nomination. I remember when it came out, some critics considered the film a Norman Mailer vanity production. But I ask you, vanity or not, could anyone but a true director pull off the delicately disarming moment when Wardley commits suicide? This is a great, great movie.

reply

I've been making my friends watch this movie for almost 20 years now. Most of them love it, but it helps that I tell them "It's supposed to be funny."
.
Get the DVD, if you haven't already. The cleaner image shows how beautiful Provincetown really is (I'm from Massachusetts). And there's a 20-minute interview with Mailer, among other good extras.

reply

Thanks for the message. Me too, I've shown TOUGH GUYS to many, with generally positive response. I don't tell them it's funny; would rather they discover it along the way. And, really, most do. Critics, particularly American, tend toward hostility when confronted with information they have to assimilate. Too bad. If this had gone over even marginally well, it's a good bet that Mailer would have made more movies. Mailer's thwarted cinematic ambitions robbed us of the work this amazing storyteller could have given us! Maybe I over estimate the whole thing, but I love this movie and am happy to hear from others who agree.

reply

i just watched it with some friends last night and we all enjoyed. i really want to have "tough guy" parties. i really think this is a film to be enjoyed drinking or whatever with a bunch of your friends (who are inclined to appreciate this kinda thing).

reply

I certainly enjoy the movie, and appreciate its varied qualities (intentional and unintentional humour, for example), but given that Mailer is a storyteller by trade, there are some unfortunate flaws in the way that the plot is presented- too many dull flashbacks (I'm thinking of Wardley Meeks' story).

reply

Not sure I agree there's any unintentional humor. The the film, like the book, is a send-up. Mailer's brilliance can be detected in the way he plays even the crazy stuff straight. As for the flashbacks, they seem to be part of the film's entire structure, being, as it is, about a drunk who can't completely remember what happened.

reply