The Taking Of Pelham 123 (1974)

A heist movie set in 1970's New York starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw? What can go wrong with that? Well, very little.
The Taking Of Pelham 123 gets the plot rolling along in less than 10 minutes, as ringleader Robert Shaw (along with three of his colleagues, including Martin Balsam, Earl Hindman ---of Home Improvement fame---, Hector Elizondo) hijack a subway train (the red line heading to Pelham Parkway) and hold the passengers hostage. Walter Matthau stars as Lt. Garber, a transit authority police lieutenant who is busy showing the Transit Authority headquarters off to a group of Oriental investors (whom he insults, assuming they don't understand English). The hijackers make their demands shortly after clogging up the entire subway system: either the City pays them$1,000,000 within 30 minutes, or they execute one hostage every minute until they do. It is up to Lt. Garber, and his on-duty partner, Rico Patrone (played with laid-back zest by Jerry Stiller) to stay one step ahead of the hijackers, save the hostages, and also figure out how the hijackers plan to escape from an underground train that can only go one of two directions. Car chases, shootouts, disregard for political correctness, and Robert Shaw ensue.
Walter Matthau spends much of the film trading barbs with Robert Shaw's Mr. Blue via two-way radio, bargaining for time and any concessions to prolong the execution of the hostages. While I liked that he was never in control of the situation I often wanted to see him do more than just talk into a microphone. He plays a very passive role here, which is necessary as he is someone who is almost out of his league with Mr. Blue (although he does manage to outsmart and trick them on at least two occassions). His expression in the final frame of the film, that humdrum, ironic look, is classic Matthau and an amusing coda. His blatant sexism ("What good's a plainclothes cop on that train, especially if it's a goddamn woman?") is amusing because it seems so out of character for the actor.
This is very much Robert Shaw's film: from his first apeparance on screen he commands attention, and manages to get it at every moment. He is epitome of cool, calculation (when not talking to Lt. Garber he plays crossword puzzles while contemplating which hostage to shoot). His character, given a cursory backstory, was a mercenary of some sort, and knows how to handle weapons, uncontrollable colleagues (personified in Hector Elizondo's Mr. Grey), and any inconsistancies in a plan. The man is also a sociopathic psychotic, expressed in a fun way near the climax. His demands, spoken clearly and in crisp, perfect English with a polite British accent, undercut the deadly person he has in store; even when leading a hostage off the train so he could be shot in the back, he calmly asks him to watch his step to avoid the third rail.
Mr. Elizondo's Mr. Grey is set up as an unstable mob hitman who was fired for being too uncontrollable, and he expresses that with an itchy trigger finger and a mysoginistic attitude towards one of the female hostages. He also trades harsh words with Mr. Blue, who takes it all in with cool deference. Mr. Grey is more a foil for Mr. Blue than Lt. Garber is, as Mr. Grey is an ever-present force aboard the train. Earl Hindman's Mr. Brown is given little screentime, but it is established that he and Mr. Blue are friends of some sort; that's about all the backstory we get on the guy. Martin Balsam's Mr. Green has a surprisingly large role, and one that has a pretty amusing payoff (which I won't ruin here); he is the one conscientious hijacker, not really wanting to hurt anyone, and his involvement stems from a drug bust in which he got caught and wants revenge on the Transit Authroity (he used to work as a motorman and knows how to operate a subway car).
The hostages are a bag of caricatures. the credits describe them simply as The Pimp, The Old Jew, Mother and Kids, The Homosexual, etc. etc. Everywhere throughout the movie are hints of a conservative society that was changing drastically: Lt. Darber and his coworkers often whine about letting women into the workforce; Lt. Darber makes pseudoracist remarks to the Chinese businessmen he believes don't understand him; Lee Wallace, as the mayor, is unliked by the citizens, and often weighs saving the hostages against losing the election; the homosexual in question is dressed like he came from a Stonewall Inn anniversary parade. It was 1974 New York in all its glory: fuck being PC, PC doesn't exist, and even if it did this is New York City with Walter Matthau as its star. He and the rest of the characters can say exactly what's on their minds because, you know what? That adds to their character. That gives them depth. Stop pussyfooting around and say what the fuck you want, even some people are offended. You're a character in a movie.
Director Joseph Sargant jumps directly into the action, tossing the audience into the plot without explaining anything and letting the audience slowly get to know the characters, their motives, and what's at stake (like any good director should. All this bullshit about knowing everything about a character, about where they came from, what their childhood was like, and whether their mothers hugged them is bullshit, boring, and takes away from the mysitque). The pace slows in the second, but once the mayor agrees to pay and the race is on to get the money from Chamber St. to the 18th St. station in less than 4 minutes things really pick up. Everything is played light and fun, exactly the way a good heist movie should be: the key isn't the payoff, but the coming together of every element, the escalation of suspense. Watching a genius at work is more exciting than watching the aftermath of their struggle, and here Robert Shaw is a genius.
Another genuis move is the score by David Shire. His score incorporates extensive use of percussion and trumpets, creating a motown-influsenced jazz score that reverberates like a heartbeat. The score is listenable apart from the film, although, unfortunately, it isn't used as extensively as I would've liked. After seeing the film I'm curious to find David Shire's other works to see if they hold up.
The film is a good heist movie, a lot of fun, and is a great showcase of 1970's New York, a New York that no longer exists as it's been Disneyfied and cleaned up and glamourized in the past two decades. Whether it's better or worse depends on who you're asking, as well as what part of New York you're referring. But the film isn't without its flaws as well: the payoff, which was hinted at for at least an hour throughout the movie is not nearly as exciting as it seemed. The second act slows down considerably, and some of the motivations for the police seem unexplained (they concede to Lt. Garber's decisions at nearly every turn without debate). The plainclothes policeman onboard the train is alluded to every 12 minutes, but when it comes time for him (or her) to get to the action, his (or her) actions seem somehow anticlimatic. Finally, all the blatant sexism, racism, and uncouth behavior, while interesting and fun to watch, doesn't hold up wel lat all in today's PC world.
This is a good movie, very fun, funny, with some great car stuntwork by Joie Chitwood and his team (who did the enjoyable-to-amazing car stunts for the James Bond films from 1971 to 1974), a great jazz score, and fun performances by Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. Perhaps the upcoming remake (on which I worked) will improve on some of the pacing problems, but I fear a lot of the un-PC behavior, which made the characters more interesting, will be lost and Lt. Garber's role will be made to be much more active (with Denzel Washington in the role, that is almost guaranteed). And unless they change the whole "big twist", it'll be gravely anticlimactic.
I'm sure I'll pick this up once the inevitable special edition comes out to coincide the release of the remake this summer.

Wake Up Call, my newest film, will be done, completely by the end of this week. I decree it.