Brock Peters – Movie Musings

The gentlest and least action-filled of all the Star Trek films is one of its most successful outings

Director: Leonard Nimoy

Cast: William Shatner (Admiral James T Kirk), Leonard Nimoy (Spock), DeForest Kelley (Dr McCoy), James Doohan (Montgomery Scott), George Takei (Hikaru Sulu), Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), Nichelle Nichols (Uhura), Catherine Hicks (Dr Gillian Taylor), Mark Lenard (Sarek), Jane Wyatt (Amanda), Robin Curtis (Saavik), Brock Peters (Admiral Cartwright), John Schuck (Klingon Ambassador), Robert Ellenstein (Federation President)

Most people’s Bingo cards probably didn’t have “biggest Star Trek hit film is about saving Whales”. In fact, when I told my wife this was the plot of Star Trek IV (which she had, resignedly, agreed to watch on a Saturday night) she immediately assumed I was pulling her leg. I guess this might also be what Paramount thought when Nimoy and Nicholas Meyer pitched this: time-travel with comedy for the crew, no villain, no battles and not a single photon torpedo fired in anger. There wouldn’t even be a proper love interest. But the formula was such a surprise hit, Paramount tried to repeat the trick again with Star Trek V and promptly fell flat on their faces.

After the events of Star Trek III, Spock is back from the dead and the crew are heading home to face the music after their riot of breaking orders, sabotage, theft and blowing up the Enterprise from the last film. (Since they’ve also not changed clothes since the start of that film, they must also be a bit whiffy). Before they arrive back though, Earth is thrown into chaos by a mysterious probe whose powerful signal is draining the planet’s power. Turns out the probe is trying to contact Humpback whales – which mankind hunted to extinction in the late twentieth century. Kirk, Spock and the crew take their stolen Klingon bird of prey on a perilous time-travel slingshot round the sun back to 1986, to grab a pair of whales and bring them back to their present. But of course, it’s not that easy.

There is something very refreshing about Star Trek IV, one of the entries in the series that really attempted to go its own way. It manages to pull this off pretty well, the crew settling into the fish-out-of-water comedy of being stranded in modern San Francisco without inducing eat-your-fist levels of embarrassment in the viewer (not a trick the franchise managed in other lighter entries, such as Insurrection and of course Star Trek V). Perhaps it’s because, by and large, the cast don’t overplay or force the comedy too much and the mix of both apocalyptic dread in the future and horror of the butchery of whales in the present counterbalances the comedy rather well.

In fact, Nimoy proofs to have a deft touch (he went straight from this to directing Three Men and a Little Lady and he was pretty much button-holed as a comedy director from hereon). He latches onto the rare chance for a Star Trek film to go fully on location – surely a nice change from the blatantly papier-mache sets of the Genesis planet in Star Trek III – neatly capturing the slightly dazed characters, dodging traffic in busy San Francisco streets, grabbling with the complexity of using money and struggling with the parade of “colourful metaphors” that pepper Twentieth century speech.

There is a pleasingly family-friendly quality to all this, continued with the missions Star Trek IV splits the crew up to achieve. Each of these is well-tailored to cater to the strengths of characters and actors. Naturally, Russian-accented Chekov winds up hunting for “nuclear wessels” to re-power the ship, including a desperate chase across decks of the real battleship USS Enterprise. Nimoy also captures some neat observational comedy with Chekov and Uhura plaintively asking non-plussed passers-by for directions to a Naval base (including a blank faced cop, and a flustered extra who parrots back the naval base name in her confused directions – Koenig nailing the polite exasperation of Chekov’s bemused response).

In addition, we get a Scotty struggling to understand why he can’t talk to computer and then not caring when he hands over future technology secrets in return for free plexiglass for a whale case (timelines be damned!). Or an increasingly grouchy McCoy railing against medieval medicine in a cutting-edge hospital, subtly handing over kidney restoring medicine to an ailing granny. And, of course, Kirk and Spock chasing down whales, shouting down road hogs (“double damn ass on you!”) or neck-pinching rude punks on buses and struggling to work out when to tell the truth and when to lie.

The whale part of the Star Trek IV works rather well. Shots of the butchery of whales is quite chillingly graphic, Spock’s mind-meld with whales George and Gracie (during an unauthorised swim in the aquarium pool they live in – met with slack jawed despairing shock by Kirk) stresses the animals intelligence and empathy (these whales are not just tools to do with as our heroes please). It’s easy to see why the film helped the cause of Greenpeace no end, especially since George and Gracie’s near-fatal encounter with a ship of scruffy whalers is genuinely tense as we dread seeing a harpoon in the side of an animal we’ve grown fond of. Catherine Hicks also gives a nicely judged performance as a passionate whale expert, who also manages to see through the crew’s (not particularly well disguised) bullshit.

That’s not to forget the destructive impact of the probe in the future, as its distinctively intimidating “froom-froom” boils oceans, scorches skies and leaves starships (crewed by an ahead-of-its-time diverse series of officers) drifting in space. It’s a neat metaphor for the results of mankind’s thoughtless impact on the planet. But also, its genuinely quite exciting, just as is the crew’s risky flash back in time to the past, Takei sonorously reporting their ever-increasing speed as the ship shakes. A final attempt to save the whales from a sinking Klingon bird-of-prey does feel like it’s been chucked in to give Shatner some final act heroics. But you can cut it some slack, considering that its genuinely tense.

Above all, Star Trek IV shows that you can make a successful Star Trek film without trying to make it as much like Star Wars as possible. This is the sort of conundrum the show used to deal with all the time, cleaning up our own mess and learning lessons along the way. It also allows the cast to relax and to be genuinely engaging, without drowning us in cringe-worthy comedy. Star Trek IV is what it needs to be: a really accessible way to get into the show, that riffs on things you’re likely to be familiar with, without needing a PhD in the show’s canon. Mix that in with a well-judged (Oscar-nominated) score by Leonard Rosenman that gets the tone just right between playful and epic and the fact that all that location shooting means the limited special effects budget could be used to ace effect, and you’ve got one of the best of the franchise.

Rod Steiger is superb in Lumet’s drama of grief, The Pawnbroker

Director: Sidney Lumet

Cast: Rod Steiger (Sol Nazerman), Geraldine Fitzgerald (Marilyn Birchfield), Brock Peters (Rodriguez), Jaime Sanchez (Jesus Ortiz), Thelma Oliver (Ortiz’s girl), Eusebia Cosme (Mrs Ortiz), Marketa Kimbrell (Tessie), Baruch Lumet (Mendel), Linda Geiser (Ruth Nazerman)

Sol Nazerman (Rod Steiger) lost his entire family – including his wife and two children – in the Holocaust. Previously a University professor, he has now cut himself off from engaging with life by burying himself in a dingy pawnbroker’s shop in Harlem, where he treats his desperate customers like “scum”, offering them nickels for their goods. On the anniversary of his wife’s death, Sol confronts his own grief, tensions from local crime boss Rodriguez (Brock Peters), the offer of a friendly ear from new neighbour Marilyn (Geraldine Fitzgerald) and the unwanted friendship of his assistant Ortiz (Jaime Sanchez).

It’s probably not a spoiler to say that all of this does not end well. The Pawnbroker is almost unrelentingly grim and bleak. Shot in a harsh black-and-white – superbly lensed by Boris Kaufman – it mixes French New Wave realism with a punishingly cold New York aesthetic that catches every grain of dirt on the streets. The past is virtually a character in the film, the events of over twenty years ago having far more importance than many of the trivial events Sol encounters in the present.

The constant presence of the Holocaust, and the scars it has left, are kept in our mind by the film’s constant use of quick – almost subliminal – cuts from current day events to snippets of Sol’s past. Hands pressed against windows turn briefly into hands against barbed wire. A young lady flicks back and forth into Sol’s wife. The sounds of a train inevitably transform into a transport train. Lumet makes it clear to us that everything Sol sees and encounters in the modern world, no matter how small, is just a continual reminder of the horrors of the Holocaust that defined his life.

This isn’t something as ‘simple’ as survivor’s guilt. It’s clear that, while his body survived, Sol effectively died in the camps and what we are seeing is his walking corpse. He’s deliberately alienated himself from the world and his concern, with no real desire to live but also no will for self-destruction. Perhaps he sees his continued existence as a punishment for failing to save his family. This has developed into a loathing for the melting pot of Harlem, a stubborn, conscious refusal to feel any empathy for anyone living there. Instead, he works hard to loath them as much as he loathes himself. Trapped by guilt and grief, Sol slaps away any offers of friendship, pity or warmth.

The film’s greatest strength is Rod Steiger’s towering performance. Normally Steiger was an actor who never shied away from the possibility of over-playing. Here, he’s so buttoned down and spiritually dead, every single movement like he’s walking around in a physical and spiritual straitjacket. Sol scuttles around the cages of his pawnshop, like a guy who has never left the camps. His performance is a masterclass in precision, of carefully restrained movement, gruff speech and eyes that stare into a dread a thousand miles away. Every step Steiger takes is weighted down by an impossible burden of grief, anger, despair and self-loathing.

It also avoids completely easy sentiment. For all that we see the suffering slowly revealed of Sol’s past, Steiger isn’t afraid to show Sol as a difficult, arrogant, even unpleasant character. The defence mechanism of hostility and non-engagement of the world has only increased his prickly aggressiveness. But yet, he remains sympathetic as Steiger also conveys the deep pain Sol spends every single minute of his life suppressing and controlling to stop it overwhelming him.

If there is a fault with the film, it’s that it goes about its carefully bleak and hopeless journey through a few days in Sol’s life with slightly too much precision. The Pawnbroker sometimes mistakes grim, hard-hitting and misery for emotional investment. For all that the film is a difficult, searing watch – and the terrors of the flashbacks are ghastly – it’s somehow not quite as moving as it should be. Perhaps this is because the present-day plot never quite takes off and the other characters – with the exception of Peter’s chillingly ebullient but dangerously violent Rodriguez – don’t quite connect. Fitzgerald’s social worker Marilyn is a character we don’t quite get to know. Not quite enough time is spent with Sol’s in-laws (despite good performances from Marketa Kimbrell and Lumet’s father Baruch Lumet) for their story arc to move us in its own right.

Similarly, the Holocaust sequences – brief and interspersed as they are – sometimes overplay their hand, particularly the rather heavy-handed opening sequences showing the Nazerman family playing in the field minutes before the Germans arrive (accompanied by a thudding musical score – and Quincy Jones’ score sometimes tries to do much work for the viewer). It would be hard not to make The Pawnbroker at least a little bit moving, but Lumet’s film bludgeons us with misery so heavily, that there is no sense of the lightness or warmth of life that has been lost. Scenes of the Holocaust of course are hard to watch, but The Pawnbroker bashes us with them to make us feel things. It’s a film that’s tough and leaves you in no doubt of the horror, but doesn’t always make you feel for individual. You need a touch of what was lost to be truly moved: with no real sense of that, we can’t grieve with the characters.

But, The Pawnbroker is still a daring film that leaves a lasting impression. Lumet’s direction has a New Wave freshness and an immersive sense of the New York Streets. Steiger is fantastic in the lead role – his most restrained (and greatest) performance ever. The film broke new ground for sexuality – including making Rodriguez a non-camp, intimidating homosexual – and while the final beats of inevitable tragedy aren’t quite earned by the events we see, it’s still a grim and powerful look at the lasting damage the past causes the present and the crushing legacy of grief.