Old MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

'Coogan's Bluff': East Meets West at Film Forum, is Killed Instantly


Film Forum’s Don Siegel series builds its skull-cracking crescendo tonight and Thursday, with Siegel’s 1968 tandem Coogan’s Bluff and Madigan sharing a twin bill on the way to the series’ climactic Dirty Harry engagement this weekend. And while neither of the first two films mythologize their New York locations to the extreme Dirty Harry did for San Francisco, both offer gleefully cynical views of an urban counterculture that the later film would implode once and for all.
And though Madigan is probably the superior New York film in strict narrative, technical and geographical senses, Coogan’s Bluff is the selection that really must (and should) be seen to be believed. Clint Eastwood stars as Coogan, an iconoclastic deputy sheriff from Arizona who must travel to New York to extradite the fugitive Ringerman (Don Stroud) from East Harlem’s 23rd Precinct. Of course, the tactics Coogan uses to stop crime out west (deftly illustrated in an opening set piece spotlighting revisionist-cowboy-vs.-humiliated-Indian) do not translate to New York, although his resistance to authority–in this case, Lee J. Cobb’s bureaucratically browbeaten lieutenant–hardens into unbending defiance within minutes of his arrival.
Coogan travels to Bellevue, springing the acid-addled hippie Ringerman from his bed and heading to the crown of the Pan Am building for their flight back to Arizona. Alas, the captive’s screeching partners in crime steal him back following an assault on Coogan, thrusting the cop and his cowboy hat into the city on a quest for justice. The archetypes are all here, and anyone with any rough familarity with Siegel’s canon can foretell the rule-smashing lengths his hero will go to settle his score–stepping outside the mainstream as a means of salvaging it.
But the cultural breach in Coogan’s Bluff is by far the most pronounced of any Siegel film: Eastwood’s journey through New York takes him into Day-Glo Hell, the domain of hippies in thrall to songs and dances like “The Pigeon-Toed Orange Peel” and sprawling apartments where Edie Sedgwick-esque trust-fund ingenues go to get wasted, laid and ultimately overdose in disgrace. Coogan’s ownership over this cohort is never really in question, as Siegel’s near-parodic indictment of their freewheeling standards plays in contrast to his protagonist’s own rebellion. Eastwood’s iconic virility is its own weapon here, to be replaced three years later (and for the remainder of his career, perhaps) with Harry Callahan’s .44 Magnum; his Coogan is the American West’s answer to James Bond, subverting a garish, feminine antiestablishment with a mainline shot of macho convention.
Anyway, what is primarily appealing here is that while his contemporaries creatively reacted to Vietnam and other political threats stemming from communism, Siegel’s cop trifecta takes it straight to the long-hairs. Madigan may emphasize their psychotic danger (what could be more terrifying, after all, than the enemy stealing our weapons?), and Dirty Harry may torture and kill them, but with Coogan’s Bluff, Siegel underscores their novelty’s spectacular uselessness in light of tradition. Its tactics may be raw, dated–even laughable–but two generations later, they are absolutely worth a closer look.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon