gavin6942
A TV news cameraman in Chicago find himself becoming personally involved in the violence that erupts around the 1968 Democratic National Convention.Roger Ebert credited Haskell Wexler with masterfully combining multiple levels of filmmaking to create a film that is "important and absorbing". That is an understatement. This film is great on its own (without the real world footage), but Wexler really lucked out on his choice of subject matter. He was in the right place at the right time to get these kind of shots.What results is not only a film of the highest caliber, but a piece of American history presented in a way that might even be called entertaining. And heck, it has a young Peter Boyle, so you cannot beat that.
Jack Kierski
I often like to watch films more than once and I recently did that with Medium Cool, which was originally released on August 27, 1969.The film was directed, written, and cinematography recorded by Haskell Wexler. He invented and used an unforgettable cinema vérité-style documentary filmmaking technique, as well as combining fictional and non-fictional content.Medium Cool was actor Robert Forster's first film in a lead role. Medium Cool is one of those films that shows cinematic footage of a nonfictional event in the movie - the 1968 Democratic National Convention protest activity. At that convention the protesters and the Chicago Police Department fought in the streets of Chicago while the US Democratic Party met during the convention in the International Amphitheater.John Cassellis (played by Forster) is a Chicago television news reporter and cameraman. Cassellis and sound man Gus (played by Peter Bonerz) are reporting about the violence and racial tensions in the ghetto. One of people that interviewed is an African American taxi driver who lives in the ghetto. Cassellis later discovers that his network had helped the FBI by providing some of his video footage from the protests in order to aid the FBI in their search for suspects. When Cassellis protests, he is fired at which time he then decides to go to the convention to record more footage.Cassellis ends up befriending Eileen (played by Vena Bloom), a welfare recipient who'd moved from her West Virginia home when her husband was sent to Vietnam. Eileen has a 13 year old son named Harold (Harold Blankenship).Ruth (Marianna Hill) is an attractive nurse, who has a relationship with Cassellis.Medium Cool is an extraordinary piece of cinematic art of the cinema verite-film style by Haskell Wexler. The way that the film combines a fiction and non-fiction story was very well explained and detailed due to Wexler's filmmaking style. The cinema verite genre combines well with a dramatic genre. One example: the argument scenes in the film that involve John Cassellis.Haskell Wexler did an amazing job with the cinematography. The way that he recorded the 111 minutes of the movie was very well accomplished. I especially found his cinematography style of the film to be influential. Wexler's amazing style of the film could influence other filmmakers. The reason why it could influence filmmakers because the cinema verite style that used was very revolutionized for its time and young filmmakers has never laid eyes on this type of film style before. Wexler's film style mostly influenced documentary film makers.The plot of the film was excellent and enhanced by the realism of the footage containing political protests of the late 1960s. I loved how the plot well captured and symbolized America in the 1960s and its political protests. One particularly interesting moment to me in the film is showed people setting up for the convention. Then, the black screen appears with the sentence: "America is wonderful". After that, John and Eileen are dancing in a psychedelic rock concert. This matters to me because this moment of the movie could bring back memories for people, who experienced late 1960s political conventions and psychedelic rock music concerts.Here's my advice: The movie is a definite must see for all generations. I give the film an strong 4 out of 4 stars.
jzappa
One of the most truthful moments I've seen in a film in a long time: We hear MLK speaking on TV, a professional cameraman watching. We hear King's immortal words which have resounded through the decades, and when Forster finally speaks, he says, "God, I love shooting on film." Medium Cool is full of moments like this, where we see or hear something that plugs into what we're truly thinking, disconcertingly enough, at times when what we're thinking seems to obviously be something else. In Medium Cool, we respond to these things and, some forty years later, aren't quite sure what's real and what's not. This most head-on and seemingly makeshift of films was released in 1969 to reaction and surmise. Five years before, it would have been deemed unintelligible to the general movie audience. What happened, I suppose, is that by then we'd become so trained by the quick-cutting, idea suggestion and stream of consciousness of concepts in TV commercials that we process more quickly than feature-length movies can move. We get cinematic fast-sketch. And we like movies that recognize our intelligence.Traditional film narratives pronounce themselves: We know all the main techniques/content and archetypal characters. Haskell Wexler's Medium Cool is one of several movies of the late 1960s and '70s that's conscious of these things about movie audiences, like Seconds, Easy Rider, Mean Streets, Who's That Knocking At My Door, The Graduate, The French Connection, etc. Of the bunch, Medium Cool is probably the most visceral. That may be since Wexler, for most of his career, has been a cinematographer, and so he's conditioned to see a movie pertaining to what's being shown and not shown on-screen more than its dialogue and story.Wexler fabricates a fictional story about the TV cameraman, his passion, his profession, his girl and her son. There is also documentary footage about the riots during the Democratic convention. There is a chain of conscious scenarios that supposes reality (women taking marksmanship practice, the TV crew confronting black militants). There are fictitious characters in actual documentary scenes and vice versa. The misstep would be to segregate the real-life elements from the made-up. They're all equally meaningful. The National Guard troops are no more real than the love scene, or the artificial collision that ends the film. All the images have significance due to the way they are connected to each other.Wexler induces our recollection of the zillions of other movies we've seen to import things about his plot that he never elucidates on screen. The essential account of the romance (young professional falls in love with war-widow, eventually obtains companionship of her resentful son) is surely not innovative. If Wexler had formalized it, it would have been commonplace and dull. Rather, he specializes in the emblematic and important features of this histrionic (the boy likes pigeons, the woman is a teacher, the location is Uptown, the time is the Democratic convention, the woman feels more authentic to the cameraman than the model he's living with). And these are the scenes Wexler shoots. The leftovers of the relationship are implicit and never shown, eschewing the often essentially unnecessary 2 on our way from 1 to 3.And Medium Cool also sees not images but their purpose: Wexler doesn't see the hippie kids in Grant Park as hippie kids. He doesn't see the clothes or the folkways, and he doesn't hear the words. He distinguishes their purpose; they are there completely owing to the National Guard being there, and the opposite. Both sides have a purpose just when they encounter one another. Without the encounter, all you'd have would be the kids, dispersed all over the country, and the guardsmen, dressed in civilian clothes and spending the week on their daily grinds. That's interesting too, but it's not what they are that's significant in this film; it's what they're doing there.Medium Cool is ultimately so seminal, and engaging, owing to the way Wexler braids all these components together. He has made a nearly consummate model of the movie of its time. Since we are so conscious this is a movie, it feels more pertinent and authentic than the graceful fictitious artifice of most other films, including better ones. This befits the last scene all by itself, that chance event that occurs for no reason at all. Chance events are invariably chance events, not fate, not God's will, not karma, and they never occur for a greater purpose. When we get it, it hit me that it's the first movie collision I've ever seen that we weren't anticipating for five minutes before.
ShootingShark
John Cassellis, a news cameraman in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic Convention, is caught up in the political and civil unrest of the times.This is an interesting early film by gifted cinematographer Wexler, which courageously attempts to mix a fictional narrative (Forster and Bloom meet and begin a romance) with real footage of the time (specifically a riot in Grant Park, near the end of the movie). It doesn't really work either way for me - the characters are a bit distant and the hippy ideology has long grown dim - but it deserves kudos for trying something different. As a document of its time however, it is fascinating; '68 was an especially grim year, with Vietnam at the height of its outrages, constant clashes between public and police all over the US, the notorious student riots in Paris, and both the Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy assassinations. It captures the tensions of the time with frightening clarity - when Forster goes into the ghetto to do a "human interest" story, a black activist responds, "It makes a person wonder whether you're going to do something of interest to other humans or whether you consider the person human in whom you're interested.". It also ponders the disaffectment of the media; in the opening scene Forster films a wreck on the highway and then calls an ambulance as an afterthought. It has an intriguing title too, which I take to mean that the TV news would rather behave in whatever way puts itself in the best light, rather than reporting objectively and responsibly - a problem now more than ever. Whatever my opinions, this is an incredible achievement for cameraman-writer-producer-director Wexler.
