The McQueen Persona, Part II: The Imprisoned Free Spirit (The Great Escape & Papillon)

This entry is for the Steve McQueen Blog-A-Thon at Jason Bellamy's blog The Cooler.

In Part 1 of this series, I discussed one aspect of the McQueen Persona, the Righteous Rebel, in two of his films, "Bullitt" and "An Enemy of the People". I had admitted that both films were both rather flawed films that were elevated by McQueen's performances, but never quite pushed him as far enough in challenging that aspect of his persona. As we take a look at a different aspect of the McQueen Persona, The Imprisoned Free Spirit, not only are both films much stronger, one of which I consider a genuine classic, but they do quite an effective job at building McQueen's image while almost cutting him back down to size in a way that few parts designed for movie stars do these days.

I will reiterate that I consider McQueen more of a great presence rather than being a great actor. "An Enemy of the People" represents the most that McQueen has ever stretched physically, but most of the time he occupied what we consider the "Steve McQueen roles" in movies. As with most stars, movies were made to tailor to his strengths of being a rebellious, confident man of action. McQueen was not the first actor to come to mind as someone you would hire to bring much emotional sensitivity to the film. The parts tailor-made for stars that I often find the most interesting are the ones that subtly subvert their personas and undercutting the adoration that movie star roles often court.

What better way to take down someone a couple of notches than by throwing them into prison?

The McQueen Persona, Part I: The Righteous Rebel (Bullitt & An Enemy of the People)

This entry is for the Steve McQueen Blog-A-Thon at Jason Bellamy's blog The Cooler.

I never considered Steve McQueen the greatest actor, as much as I considered him a great presence. One has to look at today's "movie stars" to truly appreciate what McQueen brought to movies that were, for the most part, mostly memorable due to him. He seemed to have a mature, been around the block quality even in his early thirties, while many present-day actors are more pretty and boyish even when some of them are approaching forty. He may have been considered too cool, and, by turn, too unemotional by some, but he still represents to me more how men really are or perhaps should be. Maybe, these days, pop psychology has infected male characterizations so much that I prefer some of the mystery that McQueen's opaque performance style offers.

For my two entries into this blog-a-thon, I will contrast two McQueen performances and films that have 10 year gaps between them. Most of McQueen's choice of roles had to do more with fitting a certain aspect of his persona than necessarily challenging his range as an actor. At first glance, you would think these two films could not be more different from each other, since the little-seen "An Enemy of the People" was made as a passion project by McQueen and renders him nearly unrecognizable under a long hair and beard. But there are some similarities between what some consider his most iconic performance and his least-seen one.

Memories of the Turn of the Century in Film, Part II: 2002/2003

In Part 1 of this series, I discussed how filmmakers had begun the decade searching for purpose and vision in a time of uncertainty. That slowly began to change, as the world evolved (or perhaps appropriately devolved) due to political, economic and social circumstances. The years of 2002 and 2003 saw filmmakers becoming more engaged with the world around them as the movies I discuss in this piece begin to demonstrate. However, this raises a question that we have been asking since then: Was anybody paying attention?

I ask this question because the moviegoing experience changed significantly for me this past decade from something I did out of anticipation to reaching the point where I came up with excuses for avoiding going to the theater and just waiting for a movie to be released on DVD. I can recall times from when I was younger that were special about seeing a particular movie. Nowadays, I can make lists of moments when a particular experience was ruined by an individual (or several) by them generally doing or saying something stupidly disruptive.

Now, you may wonder why I am devoting a part of this series to discussing this. I believe that the heart of the movie experience is the relationship between the image on the screen and each person in the auditorium watching it. Without a doubt, each of us connects to a movie on our own terms, but we also take part in sharing a collective experience with others when we sit inside of a theater. With the improved visual and audio quality of watching a movie on DVD and, now Blu-Ray, with a high end system, some of the most devoted cineastes are seeking this as a refuge from the collective experience. Sadly, I understand why they are despite believing that all films are best watched on the big screen. I can say that I probably go out and watch about slightly more than half of the movies I used to about ten years ago. The collective experience of filmgoing has burned me too many times.