an unscrupulous journalist come down, magnifies a local case to bring the country's attention and profit. Ana Rosa Quintana, Susana Griso, you are apprentices by her side.
Today things have not changed, they have worsened
A great film. The script was fantastic and Kirk Douglas was brilliant playing part of Chuck Tatum, a manipulative self-serving jerk. Amazing how this film parallels many modern day events.
Not my favorite Wilder--it's a little monotonous, both in pacing and in performance from Douglas. The screenplay feels like it keeps hammering the same beats, so I found myself wishing for a bit more editing. Douglas chews scenery left and right, but the intensity of the character undercuts the cynicism that I wanted to see. Of course it's a modern movie saying things that are all darkly prescient, but I wonder if it would have been more effective to have had an understated performance.
Good film. Great performance from Douglas. Script is outstanding. No lulls or boring scenes.
7/10
Ace in the Hole, a film from 1951, painted a slightly exaggerated picture of a world where efforts went into making an event into a story with higher traction, long reach and as much possible limelight as it can. In 2021 with the advent of the virality of news, things have not changed a lot. Vultures, vultures everywhere.
In Albuquerque, there is a cave-in. A man was in there in search of ancient Indian artefacts and is now stuck under the ruble. The protagonist Chuck Tatum is a disgraced news reporter in search of a breaking story to make it back in the big leagues. He sees an opportunity in this 'event' and decides to turn it into a human interest story.
I am reminded of an event back in 2006 in India where a young kid fell in the borewell tube. This was a big news opportunity of that time. There was a live coverage and all. It was definitely a human interest story. I still remember that coverage now in 2021 which goes on to say how widely it was covered. The events and the coverage depicted in the film are all too plausible, but the exaggeration of the later part feels like cinematic liberty. If you take this as metaphorical hype then it would be permissible. Interestingly, the criticism when it released showed how the perversion of journalistic practices was a bit too much to handle for critics of 1951. Many channels today have surpassed the selfish and greedy levels depicted in the film.
Lorraine Minosa's arc adds a bit more drama which is not really needed. She is a strong character. Keeping her in love with her husband would have added a much-needed weight on the other side of Chuck Tatum. That would have balanced the film's power dynamic. As it stands right now, Chuck Tatum steamrolls everything. Kirk Douglas has given a powerful high octane performance. His delivery is sharp and packs a punch. Probably for the message director is going for, this one-sided aggression works better.
I also loved the writing in the film. I have rarely seen minimum words with maximum impact as the dialogues from Ace in the Hole delivered with gusto.
"Human interest. You pick up the paper, you read about 84 men or 284, or a million men, like in a Chinese famine. You read it, but it doesn't stay with you. One man's different, you want to know all about him. That's human interest."
Although the context is vastly different, this feels like a precursor to the Joker's quote from The Dark Knight.
I have not seen a lot of old films, but after seeing this, I think the craft was much more hard-hitting during those days. We have all the tech/CGI wizardry and polish now, but characters like Chuck Tatum or even like the Jacob Q. Boot linger over long after the credits roll.
I was going through a list of the 100 greatest American films by culture magazine, and this features 100th on it, and also features 385th on Empire magazine's top 500. Accolades well deserved. Recommended.
Shout by Maarten DelfgouVIP 2BlockedParent2022-02-22T23:24:29Z
Another title of the film is The Big Carnival.