Medium Cool

MEDIUM COOL is a documentary-like motion picture that contains actual footage of the Democratic National Convention and anti-war demonstrations, which occurred in Chicago in 1968. This gives the film, which is actually a work of fiction, an ultra-realism not usually found in Hollywood movies. Unfortunately, the excessive use of this footage near the film's somewhat extended conclusion helps distance us to the story of the main characters, which up to that point we had been following with great interest. Quite often in real life, major news events and the inevitable sensationalistic media coverage of them, tend to drown out all individuality and humanity. Perhaps this was the director's point. Still, by concentrating 'too' much on surrounding events, he allowed his characters to become only half-realized, and as a result the viewer only half cares what happens to them. The movie does have its share of positives, from Robert Forsters thought provoking ghetto interviews with African Americans to the quite jarring and ironic ending. In between, we see the very attractive Mariana Hill in her birthday suit, and are treated to some cool guitar music by "The Mother's of Invention". These aside, my overall reaction to the film is "Medium Cool". Final Verdict: 6 out of 10.

This is not a film for those who like comfortable Hollywood polish, production values, and formulas. It was shot in a documentary-style, and thus has an immediacy and intensity at a level that can only be found in a handful. It is completely unique in its blending of fact and fiction. The kitchen scene is brilliantly staged and carried off, and the ending is definitely chilling, although more than a little abrupt. (Did they run out of film?) But the truly exciting moment in this film comes when you are watching the demonstrations outside the Chicago convention, and it suddenly sinks in: This is real. It isn't staged for your benefit. The city really was an armed camp, and the police did beat up civilians. The film has a lot of pointless scenes, and the outer story is rather mundane, but the scenes at the convention are an unprecedented achievement - simply brilliant. This film is a must-see for any student of film or history.

They really don't make movies like this anymore. A documentary-style look at the press and media - fascinating! Stylings are very "'60s-ish" but the story and conversations will never grow outdated! A very influential film, expertly constructed and directed by Haskell...good luck finding it on video. You'll have better luck waiting for it to air on television. The acting is very good, and convincing. Sometimes I wondered whether they were _really_ actors at all! The direction is shaky and utterly superb, capturing the "feel" of these sort of documentaries broadcast on "60 Minutes," etc. All in all a very fascinating look at the media during the 1960s and beyond. It still relates. Vietnam has passed but the media is still the same!

Seriously, what is this movie? I am a young man, and I know my generation seemingly all suffers from ADD but I can sit and watch the original Pride and Prejudice without feeling super antsy. I am familiar with classic Hollywood, I am familiar with exploitation films, I study films which might make this all the more surprising to hear me say that I absolutely hate this film. I feel that there is no central plot and honestly there is nothing about the Dem. convention until very late in the film. Before I go any further, I have seen this film only once, it could take more than one viewing to fully appreciate the direction-less train wreck that is Medium Cool, but I will never take hours out of my life for this movie again. To those who have not seen it, unless you need some background noise for your nap, skip this. To those who praise this film endlessly for no apparent reason, please inform me as to why this movie is so great. I am not trying to be condescending in any way, I truly am curious as to why people rave about this film.

Stunning one of a kind feature about a young hot shot reporter who in his pursuit of the 'human interest' story misses many more important stories. A excellent, intelligent look at the news media. Examines everything from how the media may inadvertantly 'create' a news story, to who decides what is news and what isn't, and how being 'detached' from your subject may actually be a detrament. Ingenously incorporates its actors into actual protests of the 1968 democratic convention. These scenes alone are exciting and amazing. Director Wexler ( who is also a renowned cinematagrapher) seems to capture each scene like you are actually there. Only drawback is that a couple of songs from THE MOTHERS OF INVENTION have been edited out of recent versions due to a copyright dispute.

One of the craziest and most tension-filled time in America was during the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968. After all, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy had just been killed, racial tensions were at an all-time high, folks were angry about Vietnam and people were simply scared. So, it's surprising that so few films actually deal with this in any way...and this is why I wanted to see "Medium Cool". Too bad the film was ponderous when is clearly should have been exciting. The story is an odd one. In some ways, it looks like a documentary film where a film crew follows a reporter (Robert Forrester) during the course of him doing his job. And, as the film unfurls, you see the crazy events of the day as they take place. This documentary approach is heightened by most of the folks in the picture, as they are non-actors. But other moments seem more staged (such as the fun sex scene that originally earned the film an X rating) and often they are a bit dull. Overall, the picture desperately looks like it was done by a first-time filmmaker--complete with sub-par camera work, poor pacing and a semi-professional look to it. For the life of me, I cannot see why this film has been so well received.

Movies have a way of capturing the moment better than recreating it. I can only dread what a recreated 1968 in Chicago would look like from a Hollywood perspective. It would probably resemble something out of Forrest Gump. But Medium Cool happened to capture some brutal fight scenes with police in Chicago as well as scenes from the black ghettos. You can't recreate this stuff. This isn't a documentary but cinema verité and combines fiction and non-fictional elements. It's all shot with Chicago of 68 in the background. A landmark and infamous year for the US with the assassinations of RFK and MLK as well as the 1968 Democratic National Convention which was met with severe state repression. The state wasn't negotiating at this time, it was brutally sending men off to war and attacking those at home with the hired goons of the police force. It's a great movie which manages to combine fiction and non-fiction and shows us what the sixties were really like. It wasn't all love beads and LSD, although there is an amusing psychedelic sequence which takes place in a club. I think what I liked most was that even people who were non-political were being dragged into the politics of the time. Events were that serious at the time and people had to begin picking sides, the pleasant, white, middle-class interior of the Chicago DNC or outside fighting and raging against the police.

This is one of the great American movies. The reasons for its obscurity have everything to do with mass consumerism in the late 20th century and nothing to do with its quality. In my opinion this film captures the essence of the late 1960s better than Easy Rider, The Graduate, or any of the other popular films that have come to be associated with that era. Wexler combines a very European (Italian Neorealist/French New Wave) style with a very American subject matter in a way that comes across as completely natural. It is an art film that plays like watching the evening news. It is exciting both formally, and culturally: not only does it provide a lasting document of the late 1960s counter-culture in conflict with the aging, square America of the Eisenhower era, it more specifically does a fine job of representing the more general cultural conflict of rural people (here white Appalachians) thrust into the Yankee city environment. All this, and the movie is fun to watch, not some intellectualized snorefest. It a great movie.

This film is better upon the second viewing, the first time I saw this I thought it was somewhat dated or boring, I couldn't have been more wrong. Initially I watched this film because it was directed by Haskell Wexler whose work I admire, and I'm from Chicago and had heard it shows much of the city and the riots of 68. I enjoyed seeing the city forty years ago to see what was the same and what had changed, much has changed yet much remains the same from what I have seen of the people, places, buildings etc. It was great to see the Kinetic Playground on there, Chicago's electric ballroom, and other area's such as Lincoln Park. On the second viewing, I realized that this is a very important film in that it adroitly captures a moment in time, a moment we can never have again that is lost forever, that one second in our history that pivoted us as a nation between innocence and awareness and possibly that crucial moment which has brought us to the point we are at today. This movie is very important as a document of history, not to mention how well it's shot. The angles, the color, the way he goes in and out of focus make this a true gem that gets better the more you see it. Great soundtrack as well, Zappa, Mike Bloomfield and others.

It is hard to believe that Haskell Wexler was able to shoot a movie amid the turmoil surrounding the 1968 Democratic Convention, but he did it. Robert Forster plays a cameraman covering the event. He's not exactly enthused about his job, and in the process develops a relationship with single mother Verna Bloom. The scenes of the protests almost eclipse the main plot. Chicago's mayor calls in the National Guard to attack the demonstrators, while in the convention, people seem unaware of what is going on outside. As the protesters remind everyone: "The whole world is watching." It's so mind-boggling to think about 1968. That year, it seemed like one thing led to another. The Tet Offensive, the My Lai Massacre, Martin Luther King Jr's assassination, the Paris uprising, Bobby Kennedy's assassination, Prague Spring, the Democratic Convention, the Mexico City uprising (while the Olympics were happening there), and to crown everything, Nixon got elected.