The Arrangement

source: The Arrangement

'The Arrangement' was one of the very few Elia Kazan films to be near-uniformally panned critically when first released at the time. Even the slightly more complimentary reviews were generally mixed at best. Over-time it has garnered more praise with some considering it underrated, and the rather than completely panning the film the critical reception became and still is a little more mixed. Though with a lot of people still disliking it. Sadly, for me 'The Arrangement' was a real disappointment. Really like to love almost all of Kazan's films and have always admired his direction of actors and how he tackled heavy and still relevant subject (am very big on this by the way, especially recently). It does not give me pleasure criticising 'The Arrangement' and words cannot describe how much there was the want to go against the grain (have been known to), but this just didn't work for me on most levels. To me, it was the film that started Kazan's decline in film quality, one of the few films of his to not feel like a Kazan film and a contender for his worst. Did think that some of the scenery and art direction were nice and easy on the eyes. The music has well fitting and pleasant moments. Hume Cronyn at least looks engaged and gives his part some spirit and edge without taking anything to extremes. It is a shame though that the same cannot be said for the rest of the cast, how Kazan worked so well with actors and had a great reputation as "an actor's director" considered then and now as one of the best at it is not obvious at all here. Evident from how a cast that had talented and experienced performers gave performances that made them look like first timers or actors out of their depth. Cronyn excepted, all are made to either overact (Richard Boone) or look completely detached from the proceedings (Faye Dunaway) and the complete waste of the most experienced person in the cast Deborah Kerr is unforgivable. Will say that in all fairness they do struggle to do anything with such an over-worked and consequently tired script that lacks any kind of wit or elegance. As well as with very unsympathetic and one-dimensional characters that one doesn't give a toss about. Along with 'The Sea of Grass' and 'The Visitors', 'The Arrangement' is one of the few Kazan to not feel like it was directed by Kazan. His distinctive style is nowhere in sight. The production values are mostly cheap and look like a mix of failed experiments at various techniques camerawork-wise. The music has moments but definitely could have done with a toning down. Kazan has handled difficult themes (far braver ones than the ones here) with much more taste and sensitivity before, although mid-life crises and infidelity are not out of date today the approach to them are here. This is the sort of execution that would have been out of date in the 50s and actually would have preferred the sophisticated and frothy approach and not the distasteful and over-loud one seen here in 'The Arrangement'. The story is absurd and often very difficult to follow due to being a mess of styles and tone. Overall, a big disappointment and one of Kazan's few misfires. 3/10

Elia Kazan made "The Arrangement" in 1969 after having first published it as a novel. It's a difficult film but ultimately a rewarding one. It begins along the lines of a rather heavy-handed satire on consumerism before turning into a very late sixties psychodrama about a mid-life crisis which Kazan chooses to film in the fractured style of a European art-movie. The central character is Eddie Anderson, (not his real name; he changed it from the original Greek), and from flashbacks we are lead to believe he's the son of the boy from "America, America" who has now become Richard Boone. The film opens with Eddie's bizarre suicide attempt when he drives his sports car under the wheels of a truck and as it moves forward, to some kind of redemption. It also keeps skipping back to the events in Eddie's past that have lead up to that moment when he felt his life was no longer worth living. Kirk Douglas plays Eddie superbly, in what is really a very difficult role. His long-suffering wife is an equally superb Deborah Kerr, mixing acidity and sweetness to an almost alarming degree as she tries to comprehend what it is that's driving her husband. In the role of Eddie's mistress Faye Dunaway is less successful simply because her character is too much of a contradiction; she seems to undergo a complete change of personality. However, there's fine work from Hume Cronyn as Eddie's slimy lawyer and Boone is splendid as the gruff, seemingly uncaring father. The movie itself wasn't a success and critics were heavily divided, many feeling that Kazan had stepped outside of his comfort zone and had largely failed. However, the magazine 'Films and Filming', a bible of British film criticism at the time, selected it as the year's best film from any source. It was hardly that but it is still Kazan's last really good movie, an utterly essential part of one of the great canons of work in world cinema and it certainly shouldn't be missed if you get the chance to see it.

I know, it is for sure not Kazan's best film, it might be a bit lengthy. But if you like stories of people getting away from their former well-settled lives because they discover some truths about themselves, then you should definitely go and watch it. Faye Dunaway playing Gwen who makes Eddie (Kirk Douglas) change his way is simply stunning in her appearance. Some of you will definitely think: "Oh god, if only this happened to me..!" (Read the book, I say..!) I give it a 10, for the story which is, on the long run, the important thing.

A rich executive experiences a mid-life crisis, tries to chuck it all, and rekindles a relationship with a co-worker. The cast is pretty good: Douglas as the weary executive, Kerr as his understanding wife, and especially Dunaway as his mistress. Kerr boldly bares more than her soul. Also on hand are Boone and Cronyn, but the entire cast is wasted in this nonsensical drama. Kazan tries to liven things up with slick, annoyingly amateurish camera work but fails miserably, not helped by the lackluster source material, the director's own trashy, best-selling novel. The plot is rambling and uninteresting and the film drags on much too long.

This is a film to savor, because it demonstrates just how bad a film can really be, even when on paper its casting and the director make it look like it will be memorable. Everyone makes mistakes. For an actor, or in this case a director, one big mistake can effectively end a distinguished career. This film was director Elia Kazan's big mistake. And although he lived another 33 years, he only made two more films, and only one of those was memorable. And that's not just my opinion. In the Wikipedia article about this film, it is stated that, "The critics were overwhelmingly negative when the film came out." First off, Kazan tried to make the film look very 1970s-ish; and that only resulted in a film that today looks very, very dated. The problem isn't the acting, which I felt was quite good. Kirk Douglas does fine as the man in the midst of a nervous breakdown. While I can't quite say that Douglas' performance is restrained (can we ever say that about Douglas?), it is not over the top, either. I was never particularly impressed with Faye Dunaway, but this was a good as any of her performances that I recall, and frankly, I didn't remember her being that attractive (of course, she was only 28 here). Deborah Kerr's acting was fine here, although I wish she hadn't accepted the very non-flattering role. Richard Boone and Hume Cronyn turned in good performances, as well. The problem with this film is where it came from -- the mind of Elia Kazan. I'll tell you definitively -- since this film and his book that it was based on has been considered semi-autobiographical, he's a man I wouldn't want to have known. It came from his mind -- a very dark, unattractive place, unwelcoming, sad, and filled with bitterness and disillusionment. No thank you. One of the few films I've watched in a very long time that I wished I hadn't watched at all.

Elia Kazan may have bared his tortured soul in this autobiographical novel, but someone else was needed to bring it to the screen. Then again I'm not sure anyone could have made an entertaining film out of so dislikeable a subject. The Arrangement is ostensibly Elia Kazan telling his story of his relationship with a tyrannical father which is the root cause of the middle aged angst he now faces. Our protagonist is not a celebrated film director, but Kirk Douglas a rich and successful advertising executive who one fine day decides to go out in the way that Princess Diana did. It was not as fatal as poor Diana's crash. But all through this film you kind of wish he'd been put out of his misery. This man is selfish beyond all comprehension, narcissistic to the last exponent. Kirk Douglas has played some pretty rotten people on the screen, but even the cold blooded bank-robber/killer he played in his next film, There Was A Crooked Man, had far more going for him than this one. He's married to Deborah Kerr who was coming up short with decent film roles in the latter part of the Sixties. She's the long suffering wife in this one and initially you feel sorry for her. But after a while I got the impression she was just glorying in her martyrdom as the long suffering wife. Douglas even knocks up his mistress Faye Dunaway and even after she gives birth and the child is thrown in her face, she won't leave him. What she'd rather do is scheme with family lawyer Hume Cronyn and family doctor Harold Gould to get Douglas sent to the booby hatch. Not that he isn't giving them all plenty of good reason. Richard Boone is Douglas's father and he blusters and shouts his way through the part the Anthony Quinn does in his more bravura roles. Kazan didn't have a tight rein on the cast. Or perhaps they knew this film was a travesty and each was determined to overact and be noticed the most. Not the finest hour for all the talented people involved.

Old-fashioned melodrama longing to be flashy and modern. Director Elia Kazan, adapting his own bestseller, has assembled a terrific cast in story of a 44-year-old married advertising executive with a mistress who attempts suicide. Cold and detached, the film wants us to sympathize with a lot of people we might normally recoil from: the rich and privileged who live in a well-heeled vacuum. As Kirk Douglas' other woman, Faye Dunaway, who was featured in a slew of pictures from 1967-1969, was perilously at risk of being overexposed. She's gorgeously coiffed and manicured here, but her impassive face and personality don't involve the audience--and all of Douglas' striding up and down over her seems like a wasting disease. Kazan wants us to see the unsavory nature of these people, the office sharks and their suffering wives at the mercy of their whims, but the bitter 'truth' behind his portrait is heightened--just as it was in pictures like "Peyton Place"--and after a while it all begins to seem like a rancid put-on. ** from ****

Two hours-plus of Kirk Douglas having a nervous breakdown. If that appeals to you then you're likely to enjoy Elia Kazan's idiotic adaption of his own novel. Presumably the book had some sort of deep meaning (at least to Kazan), but this film is a mess. Douglas is a highly regarded advertising exec will all the trappings of success: money; a beautiful home; 3 cars; Deborah Kerr as a wife. Playing 44(!) but actually closer to 54, Douglas is woefully miscast. His angst is never anything but comical and it manifests itself in the form of sexy Faye Dunaway (a free spirited girl who awakens in Douglas the need to find himself). Douglas grits his teeth a lot, Kerr is very under-utilized as his wife, Dunaway is never anything but angry and, as Douglas's father, Richard Boone comes across as if he were auditioning for the title role in a community theater production of "Zorba the Greek." Boone's casting is particularly baffling considering the fact that he's actually a year younger than Douglas! Despite offering up a lot of cinematic pyrotechnics like flashbacks, flash forwards, freeze frames and more, Kazan's film is silly rather than compelling. Hume Cronyn, Barry Sullivan and Michael Higgins are among the supporting cast. The high gloss cinematography is by Robert Surtees.

The Arrangement (1969) You might say this movie is about a very successful man coming to realize his success means nothing in the big picture and all he wants is time to be himself, to enjoy life simply. Or you might say this is a movie about a man cheating on his wife with a younger woman and all the fallout that goes with that. Or you might say this is a psychoanalytical dive inward to a man realizing he was ruined by his parents and trapped by his wife, and he descent into introspection makes him go almost mad, and then mad. And he likes it that way. You might even say this is an exercise in narrative storytelling, with a virtuosic layering and intercutting of all these elements into a single highly complex tale. Kirk Douglas is the lynchpin to all of this, and The Arrangement, a masterpiece if there ever was one, is the merging of art-house cinema with mainstream Hollywood. Except that there was no real art-house movie scene in 1969. This film pushes the boundaries as hard as they could be and still survive at all as a mainstream release. Director Elia Kazan is certainly one of the greats of the era (Scorsese agrees here) and he went out on a limb with editor Stefan Arnsten to make something utterly unique. There are foreshadowings of Woody Allen (though without humor) and Six Feet Under (in the kind of surrealism created by editing and the changing presence of people in a single scene). The plot is also intensely personal. Kazan, born in Istanbul and brought to American when he was four, was the son of Greek immigrants and his father was actually a rug merchant. And Kazan was apparently having an affair at the time of the shooting (he remarried in 1969 and later had a child). The screenplay is Kazan's and it's based a 1967 novel, also by Kazan. So if this is a deeply felt movie about a man having a mid-life crisis, it's understandable. Is it overwrought and self-indulgent? It has that potential for viewers who don't connect with the style or the characters, but for me it was too honest and well made to brush off. I got sucked in and was mesmerized by the swirling, teetering effects that never let you get confused or out of control.