Absolutely Brilliant!

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Blistering performances.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

I love this film. It was one of the first I ever saw when I really started getting into movies. It's got incredibly strong performances from the great Al Pacino and the late John Cazale (What a great catalog of films he had in his tragically short career) they're both amazingly gifted people. It's also still incredibly provocative, the idea of gay marriage is still fairly stigmatized, let alone the complex dynamics at work in Dog Day Afternoon. Perhaps what bothers me most about this film, though, is the fact that it's always bouncing in and out of the 250th spot of the top 250, it's so good! It deserves a permanent spot!

Al Pacino delivers an outstanding performance as somewhat incompetent bank robber Sonny Wortzik, who, along with his partner Sal (played with understated melancholia by John Cazale), decides to knock over the First Brooklyn Savings Bank to pay for his 'wife's' (Chris Sarandon) gender-reassignment surgery. The heist quickly goes wrong, leaving the bemused and unprepared criminals and their hostages stuck in a stinking-hot bank, surrounded by cops, the media, and crowds of on-lookers. Based on a true story and once again affirming the adage that 'truth is stranger than fiction', "Dog Day Afternoon" is one of the best films to come out of the early 70's, with fantastic acting, tight direction and an excellent script (although much of the dialogue was improvised). Notable for being one of the five full length films Cazale starred in before dying of lung cancer, all of which were nominated for a Best Picture Oscar (three of which won the award).

"Dog Day Afternoon" definitely belongs in the category of: "this must be based on a true story, otherwise it's completely implausible". The idea of a failed and amateurishly executed bank heist turning into an absurd media-circus and a giant metaphor for overkill situations in recent American history, I can still believe. But the crazy revelation that the whole scheme was thought up because money was needed for the sex-change operation of the homosexual robber's lover, well… that is so surreal and far-fetched that it simply has to be true! If any aspiring scriptwriter would present this type of idea to a random producer, he/she wouldn't receive a single penny for it. But you know what? The biggest accomplishment of writer Frank Pierson, director Sidney Lumet and – of course – the phenomenal actor Al Pacino – is that they managed to keep the essence of the story rather small and personal. All the socially relevant themes are downgraded to mere sub plots while the private story of Sonny is gradually put forward. He's intelligent but insecure, anxiety-ridden and utterly self-destructive. The way Al Pacino depicts him is righteously referred to as one of the most powerful and persuasive performances in the history of cinema. John Cazale gives away a nearly as impressive performance as Sal, the somewhat simple but loyal partner-in-crime, although obviously less expressive and energetic than Pacino.

I've seen it said frequently about this film that it is a commentary on the nature of media and sensationalism, and how those things can warp the perception of certain events and people. This is a fair analysis, but what I think is perhaps more significant to me, though perhaps not as clever, is that this film is a careful study of how different people react to a crisis. Of course, these things are not mutually exclusive. The media certainly acts as a major force of change both in the nature of the story and in the characters. I think though, that the idea that this film is just about how the media affects people is insufficient. How then is the viewer meant to understand the scenes which altogether lack any media presence? In the quieter moments of this film, when the cameras have gone away and the crowd is silent, the heart of this film reveals itself. It is about people reacting to crisis. Not just the crisis of a robbery gone wrong, but personal crisis. What drives characters in the film is not how they think the cameras will perceive them (not saying that part is not also essential in appreciating this film). The protagonist, masterfully performed by Al Pacino, is not motivated by it. He's motivated by the tumultuous nature of his life which has led him to this point, and the desperation it has instilled in him. The police too, are not driven by cameras and crowds, they simply measure their actions differently. Media changes the dynamics, but it doesn't change reality. The reality is that people are brought together by a tense situation and are defined by how they compose themselves when the pressure's on. The best example of this theme in action within the characters is in the transition of police leadership of the stand-off from Moretti to Sheldon. I found watching this film that when Sheldon confronts Sonny for the first time, I could tell it was the beginning of the end. It isn't just that Sheldon represents a more formidable branch of law enforcement, but that he conducts himself in a more powerful way. He's cool and collected. Up to this point in the film you sort of get the sense that Sonny and Morreti are approaching the situation with pretty similar attitudes. They're both struggling to maintain their composure and they're seemingly blindsided by the fiasco that is the hostage situation. Sheldon is not blindsided. They're isn't a trace of doubt or fear in him. He has it all under control, which means that Sonny has lost all power. Watching his interactions with Sheldon I just knew that it was already over. How could a mere victim of circumstance best what is obviously a master of fate and will? The direction of this film is also demonstrative of this theme. You might notice, especially if you've seen a Lumet film before, that the use of music in this film is very limited. This strikes me as being very deliberate both stylistically and dramatically. After all, wouldn't it make more sense to play up the sensational nature of the story by adding a melodramatic score to punctuate every little interaction? That would be very meta. What this selective choice of music suggests, to me at least, is that reality is distinct from the media circus. It surrounds the characters, it influences their behavior to a certain extent, but ultimately it isn't the reality they occupy. They are still trapped in their circumstances, and no amount of cheering, jeering, or filming can change that. All that's left for them is to decide how to handle their crises. That also explains the nature of the cinematography, which also seems a bit restrictive at times. There's little movement and the often the camera is sort of just set at eye level. Nothing too crazy. The effect of this is that you find yourself, as the viewer, just as trapped as the characters you're observing. You don't get to have a dozen montages and swoop over the roof as the police plot their infiltration because that isn't something any of the characters can do. This film respects the barrier between crisis and coverage. It endeavors to thrust its characters into a disaster and ask you to consider how they're reacting. The commentary it makes on the media is valid, and should be considered carefully, but in doing so don't forget what's happening when the cameras are away.