Film

ReFramed No. 18: Robert Culp's 'Hickey and Boggs' (1972)

Jordan Cronk and Calum Marsh

This time out, our discerning duo take on one of the last great LA noirs, directed by one of the '60s/'70s most recognizable TV stars.


Hickey and Boggs

Director: Robert Culp
Cast: Bill Cosby, Robert Culp, Rosalind Cash, Nancy Howard, Isabel Sanford
Release Date: 1972-09-20

Calum Marsh: Whether you want to call it the last great contemporary film noir or the first great buddy action film, Robert Culp's Hickey & Boggs deserves far more recognition than the paltry sum it's accumulated over the last forty years. It should come as no real surprise that the cultural high guard has ignored a film of this kind altogether--unless they come conveniently prepackaged with Point Blank-style arthouse frills, action flicks rarely find their way into the canon--but I'm genuinely surprised that a movie as fun and exciting as this hasn't found at least some sort of niche audience to embrace it after all these years.

You'd think Hickey & Boggs would be an easy sell on pedigree alone: though clearly the passion project of director and co-star Robert Culp, the film has the distinction of being the very first screenplay written by Walter Hill, who went on to create The Warriors and, most famously, the Alien series. And it co-stars Bill Cosby, which should be reason enough to make this thing more widely known. As it stands, it languishes in seemingly permanent obscurity, going largely unseen and totally undiscussed. Honestly, why isn't this thing a cult classic?

Jordan Cronk: Well, unfortunately, as is the case with a great deal of the films we cover in ReFramed, availability in the home video market has left Hickey & Boggs languishing in obscurity for quite a while. Only recently did the film receive a DVD release—or, rather, a DVD-R release, available through the Warner Archive series, which is an online made-on-demand service that isn't really all that well known to anyone other than hardcore fans of noir, which is what the series specializes in.

This is also another one of those films that I feel would gather a rather devoted following if simply granted proper release. Besides Bill Cosby and the related I Spy angle, there's also, as you point out Calum, the Walter Hill connection, who's 1972 film The Driver has been referenced in many an article recently in conjunction with Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive, a homage to Hill's feature and films of a similar nature. Which is all to say that, yes, there's no aesthetic reason that Hickey & Boggs isn't more well known—it’s certainly one of the more entertaining films of its kind that I’ve seen. But I personally wasn't even aware of the film until a couple of years ago when it played as part of a retrospective series at the Los Angeles Film Festival.

Needless to say it left an immediate and indelible impression, becoming not only one of my favorite crime films from the era, but also one of my own definitive L.A. films, joining such richly detailed and geographically intimate works as Alex Cox's Repo Man and John Cassavetes' Minnie and Moskowitz. It's also one of the films profile in Thom Andersen's Los Angeles Plays Itself, which we've effusively covered in these pages in the past. However, now seems as good a time as ever for the film to find a long-overdue audience.

Marsh: That Los Angeles connections seems rather significant, too—and not only because the film's many notable set pieces are established in and around recognizable city landmarks. I'm not an L.A. resident, of course, but even with my limited familiarity with the city I can tell that this is an uncommonly authentic document of the look and feel of the place. And the look and feel of the city as it was in 1972, then, becomes the look and feel of the film as a whole: as with the classic '50s noir Kiss Me Deadly, which Thom Andersen described as a "literalist film" for how closely it nailed the details of its setting, Hickey & Boggs begins in L.A. but is ultimately about it in some sense.

Of course, Hickey & Boggs is now four decades old, so much of what it transcribes about Los Angeles has unwittingly become a historical document, and I'm sure you're in a better position than I am to appreciate the nuances of difference between the L.A. of 1972 and the L.A. of 2012. I mean, I'd like to believe that you can still order four dirt-cheap chili dogs at a food counter in the middle of a city block, but I suspect that kind of thing is as lost to history as Cosby's deep green suit.


Cronk: I'm sure the prices are slightly different, but there are certainly still curbside eateries just like that in the Los Angeles area. In fact, the one they go to in the film is called Pink's, and it's still around and one of the most famous and popular places in Hollywood (on a culinary side note, there's a similar scene in Minnie & Moskowitz where Gena Rowlands and Seymour Cassel visit Pink's—it's appeared in quite a number of films, most out of convenience and not with nearly as much pride as these two films).

It is true, though, that Culp—who we haven't mentioned not only stars in the film but also directs (in fact, it's the only feature film he ever directed)—turns the city into a character unto itself. Perhaps the film's most memorable scene, and certainly its greatest set piece, is a lengthy shootout in the L.A. Coliseum, where the NFL franchise the Ram's once played. The film thus carries with it an unmistakable air of nostalgia—the locations are recognizable only as those of Los Angeles, but this is the Los Angeles of a bygone era, one once associated with a grittier type of character-based crime film. Only a few filmmakers such as Michael Mann and the aforementioned Refn have really been able to accurately capture subsequent eras of the city's expanse. You know who this film reminds me of more than anyone, though? Robert Altman.

Hickey & Boggs would make a hell of a triple feature with California Split and The Long Goodbye, each made one subsequent year from the next. Needless to say this was a fertile time for films such as these. Altman may have even picked up on some of the buddy-film aspects of Hickey & Boggs—and if not necessarily him, certainly dozens of others have, nearly all to lesser effect.

Marsh: You know, I was actually going to ask you about Minnie & Moskowitz—I just assumed it was a similar eatery rather than the exact same one. In any case, that kind of location specificity is clearly what Culp is going for, and it is, I think, one of the film's most salient features. And you're dead-on to bring up Robert Altman, because his best films share exactly that sensibility; Short Cuts, The Player and The Long Goodbye, in particular, are quintessential Los Angeles pictures, the city so much more than a backdrop.

And beyond that, The Long Goodbye shares with Hickey & Boggs an approach to film noir that's both playful and subversive, a kind of postmodern take on a genre declared dead decades earlier. I don't know if Hickey & Boggs could be said to be a conscious influence on Altman or any of the crime-film stylists that followed—it's hard to gauge the reach of a film so few have seen—but that's part of what makes it such a revelation to rediscover now.


It's easy to see it as a blueprint for the wave of buddy action films through the '80s and '90s, particularly given that more than a decade after this film dropped Walter Hill went on to pen 48 Hours, a similar picture that's widely misperceived as the first of its kind. What distinguishes it from its followers, however, is its intensely bleak perspective; where most buddy cop movies are marked by their levity and irreverence, Hickey & Boggs is dark, treating the profession of its protagonists as grueling and thankless.

It's a thoroughly enjoyable film, to be sure, but the fun and humor is of the gallows variety, the jokes made mostly amidst misery and despair. Hickey and Boggs are on the verge of bankruptcy, torn between paying the bill for their phone or their answering service, and Culp plays up the amusing irony: without the answering service they can't take calls from new clients, but without the phone they can't return them. And a recurring gag finds the duo sticking a homemade "out of order" sign on whatever parking meter they pull up to—it's funny, yeah, but it speaks volumes about the rut they're in.

Cronk: And the Culp character is also an alcoholic, eventually jeopardizing their case with his bouts with the bottle. A lot of the film's most memorable dialogue takes place in bars or over a drink, and it's in these scenes where these characters’ personal lives are exposed and their inner demons are revealed to the audience. Each has their own funny quirks, of course, but there's an undercurrent of weariness beneath even the film's more outwardly light-hearted moments. The plot itself is extremely dense too.

I feel like it's so rare for an American crime film to weave an intricate plot nowadays. The genre the world over isn't much better, but when as film like, say, the recent British hit Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy comes along, it's refreshing in the faith its filmmakers put in its audience. And yes, it seems more of a similar case of early-'70s, independently minded aesthetics that brings together this film and the concurrent work of Altman. Peter Yate's The Friends of Eddie Coyle and the films of William Friedkin also approach the genre in similar manner, and taken together one could argue this as one of the most fruitful periods in American cinema. These are all rather bleak films, and the third act of Hickey & Boggs in particular is extremely sad, with a certain peripheral but important character being killed in retaliation for our duo's sometimes selfish pursuits.


The ending even carries with it that quintessentially mournful '60s/ '70s vibe, one more realistic than most films which have followed have dared construct. To me, though, these qualities are what keep films like these so rich with character insight and lasting entertainment value. I’m not sure why these idiosyncratic little crime films seemingly died out, but sometimes after the mid-’80s things seemed to take a turn toward the comedic, leaving behind the bleaker human elements which so distinguish these films. I suppose that’s why we cherish them and why we’re still discovering and discussing films like Hickey & Boggs today, though.

Marsh: Not to generalize too broadly, but I think sometime during the '80s these kinds of thematically bleak, narratively complex action films came to be supplanted by more lighthearted, simple-minded spectacles, and gradually action filmmaking become associated exclusively with fantasy wish-fulfillment. I think in a way it's harder now for audiences to accept genre films as anything other than simplistic exercises in escapism, because the divide between ostensibly "serious" arthouse films and lighter blockbusters is practically unbridgeable—it seems that for a genre film to veer into seriousness or complexity, it has to adopt the attitude of an arthouse film, which is what Refn's Drive did last year. Hickey & Boggs, like several of the other films you mentioned, wears its cynicism right on its sleeve, but it doesn't try to shield itself with arthouse tropes or trimmings; it's still thoroughly a neo-noir, an action film for multiplexes. That's pretty exceptional

Cronk: Yeah, I'd be inclined to agree. After all, the late '70s brought Jaws and Star Wars, unknowingly creating the blockbuster in the process. And by the '80s, the new template for mass entertainment was written. The '80s did end up producing other films that feel somewhat like spiritual successor to this '70s movement such as Midnight Run. But even that is first and foremost a comedy. But like we've said, these similarities are what make the obscurity of a gem like Hickey & Boggs that much more unfortunate. I've seen little glimpses of evidence that the film could be gaining some curiosity, and with the film now available in at least some kind of digital format, I'm thinking we won't be the last converts.

It's discoveries like these that continue to intrigue me and ultimately make me wonder just how many other wonderful films from this era are lurking just beyond the frame of pre-blockbuster American cinema. Hickey & Boggs is a film I would and could recommend to just about anybody, and I get the feeling they'd react in a similar manner. These characters, coupled with the Los Angeles locales and all these humorous and humanistic little details, will hopefully one day elevate the film to at least a cult-like status appropriate for such a satisfying film. I think I can speak for both of us when I say we’d be proud to be at the ground floor if such an occurrence ever transpires.

From genre-busting electronic music to new highs in the ever-evolving R&B scene, from hip-hop and Americana to rock and pop, 2017's music scenes bestowed an embarrassment of riches upon us.


60. White Hills - Stop Mute Defeat (Thrill Jockey)

White Hills epic '80s callback Stop Mute Defeat is a determined march against encroaching imperial darkness; their eyes boring into the shadows for danger but they're aware that blinding lights can kill and distort truth. From "Overlord's" dark stomp casting nets for totalitarian warnings to "Attack Mode", which roars in with the tribal certainty that we can survive the madness if we keep our wits, the record is a true and timely win for Dave W. and Ego Sensation. Martin Bisi and the poster band's mysterious but relevant cool make a great team and deliver one of their least psych yet most mind destroying records to date. Much like the first time you heard Joy Division or early Pigface, for example, you'll experience being startled at first before becoming addicted to the band's unique microcosm of dystopia that is simultaneously corrupting and seducing your ears. - Morgan Y. Evans

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
9

If The Prince of Nothingwood will popularly be remembered for celebrating the creative spirit of its star Salim Shaheen, it is equally an important communication on Afghanistan, it's culture and its people.

"Now I am just more tired and poor. So no, I haven't changed. I'm just older and more tired," says French radio journalist and documentarian Sonia Kronlund, as she looks back on the experience of making The Prince of Nothingwood (2017).

Joining Salim Shaheen, the most popular and prolific actor-director-producer in Afghanistan on his 111th no budget feature, Kronlund documents the week-long shoot and the events surrounding it. She crafts an insight into a larger than life persona, yet amidst the comedy and theatricality of Shaheen and his troupe of collaborators, she uncovers the heavier tones of the everyday reality of war and patriarchal oppression. If The Prince of Nothingwood will popularly be remembered for celebrating the creative spirit of its star, it is equally an important communication on Afghanistan, it's culture and its people. Alongside the awareness of the country cultivated by mainstream media news outlets, Kronlund's film offers an insight into a country that can humanise the prejudice and xenophobic tendencies of a western perspective towards Afghanistan.

In October of this year at the UK premiere at the BFI London Film Festival, Kronlund spoke with PopMatters about being driven by questions rather than inspiration. She also reflected on the subjective nature of documentary filmmaking, the necessary artistic compromises of filming in Afghanistan, and feeling a satisfaction with imperfections.

Why filmmaking as a means of expression? Was there an inspirational or defining moment?

Not really, no. I have always done documentary. I used to write scripts and TV series but I only make documentaries myself for radio and television. For this story, I figured out after a while that it deserved a bigger ambition and a bigger screen and that's why I don't very much believe in inspiration. To be honest, I made this film because I had to do something. I didn't have a big project where I thought: I want to make this. I went there and I found a little money and at the end the ambition and the inspiration came along the way. But there was not an urgent necessity to make this film. It fits with a lot of things that I'm interested in, like popular culture -- What does art stand for and why do we go to the cinema? What is the purpose? This is a question I'm interested in, but inspiration, not so much.

Has The Prince of Nothingwood provided you with the answers to those questions?

It has, and I hope it helps people to think about this question. It tells you that there is an urgent need to make images, to make films, even during war,and even if you don't have the money. And even if the films are not very good, they will find somebody who will like them. So something is going to happen, and I think that's very touching. I don't like Shaheen's films, I hardly watched them -- I paid somebody to watch them. But I'm very moved by all these people that do like his films, and it makes you think about the value of art and the purpose of why we make cinema. I used to study aesthetics in London, so it was one of the questions I had and while the film is lighter than this, that's what was in mind.

The film uses Shaheen as a doorway, beginning as a story about one man which becomes a story about Afghanistan, its people and culture.

Yeah, but it's not so much about Afghanistan and it's not my purpose is to say things about the country. There's one guy like him in Iran who makes cowboy movies in the Iranian desert and there's also a guy like that in Tunisia. I mean you have this person with an urgent need to film whatever they have under their hand and since it's war, then it tells you something about the war. But it's not so much interested in him.

There was a lot of editing, 148 hours that you haven't seen [laughs]. Making a documentary is really telling a story and I don't have any idea of objectivity -- it is my point of view on Shaheen. Some people say to me that they would like to show his films, that they really want to see his films, and I say: "You don't see how much I have edited. I show you the very nice parts of his films." People think he's a great filmmaker and that's the story I wanted to tell -- but I could have told another story.

To my mind, objectivity is a human construct, a falsity that does not exist.

Except mathematics maybe, and sometimes physics.

The purist opinion of documentary as objective is therein built on a faulty premise. From the subjective choices of the filmmakers that bleed into the film to the subjectivity of the subjects, it's not purely objective. Hence, it calls into question the traditional dividing line of the objectivity of documentary and the subjectivity of narrative fiction.

Totally! It's the editing, and why you chose this guy, how you film it and what you show, or what you don't show. It's not only subjectivity, it's storytelling. Not many people ask me about this, they take it for granted that it's the real Shaheen. But I'm not lying, I'm not saying things that aren't true, but I am telling a story, a fictional story out of what I filmed. I took scenes that happened one day and I put them with another story that happened three months later and that's why we had seven months of editing with three editors. So it was a lot of work.

One of the striking aspects of the film are the light and comedic moments offset by a darker and heavier sensibility, which include moments when, for example, Shaheen talks about arranged marriages.

We made 70rough cuts and there was one version we tested and you couldn't believe you were in Afghanistan. People would say: "Oh this is too funny. You don't see Afghanistan, it's just a bunch of crazy guys." I then said: "Let's put in a little more darkness." You then have to strike a balance and to me, if it's not perfect, I'm happy.

Shooting the film in a dangerous and volatile part of the world, was the approach that once you had enough footage you then looked to shaping the film in the edit?

It's not when you feel you have enough, it's finding a balance between security and artistic concerns. That's it. You have a plan and you have an agenda. There are things you want to do, but it has to be balanced with security concerns. The real story I was going to tell about Shaheen I found in the editing room and in the end, I only kept five days of the shoot. The whole film takes place in Bamyan (Province), nothing in Kabul, although I had weeks and weeks of footage there that I had to take away.

There's a moment when Shaheen asks if you are scared, which sees him verbalise our silent recognition of your boldness and courage to bring this story to the screen.

It's very difficult and it's not like you are walking in the street and there's a bomb. This is not what's difficult. The difficulty is to cope with your fear and to have rules and to follow or to not follow those rules. There are many foreign people that never go out at all in Kabul -- it is forbidden. You have British diplomats who do not even drive their car from the airport to the embassy -- they will take an helicopter that costs £2,000 each way. Then you have foreign people who walk in the street without a scarf -- these girls get kidnapped.

In between these you have Shaheen, who is telling me all the time that I'm too scared, because it's a man's value to be brave and he's a brave guy, there's no question about that. He was in an attack two weeks ago. There was a bomb in a Shia Mosque and he helped to carry out the bodies. So there's no kidding about the fact that he's a brave guy and he has to be because he's been fighting to make his films. But you are in the middle of this and I'm not a brave person at all and I don't think being brave is a very important question. It is, but I'm not brave, I'm very scared and so in the middle of all of this stress it's enough just to manage to not go crazy, or to not drink too much [laughs].

Salim Shaheen and Sonia Kronlund (courtesy of Pyramide Films)

Related Articles Around the Web

People aren't cheering Supergirl on here. They're not thanking her for her heroism, or even stopping to take a selfie.

It's rare for any hero who isn't Superman to gain the kind of credibility that grants them the implicitly, unflinching trust of the public. In fact, even Superman struggles to maintain that credibility and he's Superman. If the ultimate paragon of heroes struggles with maintaining the trust of the public, then what hope does any hero have?

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image