Bunch of Cults No.5: Scarecrow

Previous in this series can be found here

Gene Hackman and Al Pacino star in the small 1973 movie Scarecrow. Two itinerant men, one just out of prison, the other the navy, strike up a friendship as they thumb a ride across America, each with a goal.

The Hook

Two great actors in a movie you've never heard of, which won the Grand Prix at Cannes.

Reservations

Why has this film been forgotten? It's slow and very 70's in its approach. And deals with issues that may well no longer be relevant.

Live up to the Hype?

In terms of acting the two leads are polar opposites. Pacino does it full on method (btw when did Pacino's voice switch from squeaky mumbling to full-on Foghorn Leghorn?) and Hackman is the epitome of old school screen acting. Their scenes together (which is most of the movie) are fantastic. Pacino acts the fool while Hackman looks at him like he's an idiot.

Overview

It really isn't about very much. In superficial terms the story is very low key and basic. One guy is uptight and doesn't trust anyone. He's got some money put away and he's going to rely on himself and no one else. 

The other guy is laid back and light-hearted. He think scarecrows don't scare crows away, they amuse them into leaving the crops alone, and approaches life the same way.

Both men realise they are too stuck in their ways, and move towards each other. But they also have to deal with the rest of the world and it's the younger, free-spirited one who falls prey to life's cruelties.

This film, like many made at the time, is about the world and the way it was changing. The older, conservative generation felt bitter and marginalised, while the younger, more liberal one, didn't want to be tied down by responsibilities. And the clash of the two, the build up of mutual respect, and ultimately the realisation by Gene Hackman's character that the irresponsibility of youth is also one of it's delights, leads him to change as a man.

When he is faced with a senseless fight in a bar he does an impromptu striptease instead, diffusing the situation.

Even though it is a very slow moving story with little urgency, the scale of the metaphor, the way they represent two different sides of the American population of the time, drives the narrative forward. And it makes me wonder why stories today never seem to be about the people of today. 

Yes, the issues are represented, terrorism, financial collapse, comupter running amok and what have you. But when was the last time you saw a movie that was about things you recognised as real life? Is it no longer possible to dramatise reality without adding explosions or fake tans? And are these larger than life stories we're forcefed there to keep us interested or to keep us distracted?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sign ups for Rachael Harries's Third Writers' Platform-Building Campaign have started. Join in if you want to hook up with other writers and get your website a few more followers. The list closes August 31st.