The Stunt Man (1980), Dir. Richard Rush, 131 mins, 4K UHD (Radiance)
A Vietnam veteran fleeing from police blunders onto a film set and disrupts a stunt, killing the stuntman in the process. The film’s obsessed director, hiding the original stuntman’s death from authorities, hires the vet as a replacement, taking advantage of the vet’s desperation to evade the authorities in order to throw him into ever-more dangerous and spectacular stunts for his movie.
This was one of those frustrating viewing experiences; a film of such polarising extremes that I’m really not sure whether The Stunt Man is a work of genius or just utter trash. Clearly, its one for which a single viewing really isn’t enough- a film that seems to demand repeat viewings if only to decipher its -rather confused, on first viewing- details and subtext.
I appreciate what director Richard Rush was aiming at – an included two-hour documentary The Sinister Saga of The Stunt Man, about the making of the film that he himself stars in and produces is abundantly clear, and is absolutely quite endearing. Indeed, I watched this documentary film immediately following the film and I have to admit, dear old Richard Rush is such a captivating and enjoyable raconteur that he rather made me a convert, dispelling many of my reservations. The doc is one of the best features about the making of a film that I can remember- shot some years back on video with an excess of video trickery (Rush must have been rather like George Lucas shooting The Phantom Menace and not knowing when to stop the tech trickery) it likely dates back to the early days of DVD and the formats excitingly abundant special features.
Indeed, its after watching the doc that I thought “wow, I really need to watch the film again” and while I haven’t (the outstanding watchlist in the wake of Wimbledon is just getting too nuts for that just yet) its clear that this review will have to be one with reservations.
Of course, I’m coming to this film very late. Rush himself passed away a few years ago, and while the film might seem ‘old’ with a release date of 1980, the film was actually in development hell for several years before being completed in 1978 and then caught in distribution Hell, which offers some insight into how to approach it: its a 1970s movie. You know, back when Burt Reynolds maybe stole its thunder a little with his film Hooper about a stunt man, and when Clint Eastwood starred with an orangutan in Every Which Way But Loose. Through that lens of other films released in 1978 one gets an insight into why The Stunt Man is what it is.
American Cinema back then was bolder, nuttier, more irreverent, and often certainly more politically polarised, than films are today. Before the corporations totally took over Hollywood and turned films more into product than art, just as Jaws and Star Wars dawned the age of the entertainment blockbuster, crazy films like The Stunt Man could still get made (barely). Its absolutely a passion project. Its also far from perfect; maybe repeat viewings will better convince, but it really is something of a mess at least first time around without the benefit of a two-hour doc to explain some of its nuttiness to me. Thank goodness for expansive boutique-label releases like this Radiance edition, then.
The film doesn’t really seem to hold together, so I do have issues with it. Rush declares its a film about paranoia, about someone losing control over his life amidst the confusion of a messy film production. Rush’s view seems to be that any sense of control is foolish, that we are all swept along by the whims of Fate more than we like to admit. Vietnam veteran Cameron (Steve Railsback, LIfeforce) is already suffering from PTSD and seems increasingly unhinged as his grasp of what’s real, what’s film, suffers at the manipulations of director Eli Cross (Peter O’Toole, Lawrence of Arabia, The Lion in Winter). Clearly Cameron seems the very definition of an unreliable narrator. I think some sequences are confusingly staged, but I don’t know if that’s deliberate to highlight how unreliable Cameron is, or me giving the film too much credit. I suppose that’s my main issue with the film, first time around; it feels wildly out of control and I’m not sure if that’s a failure or indication of what Rush was trying to put across: I mean, is it genuinely an out of control film or just a film about an out of control film? This is exasperated by Rush’s intention to show the film entirely through Cameron’s eyes, his point of view. We only see what he sees, only hear what he hears, so our own POV is limited- Eli Cross rages about troubles shooting his film, but we don’t see the larger narrative of that film- mostly, but not entirely, our view of the film-within-the-film is through its action/stunt sequences requiring Cameron. I admit I found this frustrating, particularly regards what we see and understand of the film’s lead actress, Nina (Barbara Hershey) who appears to be Cameron’s love interest but we’re never quite certain how much is genuine or how much is acting, directed at Eli’s bequest in order to manipulee how hapless protagonist.
Critics at the time the film came out seemed to love the film -maybe the charm of a film about film-making was endearing to them, the film’s avowed love of film-making is clear- but the studio/ distributors didn’t know what to do with the film and it didn’t do as well as might be hoped for a film that earned three Academy Award nominations. The film seemed to have since plunged into obscurity, possibly forgiving my ignorance, as its one of those situations when I didn’t even know of a films existence until Radiance announced their release.
























