It is 1930 and gangster Al Capone (Robert De Niro) controls most of the illegal business in Chicago with a ruthless, iron fist. After a ten-year old girl is killed in a gang-related incident, Federal Treasury Agent Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner) is brought in to clean up the city. His first attempt is an embarrassing failure so he tries a different approach. He decides to form his own task force of three men to help him take down Capone and his empire. He picks a veteran beat cop named Malone (Sean Connery), who knows the city and becomes Ness’ mentor. He also selects Stone (Andy Garcia), a cop fresh out of the academy and ace shot with a pistol. Rounding out the group is Wallace (Charles Martin Smith), a bookish FBI accountant who figures out a way to nail Capone. Together, they form an incorruptible group determined to bring Capone to justice.
De Palma and Mamet make it clear right from the get-go that The Untouchables isn’t going to be some half-assed, sanitized gangster film as they proceed to have Frank Nitti (Billy Drago) blow up a bar with a little girl in it. This shocking sequence, juxtaposed with Capone lying about not using violence to enforce his will, sets an all-bets-are-off tone as we get an idea of just how brutal life is in Chicago and how far Capone is willing to go to make a point. This is then contrasted with Eliot Ness’ blandy-McPlainWrap home life with a loving and dutiful wife (Patricia Clarkson) and cute-as-a-button child. We see just how far removed from Chicago Ness’ home life is and what a rude wake up call he will get when he starts working in the city.
Kevin Costner is wisely cast as the stiff, idealistic Ness. He’s the least interesting character and plays the role straight, trying not to go the obvious heroic route. His all-American looks and Gary Cooper-esque style are ideally suited for the role of the last honest man in the corrupt town (which Oliver Stone would also utilize in JFK). His Ness is as straight an arrow as they come which makes the character’s arc over the course of the film an interesting one. He goes from staunch upholder of the law to someone who has adopted Malone’s by-any-means-necessary philosophy.
This allows Connery to rightfully shine as the aging cop torn between riding out his remaining time and retire alive or making a difference with Ness and his crew. Unlike Ness, Malone has grown up on and worked the mean streets of Chicago. He understands that they are at war with Capone and must do whatever it takes to bust him and break up his empire because he will be just as ruthless. Upon the first meeting, Malone imparts a valuable lesson to Ness: “Make sure when you shift is over you go home alive.” It seems obvious but is an important one to know. It is also the reason why Malone initially turns down Ness’ offer to form the Untouchables. Connery shows what a once great actor can do with the right material and this results in a truly inspired performance — arguably the veteran actor’s last great one.
The supporting roles feature some fantastic actors, chief among them Billy Drago who exudes just the right amount of oily menace as Nitti. For example, there is a scene where he cordially threatens Ness and his family. On the surface there is the appearance of civility but we know what is true intentions are the it doesn’t take Ness much time to figure it out by then Nitti is speeding off in his car – he’s made his point. Drago doesn’t get many lines or a lot of screen time but makes the most of the what he’s given, making a fine addition to De Palma’s roster of cinematic sociopaths.
Speaking of Mamet’s dialogue, it crackles and pops with intensity and provides many of the film’s classic scenes, perhaps none more memorable than Malone’s famous speech to Ness where he tells him how to get Capone. “He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way.” Sean Connery delivers this speech with the passion and conviction that rightfully earned him an Oscar. The other scene of classic Mamet dialogue is Capone’s infamous dinner table monologue where he talks about teamwork before braining a hapless flunky with a baseball bat for not being a part of the “team.”
Brian De Palma’s stylish direction is perfect for this epic story: long, uninterrupted takes, slow motion and excellent compositions within the widescreen format. He may well be one of the greatest practioners of this aspect ratio. Just look at a simple set-up in the scene where Malone takes Ness to a church and lays it all out for how they’re going to get Capone. Both men take up most of the foreground occupying either side of the screen. The camera is low looking up at them so that we also see part of the beautifully ornate church ceiling. It is this kind of shot that would be totally destroyed when shown pan and scanned on television. Then there is the much-celebrated train station shoot-out, which was a shameless homage to a famous sequence in the legendary film, Battleship Potemkin (1925). It’s a bravura sequence that is beautifully orchestrated by De Palma as he builds the tension leading up to the shoot-up for what seems like an unbearable eternity. The entire sequence is a brilliant lesson in editing and camerawork.
Although, De Palma does go a little over-the-top (even for him) with the Ness-Nitti show down at the end, which features the director’s obligatory homage to Alfred Hitchcock. There is also silly bit of business where we see two old cops duking it in a rainy alleyway as Connery and veteran character actor Richard Bradford laughably beat each other up in a scene that I could’ve done without. Also, Malone’s prolonged death scene drags on for what feels like an eternity but these are really minor flaws in an otherwise unimpeachable stone cold classic as De Palma does his best to distract us from these histrionics with giallo lighting in the Connery fight scene and suspenseful point-of-view steadicam work in the death scene.
Art Linson met with Paramount Studio’s president Ned Tanen about adapting The Untouchables television series into a film. Tanen liked the idea but Linson did not want to do a sequel, a remake or a parody. He wanted “to create a big-scale movie about mythical American heroes.” Linson needed a screenwriter and thought of David Mamet, fresh from just having won a Pulitzer Prize for his Broadway play Glengarry Glen Ross. He met with Mamet and the writer agreed to do the film. The screenwriter was a native of Chicago and something of a gangster history buff. He envisioned a story about “the old gunfighter and the young gunfighter … It occurred to me, what happens if this young innocent, who’s charged with defending the law but only understands that in an abstract way, meets an old disenchanted veteran, the caretaker of the law, soured at the end of his career because of the corruption in the city?”
Mamet asked Paramount to show him two episodes of the original series and he liked them but felt that “there was nothing I could use in the movie.” Mamet wrote an original story after realizing that the real events – Capone being caught for tax evasion – were not that dramatic. Mamet created the character of Malone and gave Ness a family (he did not have one in real life). After eight months, Brian De Palma was approached to direct by Linson after Mamet wrote the third draft of the script. The director liked that the script was more about the characters and did not see it as a gangster film but more like The Magnificent Seven (1960). He felt that the project was “different from anything I’ve done in the past, because it’s a traditional Americana picture, like a John Ford picture.” He, Linson and Mamet worked together on it with De Palma emphasizing the Capone character more. According to De Palma, the film “reflects upon the incredible pressure we place on our police by not equipping them to adequately fight criminals. Why are we surprised that some of them go overboard?”
For the role of Eliot Ness, Linson and De Palma initially considered William Hurt and Harrison Ford, but, according to Linson, they wanted “someone with the right combination of naiveté, earnestness and strength.” They ended up casting Kevin Costner who wanted to do the film because it was so different from the television series and Ness “has to ask for help. It’s the more modern notion that a smart man takes a step back sometimes – that to be a hero you don’t have to be Rambo.” For Jimmy Malone, the filmmakers wanted Sean Connery but assumed that he would not want to play a supporting role and take a pay cut. However, Connery was drawn to the project because of Mamet’s script and the chance to work with Robert De Niro. He ended up signing on for a percentage of the profits. For the role of Al Capone, De Palma wanted De Niro. Paramount initially balked at the actor’s asking price of $1.5 million but relented.
The principal actors rehearsed together for a full week and Connery tried to remain in character even when the cast was relaxing. By the time principal photography began, whole scenes had been blocked and unworkable ideas rejected. A rapport between the actors playing the Untouchables had also been established, which definitely shows in the film. In preparation for the film, De Niro put on 30 pounds between the end of his Broadway run in Cuba and His Teddy Bear and his days of filming scheduled at the end of the 70-day production schedule. He analyzed old Movietone newsreels in order to get Capone’s voice, movements and mannerisms. On an interesting note, the famous scene in the church between Ness and Malone as originally written, took place on a street, but Connery suggested it take place in a church – the only place left in the city where they could speak freely.
Patrizia von Brandenstein transforming an entire block of LaSalle Street in Chicago into the 1930s complete with 125 costumed extras and 60 period cars.
The Untouchables received mixed reviews from critics back in the day and is best summed up by Pauline Kael, a fan of De Palma’s work, who wrote, “It's not a great movie; it's too banal, too morally comfortable - the script is too obvious. But it's a great audience movie - a wonderful potboiler. It's a rouser. The architectural remnants of the era (including solid traces of Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright) have been refurbished to provide a swaggering showcase for the legend.” In his review for The New York Times, Vincent Canby praised Sean Connery’s performance: “In any other movie, this, too, would be a pretty ordinary role but, as written by Mr. Mamet, directed by Mr. De Palma and played by Mr. Connery, Jim Malone becomes something like the original on which all similar roles were patterned.” Time magazine’s Richard Schickel wrote, “Such riches abound in this film, but it is as parable, not parody, that it grips us. The Untouchables all begin as archetypes of American goodness. And they do triumph over evil; they send Capone to prison. But the cost is death or loss of innocence, for it is only by adapting crime's methods that they can defeat it.”
Roger Ebert gave the film two-and-a-half stars and was disappointed by De Niro’s performance: “All of the movie's Capone segments seem cut off from the rest of the story; they're like regal set-pieces, dropped in from time to time … There isn't a glimmer of a notion of what made this man tick, this Al Capone who was such an organizational genius that he founded an industry and became a millionaire while still a young man.” The Washington Post’s Hal Hinson wrote, “But you're too much aware of the director's manipulations; his virtuosity become oppressive. Our only interest really is in whether the filmmaker can sustain the feat. It's the kind of stunt that turns filmmaking into a kind of sideshow. It's stunning but in the way that great jugglers or magicians can sometimes be stunning. But it's not art, and, at least in the case of The Untouchables, it's only marginally entertaining.”
Also, check out Mr. Peel's excellent look at the film over at his blog, and also John Kenneth Muir's top notch analysis of De Palma's epic over at his blog.
Darnton, Nina. “At the Movies.” The New York Times. May 29, 1987.
Mathews, Tom. “The Mob at the Movies.” Newsweek. June 22, 1987.
Nightingale, Benedict. “Bottled in Bond, He’s Vintage Connery.” The New York Times. June 7, 1987.
Siskel, Gene. “De Palma Finds Untouchables within his Cinematic Reach.” Chicago Sun-Times. June 21, 1987.
Sujo, Aly. “Connery as Cop Plays on Childhood Memories.” Globe & Mail. June 11, 1987.
The Untouchables Production Notes. 1987.
Great review and i love the backstory you've presented. THis is a movie that has a lot of fun being what it is and Connery is just perfect here, as the intensity behind the campaign. Not a big fan of Costner generally, but his qualities are really used to best effect here. It's funny I just mentioned this film in a guest post on Sean Connery I wrote up for a friend of mine. A wonderful film imho.ReplyDelete
An excellent and informative writeup, as always. I agree with Brent here about not usually being a fan of Costner, but this, JFK, and REVENGE are probably the exceptions to the rule. Billy Drago really pulls out the stops in this one. Sadly this is probably the closest he's come in his career to 'the big time' so to speak, but perhaps his subtle brand of serpentine-Harry Dean Stanton-ish villainy is a little too intense for the casual viewer. Ah, well!ReplyDelete
I love how De Palma takes an old-fashioned story, and still has a chance to pull in his own style to create a great suspenseful story. Good Review!ReplyDelete
A great retrospective of a De Palma classic. I still remember seeing this in theaters in 1987, and being absolutely blown away by The Untouchables.
The Morricone score is incredible, and everything you wrote about Connery, Costner and De Niro is right on the mark. And I couldn't agree with you more about the staircase sequence. For me, the staircase fight is one of the ten greatest scenes in cinema, post 1980.
Thank you for the shout out to my review, and right back at you: this retrospective is "top notch."
John Kenneth Muir
Thank you for the kind words. Yeah, this film is a lot of fun to watch and a very entertaining ride. I'm not a fan of Costner either (BULL DURHAM is still the best thing he's ever done) but he is well cast in this film. But the film belongs to Connery and De Niro who steal every scene they're in.
Thank you, my friend! Wow, REVENGE... interesting choice! A rather underappreciated Tony Scott film.
And isn't Billy Drago awesome in this film? It's a shame he didn't get more mainstream work off of the success of THE UNTOUCHABLES but, as you say, maybe his serpentine villainy was just too intense for mainstream filmgoers. Oh well, he will always be a cult film fave.
I couldn't agree more!
John Kenneth Muir:
Thanks for the compliments. You certainly set the bar high with your post but it inspired me to do my own take on De Palma's film. And yes, the staircase fight is incredible - one of the best action sequences ever put to film, for sure. As always, thanks for stopping by.
The Untouchables is a personal favorite. I love the film. It's perfect! I never really fully understood why it was so perfect until reading your article which really puts into perspective all of the ingredients of the film's players.ReplyDelete
I think I may have enjoyed the picture more than most, especially the critics in your spotlight here. Boy, I agree with Roger Ebert often but I think he's got it wrong here along with many of the others. This film is very very good.
As you mentioned, the staircase/ baby stroller scene is A-M-A-Z-I-N-G! The latest episode of Ergo Proxy riffs that scene and I immediately thought of The Untouchables when I saw it. It was so ironic to see your post after seeing that episode.
Anyway, great stuff and I will be adding yet another film to the Blu-Ray collection. Great J.D. as always.
Also, you threw me a little with this one, I was waiting for FX to show up here and it never came. Be sure to post it soon. I LOVE that movie too and I still need to read your write-up.
Loved reading this look at one of my personal favorites, J.D. So many great things to recommend in this film. The story, the actors, the performances, music, cinematography and De Palma bring it all together. Like TOMBSTONE, the film and your splendid review of it, I really enjoyed reading this examination and the details of a picture I never tire of revisiting. Thanks for this, my friend.ReplyDelete
The Sci-Fi Fanatic:ReplyDelete
I agree totally with you re: the enjoyment of this film. In fact, the more times I watch it the more I enjoy it. The film has aged very well and still holds up as a very solid piece of entertainment.
Thank you, as always, for the kind words. I hope you get F/X soon. I love that film also and never tire of watching that one.
Thanks for stopping by, my friend. I certainly agree with you about this film firing on all cylinders - it just works in terms of writing, directing, acting and fantastic camerawork.