As the story unfolded, I assumed I was watching the filmization of a Ross Macdonald novel. All the characteristics and typical Ross Macdonald touches were there - from the snappy dialogue (when asked to My Night With Maud, the hero replies that seeing a Rohmer film is like watching paint dry; when asked to share the tub with a Hollywood hot-light, the hero replies that he'll keep it in mind for when he's feeling really dirty; when the hero asks Paula, as a plane lands outside the cabin, "Is that Tom now?", she comes back, "It isn't Lindberg!") to the technique of using a multi-stranded, multi-plotted detective story to pull away seamy layer after seamy layer of Los Angeles "society".
It's a world in which nobody is as friendly as they seem on the surface, where the thickly-veiled threat is often followed through by naked action. And as too in Ross Macdonald, the plot is damned difficult to follow, part of the reason for this being that it is not regarded as all that important, merely a means to sociological and anthropological ends. I've seen the film twice now and I still can't follow it and it still doesn't make sense.
However to judge it on the shortcomings of the plot, is to do the film a grave disservice. It's the characters and the atmosphere that count, Night Moves assembles some great characters, very cleverly and skillfully played and creates a powerful atmosphere abetted by the sharp location shooting by Bruce Surtees, the music score, and the film industry background that runs underneath it all. Yes, Night Moves is a film to see yet a third time!
OTHER VIEWS: A confused and confusing plot, realistically acted, but - aside from one or two moments - directed in a disappointingly ordinary fashion. I expected a lot more drama from Arthur Penn. True, there's a bit of exciting action, but it's smothered under reams of dull talk. The photography is deliberately low-key.
It's a world in which nobody is as friendly as they seem on the surface, where the thickly-veiled threat is often followed through by naked action. And as too in Ross Macdonald, the plot is damned difficult to follow, part of the reason for this being that it is not regarded as all that important, merely a means to sociological and anthropological ends. I've seen the film twice now and I still can't follow it and it still doesn't make sense.
However to judge it on the shortcomings of the plot, is to do the film a grave disservice. It's the characters and the atmosphere that count, Night Moves assembles some great characters, very cleverly and skillfully played and creates a powerful atmosphere abetted by the sharp location shooting by Bruce Surtees, the music score, and the film industry background that runs underneath it all. Yes, Night Moves is a film to see yet a third time!
OTHER VIEWS: A confused and confusing plot, realistically acted, but - aside from one or two moments - directed in a disappointingly ordinary fashion. I expected a lot more drama from Arthur Penn. True, there's a bit of exciting action, but it's smothered under reams of dull talk. The photography is deliberately low-key.