Stimulating cinema: Ace in the Hole

Director: Billy Wilder
Year: 1951

It wasn't planned this way but it is fitting that the first time I ever saw this startlingly prescient movie during the week last year that Tiger Woods returned to The Masters following a self-imposed sabbatical in the wake of revelations about his marital infidelity and kinky sex life. Woods has been welcomed back by the fans with open arms--even though he has never gone out of his way to be particularly fan friendly. It is a huge problem that I have with modern day American culture--we are so desperate to be part of the scene--part of the story--that we will do almost anything to get involved, whether it's cheering for someone whose behavior is reprehensible or laying a teddy bear in the front yard of a kidnapped child we don't know.

Where does this need to be part of the story come from? Is it because most of our lives are so mundane? Are people hoping they'll be somehow magically discovered and their life will be transformed? Why do we make signs and run to the hospital when Michael Jackson is taken ill? Why does cable news go wall-to-wall with coverage of the Balloon Boy? Are we that pathetic? I've raised the questions but I have no answers. You see it all the time in sports but in real life too, where some family's tragedy becomes someone else's chance to shine. It's sad and it's a poor reflection on our national character. We are not all stars--there are stars and then there are us. They operate in their world and we operate in ours. They go to parties, date beautiful people and make zillions; we go get our oil changed and take our kids to the park if the weather is warm. Why can't we be happy with what we have? And why do we find someone else's tragedy a chance for us to get our 15 minutes?

Wilder once called the film "the runt of the litter," and apparently it was a big flop upon its initail release. But it is brilliant in the fact that it foreshadows so much of what today's media has become--covering the sizzle and not the story. For that alone, it deserves considerable praise and attention. It's not perfect--my main criticism was Kirk Douglas' hammy, almost cartoonish acting--but the supporting cast was tremendous and the story was gripping.

The scene: Albuquerque, N.M. Newspaper reporter Charles Tatum arrives in town with a broken down career and a career that is equally in trouble. By his own account, he's been fired from 11 newspapers with a combined circulation of over seven million. He's worn down his welcome in the big leagues so now he's in Albuquerque where the scrupulously honest and decent boss Mr. Boot (Porter Hall) agrees to take him on. After a year of covering the banal goings on in New Mexico, Tatum is going a little stir crazy and is dying to get back into the big time. But duty calls, and Boot sends him and impressionable young reporter Herbie (Robert Arthur) to cover a rattlesnake roundup a couple of hours down the road.

The two soon discover a much bigger story when they arrive--shopkeeper Leo Minosa (Richard Benedict) is trapped in an abandoned mine. Tatum goes down to see Leo, finds that he's in pretty good shape all things considered and promises they'll start to work on getting him out. But in reality, Leo is Tatum's meal ticket back to New York--he is good copy. As he tells Herbie, 84 people trapped in a mine really doesn't register but one person is human interest. Tatum files his initial story and it's the sensational hit he hoped. But it would be bad for business if Leo was rescued too soon--he needs to keep things going for a few days. Leo's wife Lorraine (Jan Sterling) is on board with this plan--their general store and souvenir business is practically dead and the inevitable attention would be good for business. Plus, she doesn't really care about Leo anyway and pretty much takes him for a sucker.

Tatum's plan unspools perfectly for all concerned--except of course Leo. Tatum convinces contractor Sam Smollett (Frank Jaquet) to drill straight down in an effort to reach Leo. This of course will drag a process that could have been done in 16 hours out several more days. He also buddies up to slimy sheriff Gus Kretzer (Ray Teal) who can protect his exclusivity on the story by making sure that other journalists can't get access to the trapped man. Kretzer is as dirty as the day is long, but he wants to get re-elected and playing ball with Tatum will help that become a reality.

Soon tourists are flocking to the site (admission to see the Indian ruins jumps from free to $1.00 in the course of the movie). Songs are written about Leo and carnival is even set up. Business is booming and Lorraine is making money hand over fist (she justifies her behavior by convincing herself that it's all for Leo's behalf). It's all great fun with everyone eagerly tuning into to live radio broadcasts in the hopes of receiving the latest word on Leo's condition or some precious nuggets of wisdom from star reporter Tatum. Meanwhile the only two people who truly care for the stricken man, his kind father (John Berkes) and grief-stricken prayerful mother (Frances Dominguez) are shamefully being manipulated along with everyone else.

I'll stop there because any more will probably jeopardize the ending. This movie was a real revelation for me, one that I had never heard of until recently. The best thing about this one is the supporting cast--characters like Boot, Leo, Smollett, Leo's dad and Kretzer conjure up genuine emotion and feelings. We admire Boot and Smollett for taking (or trying to) the high road; our heart breaks for Leo's dad, who only wants his boy back and we are reviled by the cynical machinations of Kretzer. And the New Mexico landscape provides a gorgeous setting for the spectacle that unfolds.

As I mentioned above, the film was not a huge hit. Bosley Crowther, writing in the New York Times called it a "a masterly film," but added. "Mr. Wilder has let imagination so fully take command of his yarn that it presents not only a distortion of journalistic practice but something of a dramatic grotesque ... (it) is badly weakened by a poorly constructed plot, which depends for its strength upon assumptions that are not only naïve but absurd. There isn't any denying that there are vicious newspaper men and that one might conceivably take advantage of a disaster for his own private gain. But to reckon that one could so tie up and maneuver a story of any size, while other reporters chew their fingers, is simply incredible." The Hollywood Reporter called it "ruthless and cynical ... a distorted study of corruption and mob psychology that ... is nothing more than a brazen, uncalled-for slap in the face of two respected and frequently effective American institutions--democratic government and the free press."

But the movie has gained renewed critical appreciation in recent times in light of the way our mass media now functions. Writing for Slant Magazine, Ed Gonzalez summed it up the best: "(It) allowed Wilder to question the very nature of human interest stories and the twisted relationship between the American media and its public. More than 50 years after the film's release, when magazines compete to come up with the cattiest buzz terms and giddily celebrate the demise of celebrity relationships for boffo bucks, "Ace in the Hole" feels more relevant than ever." The only question that now remains is, how low can we go?