THE OBENSON REPORT

At exactly 8PM last night, as I was about to turn off my TV and turn on some ambient sounds, ready to shift focus onto my screenplay, I thought I'd run through my favorite channels one last time, just to make sure there wasn't anything of interest (I'm quite the procrastinator when it comes to writing, a process I actually don't like very much, so I'm always looking for an excuse not to do it).

It plays out like a thriller in the "Hitchockian" mold, although not quite Hitchcock (there is only one). However, as I watched it, I remember being reminded of Hitchock's Rope, a film notable for its single location (much of Slender takes place at the suicide clinic with Poitier on the phone), taking place in real time (Slender mimics this as well).

It's not Poitier's best performance, but we are treated to his trademark business-like intensity that doesn't always work well in this particular film. Luckily it's not too distracting. I was still able to enjoy it for 98-minutes. It's not necessarily a "Poitier film," since he shares screen time with Bancroft and a peripheral cast of recognizable names and faces (although at the time they were mostly unknowns), but he commands your attention when he is on screen. His earnestness draws you in, as it seems like he took much pleasure from portraying his character.

Bancroft is believable as an ailing 30-something year old suicidal woman, although, Pollack chose to keep her character invisible during most of the phone call with Poitier. We hear her voice, but we don't see her. Instead, Pollack incorporates several flashbacks during which Bancroft's character retells her story to Poitier's volunteer over the phone - essentially, recapping the events that led up to her current suicidal state. I won't go into detail as to what those events were, but suffice it to say that she kept a secret from her husband - a secret he soon discovers, with devastating consequences. It is through these flashbacks that we meet and get to know her fragile character.

Race isn't at all an issue in the film, and really didn't need to be. Poitier's role could have been played by anyone, as could have Bancroft's. I think those 2 facts added to the air of modernity I felt from the film. I would expect that it was probably quite progressive for its time (1965). I can also imagine how exciting this must have been for audiences at the time to have 2 stars, both whom had just won the industry's highest honor, (Bancroft 2 years prior, and Poitier the previous year), together in a film, even though they never appear on screen together, given the film's plot, which could have been disappointing to that same audience, in the end.

The story (which was based on real life events) obviously didn't lend itself to a romance of any sort between the two leads, so there weren't any opportunities to exploit the sexuality of the characters, or any attraction they might have felt to each other otherwise. Given that their entire relationship exists solely from one end of the slender thread to the other, connecting them, both characters never meet each other in person. Although as the clock ticks towards her potential end, Poitier's character learns much more about her than she does about him, since he has the police on his side, as they work together trying to trace her whereabouts, giving him a slight upper hand in what feels like a tennis match between the two, as he uses his limited psychiatric knowledge of suicidal patients (after all he's just a student volunteer) to engage her as long as he can, and she does her best to maintain some secrecy, keeping him in the dark, even though she clearly needs him to save her.

If you've seen a Pollack film, one thing I think you'd remember most is just how polished his films usually are. There's a tidiness to them that never escapes me, more so than a lot of other filmmakers, even in those films of his that don't register highly on my critical scale. This film is no different, even though it was his first. It's just really "clean," for lack of a better phrase - very well shot (he's not one to experiment with the camera or atmospheric lighting, but the work is solid); it's fairly-well paced and edited, although I think it could lose about 10 minutes of its running time, but a minor quibble. And, aside from Poitier's infrequent over-acting, it's mostly well acted, both the starring and supporting cast, which included Telly Savalas (pre-Kojak), Ed Asner, and Steven Hill (former Law & Order star) - all 3 looking very young and virile! Pollack, an actor himself, has always been known as an actor's director, and even though this was his first feature film, and he was working with 2 Oscar winners, I can tell that he was in command of his cast and crew, and the entire production.

Overall, it's standard studio fare. I was mostly entertained, and can't say that I learned much from the experience. No poignant message to be delivered, no subversions, no calls to action... rather just a mostly taut drama/thriller from a first-time feature-film director who would go on to direct many more. Of course, watching Sidney Poitier was a bonus. This is the first and only time that he and Pollack worked together - at least in a director/actor relationship. Actually, if I didn't see Poitier's name on the marquee, I probably wouldn't have stuck around to watch the entire film, and instead would have turned off the television and worked on my screenplay! No regrets though :o)

I'd give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. It's available on DVD for those interested.