ACE IN THE HOLE

I had a very good memory of long ago enjoying this 1951 Billy Wilder film, which was ‘inspired’, if that’s the right word for such a dark tale, by a couple of real life incidents, where journalists exploited people’s misfortunes in order to make a better story.

Our protagonist is a perfectly cast Kirk Douglas as Chuck Tatum, a washed-up reporter who has been sacked by numerous editors of big newspapers, for reasons ranging from a drink problem to playing fast and loose with the truth.  Just to emphasise how low he has fallen, our first sight of him is in his broken-down car being towed into Albuquerque, where he has to beg to get a job with the local paper. 

Fast forward a year and Chuck is getting mighty frustrated at the trivial nature of the news reports he has to work on.  But fate takes a hand by gifting him a plum opportunity when he is on a typically humdrum assignment out in the wilds of New Mexico and he happens to hear of someone being trapped in a nearby collapsed cave dwelling.

The unfortunate guy in question, Leo, was there searching for native artifacts which he can sell in his nearby gas station, which is located in the back of beyond, and which doesn't make a load of money.

Being first on the scene, Chuck is able to strike up a relationship of sorts with Leo, and then with the help of the corrupt local sheriff, he acts ruthlessly to make sure he has sole access to the trapped man.     

Soon people from near and far are drawn to the scene, and Chuck realises he can leverage his position to get back into the big-time.

But this is where the film takes a very dark turn.  

Chuck needs Leo to be trapped for several days, and so with the help of said sheriff, he ensures that a very inefficient rescue method is used thereby preventing Leo from being rescued in a matter of hours. 

An alternative title for the film was 'The Big Carnival' which is a good description of the situation that develops near to where Leo is entombed, where masses of sightseers turn up to camp there, so keen are they to witness the moment when Leo is finally rescued.  

Very quickly all sorts of entertainment arrives to cater for the public's needs, including a ferris wheel.  

There is of course something rather distasteful about the juxtaposition of all this hullabaloo outside the cliffs, and poor Leo's declining physical and mental health inside.  

But a lack of sentimentality is one of Wilder's qualities and it's hard to argue that the scenario he creates here isn't realistic.

In the third act the story turns still darker when Leo develops pneumonia and cannot now be rescued in time.

The realisation that he has killed Leo as a result of his ruthless ambition makes Chuck go a little haywire as events take a melodramatic turn, leading eventually to Chuck’s death.  

It's a powerful and memorable film, anchored by a stellar performance by Douglas.  It also benefits from being shot on location so that it has a very strong sense of place.

However, I didn't enjoy this rewatch as much as I had hoped.  

I have my misanthropic tendencies for sure but even I found Wilder's scathing and uncompromising view of human nature here tough going.  

The only people who genuinely care about Leo are his parents, but they are extremely minor characters who make very little impact.

Remarkably, Chuck and the sheriff are not the worst people on view. That unenviable title goes to Leo's wife Lorraine.  Far from being the grief-stricken wife Chuck is portraying her as in his frequent news bulletins,  she is so fed up with her marriage she is ready to pack her suitcase and leave.  

She only stays when she realises that the public interest in Leo's plight represents a golden money-making opportunity. When towards the end she refuses to wear her husband's  cheap anniversary gift she disgusts even Chuck.

Although Chuck displays a cynical contempt for the public (which the film seems to endorse), and he behaves terribly in exploiting Leo for personal gain, eventually he does recognise the wrong he has done, even if it is too little, too late, both for Leo and I suspect for many viewers.

Once we realise that this is not the sort of film to deliver a happy ending there’s not a lot of pleasure to be had in watching Wilder drive the story remorselessly on to its inevitable conclusion.

Although I wouldn’t go as far as Pauline Kael (who dismissed it as “just nasty”) it undoubtedly works better as a satiric attack on American capitalism and journalism than it does as a satisfying drama.

RATING: ✓✓ Good Times