Joe (1970)

Before directing such crowd pleasers as 'Rocky' (1977) and 'The Karate Kid' (1984), John G. Avildsen was making his bones on the indie film circuit. He'd done a couple of not particularly noteworthy films before taking on 'Joe' in 1970. Little did he know that, despite the grim subject matter and unflinching portrayals of far right political viewpoints, this film would become a pretty significant success upon its release. It seemed to catch a wave that was bubbling at this time in post-60s America and stoked a pretty strong audience following, with Peter Boyle's titular character becoming something of a folk anti-hero in the process. And, unfortunately, this film may even be more relevant today than it was when it came out. 

The plot involves a well-to-do young girl, played by Susan Sarandon in her first on-screen appearance, living in the hippie countercultural underbelly of New York City in the late 1960s. Despite her seeming innocence, she has fallen in with a drug-dealing boyfriend and is living a fringe, destitute, existence - or, as it is more commonly known, slumming it. Due to a varying set of circumstances, her parents become involved and things turn quickly violent. Her father is William Compton (played by Dennis Patrick), an ad man of Madison Ave and the family are rather well-off as a result. However, after his encounter with his daughter's new way of life, he seeks solace in the same place that most men do, a dive bar. This is where things get interesting. 

At this bar he meets Joe, a racist, bigoted, loudmouth factory worker who has absolutely no shame about espousing his views on all who come within earshot. Bizarrely, these two men form a bond, despite being from overwhelmingly different walks of life. Indeed, as they sit and drink, Peter Boyle's character even goes as far to comment "guys like us, they don't usually get to talk to each other". Joe likes Compton's refinery, Compton secretly feels the same way Joe does about modern society. A strange and deadly companionship is formed. You can't say they are friends in the true sense of the word, as there is a secret holding them both in place, but they grow to enjoy each other's company nonetheless. 

Obviously there is a lot going on here and the themes explored are extremely brave. Avildsen deserves nothing but credit for his gritty and authentic portrayals of both Joe's right wing, working class, viewpoint and that of the grubby, hippie-filled, drug culture of the time. Neither come out well and you could argue that this film is ultimately quite nihilistic as a result. Either way, it holds nothing back and shows you the ugly side of life in almost every way, causing the viewer to wrestle with some difficult questions. This all makes for quite the heady cocktail of ideas. 

The problem with this film is the execution itself. First of all, it's a low budget independent filmed in the late 1960s and is a rickety affair. I personally quite enjoy film-making that is a little rough around the edges, but some of the editing and composition here is noticeable. And when editing is noticeable, it is bad. Also, for what is such a meaty plot, the film's pacing and tone feels a little off and lets it down somewhat. We don't even meet William Compton until about 20 minutes into the film, and Joe comes even later than that. Therefore you get the feeling that you are kind of watching more than one film packed into one. This can be a good thing, but here it feels stilted and doesn't quite ring true. A bit of backstory around Compton himself would've gone a long way to explain his journey, in my humble opinion. There is also a song about 'Joe' which is on the nose to the point of almost becoming a satire of itself. It's an attempt at black humour, I think, but for me just takes you out of the film a wee bit. 

In addition, the film leans on melodrama quite a lot, which is always tricky, and again you can't escape the feeling that with a premise this good, we are missing the mark just by sheer virtue of the shoddy filmmaking. Peter Boyle is great as always and his performance deserves more. Interestingly, upon the release of this film, he was so appalled by the audience's reaction to the violence and language that he refused to take part in film violence again. This makes sense and I imagine the 'we're losing our country to immigrants and drugs' sentiment on display wasn't expected to run so deep in the cinemas of middle America, but it did. I would be very interested to see what audiences today would make of it all, I suspect you'd get an even stronger reaction in favour of Joe. Which is mildly terrifying.

Anyway, despite it's stellar cast, great plot and bold-as-brass manner in which this story is displayed on screen, the whole thing feels like a 'what could've been' instead of what it is, which is a bit of a mess. When it came out, it achieved the goal of being widely discussed, debated, reviled and revered and I imagine it would continue to do so today. But, as a controversial, thought-provoking, quite shocking, film the whole thing would've benefitted from a little bit of tightening up and focus. Although as I'm writing this I realise that might defeat the point. Who knows? It's still a jet-black, in-your-face, pioneering movie that is more than worthy of mention. It even has a great ending. For me, it just doesn't quite hit the heights of other films of the era. Although you'll no doubt see its influence in many of the superior films made since.  

★★★☆☆

JB.