One of the very few directors to enjoy success during Hollywood’s Golden Age, the American New Wave, and way beyond, Sidney Lumet never followed any trends or adhered to anything resembling formula. Far from a household name at any point in his career, Lumet shunned the spotlight and instead let his work speak for itself.
In the 2015 documentary “By Sidney Lumet” (“Lumet”), director Nancy Buirski takes a big chance by including a lengthy interview with Lumet. Conducted by late filmmaker Daniel Anker, the director speaks for himself in great detail without appearing the least bit vainglorious or self-satisfied. Lumet was the only person interviewed for the film.
It Started With ‘Serpico’
I first became aware of Lumet in 1973 with the release of “Serpico” starring Al Pacino as a real-life undercover detective in New York who refused to accept bribes, much to the chagrin of his bought-and-sold co-workers.
I was immediately taken with the way Lumet and his three screenwriters were able to take on moral, ethical, judicial, and fairness stands without browbeating or preaching to the audience.
In the decades that followed, I was able to watch 42 of Lumet’s 44 features and noted just how many of them included most, if not all, of these same themes. Not all of them were great, and at least two of them (“The Wiz” and “Gloria”), are practically unwatchable; yet the consistent, largely upbeat, often subtle, and always positive messaging was there.
Life Before Movies
Many people, myself included, were under the impression Lumet’s entrée into show business began in 1957 with the adaptation of the stage play “12 Angry Men,” produced by and starring Henry Fonda. This movie was Fonda’s first foray as a producer and he hired Lumet without interviewing him. Fonda was impressed with Lumet’s direction on a similar, sparsely-casted stage play (“Night of the Auk”).
Ever the modest individual, Lumet attributed this break to pure dumb luck, stating that had Fonda not seen the play, Lumet would have (happily) continued to work within the stage and TV mediums. This tidbit revealed even more of Lumet’s work history.
For four years beginning in 1952, Lumet worked as a director on 11 different TV shows with 47 total episodes and most of them were live broadcasts. Live TV (not including newscasts) is the entertainment equivalent of a tightrope walker working 100 feet above a flaming floor without a net. Lumet reduced the potential performance and technical errors by insisting on as many rehearsals as time would permit.
An Actor’s Director
Something else I didn’t know before watching “Lumet”: He was a moderately successful child actor. I use the word “moderately” because Lumet’s acting career was brief and limited to 10 roles over the space of 13 years in mostly off-off Broadway productions. This also resulted in Lumet being recognized as an “actor’s director,” a leader on the set. Lumet knew how to get the most out his performers with encouragement and support, rather than the type of emotional manipulation practiced by others, most notably Elia Kazan.If there is anything to find fault with in “Lumet,” it would be Buirski’s inclusion of too many extended, uninterrupted clips from three of his greatest works: “12 Angry Men,” “Dog Day Afternoon,” and “The Verdict.” These segments range in length between four and six minutes which, within the context of a compilation documentary, are interminably long and act as momentum crushers.
Buirski would have been better served to cut these segments by at least half. She could have also included additional clips from “Murder on the Orient Express,” “Network,” “Equus,” and “Night Falls on Manhattan.”
After watching “Lumet” for the fourth time, it again reminded me how underappreciated he was. Lumet was integral in bridging the gap between old-school Hollywood, and the second wave of American directors such as Quentin Tarantino, Richard Linklater, the Coen brothers, and Steven Soderbergh.
Lumet’s contributions to world cinema are incalculable; anyone wanting to know exactly why needs to watch this movie posthaste.
