I’d never seen this one until I caught it the other night on Amazon Prime. As a story, not much happens beyond the obvious: Kris Kristofferson, playing an itinerant songwriter\musician, is blackmailed into selling a hundred keys of pot by Gene Hackman’s dirty cop. Karen Black is Kristofferson’s long-suffering girlfriend, essentially reprising her roles in Easy Rider (1969; Dennis Hopper\Laszlo Kovacs, ASC) and Five Easy Pieces (1970; Bob Rafelson\Laszlo Kovacs, ASC). Under the direction of Bill Norton, none of them add up to much.
Neither does the cinematography, though the passage of time has perhaps given it a significance no one could’ve imagined during production. Latvian native Vilis Lapenieks (1931-1987) was a lunch-pail shooter with a long resumé that included a considerable amount of documentary work. That approach is present in Cisco Pike, as much of it reflects the ‘caught on the run’ look that so many lower-budgeted films of the era had. Rather than providing the viewer a sense of ‘being there’ as the action unfolds, it comes across as lazy and confused. The lighting follows suit. Most of the interiors – whether day or night – are lit by what appears to be a truckload of Lowell lights bounced into the ceiling. I’m not being harsh in this assessment. There are many examples of sloppy cinematography that I deeply admire, with The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973; Peter Yates\Victor Kemper, ASC) being the foremost example. The difference between that and Cisco Pike is a matter of intent. Kemper – an otherwise brilliant practitioner – knew exactly how to apply his recklessness in service of character and plot. Here, Lapenieks seems to embrace the lowest form of the craft. He’s making a recording in the fastest, most expedient way possible.
This was not an uncommon approach in its time. Quite a few cinematographers who began in documentaries during the 1960’s went on to major careers in features during the ’70’s. Their early work often appeared similar to Cisco Pike, but if you review their credits chronologically, you’ll see a steady growth as they gained experience. None of this is a knock on Lapenieks; maybe he was on the same track. And I’m sure he was being crushed by CP’s budget and schedule. Nonetheless, his travelogue of hippie-era Venice Beach provided an invaluable witness to the time and place he was living in. The colors, textures and atmosphere he recorded all coincide with what makes cinematography the most fascinating artform. I think of it as a time machine that preserves isolated moments for sharing with others – basically, forever.
A bit of inside cinematography: I recall an evening at the ASC Clubhouse some twenty years ago when Conrad Hall, ASC expounded upon what a great teacher Lapenieks had been during his time at the USC Film School in the early ’50’s. By any standard, that’s a meaningful testimonial. It also shows how wide an influence Lapinieks had on the future of cinematography, well apart from anything he did in Cisco Pike.
“……was a lunch-pail shooter with a long resumé that included a considerable amount of documentary work.”
Rich what is a lunch-pail shooter? Also I decry the use of the word “shooter” to describe any person’s quality of work within our craft whether judged good or bad. Shooter should be reserved to describe the SHOOTER at Uvlade, at Columbine and at countless other venues of horrific violence. Just sayin’
Hey Greg – sorry about any confusion here. By “lunchpail,” I was referring to a work-a-day kind of guy, the sort who just shows up and does the job with little to no fuss. It’s an old expression, maybe outdated at this point, but it just came to mind when I was writing the post. As for “shooter,” I’d put it in the same category. It’s an expression I used to hear from a lot of the old timers as they described themselves, usually in a deprecating way. No worries, though. With those, I think I might’ve tapped out my quota of archaic descriptive terms…