Roadgames: A Little Bit of Rear Window, a Dash of Duel

Quid (Stacy Keach) with his harmonica.

Directed by Hitchcock admirer Richard Franklin, Roadgames (1981) follows truck driver Patrick Quid (Stacy Keach) as he traverses the desolate highways of rural Australia after witnessing what may have been the aftermath of a murder. You see, there's a serial killer on the loose and Quid suspects it's the mysterious man driving a green van.

Released when slasher films like Halloween (1978) and Friday the 13th (1980) were in vogue, Roadgames is an oddity. It sounds like a slasher film, but--as its PG rating suggests--it's more of a throwback to suspense films like The Hitch-Hiker (1953). 

Thematically, Roadgames mirrors Hitchcock's Rear Window with its exploration of voyeurism and the paranoia that comes with it. Just as James Stewart’s character in Rear Window is confined to his apartment, Keach’s Quid is largely confined to his truck, observing the world through his windshield. The film also echoes Steven Spielberg's Duel (1971) with its intense, road-bound cat-and-mouse game, where the vast, empty landscapes heighten the sense of isolation and danger.

Stacy Keach delivers a standout performance as Quid, a trucker with a penchant for poetry and a sharp wit. His character’s quirky charm and intelligence add depth to the film, making him a compelling protagonist. On the other hand, Jamie Lee Curtis has limited screen time and is mired in an underwritten role as a hitch-hiker (again...she also played one in The Fog).* Aussie actress Marion Edward fares better as a stranded wife picked by Quid--and who fears that he may be the killer.

Shades of Hitchock's Rear Window.

Director Franklin makes exceptional use of the rural Australian settings, capturing the stark beauty and eerie emptiness of the outback. This backdrop heightens the film’s tension and sense of isolation, making one wonder why Franklin chose to stage the climax in an urban setting. It's a clunky ending altogether that negates some of the goodwill that Roadgames has established along the way.

Thus, if you watch Roadgames, watch it for the ride. In that context, it delivers modest thrills and a likable quirkiness. The best example of both is a scene in which Quid believes he has the killer trapped in a bathroom stall--and isn't quite sure what to do.

Though it was not a box office success in the U.S., Roadgames attracted enough attention to get Richard Franklin a plum directing assignment. His next movie, Psycho II (1983), was a belated sequel to one of his idol's most famous films.

* Richard Franklin has stated that Actors Equity of Sydney was displeased that an American actress was cast in the role, instead of an Australian performer. Avco Embassy, who provided some of the film's financing, insisted on a "name star" that American audiences would recognize. That led to the casting of Jamie Lee Curtis, who had previously starred in Halloween and The Fog.

The Friday Night Late Movie: Michael York Defends a Fellow Officer Accused of "Conduct Unbecoming"

Michael York.

Conduct Unbecoming is a harsh indictment of the British Army, circa the 1890s, disguised as a courtroom drama. The irony is that the well-played trial scenes are so engrossing that the film’s point becomes almost too subtle. That hardly seems a fair criticism, though. Perhaps, it’s better to call Conduct Unbecoming a multilayered film in which some layers work better than others.

Michael York and James Faulkner play second lieutenants freshly assigned to the tradition-rich 20th Indian Light Cavalry in India. Mr. Drake (York) is an earnest, young man with middle-class origins, who wants to succeed as a British officer. Mr. Millington is his polar opposite, an impudent cynic from a wealthy family. He would like nothing better than to be kicked out of the army. As soon as we meet Millington, we know he is destined for trouble.

York as Mrs. Scarlet.

He finds it in the form of Mrs. Scarlett (Susannah York), an attractive widow who enjoys being the center of attention. Although she firmly rejects Millington’s advances during a ball, the young officer pursues her. When she is attacked later that evening, Mrs. Scarlett accuses Millington of the crime. In lieu of a scandalous court martial, the regimental colonel authorizes an informal midnight inquiry. Millington is allowed to choose his own defending officer and selects Drake because he is a “gentleman of honor.”

Drake faces overwhelming pressure during the start of the trial. His client is uncooperative and apathetic. Captain Harper (Stacy Keach), the president of the board, urges Drake to just go through the motions. But the reluctant “lawyer” refuses to give less than 100%. Eventually, the flippant Millington comes to respect Drake and learn the true meaning of duty. Drake’s persistent pursuit of the truth also gradually earns him the support of an influential superior officer (in what may be the best scene).

As with most military dramas, the relationships among the men take center stage. However, it’s unfortunate that the film’s female characters, both victims of atrocious crimes, come across as indifferent. Mrs. Scarlett, in particular, fears doing anything that could result in her “deportation” back in England. In India, she is the admired widow of an Army hero; in her homeland, she is just another pretty face.

Michael York and James Faulkner.

Michael York, an actor I sometimes find bland, gives an appealing, convincing performance. He captures Drake’s tentativeness at the outset of the trial (Drake doesn’t know what he’s doing and is afraid he’s ruining his military career). As the trial progresses and Drake comes closer to the truth, York projects an air of confidence and authority. Stacy Keach stands out among the all-star supporting cast, which also includes Trevor Howard and James Donald.

I first saw Conduct Unbecoming at an art film theatre in Bloomington, Indiana. I remember liking it, but it wasn’t until my wife and I watched it many years later that I fully appreciated its virtues (especially a nice little twist involving Drake near the climax). It’s not a great film, but it’s consistently interesting and at times riveting—just what a good courtroom drama should be.