morrison-dylan-fan Looking at various lists on IMDb,I found a great list by Red-Barracuda,which had a rather overlooked Francis Ford Coppola title near the top. Catching up on eps of Screen Junkies News the next day,I was taken aback when one of the hosts picked the same film as the best underrated movie by a famous director,which led to me joining the listening party.View on the film: Attempting to get the film made since the early 60's,writer/directing auteur Francis Ford Coppola proves that it was worth him spending all that time fighting for this title with immaculate stylisation. Changing cinematographers in mid-production, Coppola impressively keeps the visual motifs consistent, with Caul's spy centre given a dour brown appearance where extended takes hold on Caul's worker drone mindset the surroundings build,whilst Caul's mysterious baker is given a chic, Wall Street elite tower. Playing David Shire unsettling electronic score when filming and having Walter Murch cast the sound montages, Coppola manipulates the soundtrack with masterful procession,as Caul's obsession to unscramble the audio reels the viewer into piecing together their own interpretation of the recordings.Keeping in the dark the reason the recording has been made for the first half, the screenplay by Coppola brilliantly records Caul as a meek Winston Smith,who never questions the people who are paying him,and treats the taping he makes as a mundane part to his lonely life. Uncoiling Caul's obsession, Coppola plays a sly line in misdirection which cleverly mis-matches what is seen and what is heard,and leads into an ending that turns Caul into one of the plumbers of paranoia in the era. Peeling away all the movie star charm,Gene Hackman gives an outstanding performance as Caul,who Hackman squeezes into every corner of doubt and anxiety, by listening to all the conversations.

bockwoldtny This film is a hidden gem that I would almost rate above "the Godfather. It is a perfect example of the slew of paranoia films in the mid 70s. One of the reason's why you can't compare it to Coppola's masterpiece is of course that the scope is radically different. "The Conversation" is a very intimate, quiet but compelling and ultimately terrifying character study. They don't make 'em like that anymore. At least not in a mainstream film with a major actor, Gene Hackman, who has at the height of his game. To me this stands as an excellent example of form and content coming together to form a near flawless whole. Using this film for teaching two aspects that are very foregrounded is the use of cinematic space and sound. It unfolds, for a 21st century audience at least, at a slow pace but the fact that it is also a thriller helps the film along. It is not entirely an art film but also plot-driven. If you want to begin to understand what was great about American Cinema in the 70s, still post-Easy Rider this is a good starting point.

markmuhl Great movie and comprehensible that both FFC and Gene Hackman claim this to be their own favorite among those where they had their fingers in.The film starts with a bird's eye view on San Francisco's Union Square and the camera is zooming in onto a street clown who is molesting all kind of people with his grimace. Among them there is a man feeling uncomfortable of being put into the center of attention and therefore tries to ignore the clown and to get out of his way. Soon we know why. The man is a surveillance expert who is observing the wiretap operation on a young couple, which is walking around the square. We start hearing conversation scraps of those being spied on and from this very beginning, one is torn into a story, which in the end is turned upside down.Did the couple know that it was the target of a wiretap operation? Did the spied on couple mention certain things in their conversation on purpose and in a manipulative intent? Is it always easy for a surveillance expert to live with the consequences of his business results? Has the surveillance expert only been a chess piece in a greater game he could not oversee? Things are not quite clear in the end or are they? At the very end, we see the disillusioned Protagonist playing the sax in his own apartment, which he has just devastated in order to find the bug, which was presumably used for spying on the spy. According to me a great philosophical ending.Besides, the movie features a young Harrison Ford in an impressive side role, which he plays in a cool and mysterious way. This is so much better than he being Indiana Jones. Then there is this special atmosphere from the 70's, which is quite evident in the movie but maybe this only has a certain charm for someone like me who has still experienced this period

DKosty123 Granted the technology of this Coppola production is now old, Watergate era eavesdropping stuff, but it is the acting and the story that are important. Those are still solid. Legend has it Marlon Brando was the first choice to play this lead role, but turned it down which was not a rare thing for him to do.Gene Hackman got chosen to do a role of an expert on bugging people and listening to their conversations to get important information. The roie is a very subtle and downplayed role as he is not a hero, not flashy, but a spy doing the gritty work. Hackman is brilliant. He has a spartan apartment and leads a very ordinary existence.When he goes to a convention of buggers (buggars) there are folks there who know him so well they speak of him like he is a legend of this grit work. Then, things go horribly wrong for him, and the story takes a dark turn. This is a movie of solid drama and acting. Hackman shows his chops in this one and the script and production are just great.