Mr. Blue, Mr. Grey, Mr. Brown and Mr. Green.

Are the code names of four heavily armed men who hijack a New York City subway train and demand a ransom of $1 million for the 18 people taken hostage in the front car in the 1974 movie The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three.

The movie is based on the novel by Peter Stone, which has been adapted three times into films, most recently in 2009 with Denzel Washington and John Travolta, and previously as a TV movie in 1998 with Edward James Olmos and Vincent D’Onofrio. But it is the 1974 movie that is the definitive film version, starring Walter Matthau, Robert Shaw and Martin Balsam, and which stands as one of the finest thrillers of the 1970s.

The four men are dressed very much in a similar fashion, i.e. horn rim glasses, narrow brimmed hats, durable wool khaki raincoats and a fake moustaches and are led by Mr. Blue played by Robert Shaw, a cool no nonsense and ruthless former British army type/mercenary who when his lucrative work dried up decided to use his skills to rob or extort $1 million to keep up with the lifestyle he had become accustomed to. He was backed up by a mafia reject, the crazed and unpredictable Mr. Grey (Héctor Elizondo) who couldn’t wait to show who was boss and was keen to rack up a body count, or as he put it “get on the scoreboard”. Then there is Mr. Brown (Earl Hindman) who has a stutter and lastly Mr. Green (Martin Balsam) who is a former transit employee who holds a grudge against the New York Transit Authority and has a cold.

Lieutenant Garber is the head of the transit security and is played by Walter Matthau who finds himself the unfortunate go between or negotiator during the hostage stage. His New York dialect and humour was a great contrast to the methodical leader of the gang with the English accent who took himself very seriously and was prepared to kill anybody at any time in cold blood.

Right away, The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three grabs you and doesn’t let go. Every character plays their role remakably and memorably. Enough suspense to keep you enthralled, and most of all, a realistic and engrossing storyline. You will literally be on the edge of your seat, wondering where the next plot twist will take you.

In fact the whole film is a microcosm of the ethnic strains of New York City which makes the movie so enjoyable. The mayor is portrayed as a weak and fumbling nonentity plus there’s the late Tony Roberts in a very good minor role as his tough as nails deputy concerned about both his boss’s political career and resolving the crisis.

The script, which is not completely dark despite the underlying theme, contains a number of very funny moments throughout the film: for instance, the chagrined look on Matthau’s face when he discovers the Japanese visitors can speak English, and when the mayor is told by his wife that he will get 18 sure votes.

The genius of the film is there is no wasted motion. The picture starts right with the plot – no introduction or character development. The characters are allowed to develop as the plot moves along.

Which brings us to pacing – the pacing in this picture is excellent. It moves right along and never stops, never slows, never goes too fast. This is the strongest element of its success.

Another strength is its economy of motion. Many action pictures bore us with unneeded car chase scenes, shoot-em-ups, explosions and other mayhems that are used as filler when true creativity comes up short. This film needs none of that. Only that which is necessary is shown. Only that which needs speaking is spoken. This film is deftly written and crafted with great economy and this underpins the excellent pacing. It moves right along because there is no wasted motion as there is in most other action pictures.

The directing is equally economical and it was directed by Joseph Sargent, who for most of his career was mostly a journeyman film-maker for hire but here he hit his mark with skill and confidence that ensured a 1970s classic was made.

I doubt this film could be made today for the above reasons. The script readers would reject it for ‘lack of development’; ‘not enough action’; ‘no romantic interest’; and all the other brainless formulas script readers dole out. The producers would demand ‘more action’ and ‘camera work’ from the directors. And, of course, a romantic interest (in some state of undress) would have to be shoe horned in.

Film students should study this picture. From it they will learn that brevity is a virtue and mindless formulas are just that – mindless.

The fun continues right up to the final frame, a wonderful ending that is nothing to be sneezed at.

and the tease for my next post . . . Shifting gears.