Cinema Revisited: The Take (1974)

Directed by Robert Hartford-Davis. Cast: Billy Dee Williams, Eddie Albert, Frankie Avalon, Sorrell Booke, Tracy Reed, Albert Salmi, Vic Morrow, A Martinez, James Luisi, John Chandler.

Released May 18, 1974. Running time: 91 minutes

If ever a film epitomized every stereotype of 1970s B-level cinema, "The Take" would be it. A quintessential example of action movie kitsch, it features Billy Dee Williams as a police lieutenant who travels from California to New Mexico. But he's a dirty cop and takes money from the mob, a practice he continues in his new territory. Billy Dee stands out with his wide lapel jacket and his big flashy shirt collars, while the supporting actors wear neat, color-coordinated outfits complete with pressed jackets and ties as wide as bibs.

Director Robert Hartford-Davis was a veteran of exploitative movies like this, and had a penchant for stunt casting. So we get Vic Morrow as a mobster leader, Eddie Albert as a harried police chief, and Frankie Avalon testing his acting chops as a whiny gangster (without a shred of irony). We even get Sorrell Booke as a security/investment advisor to Billy Dee, with knowledge of his sordid income sources. Tracy Reed, as the love interest, has almost nothing to do.

For those interested in the era, and certainly for those of us who lived through it, "The Take" comes off as an interesting look at 70s B-level filmmaking. Billy Dee's period outfits alone are worth a screening, not to mention the sturdy, confident manner in which he plays his character. The action sequences are abrupt and exciting, the director dotting the first one with an appearance by John Chandler ("Mad Dog Coll," "Ride the High Country," "The Outlaw Josey Wales"). Chandler's cold blue eyes are always impactful, no matter how small his role. Frankie Avalon is laughable as he weeps through a backstory about being beaten by a cop when he was a kid, but he tries his best in a challenging role. He's a long way from the beach.

This is not a good movie in the traditional sense. It is by no means an example of great filmmaking. It is the sort of movie that would have been tossed into a program at the Drive-In back when it was first released. But movies like this, that so completely represent the excesses of their time, are a sub-genre unto themselves. The perfunctory script, direction without a sense of style, the hackneyed dialog, the period background music, and overall cheap production values are all part of the movie's charm.

This is also the type of movie that one can't hurt with spoilers, so the idea that Billy Dee, despite playing a crooked cop, triumphs in the end is also representative of the 70s. That was a period where anything could happen, especially in the independent B movies. The bad guy could not only be the lead, but also triumphant. This isn't like "Dirty Harry," where the cop extends beyond the book in order to apprehend a ruthless criminal -- this cop is on the take from the mob.

The 1970s was filled with fine cinema from directors like Scorsese, Coppola, Peckinpah, Kubrick, Altman, Brooks, Allen, Lumet, and many others. But it also had its share of cheap, aggressive cult items like "The Take." And sometimes it's even more fun to revisit such films as this.