The programmers at Channel 13 made an interesting choice to kick off their new (and kind of exciting) Reel 13 project in selecting James Bridges' 1973 paean to law school THE PAPER CHASE. I realize that 2008 marks the 35th anniversary of the film, but if it's anniversaries they're interested in, why not select a film with a little more punch  say THE STING or American GRAFFITI  or even if they wanted to go back 50 years to show us GIGI or VERTIGO  something that opens this new initiative with a bang.<br /><br />But THE PAPER CHASE is what we got and so THE PAPER CHASE is what we'll deal with. I hadn't seen THE PAPER CHASE since I was fourteen years old or so and mostly remembered it as being boring and a little dull. I was excited to re-watch it on Reel 13 because I felt that now, as a more educated and hopefully more sophisticated viewer, I could fully appreciate it for the important work of art that it was supposed to be, butno  it's still pretty boring.<br /><br />I don't mean to be flip about it. The more educated version of myself can now see why the film didn't work for me and ultimately, I think it boils down to the episodic nature of the piece. The film follows first year law student James T. Hart (Timothy Bottoms) on a series of misadventures and anecdotes mostly revolving around his borderline obsession with one of his professors, but also dabbles in his relationship with a local woman he meets, the lives of some of his fellow students, the pressure of finals, etc., etc. There are a number of good and interesting scenes in The Paper Chase (I particularly like the scene on the frozen lake and most of the study group scenes), but as a whole, they don't add up to much. The film doesn't have a sufficient overall arc or thru line and the result is a jumpy and disjointed narrative.<br /><br />Part and parcel with all that is the trouble with the romantic relationship between Hart and Susan, as played by Lindsay Wagner (who two years later would become television's original Bionic Woman). Firstly, they meet when Susan comes up to him randomly and abruptly on some Boston street and asks him to walk her to the corner because someone's following her. And he says he'll walk her all the way home. What??!?? Are you kidding? This is how our romantic leads meet? Then, on the walk home (we never see the alleged stalker, btw) all he does is ramble and babble about law school  the Bionic Woman looks (appropriately) bored and disinterested. A few scenes later, he lurks outside her house, builds up the courage to knock on the door and she instantly invites him in. Cut to a light turning on when they are naked in bed. I mean, really??? I know the seventies where freewheeling and everything, but this is ridiculous (or am I the only person that these things don't happen to?). And then, in this post-coital scene, he starts philosophizing about law school AGAIN. I swear  the BW has only had two or three lines of dialogue to this point. And wouldn't you know it, guess who's daughter Susan turns out to be? It's contrivances like those that can ruin a script/film. Furthermore, I have long maintained that writers and filmmakers need to take the time to build a foundation for the important romantic relationships in a film. We need to understand and feel why two people like each other and are together. Bottoms and The Bionic Woman have absolutely zero chemistry together as actors and neither is their relationship strongly supported by the script. As one of the key (albeit tenuous) conflicts in the film is the balance between Hart's romance with Susan and his pursuit of good grades at Harvard Law School, the lack of effort put into the former does serious damage to the overall impact of the film. (Sidenote: The relationship had some potential in the sense that both characters seemed to be separately obsessed with the same person. I thought this was kind of an interesting (and unique) idea and a potential building block for them, but the film doesn't capitalize on it nearly enough, instead letting it linger drifting in space).<br /><br />The film is mostly remembered for the performance by John Houseman as Professor Kingsfield. He won many accolades for the performance, including the Academy Award as Best Supporting Actor of the year. Now, Mr. Houseman's performance is fine  after all, he was a stodgy and imperious professor at Julliard for twenty years before this so playing a stodgy and imperious professor at Harvard was hardly a stretch (as Neal Gabler jocularly hinted at during his opening remarks)  and he has a lot of snappy, quotable lines of dialogue. However, I hardly felt he was Oscar-worthy. Houseman won the Oscar because he was a legendary theater producer and director (he worked with Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater, etc.) and it was a fun story that he was making his acting debut at the age of 71. If you really look back at that year, I think you have to say that the best supporting performance was Jason Miller as Father Damien in THE EXORCIST. I mean, he was amazing  subtle and displayed lots of range. I would even rank Robert Shaw in THE STING, Jack Gilford in SAVE THE TIGER and hell, even, Paul LeMat in American GRAFFITI all above Houseman here. (Does anybody have any thoughts on this? I'd love to have a revisionist Oscar vote here  weigh in with your comments and postings on the Best Supporting Actor of 1973 if you get a chance).<br /><br />(For the rest of this review, check out our myspace page at www.myspace.com/realthirteen.)