the programmer at channel 13 make an interesting choice to kick off their new ( and kind of excite ) reel 13 project in select james bridge 1973 paean to law school the paper chase . i realize that 2008 mark the 35th anniversary of the film and but if it anniversaries theyre interested in and why not select a film with a little more punch say the sting or american graffiti or even if they want to go back 50 year to show u gigi or vertigo something that open this new initiative with a bang . but the paper chase be what we get and so the paper chase be what we will deal with . i hadn not see the paper chase since i be fourteen year old or so and mostly remember it a be boring and a little dull . i be excite to re watch it on reel 13 because i felt that now and a a more educated and hopefully more sophisticated viewer and i could fully appreciate it for the important work of art that it be suppose to be and but no it still pretty boring . i do not mean to be flip about it . the more educated version of myself can now see why the film do not work for me and ultimately and i think it boil down to the episodic nature of the piece . the film follow first year law student jam t. hart ( timothy bottom ) on a series of misadventure and anecdotes mostly revolve around his borderline obsession with one of his professor and but also dabble in his relationship with a local woman he meet and the life of some of his fellow student and the pressure of final and etc . and etc . there be a number of good and interesting scene in the paper chase ( i particularly like the scene on the frozen lake and most of the study group scene ) and but a a whole and they do not add up to much . the film doesn not have a sufficient overall arc or thru line and the result be a jumpy and disjoint narrative . part and parcel with all that be the trouble with the romantic relationship between hart and susan and a play by lindsay wagner ( who two year later would become television original bionic woman ) . firstly and they meet when susan come up to him randomly and abruptly on some boston street and ask him to walk her to the corner because someone follow her . and he say he will walk her all the way home . what . be you kid . this be how our romantic lead meet . then and on the walk home ( we never see the allege stalker and btw ) all he do be ramble and babble about law school the bionic woman look ( appropriately ) bore and disinterested . a few scene later and he lurk outside her house and build up the courage to knock on the door and she instantly invite him in . cut to a light turn on when they be naked in bed . i mean and really . i know the seventy where freewheel and everything and but this be ridiculous ( or be i the only person that these thing do not happen to . ) . and then and in this post coital scene and he start philosophize about law school again . i swear the bw have only have two or three line of dialogue to this point . and wouldn not you know it and guess who daughter susan turn out to be . it contrivances like those that can ruin a script or film . furthermore and i have long maintain that writer and filmmaker need to take the time to build a foundation for the important romantic relationship in a film . we need to understand and feel why two people like each other and be together . bottom and the bionic woman have absolutely zero chemistry together a actor and neither be their relationship strongly support by the script . a one of the key ( albeit tenuous ) conflict in the film be the balance between hart romance with susan and his pursuit of good grade at harvard law school and the lack of effort put into the former do serious damage to the overall impact of the film . ( sidenote represent the relationship have some potential in the sense that both character seem to be separately obsess with the same person . i think this be kind of an interesting ( and unique ) idea and a potential building block for them and but the film doesn not capitalize on it nearly enough and instead let it linger drift in space ) . the film be mostly remember for the performance by john houseman a professor kingsfield . he win many accolade for the performance and include the academy award a best support actor of the year . now and mr. houseman performance be fine after all and he be a stodgy and imperious professor at julliard for twenty year before this so play a stodgy and imperious professor at harvard be hardly a stretch ( a neal gabler jocularly hint at during his open remark ) and he have a lot of snappy and quotable line of dialogue . however and i hardly felt he be oscar worthy . houseman win the oscar because he be a legendary theater producer and director ( he work with orson welles and the mercury theater and etc . ) and it be a fun story that he be make his act debut at the age of 71. if you really look back at that year and i think you have to say that the best supporting performance be jason miller a father damien in the exorcist . i mean and he be amaze subtle and displayed lot of range . i would even rank robert shaw in the sting and jack gilford in save the tiger and hell and even and paul lemat in american graffiti all above houseman here . ( do anybody have any thought on this . i would love to have a revisionist oscar vote here weigh in with your comment and posting on the best support actor of 1973 if you get a chance ) . ( for the rest of this review and check out our myspace page at www . myspace . com or realthirteen . ) .