Thursday, March 22, 2007

Le Mepris: Review

Contempt, a film most consider to be Jean-Luc Godard's most accessible work, is still a difficult yet ultimately rewarding experience for those willing to play by its rules. However, those who wish to sit idle while watching movies will find Godard's finished piece boring and incomplete. Long considered to be the most difficult and complex filmmaker of the primary French New Wave participants, Godard's filmography ranges from sheer frustration to sublime joy and Contempt or Le Mepris is somewhere in between. Featuring only five speaking parts, the film is slow yet never boring, its technical accomplishments luring the viewer in while simultaneously pushing them away through its self conscious attempts to label itself as a piece of cinema. It's highly stylized camera movements, color tinting and self referential nature all lend themselves to having the film be not only narratively about the making of a film, but also about the larger idea of cinema as a whole. For anyone interested in the creative process, the film is mesmerizing, never quite reaching the level of Fellini's masterful 8 1/2 but adding its own important and vital thoughts into the genre.

The joy that comes from Godard's film is distinct and is often difficult to find. They require the utmost participation from their audiences, and without it, they are long, slow, turgid affairs and Contempt is no different. Throughout, Godard tries his hardest to push his audience away from the film's narrative, refusing the easy entry that most American audiences have grown accustomed to from their viewing of the Hollywood style of filmmaking. For Hollywood, cinematic conventions and techniques are designed to be invisible, a means for telling the story. This was especially true in the era prior to the early 1960's (Contempt was released in 1963). Hollywood filmmakers feared losing their audiences attention or emotional reactions with notable cuts, camera movements, etc. When an audience consciously notices a cut, it takes them away from the story and forces them to consider what that cut was. Godard lives and dies with each cut, demanding his audience notice each interruption of narrative. Contempt wants its audience to not only think about the narrative concerns of the struggles of filmmaking but of actual cinematic concepts and theories as well.

In fact, in many ways Contempt feels like the physical manifestation of much of the theorizing and thinking that came out of the pages of "Cahiers Du Cinema", which unsurprisingly featured writers such as Godard. However, where many of his French New Wave contemporaries subtlety melded new techniques with older Hollywood genres and conventions, Godard is much more deliberate and obvious. As a result, his films are radically different experiences than Truffaut's or Melville's, theoretically dense dramas rather than the lovely, entertaining dramedies of Truffaut or Melville's hard boiled thrillers. The script here, written by Godard, is wandering and loose, filled with more in depth philosophizing and metaphors than narrative exposition. This isn't one's typical cinematic pop philosophy made popular by the likes of Tarantino and Linklater either, but a more academic discussion that requires genuine thought. As I mentioned earlier, there are only five speaking roles and inside of those, there is truly only two that have any substantial weight: Paul (played by Michael Piccoli) and Camille (Brigitte Bardot). Most of the film is composed of their conversations, with the middle 30 minutes dominated by an argument that Godard presents with a raw, uncut nature. Granted this isn't Godard's primary (or secondary) concern, but both Piccoli and Bardot contribute wonderful performances here, carrying the weight of the film's emotional impact with relative ease.

It should be noted that, despite being four paragraphs into this review, the topic of narrative has been raised but what exactly composes the narrative has not. For many American audiences, this indifference will undoubtedly frustrate and anger. After all, why watch a film that barely tells a story that can be entirely summed up in a single sentence: A playwright, whose marriage is dissolving before his eyes, is hired by a big wig Hollywood producer to rewrite an adaptation of Homer's The Odyssey? It requires a drastic and conscious leap, something not easy for a casual filmgoer, but then again, this isn't a film designed for that crowd. It is meant for the cinematic thinkers, the people who like their films to have more than a shred of intelligence. It’s vintage, classic art house fare, and will create conversation about how it’s beyond genius or how it is unbearably pretentious. In reality, it is somewhere between the two and is worth a look for anyone with a sense of cinematic risk and adventure

****/*****

Outsider's Opinion: Top Ten Films of the 1960's


10. Le Samourai (1967)- One of the least well known films on this list, Le Samourai is Jean Pierre Melville's classic example of cool, a film built on restraint and minimalism. Combining elements of the American Gangster films of the 30's and 40's with the Japanese Samurai flick of the 50's and 60's, Le Samourai is a classic mishmash of genres with a monumental performance by Alain Delon at the center of it. He plays Jef Costello, a hit man who strives for perfection but after one hit goes wrong, is forced into a corner with devastating results. The film is methodical in its plot, often going extended period of times without dialogue. But Melville's shots are perfectly constructed and the time flows effortlessly, slowly revealing stunning moment after another and climaxing in a breathless chase, refreshingly devoid of any pounding music, allowing the suspense of the moment to continue, uninhibited by an external forces. Costello is the personification of cool, always seen in a trench coat and fedora and with jazz filling the streets of Paris, few films can match Le Samourai in its hipness. The Criterion Collection has recently released this on a newly remastered disc that is a must buy for anyone interested in the French New Wave, American Gangster or Japanese Samurai flicks. This is a monumental work that is criminally underestimated and overlooked. One for the ages.


9. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)- A family film that is deceptively complex, addressing issues such as race and class with a stunning clarity that is completely unrivaled in American cinema. Gregory Peck's performance of Atticus Finch is stuff of legend, as fine a lead acting job that has ever been captured on celluloid. The film's brilliance comes in the form of framing its difficult issues through the viewpoint of a child, filtering the complex problems of adults through the innocent and understanding thoughts of a child. Without Horton Foote's stunning adaptation of Harper Lee's classic novel, the film would be significantly less successful but as it is, there are few films in all of history that so accurately capture what its like to deal with difficult issues as one struggles with adolescence. A coming of age story, an examination of racial prejudice in the south and a complex view at the legal system, To Kill A Mockingbird was an anomaly for 1960's Hollywood, an endlessly successful and brave film that successfully emerged from the rubble of the Studio System. John Megna, Mary Badham and Phillip Alford contribute three of the greatest performances by children in cinematic history. They are absolutely stunning in their subtlety, humor and fear. As a primer to a discussion of the difficult to grasp issues (even for adults), To Kill a Mockingbird is a film that can educate and enlighten children and adults alike and should be required viewing for anyone with the slightest interest in the movies.


8. 2001: A Space Odyssey- Stanley Kubrick’s sci-fi masterpiece stands as a remarkable achievement that is virtually unrivaled in all of cinema in terms of an audio-visual experience. Despite disastrous first screenings (during which Rock Hudson famously stood up and walked out demanding “Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?”) that almost crippled the film, it escaped studio hands almost untouched and when released to the general public, was heralded as the true visionary work that it stands as today. Utterly confounding and at times, seemingly incomprehensible, it is a film to be experienced its first viewing rather than understood. Loaded with stunning imagery and themes and almost entirely open to interpretation, 2001 has acted as great divider to those who get it and those who don’t, which is unfortunate because it overlooks the intentions of the film. From the opening shots at the dawn of evolution, to the trippy star gate sequence to the final, haunting shots of the Star Child floating gently above Earth’s atmosphere, the film’s visuals wash over the viewer, electrifying their imagination and their intelligence. As thoughtful and heady of a movie as ever has been released to the mainstream, it signaled a new phase for Kubrick, one in which he became increasingly abstract and difficult, crafting film after film of astonishing beauty and complexity until his untimely death in 1999. He was one of the true masters, one who we’ll get to a little later on as well and 2001 was one of his crowning achievements, a scientifically accurate tale of man’s evolution through time and space.


7. Bonnie and Clyde (1967)- The film that almost single handily announced the arrival of the New Hollywood, Bonnie and Clyde stands as a violent, vicious masterpiece that divided critics, making and breaking some in the process. For Pauline Kael, who heavily praised the film, it provided her career with a leaping off point and with it, she would go on to become one of the most prominent and important film critics of the second half of the 20th century. On the other side is Bosley Crowther, the then New York Times film critic, known for his aging, conservative views. Crowther, highly critical of the film's violence, found himself on the wrong side of the argument as Kael bombarded his review and illuminated his views to be as out of touch as they were. Kael became a star, Crowther was soon ushered out of his job reviewing for the Times in 1968. Kael wasn't the only one who received praise: Warren Beatty, the young up and coming star, became one of the most powerful draws in Hollywood as the producer and star. Although the film is undeniably violent throughout, nothing could prepare audiences for the horrific ending, which is bracing even by today's standards. It is a singular moment in film history that is unforgettable, foreshadowing the dark, cynical feel that the 70's would soon adopt and forever leaving behind any semblance of the innocent, positive films that Hollywood had been putting out for much of the 1950's and early 60's. The acting is superb throughout and the script by David Newman and Robert Benton (later doctored by Robert Towne, who would soon go on to become one of the most desired screenwriters in Hollywood) is razor sharp. It is endlessly entertaining, simultaneously mixing dark comedy and stellar drama. Not to be missed.


6. Battaglia di Algeri, La (1966)- Along with Le Samourai, La Battaglia di Algeri is a little seen masterpiece, a firecracker of political fury, of emotional and intellectual turbulence. Telling the true story of the fight for Algerian independence from French rule, Gillo Pontecorvo crafted a timeless depiction of bravery and sacrifice. Told from both the view of Algerian freedom fighters and the French military, the film is a shocking exploration of the effects of insurgency, violence and warfare, all of which feel particularly timeless and relevant today. It rides one of Ennio Morricone's best scores, pulsing hypnotically along, providing a perfect coupling with the film's visuals. Blending elements of the French New Wave, Russian Cinema Verite and Italian Neo-Realism, The Battle of Algiers is a stylistic and visual wonder, placing strikingly realistic images on the screen: the rioting are startling and scary, the guerilla bombings are terrifying in their abruptness and the torture, given the images of Abu Gharib, is shocking and disturbing. Following the attacks of 9/11 and the start of the war in Iraq, the Pentagon found The Battle of Algiers so pertinent that they chose to hold a screening of it to give the military leaders an idea of what to expect during their time in Iraq. It is a shame that more Americans haven't seen this film as it honestly forces one to think in different ways about the current war on terrorism. The Criterion Collection released this as a three disc special edition in late 2005 that should be mandatory. The special features are interesting and illuminate the issues surrounding the film and the accompanying literature is a fascinating read, featuring interviews with the actual people involved in the resistance. The film is suspenseful and thoughtful, never stooping to the level of a common thriller yet never squandering its excitement in favor of bland political pandering and should be considered a must see for its amazing relevance to our society today.


5. The Wild Bunch (1969)- Sam Peckinpah's greatest accomplishment, The Wild Bunch is a wildly innovative and influential western that is often shocking and deranged. For those who feel like the Western was a jovial, easy going genre for 10 year old boys in the 1940's and 50's should look no further than The Wild Bunch, which brilliantly deconstructs the hallmarks and conventions of the Hollywood Western. Rated R upon its initial release, it was re-released in the early 90's and much to Warner Bros. surprise was hit with a NC-17 for its graphic violence, among other questionable subject matter. Pioneering in its use of slow motion and graphic violence, The Wild Bunch tells the story of a group of aging gunfighters who confront the closing of the west as it becomes increasingly civilized. The acting by the cast is wonderful with William Holden standing out in particular, but the real star here is Peckinpah, who even at this point was considered impossible to work with but who's genius is unquestionable. As an innovator of the modern day action film, the value of his influence can be questioned but its far reaching nature cannot. The film has lost none of its power and for those who grew up with the classic Hollywood Westerns of John Ford, Howard Hawks and Anthony Mann, The Wild Bunch will be particularly shocking. Mournful of the passing time, the film is harsh but also nostalgic. The awareness of the films that have come before it is vital to its viewing and appreciation and those who haven't seen Ford's or Hawk's work may not fully grasp Peckinpah's vision. However, if one is familiar with the work of the past masters, The Wild Bunch will be a fulfilling, exciting and interesting experience that is endlessly rewarding, increasing in value with each viewing.


4. C'era una volta il West (1968)- While not as purely entertaining as some of Sergio Leone's other works, Once Upon a Time in the West (or OUATITW), has become perhaps his most critically revered. As elegiac as film comes, Leone's work is a testament to all that had come before it (including his own works) with subtle twists and turns throughout. The results are nothing short of breathtaking, with the trademark Leone visuals teaming with a phenomenal story co-authored by Bernardo Bertolucci and Dario Argento, two towering figures in the Italian film scene. There is scene after scene of positively electrifying moments, from Claudia Cardinale's ride into Monument Valley to Henry Fonda's appearance as the film's villain. The opening segment, almost 10 minutes in length without a single word of dialogue slowly builds in suspense as only Leone could do until an abrupt and quick resolution. A star studded cast lends itself perfectly to the material and transforms every scene into a display of star prowess. Unlike The Wild Bunch, Peckinpah's calling card to the Old West, Leone's film largely eschews the violence to a surprising degree, focusing on the moments prior to a kill in amazing builds of tension rather than the moments directly after with Peckinpah's trademark slow motion and graphic violence. The cinematography, as in all of Leone's work, is spectacular, blending sweeping vistas with as close as them come shots filling up the screen. Like with The Wild Bunch, this is a film best enjoyed having digested the works that have come before it, although Once Upon a Time in the West is more palatable due to The Wild Bunch's violence. Its slow pacing is vintage Leone and requires some patience but for those who are able to get in tune with the master, they will not be disappointed.


3. 8 1/2 (1963)- The greatest movie ever about the creative process, 8 1/2 stands as a timeless, difficult and dense work by Federico Fellini, weaving surrealistic images with the realities of the world. It tells the story of Guido, a director stuck on a film he has no desire to make, and his creative and personal frustrations that arise as his life crumbles around him. Guido, played by Marcello Mastrorianni in one of the all time great performances, relies heavily on his personal memories (many of which were actually Fellini's) to draw inspiration and much to his frustration, is unable to come up with anything he is satisfied filming. As outside pressures mount, Guido looks further and further inward and as he does, the film becomes more and more surrealistic until the magnificent climatic sequence. Fellini, who wrote and directed the film, delves deeper into the creative process than anyone had before and the film shows this. As I attempt to enter into a creative profession, I notice I turn inward for inspiration, drawing from personal experience more and more. The more I realize this, the greater an achievement 8 1/2 becomes. Incredibly observant and unflinching in its depictions of Guido's struggles, 8 1/2 has become considered the film about film, with almost nothing else challenging its greatness. The black and white cinematography, by Gianni di Venanzo, is stunning in its crispness and it captures both the real and surreal with ease, keeping the visual scheme constant which makes each successive sequence harder to discern. Is the viewer watching one of Guido's dreams or is this actually happening? Upon first viewing, it can be frustrating but if one gives themselves to Fellini and allows him to take them along for the ride, the experience is an awesome trip into the human mind. It is funny and sad, comedic and tragic and it is Fellini's best work, one perfectly suited for his indulgences. In the hands of another director, 8 1/2 may not have worked but with Fellini and his imagination at the helm, it is never less than dazzling, a required experience for anyone interested in cinema.


2. Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (1964)- The 1960's most viciously funny satire and the best cinematic document of the insanity of Cold War paranoia, Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove is an unquestioned classic, a comedic masterpiece of the highest order. Featuring the greatest comedic actor of all time, Peter Sellers, at the top of his game playing, count 'em, three separate, all key roles and George C. Scott in a neurotic performance that almost equals Sellers, Dr. Strangelove is easily one of the greatest American films of all time. Released at the height of the Cold War, the film's brave stance against much of the standard political thinking of the day is superb and its ability to laugh at a situation that gripped the nation with terror is unmatched. Released a less than 2 years after the world stared down nuclear war with the Cuban Missile Crisis, the film is frank and unnerving in its depictions of the end of the world as the men in charge act like school boys, wrestling and arguing without any semblance of order or intelligence. Featuring a wickedly clever and gleefully chaotic script by humorist Terry Southern, every scene works and the humor of the film increases with each viewing as the heavily nuanced acting and directing play out with great subtlety. Featuring spectacular supporting work from Slim Pickens, Sterling Hayden amongst others, this film has no cinematic, narrative or thematic weaknesses as it moves along uninhibited. It is as close to perfection as any American film has come and stands today as a cinematic milestone that has lost nothing in the 43 years since its release. Not only Kubrick's best, not only the best American film of the 1960's, but hands down, one of the best films of all time, certainly in my personal Top Ten.


1. Il Buono, il brutto, il cattivo (1966)- Not only the most entertaining movie of the 1960's but also the decade's best, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is a breathtaking original, the peak of Sergio Leone's craft and easily one of the greatest westerns of all time, American, Italian or otherwise. Lead by classic performances from Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach and Lee Van Cleef, TGTBATU features a wonderfully expressive cast that slinks their way across Leone's vast screen. The use of widescreen is breathtaking, alternating between extreme close up and expansive long shots, all of which are striking in their composition. Each sequence stands as an indisputable classic, climaxing in Tuco's gleeful sprint through a graveyard near the film's conclusion. TGTBATU centers around three men's pursuit of a stash of lost gold and their continuing attempts to trump the others effort to discover the treasure. It may seem like a simple story (which it is) but Leone gracefully stretches it out across three glorious hours with his pitch perfect pacing and wonderful action. Ennio Morricone's score, much like his in Once Upon A Time In The West, is astonishing and the film's well known theme is as good as film scores get. Due to its widespread popularity and its trademark guitars, many overlook its true artistic value but when one listens to it outside of the film, any shred of doubt is immediately erased, replaced with the realization that one is listening to one of the great musical compositions of the 20th century. This is the western for those who don't like westerns. It’s gritty and dark and has aspects of wonderfully black comedy sprinkled throughout. As equally rich thematically as narratively, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly stands as the epitome of 1960's filmmaking, a violent, pulpy, bracing classic that is entertaining, intelligent and absolutely irresistible.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

300: Review

It is with great fanfare that 300 made its way into theaters this weekend and upon its arrival, there will undoubtedly be an equal series of screams of joy and disgust, of praise and contempt. The film is a hyper-masculine actioner, drenched in blood and sweat and completely devoid of any sort of intelligence. When the film works, it is spectacular; placing one visually stunning sequence upon another until finally, it all comes to a gory end. However, when it fails, the moments are laughable. Equally stirring and frustrating, it exhibits almost none of the subtlety that Frank Miller, who wrote the source graphic novel, has developed over the course of his career and instead, goes with breathless, brutal action and a mindless script that is chock full of dull and derivative lines, most of which are eye rolling in their absurdity.

Centering on the story of the Battle of Thermopylae, in which 300 Spartans held off what some swear was a million Persians, the film uses its first 25 minutes to set up the battle and away we go. What follows is an hour and a half of pure spectacle, all half naked men fighting arm in arm attempting to fend off the Persian horde. As mentioned above, the film’s main draw and appeal is its amazing visuals, which I feared may become repetitive as narrative wore on but can positively say that it never does. This is a film to be seen on the big screen with the sound turned up loud with the crowd eagerly anticipating the next gory beheading. In a lesser environment, say, a home theater, much of the film’s bombastic, spectacular nature will be lost and may end up seeming even more laughable than it already does.

Snyder is a talented director, but one wishes that he would display some restraint, a trait that is obviously missing here. Each sequence ramps up the danger, to the point of adding almost inhuman monsters (a towering giant, an obese man with swords in place of what use to be forearms) to the proceedings, until finally, the Spartans are forced to fight the entire remaining Persian army. The finale, given the rest of the films over the top nature, seems all too brief and abrupt. Just as the viewer is gearing up for the other hand to drop, the battle is over and I must admit, its rather disappointing. Having sat through the first hour and 45 minutes, I wish that one of the previous encounters had been cut in favor for a longer, more involved climax. As the film unabashedly throws the gore around up to that point, one wishes that it would have a better conclusion.

The script is virtually non existent, filled with mindless, meant to be motivational one liners, all of which somehow use the word Sparta or Spartans, which, without fail, is overly enunciated by Gerard Butler, who plays King Leonidas, leader of the Spartans. Much of the dialogue consists of one dimensional screaming and yelling, none of which holds any thematic weight, save for the admittedly stirring speech following the conclusion of the battle. Butler is charismatic enough in the lead role and tries his damnedest to inject some feeling into the overly dramatic dialogue. Dominic West, who is so good in HBO’s The Wire, is under used here but makes the most of his screen time. The rest of the cast are more or less faceless, except for David Wenham, who played Faramir in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I couldn’t help but be reminded of Peter Jackson’s masterworks while watching 300, longing for his eloquent and human touch to inject some feeling and complexity into the proceedings. In fact, it may be easiest to describe 300 as no more than the Battle of Helm’s Deep from the second installment of the Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers, stretched out for another hour with half of the heart and a quarter of the smarts.

300 is not a complete failure. For what it is, it is entertaining and held this writer’s attention for the duration of its runtime and at times, it is down right masterful, whipping up a visceral gut reaction that is always welcomed when going to an action flick. Unfortunately for it, it suffers from being released almost two years after the concluding chapter of Jackson’s trilogy and as a result, pales in comparison. For those seeking straight thrills with plenty of blood, gore and beautiful bodies on display, 300 will be worth your time, especially on the big screen. For the rest however, who want to feel that visceral rush without having to check your brains at the door, it will disappoint, just another example of a big budget Hollywood epic that is all flash and noise with little intelligence and will undoubtedly make you yearn for the grand pictures of the past, the Spartacus’ and the Ben-Hur’s to quench your sword and sandal thirst.

***/*****

Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Zodiac: Review

Serial killer movies are often difficult to discern from one another, marred by the numerous entries of slasher flicks of the 80's. When one ends up feeling original and successful, it is often a case to take notice, a film that is simultaneously creepy and intelligent, traits that seemed to avoid the aforementioned horror films. Such is the case of Zodiac, David Fincher's newest concoction, one that eclipses all that he has done prior and stands as an effectively chilling and interesting examination of the murders that gripped the San Francisco metro area in the late 60's and early 70's. Fincher, who showed a great deal of promise throughout the mid to late 90's creating thrillers such as Se7en, The Game and Fight Club here displays a maturation into a more subtle form of filmmaking, devoid of the sensationalism that has plagued his previous efforts.

Zodiac takes place over the course of a decade, beginning in the late 60's and concluding in the late 70's, and charts the often times frustrating investigation into the mysterious and gruesome killings of at least five victims, possibly numbering dozens more. The murders, which were seemingly unrelated with the exception of the continuing stream of letters from the supposed suspect, paralyzed the city of San Francisco and its surrounding areas and in the process, dominated the thoughts and psyches of a number of people, determined to find the killer before he could strike again. As the police investigation falters, unable to determine the identity of the killer, the trail is picked up by Robert Graysmith (brilliantly played by Jake Gyllenhaal), who wrote the book upon which the film is based. Graysmith allows the case to consume his life and even as his marriage crashes to the ground, he continues with his overzealous pursuit of every conspiracy, convinced that they will end with the killer's identity. Since it is based on a true story, one in which the killer was not found, the film's ending may disappoint some but there is enough suggestion that there is some resolution.

The cast is universally good with each of its leads, Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, stealing their scenes. Gyllenhaal is truly one of the more interesting talents today, unafraid of artistically ambitious yet commercially questionable features. His performance here is nothing short of wonderful. With each passing scene, his frustration with and devotion to the case grows unequivocally. The two seem to be linked for Graysmith as each wrong turn or false lead only drives him harder, provides more inspiration to determine the truth. Downey Jr., who continues a solid string of work with Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, Good Night and Good Luck among others, once again proves why the public has stuck by him with such vigilance, despite his numerous run ins with the law. He possesses an undeniable charisma that effortlessly translates onto the screen, his character a frantic, confident reporter who gets swept up, much like Graysmith in the labyrinth that the case quickly becomes. Finally, Ruffalo, who has found recent success with Michel Gondry's sublime Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Michael Mann's Collateral, is stellar as David Toschi, the true life cop who (actually) taught Steve McQueen how to walk and talk like a cop for Bullitt. Toschi, whose integrity was called into question when it became unclear whether he had written some of the Zodiac letters, completes the trio of men who allow themselves to be consumed by the case and it is their inability to separate themselves from its sinister allure that drives the film.

It is that drive that may be lost on audiences. Zodiac is not focused so much on these murders, three of which are featured (all rather graphically), as it is on the effect that these murders had on both these individual men as well as the larger society. Much like 2006’s The Black Dahlia, which dealt with another unsolved killing, this film seems less concerned with scaring during the kill than the scares that happen as a result of the kill. Luckily, Zodiac never devolves into a cheap horror film, rather riding out its status as a solid thriller up until the closing credits. Many found The Black Dahlia to be a disappointment, a confusing mess that juggled a number of major characters without providing adequate emotions and motives for each, a result of a poor adaptation of a complex James Ellroy novel. While Zodiac is much more cohesive than Dahlia, it does suffer from its ambition, leaving characters off screen for major gaps of time while it focuses on another. When the characters are not on screen, they aren’t missed but when the character appears again, it is a bracing realization that they have been gone for so long and detracts from any suspense that may be building. It is a minor fault and quarrel with a film that is more often successful than not in its character development.

That’s not to say that this film doesn’t have style because it absolutely does. Shot using the Thomson Viper, the same camera that Michael Mann and Dion Beebe used to shoot both Collateral and Miami Vice, the images that Fincher conjures are crystal clear, not quite as breathtaking as Mann and Beebe’s work in the two aforementioned films but impressive none the less. Where as Mann mixed more traditional digital film with the HD Viper, Zodiac has the distinction of being the first film to be shot entirely on the Viper and if it’s a taste of what to come, audiences should be pleased. Say what you will about Fincher but he has always been a distinctly visual director his entire career, dating back to this work on Madonna’s music video for “Vogue”, and Zodiac ranks with his finest achievements. The 70’s style is efficient but never overbearing, allowing itself to set the stage for the film but never takes away from the narrative. I have to admit that I was skeptical about the use of digital film, scared it might take away from the magic that the warmth of film allows. However, through Mann and now Fincher’s work, I can wholeheartedly say that digital filmmaking is an important and necessary evolution that opens up new avenues for filmmakers. When used correctly, it is an artistic and technical breakthrough that will revolutionize cinema as we know it.

Zodiac clocks in at over 2 hours and 40 minutes and there are moments in the middle hour when it feels like its length. As the initial shock of the killings wear off and prior to the concluding revelations, there is the drag and frustration that the investigators went through. I’m convinced that Fincher purposefully made this area slow and methodical but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s difficult getting through. Once you hit the two hour mark though, buckle up and be prepared to be dazzled with masterful filmmaking that makes you wish the whole thing could be paced like that. It isn’t and it suffers as a result. As it stands, the film is an undeniable achievement, a visual marvel that looks deeply into the effects these killings have on the film’s characters, all of which are masterfully portrayed by some of the best actors of the day. Its admittedly slow, maybe too much so for some tastes but for those willing to sit through it, they will be amply rewarded by a creepy epic.

****

Friday, March 2, 2007

Manhunter: Review


Michael Mann's 1986 thriller Manhunter is a fine film from a burgeoning master, a proving ground for him to attempt many of the techniques he would go on to perfect, many of which work surprisingly well. That being said, any comparison this film gets to 1991's Silence of the Lambs, directed by Jonathon Demme, are unwarranted as Lambs trumps Manhunter in every category, one a undeniable masterpiece, the other an interesting and entertaining promise of things to come. Mann, in just his third theatrical feature film, displays glimpses of his tremendous trademark style yet slips into some of the pitfalls that dominated many of the thrillers from the 1980's. While it's obvious that he possesses a gift for technique and composition, Mann lacks some of the more subtle modes of narrative that he would later develop as he matured into the cinematic visionary he is today.

The film follows Will Graham, an FBI profiler, tracking a killer nicknamed the Tooth Fairy. As the film progresses, Graham becomes more and more enraptured with his quest to stop the next killing, which will take place upon arrival of the next full moon. William Petersen, who plays Graham, delivers a fine, if unspectacular performance, relying quiet fury that grows with each step closer to the fateful day. His emotional outbursts as the day draws ever closer are effective and convincing. Petersen, who would later go on to lead in the massively successful CSI, is the film's emotional center and he is rather successful in carrying the narrative, both physically and emotionally towards the story's conclusion. His performance is diminished by his speaking the supposed thoughts of the Tooth Fairy as he attempts to recreate what the vicious killer was thinking as he prepared himself for his incredibly violent acts. These moments are often too corny to really create the tension Mann is obviously trying to create. Partially the fault of the screenplay, partially the fault of Petersen, had these parts been exorcised from the final cut, or rather illustrated through physical actions than verbal expressions, the entire film may have had a creepier feeling.

The rest of the supporting cast is in fine form. Tom Noonan, who plays the aforementioned Tooth Fairy contributes an often times creepy, other times downright imposing performance. His cold, detached nature is a perfect foil for Petersen's emotional fury and both play off each other well. The dichotomy between the two provides the film with its thematic and emotional center, both of which become incresingly complex as Graham slowly sinks deeper and deeper into his obsession. Brian Cox, who unfortunately will be known as the other Hannibal Lector, doesn't come close to Anthony Hopkins' Hannibal but still manages to create a frightening performance, which is more subdued and subtle than Hopkins' take. While Hopkins' performance is a more effective attempt at the character, Cox's Lector is a breath of fresh air from what is now considered the norm. The always reliable Dennis Farina is good as Graham's superior and Joan Allen makes the most of her screentime and creates a character that complicates Noonan's role.

Mann, however, is the true star here and in the hands of a lesser director, Brett Ratner (who directed Red Dragon, a different take on the Manhunter source novel by Thomas Harris), the film would be much less successful than it is. This isn't to suggest that Red Dragon isn't successful, in fact its underrated, but Mann takes the material, processes it and creates a visually striking, suspenseful work that suggests greater things to come. Its opening sequence, seen through the first person eyes of the Tooth Fairy during the film's first killing, is mesmerizing, achieving instant success despite the fact that the audience doesn't have a clue who these people are. However, through Mann's camera movements and lighting, it becomes clear that the eyes through we view this narrative world are evil and that the apparent victims in the house are in danger and as the audience, we plead for nothing to happen. Mercilessly, the being moves slowly through the house, up the stairs and into the bedroom then just as something appears ready to happen, Mann cuts away, leaving the scene entirely only to revisit it minutes later. The suspense is magnetic and effective and it becomes clear that Mann is a director capable of directing suspense that is rivaled by few modern, current directors.

The choice of surroundings are inspired, the cold, sterile, clean lines of 80's architecture providing the film with a strange and creepy elegance. The film, for the most part, is brightly lit, the exact opposite of Silence of the Lambs' dirty darkness and it works tremendously well. Rather than intensify any feelings of suspense, the film's coldness distances it from the viewer which in turn, further adds to its increasingly creepy feeling. It is a difficult feeling to describe but when watching the film, it makes sense. In Manhunter, Mann's craft is still in its simplest stages, not even reaching close to the operatic, almost abstract nature of some of the shots and compositions in his most recent Miami Vice. Yet the seeds are being planted before the viewer's eyes. Certain shots are obvious predecessors to the striking digital cinematography of Dion Beebe in Collateral and Vice and it becomes clear as the film rolls along that Mann is gaining confidence with each sequence. Music and visuals are perfectly joined, particularly the climatic sequence, which brilliantly uses Iron Butterfly's "In A Gadda Da Vida" to increase tension and suspense. For anyone who considers themselves a fan of Mann's later works, this should be required viewing. To those who enjoyed Silence of the Lambs, this is an interesting side note and finally, for those who enjoy a solid thriller, they should look no further than Manhunter, despite its flaws.

****/*****