by Kevin J. Olson
So, why am I writing this? Well, in light of the recent polling for the best films of the past decade – which concluded about a week ago – and Allan’s comments regarding his disdain for Miami Vice, I felt compelled to defend the film I ranked the second best film of the past decade. I could simply list the other fine bloggers and film critics who agree with me about Miami Vice (an impressive list that, to name a few, includes the likes of: Keith Uhlirch J.D., Doniphon, and Ed Gonzalez); however, I feel like I need to explicitly lay out the reasons why I find Miami Vice to be one of the best films of the decade.
From the onset I should note that I feel like had this film been titled anything else it would perhaps not have been so loathed. Now, I’m not suggesting that a title alone will get people to make up their mind about a movie (unless it’s followed by “a film by Christopher Nolan”), but I do think that some people perhaps struggled to seriously consider that film entitled Miami Vice – an entity that most people solely associate with bad 80’s kitsch – was not only good, but a breakthrough in the crime genre in the vein of Jean-Pierre Melville. Yes, at first it’s hard not to smile in a way that borders on embarrassment when I tell people about my love for this movie (their reply is usually “you mean that remake with Collin Farrell?”), but when I re-watch the film with someone who hasn’t seen it before they clearly see that director Michael Mann was not interested in simply rehashing the television show he held executive producing credit on; no, unlike the glut of television revamps released at the time (drek like Starsky & Hutch, Bewitched, and Dukes of Hazard) Miami Vice was more concerned with being taken seriously; an existential crime drama that stands out as Mann’s most audacious (until that point as last year’s Public Enemies was an even more ambitious undertaking) and masterful crime picture.
There’s basically three points here I want to make: I want to stress the importance to truly appreciate the film on must see the Theatrical Cut of the film, and not the DVD Director’s cut; The use of digital camera to evoke a sense of immediacy and in-the-moment filmmaking that has become a staple of Mann’s; and the narrative flaws that a lot of people see in the film (read: all style, no substance).
The Theatrical Cut versus the DVD Director’s Cut:
The major differences here are indeed major in how they affect the viewing of the film. The additions to the DVD (an opening boat race and further context to the Tubbs and Trudy story thread) add too much to a film that, in the theater, seemed so confident and sure of itself as an arty exercise within the crime genre.The opening boat scene is a perfect example of this. Instead of entering into the film in medias res as Crocket and Tubbs enter a club (the scene is as chaotic and disorienting as the music in the club) we are “treated” to a boat race. It’s awful. Giving the film a feeling of normalcy (aren’t boat races the kind of thing we expect to be associated with Miami Vice?) that is inconsistent with how Mann approached the rest of the film. Rather than being slammed right into the action (the first real breather we get is a beautiful shot of the Miami skyline – and the real first glance of how beautiful the digital nighttime photography is – when Crocket and Tubbs escape to the roof of the club as they get a call from an informant) we’re allowed to gather our bearings and clearly see that, yes, this is indeed Miami Vice…I mean it has speed boats!
The other major difference between the two cuts of the film is the added context between Tubbs and Trudy. Instead of allowing the intimate shower scene, or the slight glances where we clearly see in their eyes that there may be more to their work relationship, Mann decided to throw in a few scenes that give added “weight” to their relationship, but conflict with the overall theme of immediacy and in-the-now that runs through almost all of Mann’s crime pictures (a recurring line in Mann’s films is “time is luck”, and it’s said, to an extent, in Manhunter, Heat, and Public Enemies). It’s unnecessary and capricious, and actually serves to remove the viewer from the existential and “dream like” nature of the film’s narrative by explaining too much.
Finally, the addition of “In the Air Tonight” (not by Phil Collins, but covered by another band) over the final scene on the boats leading up to the film’s final shootout. Wholly cheesy and unnecessary and really removes the tension, and again, adds that kitsch that so many associate with film’s title that Mann seemed to be trying to move away from.
Digital Aesthetic:
Here’s what I wrote last summer when I reviewed the film for J.D.’s Michael Mann blogathon:
Like Mann’s previous film Collateral, Miami Vice was primarily shot using the Thompson Viper Filmstream camera which creates amazingly beautiful nightscapes that pop (especially on Blu-Ray) with a beauty that is captured in a way that film just can’t compare. The rest of the film was shot on 35mm, but it’s the digital moments that make this movie’s aesthetic something to behold. Digital gives you a sense of urgency — something palpable. It’s also just really damn nice to look at. Mann’s films always have a sexy swagger about them, and Miami Vice is teeming with style; but, unlike the films of say Tony Scott (whose films also have a visual swagger about them), there’s a lot of substance buried beneath a Mann film. He always knows where to set the camera and frame a shot (even in the moments where it seems that he is arbitrarily closing in on a subject’s face, or zooming in and out for “no reason”), and like the aforementioned Collateral and The Insider, he uses snap zooms and shaky-cam to a great, emotional effect. This film is always jaw-droppingly beautiful, especially in the middle when Sonny and Isabel have a getaway to Cuba, and the night scenes (one could argue that the city of Miami and its skylines are the real star here) are a feast for the eyes. There are also two great action scenes towards the end of the film that are unlike anything I’ve seen in a crime picture. They’re not unconventional in their scheme, but they’re unconventional in their execution because Mann opts to go for the more realistic approach, the action is quick, over in an instant because that’s they way it would be with professionals doing the job. There’s also a shoot-out at the very end that rivals the one from Heat (in quality not in quantity), it’s perfectly blocked and the sound is just fantastic throughout the scene (it’s perhaps the loudest gunfight I’ve seen), placing the viewer in the moment. It’s really an inspired shootout scene, and it’s what Mann does best: arty action.
Those moments, specifically the final shootout, all mesh nicely with Mann’s tendency to make films about characters that “live in the moment” (think about his version Dillinger in last year’s wonderful Public Enemies). There’s no final “good guy versus bad guy” shootout at the end, the film’s villain dies at the hands of Rico, who in a moment dispenses with the drug lord they’ve been chasing with a few shotgun blasts. And in an instant – a violent flash of red splatters against a wall in the background – the action is over. Normally one would feel robbed of their big moment to the end the film, and such would be the case with Miami Vice were it a normal crime film, but Mann is more interested in the players than the game, and the real conflict is when Sonny must pull out his badge revealing to a nearby Isabel that he is an undercover cop, and that their relationship was, perhaps, all part of the game.
The aesthetic matches the narrative mood. The shootout and the other action scenes aren’t filmed with the intent to excite (although they are visceral), but they’re blocked and filmed with the kind of meticulous attention of an artisan who knows their craft better than anyone.
The aesthetic seems to fit with what Mann has been working towards prior to the release of Miami Vice. He compounded upon all of his previous digital dallying by turning the period gangster film on its head and substituting sepia tones for DV with Public Enemies. The result was a, sometimes, ultra-grainy exercise – a multi-million dollar Hollywood studio art project, the kind we haven’t seen since the 70’s. That film, like his previous crime pictures, takes the “time is luck” motif and amplifies it so that it’s almost as if we’re watching a home video of Dillinger’s last days.
- More than ever Mann is pushing the limits of Digital aesthetic. In Miami Vice (and especially Public Enemies) he’s getting his cameras closer and closer to his subjects, as if to tell us “hey, look at the faces instead of the guns.” For Mann, like Melville, you can tell a lot by a criminal’s (or those that chase criminals) face, and for him that’s a far more interesting subject than trading in his digital camera for the norm, and making aesthetically classic crime pictures. I find it more exciting, too, and that immediacy – that in-the-moment style of filmmaking – is at once jarring and exhilarating because we haven’t really seen it before in American crime films, and we’re not sure what to make of it.
Narrative:
Again from my review last year: It [Miami Vice] has a rich aesthetic with beautiful, bright colors that are always interesting to look at, but also serve a purpose in foreshadowing the narrative and speaking for the characters. Much like another American master, visual poet Terence Malick, Mann is a master at letting the visuals act as the poetics; he allows them to evoke the themes, emotions, and feelings, an onus that usually falls on the actor; however, with Mann’s films he almost always wants his main characters to be enigmas; people who say little and speak with their actions. At the end of Miami Vice before the big bust, Rico asks Sonny if he is prepared for what’s going to happen (the bust signifies the end of Sonny’s “playtime” with Isabel), and wonders if his partner’s head is “in it”. Sonny replies with brutal honesty: “I am most certainly not ready.” A line that means he is indeed willing to sacrifice for the greater good, and that his partner (the one he’ll be with forever) can trust him to do the right thing.
And finally: Most action films don’t stop for these moments of dialogue, but this little exchange at the end of the film says a lot about the characters and the kinds of character development and storytelling that Mann is interested in. Mann reminds me a lot of French New Wave master Jean-Pierre Melville, another director who loved the crime genre, but rarely was interested in the crime itself. Like Melville, Mann loves to create action scenes that are more about the nuances instead of trumped up action clichés. Mann’s films have an uncanny ability to be simultaneously grounded in realism (the action scenes in this film), scenes that are palpable in their intimacy (look at the scenes quieter scenes between Sonny and Isabel, especially their “courting” process and specifically their scenes in Havana), but are also poetically striking; ethereal moments that leave you in awe of their visual splendor all while watching something that seems so Real.
If Mann is all style and no substance – as many of his detractors claim – than so is Terence Malick. Both make “dream” films that seemingly have no point A or B to its narrative, but are actually quite interested in telling their story, only they prefer to do it with as little exposition and “normal” narrative structure as possible. Both filmmakers certainly have a lot to say about their characters, but they also have a great deal of respect for their craft, and the audience who goes to see their work. Yes, there certainly are moments in Miami Vice where more information could clear things up (why do the Neo-Nazi’s kidnap Trudy and how did they go about doing it? Why is the informant at the beginning scared for his life?), but that just feeds into our expectations of how we’re supposed to watch a movie. When filmmakers come along that challenge the way we watch a film and think about narrative then I am all for it.
Now, whether you think Mann has anything interesting to say is your prerogative, but I feel like his crime films are always filled with tough, existential choices where the characters must make a clear life choice that will affect their way of life; these characters find out who they are in this process.
Finally, like Malick, Mann is more interested in letting the visuals do the explaining. I call these “dream” films because there is a sense that you could walk in at any moment during Miami Vice (or to use a Malick example, The New World) and not miss a beat. What some people claim as arbitrary storytelling I prefer to see as ambiguous narrative that lets the audience do the heavy lifting. Filmmakers like Mann and Malick don’t placate their audiences, they don’t condescend with needless exposition or tired genre tropes; these are films that have a lot to say, but trust that their audience will not dispose of the film immediately, and return for multiple viewings to catch the nuances and the power of the film through the non-verbal.
I’ve blah blah blahed long enough…in conclusion:
There’s nothing more cliché than an action film about two cops who go undercover and infiltrate a drug cartel; and that, while undercover, one of the cops will no doubt get in too deep while the other cop can only question his partner’s commitment to the case. Such clichés are evident in almost all of Michael Mann’s films; however, he always sidesteps the banal inevitability of said clichés by taking a fresh look at the men who lead such lives through an introspective and microscopic lens. 2006 brought Miami Vice, a film popping with beautifully filmed colors, meticulously framed skylines, and, most importantly, the type of scrupulous itemization Mann loves to display for his audiences (just watch the way his characters create sing-songy dialogue with insider jargon). For Mann, it isn’t so much about the action, but about the duty, the inner turmoil (which is always aided by beautifully shot and framed visual correlatives); they’re about why these people are driven by what they’re driven by, and how they function in the world they live in. A lot of people find Mann’s brand of “action” film boring – too much ethereal wandering that result in long, lingering takes on unnecessary close-ups or establishing shots – with not enough shoot ’em up; I find them misunderstood, refreshing takes on tired genre tropes; existential tone poems of the crime genre that are narratively akin to the French master Jean-Pierre Melville in how the filmmaker is more concerned with the inner dilemma than the external action. If Mann’s crime films are narratively akin to Melville then surely they are visually akin to his American contemporary visual poet Terence Malick in how the film has an ease about its tone; it’s almost as if it wafts from scene to scene as if in a dream. Miami Vice is a masterpiece of the crime genre that isn’t just the most misunderstood film of Mann’s oeuvre, but also the most misunderstood masterpiece of the last decade.
A home run from Mr. Olson. I guess I fall in the middle on this film, but reading this makes you stop in your tracks. I really like the various angles, including the narrative and digital aesthetics. Outstanding writing, too.
Thanks, Frederick! I appreciate the kind words. This was a lot of fun to write.
The visual schematics – as you mention – are more interesting in this film, than they were in Public Enemies, even if the latter film was a “more ambitious undertaking.” Particular, the use of color is provocative. I concur that there is more here than is readily apparent to may who didn’t care for it, but I would say one must really like Mann’s cinema to rate this at the top of the heap.
This is a masterful essay.
Frank:
Thanks for the kind words regarding the essay. I really liked what Mann did in PUBLIC ENEMIES, but I haven’t seen it since its release in theaters (the blu-ray is sitting by my DVD player unopened); I’m really eager to revisit it soon, as I remember being really struck by the digital aesthetic in that film, but I realize that a lot of people (including tons of people I trust) had issues with the film. You’re also right in your assessment that this isn’t really that accessible a film unless you’re willing to give yourself to Mann’s style…and I totally get that that’s hard for some people to do.
I should be clear that I don’t begrudge Allan at all for his dislike of this movie (why would I? We all have different tastes) I just felt the need to defend the one film that probably looked most of out place on the recent polling’s top 25 list.
Thanks again for the comment, Frank.
I love Public Enemies. It gets better with each viewing….
Like the others I agree that Mr. Olson makes a compelling case for the film. And I do agree that one must go for teh theatrical version. Still this film didn’t work for me. “Miami Vice” is crime drama that never gets off the ground. The film is remarkable for what it leaves out and what it includes. Save for the shootout at the end of the film there is precious little gunplay. The drugs also receive little camera attention. While verbally mentioned the drugs are almost invisible in the film, existing only as suspect “packages” sitting around on boats. The drug lord himself maybe gets five minutes of screen time, as does the snitch who rats him out to keep his stay-out-of-jail-card and tax-payer-funded mansion. The drug lord’s security handler ends up with far more screen time, but he winds up being a character of almost of no importance, as the police outsmart him at just about every turn and the drug lord escapes cleanly without his aid. So, what exactly did he contribute to the story except for a weak love quadrangle? The white supremacists that begin and end the film as the villains totally disappear for most of the film, making yet another weak subplot in the story. Totally absent from the movie is the requisite paperwork that haunts any investigative police work. Also missing is a police facility of any stripe. Even more striking is the lack of teamwork. Partners Colin Ferrell and Jamie Foxx are almost always going solo, which inevitably leads to the seemingly requisite James Bond love scenes. How many undercover officers actually have casual sex with their operation teammates (portrayed by Jamie Foxx and teammate Naomie Harris) or the target’s girl (portrayed by Colin Ferrell and Gong Li as the drug lord’s girlfriend)? Apart from being sexual sidekicks, the females in this film have little role to play and receive almost no screen time outside of this role. This film has little action, lacks realism, and suffers from a confused and poorly directed plot.
Bill:
Thanks for the comment. You’re right that the components of a “drug” movie are not here, and I would argue that Mann is not interested in those components. He’s stripping the genre bare, here, and he’s not so much interested in a procedural style crime film, but a deeper, ethereal look at a genre that usually “gritty” and uber-realistic.
Oh, and Mann will never know how to write for female characters. It’s just not his strong point.
Kev, I’m a fan of “Miami Vice”, and to a certain extent see what Mann was doing here as similar to what Lucas was doing with the Prequels– bring a popular media franchise supported by droves back to the big-screen, but not exactly in the same spirit in which it was concieved. Lucas and Mann play with the conventions of their works in resurrecting them, subverting far more expectations than they give into, thereby alienating the old-time fans who wanted nothing more some sort of nostalgia fueled carbon copy of the original (those are the fans that probably would’ve even been happier with a “Starsky & Hutch”/”Dukes of Hazzard”-style comedy spoof).
In the case of the Prequels, Lucas could fortunately count on a new generation of kids who would form a natural audience for his space-opera without bias. Mann, on the other hand, wasn’t so lucky– there isn’t as much of an audience for a revisionist franchise experiment of “Miami Vice” as there was for “Star Wars”, and though Mann has steadily earned himself a respectable critical following, it’s from reviewers who’d rather not see him revisit his gaudy-pop past. In some ways, “Collateral” was the beginning of Mann’s own undoing as modern-day art filmmaker, following the straight drama of “The Insider” and the honorably failed biopic of “Ali”– plenty of critics probably hoped he’d moved on from the action genre entirely. In the case of his Foxx/Cruise collaboration, there was still enough novelty running in the film’s veins to make it something of a hard target, but “Miami Vice” all but arrived with a bull’s-eye right from the start.
“Public Enemies”, I can almost certainly say I’m not a fan of, now. Depp’s performance is awful (but then I don’t like him much to begin with), Bale is sort of boring, and a lot of the film’s aesthetic gambits really don’t pay off, especially with the strained grandioelequence it reaches for (more of a “Heat”-style balance between cop and robber might’ve helped– Crudup’s J. Edgar was the most interesting thing in the movie). But “Collateral” and “Miami Vice” are both solid, deserving films, and even though I’m not quite as inclined to sing their praises as I am with the “Star Wars” Prequels, I’m glad at least that plenty of others are out there to do it, instead.
How do you turn everything into a discussion on Lucas?!? I don’t see any similarities between Georgie L and Michael Mann. People were clamoring for the Star Wars prequels (which Lucas promptly drove to the ground) while noone cared about ever seeing Miami Vice again. One is a pop culture phenomenon while the other has as much nostalgia appeal as The A Team. Does Miami Vice have ardent supporters? I really didn’t think so. The TV equivalent (and there really is no equivalent to Star Wars) would be Twin Peaks or The Sopranos. Miami Vice is a corny VH1 punchline. It’s kitsch fashions are the only thing that is memorable or noteworthy about that show to most. Maybe I’ve been living in a cave but I have never meet anyone that really likes the show other than to laugh at it’s 80’s datedness.
Maurizio, they’re both major visualist-action filmmakers who spent most of the 80’s flexing their creative muscles as executive producers than as directors, they’re both ardent DV supporters, and they’re both a little stilted when it comes to writing dialogue. But then again, maybe I just hold them on the same level because I’m one of those few loony ardent supporters who actually REALLY digs the original “Miami Vice”– it’s funny, but if you asked me before TPM if I’d rather see a new SW or MV movie, I might’ve gone with the latter (I thought “Heat” was really cool back then). Watch this, and tell me it isn’t awesome as hell:
And hey, I think that Mann’s movie is very good, and much preferrable to the cheesy 80’s parody we would’ve gotten from anyone else. But still, the original show is a television classic, and a watershed moment for the medium in terms of cinematic style. Not very deep, I’ll grant you, but neither is “The Sopranos” when you get right down to it.
Is it the television equal of “Star Wars”? Nope. Neither is “Twin Peaks”– it’s good enough to stand as its own thing, outside of comparison. If you wanted a SW equal on television, I’d say “Lost”, perhaps.
Oh yeah, and they both draw criticism for their revisionist tendencies while making director’s cuts. That’s another thing.
And really, Maurizio, the main reason I brought up Lucas is because I spend a lot of time as a blogger defending his work, in much the same spirit that Kevin wrote this piece on Mann’s most misunderstood movie. Just my way of personally saying how much I liked this essay, and how much I support it. It’s meant as a compliment.
Lost is too new to be a good comparison as of yet. In a decade or so I could definitely see the case being made. Regardless of how “deep” Soprano’s may be, if they decided to make a movie in a few years (or even now) it would garner boatloads of attention. That show was a pop cultural phenomenon that has few peers in the history of TV. The audience and support that series received would make it highly anticipated. Nothing matches Star Wars but Sopranos would be the closest television equivalent.
Ha, if “The Sopranos” had a movie, it would primarily attract interest to what happened after Tony and his family sat down for onion-rings, listening to Journey. Frankly, I hope the chances are better of a “Lost” motion-picture at some point. If nothing else, I’d like to see if Desmond ever got off the Island again…
Thanks, Bob…I understood what you were saying by comparing the two. I appreciate the kind words.
I’m glad you cleared that up Bob, I was getting to think that your Lucas/SW connections were due to some Obessive Compulsive Disorder, some truamatisation in a pram in front of a christmas telly screening… Making you a Lucas’ number one fan, rather like Kathy Bates! 😉
Ha. I’ll be honest, it’s also an avenue of film criticism that not a lot of other commentators bother to focus on. Sure, I could blather on about the same directors everybody else always namedrops, but where’s the fun in that? At least this way, I can always add something new. And anyway, everybody at Wonders has one or two broken records in their repertoire, stuff we often wind up bringing to the conversation even when it doesn’t at first appear one-hundred percent relevant.
Re: Kathy Bates– Actually, considering the fact that I’m a Lucas fan who actually likes everything he’s done since ’97, wouldn’t that make me the opposite? It’s all the post-Special Edition/Prequel Trilogy whiners who’d probably rather force the “Misery” treatment on him.
“And anyway, everybody at Wonders has one or two broken records in their repertoire, stuff we often wind up bringing to the conversation even when it doesn’t at first appear one-hundred percent relevant.”
I’m terribly insulted by the accusation bob. lol, jk. I suppose I talk about Rauschenberg to much? but then he’s not a director.
I wasn’t actually talking about you so much, Jamie. Although now that you mention it, I have a feeling I may question a lot of your choices for what constitutes a “horror” film, which at times feels a little all-inclusive…
I think when you see my Horror Top 100, you’ll side with me at least 95% of the time.
Also Bob, I do think you connect Lucas at times when he isn’t connectable or the connection being made could be then made with countless other directors. that being said, I love that you connect him, and like the stuff you like. film fandom (or any kind of art appreciation) that isn’t wholly personal and individualistic is pure BS that I don’t want to even spend the time glazing over let alone reading it…
Jamie, if I were writing my “Heaven’s Gate” piece over again, I’d probably remove the allusions to Lucas and science fiction in general. That’s what happens when I get a little over-emotional about a film (I really do love Cimino’s work on that movie). And of course, I’ll admit I’m seeing some of the “cry wolf” affect at work here, which is unfortunate, because it takes the impact out of the occasions where a wolf actually DOES rear its howling head (like say for “Inception” and the conditional set-pieces). So it’s my own damn fault at times.
However, here’s the other side– most of the time, when I’m writing or talking about science-fiction, it’s a little hard to avoid Lucas (I hope nobody begrudges my allusions to him during the “Lost” or “Avatar” articles). Likewise, when talking about the younger generation of directors (Jackson, Nolan), he’s moderately fair game, as well. That being said, do I sometimes regret not showing a little more restraint? Yeah, but I just wouldn’t feel like myself otherwise.
And for the record– As long as people make the Malick comparison, I’m sticking with the Lucas/Mann connection. So there.
I think you make an excellent argument for the comparison with Malick and “visual poetics” Kevin. Also the inner dilemma of Melville. Yes, it’s an existential crime drama, but as such it can be tedious for many. I still haven’t come around for this film. I am not really a big fan of Michael Mann.
For the record– I personally believe that Malick is nothing compared to Mann. But then, I could insert a lot of other names into that second slot and still feel the same way.
Bob: I feel the opposite. Malick is one of the greatest of all modern day directors, while Mann straddles the middleground.
Mann doesn’t straggle any middleground, Peter, he’s a flashy hack. There are the greats who pace the halls of the mighty, those who sit around patiently in the anterooms, and those that are blocked by the hack bouncers on the door. Mann is one of those at his very best (probably Heat). And any of Malick’s four films is better than Heat, three of them massively superior.
In a list of the greatest directors of all time, I placed him no 336 in the top 500, just ahead of Paul Verhoeven and Bertrand Blier.
Malick is my favorite AMerican director, no one touches him to me. But Bob and I have been over this countless times. Personal preferences.
Oh and a Top 500 Directors list would be fun to see… both for the OCD quality about it, and for it’s cinematic fan worth.
Malick’s films essentially have the same tone as Mann’s. Different genres, sure, but both love to attach dreamlike visuals and aesthetic to loose narratives that give them room to maneuver their artistic vision.
This is a fantastic review that has driven me to revisit this film, as I’ve only seen it once and it was on Spike, or TNT or whatever… hardly optimal. It’s a shame then that the only DVD I’m aware of is the Director’s Cut, or is there a theatrical cut that is available? If Kevin says that is the preferred one, I’m inclined to give the revisit that version.
On a side note, I understand why Mann and Melville are so often compared, but to me they exist in the same genre a lot, but that is about where the similarities end. Mann and Luc Besson seem like more kissing cousins to me.
Besson used to have a great spirit in him (“Le Dernier Combat”, “The Big Blue” and “Nikita” still stand up well; “Leon” is just too damn creepy for me nowadays), but he’s more or less given up on directing for a while. Then again, he’s got a new movie coming out eventually, based on a comic-book series by Jacques Tardi, doesn’t he?
Usually I’m a big proponent of director’s cuts over anything else, but I’ll admit that I usually prefer Mann’s theatrical versions. He tends to second guess himself without adding anything of substance, usually cutting stuff out that was pretty good. I especially prefer the original cut of “Manhunter”, simply for a couple of really attractive shots he removes in favor of really ugly footage that hasn’t been remastered.
I liked his recent ANGEL-A more then most, it’s decent, the leads are terrific and the B+W photography is drop dead gorgeous. (Another one that was shot in color and converted in post I believe to Bob–but don’t quote me i may be mistaken–, which is something we’ve talked about in the past)
I tried sitting through “Angel-A”, but it just didn’t work for me. Besson is a lot of things, but a latter-day Capra he is not.
hmmm. I didn’t see a whole lot of Capra in that, but I guess the sentimental touches are what you speak of? I think he shows that quite often.
Well, I feel the same about Besson that Allan feels about Mann. So there’s that…
Jamie, isn’t “Angel-A” the one about a down-on-his-luck Parisian who’s saved from suicide from an angel? Granted, here the angel turns out to be a hot, supertall blonde, but still.
Kevin, you offer up quite the passionate defense of the film and of Mann and break things down in great detail. Thus, even though I disagree with your glowing review, it’s a damn fine read. I saw this film twice, both times on DVD and the second viewing didn’t really improve my take on it. I can surely see scenes and a tone that are inspired by Mallick and Melville, but none of VICE (or any of Mann’s work, really) came close to a unifying whole that those two directors offered in the majority of their films.
A question (and this has surely been discussed here before) as you mention you preferred the Theatrical Cut of the film. Where do people sit on not ALWAYS viewing the official Director’s Cut of a film. Should we not assume that it is the definitive vision of the creator, and thus, the one that should be critiqued, even if we find a different cut better?
Good question, because sometimes the differences are major and you’d have to watch both versions countless times to notice… and who has the time for this exercise… generally if the DC exists due to censorship qualms I’ll always go for the DC/Extended on principal alone.
Because fuck the censors that’s why, or at least that’s what Jani Laine (sp?) and the boys in Warrant told me in my youth. Wise words to live by.
should be “differences areN’T major…” my apologies.
And of course the Warrant I speak of is ‘Ode to Tipper Gore’ the last track on 1990s CHERRY PIE, a truly garbage record from a truly terrible ‘rock’ band.
Haha a Warrant reference. You rock Jamie. I remember that CD as a kid. Did it have a song called Rainmaker on it? They were pretty bad…. better than Slaughter though!!
Great essay Kevin!! I enjoy it more than the film, to be honest. I will revisit Vice one more time in the immediate future just to see if I missed something. I have watched it twice and don’t see a major conversion occurring. Your admirable writeup will make me pop in the DVD one more time.
it may contain ‘rainmaker’, though I’d be inclined to guess that is on the 1992 ‘dog eat dog’ first or whatever.
the amount I know about hair metal is sickening to my stomach… I listened to that as a child. I remember listening to Aerosmith ‘pump’ on a walkman in third grade waiting for the bus and thinking it rocked SOOOO hard. what a punk I was, if I could go back in time I’d slap my younger self akin to the slap roman polanski gives that kid in the park in THE TENANT.
I’m impressed that you remembered the name of the lead singer of Warrant, Jamie. Normally I’d be weary of turning a post here into a digression on bad glam metal…but I know my brother would approve of it. Besides, Warrant did have the one “awesome” power ballad, “Heaven”.
So the question is, were ANY of the glam metal bands truly any good?
I can’t answer that question Kevin as I hate metal other than Moterhead and a few ambient Burzum/Lustmord tracks. My days of loving hair metal ended at 12-13……..
I know the lead singer of Warrant’s name because he is or was a Clevelander. Us Cleveland expatriates need to stick together at some level.
I actually don’t like ‘Heaven’ or any of the power ballad stuff (save for a few examples of course), I think ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ or ‘Down Boys’ are as ‘good’ as Warrant ever got. Though Troy if you do like “Heaven’ there is a bar in Cleveland that is owned by the guitarist of Warrant and I’ve heard if you go there on wednesday night for Heavy Metal kareoke (sp?) and pick ‘Heaven’ he will join you on stage with acoustic guitar. No joke. How ‘Heaven’ passes for heavy metal is a mystery to me however.
Now… good glam/hair metal…. hmmm. I think Cinderella maybe is the best/most legit.
Oh and if anyone says Guns N’ Roses is a hair band, I will fight you, and I will win.
I have an unhealthy, though purely ironic, love of power ballads. Anytime there is karaoke to be done, “High Enough,” “Heaven,” “To Be With You,” or “More Than Words” are going to be sung by me (and I full well know none of these songs is truly good music, don’t worry).
I completely forgot about “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. They used to play that video a ton on MTV back when the actually played music videos. I guess Warrant had a longer lifespan than I ever realized.
My friend Bob (who you now know) used to claim that Skid Row’s ‘I Remember You’ was top 10 or 25 (or was it 5?) songs all-time. And he was dead serious. So you won’t get any flak from me.
Jamie Cleveland!!!…….I got these arms and legs that flip flop flip flop…… ah now that is a great band.
Band, or one man? I suppose as a live act (when they are a band) they are awesome. top 5 american acts all time for me, hell top 2-3.
Never seen them live but The Modern Dance and Dub Housing are classics. Allen Ravenstine is the secret weapon.
OH Maurizio you are speaking about pere ubu, I thought that lyric was form NIN (who reference it in a song verbatim, hence my comment about one man band)…
but Laughner did tour with NIN a few years back and they’d all do ‘Final Solution’ together. it was pretty awesome to say the least.
And yes, Pere Ubu are class of cleveland, that area has produced much talent actually.
Sorry I meant Troy. AC/DC and Black Sabbath are okay too…..
Maurizio, all this tells me is that you need a proper schooling in Heavy Metal… with your tastes/interests/knowledge I could see you liking (real) heavy metal quite easily.
AC/DC, Motorhead, etc. are shyte.
Well Motorhead is like Minor Threat in leather too me. I was trying to be nice with AC/DC as they are not favorites of mine.
Where’s Tool, Neurosis, Pantera, Isis, Fantomas (any Mike Patton really), NIN, Ministry, GnR, Sepultura, Slayer, Dillinger Escape Plan, Nachtmystium, Rage Against the Machine, LARD, Skinny Puppy, should I continue we haven’t even got that obscure yet.
Yeah I’ve heard of all of those actually. Neurosis and Tool are good. For whatever reason I don’t view them as metal though. Skiny Puppy, Ministry and NIN are also decent, amazing, and good though I don’t consider them as heavy metal either. I forgot Slayer who’s first album I do like. I remember watching a Neurosis video about the suicidal politician at a party many years ago. I was eating some garden variety mushrooms that caused stomach pains and a headache thanks to those horrific images lol……..
You put together a great list that is more metal tinged than actual metal too me. I really like Ministry though in that sub genre nothing matches the true greatness of Throbbing Gristle and (to a lesser extent) Killing Joke…….
I don’t know how you can question Tool’s metal credentials after putting Motorhead, AC/DC and Black Sabbath out there as examples of genre…
Oh and Industrial metal is metal…
Industrial is industrial. It is as much influenced by Kraftwerk as anything else. The electronic angle foreign to most metal cannot be dismissed.
I mentioned Moterhead because some consider them metal. I always viewed them as fast hardcore punk. AC/DC and Sabbath are also labeled metal by some. That was my point that I don’t really like true metal. Tool is metal but they also have a art rock/prog vibe running through their music.
yes my point was metal is an ice cream of many flavors which you are basically saying.
not all industrial is the same… kraftwork and say, Rammstein are quite different animals.
Well Kraftwerk influenced Throbbing Gristle who then influenced the whole industrial movement. There is nothing industrial about Kraftwerk per se. They just inadvertently spawned the movement with their pioneering brand of electronic music. Really they are the most influential pop artists ever (even more than The Beatles). The difference between something like Throbbing Gristle and Rammstein (who I only like in those ten second Lost Highway moments lol) is that Gristle has no metal in their sound. All the artists you mention obviously include it in the blueprint. I just find industrial unique because they use synths and drum machines that 95% of other metal acts scorn. My main reason for separating those artists is that very important criteria.
and all I’m saying is that a lot more metal uses drum machines and synths then you think or are willing to admit. your 95% claim is accurate, if we are speaking in an alternate reality set in 1986.
Well okay you might be right. There is probably stuff out there I don’t follow. I know a lot of black metal uses synths and such. I guess your 86 comment is probably accurate. Also you are a more adventurous music listener. The metalheads I know/knew were always so rigid in what could be allowed in their version of metal. Regardless it isn’t one of my favorite genre’s to listen too. I’m currently listening too Deluxe by Harmonia. Man I love German “krautrock”……..
Metal is like screwball comedies to me……. I respect it but don’t get much enjoyment……
Comparing metal to ice cream is rather apt! Only healthy in small amounts, fleeting in actual taste, and mostly reminiscent these days of my childhood! 🙂
Maurizio, you don’t like Rammstein? tisk, tisk, shame on you.
there is a rumor that they are going to tour the US, for the first time in ages (they’ve long said they won’t come here), if they do, as a fan of music though not Rammstein you shouldn’t miss the show nearest you. the experience is something you should see and hear.
as a primer check out the dvd they put out a year or two ago, it’s pretty fantastic and very well produced… oh and you’d need two hands to count all the attractive women with shaved heads!
Haha I forgot you like bald headed women. Not me. I’m somewhat old fashioned and don’t even like girls with short hair. God I’m such an old man these days. I was so cool about ten years ago……
Thanks, brother. How dare you talk about metal and not once mention Kix.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I’ll reply specifically in a few hours, but for now I just want to address Troy’s question about Theatrical vs Director’s cuts:
I like Scorsese’s philosophy on the subject in that why would a director ever release something that wasn’t their ultimate vision. He is wholly against the idea of Director’s cuts, but I think that too often now studios get involved and muck up the original intent (or, out of fear of under-performing at the box office force the filmmaker to make their film a more palatable running time)…so I guess I don’t know. I mean, I know that the extended versions of THE NEW WORLD is better than the theatrical cut, but sometimes, as is the case with Mann, a meticulous director can go in and overthink things. I’m more inclined to stick with the film as it was presented to me in the theater, but I certainly understand a filmmaker who says “hey, this is what I REALLY wanted to do, but something prevented me from doing it.” I think that rule only applies to the true auteurs, since of course an “unrated director’s cut” of something like HOSTEL exists solely to sell more DVD’s and show more boobs and blood.
Check out the first few comments here: http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2009/08/the-conversations-michael-mann/
Keith lays out the issue quite nicely.
Oh, and Jamie, you can find the original Theatrical cut of MIAMI VICE on a region 2 blu-ray. From the same comment thread linked above here is the link to the movie: http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2009/08/the-conversations-michael-mann/
Just scroll towards the bottom of the comment thread.
Be back shortly with more comments.
This may well be the greatest essay that Kevin Olson has ever penned, and that really is saying something, considering his consistently stellar work at Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies. His discussion of the director’s cut, the narrative, and the filmmaking style is intricate, and there’s an admission that taken on the surface, Mann’s work is ordinary. I have never cared for this particular film (and like Allan I am no fan of THIS Mann) but I’ve been told by a good friend (Jason Giampietro) that the film is elegiac, which of course would place its intrinsics on another level. This is really an utterly fascinating piece, and we are lucky to have it here at WitD.
Thanks, Sam, for the kind words! I appreciate it. Thanks for letting me write something up for your blog. It’s a treat to have something being read by your fine readers.
Excellent review. I plan on watching this again, as soon as I secure a copy from ‘you know who?’
Thanks, Bobby! I appreciate it.
wow this Kevin is my kind of guy, i couldn’t agree with him more about Miami Vice, definitely one of the most memorable films of the decade for me, and I have faith that over the course of time it will be better received!
Thanks, Jason!
Michael Mann directed THE KEEP – no way!
I loved that film as a kid.
A well written, almost persuasive essay here, Kevin!!!! BRAVO!!!!
Alas, although I really enjoyed the read, I cannot fall in as a convert to this film.
Seeing both the original theatrical version and the “extended” cut, I still cannot abide this film. To me its style without form and another prime example of major film-makers regurgitating television shows, and bad ones at that, as big movies.
I understand the tone and the details have been changed to give the film a more realistic approach to what was, even back in the eighties, nothing more than a camp romp on TV. For me, the problem lies in the fact that even as realistically as Mann tries to make the proceedings it than only presents itself as a “seen it all before” cop/detective thriller that looks alot like most that have come before.
Now, I’m not trying to take yours or anyone else’s love for this film away and, as always, this is solely my opinion. However, evene when I thought i’d give it a shot and think that the material would be presenting in a new and fresh way, i found myself thinking i was in a land of repears with this one. The real nail in all of this is that the director brought in two actors with little to no talent at all to breath new life into a pair of cliche’d cartoons.
Again, this is solely my opinion…
I still enjoyed this essay immensely…
Thanks, Dennis. I appreciate the kind words. I totally understand where you’re coming from with the movie, and I stated in an earlier comment that is wasn’t written with the kind of “well, you just didn’t get it” intent in mind; I just felt the need to support a film that stood out the most on the recent ‘best of’ list from the polling that WitD did.
I agree with you about Ferrell, although he does seem more comfortable in smaller films as I thought he was fantastic in IN BRUGES. But he’s essentially the same thing in VICE that he is in THE NEW WORLD: a good looking actor who is maximized because the filmmakers give him as little dialogue as possible. And Foxx is alright…he’s at his best in Mann’s films, I think, as his performance in COLLATERAL was better than Cruise’s, and he was great in ALI. You’re right, though, in that usually Foxx is a pretty poor actor.
The only issue I really disagree with you on is the idea that Mann is creating a “seen it all before” kind of crime picture. I think that’s exactly what he didn’t do. If he wanted to do that he could have just gone full tilt with the kitsch — making the film nothing more then another tired and cliche TV rehash. Fail or succeed, I think Mann strives more than anything with VICE to keep from being anything but ordinary.
well we also shouldn’t marginalize good looking actors who don’t have to say much… Acting is often times brooding and looking and not saying anything. Alain Delon, Jean Seberg, Robert Redford, etc. are actors I’d cast in a second over more verbose ones… and what then happens to many of the silent stars?
Fantastic essay, Kevin! You really nailed what makes it such a visually compelling work of art, my friend. Having watched the film numerous times I also think that it is Mann’s most romantic film with the fleeting yet intense romance between Colin Farrell and Gong Li’s character being the heart of this film. Like many of the romances in Mann’s films, theirs is brief and doomed to end because of who they are and their professions. They are on opposite sides of the law and never the twain shall meet. The last shot of her taking off on the boat and Farrell looking on is powerful and gives the film a tragic dimension.
I also think the film works on the level of a fascinating expose of how the drug cartels work. Obviously, things have changed considerably since Mann did the TV show and this was part of the appeal for him – to do an update on how much more powerful the drug cartels have become. The police can’t hope to ever fully contain or stop these guys because they have so much money and resources at their disposal. Hence, the head of the operation making a getaway while his subordinate is killed in the film’s climactic shoot-out. This guy is slippery enough and has the resources to avoid getting caught and is willing to sacrifice his underlings in the process. I find this aspect of the film very interesting.
I also think that this film is interesting in how Mann pushes the envelope of the crime action film in terms of genre. He strips down all the conventions to their bare essentials, including dialogue and character development so that we know nothing about these characters’ backstories. They are immaterial. What is of paramount importance is what they are doing right now. And I really love how Mann captures the immediacy of their situation. I also like how he strips down the dialogue to the barest of cop and crook lingo – these people don’t have time for small-talk and are all-business. I can see how this might turn off people looking for a more conventional film that takes the time to tell us something about these peoples’ lives but that’s not the point that Mann is trying to make.
Anyways, I really dug what you wrote, Kevin. Always nice to see a staunch supporter of this great film.
Thanks, J.D. You’ve always been one of those who have been right there with me in understanding what it is I find so appealing about the film.
I just got in from the Chaplin festival (THE KID and A DAY’S PLEASURE) and I see Kevin’s piece has received an overwhelming response!!! It’s as deserved as any piece we’ve ever had at this site! Fantastic.
Thanks, Sam. I’m surprised by all of the comments here. I appreciate you giving me the venue to do this.
Kevin, thanks for an interesting and well written piece. I have to admit that I completely skipped this movie when it came out, probably because, as you said, it was another movie version of an 80s TV series. (Of course at the time I was on a movie hiatus and skipping most movies.) But your piece has convinced me to take a look. I’ve watched the debates in the comments sections of other threads with mild interest but none of them persuaded me to spend any time on the picture. Well, now I think I have to. I like a lot of Mann’s work so it will be interesting to see how this stacks up. Thanks for a great read!
Jason,
Thanks! I’m glad this got you to at least take another look at the film. Try your hardest to find the theatrical version if you can. It makes a huge difference.
Very good essay, Kevin.
Both Mann and Malick can slip into a state whereby the vibe and dynamic of the place flows into the people and the internal world of the people spills out into the place.
Both use vast reservoirs of introspection and can allow time to coast and a moment to rest (the boat ride at nightfall in Miami Vice as they try to find Trudy is one such).
Malick for me has only made one good film and it’s fantastic: The New World. Mann may not have reached that height but he makes consistently high quality films. PUBLIC ENEMIES I think will prove itself my favourite of his – as Maurizio said it gets better with every viewing. There is an old-fashioned, epic romantic quality to the story that sparks off the digital intensity of the camerawork.
Stephen:
Thanks for the kind words. You speak about Malick and Mann eloquently. I especially like this bit: Both Mann and Malick can slip into a state whereby the vibe and dynamic of the place flows into the people and the internal world of the people spills out into the place.
That is better than anything I said in my essay! Hehe. Thanks for the great comment.
“That is better than anything I said in my essay!”
I’m not sure about that! But thanks anyway.
I also think that the film is a quiet revolution of the buddy film/partner film (if there is such a thing). These are two men so comfortable and confident and trusting in each other’s presence. There is no need for them to crack quips or share a beer or banter inanely. They can communicate through a look or through silence. Where one goes the other follows.
Mann’s use of dialogue marks him out. It is never for effect but surgical and necessary. He takes this stripped down approach for the whole film. He doesn’t puncture the action film balloon with parody or nudges and winks. He treats it seriously.
I’d like to also mention Colin Farrell who, along with THE NEW WORLD, has mastered the art of love-sickness. I think he is an underrated actor.
Although I was already quoted above I felt the need to reiterate my feelings about this film. I surely would place it in my top 5 of the decade, my first viewing experience was really overwhelming. Sumptuous to look at, perfectly pitched, this film was always a little ahead of me, a little bit beyond my grasp, and working within it was joyful. I agree that a lot of the hostile reaction to the film dealt with the title and the connection to the TV show, but the movie more than speaks for itself. We need to give Mann credit! While the allusions to Malick and Melville are fair, he really did something amazing with this film by using the aesthetics of digital video to create something all his own. I have to confess I have only seen the theatrical cut and have heard from other big fans of the movie that the dvd version is somewhat disappointing.
(Sorry to write so many responses)
I like how MIAMI VICE spends no time at all showing the effects of the Drug Industry (as far as I can remember) in terms of a lecture from a policeman or a shot of a drugged woman. Again, it’s unnecessary. It’s unnecessary because we understand those situations already and because it allows time to study the machinations/manoeuvres/modi operandi of the dealers and contrast two jobs and two ways of living.
I agree that it’s not really necessary that we see all the steps involved in the drug dealing. I don’t think Mann was interested in making that kind of crime picture.
A few thoughts…
It amuses me (and this is definitely at my own expense too) that those of us who see little value in Mann compared to dozens of other directors still flock here to leave comments on one of his films when plenty of very worthy works on this site get a fraction of such explicit attention. To borrow from Wilde, there is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about!
Anyway, this is a film that I will always remember for sentimental reasons, as it was the first one that I ever took my better half to. Going to the cinema is an integral part of my life, so this definitely imbues MIAMI VICE with a unique hue for me!
As far as I can recall the work now, there were definitely some impressive scenes insofar as I can still recall them now (e.g. the boat trip to Cuba, the final shoot-out), I liked the melancholic tone, and there was a satisfactory chemistry between the two leads. Equally, I am good with it being quite a stripped-back, gritty depiction of a cop drama. However, where this may appeal greatly to some, none of it stands out for me in a special way. In that respect, Herzog’s utter subversion of the genre would be a better example of what would get my attention…
a lot of the ‘better’ film you speak of that don’t get as much dialogue is generally because they are much less seen art house. for example, as great as Yoshida is (and i’ve only seen his EROS + MASSACRE) he’ll NEVER reach the viewership that Mann has. So it sort of comes with the territory
I think you’re on to something, Jamie. Mann makes movies with big stars that are different kinds of movies that stars usually act in. He’s tweaking and playing with the conventions of a very popular genre, so, I think generally, as you say above, people tend to see what the conversation surrounding Mann is because of this. It’s not that the art house filmmakers aren’t worth talking about, and yes, people should pay attention to them, but the truth is that Mann is just a more popular figure.
This is a fantastic writeup on a film that’s dear to me. I was looking to write a piece on MV, but now it’s defunct with arrival of this piece. It offers a better defense than I could hope to.
But I did touch (superficially) on Mann in one of my comments on Inception and Nolan: (reproduced with few corrections)
{{
*I* sense a ‘dissonance’ in Nolan’s shot choreography. Nolan’s predecessor, Michael Mann, is a good testament for such formalistic exercise. Mann, and Heat, in particular, shows how action scenes could be shot in ‘bursts’. How elliptic split of visuals (framing of characters in action, without making broad gestures) could accentuate the mood.
I could go on about his refinement of conventional action exercises to a signature trope. And it’s not just that. He advances new-age digital photography to its most stretchable limits. Keeping it to the filmmaker of this very film, It should be no surprise that Nolan considers Heist scene of Heat as antecedent of bank robbery in The Dark Knight.
I have to disagree with your limiting generalization (of Mann as “passionate american crime-kid with ambient pop-rock in the background and art deco for support”), even if it’s not dysfunctional, while respectfully consider there might be better film stylists/formalists to your taste. For instance, the masterwork “Last of the Mohicans”, and underrated “Ali” do not cater to his favorite genre, neo-noirs (I’d have to take offense at usage of ‘crime kid’ here, which would be put to better use in describing a younger filmmaker with all due respect), and in usage of pop-rock tracks, he’s peerless. And he’s aesthetically versatile to rework the genre. The latest Public Enemies, a period piece, would stand testament. The film is his ongoing dialogue with opposing sides in Crime genre, placating criminal’s self-gratification as against cop’s felo-de-se (in closing subtitle) and therefore, the futility & self-annihilation. There’s the ‘cool’ factor that comes with the dehumanized coldness and amorality of the genre. Mann is up there with Johnnie To as contemporary masters (both students of Melville) who could claim to be ‘epitome of cool’ without putting an effort or mouthing pop cultural references (like say a QT film).
And I’d personally take Mann’s realistic ambiance to assembled soundtrack (that’s not to say I don’t like films of Scorsese or QT. But in case of Mann, he knows when not to use the tracks or keep it at periphery! This accentuates the mood and creates a sense of immediacy) The auditory sensation is always in accordant with characters. Consider the varied levels of aural stochasticity of spatially confined places in Mann’s film. The volume is turned up and down to smoothly accommodate the environmental sound and dialogue. Like Night club in Heat (or Miami Vice or Collateral) to the bank in Public Enemies (or Heat) to infamous restaurant scene in Heat to the nocturnal cab ride in Collateral, or what have you. Ranging from modern day LA/Miami, to Midwest in 30’s, to 18th century North America, Mann has sculpted different worlds. And all auteurs have art deco to support, how does that become an unbecoming?!
}}
And more than the aforementioned suggestions Lucas, and Besson, it’s Jonnie To who I consider to be his compeer in terms of sustenance and exploration, in advancing the stylistic tropes of the genre. At least to my taste. While I’m being somewhat pedantic and rudimentary in framing both to be students of Melville. But the notion itself isn’t totally amiss.
“The auditory sensation is always in accordant with characters. Consider the varied levels of aural stochasticity of spatially confined places in Mann’s film. The volume is turned up and down to smoothly accommodate the environmental sound and dialogue.”
Yes, there is something in that.
Dualist:
Thanks for the kind words. Of course, you should still write your piece. Like Stephen in his reply I agree that your statement about the “auditory sensation…”
Look at how Mann introduces his characters – within three frames you have a feel for who they are, what they want, the relationships between them and the hierarchy they operate within.
Economy of storytelling. It reminds me of the beginning of POLTERGEIST where the dog’s walk through the dark house tells us in the simplest terms who lives there and what they like.
I’ll also say, as I’ve said before, that PUBLIC ENEMIES is pretty bad in my estimation. Little works in it, and the assertion that it is a big budget digital art film, I’d also disagree. Kevin, what are your thoughts on SPEEDRACER? Now there is something that is pretty arty, a HUGE budget (which makes it’s anti-capitalistic leanings somewhat hypocritical but whatever), and REALLY pushes the digital aesthetic and what one can do with a digital camera. I think that film (SPEEDRACER) will be our generations BLADE RUNNER; in 15 or so years that will be generally seen as a rediscovered masterpiece.
Jamie, I don’t find the anti-capitalist sentiment of “Speed Racer” any more hypocritical thanks to its large budget than so many other likeminded big studio efforts from the past decade or so– “Fight Club”, the “Star Wars” prequels, the “Matrix” trilogy and “Avatar” are all pretty strong in that regard. Personally I don’t rate SR quite as high as my own preferred underrated-cinema talking point, but they certainly belong in the same breadth– frankly, I can even see a fair amount of influence from one upon the other. Would be interesting to look at them side-by-side.
oh right all those films are rather hypocritical.
Well, so is “Blade Runner”. Look at it that way.
By the way, have you considered writing up “Speed Racer” the same way I’ve been writing up the Prequels and Kevin’s just written up “Miami Vice”? It’d certainly be interesting. We could almost make a whole little series of cinematic underdogs…
while I’m working on my posts for this week I’ll listen again and type some ‘notes’… I’ll email them to you as this thread has become unbearable to manage.
I must assume you’ve never read much Nietzsche (correct me if I’m off base), as if you have it’s (almost) obvious how much Godard is recalling him. (at one point there is even a sign in the background that is a Nietzche-ian quote.
Good to see you are tackling ‘Fear and Trembling’. I’ve read that and ‘Sickness unto Death’, before. Though I’m not a huge fan of his works I respect his mind like few others, and those are both essential.
I’ve read parts of Thus Spake Zarathustra & Birth of Tragedy (the whole of which is next on my list after I finish Fear and Trembling) plus excerpts in various philosophical anthologies (and a number of books which have paraphrased his thoughts). I’m intrigued because, frankly, I don’t really see a great connection with Breathless (also, I don’t know much about The Gay Science in particular). Don’t worry about e-mailing notes – I’ll catch the lecture eventually, so it’s not worth the effort – just kind of wondering, in a nutshell, what the connection drawn between the two is. You said previously “mostly a Nietzsche view of death” but while I’m familiar enough with his views on God, the bourgeoisie, will, and art, I don’t know much about his views of death – once I glean that, the connection with Breathless will presumably become clear (or else await Dreyfus for elucidation). I’m not looking for any “spoilers” just a taste of what’s in store, to hold me over till I can take the plunge! I’m not very patient, ha ha…
Whoops, just saw the e-mail. I’ll respond there. Yes, navigating this thread (now I see we’re in a new one) has indeed become positively impossible!
Jamie:
I really liked SPEED RACER. I remember being shocked at how much I enjoyed the film…but it’s an example of all style and no substance. I don’t remember much about the story, and I don’t remember much caring about anything that happened to the characters (especially the stupid monkey, or whatever the animal was in that movie), but I do vividly remember the visuals. It’s a great example, along with Mann’s recent work, of how to do the digital aesthetic correctly.
The movie “Speed Racer” most reminds me of is Coppola’s none-much-loved “One From the Heart”. Both are largely sentimental melodramas filtered through visually kaleidescopic razzle-dazzle. I’d say that the Wachowskis did the exceeded old master by marrying their digitally created parade of imagery to a Saturday morning cartoon storyline far better than Coppola’s strained set of Las Vegas love stories.
I can also detect some faint traces of Wenders’ “Until the End of the World”, but I still need to see the full cut of that one to really know what to compare it to.
Bob, I agree about both films you mention, though I’d also have to see the bigger cut of the Wenders too.
I am speaking more in terms of film grammar though, like how the film is constructed. There are a few sequences in that film that reimagine shot sequence–specifically for action films. the last time i watched it, the scene that the cars race up a zig zagged cliff and the camera follows them in almost reverse direction is unreal. it’s the type of sequence that is impossible on film with a film camera, and like nothing I’ve ever seen before.
I have to say, that while I appreciate and enjoy “Speed Racer”, that I’m nowhere near as big a fan of it as other folks are. To me, it goes over the border of digital content at times, and is perhaps one of the few big modern movies which really does look mostly fake. It’s not just in the overly polished sheen to the images, or the cartoonish scope and scale to which everything’s imagined– it’s also the way in which photographed elements don’t really feel correctly composited with their digital landscapes. I feel this especially during the Royalton Factory sequence, where the greenscreen elements never really match up with their environments– much of the movie seems as though it was put together with guess work.
Yet at the same time, I’ll admit that I think most of this is at least partly intentional, heightening the artificiality of the surroundings and events, not just to better promote the cartoon imagery but also to put you into Speed’s head. I get this feeling especially with the use of transitions in the film, which bleed everything together very sharply and allows us to go from one scene to the next without really ever leaving anything, turning everything into a big, slick montage (seen clearest during the Fuji and Crucible races). I don’t really like a lot of it, but it works.
I like the movie. It’s fun, and a great purely visual/cinematic/kinetic experience. Still, the best racing movie is still Frankenheimer’s “Grand Prix”, and I’ll admit, at times I incorrectly compare the Wachowski’s movie to that film, which I really shouldn’t. One is the real thing, the other is an ode to anime.
GRAND PRIX is pretty good, and I agree SPEEDRACER is fake, but again how the film is put together with all those crazy wipes and (faked) camera moves is why I think it’s so avant garde… when someone uses that technology to make a ‘real film’ (I mean based in reality not a cartoon anime world) with that sort of inventiveness we’ll have a film that changes film forever sort of like A BOUT DE SOUFFLE did in ’59-’60.
For car/race films have you ever seen the short (like just under 10 mins) ‘C’était un Rendezvous’ by Claude Lelouch? That’s pretty awesome in my opinion.
Really, isn’t “Breathless” every bit as much of a cartoon as “Speed Racer” is, on some level? A lot of Godard’s films, especially from his first prolific period, fall into that category, with the lines of reality, caricature and dramatic self-exageration all blurred until it’s all moot. Most of my favorite directors could all be considered cinematic-cartoonists, and not just the ones who put FX-assisted imagery on the screens. There’s no reason to ask filmmakers today to care about making “real” films in a “real world” nowadays, as in the right hands there isn’t too much difference.
Furthermore, so much of the aesthetic on display in “Speed Racer” is all dependent upon green-screen technology, which wouldn’t be entirely necessary in the type of “real” movie you’re talking about (unless you just wanted to go back to the day when people would shoot westerns inside of a studio with a painted backdrop instead of just driving a couple of miles out to the goddamn desert). The new tech isn’t here to revitalize reality, but to give us new substitutions for it. Yeah, DV is an applicable tech for most films, I’ll grant you, but that alone isn’t going to offer the avant-garde manipulation of the image you’re talking about here.
Anyway, I think we’ve already had the digital-revolution movie-that’s-changed-everything with the SW Prequels, which “Speed Racer” owes a lot to. It’s more fluid, of course, but just as bright, colorful and strangely obsessed with fast-things-going-fast and corporate intrigue (as we’ve discussed before). And hey, they’re both shot by David Tattersall, who’s sort of becoming the go-to guy for greenscreen-heavy films of this sort.
By the way, what’s your take on Emile Hirsch’s performance? Because as much as I can enjoy the movie, he’s the one thing I’m almost completely critical of. Everyone else fits the cartoon-role they play perfectly (especially Matthew Fox as Racer X), but Hirsch is woefully miscast as Speed. I’m not saying he needed to be talking a mile-a-minute or hopped up on caffiene all the time the way he was in the cartoon, but c’mon man!
By ‘real’ I mean, a ‘real’ film concerned with real issues. All vague I know, but ‘real’ in art terms is philosophical contemplation, about anything that the artist is especially concerned about. In BREATHLESS it’s mostly a Nietzsche view of death. It needn’t be set in reality (though I do certainly prefer films that are), but it should be mature and intellectual. that’s what I was getting at, SPEEDRACER isn’t really concerned about anything like that. Which is fine of course, I’m certainly not pompous enough to not like it (after all I do a great deal) but sooner or later a film maker with have enough craft to embrace all the rapidly changing technological advancements the way in which the Wachowski’s have to make a film that is in service of his/her ideas about the world, rather then just trying to capture an animated world in live action. That is right now the only problem with the technology–it hasn’t been around enough for enough artists to have enough contact with it to explore possibilities, it’s really only been used by studio puppets with studio backing (there are obviously a few counter examples to this I understand).
that’s what I meant, and I hope that’s clearer.
RE: Emile Hirsch is OK as Speed. I agree with you he could have been much better, but he’s ‘good enough’ (which could be either ‘whatever’ or a ‘damning remark’). I also think Racer X is quite terrific.
That’s a fair definition of “real”, in this context– important, relevant, whatever. I still don’t think that “Breathless” is really any more or less “real” than “Speed Racer” in that regard (its narrative is just another B-grade noir), but it certainly expresses something in its youthful spirit. Frankly, “Speed Racer” might even be expressing a bit more in its subject matter, which is fairly ambitious for a saturday-morning cartoon of a movie– granted, so were the Prequels and “Avatar”, which brings us back to the whole “hypocrisy” issue, but at least they’re trying, I say. “Breathless” is content to rest on its genre-laurels and simply go out for a lark, which is perfectly fine (in fact, it maybe one of the determining factors which makes it a better movie).
As far as who gets to play with all the new toys– frankly, I don’t think you’re giving enough credit to the guys who’ve been using the tools best so far. Guys like Lucas, Cameron, maybe Fincher to a degree– they don’t necessarily deliver movies that are dramatically perfect or as aesthetically challenging as what the Wachowskis delivered, but they’re far from studio hacks or puppets. Granted, they are the exceptions to the rule you’re talking about– by and large, the new stuff has mainly stayed in the studio toybox for uninspired directors who make Michael Bay look inventive. However, I think that the digital tools have been just widely distributed enough to make a difference in terms of the new creative cinematic possibilities of our generation of artists. To bring up one of my other big broken-record talking points, look at how CG was used on the series “Lost”, especially in regards to the famous Smoke Monster– there’s a creature that would’ve not only been impossible to realize without state-of-the-art technology, but also would’ve been impossible to even concieve of. And it was achieved by a team of creators who were basically allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted.
My problem with Hirsch is that he’s underemoting, while everyone else around him (even Susan Sarandon!) is biting off as much scenery as they can chew. Too bad, because while the movie around him is okay, his nothing performance gives it all a hollow center. I even prefer the annoying little kid playing his brother and the pet monkey to him (then again, who doesn’t love Spridle and Chim-Chim?)
“His/Her”– are you referring to the Wachowski Siblings, or just going hypothetical, there?
yeah, the his/her are the hypothetical artist’s I want to be using the new technology, I didn’t want to be gender specific as I feel Denis, Briellet (sp?), and Campion are some of the best artists working within the film industry today to me.
Interesting conversation here for a few reasons. Among them, the question of whether or not entertainment films are on par with art (if I’m not misunderstanding Jamie’s point and Bob’s objection). I’d say they can be, to not really delve deeper into the loose formulation I’ve just constructed, though I think I fall between Jamie and Bob in defining which ones do.
Another interesting point is whether CGI lends itself to being used in a strictly-art film. I’m not sure it does; up to this point, film has existed on two poles: often defined as the Lumiere and Melies schools, documentary and illusion. Films perceived primarily as art tend to trend towards the former, entertainment films towards the latter (not entirely, but by and large). The Breathless revolution Jamie alludes to involved a swing towards the documentary pole – handheld camera, real locations, loose and casual dialogue, closely observed behavior – in conjunction with elements usually associated with illusion, namely Hollywood genre films. A CGI art-film revolution, to achieve a similar breakthrough, would probably have to couple a swing towards the illusionistic – CGI – with elements usually associated with documentary. I’m not entirely sure how this would be done, though it’s a compelling idea. At any rate, CGI (and I know you’re talking about digital in general too but the ways you’re discussing Speed Racer here make it seem like CGI is the crux of the issue; correct me if I misunderstand) is basically animation. And animation has been around for a century with artists using it to explore visions, ideas, and adult feelings but without a requisite revolution taking place – in the mainstream, animated films have continued to be associated with entertainment. I’m not sure CGI will break that trend, but we’ll see. I think as the technology becomes more widely used we’ll see more CGI avant-garde films (and I’m sure there are a number already I’m unaware of) but am skeptical that they’ll be the sort of mainstream/art film crossover/breakthrough/revolution that Breathless represented.
Yet another point that interests me: : ““Breathless” is content to rest on its genre-laurels and simply go out for a lark, which is perfectly fine (in fact, it maybe one of the determining factors which makes it a better movie).” I see what Breathless represents, but I started liking it when I viewed it more or less as a lark; before then, it’s reputation got in the way for me. I think seeing it as a “Nietzschian view of death” or “mature and intellectual” as Jamie says is actually a hindrance unless one sees it first or foremost as a genre film, or rather an attempt at one. Then the more intellectual ideas, the more metatextual depths, can then be fruitful and multiply (though I still like any number of Godard films more, personally). As Godard himself once said: “I set out to make Scarface, but I ended up making Alice in Wonderland.” Just my 2 cents…
Btw, “There’s no reason to ask filmmakers today to care about making “real” films in a “real world” nowadays, as in the right hands there isn’t too much difference. ” this may be a point of strong disagreement with us, Bob. Not that I want to flush out fantasism and illusionism but what makes it vital in cinema, to me, is its combination with the documentary, the real (animated films, many of which I love, are I guess the exception to the rule here; but I guess the difference is that they are so purely illusionistic they exist in their own world – so a) they do not constitute the whole of cinema or threaten to in the way that a reliance of live-action films on a cartoonish aesthetic would; and b) they don’t have residual ties to documentary/real world which drag down live-action films “trying” to be cartoonish). This destroys the tension which makes film so exciting, and renders cinema a limp imitation of other mediums which can do this sort of thing better anyway.
Joel, regarding the whole “filmmakers don’t have to care about reality” thing at the end– I’m not dismissing the necessity for realism in fantasy. Indeed, sci-fi and fantasy might be the genres that require realism more than anything else, and when you get right down to it each and every technological advance with special-effects is at least partly motivated to bring more and more documentary realism into fantastical situations, rather than take it out (one difference might be whether you define documentarian realism by whether or not something is photographed, but to me it’s increasingly a moot point). My point of objection is the idea that a movie has to take place in the “real world” in order to have any real weight or merit, but obviously that’s not really what Jamie was talking about, either.
Reagrding the purity of animation– A while back I said to Stephen that I felt “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” would’ve worked better as an anime, and he raised the point that a lot of what works in the movie is due in large part to the visual weight and substance provided by live-action, and upon further reflection, I think he’s right. Guys like Lucas & Spielberg know how to marry the photographic and digital elements in the right balance, using on-set animatronics or miniature effects (I re-watched TPM this week for my action-sequence article, and was rather taken by just how many of the film’s effects are achieved by physical model work), which is something the Wachowskis lost sight of with their “Matrix” sequels, at least as far as the “bullet-time” sequences went. In the original, part of what made those moments work so well was the photographic aspect, actually seeing the “camera” twirl around the frozen subjects– that’s more or less lost in “Reloaded” and “Revolutions”, watching CGI recreations of Neo and Smith. Ironically, they might’ve just made a nearly perfect pure CGI/live-action movie with “Speed Racer”, something that impresses me far more than “Avatar” did (although even there, you can see Cameron straining to inject more and more verite-stylings into the digital environments).
There is a trade-off whenever you venture into the uncanny valley, this is true, but I think we too-often focus on the negative aspects, instead of examining what we gain.
Bob, you raise many good points but unfortunately “(one difference might be whether you define documentarian realism by whether or not something is photographed, but to me it’s increasingly a moot point). ” is indeed how I define it! To me, one of the foremost thrills of cinema lies in its dual roots as photographic recording device and magic lantern – its tendencies both to observe and create. Most of my favorite films have a foot in both world and the tension between them creates the frisson which most excites me.
I do agree that Spielberg manages to balance between the documentary and illusionistic tendencies of the medium (both in terms of formal content, how he juxtaposes digital and physical effects, but also – since the beginning – how he’s grounded fantasy content in a lived-in world). And I think Lucas did this too in the original Star Wars but I diverge from you in celebrating his achievement of this in later films. There are sequences in TPM which just feel like poor video-game/animated graphics (the huge battle on Naboo has zero texture or weight, either physical or dramatic) and to me the visual strength of the later films lie not in their fusion of digital and physical realms but in their embrace of the almost purely digital which does have a kind of beauty of its own, if done right, even if it’s not where I want to see most movies go.
Joel– I figured photographicism was your definition for the docu-verite aspect of cinema, and I get that. For me, it’s more about the mis-en-scene and the aesthetic presentation of whatever method you choose, live-action or otherwise. There are a lot of directors who fetishistically insist upon using photographed elements for their special-effects, but often have little idea of how to effectively shoot them in a spontaneous way– Nolan is a good recent example of this with “Inception”, a movie which feels more and more lifeless. Ironically, the kind of filmmaking I often find myself criticizing, full of shakey-cams and movement-for-its-own-sake, can be a vital ingredient to help sell effects, forcing them to exist without the meticulous compositions that suggest contrived artificiality– much as I had problems with it, “Avatar” and its much-hyped tech-advances actually offered some impressive stuff in the way it showed how filmmakers could combine digital realms with improvised camera movements.
And yeah, live-action photography is still the most important part of filmmaking, even in CGI-assisted circumstances. You cite the Naboo battle in TPM as lifeless in their CG, and while I’d argue that they don’t really need to carry the same weight as the rest of the sequences at the end (they’re just there to give us breathers from the rest of the action– the main reason the sequence doesn’t work for you, I think, is because the fighting on display really isn’t all that special) I will admit that a fair amount of it doesn’t register in the same way the rest of the film’s effects do (though I do love the build-up to the battle itself– the tanks advancing over the hill, the mass-assembly droids unpacked in fetal position and marching forward in perfect Riefenstahl harmony). One area where TPM’s photographic elements are often curiously unsung, however, is during the climactic duel– apart from my appreciation of how Lucas frames, edits and stages the fight, it’s immensely fun for me simply to watch the authentic, athletic stunt-work at play as Nick Gillard’s fencers kick fight-choreography up several notches. At the end of the day all the same live-action film elements are there in those movies, just in different places.
Bob, I would say shakey-cam and unmotivated movement are probably the WORST examples of what you call “photographicism”, which is not a criticism of your analysis but of the completely misguided and wrongheaded attempts to artificially forge a verite/documentary feel to contrived material (you are probably correct in interpreting these techniques as directors’ attempts to keep the balance between the thrill of fantasy and the “you-are-there” of realism in play).
The quality I value is probably best described by Andre Bazin, unless with hazy memory I am re-converting his observations to fit my own sensibility. At the risk of sounding vague, it is more a metaphysical concept than one of conscious technique, more about the camera’s unique photographic capabilities and less about the accidental ephemera which surrounds attempts to put it to use. (Nolan and other faux-verite actioners are thus mistaking the shell for the pearl.)
Less important than the positioning or movement of the camera (in fact, a stationary camera would probably do more to observe and record, and thus allow reality to blossom, than a moving one) is what is being shown: the subject. This entails or encourages certain techniques – close-up, long take, naturalistic sound which become signifiers and get confused with the signified but are ultimately effects rather than causes. Probably at the core of this approach is a sensibility, one of observation rather than expression: a sense of wonder and exploration at the world, one which is subservient to reality, rather than vice-versa.
That is the extreme. Many of my favorite films take elements of this sensibility, this approach, and combine it with what may be seen as an opposite framework: the imaginary, the intensely personal, the mind and framework which seeks to achieve effects and draw water from stone, to create worlds from thin air. But of course, they are not working with thin air and so we get this fascinating clash between the imaginary and the real, the fixed and the fluid, the internal and external, the mental and the material – resulting in a kind of spiritual alchemy. This way immense richness lies, a richness I fear losing if cinema falls too far in the direction of the illusionistic.
I should also add that there is never a pure case of the former approach, the purely objective/observational, as even without editing the positioning of the camera and duration and timing of the shot, not to mention the choice of subject, are already imposing the imaginary and personal upon the physical environment. So there doesn’t seem much of a risk of falling too far prey to the documentary, whereas falling too far prey to the illusionistic does seem a possibility.
As for the duel in Phantom Menace, all the more reason to await your epic essay with bated breath!
Joel– “photographicism”, as I call it (is it even a word?) is simply photographing a live subject with a camera. No more, no less. As for shakey-cam and unmotivated movement, I’m not a big fan of either, as you know, but unfortunately they tend to work. Now, either can be acceptable in their own way– handheld photography is actually something I’m quite fond of, provided the operator is at least trying to keep the image stable– but in combination, as they are in the “Bourne” movies, it just feels hollow and incoherent. Still, it’s impossible to deny that certain filming techniques are more or less wrapped up with certain genres of film, and that when you want to invoke that genre quickly and directly, it’s at least worth considering.
But it also depends on the specificity of the genre you’re looking to inject into the movie– Lucas fakes some handheld camerawork during AOTC’s drawn-out CGI battle sequence, but I’d say it works because it’s invoking the memory of WWII combat footage (plus, it’s relatively fleeting and doesn’t try to disorient the viewer). Likewise the handheld camerawork in Cameron’s “Avatar” works when he’s channeling the Vietnam-era television footage of troops under fire, but not so much when he’s reinventing “Dances With Wolves” painted blue– there, he’s trying to invoke the war-movie when he should be invoking the western. One of the best examples for me personally might be the handheld and zoom filled coverage of dogfights from the Sci-Fi Channel remake of “Battlestar Galactica”, where director Michael Rymer did his damndest to make all the battles between man and Cylon appear as though they were being captured live on television. Granted, I agree that with a lot of people it’s an overused, lazy directorial gestures, but in the right hands it can do wonders. And even when it isn’t, the truth is that it works far more than we’d like to think.
About Bazin’s theories and the practice of observational cinema and how it regards to illusionism– first of all, I think that to a certain extent there’s an entirely intellectual level to the anti-CG criticism. Knowing that it’s CG, and being aware of its presence gets in the way of the work itself, and colors all the judgements. Granted, there’s a lot of CG out there which isn’t really convincing on its own, but there’s also a lot of quality work that would probably fool most people into thinking it live photography if it weren’t for sheer implausibility of most of what it’s used to convey– for example, it doesn’t matter how good your dinosaur special-effects are, it’s never going to make us forget the fact that they’re extinct. Personally I’d love to see how far CG can be taken and try to use it to gague someone’s responses in a kind of FX Turing Test.
But beyond that, I also find a bit of a problem in looking for “a sense of wonder” in moments where FX is being used to achieve a level of mere realism. A lot of the time, there’s this odd, and to me rather outdated expectation that a special-effects driven film should be motivated towards moments of awe and jaw-dropping spectacle, when often the most important thing to achieve is a simple sense of banal, everyday reality. At times I think this is where CG’s true potential lies, in the moments and elements that have to go out of their way not to call attention to themselves. But assuming you’ve brought CG to a level at which it is indistinguishable from live-photography, is the very fact that you’re using something other than live-photography of any real importance when it comes to evaluating the film? In my opinion, no. The only exceptions are cases when you actually can go out and shoot something in real life but don’t– if dinosaurs still existed, for example, there’d be no reason to ask ILM to make new ones for us, would there?
And yeah, “the positioning of the camera and duration and timing of the shot, not to mention the choice of subject” are all going to, and should, take away at least some of the objectivity of any shooting. In fact, without subjectivity on the behalf of the filmmaker, what’s the point of watching a movie to begin with?
I’m a bit incredulous about the possibility of CG successfully duping live-action. I’ve never seen a film in which it didn’t stick out like a sore thumb – even in films where it is used fleetingly and sparingly, so that the illusion is almost complete (say, some of Spielberg’s work) it does not fully blend in with the surroundings. What’s more even if the “slickness” kink is removed and CGI comes to successfully dupe live-action, how far can it really go? And frankly, I’m not sure what the point of creating an all-CGI universe is if it’s just supposed to look like reality. At any rate, no one person’s imagination can ever re-create all the unplanned and fascinating interest to be found in real locations, real people, real textures – this is the imbalance I speak of, where hubris gets in the way and actually limits rather than expands when a creative mind can do (by turning in on itself in situations where an outside provocation or influence would do more). Granted, this is not strictly a criticism of CG – a lot of filmmakers use real locations and real people in ways just as limiting and closed-off. Some directors can thrive in hermetic, hidden worlds but many more need the presence of “reality” in some fashion or another and they’re losing it.
Bob, to be succinct here if also a bit limiting (because I’m not sure it covers the whole scope of what I’m trying to say but it gets at a crucial element) by eschewing real reality (physical tangibility, people, a sense of connection between them and their environments) for a hypothetical aping of it, filmmakers lose the sense of spontaneity and unpredictability which has been a vital element of live-action filmmaking till now. There is always that bit of “resistance” the subject puts up – the actor, the location, even the sets can never be fully controlled, and combined with an individual intelligence and feeling at operation this creates the friction crucial to the medium. When this resistance is reduced to a minimum, live-action film becomes bland. There are always video games, paintings, comic books, drawings, and all-out animated films to evoke the worlds you describe. Why force this unnaturally on the live-action film?
Two words– Terry Gilliam. At least part of the reason we’ve seen film after film of his fail to recieve adequate funding or fall apart at the seams is because for year’s he’s stubbornly insisted upon realizing his vision through increasingly outdated and expensive technological means. Yes, doing everything in-camera through puppets, models, miniatures and other physical effects can bring a nice degree of tangibility to your fantasy (provided you know what you’re doing), but they also just plain cost more to do nowadays than CG. Gilliam refused to use any digital elements for years, even if only to cut a couple corners here and there and save the physical-effects for where he really needed them, and that’s one of the reasons why he got into the Don Quixote-mess, enlisting a cabal of foreign investors who made too many dictates and proved unreliable when circumstances turned sour. With his last couple of films, he’s at least learned to use SOME digital elements as a means of cost-saving, and should he go further, perhaps we’ll finally see him become the independant filmmaker he always had the reputation of being, instead of a wandering artist constantly in search of a new patron.
But moving right along, I think that again we’re talking at cross purposes. You’re waxing on about the dangers of CG being used to replace or replicate a brand of reality-based filmmaking somehow in danger. I’m just talking about the difference between physical and digital special effects. Like you, I agree that oftentimes there’s no substitute for location shooting– one of the reasons I’ve stated preferring TPM and AOTC to ROTS, for example, is because of how much of those movies were shot in real places, like palaces in Spain & Italy, or the perennial Tunisian desert. I can also see where using physical miniatures to build imaginary worlds may be preferrable to solely using digital effects– you can’t do location shooting for Corsucant the same way you can for Tatooine or Naboo, but you can certainly build the city-planet in miniature landscapes, and then combine it with digital elements after shooting. But the more imaginary the world you’re seeking to create, the less you can reliably depend upon the limitations of physical elements– can you imagine the nightmare “Avatar” would’ve been had Cameron decided to try and shoot on location in the Amazon?
Besides, I’d say there’s far more spontaneity possible in digital environments than you’re willing to admit. Granted, they tend to work best in science-fiction better than reality-based stories or fantasies attempting as hard as possible to approximate reality (Jackson’s Middle-Earth, with its golden light and soaring cameras, was hopelessly trapped in the Uncanny Valley in thie regard, failing to replicate the same organic quality on the epic scale that it had with its intimate portrait of Gollum), but when they work well, they work gangbusters. Though I had a lot of problems with the political aspect of the movie, Neil Blomkamp’s “District 9” was a masterpiece of nuanced, understated digital effects work, and I’d easily hold that up as a great example of wholly convincing, photorealistic CGI at work. It’s only thanks to the fact that we know that there isn’t a giant spaceship hovering over South Africa with hundreds of aliens living in refugee-camp squalor down below that we have any reason to doubt the effects work.
At any rate, there’s no need to worry about on-set world builders like Ridley Scott going out of style, or business. I doubt we’ll see many more Michael Ciminos, perhaps, but the scale at which guys like him were working at was getting to be prohibitively expensive to begin with, which we still see happening to this day. Look at “Gangs of New York”– the price of all those gorgeous Cinecitta sets was the editorial mandates of Harvey “Scissorhands” Weinstein. Had Scorsese relied upon a bit more digital trickery here and there, he might’ve been able to release the film more on his own terms, and I honestly think that the difference we might’ve seen on film would’ve been too minimal to make much fuss about.
I understand I’m jumping back in late, and past this point, but I did want to mention this/call it out. Mentioning BREATHLESS as more or less ‘just a B-movie rehash’, while this is true on the surface, the film goes quite a bit beyond that. It’s what separates it from other B-movie noir inspired films. I’m thinking of something like the Baldwin/Jason-Leigh film MIAMI BLUES, or the remake Gere vehicle BREATHLESS, both are very fun and I like them as pure entertainment (especially MIAMI BLUES), but A BOUT DE SOUFFLE they are not.. I hope we can all see and accept this difference.
Oh and I’ve always thought BREATHLESS (godards one) was inspired by Nietzsche and Sartre (though most of his films are), and I did a google search once and got a Berkeley philosophy lecture(s) where an entire lecture was comparing it to Nietzsche’s ‘The Gay Science’. It might be of interest to you guys, it’s now on iTunes U. Search any combination of ‘Philosophy 7: Existentialism in Literature and Film Spring 2008 Hurbert Dreyfus, Discussion of Film: Breathless’. Also from that course are discussions on HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR and THE THIRD MAN that are also recommended.
Jamie, I know you’re responding to Bob too but here’s my take:
The issue is not what elements can be detected in Godard – he was extremely well-read and aggressively fond of analogies and references to literature and painting particularly. The issue is whether Breathless benefits from being viewed through a primarily intellectual framework or is better viewed first as a tribute to B movies. For me, I didn’t enjoy it first until I appreciated it as a lark; until then it seemed kind of slight for all the praise that’s been heaped its way. (But I also tend to like mid-60s Godard more than early 60s Godard, so it’s a taste thing too.)
And I also think overemphasizing the intellectual – as perhaps this academic lecture does (I’m rather phobic of approaching cinema in general through stuffy university paradigms, I think it can kill the joy) – completely misses the other half of Breathless, the half that IS irrevocably the joyous tribute of a fanboy, one whose self-consciousness rather adorably gets in the way of his desires to make a gangster movie (see the Scarface to Alice quote). It’s important to remember that Godard did not make films in some studious, careful way – a fact unreflected in much of the rigid, airless analysis that’s written about him. He was more like an action painter or jazz improvisationist – informed to his fingertips with knowledge and technique, which he put to great use, but submerging these and operating by instinct. He wrote dialogue at the last minute, called of shooting on days when he wasn’t feeling inspired, and often created camera movements and stagings on set. (Richard Brody’s book is a great source for production anecdotes.)
His intellect was always filtered through rapturous emotion – and to really convey Godard’s appeal I think one has to foreground the kinetic, passionate aspect. So I’m wary of starting discussions of Breathless by approaching it as an attempt to make an intellectual “statement”.
Incidentally, I’m not even sure you disagree with much of the above (I think you were trying to provide a counterweight to Bob’s other extreme, of perhaps viewing it ONLY as a genre lark) so consider it not so much an objection to your statement as a duly-noted reservation in light of emphasis on Breathless’ intellectual credentials, in whatever context.
yes, hence why my first paragraph states “Mentioning BREATHLESS as more or less ‘just a B-movie rehash’, while this is true on the surface, the film goes quite a bit beyond that. It’s what separates it from other B-movie noir inspired films. I’m thinking of something like the Baldwin/Jason-Leigh film MIAMI BLUES, or the remake Gere vehicle BREATHLESS, both are very fun and I like them as pure entertainment (especially MIAMI BLUES), but A BOUT DE SOUFFLE they are not.. I hope we can all see and accept this difference.”
I’m clearly stating it’s both.
and you first post, I’d just say that you are presupposing quite a bit… mainly that intellectualizing anything is stuffy and without joy. I consider it the opposite on both counts. Again if we remove even just a little of Godard’s intellectualizing his film becomes MIAMI BLUES, GUN CRAZY or countless other good but not masterpiece films (and we aren’t talking about it 50 years later). Even it’s playful qualities (the joy I assume you speak of) of BREATHLESS (mainly the interplay between the two leads) is rooted in Nietzsche and Sartre thought.
Hey listen to the lecture, it’s really not half as stuffy as you may think.
Your clothes are clean and your mind is productive
It shops in store where only the best buy
You’re cool and hard, and if I sound like a lecher
It’s probably true,
But at least there’s no lecture
-Paul Weller, ‘Speak Like A Child’
I don’t understand why sometimes you are skittish towards intellectualism, this is about the 5th or 6th time probably you’ve equated intellectualism as a ‘joyless’ act (or at least something that is counter productive to fully ‘enjoying’ films or art). I think you’re better then that.
Oh and to equate an artist flying by the seat of his pants in any field (you mention action painting and free jazz) as not intellectually grounded is not correct in my opinion.
Every artist of note in this practice it should be remembered the years of practice and theorizing that it took to make the work seem ‘effortless’. Godard’s intellectual dialogue and the spontaneity of it is from years of rather intense study and (one would think) bookish behavior. One works so hard and gets there ideas and theories so organized they then they just have to react in any situation… that’s pretty standard modern art education/teaching.
I mean I look at de Kooning’s WOMEN and I think about how well he handles paint. When face to face with one of his works it’s really breathtaking, and I know that’s incredibly difficult and doesn’t happen by blind chance.
I’m not quite in favor of viewing “Breathless” and most of the early Godard films exclusively as “larks”, but I am saying that in most of his first period, it would seem that’s primarily how they were produced. Sure, you can tell he’s thinking of bigger things, that he’s got loftier ideas on his mind than the hills of beans that constitute the lives of his hoodlum characters. Gradually he’d learn to integrate those big ideas better into the lives and actions of his protagonists via an emphasis on politics, rather than philosophy– in “Le Petit Soldat”, the lengthy torture sequence is a great way of putting all these existential crises directly onto the screen, articulating them outside of language, while before in “Breathless” he mostly gets by by having Jean Seaberg namedrop whatever writers or books she (and by extension, Godard himself) thinks are cool. The most important explicit reference in that film isn’t to the big ideas, but to Humphrey Bogart, on a movie theater’s poster. First and foremost, the movie is a love-letter to movies– a very literate one, no doubt, but still. If one ascribes to Brody’s muse-theory, one wonders if the increasing intellectualism in Godard’s output from then on was in some ways motivated as a means of personalizing a cinema that had more and more to do with Anna Karina, especially at the point in which she left, signaling his eventual detachment with all but the most abstract and inellectual kinds of cinematic sensualism.
Again, I’d disagree. Sure Godard reached much loftier heights as an art/intellectual director, but BREATHLESS isn’t as base as you make out here Bob. Patricia means much more in terms of just ‘citing names of authors she likes’… again, I urge you to listen to the lecture I make reference to. It’s less then an hour and a half long. That movie is about quite a bit more then just ‘other movies’. If that was all it was about it would be RESERVOIR DOGS at best, or the other two films I’ve already mentioned (seriously if you’ve never seen MIAMI BLUES check it out, it’s one of my favorite films on purely entertainment grounds, and a young Jennifer Jason Leigh is doing her best Jean Seberg impression right down to the haircut).
Plus, early Godard, though he is still honing his ideas produced something like ‘Vivre Sa Vie’ which can stand with pretty much any art film on intellectual grounds ever made. Plus couldn’t ‘Contempt’ be considered the end of the early Godard, but still early era nonetheless? Many consider that his masterpiece, and some European critics have called that the greatest piece of art (of ANY medium) made by a European artist post WWII.
Anyone who says “Contempt” is the greatest work of art to come out of Europe after WWII is probably doing so for the extended opening sequence showcasing Bridget Bardot’s ass. And really, who can blame them?
Well Bob, yes… but in all seriousness it’s ranks up there as serious art with anything Europe has produced in decades… This is less about what Europe has produced, but more about the brilliance of that film.
I hear you, Jamie. But really, I don’t think that it’s the best work of art from post-war Europe, nor the best film, nor even Godard’s best film. It’s got some cute & clever ideas here and there, and some very beautiful moments (chief among them being the aforementioned Bardot scene– honestly, folks, the film’s all downhill from there), but it’s also awfully stiff for a Godard film, even taking into account the techincal limitations of CinemaScope cameras back then. One could argue that it’s one of the best films-about-filmmaking out there, but even then I’d at least place it second to “8 1/2” (which I might argue as a contender for “best post-war European work of art” in a heartbeat if it had a nude scene somewhere).
I can see this is becoming one of those threads where it takes just as long to scroll up and find the original post to “reply” to as it does to write your response! lol
First, a note on Godard before we move to the broader point.
Actually, the more Bob expands his thoughts on Godard the more I find myself in more or less complete agreement with him. I find the explicitly intellectualized aspects of Breathless among its least satisfactory elements (in marked contrast to something like Masculin Feminin, where it’s still in close contention with formal elements, personal charisma, and structural conceits). And while I recognize the widespread critical claim for Contempt, I have always felt it’s a bit too stiff to be Godard’s masterpiece. I’d take five or six of his films over it, at least – I own it, but it’s as much if not more for Bardot, Coutard, and Delerue as Godard. Vivre sa vie is one I admire but have not warmed to as much as mid-periods Alphaville or Band of Outsiders – or late periods (obviously mean late period-early Godard) La Chinoise, Le Gai Savoir (I know you like that one, Jamie!), or Week End. Same goes for A Married Woman – sometimes it seems like one either goes for the “passionate” Godard represented by certain films or the “intellectual” Godard represented by others. All of his films contain both passion and intellect of course, often in close tandem but in certain films one is a bit more emphasized than the other. So to a certain extent it’s a matter of taste, I’ll admit.
But the big disagreement may be a bit obscured by our use of the word “intellectual”. After all you argue something I argued as well, as if you’re disagreeing with me: “Every artist of note in this practice it should be remembered the years of practice and theorizing that it took to make the work seem ‘effortless’.” As I said: “He was more like an action painter or jazz improvisationist – informed to his fingertips with knowledge and technique, which he put to great use, but submerging these and operating by instinct”. So we’re saying the same thing, but you’re emphasizing input while I’m emphasizing output.
But do we have differing sensibilities here? Yes, and I think here’s why. Obviously, with my fondness for analysis and canons and notions of objectivity, I am hardly hostile towards intellectualism per se. What I AM hostile towards, and which I perhaps sometimes unfairly allow to take the broader mantle of “intellectualism” is “official” or “professional” or “academic” intellectualism. The second part of your statement is this: “…intellectual dialogue and the spontaneity of it is from years of rather intense study and (one would think) bookish behavior. One works so hard and gets there ideas and theories so organized they then they just have to react in any situation… that’s pretty standard modern art education/teaching.”
The characterization makes me a little skittish, and this sort of thing, coupled with recommendations of a lecture (which I would love to check out at some point, skepticism aside) acts as a trigger for me. I loathe the notion of the university or elite system as a processing tool for an understanding of film. Godard was by and large an autodictat and amateur, he dabbled in film classes and wrote for a great magazine – but in the capacity of a member of a band of brothers rather than a niche-y, scholarly “pro” (those old Cahiers articles don’t read at all like warmed-over scholarly pieces of today, nor overheated but limp latter-day press dispatches). The fact that this sort of path has been obscured by a more official, hierarchized, limited path is something that I think has had a detrimental impact on cinema on all fronts, closing it off from the broader society and the arts, putting up a thicker wall between the mainstream and the avant-garde, and impeding the possibilities for fresh new voices to emerge. Incidentally, I think the blogosphere goes a long way towards undoing this, and is the greatest hope we’ve had for a fresh look at cinema to emerge in the past 40 years.
You don’t seem as hostile to these things as me. That’s interesting because in many ways you seem quite removed from them. I’ll admit that it’s very much a defensive action as well – but that’s not really relevant here. Suffice to say I may have more need of an upraised shield and sharpened sword than you do!
“I mean I look at de Kooning’s WOMEN and I think about how well he handles paint. When face to face with one of his works it’s really breathtaking, and I know that’s incredibly difficult and doesn’t happen by blind chance.” With this I completely agree, and it’s a point I’ve tried to make here and elsewhere before: I have no respect whatsoever for ignorance. Knowledge is essential – in carpet-bombing stuffy academicism or dry intellectualism I don’t mean to make knowledge collateral damage.
by saying this “in carpet-bombing stuffy academicism or dry intellectualism I don’t mean to make knowledge collateral damage.” I realize we more or less agree, we just have different points on the grid. No biggie.
I must say I do come from a strict respected art school background, where art idea, theory and philosophy was a daily dialogue. Though I do have much anarchism in me (as you well know), in this setting art is respected, admired, cherished, and given freedom to grow. It’s perhaps the only place art’s respected without any BS that comes in the professional art world. So I throw my arms around this with affection, not to strangle the life from it. Academia, at least in this country is about the only place art is given a ‘fair shake’, so I am willing to defend it (warts and all), you, as a fellow aesthete, would to I believe.
that’s all I’m saying. And plus, this whole thread of discussion is based on that mp3 lecture that you haven’t listened to… I feel once you have you’ll find it legit, enjoyable, and accurate. It’s not the pompous ‘elitist’ (I always hate seeing this word as a derogatory adjective) exercise. So here’s to you getting around to it…
Yeah, I look forward to it (btw, Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy is next up on my book list, to the extent there is a “next” in my rather chaotic approach to reading – though I think I’ve recently found a method to madness…).
Re: art school, see the e-mail for more but basically I see what you’re saying here. I think with film it’s a little trickier for several reasons – because the medium is so entangled with notions of a popular form at this point (I’d say even the “strictly art”/personal films are often intensely informed by an aesthetic formed in the crucible of movies-as-mass-experience) so that taking the more typical “scholarly” approach is often notably misleading, and also because the fit between cinema and academia is still new and relatively awkward at this early stage (whereas art and formal education have had centuries to adapt themselves to one another) hence my gut instinct to jump in and “rescue” the movies from film studies!
yes, this makes sense, but also I personally try to approach film viewing as we discussed earlier about the action painter or jazz musician– all my past ‘adventures’ I want to inform me so I concisely appreciate a ‘great’ film. An academic approach is one tool of many, and to me it’s just as personal as joy. this academic notion that it’s a larger institution you don’t like doesn’t matter to me it’s an individual approach, just as the ‘joy’ I see is removed from the masses that see films 100% for ‘joy’ (see action and CG spectacles).
on “Speed Racer”
While I agree the aesthetic boundary pushing on display signals a major advance in digital storytelling, I don’t think the film will ever reach “Blade Runner” status simply because of the childish, family-oriented nature of the story. It’s too looney for audiences to embrace as fully as the darker noir elements of “Blade Runner”, especially nowadays when people seem to just automatically associate “dark” and “grit” with “quality”, as if something light-hearted doesn’t have as much value simply because it’s light-hearted. But that’s another issue…..
I think “Speed Racer” will remain a cult favorite, and an achievement that will hopefully be revisited and reviewed after the Wachowskis have a more accessible, commercial comeback in the vein of “The Matrix”, or if they do something as radical as “Speed Racer” but with a story that people can really identify with. Whatever the case I think it’s great that they refuse to compromise and continue to work on personal projects. Their next film, “CN9” is apparently some experimental half-documentary about Iraq with a fictional gay love story mixed in. I’m sure you’ve all read about it by now. It’s the film where they shot test footage and interviews with Arianna Huffington and Jesse Ventura. Thoughts? As intrigued as I am?
I’m also reading a draft of their “Cloud Atlas” adaptation which Tom Tykwer is directing. It’s designed as some sort of epic (230 pages is nothing lean, let’s put it that way), and very engaging from what I’ve read.
on “Miami Vice”
I agree largely with this essay and everyone else who admires this film.
Ari, whenever I read about the Wachowskis and their future projects, it makes me wistful for the days when I actually sort of believed Lucas would make good on his promise to one day go back to his own “small, personal films”. I’d love to believe that he’s secretly shooting stuff on his own and keeping it under wraps, like all those decades’ worths of stories Salinger supposedly kept writing and sealing away, but the odds aren’t great– we’re lucky that even “Red Tails” got off the ground, frankly. Perhaps it’s because he already started out on the artsy side of the spectrum, getting the avant-garde out of his system with THX and steadily (but not entirely) moving towards the mainstream, while with the Wachowskis it’s been the other way around. Yeah, “Bound” was daring for its lesbian love story, but at the end of the day it was really no more complicated than a mash-up between classic film-noir and one of the 70’s “Emmanuelle” films. Even the “Matrix” films are actually rather conservative Hollywood action/adventures once you wrap your head around the cyberpunk concepts and philosophical mumbo-jumbo– it was only with “Speed Racer” that they really embraced a more radical form of cinema. They’ve been building up to their THX rather than starting out that way, and while I doubt they (or anyone else) will ever make something that approaches the same level of quality exhibited in that film, they’re definitely on track to deliver a consistent level of ballsy stuff.
Still, I’d much rather see Lucas return to his roots than anything else. Aside from all this, however, I’m psyched to hear that Tom Tykwer is involved on “Cloud Atlas”. Ever since “The International” I’ve found myself becoming more and more interested in his creative future. I’d still like to see him tackle a Bond movie, but a collaboration of this scale certainly has potential.
Jamie, it doesn’t look like there’s a text version of that lecture available – just audio downloads. It will be a little while before I can give that a listen – though I definitely plan to check out that whole lecture, especially since I’m currently reading Fear and Trembling – but would you care to paraphrase Dreyfuss’ points about the relationship between Breathless & Gay Science just as a teaser? I’m intrigued.
I am presently at an internet cafe in Manhattan near the Film Forum, where I will be attending a 9:20 P.M. showing of the final feature of the Chaplin Festival, LIMELIGHT. I travelled down from the Walter Reade Theatre, where I watched Ken Russell’s THE DEVILS, and THE BOY FRIEND. (Jamie will be pleased to know that I saw Russell’s SAVAGE MESSIAH on Tuesday, and liked it quite a bit). I was disappointed (Allan was right again) that the ‘Rape of Christ’ sequence was missing from the otherwise gorgeous print of this 111 minute version of THE DEVILS.
Anyway, what I am doing has nothing to do with this staggering thread, containing some of the best discourse ever showcased here at WitD, and I want to isssue my congratulations to Kevin for writing this extraordinary essay. The fact that it has now gone over the one-hundred mark in comments is quite a testament to the remarkable interest the review has generated. Many of the comments are mini-thesis in themselves and I can only marvel at what has transpired here.
Kudos to all.
Sam, i believe it is time for you to move to the greener pastures of the blackberry, droid, or IPhone, so you will be able to attend to this blog at every moment!
Anyone second my motion?
J
LOL Jason!!! Good one!!!!!!!!!
Kevin: Wish I had time for more, but a few quick thoughts …
* I keep coming around on this picture, predominantly because of the Cuba sequence, which is the film’s heart and soul. I think you’re right that Mann and Malick have a similar tone, except Malick does the natural world and Mann does cityscapes (for the most part). If Malick ever shot a film in a city, the similarities might be more pronounced. Similarly, if you dropped some of the dialogue of a Mann movie and turned it into voiceover narration, it might be more pronounced. Just saying.
* The amazing thing to me is that as frustrating as it was not to be able to understand Gong Li the first time I watched the film (which is not to imply that ruined the film for me; whereas the crappy, overthought sound design on Public Enemies is a true obstacle), she’s now the high point for me.
* Finally, with the caveat that I’ve seen the theatrical cut once and the director’s cut at least three times in full, the one area I’m not convinced that the theatrical cut is superior is in regard to the beginning. (With the other cuts, it’s easier for me to take your word for it, or Keith’s etc.) Here’s why: For a film that uses water to link everything, doesn’t the director’s cut begin exactly where the film must: under water? I love the way the sound is muffled as if we’re surfacing (not just our view). Sure, I grant you that starting with a needless speed boat race (which isn’t very long, let’s be fair) eliminates that “what the heck is going on?” feeling of starting with the club scene. But it’s not as if adding that scene eliminates our uncertainty later. That is, the film is still filled with plenty of “what’s going on?” moments throughout. Anyway, just food for thought. I suppose in an ideal world, it starts under water and then moves to the club without the stuff in between. But now I’m directing the movie. And I might be wrong.
Good piece.
Yeah, I like the opening of the Director’s Cut version as well as visually and thematically it is consistent with the way Mann opens his other films – without dialogue and just pure visual storytelling while the nightclub scene does feature some terse dialogue exchanges, etc.
Both versions have their merits and I like how Mann clarifies in the audio commentary that this isn’t a “Director’s Cut” but rather an alternate cut to the theatrical version.
Thanks, Jason. I remember really enjoying the conversation you and Ed had about the film (and Mann’s entire oeuvre for that matter), and I remember thinking that I agreed with a lot of what you two had to say; however, the film just had a deeper effect on me than it did you two. You’re right about Li’s performance and the Cuba scene, and if I were trying to go in depth about even more specific points about the film that would have been one of the first moments I mentioned. Their trip to Cuba is an integral part of the film, and it’s just so damn lovely to look at, too.
Also, I think my Mann/Malick comparison is strictly visual…and you’re right (and I failed to mention this in my comparison, but I think we’ve talked about this before) about how Mann does cityscapes while Malick does the natural world. I totally agree with you about Mann’s dialogue, and how he would be even more like Malick (and for the better) if he recognized his narrative shortcomings and used voiceover (the voiceover narration is one of the best things about THE NEW WORLD and its ethereal feel). I imagine that a film like THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS, for example, would have been better served with narration, and the kind of dream narrative that Mann seems to be interested in now. Although MOHICANS does contain one of Mann’s best filmed sequences (the ending) where the characters move through the mountains to the beat of the wonderful music. It’s one of Mann’s best “music video” moments.
Anyway…thanks for stopping by, Jason, and for leaving that great comment. I appreciate it.
“Although MOHICANS does contain one of Mann’s best filmed sequences (the ending) where the characters move through the mountains to the beat of the wonderful music. It’s one of Mann’s best “music video” moments.”
Oh yes, I know the sequence well, and I also consider it one of the better sequences in the entire Mann oeuvre. I’ve often compared it to ‘Mann trying to capture an Adam and the Ant’s moment on film’ to friends–it usually brings about blank stares, but now with youtube around, one can easily look up, say, the music video of ‘Kings of the Wild Frontier’ and easily see what I mean. Gringo’s prancing around in Native American war paint? Check. Tribal drumming for the backdrop? Check.
_ _ _
RE: Malick to Mann, and this is just sort of to anyone interested. I really don’t think they are comparable. Yes, they both speak in mostly visuals… but then most good to great directors do. Doesn’t Hitchcock speak in visuals? How about Kurosawa? Murnau? DePalma? (and I could go on and on and on…) It seems to me, at the very core of Malick’s visual is a Heideggerian wanting to get back to the land (or Thoreau-ain, or Rimbaud-ian, or …), he’s somewhat quintessentially American with this idea of Manifest destiny, but then he isn’t American, because he certainly isn’t capitalistic, and the Manifest destiny isn’t necessarily physical it’s about the self, but then self needs to get to something purer. Mann is the complete opposite, all about the modern city (as you notice, and point out this difference), and he doesn’t seem to necessarily think it’s the alienating obstruction Malick does. So yes they both speak in visuals, but what they are saying with said visuals is pretty polar opposite.
This is best seen in the two films both have made that are the most similar LAST OF THE MOHICANS, and THE NEW WORLD… MOHICANS is a rather by the book epic narrative (admittingly it is beautiful), where Mann doesn’t seem to be that interested in the coming domestication of the Native Americans, he takes everything as matter or fact (and I’d say this is something he always does; any time he presents an isolated hero in a story the struggle is never to lash out, rather it’s just to survive or even flourish– most specifically Cruise in COLLATERAL), wheres when the loners in THE NEW WORLD face impending civilization, specifically in the final third of the film, it’s a constant inner problem and contemplation abounds from every character. Thus Malicks hero’s always lash out and attempt to change the world they live in (this is also similar to the typical Melville-ian hero). See BADLANDS specifically, Malick’s philosophy is one of Swiss Family Robinson, Mann’s is… I’m not sure I’d have to think about it so more for a definite comparison.
“Mann is the complete opposite, all about the modern city (as you notice, and point out this difference), and he doesn’t seem to necessarily think it’s the alienating obstruction Malick does. So yes they both speak in visuals, but what they are saying with said visuals is pretty polar opposite.”
Jamie, I think you really have to expand on this, as Mann’s films strike me as being quintessentially about alienation, at least as much as Malick’s are. In Miami Vice, Sonny has literally “built an island for himself,” to use Malick’s own words, and the way Mann has come to be less and less reliant on dialogue really emphasizes how important momentary contact and conversation is. That’s what makes Sonny’s and Isabella’s affair so weird when you’re watching the movie, and why you know it can’t work out–there’s this dependence on work, on professionalism, on unquestioned loyalty, on being able to hold on to your angst, because otherwise, what is there?
I might not be totally clear–maybe I should say– how Mann has come to be less and less reliant on dialogue really emphasizes how important momentary contact and conversation is, and how impossible it really is, at least as any sort of constant or static thing. To go back to Heidegger, there’s a suggestion of a revealing through conversation, through dialogue, but as it is rooted in our experience of it, it’s an unaction as much as it is an action, and so in revealing obscures. (Speaking Heidegger over the internet is probably impossible).
Put me in the “Mohicans-is-a-masterpiece” school. I think it’s a highly skilled and involving adventure but I suppose what edges it over is that aforementioned climax. It’s just one of the tip-top moments of music/editing/mise en scene in general in film. As someone drawn to editing, and particularly editing with music (both doing and appreciating) I can’t think of many moments that compare for pure formal majesty and mastery.
P.S. Thanks for the “King of the Wild Frontier” video mention – I looked it up on You Tube – great stuff!
Here’s the thing with the “Mohicans music-video” moment– which came first, the movie or the score? If it’s the former, then the composers are owed just as much credit for making it work. If it’s the latter (as Leone often did with Morricone), then yeah, it’s the director & editors who deserve the lion’s share in full.
Interesting Bob, I think most people would actually say the reverse (that if the score was written before rather than afterwards, the composer deserves more credit), though I see what you’re getting at here. In either scenario, I’m comfortable spreading the credit around. It’s an achievement of all the film’s elements working in top gear.
I once wrote an essay analyzing this scene but I’ve no idea where it is now. If I can ever find it, I’ll post it on here.
Test
Jamie: I think you make some valid arguments that, in the least, point out the dangers of carrying the Malick/Mann comparison too far. Where I see a link is in tone, as Kevin suggested. And, without repeating the entire argument, I think the similarities in tone would be more apparent if both of the directors used poetic v/o or both used poetic standard dialogue, rather than one using the former and the other using the latter. And the cityscape/natural world thing, because the fact that Malick’s films are so romantic about the natural world might indeed create the impression that his films are more centrally “Thoreau-ian” than they actually are. That brings me to Doniphon’s great point about the “alienation” theme that runs throughout Mann’s and Malick’s films, and I think that alienation contributes to the tone.
Both directors also treat romance quite similarly: it’s something that’s big and passionate, and the enormity of that passion is symbolized by the settings: the sprawling L.A. cityscape in Heat, the waterfall in Mohicans, the entire friggin’ “New World” in The New World, etc. Speaking of The New World: The romances between Smith and Pocahontas and between Sonny and Isabella are incredibly similar in tone. In both cases we get people who seem to know instantly that they want the other, two people who let their actions dictate their passions rather than words. And, again, the passions are so big and untamed.
So I think there are lots of similarities. Though, again, there is danger in taking it too far and suggesting that the only difference between Mann and Malick is the settings they use and how they deal with dialogue.
Good discussion.
right, I’m not saying that Mann’s films aren’t about isolation, I’m saying that Malick’s and Mann’s films are… but how that protagonist reacts to said isolation is almost exactly opposite in all instances.
And yes both filmmakers use visuals in a poetic way, but then again (as I said before) so does virtually every good to great filmmaker.
I recall the dialogue about sex in BADLANDS, which is very absurd/existential in tone, that it has no inherent sacredness. I don’t think we’d EVER get something like that in a Mann film, or any type of philosophy along those lines. that’s what I’m getting at.
I dunno, Pacino’s pretty absurd in “Heat”, at times. It’s the best performance of his “yelling phase”, OTT done right.
LOL Bob. “Because she’s got a GREAT ASSSSSSSS! and you got your head so FAR UP ITTT!!!!”
He’s downright terrible in that movie, though since I can laugh at such things I love him in it. Though If I live in the ‘heat’ world for just one minute it would be to punch him in the mouth after he makes that cocky face after kicking the small tv out of his car at that stop light. what a putz.
It’s the kind of acting that Wings Hauser tries and gets called ‘bad’ for. Whereas I think Wings in (maybe) the most enjoyable b-actor of all-time. he’s a freakin’ master in VICE SQUAD and COLD FIRE.
“Though If I live in the ‘heat’ world for just one minute it would be to punch him in the mouth after he makes that cocky face after kicking the small tv out of his car at that stop light”
Watch it cuzzzz
Jason:
I should add: I get what you’re saying about the Director’s Cut opening…I just prefer the original way the film began. Much more immediate and appropriate for the tone of Mann’s film. But I like the connection you make with the water, and it makes me think that I was a little too harsh on the opening, hehe.
However, the addition of “In the Air Tonight” during one of the film’s most dramatic scenes still pisses me off! Hehe.
Yeah, I’m not trying to sway you on the Director’s Cut. Just pointing out that in the first scene the underwater beginning is actually quite indicative of the film ahead, perhaps more so than the commotion of the Theatrical Cut. I think your point that the speedboat race doesn’t hold has traction, though. Then again, one of the most memorable moments in the entire film is Sonny and Isabella on their way to Cuba, and that’s largely speedboat ogling. Just saying.
Strangely enough, the “In the Air Tonight” doesn’t bother me in the Director’s Cut. I mean, yes, it’s kind of cheesy, but that’s where it’s an advantage to have only seen the Theatrical Cut once. So just tossing it out there that to the person who doesn’t know otherwise it’s probably not as irksome as it is to you. That said, there are subtle differences in the Extended Cut of The New World that I find particularly irritating. So it’s not as if I haven’t been where you are.
One last thing …
I tried to imply it above, but just for clarity: My feelings about Miami Vice started to become more favorable with The Conversations piece. But I’ve seen the film at least once more since then, and I liked it even more. So if we did that convo again today, I’d likely be more complimentary.
(While we’re here, shameless plug: A new edition of The Conversations should be out in the week ahead, I suspect. This one goes through the career of Todd Haynes. I think it could spark some discussion.)
Jason, not shameless at all………that is great news about the upcoming Haynes post at the Conversations!!! I’ll definitely be adding my own two cents, feeling as I do that FAR FROM HEAVEN is the masterpiece of the 2000s, and I’M NOT THERE and SAFE as extraordinary films as well.
Message to Allan, Joel and WitD alumni: I am taking my family to the Sussex County State Fair today (am leaving in minutes) so I won’t be back here today it appears. I continue to be awestruck by the level of discourse at this thread.
[…] Nick Schager, as well as Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies blogger Kevin J. Olson. Truth be told, it was Kevin’s recent appreciation for the film that provoked me to finally visit Mann’s contemporized vision of Sonny Crocket and Ricardo […]
Thanks, Kevin. I think the film has more to do with the TV show than the changed aesthetics would indicate. People looking for Phil Collins music and pastel clothes missed the fact that the show is based on a kind of existential dread over identity and lost direction directly from the series and evident as early as the first episode (Heart of Darkness) which underlines Crockett’s “there but for the grace of God go I” concern over whether he can keep it together and manifested in season 3 (the non-pastel year) and of course the Sonny Burnett trilogy year 4/5 The theatrical MV is as stylized and neo-noir as the TV show.
And relating to that cold club opening, I worked at a theatre when this played and invariably some customers would come out saying the “movie started in the middle” because there were no credits, no explanation, no… boat chase to acclimate them. Figuratively speaking many initial viewers never “got on the boat” with this film in theatres from the first frame.
R
Spot on.
I completely agree with you here
BRAVO! Outstanding eloquent article on one of the most underrated and unfairly reviled films of all time. A few days ago I had this from-out-of-nowhere need to watch the series finale of Miami Vice (the last time I saw it was the only time I saw it, which was its original broadcast day), and from there I felt the need to watch the first two episodes (coincidentally, it was the 30th anniversary of the premiere of the series, which I swear I wasn’t aware of!), and from there satiated my need to re-watch the 2006 film. It’s been a few years since I’ve seen it, and just like when I saw it in the theater (alone, btw) I was extremely satisfied and thoroughly entertained. I love being thrown into a story that challenges me to sink or swim, with no aid from a literal (or in this case cinematic) life preserver, usually in the form of unrealistic dialogue between characters who already know each other well enough so as not to need to have expository dialogue, though in this case I already knew who these characters were and what they were doing. I was a huge fan of the tv series growing up in the 80’s, so much so that after watching the film my first thought was that it could easily have been a two-part episode in Season 3, albeit with different actors and in a different time. It had the same dark quality about it, with the pastels phased out in favor of dark colors and tones, the campy buddy-cop formulas were thrown out, Crockett’s relationships were always doomed, the good guys didn’t always win (and victories were almost always pyrrhic), and everyone was all business. Gong Li was outstanding, really the heart of the entire film. I guess I can kind of understand why a casual moviegoer would not like this at all, probably because they were expecting a campy throwback to the cultural influence the first two seasons had on 80’s style and popular culture. But as a fan of Miami Vice, both of the lighter seasons and the darker ones, as well as being a fan of new ways of approaching cliche stories, I think Michael Mann’s Miami Vice film was a huge success in being exactly what a fan like myself was expecting: a great new Miami Vice story for the 21st Century.
And thank you so much again for the beautiful article.
Excellent dissection of an underrated film. Would you mind if I feature this on my blog? You’ll be credited of course. 🙂