Review: Nine (2009)

Nine (2009, Rob Marshall)
B


I rarely watch musicals. It isn’t a genre of filmmaking that gets me excited or has ever struck my curiosity in any particular fashion. This made my reaction to the trailer to Rob Marshall’s latest grandiose and lavish production, Nine, all the more surprising, even to myself. From the moment the trailer ended with that powerful lines of ‘Be Italian’, I knew that I’d be in line for the film on opening weekend. I believe it was the audacity of the trailer which aroused my interest. It didn’t explain anything about the story, although anyone familiar with Federico’s Fellini’s 8 ½ or the Tony award winning show upon which Nine is based arguably had a relatively clear idea. In those two and a half minutes, I was transported to a world in which the arts of song, dance and filmmaking are married together to concoct tantalizing escapism. Would the actual film deliver on such a promise however?

Guido (Daniel Day-Lewis), or ‘Maestro’ as he is lovingly referred by colleagues and fans alike, is an Italian film director whose early works captured the imaginations and hearts of movie goers worldwide. Through a light and comical press conference scene, the story quickly establishes that the director’s last few efforts were not up to par, but the producers claim next outing promises to be something for the ages, something that will exemplify the very best of, what else, Italia. In fact, that is the very title of this next venture, Italia. The producer is ready, the set design crew is ready, and so is his faithful and witty costume designer, played by dame Judi Dench. The great starlet of the hour, Claudia Jenssen (Nicole Kidman) has even been attached to the project in the lead role. There is but one slight hurdle to overcome before filming can commence: a script needs to be written. Guido hasn’t the faintest idea what his story is about, and the stress begins to mount on his shoulders as the production team grow increasingly impatient. All the while, Guido takes refuge (and possibly searches for inspiration) in the many love lives he juggles, most notably with his wife Luisa (Marion Cotillard) and Carla (Penelope Cruz). Before we know it, an American magazine journalist (Kate Hudson) is also trying to seduce him. Let us not forget of course that the Maestro also has imaginary discussions with his late mother, who takes the form here of Sophie Lauren.




With a decidedly stunning cast, a director with previous experience in the genre of film musicals (he brought the 2002 Academy award winning Chicago to life) and, lest we forget, a kick ass trailer, how does Nine play out after all? To put it bluntly, the film delivers both the best and worst of musicals, or at least what fall into my definitions of best and worst qualities musicals can espouse. On a positive note, the cast is, almost without exception, irresistible. Of course, if you don’t enjoy seeing Daniel Day-Lewis, Marion Cotillard, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench and Nicole Kidman on the screen at the same time…then I suppose you might be in trouble if you choose to see the film obviously, but I highly suspect that such a category envelopes a clear minority of movie goers. Lewis’ Italian accent took a few lines to grow accustomed to since I often find adopting Italian accents can more often produce less convincing results than adopting an American accent (naturally, I am comparing the accents the English actor adopted for his Nine and is previous work, There Will Be Blood), but all the necessary eccentricities and the ‘devil may care’ attitude of a man in Guido’s position are present. The Maestro is a man as adept, if not more so, at writing love stories for his own life than writing one for is next project. His wife Louisa used to be a fine actress and in fact saw her career be born on the set of one of Guido’s previous movies. While their love may have been the stuff of fairytales, the director’s devotion is now split between his wife and the stunning, playful and rather needy Caro. Their escapades are quite light hearted and embedded with a sexual intensity too irresistible for anybody. His life distracts him from work on this bold but empty movie project just as his work on this bold but empty movie project distracts him from life. Daniel Day Lewis brings an undeniable charm and energy to the character of Guido, which is pretty to be expected from an actor of his calibre and history of truly getting into the roles he is hired to interpret. I don’t if what Lewis practices is what film buffs and scholars describe as ‘method acting,’ but however you want to name his style, it works bloody well. While Lewis may not be as big here as he was in There Will Be Blood, there is an eccentricity to the performance reminiscent of what many of us attribute to those who are members of the artist community. Some flare, some tempers, volatile emotions and such. With a supporting cast as vast and glamorous as the one found in Nine, the film should be forgiven if not everyone feels equally important to the story and character interactions. Honestly, how does one juggle with supporting actors the likes of Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Kate Hudson, Marion Cotillard and Judi Dench? Something has to give sooner or later. Of that bunch, I’d wager that the ‘loser’ is Nicole Kidman, who only appears reasonably late in the film and, even then, for not very long. Her character, it is hinted, also had a romantic involvement of sorts with Guido, although this is never fully developed and Kidman essentially leaves as quickly as she arrived. Cruz is allotted more screen time, which is fine by me given how I’ve often thought she was a better actress, but her character is sadly a little bit typical. She is the needy, sexy little sideline thing whose emotional grip on her own husband is fast slipping and wishes to be alone with Guido, despite the fact that the latter is married. It’s a fine performance, I thought Cruz was having some good fun with the role, which works quite well otherwise the character would have felt rather bland. Cotillard is given some real emotional weight in the film however, and her performance only improves as the story moves along. Honestly, the latter part of the film does showcase some very solid moments from the French actress. Dame Judi Dench is the sassy costume designer, and in my mind Dench can practically do no wrong, so no complaints from me on that point. Hudson doesn’t appear too much, but she is alright as well. Nothing spectacular, but as the American fashion/pop culture journalist taken aback by Guido’s…sexiness? popularity? eccentricity? she is adequate. Truth be told, the more I think of it, the more her character comes off as a mediocre ploy to further test Guido’s faithfulness towards his lovely wife.



I’ve done a fair amount of chit-chatting thus far about the story and acting, but this is a musical after all, so is the music any good? Well, the reason why I saved this section of the review for later is because I am as musically inept as a 5 year old. I have little to no knowledge of what constitutes a good song, and my familiarity with the musical genre within the art of film is minimal at best. Alright then, let’s get this monster out of the way finally: the music is mostly good. There are a handful of very catchy tunes that my mind retained as I walked out of the theatre. Dench’s ‘Folies Bergères’ (for which she sings a bit in French. From the perspective of a movie goer who speaks that tongue, she has a pretty darn good accent!), Hudson’s ‘Cinema Italiano’, Cotillard’s ‘My Husband Makes Movies’ and Fergie’s (!) ‘Be Italian’ were all superb. Cruz’s ‘A Call From the Vatican’ and Sophie Lauren’s ‘Guarda la Luna’ were fine. The rest were more of a mixed bag. At times, particularly as during the songs performed by Daniel Day-Lewis and Nicole Kidman, that I felt the songwriters were trying to put too much story and explanations of emotions into the lyrics. Some verses sounded awkward in that the performers were trying to shove too many words into lines. As I wrote already, my musical competency is quite limited, so I may not be the best person to articulate these issues, but suffice to say that for the most part the songs were catchy, touching and amusing, with the few disappointing exceptions I mentioned.

The one thing that always troubles me about musicals is how the worst ones always require the movie to stop for the actors to break out into song. For a few minutes the story simply does not move forward. Nine…kind of, sort of tries to work around this but I don’t think it succeeds entirely. The musical numbers are often the emotions of what the characters are feeling at the time and provide some backstory to plotlines (as in Cotillard’s ‘My Husband Makes Movies’) while other times the songs are nicely integrated (somewhat) into the plot directly, as in Cruz’s ‘A Call From the Vatican’. Some are served through flashbacks (‘Be Italian’) or have a decidedly existential feel to them (‘Folies Bergères). Other times the movie really does stop for no reason (‘Cinema Italiano’, despite how catchy the song actually is). I guess it is a mixed bag overall.



Nine is a flashy film, filled with memorable set and costume design, handsome cinematography but sometimes mediocre editing. It features a story that rests on the shoulders of the actors and songs due to a certain lack of originality, but thankfully those two elements, acting and song, are both rather swell for the most part. I think what I felt most of all as I left the theatre was how, even though the film is imperfect, it was worth the 12 dollars. It’s pretty to look at and sounds great, kind of like real musicals performed on stage, only this time you don’t have to pay as much.

Bottom 10

Oh no, do we really need to do a bottom 10? No, but they're fun. Actually, in case none of you have noticed, I tend to write favourable reviews here at Between the Seats. Even with films I don't like by and large, I rarely, rarely think a movie is a big fat turd with no qualities.

This means the following list is not one for movies I thought 'sucked hard.' Some of them I honestly didn't like, that's true, but some are films that had redeeming qualities, but due to either the hype surrounding them or simply particular aspects of the filmmaking, I just didn't like them that much. Some I would even be willing to give half scores, or something in the nature of a C or C+, which is far from terrible. They just weren't as good as some of the other stuff I saw in 2009. Tell you what, I'll leave little indicators to specify my feelings towards each entry.

1-Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (sucked)
2-The International (sucked)
3-State of Play (irritating)
4-The Hangover (wow, terribly unfunny)
5-Adoration (good actors, disappointing outing from Egoyan)
6-I Love You, Man (terribly unfunny)
7-X-Men Origins: Wolverine (A guilty pleasure for me, but it wasn't a 'good movie')
8-Year One (flat)
9-Terminator Salvation (excellent visuals, boring story)
10-500 Days of Summer (too cutesy despite strong moments)

Top 10

Ah-ha! Where is the top 10 list however? Everybody seems to be doing them, so I felt obliged to chip in. Many apologies if this list seems 'whateva.'

1-Two Lovers
2-The Brothers Bloom
3-Thirst (which I really should have written a review for because no one will know what this is)
4-Public Enemies
5-Inglourious Basterds
6-Star Trek
7-Il Divo
8-Sugar
9-Watchmen
10-Summer Hours

Coulda, woulda and probably shoulda made the cut: The Hurt Locker, Still Walking, Red Cliff and The Limits of Control.

And if there are some movies on the list you don't know...trust me, my top 10 for '08 was even less mainstream.

Status Update

When I said the 'long arms of the law' marathon wouldn't be that long, I meant it. I never intended it to be anything lengthy, just enough to occupy readers until the New Year. I hope you enjoyed the reviews for Public Enemies, Bullitt, Dirty Harry, PTU and Touch of Evil. I loved writing them. It's a genre I'm quite comfortable with, so those 5 reviews were a breeze to write.

When the reviews return we'll begin the 'queer cinema' marathon. What I want to watch (note 'want to watch' and not 'shall watch.' Changes pending.) is Brockback Mountain, My Own Private Idaho, Happy Together, Bad Education and The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant...for now. Suggestions are more than welcome.

Thank you

Hello readers!

It's the holiday season, so I just wanted to take a moment to thank all those that have taken the time to visit my blog, read the reviews and in some cases even share some comments. I really do appreciate it. Lord knows there is a host of film blogs out there already, some of which are of dubious quality at best. The fact that there are followers and readers of my blog makes me feel pretty darn good. Thank you very much.

Christmas time is a time of sharing, so I shan't take the entire spotlight. There are some excellent blogs out there, many of which I visit on a regular basis (even if I don't always post comments, I do actually visit your sites people). Here are some of the blogs that were absolutely worth reading in 2009 and will probably be just as good in 2010:

The Reelists
M Carter @ the Movies
Bill's Movie Emporium
Big Thoughts From A Small Mind
Film for the Soul
Encore's World of Film & TV
Cinema Sights
Corndog Chats Cinema

If I didn't list your blog, fear not, it isn't because I deem it unworthy. It's most likely because, with all the blogs I already visit, yours is still relatively new to me and I therefore haven't gotten quite familiar with it yet. Regardless, you all know that there is a huge list of links on the right side of this page, so you all get to make the mega list anyways!


And of course, Merry Christmas and happy New Year! Joyeux Noël et Bonne Année!

'Long arms of the law' marathon: Touch of Evil

Touch of Evil (1958, Orson Welles)
B+

Touted as one of the greatest films of all time, let alone one of the greatest American films of all time, Touch of Evil has had the misfortune of being bastardized by the studio system, in this case Universal Studios. The studio was far from content with the original cut the director Welles showed them. Certain scenes were re-shot, re-edited, re-whatever you can think of. Welles was most displeased with the fruit of the studio’s efforts and went as far as to write a lengthy memo which included a series of demands (read=changes). I shan’t delve too much on these events given the amount of literature available on the topic, but suffice to say that there are, today, 3 different versions of Touch of Evil, meaning it falls a bit shy of the 5 different versions of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. So close…

For this review I watched the 1998 restored version which was Universal’s best attempt at respecting the demands made by Orson Welles 30 years earlier (for the record, there is a widely available 2-disc DVD set which offers all 3 versions of the film and the 58 page memo), Touch of Evil quickly establishes that the viewer is in the hands of a pro director. The opening 5 minutes or so consist of a single tracking shot that unlike so many others that fail to help tell the story, performs a wonderful job at setting up all that shall follow. It’s quite good and visually impressive considering how well choreographed it is. I won’t make a foolish attempt to write a play by play commentary given its complexity. Globally, the viewer witnesses a successful assassination attempt on an American couple leaving a Mexican border town. A package of dynamite was hidden in their vehicle and as they drive through the town of Los Robles, the viewer also meets the film’s main protagonists, Miguel Vargas (Charlton Heston) and his wife Susan Vargas (Janet Leigh), as they walk towards the border. The vehicle explodes and Vargas, a Mexican detective, is thrust into action. Soon afterwards he is partnered with a large man (figuratively and literally), the detective and police captain Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles). Their personalities don’t match at all, with Vargas being the more honourable, trustworthy and sophisticated of the two, whereas Quinlan is boastful, brash, and doesn’t hide his contempt for a lot of things and people, most notably Mexicans. But the audience learns that while both are highly respected within their jurisdictions, they use totally disparate detection methods. Vargas suspects, with reason, that the young Mexican arrested for the assassination was framed by none other than Quinlan and his team of detectives. This begins a dastardly misadventure in which Vargas will try to uncover the truth about Quinlan, as the latter will aim to spoil the former’s reputation and political aspirations with the help of a local Mexican mobster who himself has some interest in seeing Vargas go down in flames.



Where to being with Touch of Evil? Well, it’s pretty good for starters. There is a host of things fans of this movie and fans of film in general can dissect with glee. First and foremost is the story, which by the end feels like a twisted morality tale. Characters, good and bad, either choose or are forced in some way to commit acts and adopt certain strategies that might go against what they stand for and believe in, even though they know full well that those very strategies will assist them in obtaining what they want or, more importantly, doing what is right. This pressure is felt most by none other than Vargas, who it is safe to presume is a straightforward and honest for the most part. His demeanour, both while on the job and when spending time with his wife, suggests this. When push comes to shove, and when a possibly innocent young man’s freedom hangs in the balance, even a man such as Vargas is willing to go against the grain. For someone such as Inspector Quinlan, the mindset is entirely different, for he has reputation that must be preserved, regardless of the methods. A very selfish goal which is justified by any means possible. In fact, it is strongly suggested that the man’s entire reputation rests on dubious standards. Not much of the character’s history is revealed, but we do know that he has a team of colleagues who willingly go along with this method and that he’s one of the most significant and respected law enforcers in the United States. Why he has not been caught up until this point is anybody’s guess (although one may assume he has always hit back at his accusers before proof of wrongdoing was ever found, just as Quinlan is trying to do in this story), but the essential element in all of this is that the story pits these two people, Vargas and Quinlan, against one another. Two personalities, two intellects, and two philosophies on life and work which are diametrically opposed and which cannot co exist under any conditions.

People are very chatty in Touch of Evil. There is a lot of talking in the movie, but there was something about the speech patterns that I found to be uniquely natural. Frequently, the viewer will hear characters talking over one another, some are cut off mid phrase. These dialogue patterns are found in plenty of other films, this I understand. However, I felt that the manner in which dialogue was delivered sounded more realistic than in typical films. It just didn’t come out of the characters’ mouths like normal movie dialogue. The rhythm of the speech and the overall synchronicity of everyone’s speech sounded as if nothing had been rehearsed, which I’m sure wasn’t the case, but I found the effect quite fascinating.



It certainly added another dimension to the performances, many of which were very good. Orson Welles owns almost any scene he is in, playing a detective whose persona and reputation not only precede him but encourages him in his nasty behaviour and habits. Welles wasn’t merely a great director, the man was a great actor as well. Obviously he was a significant physical presence when stepping into the room (he was a bit large at the time) but with that comes an imposing attitude. A stare, a sneer, a barked order, a mischievous chuckle, the character of Hank Quinlan is a formidable opponent for the straight man Vargas. That isn’t to say Heston doesn’t present an adequate counterweight to Welles. I thought Heston played the part well, but Welles’ villain is a far more fascinating creation and thus more memorable. I particularly love his reaction when facing accusations of having framed the young construction worker blamed for the murder. We in the audience know perfectly well this is true, but Quinlan reacts with remarkable believability. The impression is given that perhaps inspector Quinlan now believes in his own mythology. He knows that he and his close colleagues don’t play by the rules, but provided that the wrong people do not discover this and bring the information to light, then the myth can live on. It’s authentic for enough people for Hank Quinlan to take it seriously, and therefore an attack on his credentials is a genuine insult. If enough people see it as a legitimate attack on a stellar career of detective work, then by golly he’ll act like it is a legitimate attack.

Janet Leigh is particularly strong here as the American wife Susan. Vargas. From very early she is unwillingly thrown into a whole mess of an affair with a Mexican mob that has a beef with her husband. She’s got a real tough attitude when faced with danger and doesn’t scare easily… unless she is vastly outnumbered. Having not seen many of the actress’ performances, I was reminded of how versatile she was. Her character is put through a lot in Touch of Evil and Leigh rises to the occasion. I think it is always easy to forget the female performance in films such as this one where the two male leads are such important figures in cinema history (in addition to giving actual good performances themselves), but Janet Leigh is unmistakably charismatic in her performance.



I’ve already written a fair bit about Touch of Evil but so much more remains. The supporting players (including Joseph Calleia as one of Quinlan’s partners, the cinematography, the music, etc. I’ve heard and read comments and reviews from people who admitted that several viewings were required before they began to fully appreciate the overall quality of the movie. After all, how confident can one be to claim a film one of the best of all time after a single viewing? I believe that can only be the result of at least a couple of viewings, so no major claims from me today (apologies to massive Touch of Evil fans). I will however concede that Orson Welles constructed a high quality police drama. From a storytelling, thematic and visual standpoint, Touch of Evil has a whole lot going for it.

3D tells me I'm stupid.

Hello readers. How are you doing?

I went to see Avatar in 3D yesterday afternoon. Look, I want readers to know that I don’t go into movies hoping that they fail. I don’t pay 15 dollars to see something I hope will suck (possible misquote). If I wanted to do that, I’d rent Steve Martin’s Pink Panther 3 times and be done with it. I just wanted to get that out of the way before anybody gets some fancy ideas as they read this post.

My eyes and brain don’t register 3D in films like everybody else does. I’m retarded like that. My brain is too stupid too figure out what it is my eyes are supposed to see. So the movie begins and I’m thinking ‘Hey, what’s up with all these 2D images superimposed on one another? It looks like those popup story books my mother bought during my childhood. It was fun then before kindergarten started, less so today when a film is hyped as insanely as Avatar has been. Maybe the effects will get better as the film evolves.’

Nope.

Wait a minute, l shouldn’t get ahead of myself. Let me present an asterisk=*. There were individual objects and creations within many shots that looked great. The Na’vi look great. The super machine gun robots driven by the human soldiers looked great. Much of the fauna and flora of Pandora looked great. A couple of the wild animals living in the forests of Pandora looked great. When I list those elements, I’m referring to them individually. The Na’vi character looked great, but not within the world of Avatar as presented via the 3 dimensional graphics. Again, way too many shots looked like a bunch of 2D superimposed images. I can’t help it, that’s what my eyes were seeing. There were moments when all the elements on screen meshed well together and felt part of the same image, and it was in those moments that I understood the power of 3D in movie making. It was there, right there before me. And then the moments were gone and the film went back to a bunch of 2D images.

It was interesting because every once in a while I would briefly remove the 3D glasses. Granted, much of the background looked all fuzzy (part of the 3D graphics when you aren’t seeing them in 3D), but the characters and machines in front of those fuzzy backgrounds looked amazing. So rich in detail and colourful. It kind of made putting the 3D glasses back on more of a chore than anything else.

Over at the Filmspotting message boards I wrote similar comments upon returning home after a 3d screening of the Pixar film Up this past summer. Look, 3D films will make plenty of money, and there’s no denying that the general movie going public seems to be enjoying the experience. Honestly, good for them if they enjoy it. I’d never advocate that studios cease making movies in 3D. If the people like it, then go ahead. Having said that however, I’ve come to the conclusion that 3D is not for me. I don’t like what it is I see on screen, I don’t like the effect it lends to the movies and I simply don’t feel more immersed in the story, which is supposedly the purpose of the entire enterprise.

3D is too sophisticated for me. I like that old flat look of movies. I wish I could get into the 3D hype, because apparently it's a lot of fun. I really do wish I could. Alas, that boat has sailed off without me.

'Long arms of the law' marathon: PTU

PTU (2003, Johnnie To)
B+


Johnnie To is an interesting director from Hong Kong. In many ways, he reminds me of Quentin Tarantino despite some stark differences. To writes very unique characters and situations that are specifically designed for the worlds he creates. There is a distinct style, both in the writing and in the cinematography that Johnnie To films possess, and it is that style which carries the movies and makes them attractive. He deals with a lot of violent people, be they on the side of the law or not. His movies can turn on a dime, where in one moment the viewer feels entertained because of the hilarity on screen, and the very next moment the screws are turned and the viewer suddenly feels very uncomfortable and possibly feels sorry for a character who earlier would not have earned our sympathy. To really enjoys mixing different ingredients together to see what happens and consistently lends his movies a beautiful visual style in which lighting is used to great effect. Unlike Tarantino however, To’s characters don’t often say very much. When it comes to the dialogue, the Hong Kong director prefers minimalism.

PTU, or Police Tactical Unit, follows a great number of characters for one night, but the central character is Inspector Lo, a chubby, ill-tempered man who earns the wrath of the Ponytail gang during a tense but comical scene at a diner early on (the blending of styles begins early). Upon chasing one of Ponytail’s gang members down an ally, he slips on garbage and loses his pistol in the process. This is obviously a big mistake and he is forced to spend the remainder of the night desperately searching for his gun. This quest pits him in the middle of a gang rivalry (other than Ponytail’s gang), under the loop from the chief of the homicide unit, and generally leaves him tired and frustrated. In his corner, temporarily at least, is a peculiar PTU that agrees to help Lo in his search. Given how it is suspected that the Ponytail crew have possession of the missing pistol, the PTU hunts down for any contacts and leads that may help them with their goal. However, this unit of officers is comprised of some nasty characters. They are in essence street bullies who obtain what they need through means of intimidation and embarrassment. Their badges provide them with immunity from repercussions that may emerge from the city’s criminal world, or so they seem to believe at least. They don’t smile very much but their sense of unity and camaraderie means they look out for each other. You stir trouble with one, you have stirred trouble with the entire unit.



There is much to admire about PTU. Filming at night lends an entirely different look than filming during the day. Artificial lighting can become an amazing tool in creating mood and a world for the characters, and it would seem that director To understands this very well. The pacing of the camera during the action sequences is pitch perfect, and there is always something interesting to look at on screen. A colour shade here, ominous shadows there, cigarette smoke playfully swimming in the air, PTU occurs in a beautifully shot world where light and shadow engage in a terrific dance. The shadows are thick and would discourage anyone from venturing deeper into the neighbourhood. Yet, when the light shafts emerge from the lamp posts or from the seeming warmth of a late night diner, the faces you encounter might not be the friendliest. Perhaps the shadows were not so terrible upon second thought. A perfect example of this is the scene in which one by one the members of the PTU, equipped with their flashlights, enter a tall building shadowed in complete darkness and slowly make their way up the flight of stairs.



Something that struck me very early into the movie was how frequently I was laughing. The story is not funny per say and none of the characters display much of a sense of humour, but there are several hilarious moments throughout the movie. Make no mistake, none of these laughs were produced unintentionally where a scene or character was taking itself too seriously. Johnny To has a knack for finding comedy at the most unsuspecting moments. I don’t know if To was afraid of people finding is movie too dark and consequently uninteresting (an argument that holds little water when one considers his two Election movies), or if he was aiming for a strange hybrid of police drama and comedy, but the mixture succeeds every time. Many of the comedic moments are of the ‘shit happens’ variety, such as when Lo accidentally slips on garbage near the beginning when chasing a hoodlum. It’s unexpected, occurs at the worst possible time for the character and somehow is filmed in a way that makes it really funny. Another example is the scene in which a young man eating at a diner is forced to change tables each time a new intimidating personality arrives at the restaurant. There is a running joke involving cell phones, and even the scene mentioned earlier with the PTU members going up the dark flight of stairs has a funny, if brief, moment. On the surface, and particularly given the look of the movie which has many dimly lit scenes, one wouldn’t think PTU would be ripe for comedy, but there you go. I hope I haven’t given the impression that PTU is a laugh-a-minute comedy festival, because there are in fact far more darker moments.

As I wrote briefly already, the police tactical unit which assists inspector Lo on this night are a vicious bunch. More than once in the movie members of the unit exercise their status over the scum of the district they patrol. In once scene which I shan’t spoil too much, the PTU encounter’s Ponytail’s cousin at an arcade game establishment. The PTU really put a clinic of stress on the cousin and on his friends. Another moment sees some unit members viciously attack a gang member on the run. This goes back to what I wrote about in the introduction to this review, about certain victims of these abuses earning a certain degree of sympathy when they arguably would not have done so a minute earlier. There are some deep psychological and emotional elements at play during these scenes. Perhaps the hoodlums themselves have practiced similar forms of intimidation or worse still. The teenagers and young adults who populate the streets at night have a nasty and outsider look about them. They believe that they’re pretty tough, one can read it on their faces. Does that justify the actions of the PTU? I highly doubt it. When faced with those who wish us ill, be it physically, emotionally or psychologically, it is tempting to imagine oneself returning the favour, but seeing the PTU doing just that doesn’t make the prospect very attractive any longer. It seems that we have been flirting with this very topic a few times this week. Movies have many ways of depicting characters who, for good or ill, choose to serve by offering those who choose to break the law a taste of their own medicine. In some cases, as in Dirty Harry, those actions look cool and we cheer for the anti-hero. In Johnny To’s PTU, the results provide the opposite effect. Although the film held my attention and was entertaining on many levels, it had me wishing, if only slightly, for a character who could come across as a bit more virtuous. Even the woman who leads the homicide unit is a hard ass. None of this actually hurts the movie in any significant way. It arguably makes it all the more intriguing, just to see where the night would carry this band of characters and maybe to see if anybody would get their ‘cumupins.’



I had been waiting for a To film that would make a better case for why he is a so-called ‘great director.’ Sparrow and Election, while both good, didn’t convince me enough. PTU, with its gorgeous cinematography, quirky blend of humour and drama and its cast of unique personalities (while all being jerks in their own way) is my favourite To film to date. Fans of Hong Kong cinema and cop films would do well to check it out.

'Long arms of the law' marathon: Dirty Harry

Dirty Harry (1971, Don Siegel)
B-


3 years after Bullitt came a another movie with bad people on the loose in the beautiful city of San Francisco and yet another no nonsense cop doing what it takes to serve and protect the decent folk under threat, especially from a crazed sniper rifle shooter (Andy Robinson) randomly picking off people from city rooftops. This time however, the rules of the game have changed in that the rules are what detective Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) determines them to be. While Bullitt may have been that character’s real name in the script, detective Callahan is known to his colleague as Dirty Harry, and that’s a nickname he has truly earned.

In the previous review for the movie Bullitt, we briefly discussed how the filmmakers opted for realism as much as possible. Dirty Harry is a film that, while expressing a distinct political and cultural message, is mostly content with providing the viewer with a nice serving of ‘bad assery’ or ‘a can of whoop ass.’ There is a running joke throughout the story about why Callahan has earned the nickname Dirty Harry. It might be because he tends to sweep up all the small dirty jobs no one wants to do. It may be because of his attitude towards his fellow colleagues (including racist comments! Yay!). Or, it might be due to the completely off the top ways in which he carries his duties. To put it mildly, he won’t always follow the law if the law doesn’t serve justice. Imagine the can of worms that sort of philosophy opens. Therein lies the politics of Dirty Harry, that the system doesn’t always work and that certain, shall we say, more extreme measures (or at least measures that do not respect protocol) are justified to attain honourable means. The decision makers don’t always think about the moral nuances that litter the field of work. Following rules and regulations is one thing, but what of serving justice? What about taking matters into one’s own hands because, well goddamn it, it’s the bloody right thing to do? This comes into play especially during the second half of the movie when Harry learns that his less than gentle methods used upon arresting the psycho sniper shall lead to the man's quick release. Torture, illegal methods to obtain evidence, these practices mean little in the eyes of the law despite the fact that they are dealing with an incredibly dangerous man who will most likely cause havoc again once free.



Rules and the lawmakers who bring them about often incur the wrath of those who wish to defend similar ideals but through different methods (or altogether different ideals). This is understandable and it’s difficult to imagine anyone being immune to this sort of sentiment. The politics of lawmaking itself is a business of give and take and compromise. Not everybody will get exactly what they want and what they individually think is ‘best’ for society. There is however an important counter argument to those who take a liking, a real liking, to the philosophy championed by Dirty Harry. Who the heck is he to decide what’s right and wrong, what consists of proper justice? His badge I presume? Even so, the film doesn’t hide the fact that, when the circumstances are right, justice can be found in the old saying ‘an eye for an eye.’

The popularity of Dirty Harry rests in two significant elements among others. The first is that the character is an action man, a detective who lives with a bit of a devil may care attitude, a raw sense of humour and someone who accepts his responsibilities. He’s an anti-hero detective who can indeed prove to be mightily entertaining. The second factor, which for some may work on a subconscious level or for others may be a hidden fantasy, concerns this notion of going against the system, to do what one believes to be correct, to adopt the philosophy of the ends justifying the means. Tempting indeed, even among the more docile and conformist among us. In the context of the United States, and this is based on my limited knowledge of that country’s cultural and political history, Dirty Harry arguably taps into something found in the American psyche, albeit in a more violent and vicious manner. Life, liberty and and the pursuit of happiness, the Revolution which gave birth to the country, the less government the better, etc. I think (and I’ve been wrong before, mind you), Dirty Harry, in his own way, personifies and embodies some of those values. The system and its rules cannot always serve the people. To right some wrongs you sometimes have to get your hands dirty. Fuck the system. That isn’t to say the ideas exemplified by the character of Dirty Harry do not resonate among people in the world. A lot of people outside the United States not only recognize Dirty Harry but think he’s a marvellous character. I myself think he’s fun to watch mop the floor with hoodlums. What I’m trying to get at is how Dirty Harry feels like a typically American creation, almost unmistakably so.



Is the movie good? Yes, in many respects it is. There is a charisma to Eastwood’s performance that is reminiscent of what he showcased a few years earlier during his spaghetti western days, probably because he plays a similar character except not as rogue and with a few more lines of dialogue. The intensity and the earnest quality with which he delivers much of his lines are amusing. Almost every phrase he utters throughout the movie works as a thinly veiled ‘screw you’ to whomever he is talking to. Nonetheless, he is not a super cop at all times. When the antagonist of the story has kidnapped a young girl and hidden her underground somewhere, Harry must do as the villain says by running from check point to check point. If Harry slips up, there is little doubt that the victim shall suffocate. However, hypothetically speaking there is no guarantee that the psycho has any intention of keeping his word by revealing the girl’s location. Harry certainly sweats it out in this sequence, with stress and anger clearly all over his face. Apart from Eastwood however, the only other noticeable character in the movie is in fact the antagonist, played by Andy Robinson, but that has much to do with the oddball and twisted nature of his persona. He’s basically a nasty psychopath. Ham it up, have a freaky look in your eye, talk, mutter and whimper as if you are completely mad and your job is pretty much complete. That isn’t to say Robinson doesn’t do it well for he does, only that there isn’t much to it. The finale, which has Harry assault the villain from atop of a school bus and finally chase him though a factory, is well executed and satisfying conclusion. This is in contrast (sort of) with an earlier scene in which Harry prevents a group of bank robbers from escaping. He guns them down in broad daylight in downtown San Francisco while eating his lunch. To top it off, he confronts the last robber left alive with the immortal ‘Are you feeling lucky today?’ line. Entertaining to be sure, if somewhat silly. I think that is what takes Dirty Harry down just a notch from the other movies we’re evaluating in this mini marathon. While it does have its fair share of moments and Eastwood’s bad ass attitude is difficult to resist, I felt the movie takes itself a bit too seriously at times when, for me at least, what was happening on screen could have fitted perfectly into a comedy. The film has legions of fans and I can see why, it can be pretty fun, but I couldn’t help but find at least some of it cheesy.



Despite all its silliness, Dirty Harry has lived on as far more than a mere anecdote in American cinema history. To this day people still love the movie and quote lines without much effort. While I didn’t feel such an intense love upon first viewing, there is enough to enjoy. Just don’t take it all too seriously.

'Long arms of the law' marathon: Bullitt

Bullitt (1968, Peter Yates)
B+

A man makes a daring escape from a group of gagnsters in alarge building one San Francisco night. His pursuers almost get the better as drives away at full speed, bullets from firearms crashing into the vehicle’s windshield. The cuts occur in uber cool fashion with the next frame appearing within the outline of the opening credits as they zoom towards the screen. What exactly is going on? That isn’t fully explained until a few scenes later, but Bullitt certainly opens with a cool first scenes to grab the viewer’s attention. You want to find out more? Very well, then stay a while as San Francisco detective Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) is set on a case with mystery, tension and some great action.

Woken up early after a long night of work, Frank Bullitt is summoned to meet the district attorney (Robert Vaughn), who charges the detective with keeping a gangster defector alive until his testimony on Monday. Keep the witness in a safe hose with officers on rotation throughout the weekend. As you may have figured out, the witness is the same man the viewer followed at the beginning. Sounds simple enough really, but the mob has ways of finding ways, and before long Frank is working on the case on a far grander scale than originally anticipated. When simply keeping a witness alive eventually leads to games of hide and seek within hospitals and airport corridors, as well as a high speed chase along the San Francisco highway, one knows they earned more thn was bargained for.



Director Peter Yates and star Steve McQueen collaborated very closely on the project to provide a movie experience that, while thrilling, would nonetheless be grounded in reality as much as possible. The hospital location, where much of the middle section of the film takes place, is a real hospital. The doctors and nurses who operate on the witness after the latter is shot are real doctors and nurses. The airport chase sequence which closes the movie was filmed in areal airport. The explosion that ends the fantastic car chase is real. Jacqueline Bisset’s sex appeal is absolutely real. Steve McQueen’s hair is real. The gunshot wounds are real.

Perhaps not the last element, but one can never be too sure.

This devotion to authenticity by the filmmakers does provide Bullitt with, well, a realistic aesthetic. Nothing flashy or too fanciful, but rather an adopted grittiness that some films might sometimes overlook. The department where the directing shines however is in the editing and cinematography, particularly during the action sequences, such as the much heralded car chase. Yates’ camera has a pacing during these moments of tension and danger which is excellent in producing a satisfying build up, followed by the obligatory high octane cues. The subtler game of cat and mouse between Frank’s car and that of his pursuers (who quickly become the prey, thanks to clever driving from Bullitt) is a joy to behold, with shots in which one vehicle suddenly appears in the rear view mirror. Each edit is executed with care and an attention to detail. Car chases, I can only imagine, must be infinitely complex to prepare and eventually capture on camera. The geography of the situation must be made clear enough for the viewer in order to assess and feel the danger, the proximity of the vehicles from one another, and the expert driving performed by the stunt men. The chase from this film has been lauded by many and it certainly merits the praise. Once the warm up is over with however, the cars take off like thunder. It’s a visual style that commands some respect, wherein a very grounded and realistic world is captured and subsequently edited for film to produce a very cool experience.

Arguably, what may hold the film back in the eyes of some is the story, of which there isn’t much admittedly. Bullitt receives an assignment, that assignment goes up shit’s stream. To make up for it, Bullitt sticks it to the district attorney while eventually catching up with the gangsters. This all sounds rather simple, perhaps even mundane and lacking originality. The pleasure of the film is definitely found in the interactions and behaviours of the characters, most notably the rivalry that quickly builds between Frank and the district attorney, given how their personalities and methods certainly do not mesh well together at all. While he doesn’t go completely Dirty Harry crazy, Bullitt does bend the rules by smuggling the corpse of the informant without the district attorney’s consent in order to by time and solve his sabotaged case when smuggles, and at one point goes so far as to suggest (in a subtle way, mind you), that Robert Vaughn might be working from the inside to aid ‘the organization’ as the villains are referred to in the movie. McQueen can have a steely look of determination, act groggy when waking up in the morning , or act casual while enjoying a dinner with his lover at a restaurant. McQueen was an actor with great range and skill at inhabiting the moment. The film is therefore deceptively simplistic: it plays like a straightforward cop and gangster movie, but the acting is stellar, which in turn creates fascinating character relations, thus elevating the proceedings a notch. Robert Vaughn delivers the acting chops the way he should when an actor is called upon to play the stuck up district attorney. He’s on the side of good, yes, but he is also very much a villain insofar as his job and plan interfere with those of Frank, the latter whom is clearly accustomed to working in the field and making quick decisions which may or may not always respect protocol. The former is a desk jockey, who earns the wrath of the viewer with his slimy, pushy and very confrontational mannerisms. Frank is therefore caught a rock and a hard place, with hurdles to overcome on all fronts, including on his side of the law.



For these reasons, Frank Bullitt is most likely this film fan’s favourite movie cop. He’s tough and gritty, but not to the point where his demeanour becomes questionable. If need be, he’ll find his own way to finish the case, but not by going totally rogue. There are moments, albeit brief ones, that show a more human side to the character, particularly when he is in contact with his girlfriend, played by Jacqueline Bisset. Because those moments and scenes don’t last long, a strong actor is required to bring that side to life. Steve McQueen, an actor whose filmmography I have yet to explore in depth, is bloody brilliant in the role. His presence encompasses toughness, intelligence, even a joy de vivre when the situation permits. He played a great variety of characters, but Bullitt will always be one of his more popular roles.

Possibly another knock against the film may be the lack of a well defined villain. The movie spends almost no time at all with the members of the organization. There is the opening scene which we described earlier, and but a few other moments during which the camera reveals their faces. No names and virtually no dialogue for any of them. The movies functions a bit like ‘Frank’s crazy weekend on the job.’ The might disappoint some who enjoy multi dimensional adversaries but, as you may have determined already from the Steve McQueen love fest I’ve been writing, this aspect has never bothered me nor harmed the viewing experience the viewer can appreciated from Bullitt.

Film can capture our imaginations for all sorts of reasons. In the case of Bullitt, it is the title character who owns the show. There’s good camerawork, marvellous editing, a solid supporting cast and some fantastic tension and action, but Steve McQueen’s Bullitt simply dominates the screen.