Showing posts with label Noir. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Noir. Show all posts

Friday, September 17, 2010

The Town

On my facebook page, I am part of a group called “Ben Affleck sucks as an actor.” My friend Ezra made the page around the time Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez were media magnets, and the backlash was massive. But then a curious thing happened – Affleck made the outstanding noir thriller “Gone Baby Gone.” It worked because “Gone Baby Gone” was anchored by what Affleck appears to know well – Boston. In addition, the performance onscreen by his brother Casey is among my favorites in the genre.


For the unfortunately named “The Town,” Affleck returns to a different neighborhood in Boston to tell a story that is less about mystery, and more about heist. Affleck stars as Doug, a hockey flunkey who makes a living robbing banks with longtime friend James (played wonderfully by Jeremy Renner) and 2 newcomers to their crew – Albert and Desmond. Things get all tricky when Rebecca, a bank manager, gets taken hostage by James during one of the heists. Soon after she is let go, Doug begins to “bump” into her around town. During this, the FBI starts to close in on Doug’s crew, all of which tests relationships and decisions within the bunch.


Heist films are a favorite of mine, especially older ones. Heist characters often having me on their team hoping they get their score, which is hard to do seeing as these characters aren’t usually “good” guys. The best parts of these types of films are the planning and casing of the scene of the future crime, the character tensions as the planning happens, and the tension existing in the heist itself. Each heist film I see will always be filtered through Rififi and Le Samourai – two masterpieces of the genre. They both feature nail biting heist sequences with no music, jump cuts, or fast pacing. They are beautifully tense, wonderfully shot, and feature rich characters.


Where “The Town” succeeds is in the characters, most of whom are interesting, with the one let down being FBI Agent Adam Frawley, played by Jon Hamm of “Mad Men” fame. I am not sure where to point the finger, but Hamm appears to be either poorly directed or underutilized. We never sympathize with his character because his role is played in a flash, and with limited emotional range. However, Affleck is great, and he disappears into his role and character. Better yet, Jeremy Renner adds another notch in his belt after his turn in “The Hurt Locker.” I have to give Ebert credit for mentioning this in his review, but there is one scene where Renner has to play restrained and playful. The scene is so tense and uneasy, it is a testament to the ingredients of the film – writing, story, direction, and acting.


However, for all its positive qualities (and there are many) “The Town” disappoints in other key areas. I have a fairly critical reaction to how the film concludes, because it does not seem true to the events on screen. I wish I could say more, but to do so would be to spoil (comment below to discuss). Additionally, some of the plot points become a tad muddy. Why does James sister show up at convenient plot points, and what is she there for? Same with Fergus (the head of…the local mafia?) who appears briefly, but always appears threatening. Lastly – it’s okay to slow it down in these types of films. Let the tension build more, no need to rush through.


Nonetheless, “The Town” is a solid, recommendable heist flick that both enjoys and rejects cliché’s of the genre (thankfully there are no major plot twists in the end). The film certainly earns its R rating due to sexual content, strong violence and language, but it feels true to these characters and their world. Overall, “Gone Baby Gone” is a stronger film in terms of its coherence and depth (especially the fantastic moral dilemma). Still, “The Town” is great at times, and certainly worth seeing in the theaters. So – Melville, Dassin, Affleck? No, not yet. But I do think I need to unsubscribe from my Ben Affleck sucks group on Facebook.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” has all of the ingredients of films I am drawn to: a well known director who has masterpieces to his name (Sidney Lumet – aka “Network,” “12 Angry Men,” among loads of others), respected actors and actresses (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Albert Finney, etc), and a fantastic premise that appeals to one of my favorite genre’s: noir.

Consider the set-up: Two brothers agree to rob their parent’s jewelry store as they are in need of some cash. Ethan Hawke’s character needs the money to pay child support and deal with rough times. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character just needs the money (though I am not sure I understood exactly why). The set-up may sound harsh, but the brothers know that their parents insurance will cover the losses, and they reason that no one will get hurt. It’s a victimless crime that they can only benefit from.

Right?

The film is told in a mildly out of sync narrative style where we jump forward and backwards in time, with plot points nicely revealed as we need them (think “21 Grams”). It certainly does well to ratchet up the tension. Sidney Lumet knows how to make the movie turn white knuckle. The script originally had the brothers written as friends, but Lumet’s decision to change the friends into brothers makes this “all in the family” tone benefit the feel of the movie. The movie would not be nearly as compelling without it.

But, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” and I didn’t get along too well. It is a dark movie. Not dark in the way “The Dark Knight” is, but dark in the way few, if any, movies I have ever seen are. Consider a comparison with “The Dark Knight”: The Joker is a morally absent, deviant monster being combated by a clearly good force. By contrast to the Joker, “Knight’s” Gotham city mobsters appear almost as good guys. It makes his unpredictability a major point of tension as the Joker is loyal to no one person, but rather the philosophy that all mankind is inherently corruptible and prone to evil. The Joker sets out to prove this in every way he can. The Joker’s belief in everyone’s evil side allows the movie to explore what everyday men and women do when they have the capacity to commit evil.

“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” is evil run amuck. There are no good guys. Everyone is out for themselves. The result is a film that is possibly the least redemptive, most intently punishing movie I have seen. Perhaps thematically, I could give it credit for being an interesting take on sin without redemption, or guilt without forgiveness. But so what? Why should we care? “Devil…” starts bad, gets worse, then ends.

Why should I care when not one person in the movie is worth caring for?

As a study of guilt, “Devil…” is worth mentioning. One of the brothers has to cope with his role in carrying out the plan to its less than ideal ends. His guilt is palpable, I felt guilty just watching him. But, I didn’t find the movie saying anything about guilt other than showing guilt on screen.

Acting is universally well done, if predictably so. Hoffman, Finney, Hawke, and Tomei are all proven. Lumet’s mastery of direction gives a tightly focused character for each thespian to reveal. Lumet insists the movie is a melodrama, almost apologetically. I think it works and it helps to explain some of the contextual dramatics on display. However, it is worth mentioning that for some reason Marisa Tomei appears dead set on wearing as little or no clothing throughout as much of the movie as possible. I am not sure why Lumet made this decision. It is almost distracting to the narrative and focus of the film. It got to the point where I expected her to be topless in every scene. Sometimes nudity can serve a genuinely important point to the story, characters, or otherwise, but here it just feels mostly unnecessary.

In spite of so many ingredients I crave in a great movie, “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” proved that the parts were superior than the whole. It’s intent to observe careless adultery, murder, drug use, and evil for 2 hours may be an interesting character study, but the lack of purpose of any kind hurt any of what it intended. Sure – perhaps we could argue it is a revenge story between a Father and his son, or the tried and true moral that nothing is easy in life. But again – so what? Why should I care? Why should you?

I think I’d rather watch “Network” for great Lumet, or “The Man Who Wasn’t There” for great noir.