Well a new year has begun, time has moved inexorably forward another 365 days, leaving us all with another 365 to hopefully get something accomplished for once. 2014 was a bit of a bust for me, what with the job difficulties, friend difficulties, people en masse forgetting my birthday and an ongoing major depression that left me feeling increasingly disconnected with reality, but I suppose there were some good parts as well. I started writing for the Tricycle Offense last year, for example, which has granted me a larger audience than I enjoyed on my oft-neglected film blog (which caused more than its fair share of shame spirals and bitter recriminations, let me tell you). I also got to watch a lot of movies and TV shows, and that probably counts for something to someone somewhere. Also way too much Binding of Isaac, that game is cocaine-levels of addictive.
Anyway…
In honor of aforementioned new year, and all the hope that it implies, I’ve decided to go big and post another special edition of my regular column, the ToC Double Feature. You might recall that the first Double Feature I wrote was posted in the days leading up to New Year’s Eve, and focused on two films by writer/director/playwright/musician/comedian Woody Allen. As amazing and cogent as my analysis might have been, I’ll be the first to admit that the two films I chose to write about were ones that I had on the writing backlog for a while now, and placing them on the DF was an act of ‘cleaning out the closet’, as it were. I was writing from notes and memories, and that isn’t the best way to write about anything, much less movies. So that was a test-run, and the article you’re hopefully about to read is a proper attempt at the idea. Let’s all hope it works out, okay?
This time around I’m/we’re tackling another director on the Double Feature, Chicago native Michael Mann (no relation to either Manfred Mann or his Earth Band, as far as I know). Although Mann’s film career didn’t begin until the early 80’s, his work in the entertainment industry actually began in the mid-70s, acting as a screenwriter for such television programs as Starsky & Hutch and Police Story (he would eventually reach his TV zenith in 1984 as Executive Producer for the hit crime drama Miami Vice). Aside from some notable exceptions, 2001’s Ali and 1992’s The Last of the Mohicans, a cursory glance at his filmography will tell the one thing that Michael Mann loves over any other: Crime. Whether it’s about criminals or the men who pursue them, the man has a great passion for illegal activities of various types and styles. You’d think he would have enough of crime as it is, having been born in the most corrupt, crime-ridden cities in the Union, home of Al Capone and organized crime, but to each his own. For this installment of the ToC Double Feature I decided to pick two movies, both early in his career, that I was personally interested in seeing and that which best exemplified Mann’s obsession with the wrong side of the law: 1981’s Thief and 1986’s Manhunter. Which is worth a view? Which is not? Read on and find out.
Manhunter (1986)
Anyone who has ever talked to me about TV lately (which is nobody, don’t worry), probably knows all too well about my love for Hannibal. Even though it suffers from a bit of modern television melodrama, an unfortunate side-effect of NBC trying to get in on that sweet sweet True Detective dosh, but I’ve found myself pleasantly engaged in its myriads if mindgames and gruesome murders. A lot of that love admittedly comes from their depiction of Hannibal ‘The Cannibal’ Lecter (played here by Mads Mikkelsen) who brings a quiet, demonic charm to everyone’s favorite serial killer. Hugh Dancy, Laurence Fishburne and the rest of the cast have a certain charm to them of course, but seeing Hannibal subtly manipulating everyone into following his grand design (or eating them, whatever) over the course of season 1 (I haven’t seen season 2 yet, but I bet it’s much of the same) like a mastermind badass, seeing each link fall into place, was a treat to behold. In fact, seeing how great Mikkelsen is in this series makes me wish he hadn’t been wasted as Le Chiffre in the modern adaptation of Casino Royale. It’s not that I don’t like the movie, but Le Chiffre is not what I could call a great and memorable villain. Now if Mikkelsen had gotten the role of Blofeld for instance, that would have been awesome. I’d prefer to see the guy who made a fool of dozens of people and the F.B.I. as the head of a major terrorist organization and the nemesis of the greatest spy in British history, not as a bit player who was killed off by a dropped plotline (remember Quantum? No?). That’s just the way she goes I guess.
Before Mads Mikkelsen rocked the house as Dr. Lecter on NBC, the most popular iteration of the character was portrayed by veteran actor Anthony Hopkins, who first appeared on film in the 1991 Jonathan Demme picture Silence of the Lambs. Lambs, and Hopkins’ Lecter in particular, proved to be enormously successful critically and commercially, to the point that it was able to spawn two sequels, Hannibal in 2001 and Red Dragon in 2002 (both of which were far less successful quality or money-wise as the 91 movie). What with the enormous popularity of Silence of the Lambs, the common assumption might be that it was the natural reaction of a film audience to a new IP, but that assumption would be incorrect. Not only that, but the prequel Red Dragon was also not the first film to be based on Thomas Harris’ 1981 book “Red Dragon”, which the Hannibal series is also based on. No, the first feature film to be based on the work of Thomas Harris appeared 5 years before Clarice, Anthony Hopkins, and Silence of the Lambs, which itself is based on the sequel to “Red Dragon”. It’s an oft-forgotten gem by the name of Manhunter, directed by Michael Mann, and there ain’t no J’onn J’onzz where we’re heading.
Sometime in the slick, modern 1980s two families, the Leeds and the Jacobis, are found brutally murdered and mutilated in their homes in Birmingham, Alabama and Atlanta, Georgia respectively. Due to the graphic nature of the murders as well as the lack of any noticeable leads, FBI agent Jack Crawford decides to call on Will Graham (William Petersen, of CSI fame), a former agent who had worked with Jack some years prior, to join in on the case. Three years ago Will Graham had been instrumental in bringing serial killers Garrett Jacob Hobbs (the so called ‘Minnesota Shrike’ in the tv series) and Dr. Hannibal Lecter (or Lektor according to this movie) to justice, but his deductive process -- placing himself within the mindset of the killer in order to discover his identity, had left him with far too many scars, physical and emotional. This would seem to be a major liability, bringing in someone who was clearly unstable in as lead investigator in a major case, especially when said person was traumatized by a serial killer and the case revolves around a serial killer, but of course this a movie AND WE NEED RESULTS DAMMIT!
Emotional trauma aside, we all love the idea of having ‘one last ride’, and so decides to take up Jack on his offer. However, in his investigation of the newly dubbed ‘Tooth Fairy’, so named because of the bite marks he left at the crime scene, Will quickly starts to recall the darkness that had infected his soul those three years ago, the soul-sickness that comes from envisioning the mind of madness. Throw in the devious machinations of Dr. Lecter, and it becomes all too clear that Will has stepped in on a case far larger than he anticipated. Quite soon it becomes clear that it’s no longer about the mutilated corpses of wives and mothers anymore (although that’s important too I guess), it’s about closing the book on Will’s past once and for all. Putting the demons, or red dragons perhaps, to rest. It’s not easy, but then nothing ever is.
The first and biggest questions likely to form in the curious reader’s mind about Manhunter are going to be about Hannibal Lecter, and I suppose it’s a bit of a hit-or-miss situation. First of all, Dr. Lektor in this film is played by Brian Cox, whom you might know from Deadwood, Super Troopers and Scooby Doo and the Samurai Sword. While his performance is not turned-up-to-11 insane as Hopkins or silently malevolent as Mikkelsen’s, his rendition of the criminally insane psychologist who cuts up college coeds is quite good. Second of all, while he does serve much the same purpose as he did in Silence of the Lambs, giving cryptic advice while playing mind games with the investigator, he plays a much smaller role in Manhunter, amounting to not much more than a fairly important secondary character. Since so much of this franchise is about Lecter or is focused on Lecter, it’s refreshing to see a take that places him on the back burner and allow us to look upon the other characters more, like Graham and the Tooth Fairy. On the other hand, Hannibal Lecter has been given so much focus because he’s an intriguing character, and his entry into pop culture allows him to be used in many different ways. Even in his reduced capacity Lecter still manages to be the most captivating man in the room whenever he’s on the screen. Especially when placed against Will Petersen’s Will Graham, who seems absolutely on the nod when set against Hugh Dancy’s positively neurotic depiction of the character. Like I said, hit-or-miss.
Which is probably the big point I could raise against Manhunter actually: the characterization. Aside from Lecter and the Tooth Fairy, there’s not much in the way of compelling characters. Graham has the potential to be be compelling of course, and I suppose it does build up throughout the film, but that’s more in the details rather than the character himself. We know he’s been traumatized by the events of the past, we know he needs to frequently take medication to curb whatever injuries he sustained during that time, but we don’t really get a sense that he, Will Graham, is really on the edge until he suddenly flips a reporter into a car window or something. Once again, maybe I’m being unduly influenced by Hannibal but there’s nothing that sets Graham apart in the film from any other agent in the movie aside from the fact that the camera is aimed at his face most of the time. Maybe that makes it more realistic, but to me it says that Manhunter lacks a strong protagonist.
To counter a negative point with a positive one, although Graham never really stands out to me, the movie around Graham was quite interesting. To reuse a descriptor previously to Petersen’s performance, it’s very toned down. There’s not really much of those high-tension, high action moments so prevalent in its contemporaries (although that climactic final showdown is fucking badass), we start off with a mystery and we gradually build up to its conclusion. I guess you could call it a ‘slow burn’ kind of movie, and while I’ll refrain from calling it ‘realistic’, it does a good job of drawing you into its world without working too hard. Manhunter is great at giving the illusion of reality, I suppose is the best way to put it, far better than any version of “Red Dragon” or the Lecter-verse afterwards, which seemed to make murder into an art project. Sure, I doubt many serial killers are taking blind chicks to go pet tigers, but I bet even less are feeding people parts of their own brain or making totem poles out of human corpses. The Tooth Fairy (or maybe Red Dragon might be more appropriate) seems like the kind of killer who could exist in real life, and that’s what makes him effectively threatening.
Aside from that, Mann really seems to love color, because he paints entire damn scenes in it, and I found myself enjoying it as well. Blue for Will Graham, Green for the killer (even though you’d expect it to be red, considering how much he talks about the Red Dragon and all), the blinding white of Lecter’s cell, it’s all magnificently evocative. The soundtrack is also quite good, packed as it is with synth-tastic 80s music, including a masterful use of Iron Butterfly’s one hit wonder ‘In-a-Gadda-da-Vida’. The two-hour does seem a bit trying at times, especially when it’s taken up with Petersen trying his hardest not to emote, but that’s part and parcel of what makes the ‘slow-burn’ method work. You need time to let that bastard get to a boil.
If you’re a fan of thrillers and other such crime dramas, as I and millions of other people are, you’ll likely enjoy Manhunter. If you’re just getting into the franchise from the TV series, be advised that although both Hannibal and Manhunter are based on the novel “Red Dragon”, Manhunter is more an adaptation of Harris’s work while the series appropriates characters and events to weave its own unique narrative, and so holds little in the way of similarities. If you’re just a fan of movies in general, give it a watch, because it’s a pretty good one. This winter, you will believe that a mentally ill man can break into your house and cut your children’s throats while you’re sleeping.
RESULT: RECOMMENDED
Thief (1981)
I don’t know how it is in your other, less American countries, but we here in the good ol’ US of A we absolutely love our thieves and murderers. Can’t get enough of ‘em, in fact. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Dillinger, the Zodiac Killer, Bonnie & Clyde, Billy the Kid, the GOP, all on the wrong side of the law and yet still a fire for them all still burns in the hearts of many people. Nowadays of course most mass murderers are just disaffected high-school students and the thieves run multinational corporations, so the majority of our killing and stealing fix comes from the media that we consume, whether it be music, movies, comic books, what have you. I suppose they represent independence on a subconscious level y’know, people who freed themselves from the shackles of society that ensnare the rest of us with its rules and regulations and did as they pleased when they desired. Or maybe it’s the end result of a nation founded by religious wingnuts who think women are roombas with breasts attached to them and that beating men to death is the best way to keep them from having favourable opinions about penises. Hard to say really, it’s a multifaceted issue and I’m no sociology major.
Stepping down off the soapbox for a minute...
At some unknown point of time in the sleek, modern Chicago of the 1980’s, ex-con Frank (James Caan, of The Godfather, Misery) has built up quite the life for himself. He’s a business owner after all, the head of an automotive dealership and a bar called The Green Mile, which caters to a decent collection of alcoholics. He’s also a thief, by the by, specializing in the art of the diamond heist. Along with his partner Barry (Jim Belushi), who works with security, there is no vault that can’t be opened, no treasure that can’t be pinched, etc. etc. etc. When it comes to crime Frank is as business-minded in the office as he is during the act; He steals the goods, he passes it along through his vig, he gets his cut of the profits and he goes along his merry way. No muss,no fuss, a perfect equitable transaction of stolen goods.
Even a life of crime has its disadvantages though.As good a thief as Frank is however, what he truly desires above all else is the thing he’s never been able to have: A normal life. A house, a wife and kids, without the chance to end up stuck in jail again like his good friend Okla (Willie Nelson, and yes, that Willie Nelson). After a diamond deal gone south brings Frank to the attention of Attaglia, the biggest fence in Chicago, the gangster offers Frank exactly what he’s been hoping and dreaming for all this time, all for the low low price of pulling off the biggest theft in his entire career. The man has a future to think about, he can’t say no, but how well can a man who only works for himself coexist with a system built around kissing ass and paying respect? Not very, as it turns out.
In Manhunter our perspective was that of Will Graham and the F.B.I., the right side of the law, going after the Tooth Fairy, the obvious villain. In Thief our perspective is that of Frank the criminal, who must contend with police and organized crime. Opposite sides of the coin you might say, but I’ll say it’s worth noting that in both films the acts these characters (Frank & the Tooth Fairy) carry out are never treated as anything but ultimately negative. Even here in Thief, where Frank feels no remorse for the things he does and the police are are group of dirty thugs out looking for a cut of the action, the act of theft is treated as a means to an end, and an ultimately self-destructive end. While both glamorize theft and murder to an extent, much as I said in Manhunter, Michael Mann succeeds in presenting a realistic (also to an extent) take on a the subject. The Tooth Fairy is a murderer but he’s also clearly mentally ill, Frank loves his friends and family but he’s also an aggressive jackass who steals and kills on purely selfish basis, moral ambiguity is the name of the game. It’s like film noir but with less lovable drunk detectives.
Michael Mann’s debut film is also where we see his love for hanging shots and pouring color into scenes, one of which I mentioned in Manhunter. There’s one scene in particular in which the camera lingers for a while on Frank standing in front of the bank vault, which itself is inside a strangely symmetrical white room that sticks in my mind, and apparently Mann managed to recycle the exact same shade of green from The Green Mile to use in the Tooth Fairy’s house. It’s not like Thief doubles down on the color, since this was the 80’s and neon flowed through the streets like wine, it’s that Mann manages to use color where it really stands out. And you guys know how much I fucking love color.
Music wise, there are no epic final scenes set to the music of Iron Butterfly, but rest assured the tunes in Thief are as synth-tastic as they are in Manhunter. Interestingly enough, the film’s score/soundtrack is actually composed by one band, ambient group Tangerine Dream. I’m not an especially huge fan of ambient music, and I don’t know if the tone of the music necessarily fits the action presented on the screen, but I found myself enjoying it as a whole. Reminds me a lot of Goblin, who scored several films by Dario Argento, so if you like the music in his films you’ll probably like it here.
If you’re a fan of thrillers, diamonds and bloody vengeance, then I think you’ll probably like Thief. Out of the two chosen films, even though I’m recommending both of them, I think I’ll recommend Thief overall. No Dr. Lektor, but I think it runs a bit smoother than Manhunter and I found Frank, if not a more likable character than Graham, at least more interesting a protagonist. Of course you’re better off just seeing both, since they’re both great movies and all. If one day you happen to have a film-obsessed maniac holding a gun to your head and forcing you to choose one though, be sure to remember some article I wrote on the internet that one time.
It could save your life.
RESULT: RECOMMENDED
No comments:
Post a Comment