film report: Collateral

I’m currently going through Michael Mann’s decent films with a friend who only knows the Miami Vice television show. Thus far, we’ve seen Heat and Collateral, both excellent, and I persuaded him to watch the Mann daddy, Manhunter on his own.

Not much to say on this 20th rewatching for me, save that Collateral certainly stands up to repeated viewings and the passage of time. In many ways it’s a companion piece to Heat, seeming to exist in a similar universe (the last scene location is the opening of 1995’s Heat). As with many Mann films, at least from his golden period (from 1981’s Thief to 2004’s Collateral), there is a strong focus on the professionalism, tradecraft, of the main characters. Cruise brings a special touch to his hitman Vincent: his professionalism often manifests as irritation – irritation at those who thwart or impede his work. Other actors tend to recycle certain mannerisms, e.g. DeNiro’s grimace, but Cruise perfected a look of annoyance for Vincent as he goes about his work. There’s a particularly amusing moment in the Korean club, where Cruise has to save Jamie Foxx’s taxi driver Max from some Mexican killers, and after shooting them stone dead he gives Max an irritated glare.

Coincidentally, Anonymous Conservative recently mentioned the film:

I do not know if this will work for everyone, but it will work for a few here. Think of this as an exercise in amping up your amygdala in a way that promotes K-type action. If work gets boring, and you feel yourself slowing down, take a look at this movie clip I stumbled across recently, from the movie Collateral.

The scene begins as Cruise enters the nightclub with Fox looking for the Asian gangleader who is his next target. Cruise then breaks off from Fox, enters the crowd, and begins his process. The artistes may notice the quality of a lightning fast mag change at the end just before the coup de grace, which I am pretty sure was a professional-shooter-double in a wig. If you practice, that is what you should be working for, and the sound of the mag drop, mag insertion, and slide release is flawless as a target to guide you toward that speed. The psychological effect of the clip seems to get better with a third and fourth watching. I find after watching it, I am more focused and work a lot faster and feel more motivated. 

Now some thoughts on the scene and why it does what it does. I think this scene has this effect, because it actually contrasts the ephemeral, transient, pointless nature of r with the permanent, exhilarating permanence and purpose of K – and your brain instinctually sees the contrast. All around Cruise are the mindless plebes, living in the moment, blissfully unaware of anything but waving their arms to music. On TV screens in the club, dreamy-eyed girls look like they are euphoric on drugs as they writhe to the music. In contrast, Cruise is oblivious to it and cuts a bloody swath through the crowd. He is actually making permanent changes to the world. Your mind sees that difference, even if you do not. And although he is technically on the side of darkness in the movie, for the moment Cruise just happens to be taking out the trash along the way, doing good, and you process that too. You’ll notice how the vibe dies when he shoots the cop at the end who tries to rescue Fox, and Cruise’s path diverges back to purely dark. I have taken to stopping the scene at its apex as he walks out after capping the gang leader, for maximum brain-hacking effect. All of that data about r and K, and good and evil, is being processed subconsciously in your mind, in an almost hypnotic effect, and the result is, when you come out of it, your mind will be calibrated with the difference between r and K, and it will be driven to act in a more focused K-fashion. I find it interesting how these changes happen in your brain, using media-inputs we are not even aware are having these effects as they happen. You can see how a studied understanding of the effect, mixed with a full control of our media, could alter the very nature of our society, and its destiny.

the incorruptible

In The Untouchables, Kevin Costner’s Elliot Ness is stymied by typical Irish police corruption; how, he wonders, can he got after Al Capone if the entire Chicago Police Department is on Capone’s payroll. Then he meets Sean Connery’s Malone:

The team Ness eventually puts together comprises: Malone, an almost burnt-out reject cop who is still doing night patrol in his 50s because he won’t join in the corruption; Oscar Wallace, a Treasury Department accountant sent from Washington DC to Chicago to assist Ness; and George Stone/Giuseppe Petri, a police academy recruit who hasn’t even become a full cop yet. 

So when the system is corrupt, it can only be taken down by outsiders of one kind or another. They can be officially part of the system but railroaded and sidelined like Malone; or not from the swamp at all (Ness and Wallace); or still in the young & idealistic phase, not yet tempted by all the enticements of evil power & privilege (Stone).

Here endeth the lesson.

film report: Tenet

Christopher Nolan is one of the few living directors whose films I will try to see at the cinema, much as I hate: a) spending money on anything, and b) leaving my cell. In Covidemia I no longer need to go anywhere, since everything is now illegal, and so I streamed it, which is of course not illegal at all. Watching Tenet on my laptop was very different to a typical cinema outing: I ended up watching it staggered over three evenings as my energy is greatly depleted by my pointless, dispiriting, badly-paid labour, leaving me little concentration for films or books; however, I was able to find a version with subtitles for the first 2 evenings, which proved invaluable – for the last session I was doomed to watch it without subs and frequently understood nothing, not even what language they were speaking. 

The unclear audio irritates, in moderation; by the third evening I’d given up on understanding or really liking the film and was watching out of pure bloodymindedness; I didn’t care how it ended, presuming that it would make no sense anyway. The film’s entire premise is “nothing will make sense, don’t even try to get it” and the almost inaudible dialogue is presumably part of that; either that, or Nolan is pushing for foreign language films by getting audiences used to subtitles. 

A shame, as the dialogue I understood via subtitles was often good, e.g. the unnamed protagonist holding a gun to an Indian arms dealer’s head, inquiring about a type of ammunition:

Arms dealer: Why should I know who supplied it?

Protagonist: The combination of metals is unique to India, If it’s from India it’s from you.

Arms dealer: Fine assumption.

Protagonist: Deduction.

Arms dealer: Deduction then. Look, my friend. Guns are never conducive to a productive negotiation.

Protagonist: I’m not the man they send in to negotiate. Or the man they send to make deals. But I am the man people talk to.

The protagonist, played by John David Washington, is a black guy working I think for the CIA but unlike the real CIA he doesn’t assassinate conservative thinkers and overthrow democratically-elected governments during the day and kick back at night with child porn and cocaine; he seems to be some manner of CIA paramilitary who ends up investigating ammunition that is “inverted”, travelling backwards in time, and this opens a whole can of worms about time travel and the future reaching back into the past. After that it gets complicated.

In a sense it’s a temporal version of Inception’s complication, and I was happily resigned to not understanding everything. However, where Inception’s human element is comprehensible & interesting, I couldn’t fully engage with Tenet’s characters & motivation. 

The casting is one problem. It’s mostly good but just a little bit off. I thought Washington was a good actor and casting a negro in an otherwise white film works well – he stands out, like a black king on a board of white pieces. He has some great moments, e.g. when some Russian bodyguards are going to take him to a restaurant kitchen for a beatdown, Washington radiates contained rage and the desire to inflict violence; and when he glares, it’s not some hood thug’s belligerence, it’s rather the controlled intensity of the professional. He’s a likeable and fine actor, the problem is when the film becomes, as it were philosophical, he just looks like a typical actor (i.e. not very intelligent) trying to look intelligent. There’s a particularly flat scene between Washington and an Indian woman called Priya, where she’s trying to explain the film’s temporal dynamics, and neither character seem to really inhabit the concepts; it really just feels like they’re repeating their lines and trying to emote. Of course it is difficult for an actor – most of whom are dumb – to simulate that moment of intellectual comprehension, when as it were a mental landscape opens up before one; Jeremy Brett could do it reliably well as Sherlock Holmes

and William Peterson manages it in the classic “you’ve seen these tapes” scene in Manhunter. 

I didn’t feel that frisson of intellectual discovery & comprehension in Tenet, and I think it’s because of the casting – none of the actors could simulate real intelligence.

Another problem, as regards the human element, is the, I suppose, “love interest”, played by Elizabeth Debicki: she has a repellent coldness and self-satisfaction to her, so whenever anyone turned their back to her, I expected her to whip out a stiletto and attack like a shrieking Italian. She just looks like a snake, and indeed her character acts like one throughout. I often find Nolan’s female leads unlikeable at best, repulsive at worst. Debicki evinces a clear facial bifurcation, that is, one side of her face is doing something very different to the other:

Serial killer stuff. I found her not merely unlikeable but repellent; every time her character appeared all of my Psycho Woman alarms went off, which is probably due to Debicki, not the character or direction, at least judging from a quick Google Image search of her in other roles & public appearances.

The rest of the cast is however very good, Kenneth Branagh is meaty & horrifying as a Russian villain, who as a Russian villain should know better than to trust any woman played by Elizabeth Debicki; and Robert Pattinson of Twilight fame is superb, nervy, seedy, knowing, inhabiting various roles in one character.

The soundtrack (by  Ludwig Göransson) is also fitting, a weird syncopated rush as if time is folded upon itself in micro-packets of sequenced alteration.

The visuals, as ever with Nolan, are great, fantastical, unreal; his London is the London of most Hollywood films: clean, white, Georgian (in reality the city looks more like Mogadishu today). It’s a film one can really enjoy, I think so long as one knows what to enjoy: if I watch it again I’ll try to ignore Elizabeth Debicki’s repulsive face, and definitely have subtitles, and let my mind roam free over the fields of time and impossibility.