Showing posts with label Michael Mann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Mann. Show all posts

Monday, 24 March 2014

The Insider (Michael Mann, 1999)

Working together on Heat (only four years prior to The Insider) meant that Al Pacino and Michael Mann clearly had chemistry worth exploring. Replacing the action-sequences with political intrigue and tense paranoia meant this could hardly be billed as a follow-up. The Insider tackles the big business of tobacco and the ongoing contradiction of American capitalism – whereby the almighty dollar trumps justice. Except in this case, investigative journalism alongside the justice system mounted a campaign that resulted in a $368 billion settlement between the four largest tobacco companies in America. Suffice to say, Brown and Williamson – the ‘villainous’ company at the centre of The Insider – merged with Reynolds American in 2004 and is still the second-largest tobacco company in the states.

Written by Eric Roth and Michael Mann, The Insider dramatizes the events leading to the aforementioned campaign. Whistle-blower Jeffrey Wigand (Russell Crowe) revealed on CBS expose 60 Minutes that, in a court of law, Brown and Williamson lied and covered up their increase in addictive supplements to their cigarettes. This could be merely the small man tackling the big corporation with the support of a kindly lawyer – a la Erin Brokovich. Instead, the core of the story is in the hands of 60 Minutes producer, Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino). Through Bergman, we see the conflicted ethics of those who work in journalism – a far call from the phone-tapping and criminal activities of those involved in the Leveson inquiry. Bergman convinces Wigand to tell his story – and to tell the whole truth for the sake of us; the public. Roger Ebert, rating the film 3.5 out of 4, rightfully compares the film to All The President’s Men, but crucially notes the very personal nature of this story: “The Insider had a greater impact on me than All the President's Men, because you know what? Watergate didn't kill my parents. Cigarettes did.”

It is easy to forget how connected an enormous corporation, sitting atop a towering skyscraper connects to the working man – but increasing the addictive supplements in cigarettes is a pretty clear link. Michael Mann tackles the story in long-form, running to nearly three hours. Introducing Bergman as he attempts to snag an interview with a known terrorist in the opening sequence, on one level jars with the context and tone of the film, but also highlights how enemies – as dangerous and sinister as religious extremists are also within the western world. Indeed, Crowe as the fidgety, possibly-unhinged Jeffrey Wigand plays with our own assumptions as we question more than merely the corporation. Pacino plays Lowell Bergman as the conflicted man a journalist must become – while his own stand against CBS’s decision to screen a cut version of the interview places him on a forced vacation, when he contacts Wigand – holed up inside a hotel after his family has left him – we see the contrast between the beach house Bergman is in and near suicidal Wigand. Bergman may have played an important role in illuminating the issue, but we need more Wigand’s.


The Insider does explore avenues of character that prolong the events. Wigand’s failed marriage is clearly set-up and broken down, while Bergman’s relationship with host Mike Wallace (Christopher Plummer) is constantly a source for comparison. The prestige and legacy Wallace wants to leave behind is set against the purpose – and cost - of the job itself. Indeed, Bergman is fighting for what he believes. These sub-plots, though something Mann often explores, detract from the core of the story and can stagger the story. But what a story it is. Often the media and court system can be perceived as merely a villain and frustration to the greater cause, so it is refreshing to see how they can support the just and the good. And Al Pacino is remarkable.

This post was originally written for Flickering Myth on March 20th 2014

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

Incredible Soundtrack #18: Collateral (Newton Howard)

The music attached to a film creates the environment, I believe, moreso than the literal environment depicted through the visuals...

Now things get tricky. Though James Newton Howard composed the score to Collateral, from the soundtrack, I have not chosen a single track from the score itself. I am in no way saying how the score is flawed - far from it - but I do believe that the stand out tracks are not his.

In terms of 'setting the tone', Rothrocks additions add pace and adrenaline, whilst as Max (Jamie Foxx) flicks through the range of various radio stations we get excerpts from artists such as The Roots, Groove Armada and Calexico. Even Antonio Pinto, Bach and Paul Oakenfold make an appearance. Suffice to say, its a tough call when choosing which three tracks I will focus upon so - knowing that some tracks are good, I have tried to choose the tracks which best represent the film. (I will mention briefly how Paul Oakenfold's Ready Steady Go does not make an appearance, despite its fantastic use in 'the club' sequence, and it is due to fans of The Bourne Identity who would argue how we first heard the song as Matt Damon drove his mini through the streets of Paris way back in 2001 - a couple of years prior to Collateral)

1. Briefcase (Tom Rothrock) - A brilliant start to the film as, with one small exchange (Y'know Statham was originally going to play the role of 'Max'...) the equilibrium is disrupted and the lives of Vincent and max are changed forever. Pace, adrenaline and - at least for me - I was hooked...



8. Shadow on the Sun (Audioslave) - When Chris Cornell released You Know My Name I only knew him from this single track by Audioslave. It has a prominent use in the film as the parrallel between the wolves wandering LA is seen by Max and Vincent. The song continues as the two drive off further, but the recurring guitar motif continues to ring like an alarm bell - "Max, you need to do something..."




16. Requiem (Antonio Pinto) - I found a full version of this track and I would have used it had it not become so busy in the final section of the song. The version I found features on the soundtrack and slowly feeds the end of the film back to normality - though we have witnessed an unforgettable night for Max and Vincent, we also see the start of a new day. The workers beginning their daily routine and Max, hopefully, starting the day with a new outlook ...



Large Association of Movie Blogs

Sunday, 24 July 2011

The Film Locker #8: Michael Mann and 'Heat'

There are only so many films that we can discuss on Michael Mann - but it doesn't stop Hatter and I praising a film director with a very unique style and energy.
Collateral, Heat and Ali are all films created by Chicago-born Michael Mann - and Hatter and I use this opportunity to rip his back-catalogue apart through, more specifically, Heat.

I am now off to see Bridesmaids. This is nothing to do with The Film Locker, merely a case of how constant good-word and positive-press ultimately leads to this cinema visit. I blame many people if this film is shit. One of which is my co-presenter Hatter ... who claims Bridesmaids is very good ...

Anyway - enough about that! Heat and Michael Mann ...

And, as usual, it is already up on itunes and can be found easily on podomatic - so, please do try and write reviews and support us if you can! We have the ol' RSS feed and 2.0 RSS and, if you link in different ways, we also have it on Google and Yahoo
Large Association of Movie Blogs

Sunday, 3 July 2011

A-Z #88: Heat

You can pick up hundreds of DVDs for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. It's never about quantity, it's about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and understanding why I own the films ... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em


#88 - Heat

Why did I buy it?

Without even watching it, I knew that the combination of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino would be epic. Add to this how Michael Mann was behind the camera - and I loved Collateral - I knew it was going to be immense. Finally, Nick James wrote a BFI Modern Classic on the film (which I purhcased) whereby, after a first watch, I knew the film would grow and grow to become better with each subsequent viewing.

Why do I still own it?

Multiple viewings. I could watch this 3-hour long film again and again. Michael Mann effectively remade a TV-film LA Takedown but with A-list actors and a huge budget making this film, possibly, the best remake ever to boot. I wrote a huge essay on the film a while back, so for more in-depth analysis click here, but it will forever remain in the collection only possibly changing if a sweet blu-ray edition is available and I have some spare income. The latter is more unlikely that the former.
Large Association of Movie Blogs

Monday, 7 March 2011

A-Z #49: Collateral

You can pick up hundreds of DVD's for a round-pound each - it doesn't matter. Its never about quantity, its about quality. A-Z is my way of going through my collection, from A-Z, and understanding why I own the films ... or you can tell me why I should sell 'em



#49 - Collateral 

Why did I buy it?

Michael Mann has always been deemed important. The fact that he brought together Pacino and De Niro, and directed the first scene they shared in Heat, is quite the achievement. But, if I am honest, at the time I had not seen Heat. Or Last of the Mohicans. Or Manhunter. In fact, the biggest pull for me to this film was Tom Cruise as a bad guy. I think that all the promotional material did showcase the style and image of the film - which is primarily down to Michael Mann and his cinematographers Dion Beebe and Paul Cameron. I watched the film at the cinema and I even ordered it for the day of release back in the hey-day of my University life.

Why do I still own it?

Because it is truly a great film. Small-scale story: Two guys in a taxi - one's a killer, one's not. Not only that, but Mark Ruffalo plays the 'hero'-cop who knows what-is-going-on and, in the same way, you watch him intently. Having said how much I love the film, it also plays an important role in my relationship with Sarah - as it was the first film we watched together. I won't get too goo-ey with this, but it replaced what should have been a viewing of Goodfellas at the last moment (because it arrived in the post that very day).

Is Cruise-as-killer a load of bull? Is Foxx-as-everyman ring untrue? I think not, but you may disagree... yay of nay?
Large Association of Movie Blogs

Wednesday, 30 September 2009

Heat (Michael Mann, 1995)

"Don't let yourself get attached to anything you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner"

Introduction

This is a fascinating film - it seems to have a strange 'edge' to it. Apparently its a love or hate film - with some people praising its characterisation while others feel it is a long, drawn-out action film. I side with the former, although after the first watched I did come away a little disillusioned, while after a second watch, it truly is flawless. An amazing film that secures me in the knowledge that Michael Mann is a force to be reckoned with - while Righteous Kill was a real scar on the De Niro/Pacino combo that was originally made up of The Godfather Part II and Heat. As previously mentioned, Sarah and I embarked on an Al Pacino season, and due to my first watch, to some extent I put Sarah off from watching it. Eventually, I convinced her it was going to be a good watch (not 100% sure - it had been years since that first watch but a risk worth taking) and we sat down and put aside the three hours necessary to watch it.

What I reckon ...

Having watched 'Public Enemies' the previous week and then watching this shows how talented and impressive Michael Mann truly is. This is a film which, shot-by-shot, looks sharp and progresses without rushing. Its an action movie and yet does not adhere to common 'action-movie' cliches. We see the pressures and humanity in both the cat and the mouse, before the cat becomes the mouse and the mouse becomes the cat - the brilliant two-scene sequence as we see the LAPD after McCauley and then McCauley photographing the LAPD, as he works out who they are. It then finishes with focus on the two characters alone - following an amazing bank robbery sequence that must rank with the best bank robbery sequences of all-time.

De Niro is playing Neil McCauley - a criminal mastermind with no intention of making a single mistake. He never takes risks and is willing to walk away if the risk is too great. Pacino is Vincent Hanna is a homicide/narcotics lieutenant attempting to catch him. He is someone who, upon the first time we meet him - analysing a robbery McCauley organised - he misses nothing. He knows the angles they came from - and is fully aware of how perfect the hit went down. They are both obsessed with their jobs and both show a focus and discipline for their jobs.

The whole first watch is very different to the second watch - on a first watch you don't know where the story is going, and as we look at so many different characters you are not too sure which character you should invest your focus in. On a second watch, whereby you know the story and plot, you don't have to worry about 'following' anything - so you can just enjoy the viewing and notice the smaller and incredibly significant aspects to the story. For one, the issues presented in the first act - Waingro escaping, Van Zandt's double-cross - are not expected have a knock on effect on everything that precedes it. The one thing he has always anticipated and was prepared for - leave Edie in the car (in 30 seconds...) - has a more detrimental effect. Then again, maybe he couldn't escape after all. Hanna, without realising perhaps, was one-step ahead.

The women also have a fascinating role in the story. These all factor into the narrative - nothing is simple. Edie, Neil's love interest, we are teased into thinking she might 'change' him - but we realise in the final act that he lives by his rules (see the quote) and does so, sealing his fate. In a similar parallel, Hanna also confirms his lack of commitment to his partner Justine because he knows how much the job means to him. Interestingly enough, Neil tells Edie he'd stand by her - and doesn't - Hanna says he can't stand by Justine, but to some extent, I think we are led to believe that they can continue their relationship - but on Hanna's terms of putting the job first. Edie is not a blameless victim because she does decide to stand by her criminal partner when she finds out his true profession but she is left humiliated in the car alone.

I think it would be great to dwell on that perfect sequence in the coffee house between McCauley and Hanna. It establishes so much without making anything too obvious. Vincent stating his stance "I will put you down", while McCauley doesn't even flinch to state where he stands that if Hanna gets in his way, he "will not hesitate ... not for a second". Its all over-the-shoulder shots, subjecting us to the intense stare of McCauley and the pseudo-laid back approach by Hanna. We feel every line, and are aware of the importance of every line stated. For many months now I have been collected older issues of Sight and Sound that regularly turn up at Kentish Town Oxfam (50p a pop is worth every penny!) and in one issue dated March 1996, there is an analysis of this sequence as we see Michael Mann's script notes on the sequence. The article notes how both characters are aware of the nature of time as luck and that life is short. Mann notes that Hanna, as a hunter, darts his eyes around getting every scrap of information on McCauley while they are together. Fascinating insight details that I would recommend anyone interested in the sequence.

An interesting facet - that I think has no clear parallel with Hanna - is McCauley's friendship with Val Kilmers 'Chris'. McCauley's belief and trust in Chris, to some extent, is what destroys his perfect organisation. He stands by Chris, though Chris is in a position whereby he cannot walk away in 30 seconds. Chris has a family and, though difficult at times, they support him, while McCauley ultimately has nobody making McCauleys entire arc tragic - as he is the one 'taken down'. Though a double-force with Pacino and De Niro, it is De Niro's character that we initially follow from the start and - though Hanna has met his match in McCauley - it is McCauley who is taken out. It is his story ... with a lot of scope for characterization of everyone else.

Nick James, in his BFI Modern Classic on Heat shows clear comparisons to Michael Mann's earlier work - the use of blue in Manhunter is doubled up in Heat. The whole of LA is sinked into this pot of blue paint - and it looks perfect. McCauley lurks in the shadow like a predator. James further explains the depth of each character and how, due to the intensity and perfectly pitched nature of the film, Pacino holding De Niro's hand as a symbol of understanding between the two men during the finale is exceptionally powerful while on a base level it is a ridiculous thought - De Niro and Pacino holding hands.

Which is where I end this review/analysis. The two men are at the peak of their careers - they are at an age whereby these roles reflect their history and experience, while at the same time maximising the character depth, showing how great they are (not that Raging Bull and Scarface made us think they were bad actors). The cop role of Pacino in Sea of Love is so simple compared to Hanna - a cop who has a family and a job which he has to balance so precariously. This film is a masterpiece - epic, grandoise and not be missed.

Wednesday, 12 August 2009

Public Enemie's (Michael Mann, 2009)

"They ain't tough enough, smart enough or fast enough. I can hit any bank I want, any time. They got to be at every bank, all the time"

Introduction

Michael Mann can be a truly brilliant director - amongst his best films would be Heat, Collateral and - now - Public Enemies. Reality is, Miami Vice was problematic, so even though the trailer looked awesome for this, I was a little reserved before watching the film. Not to mention the obvious comparison to Heat. Was Mann doing anything truly original? But I watched this on an fluky orange Wednesday whereby they done the whole two-for-one deal on a preview of Public Enemies. Now I knew I wasn't going to watch The Hangover and was planning to see Looking for Eric but, alas, it was not being shown. I had been exceptionally excited about this - it appeared to be a real back-to-basics classical Gangster movie - with an exceptional choice for the lead with Johnny Depp. Could it live up to the high-standard I expected? Both 'Sight and Sound' and 'Empire' had Johnny Depp and his tommy gun spashed all over their covers, while both separately devoting additional column inches to the Gangster genre and the production of the film itself. This was a big event ... could it live up to the hype?

What I reckon...

[Note, until I write in these brackety thing again, the majority of this was written soon after watching the film. I think it rambles a little so I shall try and just tack on a concise conclusion and leave it at that] So, I have just arrived back from the cinema - it was hot and sweaty because of the current heatwave in London, but the entire film was breathtaking. The entire film rests on the shoulders of Johnny Depp as the fated gangster John Dillinger. A bank robber in Chicago in the thirties.

Michael Mann has turned to digital camera-work in recent years and in this film is suits the film perfectly in no small part to the cinematography of Dante Spinotti, Mann's long-time collaborator. Not only do we have the fantastic period sets shown with calm confidence, we also have a rough, edgy, uncontrolled camerawork during the shootouts to contrast it with. Its interesting to note that there are no opening credits - it shows '1933' and then it starts.
Purvis often asks 'Was that Dillinger?', 'Who was that?' - obssessed with the 'legend', also his task of taking down Dillinger himself, following a successful termination of Pretty Boy Floyd. It is truly fascinating how we feel so much - not resentment - but pity for Purvis. To the point that even when Dillinger is killed, we are actually not too fussed about how Purvis feels. We are not introduced to a family, a personal life - we only see him order his 'Dillinger Squad' about what to do. Even then, he is often undermined by his Special Agents while also being responsible for his weaker agents deaths - so its no suprise we root for Dillinger: a man who doesn't steal from the public, he steals from 'the bank'.

Metro (a local free tabloid paper here in London - and Birmingham and Manchester ...) released a review today saying that the film was akin to 'Miami Vice'. This is absolutely untrue - while you struggled to follow the convuluted plot about drugs and 'the underground' and truth and fiction and what not in 'Miami Vice', the simple plot in 'Public Enemies' gives Mann space to focus on the characters themselves. In a nutshell - its Purvis trying to catch Dillinger - but the anti-hero edge to Dillinger, the persona Depp creates, makes you root for him - even though you know Billie's prophesizing his death is true, you cannot help but be upset at the expected showdown.
[Okay, the conclusion]. A good friend (Shout out to Rhys BL) told me how he had hoped there would be an extended cut. I did question what he meant and he replied to me about the small role of Gionvanni Ribinisi and Channing Tatum. Why would they hire such top-class actors for such small roles? He had a point. The film lacks the even balance that Heat and Collateral had, and as such, may have been cropped. This was an epic film focussing on Dillinger moreso than any other character. I must admit, I hope there is an extended version with the epic proportion included that, unfortunately, this cut misses the mark on. Sight and Sound noted how the film is somehwere between Mendes Road to Perdition and the Coen's Millers Crossing, and it is superior to both - but you feel it could have been even more impressive and, who knows, if there is an extended cut, maybe it is...


Quickly - as I scanned the pictures for the poster-picture for this film I saw a comparison with Road to Perdition - its so-o-o similar!