The Deer Hunter (Michael Cimino, 1978)

Cinema often depicts characters that we compare ourselves to. Social groups will turn to The Hangover and Stand by Me and discuss which character they, and their friends, are similar too. The six friends in The Deer Hunter, as they gleefully run down streets naked, create this same thought-process. Michael Cimino’s second film sets up a close-knit community we recognise, but it is broken down and irreversibly changed following the Vietnam War. We don’t see Michael (Robert De Niro), Nicky (Christopher Walken) or Stevie’s (John Savage) superiors when they are sent to war. They are people, thrust into a conflict that breaks them physically, emotionally and mentally – with only their loved ones to pick up the pieces. The disheartening and tragic rendition of ‘God Bless America’ before the closing credits has never lacked such hope (a controversial stance to take in 1978).

Broken into three definitive acts, The Deer Hunter introduces the group as they complete a gruelling day at the local mill. For three of them, this is their final day before they are drafted. The wedding between Stevie and Ange is doubled-up to become a leaving ceremony for the groom, Mike and Nicky. Their portraits hang on the wall, almost in remembrance, undercutting the celebratory atmosphere created as a send-off. The remaining friends, clumsy Stan (John Cazale in his final role), “fu**in A” Axel (Chuck Aspegren) and Bar owner John (George Dzundza) playact and get drunk, with a final deer hunt the following morning. Through lingering looks and flirtatious banter, Nicky’s partner Linda (Meryl Streep) and Mike hold a deep connection. Maybe going to war has forced them to confront this or maybe this has always been the case. Jarringly, the film suddenly cuts to the soldiers in the middle of the crisis. Women and children are decimated while Michael uses a flamethrower to burn an opponent. The three friends suddenly find themselves holed up beneath a small shack whereby Asian soldiers play Russian roulette with the lives of our leads. They escape, but not without consequence. Stevie has severely damaged his legs leaving him paraplegic. Nicky has lost parts of his memory and can’t escape the horrors of what he has seen. A hardened Michael returns to Pennsylvania and realises nothing will ever be the same again.

The Deer Hunter is truly a masterpiece when screened at the cinema. From the vast landscapes as they wander the misty American hills in search of a lone deer through to the explosive horrors in Vietnam. The clear contrast between nature and industrialism elevates their meaning and provides ample opportunity for interpretation. The initial mill-worker scenes are dangerous and violent until we see the fire within the war-torn village in Vietnam. The factory-like perspectives of militarism as people are put into the mill and the death of young men is churned out. There is a genuine chemistry between the actors and we can only feel saddened by the chaos created in the era, and its consequences. 

The racist depiction of the Viet Cong is an unfortunate aside as they purposefully represent an enemy. In the same manner that Russian roulette (no evidence has been found that claim this happened in the conflict) is merely representing the gamble these men have placed with their lives. These are men that Cimino has purposefully framed within a small town where “everybody knows your name”. Tony Curtis Fox, for Film Comment, writes how the church and bar (locations that dominate the first hour of the film) are “metaphor[s] for the closed nature of community”. The Green Beret who sits in the bar dismissively says “fuck it” to the war, but he is an outsider. He is also berated and bothered by the boys before they leave. When Michael returns, he realises how he has changed. This is front and centre of The Deer Hunter. The horrendous destruction and wanton loss of war on the one hand. The beauty of America and tender friendships on the other. The Deer Hunter is bold and defiant in its stance, and at the cinema it is incredibly powerful. At a time whereby war is only a few thousand miles away and we celebrate the centenary of WWI, this sobering attitude couldn’t be more timely.

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.

THE FILM LOCKER is LIVE! DOWNLOAD NOW!

The big day is here! Hatter and I have planned for many months this 12-episode series. Dylan from Man, I Love Films mentioned "Why only 12?" and, yeah, thats a good question!

For me, the primary purpose of blogging and podcasting is to learn and to improve on my film interest through writing, reflecting and discussing cinema with a broad range of like-minded people. The 'dream' of joining film journalism in a professional sense is something that I do intend to work towards and, moreso, to even break in Film Academia by writing about cinema.

These 12-episodes are part of one series focussing exclusively on directors - choosing one film to extrapolate (love that word) from. In some cases, these are directors that I know through and through, in other cases they are directors I have had to research - and this podcast is a great outlet to relay the knowledge I have learnt.

It's a big job and takes a while to prepare, record and edit - but so far, it has been worth it. By keeping it as a limited run, we can reflect and improve if we decide to continue...

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

Here we go:

Series 1: Episode 1 - Martin Scorsese and 'Goodfellas'

A-Z #59: The Deer Hunter

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

#59 - The Deer Hunter

Why did I buy it?

I think the vast majority of us obsessive film fanatics have read Peter Biskinds insightful, but fairly gossipy, 'classic' Easy Riders, Raging Bulls. The book charts the seventies in Hollywood, and how from Bonnie and Clyde and Easy Riders, for a short period, the directors called the shots ... and ultimately, how Lucas's Star Wars and Spielberg' s Jaws flipped the shots back to the producers as they realised that, whilst some directors hit-big with artistic masterpieces, there was much more money with B-Movie-to-A-Movie adaptations, relentless marketing and selling lots and lots of toys was the bigger way to make money. Michael Cimino's The Deer Hunter was one of those incredible directoral successes during this period - amongst Coppola's The Godfather and Scorseses' Mean Streets - but, rather than following it up with a stronger film, poor Cimino followed it up with Heaven's Gate. One of the biggest 'flops'  in cinema history. It cost $44m ... and made a little under $4m (according to IMDB). 

Why do I still own it?

At any rate, I watched the film and it is indeed a tough watch. A long opening Wedding sequence with a film stretched over 3-hours. The film has an incredible cast in Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken and John Cazale. The finale is quite the pay-off, but I also believe that it requires more than one watch. So, though I am not convinced, I am keeping it on the grounds that I need to watch it again. After all, it also won Best Picture and is highly regarding as one of the most important Vietnam films - alongside Apocalypse Now, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket. But unlike those films, this film primarily tackles how the war broke up communities and changed peoples lives forever - we focus upon the attempt at getting back into society and how, others, never managed to get back.

Don't get me wrong, I was not bowled over on my first - and only - viewing, but there is plenty there that will make me come back.

Maybe that initial instinct is accurate? Can anyone top Platoon, Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket?

A-Z #36: Casino

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

#36 - Casino 

Why did I buy it?

As a huge fan of Goodfellas, this is apparently an unofficial sequel to it - starring Goodfellas actors Robert de Niro, Joe Pesci and host of others. The length of the film put me off for a long time - and I was never sure if it would be as Goodfellas - but I had to give it a try...

Why do I still own it?

I am keen to understand it better on multiple viewings. I have watched it once so far since I bought it, and I wasn't bowled over. I mean, I loved De Niro and Pesci. Sharon Stone was great, but it just seemed to drag on a little. Many friends love this film and, more importantly, the odd few rate it higher than Goodfellas, claiming it is underrated. So, with that in my mind, I have every intention to reanalyse the film. I do believe that Scorsese films generally get better on multiple viewings so I shall simply watch it again and I am hoping I will appreciate it more... but when will I watch it again... ?

Maybe thats not enough - maybe, once watched, I should trust my instinct and sell it on... what do you think?

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter  and Facebook.

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.

Taxi Driver (Martin Scorsese, 1976)

"Here is a man who would not take it anymore. A man who stood up against the scum, the c***s, the dogs, the filth, the sh*t. Here is a man who stood up"

Introduction

Amongst the many directors I admire, Martin Scorsese is up there. Having watched 'Taxi Driver' recently (followed by Scorsese's full music video to Michael Jackson's 'Bad' starring Wesley Snipes and written by Richard 'The Wire' Price.) I decided to follow the viewing with a read of Amy Taubin's study, published in the BFI classics series. I still have to finish the book (its very slim so it shan't be long...) so I may add a little to this review if she raises something in the closing chapter that affects my perspective. I first watched the film years ago and so this was only my second viewing but I think the next step is 'Mean Streets' if I want to get an idea of Scorsese's early days. Nevertheless, one thing Taubin mentioned that I think is interesting is how Herrman - the composer - worked on many Hitchcock films and Scorsese, a Hitchcock fan himself, working with Herrman (becoming the final score Herrman wrote before his death) on a very dark film signaled the start of a new era in Hollywood, a Hollywood that ultimately faded away after Hitchcock, Ford and all the other pre-1970's directors. (Also interesting to note is that 1976 was the year Hitchcock himself released 'Family Plot', whereby the score was composed by the up-and-coming, pre-Star Wars, pre-Indiana Jones, John Williams)

What I reckon... (Summary is pretty much within this chunk...)

This is a film that, in my opinion, gets better the more you watch it. So many layers and issues raised about inner-city life, loneliness, faith, passion, desire - even love. What is most interesting about this is the perspective we view it from, and how this perspective cannot be trusted either. Travis Bickle (Robert DeNiro) is a sociopath - he is trusted with peoples lives, but despises these lives he controls. He moves around a city viewing the 'scum' out there on the streets, the 'scum' that he, in effect, is a part of. Not that he knows - he sees himself above all that. He sees himself as some sort of God. Not only does Scorsese show us this part of his life from above (from coffee's and the fantastic long-shot at the end as we pan above the bloodbath Bickle leaves) - as if looking down on everyone and everything, but also Bickle himself, narrating his views and- ultimately - decides to control people's lives himself - telling Iris (Foster) what she should do with her life and then murdering Sport (Kietel) and his brothel buddies at the finale.

Bickle's an insomniac who wanders the streets at night - on foot, in the car - so he feels he might as well 'get paid for it' by being a taxi driver. A profession ideally suited for people who want to people-watch, day in, day out. He goes t the dodgy ends of NYC - an area where most taxi drivers are not so keen to go, but he wants to know about it, he wants to comment on it and bath in the dirty mush of NYC, the muggy foundations of NYC.

Split into three acts - the first act shows Travis attempt to woo Betsy (a campaign worker for Sen. Charles Palantine), after the coffee he seems to be successful and they go to the movies but, unfortunately Travis genre of film was not taken into consideration. Travis likes, and often watches, porn. The angelic 'untouchable' Betsy (Shepherd) has been tainted. To some extent abused and defiled by his conscious decision to take her to a porn movie. The second act is his attempt to change, building his body up and his plans to assassinate Sen. Charles Palantine - but, ultimately fails (this recurring theme of Travis failing at building a relationship with Betsy and failing to assassinate are all small concerns that - bit-by-bit - build up to a crescendo of frustration and anger towards the world from Travis' eyes...) and then, the final act, we are introduced formally to Iris who - akin to Betsy - Travis wants to 'save' from the streets. A destroyed girl he wants to turn into an angel. He needs to save her and he believes that he is some sort of saviour and seems to destroy all the horror surrounding Iris - a bloodbath in the dingy flat, Sport murdered, etc.

Apparently Schrader based the character on him during a bad period in his life (y'think) - that's immense. He was squatting in an ex-girlfriends apartment spending money in porno theatres and had no friends - so alone. But then he read Arthur Bremer's personal diary (Bremer shot George Wallace - a man who aimed at becoming president...) which seemed to have a similar attitude to his own - but, I guess, a lot more twisted and corrupted and - ultimately - mad. Nevertheless, the parallels is what makes this film so personal and relate-able - while also so twisted and sinister also.

While Bernard Herrman's score is very interesting - the depressive two chord and four chord change, the idea of impending doom and the growth of frustration and anger inside Bickle is simply breathtaking - while the saxophone seems to create this beautiful theme that contrasts against the dirty streets and horrible vision of NYC we see.

This film would go great as a double-bill with Fincher's 'Fight Club'. Though 'Fight Club' creates a false persona, 'Taxi Driver' still deals with the dirty, depressive view of a corrupt society that breeds the people that snap into insanity. Which reminds me of 'Falling Down' also. I think De Niro's performance is simply so convincing - you pity him because you know he is in control of the situation. This anti-hero also feels like you might meet him yourself, though it is quite clear that mentally he has problems and is ultimately so self-involved. Never aware of the options available to him - akin to many post-Vietnam soldiers. What do you do after such an event?

Because the whole film cuts so close to the bone, it has the edge of fear and horror. The eyes lingering in the car mirror and the sense throughout the film about what Travis will do - when will he crack? His not-so-subtle racism is also a part of this which is so difficult to watch also. In a world that has become so diverse - whereby, in my opinion, racism has become hidden as opposed to being openly condoned. Travis drives through the streets rarely conversing with people - but we know his thoughts and his attitude to the African-American characters in his head. The real fear and horror is the possible parallels this might have with people in society today - violent, dangerous racist sociopaths who will inevitably crack at some point ...