Sci-Fi Wisdom of the Week

There are three basic types, Mr. Pizer: The Wills, the Won'ts, and the Can'ts. The Wills accomplish everything, the Won'ts oppose everything, and the Can'ts won't try anything.

-V.I.N.Cent (Roddy McDowall) in The Black Hole (1979)

BOOK REVIEW: Obscene, Indecent, Immoral and Offensive: 100+ Years of Censored, Banned, and Controversial Films

The history of the motion picture is not merely one of a technological art form's ascendancy to global prominence. It is also a history of censorship and attempted censorship.

Author Stephen Tropiano has written a detailed, informative and involving account of this dark legacy in his new reference book, Obscene, Indecent, Immoral and Offensive: 100+ Years of Censored, Banned and Controversial Films (Limelight Editions; 2009).

Tropiano's discourse commences in the year 1896 with Thomas Edison's technological marvel, the Vitascope.

In particular, one eighteen-second film produced for that format quickly proved both titillating and controversial. It was called The May Irwin Kiss and the short film (consisting of just one shot...) apparently scandalized as many viewers as it enthralled.

However, one prominent New York critic not only disliked the new technology and its early product, but went dramatically further. He termed the Vitascope and The May Irwin Kiss horrific things that called "for police interference."

This call for law enforcement action against a work of art represents, perhaps, the very genesis of film censorship. Accordingly, Tropiano's first chapter details this incident and other early attempts to suppress, ban or destroy films in the Silent Cinema Era. Among other things, he notes the 1909 creation of a "National Board" of censorship (a coalition of progressives, educators and Churchgoers...). An early Moral Majority, perhaps?

Tropiano's purpose in this text is to examine how the medium of film has contended with such institutions and censors, with organizations and individuals who believe (even, to this day...) that it is their "God-given" duty to determine what movies can and cannot say and show. Tropiano names names too, profiling such fascinating personalities as Miss Emma Viets of Kansas, who ruled over a state censorship board from 1920-1930. She considered it her duty, apparently, to protect the people from "displays of nude human figures," "passionate love scenes," and "loose conduct."

But importantly, Viets didn't simply suppress films she didn't like...she re-cut them according to her own sensibilities and belief system. She even re-cut the ending of an Academy Award nominated film, 1927's Sorrell and Son. She objected to an ending which involved euthanasia, and re-edited the film's climax to remove it. She did so with the excuse that the movie played too long and could stand cutting. Everybody's a film critic...

If Tropiano's book merely gazed at censored films and the personalities of censors over the last century, it would make for an interesting read, all right, but Obscene, Indecent, Immoral and Offensive is much more than that. Never one to ascribe matters to black-and-white interpretations, Tropiano devotes considerable time and space raising the question if censorship is ever acceptable or justified. Before you say "no," consider some of the examples that he provides.

Take Leni Riefenstahl, a German filmmaker who created a documentary "love letter" to Adolf Hitler called Triumph of the Will (1935). By all accounts, it was a film of brilliant, pioneering technique...and utterly loathsome content: an "aesthetic expression of fascist ideology and the grandeur, order and power of the Third Reich." So...are censors justified in banning this particular film (one that, by the way, has occasionally been viewed as an inspiration for the final scene of Star Wars [1977])?

Well then, how about D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation? It's another landmark film in terms of history, specifically in regards to technical acumen. Yet it is plainly racist in narrative and even pro-KKK. So is censorship the answer? Do viewers deserve the chance to see these films for themselves and decide their value (or lack thereof?) Or does the simple act of viewing Triumph of the Will or Birth of a Nation poison, debauch and corrupt the innocent?

Interesting questions, and Tropiano doesn't lecture or force his conclusions on us. He's a historian, not a moralist, and the stories are so intriguing, so bizarre so...messy...that it isn't necessary to editorialize (at least not often). Tropiano remembers in detail, for instance, the protests that surrounded The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). He points out that many of the "devout" people so actively picketing showings of the Scorsese film had not even seen the film they were protesting, and this raises another point. Don't censors have a duty to first actually watch things that might be considered objectionable before condemning them?

Scorsese's deeply spiritual film was hated by the religious right-- hypocritically -- while Mel Gibson's "torture porn" epic, Passion of the Christ (2004) , which was more violent and gratuitously gruesome than any horror film ever could hope to be, was applauded by the same crowd. Again, Tropiano doesn't shout "hypocrites," he simply compares the response to the two religious films.

Meticulously researched, impeccably written, and original in conception and execution. Tropiano makes for a studied -- and often very droll - tour guide through this material. He examines specific films and controversies (such as the one surrounding Clerks), the development of the ratings systems (PG-13, NC-17, etc.) and movie-oriented legal/crime scandals (there was a period in the 1970s when it seems Kubrick's Clockwork Orange was blamed for every violent crime committed in England...).

Obscene, Indecent, Immoral, and Offensive is thought-provoking, well-researched and broadly inclusive. It's a splendid chronicle of some of the biggest scandals and battles over "free speech" in our nation's popular culture. You can purchase the book at Applause/Limelight or through Amazon.com, and do so with my highest recommendation.

Theme Song of the Week: Flash Gordon (1980)

MOVIE REVIEW: Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008)

In 2002, I wrote a film book that ended up as one of my most praised (not to mention best-selling...) director studies.

In An Askew View: The Films of Kevin Smith, I described how the New Jersey-born filmmaker serves as Generation X's Woody Allen; a writer/director obsessed with the holy comedy trifecta of love, romance and sex...and not necessarily in that order.

As a filmmaker, Kevin Smith is a Grade A intellect who deploys a grade school sense of humor -- a predilection for what he calls "dick and fart" jokes -- to make trenchant points about the universal verities of human nature. Smith's unique creative formula consists of canny Generation X touchstones or allusions, plus a focus on the nitty-gritty of romantic relationships (with a heavy focus on realism...) and more than a dash of absolutely raunchy, potty-mouth humor.

In the right proportions, and under the right circumstances, this can prove a magical equation. Accordingly, Smith's approach served him well with critics and audiences in the 1990s with films such as Clerks (1994), Chasing Amy (1997), and, to a lesser degree, Dogma (1999).

The 21st century hasn't been as kind to Smith or his cinematic work.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001) is indeed hysterically funny -- a gift to fans -- but perhaps too insular a product for the average movie-goer. Jersey Girl (2004) was accused of blunting Smith's delightfully raw edges...even if the film's heart was in the right place. And Clerks 2 (2006) -- regardless of the film's nostalgia factor and overall good humor -- was perceived by some as career retreat; a sanctuary where the filmmaker could weather the storm over the failure of Jersey Girl.

All this history, however, is but prologue leading up to the arrival of Kevin Smith's latest movie, Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008). To my delight, it's Smith's authentic return to top form. In fact, Zack and Miri finds the writer-director at his bawdiest and most clever.

I'll be more specific even than that: this comedy is likely Smith's finest cinematic outing since Chasing Amy, and perhaps the funniest since Clerks. I usually mock critics who declare that movies are laugh-out loud funny, but -- hell -- I laughed out loud in Zack and Miri. A lot.

Only Smith, an unrepentant X'er, could marry the syrupy romantic-comedy formula with the bracing, ridiculous nature of X-rated adult films and emerge with a movie that is not simply sweet, not merely compassionate, but actually life-affirming.

And surely only Smith could pepper his genre-bending comedy with so many off-the-wall-references to pop culture history. For instance, he gives Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (1979-1981) a shout-out with a reference to Twiki and Dr. Theopolis, but in a sexual context (!) And then Smith gives 1980s action-television a nod with an allusion to one character being something akin to a "filthy MacGyver."

Smith doesn't stop there, either. He sets his entire movie in the very burb where George A. Romero shot Dawn of the Dead (1979), called Monroeville. He even takes his cameras to the very mall (interior and exterior) where most of that movie's horrific action took place...and it looks exactly the same, thirty years later. Given that fact, there's some ironic subtext here about Zack and Miri being distinctly un-zombie-like in a town and world that seem to encourage conformity, consumption and zombie-ism.

And surely, only Kevin Smith could get away with Zack and Miri's first effort at a porno film. It's a film called Star Whores and it features characters including Darth Vibrator, Hung Solo, Luke Skybanger, and R2-T-Bag.

And did I mentioned the Phallus-shaped Dia-Noga?
In terms of story, Zack and Miri Make A Porno is the tale of two lovable losers, Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks). They have been best friends since high school and now, nearing thirty years old, they share an apartment together. Still, they've put up force fields in their personal life; careful never to stray into the dangers of a romantic (or sexual...) relationship. This is despite the fact that they argue, debate and laugh like an old married couple.

Zack and Miri can't make the rent for their shitty apartment, and their power and water gets turned off the very night of their ten-year high school reunion. At that event, Zack comes up with a brilliant money-making scheme after an encounter with two gay porn stars (Justin Long and Brandon Routh). He decides that he and Miri should make a porno film.

So, with an entourage of crazy characters in tow -- from money man Delaney (Craig Robinson) and videographer Deacon (Jeff Anderson), to a porno wannabe named Lester (Jason Mewes) and an industry veteran named Bubbles (Traci Lords). -- Miri and Zack are set to emerge Porn Stars for the Internet Age. Much of the film's tension (and comedy) arises from the fact that Miri and Zack -- "just friends" -- will finally have sex together...but on camera. The film's final act deals with the repercussions of their decision to do just that.

Given this set up, the first half of the film is a raunchy extravaganza, and the last half is something a bit more touching. Sometimes a good director knows how to get out of the way of his story and characters...and just let things unfold in front of the camera. That's what a trusting, confident and mellow Smith does with dynamic effect in the third act here. As Zack and Miri prepare to take center stage and film their sex scene together, all the outrageous comedy bells and whistles drop away. The audience is left with a painfully earnest, clumsy, raw, honest sequence that acknowledges the deep friendship between this "couple," and the gentleness, irritation and love with which they treat each other. In typical Smith fashion, the awkward scene unfolds and Zack and Miri never stop talking, never stop bickering, never stop being...in love.

I often decry the state of American film comedy in the 21st century. I hate how disposable studio comedies pretend to be brutal but serve only to reinforce the status quo in their third acts. I'm reminded, for example, of the abominable Wedding Crashers...which I fucking hated. That movie introduced two great scoundrels in Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn's characters, gave them some truly wicked comedic business to vet..but then spent the entire over-long film on reforming them both and proving that wedding crashing is, you know, bad.

The 40-Year Old Virgin is the same story. It starts out wicked and wonderful but ends up all smug happiness, hugs and puppies. It doesn't live up to the brutality of its title, and a comedy without brutality isn't worth a pot of spit.

What I enjoyed so much about Zack and Miri Make a Porno is that neither the characters -- nor Smith himself --back away from the premise, or ever stand in judgment of it. Zack and Miri do have sex on camera, in a porno, in this movie, and they don't flagellate, torture or punish themselves over that fact. Even better, the movie doesn't ask us to judge them or their illicit activities as immoral, bad or worthy of condemnation. Good comedy is observation, not judgment. Where movies like Wedding Crashers of 40-Year Old Virgin forget or ignore that important fact, Zack and Miri remembers. We don't go see a comedy to laugh a little, and then get a sermon. We see a comedy to laugh, and -- if we're lucky - connect with a unique world view or experience.

Also, Smith doesn't trade in stereotypes. Indeed, his characters are sometimes slightly-exaggerated (or larger than life, perhaps), but they're also -- miraculously -- very true to life. As with Holden and Alyssa in Chasing Amy, you'll detect something of yourself and your mate, spouse, or significant other in the tribulations, victories and pettiness of Zack and Miri. You'll recognize their fears, insecurities and dreams... and become invested in them and their success. I guarantee it.

That Smith can forge so strong a sense of identification amidst ridiculous humor (including a bubble gag with Traci Lords, and the best constipation joke in years...), is a testament to his talent...at observation. At listening.

Kevin Smith's movies are simultaneously forthright and without guile...and he's made a lot of enemies on all sides of the political spectrum by simply telling things like they are. From the right, Catholics went to war with Smith (one of their own...) over Dogma, and Smith had to contend with bomb threats against his family on a daily basis. From the left, Smith was bombarded by the Gestapo-like tactics of GLAAD for his use of the word "gay" as a playground pejorative in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Like that never happened before Kevin Smith...

And, true to form, Zack and Miri Make a Porno also proved highly controversial to moral watchdogs last year. Because it has the word...porno...in the title. Apparently many theater chains wouldn't screen the film, and Smith had to wrestle with the MPAA to avoid an X-rating. A result of such controversy is that the movie didn't make nearly as much money as it should have, or would have.

Which kind of sucks. So if you're inclined, give Zack and Miri Make a Porno a whirl on the old DVD player. If you're in tune with Smith's style and world-view, the film may remind you why you fell in love with your significant other. If not, at least you'll get a lot of really good laughs.

The 2008 Cyber Horror Awards Announced!

The "first-ever horror film awards decided by the online horror-blogging/writing community" have been unveiled by the Vault of Horror this morning. I'm honored to say I was one of the participating voters in this inaugural year. The results are fascinating too. It looks like a clean sweep for one particular contemporary horror effort; and I'll be reviewing that award-winning movie here on the blog soon. Hopefully these awards will become a tradition...

Anyway, check out all the 2008 award winners right here.

The House Between 3.3: "Scared"

The House Between 3.3,"Scared" is terrorizing viewers right now.

The episode is playing at Veoh and at Google. As usual, I recommend a full download at Veoh so that the compressed sound doesn't warble. A download from Veoh preserves the picture and sound in the best fashion, in my opinion.

Again, watch this one in the dark if you can...

Watch The House Between 3.3: "Scared" View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Director's Notes: Scared

The third episode of The House Between's third season is entitled "Scared." It's our annual horror show (think "Visited" in the first season; "Estranged" in the second), and it's this season's long-awaited Arlo-centric story.

Or more descriptively, "Scared" is a story that delves a bit more deeply into Arlo's mysterious background than we've seen before.

In terms of genre inspirations, I deliberately fashioned "Scared" as an homage to an episode of John Newland's paranormal anthology One Step Beyond (1959-1961) that I've always loved, and which scared the heck out of me as a kid. Actually, it scares the heck out of me now...

I don't want to reveal the name of that particular OSB episode just yet. To do so would immediately give away the exact nature of the villainous threat in "Scared," and it's more fun today to let it play out in the course of the episode. But for intrepid web surfers, I can inform you that this particular OSB episode starred a young (and gorgeous...) Yvette Mimieux. Look it up if you want.

In more general terms, "Scared" is also my ode of love and devotion to the 1980s-style rubber-reality horror sub-genre. You know the kind of movie I mean, right? In which there is a powerful supernatural villain who can bend reality to his demonic will. My favorite film of this cycle is Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), but I could rattle off titles including Shocker (1989), Lair of the White Worm (1988), Hellraiser (1987) and Bad Dreams (1988) to name just a few.

Considering such inspirations, I don't think it was a coincidence that I decided to marry an Arlo/Theresa story with a rubber-reality horror movie, since these are our two youngest characters on The House Between. Most of the time in rubber reality horrors, it's up to struggling adolescents to defeat evil before they get the chance to grow up and live happily "ever after." And indeed, Arlo and Theresa opened an "adult" relationship door together in "Addicted" that leads directly to the events of "Scared."

Honestly, I don't remember many intriguing specifics about shooting "Scared" except that I opened the day by gathering the cast and crew together for a pep talk and stated (with gung-ho enthusiasm...) that this was our one and only opportunity to make a no-budget ($700.00) eighties horror flick.

So that was the attitude we went in with and I remember everybody got into the spirit of the script. Tony Mercer, for example, told me he was picturing Peter Cushing for Bill's "Van Helsing"-style speeches. Poor Lee Hansen had to deliver one of his most reprehensible Travis lines ever -- but he did it with appropriate conviction -- and Craig Eckrich in "Scared" completes Brick's transformation to all-out action hero.

As usual, I have enormous praise for Jim Blanton, who rose to the occasion to imbue Arlo with new and vulnerable colors. Jim also brilliantly recited a spooky "campfire" tale...one that is the bread-and-butter of rubber reality horrors. Here, that monologue is truly one of the episode's most unsettling scenes because of Jim's acting. Jim got his monologue down perfect on the first take and as a consequence drew thunderous applause from the cast. Then he sheepishly asked. "Do I have to do it again?" I don't think we did...

I must also single out Alicia (Theresa) for high praise, because she had the difficult task of maintaining Theresa's trademark detachment and seeming authentically terrified during the scarier moments. She's never been better, and you can see real "horror" in her affecting, expressive eyes.

Kim Breeding was amazing too, especially in one bizarre sequence that we filmed after midnight. As usual, we were running behind, hadn't rehearsed, and were flying through an important sequence. Without a word of description from me, without even a discussion of how it would go down, or what we would do, Kim jumped into her role and performed a difficult song right on cue. I kid you not when I say it was pitch-perfect and absolutely beautiful. Again, Kim had no prep, no direction, no rehearsal...she just nailed it. And so we moved on...

And then there's "Scared's" guest star, our make-up artist and stunt coordinator, Rob Floyd. Here he plays a nasty character named Vinnie Coto, one who terrorizes the other House Between characters.

Let's just say that in his full costume and make-up, Rob was...quite the presence on set. He not only terrorized characters during his actual scenes...but his fellow actors between scenes. One distinct memory I do have of shooting "Scared" is a lot of nervous laughter...from all corners. Rob was a little too good, perhaps, at playing on a key fear that I know many people suffer from. Again, for the intrepid, look up coulrophobia.

If I recall, shooting "Scared" actually made for one of the smoothest days of the week. Which doesn't mean we didn't stay up late. Alicia, Jim, Bobby, Rick and I were still plugging away before green screens well after 2:00 am. I have vague memories of Bobby standing on top of a rickety ladder, dropping balloons in front of a green screen, wobbling dangerously...

It was in the editing stage that "Scared" became a nightmare...for me, anyway. I would term it a budget buster if we had a budget. More like a time buster, because of the number and complexity of the special effects shots. We've got your opticals; we've got your green screens; we've got your cloning; we've got your garbage mattes; and on an on it goes. Conservatively, I'd estimate there are well over a hundred special effects shots in this single 45 minute episode. For a one man, part-time studio like myself, the final cut posed a daunting challenge unlike any other episode of The House Between.

No budget, no time, no assistant editor...*sigh.*

Fortunately, I did have one magician watching my back during post-production. He made certain that all my post-production efforts came together. That person is musician Mateo Latosa, who has composed for "Scared" perhaps his best work for the series (so far, anyway...). Mateo's work here -- which includes titles such as "Darkness Theory," "Carpenter in Juno," (a nod to John Carpenter...) "Hold Your Breath," "Darting By," and "Vinnie Coto" -- is absolutely extraordinary.

I told Mateo on the phone some weeks back that if web programming ever got nominated for best music awards, I would submit "Scared" as an example of his finest work.

Another factoid about "Scared:" Mateo also told me that he decided early on to score "Scared" like John Carpenter's The Thing, which in retrospect was a brilliant strategy, I believe, and which adds what producer Joe Maddrey calls a sense of "dread" to the proceedings. Not only is The Thing another 1980s horror film (fitting into my theme on "Scared...") but it concerns a bunch of diverse people trapped in a less-than-welcoming location with a villain that seems to boast different forms. Very appropriate.

So that's the story of "Scared." It premieres tomorrow, and I hope you'll watch. It is best viewed with the lights down. In the dark...

Sci-Fi Wisdom of the Week

I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.

-Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), Fight Club (1999)

TV REVIEW: Dollhouse: "The Target"

Last week, I counseled patience in regards to Dollhouse, the new Joss Whedon/Eliza Dushku genre series airing on Fox Fridays. It was clear the series had not realized its great potential...by a long shot.

This week, I'm delighted to report that patience is a virtue...and virtue is its own reward. For Dollhouse's second episode, "The Target" is approximately a million times more engaging and intriguing than last week's diffident, meandering pilot.

"The Target" commences with a full-head of steam, depicting a flashback that delves into the Dollhouse's mysterious history. In particular, we witness (in washed-out, over-exposed tones....) a catastrophic "composite event" that occurred three months ago. This violent incident saw an Active named "Alpha" -- suddenly in possession of his memory after casting off his state of "tabula rosa" -- go postal and murder several armed guards and at least two fellow Actives. "Alpha" was eventually put down, after cutting up Dr. Saunders (Amy Acker)...or so we've been told.

Oddly, the knife-wielding psychopath spared Echo...

Meanwhile, in the present, Echo (Dushku), has been imprinted with the personality of a rough-and-tumble outdoorsy woman, one who can go toe-to-toe with a rugged client, played by Waiting For Guffman's Matt Keeslar. This muscular, thick-necked client wants a mate who can white-water raft, climb mountains, and match him in every way imaginable (including in the bedroom).

Or so it seems. After hot sleeping-bag sex with Echo, the macho client quickly demonstrates he's a psychopath, one who hunts down Echo in the isolated woods to prove if she is "worthy of living."

Not your normal afterglow, to put it mildly...

So yep, it's The Most Dangerous Game, Dollhouse-style...pitting a post-Wrong Turn Dushku against Keeslar, womano-e-mano.

That description makes "The Target" sound utterly ridiculous, yet in true Whedonesque fashion, the episode brims with surprises, unexpected twists and narrative u-turns. I didn't see any of these shocks coming (especially the connection between the flashback and the present scenario...), and the result is an energetic, imaginative and hyper forty-five minutes. With strong action, good pacing and a tantalizing glimpse of the past, "The Target" satisfies in a way that the pilot just...didn't.

Specifically, one can see how the mythology of the series is building here, with Echo beginning to remember bits of her previous life and personalities, and even holding on to a piece of this particular imprint (particularly one gesture demonstrated by Keeslar's character.) We are also introduced -- in very enigmatic, spare terms -- to the season's possible villain. Alpha. No doubt, we'll see more of this shadowy figure. And somehow, his history involves Echo (real name: Caroline!).

Another aspect of the episode I enjoyed involves some cryptic series terminology. The Dollhouse's security chief, Laurence Dominic, warns Echo that if she doesn't behave, she'll be "put in the attic." I'm sure we'll find out what that warning means soon, but it promises to be creepy/macabre. I also liked the flashback involving the "bonding" between handler Lennix and Echo...a scene that adds a newr layer to that particular relationship.

Of all the characters in Dollhouse, the only one I positively can't stomach is Topher, the young tech-genius who does all the imprinting. He's a little too glib for my taste (and heck, I like glib!). He's a snarky wisecracker and really, really irritating...like he emerged from a bad episode of Angel.

Otherwise, we learn in "The Target" that Alpha's mystery "leads back to Echo." Given that tantalizing description, I eagerly await episode three.

New Film and TV Titles from McFarland

Buffy and Angel Conquer the Internet
Buffy the Vampire Slayer transcended its cult-comic roots to achieve television success, spawning the spinoff series Angel and an academic movement along the way.

This scholarly treatment takes a multidisciplinary approach to Buffy’s fandom, which has expressed itself through fiction, videos, music, art, and other media. Ten essays analyze the sociology and anthropology of the fan community and how it uses the Internet to share its passion.

Musical Groups in the Movies, 1929-1970

Hundreds of musical groups have appeared in at least one film from 1929 through 1970. This is a reference book devoted to these groups. Most entries include a brief description of the musical group, a list of the main singers or performers and, when available, a list of the songs performed in each film. One appendix lists popular British groups appearing in at least a single film; another lists groups that, while neither singers nor instrumentalists, made significant contributions to music in film (e.g., dance duos, acrobats, skaters, synchronized swimmers…). Filmographies are included for each entry.

The Cinematic Jane Austen
Jane Austen’s novels are loved because they possess a comedic power that is often conveyed through the singular voice of the narrators. Film adaptations, however, have often been unsatisfactory because they lack or awkwardly render features, particularly the voice of the narrators.This work argues for a fresh approach that begins with a reading of the novels that emphasizes their auditory and visual dimensions. Building on their examination of Austen’s inherently cinematic features, the authors then develop productive new readings of the films.

MOVIE REVIEW: Righteous Kill (2008)

One of my all-time favorite movies -- and one of the best films of the 1990s -- is Heat (1995) directed by Michael Mann. Hopefully you've seen it many times, but if you haven't, the crime saga pits a dedicated cop (Al Pacino) against a genius thief (Robert De Niro).

That log-line hardly does the epic Heat justice. There's also a thrilling bank-robbery/gun-fight in the film, and an exciting/tragic final confrontation between the De Niro and Pacino characters.

I don't need to remind you that these actors are veritable giants of the crime saga/cop genres. Or that they can hold the audience rapt with their magnetism, grit, charisma and intensity.

Now, almost fifteen years after Heat, these great cinematic lions roar back to the screen in another collaboration, Jon Avnet's cop-thriller Righteous Kill. De Niro and Pacino remain, as always, eminently watchable. But let me summarize the film this way: Righteous Kill is no Heat.

In fact, it's not even lukewarm.

I saw a preview for Righteous Kill in a theater last year and I could discern even from that brief trailer that it was going to be a less-than-superb outing for these respected veterans. But, as I told my wife, Kathryn when she saw that Righteous Kill had arrived via Netflix, I simply could not resist the draw of another De Niro/Pacino match-up. Better yet, this time they would be playing partners, not antagonists...a virtual guarantee, I hoped, of silver screen frisson.

Sadly, Pacino and De Niro don't share much chemistry or again - heat - It's a result, I believe of a mechanical, gimmicky script that requires both men to play their cards close to the vest in the vain hope that a lame "twist" ending will have at least a shot at working.

Unfortunately, the final twist won't surprise anyone, and that fact makes Righteous Kill a total bust. The film is loaded with ridiculous red herrings so that the final "surprise" will (hopefully) shatter your senses, but these red herrings are all recognizable as such....and terribly trite. Since the entire film is structured simply to deceive you in the last act, there's no human interest remaining when the trick ending arrives. Just a feeling of a wasted opportunity and deflation.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Righteous Kill dramatizes the story of two NYPD vets, the hotheaded Turk (Robert De Niro) and cool-as-a-cucumber chess-master "Rooster" (Al Pacino). As the film opens, we watch a videotape of what appears to be a confession. Turk explains to the camera how -- in his thirty years on the force -- he has secretly murdered fourteen law-breaking scum-balls. They deserved it, of course,. but he still broke the law, framing them for crimes and committing homicide.

Inter cut with De Niro's confession tape is the story of the investigation that (we believe...) finally brings Turk to account for his crimes. We learn how, following the murder of a little girl, Turk framed the perpetrator, Charlie Randell, after the thug was acquitted by a jury. And, how, afterwards, Turk "lost his faith." Where the legal system wouldn't work, Turk would intervene, murdering pimps, drug dealers and even pedophile priests. He plants evidence and leaves cryptic poems at the crime scenes. Or so we are led to believe.

Now, by a twist of fate, Turk and Rooster investigate together the very murders Turk ostensibly committed. The trail of murders suggests that a cop is behind them. Is Turk covering his trail, or does he want to get caught?

Joining in this homicide investigation is a sexy medical examiner, Karen (Carla Gugino), Turk's girlfriend. Karen conveniently (for plot's sake...) enjoys very rough sex, and she and Turk play kinky games to keep their affair hot. One night, he breaks into her apartment and assaults her when she's not expecting him. Afterwards, she suggests it wasn't rough enough for her. On another occasion, Karen gets all hot and bothered as Rooster describes how roughly Turk subdued a drug dealer, Spider (50 Cent). Could Karen be the murderer? Why else does she have files about all the victims on her home computer?

Investigating alongside Turk, Rooster and Karen are two up-and-coming young cops, played by Donnie Wahlberg and John Leguizamo. Leguizamo's character seems to carry a grudge against Turk, and he tells the precinct captain (Brian Dennehy) that Turk is the murderer. Is he framing Turk for some hidden agenda?

What all this nonsense comes down to, essentially, is a final revelation scene in which the killer is exposed and then quickly killed so that we don't have to examine the morality of his actions. Speaking in generalities, Righteous Kill is about partners -- one fire, one ice -- and one of them is a murderer.

Watching Righteous Kill, you desperately want the film to play as tragedy -- the story of a good man who has, because of his job, because of his time dealing with criminals -- lost his way and fallen from grace. What you get, however, is something much less...righteous. This is a robot narrative in which motives remain oblique and the final revelation packs no punch...because Turk and Rooster simply don't stand out as "real" people. They are machines serving a larger machine, telling us only what we need to know to preserve the sanctity of the film's denouement.

Because Righteous Kill desires more than anything to surprise you, to trick you, it straitjackets all the actors to an unacceptable degree. It makes them preserve a secret that isn't worth hiding in the first place. The actors thus cloak the very qualities we want from them: some sense of humanity, tragedy or understanding. It's strange how Righteous Kill subverts itself. By tagging the trick ending as the most important aspect of the film, nothing else works. You get two great actors in De Niro and Pacino and handcuff them to a script that won't let them act, except as grinding exposition cogs.

I can see how Righteous Kill might have been a remarkable movie, but the screenplay would require a massive rewrite. You'd have to ditch the surprise ending and get into the hearts and souls of these two wounded men -- into their family lives, into their histories, into their disappointments and victories. You'd have to see how their jobs affected them, and how -- over the years -- the job took away hope, innocence and idealism.

You know the kind of movie I'm talking about, right? It would be like one Michael Mann, Brian De Palma or Martin Scorsese might direct

In that scenario, De Niro and Pacino would be free to do what they do best. They'd be permitted to emote, instead of acting on remote.