April 21, 2004

Well that certainly separates the bloody men from the boys…

I really like Hellboy and all, but Tony Scott's Man On Fire is really the first great movie of 2004. Love of Hellboy is for some of us and not for all. And no doubt, Man of Fire is going hit some people the wrong way. Perhaps the most interesting thing will be to see how critics who went ga-ga over Kill Bill, Volume 2 deal with this film, which hits you in the chest like a load of rock salt so that you actually feel it and aren't just watching the characters pretend to feel it.

If Tony Scott's New York Times review (under his "A.O." moniker) is any indicator, this will be yet another case of a film that dares to make you feel something about the violence being beaten to a pulp while the cartoon is given a pass. In fact, he goes as far as suggesting that his namesake has tendencies towards child porn as a preventative defense of his harsh, finger-waving position.

He writes, "If you object, then you're not only some kind of wishy-washy due-process wimp, but you also probably condone the kidnapping of little girls. (Mr. Scott, for his part, shows a borderline creepy fondness for filming them in bathing suits.)"

For all the fighting over KBV2 last week, I'm pretty sure that this comment passes some sort of line that I never even got close to. Let me say this though… A.O. Scott's review does read like the review of a wishy-washy due-process wimp. And he must know it. He spends as much time defending his position with backhanded slaps ("Their easy, skillful rapport gives the picture's sentimental first half more credibility than it deserves.") than reviewing the movie. He must have seen it with the same kind of audience I did… one that bit into every morsel that the other Mr. Scott and company offered up. Moreover, in the close of the review, he is too squeamish even in his attack to be precise in his description of one of our hero's methods of destruction, perhaps aware that a full description would entice readers of his review even as he is trying to dissuade them from falling prey to this "time-tested movie con." Perhaps some of you will be as angry with him as you were at me when you, like I, "fall" for Man On Fire's scam. Perhaps not.

I do have a strong criticism of the film, however, which does coordinate to some degree with Mr. Scott's… I wish there was less of Man of Fire to love. I would estimate after one viewing (there will be more) that I would have been much happier with 10% less showing off by Scott, his cinematographer Paul Cameron, and his editor Christian Wagner. There is just too much visual distraction for a movie that has such a solid, relentless story and actors who don't leave you looking at your watch. Some of the stuff feels like it's going to be too visually clever and then has an unexpected emotional power, like a seemingly disconnected shot of feet going into water that somehow made me take a deep breath and hold it in my chest an unexpected way. But too often, especially in the opening sequence, it all seems so showy and superfluous. The film didn't get locked until last week, which is a shame, because a few test screenings of this cut with some time to prune the film back just a bit would have served it remarkably well. It was greatly frustrating to get rolling with the film only to be distracted by some over the top sequence or another. Also sure to cause controversy is the sub-titling method, which I came to appreciate as the film went on. It is a bit hyper, but it is not boring and it does show directorial intent.

What is amazing, with all the visual pyrotechnics, is Scott's story patience and willingness to let the story go where Brian Helgeland's adaptation of A.J. Quinnell's book took him. The themes and images are ones we have seen in Scott's work for a long time now. Windblown curtains, smoky sensuality, religious kitsch and strains of classical music played on piano only… it's all there. But the religious undercurrent of redemption and greater purpose, which thankfully remains as subtle as religion can remain in a Mexico City setting, stands as one of Helgeland's most beautiful pieces of writing. The comparison to Mystic River, which will drive critic Scott and many others batty, is very clear to me. The difference, which also recalls the Fight Club/American Beauty comparison, is between internalizing those emotions utterly and letting them loose. In a movie like Interiors, one of Woody Allen's dramas that I quite like, the disconnection from emotion is absolutely a part of the characters. What I don't really care for is when emotion is restrained and the characters act as though they are raging freely. Somehow, the legitimized mayhem of Man of Fire will upset many of those who took the unfair and illegitimate destruction of a loved one in Mystic River. Go figure.

What is genius about Denzel Washington's portrayal of Creasy, the lost soul at the center of Man on Fire, is that he, like so much of the film, embodies things we have seen at the movies a million times. But he is not doing an "it's a movie" wink or telegraphing the inevitable. He says what his intentions are and he never strays. Much like The Terminator, he lives, quite literally in the film, to serve the goal he sets out on at around the one-hour mark. And he is as unflinching as the audience is squirmy. But he is no machine. Creasy lives in the world of moral ambiguity and is suffering the consequences when the movie begins. As the story plays out, he can no longer allow himself to be simplified by the alleged complexity of it all. It is, as it turns out, right out of Kill Bill, V2. He is a natural born killer and happy endings are beside the point. When Chris Walken gives the often-advertised "This is going to be his masterpiece (of death)" speech, the audience laughs, but then swallows the laugh, because they recognize the utter truth of it.

It is Tony Scott's favorite theme… great power taken low and then recovered in a challenge to use that corrupting power for a higher purpose. But the difference here is that Scott doesn't drop into his bag of tricks and take the easy outs that keep threatening to turn up during the movie. In fact, virtually everyone in this story is a truth teller, when you get to their truth. I don't want to give anything specific away that you might guess is coming only to find it does not. But one of the things I liked most about this film is what Scott didn't do. People didn't change because it would comfort the audience. They remained shitty, angry, selfish, conniving or whatever else they were when the story started.

And while I don't want to make this all about critic Tony Scott, I do feel he will represent one camp… the one that rails against being emotionally manipulated by the film. But let me ask this… what role do children have in our lives that is acceptable? Is the effect of a child's purity - and I believe they surely start that way - to make us more cynical and disinterested? If you take away the notion of transformative love and revenge for the loss of same from drama, how many themes are left?

To answer one more question, blaming Man of Fire for the release dates on Kill Bill, Volume 2 and The Punisher is absurd. Having not seen The Punisher, I am still pretty confident that this is the best film of the trio and will be the most financially successful. Moreover, Miramax shifted projected dates on KBV2 long after Man on Fire had its date set and only The Punisher should have run for cover when faced with two films from two very popular directors in the same month.

But enough business. Man of Fire is one of Tony Scott's trio of "best films," joining True Romance and Crimson Tide. It falls off the pace to be his best because of the excessive Spin-Art filmmaking technique. But it gets you. It gets you even when you think you've got it. And that will surely piss some people off. Others will be so distracted by the form that the movie will die in transit for them. But I suspect that the majority will walk out of the theater on fire themselves… and thinking about more than the sum of the violence in this film.

READER OF THE DAY: We're all still on Bill and I'm worn out, as I suspect you are. I'll do a wrap up on it and my second viewing sometime soon… but let's move along… nothing to see here…