Showing posts with label M. Emmet Walsh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label M. Emmet Walsh. Show all posts

Monday, December 6, 2010

Blood Simple

Have you ever watched a movie for a second or third time and realized that, for all these years, you have been undervaluing that film?  I don't know what happened between my last viewing of Blood Simple and this time, but something changed enough to bump this from "a good first try" to one of my favorite films from Joel and Ethan Coen, which is no mean feat.

The title is taken from Dashiell Hammett's (my favorite author) novel Red Harvest, and it refers to the stupid mindset people can find themselves in after prolonged exposure to violence.  They get jumpy, they get dumb, they get...well, simple.  Ray (John Getz) and Abby (Frances McDormand) are secret lovers, trying their best to hid the fact from Julian (Dan Hedaya), Abby's husband and Ray's boss.  They don't realize that Julian has hired a private detective, Loren (M. Emmett Walsh), to dig up the truth.  And dig it up, he does.  Loren takes pictures of the couple in a steamy embrace; yes, it's part of the job, but he's a dirty pervert, too, so he goes home with a smile.  Not one to take cuckolding lying down, Julian makes a menacing call to the couple and then hires Loren to kill them.  What follows is a game of cat and mouse, where the players aren't even sure who's hunting who.

Normally, I would go on and on about what a great actress Frances McDormand is, but the fact of the matter is that she was pretty young when this was filmed, and her performance is solid, but nothing spectacular.  She certainly outshines John Getz, but I would say that her performance was about as good as Hedaya's.  That's not a knock, since he plays a greasy jealous husband so well, but it's less impressive than her many later Coen Brothers roles.  The star of this picture is M. Emmett Walsh, who is amazing as the sociopathic scumbag private dick/assassin.  He is so sleazy, I wanted to clean my TV screen after the movie finished.  Walsh is normally a decent, but not exceptional supporting player, but his nastiness here makes him one of the best noir villains I have seen.  This is the first film by the Coen Brothers, and it serves as an indicator of where their careers would lead; the most stunning character was a supporting role, the cinematography was great, and the basic plot is simple, with all sorts of complications woven over it.  This was obviously a low-budget film, with most of the violence implied and not seen, but when it is shown, the violence is jarring and very effective.  The cinematography is very noticeable, with several shots being at extreme low angles, but it is very effective on the whole; I particularly liked the frequent zooming in on unmentioned, but important just the same, details in particular scenes.  This was Barry Sonnenfeld's fist professional work (as a cinematographer --- he eventually went on to direct big movies like Men In Black), and he does a beautiful job.

This is often cited as a neo-noir, and while I usually debate the assignment of "noir" to any gritty story, it definitely is appropriate here.  It's not about the feelings of the lovers, or even the hate of the jilted husband, it's about life, death, and moodiness.  And I love me some noir, so that's a good thing.  The movie starts out fairly quietly, but the Coens are able to grab your attention early and the succeed in ratcheting up the suspense as the film progresses.  I liked that much of the story was left out of the dialogue, so the viewer had to fill in the (moderately obvious) gaps on their own.  It was shot extremely well, even if some moments betrayed the amateur nature of the filmmakers.  Some people argue that this is the best Coen Brothers movie, that their later work gets a little too kooky; they have a point, and this is a great movie, but "too kooky"?  I don't know if the Coens have reached that point yet.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Slap Shot

It would be an exaggeration for me to claim that I am a big hockey fan.  And by an "exaggeration," I of course mean an "outright lie."  I don't watch hockey.  I don't know the rules or even most of the professional teams.  The last time I can remember watching hockey was when I last saw The Mighty Ducks --- no, wait, make that Van Damme's Sudden Death.  Obviously, it takes roundhouse kicks to the face and/or the least successful Sheen to convince me to watch a hockey movie.  "But Brian, Slap Shot is really funny!"  Who cares?  It's not like I need any help ridiculing Canada.  Do you know how they named their country?  Well, they started with a C, eh? and an N, eh? and a D, eh?  Oh, xenophobia...you so consistently crack me up.

Actually, it turns out that my imaginary protesting voice is right; this might be the hockey movie, but it is also a movie that hockey ignoramuses can easily enjoy.  Slap Shot tells the tale of the a minor league hockey team, the Charlestown Chiefs.  Led by player/manager Reggie Dunlop (Paul Newman), the team is a frequent loser.  Their only bright spot is Ned Braden (Michael Ontkean), a graceful player, although he is criticized for not being aggressive enough.  When the local mill closes down, attendance takes a dive; the team eventually learns that the franchise is going to be disbanded after the season.  Dejected, the Chiefs start to play even worse than before.  Reggie has spent his whole life playing hockey, and managing a terrible team won't get him another managerial job, so he has to think fast.  Why not, he reasons, start a rumor that the team will be sold, not disbanded, after the season to a city in Florida?  Reggie doesn't know who the Chiefs' owner is (and he's tried to find out), so who is going to prove him wrong?  The idea of moving to Florida appeals to the team's players, and their attitudes rapidly improve.  They're still not very good, though.

Enter the Hanson brothers.  The team's general manager (Strother Martin) makes a trade one day and ends up with three young kids with long, blonde hair and an annoying hit single and the ladies (and pedophiles) couldn't get enough --- whoops.  Wrong Hansons.  These Hansons were three young simpletons with coke bottle glasses, loud voices and short attention spans.  Reggie refuses to play them because they are idiots.  Fair enough, I suppose, but this is back when only goalies wore helmets, so this isn't exactly a sport for geniuses.  Eventually, a game gets so bad that Reggie puts the three in to see what they can do.  As it turns out, they can beat the snot out of everyone on the ice.  It doesn't matter if you're by the puck or if you're the referee, you're going down when these guys take the ice.  The three played only a few minutes before being ejected, but the crowd went wild.  Reggie takes note and starts egging his other players on to act more like the Hansons.  The Chiefs start to win and their fans start to take notice.  At what point, though, does playing rough stop being hockey and start being a brawl with nets?

The direction of George Roy Hill is entirely responsible for why this movie works.  The cast is full of professional hockey players, not actors.  Aside from Newman, there are few recognizable actors, just a few occasional television bit players, M. Emmet Walsh, and Brad Sullivan.  And yet, the movie doesn't suffer from a lack of polished acting.  The players basically just play and mispronounce things, eh?  It helps that there are only two characters in the movie, Reggie Dunlop and Ned Braden, and their relationship is a microcosm of the film's primary conflict.  And then there are the Hanson brothers.  If you haven't seen this movie, but have heard hockey fans talking about it, you have heard about the Hansons.  Telling you that they knocked this one guy really hard when he wasn't looking doesn't do them justice.  They're dirty players and the things they do are so obviously wrong, you can't help but laugh.  Their dialogue and delivery are in line with their tough play, just as easy to laugh at and just as difficult to describe.  Let's just say that they're funny.

While the Hanson brothers are what make this movie memorable, Paul Newman's performance is what gives it a semblance of substance.  This isn't the Newman I'm used to seeing in movies, either; he is sneaky, manipulative, and an unrepentant womanizer.  In other words, he's a jerk.  He's still likable (he is Paul Newman, after all), but that edge gives the movie a cynical dark side that most sports movies avoid.

It's too bad that other sports movies haven't followed Slap Shot's style over the years.  Most sports movies are formulaic and a little cheesy.  I like having the main characters be a little bad.  It adds some spice to the story and throws their inevitable victory at the end into question.  This is a film that stands out among sports movies for playing dirty and being rewarded for it --- oh, and those Hansons are pretty awesome, eh?

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Youth In Revolt

All comedic actors have an image problem at some point in their careers.  Yes, it's great that Jim Carrey can talk out of his butt, or that Adam Sandler can start a sentence very quietly and then talk real loud, but eventually, they got tired of the same shtick and branched out into more varied roles.  This usually means a dramatic role that forces audiences to look at the actor in a new light, but these new roles are usually less impressive than their earlier silly stuff.  Michael Cera, who has managed to play the same character in several comedies over the past three or four years, takes a different approach to reinventing his image in Youth in Revolt.

Cera plays the lead role of Nick Twisp, a smart, introverted sixteen year old that longs to have a woman to give him a reason to desire.  He spends his time listening to Frank Sinatra vinyl and reading classic prose, trying to imagine a plausible way to lose his virginity.  It doesn't help that his family essentially rubs their sex lives in his face.  His mother (Jean Smart) is unapologetic about her low dating standards and his father (Steve Buscemi) is dating a buxom twenty-five year old (Ari Graynor).  With nothing better to do, Nick follows his mother and her boyfriend on a short vacation to a trailer park.  There, Nick meets Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday), a pretty girl his age that is interested in literature and vinyl, too, although with a distinct preference for all things French.  Since she lives in a trailer park, there's not much to do but see how the new kid is, and they begin to spend time together.  Sheeni enjoys flirting with Nick and teasing him about his virginity, while Nick is simply amazed that an attractive girl would ever speak to him, much less kiss him.  Sheeni dreams of living in France and likes the idea of "bad boys."  Nick is obviously not bad.  Still, he falls in love with her, does a few silly things and temporarily wins her affection.  Unfortunately, Nick's time in the trailer park is limited.  Nick professes his love to Sheeni and comes up with a plan for them to be together, permanently.  Sheeni's part is to find a job for Nick's unemployed father near the trailer park.  All Nick has to do is be a bad enough son for his mother to send him to live with his father.  Sheeni has her doubts about this plan, but Nick swears he can do it, so she tells him to be "very, very bad."  Enter Francois Dillinger, the agressive, selfish, rude, and (above all else) French alter-ego for Nick.  With the help of Francois, Nick gets to be very bad indeed.  Of course, being bad has its consequences, and earning love is not necessarily one of them.

Before I mention anything else, I have to say that I find Michael Cera in the Francois persona an absolutely hilarious concept.  Of course Michael Cera's bad side looks just like him, only with a wispy mustache and a part in his hair.  I loved that Nick and Francois shared the screen together, taking turns observing and being in control.  It's like the old Tom and Jerry cartoons, where Tom would have a mini-devil pop up on his shoulder and give him advice.  Actually, it's better because Francois smokes cigarettes and wears vaguely European clothing (white pants and no socks?).  I even liked how Francois held his cigarettes; it always looked cool, but was pretty unrealistic (is he holding it between his pinkie and ring finger?).  Most of Francois' manners and mannerisms feel completely fabricated, which is perfect for a character that was created by a well-read nerd that desperately wants to be cool.  You would think that Nick would be a less funny version of Cera's typical neurotic role, if only to give Francois room to work, but the Nick character also works well.  As far as I'm concerned, the Michael Cera content in this movie was great.

The rest of the movie works less well.  One of the main problems I have is with the language.  No, it's not particularly vulgar (although it's by no means a family comedy).  The dialogue for most of the cast is just not natural, for lack of a better description.  It sounds like the dialogue belongs in a volume of flowery prose, which I'm sure is the creative team's intent.  Unfortunately, this comes off as clunky; the script is pretty clever and is full of references that I cannot speak to (I'm not being egotistical, but that's hard to do in American cinema), but a lot of it feels lost in translation.  I get the impression that the book (which I haven't read) plays up Nick's love of literature and letters more than a film adaptation ever could, and it's too bad.  I think this would have worked better if the story was clearly being narrated by Nick throughout, like this movie was his screenplay about his love for Sheeni and he was an unreliable narrator.

The language could have been seen as a bizarre quirk if the pacing had been better.  This is only ninety minutes long, but it feels a lot longer, and I'm not sure why.  One reason could be the glut of secondary characters in this movie.  They are all colorful, but I don't know if they were all necessary to the story.  The pacing could be because the source material from author C.D. Payne was set up as a series of letters, a la Dracula.   I'm inclined to believe, though, that the pacing suffered because director Miguel Arteta did not edit the movie well.  So much of this movie is repetitive, hammering the same ideas over and over; I get it, Michael Cera is a subtle actor to a fault, but I don't need to be told that he's lonely and awkward more than once or twice to believe it.  It's like belaboring the point that Woody Allen is a neurotic Jewish New Yorker.

The rest of the film was fine.  The acting was all good, but most of the actors had only bit parts.  Cera was his typical awkward self, but I happen to really enjoy his awkwardness.  Portia Doubleday did a good job as his foil, but aside from showing a talent for deadpanning lines, it's hard to judge her talents.  It was nice to see Steve Buscemi in an indie movie again, even if it had him in a relationship with a woman far too attractive to be with him.  Still, casting Buscemi as Cera's dad is a good choice.  I liked Zach Galifianakis, and Ray Liotta in their small roles as the boyfriends of Nick's mom.  Fred Willard is always Fred Willard, but he gets some decent material here and that makes all the difference.  Justin Long has a bit part and I actually liked him, which is a first for me.  You might recognize Jonathan B. Wright from his small role in Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist; he doesn't get much more screen time here as Nick's largely unseen nemesis, but he could be good if given more to work with.  Adhir Kalyan was an okay choice for Vijay, but there aren't really a lot of Indian actors that can play nerdy right now.  M. Emmet Walsh is clearly too old to have fathered Sheeni, but he's still funny.  I liked Mary Kay Place fine as Sheeni's mom, but I wasn't particularly impressed with Jean Smart as Nick's mom.

Between the overwhelming amount of recognizable actors, the slow pace, and the language barrier, this film's negatives overwhelm the presence of Francois Dillinger.  For a movie with such a clear-cut purpose (be bad to win the girl), the story was surprisingly slow.  Sure, I enjoyed most of the characters, but there was rarely a unique payoff for their scenes.  I wouldn't mind if one of C.D. Payne's other Nick Twisp books was eventually made into a movie, but I would hope that the filmmakers learn from this film and deliver the sharp, quick movie these characters deserve.