Saturday, July 10: Mississippi Mud
GREAT EXPECTATIONS?
by John M. Floyd
The other day I received two Netflix envelopes on the same day. It’s always fun when that happens; the only thing better is when I receive three. Anyhow, these were two crime/suspense movies, In Bruges and Dolan’s Cadillac, and I was looking forward to them both — the first one because Rob Lopresti had recommended it, the second one because it was an adaptation of a Stephen King short story. I love King’s short fiction, and I remember reading “Dolan’s Cadillac” years ago, in the collection Nightmares and Dreamscapes. (It’s one of those King stories that’s more suspense than horror, which is fine by me — he’s good at both.)
As things turned out, and as is so often the case in this life, I got a mixed bag.
The bad news is . . .
Dolan’s Cadillac was a little disappointing. To be fair, it’s hard to adapt a short story to the big screen. Most films are two hours long, and short fiction is, well, short. This means screenwriters have to come up with a lot more story to go along with the original material. Sometimes this works (Rear Window, 3:10 to Yuma, Duel, Brokeback Mountain, High Noon, etc.), and sometimes it doesn’t.
This was a story of obsession and revenge. After the wife of a schoolteacher (Wes Bentley, who did such a great job in American Beauty) is murdered by a sleazy Vegas crime lord (Christian Slater), the grieving widower decides to carry out his vengeance in a unique way — unique enough to make for a really entertaining short story. But the movie, alas, was a bit too long and too much, or at least too much for me. It wasn’t a terrible film, and I enjoyed the ending and the teacher’s determined preparation and planning in order to achieve his goal — but the rest of the movie seemed like filler. Worst of all, I didn’t like the hero much, which never bodes well.
The good news is . . .
In Bruges was excellent. It involves two Irish hit men (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson) who have been sent to Bruges, Belgium, to lie low after a botched job in London. They are an odd couple in every way: the rookie is brooding and impatient and bored, the veteran is calm and fatherlike and fascinated by the history of the Medieval city. After a few days, everything changes when their boss (Ralph Fiennes) contacts them with instructions that turn their “vacation” into a deadly showdown between the three men.
This film has all the ingredients of a successful story: fascinating characters, an unpredictable plot, a moral dilemma (several of them, actually), a fairytale setting unfamiliar to most of us, and an almost perfect ending with multiple twists. Each of the three hit men have a conscience and a code of ethics, and learn “life lessons” before . . . well, that’s all I can say without spoiling things. Rob and I agree that In Bruges is a film of contradictions and soul-searching and, ultimately, redemption. And the most complex characters I’ve seen in a while.
It was impressive to me that the writer/director violated quite a few “rules” and still made the story work. The main players, after all, are killers for hire; it’s hard to make an audience sympathetic to guys like that. There are no cops or amateur sleuths around to exact justice and set things right. Even the minor characters are distasteful: rude tourists, a foulmouthed dwarf, a young woman who provides drugs to a Dutch film crew, an arrogant ticket-seller. The only breath of fresh air is a pregnant innkeeper who has some of the most interesting scenes in the story.
Conclusions
Two things happened as a result of my watching these two movies: one is that I think I’m a better writer for having seen them. A well-made film (or a well-written story or novel) is always educational, and I believe you can learn almost as much from a poorly-made film (or a poorly-written story or novel) as from a good one, if you can pinpoint the reasons you don’t like it.
The second thing is that, since I chose one of these movies because I thought it’d be good and one because a friend told me to . . . well, maybe I do better following the advice of others.
Any of you have recommendations?
Most movies leave me cold, John, but I watch a lot for the cheesiness factor. The one recent outstanding movie on DVD was The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. (I hadn’t bothered with the books because of all the hype but I’m seriously recondering that stand.) The Girl Who Played with Fire was just released to the theaters this month and I’m hoping (probably in vain) that it will play in my area; if not, the DVD will soon follow.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo reminded me of another great flick, Smilla’s Sense of Snow.
Thanks, Jerry, I’ll try Dragon Tattoo. I love movies, but it’s getting hard to find good ones.
I think one of the best I’ve seen in a while is Invictus, although it’s of course not crime/suspense.
I’m with you on In Bruges, John. A terrific film. I think the complexity of the characters is one reason we find them engaging even though they’re the bad guys. A second reason stems from the fact that compared with the man they work for, who’s REALLY bad, our two heroes look like pussycats. Well, maybe tiger cubs.
If you haven’t already seen it, I think you’d enjoy Sexy Beast, with Ben Kingsley, for the same reasons you liked In Bruges. It’s amazing to watch Kingsley’s monstrously evil character and remember that this is the actor who play Ghandi.
Obviously I’m a big fan of In Bruges, and thanks for reminding me of scenes I had forgotten. (MY favorite moment may be when we first meet Fiennes as the boss. He has just received some bad news by phone so he beats the phone to pieces. This guy has anger issues…)
I give a hearty second to Sexy Beast.
Ben Kingsley… I once saw a series of videos called, if I recall Acting Shakespeare, in which the director of the Royal Shakespeare Company discussed certain issues of playing the Bard. For example, one was just on how to do the famous soliliquies that most of the audience know by heart (how exactly do you make “to be or not to be” seem new?). Anyway, in one episode he was talking about LISTENING on stage and the actor he had demonstrate was a pre-Gandhi Kingsley. And Kingsley, in character, listening, was far more interesting than his brother actor speaking.
Reminds me of sonething Bruce Willis said about the child co-star in The Sixth Sense. You can see his character THINKING.
I am currently watching a crime movie I like a lot. Lucky Number Slevin. (That’s not a misspelling.) I’ll write about it when I’ve finished. Ben Kingsley, interestingly, plays a crime boss called the Rabbi. (“Why do they call him The Rabbi?” “Because he’s a rabbi.”)
Thanks, Anita and Rob, for more good recommendations.
Ben Kingsley is certainly one of my favorite actors, along with Robert Duvall, Morgan Freeman, Meryl Streep, Gene Hackman, Tommy Lee Jones, and a few others.
I once heard someone say, of the late character actor Ben Johnson, “He’s not really acting — he’s just playing himself.” And in his case I think he probably was.
I’ll give you a reccomendation that is actually a warning. Avoid “McGruber” like a casserole made of cat hair. I saw it for nothing and it wasn’t worth that!
Another little known classic caper movie: That Sinking Feeling. A comedy made for about tuppence about some young unemployed Scotsmen who decide to commit one brilliant robbery and retire – they rob a warehouse full of kitchen sinks. Hilarious.
Duly noted, Rob. My Netflix queue is looking pretty impressive right about now.
Jeff, warnings are as welcome as recommendations. Many thanks!