Film Pairings — James Bond and Jack Reacher, Peas In Separate Pods

There’s never a shortage of superheroes.  At the moment The Lone Ranger and the zillionth portrayal of Superman, are dazzling or disappointing filmgoers.

However, we home-alone viewers with Netflix accounts are not necessarily “trending.”  We are catching up. The local theaters are no longer showing the two films I highlight here.  They are Skyfall, the latest of many James Bond films and Jack Reacher, the first of what is likely to be a new franchise searching for iconic status and profits.  They are about smart, tough guys who save the world or, in Reacher’s case, a tank of a man who cleans up a piece of a smaller domain.  The main characters in each are human though impervious to death. In both cases their near superpower comic-book feats take an immense suspension of disbelief.  Yet we do suspend it even if the Reacher character, designed by his creator at a towering, and intimidating 6’5, 250pounds,” is played by the diminutive Tom Cruise.  We want to believe.

When I was in my teens I read all of the 12 slim volumes of Ian Fleming’s 007 adventures.  I was mesmerized.  This was before I saw any of the movies.  I probably would have cast (as I learned that Fleming preferred as well) the sophisticated David Niven before the earthier Sean Connery, though it didn’t take long for me to buy into the Scotsman. I was disappointed to learn that he and Bond had separated after seven films, but quickly accepted Roger Moore who, in many ways for me, better captured the original, light-hearted spirit of the character.  I thought Pierce Brosnan split the difference and did so very well. So too have I, an avid cinema fan, accepted and welcomed Daniel Craig, though it seems we’ve almost come full circle — the most solemn of the lot.  He seems old and grumpy (I can identify with that), not the original, carefree Bond. This is also in keeping with the way we are seeing American superheroes these days, wit buried under stone.

Craig’s two Bonds, like it or not, have changed the Bond franchise. To drive the point home in Skyfall, with appropriate symbolism, the elegant Aston Martin is blown up on a dystopian landscape not disappearing out of the frame on a scenic highway along the French Riviera as it should.  This Bond is weary, sullen, craggy, yet demands your attention. He seems, perhaps — his superhuman feats aside — too human.  There’s not an ounce of a Devil-May-Care martini in his veins.

For Jack Reacher, maybe it would have been too easy to cast someone like Ryan Gosling as Reacher, the character inhabiting the best selling 17-book series by Lee Child.   Or maybe Channing Tatum.  Seriously. For me Tom Cruise is a sort of journeyman leading man.  And a case could be made that physicality aside, this was a perfect role for him.  Not a lot of nuance here to worry about.  As we expect from both films it is about right and wrong, good and evil.  We root for our heroes to win so we can go to bed believing the world is safe for the few minutes it takes to go off into our own dreamland.  These two heroes are not cut from the same cloth, however.

Bond, however rebellious at times, works for the bureaucracy in service to what we must presume or at least hope to be a larger good.  After all, he pretty much saves the world in each adventure.  Not so, Reacher.  There’s a line in the movie, which I don’t have precisely; but the gist is our hero doesn’t believe in the law or justice.  He believes in what is right.  Right is what is right in his world and the story may be written so we, in our secret vigilante hearts, agree and root for the three-in-one protagonist — judge, jury and executioner.  We do so with, I hope, a little caution from our better selves.

The director and cinematographer do a good job conveying Reacher’s worldview if it can be described so broadly.  Bond is filmed against incredible, wide-sweeping landscapes. It’s a big world with lots of moving parts.   In Reacher the camera is completely focused on Cruise.  He is constantly, slowly, importantly entering a room with music and lingering camera angles that emphasize his self-assured domination of the small world around him.  It is all immediate and personal.  It is all about him.  He is standing tall.  That seems to be all that matters.

Both films provide a couple of hours of worthwhile escape from our less eventful daily lives.  Jack Reacher is not complex as a movie or character.  The upside of that is the film is finely plotted and clearly told. Robert Duvall makes a cameo, as does Werner Herzog. Also on screen is the talented Richard Jenkins, who is clearly under utilized here.   Of the two, Bond is not only richer cinematically (also more than twice the budget), but also treats us to a cast of acting legends.  In addition to Daniel Craig, we have Judi Dench, Ralph Fiennes, Javier Bardem and Albert Finney.

For the evening viewing of Bond, a martini is appropriate of course, if for no other reason than a tribute to an earlier era.  For Reacher, maybe a Pabst to reflect a film and a lead actor, both delivering the goods in an efficient and timely manner.

Film Pairing — An Odd Couple On The Best Crime Movies List

Sometimes great movies slip into oblivion.  Running on Empty, rarely talked about, was suggested by the blog “Tipping My Fedora,” a rich source for the analysis of crime fiction books and movies.  The other film, Miller’s Crossing pops up on one list or another, but it seems to be the critics’ stepchild when it comes to the almost sainted Coen brothers, who wrote, produced and directed the film. You are likely to hear more about Fargo, Raising Arizona or The Big Lebowski, where the comedy is closer to the surface. Miller’s Crossing, more like my favorite Blood Simple, is darker and a more ambitious film.  But the comedy, a bit more subtle it seems, is there and the movie is well worth the time.

Running on Empty is a small movie, low-key and its drama is actually not the crime, not the violence, not bringing the criminals to justice. It’s the backstory.  The family is in hiding, has been for years because of a politically motivated crime committed by the mother when she was young and revolutionary.  Her arrest would destroy the family.  But the incessant fear and hyper vigilance as well as the constant running takes a toll on the family. The pressure becomes almost unbearable as the oldest son must choose between keeping the family together and having a life of his own. Few actors can pull off the sort of vulnerability shown by the young River Phoenix  — Leonardo DiCaprio in What’s Eating Gilbert Grape comes to mind — but this is the performance that makes the film.  Judd Hirsch, Christine Lahti and Martha Plimpton form the main cast for this film directed by Sidney Lumet.  The film was up for several Academy and Golden Globe nominations.  It was loosely based on-real life situations.

 

Miller’s Crossing is a big movie, high key and its drama is the constant crime and violence. While I’m sure there are many who would disagree, Miller’s Crossing is magnificent. It is dark and deadly and crazy and unhappy.  It is violent and funny and its occasional preposterousness is entirely believable.  As luck would have it, I had just finished reading Dashiell Hammett’s Red Harvest and found this film a reconstruction of not only that era, but also that kind of corrupt, gritty reality that Hammett writes about, and similar in style. The film also has a similar humor that underlies both Hammett’s much more minimal narrative and his colorful dialogue.

Gabriel Byrne plays the burnt-out protagonist.  He has his own code of behavior, one that befuddles those around him, but is understandable to those who pay attention. It’s HIS code. And he doesn’t abandon it under any circumstances. Very Hammett. Albert Finney as a tough Irish mobster is riveting. John Turturro has an emotionally demanding role that he accommodates like the major talent he is. John Polito is, as always, the gangster’s gangster.  And J.E. Freeman plays against stereotype and is more than notable as “the Dane,” a cold, cruel gay villain. We see the emergence of other, eventual Coen regulars in small parts played by Steve Buscemi and Frances McDormand.

In the end, it’s a night of whiskey on the rocks.  Probably Irish in honor of the dominant mafia in Miller’s Crossing.  One could sip some wine during Running on Empty or simply wait until you get to the hard stuff for the Coen Brothers contribution to noir.  Lock up your Tommy guns.