The Films of Michael Mann - Part 1

Partial Education Presents

The Films of Michael Mann - Part 1

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Thief

The Keep

Manhunter

The Last Of The Mohicans

Heat

and The Insider

Plus a Bonus Review of Hannibal Rising

Michael Mann's a legend. I wanted to watch his films. I figured I'd review them in the process. Quite simple really.

In 50 Words or Less: A classic to many who aren't me. Thief is a good film with some excellent performances, but a brilliant lead character comes too much at the expense of the supporting players. As a precursor to the style that Mann would come to call his own, it's still an interesting watch.

Apparently, Thief is a great film. According to the late Roger Ebert, it is "one of the most intelligent thrillers I've seen". I don't deny the intelligent part and I can't really deny it's right to be viewed in such high esteem. If it resonates with enough people, it deserves that right. I'm just not one of them. Essentially a character study of jewel thief Frank (James Caan), this is the usual story of said thief trying to bring about some good in his life; his true passion being to start a family with his partner Jessie (Tuesday Weld). The film has a lot going for it. Caan delivers an exceptional performance here that may not stray too far from some of his other roles in regards to character type, but cracks the shell of the hard man exterior to bring out a human fragility. Weld is also very good, though suffers from Mann's weaknesses in writing female characters. Let me say it here, rather than repeat it in every review. Mann's female characters may as well be called Wife when you consider how little they're fleshed out in regards to their male counterparts. Naturally, this being Mann's first film, the directorial style he shows here is one that he would develop throughout his career. His admiration towards the cities in which he sets his films is viewed through a murky lens, as humanity's own flaws squander their potential for greatness. His sweeping panoramas of America's metropolises are the stamp marks that let you know you're watching one of his films and Thief is riddled with all the signposts of the career that would follow it. That's a good thing, if you're wondering. It doesn't have that grandiosity of some of his later films though and that suits it. As I said, this is first and foremost a character study of Frank, with other characters being made to fit round him. The elements of those other characters that we discover are usually limited to what Frank himself discovers and this is part of where I struggle with this film, as many of them feel as though they could have done with more development. The likes of James Belushi, Robert Prosky and Willie Nelson (yes, that one) all play vital characters that still feel secondary to whatever Frank's purpose in their particular scenes are. In Prosky's case, this makes the character feel far too familiar and Prosky's great work deserves a little more attention than it gets, while Belushi and Nelson disappear and reappear with such irregularity that every appearance throws you as you're suddenly thinking "how long is it since they were last in this?" The performances are what make this film worth the effort, particularly if you're a fan of Mann's work, but I do not share the high praise that many others have given this film.

THREE out of five

In 50 Words or Less: Perhaps the most uncharacteristic film of his career, it's not as stupid as the premise (Demon VS Nazis) sounds. Then again, stupidity may have made it a lot less boring.

It's not often that Mann ventures too far into the past. To be honest, it's probably a good thing because, as you will see, it's always been blatantly apparent to me that the present day is where his strengths lie. That is where his masterpieces lie. However, of all of his delves into bygone eras, it's at least reassuring to know that his first is the worst. The Keep is a film so uncharacteristic of Mann that I had to double check there weren't two directors going by the same name. As Nazis take control of the film's namesake, they open up a previously blocked passage, resultantly releasing a not-too-happy demon. With the Nazis blaming the mysterious deaths upon the local villagers, they are convinced to bring in an ageing and unwell Jewish doctor (Ian McKellen) to decipher the messages contained within the keep. Unknown to them, the doctor and the demon soon enter cahoots, as the doctor seeks to restore the strength of his supernatural ally in the hope that he will assist in the extermination of his captors. The film isn't quite as stupid as the synopsis suggests, though that isn't to complement it too much. It's just incredibly hard to explain this film whilst keeping a straight face. Mann was trying something new here and that's always commendable, but it just doesn't work. The biggest problem that the film has sounds a little base, but it's really boring. Any sense of excitement is ruined by an unfocussed script that tries to throw in far too many plot strands and all of these end up underdeveloped. It's not like I wanted to see them develop though because there was nothing here that pushed me into any sort of emotional investment. There's some nice effects used for the demon in the early stages of the film, but as it's appearance develops with it's growing strength, it's not long before it starts to look like the bastard love-child of Jabba The Hutt and Resident Evil's Nemesis. Throw in a voice that just sounds like a pissed off version of the SuperTed narrator…

…and taking this seriously becomes a real mission. There's also the score, which is provided by Tangerine Dream. I should say here that …Dream's work on the score for Thief is brilliant, evoking the right mood, setting and feeling for the film. In The Keep, they pretty much deliver the exact same score, apparently missing the part where this film was set some 40 years before that. It jars horribly. The Keep is not the schlocky B-movie that it perhaps should have been, with an obvious effort on Mann's part to elevate the material further than that. Full points for ambition and that does yield the odd moment or shot that works (the initial reveal of the demon is pretty great, even with the dated effects), but there's a reason why you never here anyone talk about this film.

TWO out of five

In 50 Words or Less: The best Hannibal Lecter in film is a small part of a great thriller that thankfully has a second lease on life as a result of the character's growing fame. Not perfect, but if Seven is the thriller of the 90s, this may well be the thriller of the 80s.

I am a proud member of the "Brian Is Better" camp: that being anyone who has seen Manhunter and thus realises that Anthony Hopkins did not deliver the definitive Hannibal Lecter performance, just the most famous one. Some 5 years before Hopkins made the serial killer a household name, Mann took the first (and best) stab at Thomas Harris' original Lecter novel, Red Dragon. Ignoring the title that everyone bar producer Dino De Laurentiis hated, Manhunter is one hell of a thriller. Criminal profiler Will Graham (William Petersen) is called upon by the FBI to assist in tracking down a killer known as the Tooth Fairy (a great performance by an underrated actor that I won't reveal), so named due to his habit of leaving bite marks in his victims. It's a whodunnit inflicted with some of the darkest of moods. The whole feel of the Lecter series is that of a descent into some of the most depressingly sickening areas of humanity that you could discover. Manhunter has that feeling, like a constant oppression against it's audience, as no character that escapes with their life comes out unscarred. Feelings of warmth will have left you by the end of this film. Petersen is decent in the role, particularly when it comes to Graham's own inner issues, stemming from his earlier encounters with Lecter. Less good is the character's apparent inability to hold an inner monologue. He spouts out his every thought which gives the audience all the necessary information, but Mann's script may as well involve someone walking on to inform us that this is the exposition bit. Then there's Cox. As this came at a point when no one knew quite how infamous a figure Lecter would become, his appearances are few here, yet he still manages to steal it. The key difference between this performance and that of Hopkins is the feeling of chilling normality in Cox. It's as though the character is entrenched in his own belief that normality resides entirely within him. The real evils and perversities lie in the world outside his cell. He talks with a chilling calm about some of the most horrendous things, both in a sense of challenge to Graham, but also with a disdain for anyone who is too sheltered to deal with the horrors that surround them. There's no wide-eyed stare, no psychotic snaps with vampiric grin and no weird sucking sounds. Just terrifying calm. I'm not saying that Hopkins is without merit (I enjoy him in Silence Of The Lambs, less so in Hannibal), but anyone telling me that Cox isn't the master is going to need one hell of a justification. There is the odd moment where the film drags and the end scenes are a little too much, with the Graham engaging in one heroic moment that comes off as a little stupid. It's those great moments that stick in the memory though.

FOUR out of five

In 50 Words or Less: American Braveheart. I quite like Braveheart though.

And so Mann once again ventures into a period setting, this time the 18th century and the Seven Year War. This is the only time Mann made a film set earlier than the 20th century and, as a result, it really does feel entirely different to any other film that he has made. Is it good though? Yeah, just about. A British Army Major (Steven Waddington) is tasked with transporting his new Colonel's two daughters to their father in New York, where they are currently defending against the French. When they are betrayed and almost killed by their Mohawk guide Magua (Wes Studi), they find themselves rescued and guarded by the chief of the last remaining Mohican tribe and his two sons, one of whom happens to be played by Daniel Day-Lewis. With an obvious affection blossoming between Day-Lewis and Madeleine Stowe (as the oldest of the two daughters), the three tribesmen agree to escort them the rest of the way, with their inevitable involvement in the war being the result of this. I could kill The Last Of The Mohicans for a lot of you in one statement. It's about two steps short of Braveheart. The love story that transcends class, the unlikely hero getting his day to shine and the music score that feels a constant need to remind you that you're supposed to be roused right now. That's me being a little mean there (whilst also denying the fact that I'm a bit of a Braveheart fan), but it may help you to decide whether you're going to enjoy, tolerate or hate it. This is a join-the-dots historical epic, with a lack of features that make it stand out. Even Daniel Day-Lewis is pretty run-of-the-mill here, playing the archetypal hero without any of the real delving into the character that we've all come to expect from him. There's a moment of his brilliant acting here and there ("they stay where they lay"), but there is nothing to get really excited about and his and Stowe's romance is just as unexceptionally competent. Thank God for Wes Studi then, who delivers the film's stand-out performance with a character that injects a little unpredictability into things. You never question the film's consideration of him as a villain, but though you'll find it easy to dislike his actions, it will be every bit as hard to condemn his motives. The vengeance he wants is rooted in a justifiable grievance and Studi plays every conflict with a steadfast determination. The faith he has in his own motivations is entirely believable. It is primarily this performance that takes this film into good territory, but Mann's struggles outside of a modern day setting still show.

THREE out of five

In 50 Words or Less: To call this the greatest cop film of the 90's is unfair. From the cop films I've seen, I can only consider it right to call this the greatest of all time.

There are many people who, when asked to name Mann's best film, will point to Heat. I am not one of them, but that is in no way a slight on it. It more shows just how much I really love my favourite one (reviewed next time). Though Manhunter was a decent film, it was not a success and only became well known as a result of two events. The growing popularity of the series is one of them, but so too is Mann's directing of a handful of films so brilliant that people had no choice but to start paying attention. Heat was the film that kickstarted that, nearly 20 years in the making and every bit worth that time. It moves beyond just the simple marketing ploy of De Niro and Pacino sharing the screen for the first time, to become far more about their characters' separate journeys than the brief time they spend together. It's cops and robbers, with Pacino in the cop role and De Niro in the other. Much like Studi in …Mohicans, there can be no doubting that De Niro is the villain here, as established by his willingness to kill if he deems it necessary, but this film is all about varying shades of good and bad. The actions he commits are not acceptable on their own, but in comparison to some of his associates, he's a saint. On the flip side, Pacino's cause is entirely justified, but it's the way in which he allows this to overcome and completely cast aside his personal life that brings up the more questionable elements of his own character. Again, with comparison to the flaws in De Niro's character, the lines of right and wrong are clearly drawn, but there is no such thing as clean cut here. It's this element that dominates much of the film, but with a near three hour running time, there is more than just that string. The film's heist scenes are gripping and a huge downtown gunfight is almost terrifying in it's hard-faced realism. With high definition sound, that is even more so, so I strongly advise buying the Blu-Ray if that is a possibility for you. Thief laid the groundwork for Mann's style and a lot of the films that he would come to make, but the scale of Heat makes it a true modernist epic. My only advice is this. If you don't feel that way after the first viewing, come back to it about 6 months later. Asking to spend 6 hours on one film will be something that some may scoff at, but I say that because it took me a second watch to truly see this film for how great it is. That's not to say that the first watch wasn't enjoyable, but the second was definitely the pay off. I have now lost count of how many hours I have spent watching this film. I regret none of them.

FIVE out of five

In 50 Words or Less: As spot on in it's condemnations as the real story is infuriating in it's injustices. Two great lead performances (perhaps Russell Crowe's best) cement this film as a must see. The good parts are so good that I completely forgive some obvious flaws.

So there was a bit of a "where will he go now?" feeling after Heat. Attempts to replicate the success of that would have been a little foolhardy, but an undeniable strength had emerged when Mann stuck to the present day American city settings. Four years later, Mann managed to counter both problems by going for a more drama based thriller, with the added heft of a true story behind it. Russell Crowe plays Jeffrey Wigand, who was fired from his position at tobacco company Brown and Williamson and effectively blackmailed into signing confidentiality agreements. After Wigand's path crosses with that of 60 Minutes producer Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino), the media's desire to uncover the truth took hold. The Insider is a deeply critical film. It is entirely condemning of the tobacco industry and it's wilful blindness towards the health issues it creates. It's also not overly favourable in it's views on the media. Though it treats Bergman with respect, showing him as a man whose passion is born out of his integrity, it doesn't shy away from the censoring initially placed on the story by network executives. The stresses felt by Wigand will also be felt by the audience, as injustice upon injustice piles on top of him, all stemming from a justified speaking of his mind. Crowe is brilliant in the role and watching the film again reminded me exactly why I've been so disappointed with a lot of his recent work. Though this film had the advantage of coming out before Gladiator, it still doesn't feel like a Crowe performance in the wake of the one that defined his career. It likely helps that he is forced to play the smaller personality in the presence of Pacino's performance, a huge presence that commands the room with bravado (inevitably meaning that the audience will be more concerned with Crowe). I've never seen any interviews with Bergman, but even so doubt that he is that much like Pacino, so a realistic portrayal it may not be. Not much of an issue though, because the performance still has layers, with Bergman's heart and soul occasionally showing face. He sees what has befallen Wigand and, worse still, sees what may be to come and you never get the feeling that he considers this collateral damage, more an unfortunate inevitability if anything close to justice can be served. Mann's direction is very focussed on the performances, toning down some of the gloss and the sweeping skyline shots to keep things focussed on the gritty, unpleasant issues at hand. It's not without it's stumbles. Jessica Lange's great performance suffers from the female character that epitomises Mann's weaknesses and the runtime could have probably been a little tighter. The importance of the issues within though are enough to offset these and render them just about moot.

FIVE out of five

The Bonus Review

In 50 Words or Less: Urge to kill... rising.

So, I've established that Brian Cox is my favourite Hannibal (though I should add that I've never seen the TV series and so can't judge Mads Mikkelsen). That does not, by any stretch, make Anthony Hopkins the worst though, because in a moment of financially motivated madness, Thomas Harris allowed Hannibal Rising to happen. Hell, he wrote the novel seemingly just so they could make film. The result is a poor film and a performance that makes Hopkins look restrained; the worst Lecter performance on film by a country mile. Ladies and Gentleman, Mr Gaspard Ulliel. As the title would suggest, this is the story of how Hannibal Lecter came to be the psychotic scumbag that he is, only it's apparently forgotten that we're not supposed to like the guy. Tracing his roots from World War II, in which all his family are killed as a result of Nazis or worse, Hannibal becomes detached from society and hankers revenge for what befell his family. Along the way, he conveniently develops his liking for the taste of flesh. I have no issue with the idea that society can be to blame for a person's dehumanisation. This film, however, expects us to root for a man who we know will eventually hold a prevalence towards sinking his teeth into the faces of innocent nurses, whilst also feeding one of his victims to unwitting guests at a dinner party. Perhaps it would have worked if we had seen the gradual dissolving of his own sanity, to the point where any feelings of support we may have had were completely gone by the end, but, without giving away the ending too much, that doesn't happen. If anything, it leaves more of the story to be told, but isn't a good enough film to make us want to see that next chapter. As I've said, Ulliel is the worst Lecter performance by far. His perverse grin isn't an indication of his nature, more an indication of an actor trying far too hard to look evil. His creepy line delivery is no better, a see-through attempt to mimic the vocalisations of Hopkins. Supporting characters come and go, with only Gong Li and Rhys Ifans designed to hold any sort of true importance to the narrative, but neither character works. Gong is meant to be the influence of good in Lecter's life and perhaps if we were able to see how she had an effect on the future Lecter, she would have felt worth the time, but her lasting impact is just about nil. As for Ifans, he's an evil European leading a group of fellow evil Europeans. It's testament to how poorly developed this group is that I started to assume they were German, despite already knowing they were meant to be Lithuanian. Hannibal Rising is terrible and only a few steps short of "Hooray for cannibalism". It can be commended for not taking those steps because had it gone that far, I'd have probably busted out a zero.

ONE out of five