Movie Cops

Just a few random thoughts about film. I suppose this is about two movie cops, a dirty one from Rampart and a heroic one from Die Hard 5, as well as the third kind of cops - the ones in the audience policing the product. There are two movies I took a long time to see because of their reputation. A) too much hand-held b) poor story structure. ***Those are the charges against Rampart and A Good Day To Die Hard, anyway. People had represented Rampart as something I wouldn’t like on the basis of not having a clear structure or a point or resolution. I watched it on DVD and then listened to the commentary. The movie is how it should be and is a character piece that is reminiscent of Taxi Driver in the sense that is compelling because of the performances despite your unwillingness to identify. The last couple of images may not have been part of the original plan but they do bring to mind the final images of Taxi Driver – main character at the wheel of a car, close-up, unsettled, and the view of street lights ahead under ending credits. One scene in particular comes to mind in terms of choices, a sand dune obscures the lower frame and some of the action in a way that is effective between Woody Harrelson and Ned Beatty. Another scene between them in a restaurant photographs them from outside the booth in a way that might bring to mind a confessional. Apparently the plan was to obscure Woody’s cop character “Date Rape” Dave Brown as the movie progresses. I like the fact that creative decisions have been made despite the argument these days that every scene also has to be shot with close-ups of anyone speaking – which a network or studio may default to if they feel young audiences (or those watching on small devices) will become restless unless they see full screen faces. Any time a scene survives that requires the audience to lean forward and pay attention and imagine what is happening just out of frame it is a victory for the creative process, whether it comes 100% from the director or other crew and cast have fought for it. Also, strange is the tendency of reviewers (especially on-line reviewers) to police the format as to whether the movie has a straight-line Syd Field/Robert McKee three act structure with day-glow plot-points and turning points and the beats of audience rooting interest firmly in place. Those rules may be helpful for screenwriters editing their stories and refining them in terms of how much time is devoted to a given story element, but they are mostly popular as tools for non-writers, executives, gate-keepers, official readers to say no to a script and have some sort of handy lingo to justify it. Also to sell books and seminars. It is distressing that so many people attacked this film for not following lock-step with screenwriting dogma. (I once participated in a screenwriting circle in which the leader/host pinned me down to define the word dogma. In the Catholic church for example, it would be an edict or a regulation that comes from man but is not attributed to Jesus so it is questionable. And example would be “don’t eat meat on Friday.” In scriptwriting, there is the semantic distinction between rules and principles. One guru says there must be a resolution of events that create a catharsis and closure. Another says that it is more important to leave the reader somewhat frustrated and deny them closure so that there will be discussion and contemplation of the film and the fate of the characters for days or weeks after the final fade out.) A Good Day to Die Hard starring Bruce Willis returning as John McClanewas not a bad movie. It was not expected to be on a par with the original or even the second one, despite the good marketing tag line, “Yippy kayee, Mother Russia .” It may even be a missed opportunity. Bonnie Bedelia has been absent from these films since the second movie, despite seeming to have kept herself up well judging by her role on the latest Parenthood TV series. This can only be the Hollywood adage that a male action star is only as old as his leading lady. So home and hearth here is represented by Lucy McClane the daughter, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead who is underused here but helps frame the story’s departure, initiation, return format. The movie could have remained more or less the same and kept the same casting of Jai Courtney as Jack or John McClane Jr. but could have easily added in another layer of social relevance that might have been timely with a few more lines of dialogue. Suppose the estrangement of John and his son is not just that the elder McClane spent too much time focused on work and ignored his family. Suppose his son was gay and that was the reason he was in the Russian jail. Can’t help thinking that must have been discussed in story conferences. That might have been a plausible rift for old-school crank McClane. But nobody was calling for that. The movie was attacked in ways that seemed reasonable. Chris Stuckman posted a detailed evaluation of the movie (below) in addition to his usual review. I was impressed by this approach to a practical essay, and the arguments behind it persuaded me not to see Die Hard 5 or A Good Day to Die Hard. I had seen the previous one Live Free or Die Hard opening weekend in a theater partially because Kevin Smith had been cast as “Warlock” an internet genius of sorts. Between movies, there was of course a falling out between Willis and Smith so likely no Warlock. I recently caught the on DVD and although it is not as good as the previous film it is not a disaster either. In fairness I think some of even Stuckman’s points are just not right. I don’t think the director did an awful job. There was a lot of hand-held, which I can live without, but that might have been for expedience since I can hardly believe they let so much of the action be filmed in Russia. In any case, I did not notice the directing except that it seemed to communicate what was intended. Willis was said to have come across as sour throughout the film as if he did not want to be there and that there were no jokes or quips. That turns out to not be correct. I wanted to believe that because of the Smith rift, but the character does pretty much retain his humor. No big laughs, but the attempt is there and even the can scene “Are you American?” “Yeah.” Is a different take of that exchange, which had him sit up and say “Yeah” with a patriotic pride. The scene is more loose and friendly in the actual movie. The claim is also made that the bad guys, who they are and what they are after are confusing. I found this not to be the case. No plot point breakthroughs, but the kind of underhanded characters and the shape-shifter archetypes are represented. The running time is shorter than the past 4 Die Hard flicks. That is one statement I found to be correct. It did not seem to lack much. A couple of deleted scenes definitely could have been put back in, like a fight with some thugs over guns in a trunk. Maybe they felt it diluted the tension and seemed more goofy than the rest of the movie. John Moore (remake of the Omen 2006) has a lot of haters apparently, but this movie is not the mess it is made out to be. I will say that it strained my patience only once, when McClane decides to crash through a guardrail on an overpass to drive across the tops of some vehicles below. And the scene also had the garnish of Lucy phoning his cell and his attempt to avoid telling her the trouble he is in. That is kind of a boldface Hollywooden moment that may enrage people so much that they are not won back. The equivalent moment occurs in the previous film Live Free of Die Hard when he jumps onto a supersonic jet and rides the top of it. That is the kind of insanity where I check out. The original Die Hard and even the first sequel had genuine tension and danger. Die Hard 2 pushed it with the eject-seat scene, but even that is a charming stretch and I was still on the edge of my seat and not ejecting. One other charge against Die Hard 5 is the most significant (and damning if it were true) that John McClane does not care about people in this movie. A clip below shows him stealing a vehicle with supposed disregard for the driver, but in context it breezes by. The person is not really harmed and the priority of moving forward is a little more clear. There is less emotion in this movie, but it is subtle and it is there. Some things still blow up real good and it is still better than a Michael Bay movie. Maybe it is the old principle of wide versus narrow acceptance; Frank Capra used to say that Lost Horizon’s full version played very well in the editing room and small screening room but was considered awful when shown to a full public audience. He figured that when individuals watch something there is a wider range of acceptance for it, even strange ranges of style and that the range becomes narrower the more people are sitting through it. He solved that by trimming out the first few reels of that movie, seeing it then accepted as a hit, and then for home video it was restored. Maybe watching a movie at home or on a portable DVD player on the subway it seems like a better movie and any anger I might feel about absurd stunt scenes is diffused. But ultimately the character of John McClane is best when he is the bug escaping the shoe of a gigantic villain, and less appealing if he starts to believe he is in a movie and therefore invulnerable.