Miami Vice (Michael Mann, 2006)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
chaddoli
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

#251 Post by chaddoli » Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:22 pm

Instead of a "movie/director on drug" description (which, as someone once said here, should be permenately retired because they are usually both meaningless and ignorant) - for Miami Vice, a nice one phrase description might be "an existential action movie" or "a $150 million experimental film" - (perhaps those are equally meaningless and ignorant).

User avatar
sevenarts
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 7:22 pm
Contact:

#252 Post by sevenarts » Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:51 pm

How about a $150 million failed experiment? Ba-dump-bump.

In all seriousness, though, I'm not sure I understand the periodic references to Mann's high budget as a virtue. Does it somehow improve the film that Mann saddled his "existential action movie" -- is that high-falutin' phrase for "action-less action movie"? -- with a tremendous Hollywood budget and a slick aesthetic? Would it be less noteworthy if it was some unknown director doing this on a shoestring? Well, of course -- the film's basically nothing but its budget, nothing besides the glossy shine of its visuals, the blank handsomeness of its actors, the vacation-commercial sheen of its landscapes and boat rides, the TV-drama schematics of its skeletal plot. I have enough faith in Mann that I'm sure he intended this to be a commentary on such vacuousness, but he doesn't quite pull it off -- instead he fully became what he wanted to parody.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#253 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:15 pm

sevenarts wrote:Well, of course -- the film's basically nothing but its budget, nothing besides the glossy shine of its visuals, the blank handsomeness of its actors, the vacation-commercial sheen of its landscapes and boat rides, the TV-drama schematics of its skeletal plot. I have enough faith in Mann that I'm sure he intended this to be a commentary on such vacuousness, but he doesn't quite pull it off -- instead he fully became what he wanted to parody.
I disagree. I believe it was the Guardian or the Daily Telegraph ran a really fascinating article on how the obsessive detail paid to what characters wear, the vehicles they drive and even the guns they use define who they are in Mann's films. And there are tip-offs that he's doing this on purpose... with the incredibly tense criminal/police jargon all of the characters speak in Miami Vice so much so that it is almost like listening to another language. But, if you think about it, the cops vs. the robbers in this one is almost like battle of the bling... a pissing contest between both sides on who can have the faster boats, the more expensive suits, the better hi-tech gadgets, and so on.

Mann uses the frame and visual space to reflect the moods of his characters... so, he'll have a character dwarfed in a large, near-featureless room to symbolize their outsider status. Or, another Mann fave, frame them against a body of water which is always a safe haven for a protagonist in any of his films.

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

#254 Post by John Cope » Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:53 pm

Here's a piece I meant to post months ago, but I do so now as it seems to have relevance to the current discussion.

This point in particular:
In "Miami Vice" the good guys have not a shred of material existence to betray their social class. Crockett and Tubbs don't live anywhere, and touch down only in unfurnished apartments provided by their employer, where they use the showers for sex. They never sleep or eat, so we cannot know whether they prefer, for example, burgers to blackened sea bass.
Only bad guys eat and then not much. The one who did appear to be chewing may have been just gnawing on his meth mouth.

In general, it's a starkly stripped-down world our heroes now inhabit. What is all the shooting about? Drugs, of course, but these are rarely mentioned by name, nor do the good guys ever hint at any moral impulse for the war. Are the drugs destructive? Could they possibly be more destructive than the shootouts, bombings, and torturings occasioned by their illegal status? No one seems to care. Drugs are just the "product," and the only issue is their delivery -- successful or intercepted in a hail of automatic weapon fire.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#255 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:16 pm

That's a pretty good assessment.

My favorite scene in the film is where Gina blows away the guy holding the trigger to the bomb. It's a wonderfully placed gutshot to action-film cliche's on top of being a really tense scene.

LavaLamp
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:59 am

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#256 Post by LavaLamp » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:46 am

Just re-watched Miami Vice on DVD; it's the first time I've seen the film since watching it in the theatre. Truly incredible experience - very tight plot, great action scenes, incredible scenery, and a fantastic soundtrack.

As in Heat, the fight scenes were brilliant & extremely well choregraphed.
SpoilerShow
The last scene when Crockett went back to the hospital after leaving Isabelle for the last time showed where his priorities lie, i.e. with a fallen co-worker rather than with a romantic interest - sure, his relationship with Isabella was doomed from the start & they had to separate, but I think this speaks for his character as much as the situation.
It's interesting that when I first saw this, I was kind of put off by the fact that it was not at all similar to the original TV show I liked back in the day. However, after seeing it again, I realized that's not a bad thing at all - The TV show was great (and I enjoy revisiting it on DVD), but times have changed & it's not the '80's anymore. And, I did like the slight homages, which were appropriately minimal: The cover of Phil Collins' In the Air Tonight that played over the end credits, as well as the score throughout the film - which, at times, was (or seemed) reminiscent of the score in the original show...
Last edited by LavaLamp on Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:59 pm, edited 4 times in total.

oh yeah
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#257 Post by oh yeah » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:40 pm

Glad to see one more fan of this unfairly maligned masterpiece; I'd say it is Mann's best work, or at least tied with Heat for that honor. Mann's use of digital is truly mesmerizing, an exquisite mixture of raw realism and impressionist poetry. The film's minimalism of character and narrative and overall design is sublime; this is most clearly seen in the way the film starts in media res and ends just as abruptly, giving the feeling of having witnessed a small part of a much larger series of events. But notice also how little is overtly revealed about the characters or plot, how everyone is stripped of backstory, how little Mann uses establishing shots to orient a scene. It is a film of pure action, always unfolding breathlessly in the present moment. It is also a tremendously melancholy film, a tone poem about the cost of immersing oneself in the postmodern capitalist system, a neverending, rootless, boundless system of liquid identities and constant movement. The typical Mann image of the ocean paradise here symbolizes a welcome respite from a cold, unfeeling machine; likewise, Cuba offers a glimpse of the old, human oriented world, with children playing in the streets and Mann stressing the remembrance of old memories and photographs (the wall of one bar is quite literally packed with framed b&w photographs). Sonny tries to get lost in human connection and warmth again but fails to escape the system. In the end, he only can return to the flux (the hospital).

It is an overwhelmingly immersive and completely visceral and emotional film for me, one which completely makes irrelevant its ostensible genre and TV adaptation trappings (I haven't seen an episode of the show). It also demands and richly rewards repeat viewings; indeed, I have probably seen it at least 15 times now. My only complaint is the Audioslave tracks; John Murphy's score and the other selected songs are perfect, but Cornell's voice always jars me out of the film just a little bit. I think that worked a lot better in Collateral, with "Shadows on the Sun." Also, while the director's cut has some great additions, they're not really necessary and ultimately kind of ruin the breathless, frantic pace and aesthetic of the film. Ironically, the theatrical cut feels far truer to Mann's vision, and much less ingratiating to the viewer.

User avatar
feihong
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#258 Post by feihong » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:26 pm

This is my favorite Mann film as well. The boat ride to Cuba is probably my favorite passage from a Mann film. I think the point of the film is the flux you talk about. These are people whose forward movement defines them, validates them, and which ultimately keeps them safe from harm. Every time we see someone drop out of the flow of the movie, there are huge consequences (Yero's single tear watching Isabella dancing with Crockett unhinges the entire undercover scheme, and Crockett and Isabella's sojourn in Cuba ups the stakes for everyone involved in the deal considerably). The flux dictates everyone's direction, and I especially like the way the pursuit of Neptune becomes completely overwhelmed by the apparently more immediate needs of the hotter case. You get the feeling that the film could lurch off in another direction just as quickly--that people would have to abandon ties and connections on a moment's notice in order to attach themselves to the new flow of events.

I do like the director's cut, especially for the addition of "In the Air Tonight"--call me sentimental, I guess. I liked the gesture towards the original series. And also, the opening is quite poetic, with the bubbles rising to the surface of the water--it's a nice metaphor for the kind of policework these cops do; then the following boat race establishes the speed of events to follow. I liked the theatrical version just fine, but I think the director's cut does add a little bit--the setup of the Neptune deal makes the abandonment of the Neptune deal a scene later somewhat more significant, which in turn makes the new case they jump on more significant as well. Also, the boat race establishes these guys proficiency with boats, which is nice, since they end up jumping into boat after boat for the rest of the movie with conspicuous ease. It's maybe not a necessary piece of setup, but I think Mann likes to establish his characters credentials in many ways--he likes sketching for us how they are so good at what they do, or how devoted they are to mastery of this ability or another ability. The scene also provides us just a little bit more of a look at Crockett and Tubbs' squad--we get to see Switek going undercover as a wealthy jet-setter, sponsoring Crockett and Tubbs in the race.

oh yeah
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#259 Post by oh yeah » Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:23 pm

I agree that the director's cut boat race opening is a great scene; I particularly love that first shot of the camera slowly rising to the surface. I guess I just think the way the theatrical cut so suddenly injects the viewer into the film is pivotal to the overall aesthetic design. Anything which comes before that just kind of neuters its alienating power. So, while having the first scene with Neptune does make the second one more cohesive, I prefer that sense in the theatrical of "what's going on?" of just being totally thrust into an unfamiliar situation.

I don't like the addition of "In the Air Tonight" over the lead-up to the last gunfight much at all, though. It feels totally misplaced and kind of ruins the suspense and sense of danger; the theatrical's more moody ambient score works far, far better I think.

TedW
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: A Theatre Near You

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#260 Post by TedW » Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:43 pm

I'm not sure I understand why a movie that is alienating to the viewer is to be admired. Surely you see this is not the same thing as making a movie about alienation (if, in fact Miami Vice is about alienation, which I'm not sure it is).

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#261 Post by John Cope » Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:46 pm

TedW wrote:I'm not sure I understand why a movie that is alienating to the viewer is to be admired. Surely you see this is not the same thing as making a movie about alienation (if, in fact Miami Vice is about alienation, which I'm not sure it is).
I think it most assuredly is. Form fits content.

TedW
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: A Theatre Near You

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#262 Post by TedW » Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:52 pm

Please. Like the subjective mode is the only formal mode available. "It's about alienation, therefore I will make the viewer feel alienated." "It's about chaos, therefore I will make the film in a random and haphazard way." Not buying, sorry.

User avatar
John Cope
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: where the simulacrum is true

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#263 Post by John Cope » Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:53 pm

It's not the only formal mode available but it's an apt one here.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#264 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:58 pm

I think that's logic when it's put forward as an excuse for a bad or poorly made movie- the 'it's bad on purpose' defense is never compelling- but I don't see where alienation is inherently a bad thing. In a movie like Miami Vice totally identifying with the characters- rather than viewing them from a bit of a distance, as cutting the backstory tends to encourage- would hurt the overall movie, as I think one's encouraged to consider them more than to love them. It's part of what separates it from the majority of humdrum cop movies.

TedW
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: A Theatre Near You

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#265 Post by TedW » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:21 pm

Well, this is the "bad on purpose" defense for me, so we'll be differing from here on out. Miami Vice is a bad movie, an almost total failure on every level, and this is not a controversial opinion. Your comment "I don't see where alienation is inherently a bad thing" strikes me as... well, frightening. Is that what they teach in film schools these days? Why on Earth would I or anyone else pay money to see something that is alienating in its experience? This is some bizarre post-post-meta-whatever film theory to me. This is not the same thing as Brechtian distance, which is a useful and legitimate formal strategy. Miami Vice is simply opaque, unfocused, and lazy, frankly. And to argue the notion of the opening in each cut? Both of them are bad. This thing isn't half as good as The Insider, which will likely be considered his best or near his best film when it's all said and done.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#266 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:29 pm

Who brought up film school? I'm a grown ass man in a boring insurance job.

Alienation is, under the right circumstances, exactly the same thing as Brechtian distance, which is sometimes known as the 'alienation effect' for precisely that reason. You can argue about whether or not Miami Vice is artistically successful in its alienating effects, and whether they're intentional or the results of directorial sloppiness, but acting as though intentionally pushing the viewer away by denying them plot details or context is universally a mistake and a sign of a bad movie is ignoring like half of the art house tradition.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#267 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:43 pm

TedW wrote:Well, this is the "bad on purpose" defense for me, so we'll be differing from here on out.
No, it isn't. No one is defending the movie from the charge of alienation; these posts are not in response to any other poster or critique. Members are commending the movie for its aesthetic on their own, independent impulse. In fact, many are saying they prefer the theatrical cut precisely because it's more alienating, making their posts about aesthetic preference, not defense.
TedW wrote:Your comment "I don't see where alienation is inherently a bad thing" strikes me as... well, frightening. Is that what they teach in film schools these days? Why on Earth would I or anyone else pay money to see something that is alienating in its experience? This is some bizarre post-post-meta-whatever film theory to me. This is not the same thing as Brechtian distance, which is a useful and legitimate formal strategy. Miami Vice is simply opaque, unfocused, and lazy, frankly. And to argue the notion of the opening in each cut? Both of them are bad. This thing isn't half as good as The Insider, which will likely be considered his best or near his best film when it's all said and done.
I don't see an argument here, I just see someone saying "it's bad" over and over.

Asking why you'd pay money to feel alienated is like asking why you'd pay money to be scared or sad or disturbed: because while in real life it's not enjoyable, onscreen it has the potential to be enjoyable and interesting, not to mention novel in a hollywood action blockbuster. And I think effectively creating an atmosphere of isolation, dislocation, and loneliness in such a way that the audience experiences it in an immediate, visceral manner is as commendable as creating any other atmosphere appropriate to the story, themes, and characters in a movie. It's also an interesting irony, since by being dislocated we're also brought closer to the psychic state of the characters, and therefore also make a connection to them.

Your comments here can be applied to Antonioni without changing anything. Do you dislike him for his alienated aesthetics as well, or do you only argue against this kind of aesthetic practise when it's in a movie you don't like?

oh yeah
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#268 Post by oh yeah » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:09 pm

Thanks, sausage for articulating what I was about to attempt to.

As unlikely as it seems, also, I'm far from alone in my adoration for Miami Vice. It seems like a large amount of film critics, particularly younger ones, really appreciate what Mann did; and the film ranked highly on countless best-of-00s lists by blogs and various other more prestigious publications (if this means anything, anyway). Like a lot of great films that baffled audiences upon release, I think consensus of it will only grow more positively with time.

Also, here's a terrific analysis of the film, second only to the seminal piece by Jean-Baptiste-Thoret for Senses of Cinema. Undoubtedly, much of my and others' thinking on this film was heavily influenced by the ideas Thoret poses; there are few if any other writers who read Mann's work so acutely.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#269 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Nov 15, 2013 10:23 pm

Yeah, I know Ignatiy Vishnevetsky is a big booster, and I'm of the impression there's a sort of new school of criticism that admires things like Universal Soldier: Regeneration for which it's a major touchpoint. For my point, I appreciate that the movie has enormously more depth and conscious decision-making going into it than one might imagine for a 20 years later adaptation of a cheesy hit TV show, but the overall effect is less successful than I find Heat, Manhunter, or Thief.

A lot of the HD stuff that Mann does here- and which that Senses of Cinema comments on- in making the action feel disconnected and uncomposed, like footage taken from a war zone, takes away from my feeling of cinema as an artform, as something removed from everyday life, which is something that's important to me. I think it's something Mann's doing on purpose, and I'm prepared to defend it as a conscious choice- but it makes it feel like he's veering more towards Tony Scott, a director for whom I can understand but not share in the praise. I do love an action movie that isn't overburdened by explanations of plot and motive, though, and if Miami Vice influenced something like Haywire, than it's worthwhile just for that.

TedW
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: A Theatre Near You

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#270 Post by TedW » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:39 am

matrixschmatrix wrote:...acting as though intentionally pushing the viewer away by denying them plot details or context is universally a mistake and a sign of a bad movie is ignoring like half of the art house tradition.
Who is doing this? I just said exactly that in my previous post.

TedW
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: A Theatre Near You

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#271 Post by TedW » Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:02 am

Mr Sausage wrote:
TedW wrote:Well, this is the "bad on purpose" defense for me, so we'll be differing from here on out.
No, it isn't. No one is defending the movie from the charge of alienation; these posts are not in response to any other poster or critique. Members are commending the movie for its aesthetic on their own, independent impulse. In fact, many are saying they prefer the theatrical cut precisely because it's more alienating, making their posts about aesthetic preference, not defense.
TedW wrote:Your comment "I don't see where alienation is inherently a bad thing" strikes me as... well, frightening. Is that what they teach in film schools these days? Why on Earth would I or anyone else pay money to see something that is alienating in its experience? This is some bizarre post-post-meta-whatever film theory to me. This is not the same thing as Brechtian distance, which is a useful and legitimate formal strategy. Miami Vice is simply opaque, unfocused, and lazy, frankly. And to argue the notion of the opening in each cut? Both of them are bad. This thing isn't half as good as The Insider, which will likely be considered his best or near his best film when it's all said and done.
I don't see an argument here, I just see someone saying "it's bad" over and over.

Asking why you'd pay money to feel alienated is like asking why you'd pay money to be scared or sad or disturbed: because while in real life it's not enjoyable, onscreen it has the potential to be enjoyable and interesting, not to mention novel in a hollywood action blockbuster. And I think effectively creating an atmosphere of isolation, dislocation, and loneliness in such a way that the audience experiences it in an immediate, visceral manner is as commendable as creating any other atmosphere appropriate to the story, themes, and characters in a movie. It's also an interesting irony, since by being dislocated we're also brought closer to the psychic state of the characters, and therefore also make a connection to them.

Your comments here can be applied to Antonioni without changing anything. Do you dislike him for his alienated aesthetics as well, or do you only argue against this kind of aesthetic practise when it's in a movie you don't like?
Allow me to say that I think we're conflating a few things here: for the record, I am not arguing against the "alienation effect;" I don't think MV intends to be alienating (though I think it is), I don't think that is Mann's aesthetic strategy; and if it were, I don't think it's useful here at all. "Asking why you'd pay money to feel alienated is like asking why you'd pay money to be scared or sad or disturbed" -- no, not really. Because for you to be scared or sad or disturbed you'd have to be engaged by the characters and story and empathetic to the dilemma presented onscreen. Feeling alienated, in the way I've been discussing it, short-circuits the very response you're looking for. "And I think effectively creating an atmosphere of isolation, dislocation, and loneliness in such a way that the audience experiences it in an immediate, visceral manner is as commendable as creating any other atmosphere appropriate to the story, themes, and characters in a movie." Yeah, if you can do it (which is why my comments don't apply to Antonioni). Again, I did not argue against that as a formal strategy, though I did say, to no response, that the experiential mode, if you will, is not the only mode in which a movie can function. Nevertheless, I simply feel MV doesn't do that -- it is opaque. Sonny and Isabella are underwritten characters, poorly cast, and poorly performed. As a result there is no point of attachment for me as a viewer. Virtually no scene they have together functions successfully in any manner -- save, perhaps, for their farewell, which, though put together nicely, has none of the emotional weight it is meant to because everything that precedes it fails. I don't believe her as a moll, I don't believe her as half-Cuban, I don't believe their dialogue, I don't believe their emotional or even sexual attachment. I do see a lot of posing and attitude. That in spades. Mann natters on about "time is luck" (?) and the notion of undercover work causing its practioners to lose their identity (Rico: "There's undercover and then there's which way is up?" Huh? Did Sonny forget he was a cop again, just like Season 5?), as if that's an interesting idea, and ignores or fumbles the better idea that his protagonist is a man suffering through a severe spiritual malaise of a uniquely early 21st century kind, and his one shot out of it can't be taken because she's a crook and he's a cop. A man who secretly envies his partner's loving relationship with his girlfriend. And a cop who is not an in-control tough guy, as Farrell plays him, but a lowly vice cop who is in way over his head with these super high-level transnational contraband dealers. I think the movie is tracking one thing and then a character utters at the end "Well, I guess we just ran out of time" or some such banality and I'm like, Oh, my God, you've blown it completely.

I expected someone to take the Antonioni tack with me. First, let us all not pretend Antonioni is a universally beloved figure, even amongst cinephiles. His movies and style are an acquired taste. That said, his filmmaking is orders of magnitude more precise and rigorous than Mann's, who, despite his pretentions, is making a film that will never be completely unchained from its genre nor its existence primarily as a Hollywood commercial enterprise. And a seriously expensive one at that. Antonioni managed to make films free of those conventions and concerns. And, if I may, w/r/t his trilogy, La Notte might work the best of the three because it has the "alienation effect" or the "Brechtian distance" -- you may merely consider what transpires -- but also elicits, for me, an emotional investment in the characters of Mastroianni and Moreau, in their fate. It manages, as if by magic, to engage both intellectually and emotionally at different points in the movie. By design or by accident? Don't know, don't care. L'Eclisse might be more ambitious and daring and sophisticated in its aesthetics, and I know it is considered to be the high point by many, but there is something it doesn't do that its predecessor does. But I digress. Miami Vice is alienating; it is not about alienation, it is about something entirely different -- and what that is isn't particularly interesting to me, nor is the execution up to Mann's previously set standard. There is one suspense set-piece that is pretty well done, Jamie Foxx wears a couple of really sharp suits that are cool, and that's about all there is to recommend.

(To pile on further, Michael Mann even blows -- in both versions -- the placement of the "In the Air Tonight" cover, itself an inferior recording to the original. In the pilot, you will recall, it is left almost alone to amplify the existential dread of the impending drug deal; Sonny stops to call his ex-wife, he really thinks he just might die tonight. In the film, it functions just as nostalgic wallpaper, not setting the mood, or describing the emotional state of the characters, or... well, anything.)

User avatar
feihong
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#272 Post by feihong » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:05 am

TedW wrote:Why on Earth would I or anyone else pay money to see something that is alienating in its experience? This is some bizarre post-post-meta-whatever film theory to me. This is not the same thing as Brechtian distance, which is a useful and legitimate formal strategy.

Well, I greatly enjoyed Miami Vice, and I didn't find the filmmaking style at all alienating. I know many critics didn't like the picture, but I think you'll find critical pans of virtually every movie you'd care to name. Bosely Crowther panned half the movies that are in the Criterion Collection now. But to me the film has a style that perfectly complements the lives of the characters--hurried, offhand, but hyper-alert. That's the way these characters need to carry themselves, if they expect to survive, and I was impressed with how the camera kept up with them, as if we were an extra member of the vice crew, wedged into every tense meeting and every active space. And not for nothing are there constant references to liquid in flux, from the bubbles rising to the surface in the director's cut introduction to the streak of red Alonzo leaves behind him, to the way Crockett's boat cleaves the surf as he and Isabella ride to Cuba, to the tumultuous churning of the falls surrounding Montoya's mansion. I thought all that was carefully planned and well executed in the film, in a way that seemed impressively casual. As far as it being a terrible movie, I saw it radically differently from you, I guess. I liked The Insider as well, but not nearly as much as I enjoy Mann's more fantastical crime films. I'm not so sure as you that we'll be remembering The Insider in some kind of preference against the crime films. Certainly that's not the way people remember Melville.


As far as alienation and feeling go, when I saw the film in the theater I recall being completely engaged. To me the attitudinizing in the film was as one with the posturing of the characters--the aggression which they drew around themselves to keep them safe as they pretended to be unbreakable tough guys. I felt tension when they would reveal intimacy. And I could see why they might be tempted to cross over, from one side of their equation to the other, virtue to vice, because the game they were playing was so thrilling, and so adventurous. But because in the film the pulse and movement of the picture was more important than the characters, it also felt like a very modern picture to me. Certainly there are some missteps. Gong Li's trouble with her lines really does get in the way of her performance, which is otherwise rather good, I think; so it's rather a shame. Her background doesn't seem hugely plausible--she seems a little too much like a tourist in Cuba. There's no real reason to call the speedboats "go-fast boats," and so on. I can't really recall a Mann film I felt was free from errors in judgement. But I feel that the picture is very modern in its capturing of a place and time and a headspace that is fairly new. These aren't underdeveloped characters so much as people whose real self has been suppressed in the perpetuation of a fantasy. They are so busy running drugs and racing boats and pretending to be johns for exotic import prostitutes that they have no time to be real. That's a state of mind I feel I understand, and one which I identify as thoroughly contemporary. And I think that the film carries it out not only in its story and character development, but also in its visual style.

You don't seem too into movie modernism, if you expect to identify emotionally with the protagonists of Antonioni films. I would say that that sort of emotional identification with character is one of the classical narrative strategies which many modernist movies aimed to do without. I can't say I feel L'Eclisse to be an alienating movie, exactly. Nor do I find any of the Michael Mann movies alienating. It seems to me to be more of a feeling of somewhat formal abstraction from the traditional narrative context. Antonioni is certainly one of the most consistently successful filmmakers in that mold. Mann is less successful in the sense that he isn't usually able to give up many of his classical narrative impulses, but to me Miami Vice is the film in which he comes closest to doing so. This isn't so much a film about people, as it is about a state of being, or a state of mind. We've already had a long-running TV series in which to explore who these characters are, so why do we need the movie to spend its time on that? I really enjoy the ways in which this movie departs from traditional notions of narrative and character development.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#273 Post by Mr Sausage » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:10 am

TedW wrote:Because for you to be scared or sad or disturbed you'd have to be engaged by the characters and story and empathetic to the dilemma presented onscreen. Feeling alienated, in the way I've been discussing it, short-circuits the very response you're looking for.
Unless the way you're discussing it is the way others here have been discussing it (and all I see are blanket criticisms of alienation in general), I don't see the point. All feelings of alienation aren't equal; an atmosphere of disconnect in a film about people disconnected from each other and their identities is, for many, thrilling, more thrilling than feeling alienated from a movie because it's repugnant or misguided, say. There is a difference between feeling alienation in a movie and feeling alienated by it. As the people here are discussing the former, I don't understand why you're talking to them as if they're discussing the latter.

I don't know what to do with the rest of your post. You break out the 'it's ok when Antonioni does it, because he's good/Antonioni,' which isn't an argument. Most of the rest is just an extended complaint about a few subjective things, not really an argument or something that could be discussed. Then you say that the movie's formal strategy doesn't emphasize alienation/dislocation, a bizarre thing to claim about a film with a jarring cold-opening and which otherwise spends a lot of its time photographing people in empty, sterile rooms not unlike De Niro in the opening sections of Heat. If you can't even agree on that, there's no conversation to be had. Tho' you admit that even if that were its formal strategy, it's not useful, although useful to what I can't tell, you never explain yourself.

So the movie is damned either way. Under no circumstances will you admit that alienation in this movie could or should ever be pleasurable to anyone. So there is nothing to talk about. No common ground you're willing to admit, not even a cursory attempt to take things on anyone's terms but your own. I don't understand why you're here. Not to have a conversation, surely.

TedW
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:57 pm
Location: A Theatre Near You

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#274 Post by TedW » Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:26 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:I don't understand why you're here. Not to have a conversation, surely.
Funny, I thought that's what we were doing. You know, you say something, then I say something in response, then you...

I'm not sure what you expect to achieve from an Internet thread...except to locate other people who think just like you, I suppose. Sorry for intruding on that. You're not forced to agree with me and persuading you is not my intention. Did you think it was? Nevertheless, there are things in my post that could be discussed, if you chose to, but here's the point where people start to get a bit rude, and the tone of posts more attacking and dismissive and less... uh, conversational. So I'll leave you to your movie.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Miami Vice (Mann, 2006)

#275 Post by domino harvey » Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:49 pm

TedW wrote:persuading you is not my intention. Did you think it was?
Every post anyone makes about a film on this board should be persuasive to others reading it, otherwise it's just a blog entry

Post Reply