It's funny how I always seem willing to post about movies I DON'T like, and yet never seem to get around to it for the one's I DO enjoy. (The best/worst example of this would have to be my 2-part blog about the Hulk, a movie I can't get off my TV fast enough, and a comic I never cared about. Go figure.)
So it's probably no surprise that I've blogged about The Pacifier and other crap (in a spring FILLED with crap movies) and barely mentioned any of the ones I've enjoyed… like Sin City.
Some of the problem, of course, may stem from the fact that it's often easier to point out the flaws in a movie than praise its successes. It's also, sadly, often more fun to rant about squandered opportunities and failed experiments than it is to point out the small nuances that often go into making a film that just… works. But maybe I should give it some more effort.
So, back to Sin City. It's not like I thought this was a flawless film. Nor even a great film, perhaps. But I DO think it's a good film, and I had a lot of fun and enjoyed the hell out of the movie, so it's got to be worth a mention, right?
First off, the good. Obviously, the production design — the whole look of the movie — was fabulous. Rodriguez and Miller managed to bring the look and feel of his comics onto the screen with nary any sacrifice. (That may be one of its failings as well… more on that later). The stunning black and white with the incidental splashes of color leaping off the screen was the most visually stunning thing I've seen in a theater in ages. If felt like I was watching the comic.
But, like I said… that could be one of the problems. If you've read the comic, maybe seeing it come to life, slavishly impersonating the images you've already seen, may just not interest you. Of course, we're talking a fairly small subset of the movie audience that's going to be a hardcore Sin City aficionado. But I know I was thumbing through a copy of Volume 1 of the graphic novel at Borders the other day and opted not to get it. Been there, done that, I'll wait for the DVD.
I've also heard complaints about the film being uninvolving, misanthropic or misogynistic. Some of this may be justified. But frankly, I think if you're complaining about Sin City being misanthropic and misogynistic, you're missing the point, and probably need to relax and get out more. Or at least get a sense of humor and stop taking everything so damn seriously.
Yes, it's misanthropic… the main characters are all only slightly better than the evil that surrounds them. But it's that slightly better, I think, that is the point. The idea that nobility and courage and a sense of "righteousness" can exist in the damaged shells that inhabit Sin City is one of the optimistic ideas in the books and the film. And it works, I think.
Complaining about the film being misogynistic also misses the point. Most of the female characters are powerful people, willing to stand up for themselves and do what it takes to survive in the ugly world they inhabit. There seem to be very few victims among these women — the woman in red at the beginning (we assume!), Goldie in part 1 — and even then, we know nothing about what brought them to their deaths, so we're not sure they're actually victims, per se, or merely victims of circumstance. I think you do the characters a disservice to complain about misogynistic tones here. They may be hookers and strippers and such, but it's a decadent world they live in and they face it on their own terms. And frankly, the sleazy costuming and nudity was so over the top as to almost make fun of the conventions of the genre. I know I found myself wanting to laugh a couple of times that surprised me.
As for complaints about it being uninvolving or not connecting with the audience, I can see two reasons for that one. First off, the amazing amount of voiceover tends to distance you from the film. I can't see any way around that, without a massive reworking and restructuring of the film (something Rodriguez made it very clear he wasn't about to do). And doing so wouldn't be true to either the stories or the genre. Hell, the gruff voiceover is such a given in this kind of noir that it would have felt wrong not to have it. But when most of the story is being told via voiceover, I think it insulates you from the film.
The other reason is the structure of the film. Very few movies can pull off the Pulp Fiction "short story" structure and keep you involved. There's an automatic disconnect when one story ends and the next begins. Each chapter break/story ending pulls you out of the movie and forces you to reconnect with new characters and situations. The only recurring character throughout is Sin City itself, and that's not enough to keep you emotionally involved.
But I don't think Rodriguez was worried about any of this. He set out to bring Sin City to life on the screen… and at that, I think he succeeded. And, in this case, I think that might be enough. At least for me.
(For a really good review of Sin City — as opposed to my rambling commentary — check out Roger Ebert's review here.)
So it's probably no surprise that I've blogged about The Pacifier and other crap (in a spring FILLED with crap movies) and barely mentioned any of the ones I've enjoyed… like Sin City.
Some of the problem, of course, may stem from the fact that it's often easier to point out the flaws in a movie than praise its successes. It's also, sadly, often more fun to rant about squandered opportunities and failed experiments than it is to point out the small nuances that often go into making a film that just… works. But maybe I should give it some more effort.
So, back to Sin City. It's not like I thought this was a flawless film. Nor even a great film, perhaps. But I DO think it's a good film, and I had a lot of fun and enjoyed the hell out of the movie, so it's got to be worth a mention, right?
First off, the good. Obviously, the production design — the whole look of the movie — was fabulous. Rodriguez and Miller managed to bring the look and feel of his comics onto the screen with nary any sacrifice. (That may be one of its failings as well… more on that later). The stunning black and white with the incidental splashes of color leaping off the screen was the most visually stunning thing I've seen in a theater in ages. If felt like I was watching the comic.
But, like I said… that could be one of the problems. If you've read the comic, maybe seeing it come to life, slavishly impersonating the images you've already seen, may just not interest you. Of course, we're talking a fairly small subset of the movie audience that's going to be a hardcore Sin City aficionado. But I know I was thumbing through a copy of Volume 1 of the graphic novel at Borders the other day and opted not to get it. Been there, done that, I'll wait for the DVD.
I've also heard complaints about the film being uninvolving, misanthropic or misogynistic. Some of this may be justified. But frankly, I think if you're complaining about Sin City being misanthropic and misogynistic, you're missing the point, and probably need to relax and get out more. Or at least get a sense of humor and stop taking everything so damn seriously.
Yes, it's misanthropic… the main characters are all only slightly better than the evil that surrounds them. But it's that slightly better, I think, that is the point. The idea that nobility and courage and a sense of "righteousness" can exist in the damaged shells that inhabit Sin City is one of the optimistic ideas in the books and the film. And it works, I think.
Complaining about the film being misogynistic also misses the point. Most of the female characters are powerful people, willing to stand up for themselves and do what it takes to survive in the ugly world they inhabit. There seem to be very few victims among these women — the woman in red at the beginning (we assume!), Goldie in part 1 — and even then, we know nothing about what brought them to their deaths, so we're not sure they're actually victims, per se, or merely victims of circumstance. I think you do the characters a disservice to complain about misogynistic tones here. They may be hookers and strippers and such, but it's a decadent world they live in and they face it on their own terms. And frankly, the sleazy costuming and nudity was so over the top as to almost make fun of the conventions of the genre. I know I found myself wanting to laugh a couple of times that surprised me.
As for complaints about it being uninvolving or not connecting with the audience, I can see two reasons for that one. First off, the amazing amount of voiceover tends to distance you from the film. I can't see any way around that, without a massive reworking and restructuring of the film (something Rodriguez made it very clear he wasn't about to do). And doing so wouldn't be true to either the stories or the genre. Hell, the gruff voiceover is such a given in this kind of noir that it would have felt wrong not to have it. But when most of the story is being told via voiceover, I think it insulates you from the film.
The other reason is the structure of the film. Very few movies can pull off the Pulp Fiction "short story" structure and keep you involved. There's an automatic disconnect when one story ends and the next begins. Each chapter break/story ending pulls you out of the movie and forces you to reconnect with new characters and situations. The only recurring character throughout is Sin City itself, and that's not enough to keep you emotionally involved.
But I don't think Rodriguez was worried about any of this. He set out to bring Sin City to life on the screen… and at that, I think he succeeded. And, in this case, I think that might be enough. At least for me.
(For a really good review of Sin City — as opposed to my rambling commentary — check out Roger Ebert's review here.)
Comments