Sin, The City, and Sam
I don't go to the cinema much these days. This is partly because there are very few, new, 'mainstream' movies that I want to see, and partly because the place is usually filled with obnoxious little teenage pricks who lose interest in whatever's on about 30 seconds in. The remainder of the film is then spent either texting their friends or chatting loudly amongst themselves. As a result, I failed to see Sin City during its theatrical release (despite being rather excited about the prospect) and only got around to watching it on DVD the other night.
First things first, I had not enjoyed any of the Robert Rodriguez movies I had seen previously, and that's from someone who has a strong affinity for 'Cult' movies (whatever that term can be taken to mean). Rodriguez' stuff has always struck me as a bit too self-consciously pulpy, as if the films have already pronounced themselves 'cult' objects prior to their release.
Part of the brouhaha surrounding Sin City, concerned itself with Rodriguez' painstaking recreation of the Frank Miller look, even down to the composition of particular shots almost exactly mirroring individual panels of Miller's artwork in the original comic. Though this faithfulness was lauded (by some) as one of the film's strong points, I actually found this slavish accuracy remarkably tedious. The attempt to create a 'perfect copy' in another medium seems (to me) fairly futile and begs the question "What is being added to Miller's own material by this exercise?" The answer is "Not very much", as far as I can see…other than a few quid in the bank, and some smug satisfaction for Rodriguez for a job well done (according to the standards he seems to have set himself).
I've occasionally heard Rodriguez defended as a successor to two genuinely great (and very superficially similar) 'Cult Directors': Sergio Leone & Sam Peckinpah. Rodriguez is certainly NO Peckinpah, though he may have aspirations to be. I know Rodriguez fans might argue that he cultivates a kind of outlandish absurdity that invites the viewer to surrender to it, and just enjoy it for its own sake. The cynic in me, however, would feel that Rodriguez' spectacular flourishes hide a director who really has very little to say. The images may be dazzling, the set-pieces may be grand, but scrape the surface and you expose a very hollow interior.
Peckinpah, in contrast, managed to balance graphic violence and the absurd (take Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia for example) in a way that was both provocative and unsettling. If I was going to use a clumsy analogy, and describe both directors as whiskeys (and why not), then Rodriguez would be of the type that simply leaves you slightly dizzy and discombobulated. Peckinpah, on the other hand would have you reeling around the room alternately weeping, laughing and puking…and I certainly mean that as a compliment!
September 27, 2005
3 responses to Sin, The City, and Sam
Sin City defined “gratuitous violence” for me. The violence in the film was nauseating, not because it was objectional in and of itself, but because it wasn’t in the service of anything “moral” – by which i do not mean “moralistic” – like art or whatever. I hate this middle-aged american fantasy whereby you establish paedo baddies, for example, thereby placing the “goodies” on so high a pedastal that nothing they do, be it ever so fucked up, is morally problematic. It’s the Abu Graib mentality.
…the kind of mentality that sees Sun reading morons dragging their kids to upsetting scenes outside courthouses to scream at paedophiles – and paediatricians – in police custody. It’s catharsis for these gobshites to lord it over people who are actually worse parents than themselves. This is the equivalent of actually presenting your child to the fucking boogie man for Christ’s sake. Nice parenting.
I rather liked Sin City but that might be down to the fact that Ben Affleck wan’t in it. It may also be because I’m thick.