So many words of so little consequence

Lawyers need to have a way with words – even if they are not litigators. But lawyers don’t always have to be verbose. In fact, well-chosen words often serve them far better than verbiage. As the legal mind in director Ridley Scott’s “The Counselor,” Michael Fassbender exercises great diction thanks to screenwriter Cormac McCarthy. But his colleagues are the ones who can’t seem to stop talking and telling horrific cautionary tales of their dealings with Mexican drug lords.

The thing with the many cautionary tales laid out by these dabblers in high crime is that the tales do not deter anyone involved in their particular deal. Perhaps it’s because they have no plans to disrupt the deal. But they know well enough that someone else could have such plans. Their stories are proof that the consequences of molesting a multimillion-dollar drug shipment are grisly. Yet Fassbender and his partners, a comically reckless Javier Bardem and a comically restless Brad Pitt, are willing to take the chance that things could go off the rails just to have a little more money in the grand scheme of things – even though none of them appear to be missing life’s basic luxuries. They are of the breed for which enough is never enough.

It’s a fine and familiar premise. It’s just that there’s so much discussion about it – all obviously set up to allow the audience to recognize the horrors that transpire when the deal inevitably goes wrong. But the audience is never really connected to the characters, so instead of a grand impact, the conclusions seem hollow. Lamentable and disgusting, but hollow. The words were wasted on the audience just as the warnings were wasted on the characters.

[SPOILER ALERT] When Fassbender listens to the kingpin give what is supposed to be some kind of philosophical justification for his barbarity during a phone call, Fassbender stays on the line in the misguided hope that there’s a chance he’ll get his life back. But he might as well have hung up on the old windbag as soon as the meandering platitudes began to flow. We know from all the speeches that preceded it that no mercy will be shown. Fassbender, who heard all those speeches, knows too, but clearly hope springs eternal.

This aspect of “The Counselor” is a good contrast to the Coen Brothers’ masterpiece “No Country for Old Men,” based on another Cormac McCarthy story. The tensions in “No Country for Old Men” arise from seeing the assassin Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem in his Oscar-winning role) go about his cold, calculating business against a “hero” who truly reaches the audience (played winningly by Josh Brolin). Sure, Chigurh gives an explanation of his logic, but it’s brief and unwavering. We gain much more from the characterizations and the inherent suspense in the chase. So by the time the assassin pays a visit to the lovely, unfortunate widow (the solid Scottish actress Kelly Macdonald) at the end of the film, we are deeply moved by his inhumanity, his sheer unfairness to her, especially knowing that in his twisted mind he is the definition of fair. And the consequences don’t feel hollow at all. They feel meaningful.

Highly recommended horror

 "Let the Right One In" (2008)

So of course I had to do it. It’s Halloween, and I couldn’t let the day of fright go by without a small homage to some of my favorite scary movies. But I wanted to bring attention to a few films that are not as celebrated as the big horror hits, franchises and cult classics. I already blogged about one of them, Ti West’s 2009 throwback to the 1980s, “House of the Devil” (https://monica-elliott.squarespace.com/must-see/).

Here are a few others that are just as good, if not better, than some of the go-to choices for horror fans.

“Let the Right One In” (2008)

I can’t speak to the remake starring Chloe Grace Moretz (“Let Me In”), but the original Swedish film about a bullied 12-year-old boy’s newfound friendship with his neighbor – a strange, nocturnal girl his age – is a fantastic study in understated horror. But there’s still enough gore to satisfy those with a taste for blood.

“From Hell” (2001)

Johnny Depp stars as a Sherlock Holmesian detective seeking the serial killer for the ages, Jack the Ripper, in a dark, damp London set up by directors Albert and Allen Hughes. One of Depp’s seemingly rare performances as a “relatively” normal person, he is joined by Robbie Coltrane, Heather Graham, and the great Ian Holm.

“Angel Heart” (1987)

It makes sense that the devil would turn up in a lot of horror movies, including the requisite classics like “The Exorcist” and “Rosemary’s Baby.” One of the best is Alan Parker’s atmospheric tale of lost loves and lost souls set in New York and New Orleans. The movie is steeped in voodoo and villainy, but it all sneaks up on you amid the striking imagery and characterizations – like Mickey Rourke’s bumbling but determined detective and our man Robert DeNiro as Louis Cypher.

“Joy Ride” (2001)

Yes, I’m talking about the Paul Walker vehicle in which he and his buddy, the ubiquitous Steve Zahn, take a road trip to pick up Walker’s girl, the not-so-ubiquitous Leelee Sobieski. They take a wrong turn when they foolishly wind up a truck driving psychopath called Rusty Nails, who rivaled the traditional slasher movie bad boys like Jason and Michael Myers. But I have to give credit to director John Dahl for making it terrifyingly suspenseful before the predictable ending. Dahl is the brains behind the 1990s sleeper hit suspense yarns “The Last Seduction” and “Red Rock West.”

“Death Proof/Planet Terror” (2007)

Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez tag team the horror genre with two B-movie, drive-in tributes that are wonderfully gory and grim but have great humor, too. In Tarantino’s “Death Proof,” Kurt Russell can’t seem to “hang up his chick habit” until he runs across the wrong chicks. And Rodriguez takes the zombie route with Rose McGowan and Freddy Rodriguez fighting the gross creatures with everything they’ve got – in some cases with weaponized amputated limbs. Bruce Willis and Josh Brolin are along for the fun.   

The case for privacy

When I first learned of Google’s motto, “Don’t be evil,” I was very impressed. I found it simple and compelling. And what’s more, I believed it. I liked this notion of a company letting you know it is trying to avoid falling into the category of mainstream corporate America where, God bless our capitalist society, it’s all about profit at all costs. It was like the Google creators were saying, “Sure, we’d like to make a profit, but we’re not going to turn into monsters to do it.” 

This post isn’t about whether Google has been successful in living up to its motto – or whether its aspiration is even attainable. But there is a lot of buzz about companies like Google, Facebook and other Web giants making moves that may not rise to the level of evil but easily reach the creepiness bar, particularly in terms of privacy issues. My book club is primed to read Dave Eggers’ new novel about these very concerns – “The Circle,” which I’m sure will generate even more discussion of these issues in the new media stratosphere. So I think it’s a good time to recommend some movies that address the Orwellian fears and manifestations that have existed or may yet come to pass in this wide world. 

You can take these ideas as far as complete control of people’s lives as in the sci-fi action smash “The Matrix” (1999) or the horror genre staple “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers” (1956 and 1978). Or it can be the subtle infringements that start out seemingly harmless and mount slowly into an impenetrable web of “terms of agreement” people must sign off on just to live in a particular neighborhood, download a recipe, or share a photo with a friend as in the gothic novel rendering “Renaissance” (2006) and another sci-fi thriller, this one based on Philip K. Dick story, “Minority Report” (2002).

Here are a few I highly recommend. I was just as surprised as you might be that four out of the five I chose to highlight were released in 2005 or 2006. 

 "The Lives of Others" (2006)

The Lives of Others (2006)

A fantastic German thriller set in 1984 East Berlin. Two artistic lovers fall under the watchful eyes of the Stasi (secret police) by way of an officious, lonely officer who becomes a little too absorbed in their lives.

V for Vendetta (2005)

Natalie Portman joins a masked crusader named “V” in his fight for freedom against a totalitarian government in a not-so-distant future Great Britain.

Renaissance (2006)

A darkly animated 2054 Paris in which a company called Avalon relentlessly markets youth and beauty to an all-too-receptive public that seems oblivious to how Avalon influences everyday life. Daniel Craig voices a daredevil cop seeking a kidnapped Avalon wunderkind scientist.

Rear Window  (1954)

“Do you think it’s OK to watch someone … even if you prove he didn’t commit a murder?” James Stewart poses this apt question to Grace Kelly in Alfred Hitchcock’s voyeurism-fueled classic. I’m highlighting it as an example of how laws that exist to protect privacy can protect the guilty as well as the innocent (that’s part of democracy, people). Stewart suspects his neighbor is a murderer, and when he asks his detective buddy to investigate, the detective explains that he needs evidence before he can go poking into the private lives of citizens. Your tax dollars at work!   

Red Road (2006)

The surveillance in this film is primarily by an individual using the resources of the government. She’s a CCTV operator in Glasgow, Scotland, who obviously has access to all the CCTV cameras in the area she canvases. When she spots an ex-con she never thought she’d see again, she becomes obsessed with taking his freedom away once again.  

Other recommendations on privacy/surveillance

Blow-up (1966)

The Conversation (1974)

Other recommendations on government or corporate abuse of power

The Bad Sleep Well (1960)

Network (1976)

Alien (1979)

The Ghost Writer (2010)

Cat and mouse

Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway in "The Thomas Crown Affair" (1968) 

I was watching “The Thomas Crown Affair” tonight – the original with Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway (but it could’ve just as easily been the 1999 version with Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo), and it put me in mind of the games men and women play when they begin a romance. These characters had to be somewhat cagey with each other because of the circumstances. Dunaway, an insurance investigator, was the cat pursuing McQueen’s bank-robbing mouse. But they were also attracted to each other – each seeing in the other a formidable and worthy complement to their own over-achieving, win-at-all-costs mentalities. One does not often get to meet one’s match, but it seems fairly common in movies. But back to the games …

So they fence and parry throughout their quick courtship. Director Norman Jewison even took it so far as to present it metaphorically in the famous scene of the couple playing chess before consummating their conflicted union. I am a big fan of Jewison’s films, but I always found that scene a bit corny. But it is stylish, and McQueen is the most accessible and amusing I’ve ever seen him on screen. (Granted, I’ve only seen a few of his films.) Apparently it was a part Jewison meant for Sean Connery, who would’ve been perfect. I mean if McQueen could get away with professing his love to someone, surely Connery could have despite his sex-without-love James Bond image.

McQueen’s Thomas Crown at one point deliberately takes out another woman to, as he tells Dunaway, put Dunaway “in touch with herself.” Essentially, he wanted to make Dunaway jealous and realize that she had more invested in him than the commission she’d recover for apprehending him. And I wondered why all that was necessary. Do you really have to play games to make your point in relationships – even if you are trying to keep from being caught for bank robbery?

Speaking of cops and robbers in love, one of my favorite movies with a similar cat and mouse theme is “Out of Sight” starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. You wouldn’t think they’d have so much chemistry on screen, but it is quite palpable. I always recommend it when I can because it’s a great film even beyond their lead characters and so few people saw it. It is directed by Steven Soderbergh who does a great job capturing Elmore Leonard’s novel about a savvy but unlucky bank robber (Clooney) and the smart, tough U.S. marshal on his trail (Lopez). 

From the moment they meet (here comes the cliché), it’s magic. But there’s no big build-up; they just click. Unlike the characters in “Thomas Crown,” they know from the beginning who is the cat and who is the mouse. In lieu of fencing, they have banter – in the trunk of a car, on the phone, and eventually, over bourbon in a hotel bar in one of the most understated and genuinely romantic scenes I’ve ever seen. But there are no games – except when they playfully try to be other people so they can have a moment without the looming showdown hanging over them. If there is a game, it is merely the chase and all the accoutrements of a chase. There’s no question they want to be together. The only hindrance is that she has to arrest him – at least, she’s supposed to arrest him. And she always gets her man.

"Out of Sight" (1998) starring Jennifer Lopez and George Clooney

So like Dunaway in “Thomas Crown,” Lopez has to decide whether she’s going to get her man and lose her love or keep her love and lose face with herself and her colleagues. The men in these dramas are more or less at the mercy of the women, which is unusual. Sure, both men have either the means or the opportunity to escape their circumstances, and they are fully aware that these women are smitten. But they also know they are being relentlessly pursued, and these women likely have more pride than sentiment.

 I’ve come to no conclusions on the necessity of game-playing between men and women. Obviously, these two movies offer up extreme circumstances, and there are far better examples of the machinations of people striving to love and be loved. These two examples are more about the chase, and I think these movies do show how much fun the chase can be – even with the extra element of danger in the outcome, or perhaps because of it.