Skip to main content

I'm living in America. And in America, you're on your own.


Killing Them Softly
(2012)

A follow-up to the roundly-acclaimed The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, reuniting director Andrew Dominik and star Brad Pitt, was naturally highly anticipated. But the response to Killing Them Softly was generally muted, verging on mild disappointment. In particular, Dominik’s decision to set this adaptation of George V Higgins’ novel Cogan’s Trade at the time of the 2008 US presidential election was considered clumsy and lacking in finesse. As Dominik commented in an interview, his idea was for the microcosm of mob money problems to reflect the macrocosm of the global financial crisis. But did he have to laboriously sell this theme by repeatedly showing election coverage, even to the point of distracting the viewer from the dramatic thrust of scenes?


It’s a criticism I can relate to, but being forewarned can be something of a blessing in terms of expectations. The electioneering, be it on television or car radio, does feel excessive and intrusive during the opening sections of the film, and it returns in a monologue from Pitt’s Cogen in the final scene (which is, it has to be said, far from subtle). But, if this content was maintained throughout the rest of the film, it escaped my attention. It’s entirely possible, as I was consistently captivated by the filmmaking skills on display. With each new scene I was enthralled and dazzled, so confident is Dominik in what he sets out to do and the way in which he realises it. He is undoubtedly blessed with a fine complement of actors, some appearing for barely more than a couple of minutes (Sam Shepard), but it’s the craft he brings that impresses the most. He is as deft at eking out the laughs as the tension resulting from the threat of violence or the horror of the actual inflicting of it. As a result, I’m a lot more forgiving of some of his more obvious choices (one might even, occasionally, suggest that he tips overboard into the outright crass).


There’s little doubt that the film would have suffered hardly-at-all from the complete removal of wider parallels, and it’s likely that it would have been considerably enhanced if Dominik had honed his theme to make it subtler and less bludgeoning. His screenplay hews closely to the source novel, which only lends to weight to the sense that the political commentary is crude window dressing. Certainly, his major failures are all ones (the final speech aside) that appear to have been created, and therefore could have been resolved, in post-production.


It isn’t just the party politicking; it’s there in the music choices. Rightly, there was stunned disbelief that the director chose the Velvet Underground’s Heroin to accompany a character taking heroin. The musical cues generally follow the similar overt lines (a slow motion hit to the sound of Ketty Lester’s Love Letters). The visualisation of these scenes is so precise (in particular, the heroin scene, as one character attempts to extract vital information from another, who is drifting in and out of a state of narcotic bliss) that there is a slight twinge of “Oh, why did you have to go and do that?”


The premise is straightforward, which allows all the more room for character moments. Some of which are borderline Tarantino-esque vignettes. Three morons, Squirrel (Vincent Curatola), Frankie (Scoot McNairy) Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) rob a card game that is protected by the mob. The guy running the game, Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta), had once robbed the game but no one did anything about it because, well, they all like the guy. But this latest action spells trouble for the local economy, as confidence in the game collapses. Jackie Cogan (Pitt) is brought in by Driver (Richard Jenkins), a mid-level mob go-between, to find the guys responsible and mete out justice. Cogan’s view is that the only way to get the cash flowing again is to whack Trattman, even though he wasn’t involved this time, but the committee instructing Driver has cold feet.


Ben Mendelsohn referred to the script as a “comedy of manners” and it’s easy to see why. So much of Killing Them Softly concerns frustration of one character with another in attempting to reach his goal. Be it Cogan in his diligent attempts to put the local economy back on track (the cynical version of the Obama figure, if you will) in the face of ludicrous mob bureaucracy, or attempting to coax a fellow hit man to actually pucker up and do the job expected of him (James Gandolfini as Mickey), to Frankie gradually becoming aware that none of his accomplices have any more of a clue about keeping their deed quiet than he does.


While Dominik is far more interested in creating a believable environment, with characters that do not descend into authorial showboating, than Tarantino, there is a similar feel to the way both directors construct individual scenes as if they were mini-movies in themselves. The robbery of the card game is breathlessly tense (in spite of the ever-more intrusive television being on in the background), set up for something to go wrong as soon as inept Frankie and Russell done marigolds and brandish an ultra-sawn-off shotgun. Cogan’s encounter(s) with Mickey see him build from mild concern over the latter’s drinking and general aspect to decisive annoyance with the man who has left him holding the gun. Elsewhere, the beating of Trattman is horrifying and gruesome, yet also believably banal, as two characters who count themselves his friends become increasingly enraged that he won’t take it like a man (only compounded when Trattman makes a mess of one of their shoes).


Dominik has assembled a very fine cast, with Pitt presiding as the quite compere at the centre of events (although he doesn’t appear until 25 minutes into a 100 minute film). One might argue he doesn’t possess the grit or rawness of those around him, and thus how does he convince as the hard man hit man? But I’d argue this works for the character. He floats between worlds (and, as the protégé of the ailing Dillon (Sam Shepard), is looking to climb the “corporate” ladder) and plies his trade by knowing the best angles so doesn’t need to grandstand, even when interacting with the suited formality of Driver (whom he refers to as counsellor).

I’ll admit, though, I wasn’t entirely convinced he’d have come out of the encounter well if Mickey had flipped at him. It’s also generous role for a star to take; Gandolfino owns his scenes so completely that Pitt has little option but to allow him to steamroller on while we, the audience, share his increasing disquiet.


Cogan prefaces his involvement in sorting out this mess by telling Driver that he prefers the “kill them softly, from a distance”, approach; Mickey is called in because Cogan is disquieted by the messy emotionality of having to take out someone he knows. He is practical, reasonable, and not insensitive to the concerns of his victims (all the better to manoeuvre them into the best position to complete his work); as he says to Frankie, “They are all nice guys”.


But, that aside, Cogan’s focus is on what he can do to right the broader situation; he sees the bigger picture in this smaller world. Killing presents no concern per se. The frustrations of his mob bosses and their shortsightedness does. His ire is provoked by those who seek economic shortcuts, be it Kenny attempting to steal the tip he has just left (an amusing moment that defines the film more clearly than any amount of laborious extemporising), Mickey wining, dining and whoring on a free ticket or Driver’s bean-counting approach to paying what is due for a job done (cumulating with Cogan’s demand, “Now fuckin’ pay me!”). It is ironic that Dominik feels the need to embolden and signpost this with the tacked on period drapery, as the message is abundantly clear. Was he afraid that it would feel like a ‘70s film without it?


As the feckless losers who stage the robbery, Mendelsohn and McNairy are outstanding. They have at least as much screen time as Pitt and both etch out highly memorable characters. Frankie is the more tragic figure and McNairy sells his slack-jawed confidence, slowly transforming into palpable fear for his life. The only other work I recall McNairy in is Monsters, and I need to check out Argo and Promised Land. Mendelsohn has the plum, attention-grabbing part, a stream of coarse anecdotes and stoned semi-coherence. Russell is foul of mouth and appearance; you can almost smell his reek wafting from the screen. The comedy highlight sees him recount his dognapping experience with Kenny, featuring a canine and shit-filled car and a hilarious attempt to destroy said vehicle.


Jenkins elicits fewer belly laughs, but the comedy of corporate decision-making is no less amusing (“I gotta take them by the hand and I gotta walk them slowly through it like they're retarded children”). Part of the appeal here is the same mundanity Tarantino brings to his hit men in Pulp Fiction; it’s just a job, a means to make money, and a life holds no greater currency than the real thing.


Gandolfini’s shambolic sack of shit is his best big screen role in many a year (honestly, he’s not that been well-served; Virgil in True Romance is the most memorable part that comes to mind). It’s a little amusing that Mickey makes a show of how much more experienced than Cogan he is, when only two years separate the actors (one sense that Bradley moisturises a wee bit more).


Liotta, meanwhile, is awesome.  Like Gandolfini he usually gets cast as a particular type, in roles undeserving of his talents. Here he reminds you just how great an actor he is, particularly when showing off uncharacteristic vulnerability, and you’re sorry when he exits scene left. Still, Liotta has about 10 films coming out in the next year, so there’s a good chance a couple of his roles will be worth catching.


Greigh Fraser’s cinematography is gorgeous and, with this Snow White and the Huntsman and Zero Dark Thirty, 2012 proved to be a great year for his CV. The editing is more of a thorny issue. Where it is in the service of the dramatic needs of the scene it is invariably excellent. Less so when it’s running with the presidential ticket.


And that’s ultimately what stymies an otherwise excellent crime movie. “America isn’t a country. It’s a business” is sound bite dialogue that sounds great in a trailer or on a poster but is heavy-handed within the narrative itself. Dominik’s next project, Blonde, concerns Marilyn Monroe. I’m dubious how much there is left to say about this screen icon, but any film the director attaches himself to is automatically a must-see. And, if it’s less than another five years until we see it, so much the better.

 ****

Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls… dyin’ time’s here!

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985) Time was kind to Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome . As in, it was such a long time since I’d seen the “final chapter” of the trilogy, it had dwindled in my memory to the status of an “alright but not great” sequel. I’d half-expected to have positive things to say along the lines of it being misunderstood, or being able to see what it was trying for but perhaps failing to quite achieve. Instead, I re-discovered a massive turkey that is really a Mad Max movie in name only (appropriately, since Max was an afterthought). This is the kind of picture fans of beloved series tend to loathe; when a favourite character returns but without the qualities or tone that made them adored in the first place (see Indiana Jones in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , or John McClane in the last two Die Hard s). Thunderdome stinks even more than the methane fuelling Bartertown. I hadn’t been aware of the origins of Thunderdome until recently, mainly because I was