Can I blow my nose now?

The Iceman

(2012)

It says something that Michael Shannon’s most sympathetic role in ages finds him playing a notorious hit man. Both in terms of typecasting and the favourable view director/co-writer Ariel Vromen takes of his subject. Those familiar with the case have found much to fault in this account of Richard Kuklinski’s activities, both factually and with regard to characterisation. But, leaving aside concerns over authenticity for a moment, this is a well-crafted, well-performed and engrossing piece of work. Having just witnessed the OTT glorification of all things ‘70s in American Hustle, The Iceman is refreshingly low key in its milieu. Instead, it’s the succession of sometimes spuriously recognisable faces popping up in a string of cameos that proves a sometimes distracting experience (a scenario that was likely all about favours and financing).

The end credits of the movie announce that it is based on The Iceman: The True Story of a Cold-Blooded Killer by Anthony Bruno and the HBO documentary Conversations with a Killer, but many of the criticisms of Vromen’s approach relate to his relatively sympathetic portrait of a man who appeared to bear many of the traits of the classic serial killer. Here Kuklinski is a loving family man with a code that prevents him from killing women and children. We learn he first murdered at a young age (and that his brother is also in prison for murder) and engaged in animal torture, but this has the distance of off-screen history. Vromen works his screenplay (with Morgan Land) into a place where others are much more dastardly than the noble assassin. Most notably Ray Liotta’s despicable mob boss (one of the bigger surprises is that, for a picture evidently playing fast and loose with the facts, there is no cathartic pay off to this plot thread). Sure, Kuklinski kills lots of people and dismembers them in a bathtub, with the cool efficiency of the local butcher, but we don’t really get to see much of this. Aside aside from a montage of kills just after he is taken on, his business is mostly off-screen.

Vromen is more concerned with Kuklinski’s domestic and career woes. So wife Deborah (Winona Ryder, her most substantial role in a good few years and she more than delivers) is blissfully, and then not so blissfully, unaware of her husband’s double life. When they first meet he tells her he’s dubbing cartoons for Disney when he’s actually working on porn movies. Later she unquestioningly believes the story that he works in currency exchange. It seems a little too good to be true that, aside from one monumental breakdown scene when Michael goes the full Shannon, Kuklinski is positioned as a well-meaning father and dutiful provider. He repeatedly announces that his family is the one thing he cares about and also repeatedly reacts with extreme prejudice towards anyone posing a threat to this precious environment.

So, reading after the fact that his wife was the victim of his possessive violence from the first and lived in terror of him, it’s easy to understand the opprobrium some feel towards this movie (at the same time, with regard to the extent of Kuklinski’s notoriety, many including the police and FBI suggested his self-aggrandising account of his deeds was prone to extensive exaggeration). The end titles, announcing that he never saw his family again after he was incarcerated, are probably more illustrative than their attendance of his trial. As it stands, you can’t help but come out on his side when heavies like Liotta and Davi threaten his nearest and dearest. It might be a gross distortion, but Vromen has cleverly loaded the deck.

It’s certainly the case that some of the plot threads don’t really wash, even knowing virtually nothing of the facts behind the case. Liotta, always a reliable heavy, has Ray Demeo oozing threats to Kuklinski one moment then whinily attempting to get out of killing useless chum Rosenthal the next. It doesn’t help that Rosenthal is played by David Schwimmer; you can fully believe in Schwimmer as a loser (he’s had years of practice on Friends), and he sports a ‘70s ‘tache and tracksuit with some degree of flair, but taking out a couple of drug dealers? Nah. The unfortunate consequence of some of the starry-eyed casting is that you’re invested in a scene for the wrong reasons. Schwimmer being blown away raises a chuckle, but nnot nearly so much as James Franco pleading for his life. His contribution elicits only an “Oh look, it’s the ubiquitous James Franco!” And relief when Kuklinski shoots him. Elsewhere, Stephen Dorff isn’t nearly impressive enough of stature or presence to convince as Kuklinskli’s incarcerated older brother.

Making up for the weak or unintentionally amusing decisions are some astute ones. I mentioned Noonie, and this is the best she’s been in years, more than holding her own against Shannnon. Davi just has to walk on and do the Davi thing, he does it so well. John Ventimiglia of The Sopranas feels authentically dangerous as Liota’s right-hand man. But stealing the movie is Chris Evans’ co-assassin Mr Freezy, a longhaired psychopath whose control centre is the ice cream van he drives around. It’s a sobering realisation that the Franco was earmarked for this role until family matters forced him to take a smaller one. Evans is so good, so sleazy and irredeemable (we see him screaming at his son on Christmas Day, taking meetings in a porn cinema) you want to see the movie about this guy (who may well be a less sanitised representation of the actual Iceman type). There’s even a larger-than-life wit to his first appearance, as ACME-style he blows up the entire floor of an apartment building where both he and Kuklinski have been engaged for a hit. If Vromen had engaged more with this tonality, he might have laid himself less open to charges of misrepresentation; if you can see a streak of Looney Tunes absurdity running through the picture, fidelity concerns are given context.

Shannon, severe-faced and brooding, can’t match Evans box-of-tricks performance (it may have done his career some good, but Captain America is the worst straight jacket that could be enforced on an actor of Evans’ talents). He gets the odd moment of pitch-black humour (“Don’t take any crap from any nuns” he tells his daughter; “Yeah it can” he responds to an unsuspecting victim who pronounces that life can be “very fucking random sometimes”) and the sight of him wearing a cardigan or using a beeper has some ironic cachet (somehow, he’s also allowed to wear shades in court). The only problem is, it currently feels as if; you’ve seen one Shannon role at this point, you’ve seen them all. Can he ever surprise against the way he did in Revolutionary Road?

Even absenting myself from the case-against arguments in respect of its divergence from the true story (although where you go with a tale so full of alleged deeds rather than facts is questionable; Confessions of a Dangerous Mind territory?), The Iceman is no classic-in-waiting. But it’s well-made picture and has an acute awareness of how to successfully manipulate its audience (Kuklinski doesn’t even kill the cat, so he can’t be that bad!) It’s also a lot of fun just for the star spotting of the supporting roles, even the less successful turns.

***1/2

Comments

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog