Skip to main content

We have the skills and the right to acquire proper compensation.

Dragged Across Concrete
(2018)

(SPOILERS) Craig S Zahler’s response to controversy surrounding his – unstated, but people draw their own conclusions from his cumulative body of work – politics is to double down. He casts Mel Gibson as a good-guy-really racist cop and has his characters, sometimes with extreme lack of finesse, espouse his own thoughts on having a freedom to traverse such rocky terrain. You might argue he’s trolling his audience, and you’d have some degree of justification there. Dragged Across Concrete shows once again that he’s a very talented filmmaker – if over-indulgent and offputtingly exploitation cinema-indebted – but it becomes increasingly difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt in the scenarios he sets up.

One might suggest his decision to include an African-American protagonist (albeit clearly secondary to stars Gibson and Vince Vaughn) is an attempt to defuse accusations lobbed his way – the same with the African-American girlfriend of Vaughn’s racial epithet using cop – or one might see it as further stoking the fire and fanning the flames (Tory Kittles’ Henry Johns is, after all, an ex-con who ends the film in the lap of luxury, profiting from multiple murders of innocents).

I’ve certainly tended to avoid jumping to conclusions with regard to Zahler’s motives, noting that he’s clearly intending to provoke but accepting that the exploration of characters and viewpoints, even when those viewpoints suggest a running theme, don’t necessarily amount to an authorial perspective (or cumulatively, a “vile, racist right-wing fantasy”). That said, it’s somewhat disingenuous of him to claim he isn’t political, as he’s evidently much too smart not to know what he’s flirting with, particularly in his last two movies (I haven’t seen the Puppet Master instalment he wrote, but enough people have cited it as a sealing the deal on his views, that it would suggest, as a Jewish filmmaker, he really is a troll supreme).

Certainly, when Laurie Holden (as Gibson’s MS-suffering wife) comments “You know, I never thought I was racist before living in this area” and their teenage daughter (Jordan Ashley Olsen) experiences continued harassment from black kids, Zahler’s pushing very clear buttons; the question becomes, to what end? The same with Vaughn, and the aforementioned racist innuendo during a meeting with Don Johnson’s police chief.

And even if you’re crediting Zahler with nuance, it’s impossible not to get a mixed message from Mel being suspended for using undue force on a Hispanic suspect (he was filmed) and the subsequent speechifying whereby being “branded a racist in today’s public forum is like being accused of communism in the 50s” and “There’s certainly nothing hypocritical about the media handling every perceived intolerance with complete and utter intolerance”. That sounds like Zahler responding to his critics, rather than following where his characters take him.

He’s also very deliberately loading his dice, sympathy wise – Gibson and Vaughn aren’t bent cops by nature, as Kittles assumes when their paths eventually cross; they’re “forced” into it by circumstances (now, you might argue that, if Gibson hadn’t been excessive in the first place, none of this would have happened, and again, you’d be crediting Zahler with allowing his characters to chart their courses in non-judgemental ways). We spend more time with Gibson and Vaughn on stakeout than anyone else, so of course we’re supposed to get to know and like them, but again, that may be Zahler’s intent in asking his audience whether they want to reach broad conclusions. Notably, he doesn’t ask us to get to know Thomas Kretschmann and his duo of masked assassins, who are more expressly and overtly racist and sociopathic.

Zahler more than takes his time with the picture, unnecessarily so, I think, as ultimately one doesn’t feel it needed such an extended canvas, but he’s also remarkably confident and assured in his telling, a master of the slow-burn narrative; the tension sustained during the final confrontation between cops and robbers is almost unbearable, and you can’t really argue with his decision to include regular Jennifer Carpenter in a vignette as a new mother who can’t bear to be apart from her new born and must go back to work when it’s so affecting (again, her speechifying about staying at home is somewhat ungainly, and might be construed as deeply conservative in design). On the other hand, I’ve never had much time for Zahler’s gore-hound instincts – they’re as much of a red flag as his being a metal-head, unfair of me as that may be – and I tend to the view that such indulgences do the subplot a disservice, since the main takeaway from Carpenter’s appearance is the shlock of her fingers and then head being blown off.

The cast are all top notch. Vaughn’s very much doing his laidback Vaughn thing, while Mel (in only his second cop role since Martin Riggs, I think) brings the expected intensity to bear. Kittles is contrastingly a model of measured restraint (witness his scene calming down nervy partner Michael Jai White), less showy than his more famous co-stars but leaving a more lasting impression. As a piece of filmmaking and as a crime thriller, Dragged Across Concrete is an impressive piece of work. Whatever Zahler is saying with it may at times be less so, and I may end up with hindsight wish I hadn’t been so generous with not leaping to assumptions in that regard. But then, I said much the same thing about Brawl in Cell Block 11.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.