Skip to main content

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own

(SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Ford evidently had an insistent itch to scratch in respect of the Irish side of his family, as he’d already gone there with Patriot Games half a decade earlier (you know, the one where Jack Ryan kills some terrorists while on vacation, as you do, and the IRA, in typical Tinseltown fashion, appear as a fictional “splinter cell”, meaning the makers can do as they please without causing offence – Clancy used actual splinter group the ULA – or claiming not to. The Hunt for Red October director John McTiernan conspicuously passed on the project). That movie’s IRA are a thoroughly decent bunch, but for the rogue element. The choice of playing Ryan, on Ford’s part, was the beginning of the end, playing it safe in a manner that would characterise his subsequent career and gradual slide in status, however many fortuitous interventions would keep his ailing star in the running (which were, essentially, The Fugitive, Airforce One and Indy IV).

But it was Brad, with a hankering for Kevin Jarre’s screenplay, who was responsible for bringing Ford to The Devil’s Own and agreeing to what was very much a supporting role at that point. And not your typically upright, morally searching (read: Ford looking constipated) Harrison part. Jarre wasn’t having great luck in Hollywood, most recently having been thrown off Tombstone as a director and having twenty pages of script excised by Kurt Russell to bring it into manageable shape. Whole battalions of writers would eventually have sight of this one (Terry George, Robert Mark Kamen David Aaron Cohen and Vincent Patrick among them). As Pitt opined at the timeWe had no script. Well, we had a great script but it got tossed for various reasons”.

Let’s face it, though, no Hollywood star is approaching such subject matter with anything other than romantic notions, no matter how gritty or “real” they’re ostensibly attempting to make things. As Entertainment Weekly told it, “Jarre’s Rory Devaney isn’t the terrorist with a heart of gold he became. On the run from his past, he steals money from a crack house, guns down its inhabitants, goes on a nightclub crawl, and snorts coke. He was “this kind of existential antihero,” says Vincent Patrick (The Pope of Greenwich Village), one of five writers involved in what became an exhaustive overhaul”.

Pitt was essentially just the latest movie star – the previous incumbent being Mickey Rourke – nursing a flirtation with the violence of the Emerald Isle. And with the Rourke one, director Mike Hodges most certainly didn’t like what was done to A Prayer for the Dying. More directly Hollywood, Patriot Games was saddled with reshoots, while Blown Away didn’t (blow anyone away). The Jackal was a remake too far. Unless you were Jim Sheridan or Neil Jordan, you were likely on a hiding to nothing. When Harrison came in, allocated a $20m payday, it meant $32m was being spent on the stars. On the plus side, Ford suggested Alan J Pakula, who brought Gordon Willis with him as his DP. But if his previous collaboration with Ford played to the director’s strengths, his more recent movies had been less than satisfying, even when they proved hits (The Pelican Brief).

Ford wanted changes, then Brad wanted changes in response to Ford’s changes. Brad now says he likes the movie, calling it “a good schooling” At the time, he was much less diplomatic (Ford was unimpressed with his younger co-star’s forthrightness): “To have to make something up as you go along — Jesus, what pressure. It was ridiculous…I don’t know why anyone would want to continue making that movie. We had nothing. The movie was the complete victim of this drowning studio head [Mark Canton] who said, ‘I don’t care. We’re making it. I don’t care what you have. Shoot something.’ I tried to [quit] when there was a week before shooting and we had 20 pages of dogshit. And this script that I had loved was gone”.

In 2011, he claimedLiterally, the script got thrown out… And I decided to stay”. Essentially, that he had a choice in the matter; others have suggested he was threatened with a lawsuit unless he remained on the project. Still, “the most irresponsible bit of film making – if you can even call it that – that I’ve ever seen” allowed him to go full Meryl with his “first attempt at an accent that was truly foreign to me” (next stop the Hima-liars, and from thence, Snatch). The accent got him some stick, and there’s a self-conscious softness to his delivery at times (not so far from Meet Joe Black, where he seems to be swallowing his words in certain scenes) that rather detracts from the hard-bitten freedom fighter he’s supposed to be inhabiting.

The movie is set up with “valid motivation!” for Brad’s Frankie McGuire being a terrorist (dad was killed in front of him when he was eight for being a sympathiser). On top of which, Simon Jones is wheeled on as a truly loathsome representative of the Crown; if you’ve always wanted to see Arthur Dent shoot an unarmed man in the head, this is the movie for you. Frankie is subsequently dispatched on a mission to New York to buy some Stinger missiles. I know, this had me scratching my head. Typical bloody Hollywood. Why not grab a nuke while you’re at it? But it seems the idea was based on a plot the FBI foiled (makes a change if so, usually they’re the ones doing the instigating and entrapping).

Frankie finds himself lodging with one of NYPD’s finest (Ford’s unsuspecting Sergeant Tom O’Meara), on the basis his home will be “the safest place in the city”. This comes at the behest of George Hearn’s sympathiser judge, who is astonishingly lackadaisical about concealing his affiliations, such that he puts up terrorist’s sister Natascha McElhone. There’s a recognisable seed of potential here, then, one that instantly summons Ford’s trailer-made line “Did you bring this into my house?!” It also provides bags of opportunity for Brad to trade on his golden boy looks as the kids of the household (including a young Julia Stiles) swoon over fancy man bomb boy.

But with the shift in focus to Tom, much of the proceedings are soon devoted to Ford’s moral dilemmas. Partner Ruben Blades shoots a suspect and Tom has to cover for him (“23 years and you never took a bribe” says wife Margaret Colin, who thinks a little thing like scruples shouldn’t stand in hubby’s way; she’s a mere slip of a girl, though, a whole sixteen years younger than Ford, so she has a lot to learn). “We’re in the police business, Eddie. Not the revenge business” maintains Tom, in that patented, indignant way of Ford’s that implies the dog’s been chewing his slippers again. But you see, do you? You see the thematic depth here?

Brad meanwhile is painting a boat (to carry home the Stingers: a grand plan) and wooing McElhone. Occasionally having suggestive conversations with Tom. “If you pick up a gun, sooner or later, someone gets a bullet” he homilises. Brad’s dilemma is that Treat Williams’ arms dealer reveals himself as “a very stupid man” when he demands his payment or else. If this leads to a glamorous shootout, to be sure, where Frankie kills everyone double quick, such episodes do, at least, raise the tempo a notch and so cover for a screenplay generally struggling to maintain genuine tension. Pakula is more than competent handling such material, be it the opening Belfast (that’s Belfast by way of Hollywood) shootout, or the first-rate sequence where Tom and Sheila arrive home to discover masked men are waiting.

To be fair to Brad, he was trying, and he’d mostly gain in understanding of the way things work from the experience. Ford had little excuse, and would only compound his poor choices subsequently – his best movie in the next decade up to Indy IV is probably K-19: The Widowmaker, ironically, as it was one of his biggest flops – his every decision showing a dearth of balls. This would be both Pakula’s and Willis’ last movie, a sadly inauspicious way to go out (Pakula died the following year, Willis retired). On the soundtrack, James Horner’s Oirish pipes warm him up for Titanic six months later, and there’s Dolores on the soundtrack (she, famously, of guns and bombs and bombs and guns).

Fortunately for us all, we have Sir Ken offering his own nostalgic take on the Troubles in cinemas (well at home, mostly) soon, a prospective awards darling and angling for a similar level of kudos to those reaped by Roma (see the authentically arty digital black and white) and Hope & Glory (war-torn upbringing from a child’s eye view). We’re fortunate Branagh is such a cinematic titan, or there might be a danger Belfast was mawkish slop.

The Devil’s Own winds up ineffectual because it has nothing to say beyond than the only thing it can say, which is less actually saying anything and more looking apologetic over developments while wringing its hands uncomfortably. Which is entirely Ford’s thing, so he’s right at home in a dependably middling movie of middling sentiments. At one point, Frankie advises “Don’t look for happy endings, Tom. It’s not an American story. It’s an Irish one”. Actually, it’s neither. It’s a La La land.

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.

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…

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.

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

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

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.